Steve Young is a Vietnam veteran, working in rural development and pacification.  He is currently global executive directive of the Caux Round Table.  Years after his tour of duty in Vietnam, Young became a friend of General William Westmoreland.  Westmoreland led American forces in Vietnam between 1965 and 1968.  In a commentary published in the Minneapolis StarTribune (July 30, 2005), Young wrote the following:

“In his July 1965 strategic proposal sent to the Pentagon, Westmoreland wrote that use of American forces was only a stopgap, a necessary tactic to buy time until the South Vietnamese could reorganize and win the war on their own.  Westmoreland knew that, in the long run, the so-called ‘other war’ of pacification and rural development -- a South Vietnamese war -- was the key to victory.

“American forces were necessary in 1965 to confront and defeat invading North Vietnamese combat battalions. This mission (Westmoreland)  largely accomplished by the end of 1967, forcing Hanoi to shift tactics and attack South Vietnamese cities during a truce declared for the Tet holidays of 1968.

“Communist forces suffered a devastating defeat in that Tet offensive when counterattacked by U.S. and South Vietnamese soldiers. Thereafter, Hanoi never regained control of the battlefield and looked exclusively to the U.S. antiwar movement as its strategic ace in the hole, which proved to be a good bet (underline mine).”

Déjà vu all over again.  During the Vietnam War, just as America was defeating the enemy, the enemy realized that America would cave…eventually…under the onslaught of antiwar protests.  Those carrying out those protests are now known to have been communists, communist sympathizers, socialists, or ignorant children misguided by any of the above (Google David Horowitz). 

Today, in Iraq, we have defeated the enemy.  But the antiwar movement (AKA anti-American movement) once again sees an opportunity to assist in the defeat of our nation.   As they mount another offensive against America, the enemy is watching. 

The enemy knows Hanoi Jane.  As she sets out on her bus ride against war, they are watching.  She did so much for the communists in North Vietnam.  What can se do for Islamic fascism?

The enemy realizes that the more they commit terrorist acts in Iraq and around the world the more ammunition they are handing the far left in America.  And that is just what is happening.  The Jane Fonda types in America are using the terrorist acts to press for withdrawal at the very time that Iraq is moving toward its own version of Democracy. 

When people have nothing to offer...nothing to contribute to the real dialogue about things that matter...they often turn to personal attack.  The far left has been using that technique for years.  The approach is wearing thin.  For example, Air America has nothing of substance to add to the debate so their online "personalities" spend most of their time attacking the personal traits of those with whom they disagree.  Their childish giggling about their targets is pitiful and demonstrates the network's lack of intellectual depth.  Leftist politicians began attacking Supreme Court nominee John Roberts even before they knew who he was.  They didn't just attack his ideas (which they really didn't know or which they really didn't understand) but his family and their clothing. 

Having said that, I just read a remarkable commentary by Cheri Pierson Yecke (Minneapolis StarTribune, July 27, 2005).  This may be the first time that I have transcribed an entire editorial on this blog.  I believe, however, that this one deserves to be read in its entirety. 

"When I was a seventh-grade teacher, I confiscated a note written by a girl named Jennifer. It was titled "Everyone Hates Melissa," and Jennifer was collecting signatures. Melissa, a quiet and gentle girl who was the smartest in the class, was described as "a nerd, 'ugly' and 'weird.'  Her hair, her clothes, her looks were brutally criticized -- but not her demeanor or her academic skill. After all, there was nothing to criticize there.

"Too often we see this same seventh-grade behavior among adults. While healthy civic discourse involves disagreement on issues of policy, too often people are prone to bully and harass their opponents with attacks on physical appearances when they are unable to articulate a valid and logical opposing argument.

"Consider the criticisms of the president's new nominee to the Supreme Court. John Roberts has impeccable legal credentials, so what can the pundits attack? Why, the clothing of his wife and children, of course. A fashion maven in the Washington Post looked down her nose and mocked the family as 'a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers.'  They were then duly admonished with a sniff: 'Please select all attire from the commonly accepted styles of this century.'

"Condoleezza Rice, our dignified secretary of state who started college at age 15 and earned a doctorate in her early 20s, is one of the most powerful women in the world.  Nonetheless, she has been mocked and ridiculed -- not for her intellect or knowledge of international diplomacy, but for her hair. It has been likened to that of June Cleaver, but her critics are not content to stereotype her as a dowdy relic from the supposedly subservient '50s. She has also been criticized as a 'dominatrix' who oozes 'sex and power' for wearing fashionable boots and a fitted black coat.

