Friday, November 19, 2004

How Soon We Forget

My grandmother is 95 years old. I absolutely adore her. She and my wife are truly the most selfless people I have ever met.

Grammy lived through WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam War, The Cold War, the first Gulf War, and is still absolutely as sharp as a tack as she views the current GWOT and Gulf War II. I would love to ask her what she thinks of all of this mess, but I love her too much to make her think about that stuff. I’d rather watch her play with my 2 year-old daughter. I see absolute joy in both of them when they are together. But from what she has told me of the difficult times in her life and her nation’s life, those difficulties were accompanied by emotions and ideas of the importance of community and necessary sacrifice – “you just got by and did what you had to do.”

We humans, singly and as a society, only really remember what we actually experience, moving through history. The rest is learning facts, using conjecture, and imagination. Some people don’t even go that far, mistakenly assuming that history is irrelevant and everything now is oh-so-different than it was then. But the same things keep happening, over and over and over again, because our societal memory lasts only about as long as a human lifetime. We confuse technological advance with moral and intellectual advance.

Something in our makeup causes us to believe that we’re somehow better and more informed than all of the generations that have come before us. We have access to the vastness of human knowledge at the click of a mouse. Yet somehow, we keep making the same mistakes about human nature. In spite of all of our American Progressive goals of the past 40 years – elimination of racism, sexism, poverty, etc. – we have forgotten the most fundamental aspects of what it means to be human: every individual person human has the right to exist according to their own terms, so long as their terms do not violate the self-defined terms of existence of the people around them.

Most of us have seen Saving Private Ryan. And Schindler’s List (two Spielberg films – it makes me wonder why he appears to be such a Leftist). And The Killing Fields. We may even have read or seen All Quiet on the Western Front. What I have learned from these, and other sources, is that war is hell. But I have also learned that tyranny is worse than war.

Over 1200 members of the United States Military have given their lives in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Every one of those lives was important. That being said, I kindly request that you do an internet search for combat deaths in WWI and WWII. Perhaps even check out some combat death statistics in specific battles, like Okinawa in 1945 (several hundred thousand dead) or The Somme in 1916 (1 Million dead).

While every life lost, civilian or military, in Fallujah or Okinawa or Normandy is one too many, what is the alternative now, and what was it back in the 1940’s? Some of you will tell me that Operation Iraqi Freedom was totally unnecessary, that Bush lied, that he’s a warmonger, etc. etc. etc. All I ask from you, then, is to look at world history from a different perspective. And I’m not talking about world history since 1960. I’m talking about all of documented human history.

That’s a lot of information, so let me give you a summary: All humans desire control of one kind or another. All too often that control takes shape in oppression and tyranny over others, sometimes on a large scale. Sometimes it even results in homicide and horrible destruction, given sufficient motive, opportunity, and lack of ethical guidance. None of us are immune to that desire for control. Even you, Mr. Pacifist. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution emphasized the rights of individuals over the rights of government to prevent the many from oppressing the few.

Given the thirst for control, and innate capability of you and those around you to destroy, I now ask you, Mr. Pacifist: what would you do if you were watching a woman brutally raped? What would you do if you were watching a man about to be brutally beheaded by militant religious fundamentalists? What would you do if you were watching an entire ethnic group being wiped from the face of the earth? I submit to you, Mr. Pacifist, that you would do nothing – not only because you could not (you are unarmed), but that you would not (because all conflict is anathema to you). I then judge you, Mr. Pacifist, guilty – guilty of allowing tyranny to exist. I therefore also judge you to be irrelevant in the current times. You have Freedom of Speech, but thankfully, I have the freedom to ignore you.

A U.S. Marine shot an (apparently) unarmed insurgent in Falluja earlier this week. A camera recorded him doing this. For completing his mission, protecting himself, protecting his brothers-in-arms, and actively working to eliminate tyranny in Iraq, he is judged by some as a war criminal.

