Duncan Hunter To Hillary, Send More

November 30, 2007

As news of the planted questioner from Hilary Clinton’s campaign to the CNN YouTube GOP debate on Wednesday night spreads, Republican candidate Duncan Hunter, who bore the brunt of the planted question, sent Mrs. Clinton a personal message today.

If you missed the debates, Hunter was asked a question by an openly gay retired Brigadier General, Keith Kerr,

“My name's Keith Kerr, from Santa Rosa, California. I'm a retired brigadier general with 43 years of service. And I'm a graduate of the Special Forces Officer Course, the Commanding General Staff Course and the Army War College. And I'm an openly gay man.

I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.”

Mr. Hunter replied,

“General, thanks for your service, but I believe in what Colin Powell said when he said that having openly homosexual people serving in the ranks would be bad for unit cohesion.”

“The reason for that, even though people point to the Israelis and point to the Brits and point to other people as having homosexuals serve, is that most Americans, most kids who leave that breakfast table and go out and serve in the military and make that corporate decision with their family, most of them are conservatives.”

“They have conservative values, and they have Judeo-Christian values. To force those people to work in a small tight unit with somebody who is openly homosexual goes against what they believe to be their principles, and it is their principles, is I think a disservice to them. I agree with Colin Powell that it would be bad for unit cohesion.”

Dissatisfied with the answer he received from Congressman Hunter, and others, General Kerr stood up and basically started making a speech. He said,

“American men and women in the military are professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians. For 42 years, I wore the army uniform on active duty, in the Reserve, and also for the state of California. I revealed I was a gay man after I retired.”

“Today, "don't ask/don't tell" is destructive to our military policy. Every day, the Department of Defense discharges two people, not for misconduct, not for the unit cohesion that Congressman Hunter is talking about, but simply because they happen to be gay. And we're talking about doctors, nurses, pilots, and the surgeon who sews somebody up when they're taken from the battlefield.”

General Kerr, receiving heavy boos from the audience, ceased his attempted filibuster and sat down, allowing the debate to continue.

News of Kerr’s affiliation with the Clinton campaign started filtering out and spreading as soon as the debate ended. A spokesman for the Clinton campaign, Phil Singer denied that the campaign had prior knowledge that Kerr was going to appear at the debate. Kerr said he did not inform the campaign of his plans.

Kerr was one of only two people in the audience handed a microphone to directly question the candidates, calling into question any veracity of such an event actually being a coincidence.

Congressman Hunter’s campaign emailed copies of his correspondence to Senator Clinton today. It said,

November 29, 2007

Dear Senator Clinton,

Regarding the "plant", retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr, that you sent to ask me the question at the CNN-YouTube debate last night in Florida …

Send more!!!

Merry Christmas,
Duncan Hunter

Whether Clinton will reply, or apologize for this egregious act, remains to be seen.

Showing the depth of his love for America and that he possesses the qualities needed for a President, when asked by the moderator, Anderson Cooper, “how do you repair the image of America in the Muslim world?,” Hunter replied,

“Cooper, very simply, to the critics of America I would say this. When you were faced with disease and starvation, the Americans brought food and medicine. When you had earthquakes and tsunamis and floods, the Americans came and helped you. And when you were threatened from outside, the Americans left the safety of their own homes to come and defend you.”

“I will never apologize for the United States of America.”

Neither will I, Mr. Hunter.

Lew

Debate-icuffs

November 29, 2007

Last nights GOP CNN YouTube “Debate,” held in St. Petersburg, Florida could best be labeled a blend of Debate and verbal fisticuffs (boxing match) between the candidates.

CBS News headlines the debate as “They Came Out Swinging.” MSNBC gave us a milder “GOP rivals spar in YouTube debate.” The Chicago Tribune treats us to “GOP candidates slug it out in debate,” while the New York Sun informs us that candidates, Rudolph Giuliani and Mitt Romney “Trade Jabs on Immigration.”

To be sure, it was a “testy” debate at times. Giuliani and Romney did exchange heated accusations between each other over illegal immigration. Fred Thompson’s “attack ad,” featuring Mitt Romney’s past words on abortion and Mike Huckabee’s past words on taxes, was shown and Thompson, when asked about it, replied, "I wanted to give my buddies here a little extra air time,” drawing laughter from the audience. Romney admitted he was “wrong on abortion in the past,” while Huckabee responded that he had cut 90 taxes during his 11-year reign as Governor of Arkansas.

John McCain, Viet Nam Veteran and former POW, in reply to a question on torture of detainees and terrorists in Guantánamo claimed ‘water boarding’ was “in violation of the Geneva Convention and in violation of existing law.” Romney said, “ I don't think it's wise for us to describe specifically which measures we would and would not use.”

McCain later confronted Ron Paul, who received much more airtime than he deserves for his whiney performance, over isolationalism. McCain said, I've heard him now in many debates talk about bringing our troops home, and about the war in Iraq and how it's failed. And I want to tell you that that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II.” Paul chose the moment to inject his claim of, “The real question you have to ask is why do I get the most money from active duty officers and military personnel?” He continued with his usual contention that he is a “non-interventionist,” not an “isolationist.”

Questioned on Iraq, Paul was quick with his expected desire of just abandoning it, claiming as well that the President’s Troop Surge has “failed.” Comparing to Viet Nam, Paul said, “Just think of the cleaning up of the mess after we left Vietnam,” disregarding that any “mess” happened after our Troops were forced to abandon the South Vietnamese people and allowed them to be overran and oppressed by the Communist North Vietnamese.

