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
Saturday, January 14
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.
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."
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?
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.
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.
Thursday, December 8
Scrooge Donohue
John Donovan in an ABC news report today gives William Donohue of the Catholic League For Christian Rights a lot of airtime. Seems Donohue and the League are upset with President and Mrs. Bush because they sent out a Christmas card that he interprets as secular. Now the card I got (and probably 200 million others, as well), although it had a picture of the White House, Barney, Ms. Beasley and the cat on the front, quoted Psalms on the inside. "The Lord is my strength and my shield; in Him my heart trusts;so I am helped, and my heart exults, and with my song I give thanks to him."
You have to be pretty hard hearted not to take great comfort in those words from the President of the United States. And you have a very limited idea of what Christmas is if you think the President should narrow his focus to one group at this season.
Now I'm the first to yell "Merry Christmas" and to boycott stores who resort to only "Happy Holidays" and call a Christmas tree a "Holiday Tree." That goes entirely too far. But let's look at the season and at the President's Christmas wish.
After the quote from Psalms 28:7 (Revised Standard Version), the message is "With best wishes for a holiday season of hope and happiness. 2005"
We are a Christian nation, yes. And that should be our major focus. But that doesn't mean we leave out the Jews, whose Hannukah celebration has always coincided with the Christmas season. Mr. Bush is President of the Jews, too, and this season is their holiday as well. Our Jewish friends have always celebrated both holidays with presents; their children got a double treat every year.
Then there's the African-American community who, back in the '60s or so, decided to create their own celebration, Kwanza. Since they are American citizens and they chose the Christmas season to celebrate, of course the President of the United State wants to wish them happiness as well. So he did -- in this case, and especially with a quote from the Judeo/Christian heritage, he was absolutely correct to send everyone who celebrates the season best wishes.
So Scrooge Donohue with the selfish and hardened heart, here's wishing you a happy Christmas, a joyous Hannukah and a happy Kwanza. It's a Judeo/Christian holiday, but people of all faiths celebrate it and with love as its message, it's simply not fitting to join the Bash Bush Bandwagon over his Christmas card.
You have to be pretty hard hearted not to take great comfort in those words from the President of the United States. And you have a very limited idea of what Christmas is if you think the President should narrow his focus to one group at this season.
Now I'm the first to yell "Merry Christmas" and to boycott stores who resort to only "Happy Holidays" and call a Christmas tree a "Holiday Tree." That goes entirely too far. But let's look at the season and at the President's Christmas wish.
After the quote from Psalms 28:7 (Revised Standard Version), the message is "With best wishes for a holiday season of hope and happiness. 2005"
We are a Christian nation, yes. And that should be our major focus. But that doesn't mean we leave out the Jews, whose Hannukah celebration has always coincided with the Christmas season. Mr. Bush is President of the Jews, too, and this season is their holiday as well. Our Jewish friends have always celebrated both holidays with presents; their children got a double treat every year.
Then there's the African-American community who, back in the '60s or so, decided to create their own celebration, Kwanza. Since they are American citizens and they chose the Christmas season to celebrate, of course the President of the United State wants to wish them happiness as well. So he did -- in this case, and especially with a quote from the Judeo/Christian heritage, he was absolutely correct to send everyone who celebrates the season best wishes.
So Scrooge Donohue with the selfish and hardened heart, here's wishing you a happy Christmas, a joyous Hannukah and a happy Kwanza. It's a Judeo/Christian holiday, but people of all faiths celebrate it and with love as its message, it's simply not fitting to join the Bash Bush Bandwagon over his Christmas card.
Saturday, December 3
"Happy Holidays?" Bah HUMBUG
America -- the nation of Scrooges and Grinches. And Christian soldiers. That hymn, "Onward Christian Soldiers" never meant much to me before, but it sure does now.
Having successfully removed the Lord's Prayer from American schools, the ACLU and its like-minded allies are involved in an ongoing attemtp to remove the words "in God we trust" from our motto, our coins and our federal buildings. They ban creches from public display, sue to remove the words "under God" from our pledge of allegiance and decree that it's offensive to wish someone a "Merry Christmas."