Frankly, I want every Islamic Militant to see that video. They need to understand that we’re not messing around here. If you try to kill me or civilians around you, and I will kill you.

I have never been in combat, but I am experienced in the use of some weapons of war. I have to think that of primary concern in combat are completing the mission and keeping yourself alive. The next priorities are preventing harm to your fellow soldiers the civilians around you and preventing destruction as much as possible. Compare that to the tactic of booby-trapping yourself or one of your fallen comrades with an improvised explosive device in order kill as many of the enemy as possible. While the ends don’t always justify the means, I implore you, Mr. Pacifist, to examine the goals of each of these opposing forces: elimination of tyranny vs. application of tyranny.

Is there such a thing as “acceptable losses?” Use your imagination and ask all of the veterans that have given their lives so that you, a person they knew they would never meet, could live in peace and prosperity. They know the concept of acceptable loss.

The mainstream media desperately tries to spin all killing as evil as they mull over the Fallujah Marine story, no matter who is doing the killing. But I get the sense that, especially with the re-election of George W. Bush, that societal momentum is shifting away from them and their semantic deconstructivism. We are beginning to re-remember. Nazi Germany is not that long ago. Tyranny still exists in the hearts of too many people.

History is not with you, Mr. Pacifist. Some day, somebody will want to control you and what you believe. Perhaps they will even want to kill you. And while we're discussing tyranny, I would also ask you, Mr. Pacifist, that you guard your own thoughts of control. What price will be paid to make your utopia come true? And who will pay your price?

Tuesday, November 16, 2004

Non Sequitur Light 100's...


There’s just nothing like that first long slow drag from a fresh cigarette, outdoors on a crisp cold winter evening. The missus and I get through the day to enjoy this moment nightly after the kids go to bed. For fifteen minutes we use the medium of this ancient bliss, to share an intimate break in the chaos of the day. Fresh rolled from moist Danish Export, set alight with a Too Much Coffee Man lighter purchased on Ebay, the object seems precious… the moment priceless… the act of taming both fire and indulging nature between one’s fingers, is uniquely human.

Offended? Get over it!

Some years back, when I smoked and drank more like the single man that I was, I strolled into a local convenience store to purchase Camels and a six-pack. To my surprise, the clerk asked for my ID. Being in my 30's, I did not look 21. I certainly didn’t look 18. So, to be flip, I asked the clerk who requested age identification, "for the beer or the cigarettes?" Without missing a beat, he replied, "for the cigarettes!" Catching himself, he looked up at me and smiled awkwardly. I responded with my own sly grin, took my purchase and left.

That was an interesting lesson on the impact of progressive re-education. The clerk had more fear that he would sell a pack of smokes to a grisly, under-aged teen, than an irresponsible young adult might illegally purchase beer, get trashed and plow into a van full of children. Likewise, God forbid, a G.I. should take a moment to drag a deathstick in a combat zone before subjecting himself to the violence of barbarians intent on chopping off his head or blowing him to bits. Ner to mention the cancer risks inherent from inhaling the smoke of tobacco leaves - as opposed to the fumes of burning tires, gasoline, naptha, gunpowder, lead vapor, oxidized sulfur, pulverized asbestos and lime, a potential whiff of Sarin or Ricin gasses, perhaps a bit of Anthrax or Botulin, and a ripe dozen corpses - the mere image of that soldier indulging an uncivilized habit, may convey a poor message to young American children, so exclaims a letter to the New York Post in response to their publication of this cover photo.

