A 1960s CHILD WATCHTOWER (PLEASE WRITE TO: A60sCHILDMAILBOX@aol.com)

" The More We Learn, The More We Realize Just How Little We Know, And How Much There Is Still To Be Learned " I come from the dramatic, revolutionary, albeit violent, yet 'magical' 60s. Opinionated and challenging, I write about current events, geopolitics, globalization, history, music, mainly classic rock, philosophy, pop culture, politics, religion, sociology, and anything else that defines the person which I am. 60s Child

Name:
Location: Miami, Florida, United States

I belong to a special generation, the 'Baby Boomer Generation', all 70 million of us. Mine is the countercultural, culture-changing, music-influenced, society-altering, rebellious, and revolutionary generation which grew up during the dramatic and violent, while in many ways exciting and 'magical' 1960s. After all these years, I still feel totally identified with the 60s, as that decade defines me. Although I was both a participating and observing member of the 'flower generation', I am a conservative in my political and sociological principles. As much as I appreciated the freedom and radical liberalism of the 60s, I nevertheless did not support the anti-war movement. I am also Roman Catholic, and teach catechism. AS I CONSIDER THE MUSIC OF THE 60s AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE CULTURE, AND CONSIDERING THAT EVEN AFTER 40 YEARS IT RETAINS ITS POWERFUL ALLURE, I WISH TO SHARE SOME OF MY 60s FAVORITE GROUPS: ANIMALS, B.BOYS, BEATLES, B.GEES, B.S.&T, CHICAGO, CREAM, C.C.R., C.S.N.&Y, E.L.O., E.L.P., 4 SEASONS, G.F.R., J.HENDRIX, KINKS, LED ZEP, MAMAS & PAPAS, M.BLUES, R.STONES, R.ORBISON, S.& G., WHO, YARDBIRDS EMAIL: A60sCHILDMAILBOX@aol.com

Thursday, October 13, 2005

THEY KEEP DUMPING ON BUSH AND ARE GETTING AWAY WITH IT


IT WENT UNREPORTED BY THE MAINSTREAM,
(LIBERAL) MEDIA, BUT REPRESENTATIVE
CHARLES RANGEL, N.Y. DEMOCRAT,
HAS BEEN LABELING PRESIDENT BUSH
BOTH A RACIST AND A MAN THAT DOES NOT CARE
FOR AMERICA'S POOR


President George W. Bush, according to Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., doesn't care about the poor, much worse, he is a racist of the old Southern-fried 1950s kind

Rangel recently called the president "our Bull Connor," referring to the racist former Birmingham, Ala., police commissioner who turned fire hoses and attack dogs on civil rights activists in the '60s. "If you're black in this country," said Rangel, "and you're poor in this country, it's not an inconvenience. It's a death sentence."

Here is a suposedly respectable politician, a long time N.Y. Congressman openly accusing the president of being a racist and nobody frowns across America's media centers.

But a conservative, like Bill Bennet makes a hypothetical remark about the linkage of aborted black babies and the decrease in crime and all the bleeding liberal hearts in America want to tar and feather him.
Do I detect a double-standard here?

Once again, Rangel displays the unique ability -- apparently only possessed by Democrats -- to peer inside the president's soul, to conclude he lacks compassion and concern about the poor. Never mind that federal spending on welfare programs and aid to the poor under President Bush is the highest ever, even higher than President Clinton's, the so-called "first African-American president" for his afinity to blacks.

Since Bush took office, according to the Heritage Foundation, federal anti-poverty spending -- including Medicaid, food and nutrition programs, housing, earned income tax credit and child credits, plus other programs -- increased 42 percent. This is nearly double the rate of increase under President Clinton. Figures do not lie.
President Bush doesn't care about the poor? Let us count the ways.

Education: Under 'No Child Left Behind', Bush increased federal spending on education -- in inflation-adjusted dollars -- from 2001 to 2005 by 38 percent. During the same period, Education for the Disadvantaged Grants (this includes Title I) -- the program designed to decrease the performance gap between urban and suburban school districts -- received an inflation-adjusted increase of 58 percent. Bush increased spending on Education for Homeless Children and Youth by an inflation-adjusted 57 percent during those same years. Under Bush, federal spending for bilingual education has increased 44 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars since 2001. Bush has increased by 52 percent (from 2001) funding for Pell Grants used at technical schools and community colleges.

Job Training: President Bush's 2005 budget included 12.5 percent more funding than in 2001 for job training and employment assistance. This comes to a total of $23 billion for 30 programs in nine agencies. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program pays for job training for those "displaced" as a result of free trade. Bush, in his first four years in office, more than doubled the inflation-adjusted dollars spent on this program.

Community Service: The budget of the Corporation for National and Community Service -- which includes funding for former President Bill Clinton's pet project, 'AmeriCorps' -- grew by an inflation-adjusted 76 percent from 1995 to 2005.

Health Care: The federal share of Medicaid, the joint federal/state program, increased from $129 billion in 2001 to $176 billion in 2004, a 36 percent increase, averaging over 10 percent a year. Health research and regulation funding has gone from $42 billion in 2001 to $63 billion in 2004, a 48 percent increase.

Faith-based Initiatives: Tracking of faith-based spending only began in 2003, and was not broken out separately before then. Under President Bush, 600 religious organizations received federal grants for the first time in 2003 and 2004, and faith-based groups received 8 percent of available social service grants in 2003, and 10 percent in 2004.

SBA Loans: The Small Business Administration provided twice as many loans in 2004 than it did in 2001, providing over $19 billion in loans and venture capital to almost 88,000 small businesses. Over 30 percent of all loans and all loan dollars went to minorities in 2004, a 34 percent increase from 2003. From 2000 to 2004, the SBA backed more than 283,600 loans worth more than $63 billion, almost as much in those five years as the agency totaled in its first 40 years.

Homeownership: Half of all minority households are homeowners, an all-time high. In 2002, Bush vowed to increase minority homeownership by 5.5 million families by 2010. Bush pushed for programs on down payment assistance, and called for increased funding for housing counseling services.

Bottom line, under President Bush, the nation has seen the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted spending since President Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society". Indeed, much to the chagrin of fiscal conservatives, President Bush's budgets -- even excluding defense and homeland security spending -- make him the biggest spending president in 30 years.

But, according to Rep. Rangel and the left, Bush doesn't care about the poor. I guess they figure that if they keep repeating it over and over, eventually it will stick.

If one measures compassion by "outreach," the president placed more minorities and women in his government and with power positions than any president before him. President Bush's cabinet became the most racialy diverse ever.

General Colin Powell became the first African-American Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President George H.W. Bush, (the father), after having been National Security Advisor under President Ronald Reagan, and later on was named the nation's first African-American Secretary of State by the present President Bush.

Condoleeza Rice became the first African-American woman to be named National Security Council Advisor during President Bush's first term in office. At the start of Bush's second term, she then succeeded Gen. Powell as Secretary of State, becoming the first African-American woman to hold that position.

Further, she is being touted as a very strong future presidential candidate, not by fellow African-Americans, but by Republican conservatives, which is quite an achievement. Dick Morris, the famous and very influential political consultant believes that Condi Rice would be the perfect Republican presidential candidate to face N.Y. Senator Hillary Clinton, the front running Democratic, though as yet "undeclared", (meaning: she's acting 'coy') candidate.

With his choice of cabinet appointees, Bush assembled a cabinet unprecedented for its inclusiveness.

Indeed, he has selected three African-Americans, the third being Rod Paige, Secretary of Education, two Asian-Americans, four women, one Arab-American, one Jew, and one Cuban-American, Mel Martinez who is now a Senator for the State of Florida.

President Bush also named a Mexican-American, Alberto Gonzalez as White House Counsel during his first term in office, and 'promoted' him to Attorney General at the start of his second term. If a third position on the Supreme Court becomes vacant, it is widely believed that Alberto Gonzalez will be President Bush's choice, thus becoming the first Hispanic-American Justice ever.

So the Charles Rangels, Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharpstons of the world should just shut the heck up and quit slandering our president. If you looked back and examined the last three or four Democratic administrations you would find linen-white and male cabinet members and important appointees.
If one measures compassion by spending, the president owes no one an apology.

They blame all the ills that befell New Orleans as a result of hurricane Katrina on the Bush administration. Last I heard, New Orleans has been quite the same since the Louisiana Purchase in the 19th century. Bill Clinton was president for 8 years: Did he ever 'feel New Orlean's pain?' Did Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" include the poor of New Orleans? Louisiana's state government and New Orlean's local government have always been controled by Democrats, including the governor of the state and the mayor of New Orleans, and what did they ever do to help the poor in their constituency? So why dump all this on President Bush and the Republicans now?

