Saturday, May 24, 2008

John McCain Distances Himself from the Far Right

John McCain has distanced himself from the far right wing driven by John Hagee and others. It is about time!

In “The Battle for Texas” I wrote: "On the Republican side, it seems that it is time for the full effect of an Alamo to fall on Huckabee. He has stuck around too long and, like company and fish, he is beginning to be bothersome and is beyond stink. He has performed his Judas kiss, and it's time for him to take his thirty pieces of silver and go.Meanwhile, Hagee, the wannabe Kingmaker from San Antonio, joined in with the small group of American Taliban (Don Wildmon, Tony Perkins, James Dobson, et al), and by offering his support to McCain, has done no more good than the crowd standing in Pilate's court cheering "crucify him" when McCain's name is mentioned. This band of Pharisees and Saducees has done their harm, and it's time for them to get out of the political scene before they completely destroy this country. Their brand of agenda-driven Theo-politics has no business in the political arena."

The NYT wrote today that they considered it about time that McCain denounced the endorsement of far right wing Pastor John Hagee. From their writing it would cause some to think that Sen. McCain was a member of the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio that Hagee pastors. Nothing is farther from the truth. It would cause some to think that Sen. McCain went out actively seeking Hagee’s endorsement, he did not but did thank the Rev Hagee for his support just as any political figure would thank someone in such a position for an endorsement. McCain even went as far as to say that while he didn’t always see eye to eye with the Rev. Hagee the support of him and the party was appreciated. McCain’s acceptance of such endorsement is not the same as sitting in a church pew for over 20 years listening to the ranting of Rev. Wright as Obama has done. McCain’s acceptance of such endorsement does not mean that he endorses Rev. Hagee’s stand on any particular subject, unlike being a regular member of such a congregation where hate is preached.

As far back as January and February I was saying that the GOP and who ever is nominated should separate themselves from the so called Kingmakers(Where are the Kingmakers) . I stated emphatically that this group would and has caused more harm to the GOP in the past 8 years than their endorsements and support were worth and I stand by that statement today. I stated in Where Does the GOP Go from Here that “The Conservative Moderates in the party are tired of the religious far right being the “Kingmakers” in the party, and giving in to the Huckabee camp by declaring him VP nominee would be to yet again surrender to them. The conservative moderates, as well as the centrists, showed their displeasure with this faction of the Party in the '06 Congressional elections by weeding out some of the more right-leaning candidates who were up for re-election. Look for more to fall. Hopefully, the GOP has broken the stranglehold that the religious far right has held since ’96 and will move back to the roots of real GOP. Perhaps then they will find the unity necessary to allow them to govern once again without having to bow to the altar of the far right.”

I am not saying that there is no place for faith in God in politics but I am saying that there is no room for a theocratic agenda in politics any more than there is a place for the secularist agenda so revered by the far left. Both sides need to stay out of the arena. The Falwell’s, the Dobson’s and Perkin’s and Redmond’s who have attempted to be the Kingmakers have seen that their days are numbered and it’s time to take religion out of politics. Even Jesus said that we are to yield(give) to Caesar(government) the things of Caesar(government) and unto God the things of God. He said no where that they should be commingled.

McCain should distance himself from the likes of John Hagee and others on the far right who use religion as a tool for personal recognition. John Hagee began setting himself up as a demagogue as early as 1968 when he pastored a small church in the Rainbow Hills area of San Antonio. He was autocratic and theocratic in his preaching and teaching and focused growth for the well being of John Hagee and not for the glory of God. I know his methods well for I attended his church as a young Airman stationed at Lackland AFB and I questioned his brand of theology then and understand that I was correct in my discernment of his agenda. His radical teaching has crossed the line of basic theology and wallows at alter false teaching/preaching and hate. He is using his position as a wannabe ‘Kingmaker’ and ‘the king’ he wishes to install is not “The King” of the New Testement but his “king” to further empower his far right wing agenda.

