Saturday, May 26, 2007

Stemming the bleeding, and responding to idiocy

Two liberal trolls have frequented my site in the past, and now that they (for the most part) do not disrupt my blog anymore, their influence is still felt. I promised I wouldn't write about their inane blabberings anymore, since that is akin to feeding their neurosis, but one of them has really tipped the scales with heavy loads of B.S.

The video above was sent to me by a certain pussycat. She, I truly believe, deep down, means well, but has been so indoctrinated by the secular progressive wave that now sweeps our planet that she has lost her way.

Just an opinion.

The video is pleasant to watch. It gives me yearnings for the past, on how things once were. Innocence was a good thing, back then. Today it is scorned. It is better to see if the shoe fits, than to hold out and save yourself for love. Doing the right thing based on one's moral values was encouraged. World War II was still a recent memory and America was loved by its citizens. Now, pushing the envelope is the norm, seeing how much one can get away with. Christian values have become the enemy. Right is becoming wrong, and wrong becoming right.

Along the way from the age depicted in the above video, a little skirmish we know as the Vietnam War came along. France couldn't handle the conflict any longer, and handed it off to the United States of America. We, being the freedom loving beacon and defenders of liberty that we were, perhaps a little confident from our involvement in World War II, but a little wiser from Korea, decided to participate in Vietnam for the reason quoted by the veterans I know from that war to stop the commies from enslaving the peoples of South Vietnam. How hard could it be? Dig a few trenches, shoot a few North Vietnamese, and just the fear of the United States being present will win it. Right?

Trench warfare was a thing of the past. This enemy hid among the civilians, and used guerrilla warfare against us, making the war a little more difficult to fight. Then, a little thing called politics got involved. Fear of Soviet and Chinese retaliation forced our politicians into deciding that this should be a war fought on defense. Defend South Vietnam. Yeah, that was the ticket. Don't be offensive, just defend.

For those of you that play chess, you know that the best way to win the game is to have a good defense, but to be constantly on the offense, attacking often. To win a war a nation must go in to win it. And, this war was like nothing we had ever seen before. The enemy blended with the population and blended into the landscape. To be honest, to our surprise, they refused to play by the rules.

As the war lengthened, certain groups stateside began to protest against it, and for good reason. Due to our desire to remain on defense, the war was being drawn out, and our men were dying without accomplishing much. Also, the conflict in Vietnam became more politicized, to the point that in the end we wound up withdrawing with our tails between our legs. Worse of all, there were certain Americans that cheered our undeclared defeat. Fact is, we didn't lose it militarily. We lost that conflict politically.

Now, here we are in Iraq, and the Bush Administration, recognizing that Iraq was a large part of the al Qaeda network and a significant "behind the scenes" part of the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001, decided to expand the theater of War on Terrorism to Iraq. Mind you, the war is not against the Iraqi people, but against the elements in that nation that supports groups like al Qaeda that desire to see America burned to the ground. And as in Vietnam, due to the uproar of world opinion in certain locales, and due to the moanings and groanings of the hippies left over from Vietnam, this war has lost its military aspects and has become a political beast.

A war cannot be won if it isn't being fought to be won.

This brings up my second liberal friend, Tom. Now he has been banned from Political Pistachio twice, and I asked him nicely with an e-mail to abide by that ban. He has reminded me that due to his "expertise" he is able to overcome any ban I place on him (which may or may not be true) but that he only commented because what I was saying on my blog to him was so preposterous that he couldn't withstand the temptation to begin commenting again. Then he launched a tirade on his own blog about me (and he writes about me often), but the recent one was so vicious and such a misrepresentation of what I say I just had to respond. Thank you SkydiveRick for advising me of Tom's rants about me on his blog.

I believe that our troops are being handcuffed by Bush. The President has become so worried about public opinion and political correctness that he has changed the campaign in Iraq from a military effort to a political game of Twister. In one of my posts I used the words "turn the desert sand into glass" which is an obvious reference to nuclear weapons. Well, when I said that, Tom went nuts. In fact, his exact words are that I am certifiably insane. He then put up a statistic, and was quick to show a source, that 18% of Americans believe that the U.S. should use nuclear weapons even if it has not suffered a nuclear attack.

