Sen. Barack Obama on Friday demanded the Justice Department fire one of its officials (John Tanner) over remarks made about elderly minorities not aging like white Americans, because they die first...."Our society is such that minorities don't become elderly the way white people do; they die first," Tanner said...."There are inequities in health care," Tanner continued. "There are a variety of inequities in this country. And so anything that disproportionately impacts the elderly has the opposite impact on minorities; just the math is such as that."....Obama said in his letter: "Such comments are patently erroneous, offensive, and dangerous..."

In 2003, the average life expectancy was 72.7 years for African Americans and 78 years for whites

John Tanner's remarks, while crude and obviously politically incorrect, were based on statistics. And, as I cited, the life expectancy statistics support what he said, although certainly not to the degree that he implied. In fairness, the life expectancy gap has narrowed over the past two decades to the point where it is now. I think Tanner could have used a bit more tact in what he said. Barak Obama felt he should be fired.

As of yet, Senator Obama has not issued an opinion on Pete Stark's comments about the US military and President Bush. I can only assume he has no objection.

"I would just like to point out that under the Republican plan, by 2017 we probably will have killed 20,000 soldiers in Iraq, spending $200 billion....Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old, enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement....President Bush's statements about children's health shouldn't be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote to override his veto." -- Representative Pete Stark (D-CA) today on the floor of the US House of Representatives

No, this is not an excerpt from the latest Bin Laden video. This is actually a US Congressman speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives.

I'll keep my comments brief in order to keep from being too hostile. Plus, what this useful idiot said pretty much speaks for itself. I am, however, growing a bit tired of these politicians, one after the other, defamating our troops. Whether it's John Kerry, Dick Durbin, Barak Obama or Pete Stark, the message is all the same. Then they have the sack to follow words like this with "I support the troops". Really? Stark basically just called US troops murderers, but he supports them.

I think anyone who makes statements like this should be forced to serve a month in Iraq. And I'm not talking about the Green Zone that's been secured. I'm talking about body armor, field helmet, fully armed, the whole thing. One month in the trenches. Then we'll see if they still think so poorly about the people who are dying for the people Stark & Co claim they're killing.

This is beyond disgraceful, and should be condemned by everyone, regardless of political affiliation or opinions about the war.

If you'd like to contact Congressman Stark and share your thoughts on this matter, you can click HERE to email his office.

Clinton recently floated the idea of issuing a $5,000 bond to each baby born in the United States to help pay for college and a first home, but it immediately inspired Republican ridicule and she quickly said she would not implement the proposal.

She defended that decision yesterday, saying she is focusing on proposals with more political support and she is not formally proposing anything she can't fund without increasing the deficit: "I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all."

Okay, before I get into the $5,000 bond idea, let me address that last sentence. This wasn't a 'just-kidding' remark, or something tongue-in-cheek. Clinton was being serious. She basically gave an open endorsement of massive government. Yes, she says she won't increase the deficit, but she said nothing about increasing revenues to fund her "ideas". These two simple sentences say a lot about Clinton's fundamental principles in government.

Now, the $5,000 bond idea. The idea of giving $5,000 to someone just for having a baby is quite disturbing, and counters the abortion-rights argument (of which Clinton is a part) that says "we're trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies". One can only imagine how many unwanted pregnancies will occur if we started handing out 5K bonds to every baby born. The uterus immediately becomes a money tree. And since these pregnancies are unwanted, you then have more children growing up in poverty and abusive homes, which leads to more need among the lower class, which leads to more calls for government programs, which leads to more support for Democrats.......

No one ever accused Clinton of being a foolish politician.

No comment on this story, it speaks for itself. I just wonder if you'll find it anywhere in the mainstream media.

The U.S. military says it has dealt devastating and potentially irreversible blows to Al Qaeda in Iraq in recent months, leading some generals to advocate a declaration of victory over the group, which the Bush administration has long described as the most lethal U.S. adversary in Iraq, the Washington Post reported Monday......FULL STORY

Congratulations to Al Gore for his well-deserved award. At first, I was a bit puzzled. Al Gore? Peace Prize? I was unable to draw the connection. Then, I saw the history of this award and it all made sense. It's not a peace prize as much as it is a political prize. In light of that, I feel that Gore's award is very well deserved. If you disagree, then look at some prior recipients and you may reconsider:

Le Duc Tho (1973) - Founded the Indochinese Communist Party. Oversaw the communist insurgency in 1956 against the South Vietnamese government, planting the seeds for what would become America's Vietnam War.

Anwar Sadat (1978) - Egyptian president, launched the unprovoked Yom Kippur surprise attack against Israel in 1973, eventually agreeing to peace only after Israeli forces pushed him back.

Mikhail Gorbachev (1990) - Soviet leader who, in fairness, helped bring down the iron curtain. His award would be more understandable if Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were also given the award, but that's not what happened. Apparently, Gorbachev was solely responsible for ending the USSR.

Yasser Arafat (1994) - A key planner in the murder of 11 Israeli athletes in Munich. Established Fatah, a terrorist organization with the purpose of expelling Israel from the Middle East. Responsible for countless terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens, as well as waging a continuous war with Israel for nearly 40 years. The number of deaths attributable to Arafat may never be known.

Kofi Annan (2001) - Leader of the UN. Was in charge during the largest global scandal in human history as the UN was fleeced for billions of dollars in the oil-for-food scandal. Many UN officials, including Annan's son, profited considerably from the suffering of the Iraqi people. Took no action to stop genocide in Rwanda, hundreds of thousands of people were murdered. Failed to enforce UN resolutions requiring Iraqi disarmament, directly leading to today's current war in Iraq.

