I hope everyone had a nice and safe Independence Day this past July 4th. On the occasion of our nation's 232nd birthday, I watched fireworks, ate barbecue, and was thankful for the opportunity afforded by my country to pursue such happiness. I'm sure many others did the same in their own patriotic way.

That's right, I said "patriotic," as in "patriotism." Why the big deal in pointing that out? It seems that patriotism has become somewhat of a hot-button issue these days, mostly in regards to the upcoming presidential election, but also because of the differences in the "support Bush/hate Bush" factions of our society.

Take the ubiquitous flag lapel pin, for example. One side wears the pin with pride, the other says that merely wearing a flag pin is not patriotism, it is more akin to jingoism; if you don't wear a flag pin, they say, it does not mean you are not patriotic. Fair enough. I don't think whether you wear a flag pin determines whether you are a patriotic American, but I don't think someone should be criticized for wearing one. And I do think advertising your support for your country and publicly honoring the flag of your country by wearing a flag pin is decidedly patriotic.

But now, a new wrinkle is being folded into the discussion. The issue of the use of the word patriotism is now being called into question, taking this argument of being patriotic one step further. As reported by see-dubya on Michelle Malkin's website, NPR journalist Daniel Schorr has now stated that patriotism has been "corrupted by misuse." He states that he has "come to suspect most assertions of patriotism, and most accusations of unpatriotism." He further states that "patriotism is not a matter of lapel pins, or flags in your front yard. And you get to define patriotism for yourself." He has asked that politicians "declare a moratorium on references to patriotism."

Of course that's just plain silly, but it does suggest that one's patriotism is a gray area that is not so easily defined. In some cases, that may be true, but in other cases, I think it's quite clear cut whether an action is patriotic or unpatriotic. Here are a few examples.

Patriotic - Joh McCain being captured by enemy forces, being held for many years as a captive, and refusing an offer to be released because he knew it would be a proganda victory for the enemy.

Unpatriotic - H. sitting in the pews of a divisive America bashing church for twenty years, and nodding his head in agreement when the pastor calls his country "the United States of White America."

Patriotic - Col. George Everett "Bud" Day offering maximum resistance when he was captured by the Viet Cong, escaping and being recaptured and giving the enemy false information while being subjected to "maximum punishment and torture" by Vietnamese guards.

Unpatriotic - Michael Moore making movies that slander his country with lies and innuendo, sending these films to other countries for personal profit, and going himself to speak and berate his homeland on foreign soil.

Patriotic - Football star Pat Tillman giving up a lucrative football career to go to Iraq and fight for his country.

Unpatriotic - Cindy Sheehan meeting with enemy dictators like Hugo Chavez and praising them while calling our president a terrorist.

These are just a few of many possible examples, but as we can see, sometimes it is pretty clear what is patriotic and what is unpatriotic. It seems that those who want to "declare a moratorium" on the word patriotism are the ones who are being called unpatriotic. So let's keep the word patriotism alive. And let's have it be something to aspire to, not something to hide from.

Let's hope the left eventually wakes up...

When I saw the cover of the new issue of The new Yorker over the weekend, I was a little surprised. At first I wasn't sure what to think. The left is in a tizzy over this malicious "slander" of H. in the name of satire, and many on the right probably think that maybe someone is finally realizing that H. has some dangerous problems as a presidential candidate.

Thankfully, Michelle Malkin puts it all into perspective.

Myrlie Evers-Williams, widow of slain civil rights leader Medgar Evers, has accused the news media of a political lynching of H. The Obamas are being painted as "unpatriotic and dangerous radicals," and she even used the term "lynching." I have nothing against Mrs. Evers-Williams and am sorry for the loss of her husband 45 years ago, especially because of the circumstances of his death, but her particular viewpoint does not justify giving any person an immunity from criticism. Did it ever occur to her that H. is being painted as "unpatriotic," or as a "dangerous radical," because many people feel that he may just be one?

I have a lot of questions about H. and his carefully crafted short-list pedigree, a resume padded with dubious accomplishments and a lot of failed exposition that makes nothing clear about who he really is. Is he unpatriotic? He was a member of a church that regularly bashed America for twenty years, and is on record nodding his head in agreement when the pastor called our country the "United States of White America." Is he a dangerous radical? He has been known to associate with the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, as well as people like Hatem El-Hady, former official of the Hamas-linked charity Kindhearts, closed by the Justice Department.

Questioning H. about these associations, or drawing attention to them is not a "lynching." There are honest questions and concerns about his patriotism and his radical terrorist ties. To many, though, if you ask these questions or draw attention to thse associations, it is some sort of unfair attack. Why is this? George W. Bush has been unfairly castigated from all sides, and nobody cries that he is being lynched. Why the outrage when people ask honest questions and draw probable conclusions about H.?

