I never did receive any kind of reply from my friend "J", other than a few thousand pass-it-ons, all of which I marked as "read" and moved to the "J" file in my email box without opening them or even noting their subject matter. Today, some two months out from the original exchange, I let my curiosity get the better of me and opened one. I didn't grace it with any more than a cursory glance before realizing that it was an anti-Sarah Palin e-bomb, and I went back into the "J" file and noted that numerous emails from "J" since Palin was launched as the GOP VP nominee had anti-Palin subject lines, and I was utterly furious. After the hostile message she sent me, I couldn't believe she had the unmitigated gall to send me anything political. I emailed her the following:
I need a friend, not a political advisor, and I would appreciate if you would extend me the same courtesy and respect as you requested of me – refraining from e-bombing me with any more mindless leftist bullshit (to paraphrase your own less-than-eloquent request). Our friendship has never been about politics, and if it can go on from here without politics, deal me in. If not, I will miss you – a lot – and I love you anyway.
Love,
"Anne"
Her reply a few minutes later was, "Okay." So is that "Okay, we can go on from here without politics" or "Okay, miss me a lot and love me anyway"? Who knows?
I am supposed to go to my nephew's wedding next month, going through my old home stomping grounds, and there are two people I don't EVER miss seeing when I'm there, even if I don't see anyone else; one of them I will be staying with, going and coming back; the other is "J". I had already been grappling with the idea of, for the first time ever, going through without contacting her, but this decided it for me.
I have been very hurt by this entire episode, because "J" has been one of my best friends since high school, and for her to have called me a racist just blew me away. A management asshole from MCI did the same thing a few years ago, and he, too, was treated to a 5-page litany about just how very wrong he was, although I also imparted a few pieces of information about his ancestry along the way, as well. My brother, who cannot disagree with someone about what day it is without insulting them on very basic levels, disagreed with my assessment in my letter to "J", but replied,
If, after reading your e-mail, your friend still thinks of you as anything apporoaching a racist, then you need to drop that ignorant ass like a hot watermelon. I know that friends are few and far between and not to be let go easily but I have learned that sometimes one goes it better alone rather than to lower ones convictions to appease others just to have company.
For him to have been able to disagree with me on anything at all, let alone something as rabid-inspiring as politics, with so much more eloquence with "J" (who, by the way, became my friend when she was my 9th grade English teacher), also blew my mind, but proved that it can be done.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
MY WORDS - Politics: Friends and Strange Bedfellows Part 2
When I sent the previous blog as an email to a VERY dear friend of mine, she sent me the following reply:
Tell you what. I will make you a deal.
If you won't send me any more of this racist bullshit, I won't tell you in detail why I think this is so beneath you.
I love you anyway.
J.
My reply to her is below -- and VERY lengthy.
J.,
I am sorry that sharing some things that have engendered my concern offended you, and I will respect your request and refrain from sending you anything else political. I would, however, like to clarify a few of your misconceptions. I’m pleased that you are aware of the presence of racism and bullshit, but I’m disturbed that you are laying their presence at my feet rather than where they really belong.
Just like Barbara Mandrel was “country when country wasn’t cool”, I have been politically correct since long before the phrase even came into common usage. Political correctness has outlived its usefulness as an equalizer and graduated to levels well beyond insanity; it now dictates that white people must submit to being condemned for being white and wear a shroud of guilt for it, and those who are tired of being bashed for being white and have the unmitigated gall to speak out against it must surely be racist.
Shelby Steele, the author of “White Guilt” and a man who shares Obama’s racial heritages, claims that large numbers of people belonging to some non-white minority groups are using that “white guilt” as “a ticket to write their futures, exerting no efforts on their own behalf” – not just blacks, but Mexicans and people from other countries coming here and demanding that we accommodate them and submit to their demands of what they think America should be about. I know this is not part of the original dialogue (if it can be called that), but I figured so long as I am being branded as a purveyor of racist bullshit, I might as well be in for a pound as in for a penny, so I’m throwing it all out on the table.
Americans, particularly baby-boomers, are being challenged to “prove” the validity of the civil rights support we began espousing in the sixties by voting for a black man – or put our money where our mouths are, so to speak. I have never allowed myself to be governed by group think and I never will. You’ve known me long enough to know that rather than being a bandwagon jumper, I have always been more of a bandwagon driver, and I will not be bullied by anyone – either individual or a faceless group called “them” – to prove that I’m not a storefront liberal by voting for a man just because he is black. Voting FOR a man because he is black is just as senseless as voting AGAINST a man for the same reason. I wouldn’t do that, either. Likewise, voting FOR a woman because she is female is just as senseless as voting AGAINST her for the same reason. I have absolutely no problem with the idea of electing a black man to the presidency – just not this one. (Although I must admit that I consider Jesse Jackson’s recent showing of anti-Obama sentiment to be a compelling endorsement in Obama’s favor, but not enough to change my mind about him as a candidate for President.) Likewise, I had no problem with the idea of electing a female to serve in the white house -- just not the one who was running. However, the politically correct zealots would have us believe that we must elect Obama as President or risk being branded racists, either as individuals or as a racist nation. I’m willing to risk it.