Do I wish that we vaporize hundreds of thousands of ordinary people? Of course not. I don't know if we should consider such an action, but if it became necessary to protect our own nation, use of nuclear weapons may be an option. Though the dropping of atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima killed many people, many more people in the long run were spared because the war was shortened by the bombing. The willingness to use atomic bombs on Japan forced them into surrendering.

However, such an action may not have the same results in this situation, because this enemy follows no rules, and will never surrender.

How easy we forget who we are fighting against. The Islamofascists will not stop when they believe they have enough land or when Israel is finally destroyed. Their goal is the world domination of Islam. They have said so themselves. Do you not believe them? We never believed that they would fly planes into our buildings in New York and into our Pentagon, either. Boy, were we wrong. Let's not be wrong again.

Tom, obsessed with me and my statements, also found a comment I made over at Rightwing Guy's site (and the reason he hasn't returned yet, Tom, is because he is still in training - in the military) where I said "World War III will be fought in the streets - Urban Guerrilla Warfare Style - of the United States. God Help Us."

Tom's response to that was that he thought I was crazy (he seems to use the words crazy, insane, and nuts often when referring to me) that I thought that Islamofascism would organize a Normandy-style invasion of America.

That is not what I said, Tom. I believe that an attack of that nature could happen from within. The enemy is already here. Did you not read about the Islamic training compound found in upstate New York? Read the book Magog 1982 Canceled about an attempt at that very style of warfare. However, the enemy may not have to resort to such military tactics. Why attack us militarily when they can simply change us from within as they are now? Thanks to liberal thinking, we bend over backwards to accommodate Muslims. You cry for separation of Church and State, Tom, but why is it that separation of Church and State does not apply to Islam? Why is it that schools are now accommodating them with prayer rugs and foot washing stations? Yet, if the Christian God is mentioned in the classroom it is the ultimate breach.

Christian Values is another hot topic with Tom. In fact, he believes that my statement that America was founded on Christian values is a complete lie and the rantings of the clinically insane.

People came to America from all over Europe (and eventually from all over the world) seeking primarily freedom of religion. Granted, in the beginning, copying what was pushed upon them in England, each of the colonies had "state" religions. Human nature sometimes does such things. The idea of freedom of religion was that anyone could practice their religion anywhere in this land. The government had no right to tell anyone what religion they must follow, and any particular religion (as did the Church of England in England) could not dictate to government what government must do based on religious belief. In short, based on this, I have never proclaimed that I believe our nation should be a theocracy. However, the images of Moses and the Ten Commandments are on our courthouses for a reason. Our very laws are based on Christian Moral Values. That cannot be denied. Christianity as a whole, mind you, not any of its individual religions (and dealing with the different sects of Christianity, none of which I am a member of, is a whole new discussion).

Thomas Jefferson, a theist, but not a Christian in any way, believed that people should have the right to follow the religion of their choice, and that the government had no right to control such practice. This is what spurned him to write the letter to the Danbury Baptist Congregational Conference in 1802, in response to their letter to him in 1801. This is where the words "separation of church and state" were first used. These words are not in the constitution, but many believe that the letter is an explanation of the first amendment. Anyway, if you read it carefully, it explains that government should be prohibited from any aid or endorsement to any religion. It does not mean that government should turn its back of the values used to help create this governmental system. You would think that being so absolute would be above the liberals, but unfortunately, that is what they are best at.

The rallying cry throughout World War II was "Remember Pearl Harbor." The memory of such an atrocious act against America kept us moving forward. We wound up fighting Germany and Italy as well, even though they were not technically a part of the attack on Pearl Harbor. We fought knowing that the security of our nation lay in the balance.

"Remember 9/11" has been forgotten. And this enemy we face is nothing like those of the past. They will follow us home if we let up in the fight. They will strike us here again, as they did on 9/11. Our war in their faces has held them back, for now. They may still strike us, even with us fighting them in the Middle East. Anything is possible, and I dare not underestimate this ruthless enemy. But this war in Iraq, which is nothing more than a battle that is part of the larger Global War on Terror, is for our security. Have we forgotten what happened in 2001 when they flew planes into the World Trade Center?

