Here is yet another example of what is wrong with America.  Following a meeting on Wednesday with Syrian President Bashar Assad, Minnesota Representative Betty McCollum (D-MN) praised Syria for its handling of Iraqi refugees.  According to the Minneapolis StarTribune (11/29/07), “one Iraqi woman (returning to Baghdad from Syria) told McCollum ‘I wouldn’t be here today if you hadn’t attacked my country.’” 

 

McCollum’s response?  Did she tell the woman that she may have been saved from torture and rape at the hand of Saddam Hussein’s henchmen?  Did she tell the woman that her country has been given a chance to leave the dark ages and move into the 21^st Century with an ever improving infrastructure?  Or did she tell the woman that her country now has the opportunity to develop a democracy that will give her and her family more freedom than they have ever known?

 

No.  She didn’t tell the woman any of that.  Instead McCollum said that she told the woman “I’m only one of 435 [members of the House], and I was on the losing end of that vote, and I apologized.” (Highlight and underline mine.)

 

A U.S. Representative apologized for the actions of her government, on foreign soil, during a time of war.  A U.S. Representative allowed her own ideology to overshadow the welfare of her nation.  And this particular Representative is only one of many elected officials who have made similar statements.  THAT is what is wrong with America!

Somewhere in the din of current political fervor, words are being redefined at the whim of those debating their side.  Those entering America illegally are termed “undocumented immigrants” rather than criminals who have committed an illegal act.  Islamofascists are termed “insurgents” rather than terrorists, criminals, or murderers.  People riding bicycles in the street to block rush hour traffic are called “critical mass” members rather than criminals.  People who build mini-mansions within 500 yards of gun clubs and then sue for the closing of those gun clubs are called “concerned citizens” rather than interlopers, morons, or entitled spoiled brats.  And people who concoct “research findings” about global warming, secondhand smoke and other environmental concerns are called environmentalists rather than controlling fanatics.  And that seems to be the way of the world today.

 

But the redefinition that concerns me most is the reframing of the definition of “conservative”.  A review of current media will lead to only confusion about the term.  Many conservatives are labeled as hateful, mean spirited, and self-aggrandizing.  Those who promote conservative family values are labeled as religious fanatics.  Those who promote national security are labeled as dunces who don’t understand global politics.  President Bush has defined himself as a “Compassionate Conservative”, a term which has no real meaning at all, since it combines an emotional term with one describing a political ideology.  In fact, I dare say that since the death of Barry Goldwater, there has not been one politician in America who either understands the definition of conservative or who has been a true conservative. 

 

The definition of “conservative” is quite simple, really.  A conservative is a person who believes in the strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.  I specify the “U.S.” Constitution because so many confuse our Constitution with those of other nations.  For example, many continue to say that our Constitution has a clause that affirms the “separation of church and state”.  The only constitution that has that clause is that of the old (and now defunct) U.S.S.R. 

 

So, a conservative is a person who would never appoint a judge whose goal it is to redefine the Constitution through the judicial process.  A conservative is a person who understands the incredible simplicity of the Constitution while also recognizing its complexity.  A conservative knows that no matter what the argument, the Constitution stands on its own.  Plays on words and “meaning” are nothing more than legalistic ploys to create artificial confusion and political advantage.  And a conservative knows that the Constitution limits the power of government to a few specific tasks. 

 

Despite all of the contortions and convolutions presented by the media to confuse the issue and to desecrate the meaning of the term ‘conservative”, fortunately, there is one media writer who gets it.  His name is George Will.  Not only is he a brilliant political thinker, he loves baseball and has written one of the defining baseball books of the modern era (Men At Work, Harper Perennial, 1990).  That pretty much makes him eligible for sainthood in my opinion.  Okay, not quite…but almost.

 

Mr. Will has written the following:  Conservatives seek “limited government, grounded in cognizance of governments limited competencies (11/25/07, Washington Post). 