"Katherine Harris, the Florida secretary of state whose crime was correctly interpreting Florida law in the 2000 election, was described by Time magazine columnist Margaret Carlson as Cruella De Vil. An article about Harris in the New York Times was subtitled 'Mascaragate 2000,' and the Washington Post suggested that she 'applied her makeup with a trowel.'

"And then there is Linda Tripp, whose appearance became a national joke. She looked like anyone you might bump into at the grocery store, but suddenly her looks and her weight became fodder for late-night comedians.  Her role in revealing President Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky would have made her a villain in the eyes of far-left partisans regardless of what she looked like, but for some reason her lack of a fashion-model appearance gave critics self-permission to attack with a viciousness that should have been a media embarrassment.

"The attacks were relentless and clearly demoralizing to Tripp. In one interview she said: 'I didn't realize how ugly I was until I saw the pictures. I was horrified as well as the rest of the nation.'

"Tripp underwent major plastic surgery to remake her physical appearance, only to receive more ridicule. According to one person: 'It looks like she's had a head transplant.' And that was a friend. Clearly, the stigma of 'bad looks' remains even after a physical transformation.

"The hateful barbs being hurled at Star Tribune columnist Kathy Kersten from sources such as City Pages fall right into this genre: 'Her online mugshot vaguely reassembles the witch from the Wizard of Oz.'

"Sadly, bullying and belittling by adults is alive and well in Lake Wobegon.  The fact that women fought for many years to be taken seriously in the arenas of government and public policy makes the 'lookism' attacks on successful women reveal a deep double standard -- not of men against women, but of women against their own gender.

"Where are the feminists? Their silence speaks volumes about their convictions and partisan leanings. After all, it is mainly conservative women who have been the victims of this sort of media slashing. Sad to say, with few exceptions, the circling vultures are left-leaning women.

"Has our culture become so shallow, and our sensibilities so numb, that we will accept from adults the sort of vicious behavior that we would never accept from our children?

"As for Jennifer, we ran into each other at a football game after she was out of college, and she told me there was something she had wanted to say for years. You see, on that day so long ago, after the rest of the class had left, I had Jennifer read her ugly note aloud -- but I made her substitute "Jennifer" for every time she had written "Melissa."

She told me that this incident was the turning point in her life. From that point forward, she was determined to become a teacher so that she could prevent such bullying as she had once dished out.

"In other words, Jennifer grew up. It's a shame so many people in media and politics haven't."

Cheri Pierson Yecke is a fellow at the Center of the American Experiment and a Republican candidate for the U.S. House.

This is the stuff of 21st Century leftist thought.  Feminist partisanship overcomes feminism. When they can't come back with a real argument, they attack appearance or intellect.  They call our Commander in Chief ignorant rather than debate on the issues.  Ms. Pierson Yecke has outlined the problem clearly.  I can only hope that the leftists will listen.

“Americans have lower levels of lead, second-hand smoke by-products and other potentially dangerous substances in their bodies than they did 10 years ago, says perhaps the most extensive government study ever of environmental-chemical exposure.  The CDC tested for 148 environmental chemicals.”  (Minneapolis StarTribune, July 22, 2005). 

This little gem of information appeared as a “brief” on page A13 of the ultra-liberal newspaper.  It could not be placed anywhere else because it does not fit with the leftist “agenda”.

Those of us who use common sense and facts to make decisions have known all along that the environment is cleaner and not dirtier than it was in the past.  How could it not be?  The left has done everything possible to clean up the air…to the detriment of our economy, our culture and our health.  It is quite clear that cleaner is not better.

The reality is that people are sicker.  The percentage of people experiencing asthma and allergies is skyrocketing.  But that just can’t be right!!!???  Not with all the “help” that the leftist government has given us.

Well, it is right.  There is one more fact that does not get printed very often.  The level of pollution in our homes (indoors) is at least thirty percent higher than the level of pollution in our outdoor air.  And even that air is being “purified” through the use of antibacterial agents in soaps, dishwashing detergents, and air purification systems.  America is being “cleansed” of many things.  We know that our language and actions are being cleansed to meet the requirements of political correctness.  But we are also being cleansed in terms of pollutants.

