sirpatrick12's Blog

LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST. 
 
HOUSE # 1:
A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add
on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by
gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the
average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for
electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural
gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property
consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home.
This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's
in the South. 

HOUSE # 2:
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university,
this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction
can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and
is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central
closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water
through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67
degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system
uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of
the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system.
Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon
underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes
into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The
collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers
and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the sur
 
 
HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of
Nashville,Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist
(and filmmaker) Al Gore. 

HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas.
Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of
the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474
899458831&q=4520665474899458831&pr=goog-sl

Watch it, if you dare. Don't tell my buddy Al Gore about it.

But if the founder of GreenPeace, among thousands of other scientists, have this view then . . . what? This video thrills me. Sure, there's something you can argue, somewhere, I don't know where. But if some news lady says that "global warming exists" then what proof exists in that sentence too? None!

Al just needs something to do since he has no friends or a job.

Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States congressman.

True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in. Capitol Hill staff said Ellison's swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota. The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America's founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.

Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson's Quran because it showed that "a visionary like Jefferson" believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources. There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be "gleaned" from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic "Barbary" states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli.

Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic "Barbary" states. Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.

The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and women as possible so the preferred "booty" of only young women and children could be collected. Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow. Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created "eunuch stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.

When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria. Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.

Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.

Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.

In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain. The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.

During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800. Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast. The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.

In 1805, American Marines marched across the dessert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.

During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy. Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we will fight our country's battles on the land as on the sea."

It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.

Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to put an end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.

I did not write this, nor do I know who did.
But this is amazingly appropriate and wanted as many people as possible to enjoy.
>>>

Twas the month before Christmas
When all through our land,
Not a Christian was praying
Nor taking a stand.

Why the PC Police
Had taken away,
The reason for Christmas -
No one could say.

The children were told
By their schools not to sing,
About Shepherds and Wise Men
And Angels and things.

It might hurt people's feelings,
The teachers would say
December 25th
Is just a "Holiday".

Yet the shoppers were ready
With cash, checks and credit
Pushing folks down
To the floor just to get it!

CDs from Madonna,
An X BOX, an I-pod
Something was changing,
Something quite odd!

Retailers promoted
Ramadan and Kwanzaa
In hopes to sell books by
Franken & Fonda.

As Targets were hanging
Their trees upside down
At Lowe's the word Christmas -
Was no where to be found.

At K-Mart and Staples
And Penny's and Sears
You won't hear the word Christmas;
It won't touch your ears.

Inclusive, sensitive,
Di-ver-is-ty
Are words that were used
To intimidate me.

Now Daschle, Now Darden,
Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen
On Boxer, on Rather,
On Kerry, on Clinton!

At the top of the Senate,
There arose such a clatter
To eliminate Jesus,
In all public matter.

And we spoke not a word,
As they took away our faith
Forbidden to speak
Of salvation and grace.

The true Gift of Christmas
Was exchanged and discarded
The reason for the season,
Stopped before it started.

So as you celebrate "Winter Break"
Under your "Dream Tree"
Sipping your Starbucks,
Listen to me.

Choose your words carefully,
Choose what you say
Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS,
Not Happy Holiday.

Again, I'm just a guy that asks questions.

Who says that it's wrong to kill people? Where did that come from and why is it so wrong?
Ok, fine, I'll use something less dramatic. Why is it so wrong for a 40 year old man to marry a 10 year old girl? Why is that wrong? Who came up with that?

Are we not being tolerant to the people that were "born that way?" Seems to me that if we say these are wrong (along with stealing, purgery, child porn, and drugs), aren't we infringing on their "civil rights?"

Are these issues that the ACLU are going to get to later or what?

History books are being changed daily and important things are being left out everyday. It's impossible to get the "FACTS" on much now days. We rely too much on the "resonsible journalism" of the media so we never question their sources. And when we do, what makes those sources such "experts" anyway?

I'm just curious. I wish someone would educate me on what makes something "RIGHT" and what makes something "WRONG."
I'll expand on my thoughts at a later time. I'm hoping to become smarter and "more tolerant" after hearing from you. hmmmm.

It says "Community" at the top of the webpage but I'm curious who's really out there.
Any democrats (or now I hear that it's something different)?
Any Jewish folks? (seen Borat? I'm interested in your thoughts.)
Any liberal, gay, pro-choice folks?

Just curious if there's anyone with valid rebuttles to a lot of this stuff in here. (I said "valid")

So did anyone else see Borat? I was taken to it under the impression that it was a "he makes fun of everyone" movie. Are you serious? Did you see it?
This was the most disturbing, offensive, anti-american, pro-liberal, anti-Jew movie I've ever seen in my entire life.
It had it all - anti-Jew comments throughout the ENTIRE movie. Anti-Christian. Anti-Republican. They even got two guys to be completely naked in some pro-gay positions. Of course, it was all "disguised" under "comedy" and "free speech."

Dude, really, this is the kind of stuff that Hitler put out in the 40's so that his country would see the "real truth."

But my main annoyance is . . . where's Sharpton and Jackson here? What about all those morons that said Mel's "The Passion" was anti-semitic? What about Hilary when Borat ripped women's rights? It seems all one-sided.

Talk about anti-jew - he makes Jew jokes the ENTIRE movie and they even have a "running of the Jew" day in his 'hometown.' So where's CNN on this one?

Mel gets a little tipsy and upset and may have said something "mean" towards the Jewish people. Borat profits MILLIONS from his entire Nazi movie and CNN calls it a "box office surprise."

Hmmm.

Is it just me? Surely the upstanding, common-sense people in this blog community didn't see it. I was drug up there and now I wish I wasn't.

A producer for Fox responded to one of my previous blogs about some Islamic pictures that I had posted. She said that "responsible journalists" wouldn't post them without them being 100% correct and accurate. They were. And she never got back to me about them. They were too powerful in proving the threat we have from Islam and probaby justified the war a little too much. Well I have a video for her to research. Afterall, we want to be fair. Isn't that what "respnosible jounalism" is? It's the reporting, NOT the making, of news. Fox is the best of the media outlets but we're still a little lop-sided in promoting the liberal/Democrat agenda.

Let me know what you think about this video. I didn't do it. Just found it and thought it to be amazingly appropriate.

And if you disagree with it, please have some proof or actually intelligent rebuttle before you respond. Please, please, please do not give us the token Demo line of "There's a better way" without telling us what the "better way" is.

Thanks

COPY THIS AND PASTE IT IN YOUR BROWSER BAR.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJmbomyq0fc

I have to admit that I've just recently read about the "rules" of this blog community. It's not because I say bad things or have an attitude that screams "I'm always right." But I also read about how some people are leaving this blog.
Anyway, I do want to admit some of my frustration and why I like to lump Fox4 into the rest of the media sometimes. We really do miss a lot of stories. Good stories. Even our local media has to be influenced by the northeastern bias against anything true and noble. Without making this blog 12000 words I'll just ask, "where is that morning attitude at night?" Meagan and Tim are so laid back and relaxed. Even sarcastic at times when the really lame Sheehan or T.O. stories come on ... again ... and again. But that "oh no, daddy liberal is watching" attitude seems to show up on the night broadcasts. Why?
Hey, it's ok to be real. You can responsbily report the news by just "reporting" the news. You don't have to add all that suck-up talk or fake feelings talk just to appeal to the minority. Just from reading these blogs you can see that majority of the viewers are the real, relaxed, normal people that want to hear what's REALLY happening and what people REALLY think about it.
Thanks to TIM and MEAGAN for the candor and wit. And how cool is Tim to play Mr. Punching Bag with his Tell It To Tim stuff. Dude, TIm's the man. Meagan is awesome. Now take that same attitude throughout the day.

I'm including a link to some pictures. I can't post them here but I hope you'll check them out. You do not need to agree with the site they're on or anything like that. I just wanted to get these pictures out and see what other people think.

Paste this in your address bar >>>

http://www.westchesterchurch.org/myWC/Blogs/tabid/62/En
tryID/61/Default.aspx

>>>

Why do we not see these pictures? Seriously, why can't FOX4 put these up and do a story on them? The media is always doing the "poor Palestinians" or "Bush's bad foreign relationships." Wonder why we're not so "nice" to that entire side of the world? Look!!!!!

