In leaflets thrown from black sedans, people in Iraq are making their position very clear.  Their leaflets state that:  “This is the final warning to all of those who plan to participate in the election.   We vow to wash the streets of Baghdad with the voters’ blood.”

As Thomas Friedman noted in his January 25 column in the New York Times, the insurgents in Iraq “have one credo.  Iraqis must not vote – there must be no authentic expression of the people’s will for a modern, decent Iraq.  Because if there is, the world would see that this is not a war between Muslims and infidel occupiers, but between Muslims with bad ideas and Muslims with progressive ideas.”

Why is it that American “progressives” don’t get that the simple fact.  Why do they not support progressive Iraqis?  And how is it possible that many continue to label as insurgents people who vow to turn an election into a blood bath?  These people, by their own admission, are attempting to control everyone else through acts of terror.  They are attempting to prevent their own people from having a free choice of leadership.  By definition, they are terrorists.

Apparently all this has been missed by Senator Ted Kennedy.  During the past few days he has spent most of his energy condemning Condoleezza Rice for having given “false reasons” for going to war in Iraq.  In 1968 it was Kennedy that was giving what many of us believe to be false reasons for the death of Mary Jane Kopeckni at the Chappaquiddick Bridge in Martha’s Vineyard.  Who would have thought in 1968 that anyone would be lectured by Teddy Kennedy, the weak link in the Kennedy clan, on moral values and honesty.  Well, the unbelievable has occurred.  Thanks, Teddy for the irony. 

Senator Kennedy, Senator Boxer, and all of their “progressive” gang would provide much better service to their country if they would stop condemning, stop preaching, and begin to stand up for their “progressive” counterparts in Iraq and their conservative brothers and sisters in America who are trying to defend freedom and liberty around the world.  That is the least they can do.

During the confirmation hearings for Condoleezza Rice, Senator Barbara Boxer stated that the Congressional vote for war in Iraq was based solely on the issue of WMD.  In actuality, the resolution included several other factors.  As outlined by James M. Pitzner in the January 21 Minneapolis StarTribune, those include:

Iraq’s harboring of Al-Qaida terrorists.

Iraq’s “brutal suppression” of its citizens.

Iraq’s failure to repatriate or give information on non- Iraqi citizens detained and captured during Gulf War I, including an American serviceman.

Failing to properly return property wrongfully seized during the Kuwait invasion.

The attempted assassination of former President Bush in 1993.

America’s national security interests in restoring peace and stability to the Persian Gulf.

When confronted with the fact that WMD was not the only factor included in the Congressional resolution, Boxer made a very bizarre “admission”.  She stated that she really hadn’t read the resolution before or after voting for it.

In her attempt to portray Condoleezza Rice as a liar, Senator Boxer did herself no favors.  Her action can lead to only one of two conclusions.   If she really didn’t read the resolution but voted anyway, she is incompetent to serve as a Senator.  If she did read the resolution but then claimed that it contained only the factor of WMD to support going to war, she, and not Condoleezza Rice, is a liar.  In either case, Barbara Boxer is just another left-wing Democrat who is unfit to serve this nation in Congress or in any other office.

Most of us who have thought about the war in Iraq realize that all of the factors included in the resolution made going into Iraq necessary.  In light of President Bush’s inaugural speech, the importance of giving all people a chance for liberty is critical...not only for their welfare but for our own national security.  Interestingly, this was the same message given by President Kennedy (a Democrat) in his own inaugural speech in 1961. 

Senator Boxer and her leftist cohorts have left the Democrat Party of President Kennedy far behind.  They continue to undermine all efforts to bring liberty to the world and to support the security of our own nation.  The sad part is that they do so for their own political motives...motives that seem to include the general weakening of our nation in relation to the rest of the nations of the world.

Congratulations President Bush!

What an inauguration it was!  President Bush defeated John Kerry, George Soros, Mikey Moore, the Hollywood elite, ALL of the liberally biased news media including CNN, MSNBC, CNBC,  ABC, NBC, and CBS (with Dan Rather and his gang of five), the far left in Congress, the various network sitcoms, cable comedy shows (such as the Daily Show), nearly every national newspaper, and nearly all European press outlets. 

The defeat was monumental.  President Bush won 81 percent of the counties in the nation.  He won by over 3.5 million votes.  He won because his values are right...because he has a vision...because the far left is only interested in blaming America first and in seeing the defeat of our nation in the war on terror. 