None of this matters, of course, as long as you're a Republican. If "love means never having to say you're sorry," being a Republican means always having to say it.
60s CHILD

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

THE INFLUENCE OF COMMUNISM ON OUR COLLEGE-BOUND CHILDREN

THE INFLUENCE OF COMMUNISM
ON OUR COLLEGE-BOUND CHILDREN

For as long as I can remember I have been 'outing' colleges and universities where faculties adhere to a blatantly leftist political agenda.

At many of these centers of higher learning, not only is the tenured faculty mostly leftist, but they bully otherwise mainstream thinking students and fellow faculty members into adhering to their 'leftist dogma,' or else, as they promote their political propaganda as a matter of curricula and academic principles.

Otherwise thinking students may be ridiculed and pressured to leave the university, and center-thinking and right of center-thinking faculty members may never be invited to attain a tenured status, while being systematically ostracized by their peers, pressuring most of them to leave as well. Other professors are so afraid of losing their jobs that they just keep their contrasting opinions to themselves and allow their leftist peers to promote Marxism/Lenninism as they keep quiet, therefore 'sinning by omission.'

What is most scary about this is the fact that most parents in America either do not know, or do not believe that these activities actually take place on our college campuses in modern day America. Parents send their kids away to what they believe is a place where they will spend four or more years learning a career, and don't realize that they are being bombarded daily with leftist and blatantly anti-American propaganda.

It is not difficult to understand that at 18, 19, 20 and 21, a young man or woman are at a ripe age to be 'impressed', or better said, brainwashed.

While in high school, these young minds didn't give a hoot about politics, much less understood anything about it. In high school, partying, sex, sports, and just getting by academically was what occupied their minds, not Geopolitics. And in high school, because of gutless school boards, weak curriculums, and incompetent teachers, they were never taught, at least not in depth, the differences between Communism, Socialism, Totalitarianism, Terrorism and Democracy, not to mention Atheism vs. Religion.

But as young adults in college, these impressionable minds are ready enough to be 'enlightened' by any slick professor wishing to promote a leftist agenda.

I am not writing about small, liberal arts colleges here. I am writing about some of our major universities, including most of our Ivy League schools, like Columbia, Brown, Harvard, Princeton, N.Y.U., Stanford, Cal-Berkeley, U. of San Francisco, U. of Michigan, U. of Colorado, U. of Indiana, Williams College, and many others.

Not only do professors of African Studies, Art, Anthropology, Classical Studies, Drama, Economics, Environmental Sciences, Foreign Relations, Government, History, Islamic Studies, Latin American Studies, Law, Literature, Philosophy, Political Science, Psychology, Sociology, Theater and other subjects subvert their curriculum with their leftist and anti-American beliefs, but they take it a critical step further.

Many of these professors have organized extra-curricular clubs, or societies that meet often on campus property, which are devoted solely to the undermining of capitalism, democracy, the free market system, national security and religion in America. While college administrators allow them to freely promote their activities and even grant them the free use of campus facilities, conservative and religious student groups are obligated to meet off-campus.

You may exclaim, "But Communism is a thing of the past, the Soviet Union is no more!" And I tell you that you are both naive and misinformed, if not blind. The American Communist Party and many other linked organizations in America, all number thousands of members, and growing, and are quite active in this country.

Some of the better known organizations, other than the official Communist Party of America, whose headquarters are in New York City are: Americans for Democratic Action, Communist Youth of America, Conference on World Tension, Council on Foreign Relations, Democratic Socialists of America, Intercollegiate Socialist Society, League for Industrial Society, MoveOn.org, National Student Association, People for the American Way, (P.A.W.), Rand School of Social Science, Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, World Brotherhood, Inc. and others.
The major labor unions are infiltrated by leftists, as is the NAACP. The American Civil Liberties Union, once a respectable organization which looked out for injustice in America, has been hijacked by Marxists and is now totally driven by a leftist agenda.

The great majority of Marxists and Socialists in America are found in Academia, (colleges and universities), the media, both electronic and print, in the arts, particularly in Hollywood, and of course in our very own government, where 57 members of Congress are self-described Marxists or Socialists.

This is not paranoia, folks, it is a fact.

60s CHILD

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

'FAIR AND BALANCED' PRESS IN AMERICA

LIBERALS: READ AT YOUR OWN RISK

For conservatives only, you liberals and P.C. 'lemmings' read at your own risk of switching sides.
Some examples of news items which the liberal media try hard to hide from mainstream America.

1- At a federal trial, doctors testified that some babies being subjected to a partial-birth abortion are actually alive and squirming. (Apparently, infanticide is a constitutional right according to liberals).

Liberal media coverage of this testimony -- NONE

2- Read the following quote: "People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them."

Was this an Islamic terrorist? Jacques Chirac complaining about Paris traffic?

No... it was a radical environmentalist complaining that the insecticide DDT was actually saving lives.

Liberal media coverage -- NONE

3- Islamic terrorists may be creeping across our Mexican border -- and that the Border Patrol is being hampered from properly cataloguing and tracking terrorist suspects by "mustn't label anyone,''and no profiling", lest the Federal goverment be sued by the A.C.L.U. and other politically correct liberals.

Liberal media coverage -- NONE

You could search the liberal press from now until Barbra Streisand votes Republican, and you wouldn't find news items like these seeing the light of day.

Such news doesn't (ahem) fit the liberal agenda.

When in reality, the only agenda the media should follow is the agenda of TRUTH.
Every time I wince at the brazen lies of Democratic leaders or their surrogates in the press, it occurs to me that America will never run short of natural gas.

Other recent news items never reported by the liberal
media.

4- During a study on the competency of teachers, half the teachers failed a qualifying verbal and math test.

5- The recently approved Highway Bill includes $255 million for bike paths. I guess the bike paths are made out of "pork" skin.

6- The top 50% of income earners pay 96.5% of the federal income taxes, while the lowest 44% pay no federal income taxes at all. So much for tax cuts for the rich........

7- The federal government -- with your tax dollars -- subsidizes programs for kids to play golf at posh resorts.

8- Federal employees spent $16.4 billion in 2003 on government charge cards. Some of those charges included: country club fees, personal clothing, movie gift certificates and beer.

.
9- A recent national survey found that Democratic professors outnumber Republican professors 3 to 1 in economics, 28 to 1 in sociology, and 30 to 1 in anthropology.

This does not surprise me, as I have been tooting this horn for years.

I guess the fact that liberal anthropologists outnumber conservatives 30 to 1 quite explains why the theory of "Creationism", or "Intelligent design" will never be considered next to, or contrasted with the presently taught theory of "evolution."

10- A similar survey found that 80% of journalists consider themselves either liberal or Democrat. So much for a fair and balanced press.

11- At least 1,074,000 illegal aliens were arrested along the Mexican border in 2004, more than in 2003 or 2002. And these are the ones caught. Statistics show that for every illegal caught, ten others get away.

12- The federal government is subsidizing yoga research.

There's so much at stake today. America is at war and liberals just don't get it.

Never has it been more important for Americans to get the truth -- and not the P.C. pabulum that filters through the establishment media.

13- When PC propagandists assure us that 'jihadist' terror doesn't reflect "true," "peaceful" Islam, they're not only wrong, they're dangerous -- because in doing so they lull America into letting its guard down.

And not only do self-appointed "experts" get Islam itself wrong -- they have also replaced the truth about Christian Europe and the Crusades with an all-pervasive historical fantasy that is designed to make you ashamed of your own culture and heritage -- and thus less determined to defend it.

The images of European knights slaughtering innocent Muslims on holy soil are the creation of liberal novelists and Hollywood leftists.

But now there's a remedy: In The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), Robert Spencer reveals all the disturbing facts about Islam and its murderous hostility to the West that other books ignore, softpedal -- or simply lie about.

14- And last, but definitelly not least: At some of our bastions of higher learning, our best, or most reknowned colleges and universities, such as Columbia, N.Y.U., Cal/Berkeley and others Communist "clubs" meet on campus, in classrooms, as the discussions are lead by tenured professors.

At a recent reunion at Columbia, the topic was "the overthrow of the US goverment', and 'why the World Trade Center victims deserved to die.'" At the same time, Christian groups are kept from meeting on campus. Gay groups also meet on campus, while "pro-life" groups are not permitted.

Yes, my friends, Communism is still very much alive and healthy in this great nation of ours.

Frankly, not everyone has the courage to seek, much less read the truth. It is far easier to just swallow what the establishment media dish out and nod in agreement with the bovine herd.

Sad but true.

60s CHILD

Friday, October 07, 2005

LEFTIST CHARACTER ASSASINATION AND DISTORTION OF TRUTH




LEFTIST CHARACTER ASSASINATION
AND DISTORTION OF THE TRUTH

The morning after the story broke all over the news, a friend asked me if Bill Bennett's radio comments would trigger a major outburst. My kneejerk response was: No, it was a one-day, much-about-nothing-to-do, left-wing-trouble-making story that would be exposed for what it was.

