Thursday, June 30, 2005
Just wanted to share this nice comment thread with you. Because, if I didn't, no one other than about 5 leftists would know about it.
The following commentary from Charlie is especially good: "It is DC's fault, Julie. He should be more of a steward at his own site. He refuses to do that, though. He lets jackasses run amock, as long as they agree with him and kiss his ass."
PW wants to regulate my site. Actually, he wants to regulate everything, but that is another subject ...
I straightened PW out by noting: 1) I have been too lenient on jackasses (Democrats). Dang, I mean I have been patient. They have been allowed here and spewed their nihilistic tripe without my getting ugly with them ... or, doing to them what is routinely done to me and other conservatives on lefty sites; and 2) with the foregoing said, I try not to be too friendly to the asses (Demos), that is, "kissing" them, so to speak.
PW is very funny at times. Like when he gave Rhod the moniker "Savior Thesaurus" yesterday. It was just prior to PW releasing the f-bomb and peeling off on his broom into the clouds. It was a mighty stroke for leftism.
But seriously ... the lefty readers need to take a deep breath and face the truth of what you believe and stand for. Don't expect me to offer you a boo-boo band-aid when a veteran gets crotchety with you for your espousing of anti-American rhetoric.
None of you come back here and answer substantive questions. Instead, you run off to your caves and talk about how "hateful" and what a bunch of "big, bad meanies" we are.
PW, knowing me like the back of his hand, explains my acquiescence to the torture of leftist commenters at this blog: "Then, he hides behind, "the commentors are only expressing their own opinion, not mine" . . . even if he might object privately." No, that is not right. What I have said is, some may say things differently ... even better than I do. Some may say things in a way that I wouldn't say it. But I am interested in the substance. I have said this many times: The same freedom that allows you lefties in here allows conservative commenters the right to call you on your foolishness.
If you want to be taken seriously, then think and act seriously.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
The President mentions 9-11 in his speech and the Left/Demos/Same Thing are mouthing talking points as soon as he leaves the podium ... "He is linking 9-11 to Saddam Hussein", etc. The only problem is ... I watched a replay of the speech, and the President didn't say any such thing.
What he did say is that Iraq is part of a larger struggle in what he calls the "War on Terror". We all know he means the War on Islamic Fascism ... what I have called the War on Jihad. The enemy we are fighting is identifiable -- they are Islamic fascists.
The President's speech seems to have been well-received by those who saw it, as opposed to getting the MSM or Demo run-down of what was said.
And the Demos/MSM/Left/same thing are apoplectic that the President referenced 9-11 and made the obvious connection between our enemies then and now. Why the angst? I have a couple of questions ...
Bin Laden said that "the Third World War is raging" in Iraq. Query: Is he right? This sounds like what the legal types call a "declaration against interest".
And why didn't the foregoing OBL quote make it into a Michael Moore movie? And why do we need to read a Kennedy/Durbin quote all the way to the end to see if it was made by Zarqawi? Well, in part, because Zarqawi quotes Kennedy, but ... sorry, I answered my own question, at least in part.
But ... speaking of Zarqawi, I was wondering ... how come all the al Qaeda types in Iraq? I mean, were they there before? Oops, I guess that would be a problem. At any rate, I understand that a number have come in from various countries. Are they lost? Why do they keep launching suicide bomber attacks?
Has any one bothered to tell al Qaeda, the architects of 9-11, that Iraq has nothing to do with them?
I mean, they could go home. Could we please get Zarqawi on the horn?
Can we agree that the "War on Terror" is against Radical Islam? Agreed? Okay then. Can we agree that al Qaeda is a group of Islamic militants? That they want to destroy America and the West? Agreed.
Okay. Can we agree that al Qaeda, who attacked us in 9-11, is now fighting us in Iraq?
So, what does al Qaeda know that the Demos/Left/Same thing are not telling us?
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Well, let's face it. In the realm of human accomplishment, blogging for a year ain't much. I realize this. And please, people, what happens here has nothing to do with courage. There's lots of more important things going on in the world, I do realize. But, humor me. Please.
Because, yes, it's true ... One year ago, I launched this project with this post.
I know it wasn't much, but my comments at the time about my suspicions regarding the "captured" Marine turned out to be prescient. Of course, my post was not as prescient as Goomba's comment, predicting that the blog would become a hit. Of course, that maniac Goomba made his "prediction" six months after I started. But still ...
If you are new to this blog, maybe you haven't figured it out yet. That's okay. Perhaps I can help with this post.
Yes, I do acknowledge that there have been a number of different type of posts. Some have been deadly serious. Some have been light-hearted. But the message has remained constant.
And I have enjoyed it all. Ah, the election season was quite a ride.
Remember when ... in examining Kerry's Viet Nam medals, we found photographic evidence supporting the Swift Vets. Then, I was right on the story of the alleged tampering with Kerry's face by the Dept. of Homeland Security. Also, I was one of the first blogs to provide evidence that, yes, Democrats are dumber than dirt. With exclusive coverage, our crack staff also followed Kerry around and got his candid comments upon meeting a young Bush supporter in Florida. And I think I was also one of the first to ask: Why was it so bad to put panties on their heads?
Furthermore, I believe that I was the first to report the blockbuster news that, like me, Herman Munster had endorsed Pres. Bush.
So much fun ... so little time. Their desperation mounting, the enemies of free speech targeted the Cutter.
Yet, I survived the attempted hack job. After finding moonbat feces in my template, and with the help of the Homeys with Attitude, I was able to beat back the hackers before they turned me into hieroglyphics. But Goomba was not so lucky. However, I led the investigation and search that located and identified the culprits. Later, we stormed the workspace of the hackers and broke up the ring.
