Democratic Candidates Dishonest About Surge Successes

Does it bother anyone besides me that the Democratic presidential candidates can’t even mention the success of the “surge” in Iraq?

As Fred Barnes points out in his article in the weekly standard, They Can’t Handle The Truth, even our anti-war biased media has headlined evidence that General Petraeus’ strategy (the addition of more American troops and tasking them with the protection the civilian population) has dramatically reduced the level of violence in Baghdad and other regions of Iraq.

Are they really that uninformed? Or, are they simply being dishonest? Either situation would not bode well for this country if one of them were elected president.

During the New Hampshire primary, Barack Obama did state that the decision by Sunnis in Iraq to embrace American forces was simply a direct response to the Democratic Party’s capture of power in Congress during the 2006 election. And as Fred Barnes writes, looking at the facts, there is no evidence for his claim. The Sunnis had, in fact, begun to turn against al Qaeda before the 2006 election.

Bill Richardson seems to have been on another planet for the last year or so. Terming Iraq “a massive failure,” he voiced a number of inaccurate claims.

He stated there had been no reconciliation, that there had been no sharing of oil revenues, that the Iraq government had made no effort to train additional security forces, and that there could only be a political solution to Iraq and not a military solution. In actuality, both solutions are needed.

Bill Richardson was wrong on all four counts.

John Edwards also provided an explanation that strains the limits of credibility saying that the withdrawal of British troops from southern Iraq has caused “a significant reduction in violence.”

Hillary Clinton basically just reaffirmed what she said during a Senate hearing; that she had to “suspend disbelief” to accept that the surge was working. Hillary went on, stating that the purpose behind the surge was to create time for political reconciliation and for the Iraqi government to deal with the many unresolved problems that confront it. She stated that no Iraqi government action, it’s time to bring our troops home as quickly and responsibly as possible.

I agree with Fred Barnes. As much as I hate to admit it, at least Hillary Clinton was partially correct. One of the goals of the surge was to create an environment of political reconciliation and let environment lead to the completion of the other benchmarks set by the U.S. for the Iraqi government.

And yes, I realize that these steps have been slow in coming, but they are coming. Nine of the eighteen benchmark goals set by the U.S. for the Iraqi government have indeed been met. And, that was simply one of the goals and not the only goal, as Hillary Clinton wants to suggest.

Another, second goal, was to reduce the violence, secure Baghdad, and to protect its citizens. That goal has been achieved.

A third goal is to defeat al Qaeda in Iraq.

How are the democratic candidates going to reconcile this position to that of the many Democrats who have recently traveled to Iraq and concluded the surge is succeeding?

I realize that the Democratic candidates will certainly not abandon their anti-war rhetoric regarding Iraq. That would alienate too large a block of antiwar voters.

However, they could have at least acknowledged the fact that the surge seems to be working and that if the Iraqi government does what it should, there might be a need to look at a change in their policy.

Then, as suggested in the article, they could certainly have eased right back into their anti-war rhetoric by saying that Iraqi leaders must now move quickly because Americans are still dying in Iraq, and at the moment, there is no reason to expect any real political progress by the Iraqi government. Therefore, the only policy that makes sense is to begin the withdrawal of troops.

At least, as Fred Barnes says, that would have been honest!

Bigger Government?

I found this post on a Fox News web forum highlighting viewers’ responses to the GOP debate hosted by Fox News. It caught my eye because of the comments on big government. This viewer is from Sweden and historically Sweden has been a big government/socialist country. While I was out in Aspen, Colorado attending an ESI training session about 7 years ago, I got the chance to meet a young man, also from Sweden, who made some very similar comments. However, for some reason, many of our left-wing liberal democrats like to point to Sweden as a shining example of where we should be headed as a country.

Ulrika Says:

January 8th, 2008 at 2:32 pm

I have lived in this country for the past 17 years and I am honored to be a citizen and the spouse of a military officer. I grew up in the beautiful country of Sweden and moved here as a young adult. I know big government! I know the inefficiencies of government run health care. I know the paralyzing effects high taxes have on a people. I know what a lack of respect for life and the sanctity of marriage have on society. I could go on an on.

On so many issues the democrats could not be further from what I believe is right, true and good for America. To all republicans and conservative independents, I would like to say; Please vote for the candidate that you think will have the best chance of beating the Democratic nominee. The polls are clear. Mitt Romney is the one most people believe can beat the Democratic nominee: whoever that may be. Take the time and watch the debates and various appearances and you’ll see a well-composed, intelligent, articulate leader ready to take over in the White House.

I wish she would go on and on.

I am not sure I agree with her endorsement of Mitt Romney as the only viable republican candidate, but her comments speak volumes about big government and tax and spend politics. I hope the Republican Party can rediscover its small government, conservative spending roots. It certainly needs to convince the voters in this country it has … if it hopes to gain a victory in the 2008 election.

I find it curious that the same people, who cried so loudly about FEMA’s inept handling and wasteful spending during the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans, want to give that same government more responsibility and money … meaning more wasteful bureaucracy.

It currently takes 5 to 6 months of red tape for a doctor to be paid by medicare. If government run healthcare is so good, why do people who have money in countries that have government run healthcare come to the U.S. for treatment of anything serious?

Why would we want to give a government that builds bridges to nowhere and grants $400,000 for a Teapot Museum in Sparta, North Carolina more of our tax dollars? Pork Barrel projects in 2006 totaled $29 billions dollars. Hillary Clinton’s recent support of the “Woodstock Museum” comes to mind.

My tax dollars should be better spent … before they come asking me for more!

As an interesting side note: Sweden’s new prime minister’s party won because of, among other things, pledged tax cuts.

Why We Fight The War On Terror!

Since the days of Saint Augustine, theologians, and intellectuals have debated the Just War Doctrine.  It would seem clear, simply from the fact that this discussion has lasted so long, that wars based on aggression or greed would not be considered just wars.  America has never waged an aggressive war based on greed or avarice. Prior to World War II, Franklin Roosevelt stated that America hated war. America hopes for peace. So if we go to war, we want to be sure the cause is just.  Our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq meets the criteria of a just war, a war fought for the sake of enduring human values.  This war that we have been forced to fight is about ideology … not terrain … or even oil.

Many Americans like to pretend this war on terror began on September 11, 2001. However, the Fascist Islamic Fundamentalists declared war on us way before 9/11, and they have shown us time and time again who they are and why they must be stopped.Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda have been waging a war against the United States for many years.  On November 5, 1998, Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were indicted in a Manhattan courthouse for conspiring to attack U.S. facilities overseas and to kill American citizens.  It was found then that he and Al-Qaeda had attempted to obtain components to nuclear weapons and chemical weapons as far back as 1993.  Contrary to the popular myths spun in our left-wing media outlets, it was also found that Al-Qaeda had forged an alliance with the government of Iran, and had also reached an agreement with Saddam Hussein himself in regards to weapons development.

Here are just a few of the many other examples to illustrate the kind of brutal and barbaric enemy we are up against:

November 4, 1979: Fifty-two American citizens were taken hostage when militant students of radical Islam stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.  After 444 days in captivity, they were released when Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980.

December 12, 1983: Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait by an Iranian backed group called Al Dawa or “The Call.” Six people were killed and 80 more were injured.

March 16, 1984: Islamic Jihad kidnapped and later murdered Political Officer William Buckley in Beirut, Lebanon.

December 1985: Simultaneous suicide attacks are carried out against U.S. and Israeli check-in desks at Rome and Vienna international airports. 20 people are killed in the two attacks.

April 5, 1986: A bomb destroys the LaBelle discotheque in West Berlin.  The discotheque was known to be often frequented by U.S. serviceman.  This attack killed one American and one German, and wounded 150, including 44 Americans.

