As the left continues to fume about the electronic surveillance techniques of the National Security Agency, they omit the fact that Presidents Carter and Clinton authorized the same.  Those presidents were correct in doing so as is any president trying to defend our nation.  The left also omits the most important fact of all.  It is the left that is trying to quietly steal our civil liberties one by one. 

As an American citizen who is not committing treason, terrorism, or even sedition, I have never had my civil liberties infringed upon by the Republican Party or by anyone on the right.  Hopefully, non-citizens, illegal aliens, traitors, terrorists or those committing sedition HAVE had their civil liberties infringed upon…because they have no right to any civil liberties. 

On the other hand, I have had my civil liberties infringed upon by the left…every day!  I have outlined the ways this has happened several times on this blog.  Property rights, smoking rights, helmet usage, lighting in the city, religious freedom…the list goes on and on and, unfortunately, it is growing.  As the left decries the Patriot Act and the use of electronic surveillance by the NSA, they are empowering the enemy and those who have committed the CRIME of illegally entering this country while they are quietly restricting our rights as American citizens. 

The left will go to any lengths to cover its tracks.  For example, in a letter to the editor (Minneapolis StarTribune, 12/30/05), Mark Johnson wrote that “In this time of reconsideration of the Patriot Act, I think it is beneficial to consider the wisdom of former President James Madison:

‘I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.’”

The writer relates the brilliant words of President Madison to the Patriot Act.  The Patriot Act has nothing to do with “the people” (i.e., the good guys).  It has to do with the bad guys and being able to catch them, much as a similar act (i.e., Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) has been used to catch gangsters and other criminals working as conspirators to hurt the rest of us.

As if through prescience, President James Madison presaged the event of our time.  His words do not relate in any way to the Patriot Act.  The Patriot Act is not usurping any of the rights of those of us who are not terrorists.  The left, on the other hand, is quietly working to take away our freedoms and our civil liberties…every day. 

We cannot let leftist redirection and subterfuge work on us.  We have to rid ourselves of the hypnotic effect that the left seems to have on us and end the deceit and the control.

And we need to do this quickly, before the terrorists take over our nation.

Thanks again for checking out this site.  In the 17 months that we have been open we have had over 35,000 hits.  In December, we have hit the 5,000 mark for the first time. 

We hope that you will keep checking in...and that you will have a wonderful New Year!!!

I just can’t help ask myself some questions as we come to the end of 2005.

Why is it that many Americans think that they have a right to know everything that happens in international relations and in our efforts to win a war?  Even a bigger question:  Why is it that so many Americans think they have this right when a Republican is in office but couldn’t care less what happens when a Democrat is President? Remember, we live in a Republic…a representative democracy…not a strict democracy.  Everyone does NOT have a right to know everything…especially when national security is at stake.  We have a right to elect representatives.  If we don’t like what they do, we can vote them out of office.  In some cases we can impeach them and possibly run them out of office.  We do not have a right to control their every move and we do not have a right to know what every one of those moves is when they are trying to preserve our security and our lives.

We elect…They do!  Many Americans need to take a civics course.

Does America need a new form of government?  More specifically, do we need a government that separates political and military leadership so that the military can carry out its task of preserving our national security free of the influence of politicians motivated by the desire to preserve their jobs…or by even darker desires?  Is our Republic crumbling as we watch under the constant onslaught of leftist politicians who want to see America (as we know it) destroyed?

The military understands the job of defending our nation.  Once war is declared, politicians need to back off and let the soldiers do their job.  This is a lesson learned by many of us during the Vietnam War.

Why is it that it is those who are most interested in taking away the civil liberties of American citizens the most vociferous about the impact of the Patriot Act on the “civil liberties” of our enemies?

Our enemies have no civil liberties.  On the other hand, as an American citizen, I have the right to be left alone unless I am committing a crime, giving aid or comfort to the enemy, or trying to overthrow the nation myself.

Why is it that the MORAL ISSUE of abortion became a LEGAL ISSUE?  Since when does the Constitution of the United States mention the word “abortion”?  Why is this still an issue? 

The “right” to carry out an abortion is a moral decision.  It is not an issue for government.  It is not a legal decision unless the courts find that abortion is murder.  Then it is a matter for the criminal courts.  So far, that has not happened.

Why does anyone care what Brad Pitt, Jennifer Anniston, or Paris Hilton do during their summer vacations?  Don’t we have more important things to worry about? 

Why does my head feel like it is going to explode????

Where are our common sense, our integrity, our self-respect, and our desire to preserve ourselves and our nation? 

I recently found these words and was so touched that I needed to reprint them here. They were addressed to the cadets of the U.S. Military Academy by General of the Army Douglas MacArthur in accepting the Sylvanus Thayer Award on 12 May 1962.   

Duty, Honor, Country

No human being could fail to be deeply moved by such a tribute as this [Thayer Award]. Coming from a profession I have served so long and a people I have loved so well, it fills me with an emotion I cannot express. But this award is not intended primarily to honor a personality, but to symbolize a great moral code-a code of conduct and chivalry of those who guard this beloved land of culture and ancient descent. For all hours and for all time, it is an expression of the ethics of the American soldier. That I should be integrated in this way with so noble an ideal arouses a sense of pride, and yet of humility, which will be with me always.

Duty, honor, country: Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying point to build courage when courage seems to fail, to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith, to create hope when hope becomes forlorn.

