Sen. Obama has a hawkishness deficit because of his anti-war positions. Now he’s trying his best to erase that deficit. Whether he succeeds with that remains to be seen. One thing that I’m fairly certain of is that he won’t appear presidential if he insists on raiding Pakistan:

Obama has been careful to fortify these images with words: On Sunday, the Illinois senator urged the Bush administration to move more troops into Afghanistan as soon as possible during an appearance on “Face The Nation.” He also reiterated his willingness to authorize unilateral U.S. action against terrorist targets in Pakistan’s tribal areas if the Pakistani government will not act.

The easiest way to give terrorists control of a nuclear nation is to invade Pakistan. That alone will topple the Pakistani government and put it into the hands of people charitably described as sympathetic to the Taliban and al-Qa’ida. I don’t doubt that Sen. Obama thinks that this makes him look macho. The reality is that this attack policy is risky, carrying too little reward and too much potential danger. (continue reading post »)

THE FOUNDATION

“I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see that the end is worth more than all the means…” —John Adams

Remember our troops. Honor the fallen.
God bless the U.S. military.

PUBLISHER’S NOTE

Memorial Day is reserved by American Patriots as a day to honor the service and sacrifice of fallen men and women who donned our Armed Forces uniforms with honor. We at The Patriot pay our humble respects to those that gave the ultimate sacrifice as members of the United States Armed Forces. We will remember you always.

Accordingly, this tribute is in honor of our fallen American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coastguardsmen.

Please join Patriots honoring Memorial Day across our great nation on Monday by observing a moment of silence at 1500 local time for remembrance and prayer. Flags should be flown at half-staff until noon, local time. Please give a personal word of gratitude and comfort to surviving family members who grieve for a beloved warrior fallen in battlefields defending our cherished liberties.

INSIGHT

“[L]et us solemnly remember the sacrifices of all those who fought so valiantly, on the seas, in the air, and on foreign shores, to preserve our heritage of freedom, and let us re-consecrate ourselves to the task of promoting an enduring peace so that their efforts shall not have been in vain.” —Dwight Eisenhower

“No man can sit down and withhold his hands from the warfare against wrong and get peace from his acquiescence.” —Woodrow Wilson

“Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.” —Sir Winston Churchill

“The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.” —Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson (continue reading post »)

American Anthem

All we’ve been given by those who came before:
the dream of a nation where freedom would endure.
The work and prayers of centuries have brought us to this day.
What shall be our legacy? What will our children say?
Let them say of me I was one who believed in sharing the blessings I received.
Let me know in my heart when my days are through,
America, America, I gave my best to you.

Each generation from the plains to distant shore
with the gifts that they were given were determined to leave more.
Valiant battles fought together, acts of conscience fought alone.
Those are the seeds from which America has grown.
Let them say of me I was one who believed in sharing the blessings I received.
Let me know in my heart when my days are through,
America, America, I gave my best to you.

For those who think they have nothing to share,
who fear in their hearts there is no hero there,
know that quiet acts of dignity are that
which fortifies the soul of a generation that never dies.
Let them say of me I was one who believed in sharing the blessings I received.
Let me know in my heart when my days are through:
America, America, I gave my best to you.

Veritas vos Liberabit—Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for The Patriot’s editors and staff. (Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families—especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.) www.patriotpost.us

Every time Memorial Day and Veterans Day comes around my mind goes to the many times I’ve attended parades and special observances put on by the cities in our area and the various veterans organizations. Several of those times my husband, Duane, participated in parades and events as a candidate for U.S. Congress. As a decorated Vietnam Vet he always received a warm welcome, well, except for a couple of the very left-coast towns.

When our sons were growing up we would get out the picture albums of Duane’s time in the Army, talk about why we observed these holidays in America, and after dinner, which was usually a bar-be-que, we’d sit down and watch a movie or documentary about one of the wars our Armed Forces have fought in.

Some will think that what we did was indoctrinate our sons in a pro-war mindset. But, actually we were educating them in the realities of war. We wanted to instill in them an appreciation for those who laid their lives on the line to protect the rest of us, and the freedoms we enjoy. We also wanted to make sure they had no romantic ideas about war, as young boys can have. If the time ever came for them to go to war it would be with their eyes wide open and the cost counted.

There is no glamour in war. War is hell on earth. But, even the Bible states that there is a time for peace and a time for war. This is, unfortunately, part of life on planet earth. While we debate, and work and pray for peace, wars still rage.

While I understand the reasons some choose a passivist position, passivity never brings peace. It only allows the rule of aggressive, totalitarian governments and leaders.

So, until the earth’s weapons are turned into plowshares, let us honor the brave men and women who have served and died on behalf of our country, on behalf of freedom.

I mean, really honor them, not just in sentiment, but with action. (continue reading post »)

After posting these (1, 2) previous essays on the Democrat Party’s racist infamy, I received several more inquiries about their subatomic contributions toward civil rights. I hope to now answer those last questions.

While Democrats have changed their tactics, cosmetics, and geography since 1792, their perpetual expectation of black inferiority (and presumed racial superiority) remains the same today as it did in 1808 and 1908. A few quick examples:

1. Democrats who insisted that blacks were too stupid to hire in 1908 now use affirmative action to compensate for that same presumed racial inferiority.
2. Hate crime legislation implies that blacks who murder blacks deserve a lesser sentence than whites who (rarely) murder blacks.
3. Democrats who think black mothers have the right to kill their unborn babies are too stupid to manage school vouchers.
4. Democrats who support gun control presume that law-abiding blacks are too stupid, dangerous, and irresponsible to carry concealed firearms in crime-ridden cities where gang members regularly carry and use concealed firearms.

In 1808, blacks who sought freedom were beaten and murdered by Democrats, while Republicans established and operated the Underground Railroad.

In 1908, free blacks who embraced the Republican Party risked the terror and murder wrought by the KKK.

Because Republicans forced Democrats to end lynching and Jim Crow, free blacks are still demonized today in the form of Oreos, epithets, and social alienation. While this may seem like harmless fun to good ol’ boy Democrats, the stigma associated with personal achievement still cripples blacks who choose failure, mediocrity, and poverty to retain their black authenticity.

Unlike the black, white, rich, poor, gay, Christian, secular and Jewish Republicans who view and accept themselves as Party equals, Barack Obama affiliates himself with Trinity not because of Jeremiah Wright’s spiritual coherence, but to secure the “black authenticity” he needs to get other Democrats to accept him. But while Obama’s political choices are comparatively harmless, the fact that millions of black students still fail in school, or that black adults vote Democrat, to avoid the appearance of “looking white,” is a derivative of the black inferiority that Democrats have continuously promoted since 1792.

Self-depreciating minstrel shows that entertained Democrats 100 years ago have been replaced by gangsta rappers today and condescended to as the free expression of urban genius.

This political cynicism isn’t confined to black Americans either. Gay men who support and celebrate the freedoms established by the Republican Party are vilified and alienated by Democrats as self-loathing gays. Republicans bristle at lewd celebrations not because they’re homophobic as Democrats accuse, but for the same reason that San Francisco residents would oppose public heterosexual expressions by Richard or Lynne Cheney.

Although most Americans still oppose gay marriage, the Democrat Party promotes it as a civil rights issue; not because they believe rectal intercourse and fisting is healthy for America, but because they need ANYTHING to build upon their counterfeit human rights record to win votes.

The Democrat Party’s institutionalized sympathizers (public education, universities, and the media) have successfully sold their uninterrupted political contempt for blacks as a racial issue 1) by blaming ALL whites for the exclusive and well-documented sins of the Democrat Party and 2) by bestowing a false sense of racial innocence to those who embrace the Democrat Party and their (anti-) civil rights record. This historical perversion is what leads people like Barack Obama to ridicule his grandmother as a typical white person instead of blaming her for being the committed Democrat she always was.

Both essays (1, 2) illustrate that, since their party’s inception, 1) Republicans have been consistently preoccupied with freedom and empowerment for all Americans equally, while Democrats have been preoccupied with black inferiority, subjugation, and exploitation. In light of their history, further niggling about the synthetic or accidental contributions that Democrats made toward civil rights is an unproductive exercise in futility unworthy of anyone’s time.

Related essays:

An Offer of Proof (2006)
Challenging an Unreasonable Doubt (2008)

Two years ago, a liberal friend of mine told me that Republicans had introduced slavery, Jim Crow, and the KKK to the United States, and that Democrats had always been champions of civil rights for Black Americans. Another friend, a successful physician, expressed surprise when I told him that Abraham Lincoln the first Republican president.

A few weeks later, I wrote this essay to illustrate how our public schools and media had successfully reinvented American history. It remains one of my most satisfying essays and one that still generates controversy.

