The 500-lb Iranian Gorilla in the Room

Iran is the problem in the Middle East.

In the late 1970’s one of the weakest Presidents our nation has ever known, Jimmy Carter, handed control of the most influential country in the Middle East over to Muslim extremists and fascists. In an act of pathetic Liberal appeasement (almost as disgusting as Neville Chamberlain circa 1938-39) and by his inaction and unwillingness to use overwhelming force, Carter helped usher in the Islamic Revolution, eventually resulting in the yearlong hostage standoff involving hundreds of American citizens.

One of the proponents and participants of that revolution, who personally helped seize the American Embassy in Tehran, was none other than current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Another coveted position old Mahmoud held in the 80’s was this: commander of the brigade in charge of removing land mines from the Iran/Iraq border during their war with Saddam Hussein.

Sounds harmless, even noble? I forgot to add something important. He removed the mines by recruiting volunteers to walk on the mines and die as martyrs. No, wait. It gets worse. The Ahmadinejad recruits were children under the age of 15.

So Mahmoud can check devoted, militant, fanatical follower of the prophet Muhammad off his “Life Goals” list made in high school. His Islamic radical guidance counselor would be so proud. Unfortunately this man is not just insane. He’s also highly intelligent with a special genius for evil. He knew exactly what he was doing then just like he does now. He is a university-trained engineer, doctoral recipient, and former Mayor of Tehran, all before being elected President of Iran. He is no simpleton. That’s what makes him so dangerous.

For the last 30 years Iran has been on the attack against America. First there were the American hostages in 1979. Then the killing of 250 Marines by an Iranian sponsored terrorist groups in 1983 in Lebanon. The same group also hijacked planes on three separate occasions during the 1980’s.

This summer we saw Iran (Hezbollah) as they cowardly shot rockets into Israeli towns with little concern whether civilian or soldier was hit. Iran praised the work of Hezbollah and sent over $200 million in aide to be handed out to the Lebanese people. The strategy was to undermine Israel (as if they needed further undermining in that region), but more importantly, to undermine American/British support of Israel. While they have a unique hatred for Israel, their hatred only starts there.

Iran is currently living large by spitting in the face of Europe, the United Nations and the United States while moving ahead at an alarming pace to arm themselves with nuclear capabilities. They’ve announced their plan to expand their centrifuge capabilities (the devices required to turn uranium into fissionable material used in nuclear bombs). President Ahmadinejad barely blushes as he tells the world just how those bombs will be used.

Opening a security conference in Tehran on July 8th, Mahmoud called for mobilization of the Islamic world to “remove the Zionist regime” known as Israel. He stated that the nations of the Middle East were beyond furious and that, “It will not be long before this intense fury will lead to a huge explosion.” Four days later, Hezbollah started a month-long war with Israel which witnessed over 120 rockets a day shot into the homes of Israelis.

This week Ahmadinejad held a “Holocaust Denial” conference apparently to explain away how six million Jews simply disappeared from the planet (having vanished mysteriously between the years 1939 and 1945). Rabid anti-Semites finally could cash in their saved-up “Frequent Flyer” miles and find just the right holiday destination. (Hunny, how quickly can you have your bags packed for Tehran?) At a press conference after the Hate-Fest ran out of steam for the day, Mahmoud vowed that Israel would be “wiped off the map” soon enough. He promised that Israel would follow the path of the former Soviet Union (the key difference being that Israel will be instantly blown out of existence and the Ruskies were slowly drained economically and morally by a President, Pope, and Prime Minster).

What I wish to stress to you, the reader, is just how dangerous, just how serious Iran is about instigating WWIII. Ahmadinejad is a well-educated, religious zealot who ascribes to a brand of Islam that teaches there is a 12th Imam (the Pope of Islam) that has been hidden for ten centuries in a well somewhere. When the wet (and perhaps slightly arthritic) Imam emerges it will be with Jesus by his side (no joke). Islam will then dominate the world once again and a Caliphate (Islamic theocracy) will rule for a thousand years.

Now, where have we heard all this before? 1) do away with all the Jews; 2) instigate a world-wide conflict to usher in a 1000 year reign; 3) spit in the face of the world’s democracies when told to halt the proliferation of weapons and 4) fill the role of promised savior? Let’s see – did anything ever come of Hitler’s ranting and raving? Or should we just ignore history and negotiate with Iran’s president as the modern liberals and appeasement-crazy moderates suggest? Unless I’m mistaken the last time we tried to appease a megalomaniac we ended up with a World War II monument in Washington D.C. and 50 million dead from nations throughout the world.

