The GOP 25: Remember in November (4, 2014)

On Friday , the Senate voted for cloture, ending the debate on a provision to defund obamacare in the spending bill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) then proposed and the Senate passed an amendment to the bill that strips the language that defunds obamacare.

The bill, which will keep the government running through November 14, passed with a partisan vote, 54-44.

The amended legislation now goes back to the House of Representatives.

Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.J.Res. 59 )
Vote Result: Cloture Motion Agreed to

25 Republicans voted with the Democrats for cloture. Many of these senators will run for re-election on November 4, 2014, so mark your calendars and bookmark this list:

Alexander (TN)
Phone: (202) 224-4944

Ayote (NH)
Phone: 202-224-3324

Barrasso (WY)
Main: 202-224-6441
Tollfree: 866-235-9553

Blunt (MO)
Phone: (202) 224-5721

Boozeman (AR)
Phone: (202) 224-4843

Burr (NC)
Phone: (202) 224-3154

Chiesa (NJ)
Phone: 202-224-3224

Chambliss (GA)
Phone: (202) 224-3521

Coats (IN)
Phone: (202) 224-5623

Coburn (OK)
Phone: (202) 224-5754

Cochran (MS)
Phone: (601) 965-4459

Collins (ME)
Phone: (202) 224-2523

Corker (TN)
Phone: 202-225-5435

Cornyn (TX)
Phone: (202) 224-2934

Graham (NC)
Phone: (202) 224-5972

Hoeven (ND)
Phone: 202-224-2551

Isakson (GA)
Phone: (202) 224-3643

Johnson (WI)
Phone: (414) 276-7282

Johanns (NE)
Phone: (202) 224-4224

Kirk (IL)
Phone: 202-224-2854

McCain (AZ)
Phone: (202) 224-2235

McConnell (KY)
Phone: 202-224-2541

Murkowski (AK)
Phone: 202-224-6665

Thune (SD)
Phone: (202) 224-2321

Wicker (MS)
Phone: (601) 965-4644

Advertisements

RIP Common Sense

by Don Hank

Fellow American, you need to be aware of and prepare for something that will happen:

The US economy will eventually sputter and fail.

At that point, the blame will fall not on the socialist government that destroyed the economy but on a scapegoat, i.e., capitalism itself and on the capitalists who had until then provided work for us.

First, let’s examine why I say with full confidence that we are headed for a collapse.

We now have a national debt of $16 trillion/yr and have unfunded liabilities in the range from $80 to $140 trillion, depending on whose figures you are consulting. Now, an article I read in the Atlantic says not to worry because those liabilities can be pared down as desired. What they didn’t mention is that trimming these liabilities to an acceptable level would spell an end to welfare and a goodly number of entitlement programs including Obamacare, Medicare and social security. If we can judge by Greece, then the resulting austerity would make things even worse. But who would bail us out?

Now, government receipts are at about $2.5 trillion. Let’s see, take 140 trillion and divide it by 2.5 trillion. We get 56. So we are liable for an amount that is 56 times the amount of revenues collected by the government in one year. That means that only if the government confiscated every penny earned for the next 56 years, could it pay off these unfunded liabilities on the books, but by then they would have increased exponentially and the economic indices would be even worse than today. There is no wiggle room here.

Zero Hedge reckons that these liabilities alone (not even counting the debt) amount to $1.2 million per tax payer.

So, once America experiences the crash with its own eyes, either as an outright default or as a quantitative easing package resulting in a hyperinflation level that makes Weimar look like small change, will Americans be smart enough to understand who and what caused it?

My prediction is that, unless everyone who understands the math explains it to someone who does not, they will not understand what hit them. And that means the solution will be slow and painful in coming. If my prediction is true, then we all have a lot of work to do, convincing our fellow Americans that Keynesian overspending and over-borrowing are the culprits, not the capitalist system (which has been dead or moribund for decades, replaced by corporatism or crony capitalism).

I had a little insight into this anthropological phenomenon a few weeks ago and that told me where we are probably headed in terms of making Americans see the reality.

Now, I wouldn’t blame you if you absolutely refused to believe the following anecdote. Unless, that is, you have heard other ‘educated’ people talking like my old college chum, who was dead serious.

