TruthForUs.com

I sit beside my dad’s body.
All are gone. He is gone.
Just me, the shell of him, and history.
53 years of history.
An intermittent physical presence.
But a constant presence carried in me.

Now I will carry that history forward.
And in that history, those memories, my deeds, he will live on.
He will live on within me.
He will live on for others through my influenced deeds.
And I will upon future reflection learn yet more things not yet known from him.

He now lies covered up to his neck before me.
Tubes withdrawn, death having come peacefully within several minutes.
Only the side of his face. White, mottled. Slight white hair. Mouth slightly open, to be closed when I leave and he is reclined.
His head on a pillowcase with lace knitted by his mother before him.
The nurse Linda enjoyed the lace as her sister in learning how.

It is well that he died before me. I often feared his having to bury a second son.
Having cried several times alone, I think it best to think on what I learned from him.
It is in what we teach that we each live on.
And one thing I learned from his habit was dependability.
Another was humor.
Another the value of antiques and history.

Interrupted, the chaplains have now come and gone.
One Jewish, one Christian, fine since without Jews we would be not Christians.
The papers for the release of his body have be signed and delivered to them.
They will assure the nurse does not let me forget the pillow case for his wife who sat with him and lovingly stroked and kissed his head so tenderly after his body died.
A tender farewell after more than 45 years of marriage.

I am left to make my peace as best I can in my complex yet simple thinking.
Collect my things.
Have one last cry. Wipe my face.
Leave his body for others to handle.
And begin the rest of my life, the last survivor of my original core family.

But I am blessed with the company of my infinite wife to return to.
And comforted by the fact that my father was blessed with a good wife.
And certain through my many experience proving my faith that all of this terribly hard yet immensely beautiful life leads to a particularly special end well worth having.

Martin C. Boire
January 14, 2009, 8 p.m.
In Tampa General Hospital

Space Debris: My Space Garbage Cone
Martin C. Boire
www.TruthForUs.com

August 22, 2008

The amount of debris from our activities which is orbiting the earth increases the difficulty to use space because of the danger of collusions.

I suggest a simple, semi-passive solution to the problem. I say semi-passive vs. active in the sense that an engineer uses rigid vs. flexible design. It also ought to be comparatively cheaper.

I suggest a cone-shaped space garbage truck, lined inside and out with Kevlar®, its walls thickening toward its base, and its base a solid slug. The walls gradually thicken and the base is a slug due to the force of impact with debris.

I can think of two approaches to the inner wall surface. One, make them smooth so that objects glance or slide down them to the base. Two, cover them with angled protrusions that cause the debris to ricochet several times, lessening the impact of entering debris.

Debris entering the garbage cone will gradually fill it from the bottom up.

When it is full, let it fall back to earth in a safe location, burring up along the way.

NASA tracks the location of most all space. This must include the speed and direction. A course for the garbage cone can thus be plotted which has it approaching the debris from behind, instead of head-on. Or it can orbit backwards, facing the oncoming debris, but at a slower speed.

Place the instrumentation package on the outside, about one-fourth of the way back to protect it from debris, and allow access for service if desired. Mounting it on foam to insulate from impact shocks might be a good idea.

Locate thrusters on the outside for maneuvering. There might be workable passive solar or other methods of which I am not knowledgeable. Place thruster fuel canisters on the outside, perhaps replaceable, though with proper design and planning it seems unnecessary. The need to maneuver would be calculated on all the obvious factors, but it seems maneuvering would be necessary due to impact with the entering debris.

The optimum size of the garbage cone would be a function of the size of the debris it was sent to remove, and how long it would take it to fill to a desirable point for re-entry. Which suggests there could be several of different sizes. It also appears the conical shape would allow several to be carried into orbit as a group.

Another option would be to not have it reenter immediately, but remain in orbit as one object to track instead of the thousands of smaller objects and particles it collected, its orbit slowly decaying.

