Not A Distraction, But The Front Line Dadmanly: "Those predisposed to view the war in Iraq as a distraction from the War on Terror ... neglect and ignore any fact or event that refutes their prejudices.
...
"And to those who want to suggest that our efforts in Iraq have fomented all this hatred, history and actual events forcefully refute this foolish assessment. The Rasputins behind Militant Islam declared war on the west, the U.S. pre-eiminently, long before we set foot in Iraq. They waged war against us long before 9/11.
...
"The courageous now free citizens of Iraq share common cause with the Coalition for the time preserving their emergent Democracy. And they now share the risk of standing prominently against the terrorists, which of course makes them a target.
"That's what happens when you're on the front lines."

Read all the evidence for his position here: Iraqis on the Front Lines  ¶ Friday, July 22, 2005 0 comments

  Insatiable Evil "The London bombings have occasioned many comparisons with the 1940 Blitz. This is usually cited as evidence of British fortitude -- the attitude exemplified by cockneys in the heavily bombed East End who told Winston Churchill, "We can take it, but give it 'em back."

Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations, who I've cited before, says that evil always wants more. There can be no appeasement of evil, there can be no compromise, there can be no peaceful coexistence.

Boot continues, "The BBC now refuses to refer to the London terrorists as "terrorists." They are to be known by the more neutral term "bombers," lest the public be deceived by "the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments." Value judgments about blowing up innocent commuters? How gauche!
"Enlightened opinion ranging from Amnesty International to Dick Durbin joins in this moral relativism by suggesting that the United States has become no better than its enemies through the actions it has taken to prevent terrorism. Just as 1940s pacifists could see no difference between Nazi concentration camps and British wartime curtailments of civil liberties, so today's doppelgangers equate the abuses of renegade guards at Abu Ghraib with the mass murder carried out by Stalin or Pol Pot."

"The implication [by those on the left who say we need to "understand" the terrorists or that we bring their wrath upon ourselves] is that Al Qaeda has reasonable grievances and if only we could satisfy them ... we would have peace. The same thing was said about Hitler, who complained that Germany had been wronged by the Treaty of Versailles.
"The problem was that Hitler's stated demands were a pretext for his maniacal ambitions. He was unappeasable. So is Osama bin Laden, ... who dreams of establishing a Taliban-style caliphate over all the lands once dominated by Muslims, from western China to southern Spain.

[George] Orwell's words, written in October 1941, ring true today: "The notion that you can somehow defeat violence by submitting to it is simply a flight from fact. ... it is only possible to people who have money and guns between themselves and reality."  ¶ Friday, July 22, 2005 0 comments

  OK, Maybe He Doesn't Get It A week and a half ago I was singing the praises of London Mayor Ken Livingstone. I thought his statements following the Muslim jihadists attacks on July 7th were made by someone with his head screwed on straight and a sensible world view. Now there's strong evidence I may have misplaced my endorsement.

Known as "Red Ken" in England for his radical liberal left-wing views, Livingstone has said things like Britain's treatment of the Irish over the last 800 years was been worse than Hitler's treatment of the Jews. He also compared a Jewish reporter to Nazi concentration camp guards and said Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is a war criminal.

Now Ken seems to be taking his cue from Michael Moore and the "Blame America First" crowd. When asked for his views on what may have motivated the terrorists who killed more than 50 Londoners two weeks ago, Livingstone said, "We created these people. We built them up. We funded them."

"You've just had 80 years of Western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of a Western need for oil. We've propped up unsavoury governments, we've overthrown ones that we didn't consider sympathetic."

"If you have been under foreign occupation, and denied the right to vote, denied the right to run your own affairs, often denied the right to work, for three generations," Livingstone said referring to the Israel/Palestine issue, "I suspect if it had happened here in England, we would have produced a lot of suicide bombers ourselves."

Livingstone's comments seem to show his sympathy with Muslim extremists and militants like Anjem Choudary who said, "...the real terrorists are the British regime, and even the British police ... I cannot envisage that any practising Muslim would sit with the Government, especially with the blood that they have on their hands and the atrocious foreign policy they have and the aggression they are committing against the Muslim community in Britain."

