Thursday, January 19

Open letter to Cindy Sheehan

I empathize with your pain in the loss of your son and yet I offer you no sympathy. You do not honor his memory. Every word you speak and every action you perform makes his life -- and death -- a triviality. He doesn't deserve that. My sympathy goes to him.

I understand your pain because my son died, too. My son didn't have the choice yours did. Your son knew he was putting his life in jeopardy to fight for a just cause. My son's death was a freak of nature, a sudden aneurysm in his brain. My son, at age 16, had no chance to try to change the course of history to bring freedom to a foreign land and safety to his own home. My son's death was random, senseless and painful beyond imagination.

If he had not wanted to go to war, your son could have gone to Canada. Others have. He made his choice. There is no draft for this war. Anyone can leave; most choose to serve. My own cousin has just "re-upped" and is in Iraq for his third tour of duty. My son-in-law, working with the United States Joint Forces Command, helps train both American and Iraqi troops both in the US and in Iraq. They know far more than we homebound citizens do about what is really happening. And they are convinced that we are doing the right thing.

You dishonor your son and all of those who have died and who now serve. You present your argument in the most destructive ways. giving the enemies who destroyed him hope that you will undermine the determination of this nation to rid the world of their tyranny. You demand that the President listen to you but offer no ear to listen to him. You are, and rightly so, ignorant of the facts and know only what has been presented by the media and yet you dare to set yourself up as a foreign policy expert. You play on the sympathies of the ignorant and parade your "grief" as though it has given you some sort of divine insight into truth. And those who fear we cannot win against a new and present enemy, who would allow the destruction of our way of life because of their cowardice and discontent, use you shamelessly for their own political ends.

I pity you, Cindy Sheehan. I know from my own experience that grief numbs the senses and destroys reason for a very long period of time. For me it was more than three years. If you are an intelligent and fair person, when you emerge from the worst of your pain you will look back on these days with shame. You will realize that you turned the normal anger of grief against the only hope this nation has for peace. If you succeed, you will cause the deaths of many more innocents and endanger your own way of life for at least another generation. More young men have died because of the encouragement you've given to the Muslim fanatics and many more will continue to die as your opposition to the war helps it to drag on.

Your son deserves the honor and respect of his countrymen, Cindy Sheehan. He chose military service; that means he chose to defend his country. He is a hero in spite of you, not because of all you do to trivialize his death.

Saturday, January 14

From the Patriot News

The BIG lie...
"There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true." —DNC Chairman Howard Dean

Normally, we'd suggest that Dr. Dean think before he speaks, but that would spoil all the fun. His statement certainly rings true if one doesn't count the 40 Democrat senators who have in fact taken money from Jack Abramoff. Among the Abramoff beneficiaries are Demos Joseph Biden, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Byron Dorgan (at least $79,000), John Kerry (at least $98,000), Pat Leahy, Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer, who already has what may well be the largest campaign war chest in Washington.

Apparently, the only dirty money is that which Abramoff gave to Republicans.

WHY?

Cindy Sheehan asked President Bush, "Why did my son have to die in Iraq?"
Another mother asked President Kennedy, "Why did my son have to die in Viet Nam?" Another mother asked President Truman, "Why did my son have to die in Korea? Another mother asked President F. D. Roosevelt, "Why did my son have to die at Iwo Jima?"
Another mother asked President W. Wilson, "Why did my son have to die on the battlefields of France?
Yet another mother asked President Lincoln, "Why did my son have to die at Gettysburg?"
And yet another mother asked President G. Washington, "Why did my son have to die near Valley Forge?

Then long, long ago, another mother asked, "Heavenly Father, why did my Son have to die on a cross outside of Jerusalem?"

The answer rings throughout the ages: "That others may have life, hope and dwell in peace, happiness and freedom."

---Anonymous

Sunday, January 8

A True Picture of American Troops

God Bless Our American Soldiers. They are the finest ambassadors of what America really and truly is.

In spite of the fact that 70% of Time’s readers voted in an on-line poll for Michael Yon’s incredible picture of an American soldier cradling an Iraqi baby wounded in a terrorist attack. the December 19th issue of Time Magazine featured “The Best Photos of 2005,” which were mostly shots of Katrina victims, Tsunami victims, Kashmir earthquake victims, Iraq War victims, etc.

