The Republic of Utica

Remembering 2004 in an Emerging Old World

2009-12-06T23:58:00.000-06:00

Yesterday I finished Newt Gingrich’s “To Try Men’s Souls,” a novel about the Battle of Trenton on December 26, 1776. In this battle, American forces defeated heretofore unvanquished Hessian mercenaries who were in the pay of the British Crown. The Hessians viewed the American Revolutionaries as a peasant rabble and when Americans tried to surrender during their defeats of the late summer and fall of 1776, the Hessians massacred them without mercy. After the Americans won at Trenton, the Hessians were expecting a lynching, or worse and greatly feared this. Against all their expectations, George Washington ordered that Hessian prisoners be treated in a Christian (not Deist) manner. They were given medical treatment and Washington promised to deal severely with anyone who tortured or molested them. Washington said that he was showing them a new way in a new world, so different from the old. Many Hessians defected to the American Cause because of this and other astounding new ideas of Liberty.

Since then America has gone from triumph to triumph, ending slavery, Nazism and Communism, bringing about a New Free World. It would be difficult to forget the heady days of 1989-1991 when the colossus of liberty seemed to bestride the world and the latest apparition of Statism, Communism, went to the ash heap of history that Reagan prophesied for it and that it so richly deserved. The New World had defeated the Old World where life was nasty, brutish and short, and ruled by tyrants.

In 2004 we seemed on the edge of a new glorious moment, and many at the time compared where we stood that year to 15 years earlier in 1989. For the first time since their ancestors built ziggurats for their Kings, the Iraqi people voted to elect their own leaders. This triumph had ripple effects throughout the Muslim world and wider world as well. In Libya, Moammar Khaddafi gave up a massive stockpile of WMDs-in-the-making and there was talk of his opposition returning to Tripoli. The Lebanese rose up much like the Berliners of 15 years earlier and restored their republic and made the Syrians leave. Even some old enemies of America in Lebanon, like Walid Jumlat, were praising us. Egyptians were demanding more freedom. Saudi Arabia made a Parliament to check the power of its heretofore unchallenged monarch. The newest and most vile apparition of Statism, Islamofascism, was very much on the run and their world was crumbling. And Statist regimes in places like Vietnam and Cuba were very afraid of their future. Old Europe, with its embracing of decay and decaying ideas just sat and pouted.

Bush was very close to being Reagan the Second. He could have been. And his slip was not ALL the fault of his enemies, but he bore much of the responsibility. He was greatly slandered, but some of the criticism of him is true too.

How little the Statists had to fear! Once the pendulum swung back to the Left here in America, the Old World with its rotten old Statism made a comeback too. No one remembers the heady days of 2004 and the nearness to world Liberty we achieved. Today is a day where Statists crack the skulls of any who breathe a word of freedom and the few free people in this world are distracted by trivialities and frivolities.

Western Europeans increasingly kow-tow to Islamofascists and are likely to be under their rule by the end of this century. Russia is rising again and Eastern Europeans, without American help will once again kiss the hand of whatever potentate sits in Moscow. China in control of East Asia. The Warsaw Pact is being resurrected in Latin America by Hugo Chavez. America is truly the last best hope. There is no other bastion of freedom.

The only freedom movement in the world besides the Tea Parties was the Iranian Resistance to its Islamofascist government. This was brutally quashed while we were fixated on Michael Jackson during the Summer of 2009.

What we can expect if the Old World takes over from the Anglo-American New World:

1. Abandonment of Republican Principles or the pretense thereof. At the present time most governments subscribe to republican principles or at least maintain the charade that they do so. Some straddle the fence between these two. If England becomes Muslim and America comes to have little political influence beyond North America, there will be no impetus to remain free in the eyes of Statists around the world. Tyrants will openly flaunt their monarchist/dictatorial designs. Nations which straddle the fence between a pretend republic and the genuine article will also return to dictatorship or possibly oligarchy. And many Republics will be gone with the wind. The modern Republic is an Anglo-American thing. India, China, and the Muslim world do not have republican traditions. Many there will be more than happy to dispense with them.

2. The Restoration of the Institution of Slavery: Slavery is a lucrative business in the Old World. Human beings, useful ones, are almost literally worth their weight in gold. Slavery today does exist, but it is kept on the down low, except in remote areas. If we return to the Old World way of doing things, look for huge slave markets to appear from Lisbon to Hong Kong. Slavery was a part of the human condition of all races until Christian imperative led to its abolition less than two centuries ago. With the Christian Imperative gone and replaced by ideas like Socialism and Islam, which encourage slavery, look for this eternal institution to make its most unwelcome. Most people reading this who live in the New World will never believe this. But bear in mind the goings on in Darfur, Timor, Somalia, Nazi Germany and other places where people are still taken against their will. Without the West to enforce its moral prohibition of slavery, that institution will grow exponentially again.

3. A Medieval Economy: Statist Regimes tend to control their economies. Out of control bureaucracies strap layer after layer of ridiculous regulations on those who do business. This makes economies slow and top-heavy and quite probably collapse. This is not a certainty, but it’s what happened to all nations that went down this road, including Rome and China. Our economy relies on dynamic Capitalism, and if this is encroached upon, our economies, infrastructure and technology will whither.

This is far from it, there will be unintended consequences that no one can think of or imagine. But civilization will definitely be headed towards what they call an Intermediary Period, of which the Middle Ages was a most recent example. An empty era of darkness in between two high civilizations.

But the future is not etched in stone. We do not need to bring back the Old World, we can preserve the New. But we must stand and fight the rising Statist tide. I will not let go of the dreams we dreamt in 2004. We were close. We’ve lost a few battles along the way and the Statists think they are safe again, with their boy Barack in the White House. We can still turn it around. Here in America, the forces of Liberty have the initiative again. We must oppose the Statists as if the entire struggle depended on us. YES WE CAN!!!!!

Virginia and New Jersey Shake the Tyrant’s Throne

2009-11-05T20:19:00.000-06:00

Liberals are in full spin mode in the wake of Tuesday’s two resounding defeats for their messiah’s crooked candidates in New Jersey and Virginia’s governor races. It has nothing to do with America’s Dear Leader, they say. One of those “things that make you go ‘hmm’.”

I might almost be inclined to agree with their playing off Bob McDonnell’s crushing victory over Creigh Deeds in the Commonwealth of Virginia. They say that Virginia is a Red State and it is only to be expected for Republicans to win there. But VA had been going Democratic in the past few years, especially Benedict Arnold Jim Webb’s squeaker victory due to political correctness in 2006. Barack Obama won there in 2008 and proclaimed Virginia a Blue State, part of his “change,” that he has been pushing on us. Liberals have gloated over the Commonwealth’s trends for several years now. Now suddenly it has returned to voting as Republican as it did in 2000 and 2004. This is an important shift.

Once more the Conservative Base is fired up. What Liberals fail to mention is that Conservatives were not excited about the Republican Party in 2006 and 2008. They did not turn out in any large numbers for their candidates. Not so in VA and NJ on Tuesday. This dynamic has shifted in a big way.

Likewise New Jersey. No one can spin the gubernatorial defeat in this cobalt-blue state as anything but catastrophe. True, it wasn’t totally about Obama. John Corzine’s thuggish corruption had a great deal to do with his defeat also. And Barack Obama, taking Corzine by the hand like a lover, associated himself with that corruption. Well, it certainly isn’t any worse than the Chicago corruption of Rod Blagojevich and the Illinois Democratic Establishment that ‘the messiah’ was very much a part of all his political life.

Restoring honest government to New Jersey may well be a lost cause. But Chris Christie has a reputation for bringing down criminals and he bagged himself a big one on Tuesday night. Let us pray his change for New Jersey will truly be revolutionary, rather than just cosmetic, and bring restoration of sanity to what was once our Garden State.

No, even New Jersey is questioning the messiah now. I do not say his Cult of Personality is completely broken, but it definitely has been chipped down a good bit. And this is great news. America can win and come back in 2010. And the forces of patriotism must martial ourselves and dedicate ourselves to this task. We can Flip this House in 2010. We can send a Chicago thug back to where he came from in 2012. As two great Americans liked to say, “LET’S ROLL!”

9-12 in DC

2009-09-20T20:04:00.000-05:00

I regret that I have not as yet written a blog piece about the march on Washington DC that I took part in. I am a great admirer of George Washington and what comes out of the city bearing his name today is a disgrace that shames his name, so I shall refer to the Capital as “DC” and only that from here on in.

The Liberal Media Complex and the DNC have come out with their usual slime slandering my brothers and sisters who marched. “They are racists!” they call out. Yeah, big surprise. Anyone who disagrees with the Left is a racist. Hey, Lefties, come up with some new and more interesting insults for me. You guys are creative at making that stuff up.

I had not decided to go to DC until late in the game, I was going to be active here in Florida. But in the leadup to the rally, on August 30^th, I knew I HAD to go and stand for the America that my father loved. I flew by the seat of my pants to get there, most people had planned this months in advance. In my hometown of Panama City, there was no room left on any of the charters going. I asked a buddy if we could ride together in his car, sleeping in it. He was more than willing, too. His fiancée, however, was not willing to let him.

Luckily there was some room left on a charter bus going out of Mobile, Alabama. I got myself over to that beautiful, historic, city. The bus trip was organized by a lovely young 26 year old nurse who was concerned about the state of America’s health care. Most people were middle aged, though there was some youth. Bill Maher, an ignorant man who never troubles himself with facts, portrayed the marchers as rednecks unable to spell. Many of my co-marchers were professionals, some were retirees. Most were well-educated, not to mention our nurse leader.

We did not stop at any hotels between Mobile and DC. We slept on the bus, as best we could. Being 6’4” that was difficult for me, but I didn’t care. I was so glad to be going. When we arrived in DC, it was teeming. As a boy my father had taken me to the city on a couple of Saturdays to see the monuments, and it is like a tomb generally on that day of the week. I had to stand in awe and watch the crowd move down Pennsylvania Avenue. For those of you who’ve never been, Pennsylvania is very wide avenue and people filled it, from end to end, its entire width. They say that only a few tens of thousands were there, maybe enough to fill a baseball stadium. Well, I have been to Tiger Stadium, Shea Stadium and Fenway Park and this crowd wouldn’t have fit in all three, not by half.

There were some black people present, admittedly not the slightly more than ten percent of the population they represent nationally. But more than you might expect if your only source of news is from socialists. Young black entrepreneurs sold Gadsden (aka “Don’t Tread on Me”) flags to the crowds, making lots of money. I was pleased to support their enterprise.

We were passionate and said a great many things. But no one committed any violent acts, nor called for violence. Jimmy Carter lied last week and said that there was a sign calling for Obama to be buried with Kennedy. Well I stood not five feet from the sign in question and it said “Bury Obamacare with Kennedy” not Obama. Jimmy Carter is a lying traitor who came close to succeeding in pushing America over a cliff during his travesty of a presidency. He slandered the million good Americans who marched concerned about their country.

In addition to no violence, there was no trash. I saw for myself the truth of what people were saying about that. The trashcans were overflowing but the trash was stacked as neatly as possible around them. Over a million people and no mess. A fraction of that number of hippies would have been like so many Jabba the Hutt’s being present.

It was a great experience. On my return I was asked by a Mobile reporter if I thought Congress and President Obama were listening. I replied that I thought Congress was beginning to hear us, but not Obama yet. But I said that I felt he would soon enough because we will continue to speak to him. No Obama, America is not going away.

Happy 4th of Quinctilis!

2009-07-03T13:45:00.004-05:00

Greetings Citizens! I just wanted to wish everyone a Happy 4th of Quinctilis! The watchword from the Republic of Utica this 4th is to say to the Cult of Personality.

For those who do not remember, the Republic of Utica does not engage in any Cult of a man. Nor do we honor any Leftists striving for dictatorship. That is why we have returned the Imperial names of the months of Julius (July) and Augustus (August) to their Republican usages of Quinctilis and Sextilis. Cato Uticensis died rather than bow down to Caesar, are we going to give Caesar a reverance?

I am glad that the new Republic was formed the first week of the month honoring the man who ended the last Great Republic. Let the Declaration of Independence be our guide!

In tearing down the Cult of Personality of Left wing Dictators past, we can strike a blow against Left Wing Dictators present- like Kim Jong-il, Castro and Chavez and Left Wing Dictators future- like Barack Obama. Let us show the "messiah" that he will not receive a kow-tow from any American!

Let freedom ring! Happy 4th of Quinctilis!

FACE TO FACE WITH MY OWN EXTREMISM

2009-05-18T23:38:00.000-05:00

My name is Matt and I am a right wing extremist. One of King Obama’s Court Jesters, Janet Napolitano, has designated me as such not too long ago. This, of course, is hardly the first time that the Orwellian Left has called patriots who love America “Extremist.” If you listened to these people you’d think a mad scientist cloned a mixture of Hitler, Hoover and Torquemada and got him elected president every time a Republican sat in the White House. Isn’t it sad to be so tightly wrapped? But then, as I looked back over the course of History, I realized that the Left was right (ha!) to label us extremists. We are. People who love Liberty and hate Tyranny are a threat to tyrants, obviously. But also lovers of Liberty are, by definition, extremist.

Of the two hundred and some countries on this planet, more than half are governed by Dictators whose main virtue is they aren’t as bad as Idi Amin. Not every country is that lucky, however. Most of Europe is free, but the Socialist Bureaucrats of Western Europe are strangling what Liberty remains in those parts. Political Correctness is disseminated by a thoroughly Leftist Dominated Media in most of those countries. If a bunch of Right Wing Extremist Libertarians don’t rise up and restore Western Europe to the great Christian civilization it once was, Old Europe has a generation or two before it joins the Third World, either as Socialist rust-belts, or under Sharia law, whichever happens first. Eastern Europe is free and does have some chance of remaining so. All thanks to America’s 40th President, who Leftists called a Nazi. And that was one of the nicer things they called him. Several countries on the Asian fringe have decent republican governments, but these are beach-heads on the great landmass of Asia, most of which is not free. Latin America pays lip-service to republicanism, and a few countries do better than that. However, behind our backs, Hugo Chevez has eliminated much of Venezuela’s freedom and used his petrodollars to illegally finance Left Wing rogues in nearly every country there. The freedom that Nicaragua enjoyed, after a long struggle and so much blood, is now a memory, that country being back in the hands of its once and future thug dictator, Daniel Ortega, who recently lectured our president on the evils of America. And our so-called President didn’t hesitate to kiss his rear. Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Paraguay and others are similarly ruled by Leftist thugs. Colombia, the one truly free country, is besieged by the Communist FARC who deal cocaine and commit horrible acts of terrorism to rival those of Osama bin Laden.

There is not a lot of Liberty left on this planet, and that which exists is under fierce assault by Neo-Marxists and Islamofascists. It is far easier to kneel to a tyrant than to think for oneself and be free. And mankind has a long history of taking that easy road. Thank God for the extremists throughout history who didn’t take it.

Who could argue that Leonidas and his 300 at Thermopylai were extremists? That is precisely why they are so admired, for their extremism in defense of Liberty. Their equivalent of the UN, the Persian empire, demanded earth and water of them. Totally reasonable, argued all the many who knelt to the Persian King. But Leonidas and many of his fellow Greeks knew that if you allowed someone to tyrannize you in small things, the day when they tyrannized you in greater things was not far off. Thus they rudely refused the Great King’s “reasonable” offer. If Leonidas had been a moderate and sent earth and water, who would remember him today? Many Greeks “medized” and submitted to the Persian King, such as Macedon and Thebes. Do we remember any of their great leaders who were oh-so-wise, oh-so-moderate and not at all extremist? Are they worth remembering?

Cato the Younger, aka Cato Uticensis, was held to be an extremist for resisting the Monarchical ambitions of Caesar. All too many sheep believed Caesar was SAVING the Republic.

The Dutch in the 16th century were a prosperous province of Spain. The Spanish had run up large debts and had wars against France to fight. They began taxing the Dutch, as well as demanding religious conformity of the Dutch Calvinists. Now the moderate, reasonable thing to do would have been to kiss the Spanish King’s ring, submit to his religious decrees and, naturally pay the ever growing tax burden. But the Dutch had to go and be extremist, fight for religious and political freedom. The Dutch Calvinists were very scary extremist people to the moderates who licked the boots of monarchs across Europe at that time. They formed the first modern Republic, treating women and commoners far better than anywhere else. This caused great offense. The fear grew when their fellow Calvinists, the Puritans of England, tried to turn England into the second modern Republic. To this day, the statue of their right-wing Christian extremist leader, Oliver Cromwell, stands outside Parliament, honoring the man who first made that body supreme to any King.

Likewise those rascally Sons of Liberty and the Minutemen of Lexington, Concord and Bunker Hill were big time extremists. Moderates back in 1775 and 1776 wondered why they didn’t just pay their taxes and obey their King. Indeed, had there been a UN in 1776, they no doubt, most nations representing their Kings, would have condemned the rascally insurrectionists and demanded forthwith that they submit to their lawful sovereign, George III. And many Americans were indeed good Loyalists. In the North, most Patriots tended to be from the countryside. “The Country People” they were called. The Loyalists tended to be more of an urban cultural elite, the forerunners of modern Liberals, who follow 240 years of tradition in wanting Americans to submit to European and other Old World Dictators. New England’s “Country People” are the ancestors of the people in Utah, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas and similar places. Together with George Washington’s southern Army they fought for America’s cause. And we Conservatives, their descendants, more of us by adoption than blood, ARE extremists. We’ve always been since we fired the shot heard round the world!

Janet Napolitano, a barking , running dog for a tyrant, is correct in labeling me as a right wing extremist. She, like her fellow monarchists, do fear lovers of Liberty. So do most of the Idi Amin wannabes around the globe. Yes, I am an extremist. In the tradition of Sam Adams. And I am frickin’ proud of it. It’s time for another shot heard round the world!

Ode To Cowboys

2009-02-23T00:30:00.001-06:00

I have wanted to write this piece for some time, and primarily, it is a response to Hillary Clinton more than to the messiah B-HO, although it certainly does apply to him too. Back during Operation Chaos and the Democratic Primary, Hillary the Harpy crowed “the era of cowboy diplomacy is over.” Hillary is now our Secretary of State and the “messiah” is certainly as opposed to American self-determination as she is. What a supreme irony it was that Hillary, an ultra-Left Winger whose sordid past includes associations with Black Panthers, became the standard bearer of the more Centrist and Conservative Democrats during Operation Chaos.

But, I digress. Anti-American Socialists from Europe, North America and elsewhere love to look down their royal noses at the “cowboys” from Middle America. So we must examine, what is a cowboy? What do they REALLY mean in their derision?

First a quick examination of the origins of cowboys is in order. Who were their ancestors? Well, as I have pointed out in other Republic of Utica posts, the American Revolution was fought by an Army of Southerners under George Washington, who came to the aid of Northern militiamen from small towns and rural areas of Northern States. These were the ancestors of modern Conservatism. The Urban Elites, who loved their King, bowed down to him, and wanted his rule over North America to continue, are the fore-runners, if not in most cases the actual ancestors by blood, of modern Liberals. They supported their red-coat troops and hoped they would prevail over “the Country People.” Those that shouted “Long Live Liberty” as blue-coats marched through the streets and “God Save the King” as the red-coats marched past, not truly caring who won, are the fore-runners of the modern “moderate,” although I can think of several other words far more appropriate.

In the 19th century, as America moved westward, the descendents the Patriots of Concord, Lexington and Bunker Hill, aka “the Country People” moved into states like Idaho, Utah, Montana, Nebraska, Kansas and other states that modern Liberals love to look down upon. The descendents of the Southerners who fought under Washington also moved West, but more to the South, into states like Texas and Arizona. Some Northerners settled Texas, some Southerners settled the Dakotas. It wasn’t set in stone, but that was the general trend. Our Urban areas were, naturally, a mixed bag population wise, but those Urban Elites that had supported their King, still remained, though in diminished numbers, as many had fled to His Majesty’s Dominion of Canada. After the West was tamed, they took the trains, and later planes over to the West Coast and became the bi-coastal Elite.

What were cowboys like? They emulated the Spanish vaqueros who followed their centuries old traditions. Spain had been cattle country and the Spanish made America likewise during the 16th and 17th centuries. Americans learned their ways.

Cowboys cared for large herds of cattle, an arduous task, and brought them to markets. Like modern day oil men, they brought a highly valuable product to millions who depended on it and in return were often treated like criminals, though they usually had done nothing wrong. Cowboys were looked down upon by more “settled” people for their rugged ways and their fierce independence. A cowboy rarely relied on others for his subsistence, on the contrary, he brought good subsistence to others.

In “Braveheart” there was an exchange in Latin between an English Lord and William Wallace, the Englander referred to Wallace as a savage. But the term he used was homo indomitus which is slang for “savage” but literally means “man without a master.” And that is why William Wallace said “ego sum homo indomitus” (“I am a man without a master”). The cowboy, like Wallace, is someone that an effete decadent Liberal would call homo indomitus, to which he would reply, “indeed I am a man without a master.” A cowboy is a free independent man who doesn’t want anything from anyone, just to left alone in his freedom. As reasonable as that sounds, it would amaze some at how this mortally offends people like Hillary Clinton, Jaques Chirac John Kerry, or the messiah Obama. B-HO’s comment about how people in Middle America “cling to their guns and religion” is another Liberal truism said in this vein. Yes, we “cowboys” cling to our guns and religion. We cling to that which made us free and to that which keeps us free. In his “wisdom” the messiah wants us to give these things up, along with our freedom and bow down to him like Egyptian fellahin have bowed down to pharaohs and sultans for the past five thousand years.

Obama, the Republic of Utica does not bow down to you, it raises the standard of freedom against you, in defiance of you. As Cicero said in De Republica, “when a government is honest, just and virtuous, taxes are light. But when it becomes powerful it is destructive, extravagant and violent ; it is a usurer which takes bread from innocent mouths and deprives honorable men of their substance, for votes with which to perpetuate itself.” What does that mean to us today? Look for many more Waco and Ruby Ridge-style incidents under the sublime leadership of B-HO the messiah. A trillion dollars in new spending! A trillion is a number Cicero probably could not have fathomed.

Hillary, her husband Bill, the “messiah”, Barney Frank, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi just don’t get it. They can’t understand why we’d rather be free than subservient to them and their European and Asian friends. Just as the late 18th-century urban elites never got the Patriots of Concord and Lexington. They don’t understand why we just won’t submit. The Republic of Utica intends to continue to baffle them.

Robin Hood Was A Conservative

2009-02-22T16:43:00.001-06:00

Liberals have wrongly appropriated Robin Hood as one of their heroes and some Conservatives are likewise inclined to banish him from view. I do not know if it is true or not, but according to what I was once told, some Conservatives try to remove Robin Hood from school reading lists. They should not. Robin Hood was a Conservative Christian Militiaman fighting against oppressive taxation.

As Cicero said in De Republica “when a government is honest and just and virtuous taxes are light. But when a government becomes powerful it is destructive, extravagant and violent; it is a usurer which takes bread from innocent mouths and deprives honorable men of their substance, for votes with which to perpetuate itself.” This could well describe the Federal Government under Obama, as well as the Sheriff of Nottingham’s governance.

Robin Hood had no problem with honest men being wealthy. He himself was a Feudal Lord, in the days both before and after his crusade against Nottingham. However, his government’s absolutist tyranny and oppressive taxation geared to favor some at the expense of the labor of others, reduced all honest men, noble or common, to penury or starvation. It had become Hobbes’ Leviathan.

The local church had turned its back on true Faith “observing the form of religion but denying any true power to it” as the Scripture says. Robin Hood and his Merry Men were ministered to by Friar Tuck, a man of true Faith in the tradition of Thomas a Becket, Francis of Assissi or Thomas Aquinas.

Robin Hood and his men were Christian Militiamen fighting against an overtaxing Big Government which had ceased to truly honor God. Conservatives should embrace this hero and emulate him, and not allow his memory to be stolen by Liberals in the manner that they try to steal that of our Founding Fathers. Take back Robin Hood!!!!

I Stand With the Jews

2009-01-19T01:40:00.000-06:00

It is time, past time indeed, for the Republic of Utica to say the words of Italian patriot Oriana Fellaci. “I stand with the Jews.” I should have written this the day that the Islamofascist woman told some of my Jewish brothers in Florida to “go back to the ovens.” The Republic of Utica is not Anti-Muslim. The people of Gaza are entitled to freedom and dignity. I have unwaveringly supported the war in Iraq because its people are entitled to self-determination, not rule by ‘al-Qaeda. Same for Afghanistan, both in the '80s and today. But as Rush Limbaugh and other great commentators say “elections have consequences.” We Americans are going to have this hit us between the eyes with a sledgehammer on January 21st, but that is a topic for another time. Gaza elected Hamas to lead them and we all respected that. But elections DO have consequences. Hitler was duly elected the leader of Germany, but no one outside of Germany elected him to invade their country. The consequence of their 1932 election was a world crusade against them that cast their society into ruins. And the only ones to blame were Hitler and those who supported him.

Likewise, Gazans bear responsibility for their choices. There would be no excuse for the Israelis targeting Palestinian civilians deliberately. And indeed, the Israelis have jeopardized the lives of their own soldiers by telling the civil populace where they intend to strike. What Army in history has ever done that? NONE. There is no reasonable argument against acknowledging Israel’s efforts to reduce civilian casualties. Add to that Israel was not molesting Gaza in anyway. All Jews have departed Gaza and its environs, its people govern themselves. The wall that keeps terrorists out of Israel also keeps anyone who might have ill-will for the Palestinians out of Gaza. Hamas’ rocket-firing into Israel was 100% unprovoked and it shows that nothing has changed with Hamas, being the Government of Gaza has not made them any more moderate or responsible.

I studied the Holocaust as an adolescent. At the age of 12 I read everything I could on World War II and the “Final Solution” also. I remember reading the stories of Auschwitz, the Warsaw Ghetto, Theresienstadt and other horrible places. I believed in my young, naïve heart that such horrors would never happen again. How could they? General Patton had stomped the Nazi beast into the ground, it would never rise again. The Jews were safe in the world where America set things to right. How I wish that boyish view of the world were true. We must never allow ourselves this complacency. German Jews in the 1930s loved their Germany and they couldn’t believe that the land of Geothe and Schiller would ever do them any real harm. Most Germans who supported Hitler told themselves and others the same thing. The Nazis were decent people, they just took things a little far, they said. Citizens, DO NOT ALLOW YOURSELVES TO BE DECEIVED BY SUCH SOPHISTRY!

Most Muslims are decent people. So were most Germans in 1932. But there is a disease among many Muslims today. Many are blaming every ill on the Jews. In the madrassas and on Palestinian television, hatred of Jews is being taught, even to the smallest of children. Remember the picture of the little Muslim girl in Germany who had plastic dynamite strapped to her like toys. IT IS HAPPENING AGAIN. Citizens, ask yourselves what would happen if Hamas took over Tel Aviv? What do you imagine would take place? Do you think Hamas would telegraph its movements by texting Israeli citizens and telling them to take cover? No. Anyone with a shred of honesty or any knowledge of Hamas knows that the bodies would be stacked more than a storey high. This must not be allowed to happen.

As a boy I lived in Vienna for a few years and people remembered the Nazi era. “Nie Wieder” (never again) they always said in reference to the Holocaust and I remember a picture on a “Nie Wieder” sticker showing someone demolishing a swastika. But those who are coming for the Jews today are not wearing swastikas. They pose as “victims” of Zionism. Beware of the Cult of Victimhood. The Germans of the 1930s claimed victim hood, as did the perpetrators of the Russian Revolution of 1917, the builders of Pol Pot’s Cambodia. Untold fathoms of the most horrific atrocities have been committed in the name of setting someone’s “victimhood” to rights.

As Christian Americans, the heirs of Washington, Jefferson, Patton and Reagan, it is our duty to stand. We must stand firm with our Jewish brothers, God’s Chosen people, and say that if you come for the Jews, you have to go through me.

A More Perfect Soviet Union

2009-01-18T23:48:00.000-06:00

I wonder who Barak Hussein Obama is trying to convince of his American-ness, him or us? Most likely the latter, as I don’t for a moment believe he any more affection for this country in his heart than False Reverend Jeremiah “God D#mn America” Wright, any more than he is more honest than Rod Blagojevich. And to take a moment with that, a Pastor is a person’s teacher. He is not an acquaintance that you see at the Supermarket on Thursday or run into while having latter or merlot. This is someone who you trust to have knowledge of Scripture and a way of living that conforms to God’s Will. Thus the “guilt by association” argument doesn’t wash. Wright was Obama’s teacher of 20 years. Just like the ones at the madrassah he attended in Indonesia as a young America Hater. And the gods of the Liberal Media made their Olympian decree that we could not mention Wright because “there’s more important things to talk about.” So we dropped talking about B-HO’s association with his fellow traitors Wright and Bill Ayers and promptly moved on to the more important topic of Sarah Palin’s wardrobe.

ANYWAYS….. B-HO is riding a train acting like he’s an American, the next incarnation of Lincoln. It is laughable, or it would be if this crazy man weren’t about to be President. He urged us to move forward and continue creating a more perfect Union. Unfortunately, given his Marxist belief, I think he must have meant a more perfect Soviet Union. My response to B-HO is “no thanks.” I might take him more seriously if his ideas were not so alien to America. He is no friend to the US military which defends our freedom, he plans to cut that back. All he has to offer us is high taxes (real smart to do in the middle of a recession) and taking those high taxes and setting up more failed welfare programs. He intends to increase the bureaucracy exponentially, already having created new, useless departments for the government. He is keeping his campaign volunteers ready to disseminate more of his lies and vacuous statements. In other words he will be in permanent campaign mode, the 2012 B-HO re-election campaign has already begun. AND YOU WILL LOVE BIG BROTHER!

B. Hussein Obama is not an heir of the Patriots of Bunker Hill, Concord and Lexington, as he claims. On the contrary, he is the heir of the Loyalists who loved their King and thought anyone who wouldn’t bow down to him as rapscallions. The Patriots of old, heirs to modern “right wing Christian extremists” were the so-called “Country People.” They were from the farms and the small towns of the North who led the revolt. Most of the Loyalists were an Urban Cultural Elite, like Modern Liberals. The “Country People” after Bunker Hill realized that they could not defeat the Armies of the British Empire on their own, so they called upon their brothers in the South. The Southern Army, led by George Washington, came North, and, slowly and painfully after years won the Revolutionary War. George Washington and his Army were Southerners, obviously. The “Country People” who made up the Northern Patriots, are the ancestors of the people living in Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Kansas and other Flyover “Red States” that our Liberal Cultural Elite turn their noses up at today. Many of the Loyalists fled to Canada, but many remained, in their Urban Cultural Elite centers in the Northeast and later set them up on the Pacific Coast. Their successors are the ones who elected B-HO. And there is no difference between the Loyalists of old and B-HO. We fought the Revolution, in part, over high taxation, but also other government intrusions upon our liberty. Also we believed “No King but Jesus” as the Revolutionary War Cry went. We believed John Locke’s treatise which said that God (the God of the Bible, not the Deist God) desired men to be free, it was other men that made slaves out of their brothers. But the Loyalists loved their King and didn’t care if he taxed us, quartered his troops on us, silenced our journalists or whatever else he cared to do.

Obama is just like them. He thinks UN autocrats from Europe should dictate the affairs of this country, rather than Americans, and you can rely on him being properly submissive. He wants to tax everything that moves (and everything that doesn’t move). He wants to create a private army, loyal only to him. He opposes everything the Patriots of late 18th century New England stood for.

No, B-HO, riding in a train and flying an American flag somewhere is not going to fool us. You are pretending to be another Abraham Lincoln, so I will give you a quote from him- “you can fool all of the people some of the time (like you did last November) and you can fool some of the people all of the time (like the people who look at you as the Messiah) but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”

My Fear For America, and My Hope

2009-01-02T13:56:00.000-06:00

I studied Russian History at FSU. The professor, though a Liberal, was not some doctrinaire Lib, but a wonderful man, and an ardent opponent of Communism. He told us a story once about what happened when Mikhail Gorbachev first took power in the Soviet Union, he wanted to reform the Soviet communist system. His goal was to preserve it, not to abolish it. Other people did that later. But when he set out to improve its functionality, he asked his ministers how the Soviet Economic System worked. And his economic wonks had no idea!!! Apparently they even checked the CIA Factbook on the USSR to get some idea. At the rate America’s government is growing, with the phalanxes of unelected bureaucrats and ACLU-type lawyers tyrannizing Americans and spending out of control, I fear some US President ten, twenty or thirty years from now asking some people from Treasury hoe the US Economy works and getting nothing but sheepish grins and shrugs. Perhaps they will look in the Chinese Intelligence Service’s US Factbook for ideas.

We cannot allow this to happen. And only Revolutionary change will prevent it. What we need to do is put the Beltway politicians, the unelected bureaucrats, the ACLU and other out-of-touch types in Washington out of business. And there is one way we can do it, with the help of the American people.

When Mustafa Kemal aka Kemal Ataturk wanted Turkey to become a modern Republic in the wake of World War I, he faced off against the Ottoman Dynasty, which had ruled the Turkish people since the 14th century. In the Ottoman capital in Constantinople, there was an ancient, entrenched bureaucracy that would make ours, bad as they are, look like Kindergartners. Ataturk did not march on this ancient city. No, he put them out of business by setting up a rival capital at Ankara and letting the bureaucrats and the Sultan, out of touch and distant from everyday Turkish people, whither on the vine. It was not long before Ankara became the reality, and Constantinople an old fairy-tale land.

This is how America can have a non-violent Revolution against Washington. We hold a Constitutional Convention in a city in Flyover country. My preference would be Montgomery, Alabama, the site of Judge Roy Moore’s principled stand against Federal tyranny in the name of religious freedom. However, Kansas City might be a suitable alternative. Salt Lake City, Cheyenne, Denver or Nashville also have potential. We want a decent size city, but not one of the giant metropolises like Chicago with its corrupt machine which is now foisting B-HO on us. America’s capital city must exist to serve the people, not exist to be served by the people. Washington DC was like that in the early 1800s, and was built to be a smaller metropolis, not a Constantinople with a Byzantine Bureaucracy. The pros have circumvented this original intent. And it is time for the American people to circumvent them.

Much of what goes on in Washington is in no ways substantiated by the Constitution. A pastor friend of mine from my Montgomery days wished to build a Ten Commandments monument ON HIS OWN PROPERTY in Washington DC and was told by a bureaucrat that no one elected, but who we pay for with our taxes, that he could not do so based on the non-existent Separation of Church and State. You will not find this law anywhere in the US Constitution, but many unelected tyrants can silence your freedom of speech and religion based on this law from the Soviet Constitution.

We need a new Constitutional Convention to sweep away some of the outrages of the Federal Courts, end runaway spending, and more clearly enumerate the powers of the new Federal Government. Yes, we need to have a Federal Government with teeth. We need to have the best Air Force and Marines and Tank Divisions and Aircraft Carriers in the world for our safety. Individual states cannot do it on their own. The Federal Government can’t be allowed to run our lives, but State governments are capable of committing outrages too. State Governments need to be strong and keep the Federal Government honest. And Federals need to help clean up local corruption. What we need is BALANCE. The American System, expressed in the Declaration of Independence with Locke’s philosophy, acknowledges that God is the only just Judge. No government run by men can be trusted without check and balance. That is what our system is supposed to be- one of checks and balances. That includes States vs. Federals. Each is supposed to check the other. But now there is no check on the Federal Government, especially on its tyrannical Court System.

We the People are the last possible check on Washington, and I am sure the Father of our country is angry at how his name has become synonymous with strangulating red tape. No, we need to start over, and the way is for the states and the people to make a new capital in a Middle American city, where American , not Eurosocialist values predominate, where Beltway-Chicago style corruption is not rampant. Send no more taxes to Washington, let them work for a living over there for a change, and return our nation to the type of can-do Americans who made it great. Let Washington wither on the vine and turn it into a museum.

Great Depression, My Eye

2009-01-01T17:10:00.000-06:00

Liberal scaremongers are feeding the garbage line that America is in the worst economic crisis since 1929. Now, I am uncertain if they are so utterly ignorant as to actually believe this, or if they are just lying, as people who pimp out Liberal ideology frequently do. I guess it depends on which Liberal is squawking. It is not the first time that they have foisted these lies on us. Indeed, every Republican leader is a reincarnation of Herbert Hoover if you listen to the pundits on the Left, and his economic policies are about to bring forth the next Great Depression. Bill Clinton, Lord of Lies, until recently dethroned by B-HO in this position, got himself elected by repeating the mantra that the recession of 1992 was the worst economy in 50 years. It was an absolute lie. The Demos in 2002, with America in the wake of an economic slump caused by 9-11, were saying that it was the Great Depression again. They were trying that again in 2004, although it rang even more hollow than usual at that time, as we were in the beginning of the best economy America ever had from the end of ‘04 until ‘07, the year the Democrats came to control Congress.

No, the worst economy in America since 1945 occurred the last time Liberal Democrats ran all three branches of government for more than two years. I refer to the period of the late ‘70s, when Jimmy Carter, the biggest disgrace to the office of the Presidency (another distinction which may well be broken by B-HO), told us to cope with high energy prices by turning down the heat and putting on a sweater, like he himself did in the White House. Currently unemployment is at around 7%, up from just over 4%. The 4% was a record, never having been equaled. For the first time in history, every American who wanted a job had one. Before the middle of Bush’s term, with the Republican Congress in control, we had never dropped below 5% unemployment in our history and having 6% was pretty darned good. In 1980 we had unemployment of 13% compared with 19% in 1930. We had spent the 1970s with a Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress and four years under Jimmy Carter’s compassionate Liberal governance. We had double digit inflation in the 1970s, our dollar was being devalued. By the late 1970s, our military was gutted, demoralized and riddled with drug-abusers. My childhood memories of the seventies include America being referred to as “the second most powerful nation on Earth,” after the Soviet Union. They include vague early childhood memories of the long gas lines. Many people believed that America’s best days were behind her at that time. Soviet Communist Doctrine stated that the Capitalist society would begin to tear itself apart and collapse from within on the eve of their Global Revolution where the socialist Workers’ Paradise would be birthed over the entire globe. In 1980, many Communists believed that day had come.

