John Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, at the time of his death

Fred Seaman worked alongside the music legend from 1979 to Lennon's death at the end of 1980 and he reveals the star was a Ronald Reagan fan who enjoyed arguing with left-wing radicals who reminded him of his former self.

In new documentary Beatles Stories, Seaman tells filmmaker Seth Swirsky Lennon wasn't the peace-loving militant fans thought he was while he was his assistant.

He says, "John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for Reagan because he was really sour on (Democrat) Jimmy Carter.

Lennon was a closet Republican: Assistant

When self-righteous do-gooders betray those they claim to be protecting

WSJ:

WikiLeaks claims it aims to protect civilians in wartime. Instead it has endangered untold numbers of Afghans who are willing to help fight the Taliban. It says its actions can bring transparency to government, but these leaked reports may ultimately cause less information to be tracked and shared.

WikiLeaks and 'War Crimes'

Even Walter Cronkite!!!

From JammieWearingFool:

Legendary CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite allegedly collaborated with anti-Vietnam War activists in the 1960s, going so far as to offer advice on how to raise the public profile of protests and even pledging CBS News resources to help pull off events, according to FBI documents obtained by Yahoo! News.

Did 'Uncle Walter' Aid Vietnam Protesters?

Heil, Barack!

Barack Obama is using our public school system to recruit for his Alinsky-inspired private army. Organizing for America (OFA), formerly Obama For America, is recruiting in our high schools to “build on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering students across the country to help us bring about our agenda” – that is, his agenda of socialism for the United States of America...And what will these “interns” be force-fed? The mother’s milk of the left — anti-war agitation, anti-capitalism, Marx, Lenin, Ayers, LGBT agenda promotion, global warming, pro-jihad, and illegal immigration.

Read more

Dick Cheney accuses Obama of "trying to pretend we are not at war"

Dick Cheney:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney accused President Barack Obama on Tuesday of “trying to pretend we are not at war” with terrorists, pointing to the White House response to the attempted sky bombing as reflecting a pattern that includes banishing the term “war on terror” and attempting to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center...

Statement Obama made on Nov. 21, 2007, while taking calls on New Hampshire Public Radio:

“I truly believe that the day I’m inaugurated, that not only does the country look at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently. If I’m reaching out to the Muslim world, they understand that I’ve lived in a Muslim country and I may be a Christian, but I also can understand their point of view. …

“The world will have confidence that I am listening to them, and that our future and our security is tied up with our ability to work with other countries in the world. That will ultimately make us safer. And that’s something that this administration has failed to understand.”

Read the whole thing

Michael Yon talks about Israel

He says first:

"It is amazing to me, as an American who travels the world on a near-constant basis, that there is so much confusion over who the terrorists are, who wants war, and who wants peace."

And from the last two paragraphs:

"I hear great concern that our new administration will turn its back on Israel, leaving Israelis to fend for themselves. But these feelings are not limited to the Israelis. Concern comes from numerous allies that the United States might go cold. I'm hearing these concerns from Iraqis, British, Lithuanians, and Israelis, to name a few.

I can safely be called anti-war. But being anti-war does not mean we can hide our heads in the sand in regard to the proximate and growing threat from Iran. If you want to see World War III unfold, just sit quietly about Iran. Iran could be the opening chapter of an apocalyptic era."

From Michael Yon's new article: "How Can the World Be Blind to Israel's Existential Threats?"

Earl Scruggs: strummin' on the old banjo with Joan

Check out the dog on the rug when the camera pulls back!

PS to Bill O'Reilly (this will make you happy!)

Joan Baez was one of the very few, maybe only, "artists" who supported the Communists during the war but called for protests against them afterwards.

Watch the video!

War?

Tensions in the Middle East are moving well beyond the normal point, and given everything that is happening, events are moving to a point where someone is likely to take military action.

A Mystery in the Middle East

George Friedman, Ph.D., is an internationally recognized expert in security and intelligence issues relating to national security, information warfare and computer security. He is founder, chairman and Chief Intelligence Officer of STRATFOR, (Strategic Forecasting Inc.) a private intelligence company that provides customized intelligence services for its clients and provides an internationally acclaimed Web site, www.stratfor.com, that analyzes and forecasts trends in world affairs. Friedman’s column, Intelligence Brief, is syndicated by Tribune Media Services.

