Sunday, December 31, 2006

Missing the Point Entirely

After reading through more blogs, more news reports, more information sources and outlets, it still amazes me how so few people understand that this situation in the middle east crosses borders because so many of the people FROM that region never KNEW borders until the end of the European colonial period after World War II.

We, Americans and western Europeans alike, are trying to view this entire conflict in terms of taking on this country or that country, Iraq or Afghanistan. The cry "Bush has FORGETTEN Afghanistan" is such a rampant thing that it's disgusting. Bush hasn't forgotten Afghanistan, Africa, or any place else in the world, the dinosaur media has. Bush has even stepped UP funding to Africa. The dinosaur media deliberately have chosen to ignore Afghanistan in their reporting, and then try to paint the President as having turned his back on the area and the rest of the world to focus ONLY of Iraq. A great trick, worthy of a Copperfield or a Henning, but, unfortunately, so many American's have fallen for it that they actually BELIEVE the President has forgotten Afghanistan. A helping hand from the leftist Clintonista's in the Congress doesn't hurt anything in that regard; the dem's are right there at the forefront of the propoganda scandal in trying to blame Bush for forgetting about Afghanistan to focus only on Iraq. This coming week, others will be citing examples of how we are still involved in Afghanistan, just as much as we are in Iraq. We haven't abandoned nor have we forgotten Afghanistan. The media has. And I charge that they did so deliberately, setting the stage to blame the President for having lost focus.

My proof? My proof is the LACK of evidence seen in the news media in regards to our activities in Afghanistan. We are there, boots on the ground as the saying goes, although I have to say, this old combat engineer never HEARD that phrase until this go around. We are running missions, operations, encountering the al Quida on a weekly basis. Yet it goes ignored by the dinosaur media.

Case in point, from CENTCOM:

KABUL, Afghanistan – U.S. and Afghan noncommissioned officers toured the Pakistan Army’s Junior Leader Academy in Shinkiari, Pakistan, Dec. 28 during the second day of an exchange program tour.

Pakistan officers and NCOs briefed the team on training procedures and processes in an effort to strengthen the ties between the Afghan National Army and the Pakistan military.

“We came to learn,” said Sgt. Maj. Mahmodi Shamsudine, the command sergeant major of the ANA’s 201st Corps, after asking several questions about the training curriculum and format.

He was one of three Afghan Senior NCOs who traveled to Pakistan hoping to take back information that will help them develop their 4-year-old army.

“This was very good for (the Afghans) because they discussed training strategies, schools, doctrines, techniques and procedures that can be shared between the two armies,” said Sgt. Maj. Daniel Wood, command sergeant major for Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan.

Staff members from the JLA took the team to a field training area and watched students conduct mission planning. They were also shown classrooms and sat in on a class discussing tactics.

“This visit was very good for our countries,” said Sgt. Usman, JLA instructor. “Our door is open and we want to help the Afghan army because we want peace in Afghanistan.”

Wood called the meeting a ”very successful engagement with the military of Pakistan.” He contributed the success to the ”non-threatening and non-political environment” between the NCOs.

“The (Afghans) are very excited about the information they heard,” Wood added. “They are excited to hear about the focus on counter-terrorism and the amount of effort and attention that they are putting on training. They want to go back and try to put more of a counter-terrorism focus in their own training.”

The visit also gave the U.S. and Afghan NCOs an opportunity to share information about the progress and accomplishments of the ANA.

“People from the Pakistan military and Frontier Corps did not realize how far ahead the ANA were – they were very surprised and it made them feel more secure,” Wood said.

During a meeting with Col. Rehman, the JLA deputy commandant, he explained that Pakistani Soldiers were “giving (their) life to help Afghanistan.

“The world is a global village, and the sooner we have peace, the better it is for the world,” he said.

Sgt. Major Ahmad Fazel, the command sergeant major for the ANA’s 203rd Corps, agreed, saying, “If we work together we will be successful because we have the same goal and the same enemy.”

Plans are underway for the next program to take place at Fort Benning, Ga., in the U.S.

For more information, contact the press center at

Back to the point here. The only reason there are established and recognized borders in the Middle East is for one reason: European Colonization. The same is the case for most of central Africa. Once the Europeans pulled out and went back home, old tribal and regional differences flared back up again, hence the period of civil wars (the mercenary war era) in Africa and the reintroduction of a Jewish state into the Middle East. The Jews were merely allowed, after a couple of thousand years, to return home, folks. If anyone has any dispute with that concept, pick up a Bible, a Torah, the Talmud, and various and other sundry histories of the ancient world that DON'T have to do with religious influence and belief. But as I have been trying to say, the concept of a border is a foreign notion to the Arabic mind. Regionalism? That concept they understand. Borders created by European cartogrophers? They could care less. Hence the ease at which the terrorist networks pass from one country to another in the Middle East, welcomed with open arms by supporters across various old caravan trade routes from one city to the other. The concept of the city-state is still very much alive and well in the Muslim world. In case you haven't really grasped this notion yet, ask yourself this: how many Baptists have ever set foot in Mecca? How many Methodists? Has the Pope ever held Mass there?

As the TITLE of this site says, WAKE UP, AMERICA. This war, this military action, is NOT about one country versus another. It's about our nation fighting an enemy that transcends borders, a concept of hatred that would see both us and Israel cleared from the map in the name of the Jihad. This is a war to stop radical Muslim Imperialism, a notion that, if it comes to pass, will strike away the freedom of the individual. All of the work done by many liberal organizations will be gone. That in itself should bring the left on board with this. NOW would be outlawed. ACTUP would be outlawed. The NAACP would be changed radically. Dissidents and "free thinkers" would be labeled as outlaws and infidels. Women in the US think that they're still under male subjegation today? Imagine how it will be if the terrorists WIN.

The bikini would become a thing of the past, A horrible concept, in my opinion. The world is a MUCH better place since the introduction of the bikini, especially the thong bikini. Welcome to the age of the burkah...

