George A. Sprecace M.D., J.D., F.A.C.P. and Allergy Associates of New London, P.C.
Dr. Sprecace's Home Page...
Information categories at this site...
About Dr. Sprecace and this site...
Access related links...
Terms for usage of this site...

RAPID RESPONSE (Archives)...Daily Commentary on News of the Day
This is a new section.  It will offer fresh, quick reactions by myself to news and events of the day, day by day, in this rapid-fire world of ours.  Of course, as in military campaigns, a rapid response in one direction may occasionally have to be followed by a "strategic withdrawal" in another direction.  Charge that to "the fog of war", and to the necessary flexibility any mental or military campaign must maintain to be effective.  But the mission will always be the same: common sense, based upon facts and "real politick", supported by a visceral sense of Justice and a commitment to be pro-active.  That's all I promise.

Click here to return to the current Rapid Response list

THURSDAY through TUESDAY, August 26 through 31,

Archbishop Chaput: a good man who should be a Cardinal soon.  GS

ZENIT, The world seen from Rome
News Agency

Archbishop Chaput on Liberty and Mission
Events Suggest an Emerging, Systematic Discrimination

SPISSKE PODHRADIE, Slovakia, AUG. 28, 2010 ( Here is the text of an address Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, Colorado, gave Tuesday in Slovakia. The address was titled "Living Within the Truth: Religious Liberty and Catholic Mission in the New Order of the World."

Tertullian once famously said that the blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church. History has proven that to be true. And Slovakia is the perfect place for us to revisit his words today. Here, and throughout Central and Eastern Europe, Catholics suffered through 50 years of Nazi and Soviet murder regimes. So they know the real cost of Christian witness from bitter experience -- and also, unfortunately, the cost of cowardice, collaboration and self-delusion in the face of evil.

I want to begin by suggesting that many Catholics in the United States and Western Europe today simply don't understand those costs. Nor do they seem to care. As a result, many are indifferent to the process in our countries that social scientists like to call "secularization" -- but which, in practice, involves repudiating the Christian roots and soul of our civilization.

American Catholics have no experience of the systematic repression so familiar to your Churches. It's true that anti-Catholic prejudice has always played a role in American life. This bigotry came first from my country's dominant Protestant culture, and now from its "post-Christian" leadership classes. But this is quite different from deliberate persecution. In general, Catholics have thrived in the United States. The reason is simple. America has always had a broadly Christian and religion-friendly moral foundation, and our public institutions were established as non-sectarian, not anti-religious.

At the heart of the American experience is an instinctive "biblical realism." From our Protestant inheritance we have always -- at least until now -- understood two things at a deep level. First, sin is real, and men and women can be corrupted by power and prosperity. Second, the "city of God" is something very distinct from the "city of man." And we are wary of ever confusing the two.

Alexis de Tocqueville, in his Democracy in America, wrote: "Despotism can do without faith, but liberty cannot ... " Therefore, "What is to be done with a people that is its own master, if it is not obedient to God?"

America's founders were a diverse group of practicing Christians and Enlightenment deists. But nearly all were friendly to religious faith. They believed a free people cannot remain free without religious faith and the virtues that it fosters. They sought to keep Church and state separate and autonomous. But their motives were very different from the revolutionary agenda in Europe. The American founders did not confuse the state with civil society. They had no desire for a radically secularized public life. They had no intent to lock religion away from public affairs. On the contrary, they wanted to guarantee citizens the freedom to live their faith publicly and vigorously, and to bring their religious convictions to bear on the building of a just society.

Obviously, we need to remember that other big differences do exist between the American and European experiences. Europe has suffered some of the worst wars and violent regimes in human history. The United States has not seen a war on its soil in 150 years. Americans have no experience of bombed-out cities or social collapse, and little experience of poverty, ideological politics or hunger. As a result, the past has left many Europeans with a worldliness and a pessimism that seem very different from the optimism that marks American society. But these differences don't change the fact that our paths into the future are now converging. Today, in an era of global interconnection, the challenges that confront Catholics in America are much the same as in Europe: We face an aggressively secular political vision and a consumerist economic model that result -- in practice, if not in explicit intent -- in a new kind of state-encouraged atheism.

To put it another way: The Enlightenment-derived worldview that gave rise to the great murder ideologies of the last century remains very much alive. Its language is softer, its intentions seem kinder, and its face is friendlier. But its underlying impulse hasn't changed -- i.e., the dream of building a society apart from God; a world where men and women might live wholly sufficient unto themselves, satisfying their needs and desires through their own ingenuity.

This vision presumes a frankly "post-Christian" world ruled by rationality, technology and good social engineering. Religion has a place in this worldview, but only as an individual lifestyle accessory. People are free to worship and believe whatever they want, so long as they keep their beliefs to themselves and do not presume to intrude their religious idiosyncrasies on the workings of government, the economy, or culture.

Now, at first hearing, this might sound like a reasonable way to organize a modern society that includes a wide range of ethnic, religious and cultural traditions, different philosophies of life and approaches to living.

But we're immediately struck by two unpleasant details.

First, "freedom of worship" is not at all the same thing as "freedom of religion." Religious freedom includes the right to preach, teach, assemble, organize, and to engage society and its issues publicly, both as individuals and joined together as communities of faith. This is the classic understanding of a citizen's right to the "free exercise" of his or her religion in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It's also clearly implied in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In contrast, freedom of worship is a much smaller and more restrictive idea.

Second, how does the rhetoric of enlightened, secular tolerance square with the actual experience of faithful Catholics in Europe and North America in recent years?

In the United States, a nation that is still 80 percent Christian with a high degree of religious practice, government agencies now increasingly seek to dictate how Church ministries should operate, and to force them into practices that would destroy their Catholic identity. Efforts have been made to discourage or criminalize the expression of certain Catholic beliefs as "hate speech." Our courts and legislatures now routinely take actions that undermine marriage and family life, and seek to scrub our public life of Christian symbolism and signs of influence.

