Confirm Sotomayor

Elections have consequences.

One of the very serious consequences is that the President - possibly one that you never agree with ideologically - gets to select Supreme Court nominees. If you want SCOTUS justices that vote the way you would like them too, then get your candidate elected President. It's as simple as that.

Obama won. He has selected Judge Sonia Sotamayor for the first vacancy.

I'm a conservative. That means that I believe that the Senate should only reject nominees if they are unqualified. Not on partisan political / policy differences.

That's not how Democrats fight in the Senate. They take on nominees tooth and claw over policy differences - and make it personal. The Senate Democrats questioning Sam Alito disgraced themselves and disgraced the Senate in their personal attacks on him. They even made his wife cry in the gallery. Disgraceful.

I've only opposed one SCOTUS nominee in recent years - Harriet Myers, who was nominated by my guy President George Bush. This was a mistake. She was only minimally qualified for the position. When you have the whole country full of brilliant minds to choose from, then a Friend-of-Bush selection was unwise and untenable. She had to go. Republicans opposed her, and she was withdrawn.

That brings us back to Judge Sotamayor. Is she unqualified?

No and Yes.

She is clearly judicially qualified. She had more experience on the bench than many recent nominees.

Is she tempermentally qualified? Well, she has called that into question with her remarks that are racial in nature about the "wise latina woman" being superior to white men. And with here decisions on the bench like the Ricci case.

Is it enough to disqualify her? No.

She is going to be a dependable liberal vote on the court. I would prefer that not happen.

But, elections have consequences. Obama gets his pick, in this case.

The Senate needs to challenge her enough to make their point that she needs to be fair in her judgements - and then confirm her.

The Leftist / Media Double Standard on Tiller

The media's leftist double-standard in the coverage of Dr. Tiller's murder and in the non-coverage of the Marine recruiter's murder is blatant, but not surprising.

Dr. George Tiller was murdered by a single shooter as he attended church Sunday in Kansas. Dr. Tiller is the most notorious abortionist in the country. He performs late-term abortions for cash, some 60,000 viable babies terminated in the womb at the hands of the "doctor". He was, in short, a monster. The label "Tiller the baby killer" was accurate. Which, however, does not justify his murder.

If you've followed the pro-life movement for the last twenty years, and I have, you know two things. First, the mainstream pro-life movement seeks to end abortion through legal and peaceful means, not by assassination of abortionists. Second, the movement has been engaged in decades long attempts at stopping Doctor Tiller through the courts and grand juries, not through shooting.

That one deranged person took it into his own hands to end the life, and practice, of the doctor is a tradgedy and is not the fault of the pro-life movement.

That was not, however, the position that the mainstream media took in reporting the story. They took the leftist position and named as accomplices in the crime everyone who has ever criticized abortion in this country. Everyone who called Tiller a murderer, or his practice an abortion mill, helped pull the trigger in their tale.

But several abortion-rights activists questioned the sincerity of anti-abortion leaders who have been condemning Tiller's murder while denying that their movement fosters extremism.

"It rings a little hollow to me," said Stephanie Poggi, executive director of the National Network of Abortion Funds, which helped women pay for abortions at Tiller's clinic. "Anyone in the anti-abortion movement who has called abortion providers murders or called abortion a holocaust — any of those kind of vilifying statements — helps create the conditions where something like this can happen."

MSNBC hosts all featured stories linking Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, and the pro-life movement in general to the murder. Keith Olberman even called for a "quarantine" of Fox News for it's complicity in the crime. Way over the top!

And they got an assist from the Obama administration. President Obama issued a statement decrying the "heinous" murder. Attorney General Holder dispatched U.S. Marshalls to guard abortion clinics around the country.

Here's where the double-standard comes in...

The day after the murder of Dr. Tiller, a young Marine in a recruiting center in Arkansas was gunned down by a lone shooter. A Muslim convert who had travelled to Yemen to study Jihad and was angry at the U.S. military for it's crimes against Muslims. A deranged shooter, in the same vein as Tiller's killer.

Did the leftist MSM go into high dudgeon to connect the leftist activist groups that have been harrassing military recruiting offices in the U.S. for the last few years? Code Pink, for example, which has a permanent protest site in Berkely California from which they launch daily assaults calling the U.S. military murderers and predators? Or the leftist city leaders there who granted Code Pink the parking spot from which to conduct their harrassment of the recruiters?

Note: I happened to be in Berkeley for business a few months ago, where I took the picture on this post. I was personally harangued by the bully with the megaphone just for standing on the sidewalk looking at them. I was a white male, so surely I was an oppressor. I engaged in a half-hour of civil dialogue with them - enough to witness deranged agitators in the flesh.

Did the MSM cover the Marine's murder? Barely.

Did MSNBC get their lather up to denounce the leftist activists who have called the recruiters murderers at full volume as accomplices in the shooter's crimes? Not hardly.

Did the President issue a statement decrying the murder of one of the troops he commands? No.

Did Attorney General Holder dispatch guards to Marine Recruiting Stations? No.

It's a glaring double standard. The left that controls the media sees accomplices everywhere in Dr. Tiller's murder, but none in the Marine's murder by an actual Muslim terrorist.

That's instructive.

For the record, the only people responsible for the two murders are the shooters. MSNBC's rants about O'Reilly notwithstanding.

The Dealers Fight Back

I was looking for a fight as I was flipping around on the channels tonight. I was thinking UFC, and I was headed for Spike TV. But I found a fight on C-Span that was better.

The Congress critters had a table full of witnesses discussing the disolution of dealerships by GM and Chrysler as they go through bailouts and bankruptcy. The CEOs who had announced the closure of dealerships were at the table side-by-side with some of those self-same dealers.

And the dealers were kicking their keisters, in polite C-Span speak.

The CEO's were arguing that they were closing down dealerships because they were a cost burden. The dealers were counter-arguing that the they don't cost the big-three anything. They sell their cars.

The Congress critters were bi-partisanly not buying what the CEO's were selling. And the glum faces of the CEO's showed it.

How did we get to this point so quickly in Obama's term, that the federal government has majority ownership - along with the UAW - in one of the big three automakers?

Hugh Hewitt makes this excellent point in his post today: how can the Federal Government be an impartial player in dealings with all of the automakers in the country when it is a direct owner of one of the competitors? How, indeed.

Also, how much traction is the reporting that all of the closed dealers were Republican donors going to get in the leftist media?

We've turned a corner here, people.

With Sebelius Nomination - It's On!

Unlike most of the mainstream media, I am not swooning about President Obama's choices for his cabinet. Several seem to me to be remarkably poor choices.

Some examples:

- Timothy Geithner: a Treasury Secretary who is a tax cheat

- Hillary Clinton: a Secretary of State who is indebted to many of the world leaders that she will try to influence, via cash deposits in the Clinton Library Foundation

- Leon Panetta: a Director of the CIA who has no intelligence experience

- Eric Holder: an Attorney General who showed disregard for the law with his participation in Clinton's Marc Rich pardon for cash.

All bad choices, who should have been rejected by the Senate.

But now we have the topper: this weekend's nomination of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebilieus for Secretary of Health and Human Services.

I know, most of you are not familiar with her. Pro-lifers certainly are.

Gov. Sebilieus is not just Pro-abortion, but militantly so. More than any other governor in the U.S. You want proof? Not only is she outspoken about it, but her actions say it. Kansas is the state that harbors the most notorious late term abortion doctor - Dr. Tiller - and the Governor has the murderous doctor's back. She's blocked efforts to have a grand jury indict the doctor, and in return has benefitted greatly from donations to her campaign. Blood money.

Her nomination for Secretary of Health and Human Services is particularly eggregious, and it cements Obama's status as the most pro-abortion president we have ever had.

It's on! Her nomination will be vigorously opposed.

America Mugged by Pelosi and Company

There is anger in the land. Oh, yes.

And right now it is directed at the $1 Billion "Porkulus" bill, masquerading as a stimulus bill. Pelosi crafted it. President Obama owns it. And the majority of Americans are angry about it.

Make no mistake, Americans know when they are being lied to and are being taken advantage of - and we don't like it.

It's like the old story of having your car break down on the highway in a distant city and having the garage owner that tows you in bill you for one of everything on his shelf. Because he can. Because you're vunerable.

Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats are like the unscrupulous garage owner. The country is in crisis. We need a stimulus bill - no one says otherwise. We need job creation, and we need it immediately. But Pelosi & company didn't just craft a stimulus bill. Oh no. They took the opportunity to mug America and craft a Trillion Dollar Monstrosity full of every spending idea Democrats have ever had in the last 20 years.

Just to say it straight out - it's not stimulus, and to say it is constitutes a visciously deceptive lie. If you want to spend money on condoms, or the arts, or to pay back your donors for electing you do it in an appropriations bill the regular way. You have the votes to pass it. But don't call it a stimulus bill and stick a gun in our ribs and tell us that it has to pass in a week or the country will self-immolate. It's a lie. It's the big lie, told by unscruplous and irresponsible political goons.

I take it back. The best analogy for Pelosi and company is not the garage who charges you too much.

It's more like the motorist who is stranded by the highway, and the supposed Samaritan who stops to help rapes the motorist and leaves her for dead.

Obama to KSM: I've Got Your Back, baby!

As expected, Barack Obama began his presidency last week with a flurry of Executive Orders, most to reverse Bush policies. Two notable ones:

1. E.O.'s to ratchet back the government's aggressive policies against terrorism since 9/11. An order to close the detainee detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Prohibiting aggressive interrogation techniques by the CIA, requiring the use of the Army Field manual.

2. Reversing the "Mexico City Policy", also called the gag-rule, that prohibits U.S. foreign aid going to family planning activities that counsel for abortion. Those funds are now available worldwide.

Let me translate those two Executive Orders for you:

1. Obama to Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the 250 most dangerous detainees in the world: I've got your back! Hang in there, we're coming to your rescue!

2. Obama to unborn babies worldwide: You, not so much. We're putting out a hit on you.

Sick.

What foolishness liberals perpetuate in the name of Progressiveness.

You haven't thought this through, lefties.

Given that Khalid Sheik Mohammed was not only the operational planner and mastermind of 9/11 and many other attacks, and that the CIA broke him and stopped further attacks using waterboarding: How else would you have gotten that information and stopped those attacks against Americans? Or, are you willing to sacrifice other Americans to soothe your conscience?

Given that at least 60 other detainees who were released by the Bush administration from Gitmo under pressure have returned to battle against American troops, are you willing to release these 250 most dangerous detainees? On American soil? Where are you going to put them now?

These are foolish and deadly policies.

And we're only one week in. Egads.

Ethical Cognitive Dissonance

So, I'm sitting in the cafeteria at work having lunch. The TV overhead is tuned to Headline News and, inevitably, Barack Obama.

Our new President is, on his first day in office, signing Executive Orders to frame out his rules of the road for his Executive Branch. First up: ethics reform. He's bringing change to ethics and transparency, he's saying, so that America can trust it's government again.

Wait a minute, I'm thinking. Isn't this the President whose nominee for Treasury Secretary (whose agency includes the IRS) is testifying in Congress and apologizing for being a tax cheat? Does Mr. Secretary's example mean that I can ditch my tax bill and not pay any penalties until and unless I get nominated for a cabinet appointment? Why not?

Wait a minute, I'm thinking. Isn't this the same President whose nominee for Secretary of State, in charge of our embassies and diplomatic policy worldwide and confirmed today in the Senate, has a conflict of interest the size of the her new fiefdom - having benefitted from the tens of millions of dollars her spouse has accepted from foreign governments for the Clinton Library Foundation. Isn't she a board member. Don't they have a joint checking account? Is she going to pressure a government who gave her family an easy $10 million?

Wait a minute, I'm thinking. Isn't this the same President whose nominee for Attorney General of the United States is apologizing for his role in lobbying President Clinton for a pardon for criminal fugitive Marc Rich based on cash donations from Rich's wife to the same Clinton Library Foundation?

Does his new ethics Executive Order include anything about not nominating a rogues' gallery of ethically challenged elitists to his own cabinet?

And I'm supposed to trust in government now?

I almost barfed up my sloppy joes.

Consider Me Depressed

Have you ever known a teenager, or been one, who not only believed that all of the adults who came before him were irrelevant and stupid and who not only believed that they knew everything but that they invented everything? That they were the first person in the world to ever have experiences?

That's the general feeling that I came away from yesterday's inauguration with. President Obama is one of those teenagers trapped in a 47 year old body.

I tried to get into the spirit of the day yesterday. Really, I tried.

There were plenty of high points: the amazing crowds, the parade of former presidents, the peaceful transfer of power that makes is our strength in the world, the pomp and ceremony, the Obama family revelling in their moment.

There were some low points: the classless Obama supporters heckling President George W. Bush with "na-na-na-na, hey hey, Goodbye" when he took the podium, when Bush has been extremely gracious during the transition. Rev. Lowery's needless racism in the benediction - longing for the day when "white will embrace what is right". Please.

And then there was the speech. Obama's speech. Dreadful. Downbeat. A cliched teenager with a microphone.

I could pick it apart line by line, but here's four quick examples:

1. "And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders"

Hey, junior, let's be clear: America is the most generous nation in the world in giving to those in need both within our borders and outside. Don't besmirch us to make yourself look good. Whether it's disaster aid, foreign aid, or coming to the defense of the defenseless America is there. Just look at Africa, where the Bush administration has pumped untold millions in Aids relief in the last 4 years. Africans love Bush. Apparently Obama has not heard that yet. But, he will invent foreign aid.

2. "What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world,..."

Really? We've never been "responsible" before? Quick, remind me: which party was it that was pushing high-risk mortgages in the name of "affordability for all, even those who reasonably couldn't afford them? Which party? Which is the party of irresponsibility? Please.

3. "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect"

Really? Here's news, junior. Large parts of the muslim world would like to behead you and your family. Where's the "mutual respect" in that? Welcome back to the 9/10 world of denial.

4. "We will restore science to its rightful place..."

Let me translate that for you:

The Global Warming religionists are here to take over your lives, despite the irony of the words "bitter cold" being in most of our forecasts for the last month. And, hey by the way, we're not killing embryos fast enough.

That last one was where I turned off the speech. I did read the text in full later, which I would venture most of the rest of you did not. You should.

Yes, I wish the new President good health and safety during his term in office. Yes, I wish the nation will succeed under his leadership.

But, no I do hope that he gets through his agenda that he campaigned on enacted. It will be devastating for our country.

I'm bracing for the flurry of executive orders sure to come this week, and legislation shortly after:

- handcuffing our homeland security and intelligence agencies by forfeiting the tools that they need to go aggressively after the people who still want to destroy our country and kill us
- massive pork and taxation
- unrestricted abortion on demand from the most pro-abortion president we've ever had. Look for him to sign FOCA immediately.
- unionization of America through the "check-card" system, dismantling secret ballot elections that have thwarted intimidation tactics by the unions. Here come the thugs.

Lastly, let me say this: if President Obama yeilds to those loud voices on his left who want to criminalize policy issues and arrest Bush, Cheney, Rove, and adminstration officials who fought the War on Terror aggressively and kept us safe for the last seven years he will be making a huge mistake. If he does that, he will be unleashing mass civil unrest. Don't do it!

Consider me un-hopeful for Obama's first term - yesterday's pomp and ceremony notwithstanding.

Barack will need Jack Bauer

In the last few minutes before President Obama takes the oath of office as the 44th president, let me just say:

Thank you, President George W. Bush, for keeping our country and my family safe for the last seven years. No one expected, after the horror of 9-11, that we would not be attacked again on U.S. soil during your presidency. No one. And it was not an accident. You were, by necessity, the president of 9/12 - as none of your critics had to be. You did what you had to do to put us on offense and keep us safe. Thank you.

I think, I know, I fear that our new president will soon discover - if he hasn't already in his security briefings - that you were right to be as aggressive as you were in protecting us.

All you have to do is read the story reported yesterday on the Drudgereport - "Deadliest weapon reported so far, the Plague" - to know that we have Jihadist enemies worldwide sworn to bring the maximum death and destruction to our shores and that it will take an aggressive and sometimes distasteful fight to keep us safe.


40 Al Qaeda terrorists found dead from the bubonic plague. How did they get it? Clearly they are brewing up bio weapons to attack us with. Perhaps they were the weapon. What if you infected 40 people with plague and put them on planes to Dearbornistan Michigan or other high-muslim-population areas? We would have a problem on our hands that would dwarf 9/11.

So, tell me my lefty friends. Suppose you capture a jihadist terrorist - who is not a uniformed member of a recognized army - and you suspect that a plague attack is imminent or in progress. Are you going to refuse to do whatever it takes to get the information you need to protect America? Including waterboarding?

This is not a foolish hypothetical in our world today. It's very real. It's what George Bush has lived with every day since 9/12. And he acted on the intelligence to keep us safe.

I'm hopeful that Barack Obama will stay on offense and keep us safe, and not yield to the foolish pacifism of the left that he is beholden to and that will leave us vunerable again. That he will be a 9/12 president and not a 9/10 one. But, I am not optimistic.

Democrats Behaving Badly

Which Democrat is behaving most egregiously in the last two months:

-Rod Blagojevich – Illinois Governor. Caught by U.S. Attorney in a pay-for-play bid to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by PEBO. (President Elect Barack Obama).

-U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. Announced that Obama is not implicated in the Blago scandal – even though he’s been taking testimony for years from Tony Rezko, who was the corrupt fundraiser behind both Blago and Obama. There’s a grand jury in Obama’s future.

-Barack Obama. To ease concerns about possible connections between corrupt Gov. Blagojevich, Obama investigated himself and pronounced himself clean.

- Mainstream Media (mostly Democrats), who meekly accepted Obama’s self-clearing report.
Roland Burris. Accepted the appointment from scandal-tainted Gov Blago that no one else would accept. So narcissistic that he named his kids Roland and Rolanda and his built a mausoleum to himself already.

- Harry Reid – U.S. Senate Majority Leader. Blocked Burris from taking his legally appointed seat in the Senate. 99 white senators – mostly Democrat – blocking the door from the only African American to be in their club.

-Nancy Pelosi. Speaker of the House of Representatives. She threw out all of the rules for the new Congress that allow the minority to present bills. Hey Republicans – sit down and shut up!

Hillary Clinton. Nominee for Secretary of State who has a monumental conflict of interest. The Clinton Library Foundation, of which she is an officer and a joint-checking account holder with Bill, has raised $500 million – including at least $50 million from foreign governments. How is she going to represent the U.S. in pressuring governments like Saudi Arabia when her name is on the endorsing line of a $10 million check from them?

-Bill Richardson. Resigned pre-emptively from PEBO’s cabinet because of his own pay-for-play scandal.

-Al Franken, Senate candidate in Minnesota who is stealing the election there in plain daylight.

- Secretary of State of Minnesota. Former member of ACORN, elected under the Soros-funded Secretaries-of-State project designed to help them get SOS’s in place to help them steal elections.


The winner is Barack Obama, for nominating Leon Panetta as Director of the CIA. This makes Obama the unserious President. We are at war since 9/11 with an entire Jihadist culture bent on killing us. Intelligence is as important as troops in this war. Yet, Obama chooses to nominate a political hack from the Clinton administration with zero intelligence experience to head the agency. It signals that he does not believe that we are at war. We will be vunerable again.

Hey, Democrats. What are you thinking in supporting these knuckleheads?

Surprise! Obama Clears Himself

Do you need any further evidence that journalism is dead in 2008 - totally in the tank for Obama and not doing their jobs - than the coverage today of the Obama Transition Team's meager 5 page report on Obama's dealings with Rod Blagojevich?

Have we fallen into a strange parallel universe? On what planet do politicians get to investigate and clear themselves?

When Obama has his own lawyer Greg Craig - famously known as a Clinton scandal-defense lawyer - to "investigate" their own team and report, the correct response should be derisive laughter. Instead we get fawning compliance from the press. "Gee, I guess we don't have to go to Crook County and check it out ourselves. He must obviously be clean."

Note to the news media: "Obama investigation releases their findings" is not correct. Obama's team released their VERSION. There's a difference.

It's Not Too Late - Electors - to Elect McCain!

Those of you not from Illinois are not prepared for the fallout of today's bombshell news of the FBI arrest of the Govenor of Illinois - Rod Blagojevich.

But I am from Illinois, and I know how deep this is going to go. Today is just the tip of the iceberg. Lots of people are going down, including - I predict (and you heard it here first) the highest profile product of Crook County Illinois - Senator Barack Hussein Obama.

First, let me just say "it's about damn time" that our boy-criminal Governor was arrested. He's been corrupt and flagrant about it since day one in office. Good riddance. He should resign tomorrow.

Second, I call on U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to disclose immediately, certainly before the inauguration, whether his years long investigation into Tony Rezko - corrupt political financier who is now in jail - and Blago revealed any evidence of illegal or unethical behavior by their crony Barack Hussein Obama. Certainly evidence has been alleged. Is it true? If so, we deserve to know before Obama takes office.

Lastly, you'll note that I did not call him President-Elect Obama. No matter what his podium sign says. That's because he has not been elected yet. He does not get elected until December 15th when the Electoral College members meet to officially cast their votes.

Connect the dots, people!

dot - Tony Rezko was a corrupt fundraiser in Chicago, who raised signficant money for prominent Illinois campaigns. In other words, paid to put them in his pocket.

dot - Tony Rezko raised a lot of money for Barack Obama and Rod Blagojevich

dot - U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald has spent several years building his case on Rezko and his payments

dot - U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald indicted and convicted Tony Rezko, who is now behind bars - probably signing like a canary

dot - U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald has now pulled the trigger on an arrest of Blago, based on evidence and wiretaps.

dot - Blago, whose phone has been wiretapped, has talked with Obama a lot in the last year

Connected dots - an indictment of Obama is not out of the realm of possibility (to put it nicely) and in fact is probable.

I call on the members of the Electoral College to not put this country through a constitutional crisis by electing a man who may be arrested and indicted in the next year to serve alongside his cronies in the Chicago political machine! Show courage and do not vote for Obama.

McCain - Palin 2008 lives again!

You heard it here first.

Scaling Back

As I've said, I've seen this movie before. And I don't want to sit through it again, so I'm tuning out as best I can.

The eight years of the Clinton Administration were tough on me, mentally. (As, apparently, the eight years of the Bush Administration were on lefties). I got myself twisted in knots learning all about their misdeeds and trying to convince other people that they were doing bad things. Which they were.

It's not healthy for me.

So, I'm going to tune out of politics as best as I can for the next four or eight years.

I'm going to try to put my head down and just take care of my family and focus on other hobbies that are good for my mental health. Photography, for example.

Whatever happens in the next 8 years, don't even tell me. I'm not listening.

At least, I'm going to try. We'll see how long that I last.

Back in the Fight

I read today that President-Elect is bent on closing Gitmo when he takes office. Hmmmm. Is that wise?

Let me digress a moment.

Have you ever watched an old favorite movie and caught something that you had missed before?

I had that experience this week. "Saving Private Ryan" - one of my favorites. If you can watch that movie and not get choked up when Tom Hanks - the hero Capt. Miller - is dying on the bridge at the end and he pulls Pvt. Ryan down and whispers "Earn this". Wow.

Here's what I caught that I missed.

There's a scene midway through the movie when Hanks and his squad has to decide what to do with a prisoner. The captain had stopped his squad's mission to find Ryan to engage an artillery battery at a radar site.

"Not smart, captain, considering our objective".

"Our objective is to win the war", says Hanks.

Of course, one of Hank's men gets killed and the squad wants revenge on their one captive. His mousy squad member gets in his face and challenges him. You can't let them kill him, he argues - he surrendered. Hanks sends the captive walking away.

"You just going to let him go, captain?"

"He'll be intercepted by one of our units and processed."

"Unless he finds his Wermacht unit first, and rejoins the fight."

Cut to later in the movie in the climatic battle scene to save the bridge. Captain Miller gets shot as he's trying to blow up the bridge to prevent the German advance, fatally.

What I missed was who shoots our hero. It is, of course, the German captive that he lets go.

Does he get away? No. The mousy soldier who argued for his release steps up and executes him.

Justice, but too late.

It's just fiction, I know.

But consider this: of the 250 high-level threats that were detained at Gitmo and then released under pressure by liberals, 50 or so have been subsequently killed in battle by our troops. How many did they kill of our guys after their release before we got them again.

Would you want to be the one sent to the family of a U.S. soldier KIA to explain that we had the bad guy in custody, but let them go so they could get back in the fight?

Think about it.

My Wildest Obama Prediction

It's fairly easy, if you've been watching his campaign for the last two years, to predict President Obama's action once he takes office.

Those pundits who are all offering up their insights that Obama will have to "govern from the center" are fooling themselves. He will pay back the Democrat interests groups right away with a flood of Executive Orders, as all presidents do. The point this time is that the Democrat interest groups have become very left wing.

It will be a left-wing extravaganza. Abortion-a-palooza. Labor unions free to run over workers who don't wish to join. Shutting down talk radio. More sub-prime "affordable housing". etc.

Predictable.

So, let me throw out my wildest prediction for President Obama's first year:

President Obama will be put in the position of having to consider pardoning George W. Bush.

Oh, yeah.

It's not a far-fetched notion at all. Here's my evidence:

- The Democrats control both houses of Congress and the Presidency. There are some Committee Chairmen/Chairwomen who are just itching to hold war crimes hearings on George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and other nefarious warmongers. Itching. One of them will pull the trigger.

- The left-wing organizations and websites - I'm thinking MoveOn.org, Code Pink, etc. - have been calling for war crimes trials for two years. Believe me. I read their websites even if you don't.

- Vincent Bugliosi, professional crank and agitator (Motto: I'm brilliant and the rest of you morons are extemely incompetent!) not only wrote a book encouraging this ("The case against George W. Bush", I think), but has been working the country trying to find a U.S. Attorney who will prosecute the case once Bush leaves office. Some nutbag U.S. Attorney will file an indictment.

And when they do - what will President Obama do?

I think he will be forced to realize, as all president's do, that if we go down the road of criminalizing policy decisions, especially war time decisions, that he could be next. He will issue a pardon.

How popular will "the One" be when he pardons George W. Bush.

Remember, you heard it here first...

Can I Have My Vote Back?

Where's John McCain?

It's been more than a week since Govenor Sarah Palin, his chosen running mate, came under withering and remorseless fire - from his very own campaign staffers. Anonymous cowardly fire.

My expectation would have been that he would publicly defend her, and insist that his former staffers stop it instantly.

Isn't he the guy with self-proclaimed righteousness? The guy who would name names of wrongdoers and make them famous?

Here's your chance, Senator McCain. Identify your staffers who trashed Sarah Palin. Name them publicly. Since you can no longer make them resign, insist that the RNC see too it that they are never hired to work in a Republican campaign again.

Crickets........

Lying low-class S.O.B.

Can I go back to despising John McCain now?

Post-Election Thanks and Congratulations

First, the thank yous:

1. Thank you, President Bush. You made the hard choices and kept us safe for 7 years after the biggest terrorist attack on our country. You brought us out of the economic and psychological hit that our nation took on that day. You changed our stance from defense to offense in this war that was thrust on us, and took down many of our enemy and reduced the threat to our very existence.

Yes, President Bush made mistakes - as all President's do. We probably disagree on what those mistakes were. But the level to which he was demonized by the press and by the Democrats over the last two years is shameful, and will in the long term hurt our country.

2. Thank you, Governor Sarah Palin. You are an authentic and accomplished person. You showed us the huge gap between the professional Washington crowd (politicians and press corps) and the regular folks. You were a breath of fresh air, and you completely energized the Republican base.

Now, Congratulations:

Congratulations, President-elect Obama. You ran a long, disciplined, effective campaign and won. Disappointed as I am, I acknowledge the victory.

It was a historic victory, and our country can be proud of it. Our first African-American President. It's a victory that literally could not have happened anywhere else in the world, outside of Africa. It could not have happened in Europe, for example. Only in America.

I will not be a bitter Republican and oppose you from the outset. I will not say that you are illegitimate and that you are "not my President". No, I will not do to you what many Democrats did to President Bush for 8 years. I saw how damaging that has been to our country overall.

You will be the President of the United States. My President. Do the duty that you will swear to do (support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign or domestic). Serve well. I will wish you success.

Moving on.

Deconstructing the Losing McCain Campaign

It's clear to me: John McCain lost because of John McCain.

He had a chance to win, amazingly. Many pundits of pointed out the strong Democrat headwind this year. He should have been 20 points down. Yet Obama had so many weaknesses that McCain was competitive. He could have won, but didn't. Here's why:

1. "Me too"-ism.

