There is an interesting article in the September 24th edition of the Weekly Standard by David Gelerntner, it is called, “Defeat At Any Price”. Mr. Gelerntner, among his other accomplishments, is a fellow at the American Enterprise institute. One of his points is that for the United States, the Vietnam war was our World War I. That is to say that Europe, as a result of the absolute horror of World War I was overcome with something called, “pacifist globalism”. Europe, as the old spiritual goes, simply decided,  “We ain’t gonna study war no more”.

Whatever one may choose to call it, something obviously  put European countries into an anti war, pacifist mode and World War I surely had much to do with it  Maybe because of their proximity to the war, European countries were more dramatically affected by it. The U.S. was certainly not totally unaffected by the war to end all wars, but then along came the second world war and Korea. The advent of modern communications media brought the brutal reality of those wars much closer to the U.S. than World War I had ever been. Then along came Vietnam. By then there were enough Pacifist globalism advocates crawling around in the woodwork of the U.S. to have deep effect on that country‘s taste for war.

So even though, as  Mr. Gelerntner points out,  that with the coming of General Abrams in May of 1968, the U.S. began winning the war on the ground in Vietnam there were many Americans opposed to the war, and at the same time the war was being lost at the peace table and in Congress. All of this is according to historian Lewis Sorley, who is quoted by Gelerntner.

OK, so unless you’re a pup still wet behind the ears, you know the rest of the story. Under pressure from rabble in the streets, gutless politicians and a growing appeasement, peace at any price, pacifist globalism movement and other lunacies,  the Unites States hands victory to the bad guys in South East Asia. All these years later, Osama and his henchmen can claim with glee that the U.S. is a paper tiger and has no stomach for a long fight. Please do not think for a moment that this line of reasoning is not a factor in every decision made today by the terrorists.


So the horrors of world war I plus World war II and Korea plus the nightly television news during the Vietnam war all made for dramatic increases in the number of people opposing war, period. The large anti war contingent was pretty quiet for a time right after 9/11, but inevitably  that was not to last. To believe that this is the whole reason for the anti war forces to want an immediate end to the war in Iraq is completely not the case. There is another factor at work that far out weighs a simple  distaste for the horrors of war.

It is, quite simply a complete, palpable, abiding and unending  hatred of George W. Bush, and the anti war movement of today is almost completely motivated by the desire for Mr. Bush to be discredited and the Democratic party to win back the white house.

Democrats and the left, not once but twice were certain they had a shoe in in presidential elections in 2000 and 2004. Along comes an enemy they see as some cowboy, bumpkin governor of Texas of all places. He whipped their best twice, and never has or never will be forgiven. The hatred of George W. Bush is a living, breathing,  reality. So dedicated is the true believing leftist to destroying this man that if their own country has to go down with him, then so be it.

 They hate the president so deeply that they  will have his hide even if it means destroying their own country. This is as vile as it gets, and is the real “Defeat At Any Price” Mr. Gelerntner hinted at in his article but never really got to.

What conservative does not get a certain satisfaction listening to Michael Medved on the radio? A little too cocky and ego driven? Sure. Does he like to bait callers to his show? Sure. Does he hold totally rock solid, unwavering positions on some subjects? You bet, but not all subjects or philosophies as you will see. Does he often let cockiness, ego and a certain grating, screw you attitude take over the discussion when he is unable to argue some pet position of his effectively with a listener who has his number? Yes. All of this is our Michael which is precisely the point, love him or not he is our Michael.

On the other hand his unforgivable sin from my point of view is his treatment of anyone who believes there is any substance to the idea that some individuals and or some groups are actively promoting the idea of a North American Union with Mexico and Canada. Vintage Medved on the subject declares for all the world to see that people who believe this are: "ludicrous, childish, ill-informed, manipulative” and that they have “brain dead fantasies about a North American Union."

He can join the heroes with feet of clay club. George Bush spends money like a drunken sailor and just loves amnesty for illegal aliens. John McCain also favors amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. There is quite a list, but you get the picture. They could all ban together and start a third political party. Turncoats they should  call themselves. They take horrible positions on a variety of subjects then turn their fully reversible coats inside out and parade down the streets, tongue in cheek, like the cat that ate the canary. Shame!

I emailed Medved a Simple question. "Since when does the United Stated Congress spend time on a project such as, H Con. Res. 40, which specifically calls for the following:

 (1) the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System.

(2) The United States should not Allow the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) to Implement further regulations that would create a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and

(3) the President of the United States should indicate strong opposition to these acts or any other proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the United States.

At last count this resolution had scores of cosponsors.

Congress evidently has a different understanding of what is afoot here. There has been no response from Medved to my query. I expect his non response is the equivalent of being hung up on during his radio show while he goes into his "Greatest nation on God's green earth" spiel. More scary still is the fact that Medved, among normally conservative writers and radio talk show hosts, is not alone on his thinking on this subject. It almost makes you wonder who is paying the bills for conservatives to be embracing this attack on the sovereignty of this “Greatest Nation on God’s Green Earth”.

A recent article at opinion journal.com had the following information: Hispanics make up about 8% of the electorate in this country, and they will make up about 25% of the total population by 2050. This raises some interesting points.

If Mexicans make up only 8% of our electorate is this not a good time to close the door on illegal immigration? Do we really want to wait until, as the article suggests, Mexicans comprise 25% of our population in 2050. A quarter of the population waving Mexican flags in the streets screaming that we stole their land is not a pretty picture.

It seems like there is a whole lot more than 8% of our population who strongly favor improved border security and carefully monitored legal immigration, and that those voters would more than offset some portion of the 8% of the Hispanic electorate who would turn to democrats if the country began getting serious about protecting the borders. As it stands, it is very difficult to believe that there are not enough good people in both parties to offset any Hispanic protest vote. That may not always be the case.

As usual it is the democrats, who would politicize a goat roping contest if they smelled a few votes. They are largely responsible for making immigration a politically charged issue. If they would put the country first, the immigration issue would have been solved long ago.

Mexican President Calderon has recently said that "Mexico has no borders” and that “where there is a Mexican, there is Mexico". Racism and bigotry seem alive and well south of the border. It is another liberal feel good scheme to open the border to Mexico. As usual these fantasies wind up devastating the people they are supposed to help. As long as millions of Mexicans are allowed to crash the border, the millions left behind will never get anything out of Calderon and his cronies or any other Mexican government.