A drawing appears below.

© TruthForUs.com. All rights reserved. This material may be circulated by email with reference to www.TruthForUs.com, but permission is required for re-publication, broadcast, rewriting or posting on other sites.

Election 2008: Newbies and World Strongmen
Soviet Invasion, a dose of the real world, and the candidates
Martin C. Boire
www.TruthForUs.com
August 12, 2008

The Soviet invasion and slaughter in a neighboring country shows we are back to the ceaseless cycle of world conflict and contest.

In the one corner, a small group of nations who want only cooperation and prosperity for the peoples of the world’s nations.

In the other corner, a collection of communist and authoritarian regimes that want domination and control of individual thought and life for their state and religious purposes.

Light vs. dark.

When there are heavyweights in the ring, one does not send in lightweights.

Thinking the foe vanquished, we in the U.S. have frittered, played and wandered through the last couple of decades, while the Soviets[1] have quietly rebuilt. While we have run up debt and sent production capabilities abroad for cheaper trinkets at home, the Soviets have tapped vast resources and made our allies dependent upon them.

While we have been tolerantly overrun by unneeded illegals, bankrupted by Islamic aggressors, and fractured into 50/50 divisions on most subjects, the Soviets have eliminated the free press, crushed opposing political parties, nationalized energy and food production, and methodically gotten their internal authoritarian house in order. They are now ready to expand.

While our Congress and political parties hoodwink us bickering over red hearings, and the news media misleads us with shallow coverage of irrelevant topics, the Soviets have consolidated their power, and along with the Communist government in China[2], made allies through resource acquisition worldwide, many of them our Southern neighbors.

From South America to Africa, countries with raw resources to sell, now have long term contracts and economic dependency with two strong communist customers, which will have all of the obvious effects on their internal politics and international alliances, behavior and voting in the U.N. to which some politicians and candidates would cede certain U.S. rights.

And here we are, all a-flutter about an unknown with a nice manner and broad smile running for office asking why can’t we all just get along, if we just wanted to it would simply happen. And while previous generations of teens and 20-somethings have worked their fingers to the bone, risked their lives, and fought to the death to build this home for us and defend it against tyrants, the present generation is ignorantly electing officials as if they were voting for idol contestants on a make-believe television show.

It is the perfect storm for the social destruction of America and the loss of democracies across the whole face of the globe.

The dark forces and our enemies are rising to threaten our lives.

In times like this one does not send unknowns into the ring. Especially an unknown whose past is an enigma, religion widely unknown and unproven, with no record of concrete results at any level, whose metal has not been publicly tested, and who is not known to the heavyweights.

One does not send in a smiling newbie who the strongmen of the world would have for dinner. An amateur who, not impressing with his own strength, would have to prove it through the cost of our children’s lives.

An amateur whose message has been withdrawal and appeasement, ignorant of strongmen who want control not cooperation.

A newbie for whom the strongmen will not back down, and who will have to use our sons and daughters to prove up the strength that he himself does not exude.

A lightweight’s lack will be made up for by our children, whereas a heavyweight will not need them to prove himself.

In the world ring where strongmen are not cowed by lightweights, it’s the citizens who pay the price.

In times like this one stops playing around, gets serious, gets ones’ house in order, and gets hard to work.

In a tough world in tough times one puts a heavyweight in the ring.

Notes

[1] I regret the loss of the Russian people. They are personally great, with a great deal in common with us, and deserve a better government. As with Venezuela, it just goes to show how quickly democracy and freedom can be subverted to their own ends by those in government wanting to make the people dependent upon them.

[2] I love the Chinese people. They are as beautiful, creative, positive, and productive as we. They deserve all of the prosperity they are finally enjoying. It is sad that they remain saddled with those who want to dictate their personal lives and spread that control abroad.

© TruthForUs.com. All rights reserved. This material may be circulated by email with reference to www.TruthForUs.com, but permission is required for re-publication, broadcast, rewriting or posting on other sites.