Maybe I was too quick to say Livingstone "gets it."

The Men Who Blame Britain - Telegraph  ¶ Wednesday, July 20, 2005 1 comments

  What A Comeback The Arizona Republic, Letter to the Editor - 23 June 2005
"A Wake-Up Call from Luke's Jets"
Question of the day for Luke Air Force Base: Whom do we thank for the morning air show?
Last Wednesday, at precisely 9:11 a.m., a tight formation of four F-16 jets made a low pass over Arrowhead Mall, continuing west over Bell Road at approximately 500 feet. Imagine our good fortune!
Do the Tom Cruise-wannabes feel we need this wake-up call, or were they trying to impress the cashiers at Mervyns' early-bird special? Any response would be appreciated.
- Tom MacRae, Peoria

Well, Mr. MacRae got another "wake-up call," though certainly not the one he wanted or anticipated. Read on...

The Arizona Republic, Letter to the Editor - 28 June 2005.
"Flyby Honored Fallen Comrade"
Regarding "A wake-up call from Luke's jets":
On June 15, at precisely 9:12 a.m., a perfectly timed four-ship of F-16s from the 63rd Fighter Squadron at Luke Air Force Base flew over the grave of Capt Jeremy Fresques. Capt. Fresques was an Air Force officer who was previously stationed at Luke Air Force Base and was killed in Iraq on May 30, Memorial Day. At 9 a.m. on June 15, his family and friends gathered at Sunland Memorial Park in Sun City to mourn the loss of a husband, son and friend.





Captain Jeremy Fresques, USAF







Based on the letter writer's recount of the flyby, and because of the jet noise, I'm sure you didn't hear the 21-gun salute, the playing of taps, or my words to the widow and parents of Capt. Fresques as I gave them their son's flag on behalf of the president of the United States and all those veterans and servicemen and women who understand the sacrifices they have endured.
A four-ship flyby is a display of respect the Air Force pays to those who give their lives in defense of freedom. We are professional aviators and take our jobs seriously, and on June 15 what the letter writer witnessed was four officers lining up to pay their ultimate respects.
The letter writer asks, "Whom do we thank for the morning air show?" The 56th Fighter Wing will call for you, and forward your thanks to the widow and parents of Capt. Fresques, and thank them for you, for it was in their honor that my pilots flew the most honorable formation of their lives.
- Lt. Col. Scott Pleus
Commander, 63rd Fighter Squadron
Luke Air Force Base

After he had been put in his place Mr. MacRae did submit an apology.
You can read the whole story here. Wake-Up Call  ¶ Tuesday, July 19, 2005 0 comments

  Dean Doesn't Have Any Either At a DNC fundraiser in Denver, Howard Dean said, "If we are willing to stand up for what we believe in ... then I promise you we will take this country back."

I thought the Dems didn't know what they believe in. Didn't Barack Obama just say, "We are trying to decide what our core values are."

Dean then proved again that they have no values when he said that he doesn't know anyone who is pro-abortion, but he does know lots of people who think women should get to "make up their own minds."

News Flash, Howie, that IS pro-abortion.  ¶ Saturday, July 16, 2005 0 comments

  "Evil" US Soldiers At It Again Yes folks, the soldiers of the Great Satan's army are hard at work torturing and oppressing poor innocent Iraqi insurgents trying to go about their business.












On June 2, a terrorist sniper in west Baghdad attempted to murder PFC Stephen Tschiderer, a medic with the 3rd ID. The sniper fired from inside a cushioned van being used as a mobile sniper's nest. The van was lined with mattresses to muffle the sound of the rifle as it was fired through a hole just big enough for sniper to shoot. Fortunately the private's body armor stopped the bullet and he was able to direct his comrades to the sniper's location.

As the US team engaged the enemy position, two terrorists fled on foot, leaving a blood trail. The area was sealed and the driver of the van captured while Tschiderer and Iraqi soldiers tracked the sniper. Tschiderer secured the terrorist with handcuffs, then adding insult to injury, he gave the wounded, would-be assassin medical treatment.

