Monday, August 25, 2014

Our Detached, Narcissistic, Pathological Golfer-in-Chief

Narcissistic personality disorder:

by Mayo Clinic Staff
Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. Those with narcissistic personality disorder believe that they're superior to others and have little regard for other people's feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

Narcissistic personality disorder is one of several types of personality disorders. Personality disorders are conditions in which people have traits that cause them to feel and behave in socially distressing ways, limiting their ability to function in relationships and in other areas of their life, such as work or school.

Narcissistic personality disorder treatment is centered around psychotherapy.

Detached Personality
Filed in Neurosis, Psychoanalysis by Michael Schreiner

The neurotic character traits present in a person who is emotionally detached. What can we surmise about his early childhood experiences? In my work with clients several salient features emerge.  He will almost certainly have grown up in a restrictive environment where absolute control was important to the caregiver. He will have been alternately showered with praise (sometimes more than he deserved given the circumstances) and punished for his shortcomings (also more than the situation warranted). In other words, his relationship towards his primary caregiver will have been characterized by emotions that alternated between the poles of  security and emotional abandonment. Threats of abandonment or being disowned are quite common. There were probably not clearly defined rules, meaning that the caretaker was in a position to find fault with almost any behavior, seemingly at random. A behavior that on one day elicited no response whatsoever would on a subsequent day be grounds for punishment and verbal or physical abuse.

The child learns, among other things, that his emotions are dangerous since he cannot predict when his feelings of comfort, security, and love will be shattered and replaced by ones of fear, despair, and worthlessness. One solution available to a child in such a situation is to distance himself from his emotions.  If we look at the child’s conflict at the deepest level, I believe the central component is the gap between his caregiver’s profession of love towards him and the child’s secret, usually unspoken belief that his caregiver does not love him.  And so the child solves this conflict with the only means available to him.  He refuses to engage in the harmful cycle of emotional abuse, and in the process stops feeling any of his emotions deeply.

Upon this foundation the neurotic detached personality structure is built. He experiences everything in his life from a distance. His idealized self-image will probably be one of the rational philosopher who has little need for what he sees as trifling emotions. He will value his freedom and independence and use all manner of arguments to prove their necessity in anyone’s life.  He will scorn others for their inability to control their emotions while secretly admiring them for their ability to feel deeply. When the emotional thermostat begins to turn up in romantic or friendly relationships he will distance himself, often to the frustration and confusion of his partners.

Pathological Disorders:

Signs Someone May Be a Pathological Liar
by Karen Frazier

Pathological lying, which is also known as compulsive, chronic, or habitual lying, is not a psychological disorder; it has no documented list of symptoms. However, pathological liars may share the following common traits.

Individual Also Suffers from Mental Illness or Personality Disorders
According to Psychology Today, while compulsive lying is not itself a diagnosable mental illness, it often correlates with a number of personality and mental disorders. Pathologically lying is a common symptom in a number of mental health issues, such as borderline personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder.

President Obama is displaying virtually all of these attributes more so now and just as he has in recent years. The world is burning down around him and as Nero distracted himself with minstrels and other pleasures while Rome burned, this President golfs, fund raises, plays pool, hob-knobs with celebrities or vacations every few weeks. He doesn't want to be bothered with the cold realities of a world that does not fit neatly into his Ivy League, social order theorems. This professor is escaping the brutal reality that his entire thesis of how the world should work under the Utopian ideals of socialism and progressive philosophies, isn't working. The man can't bring himself to admit or believe his theories of governance are wrong. This is a place that most dictators eventually come to: Alexander the Great, Bonaparte, Santa Anna, Hitler, to name a few. The dangerous part though is that by the time reality eventually sets in, they have destroyed their countries and countrymen as well as the lives of many others.