I'm actually a little frustated to fit all my thoughts in this entry. I'll write more later but I hope that some FOX4 employee sees these and I hope that others bring this sort of media to attention. I know there are millions of other pics like this. Just ask your military friends for some of their personal pics and videos. It's amazing.

We need to all get mad ... very mad. And we need to all get a little fear in us that makes us move past our sad little thoughts on whether or not the UN likes us. Big deal. Where I come from, the language in these pics is translated as a threat. And if I even whisper something like this in an airport then I get locked up. But sure, let's worry about their "civil liberties."

Here it is again >>>

http://www.westchesterchurch.org/myWC/Blogs/tabid/62/En
tryID/61/Default.aspx

Fair media? Is there such a thing? I've never even heard of this. Have you? But I'm very interested. I'm always following this sort of thing. Let me know your thoughts. And who wants to wager that Islam soon seeks out Mexico as a safe haven? I'll bet on it.

http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/trailer.htm

Why can't we have a show about men that want to "hit it with their neighbors?" And don't say that we already do. I'm talking about a show that is FOR this and something that people think is "quality TV."

See, people just don't get it. People are all upset about some Forbe's article that is actually accurate about some stuff. I'm not for the article or against it. Yet we promote and enjoy and laugh at Desparate Housewives and things like that. "Oh sure, you need a girls night out, your husband is 'sooo' mean." Yeah, but try that the other way around. "Your wife is 'soooo' demanding. You need a guys night out." See, not quite the same response.

Bottom line is, people are selfish. It's somehow ok and even admirable if women have lustful desires or kinky neighborhood affairs but we call guys like that "sex offenders" or brand them as unfaithful. Women are "entitled" this kind of "adventure" but "men are ALL like that anyway." WHATEVER. I don't write this as someone that's been burned. And I don't write this as a "normal guy" that's like that.
I just write as an observer that can see clearly and just wants a little balance.
And just for the record - write this down in your brain - I'm against it both ways. A husband and wife are a team, FOR LIFE. They compliment each others' strengths and weaknesses. They live, laugh, hurt, cry, and rejoice in each other's lives completely. Separate secret bank accounts, two separate lives, separated vacations, etc... ask for divorce and bitterness. I know there are men out there that are unfaithful and flat out idiots. But there are also women exactly the same. And I also know that the ratio is higher for men than women. But not a million to 1 as Katie Couric or some other liberal femminst genius may suggest. Point is, we're CREATED for love. We're CREATED to be one man and one woman for life. We're not created as swingers. We're not created as lifetime "daters" or "partiers." Try a life committed to one woman or one man and see how unsatisfying that is. It isn't when you give yourselves to each other. But keep in mind what I said - COMMITTED. And that word doesn't mean for just 6 months or "when it's easy." Dude, set an example for a future generation. Please allow me to go through a week where I don't have to talk to a kid about divorce. Spend time blogging about committment, a full life, your kids good game. And stop whippin' us with your complaints of some article.

I almost want to leave this blank and just listen to the answers.

I ran across that flag-burning story from Kentucky again. It's a few days old but I just saw the part about how that teacher was removed. This entry has more to do with flag burning that this specific case but . . .

Can you be TOO free? If you're "free" to kill then is that too free? What about "free" to rob a bank? Normal people would say that these should never be "free" actions. But what about our "freedom" to slander? Or our "freedom" to erase history? Or our "freedom" to cause riots, firings, and uproar by burning our national symbol?

Is it possible that you can reach a state of "freedom" that you're no longer free but now a slave to your security? Meaning that if everyone is just "free" to do whatever, you're always looking over your shoulder. Already we have to watch our speach for fear of being "racist." If you tell a 100% factual story that involves another race or nationality then you're flirting with the ACLU, LULAC, or NAACP. Even white people. This is across the board. We already can't stop criminals because of their "freedom" and "rights." We can't watch them, spy on them, or just follow them because a rapist or a terrorist may feel "infringed upon." We already forgot that 90% of the signers of the Constitution were Christians - not muslims, not deists, not Hindus. We already forgot how many died on 9/11. We've already taken down countless monuments in the name of the Constitution (although mis-interpreted). What about our "freedom" to have a symbol or statue or flag?