Tschiderer not only proved that the American soldier is morally superior and a better person than his enemies. He also proved what Sir Winston Churchill once said, "A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, then asks you not to kill him."  ¶ Saturday, July 16, 2005 0 comments

  The Deputy DIDN'T Do It Is this Karl Rove/Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson thing really the best the left can muster at this point?

Let's look at the facts, shall we? (Not a popular policy for the left, but nonetheless.)

1. Rove provided no names.
2. Rove didn't "out" anyone. He merely told a reporter, who told Rove he'd heard Plame had arranged Wilson's trip to Africa, "I heard that too."
3. Plame was not a "covert operative." She had been working as an analyst at Langley for 6 years. This puts her outside the limits set by the legal statute being used to accuse Rove.
4. According to neighbors of Wilson & Plame it was no secret that she was a CIA "agent" and he was a diplomat.
5. This "outing" was not part of an active campaign to punish or intimidate Wilson. Rove did not call reporters they contacted him, then used his rather ambiguous "I heard that too," as a "source".
6. The statute that the left alleges was violated is very narrow. Rove violated no part of it. For one thing the person revealing an "agent's" identity must know the government is trying to conceal the identity.
7. Sources familiar with the grand jury testimony in this case say that it appears reporters were revealing Plame's identity and relationship to Wilson to government officials, not vice versa.
8. Wilson himself said, "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity." OK, first, if she wasn't undercover then nobody "blew her identity." And in that case, NO CRIME was committed. Period.

By the way, Reuters describes "Wilson as 'the husband of a CIA agent whose identity was revealed illegally.' Apparently the guys at Reuters, who still haven't been able to determine if 9/11 was an act of terrorism, already know how the investigation is going to turn out." - JAMES TARANTO, Best of the Web  ¶ Saturday, July 16, 2005 0 comments

  It's Time We Act Like Dar Al-Harb Why do so many in the Middle East hate the West? Why are they bent on our destruction, our extermination? It's quite simple - if you are willing to see and accept it. They hate us because we are "Dar Al-Harb ."

What is "Dar Al-Harb"? It is what you and I are. (Unless you are Muslim jihadist, that is.) "Dar Al-Harb" means "the house of war" and refers to anyone, ANYONE, who is not a Muslim. According to Hani Al-Siba'I, head of Al-Maqreze Centre for Historical Studies in London, "The term 'civilians' does not exist in Islamic religious law. There is no such term as 'civilians' in the modern Western sense. People are either of Dar Al-Harb or not."

Read that again. In the Muslim jihadist view there are NO civilians. None. Everyone is a combatant. That means everyone is an acceptable target. Over 3,000 innocents were "acceptable targets" on September 11, 2001. More than 50 Londoners were "acceptable targets" on July 7th. Our children are "acceptable targets." This is the kind of enemy we face in the "house of war."

Are Muslims exempt from this despicable policy? No, these "devout" followers of Mohammed murder their own brethren as easily as they do "infidels". Muslims died on 9/11 and likely died in Madrid and London. Muslims are being murdered daily in Iraq for the "crime" of trying to serve in the military, police or other areas of government and public service. What if criminal elements in this country decided it was acceptable to slaughter those who serve to maintain order in the USA? What if McVeigh's evil acts were carried out coast to coast against our police, military, politicians - and their families - by radicals opposed to our government? That is what is happening in Iraq. This is the kind of enemy we face in the "house of war."

Sheema Khan, Chairwoman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations - Canada, says, "From day one, Prophet Mohammed made a clear distinction between [armed combatants and unarmed civilians]. Today, however, proponents of violence use dishonest logic to claim the absence of an "innocent" civilian. ...
"[This] perverse logic further categorizes Muslim casualties as "collateral damage," a necessary evil, for the greater cause of inflicting damage on the "enemy." This slippery slope has now led to a freefall of mayhem directed at anyone and everyone - Shia pilgrims in Iraq; worshippers in Pakistan; commuters in Spain. ...
"Muslims know deep down inside that Islam nurtures mercy while encouraging its adherents to the highest standards of morality."

I for one, am reassured to hear Muslim leaders condemn the evil, inhuman acts of the jihadists. But these voices are still too few. We are bombarded by the mantra that "Islam means peace," even by our President. Yet all we see are acts of mayhem and bloodthirsty slaughter against the innocent. This is the kind of enemy we face in the "house of war."