James Taranto in his Best of the Web segment at Opinion Journal, reports this smoking marine to be, Lance Cpl. James Blake Miller, a 20-year-old native of Jonancey, Ky. Bravo sir! Let me offer to you my favorite roller, that TMCM lighter and a carton of fresh Danish at your liesure in gratitude for your service on my behalf. That is the least I could do for you having to endur hostile fire and comments like this one in the Houston Chronicle (HT Taranto), from Dr. Daniel Maloney of The Woodlands:

"I was shocked to see the large photograph on Nov. 10. A tired, dirty and brave Marine rests after a battle--but with a cigarette dangling from his mouth! Lots of children, particularly boys, play "army" and like to imitate this young man. The clear message of the photo is that the way to relax after a battle is with a cigarette. The truth is very different from that message. Most of our troops don't smoke. And most importantly, this young man is far more likely to die a horrible death from his tobacco addiction than from his tour of duty in Iraq."
So here we are, three years after 9/11; well into the war with the beasts. The election is over. President Bush has a mandate, while the political Left and their media minions got the proverbial pink slip from red county America in response to their 16-year moratorium on brains. Nevertheless, not willing to withdraw with grace, we have two new non-scandals from the Left regarding the War on Terror. As if the aforementioned issue were not absurd enough, the Left is apoplectic at NBC's release of inbed video showing a US Soldier shooting an enemy combatant. Imagine that.

In light of televised beheadings, hundreds of dead children, daily massacres of Iraqi civilians by foreign Islamicist insurgents, burned and mutilated Americans on public display in that very same city and its own torture brothels, the incident at Abu Graib seems more like an episode of Fear Factor. Likewise in close-quarter combat in a third-world urban nightmare, with an enemy whose netherworld value is calculated by the number of infidels he slaughters, shooting that enemy combatant in the battlezone should be quite sequitur. The non comes in when you add the action and the analysis of a Mainstream Media anti-war activist and the inane sensibilities of progressives with respect to this particular event.

The reporting concerning this 10 second event (view
Here) captured at distance by an NBC camera, involves tremendous speculation with little information. MSNBC reports that Kevin Sites, their inbed reporter on scene, stated that the man was shot by a Marine who appeared to be unaware that the Iraqi was a wounded prisoner and did not pose a threat. I seriously doubt that Mr. Sites is qualified to determine the nature of threats in the theatre of combat. He is not charged with that task. He is not trained for infantry duty, nor did he search the combatant after the fact. The word 'appeared' might as well be replaced with the phrase, "I assume" for all intents and purposes of Sites reporting; suggesting in many respects, a notable qualifyer of his own character for breaking a sensitive story for which he had no additional information. The ass exploited his role in a situation to manipulate the perceptions of you and me and the whole Islamic world.

Matt at
Froggy Ruminations explains, with some degree of personal knowledge and experience (unlike Sites),

Its a safety issue pure and simple. After assaulting through a target, put a security round in everybody's head. Sorry al-Reuters, there's no paddy wagon rolling around Fallujah picking up "prisoners" and offering them a hot cup a joe, falafel, and a blanket. There's no time to dick around in the target, you clear the space, dump the chumps, and

Belmont Club cites a USA Today story quoting Robert Work, a former Marine colonel and now a senior defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments,

"Marines were warned to be on the lookout for this. Coming upon someone who had been shot and started to move and perhaps look like they were going to trigger a device and take Marines with them, you have to make a split-second decision."

Captain's Quarters provides further illumination of contextual facts that should have been readily apparent to Mr. Sites prior to the release of NBC video condemnation of the Marines:

Already, though, more context for this incident has surfaced, even in the CNN report. Perhaps this was on the mind of the Marine who killed the wounded captive:About a block away, a Marine was killed and five others wounded by a booby-trapped body they found in a house after a shootout with insurgents.

A media personality concerned with facts instead of spin, with a degree of appreciation for split-second reactions of the men defending his life, might have attributed some benefit of the doubt to the soldier before unleashing the fury and stupidity of uninformed opinion on this marine and his unit. Despite Sites statements, his motives seem clear as reflected by his affiliations ( The consequences certainly are, as Mitch points out at Shot in the Dark:

... the conundrum; we're fighting people who saw hostages heads off, and are lionized for it throughout the radical Moslem world. They're people who'd think nothing of killing prisoners - in fact, that's what started the whole situation in Fallujah. Our laws, and "international law", forbit the killing of prisoners. That's a good thing. Our enemies will look at the prosecution of the wounded Marine who did the shooting, and laugh at our weakness.

