Okay, let me get this straight. Congressman John Murtha goes on NPR and brags about how he and other Dems including Speaker Pelosi are crafting an amendment that will:

• put impossible conditions on our military to meet before Congress will fund their efforts in Iraq…

• and that this will gradually leave the men and women putting their lives on the line to protect you me without the equipment they need to defeat their enemies…

• and that eventually the situation in Iraq will "implode" because of all this.

I wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t heard it myself. You won’t find this bit a braggadocio if you read NPR’s transcript of Murtha’s February 14 interview (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7396160&ft=1&f=3), but fortunately Sean Hannity got the tape and played it on his February 15 program. I heard that tape and I can tell you that Murtha did brag and did use the word "implode" to describe what he foresee would happen in Iraq because of this amendment. Here is another sanitized report about this amendment, this one a February 15, 2007 artcile from the WASHINGTON POST website (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021500157.html):

<<That included drafting legislation to require the Pentagon to meet certain standards for training and equipping the troops, as well fixing the time that military units must be given at home between deployments. "That stops the surge (in troops) for all intents and purposes, because ......they cannot sustain the deployment," said Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, who said he would attach the conditions to legislation providing nearly $100 billion for the military.>>

There is a word for people who seek to undermine the security of their country: traitors.

If you doubt that our military can succeed in making Iraq a stable enough nation to give its new democratic government a chance to become permanent, read the following letter from an airman serving in Iraq, sent to Rush Limbaugh, who read it on the air and posted it on his website (www.rushlimbaugh.com):

<<Hey Rush,

I am scratching my head here. None of this makes any sense...but I wonder what you think about all of this...

The national news media shows lots of our American servicemen and women dying over there in Iraq and getting killed, helicopters being shot down, roadside bombs going off...etc...etc. Yet, when you are there, when you work with Americans and Iraqis who are actively engaged in re-building the country, who are out going after the enemy...there’s this ever-present sense of optimism, this prevailing upbeat mood of doing good. Just go talk to the wounded servicemen at Brooks or Bethesda. [RUSH: And I have. He's right.] They’ll tell you the same. Likewise, the Iraqi gentlemen (civilians) I worked with were excited about their economic prospects. They were eager for their families to experience a better life than the life they had under a totalitarian regime.

Rush, there’s an upbeat mood out there in Iraq. The country and its new democracy are moving forward. And the enemy hates it.

On the subject of "civil war" or "civil strife" in Iraq...

From what we can tell...there’s no "civil war" or "civil strife" as the news media puts it. The terrorists are coming from outside the country and killing civilians – as many as possible – to gain a foothold in Iraq. And they play this stuff on TV to make us sick. It’s working. We are getting sick, but Iraq is getting strong. If there really is civil strife in the country...then WHY don’t WE hear statements in the news about Shia leaders taking responsibility for Sunni killings, and vice-versa? WHY? This is why: Because they aren’t doing that Rush! THAT’S WHY we NEVER hear news reports from the so-called "civil strife" combatants themselves. Because there aren’t any. The IRAQIS are trying to build-up their country and make it work. MEANWHILE the enemy comes and kills everyone they can, and they run away from the scene (or die in the blast themselves).

One more thought...

I hate doing math, but think about this…

Rush...there’s anywhere from 500 to 1,000 road vehicle convoys per day in the country of Iraq. [RUSH: Five hundred to 1,000 road vehicle convoys per day in the country of Iraq.] One or three of these vehicle convoys (at most) get hit by an IED each day, which destroys maybe one or two vehicles. Most convoys have anywhere from 20 to 100 vehicles. NOW, what are your odds (e.g. CNN reporter) of being tagged by an IED????

In Summary...

I remain confused, amazed, and dumbfounded by the news media view on the war. And yet Americans are buying it. WHY??? How can we believe only one side of the story without seeing the whole picture, the whole story as it unfolds? Does ANYONE really know (other than those who are there) what’s REALLY happening in Iraq??? Is there any chance of getting any of this news reporting being done right???

America is doing good things over there. Our troops are awesome. They are an inspiration, a model of courage and of selfless patriotism. Why don’t people back home trust them?

Mega Dittos Rush.

Very Respectfully,

Tazz>>

I wish I had a good answer for Tazz, but I don’t. All I can tell him is that there are Americans who do support him and his comrades, and we pray every day for the success of their mission and for their safe return home as soon as possible.

It is brave people like Tazz, not to mention the citizens of this very country, which Murtha, Pelosi, and other traitors – both Dems and Republicans – are betraying and putting in even greater danger.

I could say more, but right now I’m just too angry to trust myself.

I just wanted to wish President Reagan a Happy Birthday.  We miss you, Gipper.

Also, congrats to the 49 Republican senators who stuck together and prevented a vote on the Dem's non-binding but insulting resolution against the war and our troops without being permitted to debate it or bring their own resolution to a vote.  Keep up the good work, guys!

Just a quick note updating my concern that our modern military personnel coming home from the War on Terror will be treated as poorly as their Vietnam counterparts upon their return from Southeast Asia.

Joshua Sparling, who lost a leg in Iraq, who uses crutches or a wheelchair to get around, and who will need to spend the next year in a Vet's hospital, attended the Anti-War Protest in Washington D.C. last weekend and "warmly" greeted by the protestors, many of whom insist that they support our troops even if they disagree with "Bush's war." The following is from a report on the January 28, 2007 NYTimes website (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/washington/28protest.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1170039570-ph+RYDXh0ON25gvKO6enIw) :

<<There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration’s policies in Iraq.

Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back.

Capitol police made the antiwar protestors walk farther away from the counterprotesters.>>

"These are not Americans as far as I’m concerned," Mr. Sparling said.>>

Unfortunately, they are Americans, not that it gives me any joy to admit this. Oh, and a couple of BTWs:

Last Valentine's Day, Sparling received a card from some anti-war protestor that was made up to look like it had been put together by a child who wanted to wish the wounded vet well. When Sparling opened the card, it read: "Die, Soldier."

Also, a number of those supportive anti-war protestors last weekend passed a little time spray painting on the U.S. Capitol Building. Instead of being arrested, the authorities stood by on orders and watched, their superiors afraid that confronting the protestors would create a violent situation.

Just some things to think about.

LEARN TO TAKE A PUNCH:

I just saw ROCKY BALBOA last night and I was really struck by a scene where Rocky tells his son the facts of life after his son complains to him about living in his father’s big shadow.

I am paraphrasing– my memory is not the best – but basically Rocky tells his son that the measure of a person is not how hard you can hit, but how hard you can take a punch and keep going when life hits you, because nothing can ever hit you as hard as life. And when life does hit you – when a loved one dies or you are having financial troubles or the dream you have been pursuing for years seems further away than ever – a person has to keep going despite the pain and effort. You keep going and do not other people or even circumstances for your problems – like living in a famous father’s big shadow – because you will never amount to anything if you do that.

Conservatives who are still reeling from last year’s elections could learn a lesson from what Rocky told his son.

Before the Republican majority began its twelve-year run in Congress, conservatives eagerly supported and fought for their ideas against liberals. We communicated over talk radio and through direct-mail and over the Internet using emails and websites. We supported conservative political groups. We were energized with our guys in the minority because we believed in our ideas and were willing to fight for them.

Twelve years later, we are backing the minority in Congress and have a "compassionate conservative" President in Washington. Taxes are lower, but government is much bigger, spending is at an all-time high, and the Republican Party – the home for most conservatives – has made it clear through its leadership and actions that it has little or no interest in conservative ideas.

Conservatism never got much of a chance, despite our support of the majority party in Washington D.C. and in most state governments for twelve years. That is a heck of a punch, and from what I have been hearing and reading from conservatives, most of us have not gotten over it yet.

Well … man up!

Do you still believe in conservatism? Do you still believe in the greatness of America and the ideas of our founding fathers?

Then do what you did before 1994 and should have been doing over the past twelve years.

Keep fighting for your ideas.

Do not stop. Never stop.

And do not blame others for our problems. Yes, many of the politicians we voted into power let us down, but the fact is that the main reason the Democrats are now the majority is that a good number of Republicans voted them into power because those Republicans became fed up with the politicians who let them down.

Way to go.

Republican voters could have held their politicians feet to the fire, but we have little to no influence with the Democrats now in power. And can you honestly say things are better now than they would have been in the Republican majority was still in power?

But things are the way they are. Fine. These things do not diminish the rightness of conservatism. We have taken the punch. Now the time has come to get back up and keep fighting.

DEMOCRAT'S BLIND FAITH IN THEIR POWER:

 Just a stray thought that has been buzzing around my bonnet the past few days.

Communication science as well as history teaches that people who have been in power for a long time often develop a sense that they deserve to be in power and always will be in power. The Communist rulers in the former U.S.S.R. had it. The British Parliament had it before the American Revolution. The Catholic Church had it before the Protestant Reformation. The Romans had it before the rise of Christianity.

Today many members of the Democratic Party believe that power is theirs by right. They had it for forty years up until 1994, and now they have it back and have no intention of getting it back. (BTW: Don’t you love how the old guard in America’s Pravda Media kept asking how the Democrats could regain their power from 1994 until the last election, and now since that election they keep asking how the Democrats can hold on to their power? When are they going to get around to asking the Republicans any questions?)

This is an important point when it comes to how Democrats face the War on Terror.

Democrats do not see the threat of terrorism as a powerful enough to bring down Western governments, America most of all. After all, it is the proper order of things for Democrats to rule in America, and there is nothing that Republicans, conservatives, or a bunch of terrorists can do to change it.

The fact that the people who hold the reigns of power in Congress have this attitude frightens me very very much.

It appears that President Bush will be announcing an increase in troops to Iraq along with laying out a new blueprint for how the War on Terror will be fought there in his speech tonight. (This might be hopeful thinking, but it could be that the recent activity in Somalia – which I suspect had to involve least some U.S. Special Forces personnel lending some behind-the-scenes assistance – is an example of what is to come.) As of this writing, POTUS’ speech is a little over seven hours away, and yet liberal politicians such as Ted Kennedy and Richard Durbin are already decrying it even as they prepare to gather for a symbolic vote to pull financing for this increase.

As cowardly and hypocritical as this liberal symbolic vote is, what is truly despicable is their insistence but inaccurate comparisons of Iraq with Vietnam (a war that was loss because of the cowardly actions of politicians like those led today by Kennedy and Durbin). A comparison that is crowed with as much enthusiasm today by the journalistic guard of the Old Media as it the inaccuracies about Vietnam were reported by their predecessors in the 1960s and 1970s.

The more things change, it seems, the more they stay the same, which has me more than a little concerned. As important as POTUS’ speech will be and the liberal’s pre-reaction are, another concern of mine that is being overlooked in all of this is how are military men and women are being when they return from service in the War on Terror.

I am 46, old enough to remember the turbulent days of anti-war protests against the Vietnam War. Trust me, you really had to be there to fully appreciate the hippies, slogans like "Make Love Not War" and "Don’t Trust Anybody Over Thirty," and the campus takeovers and fires in the street. Even after President Nixon brought our boys back home and Congress abandoned South Vietnam, the fun and thrills kept on keeping on as our Vietnam veterans were greeted with the catcalls of "baby killers" and spit on by the protestors.

Ironically, only a few years before the end of the Vietnam War, a popular little protest song called "Bring ‘em Home" was written by Pete Seeger, best known as a member of the folk music trio Peter, Paul and Mary. This anti-war song sounds very supportive of the young men serving in Vietnam:

If you love your Uncle Sam, bring ‘em home

Bring ‘em home – Bring ‘em home

Support our boys in Vietnam, bring ‘em home

Bring ‘em home – Bring ‘em home

This all sounds nice, until you remember how our boys were treated after President Nixon did bring ‘em home? Along with the insults, they were betrayed by a future senator and presidential candidate named John Kerry even as they were being portrayed as mentally-damaged psychos on television programs and in films.

Compare this to what is already happening to today, where protestors are showing up at veteran hospitals and funerals with signs like "God Hates Your Tears" and "Thank God For Dead Soldiers." This from people who belong to groups like Group Pink, whose website instead show members holding a sign that says, "Support Our Troops, Bring Them Home Now," but leave out information like their lining up mock caskets on a sidewalk to represent the death toll in Iraq.

Recently Bruce Springsteen, an outspoken protestor against the War on Terror being fought in Iraq, recorded an updated version of "Bring ‘em Home" for release on an album. Apparently the more things change, the more they really do stay the same. It would be nice if, in this instance, only the song would remain the same, but judging from what you can read at the links posted below, that isn’t the case.

Just a little food for thought, for now and for the future.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/06/btsc.lavandrera.funerals/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/17/us/17picket.html?ex=1302926400&en=fa00fcbce509da8b&ei=5088&

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200508%5CSPE20050825a.html

http://theredhunter.com/2005/08/at_the_walter_reed_army_medical_center_faceoff_with_code_pink.php

http://www.codepinkalert.org/article.php?list=type&type=81

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3431

 

Happy New Year's to everyone, but a particularly special Happy New Year to all our men and women serving overseas fighting the War on Terror.  We miss you and pray you will be home soon.

And while I'm not one for resolutions, I am making one this year, and that is to visit two websites I recently found out about every day:

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/

http://www.operationcompletion.org/

If you want to make an informed opinion about the War in Iraq, get the truth right from the source.  Visit these sites.

Again, everyone have a very Happy New Year's, and I'll see you in 2007!  :-)

Steve

 First off, I want to send a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all our troops defending our country. God bless you and your families for the sacrifices you are all making for them and for your country.

 A few years ago TV GUIDE published an article about the 1966 animated Christmas cartoon, DR. SUESS’ HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS. My memory is not always the best, but if I remember the article correctly the show’s producer, grandmaster animator Chuck Jones, makes a comment about how proud he was that he had created a Christmas show that mentioned nothing about religion.

Way to go, Chuck!

Oh, well, in America everyone’s allowed his opinion, so I watch HTGSC anyway. How can you not? The original story and Jones’ extremely faithful cartoon adaptation are not only insightful, poignant and clever. Those are the reasons why the story has now endured for 50 years and Jones’ adaptation for 40 years. From its tremendous storytelling to the wonderful narration by Boris Karloff and its terrific songs, HTGSC truly is as much of a classic as its contemporary peers, A CHARLIE BROWN CHRISTMAS and RUDOLPH, THE RED-NOSE REINDEER.

I was recently struck, however, with how much The Grinch’s efforts to steal Christmas parallels the war against Christmas executed primarily by supporters of a liberal nanny-state in America, a country where over 80% of its citizens are Christians.

The Grinch, we are told, hates everything to do with Christmas. Since there is no mention of religion in the cartoon I do not know if The Grinch’s ire includes The Nativity. Most folks are aware that "Christmas" derives from the words "Christ Mass," but I do not know if any Whos are aware of this. Not that it really matters. All that is important for the sake of HTGSC is that The Grinch hates Christmas.

He hates the presents … the decorations … the parties … the noise, noise, noise … the roast beast … and, most of all, he hates it when all the Whos down in Whoville, the large and the small, begin to sing.

And what do the Whos sing?

A touching carol laced with a few Latin-sounding lyrics called "Welcome Christmas." As the Whos gather around the Christmas tree in the center of town, they grab hands and welcome Christmas to bring its light and proclaim, "Christmas Day is in our grasp; so long as we have hands to clasp." It is a song of inclusion – "Christmas day will always be; Just so long as we have we" – something The Grinch fails to recognize until it is almost everything he has stolen is about to go over the edge of Mt. Crumpet. The Grinch rescues his swag from plummeting, returns everything he took, and is welcomed by the Whos.

What is important, however, is that the Whos were celebrating Christmas without any of their trinkets and packages, and it is likely that the Whos would have welcomed The Grinch to join their Christmas celebration even if he had failed to rescue what he stole. To paraphrase the story’s narrator, The Grinch had not stolen Christmas, it came just the same. The Grinch would not have been able to carve the roast beast at the Christmas feast, of course, unless he would have been willing to sacrifice his dog, Max, for a good cause.

Here in America, Christmas haters, like The Grinch, do not like anything about Christmas. Not the trees ("A religious symbol no matter what the Supreme Court says!") or the presents ("Capitalism!") or any hint of Christmas decorations in a "public" area ("It violates the made-up wall of separation!"). Unlike The Grinch, though, we know for certain that Christmas-haters know the real reason for the season and they do not like that one bit ("Stop shoving your Christian faith down our throats!")

Now, on a strictly personal level … just between you and me … if you are a Christmas-hater, I would like to offer a little piece of advice the next time you feel excluded or offended during this time of year:

Man up!

First, there is no Constitutional right not to feel offended or excluded, so get over it. Second, feeling excluded or offended is a tad … shall we say … self-centered and egotistical. When over 80% of citizens in a country are Christian, odds are then that most people are going to want to celebrate Christmas, so get over it. And, third, quite frankly, why are you feeling offended or excluded anyway?

Like the Whos singing "Welcome Christmas," Americans who celebrate Christmas welcome everyone – Jews, Buddhists, Islamists, atheists, whoever! – to share presents, enjoy the carols, come to the parties, eat too much junk food, and watch all the sappy and wonderful movies and cartoons. I mean, be honest. Have you ever heard anyone complain about the fact that Barbara Streisand is Jewish when listening to one of her outstanding Christmas albums? Or that some of the best Christmas songs written during the 20^th Century were composed by Jewish songsmiths working in Tin Pan Alley? I truly doubt it. And why? Because Americans, Christian and non-Christians, welcome everyone else to celebrate. The reason for the season is the birth of Christ the Messiah, but the message is, "Good will to men." That means good will to everyone.

I have one more piece of advice for all the liberal Christmas-hating Grinches out there.

Even if you squash Christmas from any and all public displays … even if you expunge Christmas from all calendars … even if you remove the mention of Christmas in all popular media and by the popular culture America … most Americans will continue to celebrate the holiday (which is derived from the words "holy day") of Christmas, and likely would invite you to join in the celebration. History has taught us that Christians are going to celebrate Christmas, just as they did during the days of Roman persecution, and like they did in the former Soviet Union, and as they continue to do in intolerant places such as China and Saudi Arabia and Lebanon.

Sorry, dudes, but you just can’t dump Christmas off the top of Mt. Crumpet and expect to disappear. That is not the way Christmas works. You can’t stop Christmas from coming. You can’t stop it at all. But you will be welcomed to join in the celebration, if you ever care to.

And maybe, some day, you will understand that that fact is the greatest present we who welcome Christmas ever year can give to you.

"Christmas day will always be; Just so long as we have we"

Merry Christmas everyone.

 

There is an interesting interview with electoral analyst Michael Barone in this month’s issue of the LIMBAUGH LETTER. Conducted a week after the 11-7 elections, Barone postulates that the Democrats received more of the popular vote "based on assessments of competence, not on ideology." I think any honest Democrat or Republican would agree with that. The fact is that even Americans who voted Republican are not 100% happy with how the war on terror is being fought in Iraq – although I would argue that the war is going better than most Americans think, an opinion I base strictly upon what our soldiers over there are saying – and how the federal government reacted to Hurricane Katrina – which I agree could have been better, but I would also add that state and local governments and the effected citizenry failed to react as best they could, too.