Election 2008: Socialism, Individuality, and Immorality
Why many promises being made are immoral.
Martin C. Boire
www.TruthForUs.com
August 6, 2008

Personal freedom is the sine qua non of moral development of each individual; it is necessary for the human growth of each and so an essential component of human well-being. Individual freedom of choice within societal life, and the resultant personal gain or loss, is the necessary component for each person’s personal moral development. American society and government structure has for centuries provided a masterful construct of responsible personal freedom and personal development.

Unfortunately, shadows are threatening to darken the brightness of this picture. Some in the 2008 elections are now offering citizens the opportunity to exchange that masterful construct for promised comfort.

Socialist, communist, fascist, and authoritarian regimes are extant throughout the world and provide ample warning to anyone smart enough to think. Concomitant with the presence of any of these forms of societal organization is the directing, ordering, and controlling environ which limits the horizon of individual and collective moral development and to a certain extent dehumanizes mankind.

And now the election of 2008 has candidates promising resurrection and enhancement of these dark practices to Americans, marketing them under happier misnomers. These dark practices were originally offered to Americans in the decade or so on each side of Prof./Pres. Woodrow Wilson’s participation in America politics near the turn of the last century. It was then said that Government was to take the burdens off our shoulders, solve everyone’s personal problems, we need not think for ourselves, and others in government were here to care for us. It turned into a frightening machine of leftist governmental and quasi-governmental domination and control of everyday life until it was later shed by the citizenry.

In the campaign races of 2008 we hear many running for office talking a great deal about turning over caring for ourselves to others of us who would get paid by the government to care about us. Under guise of the mantra of “caring”, those who would have our freedom are running for office with great promises of our receiving something for nothing. Nothing, that is, but the cost of our moral character. And of course we would in the end have to reorganize our daily lives and comply with their rules in order to get what they say they will give. It is impossible for them to deliver it without a massive reorganization of our lives and society.

Socialism and Collectivism is Immoral
Now, while the mere act of living is in and of itself a process contributive to well-being in the individual, the process of life must go much deeper than that if it is to bring each person to his or her highest potential. The circumstantial means which provides this process in its fullest is freedom, an essential component of humanness. This fundamental right is recognized as a common standard by the world community in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see www.unhchr.ch). It is held as a fundamental inalienable right, a self-evident truth, precisely because it is recognized as an essential human need.

Perhaps this is why the development of man’s societal arrangements has shown a trend towards it as provided through a free form of government, and why many of those in the world today who do not have it want it. Perhaps also this is why God gives us the right to accept or reject Him.

But I need to show why freedom is essential, and it is to that task I now turn.

Why Freedom is Essential
The why here goes to the dependent nature of man’s relationship with society.[1] Aristotle’s theory held that only in society can man (a term which historically includes both sexes) be most fully human because society is the only association wherein men’s subordination to other men is ordered on principles of justice, fairness, and equality.[2] A fully human life would not be possible were one alone, because humans are inherently social beings.[3] Indeed, all are persons-in-relationships and social interaction thus permits the very personhood of each individual. Only within society does the opportunity obtain for achieving the highest intellectual and moral development. Therefore, the structurestructure of the daily and lifelong activities of the personal individual forms, shapes, colors, and tones the nature of one’s mind set, character, spirit, soul, and self-image.

