If you would like to add a comment to any of the threads here on AADB, registration with blogspot.com is not required. Simply click on the ‘comments’ link at the bottom of an essay, and either enter a nickname under ‘choose an identity’ or post your comment anonymously. Serious comments are always welcome.

REQUIEM

Below are the two final essays to be posted on Allegiance and Duty Betrayed. The first one is written by a friend -- screen name 'Euro-American Scum' -- who, over the past four years, has been the most faithful essayist here. He has written about everything from his pilgrimage to Normandy in 2004 to take part in the 60th–year commemoration of the invasion, to his memories of his tour in Vietnam. His dedication to America’s founding principles ... and those who have sacrificed to preserve them over the past 200+ years ... is unequaled. Thank you, E-A-S. It has been a privilege to include your writing here, and it is a privilege to call you my friend.

The second essay is my own farewell. And with it I thank all of the many regular visitors, and those who may have only dropped in occasionally, for coming here. I hope you learned something. I hope a seed or two was planted. But, even if not, I thank you for stopping by ... 25 March, 2010

6/30/2006

Hillarycare in Burundi

In a surprisingly honest admission of failure, the United Nations recently described in great detail the consequences of adopting its 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights as part of a nation's Constitution. The title of the article reads, Burundi: Side effects of free maternal, child healthcare.

Side effects? I smiled at the UN's choice of words and wondered if, had there been a mass poisoning, would they have written, "Followers of Jim Jones suffer side effects of Cyanide Poisoning"? Just as death is the primary result - not a "side effect" - of Cyanide poisoning, it is also the primary result of socialized medicine - the only difference being that the suffering is more prolonged and more widespread in the latter case. The article begins:
    BUJUMBURA, 9 Jun 2006 (IRIN) - A new policy of free medical care for Burundian mothers and children was intended to improve their lives; instead it has crippled the nation's health system.

    Public hospitals in Burundi have recorded double, sometimes triple, the number of patients since a presidential directive for free pediatric and maternal health services was implemented on 1 May. Overcrowded wards, a shortage of doctors and other medical staff, as well as patients' inability to afford prescribed medications are some of the challenges health officials are now facing.

    The situation in rural health centers is particularly desperate. In one case, four heavily pregnant women with health complications were referred from a rural clinic to a larger and better-equipped city hospital. However, the facility turned them away because of overcrowding. After local media reported that the women had not been admitted, a senior Ministry of Commerce official ordered that they be taken to a private clinic. Unfortunately, it was too late for one patient: She died as she was being taken there.

    The woman's death could have been avoided had procedures been in place to ensure the proper implementation of the directive, health officials said. The public health system was ill prepared to cope with the resultant increase in patients, and subsequently, patients have been let down. The poor services patients were accustomed to paying for may now be free, but the quality of care has declined even further because of the increased caseload and an acute shortage of doctors.
Yes, had only procedures been in place to make the world slow down, stop, then start spinning in the opposite direction, this nasty situation could have been avoided altogether. Article 10 of the Constitution of Burundi adopts (by reference) the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which reads in part (Article 25):
  1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

  2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
So who can blame college-educated President Pierre Nkurunziza for following the law of his land? After all, those words were written into his Constitution at the urging of some of the best minds in the world - the United Nations, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, and Nelson Mandela. They all had only the best of intentions toward Burundi and the World Bank and International Monetary Fund said this was the right way to go as well. The collapse of the Burundian health care system had to be just a fluke, a glitch, a "side effect". The basic idea was sound, but there just wasn't enough money to do all the planning that should have been done. Probably some incompetent functionary didn't do his job properly, or maybe it was just plain bad luck. We'll do better next time. The article quoted one hospital administrator as saying:
    "We saluted the measure, but it seems the government did not plan mechanisms to successfully implement it."
Like socialists the world around, they claim to have "The Answer". They could make life heaven-on-earth, if only people would listen to them (and give them more money). But when their utopian plans fail - as they do time after time - neither the motives of the socialists nor the philosophy of socialism itself are questioned.