How naive I still am.

Just look at what Bennett said.

Asked by a listener on his radio program if, without the massive toll of legalized abortions over the last three decades, we'd have more taxpayers to support Social Security payments, Bennett expressed distaste for those kind of hypotheses, as he called them "reprehensible."
Like a current theory in the book "Freakonomics" which proposes that the abortion rate in recent decades has led to a lower crime rate. The book claimed that since most abortions are performed on African-American women, and most crimes are perpetuated by African-Americans, it stands to reason that as abortions increase, therefore crime decreases. It is not meant to be a racist statement, but a statement of statistical fact.

if you are a Caucasian male, particularly conservative in this nation of ours, you cannot express yourself in such ways, as the vitriolic and character-assasinating armies of the left are always at the ready to pounce on you like a volture on a dead animal.

Just remember what happened to, I believe the president of Harvard University when he suggested that the reason there are more male than female scientists was a matter of different mental make up between both sexes. He did not mean that women were mentally inferior to men, but that men had more aptitude particularly for the sciences.

Well, I haven't followed that story further, but last I heard or read, femenist groups all over the country were demanding the guy's resignation.

So Bill Bennet made the same mistake: he theorized based on factual knowledge. But we must also realize that Mr. Bennet, who has held many important posts, such as Secretary of Education, and has written a number of books, is a very intellectual man who speaks at a very high scholarly level which most of us cannot relate to, so neophyte misunderstandings are quite common.

Anyway, Bill Bennet theorized: "I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down."

Just like the book, Bill Bennet was making a factual statement, based on statistics.

Moreover, had I been Bill Bennet I would have extended that hypothesis to include a certain segment of the 'Latino' population. Just check crime statistics in Los Angeles and in New York, and you'll understand what I mean.

I was dead wrong thinking that Bill Bennet's statement would die down within a couple of days.
The Bennett "controversy" has made headlines everywhere for days. Bill Bennet even has had to resign as chairman of the board of K-12, an education company he co-founded. Even I misread the degree to which the Left will go to destroy a conservative -- personally. Naive me!

The smear was unearthed by the liberal-Democrat group Media Matters for America, run by congenital liar David Brock, and Democrats quickly pounced on the opportunity to squeeze vitriol out of Bennett's point

Typical of this shameless charade was Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, a man who can't go a day without making hateful, inflammatory remarks, said Bennett's "hateful, inflammatory remarks regarding African Americans are simply inexcusable."

It didn't seem to matter that Bennett, statistically speaking, was not inaccurate: The Bureau of Justice Statistics found in 2002 that black Americans were seven times more likely to commit homicide (per 100,000 population) than whites, and six times more likely to be murdered. Sadly, from 1976 to 2002, 94 percent of black murder victims were killed by other blacks. Nor does it matter that Bennett unequivocally couched his comments with a denunciation of forced abortions against blacks. And never mind that he's spent a lifetime championing the pro-life and civil rights causes, and that the K-12 was founded by him and his wife with precisely the poor black children in mind. All that mattered to the Left was the opportunity to assasinate the character of a conservative.

But the liberal outrage quickly landed in the Washington Post and the New York Times, bastions both of extreme liberalism, the same newspapers that can't find space to note that anti-war hero Cindy Sheehan called President Bush "the biggest terrorist in the world," and didn't cover Air America radio host Randi Rhodes comparing bus evacuations from hurricane-ravaged New Orleans as comparable to the Holocaust.

What of the networks that ignore almost every liberal gaffe and stumble? CBS, which totally ignored Sen. Dick Durbin, the Democratic minority's second-in-command, when he compared American treatment of detainees at Guantanamo to the death camps of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot, led the newscast with Bill Bennett. On NBC's "Today," Katie Couric quickly sliced up Bennett, "under fire" and "feeling the heat for saying this on the radio." Viewers then heard a clip which completely -- and deliberately -- excluded Bennett's next sentence that the argument was ridiculous and reprehensible which is tantamount to editorial irresponsibility of the worst kind.

What hypocrisy. These same journalists regularly refuse to scorn outrageous racial remarks by black leaders. In fact, they promote them. Jesse Jackson repeatedly compared the conditions of blacks in hurricane-ravaged New Orleans to a slave ship. Now, it's fair to suggest the life of evacuees was hard. But it's an ugly and dishonest defamation to imply that America is a nation so callously racist that our indifference imprisoned black hurricane victims like slaves.

No matter that these poor living conditions for blacks in New Orleans had existed, well since slaves were set free 140 years ago, while Louisiana has been lead by Democrats almost nonstop ever since. So what did the Louisiana Democratic legislature and Democratic governor do to improve the living conditions of its poor blacks all along?

Last I saw, New Orleans had an African-American mayor. Did he do anything to improve the living conditions of blacks in his city?

Could part of it be that Louisiana has the reputation of being the most politically corrupt state in the nation?

And only because hurricane Katrina exposed Louisiana's and New Orleans' dirty little secrets did the world learn that 25% of New Orleans' population lived only a bit better than their ancestors. But since there is a Republican administration in Washington, it obviously means that George Bush created these misserable living conditions overnight. Bush and the Republicans have become too easy the targets of liberals and Democratic politicians. Why didn't Bill Clinton, who loves to be called 'the nations first black president' for being a champion for black causes, ever do anything for these people while president for eight years?

Yet ABC transmitted the slave-ship charge as fair comment on "Nightline" on Sept. 2. Reporter John Donvan quoted Jackson: "It's the worst, the racist dimensions of our culture. We deserve better. This is the hull of a slave ship." Two nights later, Donvan rephrased this as a jarring but reasonable question about race.

Two days after that on "Good Morning America," ABC's Ron Claiborne interviewed Jackson live: "You were quoted, perhaps misquoted, as saying the images coming out of New Orleans resembled the hull of a slave ship. And that is very vivid and charged language. What were you saying?" Jackson did not deny the quote.

On NBC Sept. 3, Jackson told "Today" host Lester Holt the country need to rescue people, and lamented: "It looked like people in the hold of a slave ship." Holt simply agreed: "Right."
Hadn't it been that Bill O'Reilly brought it to everyone's attention, I would have never heard the statement made by Congressman Charles Rangel of New York.

In refering to "Washington's 'intentional' delay in aiding blacks in New Orleans", Congressman Rangel compared President George Bush to Birmingham Alabama's police chief during the civil rights confrontations of the early 1960s. During a peaceful protest procession of blacks, the police chief brought out the Fire Department water cannons and hosed down all the demonstrators, while also arresting some for 'disturbing the peace.' No-one, no newspaper or TV news program reported such incendiary and racist remarks by Congressman Rangel.

So I now would like to ask Reverend Jackson, and also Congressman Rangel if they ever climbed off their hate-filled soap boxes and got their hands dirty trying to help those Jackson claims were transported in "slave ships." Where was Jackson's 'Rainbow Coalition' while the Red Cross, The Salvation Army, Catholic Charities and hundreds of other faith-based groups were helping the people of New Orleans? Did he ever deliver a single bag of ice, or distribute a single case of bottles of water? For that matter, did the NAACP, the American Civil Liberties Union, People For the American Way, or any of the hate-filled leftist and liberal organizations even get their feet wet while trying to help the people of New Orleans? Where were Barbra Streissand, Martin Sheen, Susan Sarandon, the Dixie Chicks and the rest of the leftist celebrities while New Orleans was screaming for help?

The contrast between Bennett's beating and Jackson's pleading illustrated the media's leftist worldview. In the demagoguery-filled agenda of the left, red-state, (conservative) America is still hopelessly racist, and conservatives are inherently evil.

So Bennett's remarks must be sliced up and exaggerated, and even edited, to make that point. Liberals should be ashamed of themselves, except that more and more, liberals are bereft of any shame.

1960s CHILD

Thursday, October 06, 2005

OUR OUTRAGED NEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTH





WHAT AN OUTRAGE!!!



PEDOPHILES OUTRAGED AT PARENTS FOR NOT PERMITTING SMALL CHILDREN TO WALK ALONE TO SCHOOL!

MASS MURDERERS OUTRAGED AT GUN SHOPS FOR REQUIRING I.D.s!

REVENGEFUL STUDENTS OUTRAGED AT SCHOOLS FOR HAVING METAL DETECTORS!

KIDS OUTRAGED AT CONVENIENCE STORES FOR REQUIRING I.D.!

BURGLARS OUTRAGED AT HOME OWNERS FOR HAVING ALARM SYSTEMS!

DRUG ADDICTS OUTRAGED AT PHARMACIES FOR NOT SELLING THEM NEEDLES!

ATHEISTS OUTRAGED AT RELIGIOUS CITIZENS FOR BUILDING CHURCHES!

