Negotiation -

We were watching The Patriot with director’s commentary. For a fellow who made a movie about the American Revolution he had the standard liberal’s misunderstanding of what war is and what negotiation is.

Deep sigh. First off, negotiation requires that the parties at hand be willing to sit down at a table and discuss the issue(s) at hand. Secondly, in the liberal understanding of things they seems to think that both parties will each give a little bit and arrive at a mutually satisfactory settlement.

If the parties hold diametrically opposed views and/or one will not sit down to discuss the matter, then what? Kosovo comes to mind. The liberal view is that the parties should have just sat down and talked out their differences. Fact is, you had Moslem invaders that had been systematically persecuting native Christians for 400 years, and wanted to keep on doing so. You had native Christians (the Serbians) who wanted these invaders and persecutors out. As usual, the libs leading this country had us siding with the Moslems and bombing the Christians. But anyway, where is the negotiating room here? The Moslems weren’t going to leave peaceably. They were not going to stop persecuting the Christians. The Moslems had (as usual) no intention of giving any on that position. The Christians wanted freedom and the Moslems out of their hereditary lands. There was no give in their position.

Liberals seem to think that war is the same thing as a fist fight, and if everyone just went home and slept it off everything would be fine. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of war. War is not testosterone gone amuck. War is an instrument of national policy. War takes place when negotiations and diplomats have failed. If a nation has a goal which can not be achieved by diplomatic means it must either give up that goal or resort to war as the final choice.

For instance, the Germans of the 1930s entered into all kinds of negotiations and signed all kinds of agreements, which they happily broke and then entered into more negotiations and treaties, buying all kinds of time. Chamberlain was the liberal of his day and proudly proclaimed “peace for our time” after entering into the Munich Agreement which gave a chunk of Czechoslovakia to Germany in return for the German’s promise to be good boys and not do it again. After digesting the big bite for a year and consolidating their position, the Germans invaded Poland. The only way to stop a nation that will not negotiate honorably is war. Otherwise they will do what they please.

The Korean War took place when North Korea invaded South Korea. South Korea appealed to the United Nations for help. North Korea’s position was that they had conquered and would hold South Korea as theirs and would not give it up. The United Nations declared war upon North Korea and invaded to free the South Koreans. The United States troops sent to Korea were part of the UN forces. The United States did not declare a separate war upon North Korea. Contrary to the TV show MASH with its frequent soulful “why are we here” dialogs, most people understood quite well why we were there. It had nothing to do with “stopping the red stain” as Frank Burns so stupidly and piously intoned. Notice the standard Hollywierd liberal ploy of making all liberals reasonable and intelligent and all conservative positions stupid and ridiculous? It had everything to do with honoring the UN resolution to protect an ally who was being systematically conquered and pillaged. That is the same UN which the current crop of liberals wants to have running the planet nowadays. Especially if it puts the US in a bad position. BTW - if that had been a US war and we had finished it, instead of pulling out when the UN said to, we would not have the North Korean problem today. The people of North Korea would not be starving, they would be just as fat, sassy, and wealthy as the South Koreans are today.

Anyone who thinks that negotiation can be successful when one of the parties will not make treaties or hold to honorable terms will deserve what they get. Conquered. Or should we continue to let aggressors do as they damn well please until there is no freedom in the world? A nation that will not fight will not continue to exist. A people that will not fight will not keep freedom.

If we take war off the table, then there is nothing to make rogue nations such as Iran, North Korea, etc. even come to the table. We have to no reason to expect them to even go through the motions of negotiation, much less keep their word if there is no expectation of retaliation and punishment through war.

While no one in his right mind considers war desirable, it is still an instrument of policy that must be available. No pantywaist liberal abhors and hates war as much as the military does. The difference is that our military accepts the role of protector of freedom. The loudmouth pacifistic types seem only to protest those who protect freedom. I never see them protesting those who would take freedom away. When was the last time you saw the Code Pink people protest radical Islam? When was the last time you saw the peaceniks protest an aggressive dictatorship such as North Korea? When was the last time you saw protests against the murderous bombing of innocent civilians by Moslem terrorists such as we see every day on the news?

Them’s the facts, ma’am.

Are these guys nuts -

I saw a very earnest black gentleman on TV proclaiming that the newest and fastest growing religion in America, particularly in the black community, was Islam.

Interesting. The perception among many American blacks is that their ancestors were enslaved and persecuted by Christians, and that Moslems do not have any racial phobias. Not exactly true, by a long shot.

The problem is that the people of this country look at things through the prism of their emotional prejudices and do not check the facts.

