Link to Worthy Column...

I had no intentions of submitting anything for perusal over the holiday weekend, but I ran across this column by Jeff Jacoby in townhall.com that I think is fitting the nature of this holiday: link here.

God bless America, and God bless our servicemen and women.

Tim

Be Afraid..Be Very Afraid by Dr. T

I'm convinced Republicans don't know how to be winners. Ever since the "Contract with America", they have been a glowing disappointment and true to form, they have disappointed again. The so called "compromise" orchestrated by 7 Republicans along with 7 Democats never should have happened. The Republicans allowed the minority party to circumvent the rules. The filibuster has NEVER been used in this way against judicial nominees. The procedure in this case is an up or down vote. But since the Dems are not the majority they didn't have the numbers so they threatened to "change the rules". The Republicans could have done either of two things, first, pass a procedural rule that would have disallowed judicial filibuster(though this is already the case) or, they could have held the Democrats' feet to the fire. In other words, let them have at it, you want to filibuster, do it...take days, stand dead on your feet and blow hot air till you drop. So what did the majority party do? They caved and to add insult to injury they actually will be out on the circuit bragging about the good job they've done.

In reality they have set us up for bigger problems in the future. Everyone knows that what the Democrats can't accomplish at the voting booth is being accomplished at the hands of activist judges who legislate from the bench. The framers were clear in creating three branches of government to ensure this would not happen. Oh boy, how they must be spinning. This so called "compromise" will reinforce this trend because it allows a filibuster of nominees under "extraordinary circumstances" which we all know will leave the door open for shenanigans in the future.

So my friends, be afraid, be very afraid, little by little, even when our party is in power....we lose.

Why we have off Monday...

In this age where cynicism is not just an occasional tool that leads one to question society's motives, rather it is a downright religion. A religion where the ideals of "honor, courage, comittment" are laughed off as being almost unnecessary, unattainable, and anachronistic. It gives me comfort to know that such individuals who believed and believe in such lofty ideals were here for our country and still are.

"Let no vandalism of avarice or neglect, no ravages of time testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic.
If other eyes grow dull, other hands slack, and other hearts cold in the solemn trust, ours shall keep it well as long as the light and warmth of life remain to us".
General John A. Logan of the Grand Army of the Republic, May 5, 1868

It should be understood that to many still, Memorial Day is a solemn occasion, which is ever more important during our current time of war. But, to dismiss other's actions on this holiday as being somehow, inappropriate because they are attending a 50% off sale, or tanning on the beach, or partying at the local bar, misses the point to a certain extent. It is because of our fighting men's and women's sacrifice that enables and allows their fellow Americans to enjoy a Monday holiday however they wish.

The above quote expresses the idea that the degree of solemnity of the annual occasion is a personal responsibility. As to personal responsibilty, there are and has been men and women among us that feel the force of responsibility, one may call it duty, to serve and defend this great land of ours. Some have felt so strongly the urge to stand up and take arms against our foes that they have laid down their lives for the rest of us. 142 years ago tomorrow, the 54th Massachusetts regiment marched out of Boston and off to war led by such an individual. Colonel Robert Shaw was just 26, just two months later, when he and almost half of his men gave their lives trying to take Fort Wagner on July 18, 1863. Among those that fought along side Shaw were Frederick Douglas' own two sons, Lewis and Charles, as well as Sojourner Truth's grandson, James Caldwell, and the first African-American to win the Congressional Medal of Honor, William H. Carney. It has been said that after the bodies were collected on the beach near Fort Wagner, that the Confederate soldiers showed no respect for the officer's fallen body, so they tried to disgrace Col. Shaw by stripping him naked and burying him with his men. His father Francis was later quoted as saying, "Robert would have had it no other way..." his body was never exhumed.

Like all citizens of the U. S. , Colonel Shaw had had a lot to lose. He had a new wife, he was educated at Harvard, and his parents were extremely influential. They were friends with politicians, writers, and the like. Robert Shaw did not necessarily have to serve. It was his choice. As was Hamilton Fish's involvement in the Spanish-American War a choice. Seargent Fish was the son of New York socialites, and the grandson of former secretary of state Hamilton Fish. (Who by the way was adamantly opposed to U.S. involvement against the Spanish in Cuba.) Young Sgt. Fish was a graduate of Columbia, and a former captain of its crew team. Like some of the other volunteers in Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders, Fish was an Ivy Leaguer, a polo player, and the press referred to them as dudes, as opposed to the "cow-punchers" from the western territories. For an example of the respect garnered by these men from their fellow soldiers, link here. Las Guasimas was the first major conflict the First United States Cavalry saw. And was where Sgt. Hamilton was cut down by a Spanish bullet through his heart. Like all the other Rough Riders, Sgt. Fish was a volunteer who made the personal decision to go off an fight for his country in a foreign land. A foreign land where disease and pestilence caused as many deaths as bullets. Sgt. Fish is buried in Brooklyn, NY.