Another gripe of Tom's is my lack of sourcing. Most of what I talk about is common knowledge, or at least I thought so. What I say is my opinion. Do you want sources for my own opinion? Must I seek the approval of the internet for what I believe? Must a poll somewhere agree with me when I say that I believe our troops are handcuffed and need to be able to fight this war as a war ought to be fought? My thoughts and beliefs are mine. Every once in a while I will use a source when I deem necessary, but this is not science class or a term paper where all sources must be cited. This is my opinion and I will present it as I please. Don't like it? Don't read it.

Oh, and another misrepresentation of what I have said must be addressed. I stated in a recent post regarding my experience with the county health system regarding my son's recently diagnosed cancer (and I had to use this system once before with my wife at a time when we were caught without insurance for ourselves) that the system was set up for situations like my son's where the person is doing whatever they can to secure insurance, but the timing of the situation that arose placed him at the mercy of the state system; not for people who make a living of it and take advantage of the system with abuse after abuse. I said specifically "thanks to abuse of the system by some, and the overuse of the system by illegal aliens". . . and Tom responded with a thing about illegals not being able to apply for Medi-Cal or any other state program.

This is where you truly show you are not all there, Tom. I said the system was overrun by them, not that they qualify for such aid. In other words, so many illegals use the county hospitals and do not pay a cent, making the state programs and hospitals pay for the care, putting a squeeze on funds. My dad works for a hospital and is fully aware of how many illegals clog the system. You want sources? Read this one about the closure of 84 hospitals in California because of bankruptcy brought on specifically by illegal aliens clogging the system and receiving "free" care - and this, in turn, screws Americans who have the birth right for care!

In short, we disagree greatly on just about everything. Does that make me certifiably insane? You are a typical liberal. That is the response often. If you don't agree with the mentally unstable rantings of liberalism you are an insane heretical narrow-minded so-and-so. You make your points, I make mine. I make my points on my blog, you make yours on your blog. As tempted as I am to comment on your site, I don't because that is your house, and I am not an invited guest. Liberals like yourself are the guests. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing and though I believe that you are dead-wrong, you have a right to believe and write what you may, just as I do. But think about it. Is it really wise to be on the field of battle against a ruthless enemy, then tell them you wish to quit, what the date is, and then walk away? Would that be truly wise? Bush is not all things to me. I disagree with him on a lot of things, but I will never disagree with defending this nation, securing this nation, and protecting this nation. I believe that Islamofascism is a viable enemy and must be dealt with directly. I do not believe we should sit on our hands with good intentions and wait for the next attack here in America, and then when another 9/11 style attack happens blame American policies for it. The Islamic ideology hates anything not Muslim, and wishes to stomp all over your "separation of church and state" and fuse government and their religion together at the White House. They will stop at nothing to try and accomplish this. Is it possible they can succeed? I don't know, but why give them a red carpet to try?

As for your statement that a "strong and secular America will never be subject to any foreign power", you are wrong. We are already becoming subject to two foreign powers through the bending over backwards to Islam and the bleeding of our border.

Oh, and in your "Asshat" comment about me, your reference to my manhood was unwarranted, and such statements regarding the length of a penis is normally uttered by those that suffer from such a shortness of manhood themselves. I am sorry for your affliction. Perhaps, despite your problem of shortness, you will find a woman (or maybe a man, in your case) that accepts you and your little problem.

Liberalism is not the way back to the wonders of life that we enjoyed as depicted in the above video, that is for sure. Liberalism is a one way ticket to enslavement, Government control, and a complete loss of individual self-reliance.

I, for one, am willing to defend my right to self-reliance and liberty. Are you?

God Bless.


And today Political Pistachio Radio addresses the Left's indoctrination of our children in the school system, and our guest has a lot to say on the subject. Tune in at 4pm Pacific/7pm Eastern for the live feed, or listen to the archive later. Call in to the show if you wish to join the conversation at (646) 652-2940, or Yahoo Instant Message me (ID: douglasvgibbs).


Oh, and one more thing. I've been guest blogging over at American Pundit over the weekend. Pay a visit and read what I've been writing. Also, I contribute to Without A Voice, and the site is finally starting to grow. If you have any offerings regarding the battle against the genocide of abortion, please let me know and I'll make sure it is put on the site.

No comments: