Veteran's Day

I was in the hospital the other day (for my son, nothing major), and I was honored with the opportunity to speak with a WWII veteran. I knew he was a vet because he was wearing a hat that said "World War II Veteran." Am I a genius or what?

Anyway, we were able to speak for only a few minutes, but I was able to talk to him about his time in the service. He told me that he was on Okinawa, and had been injured there by shrapnel that broke his left leg. He still spoke with pride about what his comrades did, but he never took any credit for himself. And you could see he was still emotional about this experience which occurred over 60 years ago, when he was 19 years old. As I was called away to go with my son, I shook his hand and said "thank you for serving." He simply nodding to me.

The next day, I was speaking with a colleague of mine, and the conversation came around to politics and her hometown of Montclair, N.J. We discussed a show that we had both seen several months back on one of the TV news magazine (20/20?) wherein they compared Montclair with a town in Kansas. The comparison dealt with political views. They picked Montclair for its largely liberal population, and the community in Kansas for its conservative population.

In the conversation, my friend told me how at this past 4th of July parade in her town the residents refused to clap for passing soldiers, including Viet Nam Vets, yet cheered wildy as a small group of protesters passed by with signs imploring the US to "Get Out Of Iraq."

She and I marveled at the inability of liberals to perceive the importance of our military, and to perceive the amount of sacrifice it takes to become a member of the armed services. And we both declared our own inability to understand how liberals could detest our soldiers so much, and how they see red when it comes to anything military. The only decent thing we could agree on was that liberals lack any sense of common sense, and how they are driven by emotions and not reality.

While this may be a fair assessment, it does nothing to bridge the divide between liberals and conservatives nowadays. In fact, it only points out how futile it is to try to bridge that gap, because liberals today refuse to appreciate or even allow views different than their own. Some of them say they support the troops, but that's like saying you support the right to choose, as you blow up an abortion clinic. Their actions speak far louder than their words (and deeds). They get so caught up in their emotional outrage over everything, that logic for them ceases to exist.

And so it is true with their view of veterans. I doubt many liberals would have thanked that WWII vet I spoke with in the hospital. Indeed, I doubt many of them even remembered it was Veteran's Day. And that is sad. Because, regardless of your views of the military, the war in Iraq, or the war on terror, an inability to appreciate what our uniformed men and women do, and have done, for us is confounding to me. And I see no change on that side coming any time soon.

God Bless our Veterans.

Dumb and Dumber

So, the other shoe has fallen-- the Dems have taken the Senate. So, while I am quite disappointed and, frankly, scared for the future of the world (no, I'm not being facetious), I start with wondering how they in fact won one, let alone two houses of congress. The answer is quite simple, unfortunately--the American electorate is lazy and stupid.

Now you might say this is pretty harsh. But I can't pull punches here. How anyone would vote for any national democrat is beyond me. If people were against the Iraq war, or at least thought the war was not being fought effectively, is the answer really to elect the Democrats? The Dems have vowed to pull us out of Iraq. As I've stated in prior blogs, that is exactly what the terrorists are hoping for. In fact, the terrorists are already saying they have won in Iraq because of the Democrat victory. -http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/10/D8LAC4OG1.html

Iran thinks the Dems' win is great too. http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-11-10T140135Z_01_L10266591_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-ELECTIONS-IRAN.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

Anyone who thinks they won't raise taxes, including those levied on the Middle Class, are sadly mistaken. All taxpayers will see their taxes going up, regardless of income level. More importantly, the tax increase will bring the economy to a screeching halt.

Speaking of the economy, this is the classic example of how stupid the electorate is. For the last 3-4 years polls have shown that they think the economy is on bad shape. This is despite all of the record-breaking levels in all sectors for that time period- housing, unemployment, interest rates, Dow Jones Average, etc. By any measure the economy is stronger now than it has been in years, or even decades. But not if you ask the common voter.