The Moral Kind Of Authority
Therefore, as to the rulers and the laws, the right kind of authority is democratic authority exercised in the common interest.[4] Rightly constituted laws must be the final sovereign reflecting the constitution, which is adopted by the people and which reflects the sovereign people. The regime is elected by the people and may be called into account by them for failure to conform its behavior to the prescribed conduct. Its purpose is merely to facilitate and coordinate those aspects of societal affairs which the citizens are not individually capable of providing and managing in an efficient or consistent manner. Society is not a supreme moral authority, but rather provides the only condition within which morality is possible. It serves as a frame of reference within which moral actions are intelligible.[5]

Only a relatively free and open societal structure provides the social environ most conducive to personal development and happiness. Its practical resultant is an environ of maximum available opportunities to exploit the human potential: satisfaction of our quite naturally inquisitive appetites; sensory stimulation through total freedom to create or perceive any form of art and culture; the opportunity to travel widely and freely; the wide range of forms of play available; the stimulation of the mind by the knowing of myriad viewpoints made possible by wide-open, robust, uninhibited discussion and debate; the deep genuine feeling of belonging and purpose one receives from being able to read, discuss and question widely, conceive an idea which will help answer a local or societal need, and present that idea for public consideration, the opportunity to join autonomous groups and devise independent approaches to answer individual and community needs; the satisfaction of being personally responsible for the management of one’s needs and problems in life; the free availability of forms of spiritual worship available to each; in short, the maximum opportunity for each to pursue his or her personal choice among the available human Goods.[6]

Actual Support For Freedom and Right Societal Constructs
Although most free thinkers would recognize this theoretical construct as a given, we need not settle for intuition, as the construct is not unsupported by physical evidence.

In the first place, that this sociopolitical theory is both internally and externally valid is evinced by simply looking about the world at the practical manifestations of the main political theories as they are found forming the structure of the various nation-states: Few who have ever lived in free states would choose to live in a controlling state.[7]

In the second place, there exists extensive reliable empirical research on people’s patterns of reasoning about moral decisions which sketches a comprehensive picture of the way in which individuals develop morally.

Lawrence Kohlberg has identified six stages an individual goes through in achieving moral maturity.[8] The omnicultural validity of his findings, according to this descriptive theory, has been established with a high degree of reliability.[9]

In stage one the physical consequences of an act solely determine its goodness or badness. Avoidance of punishment and unquestioning deference to power (that is, skill at obedience) are valued in their own right.

At stage two right action is that which satisfies one’s own needs and sometimes the needs of others. As in a marketplace, reciprocity is the key concept.

At stage three good behavior is that which pleases or helps others and is approved by them.

At stage four right behavior is doing one’s duty, showing respect for authority, and maintaining the given social order for its own sake. The key orientation is toward authority and fixed rules.

In stages five and six there is a clear effort to define moral values and principles apart from the authority of the individuals and groups which hold them.

At stage five right action tends to be defined according to general individual rights as such have been determined by a contractarian process of agreement according to a utilitarian standard. Outside the legal realm, free agreement and contract are the binding elements of obligation.

At stage six right is defined by decision of conscience in accord with self-chosen abstract ethical principles which appeal to logical comprehensiveness, universality, and consistency. They are based upon universal principles of justice, reciprocity and equality of human rights, and respect for the dignity of fellow human beings as individual persons.

Most important for our purposes are the four qualities of this stage development.[10]

First, stage development is invariant. One cannot advance to a higher stage without going through the moral stage preceding it.

Second, one cannot comprehend moral reasoning at a stage more than one stage beyond one’s own.

Third, one is cognitively attracted to reasoning one level above one’s own. The reasoning of the next higher level is intelligible, makes more sense, resolves more difficulties, and is therefore more attractive.

Fourth, movement through the stages of moral development is stimulated when cognitive disequilibrium is created. When one’s cognitive outlook is not adequate to deal with a moral dilemma he or she will look for a more adequate outlook. If one’s orientation is not disturbed, there is no reason to expect development.

Socialism is Immoral Because it Blocks Moral Development
If, as the theory posits and evidence supports, moral development occurs in the transformation of cognitive structures, with the early stage correlative with external rule, then a regime that provides a societal structure which organizes people for the most part through controlling means inhibits their growth to higher levels of moral development. This is because it encourages only a morality of submission to its rules. But these rules are external rules of compulsion, peripheral to the person’s conscience, not internalized principles of motivation.