So, let’s check some facts. The official dates for American slavery were 1700 to 1865. Even from the very beginning there are records of Christian protests against the slave trade. It was the Christian Abolitionists that brought about the end of the English slave trade. The Civil War was not started nor fought over slavery, but the abolitionist movement managed to sway public opinion and the end result was the total rejection of slavery and the freeing of all the slaves. There were approximately 400,000 slaves brought to America. Look around at the number of black people descended from these 400,000 still in America. Something around 36 million in 2000.

The book and TV blockbuster Roots portrayed the American slave traders as landing from boats and then rushing inland to capture the inhabitants of a peaceful village. That may have occasionally happened, but there are some disadvantages. First off, there is no guarantee that you can get the people that you want, age, sex, health and so on are just pot luck. Secondly, even though you have rifles, some indignant primitive with a spear is likely to object to being killed or captured. Getting a spear though your guts is usually considered a bad economic proposition.

Fact is, the American and English slave traders bought their slaves from the Arab traders who had been dealing in African slaves for centuries.

For the record, one of my ancestors is Captain James Reilly, who was shipwrecked off the coast of Africa, captured and held slave for many years by Arab slave traders. His book Reilly’s Narrative, the story of his slavery and escape, was very popular in the mid 1800s and was one of Abraham Lincoln’s favorites. And may have had some small influence on his decision to draft the Emancipation Proclamation.

Herself Sez: And let us not forget the “Underground Railroad,” operated by Christian households who believed that slavery was wrong, that helped close to 100,000 slaves find freedom in Canada, New Mexico and in non-slave states in the US.

Nowadays, “according to 1993 U.S. State Department estimates, up to 90,000 blacks are owned by North African Arabs, and often sold as property in a thriving slave trade for as little as $15 per human being.” Slavery in the Modern World.

I do not excuse the conduct of slavery under any conditions, and the thousands who died in the European slave ships are a true horror. But let’s remember the basic numbers: less than 200 years, 400,000 slaves, over 36 million descendants. And the countless Christian Abolitionists who protested from the beginning because the fundamental nature of Christianity is love for all mankind.

Now let’s look at the Moslem track record. You know, the Peace-Loving Religion that so many blacks are turning to so that they can say to hell with America.

Mohammed owned black slaves up until his death. The word for slave in Arabic became the common word for black person. “Abd” is the Arabic equivalent for “nigger” in modern America. Except there is no politically correct movement in Islam to keep people from using it. Let us quote Mohammed himself “Do not bring black into your pedigree”.

Moslems still practice slavery to this day. The Moslem Arabs began slaving in Africa from the very beginning. The last public slave auction of African blacks in Mecca was in the 1960s. This is fourteen centuries of trading in African black slaves. There was not and has never been any abolitionist movement in Islam. Slavery is still considered quite proper and meritorious under Sharia Law.

Now for a few numbers. There were an estimated 19 to 20 million African slaves over the centuries. This does not count the probably 50 to 80 million who died before they made it to the Moslem slave markets.

Look at those numbers compared to the American black slave descendants. Look around the Middle East - how many blacks do you see? Damn near none. African male slaves were usually castrated. Not likely to leave many descendants. Also the treatment of the slaves was so brutal that most died young, necessitating a constant flow of new slaves since most did not live to procreate.

Now - you want to explain to me just why Islam is the “natural religion of the black man”? If you really want to go back to the original religion of Africa then you need to look at Orthodox Christianity! I assure you that the Early Christian Church was quite active all through North and Central Africa. Many of the early saints were black. There is not and has never been any anti-black discrimination in the Orthodox Church. One of the most beloved saints on any calendar, Russian, Greek, Syrian, or whatever is St. Moses the Black, who is celebrated in all Orthodox Churches every year.

If you want to get away from the culture that you grew up in try visiting the Orthodox, the native Church of Africa before the Moslems came in murdering, raping, burning, and enslaving.

But do check some facts for yourselves. I would encourage you to read The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa: A Quest for Inter-religious Dialogue by Dr. John Azumah. At the very least think several times before you act out and commit yourself to a religion which is ridiculously false, and in which the black is always a fourth class citizen in the view of the racist Arabs who are the real top dogs. Or maybe you think that the Iranians - who are really Persians - and who despise everyone else, including the Arabs, do not think that you are fourth class. Why fourth class? Check out the facts of Moslem ranking of slave desirability: First - Middle Eastern, second - white, third - Ethiopian, fourth - black.

“The ape is more capable of being trained than the Negro” - Nasir al-Din Tusi, very famous, influential and respected 13^th century Moslem Persian theologian and scientist. So much for the love of Moslems for blacks. They only want you as tools, fools, and slaves. This is not something that I would call “the natural religion of the black man”.