You can't measure freedom without something to measure it against. Sounds like double-talk but think about it. How do you know you're free if everyone's free? Do we compare our freedom to China, Iraq, or Korea? Or do we compare our freedom to 1906 or the 40's or 50's? Or do we compare our freedom to our perception of freedom. And does this perception come from selfish desires rather than the betterment and love for our country, countrymen, and existance?

I think you can be TOO free. I think we're flirting with it. Because the day that flag-burning is perfectly ok and a matter of "free speach" is a day that ushers in more divisiveness and disloyalty. A day that breeds evil and fear. What's next? Can we spray paint the WWII Memorial in DC in the name of "free speach?"

I know I rambled a tad. I'd love to spend an hour speaking audibly rather than typing. But if you can make any sense of this, I'm interested.

Are you kidding? The media in all their infinite wisdom decided that a fairly normal medical procedure needed to be broadcast to the world. It's some lady. It's a surgery that tons of people have. No bias there, no. I wonder when the last time is that a pro-war or pro-Bush or a Republican for that matter had a story published about them having their tonsils taken out. Sheehan is some lady that too many people care too much about for NO good reason at all. Assume I did agree with her, aren't there plenty more just like her? Where are their pictures? How come Sharpton isn't taking pictures with them?

Really, ... it's lame. And now I'm even dumber for taking the last 2 minutes to write about it. My bad, I almost got sucked in to the dark side.

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk more than four hundred British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.

At that time the U.S. was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war.

Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not yet attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.

France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers. Germany was certainly not an ally, as Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all of Asia. Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico, as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe. America's only allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia. That was about it.

All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was already under the Nazi heel. America was certainly not prepared for war. America had drastically downgraded most of its military forces after WWI and throughout the depression, so that at the outbreak of WW2, army units were training with broomsticks because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have real tanks. And a huge chunk of our navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor.

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England, that was actually the property of Belgium, given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact). Actually, Belgium surrendered on one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day just to prove they could.

Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering shipping loses and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later, and first turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse, in the late summer of 1940.

Ironically, Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years, until the U.S. got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany. Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow alone... 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a MILLION soldiers.

Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire war effort against the Brits, then America. And the Nazis could possibly have won the war.

All of this is to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. And now, we find ourselves at another one of those key moments in history. There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world.

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs -- they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world. And that all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, and purge
the world of Jews. This is their mantra.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East -- for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation, but it is not known yet which will win -- the Inquisitors, or the Reformationists.

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies. The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC -- not an OPEC dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want the dollar to be worth anything? You better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins. If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. And we can't do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle at a time and place of our choosing........in Iraq.

Not in New York, not in London, or Paris or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we are doing two important things.

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist. Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945 -- a 17 year war -- and was followed by another decade of U.S. occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again ... a 27 year war.

World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP -- adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars. WWII cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.

The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $160 billion, which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 2,200 American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11. But the cost of not fighting and winning WWII would have been unimaginably greater -- a world dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.

Americans have a short attention span, conditioned by 30 second sound bites, 60 minute TV shows, and 2 hour movies in which everything comes out okay. The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain,and sometimes bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be.

The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away if we ignore it.

If the U.S. can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless somebody prevents them.


We have four options:

1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).

3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.

4. Or, we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.

If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today. The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.


Remember, perspective is everything, and America's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.


The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany.

World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the U.S. still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept.

The U.S. has taken more than 2,000 KIA in Iraq. The U.S. took more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In WWII the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week -- for four years. Most of the individual battles of WWII lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far. But the stakes are at least as high ... A world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms ... or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).

It's difficult to understand why the American left does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis. "Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate here in America, where it's safe. Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places that really need peace activism the most?

The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By being denied the facts of our history, students are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reasoning and thinking through the issues of today. They are prime targets for misinformation campaigns beamed at enlisting them in causes and beliefs that are special interest agenda driven.