Opinions abound with respect to this incident, and they are accumulating fast thoughout the Old and New media. That is rather unfortunate in its own right, considering the nature of the struggle - a black and white conflict between good and evil. The U.S. military has demonstrated itself to be quite capable throughout this campaign, of maintaining a sense of order and principle in the midst of chaos and inhuman brutality of a near demonic enemy. Ed points out, quite appropriately, over at Captain's Quarters that,

It's important to remember that (a) we have only seen one aspect of this incident,(b) none of us yet understand the context of it, and (c) this represents one Marine's actions, not official US policy or the American rules of engagement in Iraq.
Prudence is required regardless of the ultimate verdict. History has shown (re. Vietnam) that uninformed opinion can undermine victory at tremendous cost of human life. Given that experience, this incident could have been attended with greater care. Indeed, it should have been had Sites and NBC viewed life and liberty to be of more value than their agenda. The Associated Press, playing off their lead now reports that, Iraqi Man's Slaying Dominates Arab Media:

The Marine shooting in a mosque in Fallujah was played and replayed, debated and portrayed as "evidence" of what many Arabs believe: that the United States isdestroying Iraq and Iraqis.

Frames of the Fallujah shooting appeared on many newspaper front pages Wednesday and Arab satellite stations repeatedly aired the footage taken by an American television crew.

Hugh Hewitt further references a Reuters story reporting on the 'seething rage' in the Muslim world as articulated by one Arab saying, "I am not a jihadist, I am just a normal Muslim but such scenes are pushing me to Jihad." Nevermind the fact that reaction to the mutilation of four American contractors in Fallujah earlier this year was one of morbid humor and celebration among Muslims, and indeed in many Leftist circles in the West. This Arab man, no doubt indulged that sentiment, likewise recognizing no distinction between US soldiers and foreign terrorist insurgents who behead tethered victims on Arab T.V.

Extreme assessment on my part, perhaps? Well, do let's review MSNBC's Chris Matthews opinion of the enemy (HT, Hugh Hewitt). On Monday night's Hardball, posing a question about the alleged shooting of an unarmed Iraqi combatant by a United States marine, to Ken Allard, retired military, Matthews phrased the following question:

"Well, let me ask you about this. If this were the other side, and we were watching an enemy soldier --a rival, I mean they're not bad guys especially, just people who just disagree with us, they are in fact the insurgents, fighting us in their country-- if we saw one of them do what we saw our guy do to that guy, would we consider that worthy of a war crimes charge?" (emphasis mine)
No! Quite accurate assessment, I'd say. Chris Matthews is clearly either an enemy of humanity, or quite possibly the most abstract embicil in the Old Media. Either way, he has plenty of company. Currently the MSM (whether fortuitously or deliberately) is fulfilling for Osama Bin Laden, the insidious objective he was unable to achieve following his infamous attacks on 9/11. They are unifying Islam beneath a shroud of fear, hate and rage against the United States and its Allies. By their refusal to convey (or even to comprehend) the true nature of the enemy we fight in Iraq and the profound significance of that conflict in the War against Islamofascist terror, they are condemning Man to a century of global armageddon. In light of the uncertainty of the outcome of a conflict of that magnitude, and its human consequences, perhaps it is time to redefine the term, 'enemy.'

If life and liberty are the fortunes of this war, then clearly one side commands the high ground. The other side maintains a non sequitur that cigarettes are more dangerous than Islamic fascism.

Update 11.18.04:12.20: Reason pervades the blogosphere...