In Europe, we see similar trends, although marked by a more open contempt for Christianity. Church leaders have been reviled in the media and even in the courts for simply expressing Catholic teaching. Some years ago, as many of you may recall, one of the leading Catholic politicians of our generation, Rocco Buttiglione, was denied a leadership post in the European Union because of his Catholic beliefs.

Earlier this summer we witnessed the kind of vindictive thuggery not seen on this continent since the days of Nazi and Soviet police methods: the Archbishop's palace in Brussels raided by agents; bishops detained and interrogated for nine hours without due process; their private computers, cell phones, and files seized. Even the graves of the Church's dead were violated in the raid. For most Americans, this sort of calculated, public humiliation of religious leaders would be an outrage and an abuse of state power. And this is not because of the virtues or the sins of the specific religious leaders involved, since we all have a duty to obey just laws. Rather, it's an outrage because the civil authority, by its harshness, shows contempt for the beliefs and the believers whom the leaders represent.

My point is this: These are not the actions of governments that see the Catholic Church as a valued partner in their plans for the 21st century. Quite the opposite. These events suggest an emerging, systematic discrimination against the Church that now seems inevitable.

Today's secularizers have learned from the past. They are more adroit in their bigotry; more elegant in their public relations; more intelligent in their work to exclude the Church and individual believers from influencing the moral life of society. Over the next several decades, Christianity will become a faith that can speak in the public square less and less freely. A society where faith is prevented from vigorous public expression is a society that has fashioned the state into an idol. And when the state becomes an idol, men and women become the sacrificial offering.

Cardinal Henri de Lubac once wrote that "It is not true that man cannot organize the world without God. What is true, is that without God, [man] can ultimately only organize it against man. Exclusive humanism is inhuman humanism."

The West is now steadily moving in the direction of that new "inhuman humanism." And if the Church is to respond faithfully, we need to draw upon the lessons that your Churches learned under totalitarianism.

A Catholicism of resistance must be based on trust in Christ's words: "The truth will make you free." This trust gave you insight into the nature of totalitarian regimes. It helped you articulate new ways of discipleship. Rereading the words of the Czech leader Václav Havel to prepare for this talk, I was struck by the profound Christian humanism of his idea of "living within the truth." Catholics today need to see their discipleship and mission as precisely that: "living within the truth."

Living within the truth means living according to Jesus Christ and God's Word in Sacred Scripture. It means proclaiming the truth of the Christian Gospel, not only by our words but by our example. It means living every day and every moment from the unshakeable conviction that God lives, and that his love is the motive force of human history and the engine of every authentic human life. It means believing that the truths of the Creed are worth suffering and dying for.

Living within the truth also means telling the truth and calling things by their right names. And that means exposing the lies by which some men try to force others to live.

Two of the biggest lies in the world today are these: first, that Christianity was of relatively minor importance in the development of the West; and second, that Western values and institutions can be sustained without a grounding in Christian moral principles.

Before I talk about these two falsehoods, we should pause a moment to think about the meaning of history.

History is not simply about learning facts. History is a form of memory, and memory is a foundation stone of self-identity. Facts are useless without a context of meaning. The unique genius and meaning of Western civilization cannot be understood without the 20 centuries of Christian context in which they developed. A people who do not know their history, do not know themselves. They are a people doomed to repeat the mistakes of their past because they cannot see what the present -- which always flowers out of the past -- requires of them.

People who forget who they are can be much more easily manipulated. This was dramatized famously in Orwell's image of the "memory hole" in his novel 1984. Today, the history of the Church and the legacy of Western Christianity are being pushed down the memory hole. This is the first lie that we need to face.

Downplaying the West's Christian past is sometimes done with the best intentions, from a desire to promote peaceful co-existence in a pluralistic society. But more frequently it's done to marginalize Christians and to neutralize the Church's public witness.

The Church needs to name and fight this lie. To be a European or an American is to be heir to a profound Christian synthesis of Greek philosophy and art, Roman law, and biblical truth. This synthesis gave rise to the Christian humanism that undergirds all of Western civilization.

On this point, we might remember the German Lutheran scholar and pastor, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He wrote these words in the months leading up to his arrest by the Gestapo in 1943: "The unity of the West is not an idea but a historical reality, of which the sole foundation is Christ."

Our societies in the West are Christian by birth, and their survival depends on the endurance of Christian values. Our core principles and political institutions are based, in large measure, on the morality of the Gospel and the Christian vision of man and government. We are talking here not only about Christian theology or religious ideas. We are talking about the moorings of our societies -- representative government and the separation of powers; freedom of religion and conscience; and most importantly, the dignity of the human person.

This truth about the essential unity of the West has a corollary, as Bonhoeffer also observed: Take away Christ and you remove the only reliable foundation for our values, institutions and way of life.

That means we cannot dispense with our history out of some superficial concern over offending our non-Christian neighbors. Notwithstanding the chatter of the "new atheists" there is no risk that Christianity will ever be forced upon people anywhere in the West. The only "confessional states" in the world today are those ruled by Islamist or atheist dictatorships -- regimes that have rejected the Christian West's belief in individual rights and the balance of powers.

I would argue that the defense of Western ideals is the only protection that we and our neighbors have against a descent into new forms of repression -- whether it might be at the hands of extremist Islam or secularist technocrats.

But indifference to our Christian past contributes to indifference about defending our values and institutions in the present. And this brings me to the second big lie by which we live today -- the lie that there is no unchanging truth.

Relativism is now the civil religion and public philosophy of the West. Again, the arguments made for this viewpoint can seem persuasive. Given the pluralism of the modern world, it might seem to make sense that society should want to affirm that no one individual or group has a monopoly on truth; that what one person considers to be good and desirable another may not; and that all cultures and religions should be respected as equally valid.

In practice, however, we see that without a belief in fixed moral principles and transcendent truths, our political institutions and language become instruments in the service of a new barbarism. In the name of tolerance we come to tolerate the cruelest intolerance; respect for other cultures comes to dictate disparagement of our own; the teaching of "live and let live" justifies the strong living at the expense of the weak.