Although I don’t ordinarily respond to Daily Kos moonbats, Brian penned this somewhat coherent response:

Phooey.

FDR, a Democrat, started efforts to end Jim Crow against the pressures of his own Party. Truman, a Democrat, desegregated the military by executive order against the wishes of Democrats AND Republicans in Congress. (Many associate this action with the Civil Rights banner being carried by the Democratic Party and the long association of the black community with Democratic Politics.)

JFK inspired a generation of civil rights activists. (Of course, there was Hoover’s investigations of civil rights activists, but go ahead, link Hoover to anyone but himself!)

LBJ signs the Civil Rights Act — which admittedly was opposed by many Southern Democrats. However, northern and Western Democrats, along with Republicans — the minority party — pushed it through Congress. (The GOP may want to say they did the CRA on their own, but the math wouldn’t let it happen.) LBJ championed the CRA and when signing it into law acknowledged that he “lost the South for the Democrats for at least a generation.”

Brian sucked Mike in as well, who suffers from what one psychiatrist calls Bush Derangement Syndrome. I decided to respond with something more formal before others got too confused. While Brian raises some good questions, I’ve sourced my answers.

FDR’s efforts began ninety years AFTER Republicans started them. Until the mid-1960s the overwhelming majority of Democrats who supported Civil Rights JOINED the Republican Party. The Solid South didn’t permit such “riff-raff.”

FDR’s effort to end military desegregation began in 1941 when socialist labor leader Philip Randolph began to organize black workers into a social and political force.

Although WWII demonstrated the need to enlist and integrate blacks, Democrats who controlled Congress throughout FDR’s presidency (1932-1945) ignored efforts to end segregation until Republicans gained the majority in 1947 – a year that coincided with Truman’s first presidential campaign.

When Truman’s Committee on Civil Rights recommended the end of segregation, Randolph threatened to organize mass civil disobedience unless the military services were immediately desegregated and Jim Crow laws ended. His appearance upset Democrat committee members like Richard Russell (D-GA), whose political careers were tied to segregation.

Truman tossed bones like Universal Military Training (UMT), but Congress rejected amendments by Republicans Jacob Javits and Adam Powell to desegregate the military and Truman signed it, allowing segregation to continue.

In 1948, Truman issued Executive Order 9981 which, on paper, required equal opportunity for black servicemen. A year later, Truman’s Armed Services Committee agreed that equal opportunity did not necessarily mean desegregate and, in their final report, recommended segregation to continue.

The Korean War finally began the end of segregation. In 1953, NAACP administrator Roy Wilkins reported that integration had begun around the fringes, although there was still no large scale changeover in the US. But in August 1954, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower ordered the end of segregation to be eliminated within a matter of months.

By the end of his presidency in 1961, Eisenhower had signed two civil rights bills and had successfully desegregated the military, years before LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA).

LBJ’s action destroyed the Solid South, which rebelled by shifting their vote to Goldwater.

Brian writes that the new, conservative Republican Party began to creep into the realm of the racist South, suggesting the Republicans embraced the entrenched bigotry of the South. Clearly, the opposite was true. Republicans don’t care how many angry bigoted ex-Democrats vote Republican. Why refuse their votes?

Brian’s insinuation that “the shift” changed the Republican support for civil rights is pap.

In 1948, the Solid South secured 98 percent of the vote by threats, terror, and intimidation. Although a lifelong supporter of civil rights, Goldwater goofed when he opposed the CRA for believing that it “exceeded the Constitutional powers of Congress.” Lifelong segregationists switched their support and the Democrats have celebrated black gullibility and white guilt ever since.

But for a moment, think about the lifelong Democrats of 1964: Was it really possible that Democrats like George Wallace, who defended segregation and Jim Crow for half a century, would support civil rights for the same blacks he hated the previous week?

Not a chance.

Not only did Los Angeles and New York City Democrats support segregation throughout the 1950s and 1960s, they also secured control of the two largest public school districts in the nation (LA & NYC).

If George Wallace, who hated black children in 1963, was suddenly given control of their school districts in 1964, what kind of education could we expect those children to receive by 1965, 1985, or 2005?

Is it really a coincidence that LA and NYC school unions, teachers, and bureaucrats are overwhelmingly Democrat? The fact that half of all black students in the 9th grade today won’t graduate high school would make Democrats like George Wallace very proud, which might also explain why Democrats like Brian and Mike are so confused.

