To the Editor:

Elections have consequences and we are now see the inevitable consequences of re-electing a socialist to our highest office.

We now have a traitor, who lied to Congress about alleged war crimes in Vietnam and who lied to his fellow traitors by throwing someone else’s ribbons over the White House fence, serving as secretary of state.

We have an anti-Semitic, anti-military Republican-In-Name-Only about to be selected as secretary of defense.

We have the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stating that the role of the military is to increase diversity, rather than win wars, while we lower the standards enough to allow women to pass the physical standards to serve in combat arms units.

This should not be confused with serving effectively in ground combat, where the enemy gets a vote.

And finally, we have the president reducing our nuclear arsenal when our enemies with nuclear weapons are increasing theirs.

As the next four years unfold and our socialist leadership does everything possible to neuter our country and our Constitution, I hope no one misunderstands me when I hope and pray that they fail.

God Bless America.

Mike Phillips

Copperas Cove

(1) comment


Nowadays, it seems "politically correct" to assign a distasteful - albeit often wrong - terminology to an opponent or opposing philosophy. For instance: Webster's defines socialism as:

1: Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (kind of like the Bush administration’s take-over of the nation’s financial system and distribution of Americans’ tax money to banks, insurance companies, foreign investors and Wall Street); and/or

2: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property (kind of like the “conservative-controlled” U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that eminent domain can be utilized to take your property away from you and award it to a favored investor); and/or

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done (kind of like today’s huge disparities between pay levels for employees and CEOs – including those that destroyed the very entities they managed).

In addition, socialism has been defined as “fascism with a capitalist veneer.” Fascist regimes of both Mussolini and Hitler were forms of national socialism. (NAZI was the short form for Germany’s National Socialist Party.) Mussolini - the prototypical fascist - summarized fascism as control of the government by corporations, FDR described it as “ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power” (kind of like today’s big corporations that have “bought the U.S. government” through lobbyists and contributions to politicians and bureaucrats).

Scholars of such systems agree that fascism attracts its support from the "far right" or "extreme right”, and some hold that “Fascists are pushed towards conservatism...but are prepared to override conservative interests.” Somehow, the term socialist just doesn't fit President Obama nearly as much as it did the previous administration.

With respect to Obama's cabinet choices, one should be reminded that the so called "traitor" was overwhelming endorsed and confirmed by Senators - including those claiming to be conservatives. Meanwhile, confirmation of the "anti-military" nominee is being held up due to alleged lies surrounding an attack on a foreign consulate in which four U.S. citizens were killed. It is strange that those same Senators did not question the U.S.'s being drawn into two decades-old wars resulting in the deaths of thousands of U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent civilians - and all based totally on lies.

In the twentieth century, warfare was changed by mechanization, and in this century, it is being changed by technology. I can remember when there were few women driving big trucks; historically women were considered incompetent to vote; and I remember when Blacks were considered unfit to serve at the front - take a look at today's military. I am inclined to lean more toward an assessment by a historically-knowledgeable friend, " Women were not allowed to fight in ancient armies because the ladies were just too brutal."

By the way - The U.S. has enough nuclear capability to incinerate the world a dozen times over. How much more crisp do we need to make it?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.