Jimmy Carter (2002) - Betrayed the Shah of Iran, paving the way for a militant theocracy to take hold in that country, the same theocracy that is threatening to plunge the world into nuclear conflict and openly defies the UNs call for disarmament.

Al Gore (2007) - Peddles incomplete science and alarmism for the purpose of global income redistribution and keeping American power in check. Promotes misinformation and fear based on bad science. Attempted to cram the US Constitution into his desk-side shredder so he could become the US President.

Notable nominees for the "Peace" prize include: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini.

Those who have never won the award include: Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Mahatma Gandhi, Pope John Paul II

So, at first it seems like Gore isn't deserving, until you look at the company he joins.

I wasn't very familiar with General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, until recently. General Pace has caused a bit of a stir and is coming under increasing scrutiny for remarks that he has made about homosexuality. The General, like myself, believes homosexuality is an immoral act. These beliefs are derived from his personal religious faith. Because he feels it to be immoral, he does not believe the US government and the US military should condone the behavior in any way. He was recently given a chance to clarify his remarks and, like a man of conviction, he refused to back down. Plus, he was on the verge of retirement, so what did he have to lose? He is careful to condemn the behavior and not any individual and he is sticking by his beliefs regardless how much criticism comes his way. General Pace has just earned a great deal of respect from me.

Current military policy on homosexuality is "dont ask-dont tell". The behavior is forbidden and out-of-the-closet homosexuals aren't allowed to serve in the military. Homosexuals can serve as long as they're not open about their sexuality. Bill Clinton implemented this policy on his own accord, without consulting his military advisors. He had no idea what kind of effect on morale or troop condition such a policy would have. It was a political move to appease a voting block and a half-hearted attempt to fulfill a campaign promise. Colin Powell did not feel it was a good policy, and his sentiments were shared by many military leaders. Unfortunately, they were not asked.

Some people think gays should be allowed to serve. Some don't like the current policy. Their opinions don't count. The military has two functions: Kill and Destroy. Everyone in the military does a job that in some way contributes to the military's ability to kill and destroy. Policy, regardless of what it deals with, should coincide with this. Will allowing gays to openly serve enhance the military's ability to kill and destroy? The only ones qualified to answer that are our military leaders. The military is not the place for social experiments.

Like a good soldier, General Pace upholds the current policy, but he is making his stand there. The obvious next step (as Senator Harkin has said) would be allowing openly gay people to serve (as well as allowing adultery). That would amount to the US military condoning homosexual behavior, which is what the General opposes, and would potentially become a social experiment rather than enhancing the military's ability to kill and destroy.

Eventually the debate about homosexual policy will occur. At that time, the arguments can be made on the merits of whether it is strategically wise to condone this behavior. I for one feel it is not, and not just because of my faith, but because of what I feel is best for a mentally and physically capable military force. I haven't seen any sound argument that supports the notion that allowing homosexuality and adultery in the military enhances it's ability to make war. For now, the argument can wait. General Pace has retired, bringing an end to a highly decorated career of honorable service. The General stands beside his personal conviction and I whole-heartedly salute him for it, in every sense of the word. It's men like him who we need leading our troops in a time of war. So long, General, God bless you for your service to this country.

This photo is priceless, and authentic. This is Hillary Clinton posing with a US soldier in Iraq. Look closely at his left hand. Yes, he is actually crossing his fingers. This is what soldiers are taught to do if they are coerced to give a statement or appear before cameras while captive. The humor is obvious, but I think this gentleman's sentiment about Clinton is shared by many who wear the uniform.

Hillary is seeking to become Commander in Chief, and in the process she is going to have to overcome an anti-military image that may or may not be fair, depending on your point of view. Her husband's administration did little for the military, unless you count the to-the-bone budget cuts that reduced our fighting force to a skeleton crew and in many ways continue to be a hindrance in our war efforts. And who can forget Bill's letter to an ROTC Colonel who was trying to recruit young Billy..."I loathe the military". One wonders if Hillary shares her husband's sentiment.

And then there are first hand accounts of Hillary and the military. Take, for instance, the book "Dereliction of Duty: The eyewitness account of how Bill Clinton compromised America's national security" by Lt Col Robert Patterson. Colonel Patterson was the Air Force lliason to Bill Clinton, and for a time was in charge of carrying the nuclear football, which means that he spent some time very close to Bill and Hillary. Here is an example of what he witnessed:

"On a similar trip, as we lifted off a helicopter pad in Marine One en route to Air Force One for the journey home, Hillary suddenly shouted, 'Put this back on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo.' By this time, however, Marine One was safely scooting to an awaiting 747. The required support for even a helicopter flight was involved and extensive. The Secret Service, White House Communications Agency, and administration staff were pulling down communications lines, lifting barricades, and driving off in vehicles.

'Ma'am,' my fellow military aide responded, 'we can't safely do that.'
'I need my sunglasses, we need to go back!'
The onboard Secret Service agent chimed in, 'Yes, ma'am, the mil-aide is correct. That wouldn't be wise.'

She acquiesced, but not without obvious disdain in her eyes. Security be damned, those were her sunglasses!"

Hillary seems to think that Marine One is more a limo and chauffeur service than a military transport vehicle. I wonder how that attitude will play as Commander in Chief. Patterson gave other examples of Hillary's disdain for the military, including her attempt to forbid members of the military to appear at the White House in uniform. She wanted them to wear civillian attire for any official or unofficial visits. Whether or not anyone complied with this is another issue. After all, the first lady is nowhere in the chain of command for anyone in uniform, even though I'm sure she would have disagreed.

