About Me

Name:Brenda Bee
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Blog Roll

 

Putin Rollin'

Soon after  Vladimir Putin came on the scene in the mid 1990's  I saw him on TV and  told my husband that the majority of the Russian people have finally gotten back what they had lost when the Berlin Wall fell.  They had gotten back their cradle to grave security. 

Of course for this security there is a huge price that must be paid in freedom and dignity, but the Russian population had had 70 years of this  lifestyle and they really didn't want anything else.  Most little people once they have lost their ability to face life on their own two feet haven't the courage to  stand up again.  The few in Russia who yearned for freedom to  make their own way did prosper, but the slackers, the dullards, the lazy, the cheats  didn't do as well.  You see they were required to work for a living for the first time in their lives.   A privately owned  business expects their employees to earn their pay or they are replaced.  The state owned  businesses on the other hand accepted the inferior products  and productivity of the "employed for life"  workers.

You might point out just how much Vladimir Putin has done for the Russian people.  Russia fell because the Communist system of government doesn't work and the state was finally bankrupt.  This of course precipitated  terrible hardships on most of the population who due to the bare essentials provided from Communist Russia  had no resources to carry them thru the difficulty.   As stated above, those who were enterprising  found ways to survive and prosper, but most did not.  Then of course the criminals and mobs took over and the weakened state could not control the crime.

Vladimir Putin had been Head of the KGB so he knew what to do to control the criminals and he did.  Then he concentrated on running the state own businesses more efficiently.  Then came the kicker:  he took over all the privately own businesses that had  come about to supply the needs no longer supplied by the state.

During his eight years as President of Russia he has
been very popular with the Russian people because he was the man who "saved" them.  The economy skyrocketed because of the measures he took,   wages increased  from an average of $80 a month to $640  (of course so did prices! but people just feel richer with more money to spent just ask us Americans).   Best of all,  poverty was cut in half.  Poverty of those who hadn't been able to stand on their own two feet after the bankruptcy of the state run system.  Poverty that happen when the state no longer provided jobs because any good comunist will tell you there was no poverty before the Berlin Wall fell.

So while Putin was violating every single human rights issue in his own country the majority of his country men were praising him.

In the meantime, other countries that had once been under the hard heel of  Communist Russia had managed to prosper under their own forms of capitalism and relatively free elections.  It is these countries that Putin wants back in the fold and he has been working towards this end.  Attacking Georgia is, I believe, the first step.  The tanks are rolling and will continue to roll right over all the small independent countries  so that Putin can recreate the Russian Empire.  And there is absolutely no one to stop him.

And make no mistake, Vladimir Putin the former head of thje Communist KGB   has no love for America.  he has been able to keep the United States from putting in  missile bases in some of the former  Russian provinces.  He has managed to get moist of Europe hooked on Russian oil.  He is manuevering to get and keep the US and the UN tied up in the Middle East fiddling with Iran.  He has watched China become a  now greedy semi-capitalist country that doesn't want to shake the boat so they will look to their own interest by looking the other way while he plunders.
 
For a student of history it is going to be quite a show, albeit a  sad show  for  any who love liberty.  BB

Robert Kagan in today's Washington Post says it very well and gives some pertinent facts that I didn't  include with my opinion:

"This war did not begin because of a miscalculation by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. It is a war that Moscow has been attempting to provoke for some time. The man who once called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century" has reestablished a virtual czarist rule in Russia and is trying to restore the country to its once-dominant role in Eurasia and the world. Armed with wealth from oil and gas; holding a near-monopoly over the energy supply to Europe; with a million soldiers, thousands of nuclear warheads and the world's third-largest military budget, Vladimir Putin believes that now is the time to make his move. "

See the rest of this article in today's  Washington Post

Headline: Putin Makes His Move

Monday, August 11, 2008; Page A15
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/10/AR2008081001871.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

Addendum:  
EDITORIAL: Subverting Iran sanctions
The Washington Times Wed, 13 Aug 2008 1:28 AM PDT
While the United States emphasizes the need to halt investment in Iran's energy sector, Russia and China continue to forge ahead with billions of dollars in new investments that will enable Iran to finance its military buildup and fund terrorist groups. During the past year, Washington has had some success in persuading European allies not to go forward with projects that would provide capital ...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Puti

Soon after  Vladimir Putin came on the scene in the mid 1990's  I saw him on TV and  told my husband that the majority of the Russian people have finally gotten back what they had lost when the Berlin Wall fell.  They had gotten back their cradle to grave security. 

