We must be approaching Christmas. I know this not because of the decorations in the stores that have been up for a month already, not because Thanksgiving has just passed, not because the classical station has started playing Christmas music, and not because my Church choir has started to rehearse for the holy day. I know this because, like the first robin of spring, we have received our annual sign that the “holiday season” is upon us: the first news story of anti-Christian bigotry by a government entity.

Our story comes from Chicago, by way of the Associated Press. Apparently the city of Chicago asked the organizers of the Christkindlmarkt (“Christmas” Fair in German) not to use New Line cinema studios as a sponsor for the fair. What was New Line’s crime, you ask? Was it that they put out some offensive, violent or sexually explicit “Christmas” movie that had Santa and his elves raping and pillaging in Scandinavia to exact revenge for Viking plunder?

No, it was worse. New Line Cinemas has dared to make a Christmas movie that… Actually depicts the Christmas story. The Nativity Story will follow the tradition started by Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ in trying to – with some degree of biblical accuracy – depict a story out of the Bible, this time the story of Christ’s incarnation and birth. If you’ve paid any attention to entertainment news over the last couple of weeks you should be aware of it. I know this because I pay less attention than just about anyone, and I know about it.

Well the brass in Chicago has deemed that this year’s Christkindlmarkt shouldn’t let New Line prominently advertise their movie for fear that it “might offend non-Christians.”

“‘Our guidance was that this very prominently placed advertisement would not only be insensitive to the many people of different faiths who come to enjoy the market for its food and unique gifts, but also it would be contrary to acceptable advertising standards suggested to the many festivals holding events on Daley Plaza,’ Jim Law, executive director of the office, said in a statement.”

Translation: “Muslims, Jews, and Atheists are so stupid that they might not realize that something called Christkindlmarkt might, possibly, have something to do with Christ, and therefore any prominent displays thereof might shock and offend them.”

Alternate translation: “Christianity, because it is intolerant of Leftist values (promiscuous sex, homosexuality, abortion, atheism, and ‘There is no god but Government”), is so patently offensive that it should not be prominently featured even during its own major holidays. In fact, efforts must be made to mute Christian celebrations of Christmas and promote Leftist values like the Most Holy Tenet of Diversity through such great, valid, meaningful holidays as Kwanzaa.”

I know we hear about this every year, and I will grant the AP one thing – they treated the story as it should have been treated: The Chicago city government is populated by morons – but the fact that we have to hear about it every year is evidence that work still needs to be done in purging the religious intolerance out of the party of Tolerance and Diversity. They say that we shouldn’t offend anyone, and yet they offend Christians every single year by complaining about nativities, and sacred songs, and other public displays of religion during this very religious, Christian holiday.

HJG

Thanksgiving. History and tradition tell us that we are celebrating the landing of the English pilgrims on the North American continent and establishing the Plymouth colony in 1620. After the many difficulties of creating a settlement on wild land, they eventually managed to prosper. To celebrate their successful harvest, with the help of the local Indians, they held a big feast to thank God that they made it through the year.

The holiday itself was officially recognized by President Abraham Lincoln, who established the 4^th Thursday in November as the Thanksgiving holiday. In modern times, we celebrate it by having a big meal – with Turkey, stuffing, potatoes, cranberry sauce and pumpkin pie (usually) – and watching that all-American of sports, football. But the real purpose behind the holiday is to give thanks to God for our lives and the privileges we have as people and as Americans.

Here’s what I thank God for:

Giving me the chance to do a job that matches my abilities and desires.

I’m a good oral communicator, I can speak to a crowd, and I can get the point across. I can teach just about anything, so long as I have a cursory understanding of it. I enjoy being in front of a group, and I enjoy helping people learn things. So I thank God that I have those talents and a job that lets me use them.

Affording me the opportunity to serve my country.

Two years on Active Duty and 10 years in the reserve along with four years as a contractor for the US Air Force has given me the chance to wear the uniform and support the mission of the Air Force, to defend our country and way of life. It has also given me a great deal of respect for everyone who dons a uniform to protect the people of this country. I don’t mean just the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines fighting the enemies of freedom in Iraq. I also include the Coast Guard, the Border Patrol, policemen, firemen, and paramedics and anyone else whose job is to keep me safe. I thank God I could give a little back.

Making me a Catholic.