Comes now a memo from an underling (subsequently fired) at Walmart proclaiming that Christmas trees will be called "holiday trees" and the phrase "Merry Christmas" will not be used on store property. When that little message was publicized and Walmart heard the uproar from millions of customers, the policy was refuted and the perpetrator fired.
But quietly, insidiously, "Happy Holidays" has replaced the joyous "Merry Christmas" wish. Stores (whose customers are 85% Christian) fear that they will offend people of other -- or no-- faith and refuse to print the "Christmas" word. Target refused to let the Salvation Army bell ringers on their property last year and this year they are ignoring queries by various groups as to their stand on "Merry Christmas."
Salesclerks in stores look embarrassed if I wish them a "Merry Christmas." But there is hope:
Walgreens has issued a statement saying that next year they will revert to the old-fashioned "Merry Christmas" in their stores.
Can it be true that Christians are poised to re-take the nation?
The United states of America was founded on Christian religious principles by people who fled Europe to get away from religious persecution. Now descendants of those Christian soldiers find themselves treated as a minority in the land they claimed in God's name; derided and slandered by whiners who, not suffering persecution except in their own minds, have no tolerance for the mores and culture of their adopted land.
It's time each of us who value the traditions, morals, ethics and lifestyles of our fathers stand up to the Scrooges and Grinches and refuse to let them spoil our nation. For they are spoilers -- johnny-come-latelies who don't have the guts to build a nation of their own but want to spoil the only nation in the world built on the Christian faith.
The history of our nation shows that the Christians have been tolerant of other faiths. In fact, so tolerant that the very core values of America are at risk. Let's rise up, Christian soldiers. Let's tell the other faiths (and non-faiths) that they are welcome to practice whatever they choose for themselves, but they will do it in a Christian nation. They will do it without further criticism of Christian values. Or they can simply go somewhere else.
Hey...it's CHRISTmas. December 25 is the day you get off from work. It's official.
Merry Christmas, everybody. And Happy Hannukah and Joyous Kwanza. But I'll be darned if I'll wish anyone a generic, mealy-mouthed "happy holiday."
Having successfully removed the Lord's Prayer from American schools, the ACLU and its like-minded allies are involved in an ongoing attemtp to remove the words "in God we trust" from our motto, our coins and our federal buildings. They ban creches from public display, sue to remove the words "under God" from our pledge of allegiance and decree that it's offensive to wish someone a "Merry Christmas."
Comes now a memo from an underling (subsequently fired) at Walmart proclaiming that Christmas trees will be called "holiday trees" and the phrase "Merry Christmas" will not be used on store property. When that little message was publicized and Walmart heard the uproar from millions of customers, the policy was refuted and the perpetrator fired.
But quietly, insidiously, "Happy Holidays" has replaced the joyous "Merry Christmas" wish. Stores (whose customers are 85% Christian) fear that they will offend people of other -- or no-- faith and refuse to print the "Christmas" word. Target refused to let the Salvation Army bell ringers on their property last year and this year they are ignoring queries by various groups as to their stand on "Merry Christmas."
Salesclerks in stores look embarrassed if I wish them a "Merry Christmas." But there is hope:
Walgreens has issued a statement saying that next year they will revert to the old-fashioned "Merry Christmas" in their stores.
Can it be true that Christians are poised to re-take the nation?
The United states of America was founded on Christian religious principles by people who fled Europe to get away from religious persecution. Now descendants of those Christian soldiers find themselves treated as a minority in the land they claimed in God's name; derided and slandered by whiners who, not suffering persecution except in their own minds, have no tolerance for the mores and culture of their adopted land.
It's time each of us who value the traditions, morals, ethics and lifestyles of our fathers stand up to the Scrooges and Grinches and refuse to let them spoil our nation. For they are spoilers -- johnny-come-latelies who don't have the guts to build a nation of their own but want to spoil the only nation in the world built on the Christian faith.
