The Socialist Inquisition of the Third GOP Debate

Back when I was in my twenties, out of curiosity and a lack of anything better to do on a Saturday night, I ventured into a local comedy club to find out what the attraction was in paying to be deliberately insulted.  Friends had told me about such establishments and said they were not the place to go if you wanted a true laugh.

Was meanness really the fashion of the Eighties?  Was this really the mood of the then-current generation?  I was willing to offer myself up as fodder to find out.  Being of very poor appearance and even lower confidence, I was sure of success in my real endeavor.

The “comedian” immediately set upon me almost before I even had a chance to sit down.  I didn’t trouble myself to listen distinctly to his diatribe; I’d heard it all before.  I was busy watching the audience, sodden late-adolescents dribbling beer down their chins in their hysteria.  Others were chicly-dressed, sophisticated (or so they thought) night owls, young ladies in their little black dresses, their eyes narrowing in my direction in piercing sneers.

What a horrible arena.  Here was a playpen in which to finesse their cruel manners in order to show their worth in the working world and rehearse their own malevolent taunts.  Champions flexing their inner nerves to a honed callousness from which barbs would fall off like feathered shafts.

Satisfied that I comprehended why young adults came to such places, I rose to leave.  My tormentor actually objected.  His best material for the night was leaving, quite calmly and unruffled.  Why was I leaving?!  Was I leaving because I couldn’t take it?!  If I couldn’t take it, why had I come to such a place?!  What did I think was going to happen to someone like myself in such a place?  All these unanswered questions were met with uproarious laughter by the crowd.   The waitress sneered at me as I left.

I’d certainly gotten my money’s worth.

Why, we Conservatives may ask, did the 2016 Republican candidates subject themselves to a third debate, sponsored by the most notoriously Liberal and unprincipled of all the major news networks?  Last night’s show was not a debate; it was an inquisition.

The Medieval Inquisition, beginning around 1184 was established in response to movements considered apostate or heretical to Christianity, in particular Catharism (the belief in a both a good and an evil “God”) and Waldenesians (who preached apostolic poverty) in southern France and northern Italy.  These were the first inquisition movements of many that would follow.

The Cathars were first noted in the 1140s in Southern France, and the Waldensians around 1170 in Northern Italy. Before this point, individual heretics often challenged the Church. However, the Cathars were the first mass organization in the second millennium that posed a serious threat to the authority of the Church.

French historian Jean-Baptiste Guiraud (1866–1953) defined Medieval Inquisition as “… a system of repressive means, some of temporal and some others of spiritual kind, concurrently issued by ecclesiastical and civil authorities in order to protect religious orthodoxy and social order, both threatened by theological and social doctrines of heresy.”

Many other religious inquisitions would follow.  Early Medieval courts generally followed a process called accusation, largely based on Germanic practices. In this procedure, an individual would make an accusation against someone to the court. However, if the suspect was judged innocent, the accusers faced legal penalties for bringing false charges. This provided a disincentive to make any accusation unless the accusers were sure it would stand.

By the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, there was a shift away from the accusatorial model toward the legal procedure used in the Roman Empire. Instead of an individual making accusations based on first-hand knowledge, judges now took on the prosecutorial role based on information collected. Under inquisitorial procedures, guilt or innocence was proved by the inquiry (inquisitio) of the judge into the details of a case.

The first medieval inquisition, the episcopal inquisition, was established in the year 1184 by a papal bull of Pope Lucius III entitled Ad abolendam, “For the purpose of doing away with.”  It was a response to the growing Catharist movement in southern France. It was called “episcopal” because it was administered by local bishops, which in Latin is episcopus, and obliged bishops to visit their diocese twice a year in search of heretics.

If Socialism is the now de facto religion, in place of Christianity, then anti-Socialists and anti-Communists (nominally called “Conservatives) are, therefore, heretics and the united media of print, televised, and computer media are the communist tribunals by which they are scourged. A movement that is largely secular and political in nature, their political debate forums then become inquisitions for those who speak heresy against their platforms.