August 7, 1998:  Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.  In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is injured among the 10 killed and 77 injured.

October 12, 2000:  A terrorist bomb badly damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and wounding 39 more.

September 11, 2001: Nineteen terrorists with known ties to Al-Qaeda hijacked four U.S. airliners and flew two of them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and one into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.  The fourth, also on its way toward Washington, D.C. crashed into a field near Shanksville, PA when courageous Americans tried to retake the hijacked airliner from the terrorists. Over 5,000 innocent civilians were killed in New York City, as many as 200 were killed at the Pentagon site, and 45 were killed at the Shanksville site.

January 23, 2002: Wall Street Journal reporter, Daniel Pearl, was kidnapped and murdered on video by an Islamic group in Pakistan. His grave was found near Karachi on May 16.

Tom Fox: In 2005 terrorists group in Iraq calling themselves the Swords of the Righteousness Brigade took four Western peace activists hostage. Tom Fox, a fifty-four-year-old American with a group called Christian Peacemaker Teams was tied up and shot in the head.  His body was dumped near a railroad in Baghdad. When his body was recovered, it clearly showed that this peace activist had been badly tortured before somebody put a bullet in his brain.  What is righteous about that?

Nick Berg: Nick Berg was an American contractor in his mid-thirties working to help rebuild Iraq’s telecommunications infrastructure.  Captured by terrorists, he was brought in front of a video camera and pinned him down while Abu Musab al-Zarqawi cut off is head.  This was a heinous act stemming from a brutal belief system with absolutely no redeeming qualities!

Today’s extreme Muslim fundamentalist ardently believes that Allah has all the answers; therefore, they do not need Western science. While the modern world moves forward, they remain mired in their barbaric self-imposed Dark Ages.  They are true believers. And … to an Islamic terrorist, the thought of dying for Allah and getting the chance to make it with seventy-two virgins would probably seem more appealing than real life. Especially if he takes enough infidels with him … then he will become a real hero. He will be honored, and his family will be well looked after financially by friends, neighbors and, oh yeah, Saddam Hussein … were he still around.

Fighting such a war requires that we know who we are and what we stand for.  I believe that most Americans, with the exception of a few self-loathing left-wing liberals, still know what this country stands for. Throughout our country’s history, American soldiers have fought and died around the globe to protect the basic human rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. The United States did not invent these rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; these certain, unalienable rights were not granted to us by our government.  According to our Founding Fathers and Thomas Jefferson, God granted them to us.  Yes, I know … in certain privileged politically correct circles, it has become insulting to point out the source of these rights.

Many people have argued that Iraq posed no threat to our national security. I think those people have either a very poor, or a selective, memory. I see very little difference between Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden and three of the twentieth century’s most evil and bloodiest despots, Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, and Joseph Stalin.  I also see little difference between Nazism, Communism and Islamic fascism.  The murderous and thankfully, now overthrown, Saddam Hussein made it very clear that he was an enemy of the United States, his neighbors, and even other Iraqis.

If we had never gone into Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, and he would still be killing anyone who dared to disagree with him.  Kurds, if they didn’t tow the line, would still be gassed, their bodies left in the street where they had fallen, as a stark reminder to all the other “traitors” that the price of defiance is an ugly death. Saddam’s loyal minions would still be rounding up “troublemakers” by the hundreds … men, women, even young children … blindfolding them, executing them, and then dumping their bodies in unmarked mass graves. “Enemies of the state” would still be tortured (and not simply with water boarding) till they confessed to what ever was needed. Saddam’s “special police” would still be raping Iraqi women to extract information from their “suspect” husbands. Let us also not forget the special fund Saddam Hussein set up to support the families of martyred suicide bombers. You know, I kind of think that Saddam Hussein would qualify as a weapon of mass destruction himself.

