Jerhad!com

The True Meaning of Patriotism

The anti-war leftists took great offense to the fact that so many Americans called them "unpatriotic" people while they protested against the war with Iraq. How dare anyone question the patriotism of someone simply because they protest war. These zealots were adamant that they were not only patriots, but they were more patriotic because of their courage to stand up and protest against our leaders. Natalie Maines of the Ditzie Chicks said in an interview "I believe that me speaking out is the most patriotic thing I can do."

I also found it interesting that once the war began, these hippie throw-backs wanted to make it clear that they "supported our troops" even though they were against the war. Isn't that kind of like supporting crack dealers even though you're against drug use? Or supporting pedophiles even though you're against child molestation?

Unfortunately, these lost souls have no idea what "patriotism" and "supporting our troops" really means. Living in the occupied territory of San Francisco, I too had been sheltered from the true patriots in this amazing country. I've already had two American flag stickers torn from my car bumper, so it's sometimes easy to forget that there are a lot of people out there who truly love America and everything she stands for.

Patriotism is about loving your country and those who would die to protect it. It's not about "speaking out" in protest. Or marching in the streets. Or signing anti-war petitions. Or having the "courage" to use your celebrity status in order to express your hatred of war and of our President.

I recently received an email that reminded me what real patriotism is all about. The pictures below were taken during a funeral procession for a fallen American soldier in a small Texas town. The pictures were taken by the soldier's aunt, and there was a note (below) from the aunt to accompany the pictures.

In short, this entire town came out to mourn a brave soldier's death. Men, women, and children of all ages and ethnicities lined the streets with American flags. People in shops and on the side of the road stopped in silence as the procession went by and held their hands over their hearts.

The next time you hear leftist Hollywood or media types talk about their patriotism, think of the people in this small Texas town. These are the patriots that our brave men and women died for, not the delusional "Not In Our Name" crowd.

Note from Aunt:

What follows is a message from Vicki Pierce about her nephew James' funeral (he was serving our country in Iraq):

I'm back, it was certainly a quick trip, but I have to also say it was one of the most amazing experiences of my life. There is a lot to be said for growing up in a small town in Texas.

The service itself was impressive with wonderful flowers and sprays, a portrait of James, his uniform and boots, his awards and ribbons, his boots. There was lots of military brass and an eloquent (though inappropriately longwinded) Baptist preacher. There were easily 1000 people at the service, filling the church sanctuary as well as the fellowship hall and spilling out into the parking lot.
However, the most incredible thing was what happened following the service on the way to the cemetery. We went to our cars and drove to the cemetery escorted by at least 10 police cars with lights flashing and some other emergency vehicles, with Texas Rangers handling traffic. Everyone on the road who was not in the procession, pulled over, got out of their cars, and stood silently and respectfully, some put their hands over their hearts, some had small flags. Shop keepers came outside with their customers and did the same thing. Construction workers stopped their work, got off their equipment and put their hands over their hearts, too. There was no noise whatsoever except a few birds and the quiet hum of cars going slowly up the road.

When we turned off the highway suddenly there were teenage boys along both sides of the street about every 20 feet or so, all holding large American flags on long flag poles, and again with their hands on their hearts. We thought at first it was the Boy Scouts or 4F club or something, but it continued .... for two and a half miles. Hundreds of young people, standing silently on the side of the road with flags. At one point we passed an elementary school, and all the children were outside, shoulder to shoulder holding flags ... kindergartners, handicapped, teachers, staff, everyone. Some held signs of love and support. Then came teenage girls and younger boys, all holding flags. Then adults. Then families. All standing silently on the side of the road. No one spoke, not even the very young children. The last few turns found people crowded together holding flags or with their hands on their hearts. Some were on horseback.