McCain was very correct in distancing himself from such people. The sooner the GOP understands that there is as much danger in the far right wing as in the far left the sooner the GOP will get back to it’s roots. The far right has highjacked the Grand Old Party and attempted to make it “God’s Own Party”. That is totally wrong and soon may such ideology fail. The Grand Old Party was founded and planted on the same foundation of this country and has it’s roots deep in the teaching of God, not religion, for there is a great difference. Religiosity has been the downfall of the real GOP, the Church and Christianity for that matter.

Of course the far left liberal rag NYT has attempted to use this as a weapon against Sen. McCain and somehow try to show the same connection between Hagee and others as the connection of 20 years between Obama and the Rev. Wright. This is disingenuous at best but then what does one expect from the far left liberal Obamazombies at the NYT. The NYT has yet to question why it took Obama so long to denounce the Rev. Wright but yet they attempt to slay Sen. McCain for the endorsement of less than one year of Hagee and others. Where is the real connection. Only those who fall for the far left line and have no ability to think for themselves would even attempt to make such a connection.

Now Sen. McCain continue your stand on cutting spending and maintaining a strong national defense and you will find yourself in much better condition than if you had maintained your relationship with the likes of Hagee and the far right wing of the party.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Obama, The Appeaser

I think Barack Obama favors appeasing our enemies, so I understand why he cried foul when President Bush spoke last week to the Israeli Knesset about the general folly of appeasement. After all, with Obama raring to sit down and chat up the globe's worst thugs without any preconditions, you can be assured that it means he will give in to their demands. Talking isn't always appeasment, however when you are negotiating from weakness(fear) it boils down to appeasement. With Obama’s plan to cut the military and disarm us what else would our enemies see his “talks” as but talking out of fear and weakness.

We can certainly be assured that Obama is an appeaser if and when he gets a chance to parley with the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Cuba and North Korea and they have their way with him. Hopefully that day will not come. We do know that Obama's parley-at-any-price policy has created "issues" for him. He's taken a position that other top Democrats think unwise, and he himself seems to realize is, at least, politically untenable. His "no preconditions" stand has also forced him to make statements that won't withstand scrutiny, or John McCain's attacks. John Edwards, an Obama backer has even agreed with Clinton who took exception to Obama’s remarks of no pre-conditions. In recent days, Democratic graybeards such as Sen. Joe Biden have parted company with Obama on this. Now, Obama says that preparations would, of course, be necessary, and his campaign talks about these nations' leaders having to meet benchmarks before sitting down with him. He likely has a nuanced exegesis of the difference between preconditions and preparation and benchmarks, but the latter two sure seem like preconditions, and this sure seems like a case of being for preconditions before you were against them. If McCain and group do not jump on this and use it in a Kerryest manner of” being against it before I was for it but now I am against it until I have to be for it, blah , blah blah”, then they fail to do their job. But then Obama will claim it was “only words.”

In trying to talk his way out of his position, Obama's only made matters worse for himself. It began last week when he cited John F. Kennedy's sit-down with Nikita Khrushchev as a precedent: "When Kennedy met with Khrushchev," he said, "we were on the brink of nuclear war." Here again Obama, the Harvard educated candidate shows that he evidently didn’t pay attention in history class in high school, undergrad or in graduate school. Of course we know that his high school days were spent getting high and not studying history for sure. Had Obama been paying attention in history class he would have known that Khrushchev thought that Kennedy was a weak leader stemming from the meeting in Vienna. Khrushchev did not doubt the strength of the US Military but he doubted the strength of the Commander in Chief, he was wrong of course. When Kennedy was faced with the missile crisis he did not back down and instead of talking further with Khrushchev he allowed the US Military might do the talking through a show of force. Khrushchev soon realized that he had guess wrong and was not willing to face the might of the US Military and he backed down. Yes, there were some concessions made concerning the removal of missiles from Turkey but that did little to deter our might in that part of the world. Giving Obama’s lack of military experience and his disdain for use of military force it would indicate that his path would be to appease the enemy and back down thus further weakening the position of the US within the world community.