I like Ann Coulter's theory that any time you give voters a choice between a Democrate-Lite and a Democrat, the Democrat wins. McCain is often the Democrat-Lite.

It's that Maverick b.s. Let me translate "maverick" for you - it means "I can't stand Republican policies either". As in:

- you hate tax cuts? Hey, me too!
- you want open borders and amnesty for illegals? Hey, me too!
- you hate the Bush administration? Hey, me too!

I had to gag this whole campaign listening to McCain. Constantly sticking his thumb in my eye. It should be a requirement for the nominee of a political party that you actually like the party. NO MORE MAVERICKS!

2. Senatorial "Niceness".

John McCain prizes bipartisanship above everything else. That means great hesitance in criticizing Democrats to the point of appeasing them.

Excuse me, Senator. Running for President is necessarily a partisan activity. Be a partisan.

That means, first of all, lifting up the virtues of your own party. McCain never did that, never made the case for Republican ideals. He only made the case for John McCain.

That means taking on your opponent, early in the race. McCain should have been taking on Obama's radical associations early on, when he secured the nomination back in March. Doing it so late in the race looked desperate.

McCain unilaterally disarmed. Disarmed is defeated.

3. The Economic Bailout exposed McCain as a liar.

McCain's self-proclaimed strength was opposing spending and making big spenders famous. "You will know their names". Yeah, right.

Nice theory, but he failed when his big test came. Let's recap what happened. When Wall St. melted down, and the Adminstration proclaimed the need for a bailout, McCain was faced with his big moment.

What he could have done was this:

1. Oppose the bailout as a socialist intervention in the markets. The public was massively opposed to the Paulson plan, with phone calls to Congress running 200:1 against. There were other ways to solve the crisis - conservative ways. Go to Washington and champion a conservative fix.

2. Oppose the pork. The Paulson plan grew from a 3 page memo to a 450-page pork laden bill that the President signed. Oppose the pork - and make the authors of the pork famous - as promised.

3. Demand accountability.

-Demand Paulson's resignation. If a cabinet officer comes to the President and says that his department has failed so badly that he needs $700,000,000,000 to fix it or the whole U.S. economy will fail - he should be fired.
- Same with the SEC chairman.
- Identify the Congressmen who pushed banks to issue bad sub-prime loans that caused the meltdown. Pledge to "get" the people who caused the mess (as O'Reilly urged him to do).

What did he do instead?

1. Support the bailout by tinkering around the edges and then urging Americans to support it.

2. Overlook the pork.

3. Blame everyone and no one. We all share blame in this - Yada Yada Yada.

His performance in on the bailout both made him look erratic and exposed the lie that he will oppose pork and make spenders famous.

McCain lost because he is the same McCain that I have loathed in public office for years. Period.

Trashing Sarah

First, let me just say that the trashing of Govenor Sarah Palin in the aftermath of the election by insiders of the McCain campaign is absolutely disgraceful. She was a net lift to the ticket, without doubt. McCain would have lost by a much bigger margin without her. She energized millions like me.

Second, let me ask - where is John McCain defending her? It's Friday already and not a peep out of him to shush his staff. Where is his honor?

Third, let me say unequivocally that the RNC should not let this stand. Whoever is speaking to reporters anonymously on background should be identified and banned from any future campaign staffs or Congressional staffs. Period.

Disgraceful. But then again, I never particularly thought that John McCain behaved with honor. That's just me.

The Pendulum Swings Back

I guess it's becoming our national habit to trade nightmares every eight years.

The Clinton years were a nightmare for me. Eight years of saying "Are you kidding me?" and "Can you not see how bad this guy is?". Apparently eight years of George W. Bush was a similar nightmare for some of you.Now we're switching again, and I'm headed for a long eight years of deep depression.

Let me just say that it's shameful that we, as a country, just chose an unqualified socialist racist over a war hero with long years of service to our country. It's Bob Dole and Bill Clinton all over again. I am legitimately ashamed of my country this morning. I'll get over it. What else am I going to do?

My bleak assessment for our immediate future?

- The Supreme Court is lost for a couple of decades. Obama will get to name at least two justices in his first term and the court will lurch back left. The 2nd Amendment gone. Abortion on demand all day long for any reason. Coddling terrorists and handcuffing our security agencies. Gone.

- It's katy-bar-the-door in Congress. Not only tax and spend. But liberal facism and intolerance writ large. Look for the "Fairness Doctrine" right away to kill talk radio as payback.

- The military will be disparaged again, as it was in the Clinton Administration, and drawn down drastically. We will be vunerable again.

- And here's one that no one is talking about yet - but will happen: Look immediately for a Congressional persecution of the Bush Administration. I'm talking war crimes trials or the like. It's going to get ugly.

I'm inclined to just shut up for the next eight years for my sanity. It's not going to make any difference to point out the obvious to a country that would elect a travesty like Barack Obama.

My Prediction for Election Day

I'm predicting a narrow McCain victory for tomorrow.

I don't think McCain has run a good campaign. I think he completely wasted Sarah Palin's skills by keeping her off of the Sunday shows. McCain doesn't particularly deserve to win.

The bottom line though: I just can't believe that America would elect a socialist radical like Obama for President. I just can't believe that it can happen.

WAKE UP AMERICA!

He is without doubt the most pro-abortion candidate ever to run for President - even voting not to protect babies after they are mistakenly "born" in a botched abortion. How could you even think about voting for a man who would take this position? Really?

He wants to confiscate wealth. He wants to radically draw down the military and try for a nuclear freeze.

The list goes on and on. How is this guy even still in the running?

As I've said before, I'm walking into the voting booth and voting proudly for Sarah Palin. McCain's just lucky that he's on the same line as her.

WAKE UP AMERICA! Before it's too late.

Roll 'em Up!

I was listening to WLS radio out of Chicago tonight on my drive home from work.

They were commenting on the sheerly incredible logistics of the giant Obama election party in Grant Park in downtown Chicago. At least one million people headed downtown for a party. 200 port-a-potties. Their advice?:

"If you live in Chicago, begin panicing now!"

If McCain pulls out an upset tomorrow, it's going to get really ugly at that particular gathering. If Obama wins, it's going to look like a World Series riot.

Just stay inside everybody.

An Apology, Rare on Partisan, to Sen. Obama

I hereby apologize to Sen. Obama.

I was saying a lot last week that I didn't believe that Senator Obama's trip to Hawaii was for the stated purpose of visiting a sick and dying grandmother. I believed that it was to talk with Hawii officials to have them lock up his fraudulent birth certificate until after the election at least.

His grandmother died today.

I was wrong.

He went for both reasons.

My condolences to the Obamas.

Brisk Business at the Death-Mart

I was doing some browsing at the local gun and military surplus store this week.

This place is an impressively masculine place, if you haven't been to one. Wall to wall machismo.

They have guns - hundreds of them. Pick your projectile dispenser: handguns, rifles of every imaginable caliber, shotguns for hunting or home defense, assault rifles of various national origin.

They have knives - cases of them. Pick your serrated edge.

They have camo - racks of them. All kinds of clothes to disappear in.

What they have most of this week are customers. No recession in there! They were doing a brisk business at the gun counter, let me tell you.

There were only two topics of conversation in the gun store:

1. The election. The general consensus of the Firearms Owner Identification Card-carrying crowd was that either

a. Obama was going to win and then ban guns (so you better get them now while you could) or

b. McCain was going to win and there would be riots in the streets from those angered by denying Obama the presidency - a 2nd American Revolution. Something that I have read a lot of lately on the far left websites that I frequent.

2. Firepower. What weapon or combination of weapons would intimidate an angry mob on your lawn. Okay, I'm exaggerating there - but not much.

By the way, my answer to the question would be some combination of a Chinese or Romanian assault weapon with a 30 round clip, a 9mm with multiple clips, a scoped rifle, and a shotgun. No particular reason I would choose that set.

Just browsing.

Go vote next week. And, please, let's all have a peaceful Nov. 5th whatever the outcome.

The Year of Media Bias

Is there a liberal bias in the media?

If you have to ask that question in 2008, you are really not paying attention. Really. Because if you are paying attention, the degree that the media is either completely in the tank for one candidate (Yes, "the one"), or incompetent, or both is nauseatingly blatant.

If you only read the mainstream sources of media, then you probably have a hard time picking up on liberal bias when it's staring right at you. It's like the fish that doesn't know he's wet.

So, let me give you a little one-day-survey of just a few of the clear examples of media bias that I encountered in just one hour today:

1.Slanting the story:

Most often, it starts with the headline of a story - which sets your expectation of the article to come. An editor has a choice of words to describe a story and can set the tone. Let's look at this headline in my local newspaper tonight, picked up off of the AP wire by AP writer Glen Johnson:

"McCain returns to NH trying to stave off loss"

Really? That's what he's doing? Maybe, just maybe, he's trying to win!

It set a different tone if you are trying to "stave off loss" as opposed to trying to win. And if you just glance at the headline in passing, you get a negative vibe on McCain's chances. If you plunge into the article you will find out that McCain won New Hampshire in the primaries. Maybe he can win it in the general election. Maybe not. But I can assure you that he's there to win again.

To put it simply, the inherent liberal bias of the headline writer affects the reader's intake of that story.

2. Slanting the coverage:

The most common form of liberal bias is choosing what to cover, and - as Bernie Goldberg always says - more importantly in what they choose to not cover. In this election season, the massive liberal bias means that they are heavily covering any perceived mistakes by McCain/Palin, and ignoring the many mistakes of Obama/Biden.

Let's take this headline on Yahoo News on the internet today:

"Is Palin dragging down the ticket?"

Yeah, no bias in that headline.

The writer breathlessly covers the two reasons the Palin is a giant mistake:

1. Her supposed gaffes - like the Couric interview.

Are you kidding me? Are you following the major gaffes of Obama and Biden this week. (Of course you are not, because the MSM is not covering them!) Obama telling Joe the Plumber that he thinks we should "share the wealth around". Biden telling donors behind closed doors that he gaurantees that if we elect Obama that the world will test him in a major international crisis, a generated crisis, and that it might not be evident that Obama's response will be the right one. Yikes! Those two trump anything that Sarah Palin has ever said.

2. The major "scoop" that broke this week that the RNC spent $150,000 so far in hair and clothing expenses for Palin. This story was all over the MSM today. The radio reporter solemly intoned that "careful scrutiny of the Obama campaign's records reveal no similar expenditures.

Are you kidding me? This is a story?

No Obama isn't spending $150K on clothing. But he has spent $800,000 on voter fraud with the group Acorn - a group now under investigation for fraudulent registrations in 13 states. A group Obama used to work for and with.

$150k on clothing from Palin. $800k on voter fraud with Obama.

Which is the more important story? Which story got covered today?

3. The bias of partisan ignorance:

This, from nationally syndicated liberal columnist Cynthia Tucker - again in my local newspaper tonight:

Headline: "Acorn hubbub latest in GOP fearmongering"

"If Mikey Mouse shows up at the polls in a couple of weeks, John McCain might have cause for the alarm he showed over alleged boter fraud during Wednesday's debate"...

"But it's quite unlikely that Mickey or Minne or Goofy will be among the voters lined up on Nov. 4, so McCain's hysterical outburst over a group of activists....needs to be understood for what it is: a distraction. The Republican nominee is once again using fear as a tactic to try to win votes."

Passionately partisan. But dead wrong.

Here's what Ms. Tucker is missing in her liberally biased rant against the hysterical John McCain - the voters that ACORN helped to fraudently register do not have to show up at the polls on Nov 4 with ID for "Mickey Mouse". They have already voted!

What she neglects to mention is that the whole controversy in Ohio, for instance, is that Ohio allows same day registration and voting. What that means is that ACORN bused people around to different counties and registered them and had them vote numerous times, not matter what name they used. Those votes are separated from the registered voter when they are dumped in the box. They have voted, fraudently, and the votes are not retrievable! And they've done it on a massive scale on the order of 200,000 suspect votes in that state alone.

But, for pointing that out John McCain is hysterically fearmongering. No chance that the opposite is true in partisan Tucker's world, that Obama's team is rigging the election. Not a hint of that in her column.

My question: if I know about the same day voting problem, how is it that a nationally syndicated columnist doesn't know it's a problem? Biased incompetence would be the right answer.

Liberal bias in the media. It exists every year, every day.

But much, much, much more in this crazy election year of 2008.

The Year of Media Bias.

Low Expectations for Debate III

Honestly, I couldn't have lower expectations for tonight's 3rd Presidential debate.

Moderator Bob Schiefer is not going to ask any interesting questions.

Barack Obama is sitting on a lead and will play it extremely safe.

The wildcard is McCain. Will he merely disappoint me, or will he - as is his habit - wildly infuriate me? Oh, the tension.....

McCain could take Obama to task on a multitude of fronts, as he should have been for months now.

He won't. It's not in him. He's too fond of Senatorial niceness.

McCain, my friends, will more likely celebrate his coziness with Democrats to celebrate his main sacrament - bipartisanship. Phooey!

He ran to be the nominee of a party. The Republican Party. A party is by it's nature partisan. BE A PARTISAN! Act like you want to be a Republican, for gosh sakes.

This is going to be depressing.

I'm ready for the October surprise

As wild as this whole presidential election ride has been for the past 20 months, I think there are plenty of surprises possible in the last 3 weeks.

October surprises that could help Obama:

- stock market completely tanks, public blames Bush
- Nancy Pelosi leads impeachment of Bush
- Dick Cheney has a heart attack
- Colin Powell endorses Obama


October surprises that help McCain

- terrorist attack anywhere in the U.S.
- Sarah Palin is allowed to be Sarah Palin

October surprises that hurt Obama:

- Obama is indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald in the Rezko fraud case
- Rev. Wright's new book gets released (scheduled for October)
- Obama's birth certificate issue gets heard in court, and he is required to produce a valid U.S. birth certificate
- ACORN scandal blows wide with full scale investigation of nationwide massive voter fraud on behalf of Obama, with ties to obama
- papers get released wide on Obama's work with William Ayers on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge - spending $100 million of "education reform" grants to fund radical groups like ACORN
- the famously rumored Michelle Obama video - that Hillary has been sitting on - get's released.

I'll take any and all of those last ones.

I'm ready for the October surprise

As wild as this whole presidential election ride has been for the past 20 months, I think there are plenty of surprises possible in the last 3 weeks.

October surprises that could help Obama:

- stock market completely tanks, public blames Bush
- Nancy Pelosi leads impeachment of Bush
- Dick Cheney has a heart attack
- Colin Powell endorses Obama


October surprises that help McCain

- terrorist attack anywhere in the U.S.
- Sarah Palin is allowed to be Sarah Palin

October surprises that hurt Obama:

- Obama is indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald in the Rezko fraud case
- Rev. Wright's new book gets released (scheduled for October)
- Obama's birth certificate issue gets heard in court, and he is required to produce a valid U.S. birth certificate
- ACORN scandal blows wide with full scale investigation of nationwide massive voter fraud on behalf of Obama, with ties to obama
- papers get released wide on Obama's work with William Ayers on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge - spending $100 million of "education reform" grants to fund radical groups like ACORN
- the famously rumored Michelle Obama video - that Hillary has been sitting on - get's released.

I'll take any and all of those last ones.

Sometimes it's just the "socialism"...

I'm always amazed at the ability of people to twist and distort an obvious fact in the political arena.

Rep. John Lewis gave us an excellent example this week, by comparing the McCain campaign with George Wallace (in other words, calling them racists) of Alabama for calling Barack Obama a socialist.

Now, I happen to be old enough to remember George Wallace. He was truly a racist. What does that have to do with McCain or with calling Obama a socialist. Well, Lewis - and the leftist journalists who pounced on the story - claimed that it's an old habit in the South call blacks socialists when they really mean race.

Really.

The problem is this, that when we call Obama a socialist - and I have - what we really mean is that he is a socialist. Specifically, that his main goal for public service has long been redistribution of income - the classic main tenet of socialism. He associates himself with people and groups that have as their goal the overthrow of American capitalism. That's what we mean by socialist.

You don't have to take my word for it. Take Obama's. When confronted by a serious challenger at a campaign stop this week who was taking Obama to task for his tax plans, Obama said that he just feels that "when you spread the wealth around" everyone is better off.

Where again does it say in the U.S. Constitution that one of the President's jobs is to "spread the wealth around"?

Oh, sort of like "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Barack Hussein Marx.

Sometimes a "socialist" is just a socialist.

Obama & Ayers: Why it Matters

So where does the truth lie in the re-emergence of the story of Barack Obama and his relationship with William Ayers?

Is it, as Obama and his enablers in the media say, that it's irrelevant guilt by association?

- That what Ayers did in bombing federal targets in the 60's in the Weatherman when Obama was 8 has nothing to do with Obama.
- That Obama barely knows Ayers, "just a guy that lives in his neighborhood"
- that serving on two charitable boards together means nothing as far as Obama's judgement

Or is it, as conservatives like me and Sarah Palin argue, entirely relevant to Obama's qualification to be President?

- that Obama and Ayers have deep connections, going back to time together at Columbia
- that they share a socialist agenda for overthrowing capitalism, which they actively worked together to bring about.

Clearly, it's the second one.

Here are the only two things you need to know about William Ayers' relationship to Barack Obama:

1. William Ayers never stopped attacking America!

- not only as the cofounder of the radical anti-war bomber during the 60's, bombing the Pentagon and the Capitol and killing federal officials.

- since then. Not only as an unrepentant bomber, who regrets that they hadn't "done more". As a devotee of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" which taught Democratic radicals to pursue their agenda of revolution and socialism from inside the system. To get elected or in power and use the mainstream infrastructures to bring down the American system of capitalism and usher in marxist socialism in America. (No, I am not making this up. If you don't know who Saul Alinsky is, you don't know enough to vote for Barack Obama. Simple as that.)

- William Ayers pursues his attack on America now as an "education reformer". Simply put, he's not interested in teaching your kids math or english. He's teaching them radical revolutionary socialism. Teaching a whole generation of kids to loath capitalism and to foment revolution.

2. William Ayers chose Barack Obama to help him undermine American education!

- Ayers created the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. He sought and won $50 million in funds from the Annenberg charitable trust, and matched it with $50 million in local funding.

- Ayers chose Obama as the first chairman of the board that distributed that money. In fact, Obama was so proud of this position that he claimed it as his best executive experience qualification when he ran for Illinois Senate.

- Obama, under Ayers's close guidance, distributed the $100 million not to schools, but to external left-wing radical organizations. Groups like ACORN that commit voter fraud. Groups that teach revolutionary socialism. Groups that I would certainly not grant money to if my goal was to improve education.

Two Questions that Settle this issue:

1. If you created an organization to hand out $100 million dollars on behalf of a cause that you cared deeply about, would you select someone you barely knew as the first chairman of the board? Or would you choose a fellow traveler, who you knew very well and were certain that he shared your radical views?

2. Is education in Chicago improved after Ayers and Obama collaborated to spend $100 million "reforming" education in Chicago? Would you enroll your child in the Chicago School District?


Bottom line:

- Ayers and Obama know each other very very well, despite Obama's persistence to deny that he knows Ayers. And despite the media covering for him.

- Ayers and Obama are fellow travelers with a radical revolutionary vision of bringing down capitalism in America and replacing it with a marxist socialist system.

It matters, very much.

Can I Vote Palin and not McCain?

I watched the snore-fest called a debate last night between John McCain and Barack Obama. Some thoughts:

1. Two words: President Obama.

2. I've seen this debate before: Bob Dole vs. Bill Clinton in 1996, and we all know how that turned out. I was waiting for McCain to say, as Dole did, "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy!"

3. Does John McCain want to win this thing? Or is he in the tank for Obama. If he wants to win, he needs to drop the courteous Senator thing and get angry and passionate. This "it's everybody's fault" and "I'm so bipartisan that I work work well with every liberal Senator in the book" stick is sickening.

I know officially consider it hopeless, barring some jarring national event. Like, for example, the press suddenly paying attention to Barack Obama's overwhelming negatives. Unfotunately, I think that Obama would actually have to get caught in a polling place in an ACORN t-shirt registering dead people to vote for that to happen.

Oh well. We had a brief shining moment with Sarah.

Sarah's Big Night

I have no doubt that Sarah Palin is going to do just fine tonight in the Vice Presidential debate.

Especially is she is just herself and does not toe the wimpy McCain line.

Let Sarah be Sarah!

Her main message tonight has to be: Washington caused this economic mess with meddling in the markets. I'm not part of Washington.

Nail that and she wins.

I'm popping a big bowl of popcorn early for this one.

I'm ready to heckle Gwen "in the tank for Obama" Ifill. Bring it on.

the Weasels vote Aye!

So, the U.S. Senate passed the Lurching-into-Socialism emergency bailout bill last night. Yipee.

Here's why many Americans hate Congress: instead of passing this toxic bill straight-up, because it's an emergency and we need to save the country, they had to first add 300 PAGES of tax giveaways. Why? Because they know this bill had to pass and so they sneaked in all of the goodies and earmarks. Nice.

Weasels.

So, where was President-wannabe John "I'll veto any earmarks and make the authors famous" McCain? Quitely voting Aye with the rest of the weasels.

Quick, someone remind me: What good is John McCain as the Republican standard-bearer again?

I despise U.S. Senators. How did we end up with 3 of them on the tickets?

We're screwed.

Palin should distance herself - from McCain

John McCain's team will ruin Sarah Palin. I have no doubt.

I also have no doubt that Palin would not be supporting this massive socialism-tinged bailout bill if she was not having to parrot John McCain.

McCain is not a conservative. Said it many times. What he cares most about is bi-partisanship, which generally means Republicans selling out to appease Democrats. So, he's supporting this atrocious bailout to be bi-partisan, and dragging Sarah Palin down with him.

McCain could seize the moment of the bailout's historic failure in Congress today. He could champion real reform.

- repeal the Community Reinvestment Act as part of the bailout. It caused the subprime mortgage market, and the resulting implosion of the housing market.

- fix the flawed accounting rules and repeal Sarbanes-Oxley

- demand resignations of those who caused the crisis. Paulson, Dodd, Barney Frank. Pelosi, while you're at it.

But, he won't. He'll get in front of a microphone and blame House Republicans, because that's what he does. He wants the media to love him and that's how they'll love him. Guaranteed that's what he'll do - by tonight. Count on it.

And, he'll drag Sarah Palin down with him.

Sarah should rock everyone during the debate this week and oppose the bailout. Support a work-out. Demand reforms. That would shake things up.

Sarah Palin for President. Heck with McCain.

My Take on the Bailout, A.K.A. Our Impending Socialism

1. I couldn't disagree more with the "bipartisan" congressmen and pundits who keep saying that we shouldn't be talking about who is at fault for this economic meltdown, but should just proceed with the $700 Billion Dollar Bailout. If you don't correctly identify the cause, how can you be sure that you are not feeding $700 Billion Dollars right into the same mechanism?

2. Make no mistake about it, the Democrats own the failure of Wall Street. If you pay any attention to this beyond what the media elites are feeding you, this is abundantly clear. Four specific reasons:

a. The "Community Reinvestment Act", brought into law by the Clinton administration. Forced banks to make more loans to low-income people, principally by abandoning credit analysis. This created the "sub-prime" mortgage industry which eventually imploded and caused this mess.

**Note: I saw a Vice President of Fox Business Channel on the premier of "Huckabee" this weekend. She just the day before "googled" the CRA and found out, "Oh my God", how directly involved this act was in the mess. Question: how did she get to be VP of a business channel and she's just finding out what I - a regular joe blogging in my pajamas - have known for weeks? Really. The ignorance of the people you are seeing in the media is staggering.

b. Wall Street and the GSE's (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) are run by Democrats. The CEO's and prinicpal players - all multi millionaires - are all Democrats. They vote donkey. They contribute heavily to Obama. They are former Clinton administration officials (like Jamie Gorelick, who was also the villian in 9/11 by authoring the intelligence "wall" while at Justice.)

c. Democrat officeholders, like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, have not only pushed the whole sub-prime market on America but have also benefitted greatly from the political payback contributions of the Wall Street greedheads who were making millions before the implosions.

d. Democrats opposed all Republican efforts to reform the system and clamp down on the subprime market. The Bush administration tried in 2003 to reign in the market, and were stopped by Democrats. John McCain sponsored legislation in 2005 to regulate this out-of-control market, and was stopped in a party-line vote by Democrats. Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006 and could have gone after this before the implosion. They own the responsibility.

3. The price of a vote for a bailout by Congress should be a series of public resignations:

a. Treasury Secretary Paulson first of all. This meltdown happened on his watch. He should not be the architect of the rescue. He should be the first resignation.

b. Chairmen of Congressional banking committees. That would be Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and probably others. Resign now.

c. The Republican chairmen of those same committees before 2006. If they are still in Congress, they should resign now.

d. Every Congressman who voted in committee in 2005 to stop the McCain sponsored regulation of the banking industry. Resign tomorrow.

That's what would really restore the confidence and support of a very angry America. Resignations on a mass scale.

4. Stop ACORN! One of the upsides of capturing voter's attention during this crisis should be the exposure of the corrosive effect on our politics brought by the group called ACORN. The Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now. Yes, community organizers, like Barack Obama who was a member and activist. This is a thoroughly disreputable leftist group that has been regualarly involved in voter fraud. They are a reliable source of campaign workers for leftist Democrats. (sorry, I'm being redundant there.) ACORN follow the tenets of the founder of the community organizer movement, Saul Alinsky - who wrote "Rules for Radicals". Those tenets include achieving "change" - by which he means massive income redistribution and the replacement of capitalism by socialism. Yes, that "change" which is currently being promulgated as the theme of one of Alinsky's disciples - Barack Obama.

Here's an excellent recap on Michelle Malkin's website on ACORN.

Why should this crisis bring focus on the scurrilous group ACORN? Because the Democrats in Congress were trying to insert a provision in the bailout that 20% of any recovered funds coming back to the government would go to leftist voter fraud groups including ACORN. We have to scrutinize the final bill to ensure that the provision was stripped out.

Finally, if you haven't watched it yet, you owe it to yourself to spend 10 minutes on YouTube and watch the video called "Burning Down the House, What Caused Our Economic Crisis". If you haven't watched it yet, then you don't know enough about the crisis to have an opinion. Seriously.

Let Sarah be Sarah

The euphoria of John McCain naming Sarah Palin as his Vice President nominee is wearing off, and reality is setting in for me.

Yes, it was the right choice. Brilliant, in fact. Yes, she's qualified. Yes, she's awesome.

But.........two things threaten to take her down:

1. The media hates her. Absolutely. She is a threat to them, not only because they were caught off guard having no idea who she was, but because they are mostly elitist liberals and she is a confident conservative woman. By having her Down's Syndrome son, instead of aborting him, she is a direct threat to the sacrament of abortion - which is the most sacred dogma of today's Democrat party. So, they must take her down.

You need evidence of that? After Charlie Gibson's sneering condescending look-down-my-glasses-at-the-white-trash interview? How about perky Katie Couric editing an interview with Palin intentionally to make her look bad? Nothing new at CBS, I can assure you. (Dan Rather, pick up the white phone - oh, wait, where is Dan Rather the forger now?)

The media is out to get her. That's a given.

But the bigger threat to Sarah is John McCain's campaign staff. They have no idea what principles animate Sarah Palin. She's a conservative, and they assuredly are not! They see her massive appeal to America, but have no idea why.

So, what McCain's staff is stupidly doing is squashing her. Keeping her away from reporters. Forcing her into McCain's anti-conservative principles - which are primarly kiss-butt liberal positions to get the media's adoration.

Let Sarah be Sarah!

McCain's team can't hold her down forever. She will shine. And the debate is the place to do it.

Sarah should kick out her debate prep team and be herself!

Socialism Rising

Did I suddenly wake up in a socialist country this morning? Did we vote on that while we were sleeping?

I've been worried for a while now about socialism lurking in the background, waiting to wreak itself on our country if the unimaginable happens and Barack Obama is elected. How could it not? Barack Obama has been steeped in Marxist associates and mentors since back in high school. Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky, William Ayers, et al. Even his most influential mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who built his church on the foundation of the thoroughly Marxist Black Liberation Theology. Obama, the single most liberal Senator in office, is steeped in Marxism and Socialism.

I was going to give him until March or so before we went full tilt into Marxist legislation.

Don't I feel silly. I was way to optimistic to believe we had until March.

It turns out President Bush is in a race to beat him to it.

Way too few people understand that the Federal Government pumping untold billions into "bailouts" to private companies like the Wall Street banks - in exchange for equity positions in those companies - is socialism. What else would you call government ownership of business?