My opinions about different people or peoples are based on my observations and personal experiences, not based on how someone else told me I should feel toward anyone or anything. While my opinions of particular groups may not always be positive, I am not willing to condemn – or accept – anyone out of hand because he or she might belong to a certain group. I’m not opposed to anyone’s right to having his or her own views or religion, and I’m not against any peoples. However, I don’t in any way support what I perceive to be just groupthink that is based on a sense of entitlements, and anyone who supports it. I have observed or been made aware of numerous incidents of outrageous behaviors of radical Muslims and even have a little band of them in my own family. In light of the violent behavior of some Muslim groups in the past several decades, Obama’s Muslim heritage makes me uncomfortable, but then, I looked askance at Mike Huckabee’s deep southern Baptist roots and connections as well, based (once again) on my own personal experiences with and observations of that particular group. Any religion or ethnicity that incites fanatical and/or militant behavior has that effect on me, but I am willing to keep a benefit-of-the-doubt mentality and look past that to see if there is anything there of value that could overcome my doubts. So far, with Obama, I haven’t found anything yet.
If I met Obama in person, I would probably like him immensely, even welcome him into my circle of friends if I knew him on that level, but upon closer inspection, I don’t like what he seems to stand for as a politician. (That’s okay, there are a lot of people I have welcomed into my circle of friends whom I would not elevate to elected office of any kind, just because I might not think them to be qualified, either.)
For whatever it’s worth, when I first became aware of Obama, I was eager to tap into his message to find out what he was about, in hopes that he might be a person who could help realize a wish I had held as a naïve teenager – that with interracial unions on the increase, someday there would be enough biracial people in this country who would have allegiance to both races (or perhaps neither one), and therefore hasten the end of bigotry as we know it. The idea of having a President who is biracial actually appeals to me enormously – imagine if he used his dual heritage to unite us rather than divide us.
I personally consider Obama’s willingness to attend a church not once, but as a part of his regular lifestyle for 17 years, where the minister blatantly proselytizes anti-white rhetoric and promotes racial separatism to be a very scary thing. Back in 1993, when I first started attending the church where your friend's brother was the minister, soon after I became a card-carrying member of the church (not a commitment taken lightly, as it is the only church I have ever officially “joined” since I was eight years old), an anti-gay issue that was raging like wildfire through Cobb County was brought before the churches of the area in a manner that required churches to step up in either their support for or their opposition to the anti-gay laws that had just been passed. I didn’t check them out on the subject before joining the church, but when the time came for churches to take a stand on the issue, I was more than willing to walk out without a backward glance, should they have come down in favor of the resolution, even though I personally do not have a dog in that fight (somewhere I’m sure I’m on record as also being a card-carrying member of the heterosexual community). The idea of remaining a part of any group supporting that type of blind persecution was absolutely unthinkable, and I would have left without hesitation. I was very pleased to discover that they were completely unwilling to support this rabid vilification and discrimination, and proud to remain a part of that church body for several years before leaving for unrelated reasons.
I can’t imagine that it would have taken Obama 17 years to realize that the ethics of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago were anti-white. If he is all too willing to reject half of his own heritage, that doesn’t speak well of his willingness to maintain any of the values that went into the creation of the basis of this country, and it speaks, even shouts, to his potential to denounce any- and everything American in favor of some menace to which we have not yet been made privy. I don’t like surprises. That he denounced his church and repudiated his affiliation with it only after it became an obvious liability and threat to his political aspirations is at best a token gesture and at worst overtly insincere, opportunistic and obviously for publicity only. Will he betray America in the same way if it should suit his ambitions? His actions certainly hint strongly that it is a dangerous possibility.
Obama blatantly practices discrimination, but he is so filled with charm and charisma that he has bedazzled an alarming number of learned people into overlooking his obvious racism. He is capable of inspiring blind and even hostile devotion in people, convincing them that any criticism of him should be perceived as an attack on the whole of black American. There have been others down through history who have been able to inspire and command such mindless dedication, and history shows us that in most cases, rather than harnessing this fervor and using it for the greater good or advancement of mankind, their only intention was to use it for the advancement and aggrandizement of themselves. Even though modern politics have been reduced to “American Idol” meets “Survivor”, in my opinion, this level of charisma would be more befitting a game show host or talk show host than an American President.
A large part of the American population believes that discrimination is inherent and present only in white people, in particular those white people who are anti-Black, anti-Mexican or anti-anyone else non-white. I personally do not believe in the term “reverse discrimination”. Discrimination is discrimination, and white people are not the only people who are guilty of it. I am tired of looking the other way when discrimination is tolerated or, worse, encouraged, solely because its target is white people. I have long embraced diversity and been extremely outspoken in banging the drum for civil rights for everybody and fought against unjustifiable intolerance of any sort based on religion, race, gender or sexual preference, going nose-to-nose and toes-to-toes against anyone who supports it, and I will continue to do so. Since before you and I met, and we know how long that’s been, this has been a part of my lifestyle and not just something to which I’ve given hollow lip service. People who haven’t shared my zeal for equality have long thought that because I have an open mind, I think with an empty head, but this is not correct. I have seen both sides of the discrimination coin, and I don’t like either side of it. It seems to me that nowadays white people are the only people who are condemned for discrimination, and I find that most people who are levying such labels at me are the same people for whom I’ve been very vocal in my support. These are not the civil rights for which I was fighting.