Unhappily, I possess neither that eloquence of diction, that poetry of imagination, nor that brilliance of metaphor to tell you all that they mean.

The unbelievers will say they are but words, but a slogan, but a flamboyant phrase. Every pedant, every demagogue, every cynic, every hypocrite, every troublemaker, and, I am sorry to say, some others of an entirely different character, will try to downgrade them even to the extent of mockery and ridicule.

But these are some of the things they do. They build your basic character. They mold you for your future roles as the custodians of the Nation's defense. They make you strong enough to know when you are weak, and brave enough to face yourself when you are afraid.

They teach you to be proud and unbending in honest failure, but humble and gentle in success; not to substitute words for actions, not to seek the path of comfort, but to face the stress and spur of difficulty and challenge; to learn to stand up in the storm, but to have compassion on those who fall; to master yourself before you seek to master others; to have a heart that is clean, a goal that is high; to learn to laugh, yet never forget how to weep; to reach into the future, yet never neglect the past; to be serious, yet never to take yourself too seriously; to be modest so that you will remember the simplicity of true greatness, the open mind of true wisdom, the meekness of true strength.

They give you a temperate will, a quality of the imagination, a vigor of the emotions, a freshness of the deep springs of life, a temperamental predominance of courage over timidity, of an appetite for adventure over love of ease.

They create in your heart the sense of wonder, the unfailing hope of what next, and joy and inspiration of life. They teach you in this way to be an officer and a gentleman.

And what sort of soldiers are those you are to lead? Are they reliable? Are they brave?

Are they capable of victory?

Their story is known to all of you. It is the story of the American man-at-arms. My estimate of him was formed on the battlefield many, many years ago, and has never changed. I regarded him then, as I regard him now, as one of the world's noblest figures; not only as one of the finest military characters, but also as one of the most stainless.

His name and fame are the birthright of every American citizen. In his youth and strength, his love and loyalty, he gave all that mortality can give. He needs no eulogy from me; or from any other man. He has written his own history and written it in red on his enemy's breast.

But when I think of his patience in adversity of his courage under fire and of his modesty in victory, I am filled with an emotion of admiration I cannot put into words. He belongs to history as furnishing one of the greatest examples of successful patriotism. He belongs to posterity as the instructor of future generations in the principles of liberty and freedom. He belongs to the present, to us, by his virtues and by his achievements.

Witness to the Fortitude

In 20 campaigns, on a hundred battlefields, around a thousand camp fires, I have witnessed that enduring fortitude, that patriotic self-abnegation, and that invincible determination which have carved his statue in the hearts of his people.

From one end of the world to the other, he has drained deep the chalice of courage. As I listened to those songs [of the glee club], in memory's eye I could see those staggering columns of the first World War, bending under soggy packs on many a weary march, from dripping dusk to drizzling dawn, slogging ankle deep through the mire of shell-pocked roads to form grimly for the attack, bule-lipped, covered with sludge and mud, chilled by the wind and rain, driving home to their objective, and for many to the judgment seat of God.

I do not know the dignity of their birth, but I do know the glory of their death. They died, unquestioning, uncomplaining, with faith in their hearts, and on their lips the hope that we would go on to victory.

Always for them: Duty, honor, country. Always their blood, and sweat, and tears, as we sought the way and the light and the truth. And 20 years after, on the other side of the globe, again the filth of murky foxholes, the stench of ghostly trenches, the slime of dripping dugouts, those boiling suns of relentless heat, those torrential rains of devastating storms, the loneliness and utter desolation of jungle trails, the bitterness of long separation from those they loved and cherished, the deadly pestilence of tropical disease, the horror of stricken areas of war.

Their resolute and determined defense, their swift and sure attack, their indomitable purpose, their complete and decisive victory - always through the bloody haze of their last reverberating shot, the vision of gaunt, ghastly men, reverently following your password of duty, honor, country.

The code which those words perpetuate embraces the highest moral law and will stand the test of any ethics or philosophies ever promulgated for the things that are right and its restraints are from the things that are wrong. The soldier, above all other men, is required to practice the greatest act of religious training--sacrifice. In battle, and in the face of danger and death, he discloses those divine attributes which his Maker gave when He created man in His own image. No physical courage and no greater strength can take the place of the divine help which alone can sustain him. However hard the incidents of war may be, the soldier who is called upon to offer and to give his life for his country is the noblest development of mankind.

You now face a new world, a world of change. The thrust into outer space of the satellite, spheres, and missiles marks a beginning of another epoch in the long story of mankind. In the five or more billions of years the scientists tell us it has taken to form the earth, in the three or more billion years of development of the human race, there has never been a more abrupt or staggering evolution.

We deal now, not with things of this world alone, but with the illimitable distances and as yet unfathomed mysteries of the universe. We are reaching out for a new and boundless frontier. We speak in strange terms of harnessing the cosmic energy, of making winds and tides work for us, of creating unheard of synthetic materials to supplement or even replace our old standard basics; to purify sea water for our drink; of mining ocean floors for new fields of wealth and food; of disease preventatives to expand life into the hundred of years; of controlling the weather for a more equitable distribution of heat and cold, of rain and shine; of spaceships to the moon; of the primary target in war, no longer limited to the armed forces of an enemy, but instead to include his civil populations; of ultimate conflict between a united human race and the sinister forces of some other planetary galaxy; of such dreams and fantasies as to make life the most exciting of all times.