I realize we have free will, but I also believe that God puts us in situations that require us to make choices. And sometimes, He makes the correct choice the only viable one. I was born and raised Catholic, and I am very happy in that religion. And watching the world around me, and noting all the other faiths that are having major crises, I am glad I am part of a fait that holds a steady course. Sure, the Catholic Church has its issues. There are some very bad priests out there doing some very, VERY bad things. But the problems in, for example, the Episcopal Church are much deeper and much graver. They, and others, are having major problems with moral doctrine, most especially where homosexuality is concerned. They are beginning to lose their way in Christ and in scripture to satisfy the false god of Political Correctness. I pray for them that they may see the error of their ways and right themselves before it is too late. With that having been said, I thank God that I belong to a religion that does not fall prey to the tyranny of moral relativism. I am also thankful that I have faith in God to recognize His works.

Giving me the voice and opportunity to sing His praises.

I’ve been in Church choirs for something like 15 years, now. (Actually, I’ve lost count). I have a passion for singing and enough talent to pull it off. I have a lot of fun with it, and I belong to a really good group, now. And I come from the school of thought that says singing praise to God is like praising him twice: Once with the words, and once with the music.

Giving me my family.

I have a friend who calls me “the most normal person” she knows. I’m not sure that speaks well of her other acquaintances, but that’s another story entirely. My parents have been married for almost 36 years. They raised me and my three siblings (two brothers and a sister, all younger than me) very well, and I really enjoy spending time with them, especially now as they live a long way away from here. I owe them for my life, my faith, my values, and my gifts. I couldn’t ask for a better pair of parents.

Giving me my friends.

My circle of friends is very small. There’s really only a couple of people with whom I am very close. Literally. One is Larry. I’ve known Larry for nearly 15 years, now. We’ve been very close for a very long time. We’ve helped each other through tough times (we both got divorced at roughly the same time), and each has kept the other’s head above water many times. It was Larry that introduced me to the Air Force recruiter and I joined the military because of him. I’ve also been able to help him through a number of troubles, and have helped him find his way spiritually.

Kelly is the other really good friend I have. I’ve only known her for a couple of years, from the choir, but we’ve grown pretty close in the last year or so. She’s easily the best singer I know, and one of the best I’ve ever heard (and I couldn’t tell you, off hand, who I’d put ahead of her.) Her outgoing, friendly nature compliments my more quiet, reserved personality. She’s a lot of fun to be around, and she’s willing to help me out when I need it. She even invited me to Thanksgiving Dinner yesterday with her family when she found that I didn’t have anywhere else to go.

I don’t make a lot of friends, but those I have I appreciate.

Making me an American.

Yes, America is the greatest nation on the earth. Yes, we are rich, powerful, influential, and free. Yes, we have a lot of material privilege in this country, and everyone has the opportunity, should they take up the challenge, to succeed. But that’s not why I am happy to be an American. I’m thankful that I live in this country because I live in a country where the people, by and large, still believe in God and worship Him. Despite the move by the Left toward secularism and atheism, and despite the fact that they are desperate to push the rest of us into their own private hell, the people of this country have resisted. No, we aren’t perfect. There are any number of problems that may need to be addressed, even in matters of faith. But, unlike almost any other country, we still strongly answer surveys on the subject by saying we have faith in God. The “elite” European countries are showing severe downturns in their faithful, whereas faith in this country remains steady. Our freedom, plus our industriousness, plus our faith has made America the nation it is. We rely on God and ourselves rather than the government for our own success, and we are much more successful for it.

Look around you. If you’re reading this, you have something to be thankful for. Your life, your health, your job, your family, your friends, your country, your faith, whatever it may be. Take some time out of your schedule and thank God for one thing today. It doesn’t even have to be Thanksgiving to do that.

HJG

In the mornings, during my commute, I tend to listen to sports radio. I choose sports for several reasons. 1: I prefer Classical music, but some mornings, I just don’t want to listen to it. 2: Washington, DC has some of the worst radio in the country. Not because of raunchy DJs, but just because 25% of the stations are NPR, 50% are “Urban Contemporary”, and the rest are split about evenly between Alternative rock and country (None of which do I care for). There are 2 classic rock stations, one of which is probably the worst of that genre in the country, playing the same 7 songs over and over and over…, one classical station (not NPR), one really awful “Smooth Jazz” station, one Shock-Jock talk station and one sports station. (Note: There are a couple of conservative AM talk stations, but AM stations don’t work well at night in the outer suburbs. The choices, as you can see, are somewhat limited. The inane prattle on a sports-talk station is enough to keep me awake while not making me angry... usually.

