Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Still Alive.

Yes, I'm still alive. This blog is too; it's just been sleeping for awhile.
I hope to have some new posts up soon.

Sunday, March 05, 2006

Wise Words From Maj. Gen. Dr. Vernon Chong, USAF, Ret.

This WAR is for REAL!
October 1, 2005

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go
through it. Our country is
now facing the most serious threat to its
existence, as we know it, that we
have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the
fact that there are very
few of us who think we can possibly lose this war
and even fewer who realize
what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?

Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as
far as the United States
is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September
2001, with the following
attacks on us:

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military
complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.

(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001
there were 7,581 terrorist
attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our
freedoms. The attacks happened
during the administrations of Presidents Carter,
Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and
Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or
Democrats as there were no
provocations by any of the presidents or their
immediate predecessors,
Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?

In each case, the attacks on the US were carried
out by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?

Hopefully, but that is really not material. There
is no doubt that the
predominately Christian population of Germany was
peaceful, but under the
dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also
Christian), that made no difference.
You either went along with the administration or you
were eliminated. There
were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis
for political reasons
(including 7,000 Polish priests).
(see _
( )

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were
killed by the Nazis, as the
six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them,
and we seldom heard of
anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although
Hitler kept the world
focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about
killing anyone who got in his way
of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the
world - German, Christian or
any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the
world on the US, but kill
all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish,
French or anyone else. The
point here is that just like the peaceful Germans
were of no protection to
anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful
Muslims there may be, they
are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim
leaders and what they are
fanatically bent on doing -- by their own
pronouncements -- killing all of us
"infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What
would you do if the
choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?

There is no way we can honestly respond that it is
anyone other than the
Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct
and avoid verbalizing this
conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to
win if you don't clearly
recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major

1. Can we lose this war?

2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two
pivotal questions.

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous
as it may sound, the major
reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do
not fathom the answer to
the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that
losing the war means
hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and
going on about our business, like
post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one
can get.

What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the
world. The attacks will not
subside, but rather will steadily increase.
Remember, they want us dead, not
just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they
would not have produced
an increasing series of attacks against us, over
the past 18 years. The plan
was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we
were neutered and submissive
to them.

We would of course have no future support from other
nations, for fear of
reprisals and for the reason that they would see,
we are impotent and cannot
help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations,
one at a time. It will be
increasingly easier for them. They already hold
Spain hostage. It doesn't
matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to
withdraw its troops from
Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists
bombed their train and told
them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they
want Spain to do will be done.
Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on
France is that they might
see the light and realize that if we don't win,
they are finished too, in
that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without
us. However, it may
already be too late for France. France is already
20% Muslim and fading fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports
and way of life will all
vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade
or deal with us, if they
were threatened by the Muslims.

If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war,
and therefore are
completely committed to winning, at any cost. We
better know it too and be likewise
committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of
losing? Simple. Until we
recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and
really put 100% of our
thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going
to take that 100% effort to

So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by
"imploding." That is,
defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the
enemy and their purpose, and
really digging in and lending full support to the
war effort. If we are
united, there is no way that we can lose. If we
continue to be divided, there is
no way that we can win!

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply
don't comprehend the life
and death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary
of Transportation.
Although all of the terrorist attacks were
committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40
years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow
profiling. Does that sound
like we are taking this thing seriously? This is
war! For the duration, we are
going to have to give up some of the civil rights
we have become accustomed
to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our
civil rights temporarily or
we will most certainly lose all of them

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We
gave up plenty of civil
rights during WWII, and immediately restored them
after the victory and in fact
added many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton
before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can
maintain all of our Political
Correctness, and all of our civil rights during
this conflict and have a clean,
lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to
war. Get them out of
your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war
and/or the
Administration that it almost seems they would
literally like to see us lose. I hasten to
add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It
is because they just don't
recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that
conduct gives the impression
to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It
concerns our friends,
and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the
politicians and media
regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war,
perhaps exemplifies best what I
am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving
the treatment of a few
Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our
military police. These are
the type prisoners who just a few months ago were
throwing their own people off
buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out
their tongues and otherwise
murdering their own people just for disagreeing with
Saddam Hussein.

And just a few years ago these same type prisoners
chemically killed 400,000
of their own people for the same reason. They are
also the same type enemy
fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and
dragging their charred
corpses through the streets of Iraq.

And still more recently, the same type enemy that
was and is providing
videos to all news sources internationally, of the
beheading of American prisoners
they held.