During the Spanish-American War the troops who were drafted into service were referred to as regular, while the volunteers were not. It was a time of conscription. During the war for our own independence against the British crown, there was no such conscriptive laws. Our fledgling government had not the power. So one may not realize that all the colonial troops were in fact volunteers. Men had to make the decision to fight, men like Thomas, Andrew, and Aaron Clark. As was the case for the men written of above, the three Clark brothers were children of means. There father Abraham Clark, was an influential individual in the New Jersey colonial government. As well as being a lawyer and a signer of the Declaration of Independence, Abraham Clark was leader of the seldom known abolitionist movement in New Jersey. Many do not realize when the left-wing speaks of wealthy, slave-owning, white men who founded this nation, they are mistaken. Quick question: if slavery was so important to our founding fathers, why was there no mention of it in the constitution? Back to the Clark boys, at one time or another, like a lot of continental soldiers, Thomas, Andrew, and Aaron were all held as prisoners by the British aboard the prison galley, Jersey moored off the coast of Manhattan. It was an infamous hell-hole, and Thomas especially was maltreated. Towards the outset of the war, both Aaron and Thomas were held at the same time aboard the prison galley. Abraham knew of his sons' fate but made know mention of it to his compatriots at Philadelphia, for he was described as an extremely humble man. When knowledge of the two prisoner's father being a signer of the Declaration reached British military authorities, the British tried to use the two officers (all three held the rank of Captain), as bargaining chips. The British made a proposition to Abraham Clark, if he were to disavow his allegiance to the colonial, independence declaration, his sons were to be set free. His answer was..."No." One may not realize that Abraham's eldest son was an artillery officer. And during the Revolutionary War artillery officers were thought of contemptuously and further mistreatment befell them when in enemy custody. Their father was well aware of this. Thomas managed to escape, twice, from the British galley. As did Aaron, and they both survived the war. Not as well known was the fact that the youngest son, Andrew died aboard the Jersey in British custody. He was nineteen. All three brothers, as well as Abraham himself, are buried in Rahway, NJ.

All of these men were sons and/or brothers, or fathers, like so many others. So with each passing these men were mourned by their mothers, fathers, and brothers and sisters, individually. Without meaning to be hyperbulous, but rather to further give proof of the supreme sacrifice, the Sullivan family had to mourn five-fold. The five Sullivan brothers from Waterloo, Iowa enlisted, that is right they volunteered, in the U. S. Navy after word came to them that a close family friend had perished aboard the ill-fated U.S.S. Arizona at Pearl Harbor. The five brothers were all assigned to the destroyer the U.S.S. Juneau. On the evening of Nov. 12, 1942 at the beginning of the battle for Guadalcanal, two opposing task forces met in a rather quick naval battle. The Japanese lost two ships, while the Americans had at least five damaged or sunk, including the Juneau. It is believed that the torpedo that hit he Juneau instantly killed four of the brothers, while George the oldest perished a few days after near a life raft. It is most fairly stated that the brother's parents and sister must have felt tremendous guilt and sorrow. But perhaps a better show of their family's strength, is that at the New York premiere of the movie commemorating the five brothers, their mother and father stood outside the theater to sell war bonds. And in June of 1943, their sister joined the WAVES.

These stories are presented simply as examples of sacrifices that have been made in service to our great nation. For each of the above heroes chose to fulfill a duty, and each payed the ultimate price in completion of that service. I believe they stand alone as reasons to pause and remember on this Monday hence. A more fitting work of condolence for the fallen of our country cannot be found than the one written by our sixteenth president. I think it is fitting to close with it. It read as follows:


Executive Mansion, Washington, November 21, 1864.

Mrs. Bixby, Boston, Massachusetts:

Dear Madam: I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant-General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle. I feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.

Yours very sincerely and respectfully,

Abraham Lincoln.

American Historical Documents, 1000–1904.
The Harvard Classics. 1909–14.

The Age of Obnoxiousness-A New Millennium by Dr.T

Chapter 2

SEX, DRUGS AND ROCK N ROLL

While the 50s were a gentler time, every era has its flashpoint. The baby boomers were teenagers in the 1960s and the combination of youth and a build up of resentment of the status quo was surfacing. As I said earlier the 50s, though they were better in my opinion than now, were certainly not perfect. Racial discrimination was commonplace, must notably in the South. It was a huge black eye on the country and momentum was building. The Rosa Parks incident was a flashpoint, the time of blacks sitting in the "back of the bus" was coming to an end. The time of black students being denied equal access to education was coming to an end. These changes were turbulent, willful and violent. The dawn of the 60s brought civil unrest to the streets. Dr. Martin Luther King, who had long preached integration through peaceful protest was brutally assassinated. Young people felt compelled to take a stand and let their voices be heard. Running parallel to civil rights activism was a growing anti-war movement, born of dissension to the Vietnam war. Prior to this decade the populace as a whole was united in their thinking on our involvement in war. With very few exceptions, people rallied behind the country and supported the military. As stated earlier, citizens felt it was their duty to serve. Not so in the radical 1960s. Anti-war protests and rallies were commonplace and often led to violence. Most notably the riots outside the 1968 Democratic convention. All of this violent turmoil served as a backdrop while the nightly news gave body counts and the nation watched a man walk on the moon. The whole decade seemed surreal.

