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.


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


Now More Than Ever, We Must Work to Retain Voices of Reason in Government

I will be posting here significantly less frequently than usual over the next five weeks, because I intend to spend much of my free time working to support the re-election of Senator Rick Santorum here in Pennsylvania.

Forgive any repetition of previous comments and opinions, amid the new ones here. I simply want to sum up what I intend to be voicing here in my own community over the next five weeks, in the hopes that others in Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, might see in my thoughts some common ground with their own. So I ask that you bear with me.

My connection with Rick Santorum goes back twelve years. During his first campaign for a seat in the U.S. senate, I spent a significant amount of time wearing out shoe leather, speaking publicly, and writing columns and letters in support of his candidacy. My husband and I drove out to Pittsburgh to attend what we hoped would be his victory party at the Pittsburgh Hilton on election night 1994. It wasn’t until about 2 AM that Rick and Karen entered the ballroom to deliver his victory speech, after having pulled the election out by the skin of his teeth in the wee hours of that brisk November morning, defeating democrat incumbent Harris Wofford by a less than two percent margin.

I remember driving home from Pittsburgh in the early morning hours filled with (uncharacteristic, for me) optimism that now there was at least a fighting chance to turn this country around and to wrest genuine control from a corrupt and left-leaning party that had succeeded in eroding so many of the founding principles upon which American prosperity and success had rested … unprecedented in the history of civilization.

It is now 2006. A lot can happen in twelve short years, especially during a time of unprecedented political turmoil, new age political agendas that seek to declare our Constitution irrelevant, and to dissolve the sanctity of our sovereignty in deference to the vision of a new world order, and weakness in the seat of our government in the face of brutal, relentless terrorism that is designed to take insidious and deadly advantage of each and every blink from the Western World.

Now Rick Santorum would not be at the top of my (ever-shrinking) list of respected leaders in Washington (He wouldn’t even be within reach of the likes of George Allen, James Inhofe, John Kyl, or Tom Tancredo). He has let me down on more occasions than I care to remember -- most notably in his support of the No Child Left Behind education debacle, and jobs creation and healthcare initiatives – all of which, to the Constitutional purist – yours truly included – are abominations. As regards Washington usurping powers/freedoms that should remain in the hands of the states, or the individual, I’d give Santorum a B- grade.

The joy I felt twelve years ago that evening in Pittsburgh has found itself muted to resigned acceptance that not all is well in Washington, and that those who agree to compromise with evil are every bit as dangerous as the devil with whom they are playing political games.

Many Pennsylvanians (yours truly included) who, up until then, had been strong supporters of Rick Santorum held him personally responsible for sending Arlen Specter back to his powerful position in the senate in 2004, and for denying Pat Toomey a decisive opportunity to be a voice of unrelenting conservative principle in a senate that is badly in need of a powerful dose of conservative realism, pragmatism, and allegiance to the Constitution, our national sovereignty, and the rule of law. Despite Bush’s and Santorum’s powerful endorsements, Toomey came within .5% of defeating the left-leaning, Scottish-law-invoking incumbent.

But time heals some wounds.

If I were to read a list of the objections some conservatives have to Santorum’s record, I suspect that I would agree with most or all of what is on it. Where I suspect we differ is in being willing to overlook some bad policy decisions, in deference to his immovable stance on others that I believe are of much more timeless significance.

I believe that most conservatives are purists, and that is an entirely noble trait, considering their focus -- except that I think there are circumstances in which one must allow for temporary compromise of principle, if the outcome would otherwise be disastrous.

With all of that said … for the sixteen years he has been in Washington, Rick Santorum has remained immovable on most issues that are indelibly close to his heart – and two of those issues must eclipse all others in these perilous times: namely, (1) the threat posed by Islamic terrorism and (2) the need to close our southern border.

I honestly believe that the huge majority of our ‘leadership’ in Washington is either indifferent to, or in favor of (for either financial or political/ideological power reasons), avoiding confronting the illegal alien crisis. As I also believe that an equal number are purposefully attempting to demoralize our military, and create a Vietnam-era-like malaise among the populace, so as to retreat from our assignment in Iraq, and pull back from a confrontational stance against Muslim fanaticism in general – and for the very same reasons that they refuse to acknowledge and resolve the illegal alien crisis.