A few years ago, I was in a chat room and struck up a conversation with a young black woman who was attending my college alma mater and, coincidentally, living in the dorm where I had lived when I was at that university. The conversation moved to her job at a restaurant, and she informed me in no uncertain terms that if there was a conflict at her job between a white person and a black person, she would automatically support the black person without question and without regard to the issue, because she is “proud of her race and supports her race, no matter what”. I told her that when white people believe and behave in such a manner, it’s called discrimination, and asked her what it’s called when black people take it. She immediately logged off and we never chatted again.
The militant faction of the black community has learned through post-Rodney King behavior (and pre-, some of which took place while I was still in high school) that the mere threat of mob violence by people with this mindset is enough to cow white America into submission to whatever the demand might be – e.g., a prominent black athlete being acquitted of a double-murder which he undoubtedly committed. Quite honestly, I fully expect major incidents of rioting of the post-Rodney King magnitude to occur all across America if the voting public has the colossal audacity not to elect Obama. Can you say anarchy?
I strongly agree with most of your anti-Bush litany, and frankly think he is an idiot. He is someone else who was more determined to use his power for advancing his own personal agenda than for the good of the nation, and look where that got us. Whether he was trying to avenge his father by going after Saddam Hussein or prove that he was a “better man than Daddy” by doing what his father did not – deposing Hussein – matters not. The results are the same. But that doesn’t move me to vote for any of the leading candidates of the opposite party. I am not married to any political party, and I vote my conscience rather than the party line, regardless of the party in which I am registered. I have long been of the opinion that Jimmy Carter did not defeat Gerald Ford in the 1976 Presidential election – Richard Nixon did, because the American people as a whole were so sick of the Nixon administration that no Republican candidate, however qualified, could have been elected in the immediate aftermath of the Watergate era. The same could be said for Al Gore’s 2000 Presidential defeat and the general American weariness (not to mention wariness) of the never-ending Clinton fiascos and the “anybody on the other side (whatever the other side might be) would be better than this” train of thought. He wasn’t defeated by George W. and hanging chads so much as he was by being his party’s representative in the next election.
I think that dismissing or trivializing Obama’s disdain and disregard for the traditions of the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and the national anthem is not only a dangerous mistake, but it is the same as asking Catholics the world over to disregard a papal candidate’s refusal to participate in the Lord’s Prayer or willingness to burn the cross, for whatever lame excuse he might have. Both are, at best, acts of disrespect to the very positions to which they aspire. At worst, they insult the integrity of the very nation Obama wants to lead. Lead into what, I ask? If we are asked to look the other way on these issues, what’s next? A candidate’s burning of the American flag because he views it as a white man’s flag of oppression of the black man? As Americans, we certainly have the right to spurn, disagree with or refuse to participate in either of these traditions, and I wouldn’t have it any other way, but I adamantly oppose putting in the white house someone who is so readily willing to do so. I view this as not only disrespectful to Americans at large – not to mention, all of the soldiers who have fought to preserve what those icons represent (our American way of life) – but as a very strong and dangerous message to the world at large that this person chosen to lead the nation is a storefront American who has less regard for the nation as it is and what it stands for and more interest in promoting his own agenda and the special interest groups which he so clearly represents. He has very well-hidden agendas and seems to be all too willing to sacrifice America to advance them.
If after reading this you are still willing to brand my concerns as racism, so be it. Obviously you know that you are one of my closest friends in the world, and because I love you dearly and value our friendship far too much to put it at risk in the name of ideology, I will not continue a dialogue on the subject. However, I welcome your response if you care to make one, and I will read it with respect, without dismissing it as bullshit if I disagree with it. So as not to prolong the issue, I won’t make any reply, so you may have the last word on the subject. Afterward, I think we should move on to less incendiary topics.
Love,
"Anne"
Tell you what. I will make you a deal.
If you won't send me any more of this racist bullshit, I won't tell you in detail why I think this is so beneath you.
I love you anyway.
J.
My reply to her is below -- and VERY lengthy.
J.,
I am sorry that sharing some things that have engendered my concern offended you, and I will respect your request and refrain from sending you anything else political. I would, however, like to clarify a few of your misconceptions. I’m pleased that you are aware of the presence of racism and bullshit, but I’m disturbed that you are laying their presence at my feet rather than where they really belong.
Just like Barbara Mandrel was “country when country wasn’t cool”, I have been politically correct since long before the phrase even came into common usage. Political correctness has outlived its usefulness as an equalizer and graduated to levels well beyond insanity; it now dictates that white people must submit to being condemned for being white and wear a shroud of guilt for it, and those who are tired of being bashed for being white and have the unmitigated gall to speak out against it must surely be racist.