The notion that the people who created, supported, and defended civil rights since 1854 would suddenly embrace bigotry is as preposterous as believing that the lifelong supporters of hate would suddenly find love for black Americans.

History speaks much louder than propaganda.

I’m old enough that I remember Martin Luther King. I read about him in the newspapers. I saw him on television. I heard his “Dream” speech. I wept when he was murdered.

I have no patience for those who claim that America is just as racist as it was in years gone by. I remember those days. I remember federal troops in Little Rock. I remember Gov. George Wallace blocking the school door. I remember Sheriff “Bull” Conner and the fire hoses being turned on marchers in Birmingham. I remember the Freedom Riders. I remember separate drinking fountains and “white only” signs. I remember the fear. I remember the hate.

But mostly, I remember the sound of a Georgia preacher’s voice calling out. I remember him calling out, not just to his followers, but to his enemies as well. He told us that we were better men and women and that hate and fear shouldn’t divide us. He reminded is that we were all one people, regardless of skin color or religion.

That voice was heard. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act became the law of the land with the support of more than 80% of the Republicans in Congress and slightly more than 60% of the Democrats (among those opposing the measure were Klansman Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Al Gore’s late father who was a senator from Tennessee).

Those were heady days. Then the dream started to sour. Government programs aimed at aiding African Americans ended up causing mortal harm. The welfare structure effectively destroyed the black family structure. Other program, such as affirmative action, conveyed the message to both African Americans and others that blacks were incapable of competing. Some claimed it was needed to fight vestiges of racism against minorities, while completely ignoring the success of Asian Americans, some of whom in modern times faced incarceration solely based on their ethnicity.

Whatever the intent, the effect was to make African Americans dependent upon government largess and intervention rather than encouraging their own genius. (continue reading post »)

The Thanksgiving holiday has passed and now we move into the celebration of the Christmas holiday season.

With it will come the usual litany of criticisms against the Christian connections associated with this time of year. They will be repeated like the repertoire of a pull-string talking doll.

I am well aware of the pagan traditions behind numerous aspects of Christmas, such as, the Christmas tree, the significance of the date December 25th, and numerous other objections that contentious folks may want to throw out there, thinking they are providing arcane information.
But my argument heads in a different direction.

Three renown leaders of the neo-skeptical/atheist movement, have written tomes in the past year or so, reviving old canards about belief in The Almighty being tantamount to belief in Zeus, Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny or The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are the new triumvirate representing the Village Atheist nation, in their contemporary battle against the “superstitious” throes of Christianity.

Since Christmas is less than a month away, let’s look at the comparison with Santa Claus and the Almighty. Without getting into a lengthy analysis, we might quickly observe one obvious distinction: Most people quit believing in Santa Claus in their childhood, while some people profess a belief in God for the first time in adulthood.

I am sure they will say that there is no need to offer such a rebuttal because nobody actually believes in Santa. But we should keep in mind the following: (continue reading post »)

Today marks the 232nd birthday of the United States Marine Corps. Please join us as we recognize and pay respect to the brave men and women who continue to protect and serve our country.

Not to mention, we admire their sense of humor in the face of danger. Reader Ted S. emails:

“If a Muslim sees a naked woman
they are supposed to kill themselves.
Ya got to love the Marines.”

God bless America, and our U.S. military!

RELATED: Happy Birthday, USMC!

President Nicolas Sarkozy’s stirring speech is the ultimate refutation of the Democrats’ mantra about needing to elect Democrats so Americans can be respected in the world again. Here’s an example of Sarkozy’s enthusiastic endorsement of America:

Friends may have differences; they may have disagreements; they may have disputes.

But in times of difficulty, in times of hardship, friends stand together, side by side; they support each other; and help one another.

In times of difficulty, in times of hardship, America and France have always stood side by side, supported one another, helped one another, fought for each other’s freedom.

The United States and France remain true to the memory of their common history, true to the blood spilled by their children in common battles. But they are not true merely to the memory of what they accomplished together in the past. They remain true, first and foremost, to the same ideal, the same principles, the same values that have always united them.

That isn’t the sound of a foreign leader dissing the United States. That’s the sound of an unabashed friend of the United States. Nicolas Sarkozy isn’t as steadfast an ally of George Bush’s as Tony Blair was but it’s close. President Sarkozy’s mentions of sharing the same ideals, principles and values speaks volumes to his indifference to Jacques Chirac’s elitism. (continue reading post »)