And what about her military budget? Well, she apparently plans to spend a lot on the Pentagon. New York Senators Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer asked the Pentagon to spend $123 million for New York projects that the Department of Defense didn't ask for -- many of them benefiting the lawmakers’ campaign contributors. Among the two Democratic senators’ projects cited by the New York Sun and NewsMax were:

--$5 million to STIDD Systems of Greenport, NY, whose president gave $2,500 to the Friends of Hillary political action committee in May, 2006.

--$8 million to the defense contracting firm DRS Technologies and its electronic warfare and network systems program in western New York. The firm's political action committee gave $8,000 to Friends of Schumer and $30,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which Schumer chaired. The company also gave Clinton's political action committee $2,000.

--$2 million to the Buffalo firm Nano-Dynamics, Incorporated, whose chairman gave $4,400 to the Friends of Hillary political action committee over the past year. Three of the firm’s officers gave $2,000 each to Schumer's campaign.

--$2 million to Plug Power, Incorporated, a developer of fuel cell technology. The company's president Roger Saillant has given $2,000 to the Friends of Hillary committee over the past two years, and $3,000 to the Friends of Schumer committee over the past four years.

So this is Hillary's military record. Is this someone who deserves to be Commander in Chief?

Senator Tom Harkin: "Well, I don’t know. Maybe he[Rush Limbaugh] was just high on his drugs again"

For those who don't know, the Senator said this recently during a Senate session and may be the first US Senator to mock another human being's medical affliction from the Senate floor. I'm not sure, but I couldn't imagine another example. So, after thinking about it a while, I decided that this was way too despicable to mention in passing, and if Senator Harkin wants to dust off skeletons, then let's do it! So, I decided to take a stroll through Harkin's political career. Here are some highlights:

--While running for his Senate seat in 1984, and again while running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1992, Harkin has faced criticism for claiming that he had flown combat missions over North Vietnam. In a 1979 round table discussion with other Congressional Veterans, Harkin said of his service as a Navy pilot: “One year was in Vietnam. I was flying F-4s and F-8s on combat air patrols and photo-reconnaissance support missions”. This is actually not true. Harkin never flew combat aircraft in Vietnam, making him one of those phony soldiers Limbaugh was referring to. No wonder Harkin took such offense at Limbaugh's comments.

--Senator Harkin gave a nationally televised and controversial eulogy for Senator Paul Wellstone, a close ally in the Senate who perished in a plane crash 11 days before his potential re-election. In the eulogy, Harkin urged the crowd to “stand up for Paul" and talked about “passing on Paul's legacy” and to win the 2002 Senate election “For Paul” . Even during a funeral, Senator Harkin was being a good little politician

--In June 2001, the Des Moines Register reported that Senator Harkin had “inadvertently omitted” $200,000 in Conoco stock owned by his wife Ruth and some $15,000 owned by their daughter Amy on his Senate financial statement. Inadvertently? When it comes to politicians, it's only inadevertent when it gets discovered.

--In September of 2006 Senator Harkin commented on Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's September 20th 2006 United Nations speech in which Chavez referred to President George Bush as the devil. Senator Harkin said that while Chavez's comments were “incendiary,” he could “… understand the frustration, ah, and the anger of certain people around the world because of George Bush's policies”. A communist dictator calls our President the devil, and Harkin says 'I understand'

--In September of 2007, Harkin demanded apology from General Pace - the week before Pace's military retirement - for condemning homosexuality and adultery in the military. Pace promptly reminded the Senator that the UCMJ prohibits these behaviors in the military, and Harkin then voiced his opinion that the policy should be changed to accomodate homosexuality and adultery.

All of these things are the typical behaviors of a man who lacks any moral standard, and mocking someone else for their medical ailment is more of the same. I guess, given the record, we shouldn't expect anything less from Iowa Senator Tom Harkin

Hillary Clinton collects 27 million dollars in third quarter, bringing her total campaign war chest to 70 million dollars, second only to Barak Obama's 75 million.

Well folks, the Presidency now seems to be available to the highest bidder, and there are some pretty high bidders lining up to raise their card. 70 million dollars for a political campaign is obscene, and we haven't even cast a single vote yet! This is beyond concerning. Nothing good can come when this much money is invested in getting one person elected. Nothing.

If you wonder why Clinton is collecting so much money, here's a story that may help you understand. It involves Corning Inc., an upstate New York industrial company.

"In April 2003, a month after Corning's political action committee gave $10,000 to her re-election campaign, Mrs. Clinton announced legislation that would provide hundreds of millions in federal aid to reduce diesel pollution, using, among other things, technology pioneered by Corning. It was one of several Congressional initiatives Mrs. Clinton has pushed that benefit the company. And in April 2004, Mrs. Clinton began a push to persuade the Chinese government to relax tariffs on Corning fiber optics products, inviting the Chinese ambassador to her office and personally asking President Bush for help in the matter. One month after the beginning of that ultimately successful effort, Corning's chairman, James Houghton, held a fund-raiser at his home that collected tens of thousands of dollars for her re-election campaign."

It's actually a brilliant strategy. A company gives tens of thousands to a politician, who in turn takes action in Congress to ensure that company gets lots of government money funneled their way. Of course, Clinton isn't the only one. I could post every day for a year about different politicians raping the treasury, but Clinton is the one who is running for President and has been given tens of millions to do so.

If elected, Hillary stands poised to make an art out of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" politics. And 70 million dollars represents a lot of backs that need to be scratched. Get your checkbooks ready. How does 50% income tax sound?

To Hillary, that probably sounds like a good start.

