WEEK OF JANUARY 18, 2009

To a Departing President 

Americans on main street as well. Although they would never admit it, this was because he was a man of principal and strength, yet a man of plain and simple character. He was not at all like the prissy prima donnas of the Left who always put image over content, who were more concerned with polls and popularity than sound government, and who were willing to make political expediency a part of the pop-culture. 

He inherited an office that, during the prior administration had made national security an issue of secondary importance. Nine months after taking office, he reaped the benefits of that treasonous apathy, as terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, taking the lives of almost 3.000 Americans. For a while, Americans hailed him as a great leader as he led them through the days following 9/11, and even his political enemies, always looking for the popular position, supported him in the development of measures to prevents future attacks and eventually taking on the man who everyone believed presented a threat to America, Saddam Hussein. As it turns out, he was successful in both efforts, which made his political enemies turn on him, never forgetting or admitting that he had defeated that pompous ass who claimed to be from Tennessee and the inventor of the internet. Like rats deserting a sinking ship when things were going bad in Iraq, they assumed the Kerry-esque excuse of “I voted “yes” before I voted “no”, forgetting to mention that their “no” vote took place long after our involvement in Iraq began. 

As most would agree, the very fact that America has not been attacked again during the remaining seven years of the Bush administration will be his greatest legacy, but one that will all be forgotten until, through the wanton carelessness of his successors, the jihadists once again prove that they have not gone away. 

If that is the greatest part of George Bush’s Legacy, it is not all of it. There is another part as well. But it is best told by someone who was and is there rather than by a Colorado blogger who was merely a faithful fan sitting in the cheering section. To do this I will call on Omar and Muhammed Fadhil, who post on their own blog Iraq the Model, and are the Baghdad editors for the website PajamaMedia.com. In their recent article entitled New Iraq Emerges from Tyranny and War, they tell the world about their new country that has emerged thanks to the courage and persistence of President George W. Bush and the brave men and women of the U.S. Military. I will take the liberty of repeating just three of the many points made in their article. 

This will be the other part of the Bush legacy. We can only hope that, sometime in the future, Americans will not be so self- absorbed and self-centered to ignore it. 

Did I agree with the President one hundred percent of the time? No; far from it. But that does not diminish my appreciation and respect for the man. I cannot think of anyone outside of my own family with whom I would rather share steaks and beer in the backyard on a summer afternoon. I extended such an invitation many years ago when I began blogging, and the invitation still stands, with the same precondition: that he would have to be accompanied by Laura, the First Lady who restored grace, dignity, and elegance to the White House. For the rest of my life I will never forget the aura that filled the room as she addressed our Colorado delegation over breakfast at the GOP Convention last September. 

Go now in peace, Mr. President. We will miss you. Get the rest that you so generously earned and deserve, and enjoy those Texas sunsets. 

It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world and moral courage so rare. -- Mark Twain
__________________________

Related Articles:

The Bush Legacy
By THOMAS SOWELL
January 16, 2009 at Townhall.com

Whatever history's verdict on the Bush administration might be, it is likely to be very different from what we hear from the talking heads on television or read from the know-it-alls on editorial pages. 

Farewell to a leader
by MIKE GALLAGHER
January 16, 2009 at Townhall.com

There is a number of ways to describe how it feels to sit a few feet from the leader of the free world in the Oval Office at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in an informal, free-wheeling meeting with the President. Overwhelming. Surreal. Amazing. Educational. Inspirational.

See an update of one of the earlist efforts from The Drum and Cannon, a pictorial commentary on President George W. Bush entitled A Case Study in Leadership. Click HERE.
__________________________ 

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                  RETURN TO HOME PAGE

Supreme Court Denies Berg Hearing
Monday, May 12, 2009 

As most expected, the U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it has denied Phillip Berg’s petition for certiorari¹ in the case relating to Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as President under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, which specifies, among other things, that the President must be a natural born citizen of the United States. Berg’s contention that an earlier ruling by a lower court was made in error (it ruled that Mr. Berg did not “have standing”), and that he had sufficient evidence to present to warrant a hearing by the Supreme Court.  

