To borrow a phrase from Fox News ‘We report You decide ‘. Many of you have read, seen or maybe heard that Trijicon has been in the news lately because of their practice of putting Scriptural references on their products, mainly the illuminated optical sighting systems for the military. As of this writing Trijicon has agreed to send removal kits for all sighting systems already purchased by the military’s of all countries they have purchased their scopes. Trijicon has also agreed to stop their practice of inscribing Scriptural references on all future products they provide. No doubt they were threatened with contract cancellations if they didn’t comply and undoubtedly this was the major factor in their decision.

What we bring now are some of the connections to this controversy that the media has failed to report on. As with most controversies there is more here than meets the eye. A foundation called the MilitaryReligious Freedom Foundation (MRFF)is the driving force behind this entire “tempest in a teacup”.

MRFF was started in 2006 by Michael L. “Mikey“ Weinstein, a man with a most interesting background. He graduated from the Air Force academy in 1977, and ended up serving 10 years as a Judge Advocate General (JAG) Officer. During these 10 years as a JAG officer, he served 3 years as a legal counsel in the Regan White House. While at the White House, he served as the Committee Management Officer during the Iran-Contra investigation. He returned to civilian left and went on to serve as the First General Council for Ross Perot. The experience gained from these various positions has given Mr. Weinstein familiarity and expertise with the military legal system.

Since its founding in 2006, MRFF has filed a number of lawsuits against the military, all of which had to do with alleged religious persecution or religious wrongdoings. Ironically, MRFF was nominated for a 2010 Nobel Peace Prize, but lost out to Obama. Some of the more “notable” legal actions that MRFF filed against the U.S. Military and particularly the Air Forcewere a case involving the squadron emblem of the 523^rd Fighter Squadron (U.S.A.F). Another case involved the placement of Biblical Quotations over the door leading into the Air and Space Basic Course classroom, again the involving the Air Force.

A second example is a suit involved aBiblical Quotations over a door into the Air and Space Basic Course classroom. The quotation is Isaiah 40:31 “But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings of eagles; and they shall walk and not faint “ Again, MRFF viewed this quotation offensive based on “religious indoctrination” and of course the “separation of church and state.”

There were also suits involving the illegal use of official military e-mail accounts to send e-mails, simply because it contained the in the Thanksgiving greeting, “….Remember that it is not about celebrating the Pilgrims, or the football game, and all that but more about being a day to thank the Lord our God for all we have. All that is good comes from God and we need to worship, honor, and praise Him for all we have now and all He has saved us from and for all that is to come. All Glory Be To God!!” It also contained eight Old Testament quotes on the subject of gratitude to God. There was a suit on the Attempts by missionary organizations to train active-duty military personnel to evangelize their subordinates and peers. Another suit was about Military leadership openly discussing their commitment to bring religion into the military: At issue was a video produced by Christian Embassy, an organization whose mission is “to help diplomats, government leaders and military officers find real and lasting purpose through faith and encouragement.” The video, which appeared on Christian Embassy's website, carries a disclaimer that says "the views expressed by any government officials in this video are their personal views and are not intended to represent the U.S. government nor any department in which they serve."

Not being satisfied with attacking long standing traditions of the Air Force and other government organizations. MRFF turned their eyes on Trijicon and their outstanding scopes based on a “letter” MRFF received from unnamed U.S. Army soldier. (Editor’s note: Due to the length of the “letter’ we have summarize it.)

In his letter, after the usual biographical information, he states that he is a combat infantry soldier with combat experience. He says that he has “witnessed terrible religious persecution in the my (number withheld) years in the Army. Most of it comes from “angry” conservative Christians in my unit chains of command and occasionally from my fellow infantry soldiers.” The first question that one should be asked is as a member of the armed forces, why didn’t he bring this to his superiors attention in an attempt to end this “terrible religious persecution”? (Editor’s note: As Marines, we joke about the Army, but we do know that any enlisted man has not only the right, but the duty to report this “persecution” to “higher” authorities including the Chaplain of his faith.)

He continues in his “letter” writing that he is quite familiar with the Trijicon ACOG gun sights and had used them on his first 2 deployments where he “saw and experienced no incidents regarding the New Testament bible quotes that are written on the metal casing of the gunsights.” Now, the question arises, as stated by the company, “The Company’s practice of putting Bible references on the sites began nearly 30 years ago by Trijicon's founder, Glyn Bindon, who was killed in a plane crash in 2003. His son Stephen, Trijicon's president, has continued the practice,”  ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583566,00.html ) and if this soldier has used the scope for 2 deployments, why hadn’t he seen this before?

He also says in the “letter”, “Many soldiers know of them and are very confused as to why they are there and what it is supposed to mean. Everyone is worried that if they were captured in combat that the enemy would use the bible quotes against them in captivity or some other form of propaganda.” Excuse us for being skeptical, but any soldier who has a question, is fully free to ask someone, whether it’s their immediate NCO (Non Commissioned Officer) or someone higher up on the chain of command. As the old saying goes, “The only stupid question is the one not asked.” As far as propaganda, since when does the enemy need a reason, our own press already do that for them?

This unnamed soldier continued in his letter with a number of “charges” and even mentions the possibility of retaliation if he or others brought this to the attention of higher authorities. Again, we find this hard to believe within a military unit. Even his statements about, “… senior NCO was apparently also the head person of a conservative, crazy Christian group called the “Christian Military Fellowship” and made a big deal about the importance of joining to everyone”, seems to be way out of place including the senior NCO’s anti-Semitic quotes, seems to contrived, “p*ssy ‘Jewzzi’ (combination of the word ‘Jew’ and Israeli made weapon ‘Uzi’). NO senior NCO worth his salt would make such comments in the presence of “…. many Afghans, both civilian and military, on base within earshot of what was being yelled at us and I can only wonder in shock what they must have thought.” If this was true, then why this lone soldier, the only one contacting the MRFF? Why didn’t someone who overheard these comments report the incident to an officer? Or to the press for that matter?

According to Mr. Weinstein, after receiving this alleged letter, he contacted the Associated Press (AP). Of course, the “lame stream” AP ran the story and needless to say it became a minor “firestorm”. It is worth noting, that this “firestorm” can be somewhat suspect on why the “lame stream” Media was so quick to cover this story when Trijicon was still using Scriptural References, but as soon as Trijicon acquiesced and said they would no longer use the references, the “lame stream” media dropped the story. Although, this particular story has quietly gone into the background, MMRF seems to be on their own crusade and against religious freedom in our military. Eventually, if not already, most people will forget about this and other assaults on Christianity in our military and particularly MRFF’s role in this assault. They may be hoping that their role will never come to light. They are hoping that they can remain in the shadows and continue their assaults. After some researching, we feel we can put MRFF in with the other “Shadow Menaces” that are threatening the American way of life and religious freedom (For more information on the “Shadow Menaces” please see Old Marine’s blogs here on 912 and http://ascream.blogtownhall.com/. One just needs to look at MRFF’s Board of Directors which is headed by Kristen Leslie (an assistant professor of Pastoral Care and Counseling at Yale Divinity School), and David Antoon (a former U.S. Air Force commander who vocally opposes the “extreme Evangelical coercive overtones influencing the Academy.” Other notable members of the MRFF Advisory Board are former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson; Smita Singh, Director of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation’s Global Development Program, this foundation awards grant money to many different organizations, including International Planned Parenthood (also associated with George Soros), Human Rights Watch (directly funded by George Soros) and the Tides Center (another of George Soros funded organizations). For those of you who watch Glenn Beck you will remember that Glenn has featured the Tides Center on more than one occasion and it’s association with the Obama White House. Then there is Richard T. Schlosberg III, the immediate past President and CEO of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the former Ambassador JosephWilson. Are you starting to see a pattern forming here? Sounds like the same game plan the A.C.L.U. uses when they intimidate small towns and businesses about any number of issues dealing with Christian displays or rules. MRFF has a concerted and purposeful agenda to stifle anything to do with Christianity in our military.

As I write this, America is approaching the anniversary of the coronation of “a brilliant 47-year old senator” as President of America. Now, all the talking heads are going to analysis the past year in their unique partisan ways, well I am going to look at it from his Vice President’s words. (Although this is written in the first person, my friend and partner in crime, TopShot helped a great deal.)

Let’s look back in history, oh say about October, 2008. At a fund-raiser in Seattle, WA on October 19^th, The VP candidate Joe “The Gaffer” Biden said, "Mark my words. Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy, The world is looking," Biden continued. "We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he’s gonna have to make some really tough - I don’t know what the decision’s gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it’s gonna happen. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate. And he’s gonna need help."

Well, Joe you were right, your “brilliant” candidate, has proven to the people of the U.S. and the world, he needs help, a lot of help. He needs help in developing a spine, a backbone, leadership and character. A John Kennedy he is not, not even close. I will admit I wasn’t a big fan of Kennedy; at least he had the courage to stand up before the American people and admit his error and not blame it on the past administration. This is something, your dear leader, doesn’t seem to have the character or courage to do.