As Kohlberg’s students Duska and Whelan stated:

If a person spends his whole life doing what he has been told to do by authority, merely because of fear of authority (stage one), or because it will bring him pleasure (stage two), or because it is expected by the group (stage three), or because that is the law (stage four), he has never really made moral decisions which are his own moral decisions. He may be acting in accord with laws, but is he accepting these laws because he is conditioned to accept them, or because he has chosen them as the most ideal? If I do something my father approves of without examining whether it is acceptable, I am merely following my father’s principles, not my own. One must be one’s own person, so to speak, in order to mature fully. One must develop one’s own principles of judgment and action. It will not do merely to follow what one has been told.[11]

To the extent that moral decisions remain out of one’s hands and are decided by another, one’s moral development and growth is retarded. To rise to a higher level of moral development one has to be stimulated, and the necessary stimulation is the responsibility of choice-making.[12] Therefore, the more social, economic, and political freedom a societal structure provides, the greater the opportunities for the moral development of each citizen.

In fact, that freedom is the sine qua non of moral development; it is necessary for the human growth of each and so an essential component of human well-being.

Based on a recognition of all the foregoing (the why), it is clear that the abandonment of personal responsibility to a socialistic or caretaker government form of government nor program is immoral in that it prevents the moral development of each person. Just like the leftist caretaker welfare society of the 1960s and 1970s destroyed the black family in exchange for votes, it will next destroy the entire American family.

A free societal structure thrusts upon its citizens distressing anxiety-fraught dilemmas in which each must exercise choice between his or her wants and others’ well-being. Its structure provides the maximum likelihood that each member will often encounter cognitive disequilibrium and therefore maximizes the potential of effecting movement through the stages of moral development.

This has always been why America has what she has, and is what she is. She is simply the aggregate of her highly moral and personally motivated individual persons.

Regrettably, as I said at the beginning, it is impossible not to perceive the approaching shadows offering to darken America’s brightness.

In the election of 2008 bad socialist and fascist constructs, previously tried and rejected, are again being peddled to the citizenry by those who would prefer to control them, rather than having them control themselves. Personally, I would rather be the observer of ten free eagles than the caretaker of a hundred in a zoo.

I can only hope that through the internet time remains for the citizenry to mutually educate itself on these matters, which for decades have been excluded from education and pubic discourse in preparation for this moment of America’s history.

Endnotes
[1] Though there are differences, John Rawls argues a societal structure which is closely similar to the following Aristotelian construct. Rawls argues that maximum equal personal liberty for every member of a society is necessary for the wellbeing of each individual, indeed, for the justice of the society as a whole. See J. Rawls, A THEORY OF JUSTICE, at §§11, 29, 31-40 (1971).

[2] THE POLITICS OF ARISTOTLE esp. bks. 3 & 4 (E. Barker trans. & ed. 1946 rpt. 1978).

[3] Id. bk.1, ch.2.

[4] Id. bk. 3. Aristotle and his contemporaries meant by the term “democracy” something greatly different from what we mean today. Aristotle meant the Athenian situation during the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. wherein the democratic practice as we know it today was confined to a very narrow class of citizens from which a large slave population was totally excluded. Historical evolution in the 2500 years since the Athenian situation has expanded the class to all citizens at the national level. On contemporary democracy as compared to that of Aristotle, see M. I. FINLEY, DEMOCRACY ANCIENT AND MODERN (1973).

[5] THE POLITICS OF ARISTOTLE, supra note [2], at ch.4.