For more details and commentary on this development, you are encouraged to visit the website America’s Right.
____________________________ 

1. The term “Certiorari” is defined in the Free Dictionary by Farlex as “A party, the petitioner, files a petition for certiorari with the appellate court after a judgment has been rendered against him in the inferior court. The petition must specifically state why the relief sought is unavailable in any other court or through any other appellate process, along with information clearly identifying the case and the questions to be reviewed, the relevant provisions of law to be applied, a concise statement of facts relating to the issues, and any other materials required by statute….Certiorari is denied when the appellate court decides that the case does not present an appropriate matter for its consideration.”
_______________________________

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                  RETURN TO HOME PAGE

For a video report on current developments in the Middle East, see:  Middle East Update Jan. 7th with FRANK GAFFNEY, at PajamasTV.com

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                  RETURN TO HOME PAGE

The Mideast War - Two Views 

On one side of the philosophical spectrum, you have the optimistic paean by British poet and essayist Alexander Pope, who is credited with originating, "Hope springs eternal in the human breast". On the more pessimistic side, you have the assertion that, “The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results”, first coined by novelist Rita Mae Brown in her 1980s book "Sudden Death". Depending on your perspective, either saying could be used to describe world reaction to the continuing strife in the Middle East, especially from people in the western world. Once again, we see the United Nations and various individual countries attempting to save one part or another of the Islamic world from its own folly, and usually at the expense of the nation of Israel. 

For those of us whose sympathies attach to innocent people on both sides of the current battle line but foresee no likely permanent resolution by diplomatic means, there is but one solution: one of the sides must decisively win, or the prospects of an ongoing war are inevitable. Any cease-fire or “truce” would be a mere façade, as it was in Lebanon two years ago and as it has been continuously since 1948 in Palestine. Even if the sponsors and supporters of Hamas and Hezbollah were to sit down at a negotiating table with Israel, neither of those organizations would abandon their main reason for being, the elimination of the State of Israel. Instead, they would use the time provided to rearm and rebuild for the next stage in their plans for the destruction of the Jewish state. To believe otherwise is nothing less than wishful thinking, and also denies  the self-proclaimed goals of those organizations.

Citing yet another famous adage, Ben Franklin said, "Experience is a dear teacher and fools learn by no other."

 RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                   RETURN TO HOME PAGE

A Shameful Report 

The Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) - American Civic Literacy Program has released a report on its latest findings relating to test scores on its 33-question Civics Literacy Test (the full Report can be seen HERE). The test covers a wide range of in formation relating to American government, law, history, and institutions. The questions were in multiple-choice answer formats.  

ISI had previously given a longer, 60-question test to college students, in two separate surveys covering 14,000 students each. In the Spring of 2008, the test was given to 2,508 adults from all walks of life with all levels of education. In that survey, over 70 percent of those taking it received a score below 70%. The average score on the test was an abysmal 49%. Yet surprisingly, those scores were not that much lower than those of the earlier, longer series, in which the college students’ average scores were in the 51% to 54% range. 

In the report’s Introduction, ISI discusses the founding of the first public university in Virginia by the aging founding fathers Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The ISI Report then asks, "Almost two centuries later, few questions remain as vital to the prospects of American liberty as the one at the center of Jefferson’s later years: are we educating our children to pass on to their children the freedom that was passed on to us?" 

Evidently not.  

As troubling as those results might be, the report also points out a far more disturbing statistic. Of the 2,508 test-takers, 164 said that they had held an elected government office at least once in their lifetimes. For the cynics among us, it should not be too surprising that the average results for these “public servants” were an embarrassing 44%, or five points lower than the results for the public at large. The report further clarifies:

The 164 elected officials were not identified by the types or levels of offices that they held, nor were the average scores further broken down by political party.  