The left uses the term “pollutants” as if it were a bad thing.  Those of us who were born in the era of reason wallowed in pollution.  We went to the scum-filled swamps and collected pollywogs that we brought into our bedrooms.  We were coated with soot from the coal-burning furnaces that heated our homes…often located in the very same kitchen in which we ate.  We rode in cars, windows closed, while our parents smoked cigarette after cigarette. 

Indoor air has always been filled with pollutants.  Most of them are natural. Somehow we knew that.  We spent most of our time outside.  Even when we didn’t want to, our parents ensured that we spent most of our time outside.  They were not enamored with having us sit around the house all day long and they were not enamored with our whining.  Today’s parents seem to be infatuated with their children’s whining.  And they don’t kick their kids out of the house to wallow in the world.

The fact is, pollutants are not all bad.  Many of them immunize us against the bad stuff.  When we live in a bubble, we become more susceptible to the bad stuff.  That weakens us. 

The left wants to protect themselves (and the rest of us) from life.  In their fear of life, they are legislating our destruction. 

Apparently many of those on the left are really feeling the heat.  They cannot deal in fact, because the facts are against them.  Even worse, they cannot come up with anything resembling a plan for the future.  So they turn over and over again to character assassination of those with whom they disagree. 

Another such attack was written by Michael Kinsley for the Los Angeles Times (Minneapolis StarTribune, July 20, 2005).  In his commentary denigrating ex-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Kinsley went far beyond the typical rhetoric, asserting that Gingrich is “so thoroughly discredited that nobody cares what you think.”  Kinsley is probably jealous because nobody really cares what HE thinks, while Gingrich has a very lucrative television contract with the Fox News Network. 

The most important part of his diatribe against Gingrich had nothing to do with the ex-Speaker.  It is always those little things that tell the true story.  Those are the pieces that really define the writer even when he or she has no idea what they are revealing.  Here is what Kinsley wrote.

“Hollywood is thought to be the center of empty celebrity.  But of this country’s three capitals (Washington, D.C., for political power, Wall Street for money and Hollywood for culture), Hollywood is probably the most rigorous enforcer of fame’s limits…A movie star who stops selling tickets actually can sink into television…”.

You can’t make up this stuff.  First of all, Kinsley “dissed” most of America by denigrating television because most of us watch television while the number of people attending movies made by Hollywood is decreasing.  This reveals the remarkable arrogance and the basic elitism of the left.  They believe they are far above the rest of us.

That little slip is miniscule compared to the general statement.  Anyone who would even suggest that Hollywood is the “capital for culture” in America is misguided.  Anyone who would assert it as fact is delusional.  The closest thing to “culture” coming out of Hollywood in the past decade has been “The Passion of the Christ”, a movie that was attacked by Hollywood even though it was acclaimed by theatergoers. 

We all know that Hollywood is the bastion of socialism in America.  We all know that Susan and Tim and Barbra and Geer are nothing more than high school drama queens that achieved some success and want to use their “voice” to undermine the very nation that gave them a chance to be more than a server at the local Chili’s.  We all know that those responsible for the House Un-American Activities Committee (which by the way had nothing to do with SENATOR Joseph McCarthy who was a SENATOR) were completely correct.  Hollywood had been taken over by communists.  The sad reality is that now Hollywood is honoring those very same communists and supporting their children and grandchildren against America and that we now have no House Un-American Activities Committee to deal with the problem.

Meanwhile, Michael Kinsley asserts that Hollywood is the capital of American culture.  Amazing…yet true.  Whose character was REALLY assassinated in the Kinsley commentary?

Europe is our friend. 

France is our friend.

Germany is our friend.

If only we would be more accommodating, they would support us in the war on terror.

NOT!

According to David Rising (Associated press, July 19, 2005), “an Al-Qaida suspect was freed Monday after Germany’s high court blocked his extradition to Spain” (where he has been indicted by a Spanish judge and where he faces) “up to 12 years in a Spanish prison if convicted of membership in a terrorist organization”.

The point here is that the terrorist suspect was not merely held in lieu of extradition.  He was FREED!  He is running around the streets of Germany as a free man…free to plot further terror against the world.

Germany is our friend?  I think NOT!

