Crossposted from Flopping Aces

The following is a reprint from a 2006 post:

The following is from a letter written in the tradition of a soldier in wartime, writing to his sweetheart back home. It comes courtesy of Michael Medved. Mr. Medved did not source the letter; and Google has come up empty. So I transcribed it myself, from his radio broadcast. I get choked up everytime I listen to it; the same way my eyes can sometimes water when I look at the American flag for too long.

Dear Angela,

This is by far the most difficult letter I shall ever write; what makes it so difficult is that you’ll be reading it in the unhappy event of my death. You’ve already learned of my death. I hope the news was broken to you gently. God, Angie, I didn’t want to die. I had so much to live for; you were my main reason for living. You’re a jewel; a treasure. Please don’t hate the war because it has taken me. I’m glad and proud that America has found me equal to the task of defending it. Vietnam isn’t a far off country in a remote corner of the world. It is Sagamore, Brooklyn, Honolulu, or any other part of the world where there are Americans. Vietnam is a test of the American spirit. I hope I have helped in a little way to pass the test. The press, the television screen, the magazines are filled with the images of young men burning their draft cards to demonstrate their courage. Their rejection is of the ancient law that a male fights to protect his own people in his own land. Does it take courage to flaunt the authorities and burn a draft card? Ask the men at Dak To, Con Thien, or Hill 875: they’ll tell you how much courage it takes.

Most people never think of their freedom; they never think much about breathing either, or blood circulating, except when these functions are checked by a doctor. Freedom like breathing and circulating blood is part of our being. Why must people take their freedom for granted? Why can’t they support the men, who are trying to protect their lifeblood- Freedom?

WE MUST DO the job that God set down for us. It’s up to every American to fight for the freedom we hold so dear. We must instruct the young in the ways of these great United States; we mustn’t let them take these freedoms for granted.

I want you to go on to live a full, rich, productive life, Angie. I want you to share your love with someone. You may meet another man and bring up a family. Please bring up your children to be proud Americans. Don’t worry about me, Honey; God must have a special place for soldiers. I’ve died as I’ve always hoped, protecting what I do hold so dear to my heart.

We will meet again in the future. We will. I’ll be waiting for you that day. I’ll be watching over you Angie; and if it’s possible to help you in some way, I will. Feel some relief with the knowledge that you’ve filled my short life with more happiness than most men know in a lifetime.

The inevitable? Well, the last one: I love you with all my heart; and all my love for you will survive into eternity.

Your Joey

Joseph E. Santoni (I am doubtful that I have this right; but from listening, it’s the closest I could make out; if anyone knows better, please let me know) is one of the 58,000 names on the Wall in Washington. He died less than a year after writing these words.

Curt seems to have uncovered the correct name of the author if this letter: Joseph Santori.

In addition, I ran a Google search and found this about him:

Joseph Santori was born March 22, 1947 and lived in Keyport, NJ. He served in the US Army where he attained the rank of Sergeant (SGT).

On April 23,1968 Santori was killed in action. He was 19 years old.

Michael Medved says he’s a New Yorker; but everything I find on Joseph Santori lists him as being from New Jersey. So likely it’s him; just not with a 100% certainty.

To all those past and present who have bravely taken the oath to defend our great nation and serve a cause greater than their own self-interest, thank you, thank you, thank you!

Also:

Obama’s “advisors” quietly met with Hamas

Another Middle East report from Ynet News stating that Obama’s “advisors” met with Hamas in Gaza. This report follows the still unverified (nor debunked) news release yesterday that Robert Malley was dispatched last week as an Obama envoy to Syria and Egypt.

Today’s Ynet report provides more certainty, providing quotes from Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh’s political advisor… Ahmad Yousuf… that the President-elect’s advisory team has been in contact with Hamas both via the Internet, and with the hush hush meeting in Gaza.