I was discussing the economy online with this chum, who is a brilliant fellow when it comes to the humanities. He has an in depth knowledge of literature like no one else I know. And he worked his way through college back in the 60s, often coming to class tired, but always eager to learn. He went on to acquire a doctorate from Harvard no less and is a highly respected professor at a state university.

I try to be patient when discussing the economy because people have been brainwashed into accepting premises that are, unfortunately, false myths. Yet these myths are lodged in their brains and are an inextricable part of their intellectual baggage. Like addicts, they just can’t let go. They would no doubt experience tremors, vomiting and maybe even heart failure if they were ever forced to own up to the truth.

It is that bad.

This old chum thinks I am too pessimistic about the economy and that ‘President’ Obama (he gets miffed when I omit the P word) will get the economy humming again in the latter part of his term.

The truth is, given the above discussed unfunded liabilities and a debt equal to 101% of GDP and with a trend toward increasing the dizzyingly high debt ceiling rather than ratcheting it down, there is no way we could ever pay off this debt in the next 50 years. With 63% of employable Americans are unemployed (that’s 37% unemployment, the highest in the industrialized world. The phony government unemployment figure ignores the majority of unemployed, who have dropped out of the job hunt), it is a sure bet that our economy is headed for a crash sometime after the FRB realizes it has to stop the quantitative easing for fear of hyperinflation.

In the course of our conversation, I mentioned that many employers were going to stop employing people because they can’t afford the mandatory health insurance payments.

Please note well his response:

“The employers were just waiting for such an excuse not to employ people.”

Really? So employers needed an excuse not to employ people?

So, prior to Obamacare, employers were giving people jobs because someone had a gun to their heads demanding they employ people?

They were not employing people because workers helped them expand their businesses and earn more money? They needed an excuse to stop expanding their businesses and making more money?

I did not bother to respond to that. This man has been steeped in Keynesian lore and will continue to blame the capitalists long after capitalism is banned and the government has taken control of all businesses in the US and driven us into abject poverty.

If enough Americans, whether educated or not, insist on blaming the employers for not hiring and fail to see how government is killing employment, with reams of regulations, by catering to unions, by preferential trade treatment toward countries with lax regulations, then we will become another Zimbabwe and will never pull out of our self-induced pain.

They say a nation gets what it deserves.

Don Hank is a Guest Contributor to The Bold Pursuit®

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Georgia”,”serif”;}

RMS (make that USS) Titanic

by Robert Arvay

Royal Mail Steamer Titanic sank in 1912 on the auspicious day of April 15, which has since become known colloquially in the US, as Income Tax Day. Its loss continues to be, more than a century later, the iconic symbol of the large scale tragedy, replete with detailed anecdotes of heroism and cowardice, wisdom and folly, coincidence and predictability. 

Heroic men gave up their lives to save women and children, while cowardly men dressed as women to gain places on the lifeboats, pushing aside women and children who then died as a consequence. Geniuses designed the leviathan scale of the ship, while fools neglected to equip it with sufficient life boats, declaring that “not even God” could sink the ocean liner. The coincidental collision with an iceberg was also a predictable risk, for which more precautions, had they been taken, might have saved many hundreds of lives. 

Columnist George Will, if memory serves me correctly, suggested in an opinion commentary that when Titanic sank, it took with it a cadre of American entrepreneurs who could never be replaced. Let us also note that in the two to ten years which followed, America embarked on the path of progressivism, perhaps in part because of the loss of these men, whose influence might have changed history. 

In some respects, a century and a year after the tragedy, history is repeating itself, but this time it is not a British passenger ship; instead, the American ship of state, which I dub, the USS Titanic, that is swiftly approaching the iceberg. 

Each morning, we Americans awaken aboard the majestic edifice known as the United States. As passengers, we are not allowed into the central control room. Others are given that responsibility. Some of those in control are wise, but others are fools. Some are courageous, while others are craven cowards, seeking only their own comfort, their own gain, their own safety, while sacrificing women and children to their doom. We see ups and downs in our economy, in our murder rates, in election results, as ‘coincidences’ beyond our personal control. However, the end is predictable. 

Only a fool, a coward, an immoral reprobate, could propose an economic policy which consists of these three suicidal impulses:

  1. spending more money than we have
  2. borrowing more than we can repay, and
  3. counterfeiting money (by means of the Federal Reserve Bank) which then diminishes the value of what money we do have. 

