Posts Tagged ‘consequences’

Obama Surrogates Turn Race Card Into Hint Of Race RIOTS

October 8, 2008

Black people are violent.  Unlike white people, they can’t control their emotions or their frustrations.  Unlike previous elections where only white candidates lost, if Barack Obama loses, black people may well have their fragile psyches shatter and riot in the streets.

Sound racist?  It sure does to me.

But, it isn’t, because it was a liberal who hinted at that possibility.  What IS racist – according to some idiot at the Associated Press – was Sarah Palin’s remark that Barack Obama was “palling around” with terrorist William Ayers.  William Ayers is white, fyi.

Do you see just how biased, warped, and psychologically unhinged the media is?  Sarah Palin says, what, that Barack Obama has been friends with and worked in partnership for an admitted terrorist bomber.  And that’s “racially tinged.”

Meanwhile, on CNN, a discussion among Obama surrogates and card-carrying members of the liberal mainstream media turned the race “card” into a race “hand grenade” and flung it into the crowd.  And that isn’t “racially tinged.”

David Gergen said, “I think it’s too early to declare victory Anderson, because Barack Obama is black. And until we play out the issue of race in this country, I don’t think we’ll know and maybe unless — late in the campaign.”  What followed was a somewhat fearful discussion of the CNN panel that people might not vote for Barack Obama because of his race.

Basically, they continued blazing Newseek’s race card-lined trail, assuming that anyone who doesn’t vote for Barack Obama must be a racist.

Liberals love to lump people into groups and sub-groups based on how they vote: we can call this potential segment the “white guilt vote”: white people who didn’t want to vote for Barack Obama, but did so rather than be forced to wear the MSM’s “Scarlet R” for racism.

And then James Carville dropped the race bomb:

CARVILLE: Let me be clear, I said you can call the dogs and light the fire and leave the house. I think it sounds over.

Now let me be clear here, if Obama goes in this race with a 5- point lead and losing this election, the consequences are — bull, man. I mean I don’t think that’s going to happen, but I think David it’s a point to bring up.

But you stop and contemplate this country if Obama goes in and he has a consistent five point lead and loses the election, it would be very, very, very dramatic out there.

What consequenes are you talking about, James?  Who are you expecting to do what, and why are you anticipating it?  And what kind of “drama” are you talking about?  Are you suggesting that, if Barack Obama loses, entrants into various drama contests around the country will increase?

He’s talking about race riotsHe’s introducing the threat that millions of black people will come unglued.

Let me slant Jame’s Carville’s comment into the “racially tinged” angle the way the Associate Press did with Sarah Palin’s comments:

You better make sure Barack Obama gets elected, white people.  Because black people aren’t like white people.  They don’t have the ability to control their emotions the way white people do.  You know how violent “those people” can be.

How about my take on things?  I think a lot of black people who wanted this clearly historic outcome would be incredibly disappointed if Barack Obama loses.  And I think that responsible black people will act just like responsible white people have – and act like responsible citizens.

I’m sick of being beaten over the head – and seeing my candidates being beaten over the head – with constant allegations of racial bias.  And I’m sick of the incessant racial bias of the very people who keep throwing out the charges.

Please vote for the candidate who you believe will be the best leader for this country, for the candidate who will serve this nation best in a critical time in our history.  And don’t allow either racism, or reverse racism, to sway your vote for that candidate.

Grand Theft Auto IV: the Consequences of Gamer Culture (1)

April 29, 2008

The computer game Grand Theft Auto IV was released today to the standard irrational hype surrounding these game introductions, with buyers lining up around the store for their chance to be the first ones to own the game.  Drive-by-shootings, acts of prostitution, and car thefts make up just some of the activities players participate in during the game.  I have not played the game, but I understand that players receive the sexual services of prostitutes, and then beat them up to get their money back.  Advancing means continually committing criminal acts while trying to stay alive.

One of the issues that constantly arises with the release of one of these violent games is the outcry against the reality that many of these games end up in the hands of children and young adolescents.  So let’s start with that.

What happens physically and emotionally when children and adolescents spend a great deal of time exposed to these activities?