Why, then, would the Republican Party candidates subject themselves to such an inquisition by the opposition party’s propaganda organ?

One reason is that that’s where the GOP will find the Millennial audience, the successors of the Insult Comedy Club generation, the Saturday Night Livers’ grandchildren, who look to cable network Comedy Central, of all places, for their news and their thinking points.

CNBC is nominally a business network.  But its stock-in-trade is Millennial Mockery.  Give the audience what it wants.  The third debate’s principal moderators, Carl Quintanilla, Becky Quick, and especially John Harwood were nonplussed as various candidates, to the hearty applause from the partisan audience at the University of Colorado, complained that their questions were inaccurate, unfair, downright insulting.

Harwood quickly assumed the lead by asking Donald Trump, right out of the box: “Mr. Trump, you have done very well in this campaign so far by promising to build another wall and make another country pay for it, send 11 million people out of the country, cut taxes $10 trillion without increasing the deficit, and make Americans better off because your greatness will replace the stupidity and incompetence of others. Let’s be honest. Is this a comic book version of a presidential candidate?”

Harwood then followed up with this exchange, a minute into the “debate”:

HARWOOD: We’re at 60 seconds, but I gotta ask you, you talked about your tax plan. You say that it would not increase the deficit because you cut taxes $10 trillion in the economy would take off like…

(CROSSTALK)

HARWOOD: Hold on, hold on. The economy would take off like a rocket ship.

TRUMP: Right.  Dynamically.

HARWOOD: I talked to economic advisers who have served presidents of both parties. They said that you have as chance of cutting taxes that much without increasing the deficit as you would of flying away from that podium by flapping your arms.

The ultra-mild Dr. Ben Carson was not spared. His inquisitor was Becky Quick.

QUICK: Dr. Carson, let’s talk about taxes.

You have a flat tax plan of 10 percent flat taxes, and — I’ve looked at it — and this is something that is very appealing to a lot of voters, but I’ve had a really tough time trying to make the math have a flat tax plan of 10 percent flat taxes, and — I’ve looked at it — and this is something that is very appealing to a lot of voters, but I’ve had a really tough time trying to make the math work on this.

If you were to took a 10 percent tax, with the numbers right now in total personal income, you’re gonna come in with bring in $1.5 trillion. That is less than half of what we bring in right now. And by the way, it’s gonna leave us in a $2 trillion hole.

So what analysis got you to the point where you think this will work?

Next, there was this bit between Carl Quintanilla and Carly Fiorina, still on the issue of taxes:

QUINTANILLA: You want to bring 70,000 pages [of bureaucratic tax regulation] to three?

FIORINA: That’s right, three pages.

QUINTANILLA: Is that using really small type?

FIORINA: You know why three?

QUINTANILLA: Is that using really small type?

FIORINA:  No. You know why three? Because only if it’s about three pages are you leveling the playing field between the big, the powerful, the wealthy and the well-connected who can hire the armies of lawyers and accountants and, yes,  armies of lawyers and accountants and, yes, lobbyists to help them navigate their way through 73,000 pages.

How would Quintanilla like to read 73,000 pages of tax regulations?  On the air.  He could think of it as job security, because he’d be reading for the next 20 years or so.

Then he went after Marco Rubio.

QUINTANILLA: We will come around the bend, I promise. This one is for Senator Rubio. You’ve been a young man in a hurry ever since you won your first election in your 20s. You’ve had a big accomplishment in the Senate, an immigration bill providing a path to citizenship the conservatives in your party hate, and even you don’t support anymore. Now, you’re skipping more votes than any senator to run for president. Why not slow down, get a few more things done first or least finish what you start?

QUINTANILLA: So when the Sun-Sentinel says Rubio should resign, not rip us off, when they say Floridians sent you to Washington to do a job, when they say you act like you hate your job, do you?

Why doesn’t Rubio finish what he starts? Why doesn’t he resign?  Why not ask the guy why he raped his wife, while he was at it?

HARWOOD: I’m about to ask you about this.

That is, you had some very strong words to say yesterday about what’s happening in your party and what you’re hearing from the two gentlemen we’ve just heard from. Would you repeat it?