OPPOSE THE BAILOUT!!!

Newt Gingrich went on record today predicting that anyone who votes for the bailout this week will be defeated in November. If we had any sense, he would be right.

It shouldn't wait until November. There should be firings right now. Cabinet members who had responsibility to keep our economy from melting down, and have failed extravagantly to do so, should be fired immediately. Paulson. Bernake. And their important deputies. President Bush needs to do that tomorrow. To not do so is gross negligence.

Democratic Congressional leadership, who caused this crisis with government intrusion into the capital markets to require these banks to make loans "more acessible" and caused the sub-prime meltdown, should resign tomorrow. That would be Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and everyone who championed the Community Reinvestment Act. To not do so is gross negligence.

I'm not enthralled with government at the moment. Nor, do I want to hand them $700 billion dollars in the hope that they will fix the mess that they caused.

What a mess.

Media Clueless about the Awesome Sarah Palin

I have to admit, I am laughing myself silly at the incredible cluelessness of the mainstream media journalists (so called) and pundits on the topic of Sarah Palin. Really, how did these people get their jobs?

Here are the two most glaring areas in which they are demonstrating less-than-competence:

1. Who is Sarah Palin?

Almost the entire media herd completely missed Sarah as a possible running mate selection for John McCain. All of them, completely caught off guard and dumbfounded.

I called it. Little old me, a private citizen at home blogging in my pajamas. Astute readers will scroll down to my July 4th post this year and read where I urged John McCain to fly to Alaska to research the question of drilling for oil, and while he's at it to name Sarah Palin as his VP. Me, two months ago. I knew who she was and how powerful her nomination would be. Why didn't the network news divisions know this? Really.

2. McCain did it to woo Hillary voters:

All of the commentary that I watched and read this weekend focused on that reason for Palin's selection - blatant pandering to win the mad Hillary voters.

Wrong. Really, how do these people get on television.

The main reason for McCain to choose Sarah Palin was to fix McCain's main problem: securing his base and getting them out to vote for him.

You can't win without your base, and McCain's base was in trouble. Just ask me, I'm the base and I don't like John McCain. Do you know how many conservative Republicans were telling themselves "okay, Ill vote for him but I have to get drunk to do it"? Lots, that's how many.

McCain needs his base. Not only did he not have the base secured, but he was in danger of further aggravating his base with his VP pick. Lieberman, who he wanted to pick, would have caused an outright revolt at the convention. All of the other picks would have divided the base to some degree - Romney, Ridge, etc. Pawlenty was safe, but would excite no one.

There was one candidate, admittedly out on the margin of public awareness, who the base was chattering about - Sarah Palin.

Here's the bottom line: the announcement of Sarah Palin ELECTRIFIED the base, and NO ONE thought that John McCain could even hold the base this year let alone thrill the base. He did it with this pick and now he has the base solidly locked in and eager to work for his election. That's what the choice of Sarah Palin was all about.

Wooing mad Hillary voters is just a bonus.

Okay, all of you mainstream media slackers: you are welcome for the lesson. Now, don't let this happen again.

Sarah Palin for VP! Checkmate!

My apologies to John McCain for my last post. He got it right!

Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska was my first choice of all of the short and long lists. It's an inspired pick and I give John McCain enormous credit for making it.

Barack Obama last night: great speech - Check.

John McCain today: inspired choice - Checkmate!

Will McCain make a stupid VP pick?

I never underestimate the ability of John McCain to do something stupid. In fact, he revels in being the "maverick" and going against the Republican base.

He needs the base in this election to beat Barack Obama.

That does not mean that he will make a smart selection tomorrow as he announces his pick. I'm steeling myself for him to make a stupid pick.

Picking a pro-choice politician would, for example, be a stupid pick. The abortion question is one that many people in our party care about, and it's an issue where he has Democrats on the ropes.

Obama stuck his foot in his mouth at Saddleback where he declared the issue of when life begins to be "above my pay grade". Really? The most serious social issue of our generation is above your pay grade? Who's pay grade is higher than the office you seek?

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi added fuel to the fire when she said on Meet the Press that it's not a settled question in her Catholic faith. Really? Several bishops are stepping up to do a smack-down on madam Pelosi, and it's getting a lot of press play.

So, John McCain has an important issue where he has an advantage and a clear difference with all of the highly-visible Democrats. There is only one way to screw that up and take it off of the table - name a pro-choice running mate.

Which means, of course, that is exactly what he will do.

I'm already steeling myself to say to myself tomorrow "Oh no, he didn't....."

Please let me be wrong.


Friday morning update: Please let it be Sarah Palin! Fingers crossed.....

Democrats Intsitutionalize the Big Lie

Really, Democrats have been propagating many big lies over the last few years in their desperation to win back power. I could give so many examples: "Bush lied, kids died". Bush was responsible for Katrina. The U.S. military has murdered millions in an illegal war in Iraq. It goes on and on.

Now they've gone for broke in the Democratic National Convention. The new big lie is this:

"The Bush-McCain administration"

Almost every speaker at the convention seems required to utter this phrase.

It's a lie. It's a palpable lie. The last 8 years were the Bush-Cheney adminstration. Bush was President. Cheney was Vice-President. McCain was outside the administration as a Senator, and one who was a frequent critic of Bush-Cheney. That's a simple fact.

I understand that it's a political strategy to tie McCain, their opponent, to Bush, an unpopular war-President. I understand completely. It's a smart tactic. I don't begrudge them using it.

There are even acceptable ways to do it. I like Hillary Clinton's take on it in her speech at the convention, when she joked that she understands why the Republicans are meeting in the "Twin Cities, because it's so hard to tell them apart. Very funny. An acceptable partisan take on their opponents. Point scored.

On the other hand, it took Joe Biden exactly one speech, in Springfield Illinois when he was named as the VP pick, to begin using the "Bush-McCain administration" line.

I don't object to the tactic. I object to the lie. It's a big lie. In public. Stop it.

A Flawed Historic Candidate

History was made in America last night. It was the first time in our history that a black man was nominated to be the candidate for President by a major party. An African-American, no less - truly for once: the son of a Kenyan father of an American mother.

I want to share the excitement of this historic moment. It does say something about America that this is possible. It's not possible in most of the nations in the world, including in Europe, which harbors a superior attitude about America.

I want to be excited about this historic candidacy, but I'm not. I'm appalled instead.

It's not because Obama is a black man. I would be happy to share in the history of electing a black man, just not this particular black man.

It's because Obama's a socialist. A marxist. Adopting the views of his first mentor "Frank" ( according to his own autobiography), who turns out to be Frank Marshall Davis - a communist party member calling for revolution.

It's because Obama's a radical leftist. Adopting the views of his mentor Saul Alinsky, who authored the radical leftist treatise "Rules for Radicals". Alinsky taught his disciples, and influenced Obama, to achieve "change" from the inside by getting elected to office and then ushering in communist revolution.

It's because Obama is comfortable with terrorists. Including Bill Ayers, a 60's anti-war protester who bombed federal buildings back then and is unrepentant now. Despite Obama's protestations that he's "just a guy who lives in my neighborhood", they in fact served for years together on boards of foundations doling out millions to leftist groups. And, have you heard Obama say anything at all about the threat we face from radical Islam?

It's because Obama was groomed by a corrupt political machine in Chicago. Particulary, by Tony Rezko - a corrupt real estate "developer" who took millions in Illinois grants to rehab buildings for public housing and never fixed any of them up. Grants that were sought on his behalf by a Chicago law firm - and a lawyer on their staff named Barack Obama. Grants that became political contributions for the Senate campaigns of a lawyer namend Barack Obama. Grants that eventually became entwined in a corrupt deal to get Barack Obama his mansion in Chicago.

It's because Obama marinated for 20 years in the hate America/hate white people rantings of Jeremiah Wright at Trinity church, and the Black Liberation Theology on which it was founded. An "afrocentric" church that regularly denigrates America in the harshest terms in keeping with it's perceived prophetic mission. A preacher who regularly denigrates whites from the pulpit. And a congregant who saw nothing wrong with that for 20 years until he started taking heat on the campaign trail.

Barack Obama is a seriously flawed man, and a flawed candidate. Unfortunately he's a candidate in whom so many have invested historic hopes. He will let them down.

Famous for being Famous

It's the ad that has made the presumptive presidential coronation of Barack Obama into a horse race again.

I'm talking about John McCain's new ad featuring Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and the media's annointed one himself Senator Barack Obama?

What do these three have in common?

The answer to that question is kind of a Rohrshach test for journalists, and they are failing it badly. It's been amusing to listen to the pundits trip over themselves trying to interpret it.

They call it silly. What do they have in common? For the life of them, they cannot figure it out.

They call it negative.

They call it racist. After all, it features two blondes and a black man so it must be outrageously racist! Say what? I can't follow that logic, but a lot of pundits on MSNBC and the nightly news shows apparently are enthralled with the brilliance of that argument.

I was listening to a morning drive time radio host this morning who has apparently been getting the Democrat talking points memos. She referred to it as the "blonde ad". "I don't get it", she said. What do the blondes have to do with Barack Obama.

It's simple really. The ad means what it says. It's about "celebrity". The first line of the ad says - as it is showing our three celebrities - that "Barack Obama is the biggest celebrity in the world".

Why is the ad pointing that out? Why is that bad? What do these three have in common?

What they have in common is celebrity at it's worst: being famous only for being famous. Having no real accomplishments that justify you being famous. It's that simple.

What is Paris Hilton famous for? What has she accomplished to justify her relentless celebrity?

What has Britney Spears accomplished in the last few years to justify weekly covers on magazines?

What has Barack Obama accomplished to justify being the presumptive nominee and media annointed one to be President. He had one term in the Illinois Senate, where he sponsored no bills and voted "present" more than 130 times. He served one year in the U.S. Senate before he started running for President. He passed no major legislation. He didn't even chair any hearings on the committee he headed.

Paris - famous, no accomplishments. Britney - famous, no accomplishments. Barack - famous, no accomplishements. It's the perfect visual analogy.

Not only is it a dead-on accurate visual campaign ad, but people outside of the elite punditry get it. It's effective. McCain has erased Obama's lead since the ad came out.

It's an effective ad from McCain, and it's about time!

McCain - Go North to Alaska!

What is John McCain doing campaigning in Mexico City today?

Or Columbia yesterday?

Is he trying to shore up the Bogata and Mexico City vote? Here's a hint to his campaign managers - they don't get to vote in our elections. (At least, not yet until McCain gets his way with comprehensive immigration reform and throws open our citizenship to everyone who can scramble over our borders.)

Is he harboring secret esoteric knowledge that Global Free Trade or the War on Drugs are going to suddenly emerge as winning issues against Barack Hussein Obama? Does he not understand the anger in middle-America about outsourced jobs?

The tradgedy of John McCain wasting time on a tour of South and Central America is this: John McCain could leep to the front and take and unassailable lead on Obama if he would jump on the critical issue of this election:

$5 gas!

That will be the burning issue (pardon the pun) of the election. $5 a gallon gas. McCain should jump on this immediately.

Go North to Alaska!

McCain should get on a flight right now to Alaska. Meet up with the Governor - Sara Palin. Travel together to the ANWR Coastal Plain, where we could be drilling for oil and aren't. Let her convince you to open the area up for drilling and CHAMPION IT!

I heard Gov. Palin on a radio program the other day. She's very sharp and capable. She strongly made the point that Alaska has an abundance of natural resources (oil, natural gas, etc.), and stands ready to contribute to the whole U.S. with those resources. She argued that drilling can and should be done.

She's right. McCain is wrong. I've been there. I lived in Alaska for four years. I've walked, physically, on the boggy tundra of the North Slope of Alaska. It is not the pristine wilderness that John McCain contains to state that it is, or that the video footage that network news shows as it. It is a barren wasteland. A mosquito swamp. We can and should drill there right now!

Newt Gingrich is right on target with his Drill Here, Drill Now campaign. He's absolutely right that this is the issue that will turn the election.

Sen. John McCain has been too wrong for too long on this issue. But, he has the chance to change that and seize the winning issue in this election.

Fly to Alaska!

Go to ANWR!

Champion drilling in ANWR as part of a comprehensive change in energy policy!

And, while you're at it, name Govenor Palin of Alaska as your VP.

McCain could seize the winning ground here and take this thing away from Obama. But, he won't. So hey, since you're going to waste the election, just keep traipsing around down in Mexico City.

Hey, ABC News - She's Not a Man!

As if you need further proof of the sad state of American journalism, this is the story over which journalists have most embarrased themselves in the last 9 months:

'Pregnant Man' Gives Birth to Girl

No, using the quote marks around 'pregnant man' does not get them off of the hook.

ABC News, in this case, and others continue to report this fake story as if they want you to believe that this is a man. I quote:

"Born a woman, Beatie, 34, who had had his breasts surgically removed and
legally changed his gender from female to male, leaped to prominence around the
world in April when the wispy bearded man revealed he was pregnant.

Despite years of taking hormones and living outwardly as a man, Beatie
maintained that he retained his female sex organs because he intended one day to
get pregnant."

Does being a journalist mean that you report any ridiculous thing anyone says without any discernment as to its truth?

Let me state the obvious:

- surgically removing your breasts does not make you a man
- taking hormones does not make you a man
- if you can get pregnant, you are not a man
- if you can deliver a baby, you are not a man

Did any of the actions that this person took change the fact that she has XX chromosomes?

The simple fact is that she is not a man. Period.

So why does the media keep reporting the 'Pregnant Man' story? Because some of you keep believing it and it sells 'news'. Stop it, already. Call it what it is - a fake news story.

Shame on ABC News.

And shame on the 'judge' who allowed her to legally change "his" gender.

Hillary Must Have Seen the Video

So, tell me:

- if Barack Hussein Obama is the winner of the Democrat primary, why can't he win? Why did Hillary beat him in 2 of the last 3 primaries?

- if Hillary is beaten, why didn't she concede and congratulate Obama last night in her speech after the primaries closed?

The most explanative answer, I firmly believe, is that she must have seen the video.

If you're politcally and internet savvy, you know which video I mean. The internet is aflame with rumors about a video from Trinity United Church. This time not with Jeremiah Wright. Oh, no. This time featuring Michelle Obama herself, railing against "Whitey". Using that word, apparently many times.

If that video exists, and if it gets wide play in the media, it will take down Barry the annointed one.

Hillary has seen it. She knows it's out there. She knows it's knock-out power.

She will wait.

She will get the video out there.

She will step into the void when Obama crashes under the weight of the video.

That's the best explanation for her statement last night that she's "not making any decisions tonight". No decisions until the video comes out.

Hillary has seen the light, the light of an explosion, an explosion on video.

It's going to get much more interesting than it's already been. Strap in.

The Left's Unhinged Vocabulary

Surfing through political blogs today, on Easter Sunday, I was struck by how deeply unhinged the political left in this country has become - as evidenced by their hyperbolic vocabulary.

Two articles on DemocraticUnderground.com in particular caught my eye:

1. First an article about the sermon preached at Obama's church today about how to survive a "lynching". About how Rev. Wright has been "lynched" in the press for the last two weeks. (Silly me, I went to church on Easter Sunday to hear a message about the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. I guess I just don't get it.)

People, can we stop using the word "lynching" unless someone is actually killed with a rope? Rev. Wright was not lynched. He was criticized. He was ridiculed even. But he was not lynched.

How big of a chip do you have to have on your shoulder to equate being criticized with being lynched?

2. an article about how former New York Governor Elliot Spitzer was "asassainated".

People, can we stop using the word "asassainated" unless someone is actually killed?

Eliot Spitzer was not assasainated. He was identified - as someone who had potentially committed an illegal offense. He then admitted guilt and resigned. He was most certainly not asassainated.

How big of a persecution complex do you have to have to equate someone being mentioned in the press to them being asassainated? Isn't that a major disservice to the memories of political leaders who were actually killed in the line of duty?

Get a grip, lefties. Ratchet back the hyperbole.

Obama: the Double-Negative Racist

Weren't we all taught in elementary school not to use double-negatives?

Me, I don't never use them if I don't have to.

Given that, I'm bugged by one particular clause in Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia on race. It's this clause, regarding his relationship with his race-baiting America-hating pastor:

" I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community."

No dis-owning. A double negative. Intended to hide what, exactly?

According to webster, "disown" means to repudiate any connection or identification with.

So, the correct grammar translation - if you reduced the double-negative of "no dis-owning" would be to own. Would be to acknowledge a connection or identification with.

Which was obvious in the first place. Barack Obama has a 20 year relationship with the racist America-hating Rev. Wright.

He owns it. And he chooses not to disown it.

It's not illegal. Obama can associate with a racist all day long. It's still a free country, even if he doesn't particularly like it all that much.

He just can't have my vote for President of the United States of America.

And he shouldn't have yours.

BDS and the Big little Lie

Have you ever had an acquaintance who was a pathological liar? How did you distinguish them from the run-of-the-mill fibber?

One sign, I'm sure you will agree, is when you catch them in a little lie that is so insignificant that there was no reason for them to have had to lie about it.

I detected one of those senseless little lies in the Democrat talking points in the last couple of weeks, that makes me seriously concerned about how deeply Bush Derangement Syndrome (and it's corresponding hatred of all things Republican) is entrenched in the Dem leadership.

Some context:

The Big Lies have abounded for years now in the Democrat talking points. They are legion:

- Bush stole the 2000 and 2004 elections
- Bush lied, kids died
- the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal and unjustified
- Bush and Cheney mislead everyone about the presence of WMD's in Iraq
- Bush said the use of nuclear weapons by Iraq was "imminent"

All not true, but all repeated so often in the echo chamber of liberal leaders and the Mainstream Media and the left-wing bloggers that they just take them as given facts. You know the old maxim, "If you repeat a lie often enough,..."

As for the Little Lie that belies a pathology on the left: It has to do with their talking points on the train wreck that the Michigan and Florida primaries are causing in the Democratic Primary.

I first heard it a couple of weeks ago, when a Democratic Congresswoman from Florida was on Fox News Sunday. She started off her discussion by arguing that it was not the fault of the Democratic Party in Florida, that the "Republican-lead Legislature" had forced the Party to move it's primary date forward and thus lose all of it's delegates.

"Wait a minute", host Chris Wallace said. "Wasn't it a Democrat who put forward the legislation?"

"Well yes, but...."

"And did any Democrat vote No on the legislation?"

"Well no, but..." And she went on to continue to blame the Republican majority for the calamity.

Heard it again on Fox when Great Van Sustern was interviewing ex-President Bill Clinton. He repeated the same talking points, saying that the "Democratic Party was 100% innocent in this problems" and that the "Republican-lead legislature" had put them in this jam.

Okay, this is a silly and stupid lie. But, apparently one that the Dems think is important enough to keep repeating as their talking points. Listen for it on the networks this week as they continue to try to sort out a solution for Florida and Michigan.

It's the little and unnecessary lie that provides the clue as to degree of pathological their lying has become.

Obama's "Speech": the Duality

So, by now I've read and listened to and re-read again Barack Obama's milestone speech on race relations in America - given in the context of needing to answer for his close association with his pastor, a racist America-hater. (It reads much better than it was delivered.)

So, did I think it was a brilliantly written and totally unique speech addressing such a serious topic as the perfecting of the American Union? A speech that addressed racial divisions in America in a serious and at times uplifting manner in a way that no public figure has in nearly 40 years?

Or, did I think it was a too-clever dodge. A way of changing the topic and excusing his way out of hot water to keep his hard won lead in a high-stakes presidential campaign?

Both, actually.

I read the speech first, and was moved- not completely to tears, but just short. It is brilliantly crafted. The man can write. Who doesn't want to believe in us making progress together, in the face of past strife, toward a more perfect Union? It was, in places, quite inspiring. I give the Senator considerable credit for that.

On the negative side, the speech did not adequately explain the Senator's 20 year relationship with the Reverend. In fact, it uses very trite liberal techniques for excusing bad behavior:

Moral Relativism: Rev. Wright's years of bad racial incitement from the pulpit is no different than Geraldine Ferraro's one comment in an interview last week. Just the same. So, no problem. The only problem is that this is ridiculous on it's face.

Everyone Does It: While Reverend Wright "contains within him the contradictions ? the good and the bad ? of the community that he has served diligently for so many years. " but:

"I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother ? a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

In other words, sure he's a ranting racist but you should really hear my cracker granny.

Nice move, jackass, throwing your grandmother under the train to save your own guilty skin. Absolutely no class in that move.

One important disconnect to me was Senator Obama's continuous use of the phrases "black community" and "white community". Here's the problem: I don't live in one of those communities. Yes, I'm white - but I don't live in the "white community". I live in a city. I work at a job. I go to a church. None of those do I describe as "unashamedly white", as Obama's church describes itself as "unashamedly black". I don't ever use racial terms like that. No one I associate with does either. But clearly Senator Obama, and his wife, and his associates immerse themselves in those racial terms. They are the exclusionists, not me, and this speech just solidified that observation to me.

The speech was well written, important, and may well convince some that this issue is over. But, for me the bottom line is this:

1. Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church, built on his vision of "Black Liberation Theology", is a seething cauldron of racial hatred and animosity to America at large.
2. Barack Obama has been a member of this church for 20 years.
3. In all likelihood, Senator Obama chose to join this particular church for the exact same reason that all of us choose a church - because we are in general agreement with it's doctrine.

Obama has not adequately put this issue behind him, and his candidacy is in serious trouble. My prediction is that he will be soundly defeated in the next primary state, Pennsylvania. And then the Democrat party Superdelegates will have to decide whether to take him down or not. I wouldn't take bets at this point that he comes out of the process as the nominee.

Let's just MoveOn.org

Thank you Democrats, for re-introducing the phrase "let's just move on" back into the political lexicon. (/sacrcsm off)

For those of you younguns out there who don't remember the juicy scandal-filled Clinton years, this was a common phrase back in the 90's. In fact, so many Clinton surrogates who were trotted out to defend Slick Willie tried to change the subject by saying "There is nothing to see here. Let's just move on" that an actual left-wing attack group (MoveOn.org) was the spin-off result. (Yes, that's the same wonderful lefty group that brought us the "General Betraeus" ad in the New York Times last year.)

I swear, I about fell out of my chair this weekend when - right on cue - Democratic strategist Bob Beckel - called out on Fox News to defend Barack whose-middle-name-can-never-be-spoken Obama's close association with racist America-hater Jeremiah Wright", said:

"Can we just move on here and get back to discussing Iraq and health care?"

Sorry, we're not moving on for a while here. Barry X has some explaining to do.

It's the Membership, Stupid

Does Presidential candidate Barack Whose-middle-name-cannot-be-spoken Obama, and his pride-deficient wife Michelle, like America?

It's a reasonable question. Color me jingoistic, but I actually consider it a core qualification for running for the office of President of the United States of America that you actually like America. It may not be worded that literally in the Constitution - right there with being a natural born citizen and at least 35 years old - but, still...

It's a fair question, when you match up the Obama's actions and words with the radicalized America-hating rantings of B.H. Obama's close friend, advisor, and "mentor" Rev. Wright. (go see the "God Damn America" video, if it's still up).

The Rev. Wright has established his 35 year ministry in Obama's church in Chicago on, among other things, African nationalism, black victimization, white oppression, and "black liberation theology". That last one being a marxist, leftist, and highly-separationist worldview. Many of us following Obama for the past year are well aware of the nature of Obama's church. But seeing the string of video excerpts from his controversial sermons is still chilling.

Obama responded this weekend to the damaging videos by condemning the statements "on those videos" and by removing Rev. Wright from his campaign team. Obama categorically stated that none of the statements were made in his presence, while he was physically "in the pew". Obama is, of course, lying blatantly. It is inconceivable that none of this incendiary rhetoric was used in the sermons that Obama sat through in 20 years of membership at Trinity. He is not being truthful.

The MSM is predictably either ignoring the story entirely, as 2 of the 3 networks are doing, or try to shift our attention question by dually raising the moral equivalence argument and the guilt by association argument:

Moral equivalence being: why sure this looks bad, but what about John McCain getting endorsements from controversial pastors John Hagee and Rob Parsley?

gba being: why sure the Rev. Wright's statements are radical and undefendable, but we don't believe in guilt-by-association so you can't tie Obama to Wright.

The glaring flaw in these two arguments is the qualitative distinctiveness - and they must not teach distinctions in J-school - of the Obama / Wright relationship by virtue of Obama's 20-year membership in Wright's church. IT'S THE MEMBERSHIP, STUPID!

If you have ever joined a church, as I have - particularly an evangelical Protestant church, as I have - then you understand the particular nature of this association and why it is so important in this story. When you join a church you act in a willful, volitional, affirmative way to associate yourself with the teachings of that church - which is often significantly embodied personally in the Pastor. When you sit under a pastor's preaching - whose job it is to influence you deeply in thought and deed - your worldview is affected.

So, if you sit under a pastor's leadership, teaching, and preaching for twenty years you are announcing a strong influential association. And if you sit under the leadership, teaching, and preaching of a virulently racist America-hating anti-semite for 20 years, then you have some explaining to do.

So, when you review Michelle Obama's puzzling proclamation recently - that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of America - in light of her placing herself and her children under the influence of a radicalized America-hating firebreather and it makes perfect sense.

And, when you review Barack Hussein Obama's pointed refusal to wear a flag pin on his lapel or place his hand over his heart during the national anthem in the light of his 20-year association with his vulgar America-hating mentor it makes perfect sense.

So, here's what we know. We know that the spiritual leader of Barack and Michelle Obama's church is a radical, marxist, racist, vulgar, America-hater. We know that while Barack disavows a few particular statements that Rev. Wright made on the shock videos, he doesn't consider his church to be "particularly controversial". And we know that both Obamas seem to have a puzzling lack of pride in the country.

Barack Obama, you are entitled to attend any church - and associate yourself with any radical - you prefer. No question. It's a free country.

You are just not entitled to my vote for President of the United States of America.

Clinton's Consigliere Returns to the News

You know of course, that I was an avid conspiracy theorist in the Clinton years of the 90's. Loved 'em. Followed 'em. Ate 'em up.

One of my favorite players in the various Clinton scandals was an extemely shadowy character named Bruce Lindsey. A longtime Clinton friend and advisor. Always there with Bubba, but just out of sight of the cameras. His ever present card playing partner on Air Force One (Hearts, as I recall) and, I always believed, his "fixer" in the scandal department. Bill Clinton's consigliere - the role of adviser made popular in the Godfather movies.

I haven't thought of him since BC left office with his last day scandal of issuing a slew of pardons to unsavory characters. Many probably arranged by Lindsey for the appropriate payments. Just my opinion.

But, he's back. What possible Bill Clinton scandals are still to erupt? Well, two come to mind:

1. Mr. ex-President Clinton has been busy since he left office raking in donations from unsavory characters overseas. Certainly in an improper manner, I believe, for an ex-President. Very probably in an illegal manner, given that Hillary is using joint-checking-account money to fund her campaign. How much money from China and Dubai is Hillary allowed to spend in a presidential election cycle - that would be none. But is she? Hard to tell, because a lot of the money is funnelled through the Clinton Library Foundation - which refused to release it's donor list.

2. Recent requests for Presidential papers related to the pardon scandal have been rebuffed by - guess who - the Clinton Library Foundation, which has refused to releas 1000 of documents that have notes on them as to how the pardon decisions were made. Isn't that nice to have a gatekeeper to shield the ex-President from scrutiny.

Hmmm, the Clinton Library Foundation seems to have become the new scandal central for our intrepid and scandalous ex-President.

And who, if you even need to ask, is the current Director of the Clinton Library Foundation?

That would be the re-emergent fixer, Mr. Bruce Lindsey. Hmmm.

Democrats Unhinged on Waterboarding

The press reported today that President George W. Bush has vetoed Congressional legislation outlawing, among other things, the use of waterboarding by the CIA as an interrogation technique.

Democrats in Congress have argued that the CIA should be limited to the interrogation techniques that the military is limited to in the Army Field Manual, that "torture is a black mark against the United States" (Nancy Pelosi), and that our ability to lead the world depends on morality, not military might (Pelosi again).

President Bush argued in response that the CIA should have a separate and lawful intelligence program, given their different operational needs than the military, and that the use of these programs has saved lives. An argument, in fact echoed by former CIA director George Tenet in his excellent book about the events and aftermath of 9/11.

I have two main thoughts here:

1. Thank God for President Bush who, even in the face of years of withering and unrelenting assaults on his efforts to defend this nation, still stands firm in the committment to fight this war aggressively. He stands firmly on the wall, battling Islamist Jihadists with all the tools at his disposal.