“We were in contact with a number of Obama’s aides through the Internet, and later met with some of them in Gaza, but they advised us not to come out with any statements, as they may have a negative effect on his election campaign and be used by Republican candidate John McCain (to attack Obama),” Yousuf said in an interview with London-based Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat, published Tuesday

Yousuf said Hamas’s contact with Obama’s advisors was ongoing, adding that he was still on good terms with some of the aides he had befriended while residing in the US.

~~~

“The policy Obama will instate in the Middle East will differ from that of his predecessor George W. Bush, although it is clear that the region and the Palestinian issue will not be at the top of his agenda,” Yousef told Al-Hayat, “(the president-elect) will focus more on the economic crisis, Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Secret meetings? Requests not to leak their contact prior to election?

“Different than Bush”? Apparently so…

It’s extremely disconcerting that when Obama decided to extend his premature hand in promise of diplomatic friendship, he did it first with a designated terrorist group instead of a US ally, Israel. Where do our POTUS priorities’ lie?

Now we have to wonder who those “advisors” who met with Hamas were? Is the Malley report now true?

And will we ever know from this “open and transparent” incoming administration?

Considering he is being spared financial scrutiny for his campaign finances, we may never know.

Finally:

How Democrats Are Attempting to Steal A Senate Seat

Vote Fraud in Minnesota is OBVIOUS!

It’s common for vote totals to be adjusted slightly after the election to correct for any errors in reporting votes. Typically those errors will be reflected across the board for all candidates in the state.

But when you find “corrections” overwhelmingly favoring one candidate and coming from only a handful of voting precincts fraud is clearly suspected.

Minnesota Ripe for Election Fraud
By John R. Lott Jr.
Fox News
Monday, November 10, 2008

Minnesota is becoming to 2008 politics what Florida was in 2000 or Washington State in 2004 — a real mess. The outcome will determine whether Democrats get 58 members of the U.S. Senate, giving them an effective filibuster-proof vote on many issues.

When voters woke up on Wednesday morning after the election, Senator Norm Coleman led Al Franken by what seemed like a relatively comfortable 725 votes. By Wednesday night, that lead had shrunk to 477. By Thursday night, it was down to 336. By Friday, it was 239. Late Sunday night, the difference had gone down to just 221 — a total change over 4 days of 504 votes.

Amazingly, this all has occurred even though there hasn’t even yet been a recount. Just local election officials correcting claimed typos in how the numbers were reported. Counties will certify their results today, and their final results will be sent to the secretary of state by Friday. The actual recount won’t even start until November 19.

Correcting these typos was claimed to add 435 votes to Franken and take 69 votes from Coleman. Corrections were posted in other races, but they were only a fraction of those for the Senate. The Senate gains for Franken were 2.5 times the gain for Obama in the presidential race count, 2.9 times the total gain that Democrats got across all Minnesota congressional races, and 5 times the net loss that Democrats suffered for all state House races.

Virtually all of Franken’s new votes came from just three out of 4130 precincts, and almost half the gain (246 votes) occurred in one precinct — Two Harbors, a small town north of Duluth along Lake Superior — a heavily Democratic precinct where Obama received 64 percent of the vote. None of the other races had any changes in their vote totals in that precinct.

To put this change in perspective, that single precinct’s corrections accounted for a significantly larger net swing in votes between the parties than occurred for all the precincts in the entire state for the presidential, congressional, or state house races.

The two other precincts (Mountain Iron in St. Louis county and Partridge Township in Pine county) accounted for another 100 votes each. The change in each precinct was half as large as the pickup for Obama from the corrections for the entire state.
…
Indeed, the 504 total new votes for Franken from all the precincts is greater than adding together all the changes for all the precincts in the entire state for the presidential, congressional, and state house races combined (a sum of 482). It was also true that precincts that gave Obama a larger percentage of the vote were statistically more likely to make a correction that helped Franken.

Anyone else notice that these kinds of voter irregularities almost never favor Republicans?

Who is counting these ballots anyway?