BAGHDAD (AP) - The U.S. military said Tuesday that a Marine was killed in fighting west of the capital, bringing the American death toll for July to at least 73 - still the lowest in eight months. An Apache helicopter also went down Tuesday after coming under fire in a predominantly Shiite area in eastern Baghdad, but both crew members were safely evacuated, the military said.....FULL STORY

As US military leaders suggest, it is still too soon to be overly optimistic about the downturn of US casualties in July. Although, it is rather encouraging when you consider that this has occurred while troop levels have increased. In my mind, there is still hope for Iraq. General Petraeus has asked the American people and Congress to give him until September and I think it is a reasonable request, especially since Congress already agreed to do so when they approved the troop surge. We don't have to go into how crucial Iraq is in the war on terror. It is the Gettysburg of this conflict, so much is riding on the outcome. That's why if we see hope, we should give it a chance to grow.

Maybe the casualty numbers represent some hope, maybe the terrorists are just taking a break. Come September we'll know. That is, if Congress will allow it.

Barak Obama and John Edwards have recently announced that their universal health plans would include coverage for elective abortions. So, if these guys have their way, the US gov’t will be using our tax dollars to fund the irresponsible behavior of scores of women and the subsequent termination of their pregnancies. So much for the notion of safe, legal and rare.

I’ve left no doubt what I think about Edwards. He is not to be trusted and I think he would absolutely wreck the Presidency. But, I’ve actually held a fair amount of respect for Barak Obama. I’ve said before that I think he is a good and honest man, although I agree with very few of his political views. This recent news tarnishes that image.

Regardless of religious or political views, it’s hard for anyone to argue that abortion is a good thing. It’s hard for us to make the statement that more abortions are what this country needs. Some want it outlawed completely, some want it legal but restricted, some want safe, legal and rare. But will any of this happen if abortion is suddenly free of charge? Of course not. For many women, the limiting factor in their decision to abort a baby is cost. Take away that factor and, naturally, it will result in more abortions, which no one can argue will be a good thing.

On a personal note, I don’t think it’s my responsibility as a taxpayer to fund the irresponsible sexual behavior of women. If someone does not want to be pregnant there are many other options, the most effective of which would be not to have sex with someone you wouldn’t want fathering your child. Pregnancy is not something you catch like malaria. There is some effort required. If you want to make bad choices in life, then fine, just don’t ask nor expect me to fund them.

Another Heston moment

An Ohio school computer technician with two stepchildren and a backyard swimming pool has been accused of trying to hire a woman in Miami to let him nearly drown her two daughters for his sexual pleasure.

The Green local school district in suburban Akron moved quickly to cut ties to Jeff Doland, 45, of Uniontown, following his arrest after authorities said he flew to Miami believing he was going to meet a mother who would let him "dunk" her 9- and 12-year-old daughters for $550.
Superintendent Wade Lucas said the district shut down Doland's access to district information late Wednesday as the arrest was announced by the Florida attorney general. "It is my understanding that he had no direct contact with children," Lucas said.

Doland was Green's director of technology until April, when he accepted a job with a computer company that provides technology services to the district on a contract basis. He had an office in Green Intermediate School.

Doland was jailed to await an Aug. 15 court hearing on charges that he offered to pay for the dunking during an online conversation with a Secret Service agent who had posed as a mother in an Internet chat room. After arriving in Miami on Wednesday, Doland described to another undercover agent what his intentions were, including binding the young girls underwater, authorities said.......FULL STORY

And so the great Progressive Inquisition of 2007 continues as the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid, now calls for a perjury investigation against Alberto Gonzalez. "I'm convinced that he's not telling the truth," said Reid, ignoring the fact that this is an ongoing investigation and that Gonzalez has not been charged with anything; ignoring the pesky notion of innocent until proven guilty. As we saw in my last post, if you're on the Left then evidence is a mere formality.

The Dems have been unable to find any wrongdoing in Gonzalez's firing of US Attorneys, so they now turn to their weapon of choice...perjury. Just ask Scooter Libby. Their Inquisition has become one wide cast perjury trap and they are issuing subpeonas to just about everyone in the Bush administration and the White House staff. The President's personal chef had better look out, no one seems to be safe from this Salem-esque frenzy. Now they want to haul Gonzalez before the Inquisitors once again to give him one last chance to swear allegiance to the Party...or else! After what Gonzalez has been through, it has become clear that they won't stop until he is burning at the stake and his blood is pure.

I wonder how long it would take Harry Reid to cry racism or xenophobia if this were a Republican investigation into a Liberal Attorney General? But I digress.

Karl Rove is the latest to be called before the Inquisition, and I'm sure Bush will defy the subpeona. I can hardly blame him. Any attorney worth his weight can lure a witness into perjury if they ask the right questions, and since most of these Inquisitors are attorneys, well, you do the math. If I were Bush, no one on my staff would go before the Inquisition. Of course, this also pleases the Dems, as it allows them to use the "he has something to hide" accusation. And so the Inquisition continues.

As it seems, the only thing Gonzalez did wrong was NOT firing Johnny Sutton. But this witch hunt will continue, Congressional Inquisition number...(well, I've lost count, but it's somewhere in the 300s). First Libby, then Gonzalez, who's next? I'm sure if they were aware, even your humble blogger would be at risk. Maybe it's time to go underground!

Meanwhile, Social Security is still unfixed, Al Qaeda is strengthening, Compean & Ramos remain behind bars, American citizens are being sued because they point out suspicious behavior on airplanes, Iran gets closer to nukes and Chavez is squeezing an iron fist around his people even tighter. But take heart my loyal readers. This isn't a completely do-nothing Congress. They did, after all, succeed in voting themselves another pay raise.

City officials in West Hollywood recently approved a measure calling for the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney. The Mayor and his merry band of lemmings said they were proud and hoped to one day look back and say they took a stand when the Constitution was threatened. I believe they also discussed what flavor Kool Aid they liked the most.

While reading the story, it donned on me that the Mayor has no idea what the Constitution is, and probably uses the word to describe what happens when he can’t poop. The reasons they are calling for Bush’s impeachment include: allowing the torture of military prisoners and implementing domestic wiretaps. Of course, he produced no evidence that Bush has allowed torture, and failed to mention that the Federal Courts recently ruled that there was NO evidence of the wiretap program infringing on the rights of others. Not even the ACLU could produce someone whose rights had been violated. But, hey, who needs evidence? We’re talking about people in a city and a state that wouldn’t bat an eye about converting to full blown Marxo-Socialism. And in that kind of society evidence of a crime is a mere technicality that can easily be overlooked, just ask OJ (he’s from around those parts, isn’t he?).