What I really found interesting in Barone’s interview, however, is his opinion that, because of the 11-7 results, "we’re going to enter a new era of politics." Neither the Democrats nor Republicans will have an incumbent running for President in 2008, and Barone thinks, "Going into the ’08 election voters will be presented more squarely with the question: ‘Do you want a Republican government, or do you want a Democratic government?’ – with the Parties personified in large part by their Presidential candidates."

Barone states, and I agree, that what worked for Bill Clinton in 1992 or George W. Bush in 2000 will not work for any candidate in 2008. Most of these two President’s platform issues have either been enacted or rejected, so if the Dems want to win the White House, and if the Repubs want to keep it and win back Congress, one of these parties is going to have to present the American voters with solutions to problems challenging our country today, not back in the 1990s, 1980s, 1970s, or the 1960s.

The good news for both parties is that they both have a solid base to work from. According to Barone, "Historically we used to see huge swings between the Parties. Barry Goldwater got 38 percent of the vote, I believe, in 1964. Eight years later President Nixon got 61 percent … We don’t see shifts like that anymore. Bill Clinton got 49 percent of the vote; Al Gore and John Kerry got 48 percent of the vote." What happened this year is not that the Republicans did not turn out their voters. By all accounts, the Republicans did a good job of turning out the vote, but, as Barone opines, "I expect that some of the people the Republicans turned out decided to vote for the Democratic candidate – not a very large number, but enough to make a difference in a close race[.]" This is crucial for both parties, because as Barone points out "of the 28 House seats the Democrats won, 22 were won by 2 percent or less – and of those, 18 were won by less than 5,000 votes."

Keep those numbers in mind as candidates from both parties begin to announce their intentions to run for the White House, beginning this weekend as campaign commercials for Illinois Senator Barack Obama start running in New Hampshire. It has been fun watching Obama turn up the pressure on New York Senator Hillary Clinton to announce her own intentions to run sooner than she would have probably wanted. All fun aside, if Barone is correct, Dems will soon be asking themselves, "Do either of these candidates offer any new ideas? Do either inspire the kind of competence American voters were seeking on 11-7?"

What will happen when voters begin to realize that Senator Clinton has accomplished very little during her first term in Washington, and that Senator Obama has not only done nothing but has only served in the Senate for two years? Without a track record, Senator Clinton remains best known for her amateurish (and arguably illegal) attempts to ram "Hillary-care" down Americans’ throats during her husband’s first term. Senator Obama, meanwhile, has written a book whose naivety of politics may come back to haunt him, as will childish moments like his recent attempt to put journalist Maureen Dowd "on notice" for making fun of his ears in one of her columns.

Republicans will also be asking themselves the same question. So far former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani is ready to run, and it appears is Arizona Senator John McCain will make an official announcement soon. Neither are perfect candidates for Republicans. Giuliani is a social liberal and Senator McCain will have to deal with being a member of the infamous Gang of Fourteen and campaign finance reforms. Barone correctly points out, Giuliani "has got one thing going for him, which is that we usually ask of presidential candidates, we wonder: How will they handle a crisis? With him you don’t have to ask the question, you know the answer." McCain also has the fact he is a Vietnam War vet and prisoner-of-war to help him with this. Still, that may not be enough for an electorate hungry for leadership in these uncertain times.

The 2008 elections are a long way off, and we all have a lot of living to do before then. There is no telling what events – beneficial and tragic – will occur in the interim that will shape the decisions we voters will make when we finally can cast our ballots again. As the coming months unfold, it will be interesting to see if any candidates do offer new ideas and if these candidates will be the big winners on America’s next election night.

 

Just wanted to thank all the men and women who served in World War II on this 65^th Anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7^th, 1941.

Another thank you to all our men and women serving today to keep us safe on this day after one of the most disgraceful moments in our military and political history, the release of the report by the Iraq Study Group.

 

Matt Lauer made headlines earlier this week by announcing that Iraq is now in a civil war.

Some reporters in the Old Media wasted no time in agreeing with him, which wasn’t surprising. Many of the journalistic guard of Old Media journalists have been claiming Iraq is in a civil war for months. So have most Democrat politicians and their pundits.

What is surprising, not to mention refreshing, is the sudden hesitation in many of the Old Media’s journalistic guard to join the civil war chorus. I say hesitate because, while these guards’ flesh may not be willing to join Lauer, their spirit obviously is. Just one example would be a commercial CBS ran for their evening news program a few days ago, touting Katie Couric covering the developments in Iraq as that country stands at the threshold of … well, you know.

I’m a guy who likes facts, and the fact is that part of Iraq is in a mess. A good chunk of Iraq, however, is not a mess. It is no paradise, and there is always the threat of danger (just like in America), but more of Iraq is peaceful than it is at war. Still, Sunni and Shiite Muslims are engaged in a power struggle as far as who will be the power in the new government, much like Democrats and Republicans engage in a power struggle for control of our government. What is becoming more and more clear every day is that insurgents funded and trained by Iran are doing their best to pit Sunni and Shiite against one another in a violent struggle that will lead to civil war. This would trump American efforts to help Iraq maintain its new democratic government, and give back the terrorists the country as a safe harbor from which to plot and carry out attacks against the West.

