Short Bursts: Volume 04-01
February 9, 2004
Back when I used to occasionally carry an M-60 machinegun “on the job”, we were taught that the most effective way to use it was in short bursts. Thus the title of this article, which debuts an occasional theme that I plan to use.
About our flag and Kid Rock
Amazingly, I have only received one piece of hate mail (so far) about that article. It is obvious that the sender must idolize Kid Rock, and therefore disbelieves anything negative that I (or anyone) might say about that boob. Thus, I am not including this information merely as a reply to that reader. Rather, this is instructive to other readers as to the caliber of people that are actually out there in the general public. The scary part is that his one vote counts the same as anyone else’s in America.
Here is what that reader wrote to me:
You are a liar. You spin the news to fit your own ajenda and then blame everyone else for doing wrong. Shame on you, Jesus would be ashamed of your behavior.
Joshua
Minneapolis, MN
First of all, as my regular readers have already figured out, I abhor lying. Most of the reason that I write these columns (for free!) is to expose the truth against a background of lies and spin promulgated in the Left-leaning “mainstream” media. Secondly, there was another writer in the room that reported the same thing. Not only do I not know that other writer; but, I had tried to get a freelance assignment from the Washington Times for the Cash event. My recollection is that Mr. Cerveny beat me by one day. Thus, it is quite unlikely that we could’ve have formed a “right-wing conspiracy” about this matter. Notably, he thought Kid Rock’s moronic question was important enough to put in the very first paragraph, and to allude to in the title. Clearly, I did not “spin” anything.
Secondly, for the record, “agenda” is spelled with a “g”. Thirdly, I did not blame “everyone else”; I only blamed Kid Rock. He alone ripped and profaned the American flag onstage at the Super Bowl, and he deserves any consequences of his actions. (Those who enabled his wrongful acts deserve to share in those consequences.) Grammatically, “Shame on you” should have been one sentence, ended with a period. Theologically, Jesus spent the majority of His public ministry exposing the truth behind the wrongful acts of public figures; so, I doubt that He would be ashamed of my emulation of His praiseworthy example. I’m quite secure in that position, which is ultimately between Him and me.
About my analysis of Wesley ClarkAs I write this, that article only appeared this morning. But, lest I be misunderstood, I have nothing against Wesley Clark the man. In fact, he has many personal qualities that I admire. (For example, he seems to demand a lot of himself, and works to ensure that he gets it.) Many of the deeds in his record are also very admirable, such as when he rappelled down a cliff to examine the wreckage of the vehicle that was blasted off that cliff during an attack on an ambassador. (I would’ve done the same thing in those circumstances.) He is obviously very intelligent, and quite articulate. He will do well in almost any endeavor that he chooses to undertake. But, he should not become the next president, nor should he even survive as a candidate. If he remains in the race until the convention process is over, he will likely become the next meal ticket for Bill and Hillary Clinton. That is a disaster that this country cannot afford. Unfortunately, despite all of his good qualities, General Clark has made his bed with a couple of power-hungry, not-so-closet Communists. There is a Russian proverb that my grandmother quoted often. “How you make your bed is how you’ll sleep.” General Clark made his bed with the Clintons and other Socialists, and it should become his political deathbed.
By the way, since the submission of yesterday’s article, I’ve noticed a new television ad for the Clark campaign. The ad contradicts itself. Images of boy Clark are displayed, showing that his mother worked as a low-paid bank clerk to support him when he was growing up. He uses those images to support another hike in the minimum wage, to seven dollars per hour. (By contrast, when a young Theodore Roosevelt was working 14 to 16 hours per day as a cowboy on the open range, the pay was one dollar per day. So, candidate Clark thinks that scanning groceries in an air-conditioned store should be paid at a rate 168 times that of a historic, hard-working American cowboy. This shows that Leftists have no idea that it is their own policies that have created much of the inflation that causes low-income people to be unable to afford things in the first place.) Every government-ordered hike in the minimum wage has resulted in overall job loss for Americans. (Remember the 1972 election? Richard Nixon, trying to buy votes by imitating the Democrats, tinkered with wages and prices. He almost lost his re-election campaign, because the public blamed him for “runaway” inflation. At that time, inflation rose to a “whopping” three percent! Reporters said the economy was “out of control”.) This trend stretches back for decades. Ultimately, the Leftists in our government have priced non-union workers out of the market with their hikes in the minimum wage. Simultaneously, union workers have been priced out of many industries by their own leadership’s constant demands for more and more, when that industry itself is facing stiff foreign competition. Ask any American steel worker … if you can find one.