Think outside our borders, learn how the rest of the world sees us, and how they know that we see them. We have GOT to stop bickering, fighting amongst ourselves over penny anty issues that don't amount to a hill of beans. We have GOT to maintain our focus on the ENTIRE Middle East to hunt these terrorist groups down, keeping a watchful eye on Korea.

We also HAVE to do something about the number of illegal immigrants coming into this country across the Mexican border, but that is another story...

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


Thursday, December 28, 2006

Pissed off is an understatement...

CNN, the Communist News Network, has done it yet again. They have slapped the United States military in the face.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin and Return of the Conservatives for this one.

I tend to try to maintain a civil tongue when I do my writings. This time, fuck it.

What in the HELL does CNN think they are doing putting their "sniper video" up for video on demand? Do they have that little respect for our troops and their families? I don't know which commie kissing asshole over there is responsible for this, but by GOD I'd love to see an airplane wheel fall on them right about now.

Due to a technical problem on my end,the graphic might not show here so click here to see the snapshot of the CNN on Demand sniper video offerings.

Chase Bank is sponsoring this atrocity. Call them and tell them what you think of this bullshit at (212) 270-6000.

Contact CNN CNN [(404) 827-1500] or use their contact form at or and tell them to take this OFF of their on Demand.

What utter disrespect and contempt they show. Bastards.

Once and always, an American Fighting Man (and with shit like this going on, you can see why I still am...)

[UPDATE] - I have been thinking lately that with all the conservative blogs that link to CNN and AP stories, even to point out their distortions, they are recieving quite a number of hits/traffic JUST from us. Considering how many different venues of media there are, it would definitely hit them and their sponsors if NO ONE linked to them or their stories at all, but used alternate sources for our posts. Remember, they COUNT on traffic to click on their sponsor links for additional monies to the companies.

Just something to think on. [End update]


Saturday, December 23, 2006

No, please, ANYTHING but SANCTIONS!!! WE PROMISE to be good...

The UN Security Council has given a unanimous vote to impose sanctions on Iran over their nuclear program (read the story here).

Will these people ever learn the lessons of history? Sanctions don't work! Have sanctions imposed by the U.S. on Cuba done anything to stop Cuban cigars from being so wildly popular throughout the world? No. Have sanctions stopped Libya from moving forward and modernizing (a good thing for the people of Libya, actually)? No. Have sanctions stopped North Korea from putting out a little tyrant who looks like a refugee from a Chimpmunks, the Motion Picture casting call? No.

MSNBC states:

The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Saturday to impose economic sanctions on Iran for refusing to end a uranium enrichment program that the United States says is aimed at building nuclear weapons. Iran immediately rejected the resolution.

The result of two months of negotiation, the resolution orders all countries to stop supplying Iran with materials and technology that could contribute to its nuclear and missile programs. It also would freeze Iranian assets of key companies and individuals related to those programs.

If Iran refuses to comply, the resolution warns Iran that the council will adopt further nonmilitary sanctions.

SCARE me why don'tcha? "Nonmilitary sanctions?" What are they going to do next, stick their thumbs in their ears, wave their hands, and cry "neener neener neener, you smell like a camel's butt" at them?

GIVE ME A BREAK! The government of Iran, a theocracy, has NO respect for the United Nations and has shown a clear and utter contempt for the body for YEARS. Does anyone think that they're going to suddenly stop now? They're USED to sanctions against them. It's almost like earning a merit badge for them. There's only one thing that will stop Iran from pursuing it's nuclear program, actually a couple of things. One, STOP THEM from developing their nuclear program. If anyone wants to really know how to do this, ask the Mossad. I'm sure they have a couple of creative ideas, at least. Secondly, STOP RUSSIAN INVOLVEMENT in the Iraninan nuclear program. If the Russians pull out, guess what? Iran doesn't have the resources being supplied TO them by the Russians any more.

In my mind, it's a no brainer.

Once and always, an American Fighting Man


The Eagle has landed...

The space shuttle Discovery has landed safely yesterday in Florida. Weather concerns caused some discussion and speculation on where to safely land the orbiter initially, but she came home to Earth on Friday to end a 13 day mission above our planet.

With all that is going on in the world, the war against terrorist organizations, the problems with illegal immigration here at home, and record cold temperatures following the path of Al Gore on his global warming tour, some of you may be wondering what the point is of space exploration to begin with.

I've heard all the arguements about safety problems, the amount of money involved in space exploration, and of course the arguement that there is no good reason to leave planet Earth to begin with.

Things that make you go HMMMMMMMMMM.

So, without repeating myself any more than necessary, to share my thoughts, my concerns, my beliefs, and hopefully to make you, the reader, THINK about things (thinking is my big thing, in case it hasn't become painfully obvious by now. We don't do enough of it today, as individuals), I'm going to repost something I wrote a few years ago after the explosion of the shuttle Columbia and the loss of her crew on reentry, an essay entitled Expectations.


In the earliest records of our history, man has relied upon the oceans and seas for his livelihood. Our earliest ancestors were fishermen and sea farers, braving the high seas in craft that by our modern standards are considered to be very crude, yet it was in these crude vessels that they circumnavigated our world, charting new lands, discovering new continents, and establishing routes for later travelers to wander, either for pleasure or commerce. Man fishes the seas, makes war and love at sea, farms the sea, and explores it for energy resources, such as petroleum or aquatic power. The seas have been and will be, for the foreseeable future, very important to the existence of the human race as a species.

But of course, it has not been an evolution of travel without risk. Since man put the first crude watercraft to water, there have been accidents. Through the centuries, mankind has lost members to the waters; many are the tales of ships lost at sea, of pirates treasures sunk in old hulks at the bottom of the Caribbean, stories like Moby Dick and the romanticizing of the wreck of the Titanic are an ever present part of our society today. Poetry has been written with the sea as its topic, books about ships at sea and their crews and adventures and misadventures, and at some point in time most small boys have daydreamed about sailing the high seas in search of adventures on distant lands, even in this century.