KASICH: I’m the only person on this stage that actually was involved in the chief architect of balancing the Federal Budget.

When Kasich didn’t take his bait, Harwood “pointedly” made a second attempt, and Kasich was more than happy to oblige the inquisitor since he’s the closest thing the Republicans have to a Democrat.

HARWOOD: Well, let’s just get more pointed about it. You said yesterday that you were hearing proposals that were just crazy from your colleagues.

Who were you talking about?

KASICH: Well, I mean right here. To talk about we’re just gonna have a 10 percent tithe and that’s how we’re gonna fund the government? And we’re going to just fix everything with waste, fraud, and abuse? Or that we’re just going to be great? Or we’re going to ship 10 million Americans — or 10 million people out of this country, leaving their children here in this country and dividing families?

Folks, we’ve got to wake up. We cannot elect somebody that doesn’t know how to do the job. You have got to pick somebody who has experience, somebody that has the know-how, the discipline.

Kasich wanted to make a point, but the Inquisitors had an agenda to keep.

HARWOOD: No, we’re moving to Governor Bush. Governor, the fact that you’re at the fifth lectern tonight shows how far your stock has fallen in this race, despite the big investment your donors have made.

There was some exchange between Harwood and Bush. Finally, Harwood got in this barb:

HARWOOD: But it’s a — OK. It’s a — it’s a question about why you’re having difficulty. I want to ask you in this context.

Ben Bernanke, who was appointed Fed chairman by your brother, recently wrote a book in which he said he no longer considers himself a Republican because the Republican Party has given in to know- nothingism.  Is that why you’re having a difficult time in this race?

QUINTANILLA: Senator Cruz. Congressional Republicans, Democrats and the White House are about to strike a compromise that would raise the debt limit, prevent a government shutdown and calm financial markets that fear of — another Washington-created crisis is on the way.

Does your opposition to it show that you’re not the kind of problem-solver American voters want?

CRUZ: You know, let me say something at the outset. The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media.

(APPLAUSE) This is not a cage match. And, you look at the questions — “Donald Trump, are you a comic-book villain?” “Ben Carson, can you do math?” “John Kasich, will you insult two people over here?” “Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign?” “Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?”

CRUZ:  How about talking about the substantive issues the people care about?

CRUZ: The contrast with the Democratic debate, where every fawning question from the media was, “Which of you is more handsome and why?”

Quintanilla gave some inaudible response about “getting credit” for something and that Cruz now only had 30 seconds left.

If we were to choose the next Republican candidate by who finally belled the media cat, it would have to be Ted Cruz. Donald Trump also commented about the decidedly unfriendly nature of the questions.

The manner of last night’s debate was, indeed, outrageous and unprofessional. But not unexpected.  When you go hunting for votes in the enemy’s territory, seeking the benediction of an adolescent, free-loading, shallow electorate you should expect to enter an arena somewhere in between The Inquistion and The Daily Show.

Published in: on October 29, 2015 at 3:52 pm  Leave a Comment  

Where in the Galaxy is Luke Skywalker?

In case you just returned from another galaxy far, far away, you know all the movie buzz is about the next installment of the Star Wars saga, due out on Dec. 18. Now the property of Disney Pictures, after George “Jar-Jar” Lucas sold his rights to his blockbusting, sci-fi film-changing franchise, the first official trailer for the new movie was released during the Monday Night Football game.

The question on everyone’s mind is: where’s Luke Skywalker.  J.J. Abrams has been releasing teaser trailers for most of the year, mostly online, for fans to follow.  Fans know Luke (Mark Hamill) is in the film.  He voices over the second trailer and presumably it’s his arm reaching out to R2-D2.

The buzz is that he’s missing and new characters Rey (Daisey Ridley) and Finn (John Boyega), an ex-Storm Trooper, seek Han Solo’s help in finding him. Why?  Well, that’s what the movie is all about.  Rey and Finn apparently find a cast-off lightsaber that presumably belonged to Luke Skywalker.