I am also proud of how I reached out to this blog's moonbat readership. The Cutter has always had open borders ... and my open comments policy has been stretched to the limit at times. For instance, I survived a 38-comment firefight with "Pussguzzler" and various levels of outrageous commentary by leftists. In the end, though, the combative commentary has been often humorous and almost always instructive.
And, of course, a review of this past year would not be complete without a mention of my retelling of the greatest joke of all time. To make that link make sense, let me start from the beginning. There was this kid. He made straight A's ... Just kidding. We press on.
This reminds me. I was told by some nitpicking commenter a while back (a liberal) that I say "press on" too much. I am, of course, responsive to constructive criticism from all quarters. Pressing on ...
Looking back, I am really glad to have participated in bringing awareness to John Kerry's still-unatoned for betrayal of America's military during Viet Nam. He was indeed unfit for command. Ye olde timers will recall my 36-day march through The New Soldier. It began with this post. And it ended on Election Eve, with this blast.
As for what I have written here, my personal favorites are, well, you know I love pressers. I also like the fact that the libs complain that I call on the Fox female reporters too much. What can I say? Maybe we'll have some more of these.
But seriously, as for posts, some of my favorites to write were this family D-Day remembrance, and a look at some of the great people that live around me. Also, the following two posts were especially meaningful to me: my thoughts on Scrooge and, of course, the Memorial Day Address.
Writing about things that matter remains a labor of love for me.
All of this reminds me: What have you liked or disliked? What would you like to see more of? Less of? I read all your comments and emails. So, if you have some suggestions, fire away. One reader emailed that the black background is hard on the eyes. What do you think? Would you still love me if I weren't black?
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you all for your links and your comments. A lot of what happens here happens "below the fold", so to speak. It is fun to sit back and watch. A lot of commenters say things better than I do, and certainly from a different angle. Sometimes things get hot, and perhaps some say things in a way I wouldn't. Well, that's a by-product of the "open borders" comment policy that allows opinions in here that I vehemently disagree with, in the first place.
So, if you can't stand the heat of diverse opinions, read the NY Times.
I could spend some time thanking Hugh Hewitt and Glenn Reynolds for their links, and Hugh especially for his inspiration. But they don't read any way. One thing that Hugh said, though, in his book, "Blog" that caught my attention. He reasons that the thousands of blogs, each with their own spheres of influence, are powerful ... each operating in places that others can not. So, I take heart in that.
And if I can be just a small part of spurring people on to do something to better this great land, then ... wonderful. By the way, guess what you find when you Google "Sen. McCain's accomplishments".
Finally, I would like to thank those who have stopped by here and lent me their time and support. The most valuable resource that we have is our time, and I appreciate each of yours. At the risk of leaving out people (I apologize in advance), I would especially like to thank the following for making this first year rewarding for me: Jeremy, for your advice, technical support, and blog friendship; JulieB, my scandalous "blogchild", for your steadfast friendship and honest comments and emails; Mark and Rhod -- aka "the interlocking fields of fire" -- for joining the fray and making this a better blog, but most imporantly for your service and love of country; Gaye Hager, for your blog friendship and for my stickers that sit proudly on my bookshelf; Jess, for being a good guy, whether you turn into a conservative or not; to PW, for pitching nice batting practice in the comments, and seriously, for continuing to read; to my brother Michael, for your faithful support of not only this blog but the conservative blogosphere in general; to Betty Bunker and KHix, people who know me here and in real life, thanks for keeping an eye on me and the blog, and KHix, thanks for being "the Conscience of the Blog". You're not a former KKK member, Kevin, but you'll do. And ... last but certainly not least, thanks to Nick, for your friendship, incredible talent, wit, and sense of humor. You can wear my "string tie" as a thong any time, big guy. And ... you can't do a carrier qual to save your life, but what do you expect from the Air Force?
To my lefty readers who lurk and stay mad at me ... keep reading and have the courage to face where you need to change. Keep an open mind and know that I wish you no personal ill will. It's about your ideas.
And speaking of ideas ... I still believe in the free exchange thereof. My faith is big enough. The country is big enough. Plus, I believe my ideas are right and that I will win in the arena of ideas. And to the extent I am wrong, I hope some one will show me and that God will give me the grace and courage to face the truth.
In sum, truth does well ... even on an uneven playing field. And when the playing field is level ... we have what is known as rapid progress.
So, let's get on with it.
Photo courtesy of JulieB.
Monday, June 27, 2005
This is really quite simple: Lawyers inside the courtrooms. Real people outside.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Thirty-four years later ... and the two men pictured above are still about the same business that they were then -- undermining the American military while hostilities are ongoing.
I had some insightful comments that were so good ... that Blogger ate them. But let's get down to it:
1971: Kerry, a future senator from Massachusetts, argues in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and in his written betrayal of the American fighting man that we are losing in Southeast Asia, we can't win, our troops are torturing the enemy, and engaging in rampant war crimes.
His friend, Sen. Kennedy of Massachusetts, along with the rest of the American Left, applauds.
America then withdraws from Southeast Asia. The Left cheers. Thousands die in Viet Nam, and skulls pile up in Cambodia. The Left's conscience apparently seared ... or were its eyes blinded? ... at any rate, it sits silent. In fact, the Left spends the next 20 years arguing that communism isn't really that bad.
Pres. Reagan and others that beg to differ are pictured as naive cowboys, buffoons, not ready for elite-time.