Millions of dollars a year are spent on oceanic research in modern times. Marine biology, geology, meteorology, and oceanography are but a few of the sciences involved in researching this vast and mostly unexplored part of our world. Tragedy accompanies this research from time to time, as it has accompanied the earliest days of the exploration of the seas. It has become something that is to be expected, even anticipated, on the high seas. There is even a certain tradition of death to go along with this, for every school child knows that the captain is expected to go down with his ship when it sinks. And yet when tragedies at sea occur, no one ever forwards the notion that oceanic research should be stopped, that it is too dangerous, and that it is too costly to continue funding. Our commercial bases, globally, are based upon moving freight across the high seas from one point to another, and it has been thus for so long that we accept and expect tragedy to follow ocean travel, therefore it is never even suggested that we stop our trade and travel on the seas in order to save lives or money.

How, then, is the exploration of space any different, when thinking on a universal level, than the exploration of the high seas? It is different because it is still a new concept, different because mankind is accustomed to the confines of his planet, different because it involves taking a step towards the unknown. It is different because religion has taught us that we are supposed to be earthbound creatures, and that the skies and the stars and the heavens belong to the gods, and we, for all of our technological advances and scientific thinking, are still by and large a superstitious species that can barely grasp the concept of what lies beyond the confines of this island Earth.

Our world is reaching a point of near crisis, yet we barely notice because we have grown comfortable listening to our governments telling us what to think about things through their mouthpieces in the media, who tell us where the problems are and we accept the things that we are told because we are conditioned to do so. The media doesn’t report to us the overpopulation of countries like India and China other than in the form or raw data and statistics, nor of the famines and plagues that cover the continent of Africa, other than as a side note that goes along with the latest happenings in Washington and in New York at the United Nations. We are presented with what is wanted to be seen, not an entire picture of things that are happening to us globally, as a people, as a race, as a species. While it is true that cures need to be found for the ills that torment us physically, and something needs to be done to resolve the starvation that accompanies overpopulation, we, the human race, must not limit our focus to things only of this planet.

Industry will, eventually, become a key player in space exploration, for one simple reason: it will become economically feasible to do so. Our world is limited in the amount of raw material that can be produced over a period of millennia; it takes eons for the earth to reproduce itself, through volcanic activity, and to recreate the ores, minerals, and metals which are important to the day to day lives of every man, woman, and child on this planet. The metal industry, indeed even the food industry, one day will be forced to look beyond our own limitations of atmosphere and gravity on this planet and seek answers beyond our borders of gravitational pull. Perhaps the cure for AIDS lies in the stars, or other viruses and diseases, in places we have not even dreamed of visiting. Geologists have assayed samples of materials taken from the moon and, in fact, from meteor fragments found here on Earth and collected in space travel, and have determined that these fragments, these small samples taken from debris from other worlds that have, for whatever reason, exploded, contain minerals and rocks of the same or similar composition to those we find here on our world. It is a commercial necessity, or will become one, that mankind explore space.

There is, of course, one other option. We, mankind as a species, can make the collective decision to allow ourselves to become extinct. Even with the colonization of the sea in underwater habitats and dwellings, eventually we will run out of room on this planet for us to survive. We can cave in to those who say that space exploration is too costly, too dangerous, and to those who say that we need to spend our research money on things planet side. We can ignore the beckoning of the stars for our exploration and simply remain a primitive planet in the backwater regions of our galaxy, and refuse to take our place among the stars. We can ignore whatever other peoples that might be out there awaiting us to come of age as a species and join them in their triumphs and tribulations, their confederations, their wars, their hopes for the universe and for whatever the future holds for all creatures who have ever looked to their skies and wondered what lies beyond their atmospheres. Or, we can reach up, reach out, and accept and embrace the change that will come with taking our species and trying desperately to evolve and change into something better than we are now. In the end, it is our choice, and our decision; do we dare defy the gods of our ancestors and seek out the unknown, or do we remain here, alone, isolated, and adrift in our orbit around a sun that will, one day, burn out and die?

Black Hawk Coeur de Lion, 22FEB2003,
In memory of the crews of Apollo 1, Challenger and the Columbia and their vision “to boldly go where no one has gone before” in their quest for our “last, best hope for peace.”

My sincere hope in posting this is that it brings a better understanding to why it is so VITALLY important to us all, as a species, as a race called humanity, that we continue our explorations of space and begin colonization OF space. To quote astronomer Stephen Hawking, "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." I think he's on to something there...

Once and always, an American Fighting Man


Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Ho Ho Hooooold on a second here...

I didn't fit in with other teachers very well when I was a teacher. For one thing, I wasn't one of these young twenty-somethings who had gone straight from high school to college and then back into the classroom to teach. I was what you call a "non-traditional" student; I went to college at the age of thirty and graduated (with honors) at the age of thirty-three. My contracting background and military background made me a little more rough around the edges, grizzled, less "polished" than most of my colleagues. And, having actually LIVED a life outside the classroom, I was definitely more "colorful."

I had a different point of view than most of the people I worked with, as well. I wasn't on a mission to "save" the children who came into my classroom, I was there to actually TEACH. Having chosen to teach secondary education, History and Government classes, I hoped that one of the things that I got across to my students was that each and every one of them had a mind of their own and that they should USE that mind to THINK. Needless to say, I wasn't one of these teachers who fell into lockstep with the cookie cutter liberal mindset that most teachers have. My only affiliation with the NEA (shudder) was because of their insurance policies. Their lobbying I frowned upon (and still do).

Now, having said that, laying the background for what I'm about to say, we'll delve into this little incident over in the United Kingdom:

A primary school has been accused of spoiling Christmas for pupils after a lesson telling them that Santa Claus does not exist.

Children as young as nine were told that only 'small children believe in Father Christmas'.