There has been a big story in the news recently that’s touched the political, main-stream, entertainment, and sports circles: the impending release of Orenthal Julius (O.J.) Simpson’s book If I Did It. Without going into detail (as much because I’m a little shaky on the details myself) the book was alleged to be an autobiographical account of Simpson’s rocky and sometimes abusive relationship with the late Nicole Brown Simpson, his ex-wife. As anyone who is more than 15 probably knows, O.J. was charged, tried, and acquitted of the brutal, 1994, stabbing murders of Nicole and her friend, Ron Goldman. The acquittal was, to say the least, controversial as Mr. Simpson had assembled a so-called “Dream Team” of lawyers including the late Johnnie Cochran, F. Lee Bailey, and others well known in that profession. Cochran’s strategy for the defense was to use race and the black public’s mistrust of the Los Angeles Police Department to discredit every piece of evidence against Mr. Simpson. The strategy worked on the jury comprised of 8 blacks, 3 other minorities, and one white (Mr. Simpson is black, Mrs. Simpson and Mr. Goldman were white.) Polls asking whether people believe that he was innocent or guilty are often split on racial lines with a high majority of whites believing he was guilty, and nearly all blacks polled saying he was innocent, and therefore framed by the LAPD. But I’m not here to talk about the trial.

And, honestly, I’m not here to talk about the book. Briefly, I will note that the book was apparently to include a detailed, but “fictional”, account of the murders. The account was expected to include details that only the killer would know, but Mr. Simpson and his lawyers have maintained that it is fiction. Either way, to say that releasing such a book would be in poor taste is to understate the situation. An equivalent understatement would be something like saying that it’s a little warm at the center of the sun. NewsCorp, the parent company of the Fox Corporation, had planned to release the book and a televised interview of Mr. Simpson until yesterday, when public outcry against the book prompted NewsCorp CEO Rupert Murdoch to pull the plug on both projects.

OK, enough background, now to the point of this whole mess. So I’m listening to sports radio, and because O.J. Simpson is a Hall of Fame football player, any news about him is broadcast by ESPN and other sports networks. The radio show host (whose name I cannot recall) early in the morning was commenting on the book and the fact that it was pulled. Now, this host said he didn’t intend to purchase the book, and he generally found it distasteful, but he decried NewsCorp’s decision to pull the plug on the project as censorship. He then prattled on about the First Amendment, and how this country was founded on the principles of being able to publish “objectionable material”, etc, etc. In other words, the standard anti-censorship arguments you hear from people who do not understand what censorship is and what the First Amendment really says. Congress cannot pass a law to restrict freedom of speech or the press. That’s (in part) what the First Amendment says. It says nothing about a private organization making a business decision to cancel a project that is considered patently offensive to the business’s customers. Rupert Murdoch realized what the Dixie Chicks did not a few years ago: people have the right not to buy your product if you offend them. He also realized, because of the public outcry, that not only would the book not sell, the planned interview of Mr. Simpson would be boycotted and the ratings wouldn’t justify the costs. Additionally, the objectionable nature of the material doesn’t stem from a controversial political stand, or a violent, vulgar, or sexually explicit fictional story. It is, at best, if you believe Mr. Simpson, an exploitation of the violent, gruesome deaths of two people. At worst, if you believe he was guilty, it is the graphic description, by the killer, of the real death of two real people who were murdered in cold blood. In simpler terms, it’s a “snuff” story.

Congress may not be allowed to make such a story illegal, but common decency used to make such laws unnecessary. We now live in a world where the publication of any material, no matter how against public decency, must be allowed not only by the government, but by private companies, lest there be complaints of censorship. At least so long as those ideas are politically correct.

Here are my questions: Was it not censorship when ESPN forced Rush Limbaugh to resign for saying that Philadelphia Eagles’ Quarterback Donnovan McNabb was over-rated and that the Media wanted McNabb to succeed because McNabb is black? Is it not censorship when a university tells Christian students that they cannot publicly express their views on homosexuality and abortion because homosexuals and feminists will be offended? Is it not censorship for Harvard University to accept federal money and ban military recruiters from campus during the campus job fairs? Is it not censorship when a court tells a city that the city cannot put up a religious Christmas display? (about which we will hear more later, I guarantee it. ‘Tis the season.) Is it not censorship when a school tells a child that the child cannot wear a shirt with a religious slogan because it will offend gays and atheists? Where is any of that different from NewsCorp’s decision? And why is it that we don’t here more complaints about that sort of thing in the media?

