Patriot Warrior

This is a collection of things that are just kind of ever present in my mind and bother me.

Apathy = Idiocy

Idiōtēs the ancient Athenians came up with this word to describe some one who was uninformed or didn’t care about the political proceedings of Polis. In recent months I have seen more and more Apathy ’08 bumper stickers on cars, including belonging to my own family. I sort of understand their reasoning but I have to disagree with it. They seem to think that since the candidate of their choice is no longer in the race then electing one of the remaining people will amount to choosing the lesser of the evils, and they believe there is something wrong with this. However I believe that you should intentionally choose the lesser because it is less likely to long-term major damage to the country. I feel that if you don’t vote, or vote for a candidate that has no chance in hell of winning then you should not be able to complain about what the eventual winner does. Of course both of my family members were probably Paulites, so if that’s the case than even in the primary they wasted their votes.

Democracy

It is interesting to me how people always seem to think that America is a democracy. Then again I also tend to believe that many people are uninformed idiots who believe anything that people will tell him. We are a Republic, we elect people to speak for us and we vote for them based on how we think they will stand on issues. If we don’t like how they did then we should vote them out of office. However even with Congress’ low approval rating there will probably be little turnover. Democrats being the majority party should suffer most but they will try to find a way to shift blame to the Republicans.

The Role of Government

This is one of those things that kind of irritates me. People like to say that the government should do this or that for them, the government should pay for their kids to go to school, or should pay so that their kids can have food. Ladies and Gentlemen, let me break it to you this way the only jobs that the government should do is to provide for the national defense, aka the Military, run a court system, and conduct foreign policy. There are several rights that should extend to everybody except felons. What are these right you might ask, well let me explain them to you.
1) The right to defend yourself, this means you should be able to own and carry a gun, knife or sword with no need for licensing, because an armed society is a polite society, and in a truly free society you should be able to defend yourself without worrying about what the court will say.
2) Freedom of religion, this means that you have the freedom to choose any religion you want and should be able to practice it anywhere you want and if someone is offended then they should GTH.
3) Freedom of speech, this means that the GOVERNMENT can not tell you what to say and what not to say, instead you are free to say whatever you want, however people are still free to take exception to what you say and sue you for libel and slander.
4) You have the right to find a job and work. You work or you starve. I think that pretty much explains it, I mean you could get charity from individuals or private charities but you should expect nothing from the state. It is not the job of the people who are actually out earning money to support you in your laziness.
5)The State can not agree to any treaties that will violate the basic rights of its citizens. So none of this crap about the UN outlawing guns, or mandating certain things that the US has to do, NONE OF THAT.

However that is just my ideal version of government I am to much of a realist to believe that it will ever work.

So Democrats are bashing President Bush for his comments about negotiating with terrorists and radicals. They have a right to say what they believe, and it makes things simple for people like me because they sound like idiots. I was told growing up that “You got 2 ears and one mouth, so listen more than you talk.” However it seems that the Democrats never learned this.

In a speech to the Israeli Parliament President Bush included the following lines, which have drawn fire from Democrats, and their pet reporters;

“”Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

Ok so Obama says that he is not saying that he will negotiate with terrorists, that’s all well and good, but he says nothing about the radicals, of which Iran is one, in fact he supports sitting down at the table with Iran, because if we discuss this like rational people Iran might decide that destroying Israel and The U.S.A. is not a good thing. What a load of crap. I have never considered Iran rational, and since they have espoused the idea that they should destroy Israel so many times I’m not exactly sure what, or even if, Obama is thinking.

Then there is the fact that Hillary Rodham Clinton says something along the lines of “comparing any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is wrong.” Ok, so we are not allowed to call Democrats what they truly are, appeasers, so shall we call them spineless cowards, who have never studied history. The fact that people still believe that you can negotiate with people who have so clearly expressed their contempt as Iran has done for Israel and others, yet Democrats still want to negotiate with them. Of course Neville Chamberlin believed he could negotiate with Hitler after several overt acts of aggression including the annexation of the Sudetenland and the events of Kristallnacht. So to me it is still a viable comparison, calling Democrats appeasers, or spineless shortsighted fools, both work for me.

This blog is something that I have been batting around in my head for a while now, and me sitting down to write it coincides perfectly with the conclusion of my term papers and Darren’s latest blog.

Sci-Fi writers can see the writing on the wall.