And yesterday their parents criticised teachers for taking the 'magic' out of the festive period.

My question is, as it was when I was in the classroom, what business is it of the school system or a teacher as an individual to decide when it is time for a child to believe anything? Looking at this as a former teacher, I would consider doing such as this to be HIGHLY unethical as a professional. The teacher isn't there to mandate a child's development in their beliefs or to take the place of the child's family. It takes a great deal of arrogance to take on the role of instilling beliefs and values in a child who is not yours.

As a PARENT, if my child was in a classroom where a teacher did something like this, I would be absolutely LIVID. It is NOT the place of a teacher or the school administration to decide when my children are old enough to stop believing in Santa Claus, it is NOT the place of the teacher or the administration to decide if my children should or should not believe in the religious choices my ex-wife and I have agreed upon for our children, it is NOT the place of the school to try to instill ANY values upon my children.

THAT is the big problem here in my opinion. It isn't the place of the school to take decisions of the family AWAY from the family. Yet and still these liberal GRINCHES try to do just that, not just about Santa Claus, but about matters of religion and sex education as well. Families may not always do the best job in instilling values upon their children, but it IS the job of the family to do so. Not the school system.

Those beliefs labeled me as a rebel and a maverick when I was a teacher (of course, tossing the textbook into the trashcan and saying it was inept might have had something to do with it to...). So be it.

Was my approach effective? I have former students come to me today, several years after my having left the classroom to return to the world of contracting and the world of political analysis, students who tell me how that I was the first teacher they had ever had who showed them how history could be interesting, how politics could be interesting, and how that my belief that the greatest sin to be committed by modern man is the failure to THINK has affected their lives, either in their jobs or in college or both.

Does Santa Claus exist?

This question was once fielded by a young lady several years ago, and the response is both timeless and applicable:

We take pleasure in answering thus prominently the communication below, expressing at the same time our great gratification that its faithful author is numbered among the friends of The Sun:

Dear Editor—

I am 8 years old. Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus. Papa says, “If you see it in The Sun, it’s so.” Please tell me the truth, is there a Santa Claus?

Virginia O’Hanlon

Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus! It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The external light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies. You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if you did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You tear apart the baby’s rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived could tear apart. Only faith, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

No Santa Claus! Thank God! he lives and lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay 10 times 10,000 years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.

Teachers, no matter where you may be, teach your subjects, and leave the values to the family.

'Nuff said.

Once and always, an American Fighting Man


Sunday, December 17, 2006

Vive la France!

In a stunning (hardly) announcement today, France has announced that it will be withdrawing it's troops from Afghanistan.

The decision to pull the elite troops, based in the southeastern city of Jalalabad, comes as the Taliban militia are gaining strength despite the strong engagement — some 32,800 troops — in NATO's International Security Assistance Force. France has balked at sending its 1,100-strong NATO contingent outside the relatively safe Afghan capital, Kabul.

"There is a general reorganization of our (troops)," Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said during a visit to Afghanistan. The minister's remarks were aired on France-Info radio.

Among planned changes is a "withdrawal of special forces from Jalalabad in the coming weeks," she said.

Are we really surprised? What amazes me the most is that France has had more than it's fair share of dealings with terrorism through the years. If any nation in Europe should understand the clear and present danger presented by allowing these groups to continue to exist, it's the French. Yet and still, they plan to withdraw, citing "reorganization" as the reason.

Take a good, hard, look, America, at what happens when you allow the socialists to take charge of the government. Our socialists disguise themselves by calling themselves Democrats.

However, this will not, in the long run, affect operations in Afghanistan, methinks. The French have pretty much not been participating for the last year or better.

On Saturday, U.S. Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) said Afghan, U.S., Canadian, British and Dutch forces have done most of the fighting in Afghanistan over the past year at a time when ambushes, suicide bombings and other attacks have multiplied. Those nations have also borne the brunt of the casualties, and McCain called on NATO nations to send troops into more dangerous areas of Afghanistan.

The elite troops have been deployed in southeastern Afghanistan since July 2003 to help bolster the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban and the search for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

Caron said the decision to withdraw the French special forces was made "in concert with our partners, notably the Americans."

I reckon it must be mighty damned hard to put down a good bottle of French wine to go after an international criminal.

They will be continuing to supply air support, however...

Despite the pullout, Alliot-Marie said that France intends to maintain its air power "which has backed up coalition forces numerous times" and is adding two helicopters in the advanced zone between Jalalabad, in the southeast, and Kabul.

Two helicopters. HOOWAH.

Once and always, an American Fighting Man

Jules Crittenden has a few words about the French too.


Thursday, December 14, 2006

"The time has come" the Blind Shiek said, "to talk of other things..."

OK (and yes my speech teachers from both high school AND college would CRINGE at me beginning with "OK" but OK...) the Blind Sheik has SPOKEN, by Jiminy, and boy what he said.

"My Brothers...If they [the Americans] kill me, which they will certainly do – hold my funeral and send my corpse to my family, but do not let my blood be shed in vain. Rather, extract the most violent revenge, and remember your brother who spoke the truth and died for the will of God...The Mujahid Sheikh Omar Abdel al Rahman. In the name of God the kind and merciful."

Now here's the rub. We're supposedly "killing" this guy, right?

Omar Abdel-Rahman, convicted in 1996 of conspiring to blow up New York City landmarks, has long suffered from diabetes and heart ailments and has spent much of his imprisonment at the Springfield Medical Center for federal prisoners.

Full story here.

We are killing him with DOCTORS and NURSES. We want him dead so badly that we're treating his ailments. We want him dead so badly that we're not leaving him to suffer in a cell without treatment. But I want you to take a look at the hatred that they show for us EVEN when we make sure that they have medical treatment (mind you, yes, I realize the sonofabitch is in prison, but that is beside the point. We're providing him with medical care). I understand someone who is being, say, beheaded, for example, calling upon his nation to avenge him. That's perfectly understandable.