Of course for this security there is a huge price that must be paid in freedom and dignity, but the Russian population had had 70 years of this  lifestyle and they really didn't want anything else.  Most little people once they have lost their ability to face life on their own two feet haven't the courage to  stand up again.  The few in Russia who yearned for freedom to  make their own way did prosper, but the slackers, the dullards, the lazy, the cheats  didn't do as well.  You see they were required to work for a living for the first time in their lives.   A privately owned  business expects their employees to earn their pay or they are replaced.  The state owned  businesses on the other hand accepted the inferior products  and productivity of the "employed for life"  workers.

You might point out just how much Vladimir Putin has done for the Russian people.  Russia fell because the Communist system of government doesn't work and the state was finally bankrupt.  This of course precipitated  terrible hardships on most of the population who due to the bare essentials provided from Communist Russia  had no resources to carry them thru the difficulty.   As stated above, those who were enterprising  found ways to survive and prosper, but most did not.  Then of course the criminals and mobs took over and the weakened state could not control the crime.

Vladimir Putin had been Head of the KGB so he knew what to do to control the criminals and he did.  Then he concentrated on running the state own businesses more efficiently.  Then came the kicker:  he took over all the privately own businesses that had  come about to supply the needs no longer supplied by the state.

During his eight years as President of Russia he has
been very popular with the Russian people because he was the man who "saved" them.  The economy skyrocketed because of the measures he took,   wages increased  from an average of $80 a month to $640  (of course so did prices! but people just feel richer with more money to spent just ask us Americans).   Best of all,  poverty was cut in half.  Poverty of those who hadn't been able to stand on their own two feet after the bankruptcy of the state run system.  Poverty that happen when the state no longer provided jobs because any good comunist will tell you there was no poverty before the Berlin Wall fell.

So while Putin was violating every single human rights issue in his own country the majority of his country men were praising him.

In the meantime, other countries that had once been under the hard heel of  Communist Russia had managed to prosper under their own forms of capitalism and relatively free elections.  It is these countries that Putin wants back in the fold and he has been working towards this end.  Attacking Georgia is, I believe, the first step.  The tanks are rolling and will continue to roll right over all the small independent countries  so that Putin can recreate the Russian Empire.  And there is absolutely no one to stop him.

And make no mistake, Vladimir Putin the former head of thje Communist KGB   has no love for America.  he has been able to keep the United States from putting in  missile bases in some of the former  Russian provinces.  He has managed to get moist of Europe hooked on Russian oil.  He is manuevering to get and keep the US and the UN tied up in the Middle East fiddling with Iran.  He has watched China become a  now greedy semi-capitalist country that doesn't want to shake the boat so they will look to their own interest by looking the other way while he plunders.
 
For a student of history it is going to be quite a show, albeit a  sad show  for  any who love liberty.  BB

Robert Kagan in today's Washington Post says it very well and gives some pertinent facts that I didn't  include with my opinion:

"This war did not begin because of a miscalculation by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. It is a war that Moscow has been attempting to provoke for some time. The man who once called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century" has reestablished a virtual czarist rule in Russia and is trying to restore the country to its once-dominant role in Eurasia and the world. Armed with wealth from oil and gas; holding a near-monopoly over the energy supply to Europe; with a million soldiers, thousands of nuclear warheads and the world's third-largest military budget, Vladimir Putin believes that now is the time to make his move. "

See the rest of this article in today's  Washington Post

Headline: Putin Makes His Move

Monday, August 11, 2008; Page A15
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/10/AR2008081001871.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

Addendum:  
EDITORIAL: Subverting Iran sanctions
The Washington Times Wed, 13 Aug 2008 1:28 AM PDT
While the United States emphasizes the need to halt investment in Iran's energy sector, Russia and China continue to forge ahead with billions of dollars in new investments that will enable Iran to finance its military buildup and fund terrorist groups. During the past year, Washington has had some success in persuading European allies not to go forward with projects that would provide capital ...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Low Tech Jobs May Be Coming Back to US

Good and bad coming out of the energy crisis.  Today's New York Times reports on a trend that  bodes well for the low tech/skills jobs that may be coming back to the US due to the high costs of energy.  This should take care of the high unemployment rate among the unskilled/uneducated segment of the population.  Therefore this should prove to be a cure for some of our increasing social ills because employed people are more likely to keep to the straight and narrow and build for a future.  Marriages and stable families are more likely to increase among the minorities leading to upward mobility and a better educated second generation.  These things that the United States has lost in the last 30 years  with a corresponding rise in crime.