And through all this welter of change and development your mission remains fixed, determined, inviolable. It is to win our wars. Everything else in your professional career is but corollary to this vital dedication. All other public purposes, all other public projects, all other public needs, great or small, will find others for their accomplishment; but you are the ones who are trained to fight.

Yours is the profession of arms, the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory, that if you lose, the Nation will be destroyed, that the very obsession of your public service must be duty, honor, country.

Others will debate the controversial issues, national and international, which divide men's minds. But serene, calm, aloof, you stand as the Nation's war guardian, as its lifeguard from the raging tides of international conflict, as its gladiator in the arena of battle. For a century and a half you have defended, guarded, and protected its hallowed traditions of liberty and freedom, of right and justice.

Let civilian voices argue the merits or demerits of our processes of government: Whether our strength is being sapped by deficit financing indulged in too long, by Federal paternalism grown too mighty, by power groups grown too arrogant, by politics grown too corrupt, by crime grown too rampant, by morals grown too low, by taxes grown too high, by extremists grown too violent; whether our personal liberties are as thorough and complete as they should be.

These great national problems are not for your professional participation or military solution. Your guidepost stands out like a ten-fold beacon in the night: Duty, honor, country.

You are the leaven which binds together the entire fabric of our national system of defense. From your ranks come the great captains who hold the Nation's destiny in their hands the moment the war tocsin sounds.

The long, gray line has never failed us. Were you to do so, a million ghosts in olive drab, in brown khaki, in blue and gray, would rise from their white crosses, thundering those magic words: Duty, honor, country.

This does not mean that you are warmongers. On the contrary, the soldier above all other people prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war. But always in our ears ring the ominous words of Plato, that wisest of all philosophers: "Only the dead have seen the end of war."

The shadows are lengthening for me. The twilight is here. My days of old have vanished--tone and tint. They have gone glimmering through the dreams of things that were. Their memory is one of wondrous beauty, watered by tears and coaxed and caressed by the smiles of yesterday. I listen vainly, but with thirsty ear, for the witching melody of faint bugles blowing reveille, of far drums beating the long roll.

In my dreams I hear again the crash of guns, the rattle of musketry, the strange, mournful mutter of the battlefield. But in the evening of my memory always I come back to West Point. Always there echoes and re-echoes: Duty, honor, country.

Today marks my final roll call with you. But I want you to know that when I cross the river, my last conscious thoughts will be of the corps, and the corps, and the corps.

I bid you farewell.

The text of this speech is reproduced from Department of Defense Pamphlet GEN-1A, US Government Printing Office, 1964.

Downloaded from: http://www.dmi.usma.edu/Milresources/voices/Duty_Honor_Country.htm

Another Christmas Day is over.  The good feelings of the day are memories.  But some of those good feelings remain in my heart and the hearts of those closest to me.  Christmas has a way of doing that.  A day that celebrations the birth of Jesus that has become a federal holiday celebrating life, generosity, and good will.

So why do those on the left react so feverishly to those who simply want to say “Merry Christmas” in the public square?  On Christmas Day alone, I read two leftist editorials on the subject.  One completely misconstrued the desires of those who want to maintain Christmas.  The writer simply lied about the subject, stating that Christians want to divide us along religious lines.  Actually, they just want the ability to honor Jesus on the federal holiday dedicated to him.  And, they want to maintain their Constitutional right to express their religion freely.

So, once again, why are those on the left so frantic about this issue? 

Because they are threatened. 

Religion is the one part of society that sets moral boundaries, provides a moral compass, and offers unswerving ethical standards.  Most religions do this, not just Christianity.  The left would go after any group of religious people if that group held majority status.  To them it is not about what religion; it is about any religion that has the power to impact the moral fabric of the nation. 

The one thing that can prevent the left from taking over America is an unswerving ethical code.  Those on the left decide based on how they feel at the moment and on what will give them the most power at the time.  They are fearful of immutable moral and ethical standards.  They will do everything possible to remove them from our culture.  Christmas and those who support it are the left’s strongest and most fearsome enemies. 

Just because Christmas Day has passed, let’s not stop the fight.  If our nation is to survive, it needs a strong and unyielding moral compass. 

To be fair, I do have to thank those on the left for one thing.  We were able to rest well on Christmas Day knowing that Al Qaida probably would not attack America on that day.  Al Qaida members know that the far left is doing their work for them by reporting on intelligence activities, by “uncovering” the prisons where their captured brethren are being kept, and by continually undermining the resolve of our people to win this war.  I am sure that members of Al Qaida were singing the praises of America’s far left on Christmas Day…as they looked forward to eternity in heaven with the virgins.  For they know that the left is more fearful of Judeo-Christian morality than all the bombs that islamofascists can throw at us.

By the way, belated Merry Christmas!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As a person trained as a social scientist, I can tell you that true scientists are a curious lot.  They are also open to ideas and the questions that result from those ideas.  In a way, true scientists are like musicians…they are open to all forms of music and to all of the possibilities that musical notes can create. 

Therein lays my confusion about the so-called scientists who reject any mention of intelligent design in relation to the theory of evolution…spitting it out with disgust as “just religion in disguise”.  In effect, they have selected a theory as a truth (the theory of evolution) and have stopped asking questions.  That is not a true scientist.

A true scientist has a special role in society.  We are to look around us, develop hypotheses about what we see, and find ways to test those hypotheses.  A true scientist who is really interested in knowing more would be looking for ways to test hypotheses about a possible relationship between a causal factor in the process that has led to the development of life forms.  A true scientist would be curious enough to ask such questions.  A true scientist would never stop at the level of theory and would always be searching for a cause for whatever processes are being seen.