Here’s the truth.

President Ahmadinejad daily promises the destruction of our staunchest ally in the Middle East (Israel). He also boasts that the “head of Satan” (read America) will be next in line. He has twice sent open letters to President Bush and the American people basically warning us to repent or perish. Ahmadinejad states that only when we Americans are out of the picture will “freedom be achieved for the world.”

He is the Hitler of our time.

He blames the Jews for his people’s self-inflicted wounds. He promises total world dominance. He refuses to comply with the promises and treaties made by his predecessors to reduce his military (nuclear) build-up. He talks of a thousand-year rule by Islam. Are you getting the correlation here between old Mahmoud and Mein Furher?

Incidentally Ahmadinejad promises the return of that overly-hydrated Imam in the next two years.

Here’s what we have going in our favor. Iraq and Afghanistan offer strategic staging areas where a potential military strike against Iran could occur. Our naval capabilities in the Persian Gulf could be ready at a moment’s notice to pound targets inside of Iran. A large number of Iranians would welcome the chance to install a true democracy and can aid us with key intelligence and in the formation of a government to replace Mahmoud’s five year Reich.

The result would be a world spared the horrors of a nuclear bomb in the hands of a certified lunatic. We could achieve peace through victory – rather than defeat through appeasement. And we have a President in office – despite his recent setbacks – who I believe still cares more about the protection of the American people than he does his popularity or legacy.

Here’s what’s not in our favor. Americans and Europeans are more interested in Nicole Richie’s DUI than saving us from Adolph junior. Lately many Republicans are sounding just as weak on the War on Terror as Democrats have been. We’re losing our moral clarity and courage to do what has to be done because it might be unpopular. And we have a Democratic majority about to take over Congress who believes you can negotiate with terrorist nations.

Now here’s the reality.

We can stand up to Iran and Syria now and do what has to be done. There is still time to act, but it must be soon. Or we can wait until their nukes have been dropped and we’re left with that post-9/11 feeling of, “How did this happen without anyone seeing it coming?”

Consider yourself warned.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881878838&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501428.html

I Feel Like I'm Taking Crazy Pills

Why does America love Obama so much?

I know, I know. About a month ago I wrote a piece entitled, “Obama-mania” and now I already have another one on the junior Senator from Illinois. But, Barack Obama’s celebrity has reached such ridiculous heights that I am compelled to shed more light in the big, dark closet Obama has somehow kept out of sight.

First off, Obama (D-Il) has gotten more face time in the media lately than Ryan Seacrest. He’s been on Leno, Letterman, The View, Oprah, Conan, Charlie Rose, Good Morning America, and Ellen since the summer. Those are stats that would make any Hollywood actor’s publicist jealous. You can’t turn on the television without this guy’s handsome mug smiling right back at you, almost as if he knows there’s nothing you or I can do about it.

My tipping point came this week when Senator Barack Hussein Obama appeared on Monday Night Football!!! Are you kidding me? Someone pull the ripcord on this P.R. nightmare. What team of monkeys is running this guy’s yet-to-be-announced campaign for the 2008 Presidential race? Can you say, “over-exposure”? When I thought the interview with B. Hussein Obama (yep, that is his actual middle name) couldn’t get any more inconsequential, the one guy in the booth who is a Senator started to sing the MNF theme music as they cut to commercial. Think the Asian kid from American Idol a few years back that sang Ricky Martin.

I’m afraid that the love affair the mass media has with this guy has gotten to his head. Perhaps it’s more appropriate to say that it has gotten to the heads of those around him who see a chance to go for more power. Whichever it is (probably both), Obama has seemingly “jumped the shark” on his popularity and chances at legitimately running for President. Only in America could that be true and there be no mention of the person’s actual credentials and/or experience that would qualify him (or her) for serving in the highest position in the land. Obama has utilized the excitement surrounding himself since his famous speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention to mask his true colors, and let us just say that his blood is bluer than even Mrs. Clinton.

For those of you who do not know, one of the only honest gauges we as voters have of elected officials is their voting record. The news channels and talk radio can only get you so far when trying to learn what a Senator stands for. Politics is a results-driven business (unless you’re an elected official from MA, IL, NY, or CA) and what lobbyists and special interest groups and voters want is their elected official to vote for things that matter to them. You get what you vote for. In Obama’s case, the people of Illinois apparently wanted the third most liberal Senator in Washington D.C.

Congressional Quarterly gave Barack Hussein a 97% ranking for the percentage of times that Obama votes against Republican legislation. A liberal lobbying group, Americans for Democratic Action, ranked Obama as more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and as liberal as John Kerry. He has voted to support federal spending for abortions. He supports legislation to withdraw American troops from Iraq immediately (something that every report and commission this side of Tehran has declared would be an unmitigated disaster). He vehemently opposes the Patriot Act, which happens to be the reason that a terrorist attack was stopped last week in his own home state (Rockford, IL).

The results are in, amigo, and they say Obama is no moderate. Which is fine, if he wasn’t running around the country telling everyone how mainstream and centrist he is. The media is buying it, and slowly the masses will as well. NBC and CBS aren’t going to run segments on how liberal Obama’s voting record has been. CNN won’t ask political analysts if the country is ready for such a liberal President. Instead, they asked each other Monday night on Wolf Blitzer’s Situation Room if the country was ready for a black leader? As if America is jus too racist and the only reason someone wouldn’t vote for Barack is because he’s black.

To make matters worse, Obama was in New Hampshire this past weekend and spoke to a sold-out crowd (of 1000 people) and responded that same question by saying, “The same people who wouldn’t vote for me because I’m black are probably the same people who wouldn’t vote for me because of my politics.” Wow!

So, to sum it up Senator Obama, you are saying that all Republicans are racist? Fair enough. I guess that means that every Democrat in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Ohio are racist as well. Lynn Swann ran for governor in PA and lost and he is black. Michael Steele ran for Senate in Maryland and lost and he is black. The Republicans in Ohio picked a black man to run for Governor and he lost too. Just try and imagine the New York Times’ response to Lynn Swann accusing Democrats in his state of being racist because he did not win.

My point here is that Obama is not worth even mentioning as a Presidential candidate. He has two years in the Senate. He is basically the most liberal-voting Senator since he took office. He is already playing the race card and the white-guilt-ridden media is lapping up his slop. My dislike for him has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with his policies. Obama travels the nation telling everyone that he is a new breed of politician and can be an alternative to the old game of partisan politics. This would be true, if it wasn’t so false. His voting record is Ted Kennedy liberal and that is what lost John Kerry the election in 2004. The plan here is so transparent, it is laughable.

The Democrats think they can sneak one past America pushing this guy who claims to be in the middle, when in reality he is a blue-blood liberal. The media machine has hyped Obama in a Hollywood-esque manner, but I beg you all to see through this charade and pay him no mind. Hillary will be the Democrats nomination in 2008. She is who the conservatives need to focus on. It is insulting to the public’s intelligence for the Democrats and their media cohorts to think we cannot see Obama for the light-weight he really is.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12122006/news/nationalnews/barackground_info_nationalnews_ian_bishop.htm

Iraq Study Group Update

The High and Low-lights from the Baker Commission

After months of research and interviews The Iraq Study Group (charged by Congress to create a bi-partisan assessment of the War in Iraq) has finally blessed this great nation with their prophetic findings. I hope to locate just how many tax payers’ dollars were “utilized” to find out from Baker and his boys (and girls) that, and I quote, “The White House must stay in constant contact with the Iraqi leadership.”

Good stuff, guys (and gals). Bush and Condi probably are just now putting Prime Minister Maliki in their “Five Favorite Friends” list on their T-Mobile cell phones, right after Nancy Pelosi, Paris Hilton, and Nicole Richie.

I think the best part of the “release party” held for the James Baker (former Sec. Of Defense) led panel to “drop” their findings on an anticipatory public was when one reporter asked Baker, “Why should the President, or anyone for that matter, take your panel’s advice?”

The reporter was not trying to be smug, but honestly wanted to know why all the fuss had been made about the findings of a panel comprised of people who know nothing of Military strategy? Fair enough. Not one general or military commander sat on the panel. While I could not locate the name of that reporter, he hit the nail on the preverbal head.

Baker’s response, nothing, to the question was a better answer than he knew at the time. Jimmy B looked like a deer in headlights, probably because he never expected to be asked to actually defend the legitimacy of his work. It must have been assumed by the commission that they’re findings would be accepted as Gospel by the flocks of “sheeple” that are the American people.

What would have really made things interesting in that press conference is if one of the reporters had the guts to point out that Baker’s law firm has one of their main office in Saudi Arabia, where they represent many high-ranking officials in that government. Want to know the cases that Baker is helping to defend the Saudi’s in? Baker’s firm is currently battling the families of 9/11 victims who have brought litigation against the Saudi government since 90% of the 19 hijackers that fateful day hailed from this same country. Just an FYI.

The Saudis would love to get in on that Iraqi oil, and Baker is pushing for more dialogue, input and aid from surrounding nations such as Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran. This is in direct opposition from President Bush’s take on the situation, and it also complicates the charge that it is President Bush who is in cahoots with those same Saudi Princes. Figure that one out, MoveOn.org!

Back to the report itself. I guess you could say it has some merit. Baker now has cheap Christmas gifts he can send to friends and family. The report was published in book form and is now hot off the press, at a Barnes & Noble near you. I got suckered into the 9/11 Commission Report two years ago, and will not be falling for that one again. Thank you, Google.

But, in all seriousness, the IGS Report is nothing new and is simply going to give Liberals/Democrats more ammunition for their constant bombardment of Bush’s Operation Iraqi Freedom. The ammunition will only come from excerpts and snippets of the report because the overwhelming majority of it says exactly what Bush and Rumsfeld have said all along. We cannot pull our troops out prematurely. We must continue to equip the Iraqi forces and train them to control the violence their own countrymen are engaged in. We cannot stay there forever and the Iraqi public must aid more in continual creation of a working Democratic government. Oh, and incidentally, we were not prepared for the level of insurgency we have faced.

That is the part we will hear over and over again. We were ill prepared. Fine. I concede that point. President Bush has conceded that point. The real point though is that that is not the point. War in utterly unpredictable and necessitates constant adaptation. Baker’s commission says that American troops have adapted, under the leadership of incredible generals and leaders (sorry John Kerry, but this means Bush too). It has been the shockingly inept ability of Iraqi troops to figure out what the heck they are doing.

World War II saw millions of American farmers, teachers, and factory workers who had done little more than fire a shotgun in their entire lives go through training, fierce combat in two theatres of war, achieve victory, and get home for mom’s Apple pie in less time. We cannot make Iraqi soldiers understand the importance of their ability to gain competence in military/policing efforts. It will take time and this is no time to lose our patience. We dare not leave them before they are ready.

Yes, we are stuck between Iraq and a hard place. But who said life lets you off the hook just because you’re tired of sacrifice? That’s why they call it sacrifice. You keep giving even when it is costly, inconvenient, and frustrating.

The reason I am writing this piece specifically is to arm you with some context and perspective before CNN and CBS Evening News gets to you. Regardless of what you hear in the following weeks and months, please remember a few things.

First, our boys can, and will, get these Iraqi soldiers trained and ready by next year. This really is the key to scaling back our own involvement over there. Everyone agrees on this. It has taken longer than we thought, but after 30 years of Sadaam we cannot expect these people to grasp what a democracy (and the defense of it) means over night.

Second, involving Syria or Iran in the pacification of Iraq would be worse than electing a John Murtha/Alec Baldwin ticket in 2008. It is unconscionable that a Congressionally appointed panel such as this would even suggest that we play ball with the craziest leaders on the planet. If we let the Syrian/Iranian thugs/murderers/terrorists in now, they’ll effectively have gained control of Iraq and its’ oil. Iran and Syria are the reason for the season of violence that has not stopped in Iraq! Both countries are state-sponsors of terrorism. It is the policy of the United States to not negotiate with terrorists. You do the math.

Third, the troops want to come home worse than you want them to come home. Imagine Christmas in 120-degeree heat, fighting to protect people you’ll never see again and probably are ridiculing you in Arabic, and with little more than a phone call allowed to hear your little daughter’s voice. What we hear from the troops, however, is that they understand their mission and whole-heartedly believe in its eventual success. Leave them alone. Don’t take it upon yourself to lend your disingenuous moral “support” by constantly ragging on their mission. Use that energy to pray every night for their safety and speedy return. God, and the troops, will appreciate it more. No one likes a whiner.

Lastly, have a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah and Happy New Year. Be thankful for what you have and take time during your holiday celebrations to pause and reflect in the company of loved ones what it means to live in the, “land of free and home of the brave.”

I don’t need a “commission” or “group” or “finding” to tell me that I am free because they are brave.

Winning the Future

Why America Must Emerge Victorious In Iraq

Christmas Day of 1776 was a pivotal day in our nation’s history. Many of you may already know the story from history lessons in school, but it is worth recounting here again. Not only was this day a crucial one for the Revolutionary War, but it also speaks to our current situation in Iraq.
General Washington had brought his generals together for a meeting a few days before to discuss the next move for the Continental Army. British victories up and down the New York countryside from July to December had Washington and his men reeling and in desperate need of something to cheer about. This was the tipping point in the war. Another defeat in battle would spell defeat for the entire campaign to win freedom from Britain.

With reduced troop numbers, the odds stacked against him, and doubt running rampant throughout the halls of the Continental Congress as to whether Washington had been the right choice to lead, he told his generals something they did not expect to hear. There was to be an attack on the German mercenary troops stationed in Princeton during the early morning hours of New Years’ Eve. Washington had raised, and was going all-in.

From here we all know that Washington led the attack by crossing the ice floe ridden Delaware River. The Continental Army roundly defeated the Germans and British soldiers they surprised that day and any historian will confirm that this was the turning point in the Revolutionary War. It really is quite a little story that could have gone the other way and then perhaps I would be paying about 12 pounds for my Chipotle burritos nowadays instead of $6 American dollars.

Congress recently appointed former Secretary of State James Baker to lead a commission to evaluate the current situation in Iraq and to make suggestions for further courses of action. This group has consulted everyone from four-star generals to the guy from Domino’s who use to deliver pizzas to Slick Willy when he got the munchies in the White House. Their findings and proposals will be released soon, and many are greatly interested in what is revealed. I am one of those people.

I, same as anyone else, want this war to end as quickly as possible. Things are bad in Iraq. No one could have expected the trouble we’ve encountered. No general or Commander-in-Chief is perfect. Defeats are what create character in us more than victories do. Defeats are what spurn men and women to rise above the failure and achieve unthinkable successes.

The Baker Commission, as it is now known, is said to have three options to offer. Go big, go long, or go home. Go big means that we bring over more troops with the intent to quickly and forcefully quell the sectarian violence. Go long means that we slowly reduce troops numbers as Iraqi forces become more competent to protect their own people. Go home means…it means…well, just ask the Democrats what it means.

I am not trying to belittle the men and women of the Baker Commission, but shouldn’t they be upfront and clear that winning is the best, and only, option? Call me old fashioned, but America is not in the business of losing wars. I know Vietnam is already on the tip of your tongue, but just because the Congress of 1975 was too weary or too cowardly to face down Communism in Southeast Asia and members of the Left so ungrateful they harassed the troops that did go and fight, does not mean we are predestined to repeat their folly. And, the truth in Vietnam was that our military never lost any ground that they took. It was the shortsightedness of the American public’s general opinion that lost Vietnam. Sound familiar?

What if General Washington had decided to take a poll of the troops that morning to see if anyone was up for a secret attack in the freezing weather with little ammunition and basically no winter clothing? “Guys, I know your feet are bleeding from lack of proper foot-wear, and those Red Coats just kicked our butts three times in a row since Boston, but lets get into over-crowded boats and ford this dangerous river where impeccably well trained Hessian troops will be awaiting us. What do you say? Our morale will be much higher after this, I promise.”

What do you think the Baker Commission would have had to say about our troops’ situation there? Something tells me that CNN would be running specials like, “Is It Too Late For Peace With King George?” The New York Times would have editorials calling for the Continental Congress and the dumb guy from Mount Vernon (who probably rigged an election to be selected Commander of the Continental Army in the first place) to negotiate a settlement and give up their silly pipe dreams of freedom and independence in a place where it had never existed before.

From our inception, America is a country of winners. We leave losing to the French. I agree with the idea of a new strategy in Iraq. It will take courageous, innovative, and steadfast leadership to get that country into a position where its’ own military and police force can defend and protect the Iraqi people.

Negotiating with Iran and Syria is out of the question. That is comparable to the FBI asking the Mafia in Miami to help crack down on drug smuggling through the ports. We legitimize the pathetic, terrorist sponsoring governments of Tehran and Damascus if we bring them in on this. They are the reason things are continually deteriorating in that region of the world to begin with.

We need American leaders and generals to once again rise to the challenge and present a new, revamped strategy for victory in this crucial battle in the War on Terror. And make no mistake about it, Iraq is the front line in that war whether we care to admit it or not.

Now is the time to cross the Delaware River, not jump off the bridge.


http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/021jenri.asp

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/FrankJGaffneyJr/2006/12/04/the_iraq_surrender_group

"Is this corn hand-shucked?"

Another Reason I am a Republican

My dad’s favorite movie is What About Bob? In it, a neurotic man with a strong need for family connections hounds his doctor and his family while they’re on vacation. The most famous scene from the film is when the main character, Bob Wiley, played by Bill Murray, is enjoying a delicious homemade meal of fried chicken, corn on the cob, mashed potatoes, and salad. Bob, who would usually be eating dinner out of a box by himself in his lonely apartment, asks if the corn he is partaking in happens to be hand-shucked or not?

The reason this is funny, in case you are German, is because Bob's so lucky that the Marvin family is even having him for dinner, but he cannot help himself and asks a very inconsequential question that borders on discourteous. Of course in the movie the good doctor’s brood loves everything Bob does and says and sees no harm in any of his bizarre antics. They are more interested in helping Bob and can tell he is harmless.

While this film is just that, a film, it rang true to a different tune recently when I heard about a newly passed statute in the state of Virginia (which happens to be where the film itself was actually filmed). Turns out the state government felt it necessary to pass legislation to further hinder private charities and faith-based organizations from serving the needs of the homeless community. A lawsuit brought by a man without a home who had eaten food at a homeless shelter and gotten food poison raised enough eyebrows to enact a law that restricts who can give free meals to the homeless.

Next week I think my state should pass a law that will stop those pesky volunteer tutors who help newly immigrated students because I heard one little girl got a bad grade on her math test the other day.

The new restrictions make it mandatory for a governmental approval and inspection before any food is served to the homeless; anywhere at anytime. That part of the law makes some sense, but is still over-reaching. The real kicker in this is that churches and shelters are required to have industrial quality refrigerators, sinks, and dish-washing equipment. I don’t know if you’ve seen the price tag for any of those items lately, but it will not be cheap. One thing every church and charity on the planet constantly struggles to have is money.

My father is a pastor and he has spent 15 of his 30 years in the ministry in the inner city. One church that we served in the 90’s is on the North side of Chicago. The church ran a homeless men’s shelter out of the basement and housed three to four dozen men almost every night of the year. My brothers and sisters and I helped numerous times in the kitchen preparing food for meals and cleaning dishes afterwards. I also can tell you that the program that fed the men barely scraped by on a daily basis. Money was always the issue. While those running the church and shelter believed God would provide, they knew how important making their dollar stretch really was.

President Bush, in his first term, enacted laws that gave tax breaks to faith-based organizations and charities. Not just religious ones, but secular as well. He was roundly criticized for pandering to his “base”. I guess if his base consists of the men, women, and children who benefit from free meals and clothing and warm places to sleep then he was preaching to the choir.

Conservative Republicans believe firmly in helping their fellow man. The government will, and must, exact some measure of control over such organizations for obvious reasons. However, if the real intent of charity work is to promote the general welfare of those less fortunate then what sense is it to force already struggling churches and shelters to dig deeper into empty pockets? This is counter-productive and foolish.

I understand that homeless people are hurting for basic needs. That is given. But, I have also seen firsthand that almost every single one of them is grateful for any help they can get. It is a sad and lonely life they lead. The kindness their fellow man is willing to show does not go unnoticed. They don’t care what kind of sink the vegetables are washed off in. They are just glad the vegetables did not come from a dumpster. Imagine what kind of life that would be. Now imagine you are turned away from a shelter you frequent because they couldn’t afford the right size of fridge.

Maybe we should stop allowing people to put money in the cups of begging homeless downtown Chicago to prevent one of them from receiving counterfeit money, or worse yet, Canadian cash?

Republicans want small government and tax breaks for those who help the helpless. Democrats want your tax money, and then they will cut off who can help who so everyone is forced to come groveling back to the government. The Democrats want the government to grow. They believe that Big Brother should foot the bill for the “little guy”. They just don’t tell the little guy that it is his own money they’ll be borrowing to pick up the tab.

People helping people is what we need. Not overfed bureaucracies. Let’s give the people on the front lines of helping the neediest people in our country, a break. I doubt the homeless care whether or not the corn is hand-shucked.