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.

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.

Conundrum -

If we are invaded, do we have the right to forcibly resist? If the Germans had occupied us would the correct response have been to try to throw them out a la French Resistance? Would we not rejoice if we won our freedom and killed and drove out the conquerors? Is it morally correct if we can do it to the original invaders? Is it still correct if it takes a generation to get rid of the bad guys? Two generations? Four? 200 years? 400 years?

A good term for taking the country back and driving out the invaders might be ‘ethnic cleansing’. Think about that.

If it is morally correct, as some of the more radical left states, to give the US back to the Indians - oops, pc = ‘native American’. Or to the Mexicans - who took it from the Indians, who took it from the previous occupying tribes, ad nauseum. Mostly you will notice that they hate the country and that the operative word is ‘give it back’. Now, as I say, if the preceding is morally correct, then why do the same aforementioned leftists get their panties in such a wad over the Serbians? It was their country for quite a while. As in centuries. As in longer than some of the Indian tribes occupied their territories. The Bosnians are Moslem invaders. About 400 years ago the Moslems came in and raped, murdered, pillaged, and occupied. They didn’t go home. To drive people out usually takes a bit of force. I will not defend torture and other such heinous acts. But let us remember, the Bosnians are equally guilty of atrocities against the Serbs. Today. Now. Yesterday. And for the last 400 years. Yet, thanks to the left, the US sided with the Moslems, bombed and invaded the Serbians and forcibly stopped them from driving the invaders from their homes.

Where is the cutoff? When does an occupying people become the native people? Is it ok for one Indian tribe to conquer another? Is it ok for Moslems to conquer and hold territory? Or is it that it is only wrong for European (white) Christians to occupy territory?

There is a marvelous scene in Shogun, both the book and the mini-series. What a concept - a movie that pretty much followed the book! Anyway, Toranaga asks Blackthorn if the Dutch were not vassals of the Spanish throne. Blackthorn allows that this is true. Toranaga states that it is unpardonable for a vassal to rebel against his lord. A true betrayal. Blackthorn insists that there is a case when it may be considered moral. Toranaga queries. Blackthorn’s response - “…if you win!” After a stunned moment Toranaga laughingly admits that Blackthorn has the right of it.

In his Starship Troopers - the real thing, the book, not the movie. How unusual, a movie that has damn near nothing to do with the book. There is considerable philosophy in the book - none in the movie. There is a discussion of the role of force in the history of the world. The upshot is that the drivel about force never solving anything is just that - drivel. The fact is that war - force, is a necessary part of the political process. When discussion, compromise, and diplomacy have failed, then a people can (and will) resort to force to gain their ends. If the opposing group is bent on the destruction of one’s group, either to take all of the food (a rational reason) or for pure hatred (a psychotic motivation), the only choice may be for one’s group to resist with force, or to just surrender and die. I suppose that it is my narrow and provincial attitude, but I prefer for my own group to survive. I think that if we defend because of rational reasons, it will be better for the future if our seed is preserved rather than that of psychotics. Do you lefties want the future to be populated by rational, peaceful people who only use force to defend? Do you want it to be populated by those driven by hatred that will kill anyone who thinks differently? Your choice. Right now you are not headed down a path of survival, for those who will not defend and their offspring will die. Those who are tougher and more determined will populate the future. Think about it. May not be fair. You may want to take your toys and go home. But - that is the way the world works. Think about it.

When the other guy’s goal is your death, non-resistance is always fatal. This may fit your individual philosophy. It doesn’t fit mine. I don’t think it is very noble to let a serial killer get his perverted sexual thrills by one’s pain and death. I would resist. I would not stand by and let a member of my family die horribly and painfully to satisfy another’s wishes. I would resist. I will not stand by while my fellow citizens are brutally butchered because they do not agree with some sick, mad bastard’s view of what their religion should be. I will resist. I will not stand by while other people are enslaved or tortured or brutalized to satisfy another group’s whims. I will resist - with force.