2. This argument over waterboarding in particular highlights why the Democrat leadership is unsuited for leadership in wartime. They are, in my opinion, over their painting our nation as torturers for using this technique against exactly three high-value Al-Qaida terrorists leaders in the timeframe where it was likely that we would be facing another attack on American soil.

Folks, you need to get a grip here. If you are of the opinion that it was eggregious for the CIA to waterboard Khalid Sheik Muhammed in 2003, to get information about other planned Al-Qaida operations against America, you are unhinged.

Do you understand who Khalid Sheik Muhammed is? Really. There is no one on the planet more responsible for the atrocity that was 9/11 than KSM. Not even Osama bin Laden. OBL gave approval and funding for the operation, true. But KSM conceived it, planned it, and was responsible for the execution of 9/11. He and Ramzi Yousef planned how to use airliners to attack targets and kill Americans. He oversaw the selection and training of the attackers. He was the operational commander. And I'm going to feel sorry for the CIA making him uncomfortable in his interrogation?

KSM was captured in Pakistan by the CIA in March of 2003, by daring CIA field officers in an operation in a foreign country carrying great risk. They subjected KSM to interrogation, believing rightly that there were other operations in the planning stage that would kill thousands of Americans if not uncovered and stopped. They needed that information to stop it. We, as Americans, needed for them to get that information. Did they torture and maim KSM, as we understand the term torture? Did they cripple him or dismember him or burn him with irons or hang him and beating him (all techniques found in the Al-Qaida torture manual)?

No, they did not. They "waterboarded" him for a total of two minutes and 30 seconds. No permanent harm, no disfigurement. And KSM spilled his guts. And operations were uncovered and stopped. And thousands of lives were saved. As testified to by CIA officials like George Tenet.

Now, if you want to believe that that 2 1/2 minutes of discomfort that KSM was subjected to by the CIA was unallowable by a civilized nation, even one at war with barbarians who would plan 9/11 and who routinely behead infidels, then I would categorically state that you are in fact unhinged.

Had President Bush, as leader of this nation, failed to, in the wake of 9/11, use all of the tools at his disposal to interrogate captured Al-Qaida leadership and uncover and stop other planned operations against America that would have injured and killed thousands - I would have argued for his impeachment. The fact that he did what he did and ordered what he ordered earns him my gratitude.

But then again, I'm not an unhinged Democrat in the mold of Nancy Pelosi. May she never have the primary responsibility for the defense of this nation.

Times Square Bombing Shoud Give Democrats Pause

In the wake of the eggregious bombing of the military recruitment center in Times Square in New York this week, Democrats should pause and consider their complicity.

The Democrat leadership and their allies in the media and blogosphere, in their blind hatred of all things George W. Bush and their quest to regain the power of the presidency, have been effectively trashing the military for going on at least three years now.

Pelosi, Reid, and company have been beating the drums of anti-war, and in doing so have repeatedly made the case that:

- our military are killers and occupiers. (Constantly trumpeting the worst case stories of Haditha, and inflating the number of war casualties)

- our military are torturers. (Abu Gahraib, Gitmo, waterboarding)

- our Commander-in-Chief is a rogue criminal who makes war unjustly

- the military recruiters are predators, preying on inner city youth who have no other financial options

In peddling these stories every day, they inspire people to hatred of the United States. Just read some of the leftwing forums. I do. They are chock full of vitriol and hate. Not just for President Bush (who they unaffectionately call "chimpy") and his administration, but for the military. They emphatically do not support the troops.

If you want a concrete example of the Left's complicity in anti-military activity, just look at the actions of the Berkley California city council last month. The council is one of the best examples of the left having control of the levers of power and using it to agitate against the military in the form of recruitment centers. The council voted to kick the U.S. military recruitment center out of town, sending a letter saying they were "uninvited and unwelcome". They also stripped them of parking spaces outside the center and designated them for use by anti-war loonies Code Pink - who they encouraged to do all they could to disrupt the activities of the military recruiters.

I have two things to say about that:

1. Democrat politicians are complicit in encouraging antipathy toward military recruiters, and are complicit in the bombing of the recruitment center in Times Square.

2. In my opinion, Berekely California should be stripped of all federal dollars, and left undefended by the military in the event of an attack. Screw them. Let Code Pink defend them.

How to Bungle a Nomination Process

This has, without doubt, been the most interesting presidential election cycle of my lifetime. Wow. Absolutely nothing is going as predicted by the pundits or pollsters. Bad for them. Good for us.

One of the most interesting aspects has been the seminar being put on by the Democratic Party on how to screw up a nomination process. It's a total mess on that side of the nominating aisle - not that I object to that.

Here are three Democrat peculiarities that have contributed to the train crash:

1. An emphasis on the Caucus.

Does anyone really understand the caucus process? Or know why it is used so much on the Democrat side? What I've observed so far is that the caucus system severely limits the number of people that can participate in the process. How many people are willing to show up for two hours at night and vote out in public in front of their neighbors? It's undemocratic for one, sacrificing the secret vote of the ballot booth.

Look at Wyoming, for example. The Republicans had their primary a long time ago and had a good simple vote. Now the Democrats are doing it with a caucus and, if Fox New's scroll is correct, have about 10,000 people total in the whole state participating. They're going to award 12 delegates to the convention based on the votes of 10,000 people in a whole state? That's screwed up.

Don't even get me started on Texas, where the Democrats had both a primary and a caucus and everyone could vote twice in one day. Do you think this gives anyone confidence in the process? No.

2. Proportional awarding of delegates:

The Dems do it. The Republicans don't - preferring a winner take all system. The result? The Republicans have a candidate, the Dems have a train wreck.

Proportional allocation of delegates sounds fair, but it doesn't aid the nominating process. First of all, I would want to have a process that's similar to the general election, where electoral college votes are awarded winner take all in most states. Also, winner-take-all makes for convincing wins by a large majority and give the winner an implied "mandate" that is more effective in uniting a group at the end of the process.

Un-Inevitable

A year ago most Democrats, by all accounts, thought that two things were inevitable:

1. Hillary Clinton will be the party nominee.
2. Any Democrat will win the White House because of how much the country hates George W. Bush.

It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary's inevitability has gone down the drain.

What is clear to me is that the inevitability of the second probability is gone as well.

Things are looking promising on the Republican side, making a win in November highly possible. What things? Well, here's two:

- the Repbulicans have settled on a candidate already, while the Democrats have months of fratricide ahead of them in their screwed up primary.

- the "surge" is indeed working. This both takes it off the front pages of the paper and shows leading Dems to have been wrong when they declared the war "lost".

I'm looking forward to the electoral battle in November. I think the Democrats are well on their way to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!

Super Tuesday 2 - tidbits

You know, faithful readers, that I've wanted to post something every day during this totally fascinating election season of 2008. Alas, time does not permit. So, to catch up, here are some tidbits:

- I'm of a split mind what I want to have happen in tomorrow's Super Tuesday 2 elections in Texas and Ohio. Do I want Hillary to get the crushing defeat that she so soundly deserves, and for the Clintons to finally be driven off the public stage in humiliating defeat. Yes, I want that. Or, do I more want Hillary to make just enough of a showing to stay in the race so that the two of them can scratch each other's eye's out (politically metaphorically, of course) all the way through the convention? Do I wish for political chaos and damage in the Democratic primaries until August? The Rush Limbaugh strategy.

I want both. I think, though, that I have to come down on the side of wanting Hillary soundly defeated and out of our lives. The Clintons are so politically dangerous to America's future that I want the possibility of her being President off of the table. I'll sleep easier.

- Who is the most beatable in the general election for McCain? Hillary, with her decades of baggage? Or Barack who's-middle-name-cannot-be-spoken Obama? I say both are beatable. Finsh off Hillary now. Take out Obama in the general. It can happen.

- Speaking of B. Hussein Obama's middle name: I think most if not all of the pundits are missing the point about why it should cause Americans pause in voting for him.

It's not that he is currently a muslim - he's not, he's a member of Trinity United Church of Christ.

It's not, as Karl "the Architect", said on Fox News tonight irrelevant because B. Hussein Obama did not choose his middle name.

It's relevant precisely because the people who did choose his middle name are the people who most influenced and shaped his life and his worldview, and they are all "practicing" muslims. So, did Obama oppose the Iraq war in 2002 - when EVERYONE else supported it - because he really thought it was bad strategy, or because of the worldview that his overwhelmingly muslim family shaped him with? You can't say you know.

I'll just say it straight out. We are at war with Islamic Jihadists who mean to do great harm to America. I do not want a commander-in-chief, who will be called on to pull the trigger to defend us, who has sympathetic family connections to the group we are fighting. I don't. That's my preference, and I'm entitled to it.

I'll refer you to this website for a look at Barack Hussein Obama's family history. Chock full of muslim heritage. That obviously doesn't disqualify him from anything - except the one thing that he's seeking: commander-in-chief of our armed forces. My opinion.

- By the way, the same disqualification applies to Hillary, who's closest personal aide and live-in companion Huma Abedin is a Saudi Arabian nationalist with muslim parents from India and Pakistan. Under what national security clearance program did she get to be the closest aide to a presidential candidate? Is she an intelligence agent for Saudi Arabia? It's a reasonable question.

- It's not just Obama's muslim past that is troubling.

His formative collaboration with leftist activists during his "community organizer" days is.

His corrupt alliance with Rezko in Chicago, who apparently fraudently funneled money to Obama to buy his mansion, is.

His membership in a church that preaches black nationalism, and corresponding antipathy to "white culture" and America in general is. Now personally, I'm not into racial politics. But Obama's church is, to the extreme, and that's the point. (Go read their "12 precepts and convenants" about the "Black Value System") It has undoubtedly shaped his worldview, and that should be questioned.

His 100% allegiance to the pro-abortion industry - to the point of even opposing the Born Alive Infant Protection Act - is.

There are a lot of reasons to oppose Obama.

- So, Obama is beatable by a Republican candidate who will go after him. That candidate, unfortunately, is not John McCain. McCain will pull his punches just to be liked by the liberal media, and throw conservatives under the bus - as he did with Cunningham last week for mentioning he-who's-middle-name-cannot-be-spoken's middle name.

- During the early months of the primary, the political spin was that the Republican's were in disarray and didn't like any of their candidates while the Dems were in a lovefest with all three of their candidates. That most Democrats thought that "any of our three" would make fine candidates and easily beat any Republican in November.

Trust me, that lovefest with their candidates on the Dem side has taken a beating lately. I don't know if you read left-wing websites like democraticundergound.com, or listen to leftwing radio, but I do. And they are just as in disarray and not liking their candidates at the moment as the Republicans do. The palpable dislike of Hillary and Barack by the opposite supporters on DU is getting hardcore and vicious. Obamaniacs hate Hillary, and vice versa. The lovefest is over.

- I don't know about Ohio, but I think Mike Huckabee still has life left in him in Texas. My gut tells me he could post big numbers there. His strategy of denying McCain enough delegates to lock up a first-ballot win at the convention has life in it.

Tomorrow should be exciting. I'm tuning in...

New Hampshire - Not a Knock Out Either Way

Okay, since I did so well with the Iowa Caucus predictions - Not! - I'll try again with New Hampshire:

Dems:

1. Obama
2. Clinton
3. Edwards
4. Richardson

Republicans:

1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Giuliani
4. Huckabee
5. Thompson

Although, I think there is a strong chance that Mitt Romney might take it over McCain tomorrow. McCain has a history with New Hampshire from the races against Bush that give him an advantage. The Republican base does not like McCain. However, Independents like him, are strong in NH, and can vote in the primaries. Normally, that helps McCain big time. But.....and this is the big variable.....Obama is generating so much excitement this week that the Independents might catch his fever and all rush over to vote in the Dem primary, leaving the base to pick Mitt. I'm hoping.

Either way, it won't be a knock out punch on either side of the aisle.

Hillary will be shaken, but not knocked out. She has a nationwide organization and money left.

Mitt will have two 2nd place finishes. He has deep pockets and no where else to go.

Giuliani is waiting for the big states to pile up the delegates.

None of them is leaving before Super Tuesday, February 5th.

Thompson, McCain, or Richardson may well be leaving after South Carolina, Nevada, or Michigan when they run out of money.

That's my take.

And yes, I'm still rooting for Mitt Romney.

And yes, as a long-time Clinton conspiracy afficianado, I am deeply enjoying Hillary Clinton's humiliating meltdown. After what she did to Billy Dale in the White House Travel Office, she deeply deserves it.

Predicting Iowa

In a feat of New Year's foolhardiness, I'll go ahead and publish my predictions for the impending Iowa Caucus elections. (Or, as talk radio likes to call it - the "Hawkeye Cauceye".)

My predictions are based on:

- closely following the election for a year
- studiously ignoring all polls
- knowing one person who lives in Iowa
- spending one fascinating road warrior day listening to left-wing radio for kicks on my rental car's XM radio. This one-day immersion into the realm of relentless Bush Derangement Syndrome gave me some otherwise unknowable (to me anyway) insight into the Dem side of the caucasing.

A drumroll please........my predictions for the Iowa Caucus results are:

Republicans:

1. Romney
2. Thompson
3. Huckabee

Democrats:

1. Edwards
2. Clinton
3. Obama

I know. No polling has it that way. But, who likes polls? If I got it right, I'm a genius. If I get it wrong, well.....disregard.

"...our nation's Symphony of Faith"

As I've said here before, Mitt Romney is my candidate in the Republican presidential primary. I like him. He's run a business, he's run an Olympics, and he's governed a state. He's got the right experience, and he's a winner.

He was my candidate before today's speech that he gave on the role of religion in America. The speech sealed the deal. It's brilliantly written, capably delivered, and should be a must read for every voter before election day.

Go here and read the speech. It's worth the read.

Go Mitt!

That Can't be Right!

Every once in a while, I hear a news story that is so jarring, so out-of-sync with my body of knowledge, that it stops me in my tracks and I think - that can't be right! It will be a story that I can't believe people would take at face value.

The story that stopped me this week - that made me say That Can't be Right! - was the story, all over the media, the a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) given recently by the intelligence community to President Bush concluded that Iran had no nuclear weapons program because they had frozen it in 2003. What?????

How in the world does that story jibe with all of the previous 12 months of reporting on Iran's nuclear ambitions? With the President of Iran's oft repeated stated goals of getting a nuclear weapon and his defense in the media of his right to have one? With the many stories of Iran racing to get thousands of centrifuges - used for processing weapons grade uranium - up and running quickly? With the stories of Iran developing and testing missiles that can deliver a weapon with ranges to hit Israel and the U.S. How in the world does this one story jibe with all of that, and why would people take this one story at face value and repudiate all of the previous story?

The answer is Bush hatred, which makes people delusional and suspends their powers of judgement.

The immediate reaction to the story was howls from the Bush-hater community that the President was lying to the nation in his rush to war with Iran. The NIE story fits their pre-existing paradigm, and they're running with it to bash Bush. The problem is that in bashing Bush with this story, they are putting our country in a bad light with the rest of the world - claiming that our President would lie for his own nefarious purposes to rush us into an unjustified war.

Stop. Pause. Give this story some thought.

What is a NIE, how certain are they, and how do they get put together. If you want some insight into those questions, read - as I just did - George Tenet's excellent book on his experiences running the CIA called "At the Center of the Storm".

You'll learn that NIE's are put together, as a sampling of all of the various intelligence agencies, at the request of the President or influential members of Congress. (In this case, it was President Bush who requested, got, and released this NIE). You'll learn that they are far from "certain". They are negotiated consensus postions where the advocates from the various agencies make their assessment of a situation. They are "judgements" that reflect various levels of "certainty" - and include key findings that will say "we judge with a high degree of certainty", etc. They are best guesses.

Bottom line: Iran may have "frozen" an official nuclear weapons in 2003 due to "international pressure" (gee, do you think us attacking their two neighbors, Iraq and Afghanistan was the pressure they needed to freeze their nuclear weapons program? Thank you George Bush!), but they are currently hellbent on essential elements of such a program - enriching uranium and building missiles to deliver the weapons. And they are not doing that because George Bush is lying to us!

Get a grip, people. Think through these news stories, and don't just accept them at face value.

If you're looking at a shockingly outrageous news story, like this NIE report, and thinking THAT CAN'T BE RIGHT - you are probably right.

J.F.Kerry Falls in a Trap

The funniest story in the media this week, and only the latest of many that demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the Mainstream Media is in lockstep with the Democrat party, is this widely reported story:

"Kerry vows to disprove Swiftboat Claims"

A brief recap: When John F. Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts) decided to run for President in 2004 and highlighted his service in Vietnam as a reason to vote for him, a sizeable portion of the soldiers who had served in his unit - serving on the "Swiftboats" - took exception and ran ads stating their opinion that he was unfit for command. One of the many "big lies" constantly repeated by Democrats (such as Bush stole the elections, Bush "lied" us into Iraq, etc) is that the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth - a 527 organization made possible by the Campaign Finance Reform laws - unfairly personally "smeared" candidate Kerry with unsubstantiated claims questioning his military service. In fact, this lie has been parroted so many times by Democrat activists that it has achieved verb status - as in "to Swiftboat" someone is to unfairly smear them with personal lies."

My own evaluation of the issue, after watching the ads and reading the book written by the SVT's, is that they were not unsubstantiated lies, but personal observations and testimony of soldiers who served with Kerry and in his unit. Their observations had credibility and weight. Almost to a man, and including all of the officers in Kerry's chain of command, they signed a letter saying that Kerry was lying about his service and was unfit for command.

The whole controversy of who was right, Kerry or the Swiftboaters, could be resolved by an examination of the Senator's military records. The problem, of course, is that the Senator never released his records. He has refused to this day to sign the Form 180 to release his records. George Bush signed his, but Kerry has not. So, in the absence of the records it is the SVT's word against the Senator's.

That brings us to the current news story. Principal Swiftboat financer, T. Boone Pickens, has been upset that the Democrat partisans have been able to effectively malign the veterans with the new verb "to Swiftboat", and made an offer at a Washington party of $1 million to anyone who can disprove any of the SVT's ad claims. John Kerry sent Pickens a letter offering to take up the challenge. The letter reads, in part:

I welcome the opportunity to prove that you are a man of your word and that the
so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" lied. While I am prepared to show they
lied on allegation after allegation, you have generously offered to pay one
million dollars for just one thing that can be proven false. I am prepared to
prove the lie beyond any reasonable doubt.

The AP article reporting Senator Kerry's letter received widespread reporting in the MSM. Why is this funny? For two reasons:

1. This is not news! The Senator has not yet disproved the claims, only offered to. That's news? He's been saying that since the 2004 election cycle. When and if he actually disproves the claims, then it will be news. Apparently the major media can no longer discern real news from press releases.

2. He's fallen into the trap of the Swiftboaters. How is he going to disprove the claims? On what evidence?

Pickens responded to Sen. Kerry saying he would be glad to entertain his challenge, and that the appropriate evidence to dispute ad claims would be the Senator's military records. That's what the SVT's have been demanding since 2004, the release of Kerry's records.

The left-wingers (DemocraticUnderground, Daily Kos, etc.) are pinging on this news this week. First that Kerry had won a big victory by accepting the challenge, and then that Pickens had reneged on the bet. Have they lost the ability to reason on the left? Kerry did not win the bet by accepting the bet - he still has to disprove the claims. Pickens did not renege by stating the acceptable evidence of proof - Kerry's military records. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of celebrating Kerry's win.

So, what is the Senator to do now? He's publicly said he's going to disprove the claims. The release of his records is what it will take. The release of his records is what he's been successfully avoiding until now. Thus, he's fallen into the trap. Either he releases the records, which will be damaging to him, or he won't and he will fail to disprove the claims.

Classic. And very funny.

My eternal thanks to the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, for speaking the truth about the dishonorable Senator and contributing to his defeat.

"Redacted" - and the Liberal value on being "Provacative"

Honestly, I've come to believe - from news stories and current events - that today's liberals or progressives or whatever they want to call themselves - have become deranged. (Derange - defined by Webster as "to disturb the operation of" or "to become insane". Either works for me.) They're lost. Misguided. Their moral and intellectual compass completely skewed. Let's look at three quick examples: First example: I was listening to a radio program regarding the re-emergence of disgraced University of Colarado professor Ward Churchill. Churchill, you may recall disgraced himself and his University after 9/11 by implying that the victims of the attack deserved it in a sense because they were all "little Eichman's" contributing to oppressing others. A truly off the charts insane comment, by a professor who is teaching your children. The University went through a long protracted effort to fire him, and really only succeeded by proving that the good professor had engaged in plagarisim as well. It's tough to fire a bad professor, but they did it - to their credit. So, why is the professor back in the news? Well, it seems like some students on campus - believing that Churchill had been done wrong, have invited him to continue teaching his class on campus as an invited guest. A guest speaker of sorts. The particular hapless skull-full-of-mush college student who was the spokesman interviewed that day on the radio to defend Churchill opined thusly: he believed that our First Amendment freedoms were gravely damaged by Churchill's firing and that the good professor was only doing the main job of University professor's - being "provocative" to make the students think. I have two main problems with the student's opinion: 1. The First Amendment is not under fire in this case. Students often totally misstate their "freedom of speech", which they apparently see as all-encompassing and a complete get-out-of-jail-free card to say anything they want with no consequences. For the record: the First Amendment only proscribes the Federal Government from censoring speech - mostly political speech. What part of "Congress shall make no law...." does the student not understand. The University of Colorado is not Congress, and is free to fire professors for incompetent performance, including making outlandish and eggregious statements as part of their duties. 2. The University's main job is not to be provactive, but to provide a quality education for which you the consumer are paying. It is absolutely their role to have competent professors in the classroom, and when a professor demonstrates his incompetence with raw gibberish like the "little Eichman's" claim it is their obligation to the consumer (the student) to remove him from his teaching duties. Period. Second example: The University of Delaware's Delaware's Office of Residence Life Diversity Facilitation Training contained, until caught by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a training document for University housing residents which reads in part: "A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities or acts of discrimination. " Really? All white people are racists? People of color cannot be? This is the quality of a University education in America now, after decades of dominance by liberals. Again, the token student trotted out to defend the document opined that the University was just doing it's job to be "provacative" and that our First Amendment rights were under fire if this training was revoked. Idiots. What do these idiot college students, under the tutelage of an overwhelming liberal faculty value? Facts? No. Balance? No. A competent education? No. They value being "provocative" over all else. And, to top it off, they think their freedom's are under fire if there are any consequences for outrageous incompetence. It's truly dispiriting. As a third example, let's look at the Hollywood movie released this week - amid a flurry of Hollywood anti-war screeds - called "Redacted", by Director Brian De Palma and financed by billionaire Mark Cuban. There are literally thousands of stories to be told about the Iraq War, and about the U.S. military troops that are fighting it. Positive stories about our troops and negative ones, and arguably more positive than negative by far. Which story you choose to focus on tells me more about you than about the troops. De Palma chose to tell the absolute worst story there is to tell about U.S. troops. It is a true story, the criminal action of one squad of soldiers who raped a young Iraqi girl and killed her family to cover it up. Awful. The worst of the worst. The army has dealt with those soldiers and they are behind bars where they deserve to be. Now, thanks to DePalma, that awful story is up on the big screen for the whole world to see and to judge our troops by. Not the best of our military, but the absolute worst. It will hurt our troops, who are still in harm's way in combat, this movie. Especially since not many in America will choose to see it and the producer's will have to recoup their investment with foreign DVD sales. This movie will hurt our country. So why did Brian De Palma make it? And why did Mark Cuban finance it? Because they are liberals, and they value being "provacative" over all else. Despicable. By making this movie, Mr. De Palma and Mr. Cuban tell us how they see our military - in the worst possible way. Just for the record, I would never in a million years pay money to see our military portrayed in the worst possible light, especially while we are still at war. Their movie will tank, and they won't understand why. Be ready for Mr. De Palma and Mr. Cuban to cry foul for their First Amendment rights if there is any backlash over their despicable product. Again, the First Amendment doesn't apply to poor box office. The U.S. Government is not preventing it's showing. Please, America. Show that you are not deranged. Lost. Morally askew. Do not under any circumstances reward Mr. De Palma and Mr. Cuban's assualt on our troops with your box office dollar. Only your contemp.

Memo to Hollywood: We're Still at War

One of my saddest current political observations is that there is a sizable portion of America, lead by the elite in the media and in Hollywood, who do not understand that we are in an war of civilizations against a jihadist Islam that is bent on our destruction.

I give you the latest slew of entertainment offerings as evidence.

Take first, for example, the slew of anti-war polemics streaming out of Hollywood: "Rendition" and "Lions for Lambs" in America and "Redacted" overseas. Hollywood biggies - like Robert Redford, Tom Cruise, Reese Witherspoon, Meryl Streep - certain that all Americans are against Bush and "his war", are pouring out their best leftist Anti-American screeds. Never mind that making anti-war (and in the case of "Redacted", anti-troops) movies while we have troops still in the combat arena being shot at will EMBOLDEN OUR ENEMIES AND PUT OUR TROOPS IN MORE DANGER! Never mind that, they're being noble.

Strange then, that if America is so anti-war, that their movies are tanking at the box office. "Lions for Lambs" opened this week with an all-star cast and a massive marketing campaign and took in a very weak $6 million dollars. Maybe movies just don't make money anymore? - wondered one entertainment critic. Oh wait - Denzel's movie "American Gangster" (an anti-drug smuggling movie) opened the same weekend and took in $80 million. Maybe Americans are just not ready for a war movie yet - offered another Hollywood critic. Here's news, oh clueless one - the majority of Americans do not want to pay for two hours of big screen anti-Americanism while we STILL HAVE TROOPS IN COMBAT. Idiots.

It's okay, though, for the Hollywood moguls. They know that the majority of their profits anymore come from overseas sales and that these anti-American movies will sell well there. Perhaps sold to Al-Qaida movie chains, and advertised on Al-Jazeera. How despicable is this.

As a second example, I offer you the latest big video game offering for the Playstation 3. I saw it premiered this week on UFC's Ultimate Fighter. It's called "Assassin's Secret", and it's about a secret band of assassin's in the 12th century who are called out to kill the 9 men who are seeking to control the world and need killing. Special effects and amazing graphics and all. You get to be the "assassins" who hunt down and kill the men with red crosses on their chest. Cool.

The problem: if you know anything about 12th century history, or if you watch even a minute of the preview of "Assassins Secret", you'll understand that the "good guys" are Islamic assassins and that the bad guys are Christian Crusaders.

Are you kidding me? We're going to market a story line to a whole new generation of skulls-full-of-mush video gamers that sells the leftist relativism that the Crusaders were the ultimate evil in the world and the Islamic assassins are right in killing them? Really? When we have suicide-bombers tracking down "infidels" all over the middle east? Unbelievable.

Look, I was fed that crap in history class when I was growing up. That the Crusades were an unprovoked evil stain on the history of Christianity. No mention of the 400 years of volent Muslim expansion into Europe preceeding it. No mention of western civilization enduring 400 years of 9/11's before the took up arms and fought back. Like we are fighting back now.

So, I'm going to call bullshit on this game. It's harmful leftist indoctrination posing as a game. We should reject it, like movie-goers are rejecting the stream of leftist anti-American war bilge at the cineplex.

And, by the way, if this is the quality of propaganda that the Hollywood screenwriters are turning out - they can just stay on strike. It's alright with me.

Primary Season

This week, for the second time this year, I was within 10 miles of all of the Republican presidential candidates all at once. (Republican debate on MSNBC, Dearborn Michigan) Would someone ask them to stop stalking me?

I watched the debate from my hotel room on the road. Not the best debate so far this season, but good enough. The debates and the campaign are doing what they need to do for me, clarify my vote.

While I like the 2nd tier candidates of Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Mike Huckabee I don't vote 2nd tier or 3rd party anymore. It does not help with the serious business of selecting our party's candidate who can compete well in the general election.

There are 4 serious candidates: McCain, Guiliani, Romney, and Thompson. Here's my take on them:

Thompson: I wanted to see him in a debate before I made a judgement about him. I'm not impressed. He's attractive to me only in the sense that he would stand a good chance of continuing to carry a lot of the Southern states. But that's not enough. The final straw: Ann Coulter's reminder in her recent column that Fred was one of the sellout Republicans in the Senate who voted No in Bill Clinton's impeachment trial. Unforgiveable. Fred is off the table for me.

McCain: Strong on the war and taxes, but wrong on just about everything else. His support of the immigration bill this year, and McCain-Feingold's rape of the Constitution on campaign finance reform eliminate him. He's totally untrustworthy on key conservative principles.