This diagnosis helps us understand one of the foundational injustices in the West today -- the crime of abortion.

I realize that the abortion license is a matter of current law in almost every nation in the West. In some cases, this license reflects the will of the majority and is enforced through legal and democratic means. And I'm aware that many people, even in the Church, find it strange that we Catholics in America still make the sanctity of unborn life so central to our public witness.

Let me tell you why I believe abortion is the crucial issue of our age.

First, because abortion, too, is about living within the truth. The right to life is the foundation of every other human right. If that right is not inviolate, then no right can be guaranteed.

Or to put it more bluntly: Homicide is homicide, no matter how small the victim.

Here's another truth that many persons in the Church have not yet fully reckoned: The defense of newborn and preborn life has been a central element of Catholic identity since the Apostolic Age.

I'll say that again: From the earliest days of the Church, to be Catholic has meant refusing in any way to participate in the crime of abortion -- either by seeking an abortion, performing one, or making this crime possible through actions or inactions in the political or judicial realm. More than that, being Catholic has meant crying out against all that offends the sanctity and dignity of life as it has been revealed by Jesus Christ.

The evidence can be found in the earliest documents of Church history. In our day -- when the sanctity of life is threatened not only by abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, but also by embryonic research and eugenic temptations to eliminate the weak, the disabled and the infirm elderly -- this aspect of Catholic identity becomes even more vital to our discipleship.

My point in mentioning abortion is this: Its widespread acceptance in the West shows us that without a grounding in God or a higher truth, our democratic institutions can very easily become weapons against our own human dignity.

Our most cherished values cannot be defended by reason alone, or simply for their own sake. They have no self-sustaining or "internal" justification.

There is no inherently logical or utilitarian reason why society should respect the rights of the human person. There is even less reason for recognizing the rights of those whose lives impose burdens on others, as is the case with the child in the womb, the terminally ill, or the physically or mentally disabled.

If human rights do not come from God, then they devolve to the arbitrary conventions of men and women. The state exists to defend the rights of man and to promote his flourishing. The state can never be the source of those rights. When the state arrogates to itself that power, even a democracy can become totalitarian.

What is legalized abortion but a form of intimate violence that clothes itself in democracy? The will to power of the strong is given the force of law to kill the weak.

That is where we are heading in the West today. And we've been there before. Slovaks and many other Central and Eastern Europeans have lived through it.

I suggested earlier that the Church's religious liberty is under assault today in ways not seen since the Nazi and Communist eras. I believe we are now in the position to better understand why.

Writing in the 1960s, Richard Weaver, an American scholar and social philosopher, said: "I am absolutely convinced that relativism must eventually lead to a regime of force."

He was right. There is a kind of "inner logic" that leads relativism to repression.

This explains the paradox of how Western societies can preach tolerance and diversity while aggressively undermining and penalizing Catholic life. The dogma of tolerance cannot tolerate the Church's belief that some ideas and behaviors should not be tolerated because they dehumanize us. The dogma that all truths are relative cannot allow the thought that some truths might not be.

The Catholic beliefs that most deeply irritate the orthodoxies of the West are those concerning abortion, sexuality and the marriage of man and woman. This is no accident. These Christian beliefs express the truth about human fertility, meaning and destiny.

These truths are subversive in a world that would have us believe that God is not necessary and that human life has no inherent nature or purpose. Thus the Church must be punished because, despite all the sins and weaknesses of her people, she is still the bride of Jesus Christ; still a source of beauty, meaning and hope that refuses to die -- and still the most compelling and dangerous heretic of the world's new order.

Let me sum up what I've been saying.

My first point is this: Ideas have consequences. And bad ideas have bad consequences. Today we are living in a world that is under the sway of some very destructive ideas, the worst being that men and women can live as if God does not matter and as if the Son of God never walked this earth. As a result of these bad ideas, the Church's freedom to exercise her mission is under attack. We need to understand why that is, and we need to do something about it.

My second point is simply this: We can no longer afford to treat the debate over secularization -- which really means cauterizing Christianity out of our cultural memory -- as if it's a problem for Church professionals. The emergence of a "new Europe" and a "next America" rooted in something other than the real facts of our Christian-shaped history will have damaging consequences for every serious believer.

We need not and should not abandon the hard work of honest dialogue. Far from it. The Church always needs to seek friendships, areas of agreement, and ways to make positive, reasoned arguments in the public square. But it's foolish to expect gratitude or even respect from our governing and cultural leadership classes today. Naïve imprudence is not an evangelical virtue.

The temptation in every age of the Church is to try to get along with Caesar. And it's very true: Scripture tells us to respect and pray for our leaders. We need to have a healthy love for the countries we call home. But we can never render unto Caesar what belongs to God. We need to obey God first; the obligations of political authority always come second. We cannot collaborate with evil without gradually becoming evil ourselves. This is one of the most vividly harsh lessons of the 20th century. And it's a lesson that I hope we have learned.

That brings me to my third and final point today: We live in a time when the Church is called to be a believing community of resistance. We need to call things by their true names. We need to fight the evils we see. And most importantly, we must not delude ourselves into thinking that by going along with the voices of secularism and de-Christianization we can somehow mitigate or change things. Only the Truth can set men free. We need to be apostles of Jesus Christ and the Truth he incarnates.

So what does this mean for us as individual disciples? Let me offer a few suggestions by way of a conclusion.

My first suggestion comes again from the great witness against the paganism of the Third Reich, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: "The renewal of the Western world lies solely in the divine renewal of the Church, which leads her to the fellowship of the risen and living Jesus Christ."

The world urgently needs a re-awakening of the Church in our actions and in our public and private witness. The world needs each of us to come to a deeper experience of our Risen Lord in the company of our fellow believers. The renewal of the West depends overwhelmingly on our faithfulness to Jesus Christ and his Church.

We need to really believe what we say we believe. Then we need to prove it by the witness of our lives. We need to be so convinced of the truths of the Creed that we are on fire to live by these truths, to love by these truths, and to defend these truths, even to the point of our own discomfort and suffering.