Difference between Conservative and Liberal Thought-

The conservative wants you to behave in a civilized fashion (particularly in public) and think what you like. Your opinions are your own as long as you treat others in a courteous and considerate manner. Your success or failure is up to you. The only function of government is to protect you from the excesses of others and to insure that you have the opportunity to excel as much as you like.The liberal does not care how barbarically you act as long as you think the proper thoughts. You may curse as foully as you like. You may dress as offensively as you like. You may be as rude and offensive as possible. But you must think the correct way. Your success must be from the government. Your failure must be the result of the oppression of an evil society or because the government has not provided enough for you. The role of the government is to force people into the least common denominator behavior, to insure politically correct thinking, to punish success and to reward incompetence.

Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled - -

That’s Sean Hannity’s current favorite saying. I think I have to disagree with him.

It is bad enough that the left is running a beauty contest. That’s all it really is. Hillary’s only qualification for office is sleeping with the President. That makes Monica also qualified on the same basis. Even the most rabid Obama supporter does not seem able to name anything that he has actually accomplished. Even his most rabid detractors (when honest) have to admit he’s kind of a pretty fellow and speaks quite well. He can give one hell of an inspirational speech. I don’t see any other qualifications.

The left has preferred form over substance for quite some time now. But what on earth has possessed the right to pimp for someone like McCain? I do respect his military service. I do believe that he will be strong in the face of overt aggression. But people - look at his track record. McCain-Feingold has done nothing to achieve real campaign reform. It is somewhat questionable Constitutionally (I’m being charitable). He was for the immigration forgiveness nonsense - until 90% of the people in this country said “Hell NO”! He is no conservative fiscally. He is going to be the Republican candidate, even though he has a track record of kissing Dems and spurning members of his own party.

As to the President, about the only thing that the next one will do that is of major importance is appointing a Supreme Court justice or two. The leftward leaning judges seem to be able to swear to uphold the Constitution and then just ignore it and do what they wish.

We will get who we get. The Republicans have certainly not earned our votes. The Republican Majority Congress of the 90s and early 2000s did not curb spending and did none of the things that we conservative types put them in office to do. They spent like drunken bums, they had ridiculous scandals. The liberal press will ignore William Jefferson type Dems with freezers full of cash. The press will not hold any Dem to a reasonable standard. Republicans should realize that they will be held to a higher standard.

However - since the President will be a liberal, whether Hillary, Obama, or McCain, the thing that will be necessary to keep the country from going completely down the toilet is going to be the Congressional races. We must fight like hell to put reasonable, responsible, conservative people in the Congress or you can probably start studying your Koran now to avoid the rush. You might also brush up on your Spanish since the borders will be completely open and the illegals seems to think that we should learn their language. (The legals want to learn ours). The libs will pull the troops out as fast as possible and weaken the military as much as they can. Nature does abhor a vacuum and it will not be filled by reasonable people in the Middle-East - it will be filled by those who are not our friends.

If we don’t put the brakes on the leftward slide, your heart indeed should be troubled, for we will not last much longer as a proud and free people.

Standards is standards - -

Lately, with the hoo-raw over Barack Obama’s longtime pastor, I’m hearing this business of “Well, in the black community…” and a bunch of excuses about why this church, this preacher, and Obama should not be held to the same standards as anyone else. “It’s customary in the black community to…”.Look here, indeed a preacher can say pretty much whatever he wants to. However - while the various Aryan Nation, Neo-Nazi, White Supremacist groups can and do have their churches where hatred of others is preached, they are condemned not only all mainline Christians but also by all the liberals. I don’t know of anyone who would excuse the stupidity and hatred of these groups with a no-brain statement of “Well, in the white community this is just the custom…”

Now, this is proper and good. These white supremacist hate groups should be condemned. Why is it that instead of condemning black groups that preach hate the liberals start in with this “Well, in the black community…” bunch of excuses.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Should we not hold all people to the same standards? Did we not learn anything from the Jim Crow era? The evil of Jim Crow was not that black people were persecuted. That was a symptom. The underlying evil was that there were different standards for different groups. The civil rights movement was not about giving black people a different set of rights and standards, but to put in a level playing field so that all people had the same rights and standards.