The Associated Press reports that the Justice Department has “admitted” that the FBI is keeping tabs on the ACLU.  This revelation was reported in the Minneapolis StarTribune (July 18, 2005).  The article stated that the FBI has “thousands of pages of records in its files relating to the monitoring of civil rights, environmental and similar advocacy groups.”  The ACLU is “suing for release of the documents (contending that) the material will show that they have been subjected to scrutiny by FBI task forces set up to combat terrorism.”

NO KIDDING!

The role of the FBI is to combat crime…especially crime aimed at destroying America.   The ACLU was created by communists to destroy America.  The ACLU supports terrorist organizations against America.  If the FBI was NOT investigating the ACLU, I would be really angry.  I think that the enemy within had better be quiet.  The more they talk the more their evil intent becomes apparent.

Senator Mark Dayton’s (D-Minn) office “received 100 phone calls Wednesday ‘requesting that (Karl) Rove be fired….No one has called in support of waiting for an investigation’” (Minneapolis StarTribune, July 14, 2005).  By way of explanation, Dayton is the Senator who grew up as a rich kid, who used his wealth to buy his position and whose rankings in the polls are abysmal. He has accomplished exactly nothing in the Senate.  He has since decided that he doesn’t want to spend his own money again and that he will not run again for office (translation:  The work is too hard).  Many of his constituents view him as a man of the people …Wellstone-like.  They are the ones who call his office.  His “people” are the fringe left.

Anyway, the left has spoken.  They have shown, once again, their hypocrisy.  They are the trial attorneys, the welfare moms, the advocates for the welfare moms…they are those who believe that they are most in need of socialism in America.  Of course they would like Mr. Rove to be fired…even before he is convicted of a crime…even before he is charged with a crime.  These same hypocrites fight tooth and nail to defend the rights of murderers, rapists, drug dealers, and terrorists.  But they fight just as hard to condemn a conservative before he has a chance to exercise his right to due process.  Pathetic.

This is just another example of the fact that the left decides based on feeling instead of principle or fact or due process.  As a group, they are hypocrites.  The rest of us must take our stand against their hypocrisy, look at the evidence, and decide on the facts...regardless of WHO is being accused.

They are like children.  They create a mess and then whine and cry until an adult cleans it up.  I am talking about liberals. 

Remember our liberal friend Rachel Carson?  She wrote Silent Spring.  DDT was banned.  Thousands, if not millions, of Africans are dying of mosquito-transmitted malaria.  Now liberals are condemning conservatives for not caring about the plight of these very same Africans.  This whining is occurring despite the fact that President Bush has earmarked millions for actions that should minimize the impact of the mosquitoes that the left has set upon the African continent. 

Let’s not forget the homeless.  Liberals whine about the fact that conservatives are heartless when it comes to confronting the plight of the homeless. 

The left is correct that homelessness is an issue.  The National Advisory Mental Health Council estimates that 40 percent of the 4.5 million Americans with severe mental illness (e.g., schizophrenia, bipolar disorder) are not receiving treatment.  This results in homelessness, incarceration, and violence. 

One of the chief reasons that these individuals are not receiving adequate treatment can be attributed to fights over civil rights.  According to the Treatment Advocacy Center

(http://wwwpsychlaws.org/General Resources/fact2.htm), “Battles in the nation’s courtrooms over individual civil rights …have helped to further jeopardize America’s most vulnerable citizens.  Civil liberty advocates have changed state laws to such an extent that it is now virtually impossible to assist in the treatment of psychotic individuals unless they first pose extreme and imminent danger to themselves or society.”  The entire move toward community mental health in the 1960’s and 1970’s was at least in part the result of liberal civil rights advocates forcing those most in need of resident a mental health services out into the streets.  That is where they have stayed.  But, of course, now the left wants the adults to fix their mess.

Time after time the left creates problems in the name of civil rights.  Meanwhile they do all in there power to take away the civil rights of those of us who are trying to help ourselves and one another.   It is not by accident. This is from the Congressional Record: (http://www.geocities.com/graymada/aclu.html).   “J. Edgar Hoover stated that ‘fronts probably represent the (Communist) party’s most successful tactic in capturing non-Communist support.’  Roger Baldwin, founder and guiding light of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)…has a record of over 100 communist-front affiliations and citations (documented in detail, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD May 26, 1952)….Baldwin stated in an article written for Soviet Russia Today (September 1934) that ‘When the power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatsoever’”…He also stated “ on the occasion of the 30^th anniversary reunion of his class of 1905 (1935), ‘I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produced the wealth:  communism is the goal.’”