In the same campaign ad, however, General Clark proposes removing tax cuts from any company that sends jobs overseas. That is a “red herring”. First of all, the left-leaning Democrats are always talking about removing tax cuts from “the rich”, anyway. Considering that anyone that owns a company big enough to have enough jobs to send some of them overseas is automatically a member of “the rich”, the proposal is somewhat redundant. But, it also says that Clark plans to wield the tax laws as a sword against some companies, but not others. That sounds an awful lot like Bill Clinton, who used the IRS as his personal attack dogs, setting them upon churches that preached against his anti-American, pro-homosexual, pro-Communist policies. Secondly, unless our country’s elected representatives have totally lost their collective minds, such a proposal as Clark’s should not be able to pass Congress, because of the potential of its aforementioned selective-targeting dangers. Clark, with his advisors in the Clinton camp, is politically savvy enough to know that the proposal can’t pass Congress. (And, if it does, then Wesley Clark would have enormous control over what Thomas Jefferson called “the power to destroy”.) So, the entire proposal is designed to “look good” to surface voters, while in reality being a totally empty cartridge on his political gunbelt. That is a quintessential “red herring”, and Clark is not stupid enough to have used it unknowingly. (If he was not such a well-known intellectual, perhaps he could’ve said he didn’t know.)
So, my predictions about Wesley Clark being contradictory and a Clinton clone have been proven quite correct. What did surprise me was how quickly he proved it.
After finishing this article (at least, so I thought), some reactions to my previous article about Clark have come in. One says that I quoted Col. David Hackworth’s negative articles about Clark, but failed to quote the positive article. Please read my article again, sir. I gave the title of the positive article, and provided a link to it, with a notation that I wanted to be balanced. But, I also noted that Hackworth’s negative articles about Clark outnumber it three-to-one.
Another reader, “R” from Houston, had this to say.
I don't believe you will thank me for contacting you. Hmm, you have betrayed American values and lied through your teeth for right wing idealogues who are betraying my country. If you don't like it, then leave. I believe that is what you and your ilk are always telling us.
Again, I truly despise lying. I researched sources from the Right, from the Left, from the extreme Left, and from Clark’s own campaign Web site. (That would supposedly be the “middle”, correct? And, you would consider me the “extreme” Right, correct?) This may surprise you, “R”, but I actually admire what little I know about the man Wesley Clark. I’m sure that, in a personal meeting, we could both be congenial. And, in a firefight, we’d both be sending bullets in the same direction. But, the facts are the facts. And, the fact is that he would be a bad choice for president.
By the way, I’m not quite sure how using my First Amendment right to free speech, in a responsible manner, with plenty of supporting facts, is an example of “betraying American values”. After all, wasn’t warning the American public exactly what Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton did with their publishing? Wasn’t that what Samuel Adams did with the town meetings at his pub? And, wasn’t that what Paul Revere did with his famous midnight ride? How, “R”, did I betray American values? Wanting to have a president that upholds the Constitution and its principles, as articulated by those that wrote it, is what I’m after. (And, don’t think I don’t notice the problems with our current occupant of the White House. Right now, I’m focusing on Clark because the primary is coming up in the state where I live.) If you can explain how using supported facts to tell the truth is a betrayal of American values, then please feel free to send me your explanation. (By the way, considering that Clark is not yet even in power, why would “R” tell me to leave? If that is an example of the mindset of Clark’s followers, then it’s a good thing that I wrote that article. What will happen if Clark is elected? Will people like “R” become deputized to round up people like me?)
About our military in general.
It’s no surprise to regular readers that I have enormous respect (dare I say “love”?) for the institution of our military and for its people (with a few, rare exceptions). So, it is with joy that I pass along this link to you. I got it in an e-mail from my father-in-law, who is a retired Army intelligence major. It is a slide-show of the “year in pictures” for the Army in 2003. If you don’t get choked up seeing some of these photos, then contact your psychiatrist immediately.
Respect for our American flagThe item above, coupled with my article about Kid Rock, should leave no doubt about how I feel about respect for our flag. But, words often pale in comparison to certain pictures. (Thanks, again, to my father-in-law for sending this link along.) No opinion that I could write could compare to the pictures and facts about this one military funeral. God bless that young man’s soul, his family, and that Texas town. Somehow, I doubt that Kid Rock would be welcome there.
Now, it’s time to let my barrel cool off for awhile. “Reloading!”