Shelby Steele, the author of “White Guilt” and a man who shares Obama’s racial heritages, claims that large numbers of people belonging to some non-white minority groups are using that “white guilt” as “a ticket to write their futures, exerting no efforts on their own behalf” – not just blacks, but Mexicans and people from other countries coming here and demanding that we accommodate them and submit to their demands of what they think America should be about. I know this is not part of the original dialogue (if it can be called that), but I figured so long as I am being branded as a purveyor of racist bullshit, I might as well be in for a pound as in for a penny, so I’m throwing it all out on the table.
Americans, particularly baby-boomers, are being challenged to “prove” the validity of the civil rights support we began espousing in the sixties by voting for a black man – or put our money where our mouths are, so to speak. I have never allowed myself to be governed by group think and I never will. You’ve known me long enough to know that rather than being a bandwagon jumper, I have always been more of a bandwagon driver, and I will not be bullied by anyone – either individual or a faceless group called “them” – to prove that I’m not a storefront liberal by voting for a man just because he is black. Voting FOR a man because he is black is just as senseless as voting AGAINST a man for the same reason. I wouldn’t do that, either. Likewise, voting FOR a woman because she is female is just as senseless as voting AGAINST her for the same reason. I have absolutely no problem with the idea of electing a black man to the presidency – just not this one. (Although I must admit that I consider Jesse Jackson’s recent showing of anti-Obama sentiment to be a compelling endorsement in Obama’s favor, but not enough to change my mind about him as a candidate for President.) Likewise, I had no problem with the idea of electing a female to serve in the white house -- just not the one who was running. However, the politically correct zealots would have us believe that we must elect Obama as President or risk being branded racists, either as individuals or as a racist nation. I’m willing to risk it.
My opinions about different people or peoples are based on my observations and personal experiences, not based on how someone else told me I should feel toward anyone or anything. While my opinions of particular groups may not always be positive, I am not willing to condemn – or accept – anyone out of hand because he or she might belong to a certain group. I’m not opposed to anyone’s right to having his or her own views or religion, and I’m not against any peoples. However, I don’t in any way support what I perceive to be just groupthink that is based on a sense of entitlements, and anyone who supports it. I have observed or been made aware of numerous incidents of outrageous behaviors of radical Muslims and even have a little band of them in my own family. In light of the violent behavior of some Muslim groups in the past several decades, Obama’s Muslim heritage makes me uncomfortable, but then, I looked askance at Mike Huckabee’s deep southern Baptist roots and connections as well, based (once again) on my own personal experiences with and observations of that particular group. Any religion or ethnicity that incites fanatical and/or militant behavior has that effect on me, but I am willing to keep a benefit-of-the-doubt mentality and look past that to see if there is anything there of value that could overcome my doubts. So far, with Obama, I haven’t found anything yet.
If I met Obama in person, I would probably like him immensely, even welcome him into my circle of friends if I knew him on that level, but upon closer inspection, I don’t like what he seems to stand for as a politician. (That’s okay, there are a lot of people I have welcomed into my circle of friends whom I would not elevate to elected office of any kind, just because I might not think them to be qualified, either.)
For whatever it’s worth, when I first became aware of Obama, I was eager to tap into his message to find out what he was about, in hopes that he might be a person who could help realize a wish I had held as a naïve teenager – that with interracial unions on the increase, someday there would be enough biracial people in this country who would have allegiance to both races (or perhaps neither one), and therefore hasten the end of bigotry as we know it. The idea of having a President who is biracial actually appeals to me enormously – imagine if he used his dual heritage to unite us rather than divide us.
I personally consider Obama’s willingness to attend a church not once, but as a part of his regular lifestyle for 17 years, where the minister blatantly proselytizes anti-white rhetoric and promotes racial separatism to be a very scary thing. Back in 1993, when I first started attending the church where your friend's brother was the minister, soon after I became a card-carrying member of the church (not a commitment taken lightly, as it is the only church I have ever officially “joined” since I was eight years old), an anti-gay issue that was raging like wildfire through Cobb County was brought before the churches of the area in a manner that required churches to step up in either their support for or their opposition to the anti-gay laws that had just been passed. I didn’t check them out on the subject before joining the church, but when the time came for churches to take a stand on the issue, I was more than willing to walk out without a backward glance, should they have come down in favor of the resolution, even though I personally do not have a dog in that fight (somewhere I’m sure I’m on record as also being a card-carrying member of the heterosexual community). The idea of remaining a part of any group supporting that type of blind persecution was absolutely unthinkable, and I would have left without hesitation. I was very pleased to discover that they were completely unwilling to support this rabid vilification and discrimination, and proud to remain a part of that church body for several years before leaving for unrelated reasons.