Powerline 1, 2, BlackFive, Grim's Hall, Instapundit, Little Green Footballs, Chapomatic, Small Town Veteran, Belmont Club, Sgt.Stryker, Free Republic 1, 2, 3

Friday, November 12, 2004


Mr. Atos

U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs has scheduled a hearing entitled, “How Saddam Hussein Abused the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program.” Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Chairman, Norm Coleman (R. Minnesota) sent a letter (HT: The fellows at Powerline) this week to Kofi Annan, reiterating a request for full United Nation's cooperation with a US Senate investigation of the abuses of the Oil For Food program (
An Oil-for-Food Connection). As noted in a previous post (Rosetta Stone) and recent articles (here, here, here), the program had become an insidious criminal enterprise by which Saddam and various Member Nations and UN personnel profited from post war sanctions on trade with the despotic ruler of Iraq. Furthermore, there is ample reason to believe that weapons and influence purchased via the OFF program helped expedite and promulgate Islamic Fundamentalist terror networks and activities worldwide, culminating with the infamous attacks by Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda network on September 11th, 2001. Most notable, in light of evident UN collusion, has been the organization's staunch opposition to the United States and Coalition efforts to challenge terrorist individuals and networks, their host nations and state sponsors (reference). It begs questions of the world body that require answers.

According to the Senate's

The Subcommittee’s first hearing on the Oil-for-Food Program (“OFF Program”) will lay the foundation for future hearings on how the OFF Program was exploited by Saddam Hussein.

The following witnesses are scheduled to testify at the Monday, November 15th hearing: Charles A. Duelfer, author of
The Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD. Mr. Duelfer will testify as to how Saddam Hussein manipulated the OFF Program to erode United Nations sanctions, generate billions of dollars of illicit funds, and procure conventional weapons. Also scheduled to testify is Juan Carlos Zarate, the Assistant Secretary of Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes at the Department of the Treasury. Mr. Zarate will discuss, among other things, the extent to which funds illicitly procured under the OFF Program may have been used by Saddam Hussein for illicit purposes, including whether monies pilfered from the OFF Program are being used to fund the Iraqi insurgency or terrorist groups. The Subcommittee will also examine specific transactions in which the former Iraqi regime procured illicit funds and peddled influence by granting vouchers for oil deals, demanding kickbacks on contracts for humanitarian goods and exacting surcharges on oil sales.

In his recent analysis, Bankrupting Terrorists , Juan Carlos Zarate explains,

Focusing on and attacking terrorist money flows is important for several reasons. Financial records and audits provide blueprints to the architecture of terrorist organizations. By following the money trail through financial information sharing worldwide, we can save lives by unearthing terrorist cells and networks. The maintenance of terrorist networks and the acquisition and development of lethal weapons is expensive — even if a particular attack does not prove costly in isolation. Identifying and isolating the sources of funding for terrorist groups incapacitates not only their execution of attacks, but also their ability to maintain international alliances, create infrastructures around the world for recruitment and training, and purchase or develop deadly weapons.

What we know is that global networks of terrorist groups like al-Qaida and Hamas have used a variety of means to raise and move money. They have taken advantage of charities, front companies, deep-pocket donors, and crime of all types to raise money. They have relied on banks, informal remittance networks known as hawalas, wire remitters, currency exchangers, and couriers to move money or value across national borders.

It seems increasingly clear, that Islamic terror networks have also taken advantage of despotic hubris, criminal ambition, and petty greed all in the form of Eurocentric arrogance embodied in deep-seated United Nations corruption. It is about time that the US and the newly allied Iraqi people demand some answers of Kofi Annan - and indeed, his resignation and indictment if a fraction of what is being alleged proves to be true. If Annan has been presiding over institutionalized corruption, then he has blood on his hands and may be, in part, culpable for mass graves, escalating terror, and the global unrest that has culminated in the current state of international chaos of what has begun to be called World War IV. If, in our endeavor to quell this unrest and ensure our security, Annan has been using the UN to obstruct US and Coalition efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan- either to hide his own guilt or that of affiliated individuals -then he is not merely an impediment to peace, but in fact and enemy of this Nation, of a free Iraq, and Humanity as a whole.

Something at the UN is certainly off. Perhaps it is best that it now remain off... for good.