San Francisco City Council votes to condemn Michael Savage

This seems to be yet another headline that acts as an example of a troubling trend. I thought the Left touted itself as the advocate for free speech? Apparently not. The city council of San Franciscograd doesn't like what Michael Savage says, so they vote to condemn him. This may sound harmless, but like it or not it's a blatant attempt by government officials to suppress free speech. The officials of San Franciscograd are one step from sending tanks into Tiananmen Square, and every American should be concerned about this latest episode in a recent trend:

--The US Congress, led by Democrats, are attempting to revive the Fairness Doctrine, governmental oversight of talk radio via the FCC to ensure equal time is devoted to all political opinions

--Univ of Columbia radicals chase the Minutemen from the stage while the neighborhood watch group spoke at the college.


--Ann Coulter was attacked by a man who hurled a pie at her while she spoke at the Univ of Arizona

--The US Congress, led by Democrats, introduced a measure to condemn Rush Limbaugh, a radio personality, because of controversial comments


--The Univ of Columbia rescinded an invitation to the Minutemen to speak again at their college, while only days later Iranian terrorist leader Ahmadinejad spoke at the same school


--A bipartisan group of college students seeking to honor the victims of 9/11 by holding a mutual moment of silence were interrupted and shouted down by radical protestors


--Karl Rove was attacked by students after delivering a speech to college republicans

--Hillary Clinton was interrupted while giving a speech in Chicago by anti-war protestors attempting to shout her down and keep her from being heard

Should I continue? Yes, there is a trend here and it involves a radical sect of ultra-Left psychos who loosely define freedom of speech in a way so that it applies only to those who agree with them, and they appear to be hubbed in San Franciscograd, Californistan. I think it's the duty of all freedom loving Americans to condemn these examples of attempted suppression of free speech and be quick to do the same in future events. The ultra-Left clearly wants to rewrite the Constitution, and their version leaves no room for people who don't buy into their ultra-Left mindset.

Rush Limbaugh comes under fire for 'phony soldiers' comment

Okay, first of all, I don't really care what Rush Limbaugh says. And neither should Congress. He is an abrasive radio personality who, in my mind, blindly supports the Republican Party and blindly denounces the Democrat Party. For that reason alone, his credibility is questionable at best. He does not have a Congressional seat. He does not distribute millions of dollars to help elect certain people. He has one vote in the election like everyone else. Yes, he may have some influence by the air waves, but that influence is minimal when he makes inflammatory comments.

For the record, I saw the transcript in question and I feel his words are being blatantly misrepresented by the mainstream media and Congressional Democrats. But who cares? He's a lightning rod who thrives in controversy. That's not the issue. Regardless what he meant, he is an inconsequential figure in the halls of Congress, and the fact that Congress is spending time condemning or supporting him is pure insanity and a waste of my tax dollars! That's the issue here.

And here's one big thumbs down for Tom Harkin, who literally used the Senate floor to mock another human being's chemical addiction: "Maybe he was just high on his drugs. I don't know." Just when I think Washington politics couldn't get any more disgusting, Tom Harkin steps up and opens his pie hole!

Let's face it, the Dems are upset about the Moveon.org thing. They hate the fact that they had to go on record for or against that organization, so this is their retaliation....a measure to condemn Rush Limbaugh. And no, it's not the same thing. Moveon.org contributes (in one way or another) millions to Democrats. They sign the proverbial paychecks for many in Congress (the same Congress that was supposed to 'drain the swamp' in Washington), so putting those folks on record was the right thing to do, consistent with maximal transparency in Congress. The Congressmen who accept money or help from Moveon are the ones who made their actions an issue for Congress to address. They are a major contributor to Democrats and they called the Commander in Iraq a traitor. Yes, that's an issue for Congress to address.

But Rush Limbaugh?

If Limbaugh contributed millions to political campaigns and deliberatley defamed our soldiers, then I could understand the Congressional action. But isn't he a bit small for Congress to spend time on? Let's see: Iran is on the verge of nukes, gas is approaching 3 bucks a gallon, Social Security is poised to be a major burden on our young workers, the housing market is tanking, medical malpractice has caused an access to care crisis, nothing has been done about illegal immigration and, oh yeah, WE'RE AT WAR! But these buffoons in Congress think Rush Limbaugh is priority. Anyone who isn't outraged by this should evaluate their own priorities or seek psychiatric counseling because you lack the ability to discern when you're being screwed by your own elected leaders.

It's a blatant slap in the face of American voters when a Senator or Representative shrugs off the Moveon.org assauly, or Hillary's calling Petraeus a liar, yet gets irate about a right wing disc jockey and his typical comments (big surprise...Rush Limbaugh criticizes the anti-war crowd). That, my friends, is the very definition of "politicizing the war", when our Congressmen apply a double-standard to the issue for political gain. Just reading and typing about it makes me physically ill. The fact that we voted these imbeciles into office makes it even worse. We could send a local Kindergarten class to Washington and I honestly think they would get more done, even if the name-calling and whining and bickering sound about the same.

My suggestion is that we flush every single one of them back into the private sector. If it were my decision, not a single incumbent would keep his seat in the next election, and this trend would continue until someone took office who could actually prioritize their political careers off the Congressional agenda. While these idiots debate the meaning of Rush Limbaugh's words, immigration and Social Security reform sit buried in committee! This is nothing less than a dereliction of duty by a group of cowards who lack the sack to address difficult issues, and the voters need to hold them accountable for it. The political nit-picking is killing this country and with every election we only choose more of the same. It's time every single one of them found themselves unemployed!

When Evil Prospers earns 5-star review and awarded a Silver Medal for excellence in fiction from the Military Writers Society of America.

Bold story about America turning back to her founding values!

John Washburn has crafted a truly amazing tale about what could happen if America gives up her role as world superpower. Set shortly after the conclusion of the Second Gulf War, the book finds an America led by a very liberal president, put in office by the backlash generated by her predecessor's Middle East conflict. When terrorists strike in Texas even worse than 9/11, the President takes diplomacy over military action and bows to the UN. The Texas Governor, along with some patriotic Texans, realize that America cannot bow down and must strike back. Tangles with the Cuban military and a standoff at the Mexican border are just two of the results.

The events are fictitious, of course, but Washburn's writing style makes them all too believable. He does an especially good job of expressing the emotional turmoil that his characters are feeling as they make very difficult choices. Further, I enjoyed the way he weaved his personal faith and values into his characters, adding even more depth and realism to them and their struggles.

This book is an outstanding read, and will be thoroughly enjoyed by anyone who likes military or political fiction, as well as those who enjoy Christian fiction. It has my highest recommendation, and has earned a five star rating from MWSA

I want to express my sincere appreciation to the staff at MWSA and Rob Ballister for agreeing to review the book of an unknown author from an unknown publisher. I am humbled by their kind words and the award they have given me. I am pleased they liked my book and hope the message gets out to more people. I have received a few emails from people brutally attacking me personally for the book; and the interesting thing is that these people all admit that they didn't even read it! How typical. Here's to open minds, the search for knowledge and truth, and withholding judgment until the facts are known.

Don't taze me, bro

It's been over a week since I woke up to the story of Andrew Meyer and the taser. It was early, and I was still a bit groggy and not fully awake. The choreography and dancing was horrible, and there was a lot of stumbling, screaming and crying. At first, I thought Britney Spears had performed again the night before, but I was wrong. This was much better than Britney. At that moment, I realized how thankful I was for mini-cams and camera phones. Without these nifty little inventions we may have never witnessed Andrew Meyer's experience.

It started during a John Kerry forum at the Univ of Florida. It was open mic, but apparently Mr Meyer didn't want to share the spotlight. He was told that his time was up, and that he needed to allow others to speak, but Meyer didn't want to cooperate. He then proceeded to launch into a vulgar, nonsensical tirade of criticism typical of the Left-wing crazies, of which Meyer seems to be among the craziest. When the campus police tried to remove him, he resisted...heavily. Eventually, six campus police officers were able to subdue him to the ground, yet his resistance - both verbal and physical - continued. And then, he got the taser. What followed was a lame chorus of "ouch" and "ow" that would make any adult film star look like a grammy winning actor. Of course, there were a few boos and hisses from the audience as they jeered the perceived excessive force. Later that day, several students stated that the campus police behaved inappropriately, that Meyer was a victim. And Meyer himself is now apparently seeking legal action against them. Are they forgetting that all of this was on tape?

I've watched the film many times, mainly because of Meyer's "Don't taze me, bro" protest, and partly because I feel a somewhat sick degree of joy from watching a deadbeat loser get zapped with a cattle-prod. And what I see in this film is a lamo-quasi-activist student taking advantage of John Kerry's appearance to garner himself some fame. Within hours of his zapping, there were websites going up devoted to him and his struggle with The Man. Meyer had this whole thing planned, no doubt, and it appears to have worked to his favor. He became the Rodney King of the slacking, skateboarding, Dungeons & Dragons playing, Xtreme sports watching, HALO conquering, dope-smoking couch jockeys of America; and "Dont taze me bro" has become their battle cry. I know, it's not exactly "We shall overcome", but these aren't exactly America's most outstanding citizens either. The Andrew Meyer's of the world give protestors a bad name, and their anti-establishment MO is pathetic and - judging by his girly ouchy whine - hardly enough to strike fear in those who call the shots. Rosa Parks would have called this guy a pussy.

If you ask me, excessive force is hardly the issue. In fact, I don't think enough force was used. This guy was grandstanding and they should have at least used enough force to discourage that, or make him regret doing it in the first place. If it were me, I would have turned up the voltage a bit on that taser. I would have put enough electricity through this slacker to burn the bong-resin from his brain and erase a few years from his childhood memory. Put it this way, he wouldn't have said "ouch"; at least not until the following week when his neurologic synapses finally reconnected sometime in the middle of his History 101 class. If it were me, I would have had to tell the other officers to "clear" before I hit him with the taser. The lights probably would have dimmed a bit and there may have been some spontaneous bowel evacuation. For the rest of his life he would have felt sub-consciously compelled to lay prone on the ground every time he passed a cop on the sidewalk. But that's just me, and it's probably a good thing that I'm not a cop. And, unfortunately, I probably won't get to serve on any jury in this case. But if I did, I would recommend a medal for the boys in blue who zapped this loser.

As it is, Meyer may be a hero to Generation X-Box, but he is nothing more than a hardy laugh for the rest of us. I've even bought a "Dont taze me bro" t-shirt from Dennis Miller's website. I plan to wear it whenever I go to the gym in remembrance of Andrew and his plight. Thank God for mini-cams.

Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia University today, and it went off exactly like I thought it would. In short, it was a circus. First, the Univ President proceeds to dress down Ahmadinejad, calling him anything from evil to cruel. Then, he challenged the man on some of his provocative history, including the things I mentioned in my last post. He then closed by predicting that the Iranian leader would not answer any of the questions posed, and would provide no explanations for his ridiculous behavior. He was right. Which leads me to ask, what was the point?

I could have predicted weeks ago that Ahmadinejad would duck and dive any pertinent question, would deflect criticism and would blame (either directly or with subtlety) the West, the US, Israel and the Jews for most of the world's and the middle east's problems. That's exactly what he did today, while on his best behavior in an attempt to establish a sense of brotherhood with Americans, especially the Leftist radicals who share his hatred of America.

So this came as no surprise. The Univ president probably feels good about his harsh criticism, and I'm certain there are many who feel Ahmadinejad was made to look like a fool. Well, they're wrong. Ahmadinejad already looked like a fool, only now a major US University has granted him status and credibility as a world leader. So who looks like the fool now? What purpose was served today other than Ahmadinejad's? He came to Columbia as a terrorist dictator, and left a terrorist dictator that had been granted status and credibility by an US institution of higher learning. There are many who think today was a good day, but I disagree.