This is why Obama is in an extremely dangerous place and is leaving us in one as well. He has abdicated responsibility for our borders, in a complete and total act of negligence of his Constitutional mandate and oath as defender of our republic, and he is timid on attacking our enemies abroad. He reacts too late to an issue after it has festered to a point where he can no longer deny its havoc. Consequently, Obama is perpetually 'a day late and a dollar short' on so many major issues that he has to always play catch up. That is not leadership. That is a little boy chasing after mama's apron string.

As with all dictators, his court of advisers is composed of mostly yes men and women who follow the same, Marxist, originated gospel that he does. Therefore, with nobody to truly challenge his perceptions, he simply reacts to situations and falls back on rhetoric and platitudes as if somehow those were tools that will remake the world to his understanding in some sort of metaphysical way because he has spoken that world into existence. However, when the lacking magic of those words does not reshape the world and simply fall flat or are labeled as lies, then he retreats to his familiar fall back of blaming others for that failure to make manifest what he thinks ought to be. This man would make a stellar TV 'prosperity preacher'!

When cornered with no other options, President Obama takes matters into hands to prove he's right and goes so far as to violate the Constitution and other laws to get his way. He can't bring himself to admit he's been so wrong on so many things. So, he will simply tweak them or shove them around to fit his delusional paradigm. In essence, we have a man in the White House further detaching himself from the reality of how the world really is. The most powerful man in the world arguably, has embraced a form of deception. Even his once stalwart apologists in the national media, themselves masters of the 'half truth', are having to now question this man's logic, alternate reality, and his appearing lack of engagement and empathy.

I don't think I have ever seen the Main "Stink" Media this nervous and perplexed in quite a while. This media made politician they helped create has turned into Frankenstein. Now, they have no clue what do with him as he has left the laboratory. They have begun to turn on their exotic named monster, but he is too strong and agile even for them. Ignoring the slaughter and plight of Christians and Yazidis in Iraq for example, they could support the narrative of non-involvement and the "we're done in Iraq" sentiment. But, when one of their own in the form of the beheading of journalist Jim Foley lands on their computer screens in all of its horror and Radical Islamic glory, it suddenly becomes a different world! It was the only thing that could knock the wall to wall coverage of a dead, young, troubled black man partially off the 24 hour cable news TV screen.

A psychologically crippled professor, crippled as a child by the nightmare dreams of his absent father, is not what the nation needs in time of crisis and war. We need a fighter - a warrior - a stern faced Commander-in-Chief who can lead the nation, our allies and who has the courage to engage in Total War rather than the half-ass wars we have been executing from the time of Vietnam and in its long cast shadow ever since. (I am in no way disparaging the brave service of our men and women in uniform. I am simply stating that they have been mishandled by their leaders for so many years.)

The only antidote to the Islamic State are bullets and bombs administered by the steel nerved airmen and boot and helmet wearing physicians from our military and that of our allies until the last ISIS thug has surrendered or is dead. However, this is a concept that President Obama and many of his predecessors has failed to comprehend. We did not contain the Nazis. Rather, we pound them mercilessly into the dirt. We had generals like Patton who told his troops that they would "grease the axles of our tanks with the guts of those Nazi bastards." Can you imagine the PC crowd uproar if one of our generals dared utter the same thing, replacing Nazi with Radical Muslim Thugs?

To heap insult on insult, we have a Congress that should be the force to stand up to Obama, the megalomaniac bully. Yet, they are always paralyzed by the specter of the next election. Subsequently, they can't make waves as they might not be popular enough for the electorate to keep them hired for another term. The constant bane of this house of fools is, "wait till after the next election." But, just as a child who's always told "maybe next Christmas," we are constantly being denied that which we have begged for, yet are told repeatedly to wait. Look what that waiting has now gotten us from our trusted representatives, especially the Republican leadership. They will not sacrifice their own political jobs for the betterment of the country if needs be. So, by default, the man-child Obama gets his way and urinates on our Constitution and other laws. Of course, the Democrats won't utter anything against their anointed leader either because right or wrong, at least he's their guy. Party loyalty over the benefit of the nation, comes first.