CEOs OUTRAGED AT THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION FOR WANTING TO INSPECT THEIR BOOKS!

MUSLIM TERRORISTS OUTRAGED AT ISRAELI POLICE FOR WANTING TO INSPECT THEIR 'BACKPACKS' IN PUBLIC PLACES!

You're starting to get my drift?

So we now get to the clincher.

It is not enough that the Mexican government has actually printed manuals with instructions on how to cross the border into the U.S. undetected. They are now angry because the U.S. government is tightening its borders more.

"Illegal alien", according to Webster's dictionary:

Illegal; not according to or authorized by law, unlawful, illicit.

Alien; relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government, foreign.

NEED I EXPLAIN ANY FURTHER!!!!!


Recent ACTUL news item:
MEXICO OUTRAGED AT U.S.
FOR REINFORCING ITS BORDER,
THUS ALLOWING FEWER ILLEGAL ALIENS
TO SNEAK ACROSS


Mexican President Vicente Fox was hoping that U.S. immigration policy would become more lenient. The opposite has occurred.

When President Vicente Fox came into office in late 2000, he hoped his legacy would be U.S. immigration revisions that would allow Mexicans to cross the border into the United States and work legally.

Now, that vision is crumbling in the face of legislation President Bush signed earlier this month that authorizes the construction of more walls along the border and in effect invalidates Mexico-issued ID cards for Mexicans living in the United States.

Fox is pledging to continue his efforts for migrants until his term ends in December 2006. But officials are angry and disheartened at what they see as walls going up between the United States and Mexico instead of coming down.

Fox's government is planning to send a diplomatic protest over the law, the first the country has ever formally presented to the United States.

Fox expressed his anger in a recent speech: ``I respect the sovereignty of the United States and its freedom to take such decisions and measures, but frankly it's not the right approach between friends and neighbors.''

Much of the news coverage of his comments focused on the racial overtones of his defense of Mexican migrants' role in the U.S. economy -- he said Mexicans ''are doing jobs that not even blacks want to do.'' The Mexican government eventually apologized for offending African-Americans.

FRUSTRATION

But the comments underlined Fox's frustration and anxiety at the passage of the so-called Real ID Act, which was attached to an $82 billion spending bill to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The legislation requires that ID cards meet strict federal requirements in three years if they'll be used to request U.S. government services or board an airliner. It also allows the Homeland Security Department to construct a second wall and other barriers around the 150-foot metal wall that's along the border between Tijuana and San Diego.
It wasn't supposed to turn out this way. A rancher and former governor of Guanajuato state, Fox made immigration a top priority. During his campaigns, he promised to fight for an open border and for legalizing Mexicans in the United States. He expected Bush, also a former governor with a ranch, to be an ally.

Fox and Bush began a close relationship after they took office, Fox in December 2000 and Bush a month later. They vowed to enrich ties and work on legalizing or giving amnesty to at least 4 million Mexicans and other undocumented workers in the U.S.

But a chill followed the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Bush didn't push an immigration accord. Fox didn't support the U.S.-led war in Iraq. Last year, there was renewed optimism when Bush proposed a program to allow temporary workers, similar to guest programs of the past. But it's lingered in Congress.

Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and John McCain, R-Ariz., introduced a bill earlier this year that would allow immigrants to seek legal status after living in the United States for three years, but its passage thank goodness is considered an uphill battle.

Immigration is the one political constant in Mexico, ahead of next year's July presidential elections. Even Fox's worst political enemies agree with his criticism of the United States. Mexico City Mayor Andrés Manuel López Obrador of the left-of-center Democratic Revolutionary Party, the favorite to succeed Fox, said the United States should help Mexico create jobs, not build walls.

UNITED PROTEST

Others agree, calling for a ``united, nonpartisan protest.''

''This is an anti-immigration campaign without precedent. It's Mexico against Republicans, [Calif. Gov. Arnold] Schwarzenegger, the Minutemen in Arizona, Bush's entire Cabinet,'' said Primitivo Rodriguez, a Mexican political scientist who specializes in immigration and is working to pass a bill here that would allow Mexicans abroad to vote in the 2006 elections.

The anger over the U.S. legislation is such that diplomatic protests are only one of the plans. Mexican community leaders have advocated going on strike to prove that U.S. employers couldn't survive without cheap Mexican labor.

''These measures are myopic, racist and xenophobic,'' said Amalia Garcia, the left-of-center governor of Zacatecas state, which has one of the country's highest emigration rates. ``Building walls and preventing migrants from getting a driver's license don't solve any security problems.''
Whatever you say, Madame Governor.
Tell you what, rather than have your unwanted, unemployable (in your own country) trash sweat it out trying to cross through the dessert, we will send air-conditioned buses to pick them up, and we will feed them on the way over, while preparing brand new tax-supported dwellings for them to live in, even while our own poor don't have homes of their own. And those pregnant women that are used to cross over just to get free medical attention at our tax-supported public hospitals, we will give them for free the best medical care which we Americans must pay for.
You want us to give amnesty to the illegals already here, all ten million of them? And you promise that once we grant them amnesty you will keep an additional ten million from trying to cross over"?
Please, Madame Governor, and you Mr. Fox, too, look up the words "illegal aliens" in the dictionary, if it is that you can read at all. Because honestly, you seem to be quite illiterate, since you cannot understand what "illegal alien", and "it is the law" mean.
Oh, another outrage: MEXICAN POLITICIANS OUTRAGED BECAUSE THE US EXPECTS THEM TO UNDERSTAND OUR LAWS!

1960s CHILD

WE WILL BOTH SPEAK STRONGLY AND CARRY A BIG STICK



NO MORE "SPEAK SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG STICK" POLICY
WE WILL NOW SPEAK LOUDLY AS WELL!!



In today's world, whether good or bad, specifically where the present U.S. administration is concerned, world opinion takes a back seat to what is in the best interest of this nation, and as it should always be.

We have a president, George W. Bush that is a neophyte politician and diplomat, and this is not necessarily bad criticism, as I consider that a blessing in disguise.

President Bush shoots from the hip and says what's on his mind. He does not sugarcoat his comments. He may withhold comments at times, (his momma taught him that if he had nothing nice to say, he should not to say anything at all, LOL), but when he does open his mouth he does not care whose toes he steps on, whether Vladimir Putin's, the Chinese, the North Koreans, the Iranians, the Syrians, the U.N., and last but not least the Germans and the French.

It is quite a breath of fresh air having a man in charge who you know definitely where he stands on all issues, domestic and foreign. No secret agreements, no smoke-filled room deals, no double-speak.

You may disagree with this and make a laundry list of all so-called lies and misleading statements attributed to President Bush and I would be most happy to counter such accusations with facts, as if not immediately, in the long run throughout his presidency George Bush has proven to be correct.

There will always be your so-called "liberal thinkers of the world" and people who would be happy to portray a face-off between the U.S. and Venezuela another case of "David against Goliath". So what's new? Not just in the present world political atmosphere, but all throughout history, since it became the world's greatest superpower, the U.S. has always been accused by the left, by countries run by dictators unfriendly to the U.S., and simply by an envious and jealous world, of being a bully, of being imperialistic, and of trying to influence other countries' internal affairs.

So why should it be any different today?

At least, today, rather than use a foreign doctrine of "speaking softly, while carrying a big stick", as was the policy of previous administrations, Mr. Bush has altered that policy into "speak harshly, and still wield that big stick!".

U.S.'s foreign policy, or its "designs on the world" have not changed at all going all the way back to WWI.

Since then the world has seen plenty of evil, none of it of U.S. doings:

From the early 1930s into the early 1940s Japan invades, annexes or conquers Manchuria, most of SouthEast Asia and the Southern Pacific Island nations, first as an expansionist empire, to be followed from 1941 through 1945 as one of the axis powers, (along with Germany and Italy) during WWII, causing the death of tens of millions of people, including civilians, women and children.

Beginning in 1938, Germany annexes, invades and conquers Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland, followed between 1939 and early 1945, during WWII by the conquest of the rest of Europe with the sole exceptions of Switzerland, Spain and Portugal. It does try to also conquer the Soviet Union, obviously without success. By the end of the war, in Europe alone, over 60 million people were killed, most of them civilians, women and children, and including the systematic extermination of over 6 million Jews.

The Soviet Union essentially annexed most of Europe, (Central and Eastern Europe) upon the end of WWII, thus creating the infamous "iron curtain".

In 1945, the former free Balkan states of Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia and Serbia, each with their own ethnic identities, including Christians and Muslims were united under the strong Communist rule of Marshall Josip Broz Tito under the name of Yugoslavia.

China, after a civil war that killed millions, became communist, annexed Manchuria, Mongolia and other Far Eastern lands, also following WWII, and still today threatens to annex Taiwan by force.