THAT’S the story, and it would be nice if ALL the reporters in the Old Media’s journalistic guard would remove their liberal blinders, see what is really happening, and cover THAT story.

It would be nice, but it isn’t going to happen. I know because I’ve heard this song before, as have any American over the age of 40.

Soon after Lauer announced Iraq was in a civil war, many conservatives began comparing his comment to Walter Conkrite’s famous 1968 pronouncement that the Vietnam War was unwinnable, which led President Lyndon B. Johnson to say, "If we’ve lost Walter, we’ve lost the war."

Conkrite made his comment after the Tet Offensive on January 31, 1968. On that day the Viet Cong attacked several targets to the South, including the U.S. embassy in Saigon. Every VC troop who attacked our embassy was killed, but the VC had better luck in the former capital of Hue and the U.S. base at Keh Sanh, though at a cost of 50 troops killed to every one U.S. soldier. And the VC’s gains didn’t last long. According to Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen’s A PATRIOT’S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, "At Hue the surprised and outnumbered U.S. Marines evicted 10,000 Viet Cong and Vietnamese regulars from a fortified city in less than three weeks and at a loss of only 150 dead."

Prior to the Tet Offensive, Vietnam was considered a civil war between the North and South, but as Schweikart and Allen explain, "From that point on, any pretense that Vietnam was a civil war was over. The only hope the communists had to win had to come from direct, and heavy, infusions of troops and supplies from Hanoi, Moscow, and Peking." Not that it mattered. Robert Leckie, a U.S. military historian, called the Tet Offensive "the most appalling defeat in the history of the [Vietnam] war…an unmitigated military disaster (THE WARS OF AMERICA, p. 987)."

Despite this major VC defeat, Conkrite called the Vietnam war unwinnable! Schweikart and Allen point out, "Even NEWSWEEK—hardly an objective, patriotic source—admitted that for the first time in history the American press was more friendly to its country’s enemies than to the United States."

That was Conkrite and the American media in 1968; now, in 2006, we have Lauer and the Iraqi "civil war." When input the fact that Russia and China have been forging relationships with Iran (see, for example, this article from ASIA TIMES ONLINE: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GF04Ad07.html), and the similarities between then and now are frighteningly similar.

Today, of course, we have the New Media to help counter the Old Media. Conkrite and his generation’s journalistic guard had the news to themselves, and it cost America. Because of the New Media I have hope that, while the song of 2006 sounds the same as 1968, this tune will have a different and happier ending.

 

Kudos to Disney for playing "Molly: An American Girl on the Home Front" last Sunday!

This is the third film based on the popular toys and books from American Girl, a subsidiary of Mattel, and the first to premiere on the Disney Channel. This film was based on the American Girl character of Molly, a ten-year-old girl living in Jefferson, Illinois in 1943.

I say kudos because "Molly" is unapologetically pro-American and pro-World War II, something I didn’t expect to see broadcast by Disney, which has been anything but a conservative studio since the death of its founder.

Even better, there wasn’t a whiff of historical revisionism. Mothers stayed home with children, until the time came when they went to work in factories, where they did an outstanding job. No school prayer was shown, but children recited the Pledge of Allegiance before class, and a public school Christmas pageant was shown that included the nativity scene. People willingly if not always happily made sacrifices for the war effort, the reality of men and women dying was never shirked, yet there was a pervasive atmosphere in the film that its characters that America had only one goal in the war, an that was the total defeat and surrender of its enemies.

Perhaps the most poignant scene in the film, however, does not center on Molly but another girl named Emily, who comes from London to live with Molly’s family. Emily’s father is serving in the British military, and Emily’s mother was killed in a bombing. Earlier in the movie Molly’s family practices an air raid drill, and it is during this time that Molly’s father, a doctor, informs his three children that he has volunteered to serve in the war. Molly takes the news hard, frightened for her father’s safety. Soon after Emily comes to live with Molly’s family, an air raid siren goes off to signal another drill. Molly, her mother, brother and sister react as if the time has come to do an unpleasant chore, but Emily shudders and looks around, conditioned to expect the war to fall in on top of her whenever she hears this sound. This leads to a sobering wake-up call for Molly as she helps the terrified Emily through the drill. When the siren signals the all-clear, Molly tells Emily, "See. We’re all safe." Emily simply tells Molly, "We’re never safe."

"Molly" is more than good family entertainment. It is a good reminder about our recent history, and serves as an interesting parallel to the war we are living through today. Some sixty years ago, Americans were faced with a real threat to our country, and they responded with sacrifice and determination. They didn’t start the war, but they were going to finish, and most Americans didn’t care what anybody thought about it. Today, most Americans feel that same way, though it would be difficult to know that if you listened to the mainstream media and many politicians. How wonderful would it be if America 2006 were a little more like America 1943?

