I just thought that I’d share Ronald Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing” speech, which he delivered during the candidacy of Barry Goldwater for president. I can’t think of a better speech delivered in recent memory, and it should be a real treat for liberty-loving Americans who have never hear it before.
Stuka Pilot by Hans-Ulrich Rudel counts as one of the most famous memoirs from WWII. Rudel can rightly be called the greatest combat pilot of all time. During his 2,530 missions, he destroyed 800 vehicles, 519 tanks, two cruisers, the battleship Marat, and many other targets. His victories cost the Soviet war machine billions of dollars. He accomplished most of this work in the slow Stuka dive bomber. Though he also flew the faster FW-190, one senses a clear favoritism for the Stuka. As a side note, his memoirs and personal presentations on close air support inspired the developers of the A-10 “Warthog.” Also, he personally instructed Argentina’s air force, which proved highly effective during the Falklands War. Rudel’s influence spanned far beyond his time in World War II!
Rudel favored the motto: “Only he is lost who gives himself up for lost.” His combat record of flying as many as seventeen missions a day and flying through serious injuries like a gunshot wound in the shoulder, badly torn up feet after escaping Russian patrols following an unsuccessful rescue attempt of a downed Stuka crew, two 13mm bullets putting his left leg in a cast (Yes, he flew with a cast on his leg), and having his right leg amputated due to machine gun rounds. Part of Rudel’s secret lies in him engaging in sports of all kinds, hiking, and mountain climbing, which built up a strong body. The only sport he did not excel in is hunting: the one outing he describes in his memoirs almost ended with him shooting his friend Fridolin! Rudel’s favorite drink was milk, and he avoided alcohol assiduously.
WASHINGTON — During a routine perimeter check in the desert of Afghanistan, Isky found a roadside bomb. He had come to a complete stop, sitting near the explosive device, patiently waiting for orders from his best friend, Army Sgt. Wess Brown. The IED – buried two feet deep – was a 120-pound bomb. Isky, a […]
via Working Dogs honored for their service — Pacific Paratrooper
One wonders whether there exists a more succinct and lucid summary of Winston Churchill’s political thought than Larry P. Arnn’s Churchill’s Trial. Significant time has passed between my reading this book and writing my thoughts here. One simply cannot do justice to all the ideas contained therein in the space of a short essay. Only Arnn’s long study of Churchill has allowed him to compress so much of his thought into a single volume. It might be compared to Douglass Southall Freeman cutting back Lee’s biography from seven volumes to two or James Thomas Flexner condensing four volumes of Washington into one. Indeed, cutting down Churchill’s thought into a single volume might be an even greater feat, because few modern statesmen have written so much (over forty books, thousands of articles and speeches, and two film scripts) or had so much written about them.
The primary thrust of the book concerns Churchill’s defense of constitutional government and liberty against the forces which tried to undermine it. Socialists, communists, and fascists count as his primary opponents. The last two were the overt foes Churchill fought in World War II and during the Cold War. The first foe Churchill constantly combated within his own country. Socialism stood as the most pernicious, slowly stripping away liberty from the British people in exchange for government aid as appointed bureaucrats gained more power to rule over the British people. The citizens held no control over these bureaucrats, and such officials could reinterpret laws or create regulations free from the check of the ballot box.
The more I think about my vote for Trump, the more I realize that my vote is less for the man Trump than against the Democratic or Progressive ideology. In this two party system we have here in America, where only a vote for a Democrat or a Republican truly matters, I find myself stuck on the Republican side, even though I do not have that much respect for the Republican party. I have respect for particular Republicans, but not the stupid and cowardly Republican politician who is the staple figure within it. Most Republican candidates merely want to keep their jobs and do so by trying to appeal to the right and as many independents as possible. They can never be counted to stand on principle and are all too willing to compromise in ways they should not. When it comes to standing on principle, Democratic politicians are often more admirable.
My political persuasion is determined by my Catholic faith and desire to preserve American liberty. The Democrats, like the Socialists and Communists who are their brothers in arms, have a deep disdain and hatred for the Catholic faith. States like California have tried to imitate Socialists in other countries by declaring parts of Catholic doctrine “hate speech.” I cannot abide a party whose platform endorses abortion, euthanasia, and gender insanity. (God created two biological sexes. Sure, people differ in degree as to masculinity and femininity, but an effeminate man is no more a woman than a tomboy is a man.) I verily believe that Progressive intellectuals and political leaders are more motivated by hatred of of Christ and of God’s laws than by any other cause.
The most popular arguments about the Civil War concern who started it and for what cause. Americans generally accept that the North held the right causes: union and the abolition of slavery. On the other hand, they claim that important Southerners wished to expand slavery and duped their compatriots into believing the conflict to be about States’ Rights. (A common rebuttal is “Yeah, States’ Rights for slavery!”) Yet, in these days, the corrupt federal government and the undue interference from that body into the lives of ordinary Americans make people look at the American Civil War with fresh eyes. They ask questions like: “What evidence is there for a right to secede? Did the South really fight for slavery or was there general disapprobation of the institution? Which side really started the war, i.e. is there any truth to the appellation ‘War of Northern Aggression’?”
Two books of interest to those who wish to look into these questions and to defend the Cause of the South are John S. Tilley’s Facts the Historians Leave Out: a Confederate Primer and The Confederate Cause and Conduct in the War between the States by Dr. Hunter McGuire and George L. Christian. Both works reinforce one another; yet, one gets the impression that Tilley’s work relies heavily upon the work of McGuire and Christian. Those latter two individuals served in the Army of Northern Virginia and wrote their reports in the year 1900, when they discovered how much the Confederate cause had been abused in modern history textbooks.