A background press availability with Senator Coleman and the Subcommittee staff will take place at 10:00 a.m. on November 15th in 199 Russell Senate Office Building. The hearing is scheduled for 12:00 pm at the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Rm. 342.

For additional information:
Tom Steward 202-253-4481 Tara Andringa 202-228-3685

Powerline is reporting that the hearing will be broadcast over the internet, Here. In addition, Hindrocket is encouraging all Power Line readers within driving distance of Washington D.C. to attend, if possible. We'd like to extend that suggestion to My Sandmen readers as well.

Sunday, November 07, 2004

The Face of Victory...


Victory's face has emerged from behind a veil of gratuitous shame. Decades of undeserved disgraced slathered as legacy over destiny, manifest for the greatest nation the world has yet known. Children of degenerate esteem - weened off honor, suckling the teat of ageless self-loathing - banished her brilliant countenance for fear of inspiration beyond their betrothed sow of depravity. For some 40 years she retreated in darkness beneath a shroud of progressive penitence.

In the 4th year of the second millenium, Victory has been liberated. Her face shines again now. It is humble and benevolent in the light of commensurate respect... yet fiercely resolute when the dark stain of threat soils her tranquility.

A newborn spirit facing ageless horror...

Victory destroys perfidy...

It challenges obstinance...

It terrifies those forsaken...

It detests appeasement...

It is ruthlessly patient...

It is brutally efficient...

It yields mercy to the vanquished...

It vindicates the heroes...

It rewards constitution...

And lends courage to generations...

Friday, November 05, 2004

The Breakup

Hi. Can we talk for a sec? See, I've been thinking about it recently, and I don't think we should see each other anymore.

You're really cool and fun beautiful and exciting and all, but there's something I need to take care of right now.

Remember when we met? I was going through a really rough time cuz my brother shot my dad back in 1963. They said that you had been hanging out with my brother before he went a little nutso, but I never believed that. I think it was your sister.

That sister of yours - she's very cute, isn't she? Didn't she marry that bear-lookin' guy across town - what was his name - Ivan Josef Nikita Yuri somethin? Yeah, she's really attractive, but the bear guy figured out in the 1980's just how much of an oppressive harpy she is, didn’t he? Really good-lookin', promises the moon and the stars, but she ends up taking and taking and taking ang giving nothing back. A real ball 'n' chain, too. And that bear guy still holds a torch for her. But I'm sure she'll hook up with some poor pathetic guy looking for somebody to make him feel better – she’s too good looking to pass up for most guys like that.

Remember how desperate I was, though, back then? The cops killed Lee right after he shot dad in the head. I didn't know where to turn. Then I found you. You made life exciting again. Shook things up. Made me question everything. I was totally up for that. We'd make love all night, sleep all day, maybe smoke a couple joints, drop some acid. Not a care in the world. The 60's and 70's were great. So much creativity and excitement. It was all about us - just me and you.

I got a little tired from all the excitement around 1980, but you stuck with me. While it occurred to me that I have Jefferson and Washington and all those guys to thank for the freedoms I enjoy, you really helped me enjoy those times. You helped me understand that it was still all about me – taking what I could get, riding the wave of patriotism and optimism. My mom finally remarried this guy, Ronnie, and he made me wonder if I should still hang out with you. He even called your sister, the one married to the bear guy, evil. You weren’t so bad, though. You made me feel really good about myself. So even though my stepdad helped Mr. Josef-Nikita-Whatever see how bad your sister was for him, so much so that he finally divorced her, you still meant a lot to me. She was a really bad influence on him – messing with Mohammed’s kids on the street next to him didn’t help him much. Things got so bad that Mohammed’s kids asked for some help, so I gave them a couple of guns. They made life difficult for Mr. Josef Nikita – some say that was the beginning of the end of his marriage to your sister.