Americans have become dangerously overconfident in their personal opinions on matters they really have no knowledge of at all.

When at War Listen to the Warriors

JB Williams

A very dangerous pattern has developed in American culture and politics. Everyone wants to be an expert about everything. Yet too few are even equipped to have a valuable opinion, much less qualify to be an expert. This is particularly true in matters of national security, where so few have any direct experience, any knowledge of classified threat assessments, any war planning background or implementation expertise.

Americans have become dangerously overconfident in their personal opinions on matters they really have no knowledge of at all. Sure, each of us has a right to our opinion. But how valuable are those opinions when they are often not based on fact, history, logic, reason, expertise, or even first hand experience?

In any representative republic, the will of the people is intended to establish public policy. But what happens when the will of the people is tainted by bad information, calculated misdirection and politically motivated hogwash? The people’s decisions can never be any better than the information used to make them. If the information is bad, the decisions will be equally bad.

Most Americans, especially those on the anti-war left, have no idea how to defend their individual home or family from neighborhood thugs. Yet they feel quite confident in shouting out national security advice and military strategies as if they actually know something about the subject. Tell me what Rosie O’Donnell, Sean Penn or Susan Sarandon knows about national security, basic intelligence or military strategies?

Most Americans know little about the world outside their own back yard, or in the case of Hollywood types, outside their gated compounds. Yet they feel quite confident in handing out advice on how to navigate that world. This is an amazingly dangerous trend that sooner or later, will cost a great deal in innocent loss of life and maybe America’s entire future.

What Every American MUST Understand About 9/11

9/11 wasn’t just another simple terror attack that happened to kill 3000 innocent Americans on their way to work. It was a well planned and well implemented “decapitation” strike.

International Islamic terror groups worked together from within a multitude of nations, including allies, under the operational name of Al Qaeda, in an attempt to take out the Pentagon, Americas command and control center over all armed services, Wall Street, America’s financial center, and Washington DC, the central hub of our entire government, all in one day, in one single unconventional strike. We were completely unable to prevent it and we remain completely unable to prevent it today.

The Sobering Truth About This Ongoing Threat

Since 9/11, I have listened to many self-styled “experts” with no experience whatsoever on the matter, make claims like “Hussein was no threat to America” – “Iran has no capacity to strike America” – or – “We should bring our troops home where they belong, and defend America from here on our own soil.”

Whether coming from anti-war leftists, average American citizens or isolationist libertarians like Ron Paul, these statements are not only incorrect, they are very dangerous.

These statements demonstrate just how ill-equipped the average American is to deal with such matters, even to establish formal public policy by voting, if on this basis, void of any understanding of our enemies and the very real threats they pose.

Do you understand the concept of a “decapitation strike,” or the potential consequences of a successful decapitation strike, which was almost a reality on 9/11? And do you understand the fact that the terror organizations that carried out those strikes on 9/11 had far less capability to hit America than Hussein, Iran or North Korea?

Do you understand that we are NOT in a conventional war like WWI or WWII? Do you understand that our enemy has NO rules of engagement? Do you understand that you are their primary target, not our armed services capable of striking back? Do you grasp that they will NOT attack through conventional means, in a manner we are prepared to defend against, but instead, via unconventional means almost impossible to defend against in any free open society?

If You Don’t Understand These Basic Truths, Your Opinion Has No Value At All

Those who do understand these simple realities - also understand that we do NOT want to fight this type of war on our own soil. They understand that unless we want the streets of NY, LA, Atlanta and Chicago to look just like the streets of Baghdad, we MUST fight this war on foreign soil.

We must choose our field of operations and tactics, or our tactics will be dictated to us on a field of battle chosen by our enemies. On 9/11, our enemies chose Manhattan, Virginia and Washington DC as their chosen field of battle. They chose the rules of engagement, using civilian aircraft to attack civilian targets, causing as much innocent death and destruction as they could muster in a matter of minutes.

On 9/11, they won that battle on their terms. Then we changed the terms of the war from that point forward. U.S. streets have indeed been safer ever since, but not without cost.