The kicker that really fries me is the excuse that “well, this guy (Jeremiah Wright) has done a lot of good in the black community”. The standards of bad and wrong behavior do not change just because the perpetrator has also done a little bit of good. Let us point out that post WWI Germany was in terrible shape. The economy was wrecked, the people were defeated, broke, unemployed, hungry, despondent. Adolph Hitler got the economy of Germany going and eliminated hunger. His stirring speeches inspired and uplifted the people and restored a sense of nation unity and pride. Does any of this excuse the evil of the man? Does the fact that he gave the people hope excuse the hatred of his speeches?

Why is it that the libs want different moral standards for various minority groups? And even that is not consistent. Why are there different standards for blacks? And not for Greeks? Why are there not the same moral standards for all people, no matter what race, sex, gender, or whatever? Why do the liberals support different standards for Moslems?

The other thing that I find amusing is the press letting Obama get away with the ignorance position. After following this nut for 20 years Obama says that he never heard any of this stuff from the pew. Maybe he was asleep.

I can’t say that, we don’t have pews. But I can tell you that I have been a Christian for almost 40 years and within a month or two (or less) I would pretty well know where a priest stood on any issue. Am I that much more intelligent or awake than Obama? I don’t think so. I’ll bet you that he knew all along exactly where this fella’ stands. The libs and the liberal press have fallen all over themselves to embrace Obama and have not vetted him at all. Looks like their pig in the poke may bite them in the butt.

If the American people do not wake up real soon then there will not be a country to worry about.

Why Do You Always Beat Up On Liberals and Democrats - -

Don’t the Republicans do things wrong?You betcha, in spades. However, obviously I am a conservative - original, true meaning. And secondly, the liberal press does just fine crucifying conservatives or Republicans. Look at MS-NBC, CNN, The New York Times, and all the other examples of the liberal press. They do a fine job pillorying Republican mistakes (whether real or imagined).

Take George Bush. Now, I don’t particularly approve of Mr. Bush, but - he is the duly elected Chief Executive and CIC and should be accorded the respect due his office. Would I go into Iraq - knowing what I know now? Probably not. Would I have gone into Iraq with the intelligence that we had at the time? Probably. Saddam Hussein was running a mammoth bluff and had every intelligence unit in the world convinced that he had WMD and the capacity to deliver. And he foxed us as well. This was an error. But, this does not give the left the right to be so totally foul towards our President.

I must also point out that having put our hands to this plow of Iraq we must finish the job or it will be many times worse.

George Bush had an opportunity to be great. Unfortunately he didn’t have enough personal charisma to carry it off in the face of all the liberal hatred and opposition. Even in the early days after 9/11 when the Democrats and the Republicans were reasonably united there were enough negative kooks around to take the wind out of his sails.

What kind of people complacently sit in their places looking like cows when some French bimbo tells them that 9/11 was an American conspiracy? The liberals of Hollywood at the Academy Awards. Sick. The Academy should tell these wackos that if they make political hay out of their awards they will lose them on the spot. No exceptions.

The press and the Republicans made a monstrous mistake in prosecuting Bill Clinton for the Monika Lewinsky business. (Not to mention Paula Jones and all the others). Did Bill do wrong - yes, big time - and the senior members of the Senate and the House should have gone to him privately and told him to clean up his act. The press did not print that kind of nonsense about other Presidents who had affairs. Consider JFK - many affairs - and nothing published during his presidency. There have been others. Sometimes covering the father’s nakedness is better for the country. Of course, these lib newsies don’t care about the country, only about themselves and their agendas.

Since the left successfully hounded Richard Nixon out of office it has been open season on the office, no matter which party was in. Unless there was nothing even microscopically useful for smearing the person. Gerald Ford was pretty clean and straight. Jimmy Carter was elected in a backlash and, although he was one of the worst presidents and biggest fools in history, there was nothing in his personal conduct to smear. Ronald Reagan was completely straight. George Bush senior was straight - he did not lose the presidency to Bill Clinton, he lost it to Ross Perot. Clinton was dirty, but he should have been nailed on his incompetence and illegalities, not his affairs. There is no discretion in the press anymore. Remember that we did not tell the press about Panama or Grenada until they were established facts. The press cannot be trusted not to give information to our enemies. There is no dirt on George Bush junior, so Dan Rather went with a story that was completely fabricated in an effort to discredit him. There is really no need for foreign intelligence in this country. All our enemies have to do is read the papers and watch CNN. Of course they might have some difficulty in separating truth from lies.

The Rosie O’Donalds of the world spew forth all sorts of filth about our president with no concern about the known foibles of their darling Hillary, who has been shown to be less than truthful on more than one occasion. Rose Law Firm, Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, etc. Is it any wonder that we are losing any sort of prestige in the world? Why should foreign governments give any respect to our chief executive when our own people refuse to be courteous or respectful? In the military we learned that you always salute the rank, even if the individual does not deserve it.