Things really changed for us in the 1990’s. You made me question all of that selfish stuff that I had been doing in the 1980’s, especially whether or not I should be feeling so self-important. What happened to all of that free-love, change the world stuff? you said. After all, I had been cutting down all of those trees to keep the house warm, and you helped me realize that those trees weren’t going to last forever. So while things were going pretty well in this town after Josef Nikita divorced your sister - I didn’t have to worry about him giving his neighbors any trouble any more – you helped me realize that I shouldn’t be so selfish when it comes to using all of the trees in the neighborhood.

Well, now it turns out that a couple of Mohammed’s kids are even crazier than your sister is. One of ‘em blew a hole through the front door not to long ago, using the guns that I gave to him! You thought that was no big deal, didn’t you? Heck, you even thought I deserved it, because I didn’t give all of Mohammed’s family everything they wanted.

Mohammed’s crazy kids aren’t getting any less crazy, sweetheart. Things are really dangerous now. If somebody doesn’t do something to stop them, they’re gonna kill everybody and take over the town. They’ve got this weird idea that if they die while killing everybody outside of their family, they will spend eternity in paradise. By the time that’s all said and done, though, everybody will be dead – including the two of us. Is this what you really want? Wasn't it you who got me in to those Zen Koans? So I ask you now - If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it still make a sound?

Somebody has to stop those guys from killing everybody. I’m just glad I didn’t listen to you when you told me that you were scared of the guns in the house and that I should get rid of them – then we’d really be screwed, just like everybody else that got rid of their guns after Josef Nikita’s divorce.

So I’ve gotta leave you – there won’t even be anybody around to enjoy those precious trees unless I do something about it. Right now. Maybe we’ll hook up again in 40 years or so.

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

The War is Not Over


Bush won. I’m pleased. Much of the blogosphere is talking about how this occasion is a major turning point in the country. It may well be that, but I believe it is only the beginning of that turning point.

I was surrounded by depressed and/or angry Democrats today at the office. Here’s what one of them wrote in an email that started with the subject line “I’m so depressed” (edited for PG rating):

About this time four years ago I had a pit in my stomach and looked at my wife and said, “We’re going to war.” Unfortunately it turned out to be true. This time around, I think I’ll try to be a little more upbeat and just buy into it.



Ahhhh. I feel better already.

That’s just the beginning. It only brushes upon what Democrats truly fear about a second Bush 43 administration.

I don’t consider myself to be a hard-core Conservative, but I share more beliefs with Conservatives than I do with Liberals. For me, this election was, as similar to
Bill Whittle, all about proactive protection of ourselves from a determined and lethal enemy. My liberal friends somehow believe that having a Supreme Court Justice that have not passed the pro-choice litmus test is a greater threat to the Union than one Islamic Militant setting off a suitcase nuke in front of the Washington Monument. As Mr. Whittle also notes, we have survived all kinds of despots and idiots at the helm of the nation. We have survived depressions and natural disasters of incredible scale. Given our ongoing social Unraveling, however, the Union would not survive the vaporization of the Washington D.C. metropolitan area.

I have to give Sen. Kerry his props, though. The guy actually DOES have some class. In conceeding the election to Bush relatively quickly, he demonstrated that he understands that the Office of the Presidency and its place in our Republic are more important than the individual that occupies the office. Many states were close enough that mass litigation could have, once again, torn at the Union's basic fabric and placed us in social limbo. That was not to be. But that also does not stop the most fervent Leftists from maintaining their deeply-held beliefs of socialist utopia (an oxymoron, according to Marx).

I heard Yoni Tidi on
Hugh Hewitt’s show talking about being surrounded by Liberals that were discussing civil war, for Pete’s sake! Yoni further echoed my feelings about that – I would be genuinely afraid if Liberals believed in the right to keep and bear arms.

So be prepared. Speak softly, but carry a big stick. It is much easier to engage in combat (I’m talking verbal discussion of issues, here, my friends, not physical combat) when you occupy the high ground – the high ground gained by occupying the field of battle before your opponent does. And it’s better in the long run to fight from the ethical high ground, as well. Respect your opponent, but never lower your eye from them.