 

And that says it all.  The Constitution was written to define America and to define the limitations of the federal government, with a full understanding of the limited competencies of those human beings making up the federal government.  Today’s liberals AND conservatives have defiled the Constitution, granting the federal government ever increasing powers.  Increased ability to tax, double tax, triple tax, and beyond.  Increased ability to confiscate private property and to control what we do on that private property.  Increased ability to define morals and ethics.  Increased ability to regulate healthcare.  Increased ability to define where I can smoke, what I can drink, ride, wear, or not wear.  Increased ability to regulate what I can eat.  Increased ability to choose when I can leave my lights on.  Increased ability to define how far I am allowed to drive.  Increased ability to control how we eliminate perpetrators of violence.  And the government (both liberals and conservatives) has done all of this while it is clear that it has the least resources, the least intellectual ability, and the least sense of ethics needed to take the charge it has taken for itself.

 

The government is the least equipped entity in any nation to do any of the things that I have listed above.  The U.S. government is basically responsible for one key outcome …national security.  Sure, there are several more assigned to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.  The one that really matters is national security.

 

If the federal government put its resources into that ONE task, and ONLY that one task…if both liberals and conservatives would take that stand…if the Nancy Pelosi’s and Mitt Romney’s of the world would get the point and stand tall for the REAL America…if Americans would understand that conservatism is really just about being a REAL American who believes in the power of the U.S. Constitution.  If only they would all get it.

 

If only we could all see that it is not about Right or Left…it is just about Right!

 

 

 

I saw a new name on the list today.  You took the trouble to sign in, Kathy...please add a comment if you would like.  I get more emails than comments on the blog but would welcome your thoughts.

Two years ago, I had two signs up in my office.  One was the word France with a slash through the word.  The other said Germany, again with a slash through the word.  At that point, France, Germany, and most of the rest of Western Europe were doing all that it could to humiliate and bring down America.  I was asked by liberal acquaintances if I simply meant that I despised the “current” government of these two countries.  I said that neither of those countries have ever done a thing to stand up against evil, one had created evil, and the other had continually run from evil. I said that I despised them both as countries, not just for their current leadership.  That certainly set off a minor earthquake among my liberal acquaintances. 

 

All of a sudden, the political climate in both France and Germany has changed.  This also has set off a minor earthquake among my liberal acquaintances, but for a much different reason.  They are appalled that their belief in the evils committed by President Bush (i.e., the destruction of our global alliances) was just another mirage founded upon too much 1970’s LSD and too much 2007’s manure.

 

As noted by Charles Krauthammer (Washington Post, 11/19/07) Democrats continually regurgitate the falsehood that “George Bush has left our alliances in ruins. As (Hillary) Clinton puts it, we have ‘alienated our friends,’ must ‘rebuild our alliances’ and ‘restore our standing in the world.’ That's mild. The others describe Bush as having a scorched-earth foreign policy that has left us reviled and isolated.  Like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who insist that nothing of significance has changed in Iraq, the Democrats are living in what Bob Woodward would call a state of denial. Do they not notice anything?

 

“France has a new president who is breaking not just with the anti-Americanism of the Chirac era but with 50 years of Fifth Republic orthodoxy that defined French greatness as operating in counterpoise to America. Nicolas Sarkozy's trip to the United States this month was marked by a highly successful White House visit and a rousing speech to Congress in which he not only called America ‘the greatest nation in the world’ (how many leaders of any country say that about another?) but pledged solidarity with the United States on Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, the Middle East and nuclear nonproliferation. This just a few months after he sent his foreign minister to Iraq to signal an openness to cooperation and an end to Chirac's reflexive obstructionism.

“…In Germany, Gerhard Schroeder is long gone, voted out of office and into a cozy retirement as Vladimir Putin's concubine at Gazprom. His successor is the decidedly pro-American Angela Merkel, who concluded an unusually warm visit with Bush last week.