Those who voted in the Dems all say "they want a change." A change to what? What do the Democrats stand for? What do they plan to do? What is the history of Dems? Higher taxes and weak defense. Does any one not understand that? Apparently Democrat voters don't, otherwise the Reps would still hold majorities in both houses.

Now the Dems are claiming they are going to bring "civility" back to Washington politics. Does anyone believe that? That was rhetorical. Even those who voted for the Dems can't believe that. Or can they. Harry Reid called the President an idiot in front of little children in school. Pelosi called him sick. Is this a group of people looking to sing kumbaya? I don't think so.

Henry Waxman, D-California, the to-be-named Chairman of the Government Reform Committee has recently stated that his committee has so many things to investigate in the Bush Administration that he doesn't know where to begin. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/10/D8LAEECG1.html Is that what the next 2 years are going to be in Washington? Investigating Bush? While the Terrorists focus on killing Americans? And don't think the Terrorists will stop at the Iraq border. I predict there will be a major terrorist incident in the US before the end of Bush's tenure. And it will be because Bush is pre-occupied with Congressional investigations and Congress has cut funding to the Armed Forces and the Intelligence Community. And who will the Democrat voters blame?

Guess.

Yes, History has been made

Many of our political "pundits," particularly those in the media, keep repeating that the Democrats have made history by winning the House of Representatives. This is quite an interesting statement.

It is historical in that not for 100 years has one party taken over the House and not taken over the Senate. But I don't think that's what the media pundits were talking about. They are trying to make it sound like the Democrats have done something great by taking back the House. However, history in fact shows us that the party holding the White House almost invariably loses the House after 6 years in the Presidency. So the Democrats would have in fact made history if they had not taken over the House (God forbid they win the Senate too).

What will be of historical note is that the terrorists have won. It is common knowledge that the terrorists wanted the Democrats to win this election. There were articles citing interviews with member of Hamas stating they were praying that the Democrats would win. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52747 Moreover, simple logic indicates that the Democrat win will embolden the terrorists, starting with Osama Bin Laden, through all of Al Qaida, to the smaller radical Muslim groups throughout the world. It shows to them what Bin Laden has been predicting from 1994: that Americans don't have the stomach to really do what it takes to beat the terrorists. They now realize that as long as they keep killing American Soldiers, even a few a month, Americans will grow weary of any such conflict and will throw in the towel.

Is there any doubt that that is what the Democrats in Congress will do now? They has been their platform for the past 5 years. "Get out of Iraq." Or as they put it "redeploy." Call it what you want, but its retreat, as far as Terrorists are concerned.

I have been telling my wife and friends, and anyone else that would listen to me that I think a Democratic win, such as we have apparently seen tonight, will set us back 50 years in the War on Terror. Even assuming we turn the tide in Iraq soon (assuming the House Democrats don't pull funding of the war, which is a likely occurrence), the Terrorists will simply say, "just keep killing American Soldiers. They will give up again soon."

It will take 25 years of this before any tide will be turned in the war on terror (that's assuming we keep fighting the War on Terror they way it needs to be fought--relentlessly). The next 25 years will be eaten up fighting and, yes, killing, terrorists. And this assumes that Democrats come to their senses and in fact do not pull out of Iraq.

Whatever the Democrats do, the simple fact that they have taken power in the House will send a signal to the Terrorists that all they have to do is hang on, and we Americans will give in, give up, and run away. That is the reality. And that is why this election is of such important historic significance. Historians will look back at this election as the point at which the Terrorists rallied their faithful, and where the truly long siege against terror began.

I wish I was wrong.

Shut up and Talk

I listen to Howard Stern every morning on the way to work. I have listened to Howard for more than 20 years now. I think he's funny and edgy. His adult humor gets me smiling in the morning. However, for the last year or so he's begun to really aggravate me.

This is a good example. The other day Howard's side-kick, Artie Lange (very funny guy too), asked if its upsetting to the soldiers in Iraq if they say (on the Stern show) that the war in Iraq is a real mess. Howard immediately jumped in and said, "not at all. Most of the soldiers over there think its messed up too." That's crap for two reasons.

