Freedom’s Flag

The Flag is passing by. MY Flag is passing by.

Hand over heart, I stand in silent homage.

They march behind it proudly. Can you see them there?

Men in Khaki, and Olive Drab, and Navy blue.

A ghostly Parade.

So many colors, so many centuries.

Uniforms change, but brave hearts remain the same.

Strong and true, they risk all for Freedom.

They stand and die at Liberty’s front door.

No price too great.

Stout guardians of our sacred heritage,

Heroes and children of heroes. God Bless them.

Weapons in hand, they guard ground red with blood

And where they stand, men breathe forever free.

Pray for them.

Again they stand on dismal foreign ground.

They bring the torch of Liberty to darkened lands.

I see men stand erect, after centuries on their knees.

How proud I am. How full my heart.

MY Flag is passing by!

Suddenly, Turkey has become a major player in the Islamic assault on Israel. This is an extremely dangerous situation, because Turkey is a full-fledged member of NATO, and, as such, possesses the full range of NATO weaponry, including U.S. Stealth Fighters.

I have been to Turkey, and I can personally testify to the fact that Turkey is very much a nation divided. The large cities, such as Istanbul (which I visited) are completely secular and westernized. Istanbul features bars and nightclubs, and the young women wear high heels and mini-skirts. My guide, on a few of my Istanbul day trips, was the perfect example of this.

However, I also crossed over to the Asiatic side of Turkey, and traveled through a number of rural towns and villages. Which is to say, I turned the clock back fourteen hundred years. In the Turkish Outback, you see the women in Burqas and veils, and the men in turbans.

All of this division dates back to the early years of the twentieth century, when Turkey was ruled by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938) the founder of the Turkish Republic and its first President. It was Ataturk who turned Turkey westward and established a secular government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk

Between then and now, however, and particularly in recent years, the Islamic extremists have gradually re-established their hold on the Turkish political system, until we find ourselves where we are today, with Turkey playing a leading role in attacking Israel.

If fact, I visited Turkey in November, 2003, and most of the political winds have shifted in the few years since then. However, it is important to realize that the changes have taken place in the political arena only. The military remains firmly in the hands of the Ataturk secularists, and this is our best chance for peace in the region.

My greatest fear, in the wake of the Turkish inspired flotilla that tried to run the Israeli blockade, was that the Turkish Navy might sail in support of a second flotilla. That has not happened, and, I am hoping that it has not because the ruling Islamists realize that the Military would refuse to accept such an order.

Also, I simply cannot believe that the emancipated Turkish women in the cities would simply bow their heads and return to a life of Sharia-mandated subservience. I also cannot believe that the Turkish men I met would stand for their westernized way of life to be turned upside down.

At this juncture in history, the prevailing winds seem to favor Islam, largely because the Western Nations are sitting back and empowering them through inaction. In Turkey, however, the battle is between religious Muslims and secular Muslims, the latter being a contradiction in terms. The outcome of this battle, may well set the tone for the future direction of the Mid-East.

Breaking News:

The National Enquirer is reporting it has proof that Obama was caught in a hotel with a female staffer when he was an Illinois State Senator. The story is being carried on www.Drudgereport.com, ensuring that it will be read by tens of millions of Americans. Here is a link to the National Enquirer story:

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/68590

With a little more digging, I have discovered that the story has already been reported in newspapers all over Europe. Apparently the American media did not think it was newsworthy. (Surprise, surprise!!)

Remember, National Enquirer was the publication that broke the story of John Edwards’ love child. They claim to be actively researching additional aspects of the Obama story. The Drudge Report is read by an average of 25 million people daily, so any hope of a cover-up is now dead.

Here is a link to additional stories on this subject, including reports from foreign newspapers and pictures of Vera Baker, the woman allegedly involved:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=vera+baker&form=MSNH14&qs=AS

It is also being reported that Michelle Obama found out about these love trysts and went ballistic. Mysteriously, in the aftermath of that explosion, Vera Baker gave up her business and left the Country. She is now said to reside on Martinique, in the Caribbean.  I have faith in the National Enquirer, however. They will relentlessly track her down no matter where she goes. According to the story, the National Enquirer has been following this story since before the elections in 2008, but they would not publish it without proof. Well, they have now come forward and put it in print, which tells us a whole lot.