But without a doubt I would have to say that our culture war truly began on one particular day. It was November 22,1963. Our beloved President Kennedy was assassinated and America's innocence died with him. All the things I mentioned above came on the heels of his death. It was as if a dam broke loose and nothing would ever be the same. The tide was turning away from conventional mores, it was the decade of "free love", of drugs to "open the mind", and an "everything goes" mentality. It was the equivalent of the younger generation flipping the bird to the elders... big time.
When moral values start to decline, so then goes society in general. The famous "slippery slope" began in the 60s. In fact we are reaping today what was sowed back then. Remember, trends and societal changes evolve, they don't happen overnight. Changes usually happen incrementally, and folks are often too busy to notice; then one day there is a rude awakening. This is what I believe is happening in our country today. Little by little a damaging mindset was taking hold in the 60s. Michael Savage, the nationally syndicated radio host and author, sums it up perfectly. "Liberalism.....a mental disorder". Yes friends,liberalism was born in the 60s and we as a nation have been held in its grip ever since.

But how did this evolution happen? (to be continued)

Do not forget Judge Saad...Who?

All over the news shows last night and this morning, pundits, hosts, and the Senators themselves were trying to paint a rosey, positive picture to describe the filibuster agreement made yesterday afternoon. I listened as they spoke of a positive step toward bipartisanship. I listened as each side took a certain amount of credit. Some said the left were the winners, some said the right were the winners, some said the moderates were the winners, and still some said the judicial nominees themselves were the winners. I tend to side with the last, for was it not a vote that we were after all along? Take a deep breath and think about this. The three most "contraversial" judges that our President has nominated are going to get a vote on the floor of the Senate. Which is a plus. Second, Bill Frist the Republican leader in the Senate did not give in, did not sign the agreement and left open the option of changing the filibuster. Frist did not show weakness which is good. Lastly as I see it that the two sides of this moderate agreement put such a subjective passage, extraordinary circumstances, in the wording upon which it all rests, can be used in our favor. How? You may ask. If you remeber last week or so, their boy Sen. Reid, brought up on the Senate floor unnamed allegations found in a confidential FBI file on Mighigan state judge Henry Saad. What came of that was a breech in ethics allegation, which was brought forward late last week. When Henry Saad, and William Myers for that matter, are brought to the floor for a vote, that will be the true test. Neither of these men were mentioned in the agreement. According to the Prowler, at spectator.org, the fourteen Senators involved recognize that Myers should not be filibustered. As I stated above this whole agreement then rests on the nomination of Henry Saad. Minority leader Reid, has used smear tactics that border on criminal to attack judge Saad, a Bush nominee. If the Republicans back down and do not support Saad, then chalk up a victory for the left. But, if Bill Frist has a little Capt. Bart Mancuso, from the Hunt for Red October, in him, and when the democrats balk on the agreement in reference to judge Saad, he should remember the line:

Now if that bastard so much as twitches, I'm going to blow him straight to Mars.

Senator Frist should give absolutely no leeway on this agreement, and take extraordinary circumstances for just that. None of these nominees present anything close to what the public would consider extraordinary. If and when the democrats rescind their promise, the left will be shown as two-faced and petty, it has all the makings of an historical victory for the right. Senator Frist just needs to stand strong. Which applies conversely to what I wrote yesterday, but in this case it is the Republicans who need to learn that they are in the majority.

Now filibustering is a right?

I am prone to channel surfing on weekends. In that down-time in the late afternoons on Sundays, when I feel like I have catching up to do on wordly events, it is necessary. I somehow found myself watching a news report, and I use that term loosely, on CNN which covered the present state of the filibuster battle in the U. S. Senate. There was not much out of the ordinary. The report was basically a run-down of where the current timeline was and is headed. The thing that struck me funny was the announcer referring to the practice of filibustering as a "right". I thought to myself, now they are calling filibustering judicial nominees a right!? When did filibustering of any kind become a right?
Of course we have a bill of rights, in which filibustering is not included. There are seventeen other amendments to the constitution that do not include the right to filibuster. We have socially and worldly held beliefs in the rights of man called civil rights, and in those are not contained the right to filibuster. What we do have is parlimentary rule inside the chambers of the U. S. Senate which allows a member to filibuster any further movement on specific, official Senate business. Now, call me cuckoo, but I would not consider that a right. And if you were to ask the announcer on CNN they would probably agree with me. For it probably was a talking head reading off a teleprompter who had nothing to do with the content. I love how journalists frame an argument for their side, which in turn shades the content of said argument in a more convincing light in their favor. When have you ever heard a news story about a gun control law described as an infringment on the right to bear arms, or a a left-wing news source discuss the first amendment implications of the McCain-Feingold law, which inhibits the right of political free speech? How about a news story about affirmative action, as a practice which steps all over the XIV amendment, which affords all citizens equal protection? Ever hear one of those on the CBS evening news?
Liberals are quick to describe non-rights as rights to give weight to their arguments which have no legal foundation. Even the right to abortion on demand (couldn't find that anywhere either, but smarter people than me found it).
Laws or amendments are passed which in turn afford us rights. Certain laws are basic and are considered manifest. Whether they are divinely attributed is an argument for another day. If one were to look at the legislative history of our United States, the term right, carries with it a sense of responsibility and earnest which is too important to be thrown around to curry favor in an argument. The Amercian Heritage Dictionary describes a right as:
"That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting".
The democrat strategy of filibustering judges are none of those. The action by these cowards is not a right, it should not be saved, and is a feeble attempt of a once proud party that is unable to comes to terms with the real idea of minority status.

