Memorial Day Is a Day to Celebrate America

Monday was Memorial Day. For most of us, it is a day to celebrate America and remember the sacrifices made by our armed forces on behalf of our country and our freedoms. In particular, it is a day to honor our fallen heroes. Apparently, other people - and not just lefties - see Memorial Day as a golden opportunity to spew hate against our military and our country and accuse our troops of mass murder of innocent civilians. Someone sent me this delightful article from the libertarian site LewRockwell.com entitled "An Open Letter to the Troops: You're Not Defending Our Freedoms."

I am not going to respond in detail to every point in the article, partly because I don't think the author deserves that much respect, and partly because I don't have the time. But I have a few basic observations in response.

1. The timing of the article speaks volumes. I think it shows real disrespect to all Americans who have lost family members or friends in war to write such an insulting attack on our military on a day set aside to remember and honor those fallen soldiers. Whatever your opinions regarding recent American military operations, those soldiers died courageously in the service of our country and deserve our respect, as do their families who sacrificed so much. Further, the article shows real disrespect to our country. Memorial Day is a national day of remembrance, and honors fallen heroes throughout our history, including those who died in wars that presumably even the author would recognize as legitimate. Apparently the author feels the need to ignore and disrespect our entire national history simply to make his current political point about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

2. The language used in the article speaks volumes. Over and over again, the author uses words like the following to describe our country, its military, and its policies: occupation, aggressor, maimed, tortured, cruel, brutal, crimes, killing innocent people, empire, kangaroo courts, etc. This is the language we use to describe evil. One could be forgiven for thinking he was recounting the history of Nazi Germany or the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, insteading talking about America. He repeatedly says that the U.S. created the terrorists by our policies. Apparently he believes, like Obama's infamous pastor Jeremiah Wright, that the attacks of 9/11 were simply America's "chickens coming home to roost." It is very clear that this is not about policy differences regarding the War in Iraq. In fact, he even says that the U.S. has been following these same policies for a long time -- long before 9/11. The author is writing this article because he despises what America stands for. He thinks -- indeed he says! -- that we are an evil empire that goes around slaughtering innocent people and conquering and exploiting weaker countries for our own financial gain and to enhance our global power. In his twisted mind, the bin Ladens and the Saddam Husseins of the world are the freedom-fighters trying to defend themselves against an evil and powerful aggressor known as the United States. Our country's alliances with Saudi Arabia and Israel have turned kindly, peace-loving moms and dads into crazed terrorists who behead American journalists on camera and fly planes into tall buildings filled with women and children.

3. At every turn, the author does whatever he has to do to paint the U.S. in the worst light possible, ignoring or distorting any facts that might stand in his way. He keeps saying over and over again that we killed many innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regarding the War in Iraq, he ignores the fact that our military action was based on reports from intelligence agencies of our country and other countries that stated that Saddam Hussein had WMD's that he intended to use against his neighbors or sell to terrorists. This intelligence turned out to be badly wrong, but it was believed by almost all of our political leaders at the time. (By the way, we never provided Iraq with WMD's, as the author claims, merely conventional weapons.) He ignores the fact that our intelligence had uncovered meetings between Hussein and top Al-Qaeda operatives. He ignores the fact that we tried hard to work through the U.N. to avoid military conflict, and that war only came after 17 U.N. resolutions that were disregarded by Hussein and after weapons inspectors were denied access to Iraq for years. He ignores the fact that Hussein was a brutal dictator whose torture chambers (real torture, as opposed the tough interrogations methods that the author loosely calls "torture") were notorious and who kept his people in fear. He ignores the fact that the Iraqi people welcomed us as liberators when we initially invaded the country, and that they tried and sentenced Hussein to death for his crimes. He ignores the fact that the Iraq people welcomed the new democracy set up by the U.S. and turned out to vote numerous times in large numbers despite threats against their lives. He ignores the fact that most of the civilian casualties in Iraq were not caused by our troops but by the insurgency, which was largely made up of terrorist fighters pouring into Iraq from other terrorist-supporting countries like Iran and Syria to undermine the young Iraqi democracy. He ignores the fact that the Taliban was sympathetic with and supportive of bin Laden and Al-Qaeda at every turn and refused to stop its cooperation with Al-Qaeda even after 9/11. He ignores the fact that the Taliban was a brutal totalitarian regime that sentenced people to have their limbs chopped off for simple theft and women to be gang-raped for crimes like allowing their face to be seen in public. He ignores the fact that our military followed careful rules of engagement in both Iraq and Afghanistan in which they targeted only known terrorists and tried to avoid injuring innocent civilians whenever possible. (In fact, I think our rules of engagement were too strict and caused our war effort to suffer in both countries.) He ignores the fact that those terrorists deliberately embedded themselves among innocent civilians in order to maximize civilian casualties to turn public opinion against the U.S. He ignores the fact that our "occupation" of Iraq lasted only long enough to ensure the Iraqi democracy was somewhat stable and capable of protecting itself and that all combat troops have now withdrawn from the country. He ignores the fact that we have did not exploit Iraq for financial gain and did not steal their oil for ourselves. And these facts are just the tip of the iceberg -- just the ones that come to my mind at first glance. Many, many more could be mentioned.