Wait. Who beheads people again? Oh yeah, the terrorists, that's right. That's after the beatings and such, where I'm sure that they make sure that doctors are present afterwards to treat their prisoners wounds...

You know, these people scream and cry about honor and righteousness and whatnot. I say they're full of it. If they want to follow the example of a Muslim warrior who WAS a man of honor, they need to look to the example of Saladin, the Sultan of Egypt. Now there was a Muslim Warrior I have to say that even I respect. The man was a man of honor. There is not ONE among these modern Jihadists who is worthy to even utter the man's name from their lips.

Saladin, by the way, was a Kurd. Let me think, who are the people Saddam Hussein was executing in droves in Iraq?

Says a hell of a lot in my book. And yes, Chivalry, Valor and Honor are still traits alive and well in some of us today, they are NOT dead.

Personally, I hope the Sheik survives this latest health ailment. I personally believe that he has more suffering to do in jail here in this life before going on to the next. I also think he's going to be in for a BIG surprise when he crosses over to the other side. The desert ain't the only place that's hot, baby...

Once and always, an American Fighting Man

Others discussing this:
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, Redstate, Hot Air, The Jawa Report and Wizbang


Sunday, December 10, 2006

Who believes in coincidence?

Secret negotiations between conflicting factions are nothing new. It is of little surprise to learn that the US has been in secret negotiations with the conflicting factions in Iraq for the past couple of months.

SECRET talks in which senior American officials came face-to-face with some of their most bitter enemies in the Iraqi insurgency broke down after two months of meetings, rebel commanders have disclosed.

The meetings, hosted by Iyad Allawi, Iraq’s former prime minister, brought insurgent commanders and Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to Iraq, together for the first time.

After months of delicate negotiations Allawi, a former Ba’athist and a secular Shi’ite, persuaded three rebel leaders to travel to his villa in Amman, the Jordanian capital, to see Khalilzad in January.

“The meetings came about after persistent requests from the Americans. It wasn’t because they loved us but because they didn’t have a choice,” said a rebel leader who took part.

Is it just me, or does is there something fishy about the timing of the breakdown of the negotiations?

Last week the long-awaited report of the Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by James Baker, the former secretary of state, and Lee Hamilton, a former congressman, called for America to seek to engage with all parties in Iraq, with the exception of Al-Qaeda.

Personally, it makes me wonder about the timing of the breakdown, with the release of the ISG report. It makes me wonder if the insurgent groups were biding their time during the negotiations to see exactly what the report called for, and finding it not to their liking (these are the Sunni factions, after all, who are at odds with the Shiite factions that the ISG report wants to include in determining the fate of Iraq), decided that the negotiations were not in their best interest.

It seems to me, having read the ISG report, that the ISG is thinking in terms of all of Islam being under one umbrella. That's bad thinking, because it isn't the case. The Shiites and the Sunni's have been at odds for YEARS before our large scale involvement in the current operations we are conducting in Afghanistan and Iraq. To think that they can all be labeled under one grouping and that they will agree unanimously to things being dictated to them from a group like the ISG is unrealistic, at best, and fatal to the US and countless others at minimum.

Until the US gets it into our heads that we ARE dealing with two factions of Islam, not just one as a whole, suggestions by groups like the ISG are a waste of time and money (1.3 million dollars wasted in the case of the ISG).

Read the story in full here.

Once and always, an American Fighting Man

Others discussing this:
Joust The Facts.
Captain's Quarters.
Freedom's Zone.


Double Standards

I'm often amazed at how liberals apply double standards to things. It's an amazing thing to watch and to hear the bull that rolls off their tongues with utter conviction that they're right.

Prime example: how many liberals out there are in favor of the opression of women? The subjegation of women to a lesser role and status in the culture? Can anyone take a head count, please? None? I didn't think so.

So why do they want to cut and run from the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq when news stories such as this come out? Do they not want the little girls of the middle east to have an education? Do they want to prolong the subjegation and persecution of women in the middle east? And given the "mission" of Islam to spread throughout the world, and the militant attitudes of the jihadist extremists, is this what they want for the little girls of the middle east? Is this what they want for the little girls of the USA? What happened to "take your daughter to work day?"

I would love to hear from some liberals on this one, but I'm betting than other than a few trolls out there looking for nothing but a fight (which they won't get, I want discussion, not jabbing, blocking, and feigning) that there won't be any liberals with the GUTS to step up to the plate and defend their position.

Truth be told, there is no defense...

Once and always, an American Fighting Man

Others discussing double standards: Re: Jefferson being reelected.
Iowa Voice.
Washington Times.
Michelle Malkin.


Monday, December 4, 2006

Mr. Newt Speaks Out

When I first heard that Newt Gingrich had said that we had to do whatever was possible to stop terrorism, including forgoing the first amendment, my first thought was "Mr. Newt has lost his freaking mind." I should have known better. Newt Gingrich is one of the very few politicians in this country who has his finger firmly on the American pulse. I should have realized that the left wing dinosaur media had twisted what he said and made it into something else.

Read Newt Gingrich in his own words and entirety here.

I must have hit a nerve.

In New Hampshire last week, at a dinner hosted by the Loeb School honoring our 1st-Amendment rights, I called for a serious debate about the 1st Amendment and how terrorists are abusing our rights -- using them as they once used passenger jets -- to threaten and kill Americans.

Here's part of what I said: "Either before we lose a city, or, if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up [terrorists'] capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech [protections] and to go after people who want to kill us -- to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us."

He never said that the First Amendment should be disregarded, he said that it shouldn't be used as a shield to hide behind. BIG FREAKING DIFFERENCE.

The fact is not all speech is permitted under the Constitution. The 1st Amendment does not protect lewd and libelous speech, and it should not -- and cannot in 2006 -- be used as a shield for murderers.

Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy put it best: "With an enemy committed to terrorism, the advocacy of terrorism -- the threats, the words -- are not mere dogma, or even calls to 'action.' They are themselves weapons -- weapons of incitement and intimidation, often as effective in achieving their ends as would be firearms and explosives brandished openly."

My hat is off to Mr. Gingrich for his insight and his intellect, both of which he uses to uphold what we stand for, or CLAIM to stand for, as a nation. a BIG THUMBS DOWN to the dinosaur media for once again twisting someone's words into something other than what was actually said.

Once and always, an American Fighting Man


Sunday, December 3, 2006

Paying Tribute: the Nazi Hunters

Simon Wiesenthal will never know the respect that I, a gentile, had for him and his work. Nor will Elliot Welles, who died this week at the age of 79.

We all know, by this point in time, unless you're an Iranian President, what the Nazis did to the Jews and to any other "undesirable, non-Aryan" peoples during WWII. That a group of people who survived the holocaust decided to hunt down those responsible for the attrocities committed by their former captors and make them pay for their actions is an amazing and remarkable thing.

The work is not over, however, as this generation passes, both the hunters and the hunted. We see in the news daily reports lashing out against Israel and against Jews, both by individuals and by those who supposedly represent the people, be it in national governments, domestic and abroad, or the current slander by Kofi Annan and others in the UN. This gives rogue nations around the world the nod, in my opinion, to conduct anti-semitic activities, knowing that the UN will blame the Jews and blame Israel anyway.

ADL, National Director issued a statement deeming the reforms of the UN an overwhelming failure.

From the day it opened for business, the U.N. Human Rights Council has never operated with any moral authority. The Council has failed in its most fundamental purpose: to monitor human rights abuses in all parts of the world. Instead, it has become a political tool wielded by its Arab and Muslim members who have the power of an automatic majority. The Council has ignored the world's worst human rights atrocities and instead has pursued Israel for political gain.

The effort as part of the U.N. reform campaign to replace the corrupt Commission on Human Rights with the revamped Human Rights Council, while well intentioned, has been an overwhelming failure.

There will be a day of reckoning, however; there always is. When that time comes, I hope, although I think I know already that there will be, other Hunters out there to bring forth the criminals against Judaism to justice. No matter what high offices they hold now (that means YOU, Mr. Annan, and YOU, Louise Arbour. Personally, I count you as being just as responsible for 9/11 as I do Osama bin Laden. Why? You're permissiveness of anti-semitism, and Arbours admission her hatred for Israel).

Know this: This time around there ARE gentiles who stand side by side with the Jews, and we take their mantra as our own. Never Again.

My respects to the family of Elliot Welles. He was a man of Honor and Valor. It is a damned shame the same can't be said for the leadership of a body that is supposed to represent the nations of the world.

Once and always, an American Fighting Man

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Bottled, Canned or Draft

My first thought when I heard Charlie Rangel was in support of the draft, as a veteran, was "hey, alright, a Democrat who GETS it."

Knee Jerk Reactionism, I've found, especially in things political, isn't the best way to handle things. I had always been a supporter of bringing back the draft, as I mentioned once before in a reply to one of spree's postings here, but like a good thinking individual, I've weighed the facts, listened to what other thinking and educated people are saying, and have taken into consideration the evidence that has been presented.

My work involves a lot of travel time, ergo a lot of time listening to the radio. My two favorites are the Laura Ingraham Show, which I've recently discovered, and an older show by a man who I consider to be a TREMENDOUS fountain of knowledge, wisdom, and insight into the political arena, the G. Gordon Liddy Show (yes, the man has had a tremendous impact on my political thinking, and I HIGHLY recommend his autobiography Will). In listening to them, and to their callers (a great number of them veterans like myself), I have come to the conclusion that my original stand on the draft was all wrong, even though I supported it for the right reasons (yes, one CAN be sincerely wrong in ones beliefs). To whit; an all volunteer military is filled with members who are more committed to what they are doing because they have chosen to be in the positions they are in. Mayhap not geographically, mayhap not in combat, but enlistment or taking a commission as an officer was a choice, not something forced upon them.

Hat tip to Amy Proctor, who points out that Rangel's position is deliberately aimed at insulting the Republicans and showing them not to have the resolve to fight a winning war. Henry Kissinger has also weighed in on the matter stating that we "cannot win in Iraq." What a sad way for Mr. Kissinger to try to make his way once again into the political limelight. I would have personally expected better from him, but I've been known to be wrong before (I'll admit it, sometimes I'm wrong...shocking but true). It turns out, if you take the time to READ the posting that Amy Proctor posts on her site, what he says is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from the way Reuters would have you believe. Mr. Kissinger is one of the most brilliant political minds around, and he again shows his clarity of thought on international politics. Kudos to Mr. Kissinger for his insights, and a big THUMBS DOWN for the dinosaur media in distorting what he said.

Ahem. I retract my earlier position of being in favor of the draft. If Rangel thinks it's a good idea, it can't be good for us in the long run, in my opinion...

Once and always, an American Fighting Man


Never Again

Has Europe learned nothing from the lessons of World War II? Is it so easy to slip back into a mindset that was deemed criminal and wrong at the
Nuremberg trials when atrocity after atrocity was revealed?

France seems to have taken the mantle of ant-Semitism as we enter the 21st century. Hat tip to Atlas Shrugs for bringing this to our attention and forwards a call to boycott ALL things French; their wine, their perfume, their chocolates, everything.

What in the hell is WRONG with these people that they fall into the same trappings as Nazi Germany during the 1930's and 1940's? We have shown, in this country, our distaste for the lack of spine shown by the French government as recently as our latest military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"A few years ago, in 2001 for instance, I do not think we would have discussed an issue such as the one on our agenda. At the end of the 1990s, the Jewish community of France was living in peace. Worrying events did occur, however in the past three decades we never felt the Jewish community being questioned regarding its role within French society. The future of the Jewish community in France was simply not an issue. This situation has changed in the past three years partly due to the large amount of serious events that have occurred, pointing at a deep crisis within French society and due, too, to the comments made by intellectual circles, by the powers that be, by the media, by the public opinion and by the Jewish community itself. "

Why has this come to pass? Radical Islam.