In my mind, two things must happen before we will ever win the war on terrorism. First, ALL Muslims who are decent, peace-loving devotees of that faith must denounce the murderous acts of those that they claim have "hijacked" their peaceful religion. And I mean denounce it loudly and publicly. Leave no doubt where you stand and the world will stand with you.

Second, and more importantly, the American people in particular, and Western civilization as a whole, must develop a clear, firm understanding that we are at war. This is not a matter for diplomats, negotiations or appeasement. This is WAR! We are "Dar Al-Harb," the house of war. It is past time we act like it.

We must call those who oppose us what they are - our enemies. They are not "insurgents." They are not "freedom fighters." They are our mortal enemies. They engage in wanton slaughter of innocent people without provacation and without hesitation. They are evil. We must villify them and what they stand for. We had no qualms doing so in World War II. The stakes today are infinitely higher.

In war, one rule prevails - Kill or be killed. If you are not the victor then you are either dead or conquered. There will be no middle ground when the bloodshed finally stops. President Bush said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." The mollycoddles of the left don't like such cut and dried talk. They don't have the stomach for it. But, like it or not, he is right. The terrorists know it. It guides their actions. It's time we let the same realization guide us.

Freedom or fear.
Kill or be killed.
Them or us.
We are the house of war!  ¶ Friday, July 15, 2005 0 comments

  Stop The ACLU: Gitmo "Abuses" Well, the ACLU has a new screw loose. It seems they suddenly want to give an American military officer credibility ... when it suits their purpose.

ACLU Headline:Abuse Without High Level Accountability; ACLU Dismayed at Lack of Reprimand For Top General

July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON - In anticipation of the release of a long-awaited government inquiry into the interrogation practices used by American personnel at Guantanamo Bay, the American Civil Liberties Union today said that the government broke the law and failed to hold the higher levels of the military accountable. The failure to reprimand the commanding general at Guantanamo was another demonstration of the military's inability to hold itself accountable.

The investigation was headed by Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt of the Air Force, and is expected to be delivered to the Senate Armed Services Committee at an open hearing today.

The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director:

"It is irrefutable that the government violated the Geneva Conventions and the Army Field Manual. The report backs up claims by FBI agents that the government was breaking the rules at Guantanamo Bay. As before, low-ranking men and women will take the full blame while the higher ups get off scot-free. Despite General Schmidt's recommendation to reprimand the commander of Guantanamo Bay, General Geoffrey Miller, a higher-ranking general refused to punish General Miller. Once again, we have abuse without high-level accountability. That will only encourage impunity and allow the abuse to continue."

So let me get this straight. The Gitmo commander has no credibility and should be reprimanded. The General who headed the investigation that revealed the inmates themselves abuse the Koran and US soldiers do not has no credibility. But Gen Schmidt, who recommends punishment is suddenly getting backing from the ACLU.

As for the statement that "low-ranking men and women will take the full blame" that's called personal accountability, something the ACLU doesn't understand. You see when a soldier is given orders and guidelines from higher authority, then disregards or violates them, he's held accountable. As it should be.

If I tell you what to do and you ignore me, you are guilty, not me. That's the way society, and the military, should work.

Look out, General Schmidt, when you find the ACLU on your side it may be time to reexamine your position.  ¶ Thursday, July 14, 2005 0 comments

  Random Thoughts on This War "There is a temptation to see the terrorist act as simply the erratic work of a small group of fanatics. We make this mistake at great peril, for the attacks on America, her citizens, her allies, and other democratic nations in recent years do form a pattern of terrorism that has strategic implications and political goals. And only by moving our focus from the tactical to the strategic perspective, only by identifying the pattern of terror and those behind it, can we hope to put into force a strategy to deal with it." --Ronald Reagan

"Unless we win this war, 9/11 was just the beginning. And that is why we cannot fight an uncivilized, evil and merciless enemy the same way we have fought our previous wars. And if this means we have to take extraordinary steps to get information that will save American lives, if this means we must imprison captured terrorists indefinitely, then so be it. There is much at stake here in terms of freedom and lives and a livable world. And we will lose it all if our leaders knuckle under to the whining and complaining and the irrational demands of some people in the Congress, and the news media and other public places who refuse to face reality." --Lyn Nofziger

And one from the left:
"[T]he first several U.S. presidents were certainly revolutionaries and might have been called 'terrorists' by the British crown, after all." --NBC's Brian Williams, proof that yet another village is going without an idiot.

