Every once in awhile I feel compelled to check out Michael Moore’s website.  I guess it is one of those weaknesses of personality that I carry around.  Today, when I looked in at the enemy, I found a long and factually inaccurate diatribe about the election that included the statement that the election was close and that President Bush won it by one state.  I just had to respond.  Of course, as usual, the site’s mailbox is always” full”.  Below is the response that I tried to send.  I will try again, daily, until the email is accepted.

Dear Mike:

Close election????  President Bush won it by one state???  Upon which planet do you live???

Look at the election map by county.  President Bush won by a landslide.  Look at the election map by state.  President Bush won by a landslide.  The total win of more that 3.5 million was more than “close” AND didn't show the entire picture.  Ohio was a bit player in this drama.  Real Americans supported President Bush and decided to throw Senator Kerry back.  Most of us who were alive in the 70's and/or who served in Vietnam know he committed treason.  Most of us who have half a brain today know he was a man without conviction who was only interested in winning the election but who had no idea what he would do if he did win.  Thankfully you and the rest of your socialist friends did more to hurt Kerry than to help him.

I have been asked on my blog whether or not I believe you are anti-American.  I have responded that I cannot answer that question.  What I CAN say is that you are against everything that America stands for...its economic system, its societal norms, its foreign policy, and its government.  Does that make you anti-American???

I have also been asked if you are a traitor.  The answer to that is obvious.  You have produced propaganda (with characteristic inaccuracies and lies) that undermines our nation during a time of war.  You have stated that there IS no terrorist threat.  You have done everything in your power to undermine America and, as a result, you have provided aid and comfort to the enemy.  That, Mike, makes you both anti-American and a traitor. 

I think it is time for you to step out of the limelight, such as it is.  You have never served your country in any real way.  You have not served in the military or any other true service to your country.  What you have done is make a fortune in our capitalist economy while condemning that very economy and the people who created it and who keep it thriving. This makes you not only a traitor but a hypocrite. 

Count this as another "hit" on your site and continue to live in your world of fantasy about the nation that allows you to spew forth your anti-American garbage.  Real Americans know who you are and what you are about.  YOU, sir, are not a real American.

RightOnAmerica

http://righton.blogharbor.com

It doesn’t surprise me that many of the far left continue to describe those who are killing citizens and coalition forces in Iraq as “insurgents”.  It also doesn’t surprise me that those same leftists refer to America’s presence in Iraq as “an occupation”.  The terrorists in Iraq are clearly not insurgents and our presence in Iraq is clearly not an occupation of that nation.  I can only conclude that this terminology is just another way for the left to diminish the accomplishments made by America in Iraq and to “blame America first” for all that is wrong in the middle east, if not the rest of the world. 

Thomas L. Friedman (New York Times, December 26, 2004) has written a very thoughtful commentary on the topic.  Mr. Friedman is probably more liberal than conservative and he has spoken out frequently against the way the war in Iraq was entered and the way in which it is being prosecuted.  Still, he is has a clear vision of what the so-called “insurgents” are about and what they represent.  The title of his commentary is ‘Insurgents’ defending a nation?  No, they’re the face of evil.  I have selected a few excerpts from the commentary.

“This is a war between some people in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world who -- for the first time ever in their region -- are trying to organize an election to choose their own leaders and write their own constitution versus all the forces arrayed against them.  Do not be fooled into thinking that the Iraqi gunmen…are really defending their country and have no alternative. The Sunni-Baathist minority that ruled Iraq for so many years has been invited, indeed begged, to join in this election and to share in the design and wealth of post-Saddam Iraq.

“As the Johns Hopkins foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum so rightly pointed out to me, ‘These so-called insurgents in Iraq are the real fascists, the real colonialists, the real imperialists of our age." They are a tiny minority who want to rule Iraq by force and rip off its oil wealth for themselves. It's time we called them by their real names…Do not kid yourself that this is not what it is about: people who want to hold a free and fair election to determine their own future, opposed by a virulent nihilistic minority that wants to prevent that. That is all that the insurgents stand for.  Indeed, they haven't even bothered to tell us otherwise. They have counted on the fact that the Bush administration is so hated around the world that any opponents will be seen as having justice on their side. Well, they do not. They are murdering Iraqis every day for the sole purpose of preventing them from exercising that thing so many on the political left and so many Europeans have demanded for the Palestinians: the right of self-determination’.