Let’s look at what JFK faced when he came to office. Let’s talk about the Bay of Pigs. This invasion was planned in 1960, when then President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to use their Special Activities Division to equip, train and lead Cuban exiles in an amphibious invasion of Cuba, to overthrow the new Cuban government of Fidel Castro. Eisenhower made it policy for the U.S. to aid anti-Castro guerrilla forces. Although a number of plans were proposed, JFK made the HARD decision, and authorized the Bay of Pigs. This was less then 4 months after taking office. History shows us what happened, and although there was plenty of blame to go around, JFK did take responsibility and didn’t blame the previous administration, even though; those who planned the invasion were from the previous administration. Can we say the same thing about Obama? But, maybe I’m getting ahead of myself.

In September, 1962, JFK faced his biggest challenge, the Cuban missile crisis. The crisis began when U-2 over flights of Cuba photographed Soviet ICBM’s and tactical short range missiles had been installed in Cuba. However, the U.S. had no plan for dealing with such a threat. Even the U.S. intelligence community was convinced that the Soviets would not install nuclear missiles in Cuba. The Executive Committee of the National Security Council (EXCOMM) quickly discussed five possible courses of action: Do nothing, Use diplomatic pressure to get the Soviet Union to remove the missiles, Conduct an air attack on the missiles, conduct a full military invasion or naval blockade of Cuba, which was redefined as a more selective quarantine. Kennedy decided on the blockade or more correctly, quarantine. Under customary international practice, a blockade stops all shipments into the blockaded area, and is considered an act of war. Quarantines are more selective, as, in this case, being limited to offensive weapons. JFK mobilized the armed forces, bombers and fighters were placed on alert, Navy ships took up station surrounding Cuba. With the armed forces in place, President Kennedy made his address to the Nation in which he said "To halt this offensive buildup, a strict quarantine on all offensive military equipment under shipment to Cuba is being initiated.” Thus, the wait began. Finally, after secret negotiations and a secret deal, the crisis ended, on 28 October, 1962. History has later shown that the U.S., Cuba and the U.S.S.R. were indeed on the brink of war, since tactical control for the short range missiles were in the hands of Cuban officers. Later it would be said, “Kennedy and Khrushchev stood toe to toe and Khrushchev blinked.” I and most Americans feel that if Obama had been involved, Khrushchev would have laughed and the missiles would have still be in Cuba. The same way much of the world is laughing at Obama now, when it comes to protecting America from Muslim terrorists.

Mr. Biden, let’s look back over the year that this “brilliant 47-year old senator” (your words, not mine) has been president. Maybe we should start by looking at the Air Force One fly over and the scare it gave the people of New York. Now, if Obama had "a spine of steel," as you said in one of your speeches earlier on the 19th, then he would have told the people of New York and America that he authorized the flight and he apologized, after all Air Force One is under his direct control, it does not just go “poking holes in the clouds” anytime the crew wants to. Instead of showing that “spine of steel”, Obama blamed everyone else, except Bush and I’ll bet if he could have, he would have.

Shall we talk about his with his “world apology” tours? Does Obama really think that by apologizing for America, it will gain respect from our enemies? The only thing our enemies understand is strength, as JFK demonstrated during the “Missile Crisis”. How about his European tour and the gifts to the Royal Family? Which brings up an interesting point, this “brilliant” man doesn’t know that it is tradition that Americans, particularly the President does not bow anyone, but he can bow to everyone, including a Saudi prince. I find it amazing that he didn’t bow to the Burger King when he stopped in for a hamburger.

Where was this “brilliant person” with the “spine of steel” when Iran demonstrators protested and were getting beaten and killed because they felt their election was a fraud. These people were risking their lives for the freedom your dear leader wants to destroy, but this man with a “spine of steel” didn’t feel the “U.S. should meddle” in their affairs. A man with courage would have stood up, spoke out and backed them with, if nothing else, words of encouragement. How about Honduras, they followed their Constitution, yet this “brilliant” man sided with those who attempted to unlawfully change their Constitution. Did this hit to close to home for him, after all isn’t he also trying to change America’s Constitution by taking over the auto industry, banks, and healthcare? How about the record number of czars? Just where in our Constitution is this allowed.

Hey Joe, you said, “Mark my words. Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy, The world is looking……”, yep you were right, besides the points made earlier, let’s look at his handling of acts of terror against the American people.

Less than the six months after taking “office”, a rag-tag group of Somali pirates, hijacked a U.S. Flagged ship, and what did Obama do, absolutely nothing until the polls were going against him on his handling of the situation, then and only then did he take action. In fact, when Obama was asked by a reporter, early in the hijacking, during a meeting with U.S. homeowners about refinancing mortgages, your “…brilliant 47-year old…” replied, “Guys, we're talking about housing right now." Now, If Obama is so “brilliant”, why can’t he do two things at once, like answering the question and then continue on with the meeting. Maybe the teleprompter was on vacation?

As you said, “will not be six months before the world tests…..” well, it was six months and a Muslim terrorist shot two young soldiers, killing Pvt. William A. Long, 23 and wounding Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula, 18, on the street in Little Rock. Hey Joe, how come Obama did not condemn the heinous attack and senseless violence? How come there were no condolences for the families of these young soldiers whose only “crime” was wanting to defend and protect the Constitution of America? How come there was no praise for the military recruiters who have been under increasing attack on U.S. soil by American leftists (I forgot, these are the ones that elected you and Obama). Yet, just a few days earlier, Obama, this “brilliant person” couldn’t wait to get in front of a camera and microphones to say, “However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.", about the killing of the Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller. I guess in this “brilliant person’s” mind, an abortion doctor is more important than a young American soldier, after all isn’t Obama suppose to be Commander in Chief, or is it Clown in Chief? Yes Joe, the world is watching and the world is learning that Obama does not care about the safety of the American people or the American military. They realize that Obama only cares about his social agenda and the destruction of America’s way of life.

Where was this “brilliant person” with “a spine of steel” when the Commanding General requested 45 – 60,000 additional troops for the war on terror in August, and took your “brilliant person” three months to make a decision to send only 30,000 troops and set a dead line for withdrawal. Joe, you were right the world is watching and realizing that this man with a “spine of steel” actually has a spine of jello or no spine at all. Here’s a fact of life, generals, for the most part, know how to fight and win a war. IF they ask for a number of troops, they need that many troops. Yet your “brilliant person” took three months to decide not to grant General McChrysal’s request. Was Obama more worried about his parties, golf games, basketballs and his various television appearances then the safety of our fine American troops fighting to protect America from Muslim terrorists?

While we are talking about making appearances, what was the reaction of this “brilliant person” when another Muslim terrorists shot and killed 13 people and wounding 37 at Fort Hood, Texas on November 5^th. It took him almost 2 minutes, but he had to make some “shout outs”, to even mention this Muslim terrorist attack and even then, it was a non committal, "I planned to make some broader remarks," he told the crowd. "But as some of you might have heard there has been a tragic shooting at the Fort Hood Army base in Texas." Hey Joe, did this “brilliant person” realize that 13 American citizens just lost their lives on American soil?

Again Joe, you said, “the world would test Barack Obama”. Would this test be a Muslim terrorist that attempted to blow up and airliner over an American city? As the world has seen, the President was too busy with his vacation, he couldn’t even come off the golf course to make a statement, instead his DHS Secretary, Janet Incompolitano, made a statement, which she thoroughly “blew”, “the system worked”. Three days later, your “brilliant 47-year old” finally made a statement, to cover all the gaffes his people made that weekend. Yet, wasn’t it your party that condemned Bush because he didn’t jump right up and leave the room, and possibility scaring young children when 9-11 occurred?

Like so many Americans, when I got up this morning, I prepared my coffee, lit my first cigarette (yeah, I know) and checked the news on the Fox website. As I scanned the news, one of the first articles that caught my eye  had headline, “U.S. to close Embassy in Yemen”, I read the story and like any good American, became outraged. Later, I came back to re read the story and the lead had changed; now it was “U.S., U.K. Shut Embassies in Yemen Over Terror Threats” http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,581803,00.html (last visited Jan. 3,10) and realized that America has finally lived up Osama bin Laden’s view that the United States is a “paper tiger”. He was inspired to make this observation after the U.S.’s rapid withdrawal of peacekeeping forces from Lebanon and Somalia after suffering casualties. Now we are closing an embassy in Yemen, because of a THREAT!

I wonder if our current administration really thinks that this move will keep America safe from terrorism. Just like did President Jimmy Carter think that after Nov. 4, 1979, when fifty-two American citizens were taken hostage by militant students of radical Islam stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran? His immediate response was to order a complete embargo of Iranian oil. Later, he placed stronger economic embargoes on Iran. Then in April, 1980, his ultimate response, severing diplomatic relations with Iran after negotiations for the hostages' release failed. Granted, Carter did make an attempt for rescue, but that cost 8 American service men their lives. Strange, that the attempt came during the election period, and Carter’s poll numbers were tanking. Was it political? Should action have been done sooner? It took the election of President Reagan and the possibility of military force to finally get our hostages released after 444 days of captivity. Then to add insult to the to the humiliation of the Iranian hostage crisis, Iran elects one of the leaders of the takeover as “president”, and what does the U.S. do, nothing, not a word.