Thanks to The Federalist Patriot  ¶ Monday, July 11, 2005 0 comments

  America the Vulnerable And speaking of the CFR, Stephen Flynn, the Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies, has written a new book. In "America the Vulnerable" Flynn says, "Three years after September 11, the United States is still dangerously unprepared to prevent or respond to another attack on its soil. Faced with this threat, the United States should be operating on a wartime footing at home."

I contend that the majority of Americans, or at least the most vocal among us are not prepared to assume a wartime footing, and never will be. Too many of our citizens are spoiled, pampered, self-centered pantywaists who have neither the stomach nor the fortitude to accept or care about what is at stake. Rather than be prepared to sacrifice or fight to preserve liberty they are more likely to lie down and die, mourning nothing but their own lost comfort and affluence.

Flynn says "the measures cobbled together to protect these vital systems are hardly fit to deter amateur thieves, vandals, and smugglers, let alone determined terrorists. Worse still, small improvements are often oversold as giant steps forward, lowering the guard of the average citizen and building an unwarranted sense of confidence."

Many Americans suffer from the same short-sightedness and flaws of character that, in my opinion, have plagued the church for too long. We do not understand or care enough about what is at stake, what we are moving ever closer to losing, to stand up and do anything about it.  ¶ Monday, July 11, 2005 0 comments

  2-4-6 (NOT Live 8!) I'd like to point out some comments by my "friend," Max Boot. I use the term friend liberally, since though I've had the honor of meeting Mr. Boot (one of the 500 pound brains at the Council on Foreign Relations) he listened to me for about 20 minutes and I did not have the privilege of being able to pick his brain in return. But, judging from his works I'd be honored to count him as a friend.

On the recent Live 8 spectacle (or debacle), Max says, "The solution being promoted by Live 8 is simple: Send beaucoup bucks. The anti-poverty campaigners are grouchy because the wealthy world spends only 0.25% of its gross national income on aid -- a mere $76.8 billion last year. They want to nearly triple that, to 0.7% of GNI.
"The United States, in particular, is castigated for its "stingy" development budget -- only 0.16% of GNI. This obscures the fact that, in absolute terms, the U.S. government spends far more on foreign aid ($19 billion last year) than any other nation. And that's only a small part of our total contribution. Thanks in part to our lower tax rates, Americans give far more to charity than do Europeans. If you include private-sector donations ... U.S. foreign aid totals $81 billion or 0.68% of GNI. ... And that's not counting the billions the U.S. spends to subsidize global security or the billions more it sends abroad as investment capital.
"By any measure, the U.S. is extraordinarily generous." Max points out. "But for the anti-poverty campaigners it's not enough. It never is. Their animating idea is: ...Massive transfers of wealth can eradicate poverty.
"Africans' income and life expectancy have gone down, not up, [in the last 50 years]while South Korea, Singapore and other Asian nations that received little if any assistance have moved from ...African-level poverty to European-level prosperity thanks to their superior economic policies.
"Africans continue to be tormented not by the G-8, ... but by their own politicos, including Sudanese President Bashir, abetting genocide in Darfur, and Zimbabwean President Mugabe, turning his once-prosperous country into a famine-plagued basket case.
"Instead of pouring billions more down the same old rat holes, maybe the Live 8 crew should promote a more innovative approach: Use the G-8's jillions 2 hire mercenaries 4 the overthrow of the 6 most thuggish regimes in Africa. That would do more to help ordinary Africans than any number of musical extravaganzas."