In the 1970’s Science Fiction writer Jerry Pournelle sat down and wrote a book entitled West of Honor and its sequel The Mercenary, which are combined into Falkenburg’s Leigon, these where the inaugural books in the popular CoDominium series, and where followed by Prince of Mercenaries, Go Tell the Spartans, and Prince of Sparta the last two were written with S.M. Stirling, all of these are prequels to the best selling Mote in God’s Eye and The Gripping Hand.

These books where written during the Cold War and still make reference to the USSR. In this series the CoDominium is an alliance between the Soviets and America, in which the 2 countries essentially control the world. (Wikipedia has a good article on the back ground just search for CoDominium) My main concern with all of this is part of the internal structure of the USA at this point in time.

The stories start of in the 2040’s or 50’s and assume that humanity has colonized the stars. In the USA there are essentially 2 classes of Americans: Taxpayers and “Citizens.” The term “Citizen” as it is used here is a derogatory term, given to the class of people making up, what I guess to be, 60-80% of the population. I know that’s a wide range but he never gives any numbers that I can recall. The “Citizens” live in Welfare Islands where the government gives them money to live, they can get an education if they want and they can get a job, but once they get a job then they get kicked of the welfare rolls although they don’t necessarily have to pay taxes.

The Taxpayers, however, are the ones who reap all the major benefits. They usually have the largest share of power and get all kinds of perks from the government, because they float the system. This device is used in another prominent Sci-Fi series David Weber’s Honorverse, where this role is played by the Doles of the Peoples Republic of Haven.

It seems to me that this is unfortunately where America is headed. The more the upper class floats the government, and the more the government support the lower class, the less that the lower classes need to be involved in anything. If the government is going to give poor people who don’t work free money what do they care about who runs the government, as long as they get their share. Welfare creates a dangerous sense of entitlement and complacency when people believe they are owed something for doing NOTHING ! The very fiber of American society is coming undone. For America to be a land of equal opportunity it needs to be a land of equal contribution.

Now I realize that some people might say “But William, the poor can’t contribute as much as the rich!”

I understand that, and accept that. However equal does not always mean an equal amount. What if they just contributed the same percentage that everybody else did? What I’m talking about is a flat rate tax of 15-18%. I realize that some people dislike like paying taxes and think that it’s wrong and unconstitutional, but lets face it people … the government needs money to stay afloat or at least make an attempt at it.

Speaking of seeing the future

Author Tom Kratman has come out with a new book which has bumped it’s way to the top of my must read list. From what I can tell this book is set 100 or so years in the future when Europe, due to it’s declining birthrates, has become an Islamic territory. That’s about all I know, I did like his first book State of Disobedience and A Desert Called Peace, and Carnifex are on my list of books to read though it may be a while before I get to them. Kratman usually does a good job of writing books that make you think about government and I doubt these will be any different.

Hugo Chavez vs. Columbia

So it seems that good old Chavez, that infected boil on the ass of the world, the person who wants to be the next Fidel Castro (luckily for Venezuela … the people voted that down), has sent troops to his border in response to a raid by Colombian troops into Ecuador, following fleeing FARC (a leftist guerilla group) leader and killing him.

It seems that good ol’ Hugo has decided that the cause of these leftist guerrillas is a worthy one. Maybe this is because they are one of the leading contributors of cocaine to the U.S. and anything that endangers the U.S. makes Hugo happy. Chavez has said that, if the Colombian military strikes at rebel groups that are hiding in Venezuela, it will mean war.

It seems to me, a poor humble college student in the greatest country on the face of the planet, that the best way for Mr. Chavez to avert this war is for him to root out the guerrillas that are hiding in his country … or prevent them from entering. However, we all know that Hugo wouldn’t dream of doing this since this group is perceived by him as a sympathetic cause.

Let us not pretend however that Chavez would have done the same thing if the group had been a right wing organization that had been threatening his rule and hiding was in Colombia. Hell, he certainly would at least have accused Colombia and the US for supporting them. In a recent speech he even had the audacity to criticize Israel for their strikes on Hamas bases in Palestine.

While I am on that subject … 

Why is it that, when Israel retaliates for an attack on its territory by Hamas and accidentally kills civilians (because Hamas hides itself in the middle of civilian populate urban areas like schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings), it is attempting to commit genocide? Yet, when Hamas intentionally kills Israeli civilians … it is somehow fighting for its freedom.

Wasn’t Hamas at the negotiating table with Israel when Hamas launched its latest attack? This makes me think that Hamas doesn’t really want peace … they want to completely destroy Israel.

Therefore, as a symbol of solidarity and support for Israel , I wish the IDF good luck, and good hunting … and give’m Hell.