It is hard to imagine that our liberal left-wingers, being such staunch supporters of human rights, would ever be willing to look the other way and ignore the humanitarian aspect of this war in Iraq.And rest assured, Iraq would be working hard to build a nuclear bomb.  Saddam would never sit back and allow Iran to have the only Muslim-held bomb in the Middle East.  The United States would then have not one, but two radical Muslim countries armed with nuclear weapons to contend with.  In fact, Saddam Hussein might already have had a nuclear weapon if not for the Israelis, who in 1981, had the courage to blow up the nuclear reactor France was busy building for him.

Some Democrats like to compare the war in Iraq to the war in Vietnam. We have heard it again and again.  Iraq is a new Vietnam. In one aspect, they may actually be right.  This may become a self-fulfilling prophecy; especially if they actually get their way.  Remember how Liberal Democrats were overjoyed when American forces were pulled out of Vietnam.  They had won their battle for peace.  However, they remained strangely silent and looked the other way while almost a million South Vietnamese were tortured and murdered, or died in “reeducation camps.” Many perished at sea in a last desperate bid to gain freedom.

I suspect that some of today’s liberal democrats will be just as silent if, on their timetable, we leave Iraq too soon, and the Taliban and Al-Qaeda turn the Middle East region into another giant killing field.  Rest assured, the liberal democrats will act as if they had nothing to do with it.  They will either pretend not to notice the bloodbath … or will conveniently blame it all on George Bush.

It is one thing to be against the war, it something else entirely to be against your own Country. I admit America is not perfect, but it is certainly not evil!  It is not “American imperialism” that sends our soldiers, sailors, and airman into harms way.  Does anyone honestly believe that our government had any plans for Afghanistan prior to 9/11.  Well, we did try to help them kick the invading Russians out of their country.

Certainly, the United States has a vast presence in the world today. People everywhere buy music and videos by new American artists.  As bad as most of them are, it still doesn’t justify suicide bombers … does it?  Nike, McDonalds, Starbucks, Time Warner and other similar multinational companies take a little bit of America with them when they open shop in other countries.  Is that American Imperialism? Don’t we have Toyota, Honda, and Nissan plants in our country! Don’t we have Chinese restaurants, Japanese steakhouses, or Italian restaurants? Is this imperialism?  Critics say that American financial institutions are merely an extension of American imperialism, but aren’t the Chinese happy to buy up American debt?  Is this American imperialism or is it merely a global economy?  Wake up and smell the twenty-first century!

Some countries export terrorism and fear.  America exports freedom and liberty.  And … sometimes we must take up arms to defend that liberty.  That is why we intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo.  That is why we tried, somewhat feebly, to intervene in Rwanda.  And that is why we would also be justified to intervene in Darfur.  We have never in our history entered a country as a conquering force, to occupy, or to colonize.  In World War II, we invaded France to end the German occupation.  All we asked for in return was a place to bury our dead servicemen.

Most American’s, I hope, realize that we are in a struggle we did not choose, against one of the most brutal enemies our nation has ever faced.  But there are always a few idiots that believe that the attacks on September 11, 2001 were something we deserved, or … the “chickens coming home to roost!”  This is a shallow, thoughtless reaction to what occurred on that day.  Suppose the United States did have a horrible foreign policy; that still does not justify hijacking civilian airliners and flying them into buildings filled with civilians. It is an intellectually bankrupt response that ignores the facts!  The terrorists who hijacked those planes on 9/11 were not downtrodden members of a society enslaved by American imperialism.  They were middle-class, well-educated Islamic religious zealots.  Osama bin Laden was a millionaire. America never colonized the Middle East.  We didn’t pull out when colonialism became unsustainable after World War I.  We didn’t leave a mess of impoverished artificially created nation-states.  Actually … we have Europe to thank for that!

Contrary to popular myth, we also did not act unilaterally.  As of August 23, 2006, there were troops from Albania, Armenia, Australia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, South Korea, and the United Kingdom helping in Iraq.  Some nations, like Japan, Nicaragua, New Zealand, Thailand, Ukraine, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Norway had soldiers in Iraq, but have since withdrawn them.   Spain had troops in Iraq until the terrorists scared them off by blowing up one of their trains.