Children are concrete thinkers, and generally aren’t yet capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. In real life, children have shot other children without realizing that the act results in actual death. Games such as Grand Theft Auto IV reinforce this mode of concrete thinking by means of a series of behaviors that have no consequences. It’s the prescription for creating a moral monster.

There is also a very real, and very damaging impact on adolescents. Psychologists use the term “vicarious traumatization” to describe the measurable physical reactions a person can have after simply viewing a traumatic event on television or on a video game. What researches have documented is that habitual exposure to vicarious violent events can cause a person to experience the identical physical effects – such as heightened blood pressure, racing heart beat, etc. – as if that person were actually experiencing the event in real life.

Craig A. Anderson, the author of the book, Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents, detailed in a peer-reviewed article written for the American Psychological Association the effects of violent games on children. He noted that repeated exposure to media violence generates and legitimizes more aggressive behavior even as it “decreases the normal negative emotional reactions to conflict, aggression, and violence.”

The younger one is, the more intense the effect. When children play these games for hour after hour, it seriously distorts their worldviews.

I think that any responsible adult will acknowledge these facts, and act accordingly by limiting children’s exposure to such games. The problem is there are way too many irresponsible adults who either don’t know or simply don’t care about the psychological damage that is being inflicted by children under their care or supervision.

I do not propose a solution for this growing problem. Banning the games is decried as an act of censorship, and regulating or restricting the games is decried in almost the same tones as a form of censorship. Frankly, by the time a culture is determined to bring this kind of junk into their lives, it is probably too late to do anything about it. And at this point in the life of American culture, we are determined to have all kinds of crap in our society and in our homes.

My real objective in writing about games such as Grand Theft Auto IV is to address the effects of these games on adults, because there IS an effect on adults.

The typical response of the above reasoning with an adult “gamer” is, “I’ve played these games for years, and I’ve never killed anybody.”

Most of the time, that’s true, of course. Adults experience many of the same symptoms that children and adolescents experience playing games over time; however, their superior impulse control, sense of identity, and grasp on reality enables them to resist effects that can tear younger minds apart.

while I would argue that playing violent video games is the psychological equivalent to using drugs or alcohol (i.e. it messes up the mind, but most adults can handle the effects unless they really go overboard), I want to focus on a whole other impact of these video games.

I want to address a pattern of thinking that very often comes to characterize the minds of adults who spend a significant period of time “gaming.” It is also increasingly consuming postmodern culture. It boils down to three key characteristics: Cynicism, Skepticism, and a Dislike for reality.

Cynicism is the intelligent but lazy mind’s shortcut to genuine philosophy. When the world seems to make no sense, the simplest thing to do is to say the world makes no sense, and to give up on searching for sense, purpose, or meaning in the world. For an increasing number of people, this cynicism seems superior to the “simple” belief that the world does make sense, when one cannot explain why it does. Frankly, it is easier to stand on the sidelines and ridicule what is going on around you than it is to get in the trenches and work toward a better reality. Cynicism sneers at such hope.

Skepticism is – in modern secular society – a replacement for faith. But skepticism cannot serve for long as a replacement for faith, because if you teach people to believe in a thing, you have to adopt a specific position. And in a secular and pluralistic society, we can’t adopt a position (as that would disfavor other competing positions!). So we present a smorgasborg of worldview positions. This is not a Socratic education, but rather Socrates gone insane. Skepticism is a useful epistemological tool but it cannot be foundational. Why? Because if turned on itself it collapses by its own standards: what if we become skeptical about skepticism? Do we then have to become skeptical about being skeptical about skepticism? Frankly, the world would have been a much better place had Descartes realized this and abandoned his project.

Ultimately skepticism and cynicism are self-consuming. They can’t produce even a vacuous culture; they can simply mock and parody it. So ultimately, culture runs out of ideas, and from that point on, it simply relies on marketing to sell. Take the fact that we are talking about Grand Theft Auto IV as a case in point.

A Dislike of reality, or a rejection of reality for virtual reality. In video games you are a hero, the savior of the world, desired by women and loved or feared by everyone. People are relying on virtual reality to give them a feeling of joy. We are frankly seeing too many young people who are too intelligent to fall for the trap of incoherence, and yet our incredibly incoherent education system has made them immune to normal apologetics against their worldview. Having grown up with no genuine or coherent worldview, there is simply no worldview to attack or correct.