So, I beat up on liberals and Democrats frequently. I must repeat that I am a conservative, but I am not a Republican, not anymore. The Republicans have left the principles that I hold dear: The Constitution as a basis for all law, applied equally to all people with no special groups favored either way. The essential dignity of all citizens. Fiscal responsibility with no pork barrel spending. Limited government. Firm and impartial application of the law. Tax reform. A strong military. Controlled immigration. I guess that makes me old-fashioned and oddball nowadays. I will admit freely that I usually vote against the Democrat in whatever race. I very seldom find that the Republican is someone I can vote for happily, just that he is likely the least poisonous choice available.

Have no fear, I will slam the Republicans as necessary. If we get McCain, it will probably prove necessary rather regularly. He is at least marginally qualified for the office. If we get Hillary or Obama I will definitely have things to gripe about, assuming we still have a country left. Neither one of those has any experience at all that qualifies them in the least to be Chief Executive. And both have promised to steer us down the road to hell and socialism.

The Religion of the Left - -

To the Conservative the function of government is a limited thing. We want only protection of person and property from the actions of others. We want no unnecessary laws other than those for the preceding, to regulate public behavior to a reasonable decorum and to provide the maximum opportunity for personal freedom and personal success. Period. No more. Leave the success or failure of my life to me, not to others.Conservatives view charity as a church function, not government. Or private relief agencies not tied to a church, such as the Red Cross for those who do not want or have religious affiliation.

The liberals have made a church out of the government. They wish it to be the charitable nanny-state. Hitlary is a prime example, she is still on this welfare insurance mindset. She has even stated that the state should garnish the wages of those who do not voluntarily participate in her government run program. The liberal has placed the government in the place of the church in specifying acceptable and moral behavior. Unfortunately, the state can only demand lowest denominator behavior, which is easily seen in the current lack of public manners and morality. Oh, we are politically correct, but oh, so rude.

I personally don’t see how anyone with an ounce of sense can expect any government program to work properly. Everything that is government run is a mess. I would like for one of these true believers in government intervention to show me a government program that has stellar success. Education? We have gone so far downhill that our high school graduates cannot read, do math, discuss history or draw a decent map. The grammar school kids of the 1950s could do better on most of these subjects. Of course, the kiddies are concerned about polar bears, lose sleep over global warming, and “feel good” about themselves. They just cannot qualify for anything more advanced than flipping burgers - oh yeah, burgers are going to be banned because the nanny-state thinks that they are bad for you. So - what are these dead-enders doing to do?

The conservative, on the other hand, will let others go to hell in their own way. As long as they don’t affect others doing it.

Come, look around the world - just exactly where has the type of socialist government that libs yearn for ever succeeded? Show me one good example of socialism which has a higher standard of freedom and living.

Libs, I do wish you would find some religion which did not have a gun at our heads. As much as you despise Christianity, even the fundies will admit that there is no salvation by force. That is more than your government religion will allow.

One of Obama’s big supporters stated that he should be the next President because he would “feed the sheep”. To hell with that. I am not a sheep. I am a free and independent citizen. It is Christ who feeds the sheep, not the government. The only thing that separates a sheep from a slave is that the slave is required to work for his living. The sheep only has to vote and be otherwise useless. I will die before I become a government slave - or sheep, if you prefer.

Black Guys and Libs - -

Back in the early 1960’s my wife was one of those who demonstrated boldly and loudly for equal rights for black people. This was in the South. In Georgia. In Atlanta. She was busted on one of the demonstrations. This caused her to have an FBI record. It caused all kinds of hell in her very proper upper middle genteel white Southern household. It also caused problems when our children were in the military in the 1980’s and needed security clearances. It took a lot of guts for a white Southern girl to stand up for equal rights back then.I can remember that my parents had black friends in the early 1950’s. This was just about unheard of in genteel white society at that time. Unlike my wife’s family, ours saw only people, not black or white. Later, I worked at a church in one of the first neighborhoods to go from white to black. I taught music, English and math to the local black kids. This would have been about 1965 or 66 or so. My wife and I were adamant that equal opportunity be provided for all citizens. Our stance has not changed.

I don’t see the kinds of hatred and discrimination that I saw growing up anymore. That is not to say that there are not whites who hate black simply for being black and different. There were and are a lot of stupid, hateful, psychotic people in the world, and probably always will be. There are just as many stupid, hateful, psychotic blacks who hate whites simply for being white and different. Make no mistake, racial bigots can be of any flavor, not just vanilla.