Hey lefties - a question. Why are you all emotional about Darfur? Yes, the Moslem Sudanese government is sponsoring horrible acts of brutality. You know - the standard mix - rape, torture, murder, on men, women, children. So. I see. OK. But why was there no outcry from the left during the Second Sudanese Civil War when 1.9 million were brutally slaughtered and over 4 million driven from their lands? Is it because the victims at Darfur are Moslems and the victims in the Second Civil War were Christian? I hope you guys see that I don’t object to going in to kick the Sudanese Government into some kind of civilized behavior, or changing it. I don’t mind protecting the innocent of Darfur. I do object to not being consistent. I do object to your - I hope unconscious - bigotry against Christians. There’s a damn sight more Christian victims of Moslem cruelty than there have ever been Moslem victims of Christians. I do want to see some of you libs that want us to send the military into Darfur to get off your sanctimonious asses and put your lives on the line for the protection of these people. Enlist. Put your life where your mouth is. Sauce for the goose.

Here’s a lovely quote from George Orwell:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

Notes on Nationalism, May 1945

The only addition that I would make is that the thing admired now seems to be the failed socialist system. The libs in this country are still hoopee-hollering for socialized medicine and the Brits are drafting ways to return to private medicine. There is no country practicing socialized medicine successfully today.

It seems to me that Amnesty International talks more about US ‘atrocities’ than they do murder and torture of the innocent practiced as policy by other nations. I will not pay any attention to this crap nor believe them until they start impartially reporting facts instead of showing their hatred of our western democracies.

Hey righties - (you didn’t think I only kick lefties, did you?) - yes, you are on the right general track. Protect our own. Good. Defeat those who would kill us. Good. But - don’t demonize anyone who disagrees with you. This leads you to think that the end always justifies the means. That is true - only if you are a soulless animal. Your opponent is not necessarily your enemy. It is ok to have civil discourse with opponents. It is ok to disagree. Is also ok to kill those who would kill you. But - remember - the populous does not always reflect the murderous desires of their mad leaders. They may be ordinary people caught up in a tidal wave of insanity. Fight to victory - yes. But be rational and compassionate when the victory is won. Be greater in victory than in battle. Don’t try to shove your beliefs on everyone. We are not robots. We have free will. Let us exercise that as civilized humans. A civilized human will fight to victory in response to aggression, but is not the aggressor.

Some Ruminations on Warfare –

Just some rather superficial observations. When I was much younger I studied von Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, strategy, tactics, legal theory of war and all that sort of stuff. If I drug in all that went behind these ruminations, I’d have a thick book instead of a short essay.

Observation the first: Whenever some theory of war as fought by some set of rules comes about, someone who does not play by the rules kicks butt. The knights and heavy cavalry had it reasonably well until people figured out grouped pikes – yes, the phalanx was revived. Then the unsporting Brit peasants started using bows. This was rough on knights and horses.

Observation the second: When a bunch of civilians is involved with the how, the result is chaos and loss. It is quite correct for the ruling civilians to say what the objectives are. For a nation, military force is an instrument of national policy. Therefore the ruling civilians can say what the objective is, the mistake is to allow the civilians to dictate how the war is fought. Look at the abortion that jackass Carter made of the Iranian hostage rescues. Yeah, it was Jimmy that micro-managed those soldier’s deaths and failure. The Congress is following the same path to failure. If you give the military an assignment, get out of the way and let them do their jobs.

Observation the third: Unless great care is taken, a military ossifies in peaceful times and loses the ability to think flexibly. It has been observed numerous times that we always fight the last war for the first half of the next war. Great daring is not the path to promotion in peacetime. Great tacticians are not trusted by bean counters and are cut off at the knees during the peacetime preceding the next war.

Observation the fourth: Most of the America hating people of this country have migrated to the left. These people will not only not serve in a voluntary military, they will do their dead level best to tear down the military so that no one will defend our country and its interests.