My fellow patriots, I wish I could write some eloquent chorus of high spirited words to you, full of star-spangled glories, comforting stories of old, capped off with a let's go show 'em hurrah. What I will offer you, that is those of you of faith, is to hit your knees like never before and pray to the Lord of Hosts that he might yet inspire, awaken and by His mighty hand protect us. Or, if judgment upon this nation in the form of wave upon wave of terrorist attacks be His allowance, that He at least will protect and provide sustenance for His own. Also, I would add to stock up on bullets and beans fellow patriots, as you may be on your own in the coming challenging days ahead. May God yet show some mercy on our poorly led nation.

Of course, if we do survive to 2016, work those battleground cities and vote only for those with a proven track record for Liberty and loyalty to our Constitution!

Wednesday, July 2, 2014


Is the Declaration of Independence also a "spiritual" or “religious” document per se? I would submit that by taking a close look at the first 2 paragraphs and the last, judging by the references contained therein, the answer is YES! I have highlighted in italics the evidence:


The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

(The last paragraph)
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.


Certainly The Declaration is a legal document as well and the lawyerly, laundry list of tyrannical abuses is evidence of that. And, equally as certain, Mr. Jefferson lifted a significant part of the Declaration of Independence straight from George Mason’s “Virginia Declaration of Rights.” However, it's important to note that the spiritual argument for separation is made FIRST in the document, emphasized by allusions to God. Why?

Kings asserted for centuries that they ruled by "Divine Right" and the Church in Europe largely supported this premise. In fact, Scripture does indicate that God sets up and tears down rulers: Daniel 2:20-22, Psalms 75:7, etc. Consequently, royal rulers of the day felt that their edicts had somewhat of a divine authority behind them. In many cases, these royal elites hid behind the Bible to justify their actions no matter how selfish or unjust. Knowing this, the founders also had to make a spiritual argument themselves for rebellion against King George and the Parliament of Great Britain not just a legal one. Pushing back against Britain’s elitism they asserted an equality of all men as crafted by God! -We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."  –Galatians 3:28 (KJV)

Scripture indicates that there are "natural" laws that God has established for how the universe works and how God's divine authority and judgment flows, if you will. Consider the words of John Locke (1632-1704) who was a Christian philosopher who had a great influence in America. He said:

[T]he Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions must . . . be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God.
[L]aws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made.
Locke, Two Treatises on Government, Bk II sec 135. (quoting Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, 1.iii, § 9 )

In a way, the Founders were arguing that once rulers engage in persistent tyranny, they forfeit their claim of "Divine Right" by also violating the "Divine Rights" of their subjects and violating God's dominion as well. By the Founders insinuating a religious/Biblical argument for separation, this also let the other royal leaders and Churches of Europe and elsewhere know that this was not simply a rebellion of dissatisfied subjects. Rather, this was a casting off of repression by a people who had long suffered injustices at the hands of one who claimed a heaven ordained sovereignty over them. They announced to the world that their rebellion against Mother England was in fact, righteous! - …appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions…

Granted, while not all of the Founding Fathers who signed this document were orthodox Christians in the strict definition of that phrase, I believe however, the larger share were as professed by their own writings and actions. At the very least, they ALL seemed to have a firm grasp of the Judeo-Christian ethos and a functional understanding of both Biblical principles and law as reflected in the sentiments of Scripture.

Ultimately, the radical assertion here is that our rights do not descend from a king, a government or any man for that matter. Instead, they come from on high, from God Himself. -… endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights… That means that no man may at mere whim deprive any citizen of those rights. Man CAN’T take away what God has given. The Bible asserts that "Ultimate Liberty" was purchased in blood by God in the flesh, Himself. (Galatians 5:1)

I would urge all of my fellow patriots during this 4th of July holiday to reflect on the source of our rights and liberties regardless of your professed faith or lack thereof. To recognize that our precious freedoms are not granted by flawed governments of man and so called rulers or elites, but that our rights and liberties are OURS, inherent the moment we take our first, miracle, infused breath.