I am not jumping onboard...

I am right with Andrew C. McCarthy, when he writes in yesterday's National Review that he is not going to gang-up on Newsweek for their discredited and retracted column accusing the U.S. of more anti-Islamic wrong-doing. Why should anyone be surprised? What should be surprising is the response to the article on the so-called "Arab street". Even though the most widely reported protests occured in Aghanistan and Pakistan. While they are Islamic countries, they are not Arabic. Regardless, what is the point? CBS reports on forged documents, every news source in the world leads and keeps afloat "shocking" stories of abuse at Abu Ghraib, the Times of London uses anonymous sources to print stories about phoney false memos, all of these and now Newsweek. Newsweek is just late to the party, where the only requirement is to report about our President and the military as bad and disingenuous. So in the crux of the story there is nothing new. What is also not new is the lack of comparable outrage by our our media, their media, or the world's media about the rediculously, incongruous response by the Islamic populace. A book is supposedly desicrated and seventeen people die in protest. Iraqi prisoners are made to where panties on their heads and scared by dogs, then Nick Berg is beheaded and bombs explode throughout Baghdad. Does this make sense to anyone? Are these reasonable responses that are understood as morally equivalent? Methinks thou doth protest too much.

The only way to explain the issue is to compare their feelings to those of ourselves. Do we not have respect for our holy books, the Bible, the Torah? Just for example what do you place your hand on when you swear in court, or political appointees when they are sworn in? The difference is we understand and respect the ideas presented in the books themselves without treating the physical book as some sort of relic. What would happen if in a town square somewhere in America a crowd of people gathered together to protest terrorism and began burning the Koran? If you were one of those people and your actions were caught on tape, you would have to prepare to be lambasted in every rag of a paper that presents itself as fair and uncompromising. But search the internet for the last time a journalist was outraged when video captured sane, peaceful Islamic folk burning Old Glory. If extremist Muslims really beheld the power of their religion would they not think it was strong enough to withstand toilet water? I guess they are still trying to convince themselves when they yell "Allah Ahkbar", while they are killing innocents in the name of there so-called religion of peace.

Where is common decency?

I, like I suppose a lot of you, was not surprised to read dnc chair Howard Dean's comments about Republican House Majority Leader Tom Delay. And seeing the donkey party strategising lately for a better angle of attack on the electorate for '06, '08, I was not surprised to read of a fellow democrat disagreeing with Dean's criticism. What I was surprised to read was that the democrat who rebuked Dean was none other than "3 dollar bill" Barney Frank. The Massachusetts democrat is no neophyte when it comes to political furvor, see link. Perhaps the House democrat is turning over a new leaf. Perhaps he is just stating the obvious. But, one needs to look closer at Frank's statement unsupportive of Dean. Frank's statement, "I don't like him", should make some take pause. When was the last time you heard a politician state that they do not like a fellow colleague. Maybe I am being a bit pollyanna-ish, maybe I am being "old school", but what happened to decency, decorum, or simple respect of the office one holds. Whether someone remembers or not, Rep. Delay is a publicly elected government official. If one dislikes him then it can be inferred that the voters who put the man in office are not held in high regard by Mr. Frank.
Try to think of the last time you heard a politician speak in such a way about another politician. Perhaps this is the level that the rhetoric has sunk to, or maybe this a feeling that a lot of elected officials have for one another. Whether the former or latter are true, I expect a little more from a politician. And hey Barney, who cares what you think anyway.

Ignorance is Bliss (by Dr. T)

Good day one and all,
I am forgoing my usual format as there is something pressing that I need to respond to. When I was a kid I didn't understand the adage, "ignorance is bliss". Now that I am a fully functioning adult who sometimes thinks too much, I understand perfectly. Sometimes it pays to be a non-thinker, that way you're not hit with a two by four every time the politicians do a number on you.

Case in point...illegal immigraton. It is astounding to me that politicians on both sides of the aisle, from the President on down are sacrificing our security not to mention draining our resources in order to pander for votes. While our borders are a sieve, our elected officials are demonizing the Minuteman project. In a post 911 world there is no rationale, no rhetoric and no amount of posturing that can justify borders that are not secured. Will it take another hit before these knuckleheads get it? The Minutemen have trumped the government and my hat is off to them. They did the job on their dime and their time; proving that it CAN be done. In response, an order has come down(I wonder from where?), instructing border agents to minimize arrests in order to make the project look unsuccessful. In addition there are supporters on both the Mexican side of the border and on the Ameican side that are handing out maps and instuctions on how to best navigate the terrain.

Let me be clear, I have nothing against immigrants; clearly there would be no America as we know it without them. The country was literally built on the backs of hard working immigrants. I am however against illegal immigtration. For decades aliens came to this country and followed a process that worked. They played by the rules and assimilated into the American culture. This assimilation was paramount in sustaining a cohesive and united country. Sadly those days are gone and the country is now fragmented. This may not be the case across the board but the lack of unity is previlant enough to be troublesome(remember, "a house divided cannot stand").
It is important to remember too that just as good people want to be here to better their lives and the lives of their families, so it is that evil people want to be here to do us harm. This is a fact of the world we live in today and as such we must be diligent in monitoring our borders.

