It’s Not Hillarycare, It’s Hillarycon

Sometimes Hillary Clinton leaves me breathless with the sheer arrogance of her assumption that the American people are like a bunch of straw-chewing rubes eager to buy her latest brand of snake oil.

She introduced her latest excursion into the field of health care in America by assuring us that under her national health care plan people will no longer be denied needed emergency medical services because they lack health insurance.

Hillary knows that the law provides that nobody can be turned away because of their inability to pay for needed medical services — she just hopes the voters don’t know that. She wants them to think that some cruel tyrant stands at the emergency room door barring entrance to the poor and needy.

Illegal immigrants, for example, know what a phony claim that is. They know the law better than most American citizens. The illegals get all the health care they want, because they know the law guarantees those services without them having to pay one red cent for it.

Hillary goes on to assure Americans that health care is a right and not a privilege. Ignoring the fact that rights have no price tag attached – you don’t have to pay to exercise the right of free speech, for example – yet she puts a price tag on the right to have health care at $110 billion a year. That’s what she wants us to pay for the alleged right to health care.

She says that the annual cost of $110 billion will be paid by increasing taxes on those Americans whose taxable income is $250,000 a year. She doesn’t explain that there are not enough taxpayers making that kind of money to come up with enough tax dollars to finance that $110 billion annual price tag.

As one of my listeners pointed out, in 1948 the United States Supreme Court ruled that no American citizens can be charged for their rights. Hillary is now ruling that Americans can now be billed $110 billion a year for the right to have health care.

Whenever left-wing Democrats make a proposal they always make at least a part of their plan mandatory. They can’t help it – it’s in their blood to want to force people to do what they want them to do.

So Hillarycon would force every man, woman and child in the United States to have health insurance, whether they want it or not. They get no choice in the matter. To Democrats such as Hillary the only right of choice they recognize is a woman’s right to choose to kill the baby in her womb. All other rights of choice are up for grabs.

Hillary and her fellow Marxists keep peddling the line that there are 47 million Americans who have no health insurance – implying that they are too poor to be able to pay for it. That’s tommyrot and they know it.

According to Investor’s Business Daily, about 38 percent of the estimated 47 percent of the American people who lack health insurance have incomes in excess of $50,000 a year. Moreover, about 20 percent of all uninsured Americans have incomes over $75,000 a year.

These people can afford coverage, but for whatever reason choose not to buy it. You have to ask yourself why Hillary and John Edwards and Obama want to take away the right of these people to choose to remain uninsured.

If they insist on talking about our rights as Americans, why can’t they recognize our right to say, “No, we don’t want health insurance”?

If I’m willing to take the chance that I won’t have health care problems this year, and am not willing to buy insurance to pay for an illness or accident I don’t anticipate, that’s my choice – not Hillary’s.

The new version of Hillarycare is just another Clintonian con game – a neatly wrapped bottle of snake oil. She doesn’t want you to read the price tag and the label on the bottle that warns that the contents may taste good but are utterly devoid of anything good for your health.

©2007 Mike Reagan. If you’re not a paying subscriber to our service, you must contact us to print or web post this column. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc. Cari Dawson Bartley email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561.

Tough Love — Remembering My Mom, Jane Wyman

We buried my mother, Jane Wyman, today and as I stood at her grave the words of Abraham Lincoln came back to me: “All I am or ever hope to be I owe to my angel mother.”

Everybody talks about my dad Ronald Reagan, and what he did for America, and many people think that because he set such a great example for his fellow citizens in so many ways, he was also responsible for making me who I am today.

While that may be true in some ways, if anybody really wants to know who and what I am, you have to go back to my mother. All that’s decent and praiseworthy that I am, or ever hope to be, I owe to her.

When my parents broke up, like many children of that day and age whose parents were divorced, I lived with my mother. It was Jane Wyman, a single mom, who was in charge of raising me. I spent weekends with my dad, but it was my mother who raised me.

I could have been one of those spoiled Beverly Hills brats, but thankfully I had a mother who wouldn’t allow it. As my sister Maureen and I learned, there would be no brats in her house.

Back in the 1950s, spoiled Beverly Hills brats could go to their parents and extort money from them because they felt guilt because they couldn’t spend time with their kids. They would get their parents to assuage their guilt by buying them things, such as the brand new 10-speed Schwinn bicycles that were then the rage.

All my friends were getting their parents to buy one — it was the newest bike of the day and every kid, including me, wanted one. I had even picked out the brand new blue 10-speed Schwinn bike I wanted.

I went to my mom and told her I would love her forever if she’d just buy it for me. “How badly do you want it?” she asked.

When I said, “More than anything else,” she said, “Do you want it badly enough to get a job?” I protested that I was only 10 years old and couldn’t get a job, but she said that with a bike I could get a paper route. She said, “I will lend you the money and you can pay me back.”

I asked her why she was doing this – none of my friends had to work to get a bike. Their parents simply gave them their bikes and everything else they wanted.

She said, “If I give you everything you want, and I can afford to do that, you’ll grow up to be a 40-year-old child. I build men, not boys. I want you to grow up to be a 40-year-old man.”

I bought the bike with the money she lent me, and every Sunday I’d ride my bike to Good Shepherd church, sell papers there, and then pay my mother back out of my earnings.

That’s called “tough love,” and over the years nothing changed. When I got my national radio show back in 1992, I was driving 262 miles a day between San Diego and Los Angeles to do my show, and I wasn’t making any money.

I began to feel sorry for myself, even crying in the car one day. I didn’t know what to do, so I called my mom, probably looking for a handout.

I asked her what I could do, that I was driving 262 miles a day and not making any money, my kids were in school, Colleen was at work trying to take care of the family, and my mom said, “I can tell you what to do.” And I asked “what?” and she said, “Who said you don’t have to pay your dues? You need to pay your dues like everybody else. Shut up and keep driving.” And she hung up

That was 16 years ago. I kept driving. And it all worked out.

Who I am today politically is because of Ronald Reagan. But if you really want to learn what made me the man I am, you have to look to Jane Wyman. She made award winning films – she also made a man.

Thank you, Mom.

©2007 Mike Reagan. If you’re not a paying subscriber to our service, you must contact us to print or web post this column. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc. Cari Dawson Bartley email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561.

A Few Questions for Fred Thompson

Fred Thompson’s opening shot in launching his campaign on the Jay Leno show was impressive, but now he has to forget the sound bites and the folksy advice and get down to brass tacks.

To begin with, he has to give the voters in the primary states a good reason to pick him over all the other Republican candidates. He has to tell them not only where he stands on the issues, but also what he plans to do about them.

It’s not enough to say he wants a better America – after all, everybody wants that. He has to spell out how he plans to get there.

What is he going to do to give us the smaller government candidates keep promising but never seem to provide?

What is he going to do to win the war in Iraq and the war against terrorism?

How does he plan to create a fairer income tax system that rewards hard work rather than punishes it?

He needs to answer those questions and be very specific in his answers.

The voters won’t want to know how he feels about issues – they can get all that touchy-feely stuff from the Democrats – they want to know exactly what he plans to do about them, and how he plans to do it.

He has to explain how he plans to deal with Capitol Hill, where the Democrats control both houses of Congress and aren’t exactly enthusiastic about the Republican way of doing things.

For that matter, what would he do while running for the presidency to help his party regain control of the Congress in the 2008 elections if he’s at the top of the ticket? While the media consider that impossible, the utter failure of the Democrats in Congress to do anything worthwhile gives the GOP a fighting chance.

In other words, what would he do to provide the coattails that could carry Congressional candidates into Washington with him?

Does he understand that he needs to reach out to Republican officeholders and candidates all across the nation and help them stay in office or win a seat in Congress in order to build the kind of organizational support he will need to win the various state primaries?

Does he understand that the national polls that show Giuliani ahead and Thompson running in second or third place are meaningless? What does count are what the locals and state polls show, because that’s where he’ll win or lose.

Does he realize how much hard, grueling, boots-on-the-ground campaigning in every nook and cranny of Iowa and New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida he’ll have to do? Is he ready to develop calluses from shaking hands with tens of thousands of voters, and blisters on his feet from slogging through hot streets or getting his feet cold and wet plowing through snow banks?

The voters don’t want to know how he feels about America; they want to know how he feels about them. Does he see them merely as prospective votes, or as fellow Americans he really wants to serve and protect as their president?

Fred Thompson must realize that Republicans are looking for more than a presidential candidate – they’re hungry for a leader. The GOP hasn’t had a genuine, inspired leader since Newt Gingrich, and before that, my dad, Ronald Reagan.

Given that fact, how does Fred Thompson plan to fill that void? How does he plan to provide the leadership his party craves?

Fred, last night in the debate (which you passed up because you made the judgment that you would rather be watched by six million Jay Leno viewers rather than the mere one million who watched Fox), you allowed John McCain to resurface and tell everybody that a candidate is not elected to manage the presidency, but to be the nation’s leader.

You need to present your leadership vision to the voters in concrete terms. How do you plan to lead your party, and how do you plan to lead America?

Running for the presidency is a tall order. If you’re ready to do all these things in the months ahead, and do them with every ounce of energy and determination you can summon up, you may well be the leader this nation desperately needs.

©2007 Mike Reagan. If you’re not a paying subscriber to our service, you must contact us to print or web post this column. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc. Cari Dawson Bartley email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561.

The Craig Affair: Rampant Hypocrisy

Listening to Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig proclaim in near-thundering terms that he is not gay and never has been gay, I couldn’t help but recall hearing Bill Clinton swear he “did not have sex with that woman.”

All Craig lacked to enforce the comparison was a finger wiggling at the camera. In his case, there was also no trace of bodily fluids on anyone’s dress to prove his guilt, but then there was that guilty plea admitting that he had engaged in disorderly conduct in a men’s room at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport, thereby avoiding admitting that he originally had been charged with soliciting a homosexual encounter with an undercover police officer.

Craig now says he pled guilty simply to get the matter out of the way, but surely as a lawmaker he had to know that he could easily have pleaded nolo contendere (no contest) without owning up to having been a bad boy and having that damning guilty plea on the record.

The media has jumped on this story as if the senator were Paris Hilton in drag. Aside from the ribald comments it has provoked, such as Jay Leno’s remark to Sen. John McCain — who had said that his colleagues don’t socialize with one another — that his lonely fellow senators could always find companionship in airport men’s rooms.

When they involve politics, scandals such as this one are certain to find partisanship rearing its head, and the Craig affair is no exception. Because Larry Craig is a staunch conservative from a staunchly conservative state, Democrats and their leftist allies are dancing in the streets over his embarrassment, busily reminding every sympathetic reporter who will listen to them that the Idaho Senator not only espouses family values, but has been a staunch foe of gay marriage.

Ergo, he’s not only a closet men’s room lothario, but a hypocrite as well. It’s a case of “don’t do as I do, do as I say.”

As tempting a target as Craig may be, however, it’s interesting how gingerly the overwhelmingly pro-gay media have approached the subject of his alleged homosexuality.

Except for the more-militant gay activists, at least one of which has charged in unprintable language that Craig isn’t really gay, he just likes to have gay sex, most of the media have avoided any hint that in reporting on the scandal they find Craig’s suspected homosexuality objectionable.

In other words, if he really is gay, that fact itself is off limits. As Jerry Seinfeld used to say after mentioning homosexuality with something less than approval, “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”

In the media’s eyes, however, there is a lot wrong with a closet gay criticizing gay marriage or promoting family values which they see as code for condemning homosexuality and gays.

Democrats and the media define Craig as a hypocrite. By their twisted logic, therefore, anybody who espouses traditional Judeo/Christian values must also be a hypocrite.

As a result, the Craig affair is providing Democrats with an opportunity to attack conservative proponents of traditional family values and conservative foes of gay marriage as a bunch of hypocrites, thereby hoping to deprive the GOP of a pair of politically potent issues.

Democrats want the public to believe that Craig is a hypocrite who speaks one way and acts in another – appearing to be a practicing heterosexual when he is in reality a closet gay – not, they’ll hasten to say, that there’s anything wrong with that.

©2007 Mike Reagan. If you’re not a paying subscriber to our service, you must contact us to print or web post this column. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc. Cari Dawson Bartley email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561.

Just Shut Up, Go Home, and Take Your Kid with You

You would have thought the United States had committed some unforgivable crime against humanity if you listened to the howls of rage emitting from a horde of liberals whining over the fate of an illegal alien who played them for suckers.

Her name is Elvira Arellano and whatever else she may be, she’s a master propagandist who knows full well just which buttons to push to unleash a flood of liberal do-gooder tears from those who don’t recognize a con man (or woman) even when the con is so obvious a ten-year-old could see it.

In case you haven’t been paying attention, for the past year Sra. Arellano has been playing the part of a victim of heartless U.S. immigration laws that demand that she be deported just because as a serial illegal alien she just plain doesn’t belong north of the U.S.-Mexican border, which she has long used a her own personal revolving door.

As part of her con game she managed to find a clergyman who was willing to offer her sanctuary in his church, which she used as a pulpit to preach about the injustice of being persecuted by a brutal government that wanted to ship her south of the border. She wailed it would separate her from her 8-year-old son, the by-product of some furtive sexual encounter with a man she either refuses to identify or whose identity has somehow slipped her mind (if she ever knew in the first place).

Elvira has made herself into the poster girl for amnesty for all illegal aliens, and it’s been a spectacle to watch how she’s done it. Especially since neither she nor her son can speak a word of English.

Safe from the grasping hands of the immigration cops who risked being boiled in media oil had they violated the alleged sanctuary, she created a flood of stories depicting her plight at the hands of the heartless Feds.

Needless to say, the wooly-headed liberals who dominate the media managed to avoid writing about or broadcasting the sordid tale of the real Elvira Arellano. As a result, when justice finally prevailed and she was sent packing by the immigration authorities, a great cry of agony arose from the left and from the illegal immigration community, which cannot understand why most Americans labor under the false belief that people here in the U.S. should obey the law, especially when the law says those wishing to reside within our borders should abide by the laws that restrict immigration to those willing to obey the immigration laws.

Elvira was not among their number. She had one rallying cry – she would not leave the U.S. because to do so would separate her from her beloved love-child, who is legally an American citizen since he was born here.

Who is this woman who has tugged so successfully at the heartstrings of the nation’s liberals?

She snuck into the U.S. years ago, was caught and sent southward in the late ‘90s.

That was just a minor setback in her career – in a matter of a few days she was back in the U.S. where she got pregnant and got a job as a cleaning woman at an airport thanks to a phony Social Security card – a rather serious offense for which would be a sure ticket to the slammer for most people. But not for Elvira. It took 9/11 to get her charged with the crime and ordered out of the U.S. — again.

She didn’t go. Instead she conned a church into giving her sanctuary where she stayed until she rashly ventured forth to promote the virtues of illegal immigration. The Feds nabbed her and promptly deported her, offering to let her take her son — you know, the one she insisted she could not be separated from.

She said no. After all, the kid is a better propaganda tool here in the U.S., allowing her to bewail her “enforced” separation from him.

Liberal tears flowed, all of which proves that there’s more than one sucker born every minute here in the U.S.

©2007 Mike Reagan. If you’re not a paying subscriber to our service, you must contact us to print or web post this column. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc. Cari Dawson Bartley email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561.

The Other Reagan Doctrine: Keeping the Lid On

I got thinking about something my dad Ronald Reagan wrote about in his book “An American Life” about the importance of sometimes keeping secrets from Congress.

He recalled certain things he refused to reveal to members of Congress and explained why he would not take them into his confidence.

For example, he recalled that he would not share with Congress the fact that he was about to go into Grenada to prevent a Communist takeover of that island and to rescue endangered American students there.

He would not share with Congress the fact that he was about to order a fly-by over Khadafy’s Libya, and take out one or two of his homes in the process.

He wouldn’t share with Congress that he was ordering Ed Meese to shoot down Libyan planes if they locked on to our fighter planes with their missiles. He said if our pilots believed they were locked-on they should not hesitate to shoot them down. And they did.

In his book he explained that he didn’t reveal these things because he feared that members of Congress would leak information to the media to try to stop him from carrying out those plans to protect our national security which they opposed.

He knew that such leaks could cause people to lose their lives and be very detrimental to the United States. So he kept his mouth shut.

What got me thinking about this was an article in The Washington Times last week that revealed that the Bush administration was devising a plan to stave off the very serious possibility of a Turkish invasion and military action in northern Iraq.

The story claimed that U.S. Special Forces would work with the Turkish military to locate and capture leaders of a Kurdish rebel group, the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).

Covert action, classified planning, and the utmost secrecy were required if the plan was to succeed in preventing an explosive situation to develop in northern Iraq, which up to now has been the most peaceful area of that troubled country. An invasion by Turkey would upset that apple cart.

It was vital that the plan be kept confidential, and members of Congress were told that fact during Congressional briefings, but unconcerned Capitol Hill blabbermouths chucked security into the trash can when one or more members of Congress present at briefings — conducted in secrecy by Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman — leaked the information to columnist Robert Novak, who published it in his column.

The result: the interests of the United State were undermined and the chance of success of a program vital to the United States was scuttled.

Here we go again with members of Congress. They leaked information either because they disagree with a policy or are just excited over being able to show how important they are in having access to classified information they can leak to the media.

It doesn’t bother them that the leaks prevented something vital to our national security from happening. In this case, the plan no longer has any chance of success because, thanks to the leakers, everyone knows about it.

These members of Congress who can’t or won’t keep a secret need to be held accountable, but they won’t because the one piece of information they won’t leak is who they are.

These leakers could kill us all someday.

It’s a good thing there were no politicians or reporters around when George Washington crossed the Delaware. If they had been the Hessians would have been waiting for them on the other side.

My dad had the right idea: Don’t ask, don’t tell. Just go ahead and do the right thing and keep quiet about it until it’s done.

©2007 Mike Reagan. If you’re not a paying subscriber to our service, you must contact us to print or web post this column. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc. Cari Dawson Bartley email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561.

In The Company of Heroes

It’s not everyday that you get to rub elbows with some of the most courageous Americans alive, but that’s what happened to me the other day when my daughter Ashley and I visited our wounded warriors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.

This is the second time I’ve been there, and after I leave I am utterly uplifted by the experience. After being among these splendid men and women I realize that my worst day will never be anywhere near as bad as some of the worst days these badly wounded warriors went through while battling for freedom in a foreign land, and in the aftermath that has left them terribly disabled.

When I have a bad day, I whimper, I cry, I wimp out — I complain about the unfairness of it all. But these Americans to whom fate has dealt the cruelest of blows remain upbeat, are getting on with their lives and actually looking forward to getting back to their units — or if that is no longer possible, going home to be with their families and getting on with their lives.

When you sit there and listen to their recollections of the horrors they’ve endured in behalf of their country you begin to understand that nothing you have gone through even begins to equal their ordeals.

Their upbeat attitude, in spite of some of the most terrible wounds imaginable, is a lesson in the real meaning of courage and selflessness.

As you move among them and see a warrior who has lost a leg or an arm, you find yourself astounded to be thinking that that man or woman is lucky. Most of the wounded have lost both and arm and a leg, mostly on the same side because of an IED explosion. Some have lost both legs, and both arms.

One young man I saw had lost the entire lower part of his body, yet when I approached him he literally jumped up, by pushing on his arms. And he was smiling and thanked me for coming by. There was no self-pity. He was filled with plans for the future, and spoke of going back to school and getting a college degree and having a career in communications.

As he spoke I wondered just how I would be if I were in his situation – and I doubt that I would have that kind of optimism and the guts to face the future with confidence that I could overcome such a terrible disability and face the future with determination.

It is amazing to watch how well these wonderful men and women adapt themselves to their new circumstances. I watched one young woman who had lost a leg. She wasn’t sitting around bemoaning the loss of her limb. She was skipping rope, thanks to her new prosthetic leg.

As you move among these courageous men and women you begin to appreciate the caliber of our all warriors now in harm’s way. You’ll understand that what you are seeing in the courage of the wounded and their determination to overcome the awful consequence of their disabilities are mirror images of the character of all our men and women now in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They are an extraordinary breed and the hope of this nation’s future.

If you want to begin to appreciate what your fellow Americans in uniform are doing for you and your freedom, when you come to Washington go out to Walter Reed and visit these heroes to whom we owe so much. You’ll be filled with awe and wonderment, as I was.

©2007 Mike Reagan. If you’re not a paying subscriber to our service, you must contact us to print or web post this column. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc. Cari Dawson Bartley email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561.

The Hollywood Culture Takes Over

The Kennedy definition of politics was that it “ain’t beanball,” but as the Democratic debates on CNN the other night showed, politics ain’t even politics anymore – it’s show business a la Hollywood.

Among the Democrats, the culture of American politics has succumbed to the culture of the coke-snorting, booze-soaked Hollywood of Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan and the rest of Tinseltown’s decadent and far-Left celebrities.

Things in Hollywood have changed drastically since my parents’ day. Nowadays we have bizarre incidents involving pampered, out-of-control blondes routinely exposing their private parts, commuting back and forth from rehab center to rehab center or the L.A. Slammer, all while the media celebrates their antics.

Back when my mom and dad were acting, we also had blondes such as Jayne Mansfield and Marilyn Monroe, and even though they were hardly role models for decent behavior, they managed to show restraint, even when cavorting with a president of the United States, as in Monroe’s case.

The current lack of restraint was on display the other night when CNN abandoned any pretense of seriousness and turned the question-asking function of the debate moderator over to a weird conglomeration of clownish inquisitors via YouTube.Com.

Instead of walking off the stage at this degradation of a process allegedly designed to help voters decide who should carry their party’s banner into the 2008 presidential election campaign, the candidates went along with this sham of a debate, dutifully playing the role of straight men to a cast recruited from Looney Tunes.

On display was the culture of Hollywood – the culture of Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan, the Hollywood that marches in lockstep with the militant Marxists who dominate the Democrat party today.

Think about it. In an era when the very survival of civilization is threatened by terrorism organized on a global scale there was not a single mention of the ongoing war on terrorism, which is costing lives every day.

Instead we have a questioner dressed as a sock puppet asking about global warming. Now that’s bad enough, but what is even worse is that he was taken seriously.

I don’t blame the debaters for this debacle as much as I blame CNN for allowing what was meant to be a debate to become a venue for Hollywood-style show business. I am surprised that they didn’t include among the questioners Miss Hilton or Miss Lohan or at the very least, Rosie O’Donnell.

CNN also managed to include a question about gun rights from what they would like the audience to believe was a typical supporter of Second Amendment rights to gun ownership – an AK47-toting fanatic who resembled an average American National Rifle Association member about as much as Cindy Sheehan resembles an average Gold Star Mother.

When the culture of Hollywood dominates politics, the real issues are stifled – the public is denied an opportunity to understand that the real underlying issue is the struggle between a party that wishes to impose their Marxist policies and programs on the nation and the Republicans who don’t. Democrats want big government and Republicans insist that the best government is the government that governs the least.

When spectacle edges substance aside, you get such aberrations being taken seriously as one candidate’s proposal to give free medical care to illegal aliens or another’s idea of giving sex education to five-year-olds.

When the culture of Hollywood dominates the political discourse you end up having debates that tell the American people nothing of substance.

Politics becomes a spectacle something like the Academy Awards where the participants show up in their most glamorous attire, mutter a lot of meaningless dialogue, celebrate each other’s celebrity, while the media oglesfrom the sidelines.

The Hollywood-ized debates are stupid. The other night, CNN went a step further and made them asinine.

©2007 Mike Reagan. If you’re not a paying subscriber to our service, you must contact us to print or web post this column. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc. Cari Dawson Bartley email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561.

Danger: Democrats at Work

When the Democrats took control of Congress they couldn’t wait to tell America how much they were going to accomplish.

That was seven months ago, and all they’ve done since is rant about the war in Iraq, talk about raising taxes, and go on a witch hunt in an attempt to find something — anything – illegal in the firing of a handful of U. S. Attorneys who got the boot from the Justice Department when the president exercised his constitutional right to right to fire them without explanation. This provides a glimpse into their utter incompetence as lawmakers.

Consider:

The recent speech of Louisiana Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu gave us a prime example of the Democrats’ inability to get anything straight, including geography.

This week, she introduced an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill stating that the foremost objective of the U.S. Government is to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and to dismantle the al Qaeda terrorist network.

Her amendment would move troops from Iraq where they’re locked in a battle with al Qaeda terrorists, and send them to Afghanistan to launch a hunt for bin Laden.

That would be some hunt.

Does Mary Landrieu have any idea what she’s doing? After all, if you are going to hunt for Osama bin Laden wouldn’t it be a good idea for hunt for him where we know he is? And where his is, is not Afghanistan.

Somebody with a better idea of geography should inform Mary Landrieu that bin Laden is holed up in Pakistan, a country she may not know is next door to Afghanistan.

Sending troops to Afghanistan to search for bin Laden would make as much sense as sending a geography student to Mary Landrieu to find out where Beluchistan is located. They’d probably end up in Flatbush.

Then we have the promises Nancy Pelosi made — often with Rep. John Murtha at her side — to clean up the alleged mess in Congress, taking aim at such slimy practices as so-called earmarks, billons of pork slipped into appropriations bills in the dead of night to benefit a member of Congress.

According to The Politico Web site, Arizona Republican Jeff Flake – a watchdog on the alert for earmarks — spotted one which aroused his curiosity.

Flake was questioning Indiana Democrat Peter J. Visclosky, who chairs the subcommittee recommending the appropriation, about whether there was really something called the Center for Instrumental Critical Infrastructure which was slated in an earmark to collect a cool one million dollars courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers. He said his staff couldn’t find a website for it,

He was asked by Flake, “Does the Center currently exist?” Visclosky admitted he didn’t have a clue.

His shocking admission: “At this time, I do not know.” He then added that if it doesn’t exist “the monies could not go to it.”

According to The Politico, it then later developed that the $1 million earmark was for the benefit of Mrs. Pelosi’s bosom buddy, and fellow crusader against congressional corruption, one Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.

It later turned out that the Center is a nonprofit technological consulting firm. The Politico noted that “A brief search of campaign finance records shows CTC President and CEO Daniel R. DeVos, of alternately Central City and Johnstown, Pa. has contributed $7,000 to Murtha’s reelection campaign since April 2002.”

Flake moved to eliminate the funds destined for a group nobody could be sure existed, but the House rejected his attempt to strike the funds, 326-98. The Visclosky bill also breezed through, 312-112.

So much for Mrs. Pelosi’s crusade against congressional corruption.

©2007 Mike Reagan. If you’re not a paying subscriber to our service, you must contact us to print or web post this column. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc. Cari Dawson Bartley email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561.

A Culture War of Words

If anybody doubts America is engaged in a culture war and losing it they need only to take a look at the series of concerts promoting Al Gore’s global warming hoax last weekend. They would have learned that the war is being waged in the sewers.

America is facing an army of foul-mouthed, tattooed guttersnipes who have the gall to proclaim they want to save the planet by putting on performances laced with some of the foulest language ever heard from a stage.

As those who made the mistake of watching any of these concerts here or abroad discovered, the enemies of culture are unable to complete a sentence without using the “F” word at least once, along with liberal sprinklings of the “S” word.

And their foul-mouthed rhetoric was not the least of it: the audiences ate it up and the performers knew that when they spewed their obscene filth they were giving their decadent fans exactly what they wanted.

That fact has not escaped the people who run the nation’s TV networks; nowadays it’s hard to find a TV drama that does not seed the dialogue with “F” words. If you have watched hit series such as “Deadwood” you quickly learned that the “F” word was among the milder epithets. That series introduced terms never before heard outside of men’s locker rooms or prison cells.

I went to a lot of concerts years ago. I never heard Frank Sinatra or any other performer use a single obscenity during their performances. Moreover, if any of them had uttered anything as foul as the “F” word, they would have been driven off the stage.

If you think I’m making too big a thing about the incredible degradation of language, keep in mind it represents the decline in the level of civility since the culture warriors declared war on decency. The widespread use of the “F” word is a symptom of the disease.

The America in which I grew up had standards, and people’s public behavior was judged by how well they measured up to those standards. One was expected to toe the line when it came to the way they communicated with one another. We were expected to show our respect to our fellow Americans by avoiding offensive words. Once upon a time one was expected to be a gentlemen or lady, and those terms — now treated with scorn — described people who had the utmost of respect for those around them and showed it in their everyday behavior.

Those who deviated from the accepted standards were told to “keep a civil tongue in your mouth.”

That’s no longer true. Comedians vie with each other to use the most extreme obscenities and sexual innuendos. What was once called “street language” is now considered normal discourse. Things once considered sacred are now seen as commonplace. Sex is no longer an expression of love between a man and a woman – today it’s seen as recreation, like a game of golf, to be portrayed on stage and screen without restraint.

In any civilization that desires to survive, simple decency and courtesy are crucial elements. In a society headed for the sewer, anything goes. And when anything goes — when the most extreme forms of language and behavior come to be seen as normal — civilization is transformed into barbarism.

That’s what’s at stake in the culture wars. A society bereft of standards that demand civilized behavior among its people is a society where the individual is deemed worthless as being anything but a consumer for the degraded wares of the smut peddlers and a source of income to pay for the schemes of those who sell Marxist snake oil such as global warming as a means of subjugating the populace.

And the more addicted to slime that populace becomes, the easier it is to subjugate them.

©2007 Mike Reagan. If you’re not a paying subscriber to our service, you must contact us to print or web post this column. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc. Cari Dawson Bartley email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561.