From 1950 until 1953 North Korea did try, without success, after millions of casualties, (over 30,000 American soldiers died as well), and with the help of the Soviet Union and China, to capture South Korea, and still threatens to, even through their use of nuclear weapons.

Egypt and other Middle-Eastern nations tried to exterminate the Jews upon Israel becoming a sovereign nation in 1948. They were defeated, but however waged war again both in 1967 and in 1973. Since then, Palestinian militants, helped by their Arab neighbors, such as Syria, Iraq, Iran and other Muslim nations have been committing one act of terrorism after another with their proclaimed aim of destroying not only the Jewish state, but Jews altogether as well.

India tried to violate Pakistan's independence by attempting to annex it by force, and may still capture Kashmir, a territory which is still in dispute between the two countries. Both India and Pakistan, are nuclear powers and have threatened to use nuclear weapons against each other.

In the early 1970s, through a war that essentially began after WWII, though it escalated into a full-blown conflagration in the 1960s, Communist North Vietnam captured South Vietnam. Millions were killed during this war, including almost 60,000 American soldiers.

In the 1970s, Syria invaded Lebanon and installed a "puppet government" until just recently when the Lebanese people, inspired by democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq took to the streets and demanded the removal of Syrian troops from their soil. In the meantime, militant Palestinians launched attacks against Israel from bases within Lebanon, while protected by the Syrians.

In the 1980s Iraq and Iran tried to conquer each other in a war that killed hundreds of thousands, some say millions. The war ended in an impasse.

Following the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq's strongman, Saddam Hussein was responsible for the murder, summary executions, and genocide through the use of chemical weapons of hundreds of thousands of those he considered members of the opposition within his country, even though many were innocent women and children.

Also in the 1980s, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan with the purpose of establishing a pro-Soviet government, (losing over 60,000 crack Soviet soldiers in the meantime), only to be defeated by Afghan 'Mujahideen', or "freedom fighters", whom eventually created an extremist, dictatorial and theocratic Muslim-fundamentalist nation, ruled by the now infamous Taliban.

Upon assuming power in Afghanistan, the Taliban gave sanctuary and a base of operations to Al Qaeda, led by Ossama Bin Laden. From Afghanistan, Al Qaeda masterminded and launched its terrorist attacks against the West, mainly the U.S., including the first World Trade Center Bombing and the World Trade Center destruction on 9/01/2001.

In 1990, Saddam Hussein of Iraq invaded Kuwait to capture its oil fields, with the intent to march on into Saudi Arabia. Only through the intervention of the U.S. and other allied nations were his forces pushed back into his country, leading to a cease-fire and end of hostilities.

In the aftermath of the "Gulf War" and through the 1990s, Saddam Hussein again purged thousands of his country men, women and children, again also using chemical weapons, only because they were members of different Muslim sects, which he considered threats to his rule.

Also in the 1990s, upon Yugoslavia's disintegration in 1991, (after the collapse of Communism in Europe), civil war broke out throughout the ethnic Balkan states. Under the bloody leadership of Slobodan Milosevic, Christian Serbs gave birth to the horrible modern term of "ethnic cleansing", as his troops were personnally responsible of the systematic genocide of tens of thousands of ethnic Albanian Muslims, as he tried to impose his rule over the loosely held Balkan states of Serbia-Herzegovina, Bosnia, Croatia and Macedonia. Eventually, N.A.T.O. intervened, and upon Milosevic's capture, (he is now facing trial for "crimes against humanity" in the World Court), these individual states gained their own independence and are being absorbed into the European Union.

Just over a year ago, Russia, under Vladimir Putin tried to force its Soviet-era type influence into Ukranian politics by first attempting to install a "puppet government", while also attempting to murder, (through poison) the opposition's leading candidate, Viktor Yushchenko. Russia somehow was able to 'rig' the Ukranian presidential election which declared Leonid Kuchma, Russia's hand-picked man, president. The Ukranian people by the thousands took to the streets and demanded a re-election, and this event on top of the strong pressure applied by the international community forced the Ukranian government to cave-in and call for new elections, which Viktor Yushchenko, (who by now, due to the effects of the poison had a grossly disfigured face), won by a landslide.

Even today, Russia is still attempting to impose its heavy-handed influence by infiltrating former satellite states' politics. Not long ago, President Bush, while visiting Latvia and Georgia publicly reprimanded Russian president Putin over their behavior towards the Baltic states. President Bush has also called for freer elections and the total democratization of Belarus, which still appears to be "under Russian domination."

I could go on and on listing all of the atrocities committed during the last century, including genocide in Africa between tribes and different ethnic and religious peoples. Similar genocides have taken place in the Far East, including Cambodia and Laos. You have the political, (the previous party's little secret), mass murders in Mexico. There were thousands of political murders in countries like Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Chile, all over Central America, Haiti, the Dominican Republic. And of course, we have Cuba, where there has existed unchecked political repression for the last 46 years!

So what evil is the U.S. responsible for, for heaven's sake? Somebody tell me, please!

But the world keeps blaming the U.S. for all its troubles!

The U.S. defeated both Germany and Japan during WWII. Did it colonize those nations? Of course not! Precisely, with the great economic and political help of the U.S., both Germany and Japan have become economic superpowers and have the ability to become military superpowers as well.

The U.S. made democracies out of Germany and Japan. Who knows if otherwise they might have turned into Communist nations had they been influenced by the Soviet Union and China? Or had they not adopted democratic constitutions, documents which were written under the guidance of the U.S., might they have become bellicose once again and perhaps lead the world into WWIII?

And the French, what right do they have to criticize, much less lecture the U.S.? What have the French done to improve the lives of the people in other countries? What have they contributed to society over the last 60 years? Wine and perfume, that's all! The U.S. has saved their collective sorry asses twice already over the last 100 years, not to mention the fact that they screwed Indochina up, which eventually gave way to the Vietnam war!

I hope that diplomacy and political expediency does not rule insofar as the oil for food U.N./Iraq scandal is concerned, because the French government, all the way up to Jacques Chirac has been involved in manipulating this program, and their hands are dirty as hell! I don't want the U.S. to keep these damning documents secret. I want the U.S. to show the evidence to the world and expose the French for what they are, hypocrites and sell-outs! The French were bought by Saddam Hussein, and that's why they kept voting in the Security Council against enforcing U.N. sanctions against Iraq, when the U.S. desperately needed their support!

So I do not give a damn what the world thinks. The U.S. does not need the world's permission to protect its interests.

I just hope that President Bush does not let me down, as I hope that he keeps speaking his mind and keeps telling it like it is, whether it hurts or not. If the shoe fits........

Hugo Chavez is threatening with breaking diplomatic relations? Let's call his bluff. Let's see who loses out in the end.

1960s CHILD

MY MANTRA, MY QUEST



My Mantra, My Quest

The More I Learn, The More I Realize
Not Just Of How Ignorant
A Person I Still Am,
But Of How Neophyte
My Existence So Far Has Been,
Presently Is, And Will Always Be,
As So Much Blossoming Knowledge
Awaits For Me To Reap,
As I Journey Through Life’s Fields Of Green.

I Also Embrace With Eagerness,
Joy And Anticipation
The Immensity Of The Never-ending Pursuit
In Search Of
The Grand Intellectual Holly Grail.

So I Will Forever Carry As My Standard
A Never-ending Voracity
And Sense Of Curiosity
For The Daily And Yet To-be-discovered,
And Un-borrowed Mother Lodes Of Enlightenment,
Golden Nuggets of Knowledge All,
Which Shall Be Cast Into Ducats of Wisdom
For Me To Savor And Save In My Ever-expanding,
Albeit Bottomless,
Pouch Of Eruditeness.

No-Matter How Infinite Of A Road I Do Travel,
Not A Day Goes By During Which
I Will Not Have Acquired
Some Of Those Precious Omniscient Riches,
Which I, Just As The Rest Of Mortal Humanity
Crave So Much For,
And Was Engendered With An Entitlement To Possess.

Friend, I Bid You To Join Me
In The Noblest Pilgrimage Of All,
The Trek For Knowledge.
This Road Will Lead Us
To The Pristine Repository
Of The Most Critical And Fundamental
Of All Human Needs,
The Discovery And Therefore Privity Of Absolute Truth.

1960s CHILD

ONE MORTAL'S SELF-FLAGELLATION



Go Forth And Turn Worldly Beastly Sins Into Hope:

You Wretched Poor Excuse Of a Man,
Go Forth And Do Not Look Back,
Unless You Can Find The Inner Fortitude
To Turn And Behold With Repentance
The Long Trail
Of Damage, Disappointment, Failure, Pain And Shortcomings
Which Have Your Indelible Footprints,
Hence Displaying The Wreckage
Which Has Been Your Sorry Existence,
For The Entire World To See!