Happy 4th of July!

Richie L.

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Putting Government Monitors In Newsrooms?

This story hit on the morning of the 19th of Feb. This should send chills up the spine of anyone involved in media, progressive or conservative. And, after the chill subsides, searing hot anger should travel its way up the nerve bundles to the brain...

Why is the Obama Administration Putting Government Monitors in Newsrooms?

By Matthew Clark /

Full story here:

The Obama Administration’s Federal Communication Commission (FCC) is poised to place government monitors in newsrooms across the country in an absurdly draconian attempt to intimidate and control the media.

Before you dismiss this assertion as utterly preposterous (we all know how that turned out when the Tea Party complained that it was being targeted by the IRS), this bombshell of an accusation comes from an actual FCC Commissioner.

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai reveals a brand new Obama Administration program that he fears could be used in “pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.”

As Commissioner Pai explains in the Wall Street Journal:

Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.

The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about "the process by which stories are selected" and how often stations cover "critical information needs," along with "perceived station bias" and "perceived responsiveness to underserved populations."

In fact, the FCC is now expanding the bounds of regulatory powers to include newspapers, which it has absolutely no authority over, in its new government monitoring program.

The FCC has apparently already selected eight categories of “critical information” “that it believes local newscasters should cover.”

That’s right, the Obama Administration has developed a formula of what it believes the free press should cover, and it is going to send government monitors into newsrooms across America to stand over the shoulders of the press as they make editorial decisions.

This poses a monumental danger to constitutionally protected free speech and freedom of the press.

Every major repressive regime of the modern era has begun with an attempt to control and intimidate the press.

(

This is insidious. But, not surprising given the audacity of this administration to rule like a dictatorial regime. The implications of this are potentially broad.

I have several years of broadcast experience in TV and radio, especially radio. Most radio "News Stations," i. e. news/talk format stations, broadcast the usual rotation of local and national talkers of the Conservative vain, in most cases. I believe this is a backdoor way of imposing the fairness doctrine. It's also an attempt to curtail or stifle administration and Obama critics at the source. This proposal even extends to news papers which are not under the jurisdiction of the FCC! Nevertheless, the Administration feels the need to peak over the shoulders of editors, reporters. commentators, news writers, etc. Why? Perhaps, to better control their narrative and maintain the spin and propaganda.

However, the original mission of the FCC was not to monitor or regulate content, except that which is overtly profane. Their original mission was more technical in nature such as making sure stations didn't trample each others signals and telephone companies didn't illegally hijack each others cable systems, etc. Since then, the FCC has expanded its powers into many areas of minutia regarding broadcasting and electronics. Now this?

It's up to Congress to pull back on the FCC's leash since they are the ones who gave birth to this yard dog ( 47 U.S.C. § 151 and 47 U.S.C. § 154) regardless of any executive orders Obama may choose to give. If this scheme comes to fruition, everyone needs to write their Congressman and Senator. Every media outlet affected by this needs to file legal suits. The FCC is quickly on its way to becoming a rogue agency.

The Administration is on the verge of being rogue as well. Some may argue with merit that it already is.

Quote: "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." -Abraham Lincoln

Richie L.

Thursday, February 13, 2014

Happy Birthday Mr. Lincoln

Abe Lincoln's birthday was yesterday. Many celebrated the 16th President of the United States with quotes and accolades. Interestingly enough, his legacy still stirs controversy for some. No doubt, he was probably the most complex figure our Civil War produced. I saw social network comments and posts filled with praises. I have also seen many filled with disdain. I read one Facebook post in particular which referred to him as a dirt bag and traitor. Another posted things I won't repeat. I find it fascinating and yet disturbing that after 150 years and several generations later, our nation is still somewhat divided in opinion over the man.