2005: Sen. Kennedy of Massachusetts argues that we are losing in Iraq, that we can not win, that we are torturing prisoners ...
The Left is trying to both prophesy and fulfill the prophecy.
Will we let them get away with this again?
Friday, June 24, 2005
Here are Karl Rove's deadly accurate words:
"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."For those who have forgotten just how right on Rove was, the Coalition Provisional Authority has a good summary. You Demos need to have the courage to face the truth. Read what Hugh has to say and deal with it.
In his latest brilliant move, Rove accomplished three things at this critical time when the Left continues to encourage the country to forget 9/11 with its incessant wailing about Guantanamo Bay: 1) He reminded Americans of the key difference between the Left and the Right in defending the nation against jihadis; 2) He called the Demos out of their holes to defend the honor of "liberals"; and 3) He drew the anticipated and predictable response that reminded us again of the Democrats' silence when Durbin was calling our troops Nazis last week.
I think he has a future in political consulting.
The Demos normally eschew the liberal label, but it fits like a glove. And this label is a political anvil when the nation is at war.
The Left especially can't be trusted to run the country when national security issues are paramount. And people know it. Rove reminded every one with his comments. I'm sorry if the Democrats were offended.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Question: Will the weight of Byrd's inanity, insanity, and racist behavior finally be enough for the people of West Virginia?
This reminds me ... Send me an email to join Blogs for McCain's Opponent.
Durbin's apology means nothing to me. It means nothing to the Americans putting their lives on the line for his lily white one. It is a joke. Try this: "Honey, to the extent you were offended ... and to my children ... if you were offended by my running off with my secretary ... I apologize. I mean ... I told you last week that I had a good reason for it. I mean, you missed the point. I was pushed into it. And my marriage is really tough. Plus, I had to apologize, because dear you are making my life a living hell.
Notice that Dick didn't say he did anything wrong. Because he doesn't think he did. The English language fails me as I try to put into words the contempt I hold for Durbin's becoming al Jazeera's poster boy at the expense of our troops.
And his defenders are worse. Not. One. Democrat. Senator. Said. A. Word.
Hey, remember when Trent Lott finally apologized about waxing nostalgic for the good ol' racist days? Didn't every one feel better? I can't seem to recall.
And, by the way, what eventually happened to ol' Trent? Some one remind me.
You Demos need to go answer these questions, and get back to me.
He showed me pics. In his utilities with a SAW (squad automatic weapon) slung over his shoulder. Lookin' good. I asked if he is a SAW gunner. No, he is now a sniper. His platoon calls him "Angel". Sounds like he's effective to me. He's getting ready to pick up corporal.
Saw pics of this Marine in his blues with his beautiful young bride. The proud grandfather told me that this young man is going to renew his wedding vows when he gets out of the USMC next month.
You see, he hasn't seen his bride much.
Like generations of Marines before him, he just signed up. When you sign up, you never know what history will deal you. You just know that when history calls that the Marines will certainly be there when the phone rings. Sometimes history doesn't call for a while. Then, it does. While the frequency of calls varies, the response remains consistent. The Marines must be ready.
As for the grandson of my friend, this Marine signed up on 9/8/01.
And in this Marine's 48 months of service ... 41 will have been spent in the combat zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. Three-and-a-half years in combat zones.
Welcome home, Marine.
And then (insert sound of hard object hitting coconut) ... off a guy's head sitting across the aisle ... seems he reacted to the change of direction just a split second late ... and then into my laughing, 14-year-old son's hand. Nice catch.
First Aid people soon surrounded the poor guy. Looked like they were trying to get him to sign some kind of release and say he was okay. Guys behind us were knocking back brews and telling the guy to squeeze a ball or something out of the team. But he didn't. And he was okay. He was just embarrassed. We're still laughing.
Monday, June 20, 2005
The gulags ... of ... yes ... it is horrifying even to speak of them ... but ... they are Houston, Texas intersections.
You will recall Dick Durbin's description of the Gulag-like conditions at Guantanamo Bay: "Not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played." You see, as is often the case when sitting at interminable red lights in Houston in the summer, it is just hot. I mean, even with the AC running full blast, it is just uncomfy. And then some carload of kids pulls up playing rap music so loud. It just thumps. I can feel my windows pulsating. I hate rap.
It's just torture.
You know, this would almost ... almost ... be funny if Durbin's conduct were not so reprehensible. Pathetic. Disgraceful.
The essence of Durbin's unpatriotic comments, yes unpatriotic comments, is captured in the recent gem of a column by Mark Steyn. Read it.
In noting the horrific historic incongruency of his comments, Steyn appropriately begins: "I am not questioning Dick Durbin's patriotism, at least not for the first couple of paragraphs. Instead, I'll begin by questioning his sanity."
Later, Steyn turns to the subject of patriotism, which hard-left Demos are so very touchy about. To be fair, we don't know what's in their hearts. But the comments lead to a result that is decidedly anti-American. How can Durbin not understand this? Stein explains:
The senator from Illinois' comparisons are as tired as they're grotesque. They add nothing useful to the debate. But around the planet, folks naturally figure that, if only 100 people out of nearly 300 million get to be senators, the position must be a big deal. Hence, headlines in the Arab world like "U.S. Senator Stands By Nazi Remark." That's al-Jazeera, where the senator from al-Inois is now a big hero -- for slandering his own country, for confirming the lurid propaganda of his country's enemies. Yes, folks, American soldiers are Nazis and American prison camps are gulags: don't take our word for it, Senator Bigshot says so.Indeed. Where are the so-called "moderate" Democrats? Where is Sen. Ben Nelson? Where is Mark Pryor? Where are the Democrat bloggers who love their country more than party? Does every Democrat agree that silence is the appropriate response? Every Democrat? Is there not one who will be their John McCain and break ranks to stand against the party leadership?