A good guess is that they also find something called the Holochron. Fanboys and Girlgeeks know what the Holochron is because they’ve watched the animated series, The Clone Wars.  We won’t give anything away here.  However, it’s suspected that Luke has gone into seclusion, guarding this thing.

He’s also being hunted by someone who venerates the evil memory of Luke’s father, Anakin (Darth Vader). That would be Kylo Ren.  He’s featured throughout all the trailers, the ones for the general public as well die-hard fans.  There’s speculation that he and Rey are Han and Leia’s children, although Rey tells someone in a voiceover who sounds like Leia that she’s “no one.”

In the poster, there are hints of a new Death Star. As in the official trailer, Luke is nowhere to be seen, which adds to the mystery.  Perhaps it’s payback for Mark Hamill getting second billing behind Harrison Ford.  Fans went crazy when Ford appeared at the end of the second teaser trailer, with Chewbacca howling behind him.  Someone told a fanboy on a fan website that the fans will go crazy when Luke appears in the movie.

Rest assured, Hamill’s name is not only on the Star Wars VII cast list, but on the Stars Wars VIII cast list as well. Rumor has it that Ford insisted that his character be killed off in this segment.  Curse these egotistical actors and their everlasting yen to do a death scene.  Leonard Nimoy insisted on the same thing for Star Trek:  Wrath of Khan.

That didn’t work out too well for the Star Trek franchise. Suspecting that it might not, the director left a loophole for Mr. Spock to make a return.  However, it took two films to raise him from the dead.

Star Wars fans, fanboys and the general audiences alike, eagerly await each sequel, hoping to capture the magic of the first film. They were grossly disappointed with the three prequels, though it’s hard to understand why.  The prequels were about Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker.  You didn’t have to be a Jedi Knight to have a bad feeling about these movies; that they weren’t going to end well.  Fanboys got too hung up on Jar-Jar Binks.  Adolescents have a low tolerance level for dorkiness.  Critics in general complained about Hayden Christensen’s acting abilities.  I thought he was all right.  You can’t blame him for George Lucas’ notoriously comic book writing style.

The teen fans didn’t like the Ewoks, either. In the re-release of Return of the Jedi, the producers took away the Ewoks celebration song and replaced it with what was essentially elevator music in order to play down the cutesy factor that so repelled the Fan Boys.  They also added celebration scenes from other planets in the franchise galaxy, which was pretty cool.

Something else is missing from Star Wars: The Force Awakens –  the series number.  J.J. Abrams is not of George Lucas’ generation and never sat through Saturday afternoon movie serials which were numbered.  We must admit that the numbers are now confusing since the release of the prequels.

When you’re talking about the “first” movie, are you talking about the “original” Star Wars or Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace.   The “original” SW was given the number IV and a title:  “A New Hope.”

A new generational question is beginning to arise about Star Wars: How old were you when you saw the first (original) movie?  I saw Star Wars when I was 18, in 1977 when the film first came out.  I was just a bit younger than Luke and Leia were supposed to be, so watching them age will be a somewhat poignant experience for my generation.

I look forward to the movie with mixed feelings. The fact that Leia is seen crying in the trailer and the buzz that Han Solo will die does not bode well, IMHO.  Looking at it astrologically, the film will be released under a retrograde Uranus.  Uranus defines popularity.  Such a planet in retrograde motion is not a promising aspect for any film.  Eventually, it will progress to direct motion, in about seven years, by which time all the films will be made and whatever it is that will have made the film unpopular in the eyes of the original audiences will have resolved itself.

By comparison, the original Star Wars was “born” under the tremendously fortunate aspect of not one but two grand trines, guaranteeing that it couldn’t miss. At the time, people weren’t so sure.  They weren’t asking “Where is Luke Skywalker?”  They were asking, “Who is Luke Skywalker.”

Some thought the movie would be a bust, a small film with a largely young, unknown cast. Ford had been in American Graffiti, Hamill had done some television work, and Carrie Fisher was the daughter of film star Debbie Reynolds (can’t you just hear young audiences asking “Debbie Who? – Ohhh, Princess Leia’s mother!”)