It's perhaps more troubling that our nation is once again divided politically, though for mostly different reasons. However, the "States Rights" issue is still very present and a rather prominent part of political dialogue even today. While I think virtually all would agree that the South was dead wrong on slavery, ironically many across the nation would quickly state they did have some fair points on the States Rights vs. a strong central government issue. A greater irony is that the party who nominated Lincoln, the Republicans, on the surface had no problem with a more powerful Federal government if it helped abolish slavery. On the other hand, most Democrats were skeptical of a bigger more centralized government. Now, those sentiments have reversed with modern Republicans mostly wanting a more limited Federal government and the Dems wanting it more expansive.

As a student of the American Civil War, I find that in many ways it was a war of ironies. Lincoln initially was for limiting the expansion of slavery, but not its immediate abolition though he privately detested it. He also held that blacks were inferior to whites and there was no way they could live together in harmony. Conversely, Robert E. Lee, for example, wanted to free the slaves he inherited from his father-in-law, but suspecting Lee would do just that, he made Lee swear to keep them on as slaves after his death. Robert E. Lee also said that he “…could foresee no greater calamity for our nation than the dissolution of the Union." Nevertheless, and perhaps reluctantly, he went on to defend both secession and the continuance of slavery. Towards the end of the war, General Lee even encouraged the Confederate Congress to draft blacks into the Confederate Army insisting they were as good of soldiers as whites. He told the Congress in Richmond that "You must decide if they will fight for you or against you." In fact, early in the war after the battle of Antietam, in 1862, General Lee personally presented commendation to a Louisiana regiment, largely made up of Creoles and freed blacks, for saving his army during its retreat!

Many Northern officers and soldiers owned slaves especially in states like Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware. In reality, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, only applied to the states in rebellion, not the states still loyal to the Union which the fore mentioned were. Many Southerners decried that act by Lincoln. Yet, in Feb. of 1864, the Confederate state of Arkansas outlawed slavery on its own! There were Confederate Soldiers who deserted by the droves who complained, "Rich man's war, poor man's fight." as they felt they were simply pawns being used by Southern aristocrats to shield their property. They also resented that slave owners were largely exempt from the Confederate military draft. Likewise, after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, several Union Regiments of the Army of the Potomac, nearly to a man, walked out of the camp at Falmouth, Virginia, never to return. One Union Regiment, the 128th Illinois, had 700 men desert who declared, "We'd rather lay down in the woods til’ moss grows on our backs than lift a finger fighting to free one single ni**er."

For a time during his presidency, Lincoln struggled with issues of equality and freedom for blacks. After meeting and talking extensively with freed men like Frederick Douglas, Lincoln's rather racist views towards Blacks began to soften. So, it's clear that the times in which Abraham Lincoln was President were themselves full of turmoil and confusion. I'm sure that the hand of divine providence picked the right man for the hour in that lanky rail splitter from Kentucky. Civil War Historian, Bruce Catton said, "...something that went beyond words had been at work in the land. The Almighty had His own purposes." It was certainly a more horrible time than the most tragic, ancient Greek playwright could ever have dreamed up. Yet, somehow we survived it.

However, before you smother Ol’ Abe in stories of his ‘aw shucks’ kindness and honesty, or before you label him the neurotic "Great Divider," I would encourage all to do their own research and candidly look at the life and times of the man. You may just discover some things you never knew.

When we fail to learn accurately form history, we are destined to repeat it. Happy Birthday Mr. Lincoln.

"Now he belongs to the ages." –Edwin M, Stanton

Thursday, December 19, 2013

A&E Suspension of Duck Dynasty Star Phil Robertson

My Thoughts on A&E Suspending Phil Robertson...

