Macclenny, Baker County & Northeast FL

When the terrorists attacked the United States on September 11th, 2001, it signaled that they were no longer satisfied to only attack US interests outside the United States. It signaled that they felt comfortable enough and were savvy enough to realize that the US is no longer a unified country, ethnically, socially, politically, or spiritually.

Some may believe that it never was, and that comes from a lack of knowledge about the country. Of course, there were slaves, mostly black Africans, but there were also white slaves who bought passage to the New World with an agreement to serve a master for an agreed to length of time. Laws of the era subjected them to the same treatment as those who were sold into slavery by their own countrymen. Tragically, unlike their non-black counter parts, black slaves were treated as chattel.

But for the most part, the new Nation of 13 States was relatively homogenous comprised of immigrants from England, and the British Isles. The French were in Canada, and the Louisiana territory, the Spaniards were in Mexico with relatively small numbers in what are now Florida and other places the continent. John Jay's Federalist Paper No. 2 paints the picture very well as he argues for a Federalist form of central government.

Jay wrote: It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, wide spreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty. Providence has in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together; while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distances, present them with highways for the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual transportation and exchange of their various commodities. With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence. This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.

The Founders went on to establish the greatest nation in the history of the world, this United States of America. It survived much since its founding, attacks from without, insurrections within, Civil War, economic expansion that was theretofore beyond the wildest imaginations of men, depression that threw millions out of work and where soup lines were commonplace, and the meteoric rise to preeminence through two World Wars.

Someone said, peace is the short interlude between wars. If the history of man were charted, with eras of war and peace, it would show that statement to be axiomatic. Any student of the Bible knows that God's chosen people were constantly either conquering or being taken into captivity.

There are those who do not believe in God, and that's our birthright in America; but it is undeniable that there is good and there is evil, and no man conceived Constitution could change that. Utopia has been the dream of mankind from time immemorial, but as it is written in Jeremiah 6:14 and 8:11 They have healed (also) the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.

All one has to do is look at history and one is compelled to come to the inescapable and undeniable conclusion that there is evil in this old world. If we can conclude that there is evil, then we must be able to deduce that there is good. So, the forces of good and evil have always been engaged from the beginning of recorded history and that inherent conflict is manifest in war.

Recently, I received an email that contained some information attributed to Alexander Tyler, an 18th Century historian and economist. As it turns out, it is a fallacious attribution but it contains some information that is pertinent and parallel to the conclusions reached in the Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.

You may have already seen or heard this but I would like to share it with you because regardless of the source, it contains some legitimate observations.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, and that is followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years.

These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.

If you recognize where the Unites States is on the foregoing continuum, and you overlay that with the perpetual cycle of war, then it becomes apparent that the United States is at a crucial moment in its history.

September 11th, 2001 was a watershed event because it was the overt beginning of World War IV; despite what Bill O'Rielly says on the Factor, the Cold War was World War III. But unlike the earlier wars, WW IV is a war for the survival of civilization not just Western Culture. It should be clear from everything that we have learned in the past three years, that this war is a religious war. Let me assure you that from the perspective of those waging war against the United States, it is a profoundly religious war, of Islam against the Great Satan. The Great Satan term was first used by Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini to describe the United States.

Religion is relatively repressed as a political force in the United States by comparison to anti Christian special interests and by comparison to openly Christian countries. It is indisputable that Christians, Christian groups and some Christian Churches in America work to influence government, but there are opposing forces, many of which are within those very groups, that work equally hard, and in many cases, more effectively, not only to limit the influence of Christianity, but to suppress its influence.

On the other hand, Islam is the official religion of every Arab and many non-Arab countries from Africa to the Middle East to Indonesia and parts of the Philippines. Whereas there is nominal freedom of religion in some Islamic countries, there are death penalty laws against proselytizing; and often, even as much as a casual conversation about religion that is different than Islam can bring incarceration and torture. In Iran, where Shiites dominate, Islam is not only the official religion, it is the government. There is no freedom of religion in many countries, certainly not as we understand that term.

Estimates of total worldwide Islamic population ranges from 700 million to 1.2 billion and it is estimated that approximately fourteen percent of Muslims are of the Fundamentalist variety that calls for the destruction of Christians and Jews. In fact the Fundamentalist Islamic movement calls for conversion to Islam, or elimination of those who refuse to convert. Whereas the Koran makes provision for coexistence of Muslims and all others, it does so in a way that makes all others subservient.