“British prime minister, Tony Blair, said: ‘Whatever people's feelings or beliefs about the removal of Saddam Hussein and the wisdom of that, there surely is only one side to be on in what is now very clearly a battle between democracy and terror. On the one side you have people who desperately want to make the democratic process work, and want to have the same type of democratic freedoms other parts of the world enjoy, and on the other side people who are killing and intimidating and trying to destroy a better future for Iraq’.”

America’s goal in Iraq is to help its people create a government that will bring Democracy and freedom.  Our military men and women are fighting for that purpose, not to help America colonize Iraq.  They are not an occupation force.  They are a force for freedom.  Those who are killing Iraqi civilians and coalition forces are trying to prevent freedom from happening in order to preserve their own power over the Iraqi majority.  That is not insurgency; it is terrorism pure and simple.  They are the face of evil.

Leftists desperately want to see America fail in Iraq.  There motives are varied but apparently include political motivation (if the Bush Administration is successful the next election could be a reflection of the last two) and general hatred of President Bush (after all, he is a “cowboy” among the elite).  More troublesome is what may be the most significant motive behind the far left’s desire to see America fail:  The belief that America is an evil force in the world that needs to be stopped before it grows any stronger.  This motive not only overlooks all the good that is done by our nation around the world but continues to promote a socialistic/communistic agenda that is meant to overthrown America as we know it. 

For those reasons it is critical that all of us correct those on the left when they use words such as “occupation” and “insurgency”.  There is a great deal of power in the word and we cannot allow the left to go unchallenged when their rank and file uses words incorrectly.  Such wording, unchallenged could be one more step toward losing the nation many of us have tried to defend and which most of us love.

Merry Christmas.

God Bless America.

God Bless Our Troops and Their Families.

Bjorn Lomborg is a professor of statistics at the University of Aarhus in Denmark.  He is also a former member of Greenpeace.  In his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist (Cambridge University Press, 2001) he presents reams of data on all things related to the environment.  The work is an amazing complication of facts from which conclusions can be drawn.  One of those conclusions is that science does not have as many answers as scientists would like us to believe.  There is much uncertainty about just what is happening to the environment.  Another conclusion to be drawn from the work is that the hysteria of the fanatic environmentalists is unwarranted from a scientific perspective.  While human beings clearly are leaving a footprint on the earth, we are not destroying it. 

Here is an example.  One of the key areas of worry by the fanatic environmentalists is global warming.  While our actions have probably contributed to some increase in the level of carbon dioxide, “the more realistic models show that global warming is not an ever worsening problem.  In fact, under any reasonable scenario of technological change and without policy intervention, carbon emissions will not reach the levels (predicted) and that they will decline … as we move toward ever cheaper renewable energy sources.” 

I note this example today because the United States is once again being condemned by the “global community” for not signing the Kyoto Protocol.  That agreement requires participating industrialized nations to make major cuts in so-called greenhouse emissions.  It also requires richer nations to contribute to an assistance fund to be paid to non-industrialized countries to help them cope with the effects of climate change.  The protocol does not require anything of the “industrialized” nations, regardless of how their actions impact the global environment. 

First of all, the Kyoto Protocol holds the United States and other industrialized nations accountable for global climate change when there is no consistent scientific evidence to support that accusation.  Secondly, the protocol holds up the United States as the worst offender.  Thirdly, the protocol requires that the United States makes most of the changes and that it pay other countries to find ways to cope with climate change even when much of the research suggests that much of that change is a normally occurring modification of the climate. 

This is not an agreement friendly to the United States.  Even President Clinton backed out of the agreement.  

Here is the real question: Given that the research supporting the beliefs underlying the Kyoto Protocol is weak (at best), why the push for the agreement and, more specifically, why the push to gain the signature of the United States? 

Here is a clue.  The impact of the Kyoto Protocol on the United States would be lowered economic growth in the order of 1-2 percent of our GDP”.  No other nation would take such a hit.  While the U.S. would be facing a marked economic decline, it would be assisting other nations in “coping with climate change”.  Sounds like redistribution of wealth to me.  In other words, it sounds like socialistic policy geared toward weakening America. 