Aside from the silliness of A&E putting Phil Robertson in time out like he's a mis-behaving 5 year old, I find this whole thing rather curious. Phil recently released his book "Happy, Happy, Happy" and he didn't hold back on a lot of controversial topics including matters the Bible addresses as sin. A&E network chiefs had no qualms then. Perhaps they assumed Southern Rednecks don’t read books and D. C. to New York elites won’t touch anything with ‘camo’ on it. But, when Pa-Paw Phil answers a question from a GQ reporter bluntly and in accordance to his Biblical beliefs, even quoting verses from the New Testament, suddenly A&E gets weak in the knees. This is glaring inconsistency on their part. Certainly they have a right as a business to do what they feel is best for their brand, Nevertheless, they knew full and well who and what the Robertson clan was all about when they signed them up.

In Phil's book, he made it clear that they told A&E execs that prayer, Bible and Christian points of view were going to be part of the show. A&E agreed to those terms and even ceded much creative control to the family regarding the series. Now this???

So, I have to conclude that A&E is all good with God and the Bible when it suits their agenda and business needs. But, when it doesn't, put a Lady GaGa meat dress on the Christians and open the lion cages. Typical, elitist, media hypocrisy in a wretched guise they fraudulently label as 'tolerance.'

Love him or hate him, at least Phil was consistent; A&E wasn't. However, after looking at A&E's Facebook page, they are the ones who are getting bit the hardest.

Richie L.

Monday, November 11, 2013

The U. S. Military Veteran

Who is the US military veteran? He or she is a rather unique individual. Some were called up, drafted, some volunteered. Many, if they are honest did not want to go to war or take on a military career, but they knew they had too. It was their duty and they were willing to do it. Most all hated war. But, they loved their country.

They endured weeks of basic training, undoing all of the comforts, and privileges of a free society. They endured constant yelling and insults from drill sergeants, meals eaten in 5 minutes or less, awkward uniforms, sounds, roars and smells, aches in places they never knew could ache and the deepest pain of all, homesickness. But, they became lean mean fighting machines. They found themselves in perhaps, the greatest army the world has ever known.

Fresh out of Basic, often they were packed off to serve and fight in places with strange exotic names; places they never heard of like Iwo Jima, Anzio, Seoul, Da Nang, Kuwait, Fallujah, Kandahar. They would endure soaking rains, bitter cold, scorching desert heat, grit, poor sanitation. They would encounter numerous constant enemies, enemies such as flies, mosquitoes, gnats and diarrhea. They would eat meals, usually cold, from cans, plastic containers, with a side dish of stale crackers, all washed down with lukewarm water from a canteen that had probably seen better days.

For a few months to a few years, their lives were 10 percent sheer terror and 90 percent tedious boredom. They might receive one letter for every ten they wrote back home. Their letters were laced with pride in their unit, contempt for many of their officers, self doubt, jokes and longing for home and loved ones. They obeyed orders that seemed senseless and accepted battle plans that often seemed futile and tragically, sometimes were. They witnessed horrors too terrible to ever utter; things that human souls were never designed by their Creator to witness. They became cursed to re-live those nightmares over and over in the many years later in those sleepless, thousand hour nights when the demons of war come to ply their worst torment and cause the vet to question why it wasn't them who died instead of their comrade. It's an eternal question that only the God of Eternity can answer. Some lose a limb, some lose sanity. Most combat vets lost something.

They complete their duty and return back to so called normal life with its unique brand of stresses, demands, responsibilities, the kids, the spouse, the in-laws, taxes and the mortgage. They are rarely thanked, rarely recognized for what they did and life goes on. You'll probably pass one of these unique creatures on the street and never know it. They don't wear ribbons or special name tags to inform you. You might even work with one or live next door to one. They fought or served for your freedoms, for your security, your way of life. The only give away may be the fact they are always the one on the block flying the American flag for every little holiday. Yes, that guy or gal that causes the neighborhood association captain to wince.

So, if it's not too much trouble, take a little time out this Veteran's Day to thank a U. S. Service Vet if you have the privilege of knowing one. Shake their hand, buy them a meal, or hire one. But, at the very least, look them straight in the eye and say, "Thank you for your service to our country." You'd be surprised how many have yet to hear those words spoken sincerely. God bless our Vets. Happy Veteran's Day.