Kudos to Disney, kudos to American Girl, and kudos to everyone involved with creating this outstanding and refreshing film!

No lengthy thoughts or opinions today.  I just wanted to pass along my best wishes to you for a Happy Thanksgiving.  May God be with you and yours on this very American holiday.  :-)

 

Before I begin, I’d like to express my condolences on the passing of Milton Friedman, Noble Prize winner and one of the most influential economists of the 20^th Century.

 

 

This morning, Republicans in the House of Representatives elected John Boehner of Ohio as the new House Minority Leader and Roy Blunt of Missouri to be Minority Whip.

What does this mean for conservatives and right-of-center moderates hoping the Republicans in the House might have learned their lesson after the 11-7 elections?

Boehner’s opponent, Mike Pence from Indiana, and Blunt’s oppoent, John Shadegg of Arizona, are both conservatives, and victories by Pence and Shadegg would have been a step in the right direction towards getting the Republican Party back on track to reclaim the House in 2008. However, Boehner and Blunt won by wide margins, a clear indication that Republican congressmen fail to see their loss of power as an indication to change their ways. This is not surprising, but it is disappointing.

Republican senators, meanwhile, demonstrated a little more backbone by electing Trent Lott of Mississippi to be their Minority Whip over Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Lott comes with a lot of baggage, but the Senators who voted for him are showing that they are willing to take a little heat to acquire what Lott brings to the table. Lott is not someone I would want as Majority Leader if the Republicans do take back the Senate in 2008, but he is the right man for this job.

McConnell is a fine politician, but Lott is the better dealmaker, and with the Senate split 49-51, the Republicans need someone who knows when to hold ‘em and knows when to fold ‘em. Lott can do that. Lott also a chip on his shoulder, if his interview yesterday on Sean Hannity’s radio program is any indication. I may be eating crow in the near future, but I believe this is not the same Trent Lott who used to be Senate Majority Leader.

This Trent Lott got to experience first-hand what it is like to be run through the Democrat/Drive-By Media’s character shredder. He also had his home in Pascagoula, Mississippi, which had been in his family for 154 years, wiped out by Hurricane Katrina. This guy has taken his political enemies’ and nature’s best shot and he is still standing, and I respect that. More importantly, no one survives such trails without being affected, and the fact that Lott is still standing indicates to me that he is a stronger man than he was when he was Majority Leader. With his political experience, a narrow Democratic majority, and an Independent senator caucusing with the Dems, watching Lott these next two years should be in the words of White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, "Wicked good fun."

Meanwhile, as you have probably already heard, soon-to-be Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi did something her loyal opposition didn’t have the courage to do: give Republican voters hope for 2008. As you probably already know, Representative Pelosi broke House tradition and supported John Murtha of Pennsylvania as House Majority Leader. It was Rep. Pelosi’s first public display of power as the new Speaker, and lo and behold a large number of Democrats snubbed her. Rep Pelosi maintained her composure during a press conference after the vote, promising that despite this vote she will end the Iraq War. Rumor has it you could hear the botax cracking as it struggled to maintain the scariest smile since The Joker’s during this unbecoming rant.

The good news is that it appears there are Democrats who are willing to buck their leadership if they believe it is for the good of their party, especially with the more centrist liberal Steny Hoyer of Maryland as Majority Leader than if Murtha had won the post. These are people that President Bush might be able to work with, much like President Reagan was able to do with blue-dog Dems back in the 1980s. Whether this is really the case, and, if so, whether President Bush or Minority Leader Boehner take advantage of this opportunity is still a question that only time can answer.

I would pass along a little advice to Republicans in both the House and Senate. Ditto to bloggers and talk-show callers who have bee complaining that the Republicans have lost majority status in the Beltway for all time. My advice comes in the form of a football analogy, in honor of NFL fan Condoleezza Rice, our Secretary of State and a shining star of the Bush 43 administration.

On January 4, 1997, a two-year-old football franchise called the Jacksonville Jaguars defeated the heavily favorite Denver Broncos 30-27 in a divisional playoff game played at Denver’s Mile High Stadium. And don’t let that score fool you. The game wasn’t that close. After the game, one Bronco – feeling much the same way as many Republicans and conservatives did on the night of 11-7 – was quoted as saying that it would take Denver seven years to recover from such an embarrassing defeat.

History tells a different story.

With a solid foundation to work from, the Broncos learned from their shattering victory and shored up their primary weakness – their defense – with wise free agent selections during the off season, most notably picking up defensive end Neil Smith from division rival Kansas City.

The result? On December 27, 2007, Denver won a playoff rematch against Jacksonville 41-17.

Prior to the rematch, I remember announce Dan Dierdorf saying that Denver really wanted to play Jacksonville again, and then warned, "Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it." Denver got it and ran with it, going on from that victory to win two Super Bowls, a major accomplishment for a team that had lost its first four Super Bowl appearances, the last two by humiliating margins.