Some thought that when President Reagan was elected, American interests overseas might be safer, and for a time it was. When Reagan received intelligence reports in May 1981, that Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi had plans to assassinate American diplomats in Rome and Paris, he expelled all Libyan diplomats from the U.S. and closed Libya's diplomatic mission in Washington, D.C. Just like the Iraq war under President Bush, some alleged that the U.S. exaggerated the terrorist threat from Libya, in part because Libya was an easy target.  Libya was and still is considered a minor player in the Middle East with no steadfast allies. U.S. officials denied Libya was used as a scapegoat, maintaining that it posed a credible terrorist threat against U.S. targets and that Libya had sufficient oil funds to mount a significant attack on U.S. interests. Then three months later, Reagan ordered U.S. Navy jets to shoot down Libyan fighters if they ventured inside what was known as the "line of death.” This line created by Qaddafi to demarcate Libya's territorial waters, which he said extended more than 100 miles off the country's shoreline; the U.S. and other maritime nations recognized Libyan territorial waters as extending only 12 miles from shore. As expected, the Libyan Air Force counter-attacked and Navy jets shot down two SU-22 warplanes about 60 miles off the Libyan coast. President Reagan proved to America and the world, that America was a force to be feared by the terrorists.

Then two years later, things began to change. Did politics start to end Reagan’s war on terror?  In April 18, 1983, a suicide bomber drove a pickup truck loaded with explosives into the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. This terrorist attack cost sixty-three people their lives. Among the dead were 17 Americans, eight of whom were employees of the Central Intelligence Agency, including chief Middle East analyst Robert C. Ames and station chief Kenneth Haas. Even though Reagan administration officials said that the attack was carried out by Hezbollah operatives, a Lebanese militant Islamic group whose anti-U.S. sentiments were sparked in part by the revolution in Iran and the operatives, who carried out the attack on the embassy reportedly, were receiving financial and logistical support from both Iran and Syria. According to retired Marine Lt. Col. Bill Cowan, a covert military team entered Beirut in order to gather intelligence in preparation for retaliatory strikes. But, the U.S. government took no military action.

Later in 1983, a contingent of 1,800 Marines were sent to Lebanon as part of a multinational force to help separate the warring Lebanese factions. This was not the first time U.S. troops were deployed to Lebanon, twice before, in the early 1980s, U.S. troops were sent to Lebanon to deal with the fall-out from the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. In the first deployment, Marines helped oversee the peaceful withdrawal of the PLO from Beirut. Then on Oct. 23, 1983, a truck loaded with the equivalent of six tons of TNT was driven by a Muslim terrorist down the airport road in Beirut, Lebanon. This terrorist plowed into the four-story barracks where more than 300 U.S. troops from a U.N. peacekeeping mission slept and detonated what the FBI would call the largest non-nuclear bomb in history. The explosion and fireball pulverized the concrete fortress killing 241 American servicemen (220 Marines, 16 Navy personnel, and 3 Army soldiers). It was the deadliest single-day death toll for the Marines since the World War II battle of Iwo Jima and the deadliest for the U.S. military since the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam. Minutes later a second blast struck the compound of the French peacekeeping force and killed 58 more Western troops.

Following this terrorist attack, Reagan assembled his national security team to devise a plan of military action. The planned target was the Sheik Abdullah barracks in Baalbek, Lebanon. This barracks housed the Iranian Revolutionary Guards believed to been involved in the training of Hezbollah fighters. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger aborted the mission, reportedly because of his concerns that it would harm U.S. relations with other Arab nations. Instead, President Reagan ordered the battleship USS New Jersey, stationed off the coast of Lebanon, to fire on the hills near Beirut. The move was seen as largely ineffective. Four months after the Marine barracks bombing, the Marines were ordered to start pulling out of Lebanon. Later, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger would say in an interview with Frontline in September, 2001, “that the U.S. still lacks "actual knowledge of who did the bombing" of the Marine barracks. But it suspected Hezbollah, believed to be supported in part by Iran and Syria. Hezbollah denied its involvement….well DUH!

On Dec. 12, 1983, a series of bombing attacks took place on targets that included the American embassy, the French embassy, the control tower at the airport, the country's main oil refinery, and a residential area for employees of the American corporation Raytheon in Kuwait. Six people were killed, including a suicide truck bomber, and more than 80 others were injured. The suspects were thought to be members of Al Dawa, or "The Call," an Iranian-backed group and one of the principal Shiite groups operating against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Again, the U.S. military took no action in retaliation.

In Aukar, northeast of Beirut, on Sept. 20, 1984, a truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. Embassy annex killing 24 people, including 2 U.S. military personnel. In the U.S. State Department's 1999 report on terrorist organizations, elements of Hezbollah are "known or suspected to have been involved" in the bombing. Again, the U.S. mounted no military response to the embassy annex bombing, but it did begin to explore covert operations in Lebanon. According to investigative journalist Bob Woodward, the CIA trained foreign intelligence agents to act as "hit teams" designed to destroy the terrorists' operations. Ambassador Robert Oakley says the U.S. merely attempted to set up a "protective unit," a Lebanese counterterrorist strike force. Unfortunately, President Reagan and the CIA called off covert operations when Lebanese intelligence operatives -- some allegedly trained by the U.S. -- set off a car bomb on March 8, 1985, in an attempted murder of Sheik Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, the Shiite Muslim cleric who some believed to be the spiritual leader of Hezbollah. Over 80 people were killed in the attack near a Beirut mosque. Sheik Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah survived.

On June 14, 1985, Muslim terrorists hijacked TWA Flight 847 while flying between Athens to Rome. This hijacked flight was forced to land in Beirut, Lebanon. Once on the ground, the hijackers held the plane for 17 days. They demanded the release of the “Kuwait 17” as well as the release of 700 fellow Shiite Muslim prisoners being held in Israeli prisons and in prisons in southern Lebanon run by the Israeli-backed South Lebanon Army. When these demands weren't met, hostage Robert Dean Stethem, a U.S. Navy diver, was shot and his body dumped on the airport tarmac. Once again, no U.S. military action followed, although Mohammed Ali Hamadei, was arrested in Frankfurt, Germany. In 1989 he was convicted in a German court and sentenced to life in prison.

On Oct. 7, 1985, the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro was sailing off the coast of Egypt, when four Muslim terrorist hijacked and demanded the release of Palestinian prisoners held in Egypt, Italy, and elsewhere around the world. When the demands weren't met, they killed Leon Klinghoffer, a wheel chaired bound, 69-year-old disabled American tourist by pushing him overboard in the middle of the Mediterranean. Investigators would later blamed the Palestine Liberation Front, which some believed to be allied with Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organization. Later, U.S. officials were able to link Libya to the PLF and the hijacking. After the hijackers escaped the Achille Lauro, they made their way to Egypt. When they attempted to leave Egypt by air, U.S. Navy fighters intercepted their plane and forced it down in Italy. The four hijackers were apprehended, and in 1986, they were found guilty in an Italian court. Two of the hijackers escaped from prison. One, Magid al-Molgi, who confessed to killing Mr. Klinghoffer, was caught and returned to prison. The man identified as the mastermind of the hijacking, Abu Abbas, was released by Italy despite Washington's pleas that he be held for trial.

Later on Dec. 17, 1985, airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, five of whom were Americans. This time, U.S. officials said they were able to link Libya to the bombing attacks. In January, U.S. officials decided to send the Navy and its warplanes to patrol the Gulf of Sidra -- in territorial waters claimed by Libya -- in an effort to provoke Qaddafi. Needless to say this also failed and no military action took place.

An American soldier was killed in April 5, 1986, when a bomb was detonated at La Belle, a discotheque in West Berlin. This discotheque was known to be popular with off-duty U.S. servicemen. A Turkish woman was killed, and nearly 200 others were wounded. U.S. intelligence sources identified Libya as being responsible for the attack. In Berlin, five individuals were tried for carrying out the bombing of the discotheque. Later, after U.S. intelligence intercepted Libyan government communications implicating Libya in disco attack, President Reagan finally ordered retaliatory air strikes on Tripoli and Benghazi. Operation El Dorado Canyon, launched on April 15, 1986. This operation involved 200 aircraft and over 60 tons of bombs. One of the residences of Libyan leader Muammar el-Qadaffi was hit in the attack, which, according to Libyan estimates, killed 37 people and injured 93 others. As a result of this American operation, U.S. national security officials say Libyan-sponsored terrorism ceased "for a long time." Although, two days later the Arab Revolutionary Cells, a pro-Libyan group of Palestinians affiliated with terrorist Abu Nidal, claimed to have executed American University of Beirut employees, American Peter Kilburn and Britons John Douglas and Philip Padfield. The men’s bodies were discovered near Beirut shot to death.

Just 4 days before Christmas in 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was flying from London to New York exploded over the small town of Lockerbie, Scotland. All 259 people on board were killed, along with 11 on the ground. The State Department's "Patterns of Global Terrorism, 1991," which was released in April 1992, stated, “the bombing of Pan Am 103 "was an action authorized by the Libyan Government."” Although there were reports that Syria and Iran also played significant roles in the attack, U.S. officials were never able to tie the two countries to the bombing. No one has ever taken credit for planting the bomb. In May 2000 the trial of the two Libyan intelligence officers charged with planting the bomb started in the Netherlands. It ended in February 2001 with the conviction of defendant Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi; he received a life sentence. The other defendant, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, was acquitted and set free.