But enough of the Titanic analogy. A far more tragic parallel occurred in the 1930s in both Germany and Japan. Year after year, citizens of those two nations watched helplessly as their governments became more and more totalitarian, more and more brazen in their lawlessness, and ever more reckless in their ventures. 

The result was inevitable: war, and war on a scale which the world had never seen. It was not only predictable; it was actually predicted, at least as far back as 1932 by Harold B Rugg, who wrote the junior high school textbook, Changing Governments and Changing Cultures. I have a copy, and I was astounded as I read it, how clearly the facts of those days pointed to a future that has now become past history. 

As I hold that book in my hand, I feel a connection with those German and Japanese citizens who did what they could to save their nations from ruthless dictators and militarist tyrants. Day by day, they must have thought to themselves, it cannot possibly get any worse than this. And day by day, it got worse. Year by year, they must have hoped and yearned, praying that the general population would soon regain its moral sense of duty to humanity, its dedication to honor. Year by year, the populations fell ever deeper into the trance of their political leaders, who came to be worshipped as gods. 

I am reminded of a terrible anecdote. An ordinary German man had done his best, month after month, to persuade his young son to eschew the Nazis. Finally, seeing that that was a dangerous position to take, literally a potentially fatal position, the man reluctantly gave in. Fearing that his son would become a political victim of persecution, the man advised his son to go ahead, join the Nazis. 

One wonders what became of them, that father and son. Did the man die in a bombed German factory? Did the boy freeze to death at the battle of Stalingrad? If so, what were their final words, their final thoughts? 

That anecdote must have been repeated in various forms a million times, as millions of Germans and Japanese died futile deaths while following their charismatic leaders, leaders who cared not one whit for the incalculable suffering they wrought among their loyal followers. 

Now here we stand, a lifetime later, as we daily watch our nation led to destruction by fools and cowards, watch as millions of our fellow citizens chant mindless slogans, heedless that the iceberg looms just ahead.

 Somewhere in Asia and in Europe are the graves of uncounted thousands of Japanese and Germans who dared stand up against tyranny, and who paid with their lives for their heroism. They may have died believing that their cause was lost. 

But I firmly believe that long after the names of the tyrants are forgotten, the names of those heroes will be forever enshrined in the one and only place where honor is eternal. 

May God bless them each and all. And may I, if ever I am called upon to join them, not shrink from the task. 

Robert Arvay is a Contributing Writer to The Bold Pursuit

Unimaginably Tiny Attack: The Chickens of War are Unleashed

by Robert Arvay

If before, there was any doubt that America’s foreign policy is inept, that doubt has vanished, except in the minds of the hopelessly inept themselves.

The shock and awe of military attacks that were iconic during the Iraq War have been replaced by the shockingly awesome idiocy that saturates every level of Obama-ian diplomacy.

Were this the script for a fictional movie, even the Monty Python troupe might consider it too farcical to present to an audience with any brains at all. The script might include something like this:  a news announcer reveals that:

 “Today, Syria’s dictator was outraged, outraged, to suddenly discover that the United States launched an unimaginably tiny attack on Syria two weeks ago. Syrian investigators are on the scene, trying to find evidence of the attack, but for now, they are taking CNN’s word that it happened.”

If war is, as the adage goes, diplomacy by other means, then the reverse is also true. Diplomacy is, so to speak, war by nonviolent means. Whatever the methods, foreign relations are not for amateurs. Even the relationships between the US and Canada, which share the world’s longest undefended border, sometimes sour, requiring expert negotiators on both sides to maintain friendly, and mutually beneficial, accords.

Diplomacy with nations such as Syria, Iran and North Korea are a form of war, wars fought with words, but wars no less pivotal to the security of the United States. Diplomacy with Russia is world war, brutal and even potentially fatal.

Obama doesn’t get it.

What Obama fails to understand is that there is a massive difference between the words of diplomacy and the words of a speech. Foreign policy is not a campaign trail. It is not a casual conversation in an Ivy League professors’ lounge. In diplomacy, threats are not mere threats; they are binding promises to act. If one draws a red line and warns that it must not be crossed, it is sheer lunacy, once that line has been crossed, to mouth some idiocy such as, ‘I didn’t draw that line – the world did it.’ I didn’t build that, someone else did. It’s George W Bush’s fault.