We are ambassadors of the living God to a world that is on the verge of forgetting him. Our work is to make God real; to be the face of his love; to propose once more to the men and women of our day, the dialogue of salvation.

The lesson of the 20th century is that there is no cheap grace. This God whom we believe in, this God who loved the world so much that he sent his only Son to suffer and die for it, demands that we live the same bold, sacrificial pattern of life shown to us by Jesus Christ.

The form of the Church, and the form of every Christian life, is the form of the cross. Our lives must become a liturgy, a self-offering that embodies the love of God and the renewal of the world.

The great Slovak martyrs of the past knew this. And they kept this truth alive when the bitter weight of hatred and totalitarianism pressed upon your people. I'm thinking especially right now of your heroic bishops, Blessed Vasil Hopko and Pavel Gojdic, and the heroic sister, Blessed Zdenka Schelingová.

We need to keep this beautiful mandate of Sister Zdenka close to our hearts:

"My sacrifice, my holy Mass, begins in daily life. From the altar of the Lord I go to the altar of my work. I must be able to continue the sacrifice of the altar in every situation. It is Christ whom we must proclaim through our lives, to him we offer the sacrifice of our own will."

Let us preach Jesus Christ with all the energy of our lives. And let us support each other -- whatever the cost -- so that when we make our accounting to the Lord, we will be numbered among the faithful and courageous, and not the cowardly or the evasive, or those who compromised until there was nothing left of their convictions; or those who were silent when they should have spoken the right word at the right time. Thank you. And God bless all of you.

SATURDAY through WEDNESDAY, August 21 through 25, 2010

These people surely don't accept responsibility for the terrorist and inhumane cancer in their midst.  And that responsibility has not been adequately articulated to and demanded of them...except by me.  GS

Ex-Bush official: Muslim-Americans deserting the GOP
By Brett Michael Dykes

In the same regard that African-American writer Toni Morrison labeled Bill Clinton as "America's first black president," could a case be made for George W. Bush being America's first Muslim-American president?

At least one former member of his administration thinks so, and he believes that prominent Republicans voicing opposition to the "Ground Zero mosque" is undoing all of the work done by the former president and conservative activists such as Grover Norquist in securing the party's support among Muslims and Arab-Americans in general.

In an op-ed for Foreign Policy, former Bush official Suhail Khan says that the anti-Muslim flames being stoked by the likes of Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich — already being used as a recruitment tool by jihadists overseas — have alienated Muslims in America in ways that rival or surpass the Islamophobia that arose in some corners immediately after the terror attacks on September 11, 2001.

Khan writes:

Muslim Americans are, by and large, both socially and economically conservative. Sixty-one percent of them would ban abortion except to save the life of the mother; 84 percent support school choice. Muslims overwhelmingly support traditional marriage. More than a quarter — over twice the national average —are self-employed small-business owners, and most support reducing taxes and the abolition of the estate tax. By all rights they should be Republicans — and not long ago they were. American Muslims voted two to one for George H.W. Bush in 1992. While they went for Bill Clinton by the same margin in 1996, they were brought back into the Republican fold in 2000 by George W. Bush. ... He won more than 70 percent of the Muslim vote, including 46,200 ballots in Florida alone, prompting longtime conservative activist Grover Norquist — one of the few prominent movement figures to caution against the current wave of mosque demagoguery — to proclaim in the American Spectator that "Bush was elected President of the United States of America because of the Muslim vote."

On every issue and by every measure, Muslim Americans should vote firmly with the GOP. But they won't until the party finds leadership willing to stop playing to the worst instincts of its minority of bigoted supporters.

Interestingly, former President Bush has not weighed in on the mosque fray, despite the fact that the imam heading up the proposed community center in downtown Manhattan once toured the Middle East on behalf of the Bush White House to spread the word about religious tolerance in the U.S.

WEDNESDAY through FRIDAY, August 18 through 20, 2010

Folks, this is not something to have to wake up to...but it is something about which we have to wake up - and NOW.  I'm going to review this piece with the local Muslim cleric in Groton and elsewhere.  More to come.  GS

Subject: Brigitte Gabriel 'For the sake of our children and our country...'

She gave this speech at Duke University also. 

Editor's Note: Below are selected excerpts from Brigitte Gabriel's speech delivered at the Intelligence Summit in Washington DC

We gather here today to share information and knowledge. Intelligence is not merely cold hard data about numerical strength or armament or disposition of military forces. The most important element of intelligence has to be understanding the mindset and intention of the enemy. The West has been wallowing in a state of ignorance and denial for thirty years as Muslim extremist perpetrated evil against innocent victims in the name of Allah.

I was ten years old when my home exploded around me, burying me under the rubble and leaving me to drink my blood to survive, as the perpetrators shouted, 'Allah Akbar!' My only crime was that I was a Christian living in a Christian town. At 10 years old, I learned the meaning of the word 'infidel.'

I had a crash course in survival. Not in the Girl Scouts, but in a bomb shelter where I lived for seven years in pitch darkness, freezing cold, drinking stale water and eating grass to live. At the age of 13, I dressed in my burial clothes going to bed at night, waiting to be slaughtered. By the age of 20, I had buried most of my friends--killed by Muslims. We were not Americans living in New York , or Britons in London . We were Arab Christians living in Lebanon .

As a victim of Islamic terror, I was amazed when I saw Americans waking up on September 12, 2001, and asking themselves 'Why do they hate us?' The psychoanalyst experts were coming up with all sort of excuses as to what did we do to offend the Muslim World. But if America and the West were paying attention to the Middle East they would not have had to ask the question. Simply put, they hate us because we are defined in their eyes by one simple word: 'infidels.'

Under the banner of Islam 'la, ilaha illa Allah, muhammad

rasoulu Allah,' (None is god except Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah) they murdered Jewish children in Israel, massacred Christians in Lebanon, killed Copts in Egypt, Assyrians in Syria, Hindus in India, and expelled almost 900,000 Jews from Muslim lands. We Middle Eastern infidels paid the price then. Now infidels worldwide are paying the price for indifference and shortsightedness.