What these results suggest is that far too many people run for elective office for reasons other than civic duty or responsibility. They suggest that these politicians do not even know or understand what their civic responsibilities are. Is it any wonder that our local, state, and federal governments are in such bad shape? Is it any surprise that our political system produces such shining stars as Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Sen. Ted Stevens, and Rep. William Jefferson?  

The ISI Report on Civic Literacy identified five (actually six) broad findings. They are: 

1. Americans Fail the Test of Civic Literacy 

2. Americans Agree: Colleges Should Teach America’s Heritage 

3. College Adds Little to Civic Knowledge 

4. Television—Including TV News—Dumbs America Down 

5. The survey shows that bachelor’s-degree holders tend to know twentieth-century American history better than free-market economics and themes that pre-date the twentieth century, especially constitutional principles and the founding and Civil War eras.

ADDITIONAL FINDING: Elected Officials Score Lower than the General Public

This report reinforces what many of us have been saying for years. Our educational system has been failing to teach our children about our heritage, our government, and our institutions. Too often, if and when these subjects are taught, teachers utilize the time and resources to drive home their own personal agendas by either ignoring or distorting the truth with their captive audiences. 

The future of America lies in our children. It is time to quit thinking about ourselves. We can either raise a generation that will enjoy the greatness that was America, or we can raise another generation of civically-illiterate robots that are doomed to rely on an equally illiterate government to care for them.

To test your own civics knowledge, you can take the 33-question test on page 24 or the detailed report..  

To view the entire ISI Report, click HERE.

  RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                  RETURN TO HOME PAGE 

On the French and Egyptian Peace Proposal 

French President Sarkosy and Egyptian President Mubarak have expressed optimism over what has been referred to as “acceptance by Israel and the Palestinian Authority of the French-Egyptian” cease-fire plan to end the current hostilities in Gaza. Meanwhile, Israel has announced that it will impose a unilateral three-hour cease-fire every day throughout most of Gaza to allow for the delivery of much-needed humanitarian relief to the Palestinian populace. During the first day of this brief stand-down, Hamas militants continued to launch rockets into Israel, which comes as no surprise. 

There are scant expectations that the permanent cease-fire plan offered by Sarkosy and Mubarak will actually come to fruition. The first roadblock is that the Palestinian Authority does not speak for Hamas, whose rocket attacks on Israel precipitated the conflict. Until Israel reaches its hoped-for goal of eliminating Hamas, any negotiations would be equivalent to talking to a wall. Secondly, if the Egyptians were truly sincere about ending the conflict, they would take the necessary steps to end the continuing shipment of rockets and artillery ammunition to the Hamas militants through the tunnels that originate on their side of the border with Gaza. Of course, any such direct action by Egypt would reduce that country’s standing among other Islamic nations in the region. Therefore its cease-fire proposal rings hollow, but it complies with the usual international calls for mediation that have consistently asked Israel to turn the other cheek as rockets rain down on its territory. 

When Israel withdrew its forces and settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005, it left behind what it hoped would be the seeds of an economic recovery that would create a Palestinian showcase for other countries to emulate. What Israel got in return was a government run by Hamas, the destruction of the infrastructure that it had left behind, and the conversion of Gaza to a launching platform for attacks on itself. Hamas looked upon the withdrawal as a victory for its militancy, and convinced the Palestinians in Gaza that it (Hamas) would be the salvation of the Palestinian cause seeking to recover the whole of the former Palestine, including the State of Israel. 