Yet for all practical purposes, that is exactly what Obama has done.

A diplomatic threat, once the line has been crossed, must be carried out. It must. That is why one does not lightly make threats involving military force. They are made only after painstaking consultation with experts. One carefully weighs and measures how, when, and where, the threat is made, and of course, why. Every alternative must be considered, every possible outcome must be foreseen to the degree possible. Dissenting voices must be given a fair hearing, and even the sharpest criticism must be respected before making the threat.

Even then, there is no guarantee of success. But “shooting from the lip” is a guarantee of disaster, and disaster precisely describes the Obama Doctrine, a doctrine which is rife with the words, “Uh,” “umm,” and “corpseman.”

Obama has done worse than merely putting his foot in his mouth. He has endangered us all.

What can be done?

Sadly, nothing. The damage is so severe that the question has become, not how to fix it, but who can clean up the mess? Who?

It certainly is not Obama. He does not have it in him to humble himself, to admit his errors, and to reverse course. It’s not in his genes.

Nor is it in his background. No one ever told him that there is a difference between bullying and self-defense, between ruthless colonialism and legitimate projection of power. What he has been taught is that the United States is a racist, sexist, homophobic oppressor of Muslims, and that the US must be brought low. He believes that, and worse, his handlers believe that.

The Obama Doctrine was not written overnight. It took decades for left wing activists, of the Bill Ayers ilk, to achieve the dream of placing their ideal (and perhaps Manchurian) candidate for president in the White House. Decades. Finally, the most left wing president ever, now occupies the oval office, and from there wreaks havoc, while the dogs of war strain at their leashes.

As Obama’s favorite preacher, Jeremiah Wright once said, “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

Robert Arvay is a Contributing Writer to The Patriot’s Notepad

In Defense of Bullies

by Thomas Gilleece, Guest Contributor

Bully.

The word itself started out innocently enough. Believe it or not, it originally meant “sweetheart,” and was probably derived from the Dutch word for lover, “boele.” It was used as a synonym for “brother” and “fine fellow” and even as a term of praise (as in “bully for you!”). Around 1700, and possibly in connection with the ornery ovine we call ‘the bull,’ it was used to describe a “protector of a prostitute.” From there it soon took on its present meaning of a “harasser of the weak.”

Bullies are in the news constantly. There are anti-bullying laws cropping up in every state. Every act of intimidation – from loud speech to aggressive sportsmanship, is decried as another example of bullying. Under this new definition, baseball chatter is an unfair act of coercion, Peeping Tom (who dared to peek as a naked Lady Godiva rode by) was just another ruffian, and the boy who dipped the cute girl’s pigtails in the ink well would be the biggest bully of all.

Bullies have become the scapegoat for a wide range of society’s ills, from teen suicide to school shootings. They’re a convenient target, and knee-jerkers always seek out the simplest answer to complex questions. Remove the bullies and the problems affecting our children will magically disappear. “Ban a Bully, Save a Life” seems to be the simplistic rallying cry.

But is this sensible? Is it even necessary? More importantly, is it even good policy?

The need to blame a bully has become so prevalent today that it has even led to false accusations, overreactions, and blatant distortions. The most egregious example of the latter is in the Tyler Clementi case. Tyler was an openly gay student at Rutgers University in New Jersey. One night his roommate accessed his webcam from another location and saw Tyler embracing another man. He invited a handful of his Twitter friends to watch the following night. Nothing ever came of it because Tyler, once aware of the spying, found the webcam, unplugged it, and then he and his male friend had “a good time,” according to Clementi. Shortly after this incident, Clementi committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge. School officials quickly denounced cyber-bullying and the national calls for harsh punishment were immediate. Ellen DeGeneres cried on air while falsely claiming that Tyler killed himself because his roommate had “outted” him as gay. Ignoring the concept of due process, some gay activists demanded the roommate be expelled immediately and charged with murder. New Jersey legislators ultimately passed the nation’s most comprehensive anti-bullying law and named it after Tyler Clementi.

Where was the evidence of bullying? The answer is that there was none. Lost amid the coarse cries for the roommate’s head were the facts: Tyler was openly gay. After the webcam incident, he had written on a gay website that, aside from being a jerk on occasions (specifically referring to the webcam incident), his roommate was basically a decent guy. Tyler made no mention of the incident in his brief suicide note and there was never any concrete evidence that it was the incident that drove him to commit suicide.