The city officials haven’t voted a measure condemning the Fairness Doctrine (currently being considered in Washington) or the Imminent Domain ruling from the Supreme Court. I guess the censoring of talk radio and the governmental seizure of private property for the betterment of society are two things allowed in the Constitution, or at least it seems so in the fantasy world that is West Hollywood. So when Bob from LA calls Osama Bin Laden, the government can’t listen in without violating his rights. But if he calls the Sean Hannity talk show, well then it’s OK.

Considering that women in Tehran are being arrested because their dresses show too much ankle, or are too tightly fitting on their contours, I shudder to think what would happen if such a law was implemented in West Hollywood. Obviously, the Mayor has never thought of that, nor has he thought of the possibility that Bush’s wiretap program is just one of many measures that are meant to ensure no Americans have to endure this kind of treatment. To the Mayor, that’s about as important as evidence of Bush’s “crimes”.

Luckily, the people of West Hollywood don’t call the shots in this country, nor do the people of Boulder, Colorado. If they ever did, well, it would be time to get out the Burkas and head scarves. They should remember that it’s hard to hold peace marches and candlelight vigils for the dying rainforests when you have to pray to Mecca five times a day. And you can’t stand up for your Constitutional rights after you’ve been beheaded. Indeed, when I think about how our glorious Left appeases and enables those who hate us, well, the whole thing makes me a bit constituted.

Dennis Miller was asked the other day about his take on the recent events in Boulder, Colorado, where the high school student body was subjected to a presentation by convicts who were openly advocating irresponsible sexual behavior and illicit drug use. His response was something along the lines of (paraphrased) “I feel like Chuck Heston, where I wake up and the monkey’s on the pony”. I thought it was a brilliant analogy since I often have the same what-the-hell-is-happening-in-this-country feeling. Here is my Charlton Heston, Planet of the Apes, moment for the week:

Charges against a man accused of repeatedly raping and molesting a 7-year-old girl were dismissed last week because the court could not find an interpreter fluent in the suspect's native West African language.

A court-ordered psychiatrist determined that (the accused) Mahamu Kanneh, despite his functional facility with English — he originally spoke with detectives in English, The Post reports - needed to have Vai spoken in order to understand the proceedings against him.
FOX News spoke with a man who claimed to be Kanneh in a five-minute phone conversation on Sunday (after he was released) in English. He said the allegations against him were false and the dismissal of the charges was "a good thing." Asked if the accusations were true, he responded, "I said what I had to say" and hung up.

The Washington Post wrote in its article that in just one night reporters were independently able to identify three Vai translators available to assist in the case.According to witnesses who originally reported the case to authorities, Kanneh allegedly repeatedly raped and sexually molested the girl, a relative. In a statement made by the girl to police, she said she had been told she'd be forced to stay in the apartment unless she had sex with Kanneh.

The REAL National Intelligence Estimate

The Director of National Intelligence recently released a preview of its latest National Intelligence Estimate. I’ve read several news stories about this, and I’ve also seen some comments about it on other blogs. A common theme seems to be that Al Qaeda is stronger now than it was before 9/11. I’ve actually seen people make that claim, and this is not just on far Left blog sites, this claim is actually being made by major news organizations and now has been adopted by the Left as part of their anti-Bush rhetoric. Naturally, I immediately had my doubts. Usually, if the New York Times says something bad about Bush then it’s going to slanted, incomplete or grossly biased. So I decided to go straight to the NIE website and read the report for myself. Here is a link so you can do the same. I’ve included a few key points with my comments below:

We assess that greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past five years have constrained the ability of al-Qa’ida to attack the US Homeland again and have led terrorist groups to perceive the Homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11

We are concerned, however, that this level of international cooperation may wane as
9/11 becomes a more distant memory and perceptions of the threat diverge.

We judge the US Homeland will face a persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next three years

Al-Qa’ida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the Homeland, as its central leadership continues to plan high-impact plots, while pushing others in extremist Sunni communities to mimic its efforts and to supplement its capabilities

We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability

Of note, we assess that al-Qa’ida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland.

We assess that its association with AQI helps al-Qa’ida to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks

We assess that al-Qa’ida will continue to try to acquire and employ chemical,
biological, radiological, or nuclear material in attacks and would not hesitate to use
them if it develops what it deems is sufficient capability

After reading this, I realized that it made sense, and that most Americans would agree with the notion that Al Qaeda still wants to attack us and is still highly motivated. I also agreed that Al Qaeda in Iraq plays a major role in international terrorism. Remember, the Dems and most Americans want to turn Iraq over to this very group, they want to yield ground to the “most serious terrorist threat to the Homeland” . I think that would lead to a much worse prognosis in our fight against terrorism. Also, I agree that Al Qaeda is actively seeking WMDs, which makes the situation in Iran that much more critical.

What it doesn’t say is the war on terror is a bumper sticker slogan. It doesn’t say that Al Qaeda is stronger than it was before 9/11, despite the “interpretation” of the mainstream media and the lemmings that believe everything they read. It doesn’t say that our efforts have been in vain. It doesn’t say that the Iraq War has diminished our ability to fight the terrorists.
I caution people out there to understand that the mainstream media appears to be misleading the American people. I have no idea how they make the claims they make based on what is found in the NIE report. Don’t believe everything you read. If it sounds a bit outrageous, it probably is and chances are you need to check out the source yourself. The NIE is not a damnation of the Bush administration’s policies, despite the claims made by the Left. I've included a few of those claims here, enjoy:

CS Monitor

Baltimore Sun

Orlando Sentinel

New York Times

Yes, I'm being a little lazy tonight, so I decided to link to a column by Michael Reagan about the Democrat Congress and their empty promises. He discusses two examples of their worthless legislating. What the latest count? 300 congressional hearings (or something like that)? Then there is the non-binding resolution, the all-night pajama party (where we funded the pizza, of course), the Pelosi luxury jetliner, and now the Gonzalez issue where they're determined to find someone to put in jail. Have they passed any laws? Have they solved any problems? Yeah, didn't think so. Here's Reagan's column:

When the Democrats took control of Congress they couldn’t wait to tell America how much they were going to accomplish. That was seven months ago, and all they’ve done since is rant about the war in Iraq, talk about raising taxes, and go on a witch hunt in an attempt to find something -- anything – illegal in the firing of a handful of U. S. Attorneys who got the boot from the Justice Department when the president exercised his constitutional right to fire them without explanation. This provides a glimpse into their utter incompetence as lawmakers.