But they also unconsciously recognize the real effects of the fall and sin in the real world. In the real world, people get hurt, people suffer, people have meaningless dead-end lives. And then they die. They recognize instinctively at the very core there is something that should be in the world but is not. And yet the cynicism and skepticism of our age (the one thing that they have picked up) have left them completely unable to embrace the notion that change can matter. And so they replace physical reality with virtual reality. It very quickly becomes a form of addiction.

(Part 2 will address the spiritual components of this worldview, and offer a Christian perspective and response).

Jeremiah Wright’s Stupid Views on Black and White Learning

April 29, 2008

I can pretty much stand by what I’ve said before: a Jeremiah Wright in context is nothing but an even more racist, more hateful, more anti-American Jeremiah Wright than a Jeremiah Wright out of context. Now – in living, glowing context – Jermemiah Wright is saying things that would make even a self-respecting fascist blush.

You have simply GOT to hear these words from Wright, spoken before a cheering crowd of 10,000 at the 53rd annual Fight for Freedom Fund Dinner sponsored by the NAACP on April 27.

In the past, we were taught to see others who are different as being deficient. We established arbitrary norms and then determined that anybody not like us was abnormal. But a change is coming because we no longer see others who are different as being deficient. We just see them as different. Over the past 50 years, thanks to the scholarship of dozens of expert in many different disciplines, we have come to see just how skewed, prejudiced and dangerous our miseducation has been.

Miseducation. Miseducation incidentally is not a Jeremiah Wright term. It’s a word coined by Dr. Carter G. Woodson over 80 years ago. Sounds like he talked a hate speech, doesn’t it? Now, analyze that. Two brilliant scholars and two beautiful sisters, both of whom hail from Detroit in the fields of education and linguistics, Dr. Janice Hale right here at Wayne State University, founder of the Institute for the study of the African-American child. and Dr. Geneva Smitherman formerly of Wayne State University now at Michigan State University in Lansing. Hail in education and Smitherman in linguistics. Both demonstrated 40 years ago that different does not mean deficient. Somebody is going to miss that.

Turn to your neighbor and say different does not mean deficient. It simply means different. In fact, Dr. Janice Hale was the first writer whom I read who used that phrase. Different does not mean deficient. Different is not synonymous with deficient. It was in Dr. Hale’s first book, “Black Children their Roots, Culture and Learning Style.” Is Dr. Hale here tonight? We owe her a debt of gratitude. Dr. Hale showed us that in comparing African-American children and European-American children in the field of education, we were comparing apples and rocks.

And in so doing, we kept coming up with meaningless labels like EMH, educable mentally handicapped, TMH, trainable mentally handicapped, ADD, attention deficit disorder.

And we were coming up with more meaningless solutions like reading, writing and Ritalin. Dr. Hale’s research led her to stop comparing African-American children with European-American children and she started comparing the pedagogical methodologies of African-American children to African children and European-American children to European children. And bingo, she discovered that the two different worlds have two different ways of learning. European and European-American children have a left brained cognitive object oriented learning style and the entire educational learning system in the United States of America. Back in the early ’70s, when Dr. Hale did her research was based on left brained cognitive object oriented learning style. Let me help you with fifty cent words.

Left brain is logical and analytical. Object oriented means the student learns from an object. From the solitude of the cradle with objects being hung over his or her head to help them determine colors and shape to the solitude in a carol in a PhD program stuffed off somewhere in a corner in absolute quietness to absorb from the object. From a block to a book, an object. That is one way of learning, but it is only one way of learning.

African and African-American children have a different way of learning.

They are right brained, subject oriented in their learning style. Right brain that means creative and intuitive. Subject oriented means they learn from a subject, not an object. They learn from a person. Some of you are old enough, I see your hair color, to remember when the NAACP won that tremendous desegregation case back in 1954 and when the schools were desegregated. They were never integrated. When they were desegregated in Philadelphia, several of the white teachers in my school freaked out. Why? Because black kids wouldn’t stay in their place. Over there behind the desk, black kids climbed up all on them.