Largely staying out of the verbal donnybrook that erupted at times and receiving a disappointing amount of airtime, was California’s Duncan Hunter, reminding all that he was largely responsible for the fence that was built along the San Diego / Mexican border and greatly reduced illegal immigration and crime in that region.

Of all the candidates, Hunter answered straightforward about guns he owns and uses, as he always does when queried about his position.

In what looked eerily like a planted question, Hunter was asked by retired Brigadier Gen. Keith Kerr, who is openly gay, “..why [do] you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians?”

After thanking Kerr for his 43 years service, Hunter, who is also a Viet Nam Veteran of two tours, replied,

“I believe in what Colin Powell said when he said that having openly homosexual people serving in the ranks would be bad for unit cohesion.”

“The reason for that, even though people point to the Israelis and point to the Brits and point to other people as having homosexuals serve, is that most Americans, most kids who leave that breakfast table and go out and serve in the military and make that corporate decision with their family, most of them are conservatives.”

“They have conservative values, and they have Judeo-Christian values. To force those people to work in a small tight unit with somebody who is openly homosexual goes against what they believe to be their principles, and it is their principles, is I think a disservice to them. I agree with Colin Powell that it would be bad for unit cohesion.”

Romney, ducking the question somewhat, stated, “I'm going to listen to the people who run the military to see what the circumstances are like.” Huckabee, agreeing with Hunter, replied, “People have a right to have whatever feelings, whatever attitudes they wish, but when their conduct could put at risk the morale, or put at risk even the cohesion that Duncan Hunter spoke of, I think that's what is at issue.”

Dissatisfied with the answer, Kerr complained, “With all due respect, I did not get an answer from the candidates,” continuing on with his belief that former President Clinton’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is wrong. John McCain chimed in with,

“[General Petraeus and General Odierno and others] …tell me that this present policy is working, that we have the best military in history, that we have the bravest, most professional, best prepared, and that this policy ought to be continued because it's working.”

General Kerr, it would later be revealed, is involved in the Hillary Clinton campaign and was flown if from California to Florida for this debate. He was also the only questioner who was allowed to basically make a speech from the floor after claiming he did not receive an adequate answer. CNN claimed they knew nothing of his being planted or involvement with the Clinton campaign.

As it turned out, several of the supposedly undecided questioners were in fact involved in campaigns for Democrat party candidates. CNN spent the day defending their debate and claiming they had no knowledge of the planted Democrat operatives.

In after debate interviews, both Romney and Giuliani claimed it was the other guy who initiated the heated encounter with each other. Tempers that became heated during the debate continued afterwards, leaving me wondering if it was tempers that lead to reporter Joe Shea, of The American Reporter online leftist newspaper, to be ejected by security from CNN’s ‘Spin Room,’ for knocking an aide to Mike Huckabee to the ground?

In all, it was a lively debate. Hopefully, next time some questions relevant to actual conservative Republican issues and values will be asked by real undecided questioners actually seeking to learn more from the GOP candidates.

Lew

Closing The Battle Of Iraq

November 26, 2007

Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, President Bush's war tsar, has quietly announced that the U.S. and Iraqi governments will begin talks early next year to precipitate a formal conclusion the U.N. Chapter 7 Security Council involvement in Iraq, according to an article appearing in today’s New York Sun

Expectations are that American Troops in Iraq will be reduced to about 50,000 permanently stationed in Iraq, down from the current 164,000, by the end of the Bush presidency.

General Lute says,

"The basic message here should be clear. Iraq is increasingly able to stand on its own. That's very good news. But it won't have to stand alone."

As violence has drastically dropped in the war torn country, due to the change of tactics in the Troops reinforcement policy instituted under General David Petraeus earlier this year, it should be very welcome news that this action will be undertaken and whoever the next president will be shouldn’t have to step into the middle of an ongoing war.

Prominent Democrats who have been highly critical of the Battle of Iraq have complained of the lack of political reconciliation as violence ebbs in Iraq. None have reported any efforts at assisting the newly formed Iraqi government in negotiating between the various sects and factions making up the government in Iraq. It remains to be seen as to what extent they will welcome this and enter into the negotiation process.

It also remains to be seen if the more hawkish supporters will perceive this as President Bush caving into recent pressures from Democrat Party leaders over funding.

Also to be negotiated between the U.S. and Iraq is a "strategic framework agreement," an arrangement for continued U.S. presence in Iraq, to help fend off possible future Al Qaeda attacks and help stave off political insecurity.

American Troop presence would remain, much as was done in Korea, Germany and Japan, after open hostilities ceased in those countries over 50 years ago.

Whether this will mollify Democrat Party leaders and their outspoken criticism remains to be seen. It should also remove the Battle of Iraq as a campaign issue in next years’ presidential campaigns, though.

President Bush has continually stated that as “the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.” True to his word, negotiations have been set to accomplish that.

It is my personal hope that all Americans, regardless of their personal feelings towards President Bush and the Battle of Iraq, will support this move and we will be able to bring our Troops home victorious, secure in the knowledge that their sacrifice planted the seeds of freedom and democracy in a troubled Middle East.

When Good Soldiers Go Bad

November 25, 2007

Anyone who has ever served in the U.S. Armed Services knows that the vast overall majority of their fellow Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines serve with honor and distinction. We also realize that, like in civilian society, a minute number go bad and commit crimes against others.

Listening to those now in our media outlets, one would think nearly all of our Service People go bad and commit crimes against others, especially when deployed overseas. From My Lai in Viet Nam to Abu Ghraib in Iraq, we hear endless accounts of torture, atrocities, rapes and murders as if they were every day occurrences by our Troops. Most citizens tend to discount the steady drone of negativism by the media, but too many embrace it, wrongfully believing the sensationalized accounts.