Guiliani: I won't cast my vote in a primary for a pro-abortion candidate if I have a choice not to. Just won't. It's a determinative issue on judgement. If you can't stand up on the right side of the major moral issue of our generation, you can't have my vote.

Romney: I like him. I like his business experience - including running the Salt Lake City Olympics. I like his executive experience as a govenor. I like his values. Theologically, I'm not a fan of the LDS church, but I'm not electing him to be my pastor. I can live with him as President.

It's Mitt Romney for me. Let's vote already.

Five Years Left?

I'm entering serious tin-foil hat territory with this post, but I'm charging on in.

I've been interested in end-times studies for a long time. Prophecies. Book of Revelations. Armegeddon and all that. The end of humankind.

I've done considerable studying on the topic over the years. Collecting bits and pieces in my mind.

I remember one pivotal day on this topic clearly. I was a Freshman at a Big Ten university in the late 70's, enjoying a sunny day at lunchtime out on the Quad. A gentleman interrupted my meal by setting up an easel and starting an impromptu talk. He was drawing maps and interactions of nations as they would be in the end times according to the Book of Revelations. How Gog and Magog (Russia and China?) would join up and march 100 million strong across the Middle East and into Israel for the big battle. The problem to me was that in 1978 these nations didn't line up very well with the prophecy. Russia and China for example, while both Communist nations, were pretty much enemies who often clashed along their common border. So, I noted his talk with interest and filed it away in my mind - taking it out to remember over the years as borders and alliances have changed.

There are preconditions in all these prophecies for every thing to be lined up right. The Anti-Christ has to be walking the earth. The Temple has to be rebuild in Israel. Things like that.

So - here's the tin-foil hat part - it's 2007 and it looks to me like it's all starting to line up.

- The Middle East is a tinderbox like it's never been in a long time with our War in Iraq and with Islamic Jihadists on the march. Iran's President is openly talking about acquiring nuclear weapons and attacking Israel to bring on the Second Coming.

- The Anti-Christ may in fact be already here. I read a very convincing scholarly work a couple of years ago pointing to the likely candidate. The most well known man in the world. A man who could step up on the international stage as a peace leader. A man who has the red dragon in his coat of arms. The Beast out of the Sea, who was born on an island. I'm talking, of course, about the leading candidate: Charles, Prince of Wales. (See "The Antichrist and a Cup of Tea", by Timothy Cohen)

- The prophecy of St. Malachy was a vision listing 112 Popes, ending in the end of the Holy Roman Church with the last Pope - Peter II. Pope John Paul II was number 110, Benedict number 111. There's only one left. If the next Pope chooses the name Peter look out.

- News story this week indicated that a scholar in Israel has pinpointed the location of the Temple in Israel. Plans are in existence to rebuild it.

- News story this week, August 17 indicated that "Russia, China hold joint war games". Uh oh.

Finally, I was looking at articles again this week that deal with the Mayan Calendar. You know, those primitive guys who built the amazing temples that look an awful lot like precise stellar mapping calendars? Well, they made a "Long Count" calender. It has an endpoint - December 21, 2012. I guess I may not need that 30 year mortgage after all.

Relax, all of this is just wild speculation. A collection of disjointed stories that have occupied my attention for 30 years or so.

But that Russia/China joint war games story did send a chill up my spine this week.

News Bites

I haven't posted for a while now. So, to catch up, here are some quick takes on the news:

1. It was exciting to watch the Space Shuttle Endeavor take off for a mission. It's too bad that space flight has reached the ho-hum state for so long and that we barely notice an event like yesterday, even as masterful a technological event as that was. We'd rather read about a psycho astronaut in a vengeful love triange than to focus on the amazing science of a space launch. But, for what it's worth, I enjoyed it.

2. For a short time, I'll cut Barry Bonds some slack. His home run this week which surpassed Hank Aaron's record was a significant achievement. You have to wish that he would get some time in the sun to celebrate that milestone. But....and unfortunately there is definitely a but, you know it's a tainted record. It's not hard to predict that he will be tried in some tribunal for steroid usage and that the record will be taken off the books. But it was quite a slam, and I'll give him props for a day. He might be all bulked up, but he still had to hit the pitch off a major league pitcher.

3. The surge in Iraq. All of the articles that I'm reading on the conservative sites indicate that there are positive signs that the change in strategy is working. That we might achieve some sense of victory after the blood and treasure paid. Apparently, victory is a problem for Democrat office holders who are heavily invested in Bush's humiliation by defeat. If you hate Bush so much that you dread a victory because it might let George Bush off the hook, you are seriously misguided and should be ashamed of yourself.

4. The presidential debates are burning themselves out already, and it's still way way way too early for average Americans to tune in yet. Does anyone hate all of the candidates yet?

5. At least we're getting the candidates on record, for later use when we tune in. I'm convinced that most of Barack Obama's voters, who are swooning at his every appearance, have very little idea what his positions are. I'm paying attention though, and it's no surprise to me that every position he does stake out on a substantive issue are opposite of mine. When the Supreme Court ruled that partial birth abortion could be curtailed, Obama railed against that decision as an injustice. I couldn't disagree more. When a Federal judge last week struck down a city ordinance in Hazelton PA punishing illegal immigration as unconstitutional, Obama opined that it was a victory for all Americans. Wrong again. It was not a victory for the legal citizens of Hazelton PA. Obama is a classical far left liberal, whose every policy position would be bad for America. That's my take. I'm not swooning.

6. The bridge collapse in Minneapolis does not have me as worried as I thought. Yes, bridges need repair. But I think that they do a pretty good job staying on that, for as massive a project as it is.

The first thought that ocurred to me when I first saw the story, and when I learned that there were workers already repairing the bridge was: Did the repair activity cause the collapse? Did they cut the wrong cable, remove the wrong bolt, have the wrong plan, or put too much heavy equipment on the bridge? Is anyone else asking this? I imagine the investigators are, and they will learn something from it. I'm not too worried that it will happen again.

7. Kudos to George Bush last week for pushing the Congressional reform of the FISA statute to allow wiretapping foreign nationals without a warrant. The Democrat position on this is ludicrous. Are you really wanting to fight a war with court warrants? Do you even acknowledge that we are at war?

The Democrats, and their media supporters, are intentionally distorting the content of the reform. Claiming that George Bush wants to wiretap you and me. Nonsense. The intelligence agents need to be able to monitor foreign actors - potential terrorists - as it happens and not miss a beat. That beat that they miss waiting for a warrant could be the go order for a terrorist cell in the U.S. If so, that's on your heads Democrats.

Left-Wing on Fire!

I had a rare treat this week - I had a rental car on my business trip that had XM Radio in it!

That means that I got to listen to radio stations that I don't otherwise get to hear. And for a news junkie that means talk radio. So, guess where I tuned - Air America!

Oh yeah, I listen to crazy leftwing media any chance I get. That might surprise you, but it shouldn't. Conservatives are newsjunkies and balanced ones at that. We give the other side a hearing. Liberals, on the other hand, who often claim to be so informed and intelligent avoid conservative media like the plague. It's easier for them to avoid conservative sources because there are so few outside of talk radio. Conservatives are inundated with liberal thought from every mainstream source, and are not afraid of it.

I can name for you the liberal talk radio hosts that I've listened to when I had the chance to. Lionel and Rhandi Rhoades on Air America. Ed Schultz and Alan Colmes on Talk Left on Sirius. Anyone on NPR. Granted, I never agree with them and often heckle them as I'm driving. But at least I give them a listen.

If you're a liberal, name for me the last conservative talk radio show that you sought out to listen to? Yeah, that's what I thought you narrow-minded conformists. :)

So, what are they talking about on leftwing radio lately? Well apparently they really hate this guy Bush.

IMPEACH! Impeach now, before lunch. Why haven't we IMPEACHED Bush yet? He's a criminal. The worst of the worst and EVERYONE knows it. IMPEACH. How should we impeach? When can we impeach? Should we wait to impeach until right before the election to win the most seats? Can we impeach Cheney at the same time? What's wrong with the Democrats in the House that they haven't IMPEACHED Bush yet? How could he have commuted Libby - IMPEACH!

It was pretty entertaining for as long as I had it.

Oh, and apparently they are worked up this week over Republican Senator David Vitter of Lousiana, who's name popped up on the phone call list of the D.C madam. HYPOCRITE! Which, as I've mentioned before seems to be one of the worst offenses on the liberal radar screen - conservative hypocrisy. There is no liberal hypocrisy after all, because they have no standards from which they could fall short of. Everything's okay. Go for it. If that's your motto, how could you be a hypocrite? You can't. Me personally, I prefer the guys who hold up standards for our culture even if they ocassionally fall short of them.

Do I care that David Vitter of Louisiana apparently visited call girls in New Orleans? Is that the biggest problem they have in New Orleans, where liberal Democrats rule? Corruption? deeply entrenched systemic poverty,? Any of that ring a bell? And we have to chase Vitter out of office because he went to a hooker?

I wish I had Air America more often. I could use the entertainment.

McCain Flames Out

John McCain is toast as a presidential candidate. Ive know that for a long time. The only ones who don't know that yet are McCain himself and the mainstream media who love him and are scratching-their-hair puzzled as to why the rest of America doesn't love him as much as they do.

We're at the point in this never-ending primary season where second tier candidates start falling away because of lack of funds to continue. Jim Gilmore, for example, announced this week that he was dropping out on the Republican side. About time. I never saw a point to his candidacy in the first place. What no one in the press foresaw, however, is that a front-runner like McCain could crash into that "no funds" territory so rapidly and be on the verge of withdrawal. If you haven't paid attention lately, McCain just fired all of his money men and does not apparently even have enough funs to hire a bus to campaign on.

It's easy to diagnose if you're part of the Republican base, as I am. We don't like McCain. Haven't for a long time. Yes, he's solid on the War and we're thankful for that. However, McCain regularly jumps in on the wrong side of issues and aligns himself with the most wrong-headed of liberals. How many bills in the Senate have to be labelled "McCain-some blowhard liberal Senator" for the base to turn on him? Too many, that's how many. Starting with "McCain-Feingold" - that abomination of a bill called campaign finance reform which shredded the Constitution to protect political incumbents - McCain began alienating Rebulicans that he needs to win an election.

Bottom line: his co-sponsorship with Ted Kennedy of the massively ill-conceived secret immigration reform deal (McCain-Kennedy) cooked up in the back rooms of the Senate was the final straw. No recovery. It's over.

McCain, and his petulant allies in the press, are snippy about this arguing that McCain acts on "principle not polls". Bull. That petulant response betrays a liberal bias both in the press and in McCain's candidacy. Who says that the McCain position on immigration is more principled than his opponents in the Republican base? Liberals, that's who. That's crap. And it's whiny crap from a candidate who is done and doesn't yet know it.

Torture Porn

In case you are not a 16 to 22 year old male and have missed it, there is a whole new genre of movies coming out of Hollywood in the last few years. The genre is affectionately referred to by it's young fans as "torture porn".

Think about that for a minute. Torture porn. Is that a positive sign for the culture of a civilization? That it has invented and embraced "torture porn" as a form of matinee entertainment to go with your overpriced bucket of popcorn.

It's not actual porn, mind you. Available only in adult stores or theaters. No, it's only called porn for it's allure to it's young afficianados. It's quite available at the local multiplex for anyone over 17 who slaps down money at the box-office. Gee, do I go see "Die Hard" or torture porn?

Torture porn hit it's stride with several now-franchise movies including "Saw" - which has a deviant imprisoning strangers and having them harm each other to save themselves - and "Hostel" in which hapless teens touring Europe are kidnapped and strapped down for killers who pay for their own murder vacation. Such fun. Want gummy worms at the concession stand for that? "Saw" is on it's third incarnation, and "Hostel II" came out this summer.

Now we are treated to billboards along the highway touting the July 13th release of "Captivity", where blonde sex symbol Elisha Cuthbert is kidnapped and tortured by some psycho for your date night fun in the dark. From the ratings section of "Rotten Tomatoes" review site, this rating: "MPAA RATING - R, for strong violence, torture, pervasive terror, grisly images, language and some sexual material." Fortunately, only 7% of the reviewers - some self admitted fans of the genre, gave "Captivity" a positive review. But don't get optimistic - some gave it a bad review because it wasn't creative enough for them or didn't have enough terror and gore. It bored them. One reviewer panned it because the character development was so bad that he eventually "didn't care if she lived or died". Really?

Look, I don't care what movies you go see or don't go see if you're an adult. But can't you see that we are way down the slippery slope of a degrading culture if torture porn is getting greenlighted by the money moguls in Hollywood?

It's an especially jarring phenomenon, considering the onslaught of real life stories in the news of violence happening to young women. Just watch the news regularly and pay attention to the stories. A young woman, recently graduated from high school and full of promise, walks out of a Target store and into the hands of her killers - body to be found days later. A young girl in England, missing for a year, found imprisioned under a stairwell.

Doesn't it bother those of you buying tickets for this crap that the same week that "Captivity" opens the dead body of a 12 year old girl snatched out of her family's yard at a fireworks celebration on the 4th of July is found in Seattle? It bothers me. There's enough real life kidnapping, and torture, and murder being visited on women. You have to go see it for entertainment in a theater? Just asking.

What a depraved people we've become.

So Close to Power....

Tonight, I'm less than 10 miles from the next President of the United States. I know that for sure.

How do I know that? Well, I'm in a hotel on the road tonight on a business trip to Manchester, NH. Coincidentally, the location of tonight's Republican Debate, sponsored by CNN.

Surely, the next President of the United States was there. I just don't know which one of the 10 candidates it is.

Rudy, John, Mitt, Duncan, Tom, Tommy, Jim, Ron, Sam, and Mike. All of them 10 miles away.

How cool is that?

They did well tonight. And, need I say that I would vote for any of those 10 over any of the Democrats that were on the same stage 10 miles away two nights ago? Any of them.

Idiocy and Arrogance on Immigration (R)

It's bad enough that the open borders crowd on the left want to surrender on the question of illegal immigration by waving a wand an declaring them all legal. They have a self-interest objective of increasing their voter base. Deplorable, but inderstandable.

What's not understandable is why Republican leaders in the White House and Congress are eager to join in the surrender and therby ensure living in an electoral wasteland for generations.

More recently, what's not forgivable is the idiocy and arrogance with which President Bush, his spokesmen, and Senators are defensively attacking critics of the misguided comprehensive immigration reform bill that they are trying to quickly stuff down the throats of America. Some examples:

1. Let's start with the President himself, who attacked conservative critics of the bill in a recent speech before law enforcement trainees:

"Those determined to find fault with this bill will always be able to look at a narrow slice of it and find something they don't like," the president said. "If you want to kill the bill, if you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it.

Excuse me? We "don't want to do what's right for America"? How dare you make that statement. Unforgivable. After six years of support for this President's policies even as he's grown unpopular, he backhands us in this desperate calumny. President Bush - you lost me right there in that one ill-advised insult. You go the distance of this last 18 months without me. As a matter of fact, it's on. I'm all out to defeat this bill. This achievement that you hope will be your legacy will not be if I have anything to do with it.

Peggy Noonan was exactly right in her excellent column this week where she observes that the White House has broken with conservatives, not the other way around.

How about this gem from the President's speech:

He described his proposal—which has been agreed to by a bipartisan group of Senators—as one that "makes it more likely we can enforce our border—and at the same time uphold the great immigrant tradition of the United States of America."

Excuse me? "Make it more likely that we can enforce our border...."? I don't want to hear more likely. What have you been doing for six years now? ENORCE THE BORDER ALREADY! It's your job. Unfortunately, there are at least 12 million indictments of the government's ability to enforce the border, and this ridiculous bill will not - as advertised - make it any more likely that this government will perform any more competently.

The President rightly notes that people are "skeptical" that government can fix the problems, then notes:

"And my answer to the skeptics is: give us a chance to fix the problems in a comprehensive way that enforces our border and treats people with decency and respect. Give us a chance to fix this problem. Don't try to kill this bill before it gets moving,"

Give you a chance? Are you kidding me? Again, what have you been doing for the last six years of your administration, while the citizens of this country have been under invasion from illegal aliens? Give you a chance? What desperate nonsense and a complete and abject failure of leadership. CLOSE THE BORDER ALREADY, MR. PRESIDENT!

President Bush has lately been given in speeches to observe that the "immigration system is broken". Broken? Like a toy? Like several remote controls laying around my living room? Broken? Mr. President, it's not broken. It's incompetent, and the fault is yours. The Executive Branch, charged with enforcing laws drafted by our Congress with enforcing the immigration rules, works for you. LEAD THEM TO ENFORCE THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS! It's infantile to walk around whining about how the system is "broken".

Okay, enough with the President's eggregious conduct. How about his press spokesman's? I'm a fan of Tony Snow, but he has fallen into the same pattern of idiocy in trying to sell this misguided sellout of our nation's sovereignty. From a recent talk show pitch:

"You have to understand that this bill does three things: 1. secure the border, 2. restore the rule of law, and ....."

Okay, stop there. There are too many things wrong with this statement already.

"You have to understand..." Exuses me? You think I don't understand? Can you be any more condescending in trying to win me over? Can you even concede that we might completely understand your arguments and reject them on the merits. It's the recourse of the merit-less to accuse their audience of not understanding.

"1) Secure the border" Please, don't make me laugh. As I said, there are at minimum 12 million "undocumented" indictments of your ability to secure the border. If you were even serious about securing the border, you might have started with actually building the 750 miles of fence that the Congress authorized LAST YEAR, instead of the 2 miles actually built. No one believes that any new bill negotiated in secret in the Senate with Ted Kennedy will secure the border. How can you say that with a straight face?

"2) Restore the rule of Law...." Excuse me? Who allowed the rule of law to collapse? YOU DID. The Bush administration, and the Clinton administration before it, neglected the basic duty of government to secure it's border so eggregiously that we've undergone an unprecedented illegal invasion. The dereliction of the President is so extensive that it's mind-boggling. Yet, you have the unmitigated gall to talk down to us about restoring the rule of law? Unbelievable.

To all federal government officials, let me be clear: you have a three decade record of being completely incapable of drafting effective immigration legislation or executing the laws enacted. Evidence 12 million times over, offered as proof. Yet you want to draft another worthless law, and declare the "rule of law" restored. Ridiculous. You can only restore your credibility when you SECURE THE BORDER. NOW. Enforce the laws already written, or resign.

Finally, let me not leave the Senate Republicans unexamined. Let's look at the arrogance of Senator John McCain, a major architect of this travesty of a bill. In speeches this week, he's levelling this charge:

"If you defeat this bill, if we do nothing, then you will have a silent
amnesty".

Who asked you to "do nothing"? Did I ask you to do nothing? Is that the only two possibilities that those of you in the cloistered community in the Senate can envision: pass this abomination of surrender or do nothing?

Here's what I want from you, Senator. ENFORCE THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS! Secure the border. Enforce legal-only immigration. Stop the invasion. It's your duty. Every day you fail at it. Any new legislation is just fantasy and folly, if you can't enforce the law that your body already passed before you. Secure the border, first and foremost, or resign.

As a matter of fact, just resign.

Pelosi's Priorities

It seems that our new Speaker of the House, Madame Pelosi, has priorities for Memorial Day travel that do not include honoring our fallen troops. Rather, she's off to kiss up to Europeans on the topic of her real priority - Global Warming.

Nice. Real nice.

Thanks, everyone for voting to give us leaders with screwed up priorities. Thanks.

Back-Room Amnesty

An open letter to President Bush and the Congress of the United States regarding the proposed "comprehensive immigration reform" bill, crafted in secret in a back-room collaboration of U.S. Senators and immigration proponents:

Fool me once, shame on you
Fool me twice, shame on me

Fool me 12 million times, and I will openly mock and ridicule your pretense of seriousness and your ability to draft and enforce the laws of our country.

Simple as that.

All you need to know is the damning number of 12 million. That's the minimum number of people in this country illegally - in violation of the laws passed by the Congress of the United States and signed by President's of the United States. 12 million people that the written law did not stop, and that the Exectutive Branch has neither the capacity or will to punish.

12 million scoffers at the laws of our country.

Failure to secure our borders and keep out even one person who you, Mr. Congressman and Mr. Senator and Mr. President, have said in the laws that you passed and signed should not be in the country, is a failure of your office.

Failure 12 million times is a dereliction of duty so massive that it boggles the mind and demands accountability. Not reform. Accountability.

You have no authority any more to pass laws on this matter. 12 million have scoffed at these unenforcable laws. The lawful citizens of this country now scoff at you too.

No amnesty bill will restore the authority of Congress on this matter. No reform. Only border enforcement. Once you have sealed the border, as is your duty, you can propose how to deal with the 12 million who have as their first act on our soil violated the law. Not until then.

Seal the border or resign!

A Great Man Passes

I see on Yahoo news today - next to a news button listing Lindsay Lohan as the "hottest woman" - that Jerry Falwell died today at age 73. One of those news stories was consequential, the other not so much.

Sadly, Jerry Falwell was most well known as the hated man of the liberal left, caricatured relentlessy in the media as a right-wing religious crazy.

In truth, I think the final judgement was that he was first and foremost a great evangelist in every good sense of that word. A faithful champion for decades for the cause of Christ. Influential in politics only secondarily. He had a life's work to be proud of.

Good work, Rev. Falwell. I'm sad at your passing.

A Great Man Passes

I see on Yahoo news today - next to a news button listing Lindsay Lohan as the "hottest woman" - that Jerry Falwell died today at age 73. One of those news stories was consequential, the other not so much.

Sadly, Jerry Falwell was most well known as the hated man of the liberal left, caricatured relentlessy in the media as a right-wing religious crazy.

In truth, I think the final judgement was that he was first and foremost a great evangelist in every good sense of that word. A faithful champion for decades for the cause of Christ. Influential in politics only secondarily. He had a life's work to be proud of.

Good work, Rev. Falwell. I'm sad at your passing.

the Mother of Conspiracies

I'm a conspiracy theory fan. Have been for at least 20 years. The impetus for that being the mother of all conspiracy theory cases: the assasination of John F. Kennedy.

I've read all the books. Watched all the renactments and computer simulations. Walked Dealy Plaza and stood on the Grassy Knoll. I'm invested, baby.

So, when I saw a new book on the topic in the non-fiction section of my library this week, I snapped it up. Read it cover to cover in two days.

The book? "A Simple Act of Murder" by Mark Furhman. Yeah, that Mark Furhman, of the infamous OJ case. (Another great conspiracy theory!

Furhman is, by the way, a talented homicide detective. Here, he looks at all the evidence the way a homicide detective arriving on the scene would. Analyzes it. Makes a determination about who did it and how.

Very convincing. Maybe one of the best books I've read on the case. He actually explained all of my questions quite nicely.

Case closed.

Fire the Holdovers!

George Tenet, former Director of the CIA under Bill Clinton and George Bush, has released his long-awaited tell all book about his tenure. Included is his version of the events of 9/11, with a fair amount - if reviews are right - of blame shifting and Bush administration bashing.

Just goes to prove: Bush made a huge mistake holding over some cabinet members from the Clinton administration!

All of the Democrats that Bush held over into his administration - foolishly - have left and then stabbed him in the back with tell all books. Cowards.

George Bush's major undoing has been foolish loyalty to people who didn't deserve it. Bush had all of the talent in the USA to choose from in selecting his cabinet. Many competent and outstanding Republicans, who would have been more aligned with Bush's goals. Keeping Democrats in the house was foolish, and has time has proved - damaging.

Tenet should have been dismissed as Bush took office. Failing that, he should have been fired immediately after 9/11 for massive failures in the agency he lead. Bush - prizing loyalty above performance - got what he deserved this week:

Stabbed in the back by a faithless Democrat.

Supremes Hold the Line on Barbarity

One of the major stories in the last two weeks, somewhat lost in the coverage of the major story of the shooting on the campus of Virginia Tech - was the U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the ban on Partial Birth Abortion in the case of Carhart vs. Gonzales. It was the first time the court had allowed a prosciption on a method of abortion post-Roe.

Congress had earlier voted to ban the procedure, with overwhelming yes votes in both the House and the Senate. President Bush, signed the law banning it. Dr. Carhart challenged the law, and the Supreme Court upheld the law.

Thankfully, the court held the line allowing the banning of barbarity.

For, if we allow this procedure to take place, we are - in my opinion - no longer a civilized society.

Republican candidates for president applauded the decision. Democrat candidates, embracing barbarity and their power base of abortion advocates, decried the rollback of women's rights.

The issues surrounding this procedure have been hashed out for nearly a decade now. Just to recap - what is it that was banned?

Doctors call it DNX - dilation and extraction. The mother's cervix is Dilated (D) in a three day procedure using seaweed to swell and open the cervix. The baby is then extracted (X), feet first in a deliberate breech delivery, up to it's neck. The abortionist then inserts a forceps into the back of the skull to create an opening. Brains are sucked out. The dead baby is then "delivered" intact the rest of the way.

Why stop the delivery at the head? Why not complete the delivery? Because that results in a "live birth". That's a medical complication in a procedure entirely calculated to result in a dead child. If they were to deliver the baby two more inches, without delivering the death blow, they would be legally required to respect it's "personhood" and administer medical treatment. Again, not the result the patient and the doctor were trying to achieve. Barbarity was the plan. Not life.

Opponents of the procedure label it (accurately in my opinion) by a more layman description - partial birth abortion.

The masters-of-euphemisms (abortion rights supporters, the media, Democrat presidential candidates) attempt to obscure it by calling it "a certain type of late term abortion". Really? What kind, exactly? Let me help you clarify your vagueness - it's the infanticide type.

It comes down to this. If you can describe the procedure - plainly and dispassionately, you can understand the barbarity. This is not a procedure needed to protect the life and health of the mother. Would you choose a 3 day long procedure if the mother's life was in jeopardy? Would you deliberately induce a breech birth if her health was at risk? No. This is designed to produce a dead, intact, baby. It's infanticide and it's barbaric.

Every now and then there comes an issue that is a clear bright dividing line as you evaluate candidates for President of the United States. This Supreme Court ruling afforded us one here.

All of the Republicans applauded this stand for decency. They have my undying thanks.

All of the Democrats decried it. Which is why I could never ever ever vote for one of them. Barbarians.

Slowing Down on VT

I got a little ahead of myself earlier today with a post about the murder spree at the campus of Virginia Tech. I was probably jumping to some conclusions not yet justified by the evidence.

I did get to hear some of the afternoon's proceedings on the radio as I drove. One segment I heard was an interview with the Governor of Virginia, who said this: "For those of you who are making this political, who are looking to mount up your favorite political hobby horse and ride it on this tradgedy, I have nothing but loathing for you. The focus should be entirely on helping the victims and their families." Wow, strong words but needed. I decided to ratchet back my somewhat harsh observations and I deleted my earlier post.

My hobby horse is apparently looking for a jihadist connection to all acts of violence. Which may or may not be present here. I'll just cool my jets a little until we know more.

There are, however, so many questions yet unanswered. I'll suffice with listing my questions at the moment:

1. The police called the first shooting at the dorm a "domestic" violence scene. Was the man now identified as the killer (here called Mr. Cho) actually a former boyfriend of the girl killed at the scene? Had they dated?

2. Did people in the dorm witness that shooting? If so, why haven't we seen them interviewed on TV.

3. What happened in the two hours between shootings? Did Mr. Cho go back to his dorm room and arm up for the 2nd shooting? If so, the police have a serious problem on their hands for failing to pursue a gunman loose on campus.

4. How much planning did he do before hand? How many doors did he chain and lock in Norris Hall, and when did he get the chains and locks. When did he put together the arrangement of ammo clips on a vest that he was apparently wearing.

5. Who is the other asian looking man in a picture on the internet, laying on the ground being handcuffed by an officer?

6. What does "Ismail Ax", written on Mr. Cho's arm, mean? Is it a muslim reference? Did Mr. Cho have any history of attending a mosque?

7. Why did he file the serial numbers off of the two guns that he legally bought? Doesn't that suggest a pre-planned assault, and not just a lover's quarrel gone bad?

8. Did he, as some news wire stories yesterday indicated, "shoot his face off"?

9. Why was he in the country on a green card since 1992, when he was 8 years old? Don't you ever have to become a citizen or go home?

10. Why Norris hall? Why was that his target? What classes, teachers, or students were his main target?

So many questions....

Massacre in Virginia

What to say after an all day news cycle covering the shooting spree on the campus of Virginia Tech? It is a sad, sad tragedy. Unfathomable. But I will share thoughts.

First, sadness for the family and friends of the deceased, who will never be the same. Ruined by this homicidal madman. I've watched - and more importantly listened to - the cell phone video that captured the sound of some of the shots. Rapid fire, one coming almost unbelievably close to the next. On and on. It's shocking to realize that each one of those distinct shot-sounds is someone dying.