Reverend Wright believes that white children and black children learn differently. White children are left-brain object oriented; and black children are right-brain subject oriented. White children are “logical and analytical.” Black children are “creative and intuitive.”

Imagine if a white man had said that. Imagine, furthermore, if the pastor of John McCain’s church had presented such a pet theory to a national audience. There would be a firestorm of unimaginable proportions. As it is, not so much as a peep from the elite media. They are too busy hoping that they can either whitewash Wright’s views as “an acceptable form of culturally-black expression” or at least distance Barack Obama from any damage if plan A fails.

Jeremiah Wright says, “Turn to your neighbor and say different does not mean deficient. It simply means different.” The problem is that different actually very often DOES mean deficient. Pol Pot was different from the Dalai Llama. Adolf Hitler was different from Winston Churchill. Ice cream is different from colon cancer. Saying “different is not deficient” over and over again don’t make it so.

Do you see the can of worms Jeremiah Wright’s views open? should we now re-segregate our schools, so that black right-brain children can learn “their kind’s” way? The answer is ‘absolutely yes,’ according to Barack Obama’s mentor. And decades of hard-earned integration go right down the drain. Different classrooms come first. Different water fountains and bathrooms, of course, presumably come later. Do you see how completely radical these views are?

And, if there truly is a biological difference between black and white intelligence, as Wright claims, how does that not mean that one might very well be superior to the other? The record of history comparing the success of white European society to that of black African society now comes into play as a rather powerful prima facia argument that “logical and analytical” biologically trumps “creative and intuitive.” Racists have been making the very point that Wright embraces for generations. And from that understanding of difference, they argue to the deficiency: Prior to and during the Civil War, southern white elites professed to be taking care of blacks through the institution of slavery. “Blacks can’t think like whites. They are like monkey-children, and we have to use our superior white intellect to take care of them,” they claimed. We got the phrase, “That’s mighty white of you” from that sort of attitude. Jeremiah Wright himself now opens the door to a return to some of the darkest racial times this country – and the world – has ever seen.

You simply must understand that the kinds of “differences” Wright points to have been – and are to this very day – viewed very much as “deficiencies” by many others who have dreams about solving such “deficiencies.” Jeremiah Wright, who argues that he is “descriptive,” not “divisive,” is indeed extremely divisive – and this particular brand of divissiveness has led humanity down dark and terrifying pathways.

Genuine Christianity – unlike Wright’s racist brand – does not fixate on such “differences,” but instead fixates on the image of God that all humanity shares in common. It’s not about what separates us, but what we share in common.

I have a dream my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” Martin Luther King, Jr. said rather famously. But let us instead follow the thought of Jeremiah Wright and separate those children on his perceived difference in learning ability?

Let me take you down that dark path, from the idea to the consequences:

Out of Darwinism comes social darwinism. If the former theory is true, the latter is a necessary corolary. And Darwin’s subtitle for The Origin of Species was “the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.” Darwin described the development of life-forms in terms of an ongoing struggle for existence. The result of this struggle would be a natural selection of those species and races who were to triumph over those weaker ones who would perish.

In his Descent of Man, Darwin wrote:

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”

People have argued about Darwin’s racial views, but don’t think for a nanosecond that a vast array of intellectuals did not pick up on the clear implications of Darwinian thought – or that the consequences of that thought brought us horror on a scale that humanity had never dreamed of in its worst nightmares.

Francis Galton ackowledged that he was greatly influenced by Darwin’s Origin of Species. In his book Hereditary Genius he extended Darwin’s theory of natural selection into a concept of deliberate social intervention in his work, which he held to be the logical application of evolution to the human race. Galton was by no means satisfied to let evolution take its course freely. Having decided to improve the human race through selective breeding, brought about through social intervention, he developed a subject which he called “Eugenics”, the principle of which was that by encouraging better human stock to breed and discouraging the reproduction of less desirable stock, the whole race could be improved.

Darwin congratulated Galton on the publication of Hereditary Genius, telling his younger cousin in a letter that, “I do not think I ever in all my life read anything more interesting and original.”