That last one I’ll answer myself: It’s only censorship if something the media agree with is being suppressed. If it’s not politically correct, it isn’t censorship.

HJG

The Associated Press reported today that the New York City-based Human Rights Watch issued a report criticizing the trial of former Iraqi tyrant Saddam Hussein. They blasted the fairness of the trial accusing the prosecution and judges of misconduct. Human Rights Watch (HRW) also went after the defense for constantly boycotting the trial because “the tactic ‘created the strong impression that some counsel deliberately sought to delay or obstruct the course of the trial.’”

Gee, ya think so?

Saddam Hussein was one of the worst dictators of the 20^th Century. His regime was responsible for the invasions of two neighboring countries and was gearing up for a third if we hadn’t intervened, not to mention the actual, proven, and admitted use of weapons of mass destruction against people in his own country. And that’s just the stuff we know to be true. The reports of murder, rape, pillage and plunder are on a par with all but the absolute worst of the worst: Stalin and Hitler. He attempted to assassinate a former US President. He defied the UN over and over (not that I fault him for that, but some liberals would if the US did the same thing) while skimming over a billion dollars off the Oil for Food program (with the complicity of our “allies” in France, Germany, Russia, and the son of Kofi Annan). And he is guilty of just about every war crime we have a law for.

Why would his attorneys want to obstruct the trial?

Actually this isn’t supposed to be a piece about Saddam, his trial, or Leftist protests against executing an evil dictator. At least not specifically. No, this piece is a general criticism of “Human Rights” and “Civil Rights” groups overall, both in and outside this country. Such bastions of common sense as the American Criminal (oops, there I go again, I meant “Civil”) Liberties Union (ACLU), Amnesty International (AI), the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), HRW, the UN Council on Human Rights, and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), and the 10,831 other similar groups out there with the same philosophy. The Civil and Human rights records of these groups are a bit lacking in credibility. In nearly every case their focus is not on real civil and human rights abuses like the execution of apostates in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan, or the detention of people who dare to speak out against the government in Cuba, China, or North Korea, or gruesome incidents like Tienanmen Square in Beijing in 1989. No, they spend the bulk of their words of protest when the racist, American judicial system wants to execute white, “conservative”, decorated Gulf War veteran, and Mass Murderer Tim McVeigh. Or when someone flies a Confederate flag. Or when someone displays the 10 commandments or a nativity scene in the public view. To groups like this, it is proof that a defendant didn’t get a fair trial because he was convicted. They believe “Jury of his peers” (not mentioned in the Constitution, by the way. It says “an Impartial Jury”) means people who look and act exactly the same way as the accused rather than simply using random, ordinary people. They have a view of a class system exactly opposite to the rigid, stratified classes in Victorian England and India, where those least willing to earn a living are to be supported and those who work hard and are paid well for it are torn down. They believe that while the display of religious images is offensive and should be forbidden, the acceptance of immoral lifestyles (adultery, “shacking-up”, homosexuality) must be forced upon the people.

I’m actually getting tired of “Rights” groups telling me what I do and don’t have the right to do. I’m also tired of their confusion on what “rights” actually means. As such, I propose that any group purporting to be a "Human Rights" or "Civil Rights" group should be required to do the following:

1. Acknowledge that while the US isn't perfect, there isn't a nation that has a better record on human rights, certainly not in the last 100 years.

That isn’t an opinion just because I’m an American. It’s a simple fact. Yes, the US has had its issues. Its treatment of Eastern Indian tribes in the 1830s and ‘40s was appalling. The evil of slavery is a stain on our history, if not our national soul, and the institutionalized racism that followed wasn’t much of an improvement. But the stain of slavery was washed away with the blood of nearly 600,000 American soldiers and the ink of Abraham Lincoln’s pen. And the Old Jim Crow days were abolished in the ‘50s and ‘60s. Yes racism still exists, but I challenge anyone to tell me where it doesn’t in the modern world. And contrary to the belief of the Slavery Restitution crowd, slavery in the US was not on a par with the Holocaust in Germany. It wasn’t even close.