What disgusts me most is the lack of support from countries like France and Germany.  France and Germany both jumped on the anti-American bandwagon saying that we, the United States, were the bad guys in the world.  They claimed that our power and our ideas are selfish and inherently evil.  Of course, the self-loathing left-wing liberals loved every minute of it.

However … it is complete disingenuous.  The French have made quite a practice of sticking it to the United States.  This is after we have saved their butts in not one, but two world wars.  This is the same France that, in 1981, was building Saddam Hussein a nuclear reactor, and the same enlightened France that now has impoverished Muslims rioting in their housing projects.  I wonder how much of France and Germany’s anti-American rhetoric was actually based on real deeply-felt anti-Americanism and how much was based on the lucrative trade deals those countries had signed with Saddam Hussein.  In 2001, France was Iraq’s number one trading partner and France’s largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, had signed extensive oil contracts with Saddam Hussein worth about $650 billion.  Direct trade between Germany and Iraq amounted to about $350 million annually and Saddam Hussein had ordered Iraqi domestic business to show preference to German companies as a reward for Germany’s “firm positive stand in rejecting the launching of a military attack against Iraq.”

Who is fooling who?

The Problem with Ron Paul’s Thinking.

Despite his popularity with many college students and some short-sighted libertarian thinkers, Ron Paul would not have been a good choice for president. I say this in spite of the fact that I agree with his stance on several important issues. In fact, there are several areas in which his voting record is great as far as I am concerned! He has never voted to raise taxes, he has never voted to restrict firearms, and he has never voted for a pay raise for congressmen. He also does not participate in “government junkets,” he returns a portion of his office budget to the treasury every year, and he refuse to participate in the obscenely lucrative congressional pension plan. I can respect those things about him since I tend to have some “libertarian” leanings myself. However, his downfall is his apparent inability to see beyond his own point of view.

Say, for instance, you’re a dedicated conservative working in some fairly liberal environment, like a college or university campus. I’m am sure you will be very familiar with the odd, confused, or even hostile, looks you receive from coworkers who have had every contrary political view point to theirs (if, indeed, they have even heard one) filtered by their like-minded peers. They exist in a safe self-validating bubble consisting of agreeing viewpoints. There will be no room for, or tolerance of, your point of view. No room for compromise…

Being able to see the “big picture” is generally considered a desirable trait, but it can sometimes interfere with being able to recognize the truth. Communism is probably the best example of this phenomenon. Communist leaders can take any fact or event, put their Marxist colored glasses on, and proceed to screw things up. That is one of the reasons the Soviet Union failed. They simply couldn’t grow food or produce quality products because their farming and production methods had to be based on Communist philosophy, which by its very nature inspires no one to standout or excel in their assigned area of responsibility.

I do think, however, that he is an idealist in the worst sense of the word. Ron Paul replies to every question like a robot programmed with a series of patented libertarian answers. He doesn’t seem to let his life’s experiences and the realities of the world in which we live, cause him to think, and therefore help him to shape thoughtful reasonable answers. He lets his philosophy shape his reality.

Life isn’t as simple as many people want to think it is. In choosing a new president, we all, no matter where on the political spectrum we fall, certainly would want somebody with a central guiding philosophy. However, we cannot afford to have somebody in office that is so rigid in his philosophy that intelligent compromise and realistic policy making become impossible. Ron Paul simply does not seem to have the common sense to understand the world we live in.

Do you need some examples?