In his essay, Eugenics as a Factor in Religion, Galton laid out arguments that would one day lead to Nazi death camps. He left no doubt about the link between evolution and eugenics: “The creed of eugenics is founded upon the idea of evolution; not on a passive form of it, but on one that can to some extent direct its own course….”

A quote from Tom DeRosa’s “From Darwin’s Theory to Hitler’s Holocaust” fills in the picture:

When Hitler came to power in 1933, he installed a dictatorship with one agenda: enactment of his radical Nazi racial philosophy built on Darwinian evolution. He sought, in Darwin’s terms, to preserve the “favoured” race in the struggle for survival. Brute strength and [superior white Aryan] intelligence would be the driving force of the Nazi plan.

The first task was to eliminate the weak and those with impure blood that would corrupt the race. These included the disabled, ill, Jews, and Gypsies. Second, the Nazis sought to expand Germany’s borders in order to achieve more living space, or “Lebensraum,” to make room for the expansion of the “favoured” race. Third, the Nazis set about to eliminate communism because of its threat to the Aryan race and because, according to Hitler, communism was the work of Bolshevik Jews.

The plan quickly unfolded. An order to sterilize some 400,000 Germans was issued within five months of Hitler’s rise to power. The order, set to take effect on January 1, 1934, listed nine categories of the unfit to be sterilized: feebleminded, schizophrenia, manic depression, Huntington’s chorea, epilepsy, hereditary body deformities, deafness, hereditary blindness, and alcoholism. The Nuremberg Laws were passed in 1935 to prohibit marriage between Jews and Germans and to strip Jews of their German citizenship.

The Nazis established eugenic courts to ensure that the eugenic laws were enforced. To identify the unfit, German eugenicists compared the individual health files of millions of Germans with medical records from hospitals and the National Health Service. The American firm, IBM, aided the effort by automating a national card file system that cross-indexed the defective.

American eugenicists celebrated the German sterilization program. A leading U.S. eugenics publication, Eugenical News, published an admiring article on a German eugenics institute and extended “best wishes” to its director “for the success of his work in his new and favorable environment.” The New England Journal of Medicine editorialized in 1934 that “Germany is perhaps the most progressive nation in restricting fecundity among the unfit.”

Eugenics in America was not a fringe movement. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark 1927 ruling that authorized the sterilization of a “feeble minded” Virginia woman. In his majority opinion for the Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

DeRosa points out that “Today when evolutionists are questioned as to how Darwinian evolution gave birth to Hitler’s Nazism, they immediately want to beg the question, answering that racism has nothing to do with science. They are correct! Racism has nothing to do with science, but it has everything to do with evolution—a fact that is unavoidable.”

It might be worth mentioning at this point that Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in order to put her philosophy of eugenics to life. And blacks were near the top of her list of “deficients.”

Eugenics is back in the news today. Recently, a UCLA pro-life student group conducted a “sting” that exposed the fact that the organization created by racist-eugenicist Margaret Sanger may well be as racist as ever. An overwhelming number of “Family Planning clinics” are located in predominantly black neighborhoods, helping black women terminate half their pregnancies.

Pro-abortionists call it “exercising a woman’s right to choose.” Francis Galton called it “discouraging the reproduction of less desirable stock.” Should I again mention Jeremiah Wright’s mantra, “Different does not mean deficient” here? I argue that such views are morally deficient.

Black pastors are coming out in force to condemn the genocide of black babies in Planned Parenthood clinics. Unfortunately, Jeremiah Wright is not among their number; he supports abortion. I don’t know how he feels about the fact that half of all black babies are killed before they can see the faces of the mothers who don’t want them.

Now, I have no doubt that Jeremiah Wright would immediately disassociate himself from Nazis, from eugenics, from the genocide of black babies, and maybe even from Darwinism.

The problem is that there is a world of unintended consequences. Liberals once added a luxury tax on items such as yachts to collect more revenue. They were very quickly forced to suspend the tax because wealthy people quit buying yachts resulting in the layoff of thousands of workers. In this case, Wright wants to pursue an agenda of black racial separatism, but I am arguing that the consequences for blacks will be anything other than good.