Santorum has assumed a strong conservative, pro-military, anti-illegal immigration stance from the get-go, and has been extremely vocal and candid about the nature of both crises, and the need for immediate, and historically unprecedented ‘ruthless’ (by PC standards) action to deal with both. As a result he has taken vicious, unrelenting hits from the media/academia, especially here in Pennsylvania. And it is basically for that reason that the democrat machine has designated him as their prime target in November. I have read several accounts that claim that the amount of DNC money pouring into Casey’s coffers is close to double that being focused on any other national candidate. Santorum is a tireless advocate of facing down the Muslim threat and closing the border, and the DNC would like nothing more than (1) to depose the senate’s third most powerful republican, and (2) to replace him with a soft-on-both leftist mouthpiece.

Anyone who considers abandoning support for Santorum because of his movement to the center on a handful of domestic/spending policies, and his ill-conceived endorsement of Specter, needs to read in its entirety his July speech at the National Press Club. It is a passionate, heartfelt call to arms, not unlike one that Thomas Paine might have delivered, were he still with us. I hope you've read the speech -- or will, if you haven't. You’ll come away with the understanding that Rick Santorum isn’t just a crusader for greatly increased border security, the right to life of the unborn, uncovering government corruption, welfare reform, privatizing Social Security, training and equipping first responders, simplification of the tax code, and tort reform. He is all that and much more. He is a rarity in Washington these days: He is a leader who recognizes the brutal and obsessive nature of Islamo-fascism, and who isn’t overcome with politically correct reticence when the opportunity to awaken and educate his countrymen presents itself. And this battle cry is nothing new -- Santorum’s stance on terrorism has remained unchanged since before the ’93 World Trade Center bombing. His conservative, ‘hawkish’ views have become less popular among the political elite, but he is unyielding.

A local political pundit recently wrote of him, ‘In our poll-driven political climate, dominated by blow-dried politicians with their fingers to the wind, he stands for things. And even where he stands for things with which I disagree, I come away admiring his unwillingness to placate dissenters by telling us words that we want to hear. What you see with Santorum, is what you get. He speaks from the head and heart.'

Santorum debated his opponent, Robert Casey, Jr., on ‘Meet the Press’ on Sunday, September 3rd. The Santorum/Casey race will be the hottest contested senate race in the country come November, and the DNC is pouring millions into Casey’s campaign coffers in an effort to unseat the senate’s third most powerful republican. If current poll numbers hold for another two months, the democrats will succeed in that impressive coup.

Santorum’s best line in the debate:

’You [Casey] believe that we’re going to win or lose this war on the battlefield in Iraq and the battlefield in Afghanistan. I don’t. I think we’ll win or lose this war right here in America.’

Santorum’s opponent has crony-related name recognition in his corner. The name Casey in Pennsylvania is akin to the name Daley in Chicago. And, when one adds the crony factor to the facts that (1) the DNC is pouring unprecedented money into the Casey campaign, (2) many Pennsylvania voters vote the way their union tells them to, (3) voting democrat has been nothing short of a sanctified family tradition for many Pennsylvanians ever since FDR ‘pulled their starving families out of the depression’, and (4) 120% of the registered democrats (including family dogs, parakeets and long dead ancestors) turn out to vote in the inner cities, Santorum has quite an uphill battle facing him over the next five weeks.

The danger in a Casey victory lies not in seating a left-or-moderate democrat in the seat that was formerly Santorum’s. The danger lies in losing a powerful, immovable voice in our war on Islamic fascism and our need to secure our borders. We cannot afford to lose such voices.

Current polls of most likely voters show Bob Casey ahead by double digits in just about every area of the state but central PA. Yet, in the 2004 election, Pennsylvania was reluctantly pulled into the blue column, and a look at the county-by-county results shows clearly that, had voters turned out in larger numbers in the counties that fell into the Republican column, the state would clearly have turned red.