In addition to the economic shambles America was humiliated on a daily by the tag-team of the USSR and Iran. Our Great Leader Carter’s response was typically “thank you sir, may I have another?”

To add insult to injury, the Democrats who blame George W Bush for the current economic hit are the ones who caused it. Especially to hear deviant thug Barney Frank is incredibly galling. Referring to Bush as not a real president? When was the last time the state of Massachusetts sent someone to the House or Senate who wasn’t an anti-American scumbag? Decades.

It was the “Distinguished Gentleman” Frank who was the architect of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Home Loan fiasco. It was he who used the power of government to strong-arm our financial institutions into making loans that most likely would never be repaid. And now that our financial institutions are failing it’s W’s fault? Right. Well, when you have an Orwellian Liberal Media turning your Big Lies into truth, you can get away with it.

The Orwellian Democrats rely on Americans letting the real record of their “accomplishments” go down the “memory hole.” They called Republican campaigns “smears” when we point out how they like to hob-nob with terrorists, or give aid and comfort to North Vietnam. It’s not a smear if something is true. It is a smear to blame the Republicans for an economic disaster caused by them. It is a smear to say that our present economy is the worst ever. We are just coming down off the economy that we had under a Republican president and Congress, which was the best ever. In her December 29 column, Froma Harrop, Democratic propagandist, said “it was very 2005 to read of couples using a service to water the two tomato plants on their deck. And of teenage daughters being given private Pilates instruction.” What she was inadvertently admitting, in her typical snotty style , was that 2005 was a time of unparalleled prosperity in America. That was the inaugural year of Bush’s 2nd term and of the 108th Congress, which had the widest margin of Republicans since the 1920s. America prospered under Republican leadership. And, for the record, the Republic of Utica is not shilling for the GOP. Many Republican politicians have turned their backs on Conservative principles and have paid at the polls in the past two election cycles for it. But, for all their many flaws, the economy was the best we ever had in American history under their watch. Economists have determined that the current recession began in November or December of 2007. That was in the inaugural year of the Democratic Congress, just as their policies were beginning to take hold.

The Left makes many Orwellian lies. Nobody in their right mind would vote for them otherwise. But they cannot be allowed to get away with portraying our current economic woes (when things were about the same as they are now or even slightly worse in the early ‘80s, after what we went through in the ‘70s, we considered it Heaven), such as they are, as a Great Depression, or that Republicans caused them.

Leftism and the Brief History of Republics

2008-12-29T15:47:00.000-06:00

I have touched on this topic in previous Republic of Utica posts. Every Republic and democracy in history has had Liberals, or a left, trying to undermine its foundations. In a way this is something that should confort Conservatives at this dark hour of the Republic, and in another it would not. These Leftists have always been with us. There is nothing new under the Sun as regards them. On the other hand, they have successfully undermined every free country that ever existed.

It begins more than a thousand years before the birth of Christ, in Israel, the Promised Land. It was I Samuel 8. The Israelites had been freed from slavery under Pharoah. After Joshua led the people into the Promised Land, then began the era of the Judges. The people were free, and had no King, they lived by God's Law, arbitrated by judges. In Chapter 8 of Samuel it says that the people of Israel clammored for a King, like the other nations surrounding Israel had. It is much the same as Liberals today who want to have a Socialist Dictator or Oligarchy just like the rest of the nations of the world.

Samuel warned the Israelites (NIV I Sam 11-20) "10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle ^[b] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."

19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles." "

They did not want to be free and rely on God, as He intended. They wanted a despot. Later on, in the Books of Kings and Chronicles, after the reigns of Saul, David and Solomon, Solomon's son Rehoboam took the throne. When the people asked for tax relief and a reduction of corvee, Rehoboam responded that his thumb would be thicker than his father's waist, that his father chastised them with whips and he would chastise them with scorpions. So ends that sad episode.

The story continues several centuries later, when Athens and Sparta were at war, there had been a stalemate in the beginning, Athens dominating the sea, Sparta and her Army ruled the land. Generally speaking, in wars of Elephant vs Whale, the elephant has the advantage, as he can learn to swim, but on land a whale is just a beached whale. As the war progressed, Sparta slowly built herself a fleet and got breathing space to do so in the wake of the Athenian debacle at Syracuse in 411 BC. In 405 BC the Athenians met the Spartan Navy at a small island archipelago known as Arginusai. Already the Athenians were dividing their command, but still pulled out a successful victory. The Admirals who led the battle sent out rescue ships to pick up survivors of sunk ships, however, a storm came up and the rescuers were prevented from doing their work. Some of the survivors of downed vessels returned to Athens and sought to bring the Admirals up on charges. They were charged, convicted and executed. But evidence showed that they were innocent of wrongdoing. Yes, there was political correctness in Ancient Athens. And what was the result of it? The very next year the Athenian fleet met the Spartan at a place called Aigospotami and there the Spartans crushed them. Sparta ruled both on land and at sea and the Athenians surrendered. Did the Athenians learn from this result to do away with their PC madness? No, they executed Socrates, their best man, for "corrupting the youth" several years later. Many of the best men of Athens, like Plato and Xenophon, came to realize that the Spartans deserved to win.

Even Sparta had its Liberals. Most are familiar with the movie "300." It wasn't a bad movie, although there were many historical inaccuracies. The traitorous character of Theron, while fictional did have some historical basis. Several Spartan leaders, among them the former King Demaratus, were in Xerxes' camp, helping him. And many Greeks of all cities didn't want to upset the King of Persia, so they favored kow-towing to him and surrendering. This was called "Medizing" and several cities of Greece, including Thebes, Medized. Those who fought at Thermopylai and Plataia and Salamis were accused of many of the same things that those who favor fighting in the War on Terror today are- that they would make the tyrants hate us, that submission to the tyrant wasnt worth going to war over. How different would history have been if we had listened to these Ancient Greek Leftists?

The mighty Republic of Rome had no end to its Leftist demagogues, sadly. In the War with Hannibal the things they accused the Roman leadership of might be exactly word for word what modern Leftists accuse George W Bush of in Iraq. If not for the illiteracy and ignorance of the Antiwar Left, one might think they took a page from Rome's Leftist opposition of 217-216 BC.

Quintus Fabius Maximus Cunctator (the Delayer) was appointed Dictator (it was Constitutional, Roman Law provided for a six-month Dictatorship in times of emergency) and he tried to erode what little manpower Hannibal had with ambushes, raids on supply lines and other minor skirmishes. This was done because Hannibal could not make good his losses and would run out quick, and also Fabius knew that no Roman General could defeat him. The Roman Left, led by one Gaius Terentius Varro, made the ludicrous claim that this war with Hannibal was easily ended but that the Conservative forces were prolonging it in order to keep the plebians down. It kind of reminds one of the present days, where the Conservative leadership has been saddled with equally ludicrous claims about the War in Iraq. As the Bible says, there is nothing new under the Sun.

At any rate, Varro got himself elected Consul for the year 216 BC. By that time, Hannibal's forces had been depleted by the Fabian tactics and his Spanish mercenaries were plotting to desert to the Romans (which would have rendered his Army combat ineffective). But on August 2, 216 BC Varro led the Roman Army straight into a trap set by Hannibal at a place called Cannae. It was the greatest military disaster perhaps in all Roman history. The more faint-hearted among the Romans talked of fleeing Italy for Illyria in the wake of this battle. The three greatest cities in Italy and Sicily- Capua, Tarentum and Syracuse, all deserted their allegiance to Rome for Hannibal. They all had to be taken back by Rome at great cost in blood to both sides. The great Greek scientist Archimedes was Syracusan and he died as the city was retaken in 212 BC. A war that could have been ended in two to four years dragged on for seventeen taking countless lives, destroying the finest cities of the Western Mediterranean. All because of Leftist demagogy.

Far from showing any shame or restraint after nearly sending the Republic crashing into ruin during the war with Hannibal, Rome's Leftists continued their shennanigans. They brought scurrilous charges against Scipio Africanus, the man who finally did defeat Hannibal. One of their worst demagogues, Publius Clodius Pulcher, armed Rome's previously unarmed street gangs causing a great upsurge of violence in the city. Three years after Clodius' death, another great Roman Leftist, Gaius Iulius Caesar, crossed into Italy with his Army in what can be called nothing so much as a military coup. The Republic ended with Caesar's Dictatorship and the sucessor of his successor's successor was Caligula. Not far behind him was Nero. Caesar was not the equivalent of an oil company baron. Caesar was "the people's champion" as so many of our modern Leftist politicans call themselves.

After the last Republican resistance in the Roman polity, led by Marcus Iunius Brutus and Gaius Cassius Longinus, was crushed in 42 BC, there were not a great number of Republics that followed. The next great Republic would be the Batavian Republic formed in 1560 AD, followed by the Puritan Revolution of 1648. Even that revolution would not be complete until 1688 in the Glorious Revolution. Our Founding Fathers knew a few things that we today do not. One was that the tide of history is not on the side of freedom. God may be, but man is always quick to make a slave out of other men. The Founding Fathers knew that politicians would come along to take our freedoms away in the name of "the people." I don't think they realized how quickly and easily this would be accomplished. I doubt they realized that the Left which they knew would emerge would take the Bill of Rights and twist its words to take people's rights away. They must all certainly be dismayed.

What Barak Hussein Obama and his fellow Leftist thugs are doing is not new. The battle we fight against him and his ilk is one we have been fighting since the Revolutionary War. The Democrats, led by the bi-coastal elites are the successors of the 18th Century unicoastal elite which loved its King and abhorred the rebellion of the "country people" (ie the ancestors of the Mid Westerners, Plains and Mountain state dwellers of today) of the North and the Southern rapscallions, led by their captain George Washington. I'm not sure if it's a comfort to know that they've always been with us, but we have survived them before. George Washington defeated their King's Army. The Romans survived Cannae. We will survive Barak Hussein Obama and his treason. But we must never give up the fight, we must ever raise our voices in opposition to him. We must ensure that the damage he does to this country is minimal.

Not My Messiah

2008-11-10T16:15:00.000-06:00

What I have been saying since the 4th is, "I'm glad my father isn't alive to see this." How would a man who fled as a little boy from Stalin take having a stalinist thug for president? The Liberals' Messiah, Barak Hussein Obama, or "B-HO," as the Republic of Utica calls him, has managed to con his way into the White House.

People call this a historic moment- America has elected its first black president. But what they are neglecting is the whole deal about "the content of one's character rather than the color of one's skin" that Martin Luther King talked about. What is the character of this man? He is a millionaire who is constantly lecturing us on giving. But what has he given? Less than one percent of the income he made from 2000-2004 went to charity. Most of this went to the false wolf-in-sheep's clothing Rev Jeremiah Wright. He has a brother in Africa who has never been given a dime of his money. Does anybody really believe that he is going to lift a finger for any of you without a big political payoff? Only the most delusional.

Republicans ran a sorry campaign this year. We can't blame all on the Liberal Media, though they certainly aided in their Messiah's triumph. We're not allowed to discuss B-HO's association with his fellow-traitors Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. We aren't allowed to say his middle name, Hussein. We aren't allowed to discuss his Marxist philosophies. But hey, we're allowed to have a free-for-all on Sarah Palin's wardrobe and family.

Well bollix to all that. The Republic of Utica hereby throws down the gauntlet at the tyrant Barak Hussein Obama. I intend to show B-HO all of the same courtesy that he and his fellow Liberals have shown George W Bush for the past 8 years, with one exception. I will tell the truth and not lie through my teeth, as they love to do.

The last thing America needs right now is a Marxist Dictator. Unfortunately there are many empty-headed individuals out there who will fall for the speeches of a false messiah.

To all you regular Americans out there- don't despair. This isn't the first time that some piece of scum has wooed a bunch of illiterate, uninformed fools to vote for him. This is something that goes back to the very beginning of Republican government when the people first decided they could rule themselves better than a King. There have always been those who would prefer a King and sometimes they win. I shall do a whole separate post on this.

The thing that the Sons of the Republic must do right now is band together and launch oppositions to our "messiah." B-HO has been criticizing like a magpie from a tree for the last 4 years. Now he has to govern and it is only a matter of short time before our "Savior" shows himself to be only a man and a pathetic one at that. All he has to offer is Marxist platitudes. That dog will not hunt.

So what real Americans need to do is put their minds on 2010. Harry Reid is up for re-election and there is a real chance of getting rid of him. Two leaders of Democrats in the Senate in a row to lose re-election would be quite a blow to them. We must organize at the community level and try to bring about another year like 1994. The corrupt Marxist thugs who run the Democratic Party will have given us plenty of fodder by then. Redistricting in 2010 is going to favor Red States more heavily and Blue strongholds are losing folks.

Don't make the mistake we made in 2004 in reverse right now. Back then, we believed that we would be on top forever. Now, some of us may think we'll be on the bottom forever. Neither is true.

And I am proud of Republicans right now. Remember after 2004 psychologists identified P.E.S.T. (post-election selection trauma)? People who voted for the Traitor Kerry were rocking in the fetal position on their couch unable to deal with reality. We are not a bunch of whining crybabys like they are. We will gather together and retake our country back from the Marxist scum.

I hear many a Liberal say after the '04 election "I don't know my country anymore." They NEVER knew this country. If they had the slightest notion, they'd never be Liberals. But we are the true Sons of the Republic and we will take it back. We love Liberty and fifty million people fighting for Liberty against fifty million brain-dead former PEST sufferers who are in love with a false messiah are no match for us. No conest.

As our British cousins used to say, "stiff upper lip!"

The Diplomatic Achievments of George W Bush

2008-09-30T12:41:00.000-05:00

The Diplomatic Achievments of George W Bush
Current mood: pugnacious

The oft repeated lie can become truth and the Democratic Party are masters of it. Barak Hussein Obama repeated his Party's most common lie-made-truth-through-repetition at the debate last week- that we need his messianic leadership to restore our supposedly damaged diplomatic position in the world. Democrats say this all the time, but how true is it? Shall we examine facts rather than Leftist rhetoric?

I'd start with Africa, and George W Bush's visit there earlier this year. The women there wore images of his face on their dresses as they danced for him. George W Bush made his AIDS relief program for that continent early in his presidency and the Africans love him for it. Our relations with most of Sub-Saharan Africa are better than they've ever been.

Next let's jet across the Indian Ocean to the Indian Subcontinent. As Bill Clinton's Utopian Presidency drew to a close in January, 2001, it is important to remember that we had economic sanctions against both India and Pakistan, which represent more than a quarter of the world's population. Think on this, Pakistan was a nuclear power, had no trade relations with the US, and was a military dictatorship allied with the Taliban. Pakistan still has a long way to go, but today they are a US ally and have an elected government, a pro-US government elected by Pakistan's people. In the last seven years, they've come far. Likewise relations have been normalized with India and they are considering purchasing our jets for their Air Force. This is unprecedented. India purchases most of its weaponry from Russia, and some from Britain. They've never used US weapons before.

In December, 2003, Libya surrendered a huge cache of WMDs in the wake of our invasion of Iraq. These included chemical weapons and even a nascent nuclear weapons program. They were also working on long-range missiles to deliver these weapons. If the only good that came out of the war in Iraq was this abandonment, it would have been worth it a hundred times over.

Likewise the people of Lebanon rose up and threw out the Syrians in early 2004. It was because freedom was on the rise in the Middle East. Naturally with the return to power of Liberals who hate freedom, the Lebanese have lost their moxy in standing up to tyranny.

The French and the Germans both had pro-American Conservatives win office and throw out old Socialists who like to look down their noses at us. Nicolas Sarkozy delivered an address to Congress praising America to the skies early this year. France elected someone like this in a time when America is "hated"?

In the 2006 election in Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, the Conservative President, argued that his Socialist opponent, Romano Prodi, was Anti-American and that he would harm Italy's relations with the US. Prodi fired back saying that he would ensure cordial relations with the US. Italy is so mad at America that its electorate needs to be reassured that its president won't anger the US? That is a contradiction.

Liberals cite massive antiwar demonstrations in Europe as proof that Europe is angry at America because of George W Bush. But it is important to remember that in every Western NATO country (and neutral as well) there was ten or more percent of the population that wanted the USSR to win the Cold War and build a Communist Europe. Thirty years ago both West Germany and Italy had Red Brigades active commiting acts of terrorism. In December, 1981 Italian Reds kidnapped an American General and held him for over a month in Fair Verona. The Christian Democrat Coalition defeated the Communist Party Coalition in the 1976 Italian elections by a margin of 37%-34%.

At the big Antiwar rally in Milan, the Red Banners of Socialism flew proudly, and many demonstrators carried pictures of Joseph Stalin. It's obvious where these peoples' allegiance lies. Nothing America will do, other than surrender control of our country to the Communist Party, will please these people. So why bother trying?

In Mexico's 2006 election a similar incident to what happened in Italy occured. Conservative Felipe Calderon claimed that Leftist Manuel Obrador would be another Hugo Chavez and would strain Mexico's relations with America. Obrador forcefully responded that this was not true, that he would make a favorable enviroment for trade with the US. Even people slightly to the Left of center in Mexico don't want an America Hater running their country.

Speaking of Hugo Chavez, he was giving one of his usual bombastic Castroesque speeches in a Ibero-American summit late in 2007. After a tirade of false accusations, the Spanish King Juan Carlos I, interjected and said, "why don't you just shut up?" From Tijuana to Tierra del Fuego to Tarragon, Spanish speaking people put the monarch's quip as a ring-tone for their cell-phones. This is hardly an indication of sympathy with Chavez's views of America and Bush.

Bush gathered together China, Japan, South Korea and Russia to deal with a Clinton boondoggle, North Korea's nuclear ambitions. We've gotten North Korea to abandon nukes, for now. Bush cleaned up after Clinton here, not vice-versa.

Our relations with Russia are somewhat strained at the moment. Is this Bush's fault? I hardly think Russia's desire to reclaim an empire it had before his father was born is his fault. What's more, Russia's recent invasion of Georgia, and chewing off a piece of it, was modeled on America's intervention in Serbia and chewing off Kossovo from it. Serbia is Russia's traditional sphere-of-influence for the past 200 years. Russia became involved in World War I to protect Serbia. And when did we do the Kossovo campaign? In 1999, during Clinton's paradisical presidency.

So where has Bush damaged America's credibility? The short answer is, he has not. Clinton went into a country unilaterally without French or German approval- Bosnia. Naturally the media doesn't spin it as something that damaged our credibility. Sheryl Crowe, Antiwar pinhead, went to sing in Bosnia. Truthfully, many of our relations today are a lot more stable and sturdy than were ten years ago.

Yes, China and Russia, both of whom have Imperial ambitions, would prefer to have a weakling like Obama running our country. Does that mean we should be subservient and elect him?

GOP, the True Party of the Woman

2008-09-10T14:44:00.002-05:00

The venomous slurs against Sarah Palin by the DNC vipers are par for the course in their way of doing business. But, being a History Major, watching the Feminazis like Anna Quindlen and Gloria Steinem criticize her femininity, I am compelled to speak out. These burn-the-bra types sit in their Starbuck's drying their petticured toenails and criticize a working mother of five who is the chief executive of her state. And they act like THEY are the real women and SHE isn't? Oh Hell No, says the Republic of Utica.
Obama's latest slur is the lipstick on a pig comment, comparing this woman to a sow. And the South Carolina Democratic Party says Palin's only qualification is that she hasn't had an abortion. Yeah, and it's too bad that the mother of whoever said that didn't have one.
A History lesson is in order here. What the Quindlens and Steinems are ignorant of, or know but neglect to mention, is that traditionally the Womens' Movement has been Conservative Republican. Contrary to Liberal spiel, the GOP has always been the right-of-center party and the Democrats the left-of-center. Abraham Lincoln was elected by a coalition of the religious right, free market entrepreneurs and pro-military/veterans from outside the major urban areas, much the same as George W Bush was. New England used to be the Bible Belt back in the day.
Bearing this in mind, it is important to point out that Susan B Anthony was a Conservative Republican. It's funny the way modern Pro-Abortion, Anti-American Liberal Feminists invoke her name. No doubt she turned over in her grave each time. And it's amazing that she didn't burst forth from her crypt when the modern day so-called womens' movement would destroy the lives of women like Paula Jones, Juanita Broadderick and Linda Tripp to protect a Left Wing molester-lecher (no, men aren't called sluts, they are called lechers) like Bill Clinton.
Suffragettes like Susan B Anthony formed temperance leagues dedicated to what Liberals today would call "imposing Christian morals." They shut down saloons and brothels in their communities. They were among the most Conservative of voting blocs.
The early successes of the suffragette movement at the state level all came in ruby red states. The first was Dick Cheney's home state of Wyoming in 1869 when it was still a territory. They were followed by Utah, Colorado, Idaho and Montana. The first woman in Congress, Jeanette Rankin, was a Republican contemporary of Herbert Hoover. She came from Montana.
The opposition to womens' suffrage in those days came from liquor interests (vice interests) and from machine politicians (ie Liberals).
It is women like Sarah Palin, tough pioneering women from Middle America, who are the real, traditional leaders of women in America and they made life better for ALL Americans. Powderpuffs like Anna Quindlen have done nothing but open abortion clinics, places where you'll never see a real woman like Sarah Palin.
It is one of the greatest cons in history that Liberal Democrats are able to say that you must hate women if you don't fall into lockstep with them. It's right up there with that Democratic Party, the historical champion of slavery and Jim Crow, which had the KKK as an arm of its Party, being able to say that you are racist if you don't fall into lockstep with them.

McCain

2008-02-08T11:46:00.000-06:00

McCain
Current mood: determined

So it's John McCain. OK.

The Republic of Utica will support John McCain and here's why-

I am NOT just thinking that someone with an "R" after my name be good and "D" be bad. That WOULD be dopey.

But, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, though I adore you both, it's equally dopey to say there isn't any difference between Hillary and McCain.

Let us remember the history of both McCain and Hillary, where each came from. Hillary came from that radical culture of the '60s that wanted to "bring the war home and kill our parents." In 1969, when the Manson Family killed Sharon Tate, a woman eight months pregnant, the SDS, a radical group that Hillary had some ties with, made guerilla theater celebrating this act, right down one of the women sticking her fork in Tate's pregnant belly and saying to Charlie, "look what I did for you." The SDS gave a three fingered "fork salute" to each other in remembrance of this act. The reason hippies like Hillary so loved Charles Manson was his violence in murdering of two middle class everyday American families. They dreamed of doing likewise on a grand scale.

Compare this with McCain, an honorably serving Navy Pilot who was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. Pilots like McCain shot down early in the war were told of the acts of traitors like Hillary and John Kerry by the North Vietnamese (John McCain as a POW was treated to John Kerry's perjured, high-nasal "fashion reminiscent of Jhenjis Khan" speech) but they did not believe that Americans would act this way. They thought the North Vietnamese were making it up! How disappointing it must have been for them in 1973 to have discovered otherwise!

The three pillars of Reagan Conservatism are strong defense, Fiscal Conservatism and Social Conservatism. In the first John McCain gets 100%, A+. Of any candidate of either Party, he is, in fact, the best candidate for Commander-in-Chief of our military that we have running. After four years of being led by John McCain, we can reasonably expect our military to be strong and have high morale. They will be well taken care of. As veteran of the Clinton-era military, I remember how low morale was under the Slick One. We were short-handed and sick of being run by Political Correctness. As Commander-in-Chief, Hillary would make Bill look like Reagan. Her hatred for our soldiers runs very deep, and we can count on our military being in a complete shambles after four years of her.

Let us also remember that John McCain saved the day in Iraq. If not for him and Joe Lieberman, the al Qaeda Caliphate would be running Iraq right now courtesy of the Democratic Party. They came that close to selling our soldiers and our country down the river AGAIN, just like Vietnam. McCain stood in the gap for America against the Democrats.

For these actions McCain deserves our respect. If a Republican feels in principle that he or she cannot support McCain then let them do so respectfully and not with some of the insults I've seen. That's just plain wrong.

Yes, McCain on several matters of of Fiscal and Social Conservatism has been lacking. I do not propose that we forget this or turn a blind eye to it. However, right now McCain is openly courting us Conservatives. What I do propose is that, rather than ignore him, we answer him. We tell him that we are hearing his high sounding promises that he is making right now, and that we will hold him to them.

Remember the amnesty bill that was defeated? We promise to mke life uncomfortable for him like that if he forgets the promises he is making to Conservatives right now. We should be saying that we will hold him to every sweet promise he makes to us.

People have been calling McCain a traitor to the Republican Party. Well, he has had ample opportunity to royally screw the GOP and has never done so. I have been hearing people cite the rumor that McCain was wanted for Kerry's VP vandidate in 2004. This was a rumor. Let us remember that he campained for Bush that year, I attended a Bush rally and heard him speak at it. He never defected from a 50-50 Senate.

We can look at the glass as half empty or half full, people. Conservatives really do have an opportunity with John McCain. He needs us. And we do need him right now. He is the only one reaching out to us. Will we pout like children? Or will we go to the man and have our say?

John McCain has been on the side of freedom in the war against Asiatic tyranny that we now find ourselves in. Hillary, who no doubt had a Ho Chi Minh poster back in the '60s, has consistently been on the other side. It is prideful foolishness to say there is no difference between Hillary and McCain. McCain, for all that he has been misguided at times, is a patriot who loves this country. Who among us has given more than him for America? The choice is clear for Conservatives- we support McCain, we tell him also that if he forgets his promises to us when he is president that we will remind him in loud voices.

Don’t Let Liberals John Kerry America!

2008-01-18T23:15:00.000-06:00

Current mood: betrayed

Alright, people, how many of you out there are just plan sick of John Kerry's supposed victimhood? I know I'm about get silly on somebody. I know I am very tired of hearing the multitude of Liberal pundits, the combined value of whom doesn't equal a pimple on the ass of the least of the Swift Boat Veterans talking about "swift-boating." Most of you reading this are all too familiar with the Leftist's gift for making himself or herself out to be the victim. But Liberal caterwauling about John Kerry's "victimhood" is over the top even for them. Just when you think the sewer of Liberalism cannot disgorge anything more vile, they prove you wrong.

Benedict Arnold Kerry gave perjured testimony before Congress about our soldiers in his famous "fashion reminiscent of Jhengis Khan" nasal Yankee-brahmin diatribe. In what must have been one of his worst tortures in the Hanoi Hilton, John McCain was forced to listen to this speech. He and most of the pilots shot down early in the war believed that this was North Vietnamese Propaganda, no American would disgrace himself by crapping such lies out his mouth. I can't imagine the disappointment of pilots shot down in '64, '65, '66 and '67 when they came home to find that the North Vietnamese didn't have to make some of their propaganda up.

Kerry's lies gave the Stalinist Regime of Hanoi more undeserved moral high ground that had been building since the 1967 declaration of the Counterculture. Kerry proudly marched behind Viet-Cong flags and met with representatives of North Vietnam while still technically a naval reservist. He assisted a Stalinist Regime that ran "re-education camps" reminiscent of Dachau and a Maoist Regime that massacred a third of its country's population. And he has never shown an ounce of shame or remorse for his betrayals. On the contrary he wears them like a badge of honor, speaking with great pride in his treason.

By any objective standard John Kerry should have been given a firing squad and dumped in a dung-heap, and that still would have been too good for him.

But what happened instead? Kerry spent the last thirty-five years in mansions, hobnobing with his fellow Boston brahmins, looking down their royal noses at those of us who live between the Sierra Nevada and the Delaware River. This betrayer, this fratricidal maniac, has lived the high life of a Congressman and Senator, married a billionaire and dwelled in high mansions. And his fellow veterans, the loyal Americans who fought the war and DIDN'T betray their country? Their reward was often living under bridges and being spat at in the face. Parents of dead loyal veterans were often treated to crank-calls from smelly hippies saying how glad they were that their soldier son was killed by the heroic People's Army of (North) Vietnam.

So the next idiot who in my hearing whines about what a victim John Kerry is, he's gonna have blisters on his ears. I say we enter a new phrase into the American lexicon. In honor of Benedict Arnold Kerry, luckiest scumbag traitor to ever duck a well-deserved firing squad, I say that whenever we have a lying scumbag trying to slander America or its people, we need to respond, "don't try to John Kerry America!" "Don't John Kerry that man!" "You know you really oughtta not John Kerry that girl by making up stories about her!"

John Kerry has escaped the hand of justice, but we can at least let him know that we remember who he is and that he should give thanks he hasn't gotten what he deserves.

Reid to Soldiers: Let Them Eat Cake

2007-11-18T13:43:00.000-06:00

Current mood: enraged

The Republic of Utica is officially handing out its second Marie Antoinette award. It's first and all time Queen would be Ariana Huffington, whose blog shows a great detachment from reality at a time when lives are in jeopardy. You Libs out there contemplating your navels in your ivory towers, get set, you have a new Queen- Harry Reid.

Liberals love to claim that they care about soldiers, just ask them. If you ask some hippie from the '60s why he helped bring about Killing Fields that were filled with nearly two million souls, he will claim that he cared about our soldiers not wanting to get killed. He won't tell you about the times he spat in the faces of soldiers, calling them "baby killer" or about the times he spent crank calling the fathers and mothers of dead soldiers saying how glad they were that the heroic People's Liberation Army of (North) Vietnam had killed their son. Do we see now how specious their claim is?

Equally stanky is Harry Reid's bogus claim that he cares so much about our American soldiers. He cares about them so much that he is willing to pull the rug out from under their feet at the time when we are at a crucial stage in the war. The surge is working, casualties among American soldiers and Iraqi civilians both have dropped to fractions of what they were a few months ago. So what does Harry Reid do? He leads an effort to defund the war altogether. He is throwing a temper tantrum because he hasn't got his way.

If Reid were a loyal American, he would want victory in Iraq, but his recent actions, of bending over backwards trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, show that he is anything but.

When requested for financial help that our soldiers need, Queen Harry, who never served a day in his life, has told our soldiers that they can eat cake from the safety of his DC suburb. Now our soldiers in Iraq will face greater, totally unnecessary, perils as civilian support personnel are laid off and vital training missions that keep soldiers alive in combat are cancelled. thanks so much, Queen Harry, with "loyal" Americans like you, who needs backstabbing fifth columnists? For this you are hereby crowned the second Queen Marie Antoinette. Eat your own cake!

Bill Maher, Supreme Idiot

2007-11-12T02:22:00.000-06:00

Current mood: nauseated

With so much that is good out there to watch, read and listen to, I don't have much time for crap. That coupled with my temper and an ultra-sensitive BS Detecter and I really don't have any inclination for it. I'm trying to learn Godly patience, but I don't suffer fools gladly. Enter Bill Maher.

"Methinks ye dost protest too much," is the quote that runs through my mind as I look over his website seeing all the assertions of how "honest" Bill Maher is. Who's he trying to convince, us or himself? Whenever he opens his mouth, he firmly convinces me of the opposite.

People tell me to ignore folks like Maher who have mouths much bigger than their brains. But I'm sure people said to ignore that idiot Hitler and that idiot Stalin in their youth. The problem is, sometimes people believe idiots. And when that happens millions of people die. There was a journalist of Bill Maher's caliber covering Joseph Stalin in 1932 named Walter Duranty. He fed us a cock-and-bull story about the beauty of his workers' paradise. At that time, millions of Ukrainians were being deliberately starved to death, with Duranty's knowledge. He got the Pulitzer Prize and it stands to this day. Because of him and other Bill Maher types like him, we believed that Stalin was a Great Humanitarian.

When we listened to the Bill Mahers of the world back in the 1970s, we withdrew from Indochina and precipitated the greatest humanitarian crisis between 1945 and today. Two million Cambodians, a third of Cambodia's 1975 population, were slaughtered. Millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians fled to the high seas in leaky sampans with the clothes on their backs. I remember this, tho I was barely out of my infancy at the time. My father, a Conservative Republican, brought home a family of these people to live with us until they could be established on their own. I never have known a Liberal Democrat who did anything like that. and I've known plenty of Liberal democrats.

My grandparents also, fled from their native Lithuania to escpe Stalin's tyranny. So these two subjects are very close to my heart and something I know a lot about.

Anyways, I flipped over to Bill Maher's show. It would really be nice of HBO to show us more movies (it is, after all, a movie channel) and fewer soap operas and episodes of Bill Maher's ignoramous commentary.

It was obviously a rerun, he was speaking of the French elections, wherein Conservative Nicolas Sarkozy defeated Socialist Segoline Royale, as not having happened yet.

In the typical snarky manner of Liberals, Maher looked down his royal nose at Americans, calling us a nation of 6-year-olds and expounded at length on French Superiority. The hatred Maher feels for Americans broke through his plastic mask of "patriotic dissenter" that he manages to wear over his plastic face.

He said that France had the best health care and was the most prosperous country in the industrialized world. Laughable. Their health care system is falling apart, as all of them are, and wealthy French come to America to be treated. No wealthy Americans go to France.

I visited France in 1982 and 2000. I can tell you that there are plenty of people sleeping on the streets of this workers' paradise and many more panhandlers besides.

He said it was wonderful that a Socialist woman who had four children out of wedlock by different men could be a serious candidate for president. How terribly square of us that we only sometimes vote for Socialists who call themselves Democrats.

In his view it was also great that they had nude beaches. then he says immediately afterwards that private life remains private in France. Wait a minute, Bill, how private is a nude beach?

Naturally he neglected to mention the riots there, first by the immigrants, then by the young men who think that companies shouldnt be able to fire them for not working. Oh yeah, that's a law in France. Once you reach a certain age, you can't be fired by your employer. You know that must make for great quality goods and services. They rioted in France over a proposal to raise the age at which you could be fired.

Maher thought it was great that people dont talk much about Jesus over there, but doesnt mention the people that talk about Mohammed. Or the people who talk about Moses who were advised by their religious head not to wear their yarmulkas in public for fear they may be assaulted by the aforementioned people who talk about Mohammed.

Still, I wont look for Bill Maher to leave us immature Americans to go reside among the Enlightened French where he can work to a truly European standard of putting his gigantic vulture nose in the air and looking down it at us Americans. Too bad, maybe the Sorbonne would give him a scholarship.

No look to Maher to invoke freedom he doesnt believe in to annoy people he hates (that being us Americans).

It was obvious Bill maher knows nothing about either France or America. But it doesnt stop him from flying off at the mouth about both of them.

Many of you will say, "but Matt, he is just an idiot who calls other people idiots in an act of transferrence. Yes. Bill Maher is naught but a bag of flatulence endlessly bursting forth with his vapors. But that's the problem. History teaches us that idiots are often listened to if they are not stood up to. Bill Maher has no contact information on his website. Big surprise. He doesnt speak for as many of the people as he claims to. But that can change. Hitler and Stalin were just little idiots in a big world once. But they got to fight a world war against each other with millions dead on both sides. Do not underestimate a little idiot and his rantings. Just because he's stupid doesnt mean people wont buy his snake oil.

GOP’s Katrina Vindication

2007-10-22T15:24:00.000-05:00

Current mood: accomplished
Category: News and Politics

On Saturday Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-La) was elected governor of Lousiana. He is replacing Kathleen Blanco (D) who oversaw the running of her state during Hurricane Katrina Vandenheuvel. Blanco, showing shame so uncharacteristic of Democrats, had the good grace not even to run for re-election.

For those of you not familiar with how things work in Louisiana, they have an open primary system. Every candidate of every Party runs on a single Primary day. The two top vote-getters, whatever their Party, fight it out in a runoff a little over two weeks later. However, if, in the Primary, the top vote getter wins more than 50% of the votes, he is declared winner outright, no runoff necessary. This rarely happens in governor's races. But it did happen for Bobby Jindal last Saturday.

I remember hearing of Jindal's Congressional victory in 2004, where he came to Represent Louisiana US District 1. The first time I saw a picture of him was in the House of Representatives holding up his purple stained finger celebrating the Iraqi elections. A picture is worth a thousand words, and I saw that the man had passion.

The Liberal Media has played the template that the disaster of Hurricane Katrina was the Republican Party's fault, mostly George Bush (he caused the hurricane by causing Global Warming, he ordered the levees right by black neighborhoods blown up and then didnt send them any aid or help when they were flooded out). One lie was that Bush didnt prepare for a hurricane that could have blown out the levees in New Orleans. I got news for you, people. I lived in New Orleans from 1985 to 1987 when I was a kid. I first came to the Crescent City in 1985 and I heard many people telling me back then that if the city were hit directly by a Cat 5 Hurricane that the levees might burst, as they in fact did in 2005. And I'm sure they didnt just realize that the day before I came there. This is something that has been a long time in coming, and nobody prepared for it.

Another thing we need to remember is that we live in a Federal System of government. That means that our individual states and locales are autonomous and the federal Government may not step into them without their consent/appeal. In other words, the state governments are responsible for such things, and the Federal Government is auxiliary. Not vice-versa. Moscow is not our capital, though it seems like it sometimes.

Well, it seems that the voters of Louisiana know truly where the fault lies. With her popularity in the basement, Democratic Governor Kathleen Blanco did not seek re-election. Bobby Jindal sought to be elected, having tried to win the election back in 2003 but losing in the runoff to Blanco.

The Democratic smear machine sought to link Jindal and President Bush, and truly Jindal is a supporter of many of Bush's policies. But it didnt seem to work for them. Jindal got more than 50% of the votes in a Primary against all Democrats and some Republicans.

The voters know that it was the corrupt, inept Democrat government that made the ravages Post-Katrina worse than they had to be. Katrina was not Bush's fault. The flooded school buses have become a symbol of local Democrat incompetance in New Orleans and the rest of Southern Louisiana.

Next door in Mississippi, Republican Governor Haley Barbour is beloved for how he handled the devastation after Hurricane Katrina Vandenheuvel. The Democrats are running a sacrificial lamb against him in the governor's election in two weeks.

The voters know, People. In spite of the Liberal Media and DNC smear machine, Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath weren't the fault of Republicans. And that is why Democratic Party is taking it on the labanza in Mississippi and Louisiana.

Congratualations Bobby Jindal, and Haley Barbour, keep giving 'em Hell!

Amateur Hour at the DNC or Why I’m Optimistic About 2008

2007-10-15T17:14:00.000-05:00

Amateur Hour at the DNC or Why I’m Optimistic About 2008
Current mood: amused

I doubt that the GOP will take back the Senate in 2008, too many retirements, too many vulnerable seats to defend versus few defenses for the Democrats. But retaining the White House and getting the House of Representatives back are good possiblities.