The Price of Peace on American Streets Is Sometimes War Abroad

This is not the first time in our brief history, that this has been true. Germany never attacked America in WWI, but they did attack American interests and allies. 116,708 American soldiers lost their lives from 1917-1918 in WWI and nobody attacked America. Democrat Woodrow Wilson ordered the troops into battle.

Germany didn’t attack the U.S. in WWII either, Japan did at Pearl Harbor. Yet again, American troops went to Europe to defend freedom and liberty abroad. 407,316 American soldiers lost their lives from 1941-1945, most of them in the European theater of operations, and again, no European nation attacked America. Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the troops into battle and Democrat Harry S. Truman ended the war by leveling Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Korea did not attack America, yet from 1950-1953, 36,914 American soldiers lost their lives in Korea. Vietnam didn’t attack America, yet another 58,169 American soldiers died between 1964-1973 fighting for freedom and liberty in Vietnam. Democrat John F. Kennedy and Democrat L.B. Johnson ordered American troops into battle.

Republican President Ronald Reagan lost 19 American soldiers in Grenada in 1983. He also defeated the Soviet Union in the 80’s without losing a single American soldier in battle. Some think this same strategy will work today against international terror cells. They are sadly mistaken. Assured mutual destruction won’t work against an enemy with no nation to protect.

Republican President George H.W. Bush lost 269 American soldiers expelling Iraq’s Hussein from Kuwait in Gulf War I in 1991. Hussein did not attack America, but he did attack our ally in the region, and American soldiers came to their defense.

Since 9/11, when some 3000 innocent Americans lost their lives on the way to work one morning, Republican President George W. Bush has taken the war to the enemy off American soil. Some 350 American soldiers have been lost in Afghanistan and some 3500 in Iraq, between the fall of 2001 and today, in the fall of 2007. This time, America was attacked on U.S. soil.

But we were attacked by no nation and as a result, we are at war with no nation. This is why we have “declared war” against no nation.

The Myth That Congress “Must” Declare War

First, there is NO constitutional language which requires congress to “declare war” before or as a result of “authorizing” troop deployment. There’s also no constitutional language that limits national defense to only reactionary strategies.

Second, since WWII, we have not been “at war” with any nation. In Korea, we fought to defend South Korea from North Korea. In Vietnam, we fought to defend South Vietnam from North Vietnam. In Gulf War I, we fought to defend Kuwait against an invading Hussein regime from Iraq and the war ended upon Hussein’s expulsion from Kuwait and a cease fire agreement.

In Afghanistan, we went after Al Qaeda leaders and terror cells harbored and protected by the Taliban. In Iraq, we deposed the world’s most brutal regime and known terror sponsor of the 20th century and liberated more than 25 million innocent Iraqi men, women and children. Today, we fight by their side to rid their country of equally brutal terror cells hoping to destabilize the newly elected Iraqi government and leave the region in a vacuum of terror and destruction.

In none of these cases were we or are we “at war” with the people of these nations. Quite the contrary and every soldier, American or coalition, knows exactly this truth, what they are doing, why they are doing it and almost without exception, they wish to complete their mission and return home only after they have secured a peaceful free Iraq able to provide for its own security.

When At War, Listen to the Warriors

I said “listen to the warriors,” not listen to the lone dissenting warrior.

The anti-war left likes playing this little game of cat-n-mouse in which they come upon a single dissenting view and use it as though it represents the collective opinion of the “expert” warriors, such as the case with congressman Jack Murtha, or former Presidential candidates John Kerry or Wesley Clark.

Like any other organization the size of the U.S. Military, 100% agreement rarely if ever happens on any subject at any time. War related issues must be decided by people with proper experience, knowledge of current events and threats and the responsibility to make such decisions and stand behind them

Such decisions must respect the general consensus of the people in-the-know. The consensus of average Americans who live far from the facts needed to make such decisions will get it wrong almost every time. But the vast majority of real experts will not get it wrong very often. In the case of the war against international terrorism, the real (not pretend) experts have it exactly right.

While one can find dissenting views within the ranks, there is NO doubt that the general consensus of war, intelligence and security experts is represented by the strategies currently being employed, both here and abroad. The real experts must have the final say. The average American, the average congressman or even the average President is ill-equipped to make such decisions. Like it or not, the average American is the least equipped of all.