Consider: The recent speech of Louisiana Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu gave us a prime example of the Democrats’ inability to get anything straight, including geography. This week, she introduced an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill stating that the foremost objective of the U.S. Government is to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and to dismantle the al Qaeda terrorist network. Her amendment would move troops from Iraq where they’re locked in a battle with al Qaeda terrorists, and send them to Afghanistan to launch a hunt for bin Laden.

That would be some hunt. Does Mary Landrieu have any idea what she’s doing? After all, if you are going to hunt for Osama bin Laden wouldn’t it be a good idea for hunt for him where we know he is? And where he is, is not Afghanistan. Somebody with a better idea of geography should inform Mary Landrieu that bin Laden is holed up in Pakistan.......FULL STORY

America’s first Muslim congressman has recently stepped into controversy by apparently comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler. Actually, he compared the 9/11 terrorist attacks to the Reichstag, which was the German parliament that burned down, supposedly by the Nazis, thus allowing Hitler to seize emergency powers and eventually become the dictator that history remembers him as. It seems that Representative Ellison sees a connection. Is he suggesting that the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attack so that he could grab more power?

This kind of rhetoric is exactly what we don’t need. Yet, I’m certain you won’t hear any criticism from Left. Far be it for them to criticize one of their own, especially when he compares Bush to the Nazis and even more especially when that person is a Muslim. Representative Ellison is a man of small mind. His comments cheapen history and he should be ashamed. This is conduct unbecoming a US Congressman, well, at least in theory. He was obviously pandering to his audience, a group of atheists who no doubt loved the reference. He could at least be a little more original. I mean, come on, hasn’t the Nazi comparison been a little worn out?

I’m sure if Trent Lott or Mitt Romney made a similar comment about Nancy Pelosi, the press would pounce. But we live in a Leftist world, where the double standard of American politics perpetually applies. We tolerate outrageous comments from people like Ellison because he is a Democrat, and partly because he is a Muslim. He’s allowed to be outrageous, along with Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Cindy Sheehan, Rosie O’Donnell, Michael Moore, George Soros, Danny Glover and pretty much anyone in the Latino community (as long as their liberal-minded, of course). Why is hate not tolerated only when it comes from white male heterosexual Christians?

I’m sure there are people who will not only remain silent about this, but will actually defend what he said. I know they’re out there, just wait. If enough people voice disagreement with Ellison, they’ll rear their ugly heads. I call them Demo-clones, those who are so blinded by their hatred of the Right and of Bush that they are completely incapable of recognizing wrongdoing on their side of the spectrum. Alan Colmes is a prime example.

So, I’ll say no more about this. After all, too much criticism of a Muslim Congressman might get me branded an Islamophobe.

Trivia question: What costs more, a gallon of gasoline or a gallon of milk? If you’ve been to the grocery store recently then you already know the answer to that. Soaring gas prices have people howling, yet the price of milk is at an all-time high and climbing. Ever wonder why?

Amidst the ongoing hysteria of global warming and all the hot air coming from Al Gore, the US Senate put together the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Not to be outdone by Gore and the enviro-Nazis, our brave Senators decided to tackle global warming by nearly doubling the government mandate for renewable fuel. In 2006, that mandate was 4 billion gallons. The Government now says that by 2012, it MUST be 7.5 billion gallons. In other words, Big Brother says we have to use ethanol, no matter what the free market says. Not only that, but Big Brother is also handing out money to our ethanol industry in order to “support” it, and keep it from flopping under the pressure of the free market. It has only been a year since this requirement kicked in, and already our economy is feeling the effects, mainly in the form of high corn prices.

The effect has indeed been profound, especially in industries that require corn as a basic cost. You see, the new government mandates have caused the price of corn to skyrocket, artificially of course since this has nothing to do with the free market and everything to do with governmental manipulation of the industry. And that leaves dairy farmers who depend on corn to feed their herd with higher costs which are, of course, passed on to the consumer. The same effect is seen in the pork market, as well as in just about any corn-based food industry. How much does a can of Jolly Green Giant Niblets cost?

But the corn growers are doing better, right? Wrong. It turns out the corn industry is not much different than the oil industry, yet you won’t hear the same “evil” comments about it from the Left. But consider: about three-fourths of the ethanol plants being constructed in 2005 were not farmer owned, and several large companies, including Archer Daniels Midland of Illinois, have announced plans to increase their capacity dramatically by building larger facilities. ADM, which controls nearly half of the ethanol industry, is also a large campaign contributor—since 1990, it has contributed over $7.7 million to both political parties, but I’m sure that had nothing to do with these government mandates. Corporate agricultural industry giants like ADM, Ethanol Products, and the Renewable Products Marketing Group control two-thirds of all ethanol production; more than 90 percent of all ethanol is controlled by just eight firms. So why the big outcry about government subsidies to “big oil” when it seems the same is happening to “big corn”? This is benefiting the corporate world with little impact on the average American farmer, except for higher fuel prices.

But ethanol is renewable, and thus cheaper, right? Wrong again. We are charged a 51 cent per gallon excise tax that goes to those who meet this new standard. Again, this is because the free market would eliminate any firm that tried to use corn fuel in competition with gasoline (it’s less efficient than gasoline – why would a consumer put something in their car that gave them 2/3 the gas mileage while paying the same per gallon, unless the government made them do it). These subsidy taxes amount to about $3.6 billion dollars more paid at the pump, and some estimates say that will increase up to $8.7 billion by 2012. And we can’t import ethanol due to a 54 cent/gallon tariff, even though Brazilian ethanol is cheaper than US ethanol (costing 24 cents/gallon less to produce while yielding 190 more gallons per acre). Not only that, but ethanol is inefficient. It produces 2/3 the energy of gasoline. So, cars that run on this fuel get worse gas mileage. Ethanol also costs more to produce, resulting in a NET ENERGY LOSS! Yes, our brilliant government has found a way to subsidize an industry that burns more energy than it produces. Ethanol contains about 76K BTUs/gallon but it requires 98K BTUs to produce a gallon of ethanol from corn. Meanwhile, gasoline contains 122K BTUs while only requiring 22K to produce. Naturally, in the free market this kind of inefficiency would never sell, which is why the government has to mandate its use.