Not long ago, I heard the story of seven teenagers arrested for bullying a 13-year-old classmate. They dragged the smaller boy, tried to stuff him in a tree, and then hung him by his jacket on a wrought-iron fence. This sounds a lot like an episode of “Freaks and Geeks” or a plot point from “Revenge of the Nerds,” but these teens, aged 13 to 17, were charged with kidnapping, aggravated assault, criminal restraint, terroristic threats, reckless endangering of another person and conspiracy. Yes, their behavior was bad and yes, they were definitely bullies – but kidnapping and terroristic threats? Conspiracy? Let’s be realistic. These are, for better or worse, kids being kids.

So, with bullies now under attack from every corner of society, who will come to their defense? More importantly, do they even warrant defense? Shouldn’t we just let their hulking, threatening presence fade quietly from our landscape?

I say no, and, if popular culture is any gauge of society’s needs, the answer is a resounding ‘no.’ Think of all the great films that hinge on bullying behavior. Imagine “Back to the Future” without Biff. “A Christmas Story” sans Scut Farkus. Imagine “Mean Girls” without … well, the mean girls. What would “My Bodyguard” be like without Clifford Peach’s obsessive need for a bodyguard? The list of films with bullies is practically endless: from “Heathers” to “The Karate Kid.” From “Full Metal Jacket” to “Stripes” and “An Officer and a Gentleman.” (Yes, drill sergeants are often THE quintessential Hollywood bully.)

Bullies have been featured in books and comics, ballads and Broadway plays. Every drama needs conflict; every protagonist must have his antagonist. The world of entertainment would be sorely diminished if bullies were made to disappear.

What about the real world? Do bullies serve a role in our society? Would we lose something vital by removing the bully from our schools and our workplaces? I believe the answer to both questions is yes.

Understand, I say this not as someone who was once a bully, but as someone who was the victim of a bully’s wrath on more than one occasion. I still remember the fear I felt some mornings just going to school. I remember the dread with which I approached certain classes. I vividly recall riding my bike as fast as I could to escape some thugs in high pursuit, bent on my destruction.

But even more vividly, I recall the pride I felt in outsmarting some of these Neanderthals; the satisfaction in outracing them to the safety of “my property.” More than anything, I remember the joy I felt when I finally stood up to them – when I stared them down or fought them off. In some crazy way, those bullies had served their purpose. They made me sharper, faster, stronger, smarter … and better.

In movies, as in real life, we cheer when the wimps finally overcome their oppressors; when the nerds finally get their revenge; and when the good girls finally upstage the mean girls. Sometimes, without the bad guys to push us, we never know how resilient we can be. Without someone to pick on us, we may never know how much we can endure.

Now, I’m not endorsing public humiliation and beatings. I’m just saying that a certain amount of aggression – with an equal dose of opposition – has a place in our society. I truly believe we remove it at a cost.

Many will say, “But what about all the suicides, depression, and school shootings?”

To them I say this: Bullies have been around for as long as there have been human beings. What we are seeing today – the teen suicides, diagnoses of depression, and school shootings – is relatively new.

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions.

When you “ban” all forms of aggression from healthy young boys, when you modify competitions so that everyone is a winner, when you downplay and minimize masculinity, and when you remove tag, dodge ball, and playground equipment – there will be consequences. Boys will channel their natural tendencies into other outlets.

When you medicate children with psychotropic drugs to make them more docile and controllable you invite all kinds of dangerous side effects: from depression and suicidal thoughts to violent acts of aggression.

And when you take away adversity, conflict, competition, failure, humility, and, yes, a little bullying, you will end up with kids who are completely unprepared to handle the tougher aspects of life.

This is, ultimately, bad for them and bad for society.

Bullies indeed serve a purpose. They push us to test our limits, they challenge us, and they force us to confront our fears. Ironically, we remove these purveyors of pain at our own peril.

Presidents’ Remarks Concerning September 11, 2001 – September 11, 2012

September 12, 2001

President Bush

The following is the full text of President Bush’s public remarks during a Cabinet meeting Wednesday.