This isn't a Republican vs Democrat thing; it's about senior Democrats who are so over-invested in their hatred of a passing administration that they've signed on to the nuttiest slurs of the lunatic fringe. It would be heartening to think that Durbin will himself now be subjected to some serious torture. Not real torture, of course; I don't mean using Pol Pot techniques and playing the Celine Dion Christmas album really loud to him. But he should at least be made a little uncomfortable over what he's done -- in a time of war, make an inflammatory libel against his country's military that has no value whatsoever except to America's enemies. Shame on him, and shame on those fellow senators and Democrats who by their refusal to condemn him endorse his slander.
And, oh yeah, where is John McCain? He usually has little difficulty finding a camera or a microphone. What gives? What apparently gives is that Durbin is his buddy and accomplice in mangling our free-speech rights in the name of campaign-finance reform.
And if you think this outrage is just a partisan thing, read Durbin's comments to a servicemember serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Gitmo. No, I will tell you what ... here's an idea for a little punishment/test: Let's have Durbin go there and read them to the troops.
But that wouldn't work. The troops undoubtedly wouldn't get or buy Durbin's nuanced distinction that he is really just criticizing the President. They understand, as all who have served do, that troops are responsible to obey and carry out only lawful orders. In fact, our troops are not to obey an unlawful order. So, if Durbin argues that they are torturing terrorists at the Administration's behest, he is implicating the troops, also.
Durbin is on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He knows this.
To make matters worse, the troops know that Durbin's allegations that they are "torturing" and mistreating jihadis at Gitmo is worse than rap. It's garbage.
So, Durbin can't and won't make this argument to our troops.
Because it would get hot. And that would, I guess, be torture.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Plus, ranking them is just too tough for me. So ... I am going to list some of the mightier comments of late (including non-Rhods) and the entries will not be ranked.
I will seek input as we near the end of the year before declaring the winner. Happy commenting ...
Friday, June 17, 2005
And also ... check out Sen. McCain's reaction to Durbin's slander of the military. Sounds eerily similar to the Democrats' reaction. Hmmm. Oh, and what's this? I see that McCain and his buddy Dick Dean have worked on that campaign-finance masterpiece together. Figures. So, I guess we shouldn't expect McCain to be excoriating his buddy from Illinois.
So, are you ready? Ready to join "Blogs for McCain's Opponent"? Email me at dcutter-at-gmail-dot-com. We've not got 30 ... count 'em ... 30 blogs. In a little over three weeks. Grab this comet's tail and go, baby.
Back on Monday.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
But don't worry. Sen. McCain wants to give these jihadis trials. Makes sense. Remember all the German and Japanese POWs tried in the U.S. during WWII, right? So, are you ready to join "Blogs for McCain's Opponent? If so, email me.
The legal system is apparently a frontier that the Radical Muslims want to explore and conquer, as well. Apparently, one can now "defame Islam", at least that is a viable case to the jihadis and their sympathizers in Europe. Funny. Here in Land of the Free, only people can be defamed. Ideas and religions have to stand on their own ... and stand the test of time ... or fail.
Of course, if jihadis sanction murder in the name of Islam while killing human beings in protest of purportred Koran descecration ... the same Koran they claim authorizes the murder of infidels ... why then should we be surprised that Radical Islam would seek rights heretofore reserved only for human beings?
Ah, but there won't be a speech on the floor of the Senate about this today.
I got quite a kick out of the Marines locking up 063 and making him stand at the POA while the "Star Spangled Banner" was played. Nice touch. Not quite as good as wrapping him in an Israeli flag (again, with apologies to Israel), but it is very good. What you don't hear about (but I am quite sure happened, if history and experience are any guide at all) is that the Marines yelled, "Get some!" to 063 while our national anthem was playing. And they criticized his inability to properly stand at the POA. God bless our troops.
And what did all of this yield? Well, the story predicatably downplays the results of mainly "corroborating" info supplied by 063. But, in the end, we know that the rat did what rats do. He ratted ... ratted out about 20 other Gitmo detainees as al Qaeda types. So much for honor among theive ... oh, I forgot ... So much for honor among murderers.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
And ... I've got to get patched in to the Wide Awakes, as a new member of that grand "society of sanity". At least it was until I joined. But hey ...
I want to say this real clearly for the benefit of Democrats and all other manner of troublemakers out there. Those who wish for "Blogs for McCain's Opponent" to be something that it is not and will not be ... listen up. Here is my recent comment on JulieB's blog:
[A]s I have made clear so many times, including with an update to my "What we're about" post, I will not be a part of an effort that helps the Demos (unless they look like Zell Miller) in '08. Don't worry ... I've got the keys to the blogroll, and the effort won't undermine conservative advancement.And if that isn't clear enough, let me add the following. I approach elections in a very practical fashion: Who can win? Of those who can win, who will better help the advancement of conservative ideals? I have little patience for theoreticians who make meaningless "statements" on election day. Wishing we had a parliamentary system like the Euros doesn't make it so, any more than wishing will enable you to ride your bike to the moon. If you want to make a statement, go stand on the corner and make a speech. But voting has a specific purpose ... electing some one. That is, ballots are not meant to be thrown in the trash. So, you will not see me participating in such an effort. The idea is to cast more for the best candidate who can win. I know some of you would like to vote for me, and in fact I would be the best candidate. But I can't win in '08. So, please don't vote for me.