The history of our nation shows that the Christians have been tolerant of other faiths. In fact, so tolerant that the very core values of America are at risk. Let's rise up, Christian soldiers. Let's tell the other faiths (and non-faiths) that they are welcome to practice whatever they choose for themselves, but they will do it in a Christian nation. They will do it without further criticism of Christian values. Or they can simply go somewhere else.
Hey...it's CHRISTmas. December 25 is the day you get off from work. It's official.
Merry Christmas, everybody. And Happy Hannukah and Joyous Kwanza. But I'll be darned if I'll wish anyone a generic, mealy-mouthed "happy holiday."
Thursday, November 17
Fury
I am so shocked and disgusted with the Democrats and the American people that I am speechless. (Obviously since I've posted only once this month.) I've been trying to decide who is to blame and I've decided that the American education system, the NEA and most teachers in the US are to blame. They have been so interested in their so-called "low pay status" that they have neglected to teach children the necessity to doubt the American press and the necessity to research important issues for themselves. They have also neglected to teach students that the opinions they hold in youth will not necessarily be theirs as they age. Most important they haven't taught American students to think for themselves.
If they had, we wouldn't be confronted with an electorate that is so easily swayed by political lies. Voters would look, for example, at the events leading up to the war in Iraq and turn a deaf ear to Democrats who twist the truth.
They would look at statements made by court nominees and ask what they think now. Most important, they would object loudly and clearly to being taken for the dunces that Democrats, some Republicans and the Mainstream Media obviously take them for.
I have been angry. Very angry. So angry I can't write.
If they had, we wouldn't be confronted with an electorate that is so easily swayed by political lies. Voters would look, for example, at the events leading up to the war in Iraq and turn a deaf ear to Democrats who twist the truth.
They would look at statements made by court nominees and ask what they think now. Most important, they would object loudly and clearly to being taken for the dunces that Democrats, some Republicans and the Mainstream Media obviously take them for.
I have been angry. Very angry. So angry I can't write.
Friday, November 4
The Poll at ABC News
It's time we refused to accept publication of a poll without simultaneous publication of how many were polled, their location and, in political polls, their political affiliation. We should also be told exactly what questions were asked. Only when we have at least that much knowledge can we determine the authenticity -- and authority -- of the results.
Wednesday night ABC Nightly News headlined a poll they claim says the American people no longer trust President Bush. The media has been telling us not to trust him in one way or another since he was elected, but tonight ABC decided to "authenticate" that conclusion with a "scientific poll." What they neglected to say is they polled 934 people. And 24% of the people polled were Republicans, 76% were Democrats. No independents. They neglected to say where those people lived, how old they are and just what questions were asked.
I guess all of us have participated in polls where the pollster asked a question and if they didn't get the answer they wanted, they immediately terminated the poll. I've had that happen both on telephone inquiries and when participating in online polls. I've also been asked qualifying questions at the beginning such as "Do you support freedom of choice?"
Let's hold the mainstream media's "feet to the fire" when they issue these polls.
Wednesday night ABC Nightly News headlined a poll they claim says the American people no longer trust President Bush. The media has been telling us not to trust him in one way or another since he was elected, but tonight ABC decided to "authenticate" that conclusion with a "scientific poll." What they neglected to say is they polled 934 people. And 24% of the people polled were Republicans, 76% were Democrats. No independents. They neglected to say where those people lived, how old they are and just what questions were asked.
I guess all of us have participated in polls where the pollster asked a question and if they didn't get the answer they wanted, they immediately terminated the poll. I've had that happen both on telephone inquiries and when participating in online polls. I've also been asked qualifying questions at the beginning such as "Do you support freedom of choice?"
Let's hold the mainstream media's "feet to the fire" when they issue these polls.
Tuesday, November 1
Out of Iraq? Not If We Want A Free America
In 1970 the American military was whipping the bejeebers out of North Vietnam. Battle after battle was won by US troops. But that wasn't the way the war was portrayed by the media to the nation. Progressive/socialists led anti-war protests and people like John Kerry falsely accused the troops of horrible war crimes. And then Congress got into the act.
The United States didn't lose the Viet Nam war. They pulled out because Congress refused to fund it.
So here we go again.