In another story, the NY Times has confessed to making a mistake with the Moveon.org ad and the Left wing group has agreed to pay the difference in the "discount". The paper claims it was an honest mistake, that it's looking into why it happened, and expressed regret that this will perpetuate claims that the Times is biased toward the Left. Personally, the Times seems to be sorry they got caught, not sorry they favored a radical Left PAC.

Columbia University will soon be hosting Iranian president Ahmadinejad for a guest forum. The leader of Iran will be in America for a supposed UN conference and has already requested, and been denied, a visit to Ground Zero in Manhatten. The thought of having a terrorist visit is just not appealing to some people, but Columbia University is not among them.

There has been plenty of outrage over this, and before I voice mine...I little reminder. Columbia was also the site of another controversial forum, this one held by the Minutemen. This is a group of volunteers who have expressed their displeasure over the government's lack of enforcement of immigration policy. As a form of protest, they watch the southern border closely, and report any suspicious activity to the authorities. Some have called them vigilantes, but if this were true then we'd have to label any neighborhood watch program the same. The Minutemen came to Columbia and were greeted with a great degree of resistance. They were shouted down by protestors, driven from the stage, and basically not allowed to speak. All of this happened without the college administration or campus security lifting a finger to protect the Minutemen. This is Columbia University, a campus dominated by radicals who obviously don't believe in free speech as a universal right for all, but only as something to be granted to those who share their beliefs. It is apparent that the students of Columbia view the Constitution as something that only applies to certain people, and if you don't share in their political viewpoints then you're not covered by that document.

Now enter Mr Ahmadinejad, who requested a visit to Ground Zero and was promptly denied, and rightfully so. I wouldn't want Mussolini or Hitler visiting Pearl Harbor, just like I don't want a known terrorist visiting Ground Zero. Yet, Columbia University decided to have him as a guest. The message they want to send? Tolerance. I'm sure the Minutemen are scratching their heads about that one.

And so Ahmadinejad will be welcomed at Columbia University. This is a man who participated in the illegal invasion at the US embassy in Tehran. This is a man who knowingly supports Al Qaeda in Iraq, and aids in the deaths of US soldiers. This is a man who supports Hezbollah and their terrorist activity with Israel. This is a man who denies women basic human rights. This is a man who openly defies the UN and pursues illegal nuclear weapons. This is a man who openly advocates for the unconditional destruction of Israel, and has threatened to carry out such destruction himself. This is a man who denies the Holocaust, calling it a hoax. This is a man who threatens to push the Middle East into a nuclear war, with millions of lives lost. He is a terrorist, a killer, a genuine lunatic. And Columbia University wants to hear what he has to say.

I predict he will be allowed to speak. I don't foresee the radicals interrupting him and shouting him down as they did the Minutemen, which brings up a question. What is he doing this for? Some would say diplomacy, but people like this aren't interested in diplomacy. Some would say he is fueling an overblown ego, explaining his audacious request to visit Ground Zero. But I disagree with this. It is my theory that this man is on a recruiting mission.

I've said before that Ahmadinejad may be crazy, but he isn't stupid. He knows who his allies are. He knows where he is most likely to find help in his cause, and as the UN and EU continue to build pressure on him, he may be getting desperate for help. So I ask...How much of a step would it be for people who deny others freedom of speech to resort to more violent measures of resistance? It is my belief that the students of Columbia are one step shy of strapping on dynamite-laden vests and taking a stroll to the closest gathering of right-wing minds. Oh, I'm sure I'll be attacked for this, but I don't think it's a stretch to assume that Ahmadinejad thinks he can mold some young radical minds for his own agenda, and it's also no stretch to assume that those minds are capable of being molded. Convincing them that America is the enemy won't exactly be a daunting task. Convincing them to resort to violent measures would only be one more step.

The students of Columbia have declared their allegiance, and it's not to the US Constitution. Ahmadinejad knows who his friends are, and he plans on addressing them soon. If I were DHS, I would be keeping a close eye on these students.

Sally Field...huh?

Okay, so I've allowed plenty of time for everyone to see the highlights. Sally Field wins an Emmy, walks up to the podium, speaks in tongues for a few seconds, and then finally forces out a coherent sentence saying something like "if mothers ruled the world there would be no war". Or something like that.

As I mentioned in my last post, I think the celebrity anti-war statements are soon to fade away, to be replaced by anti-Christian statements. And Sally Field moments like this are partly to blame. In short, she basically looked like a fool. And I'm sure I'm not the only one a little tired of the celebrity acceptance/kick-Bush-in-the-ribs speech. Enough already. We all know Hollywood is against the war. We get it. Now just thank your agent and move along. But first, I must take issue with Sally over a few things.

First, if you're going to protest something, how about protesting it with distinct syllables and maybe a few words. If not, then just thank your agent and move along. Second, how about just saving the anti-war crap for a Tim Robbins/Susan Sarandon cocktail party? People tune in to see the Emmys, not half-witted efforts to sound refined and elite.

Finally, what's this about women ruling the world? Are you kidding me? I've seen how women behave towards each other at dinner parties. Women hate other women. The first time some busty blonde eyeballed another's husband it would be world war four. Gitmo detainees would be replaced by Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders. 'Terrorist' would be redefined as that woman across the street who washes her car in a white T-shirt every Saturday. I love women, and I respect the fact that they're equal to men, but I don't buy this "women would not wage war" garbage.