Although many Americans believe that the war on terrorism started during the 90’s with the bombing of World Trade center, the Blackhawk down operation, Al-Qaeda’s 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed 224 people, including 12 Americans, and wounded more than 5,000 people in simultaneous operations that used huge truck bombs similar those used in past Hezbollah operations. Needless to say we cannot forget the U.S.S. Cole, where 17 sailors lost their lives. It has been proven in the past; the only thing that the Muslim terrorists understand is the force. It appears that the U.S. hasn’t or won’t learn this lesson.

Now, we have an administration that wants to close an embassy because of a THREAT! And as I write this, the latest news across the wires from Fox News is “Despite Al Qaeda Threat, U.S. Not Planning to Expand Terror Fight in Yemen” http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/03/despite-al-qaeda-threat-planning-extend-terror-fight-yemen/ . It appears that once again America is going to inspired Osama bin Laden, to view the United States as a “paper tiger” because there is a threat.

What has happened to the American people? What has happened to our leadership? Has America, become afraid to stand up for freedom and liberty? Instead of closing the embassy, if we had an administration with America’s security at heart, they would evacuate the non essential personnel, re-enforce the Marine Security Detachment with more Marines, secure the embassy and take a stand. Show the Muslim terrorists, that America is a force to be reckon with to protect our interests. God protect the U.S. from fools and cowards.

References used (all visited on Jan. 3, 2010):

Arlington National Cemetery : http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/terror.htm

Frontline : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/cron.html

During the same interview wwith Fox, you continued to describe the problem with closing of Gitmo “…I just think as usual in Washington things move slower than I anticipated. One of the things we knew very early on, there are a set of detainees in Guantanamo that can be convicted, and they will be convicted. There are a set of detainees that can be deported and sent to other countries, and they will be. There is a set of detainees though that are dangerous to the United States, but unfortunately evidence against them may be tainted. Figuring out how to deal with them always was going to be difficult, ah, and we are on a path and a process where I would anticipate that Guantanamo will be closed next year. I’m not going to set an exact date because a lot of this is also going to depend upon cooperation from Congress.” Now, let me understand this, you are surprised that things move slower than you anticipated, well, weren’t you elected a senator from the corrupt state of IL. Didn’t you attend any of the sessions of the senate? Aren’t you supposed to be the smartest person in the room? Didn’t you see that things do move slowly in congress? Unless they are 1,000 – 2,000+ page bills that will bankrupt America, then things move rather quickly. Were you too worried about running for president and winning the White House (which you seem to never spend any time in), that you didn’t pay attention? Now, you are going to wait for congress to make a military decision. Your job is, according to Article II, Section 2, of that pesky document, the Constitution, is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and when it comes to dealing with foreign enemies of the U.S., it falls to you to make the decision. Instead, you fly off overseas, bow to a foreign head of state (actually the emperor of Japan is a figure head with no true power), and let someone else make the decision. Sounds like a person who is completely over his head in a job he doesn’t understand.

By the way, concerning your and Mr. Holder’s statement concerning their predetermined guilt, does the Manson trial ring a bell? Does the circus that occurred in that court room when the newspapers reported on the front page that Pres. Nixon said, “That Manson is guilty”? Needless to say, the lawyers and Manson made a “field day” with it. What about the first OJ Simpson Trial? The prosecutors thought they had a slam dunk convicting O.J. Simpson. You are suppose to be a Constitutional lawyer, does corrupting the jury pool mean anything to you? I guess not, for your and Mr. Holder’s statements have completely made this a laughing stock of the American justice system, and THAT IS SAD, particularly for the families who lost loved ones on 9-11. I guess you and your “administration” really doesn’t get it, 9-11 was an act of war, not a criminal act. After all, Biden Laden did declared war on the U.S., which Slick Willy ignored, we were attacked, and Americans died.

Mr. President, What is your real reason for a Civil Trial? You and your Attorney General are moving the trials of 5 terrorists to New York and into the Civil Justice System. You are taking the prosecution of these murders out of the hands of the military where they would still receive a fair trial but your AG would have no jurisdiction. Both you and Erik Holder are graduates of prestigious law schools as well as having both been practicing lawyers. You both should be well aware and well versed in the use of discovery in any trial. You can’t really think the American people are so naïve to believe that you both haven’t thought about this. Of course your actions so far have shown that what the American people think is not one of your main concerns. Was this just what you may call a slight oversight or is it all part of your plan allow these murders to escape the justice they deserve.

You have to know what the ramifications will be by bringing these cases to civil trial. A civil trial will be fraught with pitfalls and with distractions. Of course you already know this, after all you were a law professor correct? Is this just going to be another way of embarrassing America that you seem to have become so good at? You know that with this becoming a civil trial that all the laws protecting a American citizen will apply to someone who was captured on a battlefield and is not entitled to protection under those laws. There will be a media feeding frenzy over the fact they weren’t read their Miranda Rights, there will be arguments about forced confessions. They will bring up the legal use of Waterboarding as a form of torture; will you be happy when terrorists around the world use this as a cause for more violence? You know that these trials will be long and cost untold millions or billions of dollars. But again you don’t really care about what anything costs do you.

Perhaps these trials will take the American peoples attention off the real issues and the upcoming elections. Of course this would just be a coincidence wouldn’t it, you would never use such a divisive issue for political advantage would you? Or is this as I believe it is, your way of removing yourself from your duty as Commander in Chief from the final decision in a military trial and conviction. You see you know that if these murderers are tried, convicted and sentenced to death in a military tribunal then you would be required to sigh their death warrant. By turning this into a civil prosecution you don’t have to make that decision, if the civil court were to convict them then the decision of life or death is left up to a jury and the presiding judge. Whatever the turnout you will have the cover of saying that your hands were tied and justice however unfair was carried out. You are very lucky that you weren’t a soldier in Gen. George S. Patton’s army. He would have slapped you along with the other coward who could not carry out his duties.

This whole thing smells of another chance to embarrass the military and the United States of America in front of the whole world. I’m sure you will also use this time to blame the whole thing on former President Bush, you and your liberal colleges seem to be very adept at that. Perhaps you might even prosecute one of his Cabinet members or the biggest prize of all President Bush himself.

All Presidents at one time or another are worried about their legacy. You of all previous Presidents should be the most worried! You will be remembered in history as the President that did more to CHANGE America from the great nation it has always been into something unrecognizable to our founding fathers. You will be remembered as the President who destroyed a economy and reduced Americas standing in the world. You will be remembered for losing two wars that were won, but by your mishandling were lost when victory was at hand. I see in your future you being labeled as the worst President this country ever had.

BH0 continued, “If I was just hearing one side, then I would probably not be getting the full reality of what's going on in Afghanistan: which is that, yes we have a vital interest there, yes we have to make sure that we don't get mission creep and that we define our interests narrowly to make sure we're just going after extremists and preventing them from having safe havens. Yes, we have got to have an effective Afghan government and right now we don't have the kind of partner that we'd like; yes we've got to have Pakistan cooperating; yes we've got to have more civilian ah cooperation; so all those variable then go into the decision making process and as I said if I was just listening to hawks or doves on either side of the debate, then I probably wouldn't be making a very good decision.”

Actually, I feel this was a great none answer. I would like to start with your “voices” saying "this is a quagmire and we're wasting our resources and endangering our young men and women's lives and we should just focus on Pakistan, and Al Qaeda that's in Pakistan.” Would you please explain these “voices”. Are they the same voices that said, “The war is lost” in Iraq? Are these the same “voices” that accused Marines of murder? Or maybe it was the “voices” of your left wing radical supporters, like say, George Soros? Yes, it may be a “quagmire’, but it is one because you and your friends are doing all that can be done to cause the U.S. to loss. Your “friends” have tied our troop’s hands with certain Rule of Engagement (RoE). These same RoE have our troops consulting lawyers before they can return fire. In fact you with your code pink RoE are costing American troops their lives. As posted in the New York Post, 9-24-09, “Mission-focused, but morally oblivious, Gen. Stan McChrystal conformed to the Obama Way of War by imposing rules of engagement that could have been concocted by Code Pink:

* If any civilians appear where we meet the Taliban, our troops are to "break contact" -- to retreat.

These ROE are a cave-in to the Taliban's shameless propaganda campaign that claimed innocents were massacred every time our aircraft appeared overhead. (Afghan President Mohammed Karzai and our establishment media backed the terrorists.)” (the link to this article returns an error, this particular article has been removed).”

Now BH0, I ask again, whose voices are you listening to in order to make a decision on sending in the troops the generals have requested. You want to end the “quagmire”, send the damn troops.

BH0, you also said, “we should just focus on Pakistan and Al Qaeda that's in Pakistan”. I wonder, what part of; If we get Al Qaeda out of Pakistan while we ignore the Taliban, then what is to prevent the regeneration of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan with the support of the Taliban; don’t you understand? What is to prevent the Taliban from controlling Afghanistan, if not directly, but by proxy, i.e. by murder or terror. Maybe you can try to look sternly at them or invite them to a beer summit? You want to stop this, again send the troops. Send the equipment and anything else the troops need. Most importantly, listen to the generals, they know more about running a war then you know about running the country. Mr. Clown in Chief, like it or not, we are at war, the congress critters approved it, the American people supported it until the left realized that the American people were coming together and your shame stream media decided to erode the support, just like they did in Vietnam. Just like Walter Cronkite’s comment after the Tet offensive, “The war is lost” (gee didn’t someone in the Senate say that prior to the surge in Iraq). By the way, an NVA general later wrote that if the U.S. had pushed the advantage after Tet, The NVA would have lost the war. If we are forced to withdraw from Afghanistan, then you, and only you will be the blame for the lost. You and only you will prove Bin Laden right, “America is a paper tiger, and doesn’t have the stomach for a war.” As General George S. Patton said during World War 2, “Americans play to win at all times. I wouldn't give a hoot and hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor ever lose a war.” Thanks to you and your liberal friends, this will be the U.S.’s second lost, for the same reason, no guts from you or the critters in congress.