The original Star Wars was the best, although its two sequels were great, filled with surprises and plot twists that kept fans yearning for the next movie. The return of the original movie’s cast is a tremendous draw for fans.  Young or old, we still love them and people are already paying in advance for a seat in the theater on Dec. 18.

Who are Rey and Kylo Ren (the villain)? Are they Han and Leia’s kids?  Are they Luke’s?  Doesn’t Poe Dameron (which more or less means dark, hidden spirit) look an awful lot like Luke with dark hair?  He’s the one who’s apparently captured and tortured by the villain.

And what are all those orbs hanging around Rey, Finn and Han Solo in the trailer? Fanboys ought to know and shame on them if they don’t.

But we’ll find out on December 18th and we’ll entertain ourselves for the next two months trying to figure it out – when we’re not busy trying to figure out why Hillary Clinton isn’t already in prison, why Liberals want us to think that killings would all stop if we just handed over our guns, and why we signed the nuke deal with Iran, insuring that New York and San Francisco are going to feel, if not the wrath of God, the wrath of the Muslims?

I’ve got a bad feeling about this…

Published in: on October 22, 2015 at 6:29 am  Leave a Comment  

The Fight for Freedom

We live in an upside-down world.  Civilization began its 180-degree rotation around 1884 with the Fabian Society, founded by Beatrice and Sidney Webb, George Bernard Shaw and H.G. Wells as a group promoting non-Marxist evolutionary Socialism.  They would be joined, during World War I, by the Dadaists, a group of anti-art artists, poets and writers.

Their successors, such as Dan Gross, of the Brady Anti-Gun Lobby Group, seeking to abolish the Second Amend right to arms, brand freedom-loving soldiers who are members of the National Rifle Association (NRA)  “terrorists” and terrorists, patriots.  Two days, The Washington Post declared that the NRA’s fall was “inevitable.”

Around that same time as the Fabian Society was taking up its poisoned pens, British troops were drawn into a war in the Sudan, begun not by the “imperialist” English, but by the Turkish-influenced Egyptians, who basically enslaved the native Sudanese population.  There arose up among them a pious Muslim who declared himself an “ashraf”, a direct descendant of Mohammed, Mohammed Ahmed.  In his village of Dongola, he saw that the natives were lapsed Muslims.  He inveigled his Arab followers to rise up against the “Turkish” (European) rule and forced the black natives to join the revolution.

According to Winston Churchill, the Egyptians asked the English for help.  Great Britain told them, ‘not a chance.’  England had no desire to colonize this desert country.  Still, the Mahdi was winning his war and had the outpost of Khartoum under siege.  General Charles Gordon volunteered to relieve the Egyptian troops alone, with a small force.  They battled through endless desert, unnavigable portions of the Upper Nile and its formidable cataracts.

Churchill wrote of the “jehad” mentality that allowed no quarter with the infidel enemy.  Gordon’s troops were slaughtered and at the first Battle of Khartoum, Gordon thought to negotiate a truce with the marauding Muslims.  Instead, his head was unceremoniously swept from his shoulders upon his first encounter with the Muslim jehadians and delivered to the conqueror on a plate or shield.

Eventually, the British would build a railway alongside the Nile, all the way to Khartoum, delivering the much-needed supplies.  Gen. Gordon was a hero, not an imperialist, who believed in freedom, particularly for the captive Sudanese.  Churchill, T. E. Lawrence, Gen. Norman Schwartzkopff, Gen. Oliver North, and Gen. David Petraeus have all said the same thing:  that the general population is being held captive by a violent (‘heretical’ according to Lawrence) faction of their religion.

Raised to a frenzy by their puritanical clerics, the soldiers then enforce sharia law on their cowering populations.  In the Sudan of 1884, there was no such thing as a philosophical ‘jihad’ among the illiterate, ignorant natives living in squalid mud huts.  The only jihad they knew was the violent kind.