When the Tiger Woods story first broke, only one woman was involved, until, of course, many other women started coming forward. I wonder if history will repeat itself?

Stay tuned!!

I have smelled a “PC” rat ever since the “Sub-Prime” mortgage mess hit the front pages, and it turns out I was right. Back in the early 90’s we re-mortgaged our house to get rid of our Adjustable Rate Mortgage, and lock in the low Fixed Rates that were being offered at that time.

It was like dealing with the Gestapo!  The lender examined every facet of our lives in minute detail. It just never made sense to me that these fastidious lenders suddenly lost their collective minds and began willingly handing out money regardless of the borrower’s credit history or ability to repay.

The operative word here is “willingly”, and the answer is: they did not!

Remember the “Savings and Loan Crisis” of twenty odd years ago?  That was caused by fuzzy brained politicians and bureaucrats too. The bleeding hearts in Washington were just outraged that a person with $100,000 to plunk down could negotiate a higher rate of return with his bank, while Joe Average Saver was stuck with the 4.0%, roughly, that Savings Banks and S & L’s were paying at that time. Their answer was to create “Certificates of Deposit” that would enable even small savers to earn higher returns.

Very noble, but the reality was that Commercial Banks, with their short term, high return, commercial loan base, were able to offer higher rates on their CD’s than the S & L’s with their 20 to 30 year low return mortgages. The result was dubbed “Disintermediation”, a ten dollar word meaning money rapidly flowed out of the S & L savings accounts and into the Commercial Bank’s CD’s. The S & L’s tried to compete, but were paying out more in CD interest than they were taking in on their mortgage loans.

Depleted of capital, the S & L’s began to fail in wholesale lots, and the Washington inspired crisis turned into a snowball rolling downhill. Of course, the politicians and their cronies in the media (yes, back then too!) immediately blamed the whole thing on “greedy” and “dishonest” Bankers.  The media was full of stories about these bloated bankers traveling around in their chauffer driven limousines. Imagine!  Who do they think they are…Politicians????

Now fast forward to 2008, and think “Predatory” lenders. You know who I mean: those mortgage lending criminals who went into minority neighborhoods with machine guns, lined people up against the walls, and screamed “Sign Here or Die!!”

Finally, here is the “Inconvenient Truth” that the Democrats are desperate to hide from the American people: Democrats from Jimmy Carter on down were the ones responsible for the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crises!!!

At last, the other side of the story has been published, and the truth takes us full circle back to the S & L crisis. This time, as it turns out, the culprits were the Federal Reserve Banks, in league with the Comptroller of the Currency, various left wing social advocacy groups and bleeding heart politicians.

The whole sad story was laid out in an article last year in the New York Post (thank you, Mr. Murdock!) by Stan Liebowitz, an author and Professor of Economics at The University of Texas. According to Professor Liebowitz, the Boston Fed, on the basis of a badly flawed 1992 study, ruled that: “discrimination may be observed when a lender’s underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants.”

Some of these “outdated” criteria included the size of the mortgage payment relative to income, credit history, savings history and income verification. Instead, the Boston Fed ruled that participation in a credit-counseling program should be taken as evidence of an applicant’s ability to manage debt.

Sound crazy? You bet. Those “outdated” standards existed to limit defaults. But bank regulators required the loosened underwriting standards, with approval by politicians and the chattering class. A 1995 (Bill Clinton) strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.  By the way, the original Community Reinvestment Act was passed during Jimmy Carter’s administration. Hmmm…a familiar caste of characters.

Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department.