“All this, beyond the ken of Democrats, is duly noted by new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who in an interview with Sky News this month noted ‘the great change that is taking place,’ namely ‘that France and Germany and the European Union are also moving more closely with America.’”  (By the way, you won’t read this in the elite American media).

As noted by Krauthammer, “As for our other traditional alliances, relations with Australia are very close, and Canada has shown remarkable steadfastness in taking disproportionate casualties in supporting the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Eastern European nations, traditionally friendly, are taking considerable risks on behalf of their U.S. alliance -- for example, cooperating with us on missile defense in the face of enormous Russian pressure. And ties with Japan have never been stronger, with Tokyo increasingly undertaking military and quasi-military obligations that it had forsworn for the last half-century.

“So much for the disarray of our alliances.

“The critics will say that all this is simply attributable to the rise of Russia and China causing old allies to turn back to us out of need.  So?  I would even add that the looming prospect of a nuclear Iran has caused Arab states -- Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, even Libya -- to rally to us. All true. And it makes the point that the Bush critics have missed for years -- that the strength of alliances is heavily dependent on the objective balance of international forces, and has very little to do with the syntax of the U.S. president or the disdain in which he might be held by a country's cultural elites.

“It's classic balance-of-power theory: Weaker nations turn to the great outside power to help them balance a rising regional threat. Allies are not sentimental about their associations. It is not a matter of affection, but of need -- and of the great power's ability to deliver.

“What's changed in the last year? Bush's dress and diction remain the same. But he did change generals -- and counterinsurgency strategy -- in Iraq. As a result, Iraq has gone from an apparently lost cause to a winnable one.

“The rise of external threats to our allies has concentrated their minds on the need for the American connection. The revival of American fortunes in Iraq -- and the diminished prospect of an American rout -- have increased the value of such a connection. This is particularly true among our moderate Arab allies who see us as their ultimate protection against an Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas axis that openly threatens them all.

“It's always uncomfortable for a small power to rely on a hegemon. But a hegemon on the run is even worse. Alliances are always shifting. But one thing we can say with certainty: The event that will have more effect than any other on the strength of our alliances worldwide is not another Karen Hughes outreach to the Muslim world, not an ostentatious embrace of Kyoto or even the most abject embrace of internationalism from the podium of the U.N. It is success or failure in Iraq.”

So, have my feelings about France and Germany changed?  Definitely not.  They continue to act totally out of self-interest.  They turn to America when they believe we can do something for them…like keep them alive.  Despite the changing climate, it is clear that the actions of our new found “friends” has nothing to do with right and wrong.  It has to do with their perceived need to lean on the strongest and least threatening.  BUT, it is better to have them leaning on us than on Russia or China.  In order for them to stay on our “team”, we need to remain strong.  That means we have to succeed in Iraq and, more importantly, in the larger war against islamofascism. 

 

If the Democrats win in 2008, America will fail in Iraq and will lose the first and maybe the most critical battle against islamofascism.  If that happens, the Democrats will contribute a self-fulfilling prophesy.  They will see our so-called “allies” turn and run to a stronger protector.  If that is what they really want, they are well on the way to making it happened.  But it will have nothing to do with the way President Bush talks or dresses.  It will have everything to do with the desire of the left to see America fail.

 

 According to Joe Edwards of the Associated Press, “Hundreds of bottles of Jack Daniel's whiskey, some of it almost 100 years old, may be unceremoniously poured down a drain because authorities suspect it was being sold by someone without a license.

 

“Officials seized 2,400 bottles late last month during warehouse raids in Nashville and Lynchburg, the southern Tennessee town where the whiskey is distilled.

 

"‘Punish the person, not the whiskey,’ said an outraged Kyle MacDonald, 28, a Jack Daniel's drinker from British Columbia who promotes the whiskey on his blog" ‘Jack never did anything wrong, and the whiskey itself is innocent.’

 

“Authorities are still determining how much of the liquor will be disposed of, and how much can be sold at auction. Tennessee law requires officials to destroy whiskey that cannot be sold legally in the state, such as bottles designed for sale overseas and those with broken seals.