[6] J. Finnis’ list of the basic aspects of each person’s well-being essential for achieving “human flourishing” are knowledge, play, aesthetic experience, sociability, (friendship), practicable reasonableness, and religion. J. Finnis, NATURAL LAW AND NATURAL RIGHTS 23 (1980)

[7] For a view that the reality of freedom of choice and random chance in open society so unnerves and uproots the masses that they desire to escape from reality to the fantastically fictitious consistency of a comprehensive ideology wherein they may give up personal responsibility for decision making to an all-encompassing totalitarian regime, see H. Arendt, THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM, esp. chs. 11 & 12 (1951)

[8] L. K0HLBERG, MORAL EDUCATION: INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACHES 23, 86-88 (Beck, Crittendon, & Sullivan, eds. 1971).

[9] Id. at 34, 41.

[10] R. DUSKA & M. WHELAN, MORAL DEVELOPMENT: A GUIDE TO PIAGET AND KOHLBERG 47-49 (1975).

[11] Id. at 69.

[12] L. KOLBERG, supra note [8], at 43.

© TruthForUs.com. All rights reserved. This material may be circulated by email with reference to www.TruthForUs.com, but permission is required for re-publication, broadcast, rewriting or posting on other sites.

Why It is Imperative that America Fail in Iraq.
Martin C. Boire
www.TruthForUs.com
July 30, 2008

It is critical to some that America be forced to fail in Iraq. A failure would create many positive results for certain interests and people. The following is my estimation of these interests.

Interest #1: The Pacification of America
It is important to many people and interests in America to pull the eagle’s talons and merge America and Americans into their world community. They believe in the world community they are slowly constructing more than they do individual nations.

If America can be forced to fail in Iraq, our shame while overtake our confidence. Textbooks and teachers will instruct this generation and the next that we were wrong, and that we failed. They will teach that withdrawal saved countless lives, and that those who advocated staying-the-course wasted countless lives and would have continued to do so for naught.

Having forced failure and thereby created a situation in which they are right de facto, it will appear that their advice and views should be followed in other matters as well.

It will be used as proof that America can only succeed when it acts in close concert with the world community. That go-it-alone “adventurism” or “intervention” is unsuccessful. That we can avoid such costly mistakes in the future by signing up fully to the U.N. version of world cooperation and use of force. (Afghanistan is OK because there we are part of a collectivist NATO operation, which such interests view as more of a SWAT team police operation than a national war.)

People and interests who advocate that it is best for nations not to go it alone in the world also necessarily believe that it best for individuals not to go it alone within their countries.

The failure will be thus be used as proof to reinforce the correctness of these interests’ domestic positions that everything which is done is best done as part of a collective group. It will be used to convince people that following their vision of nationalized healthcare, employment, child care, and the like is the best way for people to personally go. And since nations don’t matter in and of themselves, (they are just corporate divisions) then borders and immigration don’t matter (it’s just employees moving around among company divisions).

Interest #2: Selling Political Ideologies and Visions
America has always been a land of competing ideologies advocating their visions for how the country ought to go about doing things. The tangible successes and failures of these visions convince people to follow or ignore particular ideologies advocating them. Nothing dissuades and memorializes like failure. Nothing succeeds and energizes like success of victory.

It is therefor a political necessity for the ideology that opposed the war to endeavor to force its failure. It is a political necessity for ideologies at odds with those currently supporting the war to distinguish themselves by opposing the war (otherwise questions like “why you?” and “what’s the difference?” come up; so they take a position of opposition just to be recognizably different and present a choice for voters and for no other reason.)

Interest #3: Our Military Cannot Produce Success
Certain people and interests believe that the military is inherently bad. Nothing succeeds like success, and so our military cannot be allowed to succeed. We cannot be allowed to have an instance that causes us to believe that our military can produce a success. These people and interests believe that success in the world cannot be produced through military action. It is produced only through dialogue and knitting oneself into the international order.

A success in Iraq would result in American pride and confidence in both our nation and our military. A success in Iraq would prove that we can invade, remove a strongman, empower the people with a new system of self-control, and leave as friends set to work together as two nations in the future. If we fail in Iraq America will not go to war for a long long time. The bitterness of the loss in blood and treasure will endure for decades. Our confidence will be sapped as it was after Vietnam. They will bill it as another Vietnam.