The reason? It's quite simple, there are no presidents among the Democrats. True, there havent been for decades and that hasnt prevented a couple of them from getting elected. Nonetheless, it's worse today.

Hillary is portrayed by Democrats and the Liberal Media as our inevitable next President. Please. She's a neophyte Senator, no executive experience, nor deserving the chance to aquire any. SHE HAS NEVER RUN ANYTHING. Except possibly a couple of hippie protests to help Ho Chi Minh's war effort against America back in the '60s.

It is somewhat disconcerting that she isnt laughed at by 98% of America's population when she says she wants to be President. I mean, in 1992 we elected Governor Lapetomaine from "Blazing Saddles" to the Presidency and now some want his wife?

Well, that's alright. She's a bit of a novelty right now, but as Republicans coalesce behind their candidate, her lacking record will come out. I am good friends at FSU with a man who is my political opposite. Me, a Northern born Republican who loves the South, him a Southern born Democrat more into the ways of the North. We rode home together in his car one day in 2005 and he still had his Kerry/Edwards bumber sticker on. HE said to me as we got in the car "dont ever run Senators for President." It is somewhat axiomatic of politics that you dont run Senators. The only Senator to be President was John F Kennedy, and if the stories are true that dead people gave him victory in Illinois and Texas in 1960, then NO Senator has fairly won the Presidency.

And, as Senators go, Hillary is not distinguished among them. At least John Kerry had thirty years in Congress. Hillary has six. And they are not a very distinguished six either. Recently Hillary ran an ad showing herself at Ground Zero after 9-11 with a face mask. Let's have the GOP show her at the fundraiser for families of firefighters late in 2001 where she was booed off the stage. She did one right thing back then- she voted for the War on Terror. Of course that was a 100-0 vote in the Senate, so, again, she did not distinguish herself.

Hillary with her socialist medical system ideas gave Republicans the Congress back in 1994. Let's see what other politcally correct ideas she wants to foist on us. She has been back and forth on Iraq, and if you thought the GOP had fun calling Kerry a flip-flopper, Hillary is going to get it twice as bad, and deservedly so.

Make no mistake, the GOP wouldnt slander or smear her. It wont have to. Just state the record. She'll crack. In the 2000 Senatorial election she got victim points because Rick Lazio confronted her. Well, if we confront her today, and she tries to make a victim of herself, as Democrats always do, undeservedly, that will hurt her in a Presidential campaign. Nobody is going to elect a victim for President. Victimhood is not Presidential. So Hillary can't play that and hope to win.

Many women will vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. Some men will deliberately not vote for her just because she is a woman. And there are even a few women out there who will not vote for a woman. Should a woman be President? Well, when one steps forward who is fit to be, I'll support her. Hasn't happened yet. Margaret Thatcher was a great PM of Britain. The best since Churchill. If someone like that ran for President in the US, she'd win and deservedly so. But Hillary is just a weak victim. Who needs that for President?

Not only that, Hillary has high 40's% unfavorable ratings. You cant get elected president if 49% of America doesn't like you. And, as it has been pointed out, Hillary's unlikeables have been formed by adult Americans over the course of nearly a generation. We've known her since 1991. She's not going to change our minds with a few tv spots.

Is Hillary inevitable? No way. I don't give her a snowball's chance. And more good news on this? She is the best the Demos have. Barak Obama is a neophyte Senator with even less experience or anything accomplished than her. He has not yet been a Senator for three years. He will be hammered even more eaily than Hillary is. Mr Madrasa isn't going to get more support than Hillary, he will get less. And forget about John "The Breck Girl" Edwards in third place. Hillary is more of a man than this Senator, who could not as VP candidate carry one single state in his Southern Region for John Kerry in 2004.

No. The GOP candidates are not the best we've ever fielded, but we have some good leaders, all but one of whom have had executive experience and done very well against great challenges. The voters will have a real choice versus their pick of amateurs. The Democrats are not going to get the White House in 2008. And in 2012 the census will greatly favor the Republicans, and I feel that in that year, the GOP will have both the Senate and House after the election, as well as the Presidency.

We have a good chance of getting the House in 2008. In 61 districts, Hillary is expected to be a drag the Democratic Rep candidate. Neither Obama nor Edwards will be a help to these either, rest assured.

So, my prediction is this- Democrat thugs hang on to the Senate, but the GOP retains the White House and wins back the House in a stunning upset.

Hang in there, 2012 is coming.

Liberal PC Thought Police To Pursue Limbaugh

2007-10-08T13:58:00.000-05:00

Well, it's just come out over the wire that Rep. Henry "Nostrilitis" Waxman (Bolshevik- Ca), instead of launching another of his endless potemkin investigations at taxpayer expense, has something more sinister in mind. He has ordered his staff to monitor Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin and compile reports of what they have to say on the air.

Well. I thought Democrats were opposed to government monitoring its citizens, especially if they are contacting al Qaeda? We can't run down Islamofascists who want to make a piece of America glow in the dark, but we can monitor those "Right Wing Extremists."

"Limbaugh isn't the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio," a House Leadership source says. Watch out all you people out there who don't observe the strictures of Political Correctness in every particular! Big Brother is watching you!

Liberalism is closet Socialism and in earlier days it had a long, long love affair with the Soviet Union. I went to school in Massachusetts from 1985 to 1987 and the Liberals there admired the USSR. I'm quite sure after it went to its well-deserved place on the ash-heap of history a few years later, they must have been heartbroken. Since the heady days of the 1917 Revolution, Leftist Americans have ever sought to emulate the Soviets and have tried to implement their policies here. "Separation of Church and State" is nowhere in the US Constitution, but is a mainstay of the Soviet.

So, are we really surprised to find Leftist leaders monitoring patriotic Americans like Orwell's Thought Police? I know I'm not. As I stated in an earlier blog piece, our faith, beliefs and love of country scare Liberals who, effectively, believe in nothing beyond their own noses. Only a strong and agressive Conservative Movement will prevent the Waxmans of the world from establishing a Gestapo to stamp out Thoughtcrime.

Liberals' Budding Love Affair With Iran

2007-10-06T13:11:00.000-05:00

Liberals love tyrants. This I have observed from my youth. I remember one of my Liberal teachers defended Khaddafi when we responded to his terror attacks by bombing across the Line of Death back in 1986. At the same school they showed us a propaganda film saying that Reagan had stopped sending food to Ethiopia because he hated Black people and wanted to let them starve. The film didnt mention that Ethiopia's Marxist government had been taking food that we sent them FOR FREE and shipping it to the USSR in exchange for weapons. At the time I was greatly astounded that my Liberal professors were not interested in learning the facts.

In the '70s and '80s Liberals adored Fidel Castro. Many violated American law and went to visit him and spend our American dollars to keep his economy afloat. They lambasted Pinochet ruthlessly, but the greatest tyrant of the Western Hemisphere, Fidel, they adored, even though Pinochet wasnt guilty of a fraction of Castro's atrocities.

Liberals loved Daniel Ortega, the Communist President of Nicaragua (recently elected fairly for the first time in his life, mainly by young Nicaragua voters who know only the mytique, but not the crushing reality, of life under Communism). He came to power by force in 1979, silenced all political opposition, and had a sham election in 1984 not unlike Saddam's old elections. He did not hold another election until after the Berlin Wall fell, after which he promptly lost and couldnt elect a dogcatcher for nearly a generation. In the '80s Liberals defended this man in ways they'd never stick up for any American. They called Reagan an old Nazi tyrant, but Ortega was their shining prince.

Liberals loved Gorbachev, he was more popular than Reagan to them. I remember seeing in "The Nation" magazine in 1988 a cartoon that showed a Soviet soldier in Afghanistan flying a kite shaped like a dove of peace, while an Afghan freedom fighter was manning a Flak gun stamped "Made in the USA" was about to shoot it up. How were we Conservatives so stupid as to not realize that Soviet helicopters in Afghanistan in the '80s were there to spread peace, love and red rays of sunshine?

Going back in the history books, I've learned how Liberals loved Joseph Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Kim il-Sung, and others. They formed "peace" movements to aid these bloody tyrants and to stymie American efforts to resist them.

And we are all well aware of Liberal efforts to give aid and comfort to al Qaeda in Iraq.

Now a new enemy has stepped forward for Liberals to coddle. Mahmoud Ahemdinejad, madman President of Iran, who is seeking nuclear weapons, the only leader besides Kim Jong-il who actually WANTS to start a nuclear war, has now drawn the loving attention of America's Left.

I first saw it on a bumper sticker some grungy hippies had on their VW van "US hands off Iran." Then I saw a couple other grungy types with similar statements over the past couple years, but never believed anything serious was afoot on this front until recently.

Jon Soltz, Plastic Posterboy Veteran for the Left, who claims to be nonpartisan, but has his websites filled with Demorat propaganda and who claims to speak for a majority of soldiers but really only speaks for a small minority, has a blog piece on his website filled with the usual Left Wing blather-paranoia that the US is creeping up on some innocent country. The innocent country in this case being poor picked on Iran. He is buddies with "STOPIRANWARNOW.ORG" this group claims to have 55,000 or so co-signers.

Further investigation leads to Wesley Clark's webpage. He also, in addition to giving aid and comfort to al Qaeda in Iraq, also excoriates Bush for wanting to take out Iran. How a disgraceful pig like Clark got to be a General is beyond me. My theory is that, as anyone who served knows, there are those ass-kissing backstabbers we always encounter. Clark must have been a wildly successful one. Now his long knives are in the back of the country itself. I am so glad I never had to serve under that pimp.

Clark is giving advance aid and comfort to Ahmedinejad. I remember seeing in a History Channel show, they interviewed one of the 1979 hostage takers from our embassy in Tehran. He was saying that "we thought the American people would understand." He elaborated that by citing the existence of "peace" movements from Vietnam and earlier made them expect a similar movement to arise on their behalf. They did not expect America to unite under Ronald Reagan.

This is important to realize. America's enemies now, when they strategize, come to count on our Leftists to assist them in the coming battles. And it is rare that they are disappointed. Liberals blame Bush for the dead in Iraq, but I blame only two sources- al Qaeda and Liberals. The former did the deeds. The latter made 'al-Masri's boys believe that they can win if they hang in there. They would have given up long ago if they didnt have the hope of Leftists forcing us to withdraw to cling to.

Now Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, someone seeking nuclear weapons, the destruction of Israel and America, and the reign of Iranian mullahs over the Middle East, knows he can count on some segments of America to help him. Used to be, Liberal "peace" movements would blunt US policy and then Liberals would go back to their coffeehouses, drink their $10 lattes and the filled mass graves wouldnt affect them any. But if a nuclear bomb goes off in the US, I'm afraid for Liberals that starbuck's will be closed in that area and they'll have to miss the episodes of Sex and the City that night.

Rush Limbaugh versus Benedict Arnold Reid and Phony Veterans

2007-10-02T12:50:00.000-05:00

Good for Rush Limbaugh!

It's about thirty-five years overdue for someone to stand up to the Left and its Legions of phony veterans. The truth of the matter is that there are never enough poster boy veterans who betray their fellow veterans for Liberal politicians in their efforts to sabotage America's wars.

So what is the solution? Invent some veterans. This is not new. Much of our misbegotten perceptions of Vietnam Veterans as soldiers "reminiscent of Jhengis Khan" come from John Kerry's perjured Senate testimony and the "Winter Soldier" group. These supposed veterans told fantastic tales of American atrocities which have stuck in our collective memory. It turned out that most of these guys had never even worn the uniform. But there was no big investigation, no castigation of the traitor John Kerry for his stinking lies. No, on the contrary, he has lived in opulence since betraying his country, while loyal veterans lived under bridges.

Jesse McBeth has carried on the tradition. A Basic Training washout, he has claimed to be an Army Ranger and has told similar lies against soldiers. His lies have been translated into Arabic and circulated throughout the Arab World. Only a blithering idiot would deny that this endangers American lives. Not to mention America's honor as a nation.

Liberal Poster Boy Veterans like John Kerry and Phony Liberal Veterans are the most contemptable type of scum. For profit they betray their country and never seem to get called on it.

Thugocrat leader Harry Reid has condemned Rush Limbaugh for speaking out on this truth. Nothing Liberals hate more than having one of their shams exposed.

From us real veterans to you, Harry Reid, RESIGN, you anti-American douchebag!! You don't have jack to say to a true American like Rush Limbaugh! You lied to your voters and betrayed your state and your nation. Go get bent!

A 9-11 Message

2007-09-09T18:35:00.001-05:00

9-11, The 300, Medizers and Useful Idiots

As the anniversary of 9-11 approaches there is much for Americans to consider. It has been six years since the ugly, cowardly attacks on our nation and I must pointedly ask, what have we learned? To my sadness, the answer must be nothing. Yes, we pursue al Qaeda in Iraq and, not that you hear it ever from the Liberal Media, they are taking heavy, horrendous casualties there. Afghanistan too. The supporters of the war are people who were aware before 9-11, who knew how precious American freedom is and that there are many who want to take it away. Those who oppose the war have returned like a dog to its own vomit, supporting every enemy of America since Stalin. And the great masses who know neither victory nor defeat, neither Conservatism nor Liberalism have gone back to their dream world. Liberals hated the immediate post-9-11 period because it was a Real World scenario. Their political correctness and social experiments were seen for the useless excrement that they are. The day after 9-11, who needed a Feminist, an ACLU lawyer, a tree hugger or a “Peace” Activist? Liberal Ivory Towers had come crashing down and they were scrambling to keep up with the rest of us who already dwelt where things are real.

But now the Liberal Media and DNC Activists have succeeded in singing most of the American people back to sleep. I remember the days immediately following the WTC attacks they talked about how our world was changed forever. But how are things today different from ten years ago? Nothing of significance. Liberals are walking tall again, once more acting like they have something to be proud of. They manage to say with a straight face that it is patriotism on there part to help al Qaeda bring about genocide and tyranny in Iraq.

My mentor Alfredo comforted me once by saying that “even George Washington had to deal with malakas.” (Malaka is an off-color Greek word which is my affectionate term for Liberal Democrats) And it is true. A third of America in his day was Loyalist to their King, a third were American Patriots and a third didn’t know exactly what it was they wanted. Similar to today, although the 1/3 Loyalists have shrunk to be 20% Liberals. The American soldiery in the Revolution came from the South and the Northern countryside. The Loyalists were mainly in the Big Urban centers. The New England Patriots of Concord and Lexington are the ancestors of those who settled in places like Montana, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska and Kansas. Today is the same as 1776- in the “Flyover Country” we are Americans wanted to live with a free, strong and independent America, while the Liberals in the big urban areas are still seeking their King George to bow down to, today in the person of the UN Sec’y General, the President of France (before they went and elected a Conservative who admires America, that is) and other Eurasian Leftists. In previous years they sought to emulate the likes of Stalin and Ho Chi Minh. The struggle of Conservative vs. Liberal is truly a continuation of the Revolutionary War, with Liberals as the Loyalists.

But malakas go back even further. I have just got done watching my “300” DVD. Even the Spartan Leonidas had to deal with them back in 480 BC. Now “300” is not the most accurate rendition of the Battle of Thermopylai. The Ephors were not inbred monsters, and all Spartans, not just them, believed fervently in the old gods of Greece. Spartans were well known as the most pious of the Greeks. But it was good that they showed how some Greeks conspired to help Xerxes conquer their homeland. Many of the Ancient Greeks like the Macedonians and the city of Thebes, submitted to the King of Persia. These were called “Medizers.” Rather than fight with the Spartans to defend their freedom, they bent the knee to the King of Asia. Even a few Spartans, namely the deposed King Demaratus, were in Xerxes’ retinue. The Free Greeks had to overcome not only the combined armies of the Persian Empire, but also the Medizers in their midst. Yes, Ancient Greece had Liberals.

Why do some free people turn against their societies and support the worst of tyrants? Even the tyrants themselves aren’t grateful either. Lenin’s affectionate term for Western Liberals who believed every word he said and supported the USSR totally was “Useful Idiot.” I don’t doubt that in his own Persian language Xerxes had an equally derisive term for people he publicly referred to as Medizers. Every Republic and Democracy in history has selfish, self-absorbed people who use that nation’s own freedoms against it in order to help the most depraved dictatorships. No free nation has ever long survived the likes of such people.

As the sixth anniversary of 9-11 approaches, Liberals have added an enormous crime to their long list of many others. They have done their uttermost to send the memory of the heroes and martyrs of 9-11 down the memory hole. The Liberal Media has slowly guided us back to lionizing their favorite heroes- pornographers, abortionists, comedians who tell dirty jokes and hygienically challenged, dope-smoking hippies who helped out the Stalinist Ho Chi Minh. It is poignant to note that Orwell in “1984” believed that the murdering of the past was a greater crime of INGSOC (the Left Wing Socialist Party of Big Brother) than all the murder, death, torture and other tyranny they inflicted. Perhaps he was right. Whatever your take on it, it is a terrible crime against humanity.

The Liberal Media has decided that images of 9-11 are not to be shown to us because of the passions they might excite in us. They had no problem running non-stop images of Abu Ghraib in order to excite anger against our soldiers. We should show those images every day. Our people have forgotten them and are in much need of reminding before the next bomb goes off on American soil.

Cato Uticensis

3^rd Infantry Division 1996-1999

The Obsolete Man

2007-05-10T02:35:00.000-05:00

I just watched my favorite Twilight Zone episode, "The Obsolete Man" which starred Burgess Meredith. Rod Serling opened the episode thus:

"You walk into this room at your own risk, because it leads to the future, not a future that will be but one that might be. This is not a new world, it is simply an extension of what began in the old one. It has patterned itself after every dictator who has ever planted the ripping imprint of a boot on the pages of history since the beginning of time. It has refinements, technological advancements, and a more sophisticated approach to the destruction of human freedom. But like every one of the super states that preceded it, it has one iron rule: logic is an enemy and truth is a menace. This is Mr. Romney Wordsworth, in his last forty-eight hours on Earth. He's a citizen of the State but will soon have to be eliminated, because he's built out of flesh and because he has a mind. Mr. Romney Wordsworth, who will draw his last breaths—in the Twilight Zone."

Meredith played Romney Wordsworth. The room that Serling referred to was a long hall where the Chancellor of the almighty State sat and pontificated over the fates of the Politically Incorrect. Wordsworth boldly pronounces his profession as that of Librarian. The Chancellor is appalled that he would make such a declaration, why a librarian was obsolete, because there were no more books, just as a Minister was obsolete as the State had proven there was no God. Wordsworth made no defense of himself, but when the Chancellor said there was no God, he stood upright and said, "There IS a God!" After an exchange the elderly Librarian said, "You can't erase God with an edict!"

The mighty State gives Wordsworth his choice of manner and time to die, as long as it is accomplished within 48 hours. He elects to have an assassin come to him and only he and the assassin know the manner of death. Wordsworth also asks to have his death televised. The representative of the State agrees and comes to visit him at the appointed time. He tells him how Hitler and Stalin had made good beginings but hadn't gone nearly far enough.

It turns out that the method of death chosen was for a bomb to go off and when the Chancellor came into Wordsworth's quarters, the door locked behind him. Wordsworth calmly took out his Bible and began to read from the Psalms- "The Lord is my Shepherd"...."A Fool has said in his Heart there is no God." In the end, the Chancellor breaks down and says, "In the Name of God, let me out" and Wordsworth responds, "In the Name of God, yes" and hands him the key. The Chancellor escapes just before the big blast. And the next day the Mighty State declares him obsolete. He asks for the mercy he never showed and is refused. The visciousness of the totalitarian State ground on.

I thought of this episode, a long favorite of mine, when I saw a Facebook group with many thousand members that said that Government plus religion equalled disaster. The saying goes that those who do not know their history will repeat it. It is obvious that the secularist of modern America knows no 20th century history. The states which try to erase God from their midst also have a way of becoming the most totalitarian of all. Hitler and Stalin sought to remove Christ from Russia and Germany. Let us also remember Mao and Pol Pot.

I see in the modern ardent secularist the same type of person on the old Twilight Zone episode, or in Stalin's Russia. Someone who is not content to not worship God themself. They have to forbid you to do it also. So often do the ACLU types get away with implying that their "Separation of Church and State," a concept nowhere in the US Constitution is something for the benefit of freedom. But how is silencing voluntary prayer, a violation of free speech and freedom of religion, freedom. "Freedom is slavery" Orwell described that best, how the Leftist of the '30s, '40s or today thinks. If a hundred people in room say a prayer that no one is forced to participate in (and no one ever was in this country, from 1776 until the judicial travesty known as Engel v Vitale which declared that the law of the USSR, not America dictated) where on Atheist is, there is no imposition on the Atheist. You have a hundred people using their free speech and freedom of religion and one person may not like it. But there is no Amendment guaranteeing you will like what someone else has to say. But if that one Atheist gets and ACLU lawyer to silence the one hundred people in the name of the mythical "Separation of Church and State," well then there is an imposition.

Someone who believes in the Soviet model of "Separation of Church and State," as does the ACLU and the agressive secularist is no friend to freedom. The Totalitarian State in "The Obsolete Man" was probably unimaginable to most of the viewing public on June 2, 1961 when it first aired. And yet with each freedom that the Secular Left takes away, a similar nightmare state draws near. It is truly frightening that the Left has convinced so many millions of people that it is the only bulwark of freedom, when in fact it is the only serious threat to the freedom of the Free World. Do we not remember Gdansk in 1981, where the Polish Christians stood their ground against the Atheist tyrants, and brought freedom to 1/3 of the world within a decade? How soon we forget. So many Americans today would consider Brezhnev and Jaruselski to be standup guys and Lech Walesa to be a "Religious Right" extremist. Oh how soon we forget!

America, we had better wake up and remember soon.

Who's a Victim?

2007-05-02T09:16:00.000-05:00

Imagine if you will an abortion clinic set on fire by abortion protesters. The protesters watch it burn and as Fire Trucks come to put out the fire. They interfere with the firemen and cut their firehoses. Law enforecement comes on the scene. They shout for the protesters to leave, and give them ample opportunity to do so, with no repercussions. Instead the protesters stay and shout and goad the law enforcement officials with curses and continue to interfere with the firemen. The Law fires a few rounds over their heads and gives them clear warning that they will be fired upon if they do not leave. The only response is more verbal abuse. Reluctantly, the law enforcement people open fire, killing four of the protesters.

What, do you imagine, would be the reaction in the Drive-by Media? Not difficult to imagine, they would be going off about how people who protest abortion need to be muzzled and have their First Amendment rights even further curtailed. In the wake of the media firestorm, you can bet that corrupt Democratic Policians and lawyers would do exactly that.

But that is not what really happened. On May 4, 1970, the building that was set fire to was the ROTC building on the campus of Kent State University, and the firemen were interfered with, as stated above. The protesters were Leftist protesters trying to help bring about a Communist Vietnam and Cambodia in which millions would die and millions more be sent to "Re-Education" Camps that were no different from Dachau or Buchenwald or flee their homes with the clothes on their backs. And they could have left with nothing happening to them. But they chose to stay and abuse the Guardsmen and taunt them. the Guardsmen made one last effort before opening fire saying "you are surrounded, give up." The protesters were not in fact surrounded and they just laughed it off. The Guardsmen opened fire with a volley that killed four people. As odious a creature as a spoiled brat baby-boomer hippie who doesn't bathe too often is, it is truly regretable that four of them were killed. But they were the ones who brought their situation upon themselves and they alone bear responsibility for what happened to them. Not to mention their share of the responsibility of what happened to the two million Cambodians murdered in the Killing Fields, but that is another matter.

Why do I bring this up? Self Described "victim" Alan Canfora, who famously waved a black flag at the Guardsmen is planning on leading a candlelight vigil for the four "victims" who died at Kent State 37 years ago. He has a typical black-helicopter conspiracy theory that there is some cover-up about Kent State and he bemoans that the Guardsmen never went to jail. Well, the hippie arsonists who went burned down the Kent State ROTC building never spent a day in jail for their real crime of setting fire to a building either. Instead, they got ambulance-chasing lawyers to sue the State of Ohio and harass the Guardsmen who only did their duty.

I asked Mr Canfora via email if the two million Cambodians dead or the displaced and murdered or tortured Vietnamese concerned him at all. His reply vacillated and it is my opinion that he does not concern himself much with the millions of Indochinese who who died or suffered so horribly because he and his comrades got what they wanted in 1975.

This is another case of what I previously called "The Sad Sorry Leftist Cult of It's Own Victimhood." Four spoiled brats who got themselves killed commiting arson count for more than the millions piled into mass graves by Communism. And, for the record, I wish the four had not died, merely been arrested and punished for arson. But to act like four people who stood up for tyranny in the face of freedom count more than murdered innocent millions is a travesty and it makes my blood boil.

Americans, let us say a resounding, "NO!" to Mr Canfora, who doesn't seem to have any identity other than that of "Victim" of National Guard meanies 37 years ago. Let say "No" to his victimhood, "No" to his cause of appeasement masquerading as peace, the false peace of slavery to tyrants. "No sale" here at the Republic of Utica, Mr Canfora.

Happy Patriots Day

2007-04-19T00:55:00.000-05:00

Today we honor the 232nd anniversary of the first battles between the Bi-Coastal Elites (Unicoastal in those days) and the "Flyover Country" (obviously no flying over back then). I refer to the Battles of Lexington and Concord. On this day in 1775, local militias made their stand on the Village Green of Lexington under the command of Captain John Parker. "Stand your ground men; don't fire unless fired upon; but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here!" Parker bravely said. His bold words were matched with brave deeds as his militiamen stood against the government forces. With overwhelming force, the Government forces left eight militiamen dead and then moved on to Concord. The Militia soundly drubbed the British Government Forces at Concord and were ambushed by Parker's Militia on their retreat to Boston. It was the famous "shot heard round the world."

Americans in those days were torn between supporting the new Revolution against an overweening, overtaxing government and those who favored kissing up to their tyrant, George III. The Patriotic Militia that favored an independent America, governing itself was composed of men from the outlying areas, rural and small towns, mainly. Derisively it is called "Flyover Country" today. These farmers were the ancestors of they who settled in Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, Texas and similar locales. George III's American bootlickers were mainly coastal urban elites living inside the cities like Boston and New York. Sound familiar? It should.

The current Blue State elites are the political heirs of the Loyalists who were so subservient to their King. These supposed Americans, who get all huffy if you ever posit that they are not as American as they might be, have ever opposed American freedom and autonomy. I remember one of my Boston-area High School classmates summed it up best when she said, "I'm not into America." To expound upon what she meant, she would much prefer being a European and living as the Europeans do.

The Coastal Urban Elites have ever sought for a European tyrant to govern America, much preferring that to us "Cowboys" and "Rednecks" who they are supposedly countrymen with. During the War of 1812, the New England states gathered together and threatened secession from the Union and rapprochement with the King. This was in 1815, and their delegation threatening this action came to Washington and found the people celebrating the peace made at the Treaty of Ghent. A hero of the New England elite, Henry David Thoreau, made his mark opposing the war against Mexico's dictator, Santa Anna. True, Santa Anna was not European, but the "Napoleon of the West" was surely a dictator in the European mold, and had pretensions to such.

Less than a century afterwards, by the 1920s, the Yale and Harvard elites came to see Bolshevism as the greatest thing since sliced bread. "I have seen the future and it works" said one Liberal after returning from the USSR at that time. Joseph Stalin had become the Coastal Urban Elite's new George III. When FDR was inaugurated in early 1933, his first act was to extend diplomatic recognition to the Soviet Union. His ambassador to Moscow, Davies, justified Stalin's 1937 purges implying that most everyone who got it in that had it coming, as did Liberal Media propagandists like I.F. Stone. Stone also claimed that the man-made famine of 1932 and 1933 in which ten million people died never happened. Until his death Liberal elites pined for Uncle Joe as their leader and forget the American way of life. They laugh at things like that.

Whittaker Chambers was a Communist in the 1930s. He left the Party in 1938 and testified to the fact that many of FDR's cabinet ministers were in the service of the USSR and manipulating American policy for Stalin's benefit. He was demonized by the thugs of the DNC, but recent documentation has shown that he told the truth. Tens of thousands of American soldiers died needlessly in the pointless invasion of France and Belgium in 1944. We should have invaded the thinly garrisoned Balkans and gone straight to Berlin from there. France and Belgium would have fallen to us bloodlessly anyway and we could have prevented the Politburo from turning the Balkans into a gulag. But Stalin wanted the invasion of Northern France, and whatever Uncle Joe wanted, Uncle Joe got from Democrats in those days.

Chambers observed that American Communists loved to fawn over Russians in the day when the Politburo ran things. And, in my two years among the children of Limosine Liberals of Boston, I observed the same thing about most any Leftist, even as recently as the 1980s. In those days, the Bi-Coastal Urban elites welcomed Mikhail Gorbachev with loving open arms. "It was like the Second Coming" gushed one Liberal during the Soviet Premier's official visit. The same Liberals who gushed and fawned over Gorby hated Ronald Reagan with a viscious venom. How dare Ronald Reagan stand up to their new George III and win the Cold War? Reagan was called a Nazi and worse. When he spoke of the notion that the Communists might come to the frontier of Texas if allowed to gain a foothold on the Mesoamerican mainland, one Liberal commentator responded to the effect that they were welcome to it. Yes, a supposed American didn't care if Texas went Communist. More than likely he enjoyed the idea of it. I'm certain that he would have enjoyed the idea of Cubans and Sandinistas lording it over Texas "cowboys." Some Americans!

So let's take a moment on this Patriot's Day and take stock- people who are not Patriots have control of Congress and are trying to steer the US for the benefit of World Socialism. But we are still better than our forbeaers were at Lexington and Concord. Like our forerunners, it is our duty to stand up to the Left and its desire to put a new George III over us. Honor the sacrifice of patriots past and seek to emulate them against the forces of socialist tyranny. America's future depends on it.

The Uselessness of Liberalism

2007-03-09T10:42:00.000-06:00

I have long wanted to do a post entitled "The Sad, Sorry Left Wing Cult of Its Own Martyrdom." My desire to do this was stoked when I saw a poster advertising the upcoming film about the Dixie Chicks. It describes how they are poor, wretched victims because nobody between Reno and the Delaware River wants to buy their crappy records anymore. The reason? It boils down to they have mouths much bigger than their brains and no great love for this country. But what persecution have they suffered? Former fans don't buy their records anymore, DJs choose not to play their songs and people tell them they are stupid. Well, it is a First Amendment right of those people to do that. Are we to force fans to buy their records? Are we to force DJs to play their songs on the radio when they don't want to? Are we to silence the freedom of speech of the people who think (know) the Chicks are dumb? We certainly haven't silenced the Liberals who spout off that Bush is dumb and yet still allegedly managed to bamboozle them into a war for oil. In reality, Liberals are not at all concerned with people's freedom to disagree with them.

In "Meet the Fockers" Dustin Hoffmann plays a hippie who took a bath and became a bloodsucking lawyer for the ACLU. He tells his infant grandson to "Question Everything." Liberals even made that into a bumpersticker once. But they don't REALLY want you to question EVERYTHING. They don't want you questioning them, their motives or anything they say. If you choose to use your freedom to do so, then you are guilty of "McCarthyism," a myth that has served Liberals well for fifty years running.

"McCarthyism" is a cornerstone of the Leftist Cult of Its Own Martyrdom. Liberals today cannot admit that most of their political forbeaerers in the 1930s and 1940s, all the way up to FDR's VP Wallace (1941-1945) and even, to an extent, FDR himself, were great admirers of Joseph Stalin. Many on the Left in those days took that admiration all the way to outright loyalty to Stalin over America.

Rather than face this truth, admit it, and make a committment to being loyal to America first and foremost, they blacken the name of the man who investigated it- Joe McCarthy. Liberals constantly describe the early 1950s as a time of "paranoia." Tell me, when a hostile force committed to the violent overthrow of our Constitution rules Russia and China and has agents in high places in our government, how is it paranoia to be concerned about this? How is it a witch hunt to investigate how far this went? Simple answer, it is not, not in the least. How easy it is for someone sitting in the comfort of a Starbuck's to call concern over a mass murderer like Stalin "paranoia!"

Liberals are making up the same garbage about the days following 9-11. The general pre-recorded template coming from Leftists is that "Neocons," especially President Bush, used Post-911 anger to wage war for oil in Iraq, or something similar and equally asinine. People like the Dixie Chicks and Bill Maher, who have mouths much bigger than their brains, are treated as martyrs, as are the POW terrorists at GITMO.

Liberals NEED to convince people that America was "paranoid" and "McCarthyistic" in those days. Why? Because the days after 9-11 showed how utterly useless and inane Liberalism is. When the towers fell, who needed an ACLU lawyer, a Feminazi Activist, a Vegan Environmentalist or Jesse Jackson? We didn't, those people were the last people we wanted or needed to hear from in those days. Everything they said or did was utterly irrelevant. We needed cops, soldiers and firemen, the kind of men Liberals love to hate. America was wide awake and aware of how political correctness was getting people killed. Liberals were utterly miserable in late 2001 and 2002. Not because 3000 Americans had been murdered. Not because anyone was persecuting them. Rather, it was because nobody had the time to listen to their childish temper tantrums. The Real World had landed on our heads in a big way and the Ivory Tower Dreamworld of Liberalism was suddenly irrelevant.

It is sad that the American attention span has become so short that the lessons of 9-11 are now forgotten and we are asleep again, like it was 9-10-01. Left Wing Starbuck's dwellers are listened to about the Iraq War more than the soldiers who fight in it. And they are turning their post-911 irrelevance into martyrdom, Dixie Chicks style.

I must confess that I fear the worst. With the current moronic Democratic Congress our soldiers will be hamstrung and our political will is shown to be wanting. We cannot be so foolish as to believe that the terrorists in Iraq don't notice all the help our Left is giving them. And Liberal foolishness will not merely affect the Middle East. China and North Korea are seriously doubting our resolve to defend our Asian Allies, as are many of those Asian Allies themselves. You think South Korea doesn't remember what happened to South Vietnam? A Japanese leader recently publicly expressed his doubts that America could protect East Asia from China. HE based that on how we are letting a bunch of ignorant hippies wreck our war effort in Iraq. The upshot of this could well be a war in the Pacific Rim that we wouldn't even have to fight if Liberals grew a brain.

This time, I don't believe that Liberals will be able to go back into their coffeehouses and make up great stories about how wonderful they are for helping mass murderers against America, the way they did in 1975. I'm fairly certain that with idiots running Congress we will be hit by the terrorists again. And when this happen, I just hope a piece of America won't be glowing in the dark.

The Eternal Struggle of American Politics

2007-01-05T03:00:00.000-06:00

THE ETERNAL STRUGGLE IN AMERICAN POLITICS

In I Samuel 8, God’s people came and demanded a King. Israel’s government at that time was the Judges. A Judge would govern, along with some other junior judges, after God would speak to them. The nation was free. But many Israelites wanted to be like other countries. They wanted a monarch, to be more like them. The last Judge of Israel, Samuel, was told by God to warn the people what their new King would be like. “He will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots; and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers. He will take your male and female slaves and the best of your cattle and donkeys and put them to his work. He will take one tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; And the Lord will not answer you in that day.” (I Samuel 8:11-18)

Saul was then made king of Israel. He was supplanted by David, who passed the crown on to his son Solomon. David had fought many wars and Solomon undertook a massive building program, which included the Temple of God. As the Lord had predicted, the people of Israel were put to heavy burdens. When Solomon died he was succeeded by his son Rehoboam (II Chronicles 9:29-31). The people cried out to Rehoboam and asked him to lighten the burdens Solomon and his two predecessors had placed on them. (II Chronicles 10:4-5) Rehoboam responded thus: “My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to it; my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.” (II Chronicles 14-15). At that point the Kingdom of Israel split apart. (II Chronicles 10:16-19)

I can’t help but find parallels between Israel 3000 years ago and America today. America was founded on the principle that God makes men free and other men make each other slaves. This was in the philosophies of John Locke, whose writings were the Inspiration of the Declaration of Independence. We have been given great freedom by God here in America. And Europe has wallowed in a mire of Socialism, Dictatorship and strife for the last century. Political Correctness stifles free thought in Socialist Europe, you can be fined a lot of money for speaking your mind if some bloodless Socialist bureaucrat finds what you say offensive. Soon prison terms will be handed out for those who rock the boat. And there are many Americans, our Liberal brothers mainly, who, instead of reveling in the freedom God has given us, long to have a Socialist Dictatorship or Oligarchy, so we can be like the rest of the world.

This is the eternal struggle of American Politics- the desire of Northeastern elites for an Old World Tyrant versus Heartland Americans desire for freedom and independence. I came to realize this as I read about an account of the Revolutionary War from 1775 and it detailed how the Patriots besieging Boston in the Spring of that year were scornfully called “the Country People.” Most of the Loyalist Population in America were the urban elites, mainly in the Northeast. The Revolutionary War was the first struggle between “Flyover Country” (though, of course, no flying over was going on) and the Bi-coastal Elites (though they were on a single coast at that time). The Patriots of Bunker Hill, Lexington and Concord were the forefathers of the brave people who would settle in places like Idaho, Utah, Kansas, Nebraska and Montana. The Loyalists who didn’t flee to Canada after the war were the forbearers(not necessarily the physical ancestors, but political “ancestors”) of the Left Wing Urban elites who think that Kofi Annan and Jaques Chirac need to run this country rather than its elected American president. They are the same people who preferred George III to George Washington. And there is a relatively unbroken chain of events from the time of the Two Georges down to our own where they have displayed their desire for European and later Eurasian governance.

First we have the Hartford Conference of 1814 and 1815. The upshot of this is the New England States threaten to secede from the Union if peace is not made between the US and Britain. The delegation from this conference arrived in Washington DC early in 1815 to find the people of that city celebrating the end of hostilities. We can be certain that these states would have drifted back into British orbit, their independence being only a formality, a fig leaf, as it were.