Saturday, September 29, 2012

The Terrorists Are Winning.

Osama Bin Laden is dead. Most of the higher ups of Al Qaida are dead or in 'Gitmo.' The war on terror is all but over and we've won...right?

Our US Consulate compound in Benghazi Libya was torched, hit with RPG's and mortars and 4 Americans are dead. Now it's finally being called a terror attack which anybody with an IQ above a Russet Potato already knew. Obviously, the war on "Terror" i. e. Islamic extreme-ism is far from over. Our government blamed a film initially. the radicals in the Middle East blamed a film and many of our own media blamed a film. We even arrested the guy alleged to have made the film who was really arrested for parole violation... nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Oh, and let's not forget the vociferous apologies from our Heads of State and the President for the hurt feelings caused by the film. Because, we all know that in the "Age of Oprah and Dr. Drew," the highest form of crime against humanity is to hurt somebody's feelings.

The UN is now considering making it a crime to offend a person or group via "blasphemy against religion" laws!

So, we blame some fool here and not the evil terrorists. What a cop out.

I think most anyone with a sliver of decency in their soul who has seen the film trailer in question, would call it tripe. By the way, I noticed that it actually poked a little fun at Christians and perhaps Glenn Beck, in the first few scenes. Interestingly enough, that has been conveniently left out of most all dialogue about this video...hmmmmm. Regardless, the film maker had every Constitutional right to make it and post it online.

People post insults about other's faiths online daily. Big deal. When it comes to the rudeness and crassness of many folks on the internet, you'd better have your big boy and big girl undies' on. It can be rough and tumble as people who would never say certain things to another face-to-face, feel no trepidation at making insulting, asinine and nasty comments while skulking behind a smart phone or computer screen.

But, here is where I'm very troubled as one who loves liberty. You see, terrorism is a "head game" played on the living, not those who are it's mortal victims. These terrorists have stabbed at the heart of our liberty; our 1st Amendment, Bill of Rights and more. And, they know it!

For example:

When we allow the TSA at airports to feel us up and look at our private places on our bodies for the sake of safety, the terrorists are winning.

When our military court plays a back and forth game with Ft. Hood terrorist Nadal Hasan over his beard, the terrorists are winning

When we arrest a man for making a bad, tasteless comedy, the terrorists are winning.

When our ambassador to the UN says the unrest in the Muslim World is because of a movie, the terrorists are winning.

When the black flag of Islam flies over our embassy in Cairo, after everyone else that was there skee-dadled, the terrorists are winning

When we boldly pin the deaths of American embassy personnel on a movie, the terrorists are winning.

When our President feels compelled to ask Youtube to review their policies on postings, apologize for a film and give a lecture about the First Amendment to a bunch of people at the UN who hate our Constitution anyway, the terrorists are winning.
When Muslims in this country as a community fail to speak out against the violence in the Mid-East, the terrorists are winning. For the record, most Muslims I have known are kindly, humble folks.

When American radio and TV stations crack down on anybody saying anything critical of the Islamic faith, perhaps for fear of being violently attacked, picketed or sued, the terrorists are winning.

When it's acceptable to trash any other faith except the Muslim faith, the terrorists are winning.

These Islamic radicals are not simply attacking our sky scrapers, military personnel or embassies, they're attacking our freedoms. This is by design. They don't like our freedoms and liberties. They don't want our type of democratic republic. They want socialistic, theocratic government in the skin of a democracy. Look what they have already established in Egypt and Iran and elsewhere.

In simple terms, we are coughing up liberties out of fear. Apparently,  these are liberties we are not willing to take lumps over or die for. I'm sure glad our Founders didn't feel that way. But, here we are, afraid to tell people half way around the world to grow up and join the 21st Century and hold them accountable for THEIR actions. Can we really value liberties we aren't willing to stand and defend...with our lives if needs be? It seems not.

And for now, the terrorists are winning.