Tolerating evil is a crime. Appeasing murderers doesn't buy protection. It earns one disrespect and loathing in the enemy's eyes. Yet apathy is the weapon by which the West is committing suicide. Political correctness forms the shackles around our ankles, by which Islamist's are leading us to our demise.

America and the West are doomed to failure in this war unless they stand up and identify the real enemy: Islam. You hear about Cahaba and Salafi Islam as the only extreme form of Islam. All the other Muslims, supposedly, are wonderful moderates. Closer to the truth are the pictures of the irrational eruption of violence in reaction to the cartoons of Mohammed printed by a Danish newspaper. From burning embassies, to calls to butcher those who mock Islam, to warnings that the West be prepared for another holocaust, those pictures have given us a glimpse into the real face of the enemy. News pictures and video of these events represent a canvas of hate decorated by different nationalities who share one common ideology of hate, bigotry and intolerance derived from one source: authentic Islam. An Islam that is awakening from centuries of slumber to re-ignite its wrath against the infidel and dominate the world. An Islam which has declared 'Intifada' on the West.
America and the West can no longer afford to lay in their lazy state of overweight ignorance. The consequences of this mental disease are starting to attack the body, and if they don't take the necessary steps now to control it, death will be knocking soon. If you want to understand the nature of the enemy we face, visualize a tapestry of snakes. They slither and they hiss, and they would eat each other alive, but they will unite in a hideous mass to achieve their common goal of imposing Islam on the world.

This is the ugly face of the enemy we are fighting. We are fighting a powerful ideology that is capable of altering basic human instincts. An ideology that can turn a mother into a launching pad of death. A perfect example is a recently elected Hamas official in the Palestinian Territorieswho raves in heavenly joy about sending her three sons to death and offering the ones who are still alive for the cause. It is an ideology that is capable of offering highly educated individuals such as doctors and lawyers far more joy in attaining death than any respect and stature life in society is ever capable of giving them.

The United States has been a prime target for radical Islamic hatred and terror. Every Friday, mosques in the Middle East ring with shrill prayers and monotonous chants calling death, destruction and damnation down on America and its people. The radical Islamist deeds have been as vile as their words. Since the Iran hostage crisis, more than three thousand Americans have died in a terror campaign almost unprecedented in its calculated cruelty along with thousands of other citizens worldwide. Even the Nazis did not turn their own children into human bombs, and then rejoice at their deaths as well the deaths of their victims. This intentional, indiscriminate and wholesale murder of innocent American citizens is justified and glorified in the name of Islam.
America cannot effectively defend itself in this war unless and until the American people understand the nature of the enemy that we face. Even after 9/11 there are those who say that we must engage our terrorist enemies, that we must address their grievances. Their grievance is our freedom of religion. Their grievance is our freedom of speech. Their grievance is our democratic process where the rule of law comes from the voices of many not that of just one prophet. It is the respect we instill in our children towards all religions. It is the equality we grant each other as human beings sharing a planet and striving to make the world a better place for all humanity. Their grievance is the kindness and respect a man shows a woman, the justice we practice as equals under the law, and the mercy we grant our enemy. Their grievance cannot be answered by an apology for who or what we are.

Our mediocre attitude of not confronting Islamic forces of bigotry and hatred wherever they raised their ugly head in the last 30 years, has empowered and strengthened our enemy to launch a full scale attack on the very freedoms we cherish in their effort to impose their values and way of life on our civilization.

If we don't wake up and challenge our Muslim community to take action against the terrorists within it, if we don't believe in ourselves as Americans and in the standards we should hold every patriotic American to, we are going to pay a price for our delusion. For the sake of our children and our country, we must wake up and take action. In the face of a torrent of hateful invective and terrorist murder, America 's learning curve since the Iran hostage crisis is so shallow that it is almost flat. The longer we lay supine, the more difficult it will be to stand erect.

This is all coming true. A non-patriot pro-Muslim is President of this great country. How can this happen?? APATHY, that's how!!!

Brigitte Gabriel is an expert on the Middle East conflict and lectures nationally and internationally on the subject. She's the former news anchor of World News for Middle East television and the founder of

TUESDAY, August 17, 2010


See the article by Charles Krauthammer entitled "Building Sacrilege At Ground Zero" (in The Day - - Saturday, August 14, pA7). 

My sentiments, exactly.  And if good Muslims want to change their current status in the eyes of many fellow Americans...RID YOUR OWN HOUSE OF THE CANCER IN YOUR MIDST!


MONDAY, August 16, 2010


Wait!  This is not a movie review by a former movie lover who in the recent 20 years sees one new movie every three or four months and who walks out of a third of them within 1/2 hour. 

But this movie has "redeeming social value", especially if we realize that it's subtitle should be "ODE TO NARCISSUS".  As such, it has merit for understanding what ails the youngest two current generations around us today. 

I decided to see the movie because of the acting ability of Julia Roberts (not a M. Streep, mind you...but good).  I stayed for the full rendering despite an early sense of unease and a definite later sense of unease in my Glutei Maximi.  Beautiful visuals; some fine acting, although not uniform.  But the story...more precisely enough story for three movies...soon brought to mind Cher's pointed comment to Nicholas Cage when he was obsessing over his lost hand, and punctuated with a smart slap to the face: "GET OVER IT!". 

Instead, Julia's character (reportedly a real person) first asks God belatedly for help...and then goes on an international quest for what a wise Italian Mamma calls "pasta e SALSICCIA".  Is that what God had advised? 

At heart, the wound was relatively superficial and partly self-imposed.  The treatment, as in the days of old with tonsillectomy, was Ice Cream.  And the prognosis for "Julia" is decidedly guarded, having learned nothing from the keeping with a true narcissist. 

