Tag: america

Forever in Our Hearts

We will never forget.

As I watched the news on this morning, 09/11/2019, the images of the two towers, the destruction, the victims, the dust, the debris, the first responders, those rushing to help, the pain and horror of that cowardly attack is rekindled. But, so is the pride!

We are still here. We are still strong. And, we will never forget.

forever in our hearts

It is not about vengeance or retribution. It is about courage, sacrifice, and many selfless heroes rushing … not away … but toward the danger!

It is about the police, the firemen, the reporters, and the everyday citizens who pulled together to get us through one of the darkest hours in American history. It is about doing everything we can to ensure it never happens again. It is about remembering to remain strong as Americans!

Remembering Man’s Best Friend

forever in our hearts

Being a dog lover, I cannot help but also mention that, when the World Trade Center tower collapsed and 10,000 emergency rescue workers rushed in to help … over 300 of those heroes were dogs. Dogs like Bretagne, Riley, Coby, Guinness, Appollo, Thunder, Sage, Trakr, and Jake to name a few.

forever in our hearts

These dogs, along with many more devoted, brave, loyal, and hardworking K9 heroes risked life and limb on September 11 and during the many painful days over which the rescue and recovery efforts continued.

Heroic K9s searched for survivors, located remains, and provided a very real source of comfort and hope during one of the worst moment in modern American history.

We should always remember and honor them as well.

Learn more about these Hero Dogs of September 11th at The Dogington Post!

Valdosta State University Bans Air Force Veteran for Life

Valdosta State University in Georgia banned for life an Air Force veteran who attempted to prevent desecration of the US Flag. University students had laid the flag on the ground and were walking on it as part of their protest.

The veteran Michelle Manhart, also a former Playboy model, was quoted as saying, “I was just going over there to pick up the flag off the ground. I don’t know what their cause is, but I went to pick it up because it doesn’t deserve to be on the ground.”

Manhart, a former sergeant in the Air Force posed for Playboy Magazine in 2007; posing in uniform, out of uniform and while draped with the American flag. Reprimanded and demoted by the Air Force, Manhart left the military the next year.

PLAYBOY_MILITARYThe university president and the police sided with the student protesters and Manhart was ultimately given a criminal trespass warning which effectively bans her from any university activity for life.

In a statement posted on the college’s website, Valdosta State University President William J. McKinney said the American flag “represents everything that is best about our country” but also said that the demonstrators had a right to do so. “The Supreme Court has held, one of those things is the right to free speech, which includes the right to disrespect even the symbol of our country,” McKinney’s went on to say. “While I firmly disagree with the actions of the protesters, I understand their right to protest.”

While McKinney’s statement is correct, a lifetime ban from any college activity seems more than a bit excessive to me. In fact it is intended to teach a lesson to those who still respect the American flag and what it stands for. It essentially says your values are not wanted on this campus.

I hope people will remember this president’s message and that future donations and attendance at Valdosta State will reflect this state university’s one-sided support for the disrespect of this country, its flag, its values and its veterans … even if that veteran is a former playmate of the month.

An American Creed!

The Honorable Dean Alfange was an American statesman born December 2, 1899, in Constanstinople (now known as Instanbul).  He was raised in upstate New York.  He served in the U.S. Army during World War I and attended Hamilton College, graduating with the class of 1922.  This American Creed was first puplished in This Week Magazine and was later printed in The Reader’s Digest, October 1952 and January 1954.  

I decided to post it here on my blog as a reminder of what true Americans once believed, how they once acted, and what they once fought for.  We need to get this American Creed back.  It is time for true Americans to stand up and be counted … to fight for their country … to defend it from its enemies – both foreign and, sadly now, especially domestic!

 

An American Creed

It is my right to be uncommon – if I can.

I seek opportunity – not security.  I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me.

I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed.

I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia.

I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout.  I will never cower before any master nor bend to any threat.

It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act for myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldy and say, “This I have done.”

By Dean Alfange

What can any real American say to that except, “Amen!”

American Wake Up Call!

You should be worried!

Here is a scary tidbit! According to a report on CNNMoney.com, Wall Street securities and investment firms have contributed over $35 million to the campaigns of Democratic candidates during this election cycle. This is almost five times the amount they have contributed to Republican candidates and John McCain’s campaign.

Why is this?  Anne Coulter claims that it is because the liberal-minded fraternity brats who control Wall Street these days “understand economics about as well as the pinko professors whose courses they snored through.”  And she may be right!

After all, these are the same guys who gambled the entire mortgage industry on “subprime” loans to people with no jobs and no collateral!  Hey … it made sense to them!  And now they are willing to gamble the entire U.S. economy and your economic future on the wacky, anti-American left-wing policies of Barack Obama.  Which makes perfect sense to them … in spite of their recent “subprime” loan debacle.