Our left leaning Hollywood jumps into the fray with movies like Apocalypse Now, Platoon and a host of others. Brian De Palma has entered the arena now with his latest effort at slandering our Military, Redacted, a movie loosely based on a true event by a very small handful of Troops that raped and murdered an Iraqi girl in what is known as the Al-Mahmudiyah killings.

Sure to incense audiences around the world against American Troops, lost is that three of the surviving persons involved in this has been arrested and convicted, with sentences ranging from 90 to 100 years in prison. One who had returned to civilan life awaits trial in federal court, with an expectation of a similar conviction and sentencing.

Like any civilized country, in the rare instances of Soldiers going bad and committing heinous crimes against civilians, America openly prosecutes those committing the crimes. Our leftist media would lead you to think otherwise.

Often ignored by the media and citizens is another example of Soldiers going bad. Equally as uncommon but similarly sensationalised by the media, these often former Soldiers are embraced by the leftist leaning media after they retire from the Service, often under embarrassing conditions. They turn towards leftist politics and begin undermining the efforts of our Brave Troops that often times, they led.

I am not talking of former enlisted, non-commissioned or junior officers, like the lies told to the Senate and Nation by the now junior Senator from Massachusetts, John ‘F’in Kerry, but of career General Officers often forced to retire due to their lack of effective leadership and under whose command some of the very crimes mentioned happened.

We have General Wesley Clark, said by many to have nearly started World War III, which led to his being relieved of command by former president, B.J. Clinton, making General Clark the only General Officer to ever be fired by the only draft dodger to occupy the White House. After failing in his own Democrat bid for the presidency, he helped undermine the Troops efforts, claiming just days before the 2006 mid-term election that all of our problems basically were ‘Because of Iraq.’

Retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste, Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, Gen. Anthony Zinni, Maj. Gen. John Riggs, Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack and Brig. Gen. John Johns are among a small group of retired Generals who, for one reason or another, have decided they must speak out against the Bush administration, particularly to bring about the retirement of Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld and the ongoing battles in Iraq.

I should add here that most of these retired General Officers held Command in the first years of the Iraq Battle, the very time that most now complain were mishandled and performance was poor. Yet, they choose to blame others for their own poor performance and leadership, hoping to protect their own legacy’s by publicly opposing the very battles they couldn’t lead to Victory.

The kook anti-war left and Democrat Party embraces these few Generals to bolster their own stance. Other retired Generals who may question public support or speak out in support of the administration are largely ignored.

We can now add another retired General to the list that was forced into retirement for his lack of proper leadership, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez. General Sanchez, who was forced into retirement for his role in the Abu Ghraib scandal, now joins key Democrats in admitting success in President Bush’s Reinforcement policy of the Troops, but calling for withdrawal of the Troops as we are winning.

While the ethics of these retired General Officers remain questionable, they cannot be prosecuted like lower ranking Soldiers that go bad. They enjoy freedom of speech as do the rest of us. Every one of them should know better, though, having seen what emboldening our enemies results in back in the mid-1970’s when they were junior officers.

As has been admitted, the surge is working and improvements are being made. We have an excellent leader in command with General David Petraeus and the Iraqi’s them selves have grown tired of Al Qaeda and are abandoning them and joining forces with our Troops against Al Qaeda. While political reconciliation may be disappointing so far, gains are being made there too, even if small.

I end this post by respectfully asking of these retired General Officers, SIT DOWN AND SHUT THE HELL UP! We are managing just fine without your past mistakes, Sirs!

Lew

The Agony of Victory

November 24, 2007

It has been no secret that shortly after September 11, 2001, the kook anti-war left solidly opposed any retribution towards the radical Jihadists that have been attacking American interests, both abroad and at home now, for the past three decades. Maybe a bit more of a surprise, but not totally, was watching as a political party, smelling an opportunity to sweep back into power, joined forces with and followed the lead of the kook anti-war left in America.

Shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan the New York Times ran an editorial titled, “A Military Quagmire Remembered: Afghanistan as Vietnam.” Following that months later was the inclusion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the War on Terror, meeting constant opposition from leftists and most Democrats, even those that voted to go to war in Iraq originally.

Apparently reliving the glory days of the anti-war movement during the latter years of the Viet Nam Conflict, aging hippies with their graying pony tails resurrected many of their stale anti-war slogans, painted signs, deluded many of today’s youths and marched wherever they could gain attention. Aging cries of “resist” are heard over and over, yet what there is to resist isn’t ever explained.

Unlike the Viet Nam era, the wholesale hatred of the Troops has yet to mature, happening so far in isolated instances and being heavily opposed by Veterans groups like Patriot Guard Riders and Gathering of Eagles. Recalling the nefarious homecoming many of us received upon returning to CONUS (Continental United States) from Viet Nam, most Viet Nam Veterans have sworn, "Never again shall one generation of veterans abandon another."

This has not stopped the kook anti-war left from embracing despicable Veterans such as Massachusetts Senator and darling of the 1970’s anti-war dullards, John ‘F’in Kerry, from being propelled within a hairsbreadth of occupying the White House. If not for the courage and honor of the highly decorated group of Combat Viet Nam Veterans, the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, they might have succeeded in fooling enough voters to elect Kerry, unseating George W. Bush, the most hated man by the kook leftists I have seen in my lifetime.

Even the Republican Party has spawned moonbats like Libertarian masquerading as a conservative, Dr. Ron Paul of Texas, with his claims of, "Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years." That they have been attacking us for three decades escapes Paul apparently.

In spite of all the protests, congressional opposition and even mistakes made in leadership, our Troops have performed well, suffering the least number of casualties on any elongated war we have been in.