What I do see now is a whole bunch of black people who have taken the opportunities that we all worked for so hard in the last century and have made something of themselves. I see many black people of quality in the work place. This is good, not only from the standpoint of morality, but also from just plain economics. The more people who are educated, motivated, living good lives, etc., the better off all of us are.

Then there are the other black people. The ones who keep an attitude. Who do not clean up their communities. Who hate police, and will not help the cops catch the bad guys. Who deal and do drugs or tolerate that activity in their neighborhoods. Who listen to ugly music at full volume. Who hate white people and think that we owe them something. Who follow the race lords. These people break my heart. I say that there is no general white movement keeping these people down. It is not white people who call anyone who wants to do well in school an Oreo. It is not white society who despises anyone who wants to better themselves and escape from poverty, fear, and misery.

Yet there is some truth in the notion that there are white people who want to keep these people back. There are white people who want to keep these people in the ghetto. They are called liberals. It is libs who make excuses for bad behavior and do not seem to think that rap that talks about niggers and ho’s and crime and drugs should be frowned upon. It is liberals who seem to think that it is ok for kids to grow up speaking Ebonics instead of English. It is libs who do not want accountability in the school system. It is libs who will not allow or enforce dress and behavior codes.

Children are animals that must be taught civilized behavior and educated for success in life. We are seeing generations of people, black and white who are told that whatever they do in school is just fine as long as they will hold hands and sing kumbaya, it doesn’t matter that they cannot speak, read, or write understandable English. It doesn’t matter that they cannot handle finances as long as they are concerned about the polar bears. It doesn’t matter that they have no grasp of the history that made this country. The only history that seems to be of any account is a distorted Afro centric view of Western civilization. Granted the history of the many black contributions to this country were ignored or suppressed in the past. That is no different than the current overemphasis. The fact is that many black citizens have contributed to many fields in this country from Colonial times up to today. However, the black civilizations of Africa and the Far East did not contribute directly to our foundation and to overemphasize them to the detriment of a working knowledge of Western European history is a grave disservice. It is more important to get an ego boost from genuine achievement than from feel-good lib bullshit. When the kiddies get out of school they find that the marketplace doesn’t care about their tender feelings. It only cares about results. This can be severely disillusioning for the little darlings who have not been prepared to perform as productive citizens. Is it any wonder that so many libs choose to work in academia or government service where incompetence is not penalized?

I cannot see Hollyweird or the lib community changing any of their practices. Libs like to see victims everywhere that they can keep feeding more and more government pap from inept programs that do little good other than perpetuating votes. Think about it, black guys. Does the media, whether movies, TV, news, or whatever present positive images and role models for the black youth? Or - do they show black kids with jive attitudes and smart mouths being cool? Do they show bad attitude athletes or smart, successful entrepreneurs as models for emulation? Does a total jerk and loser like Michael Vick or a winner like Herman Cain get the most airtime? Do you see black professionals and scientists or black criminals more often in the media? Do you hear Jesse and Al talk more about a false accusation launched by a low-life prostitute or do you hear them and those like them trying to clean up the images presented to your kids by the gansta’ rappers?

Us white guys have done just about all we can for you. We have provided opportunity for you to help yourself. We cannot force you to use those opportunities to better yourselves. We have provided penalties for anyone who puts you down for being black. We cannot provide penalties for being stupid. You provide those penalties for yourselves.

It is true that in America, class can be changed fairly easily. Money is not the determiner of class. Mostly it is education and personal presentation. People will treat you as the class that you present yourself. If you wish to be treated as trash, present yourself as trash. If you wish to be treated as quality, present yourself as quality. You will need enough education to sound like quality as well.

If you wish to be harassed by the cops, drive a flash car while dressed as a ghetto punk and blasting rap out of your oversized speakers. The cops will naturally focus on you before they focus on someone presenting himself as a quality gentleman. Even though you may be totally clean and straight and legal and the quiet looking gentleman may be a drug lord. Presentation of self usually dictates how others will perceive and treat you. Not fair, just reality.

I once overheard a black woman stating that she wanted to be able to raise her son as a black man. She didn’t want him to be raised as a white man. Huh? I have always been somewhat puzzled by this. What exactly does it mean to be raised a black man? I understand raising someone to be a successful human being. We want to teach them all the skills necessary for functioning as a person of integrity, compassion, intelligence, warmth, decency, and so on down the list. We wish to raise them as productive and successful members of society who make the earth better by their presence. Where does color come into this? I certainly tried to inculcate all the aforementioned values into my children, but I wouldn’t have a clue what it meant to raise them “white”. For the most part, I’m unclear what color has to do with integrity, or decency. Is intelligence a white characteristic? Is compassion a black function? I’m not seeing something here. For that matter, I’m rather unclear what sex might have to do with the most important values we should be teaching our kiddies. I guess I tend to see people as humans of whatever virtues they might display first, with color and sex being somewhat further down the list than integrity, etc.