BH0 also said, "we've gotta go all in and commit and rebuild Afghanistan so it's a stable just society." Just who do you think you are to judge what is or is not a stable society? Do you want to judge them by our standards? Just how long did it take for the United States to become a “stable society” after our own Revolution? Hell, we didn’t even have a model to follow. But by the Grace of God, a bit of luck, and honorable men, we were able to achieve the goal of becoming a stable country. Yes, it took many years, but we did it. Do you expect to change centuries of customs and traditions in nine years? I realize that you may believe your own shame stream media, that you are the messiah of the world. Hate to break it to you, you were elected president of the U.S., and you’re not doing a very good job at that, what makes you think you do anything about the world. Face it; you’re just a flawed human being like the rest of us.

The American people have often heard you and others in your administration use the excuse, “the Afghan government is corrupt” for not sending more troops. Excuse me; what does that have to do with fighting a war? Yes, maybe it would help if the Afghan troops see there isn’t any corruption within their government, but does that interfere with their ability to fight a war? I would say not, after all, our own troops see the corruption within our own government and the waste of money that accompanies this corruption, yet they continue to do an outstanding job.

BH0 continued, “If I was just hearing one side, then I would probably not be getting the full reality of what's going on in Afghanistan: which is that, yes we have a vital interest there, yes we have to make sure that we don't get mission creep and that we define our interests narrowly to make sure we're just going after extremists and preventing them from having safe havens. Yes, we have got to have an effective Afghan government and right now we don't have the kind of partner that we'd like; yes we've got to have Pakistan cooperating; yes we've got to have more civilian ah cooperation; so all those variable then go into the decision making process and as I said if I was just listening to hawks or doves on either side of the debate, then I probably wouldn't be making a very good decision.”

Mr. Obama, let an Old Marine explain the facts of war to you. First off, you have the facts, General McChrystal needs more troops. The vital interest over there you need to know is that we need to win. We need to destroy the Taliban and Al Qaeda, pure and simple. To do this, you do what every good leader does, you attack, you kill the enemy, you help the civilians when and where you can, but not at the expense of an American troop’s life. I have seen it; the troops will automatically help civilians. The American troops don’t have to be told to help, it is the nature of our fine fighting men and women. Our military did in WW 1, WW 2, Korea, and Vietnam. You say you want the civilian’s support, show them that America is there to win, that we will not abandon them like we did in Southeast Asia some 40 years ago, because a Democratic congress decided to cut of funding to the South Vietnam government. Frankly, do you blame them for not really trusting us? We were force to abandon a country we went into help once and they hear you and your cronies talking about doing it again. Why should they trust the U.S.? Why should any country trust the U.S. for help in combating an enemy?

As I write this there was a report from the Washington Post (11-19-09), “White House aides: No Afghan decision before Thanksgiving” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/19/AR2009111900904.html (last visited 11-21-09) and in that report “Obama said in interviews Wednesday that he would reveal his decision within the next several weeks. On Thursday, aides clarified that there would be no announcement before Thanksgiving, one week away. Senior administration officials said Obama intends to meet with his national security team again before going public with his plans.” I hope that you and your regime’ have a nice Thanksgiving, while our troops are fighting to keep America safe, wondering all the while whether their Commander in Chief really supports them

Why were you so afraid to make a decision? May I remind you of another President who had to make a very hard decision about sending young men into combat and to their possible death? That President is one you and your party hold as your idol, Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt left fighting WW 2 to his generals, particularly when it came to the 6^th of June, 1944, D-Day. General Eisenhower faced one of the toughest decisions of his life, whether to invade or not. The conditions prior to the planned date of the assault were clearly unsuitable for a landing; wind and high seas would make it impossible to launch landing craft, and low clouds would prevent aircraft finding their targets. The Allied troop convoys already at sea were forced to take shelter in bays and inlets on the south coast of Britain for the night. On the 5^th of June Eisenhower's chief meteorologist (Group Captain J.M. Stagg) forecast a brief improvement for 6 June. General Montgomery and Eisenhower's Chief of Staff General Walter Bedell Smith wished to proceed with the invasion. Leigh Mallory was doubtful, but Admiral Bertram Ramsay believed that conditions would be marginally favorable. On the strength of Stagg's forecast, Eisenhower ordered the invasion to proceed. Eisenhower made a very hard decision, something I fear you are not willing to do.

As God said to Moses on the mountain, “Take out your tablet, number one to ten, this is a pop quiz.” Well, I am not, nor do I pretend to be at the level of God, but I am going to ask the readers to take out a pen and paper, this is a pop quiz. There are only three questions; how you answer them is between you and your own conscience. Now if ready, here are the questions. Where were you when our freedoms and rights were being slowly destroyed? Where were you when many people were shouting about Obama’s radical connections? Why did it take you so long to get involved in preserving our country?

Recently, I received an email, the only way I can describe it is a “panic” about ACORN being involved in the up coming elections, particularly the governor’s election in Virginia and New Jersey and maybe the 23^rd in New York. This email suggested that people call their respective Secretary of State, “DEMAND TO NOW IF ACORN OR ANY OF THEIR 300 SUBSIDIARIES ARE INVOLVED IN THE 2009 NEW JERSEY ELECTION IN ANY WAY WHAT-SO-EVER?” Well, the question I asked is why it took so long to realize that ACORN and others were a problem to the election process. ACORN and voter fraud has been covered in many newspapers for a number of years. “ACORN Is A Member Of America Votes, A New 527 Organization Coordinating Election Activity Of Many Liberal Interest Groups Collectively Dubbed The “Shadow Democratic Party.” “Collectively dubbed the ‘shadow Democratic Party,’ American Coming Together, the Media Fund and a handful of other groups work on different key objectives to try to boost the Democratic election machine. While ACT focuses on grassroots voter turnout, the Media Fund, headed by former Clinton administration official Harold Ickes, is focused exclusively on advertising. Overseeing their activities and making sure the two groups don’t duplicate their efforts is a third and smaller 527 group known as America Votes.” (America Votes Website, www.americavotes.net, Accessed 8/6/04; Amy Keller, “Entreaties Lead to Flood Of 527 Input,” Roll Call, 4/7/04” http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/acornbackgro.html (last accessed 8-02-09). Notice the date, April, 2004) Where were you in 2004? Were you living in your comfort zone? Were you enjoying the freedoms of America, while special interests were destroying it? Now, that we have a radical in the white house, you just now getting involved? Do you notice that there is one major organization mentioned in this quote…. “The Shadow Democratic Party”?

As most of us should know, “The Shadow Democratic Party” or to be more accurate, “The Shadow Party” is and outgrowth of George Soros’s success in 2000, he moved to exploit the power of 527s on a much larger scale during the 2004 election cycle. Toward that end, he was a key force in the creation of the so-called "Shadow Party" in 2003. This term refers to a nationwide network of unions, non-profit activist groups, and think tanks whose agendas are ideologically to the left, and which are engaged in campaigning for the Democrats. This network's activities include fundraising, get-out-the-vote drives, political advertising, opposition research, and media manipulation. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=977 (last accessed 11-01-09). Where were you in 2000? Why did you not speak out? Why did you not investigate and try to learn about Soros then?

After the defeat of John Kerry (who served in Vietnam) and the lost of the other elections in 2004, there was an exerted push to have more liberals elected to office. From this push came a little known, quiet organization or project, The Secretary of State Project. Their mission statement sounds harmless enough.

“Since we launched in the fall of 2005, we have engaged in eleven races and have backed the winning candidate in nine states, including: Ohio, Minnesota, Iowa, Oregon, New Mexico, Montana, Nevada, West Virginia and Missouri. We lost only in Michigan and Colorado (and there by a tiny margin).

In 2008, we ran a sophisticated, highly targeted campaign in Montana which made the difference in a major upset – ousting the incumbent Republican Secretary of State. Most analysts anticipate a tough 2010 Senate race in Montana, and it is critical to have a fair Secretary of State in place. In Oregon last year we helped beat back a late unexpected surge to capture a critical open seat.

We are proud of our 2006 victory in Minnesota, where long time reformer Mark Ritchie pulled off a major upset, with our support. He was under fierce media and legal scrutiny as he oversaw the recount of the Franken/Coleman senatorial race, and operated with transparency and integrity, such that the Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously ruled to uphold the extremely close election results, finally sending Franken to the Senate, where his vote is much needed.