In Portland, this past weekend, Obama said Iran, Cuba and Venezuela "don't pose a serious threat to us" since they spend but one-one-hundredth of what we spend on our military. They're not like the Soviets. "If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us," he said, "they wouldn't stand a chance." Again Obama has no clue as to the history of these terror-sponsoring nations like Iran nor the roots of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood founded in the 1920’s, which Iran’s leadership has sprung. If he had any knowledge of such he would know that it is not the intent of any of the terrorist groups operating in the world today to take on the US Military face to face but to use the terrorist tactics currently being used to wear down the willingness of countries to stand against such and to surrender to their demands, which is a total World wide Islamic government. Of course Obama may have some idea of this type of warfare tactics but only speaks of such when addressing groups which would not stand for weakness , nor appeasement. From Portland to Montana, his message changed from “:Iran, Cuba and Venezuela don’t post a serious threat” to Iran poses “a grave threat”. But then Obama would say, “it’s only words”.

Obama’s team isn't even clear what its own candidate favors. Obama’s adviser Susan Rice( his Africa expert) told CNN that Obama never said he'd meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, of Israel-is-a-stinking-corpse-and-must-be-wiped-off-the-map fame. He only said he'd meet with the appropriate Iranian leaders. An odd response in and of itself, but no sooner had she spoken then around came the YouTube video of Obama telling reporters last fall that he would meet with . . . Ahmadinejad. But then again for Obama, “it’s only words.”

None of this seems to matter to the Obamazombies, but it better well matter to the rest us. Last week Obama chided McCain for misrepresenting his Cuba policy. "His charges aren't serious," Obama said. "That's the problem. I have never said that I was prepared to immediately normalize relations with Cuba." How strange since he said in 2003 he supported normalization and said: "Our longstanding policies toward Cuba have been a miserable failure." But then again, to Obama, “it’s only words”.

Obama’s willingness to sit down to tea and crumpets with the enemy without preconditions and his lack of knowledge of history appears to be only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Obama’s mounting problems. It’s time to call Obama’s hand. The press won’t do it so McCain must if he is to expose the weakness of Obama’s seemingly non-existent foreign and national security agenda.

Saturday, May 17, 2008

Obama, Another False Idol

It would seem that our friend overseas can see through the Democrat sham and the empty suit of Obama and do not mind calling it as it is. Thanks to Mr. Baker at the Australian for pointing out reality. Too bad we have many living here who are lost in the Worship of Idols.

EVERY decade or so the people who control the way we see the world anoint some American politician the Redeemer of a Troubled Planet.

In the late 1960s the media placed the halo on Robert Kennedy, the tragic dynast whose antiwar and civil rights credentials made him in life - as he remains to this day in death - a kind of devotional figure for most political journalists.

Kennedy at least had charisma and intelligence. But to prove that these were by no means necessary preconditions for the honour, it was conferred a few years later on Jimmy Carter, the plodding nonentity elevated by a willingly compliant press into Everyman, brandishing his steely sword of Truth against the Manichean mendacity of Richard Nixon's Republican legacy.

Partly because of the Carter embarrassment, the 1980s were barren years for the idolators. Try as they might, they couldn't work themselves into much ecstasy over Walter Mondale in 1984 or Michael Dukakis in 1988, though they had little flings with bit-part players Gary Hart and (I kid you not) Bruce Babbitt, a genial former governor of Arizona.

But by the 1990s a new Democrat, or rather a New Democrat, was come among us, a man the media told us would lift our eyes from our selfish greed and rid the world of the ineffable misery left by 12 years of reactionary rule. It's hard to imagine now, after the battering he's taken from his old friends in the press these past few months, but Bill Clinton was once their idol. His cleverly cynical balancing act - promising a return to high-minded tolerance while executing mentally ill prisoners in Arkansas, for example - was lauded as a brilliant synthesising of traditional liberal ideology with the political realities of the modern age.