Early this year, President Bush gained the reluctant approval from the newly elected Democrat Congress to send an additional 30,000 Troops to Iraq and install General David Petraeus as Commander. A Troop reinforcement and realignment often called “the surge” by many has been showing steady improvements in security matters. Numerous articles have been published showing the successes achieved, such as, It's true: Iraq is a quagmire, Sects unite to battle Al Qaeda in Iraq, For Bush, Advances But Not Approval, U.S. Says Attacks in Iraq Fell to Feb. 2006 Level and Baghdad Comes Alive.

In spite of good news or progress being shown and the sacrifices of our Troops, naysayers will not embrace obvious successes happening in the war. Instead, we are treated to comments like John Murtha’s (D Pa), "Look at all the people that have been displaced, all the [lost] oil production, unemployment, all those type of things. We can't win militarily. To change the political law, it doesn't seem to me you need the military stability." Haven’t the Democrats been crying for “Military stability" all along?

In September, 2007, Joeseph Biden, (D Del) stated concerning General Petraeus’s report on the war progress, “I think he's dead flat wrong.” On the 17th of this month he said in regards of his desire to “restore America's moral leadership,” “We must start by ending the war in Iraq.”

Chuck Schumer, (D. NY) in regards to continuing funding of our Troops said on November 16, “The days of a free lunch are over.”

On the same day, Harry Reid (D-Nev) said, “Our troops continue to fight and die valiantly. And our Treasury continues to be depleted rapidly, for a peace that we seem far more interested in achieving than Iraq's own political leaders.” Just a few days prior, he also said, “Democrats won't approve more money for the Iraq war this year unless President Bush agrees to begin bringing troops home.”

Joining fellow Democrats like Reid and Murtha, David Obey (D.Wis) has vowed to resist funding the Troops “without compromise,” unless President Bush agrees to begin withdrawing all the Troops soon.

Campaigning for President, Democrat New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson says he will withdraw all Troops from Iraq, leaving some Marines to protect the U.S. Embassy.
John Edwards (D. NC) says he plans to remove almost all of the troops from Iraq except for a brigade to would guard the embassy.

Hillary Clinton (D. NY) says she would consult the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss formally a withdrawal plan once in office.

Barack Obama (D. Ill) says he would remove all combat troops by removing 1 or 2 of the brigades each month.

Of all the Democrats I can only think of two who feel finishing the mission is important. Joe Lieberman, now an Independent from Connecticut and Brian Baird (D. Wa). Baird is a recent convert to cause of Iraqi liberation and his newfound stance has cost him in support from Democrats in Washington State. To his credit, Rep. Baird has said, “I can always find a new job, but I cannot find a new country.”

It is obvious now more than ever that Democrats are so heavily invested in defeat that they refuse to recognize success on the battlefield and as many on the right have been saying, they must be voted out en masse in 2008 to save America.

Expressing the likelihood that this is A War We Just Might Win, Democrat Leaders have shown the Agony of Victory and the Thrill of defeat.

Lew

Duncan Hunter, The Right Man For The Right Reasons

November 18, 2007

As the campaigning for the 2008 election for President of the United States heats up, we are seeing candidates from both parties taking bolder stances on some issues. Democrats seem more determined than ever for a “change of course” in the War on Terror, Iraq Theater. Translated, that means surrender and abandon the fight just as all signs point to progress. Democrats also seem to be vying for who can raise taxes the highest and offer the most giveaways in their usual bid at class envy saying they will only raise taxes on the “wealthy.”

On the Republican side, other than Libertarian masquerading as a Republican, Ron Paul, all support the fight and all are vying for who is the most conservative, some having to adjust so as to claim a new found conservative stance.

John McCain, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and Rudy Guiliani all have past records to some degree of coddling to Liberals on matters as gun control, abortion, same-sex marriage, campaign finance, illegal immigration and more somewhere along the line. In one or more of the areas mentioned, each has caved to the Democrats in their past. Perhaps they felt that seeking the middle ground was easiest or the best way to go to fulfill a promise or stay in office.

As far as I’m concerned, Ron Paul is just a loser and doesn’t merit mention. His anti-war whine would get many Americans killed within our borders.

Another viable candidate coming up is former Arkansas governor, Mike Huckabee. Many find his claim to conservatism to be overstated, though, describing him best as a “moderate.”

Largely ignored but slowly gaining support is California Congressman, Duncan Hunter. Of all the Republican candidates, he is the only one who has not felt the need to modify his stance on the issues or overstate his congressional record. In his 26 years representing San Diego, California citizens, his stance has remained constant, making him the most consistent candidate seeking the Republican nomination.

Only he and Senator McCain served in our Military, both in Viet Nam, with McCain being held as a POW and Hunter serving in the Airborne and Army Rangers for full tours, not seeking medals and glorifying himself with false claims of heroics, as did a former self described war hero Democrat. Unlike that same Democrat, Mr. Hunter did not return to America and begin stabbing his fellow Veterans in the back for political gain.

He clearly sees the folly of “Hate Crimes” legislation, saying, “If crimes are prioritized based on the victims' status, we threaten the very tenet of equal protection under the law that is the foundation of our legal system. Instead, all violations of the law should be dealt with in a manner that delivers justice on behalf of the victims and their families,” and “The idea espoused in so called "hate crime" legislation that some murders are less serious than others rebukes common sense.”

A signatory of the 1994 Republican “Contract With America,” he is one of the few who held to its tenets and is rated 100% by the Christian Coalition on family issues.