Oh yes. Here's a big fact that somehow also failed to make it into that author's article. Our Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden, the great enemy of our country who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and other terrorist attacks against Americans. There is no doubt that this, coupled with the capture or killing of many other top Al-Qaeda operatives since 9/11 by our troops, has made us much safer and has been a big reason why we have not had another major attack on our soil since 9/11. Our soldiers risked -- and in some cases forfeited -- their lives to achieve these victories against the people who attacked our country and to keep us free and secure. Maybe that author, like his hero Ron Paul, is upset that we tracked down and killed the terrorist who murdered thousands of our citizens in cold blood without reading him his Miranda rights.

The point of listing out all these facts is not to say that the U.S. hasn't made mistakes in prosecuting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have made some big mistakes. And our military made some big mistakes, like Abu Ghraib. But there is a big difference between saying we made mistakes and saying that we are an evil empire that attacks other countries for no reason to exploit them for financial gain and kill innocent civilians. I can respect someone who argues that the War in Iraq was unnecessary for our national defense, or was prosecuted in an incompetent way. I cannot respect someone who argues that the U.S. is an evil imperialist empire.

4. The author clearly thinks there should be no attempt to defend against terrorists at home either. He doesn't like the Patriot Act or tough interrogation techniques (what he calls "torture") or detaining terrorists or military tribunals or Guantanamo Bay. After all, in his view, terrorists don't really exist -- they're just artificially manufactured by our imperialistic policies. Apparently his idea is to let all the terrorists go (detaining them is illegal!) and make sure we don't ever do anything they don't like again. Whatever they demand from us, we just do it to make sure we don't make them upset. We can't support Israel because they don't like that. We can't have troops anywhere in the Middle East because they don't like that. We don't dare have a working relationship with any Middle East dictatorship because they don't like that. We can't publish cartoons that make fun of Mohammed because they don't like that. That's probably how the author advises his kids to deal with bullies too. Just be nice to them and they won't pick on you. What kind of a pathetic way is this to carry out foreign policy?

All right. I'm done fighting with people who hate America. They can go live with their freedom-loving Al-Qaeda friends in the Middle East, for all I care. Memorial Day is more than just a day off work or an occasion for a cookout. It is the day when we remember our brave men and women in uniform who gave the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of their country and its liberties. Despite many present problems and future challenges, America continues to offer its citizens a level of individual political and religious freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and justice virtually unmatched anywhere else on earth, both now and throughout history. We owe these blessings first and foremost to God, who graciously gave us life and sovereignly placed us in such a great country. But secondarily, we owe these blessings to our country's military heroes -- leaders and soldiers -- who fought to win us our independence in the first place and who risked their lives throughout our history to protect our soil from foreign attack and to defeat the enemies of freedom. Over more than two centuries, they have suffered hardship and danger on the battlefield and in the trenches so we could enjoy comfort and peace; hundreds of thousands of them died so that we can live in freedom. Such freedom was purchased at great cost to them, and at the very least, we owe them remembrance and honor. And we owe, at the very least, gratitude and support to all past and current members of our military and their families.