Second, I was surprised by my reaction. Before I heard any information about the shooter I automatically assumed it was a Jihadi wannabe. Like the guy in North Carolina who rented an SUV a few months ago at UNC and tried to run down students in the square. But, you know what they say about assumptions.

Third, the latest word late tonight is that the shooter is probably Asian, here recently on a student visa.

Big events like this inspire big opinions, so let me unwisely opine so fresh after the event. If I was czar, I would:

1. Fire the President of the University, the Dean of Students, and the Campus Police Chief for not securing the campus after the first shooting. Just to send a message to all campus leaders. Provide security for the vunerable students in your charge. Real security.

2. Cancel all student visas from foreign students and send them back home. Now. We have enough students in the United States. We don't need to be taking the risk of inviting in all of the peoples of the world who may or may not share our values and our sense of law abiding. Send them all home. We'll survive fine without them.

3. Repeal the policy of not allowing concealed carry of firearms on campus. Virginia has a reasonable policy of concealed carry for those who go through the proper training and licensing. VT unwisely banned them from campus. The bottom line here, people, is that the police only arrive after the damage is done in these situations. You have to be able to protect yourself. It's constitutional and it's wise. There has to be a chance that someone in this awful, and even rare, situation between the assailant and the defenseless.

4. While we're at it, I would permit and even encourage every teacher at every level who can qualify to be trained and licensed for concealed carry. That's a radical statement from me, knowing that most campus teaching staff are leftist liberals who would support gun control. I don't care. Protect your charges, those entrusted to your care.

There are evil people out there, intent on doing harm. There's a lesson here.

Update: after reading more news and opinion tonight, here are more thoughts:

- Dennis Prager has an excellent column out already urging a wait on calling for "healing" for the VT community. He advocates allowing a time for anger and grief, what they would want healing from, to play out first as a natural reaction to evil. Also to call it evil, not "tragedy". Very insightful.

- I'm not sure yet that I was wrong in my original assumption of some terrorist aspect of this killing spree. I checked myself when I heard he was "Asian", but there are al Qaeda cells operating in Asian countries. And the high kill rate suggests more of a trained soldier than a spurned lover. Add to that the report tonight that the gunman was not carrying any ID and attempted to shoot his face off in his suicide. Also add that, according to the Washington Post, both of the guns he was carrying had the serial numbers obliterated. Hmmm. I'm going to wait for it all to play out.

- I'm not totally buying the "domestic" crime angle either. The preliminary story is that he went to the dorm to confront a girlfriend who dumped him. You know what, crazy people take one gun to that scenario. However, the gunman in the engineering dorm had two guns at least, and ammo clips on belts across his chest. A spurned lover does not carry this amount of gear, and chains to lock doors. The "crime of passion" scenario of the dorm shootings does not mesh with the cold, calculating, ruthless killer of the classroom shooter. Can you imagine the calm determination it takes to fire 100 shots at human beings with handguns?

Bottom line: we clearly do not know the accurate story as of tonight. What we do "know" doesn't add up.

By the way, there is a previous pattern of domestic terrorists being called crazed lone gunmen instead of people motivated by jihad in the mainstream media. Some examples:

- the SUV driver at UNC
- the guy who tried to set off a bomb at an Oklahoma football game
- the shooter at the Israeli ticket counter in LA
- the beltway sniper John Mohammed

I'm just saying. I heard an awful lot of news people throwing around the "lone gunman" phrase today, before we really know the story. I'm just sayin'.

Quick Takes on the News

It's almost getting depressing reading the news lately. There are so many crazy stories, all treated by the media the exact opposite as they should be. The world has turned upside down.

Some quick takes on last weeks stories:

1. Nancy Pelosi's trip to visit the President of Syria was disgraceful, pure and simple. Syria is a sponsor of terrorists, flat out. To give them a photo op PR victory, as Pelosi did last week, is absolutely harmful to the national security of the United States. For failing to heed the President's request that she not go, she should be brought up on charges for violating the Logan Act immediately. It's a law on the books. It prohibits American citizens from meeting with foreign leaders to try to conduct a separate foreign policy. She violated it, egregiously. Charge her. Or, some Republican congressman with courage should introduce a censure resolution. Or both.

2. The non-scandal of the firing of the U.S. Attorneys continues on. I'm torn on this one. On one hand, if the President allows his AG to go down due to absurd partisan attacks he loses a lot of authority. On the other hand, he needs to fire Gonzales for handling this so ineptly. Bush should take this on directly. He should hold a press conference and remind everyone that he has the right to fire anyone on his staff for any cause. Including the U.S. Attorneys and including the AG, who is fired.

3. More tricky is the story of the 15 captured British marines. 3 thoughts:

a. I don't know the circumstances of their capture. I assume they were overwhelmed by force and surrendered. No shame in that. It happens.

b. The response of the western governments - other than the U.S. - and the international organizations (UN, EU, etc.) to an act of international piracy was disgraceful and further demonstrates the uselesness of the transnational bodies. They are anti-west debating societies, of no use in a crisis.

c. The behavior of the 15 marines in captivity was, sad to say, deplorable. To be on TV within a day renouncing the actions of your government should be anathema to soldiers in uniform. To do so in so short of period of time, and without evidence of physical abuse or torture, is shamefully weak.

Worse yet were the scenes of them looking giddy as the accepted "goody bags" from a smiling captor, President Ahmadinaded of Iran. Are you kidding me? You've been captured in uniform by a tyrant in a war zone, and you act on TV as if you're on a reality TV show shopping spree?

Woe is apparently the state of training in the British military. Disgraceful.

Unseriousness Nation

You can't help but conclude, if you're paying attention to the news from Washington D.C. lately, that we are now governed by the un-serious. Cases in point:

1. The Democrats in both bodies of Congress have passed, with the slimmest of majorities, bills effectively surrendering in the War in Iraq. They can dress it up in whatever language they want, but when you publicly state your purpose to withdraw from a declared war without obtaining victory, then you are surrendering. Disgraceful.

2. The frenzy over the non-scandal of the Justice Department's firing of the 8 U.S. Attorneys. If Republicans cannot defend themselves in this nonsensical matter, then they are completely incapable of governing. The President, and his Attorney General, are entitled by policy to replace these attorneys at any time for any reason. Why can't they defend that, in the face of a full on attack from a partisan Democrat Congress? Why can't they make the case? Clearly, if Attorney General Gonzales is brought down by the Democrats over this non-scandal, President Bush's effectiveness as a leader is over.

3. Iran's aggression in the capturing of 15 British soldiers, and the violating of every international law in parading them on TV, has been met with weak-spined un-seriousness. Other than the U.S. Government, principally in the form of George W. Bush, the Western nations have said virtually nothing. Nancy Pelosi, on behalf of the Democrat majority in Congress, refused to even allow a vote on expressing condemnation of the Iraninan act of terrorism. Disgraceful.

Folks, there are people out there who are serious about the business of harming us in the West. They are training and preparing and organizing to kill us. It will take serious, vigilant, resistance on behalf of our leadership to combat that. Unfortunately, we are now lead by un-serious pacifists who are engaged in the purposeful destruction of their only perceived enemy, President Bush. We are in deep trouble.

In Defense of Hypocrites

Hypocrite!

It's the preferred invective that liberals love to throw at conservatives. Seemingly the highest sin in their pantheon is hypocrisy. Let some conservative be found to have transgressed moral standards, as say the Reverend Ted Haggard and Congressman Mark Foley did during the last election cycle, and the liberals commence to howling. Hypocrites!

So, it is some substantial irony that one of their own appears to qualify for the label this week. That being ex-Vice President Al Gore. Within a week of his coronation at the Academy Awards ceremony as the most virtuous exemplar of environmental morality, a man who tireless lectures the rest of us on doing our part to save the planet, an inconvienient fact emerges. Mr. Gore, it turns out, is an energy hog. His mansion in Nashville consumes 20 times the energy that the average household in the area consumes! Oops.

Wait for it a minute.....Hush.....listen closely. Is the usual choir tuning up to shout HYPOCRITE! Uh, no. The libs are trotting out all the spin on why it's really alright that Mr. Gore is sucking up energy at a prodigious rate because he has a bigger house than we do. It's alright because he's a bigger person than we are, so he deserves it. Besides, he's putting up a solar panel or two, so back off.

The real irony is the reports this week that the house that really is "green" to the gills is President Bush's house in Crawford Texas, which uses very little energy on the grid. You'll probably be seeing that reported in the front pages of all of the liberal media sources. Or not. Hypocrites.

Okay, current nominees for hypocrite aside, let me offer a defense of the targets of the charge of hypocrisy.

My take on it has always been this: at least they are trying to hold up a higher standard. To live to any standard at all. It has seemed to me the utmost folly that the user shouters of Hypcrite! are people who assault "standards" wherever they see them - who espouse living any way you want to. I'd rather follow the example of those who held up a standard, even if they fall short of it themselves personally.

Mr. Gore included.

But come on Al, turn off a light bulb already on your way out to the private jet.

Color Me Not Convinced on Global Warming

In the wake of the Academy Awards' coronation of Al Gore last night, putatively over his documentary win for "An Inconvenient Truth", let me give you my off-the-cuff take on Global Warming. (Or is it now more politically correctly "Global Climate Change", given the inconvenient truth that we're being hammered with snowstorm after snowstorm in the last two months? )

I saw the movie as a DVD rental. I'll have to say it was a decently done documentary, as they go. Slanted with a bias as documentaries almost always are, but way more straightforward than "Farenheit 911", for example. It kept my interest. It made it's point. Probably worth an award. I disagreed with a lot of the content, but I'll give it props for quality.

Consider me not convinced on the topic of Global Warming. Granted, I'm not an internationally recognized climatologist. Just a blogger in my pajamas. But, I do read up on the topic and have reached my own conclusion, Al Gore's mega-stature in Hollywood notwithstanding.

Let me just throw out a couple of observations on the topic from my POV:

1. When you think of accuracy in scientific endeavors, do you generally think of meterologists leading the way. Do you trust you local weatherman more than 50/50 to help you decide whether to take a sweater with you next Tuesday? Yet, somehow we're supposed to trust them to know what the temperature of the earth's surface was 2000 years ago so that we know it's warmer now? Really?

2. Clearly the activists on the topic cherry pick their evidence. Did it escape everyone's notice that activists were pointing and shouting "Aha!" during the heavy hurricane season of 2005 (especially Katrina), but were completely silent in 2006 when not one major hurricane hit the continental U.S.? If the earth is "warming", which implies movement in one direction, and the 2005 season was so obviously a clear effect and result of the warming, then how does it just pause for 2006?

3. I don't doubt that the earth's climate changes. I'm sure it has throughout the whole history of the earth. It changes from hour to hour, from day to day, from year to year. Probably from century to century and milenium to milenium. I just don't think that the recent changes are significantly attributable to human activity. It's hubris, born of a sense of technological mastery, to think that we are that able to effect weather patterns on the earth to that degree.

4. Moraines. Lots of them in the state where I live. I learned about moraines in some university science course or other, and I can even recognize some of them in the terrain around me. Let me just simplify it to say they are terrain deformations caused by advancing or retreating glaciers. Picture a glacier pushing up a pile of dirt in front of it as it advances, leaving a mound in place when it retreats. Voila!, a moraine. Lots of them sticking up from the cornfields in the midwest. Evidence of glaciers covering our area, even this far south, with the last time being some 14 thousand years ago. Obviously, since I'm not covered in ice and am able to breathe, they are not here now. Why not? What caused the warming that caused the end of the Ice Age and the glacier's retreat if General Motors wasn't around yet to produce cars that cause emissions that form greenhouse gases that cause Global Warming?

5. Ocam's Razor. The simplest answer is usually the right one. In this case, the simplest cause of the earth's warming - if it exists - is the sun! Yes, that giant yellow heater in the sky. Here you need to know only two salient facts: 1) the sun's output varies and 2) we are a fixed distance away. (93 million miles, as I learned for some quiz or other in an Astonomy class). When the sun's output decreases, we get colder. When it increases, we get hotter. Class dismissed.

Oh, you need a scientist to say it? Go here and read about it.

So, I am amply not convinced that human activity is to blame for any global climate change. Sorry.

Having said that, that's not to say that we don't have things to learn and improvements to make in the way we use energy. I got that point in my visit last year to Europe, and even from Mr. Gore's movie. That was useful. It's reasonable to say that we do waste a lot of energy, and we should do better. We can say that without all of the panic crisis talk and the blaming-humans-first fingerpointing.

I'm off to bed, and I'll turn the thermostat down as I go to save a little energy. But, it's a sacrifice because it's sure been cold outside lately.

Good and Evil at the Movies

I love movies. I have since I was a kid, and more so since I worked at a theater in high school. DVD's and big TVs are fine, but no substitute for the Big Screen Experience.

I was reminded of that this evening, when I took the opportunity to visit a small non-chain theater in an even smaller town. So small that the guy selling tickets also manned the concession stand and probably started the movie. Old and quaint seating in this day of stadium-seat multiplexes. But fun, nevertheless, once the movie started. Just like the old cinema, long-ago closed down, that I used to work at. It made me miss the old days.

The movie, now that was something else. Brand spankin' new. Full of movie stars and special effects. "GhostRider" starring Nicholas Cage and Eva Mendes, based on some Marvel comic book. Interesting, yeah. Slick, yeah. Evil - oh yeah.

What makes it evil is the banality, the unseriousness about the topic. Basic plot line: the Devil tricks a kid into signing a contract for his soul and then turns him into the Devil's employee, a bounty hunter. From there on out it turns into a special effects bonanza of how the good guy (Cage with his skull on fire) can beat the bad guy ( the Devil, and the Devil's son who wants to whack Dad and take over) and still get the girl.

Clearly for the makers of the movie (writer, director, Hollywood in general) the Devil and your soul and so on are not serious issues to be be given serious consideration, but plot devices in a comic book / movie.

That's the problem. Movies have power over people's imagination. They can inspire you, or they can desensitize you. So much violence reduced to crowd pleasing fun! So much evil - and is there more evil than the devil signing a contract with you for your soul - reduced to popcorn munching entertainment.

My overall impression of the movie - well made by Hollywood standards - was vulgar evil reduced and marketed to kids as the latest comic book / video game / action movie plot line.

Evil. I'm sorry that I saw it.

On the other hand, I'm excited about tomorrow's release of the movie "Amazing Grace". Talk about a serious movie that treats it's moral topic seriously! It's the story of two men who illustrate courage (Wilberforce) and redemption (Newton).

William Wilberforce has long been a hero of mine. He was a member of Parliment in England who introduced legislation to ban the slave trade in England. Not once. Not twice. But eighteen years in a row until it finally passed. He showed the moral courage to stand against the great moral evil of his time, slavery, even when it was legal and popular.

How did I know about Wilberforce, when most don't. Well because he's a hero to the pro-life activists in America who see a parallel to slavery and abortion. Slavery was the great moral challenge of Wilberforce's generation, as abortion is ours. Pro-life activists are motivated by his story to perservere in our efforts to end the legal and "acceptable" evil of abortion in this country. 33 years now. 40 million dead. But Wilberforce's legacy is the courage to perservere.

Newton was a slave trader who almost drowned in a shipwreck. He transformed, became a small parish pastor, and spoke out against slavery while writing the powerful hymn "Amazing Grace". He was was lost, but then was found.

What I didn't know was that these two men were connected. Newton inspired Wilberforce. As Wilberforce inspires me.

Two movies.

One Hollywood blockbuster - "Ghostrider" - unserious about evil, and thus evil.

One smaller independent film - "Amazing Grace" - about good.

I wish I would have saved my money tonight instead of wasting it on evil and used it, instead, to help someone else get into "Amazing Grace" to learn about good.

Newt!

Finally, an election watcher is saying what I've been saying for weeks - months - now: Newt Gingrich will be the surprise in the Republican field for the 2008 presidential election. Dick Morris has an article up this week making that case.

It's pretty simpleto figure out, really. Newt has been making many, many trips to New Hampshire in the last year. Now, I like New Hampshire. Been there a lot lately, even one week when Newt was there. There's a lot going for the state. But, honestly, the only reason a politician makes repeat trips to New Hampshire in a presidential election cycle is to win support for their early primary. Newt is paying his dues, quietly.

Can Newt win the Republican nomination? Of course he can. Here's why:

- He's known. And experienced.
- He's a strong conservative in a field lacking in strong conservatives.
- He's a winner. He took the Republicans to victory, where his successor Denny Hastert presided over the eventual corruption and complacency that took them to defeat.
- He's a strategist. An idea man. You can't deny that. The man knows where he wants to take us, and why. He's the man behind the "Contract With America", still derided on the left and still supported on the right.

The only question is: will he run?

He's being coy on that point, saying that he will only run if no one makes a strong enough case for the Republicans.

My bet? He'll run (he's not spending all that time in New Hampshire for nothing), and he will have a strong chance of winning the nomination. I like him. I'll support him if he runs.

Newt!

"There will be no surrender..." Means No Victory

I listened intently to President Bush's speech tonight on his new strategy for Iraq. It's important - we are at war with troops in the field. There is very little that is more important right now, and he deserves our attention.

As Anderson Cooper said after the speech on CNN "it's not an academic debate, there are people dying".

And, as Rudy Guiliani said on Fox News after the speech, this is not just Bush's problem. It's an American problem, and we all should hope that we can be successful.

I watched the speech. I read the text of the speech online. And I've watched hours of pundits, of all political persuasions, opine about the speech on the cable channels.

Now, it's my turn.

First, my visceral reaction to the live speech: I was agitated and angry. I paced the floor. I heckled the speech, during the speech. (I've never done that to a Bush speech before.) My reaction: I supported the administration in their efforts on the war, and this speech is what I get? Not happy.

My reaction to the written text of the speech: better, but not satisfactory by any means.

Here are, in my opinion, the two most serious flaws in the President's new plan:

1. A wrong definition of "winning". This is the heart of why the American people have lost faith in this war - no faith that we will "win", as we understand winning. Winning means defeating the enemy. Crushing them. Forcing them to submit, to surrender, so that there is no chance that they can hurt you again for a long, long time. That's winning, and you don't commit troops to a war that you can't "win". With that in mind, this statement in the President's speech is very disappointing:

"Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship."

That's a problem. A significant problem. If you engage in a war and your purpose is not to make an enemy surrender, you're screwing up. Big time.

Is there an enemy in Iraq that needs to be made to surrender? Yes, more than one in fact. But you can narrow it down to two major groups: Al Qaeda in Iraq, who has a nameable leader, and Moqtada Al-Sadr's 60,000 man army. If you can't make these two groups surrender, you can't win the war.

Al Qaeda was mentioned in the speech. "we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters". And, "our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists." Really? That's it? That's what we've been fighting for for five years now? Memo to the President: your mission is not to deal our enemy a serious blow. It's to utterly defeat them. Crush them, to the point of surrender.

Moqtada Al-Sadr, on the other hand, was not mentioned by name in the speech. Memo to the President: if you can't even name your enemy, you certainly are not going to defeat him. This generic label of "terrorists" has worn thin. The enemy has a name, and Al-Sadr must be killed or made to surrender, and the Mahdi army defeated decisively.

The definition of victory is the enemy's surrender. I see no evidence in this speech or this plan that victory will be accomplished.

A story on the newswires indicates that Iraq's President has served notice to the militias that they must "disarm" or face assault by Iraqi and American forces. This is fantasy. These bloodthirsty death squads will not voluntarily disarm from their ideological jihad. They must be defeated! The Iraqi government cannot do this.

2. We're staking victory on the leadership of the Iraqis in this war:

"Only Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it."

Really? We have troops in the field, and we're going to stake their success on an Iraqi plan? Are you kidding me? How's it going to work?

"The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort, along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations – conducting patrols and setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents. "

Apparently, the 20,000 extra troops we are sending will help them do that.

Let's be straight here: this is pure folly. Staking our victory on Iraqi government performance is a non-starter, to say the very least. Unbelievable.

Having said all of that, disappointment and all, my assessment is that President Bush's new plan is the best plan on the table at the moment. The war has to be won. Maybe the combination of the Iraqis stepping up, more forces to back them, shutting down support from Iran and Syria, and more civilian aid will turn it around. It's the best hope we have. The Iraq Study Group's recommendations were not going to get us to "winning". The Democrats have no plan for "winning", only retreat. President Bush has to win, and we all need to hope that he can.

Sadaam's Death: End of a Brutal Regime

Yes, I've watched the crude videos online of Sadaam Hussein's execution by hanging. (I won't post the links here. You can find them if you want them.)

His death marks the final end of his brutal Baathist regime. True, he's been out of power since he was dragged ignominously from his spider hole by courageous and effective U.S. troops. But, as long as he was alive he was still able to inspire fear in Iraqis who have seen him come back before, and hope in his followers who wanted to return to power and were willing to continue to commit daily violence to make that happen.

His death ends all of that, and will allow Iraqis to move forward in building their democracy, post Sadaam. It was an important "milestone" event, as President Bush called it, and was sadly necessary. Not only necessary, but justified by the unspeakable murder Sadaam and his henchman visited on upwards of 300,000 of their subjects. Let's just say his hanging was much more humane than his victims, some of whom were fed into wood chippers while still alive, received. Good riddance.

The topic of Sadaam's impending hanging came up in conversation while I was in Germany on business back in November. My hosts wanted to make sure to convey their deep feelings of opposition. "Sadaam should not be hanged." No one should, they solemly informed me. Their implication in their lecture to me was that America was wrong in supporting the death penalty, even for a murderous dictator, and that we were on the wrong side of morality.

Exuse me? The irony of them lecturing me on that topic was not lost on me. Clearly, their history of launching two aggressive and genocidal wars on the world in the last 100 years has turned them completely pacifist. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. But they are wrong on the topic of just punishment for crimes against humanity. There is a proper place for judgement and justice from the official representatives of so many aggrieved. And Sadaam received that just punishment. Good riddance.

It also hasn't escaped my attention that there are many in America, always on the political left, who hate George Bush more than they hate murderous villans like Sadaam Hussein and who go so far as to actually wish it was Bush swinging instead of Sadaam. Twisted, demented, and distorted. But true. Don't believe me? Here's a quote from a questionaer at a recent press conference hosted by John Edwards, Democrat running for President:

Another questioner, Davey van Greenen, asked Edwards whether Bush should be tried and face the same fate as Saddam. "He should be hanged in public himself," van Greenen said to considerable applause.

To Edward's eternal credit, he repudiated that question with his answer:

"I'll say to you very directly I don't agree with what you just said," Edwards responded, to similar applause.

Lefties, pull your head out of your behind. We are at war. There is an enemy sworn to kill us. We have a President that is aggressively waging the war on offense. And you can't distinguish that act from the genocidal acts of a murderous dictator who had rape and torture rooms as tools to subjugate his own civilian population?

Idiots.

What News?

My wife and I have a recurring scenario, which happened again this morning. It always starts with her question "Have you seen the story about.....". Fill in the blank with whatever "news" story she's seeing on the network news. My answer is always the same. "Yes, I saw it several days ago in my news sources."

Today's story happened to be about our military in Iraq using "silly string" to detect booby traps in buildings in Iraq. Saw it several days ago on the internet.

Folks, if you're counting on the mainstream news media (networks, CNN, newspapers) for your "news", then you're really only getting the "olds" and the "incompletes". It's becoming more and more obvious, and is the chief factor for the decline in ratings for networks and subscriptions for newspapers.

I'm more worried about the "incompletes". Here are some recent examples:

1. The most underreported story at the moment, in my opinion, is the story of the investigation of the death of former KGB agent Litivenko from radiation poisoning. The media in general is following only the most simplistic possibility, which is an option, that he was killed by Vladimir Putin for being a dissident.

The story you are not hearing, which I've followed on the internet, is that Litivenko - who converted to Islam right before his death - may have been in the process of procuring weapons grade nuclear material for Islamic terrorists for a dirty bomb. Plausible, with Al Qeada having put out a buy order for this material. Why aren't you hearing this story in the MSM?

2. The unasked question in the MSM: "What about winning."

Case in point: the nomination hearings for Mr. Gates to become Secretary of Defense. The media was in lockstep glee because of Gate's "realism" and "candor" for admitting that we are not winning the war in Iraq. They reported with glee his statement that "all options are on the table."

The natural, but unasked, follow-up question to a nominee to head the Defense Department for a nation with troops in the field in a declared war:

" Are you prepared to win?"

The answer to that question would have been news, had it been asked.

3. Lemmings off the cliff:

If you want a glaring example of how the mainstream media marches in lockstep to the beat of non-news, all you had to do was open any newspaper on a single day last month, when the headline of every media outlet in the country was some version of:

"War in Iraq now exceeds the length of time of World War II!"

Every outlet breathlessly reported this "news" as if it was accurate. Why? Because it lined up with the "hate-Bush" agenda of the media. Another way for the media to say "see we told you it was a mistake!"

The only problem is, it's patent nonsense.

What we all know very clearly now is that there are different phases in these wars. Combat first - which took, what, 3 months in Iraq? Then stabilizing the defeated country while you rebuild it, including defending it from be overtaken by neighbors. That phase has been going on for approximately 3 months now.

Let's go back and compare that to World War II.

We can calculate the combat phase from the beginning of the attack on Pearl Harbor to V-E day and V-J day. That phase probably lasted as long as both phases of the Iraq War have taken to date.

But, how long were we in Germany rebuilding that government into the ally that they are today? Answer, we were there a long time, and we still have troops there today. When I went into the military in 1983 I was stationed in Alaska with a unit that had as our mission defending Germany from invasion by Russia.

How long did we dominated Japan's government, as a occupier, rebuilding them into the ally they are today? Answer, a very long time and there are still troops there today.

Clearly, the rebuilding / defense of Europe phase lasted a lot longer than the official end of World War II. And clearly, the media was comparing only the combat phase of World War II with the total war in Iraq - an invalid and useless comparison. But hey, did anyone as the followup to question their "news"?

Sound the Retreat!

We are at a milestone, a turning point, in the global war on terrorism and it's imminently clear which way the power elite in Washington wish to turn - to the rear. Retreat. Surrender in Iraq is the order of the day. And it could not be more wrongheaded or dispiriting.

The midterm elections were the first trumpet call. The report issued yesterday by the Iraq Study Group (ISG) is the covering fire for the retreat.

Why bother with the ISG report, was my first question. The conclusions were a foregone conclusion, with the appeasers in Congress and the elite media lined up in lockstep to promote a "change" in our policy in Iraq.

As I left my hotel on Tuesday morning, a day before the ISG's report was officially delivered, I picked up a copy of Newsweek magazine. The bold headline, in large font over an ominous picture of ISG co-chairs Baker and Hamilton, was "Will Bush Listen".

Excuse me? Will Bush listen? No bias there, Newsweek. How about a fairer question. One that presupposes that the report should be evaluated before a judgement is made and a course is suggested. How about "Are they right?"

Are they (the ISG) right in their conclusions - those chiefly being that we've failed in Iraq and should retreat under diplomatic cover? What qualifications do these esteemed government retirees bring to the table in this conflict? How, if they only made one trip to Iraq and stayed in Baghdad the entire 4 days, do they qualify as experts? How are they more informed than our President, who has the whole National Command Authority at his disposal for daily threat briefings? It's absurd.

But, apparently absurdity is irrelevant. The elites have decided. Iraq was a mistake. Consensus on retreat is the only pressing issue. How do we retreat with dignity and "realism" is their only concern.

It's a disgrace. Retreat leaves us more at risk to terrorism, not less. And it wastes the sacrifices of our brave troops who have paid the price, not these power elites in Washington.

Mr. President, do not take the bait. Do not surrender to the forces of retreat. Win the war! That's the right course. Unleash the military to squash the Mahdi army and secure Iraq. Win the war.

Catching Up!

Wow, it's been a month since my last update! Let me catch up on current events:

Some thoughts on the Congressional Mid-Term election in November:

First, I had the unique opportunity of watching American elections while overseas. Germany, to be precise. It was odd and exhilirating at the same time. Not only were the Europeans interested in the elections, they had strong opinions about them. They weren't entirely factually accurate on the elections, with many thinking that George Bush was on the ballot, but that didn't stop them from having strong opinions. Almost everyone that I met that learned that I was an American wanted to share their opinion of the elections with me. Jointly, their opinions on the War in Iraq. The overwhelmingly unanimous consensus: the war was wrong and the Democrats needed to win the election to change things in America. As you can imagine, it was an interesting week to be a Republican overseas! I didn't argue with anyone. I just listened to their viewpoint and soaked in their culture.