I can’t imagine that it would have taken Obama 17 years to realize that the ethics of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago were anti-white. If he is all too willing to reject half of his own heritage, that doesn’t speak well of his willingness to maintain any of the values that went into the creation of the basis of this country, and it speaks, even shouts, to his potential to denounce any- and everything American in favor of some menace to which we have not yet been made privy. I don’t like surprises. That he denounced his church and repudiated his affiliation with it only after it became an obvious liability and threat to his political aspirations is at best a token gesture and at worst overtly insincere, opportunistic and obviously for publicity only. Will he betray America in the same way if it should suit his ambitions? His actions certainly hint strongly that it is a dangerous possibility.
Obama blatantly practices discrimination, but he is so filled with charm and charisma that he has bedazzled an alarming number of learned people into overlooking his obvious racism. He is capable of inspiring blind and even hostile devotion in people, convincing them that any criticism of him should be perceived as an attack on the whole of black American. There have been others down through history who have been able to inspire and command such mindless dedication, and history shows us that in most cases, rather than harnessing this fervor and using it for the greater good or advancement of mankind, their only intention was to use it for the advancement and aggrandizement of themselves. Even though modern politics have been reduced to “American Idol” meets “Survivor”, in my opinion, this level of charisma would be more befitting a game show host or talk show host than an American President.
A large part of the American population believes that discrimination is inherent and present only in white people, in particular those white people who are anti-Black, anti-Mexican or anti-anyone else non-white. I personally do not believe in the term “reverse discrimination”. Discrimination is discrimination, and white people are not the only people who are guilty of it. I am tired of looking the other way when discrimination is tolerated or, worse, encouraged, solely because its target is white people. I have long embraced diversity and been extremely outspoken in banging the drum for civil rights for everybody and fought against unjustifiable intolerance of any sort based on religion, race, gender or sexual preference, going nose-to-nose and toes-to-toes against anyone who supports it, and I will continue to do so. Since before you and I met, and we know how long that’s been, this has been a part of my lifestyle and not just something to which I’ve given hollow lip service. People who haven’t shared my zeal for equality have long thought that because I have an open mind, I think with an empty head, but this is not correct. I have seen both sides of the discrimination coin, and I don’t like either side of it. It seems to me that nowadays white people are the only people who are condemned for discrimination, and I find that most people who are levying such labels at me are the same people for whom I’ve been very vocal in my support. These are not the civil rights for which I was fighting.
A few years ago, I was in a chat room and struck up a conversation with a young black woman who was attending my college alma mater and, coincidentally, living in the dorm where I had lived when I was at that university. The conversation moved to her job at a restaurant, and she informed me in no uncertain terms that if there was a conflict at her job between a white person and a black person, she would automatically support the black person without question and without regard to the issue, because she is “proud of her race and supports her race, no matter what”. I told her that when white people believe and behave in such a manner, it’s called discrimination, and asked her what it’s called when black people take it. She immediately logged off and we never chatted again.
The militant faction of the black community has learned through post-Rodney King behavior (and pre-, some of which took place while I was still in high school) that the mere threat of mob violence by people with this mindset is enough to cow white America into submission to whatever the demand might be – e.g., a prominent black athlete being acquitted of a double-murder which he undoubtedly committed. Quite honestly, I fully expect major incidents of rioting of the post-Rodney King magnitude to occur all across America if the voting public has the colossal audacity not to elect Obama. Can you say anarchy?
I strongly agree with most of your anti-Bush litany, and frankly think he is an idiot. He is someone else who was more determined to use his power for advancing his own personal agenda than for the good of the nation, and look where that got us. Whether he was trying to avenge his father by going after Saddam Hussein or prove that he was a “better man than Daddy” by doing what his father did not – deposing Hussein – matters not. The results are the same. But that doesn’t move me to vote for any of the leading candidates of the opposite party. I am not married to any political party, and I vote my conscience rather than the party line, regardless of the party in which I am registered. I have long been of the opinion that Jimmy Carter did not defeat Gerald Ford in the 1976 Presidential election – Richard Nixon did, because the American people as a whole were so sick of the Nixon administration that no Republican candidate, however qualified, could have been elected in the immediate aftermath of the Watergate era. The same could be said for Al Gore’s 2000 Presidential defeat and the general American weariness (not to mention wariness) of the never-ending Clinton fiascos and the “anybody on the other side (whatever the other side might be) would be better than this” train of thought. He wasn’t defeated by George W. and hanging chads so much as he was by being his party’s representative in the next election.
I think that dismissing or trivializing Obama’s disdain and disregard for the traditions of the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and the national anthem is not only a dangerous mistake, but it is the same as asking Catholics the world over to disregard a papal candidate’s refusal to participate in the Lord’s Prayer or willingness to burn the cross, for whatever lame excuse he might have. Both are, at best, acts of disrespect to the very positions to which they aspire. At worst, they insult the integrity of the very nation Obama wants to lead. Lead into what, I ask? If we are asked to look the other way on these issues, what’s next? A candidate’s burning of the American flag because he views it as a white man’s flag of oppression of the black man? As Americans, we certainly have the right to spurn, disagree with or refuse to participate in either of these traditions, and I wouldn’t have it any other way, but I adamantly oppose putting in the white house someone who is so readily willing to do so. I view this as not only disrespectful to Americans at large – not to mention, all of the soldiers who have fought to preserve what those icons represent (our American way of life) – but as a very strong and dangerous message to the world at large that this person chosen to lead the nation is a storefront American who has less regard for the nation as it is and what it stands for and more interest in promoting his own agenda and the special interest groups which he so clearly represents. He has very well-hidden agendas and seems to be all too willing to sacrifice America to advance them.