While the Wahhabis and the Mahdians were subjected their populations through violence and excessive taxation, another kind of “jihad” was being executed upon Western civilization:  socialism.  Beginning with the Fabian Society, which led eventually to Dadaism, anarchy reigned.  Beauty was turned on its pretty head.  Individualism was condemned as selfishness and anything used as a defense against communal socialism was condemned as terrorism.

Socialists initially had no need of violence in civilized societies.  Abrogating the law would do very nicely.  The threat of lawsuits and imprisonment was enough to tame an outraged society that balked at the redistribution of wealth through taxation and bureaucratic fees.  Reeducation would induce future generations to toe the communist line and even propagandize for their agenda.  Control of the media would insure the power of peer pressure to accept previously unacceptable dogma such as abortion, divorce, gay rights and gay marriage.

In less civilized nations, warfare was simple and efficient.  Local communist armies were formed and instructed in third world nations and cities from Benghazi to Managua to Hanoi, from Kabul to Beirut to Baghdad.  In these sparsely-populated, impoverished and illiterate jungles and deserts, freedom was easily conquered.  Only the United States of America had the will and wherewithal to fight back against tyranny on behalf of these much smaller countries.

American might could not be conquered.  But American minds could and the intelligence arm of Communism had been hard at work to achieve this victory.  Their opportunity came with the broad advent of television and its collision with the war in Vietnam.  Americans, besieged by the twin prospects of warfare and anti-war protests displayed right in their own living rooms, withdrew their support for what otherwise might have been an easily-won conflict.

Norman Schwarzkopf writes in his autobiography that a war that would have been easily won in 1965 was impossible by 1971, given mismanagement, misbehavior, and numerous misunderstandings.  The better-trained soldiers of 1965 scarcely recognized the disorganized, slovenly recruits of 1971, showing up for duty in Vietnam in shorts, sandals, and red hats, obviously misinformed by probably the worst anti-war film of all time, M*A*S*H*.

The Liberal Left overplayed its hand throwing bags full of feces at returning soldiers.  We treat our men and women in arms much better now.  However, the Left has attempted in the last decade to return us to the 1960s, complete with peace signs, 1960s fashions, and the old hatred for freedom fighters.

I’ve been absent this month or so catching up on my military reading, as it so happens.  I’ve been “embedded”, by proxy through numerous books, with 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan, the desert-blasted troops in Iraq, the beleaguered helicopterteers of Operation Hope, Schwarzkopf’s battalions in Desert Storm, which was not the romp through the desert that was depicted to us here back in the states.

I’ve traveled into the South American jungle to witness the criminal insurgency of Mexico and South America, where impoverished peasants feared to go out into the streets lest they witness an assassination, guaranteeing their own deaths.  I’ve read about the earlier insurgency campaigns in Nicaragua and vicinity, where private landowners were forced off their lands and where the peasants eventually starved on their communal farms, just as the Ukrainians had decades before.

Finally, I listened as Vietnamese peasants testified to being forced off their lands by the communists.  Their villages, as the villages in Afghanistan had been, were booby-trapped so that they could neither live in them nor travel on the mined roads out of them.  American soldiers, undermined at home and unsupported by their own officers, sometimes went mad seeing their troops blown to bits because they hadn’t been trained to look for, nor listened to warnings about, mined pathways.  That is the reason our Vietnam soldiers came home in bits and pieces.  They’d been brainwashed into committing suicide.

Thank you, M*A*S*H*.

Now, some decades later, our soldiers are supposed to lead the way in laying down our arms, leaving us defenseless against criminals, mobs, insurrectionists, and a traitorous government.  One long-time soldier, a long-time family, wrote me in a fury.  He’s one of my subscribers.  I suppose he thought I’d given up the fight, when in fact, I’ve been educating myself on the subject of warfare and the plight of soldiers fighting for freedom.

“I’m livid that some anti-patriot coward has called me a terrorist,” he wrote me.  “Not happy.  See my blog (http://david.bandel.us/cgi-bin/blosxom/2015/life/patriots.kubrick

I’ll do better than that, D.; I’ll post your words right here, on my blog, for everyone to read.