But as the 19^th century drew to a close and the 20^th was around the corner, the Northeastern Elites (who rode comfortable boxcars out to California and Seattle and Portland after the “Country People” had civilized the American West, making them now the Bi-Coastal Elites we know so well) their quest for their European Master took a different turn. Marxism and Socialism had caught on in the coffeehouses of Paris and Berlin and Moscow. Waves of European immigrants brought the Red Ideas to America in the late 19^th and early 20^th century. These people often barely escaped the Secret Police of the Tsar or the Kaiser. But were they grateful to their new homeland for safety and freedom of conscience? Not for a minute, they immediately began building Sleeper Cells with a mind to overthrowing the United States government in favor of a Red one. An Anarchist even killed our President, McKinley, in 1901. The Left of then, as today, never embraced the idea of freedom, merely they sought to use our own freedoms against us as best they can. The “Red Diaper Baby” children and grandchildren of these Red Immigrants would make the nucleus of the Leftist upheavals caused by stinky hippies in the 1960s.

But soon the fashionable coffeehouses of New York, Boston and Philadelphia had many socialists and Communists in them as well as many other Left Wing factions. The Intelligentsia of the Bi-Coastal Elites came to see the new USSR as the great hope of humanity after 1917. Yes, when Liberals tell you that everything good that ever happened came from Liberalism, they don’t talk about how they loved Joseph Stalin, supported him, adored him, even glossed over his crimes until they were no longer deniable.

The Franklin Roosevelt Administration was filled with Soviet Agents- Alger Hiss, a Harvard elitist from one of the finest New England families, was an Assistant Secretary of State. Harry Dexter White, another lovely blueblood, was at Treasury. Even the Vice President from 1941 to 1945, Henry Wallace was what is known as a “Fellow Traveler,” someone who sympathizes with and has all the same aims as a Communist, but is not officially a card-carrying member. For four years, such a man was one heartbeat away from the presidency, which was held by a man who died three weeks after Truman was inaugurated to replace Wallace as Vice President. Not that FDR deserves any great praise. The man was very nearly a fellow traveler himself and certainly one of Stalin‘s great admirers. None of this is subject to debate, as Liberals might claim, we found their pay stubs in the Old KGB Headquarters during the 1990s.

So the anti-American Independence elites then turned to Stalin as the European that Americans needed to bow down to, rather than the English King. Stalin’s USSR was the great wave of the future that they had been dreaming of, and they began to make their best efforts to turn America into another Soviet Union. Sadly, they have been at least partially successful. Soviet legal concepts that have no basis in American law whatsoever, such as Separation of Church and State, are regularly imposed on Americans by the Left. Left Wing propagandists like I.F. Stone and Walter Duranty wrote charming fairy tales about Stalin’s “Workers’ Paradise.” And Liberals believed in and delighted in them.

Many Conservatives posit “what if?” questions about if we had the Liberal Media we have today, how would world War II have gone? We DID have much the same Liberal Media that exists today during the War years. However, Hitler had invaded the “Workers’ Paradise” of their beloved Stalin five months before Pearl Harbor. So the Left was not going to do anything to sabotage any effort we might make to defeat Stalin’s enemy, Hitler. But Ronald Radosh in his book “Commies” (describing his youth as a Red Diaper Baby) relates how the Left had helped Hitler in the pre-Barbarossa days. On August 23, 1939 the Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact had been signed, making the USSR and Nazi Germany benevolent neutrals towards one another. In the critical days of 1940, during the Battle of Britain, English Leftists used to spy out damage done by German planes to England, report to the Soviet embassy, where the information was promptly passed on to Berlin. At that same time and a little later, the US was sending aid to Britain under the “Lend-Lease” Program. Obeying Moscow’s instructions, American Leftists used to foment phony strikes at plants making Lend-Lease materiel, often slowing down progress. This is another thing the Left never tells us about when they are talking about how wonderful they are- their guilt of abetting the Nazis between August, 1939 and June, 1941. I think any discerning person can easily reach the conclusion that the American Leftist activists and the Liberal Media would have lied and sabotaged our efforts in WWII had Molotov-Ribbentropp still been in effect at the time of US entry into the war. Exactly the same crap they pulled in Vietnam and are pulling in Iraq right now.

When Stalin was denounced in 1956, Liberals couldn’t deny his atrocities any more. After all, the sitting Soviet Premier had just admitted the truth. Still, it didn’t stop the American Left from supporting the USSR and its proxies against their own country. Ho Chi Minh posters were popular among Leftists in the ‘60s, along with ones of Che Guevarra. Again, the Bi-Coastal Elites took the side of a foreing leader over their own country. America was not fit to be strong an independent in the view of ‘60s Leftists. America needed the benevolent guidance of World Socialism. In the 1980s how the Liberals loved Gorbachev! And how they hated Reagan! Not to mention their love of Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro.

As a young teen in the 1980s living in Liberal Elitist Massachusetts one of my favorite movies was “Red Dawn.” I remember how Liberals resented the way the Soviets were portrayed in that movie. Some crackhead Liberal Media “journalist” could write some yellow-journalism guerilla-theater BS about Marines in Vietnam biting the heads off of babies that the Hanoi Politburo told them to say and the Liberals would believe it. They’d eat it up with a spoon. But don’t ever insinuate that their Soviet brothers would ever be less than perfect gentlemen! They’d really get mad then!

Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book “Witness” that when American Leftist met an actual Soviet Russian, they just gushed and fawned all over him or her. I know exactly what he was talking about. In my time in the ‘80s in Dukakis’ Massachusetts we never met any actual Soviets, but the way my Liberal brothers up there talked about Gorby and the others, it is obvious that they would have tripped over each other to fawn over any Soviet citizen they ran into.

The Soviet Bloc collapsed from 1989 to 1991 and suddenly Liberals acted as if we always knew this was going to happen and as if they never rendered any assistance whatsoever to their Russian brothers (not their Russian brothers any more now that Socialism is gone). All the Liberal “geniuses” who said in the mid-’80s that we’d be living in Nuclear Winter if we didn’t appease the USSR suddenly forgot all their brilliant pronouncements!

Today the Liberals want to bow down to the UN and Socialist leaders like Jaques Chriac. We still can’t have the United States being strong, independent and thinking for itself or looking out for its own good. We still need a benevolent European or Asian (the Left is “multicultural” now!) dictator to hold our hand. And I realize that we are still fighting the Battles of Lexington and Concord when we stand up to the Left. Our independence, our freedom, our culture- the Left wants all these submerged in the morass of the new UN world. And now, these people run our Congress. Happy New Year America!

THE GREAT LEFTIST MANPOWER SHORTAGE

2006-12-27T02:07:00.000-06:00

“He who controls the past controls the future,” Orwell once said. And Orwell would know. His faction in the Spanish Civil War was purged in 1937. The Party Line said that this was because this POUM was, in fact, not a Marxist Party as the “M” stands for, but in fact they were secret Trotskyite Fascists plotting to help Franco. And how did the Liberal Media in Orwell’s home country of England react to this patently ridiculous assertion? Why they ate it right up and amplified it through their own outlets. Just like Liberal Media journalists for the New York Times were printing stories about Stalin’s wonderful workers’ paradise while the Man of Steel was deliberately starving tens of millions of Ukrainians and Georgians to death. But that is the stuff of another blog piece. Nothing has changed between the 1930s and Dan Rather’s forged documents and Jayson Blair’s politically correct fairy tales. The things Orwell wrote about in “1984” had ALREADY HAPPENED AT THE TIME OF THE WRITING, barring a few items that were high-tech in 1948. His representation of Ministry of Truth was as much a shot at the Liberal Media outlets of the West as it was at Moscow’s propaganda machine in the days of Stalin.

I have noticed that the recent propaganda by the Left often stops Conservatives who love this country in their tracks. They claim that the Left was the savior of black people and of women and that to disagree with them is to be a woman hating racist. It’s hard to beat an enemy who can hang that around your neck. The weenie of it is that they don’t deserve to be the legends that they are in their own mind. Let us examine the real history of Civil Rights for blacks and women and see how their claims stack up.

It is important to remember that the traditional opponent of slavery was the Republican Party. At its formation in the 1850s, Abolitionism was one of its main raisons d’etre. The Democratic Party, conversely, was the champion of the slave master and the traditional opponent of any civil rights measure. And when called on this, Democrats do not deny this. They merely attempt to spin these facts away by saying that in the 1860s it was Liberal Republicans fighting for abolition and Conservative Democrats championing slavery. However, the fact of the matter is, that from the days of the 1850s until today, the Republicans were always the Party of Free Markets, Traditional Judeo-Christian Morals and staunch Americanism. In the 1860s, as today, Democrats called the Republicans the “Party of the Rich.” From that day to this, the Democrats have always been the so-called “Party of the Poor.” The Democrats have always had a Leftist appeal.

No, in fact, the Democratic demagogues of the 19th century frequently beat the drum of helping poor whites against the rich Republican capitalists who were allowing blacks to “take their jobs away.” the democratic base in the late 19th century was the South and the poor, white inner city dwellers who were used as muscle by Democrat Machine bosses like Boss Tweed of New York, whose corrupt practices were proverbial.

So why the change? Why did the Party which staunchly opposed civil rights suddenly change its tune? Well, those poor white inner-city dwellers so well dramatized in “Gangs of New York” began moving to the suburbs after 1945. Many of FDR’s supporters in the 1930s and 1940s voted for Eisenhower in the 1950s. The urban bosses were bleeding constituents. In the South too, as a previously non-existent Middle Class began to grow, so too did a nascent Republican Party. The Democrats were losing bodies fast and they needed to replace them. The Blacks were available. So the Machine Bosses who lynched blacks in the 1920s suddenly became their white knights in the 1960s and 1970s. Bear in mind that Governor George Wallace, the man who stood on the steps of the University of Alabama in 1962 defending white supremacy, was the black man’s “champion” a little more than ten years later. The Left did not have their hearts grow three sizes overnight for black people.

This change was pretty much worldwide for socialism (let’s face it people, the Democratic Party is part of the World Socialist Movement and has been for at least 75 years, if not more). Russia becoming the first Communist country in 1917 was an accident. They had wanted Germany first, then France and England and outward from there. The lingua franca of the Communist Party until 1941 was German. After 1917, they had hoped that Germany would become the second Communist country. Communism and Socialism looked towards Western Europe. But, like their American comrades, they too had a manpower shortage. Germany, after its invasion of Russia was crushed, got itself flattened, and the Communists no longer looked to it the way they once did in Marx’s day. England and France united with the USA to stop Communism. Seven million Soviets died during WWII, while the US lost maybe 5 percent as many. Its new Eastern European satellites had been more heavily devastated than the free nations of Western Europe. Russia needed more bodies allied to it. It was then that World Socialism went from being a solely White European thing that cared nothing for the Third World to suddenly being the champion of the downtrodden masses of Afro-Asia. It is ironic how many brown-skinned dwellers of the Tropic Regions worship at the altar of Karl Marx, who believed them inferior and not worth his trouble.

Thus we can be certain that the Left had no great love for dark-skinned people. They merely needed their votes and pretended to care in return. One thing people need to wake up and realize is that welfare states are never created to benefit the recipients of the largesse, but to benefit the politicians who use other peoples’ money to show how “generous” they are.

Given what history teaches us about the Left and its relations with people of color, Conservatives need never allow Liberals to get away with propagandizing that anyone is a racist who disagrees with them. Liberals have always thrived on race riots, whether the rioters were black or white.

Examining the history of the Womens’ Movement gives us a similar story. Any Liberal who asserts that anyone who disagrees with their asinine policies is a sexist needs to have it pointed out to them that Susan B. Anthony, a Conservative Republican, was probably turning over in her grave at the notion of so-called Feminists destroying the lives of young women for the sake of a corrupt old lecher like Bill Clinton who used women like toilet paper, the exact kind of man she spent her life fighting against. Let us not make the common mistake of confusing the narcissistic harpies who hijacked the Womens’ Movement in the 1960s with the real Womens’ Movement of the 19th and early 20th century. The suffragettes were not the modern feminists who think that the universe revolves around their vagina. They were, most of them, deeply religious and did a lot of good for society as a whole. In some societies, the staunchest opposition to women getting the vote came from Communists, Socialists and other Left Wingers. Here in America, it was the Conservatives who got women the vote. In 1919, when the XIX Amendment was passed, Conservative Republicans were in the majority in Congress and the State Legislatures. What is even more telling is that the 1920 elections, the first with female participation, was a total Republican blowout and the beginning of a decade of complete Republican dominance. And they weren’t Liberal Republicans. Herbert Hoover was of this generation of the GOP.

The Dung Merchants of the Liberal Media have convinced a large segment of the population that working for an oil company is a greater crime than leaving one’s concubine on the bottom of a river while swimming one’s fat ass to safety. And they have done so with the willing connivance of the hypocrites of the so-called Womens’ Movement. Americans, don’t ever let one of those two-faced talkers-out-both-sides-of-their-mouth ever take any moral high ground on you. People whose main fight is for the right to put babies into ovens don’t have the right.

“He who controls the past controls the future.” Orwell said a mouthful. The Left successfully manipulates the perceptions of America’s past and in so doing leverage considerable control over our future. Being Liberal really means loving European and Asian socialism and hating everything American that stands in its way. Being Conservative means loving America and wanting to protect it from this creeping socialism. It is incumbent on every Conservative to learn their history so that the Orwellian Left cannot control our future by controlling our past. We can either do that, or we can let the Dan Rathers of the world “educate” us.

Merry Christmas America

2006-12-25T19:47:00.001-06:00

The Republic of Utica apologizes for the hiatus of Autumn 2006. It was the first real semester of Grad School and for those of you who’ve never been, I can tell you it’s a real picnic (hehe). Anyway, I wanted to wish the Greatest Country on Earth a Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah for my Jewish brothers. The University is a real treat for those of us in the Conservative Movement. Professors who are supposed to encourage us to think but not tell us what to think, actually do the reverse. The Classics Department at FSU is not bad in this regard, but the History and Political Science Departments have as much free thought as the University of Moscow thirty years ago.

But in the Classics Department, some Liberals, ever eager to stab a knife in American culture, have taken to doing away with BC and AD “Before Christ” and “Anno Domini” aka “Year of Our Lord.” They replace them with the ridiculous “CE” and “BCE” “Common Era” and “Before Common Era.” Naturally I write out “Year of Our Lord” at least once in every paper. Here in America, we say BC and AD.

American culture is ever under attack by the Left and they wont stop until America is as dull and monochrome socialist as North Korea or Cuba. Thus, I do not wish anyone “Happy Holidays.” Here in America we celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah. That is our culture. I do not have to stop up my culture just because a few Liberals who hanker for Stalinist Russia are offended. I encourage all Americans to just be Americans and continue our customs, as every free people has inalienable right to, granted by their Creator.

Make the Liberal Grinches and Scrooges angry- wish them a Merry Christmas.

Conservatives, do not be down about November’s disgrace. It was a six year itch and was won with SERIOUS triangulation, moreso than even 1992. And if not for the Foley Scandal, the Republicans probably would have staved off the Democrat traitors. Once again, the Liberal who possessed Foley’s emails had them since 2003 and he was never questioned about holding on to them for three years. Like at Chappaquiddick, the real criminal walked away scot free. How brainwashed you have to be to be a Liberal! You need to believe that working at an oil company is a greater crime than leaving your concubine on the bottom of a river while swimming your fat ass to safety! Pretty sorry. It just tells us Conservatives that we still have a lot of work to do, much propaganda to counter.

Be of good cheer, Americans. Yes, the beach-heads of European socialism on American soil, better known as Blue State America, have grown. But resistance still burns in the heartland of America.

Have a Merry Christmas.

And to all a Good Night!

217 BC vs 2006 AD

2006-10-28T10:40:00.000-05:00

The Republic of Utica wishes to apologize for its long absence. I began full time Grad School at the end of August and ended up having to relocate from Panama City Beach to Tallahassee in Florida. I will try to be present and comment on the upcoming elections. And if the Demagogue Party actually wins, we will need to watch them, catalogue their every villany. Believe you me, fellow citizens of the Republic, they are eager to pay us back for the freedom we've enjoyed under a Republican Congress. Remember the Fairness Doctrine and the attacks on the freedom of Anti-Abortion protesters. We will ALL get a dose of that under a Demagogue Congress. Not that the GOP Congress has been all that it should be. But under Speaker Pelosi, if such a terrible thing happens, you will be pining for the halcyon days of Speaker Hastert, I promise you.

This leads into what I wish to discuss on this first post in awhile. For those of you with photographic memories, I beg your indulgence. I covered this topic in my "Demagogy in History" post of October 19, 2005. But I feel we need a refresher on that, a reminder of what catastrophe Left Wing demagogues cause, not just in our own day, but going back even before the Year of Our Lord. I refer to the election campaign in 217 BC of the Roman Gaius Terentius Varro.

Rather than start at the beginning, I will start at how the story ends, for those of us who are not Classics Majors. On August 2, 216 Before Christ (I am tired of Leftist attacks on our culture. In response to their use of "CE" and "BCE" I will write out "In the Year of Our Lord" and "Before Christ" at least once in anything I write, if it is warranted. I encourage all of you out there to do the same, it will drive Libs crazy, and honor the Good Lord at the samne time) the Roman Army met the mercenary Army of Hannibal of Carthage at the Southern Italian hamlet of Cannae. Some estimate the Roman Army had eighty to ninety thousand Legionaries against Hannibal's polyglot fifty thousand, half of whom were Gauls who fought naked and often drunk or hung over, relying only on battle frenzy, rather than being well-armed and keeping formation. Another significant percentage of Hannibal's Army were Iberians, who, like the Gauls, were fierce, but lightly armed and armored. Only the Numidians and African Allied contingents were armed like Heavy Hoplites and Heavy Cavalry. In this pitiful force, there would have been several language barriers and cohesion virtually non-existant. And yet, the fifty thousand rag-tags, under the brilliant leadership of Hannibal, managed to surround the ninety thousand Romans and slaughter them wholesale, killing about sixty thousand (Rome, in one day, lost the entirety of what we lost in Vietnam and then some). One of Rome's two Consuls (their executive branch, equivalent to our president), Lucius Aemilius Paullus, died on the battlefield, along with many of Rome's best leaders. This was the greatest military disaster Rome had seen or would see for centuries. Many Romans thought that their Republic was lost and that Hannibal would become master of Italy after this defeat. The three greatest cities of Italy and Sicily- Capua, Syracuse and Tarentum all defected from the Roman cause to Hannibal. All had to be reduced by the Romans at great cost in lives on both sides, including the great scientist Archimedes, who was Syracusan. The war in Italy, which might have ended by 215 BC, would drag on to 202 BC because of the prestige gained by Hannibal and the various defections they engendered, due to Cannae.

Who was responsible for this disaster? It was all because of one man, the Leftist politician Gaius Terentius Varro.

First, it is important to remember Hannibal's background. He was the son of Hamilcar Barca, a brilliant general who did his best to salvage the Carthaginian position in Sicily during the First Punic War (264-241 BC). The Romans won in spite of Hamilcar's best efforts. A lesser man leading the Carthaginians would have been crushed years earlier. Rome took Sicily and also snatched the island of Sardinia during a mercenary revolt that Hamilcar put down. Hamilcar then took his young son to the Temple of Baal, on whose altar many young children had been slaughtered (yes, the Carthaginians were Canaanites who threw their seed to Molech (aka Baal) from the Bible), and forced him to place his hand on an animal sacrifice and swear to be an eternal enemy of Rome.

I interjected this to show how Hannibal, a Middle Easterner, was as dedicated to the destruction of the Roman Republic as Osama bin Laden is to the destruction of the American Republic. From one point of view, the War on Terror we now face is much like a continuation of the struggle between Roman Republicanism and the dire blood and flesh traders of Carthage.

This Hannibal had entered Italy, bent on Rome's destruction. He won two victories over Roman arms at the River Trebbia(218 BC) and Lake Trasimene (217 BC). He use the similar surround tactics he would employ at Cannae, although neither of these defeats were quite as catastrophic for Rome as Cannae would be. Still, in the aftermath of Trasimene, it was obvious that Rome was in crisis and it appointed a temporary Dictator, Quintus Fabius Maximus. Fabius was aware that none of the crop of Roman generals currently available had any hope of defeating Hannibal, including himself. He instituted "Fabian Tactics," a type of almost guerrilla warfare, involving small skirmishes with Hannibal's foraging parties. This made Hannibal's Army hungry and begin to slowly bleed away soldiers it could not replace, being so deep inside Italy.

The story could have ended not long after this part, with Hannibal's Army melting away and the general being captured by Legionaries in 216 or 215 BC and merely being a historical footnote, someone who got lucky a couple of times and made the Romans cautious. But this was not to be.

Back in Rome, Left Wing demagogues began agitating against Fabius and other noble leaders. As it says in the Book of Ecclesiastes, "there is nothing new under the Sun." One of these demagogues, Gaius Terentius Varro, began making accusations that Hannibal was no real danger to Rome, merely, the war with him was deliberately being prolonged by the rich so the rights of the poor could be knuckled under by wartime exigency. Does this sound familiar? It should for those of you who see and hear those idiots who still talk about our war in Iraq as "Blood for Oil." It does seem fantastic to the modern reader of history that anyone could be so ignorant as to claim the war against Hannibal was a plot by the rich. And to someone reading history a hundred years from now, it will seem equally ignorant that people claimed that the War in Iraq was a war for oil profits. Just like the terrorists in Iraq, Hannibal caught wind of the Leftist opposition to the war with him and ordered that the estates of Fabius not be attacked or disturbed in any way. He did this so the Roman Left would find confirmation of their delusion that Fabius and Hannibal were co-conspirators. Fabius defeated this ruse by selling those untouched estates and donating the proceeds to the Republic's war chest. Still, given the way modern idiots still wear "no blood for oil" T-shirts, even after Kofi Annan and Jaques Chirac were caught red handed getting oil profits for OPPOSING the war, I can imagine that many Romans under the sway of Varro's demagogy still believed what they wanted to believe rather than the manifest fact.

After Fabius' six month Dictatorship ended early in 216 BC, Varro took charge of the armies of the Republic. According to the Roman historian Livy, he promised his eager voters that he would eliminate Hannibal's the day he came in contact with him. Not long after this, the result was Cannae described above.

What was Varro's punishment for his lies and causing the deaths of tens of thousands of his countrymen at Cannae and indirectly causing tens of thousands more in the war that didnt have to drag on like it did? The same punishment Ted Kennedy got for Chappaquiddick. NOTHING. In fact Varro was given a vote of thanks for "not despairing of the Commonwealth" on his return to Rome. In the cruelest of injustices, the remnants of his Cannae Army was banished from Italy, believed to be bad luck. They were formed into two Legions to fight Syracuse in Sicily. And they remained on that island, banished from their homeland until Scipio came along, wanting to invade Africa. Scipio allowed them to join his invasion force, where they distinguishged themselves as a veteran core for his Army that ultimately defeated Hannibal at Zama in 202 BC. At least they had a happy ending, delayed though it was.

This coming election cycle is not unlike the one of 217 BC. We have Leftists making the same thousands-years-old argument that the war we must fight somehow benefits only the rich and not all of us. We must remember the disaster of Cannae, and that is what one gets when one listens to Leftists demagogues and puts them in power. In their own idiotic way, they are more dangerous than the Hannibals at the gate.

Blame America First, and Israel a Close Second

2006-08-24T10:03:00.000-05:00

Lately I have heard Leftists ask "what if there was no Israel?" They imply by this question that if there was no Israel the Muslims would just happily live together in peace. Israel is responsible for all the ills in the "House of Peace."

As a student of Arab history, I shake my head and smile at these Liberals who act as if YOU'RE dumb for not buying what they're selling.

My answer to this question is a few questions of my own-

Do Muslim terrorists kill Hindus in Kashmir and India because of Israel? How quickly we forget the train bombings of Mumbai! Not to mention the bombing of the Indian Parliament not long after 9-11.

The fact is, Hindus and Muslims have been killing each other for centuries. Watch the movie "Ghandi." It shows one of the more recent rashes of Hindu-Muslim violence that broke out in 1947- the year before Israel was founded. And it wasn't the first. Or the tenth.

Do Muslims in Nigeria kill Christians there because of Israel? Nigeria is far removed from Israel and its Christians do not assist Israel in any way. A Christian peasant in Nigeria who is illiterate probably wouldn't be able to find Israel on the map. And most gun-toting Muslims there who's favorite sport is shooting Christians likely couldn't either.

Do Sudanese Muslims enslave black Christians in Darfur because of Israel? Certainly not, this enslavement has been going on for centuries, more than a millenium even.

Did the Turks massacre the Armenians because of Israel? Certainly not. Actually, thanks be to God, they ceased this policy prior to the creation of Israel.

Do Indonesian Muslims massacre Christians on Timor or blow up Hindus on Bali because of Israel? Nope, once again, the conflict predates 1948.

Do Shi'ites and Sunnis massacre each other in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran because of Israel? Absolutely not. That conflict goes back to the days of Imam Ali (656 AD) and Imam Husayn (680 AD), the founders of Shi'ism. We're talking 1 1/3 millenia here.

The list goes on and on. It is a collosal unfairness to blame all this mayhem on Israel, for things which they bear no responsibility. Genesis 16:11-12 forecast the above circumstances. The Angel of the Lord spoke to Hagar, the mother of Ishmael, who was the ancestor of Arab Muslims, "...you shall name him Ishmael, for the Lord has heard your misery. He will be a wild ass of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him and he will live in hostility to all his brothers."

Israel is not to blame in all this. Blame rests with those sons of Ishmael who live up to their ancestor's legacy in spades.

No More Leftist Lectures On Science

2006-07-26T03:47:00.000-05:00

In the wake of President Bush's vetoing human experimentation, aka "stem cell research" the Left has unleashed tons of its usual tired verbal flatulence into the air about Christianity being anti-science. Somewhere along the way the Orwellian Left has managed, with much undeserved success, to propagandize that having ethics when dealing with science is somehow "giving in to superstition." This most dangerous lie reminds me of a certain scientist who Liberals would probably love. He did many experiments in the same vein as those who wish to do the embryonic stem cell research. He never let a silly thing like Christian belief get in his way. And his name was Dr Mengele. Science without ethics will lead us back to the path he followed. Anyone who thiks otherwise is blind.

The Secularist Left continues its drumbeat about the "evil" "Religious Right" impeding scientific progress. But let's look beyond their Orwellian rhetoric for a moment at the facts.

As I stated in my "Left Forgets/Ignores the East" post, the most advanced civilization on the earth during the Dark Ages from 600-1000 AD was a Christian theocracy that knew the world was round. Yes, I refer to the Eastern Roman Empire, mistakenly named the Byzantine Empire. Science grew by leaps and bounds in this nation where Christ was considered the King and the Emperor merely His Regent on earth. The superior scientific knowledge of the Empire saved its capital, Constantinople, from a more numerous Muslim enemy in its two sieges from 668-675 AD and in 717 AD.

In the 17th century, not only were the Dutch Reform Calvinists (definitely Right Wing Christian extremists to the modern Leftist) the originators of the modern Republic, their Netherlands was the most scientifically advanced nation of its day. You've got to be when you're tiny Holland, but you're the strongest and richest nation on earth. When the 17th century Russian Tsar, Peter the Great, wanted to learn about Western technology, he disguised himself as a common laborer and took factory jobs. One of the places he made sure he spent much time in was the "theocracy" of Holland.

In 1688 hard-core Calvinists launched the Glorious Revolution to reclaim the Puritan notion of Parliametary Supremacy that their grandfathers had won and lost in Cromwell's day. The English appointed a Dutch King, William III, who acknowledged Parliament as his superior. The English monarch has never been above the Representative body since then. Over the course of the next several decades, under the stewardship of its Religious Right, England rose from a backwater barely out of the Middle Ages to supplant the Netherlands as the most advanced nation on earth in the 18th and 19th centuries.

And the piece-de-resistance is America in our own lifetime. Who's technology won out in the end, Judeo-Christian America or Secularist USSR? Even if we accept the Left's historical revision that America was Christianized by Joe McCarthy and Dwight Eisenhower (and this is truly a farce, the Declaration of Independence says we have certain inalienable rights endowed by Our Creator and the SCOTUS ruled in 1892 that America was a Christian country), the fact is, it was Christianized at the time.

So I think we can dispense with the notion that Christianity retards scientific progress. But if we look at the Left, they do not live within the boundaries of the ideals they so loudly proclaim. Science is supposed to be human curiousity, seeking knowledge through finding fact and experimentation.

A group of scientists, some Nobel Prize winners, believed that there were holes in Darwin's theory big eough to drive a truck through. Darwin asserts that small, simple lifeforms evolve into big ones. The problem is, there are no simple lifeforms. Even single-cell life is complex, if small. Darwin himself said that if proved to be the case, his whole theory would collapse. It was Alexander Oparin, a Soviet "scientist" who first proposed that we all evolved from a paramecium. Darwin apparently had more shame than to do that. So a group of scientists say that we've learned a lot since Darwin's day ad that his theories do not fit any longer, and there is much evidece for Intelligent Design. What does the Left do? Goes straight to our corrupt court system and shuts down all debate based on a non-existent law (Separation of Church and State). What's more Darwin also theorized that women and blacks evolved as lesser creatures than white men. We don't seem to be taught that in our schools right now. What do we get taught? The pickings and choosings of the Political Left from Darwin and the theory of one of Stalin's state-sponsored scientists. the Left imposes these lies on us with no right to debate or disagree. Is that scietific? Not in the least. It retards our scientific growth. Is it American? It is not Unamerican, it is Anti-American. And that is all the Left has to offer us.

Let us no longer sit and listen to the Left lecture us on how scientific they are. They squelch new ideas in favor of old and tired beliefs from an Evil Empire. They have no right to talk down to anyone about science.

Republic of Utica Answers a Silly Question

2006-07-13T17:48:00.000-05:00

Austin Cline, self-proclaimed expert on Atheism and Secularism at About.com, feels that Atheism is neglected in our society. He wonders why he can't turn on the TV and see an Atheist politician strutting his stuff. The Republic of Utica's short answer is- you can Austin. Right now there is a powerful Atheist leader who is strongly fighting the good fight for the principles of Atheism and Secular government. His name? Kim Jong-il. His regime is the logical outcome of the so-called "Enlightenment." Don't the humanist achievements of North Korea make you swell with pride?

The truth is, there are two breeds of Republics. America and the UK emerged from the Puritan Revolution of 1644-1648. Oliver Cromwell's statue stands before Parliament in London as a testament. The Puritan Republic of England had several excesses (not nearly so many as the modern Liberal would have you believe, but they did nonetheless) and Oliver Cromwell became ever more like a monarch as "Lord Protector." Nevertheless the notion of Republicanism and Parliamentary Supremacy were birthed in England during this era. The fulfillment of the Puritan Revolution came during the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Though not "Puritans," the 1688 Parliamentary forces were hard-core Calivinists who would, by any modern Liberal standard, be regarded as right-wing Christian extremists. The chief philosopher of the Glorious Revolution, one John Locke, was a Calvinist who justified every point he made in his treatises with Scripture. He was also one of the main inspirations of the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence. If one could put Locke's writings in a nutshell it would be, "God makes men free, as is His will and other men make men slaves." That's where the line in the Declaration of Independence "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" comes from. This is the sort of moral absolute that makes the skin of modern Leftists crawl. If there is no Creator, we have no Inalienable Rights. We only have whatever rights that the moral equivalence of Big Brother condescends to give us. And those will inevitably be little or nothing. Even in our society today, we can't even get out of the womb before the Left tries to tyrannize us, claiming right of life or death over us.

Speaking of Big Brother, that brings me to the other kind of "Republic." It doesn't really deserve the name. The Secularist "Republics" begin with a rush of populist collective democracy, but very quickly degenerate into corrupt oligarchies or dictatorships. The first such was Revolutionary France. The euphoria after Louis XVI's beheading quickly evaporated as the "Committee of Public Safety" began beaheding everyone. I am reminded of the musical "Pippin" where the idealistic young prince stabs his father Charlemagne, promising to change the "off with his head" style of ruling. It isn't long before Pippin himself is saying, "off with his head!" He then went to his father, lying there with Pippin's dagger in his back. He said, "can I have my knife back, please?" Charlemagne then rises, pulls out the blade, gives it to him and says, "don't let it happen again, son." I know there were many Frenchmen in the 1790s who were wishing they could give Louis XVI his head back, empty as it was. Instead the "Great Republic" soon had a new absolute monarch in Napoleon and embarked on a bloody world war.

Twenty-eight years after the heady days of storming the Bastile, the Russian Tsar's troops marched triumphantly through the ruins of France. Did the madness end there? By no means. A groups of Russian officers who would come to be known as the "Southern Society" brought the Secular Leftist ideals of the French Revolution home. From their humble beginnings the USSR would be birthed 102 years later.

The USA and the USSR were really the culmination of the true Calvinist Republic and the Secular "Republic" respectively. The Secular Left really needs to stop clinging to old, outdated notions. They need to realize that the Cold War is over. And their side lost.

Separation of Church and State?

2006-07-10T10:03:00.000-05:00

Multiple Choice question for all you out there-

"Separation of Church and State" does NOT appear in which of the following Constitutions?

A. Pol Pot's Cambodia
B. Nazi Germany
C. USSR
D. United States

If you answered "D" you got the only correct answer.

In "B", Nazi Germany, Hitler, a New Age Neo-Pagan, did his best to de-Christianize his Third Reich. Hitler hated Jews, you see, and Jesus, being a Jew, was hated by the Nazi Party. The SS, who were the political troops of the regime, used pagan symbology and desecrated Christian wayside shrines on their axis of advance much the way ACLU tyrants do in America today.

Joseph Stalin and his Communist Party wrote a Constitution for the new USSR in 1936. It included Separation of Church and State. In the implementation of this countless numbers were murdered or sent to forced labor camps.

And who can forget the crown jewel of Secular Humanism, Khmer Rouge Kampuchea? The Separation of Church and State was very well enforced, enough to make the ACLU proud. Any display of religious belief earned the believer a one-way trip to a killing field.

With such a marvelous track record, it's a wonder that any of us here in America would not want this law in full force here!

The troublesome little fact is "Separation of Church and State" is nowhere to be found in the US Constitution. Look hard and long, read it backwards and forwards, read every word twice, you'll never find the words "Separation of Church and State" anywhere. This is a might strange to me, as Left Wing revisionist historians argue that this mythical separation was so critically important to our Founding Fathers. So why didn't they write it out plainly if they were so unanimous and unwavering in this belief? Most perplexing.

The revisionists argue that the Establishment Clause in the I Amendment says "Separation of Church and State." But there are several problems with this. First being, if it was so important to keep government and religion apart, how did civilization as we know it survive between the writing of the Constitution in 1787 and the passage of the First Amendment in 1791? Something as important as the wall of separation supposedly was, why wasn't it put in one of the Articles of the Constitution? Why put off putting in the Constitution UNTIL AFTER IT WAS RATIFIED? Here are the facts- The majority of Americans in 1787 and 1788 were Anti-Federalists. Anti-Federalists opposed a strong central government for America. They did not want to trade a tyrant in London for a tyrant in Philadelphia and they knew any national government would have the potential to be exactly that. However, most people that the new thirteen independent countries needed to keep some semblance of unity, because it was a dangerous world filled with aggressive empires. They liked many of the ideas of the Constitution. So many of the Anti-Federalists agreed to support the new Constitution in return for the promise of a Bill of Rights to curtail Federal power. Let me reiterate this- the Bill of Rights- Amendments I-X- were written expressly to limit Federal authority. The "Establishment Clause" of the I Amendment says "CONGRESS shall make no LAW RESPECTING an Establishment of Religion." (emphasis mine) The argument can really end here as school prayer or local Ten Commandments monuments are not laws made by Congress. However, when trying to properly interpret a law, it is important to understand its origin and purpose. And in the Estbalishment Clause we have the glossed over word "respecting." If Congress can make no law RESPECTING an Establishment of Religion, that means, in plain English, that Congress cannot make a law for, against or indifferent to Establishment of Religion. It cannot touch the question. It necessarily follows that Federal Courts cannot touch the question either. Unless, of course it involves Congress making a law to Establish a Religion. What does this mean? It means that the biggest violator of the Establishment Clause in America today are the thug lawyers of the ACLU and the corrupt, protituted judges who seem bent on giving them their every whim, no matter how tyrannical. The Establishment Clause was written to protect people like the citizens of San Diego who are being tyrannized by the ACLU over a cross in their city's war memorial. Or the young girl who was denied both freedom of speech and freedom of religion in her valedictorian speech in Nevada while the ACLU applauded.

So where does Separation of Church and State REALLY come from? I mean, something supposedly so important was not recognized by any court in the land from 1789 to 1947. Strange that something so vital to a Republic as silencing religion supposedly is had to be "discovered" by a New Deal judge over 170 years after the founding of our nation. The separation crowd bays that Thomas Jefferson wrote it in his Danbury Baptist Church letter in 1801. However, suppose for a moment that the ACLU was trying to put a child rapist back on the street, as they often do. And suppose the prosecution based its case on a document written by someone who did not witness the crime and wrote it 14 years later. The ACLU would, no doubt, argue (rightly) that this evidence should be inadmissable. But these same people argue that Jefferson's Danbury Baptist letter, written 14 years after the Constitutional Convention at which he was not even present, is ironclad proof that "Separation of Church and State" is in our Constitution. What's more Jefferson was reassuring the good people of Danbury, Connecticut that the Federal Government would be staying out of their religious affairs in that letter. What comfort would the Danbury Baptists have taken from Jefferson promising to force them not to pray in their schools or break the crosses off their war memorials? Jefferson had won the presidency in 1800 on a platform of limited Federal interferrence. The notion of some New York shyster being able to tell people in towns that he didn't live in in Alabama or Georgia that they couldn't have a Ten Commandments monument in their public square would have been alien to him. It was the exact opposite of what he stood for. Thus, his letter to the Danbury Baptists is really inadmissable.

The first time "Separation of Chruch and State" appears in our Judicial opinions is written by the Supreme Court tyrant Hugo Black. It was in the 1947 Eversman v Board of Education case. Black actually ruled in favor of the Christians, saying that they "weren't violating the Separation of Chruch and State." So much for the stare decises of the 1892 Holy Trinity case, which acknowledged the obvious truth that America is a Christian nation. In any event, the Black stuck that little phrase into his ruling and the Left has been tyrannizing us ever since. The Eversman case was the latest in a string of cases in which the Courts applied the Bill of Rights at the state level, supposedly, via the XIV Amendment (which says that no state may deny immunities and priviledges of the Constitution).