This is not hard…unless the so-called scientists are guided by ideology and not by science.  It seems very clear that the ideology guiding many scientists today is that which guides most on the far left.  The ideology of secularism. 

When scientists are guided by ideology, they are abusing the scientific process, its professions, and all of us who rely on their work to be objective.  Unfortunately, their actions leave thinking people suspicious of all scientists and the sciences that they represent.  That is a shame because we need all the information that we can get.  And we need to be able to trust that information.

In yet another farcical and blatantly ignorant editorial (“Bush’s speech got tone right, not facts”, 12/21/05) the Minneapolis StarTribune once again showed the true stripes of the far left.  In the editorial, the newspaper once again slammed the President, this time for the content of his Sunday night Oval Office speech.  The sub-headline of the editorial was “His address was full of dissembling, truculence, and spin”.  I doubt that the editor even knows the definition of the word dissemble.  The word is defined by Random House as “to give a false appearance to; conceal the real nature of”.  If the editor knew the meaning of the word, he or she wouldn’t have used it in this context, because this, in fact, is exactly what the newspaper tried to do in its editorial.  Here are a few examples.

“…Bush said that Saddam Hussein had "blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors." Actually he tried and failed.”

“Bush also said that Iraq had "defied" U.N. Security Council resolutions. Indeed it had, but that same Security Council refused to accept U.S. intelligence and wanted to try resolving the issue peacefully by putting more pressure on Saddam.”

“Bush also said that Saddam ‘sponsored terrorism.’ Not for years he hadn't, other than to provide stipends for the families of suicide bombers attacking Israel. That's dastardly, but it doesn't rise to the level of justifying an invasion.”

Okay, think about this. 

The President stated that Saddam had blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors.  The paper says that was true but then minimizes the fact on the basis that the attempt failed (at least in the opinion of the newspaper).  Who is dissembling here?

The President states that Iraq had defied U.N. Security Council resolutions.  The newspaper agrees but minimizes the significance of that fact because the Security Council disagreed with American plans to resolve the issue.  Who is dissembling here?

The President states that Saddam sponsored terrorism.  The StarTribune agrees but minimizes it twice; first by saying that it hadn’t done so for years (in its opinion), and then by saying that paying stipends to families of suicide bombers is a minimal thing.

And the StarTribune states that the President was dissembling??? 

The Minneapolis StarTribune has never had a conscience.  It is a mouthpiece for the far left.  It will spin any issue in favor of the left, even if it means the total destruction of our nation.  Or, maybe especially if it means the total destruction of our nation. 

 Members of the left constantly assert their concern for our civil liberties.  It is one long, ongoing diatribe.  But, they trot out their most tearful and fretful when they think they smell red meat. (Or should I say red vegetables?)  This is one of those months when they are “oh so angered”.  Their most fretful have come out in scores to condemn Republicans for trying to gain passage of a revised Patriot Act.  This week, they have added to their onslaught by condemning President Bush for wire tapping the international calls of Al Qaida affiliates.  It makes no matter that the President has the Constitutional, legislative, and Congressional prerogative to do so.  The far left is in uproar…as usual.  Their claim is that Republicans are usurping the civil liberties of Americans. 

I would sympathize if their words were not so blatantly disingenuous.  Their gnashing of teeth is hard to take seriously when we realize that it is the left that is engineering the day-today erosion of our most basic civil liberties.  I have written about that fact here several times.   Here is a partial list that starts with the December 10 commentary (Social Control and Personal Freedom) but that keeps getting longer and longer.

The right to:

Drive as far as we want

Drive what we want

Remain safe from predators (e.g., Tookie Williams)

Decide if people can smoke on our own private property

Retain our private property

Keep our lights on at night in the city

Wear high heels (for women)

Live in areas with some space around us

Ride motorcycles without helmets

Ride motorcycles that made noise

Smoke indoors

Smoke outdoors

Eat what we want

Drive in what lane we want (i.e., HOV lanes)

Build what we want on our own property

The far left vilifies the fact that our President is trying to keep us safe from murderous islamofascists while quietly eroding our own personal freedoms. 

Why is it that the left always takes the side of our enemies and tries to make us feel guilty when we try to defend the nation that allows them to defame our efforts?  Is it that they just hate President Bush that much?  If that is the case it can only be linked to one thing…he is a real leader and a real man and they are neither.  Or is it because they truly believe that all of America is evil and should be defeated by our enemies?  I am afraid that this is the real truth.  If it is, we all should be fretful.

If you listen to the left, the only thing that Republicans can do right is to destroy the world.  Every single word that comes out of their mouths is a condemnation of the very people who are trying to preserve our nation in a world that has become increasingly evil. 

Remember, it was the left that did nothing to stem the tide of terrorism during the Carter and Clinton administrations.  It was the left that allowed America to be viewed by our enemies as weak with our lack of resolve in Vietnam, Somalia, and against numerous terrorist attacks against American people and interests around the world. 

I have just two requests of those on the left. 

Please…offer just ONE practical suggestion to aid us in our war on islamofascism.  Just one will do.  Then you can join with the real leaders of our country in resolving the islamofascist issue.

If you can’t arrive at just ONE practical suggestion, then please just admit that you haven’t got a clue.  That would be fine.  Just admit it, and let the real leaders lead.

