Rush to Judgement

In writing my last weblog page, little did I know what a key factor Media Matters would be in the news this week. It was almost serendipity, the way I ended up on their website the very day they decided to make a concerted effort to destroy Rush Limbaugh. Unfortunately, I didn't get to his hate-sheet. After no more than 10 minutes there, I felt dirty and needed a shower, so I closed my browser.

For those of you who don't know what happened (both of you), Rush was talking with a caller and had the following discourse:

CALLER: "...what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media."

RUSH: "The phony soldiers."

Democrats, led in the charge by Media Matters for America, immediately leapt upon Rush with all the fervor of real patriots (just ask any real patriot you might find) for not supporting, in fact abusing, our troops.

There was only one problem: There was nothing there.

When Rush said those words, I knew immediately exactly about whom he was talking. He was talking about a soldier named Jesse MacBeth, whose military career came with all the tragedy his surname would imply, only not in the way he presented it. Jesse is what we in the Army call a "PX Ranger," quite literally. The name comes from soldiers who, out of a sense of personal failure, need for attention, or other personal issue, instead of earning awards, certifications, or other military kudos go to the Post Exchange (basically a military department store) and buy the fruit salad and candy to put on their uniforms.

I'm not sure if Jesse literally did this, but he most certainly lied about his service. He had mental issues and never made it through his initial active duty training before his discharge. He doctored (obviously) his military records and told the media that he was both a special forces soldier and a ranger, and that he was in Iraq. He also told them that he and his platoon, acting under direct orders, murdered Iraqi civilians. The media and the left-wing ate this up. That is, until MacBeth was exposed as a complete and utter fraud.

There's also the case of Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, who wrote in the New Rebublic under the pseudonym Scott Thomas stories of soldiers befriending a young Iraqi boy who later had his tongue cut out by insurgents, troops making fun of a disfigured woman sitting near them in a dining hall, and troops running over dogs for fun. These stories were also false.

But rather than taking Rush's remarks at face value, they have tried to build this into a slur against all soldiers and marines who oppose the war. Now, I'm not particularly fond of soldiers who publicly denounce the war, but this is a country with free speech (at least until the Democrats have a monopoly on power), and if someone has been there and done his duty and speaks out against the war, he's speaking from a position of knowing what he's talking about and still has my complete respect. And I know enough about Limbaugh's character to be able to say with a good deal of certainty that they have his respect also.

It's a different story when phony soldiers (read: fabricating frauds), speak out against the war and make accusations against a military to whom they are embittered.

I knew to whom Rush was referring. Why didn't the Democrats and left-wing media? Could it be that they tried so hard to forget about MacBeth and about what got handed to them that they actually succeeded?

Or is it that they are so desperate to get something on anyone on the right that they jumped prematurely onto something with absolutely no substance at all?

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has led the charge against Limbaugh, filing a resolution against him in the Senate, with a Congressional clone in the House. What's ironic is that there aren't many people who have been more insulting to troops than Harry Reid.

Harry Reid, who seems to want us to think he's turned over a new leaf and is now actually supporting our troops, told us earlier this year that the war is lost already and that it is hopeless. He also stated, in an exchange with John McCain on the Senate floor, that soldiers who told Senator McCain that they support the war were less than truthful because of McCain's stature, and that they wouldn't have said the same to him [Reid]. So if we're all liars and the war is lost (which also insults our skill and professionalism), why would Reid care what Limbaugh has to say about us?

Oh yes, it's only about troops that speak out against the war. Those who quietly serve or are in favor of the war are fair game, but anyone who speaks out against the war is untouchable (even the phony soldiers)!

Let's take a look at some of the things the left is saying about our troops:

Obama calling the troops murderers: "We've to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems over there."

Obama saying that the troops have thrown away their lives rather than dying for a worthy cause: "We now have spent 400 (b) billion dollars and have seen over three-thousand lives of the bravest young Americans wasted."

Kerry calling our troops terrorists: "There Is No Reason, Bob, That Young American Soldiers Need To Be Going Into The Homes Of Iraqis In The Dead Of Night , Terrorizing Kids And Children"

Kerry calling our troops uneducated idiots: "Education -- if you make the most of it and you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Murtha calling our troops murderers: “Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.”

William Arkin, left-wing Washington Post commentator: "the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work," and, "America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform."

Now I could go on and on and on with quotes. While the left has learned to control their contempt for the military in that they don't attack us and scream "Baby-killers!" anymore, the vitriol is still quite evident.

The message in this situation is clear: While the left is trying to use this as an opportunity to discredit a prominent and powerful figure on the right and at the same time present themselves as supporters of the troops, the troops executing the war and doing their duty are legitimate targets. Those who speak out against the war are completely off limits.