The alert among you will have noticed by now that what all these spiritually uplifting leaders have in common. They are all Democrats. Never in any of the chapters of this hagiography does a Republican, a conservative, appear in a remotely similar light. These alien creatures by contrast have always been portrayed as cartoonish representatives of the Dark Side of humanity, or, if they were really lucky, simply idiots, failed B-movie actors and irredeemably ignorant hicks with embarrassingly neanderthal views on women, religion and communism.

It's been a while coming - neither Al Gore in 2000 (before the luminescence created by his recent joint Nobel/Oscar triumphs) nor John Kerry in 2004 quite fit the bill. But it's fairly clear now that, with the near-certain nomination by the Democrats of Barack Obama everything is in place for the media to indulge in one of the greatest, orgiastic media fiestas of hero-worship since Elvis Presley.

You will not see a finer example of the genre than the cover story of this week's Newsweek, which was entitled "The O Team". This rhapsodic inside account of Senator Obama's campaign reads a little like a cross between Fr Alban Butler's Life of St Francis and the sort of authorised biography of Kim Jong Il you can pick up in any good bookshop in Pyongyang.

Mr Obama is portrayed throughout as an immanently benevolent figure. Not human really, more a comforting presence, a light source. He is always eager to listen to all sides of an argument, always instilling confidence in the weak-willed, resolutely sticking to his high principles, and tirelessly spurning the low road of electoral politics. I stopped reading after a while but I'm sure by the end he was healing the sick, comforting the dying, restoring sight to the blind and setting prisoners free.

The panegyric included the now conventional wisdom in the media that Republicans have only ever won elections in the past 40 years through lies and fearmongering - smearing their opponents and spreading false fears that a vote for a Democrat would open the country to foreign invasion.

To be fair, the Newsweek credo was only the latest and perhaps most shameless phase of the pro-Obama liturgy in the media. Some cable TV channels prostrate themselves nightly before him. Most newspapers worship at the altar. They have already set up a neat narrative for the election between Senator Obama and John McCain in November - the Second Coming versus Old Grouchy, The Little Flower of Illinois up against the Scaremongering Axeman from Arizona.

There's a special irony here. Senator McCain is the Republican who has received probably the single most favourable treatment from the media in the past 40 years. He has been a favourite because he conformed to the first law of contemporary political journalism: the only good conservative is a bad conservative. His willingness to defy his party on everything from taxes to global warming, to take on George Bush, has earned him at least an honourable mention in the martyrology of American politics of the last 40 years.

But now that he's up against Oh! Bama! he will have to be recast in the more familiar Republican mould of villain and scaremonger-in-chief.

This media narrative is not only an outgrowth of the journalists' natural enthusiasm for a Democrat such as Mr Obama. It is a clever ploy to pre-emptively de-legitimise any Republican critique of the Democratic nominee. It is designed to prevent Mr McCain from asking reasonable questions about Mr Obama's strikingly vacuous political background, or raising doubts about his credentials for the presidency.

The idolatry of Mr Obama is a shame, really. The Illinois senator is indeed, an unusually talented, inspiring and charismatic figure. His very ethnicity offers an exciting departure. But he is not a saint. He is a smart and eloquent man with a personal history that is startlingly shallow set against the scale of the office he seeks to hold. It is not only legitimate, but necessary, to scrutinise his past and infer what it might tell us about his beliefs, in the absence of the normal record of achievement expected in a presidential nominee.

If the last 40 years have taught us anything they have surely taught that premature canonisation is an almost certain guarantee of subsequent deep disappointment.

Saturday, May 3, 2008

The Real War on Terror that Obama Doesn't Seem to Understand, or Does He?

In an earlier blog (Obama Calls For Talk With Iran?) I had written about Obama’s apparent lack of knowledge of foreign affairs and especially those concerning the ME. I continued that same line of thought in light of Jimmy, “the useful idiot” Carter’s foray into the ME situation with the terrorist group Hamas and it’s relationship with Israel. We know from history that Mr. Carter didn’t have a clue about the history of terrorism in the ME and his bumbling of the Iranian Hostage Situation.