Congratulations, President Bush!  And thank you for your service to America and to the world.  And congratulations, America!

With its decision to liberate Iraq, America took a stand against evil.  It is that simple.  We can argue about whether or not Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program.  We can debate about the timing of Iraq’s decision to move or eliminate other weapons of mass destruction.  We can ruminate about whether or not we should have ignored the efforts of the United Nations, France and Russia to keep America from going into Iraq.  We can even debate whether or not President Bush spoke too harshly during the build up to the war.   

The fact is that none of that matters.  Many of us knew then and know now that the issue was not simply about weapons of mass destruction, United Nations impact, or presidential language.  The issue was (and is) that we were attacked by Islamic fascists who want all Westerners (and many of their own people) dead...and that Iraq had supported those terrorists in many ways over the years. 

President Bush realized that any nation or group that supports terrorism must be stopped.  The President also understood that it is no longer an effective strategy to continue to support dictators in the Middle East just because they are a bit less hostile to the West than are other dictators.  He understood that the best way to bring about stability in the region is to promote the development of democracies.

Winston Churchill knew before America entered World War II that Hitler wanted to take over the world and that he would kill anyone in his way.  Unfortunately Neville Chamberlain and countless others in Britain and in the United States did not see the writing on the wall.  They appeased.  They procrastinated.  And as a result, countless millions died.  As Churchill stated after the war:

It is my purpose, as one who has lived and acted in these days, to show how easily the tragedy of the Second World War could have been prevented; how the malice of the wicked was reinforced by the weakness of the virtuous; how the structure and habits of democratic States, unless they are welded into larger organisms, lack those elements of persistence and conviction which can alone give security to humble masses; how, even in matters of self-preservation, no policy is pursued for even ten or fifteen years at a time.  We shall see how the counsels of prudence and restraint may become the prime agents of mortal danger; how the middle course adopted from desires for safety and a quiet life may be found to lead direct to the bull’s-eye of disaster.  We shall see how absolute is the need of a broad path of international action pursued by many States in common across the years, irrespective of the ebb and flow of national politics.

Winston Churchill

The Second World War, Volume 1: The Gathering Storm 

Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1948, Page 16.

We must learn from the experiences gained from World War II.  The world would be much different today had not our nation eventually stood up to evil.  The far left seems unable to understand this simple fact.  Many of our politicians continue to remain naïve, or worse, continue to place political gain ahead of defeating our enemy. 

The enemy of today is at least as evil as Hitler.  If we stand united we will succeed.   If we appease, we will be defeated.

As the tension of the presidential election has begun to subside for some of us, I have been struck by the fact that there is a large element of the Democratic Party that cannot let it go.  Facing the aftermath of their second loss to President Bush and the Republican Party, they continue to forward conspiracy theories about why.  This past week, for example, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy and other far-left politicians wasted valuable time in Congress, slowing the electoral vote count by voicing their belief that the electoral process in Ohio and across the nation is flawed.  Meanwhile none of them forwarded the belief that those flaws changed the inevitable outcome.

Like many of us, I ask myself just why far-left democrats cannot join with other Americans and move forward to fight the war on terror, to find solutions to the immigration issue, and to solve the multitude of other social, economic, and foreign policy issues facing our nation.  Then I read the December 13, 2005 letter to the masses published on Michael Moore’s website.  (I read that site on occasion since it is wise to know what the enemy is up to.)  The title of the letter tells it all:  “It’s time to Stop Being Hit”.  Having read that letter, I think I have finally figured out the answer to the question.  Actually there seem to be two answers:

·        Some far-left democrats cannot move on because (as you will see below) they believe they are victims who have been abused by republicans.

·        Some far-left democrats cannot move on because they fear that unless the rest of the far-left feels angry, they will not remain part of the far-left democrat base.  In order to maintain this anger and resulting activism, these manipulators of the truth encourage democrats to believe they are victims of abuse, unfairness, and inequity.

I believe that this excerpt from the article explains it all very clearly:

“…In the meantime, while we reflect on what went wrong (with the election), I would like to pass on to you an essay that a friend who works with abuse victims sent to me. It was written by a woman who has spent years working as an advocate for victims of domestic abuse and she sees many parallels between her work and the reaction of many Democrats to last month’s election. Her name is Mel Giles and here is what she had to say…

‘Watch Dan Rather apologize for not getting his facts straight, humiliated before the eyes of America, voluntarily undermining his credibility and career of over thirty years. Observe Donna Brazille squirm as she is ridiculed by Bay Buchanan, and pronounced irrelevant and nearly non-existent. Listen as Donna and Nancy Pelosi and Senator Charles Schumer take to the airwaves saying that they have to go back to the drawing board and learn from their mistakes and try to be better, more likable, more appealing, have a stronger message, speak to morality. Watch them awkwardly quote the bible, trying to speak the ‘new’ language of America. Surf the blogs, and read the comments of dismayed, discombobulated, confused individuals trying to figure out what they did wrong. Hear the cacophony of voices, crying out, "Why did they beat me?"