These people and interests like our military for show, and do not believe in actually using it for our nation’s particular interest. Doing so is incompatible with working within the world order. It is OK to use the military for “peacekeeping” in the Balkans, Somalia, or in the future Darfur. But not for national protection. They therefore defund it as unnecessary. In this view America is just one subsidiary company within a world corporation. Competing companies are no longer needed or wanted. One corporate roof for the world; one roof over each subsidiary.

As of mid-2008 it is fairly clear that America has just about finished succeeding in Iraq, and is in the finishing stages of creating a stable friend. Pulling out before the completion of that success will likely leave a security vacuum, cause civil disruption and perhaps implosion or civil war, and leave no history or facts to disprove the pull out. Those who are presently supporting staying the course to final victory will never be able to objectively prove it could have been won. A forced failure will remove their ability to factually create that proof.

Interest #4: Mistakes Are to Be Aborted.
Regarding Iraq, certain interests and people fixate on their belief that we got into Iraq by mistake. They relentlessly brand Iraq as mistake, not an opportunity regardless of its origins.

Many of these people are also of the mindset in other areas that if something happens by mistake it must be aborted, that it is always alright to do so, and that there is never any reason not to. The consequence is that no one can ever physically see the wondrous result that what was lost.

Inconsistency is the hallmark of people who think this way. And the inconsistency here is that these people also love the U.N. and assert that the U.S. should only use its power consistent with the U.N. and its permissions.

But the U.N. rules require that America to see the job through in Iraq. As Tony Blair bluntly pointed out regarding the rules at the beginning: “You break it, you fix it.”

Interest #5: Bush Cannot Be Allowed to Win
This reason is purely personal. It is does not originate from a belief. It is simply the bind desire to make George Bush wrong, regardless of valor and the sacrifices invested by our soldiers for the real objective of the nation.
Here, Bush is close to final victory and thus being right. So it has to be personalized and snatched away from him. U.S. interests, reputation, success, primacy, and military capability are not at play in this reason.
If Iraq succeeds, Bush wins, everyone in the media and politics who has railed against him regarding Iraq will have been proven wrong.
Therefore it is critical to force America to fail in Iraq and thereby establish factually forever that Bush was wrong.
If this happens, it will be forever debated whether America could have won had we continued on. And the other side will be left with only making hypothetical arguments against the established fact of failure.

Interest #6: The Goal of Racial Islam on Par with the West
Many interests and people believe everyone should be equal. Why should Iran and other radicals be kept down by us. They don’t mean to hurt us. They don’t mean what they say. They are just reacting to what we do. It is we who are provoking them. If we just leave them alone they will be our friends. This view will ultimately allow Iran and radicals to control the region. They will organize and arm the region as a co-equal to the West. Our kids will die in the ensuing mess.

Interest #7: Something Good Cannot Come from Something Bad.
There are many people and interests within America who do not like America as it was created and configured. America is not good. Its values have been bad and need to be changed. The views and actions by these people are amply spelled elsewhere by them and their opposers, and I need not elaborate on them here.

For present purposes, the result of their beliefs is that because America is not good, America cannot go out into the world and tell other people what they should do. America is not morally correct and therefore cannot act. It is not worthy. It should take others’ advice and do it their way, not our way.

If and when empowered in this democracy, and thus able to control its national decisions, it will be important to implement those beliefs. So the war, a forced imposition of ourselves on another, is inherently wrong and will be made to fail. And by doing so at this junction that failure will seem as though it was inevitable due to our wrongness.

Forcing us to fail in Iraq will corrupt our soul, sap our strength, and make us more ripe for social control from within. And the social changes desired within America has already been announced by these persons and interests.

© TruthForUs.com. All rights reserved. This material may be circulated by email with reference to www.TruthForUs.com, but permission is required for re-publication, broadcast, rewriting or posting on other sites.