It will not however do a great deal to save the high tech jobs that have been going overseas unfortunately.  When I call for help with my new Dell computer I get this help from the Philippines.

Then again the United States will undoubtedly continue to be the creators of new technology. Surely ours will be the new technology for alternative sources of energy which will perhaps save the earth from further degradation from fossil fuels, as well as reducing our need to placate the more unstable and troublesome countries who seem to have the lions share of fossil fuels (Middle East, Russia, some South American countries) .

We have always been the inventors and   entrepreneurs while other countries have taken the role of  copiers.  Other countries reap the benefits of our first rate minds and then out perform us because we have a gigantic gape between our super intelligent inventors and our workers!  It would be a joke if not so sad.  ( this is of course simplistic because much more is involved that just an inadequate work force that caused jobs to go overseas, but it certainly is a very significant yet unacknowledged reason for being upstaged by others.  Americans tend to be a pampered, greedy and very  lazy people.)

Anyhow, I have lifted some quotes from the article if you want to read more about it. BB

Headline: " Shipping Costs Start to Crimp Globalization

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/business/worldbusiness/03global.html?th&emc=th

Cheap oil, the lubricant of quick, inexpensive transportation links across the world, may not return anytime soon, upsetting the logic of diffuse global supply chains that treat geography as a footnote in the pursuit of lower wages. Rising concern about global warming, the reaction against lost jobs in rich countries, worries about food safety and security, and the collapse of world trade talks in Geneva last week also signal that political and environmental concerns may make the calculus of globalization far more complex.

"The industries most likely to be affected by the sharp rise in transportation costs are those producing heavy or bulky goods that are particularly expensive to ship relative to their sale price. Steel is an example. China’s steel exports to the United States are now tumbling by more than 20 percent on a year-over-year basis, their worst performance in a decade, while American steel production has been rising after years of decline. Motors and machinery of all types, car parts, industrial presses, refrigerators, television sets and other home appliances could also be affected."

"The spike in shipping costs comes at a moment when concern about the environmental impact of globalization is also growing. Many companies have in recent years shifted production from countries with greater energy efficiency and more rigorous standards on carbon emissions, especially in Europe, to those that are more lax, like China and India.o avoid having to ship all its products from abroad, the Swedish furniture manufacturer Ikea opened its first factory in the United States in May. Some electronics companies that left Mexico in recent years for the lower wages in China are now returning to Mexico, because they can lower costs by trucking their output overland to American consumers."

"But with transportation costs rising, more wood is now going to traditional domestic furniture-making centers in North Carolina and Virginia, where the industry had all but been wiped out. While the opening of the American Ikea plant, in Danville, Va., a traditional furniture-producing center hit hard by the outsourcing of production to Asia, is perhaps most emblematic of such changes, other manufacturers are also shifting some production back to the United States."

"But with transportation costs rising, more wood is now going to traditional domestic furniture-making centers in North Carolina and Virginia, where the industry had all but been wiped out. While the opening of the American Ikea plant, in Danville, Va., a traditional furniture-producing center hit hard by the outsourcing of production to Asia, is perhaps most emblematic of such changes, other manufacturers are also shifting some production back to the United States."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Senator McCain had a better example than P. Hilton or B. Spears

Controversial McCain campaign likens Obama to Paris Hilton

By David Usborne in Cedar Rapids, Iowa  Friday, August 1, 2008

“John McCain has unleashed a withering television commercial interweaving clips of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears with footage of Barack Obama addressing 200,000 Germans in Berlin a week ago in an apparent attempt to portray the Illinois senator as a bimbo celebrity with more smile than substance.”

Senator McCain’s staff  missed the boat on this one because they should have run a clip of the Dixie Chicks and their little tirade in London.

(From Wikipedia:  The music group Dixie Chicks were mired in political controversy after comments made by one of the band members about the 2003 Iraqi war and George W. Bush. During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the Dixie Chicks performed in concert in London on March 10, 2003, at the Shepherd’s Bush Empire theatre. During this concert, the band gave a monologue to introduce their song Travelin’ Soldier,Natalie Maines, a Texas native, was quoted by The Guardian as saying, “Just so you know, [...] we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.”[1]

Though this is the official circulation of the comment, the full text of the statement Natalie Maines made was as follows: “Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all.  We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.”