It's not as if the fatal results of socialism are hidden from view - they're written in blood in the annals of history like the skull and crossbones on a bottle of poison. They're visible all around us, even as we speak, yet many people refuse to see. After the death and destruction wrought by socialism in all its forms during the twentieth century, one is forced to ask oneself, can the people who still advocate socialism really be that stupid, or are they evil?

F.A. Hayek wrote of these people in The Road to Serfdom, Chapter 1:
    "When the course of civilization takes an unexpected turn - when, instead of the continuous progress which we have come to expect, we find ourselves threatened by evils associated by us with past ages of barbarism - we naturally blame anything but ourselves. Have we not all striven according to our best lights, and have not many of our finest minds incessantly worked to make this a better world? Have not all our efforts and hopes been directed toward greater freedom, justice, and prosperity? If the outcome is so different from our aims - if instead of freedom and prosperity, bondage and misery stare us in the face - is it not clear that sinister forces must have foiled our intentions, that we are the victims of some evil power which must be conquered before we can resume the road to better things?

    "We are ready to accept almost any explanation of the present crisis of our civilization except one: that the present state of the world may be the result of genuine error on our own part and that the pursuit of some of our most cherished ideals has apparently produced results utterly different from those which we expected."
Throughout history, most of mankind has lived as Thomas Hobbes described in The Leviathan:
    ... where every man is enemy to every man...wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
This is the world of the socialists - those who claim man was born only to serve the tribe. This is the world of Burundi today. This was also North America as the Pilgrims found it almost four hundred years ago. So how did American manage to rise out of all that misery, yet Burundi still remains mired?

The leftists of the world look at the difference between America and Burundi and claim "You Americans were just lucky." They say America's success as a civilization was due to the accident of geography. We had natural ports, abundant timber, arable land, coal, and oil (all stolen from the natives, of course) so their theory goes. But many contries have managed to succeed without all that. Japan has few natural resources to speak of, yet has risen up from a feudal and warlike society to become a great industrial powerhouse. So have other nations like Great Britain, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. One needs only to look at a nighttime map of North/South Korea or compare the life-expectancy numbers of Haiti with those of the Dominican Republic to understand that there are more important factors at work in the rise and fall of civilizations than mere geography.

Some argue, "But America is rich and Burundi is poor", as if pointing to the disparity somehow explains the reason for it.

Others say the critical issue for the success of nations is race - another theory which Thomas Sowell has eloquently disproven in his trilogy on race and culture.

We can see that human progress is not automatic; Some civilizations never rise from a Hobbesian existence. Some rise, then fall back - great civilizations like America can and do decline. So how did the successful nations become successful? The answer to the question of what moves nations is obvious: Philosophy.

For an individual or a nation to survive and prosper requires more than good intentions - it requires good philosophical choices in the beginning, and constant maintenance afterwards. The specific conditions humans need to live must be consciously identified, and a system of government created to protect those conditions from barbarians outside the walls and criminals within. It requires constant weeding out of poisonous ideas that would destroy the good.

Yes, Burundi is poor. So was America once, but 230 years ago our ancestors resolved that freedom (or liberty) was the single essential factor in human progress - an idea that many modern Americans seem to have forgotten...and most of Africa has yet to discover. Our founders were the first in history to put down in writing that individuals - by their nature - need to be free. That ideas leads to the meaning of a right: Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are all requirements of human nature, which is why they are called rights.

Americas' founders also correctly identified that the only way a right could be violated was by the use of force by outsiders, criminals, or by the government itself. So they created a strictly limited government who's only legitimate function was to protect individual rights from violation by outsiders (Hence, the Military), criminals (the Courts), and the government itself (enumerated powers). The idea that "Governments are instituted among men to secure those rights" has served America well.

The Burundians live in country which has had no similar tradition of individual rights. All they have ever known is the law of the jungle where only the strong survive, so they might be excused for not knowing any better. But after experiencing their first taste of UN-style socialism, the Burundians now have a choice - they can refuse to drink any more of that particular poison, and seek better counsel than what certain international organizations and individuals gave them; Or, they can clamor for more poison, as they seem to be doing. The Burundians are already grumbling that their medicine should be free as well as their doctor's care. Like an opiate, the poison of socialism always has the effect of demanding bigger and bigger doses.