The Democrats (Progressives/Socialists) are threatening to vote against funding the Iraq war. Socialists like Jonathan Schell, writing for The Nation, say "The strongest argument for staying in Iraq is that the United States, having taken over the country, owes its people a better future. But acknowledgment of such a responsibility is only the beginning, not the end, of an argument.
"To meet a responsibility to someone, you must have something on offer that they want. Certainly, the people of Iraq want electricity, running water and other material assistance. The United States should supply it. Perhaps--it's hard to find out--they also want democracy. But democracy cannot be shipped to Iraq on a tanker or a C-5A. It is a homegrown construct, which must flow from the will of the people involved. The expression of that will is, in fact, what democracy is.
But today the United States seeks to impose a government on Iraq in the teeth of an increasingly powerful popular opposition." That is one of the most irresponsible statements ever published in American journalism.
Schell is ignoring a rather important fact, and that is that the Iraqi people went to the polls in droves in spite of the threat of death and mayhem to vote for that government. It's hardly accurate, also, to say the government is imposed by the US when it is being fabricated by Iraqi leaders of the various religious factions in the country. The Iraqi people voted in numbers far exceeding the usual turnout in US elections. And when they stood in those lines, they had no idea whether a truck would pull up beside them and explode. Would YOU go to the polls under those circumstances?
One of Schell's big complaints is the usual one about getting into the war in the first place. He (and those who scream loudest about our invading Iraq) has not read the Butler Report -- the review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Schell has also forgotten the history of Hussein's defiance of UN sanctions for the decade leading up to the war. Most of all, he refuses to acknowledge that there were connections firmly established linking Hussein to Al Quaida.
Progressives believe -- and operate on the belief -- that Goebbels was right when he said that if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it. So now we face a growing cacaphony of anti-war protests. From a mother who dishonors the memory of a son who chose to fight and die for his country to Sen. Diane Feinstein, who calls for troops to begin to leave next month, the irresponsible and the feckless are doing all they can to make Iraq as much like Viet Nam as they can.
There's no similarity between the two. The South Vietnamese never had a chance for a free vote. When the Americans left, the North Vietnamese came in and slaughtered them. To this day they know only dictatorship and fear.
My Pentagon sources tell me that Rumsfeld is as poor a Secretary of Defense as we have ever had. He is worse than McNamara. His ego is far too large to allow him to listen to and take the advice he needs. He has done a truly lousy job as Secretary of Defense and should be ousted as fast as possible. When the fog has cleared, history will show him for what he is and has been: The worst possible.
Still our troops are safer in Bagdad than they are on the nation's highways. They are the best trained and, for the most part, the most loyal troops in the nation's history. They believe in their mission -- as my grandson said, "We are not killers. We are nation builders."
America is the only nation in history that rebuilds the nations it defeats in war. Germany, Japan, Italy are all examples of prosperous countries that we helped to rebuild after we had to defeat them. They govern themselves with free elections and without our "help." Socialist/Progressives who sneer at "American Colonialism" simply perpetuate another lie.
The United States was right to invade Iraq. We should be thankful that the Iraqi people are willing to die for their freedom and that we have raised young men and women who are willing to sacrifice so that another nation has a chance at what we have.
Schell writes: "Hachim Hassani, a representative of the Iraqi Islamic Party, a leading Sunni Muslim group represented on the so-called Governing Council, might have been answering him when he commented to the Los Angeles Times, 'The Iraqi people now equate democracy with bloodshed.'
Under these circumstances, staying the course cannot benefit Iraq. On the contrary, each additional day that American troops continue to fight in Iraq can only compound the eventual price of the original mistake--costing more lives, American and Iraqi, disorganizing and pulverizing the society, and reducing, not fostering, any chances for a better future for the country." And he is dead wrong. We must stay not only to benefit the Iraqis but to plant a free society in the midst of Islam. If Iraq reverts to another dictatorship the terrorists regain their training camps and America loses far more than a war.
We must NOT allow Congress to cut the necessary funding to get the job done, and done right.
The United States didn't lose the Viet Nam war. They pulled out because Congress refused to fund it.