“Maines’ remark sparked intense criticism; many Americans believed that she should not criticize George Bush on foreign shores.”)

Country music fans dropped the group after that and it took them four  years to make their way back into the fans good graces even tho many celebrities came out for their right to speak.  But it was their speaking out against the President and thus the United States on foreign soil that caused all the back lash.  The same statement could probably have been made here in country and not even cause a ripple since so many were bad mouthing Bush and his run up to the Iraqi War.

Is Senator McCain’s staff too far removed from the rednecks who vote to have not known which notorious female “mouth” to use?  Or maybe it was just that Paris shows better on camera?

This all is a big joke to me of course because Obama’s handlers are now referring to McCain as “McNasty”.   Obama however continues to play the race card, so just who is nastier?

Putting all the petty political rhetoric aside tho, I feel that race will not play out as having any influence in November UNLESS Obama continues to play the race card as he has been doing recently in some of his remarks.  He is careful not to mention the word race, but the inference is clear.  BB

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/controversial-mccain-campaign-likens-obama-to-paris-hilton-882630.html

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Caught Up in Our Own Greedy Consumption with No Easy Fix.

Here is an interesting article from FactCheck.org that hits at both presidential candidates and their  quick fix for the energy crisis.    There is no "quick fix" for the mess we have gotten ourselves into by living like we were not aware that fossil fuels were a finite resource.  Of course as long as the United States was the only  profligate user we could continue in our greedy ways. Like who knew  India and China both with larger populations  than the United  States would ever wake up from their long sleep stuck in the pre-oil days and suddenly demand their share of this resource?  

Thinking about this is rather ironic is it not?  That we would be caught up in our own greedy consumption and now be crying like the spoiled brats we are because we are suddenly having to pay the actual price of oil as the rest of the world have always done.  Still at $4 a gallon we in the US are still being pampered  since the costs in Europe is now up to $8 a gallon. 

And after reading the fallowing that exposes the clay feet of Obama's fix it be sure to go to the bottom of the age and click on the article entitled "McCain's Power Outage".    BB

_________________________________

From FactCheck.org

Straining a Point

Summary
Obama released a national ad saying he has "fast-track alternatives" to imported oil. On closer examination, those turn out to be his proposal to spend $150 billion over the coming decade on energy research. Ten years doesn't sound all that "fast" to us, and there's no guarantee that the research will result in less oil being imported.

Analysis
Sen. Barack Obama's campaign released the ad and said it would run on national cable TV networks starting July 17. According to the news release, the 30-second spot "underscores Barack Obama’s understanding of national security in a new century." Perhaps so. Much of what it says is accurate enough, but on one point we find that it strains the truth and could easily give viewers a false impression.

Obama 08 Ad:
Changing World

obama ad world changing


Announcer:
40 years ago it was missile silos and the Cold War.
Today, it’s cyber attacks…loose nukes…oil money funding terrorism.
Barack Obama understands our changing world.

On the Foreign Relations Committee, he co-sponsored a law to lock down loose nuclear weapons.

As president, he’ll rebuild our alliances to take out terrorist networks... And fast-track alternatives so we stop spending billions on oil from hostile nations.

New leadership for a changing world.

Obama:
I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message.
Fast Track

As an example of Obama's supposed grasp of 21st-century security threats, the ad says he has "fast-track alternatives so we stop spending billions on oil from hostile nations." Pictured on screen are images of whirling windmills generating electricity, a solar array against a blue sky, and a couple of white-coated lab workers, one of them peering into a microscope.

The campaign says the ad is referring to Obama's long-standing proposal to spend $150 billion over 10 years for research into alternative energy – "to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid."

Spending that money may well be a good idea, but it's not our place to judge. We do object to describing a decade-long program, which in all probability could not even begin until sometime in late 2009, as a "fast track" to anything.

We also point out that even over the long term there can be no guarantee that just spending more for research will produce the sort of new fuels, vehicles or other breakthroughs that would actually reverse the growth of oil imports. Keep in mind that the U.S. imported the equivalent of 13.4 million barrels of oil per day last year, up nearly 17 percent from just five years earlier and 32 percent higher than in 1997. This is a huge problem that has been getting worse for a long time. Reversing it will not be "fast" or painless.