When a society loses the will to defend itself, it will surely fall. I saw an interview on FOX news where a woman was suing to prevent the military from recruiting in schools. Her cowardly son, of course, would not even consider service. When she was asked if we should even have a military, she would not answer. I suspect that she knew that she would be revealed as the fool that she is. Make no mistake – the worst enemies of this country are not those external who will do the conquering. The worst are the cowards and traitors who are rotting from within. The irony is that these adamant proclaimers of their ‘rights’ are the ones who will kiss the invader’s butts the fastest. Or die. I hope you America hating libs enjoy bowing down, for your conquerors will require that you not only bow to Allah, but you also bow to your masters as the slaves you will be. You will have brought it on yourselves and your children. I will bet the farm that you don’t have the guts to stand up to your Moslem conquerors and insist on your ‘rights’. Try telling them that you have the right to your own opinion.

There is not a country in the world that has any resources worth mentioning that can ‘study war no more’. As surely as they try that, some envious neighbor will take those resources. It is only by being willing to fight an invader that invasion is prevented. Conquest is not dead in the world.

The other thing to worry about is hatred. If a country or a people is viewed as an object of hatred, someone will inevitably try to remove the hated object from the planet. Ask the Jews about that. You can also ask the various tribes in Africa that have been targeted for extermination by their neighbors. The only thing that will stop genocide is military force.

Oh yes, let’s have the UN police the world. Well, the UN will not function even at its current incompetent level without US tax dollars and US troops. The UN ‘peacekeepers’ have committed some of the worst acts in history. The Belgians serving in Somalia regularly tortured children. Belgium is part of the ‘civilized’ European Union that regularly lectures us about ‘civilized behavior’. Do you libs really want people like that dictating your behavior? I don’t. I say that you people will either wake up or you will see modern civilization go up in smoke.

BTW – one particular incident in which two Belgian soldiers roasted a child over a fire and was caught on film was dismissed by the UN as “a form of playing without violence”. Really? It is nice to know that the UN considers it ok to roast someone. It isn’t violence, it’s just playing. The UN’s policy is to not embarrass member nations..

You don’t see stuff like that in the liberal US news media, they are too busy digging up any dirt they can on our country. According to the liberal media it is inhumane to keep killers taken on the battlefield at Gitmo, and you have certainly heard a load about that. But you haven’t heard beans about UN atrocities. Check it out. It happens. It’s real. Now tell me once again how we don’t need a military, the UN or Santa Claus will protect us.

Oh yeah, we have passed beyond all that. Well, we only have to look within our own society to see that people have not changed since the dawn of time. We can see gays that have been brutally murdered for being gay. Blacks have been killed by whites for being black. Whites have been killed by blacks for being white. People are routinely murdered for less than twenty dollars. Nations are not any different. The fact is that the psycho nations will kill for little or no reason. We cannot stop murder in this country by talking nice to the murderers. We cannot stop a psycho people by caving in or talking nice. It someone wishes you dead, you can only stop that happening by force. Or by running far enough away. We haven’t yet figured how to pick up a country and move it into hiding. Only the military option will keep you alive and free.

Oh well, we deserve whatever bad happens to us. 9/11 was our own fault. People don’t attack unless provoked. I say again, look at crime. According to this logic, the women raped and tortured to death asked for it. The taxi driver brutally murdered was the one at fault. The convenience store clerk killed for pocket change was the aggressor. I guess I’m just too stupid to see that. I believe that aggressors should be stopped. You can’t do that without organized force. That’s called a military. They are still necessary.

Military –

My country, right or wrong!
My country, love it or leave it!

We’ll come back to these in a minute. First – let’s get some qualifications out of the way. I enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1966 and had to get my mother’s signature. I was too young. I didn’t have a draft card, not old enough. I didn’t get a draft card until after discharge. My kid brother was in the Air Force. My oldest son was 12 years in the Army. My daughter was 3 years in the Army – Tank Corps. Cutest little combat boots you ever saw. My youngest was 6 years in the Navy as a Marine Corps Medic. My Godson was 6 years Navy on the Nimitz. My father was Navy WWII. My uncle was Army Air Corp WWII, my grandfather was bird colonel, Army, WWII and 1st Lt. WWI. To my knowledge there has never been a member of my family that was drafted. Ever. We always volunteered. (My wife’s family has just as much service).

