A United America: One Flag, One Nation, One People

Teddy Roosevelt said it all when he made these remarks about illegals in the US. :

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is anoutrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to theAmerican people." - Theodore Roosevelt 1907

Too bad our elected officials do not have the intestinal fortitude to make a similar stand. Americans need to wake up and elect officials to Congress who are less interested in being an incumbent and more intent on serving the nation. When elected public officials cower to non-citizens, it is a sign of weakness on the part of the elected officials. Americans deserve better.

What's Going On?

The last six months of the Bush Administration leaves one to question what's going on or at least why has there been a complete lack of vetting on issues within the administration. Is this a fatigue problem? Is this a lame duck problem?

Whatever is going on, the lack of vetting on issues is a serious problem not only for Republicans and conservatives, but for the nation and the free world. Why? It smacks of a detrimental lack of leadership in the White House.

Anticipation should be the name of the game. Leaders should anticipate problems and already have probable solutions in mind for such situations. Apparently that was lacking in the most recent port issue.

Whether or not the issue of security turns out to be a justified concern on the part of members of Congress is not the point. The White House leadership should have prevented this issue by following any of these several key leadership positions. First, why is it so difficult to call in the Republican leadership of Congress and consult with them on what the White House should have presumed to be a potential issue? Second, why is it so difficult for this White House to take a bipartisan approach? Third, why is it so difficult to talk about this issue before hand in public forums? Any or all of these might have averted what is apparently making the nation appear xenophobic and anti-Arab.

Why not inform the public that Westinghouse which operates many of the nuclear facilities in the US is owned by the British government? Why not inform the public that of the $126 million dollars of foreign aid for the victims of Katrina, $100 million came from the UAE? Why not inform the public that those who buy gas from Citgo are trading with an oil company owned by the anti-US Venezuelan government?

Is it that difficult to be straight forward with the American public?

James Risen and the State of War

With tidbits of James Risen's newest critique disguised as a book hitting the press, numerous questions should arise. Did the New York Times withhold the story in order for Mr. Risen to complete his book? Will the Democrats begin to squash the book because of the book's revelations that the Clinton administration knew Iran was working with the Russians on a nuclear arms program AND DID NOTHING TO STOP IT?

If that last statement makes any resonance at all, then Senator Clinton may have some explaining to do. After all, when Bill Clinton ran for President, wasn't it with the idea that we would get a "two-for-one" deal? Every American knows that Hillary was aware of everything going on in the Oval Office. Well, nearly everything that is.

Risen's latest contribution to the Bushwhacking strategy could very well result in special investigations with journalists being called to testify and asked to reveal their sources whom Risen describes as patriotic but will keep them anonymous.

If Mr. Bush did anything illegal or criminal, isn't he given the Constitutional right to confront his accusers?

Although unread by this writer, it will be interesting to see how accurate and well researched is Mr. Risen's book. Skeptics might be a little bit leery about journalists writing books these days; especially books written by New York Times reporters and affiliates. Seems the Times has a little bit of a credibility problem of late.

Spielberg and Munich

Will The World Go Silent?

From an artistic and cinematographic perspective, Steven Spielberg’s Munich is good. From a historic and political perspective, Munich is discursive and distorted.

Perhaps Mr. Spielberg would have been more accurate if he had issued a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie that this was a work of fiction and overgeneralization as well as glorification of the Palestinian causes. Throughout the movie, Spielberg goes to great pains to portray the Palestinian cause as justified. Depicting the Palestinians as the victims rather than the perpetrators of terrorism manifests the different standard used to judge Israel than those used to judge the Arab world. Why are Palestinians allowed to use terrorism to kill and torture innocent victims, but Israel is portrayed as evil and wicked for hunting down and killing those responsible for Olympic murders in 1972?

Spielberg painted a very different picture of Prime Minister Golda Meir than history records. In reality, Meir was absolutely adamant that Israel would extract retribution “at the time and place of Israel’s choosing” for the Munich slaughters, but not in Spielberg’s world. Spielberg’s Munich did not show outrage at the Olympic murders. Instead, Spielberg joins in the anti-Semitic accusation of painting the Israeli behavior as cosmic, satanic evil.