Compare this with some of our press and
politicians, who for several days
have thought and talked about nothing else but the
"humiliating" of some Muslim
prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their
charred corpses through
the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating"

Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of
impeachment of the Secretary
of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack
of comprehension and
understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we
are fighting, the life and death
struggle we are in and the disastrous results of
losing this war, nothing

To bring our country to a virtual political
standstill over this prisoner
issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as
Rome burned -- totally
oblivious to what is going on in the real world.
Neither we, nor any other
country, can survive this internal strife. Again I
say, this does not mean that
some of our politicians or media people are
disloyal. It simply means that
they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of
the situation we are in and
into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing
us, for many years.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to
kill all infidels! That
translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the
United States, but
throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being
'arrogant.' That charge is
valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in
that we believe that we are
so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the
hearts and minds of all
those who attack us, and that with both hands tied
behind our back, we can
defeat anything bad in the world!

We can't!

If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it
will not survive, and
no other free country in the world will survive if
we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout
the world that allow
freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of
religion, freedom of the press,
equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone,
equal status or any status for
women, or that have been productive in one single
way that contributes to
the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be
united on this war or we
will be equated in the history books to the
self-inflicted fall of the Roman
Empire. That is, if the Muslim leaders will allow
history books to be
written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close
eye on how the Muslims
take over France in the next 5 years or less. They
will continue to increase the
Muslim population of France and continue to
encroach little by little, on
the established French traditions. The French will
be fighting among
themselves, over what should or should not be done,
which will continue to weaken them
and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that
sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away
from them by some external
military force. Instead, they give their freedoms
away, politically correct
piece by politically correct piece.

And they are giving those freedoms away to those
who have shown, worldwide,
that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to
you or even to themselves,
once they are in power.

They have universally shown that when they have
taken over, they then start
brutally killing each other over who will be the
few who control the masses.
Will we ever stop hearing from the politically
correct, about the "peaceful

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said
above. If we are united,
there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after
the election, the
factions in our country will begin to focus on the
critical situation we are in, and
will unite to save our country. It is your future
we are talking about! Do
whatever you can to preserve it.

Sunday, February 12, 2006


For other pictures, simply click here.

Wednesday, December 28, 2005


From Insider Report from

Ex-Gov. Whitman Blasts "Extremist" Republicans

Former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman is sounding off against the "far-right extremists" she says have hijacked the Republican Party, and is supporting a PAC that seeks to "take back" the GOP.
In a letter soliciting contributions for the It's My Party Too PAC, Whitman writes: "Our party was founded on the principles of limited government, individual responsibility, free markets, fiscal responsibility, a strong national defense, and, above all else, individual freedom.
"That's why it's so troublesome that a small but increasingly powerful faction has decided that they alone can decide what it means to be a Republican."
Whitman points to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and the "political flack" he received from fellow Republicans when he voiced support for increased government funding for embryonic stem cell research.
"In retaliation, the far-right extremists threatened to derail any future presidential aspirations Frist may hold, even though he votes solidly Republican on every other issue," Whitman states in the letter.
"We can't allow a few extremists to hijack our Party."
Whitman says the PAC, which includes John McCain and Bob Dole on its Advisory Board, is "dedicated to supporting fiscally conservative, socially progressive moderate Republican candidates at all levels of government and grassroots organizations who support them."
Whitman, who is Chair of the It's My Party Too PAC, warns that the GOP is headed down a "slippery slope" and urges fellow Republicans to contribute to the PAC so it can fight to "take back our Republican Party."

Whitman was governor of New Jersey for seven disappointing years. Let me say unequivocally that she was not in any sense of the word a "fiscally conservative, socially progressive moderate Republican"; rather, she was and is a liberal even by Democratic Party standards.
True, Whitman played lip service to Republican issues, but actions speak louder than words.
Christine Todd Whitman defeated incumbent Democrat Gov. James Florio in 1993 on a popular wave of anti-tax anger, but it almost didn't happen. Although the public was galvanized against Florio's $2.8 billion income tax hike, Whitman, like many "moderates", had no stand on a solution to the problem; her platform was essentially "I'm not Jim Florio." As a result, her campaign languished and Florio was almost assured of reelection in spite of his tax-raising policies.
It was not until Steve Forbes stepped in and gave Whitman a proposal for cutting taxes. She ran with it and narrowly won, then followed through and delivered on her promise to cut taxes. This brought Whitman national attention as a tax-cutter; talk of her being on a national ticket naturally followed.
She should have stuck with Forbes.
Instead, she made minimal cuts in spending and governed as a borrow-and-spend liberal. All the regulatory apparatus remained intact. What proved her undoing on the national level was when she applauded then President Bill Clinton's stand in favor of partial-birth abortion. This exposed Whitman as a rabid pro-choicer; her national GOP support evaporated almost instantaneously.
Her liberalism was also evident in her judicial appointments.
During her two terms six out of seven positions on the notoriously left-wing state Supreme Court opened up. This gave Whitman an unprecedented opportunity to drag the court at least to the center if not the right. As an ardent pro-choicer though, Whitman could not afford any regulations to unlimited abortions to stand, so she appointed only "true believers" on that issue. In addition, they were all lightweights - no Scalia or Thomas here; not even a Brennan or Warren - the Whitman judicial appointments were more of a Lance Ito caliber.
Although more conservative than the Governor, the Republican-controlled State Senate went along with all the appointments. This would come back to bite them when the Court in 2001 upheld a Democrat redistricting plan for the State Legislature, resulting in Democrat control of both houses since that year's election. This is the same court that in 2002 upheld the Democrats' last minute ballot switch when they replaced the scandal-tainted U. S. Senator Robert "The Torch" Torricelli with the geriatric Frank Lautenberg.
I tend to support the concept of a "big tent" Republican Party. This is a big nation and issues and philosophies differ regionally. But there comes a point when the philosophical differences are so extreme that one must consider just which tent they actually should be in.