Much talk has been made about aliens filling jobs that Americans don't want, however, the drain on our infrastructure and social services is never calculated. American taxpayers are bearing the brunt of the costs. Something is clearly upside down when illegals can get a break on college tuition while out of state American citizens pay higher fees.

Perpetual activists like the ACLU crowd will always attempt to brow beat citizens into submission, charging racism to anyone against illegal immigration. Ignore them and put pressure on your congressmen and representatives. They took an oath to preserve and protect. Clearly they are only preserving and protecting their own interests.

Another worthy article to read...

I am again posting another link to a superior column written by Victor Davis Hanson in today's National Review:

Click this link. It is a must read about revisionist historians retelling our WWII victories.

I Cannot Take It Anymore!!

If any of you have listened to talk radio today there was no mention of it. If you read strictly conservative, right-wing websites there was no mention of it there either. If by chance you happened to go to CNN.com (for what I have no idea) you really had to search hard for the story. I am speaking of reports of a secret memo leaked by MI-6 in the UK about fraudalent claims being created for the reason to go to war in Iraq. I know can you believe it? I have been scouring the liberal blogs all night and have found some mention of it. Supposedly this memo was leaked on 1 May, 2005, just before the elections in the UK by the Times of London . I am purposely giving no links to the article. Why? Well, the story is complete hogwash. How do I know? Link here.

So, why should you care? If you do some research about the website I linked to, you would find that they are no friends of the UK government, let alone our Republican president. And there story does check out about there computers being seized. I googled that as well. This goes along with other purported memos that were supposedly leaked earlier in the Iraq war. If you can believe it, there are those on the extreme left who are already starting websites to support President Bush's impeachment over this. As well as a congressional democrat inquiry. I kid you not. Some out there have no shame.

Column to read while I am serving the country...

I will be away for the weekend drilling in the Navy Reserve, but I will try to refer my readers to columns I find intriguing. Below is a link to a column in townhall.com by George Will about the important public service of Paul Wolfowitz. I highly recommend it. It is defintely worth the read...


Column can be read here.

Why listen to the negative?

With the newly, thrice elected Tony Blair (mind you he's not long for the position), and the big fat entitlements enacted by the Bush administration in the past five years, one has to wonder as to the future of the conservative movement in this country and abroad. John Derbyshire in today's national review, has all but declared Britain lost for the conservatives and the U. S. close on her heels. To quote a most pessimistic and down-right depressing line from his article, "Britain today, the U.S. tomorrow. There will be no more Churchills or Thatchers, no more Coolidges or Reagans, no more Rehnquists or Scalias. We are living in the twilight of conservatism", one may think we are on our way to some sort of Castroesque, dystopic future.
Friends, fear not. For as long as I am around there will be at least one, true-to-the-core conservative running around spouting quotations from our heroes past and present. I alluded to this occurence last week, where a conservative writer finds it in himself to doomsay to the general public about the current state of affairs. I find it hard to understand. In my belief of conservative thought, one undeniable truism that has run throughout is optimism. The power and strength found in positive thinking, action, and attitude. One need only take the longview approach. Bush may not be a conservative through and through, but he sure as heck is better than the alternative. Merely think of the difference between '92 -'00, and '00-'05. It can be described as a great leap forward or a tiny step, doctrinaly towards a more conservative government. Either way it is an advance and victory for our side. If we keep going in this direction, no matter how small or how large the steps, it will still be better than moving leftward. To take a more historical view of the conservative movement in our times, one can start at our lowest point, April 29, 1975, (To find out why I picked that date just google it) and follow the progression until now. 1980, the election of the Gipper; late '80's through early '90's, the fall of communism in eastern Europe; '94, the reemergence of a Republican congress; '00 to present, election of Bush twice, expansion of congressional majority, and offensive action on foreign terrorism; the future should be bright.
No matter how powerful the socialistic voice of the left-wing seems, I always take comfort in the past and in myself. Who says there only has to be one "greatest generation"?

Who's for Pulling Out?