I worry about my own Country. Our founders gave us a great gift, but we haven't taken good care of it lately. In the 1930s, our President had the WPA drag the precious gift of limited government out in the back yard where it was set it up on blocks and left to rust like a junk automobile. Weeds have grown up around our once well-taken-care-of house, and broken windows have not been repaired. Our courts have blasted big holes in our Constitution - the very roof that protects us - and allowed jungle law to creep in. All the while, we Americans have been so busy that for the most part we didn't notice what was going on around us. We have forgotten how bad living in the jungle can be and I wonder if we can ever get our houses back in order before it's too late.

Time is short, but we Americans still have a choice; We are still free to speak and to act. Our elected representatives do listen to us when we make ourselves heard in large enough numbers. If we remain silent, though, how long will it be before the "Shining city on the Hill" becomes a disheveled group of mud huts and our lives once again become "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short?"

People should seriously consider the different philosophical paths that were taken by America and Burundi, and the end results. They should also consider whether it is wise for America to reject the system that made us a shining star in the world of medicine and adopt the system of "free" clinics, long lines, shortages, run-down facilities, and fleeing doctors that Burundi is now burdened with.

I say, "Let's not let America's health-care system (or America herself) go down without a fight". Don't be discouraged when you can't cure the philosophical poisoning of America all at once; In any epidemic, a doctor can only cure one patient at a time and in this case, the treatment is simple: Never miss an opportunity to inform the honest, or to expose and condemn the evil.

by John Cooper
(philosopher@engineered-home.com)

(contributing team member of Allegiance and Duty Betrayed)

6/09/2006

We're Being Programmed for Impatience

I was not in favor of American/coalition troops going into Iraq, but, now that they are there, and have performed something akin to a minor miracle regarding Iraq’s infrastructure, healthcare system, education system, utilities, streets, police and armed forces training, and countless other successes, we must stay the course, and perhaps even stay beyond the course, not only for the sake of the newly-democratized country, but also for the sake of our own long-term national security.

I saw a program on the History Channel a few months s ago ... ‘Dogfights: The Greatest Air Battles’. I was spellbound for the entire two hours, watching the archival films, personal recollections of fighter pilots from World War II, Korea and Vietnam, and beautiful computer graphics of air battles that were not captured on film. Rickenbacker’s contributions during the air battles of World War I were also discussed, but of course there were no films to back up the commentary.

I found myself literally holding my breath as the World War II pilots described some of the dogfights they survived – in such great detail, and with such passion (yet with great humility), as if those air battles had occurred just yesterday. Capt. Bud Anderson, especially, (a Triple Ace, with 16 enemy aircraft downings), who flew the P-51 Mustang, was mesmerizing as he described his engagement with an ME-109. I had to remind myself to breathe as he re-created his strategies and the responses and offensive and defensive maneuvers of the German pilot.

When the credits rolled, I couldn’t help but reflect on the dramatic changes that have taken place in the American psyche in the sixty years since Bud Anderson and his compatriots performed their heroics, with little thought of personal safety, and a stubborn focus on bringing the enemies of liberty to their knees.

That is not to say that the American military is any less courageous or any less focused on the defense of our people and our homeland than was Anderson. The difference lies in our political leadership, and in the public’s ignorance of the techniques of modern propaganda, and their general thirst for instant gratification.

During World War II, few if any in national leadership positions would have ever considered openly criticizing the administration in power during wartime … or sabotaging our own military personnel by accusing them of barbaric behavior toward the enemy … or denigrating their stunning victories ... or questioning the reasons for their sacrifice.

During the Civil War, the public was horrified by the Matthew Brady photographs of the aftermath of historically unprecedented bloody battles – especially Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville and Gettysburg. Brady depicted, as no one ever before, the ravages of war on both man and landscape.

Mostly as a result of the powerful effect of Brady’s photos on the populace, from World War I through the Korean War, the American media, in co-operation with our national leadership, made it a point to avoid focusing on visual images of casualties, so as not to diminish or undermine public support for the war effort.