I think that the above should provide my blue ribbon credentials to the most skeptical and hard-line of right-wingers. Therefore, I will commence to bloviate. BTW – Bill O’Reilly did not invent this handy verb. It shows up in slang dictionaries of the 19th century and was very popular in the early part of the 20th century. (Damn – it’s hard to remember that we’re in the 21st!)

In R.A. Heinlein’s turgid opus (which is still too short) Time Enough for Love, in the Tale of the Lazy Man, or some such, we have a lazy hero who joins the military. I think I remember the character’s name as David. Anyway, to his horror, a war breaks out. Now the sentiment of the character is that an army should be so big and fierce and nasty that no one would think of attacking. This may be the best description that there ever was. It is the proper function of a good military to never have to shed blood. There is no peacenik in the world that hates war any more than a combat soldier who has actually been there. Only a few nutcases actually want war. Most of these nutcases haven’t actually been there before. A rational soldier wants peacetime duty, but is prepared to defend his beloved country with his life, if necessary. But only as a last resort. If the military has to kill and die, the politicians and diplomats have failed. Most would just like to do their duty and go home to their families.

The left likes to view the military as an outmoded and unnecessary expense. Said money would be better spent on the dole. Libs like to look out and see victims that can be helped by the government. Truth is, the dole doesn’t relieve poverty, it creates it. There is no way for any government to solve social problems. They can only make them worse. Anyway, lib congresses and administrations weaken the military and encourage the crazies of the world to poke at us. This, in turn, costs lives and money while we fumble for a response. Sounds a whole lot like Rome in the 6th century.

Now, back to the opening credits. My country, right of wrong! Not exactly. In the Corp (and all services), one of the first things that you are taught is the difference between a legal and an illegal order. You must not obey an illegal order! Ever. Period. There is also a chain of command procedure to protest even legal orders that are against your conscience – in other than combat conditions. If you disobey a legal order in combat you may be shot on the spot. There is no time for debate when the shooting is going on.
Generally, it is not the role of the individual soldier to determine the morality of a war. The President and the Congress have that role. The soldier must simply obey all legal orders. If ordered to torture, murder, rob, what ever, it must not be done, as these would be illegal orders. But, if you do disobey an order you better be right. With witnesses.

Similarly, as citizens, we may make our views known when we think that our country is heading into a morally incorrect position. And, indeed, we not only have the right to voice our views, we have the moral obligation to do so when we see things that are wrong. Now, since none of us is God and can see into another’s heart, the FFs decided that everyone, including the nuts, should have the blessing of free speech. There are some rare exceptions. The old shouting fire in a crowded theater is just the obvious example. Use your mind, you can think of others.

My country, right or wrong! Yes, true. But we must always be vigilant to insure that we stay right.

My country, love it or leave it! OK, this one I pretty much buy. But, as usual, I have to set terms. There is a difference between loving someone and approving of all of their actions. In Church terms, hate the sin; but – love the sinner. Now if you truly love this country and wish nothing but the best for it and all its citizens, feel free to stay and criticize constructively. Your contributions are valuable, even if you are silly enough to disagree with me (What a preposterous notion). But don’t whine, it doesn’t become you.

Contrariwise – it you do not love this country and wish the continuation of its people and existence – leave. Go away. If you hate us, go where we are not. If you wish to piss in your own cereal – do so. But don’t try to piss in mine. I might just react in a way that will be unpleasing to you. If you are anything other than scum, some other country that shares your values will take you gladly. If no other country will have you, perhaps you might want to reevaluate you life and your opinions. If no other country shares your values – is everyone in the world out of step but you?

Post-thought. When I got out of the Corps and back on the street, we were being called baby-killers and spat upon. I never knew any combat soldier that killed babies deliberately. The very nasty lib feminist activists who were willing to crucify us for defending our ally (we had treaties) were the ones who firmly advocated and practiced, after Roe v. Wade, abortion. Who is the baby killer?