First, the army reports that 2 out of every 3 soldiers discharged from Iraq re-enlist and go back to Iraq. If the soldiers think its so messed up, why are they voluntarily going back, Howard?

The second reason this comment is crap is because its Howard making the statement. Many years back, when Howard first started sticking his nose into politics, including his own run for the governorship of NY, he was clearly a conservative. He supported Christie Todd Whitman when she ran for Governor of NJ, and George Petaki each time he ran for Governor of NY. And both of these Governors are Republicans. Christie Whitman even named a rest stop on the NJ Turnpike after Howard for his support of her candidacy. I also know from years of listening to Howard that he is in favor of the death penalty and when he ran for Governor of NY he ran on the Libertarian ticket. Hardly a liberal party.

So why did he make this statement? In fact, this comment is only one is a pattern of Howard's for some time now. More and more Howard has been making liberal and virulent anti-Bush statements of late. And I know why.

Howard is going "Hollywood." He makes it no secret that he wants a career in movies and television. And what better way to insinuate himself into the Hollywood clique than to speak out against President Bush and the War in Iraq. He is vying for a seat at the big celebrity table, and he's doing it at the expense of his own karma.

In fairness, however, Howard isn't the only "celebrity" to take this route. Before PoliticallyIncorrect was taken up by Disney, Bill Maher was a conservative. I used to watch his show when it was on cable, and his positions we more often than not conservative. Now, Maher can't get liberal enough. He's fighting it out with Rosie O'Donnell for the spot as the angriest empty-headed liberal in entertainment. And at times it seems he's winning.

There are many other examples out there of people on the fringes of Hollywood trying to make their way into the heart of the business by attempting to out-liberal each other. What irks me about Howard doing it though is that he is a fairly intelligent, well-spoken man who has sold his soul for a career in a make believe world that no real person can relate to. Certainly not a world most of his listeners can relate to. He's selling out himself, his listeners and his country.

I hope he finds happiness at what he does best, radio, and leaves the liberal flag where it should be left: Southern California.

A Lack of Media Savvy

A major weakness of the Republicans is that they have no idea how to manipulate the media. The Deomocrats on the other hand are masters of this art. And with the mass media so in the pocket of the Democrats, this is a strong combination.

An example of how the Republicans shoudl have, but did nto start to manipulate the media is with the Foley "scandel." As many of you hopefully know nby now there was a Democrat in the House in the early `80s by the name of Gerry Studds. He had his own little page dilemma. He not only solicited under-age pages for sexual satisfaction, but he actually had sex with at least one 17 yeras old male page.

Did Studds resign? No. Did the Democrats run him out on a rail? Of course not. What did the Democrats (who controlled the House at the time) do to Studds? Promoted him to a committee chairmanship (at the urging of Nancy Pelosi, no less).

Conversely, at the urging of Newt Gingrich, Republicans pushed for Studds to be kicked out of the house, but that was never done.

Now we get the Foley scandel. Did Foley resign? Yes, so there was nothing else for the Republican lead house to do to him, legally. And Foley didn't even have sex with the page in question (as far as we know).

So what do the Republicans do in the wake of Foley-gate? Denny Hastert-- "well, uh, I'm thinking about it." Next day-- "well, uh, I'll ask the FBI to investigate." How long will that investigation take? Well at least until after the election. Way to go Denny.

What shoudl the Republicans have done? On every media outlet, every interview, every press conference, every Sunday morning show, the first words out of any Republican's mouth should have been "Gerry Studds." Put the Dmocrats on the defensive while at the same time taking the sting out of the story. Show how the Democrats are worse than hypocrits. They have, as usual, a double standard. Apparently, if you ask a page for sex you should be drawn and quatered. But if you actually have sex with a page, you should be promoted.

This is grade school stuff, but the Republicans have never been able to do it. They have never even tried. And until the start to they will always lose the media wars in politics.