Therein lies the only way Rick Santorum can win this election. The vote in the heart of Pennsylvania has to come out and counterbalance the three major urban areas where voter fraud is rampant and where votes are traditionally bought through intimidation and promises of more entitlement/socialist government perks.

I have said before that I will never again vote for the lesser of two evils. But there is a world of difference between that and voting for someone with whom you sometimes disagree. Especially at this pivotal time in our history, when we’re facing a more brutally deadly threat than ever before – and on two horrendous fronts – this is not the time to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Steve Leonard, a contributor to this weblog, recently wrote:

No more talk, no more lies, no more dissembling, no more diplomacy. They stop, and they stay stopped, or they die, and their countries die with them. In Iran, in Syria, in Somalia, in Waziristan, leaders and civilians who support terrorists have forfeited their right to breathe the air of this planet. We don't have to occupy them, we don't have to rebuild them, we don't have to ‘bring them to justice,’ or grant them habeas corpus or let them have lawyers. We just have to destroy them.

I believe that, on the national level, the above paragraph must be our litmus test. If a candidate does not openly and vocally embrace that philosophy, he does not get my vote.

Rick Santorum does … and will. And I will do all that I can between now and November 7th to see to it that as many of my family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers comprehend the difference between a leader who wants to confront and unambiguously defeat the unparalleled malevolent forces threatening to extinguish the Western world as we know it, and who will disperse even their shadow … and a pretender whose political ideology depends on which way the politically correct winds happen to be blowing.

I plan to spend much of the next five weeks talking and writing about Rick Santorum’s qualifications to serve a third term in the Senate. I know that other Pennsylvanians will be doing the same. And I hope that conservatives throughout the country will consider earmarking some of their campaign contributions to this pivotal election. The election or defeat of this powerful senator from Pennsylvania will have repercussions throughout America … and far into the future.

This election, and the next, are not about’the economy, stupid’.

They are about nothing less than the survival of Western civilization.

~ joanie


John Cooper said...

Beautifully stated, Joanie. With you on his side, how can Santorum lose?

Anonymous said...

If you are not a political advisor or a speech writer you should be.

sandra said...


You should be specifically aware that the "political" branch of MoveOn.org, run by barely twenty-year-old Eli Pariser,

and bankrolled by MILLIONS of dollars from SOROS and from Google (to whom tens of millions of dollars are no different than a few pennies are to you and me)

are specifically targeting Santorum in this race---bragging about it.

Anonymous said...

This should be linked to by the Santorum campaign.

GaryBurgess said...

Joanie, your ability to get to the core of an idea is wonderful. I don't live in PA, but if I did and if I had been on the fence about Santorum I wouldn't be now!

daveburkett said...

Very well done, Joanie!

I wish I lived in PA just so I could go out and put your words into action. ;)

SharonGold said...

I'm reluctant to admit I didn't know much about Santorum except that he is in the liberals' crosshairs. I know much more after reading your column here and if I lived in PA I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

Thanks for the education.

SharonGold said...

"You should be specifically aware that the "political" branch of MoveOn.org, run by barely twenty-year-old Eli Pariser,

and bankrolled by MILLIONS of dollars from SOROS and from Google (to whom tens of millions of dollars are no different than a few pennies are to you and me)

are specifically targeting Santorum in this race---bragging about it."

From the 9/15 edition of the American Spectator:

"Calling MoveOn "one of the most extreme organizations in the country," Santorum's press secretary promptly called on Casey to account for accepting support from a group that was "even going so far as to suggest the U.S. should use restraint in responding to the September 11th attacks. It's no surprise that Bob Casey's been silent about MoveOn's recent comments since they've helped raise him nearly $170,000."

Dawnsearlylight said...

I agree with everything you say. I just wish men of principle who aren't willing to ever compromise were as numerous as they used to be.

stonemason said...

Thank you, Joanie.

Anonymous said...

I know he has an uphill battle but if the good people of suburban and rural PA realize what's at risk they'll send him back to Washington.

J.M. said...