Our Constitution does a far better job of protecting us from tyranny than any other government in the world. Our Bill of Rights isn’t limited by any clause that says the rights of the people cannot infringe on the aims of the State (as it says in the UN declaration of Human Rights, by the way, as well as the Communist Chinese constitution, the old Soviet constitution, etc.) Even the other “free” western democracies like the UK, Australia, and Western Europe have their infringements of freedom. The gun laws in England and Australia can best be described as draconian (never mind ineffective), Denmark has laws racism and blasphemy, the records of Germany and Italy in the last 100 years are far worse than anything in what is now the United States over the last 400.

What is worse is that the Human Rights record of the US is often compared unfavorably to the records of countries like Cuba. Of course, when the UN’s HRC has Lybia, Saddam’s Iraq, Syria, Iran, Cuba, Chavez’s Venezuela, etc. as members, they won’t put the spotlight on themselves. If the US is so bad, then tell me where it’s better. But before you do that, you should be willing to pick up and move to that better country and live under their rules.

We do not force you to be Christian, though we are a predominantly Christian nation. We do not force you to be a conservative or a liberal (though the liberals would prefer the latter.) We do not require that you serve in the military or work for the government. We do not require that you own or carry a gun, nor do most places require that you don’t. Every adult citizen is allowed and encouraged to vote and there is some choice in whom to vote for. There is no “State Run Media” and even the tax-payer-funded Public Broadcasting System is free to criticize the sitting government (which it does frequently when that government is conservative). Punishments for crimes are fair and even. Our Justice system, while imperfect, still starts with the presumption of innocence. We do not prosecute laws involving “sexual freedom” even if they are on the books. Our system of government has remained essentially intact for 217 years, longer than any other in the world, excepting, possibly, the UK. And even there, the roles have changed significantly since we left. We’re not perfect, but I challenge you to find something better.

2. Acknowledge that "fair" doesn't mean "to your advantage."

A "Fair" trial, for example, isn't defined as "one in which the defendant is declared innocent." "Fair" employment practices don't mean you get a job. “Fair” means just that, fair. The Washington Redskins (my favorite sports team) lost this past Sunday, but that doesn’t mean the game was played unfairly. They simply didn’t play well. There were no bad calls, or missed penalties that could have turned the game the other way. It was, in a word, fair. It wasn’t the result I wanted, but winning a game because the ref makes a horrible call doesn’t prove anything. Fair means that the rules are set in advance, they are applicable to all parties, they are the same for all parties, and within the rules, the only thing that separates them is their ability. If you break the rules you are punished. As a matter of fact, it is unfair NOT to punish people who break the rules, especially when the rest of us don’t. I had no problems with the punishment of the Enron executives. They broke the rules, and got the rewards that other people have to work very hard for. Fairness means the rules apply to you the same as they do to me. If you win on account of your ability, I don’t have to like it, but I cannot call it “unfair.” At the same time, if I win because, for example, my race, that is unfair, and I don’t have the right to be considered the winner.

3. Understand that being free doesn't mean you can say or do anything you want, any time you want, without regard to the consequences.

Freedom of the Press does not, for example, give you license to knowingly print false stories in the news with the purpose of damaging someone's reputation. Freedom of Religion does not mean that people who choose to follow the cult of the ancient Aztecs may engage in human sacrifice. Freedom of speech does not mean you can insult your customers, then act shocked and claim your rights are being abused when they stop buying your products. In Catholicism, the sacrament of Reconciliation, or Confession, clears the stain of sin off your soul, it, however, does not absolve you of the consequences of that sin. Even if you Confess a murder to a priest, you still must pay the legal penalty for that murder. The same holds true for exercising your rights. The right to do something does not free you from the consequences of doing it wrong.