Now conservatives - you guys don’t get off scot-free either. (Old English: sceot = tax. Scot-free = tax dodge). What have you done to improve the schools in your neighborhood? In your district? In your town? In your state? Or have you just kept on making a living with no thought as to what your children and the children of your neighbors are being taught? The kids in the inner cities are your neighbors too. These kids will affect the world that your children and grandchildren inherit. You cannot make a better country for your kids and ignore the rest of the people in this country. We all sink or swim together. I grant that you have a perfectly good complaint about the crap the schools are trying to shove down your kid’s throats. But you must also be actively concerned about what the rest of the kiddies in the country are getting as well. You must be constantly working to improve schooling even after your kids are through. Am I my brother’s keeper? Yes, and we should be more diligent about practicing this than anyone else. Do you understand and practice this? Or do you just shrug your shoulders and say that’s their problem, it doesn’t affect me?

It is worth your while to read Dr. Thomas Sowell’s book Black Rednecks and White Liberals. Whether you agree with Dr. Sowell’s conclusions or not will depend a lot on your personal bias. Nonetheless, the man is brilliant and thought provoking. I must say that I have for years stated that inner city “black culture” was just another name for low class, uneducated behavior that is not acceptable in anyone, black or white. At least when whites act in this boorish way we can sneer at them as “redneck trash”. It is not racial to say that bad behavior is bad, no matter what the race of the people involved. Bad manners and bad English are marks of trash, no matter whether it is a redneck whine or a black mush mouth mumble. Equal rules for all people, equal rules.

Democratic-Republicans -

One of the most interesting things that I have observed over the span of my life as a white Southerner is the affiliation of the black community with the Democrats. A brief review of history may be instructive here. The Democrats were a party evolved from the Anti-federalists in the late 1700’s. The party won much support in the early 1800’s and evolved into the party which supported slavery. The Republicans started in the 1850’s with one of the main points being anti-slavery and support of human dignity. The Democrats lost power to the Republicans led by Abraham Lincoln. The majority of the Confederacy was Democrat, and after the Civil War, the Democrats were staunchly anti-black and lead the rush to enact the Jim Crow laws that legalized discrimination. Roosevelt and all his cronies did nothing to eliminate legalized discrimination. The party that pressed for the armed forces to be integrated was the Republican. It was the Republicans that started de-segregating the schools in the 1950’s.The Democrats, led by the Dixiecrats, were entrenched in denying blacks the vote and access to businesses. I can remember this in the 1960’s, when segregation was still the goal of the Dixiecrats. Kennedy and the Democrats did little to support black efforts to secure the common rights of the American citizen. It was a Republican congress that, true to its origins, enacted the legislation that buried all the Jim Crow legislation. It was the Republicans who lead the way to the voter rights legislation. It was Democrat legislation that eventually spawned the welfare mentality that has crippled the black community for the last 40 years. The Democrats wanted power from keeping people dependant on government for the necessities of life. It was the Republicans that led the way to people enabled to help themselves.

HERSELF SEZ: The first election I voted in, I voted Republican - because I believed then and believe now “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The party that came closest to securing these rights at the time was - and is now - the Republican Party. I don’t always agree with the planks and platforms of the various campaigns, but I don’t believe in “give-away programs” nor in “bread and circuses.” Therein lies madness.

So, why is it that so many blacks identify themselves as Democrats and liberals? These people see you as second class, unable to do things for yourselves. Only as government pawns. Take your destiny into your own hands. You are only a voting pet if you let these people convince you that you must have life given to you. I say regain your place as free, independent, successful human beings and members of the American society.

Unfortunately, nowadays the Republicans are just as power-hungry and corrupt as the Democrats. Such is human nature.

The peace loving religion of Islam and the evil crusaders -

We in America (and the west in general) have an interesting revisionist way of looking at history. Lately we want to tear down anything to do with Western civilization and elevate anyone else to good guy status. You know the modern western (liberal) attitude: Don’t bother me with facts, my mind’s already made up. After all, all of those nasty 19^th century European historians HAD to be wrong because they were such racists and jingoists and all the other bad ists that they were blinded by. People - take off your own blinders and look at history as facts and nothing else.

Let us take the western view of Islam and the crusades. It is popular (and has been for some time) to portray the Europeans who took the Crusades to the East as uneducated barbarians who invaded a peaceful, educated, highly civilized Islamic Empire for no reason except greed and a desire to extend European Hegemony.