With your support, we have made a major difference. We can be sure that the Republicans and the opponents of honest elections will try triply hard to regain lost seats and capture seats held by reformers.” http://www.secstateproject.org/ (last accessed 11-01-09)

Why would anyone want to control or have allies in the states’ office of Secretary of State? Well, think about it; who controls the elections in the various states? Who is responsible for voter registration and the people responsible for obtaining those registrations? The Secretary of State pure and simple. Now, who do you think funded this project? From Terry Franks Blog, Frankly Speaking, http://terryfrank.net/?p=3882 (last accessed 11-01-09), “ ….. As research shows, Soros supports so-called “merit selection” plans. Like the Soros funded Secretary of State Project to take over the Secretary of State positions across the nation, the Soros Plan also likes lawyers picking the judges. Soros knows what system favors liberals….” This was posted April 4, 2009.

Or as Petrarch said in his blog, Col. Blimp Takes Tea with the Republicans, published June 11, 2009, at http://www.scragged.com/articles/col-blimp-takes-tea-with-the-republicans.aspx .”..... This observation is painful because it is so very true. How many times have we seen the Democrats kneecapping Republicans in every possible way? ACORN ran an organized campaign to install far-left hacks into Secretary of State offices nationwide for the purposes of manipulating elections to benefit Democrats; as a result, we see close elections being reported as a tiny victory for the Republican, and then mysteriously changing to the other column after interminable recounts under the supposedly fair authority of these carefully-selected Secretaries of State.”

Finally as Dan Pero, posted on American Courthouse, May 9, 2009. “Readers of American Courthouse know that I (and many others) have often written about the role of groups funded by hedge fund billionaire George Soros in trying to abolish democratic judicial elections across America and to adopt “merit selection” systems that put lawyers in charge of choosing judges. But his influence in American politics doesn’t stop there. Soros and other prominent Democrats are also working to influence the conduct (and therefore the outcome) of elections under the guise of something called the “Secretary of State Project.”

In many states, the Secretary of State is responsible for the conduct of elections; some are elected, others appointed. Ever since the 2000 Florida recount, in which Secretary of State Katherine Harris played a prominent role, the office has assumed a higher prominence, particularly in swing states. As USA Today reported in 2006, “The political battle for control of the federal government has opened up a new front: the obscure but vital state offices that determine who votes and how those votes are counted.”http://americancourthouse.com/2009/05/13/secretary-of-state-watch.html (last accessed 11-01-09)

As in many other circumstances, George Soro’s money and power are really surfacing and coming to light. Why now? Iis it because there are friends in the White House? But, if one takes time and goes back in the real distant past, say to about 1979, when George Soros established his Open Society Institute, you will find that the corruption of the American way of life has been in the works for many years. So close books, take out a pen and piece of paper, number one to three, this is a pop quiz.

1. Where were you when our freedoms and rights were being slowly destroyed?
2. Where were you when many people were shouting about Obama’s radical connections?
3. Why did it take you so long to get involved in preserving our country?

Semper Fi

Does any of this some familiar? Does this sound like what has been happening in America in the past years? Well, I will disappoint you; this is not America of the 20^th or 21^st century, but America of the 17^th century. Other then a few points, this was what was happening in a period when America was a just a gathering of colonies. This was when Great Britain and the Parliament passed a number of tax acts which would eventually cumulated with what is known as the Townsend Acts.

According to the British Constitution, British subjects could not be taxed without the consent of their representatives in Parliament. Since the colonies had no truly elected members of Parliament, many colonists viewed Parliament's attempt to tax them as a violation of the constitutional doctrine of taxation only by consent. Is this not what is going on in our present Congress, they pass tax laws without the consent of the people? There were some British politicians who countered this argument with the theory of "virtual representation", which maintained that the colonists were in fact represented in Parliament even though they elected no members. Doesn’t our congress currently do the same thing, telling us that they were elected and therefore they do not have to listen to the voters, they will do what THEY think is right. This was briefly debated after the passage of the Sugar Act in 1764. It later became a major point of contention following Parliament's passage of the Stamp Act 1765. Needless to say, the Stamp Act proved to be wildly unpopular in the colonies, compelling Parliament to repeal it the following year. At least, the Parliament may have listen, used some good judgment, and repealed it. However, implicit within the Stamp Act dispute, there was an issue more fundamental than the taxes and the representation, that issue was the question of Parliament’s authority in the colonies. Parliament provided the answer; after repealing the Stamp Act, they immediately passed the Declaratory Act, which stated that Parliament could pass laws for the colonies “in all cases whatsoever” (Knollenberg, Growth, 21–25). Is this not what the federal government does with the “promote the general Welfare” statement from the Preamble? With the passage of the Declaratory Act, the road was opened for the Townshend Acts.

British Empire was deep in debt following the Seven Years' War (1756–1763), the British Parliament decided to start levying new taxes on the British colonies in America. These new taxes, the Townshend Acts, were passed to assist in paying some of the costs of the expanded British Empire. Does this sound like congress passing taxes to pay for various social programs, for example, the outgoing War on Poverty?  Prior to the Townshend Acts, England had used the Trade and Navigation Acts, as a method of taxation to regulate the trade of the empire. Is this not what is happening with the tariffs on goods coming into the United States, particularly on automobile tires (besides paying back the unions)? The Sugar Act of 1764 was the first time Parliament sought to tax the colonies for the specific purpose of raising revenue. Did not congress do the same thing with the cigarette tax for the purpose of funding SCHIP, by taxing a “targeted” group? What about the attempt by congress to tax the bonuses of AIG? As with any taxes, the American colonists did initially object to them for economic reasons, they also recognized that there were constitutional issues involved. As I believe a number of people in America are currently questioning what congress and the president are doing.

Now, there are some reading this, that are probably wondering, what do these various taxes passed by Parliament in the 1760’s have to with what’s going on in America today. There are also maybe some who are wondering why congress and the president should pray to God, we, the People, believe in the United States Constitution. Well, what followed the passage of the Townsend Acts (Acts), is part of America’s history

As with our current congress, Townshend knew that his program would be would be controversial in the colonies, but he argued that, "The superiority of the mother country can at no time be better exerted than now." Is this not the same with our current congress, their superiority and their “we know best for the American people and are going to do what WE want to do.” Even though the Townshend Acts did not create an instant uproar like the Stamp Act had done two years earlier, but before long, opposition to the program had become widespread. Isn’t this what happened after the passage of the Porkulus Bill in 2009.

The first response was a series of twelve essays by John Dickerson which began in December, 1767. In these series of essays, Dickinson argued that there was no difference between "internal" and "external" taxes, and that any taxes imposed on the colonies by Parliament for the sake of raising revenue were unconstitutional. Dickinson warned colonists not to concede to the taxes just because the rates were low, since this would set a dangerous precedent. When the Porkulus bill was passed, did not American people also write letters, emails and blog about this bill? Again, is history repeating itself? Only now it isn’t just about taxes and large government programs, but as with the colonists of early America, it is about true representation.

Another tactic, though not very successful, that the colonist employed were boycotts. The merchants in the colonies, some of them smugglers, organized economic boycotts to put pressure on their British

counterparts to work for repeal of the Townshend Acts. Boston merchants organized the first non-importation agreement, which called for merchants to suspend importation of certain British goods effective 1 January 1769. Eventually, merchants in other northern colonial ports joined the boycott. Some of these included New York City and Philadelphia. Further south, in Virginia, the non-importation effort was organized by George Washington and George Mason. When the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a resolution stating that Parliament had no right to tax Virginians without their consent, needless to say this did not sit well with the governor, Lord Botetourt, who dissolved the Virginia assembly. The members of the House of Burgesses proceeded to continue and went on to meet at Raleigh Tavern and adopted a boycott agreement known as the "Association”. Unfortunately, the non-importation movement was not as effective as promoters had hoped. However, British exports to the colonies did declined by 38 per cent in 1769. The reason was that there were many merchants who did not participate in the boycott. The boycott movement began to fail by 1770, and finally came to an end in 1771. Unfortunately, we, the People, have no real way to boycott our current government, but a boycott of a sort is taking place against the “tentacles” of the government. Currently, good Americans are avoiding the pro Obama media, Government Motors, Chrysler, and some of the other organization that are in “bed” with the administration. But, just like in 1768 – 1769, not all Americans are participating. Of course, for America today, boycotts hurt more Americans then it really hurts the target.

While the boycotts were taking place, a board was seated by the British in Boston. The purpose was to concentrate on strictly enforcing the Acts. The Acts were so unpopular in Boston, that the board requested military assistance. Isn’t this what happened this past summer at the town hall meetings. When conservatives attended to express their views, weren’t SEIU, other unions and of course, ACORN called out to intimidate. Did not violence take place by the “paramilitary” that supports the administration? Is this one of the reasons Obama would want a national security force as he said in 2008, “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Does he want to use this security force to ensure Americans “obey” his and congress’ edicts? After all, it can’t happen here; again or can it? In Boston, as the military began to take more control, tensions began to increase. Finally in February, 1770, a teenage boy, Christopher Seider was killed by a British customs employee and the violence escalated resulting in five colonists being killed on March 5, 1770, The Boston Massacre. Ironically, on the same day the Acts were partially repealed. So far, America has been fortunate. But, I wonder how long it will be till someone who supports the administration, listens to the constant rhetoric about how everyone who doesn’t support the administration is racists, rightwing extremists and the other remarks from the media, congress, etc. decides to take violent action. Does not Glenn, Rush and other talk show hosts constantly receive death threats? Is there not death threats directed at the above mentioned posted on the Left Blog sites? Do not certain members of congress and the administration fuel this, maybe not as outright comments, but subtly?