These yahoos can’t even figure out what’s in their own self-interest, much less yours or mine. As Anne Coulter says, “trusting them with your money is like trusting Bill Clinton to babysit your underage niece.”

If you’ve been wondering why the financial industry has experiencing a steady decline … and taking your
401(k) or investment portfolio down with it … now you know.

Wake up America!  

It is time to let Congress know how we feel ….  angry and betrayed about sums it up for me.

Most reports show that under 10 percent of Americans think Congress is doing a good job. This rating makes President Bush’s 30 percent approval rating look like something to brag about. 

If our esteemed members of Congress are not being relevant … doing their jobs … and working to improving Americans’ lives … why, then, do we continue to re-elect them into office?!

We, as a country seem to have forgotten an important principle of Democracy, that it is “we the People” who have power over the government, not them over us. They are called to protect our pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, not vice versa. And if they don’t, the Declaration of Independence states, in no uncertain terms, that we are “to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for (our) future Security.”

I believe it is time to get rid of most of our current members of Congress and replace them with a “new Guard” … who are willing to, and believe in, doing the following:

 1. Uphold our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 2. Protect Americans’ inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 3. Promote less federal government.

 4. Lower taxes.

 5. Demand a balanced budget.

 6. Secure our borders.

 7. Reduce our national deficit and dependence on other nations.

 8. Maintain a modern military capable of protecting our interests at home and abroad.

America is a great nation!  And we should not have to apologize, as Barack Obama would have us do, for working hard and making smart decisions in our past …

Yes, there are poor nations in this world. Most of them are poor because of the decisions they have made in their past; choosing communism, barbaric theocracy, socialism, tribal or clan warfare and brutal authoritative regimes.  We chose a different path and rose to greatness because of it.  Get over it Michelle Obama!  Americans can and should be proud of who we are and what we have done since the founding of our country!  Are we flawless … or perfect? Of course not … just the best thing going!

A Parting Thought!

All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the planet Earth were born with the same inalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can’t get that through their collective heads, then regime change will continue to be necessary.

Francis Fukuyama’s AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS

Some folks leaving comments on posts found on this blog have accused me of being a neoconservative, and while I certainly do have some very conservative views, they are “old traditional American conservative values” and there is nothing “neo” about them.

America At The Crossroads

It seemed interesting, however, to take a look at “neoconservativism” and therefore I read Francis Fukuyama’s book America At The Crossroads. I thought I would share my feelings and observations about the book.

Francis Fukuyama

According to Francis Fukuyama, neoconservatives have failed the United States by losing sight of the core principles on which the neoconservative movement was founded. Fukuyama has long been considered by many to be a quiet, but dedicated supporter of neoconservative values. The fact that he now argues the neoconservativism has left its roots behind and changed into something he can no longer support has caused quite a stirring in many political circles. In this critique of Francis Fukuyama’s book, America At The Crossroads, I will examine Fukuyama’s explanation for is change of heart as well as his suggestions for a new focus in American foreign policy based on a policy Fukuyama has chosen to call realistic Wilsonianism.

On the surface, Fukuyama’s America At The Crossroads seems to be a well-thought out explanation for his change of heart that includes a candid look at some commonsense alternative directions for future American foreign policy strategies. In fact, according to a review written by Gary Rosen of the Washington Post, Francis Fukuyama’s new book is “sober, fair-minded, even a bit dry.” I did find it to be a fairly interesting read and had little problem getting through it. I also found myself nodding in agreement with several passages as I was reading them. It was not until I finished the entire book and had some time to digest what I had read that I began to have some problems with several of Fukuyama’s assumptions and ideas.

In his book, Fukuyam starts off by tracing the history of the neoconservative movement from its earliest roots with the anti-communist leftists at City College in the 1930s and 1940s. He continues through the conservative philosophers such as Leo Strauss, Allan Bloom, and Bert Wohlstetter at the University of Chicago and ends his history by defining a set of four broad neoconservative principles for shaping U.S. foreign policy decisions. These four principles are:

  • A state’s internal character can influence their actions.
  • American military power can be used as a tool for moral ends.
  • A fundamental distrust of international laws and institutions.
  • A real skepticism in the efficacy of social engineering.

Fukuyama’s concern is not that these principles are somehow wrong. Fukuyama states that he still supports these same principles. He argues, however, that since 9/11; the neoconservatives who helped in the formulation of the Bush Doctrine have abandoned them. He states that the Bush administration was too focused on the goal of toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq to think about the formidable task of social engineering that would begin immediately after Hussein’s regime fell. According to Fukuyama, the Bush administration “made a judgment that the appropriate response would be largely stick rather than carrot, and asserted a strong relationship between the new breed of jihadists and the old Arab nationalists like Saddam Hussein.” Fukuyama also argues that the Bush administration very badly underestimated the cost as well as the level of difficulty of the reconstruction that would immediately follow any successful military action.