Sounds like Max agrees with my good friend Clay, at In My Right Mind, "There is a solution that would improve the plight of millions of starving, abused, and downtrodden people in Africa, ... The best way to help these unfortunate people in Africa is military action. ... Talk about a chance for the world to be united in a cause!
"For those who want to hold hands around the world and "make a change", how about this; how about each nation contribute its fair share of troops to march into Africa, kill the bloody dictators and gangs that are holding the starving in Africa captive, and set these people free. Then all of the aid donated would actually make a difference."  ¶ Monday, July 11, 2005 0 comments

  What A Surprise According to a study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) more than 2/3 of press coverage of President Bush during his second term's first 100 days was negative. Among the negative "reporting" cited, "Without comment about how he felt taking the nation to war on such flawed assumptions..." - CBS correspondent John Roberts. So much for objective journalism.

A similar study of news stories last October showed Bush was "battered" by the press. A Project for Excellence in Journalism analysis revealed President Bush "suffered strikingly more negative press coverage than ... Kerry. Overall, 59 percent of Bush-dominated stories were clearly negative in nature," compared to "just 25 percent of Kerry stories were decidedly negative." And let's remember that Bush STILL kicked Kerry's butt!

Don't expect things to get any better as the war against the terrorists continues and Bush nominates a couple of justices for the Supreme Court. It will get a lot worse. Fortunately the CMPA report reveals, "the public isn't going to let the news media get away with anything either. The public is more critical and asks more questions about news coverage these days -- and what offends them most is negativism."  ¶ Monday, July 11, 2005 0 comments

  Because They Don't Have Any... Appearing at a "town hall meeting" in support of Sen. Bill Nelson in Eatonville, Fla. Barack Obama shows himself to be an honest Democrat (if such a thing exists.) "The Democrats at times have lost their way," he said. "We are trying to decide what our core values are." Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Ask a conservative or Republican what their core values are. They will have an answer. Not a wishy-washy, "if-then", poll driven answer. A black and white, no room for grey answer. In fact, you probably won't have to ask. We make no secret about what we believe.

Try to get a liberal or Democrat to tell you their position on an issue. They'll have to stick their finger in the wind to see what the polling numbers tell them to think. And their "core" values will change, frequently. About the only "core" value they hold that doesn't change is that murdering unborn babies is a Constitutional right.

Obama said that it doesn't matter whether the party is left or right (yes, it does!) but "are we true to our core values." Wait a minute. I thought they were "trying to decide what their core values are." How can they be true to something they don't have? So what I've suspected turns out to be true. The Democrats have no values and are true to nothing.  ¶ Monday, July 11, 2005 0 comments

  Mayor Livingstone Gets It In case you had any doubts about the British people, in case you wondered if they still have the "Blitz spirit" that carried them through World War II, if you thought perhaps Great Britain isn't all that "great" anymore, have no fear. Our constant ally and land of my progenitors is still populated by folks made of stout and stern stuff. Witness the comments made by the good Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, following yesterday's dastardly and barbaric attacks.

"I want to say one thing specifically to the world today. This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It was not aimed at Presidents or Prime Ministers. It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, for class, for religion, or whatever.
That isn't an ideology, it isn't even a perverted faith - it is just an indiscriminate attempt at mass murder and we know what the objective is. They seek to divide Londoners. They seek to turn Londoners against each other. ... Londoners will not be divided by this cowardly attack. They will stand together in solidarity alongside those who have been injured and those who have been bereaved and that is why I'm proud to be the mayor of that city.

Finally, I wish to speak directly to those who came to London today to take life.
I know that you personally do not fear giving up your own life in order to take others ... But I know you fear that you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society and I can show you why you will fail.
In the days that follow look at our airports, look at our sea ports and look at our railway stations and, even after your cowardly attack, you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will arrive in London to become Londoners and to fulfill their dreams and achieve their potential.
They choose to come to London, as so many have come before because they come to be free, they come to live the life they choose, they come to be able to be themselves. They flee you because you tell them how they should live. They don't want that and nothing you do, however many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.

To paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, one of history's greatest orators, statesmen and patriots, "[The terrorists]know that they will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to them, all [the world] may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, ... including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the [evils] of perverted ["religion"].

Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'"

AMEN!!!  ¶ Friday, July 08, 2005 0 comments

  STUDY: Circumcision reduces risk of contracting HIV by 70%... Monogamous, heterosexual relationships reduce risk of contracting AIDS by 100%  ¶ Thursday, July 07, 2005 0 comments