But it’s better for the environment, right? Wrong. Ethanol does burn cleaner than gasoline, but less efficient. This causes the consumer to purchase more fuel than they would otherwise require. Not only that, but since there is more energy used in creating this fuel, the impact on the environment is hardly favorable. The latest estimate is that the ethanol mandate has reduced the emission of US greenhouse gases by a whopping 1/19 of 1%, at a cost of Billions to the US taxpayer.

But we’re becoming more energy independent, and giving less money to the Arabs, right? Wrong. While it’s true that ethanol is a home grown product, we have only become 1.1% more energy independent with these mandates. And if we convert our entire corn industry to ethanol, the best we can do is 2.4%, that’s it. And we’ll have to forget about pork and dairy forever. The oil barrens are shaking in their boots.

This is what happens when the government meddles where it doesn’t belong. The corn industry gives millions to political campaigns, and we are reaping the spoils. Yes, the same is happening in the oil industry, but somehow no one wants to put corn and oil in the same category. The fact is, the government has no business manipulating the free market. Politicians are padding their pockets along with the corn barrens and we are stuck paying the bill, all in the name of a cleaner environment and energy independence. The joke’s on us. Think about that the next time you’re standing in a voting booth, or at a dairy counter. And remember, this is the same government that now wants to “fix” our healthcare problem. No thanks.

Nancy Pelosi now appears poised, in light of Congress’ recent approval ratings, to lead some bold moves against President Bush and his Iraq war policy. As we approach next year’s election, more GOP Senators are defecting from Bush’s side, which means that whatever move Pelosi makes she seems likely to have the votes to pull it off. This means that, likely, some time within the next 12 months America’s military presence in Iraq will come to an end.

I recommend people read the book “What Was Asked of Us” by Trish Wood. It’s a first hand account of what happened in Iraq, told by the soldiers and some of the government personnel who experienced it. For me, it was an impressive revelation of where we went wrong. In this book, I learned of the bitter disagreements within the Cabinet about how the war should be fought. The State Dept, led by Colin Powell, felt that the main concern should be the aftermath of the war. He wanted to keep the Iraqi military intact to help with post-war security. He felt the major problem was the potential for a terrorist-led insurgency after the war. He had the experience of being there before, and knowing the likely reason why Bush Sr. didn’t oust Saddam the first time around. In his corner were some high-ranking officials and many in the intelligence community.

On the other side was Rumsfeld and the Pentagon. They felt the threat WAS the Iraqi military and Saddam loyalists within that organization. They felt the military should be steam-rolled in an offensive operation that left them in shambles, and then what’s left should be disbanded. They wanted all Saddam loyalists out of power, and believed that if the military was left in one piece, the Iraqi people would see this as a sign that Saddam could return to power. This would discourage them from embracing their newfound liberty and would open the US troops up to a much larger insurgency than Powell feared. Rumsfeld believed that if they eliminated the military, the people would recognize that Saddam was gone for good, would embrace their freedom and would counter balance any remaining insurgency that threatened their freedom. A stable government would be established and the remnants of any insurgency could be cleaned up by US troops. Supporting this theory was the vast majority of the military leaders in the Dept of Defense, both in the Pentagon and on the ground in the Middle East.

The ultimate decision was the President’s, who had to decide who was right. Obviously, it wasn’t an easy decision. He went with Rumsfeld, and turned out to be wrong. We can blame all we want, but I’m not going to throw stones. To be honest, I probably would have done the same thing. With respect to Powell, even though he had been there before, I would have sided with what my Generals currently on the ground were telling me. Bush was wrong and he is suffering the consequences, as are the Iraqi people and the US military. What Rumsfeld and his backers failed to anticipate was: 1) the civil unrest that followed the fall of Baghdad, the riots and the looting of a newly free people, 2) the support from Iran and Syria for the insurgency, 3) what happens if we don’t find WMDs?, 4) the effect the media would have on public opinion for the war, and finally 5) the lack of action from the Iraqi people in taking charge of their own destiny. These oversights were huge, at least from hindsight perspective.

But, not to make light of the administration’s mistake, I tend to believe that if Iraq fails to become a successful democracy, that failure rests in only one place…at the feet of the Iraqi people. We’ve sacrificed blood, lives and billions of dollars. We’ve given them every opportunity imaginable to have freedom and a stable government, but they simply haven’t acted. You can make any argument you want about why they failed, but you can’t argue that they weren’t given the chance and the tools to succeed. We’ve led this horse to water, folks.

Did the media play a negative role? Yes. Did the defeatist attitude of the Dems and the mainstream media encourage and enable our enemies? Of course it did. Were there mistakes in planning? I’ve already pointed those out. Did the international community fail to act? Yes, and that could’ve prevented this entire mess. Did the Dems place unreasonable “benchmarks” on the Iraqi government? You can argue this, but I can argue that those benchmarks would not have happened if the American people supported the war, which would have been the case had the Iraqis shown some initiative, some interest in their own self-preservation. Would the Dems support this war if 70% of Americans supported it? I don’t think I have to answer that. Can Iraq succeed with more time? I think it can. I think if we had the resolve to continue the fight, eventually we would wear the insurgency down, eventually the people would take charge, eventually the Iraqi democracy would succeed. But the polls and the facts suggest that won’t happen. The people want this war to end, regardless of whether I agree with them, and Congress will do as they please. The Iraqis have only themselves to blame for it.

In the aftermath, there are over 3,000 Americans dead, many more wounded. Saddam is dead also, along with his brutal regime, many terrorist leaders and a great number of their storm trooper followers. The WMDs are still missing, God only knows where they are and the possibilities are quite frightening. After we pull out, there is no doubt in my mind what will follow. It will be genocide on a scale that mirrors the Khmer Rouge. There will be a lot of bloodshed and Iraq will likely become a Shia-fascist theocracy, akin to their neighbors in Iran. The Middle East will become drastically unstable, and the terrorists will regroup to re-target the US mainland. I’m sure many Americans know this, and I’m also sure our political leaders know this, but the fact is that less than 30% of the people, myself included, are willing to continue the fight. In a democracy like ours, that’s not enough to sustain a war.

But what’s worse, our image as a weakened unresolved nation will be reinforced. We proved in Vietnam that we don’t have the gumption for the long haul. The insurgents in Iraq followed that same playbook. Be persistent, draw out the fighting, and eventually the Americans will grow weary and give up. There are brutal dictators all over the world watching and learning that America will not, and can not, stop them from their brutality. The military once again did their job with valor and sacrifice, but we the people failed to do ours. Wars can’t be won only on the battlefield. History has taught that sad truth time and again.