Here is the link to the full article. Be prepared to get very, very, angry. Once again we have politicians and bureaucrats interfering in the market place, with the same disastrous results. There is more to this, more names that could be named, but we will save that for another time. Sufficient here that we understand that this mess was caused entirely by bleeding heart liberal Democrats! Wall Street’s role was to create and sell derivatives based on these toxic loans. But Wall Street played absolutely no part in the origination of those loans.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02052008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_real_scandal_243911.htm

And once again, their will be no price to pay for the people responsible for almost destroying our economy, and forcing U.S. businesses to sell pieces of themselves to foreign entities just to survive.  Instead, their cronies in the media will continue to bleat about Wall Street’s guilt. In fact, we can easily look ahead and predict that blaming Wall Street will be the Democrats main theme in November’s elections

According to Tom Shales, Staff Writer for the Washington Post: “In a way, Amanpour, scheduled to leave CNN after 18 years of international coverage and take over the program in August, could be seen as the opposite of the perfect candidate. “This Week” deals mainly in domestic politics and inside-the-Beltway palaver, an area where Amanpour is widely considered to be deficient. Consider: Whenever CNN has thrown one of its big election-night, convention, or presidential debate spectaculars, drafting nearly every living staff member to appear, Amanpour has had a conspicuously low profile.

And even though Amanpour has often been touted for her expertise on foreign affairs, she has vocal and passionate critics in that arena as well. Supporters of Israel have more than once charged Amanpour with bias against that country and its policies.

Amanpour, incidentally, was born in Iran. Her family fled Tehran in 1979 at the start of the Islamic revolution, when she was college age.

Here is a link to the whole article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/22/AR2010032203230_pf.html

Anti-Israeli bias??  Would ABC be foolish enough to hire a moderator for a top line show who is openly antagonistic to Israel? Well, let’s visit her Facebook page and see if we find any hints. http://www.facebook.com/#!/amanpourcnn?ref=ts

To my Valentine

I poured my love into a bottle,

Sealed it with a fervent prayer.

Gave it to my Guardian Angel,

Begged her, “Handle this with care.”

She oh-so-gently took it from me,

Her Golden Halo all aglow.

Folded loving arms around it,

Said she knew just where to go.

She flew away on snow white wings,

I hope she’ll bring it straight to you.

She’ll know the place where you’ve been hiding,

She’ll know just what she needs to do.

In my dreams, I see her find you,

Smiling as she plays her part.

I see her opening my bottle,

Watch my love infuse your heart.

On Angel’s wings she’ll rush you to me,

Place your gentle hand in mine.

I’ll wrap adoring arms around you,

And love you ’till the end of time.

www.lovepoemsontheweb.com

Yesterday, for the first time ever, I heard a Fox News commentator raise the possibility of Israel using nukes against Iran. He was quickly pooh-poohed by his guest, and the subject was dropped.

I keep asking myself: “why is this subject considered to be simply unthinkable?”

Israel is confronted by a fanatical enemy that swears, almost daily, to annihilate the Israeli people in a nuclear holocaust. The Iranians are working diligently to give themselves the capability to do just that, while thumbing their collective noses at the pathetic attempts by Western Nations to get them to stop.

It seems to me to be a foregone conclusion that Israel’s survival as a nation will require them to take action to stop the Iranians from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, weapons which, once acquired, will seemingly be used against Israel immediately.

But wait! We are told repeatedly that Israel does not have the capability to destroy Iran’s nuclear processing facilities. We are told they are buried too deeply for conventional weapons to be effective, and that Iran’s defenses are too strong. I have heard the opinion that even American “Bunker Buster” bombs could not damage these Iranian facilities.

Moreover, we are told, that Israel could be overwhelmed by the ferocity of the Iranian response to any such attack. Not only would long range missiles and the Iranian Air Force attack Israeli population centers, but both Hamas and Hezbollah would launch all out attacks on Israel’s borders.

OK, so let’s say for the moment that I am the Israeli Prime Minister. I see a nation ruled by religious fanatics who are sworn to destroy my Country and wipe my people off the face of the earth. I see my enemies defying all the Nations of the world and actively working to acquire the very weapons that will enable them to carry out their threats.

And, through the efforts of my intelligence services, which are the best in the world, I know that they are very close to achieving their objective.

Worse yet, my own military commanders agree with the assessment that the Iranian nuclear facilities are beyond the reach of conventional weapons.

What to do? What to do?

What would you do? I know that if I were confronted with this situation, where the survival of my people is threatened, I would do whatever I had to do to ensure the survival of my Nation. If this means using nuclear weapons, then so be it. My enemy has left me no choice, even though I realize that we will be condemned by most of the Nations of the world, and may even face the sanctions that the Free World is unwilling to invoke against Iran.