This is not an issue of "support for the troops," as it's been obvious for the years of this war, as well as decades of other wars, that they don't support the troops. They see us as extensions of the Republican power machine which they despise with all their beings.

The real issue here is partisan politics. The left saw two words uttered by Limbaugh as an effective weapon to pick up and hit him with. They were wrong.

Shame on all of the Senators and Congressmen who lowered themselves to the level necessary to sign the resolutions against Limbaugh.

The Politics of Control (P.C.)

I was browsing the web today and happened upon the Media Matters website. Curious to see if I've made their hate-list yet (my measure of true success), I stopped in to look around. Their current campaign-du-jour is against Bill O'Reilly of the Fox News Channel. My interest piqued, I decided to humor them and look at what they're bashing him with today. Apparently, Bill is a racist. I watch his show at least every other day and I've never heard him say a single racist thing aside from mocking representations of people who actually do hold racist views.

Of course, Media Matters and other left-wing sites know that mockery doesn't translate well from speech to print, so they use it to color people as racists. In fact, if they read this, they'll probably accuse me of some sort of racist innuendo for using the word "color" in this context. I'm not kidding. They literally used O'Reilly's use of the term "white-bread" as evidence of his alleged racism.

In any case, I was so disgusted by how far they were trying to stretch my imagination, I clicked the little "x" box, my savior from the evil wiles of liberal politics, at least online.

But why are they even concerned with whether or not Bill O'Reilly is a racist? Why should anyone care? It's not like people can't think for themselves and see blatant racism (if it actually existed on The Factor). Why do sites like Media Matters feel the need to force their own silly interpretations down our throat? Do they think the public is too stupid to think for themselves? Wait, don't answer that.

Furthermore, are we supposed to take some action on their account that we wouldn't take on our own?

Here are my assertions on this issue: If America saw Bill O'Reilly as racist, he would be finished. "That's the idea," you might say. It's the reason Media Matters is doing this in the first place. But don't you think that, if he were racist, we'd already know? Of course we would!

So why are they doing this? It all comes down to one word: "Control." If they can't win in the arena of ideas, they can try to control the public image of the person who has the winning ideas. One of the ways that they do this is by trying to control what one may and may not say. This is a very alien idea in a land which takes absolute pride in it's right to, and spirit of, free speech.

You can't say, "Secretary." You have to say, "Administrative Assistant."
You can't say, "Stewardess." You have to say, "Flight Attendant."
You can't say, "Negro," "colored," or sometimes even "Black." You have to say, "African American."
You can't say, "Oriental." You have to say, "Asian."

That any of these terms would somehow be offensive is first off ridiculous. The left simply likes to tell you what words are offensive. But I believe that there are no offensive words. I also believe that you cannot "offend" someone. Taking offense is a choice that you make, as is what you do about it.

But attention can be diverted from the issues and onto the words, which is an absolute favorite tactic of the left.

They call this, "Political Correctness," or, "P.C." To me, P.C. stands for, "Politics of Control." The left has convinced people in stunning numbers, even some unsuspecting common-sense conservatives, that certain words are now offensive and must not be uttered. This entire concept should be offensive to anyone living in the Land of the Free.

From 2001 through 2004, I lived in the beautiful, friendly nation of Thailand. Thailand is predominantly a Buddhist country, and this philosophy can be seen in every aspect of Thai life. Thailand is known as "The Land of Smiles," and for good reason. The people there are happy, friendly, and very eager to please. They are also extremely non-confrontational. The thought of anyone taking offense to something they say is an extremely unpleasant one for them. Politeness is the order of the day.

Now, if I were to tell you that, if you said anything disparaging about the monarchy there, you could very well be spending several years in prison, you'd be horrified, right? It goes against everything we stand for in America. Or does it?

Let me also tell you that this is probably the only thing anyone would ever tell you you could not say there. There are no words, other than blatant profanity, that people would tell you that you cannot say. People don't challenge you because you used a word like "secretary" or "Oriental." They wouldn't care. If you did happen to muster up the type of vocabulary that would go against the sensibilities of a Thai, a miraculous and beautiful thing would happen: He would walk away.

A Thai friend of mine told me once that there are two kinds of people: those worth listening to, and those not worth listening to. What a concept. How incredible it is, in a land without guaranteed free speech, that you can say almost anything, and if they don't like it, they will simply stop listening? Doesn't that sound more like how we think we are? But here, in the land of the First Amendment, you can't use words now that you most likely grew up using.

In America, entire wars of words are waged over the words themselves instead of the real issues that confront our society. If you're a public figure and use the wrong word or worse, say something with seemingly innocuous words which together can be construed as not P.C., hoards of the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the NAACP, the ACLU, feminists, Muslim leaders, or any number of other special-interest groups will leap upon you and attempt to destroy your career.

What do they get? They get a fight. Look at Imus. Stupid move? Maybe. Forgivable, why not? So there's a big public brew-haha, a man loses his job (but gets a lot of money anyway), and then there's nothing.

How far did it them?

You have Jesse and Al, the regular drum-beaters whom no one really cares about anyway, and you have some black female basketball players who lower themselves leagues below the level of pathetic trying to get paid for their "mental anguish" at having been called, though not individually or personally, "nappy-headed hoes."

If these people really had a beef with the words and/or thoughts they attack, then the most effective way to deal would be to simply stop listening. Think about it. How much power would Hitler have had if Germany simply stopped listening? If you live in America, you have the right to say anything you want. You do not have the right to be heard. If Americans simply walked away from anything they don't want to hear, there would be no such thing as P.C.

When Racists Cry "Racism!"

With a President who will send 160,000 troops to Iraq to fight to protect this nation from Al Qaeda but who refuses to do anything to stem the invasion by criminal aliens flooding by the hundreds-of-thousands across our borders, the compromise of our laws and national security continues.

There are few Americans, born or naturalized, who would state that the numbers of criminal immigrants coming into this country is not a problem. Even those who would say that would still concede that the lack of security leading to this issue is a problem, since if we don't know who is coming over the border, it would be very easy (and I hate to speak in the hypothetical, as I'm quite sure that this is happening now) for terrorists to walk right on in.

But just try to speak out about this. The CAs already here along with their friends, relatives, advocacy groups, and politicians looking at this population segment as a rich pool of potential votes will shout you down in a din worthy of a group thousands of times their numbers. What's their argument? Well, you might hear the occasional "[Criminal Aliens] take jobs Americans won't do," argument, but since it has been proven that many jobless Americans have pointed to jobs held by CAs as being jobs they'd gladly do, that one fizzled out. So what are they left with? Absolutely nothing. So what can they possibly say?

The "R" word.

Here's where the Irony comes into play.

Americans who truly love America and want to protect our country "from all enemies, foreign and domestic," want to stop criminal immigration. We simply want to stop this blatant disregard for the laws of this country, and we want to know who is coming and going. There is a process in place for people who want to come here and we want that followed. If the unfortunate aspiring immigrant is denied, that is because, through our representative democracy, we have decided that there is a reason why we don't want this person coming into our country. You know that. I know that.

However, when the pro-CA crowd has nothing on us, they play the race card. This is the political equivalent of, "I know you are, but what am I?" They call us "Racists" and even invoke the names of such horrid organizations as the KKK, Nazis, etc. They say that we hate Mexicans, Latinos, and Hispanics. But did we say anything about race? I didn't. Did you? I didn't think so. So here's what I think of these claims...they are calling me a racist to mask their own racism! "How's that?" you might ask. Well...allow me to digress for a moment.

Growing up in Boston in the 1970s, I experienced a huge amount of racism. With the desegregation and busing debates going on at the time, racial tensions between whites and blacks were at their highest point of any time in my life. My neighborhood was a mixture of predominantly Irish and Italians. Racism against blacks was the order of the day. The "n" word was commonplace. There was so much fear and hate that it was almost palpable. We were taught, by word or example, that if we saw a black person walking down the street we should avoid him and be watchful. Why? He might be a criminal. Rightfully and thankfully I, as well as the community as a whole, has outgrown that attitude.

But think for a minute what your reaction would be if I happened to be walking down the street with you today and we saw a black stranger walking toward us and I crossed the street to avoid him because, "He might be a criminal." You'd be appalled, right? Of course, and rightly so! Why? Because, while anyone might be a criminal, it was racist of me to single that man out as a possible criminal based on his race. How about a little word association? You say "criminal," and I respond with "Black," or worse, the "n" word. Would that make me a racist? You bet it would!

"Ok, so what does this have to do with CAs and the people that love them," you might ask. Well, did I say "Mexican?" Did I say "Latino?" Did I say "Hispanic?" Nope. Not me. I said "Criminal Alien," (my preferred term, although you might prefer the more common "Illegal Immigrant"). So, by calling me a racist, the pro-CA set inadvertently calls attention to the fact that when I say the words "criminal," and "alien," they think "Mexican," "Latino," or "Hispanic!"

That's right, they are the true racists!

In fact, I don't care who the CAs are. The fact that the vast majority are Mexican is completely immaterial to me. I want all immigration controlled. Not stopped, controlled. If we had a glut of illegal Canadians here, I'd be saying the same thing. I wouldn't be learning how to say "Eh," or teaching ice-fishing in the schools to accommodate their anchor-babies. I'd be calling for securing the border and for the deportation of as many as we can find.