Go Forth Then,
And Turn Your Blunders, Errors, Mistakes And Selfish Neglects
Into Virtuous And Repentant Reparations,
And Convert Other Similarly Dammed Beasts Amongst Us,
Into Glorious And Vociferous Heralds,
Entrusted With The Holy Mission
To Proclaim To The Rest Of The World
The Beauty, Faith, Goodness, Hope, Joy And Peace
Which The Still Innocent Souls May Yet Attain And Enjoy,
As You Spread Throughout This Fertile Land
Those Very Same Seeds
Of Beauty, Faith, Goodness, Hope, Joy And Peace,
While Planting The True And Heavenly Promise
Of An Eternal And Better Life Beyond This World!

Yes, You Wretched Poor Excuse Of a Man,
Do Go Forth And Do Not Look Back,
As You May Still Make Reparations
For Your Long Trail
Of Damage, Disappointment, Failure, Pain And Shortcomings,
By Repenting And Entrusting Your Life
In The Hands Of The Lord.

1960s CHILD

REFLECTING ON POST WWII GEOPOLITICS



REFLECTING ON THE SECOND WORLD WAR,
IT’S ORIGINAL PURPOSE, IT’S NET ACCOMPLISHMENTS,
IT’S AFTERMATH,
THE “WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEENS”,
AND ITS INFLUENCE AND EFFECTS ON MODERN GEOPOLITICS


Not that long ago, while visiting former Soviet ‘satellite states’, in Riga, Latvia, President George W. Bush flatly second-guessed Franklin D. Roosevelt’s handling of and his decisions made during the Yalta summit between himself, Winston Churchill of Great Britain, and Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union, a meeting which yielded an agreement which clearly handed over Central and Eastern Europe to the Soviets upon war’s end.

President Bush said the United States played a role in Europe’s painful division after World War II, a decision that helped cause “one of the greatest wrongs of history” when the Soviet Union imposed its harsh rule across Central and Eastern Europe.

Russian president Vladimir Putin took exception to President Bush’s charge, well… he actually acted as offended by such ‘implications’, as he countered that those countries had actually “invited the Soviet Union to protect and annex them as ‘Soviet satellite republics”. Obviously, Mr. Putin has historically been proven quite wrong about such assumption, as these countries, once no longer afraid of Soviet military intervention declared their independence and established democratic governments immediately following the fall of the Soviet Union. Further, most have already become members of N.A.T.O., (the West’s answer to the Russian-dominated Warsaw Pact), and they immediately also applied for membership in the European Union.

Kudos to President Bush for bringing out into the open what many of us, definitely I for one, have believed for quite many years.

The history of World War II as we have been taught in school, from books written by so-called “scholars”, as it’s tales of bloody fighting, heroism and good versus evil have been passed down to us by our parents and grandparents, as the media has kept it un-retouched in the public domain throughout these 60 years, as Hollywood has glorified and romanticized it, and as “the victors” have made us believe was a noble and just war, the end of which was a total and unequivocal success for “the good guys”, meaning us.

It is a widely held tenet that the history of wars and their political ramifications, for the sake of the general public consumption, and effective positive propaganda has always been written by the victors.

Just imagine for a moment how history might have been ‘cleansed’ through the propaganda-machine prisms of Germany and Japan had they, rather than the allied powers won WWII. Scary thought indeed! Nevertheless, such a premise would present a fascinating subject matter for countless of imaginative writers. What might have happened if……..? But that is a charged subject, which is best left for erudite fiction novelists and Hollywood screenwriters.

I grew up worshiping Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt, both of which I considered giants of the twentieth century, without whose leadership both England and the U.S. might have lost the war. I also felt a good measure of respect towards Harry S. Truman, our nation’s “caretaker” after the death of our beloved F.D.R.

Do not get me wrong; I still believe that both Churchill and Roosevelt were great and mostly noble leaders. You can also make a case for Adolph Hitler having been a ‘great leader’ from the Nazi point of view, as a great leader does not necessarily mean a well-meaning or noble leader. Heck, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar and Napoleon were ‘great leaders’ as well. But in contrast, both Churchill and F.D.R. were basically good-hearted men as well. However, over the years and as I have become more educated and have researched the facts about WWII, from way before its start, (going as far earlier as the turn of the century) to this present day, I have come to realize that these two men, and the British and American ‘brain trust’ for that matter, despite having ‘won’ the war, have left me quite disappointed, appalled and enraged over quite many of their decisions while conducting the war and managing its political aftermath, with an emphasis on the aftermath.

Yes, both Churchill and F.D.R. were only human, with warts and all. And yes, hindsight is always 20/20. However, some of their decisions had much better and more obvious alternatives, which made much more sense. It also becomes obvious that these two men were following a clear agenda, one that has proven to be disastrous as we review post-WWII history.

It is not my intention here to sugarcoat Nazi Germany’s barbaric existence. Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party, especially the infamous SS troops were evil and murderous barbarians. However, I would only be kidding myself by not exposing the fact that the Soviet Union, particularly while under the rule of Joseph Stalin was no better insofar as their respect towards minorities and human life were concerned.

Without ignoring the horrors of the Jewish holocaust, during which the Germans ‘exterminated’ over 6 million European Jews, on top of other millions of gypsies, homosexuals, mental patients and dissenters, and also taking into consideration Japan’s ‘rape’ of Manchuria and other atrocities perpetuated upon Asians during their control of most of Eastern and Southeast Asia, another one of history’s greatest genocides, or ‘ethnic cleansings’, as these acts are now called, wiping out tens of millions of innocent people, one can still make a case for the Stalinist Soviet Union having been just as murderous and inhuman as Germany and Japan were.

During Joseph Stalin’s rule, his ‘political purges’ and persecutions of minorities, including Jews, tortured, murdered and starved tens of millions of innocent people, including old people, women and children. Add to that the fact that the “Red Army”, during WWII did not follow the Geneva Convention accord regarding the treatment of military prisoners, as they tortured, starved, killed or did not provide medical attention, leading to death to well over a million German prisoners of war. The Soviets had such a reputation as ruthless barbarians that German soldiers and civilians, upon learning that the Soviets were near their positions or towns, would run towards the west in search of the American or the British armies’ ‘protection’.

THE GENESIS OF A TREATY WITH THE DEVIL


GERMANY’S IMPERIALISTIC AMBITIONS

Following WW I, Germany was a country in total chaos, both politically and economically depressed. Unemployment was over 25% and political unrest was rampant. Socialists, Communists and countless other parties were in constant struggle to gain power.

In the 1920’s, a disillusioned ex-corporal named Adolph Hitler joined the party, which eventually, and under his charismatic leadership, nationalistic ideals and exceptional use of oratory, became the National Socialist Party, or Nazi Party.

In 1933, Hitler, supported by millions of Germans that dreamed of recapturing their “lost glory,” became Chancellor of Germany.

As Chancellor, Hitler embarked on an unprecedented military build-up. While he kept preaching about expanding Germany’s influence and territory in Europe, other powers, such as France and England did not take them seriously, given Germany’s economic estate and their defeat years earlier. Besides, the rest of Europe was going through a depression of their own, so they could not afford to build their armies up anyway. Therefore, France and Great Britain adopted a policy of ‘appeasement’, thereby nudging Hitler into ‘behaving’ while acceding to one demand after another, all in the name of peace.

Still, Germany’s military build-up worried the Europeans to the point that British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain visited Hitler in Berlin and signed what was then considered a ‘non-aggression’ treaty. Upon his return to England, on Sept. 30, 1938, while standing in front of No. 10 Downing St., (the Prime Minister’s residence), he proclaimed “…….I believe it is peace in our time, go home and have a nice sleep…”.

Nothing was further from the truth, as in March 1939 Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, with the excuse of protecting the many German-speaking Czechs. On Sept. 1, Hitler invaded Poland and on Sept. 3, both France and Great Britain declared war on Germany, thus commencing WWII. It should be noted that Great Britain had a mutual defense pact with Poland, which was the official reason for Great Britain’s declaring war on Germany.

Make note of this: WWII started because a foreign power had invaded Poland.

The history of WWII, between 1939 and 1945 is pretty well known, so there is no reason to rehash it here now.

DROPPING YOUR SHORTS TO APPEASE YOUR “ALLY”

In February of 1945, with the result of WWII a foregone conclusion, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Winston Churchil, and Joseph Stalin had a conference in Yalta, on the Crimean coast. Joseph Stalin, his army pretty much occupying and having obliterated most of Central and Eastern Europe, while banging on Germany demanded that the Soviet Union be given control over these same Central and Eastern Europe countries.

Not remembering lessons previously learned when they ‘appeased’ Germany, F.D.R. and Churchill gave in to Stalin’s demands, only with the proviso that these countries be allowed to hold “free elections”. Right, elections Soviet-style!

So, what’s wrong with this picture?