Hugo Black and the Left argue that the XIV Amendment can transfer the establishment Clause down to the states, counties and municipalities. There are many problems with this, most glaring of which is the complete legal paradox which it creates. As has already been shown, the Establishment Clause forbids the Federal Government from engaging in any question of religion in the states. If the Federal Courts get involved, it is a violation of the I Amendment. But if the XIV Amendment allows the Court to violate the I Amendment by getting involved, then the I Amendment no longer stands, and by what basis do you use the Establishment Clause? Either way the Establishment Clause cannot be applied to a state or locality.

To wit- the Court can force New York State to honor Free Speech in the Gitlow case without violating New York's free speech. But they cannot force the Establishment Clause on the states without itself violating the Establishment Clause. The Left, as usual, is trying to have it both ways.

Truth of the matter is, Liberals in the 1920s, 30s and 40s believed that Stalin's Russia was the most advanced and enlightened nation on the earth. New Deal Liberals dreamed of a socialist world. In Article 124 of the 1936 Soviet Constitution said "there shall be a separation of church and state." It worked so well for Stalin, they wanted to try it here. You see, our Liberal judges seeking to impose the laws of Global Socialism on us is not a new phenomenon. It didn't begin with Breyer and Ginsberg imposing French and UN law on us a couple years back. Hugo Black and his fellow eight FDR appointees began this Leftist Judicial tradition by imposing Stalin's laws on us. And THAT is the true origin of Separation of Church and State in Modern America.

The Clinton Legacy vs The Reagan Legacy

2006-07-09T01:00:00.000-05:00

I remember 1989 and 2001. I remember how in 2001 Bill Clinton was scrambling around like some great booby trying to find his legacy. Ronald Reagan, a humble man, let his legacy speak for itself in 1989. That year the Berlin Wall came down and Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany and Romania tasted freedom after decades of bitter Soviet occupation.

After the better part of a year trying to convince us how great he was for us, we still only remembered Bill Clinton for his romp with Monica Lewinsky. One might argue that that was all he deserved to be remembered for. I used to agree. The Lewinsky Scandal makes Clinton look like a mere buffoon, like Governor LaPetomaine from "Blazing Saddles" who made it to the White House. But he really deserves to be remembered for his truly most serpentine action, the Chinagate Scandal. John Huang, DNC fundraiser extraordinaire and Red Chinese Agent, sold access to President Clinton in return for donations to the DNC, his '96 presidential campaign and his legal defense fund for the various cases brought about by his sexual harassment. Clinton also sold military technology. That included missile technology. In 1992 the Red Chinese didn't have a missile that could hit Japan with any accuracy. By 2000 they could threaten Los Angeles. And guess who supplied North Korea with the missile technology with which it is currently threatening the Pacific Basin? You guessed it, China.

Not only that. It was the Clinton Administration that negotiated with North Korea back in 1994 the last time it sought nuclear weapons. He gave them some of our uclear technology as well as some fissionable material in return for their sweet promise not to build bombs with it. Any fool who would believe such a promise was never fit to be president. And now we face the danger of North Korean missiles. This is Clinton's legacy.

On the other side of history stood Ronald Reagan. He made the decision as president that we would stand up to the USSR. He asserted that the Soviet Evil Empire could be beaten and forced to relinquish the territory it enslaved. Liberal Democrats laughed at the idea. They saw their Soviet brothers as sophisticated and loved them. They saw Reaganite Republicans from Middle America as cruel bumpkins and despised them.

Reagan said we could build a missile defense shield and thereby negate Soviet nuclear weapon technology. Liberals mocked the idea all the way. They opposed SDI. Much to the regret of the USSR, nobody listened to them. Both Gorby and Anatoly Dobrynin (the man who negotiated for the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis) said that SDI did their cause in (both said so in interviews they gave on the History Channel). Liberal "geniuses" got especially snarky, acting like they were so smart and anyone who didnt see it their way was so dumb. And after being wrong about nearly everything since their love affair with Joseph Stalin, they still act that way. In any event Reagan took on the Communists and the rest is history.

Two legacies are casting their shadow over America today. Bill Clinton's, represented by the missiles North Korea is firing at us and Ronald Reagan's, represented by the missile defense shield rising to protect us. We should honor them both in the manner they deserve.

America The Not So Hated II

2006-07-08T02:01:00.000-05:00

In my last post "America the Not So Hated" I briefly analyzed eight elections that took place across the Free World from 2004 to 2006. In this supposedly anti-American world, the score went thus- victory for 5 Pro-American Conservatives, two Liberals who promise friendly relations with America (one of these was Tony Blair, a loyal friend of the US) and one Anti-American Liberal, Zapatera of Spain, who was given the 2004 election by the 3-11 'al-Qaeda Madrid attacks.

I extend my apologies to John Howard, who I neglected to mention. He is the Conservative Prime Minister of Australia, a good friend of President Bush and America, who won re-election in 2004. He had faced off against a venomous pro-Islamofascist appeasement Laborite. His opponent had promised to withdraw Australia's troops from Iraq. Perhaps the Bali nightclub bombing taught the Austalian people the folly of appeasement. A footnote in the 2004 Australian election is that John Kerry's sister proved to be as big a traitor as her brother. She went Down Under to stump for the Anti-American candidate against Howard, our friend.

The truth about Anti-Americanism in Europe is that in most NATO countries back in the Cold War Era, 10-20% of the population were Communists or fellow travellers. In most cases these people call themselves something different since 1989, but they haven't changed who they are or what they believe in. These people didn't get angry at America for invading Iraq. They got angry at us for daring to stand up to their beloved USSR and win. There is nothing America can do to please these people. Anything America does to protect itself, like waging the War on Terror, will draw their ire. And these Socialists can easily call on thousands for their rent-a-mob demonstrations. And then the Liberal Media portrays it like we are making these people mad all of sudden by our Iraq policy. If you watch these demonstrations closely on tv you can see things like streaming red banners of socialism and portraits of Stalin. All very illuminating about the so-called "Anti-War" Movement.

As I acknowledged in my first post, there is widespread Anti-Americanism in the Middle East. Obviously. But there is also more Pro-Americanism than the Liberal Media will report. Most young Iranians favor restoring friendly relations with the US. Most Iraqis participated in their young republic's electoral process, embracing American-style republicanism. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, under US influence, are turning their once absolutist monarchies into more Parliamentary style systems. Egyptians are calling for a full republic like they have in Iraq. The Lebanese took heart from the US presence in Iraq to rise up and throw the Syrians out after thirty years of occupation. Even some who had once harshly criticized America now expressed their gratitude to it. The very opposite of what Liberals are saying (that our presence in Iraq is increasing Anti-American sentiment). There are more than a few Middle Easterners who are friends of the republican form of government. And developments in Iraq are quite pleasing to these people. Yes, there are also many friends of tyranny friends of tyranny in the Middle East. These people agree with Liberals.

I hear a lot of people saying that the US is hated around the world. There is no denying that we have many enemies. But these have always been there, from one end of Eurasia to the other. They've hated us ever since we decided to oppose Stalin and his clients back in 1946. We don't have any new enemies since 2003. As a matter of fact, thanks to the Army, Marines, Air Force and Navy in Iraq, we have thousands upon thousands fewer foes! God Bless them and God Bless the USA!

America The Not So Hated

2006-07-06T21:26:00.000-05:00

The votes are in and they've been counted twice. Conservative Felipe Calderon has been certified the winner of the Mexican presidetial race. Leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is promising a court battle. However Calderon has won the election, albeit by a narrow margin.

Something I read about the campaign in the New York Times got me thinking. Calderon has charged Lopez-Obrador with being a staunch Anti-American in the mold of Venezuela's Bush hating warthog, Hugo Chavez. Far from admitting it, Lopez-Obrador indignantly responded he was no such animal and that he would maintain cordial relations with the US and encourage its investments.

What does this tell us? Even to the Leftward half of Mexico's electorate, or at least a majority of them, maintaining at least lukewarm relations with the US is important. Hugo Chavez couldn't win an election in Mexico (couldn't win a FAIR one in Venezuela either).

Now, when we listen to the Liberal Media, they tell us America is hated around the world over the war in Iraq. They cite this poll, taken by Leftists, that America is viewed as the most dangerous threat to the world today. However, election results in the various republics of Europe and the West tell us a much different story.

The only openly Anti-American Leftist to win was Zapatera in Spain, in March, 2004. Osama bin Laden handed it to him with the 3-11 attacks three days before Spaniards went to the polls. The Conservative Aznar was blamed for the attacks and the election was over before the emotions of 3-11 died down. All things being equal, Zapatera would be just another loser, as he deserves to be, and no doubt will be in 2008.

The Liberal Media played up Zapatera's victory to the skies. They barely mentioned the triumph of Pro-American, Pro-Iraq War Conservatives in Greece three months later. The Greek Right had promised to get the Olympic facilities squared away, and the Socialists had been making a hash of it.

Then came the elections in Germany, Poland and the UK. In Germany, Conservative Angela Merkl ran on a platform of restoring full good relations with the US and won. Poland elected Conservatives. In the UK, Laborite Tony Blair held on to a majority diminished by nearly 50 seats. But, as we all know, Tony Blair is a friend and not an enemy of the United States and he is also one of the architects of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In 2006 we had elections in Canada, Italy and, of course, Mexico. In Soviet Canuckistan, we had an unexpected Glasnost with Conservatives sweeping to power in the wake of rampant Laborite corruption. The Left narrowly won in Italy, but like Lopez-Obrador in Mexico, Romano Prodi promised Italians cordial relations with the US.

Where's all this hatred for America? None of the election results of any Western Republics indicate a major shift to the Left against America. On the contrary five of the eight elections in Western Republics yielded the result of a Conservative victory (six of nine if we count the US election of 2004). All three Leftist victories were by thin margins, one a good friend of America. The elections speak a different story than Left Wing push polls.

Even in the Muslim world, where there is much Anti-Americanism, many people there believe in us. The Lebanese threw the Syrians out after thirty years, inspired by the new Republic in Iraq. Democracy Movements have emerged in Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

Looking at the facts, we can see that the Left Wing Media has just been churning out more "Blame America First" garbage when it tries to scare us with all the tales of how the US is so hated all around the world.

Happy 4th of Quinctilis

2006-07-03T23:20:00.000-05:00

I wanted to wish all you citizes of the Republic of Utica out there a Happy 4th of Quinctilis. In the days when Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis walked the Earth, that is what this month was called, and next month would be called Sextilis. However, a Left Wing politician came on the scene in Rome, wanting to be King. He renamed Quinctilis "Julius" after himself, and his successor renamed Sextilis "August" after himself (such megalomania! Even Uncle Joe Stalin never tried that).

Being staunchly republican in my ways, I propose that we return the ancient names of our two hottest months to their ancient names. Let us not honor the Leftist who would be King and his successor, who was.

So.......

Happy 4th of Quinctilis!

Why Are Liberal Journalists Sacred Cows?

2006-07-01T03:00:00.000-05:00

As a general rule of thumb, the Left does not believe in the Bill of Rights. They do not embrace these sacred truths, they oppose them. In spite of this staunch oppostition, they don't hesitate to invoke our freedoms if they can use them against us.

For example, Liberals do not believe in freedom of speech. Anywhere where they have strong control and there's no chance of a Conservative winning the next election, they impose political correctness and speech codes. They do this to avoid anyone being "offended" (ie to avoid offending any Liberals by having someone express a Conservative viewpoint). They will not hesitate to punish anyone for alleged "hate speech" excepting their own, naturally. But on the other hand, they will invoke freedom of speech incessantly to preserve things like pornography or some anti-American garbage that no one wants to listen to. If you ask why a transvestite hooker needs to address a group of eighth graders they'll say, "you need to have all points of view." But if it comes to a Coservative Christian, "you might offend someone." An absolute double standard and they get away with it time and again.

Once again, the New York Times has betrayed America. The Gray Witch gave classified information to the public about a totally legitament program to monitor and stanch the flow of terrorist funds. Terrorists without huge amounts of money see their groups whither and die. And then soldiers and civilians don't lose their lives. But this simple concept seems to be beyond the ken of the ivory tower dwelling Mahattan elites. Or, more likely, it is't. But what are the lives of our soldiers or our people next to selling a few more newspapers? Pinchy Goebbels, given his preferrence for seeing an American soldier die over his enemy, is probably glad to have hurt our soldiers (for those of you who didn't read my last post, "Pinch" Sulzberger said to his during the Vietnam Era that if a North Vietnamese and an American soldier encountered each other, he'd hope the American soldier got killed).

Now, what do you think will happen if we prosecute Pinchy Goebbels for his CRIME (yes it is a crime to give away Top Secret Information to the enemy) of betrayal? You know he is going to invoke the First Amendment that he doesn't believe in. He's going to prance around going on and on about a free press. But, as anyone with an ounce of common sense knows, a free press doesn't mean the newsman can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Or to help terrorists we are at war with.

Sadly, a corrupt court system such as ours, which found a right to be sodomized in the Constitution in the Spring of 2003, but not the right to freedom of religion plainly written there being defended by Judge Roy Moore in the Summer of 2003, might very well find a right to betray America by the press.

Nonetheless, we must bring Pinchy Goebbels to trial, as well as his underling media propagandist Bill Keller. Right now the New York Times believes it can betray America at will and expose our secrets to our enemies and laugh at anyone gullible enough to believe that they do it in the name of a "free press" and to "foster debate" rather than to sell newspapers and advance their Hate America Agenda. Crime Boss Al Capone once seemed above the law the way Pinchy Goebbels does now. But Elliot Ness kept on him and Capone died of syphillis on Alcatraz. Someday Sulzberger and Keller may get their just deserts as well.

We cannot allow Pinchy Goebbels to paint anyone who wants him to face justice as enemies of a free press. The Bush Administration and the American people are totally in favor of it. But no one has the right to betray the lives of our soldiers and people to sell newspapers. There must be a reckoning. It's time to make hamburgers out of the Sacred Cow of Liberal Jouralism.

Pinchy Sulzberger, 5th columnist

2006-06-28T18:28:00.000-05:00

The Republic of Utica salutes Rep. Peter King of New York and Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky for their call for criminal charges against the New York Times Dung Merchants Bill Keller and Arthur O "Pinch" Sulzberger jr. As a loyal American, I would love to see the two get punished.

The New York Times hasn't really been a source of quality journalism for decades now, but it has really taken a nosedive since 1992 when "Junior" took over from his father "Punch" Sulzberger. The Liberal bias has been worse than it was under daddykins, who obviously spoiled his little punk rotten and never let him face the real world. Jayson Blair was caught making politically correct Fairy Tales out of whole cloth. The New York Times aka Pravda West is just a Left Wing rag that makes stuff up to forward the Party Line. Jayson Blair was a mere symptom, only the most egregious offender. Not the only one by far. He was just the example they could make and say "see no Left Wing bias here."

Now we could merely dismiss "Pinchy Goebbels," as Michael Savage once aptly called him, as a mere Left Wing clown, just another cog in the Liberal Media regurgitating its spew. But no. Pinchy is a traitor punk. He learned to hate America in his university days if not earlier. When his father went to bail him out in Boston after getting arrested during one of his Pro-Bolshevik Murderer protests of the Vietnam Era, he asked his son a question. If an American soldier and a North Vietamese soldier came upon each other, which would little Junior want to get shot. And like the patriot he is, Pinchy Goebbels said he wanted to see the American get shot. What a patriot! Of North Vietnam. Hey Punch, if you couldn't raise your brat right, you shoulda at least left him in jail to cool off for a bit! But little Pinchy never had to face the consequences of his actions. Cosequently he has grown into a Fifth Columnist traitor with no love of country or respect.

And now he published a story that blew the cover of our classified operations catching the cashflow of terrorists. So, if an 'al-Qaeda terrorist gets financed and blows up another pizza parlor with a bunch of kids in it, who cares? Not Pinchy. It doesn't affect him. Prince Pinchy has never had to face any dire consequences. Well, it's time he did. As a former American soldier that Pinchy would love to see shot, I demand that my government protect my people from this traitor that hates them. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE FOR WHAT HE HAS DONE. The law says he must be punished. Do it Gonzalez!!!!

The Left Forgets/Ignores the East

2006-06-26T11:09:00.000-05:00

Is anybody out there aware of the fact that 1000 years ago the most culturally and technologically advanced civilization on earth was a Christian theocracy that knew the Earth was round? That's right people, it's true. The Eastern Roman Empire, mistakenly referred to as the "Byzantine Empire" had the finest technology and naval and civilian ships in the world. It's economy was the most stable and they came from all over the world to trade. The ruler of the Empire, centered on the opulent city of Constantinople, was Khristos Pantokrator, Christ the Ruler of All. The Basileus Rhomaion, the Roman Emperor, was merely his vassal, his regent on Earth. Eratosthenes of Alexandria calculated that the Earth was round in the 3rd century BC. His works were still extant and widely read in the libraries of the Empire a thousand years ago. And they were believed. Far from stifling scientific progress, Roman science grew by leaps and bounds in the Christian period from 350 AD- ca 1180 AD.

Why isn't your average Public School child taught about this? Why, instead, are they taught that Christianity hampers science? I heard a very ignorant woman on tv many years ago. She said that Christianity so stifled scientific progress that we'd have had a man on the Moon by 300 AD if there had been no Christianity. To make an uninformed statement like that, she has to have absolutely zero knowledge of Rome when its capital was Constantinople. Quite the contrary, in the more Christian areas of the Roman Empire from the 3rd Century- 6th Century AD (those areas furthest to the South and East, closest to Jerusalem) the economies and innovations grew. The economy in that period collapsed in the most pagan areas of the Empire, those furthest to the North and West (ie furthest in the Empire from Jerusalem).

Part of the blame lies with the disdain that early modern classicists like Edward Gibbon had for the Byzantine period of the Roman Empire. Thus, this period was glossed over in our education systems. And it's not like the Liberals who've dumbed down our Public Schools in the last forty years are going to have any revival of the study of this. Leftists, with an incomplete picture of the Medieval Period, looking at it Western and Arabic, but ignoring the whole world in between them, the remnant of the Roman World, centered on Greece and Asia Minor.

The Left looks at the collapsed economy of the Medieval West from ca 500-1000 AD and, in its irrational hatred for Christianity, chooses to blame it. They act as if the incessant Germanic invasions of these places from 165-486 AD had nothing at all to do with it. The Muslim invasions of the 7th and 8th centuries AD which reduced or nearly cut off trade with vast swaths of the East, formerly ruled by Rome (ie Egypt, Syria, Africa Proconsularis). And let's not forget Attila the Hun!

Christianity, on the contrary, preserved what little of the knowledge of the Roman Period that remained in the West in the monastaries.

So what happens? The Left, in its worldview, forgets what happens in the East. If they looked at the great technological progress in Constantinople, they'd know that Christianity, if anything, spurs science along. Christianity gives people a belief that universe is an ordered place, a place of Intelligent Design, and that all they have to do is figure out the ways and means of the order, the design, and they can gain knowledge.

And it seems to be a pattern, forgetting the East. I realized this as I was writing about Khmer Rouge Cambodia yesterday. One of the many oft repeated lies of the Secular Left is "religion has killed more people throughout history than anything else." Oh really? Anyone who could make an ignorant statement like that is abysmally ignorant of the tens of millions murdered in Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia and other Secularist Darwinist regimes that emerged directly from the so-called Age of "Enlightenment." Yes, Nazi Germany too was a Secular State, with Darwinist views (its racial policies) and Separation of Church and State was the law of the land there. So, on the contrary, 150-200 million people murdered by "enlightened" secularists in less than a century was bloodier than a thousand years of inquisitions. More people have been butchered by Secular Humanism than anything else in the history of man. Secular Humanism is the prideful self-deification of man. And when man tries to be God, he ends up being a devil. The people who are buried in all the mass graves from Berlin to Phnom Penh would attest to that. If they could say anything.

Of course this forgetting of the East is all part of the grander plan to rewrite history by the Left, demonizing the West, especially America. "He who controls the past controls the future," Orwell famously said. I do not believe it is by accident that our children are without knowledge of history and world geography. Our education system was the best in the world in 1960. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that what put it completely in the dumps by 1975-1980 was the influx of hippie dopeheads into the teaching profession in the 1970s. But its more than just reefer madness that has dumbed down our schools. This is by design, that our history is being stolen from us by the Left. If we have no past other than what Left Wing pseudo-intellectuals give us, then we also have no future other than what they deign to give us.

We need to read our history books, Red State America. We need to study the history of the East. And everywhere else also. We need to learn Arabic history as well. Our heritage will be completely lost to mob rule of the Left if we do not.

Red State America's Moral Imperative

2006-06-25T05:25:00.000-05:00

The central topic of this post I have touched on in other Republic of Utica posts, so bear with me. But I believe it deserves its own posting.

The Left always loves to claim the high moral ground for themselves, something they have no right to do whatsoever. In their self-righteous tones they say to any challenge of their supposed heroism that we would still have slavery and women would be barefoot and pregnant if not for them. But both are baldface lies, or, at least, gross ignorance of history.

To pass an amendment to the Constitution, it must be ratified by 3/4 of Congress or 3/4 of state legislatures. In 1919, when the XIX Amendment was passed giving women the franchise Republicans held majorities in both Houses of Congress and also the state legislatures. What's even more telling is that these majorities grew when women started to vote. In the presidential elections of 1920, 1924 and 1928, as well as the Cogressional elections these years and the midterms, the Democrats got utterly skunked. This happened with the help of the newest Conservative Republican voting bloc- women.

Don't confuse the narcississtic harpies who hijacked the women's movement in the 1960s with the earlier suffragettes. The women's movement used to do great good before the medusas who run it now turned it into a hypocritical farce. They used to be Christian women who closed down saloons and brothels rather than support politicians who lived in them a la Clinton and Kennedy. Not only women, but men and children benefitted from their efforts, unlike today where they demonize men, kill babies and ruin the lives of women who dare to complain about being used like toilet paper if the men so using them are pro-abortion Democrats a la Clinton and Kennedy. No doubt if Mary Jo Kopechne had somehow floated to the surface of Lake Chappaquiddick and been resuscitated NOW and Gloria Steinem and other such hypocritical blowhards would have attempted to destroy her life a la Juanita Brodderick, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers and the rest of the Greek Chorus of Clinton's paramours. The Left traditionally resisted giving women the right to vote for the same reason the Right favored it- their devout Christianity and their dedication to family. Leftists would, no doubt, often make up many of the patrons of the saloons and brothels shut down by the suffragettes/Temperance League. So, as the facts show, the Left has been no friend of womankind. It was Conservative Republicanism, not socialism, that mobilized women and got them the vote. Of the many travesties perpetrated by the Left, the notion that they did so much for women is probably one of the worst.

Same thing goes for black people. In the 19th century and the first half of the 20th Left Wing Secularist Darwinists believed that blacks were one notch above monkeys on their evolutionary ladder. It was Conservative Christians who asserted that Blacks were made in the Image of God, same as Whites. The Abolitionist Movement was very Christian in nature, as was the Civil Rights Movement. Dr Walter Williams in his excellent article "Historical Tidbits" (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams1.asp) expounded on the 19th century Left's racism, as did Ann Coulter in her delightful book "Godless." The Democratic Party, the traditional defender of slavery and segregation, embraced Civil Rights merely as a pragmatic means of preserving its machine politics, nothing more.

It is important to remember that a welfare state is never created for the benefit of welfare recipients, but rather to enlarge the power of the politicians creating the welfare state. The welfare state does not liberate men, it enslaves them. It does not lift the spirit of a man, but rather crushes it. All throughtout the history of Republics and Democracies thugs and tyrants have subverted the freedom of their brothers and sisters just by increasing the dole. The supposed benefactor might be a scoudrel, but the dole recipients love him for his perceived generosity. In return their votes, which ideally should go to the most capable, the one who loves his country the most, go to a scoundrel who craves power. It is in this way that Republics die. Not because of oil companies.

Our Founding Fathers knew all about what I laid out in the last paragraph. They knew welfare state demagogues would come. Every protection they laid out in the Constitution was to protect our freedom from them. But I don't think they ever counted on the ACLU, the biggest agent of tyranny in the USA today.

So, in the public discourse today, Liberals get to portray themselves as big heroes to women and blacks and most undeservedly so. Any time someone opposes the asinine ideas Liberals frequently come up with must also be opposed to "womens' rights" and "Civil Rights." We really need to stop letting them get away with that. We must cite the Left's real history with blacks and women.

We must also tell the Left's real record on Civil Rights. For example the Civil Rights of the people of Vietnam and Cambodia. Somehow in the public discourse it doesn't get any mention that the Killing Fields of Cambodia were a direct result of the treason of the likes Abbie Hoffmann, Tom Hayden and Dr Spock. These men, and others like them, caused a US withdrawal from Indochina that caused millions to die and millions more to be displaced with only the clothes on their backs. Not only that, but they created a drug culture which has, directly or idirectly, ruined and killed millions of lives.

We in Red State America must burn the images of Cambodia's Killing Fields into our minds. Two million Cambodians out of a 1975 population of six million died. Angka, the faceless Khmer Rouge Party, would kill people for any variety of reasons in any variety of cruel methods. People could be killed for wearing glasses. For speaking French. For having any kind of education. Practicing any kind of religion. It brought a sentence of death. People were shot, bludgeoned, starved or worked to death. And they were piled into huge mass graves. Stinky hippies from the Left, far from being ashamed of abetting such atrocities act all proud of themselves as if they had any reason to be. How dare they? Every Red State American needs to recount what happened when they got their way and say "I remember what you did!" Whenever some beatnik points the finger of accusation at any one, it needs to be immediately pointed right back in his face.

We must never forget what the Cambodian people suffered. Especially since if the Left gets its way in Iraq, the Iraqis will suffer the same way. All those smiling people with purple on their fingers, proud to have braved death to vote- DEAD. (Iraq had a higher voter turnout than the US, even in 2004 when turnout was 20% higher than usual. And the Liberals have the brass to say that Iraqis don't appreciate a republican form of government? Iraqis do, it's American Liberals that don't) All the Iraqis who welcomed our soldiers and trusted in the republic- DEAD. Or enslaved to a new Islamofascist potentate. The Iraqi soldiers and police who bravely fought for their new freedoms- DEAD. But the American Leftists who would gladly make it happen? Sitting in Starbucks sipping lattes and either congratulating themselves on how supposedly wonderful they are or whining about what victims they are. Their ivory towers won't be touched by the havoc they create.

In Red State America we have to face the facts. The Left in this country has chosen a side in the War on Terror and it is not America's. We must defeat the terrorists and defeat the Liberals as well. The two are inseparable at this point. Red State America's moral imperative is this- the Killing Fields of Cambodia must never be allowed to happen again.

What's the Matter With Massachusetts?

2006-06-22T02:03:00.000-05:00

I'm growing quite weary of the arrogant bi-coastal elites and their tired old Marxist cliches. Our Leftists call themselves "Progressives" as if their ideas are new and fresh and the wave of the future. A certain analogy goes that nations walk to the top wearing hobnailed military boots and descend into obscurity wearing silk slippers. Only within this idiom are Liberals the future of our society (if we let them be) and Conservatives the past.

But in all other regards our Liberal friends are way out of whack. I frequently hear "Progressives" argue that Middle American and Bible Belt voters vote against their "economic interests" in favor of some supposedly illusionary righteousness. Thomas Frank articulated this delusion in his tripe-work "What's the Matter With Kansas?" (short answer:nothing). But you know, even if we assume that an overbearing socialist bureaucracy is in the "economic interest" of middle class and poor red staters, that being taxed off their farms and out of their small businesses into an overbearing welfare state is for their greatest good, sacrificing one's principles for monetary gain has a special word for it. That is prostitution. So Frank wants us to prostitute off our cherished beliefs to jump on the welfare state bandwagon. And he asks what's the matter with US.

Frank wrote once, "For us it is the Democrats that are the party of workers, of the poor, of the weak and the victimized. Figuring this out, we think, is basic; it is part of the ABCs of adulthood. " Frank shows a lack of knowledge of history. The Republicans are the party of the working people. The Democrats are the Party of a welfare state and people who want freebees without earning them. The Democrats are the Party of the Predators, not the victimized.

What's more, this is not a new phenomenon in history. Republics are invariably destroyed from within by the self-appointed champions of the poor. Welfare states are set up not to benefit the recipients of the largesse, but rather the politicians who dole it out. The poor in Rome loved Caesar, but after a time of dictatorship, clamored for a return to the Republic. But it was too late to say no by the reign of Tiberius Caesar. The Romans had been mobilized by the growing Welfare State. The Caesars took control and once they had, there was no going back.

The truth is, the Democratic Party has always backed slavery. Frank writes as if it would be axiomatic that Abolitionists would be with him were they around today. Personally I believe John Brown would probably gun him down five minutes after meeting him. I'd like to see Liberals come to Fudametalist Abolitionist stronghold towns and tyrannize them telling them no school prayer, no Bibles in school or no Ten Commandments in public areas. They'd be very quickly run out of these towns.

The Democrat politicians supported Civil Rights not out of geuine altruism, but to bolster a sagging voting base. Democrats were and are demogogues who wile the very poor into giving them power via political machines. The GI Generation Democrats who ran the party from the late 1940s to the late 1960s(of whom Zell Miller is the last) were, mostly decent men, not the cynics of the New Deal or New Left, but nonetheless, Civil Rights was far more pragmatist than originally imagined.

The movie "Gangs of New York" dramatizes the utter hypocrisy and dishonesty by which the Demos under Boss Tweed built their Irish machine. Boss Tweed was a con artist and thief who gave the Irish crumbs of charity, not because he loved them, but because he wanted their votes and to have a lock on power and with that power be able to do pretty much whatever he wanted. And he did until Republican muckrackers took him down and packed him off to prison.

The Irish had opposed the abolitionists. The Democratic machine consisted of New Immigration immigrants such as the Italians and Poles, as well as the Hibernians. And poor White Southerners.

But after 1945 things were changing. The Irish, Italians, Poles and, more slowly and less totally, White Southerers began moving from the poverty stricken masses needing a demagogue champion into an independent Middle Class. Many of these who supported FDR in 1932 liked Ike in 1952. The machine was losing its cogs and needed spare. Where would Demos find a mass of poor, underpriviledged people to build a new machine? That's when they turned to Black people. And the Demos lost the South due to the emergence of the new independent middle class. If we presume that one has to be racist to win in the South, then Jimmy Carter (who won 12 of 13 Southern states in 1976) and Bill Clinton (6 of 13 in both 1992 and 1996) would both have to be flaming racists. Not to mention a majority of Southern Congressmen and goverors were Democratic until 1994. Walter Williams today wrote an excellent column on Marx, the racist.

We need to ask, What's the matter with Massachusetts? Why do they continue to re-elect the real-life inspiration for Jabba the Hutt, Ted Kennedy for forty years? Why do effete Yankee Brahmin Liberals continue to fight in support of America's every enemy? The Viet-Cong, Khmer Rouge, Sandinistas, El Salvadoran Communist FMLN, Fidel Castro, the USSR, Saddam Hussein and others have all enjoyed the benefits of support by American Liberals. Now who's interest is it to help these people? No loyal American.

I got a scholarship to go to an elite prep school with the children of limosine liberals for my junior and senior years(1985-1987). I had come home from travels in Europe and America was a beloved, cherished homeland that I had desired to return home to. I never imagined that there was a large movement of Americans who hated America so much. "I'm not into America" a classmate named Rachel put it mildly. How is it in anyone's interest to be self-loathing and to hate your country? Self-hatred is a severe mental illness. Someone who hates themself has nothing to offer or teach anyone.

Frank and other Libs say that Kansans voting Republican vote against their "economic interest." I say no. The prosperity that comes from free markets benefits everyone. Massachusetts votes against its interest in voting for Ted Kennedy the Hutt. If the terrorists win this war, Liberal Americans will no longer be able to continue on in their ivory towers, insulated from reality. It will come crashing in on them. Like 9-11 and then some.

To Benedict Arnold Murtha

2006-06-19T18:32:00.000-05:00

Sitting on YOUR fat behind in YOUR air conditioned office, you criticized Karl Rove for saying that we need to stay the course instead of taking your coward's way out of Iraq. "He's not doing the fighting," you driveled, "our soldiers are." Yes, Jack(ass), our soldiers are, you aren't. And if we pull out and the Islamofascists take over in Iraq, it wont be your blubbery butt piled into a mass grave with Iraqis who have voted in their three elections. Your tubby bottom won't be dragged from your air-conditioned mansion and taken to a rape room or prison cell to be caned for criticizing Saddam (not that you were ever guilty of that).

You claim to care about American soldiers, Murtha, you Mutha, but the only, THE ONLY, beneficiaries of you ridiculous screeds are the terrorist enemies, but none of us are allowed to criticize you because you were in the Marines. Well, let me tell you something. Lee Harvey Oswald and Charles Whitman were in the Marines too. Benedict Arnold, who's name is synonymous with treason, personally led a charge at Saratoga in which he was wounded in the leg. This victory that he won for us turned the tide of the Revolutionary War. If this and his heroic campaign in Quebec don't alleviate his treason, then don't think your time in the Marines makes it ok for you to serve our enemies and still have respect. Our soldiers have died because of the aid and comfort dirtbags like you have given our enemies. They would have given up if not for the fact that they knew they could count on "Americans" like you to lend them a hand. So don't tell me what a big hero or great American you are.

And if you wonder who I am, I am a veteran of the 3rd Infantry Division. I was in the First Wave of what would have been Clinton's EXACT SAME invasion of Iraq which began to deploy in February, 1998. Clinton gave the exact same reasons for going there that Bush did in 2003. The only thing that pre-empted it was Kofi Annan saying that Saddam would get ONE LAST CHANCE. And you supported the invasion then, hypocrite. So don't give me any crap about how Bush lied to you. You are the liar. And you are seeking power at the expense of American lives and strength. That makes you a traitor too. I hope Diana Irey, a real American lady, sends your fat butt back to the air conditioned comfort of your mansion back in Pennsylvania where you won't cause any more death.

Zarqawi Documents Prove Liberal Media Lies

2006-06-15T19:24:00.000-05:00

Thanks to documents recovered in Abu Musab 'al-Zarqawi's bombed out Headquarters, 104 terrorists have been killed and hundreds more taken prisoner. Dozens of weapons caches have been captured. But of almost equal importance is the insight we gained into 'al-Qaeda's state in Iraq.

The 21st century's Ho Chi Minh despaired of the state of his terror organization. He was writing that America was winning the war and he wasn't replacing his combat losses. Do you remember how Liberal "Geniuses" went on and on about how we were "creating more terrorists"? Yeah right. Zarqawi complained about how he wasn't getting any new recruits.

The late, unlamented Abu Musab also said that he felt the US Army was winning the war and successfully raising up a native Army for the new Iraqi Republic that he would not be able to defeat.

The Zarqawi documents prove that everything the Liberals have argued about the war in Iraq is the opposite of the truth. Those of us with our heads not in a very dark place have known this all along.

The Libs loved to compare the Iraq War with the Vietnam War, even tho the two were as different as Vietnam's jungle climate from Iraq's desert. They gave a whole new meaning to "stuck on stupid." However, there is one similarity between the two wars. In both cases the Left betrayed America in an effort to help a murderous enemy win. The Left to this day has to say that Vietnam was both unwinnable and immoral. Lemme tell you people out there, in 1965 there wasn't a more noble cause than preventing the Killing Fields of 1975 that we are all familiar with or turning Vietnam into the totalitarian gulag state it is today. But our "patriotic" Liberal countrymen used to hang posters and chant the name of the Bolshevik tyrant of Hanoi. "Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh, (North) Vietnam will win!" and then go spit in the face of an American veteran.

We need to remember the Killing Fields. Saddam had his Killing Fields too. And if the war in Iraq was lost more mass graves will get filled. Make no mistake about it. It won't affect, Liberals. Just as Liberals in 1975 put on Bell Bottoms and went to Studio 54, totally untouched in their little ivory tower world by the Khmer Rouge and Viet-Cong they helped bring to power, so too would they continue to go to their Starbucks' and drink their lattes. It won't be them filling up the mass graves. So what do they care?

It's up to Red State America, brothers and sisters. We have to defeat not just the terrorists, but Blue State America as well. Or millions will die.

Zarqawi- Death of a Democrat Hero

2006-06-08T21:16:00.000-05:00

June 8, 2006 is a date of mourning for Liberals. An ally, hero and friend of theirs has passed away, another victim of American "Imperialism." You can rely on the Birkenstock-wearing, Starbucks' slurping neo-Marxist crowd thinking this even if they don't say it. Certainly Columbia professor Nicolas DeGenova who wished for "a million Mogadishus" to America must be crying into his soy latte on this day. In my book he gets points for honesty if nothing else.

I'm being harsh you say? I shouldn't attack their patriotism? OK, let's review. Liberals so love to pat themselves on the back. But let's look at the real record.

From about 1917 until the early 1950s, Liberals believed that Joseph Stalin's USSR was the wave of the future. Liberal Media journalists like I.F. Stone covered up Stalin's atrocities, like the man-made famine of 1932-33 in which tens of millions starved to death. FDR's ambassador to Moscow, Joseph E Davies, told the president that the victims of the 1937 purges more or less had it coming. New Deal politicians sought to remake America in the 1930s into the image of Soviet Russia of that time. Meanwhile tens of millions died.

In the 1960s Liberals chanted the name of Ho Chi Minh. "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh!!!" echoed the streets of Berkeley and Amherst, along with odors of marijuana and unwashed hippie bodies. Let's not forget that North Vietnam's ally the Khmer Rouge also was able to take over Cambodia and perpetrate the worst atrocities in history. Do Liberals hang their heads in shame as they should over their crucial role in helping three murderous regimes come to power in Indochina? Not at all, they hold their heads high and act as if they have something to be proud of. They didn't let Cambodians being piled into mass graves bring them down, man. They put on their bell bottoms and went disco dancing. Meanwhile millions died.

Liberals greatly enjoyed reading Mao's Little Red Book in the 1970s right after that lovely little bloody episode known as "The Cultural Revolution." Meanwhile millions died.

And the story goes on and on, one brutal socialist dictator after another. Castro, Ortega and more recently, Saddam. Next to this Rogue's Gallery, Zarqawi is small potatoes, a petty thug, a nobody. Nonetheless he was out there and he was killing some Americans. Not very many, in spite of what the Liberal Media tells us. And it's not like they care about GIs in spite of their protestations (remember the words of DeGenova, these are the true feelings of your average Lib activist, hatred for GIs).