The problem is that, for all of his intelligence, Jeremiah Wright is a moral idiot who does not understand that Adolf Hitler, Margaret Sanger, and every other racist social Darwinist would listen to the comments I’ve quoted from Jeremiah Wright and completely agree with them.

The problem is that ideas have consequences, and Jeremiah Wright has a head crammed full of vile ideas.

The problem is that the more the American people hear these vile ideas, the more they will legitimately question whether a man who sat under such teaching for twenty years is fit to be president.

Iraq, Vietnam, and the Consequences of Abandonment

April 11, 2008

Liberals credit themselves with ending the Vietnam War (a war, I must remind you, that was started by Democrats in the first place under John Kennedy, massively expanded by Lyndon Johnson, and ultimately ended by a Richard Nixon – whose “peace with honor” agreement would be subsequently betrayed by the Democratic Congress). Please let me assure you that – when Democrats talk about Vietnam – they do NOT want you to know their historic role in the war or its horific aftermath. A little bit of history is fascinating given the current political war over the war in Iraq.

First of all, it is important to understand why the United States decided to fight in Vietnam in the first place. And the straightforward answer is that we went in with the strategic goal of containing Communist expansion. In 1956, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev struck the tone with his “We Will Bury You” speech. While Khrushchev most likely did not intend a declaration of war between the superpowers, he was clearly stating the U.S.S.R.’s intention to overwhelm Western democracies in a campaign of attrition. Communism was aggressively expanding throughout the world. And the world had changed dramatically in a very short time, as Soviet tanks rolled across Eastern Europe to erect the Iron Curtain, and communist revolutions began to spring up in one third world nation after another. The United States was forced to choose between fighting aggressive communist expansion overseas, or fighting with fewer allies when it arrived upon our doorstep.

Under the Eisenhower administration, military advisors and U.S. assistance were deemed sufficient to check communist expansion. But by 1960, Democratic President John F. Kennedy realized that more assistance would be needed. As the French colonialists began their withdraw from Indochina beginning in 1956, Eisenhower’s and then Kennedy’s administrations realized that more and more assistance would be needed to prevent one Southeast Asian nation after another from toppling. The United States stepped up its commitment to anti-communists governments in the region througout the term of the Kennedy administration.

The Vietnam War can rightly be seen as one battle in the Cold War. Certainly, it was the largest and costliest of those battles, but it was the nexxus in which the United States attempted to check aggressive communist expansion by violent revolution. Seen in isolation, it was a failure (i.e. we pulled out and left); seen in relation to the overall proxy wars against communism, it was a qualified success. The United States’ efforts enabled Burma and Thailand time to build up resistance to communist revloutions. After the fall of Vietnam to communism, Laos and Cambodia toppled as well.

Proof of the truth – and the consequences – of the so-called “Domino Theory” can be seen in the bloody aftermath of the U.S. withdrawel from Southeast Asia beginning in 1973. But as bad as the Indochinese campaign went for the United States, the overall campaign did successfully limit communist expansionism. Ultimately, the United States would win the Cold War, with the collapse of the Berlin Wall and of the Soviet Empire it represented, in 1989.

By all strategic and tactical standards, The 1968 Tet Offensive launched by the Vietnamese communists was a complete disaster for North Vietnam. The dreaded Viet Cong – the local fighters who could attack Americans and then vanish in the jungle to their villages until they decided to strike again – were anhiliated and ceased to exist after Tet. From that point on, the war became conventional – with North Vietnamese Army regulars increasingly having to infiltrate into South Vietnam in order to carry on the war. The war increasingly became “winnable” as it increasingly became more and more conventional in its nature.

However, American liberals – arguing that the American military was lying about the war – pressed hard for a complete withdrawal from Vietnam and from Southeast Asia. Just as today, the Democratic Party increasingly began to support resolutions to end the war. Just as today, The American media played a major role in spreading the idea that America was not only losing the war, but was also routinely committing the most barbaric war atrocities.