Let us look at a few historical facts:

Mohammed was a kook. In the good old American New England Theosophical Society mold: If you don’t like current churches, start your own. If we look at historical records that the Moslems would like buried, we find that Mohammed desperately wanted to be some type of religious guru. He first tried to be accepted by the Orthodox Christian Bishops in Mecca. They rather gently told him that he would have to become a monk and work his way up through the ranks. They were not about to make him a bishop and let him play prophet. Mohammed next tried to get in with the Jews and be accepted as a prophet. They firmly rejected him and told him to get lost. Next he rolled his own. Notice that he felt totally rejected by both Jews and Christians (and he was). Where he found his initial followers is anyone’s guess. But note that both Jim Jones and Charles Manson seem to have had no problem in getting the weak of mind and despondent of spirit to follow them.

The First Crusade was in 1095 as a response to a request for help from Alexis I of the Byzantine Empire to Pope Urban II. The Moslems had been butchering the Byzantine Empire since the beginning, 624 or thereabouts. Christianity had spread across the whole of the Roman Empire and beyond by proselytizing, the spread of Islam was by the sword of conquest, murder and rapine.

The Arabs were not an educated people. There was no great flowering of high civilization in the Arabian peninsula. It takes natural resources to support civilization, and the Arabian peninsula is a little under endowed. Where then, did the high civilization that the Crusaders saw come from? Actually, it was there before the Moslem conquest. The Moslems took it over from the Byzantine Christians. When the Arabs conquered they generally left the Jews and Christians alone other than taking their wealth and placing them in second class conquered status. They usually kept the Byzantine bureaucrats in place. They generally kept Byzantine professionals on the job. Up through the Ottoman conquest, just about all administration was done by conquered Christians. This was the civilization that the Westerners saw. The Arabs did NOT invent algebra, the Byzantines did. In fact, Moslems have contributed nothing to the modern world except pain, suffering, destruction and murder of the innocent.

Now, I’m not saying the Crusaders were perfect, far from it. It is true that the Crusaders killed as many or more Byzantine Christians than Moslems. They looked a lot alike. Middle Eastern people with robes, etc. It is true that the later Crusaders, not the Moslems, dealt the death blow to the Byzantine Empire. The Crusaders destroyed more of Constantinople than the Moslems did.

Now then, if we look at a history timeline, we will see that the Moslem invasion of Europe officially began with the invasion of Spain around 719. Most historians place the crest of the Moslem wave at the battle of Tours in 732. Charles Martel defeated the invaders handily and is credited with having saved Western Europe. This was certainly the rise of the Carolingians if nothing else.

The Battle of Tours was not the end of things. Moslem invasions took place off and on until the Battles of Lepanto (1571) and the last, Vienna in 1683.

It should be noted that the first (Tours) and last (Vienna) were great and desperate struggles fought on European soil. In between, most of the fighting took place in the East, leaving Europe free to have its own internal wars and to come into the Renaissance and beyond. This development could not have taken place if the Moslem Empires from the Umayyad through the Ottoman had not been forced into stalemate in the East.

I know that many people want to talk about the Crusades as misplaced moral wars. Study Clauswitz and the philosophy and causality of war before you go there. Study the science of root causes of war. The stated legal justification for the war is never the real cause of the war. Many people also want to place blame on Western Europe, but really, the first battles were in Spain and France, not the Middle East. So who invaded? It is hard to place the blame for the invasion of Europe on the Europeans. (The same people that think that Americans are reponsible for 9/11 could pull it off). For that matter, we think of the middle East as Moslem, not remembering the great Byzantine Empire that the Moslems tore apart. Moslems are the invaders and aggressors in every historical conflict.

I don’t like George Bush. Not for the same reasons that the liberals hate him. No, for me, he is not nearly conservative or resolute enough. The immigration forgiveness bill made me sick. But - he does have a grasp of the fact that we (the West) are still being invaded by fanatical Moslems intent on conquest and the destruction of our civilization. We either fight them there, or surely we will fight them here. If someone wishes to war with us, then people will die, children will suffer. I suppose it is a bit of a provincial attitude that I have: If the suffering and dying take place because of the actions of some other people, I prefer that it is their people who suffer, not ours. The main thing to remember is that the Moslem terrorists are not fighting for freedom or food or a better future for their children. They hate us. They want to kill us. They want to destroy our civilization. They want to obliterate our culture. And IF they let our children live, they want them to be slaves under Sharia law totally subservient to their Moslem masters.