A word of explanation.  D. joined the Army right out of high school in 1973, along with my older brother.  Vietnam was winding down.  My parents were cautiously optimistic, though my father thought the Army would never accept my jelly-spined brother.  Maybe Grandpa would be able to find, through his naval connections, a berth in some supply ship.

We were sure D. was destined for an Ivy League.  He was just about the smartest guy around.  He told us all about EMPs long before anyone else even heard of them, much less knew what they were, back in the early Seventies.

So we were quite surprised to hear, on Graduation Day, that he was going to join the Army.

“You mean you’re going to stuff your brains into a helmet and jump out of airplanes?” I asked him after the ceremony.

“Yep!”

And he did.  He never told us that he was injured during his Army experiences.  That would be just like D.  He might brag but he’d never complain.  He never betrayed the fact that he was working in Army Intelligence.  D.?  Who could speak seven languages?  Working in Army Intelligence?  In fact, in Anti-Terrorism?  Naaaaah!!!.  BTW, D., since your ‘secret’ is out, I’d love to tell you a thing or two, confidentially, about the now-dead Osama Bin Laden and the unfortunately very much alive KSM.  I wish I’d known, before 9/11, how involved you were…

Only a very lax American public, inebriated with drink, drugs, and drivel could mistake a soldier for a terrorist.  That’s how far down the propaganda path we’ve been dragged by the Left.  The veterans themselves, I’m afraid, are of little help, when they write that as they were dodging mines, watching the slow drift of mustard gas, suffering the desert heat or jungle humidity, that they weren’t fighting for freedom but only trying to survive.

Schwarzkopf at least admits that he contradicts himself.  Early on in the Vietnam of 1965, having gotten to know the villagers, who told him how they were driven off their lands or out of their business, he knew they were fighting for a neighbor’s freedom.  Petraeus recognized it.  North recognized it, even if they also wrote of their defensive brotherhood.

The world has taken a dangerous turn in the last year, both internationally and domestically.  With the inevitable incursion of refugees from the Middle East, bringing with them their Islamic baggage, we are in horrendous danger of not just losing our freedom but our lives.  This is no time for the laying down of our arms.

We are caught in the riptide of war.  At home, we face imminent peril from growing civil unrest among poorly educated, uncivilized mobs seeking to carry away all the rights our Constitution guarantees to us.  From abroad warriors are coming who will ruthlessly sweep down upon us and murder us in the name of a savage religion that Churchill and even Lawrence of Arabia himself denounced.

Meanwhile, a more subtle enemy moves to remove our only means of defense, slithering within the halls of Congress and within statehouses, wrapping its tentacles around our Second Amendment.

  1. writes, “It’s a simple question. Do you support the Constitution of the United States or not?

“Most folks who know me know I spent 20 years of my life in the U.S. Army supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. I swore an oath to do so. I am retired (but can be recalled at any time) and do not consider my oath vacated. I am also 40% disabled. These were service-related disabilities. Disabilities I received while in service and doing what I could for our great nation and the Constitution.

“I take extreme offense at those who slander me and call me a terrorist. Dan Gross of the Brady Anti-Gun Lobby Group called the NRA (National Rifle Association), to which I belong, a terrorist organization. I don’t know where this anti-patriot coward who never served a day in his life gets off calling me a terrorist.

“I also am astonished at the completely incoherent thought processes surrounding statements like ‘the Supreme Court of the U.S. is wrong’ in its interpretation that the second amendment to the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States protects an individual’s freedom to keep and bear arms. Who does it protect? The government? The Bill of Rights is all about individual protections. Yet liberal states are permitted to pass legislation prohibiting citizens to keep and bear arms. How is this possible? Have they seceded from the union?

“The federal government needs to do something to reassert itself to these sessionist states that would deny its citizens their second amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Anti-patriot cowards like Dan Gross need to be censured and sanctioned for calling true patriots terrorists. I worked in anti-terrorist units on anti-terrorist missions. I resent his remarks. He is lucky I do not possess the financial wherewithal to confront him in court. He owes me and a number of other U.S. military veterans that belong to the NRA an apology.”