Ultimately, the increasingly stridant liberal outcries against the war, combined with the weakening of a scandal-plagued President Nixon, undermined all American efforts to continue to support the war effort. As part of the deal with both North and South Vietnam that provided the pretext of an “honorable withdrawal” of U.S. forces from Vietnam in 1973, the Nixon administration promised the South Vietnamese a continuation of supplies, logistical support, and even air strikes as needed to stop Communist incursions into South Vietnam. The South Vietnamese naïvely believed the pledge of support. But the North Vietnamese, realizing that America had grown weary with the war in Vietnam, quickly broke every one of the few promises they had made. When hostilities resumed, the Democrat controlled Congress refused to fund America’s national promise.

The Army of the Republic of Vietnam continued fighting the North for two more years as President Ford pleaded with the Democratic Congress to fund the relief effort. The Democrats sent a denial: in so doing, they were sentencing millions of Vietnamese allied with America to death, prison, or life on the run as refugees.

The footage of the last American helicopter taking off from the embassy compound as thousands of terrorized Vietnamese watched and begged for help epitomized America’s abandoment of its commitment and will literally live in infamy.

To better describe the cowardly American betrayal and the holocuast that followed, I cite the final paragraph of DiscoverTheNetworks (at

“The first act of the newly elected Democrat Congress was a vote to cut off funding for South Vietnam and Cambodia’s Lon Nol government in January 1975. After U.S. funding was cut, the regimes of South Vietnam and Cambodia were quickly overrun by the communists, who would go on to slaughter some 2.5 million Indochinese peasants.”

That number – shocking as it is – is undoubtedly quite low. Nearly two million human beings in this murderous tally would come from Cambodia and the Killing Fields of Pol Pot in 1975 alone. As for the holocaust that was to befall South Vietnam, John E. Carey – beseeching America not to make the same mistake yet again – writes, “When America left Vietnam in 1975, the communists came south, sweeping away the former South Vietnam, and imprisoning or killing untold numbers of freedom-loving Vietnamese. More than 900,000 South Vietnamese were sent to concentration camps. Millions lost everything: homes, family, jobs and all possessions. A vast migration called the Vietnam Diaspora ensued. Something like three million people left Vietnam, many in small, undependable boats. Many of these “boat people“ succumbed to starvation, the ravages of the sea, or murdering pirates.”

The wikipedia article on the Army of the Republic of Vietnam takes up the theme of the historic lesson of precipitous withdrawel and abandonment. “Without the necessary funds and a collapse in South Vietnamese troop and civilian morale, South Vietnam found it impossible to defeat the North Vietnamese army. Moreover, the withdrawal of U.S. aid encouraged North Vietnam to begin an intense military offensive against South Vietnam. This was strengthened by the fact that while Nixon had promised Thieu a “severe retaliation” if the Communists broke the 1973 Paris Peace Accords, the new American administration [i.e. the new Democrat-controlled Congress] did not think itself bound to this promise.”

Numerous American and international experts have repeatedly pointed out that any precipitous withdrawel from Iraq will undoubtedly result in a brand new bloodbath as violent jihadism takes root and the fragile Shiite-Sunni relationship ruptures into violence. Furthermore, they point out that this abandonment will damage U.S. credibility for years to come – and far more than it did after we abandoned Vietnam in 1975.

William Shawcross – who saw the hell Vietnam descended into after America left – warns against inflicting the same disaster on Iraq.  In the same way that Vietnam was one major battle in an overall war against violent communist totalitarian expansion by armed revolution, Iraq is one major battle in the war against a growing fascistic form of Islam.

Make no mistake: violent Islamic jihadism has been exponentially building for over sixty years, beginning with the rise of the Islamic Brotherhood in Egyptan prisons. The United States was brutally introduced to the building threat of Islamic militarism beginning with the in 1979 Iranian Revolution and subsequent seizing of American hostages taken from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and again with the 1983 Bombing of U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon. Throughout the Clinton Administration, the United States suffered repeated attacks on its sovereign territory, from the 1st World Trade Center bombing on 26 February 1993, to the simultaneous 8 July 1998 bombings of two American embassies in Africa, to the 12 October 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. In addition to these attacks, the 3 October 1993 “Blackhawk Down” ambush by Muslim warlord Mohammed Adid’s forces – and the humiliating withdrawel – must also be noted.