World War II started in 1939 only because Germany invaded Poland, so it must be assumed that the allies went to war to free Poland from an invading army, right? So why, after 6 bloody years, during which over 70 million people died, both civilian and military, did the allies allow Poland to be invaded and dominated by another foreign power, in this case the Soviet Union? So, what purpose did WWII serve, to give the Soviets millions of square miles of additional territories, thereby subjugating tens of millions of people under their harsh Communist rule?

Why did the U.S. and Great Britain allow themselves to be swindled into such a nation giveaway?

I personally believe that F.D.R., later Truman, and Churchill lacked the ‘cojones’ to tell the Soviets to keep their hands off Central and Eastern Europe,….or?

Did they actually fear Stalin?

Were they that impressed with the Soviets’ unrelenting march through Eastern and Central Europe all the way into Germany?

Did they realize that history could repeat itself, since the downfall of first Napoleon, and then Hitler came about when these ‘magnificent’ and undefeatable armies tried to invade Russia? Did they fear getting bogged-down and thus becoming easy prey for the Soviets during the harsh Russian winter, as happened with previous invaders?

There are several plausible hypotheses, not necessarily my own.

GEOPOLITICS, WORLD OPINION, WAR-STRESSED HOMELANDS,
BANGED-UP ARMIES, OTHER FRONTS STILL QUITE ACTIVE

1. The Western allies were just plain tired of fighting any further, their armies being stretched-out to their limits.
2. F.D.R. and Churchill sensed their nations’ restlessness and political pressure to expedite the end of the war.

3. Standing up to the Soviet Union, to the point of even becoming belligerent towards their “ally” would create very negative world opinion, not to mention in their own countries. Remember, the Cold War had not begun and the Soviet Union was not perceived too negatively by the west in general. Turning against the Soviets could have been seen as ‘morally wrong’.

4. To a point, Communism was not held in such a negative light, as it was post-WW II. After all, Communism was supposed to be the ‘antithesis’ of Nazism. Therefore, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

5. It’s true, the West witnessed what Stalin’s army did to the best soldiers, and tanks that Hitler had, as they annihilated them totally. Fighting the Soviets would certainly have created a protracted war, a war of attrition with certainly millions of additional casualties, not to mention additional trillions of dollars spent on support equipment, with no certainty of victory.

6. The Pacific front. Unfortunately, in early 1945, the allies, mainly the U.S. were entrenched in the bloodiest chapter of their Pacific war against Japan. This front necessitated hundreds of thousands of troops, plus thousands of planes and ships, which could not be moved to Europe.
Had Japan been defeated earlier, thus freeing up so many assets and resources, perhaps the mood in Washington and London may have been different.

7. The U.S., at the time was still planning the invasion of Japan, and based on the way the Japanese soldiers were defending each and every Pacific island to the death. It was a clear indication that both Japanese soldiers and civilians would defend their homeland to the end. The U.S. calculated that an invasion of the Japanese mainland would take over 2 million soldiers, plus thousands of planes and ships. They also estimated that casualties, both dead and injured could surpass conservatively over one million soldiers.
Deployment of that many troops to Eastern Europe might have made a difference in facing the Soviet Union, but they were not available at the time they faced the Soviets.

8. For some reason, which nowadays befuddles all reasoning, Washington and London considered Nazism as worse than Communism, so they supported “the lesser of two evils.”
The West could never have imagined how untrusting , how barbaric, how aggressive, and how belligerent the Soviets were capable of being. Further, the West could have never imagined that the Soviet Union would eventually become such a gigantic nuclear super power. The U.S., for one, was arrogant in believing that it would be the only remaining super power after the war.

9. The U.S. in early 1945 already knew that the atomic bomb was a reality, only a matter of time when. The U.S. assumed that once it tested such a weapon it could keep the Soviets ‘under control’. Little did they imagine that the Soviets were well aware of the A-Bomb, as they had spies well within “The Manhattan Project” in the U.S. The Soviet Union tested their own bomb within another year, thus triggering “the arms race”. And the rest is history.


REALITY

The U.S. eventually chose to drop the A-Bomb on first Hiroshima, and then Nagasaki for two fundamental and well-documented reasons.

1. The U.S. wished to expedite the end of the war and avert having to invade Japan, potentially the largest and costliest invasion in human history.

2. The U.S. needed to defeat Japan before the Soviets had the chance to invade northern Japan, thus establishing a Soviet presence on the Island which carried heavy political implications, such as having to divide Japan into North and South, (like happened with Korea), and after they gave away so much to the Soviets in Europe, they were not about to repeat the same mistake. Up to and after Germany’s defeat, the Soviets had not declared war on Japan, although they had quite a number of divisions in Far Eastern Russia ready to invade at any moment.

HINDSIGHT IS 20/20

Had the West defeated Japan earlier than it did Germany, it would have had the capability of doubling their armies, assets, and resources in Europe by deploying the Pacific armies in Europe. The invasion of, or at least the threat of attacking the Soviet Union would have been a much easier task, as they would not only have had a much larger army at their disposal, but would have only one battle front to concentrate on.

Had the U.S. been able to develop a working A-Bomb prior to the Yalta conference, it, along with Great Britain would have had the upper hand in negotiations with Joseph Stalin, thus negating the Soviets the ‘de facto’ annexation of Central and Eastern Europe.

The U.S. did have a clear advantage over the Napoleonic army and over Hitler’s German army. The U.S. had a gigantic military-industrial machine, which could replace spent equipment faster than any other nation. And the American manpower was second to none, both in numbers and in ability.

Logistically, the U.S. could have maintained a running and uninterrupted supply line all the way into Moscow.

WESTERN PROPAGANDA

A well-planned propaganda campaign could have been designed in order to convince not only the American public, but the rest of the world that the Soviets were bent on European domination and that Communism was far worse than Nazism, and that Stalin was a much more ‘evil man’ than Adolph Hitler was. Militarily it would have been a no-brainer, since all the military assets would have already been in place in Europe, therefore the West could have extended the war another couple of years if necessary, provided they waged a conventional war. However, if they had elected to use the A-Bomb, the Soviet Union would have capitulated within a couple of months at the most.

BONUS NAZI HINDSIGHT

On the other hand:
Had Adolph Hitler been a patient man and waited another two to three years before invading Poland, we might all be speaking German today.

1. Germany was also working on the development of the Atomic Bomb even sooner than the Americans. His labs were bombed by the allies.

2. He had developed plans for missiles that could reach the U.S. mainland. The factory was destroyed by the allies.

3. He had several working prototypes of jet-powered fighters and bombers. Had he waited another two years he could have built thousands of them.

4. The Tiger tank was vastly superior to the Panzer tank, which in itself was far superior to ally tanks. Had he waited a couple of more years, he could have built thousands of Tiger tanks, which could have decided the ground war in his favor.

So just as he was a mad man, Adolph Hitler was very impatient and shortsighted as well. Thank goodness he was!

1960s CHILD

AVARICE


THE HOT DOG VENDOR

A street hot dog vendor spent his life cooking and selling hot dogs the same way, day after day after day. His dream was to one day retire, buy a small boat, and take his grandchildren fishing at the local lake.

One day, some young marketing 'hot shot' bought a hot dog from him, examines the man's hot dog cart and then asks the man, "Do you do well in this business; I mean do you make a good living at it?"

The man looks at the other guy and says, "Well, I am not rich. I am saving little by little so that hopefully some day I can stop working, buy myself a small boat and just go fishing with my grandchildren"

So the other guy looks at the man's hot dog cart, and then tells him, "You know, if you made some changes to your operation you could sell more hot dogs and therefore make more money, enough to finally retire and buy yourself that boat."

The hot dog vendor looks to the guy and asks, "What am I supposed to do to achieve that?"

"Well, you can start by offering not just regular hot dogs, but sausages of different kinds as well. Then you could expand your toppings by adding sourkraut, diced onions, diced tomatoes, pickles, hot dog relish, mayo, jalapeno peppers, chili, cheese, and other choices of toppings besides just mustard and ketchup, and you therefore could charge more according to the type of sausage and toppings the customers ask for. Besides, you should add all sorts of soft drinks, juices and ice tea, not just coke and Sprite, and offer a variety of bags of chips as well, and perhaps even offer cookies, like Subway does, so that your customers can buy a complete meal from you."

So the hot dog vendor thinks to himself, "This guy seems smart, and he makes sense. If I make all the changes he suggested, my business could grow and I could at last retire sooner so that I can buy my boat and just go fishing with my grandchildren before they grow too old to want to come along ."

So the man followed the other guy's advice and turned his hot dog cart into practically a mini-cafeteria on wheels. His stand immediatelly became a huge success to the point that he could not handle all the business he was getting by himself. So he purchased another even bigger cart and hired someone to help him handle so much new business. Business kept growing, so he added additional carts plus additional employees and eventually branched out throughout the city.