I am also doing everything I can for Mr. Santorum. Even though I am in California, a lot of my relatives live in the Pittsburgh area. I have been begging them to vote for the Senator and I know I have reached some of them. I also donate to the Republican Party. I promise to donate to Senator Santorum and his run for the Senate. Pray for him please. Thank you, J.M., once a Pennsylvania Dem, now and forever a Conservative Republican.

sandra said...

NOT sure where to put this

but here is one time WalMart was stopped:

Landowner sues Helotes officials, critics of Wal-Mart
San Antonio Express News 10/4/06 | Amanda Reimherr and John Tedesco


Ten months after losing a bid to sell land for a controversial Wal-Mart Supercenter in Helotes, Balous Miller is going after critics who derailed his plan.

Miller, president of the Bill Miller restaurant chain, had provoked an uprising by residents when Wal-Mart petitioned the town to develop the store on 32 acres owned by Miller at Texas 16 and Scenic Loop Road.
The opposition prompted the retail giant to back out of the deal in December.
Miller is fighting back by suing several Helotes City Council members and residents who criticized Wal-Mart.
His lawsuit alleges that city officials and members of the Helotes Heritage Association unlawfully conspired to scuttle the deal.
Miller is seeking punitive damages; his lost profits, which he didn't specify in court papers; and other relief.
"This is just an attempt to intimidate and bully the community," said Helotes Mayor Jon Allan, who opposed Wal-Mart and is one of Miller's targets.
"Essentially, you have someone with very deep pockets who doesn't like what the city has done and feels he has some sense of entitlement," Allan said.
"We have the right to make decisions and place the needs of community above an individual who wants to make gobs of money without concern for how it might affect the community around him," the mayor said.
. . .

Miller also sued residents who fought Wal-Mart as members of the Helotes Heritage Association. The suit accuses the group of using "extensive negative publicity" against Wal-Mart.

. . .

"This is just someone with deep pockets who is upset at the outcome of a situation," Petterson said.
"I think the entire community spoke pretty loud and clear about not wanting a big-box store on such an environmentally sensitive piece of land.
"It is pretty clear his obvious intent is running over this community for his own advantage."

John Cooper said...

Atlas Shrugs: On the Phone With Senator Rick Santorum

"Fighting the great fight. Rick Santorum is a champion of individual rights, the will of man -- freedom.

One of a rare breed. Rick Santorum is straight, blunt, ethical, brave. Out there in the battle against militant Islam and wrestling with an out of control, nuclear armed Islamic Republic of Iran, his courage to take a firm stand has left him vulnerable in his upcoming Senatorial race.

He is a thorn in the eye of the far left and has been targeted by George Soros and his shadow-party-usurp-American sovereignty machine. He’s facing an uphill race for re-election in 2006 against Democrat Bob Casey Jr and frankly I don't know how Santorum battles a guy who doesn't show up. Casey hides - thats his strategy. That and the Democratic smear machine."

sandra said...

Reid Decides to Amend Ethics Reports
Oct 16 2006

Associated Press Writer

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid announced Monday he is amending his ethics reports to Congress to more fully account for a land deal that allowed him to collect $1.1 million for property he hadn't personally owned for three years.

Reid acted several days after The Associated Press reported the senator didn't disclose to Congress that he first sold the land to a friend's company back in 2001 and took an ownership stake in the company. He didn't collect the seven-figure payout until the company sold the land again in 2004 to others.

Reid said his amended ethics reports will list the 2001 sale.

"I directed my staff to file amended financial disclosure forms noting that in 2001, I transferred title to the land to a Limited Liability Corporation," Reid said in a statement issued by his office.

Reid said he believed the 2001 sale did not alter his ownership of the land but that he agreed to file the amended reports because "I believe in ensuring all facts come to light."

Reid blamed the AP story as a "latest attempt" by Republicans to affect the election. AP reported last week that it learned of the land deal from a former Reid adviser who had concerns about the way the deal was reported to Congress.

Reid also announced he failed to disclose two other land transactions on his prior ethics reports and would account for those on his amended reports.

sandra said...

re: Casey