Please do one of the two.  If you do, then whether you have a suggestion or not, at least we will know that you are truly on the side of America.

Richard Berstein of the New York Times (December 11, 2005) wrote that “there has always been a segment of public opinion in Europe, most notably on the intellectual left in Britain, that has been angrier at the United States over the years than at U.S. enemies, whether the Sandinistas in Nicaragua or Al Qaida’s followers in Iraq who beheaded kidnapping victims on videotape.”

Does that seem strange to you?  Probably not as strange as the opposition of Americans to our fighting enemies of the state.

One of the loudest critics of America is British playwright Harold Pinter who blames the United States for lying to justify the war in Iraq.  He terms American action as “bandit acts” and “criminal outrage”.  (He apparently forgets that it was the United States that saved Europe from devastation…twice!)

Pinter was particularly vocal in his condemnation of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in her assertions that the United States is not torturing terrorist prisoners.  Of course, as is the case with the left in general, Pinter offers no solutions to the problem of islamofascism.  As Bernstein noted in his analysis, “Pinter’s harsh critique offered no practical suggestions about how to balance civil rights and civil protection in a world that has experienced the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and in Bali, Indonesia, London, Madrid, and Amman, Jordan.”

Bernstein is correct in asserting that this is a “new kind of war”.  The left doesn’t get it.  In fact, many on the left have supported terror themselves…terror designed to overthrow governments that they view to be “bad”.  Just look at Central and South America.  Who was it in America that was supporting the communist governments or the communist anti-government forces?  Who supported North Vietnam?  Who continues to support the wrong side in every war or conflict affecting the world today? 

It is becoming clearer day by day.  The left takes its stance in support of terrorists who promote communism, socialism, and islamofascism because their membership does not see the takeover of the world by the bad guys as devastation.  Somehow, they have come to see America as the ones creating devastation while the terrorists bring only what is good for the world and its people. 

The left continues to try to force America to fight the war against islamofascists as if the enemy were soldiers in uniform; covered by the Geneva Conventions and protected by international human rights treaties.  At first I thought that this was one of some ethical standards that I didn’t grasp.  Not true.  The outcry by the “intellectual left” is nothing but another attempt to turn us from our course, to discredit our cause, to dissolve our resolve, and to make us appear to be the bad guys.  There can be only one reason for that; to see the enemy win…and to inflict so much damage on democracy that communism, socialism, and/or fascism, have a chance to take significant hold once again in the world.  Senators Kerry, Kennedy, Representative Pelosi, and Britain’s Mr. Pinter are supporting the cause against democracy and against freedom.  That is just the short list.

To all of them, I can only offer a sarcastic “thanks for your help”. We’ll have to do it without you.  That should make it easier for the rest of us.

If you truly believe something…I mean truly believe it deep in your heart…why would you apologize for saying it?  Why would you fear a backlash from those who disagree?  Why would you teeter on the fence?  Why would you ever question the political implications of your opinion?  That is, if you really believe it? 

During the past week, Representative Nancy Pelosi and Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have made firm and clear anti-war statements.  Pelosi has stated that over half of her colleagues in the House agree with her anti-war rhetoric.  Apparently many Democrats are fearful of the political consequences in November, 2006. 

Of course it is all about power.  None of these Democrats want to lose their government jobs in 2006 or 2008.  But theirs is the party of avoidance and withdrawal.  That is where they live.  If they disagree with their leaders then they have choices.  Get rid of their leaders?  That would be especially easy in the case of Mr. Dean (he gave up the Doctor title when he quit that job).  They could stand up and publicly denounce their San Francisco based Minority Leader AND Mr. Dean.  Or they could do the right thing and leave the party and become human (i.e., join the Republican Party). 

Okay, that last part was a joke.  It is based on the remarks made during the memorial service for Senator Paul Wellstone after his plane crash.  At that time, Republicans who came to honor the Senator were enjoined to join the Democrats to elect Walter Mondale in the place of Wellstone.  Sometimes, I enjoy irony.

Anyway, this is what the Washington Post (Jim VandeHei and Shalaigh Murray,December 7, 2005) had to say about the Democrat dilemma.  They noted that “Democrats Fear Backlash at Polls for Antiwar Remarks”.

“Strong antiwar comments in recent days by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have opened anew a party rift over Iraq, with some lawmakers warning that the leaders' rhetorical blasts could harm efforts to win control of Congress next year.

“Several Democrats joined President Bush yesterday in rebuking Dean's declaration to a San Antonio radio station Monday that ‘the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.’ The critics said that comment could reinforce popular perceptions that the party is weak on military matters and divert attention from the president's growing political problems on the war and other issues. ‘Dean's take on Iraq makes even less sense than the scream in Iowa: Both are uninformed and unhelpful,’ said Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), recalling Dean's famous election-night roar after stumbling in Iowa during his 2004 presidential bid.

“Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), the second-ranking House Democratic leader, have told colleagues that Pelosi's recent endorsement of a speedy withdrawal, combined with her claim that more than half of House Democrats support her position, could backfire on the party, congressional sources said.

“These sources said the two leaders have expressed worry that Pelosi is playing into Bush's hands by suggesting Democrats are the party of a quick pullout -- an unpopular position in many of the most competitive House races…

“Pelosi last week endorsed a plan by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) to withdraw all U.S. troops in Iraq within six months, putting her at odds with most other Democratic leaders and leading foreign policy experts in her party…

“Despite Pelosi's claims that she echoes the views of most members in her caucus, plenty of Democrats are cringing at her new high profile on an Iraq withdrawal. Not only did she back a position that polls show most Americans do not support, but she also did this when Bush is trying to move off the defensive by accusing Democrats of supporting a de facto surrender.

" ‘We have not blown our chance’ of winning back the House but ‘we have jeopardized it,’ said a top strategist to House Democrats, who requested anonymity to speak freely about influential party leaders. ‘It raises questions about whether we are capable of seizing political opportunities or whether we cannot help ourselves and blow it’ by playing to the liberal base of the party.

“Without naming Pelosi, Vice President Cheney told troops yesterday that terrorists will prevail ‘if we lose our nerve and abandon our mission,’ saying such precipitous move ‘would be unwise in the extreme.’ Cheney, addressing Army units at Fort Drum, N.Y., said that ‘any decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground and the judgment of our commanders, not by artificial timelines set by politicians in Washington, D.C.’

“In his comments Monday, Dean likened the president's optimistic assessment to those offered by the government during the Vietnam War. Bush fired back yesterday. ‘There are pessimists . . . and politicians who try to score points. But our strategy is one that is -- will lead us to victory,’ Bush said in response to a question about Dean's comments after a meeting with Lee Jong Wook, director general of the World Health Organization. ‘Our troops need to hear not only are they supported, but that we have got a strategy that will win.’…’”

So that is the current situation with the Democrats regarding Iraq and the war against islamofascism.  They are divided.  They want to win in 2006 and 2008 but are afraid that if they say what they really feel they will lose.  So, as a group, they are hedging and whining and not standing up either for or against their leaders.  Nor are they standing FOR their leaders.  They are not standing up against islamofascists.  They are not standing up for anything.  They are basically just standing up against Republicans AND FOR THEMSELVES.

What else is new?

Far left Democrats are selective regarding which minorities they choose to persecute.  For example, they would never persecute an African American murderer facing the death penalty in California.  That would be wrong.  But they have no difficulty persecuting a business owner who wants to allow smoking on his private property.  More and more minorities are being persecuted by the far left as more and more of our personal freedoms are being taken.  Of course, our personal rights are being stolen slowly…so slowly that we barely notice. 

Some recent examples of the erosion of our personal rights:

Business owners in St. Paul (as in every major city) keep their lights on over night.  This is a safety issue as well as an outward indication that the city is thriving.  Whining leftists who moved into condos in the city (with huge curtain-less windows) are now trying to force the city to make the business owner shut off the lights at 10:00.  

An editorial in the Minneapolis StarTribune (December 10, 2005) noted that concern is unjustified regarding the erosion of property rights by cities.  The editorial went on to state that only 5% of the cities in Minnesota had confiscated property through the process of eminent domain.  A small percentage?  Not to the people whose lives were affected.  Just another slow encroachment by the leftists whose focus is on the “collective” as opposed to the individual. 

A leftist columnist for the StarTribune (Doug Grow) wrote about the evils of high heels.  Later, a letter writer wrote that not only is it bad for the feet but the resulting health costs impact us all.  A woman’s personal right to wear what she wants is being attacked on the basis of what is good for the “collective”.  (I doubt that the columnist and letter writer would question a woman’s personal right to an abortion.)

Several other personal freedoms are under attack.  Often we see articles about the need to tax the use of vehicles based on how many miles they are driven.  This is an attempt to regulate travel and, in some cases, to prevent “urban sprawl”.  The left hates that people want to live in areas that are roomy and safe. 

Of course we all know about the continued push by the left to make taxes higher and higher on larger vehicles.  This is just one way of controlling the size of the vehicles we purchase.  A frequent reader of this blog (Meltindex) informed me that in Canada they control vehicle size by angling all parking spaces at 90 degrees.  Subtle?  Not very.  It is difficult to park a larger vehicle in a small, 90 degree space.  Of course, in much of Europe the control over vehicle size is even more blatant. Narrow roads, small parking spaces, and excessively high taxes on gasoline do the job quite well. 

Of course there are many other examples of the erosion of our freedoms right here in the United States.  Laws in many states require that motorcyclists wear a helmet.  Now some are trying to regulate the sound of their bikes.  We know that the Constitutional right to own and carry a weapon is limited or eliminated in many states.  People are not allowed to smoke inside many privately owned businesses.  Now some cities are preventing them from smoking in certain outdoor spaces.  Letters are written to newspapers daily about the need to control the types of food sold at various restaurants to protect people from becoming overweight and thereby costing the “collective” more in health costs. 

The problem is that these examples are just part of the equation.  While those on the left slowly and often quietly take away individual rights for the good of the “collective” they redirect our attention to their “concerns” about the rights being taken away under the Patriot Act.  I believe this is a ruse.  The rights being taken by the left impact all of us.  Loss of some rights under the Patriot Act will impact the bad guys.  Of course we know that leftists don’t want to persecute the bad guys.  But by redirecting our attention to the patriot Act they can continue to steal our freedom without notice.

We owe it to ourselves to pay attention.

Those on the left condemn President Bush for screening audience members admitted to his speeches.  Many of them state that in a democracy a president should not be restricting access in that way.  There was a day when it wouldn’t have been necessary.  Unfortunately, it IS necessary today.

Over the past decade, the far left has become increasingly enraged.  They spew the venom of hate and ignorance.  When they disagree with anyone they shout them down.  While they assert their belief in the right of free speech they grant that right only for those with whom they agree. 

The most recent example of this illogical and sophomoric approach to disagreement came this week at the University of Connecticut.  Ann Coulter, who was invited to speak at the university, was prevented from speaking by far leftists who literally shouted over her while verbally attacking her.  Of course, Ms. Coulter has strong views.  Of course many at the university disagree with those views.  However, she didn’t really have a chance to put those views forward that night at UConn. 

Those on the left who say they promote free expression need to take stock.  The leftists who control our universities would be the first to scream if their “right” to academic expression was blocked.  Notice how they have defended Ward Churchill at the University of Colorado, Boulder?  Where is their outcry at the silencing of Ann Coulter at the University of Connecticut?

Those on the far left cannot get away with only allowing expression of ideas with which they agree.  Their hypocrisy is becoming increasingly obvious.  Those on the less far left cannot get away with not speaking out against their far left brethren.  No freebies here, my friends.  Free speech is free speech for all…whether or not we agree.  When those on the far left call Republicans Nazi’s they had better look in the mirror.  During the past decade, no one has acted more Nazi-like in America than those screaming students at the University of Connecticut.

On December 4, Senator John Kerry stated on Sunday morning television that American troops are “terrorizing” children and women in house-to-house searches in Iraq.  He chose the word “terrorizing”.  No one else did that.  He went on to say that our troops shouldn’t be “terrorizing” Iraqi citizens, and that instead it should be Iraqi’s who do that.

I will acknowledge that, on occasion, all of us use words inappropriately. In this case, however, I can’t sweep the comments under the rug for that reason.  No one should!  Senator Kerry has always chosen his words very carefully.  During his speech to Congress at the end of the Vietnam War, he was very careful in his choice of words.  They still got him in trouble since many of those words were well chosen lies.  

At that time he condemned American soldiers for having committed “atrocities” that, in fact, he never actually saw.  The speech made him famous and led years later to his failed run for the presidency. 

Now Senator Kerry is accusing American soldiers in Iraq of ‘terrorizing” Iraqi citizens.  I have to believe that he knew exactly what he was saying.  Linking Americans to “terror” is popular on the left.  This appears to be just another attempt by Kerry to gain the headlines and to rekindle his political fire.  The problem is that most of us don’t believe that our troops are “terrorizing” anyone.  They are being pressed to rid Iraq of bad guys who really DO terrorize people and who often hide out in the homes of seemingly innocent people.  That is what they should be doing.  That is what happens in guerilla warfare!

The other part of Senator Kerry’s statement probably should irritate Iraqi’s.  His belief that only Iraqi’s should be carrying out what HE calls “terrorizing” acts suggests something even worse than his condemnation of American troops.  That statement sounds a bit on the racist side to me.

With all of his wife’s money, I would hope that Senator Kerry doesn’t really have to work.  He adds nothing to the political landscape.  He is about as useless and un-informative as Al Franken.  His goal is so obviously selfish that it is almost laughable.

Now here is the really good part.  Many mainstream newspapers haven’t even reported this story.  Even worse, those leftist pundits who HAVE commented are attacking conservatives for misconstruing Kerry’s meaning.  I don’t get it.  Words are words and meaning is meaning.  Either he misspoke (which makes him ignorant and needing to apologize to our troops and to the people of Iraq) or he said what he said with intent (which is below the contempt of the American and Iraqi people).

Either way, it is time for Senator Kerry to go home and live the gigolo life that he so well deserves.

For all of those who believe that President Carter was somehow a great president…look at who was his Attorney General…Ramsey Clark. Clark has the “distinction” of being one of the defense attorneys for Saddam Hussein. 

According to news24 (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1845078,00.html) Clark said that one issue that would be raised in Saddam’s defense was the legitimacy of the court, which the defense lawyers consider illegal because it was formed and now operates under US occupation.

"The court has no authority or power to proceed until it establishes that it's legal," Clark said. "An illegal court has no right to arrest people, to hold people and to try people."

This is just another wonderful monument to the ignorance of the left.  Mr. Carter can run all over the world proclaiming how evil we are. He can condemn the country that allowed him to be successful and to become its president.  Meanwhile, his Attorney General is defending a mass murderer in Iraq. 

Great job, Mr. Carter.  I suggest you pound another nail and build another house.  And shut up about anything that goes deeper than that.

30,000 Hits!!!!

Thank you for checking in.  Yesterday, we hit 30,000!  This blog opened in late August of 2004.  In less than 16 months, we have had 30,000 hits, many emails, and lots of thought. 

I appreciate that you are checking in and hope that you will continue to do so in the year to come.

Thank you!

Why is it a bad thing to pay for positive press in Iraqi newspapers? 

President Bush is under fire every day by those who hate him personally and politically.  He has stood up quite well, but occasionally shows signs of wear.  At those times he tries to appease his personal and political enemies.  On one of those occasions he stated that America would never pay for positive press.  That was a very big mistake.

America is being undermined daily by the Arabic press.  Al Jazeera broadcasts anything that Al Qaida demands.  The rest of the Arabic press writes condemnation after condemnation of our nation and our goals, all to serve either tyrannical Middle Eastern dictatorships or Islamic fascists.  As we attempt to give the Middle East an opportunity to progress beyond secular or religious tyranny, we have no real voice in the Arabic media.  By paying for positive press, we at least have a chance. 