Tonight as real Americans in the Heartland rejoice at our triumph, no doubt some tears are being shed in Starbucks' and in Student Unions on both coasts and in Chicago and Flint. The man Liberals had hoped would be the new Ho Chi Minh to kill many Americans has passed away and perhaps Liberal dreams of sabotaging another American war with him. Too bad, so sad.

Italian Elections Coming Up!

2006-04-03T03:47:00.000-05:00

On April 9, 2006, the Italian electorate will go to the polls. The incumbent Center-Right Coalition stands for re-election against the Left. Silvio Berlusconi, a Communications Mogul, is the current Prime Minister. He led his Forza Italia Party to victory in 1994, as Newt Gingrich was winning for the Republicans in America. Berlusconi is a friend of America and of the Republican form of Government. Neither can be said truthfully about his opponent, Romano Prodi. Prodi, not unlike John Kerry, masqueradres as a good Catholic. However he is at the head of a coalition that includes two different parties of Communists and former Communists. Prodi is a moderate Pinnochio who dances a dance on strings pulled by the likes of Piero Fassini and the aptly named Fausto Bertinotti. Fassini is the head of the largest party in Prodi's Leftist Coalition, the so-called "Democrats of the Left." However, the "Democrats of the Left" Party had a different name less than twenty years ago. It was the Italian Communist Party.

Make no mistake about it. The Italian Communist Party just changed its name. It is the same people who served the cause of Bolshevism, the same old Bolshevik ideas, just called something else because they knew after 1989 that the name of "Communism" couldnt win any more.

The aptly named Fausto Bertinotti heads the Communist Refoundation, also a tentative (but at this point not certain) member of the Left Coalition. They openly proclaim themselves proud of Communism and they garner 6 or 7 percent of the vote in each election. They can be a power player and tip scales.

We in America need to pray for Italy, that the man who loves freedom beats the puppet of the old Bolsheviks. If the Left wins in Italy, they will begin the process that the old Italian Communist Party tried to do since the days of Stalin. They shook Italy as terrorists in the Red Brigades in their youth. Such leopards have not changed their spots, do not be deceived.

RE-ELECT BERLUSCONI ITALY!

Tired of Feminazis and Their Malignant Narcissism

2006-04-03T00:42:00.000-05:00

I checked out the blog scene recently, as I've had time late at night. Quite by accident, I came across one by this Greek girl, the Devious Diva, she calls herself. She writes a sad poem to herself about how she's kept down, and oozes with self-pity. Looking at the picture she posts of herself, she seems no different from the many Feminist Activists I've known(and I've known a good many), in that she lives in style. Easily two thirds of the men on this planet would trade their lives for hers. But still, poor dear, she thinks of herself as a victim in this "World made by Men." Last I heard, God made the world.

After responding to the Devious Diva and encouraging her to grow up, I clicked the link she had to an equally immature Feminist blogger "The Red State Feminist." Diva is silly and ignorant, but she seems to have a little bit in the way of class, anyway. But the Red State Feminist lacks even that, going on about "The Patriarchy Propaganda Machine." If one actually stops to think a moment (something Feminists rarely do) you have to be a ridiculous person to believe that there is this Secret Star Chamber Patriarchy ever plotting new ways to keep women down. You see, it's easy for a bunch of pampered Feminists sitting in a Starbuck's drying their pedicured toenails to whine about men who had to do things like repel Viking invasions and work 16 hours in an Early Industrial Age Factory. But they never walk a mile in those shoes. Nor do they want to. What they want is to wallow in the manufactured self-pity and get concessions in life they didn't earn through their bogus victimhood.

I think most people of either gender go through a phase where they hate the opposite sex. And most people mature and grow up and get over it. The women who don't become Feminists. Tammy Bruce in her excellent book gives a name to the psychosis that Feminists suffer from- malignant narcissism. Like the Nazi ever convinced of the Jewish Conspiracy against him, the Feminist, self-centered in the extreme, is ever seeking out the wicked "Patriarchy" Conspiracy. And really bad stuff happens when people are this stuck on themselves.

Nazi Germans were malignant narcissists too. Hitler had Germans obsessed with their own sense of victimhood. The Nazi German watching a Jew thrown into an oven merely saw himself as a victim getting his own back, not as an oppressor. And likewise the Feminist watching an innocent baby torn from his or her mother's and thrown into an oven, thinks that she is the victim, not the innocent baby.

I think when Feminists first appeared people figured that a few concessions would appease these ridiculous and immature women and make them go away. But giving a malignant narcissist Czechoslovakia in the hopes that they won't invade Poland is vain. Now colleges have "Womens' Studies" classes that are cut from the same corrupt cloth as Hermann Goering's "Aryan Studies" courses in German colleges back in the 1930s. We have immature, self-absorbed fools brainwashing another generation of young girls into their corrupt delusions. Thinking that we can make them go away without standing up to them and telling them what fools they are is vain. And when you stand up to a Feminist with the facts, she usually cracks right away, as she is not accustomed to the truth or having to defend the whims of her own vanity.

We must ever be challenging these people. Some of them may face the truth if they are exposed to it enough. The rest, however, must not go unchallenged, must not be allowed to spew their propaganda to young minds without a response. Because a big lie can become a truth to a deluded mass. Looking at the Feminists, it's a case in point.

On her blog Diva paraphrases Hume- "the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing." Well, Feminism has murdered 50 million innocent American babies. And we've done nothing. Time for us to wake up. Feminists aren't just a bunch of funny, silly ignorant girl-children anymore. They are filling ovens now.

What Mess? Time For Some Perspective

2006-03-29T12:06:00.000-06:00

A couple weeks hence, a Liberal professor friend of mine, talking about the state of the country in general, said "it's going to take eight years to fix this MESS!" I politely smiled and said nothing, letting my friend say his feelings without rounding on him. However, he and other Liberals might take my silence for assent that their propaganda is true and correct, so, time to fire back.

The question we need to ask is "what mess?" For the past couple of weeks the DOW has rested comfortably above 11,000. Unemployment is at near-record if not record lows. Anybody who wants to work and can can get a job right now. When unemployment was at 6% under Clinton, we were in the Workers' Paradise. Now, with unemployment under 5%, many people are still unsure about the economy. Why is that? It couldn't be that the same Liberal Media that forged documents in order to fraudulently alter our elections in 2004 is lying again? Naaahh, COULDN'T BE! Believe otherwise at your peril. In spite of the Leftists in the media giving the impression that we are living in days reminiscent of the Great Depression, the economy is doing excellently.

How about the war? Recently families of veterans have taken on the Liberal liars in the Media, saying that they are focusing only on bad things of the War in the Middle East and none of the good things. In the face of this obvious truth the Liberal Media had the nerve and the shamelessness to deny it.

Remember, who we are dealing with. Dan Rather brazenly denied his forged documents were forged when all America knew otherwise. Then he Clintonesquely said that the documents may be forged but that what they said was truth so we should just believe it anyway like good little Doublethinking Leftists. Right. We are dealing with CNN that willingly prostituted itself to official Iraqi(under Saddam) and Cuban government propaganda in order to keep offices open in Baghdad and Havana. So much for journalistic pursuit of the truth! We are dealing with the New York Times which had Jayson Blair writing Liberal Fairy Tales out of whole cloth, having been caught repeatedly! He wasn't the only one, he was just the most blatant about it. And this is nothing new. Liberal Media outlets defended Stalin during his purges. They said there would be no bloodbath in Indochina if we pulled out and when there was one, they tried to blame Nixon for the Communist atrocities! Remember that Orwell was inspired by the Liberal Media to write "1984." The two instances which really stuck in his craw were the purge of the POUM in the Spanish Civil War (of which he was a member) and the Doublethink which turned the hated Fascist enemy into a beloved friend overnight by the Molotov-Ribbentropp Treaty. This is what we are up against. Tens of millions have died with Liberal Media assent and they aren't through yet.

Now they are determined to have us lose the Iraq War. The buzzword is to call it another Vietnam. Most Liberals who make this comparsion know nothing about either Iraq or Vietnam, nor could they likely find either country on the map. A little recent history of Iraq is in order, to put current events there in perspective.

The first lie the Liberal Media Propaganda Machine puts out is that Saddam Hussein and the US were bosom buddies in recent history. But it should be remembered that Iraq severed diplomatic relations with the United States in 1973 over our support of Israel during the Yom Kippur War. No US Embassy would re-open in Baghdad until 1984. What's more, Iraq was a Soviet client state. It's military in the '60, '70s and '80s was trained by Soviet Advisors on the Soviet Model. Most of its equipment was Soviet. In the 1980s, the Iranians wanted to spread their Revolution all over the Middle East. Hezbollah was active in Lebanon after 1982 and in that year the Iranian Army launched the Quds (Jerusalem) Offensive. It was ridiculous to call it that, as it was launched against Iraqi forces still on Iranian soil. But they were advancing and their intentions were clear- they would have gone all the way to Jerusalem were they able. The only bulwark both capable and willing to prevent them was Iraq. Out of strategic geopolitical necessity, we came to somewhat of a rapprochement with Saddam and helped pay the bill for the war to prevent Iraq from being over-run by the Iranian fanatics.

Even this "alliance" was rocky at best. After launching an armored offensive late in 1986 and having his tanks blown up by TOW missiles made in the USA and Iraqi jet "accidently" fired an exocet missile into the USS Stark early in 1987. The Iraqis apologized profusely and swore up and down that they thought the Stark was an Iranian ship.

I read a book by a defense analyst of the Reagan Administration that had to have been printed mere hours before the Stark was hit early in 1987 which predicted that Saddam would start a war with the Gulf States once he was done with Iran.

So much for America's friendship with Saddam. The Liberal Media also argues that our war over there is a failure because the terrorists are still out there. To call them "Insurgents" gives them way too much credit. Again it is necessary to put Iraq in perspective.

Starting with Quds Offensive in 1982, which drove the Iraqis from the Iranian city of Khorramshahr (called Kuninshahr, or "City of Blood" by those who fought there) to the outskirts of Basra, Iraq's second city. Repeatedly the Iranians called on the Shi'ite majority in the region to rise up against Saddam and help them "liberate" the city. The Iraqi Shi'ites never stirred between then and 1988, when the war ended. In the entire war between 1980 and 1988 500,000 Iranians died and Saddam held Basra. In the three years between 2003 and 2006 America has lost less than 2000 men in hostile action. Millions upon millions of soldiers from many eras lay buried in the sands of Mesopotamia from the many wars fought there. But the Liberal Media would have you believe that less than 1900 dead on the battlefield is a tragedy of titanic proportions. Wars that are considered smashing successes by history are exponentially bloodier than Iraq has been for the US. THERE IS NO FAILURE HERE.

Not only did the Shi'ite Iraqis rise up for us twice when they would not do so for their fellow Shi'ite Iranians, they, along with the Korrds and many Sunnite Iraqis are participating in an American-style Republic which has been set up there. Their voter turnout is higher than US voter turnout, even the 2004 election which saw a 20% jump in eligible participation. There are many difficulties, but the Iraqis have gone from a Soviet-style Socialist Dictator to a true Republic almost overnight. Most of Iraq is quiet. The Shi'ite and Korrdish areas, which make up more than half of Iraq's landmass, have absolutely no stirrings of unrest. The uprising is contained in a small triangle from North of Baghdad to far South of Kirkuk, to the Syrian border. Many of their recent attacks are against innocent civilians (oh yeah, they're really gaining popular support by doing THAT!) or less experienced Iraqi police and soldiers. They just lose too many of their terrorists taking on US forces.

That brings us to the next salient point that the Liberal Media ignores. Iraqi men sign up in droves for the Police and Army of the new Republic. They are callow, but they are gaining experience and they have courage and good training. They stand their posts and take fire. The Iraqi Army is growing in size, experience and independence.

Iraq is the strongest Arab state. It is a leader in the Arab world. By making a Republican form of government the norm in Baghdad, it will become the fashion in much of the rest of the Middle East. Lebanon, emboldened by the advance of Republicanism in Iraq, threw out the Syrian agents of the tyrant Assad. Libya gave up its weapons of mass distruction, Qaddafi knew that if Saddam couldn't hold, he didn't have a prayer. Naturally these triumphs were all minimized by the Liberal Media.

Afghanistan is another example of why our Middle East policy is a triumph, and not a disaster. For ten years the Red Army had more than ten divisions of troops in Afghanistan. 15,000 of their men died. When we were poised to strike the Taliban in 2001, the Liberal Media kept bringing up that and the memory of the British invasion of Afghanistan in the 19th century, which ended in catastrophe and the near-massacre of the British Army. Against this backdrop, less than a hundred Americans have died in combat in Afghanistan over the past five years and most Afghans, like most Iraqis, are participating in a Western-style Republic.

How is this a catastrophe or a mess? The Liberal Media types, many of whom were hippies in '60s who spat in soldiers faces on the streets, claim they care about the dead soldiers. RIIIIIIIIGGHHHHT. Tell me another one. If they truly cared about the soldiers, they would not give our enemies so much free propaganda. The terrorists in Iraq would have long ago given up if not for the hope that the American Left will stab us in the back again and force us to pull out.

What mess? I can guarantee that it wouldn't take a Democrat eight years to have the economy in an utter malaise and have Islamofascist terrorists and Stalin-like Ba'athists crush the buds of Republicanism that are now sprouting in the Middle East.

As I noted earlier, the Liberal Media is the same bunch who believed that Stalin was the wave of the future back in the 1930s and explained away or outright denied his atrocities. They are the same people who helped bring about the Killing Fields of Cambodia in 1975. If they are allowed to win this time, they are not just going to bring Kampuchea-like Killing Fields to the Middle East, altho that will be a part of what happens. They will have succeeded in making the light of Republicanism dimmer here in America too. Lies will have triumphed over the truth. They will prove that they can still deceive the greater part of the American people and bend policy to the benefit of World Socialism and against America, Socialism's implacable foe. We cannot let the liars win.

Beware the Ides of March!

2006-03-15T08:36:00.000-06:00

Today marks an important milestone in the history of freedom loving people everywhere. On this day, March 15th (the Ides of the Roman calendar) in 44BC, Marcus Brutus, Gaius Cassius, Decimus Brutus, Gaius Trebonius and nineteen other Romans took the life of the Man Who Would Be King, Gaius Iulius Caesar. I have read the accounts that many make- that the assassins acted out of personal ambition, rather than an altruisitic desire to restore Republican freedom. And in some cases among the other nineteen, I don't doubt the strong possibility. But history doesn't dispute the disinterested idealism of Marcus Brutus.

For those who are interested in such things, Gaius Iulius Caesar was not an oil company baron. On the contrary, his politics were what we would call Leftist today. He was one of the "great champions of the poor" who asks for more power than the Constitution allows, ostensibly for the good of the people, NEVER for their personal advancement! (YEAH RIGHT!!)

Brutus was inspired by Cato Uticensis, his uncle, who had been a mentor and father-figure to him during his life. Cato had chosen to die at Utica in the wake of the deafeat of the Republican cause at the battle of Thapsus in 46 BC. He chose death rather than bowing down to the tyrant Caesar. Cato had been the heart and soul of the Republican cause from Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon in 49 BC. However Caesar, through his superior generalship, defeated the Republicans at Pharsalus in Greece (48 BC), Thapsus in North Africa (46 BC) and Munda in Spain (45 BC).

The plot to kill the tyrant came about after Munda. While the Republicans were holding in North Africa and later in Spain, there was always hope, hope for a restoration from Caesar's dictatorship. But after that last triumph for Gaius Iulius, there was no bright spot anywhere for those who wanted to have no King. Decimus Brutus, Gaius Trebonius and Gaius Cassius contrived the plot. Trebonius and Decimus Brutus had served as Generals in Caesar's Gallic War. When Caesar was a lawful General of the Republic, fighting external enemies, they were very much on his side. In the case of Decimus Brutus, he had even shared Caesar's Leftist politics in his youth. The plotters, "the Liberators", as they would call themselves after the deed was done, knew they needed Marcus Brutus involved, who was descended from that Brutus who drove out the last of the Kings from Rome, as well as Servilius Ahala (through his mother Servilia Caepionis) who had foiled the plot Spurius Maelius to become King. When sounded out, Marcus got on board.

Sneaking daggers into the Curia Pompeia (the Senate's meeting house), the Liberators at first pretended to beg Caesar for the recall of an exiled friend. While thus distracted, Casca, one of the Liberators, pulled his dagger and plunged it into Caesar's back. The others drew and Caesar died of 23 dagger thrusts.

I do not revell in bloodshed or the taking of human life. But the Liberators had no choice. One man was taking away the freedoms of all. Sadly, the cause of the Liberators did not endure. They came heart-wrenchingly close to full resotration of the Republic in the wake of the Battle of Mutina in April, 43 BC. But with the formation of the Second Triumvirate by Marcus Antonius, Gaius Octavius and Marcus Lepidus not long after, Civil War was to break out and the position in Italy was untenable for Republicans. The Triumvirate launched a bloody and brutal purge worthy of a Stalin in Italy. The great Orator, Cicero, was killed like a common street rat and his head and hand chopped off and put on display. This was done by Antonius because Cicero had dared criticize his policies in his famous Phillippics.

The Republican cause would fall at last at the Battle of Phillippi in 42 BC. No serious attempt at a Republic would come about until the Dutch Reform Calvinists of the 16th Century and the English Puritans of the 17th Century. Our Founding Fathers had to look back to Ancient Greece and Rome for Republican examples. Our Constitution is designed to prevent some Leftist like Caesar or Napoleon from seizing control. The Founding Fathers knew a Caesar would one day come.

So take a moment this March 15th. Honor those long dead Romans like Cato and Brutus (who greatly inspired men such as George Washington) who died fighting for freedom, and who pledged their lives and fortunes to make others free. We may one day need a Brutus in America.

Let Freedom Ring!

2006-02-28T16:12:00.000-06:00

A step in the right direction today- the Supreme Court finally ruled what anyone literate who has bothered to read the Constitution knows- that the laughable lawsuit by NOW against the freedom of speech of abortion protesters is Unconstitutional. Naturally, this case should have been laughed out of court two seconds after the NOW harpies filed it, not two decades later. Nonetheless, we can take satisfaction that the just side has triumphed. And we didn't even need Samuel Alito's vote.

I think to my friend, Troy Newman, today, a leader of Operation Rescue who I met when I stood with Judge Roy Moore in Montgomery in August, 2003. He is one of the most decent people I have ever met. When I first arrived in Montgomery on August 20, 2003, I was admittedly angry with the Left trying to tyrannize the people of Alabama out of the freedom of religion and freedom of expression with their frivolous lawsuits against Judge Moore. I was salty and a part of me wanted to fight. Troy saw this in my eyes and told me in no uncertain terms that the Montgomery protest was to be a totally peaceful one. I nodded and said I would abide by that (and I did). I told him that if a cop came to arrest me, I wouldnt resist, I'd just lie down and it would take several cops to haul me away (I am 6'4" and weigh close to 300 lbs). He shook his head and said no, he didn't want a policeman to hurt his back trying to haul me away.

I relate this episode in order to show the real Troy Newman and how ridiculous the lawsuit against Operation Rescue is. Comparing his gentle words to the screeching of the NOW harpies, one has to wonder which is the association of violent extremists (yes, I know a some members of NOW also, including the head of Florida NOW, who ran for Lt Governor on a third party ticket here back in 2002). The answer to that question is obvious. Many Feminists, many of them from NOW, have screeched that if it became illegal to murder babies again in this country, that they'd fight and burn things. Any judge who would give ANY credence to them or similar organizations is not fit to judge a pie-eating contest, much less America and its laws.

Murdering babies through abortion may still be legal, but at least the freedom to say that murdering babies through abortion is wrong isn't. The thin veneer of the Feminist case- that the anti-abortion protesters were engaging in violence, is fraught with hypocrisy. If Operation Rescue deserves to be shut down for its "violence" then what about some of the actions of the Left Wingers?

Let's say an abortion clinic was being burned to the ground by anti-abortion protesters. The same protesters attacked firemen trying to put the fire out, and cut their firehoses. The local National Guard arrives on the scene and orders them to disperse. They refuse, the melee continues and people are still in danger, and the fire is still burning out of control. After giving them several chances to disperse peacefully and allow the firemen to put out the fire and prevent it from spreading, the Guardsmen finally open fire and kill four of the protesters. Justifiable, right? I could hear Kim Gandy now, screeching at the Guardsmen for killing only four.

Well, this really did happen. Except that it wasn't an abortion clinic, it was an ROTC building at Kent State University in 1970 and the protesters were stinky hippies leading their crusade for Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot. Needless to say, the story commonly told is that the four were "victims", more "heroes" of the Pantheon of the Left Wing's Cult of its Own Victimhood. Left Wing protesters have led all sorts of protests that were violent. Environmentalists like to put spikes in trees that lumberjacks will cut with buzzsaws, so the chain will snap, fly back in the face of the lumberjack and either kill or horribly disfigure him. They also like to plant bombs and start fires (how environmentally friendly!). Antiwar "peace" protesters have laid pipe bombs, like the one that was put in the US Capitol in the wake of the Grenada invasion in 1983 or the one that was going to be placed in a dancehall where US soldiers were going to congregate in Ft Dix in 1970 (the bomber, from the SDS, was, as the saying goes, "hoisted by his own petard" and blown to smithereens while building the bomb). Feminists frequently threaten violence and often attempt to carry it out. All of these and other Liberal groups are much worse than even the worst of Operation Rescue's people. Yet it was Operation Rescue that had its freedom of speech taken away by NOW's ridiculous lawsuit.

Be advised, NOW, there is a crack in America's Berlin Wall. And you won't be able to keep it up! Murdering babies WILL be illegal in America again.

Oscar Hypocrisy

2006-02-28T15:40:00.000-06:00

It is important for Conservatives everywhere, as well as "Moderates" and Liberals who aren't completely blind, to remark upon the hypocrisy of the Academy Awards, not one year later, a glaring inconsistency.

The real Best Picture of 2004, "the Passion of the Christ" was passed over for the distinction that any honest person would admit it deserved, in favor of "Million Dollar Baby," a low-budget nothing about a female boxer (ugh!). The Academy gave as their reason that they don't touch controversial films. Oh really?

Naturally, the buzz is that "Brokeback Mountain," a Gay-Lobby propagandistic piece of trash, is going to get the Best Picture nomination. Now, I suppose if you are a man living in San Francisco who wears a dress to work every day, this film may not seem controversial in the least. Same for some coffe-house Marxist from Boston. However, out here in the real America, where men still wear pants and we like our military, it IS controversial in the extreme. As a matter of fact, Brokeback would surely have been a great flop if not for the controversy which emptied all the Starbucks' in the Northeast and the West Coast to have their minds filled with more propaganda from the Left.

"Passion" has grossed more than five times what "Brokeback" did. It was the tenth biggest draw of all time. What's more, I'd say that more people saw it than any of the other nine that topped it. It's just that because of the brutality of what Our Lord suffered portrayed so graphically, it wasn't the kind of movie that one went to see ten times like all the girls did with "Titanic" or the kids with "Star Wars."

Further dishonorable mention of other clearly Controversial films are George Clooney's nomination as Best Actor and Best Director in his two propaganda pieces "Syriana" and "Good Night and Good Luck." "Good Night and Good Riddance" would be a better title to the flop that celebrated the Left's Cult of its own Martyrdom. The Venona Files have come out and we are re-examining the McCarthy Era, acknowledging that, indeed, there were many Communists in this country trying to overthrow it, many of them had been in high places in FDR's cabinet. Most of the people McCarthy investigated were indeed, actively engaged in overthrowing the US government for a Communist Dictatorship. Out of Clooney's own mouth came the admission that we needed a "recalibration" in our thinking (what he really meant was re-brainwashing) about that era back to the Left Wing orthodoxy of innocent Leftists martyred because we wouldn't surrender our freedoms to them and let them make us a satrapy of a Red World. "Syriana" is even more nauseating in its not realistic portrayal of a world run by oil companies (as if it were oil companies that took away people's freedoms and not corrupt bureaucrats and legalists). Clooney did a double-trashing of his own country in 2005 and the Academy wants to give him a double reward for it. I can picture Alfred E. Neumann as the head of the Motion Picture Academy, smiling his grin and saying, "what? Me controversial?"

No, the reason for the Academy's glaring hypocrisy in this matter is plain for all who have eyes to see. A movie can be chosen or rejected by their Imperial Majesties of the Academy by being Politically Correct or being Politically Incorrect. And if they are going to do that, well then who really cares what they think? Why should any of their "expertise" in judging a film on the merits of its filmography mean squat?

The Motion Picture Academy has, once again, showed that it rejects utterly everything about the America that exists between fifteen miles East of the Pacific Coast and the Susquehanna River. We should respond by rejecting their "authority" on motion pictures. We should treat an Oscar for a film as a blemish on its name, not an honor, because, obviously, they are given not for any quality other than the purity of their Political Correctness, pleasing only a Bi-Coastal Elite. We should reject the Oscars utterly and have our own Flyover Country Awards. Maybe we can make the Oscars go away for good if we ignore them.

Endorse Moore

2006-02-11T00:46:00.000-06:00

Back in October, I wrote a piece entitled "Return of a Hero" (on the GOP Insight Blog) about the new candidacy for Governorship of the State of Alabama by Judge Roy Moore. Judge Moore is a champion of religious freedom against the Unelected Communazi Religion Gestapo of the ACLU/Southern Bolshevik Law Center.

I along with thousands of others, stood with him in August and September of 2003, when he fought for the freedom of religion of America with the Ten Commandments Monument against an unlawful and tyrannical Federal Court Order to remove it. I was also there on the day of his Kangaroo Court, November 14, 2003 (the 65th anniversary of Kristallnacht) and I was there for his appeal in February, 2004.

I learned a lot in Montgomery that hot summer. I went from being a nominal Christian to being truly saved by the Lord Jesus Christ. That was the most important thing. Another important truth I learned is how utterly corrupt and in the pocket of Global Socialism our Federal Judiciary is. After my lessons in Alabama, I didn't NEED for Steven Breyer to admit that he ruled based on International Socialist court rulings from Eurasia, I already plainly knew that.

The Liberal Media and groups like the SPLC slandered Judge Roy Moore and compared him to George Wallace, the Segregationist Governor of Alabama from the 1960s. They said there were no black people there standing with him. But in fact there were hundreds of them among the thousands on the courthouse steps. The lovely matronly lady who ended up taking charge of feeding all of us was black. I spent my second night in on the steps in Montgomery talking with a former football playing Pastor who reminded me of Shaquille O'Neal. There were also several Orthodox Jews and their rabbis. In the great Atheist "counter-demonstration" across the street, there was not a single black person. All eight of them were lily-white. The Southern Poverty Law Center's propaganda website portrayed the Ten Commandments rally as a gathering of Neo-Nazis. That is neither the first, nor the last, deliberate lie they've told.

Judge Moore never got mad at his hateful, slandering accusers. He was ever soft spoken, kind and polite. His knowledge of Alabama and American Law is impeccable. He and Alan Keyes (who I met and got to know a bit while he was there) educated me about how the only violators of the Establishment Clause are the Communazi Religion Gestapo. "Congress Shall Make no Law RESPECTING an Establishment of Religion." The 'respecting' in there means that no level of the Federal Government, INCLUDING THE JUDICIARY, can even rule on questions dealing with religious matters at the state and local level. They cannot even adjudicate it lawfully. But our Eurosocialist Federal Judiciary cares nothing for the law, only the propagation of its own agenda.

He is a decorated Vietnam War veteran. In this he proves the hypocrisy of Leftists who said we couldn't say anything against John Kerry because of his "heroism" (how somebody who's side in the Vietnam War was North Vietnam could be a hero to anyone but the Communists is beyond me). But they never hesitated to smear this decorated veteran.

What we need to do in this country is realize that the Left is trying to impose Socialist Doctrines on us that aren't in Our Constitution. We need bold people to stand up to them and say "no!" Judge Roy Moore is that kind of genuine real Conservative. He does the right thing, regardless of whether he will be persecuted by those who love tyranny. The current Republican Governor of Alabama, Bob Riley, sadly has not measured up to these stadnards, or anything close. I remember my happiness in November of 2002 in hearing that he beat out Don Siegelmann. But my happiness did not outlast the next summer when he was very conspicuously absent in helping Alabamians defend their freedoms.

I call on all Conservatives in the blogosphere, on Free Republic and anywhere around the country, to give their support to Judge Roy Moore in the Republican Primary for the Governorship of Alabama and for the General Election to the same come November. Someone in Montgomery in the Summer of 2003 said, "when God raises up a champion for His people, it falls to His people to get behind them." Well Americans, the time is now.

Modern Medizers

2006-02-03T03:59:00.000-06:00

I've always believed that the War on Terror is not a new thing. As it says in the Book of Ecclesiastes, "there is nothing new under the Sun." It is, in reality, a continuation of the struggle that began in Marathon in 492BC and Thermopylai in 480BC, between the Greeks and Persians. On one side you had the Greeks, free men fighting for democracy and on the other, Persia, the side of slavery and tyranny. This fight continued on through the battles of Rome versus Carthage, the Crusades, America's struggle versus Hirohito and Hitler, down to our latest against Osama and Saddam.

We've come a long way since Greece and Rome, but we fight for the same principles that they did, for home and for freedom from Oriental slavery. The enemy has changed little. If anything he has changed for the worse. Darius and Xerxes, the Kings of Persia in the 5th Century BC, at least had some notions of chivalry and would more than likely recoil at Saddam's mass graves.

King Darius of Persia made the first attempt to conquer Greece. He sent ambassadors to Athens and Sparta demanding earth and water from them, tokens of submission. The Spartans were so incensed at the idea that they threw the ambassadors down a well and told them to get their earth and water there. Sparta repented of abusing Persia's messengers, but the notion of giving up their freedom so angered them. They sent two young men of two of Sparta's finest families to present themselves to Darius at his court and permit him to torture and murder them however he wished in retribution. To his credit, Darius sent them home unharmed.

Darius launched an amphibious assault against the Greeks at Marathon, where the Athenians defeated them. A messenger ran the 26.2 miles back to Athens, where he fell over and died after reporting the great victory. We run the "Marathon" in his honor to this day.

Darius' successor Xerxes took up the campaign against Greece less than a generation later. In 480 BC, twelve years after Marathon, he crossed over into Europe with a force belived to number a million or more. As they did previously, both Athens and Sparta refused to prostrate themselves before the King of Asia. But many Greek states did. Among them the Thebans and Macedonians, they "Medized." Like the Medes they sent earth and water in submission to the Great King and submitted wholly to his will. They became like the dhimmis who submitted to Muslim Sultans and Caliphs over a millenium later.

The Spartans and others stood bravely at Thermopylai, but were killed. But on land and at sea, the Greeks would defeat Persia at Plataia and Salamis and freedom would be preserved in the Greek homeland. The punishment and shame were harsh for those who had Medized.

And there is nothing new under the Sun, as stated earlier in this post. Liberals in France, Belgium and America's Blue States desire to Medize and become dhimmis. Osama's offer to those states that voted for Kerry to have peace was an offer to Medize, to compromise. In exchange for surrendering their God given freedoms and right to defend them, Osama would allow them to prostrate themselves to him and live as slaves. And millions of Americans fall for it.

In my previous post, I talked about how in the Book of Samuel, the Israelites, who were free men, clamored for a King like the Canaanites and Philistines. It is a sad truth about humanity that man most of the time desires comfortable slavery rather than the hard fight of standing for freedom. The success of Liberalism in America, the ideology that says we should be slaves of the government, rather than free men and women of God, is proof that that is the case, even here. Moments like 1776 and 1789 are rare in human history. Liberty has fleeting moments set against centuries of slavery and tyranny. Medizing.

It isn't easy to be a free man or free woman. You have to think for yourself and you have to be responsible for you choices. And to remain truly free, you have to be moral. Liberalism, Medizing, Dhimmitude are much easier. You can put your brain in neutral and gratify your stomach and genitalia. When you are not bowing down to your master, that is.

As Locke says, in a nutshell, God makes men free, other men make slaves of each other. God wants us to have freedom. Unelected self-aggrandizing Leftist bureacrats and jurists want to take that freedom from us. They want us to Medize. The Left wanted us to Medize to the USSR during the Cold War. Their ancestors, urban dwellers of the Northeast during the Revolutionary War, wanted to Medize to King George III. Today they want us to Medize to the terrorists. This must never be allowed to happen. The Left must not be allowed to win.

Where I disagree with the President

2006-02-02T22:32:00.000-06:00

President Bush spoke at a Prayer Breakfast Thursday morning. He had some good things to say and I didn't catch them all. But one thing he said that I have to differ with him on is his statement about Atheists. He said that people who choose no Faith at all are just as American as those of Faith. I cannot agree.

Now, don't get me wrong, an Atheist can be a patriotic American, although all too many are nothing of the kind. An Atheist can have the best of intentions for America in his heart. But then again, I am sure that another Atheist, Pol Pot, had the best of intentions for Cambodia in his heart when he first became a Communist.

An Atheist American, while quite possibly a very loyal one, lacks the capacity to fully appreciate America and its origins. Part of America's bedrock principles are those of John Locke. For the uninitiated, John Locke was a hard core Calvinist who was a part of the Glorious Revolution in England in 1688. This revolution had Calvinism as its driving force. Locke and his fellow revolutionaries would be called Right Wing religious extremists by the modern Secular Left.

In his treatises on government, Locke destroyed arguments for the Divine Right of Kings. He used nothing but Scripture as his source. If one could put his beliefs into a nutshell they would be "God makes men free, other men make men slaves."

This is reflected in our Declaration of Independence when it talks about how we are endowed certain rights by our Creator. From the very beginning, America acknowledges that our freedoms are Gifts bestowed on us from God. They are not priviliges begrudgingly allowed by Left Wing bureaucrats or jurists. The self-appointed, unelected Soviet Kommissars of the ACLU tried to ban Steve Williams from teaching about the Declaration of Independence in Cupertino, California in 2004. This is my point. An Atheist who wants to tell a teacher he can't teach the Declaration of Independence because it mentions God is no American, does not have the foggiest idea of what America is about.

When God led the children of Israel out of Egypt, he set them up under a group of judges, led by the Holy Spirit, who ruled with a light hand. The people were free, had free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to live life in whatever lawful manner they chose. But in the days of Samuel, the Israelites clamored for a King. They saw how the Canaanites and the Philistines had Kings and wanted one too. God warned them that the king would draft their sons into the Army, would levy heavy taxes and corvee upon them and demand unquestioned obedience. The people didn't care. They rejected the God-given freedom for the stylish ways of pagan peoples. After three kings, Saul, David and then Solomon, the people had had enough. They demanded that the new King, Rehoboam, lighten their burdens. But he responded that his thumb would be thicker than his father's(Solomon's) thigh and that where his father had chastised them with whips, he would chastise them with scorpions.

And so it is with our Secularist Left today. They reject the God given freedoms of our US Constitution. They look longingly and lovingly on Socialist Dictatorships and Oligarchies in Eurasia and Africa, and that is their heart's desire. Not to be free, but to be slaves of someone who hates freedom.

The Founding Fathers knew that God was the real author of our freedom. They did not lead the French Revolution, which was secular and created a tyranny that made the Bourbon Kingship look like a rosy paradise by comparison. They feared the rise of a big bureaucracy and people who put their Party Line over God's Will.

In the Preamble to the Constitution, it says that its purpose is to "Secure the BLESSINGS of Liberty." In 1789, the term "Blessing" meant one thing only- a Gift from God. It did not have the more generic meaning it does today. They left referrences to the Almighty rather vague, so as not favor one denomination over another, but that did not mean America was ever godless. Article III of the Northwest Ordinance, written in the same month as the Constitution and enforced under the same, said "Religion and Morality would be forever encouraged." So much for "separation of Church and State" a phrase from the Soviet Constitution, nowhere to be found in the American.

No, the Athiest cannot appreciate these elementary basics of the US Constitution. And Atheist Activists twist America's Constitution into downright Marxism, the exact opposite of what it was intended to be. To be Atheist prevents someone from fully appreciating America and what it is to be American. I disagree with the president.

Conservatism Is On the March!

2006-02-01T01:26:00.000-06:00

Look out Liberals! Here we come!

In the Liberal Media they love to endlessly assert that Conservatism is cracking up and that the days of Liberal Democrats are about to return. Myself, I don't think so. You see, not only is there no Leftist groundswell anywhere between the Susquehanna River and twenty miles inland from the Pacific Coast (and the Dems would need to gain a lot of ground SOMEWHERE in Flyover Country to become a majority again) but it seems Liberalism is in decline all across North America and Western Europe, even in some places thought to be bastions of Leftism.

I must admit my utter shock and awe at Canada electing a Conservative Government last month. Has Glasnost finally come to Soviet Canuckistan? It remains to be seen, but it looks promising. It seems the Canadian electorate has just about had it with the corruption and tyrannical political correctness that had been governing them since the Liberal takeover a little more than a decade hence. Ever the whiny little punk, Michael Moore was reduced to abject sadness by the results of this one.

A short time prior to Canada's electoral stunner, came the German elections. Running as a Conservative who supports America and wanted to repair relations damaged by Shroeder's Socialist Solidarity for Saddam, Angela Merkl was elected German Chancellor. Berlin, along with Paris, had been one of the two nodes of the Anti-Iraq War Movement. No longer. Merkl and Bush had a lovely, friendly meeting last month. So much for the "irreparable" damage the Iraq War did to German-American relations!

In the Summer of 2004, Greek Conservatives were swept into power in Athens promising to get the Olympic facilities running as they should be. the previous Socialist government had really been dropping the ball and Greece was not prepared to host the games. Our Conservative friends, who support the War in Iraq and our War on Terror, also delivered on their promise and gave the world some pretty awesome Olympic Games!

Poland and Portugal also elected strong pro-American, Pro-Iraq War Conservative Governments in 2005.

The Labor Party still holds a severely eroded majority in the UK, but under the leadership of one of the architects of the Iraq War, Tony Blair. Blair runs with many Conservative ideas and positions. It is entirely warranted to state that if the Laborites had run with a "Socialism as Usual" candidate, rather than Blair, they'd have been thrown right out on their ear.