‘And then ask anyone who has ever worked in a domestic violence shelter if they have heard this before. They will tell you: Every single day.   The answer is quite simple. They beat us because they are abusers. We can call it hate. We can call it fear. We can say it is unfair. But we are looped into the cycle of violence, and we need to start calling the dominating side what they are: abusive. And we need to recognize that we are the victims of verbal, mental, and even, in the case of Iraq, physical violence.  As victims we can't stop asking ourselves what we did wrong. We can't seem to grasp that they will keep hitting us and beating us as long as we keep sticking around and asking ourselves what we are doing to deserve the beating.

‘How to break free? Again, the answer is quite simple.  First, you must admit you are a victim. Then, you must declare the state of affairs unacceptable. Next, you must promise to protect yourself and everyone around you that is being victimized. You don't do this by responding to their demands, or becoming more like them, or engaging in logical conversation, or trying to persuade them that you are right. You also don't do this by going catatonic and resigned, by closing up your ears and eyes and covering your head and submitting to the blows, figuring its over.’

I believe that this letter answers the question about why the far-left cannot move forward.  The woman writing this letter to Michael Moore probably is earnest in her belief that she has been abused.  My guess it is the mindset from which she operates in most aspects of her life.  At the same time, Moore published her letter to support the victimization mentality in the rest of his readers. My speculation is that Moore himself doesn’t believe for a second that the election demonstrates another aspect of a “cycle of violence”.  But he must continue to forward this theory as fact in order to keep the far-left base angry and active.  It has worked for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for years.  Why not for Michael Moore?

No one was abused when President Bush was reelected.  His reelection demonstrated that the majority of Americans believe that they have a voice, that they want their values upheld by our government, and that they do not need the government to take care of them unless they run into a real crisis.  Americans as a group are not victims and will not be victimized by the far-left as it tries to change our nation from what it has been to a “victim state” based on socialist principles and values.  Thanks for the clarification, Mike.

America has been criticized by a United Nations bureaucrat, by the liberal media, by most of Europe, and by countless uninformed American liberals for being greedy.  According to them, we are uncaring and unaware.  We have no interest as a nation in providing aide to those in crisis.  America is elitist and only cares about its own immediate needs.  How wrong can they be? 

During its short history, America has done more to save lives and to better the globe than any other nation in history.  For example:

• Following World War I and II, America rebuilt the very Europe that now condemns us.

• America saved millions from Communism during the Korean War and still protects the south from invasion from the north.

• America tried to save millions from Communism during the Vietnam War, and failed only due to terrible political leadership that resulted from the far-left anti-war terrorists that destroyed American resolve.

• America saved thousands of Muslims in Bosnia.

• America presses the United Nations to take action against those who commit evil…unfortunately often to no avail.

• America tried to save thousands of people in Somalia despite terrible political leadership by a Commander in Chief that cared only about his image.

• America provides the only real military defense that exists for countries such as Canada, Iceland, Mexico, and most of Europe.

• America continues to provide aide for nations that despise us…because it is the right thing to do. 

• During the recent tidal wave, it was America’s military that flew into the devastation to help isolated villagers while U.N. staff whined about not being able to reach them.  It was America’s Navy that filled five-gallon jugs of water, twenty at a time, to save the lives of the tidal wave survivors.  It was America that provided immediate financial support (viewed by America-haters as too little) and then added to that amount as the depth of the destruction was understood…and then sent troops at a cost of six million dollars a day to actually help people.  Meanwhile Europe conducted a moment of silence.  (I am sure the victims of the tidal wave appreciated that “assistance”).

• In the aftermath of the tidal wave it was also America whose citizens donated millions upon millions of dollars to assist those whose lives were destroyed. 