So once again, there is conflict; once again, the world, namely France, issues its obligatory peace plan, and once again Israel and the United States express their support for such a plan. However, this time we should not expect “support” to equate to “participation.” There is no hope for a permanent peace as long as Hamas is in the picture. Israel knows this, the U.S. knows it, and even France should know it. Having said that, let Israel get on with its business.
_______________________

Related Articles:

Gaza: Another Jihadist Ploy to Fuel Worldwide Anti-Semitism

By MARC SHEPPARD

January 07, 2009 at American Thinker

Recent protests against Israel's long overdue response to six months of its cities' continual barraging by Hamas missiles have displayed a far more dangerous anti-Semitic tone than did precursors. This is to be expected, however, from the anti-Israel protestors in America and Europe.
_______________________

 RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                   RETURN TO HOME PAGE

The Gestapo Scores a Win 

Although I have never counted, I estimate that between the newspapers and internet websites I read several dozen issues-related articles each week, as most “bloggers” do. Those very few internet articles that I feel best present conservative principles that reinforce my own arguments receive mention in “THIS WEEK’S BEST ON THE WEB” section, below. Occasionally, an article appears that, in my opinion, stands so far above the rest that it merits special mention in one of my own regularly featured articles. 

Such is the case with an article that appeared today (1/6/2009) at America’s Right, written by editor Jeff Schreiber and entitled, Paving the Way for Jihad From Within -- Chalk up another win for political correctness. Although the primary targets of Jeff’s rant are the PC-Gestapo organizations known as CAIR and the ACLU, his article covers a wider range of targets and issues than the title suggests. 

After reading the article, I felt that it had pretty well summarized most of the articles that have appeared at The Drum and Cannon over the last five years. For a moment I even contemplated permanently posting Jeff’s article on The D&C’s home page, then going back to focusing all of my time on my other favorite pastimes; fishing, genealogy, and model railroading.  

The article is a must read, well worth your time.

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                  RETURN TO HOME PAGE

A Simple Lesson in Economics 

I do not know the origin of this letter; it appeared one day in my e-mail. I cannot guarantee that the letter was actually written by a boss to his employees. It doesn’t matter. If it were in the Bible, it would be called a parable. It is a simple lesson in economics, illustrating facts that the majority of Americans did not know about, did not think about, or maliciously ignored when they cast their votes on November 4. They wanted “change”, and change they will get. Read on.

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE                  RETURN TO HOME PAGE

Another day, another war   
Could this one be the last?

As Americans and Europeans complacently go about their business of wrapping up another holiday season, it is easy for us to all but ignore the turmoil that is taking place in the Middle East. Far too many of us, if we give any passing thought whatsoever to the ongoing confrontation between the Israelis and Palestinians, assume a “here they go again” attitude, as if the onset of military action is some sort of planned sports contest being held solely for the amusement of the participants rather than for the fans in the stands.   

That this is so is not at all surprising; rather, it is the norm. After all, these deaths of hundreds of people are taking place thousands of miles away, and it seems to be an almost daily occurrence. If it were taking place in New York City, London, or Paris, it would more likely focus our attention, especially if the number of deaths were proportional to the populations of those major cities compared to Gaza.  

But not everyone is ignoring it. There have been the normal but unjustified outcries from many in the West that either label Israel as the aggressor in the latest situation, or claim that Israel’s reaction to the rocket attacks on its cities by the Hamas militants in Gaza is “disproportionate”. Neither claims are realistic or accurate, but for those who are imbued with an idealistic belief that perpetual world peace is possible if one side in every dispute would be willing to forego the use of force. For some unfathomable reason, that one side always seems to be an ally of the U.S. 

The latest escalation of violence in the Middle East seems somewhat different, however, in that there is more support for the Israeli decision to put an end by military means to the rocket attacks being launched against its people by the Hamas militants in Gaza. Even the more serious 2007 rocket attacks by Hezbollah from their supposed haven in Lebanon did not see this level of support for the Israeli response at that time; a response that had more limited objectives and less severity. Perhaps people are beginning to take at face value the stated goals of Hamas’ leaders, such as Palestinian cleric Muhsen Abu 'Ita who said in a recent interview, "The annihilation of the Jews here in Palestine is one of the most splendid blessings for Palestine.”  People are beginning to accept the fact that there is no chance for a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as long as Hamas holds power in Gaza. Although there have been calls for a new cease-fire from the usual sources who can be expected to make such calls, world opinion does not seem to be taking them quite so seriously this time. After all, previous cease-fires that have been in place were not cease-fires at all, but rather an opportunity for Hamas to continue a lower level of rocket attacks on Israel with little fear of a response. 