A strong supporter of our Second Amendment right to Bear Arms, he has received an A+ score from the NRA on pro-gun rights policies. As Hunter once said, “the Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is about the right of you and me to be secure in our homes. You know as well as I do that there is one thing criminals prefer over any other: unarmed victims.”

Strong on the idea of Homeland Security, Hunter has been consistently far above his contemporaries when it comes to illegal immigration. He is responsible for having a double fence constructed along the Mexican American border near San Diego, California. Some claim that the resultant drop in illegal traffic and crime merely shifted it elsewhere. As significant a drop as was seen in the area, I say continue building the fence and shifting the crime until there is no place left to shift it to. Lawsuits claimed to be holding up more construction should be dismissed immediately as matters of National Security, I feel.

A strong supporter of the War on Terror, including the Iraq Theater, Congressman Hunter is the only candidate of either party who’s son has served in the war to date. Senator McCain has a son in the Naval Academy and Democrat Joe Biden has a son in the National Guard who may be sent to Iraq next year. That and Hunter’s own two combat tours in Viet Nam give him a unique perspective on Military matters that others need advisors on.

Given the above, I am constantly amazed at how many conservatives don’t support Hunter’s candidacy because he hasn’t already gotten more support from others. Nearly all admit he has the strongest conservative message and stance. One said, “It seems that of all the announced candidates, Duncan strikes the right chord for conservatism. But for whatever reason, his candidacy has failed to catch on with the public. There’s still time. Figure out what to do to change the public’s perception of the potential of your candidacy, and you’ll have an advocate here.”

Perhaps the “perception problem” is that conservatives are falling into the popularity trap, supporting who is said to be the most popular, instead of the most conservative. Perhaps they are running scared of Hillary Clinton, who is perceived as assured the Democrat nomination. What they fail to realize is that who ever we select and who will energize conservative voters that didn’t vote in 2006, can and will defeat Hillary Clinton.

Hunter has the experience. He has the most consistent record. He has the courage. He has the know how. He has the desire.

What he doesn’t have is you!

Lew

UPDATE: Duncan Hunter is no lackey nor party stooge, as was revealed in a 2006 article from The Hill, Leadership knows Rep. Duncan Hunter’s arm doesn’t twist

Duncan Hunter Discusses Border Patrol Agents

99% of All Democrats Give The Rest A Bad Name

November 14, 2007

Once was the time that America had two political parties that desired to see America thrive and succeed. They disagreed on just how to go about it, but ultimately, they both would come together in times of crisis, or war, to ensure American Forces won the battles and the keep the fires of liberty burning throughout the globe.

Ever since the Viet Nam Conflict, it seems that one party, the Democrats, have decided that America is too wealthy and too powerful, so must be cut down a notch or two. They not only push to abandon our sovereignty to the United Nations, under the leadership of delegates from third world countries who agree America is too powerful, but like our wealth to pay for their uses, but now Democrats can’t even get behind our Troops as they fight to bring freedom to the Iraqi and Afghani people in the ongoing War on Terror.

Their willing accomplices in the media have only recently begun to mention several of the successes our Troops have attained, mainly in the back pages of their papers. In what seems like reluctant reporting, they have mentioned thousands of families returning to Baghdad, deaths of the citizens and our Troops at an all time low, since the beginning of this war, Iraqi Sheiks turning on their Al Qaeda operatives and aligning themselves with American Forces and even a new fatwa issued by Iraqi clerics against violence.

There is even a rumor floating that Osama Bin Laden is under cave arrest by Zawahiri, wherever they may be holed up.

In terms of war, it can be said that while it isn’t over by a long shot, it is looking up and the goals set out are being achieved. Democrats set many of those goals so one would think they were elated at the news from Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth.

After declaring the war lost, Senator Harry Reid (D. Nv) continues to play politics with our Troops lives by demanding yet another withdrawal time table telling our and the Iraqi peoples enemies on just what day we stop opposing them. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D. Ca) is said to have made a similar demand recently as well.

California Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters, representing a liberal anti-war caucus, last week expressed opposition to the measure as they feel it is too soft and does not demand an end to combat.

All claim that if President Bush vetoes this bill, he doesn’t care about the Troops, when the exact opposite is true. It is they who don’t care about the Troops or invalidating the voluntary sacrifice of well over 3600 American lives to help both nations build their own free societies.

Abandoning the fight also leaves us open to another terrorist attack, as we would no longer have them engaged there, leaving them free to enter our country and do it again. Masking their displeasure with how well it has been going these last few weeks, as Bush’s “Troop Reinforcement” plan seems to be working under the leadership of General Petraeus, Democrats also complain about the cost of fighting it.

Tax increases are proposed, but not for fighting the war. Presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton (D. NY), Barack Obama (D. Ill), and John Edwards (D. NC) all are proposing massive entitlement programs to be funded by “taxing the wealthy.” Edwards seems to actually propose cutting defense funding, including upgrades and modernization to our Armed Forces, while we are at war! From his own words in the above video message, it seems he would have the Pentagon beg for every dollar needed to defend America.

Failed presidential candidate, John ‘F’in Kerry (D. Ma), feeling somewhat left out, is in Dubai today once again proposing “dialogue” with surrounding nations to “solve” the situation in Iraq. Says Kerry, "While the Iraqi government squabbles along sectarian lines and refuses to address the issues, American troops are caught in the crossfire of a deadly civil war that we are powerless to stop.”

Perhaps he should sign on with a different news source as many improvements have been made.

It would appear that the Democrats only goal now to cause defeat at any cost. Why a victory for America is so abhorrent to them escapes me. I recall when the Democrat party wanted America to win our wars.