The real question is this.  Are the stories that we are placing in the Arabic press true or false?  If we are lying in our stories, that would be bad.  If we are telling the truths that the press will not otherwise publish, that is good.  So far, the only evidence I have seen supports the idea that the stories published for dollars have been true.

Michael Moore writes anti-American propaganda and no one comments.  During World War II his writing would have been considered treasonous, in the same vein as Tokyo Rose.  Day after day the elite media publishes anti-American, potentially treasonous articles that weaken our national defense and our nation. No one cares.  But if Americans who are trying to win this war give an Iraqi newspaper a few dollars for publishing an article that is true and that supports our effort to bring democracy to the Middle East, America is condemned by the American and European left and by the islamofascists that are trying to kill us all.

This is one of those times for our President to stand tall; to tell the world that we will do whatever it takes to defeat the islamofascist enemy, and if that includes buying space in a Iraqi newspaper for a true story about what we are doing in Iraq, then we damn well will do it.  Period!

President Bush has asserted that we will not cut and run from Iraq.  Thank you, Mr. President.

The President is well aware of the difficulties we are facing.  He is well aware that terrorists will continue to attempt to prevent the establishment of a democracy in the very center of the Middle East.  He is aware that most of the Arab states that claim to be U.S. “allies” want us to face defeat and humiliation in Iraq so they can continue to rule through tyranny.  He is aware that the countries in Europe want to see us lose so that they can continue their “business relationships” with corrupt nations in the Middle East.  He is also aware that many leftist Americans (and their naïve dupes) want us to lose because America is too strong and needs to be reined in by yet another “cut and run” defeat. 

Most importantly, President Bush is aware of the loss of American life stemming from this war on islamofascism.  He chokingly cited the words of one such American hero in his speech on November 30.  He feels the loss.  He is also aware of the impact of deployment to Iraq on military families.  He understands their emotion but he also sees their strength and their heroism at home.

Yesterday, December 1, 2005,  Emily J. Bari (Minneapolis StarTribune, 12/1/05) wrote a commentary that choked me up.  This is copywrited by the StarTribune (2005).  Emily J. Bari writes:

“I don't enjoy being the poster child for pity.

“When my husband, Dan, left for a deployment to Iraq with the Minnesota Army National Guard 10 weeks ago, I became a bit of a celebrity. As the wife of a deployed soldier, I experienced an outpouring of handshakes, hugs, e-mails and phone calls.

“Yet as the first couple of weeks passed, I felt physically drained as I was emotionally adjusting to Dan not being around. My fatigue forced me to slow down the pace of life, and my senses heightened as my mind began to relax. I would write to Dan about every drop in temperature; the multiple shades of red, orange, and gold that appeared with autumn; and my delight in the season's first tasty cup of rich hot chocolate. But there was something else I noticed.

“Pity.

“If you've ever been through tough circumstances, perhaps you've also noticed that compassion and pity are two emotions that evoke very different facial expressions, motivations and actions.

“Although my closest friends, family members, and brothers and sisters at church continue to support me as they always have, it's become apparent that some people relate to me as if I were a crippled wife and an unfortunate woman.

“When people ask me how I'm doing, some expect a conversation dripping with despair. They even seem disappointed when, instead of sharing depressing stories of unimaginable loneliness, I simply tell them I made two big pancakes for dinner last night and I figured out how to fix the squeaky dryer.

“A military deployment is indeed a very difficult lifestyle adjustment. I cried my heart out when I realized the bed sheets no longer smelt like Dan. I turn on radios and televisions in multiple rooms because sometimes it's too heartbreaking to listen to the silence. Without my husband next to me, I often feel exposed.

“Yet there is a misconception that having my husband away on a military deployment makes me unfortunate. Please do not consider me unfortunate! Consider, just for a moment, that I might be incredibly blessed.

“First, I married a man with extraordinary courage and dedication, a man who loves me so well while so far away, and a man I can wholeheartedly flaunt to my future children as a hero.

“Secondly, personal character is tested in mediocre amounts when driving in rush hour or waiting in the urgent care clinic lobby. While every circumstance is a test of character, my situation has thrown me into the deep end of the character pool. I'm on a journey that is unveiling a beautiful level of self-confidence. I believe that I am at a time in my life where God has my full attention to teach me what he feels I need to learn.

“So do not pity me. Have compassion for me, encourage me and help me if you want. I will do the same for you. My circumstances may be demanding from time to time, yet I have never fallen from grace into a forgotten, subpar state of being. I, most definitely, am not unfortunate.”

That is all that needs to be said.  Thank you, Ms. Bari.

I know that everyday I end up with more questions than answers…especially good answers.  This is another one of those days.

Why are those on the secular left so fearful of an intelligent debate on the merits of the concepts of Intelligent Design and of Evolution?  Any time anyone suggests that our children be taught that there are different opinions regarding evolution, secularists scoff, minimize, and belittle…not only the idea but the person suggesting it. 

Are they really so sure of their theory (even though by definition we can never be sure of a theory)? 

Is this some kind of defense mechanism geared to protect the secularist from having to face his or her own issues around spirituality?  In my field that might be called a reaction formation. 

Or is this just a strategy developed by the left to quash any remnant of religion in our schools (or worse, our nation)?

None of the potential answers is a good one. 

Certainty about what we cannot be certain is ignorant. 

Avoidance of a part of us is psychologically destructive to ourselves. 

And censorship of information to control the thoughts of others is reprehensible. 

Once again, no real answers, at least no good answers…just bad ones.