Pleasant, and the movie theater was nice and cool.  But for life lessons:


SUNDAY, August 15, 2010


Does it want to be a dinosaur or a rhino?  In either case it will be irrelevant to the vast majority of American voters who today are seeking restoration of political balance to a body politic that has veered sharply to the left domestically and to an extra-American...even anti-American...posture in our dealings with other nations.


To offer voters a real choice in the next two Federal elections, I suggest the following positions - platform planks - to be embraced by a newly united and pragmatic Republican Party. 

  1. Absolute unity on the issue of Abortion: the killing of a human being from the instant of conception.  At the very least, champion the restoration of this issue to the individual States. 
  2. An economic policy that stresses balanced budgets, major reduction in the national debt by reducing entitlements and promoting self-reliance,  responsible spending and saving by individuals, real reduction in the size of Federal government, rational oversight over the business world - including especially international corporations,  total revision of the Tax Code resulting in a substantial reduction in taxation for the vast majority of Americans, and a more responsible and responsive reform of Health Care delivery, representing over 1/6 of our national economy...and rising. 
  3. Emphasis on America as a religious nation, a tolerant nation, and not an atheistic or fully secular nation.  We in this country are guaranteed "Freedom of Religion", not freedom from religion. 
  4. Full support of the U.S. Constitution as written, with its intentional built-in ambiguities as clarified by our Supreme Court...including the 14th Amendment, which some prominent Republicans are now foolishly attacking.
  5. Recognize Homosexuality, based on now - established Science, as largely a biologic deviation from "normal" - and not a Biblical "intrinsic evil" or a life-style choice.  
  6. Nevertheless, protect "Marriage" (vs civil unions") as a foundation-stone of our society...established for the propagation and protection of our progeny.
  7. Support a rational approach to the "drug culture" that treats addicts and severely punishes pushers.
  8. Admit that many if not most of the now famous "12 million illegal immigrants" have been actually invited and drawn into this country by greedy and illegal business interests and by a U.S. government that has failed to implement immigration laws on the statute books for many years.  Demand full control of our national borders while offering a means of enabling these illegal immigrants to earn a legitimate place in our society.
  9. Be true warriors in the "culture wars" currently endangering civil society, without the unnecessary "fire and brimstone".  We don't have to be Fundamentalist and "re-born" Christians to know right from wrong and the elements of a moral life.  
  10. On the international scene, champion America First, testing all relationships with other nations in accordance with our self-interest...enlightened and generous, but always promoting our national self-interest.  In that regard, champion our "special relationship" with Great Britain, historical, earned and on-going.  In this context, evaluate de novo each of our military commitments throughout the world in keeping with that rule. 
In keeping with the broken third tablet of Commandments dropped in "...Mad,Mad World", I'll end here. 

Will the Republican Party embrace these honorable and practical positions?  Not much time is left to refurbish its image.  For in November 2010 and November 2012, Democrats can't win...but Republicans can surely lose it.


SATURDAY, August 14, 2010

BEAUTIFUL...and true.  Therein lies the second lesson of running for public office.  The first is Timing.


The nobility of Rob Simmons

By Keith C. Burris, Journal Inquirer

Published: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 12:08 PM EDT


"I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.”

So wrote St. Paul to his friend, Timothy.

And so might Rob Simmons say today. The soldier, ex-state legislator, and ex-congressman, who lost the Republican U.S. Senate nomination yesterday to Linda McMahon, fought the good fight.

There are many interesting sidebars to yesterday’s election, in which the big stories were Dan Malloy’s victory for experience and seriousness in politics, and McMahon’s ability to purchase a U.S. Senate nomination.

One sidebar is the success of public financing. Malloy was able to compete, using public funds, against a far-better-financed opponent.

So was Mike Fedele, who came within a few points of Tom Foley in the race for the GOP gubernatorial nomination. Foley, incidentally, did not spend like a sailor. He spent roughly $3 million of his own money to Lamont’s $10 million and McMahon’s $22 million.

But the most interesting sidebar is the story of Simmons.

Rejected by the party he’d served for so well and so long at its nominating convention, after driving Chris Dodd into retirement, Simmons shut down his campaign apparatus and traveled the state alone or with his wife, simply meeting people and talking issues. Simmons came to the Journal Inquirer about a week ago to talk about his thoughts and ideas on Afghanistan . Just Afghanistan . It was evident that he knows more than most members of Congress about the war in that country, and has forgotten more than McMahon will ever know.

Simmons didn’t divide his party. He didn’t waste money. Instead he talked about public service. That’s what politics is to Simmons: public service. With time, his second and very interesting guerrilla campaign (after losing the convention) might have caught on.

Two candidates this year impressed in one-on-one meetings with their breadth, and depth, and personal groundedness: Malloy and Simmons.

Malloy acts like a governor.

Simmons acts like a senator.

That’s not to say that either man is right about everything. No one is. But both men dignify the process — they affirm that politics and government are serious and important.

Many years ago, William F. Buckley wrote a column about Allard Lowenstein called “The Nobility of a Persistent Loser.” Buckley was Mr. Conservative and Lowenstein was a liberal Democrat who lost several races for Congress. But Buckley backed him, and admired him, because Lowenstein, in his one term in Congress, gave his district good representation, great constituent service, and absolute personal dedication. Buckley also backed Lowenstein because he believed he was a man of principle, compassion, and moral courage. As Buckley put it, Lowenstein served human beings as well as humanity.

In other words, character should trump partisanship, ideology, and money.

Many Republicans forgot this yesterday. But many did not. Many GOP legislators and mayors, like Manchester ’s Lou Spadaccini, stood by Simmons. Fifty-one percent of the GOP primary voters voted against Mrs. McMahon.

Losing is supposed to be the worst thing in politics. No one wants to be the loser. But in America , sometimes the losers point the way to a better time, past or future. Sometimes they remind us who we really are and what our values really are. In history some of the losers stand tall because they speak to our better natures.

The nobility of Rob Simmons stands out in this election, and no doubt he will find a way to continue to serve. He always has.

Keith C. Burris is editorial-page editor of the Journal Inquirer.