To its credit, the Bush Administration has resisted efforts to put a UN-sponsored cease-fire in place, knowing full well that as humanitarian aid would be flowing into Gaza, the terrorists’ rocket attacks would be penetrating ever further into Israel. There is a realization that even a UN peacekeeping force being put in place would be as ineffective and incompetent as that which was put in place in Lebanon after the 2007 war. 

In the UN Security Council, US Deputy Ambassador Alejandro Wolff said the United States saw no prospect of Hamas abiding by last week's council call for an immediate end to the violence. Therefore, he said, a new statement at this time "would not be adhered to and would have no underpinning for success, would not do credit to the council." (New Media Journal)

The old adage states that “Hope springs eternal.” It seems like time has run out on old adages. As Ethel C. Fenig writes in her article Two civilizations at war at American Thinker,

Apparently it boils down to is the realization that for peace to have any chance whatsoever, Hamas must be destroyed, or at least removed from power in Gaza. The issue has been debated within Israel itself. Rick Moran reports at American Thinker

Meanwhile, here in the U.S., commentary coming from the usual supporters of Israel reflects the recognition that this could be the final battle between Israel and Hamas.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. (President of the Center for Security Policy) writes:

Columnist Charles Krauthammer opines,

Columnist Cal Thomas describes on his website the reality that only now are many people coming to understand: Hamas’ use of PR:

It appears that people are now beginning to say, “This isn’t working.” More so Americans than Europeans, perhaps, but nonetheless, they are saying it. You will still have the proverbial weeping and gnashing of teeth by those who point out that Hamas is the legitimately elected government ruling Gaza, but that in no way diminishes the threat that they pose to Israel. Therefore, that point is irrelevant to Israel, and it should be to America as well. If anything, it provides greater justification for Israel’s unintentional killing of civilians during the current conflict. If irrational leadership had been forced upon the Palestinians in Gaza, it would be a different matter. However, throughout modern history, from the U.S. Civil War to World War II, civilian casualties have become the norm as the primary means of ending an enemy’s will to resist and carry on the struggle. This, by the way, is also why the arguments in favor of “proportionality of response” have become meaningless. If, for example, in 1962, the Soviet response to the American action during the Cuban missile crisis had been different, tens or hundreds of millions of civilian casualties would have occurred on both sides, and both sides’ military strategies took that into account. President Kennedy became an American hero for risking such an Armageddon.  Today, Israel is facing its own Cuban Missile Crisis, but there are many Americans who believe that the Israelis should respond differently than we did when we were threatened. Not only is that hypocritical, but it is irrational and demeaning to the Israelis as well. Am I implying here that Palestinian civilians are unimportant or that their casualties are irrelevant? Not at all. On the other hand, that is the risk that they accepted when they voted into power a group of terrorists who were fully committed to the destruction of Israel.

As so many analysts have pointed out during the last week, Israel is in a position now where they must finish the task that they set out to do, and that is to destroy Hamas. There can be no more cease-fires, for those periods that were called cease-fires in the past were anything but that. Hamas’ so-called friends in the Middle East will do nothing to bail them out of their current problems. They have not done so in the past, and they will not do so this time. Muslim countries such as Syria and Iran are willing to use the Palestinians as their surrogates in bringing war to Israel, but are unwilling or capable of supporting them when they face destruction.

Here is a thought for the Palestinians: with friends like that, who needs enemies?
_____________________

Related articles: 

Haaretz columnist Bradley Burston has penned a must-read analysis of how the Gaza war demonstrates the deep change in the Middle East conflict into one that also involves the future of Islam, not just of Israel.  
______________

Why Israel Has No Choice But to Defeat Hamas
By ABRAHAM MILLER
January 10, 2009 at New Media Journal.us