If after reading this you are still willing to brand my concerns as racism, so be it. Obviously you know that you are one of my closest friends in the world, and because I love you dearly and value our friendship far too much to put it at risk in the name of ideology, I will not continue a dialogue on the subject. However, I welcome your response if you care to make one, and I will read it with respect, without dismissing it as bullshit if I disagree with it. So as not to prolong the issue, I won’t make any reply, so you may have the last word on the subject. Afterward, I think we should move on to less incendiary topics.
Love,
"Anne"
MY WORDS -- Politics: Friends and Strange Bedfellows
Is anybody paying attention? Hitler laid out his philosophy in "Mein Kampf"too.
We had better wake up or this election will be a real "Obama-Nation".
GMF
IN OBAMA'S OWN WORDS--TERRIFYING!!!!!!!!! PLEASE LETS GET THIS OUT TO ALLDate: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:20:23 -0500
In Obama's own words (Very, very Scary) This guy wants to be our President and control our government. Pay close attention to the last comment!! Below are a few lines from Obama's books. These are passages in his own words: From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.' From Dreams of My Father: 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.' From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.' From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.' From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I had packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.' And here's the clincher: (grab on to something when you read this:From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.' _____________________________________ Holy Moley!!!!! Is anyone paying attention out there??????? Does that mean if elected President he would hand us over to theMuslims????????
We had better wake up or this election will be a real "Obama-Nation".
GMF
IN OBAMA'S OWN WORDS--TERRIFYING!!!!!!!!! PLEASE LETS GET THIS OUT TO ALLDate: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:20:23 -0500
In Obama's own words (Very, very Scary) This guy wants to be our President and control our government. Pay close attention to the last comment!! Below are a few lines from Obama's books. These are passages in his own words: From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.' From Dreams of My Father: 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.' From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.' From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.' From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I had packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.' And here's the clincher: (grab on to something when you read this:From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.' _____________________________________ Holy Moley!!!!! Is anyone paying attention out there??????? Does that mean if elected President he would hand us over to theMuslims????????
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Instructions for Landing in Atlanta and Arriving at the Hereafter
Atlanta ATC: "Tower to Saudi Air 911 -- You are cleared to land eastbound on runway 9R."
Saudi Air: "Thank you Atlanta ATC. Acknowledge cleared to land on infidel's runway 9R – Allah be Praised."
Atlanta ATC: "Tower to Iran Air 711 --You are cleared to land westbound on runway 9R."
Iran Air: "Thank you Atlanta ATC. We are cleared to land on infidel's runway 9R - Allah is Great."
Pause... Saudi Air: "ATLANTA ATC - ATLANTA ATC"
Atlanta ATC: "Go ahead Saudi Air 911?"
Saudi Air: "YOU HAVE CLEARED BOTH OUR AIRCRAFT FOR THE SAME RUNWAY GOING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS. WE ARE ON A COLLISION COURSE. INSTRUCTIONS, PLEASE"
Atlanta ATC: "Well bless your hearts. And praise Jesus. Y'all be careful now you hear and tell Allah we said "hey" -- y'all copy?"
Saudi Air: "Thank you Atlanta ATC. Acknowledge cleared to land on infidel's runway 9R – Allah be Praised."
Atlanta ATC: "Tower to Iran Air 711 --You are cleared to land westbound on runway 9R."
Iran Air: "Thank you Atlanta ATC. We are cleared to land on infidel's runway 9R - Allah is Great."
Pause... Saudi Air: "ATLANTA ATC - ATLANTA ATC"
Atlanta ATC: "Go ahead Saudi Air 911?"
Saudi Air: "YOU HAVE CLEARED BOTH OUR AIRCRAFT FOR THE SAME RUNWAY GOING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS. WE ARE ON A COLLISION COURSE. INSTRUCTIONS, PLEASE"
Atlanta ATC: "Well bless your hearts. And praise Jesus. Y'all be careful now you hear and tell Allah we said "hey" -- y'all copy?"
Monday, September 17, 2007
I'm Offended -- Deeply
I'm sorry, but after hearing they want to sing OURNational Anthem in Spanish ... enough is Too much!
NEVER did they sing it in Italian, Japanese, Polish, Irish-Celtic, German,Portuguese, Greek, French, or any other language because of immigration.
It was written by Francis Scott Key and should be sung word forword the way it was written. The news broadcasts gave a translationthat's NOT even close.
Sorry if this offends anyone ...but this is my country.
Let me make this perfectly clear
THIS IS MY COUNTRY!
And, because I make this statementDOES NOT mean I'm against immigration!!!
YOU ARE WELCOME HERE IN MY COUNTRY.
Welcome to come through like everyone else has.
Get a sponsor!
Get a place to lay your head!
Get a job!