WEDNESDAY through FRIDAY, August 11 through 13, 2010

TERRIFIC.  Who wudda thunkit?  GS

Railroad tracks...

The   US  standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number.

Why was that gauge used? Because that's the way they built them in England , and English expatriates designed the   US  railroads.

Why did the English build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.

Why did 'they' use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they had used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing.

Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in   England , because that's the spacing of the wheel ruts.


So who built those old rutted roads? Imperial   Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (including   England ) for their legions. Those roads have been used ever since.

And the ruts in the roads? Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels.


Since the chariots were made for Imperial   Rome , they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing. Therefore the United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches is derived from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot. Bureaucracies live forever.

So the next time you are handed a specification/procedure/process and wonder 'What horse's ass came up with this?' , you may be exactly right. Imperial Roman army chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the rear ends of two war horses. (Two horses' asses.)


<>Now, the twist to the story:

When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Thiokol at their factory in  Utah



 The engineers who designed the SRBs would have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains, and the SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses' behinds.



So, a major Space Shuttle design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's ass. And you thought being a horse's ass wasn't important? Ancient horse's asses control almost everything... and CURRENT Horses Asses in Washington are controlling everything else.

THURSDAY through TUESDAY, August 5 through 10, 2010



The short answer for these questions: political correctness.  As Americans have become infected by narcissism and a lack of self-confidence that requires them to seek out acceptance from others, so has it infected our foreign policy.
Because apparently it is enough for them to answer our customer service calls and be there to lower our labor costs.  That, and basic political myopia.
Because of economic myopia.  Why pay $2 for something when I can get it for $1.  That way I can use my free dollar to download another in my catalog of 25,000 songs on my iPod which I will listen to while I'm "efficiently" 'multi-tasking', thereby further sticking my head in the sand of political, economic, and cultural disregard.
Because we can't sit around and risk further incessant attack from these sub-humans waiting for cultural and religious provincials (many of whom quietly agree with the extremists) to come to our rescue.  I've said it a thousand times, kill the cancer before it kills you.
Because every nation requires strong internal leadership before it can make strong external bonds.  Kemal Ataturk took incredible risks to force his country into the 20th Century after WWI.  There is no one of his caliber in Turkey because no one wants to take risks in that country, mostly because of militant Islam.  Sorry if I offend any Turkey lovers out there, but Turkey has been an economic and cultural backwater since the Renaissance and the rise of Western Europe.  The same geographical location that once gave it incredible economic wealth and political influence on the world stage has now become a curse, making it the bi-polar step-child of European and near-Asian politics.
Because that is passe' in today's narcissistic political environment (see above) of making sure that we don't offend anyone.  Puh-lease!  Only old people want to dig up that old game of hating the Roo-skies. 
Sheer stupidity.  There's no other way to put it.  No wonder Europeans like to make fun of the U.S.  Then again, if we didn't have such a presence, they would bitch and moan about how self-centered we are.  It's the price of being the big kid on the block.
Oh, that's an easy one.  Because our country is now being governed by those who attended college in the 1960's.  No need to elaborate.
Because to people like those in the Obama Administration, England is second only to the U.S. in being the most evil country to ever populate the face of the Earth.  We are their spawn.
Another easy one to answer--because nearly 50 years of ignoring this problem has enabled 2+ generations of Mexicans to become such a large percentage of the Southwestern population that even without them being bothered to engage in something as pedestrian as voting, too many people in and out of politics are too scared to take them on because of the dreaded 'R'-word.  Being literally in the middle of this issue for over 20 years now, frustrated doesn't come close to describing my feelings when I see and hear Mexicans (legal or not) laughing at the fact that, soon enough, they will reclaim this part of the country for Mexico, whether or not the border changes.
This is a FACT. 
Because Blacks were once slaves of this country and for 40+ years the conventional wisdom has been that they can do no wrong, specifically and solely because they were once slaves, period.  If a Black person commits a crime, he was entrapped or otherwise forced to do it because of the White man.  If a Black person exhibits racism against Whites, he or she is simply expressing views in a way that was not allowed in the past.  Sad, but true.  And, until Blacks get a handle on this, they will forever be second-class citizens, even to those who came after them.
See my answer to the Internationalism question you raised above.  
I don't think this is intentional.  It is simply the natural result of the stratification of this country over the last three generations.  People on the far Left think that borders, the flag, and a unifying language are regressive and childishly simplistic in the ridiculously idealistic world put forth in their anthem, John Lennon's 'Imagine'.  Again, I've been immersed in this environment since the day I walked into college in 1983.  Conversely, people on the far Right think that they can stop the clock regarding the natural cycle of society and culture in a free country. 
Both will fail because both cannot bring themselves to understand what it is like to balance one's personal identity with that of one's identity in the rest of the world.

WEDNESDAY, August 4, 2010

Adam, this is the next rr to follow, with this introduction:
The one test of the Muslim World and of the Religion of Islam, reportedly moderate and peace-loving, is to totally repudiate and destroy radical Fundamentalism and its bible of terrorism from within. Those moderates are reportedly the overwhelming majority of believers of the Koran. If they can't or won't expunge this cancer from their midst, they too become the enemies not only of the United States or of the Western World or of Christianity, but of all peace-loving and fair and moral human beings. This is their choice.


Is the Cordoba House Good for America?

Max Fisher Max Fisher Tue Aug 3, 12:19 pm ET

WASHINGTON, DC – Now that the New York City landmarks commission has approved the Cordoba House, an Islamic community center that has drawn attacks for its planned location two blocks from the former World Trade Center site, the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" is one step closer to reality. Whether it ends up happening as planned or is scuttled as demanded by such conservatives as Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, observers are weighing in on what the center would mean for America. What would it do, or not do, for the country and its millions of Muslim-Americans?

The Case Against the Cordoba House

The Case for the Cordoba House
Our doors are open to everyone. Everyone with a dream and a willingness to work hard and play by the rules. New York City was built by immigrants, and it's sustained by immigrants -- by people from more than 100 different countries speaking more than 200 different languages and professing every faith. And whether your parents were born here or you came here yesterday, you are a New Yorker.

... Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan.

Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies' hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that.

... Political controversies come and go, but our values and our traditions endure, and there is no neighborhood in this city that is off-limits to God's love and mercy, as the religious leaders here with us can attest.

TUESDAY, August 3, 2010

As the reader may recall, this was precisely my take on the actions of General McChrystal.  No fluke.  Just fact and fortitude.


McChrystal was talking to you
Peter Heck - Guest Columnist - 6/28/2010 10:20:00 AM

The ink had not yet dried on my last column that discussed the fact that Barack Obama was woefully unprepared for the presidency and as a result is making deadly missteps in the execution of that role, when news broke of General Stanley McChrystal in essence saying the exact same thing to Rolling Stone magazine.  This isn't just a story to be brushed off.  This is a bombshell.
Don't be distracted by the media comically chastising the General for daring to speak out against "The One" (yes, the same media that hailed military officers who were willing to "speak truth to power" in criticizing George Bush).  That isn't the story.
The true meaning of the McChrystal episode is titanic, because it is quite apparent the General was sending a stern message directly to the American people.
For more reasons than I can count, it is beyond obvious that McChrystal's public criticism of Obama was not a lapse in judgment or a mistake.  It was unquestionably intentional.  First, four-star generals have not achieved that rank without knowing the chain of command and the expectation of subordination to superiors.  Second, all of McChrystal's advisers were touting the same message, demonstrating this was no fluke, nor an offhand comment taken out of context.  Third, McChrystal spoke the inflammatory words to Rolling Stone, a well known anti-war, anti-military magazine.  Fourth, reports are that McChrystal actually saw the piece before it went to print and offered up no objections to its content.
If all that is true, then it naturally begs the question: Why did he do it?
McChrystal is one of the lead authors of the "counterinsurgency" strategy that, despite the nay saying of liberals like then-Senators Obama and Biden, transformed Iraq from a quagmire into a success.  He knows the strategy works.  But as its architect, he also knows this new military policy requires two vital elements: lots of troops, and as much time as necessary for them to do their job.
While other factors are important (cultural bonds, regional partnerships, financial investment, troop morale, etc.), the two most crucial ingredients to making counterinsurgency work (in Afghanistan or anywhere) is a massive amount of troops on the ground to overwhelm the enemy and live among the people, and a commitment to stay as long as necessary to break the will of the enemy.
This is precisely why counterinsurgency worked in Iraq .  Over the ignorant objections of both Obama and Biden, then-President Bush listened to his military commanders and ordered the troop surge.  And while being pummeled by the media and Democrat political opportunists for not setting a hard deadline for withdrawal, Bush committed to stay in Iraq until the job was finished.  The result speaks for itself.
As the Afghan war began to deteriorate, Stanley McChrystal was put in charge to implement that effective strategy there.  But he quickly found that Barack Obama is no George W. Bush.  First, Obama having championed himself as the anti-war candidate cut the number of troops McChrystal requested.  And then, in what has to be one of the most foolish wartime moves in history, he announced an arbitrary date for the beginning of American troop withdrawal.
This may please the ex-hippies in the anti-war crowd that Obama courted during the 2008 campaign, but it has emboldened our enemy, imperiled our troops, and created a giant mess of our counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan .
Having pressed his case privately with Obama's war team in Washington, McChrystal certainly saw the handwriting on the wall, and as a final recourse, pled his case to the American people.
Were his actions a breach of protocol?  Yes.  Did they rise to the level of insubordination?  Probably.  Was Obama justified in removing him from command?  I think so.  But after we're done hammering McChrystal for going over the President's head, we better give some serious thought as to why he was so willing to put his career on the line like that.
The reason is as clear as it is frightening: our political leadership in Washington is clueless.  And their incompetence is costing us not only resources and money, but most importantly the precious lives of brave American soldiers.
General Stanley McChrystal was willing to lose his job to send that message to the only people who can do something about it.  He was talking to you.
Peter Heck ( hosts a two-hour, daily call-in radio program on WIOU (1350 AM) in Kokomo , Indiana . "The Peter Heck Show" comments on social and political issues -- and doesn't shy away from recognizing how faith influences politics. This column is printed with permission.
Opinions expressed in 'Perspectives' columns published by are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network,, our parent organization or its other affiliates.

SUNDAY and MONDAY, August 1 and 2, 2010

I don't Care!

Thought you might like to read this letter to the editor of a British national newspaper.

Written by a housewife to her daily newspaper.

This is one ticked off lady.

'Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we?  Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores in July 2002, and in New York, Sept 11, 2001 and have continually threatened to do so since?

Were people from all over the world, not brutally murdered that day in London, and in downtown Manhattan, and in a field in Pennsylvania?

Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a few Taliban were claiming to be tortured by a justice system of the nation they come from and are fighting against in a brutal insurgency.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11 and 7/7.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere belief of which is a crime punishable by beheading in Afghanistan.

I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called 'insurgents' in Afghanistan come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques and behind women and children.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of Nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

I'll care when the British media stops pretending that their freedom of speech on stories is more important than the lives of the soldiers on the ground or their families waiting at home to hear about them when something happens.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a British soldier roughing up an Insurgent terrorist to obtain information, know this:

I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take this to the bank:

I don't care.

When I hear that a prisoner - who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and 'fed special food' that is paid for by my taxes - is complaining that his holy book is being 'mishandled,' you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts:

I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled 'Koran' and other times 'Quran.'  Well, believe me!  You guessed it...

I don't care!

If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behaviour!

If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country!

And may I add:

'Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world.  Our soldiers don't have that problem.'

Only five defining forces have ever offered to die for you:

1. Jesus Christ

2.  The British Soldier.

3. The Canadian Soldier.

4. The US Soldier.

5. The Australian Soldier.

One died for your soul, the other 4 for your freedom.

Return to:

Copyright Notice (c) Copyright 1999-2023 Allergy Associates of New London, PC