Most of America's wars, first against English rule and then later against the global threats of Nazism, fascism, Communism, and radical Islam, have been first and foremost to protect our country from actual or imminent threats by tyrannical movements and governments. A few of our wars (such as the wars in Kosovo and Libya, for example) have seemed more motivated by humanitarian considerations than imminent national security threats. There is honest disagreement about whether every war America has fought has been necessary or worth the cost, and certainly some wars such as Vietnam were executed very poorly. But I think there can be no honest disagreement that the wars America has fought, without exception, have been fought on behalf of freedom and democracy and to make the world a safer, more peaceful, and better place. Unlike most other great nations and empires throughout history, our wars have not been wars of conquest or aggression. They have been intended to free others, not to enslave them.

I believe few institutions have done more good for the world than the U.S. military. A non-exhaustive list of nations who owe their present freedom to the U.S. military includes England, France, Italy, Belgium, Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Austria, Grenada, the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, Kuwait, Kosovo, Bosnia, and Iraq. Our soldiers have died to protect us and keep us free, but have also died to bring peace and freedom around the world.

What can we do to honor the memory of our fallen heroes and their sacrifice for us? We can donate our money and efforts to support organizations that help veterans and their families -- Hugh Hewitt provides some helpful links here. We can express our thanks to those who are currently serving or those who have served in the past and their families. We can vote for politicians who respect our military and want to keep it strong instead of using it as a showcase for political correctness. We can stand up to the militant left and the radical libertarian right which hate our military and undermine our country's wars at every opportunity. Most of all, we can thank God for the freedoms we have and use them to honor Him and serve others.

Here is another great link by Victor Davis Hanson that honors our military on Memorial Day.

Finally, the words to the song "The Other Little Soldier" by Josh Gracin, which reminds us just how great our soldiers' sacrifice is:

He used to play in Daddy's uniform
With the stripes across the sleeve,
And he knew when he was all grown up
What he was gonna be.
He used to like to ambush
Every careless cat or dog
That had the nerve to cross the
Battle lines that he had drawn.

And even though he didn't know
What his dad was fighting for,
He was proud to be the other little soldier
In this war

The phone rang in the middle of the night
When they called his dad to go,
Kissed him and his mom goodbye,
He said, "God, I love you both!
Now I know that it's a lot to ask
Of such a little man
But hold the fort and I'll be home
As quickly as I can."

And even though he didn't know
What his dad was fighting for,
He was proud to be the other little soldier
In this war

A wall could not begin to hold
The names of all the kids
Who gave the greatest sacrifice
That any child could give

It was the first time he'd ever seen
A flag from up that close,
And he watched them as they folded it
So careful and so slow;
As they gave it to his mother
He knew what he should do:
He raised his little hand
And gave his dad one last salute.

And even though he didn't know
What his dad was fighting for,
He was proud to be the other little soldier
In this war.

May God bless America and our troops, today and always!

Disgusting Commentary on our Universities

A war hero who was awarded the Purple Heart after being shot 11 times in Iraq and who spent two years in the hospital recovering from his wounds was booed and heckled when he spoke at a townhall meeting at Columbia University last week in favor of allowing the ROTC back on campus to recruit. Story here. These students don't deserve to have the freedom they enjoy in this great country, thanks to heroes like Sgt. Anthony Maschek. And what a sad, disgusting commentary on the left-wing teachers and professors who have shaped the worldviews of these kids.

More on the Mosque and America's View of Islam

After I wrote my last post about the Left's strategy of impugning the motives of their opponents, I read this article by Dennis Prager. Prager makes exactly the same point I was making, only much more effectively and eloquently. If I had known about it before, I could have just linked to his article and saved myself the trouble....

Also, I found an excellent post on the blog Ace of Spades yesterday that I thought was well worth reading. Basically, the poster argues that Americans' attitudes toward Islam have shown a pattern that is exactly the opposite of what we would expect if we assume the American population is Islamophobic, as the media claims. Emotion-driven bigotry would result in negative views of Islam skyrocketing immediately after 9/11, then dying down, then skyrocketing again in response to the Ground Zero mosque. But that is not the trend that we see from Gallup's polling. On the contrary, the percentage of Americans who believe that Islam is very different from their own religion has gradually but steadily increased from around 20% in November 2001 to around 50% in 2007. This is not evidence of an irrational hatred. The poster's explanation for why Americans have soured on Islam is fantastic -- instead of quoting it here I will just direct you to read the entire post here. His conclusion: "The MSM [mainstream media] likes to portray this all as uninformed hate and fear of the other. But maybe Americans took a good long look at Islam and decided they didn’t like what they saw."