And during World War II, the citizenry was busy doing their part at home to support the war effort. They would never have considered whining about the duration of the war, or demanding that an end to hostilities be publicized before it was safe to withdraw from the conflict.

Not so in 2006.

We now live in an era in which we expect our food to be prepared in five minutes. We believe that time-saving is often more valuable than depth or quality. We prefer sound-bites to in-depth analysis. Indeed, we much prefer to have others do our thinking for us, because spending time in weighing pros and cons, or engaging in personal study, would waste precious time that could be better spent watching reality TV or getting our nails done.

It is sad when instant gratification, and lack of appreciation for the things that matter, permeate the national psyche of what was once the greatest civilization in the history of mankind. But now that same need for instant gratification, and lack of a spirit of thanksgiving, threaten to erode our national unity in a time when the black evil that we face is obsessed with destroying all that is, and ever has been, good about America.

Now, when we need national unity and resolve perhaps more than ever before, we are allowing the leftists among us (in politics, the media and academia) to attempt to demoralize our troops who are courageously standing in harm’s way in order to preserve the American way of life, by minimizing their accomplishments and victories, criticizing the strength of their resolve, and demanding that they perform miracles in the relative blink of an eye … or we will declare as counterfeit (at best), or corrupt (at worst), the reasons for their sacrifice.

Such is the hallmark of an emotionally immature, self-absorbed society, drowning in superficiality – without an appreciation of heritage, ancestry, and the sacrifices of more than two centuries of patriots who did not measure the breadth of victories and achievements in nano-seconds … and whose countrymen honored them for carrying a selfless, open-ended vision of liberty and goodness into battle … rather than a vulgar, carping stop-watch.

~ joanie

6/06/2006

Who Are We?

Coming up on two years now, I embarked on a journey that marked a sea change in how I viewed the world. In June 2004, I had the singular privilege to participate in the 60th anniversary of the Normandy invasion.

It was a journey that was a lifetime in the making. And in order to remain succinct and stay on topic, I won’t relate all the factors that led to my departure for London at the end of May 2004.

What was important was how the whole thing took on a life of its own during the planning phase several months earlier. And how the plans that took shape during that time bore fruit during the months that followed.

I interviewed local tour groups in 2003 to see what they offered, and finally found one that was not local, but offered everything I wanted. Their group offered individual “tour modules”, each available for a specific price, that concentrated on one particular geographic and historical area of the campaign in Europe.

Originally, I signed up for the week in Normandy, figuring that would be enough. But then, how could I ignore the airborne and amphibious staging areas in England? How could I miss the Dutch countryside, where some of the bitterest fighting took place between allied paratroopers and Nazi SS troops? How could I not visit the Ardennes forest, arguably the American G.I.’s finest hour in the European theater during the furious fighting of the winter of 1944? And if I was going that far, how could I forego a visit to the Dachau concentration camp, or fail to visit Hitler’s conference center at the Eagle’s Nest?

So, when the dust settled, I signed up for the whole shooting match. And it did not come cheap. But, by this time, the entire journey had taken on a momentum all its own, and all I did was go with the flow.

At this point, I took a deep breath, sat back, and examined the itinerary. (I wasn’t quite prepared to look at the bill just yet.) Two and a half weeks of following the allied armies’ crusade in Europe was plenty. But something told me it was not enough.

So, realizing that this was as much a pilgrimage of the soul as a unique, one-time, early summer vacation, I stopped to ponder some of the deeper elements of the significance of what I was about to experience.

My intent was to recapture yesterday. But that’s an elusive quest. The past tends to slip through our fingers. We can seize it for a time, but we can’t hold it. At the same time, my purpose was to achieve a greater appreciation of the contributions of American fighting men in dire circumstances – for themselves, the country, and the entire world. And if that was my intent, then I had to see the worst of what they were sent over to Europe to destroy. And, in my never-to-be humble opinion, that boiled down to one site.

Auschwitz. The pulsing, beating, heart of darkness that throbbed at the nexus of the Nazi nightmare was a must-see if I was to accomplish my goal.