There was one part of the Acts that had not been repealed, the tax on tea. To add more burden to the colonists, Britain passed the Tea Act in 1773. The colonists responded to this act by “throwing” a party, the Boston Tea Party on the night of December 16, 1773. Is this not what happened earlier this year, when the congress continued to laws spending more tax money and putting America deeper in debt? Did not the American people stage Tea Party demonstrations? The British responded in later in 1774, by passing the Coercive Acts. Among the acts was one that shut down Boston's commerce until the British East India Company had been repaid for the destroyed tea. Instead, demanding any repayment, has our government continued to attempt to pass bills that the American people do not want, like Healthcare and Crap and Tax? The colonists responded to the Coercive Acts with additional acts of protest, and by eventually convening the First Continental Congress. This fist congress petitioned the British monarch for repeal of the acts and coordinated colonial resistance to them. Is this not what Americans are doing now, “petitioning” our “monarch” and his minions by emails, snail mails, phone calls and of course the continuation of our own version of the Tea Party. The crisis in the colonies escalated, and eventually set the stage for the American Revolution which began near Boston in 1775. It makes me wonder, where are the patriotism that Boston was known for back when an oppressive government was imposing taxes without representation.

Shouldn’t congress and the administration realize that thanks to the Constitution and the faith that the American people have in that great document that we maybe following the same path of our foundering fathers? Do we not have ample reasons? Shall remember Tarp? The Porkulus bill? How about Healthcare? How many Americans have “fought” to stop passage? Yet, like Parliament under the Monarch, congress continues to push to pass it. Are we heading for a second Revolution? Will it be peaceful? The election of 2010 will tell. If the Revolution does come, it will most likely be quiet, one side will choose the Constitution, the other side will be as the British in the 1760’s exerting their "power".

While CinC obama, continues to party, plays golf, flies around the country making speeches. Our fine military continues to fight and die. While obama and his minions spends hours trying to convience the world that Chicago deserves the olympics, he gives Gen. McChrystal 30 minutes. All the while, our fine military continue to die.
Now, we have Kerry, who serve in Vietnam, " Says It's Too Soon to Send More Troops to Afghanistan
In taped remarks to air Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union," Sen. John Kerry said it would be misguided to have a troop buildup to achieve a mission of "good governance" when the election is not yet finished.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/17/kerry-says-soon-send-tro...
Now, the great military leader, Rahm Emanuel says, "It would be reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop levels if in fact you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether in fact there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that U.S. troops would create and become a true partner in governing."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/18/decision-send-troops-rec...
I am not a general, I don't have access to all the documents that the regine does. I do have the common sense to know, that if our military is engaged in combat with an enemy of the U.S., who cares if their is a problem with the Afghan governmental elections. Let our military do their damn job. We have fought other wars where there was no "government", WW 2 comes to mind. That didn't seem to stop the U.S. from fighting and winning, but then again, we had a leader who cared about winning, not pushing a socialist agenda.
Obama, Kerry (who served in Vietnam), Emanuel, and the rest of the so called "public servants" continue to have your fun and games, enjoy your lives and party hearty. I have just one question for you. Do you recongize these names:
Styer, Brandon, Ochoa Jr., Alfonso, Cauley, George W., Taylor, Aaron J., Westbrook, Kenneth W., Hill, Kevin O., Hardt, Joshua M., Gallegos, Justin T., Mace, Stephen L., Martin, Vernon W., Griffin, Christopher T., Scusa, Michael P., Kirk, Joshua J., Thomson. Kevin C. Owens, Brandon A., Smith, Aaron M., Rabjohn, Thomas D., Sklaver, Benjamin A., Newton Jr., Alan H., Adams, Ryan C., Sanchez, Roberto D. Hercules Jr., Russell S., French IV, Alex, Shaw, Christopher D., Martin III, Jack M., Chrobot, Jordan L., Graham, Kevin J., Malone, John J., Reynolds, Titus R., Smith, Edward Bernard, White, Joseph V., Meredith, William L., Kowall, Corey J., Winkleman, Damon G., Davis, David A., Monroe, Jeremiah J., Gordon II, Robert D., Bohle, Bradley S., McCloskey, Shawn P., Mills, Joshua M., Void, Demetrius L., Wright II, David T., McConnell, Andrew H., Hornbarger, James R., Berky, Bryan D., Juden, Tyler A., Cox, Daniel L., Allen, Nekl B., Martinek, Matthew M., Fowlkes, Christopher S., Parten, Tyler E., Layton, James R., Johnson Jr., Edwin Wayne
Johnson, Michael E., Kenefick, Aaron M., Haney, Randy M., Murphrey, Michael C., Loney, Youvert, Meadows, Joshua S., Andrews, Darryn D., Baltazar Jr., Christopher S., Castiglione, Benjamin P., Rudzinski, Christopher M., Green, Anthony G., Staats, Chris N. plus 4 others who have yet to have their names released.
Yes, Obama, Kerry (who served in Vietnam), Emanuel, and the rest of the so called "public servants" while you do your Washington "two step" these fine members have died in Afghanistan since September 1st. Now look the families and the American people in the eyes and tell us why you are still "thinking" about what to do about the war and sending more troops.
God Bless them all and God Bless their famlies.
To the families this Old Marine has only two things to say, Thank you and Semper Fidelis

The comaprison of Obama's strategy on Afghanistan with Vietnam has been used ad nauseum, including myself. Frankly, I feel that it is even worst then. Previouly, I have wrote that LBJ was more concerned with his "Great Society" social programs then the war in Vietnam. I wish I could say the same for Obama, although he seems to be going down the same path as LBJ. Frankly, I feel that he really doesn't give a damn about our troops or the advice of the military leaders.
On February 18, 2009, "President Obama ordered his first deployment of U.S. combat troops Tuesday, authorizing 17,000 additional soldiers and Marines for Afghanistan in what he described as an urgent bid to stabilize a deteriorating and neglected country." (LATimes.com) Naturally, in his written statement about Obama directed veiled criticizm at Pres. Bush. "This increase is necessary to stablize a detiorating situation in Afgahanistan, which has not recieved the the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires," Obama said. Gee, Mr Obama is it any different now?
Later, on CNN.com, more of Obama's statement was reported. "The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda supports the insurgency and threatens America from its safe haven along the Pakistani border." Is this the same Taliban that Obama wants to have a part of the Afgahanistan government? According to an official, "The goal is to have enough troops to "seize and hold" territory and maintain security, which hasn't been possible under current troop levels." Gee, the ironic thing about this is that GeneralMcKiernan requested 30,000 additional troops and Obama sends 17,000, roughly a little over half of what was requested.
Over a month ago, Gen. McChrystal requested 40,000 additional troops, and today Obama "quietly" sends 15,000, roughly a third of what was requested.
I believe that Obama doesn't want to be responsible for losing the war on terror, thus making America unsafe, so he will continue to send less troops then needed, some of these troops might be killed, and eventually the American people will start yelling for withdrawal, and Obama will "give in" to popular opinion and withdraw the troops, thus giving America another one in the lost column. After, the withdrawal, he can stand up before the American people and say," I had to pull out of Afghanistan because the American people wanted me to do so."
However, I have to ask Obama, just how many more troops will you kill because you will not listen to the generals, before that magic time that you decide to withdraw.
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/obama.troops/index.html (Last visited 10-13-09)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghan-troops18-2009feb18,0,7002157,print.story (last visited 10-13-09)

Many people who are reading this are probably thinking to themselves, “Who?” Until recently, that was my first thought, “Who is this guy and what does he have to do with America?” After a quick check of the web and information from an article from Accuracy In Media (AIM) found on Discover the Networks, it began to come together. Later, while listening to Rush today (6 Oct.,2009), he was talking about what the left is doing and why. However, I feel he didn’t go back far enough so, I figured I’ll throw my 2 cents into the mix.

How did a person born in 1891 on the island of Sardinia, Italy, and would later become an Italian philosopher, writer, politician and political theorist effect the greatest country on earth? How would Gramsci, a founding member and eventually a leader of the Communist Party of Italy affect the democratic process and America’s elections?

Gramsci’s belief in Marxism, as well as his membership and leadership in the Communist Party as well as his actions, brought him into direct conflict with Benito Mussolini's Fascist regime. This conflict would cumulate in 1926, when he was arrested and eventually imprisoned for 5 years. A year later, he was transferred to another prison for an additional 20 years. It was during this imprisonment that he wrote more than 30 notebooks and 3000 pages of history and analysis. These writings are known as the Prison Notebooks. These “Notebooks” were heavily concerned with the analysis of culture and political leadership, as well as his tracing of Italian history and nationalism. These writings also contained his ideas in Marxist theory, critical theory and educational theory. In 1934, his health had deteriorated, and he eventually gained conditional freedom. He would die three years later in 1937, at the age of 46.