The NYT is among the loudest of the critics of the war, so why aren't we all rising up against the New York Times and the mainstream media and upbraiding them for irresponsible war coverage?

The mainstream media has long since abandoned ethics and responsibility in journalism. So why do we listen to them? Why are they not going broke? The scandals at NYT this year alone should have put them out of business for good.

Wednesday, January 4

Abramoff Opens The Door

Jack Abramoff has opened the door for the US Government to rid us entirely of professional lobbying. That will change forever the way Congress does business and it will give the power of government back to the American people.

Go, Feds! They caught lobbyist Jack Abramoff and got him to squeal. (Assuming, of course, that he lives long enough to fulfull his promise to name names in Washington. People have died in D.C. for much less.)

However, the most important thing in this situation -- more important than the possibility of scandals involving Harry Reid, an aide of Tom Delay's and more -- is the fact that a result of this spotlight on Washington will be to alert the American people to how much lobbyists have stolen our right to have our voices heard on The Hill. Let's make lobbying by large groups illegal. Give the power back to the people. Force members of Congress to listen to the individual voices of their constituents.

Our constitutional right to "petition government for a redress of grievances" has evolved into a $3 billion-a-year industry. People like Abramson and groups like the AARP (American Association of Retired People)have discovered over the years that lobbying makes a huge difference. The voice of the individual has no power. The boardroom decides what's best for the people and spend massive sums of money to work their will.

Expenditures on health-care lobbying last year rose to $325 million, as health-care providers, insurers, drug makers, medical professionals and others lobby to make sure their interests are served (not their patients') when Congress considers their issues. Specialized lobbyists help shape tax bills so that they pay less, thus placing the burden of those tax bills on the consumer. That's why you can be denied needed treatment by your insurance company. People have died because of that.

And look who these lobbyists are: Remember Tom Dashle? His wife, Linda, was a lobbyist while he served in Congress. Sen. Dick Durbin's wife Loretta started a lobbying firm representing clients before local and state government. Four years later, Durbin used his influence on the Senate Appropriations Committee to approve a $150,000 grant for the American Lung Association of Illinois, one of his wife's clients. You can be sure that wasn't a volunteer effort on Loretta's part.

Lobbyists don't have to work for lobbying firms to affect legislation, either. Democratic Sen. Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, is a vice president at the University of Chicago Hospitals. Kathy LaHood, wife of GOP Rep. Ray LaHood, is a business manager for Goodwill Industries in Peoria. Pillow talk is probably the most effective lobbying technique yet devised. And do you think for a moment that Mrs. Obama's main concern is for patient's rights over the bottom line profits of that hospital?

One good thing about this Abramoff thing -- it is most definitely a bi-partisan issue. No one party will emerge unscathed in this one. In fact, the cancer is so ingrained that probably very few members of Congress are untouched. That very fact may be the thing that eases the effect of the scandal. If everyone is guilty, they'll say, there is no crime.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez is the senior Democrat on the House Financial Services' Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee. His wife, Solaida, has worked in the banking field for years and recently registered as an Illinois lobbyist for Popular Securities Inc., listing several state agencies as potential clients for the company's underwriting services. This has been overlooked because he serves on the Federal level, while she lobbies at the state level (supposedly). Questionable ethics at best.

The argument, of course, for allowing spouses to be lobbyists is that it's unfair to ask a spouse to give up a career because the other is in politics. There's a solution for that: it can be solved by imposing term limits. If she goes to Congress, he can do something other than lobbying until her term is up. No Senator or Congressman should serve more than two terms.

Sen. Feingold has, in the past, offered watered-down versions of limitations on lobbying but even her bill didn't get to the heart of the issue.

The fact is, professional lobbying should simply be banned. Issues should rise or fall according to grass routes support. That's the only way we will ever have true government "by the people." It is the individual whose voice should be heard in Congress, not the Fat Cats who can afford to send legislators on trips all over the world.

Congress should have to work for a living without the extravagant perks they've enjoyed from lobbyists. That might bring us an even larger benefit: people who care about government "by the people" might run for office.

Another benefit to banning lobbyists might just be a shift in the balance of power. Lobbyists have, necessarily, been able to affect who has the most power in Congress simply by providing certain selected congressmen and senators more resources for favors to give out. We have known this has been going on for years but until now there's been no way to get at them.