In a total departure from what I was taught in American History, I received an email from Senator Patty Murray (D. Wa), one of my Senators, explaining her reason for voting against the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey to head the Department of Justice as Attorney General. Her reason, "America needs an Attorney General whose independence is without question.”

Independence, Senator Murray? Does she not realize that Attorney General is a member of the President’s Cabinet, regardless of who occupies the office? Or, is she proposing another branch of the government to give Democrats more control when Republicans are in the White House? At any rate, any 8th grader should realize that Attorney General is a cabinet position. What President desires cabinet members who won’t cooperate with their program?

Senator Clinton can’t seem to make up her mind on illegals obtaining drivers licenses.

Senator Obama’s wife now seems prepared to drag the race card into the campaign.

Multi-millionaire Edwards seems to resent that others have wealth.

Former Vice President Al Gore continues to cry wolf on Global Warming, shutting down any discussion as if it were a done deal, according to him.

Louisiana Democrats, Cynthia McKinney was voted out while William Jefferson, who was caught with $90,000 in bribe money in his freezer, remains in office.

Former President, BJ Clinton, seems to be able to keep his pants zipped up, at least for the time being.

After her husband reaped millions from defense contracts, Senator Feinstein (D. Ca) resigned from the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee.

On and on it goes, one disaster after another, undermining of our Troops at war, playing politics instead of tending to the nations business or just bad mouthing President Bush, this is our current Democrat party.

Little wonder I say 99% of All Democrats Give The Rest A Bad Name.

Lew

Poster Girl & A Pittance of Time

Two of the very best tributes to Veterans I have ever seen

Thank You Veterans

America’s Veterans, A Better Breed

November 10, 2007

It may be very difficult for many to understand, but there exists a segment of our society, a minority within, that willingly place themselves between our enemies and the rest. That segment has always been there throughout our history and will remain there in the future.

They come down from the mountains. They come from the cities of the North and the Bayous of the South. They leave the beaches of California and Florida. North, South, East and West, they leave the comfort of their homes and loved ones to volunteer for America. Young and older, Black, White, Brown, Red and Yellow skinned, historically male, but now female too, they come with no desire of praise or large salaries, but a desire only to see America remain the freest nation on the planet and to see others share in the freedoms we do.

Not all face battle, but many do. Some pay the ultimate sacrifice and end up forgotten by all but family, loved ones and maybe those that sent them. Some never return, lost forever, their fate unknown to all who know and love them.

Others return wounded, broken in body or mind. They may face a life of scorn by the very ones they were protecting. All too often those who wish to use them to further political agendas and who could care less about them use them as political props. They are looked upon as victims instead of as the heroes and patriots they really are.

Many desire to return to battle alongside their comrades as soon as possible, missing limbs and fitted with prosthetics. Lifelong friendships may be forged after the battle ceases while others shun closeness, fearing the pain of losing a friend during another battle.

Our media pages and reports are filled with bad news and claims against them. Some of our politicians denigrate their sacrifices for political gain. And still, they continue to come from all corners of the nation to fight for our freedoms, liberties and to keep our great nation free.

These are the ones that fill the ranks of our Armed Services and our Veterans Groups. They are America’s Veterans.

I once received in email what I consider to be the very best Definition of a Veteran I have ever seen.

“A veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard, or reserve - is someone who, at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check made payable to The 'United States of America', for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'” (Author unknown)

That is Honor. An Honor that too many Americans no longer understand. That is the courage to leave everything behind and possibly travel to far lands to face an enemy to keep people you don’t even know free or to free a people you also don’t know.

I am one who has a very difficult time affixing “Greatest” to any generation as every generation has faced their trials and tribulations. World War Two gave us many who traveled far to fight oppression and tyranny. Many were forced into the Military and many others volunteered.

Korea and Viet Nam were similar but with the Korean Veterans simply being forgotten and the Viet Nam generation facing the scorn of a thankless nation for many years. Yet, the Viet Nam generation had a greater percentage of volunteers than did the World War Two generation.

Today’s Military and Veterans of the current battles are 100% volunteer, no one is forced into the Military against their will. How can we rate these Soldiers, Airman, Sailors and Marines any less than earlier Veterans we consider “the Greatest?” I cannot.

As we reminisce and celebrate another Veteran’s Day, let us recall that we still have several in Harms Way, doing what many of us did before, facing an enemy to keep America free. Facing an enemy to free an oppressed people.

America owes its Veterans, all of its Veterans, a debt of gratitude. It is a debt that can never be adequately repaid. We can never regain what we gave up in our youth to face the enemy. We can never repay what others give up today to keep us free.

The best we can do is honor and respect them, teaching our children to also honor and respect the sacrifices they made and are making today.

Until such time that the world stops producing despots, tyrants and those who feel they have a right to rule all others, we will keep on producing Veterans and they will continue coming forth for all of us. I thank God that they keep coming.

To all my fellow Veterans, Welcome Home!

Lew

Results of 5-Year Study of Vietnam Veterans (Hat tip to Pamela at Atlas Shrugs)

Cross posted to A Newt One

Smithsonian Channel- 'Remembering Vietnam: The Wall at 25'

This program will be streamed live on the Smithsonian Channel website (www.smithsonianchannel.com) concurrent with its High Definition premiere on Veterans Day, Sunday, Nov. 11 at 9pm EST / 6pm PST. You can get all the information on it here.