Israel, reportedly, has hundreds of nuclear warheads. The use of just two or three would put an end to Iranian nuclear ambitions for decades to come, and ensure the survival of the Israeli people. It would also mean that there would be no retaliatory action, because even fanatics like the Iranians would realize that would simply trigger further nuclear attacks. Hamas and Hezbollah would climb back into their holes and keep safely out of sight.

Militarily, it is a win-win for Israel. The only downside, and it is a large consideration, would be universal condemnation, with the current American administration leading the charge. Israel would be even more isolated than it is now.

But it would survive!

Of course, this is pure speculation, and we can only sit back and watch developments.

However, I don’t think we will have long to wait.

On January 19, 2010 the people of Massachusetts will go to the polls to elect a Senator to fill the seat held for so long by the now deceased “Liberal Lion”, Teddy Kennedy. The outcome should be interesting indeed. It is the first election with National implications since the Virginia and New Jersey Gubernatorial elections. You know, the elections that Nancy Pelosi said the Democrats won because their candidate in NY 23 defeated a third party candidate.

The Democrat candidate in Massachusetts is the Oh-So-Liberal Martha Coakley, a popular State Attorney General. The Republican Candidate is Scott Brown, a lesser-known State Senator. Scott is, by Massachusetts standards, rather Conservative, giving the voters a pretty clear-cut choice.

The fly in the ointment is that the Massachusetts electorate leans heavily Democratic. So much so that, in 2008, John Kerry was re-elected with 65.8% of the vote, almost a two to one edge over his Republican challenger.

All indications are that Ms. Coakley should win by a large majority without so much as breaking a sweat.

I have visited the campaign websites of both candidates, and found a very large difference in the presentations. Brown, on his “Issues” pages, clearly states his positions on the leading issues of the day. He opposes same sex marriage, he opposes “Obamacare”, he opposes illegal immigration, he opposes “Cap and Trade”, etc. By contrast, Attorney General Coakley, in typical Liberal fashion, offers us nothing but generalities.

There is also a Libertarian third party candidate in the race. Coincidentally, his name is Joseph Kennedy, but he is, reportedly, not related to the Klan Kennedy. However, in a state with an electorate dumb enough to repeatedly send Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Barney Frank to Washington, you never know what can happen.

Scott Brown, of course, will collect the votes of all three of Massachusetts’ Conservative voters. Anything beyond that, I think we can safely assume, will be anti-Obama votes, just as we saw in New Jersey and Virginia. It is also noteworthy that, apparently, Coakley has not asked Obama to come and campaign for her.

Now, I am not suggesting that Scott Brown could win this election. That would simply be a bridge too far. But the National spotlight will be on Ms. Coakley’s margin of victory. Anything less than a Kerry-type landslide will start even more alarm bells ringing in a Democrat party that is already seeing Representatives retire rather than stand for re-election next year, as well as (so far) one highly publicized defection.

We will know the answer in a little over three weeks. If Democrats can’t win convincingly in the Citadel of Liberal Democrats, the National implications will be enormous.

Apparently Obama is also Commander-in-Chief of an incredible shrinking army!  Last week, White House staff leaked that Obama planned to send 34,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. Predictably, the reaction from the Left Wing of the Democrat Party was outrage, accompanied by threats to “get even”.

Most of us would say their reaction was not just predictable, it was laughable. “Get even?”  How?

Obama, however, must have been terrified. The last “leak” put the number of troops down to 9,000. Now, it seems the political right is weighing in and the “leaked” number has been in flux all day.

Of course, in this whole thing, the concerns of the vast majority of loyal Americans is completely disregarded. We must assume that Obama truly believes that he has nothing to fear from Middle America.

This is an Administration completely at the mercy of special interests, which is exactly the opposite of what he promised during last year’s campaign. All you have to do is glance at the White House visitors list to understand that. The most frequent visitor since he took office is the president of the SEIU! 

The decision on Afghanistan has nothing to do with the aspirations of the Afghan people, and it has nothing to do with the needs of the U.S. Military. It doesn’t even take into account that undermanned and outgunned American soldiers are dying needlessly. It has everything to do with domestic politics, and the steps necessary for Obama to advance his socialist agenda.

Cry the Beloved Country!