I listen to Michael Medved on the way to school. He has an interesting format for a conservative talk show host. The drive is about 1 hour and 35 minutes, so usually I listen to one half of his show. The interesting thing about it is the majority of his callers disagree with him. So, basically the format is Medved espousing his conservative views on a news story or recent development. (Medved is an articulate and intelligent reformed liberal who saw the error of his left-wing, youthful thinking) Then he takes callers who rail against his perceived wrongfulness. It makes for some remarkable insights into the liberal minds roaming our country.
Last week, I started to put an idea together after hearing a phenomenon that happens quite regularly on his show (my further description negates the use of the word phenomenon). The idea that hit me is that not all those who are for pulling out prematurely from Iraq are on the left. There seems to be a loud and dangerous section of the right that sees a withdrawal of our troops immediately as a good thing. And this idea of cutting and running is not confined to the "nutjobs". Pat Buchanan sees withdrawal as inline with his isolationist thinking. Although you have to grill him a bit to find it (see link). I can imagine and almost understand the left wing calling for immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq , but hearing self-proclaimed, patriotic "conservatives" call for the same I do not comprehend. Mind you, their respective reasoning is different.
First off, liberals show mock support for the troops but ask for their withdrawal, as if their withdrawal would save them from their duty. That mock support is there only as long as the wind blows correctly, politically corrrectly. If we were to leave now and leave the struggling democaracy of Iraq to be dependent on the fledgling miltary that remains, how would we appear to the rest of the world, let alone Arab dictators. I will tell you how we would appear, just like we did under Gerald Ford and the democrat congress of 1975. Could you imagine if the mindset took hold today that took hold of our country 30 years ago. Bottom-line on Vietnam: we did not lose, we left. We left an ally and let millions of people die in and around the region. Which is precisely what would happen if we did the same in Iraq.
Quick history refresher: The Tet offensive, 1968, Walter Cronkite in February of that year, declared that the Tet Offensive was our "defeat", that he feared the whole war would end in a stalemate. Hindsight, in this case is a wonderful thing. The VietCong and much of the NVA were dessimated in the south after their holiday offensive in January 1968. The brashness of the attack is what humbled old Wally. New documents recently declassified from the old Soviet Union and discovered by Stephen J. Morris, a professor from Johns Hopkins University, show that even their Soviet "comrades" did not believe the NVA could win the war, ever. Now, keep some things in mind, after the Tet Offensive of '68, which we and the South Vietnamese repelled, there was the Easter Offensive of '72, which was also repelled mainly on the ground by the South Vietnamese army with help from our air power. The Paris Peace agreement in '73, for which Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize, should have sealed it. The turnout would have been much like Korea 20 years prior. With the agreement, our direct involvement was to end. Each side was to respect the borders and sovreignty of the other. The South was our ally, the North was aligned on a doctrinal basis with the Soviets. If not for the sweeping victories by the democrats in Congress after the elections of '74, if not for a weakened Republican president in place by default (see Watergate), if not for Cronkite and his media comrades, and if not for a confused and dissillusioned public, the treaty-breaking offensive of '75 would have been repelled like the rest. Instead we left one of our allies to become non-existent. No sanctions were ever levelled against the North Vietnamese government for breaking the peace agreement of '73. Surprising, since the U. N. is normally so useful? Bottom-line: disgrace, and a decade long apathetic walk to the tune of the liberal pied-pipers.
Still, others are for a similar result in the Middle East. There are those who are still deluded by the ideas and ideals of the '60's. The liberals realize the power they gained by converting minds through doom and gloom, which further effected public policy. They see the same power available if they can change minds today through the same doom and gloom. But, what of the conservatives spouting similar doom and gloom.
I hear their reasoning a lot lately. Why should our men and women being dying for a group of people who hate us? It is an isolationist argument. Nothing is going to change over their, they won't be able to handle democracy and freedom! That is a racist argument. And even, Bush is a neo-con who started this war for political gain and Israel! Anti-semitism can be seen on both sides. Let us work in reverse, the idea that this war was started to somehow serve Bush's, zionist masters is rediculous. Israel was not at war with Iraq. We should have attacked Palestine if that were logical. But, to be honest, why not support the wishes of Israel in this case. Up until a few months ago, it was the only democracy in the region. And, can you think of a better ally to have in the world, i.e. Mossad. Secondly, to believe that the people who inhabit Iraq can not handle a publicly elected government and their own affairs is a backdoor way of saying they are not smart enough, not strong enough, or they are just not as good as us. When you break it down its racist (and you can hear it on the left as well). Finally to the idea of our fighting men and women dying for an unworthy cause, I say BUNK! What could be more worthy than freeing an entire nation, let alone two. These men and women are volunteers and the finest we have, and they believe in freedom. What could be more useful than spreading democracy. Our soldiers and marines fight is not needless. If you believe that argument, which is just the rehashing of anti-war rhetoric circa. 1968, then what about WWI, the Spanish-American War, and Tripoli. We were in no danger prior to those conflicts. If its worthy enough to fight the Barbary pirates on the "shores of Tripoli", then fighting the savages on the streets of Fallujah is more than worthy.
For a conservative to believe we should cut and run now is more than stupid, it goes against our principles. It is almost cliche' to hear the same hogwash, thirty five year-old hogwash, about our efforts in the Middle East.
We will finish what they started, we will not stop fighting until the fighting is done.
We owe it to the fallen. We owe it to our children. We owe it to their children. We are right, the cause is just...no matter what either side says.