4. Understand that "Rights" apply to everyone, not just those who agree with you.

Many people abuse the rights they have, often by trampling the rights of others. This is especially true on the Left when they state a position (based on freedom of speech) and then try to say that any opposing position is bigoted or insensitive and, thus, try to quash any dissent. They push lawsuits through the courts that claim that one person’s freedom from seeing any expression of religion is more important than 100 people’s expression thereof. They put speech codes in campuses that, under the guise of protecting people from bigotry, stifle reasonable debate into important moral issues. They insult President Bush and seek to silence people who criticize them for insulting President Bush. When radio personalities Opie and Anthony broadcast a stunt in which a pair of listeners desecrates and defiles a Catholic Church by having intercourse in the sanctuary (thus encouraging the listeners to violate New York City laws on public indecency), they are rewarded with a lucrative contract on Satellite Radio where they may broadcast their raunchy show without restrictions, but when Doug “The Greaseman” Tracht makes 2 tasteless racial jokes over the course of 10 years, he is relegated to a low-rent AM station. I don’t necessarily think that “The Greaseman” was right in what he said or should have kept his job. I simply assert that the rules didn’t apply the same way in both cases.

5. Understand the difference between people and actions.

People have rights, actions do not. This is most important when dealing with the Gay Privileges movement. People in that movement do not publicly accept the difference between a person and his behavior. There is no crime in having homosexual thoughts or desires. As a matter of fact, even the Catholic Church acknowledge that it is homosexual ACTIONS that are considered gravely sinful. There is no universal right to do anything you want. If there were, all laws would be invalid. We punish criminal behavior (Steeling, murder, assault, lying under oath, violating traffic laws) by fines, prison, or, in extreme cases, execution in accordance with applicable laws. I don’t have a basic human right to rob a bank, nor do I have a basic human right to drive 100 mph through a residential area. Just because it is something that doesn’t obviously harm someone else, doesn’t mean it’s OK to do. Even if it’s legal doesn’t make it acceptable behavior. Sex outside marriage is not illegal in the United States. Fornication laws have been struck down as unconstitutional. Having said that, that doesn’t make it right or acceptable behavior, and the State shouldn’t encourage it. The same holds true for homosexuality. There is no human right to be intimate with whom or whatever you choose, and the state shouldn’t be required to approve of or support that kind of behavior, even if it does allow it.

6. There is no universal, absolute, unimpeachable, Constitutional right to privacy.

If a man murders his wife in their bedroom, he cannot claim that his Constitutional right to privacy has been violated when he is arrested and convicted. The same concept holds true for drugs, child pornography, embezzlement, child abuse, or any other crime that can be committed from the privacy of one’s own home. Liberal “privacy” arguments in favor of abortion, gay marriage, AIDS, terrorism suspects, seatbelt laws, and the like don’t hold water, especially since they don’t apply the same rules to firearms and personal beliefs.

7. Accept that evil exists in the world and that evil people need to be punished in such a way that they cannot or will not continue to do that evil.

For some that means imprisonment for a short period of time, for others Life in prison is most appropriate, and for the truly vile, especially those, like Saddam, who have followers who will cause evil on their behalf, and try to free the evildoer, need to be put to death for the safety of the rest of the people. This doesn’t mean executing political dissenters, apostates, or others who dare to disagree with whatever government is in power. Nor does it mean putting torture chambers in American prisons or amputating limbs and extremities as punishment. Execution is unpleasant. There’s no way around it. There’s probably going to be some pain in any violent, unnatural death, just as there often is in natural deaths. But the “humanity” of capital punishment should not be a consideration in that argument. Neither is it valid to compare the American system with China or Saudi Arabia or Saddam’s Iraq, where political or religious dissidents can be executed, sometimes without trial. Communist courts, along with those in other brutal tyrannies, often proceed from a presumption of guilt, rather than innocence. The accused may or may not have the benefit of competent legal counsel and they almost certainly have no reasonable chance to appeal their case. The safeguards put in place by the American Judicial system virtually guarantee that only the guilty will be executed, especially with DNA evidence now being almost necessary for a conviction, let alone sentencing. The purpose of punishment is to ensure that the person who committed the crime won’t do it again. If offenders repeat the crimes, the punishments are not strong enough. The job of the government is to protect its law-abiding citizens, and it must be allowed to punish criminals if it can do that job effectively.

HJG

OK, wait a minute. Am I the only person in the world who understands what’s going on in Iraq? Based on what I see in the news – both Leftist and conservative – it certainly feels that way. And I haven’t even been there.

Now before you start simply turning your computer off so you don’t have to see any more of what will likely be a completely uninformed and worthless piece, give me a moment to explain what I mean.