It seems that there is an e-mail circulating that is credited to Dr. Vernon Chong, retired Major General and head of Wofford Hall Hospital at Lackland AFB. However the entire piece is not the writing of Dr. Chong as I recently discovered. He received it as an e-mail and then wrote to a friend and forward it to them. In doing so the entire article somehow was attributed to Dr. Chong. While he does not take credit for the article he does indeed agree with it. In my studies on ME affairs I found nothing inaccurate about the article and thus will include it here for your reading. I urge you to read it thoroughly and if you do not get it the first time then re-read the article until you do. This is not a game that is being played out in the ME but a serious threat to the entire world. While these more radical groups may only comprise a small percentage of the Muslim population, which is approximately 25% of the world population and growing, they are indeed intent in carrying out their dream of Islamic domination in the world. Understand they do not intend to do so through direct confrontation with the world powers for they understand that they could not win such but they do understand the psychological effect of terrorism. They also understand the use of population growth, multiculturalism and how to use the political correct thought of host countries in order to make demands , small they may seem, but growing until they are in control. We can see this already occurring in Europe, especially France and now the push is on in England. Some of you have read that the Muslim religious leaders are calling for the right to broadcast the “call to prayer” over loudspeakers over the entire city of London. Folks that is just the beginning. Recently in this country the Muslims demanded that separate facilities be made available to Muslim female students at Harvard University in order to not offend these young ladies as they participated in exercise. Unfortunately the politically correct inclined administration at Harvard granted this request. This is what I referred to as just one small step at a time until total control is gained. So I urge you to read the contents of this article keeping in mind that while not written by Dr. Chong it is indeed accurate.

Muslim terrorists and the U.S.A. :
A different spin on the war in Iraq: This WAR is REAL

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1 When did the threat to us start?

Many will say
September 11, 2001. The answer, as far as the United States is concerned, is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut , Lebanon Embassy 1983;
Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie ,
ScotlandPan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* FirstNew YorkWorld Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran , Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi , Kenya USEmbassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam , Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden , Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.

(Note: during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide.)

2 Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessor, President Ford.

3 Who were the attackers?

In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4 What is the Muslim population of the World?


5 Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?

Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including
7,000 Polish priests).


Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom hear of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy in killing anyone who got in the way of his extermination of the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian, or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US , but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, British, French or anyone else. The point here is that, just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements
-- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was to remain silent or be killed?

6 So who are we at war with?

There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1 Can we lose this war?

2 What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions:

We can definitely lose this war and, as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home, and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.

What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but, rather, will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are impotent and cannot help them..

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq . Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France . Our one hope with France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished, too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France . France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast.

Without our support, Great Britain will go, also. Recently, I read that there are more mosques in England than churches.

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports, and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims? If we can't stop the Muslim terrorists, how could anyone else?

The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We'd better know it, too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and failing to dig in and lend full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation:

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights to which we have become accustomed. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory ... and, in fact, added many more since that time.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose.

I think some actually do. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police.. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues, and otherwise murdering their own just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And, just a few years ago, these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of
Iraq. And, still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

Can they be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in, and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again, I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years.

These people are a serious and dangerous liability to the war effort. We must take note of who they are and get them out of office. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States , but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful, and smart that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that, with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world.
We can't!

If we don't recognize this, our nation, as we know it, will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.

And, finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self- inflicted fall of the Roman Empire . If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach, little by little, on the established French traditions.

The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

Muslims have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who the few will be controlling the masses.

What is happening in Iraq is a good example. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct about the "peaceful Muslims?"

I close on a hopeful note by repeating what I said before:
If we are united, there is no way that we can lose.I hope now, after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it. I reiterate: our national election is under way.

After reading the above, we all must do this, not only for ourselves, but for our children, our grandchildren, our country, and our world. Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal ... and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world.