The 9/11 attacks – as terrible as they were – would have been far more terrible had they been carried out with weapons of mass destruction. Rather than sustaining 3,000 deaths, 30,000, 300,000, or even 3,000,000 Americans could become casualties. Therefore the United States policy became 1) the pursuit of the terrorists who attacked us; and 2) the pursuit of anti-U.S. governments that had the willingness and ability to arm terrorists with WMD.

Iraq, which was known to have had WMD (they used them repeatedly on their own people) also had ties to terror (for example, Saddam Hussein paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers; U.S. intelligence found evidence of senior-level links between Iraq and terrorists including al Qaeda; terrorist camps inside Iraq trained thousands of terrorists – including al Qaeda terrorists – under Saddam’s rule; and former Clinton administration CIA director James Woolsey believes that Ramsay Yousef – who participated in the first World Trade Center bombing and who entered the United States on a forged Iraqi passport, was an agent of Iraqi intelligence).

Under the Bush doctrine, it was simply unacceptable to allow the possibility of terrorists obtaining WMD. “You are either with us or against us” was a statement that the vague, nebulous policy of indecision would be replaced by an active defense of the United States. And the most likely scenario of terrorists obtaining such weapons was that an anti-American, pro-Islamic nation-state would provide weapons of mass destruction.

President Bush therefore – under the valid authorities of both the ceasefire agreement won by President George H.W. Bush and by the U.N. resolutions – demanded that Iraq totally destroy its WMD program and open itself to inspection that it had done so. Saddam Hussein refused (some have speculated that he did not want to reveal that his country was essentially declawed in the hostile Arab landscape). In any event, without that confirmation, President Bush followed through with his “… or else” and invaded.

There was another motivation to the invasion of Iraq, however. Many believed that if Saddam could be deposed, and a pro-democratic government could be implemented in the heart of the Islamic world, that a powerful alternative to the militant Islamicism that was increasingly dominating the Islamic world could be created. Iraq was as good of a candidate for such an experiment as any: it was officially secular; it had a higher level of education than most other Arab states; and it offered more rights to women than most Arab states.

Thus there was a negative reason to invade as well as a legitimate hope for a positive outcome following an invasion.

Five years and counting after the invasion, it is now widely acknowledged that we went in with too small of a force for the subsequent occupation/counter-insurgency, and that we allowed the social and political structure of Iraq to deteriorate far more than we should have as a result.

Previous failures acknoweledged, it remains the case that the relatively new strategy of the surge has demonstrated that American forces can remain in Iraq with few casualties. We therefore need to ignore Democrats’ demands to cut and run – whether on a timetable for “organized” withdrawel or otherwise – and remain a powerful presence in Iraq, or we will be doomed to repeat some very bad history.

It has taken time, blood, and determination, but American forces in Iraq have gradually but steadily won the loyalty and support of increasing numbers of Iraqis, most significantly the sheiks. We won their cooperation by promising that we would not abandon them, that we would stick by them, that we would offer our aid. If we go back on our promises now – and abandom these brave men and women to their deaths – we will lose credibility with potential Arab allies throughout the Islamic world. And it is unlikely that we will ever be able to regain it.

Allow me to end with two historic withdrawels, and the mindset of our enemies who determined to use our lack of resolve against us.

Bui Tin, a member of the North Vietnamese General Staff, was interviewed in Wall Street Journal on Thursday, 3 August 1995. Part of the interview reads as follows:

“Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?
Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi

Minh said, “We don’t need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out.”

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi’s victory?
A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?
A: Keenly.

Q: Why?
A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.”

In his 1996 “Declaration of War Against the Americans,” Osama bin Laden cited the U.S. retreat from Somalia in 1993 and went on to say: “You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew. The extent of your impotence and weaknesses has become very clear,” he said. “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.”

“We have seen in the last decade the decline of American power and the weakness of the American soldier who is ready to wage Cold Wars, but unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut in 1983 when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia (in 1993).”

Osama bin Laden went on television to say, “This proves the U.S. is a paper tiger.”

Leaving Iraq without establishing a free and stable Iraq will prove Osama bin Laden right, which means terrorists and rogue nations will know they can defeat us simply by piling up enough bodies – if necessary the bodies of their own people. It remains up to the collective will of the American people to prove him wrong. Abandoning Iraq simply must not be an option.