PRESIDENT BUSH: I just completed a meeting with our national security team, and we’ve received the latest intelligence updates.

The deliberate and deadly attacks, which were carried out yesterday against our country, were more than acts of terror. They were acts of war.

This will require our country to unite in steadfast determination and resolve. Freedom and democracy are under attack. The American people need to know we’re facing a different enemy than we have ever faced.

This enemy hides in shadows and has no regard for human life. This is an enemy who preys on innocent and unsuspecting people, then runs for cover, but it won’t be able to run for cover forever. This is an enemy that tries to hide, but it won’t be able to hide forever. This is an enemy that thinks its harbors are safe, but they won’t be safe forever. This enemy attacked not just our people but all freedom-loving people everywhere in the world.

The United States of America will use all our resources to conquer this enemy. We will rally the world. We will be patient. We’ll be focused, and we will be steadfast in our determination. This battle will take time and resolve, but make no mistake about it, we will win.

The federal government and all our agencies are conducting business, but it is not business as usual. “…I will carry this,” said President Bush during a joint session of Congress, September 20, 2001. “It is the police shield of a man named George Howard, who died at the World Trade Center trying to save others. …This is my reminder of lives that ended, and a task that does not end.” Courtesy George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum. (P7616-14a)We are operating on heightened security alert. America is going forward, and as we do so, we must remain keenly aware of the threats to our country.

Those in authority should take appropriate precautions to protect our citizens. But we will not allow this enemy to win the war by changing our way of life or restricting our freedoms.

This morning, I am sending to Congress a request for emergency funding authority so that we are prepared to spend whatever it takes to rescue victims, to help the citizens of New York City and Washington, D. C., respond to this tragedy, and to protect our national security.

I want to thank the members of Congress for their unity and support. America is united. The freedom-loving nations of the world stand by our side. This will be a monumental struggle of good versus evil, but good will prevail. Thank you very much.

September 23, 2012

During an appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Mr. Obama was interviewed by Steve Kroft about the events in Benghazi (partial transcript). During this interview, Mr. Obama deliberately dodged acknowledging or using the word “terrorism”:

KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”

OBAMA: “Right.”

KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”

OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”

Remembering 9/11: Another Perspective from ‘Across the Little Pond’

by Genevieve, Sr. Advisor and Editor

I received the following thoughts in an email just when I was stumped about how I could contribute to the 9/11/01 and 9/11/12 remembrance. How uncanny. I consider the sentiments expressed appropriate as reminders of the atrocities and disrespect.

Thought you might like to read this letter to the editor of a British national newspaper. Ever notice how some people just seem to know how to write a letter?

Written by a housewife, to her daily newspaper:

‘Are we fighting a war on terror or aren’t we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores in July 2002, and in New York Sept 11, 2001 and have continually threatened to do so since?

Were people from all over the world, not brutally murdered that day in Washington, and in downtown Manhattan, and in a field in Pennsylvania?

Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn’t they?

And I’m supposed to care that a few Taliban were claiming to be tortured by a justice system of the nation they come from and are fighting against in a brutal insurgency.

I’ll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere belief of which is a crime punishable by beheading in Afghanistan.

I’ll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg’s head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

I’ll care when the cowardly so-called ‘insurgents’ in Afghanistan come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques and behind women and children.

I’ll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of Nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

I’ll care when the British media stops pretending that their freedom of speech on stories is more important than the lives of the soldiers on the ground or their families waiting at home to hear about them when something happens.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a British soldier roughing up an insurgent terrorist to obtain information, know this:

I don’t care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take this to the bank:

I don’t care.

When I hear that a prisoner – who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and ‘fed special food’ that is paid for by my taxes – is complaining that his holy book is being ‘mishandled,’ you can absolutely believe in your heart-of-hearts:

I don’t care.

And oh, by the way, I’ve noticed that sometimes it’s spelled ‘Koran’ and other times ‘Quran…’ Well, believe me! You guessed it …

I don’t care!!!

“Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don’t have that problem.” President Ronald Reagan

I have another quote that I would like to add:

Only six defining forces have ever offered to die for you

1. Jesus Christ

2. The British Soldier

3. The Canadian Soldier

4. The US Soldier

5. The New Zealand Soldier, and

6. The Australian Soldier

One died for your soul, the other 5 for your freedom.