"Many reasons brought to the current situation in France and in Europe, leading to anti-Semitic attacks. I want to highlight the fact that the revival of the new Intifada and the attacks against the Jewish community on the eve of Rosh Hashanah occurred almost simultaneously in September 2000. Synagogues, community centers and Jewish schools were attacked and a great number of buildings were destroyed or burned down. "

Still not convinced?

"A few words must be said about the media's responsibility in the reporting of the Intifada. The French media contributed largely to the deterioration of the image of Israel in the eye of the French public opinion. I remember the case of this young Arab immigrant living in a French suburb explaining he decided to attack a synagogue after a TV newscast showing the Intifada. From this point of view, the media coverage improved in the last months. CRIF, with the support of some intellectuals, helped improving the atmosphere through targeted actions on the media exposing the bias and subjectivity of their reports and their serious consequences on the public opinion and on the Jewish community. "

Read the article here.

The French government, as usual, pays lip service to the matter. In a recent address by Dominique de Villepin at the World Jewish Congress diner, he stated "France is pursuing a determined fight against anti-Semitism in our country and globally." There is significant evidence of anti-Sematism alive and well in France and the European Union as a whole for there to be more than just a concern.

What is to be done? As I said, it's boycott time again. Make the French wake up and KNOW that freedom loving people WILL NOT STAND for this. Make them understand that we defeated Hitler when most of France sat on its collective ass under surrender, and we will NOT let them become "Nazi France."

In the two words that I'm sure every Jew who reads this will understand, I say "Never Again" and call upon others to join with me in putting those two words upon their lips and in their hearts.

Also make sure to visit:
Never and for updated information keep track here.

[UPDATE]-11/24/06: Charles Krauthammer has an excellent piece here.

Once and always, an American Fighting Man


Sunday, November 19, 2006


I’m confounded by the thought process of “cut and run” that seems to have taken the prevailing mindset of our national leadership today. The democratic majority have espoused the idea of withdrawing our troops from Iraq, citing the loss of lives we suffer there as one of the main reasons for leaving. Do they EXPECT to conduct military operations without loss of lives? Do they not realize that the loss of lives in Iraq is lower than any other sustained, large scale operations we have conducted since the inception of our military? Or are there other reasons behind this mindset?

I have to admit, when this first started in Iraq, I was skeptical. Not because I wasn’t behind our troops and the mission, but because we didn’t have a “clear cut exit strategy” in place for ending the operation. But, being the student of history that I am, I referred back to the World Wars to look for “exit strategies.” I can’t say that I was truly surprised not to find anything concrete in place for one. I came to the conclusion, in my research, that there is a reason for this, that being that one side cannot truly and fully predict the actions and reactions of an opposing force, and military leadership has to have the flexibility and capability of adapting strategies in the face of an enemy that is constantly adapting and changing their own strategies.

It was also pointed out to me, in my research, that the Second World War ended in 1945, but we STILL TODAY have bases in both Germany and Japan. Do the cut and run democrats propose that we withdraw our troops from these strategic locations as well (actually, a great many of them would love nothing more than for that to happen, but that is a discussion for another time)? Does it matter that we, as a nation, as a government, as a people, gave our word that we would find those responsible for 9/11 and take them to task for their actions? Where is the honor found in a cut and run policy?

Our nation has, since the inception of the modern day Jewish State, been committed to the defense of and the alliance with the nation of Israel. Is there honor in abandoning the Middle East as rogue nations such as Syria, Lebanon, and Iran maintain that their purpose is to rid the world of the nation of Israel?

Our country, our nation, a nation comprised of peoples from literally every other nation on the face of the planet, is being bested by a number of our parent nations, who have declared that they will continue to offer their support and defense of the work that has been done to date in the Middle East in the years since 9/11. We have forgotten so much of the heritage that our ancestors brought with them from these countries, the concept of honor being one of them. Our military understands honor; the members of our armed forces stand ready and willing to continue the fight for as long as necessary that freedom might be the law of the land for people other than those just on our own shores. They stand ready to fight an enemy willing and committed to our total and complete annihilation. Honor dictates that we support those willing to defend us as a people, and yet the mindset of cut and run has so heavily infected our thought processes that we have no concept of the lack of honor that we are showing not only to our troops, but to the world.

The message we send is “when the going gets tough, the Americans will cut and run.”

Men and women of honor, stand up, stand tall, and proclaim loudly in a unified voice, “we are a nation of honor and commitment, and we will stay the course and defend that which is right and just, and defeat that which is vile and evil.”

If the silent majority remains silent, cut and run will not be an option; the enemy will bring the fight to us, rather than us taking it to them. When this happens, there will BE no place to which we can cut and run.

Stand ye warned, America, reclaim the path of Honor and Valor that we once walked, or we invite with open arms our own destruction.

Once and always, an American Fighting Man…

Hawk Coeur de Lion

From Merriam-Websters Online.