Translation: Liberal Democrats and others who would aid them ... be greatly afraid of "Blogs for McCain's Opponent".
I should post again Thursday with some pithy, mid-week insights. In the meantime, please report all instances of persons pursuing virtue in moderation. Thank you and good night.
Monday, June 13, 2005
He was one of the people I wanted to see this weekend, when for the first time in about 30 years, I went back to the family reunion ... a place of good memories from my youth. He used to cook the barbecue at these events, but he has since given up those duties. My grandmother (his older sister) passed away nearly two years ago, and her passing set me on a course to reconnecting with my family roots. I meant to go last year, but couldn't make it. This year, I'm glad I did.
He is a bit more frail now than he was as a 26-year-old staff sergeant. He has had some serious health struggles of late; in fact, he wasn't able to come to Houston see my grandmother as she battled heart disease two years ago.
But yesterday ... there was my great-uncle, with a walker, a big cowboy hat, and a bigger smile. He was messing with every one within earshot. He said I've "put on a little weight since he saw me last". He's right. I was about 12 then.
The family reunion was held in VFW Post #4006, in Navasota, Texas. As a life member of that post, my great-uncle enabled us to reserve the hall. He is one of the few surviving WWII members of Post #4006.
I went over and started picking his brain about his time in WWII. I had heard bits and pieces, but never from the man himself. He talked as a wise sage who says much less than he really saw and knows. He said he helped form a company from a group of soldiers who had spent time in the stockade; they were unruly, but they were tough and salty. He and these renegades arrived on Omaha Beach on D-Day + 5. The walked a full day or so ... and then for the next two months he encountered German soldiers on a near-daily basis as the Americans fought to liberate France, but mainly they just fought for their lives.
Many have not heard of the "Battle of the Hedgerows" in Northern France. It was a difficult and bloody stretch in the most difficult and bloody drive to liberate France. My great-uncle said he changed clothes once in a couple of months. He and his men pressed the attack while routinely facing desperate Nazis unleashing relentless machine gun and artillery fire. They spent weeks on end face-to-face with the enemy. In fact, they were often close enough to hear the enemy talking and screaming. But the Germans did much more than talk: "I didn't mind the machine guns so much," he said. "But the artillery ... it would come down and just scare you to death, but you couldn't move."
The big German guns rained down on 4 August 1944 near St. Lo, a town about 30 miles inland from the beaches of Normandy. The shelling was the most intense encountered thus far. His captain was decapitated by an artillery shell. My great-uncle himself then became a casualty as shrapnel from a shell ripped through his shoulder. He suffered a great loss of blood, and medics pleaded with him to hold on while he was taken to a field hospital, where he ended up spending three days. Then he was taken to a London hospital, where he stayed four months. Christmas was spent on a hospital ship crossing the Atlantic. When he returned home, he recouped for many more months. But by the time he was finished recovering from his life-threatening injuries, the war was over ... won by his own sacrifices, as well as hundreds of thousands like him.
Like many others before and since, though, prevailing in combat really came down to just day-to-day survival. Taking care of your buddies. Making sure that you stayed awake while he slept, and vice-versa. Loving their country got them to the battlefield, but loving each other would take them home.
He showed me his scar where they removed the pieces of the artillery shell. Still, they didn't get it all. His bride (who was at the reunion, as well, and completed a number of his sentences) pulled pieces out for many months and even years, as the pieces would eventually come up to the skin where they could be removed.
Listening to him, I was reminded of how many think that the D-Day ended the German resistance in France and set the allies on a path directly to Berlin. Hardly. Bloody D-Day was only the beginning, and many, many Americans and other allied troops would die on the way to surgically removing the Nazi cancer from Europe. Then, Nazi "insurgents" or "werewolves" wreaked havoc even after the fall of Nazi Germany. Thus, it remained a long road to defeating evil. Sound familar?
Thank God they had the patience to see it through.
I pray we do, as well.
Friday, June 10, 2005
The bottom line: The Deep Red Demos are in deep doo doo. Their options: Behave more like Ben Nelson, or have elections like Tom Daschle in '04. I like those options.
This is not to say that the Republicans are perfect and/or don't have some challenges on their hands. Indeed, they must address the growing immigration problem, control spending, and get conservatives nominated to the S.C. and other appellate courts. Plus, they need to do all of the foregoing in a way that builds the party and attracts minorities. These are no small tasks. But they would be much harder if the Republicans were simutaneously facing extinction.
Like the ol' Kleagle. Sen. Byrd appears in serious trouble in WV, according to Morris. Hence, he finds himself voting for formerly-filibustered "extremists" like Priscilla Owen. Cue pity fiddle. No, cue laugh track.
And check out this deep drive of a quote ... way back ... deep into the stands ... by Morris:
But Byrd needs beating for a host of other reasons. His defense of the filibuster was natural, since it was he who conducted a lonely 14-hour attempt to kill the 1964 Civil Rights Act by talking until he almost dropped. He stays in office by being a pork-barrel machine who waxes eloquent, at the same time, on the perils of deficit spending.
If he is the Senate’s conscience, the body is in deep trouble.
You don’t have to be a Republican to like Capito, just somebody interested in restoring a modicum of integrity, intellectual and otherwise, to the once-august United States Senate.
Blogs for Byrd's Opponent (Capito), any one? Don Surber, where are you?
Note: Will try to resume normal format next week ... with an early-week column and a mid-week brief update.