It was these theories and ideas that would become associated with his name and would eventually have him recognized as a highly original thinker within the Marxist tradition. Among these theories were:
•  Cultural hegemony as a means of maintaining the capitalist state.
•  The need for popular workers' education to encourage development of intellectuals from the         
   working class.
•  The distinction between political society (the police, the army, legal system, etc.) which dominates
   directly and coercively, and civil society (the family, the education system, trade unions, etc.) where
    leadership is constituted through ideology or by means of consent.
•  'Absolute historicism'.
•  The critique of economic determinism.
•  The critique of philosophical materialism.

Of all of his theories, the key to his formula for revolution is the idea of breaking what he referred to as “hegemony”. Hegemony was a concept previously used by Marxists such as Lenin to indicate the political leadership of the working-class in a democratic revolution. This concept was sharpened by Gramsci into an analysis to explain why the 'inevitable' socialist revolution predicted by orthodox Marxism had not occurred by the early 20th century. He believed that capitalism was firmly entrenched. He went on to theorize that capitalism maintained control of the populace not only through violence, but also by political and economic coercion, as well as ideologically. In a hegemonic culture, the values of the regular middle class citizens (bourgeoisie) became the 'common sense' values of all. Thus a consensus culture developed in which people in the working-class (proletariat) identified their own good with the good of the bourgeoisie, and this helped to maintain the status quo rather than having a revolution. In other words, instead of an armed revolution, he advocated that the working class needed to develop a culture of their own. With the development of this culture, it would lead to the overthrow of  the notion that bourgeois values represented 'natural' or 'normal' values for society, and this would attract the oppressed and intellectual classes to the cause of the poorest within the society. Does this sound familiar? Have we or are we seeing this in America today?

How would this change in culture come about? Well, S. Steven Powell wrote in his 1987 book,  Covert Cadre, that Gramsci advocated the need to “infiltrate autonomous institutions, such as schools (aren’t children being indoctrinated with ideas like global warming and more recently anti-capitalism by “The Story of Stuff”), the media (enough said), churches (Reverend Wright comes to mind) and public-interest groups (ACORN) – so as to radically transform the culture, which determines the environment in which political and economic policies are played out.” Carl Boggs in his book, Gramsci’s Marxism wrote, “the role of revolutionary theory is to create the foundation of a new socialist order precisely through the negation and transcendence of bourgeois society.”  Boggs continues to explain this “transcendence of bourgeois society” was the basis for Gramsci’s first priority – “the multidimensional transformation of civil society.

The central idea of Gramsci’s formula for this idea of breaking what he called the “hegemony”, or the mind-control exercised by the ruling capitalists over the masses. He believed that the bourgeois societies were ruled, by educating the citizenry that their accommodation of the moral, political, and cultural values defined by the governing system was in their best interests. Hence, a “reversal strategy” was designed by the left that would silently challenge the existing culture and value-systems that dominated bourgeois governance. This formula would be used by the progressive-socialist-Marxist Left to begin an ideological struggle to transform the entire spectrum of activities in civil society. This includes transforming the basic values of America; Judeo-Christian values, the family, schools, unions, and politics and popular trust in the existing government.

From this “reversal strategy” came ten easy steps in order to achieve a progressive-socialist –Marxist civil society. I ask the reader to ponder these “ten steps”, and look back over the past, particularly the last two decades. Have you seen any of the following happening or being embraced?
1.   Change the popular consensus
2.   Destroy Christianity, the traditional family, and existing social mores
3.   Transform the culture
4.   Install a radical Left mind-control
5.   Attain political power
6.   Impose strict control of the military and law enforcement
7.   Restrict freedom
8.   Socialize the economy
9.   Erase American sovereignty
10. Embrace a world without borders.
Some people may look at the above list, and each will draw their own conclusions of which of these “ten steps” are the most destructive. I will leave that to you, the reader.

Through out history, great civilizations have either been destroyed or transformed by religion. It the past, every empire that invaded or conquered another, would establish their “religion” as the norm. Sometimes, this would by violence as with the Muslims, other times it would be fairly peaceful, as with the Christians and the Roman Empire. That is not to say that some violence did not happen, but that is for others to debate. One of the keys to Gramsci’s formula is to subvert the moral order and this subversion is to target the religion of the bourgeois societies.

In order to achieve a socialist revolution in capitalist countries, Gramsci idea was to focus on, as Malachi Martin wrote, “corruption of their Christian cultural basis.” Martin continued, “Neither political penetration nor military superiority will bring the capitalist West to its knees. The Christian cultures of these countries are the ties that bind the people in all aspects of society.” Through there are differences in the debate between the many churches, it does come down to the fact, that America is a Judeo-Christian nation and it is this culture and history that binds us together as a nation. Martin continues,” Gramsci counsels his followers to join the capitalists in all aspects of life, from “their profession of ethical and religious goals” to their family needs and all social issues affecting their lives. But Gramsci had a catch, Malachi Martin explains: Gramsci admonished his followers to “let the entire effort be solely by man for man’s sake... Make sure man never repeats the famous cry of German philosopher Martin Heidegger: I know that only God can save us.”

In order to achieve this undoing of the “Christian culture”, Gramsci understood that it had to be done quietly, carefully and over a period of time. The key to this was stealth and a passive approach, which included the “infiltration” of various churches. Recently, Glenn Beck ( www.glennbeck.com ) touched on this infiltration with a caller on his radio show, when Glenn mentioned Liberation Theology to a caller. I don’t know if Glenn knew of Gramsci’s plan when he brought the subject up. However he did mention, the beginnings of this “social change” in South America, where the Catholic Church is the center point of social life.

There is a “school of theology “within Christianity referred to as Liberation theology. This theology emphasizes that the Christian mission is to bring justice to the poor and oppressed (social justice),. This is to be done through political activism. The theologians that preach this social justice consider sin the root source of poverty. This sin is the exploitation of capitalism and the class war by the rich against the poor.

These theologians use political theory, primarily Marxism, to help understand how to combat poverty. Although it is sometimes regarded as a form of Christian socialism and it has enjoyed widespread influence in Latin America. This Christian socialism has also become widespread within the black community in the form of “Black theology”

This form of liberation theology, Black theology, has its center the theme of the oppression of black people by white people. According to James H. Cone who developed what would be called Black liberation theology it came out of the "need for black people to define the scope and meaning of black existence in a white society”, and emerged in the last two decades in the wave of liberation movements as an expression of "black consciousness". Black theology is focused on the issues that blacks are confronted with on a daily basis. A well known believer in this is Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Many Americans may not have realized or even cared that religion in America was changing. This change came about very slowly and with a purpose. Many have gotten angry when the ACLU and other organizations “declared war on Christianity”. This war was for a purpose, it was to slowly destroy religion in America. If religion is destroyed in America, then the major tie that binds this great nation together, will, then in my humble opinion, lead to the downfall. The destruction of religion in America will also lead to the changing the popular consensus, the destruction of the traditional family, and existing social mores, and the transformation of the culture. All of these transformations are what Antonio Gramsci said would change a capitalist into a progressive-socialist –Marxist civil society. It is not only some of the churches that are using Gramsci’s his ideas to enact these changes, but there are others, some rich and powerful people and others serving within our government. These are what I refer to as the Shadow Menace 

Many years ago as a young boy, I remember The American Legion use to have a "drive" where for $0.25 you could buy a paper "Poppy", it was red and around the "stem" was a Blue,White,Red ribbon. Every year, my Mother would buy 2, one for her and one for me. These Poppys were for Veteran's Day (Rememberance Day in the British Commonwealth). I often wonder, what happened to them.

Why Wear A Poppy

"Please wear a poppy", the lady said.
And held on forth, but I shook my head.
Then I stopped and watched as she offered them there,
And her face was old and lined with care.
But beneath the scars the years had made
There remained a smile that refused to face.

A boy came whistling down the street,
Bouncing along on care-free feet.
His smile was full of joy and fun.
"Lady", said he, "may I have one?"
When she pinned it on he turned to say, "Why do I wear a poppy today?"

The lady smiled in her wistful way,
And answered, "This is Remembrance Day."
And the poppy there is the symbold for the gallant men who died in war.
And because they did, you and I are free's why we wear a poppy, you see.

I had a boy about your size
With golden hair and big blue eyes.
He loved to play and jump and shout,
Free as a bird he would race about.
As the years went by he learned and grew,
And became a man -- as you will too.

He was fine and strong, with a boyish smile
But he stayed with us such a little while
When war broke out and he went away,
I still remember his face that day,
When he smiled at me and said "good-bye"
"I'll be back soon, Mom, please don't cry."

"But the war went on and he had to stay,
And all I could do is wait and pray.
His letters told of his terrible fight,
I can see it still in my dreams at night.
With the tanks and guns and cruel barbed wire.
And the mines and bullets, the bombs and fire."

"Till at last, the war was won --
And that's why we wear a poppy, son."
The small boy turned as if to go,
Then said, "Thanks, lady, I'm glad to know.
That sure did sound like an awful fight,
But your son -- did he come back all right?"

A tear rolled down each faded cheek;
She shook her head, but didn't speak.
I slunk away in a sort of shame,
And if you were me, you'd have done the same;
For thanks in giving, is oft delayed,
Though our freedom was bought -- and thousands paid!

And so when we see a poppy worn,
Let us reflect on the burden borne
By those who gave their very all!
When asked to answer their country's call
That we at home in peace might live.
Then wear a poppy! Remember and give.

Author Unknown.