Second, boy did I call that election wrong. I had hopes right up to Monday night that the Republican base would turn out strong and just eke out a victory in both branches. Surely in the Senate. Boy was I wrong.

Third, it's clear that the dominating issue was the war in Iraq. And, on those grounds and several others, the Republicans did truly deserve to lose the elections. The occupation which followed the triumphant overthrow of Sadaam has been waged very poorly, and Americans will not long suffer losing. I, like many Republicans, was discouraged that it has not been waged more aggressively to victory. "Staying the Course" was a terrible slogan masking a horribly misguided policy of stalemate and drip-drip-drip attrition of our troops needlessly. Fight it and win it was the right answer, but President Bush and his cabinet failed to make that case and they lost the Congress as a result.

Fourth, saying that the Republicans deserved to win does not in any way mean that the Democrats deserved to win. They have no policy on Iraq except surrender. And the policies that they do have on domestic agendas are going to take the country in a completely wrong direction.

America, do you know what you have wrought in expressing your displeasure on the War by handing over the Congress to the Democrats?!!! I think not, at least not in it's full scope. I know what we have to look forward to: higher taxes, an emasculated military, appeasement to terrorists and dictators, a further slide down the slope on social issues, judges that wreak havoc with social engineering, etc. It's predictible, and it's already started.

Take today's resignation by the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton. Democrats threw a hissy fit and denied the appointment to Bolton in his Senate hearings. The complaint: he was too mean to be effective in a diplomatic post. All kinds of horrors would ensue. His supporters believed he was just the kind of bulldog we needed at the U.N. to protect America's interests in that corrupt and ineffective organization. President Bush appointed him anyway. It's a year later and we can judge his performance - excellent in all regards and effective at pushing needed reforms at the U.N. Democrats, giddy with newly re-acquired Congressional power, will not admit they were wrong and will block his renomination. So, recongizing reality in the new Congress, Bolton resigned and President Bush accepted it. The result will be a congenial and totally ineffective replacement who will succeed at dinner parties and appeasment. Great. Nice job, America.

I'll try to post more often.

My European Adventure

One last pre-election thought, as I'm sitting in a boarding area for my first ever flight overseas:

I'm holding to my prediction of two weeks ago: Republicans hold both houses of Congress in surprise results. I think it's going to happen.

Why?

Because I've already voted, so there up 1 - 0. We'll see what happens on Tuesday.

It will be more than interesting to see how the elections are covered in Europe.

More when I return...

So, Who's Stupid Now?

Okay, I'll moderate my tone from yesterday's post on John Kerry's gaffe which appeared to be an insult to the intelligence of U.S. troops.

I've watched the video of his statement a couple of more times. I'm willing to accept his statement that he didn't mean to insult the troops, just to call the President stupid. Like that's any better.

So, why did all of us interpret it as slamming the troops? First, because the language of what he actually said versus what he meant to say strongly implies the insult to the troops, especially given Kerry's track record of seeming to disparage our military. Second, because the nuance of his Bush-is-stupid joke was too nuanced for most of us outside of the left-winger echo chamber. Granted, they talk in Bush-hatred jargon to each other every day. So much so that Kerry thought he could just shorthand it in front of a like-minded partisan crowd.

Bottom line: Kerry, in his elitist/snarky/left-winger manner, is incapable of insulting the President without sounding like he's insulting the military. This is not the first time he's tried and failed. Or the second. Or the third.

Note to Kerry: Senator, about the fourth time you have to stand up in front of a mic and convince everyone that you've been misinterpreted and that you didn't intend to disparage the military - you should learn a lesson. Get some counseling or something.

Kerry Sinks Dems

Thanks, John Kerry, for being you.

Just one week out from a critical mid-term election with huge consequences, Monsieur Kerry steps out of obscurity to reclaim attention and unintentionally sink his party's chances for victory.

Oh, John. You just can't help being yourself. I know you try to hide it your disdain for our military. Not well, mind you. But you pretend just the same. Most of the time your handlers and sycophants keep you under control. But every now and then you say what you really feel. And it's always a stunner.

All the old chestnuts were getting stale. Everybody's already heard you opine on how our troops were rapers and pillagers in Vietnam. Even last year's charge that our troops were breaking into Iraqi houses in the middle of the night and terrorizing Iraqi women and children had worn off.

How about some fresh impugning of our troops? Can we count on you for that. Right near the election would be nice. Take the heat of Rush Limbaugh's stupid and unfortunate mockery of Michael J. Fox last week? Can you help us out with that?

Oh, you can? Thanks. Thank you very much. It will be helpful to remind voters that Democrats loathe the military and can't be trusted with our national defense.

Okay, enough sarcasm. Let's look at John Kerry's disastrous remarks at a campaign stop this week. Addressing students on the topic of education, he said this:

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Remarkable. Contemptible. Despicable. And, clearly, a freudian moment where the Senator let fly what he really thinks of our troops.

His spin, when called on it and pressed for an apology, is that it was a botched attempt at a joke and that he was really talking about the President being stupid. Not that that version is any better. It's just as elitist and insulting. But, more than that, it's a lie. The plain words of his text speak for themselves.

Let's go over it line by line. Speaking to students, he said:

"...if you make the most of it" - is he talking to the students or about the president?

"...you study hard" - is he talking to the students or about the president?

"...if you do your homework: - is he talking to the students or about the president?

"...you make an effort to be smart" - is he talking to the students or about the president?

"...you can do well" - is he talking to the students or about the president?

"...if not, you" - is he talking to the students or about the president?

"...get stuck in Iraq" - Now suddenly he's talking about the President?

The plain meaning of his words is that he believes that the military is the last resort of the stupid, and getting sent to Iraq is your lot in life if you're uneducated. Go to any left wing website and you'll find they've been saying that for at least a year. Now, one of their leaders accidentally said it in public, thinking he was talking to a friendly audience.

He got caught dissing the troops, and now he's lying about it.

And the media is playing the clip over and over and over again today trying to decipher the big question: Did the Democrat's 2004 standard bearing really publicly insult our troops, or is he instead just a bungling elitist Bush-hater and failed comedian?

Good question. Keep asking it. All week long. Right up until Tuesday!

Pre-Election Tidbits

I haven't posted in a while. So, in the spirit of catching up, here are some pre-election tidbits:

1. The 2006 midterm election is actually over for me. I voted today, since I will be out of the country on election day. Absentee ballot for me. Yes, I had to hold my nose in a couple of races to pick a candidate - but vote I did. I voted close to a straight party ticket, being the partisan that I am!, but I did vote for one candidate from the opposite party. It was for a county level position and the incumbent candidate is more than competent and runs a great office and deserves to keep going.

2. I think the Republican base will turn out as usual. I know that there is a lot of handringing going on about that in media and pundit circles. Yes, Republicans are disappointed with a lot of the failings of the Republicans to act like conservatives. But, they're still the best choice and the base likes to vote. We'll be there. I already was there.

3. The stem cell amendment in Missouri is interesting to keep tabs on. Not because of the Rush Limbaugh/Michael J. Fox spat. That's an irrelevant sideshow. No, the issue is the amendment and what are the implications of it's passing. I'll have to write a separate post on that.

4. What surprises are in store for us in the last 8 days of the races? Any October surprises left? Who knows. But for us political junkies it's crunch time. Better than the World Series!

Upbeat on GOP Prospects

Color me salmon. Swimming upstream.

Aparently, there are only three people in the U.S.A right now who believe that the Republicans are going to retain both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate in the November elections: me and George Bush and Karl Rove.

Everyone else, at least everyone in the media, is predicting a certain Democratic win in the House and a possible/probable change in the Senate as well. I just don't think it's going to happen. A few reasons off the top of my head.

1. George Bush is not on the ballot. Sure, there are a lot of bush-haters out there. Let me repeat, George Bush is not on the ballot. If bush hatred is driving you, just stay home. There are just as many people who are scared to death of a Nancy Pelosi speakership as there are of those who hate Bush.

2. I don't think anything dramatic has changed since 2004, when Republicans did well. Nothing that would tip an election, except possibly hurrican Katrina - but I think that plays negatively both ways at the local level where candidates are running. I wouldn't want to be a local politician in Lousiana or Mississippi running for office.

3. The power of incumbency is still strong. Office holders mostly retain office.

4. Iraq - while an issue in a lot of voters minds - will not tip the election. There are pros and cons for both parties there. It won't tip any single local election for congressman, senator, etc. Even in Connecticut.

5. Low gas prices help the Repbulicans and take the edge off the angry Democrats. The economy is generally in good shape, making it a neutral.

As a bonus:

6. I think the Mark Foley scandal will burn out before the elections and be a non-player. If the Democrats want to overplay their hand on a morals issue, bring it on.

Bottom line: Incumbency wins out and the Republicans hold both the House and the Senate.

November 8th I'll tell you "I told you so".

Convert or Die

Let me see if I have this right:

- The Pope, Benedict XVI, gives an academic talk where he briefly discusses that you shouldn't spread religion at the point of a sword, and references a 14th century passage that implies that Islam did just that

- Adherents of the "Religion of Peace" immediately invoke their snappy marketing slogan (same slogan last 1400 years!) and tell the Pope to "convert or die". Then the wrongly impugned peaceniks proceed to murder a nun, burn churches, and demand the hanging of the Pope.

Kinda proved his point, didn't they?

He owes no one an apology. He wasn't wrong.

When will the West wake up?

First Rule in Homeland Security

We should have learned more lessons from 9/11. Specifically, we should have set the first rule in Homeland Security to be: no more stupid bureaucratic policies that endanger our lives!

There were bunches of them before 9/11. Most famously, the "wall" between the FBI and the CIA that hindered sharing intelligence data on terrorists between the two agencies.

But there were plenty of smaller, equally stupid, rules in place for senseless bureaucratic reasons only. Take this one, that has been in place in the Air Marshall Service ever since the beefed up from 30 agents to thousands after 9/11:

- Male field agents were required to wear suits and ties and have no facial hair.

Now, I ask you. How sensible is that on the surface? You are trying to hide armed air marshalls on a plane full of people. You want them inconspicuous. You want the terrorists to operate under a cloud of uncertainty - anyone on the plane could be an air marshall, armed and trained to take you out. Anyone. Except of course, you Mr. Terrorist don't have to worry about any male not wearing a suit, because the powers that be in Washington are more concerned about a dress code than about effective threat prevention!

The air marshalls have been protesting this policy for years. They want to be able to alter their dress to blend in better. Alter their appearance. But no dice as long as Democrat Norman Mineta was Republican George W. Bush's choice to head the Transportation Department. This politically correct attempt at bipartisanship had consequences, notably in stupid policies that made us less safe.

Mineta's gone now. And, today the air marshall's got their change. They no longer have to wear suits on a plane. Sanity is restored. It's five years too late.

What other stupid and unsafe policies are yet to be overturned in the TSA?

Quick Shots on the News

Some thoughts on the avalanche of breaking news items:

- Kudos to the authorities who foiled the airline bombing plot in England last week.

That includes our very own NSA who picked up the early chatter that started the investigation. The same NSA and surveillance who have been under fire by liberals for a year now. Democrats should apologize for yammering that the President's NSA surveillance program on people in the US who were talking with terror organizations was "illegal" and grounds for impeachment. Bush is doing the right thing. Democrats are undermining our security. Simple.

This foiled attack should bring it home that we are still at war

- Islamic Jihadists. That's who we are at war with. Not "terror". Let's name the enemy already.

Let's start showing pictures on TV. The airline bombers. The missing Egyptian students. Let's see the suspects. It will bring it home that Islamic Jihadists are our enemy.

- I think Joe Lieberman should step down from running from the Senate in Connecticut. He lost his party's primary. He shouldn't have - his opponent was a pawn of the far-left antiwar fringe. But he did lose. He should respect that and relinquish his seat. But, he won't because Senators see power as an entitlement.

Having said that, I hope he runs as an independent. His "independent" candidacy will split the liberal vote and give the Republican a chance to pick up a seat there!

- The Israel / Hezbollah situation is a mess. I don't have hopes for a UN-brokered cease fire working for any length of time.

I'm puzzled by Israel's actions. I support their self-defense efforts. But, I'm not sure what they accomplished if they stop now. Did they degrade Hezbollah's capability to hurt them enough? I don't think so.

- I think that the story of the missing Egyptian students should be looked at more. If the majority of a group of "students" who arrive here on a visa fail to go to there destination, it should be treated with utmost suspicion. It's suspicious. And, I don't understand how the FBI could come out immediately with a statement that they were not a terrorism threat. I don't buy it.

- We should build an oil pipeline in ANWR. Now.

World Gone Mad

Amongst the many things that Mel Gibson ranted about in his drunken roadside discourse this week was about coping in a "world gone mad".

Two things are clear to me.

First, Mel Gibson - who I've defended before on this blog - is toast for a while and rightfully so given his comments about Jews that can't be explained by mere overindulgence in the spirits.

Second, the world is gone mad.

It's hard enough to wrap your mind around the sudden volatility in the worlds hotspots. Bombings killing 50 people a day in Iraq. War in Lebanon and Gaza. Bombings in India. Big events that just keep escalating beyond my mere power to comprehend.

That's hard enough.

But, it was a little story that pushed me over the edge this week into utter incomprehension of man's inhumanity to man. It was the story of the 50-ish businessman from Chicago who died in Miami for the sin of asking for directions in the wrong neighborhood. He travelled to his ex-wife's new city to be with his son on his 17th birthday. After dropping his son off at work, he pulled into a gas station to ask a passerby for directions. Whereby the savage stranger shot and killed him for the little that he could rob out of the man's car.

This is senseless tragedy, and it's relatable. The majority of us are not going to get killed in the Mideast. But I know that I have been on the road and found myself out of my element and needing help in rough neighborhoods. I guess the Chicago businessman made the mistake of being in a neighborhood where he wasn't a neighbor, and for that he paid with his life.

The world has indeed gone mad.

The Reprise of WMD's?

I'm late to the game to comment on the Israeli / Hezbollah war. It's been going on for 8 days now and the obvious things have already been said:

- Hezbollah in the North, and Hamas in the South, provoked the war with their illegal kidnappings of soldiers and with sustained rocket attacks into Israel
- Israel has a right to defend itself
- Isreal's defense does not have to be a "proportional response" to just the kidnappings, anymore than the U.S.'s response to 9/11 was just going after the small group of al Qaida that planned the attack. You have to keep going until the group that threatens you is crushed and can't attack again

All that's been said.

My worry, beyond whether this war will escalate and drag us all in, is this:

If Iraq had WMD's before our invasion, which I believe they did

and if Iraq moved those WMD's before we arrived, which I believe they did

and if Iraq moved those WMD's into Syria, or worse as some evidence indicates through Syria into Lebanon, which I believe they did

how soon until those WMD's get unburied from the Bekaa Valley and used against Israel?

That would not be good.

As I Feared - It's War

Last week, when my co-workers and I were talking current events at the lunch table, it was N. Korea launching missles that had people buzzing.

I piped in to say that I was more worried about the Israeli hostage situation that worried me more. It looked likely to me that this would be the crisis most likely to escalate.

It started simply. Hamas militants from the Gaza strip tunnelled under the wall that Israel built and attacked Israeli soldiers - kidnapping one and dragging him back into Gaza. It was clear to me that Hamas wouldn't release him. And it was also likely to me that Israel would not capitulate on getting him back, even if that meant going to war.

And war it is. Faced with the soldier's capture, daily rocket attacks from Gaza, and now incursions and kidnappings from Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israel has hammered the response with missile attacks from jet fighters. Make no mistake, Israel stated, it's war.

What else would you expect Israel to do? They went the extra mile by totally withdrawing from Gaza and retreating behind a wall hoping for peace with their neighbors. Their reward was continued attacks on their military and civilian population from a terrorist organization - Hamas.

The situation highlights a claim that Rush Limbaugh, among others, had made for years - there is no peace without military victory. You don't negotiate peace. You impose peace after crushing the ability of your enemy to hurt you.

I know two things:

- this is not going to be over quick
- this is not going to be contained just to Israel, Hamas in Gaza, and Hezbollah in Lebanon

The fuse is lit.

Enough with the Finches Already

Every so often I get a chuckle out of some science writer in the mainstream media reporting a finding that "proves" evolution. Usually it's some new pronouncement of measurements of Darwin's finches on the Galopagos Islands.

Really! It proves evolution? I can't wait to read it!

So I wasn't disappointed to read this AP story this week, posted on FreeRepublic.com, called "Finches on Galopagos Islands evolving". Go read it and then come back and tell me how this proves evolution.

Are they claiming proof? From the article:

Finches on the Galapagos Islands that inspired Charles Darwin to develop the concept of evolution are now helping confirm it — by evolving.

A medium sized species of Darwin's finch has evolved a smaller beak to take advantage of different seeds just two decades after the arrival of a larger rival for its original food source.

Really? It evolved a medium beak? In just two decades? No need to read any further - hey they proved it already!

Oh, but wait a minute. Silly me. I read further, and I paid attention.

It seems that our finch in question (G. fortis), under a little competition for food in a dry season from mean ole G. magnirostris experienced a change:

In 2003 and 2004 little rain fell, further reducing the food supply. The result was high mortality among G. fortis with larger beaks, leaving a breeding population of small-beaked G. fortis that could eat the seeds from smaller plants and didn't have to compete with the larger G. magnirostris for large seeds.

So, what dear readers are we to conclude from this - helped along by Peter Grant of Princeton University, lead author of the report:

That's a form of evolution known as character displacement, where natural selection produces an evolutionary change in the next generation, Grant explained in a recorded statement made available by Science.

Ahh, no. It's not. In my humble opinion, it's not a "form of evolution" at all.

There's just one little hitch, and that is that the population of G. fortis had both medium beaks and large beaks all along. The finch didn't "evolve" a medium beak.
Only the ratio of those two beak sizes changed due to the environmental pressure. Give it a couple rainy seasons and the ratio will swing back to favor the large beaks.

This is just a rehash of the famous "peppered moth" story from England that has been used for so many years to demonstrate natural selection. It's bogus and proves nothing. It only proves variation in the ratio of traits within an existing population. It has nothing to do, for example, with speciation.

Bottom line: this quaint little study does not "prove" evolution. An existing trait (beak size) varies with environmental pressure - granted. However, the finch did not "evolve" a medium beak. The finch did not become anything but a finch.

It's a meaningless story.

And, it's not the last time we will hear it.

I Heart Ann Coulter

I just finished reading Ann Coulter's new book - "Godless: the Church of Liberalism". Awesome!

Some thoughts:

1 Why is Ann Coulter so wildly popular with conservatives? Easy. She doesn't shrink from making the strongest possible case for her point - generally, for conservative values. That's rare. Conservative politicians, including President Bush, often shy away from defending the rightness of their positions. Ann doesn't. As an example, I give you the last sentence of her 1st chapter:

"Liberals can believe what they want to believe, but let us not flinch from indentifying liberalism as the opposition party to God"

2. Is she mean? Yes. Too mean? Probably. I thought that the comment about the Jersey Girls "enjoying" their husbands death went too far. I would have preferred, what others have suggested, "exploited", which would have been accurate. Sometimes when I read her columns I think that her sarcasm was so deep that it obscured her point.

But that's generally quibbling. Her main point is accurate and well reasoned.

As she said to Jay Leno when he was quizzing her about the Jersey Girls quote being too mean: "Is that all liberals are offended by? I called them Godless, for goodness sakes. That they're cool with."

3. Is the Jersey Girls quote all they they found to be offended by? You'd think so, because every interviewer focused on that. I found stuff on almost every page that liberals would be offended by. How about these gems:

- on liberal's sacrament (abortion), and it's affect:

"This leads us to the astonishing spectacle of Teddy Kennedy, in full-dress sanctimony, getting all high and might with Supreme Court candidates as if the nominee had done something heinous like drown a girl and walk away from it because he had diplomatic immunity in the state of Massachusetts."

- on liberal's priesthood (teachers - indoctrinating students in the state religion of liberalism). A whole chapter gauranteed to offend. Ann makes a point about 59% of new teacher applicants in Massachusetts in 1998 failing a test designed for eight graders. Teacher's advocates objected, stating that the test failed to demonstrate a relationshep between test scores and initial teacher competence. Ann's retort:

"Genuine teacher competency is measured by how capable a teacher is at taking away a fourth-grader's Bible and passing out condoms".

4. In all of the TV interviews that I saw with Ann on her publicity tour for the book, none of them conducted a decent interview with her about her thesis: that although liberals demand a separation between state and religion, liberalism is in fact the state religion.

"It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, it's own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation for the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all of the attributes of what is generally known as 'religion.'"

Awesome. A thesis that conservatives agree with, but that no one else has had the gumption to put forward as Ann has.

The book is entertaining and well argued. Yes, and gauranteed to make you wince every now and then. You should read it.

Happy 4th of July

Have a great holiday everyone!

Who's Your Bagh-Daddy?

George W. Bush, that's who, with his surprise visit to Baghdad yesterday.

Meeting with the newly convened Iraqi government. Lifting the morale of the troops.

Leadership.

Nice.

For a reverse, dare I say perverse, take on leadership - I point you to John Kerry making a speech this week pandering to a leftist Democrat group.

The "highlight" of Kerry's speech, and his biggest applause lines, appears to be his disavowal of the war that he voted for - which he now calls a big mistake for our country - and his apology for casting the wrong vote on the war. A vote he claims that President Bush "misled" him into casting.

Really, this is what you guys are looking for in a President? This is leadership? This is what makes you proud?

Never mind his really bad timing in disavowing our war efforts when we're experiencing real progress there. Never mind that he is completely wrong on the war being wrong, and on being manipulated into it. All factually incorrect. Never mind that.

The really troubling part is that he thinks that standing up and confessing that he is such a malleable and influence-able Senator that he can be "tricked" into casting a "wrong vote" for something as serious as sending our nation's soldiers to war makes him Presidential material. Huh? Unbelieveable.

Well, there you have it. Two examples of leadership this week. One bold and optimistic. The other craven and apologetic. I know who I choose to admire.

Rove off the Hot Seat

More good news today! Karl Rove has been notified by the Special Prosecutor that he will not be charged in the Valerie Plame case.

Now, can we please end this ridiculous charade of a non-case of non-leaking of a non-covert CIA officer's name? There is no case here.

Do you think Mr. Rove, in his new capacity leading Repbulicans into the 2006 midterm elections, is going to take out some frustration from his months-long slandering on some hapless Democrats? Do you think?

Reactions to Zarqawi's Death are Telling

My reaction to the death last week of archterrorist and leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq al-Zarqawi was simple. Elation. And I had a little extra bounce in my step, as a U.S. Air Force veteran, that the boys in blue delivered the 1000 pounds of justice that took him out.

Make no mistake - Zarqawi was the enemy. Our purpose in war is to defeat the enemy. To deal death and destruction to them in sufficient force that we disable their ability to hurt us. That is the stated goal of war. Therefore, Zarqawi's death - despite the efforts of Democrats and the media to lowball it - is a significant milestone in our war effort. Are we done? No, they can still hurt us. But we're closer to being done. And I say three cheers to our fine military folks who are getting the job done.

Things are looking up in Iraq. Our troops have been doing a fine job winning the war against militant Islam, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq. I don't know if you saw the news article last week that stated that 40% of the terrorists that we identified after 9/11 are now dead. 40%. That's a significant and successful number. The rest are weakened and dispersed. They cannot defeat us, unless we quit. Which, thankfully, George W. Bush will never do.

I was dismayed by general reaction to Zarqawi's death from the left. Their naysaying reactions, denying victorious credit to our war effort, are telling and are just more evidence that the left wants us to fail in this effort. It's disgraceful.

The most curious reaction you will have heard by now. It came from Michael Berg, father of Nicholas Berg who was beheaded at the hands of al-Zarqawi. Mr. Berg, a pacifist and an anti-war activist, said this:

I think al-Zarqawi's death is a double tragedy," Michael Berg told The Associated Press after learning a U.S. airstrike had killed the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. "His death will incite a new wave of revenge. George Bush and al-Zarqawi are two men who believe in revenge."

and this:

Berg said the blame for most deaths in Iraq should be placed on President Bush, who he said is "more of a terrorist than Zarqawi."

"Zarqawi felt my son's breath on his hand as held the knife against his throat. Zarqawi had to look in his eyes when he did it," Berg added, pausing to collect himself. "George Bush sits there glassy-eyed in his office with pieces of paper and condemns people to death. That to me is a real terrorist."

He also said that George Bush was responsible for "hundreds of thousands" of dead in Iraq.

This is both curious and sad.

I think the same things about Michael Berg that I thought about Cindy Sheehan. Two things:

1. As a grieving father who lost his son in this conflict he is entitled to say whatever he wants to say - crazy or sane. I could not even begin to relate to his grief and only have empathy for him personally.

2. When he uses that situation in public activism - in his case as a candidate for Congress from the Green Party - then his views are subject to scrutiny and criticism. In this case, I would repudiate his expressed views totally and would never consider voting for him.

There is just so much wrong about his statements. Not just the factual errors, such as attributing hundreds of thousands of deaths to President Bush, when no such numbers have perished. No, it's his moral equivalence argument comparing President Bush to al-Zarqawi, and finding Bush worse, that is repugnant.

If you're a progressive and you find yourself in general agreement with Mr. Berg's statements equating Mr. Bush with al-Zarqawi - and finding Bush worse - I would seriously urge you to re-evaluate your thinking on this war. Because if that's your postion you have unquestionably lost perspective, and you don't have grief as a mitigating factor.

Well done, U.S. Air Force. Aim High!

Waving my Magic Wand

A charming new acquaintance asked me a engaging question during a lively dinner exchange last week. She asked me "if you could change one thing about America, what would it be?"

It was a serious question, genuinely offered. And I'm glad she asked it, because it gave me reason to think broadly about our country this week past my glib answer at the table - which was to fix the foster care system and do a better job taking care of children at risk. (A parochial answer for an ex-foster parent)

Thinking broadly about our country, from a pro-active fix-it perspective, made me realize that I'm generally very optimistic about America. We are a generous country. We are a compassionate country. We are a country of opportunity. We are a melting pot. We are a force for good in the world.

When you listen to talk radio as much as I do, you tend to focus on the things that are going wrong. And there are plenty of those. But we are an entrepenuerial country at heart and, over time, we fix those things.

So, I'll answer her question in a broadly idealistic manner and say that if I could change one thing about America, I would wish for more "clarity" in our public life.

What do I mean? Well, there are serious issues that we confront in all manner of our public life. And what troubles me is the lack of clarity. Of commonly understood analysis of those issues. Of intense polarization on policy, because there is not agreement on the underlying facts.

Why is there such deep "red state" / "blue state" disagreement over the basic big issues of the day? For example:

- Are we engaged in a global "War on Terror", or aren't we?
- If so, is the Administration conducting it in the way the American people would conduct a war, or not?
- Were there WMD's before the Iraq war, or not?
- Was Iraq a state sponsor of terror, and therefore a threat to us, or not?
- Do both sides in the Israel / Palestinian issue have a legitimate stake to that land or not?
- Is there verifiable, human caused, human fixable Global Warming, or not?
- Is "judicial activism" happening or not, and is that good or bad for America?
- Are our borders secure?
- Can we appropriately assimilate all of the foreign nationals who understandably want to live here, or not?
- Is the government too big and inefficient, or not big enough?
- Is the national debt that supports a war and hurricane relief appropriate or not?
- Is our culture life in America declining into coarseness, or progressing?

I could think of many more.

We face big questions in our day. And even with a proliferation of news and information sources we've divided into camps with two completely opposing set of facts on every big issue. How can we harmful partisan bickering, and solve problems, if we can't even agree on the facts of an issue.

So, if I could change one thing in America I would challenge our leaders in media and government to think about how their efforts contribut to "clarity" rather than just power and gamesmanship.

And if that's too idealistic an approach to the question, then my answer is: more pecan pie for every American.

Right Principle, Wrong Application

As the U.S. Senate takes up consideration today of a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, there is only one thing that I can be sure of. And that is, that there will plenty of ridiculous political sophistry in evidence on both sides of this issue. Senators will say silly things, in spades.

For example, to get us off to a good start today, Senator Arlen Specter (R) announced his intention to vote no on the issue. In doing so he quoted Barry Goldwater's assertion that we should keep government out of the bedroom.

That's a good conservative principle, for which I'm generally in agreement.

However, the application here is laughable. That train has already left the station.

Government is already deeply involved in "marriage", in the bedroom or out. Governments issue marriage liscenses. If they didn't we wouldn't be having this debate.