The military presence...at least two generals, a fist full of colonels, and representatives from every branch of the service, plus the color guard which attended James, and some who served with him ... was very impressive and respectful, but the love and pride from this community who had lost one of their own was the most amazing thing I've ever been privileged to witness.
I've attached some pictures, some are blurry (we were moving), but you can get a small idea of what this was like. Thanks so much for all the prayers and support.

Liberals Play the WMD Card

So where are the weapons of mass destruction? Did the President lie to us in order to attack Iraq? Is there a major problem with our intelligence services?

The liberals and their collaborators in the media have become all too predictable. I wrote in an article on April 14, 2003 the following prediction:

Then the questions will be raised about weapons of mass destruction. We're not finding them, and the media will become critical of our justification for invading Iraq.

And then there was my explanation in that same article:

The timeline for finding well-hidden weapons of mass destruction has also been set out at a year or more. There are over 3,000 sites that must be carefully searched in a country the size of California. The weapons will be found, but it won't be done overnight. Again, the media will criticize the searches as failing after only a few weeks of looking, but the expectation is not valid.

The anti-war Democrats have been waiting for this one to materialize. They've thrown everything they possibly can against the wall to knock Bush off of his pedestal, but nothing has worked. Some even had the temerity to question the methods used to rescue Jessica Lynch from hostile enemy territory. Now enough time has passed that they can ask about WMD's and try to spin the story that this war was a sham.

Remember who these individuals are who are taking this approach, because it will fail miserably just like the other political schemes. Instead of actually supporting ideas that the American people might get behind, the struggling Democrats continue to poke and prod unsuccessfully at Bush's armor.

The reasons this new attack will be unsuccessful are two-fold. First, the existence of WMD's was not the only reason for invading Iraq, and the majority of Americans know this. While I have been hawkish about invading Iraq, I have been very clear from the beginning that the existence of WMD's was not even the most important reason for invading.

The reasons I gave were in another article I wrote on March 19, 2003:

There are two main arguments for why Saddam Hussein is a problem. First, it is undeniable that Saddam is seeking weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. While he may not have a nuclear weapon today, the world faces a grave danger when (not if) Saddam procures a nuclear weapon.

The second reason that Saddam Hussein is a problem is due to his horrific rape, murder, and torture of tens, or possibly hundreds of thousands of his own people. The United Nations and human rights organizations have undeniable proof of ''rape rooms'' used by Saddam's henchman to rape the wives and even children of dissidents while they are forced to watch. Electric shock torture is administered to male genitalia. Men are fed through machines normally used to shred plastic. The list is endless, and the details are gruesome.
As you can see, the current threat of WMD's was not the main reason for attacking. The probability that Saddam would acquire those weapons and use them or blackmail with them was a more accurate portrayal.

The second reason this liberal scheme won't work is because WMD's will eventually be found within Iraq. We will also find that Saddam has been plotting the acquisition of nuclear weapons and that he has been cooperating with multiple terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda.

Let's get back to reality here. The people of Iraq can now talk freely about the details of Saddam's rapes, tortures, mutilations, murders, and absolute terror. Does this sound like the kind of man who would willingly relinquish himself of all WMD's without the presence of a United Nations inspection team over the last four years?

Why in the world would he take such a grave risk by not cooperating with inspection teams, threatening scientists if they spoke to inspectors, and creating elaborate mobile labs that could serve no other purpose than to create biological weapons? It is inconceivable that Saddam would cause the destruction of his country and regime if he didn't have anything to hide.

We all knew that Saddam Hussein was not an immediate threat to our national security when we invaded Iraq. The purpose of invading now was to ensure that Saddam never became the kind of threat that could result in the destruction entire American cities or the ability to hold the world hostage under possible nuclear attack of Israel or beyond.

They haven't located Saddam Hussein or his dead body yet either. But that doesn't mean he never existed. All will be uncovered in due time, and the world is unquestionably a safer place thanks to the brave men and women of the United States military and a President who had the courage to do the right thing.