While Americans embrace democracy under the aegis of the Constitution, freedom and a Republican form of government, it is a concept so foreign, even repugnant to Muslims that many, if not most would rather die than see US style democracy succeed. We are witnessing that phenomenon at this very moment in Iraq where the long suppressed Shiite majority has turned on US liberators in a bid to take total control of the government and create an Iraq in the likeness of Iran. That should come as no surprise.

The Constitution of the US is tolerant of all religions, with that guarantee inscribed in the First Amendment; therefore Muslims can worship freely here. But Islam is inherently intolerant of all other religions and therefore is intolerant of the US Constitution.

Fundamentalism is Islam's most virulent expression. If, as it has been asserted, fourteen percent of Islam's adherents are Fundamentalist, and there is no reason to believe otherwise, it means that there are approximately 152 million Islamists of the Osama Bin Laden variety worldwide. The United States harbors about four million Muslims, and applying the fourteen percent figure, it means that we have the potential of 560,000 Fundamentalist Muslims in the US, who, whether or not they or we admit it openly, support the overthrow of the US Government and replacement with an Islamic Theocracy.

Second, and simultaneously, most observers recognize that a cultural war rages in the US even as we speak. It is best seen in the ongoing political debate, the demonstrators, and one party that is largely comprised of a coalition of minorities and other fringe elements of society, and which are controlled by a group of elitist bent on permanent political power.

What we have here are not merely differences of opinion, but differences so fundamental that it challenges the foundations of the nation and its survival.

The third converging element is the forthcoming election. In it resides the decision of the American people as to which direction this country will go, not just for the next four years but for an entire generation, perhaps even for the remainder of its existence, however long that may be.

As one who has been observing politics and politicians for many years, the contrast between the two candidates could not be more stark, at least in my mind. As a Vietnam veteran, and one who is mightily offended by Mr. Kerry's dubious behavior following his tenure there, there is nothing - short of an outright apology for that behavior - that could even open the door for me to objectively consider him.

Benedict Arnold was an authentic war hero of the Revolution, and like Mr. Kerry, Arnold had an agenda for his personal aggrandizement. When his vision of his own future did not materialize, he turned on the fledgling country and eventually went so far as to abandon it. So, for those in the historical know, when one is referred to as a Benedict Arnold, it is not intended as a compliment. In my opinion there are striking parallels in Benedict Arnold's and John Kerry's character.

So, before Kerry even opens his mouth to begin to convince me that President Bush has made mistakes, has 'misled the country into war,' or has 'lost 2 million jobs,' I see standing there, the tall edifice of a man who embodies evil that I abhor.

On the other hand, what I admire most about the President was captured during Zell Miller's keynote address at the Republican Convention when Zell referred to the President as a man with a spine of tempered steel. One thing is certain about the President, despite his warts, and he does have them, when 'GW' speaks, they'd better listen. The left calls that characteristic 'arrogance,' this Marine calls it 'leadership.' I do not agree with the President on a number of fronts, in particular, as they pertain to military retirees, but I agree with him on a host of others - not the least of which is the War against Islamofacists.

As one who has devoted his entire adult life to the study and operations of international relations and national security, and with advanced degrees in both, I can tell you unequivocally that the oft quoted phrase, come let us reason together does not apply to interaction between Muslims and the rest of the world, especially Christians and Jews.

It is critical that whomever Americans choose to be President this November will steer the ship of state on a course that will insure its long-term survival.

We witnessed during the Clinton years a ship that was largely unguided as it pertained to national security. That administration treated the repeated attacks on the US and its interests as criminal. Athough, they were criminal indeed, they were basically probes aimed at determining the vulnerability of the nation to strategic attack, which we witnessed on September 11th 2001.

Fortunately for the United States, the character of the man in the White House was largely unknown to Islamofacists, and they were totally taken aback by his reaction. Being on the defensive around the world was not what they had in mind, and to put it mildly, they continue to adjust to the fact that they are being pursued like hunted prey, around the clock, around the world.

So, converging on November 2nd, are three great issues, the cycle of war, the cultural war within the United States, and the Presidential election. How we vote, and who we choose to be our President will tell us, and the world, more about America than everything else we say, and do, combined.

America hangs in the balance and November 2nd will define, for better or worse whether this country will follow the other great civilizations into obscurity and the history books, or will forge a bright future of freedom.

One should ask the question in the looming election, who talks about the spread of Democracy and Freedom? And, who talks about building coalitions?

Semper Fidelis

Copyright (c) September 30th, 2004, by Robert L. Pappas.

America at Historic Crossroads

Colonel Bob Pappas, USMC (Ret) GULF1.COM