Keeping the War Away From American Streets

To the degree that this is possible, this is desirable. We do NOT want this war taking place in our own cities. This means that we must take this war somewhere else.

In order to avoid a bloodbath on American streets, the fight must be taken to the enemy on their turf, rather than on ours. In the case of international terrorism, where we are “at war” with no particular nation, rather a warring enemy operating in several nations, but under no flag, the fight must be taken either wherever the enemy resides, as in the case of Afghanistan, or to a central battle field of our choosing, as in the case of Iraq.

The problem with the anti-war left is that they comprehend and respect none of these facts. The left has no good intentions for America. In the case of libertarians like Ron Paul and his supporters, though I believe they have good intentions, I also know that they do not understand or respect any of these facts either.

This makes both groups equally dangerous to the future of this nation and those of us who do understand and respect these truths, owe it to current and future generations to hold these truths up for all to see.

In times of war, threat of attacks on our own soil and risk of great peril, the experts must be trusted to do what only they know how to do best. We must respect and support the decisions they make based upon the real-time information that only they have access to.

To do any less would be national suicide.

Sadly, too many Americans are so focused on their personal political agendas that they are no longer able to use basic common sense, even to save their own lives. Hopefully, I speak for the majority of Americans who do still understand and respect these simple truths.

I talk with real warriors daily, so I know that I speak for the vast majority of active duty and retired warriors. God help this nation if we are in the minority now…

JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy A hard hitting columnist, attacking the socialist cancer plaguing America today. He has a pragmatic “common Joe” approach to even the toughest issues facing our nation.

Let the ethnic cleansing begin!

This is the ghost haunting the anti-war left, and the left shudders and screams whenever it floats into the room. All those millions of Cambodians didn't have to die, and all those Boat People didn't have to sail into death or exile. The Kennedys didn't have to topple Diem any more than Senators Levin and Clinton have to work to force the toppling the Maliki. And the Democratic Congress elected in 1974 didn't have to abandon South Vietnam to North Vietnam.

America's Vietnam policy of intervention, manipulation, and then withdrawal represented a series of choices. The Democrats of those years, urged on by a hard left anti-war front, finally made a choice to leave, a choice with awful consequences.

This is the crucial point: The Democratic Party and their supporters made that choice, cheered on by the anti-war left. They own the consequences.

Now we are watching a replay of that debate of 30 years ago, but this time no one is even bothering to deny that American withdrawal at this point would lead to a bloodbath. It is a strange time, because the "screw 'em" school of cut-and-run advocates includes many folks arguing for doing something for Darfur just as we did in Kosovo. It is as though the prospective slaughter of Arabs just doesn't rank with them.

Read the whole thing

The "end game."

Many anti-war activists and members of the American Fifth Column insist that the reason radical Islamist terrorists – insurgents or militants as they like to call them – have taken to jihad against the United States and the West is because of the encroachment of our culture into the 7th Century Middle Eastern culture in which they exist. They point to Osama bin Laden’s 1996 fatwa against the US and the West citing the presence of Western military personnel and installations as the catalyst for al Qaeda’s Islamofascist aggression.

While these points may very well be the justification used by the cadre of terrorist organizations originating throughout the Middle East for attacks against the West, it doesn’t explain their propensity for Arab on Arab, Muslim on Muslim violence. It doesn’t explain the original catalyst for the conflict between Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims and it certainly doesn’t address the Islamofascists’ goals.

The specifics surrounding the original cause for conflict between Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims are disputed by both camps. But both factions concede that it stems from a disagreement over the direct succession to Mohammed, to the Caliph. This subject requires more space than can be afforded here. What can be addressed here is the “end-game.”

That Islamofascist aggression advanced through the use of terrorism is taking place around the world against members of every faith other than Islam is a testimony to the fact that radical fundamentalist Islamists are engaged in an intentional conflict of global conquest. Terrorist attacks in the name of Islam have taken place in Israel, Iraq, Lebanon, Spain, Britain, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Somalia, Algeria, Sudan, South America and the United States – to cite a short list – against, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and even conformist and non-fundamentalist Islamists.