The Road to Hell

A few years ago I got a disturbing fortune in my fortune cookie that said "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions". Not the usual "today will bring you good luck" or "you will soon take a long journey". I was fascinated by the quote and believe it is an interesting statement about the liberal mind.

The quote can actually have two meanings. First, it can imply that regardless of your good intentions, you are on the road to Hell if you do not follow through with them and put them into action. But it also can mean that good intentions without logical direction can lead you down a dangerous path to Hell. The latter meaning is how I see the liberal view of the world.

The crisis of homeless derelicts in occupied territory (San Francisco) is a prime example of this mindset at work. Anyone who has visited here in the last five or six years knows that the street vermin are everywhere. And I mean that literally, not figuratively. There is not a single area of refuge within San Francisco to escape these drug addicts, criminals, and thugs. San Francisco has more homeless people on the streets than New York City, a place more than ten-times its size in population.

Recently, these lovely citizens have been getting more and more violent, randomly attacking a few people on the city streets in broad daylight. The "Care Not Cash" initiative passed overwhelmingly by San Francisco residents to significantly reduce cash payments to drug addicts was also overturned by the court system. And my friends in the real estate industry tell me developers are running scared from San Francisco due to the significant requirements for "affordable housing" units required by the city for every new development (as high as one-third of all units in some cases).

The approach of most politicians and self-appointed "homeless advocates" has been what appears on the surface to be compassionate. The people need money? Give them cash. They need a home? Force builders and landlords to give them housing. They need clean needles to do their illegal drugs without dying from AIDS? Give out free needles.

All of these actions were well-intended by the liberal politicians and activists. The intention was to help these poor souls out and to give them a better life. Instead, they are shocked that the results have been the exact opposite. The homeless population increases every year, and more money is dumped into program after program every year. One study last year estimated that San Francisco spent over $30,000 per homeless person in 2001. So how can the problem be so out of control?

San Francisco is in Homeless Hell right now thanks to the good intentions of these misguided politicians and activists. While handing out cash might "feel" like the right thing to do, the practice has only fed drug and alcohol addictions and attracted bums from all over the country who know that San Francisco gives out free money. All of their solutions "feel" like the right thing to do, but they have the exact opposite effect.

Liberals seem to have a very real mental defect that does not allow them to see the difference between problems and symptoms. The fact that these people don't live in a home is a symptom, not a problem. Handing out cash or creating low-income housing does nothing to treat the actual problems faced by these people, which are usually drug and alcohol addiction or mental illness.

One would think that the obvious complete failure of this approach in San Francisco, not to mention the miracle pulled off by Rudy Giuliani in New York using the opposite approach, would wake up these politicians and activists. Instead, their mental defect still prevents them from seeing the truth. The answer to any failed social program in their mind is always a lack of money. Even though San Francisco spent over $30,000 per homeless person on services and handouts, they still believe the answer has to be more money.

This mentality (or mental defect) is evident in other areas as well. The clueless masses who marched for "world peace" over the past few months would be slaves to ruthless dictators if not for the strength and resolve of courageous leaders in our history. The cry for disarmament and world peace almost allowed Hitler to destroy an entire race of people. War is not the problem, but the symptom. Declaring world peace is meaningless and dangerous.

These well-intended do-gooders also want to eliminate guns from society to stop violence. Yet they fail to see countries like Australia who experience an increase in violent crime when guns are confiscated, and states like Texas who experience a significant decrease in violent crime when concealed carry laws are enacted. Again, guns are not the problem. Eliminate known and suspected gang and drug shootings from gun violence statistics in this country, and suddenly we're comparable to the rest of the world.

Sometimes good intentions lead us in the exact opposite direction and into Hell. Anyone who doubts this need only walk two blocks on San Francisco's streets and fight off the drug addicts, alcoholics and criminals who approach them at every step. Yes, the road to Hell is indeed paved with good intentions. Unfortunately, the liberals leading us down that path are too blind to see this even after they have already arrived.