Regardless how you feel about this war, and about the President, only the truly insane can argue that we didn’t try to do something good in Iraq. We ousted a horrible dictator by way of an unprecedented military campaign, and gave an entire nation hope and a chance at liberty. That does make me proud, and I know there are some who disagree, even to the point of inward glee at the possibility President Bush's failure. So be it. But we are still one nation in this together, and one nation that will have to deal with the consequences of that failure together. We’re going to have to watch the events that follow our withdrawal and know that 70% of us called for this to happen. We’re gonna have to at least accept responsibility for that eventually, even if we refuse to do it now. The Iraqis got their chance, they refused it, what else can we do?

Republican Senator David Vitter (La.) apparently has some skeletons in his closet. His name appears on the phone records of the DC madam that has been in the press recently. Vitter has issued an apology and says that he has “asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife”. His statement also said that this occurred before he ran for Senate.

Fine. He has been forgiven by God and by his wife. But what about the people he represents? I’m not a Louisiana voter, so I’ll speak hypothetically. If my Senator were to make such an announcement I’d want a little say-so in the matter. As a voter, I feel that’s my right. If my representative behaved in a way that I found distasteful, then I would want to hold him accountable for it. The fact that he kept this from his constituents prior to running for the Senate, only to apologize once it was made public is disgraceful. Is he sorry he committed adultery, or is he sorry that he got caught committing adultery? Seems like the latter to me.

So I think the good people of Louisiana deserve another chance to voice their opinion on Vitter, given the recent turn of events. I feel a recall election is in order (I’m not sure the Constitution allows this), but this news is so big that, if legal, a new election should be held. If the Constitution doesn’t allow for a recall election, then Vitter should resign his position. That’s the decent thing to do. He says he’s sorry, but is he sorry enough to suffer the consequences of his behavior?

You may have been forgiven, Senator, but your actions come with a price, the least of which should include the forfeiture of your Senate seat. Do that, and perhaps the people of Louisiana and the members of your party can forgive you as well.

I’m gonna try to be as civilized as possible about this one. The US Dept of Homeland Security is warning people about the risk of a terrorist attack against the United States sometime this summer. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff said that he has a “gut feeling” about a period of increased risk.

"Summertime seems to be appealing to them," Chertoff said in his discussion with the newspaper about terrorists.

"The threat coming out of there is very real, even if there aren't a lot of specifics attached to it," one of the officials (from Homeland Security) said.

Homeland Security bases this groundbreaking assessment on recent events in England and “intelligence” they would not disclose. And, if I were Chertoff, I would not disclose my intelligence either. I am reassured in knowing that it’s been nearly six years since 9/11 and our Homeland Security Department is now announcing that the “threat coming out of there is very real”. Thanks for that, guys. And Chertoff’s intelligence tells him that summertime is appealing to the terrorists? Yeah, there’s something about the smell of suntan oil and the sound of a steel drum band that just makes you want to car bomb something. I guess this means Chertoff will be going after the Beach Boys now. I always knew those guys were up to something.

And what is it that has Chertoff so concerned? A “gut feeling”. Let that one sink in for a moment.

It’s always nice to know that, as I lay in bed preparing to drift away in slumber, my homeland is being protected by the love child of Inspector Clouseau and Spicoli from Fast Times at Ridgemont High. That just brings a nice warm and fuzzy feeling. I’m honestly waiting for the moment when Chertoff has a pizza delivered to his next press conference. I know it’s coming.

Ever since the Katrina debacle, there has been one pressing question on my mind: Just who are this guy’s handlers and how much longer are they gonna sleep on the job? Is it just me, or does anyone else have this image of them behind the scenes, fingers-crossed, in hopes that when Chertoff opens his mouth he doesn’t sound like a bad SNL skit…you know, the last one of the night after everyone has turned off the TV and gone to bed? I’d appreciate it if they’d at least do a better job of faking it. Give the guy some crib notes, write it on his hand, use a teleprompter, something…at least give me enough of a smokescreen so that I don’t think the Department of Homeland Security is being led by the Court Jester and his gut feelings. Can you at least do that much for the American people? I’ve always thought that Bush did a good job of surrounding himself with quality advisors who are good at what they do, which is why I think Chertoff’s role has to be comic relief. I don’t know. Just what exactly is the strategy there?

Maybe this is an attempt at reverse psychology. Maybe, if we appoint a complete buffoon to head up our homeland security, it will fake the terrorists out into thinking that we’ve set a trap for them. Maybe in some cave in Pakistan, this very conversation is taking place:

“Hey, Abdul, are we ready to make a move against the US?”
“With Chertoff in power? No way, Mahmoud. I’m not falling for that one. They must think we’re stupid or something.”

So, if the trend follows suit and a Democrat wins the next presidential election, they’ll follow the same strategy and appoint John Edwards as head of Homeland Security. So far it seems to be working.

Today, it’s time for When Evil Prospers to comment on Bush’s recent decision to commute Scooter Libby’s prison sentence. As expected, the liberals are outraged, while the conservatives are lukewarm. Here is my take:

First, pardon privileges are part of the checks and balances of the government, and they are guaranteed and protected by the Constitution, so no one has an argument with the legality of the issue. They may question Bush’s judgment, but not his legality. The pardon privilege was implemented to allow the president to over rule any obvious and direct injustice against an American citizen. This is to prevent the Courts or the Congress from over reaching their power. In Libby’s case, that’s exactly what happened. I believe that the punishment should fit the crime and I’m still not clear as to what, if any, crime Libby committed. The fine may or may not be appropriate, but the prison sentence was far too excessive and should never have been imposed. The Scooter Libby witch hunt was driven by politics and nothing else, as was his conviction and his prison sentence. His main crime was that he worked for Dick Cheney, and the Left had nothing to prosecute anyone else with. If Scooter Libby had been an average citizen, he would have gotten nothing near this severe of a sentence. This was indeed an injustice. Bush did the right thing in regards to that.

"This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice." - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

Really? In light of Bill’s history I think Hillary is better served letting this issue blow over. I mean, does Hillary really want to talk about misuse of pardon privilege? Do you really want to have that conversation, Senator? I didn’t think so. I’m dying to hear Bill’s response to all of this. Notice he has been quiet since the news came down, so I'll remind everyone myself.