Live by OUR rules!
Pay YOUR taxes!
AndLEARN THE LANGUAGE LIKE ALL OTHERIMMIGRANTS HAVE IN THE PAST!!!
AND PLEASE DON'T DEMAND THAT WE HAND OVER OUR LIFETIME SAVINGS OF SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDS TO YOUTO MAKE UP FOR ''YOUR'' LOSSES.
When will AMERICAN'S STOP giving away THEIR RIGHTS???
We've gone so far the other way ... bent over backwards not tooffend anyone.
But it seems no one cares about the AMERICAN that's being offended!
NEVER did they sing it in Italian, Japanese, Polish, Irish-Celtic, German,Portuguese, Greek, French, or any other language because of immigration.
It was written by Francis Scott Key and should be sung word forword the way it was written. The news broadcasts gave a translationthat's NOT even close.
Sorry if this offends anyone ...but this is my country.
Let me make this perfectly clear
THIS IS MY COUNTRY!
And, because I make this statementDOES NOT mean I'm against immigration!!!
YOU ARE WELCOME HERE IN MY COUNTRY.
Welcome to come through like everyone else has.
Get a sponsor!
Get a place to lay your head!
Get a job!
Live by OUR rules!
Pay YOUR taxes!
AndLEARN THE LANGUAGE LIKE ALL OTHERIMMIGRANTS HAVE IN THE PAST!!!
AND PLEASE DON'T DEMAND THAT WE HAND OVER OUR LIFETIME SAVINGS OF SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDS TO YOUTO MAKE UP FOR ''YOUR'' LOSSES.
When will AMERICAN'S STOP giving away THEIR RIGHTS???
We've gone so far the other way ... bent over backwards not tooffend anyone.
But it seems no one cares about the AMERICAN that's being offended!
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Thoughts on Terrorism
Anne Arky sez: The "I" in this post is not me. This is as I received it, minus the "please forward" request. Well Worth Reading (With An Open Mind!)
Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired
I've spent much of my working career in the ME and SEA areas where the Muslim religion is in effect, sadly. We can't let it happen to us!! This is the most cogent and powerful essay on the threat of Islamic terrorism I have seen by Dr. Vernon Chong. It is without a doubt the most articulate and convincing writing I have read regarding the War in Iraq. If you have any doubts please open your mind to his essay and give it a fair evaluation. It's also eerily applicable to other current issues such as Iran's nuclear program, immigration, NAFTA's impact on American jobs, trade deficits, etc.
I had no idea who Dr. Chong is, or the source of these thoughts, so when I received them I almost deleted them, as well-written as they are. But then I did a Google search on the Doctor and found him to be a retired Air Force surgeon and past commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio. If you would like to see who this fellow is, go to this Air Force web site and look him up:http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5000 .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Muslims, terrorist and the USA0: A different spin on Iraq war.
This WAR is for REAL! Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired
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, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers M ilitary complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* A! den, Yemen, USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
(Note that 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? 25%. 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). (see http://www.Nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm ) 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 heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating 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 shut up or die?
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 . Spai n 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 on 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 too. 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 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 really digging in and lending 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 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 then. 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 people 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. That is, if 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 will be the few who control 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 above. 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. A national election is months away. After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world. Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world! Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those that find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE! Lastly, I wish to add: At the risk of offending someone, I sincerely think that anyone who rejects this as just another political rant, or doubts the seriousness of this issue or just deletes it without sending it on, is part of the problem.
Let's quit laughing at and forwarding the jokes and cartoons which denigrate and ridicule our leaders in this war against terror. They are trying to protect the interests and well being of the US and its citizens. Best we support them.
Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired
I've spent much of my working career in the ME and SEA areas where the Muslim religion is in effect, sadly. We can't let it happen to us!! This is the most cogent and powerful essay on the threat of Islamic terrorism I have seen by Dr. Vernon Chong. It is without a doubt the most articulate and convincing writing I have read regarding the War in Iraq. If you have any doubts please open your mind to his essay and give it a fair evaluation. It's also eerily applicable to other current issues such as Iran's nuclear program, immigration, NAFTA's impact on American jobs, trade deficits, etc.
I had no idea who Dr. Chong is, or the source of these thoughts, so when I received them I almost deleted them, as well-written as they are. But then I did a Google search on the Doctor and found him to be a retired Air Force surgeon and past commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio. If you would like to see who this fellow is, go to this Air Force web site and look him up:http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5000 .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Muslims, terrorist and the USA0: A different spin on Iraq war.
This WAR is for REAL! Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired
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, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers M ilitary complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* A! den, Yemen, USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
(Note that 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? 25%. 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). (see http://www.Nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm ) 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 heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating 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 shut up or die?
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 . Spai n 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 on 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 too. 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 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 really digging in and lending 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 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 then. 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 people 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. That is, if 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 will be the few who control 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 above. 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. A national election is months away. After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world. Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world! Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those that find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE! Lastly, I wish to add: At the risk of offending someone, I sincerely think that anyone who rejects this as just another political rant, or doubts the seriousness of this issue or just deletes it without sending it on, is part of the problem.