It is this point that is the difference between America and its critics, both here and abroad.  America is capitalist nation and proud of it.  In a capitalist economy, people do not expect the government to do everything for them or for others.  We take responsibility for ourselves and assist others as individuals.  The reality is quite different in socialist nations.  People in those nations have come to expect that their governments will help them, even if they are unwilling to help themselves.  They have come to expect that their governments will also take care of others in need.  Since their governments take most of their income, they couldn’t give anything as individuals if they wanted to.  In America we do expect the collective government to use some of its tax revenue to assist others.  But we also recognize that we share individual responsibility.  That is why we have given more as individuals to the victims of the tidal wave than have individuals in any other nation in the world.

Greed is in the eye of the beholder.  I do not believe that the victims of the tidal wave would say that Americans are greedy.  If they do, they are dead wrong. 

During the recent presidential campaign, much was made by the democrats of the apparent decrease in the size and household income of the middle class in America.  They also emphasized the supposed increase in poverty among racial and ethnic minorities.  In an October 18, 2004 Newsweek article, Robert J. Samuelson provided some clarity to both issues. 

Regarding the supposed decrease of the middle class, Samuelson confirmed the fact that the median household income (midpoint of incomes) has dropped since 1999.  However, he noted that median income is the midpoint of incomes, with half of the households above and half below.  Today there are more single parent households, childless couples, and retirees, all factors that bring down the lower half and therefore the median.  In truth, the middle class is getting richer.  In 1980 35 percent of U.S. households had before-tax incomes of more than $50,000 and 6 percent had before-tax incomes of more than $100,000.  In 1990, 40 percent of incomes were more than $50,000 and 10 percent were more than $100,000.  In 2003 44 percent of incomes were more than $50,000 and 15 percent were more than $100,000.  When incomes are compared for households of the same size the upward trend is seen even more clearly.  For four-person households, for example, the median income in 2003 was up about 14 percent from 1990.  (All figures corrected for inflation)

The overall median income as an indicator does not work given the changing structure of the American family and the increase in the number of retirees.  In addition, Samuelson noted another critical factor that also contributes to the inaccuracy of the median income as an indicator of the state of the American family.  That factor is the rapidly increasing rise in the number of poor immigrant households; most significantly illegal immigrants.

As for the democrat assertion of an increase in poverty among racial and ethnic groups, Samuelson confirmed that, as of 2003, the poverty rate had increased for the third consecutive year to 12.5 percent of the population.  He also noted that the number of people without health insurance increased for the third year to 45 million (16 percent of the population).  However, he showed that between 1990 and 2003 the poverty rate for African-Americans declined from 32 percent to 24 percent (over 700,000 fewer people).  However, the number of Hispanics living in poverty increased by 3 million during that same period.  In addition, in 2003 13 million Hispanics lacked health insurance, accounting for 60 percent of the rise in that overall figure since 1990. 

In demonstrating the impact of Hispanics on the overall rate of poverty in America, Samuelson is not casting aspersions on Hispanics in general.  Focus is on immigrants, particularly illegal immigrants of which Hispanics make up the majority.  When immigrants are taken as a group (both legal and illegal) about 33 percent lack a high school education compared with 13 percent of native-born Americans.  Census figures estimate that the number of illegal immigrants in the United States is over 7 million.  That estimate is probably low.  Illegal immigrants are most frequently poor, unskilled, under-educated, and have children.   As a result, they are contributing in a very large way to the increase of poverty in America.  In doing so, they also contribute to bringing down the lower half of the household income range, making it appear that the decline is across the board when it is much more focused than that.  The decline of the lower half caused in great part by illegal immigration also brings about a lowering of the overall median household income, thereby making it appear that the .middle class is disappearing when in fact it is growing richer.  All of this feeds the democrat propaganda that tells Americans that many of us are victims and need the “help” of the “caring left”. 

Immigrant poverty may be temporary or longer term.  Regardless, it is having a major impact on the economy of our nation.  Most Americans are in favor of legal immigration.  During the election, neither President Bush nor Senator Kerry addressed the impact of illegal immigration despite the fact that a very large percentage of Americans want to see controls put in place.  Their rationale was primarily political.  The Hispanic vote is growing ever more critical for the success of either party.  President Bush has proposed “legalizing” current illegal immigrants through a worker program.  Unless ongoing illegal immigration is stopped, the impact on growing poverty will continue to outpace gains being made by both legal immigrants and native-born Americans.  Of course, it goes without saying that continued illegal immigration puts us all at risk due to the potential for terrorists crossing our borders with other illegal immigrants.  For both economic and security reasons, America must stand strong and do everything possible to end illegal immigration.