Bill Clinton issued over 450 pardons and commutations, compared to 406 issued by President Reagan during his two terms. During his four years, President Carter issued 566 pardons and commutations, while in the same length of time President Bush granted 77. President Ford issued 409 during the slightly more than two years he was president.

It’s interesting that those who oppose Bush’s decision had no problems with the Clinton “pardon-gate” fiasco that occurred when he left office. Pardons aren’t meant to be political favors for those who contributed money to you, they’re meant to right a blatant wrong. This, of course, is applying reason and common sense to a political issue, two things that often escape the rantings and mindset of the Left, but that’s another post.

Now, to the issue I have with Bush’s decision. To be clear, I voted for Bush twice, mainly because of national security issues, but the past 6 months have been interesting. I’ve lost some faith in him. I’m not happy at all about his outrageous spending (although this was more the doings of the Congress than the President) and I feel his immigration aspirations are looney. And, to be honest, I’ve been disappointed in his slow migration to the Left in the past several months. He has shown more of a tendency to be middle-of-the-road and, in many cases, indecisive. This is what I despised about Clinton, and I don’t understand what’s going on with Bush. Maybe he’s just getting tired of dealing with all the crap that he has to deal with on a daily basis. I know I would be.

Which brings me to the Libby issue. It seems that if Bush truly felt this were an injustice he would’ve completely pardoned the guy. I mean, he’s either guilty or not guilty, right? There really is no in between. So why allow the conviction to stand, the fine to be imposed, while just saving him the prison time? This, again, seems a little too middle-of-the-road to me. So, while I’m happy that one injustice was corrected, I’m also a little disappointed in the lack of assertiveness. Bush has no doubt suffered one of the most difficult 8 year terms in American history, and it certainly is taking its toll, but we still need an assertive leader. It makes me cringe when I think of what may have been if the Supreme Court hadn’t stopped Al Gore’s under-the-table coup in 2000.

I feel that George Bush is a fine person, that he is honest and seeks what’s best for America. I disagree with him at times, but I respect him as a leader and as the President. I understand that the job requires the occasional reach across the aisle, but I also know that there are many across the aisle that lack reason and accountability, and are only in it for themselves. You can’t negotiate with those people because they have no interest in America’s common good.

In my leadership positions, I’ve learned a few things. Mainly, you can’t please everyone and still be effective as a leader. If you’re going to lead, you’re going to piss off some people. Bill Clinton governed by polls. He was not for or against anything unless the polls directed him, even down to what color tie he wore. That’s why his approval numbers were always so high. He limited the number of people he pissed off, and as a result proved that he was incapable as a leader. Even today, we still suffer the consequences as a nation.

So, make a decision, follow through with it, and stand by it. There will always be pickers and booers from one side or the other, and there are just times when you have to give your critics the finger and let them be pissed off. If there is one thing that was always appealing about Bush is that he said what he meant and meant what he said, even when he called a New York Times reporter an 'asshole'. That quality may be fading. I certainly hope not.

It’s been nearly a week since Al Gore’s son was arrested on drug charges, his third such arrest, and it has been 2 days since the concert for awareness that Al Gore may still run for President. What’s the connection between the two? That’s today’s post.

Al Gore III was arrested after a traffic stop. He was traveling at over 100mph on the freeway. Police found less than an ounce of marijuana along with several prescription drugs (for which he did not have a prescription), one of which is known to be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. He has a similar prior arrest for possession, along with an arrest for DUI. He is 24 years old, but clearly this young man has some serious issues. I’m not going to go after him. If he has a drug problem, I truly hope he can clean himself up. If he gets jail time, then so be it (although the double standard in the justice system that the Left howled about with Scooter Libby will likely take effect here, the difference of course being that Al III actually committed a crime). Somewhere along the way, this guy made some bad decisions. Here’s hoping he is able to right his proverbial ship.

So what does daddy plan to do? He had plenty of time to talk about it over the past week during his media tour to promote his Lie Earth concert. When asked, his rehearsed response was “it’s a private family matter”. I agree with him. It most certainly is a private family matter. The media has no right to know what’s happening in Al’s family if he doesn’t want them to know. It was the right response, but the wrong audience. Instead of saying this on his media tour, Al should have been saying this to his Lie Earth associates. In other words, as a father, I feel that Al should have been home with his son rather than devoting so much time over the past week promoting a concert the purpose of which I still haven’t figured out. Was this show meant to raise global warming awareness? Is that really necessary? Or was it simply to feed the growing ego of a man and his Hollywood cronies, while also alleviating the guilt they feel about their massive daily carbon footprints? You decide.

Turns out, the concert was a flop. It was able to gather about ¼ the audience of Live Aid and had dismal TV ratings. It seems the people recognized this for what it really was, more a concert for Gore’s political aspirations than a concert for the earth. But, it was in many ways quite revealing. To me it showed the world much about Al’s personal priorities. Nothing is more important than Al’s own agenda, not even his own son. That’s the message sent, and I’m not the only one who saw it.

If my child was going through yet another personal crisis, I would be there, even if there was little I could do. It’s amazing what the mere presence of a loved one can do when things turn upside down in your life. One wonders what kind of impact it would have had if Al had foregone his beloved concert just to be by his son’s side. That would have said a lot. One wonders if this kind of snub happened in this young man’s life before, and how many times? One wonders if that had any contribution to his poor decision making. Is this just a dumb kid making dumb choices, or is it the latest in a long line of grabs for daddy’s attention?

Al needs to take care of his business. His son needs him. Global warming can wait. If you’re not willing to take care of your children, then what’s the point of saving the planet? Al missed an opportunity to make a major impression on his child, and on people like me who have very little reason to respect him. If he wants to be an example for us to follow, I think being there for your child in a time of crisis is a good start. That’s what a father should do. There are so many out there who fail at this, a prominent political figure doing the same is the last thing we need as a society.

For my faithful readers, I leave you the weeked with something positive from Iraq.

Michael Yon is a former green beret and Iraq War veteran who is now working as an imbedded reporter. This latest post from him details the Battle of Baqubah, but more importantly it described what he senses is a new attitude among the Iraqis. American troops seem to have come full circle, once viewed as liberators, then occupiers, and now as something completely different. Michael Yon describes a new outlook. The Iraqi people may be looking at us differently, and this very well could mean victory in Iraq. I include his words because I hope as many people as possible read them. You won’t get this in the mainstream, and it’s a shame because this may be the truth about what’s really happening in Iraq. Here is a sample, and if it doesn’t make you proud to be an American then you should re-evaluate your patriotism.