If my veteran friend is “livid”, I’m terrified.  War is coming.  The signs are as plain as the pictures of “refugees” overrunning Europe.  Of mobs rioting in our own cities.  Of nuclear “deals” that only benefit a tyrannical empire.  Of writers who write of patriotic terrorists and terrorist military veterans.

Their cause is not our cause. Just as Prince Faisel’s troops in 1922 had a formation at the rear not only to protect it but to prevent their slaves from defecting, so does a tyrant have our rear formation, driving us in the wrong direction not towards freedom but away from it.

Individual freedom has been denounced, even criminalized. Free speech is forbidden, castigated and silenced.  Christianity is being wiped out in Asia, will be wiped out in Europe very soon, and is besieged here in America.

War is coming. That’s why I’ve been absent the last month, preparing for it intellectually.  We must also be prepared for it physically.  Everyone who can should sign up for membership in the NRA, even if you couldn’t hit the broadside of a barn with a cannon.

We must be prepared to fight for freedom culturally as well. The fight for freedom is a just cause.  Read Winston Churchill’s “The River War” (1899).  T.E. Lawrence’s “Seven Pillars of Wisdom” (1922).  Oliver North’s “Under Fire” (1991). Norman Schwarzkopf’s “It Doesn’t Take a Hero” (1992).  There are thousands of other books as well, of course.  Winston Churchill wrote two series, one on World War I, the other on World War II.

Go to the Medal of Honor website.  There you will find hundreds of stories of heroism.  You won’t find any terrorists (or many cowards, except for John Kerry) in those stories.  Our military did not put on the uniform and put themselves in harm’s way to make slaves of anyone.

The Left argues that our military has only been sent out to protect the interests of industry and commerce. They descry the notion of “nation-building” and our citizens have taken up that cry as a useless gesture in an area that bows down to Sharia law.

Having read Churchill’s and Lawrence’s accounts, I’m not so sure of that anymore. What is certain is that the zealots of that religion, Islam, mean to carry out their jihad all over the world, mercilessly and violently.  No other type of jihad exists or could exist among illiterate populations such as the ones which our military is sent ostensibly to protect.

Not only must we be willing to fight this enemy on its own ground, but to protect ourselves from them here at home and from our own government as well. Those who do not fall under the banner of Islam will certainly fall under the banner of Communism, and they will be as merciless as the terrorists themselves.  They may deny it, but they have made cause together, just as the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan made a pact together here in northern New Jersey, rebranding themselves “The Alliance.”

Accusations of fascism silence those who doubt the wisdom of abolishing the Second Amendment. Only those, like D., understand the threat of an armed enemy.  T.E. Lawrence described a battalion, dug in near the besieged city of Medina, that had run out of ammunition.  Terrified by the bombing from allied boats offshore in the Red Sea (something they’d never seen or heard before) and the advance of an Arabian-Muslim army, Lawrence writes that his panicked soldiers shrieked, jumped up out of their positions, and ran amok in all directions over the desert, their hands flailing, only to be gunned down by the enemy.

Had they been well-trained and well-disciplined, Lawrence wrote, they might not have lost so many.

Gross, the anti-gun lobbyist, is no coward. But he and his fellow Socialists would have us act and behave like cowards.  We must stand our ground, no matter how alien the notion of taking up arms might seem to a modern civilization unaccustomed to war.  If we don’t, then all those who sacrificed their lives for freedom died for nothing.

Isn’t that what we find most abhorrent about Afghanistan and Iraq? That our soldiers are dying for nothing (while the Chinese mine rare Earth minerals on the other side of the Afghan mountains)?

Have the courage to live up to what they died for. Freedom is worth it.  Individual freedom.  Prosperity.  The pursuit of happiness and the ownership of property upon which you can enjoy your freedom.

Those who do not take up the gun may die by the gun nonetheless. War is coming and you cannot prevent it by stopping up your ears or covering your eyes like children.  All that stands between you and tyranny, and possibly death, is the Second Amendment.

Published in: on October 21, 2015 at 5:10 pm  Leave a Comment