Soon enough he became the owner of a 'hot dog empire', established a corporation, with food warehouses, hired employees to handle the stock of food, also hired a sophisticated office staff, and bought large trucks to transport the 'hot dog stands' all over town. In the meantime, of course he became very rich.

So one day, the 'hot shot' who suggested that he "upgrade his business" walks by and says, "Wow, you really have done very well for yourself, your business must be raking in lots of money! So now you can finally buy that fishing boat, right?"

The 'hot dog man' looks at him incredulously and says, "Are you out of your mind, look at all the money I'm making now, I can't waste my time going fishing!"

The man never retired. He suffered a heart attack and passed away while running all around town checking on all of his hot dog carts.

There are many morals to this story. These are only some of them.

Don't lose your focus on life.

Do enjoy the simple pleasures of life.

"For everything there is a season."

Don't trade family for fortune.

Do not let ambition cloud your better senses.

Set your priorities in order.

Know when to quit.

1960s CHILD

THE MODERN LAITY'S ABUSE AND MISUSE OF THE CHURCH



October 3, 2005

THE MODERN LAITY'S ABUSE AND MISUSE OF THE CHURCH
AFTER VATICAN II


This is the fourth letter of my ongoing 'polemic' between a Roman Catholic nun and myself over what I believe have been the, although unintended, negative results of The Second Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church, better known as Vatican II.
Dear Sister KJ:
After having given a most favorable review to my first 'journal' report, sprinkling the 5-page-long document with compliments, you proceeded to 'lower the hammer' and really let me have it for the ideas and points I expressed on my second journal.

Actually, there was one paragraph in my first journal, which you also took exception to.

I merely wrote "We cannot just sit still and say that we 'have faith in God,' and have nothing to show for it.' 'That is not enough and is disingenuous even to us mere mortals, as you can figure that God can 'see right through you' and be able to measure your true faith."

You implied that I was ignoring God's compassion, and that such behavior or statements would "frighten people, and children (in particular)." You even admonished me not to address my young catechism students this way, as we should never threaten them with the possibility of God's punishment as a result of their misdeeds.

While I do not subscribe to the Protestant, or particularly the Baptist way of teaching by fear, or threatening sinners with eternal punishment in hell, I still insist that we should teach both adults and children that every action has a consequence, or that everyone is accountable for their actions.

I do not stand-alone in believing this, as it is exactly a product of my Roman Catholic upbringing, up to and including my experiences as an adult.

During my adulthood, I have belonged to at least five different parishes, all in different cities and states.

Over the course of thousands of sermons, homilies, lectures, bible classes, catechism courses, presentations during retreats, and private and social conversations with dozens of priests and experts on catechism of the church, I have heard time and time again that there is no room for ifs, ands or buts where God's Commandments are concerned. There are no gray areas. There is no compromising with the Lord.

As I have been taught, we faithful Roman Catholics are 'committed to the exclusive service of God.' And, 'as God remains always faithful to us, likewise He therefore demands uncompromising fidelity from us.'
Ten Commandments do not say, "Thou may not." The Ten Commandments clearly and strongly say, "THOU SHALL NOT!!" God, therefore does not leave us any room for error, negotiating, or for interpretations of His laws. There they are, edged in stone, "Thou Shall Not," clearly making us responsible and accountable to Him if we even waver a bit from His commandments and laws.

Of course I do not threaten children with 'fire and brimstone' or with eternal condemnation in hell should they sin. However, if I am to remain true to my faith, and true to what I have been taught, I must somehow communicate to them that every deed has a consequence, and that they will be held accountable for their actions.

On my second journal I express the opinion that the present church is in "dire shape," and you 'loudly' noted that "you don't know dire'! 'let's look at the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages". I assume you meant that compared to the scandal-ridden church during the middle ages, today's church is in way much better shape.

I did not mean "dire shape" referring to the pedophile and homosexual scandals, which have plagued our church for quite a number of years and have only surface over the last decade. I was only referring to its lay people.

While in the middle ages the church as an institution was quite 'rotten to the core', the common folk still were devoted, faithful and largely very religious and observant. However, today the church claims to have 1.1 billion members, but that is a very misleading figure, as a low percentage of those 1.1 billion members are true practitioners of the faith.

Going to church on Sundays, or sending your child to parochial school does not a Catholic make. It takes quite a bit more than been seen in church by the pastor once weekly to become a practicing Catholic. It takes more than sticking a couple of dollars into the weekly collection envelope to demonstrate your faith and commitment to the church.
I will give plenty of examples of the decay of the churche's lairy:

Look at how many women use artificial contraception. Look at how many women, most with the knowledge and approval of their partners, have had at least one abortion. Look at how many couples live together prior to saying their marriage vows, if they ever receive the sacrament of matrimony at all. Look at how many men and women are sexually promiscuous outside of marriage, even starting as young teenagers. Look at how many men and women commit adultery, having extra marital affairs. Look at how many men and women experiment with drugs and are addicts, and/or drink heavily and are alcoholics. Look at how many men and women are gamblers, (yes, gambling is a sin). Look at how many men and women belief that the church should accept homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle. Look at how many men and women have divorced, some several times. Look at how many men and women belief that religious belief should never influence a politician's vote, therefore leaving their consciences out of the decision making process. Look at how many men and women disrespect and ignore their parents, even as adults. Look at how many men and women spend their lives while even getting into deep debt in a constant materialistic race to keep up with their neighbors and friends.

In short, look at how many 'supposedly Roman Catholic' men and women break every single commandment on a daily basis!

Do I blame the openness and inclusiveness, which took effect as a result of Vatican II?

Were these people affected by Vatican II, or were they affected by the dramatic sociological changes, which began in the 1960s?
Or were the dramatic sociological changes, which began in the 1960s partially a result of the new 'religious freedom?'
Hard to tell. It is a 'cause and effect' quandary, which I may not be qualified to decipher.
However, I do know this: Roman Catholics did change, for better or worse, after Vatican II.

You and I may never find common ground on this question.

I am a layperson and therefore live in a different world from yours, the real world. My perspective is quite different from yours, and I believe it is more in touch with the common men and women of the church. I live among them, I argue with them, I listen to them, and I know where they stand on most issues. Mine are educated opinions and assertions. You live in the safe and pristine environment of your convent, not among us common folk.

On one hand, I hear that I should not judge, lest I be judged myself, or so says the Bible. But on the other hand, my pastors, a number of priests, and religion teachers over the years have made it clear that the Ten Commandments are not to be interpreted; they are what they are, and there is no compromising with God, as I wrote at the start of this paper.

If priests and teachers can call someone a sinner, whether from the church pulpit or the class lectern, why can't I do the same , since I have learned what they know, directly from them ?

You admonished me because I dared to call Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts "a mortal sinner." I dared call a mortal sinner a man that is responsible of manslaughter, (at the very least) and never paid for it, a man that has always voted in favor of abortion, including partial birth abortions, an adulterer, and an alcoholic, among other things. Forgive me, sister, but our commandments are written in black and white, with no gray areas in-between. He did commit those sins; there is no question about it. This is not gossip or conjectures, these are facts.

What mostly bothers me is that someone with 'real moral authority' like Boston's Cardinal Bernard Law, (and others before him), never confronted this evil person. Then again, why should I be surprised, as Cardinal Law is in essence now living the life of an exile in Rome, while he is being held responsible for the cover-up connected with the pedophile/homosexual scandals in the Boston Archdiocese.

You also chastise me for calling for people to be embarrassed in public for not dressing properly for church. You ask me, "Would Jesus do this?" Of course, he would do it, just as he kicked the 'money changers' from the temple in Jerusalem, as they were defaming the house of God.

This is not an original idea of mine. Usually at some point in the year my pastor admonishes us about the proper way to dress for church, just as he mandates that beepers and cell phones be turned off out of respect to the sanctity of the church and respect for others that are there to worship in peace.
Am I supposed to avoid hurting the feelings or embarrassing in public a woman that walks into the house of God dressed in a micro skirt or short shorts, wearing a tight top exposing her navel and low cleavage? Darned right I will chastise her in public if I must!

Heck, at St. Louis parish here in Miami they do not allow anyone into the church once the homily starts. As it should be. Back when I lived in Plano, Texas, I was Captain of the ushers at St. Mark's church and we were instructed by our pastor not to let anyone into the church once the reading of the scriptures began. The Result? People learned to arrive early enough for mass.

Therefore, I am not being original in any of my theories or assertions. I am just reflecting what others like me believe.

I guess we may just agree to disagree on a few points.
But realize something: I am a member of the Roman Catholic Church, and I take my religion very seriously. Whether I am right or wrong in your opinion, you cannot ignore that I still represent a large segment of the church, one to be taken very seriously.

May God keep blessing you and our Holy Roman Catholic Church.

A 1960s CHILD