First and foremost, we are getting casualty figures thrown at us from the Left just about every day. With barely disguised glee, they tell us about “the bloodiest month for American soldiers since the invasion of Iraq,” where some 150 soldiers died or some such. They awaited, with great anticipation, the day of casualty number 2,000, just as they will 3,000, and then 4,000. The week leading up to 2,000 had Page A1 headlines counting up the number like they were counting up Cal Ripken’s Consecutive Games streak 11 years ago.

Even from the right we hear about how this may have been a mistake. Townhall.com has been littered with columns saying, in effect, “hey maybe the Liberals are right”, especially leading up to and after the election.

Well, just how bad has it been? We’ve been at it since March of ’03, so roughly 3 ½ years in Iraq. According to a Department of Defense report dated 13 November 06, there have been a total of 2,844 killed in action (KIA) in Operation Iraqi Freedom since the start of the operation. That includes 559 non-combat (i.e.: Accidental) deaths in theater. 2,844 deaths in 3 ½ years translates to roughly 812.5 KIA per year. Let’s see how that compares with other wars, both relatively popular and not-so. To do that we’ll see how long it would take the current rate of losses to equal the totals in some other major wars in American history:

(Source Wikipedia.com)

Does anyone else notice the minor disparity in numbers? Our soldiers are getting killed, yes. But it’s not exactly an alarming rate. My sympathy goes out to the loved ones of those 2,844 who have died in the defense of their country (with the exception of Cindy Sheehan who spent two years befouling the memory of her son for her own personal and political gain), but it also goes out to the 3,000 or so who died on September 11^th, and the thousands listed above who also died defending this great nation, and the thousands I did not list who died in other wars that didn’t have such high casualty figures. The point is that we simply aren’t losing soldiers left and right as the Left would like us to believe. Every one of the 5 wars I listed had annual casualty rates higher than the grand total in Iraqi Freedom. Except Vietnam (which was a 10-year conflict) those annual rates were many times higher than the current total. Even if you add in casualties from Afghanistan, you are looking at 3,189 total for the entire Global War on Terrorism. Even the original Gulf War, with 389 casualties in the 6-week conflict, would have averaged over 3,000 casualties per year, if the pace were maintained long-term. The point here is that casualties just aren’t a valid reason to pull out.

Now, as to the constant pronouncements that the end of the war will be “for some other President” to decide and the complaining that we have no exit strategy, did anyone, and I do mean anyone actually believe we’d be finished by now? Really? Honestly? We’re fighting a very nebulous enemy, one which we must defeat to ensure our own safety and survival as a nation. Pacifying a culturally beligerant people is not going to follow a 5-year plan. Remember that our enemy is a group of people who are raised to believe that their religion must be preeminent, that they must subjugate or kill all infidels, and that their law does not protect infidels the same way it protects Muslims. To Muslims the 10 commandments are interpreted as such: Thou shalt not kill other Muslims, thou shalt not steal from other Muslims, thou shalt not bear false witness against other Muslims, thou shalt not covet the wife of another Muslim, thou shalt not covet the goods of another Muslim, etc. Non-Muslims may be killed, lied to, stolen from, etc. and, if such lying, killing and stealing furthers the goals of Islam, the Muslim’s reward will be great in paradise.

This isn’t going to be the quick and painless (to us) destruction of a far inferior foreign army like Iraq’s, Panama’s, or Grenada’s. This is going to require rooting out, capturing and holding, or killing of terrorists, their leaders, financiers, and enablers, and it is going to take many years. As a matter of fact, it probably won’t end. When we let our guard down, we’ll get another September 11^th. And those who are calling for the immediate abandonment of Iraq will wonder why. And if it happens during a Republican Administration that administration will be blamed, even if it happens on January 21, 2013. “What did he know and when did he know it” will be the rallying cry, and we’ll get to deal with this all over again.

Just once, I’d like to see an honest appraisal of what’s going on in Iraq. Like the boy who cried “Wolf” the Left has complained so loudly for so long that I would be surprised if anyone over here would recognize actual bad news if they saw it.

We're in this for the long haul.  It's not going to get easier, but it has to be done lest more innocent American civilians are murdered in the name of a god that I cannot believe is the same one I worship.