How about the recent GOP Spanish-language debate held in Coral Gables, FL. Ron Paul, finding himself in the heart of Cuban-American country where Fidel Castro is still hated and ostracized, was loudly booed when he called out for improved relations with Castro’s Cuba. If Castro isn’t such a “bad fellow” and Cuba is such a wonderful place, why are all these Cubans here and why do they hate Castro so? I understand that if you are one of Hollywood’s darlings and a feather-brained secular-progressive liberal like Harry Belafonte, Robert Redford, Jack Nicholson, Oliver Stone, Matt Dillon, or Chevy Chase; Castro will roll out the Red Carpet and make you feel very, very welcome. But … what about the thousands of tortured Cubans in his prisons? I think there is something very sick about the compulsion of such stars to pander to tyrants … so long as those tyrants are “progressive” and anti-American.

There is also the fact that during an extremely difficult period when we as a nation are at war with a terrorist community bent on destroying us, when increasing border security is a major concern for many Americans, and when most sensible candidates are discussing the need for some kind of tamper-proof guest worker identification card as a means to help control the borders; Ron Paul’s only answer is an automatic claim that such action can only lead to a national identification card for all Americans, which he absolutely opposes. I simply do not see how one action automatically leads to the other; especially in the light of the outrage over New York’s Governor Spitzer’s plan for issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.

Another fact Ron Paul, and we as Americans, must understand and come to grips with, is that isolationism has never worked. The world is getting way too small for that kind of mentality to be safe. Ron Paul’s comments in the first GOP debate that things that happen in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, or Iraq are those countries problems, and should not concern us, belies a very scary lack of the understanding that we do, in fact, live in a world of mutually inter-dependent economies, and that, simply put, nuclear missiles launched by Iran at Israel will certainly have a direct effect on us.

Lastly, I have a very hard time viewing Ron Paul as the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. After all, this is the same Ron Paul that, during the first GOP debate, basically apologized to al Qaeda for our having forced those poor misunderstood terrorists to come over and blow up the twin World Trade Center towers, killing thousands of Americans … and many people from other countries as well including Australia, Bermuda, Great Britain, Canada, China, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Germany, Israel, Japan, and Mexico. Is Ron Paul an American apologist? Is he a western apologist? Or does he not understand that some radical Islamic fundamentalists simply hate us and want to kill us because we are not also radical Islamic fundamentalists? Whichever the case maybe, a candidate with that line of reasoning simply cannot be put in charge of the security of our nation and certainly cannot become the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces.

We Reap What We Sow!

The headline reads “Boys, 11 and 14, Charged With Sexual Assault on Woman, 60.” That is pretty scary! Here is another one. “Six Las Vegas Teens Shot at Bus Stop After Schoolyard Fight Over Girl.”  How about “Cicero-North Syracuse Student Charged in Exchange of Nude Photos” or “15-Year-Old Boy Pleads Guilty to a Lesser Charge in High School Bomb Plot.” Then there is always these: “Three Female Teens Charged After Video of Them Beating 13-Year-Old Girl Surfaces” and “Illinois High School Student Expelled After Planning Fight on MySpace.” 

I guess you could blame guns … but only one of these crimes involves a gun! 

Why is it that recently the violent-crime rate seems to rise and fall in direct proportion  to the number to teens in the population?  Why has the number of murder arrests of teens suddenly jumped 92% since 1985 … during a period when the teen population has remained steady or even declined.  The perception that criminals are getting younger is backed up by statistics.  In 1982, 390 teens, ages 13 to 15, were arrested for murder.  A decade later, this total jumped to 740.

Could it be that we are reaping what we have sown by blindly following the secular-progressive’s model for an “improved” society; a society in which we teach 8th graders to put condoms on bananas, use prime-time soft-core porn TV shows and video games to raise our children, and then tell parents that if they attempt to discipline their children we will put them in jail?

Many of today’s kids simply have no moral compass!  Why? Because our schools and the National Education Association (NEA), controlled by the secular-progressives in our society, have waged a campaign of intolerance of anything remotely resembling a Christian idea (see War on Christmas or God Bless America), told us that right and wrong are relative (one man’s rapist is another man’s role model … so you can’t make a judgement), and that being an American is a bad thing (see no “anti-American” textbooks allowed in Texas).  