In his book, Fukuyama seems committed to the spread of democracy in the Middle East as an effective means to reduce the threat of any future violence and the spread of terrorism, bit it is obvious that he prefers the use of soft power such as economic development aid, election monitoring, and civil affairs mentoring (the tools of his realistic Wilsonianism) to the use of military force and intervention. Fukuyama argues that radical Islam is simply a direct consequence of globalization. That it is cause by the loss of national identity that occurs naturally as the world shifts to a modern, more pluralistic society. Fukuyama proposes the use of what he describes as overlapping and sometimes competitive international institutions, practicing what Fukuyama terms multi-multilateralism as the best means to effectively end terrorism. He argues that the U.S. should make better use of its ability to lead the world by example, to train and educate, and offer both advise and economic aid to countries to remove the poverty, despair, distrust, and lack of education that he feels forms the breeding grounds for today’s radical Islamic terrorists. While Fukuyama takes power and order seriously, it is very clear that he prefers the carrots to the sticks.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that, although it all sounds perfectly reasoned and sensible, it actually offers nothing new. It is simply a restating (albeit quite eloquently) of the same old song and dance routines applied by the United Nations and like-minded policy makers for years. Francis Fukuyama states in his book that he understands that the United Nations is unsalvageable as a credible means to end Islamic terrorism and its attacks on the Western world. In striving to become all-inclusive, the U.N. has grown far too unwieldy to effectively pass and timely or enforceable security decisions. The U.N. even has states, such as Syria and Libya, which in the past have been associated with radical Islamic groups serving on the U.N. Security Council.

Simply stated, nobody has been able to put forward any kind of remotely plausible alternative strategy for defeating the underlying causes of 9/11 other than the one pursued by the Bush administration. Charles Krauthammer, a right-wing political pundit, states that these underlying causes are, “the cauldron of political oppression, religious intolerance, and social-ruin in the Arab-Islamic world – oppression transmuted and deflected by regimes with no legitimacy into virulent, murderous anti-Americanism.” Even Paul Berman, a left-wing political pundit who is diametrically opposed to Charles Krauthammer, disagrees with Fukuyama’s assessment concluding that, “neither his (Fukuyama’s) old arguments nor his new one offer much insight into this, the most important problem of all — the problem of murderous ideologies and how to combat them.”

Fukuyama does admit that, when dealing with violent terrorists, the concept of preemption must remain on the table. He also states that while we cannot afford to sit back and wait for the proverbial smoking gun, the United States must also be sure it has its facts straight before deciding on acting unilaterally. But, he also argues that the NSS or National Security Strategy of the United States as developed by the Bush administration is flawed in several ways. According to Fukuyama, the primary problem rests in the lack of any real codification of when and how preemption can or should be used. The NSS, he argues, needs to be modified to include such guidelines because the number of times preemption could be legitimately be used will be few. It should certainly should not be seen as a “green light — to the United States or any other nation — to act first without exhausting other means, including diplomacy,” says Fukuyama.

There are two problems with Fukuyama’s argument. First, it ignore the lessons that need to be understood from past history and the nature of human struggle. One of the oldest tricks in the book is to be seen actively engaging in sincere diplomacy one one hand, while the other hand, launches a decisive sneak attack, i.e. Pearl Harbor. Does Fukuyama not remember Pearl Harbor? Or does he simply believe that radical Islamic Terrorists will simply not use such an effective tool for war out of some sense of fair play?

Second, intelligence gathering is simply the process of sifting through tons and tons of gathered bits of information in an attempt to fins small bits that when put together form a possible clue, and then make an educated guess as to what it all means. The fact that it is not an exact science is certainly evidenced by the misreading of intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq. In fact, many senior members of our government who now advocate cut and run as the proper new policy had access to the very same intelligence reports and yet somehow still voted for the war before they decided to vote against funding the war. The hard fact is that a responsible must always take a “worst case scenario” approach, especially when dealing with the possible threat of terrorists gaining access to and using WMD such as suitcase nukes, dirty bombs, chemical or biological agents, or commercial airliners for the smoking gun. With weapons such as these, death and destruction can be dead in your face long before you can have all your facts straight.

Fukuyama also argues that the Bush administration greatly overestimated both the danger posed by Osama Bin laden and his brand of radical Islam, and its ties to Saddam Hussein and his brutal totalitarian regime. He argues that though the possibility of new assaults by terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction is a real threat, it was wrongly tied to Iraq and the problem of rogue state proliferation.