See you next week.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
But they all missed the story. Here it is: Every single Republican (every stinking one ... in case you missed it) voted for Justice Brown. That would include even Lincoln Chafee (D -- R.I.), and the Maine twins, Sens. Snowe and Collins. And nearly every Democrat voted against Justice Brown. All except one -- Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who faces the voters of Nebraska in '06.
Okay, so they got that part. Still, consider ...
In this Senate soiree, note the tactics of Democrats like Byrd (voted for Owen) and Ben Nelson (voted for Brown), as compared to the party-line "No" votes of supposed Moderates (put your hand over your heart even when you read the hallowed title, please) such as Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh.
What gives? What gives is that each of the aforementioned Democrat senators is playing to the group of voters they are most concerned about. Sens. Nelson and Byrd will next face the voters of Nebraska and WV, respectively. Meanwhile, Sens. Bayh and Clinton have their eyes on the Democratic base -- that is, primary voters in the '08 WH race. Yes, I know that Hill is up for reelection in '06, but defying the President on conservative judicial nominees is a no-risk political strategy in New York.
So ... here's how it goes: When you need the votes of the Democratic base, you can be in the minority. If you go after the votes of the Demo base in a national election, though, you will remain in the minority.
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
DC: Good morning. Thanks for coming to my ranch today. Great to see you all. It will be two weeks tomorrow since the launch of "Blogs for McCain's Opponent". As many of you know, we started this blog ring in the wake of the McCain-led "compromise" on judicial nominees. For me, it was simply the last straw. I am tired of Sen. McCain's masquerading as the voice of reason and the heir to the Reagan legacy. It is an insult to those of us who know better and know history.
With the foregoing said, I am not out to get the senator. I have said, in echoing Hugh Hewitt, that I believe that Sen. McCain is a "great American, a lousy senator, and a terrible Republican."
I think, too, that we've got to address this idea of the glorification of "centrism" or "moderation" head-on. Frankly, McCain and his ilk consistently parade around berating political opponents, particularly conservatives, as "extremists". How is this the voice of reason and moderation? Was Ronald Reagan an extremist? I liked most everything that Pres. Reagan did. Is Pres. Bush an extremist? He is less conservative than Pres. Reagan, yet those who support him are brandished as out-of-control theocratic ideologues by Sen. McCain and his kind -- presumably those who are supposedly above partisanship and ideology. It is insane.
FEC Representative: Sir, I am here ... on behalf of the campaign of Sen .. er, on behalf of McC ... sir, I am here to say that this must stop. This effort violates McCain-Feingold, and must be ...
DC: Excuse me, sir. But ...
DC: For the sake of all things, decent!! Nickie, watch out!!
(temporary interruption ... press throng reassembles)
Where was I? Yes, Well, McCain and his ilk have world views. However, they are just not that firmly held, or they are a combination of views held by the left and right. That is fine. Just be honest about it. Don't pretend like you don't have an agenda. More commonly, however, I find that moderate politicians appear to be squishy egomaniacs who mold to the whims of competing forces and/or public opinion to stay in power. Yes, I understand that this malady afflicts all in power. But the most-enlightened moderates seem to be the heaviest casualties.
These people are fundamentally disloyal to the people who have put them in their positions of power to which they desperately cling. Who does Sen. McCain think travelled all over the country, walked the streets, and donated the money to elect Pres. Bush and a Republican congress? It sure wasn't moderates. It was these "extremist" party loyalists, or "apparatchiks", as McCain likes to call them, who made this happen. These "blind partisans" made it happen for every one of those seven senators who voted with the Democrats to keep the judicial filibuster alive. Every one.
I am getting myself all worked up. Okay, I will take some questions. Yes, Nickie, glad you're alright ...
Nickie Goomba: Yes, Nicholas Goomba, Goomba News Network. DC, just wondering ... what is your favorite post of mine?
DC: That's a toughee, Nick. Liked the WH Party post a lot. I have loved all the stuff since you came back, but ... let's see ... probably my favorite since you came off the DL was this one. Yes, Laurie ...
Laurie Dhue: Laurie Dhue, FNC. Yes, DC ... ah, sir. Where ... Just ... Wait ... I'm composing ... Where do you see this "Blogs for McCain's Opponent" alliance going? What do you envision for it?
DC: Thanks, Laurie. It's a great question. We in this alliance value freedom and conservative principles, so I don't have rules or a bunch of posting requirements. Unlike Sen. McCain, I trust free expression of political ideas. As you recall, I laid out the idea and the vision here. In short, we are simply united in our efforts to promote the candidacy of whoever runs against Sen. McCain first in the 2008 presidential primary, and then after he is defeated ... for the Senate in 2010. That is, if the FCC will let us. As for me, there will be some fun posts mixed in with some serious pieces. For one thing, that we have to watch the FEC now ... in the United States of America ... to make sure that political speech on the internet stays free, is a travesty. You can thank Sen. McCain for that. Yes, you there ...
Keith Olbermann: So ... does this alliance mean (breathless) ... that possibly, you will join with some liberals (breathing harder) and support the WH candidacy of Sen. Clinton (panting ... getting glass of water)?
DC: No, Frank. I will not support Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. In fact, we have some "Blogs against Hillary" folks that are also on our roll. I would like to work with the Blogs against Hill group and build upon our common ground -- conservatism. To elaborate a bit, I will not participate in an effort to get Hillary elected in order to get back at McCain. In other words, I will not "go Perot". However, I fear that McCain will do just that in 2008, if the national security situation permits. Thus, I think we need to build momentum now and get the word out. If we do, we'll be fine.
Jane Skinner: DC, Jane Skinner, FNC. Would you comment on how the blog alliance is coming along so far? Are you pleased?
