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.