Words to Live By Since 1993 A SPIFF Publication Vol. 3, No. 12 At least Carter was a vet. Not Our Finest Hour Yes, friends, it is time once again to open up the old history books to revise a little Clinton revision of history. We at Spiff are getting a little tired of this, but it is our duty to see that important lessons of history are not buried under the politically correct mounds of manure that pour forth from the White House on a daily basis. This time it is, once again, the determination of the Clinton Administration to forget who started the war in the Pacific or who won it or even that there ever was a war in the Pacific. From our exalted leaders and their minions at the State Department comes the decree that no one connected with the American government use the term "V-J Day" when referring to our victory over Japan that ended World War II. After blocking attempts to print a commemorative stamp depicting the true end of the war, now we find that they will only refer to V-J day ceremonies as the "End of the Pacific War." Perhaps a better term for these morons would have been something like "The Completion of That Unnecessary Violence That White Americans Perpetrated on Our Asian Brothers" or CTUVTWAPOAB II. Here we go again. It stuns (well, not much) us here at Spiff that this president and her husband, who are already on the shakiest of grounds with the men who served and continue to serve in our nation's uniform, keep pulling these stupid stunts that remind us of how little respect they have for our military and its sacrifices. We cannot understand why they go picking fights with veterans who already mistrust them. Note to Hill & Bill: This is not how to break that 43% barrier that you seem to have so much trouble with. Of course President Clinton and Bill are equal opportunity offenders. Half-a-world away, for V-E Day (We are still allowed to use that term. Hmmm.) the White House choice of venues to mark the occasion was not surprising. Did they choose France, a country held hostage by Adolph Hitler's tyranny? No. Did they decide to mark the occasion inside the walls of the camps where millions were needlessly slaughtered? No. Did they choose Great Britain, whose people stood alone against the Nazi war machine and never faltered? No. They chose Russia. On the day we mark the triumph of free men over naked aggression, the Clintons will be standing in Red Square. For this moment, a worse choice could not have been made. President Clinton will stand in a country where many of its people still believe they had every right to seize half of Europe and hold dominion over its people for over forty years. They should stand on the shores of the one outpost of freedom in the darkest days of the Nazi assault_ the country whose leader said these words: "Upon this battle depends the survival of the Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire... Hitler knows that he will have to break us on this island or loose the war. "If we can stand up to him all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps protracted, by the lights of perverted science. "Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will say: 'This was their finest hour.'" Pete's Draggin' Spiff welcomes to the presidential arena California Governor Pete Wilson. Governor Wilson joins the list of Republican Presidential hopefuls that we really have no problem taking a potshot at now and then. We were getting a little concerned that Arlen Spector was the only candidate we were sure would provide us with good material over the next year. Make no mistake, we expect a couple of other aspirants to pass into our sights at some point, either for what they say or in some cases what they say they believe but haven't backed up with action (and you know who you are). But we digress. Governor Wilson, it is safe to say, is going to fall into the moderate-to-liberal wing of the crowd racing to New Hampshire. But we already see signs that he doesn't want you to think that. Pete will spend all of his time talking about his get-tough plans in California (You know, we get tough after people riot) and his stand on illegal immigration. You will remember illegal immigration from the 1992 Republican primaries when it was Pat Buchanan talking about the issue and was instantly branded a racist for his views. My, how times change! Quickly, if a little clumsily, dodging the fact that he promised less than six months ago to serve his full term as governor, Pete instantly drew analogies to another governor who promised to serve out his term in office before running for president. Ooops, sorry Pete, that's not the best person to be compared to if you are trying to move into the White House these days. Besides, you don't look good in a headband. Happily, the true conservatives in the race jumped on Pete immediately. They had to because, whatever his faults, he still runs the state with 1/5 of the total delegates needed to win the Republican nomination, and that makes any California political figure a force to be dealt with. (Well, except for Jerry Brown.) Pete will also be able to squeeze a few million dollars out of the folks who don't give their money to PETA and the Malibu Save the Ocean Club. We do not underestimate Pete Wilson. He said it was his duty to run for president. It is our duty to point out the truth. And now for something completely different... Now that the balanced budget amendment has been pushed to the back of the bus, the Congress shines the light on another part of the House's Contract with America: term limits. Actually, the BBA and term limits are not completely different. They are both overdue responses to Congress' holier-than-God attitude. We expect the same, old arguments from a minority of Congressmen (and always remember, it was a minority of the Senate members who killed the Balanced Budget Amendment). "The Constitution is a sacred document!" and "The people should have a right to decide who they elect!" and "States are already imposing their own term limits." We also expect a new, twisted argument from the Democrat leadership--one which, like the "Socialist Security is a Sacred Trust" argument against the BBA, the Democrats can chant in unison as they goose-step like lemmings off a cliff. Is the Constitution a sacred document? Well, that depends upon your religion. It is, however, an important document, and changing it should not be taken lightly. Many things have been proposed (and some ratified) that do not belong in the Constitution. The Constitution was designed to do one thing: define the limits of government, both the national and, to a lesser degree, state government. This is exactly what term limits will do. Should the people have a right to decide who they elect? For the most part, yes. But in case you haven't looked (and if you're a liberal, you probably haven't), the Constitution already restricts the type of person who can serve in Congress. A Representative must represent his own state, for example. A Senator must be at least 30 years old. A term limit is just one more restriction that, especially when you look at the disproportionate representation a state like West Virginia has, needs to be made. The fact that term limits are being imposed by states on their own Congressmen is actually fuel for, not against, an amendment. It shows just how serious the people of these states are, to restrict their own representation even when other states do not. State-imposed term limits may be a case in which the people's right to decide would be a good argument, but the people of those states are almost unanimously rejecting the argument. The people of Tennessee don't need an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect ourselves from O.C. Bob Clement. If we're dumb enough to keep sending him to Washington, that's our problem. What we do need, though, is an amendment to protect us from Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd and his dog. We were smart enough to get rid of Daffuhzit Jim, but we can't do anything about the people in Massachusetts and West Virginia. To borrow a slogan from an old campaign, 18 years (or in the case of Byrd, 164 years) is long enough. Quote of the weak: "You all sit down and shut up. Sit down and shut up." Sam Gibbons Quote of the strong: "A moratorium on lawyers would go a long way toward putting an end to these frivolous lawsuits." Dick Boland Words to Live By is published every week at about this time by Spiff. You can send a fax to us here in the Spiff Executive Plaza, towering over beautiful downtown Donelson, Tennessee at 615-883-0435.