To fully appreciate the significance of what American fighting men were sent to Europe to accomplish, I simply had to see this monument to destruction. There was only one problem. The organized tour terminated in Berchtesgarten. Any further travels would have to be done on my own, and by myself. Not one to be deterred, I made travel arrangements for Krakow, Poland.

Just as no military plan survives contact with the enemy intact, no travel plan long endures the vagaries of the road. My nice, new airport Holiday Inn on the outskirts of Krakow had just blown a transformer and was without power when I arrived. Forty-five years of communism served so well in Poland that the country’s infrastructure is still a patchwork quilt of what works and what doesn’t. But the good folks at Holiday Inn set me up with a reservation at a 100-year-old hotel in Old Town Krakow. It was my fortunate circumstance that Old Town is also the university district.

Wandering around the streets of Old Town that first evening, I sensed that I had somehow lost a hundred years. But for the asphalt-paved streets replacing the aging cobblestones, and late-twentieth-century transport, it was easy to see why. Old Town definitely had an Old World sense to it. It also was alive with young people. Not surprising, considering the close proximity of the university.

As I walked the streets, I was amazed at the open displays of affection I received from total strangers – all college students, it seemed. I was treated to forthright demonstrations of smiles, waves and handshakes. Of course, their English was marginal, and I do not speak so much as a word of Polish. But I finally figured out their fascination with this middle-aged American wandering the streets of their city. I was wearing a wide-brimmed hat with twin-American flag pins prominently displayed on its face.

I had dinner both nights with a group of Polish college students in Krakow, total strangers all. But they all had one thing in common. They were fascinated with America. This fascination took many forms. All of them either spoke English or were learning it. All of them were consumed with going to America. Some had already been and were going back. But they all had a passion for the country that has drawn so many people to its shores for the last century and a half and beyond. And most significant of all: They are committed to becoming Americans.

These young people were in love with the idea of America. They were not naïve about what America had to offer. They labored under no illusion of streets paved with gold, or easy money to be had just by showing up. But, growing up as sons and daughters of parents who knew nothing but years of communist oppression, they had a heightened appreciation of what America stood for. Freedom, opportunity, respect for individual achievement and individual rights, and perhaps the greatest quality of all, the conviction that America represents the last bastion for human beings to live with dignity and respect.

It was an enlightening, albeit sobering experience, to view America through the lens of those who can only experience it vicariously. For all the significant experiences I encountered on a journey that was chock full of them, this was one that stuck.

At home, we take our country for granted. And that’s understandable. Familiarity breeds, if not outright contempt then certainly a degree of entitlement. People rarely treasure the gifts they’ve inherited by means of the sweat and sacrifice of others. That’s just human nature.

We really don’t pay any mind to our ability to voice our opinions. We do it all the time. Or not. And while we don’t take for granted our livelihoods, our family, or our capacity to earn a living, we’re not terribly concerned about such things either. This is America after all. It’s a free country. There are opportunities galore. And it’s our birthright. So we go to work, earn a living, raise our kids, pay our taxes and live our lives. And if we’re truly fortunate, the world won’t bother us while we’re out there busy getting what’s coming to us.

So, I’ll ask a simple question at this point: Who are we?

Who are we when we are no longer able to voice our opinion in public without getting arrested for angering the powers that be? Are we somehow diminished because we have to guard our tongues? Isn’t it a small price to pay to insure our ability to live comfortably, secure a prosperous future for ourselves and our children, and guarantee our future posterity? But what kind of posterity are we talking about? What kind of legacy are we really leaving for our children? And more significantly, who are we, after such a small compromise that carries such enormous significance?

Who are we when our government in its infinite wisdom decides that our ancestral home – a home that has perhaps been in our family for generations, and is priceless to ourselves and our loved ones – is better off being transformed into the latest Wal-Mart Supercenter, or a strip mall, or a parking lot? Because, let’s face it, we can live anywhere. And we really don’t have any inherent rights to private property, now that the government has declared such rights illusory. Who are we then?