Main Entry: hon·or
Pronunciation: 'รค-n&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French onur, honur, from Latin honos, honor
1 a : good name or public esteem : REPUTATION b : a showing of usually merited respect : RECOGNITION honor to our founder
2 : PRIVILEGE honor of joining the captain for dinner
3 : a person of superior standing -- now used especially as a title for a holder of high office Honor please
4 : one whose worth brings respect or fame : CREDIT honor to the profession
5 : the center point of the upper half of an armorial escutcheon
6 : an evidence or symbol of distinction: as a : an exalted title or rank b (1) : BADGE, DECORATION (2) : a ceremonial rite or observance honors c : an award in a contest or field of competition d archaic : a gesture of deference : BOW e plural (1) : an academic distinction conferred on a superior student (2) : a course of study for superior students supplementing or replacing a regular course
7 : CHASTITY, PURITY honor and her life -- Barton Black
8 a : a keen sense of ethical conduct : INTEGRITY honor b : one's word given as a guarantee of performance honor, I will be there
9 plural : social courtesies or civilities extended by a host honors
10 a (1) : an ace, king, queen, jack, or ten especially of the trump suit in bridge (2) : the scoring value of honors held in bridge -- usually used in plural b : the privilege of playing first from the tee in golf
synonyms HOMAGE, REVERENCE, DEFERENCE mean respect and esteem shown to another. HONOR may apply to the recognition of one's right to great respect or to any expression of such recognition honor. HOMAGE adds the implication of accompanying praise homage to Shakespeare. REVERENCE implies profound respect mingled with love, devotion, or awe reverence for my father. DEFERENCE implies a yielding or submitting to another's judgment or preference out of respect or reverence deference to their elders synonym see in addition HONESTY

Main Entry: val·or
Pronunciation: 'va-l&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English valour worth, worthiness, bravery, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin valor, from Latin valEre to be of worth, be strong -- more at WIELD
: strength of mind or spirit that enables a person to encounter danger with firmness : personal bravery

Quick item of interest: Syria and the Democrats seem to be on the same page. Syria sponsors terrorism...what does that say about the cut and run party? Just an observation here.-----

[UPDATE] Then you have a man with NO honor that once again, in a political stunt wishes to send a bill to the floor, reinstating the draft. Yep, you got it... Charlie Rangel.

[UPDATE #2]- Knowing the nature of our enemy means we will need to at least consider this, because if we do not handle Iran, Isreal will.

Others Discussing this:
Blue Crab Boulevard.
Keep track of these discussions here.


Sunday, October 29, 2006

I am an American Fighting Man

I am an American fighting man. I serve in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense. I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command I will never surrender my men while they still have the means to resist. If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy. If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way. When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause. I will never forget that I am an American fighting man, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

I first uttered these words over twenty years ago when I was sworn in to the armed services, the army being my choice, in Memphis, TN. As I look back, now, on the years in between and the things that have happened, I sit sometimes and I wonder what it was that prompted me to enlist in the armed forces, what motivated my thinking, and my acting upon said thought processes. In doing so, I’ve spoken to other veterans through the years, asking them the same questions that I asked of myself. The answers varied, of course, from individual to individual, some having been drafted and having found a home and a way of life that they could understand and appreciate, some of us, like me, volunteers in an era after the draft had long been done away with.

My own plans were to have retired from the army, however, thanks to the budget cuts enacted by the Graham-Rudman-Hollings Act; my plans were drastically changed as the army began eliminating some of us “big boys” who had gone into service under the maximum weight, LOST weight, and were discharged for being OVER weight after the Act went into effect. I won’t go into how that made me feel at the time, or the resentment I still feel over it now, because that isn’t the purpose of this piece. I was asked if I would write a piece on the heart and mind of the American soldier, and drawing from my own experiences and the conversations with others through the years, that’s what I’m going to attempt to do.

From as far back as I can remember, I wanted to be a soldier. I could not, and still can not, see the flag waving proudly and hear the national anthem being played without feeling a lump in my throat and my eyes misting at the heavy weight of what it means to me to be an American, and the pride that I have in our country and our way of life, along with the realization of the sacrifices made by others before me for us to have our rights today. I believed in the ideals of our country, our nation, from my earliest memories. My thoughts, my beliefs, where and still are that our way of life was and is to be defended and upheld, for ourselves, for our families and loved ones, for our children and our children’s children. I know that those are some deep thoughts for a child, but I was always a child of deep thought, a state that has followed me into my adult years.

When I was younger, I had difficulty expressing my thoughts in the spoken word, again, a condition that sometimes gives me trouble still, but if I could sit down long enough to think, and to write, I could put forth my ideas in what could be, more or less, a comprehensive format for others to follow and understand what was on my mind.

I’m rambling

The heart of the soldier is the heart of someone who is willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of others. Most often, the most immediate thoughts are of those comrades in arms on the battlefield and loved ones back home when the soldier is confronted with the possibility of death. This doesn’t undermine the deep rooted belief of the soldier in ideals and principles worth fighting for, and in some cases, worth dying for. The belief that life should be lived freely is a common bond amongst those who enter the armed forces of our country, no matter if the service is entered for college money or for other reasons. Freedom, and the love of freedom, motivates the majority of us to commit our lives, or a portion of our lives, to our nation’s defense. Our very precepts were established by men willing to fight and die for a cause they believed in, a struggle to be free of an oppressive and overbearing government. Thomas Jefferson put these beliefs into words with the Declaration of Independence when he wrote them, stating “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” The truth and meaning of these words, and the words preceding and following them, are just as applicable today as they were when our fledgling nation was in it’s infancy, when the thought of the United States was merely a concept, not a reality. The spirit of these words has been the driving force behind our nation’s military membership since the days before we WERE a nation, when we were still colonies under British rule fighting for independence.

We stand ready, soldiers past and present, to fight to defend our way of life, our freedom, our rights as citizens of this nation to live freely, to think freely, to believe, to live, to love, and to die as free men and women. The marines have a saying, “once a marine, always a marine.” I find this to be true of the majority of veterans in regards to their branches of service. I am as much a soldier today as I was when I was in uniform, ready and willing to fight and, if need be, die for the cause of freedom for my countrymen.

There are those out there, still today, who despise us for what we are, what we do, what we stand for, calling us names, degrading us, despising us. That is their right, and their choice. As they make that choice, it would do well for them to remember this one key fact: they have those rights because American servicemen and women have served to ensure that those rights are preserved.

The words may have changed in recent years to become more “inclusive” and politically correct to “I am an American Soldier,” but the spirit still stands the same as the words I recited, with pride, over twenty years ago when I was sworn in to service. I was, and still am, an American fighting man...