We repeat: We're not knocking Obama's 10-year plan. We cited it in our July 9 article as the reason that a Republican National Committee ad was wrong to say that Obama has "no new solutions" to the energy problem. We're not endorsing Obama's plan either. We are saying Obama is stretching the truth to call this decade-long program a "fast-track" alternative or to say that "we [will] stop spending billions on oil from hostile nations" as a result. 

by Brooks Jackson
Sources
Obama08 "OBAMA FOR AMERICA, “CHANGING WORLD,” :30 FOR TV" campaign fact sheet 17 July 2008.

U.S. Energy Information Administration, "U.S. Crude Oil and Petroleum Products Imports from All Countries (Thousand Barrels per Day)" Web site accessed 17 July 2008.
Related Articles
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Multiple Choice Moralities"

I read the following and felt I had   try to figure it out ikn my normal way which is with my keyboard.  So here goes.  Maybe after reading the quote we will arrive at the meaning together.  Stranger things have happened you know; upon occasion there has been a wild bird out there who agreed with me!    BB


May 06, 2008

Multiple Choice Moralities
—Albert Mohler

"Our vocabulary betrays us. Instead of saying "I made a mistake," politicians say "mistakes were made." Similarly, some now want to speak of moral "values," but not of morals.

The contemporary talk of "values" is what is left when society accepts the notion that there is no genuine right or wrong. Moral issues are reduced to matters of personal preference and conviction. My "values" may not match your "values," but we all must respect each other's convictions equally in matters of common concern.

The reduction of morality to values was a hallmark of the 1980s, when progressive educators pushed this agenda in the public schools. That generation of young people is now well into adulthood, and we can see the moral damage inflicted by those who instructed students to look only within themselves for a system of values, and to doubt or defy traditional morality.

A generation raised in the incubator of moral relativism is groping for enduring truth in the moral wilderness."



How did we get here?  Is Albert Mohler correct in blaming the educators of the 1980's or there about?  That would the first group of Baby Boomers   who would have begun their careers in the mid 1960's and still teaching when Mohler says this all began.    We were not the first young people to rebel against our parents.  Plato speaks of the unruly youth of his day.   Neither were we the first generation to lose faith in  their government (VietNam).  So  how did we get here?  And how do we get back to being a society whose people are able to determine right from wrong?

I knew right from wrong.  I was taught right from wrong with my Daddy's size 13 hand that went with his size 13 shoe if my memory slipped or my built in conscience wasn't strong enough to guide me. 

I taught my children right from wrong.  I never ever demanded good grades from them as so many parents do, because I knew they were both intelligent enough and would find their way  in life regardless of how the schools mauled them over. I never demanded a great deal of work from them as I wanted them to have a childhood.  Childhoods are so very short.   Their only chores were the dinner dishes, helping me with the weekend house cleaning by running the vacuum and dusting furniture before going out to play and be with friends.  (Note: as well as keeping their rooms  clean enough that I didn't have to have the exterminator make an extra trip between regular visits.  We lived in the southeast where bugs, or more specifically, roaches are a fact of life that one never expects to win over and is happy with just keeping them at bay.).     The only thing I did require/demand from my children was that they be decent human beings.  By which I naturally thought it was understood that honesty/morality/integrity was paramount.    

 Yet I see them  making these "value" judgements that are based really on what is  expedient for them at the time.  Not what is right, but what is the most comfortable, politically correct or whatever the moment demanded of them  personally.  The easy way out so that they won't be  judged by the crowd as being an outsider.  And Puleeeze, not like their Mom! 

Not that they are bad people by a long shot.  No.  They are just the typical people of the Generation X (35 to 50) who are the teachers and young  leaders today.  And they have so much that I admire  as they seem at ease with themselves and society.  They don't feel the need to always be striving and pushing and pulling to get things "right".  There are many things I  especially envy.  No one is pushing my daughter into nursing, teaching, hair dresser or wife roles.  Those were my choices as a blue collar kid  entering the male dominated work force.  I had to work twice as hard for half as much, keep my head down, look the other way when my work was used as my superior's required magazine articles for the term,  keep my  mouth shut and leave good jobs when my superior wished an outside of work relationship.

The sky is the limit for Elaine.  And she is well on her way!  Miles is doing what he loves.  My son comes alive in a kitchen.  His greatest joy is standing over a hot stove and hearing the people around him laughing, talking and eating food he had prepared.