Maybe Mr. Spielberg should do some reading other than George Jonas’ Vengeance which has been reviewed as a biased and inaccurate book. One excellent source for Mr. Spielberg to consult is Bernard Lewis who maintains that “hatred and persecution are a normal part of the human experience”. Spielberg could read Jessica Stern, an expert on terrorism, to get a better understanding that terrorism cannot be negotiated with because they are blinded by their narrow perspective. Mr. Spielberg should read Walter Laqueur’s The New Terrorism to understand the fanaticism of the Islamic jihadists.

If it would help Mr. Spielberg, perhaps he should think of terrorists as bullies in a neighborhood. The truth is bullies only understand reality and not negotiations and pacifism.

From an historic perspective, Mr. Spielberg would be better served had he reviewed the Munich Pact of 1938 which promulgated an anti-Semitic environment not only in Germany but throughout the Middle East. Mr. Spielberg also needs to review the actions and policy of the Arab League in December 1947 which vowed to use all means at their disposal including armed intervention to stop the creation of the state of Israel. Like Mr. Spielberg, the UN and the world did not react nor criticize the Arab League. The world went silent.

The creation of the state of Israel in 1948 brought an Arab League agreement to destroy Israel. The world did not react nor criticize the Arab League. The world went silent.

Spielberg’s Munich portrays the right of nations to defend itself and its people as evil and immoral. There is a line in the movie about homes and families being costly, but Spielberg failed to grasp the significance of that poignant statement. Home---a nation---is costly. Freedom is costly. Israel is more keenly aware of the cost of freedom than other nations. It is surrounded by enemies who have vowed to destroy Israel and wipe her from the face of the earth. That alone justifies Israel’s right to avenge the Munich killings.

Under the law of nations, nations have the right to defend themselves from those nations and groups that threaten their existence. In 1972, Palestine was not considered a nation so Israel did not have to respond by the Geneva Convention. Unlike Palestine, Israel does meet the criteria for being a nation, and thus, has the right and the moral obligation to protect and defend not only its nation but more importantly its people.

Too bad Mr. Spielberg has fallen under the influence of those who oppose Israel’s rights as a nation. Too bad Mr. Spielberg has chosen to support the Palestinian cause and terrorism. Too bad Mr. Spielberg has chosen to portray Israel as evil. Too bad Mr. Spielberg’s Munich is not only politically inaccurate, but is also historically inaccurate. Too bad Mr. Spielberg advocates a different standard for judging Israel than used to judge the Palestinian movement. Too bad Mr. Spielberg does not understand history.

Israel’s very existence depends on her right to protect itself from terrorists who have pledged their life to destroying Israel. Too bad Mr. Spielberg doesn’t understand that how Israel goes determines freedom in the world. Too bad Mr. Spielberg just doesn’t get it in Munich.

Good For Mr. Bush

Good for Mr. Bush! In an address to the Midshipmen at the Naval Academy, Mr. Bush delivered a passionate, reasoned, and specific justification for not quitting, cowering, and running from our unfinished business in Iraq.

With the exception of perhaps two U.S. Senators, Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson, the Democratic party has become the political party of defeatism that supports cutting, quitting, running and abandoning the Iraqi people to the car bombers, suicide bombers, assassins, and insurgents who support not only terrorism but the return to power of Saddam Hussein. Democrats Kerry, H. Clinton, B. Clinton, Kennedy, Reid, Durbin, Murtha, Dean, Boxer, Pelosi, and Feingold have taken the same position that Ted Kennedy’s father Joe Kennedy took with Hitler prior to US involvement in WWII: APPEASEMENT. For the record, appeasement was a colossal failure in WWII, and it will be a catastrophic failure with Islamist Fascists extremists Jihadists.