The key is the word "lynching," The use of this word has a racial context, and if one uses it, one knows its connotations. Now, Mrs. Evers-Williams has lived through racism in a way that we could never understand, as her husband was killed purely because of his race. This was truly a hateful act, and once again I will reiterate that I am sorry for her loss. But just because H. is black does not mean that he is immune to criticism. It is understandable that Mrs. Evers-Williams would make such a statement, but it is a statement designed to use race as a wedge. The choice of the term "lynching" was carefully chosen and used to communicate the idea that we are making these specific criticisms of H. because he is black. Conversely, it implies that if we criticize H. at all, it is because we are racists, not because we have honest questions or are uncomfortable with factual evidence surrounding the candidate.

The hyper-sensitivity to racial issues has created an environment where actual communication is subverted to questions of racial intent. Take for example, the recent kerfuffle in Dallas involving County Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield, Commissioner John Wiley Price, and the infamous "black hole" comment. An honest and correct scientific reference by Mayfield was blown up into a racial issue that caused Price to demand an apology, because of Price's hyper-sensitivity to bigotry. Perceived racism curtails the freedom to speak in certain situations, and it is this card that many people want to play in regards to H.

Clear-thinking people will reject these tactics and will feel free to make valid and thoughtful criticisms of either candidate regardless of their race. Of course, actual racist comments should be rejected outright and subjected to the scrutiny they deserve, but we will not be silenced from drawing attention to the questionable actions and associations of H. To many, it is perfectly valid to have questions about H.'s patriotism, and to consider his very real ties to unrepentant and dangerous radicals. And by examining these issues, we just may find that H. is unpatriotic, and is a dangerous radical as well.

9 people convicted of adultery are going to be stoned to death in the Islamic Republic of Iran. It's just amazing that in the 21st century, 9 people, guilty of nothing more than innappropriate behavior, are going to be executed in a brutal 7th century punishment, thanks, of course to Muslim Sharia law, the law that keeps on killing. How is it that a country that was once one of the most progressive societies in the entire Middle East has reverted back to the stone age in their matters of civil prosecution?

I have to thank Jimmy Carter, the former president who undermined the Shah, and encouraged the rise of an Islamic theocracy. While president, Carter demanded the Shah step down and hand over power to the Ayatollah Khomeini, and undermined the Shah's position by telling the Shah's military advisers to acquiese to the Ayatollah. Of the Ayatollah himself, Carter said he was a "religious man," and believed he would better represent the values of the Iranian people.

He was right about the Ayatollah being religious, but didn't quite comprehend that the religion of the Ayatollah was a stone-age abberation called Islam. And in addition to this he fails to understand the consequences of his actions while president. The rise of the mullahs in Iran was the first "shot" in the jihad against the "great Satan," the United States of America. The connection between the events of 1979 in Iran and the 9-11 attacks is a string of events that were borne by that first failure of the United States under Jimmy Carter, which spurred Islamic fascists to ever increasing resolve in their effort to defeat and destroy us.

Jimmy Carter, how can you sleep at night?

In honor of The New York Times apparent bias towards H., including this most recent example, we decided to update their front page in a way that accurately reflects their position....

Michelle Malkin has asked for designs for an Obama World Tour t-shirt, and has been publishing some of the better entries. I'm a bit late on this, but I can't believe I didn't think of it sooner...

H. keeps making statements that suggest the Republicans are going to play the race card, but he continually is the one who is playing it himself. The typical liberal tactic of demonizing your opponent is evident in his statements. Is he saying that McCain is racist? That doesn't seem to be the case, but he is suggesting that, in general, Republicans are racist. Meanwhile, the Republicans haven't brought up his race at all, other than to respond to him bringing it up. That's a bit ironic, dontcha' think?

In addition, he claims the Republicans are going to try to make people afraid of voting for him, because "he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name, you know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills." Well, here's some news for Barack Hussein Obama: many of us are afraid of him being the president, but not because of anything having to do with his race.

I'm afraid that if he's president he will:

• weaken our national security by cutting the budget for the military;
  
• weaken our national security by treating terrorists and their acts as criminal cases, rather than acts of war, which is what they are;
  
• weaken our national security by being a naive player on the world stage who thinks that if we could just make other countries like us, our problems will go away;
  
• weaken our national security by appeasing our enemies rather than by standing up to them;
  
• weaken our economy by raising taxes and redistributing the money to the "less fortunate," or in other words, take money from responsible people who create wealth and move it into the hands of irresponsible and/or lazy people who create no wealth or benefit to society;
  
• punish those who create jobs, via the aforementioned raising of taxes;
  
• and institute reforms that make people more dependent on the government rather than on their own self-reliance.
  

Other reasons to fear his presidency include:

• he is completely inexperienced for the job;
  
• he claims to be embarrased by his own country-men;
  
• he associates with very questionable people and/or known terrorists, such as Reverend Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Ali Abunimah, William Ayers, Hatem El-Hady, Tony Rezko, and Ludacris, just to name a few;
  
• and his complete misunderstanding of the values of Middle America.
  

And that's only a partial list. So you see, Mr. Obama, we have many reasons to fear you being president that have nothing to do with race. So perhaps you should stop playing that card and address the very real issues that we are afraid of.

Will he do it? I doubt it; the race card is easier.