No they are not bad people.  In fact, they and others in their age group consider them rather straight arrow types.  But as they pointed out to me once, "Your values are not our values Mom." 

My answer, "Values?  Who is talking about values?  I'm talking about morals!  Right and wrong!  Values are things you decide for yourself; things that are important to you personally.  Morals are the glue of a society, the rules by which everyone plays.  God's laws for mankind."

So I had my "think for yourself and step up and speak out when you believe society  is wrong.  Stand up for everyones right to speak his mind  and live his life.  Society (the government) must care for the  less able  until they can care for themselves, etc, etc."   It was called liberalism in my day and today goes by the moniker "progressives".  Somewhere along the line I looked at where we were, and where we were headed, and grew up.  Many others of my generation are still stuck in the age of the flower children; out of touch with reality.

 My children have their "values" that constitute their self determined  morals that govern their actions.  Always subject to change of course!  Because things must remain in their comfortable politically correct close my eyes so I won't see what is happening and leave me be to live my own life.  Living that life behind locked doors and security systems.

And now with all  this  rambling it is coming clear: it is my grandchildren  from  age 3 years to 22 who are the ones left to wander  in the moral wilderness.  Dear Lord may they discover thy truth.  BB
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Facts related to the War with Islam that the World is Engaged In

This is an e-mail that has been making the rounds for since mid 2004.  It is true, the letter was written and  as I have checked the facts are accurate.  What is not  true is that it has been attributed to Dr. Vernon Chong.  Dr. Chong denies writing it and instead said he found it on the internet and forwarded it to a friend and somehow it became attributed to him.  The man who wrote it  is an attorney and it was meant as a letter to his three sons. 


The name of the author really is immaterial because it is the facts of this  War on Terror, or more accurately this war with Islam and the Muslims of the world.  So many are still keeping their heads in the sand and denying  the facts when the facts are overwhelming.  If you want more information see my blog http://triadblogs.com/BrendaFayBowers and read the posts under the Categories Muslims, Middle East and War on Terror.  I have referenced all of my data so you are free to check my sources.  BB

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/chong.asp  (url for the letter at Snopes.com)


This WAR is REAL
(the Original title was  "The World Situation, a Letter to my Sons)

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.


First, let's examine a few basics:


1 When did the threat to us start?


Many will say
September 11, 2001. The answer, as far as the United States is concerned, is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut , Lebanon Embassy 1983;
*
Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie ,
ScotlandPan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* FirstNew YorkWorld Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran , Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi , Kenya USEmbassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam , Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden , Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.


(Note: during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide.)


2 Why were we attacked?


Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessor, President Ford.


3 Who were the attackers?


In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.


4 What is the Muslim population of the World?


25%.


5 Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?


Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including
7,000 Polish priests).


(seehttp
://www.Nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom hear of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy in killing anyone who got in the way of his extermination of the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian, or any others.


Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US , but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, British, French or anyone else. The point here is that, just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements
-- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was to remain silent or be killed?


6 So who are we at war with?


There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.


So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1 Can we lose this war?


2 What does losing really mean?


If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions:


We can definitely lose this war and, as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?


It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home, and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.


What losing really means is:


We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but, rather, will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.


We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are impotent and cannot help them..


They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq . Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.


The next will probably be France . Our one hope with France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished, too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France . France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast.


Without our support, Great Britain will go, also. Recently, I read that there are more mosques in England than churches.


If we lose the war, our production, income, exports, and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims? If we can't stop the Muslim terrorists, how could anyone else?


The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We'd better know it, too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.


Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.


So, how can we lose the war?


Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and failing to dig in and lend full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.


Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation:


President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights to which we have become accustomed. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.


And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory ... and, in fact, added many more since that time.


Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?


No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.


Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose.


I think some actually do. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends and it does great damage to our cause.


Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police.. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues, and otherwise murdering their own just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.


And, just a few years ago, these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of
Iraq. And, still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.


Can they be for real?


The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in, and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.


To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again, I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years.


These people are a serious and dangerous liability to the war effort. We must take note of who they are and get them out of office. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States , but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.


We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful, and smart that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that, with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world.WeWe can't!


If we don't recognize this, our nation, as we know it, will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.


qual rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.


This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self- inflicted fall of the Roman Empire . If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.