It is the ACLU that is behind many of the actions that are leading to the demise of American culture.  They lead the left in taking away individual rights while pretending to promote them.  They take actions preventing Americans from expressing their right to religious freedom by redefining the U.S. Constitution.  They put innocent and vulnerable Americans on the street.  They blame America for the terrorist acts that have killed thousands around the globe.  Every action is designed to destroy the moral fabric of our nation.  They do through litigation and legislation what Communism could not do through warfare.  It is time to take a stand against this internal enemy.  They are like children but they are very dangerous children.  Lets stand up, once and for all, for America!

Amy Klobuchar is a County Attorney and a candidate for the U.S. Senate from Minnesota.  She is also a Democrat.  In a recent editorial for the Minneapolis StarTribune (July 7, 2005), she brought even greater clarity to the world view of the current Democrat party.  She stated that:

“Earl Warren and William Brennan were appointed by a Republican president, but turned into stalwart defenders of civil liberties and individual rights.”   It is apparent from Ms. Klobuchar’s comment that she finds it extraordinary that a Republican could ever be a defender of civil liberties and individual rights.  This is amazing given that it is conservatives who MOST persist in the promotion of individual rights over government rights.  It is those who take the path to the left who seek to undermine our rights as individuals, including the right to own property, to own and carry a weapon. 

Klobuchar went on to state that President Bush should appoint a judicial “independent”.  Her meaning was that justices should not be ideological agents of the president who appointed them.  That is true and it applies to appointees of presidents from both parties.  BUT, no president should appoint a judicial independent.  EVERY president should appoint a qualified candidate who will decide cases based on the Constitution.  Every justice should be dependent upon the Constitution for his or her decisions.  That has not been the case for many of our past and present justices, including Stevens, Souter, and, yes, even O’Connor.  All have been activist judges in sheep’s clothing. 

It is time that one president stands up and creates a new litmus test for Supreme Court nominees.  The question would be very simple:  “Upon what single criterion will you decide cases brought before you?”  There can be only one answer: “The exact words of the U.S. Constitution”.  I hope that President Bush is up to the task.

At the moment there is one opening on the United States Supreme Court.  Although she was vilified by Democrats (and some Republicans) during her appointment hearings, Sandra Day O’Connor is now being touted by the left as a model for her replacement by President Bush.  The stated reason is that she was “moderate”.  Not true.  In fact, Justice O’Connor was an activist judge who used the bench to create laws that have no grounding in the U.S. Constitution.  At times she “sided” with the left and at times with the right.  Her choice depended upon what she wanted to accomplish at the time.  It is her activism that leads the left to support her clone as her replacement.

Clearly, this isn’t a new phenomenon...neither in the U.S. Supreme Court nor in state Supreme Courts.  That is the problem.

The role of a judge is to hand down decisions based upon legislation and case law that are supposed to be derived from the very simple, straight-forward wording of the U.S. Constitution.  The role of the U.S. Supreme Court is even more basic…to decide cases based upon that very simple, straight-forward wording.  Activist judges at all levels go beyond their role and create “law”.  This is serious at all levels but most so at the federal level.  For example, nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say anything about abortion, yet, in effect; the U.S. Supreme Court (i.e., Roe v. Wade) created a “law” providing for a “right” to abortion.  (O’Connor voted against Roe but voted for two later cases that cemented it as “law”).  Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it prohibit a religious symbol from being displayed in public buildings but the U.S. Supreme Court has created another “law” that may provide for such prohibition. 

The Constitution does not grant rights.  It clearly delineates the few powers granted to the federal government.  More importantly, it protects citizens from acts that the federal government might carry out in an attempt to overstep its powers to take away individual rights that are innate.  Activist judges use their position to redefine the role of the Constitution in order to create “laws” that cannot be created through legislation.

So, it makes sense that Democrats want an O’Connor clone to replace her.  She appears “moderate” to those who have a casual interest in the court, yet she is an activist.  More than half the time she will side with them.  This is better than the alternative of a conservative who will never side with them.  They can look “moderate” and reasonable in the process.  But it is a trap to be avoided by the right.

It is up to President Bush (or any U.S. President who is in the position of appointing judges) to appoint a person who is qualified and who will decide cases based upon the Constitution.  It is not about appointing a liberal, moderate, or conservative.  It is about appointing a strict constructionist and not an activist. 