And what is the moral of this story?

If Republicans heed the warning of 11-7 and shore up their weaknesses – in other words, forget about spending like drunken sailors and actually grow a spine to oppose the Dems or even the President when it is for the good of the country – they can turn a devastating defeat like 11-7 into a much more devastating victory. But they have to be prepared to learn from their mistakes AND be willing to do the hard work to fix those mistakes. And, no, this victory will not happen overnight, but it can come quicker than you might imagine when the sting of defeat is still fresh and painful.

Early results are not promising that the Republicans in the House are prepared to do this, but those in the Senate might be. Conservative and Republican voters can play their part as they have in the past by holding their representatives’ feet to the fire, but in the end it will be up to the members of the new Republican minority in the Congress to decide if the new two years will be wicked good fun or if election night 2008 will just be wicked for Republicans.

 

Well, everyone has to start somewhere, so I might as well start with last Tuesday’s elections.

Conservatives, unlike most liberals, can face the facts, and the fact is that Republicans are no longer in control of the legislative branch of the United States government because far too many of them went native. Too many Republicans ended up wanting to be liked by the Beltway media. At the same time, truly conservative Republicans found themselves towing the party line and supporting a "compassionate conservative" president who embraces more spending and bigger government. The true conservatives might have been better off voting their principles instead, but that horse has already left the barn, so there’s no use pondering it now.

The popular opinion in the media right now is that Iraq was one of the reasons, if not the main reason, why Democrats took back the House and the Senate. Too many voters perceive that we are in a quagmire in Iraq. Why is that? It’s not only easy but accurate to blame the mainstream media for this. Don’t believe me? Then visit some military blogs or go find yourself some veterans who have served in Iraq and ask them if the big three networks and CNN are presenting an accurate picture of our progress there. The men and women who were there will not only tell you the picture is inaccurate, but that it is frustrating. Every day our military personnel are risking their lives to make life better for Iraqis, most of who are grateful for what we have done and are doing, and that should be presented to the American public. Outside of the new media and FOX News, though, this information has not been reaching Americans, many of whom voted for Democrats on 11-7.

Right about now, though, some of those voters may be wondering, "What the heck did I do?"

For the past two days, FOX News has been showing a Newsweek poll conducted on November 9-10 that indicates that 78% of Americans are either somewhat or very nervous that America may withdrawal from Iraq too soon. People wanted change, and perhaps some "fresh eyes" are needed right now, but Americans don’t want a disaster. Pulling out of Iraq before the new government is stable and its security forces are able to protect its citizens would be just that. And, if this Newsweek poll is accurate, withdrawing from Iraq would also be a disaster for Democrats, since such a move would be contrary to what many of the people who voted them into power wanted them to do.

Not that this may matter. Contrary to popular belief, politicians do not always listen to their constituents. Heck, sometimes politicians do not always care what their constituents are telling them. Just a few short months ago, thousands of Americans inundated their representatives in Washington about the problem of illegal immigration. Americans wanted this problem tackled, but a Republican-controlled Congress ignored these demands. When it became apparent that Americans didn’t appreciate being snubbed, the Republican-controlled Congress got around to working on the problem, but by then it was too late.

Not that the Democrats are going to be any better. During the recent campaign, the Dems wisely supported a number of candidates who could at least appear to be moderate or conservative in areas where Reagan Democrats and moderate Republicans made up the majority of voters. However, now that the Dems are in power, San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi, a shoe-in for Speaker of the House, has snubbed the more moderate Democrat Steny Hoyer for the extreme liberal John Murtha (an unindicted co-conspirator in that blast from the past, the Abscam scandal of 1978-1980) to be the House Majority leader. The same John Murtha who wants an immediate withdrawal of military forces from Iraq, and who has not been shy about suggesting that the Marines and soldiers serving there are murderers (See "Murtha: Marines Murdered 15 Unarmed Iraqi Civilians at http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/05/murtha_marines_murdered_15_unarmed_iraqi_civilians/).

The facts facing Americans as of today, November 14, 2007, are these. Beginning in January 2007, Democrats will control the House of Representatives and the Senate for at least two years. (There are some rumors flying about the talk-radio circuit that Senator Joe Lieberman -- who is on the record as going to Iraq, seeing "real progress there," and arguing that our troops must stay there (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611)-- might consider caucusing with the Republicans if he felt the situation demanded it, since that would effectively give the Republicans control of the Senate, but I think this happening is unlikely at best.) The Democratic leadership during these two years is shaping up to be very left-wing, not moderate, in spite of the fact that the Dems came to power on the strength of moderate and even a few conservative voters. As a result, a majority of Americans are nervous the Democrats will make matters worse in Iraq by withdrawing our troops too soon, an opinion the Democratic leadership will likely not care about.

What will the House and Senate do over the next two years? No one can say for sure on November 14, 2007, but I am willing to make one fairly safe prediction, and that is if the new Democratic leadership has its way, most Americans are not going to like it.