So the loud, whinning, criticizing political party once known as the Democratic Party has become one of pacifism, hide, run, cower, appease, and caving in to terrorist totalitarianism in foreign policy. The extremist radical liberal obstructionist party hides from its own shadows, stands for nothing substantive, and fails to produce any viable alternative solutions to foreign and even domestic policy for that matter. The sad fact is that the Democratic Party once stood for democracy, and now they run from it, oppose it, and support the return to power of the totalitarian dictator Saddam Hussein.

We would not be in this situation today had Jimmy Carter been more decisive and brave when the Iranians took 52 Americans hostage in 1979 for 444 days. What did Carter do? Well, in reality, nothing but cower, hide, and slither into a corner in the Oval Office and occasionally act like the Wizard of Oz making a feeble yet ill planned and totally unprepared attempt at rescuing these captured Americans.

Again the opportunity to stand up to totalitarian terrorists was never taken during the administration of William Jefferson Clinton who failed to respond to the first World Trade Towers attack in 1993, did nothing to retaliate the attack on US forces at the Khobar Towers, feebly attacked an aspirin factory when two US embassies were attacked, chose not to stand up to the Taliban in 1998, twice turned down the opportunity to be given Osama Bin Ladin in 1998, and in 2000 ignored the terrorist attack on the US Cole.

In addition to his cowardice in the face of the totalitarian zealots, Clinton's personal dislike for the military and intelligence community resulted in a weakened and incapacitated military as well as a watered down, token intelligence community that couldn't find a terrorist if their life depended on it. Clinton's administration also was the recipient of Chinese political monetary donations at the same time the Chinese were stealing willy-nilly our nuclear missile codes.

No wonder the Democratic Party today is imbued with defeatism and resorts to appeasement as their only viable alternative solution to Islamist Fascist Jihadism. The Democrats along with their comrades the liberal, leftist main stream media are anti-American military, anti-American intelligence, and anti-U.S. in everything. They delight in any reports of U.S. failures and glee with enthusiasm when reporting any U.S. military set backs. Their latest inept spokesman John Murtha said that "Our military is our problem." Now he says our military is broken and not up to its capacity. Well, Mr. Murtha, which President did everything he could to destroy our military? Which members of Congress failed to go to that President and plead with him that his actions were wrong and deplorable? Why Mr. Murtha do you refuse to accept email from anyone outside your Congressional district yet you round around the country blathering like a mad man who is obsessed with being an obstructionist?

The last two Democratic Presidents, Carter and Clinton, were the consummate appeasers who ran, hid, cowered, slithered and failed to stand for democracy but were superb at defeatism.

Extremist Radical Liberal Obstructionists

What major issues now pose a problem for the Bush Administration? The question seems simple to answer, but the response is not. For those of us who are Monday morning quarterbacks, we can easily spout off a response. But the problem with our response is that we aren't the ones walking in the President's shoes.

A President of the United States, unlike his counterparts in most other nations, has been given numerous roles to play at the same time. Often these roles are in conflict with one another to the point that they totally derail one another. For example, we expect the President to be the Commander in Chief while at the same time we expect him to be the Chief Diplomat.

Mr. Bush is also expected to be the Chief Legislator who has to work with a bicameral, bipartisan legislature that views itself as a co-equal branch of the government. ( At times, Congress reflects an inflated ego and hubris that reveals a Congress that believes it is the dominant branch of goverment.)

Mr. Bush is presumed to be the leader of his party who must work with the opposing party which of late has assumed the characteristics of an extremist radical liberal obstructionist party that seeks to destroy and demonize its political opposition.

So, what do we list as the President's most challenging issues? 1. To promote the common defense: stop terrorism--wherever it is. 2. To provide for the general welfare: social security, healthcare, and education reform. 3. To insure domestic tranquility: stop illegal immigration by shoring up our national borders.

Are these issues easily solved? No, and certainly not if the extremist radical liberal obstructionists in Congress (Kennedy, Schumer, Reid, Durban, Leahy, Boxer, Pelosi, and Murtha) continue to stall, insult, pitch hissy fits, and simply act as domestic insurgents. The only option remaining for the Bush Administration is to attack these political hacks for what they are: extremist radical liberal obstructionists who seek one thing: power instead of solutions to very serious political, economic, and social issues.