 

“‘We'd pour it out,’ said Danielle Elks, executive director of the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission.  The estimated value of the liquor is $1 million, possibly driven up by the value of the antique bottles, which range from 3-liter bottles to half-pints.

One seized bottle dates to 1914, with its seal unbroken. Elks said it is worth $10,000 on the collectors market. Investigators are looking into whether the liquor was being sold for the value of the bottles rather than the whiskey.

 

“For now, the whiskey is being stored in a Nashville vault.”

 

Danielle is a great name.  So is Jack Daniels.  You are a Tennessean.  You’ve gotta see beyond the legalities of this one.  Come on Danielle…this is no time to be destroying a national treasure.  Would you burn the Mona Lisa?  Would you destroy the Ryman Auditorium because somebody forgot to pay the taxes?  Would you tear up the Declaration of Independence because it got dirty?  Hell no!!!

 

Stand tall Danielle.  Be brave.  Let them push you up against the wall…but don’t give in.  NEVER destroy even a shot of Jack!  Life is hard enough.  Preserve the tradition of Tennessee and of Lynchburg.

 

Save Jack!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

We are at war…right here in America.  According to the Minneapolis StarTribune (11/11/07), Jeanne Weigum of the Association for Nonsmokers-Minnesota stated that “Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door”.  This statement, made on Veteran’s Day, refers to the fact that this anti-freedom organization is pushing for a law that will prevent people from smoking in their own rental apartments or condos.

 

I have written in here many times about the attempt for the far left to control every aspect of our lives.  The list includes:

 

·        Controlling how far we can drive without penalty

·        Controlling what kind of car we drive without penalty

·        Controlling whether we can retain our private property

·        Controlling whether we can keep our lights on at night in the city

·        Controlling whether or not women can wear high heels

·        Controlling whether we can live in areas with some space around us

·        Controlling our right to ride motorcycles without helmets

·        Controlling our right to ride motorcycles that made noise

·        Controlling our right to smoke indoors

·        Controlling our right to smoke outdoors

·        Controlling our right to eat what we want

·        Controlling our right to drive in what lane we want (i.e., HOV lanes)

·        Controlling our right to build what we want on our own property

 

To this is list they now add controlling whether or not we can smoke in our own home.

 

I am no longer a smoker.  But I am appalled by the fact that the Minnesota legislature (and many other) succumbed to nonsmoking advocates armed with very bad science and legislated against smoking in any business, even if that business is privately owned.  I am equally appalled that several government bodies and educational institutions have banned smoking outdoors on “their property”.  Their can be no issue of second hand smoke OUTDOORS!!!  To even consider legislating what I can and cannot do in my own home is an affront to everything that is American. 

 

I have said many times that the left wants an America that is nothing more than Europe.  They yearn for a nation whose government controls everything that its people do.  This latest affront proves that we are one step closer to their goal.

 

Tim Cushing (Minneapolis StarTribune, 11/14/07) said the following:  “I guess I’ll just stay at home, being a good citizen, until they bring the battle to me.”

 

Mr. Cushing has placed a line in the sand.  I will be with him on that line.  NO ONE tells me what to do in my own home.  NO ONE!  Especially not a gang of commies that want to control everything for their perverted purposes.  This might work in Canada or France or Germany.  It will not work in America.

 

This is where the war begins…AT MY DOOR!!!

I have posted this letter before.  I am re-posting it in honor of Veteran's Day and in honor of ALL those who have served our country.

 

Dear Fellow Vietnam Veterans:

 

 

I returned from Vietnam in 1970 after serving my time in country.  We all had our own Vietnam.  We all came back to our homeland in our own way.  Since returning I have heard over and over again that the war was meaningless and wrong.  I have also heard over and over again that we were murderers…that we failed…that we lost the war…that we were a disgrace.