DC: Jane, I am thrilled with how we're going. We got started on May 24, and we've got 21 members, with basically no promo. And we've got some super blogs joining in. That gives you an idea of what's out there. Yes, you there, sir. You without the press pass on ... Yes, you.
Dan Rather: Mr. Cutter, Dan Rather, CB ... er ... 60 Minutes II, er, reporter-at-large. I have been doing some investigating and have come up with a troubling bit of information that I would like for you to address. First, the strange timing of yesterday's Instalaunch in advance of today's press conference, and after you had delayed the presser one day, has a lot of us wondering ... is Glenn Reynolds plotting with you to subvert the Federal Election Commission and McCain-Feingold? Here, I have documents that were faxed to me yesterday that indicate that Prof. Reynolds was actually trying to promote McCain's opponent. Do you have a comment, sir?
DC: Mr. Rather, I know it is unfortunate timing from your perspective, but I assure you ... it was just happenstance. Providence, Rather. Yes, Charles ...
Little Green Footballs: DC, I can see from here that the documents that Mr. Rather just referenced are fake.
DC: Thanks again, Charles. Yes, Brigitte.
Brigitte Quinn: Yes, DC, Brigitte Quinn, FNC. What seems to have set you on this course is the recent Senate compromise on judicial nominees. Could you comment on the compromise and also your view of some of the individual senators involved?
DC: You are right on, Brig. How come Fox asks all the best questions at these things? Amazing. Well, re: the compromise. Some argued that it was needed to "get the Senate moving". This is a joke. The Demos filibustered John Bolton before the week was out. My main problem with the compromise is that it is anti-majoritarian, as are the courts. Such maneuvers are the only way that liberals and moderates can enact their agendas. Pres. Bush won the election, and he won it in part by telling the country to send more Republican senators so that he could appoint conservative judges. Here we go again. More attempts by non-conservatives to undo election results.
Interesting. If they really have so much clout with the people, then they should win some elections.
Regarding the individual senators, I see a slew of personal political calculations at work (i.e, McCain jockeying for position with Sen. Frist, Lindsay Graham jockeying for position on the USS McCain ... red state Demos trying to assuage conservative voters, such as Nelson, Pryor, and Landrieu ... and blue state Republicans such as the Maine senators doing the same) This was not an effort to save the Senate ... or the republic, as Sen. Byrd blustered. Yes, sir ... you. Yes, the one who looks like George McFly. Yes ...
Michael Kinsley: Michael Kinsley, Los Angeles Times. Sir, you seem to have a problem with centrism or moderates in general. This seems to be a ideological witch hunt, a crusade if you will, on your part to rid the body politic of those who think carefully about issues and are not so rigid in their views of how the world or politics should operate. Your comments?
DC: Well, George, that is a loaded question. I would note that people like you in the MSM think centrism is just grand. And just why do you like it so? Because the MSM is dominated by centrists? Don't insult our intelligence. That's why the overwhelming majority of you voted for Kerry, and Terry Moran recently admitted to a pervasive anti-military bias in the MSM.
And you like centrism because the efforts of McCain and his ilk generally help the Democrats. That's a fact. The Republicans have a governing majority, and but for McCain, et al. standing in the way, then things would be moving and shaking in Washington.
On a more philosophical level, many "moderates" or "centrists" seem to assume not only that the left and right are not completely correct, but that they (in particular, the right) is just wrong. And then magically, these sages divine the truth by navigating a course equidistant between Scylla and Charybdis. Ah, but you can't define yourself by looking to others.
Indeed, life requires us to make stands on our own. Where is the compromise with al Qaeda? Some would say that the approaches advocated by the left and right are diametrically opposed, and I agree. One has been right, and the other has been wrong. To go half-way can not be the answer. On many key issues, moderates take an ostensibly popular postion between the two "dangerous" extremes, and in effect do nothing. Some examples? "I am in favor of traditional marriage, but I will do nothing to advance this position ... I support the troops ... I oppose abortion, but it is really a private matter." They say everything and nothing, all at once.
Here's the punch line: Many don't know what they believe, or they are still finding out. And they begrudge those of us who have opinions and brand us as "extremists", particularly if religious faith informs these opinions. I see you look puzzled. Yes, my buddy Jess.
Jess: DC, do you have any advice for me, a certified centrist?
DC: Yes, Jess. To keep your liberal friends happy, just mouth vicious ad hominem attacks, i.e, "Bush is a chimp." You know the drill. Plus, mindless praise of leftist icons is good, as well, i.e., "I think Krugman was fair to that criminal Bushhitler in his column." As for conservatives, just be yourself and you'll be fine. Now, that's interesting, isn't it? When you figure out why this is so ... voila, you'll be right-of-center.
So ... wrestle with the issues of the day in good faith (as you, Jeremy, and my other so-called "centrist" friend JulieB do, and you'll be fine. Enjoy the ride. Keep checkin' in. Okay, last question ... Yes, Patty.
Patty Ann Brown: DC, since Sen. McCain is a war hero, doesn't that make you a bit awkward going after him?
DC: No. I am after his record as a senator. And frankly, what he did in Viet Nam is not relevant to his political career now. I am tired of politicians wearing service to the nation, which is a privilege, as a campaign button.
I am out of here. I got a plane to catch.
Send me more questions and comments, if you wish.
Monday, June 06, 2005
And many thanks to the great Glenn Reynolds for the Instalaunch.
My dad used to always ask me this familiar question on days like today. Thus, I didn't need a school teacher to remind me. I knew.