Oh yeah, the National Endowments for the Arts (NEA) also tells us that a picture of the Virgin Mary decorated with elephant feces and pictures of women’s vaginas is art!  But that’s another story … or is it?

Merry Christmas

I watched a video clip the other day on Fox News about two women from New York , Ughetta Jilleba and Dale Kolareck, who are expanding their “It’s OK to Say Merry Christmas to Me” campaign.  They are associated with the Pope John Paul II Court of Catholic Daughters of the Americas.  This is such a wonderful idea. The money they raise goes to support food banks and the homeless.

I get so fed up with these secular-progressive liberals out there who claim to be so tolerant.  They are very tolerant … when it comes to  supporting gay rights, pardoning convicted cop killers, releasing pedophiles back into society, supporting terrorists who are attacking American citizens, pornography in prime time television, apologizing for America’s endless list of crimes against radical Islamists, or befriending local communist dictators.  However, when it comes to Christians and saying “Merry Christmas,”  somehow they are so easily offended and often nastily intolerant.

I am so glad to see that Lowes has backed off from selling “Family Trees” this year and is going back to selling Christmas Trees.  They are even re-releasing their “holiday,”  or dare I say it … Christmas catalog, to correct the little  “Family Tree” issue.

It is all so very odd to me!  I have never been offended by hearing “Happy Hanukah” or seeing Muslim women wearing their veils.  I personally think the Rastafarian “hair style” is a little extreme, but I am not offended by it. Why are these such open-minded, tolerant people so easily offended by wishing folks a Merry Christmas, Peace On Earth, or Good Will Toward Men?

Anyway, I ordered twenty of these “Its OK to Say Merry Christmas to Me” buttons.  I may order more.  I will certainly wear one and will give one to anyone I know that wants to wear one.  It is certainly OK to wish me a Merry Christmas!!  In closing I am going to wish everyone a Very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!!  If that offends you … get a life!!

If you wish to order some of these buttons (they are $1 each), here is their contact information:

Email or call 845-893-6368.

Checks or money orders may also be mailed to:
Catholic Daughters Court John Paul II
C/O: Hallel Missionaries
175 Route 340
Sparkill, NY  10976

Buttons cost $1 and car magnets cost $3.   

A Surge Success Story

Despite Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s declaration last April that, “This war is lost,” the surge planned and implemented under the direction of General Petraeus is actually working quite well. While many liberal mainstream news media outlets have seemingly ignored this, Fox News has been reporting this fact for some months now. Even the Knoxville New Sentinel has finally run a front-page story on the decrease in violence around Baghdad.

However, it you want some real proof that the surge in Iraq is working, just look at a news story that appeared on the Raleigh News & Observer’s wire on Tuesday, October 16. The headline reads “Iraqi cemetery business falls.” The story, written by the journalistic team of Jay Price and Qasim Zein, describes how business, at what is believed to be the world’s largest cemetery and a place where Shiite Muslims aspire to be buried, just hasn’t been so good lately. The Raleigh News & Observer is an affiliate of the antiwar McClatchy Newspapers.

According to the story, the reduction in violence around Iraq has cut burials in the Wadi al-Salam cemetery by at least one-third over the last six months. This has dramatically cut the pay of thousands of cemetery workers who earn a living by digging graves, washing corpses, and selling burial shrouds.

With a family chanting “Death to infidel America and the agent Iraqi government” in the background, a worker named Basim Hameed commented, “Certainly, when the number of dead increases I feel happy, like all workers in the grave yard. This happiness comes from the increase in the amount of money we have.”

This loss of income for these cemetery workers due to the decline in violence is certainly a sad state of affairs. Perhaps our Democratic Congress can pause their efforts to lose the war long enough to address this issue.

Check out Serpents Underfoot and Adirondack Bear Tales on

%d bloggers like this: