I am not a big fan of CNN Anchor Don Lemon.  I have seen too many times when his broadcasts dripped with liberal bias.  But when a man gets it right, he deserves to get credit and Don Lemon got it right.  In the following clip from an interview with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, head of the DNC, Lemon asked the right question:   :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10560654/In-pictures-Niagara-Falls-freeze-over-on-US-side.html

“He didn’t know about the NSA spying on allies, he didn’t know about the Obamacare website, he didn’t know that you wouldn’t be able to keep your doctor, so what’s the difference between Christie not knowing at the president not knowing?”

The Chris Christie story is very important to Chris Christie.  It is very important to Republicans.  But it is also very important to the Obama administration.  Democrats are making a huge mistake by attacking Christie without realizing that the main stream media may be shamed into investigating Obama.  We just may see a lot more examples of  “Lemon aide” and that will be more than devastating for this administration.

TDM

I must admit that I liked Chris Christie, right up until he did two things that were totally unacceptable.  One was when he scheduled the special election for Senator in New Jersey to run about a month before the general election.  That really smelled.  He obviously did that because he knew Cory Booker was going to run for the Senate and Christie didn’t want a strong Democratic running for any office during his re-election vote.  Then when he disgraced himself by slobbering all over Barack Obama after Hurricane Sandy.  He made Obama look Presidential and competent and this just may have ended any chance Romney had of winning that election.  I understand that Chris Christie wanted the publicity and he wanted the money.  At what price honor?

Now it is clear that his staff deliberately shut down the George Washington Bridge to create havoc for the Major of Fort Lee, who happens to be a Democrat, because he did not endorse Chris Christie.

I strongly believe that we must hold Republicans to the same standard as Democrats.  This behavior is totally unacceptable.  At best, Christie botched this big time.  The first time he learned of the traffic lanes shut downs he should have made sure it was not his people.  Instead he laughed it off.  That we cannot tolerate.  No spin.  No excuses.  This was intolerable.

But, I can’t help but notice the hypocrisy of the main stream media.  Obama laughed it off when the IRS targeted the Tea Party.  The main stream media yawned.  Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Susan Snow all lied about Benghazi.  No one in the main stream media noticed.  Eric Holder lied to congress about Fast & Furious.  The main stream media didn’t care.  Kathleen Sebelius lied to congress about the ObamaCare Roll out. No one in the main stream media seems to think this matters.  Barack Obama lied to the American people about whether or not they could keep their current plan.  The main stream media just ignored it as unimportant.  Apparently to the liberal left this crap only matters when it is a Republican.

They are wrong.  It always matters.  It mattered with regard to Benghazi.  It mattered with regard to the IRS targeting conservative.  It mattered with regard to Fast & Furious.  It mattered with regard to the ACA and yes it matters when the Chief of Staff of the Governor of New Jersey creates a massive traffic jam out of political spite.  Now is the time for Republicans to stand up and say yes it matters.  That, after all, is the difference between Republicans and Democrats.  We believe this crap matters.

But after you get done with Chris Christie, how about glancing at Pennsylvania Avenue.  Yes, creating a traffic jam is really bad.  But allowing a US Ambassador to get killed because you won’t admit your foreign policy has failed is worse.   Letting the IRS target the Tea Party and other conservatives is worse.  Deliberately letting guns walk to Mexico so the drug cartels can use them to kill DEA Agents is worse.  Lying to people about their health care is worse.

Yes, please investigate Chris Christie.  Do not leave any stone unturned.  The people of New Jersey deserve to know the truth.  Chris Christie deserves to be held accountable, assuming that he is guilty of anything.  But just don’t stop there.  That is all we ask. DON’T STOP THERE!   Is that too much to ask?

One final note.  Unless Chris Christie comes up with a lot better explanation than we have heard so far, he is through as a Presidential candidate in the Republican Party.  But, if he was a Democrat, it probably wouldn’t matter.  At worse, this is amateur hour.  It is dumb.  It is stupid.  It is irresponsible.  It hurt a lot of people.  But it pales in comparison to Hillary Clinton opposing a opposing a sitting President with regard to the surge in Iraq, when she knew it was necessary for our national security, for purely political purposes.  That is far more important than a traffice jam.  But the liberal left won’t care because Hillary is a liberal and she is a Democrat.   If you are a liberal Democrat, nothing else matters.

TDM

One of my favorite shows is “Buying Alaska.”  I particularly like the part where people are willingly moving to homes with no indoor plumbing.  The American public is being re-introduced to the outhouse.  Sometimes it is really fun to watch.  I grew up in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and while we were far from rich, we always had indoor plumbing.  Although my brother did have an outhouse on his property, it was no longer used.  However, there were still a lot homes with outhouses.  That is one reason the night before Halloween was called “Gate Night.”  That was when the kids would think up all kinds of mischief.  One of the favorite stunts my classmates loved was moving an outhouse about 4 feet.  The theory was than when someone went out in the dead of night to use the “facilities” they would encounter a really unpleasant surprise.  I frankly am not sure if anyone actually did this and if they did I am not sure it worked.  However, I am absolutely positive they all talked about it.  I still smile at the thought of someone discovering, the hard way, that their outhouse had been moved.  Now we have a modern version of Gates night.  Once again there could be quite a stink.

Robert Gates has published his memoir and it is astonishing.  He shreds Barack Obama as Commander in Chief.  What makes this particularly devastating is that Robert Gates is highly respected on both sides of the aisle.  He has a reputation for being even tempered.  He is known for not taking cheap shots at anyone.  I don’t recall another Secretary of Defense or any other top cabinet official turning on a sitting President like this.

For years I have been reading rumors on various blogs reporting a similar opinion of Obama by top military commanders.  However, no current or former top commander was willing to go public with this.  That may change after this book.  At a minimum, the people mentioned in Gates’s book will be asked direct questions.  These military men are pretty disciplined and they have clearly kept quiet about this, but that does not mean they are willing to lie about it.  I think if they are asked a direct question they will give a direct answer.  That does not bode well for Obama.

It didn’t seem possible for Obama to drop lower in public opinion polls.  But then, who could have predicted this.  President Obama was really hurt by his well-documented lies about ObamaCare.  Very few Democrats even try to defend him with regard to that.  The most he gets from anyone is a vague hope that eventually people will like ObamaCare.  I doubt that many people really believe that any more.  But that was just about politics.  This is about national security.  This is far more serious than lying about ObamaCare.

Gates made an accusation that is devastating, both to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  He said both admitted to him that they opposed the surge in Iraq solely for political purposes.  What an incredible statement to make about two candidates for Commander in Chief.  If a candidate is willing to put politics about national security, during the campaign, how could we ever trust them to act responsibly later?

Another thing that makes this book so devastating is that it is easy to believe.  It has the ugly odor of truth.  Everything Robert Gates describes is totally consistent with what we know about this President.  You must admit, this really fits.

But perhaps the most important question is why did Gates do this?  His personal anger is not a satisfactory explanation.  Neither is his personal disgust with Obama.  He also doesn’t fit the mold of someone desperate for publicity and he doesn’t need the money.

Robert Gates is a man of honor and integrity.  He is a man who has sacrificed a great deal to serve his country.  Regardless of his personal distain, one would not expect him to publish this while Obama is still in office.  This book will do great harm to our national security.  Gates knows that.  He knows our enemies can read too and they will use this information to our disadvantage.  Robert Gates must have thought long and hard before he went through with this.  The fact that he thought it necessary is more important than what he said.

Since he was Secretary of Defense, it is safe to assume that our top military commanders agree with what he said.  It is quite possible that they were encouraging him to speak out.  If the rumors I discussed before are true, our military commanders do not trust Barack Obama as Commander in Chief.  I am not saying they don’t like him.  I am not even saying they dislike his politics.  I am saying they do not trust him to act responsibly as Commander in Chief.

Our President swears an oath to preserve protect and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  The President has a duty to do the right thing, regardless of political consequences.  Robert Gates has just gone public with his opinion that Barack Hussein Obama is unwilling or able to do his duty.  It does not get any worse than this.

I do not know where we go from here.  It will be interesting to see how top Democrats respond.  Robert Gates, former Secretary of State, has said that Barack Hussein Obama is not fit to hold the office of President.  If top Democrats care anything about their country, they must fight back against these accusations.  This is far too important to ignore.  Yet, I really don’t expect Democrats to respond at all.  I think they will just try to ignore this and hope it goes away.  That might be the smart political move, but it would be beyond irresponsible.   If Gates is wrong about this, than Democrats should unite around their President.  If they don’t, it will tell us everything we need to know.  Unfortunately the bigger problem is what to do if Gates is right.   Keep in mind that Gates trusts Joe Biden even less than he trusts Obama.  WOW!

TDM

When the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA) many people assumed that the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was protected by the constitution.  They should have read the actual opinion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court-doma-decision_n_3454811.html

“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”

The court did not rule that gay marriage was protected by the constitution.  It ruled that the Fifth Amendment prevented the federal government from overturning a state law approving gay marriage.  I always assume that Supreme Court rulings are very carefully crafted.  Notice that the court did not say that The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) did not serve a legitimate purpose.  If anything, Kennedy implied that DOMA did serve a legitimate purpose.  He just said that even for a legitimate purpose the federal government cannot take away a right specifically granted by the State.

Who knows?  This court may decide that gay marriage is protected by the Fifth Amendment.  That is obviously possible.  But they may also decide that this issue belongs to the states and not the federal government.  I suspect that the Supreme Court is reluctant to decide on gay marriage either way.  That would be consistent with the DOMA decision.

In his dissent to the DOMA ruling, Judge Scalia wrote that federal Judges would misinterpret the decision as requiring states to approve gay marriage.   He was right about that.  A whole bunch of federal judges have done exactly that.

The Supreme Court just put a hold on the decision to strike down Utah’s gay marriage ban.  Some may ask why Utah matters.  The reason is standing.  The Supreme Court rejected the challenge to the decision overturning California’s Proposition 8 because the plaintiffs did not have standing.  The State of California, under the brilliant leadership of Governor Brown, refused to appeal the decision by one federal judge to overturn Proposition 8.  But in Utah, the state government is appealing the decision regarding gay marriage in Utah and the state of Utah most definitely does have standing.

http://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/local/utah-asks-high-court-to-stop-gay-marriages-justice-sotomayor/article_a6a4a1e6-72d4-11e3-930f-001a4bcf887a.html

It is particularly interesting to look at California’s Proposition 8.  Proposition 8 changed the California constitution.  To put this in perspective ask yourself a very simple question.  “Suppose that voters in California had passed referendum changing the state constitution to approve gay marriage.”  Now suppose a judge overturned that referendum by ruling that gay marriage is unconstitutional.  The gay rights community would have been outraged.    Governor Brown would have definitely appealed that decision.

Both Governor Brown and Attorney General Harris had a duty to defend Proposition 8, whether they agreed with it or not.  They refused, because they didn’t like Proposition 8. That is typical of the liberal left.  If you don’t agree with them, your opinion does not matter.

Just a few weeks ago, most people believed that nationwide gay marriage was inevitable.  There were all these court decisions with the main stream media wildly promoting gay marriage.  A lot of people, who are opposed to gay marriage, basically gave up in despair.  I have a message for you.  This has the potential to change everything.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/06/supreme-court-halts-utah-gay-marriage/4338799/

I would not be surprised by a Supreme Court decision that refuses to rule on same-sex marriage at all.  They just may rule that the decision is up to the states.

One final thought.  A gay couple got married on a float during the Rose Parade.  Six weeks ago I would have bet my bottom dollar that all of the networks covering the Rose Parade would have covered the ceremony.  But that was prior to the Duck Dynasty backlash. Multiple TV stations cut away from the gay marriage ceremony and went to commercial.  I doubt that this was a coincidence.

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/lifestyle/20140101/tv-stations-cut-away-from-gay-marriage-during-rose-parade

It is just possible that, with regard to gay marriage, we are back to square one.

TDM

In 1876 General Henry Martin Robert published a book called “Robert’s Rules of Order.”  He was inspired to write the book when he was asked to chair a church meeting in 1863 and he didn’t know what to do.  He found out no one else knew what to do either, so he literally wrote the book himself.  Obviously he did a pretty good job, because this is still the way a lot of meetings are run today.

In 2014, we are about to experience, for the first time, a new set of “Robert’s Rules.”  We are about to see the real effect of the Supreme Court decision authored by Supreme Court Justice Roberts in June 2012.  Odds are that this will surprise almost everyone.

At the time, conservatives were outraged by the decision.  Liberals were ecstatic.  Both were wrong because both failed to understand the significance of this decision.  That is about to change:

1.  John Roberts did not uphold ObamaCare as constitutional.  In fact, he held it as unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.  He only upheld the individual mandate and he only upheld that as a tax.  No one has challenged the authority of congress to tax employers.