Who are we when our government has determined we are too dangerous to remain as unfettered members of our community and takes us by force into custody? Who are we when our individual rights to keep and bear arms to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government are gone? What becomes of our dignity as human beings, our worth to ourselves and our society, our ability to influence the course of our lives? Who are we when the ultimate choice of how we would leave this world – on our feet or on our knees – is taken away from us? Who are we then?

These and many other questions, no doubt, were pondered in great depth by the group of people I had come to Poland to memorialize. The Jews of Auschwitz. They too, had been integrated members of their European communities. They too, had availed themselves of varying opportunities to build meaningful lives. They too, had rationalized the erosion of their rights as human beings. And they paid for this fallacy with their lives.







I had occasion to take “The Death Walk” in the Birkenau death camp. There is a rail line that runs the length of the camp – which is enormous, you can’t see the end of it, front to back or side to side, it’s so big. Midway along this line is the “Selection Hut” where the Nazi doctors chose who among the incoming Jews was fit enough to work, and who was condemned to die. Those so condemned were marched from the Selection Hut to the rear of the camp for extermination. The Death Walk. I took that walk.

During that time – not a short journey, be assured – I had occasion to ponder what becomes of people who have been stripped of everything, including their right to die with dignity. I wondered how things got to such an extremity – to be incinerated like yesterday’s leftover garbage – all the while knowing the truth of how it happens.

It happens when people put their faith in a benevolent government they are convinced can do them no harm. It happens when leaders have confidence in their ability to make a deal with the devil for their own well-being at the expense of the citizens they are charged to serve. It happens when people compartmentalize the maelstrom of events swirling around them and decide it is somebody else’s problem. It happens when we are unable and unwilling to recognize evil for what it is, and act accordingly to destroy it. And above all, it happens when people are convinced in the inherent goodness of themselves and their fellow man.

In America, much of our ability to provide technological innovation has been shipped out of the country. Our manufacturing ability has likewise vanished from our borders. We have long since ceased to provide our own energy resources through our own efforts. America is a nation dependent on the heavy lifting of other countries for increasingly essential services. America is besieged by an invasion of poverty-stricken workers who, our leaders tell us, are doing the work that we, as Americans are too good to do. They do not seek to become Americans. They demand their rights as foreigners in an attempt to annex, occupy and conquer. Our school-age kids have no sense of themselves or their heritage. Those who do not speak English do not understand. Those who do, don’t care. And through it all, we go to work, raise our kids, pay our taxes and live our lives. We shrug our shoulders, because it’s not our problem. It doesn’t bother us. It does not affect us.

A nation without a sense of itself is not a nation at all. It is a collection of unrelated strangers all acting in their own self-interest, without any sense of community. The men of Normandy knew what their country meant. They were not highly educated, for the most part. But they knew what was at stake. They knew nothing of wealth, opportunity or power. There was hardly a semblance of it during the Depression. But they knew what their country stood for. The children of the Depression were measured by their privation. But they jumped out of airplanes under fire over Normandy. They fought the German juggernaut to a standstill in the frozen Belgian countryside. They assaulted suicidal Japanese garrisons from Guadalcanal to Okinawa. They beat back the assembled barbarian hordes, and they did it again and again. And they did not flinch in the face of the cost in blood. They knew who they were.

Abraham Lincoln was right. Lincoln was a young member of the Illinois State Legislature in 1838 when he gave an address to the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, his home town. He chose to address the pressing subject of mob violence and the political institutions of the United States. At one point, he spoke thusly. . .

“At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years.

“At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

So, I’ll ask again. Who are we? What defines us? What do we stand for? What do we value? If we stand idly by and busy ourselves with the business of living, we act as one-dimensional automatons, ignorant of the cultural, social and historical whirlwinds that rage around us. If we ignore our heritage, we forfeit our legacy. If we lack the commitment to preserve our national identity – an identity, I would point out that is much beloved and desired in corners of the world infected with the sickness of oppression – we are not citizens of a great nation at all. We are truly damned.