When one examines the facts and logistics of Islamofascist aggression – both in history and modern times – it is hard to argue that the basis for this aggression is Western influence on the Islamic culture. If this were the sole reason for Islamofascist aggression there would be no excuse for attacks in the name of Islam on the Hindus or Buddhists or in any nation that doesn’t embrace Western values such as Thailand, Somalia or most of Indonesia. Yet, the slaughter of innocents in the name of Islam does take place against these people and in these non-Westernized regions.

By acknowledging these facts – and they are indisputable – we can dismiss the argument that the US and the West have brought the wrath of Islamofascism upon ourselves, which is the basis for the argument used by the anti-war movement, the American Fifth Column and disingenuous and opportunistic politicians.

What, then, is the catalyst for Islamofascist aggression and what could be so powerful as to produce legions of suicide bombers and those willing to die, without reservation, for their cause?

While the many elements of this subject are complex, together they indicate an overall agenda that is not.

In almost every declaration and action of the Islamofascist, from Osama bin Laden to Hassan Nasrallah, Ayman al Zawahri to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the goal is the same: the successful establishment of a global Islamic state – or Caliphate – ruled under Sharia Law. This notion is not a supposition on my part. Rather, it is an accurate observation, based on understanding and acknowledging the actions taken and the words used by each of these fascist leaders (note the correct usage of the word fascist).

Read it the whole thing

Vietnam War Myth:Draft Dodgers Protested Against The War

The fact is they protested because they did not want to be inducted into the military. It is worth noting that when the draft was ended by Congress in 1972, anti-war protests almost ceased entirely. Protests after this period were conducted mostly by the hard-core anti-war movement that had close ties to the North Vietnamese Communist Party. For these people, protesting was a job. They derived their income from donations to the movement so despite the fact that the average American male no longer cared about the war (because he was no longer in danger of having to serve), the anti-war cadre continued to protest.

While protesting against the U.S. involvement in Vietnam made some sense for those who were desperately trying to avoid military service, it is not clear why they displayed Viet Cong flags at their rallies and protest marches. People who today claim they were only expressing their conscience cannot explain why they needed to display the flag of the enemy, and burn the American Flag.


The anti-war movement has been often and erroneously referred to as the "Peace" movement. This is a non-sequitar since despite their rhetoric to the contrary, they never actually called for "peace" per se, only an end to American involvement in the war. They actually did not seem to care very much about the poor Vietnamese peasant that they accused American soldiers of killing. Especially if the North Vietnamese and the VC did the killing. And when Pol Pot went on a killing spree, they uttered not a sound. When the North Vietnamese invaded Cambodia, they said not a word. When the Soviets invaded Afganistan the did not protest. Why? Ask them.


The Vietnam War lasted for over 10 years. During that period 58,202 Americans lost their lives in an attempt to preserve the sovereignty of the Republic of Vietnam. To put this number in perspective, approximately 56,000 Americans are killed every year by drunk drivers. Yet Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda do not lead violent demonstrations outside the Seagrams building.


Read more "Vietnam War Myths" Here

Viper's Vietnam Veterans Pages has the whole list of MYTHS and FACTS Here

If love is all you need, then why did the Beatles break up?

Think about it.

If they were not--how do you say it properly--in love, practising love, having love, being love or whatever the heck they meant when they wrote that song "All You Need Is Love"...

...then that just makes them a bunch of those icky type people who always tell you what to do, but they never do whatever-it-is themselves...like these people:

Or...

They WERE in love, practising love, having love, being love or whatever the heck they meant when they wrote that song "All You Need Is Love"...BUT IT DIDN'T WORK and that makes them a gaggle of puff people as far as serious philosophers go, albeit really great musician/songwriters.

Now, if you are going to devote any amount of time to activities supported and/or generated by any one of the various Hollywood Halfwits from the '60's or other brilliant peace and love types like The Whole World Is Saying No War! [except the terrorists] or Violent Protesters Disrupt Tancredo Event At Michigan State University [oxymorons], don't you think you'd want a at least a little evidence that "Love Is All You Need" before marching your ass into the neighborhood (think Dearborn) al-Qaida hangout?

It’s no coincidence that the left-social democrats and the neo-Stalinists of the International Action Center/A.N.S.W.E.R. group are hostile – each for their own reasons – to libertarianism. – Justin Raimondo