So here we go again.
The Democrats (Progressives/Socialists) are threatening to vote against funding the Iraq war. Socialists like Jonathan Schell, writing for The Nation, say "The strongest argument for staying in Iraq is that the United States, having taken over the country, owes its people a better future. But acknowledgment of such a responsibility is only the beginning, not the end, of an argument.
"To meet a responsibility to someone, you must have something on offer that they want. Certainly, the people of Iraq want electricity, running water and other material assistance. The United States should supply it. Perhaps--it's hard to find out--they also want democracy. But democracy cannot be shipped to Iraq on a tanker or a C-5A. It is a homegrown construct, which must flow from the will of the people involved. The expression of that will is, in fact, what democracy is.
But today the United States seeks to impose a government on Iraq in the teeth of an increasingly powerful popular opposition." That is one of the most irresponsible statements ever published in American journalism.
Schell is ignoring a rather important fact, and that is that the Iraqi people went to the polls in droves in spite of the threat of death and mayhem to vote for that government. It's hardly accurate, also, to say the government is imposed by the US when it is being fabricated by Iraqi leaders of the various religious factions in the country. The Iraqi people voted in numbers far exceeding the usual turnout in US elections. And when they stood in those lines, they had no idea whether a truck would pull up beside them and explode. Would YOU go to the polls under those circumstances?
One of Schell's big complaints is the usual one about getting into the war in the first place. He (and those who scream loudest about our invading Iraq) has not read the Butler Report -- the review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Schell has also forgotten the history of Hussein's defiance of UN sanctions for the decade leading up to the war. Most of all, he refuses to acknowledge that there were connections firmly established linking Hussein to Al Quaida.
Progressives believe -- and operate on the belief -- that Goebbels was right when he said that if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it. So now we face a growing cacaphony of anti-war protests. From a mother who dishonors the memory of a son who chose to fight and die for his country to Sen. Diane Feinstein, who calls for troops to begin to leave next month, the irresponsible and the feckless are doing all they can to make Iraq as much like Viet Nam as they can.
There's no similarity between the two. The South Vietnamese never had a chance for a free vote. When the Americans left, the North Vietnamese came in and slaughtered them. To this day they know only dictatorship and fear.
My Pentagon sources tell me that Rumsfeld is as poor a Secretary of Defense as we have ever had. He is worse than McNamara. His ego is far too large to allow him to listen to and take the advice he needs. He has done a truly lousy job as Secretary of Defense and should be ousted as fast as possible. When the fog has cleared, history will show him for what he is and has been: The worst possible.
Still our troops are safer in Bagdad than they are on the nation's highways. They are the best trained and, for the most part, the most loyal troops in the nation's history. They believe in their mission -- as my grandson said, "We are not killers. We are nation builders."
America is the only nation in history that rebuilds the nations it defeats in war. Germany, Japan, Italy are all examples of prosperous countries that we helped to rebuild after we had to defeat them. They govern themselves with free elections and without our "help." Socialist/Progressives who sneer at "American Colonialism" simply perpetuate another lie.
The United States was right to invade Iraq. We should be thankful that the Iraqi people are willing to die for their freedom and that we have raised young men and women who are willing to sacrifice so that another nation has a chance at what we have.
Schell writes: "Hachim Hassani, a representative of the Iraqi Islamic Party, a leading Sunni Muslim group represented on the so-called Governing Council, might have been answering him when he commented to the Los Angeles Times, 'The Iraqi people now equate democracy with bloodshed.'
Under these circumstances, staying the course cannot benefit Iraq. On the contrary, each additional day that American troops continue to fight in Iraq can only compound the eventual price of the original mistake--costing more lives, American and Iraqi, disorganizing and pulverizing the society, and reducing, not fostering, any chances for a better future for the country." And he is dead wrong. We must stay not only to benefit the Iraqis but to plant a free society in the midst of Islam. If Iraq reverts to another dictatorship the terrorists regain their training camps and America loses far more than a war.
We must NOT allow Congress to cut the necessary funding to get the job done, and done right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