 

Here is the truth.  Our war contributed to the destruction of communism in Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia.  Our war saved millions of lives that would have been taken by communist despots around the world.  Our war served the common good and pushed back evil…at least for a while.

 

Despite attempts by many of our fellow Americans to preserve communism by undermining our work, we prevailed. 

 

Despite the fact that anti-war, pro-communist protesters contributed to killing more of our brothers and sisters than did the NVA and the Viet Cong, we remain standing proud. 

 

Despite the fact that we were condemned upon our return to our country by those who never defended it, the truth has won out.

 

Let us never forget those who condemned us and let those who condemned us never forget their treason. 

 

Let us never forget those that we left behind.  They are the true heroes of our time.

 

Let us never forget to salute the flag that we defended. 

 

And let us never forget our common success. 

 

Let us never forget.

Why are we not hearing about American successes in Iraq?  Why is the elite media burying the story?  Clifford D. May (Minneapolis StarTribune, 11/1/07) wrote the following:

 

“The average news consumer probably has no clue that Army Gen. David Petraeus' new strategy has crippled Al-Qaida in Iraq, that Americans and Iraqis are now fighting side by side against both Sunni and Shia extremists and that the elimination of terrorist safe havens and weapons caches has improved security for average Iraqis in parts of the country that a few months ago were snake pits.”  And yet, “how many people still believe that guards in Guantanamo flushed Korans down the toilet, that U.S. Marines committed a massacre at Haditha and that American soldiers ridicule women disfigured by bombs, run over puppies for sport and desecrate graves for a laugh? All of this was reported in such mainstream publications as Newsweek and the New Republic. None of it is true.

 

“Meanwhile, the barbarous violence committed by Al-Qaida and the Iranian-backed militias in Iraq is scarcely noted. For example, here's a story you probably have neither read nor heard: On Oct. 28 in a village 10 miles southwest of Baqubah, U.S. infantrymen came upon a prison run by Al-Qaida. In it, according to military spokesmen, they found a hostage, bruised, battered, dehydrated and tied to the ceiling, his arms injured because of the way they were twisted behind his back. He had been kidnapped three days earlier” because his brother is in the Iraqi army, beaten and threatened with death…Had he not been rescued, he would have been executed for the ‘crime’ of refusing Al-Qaida.”

 

May went on to quote Michael Yon, a former Green Beret reporting from Iraq (www.michaelyon-online.com). Yon has written of the atrocities committed by “Al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), including its ‘reputation for hiding bombs intended to kill parents in the corpses of dead children they'd gutted.’ He has photographed Iraqi and American soldiers as they ‘disinterred the remains of adults and children’ from killing fields. ‘In one grave,’ he noted, ‘soldiers recovered the heads of decapitated children, some with still partially recognizable remnants of flesh and hair.’ His readers have learned what most Americans would not know from NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS and NPR.

 

“According to May, Yon has also reported “on meeting an Iraqi official who told him that it was Al-Qaida's practice to invite to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy and at some point during the meal ‘their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al-Qaida served the boy to his family.’”

 

May asked the only logical question.  “Why have the elite media not covered such atrocities -- while spilling barrels of ink over the abuses at Abu Ghraib? In part, perhaps, because the conventional story line is that Iraq is Vietnam redux: Americans are the ‘occupiers’ and anyone who fights them must be ‘the Resistance.’”

 

And there lies the truth.  In the eyes of the leftist media, America is the evil occupier, regardless of what good work is being done.  Anyone opposing America is good.  Castro is good, Stalin was good, Chavez is good, President Carter is good, President Clinton is good, and President Bush is bad.  The one thing in common with Castro, Stalin, Chavez, Carter, and Clinton is that all viewed America as too powerful and therefore evil.  As a result, none of them stood up for America and none of them stood up against the real evil facing the world. 

 

Until 2009, America is being led by a President who is flawed but who has one extremely important trait.  He is single-minded in his quest to rid the world of islamofascists (i.e., evil).  I dread 2009.