It took a terrorist bombing designed to influence elections against Conservatives to create the only bright spot out there for the Left. I'm sure Leftists everywhere are thanking Osama bin Laden for the Madrid Train bombings which put the Socialist Zapatera in power by the slimmest of margins.

And let us not neglect to mention what might be the most important elections of our time- the Iraqi elections. If the Socialist Left had had its way, these would never have taken place. Yes friends, Conservatism is on the march. And consequently, Liberty is on the march. Socialism and terrorism are in retreat.

The 2004 elections not only re-elected an awesome president here in America. They pushed Republican majorities in Congress beyond the high-water marks of the Contract With America elections of 1994. The possibility of Republicans gaining yet more ground in November is hardly impossible. Sure, it's just as likely that the Dems will gain a little ground, but the fact that the GOP could make yet more gains in Congress is something to get ecstatic about. As previously noted, there is no Democratic groundswell anywhere to put them in the majority. If they make minute gains this Fall, well, that is only par for the course for the Party out of Power.

Don't let the moonbats out there get you down people. They are losing, big time. It seems the Western World might just be heeding the wake-up call to the threats it faces. This, of course, is bad news for the Neo-Marxist Socialists on the Left. They are invested in our defeat and degradation.

Enough Blood Shed

2006-01-31T11:24:00.000-06:00

As I worked yesterday, I heard the Hutt Senator from Massachusetts, angrily snarl, as though HE has anything to be angry about. The ancient traitor bellowed, among other things, that "enough blood has been shed," in these battles.

Hmmm, yes, Senator Kennedy, enough blood HAS been shed. It began with Mary Jo Kopechne, when you left her on the bottom of a lake while you swam out of harm's way.

Sadly enough, it didn't stop there. Taking heart from your staunch Anti-Americanism, the North Vietnamese killed many American soldiers when they might have otherwise given up.

Your treason and sedition aided the North Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge to victory in 1975, you led the way among the traitors who brought this about. Millions died in Cambodia and Vietnam. Many millions more fled to the open sea with no more than the clothes on their backs, starving and dying of disease, while you dined in opulence. And did you care? No, not one iota.

As if this wasn't enough, you were instrumental in the travesty of abortion, in which fifty million babies have been murdered. And then you wrote the Unconstitutional traitor's law against speaking out about it.

Yes, Kennedy, tens of millions have died because of you and people like you. And you have the gall to act as if YOU have any right to be angry? Enough blood has been shed. You should resign so that perhaps Massachusetts can have a loyal American as a Senator for the first time in a long time.

It Never Ends

2005-12-06T02:20:00.000-06:00

Will the Left ever stop trying to betray this country? No, treason is in the blood of the Liberal leadership and they will never cease trying to "bring it down." But will the people who are not so deep into the Left who vote Democrat ever wake up and see the truth about the little Ward Churchill's who lead their party?

The traitor John Kerry is at it again. He can now take credit for betraying America in two wars. As if helping Communists who murdered millions in Southeast Asia come to power wasn't enough, he wants to ensure that the same thing happens in Iraq. He is a proven liar in his perjured testimony before Congress in 1971 and the farcical group the "Winter Soldier" most of the "veterans" of which had never worn the uniform. Now the traitor Kerry calls our soldiers in Iraq terrorists. Who votes for this moron? *SIGH* the same fools who keep returning Ted "the Swimmer" Kennedy!

From me to John Kerry: Kerry, you are a bastard traitor and nothing you have to say is worth a wart on a frog's butt. Get lost!

Liberals continue to lie and accuse Bush of starting the war on false premises. I can remember in February, 1998, when I was in the 3rd Infantry Division, that we nearly went to war FOR THE EXACT SAME REASONS. What forestalled it? Goofy Annan saying "let's give Saddam ONE LAST CHANCE." Yeah. OK. Good call. Only a fool can blame Bush for putting an end to that tripe.

One good thing that seems to be developing is that because of the new media, some of the good being done in Iraq is finally getting out. Oh, not enough to be fair, but at least better than nothing.

Liberals betrayed this country in the Vietnam Era through control of the media. The Liberals were dedicated to the proposition that Ho Chi Minh's Socialist Utopia should be able to expand to Saigon. They portrayed the war as unwinnable and unjust, neither of which it was. But the big lie repeated over and over became the truth in the minds of the politically unastute. Millions of people died. Millions were displaced from their homes and went off to many countries that didn't want them and treated them like trash. And right before the 13th anniversary of their "liberation" to socialist bliss, they call Ronald Reagan and ask for aid! How wonderful! While the grownups were in charge, we told them to go get bent, like we should. But then Clinton added his North Vietnamese comrades to the welfare rolls supported by the US taxpayer!

And now they are at it again. Murtha, Dean, MoveOn.org, as well as the traitor Kerry, are all making venomous propaganda lies to help ensure that what happened in Vietnam and Cambodia in 1975 happens again.

For the love of God, we have occupied the strongest Arab state for nearly three years and have not had 2000 combat deaths as yet! That doesn't even classify as war. A real enemy inflicts hundreds of casualties in a single battle and they cannot do that. Iraq is a smashing success, not a failure!

But the Orwellian Propaganda Machine of the Left rolls ever on. Only when it is finally smashed will people be free. We on the Right are responsible for getting the truth out there. We can no longer afford to let their lies stand. Every forged tale the Left tells must be challenged and exposed. We've really gotta redouble our efforts here. America can't afford to let the Marxist bastards win.

A Fitting Punishment for Liberals

2005-11-20T00:15:00.000-06:00

Have you ever noticed that Liberals seem to have a love affair with leaders who fill mass graves? From the French Revolution and Joseph Stalin to Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein, Liberals love to defend the nastiest of characters. In the sixties they marched through our streets waving Viet-Cong flags and remain proud of it to this day. I can remember a Kerry supporter saying how they had developed a sympathy for the enemy over the course of the war. There is a word for such people. It is traitor.

But seriously, this notion came to me in the Summer of 1989, right before the walls started coming down. It was the 20th anniversary of Woodstock and old hippies were celebrating their mud fest. At that same time, deep in Siberia, they were digging up my Lithuanian kin from shallow graves. I can still remember emaciated corpses they panned the camera on. Innocent people who had no chance. Most Woodstock groupies would have yawned. Earlier that Spring, old Berkeley hippies said of the Tienanmen Square demonstrators "oh they are just like us." Huh? I don't think a barrelfull of Berkeley monkeys would make a pimple on the behind of your average hero of Tienanmen. What's more, the Berkeley crowd stood up to be counted with the same side as were rolling the tanks into Tienanmen.

My question is, how are Liberals so cavalier about enemies who plunge innocent people into mass graves? Is their Rodeo Dr/Upper Manhattan world SO far removed from reality? I'd have to suppose so. When the Left makes one of its many nauseating anti-McCarthy films, it is introed by describing the early '50s (when Stalin, a mass murderer, was still alive and the worst of his atrocities were just coming to light, not to mention his successful infiltration of FDR's cabinet) as a time of "great paranoia." Oh, excuse me for getting all worked up about the two largest land armies on earth united and dedicated to destroying our way of life. When an enemy that outnumbers you five to one is on the march, I don't call being alert for him "paranoia" I call that being awake with a very healthy fear!

They love to dismiss the atrocities of Global Socialism, whether Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, or Saddam Hussein as "right wing paranoia." OK. So here's my fitting punishment for the Liberals, it will be a great education for them. Let them come to Iraq, Cambodia and Siberia, and let them dig up Socialism's mass graves. Then let them throw their arms around the neck of every corpse in there and say "you're just a figment of right wing paranois, now go back to sleep!" If this is just something that we on the right wing made up, it should be no problem, should it?

There They Go Again

2005-11-19T23:32:00.000-06:00

Once again, we find ourselves, our nation, under assault from the Left. Oh yes, fair warning Lefties, if you soil your trousers at any hint that you might not be the red blooded American your average Conservative is- tough rocks! In a move that only benefits terrorists around the world, Congressman Frank Murtha, the distinguished (said with heavy scorn and sarcasm) gentleman (said with sardonic chuckles and guffaws) from Pennsylvania called for American troops to be pulled out of Iraq. Who cares about the millions of Iraqis who have relatives in mass graves who are depending on America to safeguard their new democracy until they can do it themselves? Who cares about the thousands who will be tortured in a terrorist takeover for their participation in Republican politics? For you Libs out there, to give you an idea of what that would be like, picture breaking one of your manicured nails, or your favorite blend of moca java not available at your local Starbuck's TIMES A MILLION!

I never could understand why Liberals get their panties in a wad when you point out how much they obviously hate this country. When I was sixteen in Massachusetts and the Liberals defended every action of the Communist enemies and attacked everything America stood for, they'd get so resentful if you pointed out the fact that they preferred Communism over Americanism. Why? They should just say it loud and say it proud- they love European Socialism over the American way of life. That preferrence is so strong that they'll even help out Islamofascists to stick it to America.

And make no mistake about it. The terrorists watch everything we do. And when they see Liberals saying asinine things on tv like Murtha and the traitor Kerry, they laugh and say how weak we are. It's reached the point where America's enemies count on Liberals to stab the US in the back. In a recent interview with one of the Iranian hostage takers of 1979, he stated that him and his fellow punk students were surprised that most Americans rallied around the flag when they took the embassy. They expected bombs and riots and long-haired, unbathed protesters to help them out in our streets. They were disappointed when their pal Jimmy Carter got booted out of office that next year.

It's the same with the terrorists in Iraq. they wouldn't even be bothering with a fight there, losing a hundreds or even a thousand for every dozen we lose, if not for their counting on Liberal traitors like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and Frank Murtha (I couldnt care less if he fought in Vietnam, Benedict Arnold was a veteran of the American side of the Revolutionary War too) to sabotage our war effort and disunite the American people. If Osama bin Laden isn't paying the aforementioned three stooges, then they are being cheated.

Right now we stand at Thermopylai- a million Persians coming down on three hundred Spartans. We are in a life and death struggle to determine if the world will be free or if it will be a gigantic Islamofascist slave plantation. We don't have time for the silly antics of people who are out of touch with reality. The Left has stood up to be counted with the enemies of freedom. And this is nothing new.

Liberalism, What is it Good For?

2005-11-12T10:58:00.000-06:00

I was hornswaggled earlier this week. I was in the little Bistro at the Hotel I work at, getting some dinner on my dinner break. There are three big screen tvs in there, two of them muted at any given time. On one it looked like a political debate between two candidates. It was Monday and I knew that there were two gubernatorial elections on Tuesday. I knew it wasn't New Jersey's, as it was obvious Jon Corzine wasn't there. I thought it might have been a debate between Kaine and Kilgore, the two candidates for Virginia governor. I didn't know the faces of either man and I didn't get a good look at the faces of the two on the screen. It turned out to be a well-correographed debate on the West-Wing, and I think the moderator was a real moderator from one of the Bush-Kerry debates. Alan Alda, Arch-Liberal, played the "Conservative" and Jimmy Smits played the Liberal candidate.

I only watched a few parts of the show, I dont know what it was all about. I could only stomach so much of it and they didn't even have the courtesy to give me a Liberal Propaganda/Barf Alert. It was a debate between two Liberals, scripted by a Liberal, and one of them was doing a really crappy job of playing a Conservative. Alan Alda spoke derisively of Liberals and Jimmy Smits took up the gauntlet and spoke of the great accomplishments of Liberalism and how proud he was to be one. Liberalism had ended slavery, he claimed, got women the right to vote and made Civil Rights. I stuck my finger down my throat and changed the channel. I never expected that of Jimmy Smits. I didn't imagine that he'd be a great Conservative, but I didn't imagine he was capable of such ignorance.

So what is the real record of Liberalism? This is important, the facts, not what Liberals say when they pat themselves on the back.

Smits said that Licoln was a "Liberal Republican" and the "Conservative" Alan Alda didn't respond. I don't honestly believe that Abraham Lincoln fits into either Conservative or Liberal by modern standards. But abolitionism as a force was heavily Christian. While slavers used the same ridiculous arguments that pro-abortion groups use today. They argued that it was their right to choose slavery and that the Abolitionists had no right to impose their Christian morality. So in this regard the Anti-Slavery side was Conservative.

Conservatives are doing a good job of not letting Liberal Democrats get away with claiming Civil Rights was their thing. They had 67 Senators in 1964 and would never in a million years have gotten Civil Rights legislation passed without the near unanimous support of the 33 Republicans. We need to keep hammering Democrats on this. But we also need to start getting on them about women's right to vote.

Smits claimed that Liberals got women the right to vote. WRONG! That was accomplished by Conservative Republicans. One should not confuse the narcississtic Marxist harpies of groups like NOW in the present with the suffragettes of yore. The old school womens' movement was deeply religious and did much good for the community as a whole. Many on the Left, some socialists and Marxists, actually were staunch opponents of womens' suffrage because they feared women would never buy the potatoes they were selling. Picture a group of Marxists, after a hard day of discussing Marx in the local coffee-shop, going to their local brothel or saloon and finding the Temperance League there ahead of them shutting the place down.

In 1919, when the XIX Amendment was passed, giving women the right to vote, Republican majorities prevailed in Congress and the State Legislatures, where Constitutional Amendments were passed. What's more telling is that in the several election cycles after the XIX was passed greatly increased these Republican majorities. The first three presidential elections after 1919 were crushing Republican landslides. And Congress was solidly Republican in those days. And let no one deceive themself into believing these were Liberal Republicans. The GOP in the 1910s and 1920s was staunchly Conservative. Republicans really need to start pointing out these facts, because Democrats aren't going to do it. They will act as if the Left gave the women the vote.

So what is Liberalism good for? What have they achieved? Well, they helped bring about Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia that wiped out a third of the population in that country. They also helped the Hanoi Politburo turn South Vietnam into a gulag. They have supported lawyers that have added heavy burdens to the people but who don't lift a finger to help them. They have imposed political correctness on our universities and other places, stifling the free thought that is the lifeblood of America and the American Way. They have aided and abetted the terrorists in Iraq, and the blood of our 2000 is on their hands as much as on those of the terror-mongers because the latter would not keep fighting without the hope that Liberals will betray America and help them take over.

Liberals fought for "peace" (appeasement) with the USSR, not caring about the people languishing under the Soviet system (so much for their notions about caring for the civil rights of others). They have caused the murder of fifty million innocent babies. Liberals are not the movement of Civil Rights. On the contrary, they are the movement of selfish indulgence at the expense of others' civil rights. Who cares if millions are being nudged into mass graves in Cambodia and we just stuck a fork in our own baby's head? Let's go Disco Dancing at Studio 54! That is the Liberal legacy. And no other.

This is the Conservatives' problem. The Liberals, for all the dents we have put in their Orwellian Propaganda Machine, still greatly excell at deceiving millions. As Orwell put it, he who controls the past controls the future. the time has come to challenge Democrats on what is supposedly their own turf- civil rights. They do not care about such things truly. And we have to let people know.

Demagogy in History

2005-10-19T00:19:00.000-05:00

I know that many of you out there imagine that the things that Liberals do to sabotage our wars is a new phenomenon. How I wish it were, but, sadly, it is not. The Roman Republic was brought down by a Left Wing demagogue named Caesar, but this is not his story. It is the story of a one man disaster, Gaius Terentius Varro.

Varro was Hannibal's contemporary and his Liberal bungling handed the Carthaginian his greatest victory that he ever won. Hannibal was a genius, the greatest general of his day and no general anywhere early in the war could match him in a battle of wits. With inferior numbers and quality of troops Hannibal won two great victories over the armies of the Roman Republic, the first at the River Trebia in northern Italy and the second at Lake Trasimene in Central Italy. Tens of thousands of Romans lay dead, and this stunning upstart Hannibal was now in the Italian heartland.

A hero stepped forward. His name was Quintus Fabius Maximus. According to Roman law, he was appointed dictator for six months, for the emergency that the Republic faced. He came up with the famous "Fabian Tactics." The premise was this- no Roman general could beat Hannibal in an open battle. However, Fabius raised a new, fresh Army that would shadow the Carthaginian Army. As they foraged for supplies, the Legions would engage in minor skirmishes that would eventually bleed them dry. Hannibal could not replace losses, as his soldiers were African, Spanish and Gaulish. He was down deep into Italy with no replacements. The Fabian tactics slowly began to melt his army.

Then Varro and his fellow demagogues stepped up. They made up a fanciful tale that Fabius really was capable of destroying Hannibal, but wasn't doing so in order to prolong his dictatorship and supress the rights of the poor. Hannibal got wind of this and when sacking the villas of rich Senators in Southern Italy, he ordered those of Fabius to not be touched. This further added to Varro's charges. Fabius, however, was able to blunt the charges by selling the villas and donating the gold he got for them to the Republic's war chest.

Fabius fended off Varro for the moment, but his dictatorship ended after six months and Varro ran for Consul(the Roman Executive), promising to beat Hannibal and end the war. He was elected handily for the year 216 BC. Fabius had gotten those under his command (many of whom were less than enthusiastic about Fabian Tactics at the start) to believe in his ways, including Minucius, his Master of the Horse, whose life he saved from one of Hannibal's traps. But Varro, as Consul, trumped them all.

After several months of the Fabian Tactics, Hannibal's soldiers were getting frayed and frustrated. His Spanish troops were going to defect over to the Romans, a significant part of his forces would be gone. Many had had enough. And then Varro engaged at a place called Cannae.

Approximately 80,000 Romans marched towards Hannibal's 50,000. Half of the 50K were naked Gauls. One of Hannibal's cavalry officers, named Gisco, looked at the well armed and armored Romans and said, "that is amazing......" Hannibal looked over at him, shrugged and said, "what I find amazing is that not one of those men is named Gisco." Word of this exchange spread in Hannibal's Army and a shout of exultation went up. Hannibal didn't fear the Roman machine.

Varro came on like the Roman commanders at Trebia and Trasimene. Hannibal had his Gauls in the center, and his army drew back in the center, slowly, until the Heavy Arican Infantry was on the Roman flanks. Also the Numidian Cavalry in Carthaginian service overwhelmed the smaller units of Italian cavalry and were in the Roman rear. The vast Army of the Republic was encircled and the slaughter began. Some estimates put the Roman dead at 60,000 or more. The United States lost about 59,000 men during the entire Vietnam Era. Kind of puts things in perspective, eh?

And like John Kerry and Jimmy Carter, Varro was not punished for his stupidity which gave Rome a Vietnam in one afternoon. The surviving soldiers were formed into two special legions which were not allowed onto Italian soil for the rest of the war, fighting in Sicily and later in Scipio's invasion of Africa.

Hannibal only lost six thousand men. His Army's morale went from down in the dumps to stratospheric in one day. Instead of being beaten in 216 BC, it would be 201 BC before Scipio would defeat Hannibal at the battle of Zama, ending the war. Important Roman allies like Syracuse, Capua, Samnium and Tarentum defected to the Carthaginian side, forcing Rome to besiege them. These cities were gutted and never would be the same. All because of one demagogue and his conspiracy theories.

We have many Varro's today in America. Democrats who are undermining our efforts in Iraq. Iraqis went to vote on their new Constitution last Saturday, and if Liberals got their way, it would not have happened. Our Left Wing Varro's falsely accuse President Bush of "trying to steal people's rights" in fighting in Iraq. John Kerry tried to take over the war, and would, no doubt, have made Varro seem like Caesar in comparison. Too many good men are dying for their foolishness. We cannot allow them to sabotage the Iraq War for their Socialist Left Wing Agenda. We have to fight the Liberals on the Iraq War front. America will be severely, even mortally, wounded if the Liberals and terrorists win.

Happy Birthday Mom

2005-10-07T12:36:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, October 6th was my mom's birthday. Cynthia Dedinas, nee Typinski, was born in New Kensington, Pennsylvania on the 6th of October, 1937. Her parents were immigrants from Poland. She was the last of ten children, eight of whom lived out of infancy.

World War II shaped so much of her life. The attack on Pearl Harbor came when she was four years old and V-J day occured just before she turned eight. For a child the years between four and eight are a virtual eternity. Her brothers, my uncles, Raymond and Robert, were seventeen and eighteen in 1945. They joined up and served under General MacArthur. My grandfather cried as he signed the paper allowing Uncle Raymond Henry Typinski to join at age seventeen. But both boys returned safe, by the grace of God.

As was the case with most people of Polish stock, my mother was raised a devout Catholic. She served as a nun in a convent for six years from the age of sixteen until twenty-two. And while I am of the Evangelical bent today, her and my father did raise me up well in the way of Christ and in the end I did not depart from it. I am greatful always for this.

People don't realize how things used to be. Liberals flatulate about "white males" but fail to realize that when my grandfather moved to a new neighborhood in Detroit, the local housing covenant didn't want any Pollacks there. So much for the notion of white skin privilege.

I was born on July 28, 1969. My parents weren't hippies, they had a real life. I was born about two weeks before the Sharon Tate murders. I cannot imagine how that incident must have affected my mother. Sharon Tate's baby would have been a few weeks younger than me. What I have to thank my mother for the most is her remaining uncorrupted by the insanity of the late 1960s and early 1970s. I know it made a difference in my life, in days when I tottered on the edge of the abyss. She was a real woman who loved her family. She and my dad were lovers of knowledge. Until near adulthood, I assumed every child grew up in a house with as many books as a library in it.

I owe a great deal to my mother and I am very greatful. I hope God will watch over her and protect her in her life. Happy Birthday Mom, and many more.

You Gotta Love It

2005-10-06T00:32:00.000-05:00

My last post, "The Great Democratic Salami Maneuver" drew an interesting response. I had it posted on GOP Insight as well as the Republic of Utica. An anonymous Liberal poster replied, "it won't take six billion people long to carve away your tiny salami." For those of you who have not read the article, the salami was analogous to a people's freedom and rights to things such as free speech and freedom of religion, real rights of our Constitution.

You gotta love it when the mask slips away from the Liberal and his true self is revealed. The Liberal wears the mask of righteousness, he is the "champion of the people" the "defender of civil liberties," nevermind that he is not much into either civility or liberties. Every so often, however, his mask slips and he threatens you with what REALLY happens when the revolution occurs.

This happened when one of John Kerry's campaign managers, Chad Clanton, was speaking on Hannity and Colmes one night. A television network had just agreed to air the honest opinions of several Vietnam veterans who wanted to use their First Amendment rights to say what a traitor John Kerry is. They had made a documentary expressing their opinions. Mr Clanton looked menacingly into the camera and said, "they better hope we don't win!" For the sake of our First Amendment freedoms it's a good thing Kerry didn't! As you remember this, remember also all the times Liberals bellyache about a "chilling effect" by Conservatives on their free speech whenever we dare to disagree with them! But they have no compunction about doing exactly the thing they accuse Conservatives falsely of doing.

My anonymous Liberal friend was delivering the same message to me. "The people of the world will rise up in socialist revolution and take your bourgeois freedoms away, yankee," this supposed American might have said. That's another thing they like to do, mask their attacks on our basic freedoms as "patriotic dissent." That's not unlike the way a parent who puts cigarettes out on their kid claims that they are "disciplining" him "out of love."

They silence the religious freedoms of communities to pray in school and acknowledge God in the name of "religious freedom" (yes, they manage to perpetrate that farce with a straight face). They silence "hate speech" in the name of "tolerance" (hate speech being whatever the Liberal Party Line deems offensive "no free speech for hate speech" is the Canadian Liberals' rallying cry, they should have just made it "no free speech" period). They aren't trying to help the terrorists win Iraq because they'd hate to see America win one, they are "patriotically dissenting" (excuse me while I gag). Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are hateful to many Liberals. They don't love these ideas or embrace them in any way. They merely use them as a means of deflecting the topic of discussion from the obvious- their lack of love for this country and its ideals. They don't want America to be free, independent and strong, and when have they ever? The last Liberal who did was John F Kennedy and we all remember what happened to him. Liberals for the last forty years (and also the ones from the generation before JFK's "GI Generation" of WWII vets) have opposed anything that would make America stronger or more independent. They have consistently supported every Communist and terrorist enemy the United States has had, with the exception of 'al-Qaeda right after 9-11, that would have been political suicide. But even in that instance the Ward Churchills of the world have expressed what very many Liberals think but will not say. With "loyal dissenters" like these, who needs a bunch of rat bastard fifth columnists?

The Far Leftists in places like Boston and San Francisco, join Parisians and Berliners who look down their royal noses on us red-blooded Americans. These Liberal Euro-wannabes are constantly trying to make America a subservient satrapy of Socialist Eurasia. How is this loyal dissent? This is what people used to call sedition in the days when a traitor was called a traitor rather than be celebrated as a champion of human rights.

America needs to wake up and realize that these people will not stop. The one scene from that garbage movie "Born on the 4th of July" that sticks with me is the scene of his Conservative mother ready to cry over the state of our nation, as ten thousand smelly hippies marched on Washington DC during the Vietnam War. Like most Americans whose brains weren't turned to oatmeal by pot or LSD, she hated this. But instead of doing something about it, she turned the channel over to Rowan and Martin's "Laugh-In." She quickly shut out of her mind the stinky Bolsheviks marching on our nation's capital. And that's what they want us to do. Tune in, turn on and drop out. Smoke a doobie and forget what they are doing to the fabric of our society. They dream of the day when the blue helmeted UN troops will be molesting thirteen year olds on our streets instead of over in Africa.

Not me, brother.

The Great Democrat Salami Maneuver

2005-09-30T01:49:00.000-05:00

The Great Democrat Salami Maneuver

A great irony occured last Wednesday. I was attending my graduate school class on the Cold War. During the break in the three hour class, I heard of the latest flatulence from the latest disgrace to bob to the top of the Democratic cesspool, Ronnie Earle. King Rat indicted Tom Delay in charges that aren't bogus or politically motivated. And Paris Hilton cherishes her virginity.

Back to the class. It is one of my endeavors to study the history of Communism. My family escaped to America from it, after all. But not only that, I look at the similarities between the Communists of yesteryear and the modern American Left. They are more manifold than one imagines. The lecture was on how Stalin took total control over Eastern Europe from 1945 to 1948. It was clever, if evil. The Communists allowed free and fair elections in the future Warsaw Pact countries, they just got into the coalitions. The Communists would get themselves made the head of Defense, the interior (police), Education (sound familiar?) and communications (eh?). You can guess what the Reds would do in the education department. The Army was being built up by the Russians and made loyal to Moscow's interest. On the radio and in the papers, only the Communist Party Line got out. It was as bad as the Liberal Media prior to FOXNEWS and the blogs. And then the Communist leaders of the police would lean on the non-Communist majority politicans with BOGUS charges of collaboration with Hitler. At this point, the coalition became a bogus coalition. the Democratically elected majority were bent to the will of the Communist minority in exchange for making the phony charges disappear. It was not long before the Communists would rationalize that there was no point to any party but their own and they then made a bogus coalition into a monolith.

The Hungarian Communist Minister of the Interior of that period was proud of the way he chipped away at his countrymens' freedom and made them slaves of Moscow. He analogized it thus- when one eats a thick salami, one doesn't take a big bite or cut off a big chunk. No, one slices a salami one thin slice at a time. The Communists sliced off Hungarian democracy piece by piece.

For those of you who believe that what goes around comes around, this Minister of the Interior was purged by his masters in Moscow who feared their running dog might turn and try to bite them.

Sixty years later, Stalin's kindred spirits in America, the Democratic Party, are using the same tactics. They can't beat Tom Delay in a debate, or an election. So they undercut him with him with bogus charges and try to build a bogus coalition. No one voted for Supreme Fart in the Wind, Ronnie Earle, so all he can do is fill the air with his stench and hope it sticks to a real leader.

It isn't just Delay. The lies of the Liberal Media and politicians against Bush in the War in Iraq, like mindless zombies chanting "No Blood For Oil" while their Liberal leaders profiteered off Saddam's "Oil For Palaces" program. The Democrats can't win against the Republicans in an open and fair debate. They'd get creamed. So they must compromise the Republicans with bogus charges and make their government bend to their will. I wonder how long it would take the Democrats, unoppossed, to determine that any Party other than theirs is pointless? Not too long, I am certain. They are carving our salami. And we need to fight back before it gets paired down to nothing.

Democrat Doublethink

2005-09-24T01:30:00.000-05:00

As I look about the Liberal blogs and Liberal Media writings, I notice that, among them, the notion of Bush lying is an undeniable truth. *Sigh* oh here we go again!

Bush has not lied. For those of us who can remember all the way back that far, it was almost four years ago to the day today that President Bush adressed a joint session of Congress and laid out the plans for the War on Terror he told us plainly that this would be a long campaign, carried out in many countries, over a long period of time.

Bush said any regime that harbored terrorists would be considered a hostile regime. Iraq harbored many terrorists. Even if we accept Liberal rants that there was no 'al-Qaeda presence, and I don't, there was an undeniable Islamic Jihad presence there. These are the sweet fellows who are blowing up Israeli pizza parlors these daysand are responsible for the deaths of many Americans.

Now, what psychosis, you ask, enables someone, supposedly a rational person, to say that there was no 'al-Qaeda presence, and an undeniable Islamic jihad presence is ok, means nothing? It is called doublethink.

Doublethink is an old tradition on the Left. In the 1930s, Fascism was the enemy of Communism and was ever denounced in their propaganda. But in 1939 the USSR made a non-agression pact with Nazi Germany. Suddenly Fascists were brother (national) socialists with Imperialists as a common enemy. Most on the Left didn't even question this, they went right along with it and looked at Fascists as groovy. One Leftist of that time, a young Eric Blair, didn't buy this. He would later write "1984" under the penname George Orwell. Orwell's central character, Winston Smith, witnessed the totalitarian Left Wing state he lived in, Oceania, declare war on Eastasia and take Eurasia as an ally. Previously Eurasia had been the enemy and Eastasia the ally. Oceania pretended that Eastasia had ALWAYS been the enemy and expected its citizens to believe it. The believing of this is doublethink.

After 9-11 the president said he would go after terrorist states. He has merely done what he said he would do four years and three days ago. A majority of Democrats were on board. They protested how they so loved this nation and were with the war on terror as well as any conservative.

But then the doublethink kicked in. All of a sudden taking out the Headquarters of one of the biggest terrorist organizations in the world doesn't count. It distracts from the "real war on terror." This is also doublethink in opposition to the fact that terrorists are coming to Iraq to fight America and are getting killed in droves. This is DISTRACTING from the War On Terror? OHHHH-K!

We need to not let the Democrats get away with this blatant hypocrisy, we need to stand up and remind them of inconvenient moments in their pasts and point out their duplicity. We need to stop letting our good soldiers and cops die for their political correctness and hypocrisy! Let us ever remind them.

Marie Antoinette Watch

2005-09-05T01:20:00.000-05:00

Greetings dear readers! I have decided to insert a new serial into the Republic of Utica, the Marie Antoinette Watch.

Who was Marie Antoinette? She was the Queen of France at the time of the French Revolution. She added impetus to said Upheaval with her famous gaffe. When told that the starving people of France had no bread to eat, she said, "let them eat cake." She was so divorced from the reality that she couldn't conceive that people would have NOTHING in their pantry.

The Republic of Utica will crown a deserving Marie Antoinette from the ranks of the Liberal elites who love to ride their private jets from the Hollywood Hills to the salons of Upper Manhattan, looking down their patrician noses at us dirty, bedraggled peasants in the Red States of "Flyover Country" with complete disdain. The ones who'd sigh and rather be at a reading of Karl Marx in a Paris Cafe than having a hamburger and freedom fries with real people in Casper, Wyoming, Nashville, Tennessee, or Chillicothe, Ohio. Their Rodeo Drive Ivory Tower lives have put them out of touch with Main St Real World. Red State soldiers preserve their pampered lifestyles, facing perils far removed from them that they can't fathom.

Thus, whenever it is warranted, and we see such a Liberal distinguish themself above all others in this regard, he or she will be crowned as Queen Marie Antoinette.

Our first Marie Antoinette is a distinguished lady. She loves to lecture us humble peons about energy conservation while riding around on a private jet. She has a lovely voice reminiscent of a cross between Zsa Zsa Gabor and Teresa Heinz-Kerry.

Who is our Queen who'll let us eat cake? None other than the incomparable ARIANNA HUFFINGTON.

What offerings does she give us? Well, Her Majesty first criticized President Bush for flying over New Orleans and for supposedly "not caring." I realize that she is well-acquainted with flying in a private jet over the Conservative Hinterland and thinking herself too good for us. I believe she was just transferring her own feelings onto the president. Liberals do this a lot. Transferrence is when you do a bad thing, or have a very sorry character trait, and, instead of facing up to it, they accuse someone they dislike of the very thing they are guilty of.

In her post on September 2 she says the President is "giving hope to Trent Lott" as if this was so funny. I do find it strange that our pedicured princess was saying "at least they were wearing their 'get down to business' khakis." Really. And what exactly has she done other than hurl droppings on everyone like a vulture? Has she put on her "get down to business clothes" ever in her life? Yes, I know, I'm laughing at the idea too. I think her idea of "getting down to business" is firing the maid for not putting enough of a foam on her latte. What does her majesty know of hurricanes or what is going on in New Orleans? Has she ever felt one? I was under Hurricane Hugo's 217 mph winds in 1989 and it was no joke.

Just like today, during Hugo, local Liberal politicians let us rot and Bush 41 was the only one who did anything for us, by sending in the Army. Of course the elder Bush got blamed for all the ills, just like his son is today. Creampuffs like Huffington, who've never been more than a mile from the nearest Starbuck's, have not done anything to help. They are only using the dead in this catastrophe to pick up a few Democrat votes.

It is most enjoyable to read our queen refer to "the unecessary suffering" going on in New Orleans. How gauche! They should eat cake and be happy with Arianna! But it's all George Bush' fault. He caused the hurricane and all its "unnecessary" suffering. Now Arianna is going to pout all the way to Rodeo Drive and shop for eight hours instead of four! One has to wonder how much "unecessary" suffering she has endured!

Well, we're very proud of our new Queen, Marie Antoinette Huffington. May she reign long and give us more gaffes to laugh at and ridicule! And I hope the real world never comes crashing in on her, like it did for the original Marie Antoinette! Life would be unbearable for her highness!

Time to Stand Up to Feminism

2005-09-01T01:31:00.000-05:00

I never watch "Law and Order." I find most sit-coms and dramas that tv churns out to be so much garbage. There are exceptions, and I happened to have it on for its last five minutes before another program came on. One of the "men" in that show, obviously one of those eunuchs who praise every inane thing Feminists say as a great pearl of wisdom, said "women are still chattels." He got no disagreement from the nose-in-the-air Feminist lawyer, who exited the scene. And I thought, "are you serious?!?!?!?" They are really being so bold in propagandizing to brainwashing the tv audience?

For the record, the show did deal with rape and rape is a horrific thing. I have nothing but contempt for rapists. But the logic that because some women are raped that that means ALL women are "still" chattels is not logic at all.

Let's first address the issue of female chattelhood. In primitive cultures where resources were sparse and life was cheap- like among the Mongols, Arab bedouins and Vikings, women WERE treated very badly and undeniably WERE chattels. But the Judeo-Christian West? No.

Let's face it, in Medieval and early Modern Times, the life of a woman was hard and her efforts were surely underappreciated. But was this any less so for a man? Most men between 500 and 1945 AD were farmers. Farming WITH modern technology is endless drudgery. In Medieval and Early Modern Times, you don't want to even think about it. I'd really love to see the actress playing the feminist lawyer try and have a go at farming with the technology of 900 AD.

The fact is, in those days neither men nor women had much in the way of freedom nor rest from their toil. Men had to do hard labor that women were, for the most part, not strong enough to do, or not strong enough to do cost effectively. Women had four and five and six babies and didn't have an electric stove, a microwave, a washing machine, a vacuum cleaner or daycare. Women were not relegated to domestic roles because of some mythical evil male patriarchy. Rather they were relegated to such because of necessity for survival.

In the Middle Ages, even the noblemen, portrayed as having some easy life, lived a life of hard training for war, keeping up his castle as a strong point both for his king and his villagers and repelling vicious invaders like the Magyars or Vikings or Avars. The main thing that can be said for the local lord's life was that it was much, much better than the peasant's. But it was still a hard life.

In the factories of the 1800s and 1900s, it was a similar situation. It was hard labor mostly requiring the better upper-body strength of males. What's more, more than half the population at this time were still farmers living that hard life. from earliest times up to less than a century ago, most men led lives of endless hard labor and were as underappreciated for it as their women were for their sacrifices.

It's easy for some feminist sitting in a Starbuck's drying her pedicured toenails and sipping Madagascar Roast to criticize men in times past who had to work 14 hours a day in an Industrial Revolution factory or repel Viking invasions for a living. Tammy Bruce put a name to this term I observed in hardcore Feminists since I first regularly observed them many years ago. It is malignant narcissism. The Feminist thinks it's all about them, that every denial of what they want when they wanted it was the fault of the wicked white male patriarchy. Every rejection of their ridiculous ideas is sexism and mysogeny, not honest rejection of a ridiculous idea. Whenever someone gets sick of them and their constant demands, it's because "you can't handle a strong woman." In short the world revolves around them. I mean, they act like abortionists are heroes and that the children of their bodies are a white male plot to enslave them.

It wasn't always so. The Womens'Movement once upon a time was filled with Christian women who cared about the whole of society and were not stuck on themselves. They were Conservatives who closed down bars and brothels and cared deeply for their children. Many on the Left opposed womens' suffrage because they felt that such Godly people could never get what they were selling. The XIXth Amendment was passed in 1919. At that time the Republican Party dominated Congress and the State Legislatures by a greater margin than they do today. The five election cycles after womens' suffrage- 1920, 1922, 1924, 1926 and 1928 all had Republican landslides.

The self-absorbed Marxists who now dominate the Feminist movement came along during the '60s, fairly recently.

Malignant narcissism is no joke, it is a deadly thing. Remember Hitler fed the German people a steady diet of it during the 1930s. Modern "Womens' Studies" courses in our colleges are as full of excrement as Hermann Goering's "Aryan Studies" courses during the 1930s. But it's not something to laugh at and be dismissed. When someone believes that everyone is in on a plot to keep them down all the time, facts be darned, they can come to rationalize terrible things. People often marvel at how the everyday Germans could do the things they did to Jews during
World War II. Malignant narcissism. Only looking inside and seeing the world as a reflection of themselves. Feminists rationalize every bit as badly, given the 50 million abortions that we've had over the last thirty years plus.