The fact is, Sally Field and I have something in common. We are both anti-war. In fact, I don't know a single person who is not anti-war. The difference between us is that although I hate war, I realize that war is sometimes necessary and is often what's needed in order to preserve peace. People like Sally think that war is never necessary, and there is always 'another way'. Unfortunately, that's not the reality. I wish I could live in that kind of world, a world of denial and naivety. We can dream, and have fantasies about women ruling the world, or children ruling the world or whatever. But the fact is, eventually that dream ends, and when it does there is always a Hitler, Mussolini, King George, Hussein or Ahmadinejad who doesn't share our dream and only wants to dominate the planet. The question is, what do we do with these people? Sally Field has no answer, and neither do any of these other anti-war knuckleheads who live in another reality. We all want peace, unfortunately peace comes with a steep price that has to be paid with the blood of Americans who value peace more than any other population on this planet.

So if these peace-loving celebs want to condemn someone, how about Kim Il, or Ahmadinehad, or Castro or any other lunatic who poses a threat to peace...not the Americans that fight to protect it.

Kathy Griffin: "Suck it Jesus"

This past week, celebrities have seemed to go a bit wacko (and yes, I realize that may not exactly be abnormal). It started with Kathy Griffin's Emmy acceptance speech when she poked fun at people who thank Jesus, said that Jesus had nothing to do with her award and that the award is her new god. She followed this by saying "Suck it Jesus".

Of course, the Catholic Church isn't happy about this. Griffin said that she thinks it is ridiculous how people presume that Jesus cares about who wins what award. She has a point. But, the Church still feels her comment was inappropriate and offensive. I disagree.

Jesus is my God. I worship God as a supreme being, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, with no beginning and no end. So I don't believe a being like that would be concerned or hurt when someone like Kathy Griffin says "suck it". Think about it. If a gnat told you to suck it, would you care? So I think Jesus is way above being offended by the likes of her. After all, He endured incomprehensible pain and torture at the hands of the Romans. I think He can take a D-list actress's idiotic comments. So let's not get all wound up about this.

But the Church does have one point. If Griffin had said "Suck it Muhammed", then the situation would be completely different. Her words would be plastered on every major US newspaper, on CNN and MSNBC and certainly on the BBC. There would be death threats issued from the Middle East. She would quickly become a Hollywood outcast, going from the D-list to no list. She probably would have been booed excessively. But, instead, she took a shot at Christians and Jesus. And if there is any form of bigotry acceptable in the eyes of Hollywood and the Left, it's anti-Christian speech. This, if anything, was a good career move for her. Now, she will become an instant super-celebrity among the Hollywood elites. Insulting Jesus means instant open-arms welcome into the Hollywood club. Her career has just taken a step forward. Don't be surprised if others follow suit. Soon the anti-war message du jour will be replaced by an anti-Jesus statement. It should be quite entertaining.

Another Heston "Planet of the Apes" moment

James Brolin appears last Tuesday on a New Jersey radio talk show to promote his upcoming movie. This appearance happens to be on the 6th anniversary of the 9/11 mass murder committed by Al Qaeda. One of the radio DJ's makes note of this during his conversation with Brolin who responds by saying: "Oh yeah, happy 9/11". After being politely chastised by the DJ for the obviously insensitive remark, he follows by saying "celebrate the day, right?'

For those who don't know, James Brolin is currently married to Barbara Streisand, and that alone suggests the man has poor judgment, and a far-left mentality. But for anyone, even a far-left loon, to say "happy 9/11" is beyond insane. I think this comment, even if it's a dumb foot-in-the-mouth gaffe, says a lot about how the Left lunatics view 9/11. For them, it seems to be a punchline and a reason all of us gullible righties use to justify war.

I don't need to remind Brolin of the thousands who died that day, not that he would really care. But I did feel the need to post his words on this blog. Brolin, for this alone, is clearly a man of idiotic mind. Can you imagine someone saying "happy Katrina day" or "happy Pearl Harbor day"? I don't think so.

I think Brolin owes the victims of 9/11 an apology, and if it doesn't come then we are clearly living on a planet ruled by apes.

I watched President Bush's speech last night and for those who didn't see it, the President took the moment to outline his plan over the next year for Iraq. Basically, he told the American people that he has accepted the recommendations of General Petraeus. By Christmas, there will be 6,000 troops returning home, and by next summer the US presence will be drawn down from 20 military divisions to 15. General Petraeus feels this drawdown can be done while still maintaining an adequate level of security in Bagdad and Anbar province. Bush listened, and agrees. Kudos to the President for following the advice of his military commanders and not giving in to some knee jerk response to gain any kind of political favor.

Which brings me to the Democrats. Senator Jack Reed gave the Dem response to the President's speech. He stated, once again, that it is time for a "new direction" in Iraq, which includes a complete US withdrawal. He did not mention the military gains of the past 6 months. He did not mention the success of General Petraeus, the military members, or the troops surge. In fact, he mentioned nothing positive about what we've done in Iraq since the troop surge. He basically parroted the party line that a new direction is needed.

Frankly, I've had enough of this new direction garbage. To Bush's credit, after the '06 election, he took note of the voters' wishes and chose a new direction. Rumsfeld was replaced. Casey was replaced. And under the recommendation of his military leaders, he agreed to a troop surge with the objective of securing Bagdad and Anbar province. This was a new direction. This was a new plan, and so far it is working even though the Democrats fail to admit that. It seems to me that anything short of a complete and total retreat from Iraq will be unacceptable to the Democrats, no matter how succesful we become in Iraq. The military is succeeding in their mission, and the Democrats demand a change of course. That says a lot about their intentions.

I tip my hat to the President. He is doing what a President should do in a time of war. He is listening to his Generals, to those who know the situation and know what it takes to succeed, and he's not giving in to the easy way out no matter how low his approval rating is. That takes character. Next March, General Petraeus will appear before Congress again. We'll see what the cut and run sect has to say then.