And perhaps most significantly, what will become of us when the totality of America, in all its nobility and all its darkness is no more? Where will we go when there is no America to go to?

by Euro-American Scum

(contributing team member of Allegiance and Duty Betrayed)

6/04/2006

The North American Union/Security and Prosperity Partnership

President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin recently issued a joint statement announcing the creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

(See http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15233)

To my mind, there are two types of people promoting the North American Union/CFR/NWO agenda:

(1) those whose low economic circumstances (a result of either government-imposed or sloth-imposed poverty) will cause them, and their progeny, to benefit from the ‘sharing’ of the current wealth of the continent, the largest portion of which has been created, and maintained for centuries, on the backs of pioneering, inventive, hard-working, prosperous Americans, and

(2) those who seek to gain immense ideological or personal power as a result of the socialization of America – a definite, deliberate by-product of the establishment of a North American economic and security community.

And the two most horrific goals that will need to be attained if George Bush’s and Vicente Fox’s ‘utopia’ is to become a reality are:

(1) America’s existence as a sovereign nation must cease to exist.

Nowhere does the Constitution specifically state that America’s sovereignty must be protected. But virtually every word in that magnificent blueprint implies and assumes so.

Our Founders did not envision a time when American leadership at the highest levels would allow unelected, unaccountable international policymakers to create global policy that affects the lives and liberties of the American people, and the sovereignty of the republic. The omnipotent, nebulous oligarchy that inevitably results from such policymaking is inherently inconsistent with the Constitution.

Sovereignty is founded upon the idea of the consent of the governed, and the protection of the governed from outside interference or unsolicited outside influence. If global policymakers (or our own leaders, working in tandem with the leaders of other countries or international organizations) are allowed to make policy that reaches within the borders of America, they are simply ‘legislating’ without our Constitutional guarantee of representation.

Over the past fifty-plus years, our Constitution, our national sovereignty, and the Founders’ allegiance to limited government have been eroded beyond recognition … in large part because of the mishandling of international treaties/agreements/declarations (the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America among the most recent egregious example), and insistently characterizing them as legitimate surrogates for the American legislative process.

(2) The idea must be promoted that self-interest, self-protection and personal success is wicked and intolerant, and that a ‘we-are-the-world/equality-of-outcome’ mindset is a sign of a compassionate, highly advanced culture

The report of the Security and Prosperity Partnership Task Force simply reeks of both (1) and (2) above. It speaks, over and over again, of the fact that ‘we’ (the citizens of the US, Canada and Mexico) must strive to reach two ultimate goals:

(1) making our ‘continent’ less vulnerable to a terrorist attack, and

(2) addressing the ‘uneven economic development’ within the continent.

I am concerned about protecting America from the threat of terrorism. Once my country is secure, then, and only then, will my concern expand to the protection of the continent of North America.

Strangely enough, one of the three participants in the Prosperity Partnership has done nothing at all to diminish threats to U.S. security – and has, in fact, bent over backwards regarding illegal immigration across our southern border to see to it that that border remains porous, not only for its own citizens to cross northward into the U.S., but for Islamic terrorists to gain unfettered access as well. Vicente Fox’s signature is ludicrous on a document, one of whose two primary goals is to make America less vulnerable to a terrorist attack.

Vicente Fox has everything to gain in the realization of a North American Union. No sacrifice or deprivation involved, and mountains of political and economic benefits to reap through the sacrifice of others.

As regards the addressing of ‘uneven economic development’ … since when is it the responsibility of the American working man to make certain that a man living several thousand miles north or south of him enjoys comparable ‘economic development’? More importantly, where in the Constitutional definition of the powers of the federal government does the state have the power to demand such ‘concern’ from its citizens?

The average working American has been forced, unconstitutionally, to provide for other Americans who are ‘economically disadvantaged’ for decades. Gargantuan socialist entitlement programs (some of which our current president himself has authored) have succeeded in bleeding the American worker dry in an attempt to even the playing field, when much of the time those who benefit from such programs have been voluntarily sitting on the sidelines and refusing to take part in the risk, effort and exertion involved in achieving economic success.

Now our leadership has decided to expand the field upon which the American worker must play. We are now not only responsible for attaining ‘economic fairness’ within our own borders. We must now (non-voluntarily) share the fruits of our labors (and the ingenuity and industry of our ancestors) with the citizens of other countries. And these citizens of other countries have a right to ‘share’ in our economic success simply by virtue of the fact that they happen to inhabit the same continent.