Whenever anyone criticized Hitler, his followers would respond "you just hate Germany and want to keep Germans down." Just the same as Feminists saying, "you just hate women and want to keep them down" whenever they are criticized.

And you gotta hand it to them. Just as Liberals have been skilled at the propaganda war, Feminists have been doubly so in spreading their lies. Fifty million murdered babies are but one testimony to that. And if you express any concern about fifty million murdered babies, why, you hate women! Now, how did we allow the dialogue in this country to be thus defined?

I think it can be summed up in a scene from the movie "Born on the 4th of July" set during the Vietnam Era. The parents of the narcissistic, angry vet who was sinking deep into alcoholism turned on the tv. It showed protesters marching angrily on Washington DC, coming to shut the city down. The mother turned the channel over to Rowan and Martin's "Laugh-in" and forgot about it. They stuck their heads in the sand and hoped that the Feminists and other Leftist radical Useful Idiots would just go away. They had the numbers back then. Most people living in 1968 might as well have been living in 1958, even the young.

But feminists and the others on the Radical Left came forward with their big lies. they told them over and over. They had a willing Liberal Media which told the public that the Useful Idiots were "right on" morning, noon and night. And they defined the debate. And now we have a Feminist Reich in our courts and on our college campuses.

We must remember, appeasement never works to someone deep in the recesses of their own malignant narcissism. Every demand they make that we give in to will lead to five more demands, each more ridiculous than the last. The only thing that works is standing up to them and saying that they will not dictate to us. Even then we'll have to fight. But if every man not made a eunuch and every real woman were to stand up to them today, Feminism would be over in about fifteen minutes. I, for one, will stand. Will anyone also stand, or do I, like the mythical Hercules, have to slay all the Amazons by myself?

Vietnam vs Iraq, Do You Know What You're Talking About?

2005-08-28T01:03:00.000-05:00

The Left loves to go on about how Iraq is "another Vietnam." Who writes these Liberal talking points? Oh what a crashing bore! The hippy dopeheads who make these charges, most of them, couldn't find either Vietnam or Iraq on the map. They carry on their apathy for their fellow human beings that they showed thirty years ago. The same "Peace" Movement that helped cram millions of Cambodians into mass graves, shows the same lack of concern for the Shi'ites who were packed into similar shallow graves. Not to mention the terrorist haven that Iraq was, with, not only 'al-Qaeda, but Islamic Jihad and Saddam's pensions for the families of suicide bombers. The people who lecture us about the less than 2000 Americans dead, as if we loyal Americans killed them, rather than the terrorists, have no problem supporting the people that kill millions!

How they loved to put up pictures of Mao, murderer of tens of millions, and Ho Chi Minh, who also murdered and displaced millions of people! I remember in 1989 when the pro-Republican demonstrations of Tiananmen Square were at their height, the old hippies of Berkeley snidely said something to the effect of "oh yes, they're just like us!" As if hippy dopeheads of Berkeley would make a fingernail clipping of the least of the Tiananmen martyrs!

But I digress. How does Iraq compare with Vietnam? Well, by two and a half years into US involvement in Vietnam, 15,000 Americans had died. At that time, Fall, 1967, the Viet-Cong was fielding battalions, Brigades, even three Division sized units. The Regular North Vietnamese Army was also starting to filter in, Division by Division. The pitched battle, future siege, of Khe Sanh was shaping up between elements of the 26th Marines and 9th Marines against North Vietnam's vaunted 325th Infantry Division. The border regions of Cambodia and Laos were packed with all types of Communist troops. Over a million men, well armed and well trained, filled the ranks of the Vietnamese Red Armies.

In Iraq, 1880 Americans have died between March of 2003 and August of 2005. Approximately 400 of these have died of accidents and other non-combat related deaths. Is this even a war? In most major battles armies typically lose way more than 1400 people. The Roman Republic lost approximately 60,000 men in the Battle of Cannae against Hannibal in 216 BC, more than our entire losses in the Vietnam Era. We lost more men dead in combat during the Tet Offensive than in our entire Iraq involvement. The terrorists in Iraq would have difficulty fielding a decent battalion, forget about a Brigade or Division. They do not engage us in major battles because we'd slaughter them, as we do when we find them and engage them. In Fallujah, they lost over a thousand and we lost fifty, God rest their souls. In subsequent battles, the ratio was even more favorable to the US. The terrorists are exactly that- just cowards skulking around leaving mines. There are approximately 20,000 of them in Iraq. What's more, most of Iraq is quiet, not even at war. The terrorists are making trouble in the Sunni Triangle, a fraction of Iraq's landmass. They occasionally leave a bomb in Mosul and Najaf, cities close to the Triangle.

What's more, the Liberal fools blame George Bush for the Americans dead, instead of the terrorists who killed them. It really urks me that they pretend to care about soldiers. In the Vietnam Era, our soldiers were lovingly greeted by hippies with a spit in the face and called "baby killer." Today, the traitors spew their ignorance outside Walter Reed Army Hospital. Oh!!! I fianlly found a similarity between the Vietnam and Iraq Wars! In both instances, the Left, motivated by its intense hatred of America and its cause has taken to helping a murderous enemy that is guilty of filling mass graves. In both cases they claim to act to help the soldiers but in reality spit on them and hate them. OK, now we're getting somewhere!

Today's Pharsalus- A Judicial Oligarchy

2005-08-23T23:05:00.000-05:00

Speaking at Justice Sunday II on the August 14th Tom DeLay referred to Liberal Judicial Activists as a "Judicial Autocracy." the term I myself would have used is that Liberals on the court are a Judicial Oligarchy. That is, they are a corrupt, tyrannical group of individuals taking away people's freedoms. Autocracy invariably refers to one person. But, in a way, I suppose he has a point. The Autocrat was invariably absolutist, which is what the court has set itself up to be. Perhaps Absolutist Oligarchy may best describe it.

One of my favorite works of literature is Lucan's "de Bello Civilis" (of the Civil War) better known as the "Pharsalia." It is a romanticized description of Rome's Republican resistance to the juggernaut Caesar. The heroes are Pompey and Cato, battling to save their freedom from the outlaw Iulian who would be King. the big battle of the war is Pharsalus, capital of ancient Thessally on the Emathian Plain. Caesar was outnumbered 2 to 1. But his Army was hardened by eight years of tough campaign in Gaul. Imagine if it were possible to have a soldier who fought in the entirety of World War I and the entirety of World War II and was still only 29 or 30 years old. And then imagine eight legions of such troops marching on your Army. The Gallic War veterans cut the Republicans to ribbons.

The tattered remnants of the Republican Army fled to Africa and Spain. Cato led a heroic march of legionaries across the Sahara to the more hospitable clime of Rome's Proconsular Province. He hunkered down in the city of Utica and waited. Caesar launched his African and Spanish campaigns and brought down the remnants of freedom. Cato chose to die rather than kneel before Caesar and submit to him.

I read it when I was younger politcally than I am today. I knew that Caesar, as a good Jacobin tyrant, had mobilized disenchanted impoverished people, supposedly for their benefit, but in reality for his own power. I know that modern Liberal leadership in America is about the same business. I was willing to die on a battleifeld like Pharsalus for the Republican cause. The one thing I couldn't figure out is, where would the tyrant's legions come from? The Army and the rest of the military is Conservative for the most part. Thank God for that, our freedom would be very much over.

No. It is the judges, not our Army, which marches against us and is turning our Republic into a Dictatorship.

With Roe v Wade, they have violated our most sacred principles- LIFE, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. No one has the right to be denied life, liberty or property without due process. 50 million babies have died, and no end in sight.

In Kelo vs New Haven, the right to private property was stamped out in the name of Eminent Domain. Now a city can seize our lands and homes and whatever else if it profits them. Fortunately some states are limiting eminent domain.

In supporting the Unconstitutional FACE laws, the Judiciary has taken away the Freedom of Speech of Pro-Life protesters. Anyone who disagrees with murdering babies has the right to remain silent.

Freedom of Religion was silenced in the various rulings, beginning with Everman v Board of Education and Engel v Vitale, and continuing on right through the Court's silence on Judge Roy Moore's defense of our religious Liberties against the traitor judge Myron Thompson.

The only right they do seem willing to grant us was given in Lawrence v Texas- the right to be sodomized.

We needn't look North towards the Rubicon for the enemy of Liberty to cross and march against us. He is already upon us, in the city, sitting in the courts. Instead of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness, we are entitled Sodomy, Murder and Misery. These people with feeble bodies and degenerated minds have overwhelmed America.

People, don't make the mistake of believing that the judiciary has taken a few wrong turns and can be corrected. Our judiciary is rotten to the core and unsalvagable. It needs to be torn down and rebuilt anew, with jurists who love our Constitution and actually bother to read it. We need people dedicated to American ways, not Eurosocialist ways, as Steven Breyer and Sandra Day o'Connor admit, although Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Kennedy do too. Judge Roberts promises to be an American and that would make 4 of 9. But it is not enough.

We have a lot of garbage to clean out if we want to save this Republic. Down with the Judicial Oligarchy!

Tidbit From "1776"

2005-08-23T21:38:00.000-05:00

Currently I am reading "1776" by David McCullough. It is a sort of documentary book on the year that saw our country formed. It is written in much the same style as Colleen McCullough's "First Man in Rome" series, but it doesn't have the personal family dialogues of the famous people. It is excellently written.

The story begins during 1775, at the beginning of the Revolution, with Boston besieged by the Continental Army. I remarked upon one thing as I read it. Those loyal to King George II were crammed in the city, and they referred to the Revolutionary Army as "The Country Folk."

America in one way was the same in 1775 as today. Those who craved to be led by a European tyrants and emulate them lived in the major metropolitan areas, whereas the "Country Folk" craved something better, and were willing to fight for it. The Liberals in the Blue areas seek to follow the lead of France and Germany. "I'm not into America" as one of my Boston-area classmates put it back in High School.

Those of us in the outlying areas, now called "Flyover Country" are the true keepers of the Heritage of the Revolution. Our Liberal Urban cousins have forgotten it. Is America to be America, or a province of Europe?

Some things never change.

Also, this "deist" army held daily prayers and there is a record of a man being flogged for causing a public disturbance during them on one occasion.

Yet ANOTHER Case of Democratic Hypocrisy

2005-08-18T00:30:00.000-05:00

This is more of a testimonial than an article. It is a reminder to the American public, which has forgotten the events I shall describe, but it is very important to remember.

The 3rd Infantry Division was the spearhead of the US liberation of Iraq. The "Rock of the Marne" had been the 24th Infantry Division in Georgia, Ft Stewart and Ft Benning.

The 24th ID, later the 3rd ID, was the heavy firepower division of XVIII Airborne Corps, backing up the Airborne, Light Infantry and Marine Divisions made up mainly of grunts. In the Armor Heavy Middle East, the Rock of the Marne was always first team. We all watched in 2003 as the 3rd led the way into Iraq and the cameras rolled.

I served from 1996 until 1999 in the 3rd Brigade/3rd ID on Kelley Hill, Ft Benning. I was a dismount Infantryman in a Mechanized Rifle Platoon in Charlie Company 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry.

And in February of 1998 we got the call. Then President Clinton was on closed-circuit tv with Lt. Colonel Davis, 1/15's Commander. We had just come in from grueling maneuvers (I still remember them) in the field.

Clinton was ordering our battalion to Kuwait. In the 1990s, there was always at least one Armored or Mechanized Infantry Battalion in Kuwait. The other two battalions of the Armor or Mech Brigade would be ready at a moment's notice to come and join them. Our sister unit, Task Force 1/30th Infantry, was over in Kuwait. We and 2/69 Armor, the other battalion, were going to complete the brigade. Then the rest of 3rd ID was to follow.

You see, Saddam was flouting one of the many UN Resolutions against him, and Clinton was deeply concerned about Hussein's WMD program. Except from the extreme Left, there were none of the asinine ramblings about "no blood for oil." Nobody claiming Clinton lied.

Well, we loaded up our gear, our wall lockers were about to be sealed and we were going to go to the planes any day. Kofi Annan stepped in at that point. In retrospect, it was, no doubt, to protect his investments in the Oil for Palaces program. He said that Saddam would be given "one last chance" to make it right. Clinton, of course, gave in.

The point of this is, we came within weeks of launching the exact same invasion of Iraq in 1998 that we did in 2003. What stalled it? Kofi Annan's worthless word that it would be Saddam's last chance and that we'd all be behind an attack next time. Where were all the "Bush lied" types back then? Not a peep from them. Our strategy was the exact same then that it has been under Bush. The truth is, most Liberals are liars or don't have a clue what they are talking about. The former are the politcal leaders who'll say and do anything to undermine America and the latter are fools who are led around by the nose by the former.

Bring Out Your Dead!

2005-08-16T20:49:00.000-05:00

One of Rush Limbaugh's callers today had a pretty good insight that I thought I'd share and expound upon. He pointed out the similarity between the Left Wing Professional Activist Jackals (MoveOn.org et al) with the Liberal Media using the death of Cindy Sheehan's son for their politcal aims with the Paul Wellstone Memorial. For those of you don't remember that gem, the Minnestoa Senator's Funeral in 2002, after his tragic sudden death, was turned into a Democratic Party rally by the Unions and no one less the Wellstone's own son. The caller went on to point out how the Wellstone Memorial backfired in the Demos' faces and how he believed Cindy Sheehan's Mickey Mouse Circus would too.

The caller's insight was good, but I'd like to take it a step further. These incidents are nothing new really. The Democratic Party IS the party of death and exploits it rather well. I mean, think about it, one of the premier planks of their Party Platform is that murdering babies is ok, because the mother that bore them MIGHT also die. Great logic, eh? Use death to justify murder.

Last year a yellow journalist took pictures of steel coffins from Iraq being unloaded from a C-5 Galaxy. He had been forbidden from doing so but did it anyway. What better way for the Left to hurt Bush and the US War Effort by playing up dead soldiers in their coffins? I mean, who cares about the dignity of the soldiers and their families? Does the Left think they convince us that they care about the troops this way? These same Antiwar pukes or the last generation of them used to spit on GIs during the Vietnam Era. Their protests of caring about American soldiers dying rings hollow to those of us who know their history. The college professor Nicholas de Genova, who, at the outset of the Iraq War, wished America "a million Mogadishus" was honest at least. Many in the Left who distanced themselves from his swinish treason secretly think just as he does. Still, the Liberal Media and Leftist Agitprop gorillas maintain their grim deathwatch over US casualies. As if they really care.

Knowing well what power images of death have on people, images of 9-11 have been verboten by the PC Politburo in the Liberal Media. I know they are so happy to have put the days of people flying American flags and wearing American flag lapel pins behind them! They don't want to ever see a time where Americans were united against terrorism ever come again.

Even Ronald Reagan, who they hated like few others, they used his dying time from alzheimer's to push for their human experimentation, aka stem cell research. Oh yes, let's believe in science without God. There was another great scientist who didnt let things like God stop him from conducting experiments. His name was Dr Mengele.

Proverbs 8:36 says it best where God says "...all they that hate Me love death." It cannot be argued that most of the real hardcore Lefties hate God and His people. Their propoganda tactics and obsession with calling murdering babies a right, not to mention their ghoulish insistence that Terri Schiavo die, do indicate that these people are in the throes of a passionate love affair with death. God did not lie in His Holy Scripture!

Liberals are Fools

2005-08-13T00:59:00.000-05:00

I'm sorry, there is just no other way to say it.

Actually I thought of a few words more pungent than "fool" that are every bit as apt. But I am trying to live as Christ would have me live.

I am watching Cindy Sheehan and the Liberal Activists/Media and I am wondering who is who's fool. And I realize that the answer is "both."

"Iraq is an unjust war," the Liberal Sheeple bleat. What's unjust about it? We are in the trenches, the heartland of the enemy that bombed us on 9-11. Is anyone stupid enough to believe that pulling our troops home from Iraq and letting the terrorists have it will make us safe and stop death? Only someone with a room temperature IQ or a Liberal.

As we learned in the first Gulf War, the terrorists watch CNN. Right now the terrorists are watching the fool Cindy Sheehan. I am very sorry for her son's death. The man was a real hero. She is not. Some will say I am being insensitive to the fool because, after all, she lost her son. I do sympathize with that, but my sympathy evaporates when I see her giving aid and comfort to terrorists who want to kill more sons of mothers like her. You see, George Bush did not kill Casey Sheehan. Terrorists killed Casey Sheehan, as well as fools like her and the MoveOn.org creeps that are exploiting her folly. And anyone who cannot see that as plain as the nose on their face needs to get their head out of a certain nameless place.

Terrorism is real. And Saddam was up to his neck in it, make no mistake about it. He was an ally of 'al-Qaeda, tho not a close one. Islamic Jihad, a terrorist organization every bit as evil, murderous and inimical to America, had free run of Iraq under Saddam. Iraqi Intelligence and Islamic Jihad worked together as a part of the 1993 WTC attack. If we allow, for the sake of argument, the lame Liberal talking point of "Saddam had nothing to do with 'al-Qaeda/9-11" is having something to do with the '93 attack, pensioning families of suicide bombers, a presidential assassination plot (on Bush 41) and sponsoring Islamic Jihad make everything peachy? Only Liberals are foolish enough to believe so.

We removed a murderous genocidal dictator. We are routing out terrorists who want to kill Americans. They are getting their martyrdom in some squalid back alley in Fallujah and Ramadi rather than by flying planes into our buildings. How much more just can you get?

America needs to wake up. On 9-11 we did. However, the Liberal Media and Liberal Activist Groups backed up by Limosine Liberal billionaires began singing us to sleep again. And many of us have dozed off again.

I am sorry for Casey Sheehan's death. He was a true hero. But if he was a true soldier of honor, he would be 100% opposed to his mother giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. Because you can bet they are watching CNN tonight. And they are watching Cindy Sheehan and the MoveOn.org fools. And they are snickering and thinking that a few more bombs will make us leave. And then some other mom will be crying at her son's death.

Free Delmarva!!!!!

2005-08-12T02:38:00.000-05:00

I have a call for a little rearranging of state lines in our Mid-Atlantic Region. When we look at a map of the Blue States, we see Maryland and Delaware and just think unsalvageable. However, a closer look at the counties of the Delmarva Peninsula is called for.

The Delmarva Peninsula is the spit of land jutting down from Pennsylvania on the east side of the Chesapeake Bay. It gets its name as Delaware, Maryland and Virginia all have counties on this Peninsula, hence Delmarva.

The proper boundary for the Delmarva Peninsula is the Chesapeake-Delaware Canal, which cuts across its neck, technically making it an island.

On the entire peninsula/island there is only one Blue County, ironically one of the two Virginia counties, Northampton County, the Southernmost edge, which John Kerry won by 106 votes out of more than 5000 cast. The rest is pure Bush Country.

The problem for Delmarva is that it is bent to the will of majorities which are not part of their organic territory. In the case of Delaware, it is a Conservative Southern Red State, except for Wilmington. This big city is, in reality, a suburb of ultra-Liberal Philadelphia. It is well north of the canal and not part of Delmarva. Likewise Maryland Delmarva is pulled away from its will by a few areas not contiguous with it. The Baltimore area, plus Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties, the suburbs of DC make the otherwise Red State of Maryland Blue.

Delmarva really needs to be its own state. Let Maryland have Wilmington and the peninsula/island have its own free way, unfettered by outsiders.

The boundaries set for this area are very old and reflective a reality no longer in existence. Delaware was founded by Dutch and Swedes, as the Dutch were, in their brief period, a hegemon of the globe, and the Swedes in that 17th century period were also questing for hegemonic power. Eventually the Dutch won out, but then the English won out over the Dutch. They did so in 1682, because the new colony of Pennsylvania would have been landlocked without Delaware in English hands.

Maryland was granted by Charles I to Lord Baltimore in 1632 as a haven for Catholics in the New World.

Dutch and Swedish Glory have long faded. Nor is there any need for a special haven for Catholics. We can redraw the boundaries without hurting anybody's feelings. Let Wilmington join with Baltimore and Prince Georges County.

I know this will not happen. The Liberals of Wilmington and Baltimore won't allow it. But it would be something worth doing. People like Joe Biden and John Kerry wouldn't get elected dogcatcher there.

Oh yeah.

Free Delmarva now!

Judah-Israel/Red States-Blue States

2005-08-11T14:40:00.000-05:00

I have been reading the books of I Kings and II Kings, as well as II Chronicles. In them are many lessons applicable to us today. First, we have to look at the Kingdom of Israel at its height. They had a small empire spanning from the frontier of Egypt to the Banks of the Euphrates. For a small nation like Israel, this was a big empire. Before the Kings of Saul, David and Solomon, Israel had been ruled by the judges, who were guided by the Spirit of God in their governance. This was a great blessing and honor for the Israelites. But it wasn't enough for them. They wanted to have a king, like the surrounding pagan nations. God warned the people that a king would levy heavy taxes on them and draft their sons for war and corvee. They didn't care. God told his prophet Samuel that the Israelites were rejecting Him, and they'd have to live with the consequences of that.

God didn't lie. Saul conscripted many young men into the Army and fought many wars, some of them losing. David set aside many resources for the Temple of God, and did many public building projects, including building up Jerusalem, his city. Solomon undertook the costly building and ornamenting of the Temple. The people strained under the yoke of so much work. The empire was patrolled by conscripted young men, whose mothers and fathers missed them.

Solomon was foolish, yes, the wise king did a fool thing. He allowed some of his young pagan concubines to coax him into offering sacrifice unto their idols. God was going to end the empire in punishment. God had promised peace to Solomon early in his reign, so the Kingdom would not end in his life. What's more, God has promised to keep a lampstand for his servant David in Jerusalem. This would be the Kingdom of Judah, David's tribe, with its capital, Jerusalem. David's descendents would also rule the tribe of Simeon and Benjamin.

In time, Judah would become like the Red States- their Kings would serve God, most of the time. Israel, like the Blue States, turned their back on God and all that had made them great. As the Blue States seek to emulate secular Europe and Asia, they have turned their backs on the Protestant Christian heritage of America.

The break between Judah and Israel, was oddly, Judah's fault. Solomon's son, Rehoboam, was about to take the throne of all Israel. A delegation from the Northern tribes begged him to ease taxes and conscription. Rehoboam replied that his thumb would be thicker than his father's thigh, and if his father had chastised them with whips, he would do so with scorpions. Israel, under the leadership of a man named Jereboam, seceded from Judah. The Bible shows the pitfalls of Big Government!

Jereboam had been given the tribes of Israel by God. But when he became King, he instituted paganism, Baal worship, in Israel. Nearly every King of Israel in the Book of Kings committed the "sin of Jereboam." Our Blue States are also engaging in the Sin of Jereboam. Liberals have deified themselves. They practice abortion, like the practice of sacrificing babies to Baal. As Solomon said in Ecclesiastes-"there is nothing new under the Sun." They embrace the Big Government that Rehoboam favored.

Among my favorite stories are Elijah standing up to Ahab and Jezebel, and the story of their daughter Athaliah.

Ahab was an evil king, and he married a Canaanite princess, Jezebel, who pushed hard for the Worship of Baal in Israel. She put to death God's remaining prophets, and persecuted God's people with all the furor of the ACLU. Elijah showed the power of God and not long after Jezebel was killed by Jehu, the new King of Israel that God raised up. Athaliah, Jezebel and Ahab's daughter, was married to the King of Judah in those days, but he had passed on. Upon hearing of her parent's death, Athaliah determined to exterminate the Line of David. However, the priests of the Lord protected Joash, a young baby, who was hidden away. They brought him out at the age of seven and the captains of the army all hailed him. Athaliah was killed. I wish they'd make a movie about this (II Kings 11).

After much evil, God determined to blot out Israel. The Assyrians came and dragged off the Northern Tribes into captivity. Most of these tribes are now known as the "Lost Tribes."

Eventually, the tribes within the Kingdom of Judah were committing sins every bit as bad. In the days of Jeremiah and Ezekiel God raised up Nebuchadnezzar and took them off into captivity as well. But Jeremiah predicted that Solomon's temple would be rebuilt and the Jewish Faith would come to its fulfillment and meet its Savior in the time after their return.

Maybe it is not a bad idea for the Blue States and Red States to separate. I'd rather live in a smaller America that was a real America, rather than a united one that was a farce. The majority of people in New York, Boston and San Francisco are opposed to God's Will and to the true spirit of the US Constitution. Can that ever change? I am skeptical. Those people aren't even Americans any more. They seek to emulate European Socialism. Yes, the everyday Joe Democrat is a loyal American, but he or she is led astray by those who are not. The Blue States desire to be more like France, Canada or Sweden. "I am not into America," one of my highschool classmates in Boston once said. They're not.

The Red states are rising, vibrant, strong. The economies are growing by leaps and bounds. Spiritually we could be doing much better, but we have a strong foundation, and with a restoration of full religious freedom from the tyranny of Liberal jurists would have us doing better still. The Blue States are decaying, in population, economically (due to socialism and its high taxation wreaking its typical wrack and ruin) and, worst of all, spiritually. We don't want this decay to spread here. We need to free ourselves from unelected tyrannical bureaucrats and lawyers like the ACLU. We dont want the entirety of America to Fall under the Sin of Jereboam.

Dobson Didn't Lie!

2005-08-10T01:57:00.000-05:00

It seems that the Reverend James Dobson has been under fire for making the statement that Stem cell research is comparable to Nazi tactics.

You know, there was once a scientist who believed in science first. He didn't concern himself with strictures of anything like religion. Science was his guide and he would not let something as primitive as relation to God stand in his way. He discovered many things about the endurance of human beings. His name was Dr. Mengele.

Sound preposterous? It should not. The Left advocates experimenting on human beings in advocating stem cell research, not to put too fine a point on it. This is not like some debate over what the tax rate should be or the speed limit. We are talking about an issue that will determine what kind of soul our nation has. And if our nation has a decayed and corrupt soul, it will not stand.

Dr Dobson was just doing his job- looking out for peoples' souls. Nazi Germany was secular regime that believed in science without God. Liberalism has a lot in common with it.

Conservatives should defend Dr Dobson and not allow Liberals to smear him as an "extremist." He is a good man and we must stand with him in his hour of need. If Liberalism can be allowed to persecute a man for telling the truth, then we are in grave trouble indeed.

O Hesperia!

2005-07-23T02:33:00.000-05:00

One of my favorite stories from literature is the Aeneid. I am a lover of Roman history and have studied it much in my youth. The story begins in the ashes of Troy, after the Greek heroes of the Illiad had sacked it and destroyed it. A young prince, Aenaeas, of the Line of Dardanus, the royal line of Troy, predicted to survive and thrive, led the survivors on a quest. The quest was for the fabled land of Hesperia ("Land of the West").

Aenaeas led his Trojans across the sea, to many places, including Crete and Carthage, even to the Illyrian coast, where a miniature Troy was built. But the wanderers kept their eyes on the prize. They found their Hesperia- Italy, and Aenaeas' descendent Romulus founded his city-Rome and the Line of Dardanus lived on and thrived, and came to master the known world.

I think the Aeneid resonated deeply in me because I could identify with it on many levels. My grandparents' Lithuanian homeland, overrun by the Soviets, was burnt Troy, and our beloved new homeland, America, was Hesperia, the Golden Western land. My father came to America at the age of eight and loved this country deeply. He served it until his dying day.

America is a special place. It is different from the rest of the world. That doesn't mean America is perfect. It is just, by God's Grace, a place where people live in more freedom, with more prosperity and have all-around better lives than anywhere else in the world.

I lived over in Europe for a few years, back before the collapse of the USSR and Warsaw Pact. I witnessed the Solidarity demonstrations. And I longed to return to America, I was homesick. Given both my heritage and my own experiences, I came to appreciate America more than most do, I believe.

I came home to America, to the state of Massachusetts. I came home expecting my fellow Americans to love America and desire to help it for all they could. But what I saw instead was Liberals who hated America, held it in contempt and, in more than a few cases, preferred the Soviet Union to America. I am not saying all Liberals hate America, but a goodly percentage of them in Northeast undeniably do.

In reading Whittaker Chambers' book "Witness" about Communists in America in the 1920s and 30s, Chambers noted how the American Left went ga-ga when given the "honor" of meeting a Soviet Russian. I noted that and it hadn't changed by the 1980s. Oh they'd hate to meet a Texan or a Utahan, and more than likely would have treated someone from there with contempt. But a Soviet? Most Massachusetts Liberals would have fawned over one. And today they fawn over the Socialists of France and Germany. Nothing new under the Sun.

Our America, our Hesperia, was built by us as a refuge from the insanity that prevailed in Europe. This was a new place for freedom from whatever new slavery the Europeans managed to shackle themselves in.

Why then are our Liberal compatriots so eager to return to Europe's old ways? the 20th century was an education- it taught us one thing well- Socialism doesn't work. Europe and Asia are chock full of shallow mass graves of the victims of Socialism. From the crosses near the old Berlin Wall to the killing fields surrounding Phnom Penh, the blood of over a hundred million, perhaps two hundred million, innocents cries out that Socialism kills. It enslaves men, and does not make them free. It's one draw, equality, does not come about with Socialism either. The Party Elites became "more equal" than the people they "liberated."

And that is what the current culture war boils down to. Are we Americans, modern Hesperians, free in our New World, from the shackles of the Old? Or are we just going to bring the Old World, Old Europe here and make this just a carbon copy of it? I know most Liberals are loyal Americans who would drop Liberalism like a hot rock if they saw its true Socialistic nature. Of course there are many who would not. The Ward Churchills of the world are proud of their hateful sedition and revel in it. It is they who benefit from the efforts of the Liberal Activists and the Democratic Party.

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears. This is why we need to marshal ourselves and defeat the Left!!!!

Fight for Roberts!

2005-07-20T15:18:00.000-05:00

Last night the president announced his choice of John G. Roberts jr as his nominee for the Supreme Court. This is a welcome choice.

At first glance, it does seem that Bush has outmaneuvered the Democrats once again. He has appointed a solid Conservative that the minority cannot oppose and win. This is the ideal situation.

My experiences in Montgomery taught me that the judiciary is corrupted and in need of serious reform and change. I had thought that the disgrace that is Roe V Wade and Engel v Vitale (which banned school prayer) were mere wrong turns by the judiciary, that could be fixed by some right thinking common sense.

However, the laws that Liberals passed otlawing free speech of anti-abortion groups and broadening the silencing of free speech and freedom of religion on public ground has educated me to the truth.

The Left's socialist agenda cannot win at the ballot box. McGovernite candidates tend to lose in 40+ state blowouts. The Democrats can only win nationally by running a Southern Centrist. It's the only way they've won the White House in the last 41 years, and even that, in only four elections. A Conservative can run as a Conservative and win. A Liberal running as a Liberal will embarrass himself. What to do? Stack the judiciary with Left Wing judicial activists.

It's quite clever, really. During the traitor Michael Newdow's frivolous lawsuit against the pledge of allegiance, 99 of our Senators came out in front of Capitol Hill and said the Pledge. All of the Democrats but one. I am sure Zell Miller was sincere, but I am equally sure that many Democrats, while saying the pledge, were secretly cheering the 9th Circuit Court's Unconstitutional and illegal ruling.

Can't win at the ballot box? Have judges say your way is in the Constitution! Never mind if the Constitution doesn't say anything of the kind.

In the 1920s, the Communists realized that standing on a soapbox preaching Marx would get them absolutely nowhere and win no one. Their new idea was to say that Communism was the true fulfillment of the US Constitution. They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, no doubt. That is how we got Separation of Church and State, and other Soviet ideals imposed on us, also abortion. In the first half of the 20th century the only people pushing for abortion "rights" were Communists or Nazis. Real Americans were appalled by such things.

FDR began the process by packing the courts with hard-core Leftists when he had a lock on the government. Separation of Church and State was not recognized by any court until FDR appointee Hugo Black snuck it into Everman v Board of Education, a case that the SCOTUS had no right to even adjudicate. They have twisted our Constitution around to mean that we must shut up in the name of the First Amendment and murdering babies is a right. To be fair, many of Eisenhower and Nixon's, and yes, even Reagan's appointees were a part of this Liberal Judicial Activist Culture. Sandra Day O'Connor knew the right thing but felt "she could not impose her morality." Well then, if someone breaks into her house to kill her, would I be wrong to impose my morality on her would-be murderers and dial 9-1-1? By her logic it would be. Good bye and good riddance to you Sandra! When we needed you to stand for the right thing, you turned into a rubber chicken.

John Roberts is a man who resists this subverting of the Constitution. He is a blessing, and he will help reverse some of these terrible rulings. We must fight for him, and not allow Feminist groups and the ACLU, anti-American groups, to dictate who we will appoint. We won the election. They lost. It is time to restore the Constitution. Write your Senator and tell him to back Roberts.

We Come For Your Children!

2005-06-29T08:00:00.000-05:00

I remember reading in the great book "Menace of Multiculturalism" about a gay activist group standing outside a San Francisco area church chanting "we come for your children!"

I think this is, as a greater concept, the main strategy of Liberalism these days. Not only does the MTV crowd push "Gay Chic" convincing many of the young that they are gay, and that it's "cool."

But we must look at it in a greater context. The Leftist core in this country are rabid supporters of abortion and a self-absorbed lifestyle reminiscent of France. In the red states, Evangelical Christians are more than replacing themselves in birthrates. In more Liberal circles, population is dropping like a rock.

I think it has dawned on the powers that be among the Left that they are losing. They hoped Hispanic immigration would bring enough new Liberals into the country to bring about their fabled "emerging Democratic majority." But Socially Conservative Hispanics have been slowly drifting towards the Republican Party. At the prsent rate, Hispanics could be 51% Republican in a decade or two.

So how will the Left replace itself? They cast their covetous gaze at the children of Evangelicals and Catholic Conservatives.

They will continue to create garbage like gangsta rap which fills young minds with nothing but garbage. Rap music is narcissistic and written to engender anger where none is needed. It turns youth in on themselves. Look to see the Liberals in the music industry churn out more this dreck. And don't expect them to have any shame about it either.

Look for Liberals to push for more of their agendas, especially the Gay Agenda, into our schools, while silencing the free speech of Christians.

Watch for more "Gay Chic." This is a real threat. A girl in my family, as hetero as you get, has been convinced that she is a Lesbian.

Yes, Liberals, we know that you come for our children.

The Culture War will be won or lost among the youth. Either we will go with Liberalism and death, or Conservatism and strength.

Decline of the North

2005-06-06T01:16:00.000-05:00

When you study electoral college results from past elections, it's amazing to note all the changes that have taken place over the years. For instance, one views say, the election of 1896, and sees almost an entire juxtaposition of Republicans and Democrats, with William Jennings Bryan the Democrat-Populist winning mostly today's "Red States" and William McKinley, the Republican, winning almost only today's "Blue States." You could win the states North of the Ohio and Potomac Rivers and East of the Mississippi, plus Minnesota, and lose all others, but still win the election. The North had that kind of lock on things. In the 1930s, if you won the aforementioned states, you'd only need four more electoral votes to put you over the top.

And how are the mighty fallen! As a result of the 1930 census, New York proudly possessed 47 electoral votes. It is projected that after the 2010 census, the Empire State will drop below thirty.

Well, any recent poli-sci major in college has studied the rise of the Sun Belt and the decline of the Snow Belt, aka the Rust Belt. But why has the North declined? there are many reasons. One is that air conditioning makes one hundred degree summers bearable, and so more people have moved here. There are many others.

But the North has lost its leadership role in America. Once upon a time, the North was the center of American gravity. It was the extension of the Puritan dream of a New Jerusalem where people would prepare for the return of Our Lord. Christian activists took the lead in the abolitionist movement and brought slavery to an end. Immigrants like my ancestors from Poland and Lithuania, as well as those from many other countries entered this country under the shining light of the Statue of Liberty. My grandfather told me about it. Seeing her for the first time left him awestruck. I sometimes wonder if Lady Liberty ever feels like turning to face New York and saying, "I don't know you any more" and maybe move to Florida like much of the rest of the sane remnant of New York has.

Our immigrant fathers were all of different creeds and nationalities, but nearly all of them trusted God and worshipped Him and believed His Bible. Nobody got offended, or acted the fool, like the ACLU, who tries to make America look more and more like East Berlin with each passing year. There was truly the diversity and tolerance that today's Left talks a good talk about, but doesn't follow up on.

Our Judeo-Christian heritage was the glue that bound our society together. Our Constitution was based on the premise that God makes men free and men make men slaves. That is why the Constitution says in the preamble that its purpose is "to secure the blessings of liberty." In those days, blessing only meant one thing- a gift from the Almighty.

People in the North during its height from 1865-1970 knew their Godly heritage and walked in the Power of God. And they got a lot done. They did great things. And they made America a haven for Godly people, and a place where non-believers were free too. Today, the Atheist has organizaed himself into Marxist hit squads who go around terrorizing people and filing frivolous lawsuits against them over the slightest mention of God, in total violation of our Constitution. But back then, Atheists were good neighbors, who respected the beliefs of others.

In those days, the North had a leadership role in America. Where it led, the rest of America followed. But then came the '60s and its radicalism. Within a couple of decades it seems that the North has forgotten what made it great and has embraced decline. Yes, another reason for the flight to the Sun Belt is that many are refugees from the tyranny of Political Correctness.

Let's stop and examine PC just a moment. I would point out that it is a COMMUNIST concept, that Trotsky and Mao used. It no doubt became popularized in America by all the Mao's Red Books that were being distributed in America during the 1970s. Just like Separation of Church and State, which is in the Soviet Constitution, but nowhere in the American.

And that's the sad new reality of the North. It is no longer a shining city on a hill, but more like an ashheap. People want to emulate pinheads like 50 cent and Sarah Jessica Parker more than they do Jesus. Secularism has molded its iron collar around the neck of Northerners, and they do not seem to mind their chains. they have forgotten Locke's old principle on which our Constitution was based- that God makes men free and men make men slaves. And they are doing so.

Unless we have a serious revival in the North and they return to the ways of their forefathers, who made this country great and led it for a long time, they will continue to decline. With the rampant moral decay, the North will just become more and more irrelevant as time passes by. And that would be a sad thing for a golden land which once held so much promise.