The Age of Obnoxiousness-A New Millennium

Ozzie & Harriet cont..........
I've never subscribed to the likes of ABC, NBC & CBS since I've considered Rather, Jennings and Brokaw front men for the left and for the Democratic Party. But that's fodder for another chapter. I do however commend Tom Brokaw for his informative and sometimes poignant book "The Greatest Generation". This is a"must read" for us all; for it gives us insight on the mind set of the veterans of World War II. Never before or since has there been a generation of such like-minded individuals. They understood the concept of "freedom through strength", they understood that freedom isn't free, that it must be defended and protected. My Dad is a World War II veteran and I am forever grateful for his sacrifices and for instilling in me a profound sense of patriotism. When the soldiers returned home they were eager to build their lives, to marry and settle down. The post war 50's was a time of peace and prosperity in America. The famous TV show "Ozzie & Harriet" mirrored life at that time. For the most part it consisted of two parent households where dad worked and mom took care of hearth & home. Were the 50's perfect? Certainly not. Were they better? Absolutely! And they were better for one reason and one reason alone, because we had something then that is sorely lacking today. We had RESPECT. We respected authority, we respected our social institutions, we respected the sanctity of marriage. Men respected women and we all respected life. Each generation wants a better life for their children and the World War II generation was no different. They wanted their children to have more than they had. And we did. As I said it was a prosperous time, a time when even those not considered wealthy could provide a decent home for their families. Hard work was rewarded, there was an allegiance between workers and employers. If you did a good job you could pretty much bet that you would retire from the same company; in other words a "cradle to grave" job. So it was that the children born of this generation, "the baby boomers" came to be a rather priviledged lot. We weren't all wealthy but we certainly had more than any generation before us. It is ironic but the hard work of our parents coupled with a post war boom created the groundwork for a shake up of the status quo.

to be continued......................

A Response to George Will...

This is a copy of a letter written to George Will in response to his column in townhall.com:

Pardon me sir, but you are a bit premature. The column you have written for townhall.com today is unnecessary. First off, your taking for granted the idea that a person would check none means that they are not religious, makes little sense. I would describe myself as very spiritual, but I subscribe to no organized church's doctrine (for a reason see the Presbyterian's divestment from Israel). Secondly, JFK not blessing America with the word God makes a little sense, for was he not the first Roman Catholic president. And, was he not president during a time of burgeoning social upheaval. Thirdly, using the DaVinci Code as an example to support Christianity in the mainstream borders on ignorance, i.e. Jesus as a daddy. Fourthly, as to your description of the Terri Schiavo legislation by Congress as imprudent, please see Don Herbert who by the way turns 44 Sunday. Fifthly sir, H. L. Mencken played the role of cynic much better than you. Lastly, I imagine you will think of this as cliche' but:

"The Right of all members of society to form their own beliefs and communicate them freely to others must be regarded as an essential principle of a democratically organized society." T. I. Emerson; "This world is the prison of the believers and the paradise of the unbelievers." Islamic Proverb; "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his Father, in the womb of a virgin will be classified with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated Reformer of human errors." Thomas Jefferson; "Where knowledge ends, religion begins." Benjamin Disraeli.

Take from that what you wish.

A New Columnist to Mere Conservative...

Please Welcome a new columnist to mereconservative.com...

Dr. T

see her first posting below, and look for more to come.

We are proud to have her!

The Age of Obnoxiousness -- A New Millennium

By: Dr. T

Foreword: For me, it was never a question of whether I would write this column it was simply a question of when. There should be a time in everyone's life when things come together. For me, it is middle age. Middle age is quite a good age, actually one is old enough to have acquired experience through living and young enough to use the experience to make a contribution. What's novel about this writing is that it comes from the trenches. No journalist elite here, no member of the avant-garde, but a perspective from an everyday hard-working and equally hard-thinking citizen. Funny how this almost sounds like the fringe, but truly it isn't, for the United States is made up of millions of people like me. And I am honored to give them a voice. I've worked for over 30 years, paid taxes and watched society evolve. As a product of the 60's, I have witnessed major changes that have brought us to the place we are today. I have come to one sweeping conclusion: we have advanced almost beyond comprehension technologically, but socially we are regressing. As this column evolves I will attempt to explain why.

Dedication:

This column is dedicated to the "founders", those brave and self-sacrificing men who had a vision of a country where citizens would be free. Free to pursue their hopes and dreams, free to be all they could be. And so it was born, the America of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, et al. Through their blood, sweat and tears the most progressive social experiment in the history of the world was born. They created the single most powerful document of modern times, the Constitution of the United States of America. I shall be forever grateful for their wisdom and their untiring resolve. For were it not for them, America may have been just another oppressive regime rather than the wondrous land that immigrants peril their lives every day to attain.

Chapter One: Ozzie and Harriet

Each generation builds from the last. Societal changes and trends don't happen overnight; they build one upon the other. I was born in 1950 and I will tell you in no uncertain terms that it was a gentler decade, perhaps the most gentle we have seen before or since. The reason for this is twofold. First of all it was post World War II. Our soldiers, those lucky enough to have lived through it, were home. They were working and building a life for themselves and their families. They were happy to put the war behind them, they did their duty, made supreme sacrifices in the name of freedom and now they simply wanted to get on with their lives. The GI Bill of Rights, established in 1944, gave veterans six benefits:

Education and training

Loan guaranty for a home, farm or business

Unemployment pay of $20 a week for up to 52 weeks

Job-finding assistance

Top priority for building materials for VA hospitals

Military review of dishonorable discharges

As a result of this bill, veterans were bettering themselves. Families were on the move. Levittown is the shining example of post World War II expansion. Tract homes went up like giant grids on Long Island, New York and in similar fashion all across the nation. And of course, lots of babies were born, hence my generation came to be known as the "Baby Boomers", the biggest population growth in history.