Those who hate our country will do anything possible to destroy us.  They have tried war, anti-war protests, spying, and infiltrating the media, Hollywood, and our universities.  Most recently they have tried terrorism.  In the meantime, they have tried to destroy our economy through “agreements” like Kyoto.  I hope we will stand tough against this ongoing form of terrorism. 

Steven J. Boxmeyer wrote the following in the December 13, 2004 Minneapolis StarTribune:

“Mention the U.N. to the average left-winger, and in that person’s mind’s eye images of the flags of the world stream past.  Happy music plays in the background.  Superimposed over those flags are the smiling faces of people dressed in traditional garb.

“The left-winger sighs, ‘If only the right wing would understand that the U.N. represents the peoples of the world’. 

“A nice belief.  A naïve belief.   A dangerous trust.

“The U.N. does not represent the people of the world; it represents the governments of the world.  The majority of these governments – two-thirds by some measures – are one-party, self-serving, dictatorial thugs … Dare we even say it?  The United States is not subservient to the U.N. and Kofi Annan is not our supreme leader.”

I agree completely with what Mr. Boxmeyer asserts.  But my distrust of the United Nations goes beyond the two-thirds of its membership that are “one-party, self-serving, dictatorial thugs.  I am equally concerned about the members that have traditionally advertised themselves as American allies.  We are all aware of the French connection to the fraud committed under the “watchful eye” of the U.N. during the oil-for-food fiasco.  Some of us have ignored the complicity with terrorism manifested by another “American ally”, Germany.

In a news item reported by Craig Whitlock for the Washington Post, it was noted that “after three years of not holding anyone accountable for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Germany is preparing to expel accused members of the Hamburg-based cell that led the attacks to countries with more aggressive records of prosecuting terrorism. … German officials, legal experts and lawyers involved in the cases said the massive investigation into the A-Qaida cells has been stymied by Germany’s lax anti-terrorism laws, unfavorable judicial rulings and a lack of evidence, making it increasingly doubtful that anyone there will be convicted.”

By way of example, Whitlock goes on to note that Mounir Motassadeq, convicted on over 3,000 counts of accessory to murder for the September 11 attacks, was freed in April after a German appellate court rejected the verdict as based on flimsy evidence.  The terrorist is currently free.

Germany is not a “one-party dictatorship”.  It is however a self-serving nation and one that does not grasp the severity of the threat to civilization by islamic fascism.  Of all countries in the world, Germany should understand the threat of fascism.  Of all countries of the world, Germany has an obligation to counter fascism in the 21^st Century.  And yet they enable terrorism to the point that terrorists must be sent to other nations for prosecution. 

One indication of enlightenment is that we learn from our mistakes.  Germany not only has not learned from its evil history, it continues to promote fascism in the form of islamic terrorism. 

More importantly, Germany is one of those nations of the U.N. that we are supposed to trust with our national and personal welfare.  I don’t think so.  They are as complicit in terrorism as the “one-party, self-serving, dictatorial thugs” that make up the other two-thirds of the United Nations.

On November 9, 2004, Dennis Prager (www.townhall.com) outlined his views as to why the Democratic Party is seen by many as the party without values.  He did so in response to Arizona Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano who asked “how did a party that is filled with people with values… get tagged as the party without values?”

Mr. Prager answered her question quite succinctly.  He described the Democratic Party that most Americans see. I have included some of his responses and paraphrase his words below.

“Here is the Democratic Party as most Americans … see it.”

A party that worships Michael Moore when most Americans see his as a Marxist with “ utter contempt for his fellow Americans”.

A party that condones the actions of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton when most Americans view them as “race-baiting demagogues”.

A party whose presidential candidate stated that Eminem’s anti-Bush hate video was worthy of endorsement while most Americans view Eminem as a “vulgar nihilist who poisons young American’s minds”.

A party that views objection to obscenity at Democrat fund-raisers as “judgmental, hypocritical, and narrow minded” when most Americans believe such language is best reserved for "R-rated films or Las Vegas comedy acts".

A party that shares Hollywood’s values when most Americans view Hollywood stars as fine to watch on film but as “narcissistic ingrates”.

A party that views the military as, “at best, a necessary evil” while most of Americans views America’s military as not only heroic but critical to safeguarding our freedoms.

A party that voted against banning partial-birth abortion when most Americans view such a procedure as killing a viable fetus.

