The Pentagon Is Losing Iraq (Vanity)

Let's not turn against eachother here.

I understand exactly what faithincowboys. Have no fear, the unsustainable bubble of nonsense called liberalism can't keep us locked out of academia forever. Sooner or later, the majority of Americans are going to realize that the Industry of Lies (the left) is causing so much damage to the U.S. and the cause of freedom that we have to have the backbone, as the majority of the nation to bring back sanity to education. We really do need to get our act together regarding this critical problem. It has gotten worse because we've treated it as business as usual. Please don't reply unless you have read what I have to say here. I don't think that it should be necessary to say this, but some of the replies to faithincowboys that I read here make me ask for this consideration.

faith did say this was a vanity thread and was clearly venting. I hope that you at least consider some of my "constructive criticism".

Do you guys consider Michelle Malkin to be a negativist or a troll??? She has a transcript of Ward Churchill and other libs discussing treason, asking questions such as "why did it take a bunch of Arabs to do what you all shoulda done a long time ago?" adding, "As a White man standing here in your midst, from a fairly liberal conservative [blah blah blah] and I'de like you to respond to 'why shouldn't we do something and how could we move so that they don't see us comin'?" The professor said: "You don't send the Black Liberation Army into Wall Street to conduct an action. You don't send the American Indian Movement into downtown Seattle to conduct an action. Who do you send? You. Your beard shaved, your hair cut close, and wearing a banker's suit." LINK HERE. That's the Democrap party and the RINOs.

I hope that FR gets on this issue seriously, the American Education Crisis that we are in, the intellectual version of the economic Great Depression, deserves at least one of those "Latest on..." links. I would call it "Latest on America's Education Crisis". But that's not very important, the important thing is that we seriously respond to the threat that the enemy within poses, and not only the external threats.

What did bin Laden say before the U.S. started Saddam's takedown? "The interests of Muslims and the interests of the socialists coincide in the war against the crusaders." Of course, in San Francisco, you saw the socialists marching in Saddam's defense. Part of that defense, that unholy alliance is the campaign to tar the United States as going to "war for oil" or by sliming the U.S. as a "terrorist" nation. You guys have to understand that neither al Qaeda nor the leaders of the left that give it aid and comfort, are more innocent than Americans loyal to her and her values and interests when it comes to being "crusaders." Either you believe in the American vision, in the great American enterprise, or you believe in the alternatives, which are either militant paganism, or Islamism.

The left thought that it was going to overthrow the U.S. by helping the communists and the USSR during the Cold War, from the proxy wars in China, Guatemala, El Salvador, and others, to the face to face in Vietnam and the Korean peninsula.

When John Stossel interviewed Ted Turner, the founder of CNN, militant anti-Christian, and former Jane Fonda "partner", the interview was going fine as long as Stossel emphasised the self-interest aspect of his special (titled "Greed"), but when Stossel pointed out that Turner and other wealthy billionaire and multimillionaire leftists did a more efficient job at getting things done, even humanitarianwise than say, the U.N. Turner decided to cancel the interview. Buy the DVD if you want to see. I only recommended it to support my observation, I don't share the Randian philosophy of Objectivism, and I'm not a Libertarian. Turner didn't want his leftist bubble of nonsense burst before the public, that's why he walked out and ended the interview. He felt quite comfortable as long as Stossel focused on the accomodation to self-centeredness that any free system must make. So the search for meaning of a leftist is exercised through politics. How do you teach this new kind of religion in a mostly Christian nation? For one thing, on the legislative front, you support the DP. On the intellectual front, you spend money on "progressive" groups and organizations and media productions. Just yesterday on FoxNews.com I saw video of O'Reilly pointing out how the New York Times was promoting Air America by doing 24 NY Times stories on it. That's probably because it loses millions of dollars and has to pay some of its own stations to put it on the air. Quote, "The only reason the network even exists is because a few loony millionaires finance it."

(BTW, how many stories on North Korean prisons has the NY Slimes or the Washington comPost done, compared to their many frontpage stories about Abu Ghraib?)

I often wonder if the Islamofascists might see an alternative in the United States if television and film reflected the majority character of this nation. I mean, by watching television you would have no clue that the majority of Americans are Christians. In movies about the past, the communists are the victims or the heroes of free speech, but McCarthy who investigated them in his Army investigations is the tyrant. Of course, someone that doesn't know better never sees the widespread emaciation and repression and mind control that such "heroes" of free speech betrayed their country to support in such presentations.

Going to American colleges and universities, a foreign engineering student might not see the American flag because the administration there might have considered the flag of the nation that built that college or university to be "offensive". Forget about anybody getting a good impression about the U.S. from our "progressive" professors, whose main role as the heads of the church of the anti-Christ is to inculcate the whiney incessant unsatisfaction with freedom and unappreciation for sacrifice that we are all to familiar with.

Of course America has had enormous shortcomings in the past, as we do today (especially in academia), but those shouldn't be dwelled on and made to give the impression that this is what America "is" or "was". The real issue is whether we are automatons of nature, and all that matters is how to manipulate trends to get, apparently, "our way."

In such a case, to oppose "communism" or some other form of "enlightened" dictatorship, seems to be madness. Knowing human nature, I imagine that many wealthy individuals are used to cutting corners to get what they want. They may feel a tinge of guilt or hypocrisy if they speak about healthy moral values or standards. Everyone has their issues. All of us as Plato alluded to in his parable, have been in "the cave." So don't underestimate the role that that plays in our society and politics. The tortured soul can become one full of madness.

I mean really, 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan are now part of a process that their people have not known in thousands of years, and this was really characterized as an issue of greed and selfishness by opponents of American military intervention? Wouldn't the protests have been more effective and rational if they were directed towards bin Laden and Saddam to end their brutality? How many people did we lose in Iraq in these last few years - fighting back against tyranny on behalf of ourselves and others - and how many did we lose on 9-11 in one day?

Yet the lib media uses focus-group engineered questions to produce "news" stories, giving us the latest leftist spin on the WOT.

I submit that those that advocate for a pull out of Iraq really lack a belief and faith in the American way, thanks to our "progressive" conditioners. It is not really worth fighting for, it is worth fighting against. Yeah, we should be hyper-critical of the freest, most prosperous, and morally relevant nation in the world, but not of those that work to undermine her.

This MUST change. It can.

I just wonder when the "preference cascade" is going to kick in again against the left. I got the term from Ace of Spades. He wrote, that it "resulted in a 'surprising' change: Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980, and then re-elected by a historic landslide in 1984. And then, in 1994, the liberals' 50 year old stranglehold on the House was ended." He was writing about "regimes" ruled by minorities, and in that quote, he referred to America getting away from what the media and politicians were telling the citizens that they wanted: which was to abandon the American experiment and follow the Marxist one. Anyway, speaking more broadly, Ace said, "Such regimes have little legitimacy, but they spend a lot of effort making sure that citizens don't realize the extent to which their fellow-citizens dislike the regime. If the secret police and the censors are doing their job, 99% of the populace can hate the regime and be ready to revolt against it - but no revolt will occur because no one realizes that everyone else feels the same way. [This is why the lib media desperately slants the news, even if it pisses off the smart people] This works until something breaks the spell, and the discontented realize that their feelings are widely shared, at which point the collapse of the regime may seem very sudden to outside observers - or even to the citizens themselves."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.