“The big news on the streets today is that the people of Baqubah are generally ecstatic, although many hold in reserve a serious concern that we will abandon them again. For many Iraqis, we have morphed from being invaders to occupiers to members of a tribe. I call it the “al Ameriki tribe,” or “tribe America.”

"I’ve seen this kind of progression in Mosul, out in Anbar and other places, and when I ask our military leaders if they have sensed any shift, many have said, yes, they too sense that Iraqis view us differently. In the context of sectarian and tribal strife, we are the tribe that people can—more or less and with giant caveats—rely on.

Most Iraqis I talk with acknowledge that if it was ever about the oil, it’s not now. Not mostly anyway. It clearly would have been cheaper just to buy the oil or invade somewhere easier that has more. Similarly, most Iraqis seem now to realize that we really don’t want to stay here, and that many of us can’t wait to get back home. They realize that we are not resolved to stay, but are impatient to drive down to Kuwait and sail away. And when they consider the Americans who actually deal with Iraqis every day, the Iraqis can no longer deny that we really do want them to succeed. But we want them to succeed without us. We want to see their streets are clean and safe, their grass is green, and their birds are singing. We want to see that on television. Not in person. We don’t want to be here. We tell them that every day. It finally has settled in that we are telling the truth.”

And, on the heels of a renewed debate in Congress concerning a US retreat from Iraq, General Rick Lynch, commander of US forces in Baghdad, said this:

"Intensive combat operations are still necessary," he said, while underlining that US forces are also stepping up reconstruction work and economic development to take the heat out of the insurgency. “What I sense is a growing discontent (against insurgents) amongst the local communities, the tribes and their leaders, and we're benefiting from this discontent. What I believe is that Al-Qaeda has worn out its welcome."

This gives us hope. Hope that Iraq will not become another Vietnam. Hope that the Middle East can become a region of peace and democracy. Indeed, if the people of Iraq embrace their freedom and take charge of their lives and their government, the ripples will most certainly be felt throughout the region and the world. It may be a long shot, but our perseverance now appears to be taking effect.

We may be on the brink of failure, but we may also be on the brink of something extraordinary, which makes next year’s presidential election even that much more crucial. If America can pull this off, it will be an astounding accomplishment, ripping victory from the jaws of defeat. It will go down as perhaps one of the most remarkable turnarounds in the history of mankind, made even more remarkable by the fact the 70% of Americans had long since turned their back on the Iraqi people and on their own President who never gave up hope that the Iraqis do want to be free and peaceful.

If George Bush wants a legacy, this may very well be it. He would be remembered as the liberator of Iraq who never lost faith in them, even when his own people gave up. How truly amazing that would be. Here’s hoping that hope will become reality. Here’s hoping that the Iraqi people will one day realize their dream of freedom and peace. Here’s hoping that all Americans will see this as a good thing.

Speaking of pandering, just a few days after the Democrats debated at Howard College, they gathered in Florida for a stop sponsored by the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, this time the fight was over who was more Hispanic. Read this article and you will be able to do nothing but shake your head in amazement. Here is a sample of what was said:

Barak Obama: “"Nobody has been a more consistent supporter of comprehensive immigration reform than I have been. Do I believe fences make good neighbors and are the right approach? No, I don't believe that." (note: Obama voted for last fall’s measure to build 700 miles of border fence).

Joe Biden: "It's a race to the bottom—who out there can be the most anti- Hispanic," Biden said of the immigration debate. "Why is it we only view it through the prism of Spanish speaking people?"

Sen. Chris Dodd: "I'm the only Gringo in the Senate" to speak the language.

Dennis Kucinich: saying he believed all American children should learn to speak Spanish, gave his closing statement in Spanish while apologizing in advance for his accent.

Bill Richardson: He, too, spoke Spanish to the crowd, calling them "Mi gente, mi familia"—my people, my family. "I'm not running as a Latino candidate. I'm running as an American governor who is enormously proud to be Latino," he told supporters.

All of these are equally sleezy (Edwards said something as well, but sleeze has become so common for him I decided not to include it). But the one who excelled in the sleeze was the most accomplished of all the panderers, Senator Hillary Clinton. She addressed a recent comment by Fred Thompson about Cuban immigrants. This is what Thompson said:
"I don't imagine they're coming here to bring greetings from Castro. We're living in the era of the suitcase bomb."

Hillary was appalled, becoming pro-Cuban, anti-Castro overnight: "I was appalled when one of the people running for or about to run for the Republican nomination talked about Cuban refugees as potential terrorists.”

Like many others, I read this comment and immediately images of Elian Gonzalez, a Cuban refugee, popped in my head. Wasn’t it Bill Clinton and Janet Reno who ordered this child deported? Wasn’t it him in that photo of federal marshals bursting in the child’s home with guns raised, pulling him in tears away from his family? Wasn’t that the Clinton administration?

Maybe someone out there can refresh my memory, or better yet refresh Hillary’s memory. Of all the candidates, she is the least qualified to talk about fair treatment of Cuban refugees. In fact, the entire Democrat party has a pretty bad track record on this one. Cubans are the only immigrants that Democrats want deported, mainly because of their admiration of Fidel Castro and his “quality healthcare”, but also partly because the Cubans tend to favor the Republican party. They're the only immigrants that aren't interested in entitlements. After living under Castro's boot, they're just happy with their freedom, what an amazing concept.

The Dems would be wise to tread lightly here.

But what really caught my attention was Thompson’s reaction. He said in his blog that he was referring to Cuban spies, not refugees, and provided evidence that Castro and Chavez have been making “extensive” efforts to penetrate our intelligence system. He stated: “Our national security is too important an issue to let folks twist words around for a one-day headline. Cuban-Americans are among the staunchest opponents of illegal immigration, and especially so when it’s sponsored by the Castro regime. We know we have a porous southern border in which they can currently slip through easily. Our enemies know it too. All of us should be rightfully concerned about Castro and his ideological pal Chavez sending agents and provocateurs into the United States through Mexico. I’m sure that Cuban-Americans share this concern as well.”

Thompson’s point is that we have no idea who is coming into this country. They could be spies, they could be refugees, they could be hard workers seeking a better life. We have no idea, and we won’t know until we gain a little control of things. I understood this, and so will the average American voter, but the Dems are hoping that immigrants won't understand it.