Mr. Prager is correct on all counts.  I was once a Democrat…a JFK Democrat.  In their day, John and Robert Kennedy still led a party that believed in eliminating communism.  They also believed in civil rights, but not in race-baiting and the extortion that goes with it.  They believed in values like respect of others, respect of the law, accountability, and teaching people to fish and not just handing them fish every day.  President Kennedy proposed that we ask what we can do for our country instead of what the country can do for us.  JFK Democrats also believed in taking preemptive action in the name of national security.  They funded our military, used tax cuts to bolster the economy, and still showed concern for those truly unable to take care of themselves.

The Democratic Party of the 60’s is but a distant relative of the Democratic Party of the 21^st Century.  Yet, Democrats cannot seem to understand that fact.  Instead of taking stock of themselves they rage against the Republicans who continue to defeat them.  That is the reason that it has been tagged the party without values.  Until they find their center and move to ostracize the leftists now controlling them, Democrats will find the going very difficult for years to come.

As our nation continues its war on islamic fascism in Iraq, the media, the Hollywood left, professors in our colleges and universities, and many in our own government continue to condemn our efforts.  Some have even gone so far as to say that there actually is no terrorist threat to our nation (e.g., Michael Moore and Janeane Garafolo).  These leftists focus on the negatives of war rather than offering support for our troops and our national goals.  In so doing they are giving comfort and hope to our enemy, thereby putting our troops and our nation at even greater risk.

As many of these leftists pontificate on the evils of our nation and of our war on islamic fascism, they add an interesting counterpoint, avowing that they are patriots.  We continue to see them wearing flags on their labels, while they slander our president and our military.  Some may actually think they are patriots.  Some may use this as a screen that allows them to continue to undermine our nation while remaining safe from accountability. 

The Webster definition of "patriotism" is "love and loyal or zealous support of one's own country, especially in all matters involving other countries".  The New Collegiate definition of "patriot" is "one who is willing to give his all for his country".  I am having trouble seeing how leftist professors, actors, and news anchors can in any way meet either of these definitions.  I have yet to see any who have been willing to give their all, just once, instead of taking all that America can give and then spit in its face.

What follows is a letter that I wrote some time ago.  I have sent it to many, including Michael Moore.  But, I wanted to post it here as well.

The American Way

Some Americans have not had to lift a finger or shed a tear in order to enjoy the freedoms provided by our nation. 

It is easy for them to condemn America when they have had no part in building or preserving it. 

It is easy for them to belittle and attack leaders who remember the sacrifices of millions before us to ensure that our nation became and remains free. 

It is easy for them to blame America first for all that is wrong with the world and for the failures of other nations to provide for themselves the same liberty and success that we enjoy as Americans. 

It is easy for them to join consciously or unwittingly with anti-American political organizations to protest actions by our country that will protect our freedoms and bring liberty to others. 

Criticism and condemnation are easy for those sitting at the sidelines.

Some Americans are spoiled, but they will not be allowed to spoil this nation. 

Some Americans choose to not see the evils being perpetrated on people all over the world, but they will not be allowed to blind the nation from seeing those evils. 

Some Americans choose to withhold action that would preserve our freedoms and allow others to become free, but they will not be allowed to weaken our country or prevent it from assisting people wanting to free themselves from tyranny. 

Some Americans are wrong, but right will prevail because THAT is the American way.

I don’t expect this to get through to those on the left who seem focused on the destruction of the America most of us cherish.  But we all need to keep trying to get the message across that we are not going to allow the left to destroy our nation and the values upon which it was built. 

Today, yet another talk-radio caller pontificated about the liberal virtue of seeing “both sides” of Iraqi insurgency. 

First of all, those to whom he refers are not insurgents.  They are terrorists whose only goal is to prevent the development of democracy in the Islamic world. 

Secondly, good and evil are not relative, nor are they relatives.  Terrorists are terrorists.  Their goal is to control by force and by fear and to get what they want at all costs.  They are evil.  Those who are willing to fight them are good. 

In order for good to win against evil in the most important war of our lifetime, we must accurately name evil and be clear about good.  Only then can we defeat our enemy and bring freedom to the Middle East.  Thankfully, President Bush understands the importance of moral clarity.  More importantly, so do our troops.  MY heart is with them as they fight our war on evil.