If there is to be any stability in the modern world, states need to have the right to protect themselves from terrorists organizations like FARC and Hamas, which both represent a threat to the stability of the entire world today. And … since there doesn’t seem to be a Leviathan out there to do the job … then it falls to respective freedom loving countries to do it themselves.

I know that the comparisons between the War on Terror in Iraq and the Vietnam War have been silent for a while now, but as a history student with an interest in war, I feel that America is about to create another Vietnam. Now, lets get this straight. The war in Iraq is being fought in a different way, the technology and strategy are not the same, and the culture is vastly different than the one America faced in Vietnam. However, actions by some Americans run the risk of turning this into a Vietnam for my generation.

Let us start with the basics. In Vietnam, the U.S. ground forces were fighting a successful war, against a Communist insurrection, up until 1968. After 1968, when the Tet Offensive had been stopped and pushed back, the Viet Cong virtually ceased to exist as a fighting force. Also after 1968, the vast majority of troops fighting against the American and Republic of South Vietnam (ARVN) troops were in all actuality PAVN (Peoples Army of North Vietnam); soldiers that had been infiltrated down the Ho Chi Min trail. Still, US and ARVN soldiers continued to take the fight to the enemy and continued to win. What was actually the undoing of the American war effort in South Vietnam was the subversion of America interests through North Vietnamese propaganda, and by American subversives, such as “Hanoi Jane” Fonda.

The Americans who protested against the Vietnam War created an atmosphere of hope for the North Vietnamese government. They knew that if they kept up the pressure, many Americans would grow tired of the war and would push for a withdrawal before the job was done. These American traitors, along with the misguided hippies, created a divided America that increased political pressure on the President until he was forced to do exactly what the North Vietnamese Government wanted: withdraw American troops from South Vietnam. This led to total collapse a few years later when North Vietnam broke the peace treaty and invaded the South.

In Iraq today, we see a similar situation where the insurgents and Al-Qaeda are being driven into the ground; and similarly some American politicians and other misguided citizens are urging for the early withdrawal of troops from the region. If we follow the advise of these fools, we will create a new Vietnam; one in which the United States will have withdrawn its forces to early from a country which, while being on the path to a completed reconstruction, is not there yet. And, if America does withdraw to early, there is the very real risk for a collapse of the system and the decent into chaos or the establishment of a government which could easily be just as evil as the one that we just deposed.

At least, however, my generation does not yet have our own “Hanoi Jane.”

As my final, historically-modeled thought on Iraq, I would say that the politicians advocating the setting of timetables for U.S. troops withdrawal and benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, really need to pay heed to history. After all, Union troops were in the South for 12 years during the reconstruction process following the American Civil War, Japan was occupied for 7 years after World War II, and it took many years for Germany to become reconstructed (45 years … if you want to count the time from separation to reunification). So the idea of applying benchmarks to be met on a certain timetable is a recipe for disaster. History shows us that it may take quite a few years to fully reconstruct a stable Iraqi state.

By now we know that 18 people have been injured and reports are saying 5 dead in a shooting at Northern Illinois University. Ok … people calm down and take a few deep breaths. Got it under control now? Good. Let’s calmly think this over. So an individual walked into a lecture hall which can hold up to 200 people, armed with a shotgun and pistol, and opened fire.

Now I can hear the speeches already by certain “liberal” politicians who are seeking office, they will say something along the lines of “This is a great tragedy and my heart goes out to all of the people who are affected by this event.” (or something along those lines) They might even take the time to express their support for increased handgun legislation, or put forward a plan of their own that they would promise to implement as soon as they get elected. However, I am a college student, I am familiar with these type of lecture halls, and I know that If a person walked into a lecture hall on my campus and started opening fire one person from any point in that hall has an almost perfect shot to another part of that hall, so if that one person was a licensed handgun carrier and was allowed to carry on campus, then that person could help to stop a shooter before he injured many people.

As a counter to the “liberal” outburst I foresee, I would throw my support behind a Congressional bill that makes it legal for any college student, or employee to carry their legally licensed firearm on campus. As a method of enforcement, if there is a school that ignores this new law then Congress should then have the power to withdraw Federal funding from this school. I am tired of “liberals” screaming about their constitutional rights and the supposed rights of the Guantanamo detainees while ignoring the rights of actual US Citizens.  I should be able to exercise my right to defend myself, and my friends the right to defend themselves, without having to worry about getting kicked out of school for exercising our basic Constitutional rights.