It is up to us to support the process by encouraging the President to nominate a constructionist as the next Supreme Court Justice.  The future of America depends on it.  More on that later.

In a recent commentary I referred to a letter to the editor written by an acquaintance.  He responded with the following.  I am including it here with his permission.

“I didn't even realize that got published.  Actually, despite my pridefully caring about ‘the little guy’(which I consider myself to be since I don't have millions of dollars to buy congresspeople) I opposed the smoking bans, helmet laws (and the attempted intervention with Teri Schiavo) probably for similar reasons to you--not wanting government that involved in personal decisions.  But you state "Conservatives, on the other hand, are attempting to preserve individual rights"  .  Say what?  Many conservatives are doing everything they can to impose their religion on me, their values about abortion on me, their medical ethics on me...

George Will, a conservative I frequently disagree with but respect for his thinking, noted that the intervention in the Teri Schiavo case did not represent true conservative thinking--it is just big government supporting a "conservative" instead of "liberal agenda." 

I would agree that "liberals" and "conservatives" don't necessarily share common goals--my point in the letter is that democracy is based on dialogue and compromise between different goals, not necessarily that we are going to all agree on everything.  Each side accusing the other of being traitors etc. will only weaken democracy, not strengthen it.”

Glenn Hirsch

My edited response:

I am glad that you opposed smoking bans and helmet laws.  We agree on those.  I agree with you that the government should not be involved in either.  I also don't believe that the government should be involved in trying to regulate my use of a seat belt since it is my life at stake.  As for abortion, I think it is wrong but believe that the federal courts should not control it since it is not an issue addressed in the Constitution.  As for Terry Schiavo, I believe the government needed to be involved.  She had no written directive and her husband was suspect in many ways.  I do not oppose choice regarding death but I do oppose a suspect husband who seems to want his wife dead despite the wishes of her family.  In that case, I believe that the government was correct in stepping in.  That case has led me to ensure that I have a written directive. 

As for religion, this nation was built upon Judeo-Christian principles, including the Ten Commandments (a Jewish document).  There can be only one reason for the left to try to destroy that foundation...to secularize America and to give power to the secular left.  The ACLU, founded and led for many years by communists has always had the goal of destroying the foundation of this country.  I cannot stand by and watch that happen.  No one is trying to ram religion down anyone's throat.  We are trying to preserve the history and Judeo-Christian foundation of America.

Where we differ most is that I truly believe that the far left (which controls the Democrat party) wants America to move toward European style socialism.  Socialism as an economic system has failed.  Collectivism as a social system has failed.  Yet Kerry and Kennedy and Dean and MoveOn.org and their ilk continue to promote both, viewing the collective as more important than the individual.  How else could the Supreme Court decision about property ownership have come about?  The Constitution in no way supports that decision (anymore than it supports the right of the government to take away the individual rights of Americans to own guns...another area that the left is trying to control).

I believe that most of the rights that I have lost in the past twenty years have been taken by the left, not the right. I further believe that it is to the advantage of the left to keep us dependent upon big government while it is the goal of the right to end that dependence.

Working in the field of social service as I do I see daily the result of big government programs that have promoted dependence.  My goal is to breed independence.  When that works, people are much more successful.  But I see over and over the result of the brainwashing done in universities and colleges that promote leftist views (read Brainwashing, Ben Shapiro) by student of the antiwar activists of the 70's.

I still recall Vietnam and the impact that the left had on the lives of those I cared for.  David Horowitz, by way of example, has admitted that the antiwar movement was controlled by Communists, of which he was one.  He has now confessed and chosen a path that has taken him to the right.  He admits that he and his fellows should have been tried for treason.  John Kerry also committed treason during the Vietnam War and got thousands killed as a result (i.e., his Paris visit.)  That is not hyperbole.  It is fact.  The same people (and their students) are creating a situation today that is undermining the war on terror.  The focus is on promoting a political agenda and not on dealing with a very real problem in the world.  Promoting democracy across the globe will bring about stability. Ignoring Islamofascism will create destruction. 

Anyway, I agree that debate is good for democracy.  And I enjoy doing it and am glad that you wrote back.  I do not agree that compromise is always possible. There are a few very intrinsic principles that cannot be compromised.  The fact that the left and the right has finally begun to own their principles is probably a good thing but it will probably also lead to a civil war…at least a civil war of principle.  I know which side I hope wins. 

Psych