Let's quit laughing at and forwarding the jokes and cartoons which denigrate and ridicule our leaders in this war against terror. They are trying to protect the interests and well being of the US and its citizens. Best we support them.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
TWO THOUSAND ONE, NINE ELEVEN
Two thousand one, nine eleven
Three thousand plus arrive in heaven
As they pass through the gate,
Thousands more appear in wait
A bearded man with stovepipe hat
Steps forward saying, "Lets sit, lets chat"
They settle down in seats of clouds
A man named Martin shouts out proud
"I have a dream!" and once he did
The Newcomer said, "Your dream still lives."
Groups of soldiers in blue and gray
Others in khaki and green then say
"We're from Bull Run, Yorktown, the Maine"
The Newcomer said, "You died not in vain."
From a man on sticks one could hear
"The only thing we have to fear"
The Newcomer said, "We know the rest,
Trust us sir, we've passed that test."
"Courage doesn't hide in caves
You can't bury freedom, in a grave."
The Newcomers had heard this voice before
A distinct Yankees twang from Hyannisport shores
A silence fell within the mist
Somehow the Newcomer knew that this
Meant time had come for her to say
What was in the heards ot the five thousand plus that day
"Back on Earth, we wrote reports,
Watched our children play in sports
Worked our gardens, sang our songs
Went to church and clipped coupons
We smiled, we laughed, we cried, we fought
Unlike you, great we're not"
The tall man in the stovepipe hat
Stood and said, "Don't talk like that!
Look at your country, look and see
You died for freedom, just like me"
Then, before them all appeared a scene
Of rubbled streets and twisted beams
Death, destruction, smoke and dust
And people working just 'cause they must
Hauling ash, lifting stones,
Knee deep in hell, but not alone
"Look! Blackman, Whiteman, Brownman, Yellowman
Side by side helping their fellow man!"
So said Martin, as he watched the scene
"Even from nightmares, can be born a dream."
Down below three firemen raised
The colors high into ashen haze
The soldiers above had seen it before
On Iwo Jima back in '44
The man on sticks studied everything closely
Then shared his perception on what he saw mostly
"I see pain, I see tears,
I see sorrow -- but I don't see fear."
"You left behind husbands and wives
Daughters and sons and so many lives
are suffering now because of this wrong
But look very closely. You're not really gone.
All of those people, even those who've never met you
All of their lives, they'll never forget you
Don't you see what has happened?
Don't you see what you've done?
You've brought them together, together as one."
With that the man in the stovepipe had said
"Take my hand," and from there he led
three sousand plus heroes, Newcomers to heaven
On this day, two thousand one, nine eleven.
- Paul Spreadbury
Three thousand plus arrive in heaven
As they pass through the gate,
Thousands more appear in wait
A bearded man with stovepipe hat
Steps forward saying, "Lets sit, lets chat"
They settle down in seats of clouds
A man named Martin shouts out proud
"I have a dream!" and once he did
The Newcomer said, "Your dream still lives."
Groups of soldiers in blue and gray
Others in khaki and green then say
"We're from Bull Run, Yorktown, the Maine"
The Newcomer said, "You died not in vain."
From a man on sticks one could hear
"The only thing we have to fear"
The Newcomer said, "We know the rest,
Trust us sir, we've passed that test."
"Courage doesn't hide in caves
You can't bury freedom, in a grave."
The Newcomers had heard this voice before
A distinct Yankees twang from Hyannisport shores
A silence fell within the mist
Somehow the Newcomer knew that this
Meant time had come for her to say
What was in the heards ot the five thousand plus that day
"Back on Earth, we wrote reports,
Watched our children play in sports
Worked our gardens, sang our songs
Went to church and clipped coupons
We smiled, we laughed, we cried, we fought
Unlike you, great we're not"
The tall man in the stovepipe hat
Stood and said, "Don't talk like that!
Look at your country, look and see
You died for freedom, just like me"
Then, before them all appeared a scene
Of rubbled streets and twisted beams
Death, destruction, smoke and dust
And people working just 'cause they must
Hauling ash, lifting stones,
Knee deep in hell, but not alone
"Look! Blackman, Whiteman, Brownman, Yellowman
Side by side helping their fellow man!"
So said Martin, as he watched the scene
"Even from nightmares, can be born a dream."
Down below three firemen raised
The colors high into ashen haze
The soldiers above had seen it before
On Iwo Jima back in '44
The man on sticks studied everything closely
Then shared his perception on what he saw mostly
"I see pain, I see tears,
I see sorrow -- but I don't see fear."
"You left behind husbands and wives
Daughters and sons and so many lives
are suffering now because of this wrong
But look very closely. You're not really gone.
All of those people, even those who've never met you
All of their lives, they'll never forget you
Don't you see what has happened?
Don't you see what you've done?
You've brought them together, together as one."
With that the man in the stovepipe had said
"Take my hand," and from there he led
three sousand plus heroes, Newcomers to heaven
On this day, two thousand one, nine eleven.
- Paul Spreadbury
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)