The second reason for this being a gentler decade was that there still was an overwhelming respect for authority and a clear vision of right and wrong. People did not rely on shades of gray to shirk their responsibility. People were more accountable. We had not yet become a society with syndromes for every type of bad behavior and addiction. We had our share of drug addicts and alcoholics but we recognized that people make choices and we did not bestow upon them a "disease" they could stand behind. If you drank to excess you were a drunk, pure and simple. By today's standards, this reasoning would be viewed as unfeeling, intolerant and barbaric. In fact, it was realistic. Programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous were in place, but the onus was on the individual. We had far less crime too. Again, I believe, because of the emphasis on individual responsibility. We had not yet come to that juncture in society that shifted blame from the evil doers to society at large. But the shift in thinking was very close at hand...................

to be continued

Things no longer true...

I was reading an article last week on spectator.org, by James G. Poulos, which looked at the life and death of Hunter S. Thompson, and the required liberal fawning and praise that resulted. It is unnecessary to read the article, Hunter S. Thompson's gonzoism is nothing to emulate, and being opposed to everything is not difficult to do (see Michael Savage). I find it so underwhelmong that a person can build a career around being a nattering naysayer. Take a stand, be for something, and find out that it takes work to support and argue for an idea, or cause, or purpose.
Back to the article, in it Poulos points out that the stereotypes that were effective in defining the two sides of the political spectrum no more than twenty years ago no longer hold true. The idea of the rich, Scroogish, greedy, big-business right-winger does not make much sense anymore. In the past on this blog I have pointed out that websites like Buy Blue list companies that lean or are leftish. Go there for yourself (or avoid it like I do), and check out the Fortune 500 companies that the website espouses to be democrat supportive: Clorox, Gap, Apple, Amerada Hess, Hilton, 7-Eleven, Levi & Strauss, Polo, and Progressive to name a few. Think back to the tyrannical villain in the movie Wall Street, Gordon Gekko. Think of Leona Helmsley. Do those associations work anymore?
I remember hearing stories from my father of how democrat through and through union members were. Those two do not mesh as well as before in my mind. It is hard to associate, these days, the blue collar with the left. When one thinks of the blue collar heroes of today, one would normally think of fly-over country, as some may call it. And by the way those states are red, as in Republican red. Big money, big business backing; one can find most of that on the left, i.e. George Soros, Ted Turner, Steve Jobs, etc. Is it any wonder that the besmirched junk bond king Michael Milken, the left's example of 80's greed, now spends his time raising money for cancer research. If you think as the media would have you do, none of the above would make sense.
Perhaps those ideas of big money on the right and poor rabble on the left were just someone's creation. Two things to ponder: Did not Teddy Roosevelt fight to break big monopoly men like J. P. Morgan, and wasn't T. R. a Republican? And if I remember correctly, Daddy Warbucks was awful chummy with F.D. R. Hmmm?

Energy Bill Criticism?

Normally I enjoy Rich Lowry's writing in National Review, but today something has struck me funny. His article on the President's recently passed energy bill somehow does not pass muster. Perhaps further research is needed, but my instincts seem to be working on this occasion. For if Mr. Lowry is correct, then some of the things that we have taken for granted as conservatives are in some way incorrect. First off, to not be very specific, he cites a New York Times article on the newly allowed leases to drill in ANWR. I've read this article, and when any piece of journalism, uses a citation, “an administration official recently told...”, my B.S. detector goes off. What official? Which administration? I know journalistic integrity and protection of sources and all that clap-trap, but come on! Anyone with a point to make can use that moniker, it cannot be disproven.
According to Lowry's article, the President would have been better off not submitting this bill to congress at all. He cites the current glut in supply of the California power grid as a bad thing. The power crisis out in the golden state is what prompted the bill in the first place. So, the bill began as reactionary and now can be seen as “proactionary”. Which in my book is always a good thing. Lowry calls the bill, Bush's “magic wand”. Sorry Rich I don't get that reference. He says he is for letting the market adjust for the current high prices in gasoline driven by former communistic and third world markets. Taking a step back, that idea smacks of further dependence on foreign oil and a return to the crappy cars of the 1970's. Does anyone recall the AMC vehicles, the late 70's Mustang, and please Lord, not Le Car's.
Lowry intimates that so-called “big oil” is not for drilling in ANWR, okay let “little oil” drill there. I would if I could. Exploration in this hemisphere is what we have been screaming for. And not only that, the bill is not the government trying to “solve high gas prices...”, its the President taking down roadblocks. Lowry says the idea of building refineries on the grounds of closed military installations does not make sense because the installations are not geographically feasible. Well, let them build more pipelines and make them geographically feasible.
The bill is pro-active. The bill supports development in our infrastructure. The bill allows for energy exploration and power-plant building, two things that have not happened in almost thirty years. The bill seems to allow for our own home-grown ingenuity to flourish. All good things.

Bottom Line: I understand conservative journalists feel the need to criticise when they see something they deem as wrong no matter the political affiliation, but don't stretch for that criticism and please pick your targets a little better.