However, according to Mark Gabriel, a former professor of Islamic history at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, America is facing “the most dangerous enemy to mankind. We are not facing local thugs who seek money or power. We are facing an enemy that is motivated by faith and belief. Mark Gabriel currently resides in the United States and lives in a constant state of fear because of vengeful radical Islamists. His only crime: leaving Islam and becoming a Christian. Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch, lives in a secure and undisclosed location. He is an acknowleged expert by many, including highly educated former Muslims, of historical Jihad. In his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And The Crusades), he states: “This conflict, in their view, is destined to end with the hegemony of Islam. In the words of Osama Bin laden, jihad warriors the world over are fighting, ‘so Allah’s Word and religion reign supreme’.” In fact, the radical Islamists have been at war with the United States and the Western world since the 1970s. As a nation, we simply did not notice. It took 9/11 to force some of us to face that reality. Some still have not.

At one time, Francis Fukuyama was arguably one of the world’s most celebrated neoconservatives. he even supported regime change in Iraq. His signature can be found at the bottom of the 1988 letter from The Project for a New American Century sent to then president, Bill Clinton, urging the United States to increase efforts to remove the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein from power. Other neoconservative intellectuals like Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan also signed that letter. Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and the recently fired defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, signed it as well.

Francis Fukuyama’s change of heart is more likely due to the difficulty the U.S. has encountered in completing its attempted regime change in Iraq, than to as Charles Krauthammer phrased it, a “Road to Damascus moment.” Though well written and intellectually pleasing, he simply offers no new ideas to combat the spread of Islamic terrorism in the world. Fukuyama eloquently revisits the same old soft power, multilateral carrot-stick models that have failed in the past. In my opinion, what Fukuyama fails to grasp is that, though mistakes have indeed been made both in the war on terror and the war in Iraq, the Bush administration had very little in the way of real alternatives when faced with defending U.S. citizens from future terrorist attacks.

Even if many Americans do not, Osama Bin Laden certainly sees Iraq as a central front in his war on the Western world and its leader by invitation, the United States. He has often stated that fact himself on his released audio tapes. In truth, the War on Terror is actually a dangerous politically correct label for what is in reality a war between two divergent and opposing ideologies. One one side we have the United States, democratic ideals, religious tolerance, freedom, and a belief in the dignity of mankind. On the other side we have radical Islam, Sharia, religious intolerance, oppression, and the submission of mankind to Islamic rule. When the only carrot that radical Islamists will except is a Taliban-like global hegemony led by radical Islamists and the re-establishment of the Caliphate as the new world government, it is simply impossible for me to put any faith in realistic Wilsoniansim as the means to security and liberal democratic order (in the classic sense) for the future world.

We Reap What We Sow!

The headline reads “Boys, 11 and 14, Charged With Sexual Assault on Woman, 60.” That is pretty scary! Here is another one. “Six Las Vegas Teens Shot at Bus Stop After Schoolyard Fight Over Girl.”  How about “Cicero-North Syracuse Student Charged in Exchange of Nude Photos” or “15-Year-Old Boy Pleads Guilty to a Lesser Charge in High School Bomb Plot.” Then there is always these: “Three Female Teens Charged After Video of Them Beating 13-Year-Old Girl Surfaces” and “Illinois High School Student Expelled After Planning Fight on MySpace.” 

I guess you could blame guns … but only one of these crimes involves a gun! 

Why is it that recently the violent-crime rate seems to rise and fall in direct proportion  to the number to teens in the population?  Why has the number of murder arrests of teens suddenly jumped 92% since 1985 … during a period when the teen population has remained steady or even declined.  The perception that criminals are getting younger is backed up by statistics.  In 1982, 390 teens, ages 13 to 15, were arrested for murder.  A decade later, this total jumped to 740.

Could it be that we are reaping what we have sown by blindly following the secular-progressive’s model for an “improved” society; a society in which we teach 8th graders to put condoms on bananas, use prime-time soft-core porn TV shows and video games to raise our children, and then tell parents that if they attempt to discipline their children we will put them in jail?

Many of today’s kids simply have no moral compass!  Why? Because our schools and the National Education Association (NEA), controlled by the secular-progressives in our society, have waged a campaign of intolerance of anything remotely resembling a Christian idea (see War on Christmas or God Bless America), told us that right and wrong are relative (one man’s rapist is another man’s role model … so you can’t make a judgement), and that being an American is a bad thing (see no “anti-American” textbooks allowed in Texas).  

Oh yeah, the National Endowments for the Arts (NEA) also tells us that a picture of the Virgin Mary decorated with elephant feces and pictures of women’s vaginas is art!  But that’s another story … or is it?