Note:  Obama has already suspended the employer mandate and the individual mandate.  He has in effect repealed the only part of the law that was constitutional.

2. Roberts ruled that Congress does not have the authority, under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, to force private individuals to buy health insurance.

Note:  Congress cannot force people to buy health insurance.  They also cannot force insurance companies to offer health insurance.  I am not sure they can even require employers to provide health insurance; they can just tax them if they don’t.   Since the employer mandate has been delayed, there is nothing requiring employers to offer health insurance to anyone.

The McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1944 specifically left regulation of insurance to the states.  The federal government has limited authority to regulate insurance.

Congress has passed laws regulating employer sponsored plans.  ERISA, COBRA and HIPAA all regulate employer sponsored health insurance.  These laws set the standards for employer sponsored health insurance in order to qualify for a tax deduction.  Employers can offer other plans; they just wouldn’t be able to deduct the premiums.  The primary enforcement mechanism is and was the tax code.

3. Roberts also ruled that the federal government could not force state governments to expand Medicaid.

Note:  Many states said no.  Based on what limited information is available, a high percentage of the new enrollees have signed up for Medicaid.  The costs of Medicaid are going to skyrocket and the House is unlikely to vote to spend more funds on a program they consider to be a mistake.  That means states who signed up all those new Medicaid enrollees are going to have a really big problem.  How are states, already running unsustainable deficits, going to fund skyrocketing Medicaid costs with no assistance from the federal government? 

4.  In addition, Roberts ruled that states were not required to set up state exchanges to sell ACA-compliant policies.

Note:  Most of the states did not set up exchanges.  That is a major reason the ObamaCare enrollment was a total disaster.  They were trying to enroll 36 states in a one-size-fits-all program designed by clueless liberals. 

The first shoe has already fallen.  Judge Sotomayor issued an injunction delaying the ACA birth control mandate.  Keep in mind that Sotomayor already signed off on the Roberts decision.  Don’t be surprised if her decision is affirmed by the entire court.  After all, the court has already ruled that the federal government cannot force people to buy insurance.  That includes employers.  It is going to be hard to justify the fines in this case because Obama has already given employers who offer no coverage at all an exemption.

It is impossible for anyone to predict any Supreme Court and certainly impossible to predict this court.  But if they remain consistent with the Roberts decision, ObamaCare opponents are going to start winning court decisions.

I am reminded at the time of the decision John Roberts said it was “not the job of the Supreme Court to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”  Conservatives wanted Roberts to rule ObamaCare unconstitutional because they knew it was a bad law.  They were asking Roberts to bail them out.  But Roberts reminded them that it was their job to pass laws, the Supreme Court’s only legitimate role was to determine whether or not such a law was constitutional.  By ruling it constitutional, but only on a very narrow basic, John Roberts may have delivered the ultimate poison pill to ObamaCare.

If Roberts had overturned ObamaCare, the liberal media would have gone nuts.  Democrats would have launched a massive media campaign accusing Republicans of blocking health care for the poor, the elderly and the ill.  You know the same liberal nonsense they have been spewing for decades.  The liberal main stream media would have chimed in with nightly sob stories.  Republicans would have gotten all of the blame.  Obama would still have been re-elected and we might be dealing with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

Now, Democrats own ObamaCare lock stock and barrel and it is a really rotten barrel.  They can’t blame this on Republicans and they can’t blame it on the Supreme Court.  ObamaCare may do more damage to the Democratic Party and the liberal cause than anyone is currently predicting.  It is really that bad and there is zero chance it can be rescued.

The Roberts ruling means that neither the administration nor Congress can fix ObamaCare because neither has the authority to fix it.   They can’t order people to buy insurance.  They can’t order insurance carriers to sell insurance. The only two options available are to increase taxes or increase spending.

If there are truly millions of people who are without health insurance and the only option is ObamaCare we are going to see an unprecedented political tsunami.  The American people will demand a solution and they will demand it now!  The only rescue ship on the horizon is the insurance industry.  The same insurance industry that Obama arrogantly blamed for all our problems.

I do not know where this goes.  Expect surprises.  Scott Walker’s simple proposal to give the money to the people and let them buy insurance is one example of a creative solution.  There will be more.  All over the world tonight brilliant people are lying awake trying to figure out how to exploit this disaster.  There are always people ready, willing and able to exploit any disaster.  Some of these people own insurance companies and they have lots of financial resources.

In the meantime, thanks to Robert’s Rules, neither congress nor this administration has the authority to do anything that would fix the problem.  They can point fingers.  They can spend money.  They can raise taxes.  They will, of course, scream and yell and pretend that this is secretly working, but political rhetoric is a poor substitute for health coverage.

TDM

The New York Times published a report with some pretty astonishing claims about Benghazi.  Following is a link to the original article:

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/?hp#/?chapt=0

This is how the best news organization on the planet investigated Benghazi:

Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi 

In other words they asked the people who attacked us what motivated them.  However, there is little mention of interviewing the Americans who were on the ground at the time.  Nice!

In some cases the author had to ignore his own findings to reach his conclusion.   For example the author said that one of the prime suspects was Ahmed Abu Khattala:

In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. 

The author claims that Ahmed Abu Khattala had no association with al-Qaeda or any other terrorist groups:

Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation.

Yet the author provides clear evidence that this conclusion is absurd with the following paragraph in the same article:

Mr. Abu Khattala had become well known in Benghazi for his role in the killing of a rebel general, and then for declaring that his fellow Islamists were insufficiently committed to theocracy. He made no secret of his readiness to use violence against Western interests. One of his allies, the leader of Benghazi’s most overtly anti-Western militia, Ansar al-Shariah, boasted a few months before the attack that his fighters could “flatten” the American Mission. Surveillance of the American compound appears to have been underway at least 12 hours before the assault started.

So I looked up his “non-terrorist” buddy who was the leader of Ansar al-Shariah.  Perhaps this is the guy we just captured in Libya.  If so, his name is Saifallah Benahssine and he is a top leader in Ansar al-Shariah.  Following is a link describing the capture:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/30/saifallah-benahssine-captured_n_4518378.html

…the capture of such as high-ranking Tunisian Islamist militant in Libya would indicate close ties among Islamist groups across North Africa. In October, U.S. forces captured a top al Qaeda suspect in a raid in Tripoli.

A former fighter in Afghanistan, Benahssine had declared loyalty to al Qaeda and was accused of inciting an attack on the U.S. embassy in Tunisia in September 2012.

In other words the man who had “no known affiliations with terrorist groups” was an acknowledged ally of Ansar al-Shariah who has a known association with al Qaeda. 

The theory that this was a spontaneous act largely inspired by the video is also debunked by the authors own words.  He admits that Ansar al-Shariah was planning to attack the mission months before the actual assault.  He also admits that they were conducting surveillance of the mission at least 12 hours before the attack.  That was before the video was even shown on Egyptian television.    It is bad enough when you ignore facts published elsewhere.  It is insane to ignore facts you publish yourself.

Here we have the ultimate magic video.  This video was so vile that it inspired people to plan an assault months before they even knew the video existed.  Talk about a miraculous ability to influence people.

The big question for me is why would the New York Times do this?  I mean this is really pathetic and the entire article was slammed almost immediately.  This is not just biased, this is stupid.    Frankly it smells of desperation.

The New York Times knows that Republicans are going to hammer Hillary on Benghazi.  No one even pretends that security at the Benghazi mission was adequate.  As Secretary of State, that falls fully on Hillary.  The only question is whether she was just oblivious or did this rise to the level of dereliction of duty?  No one, and I mean no one, is arguing that Hilary was on top of this.

So the liberal left is desperately seeking an exit for Hillary.  This theory is hopelessly thin, but it’s all they have.  Perhaps if they can convince people this was really just about a video after all, no one will blame Hillary.

Then I realized that this is about more than Hillary.  The liberal left only loves Hillary because they think she is a winner.  Look how quickly they dumped her for Obama.  To really evaluate Hillary as a candidate, you have to look at the strength of the opposition.  She gets 68% of the Democratic vote, but only because all of the other potential candidates are hopeless.  Joe Biden is in second place, followed by Elizabeth Warren, Andrew Cuomo and people you probably don’t even know.  Things are so bad that some Democrats are even talking about Jerry Brown.   Now that would be desperate.

There is, of course, another possibility.  It is possible that the New York Times really believes this story.  That, perhaps, is the most frightening option of all.

TDM

I am sure most of you are aware of the “Tourist” ship trapped in the Antarctic Ice.  This is now starting to look like a serious situation.  So far, two ice breakers have failed to free the ship and a third does not appear to be doing much better.  The good news is that they have a helicopter on board.  The bad news is that they may have to evacuate everyone and abandon the ship.

But what makes this interesting is that this was another foolish Arctic/Antarctic expedition fueled by illusionary dreams of global warming.  Even global warming advocates admit that the Antarctic ice is not melting, but this group of people wanted to repeat the measurements taken by the Mawson Expedition in 1911.  Following is a link to the expedition website:

http://www.spiritofmawson.com/

The Australasian Antarctic Expedition – the AAE – will truly meld science and adventure, repeating century old measurements to discover and communicate the changes taking place in this remote and pristine environment.

One can guarantee that they were desperately searching for proof of global warming.  Why is it, if global warming has been proven beyond dispute that scientists are always searching for more evidence?

Here’s what they left out.  The 1911 Mawson expedition was a total disaster.  The following blog from the Smithsonian describes it as the worst Antarctic expedition ever:

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/history/2012/01/the-most-terrible-polar-exploration-ever-douglas-mawsons-antarctic-journey/

Mawson barely survived and the rest of his crew all died.  When he finally made it back to his base camp, it was just in time to see the supply ship heading back to Australia.  Mawson ended up spending another winter in Antarctica.

In the meantime this new expedition is now trapped in the ice, miles short of where Mawson landed in 1911.  They are blocked by 75 miles of ice.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/antarctica-live/2013/dec/29/antarctica-expedition-ice-wait-rescue

I wonder if anyone in the New York Times will notice that 75 miles of more ice is not exactly evidence of global warming.

By the war, the Aurora, the ship that brought Mawson to Antarctica was a wooden sail boat with a hull that had been reinforced by steel.  This is not exactly the modern ice breakers we see currently in action.  If they were trying to replicate this trip with a ship similar to the Aurora they would definitely be in serious trouble.

TDM

Kellie Pickler is in Afghanistan for Christmas, again.  This is her seventh USO tour.  It is quite clear that Kellie Pickler is a very special person.  So I have decided to award her the “Golden Pickler Award.”  God Bless Kellie Pickler.  We need more like her.

Kellie Pickle reminded me of another singer.  It was Christmas Day, 1969, Pleiku AB.  My day started, just like any other day, with a 0400 takeoff on a combat mission. It ended with a rocket attack.   It wasn’t a particularly good day.  But that night, in a crowded club full of enlisted men, I witnessed a miracle.  There was a female singer from Australia.  She had entertained for the troops in World War II, so she looked pretty old to us.  We weren’t expecting much.  Then she started singing the same songs she had performed so many years before.  The room fell into hushed silence.   By the time she was done there wasn’t a dry eye in the room.  Her voice was incredible, but it was a lot more than that.  Every man in that room would have preferred to be somewhere else.   The most popular song in that club on any other night was “I Wanna Go Home.”  We felt more than a little abandoned by the American people.  By singing those old songs this woman reminded of us a time when troops actually were supported back home.  She reminded us of the way it was and the way it should have been.  It touched my soul.

This was the year of Woodstock.  I don’t know what Woodstock meant to you, but to me it was about a million people, stoned on sex, drugs and alcohol having a great time bad mouthing those of us fighting for them in Vietnam.  The World War II vets got Bing Crosby singing “White Christmas.”  We got Country Joe McDonald and “Feel Like I’m Fixin To Die:”

Well come on all of you big strong men, 
Uncle Sam needs your help again,
He got himself in a terrible jam,
Way down yonder in Vietnam,
Put down your books and pick up a gun,
We’re gonna have a whole lotta fun

And its 1,2,3 what are we fighting for?
Don’t ask me I don’t give a damn,
The next stop is Vietnam,
And its 5,6,7 open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain’t no time to wonder why,
WHOOPEE we’re all gonna die

Our own generation had turned on us.  At best, we were considered losers.  At worse, war criminals.  The contrast with those songs from World War II could not have been starker.

When we did get home, it was even worse.  World War II movies are about heroes and great battles.  Vietnam movies are about drug crazed psychotic murderers.   The heroes chosen by our generation were veterans of the anti-war movement like Bill Clinton and John Kerry.  They got it very wrong.  The real heroes of our generation have their names etched in Granite on the Vietnam Memorial Wall.