HJG

Well, I guess the squeaky wheel eventually gets the grease. The Party of the loud, shrill, and insulting won a modest victory in the ’06 elections based, apparently, on things ranging from disdain for the Republicans’ shift to the left, to the war, to the simple, obvious, unequivocal, scientific fact that all Republicans, especially George Allen, Jr., are racist, homophobic warmongers who are just like President Bush. (If you have no idea what I’m talking about, Senator-Elect Jim Webb’s entire campaign was based on allegations that Allen used racist language while he was in college in the ‘70s. Even after Allen shot back with some outdated allegations of his own.) So, it seems that the sheep voters have, once again, rewarded shrill, baseless accusations of corruption, racism, homophobia, warmongering, etc, etc, etc. Having said that, there is a silver lining to this particularly ominous cloud.

First and foremost, as the Democrats generally ran on platforms of insulting their opponents rather than what they (the Democrats) actually plan to do – as is often their way – they will get the illusion that the shriller you are, the more correct you are, and the more powerful you are. So in 2008, they will find another John Kerry to get up there, talk about how he was in Vietnam, waffle a bit on the issues (like telling Jews that Israel’s wall is a good thing, while in another speech telling Arabs it’s a crime against humanity. Kerry actually did this in ’04) and fail miserably in the Elections (so long as the Republicans don’t nominate another winner like Bob Dole.) There are some things on the Democrats’ plate that I really do hope they work to accomplish, so that we can see where they really are:

1. Impeach President Bush. I really hope they are successful in impeaching the President. They don’t have anywhere near the votes to convict in the senate, so W. isn’t going anywhere, it will just be good Theatre of the Absurd watching them try to find something to charge him with. I think every “crime” the President is alleged to have committed has either (A) been shown not to be illegal or even unethical, or (B) been committed by someone else, possibly not even one of Bush’s appointees (as was the case with the whole Valerie Plame fiasco where both A and B applied.). Watching a bunch of leftists whine and complain about Bush having ever bought a gallon of gasoline from a station supplied by either Halliburton or Enron while not even convincing members of their own party will be a lot of fun. And it will show why it was a bad idea to put them in power in the first place.
2. Elect Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. I do not have a very high opinion of the intelligence of Rep. Pelosi. I don’t say this because she’s an extreme, California Leftist, but because she simply does not strike me as being a smart woman. When she was made Minority Leader, and I saw her speak, my immediate take on her was “she’s a moron.” The look in her eyes, the tone of her voice, and the content of her speech (which was a lot of nothing spelled out in monosyllabic words with a few big ones thrown in to make her look good) gave me the impression that I was glad she wasn’t the Republican leader. At the time, I didn’t even know she was Left of Kerry. I just knew that she far outweighed her IQ and she is in pretty decent shape. And so far, I haven’t been proven wrong. So since the Village Idiot will now be Mayor, the public’s opinion of Congress won’t improve much.
3. Raise Taxes to Clintonian levels… or at least vote on the bill. It’ll either get vetoed or it will completely turn off every working American. If the former, they’ll be portrayed as holding up vital legislation because of their desire to suck more money off us to pay starving artists through the NEA. If the latter, no state outside Massachusetts, California, New York, Oregon or Connecticut will vote for them in ‘08.
4. Show support for every initiative put forth by Rep. Elect Keith Ellison (D-MN). It’s a historic day. We now have our first Muslim legislator in Congress. It’s too bad his ties to the Religion of Peace and Tolerance include past affiliation with the Nation of Islam – a group known to be about as racially tolerant as the Ku Klux Klan, and the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) – a group that actively supports Terrorist organizations (like Hamas) through funding and activism, and passively supports all Muslim terrorists by being silent on their horrific acts of violence against Israelis and Americans. CAIR, it should be noted, never condemned the terrorist acts on September 11, 2001. (If I’m shown to be wrong, I’ll take that sentence out of the story. But you have to show me the condemnation in context, and in English.) It’ll be interesting to see if he starts to support things like amnesty for terrorist leaders, cessation of all hostilities against any Muslims anywhere, chatting with bin Laden when (not if) he hits us again to ask politely that he stop, tax deductions for Muslim organizations, Muslim businesses, Muslim people, etc., stiffer penalties for hate crimes against Muslims.
5. Force the issue on Gay Marriage, Abortion and other major planks in the Democratic platform. If they try all of this now, when there’s a president who’ll veto some of it, they will further alienate themselves from the mainstream, thus leading to their failure in ’08.

With any luck, after they try a few of these, the public will be so disgusted that they will vote a Republican into the White House in ’08 so at least we’ll have 4 more years of non-Ruth Bader Ginsburg judges being nominated.