And one last point: The goal here is to control who comes into our country so that we don't get other countries' refuse and undesirables coming here. The goal is to enforce the law. It so often gets lost in the shuffle of shifting arguments the fact that there are laws in the United States of America that say it is not OK to come into this country without a visa. Questioning my motives for demanding that those laws be enforced does not, in any way, diminish the importance of enforcing those laws. I could be the biggest racist in the world, thinking that Latinos are the scum of the earth (a view which I most certainly do NOT espouse), but that doesn't make it wrong to enforce the law.

If you hate the law so much, change it. But don't resort to subterfuge, argument-dodging, and obfuscation to push your agenda. If you truly believe you are right, then you can say with conviction that anyone who wants to come here should be allowed in, and petition your representatives to make that so. So far, I haven't heard anyone make that argument.

Until then, you need to have the same respect for the laws that all Americans are taught.

Ahmadinejad Honored at Columbia

"Honored," you might ask? How was he honored? Well, let me explain...

Aside from the fact, which I can only attribute to international diplomacy law of which I have no knowledge, that he hasn't been arrested and charged with war crimes the moment he set foot on our soil for supplying munitions, insurgents, and IEDs (called "bombs" in antiquity), to the Iraqi insurgency to fill his anticipated "power vacuum," he was honored by being allowed to speak at the widely-held-as-prestigious Columbia University. Speaking there is, among the left, an honor in and of itself.

What makes this a great honor is that he was allowed to speak while speaking.

On October 4th, 2006, Jim Gilchrist and two other speakers from the Minuteman project, an organization of volunteers who, in an effort to protect what's left of our national sovereignty, stand guard at our borders to monitor and report illegal entry by criminal aliens, were shouted down by student protesters who rushed the stage in an effort to physically attack, or at least physically intimidate, the guests. Said one protester, "The Minutemen are not a legitimate part of the debate on immigration."

The message is clear: At Columbia University, we honor free speech under the First Amendment, unless, of course, we disagree with you. It must follow, therefore, that they agree with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

What higher honor could there be than for a terrorist and dictatorial leader who publicly advocates the killing of Americans, who publicly states that the nation of Israel should be "wiped off the map," and who actively supplies and incites the efforts against America in the democratic nation of Iraq, to be invited to speak at a "prestigious" university in a country which is his sworn enemy?

Sure, Lee Bollinger asked some tough questions, apparently putting Moudy on the spot and making him agitated. But what choice did he have? He'd invited the terrorist to speak at his university. Then, of course, there was the normal firestorm of controversy which occurs whenever Bollinger does something.

But this time, it was more than just the normal firestorm; This time he had his own alumni up in arms about the visit.

We all know Bollinger's pat reaction is, if covertly, giving the middle finger to the common sensibilities of the country. This time, he did something so bad it upset the alumni (and it has to be bad to do that). And we also all know what it means when you upset alumni...It means your cashflow diminishes.

So what would one do in that situation? After saying, "Oops!" One would call off the speaking engagement with a sincere apology to the offended terrorist/dictator/enemy of the state. But one would most likely not be Lee Bollinger. If one were Lee Bollinger, one would keep the engagement and just hammer the speaker with some hardball questions in an effort to mask the original intent of the event and make it seems like he really is opposed to this guy being there.

I can just see the two of them talking before the show:

Lee: "Hey Moudy, listen, I'm in a bind here...I want you to speak cause I know they'll just love you here, but the rest of the country is a bit iffy...would you mind if I ask you some hard questions while you're out there?"

Mahmoud: "Not at all, my friend. The fact that I am still alive right now is a blessing. The least I can do in gratitude is make you look as good as I do."

Lee: "Oh, thanks, Moudy...do me a favor and just act upset, k?"

Mahmoud: [Nodding and smiling] "Allah Akbar!"

I have to admit, as transparent as it may be, it is a pretty good move, as it will most certainly keep the revenue stream uninterrupted, as well as shield him from any criticism from the left-wing university core, leaving him only to be criticized by conservative bloggers and radio commentators...and no one pays attention to them anyway, right?

Well, that about ends my rant. This subject got my ire up enough so that I decided to start my long-planned but long-procrastinated first blog entry.

As a side note, I want to express my sincere gratitude as an American to the Police Department of the City of New York for refusing to provide security to this monster on his planned visit to Ground Zero. This spot is hallowed ground, stained with the blood of innocent Americans, innocent citizens of many other countries, and many of the heroes who went there to try to save them. Apparently we can't stop him from going there, but we can, at the very least, not assist him. We can't keep the devil out of a church, but that doesn't mean we have to shake his hand when he enters.