Not only is the American citizen expected to continue to invent, produce, design, manufacture, and inspire others to do so … as he has done successfully for more than two centuries. Not only is he now ordered by the state to donate a large portion of the fruits of his labors to his ‘less economically advantaged’ countrymen. But now he is expected to (again, non-voluntarily) broaden his ‘compassion horizon’ and work for the economic betterment of the citizens of other countries as well.

Why are Americans’ lives and liberties hanging in the balance? And why is the sovereignty of the American republic threatened more than at any time in her history?

Because, for the first time in our history, leadership at the highest levels of our government has abandoned the vision of the American republic, and has instead sworn allegiance to an elitist, one-world ideology in which the borders of this nation are perceived as an inconvenient roadblock to the realization of the globalist agenda.

There will be no ‘wall’ (physical or otherwise) built along our southern border. Mexicans by the thousands will daily continue to stream into our country. Islamo-fascists will cross that border as well. And I don’t know which threat is worse … the dissolution of America’s borders as we are swallowed up by the North American Union, or the prospect of a worse-than-9/11 attack by madmen from the Middle East.

By leaving our southern border virtually unattended, our leadership is purposefully engineering one, or both.

~ joanie

6/02/2006


HADITHA, IRAQ: WHAT IT SHOULD MEAN



I have listened to the debates, pontificating, accusations and opinions regarding the incident with US Marines at Haditha, Iraq where Iraqi civilians died for the last weeks. At home, from local radio, from national radio, from the news, from politicians, from co-workers and from family. I decided today to weigh in with my own thoughts:
  1. The investigation is not complete. These soldiers are at war, they must be granted the same presumption of innocence that any of us should be afforded. Any thought of prosecuting, lambasting, talking down to them, or making serious allegations and presumptions regarding them should wait until:

    1. the investigation is complete and the facts presented, and,
    2. until the soldiers themselves, through their legal recourse, have had a chance to respond to that investigation with their own side of the story.

    At that point, when we have both sides, and a good investigation to base it on, serious opinions on the matter can be developed. What Murtha and other political whoremongers, or those afraid of potential political fall-out are doing, along with a literally blood thirsty liberal press...is just despicable and opportunistic at the best...and an abject betrayal of those who are defending their very freedom at worst.

  2. We are at war, and we need to wage it accordingly. There are areas, towns and cities within Iraq, that have to this date still not been truly pacified. Where the citizens are willing abettors and allies with the enemy terrorists who are killing our soldiers. It is the vast minority of the whole of Iraq as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who are signing up in their military and police to fight these same enemies, and the thousands of them who are being killed in that fight. Not to mention the millions, upon millions who voted.

    But back to those areas we have not fully pacified.

    We need to.

    We need to identify two or three of the worst places and make examples of them...giving the citizens 72 hours to get out, and then leveling the place and everything in it. Until we pacify the enemy enclaves, these types of things will continue to happen...and we as a people need the will, and we need leaders with the will to do it...all the hand wringing and liberal moaning be damned. Otherwise, we shouldn't ask our boys to enter those places unless we have the will to humble not only the terrorist fighters, but those who support them in those same areas.

  3. We are winning in Iraq. The people have voted in the face of abject terrorist threats. A new government has been formed. The people themselves, despite the threat of terrorist violence, are signing up, fighting, and dieing to defend their new-found freedoms. And they keep doing so. The terrorists more and more are having to target the Iraqis themselves, far more than our forces, in an effort to stay alive...because the Iraqis are hunting them down and either killing or capturing them. The press and those same political whoremongers will not make this observation...but it is the fact nonetheless, testified by events. We must stay the course and finish the job in Iraq...but in order to do so completey we need not only to keep helping them rebuild and defend, we need to compelte number two above.
These are my thoughts on the matter and what I am sharing with everyone I know, and anyone else who cares to listen.

by Jeff Head (of JeffHead.com)

(contributing team member of Allegiance and Duty Betrayed)