It has gotten better.  At least the liberal left now blames everything on George Bush instead of the troops.  In addition, even Vietnam Veterans are getting more recognition. It is no longer unusual for me to have someone thank me for my service.   When Vietnam veterans greet one another we often say: “welcome home”  instead of  “thank you for your service.” Now you know why.

I now realize, after all those years, that the Australian woman singing for us in Pleiku understood all along.  I don’t even know her name, but I will always be grateful.

TDM

Sometimes the individuals around us, who have no words, are the most eloquent of all.  We have a miniature schnauzer named Molly.  We think she is pretty bright, for a dog, but there are issues.  Whenever anyone comes to our door Molly goes nuts.  She barks like there is no tomorrow.  But, if anyone is playing close attention, her wagging tail quickly reveals that she is just excited to meet new friends.  The only risk a burglar would have invading our house would be getting licked to death.  We have tried various methods to fix this, but none of them work. This is primarily because we, her guardians, are stupid.  For example we tried throwing her a treat to shut her up.  The theory was that she would be too busy eating to bark.  It kinda sorta worked, but then we told this to a dog trainer who just laughed.  He said, “So, you reward her for bad behavior?”  Guilty as charged.

We finally decided that this is just who Molly is.  She loves everyone, and when you think about it, that is not a bad thing.  I sometimes think God sent us dogs to give us a practical example of the unconditional love of Christ.  That, after all is the essence of Molly.  She loves us no matter what we do.  Oh she can get upset if we forget to feed her, and she certainly will let us know when we have delayed too long in letting her go outside, but there is nothing that can really separate us from the love of Molly.  When I come home, she always goes nuts.  At times she almost cries.  She looks up at me with those sad eyes that say, “Touch me.”  When I do touch her, particularly when I scratch her behind the ears, she cannot contain her excitement.  She literally shakes her head as if this is just too much joy to bear.

I sometimes think Christ is just like that, but we are too distracted to notice.  God is always available, always ready and willing to love us, and just like Molly, he is asking us to touch Him.  And when we do, we are embraced with the unconditional love of almighty God.  Who or what can compete with that?

As I said, sometimes those without words have the most to.say.

Have a Molly Molly Christmas.

TDM

I am not exactly a fan of “Duck Dynasty.“  I have only watched part of two shows.  I primarily can’t stand any reality TV show, so this is nothing personal.  I am amused at the wild success of the show which obviously has an enormous following.  Every time I turn around there seems to be another “Duck Dynasty” product.  Obviously these guys are world class at taking advantage of name recognition.  That probably means they are a lot smarter than you think.

Now Daddy Duck, Phil Robertson, got his wings clipped for speaking his mind about homosexuality.  I read the transcript of his interview and can understand why the LGBT community was offended.  No one likes to be labeled as sinful.  I suspect even people who realize they are sinful are offended when this is pointed out by someone else.  It is hard to avoid coming across as “holier than thou” when you focus on sins you consider to be a problem for someone else.

The LGBT community is particularly upset at being compared to bestiality.  On that they probably have a point.  As far as I can tell, most people who have sex with animals as a hobby choose an animal of the opposite sex.  Just saying!   In addition, most animals that breed successfully are actually heterosexual.

But there is more going on here.  This is not just about reducing or eliminating discrimination against the LGBT community.  This is about forcing people to adopt the LGBT world view, with no tolerance for anyone with a different opinion.  It is no longer acceptable, in the minds of the liberal left, for anyone to have a different opinion.  We have seen this before.  No one is “holier than thou” than the people who are offended by anyone who they think is “holier than thou.” 

But this time they may have picked on the wrong guy.  It turns out that clipping Phil Robertson’s wings ruffled a lot of feathers.  A ton of people are coming to his defense and the backlash is growing by the minute.  According to Breitbart.com the boycott A & E blog already has over 500,000 likes.  Yikes!

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/12/19/Boycott-AE-page

I can pretty much guarantee that some of the top executives at A & E are now fully aware that they stepped in it big time.  This is the typical left wing liberal mistake.  They are always shocked to find out that a whole lot of people don’t agree with their delusional view of the world.

This actually could be fun to watch.  “Duck Duck Goose.”

TDM