Saturday, December 17, 2005


From Washington, New Jersey now to Washington State, the whacky antics of academia sound unreal, but they are. You can't make this stuff up, folks.
Mark Tapscott at writes today about the administration at Washington State University actually paying students to disrupt conservative presentations on campus. Although they have stopped the practice, the fact that they would even do such a thing is disturbing, and they continue with other questionable activity towards students who disagree with their left-wing views.
In the Warren County Community College case, the administration did the right thing; the result being the resignation of the offending professor. In Washington State, it is the administration which is the problem.
How to solve it?
The key word here is state - Washington State University. As I have mentioned before, with public funds (read tax money) feeding this institution, it is up to the public to demand change and accountability. Washingtonians must demand, through the State Legislature, their elected representatives, who also just happen to control appropriations, that such activities must be stopped.
Although the college administration may have stopped paying protesters, their continued pursuit of an extremist agenda and placing students in the middle of it, would demand more than their saying "we're sorry", and now everything's ok. No, what is needed is for those behind this outrage to be removed from their posts at the university.
This is a state institution, accountable to the state; let the state be accountable to its people for a change and solve this problem an of out-of-control educational establishment.

Friday, December 02, 2005

I Passed. Will you?

You Passed the US Citizenship Test
Congratulations - you got 9 out of 10 correct!
Could You Pass the US Citizenship Test?

Friday, November 25, 2005

Academia gets it right...for a change.

On Tuesday, November 22, the Warren County Community College Trustees accepted the resignation of Prof. John Daly. Daly had his 15 minutes of infamy when he responded to a student's announcement of a lecture featuring an Iraq War veteran speaking in support of the U. S. role there. Responding with such intolerant and threatening vitriol as "real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors and fight for just causes and for people’s needs", and, “I will continue to expose your right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like yours won’t dare show their face on a college campus”, Daly brought national headlines to the Washington, NJ school.
Outrage was immediate. Conservative commentators cited this as just one more in a long series of abuses by academics in their goals of indoctrinating their students. Liberals, once again, were ominously silent.
This is far from the first time a college professor has made such a statement. Their reasoning behind this is both indoctrination and to test the waters. Testing the waters involves seeing how far they can go in advancing their extreme views without opposition.
Daly had made a gross political miscalculation.
New Jersey is a "blue state", having supported Democrats in most statewide elections. Unfortunately for libs like Daly, Warren is a county-operated institution. Mountainous, agricultural Warren County is not blue, but a deep shade of red, President Bush having won the county by a 24-point margin. All elected County officials are Republicans, and Warren is represented in Congress by Rep. E. Scott Garrett, a Club For Growth conservative. The College Trustees are appointed by the County Board of Chosen Freeholders (County Commissioners). The students, alumni and parents come from this region.
Not the type of area that would have much patience for kooks like Daly.
This past Tuesday, the Trustees held a special emergency meeting on the topic, at which time Daly notified them of his immediate resignation, which was accepted. The college sent out a press release informing the public of their action; it further stated that staff would receive "tolerance training" as a result, and closed with a message of support for our troops and their mission from the College President.
Incidents like this occur all too regularly, unfortunately all too often the offending instructors remain in their post. Often the school administration backs the professors. Many colleges are funded by states or counties, but even in conservative states professors such as John Daly or Ward Churchill are allowed to flourish. Where the states or counties control the pursestrings, it is important sometimes for state or county government to step in to protect the student; to ensure that both taxpayer and tuition money goes towards useful education, not left-wing indoctrination.
At least the educational environment in Warren County, NJ has become more student-friendly.