So here it is. The chance to get rid of the lobbyists and return the power to the people. Jack Abramoff, if you live, you may have restored government "of, for and by the people."

Monday, January 2

With Friends Like This, Who Needs Enemies?

Have the New York Times and Russell Feingold committed treason?

You bet. The same kind of treason that John Kerry committed when he met with the Viet Cong in Paris while our nation was at war and he was a private citizen.

"The president does not get to pick and choose which laws he wants to follow," Sen. Feingold said in a statement recently. "He is a president, not a king."

Sen. Russell Feingold is a Democrat from Wisconsin. Obviously he either has blinders on or he has neglected to learn American history. The inference that President Bush has overstepped his authority by ordering wire taps on citizens who are contacting the enemy is intentionally emotional and mindless rhetoric designed to inflame the uninformed. It also is downright slander. His statement says that the people must not be protected by the President. Perhaps we are to protect ourselves? That didn't work on 9/11.

Feingold has forgotten that President Bush took an oath -- twice -- to "protect and defend" the American people.

Feingold has forgotten that we face an enemy who has already killed thousands of Americans, the major portion of that number in one single attack.

Feingold has forgotten that every wartime President has had to bend the rules to defend this country and when those wars were over, the rules guaranteeing those temporarily "lost" freedoms were promptly and strongly reinstated.

Feingold has forgotten that "loose lips sink ships" and he and the New York Times, who was the first to "out" the story have alerted Al Quaida and others who are lying in wait to attack us to one of our most important homeland defenses. Will Feingold and the Times remember that if we are attacked again? Of course not. Never mind that they have weakened our capacity to listen to our enemy's plans by publicly announcing what we were doing. They who undermined our defense will be the loudest to point to the Oval Office and shout "j'accuse."

We're not that dumb, Feingold and NYT. We know history. We know what is necessary in wartime (and as long as people are willing to attack us, we are at war). There are the self-serving sheep among us who either want their 15 minutes of fame and don't have the talent to get it any other way or they truly wish the downfall of our way of life who will take up the cry.

They are the ones who are prolonging the war. They are the ones who bear the blood of our troops on their consciences --those who would tie the President's hands behind his back to allow the radical Muslims to attack us again.

You, Feingold and the NY Times, are either stupid or, if you have your way, guilty of a new kind of treason because one definition of treason is aiding and abetting the enemy. To tell Al Quaida that we are tapping their phone lines and have actually stopped their plots by doing so is an act of treason.

With citizens like those, who needs enemies?

I'm Baaack!

Did you have a Merry Christmas? I sure did. Hubby and I spent the months of November and December traveling back and forth between home, friends and family. We threw in some great celebrations, as well.

One of the really great things we did during December was to take a trip to Alabama to share a Victorian tea and the family ancestral home, built in 1836 by my great-grandfather. The cousins who own the home and keep it up were receiving a plaque designating the house as an Alabama historic home. It is full of antiques collected over the years by the family and, of course, we know the entire history of the property. That's fairly rare, we hear. Few restored historic homes are in the original family.

I found it easier than I expected to turn my back on the political arena for a while. Political discourse in this country has reached such a childish low that it has ceased to be amusing. I am back at the blog because I'm afraid the Philistines will take over completely if we give up.

The liberal press -- Washington Post, NY Times and their ilk -- have sunk to such journalistic lows that it's amazing that they are still in business. The vicious rhetoric against the President (and I don't agree with much of his domestic policies) is unreasonable, unreasoning and slanderous.

The thing that broke my camel's back, I think, was the mindless, unreasonable vicious attacks that were posted on this blog this past Fall. They didn't hurt me but they saddened me. When people resort to that kind of name calling it means their minds are closed and they are operating on senseless hatred. Since the purpose of this blog was to initiate discussion, and preferably with Liberals and/or Democrats, I truly hated to delete the posts and make it difficult for people to comment.

Now that I've been away for a while, perhaps the Mindless Ones have taken their foul language, put-downs and thoughtless stupidity elsewhere. I will wait a day or tow and change the setting back to accepting comments and see.

Meanwhile, make it a happy new year for you and your influence sphere. Happiness is a choice, you know. If you choose to, you can be happy under the most horrendous circumstances.

Contributors