Hillary spun this into a cheap grab for Cuban-American favor, and it makes her look foolish, as did Thompson’s response. We still don’t know a lot about Fred Thompson, but he is slowly beginning to look like someone with a little character, which is rare these days in Washington. “Character” and “Politician” just don’t mix. Thompson’s initial statement may have been a little raw and unpolished, and it may not have been the most politically correct thing to say. But I like the fact that he didn’t back down from it, he didn’t let Hillary get away with her cheap shot, and he didn't get down in the mud with her. He basically told her to "grow up", and that alone has it's appeal. This upcoming election has too much at stake for any candidate to be engaging in petty, childish politics. There are bigger things to do.

Thompson redirected the politics du jour back to the issue, and Hillary was left without an answer for that issue, only her typical pandering. The hope is that voters will see through this nonsense. Democrats have managed to win over the black vote with shameless pandering and empty promises, and yet for some reason blacks continue to vote for them. I don’t get it. We’ll see if the Latino population is just as naïve and sheepish. I for one am tired of politicians behaving like politicians, and the recent events in Florida and at Howard College seem to be more of the same from these morons that want to be President. The Republicans are no better, mind you, but Fred Thompson emerged in my mind as someone who may be a little less prone to political behavior, or to put it simply…a no bull@#!$ kind of guy. If he keeps this up he will become a very popular candidate, and just may win my vote.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.



-Thomas Jefferson, 1776

The Democrat presidential candidates recently staged their third primary debate on the campus of Howard College, a traditionally black institution. I did not watch this debate primarily because of the location. I knew the audience would be predominantly black, which meant that the candidates would likely be shamelessly pandering to that audience, rather than discussing critical issues. Turns out I was right in more ways than one. Don’t believe me? Try this quote from Hillary Clinton when asked about AIDS:

"Let me just put this in perspective: If HIV-AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34 there would be an outraged, outcry in this country." Excuse me while I barf on my shoes....

My only question is if she morphed to a ghetto-urban accent when she spoke those words. If this isn’t pandering, I don’t know what is. And to respond to her ridiculous claim, there wouldn’t be an outcry, certainly no more than there is now. I have the answer for AIDS: don’t have homosexual sex, don’t engage in irresponsible promiscuous sex, don’t do IV drugs. Stick to these rules and you’re virtually guaranteed not to die from AIDS. Next problem.

The Supreme Court recently heard a case involving parents that filed suit because their children were denied admission to certain schools strictly because of race. The school district at fault was trying to maintain integration balance in their schools, thus leading some students classified as “other” (meaning “not black”) to be denied admission to certain schools. The claim was that 14th amendment rights were being violated. One such student has Attention Deficit Disorder and wanted to attend a smaller school to benefit from a specific student program aimed at helping students with this disease. He was denied admission because of his race.

Another parent sought to enroll her child in kindergarten at the closest available school, only a mile from their home. For obvious reasons, this was more convenient for the family. Again, this child was denied admission because of his race.

The Supreme Court ruled that schools could not allow race to determine admission, and the Democrats are in an uproar over it. Justice Alito stated: “[D]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.”

Justice Thomas concurred: “The plans before us base school assignment decisions on students’ race. Because Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens, such race-based decision making is unconstitutional.”

The Democrats disagree with this. Apparently they support race-based decision making.

I tip my hat to the Supreme Court. They did what they’re supposed to do, and that is uphold the Constitution and interpret, not create, law.

Read full decision here

Finally, I end with a quote from John Edwards:

"This issue of poverty in America is the cause of my life." Yeah. I know. Try not to lose your stomach contents over this one.

One solution to the poverty problem would be to move all the homeless in with John Edwards. Lord knows his house is big enough for it. But something tells me he’d rather just raise taxes on the middle class to fix the cause of his life.

In light of Fred Thompson’s surging popularity, it appears that the Democrats have aimed their guns his way. If you read any recent comments from the DNC, you will see that they are trying to paint him as a typical Washington bureaucrat, as a lobbyist who supports the big-government and as part of the “culture of corruption” in the Republican party. This is their gameplan. They want to portray Fred Thompson as someone who works for the party and not for the people. To that I say, cut the crap!

If there is one thing that brings the foul taste of bile into my mouth it’s Washington politics. The DNC and the RNC are in the business of deception and spin, with the mission to mislead, misinterpret and misinform. They do it all the time, and now they’re doing it to a fine man. Here is some basic background on Fred Thompson. If you’re interested in the truth, read along and decide for yourself if this guy is a typical Washington bureaucrat. If you’re interested in Democrat talking points, then go to another website and take another big gulp of Kool Aid because you don’t value the truth.


· As Chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Thompson enacted a law that required federal agencies to calculate and report the cost of regulations on taxpayers and businesses.

· Press reports stated: “He put heat on federal agencies by holding hearings on mismanagement and by asking them to tote up the improper payments they made each year.” That added up to about $20 billion in taxpayer dollars. His efforts saved taxpayers more than $2 billion in 2005-06 alone at the Department of Health and Human Services.

· He published a two volume report, “Government on the Brink,” detailing the waste, fraud, and abuse of federal agencies as well as the management challenges facing the incoming Bush Administration. Paul Light, a New York University professor and leading expert on government, said, “I consider him to be one of the most dedicated overseers of the executive branch of the last 25 years.”

· Twenty-five years after he’d gained national prominence as hard-charging counsel on the Watergate committee, Thompson again stepped into the investigation spotlight. In 1997, as chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, he opened an investigation into attempts by the Chinese government to influence America policies and elections through, among other means, financing election campaigns. The investigation identified at least six Democrat donors and fundraisers, with ties to the Clinton Administration, who had laundered or aided in the laundering and distribution of foreign money into Democrat political party coffers. The investigation also exposed two Democrat Party donors with “a long-term relationship with a Chinese intelligence agency," according to the Senate committee’s report.

· In his eight years, Thompson, who served on the Finance Committee, supported and worked to enact three major tax-cut bills, reducing the federal tax burden on all of us.

· As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Thompson focused on the threat of nuclear proliferation and technology transfers that could damage American industrial and national security.

· While a vocal supporter of free trade, Thompson has also fought to link free trade to our national security interests. For example, when voting to grant full-trading status to China, Senator Thompson fought unsuccessfully to include an amendment in the bill that would have required the president to impose sanctions against China if it violated nuclear-nonproliferation agreements. Thompson also served on the Intelligence Committee at a time when it examined the failings in intelligence and analysis leading into the September 11th terrorist attacks, as well as the reforms needed to better prepare for future threats.