My first trip home from Viet Nam:

I extended my tour in Viet Nam and went back to the states for a months leave before going back over and doing another 6 months there. On the flight home, from Seattle to St. Louis, where I would switch flights, I sat next to a young lady and her daughter. The Mom was maybe just a few years older than me. I was on the plane before they were, so they didn't see me before I took my Dress Greens jacket off and folded it under the seat. I guess they thought I was some sort of yuppie, with short hair and wearing a tie. We chatted and I enjoyed playing games with the little girl, maybe 6 or 7. I've always had a soft spot for kids and still do, having grown daughters of my own and four grandsons now. Like I said, it was a pleasant and enjoyable flight. We landed at St. Louis to change planes; they going their way and me mine. After the plane stopped and we were all getting up to go, I reached down, picked up my Army Dress Jacket and put it on. The woman grabbed her daughter and jerked her back from me, yelling out, "get away from that killer!" loud enough for most everyone on the plane to hear and turn around to see. She then ran out of the plane pulling her daughter behind her. No one said a word, just went on about their business.

Any Viet Nam Vets reading this feel free to add your memories of coming home, good or bad.

Rednecks and Hillbillies

November 4, 2007

For what seems like forever, we have poked fun at and ridiculed these examples of Southern Americana. Jeff Foxworthy has treated us to years of his “you might be a Redneck if” jokes, which even I find humorous. A popular Television Show in the 1960’s brought us laughs and enjoyment at a family from the hills that became unbelievably wealthy and moved to Beverly Hills.

The 1972 movie Deliverance portrayed them as “degenerate, inbred backwoods inhabitants” of the mountains. Other films portray them as law breaking moonshiners and incestuous poor people with little or no education, living for the next NASCAR Race or drunken bar room brawl.

Even their favorite sport, the multi-billion dollar NASCAR series, has its roots in moonshiners racing each other on the weekends to see who’s bootlegger car was the fastest, then using the car during the week to secretly transport untaxed whiskey.

Suffice it to say that we have been treated to several decades of portrayals of these Southern people as being almost sub-human, lazy, good for nothing, toothless, uneducated, inbred and generally worthless. Most Southerners know the difference between the two, but for the purpose of this essay and that too many other Americans don’t realize there is a difference, I will be using the terms as synonymous with each other.

Ignored is that most have a deep abiding love of America and God and when called, have defended America with a zeal many others don’t seem to have. They have survival instincts and talents that city dwellers can’t always master, such as being excellent shots with rifles. Anyone with Military experience can tell you that in combat, being a good shot is a must.

A two hour special produced for the History Channel recently spanned 300 years of these “mythic” people showing them to contain “outcast immigrants, war heroes, isolated backwoodsmen, hard working miners, fast moving moon shiners, religious warriors, musicians and statesmen” amongst their number.

A decidedly leftist remnant of the 1960’s Civil Rights Movement, the Institute for Southern Studies, commissioned their own study last year showing that the Southern States “provides a disproportionate share of the nation’s troops.” In true leftist fashion, the group claims, “Factors such as high rates of poverty, limited economic options for young adults, and the region’s conservative political culture have contributed to the region’s reputation as a reliable source of military personnel.”

Yet, this same study also claims, “from 1996 to 2002 every region in the country had seen an increase in the flow of military contract dollars. But no region grew as fast as the South: the region’s defense contract base mushroomed by 83%, compared to 62% in the West, 31% in the Midwest and Central Plains, and just 9% in the Northeast.”

They fail to make the connect that if, as they claim, “83% of Defense contracts went to the South,” jobs had to be available. Even the greediest employer cannot fulfill contracts without workers.

They fail, in their twisted leftist logic, to even see in their own claims of, “a 2005 report by the American Friends Service Committee analyzing Army enlistments for fiscal year 2004 (October 1, 2003 – September 30, 2004) finds young adults in the South to be disproportionately represented in the Army’s ranks,” to realize the use of the word “enlistment,” a voluntary entrance into Military Service.

There is a total disconnect between these “progressive leftists” out of Durham, N.C. and traditional Southern Heritage rich in the history of defending this land. Like many of their Northern counterparts, they cannot understand or see the South’s love of the land that would encourage these “Rednecks and Hillbillies” to leave the backwoods, mountains and bayous of the South and stand up for America.

Although initially resistant to the Civil Rights Movement, most Southerners got past that era and stand alongside Black Southerners in defense of America. Older bigots and Klansmen were shoved aside and Southerners, Black and White, volunteered to defend America, not out of economic need so much, but for their love of the land.

One such Virginia native who apparently grew up in New York and served in the same unit I did in Viet Nam, although prior to my arrival, was Pfc. Garfield M. Langhorn, awarded the Medal of Honor for his conspicuous bravery and thoughtless action that saved the lives of many others. While Garfield may not fit the usual persona others have of Southerners from the hills and backwoods, some others do.

In World War Two, a poor and slightly built young man from Celeste, Texas, standing merely 5 foot 5 inches, and turned down for enlistment in the Marine Corps and Paratrooper Service, enlisted in the U.S. Army and distinguished himself by becoming the most decorated Soldier of the War, earning 33 Medals and Awards, including the Medal of Honor. Audie Murphy grew up poor in Celeste, Texas which today remains a small town about 50 miles Northeast of Dallas with a population of barely over 800 people.

Pall Mall, Tennessee gave us who became known as “the greatest individual soldier of World War One,” Sgt. Alvin C. York. At one time having a reputation of a hell raiser for drinking and gambling, York under went an epiphany and became a conscientious objector prior to being drafted into the War. During training he came to believe that God does sanction some war and distinguished himself in combat, helping to capture 132 German Soldiers with a far inferior squad. Returning to his conscientious objector beliefs after that war, he was first opposed to World War Two, but came to see that once again, the world was faced with evil that had to be stopped. He often countered the isolationalist stand of Charles Lindberg and toured the country during the war in support of the war effort.

Many heroes have come from backwoods and hills of the Southern States and never received accolades and praise. And still, as even the “progressive” Institute for Southern Studies shows, they continue to come to stand up for America. They are Democrat and Republican and even third party. Most are conservative in values, believing in American freedom and liberty.

We will continue poking fun at these people and spreading the jokes we all enjoy, but if push comes to shove and I was confronted by a dozen terrorists threatening my life, give me some of these Rednecks and Hillbillies over a leftist protester any day.

Lew

This Is The Army, Ladies

November 3, 2007

For reasons unknown, Marie Claire magazine has decided to run an article chronicling 3 female’s that volunteered for Military Service and their tribulations during this time of war, titled Life as an American Female Soldier.

In the article we read of one who signed up for the College Payment benefit, another who says she joined the Army out of High School because she didn’t fit into any cliques and “started drinking, smoking, and taking tons of meds” because a Master Sergeant tried to place her hand on his penis and an Iraqi Security Guard asked her to become his third wife, which caused severe depression and PTSD and another who says she and her female roommate would hold music and dance parties at night with men from the unit, and then would have to sleep with her back to the wall in case they returned to rape her.

Not exactly what I would refer to as a representative cross section of generations of women who have served in the United States Military Forces and performed magnificently over the years. I still have to give these 3 credit for serving, though, something many men cannot bring themselves to do. And yes, many men will also join for the same wrong reasons these women gave.

Of the three females listed, I did not read of one who said they joined the Army to serve their country or out of a sense of duty and honor. Perhaps that is why the article seemed centered on “female soldiers deal with issues men don't even think about.” The issues? “You can't wear earrings. Makeup can't be excessive. There probably aren't many times you can feel like a girl. You had to wait in long lines no matter where you were: in the mess hall, bathroom, shower”

Welcome to the United States Army, ladies. The fallacy seems to be that some, men and women both, feel that the Military is just a Social Club for easy free benefits from the government. Nothing could be further from the truth. You all were fed a line of bull of an easy free trip somewhere, especially when we are at war.

None of what I have yet to say should be misconstrued to say that women can’t be in the Army or that they must stay at home. Several women have performed magnificently in the past and present, while others seem to feel their gender should matter and it should be easier for them. Tell that to our enemies that only see an American uniform and if a woman in it, easy prey for their pleasures while in captivity.

It is too easy to look back and place blame on the Clinton administration for their push for Gender-Integrated Basic Training on the Army, Air Force, and Navy, but it started long before they were in office. The Clinton’s only accelerated it with only the Marine Corps resisting the push, earning them the label of ''extremists'' who were at risk of ''total disconnection with society'' from Clinton’s former Assistant Secretary of the Army, Sara Lister. That remark led to her premature resignation shortly after.

While I cannot fully place the blame on Clinton for The Feminization of the U.S. Military, it was during his administration that many began seeing the Military as more of a social club for free benefits and less as what it is there for, to fight wars. It was under their administration that the Army began it’s ill-fated “Army of One” advertising concept, replacing the earlier “Be All That You Can Be.”

As General George S. Patton said on June 4, 1944, "An Army is a team. It lives, sleeps, eats, and fights as a team. This individual heroic stuff is pure horse shit. The bilious bastards who write that kind of stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don't know any more about real fighting under fire than they know about fucking!"

That old “Brown Boot Army” attitude has been pretty much eliminated from the public psyche throughout the Clinton years and well into the Bush years. Perhaps that is what led the 3 women in the above article to believe they were simply going off to summer camp instead of fighting a war.

We can also see how the fallacy of this attitude towards our Military has affected recruits by looking back to Pfc. Jessica Lynch and the hype launched about her, not by the Army, but by the media eager to prove their liberal notions of a “kinder gentler Army” correct. We also see it in a statement from the parents of Spc. Jamaal Addison, killed in the same ambush where Ms. Lynch was captured, “[Jamaal] enlisted in the Army 18 months after graduating from...high school in 2000. He did not join to fight. He realized his obligations. But he wasn't a fighter.”

Unlike when I went through Basic Training prior to Viet Nam, when we all had training in Infantry tactics to at least some extent, the members of this ill-fated squad didn’t and even in the case of Ms. Lynch, her weapon was so dirty it would have jammed had she tried to use it.

What received nowhere near as much media attention was the Silver Star Awarded to Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester for valor in combat. Although Ms. Hester also entered the National Guard under the Clinton administration, she received a more rigorous training as an M.P. Unlike the 3 in the article, Sgt. Hester says, “Your training kicks in and the soldier kicks in. You've got a job to do, protecting yourself and your fellow comrades.” I might add, provided you receive the training in the first place.

Historically, women have played a very major role during our wars and helped achieve victory. Without their contribution we could not have won any of them. Even though women weren’t previously sent to the front lines in Combat Units, many also paid the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives in the wars.

None that I ever heard of or met whined about “not feeling like a girl” as they knew where they were and what they were to do. Many others today similarly ‘suck it up’ knowing their sacrifices are for the protection of their families, friends and fellow citizens and just like their male counterparts, willingly place themselves between our enemies and us.

For those who feel that relaxing training standards to allow more females into Combat Roles brings about equality, don’t be too surprised when our enemies treat you as equals, meaning when you pick a fight, you get a fight.

Welcome to the United States Army, ladies. In achieving your equality, you had to give up your superiority.

Lew

Cross posted to A Newt One

Hillary Clinton: Long On Rhetoric, Short On Answers

No wonder one Hillary supporter from Oklahoma thinks Tim Russert should be shot.

Saint Hillary is not to be queried on anything of substance or be held to her words.