As the years have gone by, I have grown more and more in awe of the heroism of those who have gone before in the defense of freedom. On this day 61 years ago, young Americans and our allies stormed the beaches of Normandy to defeat the evil that was Hitler's Germany.
The most daring task in this most daring mission fell to the Army Rangers -- specifically Lt. Col. James Earl Rudder’s Second Ranger Battalion at a place called Pont-du-Hoc (pictured above.) See their story.
The task was straight-forward enough: Scale the 115'-125' cliffs under heavy German fire with approximately 300 men to take the position used for six huge 155mm guns, each with a range of fifteen miles. Thus, the success of the Rangers was vital to the overall success of the D-Day invasion.
Lt. Col. Rudder, a school teacher and football coach from Eden, Texas, personally led the assault. Nearly half of his Rangers were killed or wounded in ascending the cliffs.
But their courage -- both moral and physical -- was too much for the Nazi defenders. As fire rained down on the Americans, they looked evil and the eye and advanced. Evil blinked.
Hell has no fury like that of good men. The Rangers took the guns.
When their initial ascent had been successfully completed, Lt. Col. Rudder's communications officer sent the signal: "Praise the Lord."
Friday, June 03, 2005
DC to issue statement on "Centrism", Blogs for McCain's Opponent, and ... yes, take questions from press on Tuesday
Programming Note: Press conference rescheduled to Tuesday in light of the 61st anniversary of D-Day on Monday.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
You can make your thoughts known via email to email@example.com. Make sure you identify yourself and include a snail mail address, or your comments will not be considered. Be respectful and address the substance of the proposed regulations.
Many thanks to Redstate for leading this charge. Check out their advice for communicating with the FEC. Also, a fine example of a very detailed approach to the proposed rules can be found here.
Here is the substance of my email to the FEC:
Re: comments on Notice 2005-10: Internet ComunicationsSo, there you have it. Frankly, I think it's a shame indeed that we have to petition our government to make sure we don't lose the unfettered ability to comment on the issues of our day.
I would like to provide my comments regarding the proposed rules affecting internet communications.
I have several concerns in particular with the proposed rules: 1)internet political commentary/news should be treated the same as other "media", regardless of press bona fides; 2) protection for internet political speech should not be limited because the computer/software used is not the individual's or a public facility; and 3) group internet postings/group web logs (blogs) not be treated differently
than individual blogs.
In sum, I believe passionately in the free exchange of ideas, and I also believe that the proliferation political blogs has greatly enhanced the free flow of ideas of all political persuasions. As a result, all Americans have benefited.
I also am a blogger, and I have concerns going forward that the proposed regulations may be interpreted in such a way as to hinder my ability to communicate ideas to my friends and the visitors to my blog.
Like many people, I get the majority of my news and commentary over the internet. Much of this information is supplied by people who some in the mainstream press would say do not possess the media "bona fides" to be disseminating such information. Yes, most of the information and commentary that I review on a daily basis comes from other bloggers. And, as some one with a journalism degree and
background myself, I have found that I have far greater access to news and views from all persuasions than I did before the rise of the internet.
I also hope to be able to participate in the upcoming election campaigns in 2006 and 2008. To the extent that I choose to advocate the election of a particular candidate(s), this should in my view be no different than if I wrote letters to my readers. The only difference now is that I have a printing press on my desk, so that I can send my letters to my readers and many others, at much less cost.
This technological changed requires that we view the rise of the new media as just that -- new media. And this new media, of which I am a part, should have the same protections as the old media -- those found in the First Amendment.
And for those of you wondering why I feel as passionately as I do about Sen. McCain's candidacy for the WH ... his opponents' successful candidacy, that is ... this issue is as near and dear to my heart as any. We have him to thank for this madness.
So, I encourage your involvement. What will you do to protect your rights as an American?
Update/reminder: My first post incorrectly had the email as internet-at-fCC.gov. Should be firstname.lastname@example.org. Now, go defend freedom.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
The "Gang of 14" ... they are really something, aren't they? I mean, Sen. Byrd said they "saved the republic". That may be a little extreme, and we definitely understand that moderates wish that we avoid all forms of extremism, certainly. But the "Gang of 14" to the left on the page ... that would be "Blogs for McCain's Opponent" ... may yet do just that. Oh, sweet irony. Your return causes me to skip through the wildflowers and sing gaily like a little girl.
But ... we aren't going to stop at 14.
What is so cool about being a "moderate" any way? Just wondering. When I get to the latest thin book I am reading (that would be: "Moderates Who Signed the Declaration of Independence") I will get back to you on this. Maybe I will get some insight by then.
I mean, we mustn't be extreme on things like ... God, country, and liberty. Thank God for the extremists who believe in such things and are are fighting for America as as we speak. And no, you moderate nitpickers, that doesn't mean that every American fighting man is God-fearing. I understand that. But I am tired of you moderates trying to use exceptions to make rules. Try to get the concept, moderates ... let it soak in. Feel the healing. Better? I thought so.
Okay ... while we are waiting for some real material on this here blog ... how about a caption for the pic above? (by the way ... h/t to Goomba, Nickie for the nice snap of the Modfather having an extreme makeover. And ... thanks Nick for "walking point" and being at the top of our McCain Opp. blogroll to take the FEC fire for us. And, I know you want to give me the credit, but this "Blogs for McCain's Opponent" was a great idea that you had. I am sure that Sen. McCain will have a moderate response for your conduct.
So, back to the captions. I was thinking, something like ... "I seem to have a moderate amount of gas." But hey, do you have any ideas?