On another note, I lost a lot of respect for Ron Paul after reading his statement on the Ground Zero mosque. I have always been bothered by a seemingly anti-American streak in Paul, but his reaction on this issue is really disturbing to me. Paul claims "neo-conservatives" (by that he means the overwhelming majority of mainstream conservatives) "never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars." He adds, "According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservatives’ aggressive wars." Nasty stuff. It is a lie to say that those who are condemning the mosque believe that the 9/11 bombers spoke for all Muslims. I haven't heard any conservative say that. And his characterization of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as "wars of aggression and occupation" is both false and anti-American. He concludes the article with this gem: "This is all about hate and Islamaphobia." (If he used spell check, he would learn how to spell "Islamophobia.") I am truly thankful that this man will never be president of our great country.

UPDATE: I ran across this great quote from Jim Geraghty of National Review Online that I wanted to share:

NPR's headline? "Rancor Over Mosque Could Fuel Islamic
Extremists." You know what else fuels Islamic extremists? Everything, it seems.
We've been told extremists are motivated by the secular nature of our society;
our notions of the rights of women; our belief in democracy and the idea that
laws are written by elected representatives with the consent of the governed,
not handed down on high from a religious authority; our foreign policy; our
libertine pop culture; our 1980s support and assistance in Afghanistan; our
late-80s abandonment of Afghanistan; our embrace of the Saudi rulers; our
disrespect for Saudi customs; the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia; the
departure of U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia via Iraq; poverty; globalization;
anti-Semitism; conspiracy theories; envy; sexual frustration; and Faisal
Shahzad's inability to make his mortgage payments. Apparently al-Qaeda is
motivated by everything except the Koran's more incendiary passages.

Hey, you know what? Maybe they're just [bad word of your choice here]s.
Abu Zarqawi always seemed like a guy who was just into it for the killing;
having somebody tell him he was doing God's work was just a nice
bonus.

William Jacobson: "Tolerance should be a two-way street, except that
throughout much of the world, it is not. Read Christopher Hitchens's post, A
Test of Tolerance: 'Let us by all means make the 'Ground Zero' debate a test of
tolerance. But this will be a one-way street unless it is to be a test of Muslim
tolerance as well.' Which makes this NPR post, Rancor Over Mosque Could Fuel
Islamic Extremists, particularly inane. If history has proven anything, it is
that 'fuel' is the one thing for which 'Islamic Extremists' do not want. If not
this, something else. That doesn't mean we should engage in the same intolerance
as they do. But it also doesn't mean we should deny reality."

The Left's Most Compelling Argument

The American political left has a favorite political tactic. Let's take a look at their response to conservative positions on various recent hot button issues:

~Do you support the Arizona illegal immigration law and think the U.S. should enforce the border with Mexico? (RACIST) BIGOT!

~Do you believe that we should keep the traditional definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman? (HOMOPHOBIC) BIGOT!

~Do you support the Tea Party movement to control federal spending and limit taxes? (RACIST) BIGOT!

~Do you think it is inappropriate for an Islamic cleric sympathetic to terrorism to build an Islamic center just a few hundred feet from Ground Zero? (ISLAMOPHOBIC) BIGOT!

~Do you oppose President Obama's policies and believe they are harmful to our country? (RACIST) BIGOT!

~Do you think Obama's Justice Department should not have dropped charges against New Black Panther Party members intimidating voters outside a polling station in Philadelphia? (RACIST) BIGOT!

Folks, this is how many people on the left argue. They don't really engage the facts. They just impugn the motives of their political opponents. They don't explain why their opponents are wrong. They just claim their opponents are hate-filled bigots and call it a day. And remember, on virtually all of these issues, the majority of the American people fall into the category of "bigot."

In an earlier post, I commented on articles in the Washington Post by Colbert King and Eugene Robinson that made explicit comparisons between Tea Party activists protesting the Democratic health care bill and white supremacists protesting the desegregation of the schools in the Old South. They made all sorts of claims about racist behavior among Tea Partiers, none of which could be substantiated (and many of which were proven false). The same tactics have been used by many left-wing columnists, reporters, and politicians on all the issues listed above. What influential conservative has not been called a bigot or a racist? Bill O'Reilly, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush, Ron Paul, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc., etc. They 're all racists!

Since the issue most currently in the news is the Ground Zero mosque controversy, let's take a look at how leading mainstream journalists are covering this story.

1. Kirsten Powers, a Fox News political analyst and New York Post columnist, wrote an article on the Daily Beast blog entitled "The GOP's Long, Hot, Racist Summer." Hmmm...I wonder where this article is coming from. She starts out the article with these words: "Welcome to the summer of hate. These dog days have brought a veritable festival of racial demagoguery, from a phony 'New Black Panther' controversy to Arizona’s draconian illegal-immigrant crackdown to the most recent 'ground zero mosque' hysteria." (See all the ways conservatives are racist?) Powers completely distorts the New Black Panther controversy. She dismisses the voter intimidation as unimportant, lies about the New Black Panther Party's role in the incident, suggests that the Obama Justice Department carried out justice in the case when in fact they dropped the charges, and suggests that all high-profile Republicans are indifferent to white racism. With regard to the Arizona immigration law, she gives one over-the-top quote from Michael Savage (someone who would hardly identify himself as a Republican) about illegal immigration (no mention of race in the quote) to prove the racial motivations of supporters of the AZ law, and then lies about the law by claiming "brown skin" constitutes reasonable suspicion to check immigration status. With regard to the mosque, she makes no effort to seriously address any of the reasonable concerns about the imam involved or the location of the mosque (which I summarized in a recent post here). She simply says, "Let's be honest. The problem is they are Muslims." Case closed!

2. The cover story for Time magazine's most recent cover story is "Is America Xenophobic?" Anyone want to take a guess at the answer the magazine gives to that question? The article claims that Islamophobia is growing all across the country and that Republican leaders who oppose the mosque are fueling it. The author, Bobby Ghosh, admits that "there's no sign that violence against Muslims is on the rise," but cites "anecdotal evidence" for rising anti-Muslim sentiment. He also claims, in an interview with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, that Islamophobia was widespread after the 9/11 attacks. We know from the historical record that this is a lie, and that the response from the American public was surprisingly restrained and respectful, given the provocation. These days, radical Muslims like Imam Rauf seem to get better press -- and far more benefit of the doubt -- than the America public. Rauf can attack the U.S. and defend terrorists and still be considered a moderate, but Americans cannot be angry over a provocative Islamic center to be built right next to Ground Zero without being called intolerant haters.

3. The ever-enlightening Maureen Dowd had to weigh in on the story too. Her main contribution in her most recent column, "Going Mad in Herds," is to claim that Obama is "a rational man running a most irrational nation" and to note that "the country is having some weird mass nervous breakdown." She adds, "The dispute over the Islamic center has tripped some deep national lunacy." Wow. Now, if you're opposed to the Ground Zero mosque, you're nuts. Most Americans do not agree with Maureen Dowd, therefore the whole nation is having a nervous breakdown. Can someone remind me again how this woman came to be an editorial page writer for one of the biggest newspapers in the land?

4. Taking the cake is another editorial from the New York Times, this one by Dick Cavett entitled "Real Americans, Please Stand Up." Yes, you read that right. If you oppose the Ground Zero mosque, you are not a "real" American. Cavett says that these prejudiced mosque opponents remind him of his 6th grade teacher who used to talk about the "dirty Japs." Cavett says, "How sad this whole mosque business is. It doesn’t take much, it seems, to lift the lid and let our home-grown racism and bigotry overflow." And this: "I like to think I’m not easily shocked, but here I am, seeing the emotions of the masses running like a freight train over the right to freedom of religion — never mind the right of eminent domain and private property." Just like all the other writers, Cavett never attempts to engage opponents of the mosque on any of the points they make about the mosque. He doesn't argue, he just asserts. His moral lectures to us about how we need to grow up and become real Americans is a disgrace. If he's so embarrassed by this backwards, racist, intolerant country, he should leave. Go somewhere real tolerance is practiced. Like any country in the Muslim world. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, etc.

In the meantime, I note that more statements by Imam Rauf have been coming out lately. The latest to surface was this gem: "We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non Muslims. You may remember that the US-led sanction against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children." As Jim Geraghty of National Review Online points out, "To suggest that the indirect effects of a U.S. sanctions regime is remotely morally comparable to al-Qaeda’s deliberate mass murder — much less to suggest that they are morally worse — is to eviscerate one’s claim to be moderate, pro-American, or sensible." I think that Imam Rauf would probably meet the criteria for being an editorial writer for many newspapers in this country.

Who Knew That Voluntary Recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in School Is "Controversial"?

Arlington High School in Arlington, MA, has banned the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, which was requested by Sean Harrington, a student at the school. The school committee deadlocked 3-3 on this "controversial" issue. They expressed concern that it would be hard to find teachers willing to recite the Pledge. You know, because it's so "controversial." Also, the phrase "under God" "violates students' right to practice their own religion." Another school committee member pointed out that "Patriotism is a very personal thing for all of us, but I do not think it is in the School Committee's best interest to mandate that any of our employees recite the pledge." (Patriotism is a very personal thing. You know, some people express their patriotism by saying the Pledge, and others express their patriotism by sitting in their chair, arms folded, with a sullen expression. Who's to say which is more patriotic?)

These stories are becoming more and more common in our country. Just a few weeks ago I commented on the students at a Los Angeles area high school who were suspended for wearing a shirt with an American flag on it. There have been several examples of elementary school kids getting in trouble for religious expression on school property as well (religious drawings, bowing their head to pray in the cafeteria, etc).

All of the supposed complaints about allowing the Pledge of Allegiance in the school are red herrings. They can't find a single teacher at a public high school who is willing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance? As Harrington put it, "If we cannot have a willing teacher who would want to say it, then this system of ours is cracked." The words "under God" don't violate anyone's right to practice their own religion. They are completely generic and don't endorse any religion. No one can be mandated to say the Pledge if they don't want to. Our Supreme Court has already declared it unconstitutional to force any student or any teacher to recite it. This is not an issue of forcing anyone to say the Pledge. This is an issue of denying students' right to express pride in their country on school property. And patriotism is not a personal, subjective, undefinable thing. Patriotism is very simply loving and taking pride in one's country. Either you have it or you don't. It's not complicated and it's not subjective. And if you hate America so much that you can't even stand to sit by and watch while other people recite a 20 second expression of patriotism, then you probably don't deserve to be living in America.

And the sad thing is this. Many liberals are not patriotic. I hate to say it, but it's true. The people trying to ban the Pledge and the American flag from schools are not conservatives. They are liberals. Liberals are the ones who attack our military and try to ban them from recruiting on college campuses (including our most recent Supreme Court appointment, Elena Kagan). Liberals are the ones who apologize incessantly for our "imperialistic" foreign policy, our "racist" culture, and our "shameful" heritage (including Obama and Jimmy Carter). Many people blamed the 9/11 attacks on the United States, and they were almost all liberals. Academic liberals re-write history to slander presidents like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Liberal authors slam America's capitalistic system and religious culture. Liberal justices show an utter disregard for the U.S. Constitution and the original intent of its authors, inventing "rights" out of thin air, claiming that rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights no longer apply, and making certain Constitutional provisions so broad they could mean anything. Liberal politicians deny American exceptionalism and claim we have no right to be the leader of the free world (think Obama). They claim we are racist to defend our own borders or demand that people who want to be citizens of our country learn our language and our history. They claim they love America, but not the America as it has existed in the past and as it exists now. What they really love is an America of their own imagination that they want to create in the future through their progressive ideology. They don't love our history, our traditions, our flag, our military, our freedoms, our Constitution. Most of the time, they seem downright hostile to all those things.

I'm saying that the above things are true of all liberals. They certainly are not. Some liberals do genuinely love our country as it is now. But there is a large, aggressive wing of liberalism that has nothing but blame, hostility, and contempt for America, and it has a disproportionate influence in many of our most important institutions -- government, schools and universities, and Hollywood. Because of its influence in schools and universities, it is having a big impact on our kids. I don't know if it can be defeated or not, but if it's going to be defeated it will have to be through ordinary citizens -- like parents in Arlington, MA -- standing up and saying "Enough is enough, I'm proud of my country and I'm not afraid to say it."

Obama & Human Rights

Here's a great summary of Obama's pathetic record on human rights by Jennifer Rubin. And she quotes from another excellent article from The Weekly Standard which brilliantly contrasts George W. Bush's view of human rights with the Obama Administration's view of human rights. These articles help to explain why I feel so utterly alienated from Obama that I doubt that we share even the most basic values with regard to human rights, individual liberties, democracy, etc. I don't feel like he's on my team, and I haven't seen much evidence he's on America's team -- at least not the America I know and love.

Apparently, the American Flag Is Incendiary

This story was pretty shocking to me. Five students were sent home from school at a California high school for wearing t-shirts with the American flag on them. Their crime? Celebrating America on Cinco de Mayo. As school administrators put it, wearing the American flag was "incendiary" and "disrespectful" on "Mexican Heritage Day." Take a look here and here.

Forgive me for asking, but what is disrespectful or incendiary or racially divisive about the American flag? Aren't we all Americans and don't we all supposedly love this country, whatever our ethnic background? Why would Mexican-AMERICANS be offended by someone wearing the American flag? At least one of the boys, Matthew Dariano, was actually part Hispanic. His mother said, "There will be no apology." Good for her. No American should ever have to apologize for respectfully displaying the American flag on American soil.

I am sick of Americans who seem to hate their own country and think we need to apologize for who we are. And I am sick of the ethnic identity politics that divides us along racial lines. Whether white, black, Latino, Asian, or Arabic, all Americans should share a common commitment to our country, our flag, and our ideals of liberty and justice for all. If you don't like America and you don't respect our flag and our ideals, you should shut up or leave. Or don't come here in the first place.

Sad Commentary on our President

November 9, 2009 was an important anniversary -- the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. This is one of the most significant events in modern history, and it came about largely through the bold and courageous leadership of President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in confronting the evils of Soviet Communism.

In fact, it was so important...that President Obama, who was perfectly willing to fly to Copenhagen to lobby for Chicago getting the Olympics, was unable to make time in his busy schedule to attend. He sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton instead, who gave a brief speech at the Brandenburg Gate, and then introduced Obama, who gave a brief speech by video.

Obama's and Clinton's speeches are an embarrassment. Neither one of them contains a single mention of the Soviet Union, Communism, Ronald Reagan, or Margaret Thatcher. Clinton singles out numerous people groups for praise, but completely omits praise for the leading role of the U.S. and its military. Both speeches make vague references to "tyranny" and an "iron curtain" but say nothing about the nature of this tyranny or how it was defeated. Clinton provides this moral lesson from the fall the Berlin Wall: "There are still millions across our world who are separated – maybe not by walls, maybe not by barbed wire, although that still exists – but who are separated from loved ones, who are kept down and behind, unable to fulfill their own destinies." What pathetic pablum. It sounds like she's getting ready to launch into a speech advocating universal health care. What about the evils of tyranny globally? What about the importance of courageously speaking out in favor of freedom and against Communism and other forms of totalitarianism, and the necessity of confronting them and defeating them with actions, including force? Those are the real lessons of the fall of the Berlin Wall. But Hillary just wants us all to get along and work together to help people reunite with their loved ones.

The biggest embarrassment of all was the fact that Obama was the only American even mentioned in either speech. Leave it to Obama to make even the fall of the Berlin Wall about himself. Clinton closed her speech by saying, "I am deeply honored to introduce now a message from someone who represents the fall of different kinds of walls – of walls of discrimination, of stereotype, of character, the walls that too often are inside minds and hearts." Awww. Then Obama rambled on for a couple of minutes, making a few vague references to historical events before getting to the really important point about the fall of the Berlin Wall: “Few would have foreseen … that a united Germany would be led by a woman from Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent. But human destiny is what human beings make of it."

You know, it wouldn't be so bad if this were the first time Obama had showed this incredible egotism. But it's not. When Obama spoke to the UN General Assembly in September, he had this to say: "For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months." As far as Obama is concerned, American history began when he took office. He is oblivious to the greatness of our country and its grand history of protecting the innocent and promoting democracy and freedom around the world. The best thing he can think of about America is his election and presidency. Or as Michelle Obama put it, "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country." The overwhelming narcissism is sickening, but the complete ignorance of history and inability to demonstrate pride in the country he was elected to represent on the world stage is even worse. America has a proud history, a great record of accomplishments, and values that are worth celebrating. We deserve a president who recognizes that.

Once again, Thomas Sowell hits it out of the park

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/27/dismantling_america_98883.html