Laws are already on the books defining marriage. Courts already decide case law.

The issue is not now whether or not government should be in the bedroom on marriage. It already is. The question is what policy government should favor. Do thousands of years of traditions from every civilization in history prevail, or do current understandings of equal protection under the law? It's a valid debate. Let's have it.

So, to Senator Specter - make a different argument. Oppose it or support it on the merits, not on the specious assertion that government shouldn't be involved in this question.

Note to Dixie Chicks: Who Asked You To?

Let me just specify that I'm really fond of the musical group called the "Dixie Chicks". Mainly because I saw them perform live for a small technical conference I attended back in 1995 in Dallas - before they were famous, as they say.

They are extremely talented and make great music. No doubt about it.

So, I was a little disheartned when their career derailed back in 2003 because of a political comment that singer Natalie Mains made on a stage in London right before our battle in Iraq commenced. She said that she was "ashamed that President Bush is from our state", or something like that.

That little comment caused a firestorm, and their career tanked. Off the radio, decreased CD sales, and as they tell it - death threats.

What they never really got was this: people weren't that mad about what she said, just where she said it. We are tired of celebrities going overseas to bash the President. If you're that brave, say it in Dallas not London. Dixie Chickens.

I forgave them quickly. I mean really. Do I care what Natalie thinks about Bush and the war? Really. Forgive and forget and lets get the fiddles going.

At least that's what I thought. Apparently, it's not reciprocal.

In a massive strike of career suicide, the Chicks have come out swinging with their first song off their long awaited new album called "Not Ready to Make Nice". They are still angry about the backlash to her statement. So, out they come with this angry screed aimed at their audience.

Not ready to make nice?

Who asked you to? Wasnt' me. I'm living quite nicely without spending $15 for this.

Have a nice life Natalie, Emily, and Martie.

of Heroes and Murderers

I saw "United 93" on opening day last Friday. You know the story. You know how it ends.

Let me just say that I would encourage everyone who's even thinking about seeing it to see it. It's an extremely powerful movie that's brilliantly done.

My experience was apparently like others who's reviews I've read. The theater was silent, with the audience gripped by the intensity and emotion of the film. When the lights came up everyone just sat for a minute and then filed out silently like a funeral procession.

I wanted to scream a profanity at the scream, but suppressed that urge. I was angry at the end. For good reason. I had just watched the true story of the first counterattack in the war on terror.

Don't worry about the movie clashing with your politics. The movie is devoid of politics. There's no agenda or opinion pushed. There's no context at all, in fact. It's just a real time presentation of the events of that fateful morning. You think for yourself. You decide it's meaning.

Go. See. Remember. It's the least we can do to remember those who first fought back.

We Need Clarity on Immigration

The flareup of immigration issues in the last month, including Congress's attempts at "immigration reform" and the resulting marches by hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, gives us all a second chance at civics class. We need clarity on this issue in a big way.

I have some thoughts:

First, it's clearly a huge problem. When a constituent group can generate mass rallies which threaten to "shut down" American cities - you've got a problem.

Second, no one hates the illegals. America is a very welcoming country with a strong sense of rooting for immigrants. Most of us can completely understand someone's desire to leave a country that is saturated with poverty and corruption to try to make a better life here. Most Americans believe that we should welcome as many good people as we can from all over the world as we can reasonably assimilate.

Third, we can't welcome everyone. We just can't. There has to be an orderly control of the borders which admits only the number of people we can absorb.

Fourth, if you're not in that number you can't just break into the country. It's trespassing, and it's illegal. Plus, when 12 million people do it it's an invasion.

Fifth, the marchers have intentionally poked their fingers in our eyes. It's as if:

Someone broke into our house (illegal border crossing), ate all of the food in our refridgerator (use public schools, emergency rooms, etc), and then get mad at us for not giving them the spare key to the house yet (immigrant rights now!), and by the way - why haven't we adopted them yet? (today we march - tomorrow we vote!)

Unbelievable ingrattitude.

Sixth, politicians from both parties are completely out of tune with mainstream America on this one. Enough of the platitudes like "they're doing jobs Americans won't do" and "we can't have a mass deportation". Americans will do the jobs if the wages are not depressed by an illegal market. And surrender to the problem is not a policy.

For clarity, let me state my position on it:

- America has a right, and a duty, to control it's borders as any sovereign state does.

- Congress has already passed laws defining border control and immigration policy, including setting the limit of how many people we can reasonably assimilate

- Congress and the several presidential administrations have been seriously negligent in enforcing those laws for the last twenty years, resulting in an illegal population 12 million strong willing to make threats to shut down our cities.

- Congress and the Bush Administration have exactly no credibility on immigration reform, given a twenty year track record of dereliction which has allowed the flouting of our laws and sovereignty to the tune of 12 million illegals within our borders.

- In spite of that, Congress and the Bush Administration need to establish immediate control of our border and enforcement of our laws by:

- securing the border immediately. Build a wall now.

- Deporting everyone that comes into contact with law enforcement that is not in the country legally

- Punishing heavily businesses that hire illegal aliens - which depresses the wage scale for Americans. I would start with the businesses, like Tyson foods, that had to shut their doors yesterday during the boycott because their illegal workers were at the rallies. Fine those CEO's to the maximum extent of the law.

Enough foolishness on this issue. We need clarity. And we need public officials Republicans and Democrats - to follow the law.

Latest Leak Exposes Democrats

The latest "leak" case to come out of Washington D.C. this week has served to be a reminder that Democrats cannot be trusted with national security.

Highlights:

- Mary McCarthy was fired from the CIA last week after being caught for leaking classified information in her care to the media. Mary McCarthy is a former Clinton Administration official with antipathy for the Bush Administration. She leaked information to cause damage to the Bush Administration.
- the story that she leaked to the media was the story that the CIA was running secret prison camps in Easter Europe where terrorist were kept outside of the restrictions of U.S. law.
- the media that she leaked it to was the Washington Post
- the Washington Post just won a Pulitzer Prize for it's coverage of the secret prison story. Coverage, I might add, that is illegal since it published classified material against the interests of the U.S. while we're at war
- the secret prison story has caused great harm to our relationship with allies in Eastern Europe who were, until the leak, willing to help us in the War on Terror
- the secret prison story has not been proved to be true. In fact, European Union authorities charged with investigating it reported last week that the could uncover no evidence to support it.

So, how did Democrats respond to Mrs. McCarthy leaking classified information damaging to the U.S. in wartime?

They excuse her, saying - as John Kerry did this week on a Sunday talk show - that she was just "telling the truth".

Make no mistake - this leak by Mary McCarthy of classified CIA material ( if there was indeed any truthful material in what she leaked) was damaging to the interests fo the United States in a time of war. CIA director Porter Goss has testified to this damage.

She should be prosecuted immediately, along with the responsible newspaper officials who published it.

And Democrats who excuse her unlawful behavior should never be trusted with our national security.

New Orleans Historic Vote

I have three brief thouhts on last weeks Mayoral election in New Orleans"

1. I'm amazed that voters in the "Big Easy" would choose old line party insiders after the political structure there completely failed them in Hurricane Katrina. Sixty years of failed policy and deep endemic poverty were exposed by the flood, and yet voters chose more of the same. Whether it's Mayor Nagin, who let buses sit and get flooded rather than use them to evacuate people, or Landrieu, who is part of the old line corrupt party bosses there - it's more of the same. Bad choice.

2. I like the run-off system they have in place. Since no candidate achieved a majority, the top two vote getters will face a second election.

We could have used that in the Republican primary in Illinois where Judy Barr-Topinka won with 36%, while the four non-Judy candidates split the remainder. If you had a run-off election with Judy and the winner of the non-Judy votes (Jim Oberweiss), there's no way that Judy would win. Yet we're stuck with her in the general election, where her ties to convicted Governor Ryan will sink her. Nice.

3. Did all the people who voted in New Orlean's election still live there? Are the evacuees going home?

Ashamed of My Vote

It's healthy every now and then to look back and re-evaluate the votes that you've cast. And, I'll admit. I'm ashamed by the vote I cast years ago for George Ryan to be Governor of Illinois.

That would be the same George Ryan who was convicted by a jury in Chicago this week on all counts of corruption.

I can't claim that I didn't know he was corrupt when I cast my vote. I knew, even then. Everyone knew.

I cast my vote as a party-line vote. I believe in voting for a party, and not just "the man". Because a position like Governor involves nominating a lot of people to office, and I want the people he brings with him to be from the group that thinks most like me. So, I held my nose and voted for him.

It was close. Very, very close. I really wanted to vote for Glenn Poshard, even though I didn't know much about him - but he was affiliated with the wrong party. Turns out I've learned a lot more about Poshard since then. He's a very honorable man who would have served the state well.

My mistake, and it was a big mistake.

Not only did Ryan bring corruption with him to office, but bad judgement as well. Now we have to live with a disfunctional justice system after he pardoned all of the death row inmates and placed a moratorium on the death penalty. Some Republican.

Of course, he's a media darling because of the death penalty thing. And the media is stunned by his conviction. They want to eagerly report that it may be overturned because of suspect jurors. At least, they hope it is.

The most often used statement by the media was that it was "a sad day for Illinois" that he was convicted.

No it wasn't. It's a great day when corrupt politicians face judgement. George Ryan first among them.

I'll do better voting in the future. Lesson learned.

Federal Government Derelict on Immigration

Note to Congress on your break:

Yada, Yada, Yada. You can debate all of the bills you want to in Congress on Immigration reform. Doesn't matter. You have no credibility on the issue.

You can't be derelict in your duties for two decades, and totally abdicate serious enforcement of our immigration laws currently on the books now - resulting in a crisis of 12 million illegal aliens - and expect us to give any credence to any legislation you're proposing now. Guest worker. Amnesty. Whatever. Doesn't matter.

Secure the borders first. Congress and the Bush Administration. Build the wall, or whatever it takes to stop a million people a year from entering our country illegally every year.

Until you can do that, you're just continuing in your dereliction of duty.

Yada. Yada. Yada.

Not Funny

My son came to us this morning to tell us that he had accidentally taken two doses of his medicine.

This was followed, as we raced for the phone to call a pharmacist or poison control, by an exuberantly shouted "April Fools!".

Not funny. At the time, at least.

Hope you had some fun with April Fool's Day.

Taps for Cap

Caspar (Cap) Weinberger, Ronald Reagan's Secretary of Defense in the 80's, died today.

I served under Secretary Weinberger in my tenure in the U.S. Air Force and I have the utmost respect for him. He was a helluva leader and an inspiration to me.

I salute him today for his life and his service to our country. Rest in Peace.

Pass it Harder

Congress is embroiled this week in passing legislation to deal with the substantial problem of illegal immigration, include penalties for those who have broken the law to violate the borders of the U.S. In response, 500,000 protesters filled the streets of Los Angeles last Saturday to advocate against the law and in favor of rights for these law-breakers.

This bold in-your-face demonstration by such a large crowd, many of whom were probably the illegals in question and who had no fear of protesting in public - with Mexican flags raised high - illustrate clearly the magnitude of the problem and dictate the direction of the solution.

Pass whatever legislation is required to get control of our borders. Pass it now.

Pass it harder.

And then enforce it, with every ounce of political will necessary.

Can we please cut through the horsecrap on this issue?

- A country must have control of it's borders if it is to maintain it's safety, values, and way of life.

- A country also benefits from a sane immigration policy that allows new people in, from all races and ethnicities and geographies, at a controlled pace that allows for assimilation into our country. You remember: e pluribus unum. (out of many, one). The "melting pot". That's what assimilation is. Allow people in, but control the pace and require assimilation. Diversity of culture yes, but allegiance to the country and assimilation as well.

- We accomplish the two goals of controlled immigration through two means - border security and lawful immigration policy.

- The border security has been entirely degraded, with at least 500,000 "illegals" skipping across the border each year. There are people trying to do it legally and waiting in line. And then there are criminals who break-in. This is not adequate security.

It's not only terrorists who can come in with that flood of illegals. There are hardened criminals in the bunch as well, who circumvent the background check required of the people who do this by the book.

- Our laws, which define how many people can be lawfully emigrated and assimilated in a given time period, have been rendered meaningless by lack of enforcement. The rule of law degraded.

- The words "illegal immigrant" mean something. If you've entered the country illegally, you have violated the law.

It's time for our elected officials to be accountable on this.

Pass whatever new laws are needed.

Secure the border.

Enforce the laws.

Period.

Election Day

It's primary election day here in Illinois. We're picking a new Governor and some lessor officials, as well as warding off (hopefully) tax increases.

We currently have a Democrat in office. A particularly haughty Chicagoan who insulted us downstaters by refusing to live in the Governor's mansion in the capital of Springfield. Time for him to go.

There are several candidates in the Republican primary and the outcome is, unfortunately predictable. There is one establishment candidate (Judy Baar-Topinka) and four outsiders.

I can't vote for Ms. Topinka because I count her in the Republican leadership for two decades that have taken our party into total electoral calamity. She bears some responsibility for that.

That leaves her four challengers, all white guys, who will predictably split the anti-Judy vote thereby ensuring her win.

I voted. I voted for one of the anti-Judy challengers. Tonight I'll watch her win without a majority because of the split anti-Judy vote.

Then I'll reluctantly vote for her in the general election because I prefer a Republican administration to a Democrat administration every time.

"Tell Your Dad Not to Admit It"

I had an interesting encounter with a friendly gentleman on the North Shore of Chicago this weekend.

I had taken my family for an impromptu getaway to the windy city. We bunkered into a posh hotel on Lake Michigan in the South Loop and laid seige to several musuems on Saturday and Sunday. Sharks and dinosaurs, oh my. A very fun weekend.

On Sunday morning I took my oldest son on a quick photo tour of downtown Chicago. Big buildings - snap! Millenium Park - snap! Beaches on the North Shore - snap!

On that last stop we met a kindly older gentleman walking his dog.

He: "Would you like me to take a picture of you and your son?"

Me: "That would be great!" Snap. Snap.

Me: "We're just visiting for the weekend."

He: "That's great! Welcome to our city."

Me: "We saw the Shedd Aquarium yesterday, and are headed to the Field Musuem today."

He: "That's great! Did you get a chance to go to the anti-war rally?"

Ummmmmmmmmmm. Clearing my throat.......

Me (with a big smile): "Actually, I'm a veteran and I support President Bush and the war."

He (turning purple): "NO! Nobody supports Bush anymore!"

He (looking at my son): "Tell your Dad not to admit that to anyone else here."

Me (with a friendly wave): "Thanks for helping us out!"

And we parted with friendly grins.

I happened to be near Soldier Field later that day where the rally was apparently being held. The usual suspects assembling, as is their right. They had a nice day for a rally. I went in with my family and saw the dinosaurs and mummies.

However, I'll admit it to anyone. I support President Bush. Taking the War on Terror was the right thing to do, even with the cost. I base that on staying informed on all of the issues. If you paid close attention to the news lately you would see:

- we're meeting the milestones on establishing a Democracy in that critical region

- March's casualties were down

- Sadaam's trial is proceeding

- Iraqi towns once held by terrorists are now safer

- an Iraqi Air Force general has admitted that his men flew the WMD's into Syria before the war started

Bush, despite doing a poor job explaining it, is on the right track - my new friend in Chicago's opinion notwithstanding.

Postscript: I just finished reading Richard Miniter's book "Disinformation", which methodically knocks down 22 media myths about the war like:

- there were no WMD's in Iraq
- there were no connections between al Qaida and Iraq
- 100,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq by the U.S.
- the war was really fought for oil and Haliburton

It's a great read. Chock full of facts. I highly recommend it. You should read it, and then some of you should consider apologizing to the President.

Bastards!

Another American hostage was found tortured and killed in Iraq by radical Islamic murderers.

Story here.

Bastards.

"I've Been Retired for Four Days Now"

I'm not a big fan of the lottery. I almost never, ever play.

Okay, maybe a couple of times when one of the huge powerball lotteries has gone over a couple of million I'll plunk down a couple of bucks on a quick pick.

But you have to get a grin out of 8 regular joes at a meat packing plant in Nebraska hitting the big jackpot. $15 Million each, not bad.

Here's to those guys. Spend the money well.

I'm guessing at least one of them will buy season tickets to the Cornhuskers games. Go big red!

Passion Lives There

I know it's fashionable to bash the Winter Olympics. Not real sports. Not real athletes. Whatever.

I always enjoy them. Skating. Skiing. Hockey. Heck, even I'll even sit and watch curling!

There's something about the Olympic spirit that's inspiring, and we all need to be inspired every now and then.

Eavesdropping: Po-tat-o or Po-tay-toe?

The facts, as we know them from the NY Times whistleblowing story and the White House's response to it, are as follows:

- in the days after 9/11, President Bush acted on the advice of the National Security Agency (NSA) to authorize eavesdropping (phone, email, etc) on certain categories of individuals within the domestic United States. He did so without obtaining a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, claiming executive constitutional authority to collect foreign intelligence in war time.
- the individuals involved may or may not be citizens - we don't know yet
- the individuals involved were suspected of having some level of contact with Al Qaida. This suspicion was based on information collected in intelligence operations overseas. I.E. their phone number was found in captured cell phones of laptops.
- Approximately 500 people fell into this program
- The details of the program are top-secret, and involve elements that caused the Administration to believe that it would not be practical, or would compromise the secrecy and success of the program, to go through the established FISA court warrant procedure. A court procedure that the 9/11 commission report indicated was insufficient for combatting terrorism.

Those are the facts. How are they portrayed by the opposing sides in this media conflict?

Domestic Spying - say the Democrats, the mainstream old-school media, and the Hollywood politicos like George Clooney. They use this loaded phrase to cast the program in the widest possible worst case scenario to imply that the President is "spying" on every American - or at least his political opponents.

Terrorist Surveillance - says the President in his State of the Union speech. Limiting the scope of the program to those with connections to terrorists. Not you. Not me. Not the kindly old lady who lives down the block. Only people who have "reached out and touched" Al Qaida.

So, Domestic Spying vs. Terrorist Surveillance.

Which is right? More descriptive? More credible? More honest? More hysterical. It makes a difference.

So, let me ask you:

If U.S. military or intelligence personnel come into the possession of battlefield intel in the form of captured cell phones or computers that have contact information for someone within the borders of the U.S.A., who may be members of a terrorist cell waited for instructions, who may or may not be U.S. citizens - do you want that person monitored or not?

Are we really serious about "connecting the dots" regarding individuals within our borders who are in contact with the people who aim to kill us, or not?

Is said person, who is in contact with Al Qaida, having his civil rights violated by being monitored, or not?

And are the Democrats and the media advocating that we not monitor those people, and leave ourselves open to the next attack?

Democrats are playing a dangerous and losing game by asserting, without evidence, that President Bush has "broken a law" and/or committed an impeachable offense. Surveilling terrorists on our soil is a winning argument for the President.

WMD's Take Flight

The most underreported story at the moment is Saddam Sent WMD to Syria, Former General Alleges, which details how the WMD's were shipped out of Iraq to Syria in the days before the war started. Go read it.

I hope this report is taken seriously and investigated. Not just to prove the Democrats wrong in their continued, and irresponsible, litany that "Bush lied" us into war about WMD's. Because, if they are still around in Syria as this report alleges and as I believe they are, they are still a threat to us.

Let's investigate this seriously.

Democrats Vote Themselves out of "Mainstream"

As the votes occur in the U.S. Senate this week to confirm Judge Sam Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, Senate Democrats are apparently preparing to take their party over the cliff and out of the "mainstream".

Consistent among their arguments in their opposition to Judge Alito is that he is out of the "judicial mainstream".

It's not enough that he has sterling levels of experience, written opinions, and judicial temperament. No, all of that was attested by the American Bar Association (ABA) in their report to the Judiciary Committee that found him to be well qualified. No, that's not enough. Consider Sen. Chuck Schumer's only question to them in response, where he asked them if they measured whether or not the judge was within the "judicial mainstream"? The ABA's response - "We don't do politics".

Well the Democrats do politics. And they have decided that is in their interest to appease their radical left wing base and attack, oppose, and possibly filibuster the nomination of this fine man.

So I ask you - who is outside of the judicial mainstream?

Judge Alito, who the ABA found through interviews with 2000 people who knew him - judges who served with him, lawyers who clerked for him, lawyers that argued in front of him, etc - was an honest and fair man of utmost integrity and judicial temperament?

Or partisan Democratic Senators who threw every unfounded, mean, and illogical argument at him in the hearings and weren't able to lay a glove on him? You want to take Teddy Kennedy's word ethics? Or Hillary Clinton's on the "mainstream"?

It's inevitable. The Senate Democrats will choose disgrace over integrity this week in their votes to oppose the judge. They will publicly line up and exit the mainstream. And Judge Alito will be confirmed anyway. That's justice.

My ill-spent Morning in Traffic Court

There is an old saying that a "conservative" is a liberal who has been mugged. (As my twelve year old would say.."Get it, they now believe in law and order, get it?)

I would modify that to say that a conservative should be anyone who has spent time in the paragon of beauracratic efficiency know as traffic court, as I had the privilege of doing this morning.

It should certainly cure liberals of a belief that government should be delivering most services to "the people".

Yes, I know. I wasn't one of the people today. I was a perp. A violator. Who am I to comment on the wonders of the "Law and Justice Center"? Just shut up and put up with the two and a half hour excercise in civics and learn a lesson already.

Two and a half hours? To pay a traffic ticket? What's up with that?

Was I protesting the charges? Um, no. You got me, officer. Fair and square. Speeding? Guilty. 88 mph in a 65 zone. Not a close call. No seatbelt? Guilty. I didn't even try to drag it surreptitiously across my stomach as the officer approached the car. Nope. Guilty.

I've got $150 buring a hole in my pocket. Let me pay it and give me the prize - my Driver's License back - already.

But, it's not going to be that easy. The wheels of justice have to grind me down a while. Stand here. Sit there. Court appearance required. That's right - the courtroom where 50 people are all scheduled for the same 9:00am hearing. We'll call your name - eventually. Say hi to the pretty State's Attorney. What? No, I don't want to protest it. I'm guilty. Who can I pay already?

You just want to pay? Sign this. Plead that. Go down and stand in that long line in the hallway. Never mind that there are several computer stations unmanned. These two plodding bored people will help you - eventually.

What? Don't mind that doctor who's trapped in line behind you on his cell phone talking his nurse through how to perform a diagnostic test to decide whether a patient needs to go to the emergency room or not! The line will eventually move it's two feet per ten minutes and free him up too.

If my liberal friends get to experience this encounter with your local government some day, ask yourself this as you observe the proceedings: if this was a business, would they treat you this way? I mean, after all, they generate huge amounts of cash for your city to operate on. No one gets out of there for less than $100, I noted as I watched them staple stacks of cash to thick permanent files on us.

I know you guys hate Walmart. But wouldn't you really want them to run the traffic court? Do you think they would have hesitated to open another register to clear out that line?

The Party of Unfinished Sentences

The continued drumbeat from the Democrat leadership this week about President Bush's "illegal warrantless spying on Americans" shows that the Party of Unfinished Sentences is at again.

Of course, their main ritual of the unfinished sentence was on display as well in the Alito hearings. The being "a woman's right to choose." Choose what? Well, of course they don't want to finish the sentence and say "a woman's right to choose whether or not to hire an abortionist to take the life of the unborn child developing within her." Let's just shortcut that at the right to choose.

Back to the NSA eavesdropping story. Just because Democrats keep repeating all day, every day, that the President broke the law by "spying on Americans" doesn't make it true.

As to the unfinished sentence - what Americans? Me? You? My preacher? The little old lady next door? Bill Clinton? Ted Koppel? The Red Hat Society?

Let me finish the sentence for them. The President authorized the NSA to monitor, by eavesdropping, the conversations of people on American soil - citizens or not - who they had probable cause to believe were in contact with Al Qaeda leaders.

When I say it that way, and I do say it that way, it's a different story. We would expect the President to be taking aggressive action to monitor those people to protect the security of our homeland. Except Democrat leaders, or course, who just want the issue to bash the President with - not the truth.

I could make the whole argument here, but Jonah Goldberg has already done it extremely well in his column "so what if you are". Go read it.

And always ask - what's the rest of the sentence?

Senators Behaving Badly

"Senators, have you no shame?" would have been a good question for someone to direct to the Democrat Senators on the Judiciary Committee in this week's hearings on Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.

Desperate to defeat Alito - yet unable to do so on the merits of his experience, capability, or judicial temperament - the Democrats loaded up the smear arsenal.

Thank heavens for C-Span! Staying up late to watch Kennedy and Schumer and Leahy etc. thunder imperiously at Alito, all but calling him a bigoted unethical women-hating stooge of an illegal President, until his wife retreated from the room in tears: Priceless! Nice, Democrats. Real nice.

Watching Chucky Schumer haughtily conclude that he was troubled by the nominee's unresponsiveness and would have a hard time voting for him, like there was any chance in the world that he might even consider voting for him: Priceless!

At least I got to prove my "News Junkie" bona fides this week by taping C-Span in order to watch Committee hearings into the wee hours of the morning.

You Can't Just Give Back the Money

The most important story on the front page of yesterday's USA Today was not the shockingly out-of-date "Dewey defeats Truman" kind of headline proclaiming that the trapped miners in West Virginia were found alive - when in fact they were dead.

No, that was a tragic story with an important side lesson about the ability of the print media to compete with the 24 hour news cycle on a deadline, but it was not the most important story for the nation.

That would be the 2nd story, below the fold, about super lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleading guilty to lobbying fraud and giving up evidence to take down a lot of Congressmen with him. This is the story with long term national ramifications.

Why? Because this story will damage the nation long term for two reasons:

1. It will directly take down a lot of powerful Congressmen if it plays out to the extent that is possible. Key figures like Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D) are potentially on the hook for taking bribes.

2. It will further undermine American's faith in government if a large group of nationally known politicians are indicted for accepting bribes.

Hastert, as was noted, immediately "gave back" about $69,000. Sorry guys. You can't just give the money back. If you took bribes, you are going down.

This has enormous implications for the 2006 elections. Stay tuned.

Spy, President Bush, Spy

In case you had any doubt, President Bush has my full approval for his policy authorizing the NSA to conduct eavesdropping operations domestically on people who have been linked to terror suspects overseas. With a warrant or without, I applaud the full tilt war on terrorism that the President is waging.

If you've ever heard the folks in the silly apathetic middle argue that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, this one story should put that argument to rest.

The facts are straightforward, only the spin is arguable. In the wake of 9/11, and in the aftermath of taking down the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, intelligence assets such as phones, address books, and computer contact lists were captured. The NSA, with the approval of the President, began eavesdropping activities on domestic contacts that were identified with these methods. The President had the authorization of the Attorney General, and he briefed relevant members of Congress on the program.

So, what is the different spin:

Democrats are outraged that the President would authorize domestic spying without proper court warrants. They fume about civil liberty violations. They shout abuse of power and hint at impeachment.

Republicans support the notion that in wartime all means of intelligence should be aggressively pursued to protect the nation. Also, that we learned post 9/11 that our laws and policies were antiquated tools when it came to dealing with non-state terrorists.

Clearly, one party is serious about the fact that we are at war, and is aggressively waging it with everything in the arsenal. Clearly, one party is not serious at war and thinks nothing of handcuffing the President for partisan advantage.

I know which side I'm on. I applaud the President and his reliable determination to prosecute this war with every tool he has available. I disdain the Democrats who would block efforts to monitor terrorist contacts operating in this country because the correct paperwork wasn't obtained.

If Democrats want to take on President Bush for monitoring Osama bin Laden's cell contacts within the U.S., I say bring it on. This is absolutely a winning issue for the President.

Intelligent Design Expelled from Dover

There are important stories in the news this week, to be sure. And I am following them. The Iraqi elections. Sadaam's trial. Bush's NSA eavesdropping revelations. All important.

But the story that interests me most is the story of the Federal Judge in Pennsylvania issuing a ruling that the Intelligent Design policy instituted by the Dover School Board was unconstitutional and must be ceased.

The story was interesting to me on two levels.

First, it taps into my longstanding interest in the creation vs. evolution debate.

Second, the decision is a milestone in that debate and deserves a great deal of study and scrutiny. I'd advise everyone that is proffering an opinion on the ruling to actually read the thing.

I read the entire ruling - an ambitious excercise for a non-lawyer - including all 139 pages plus the footnotes. I read it all in one sitting.

After reading the Dover decision, I made a decision. That is, to start a new blog focused on this one topic only - separate from Partisan Newsjunkie.

Politics here.

Creation vs. Evolution over at my new home: http://onorigins.blogspot.com

Stop in and check it out.