Another tip of the hat goes to the General. This man conducted himself with esteem and character, even when the likes of Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy blatantly assaulted his integrity and his honor. This man is the commander of our troops in Iraq and a four star General with an impeccable service record, and the Senate spoke to him like a lowly Private who failed to clean the latrine properly. The lasting effects of their behavior towards him will never be known. I wonder what the troops felt when they saw their commander, the man they look up to, being treated in such a manner. How incredibly demoralizing for them. Can you imagine General Eisenhower being hauled before Congress in such a manner? But the Democrats have a vested interest in America's failure in Iraq and they really don't give a damn about troop morale. At least, that's how it seems. Yet, the General behaved as an officer and a gentleman should.

And then we see Rudy Guiliani step up and take impressive action. This man is slowly being challenged by Fred Thompson mainly because he lacks appeal to the conservative base. His pro-abortion, pro gun control, pro gay rights positions have cost him with that group. But yesterday he took out an ad with the NY Times going after Hillary for calling Petraeus a liar, and failing to condemn Moveon. This will appeal to the conservative base, and if he keeps it up he will surely win the GOP nomination, which is bad news for Hillary. If there's anyone who can rip Hillary to shreds in a debate, it's Guiliani.

So I applaud Rudy. I applaud President Bush, and I most definitely applaud General Petraeus. The Democrats have made a huge mistake in this matter, and considering the amount of money Moveon contributes to the party, it would appear as though they are backed into a deep corner. In my mind, they're getting what they deserve.

In a December 9th e-mail signed by “Eli Pariser, Justin Ruben, and the whole MoveOn PAC team,” the Soros front group stated: “In the last year, grassroots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the Party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive. Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back.”

This goes a long way in explaining why the Democrats have not condemned Moveon for their accusation that General Petraeus is a traitor. Last night, the Dems held yet another debate via the internet. Not one candidate condemned Moveon's actions. Tonight, John Edwards has bought ad time on MSNBC (at a discount perhaps), and I'm virtually going to guarantee that he will attack Bush ruthlessly, but will not say a word about Moveon's accusation. The same goes for whomever gives the Dem response to Bush's speech tonight.

The New York Post is reporting that the New York Times sold Moveon the ad in question at a 50% discount. Why? There has yet to be an explanation from the Times. However, Rudy Guiliani has already requested an equal-sized ad in the Times at the same rate. The Times hasn't responded yet.

General Petraeus has accomplished some remarkable things in Iraq, from a military standpoint. He should be congratulated. He should be welcomed as a hero. Instead, Hillary calls him a liar, and a major Democrat party contributor calls him a traitor. How shameful. But nearly as shameful as the Democrat leaders' failure to quickly condemn what these people did. No doubt because Moveon "owns" that party. They bought it free and clear.

Abdullah Mullah shuddered as he thought back to the early 1990s. In his sprawling neighborhood, the center of Egypt's radical Islamist movement, his wife was beaten on the street for wearing jeans and he was visited by thugs "concerned" about his irregular mosque attendance.

Imbaba was a place the police feared and the militants ruled. Neighborhoods like this, teaming with devout Muslims, may have been considered fertile ground for Al Qaeda's goal of building a global movement. But six years after 9/11, Osama bin Laden's group appears to have attracted few loyal followers here. In fact, the militants who once reigned in Imbaba are all but invisible.
What has happened in Egypt represents an overlooked success story in much of the Arab world. While Muslim anger toward the US and its Arab allies has soared in the post-9/11 war on terrorism, and the Iraq war has been a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda, there is little chance militant Islamists can seize power power in any of the region's established states.

But this has come at a price. The Egyptian story is one of how an effective, often brutal, security establishment has pushed militant Islamists to the fringes. Today, Egypt has as firm a grip on Imbaba as it does on the rest of the country. Political Islam, however, still has great appeal for millions of Egyptians, but most of them are attracted to the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that repudiated violence decades ago. Indeed, there are exceptions to the clout that militant Islamists hold within large segments of Arab society. Hamas, the Palestinian group which now controls the Gaza Strip, is considered a terrorist outfit by the US, Israel, and the European Union. But its political platform is far from Al Qaeda's. It uses violence to extract land from Israel, not in the service of establishing an Islamic caliphate, a key Al Qaeda aim.
In Egypt, the hard line from the state in dealing with radical groups also comes with a growing Arab revulsion of Al Qaeda's indiscriminate violence and thuggish behavior.

"These groups have of course been around for a long time. But what people discovered with them is that they're incredibly rough and rigidly ideological," says Diaa Rashwan, an expert on political Islam at the Al Ahram Center for Strategic and International Studies in Cairo. "Their methods weren't about winning people over, being with them, but imposing upon them. No people in the world like that." Full story....

It's good to hear some positives coming from the Middle East. That's why I'll post it whenever I come across something like this.

It has been six years since the 9/11 massacre, and America's awakening to the war that has been waged against us for decades. Since then, we have struck back and have engaged the enemy on several fronts in an attempt to rid this planet of their hate-filled doctrine, in what many (including myself) consider to be world war III. Here is my assessment:

First, while we remember those who died, Osama Bin Laden issues another video. This one is dedicated to the last will & testament of one of the highjackers responsible for the mass murder on that day. He may as well have urinated on the graves of those killed. The fact that this sub-human piece of s#$% is still alive is a testament to some of our shortcomings in the fight, but like I've said he is hardly the war on terror. The fight will go on with or without him. We may kill him tomorrow, and will still have lots of work to do, so I don't want to focus too much on one man. There is a special place in hell for him, and I for one will rejoice the day satan jams a pitch-fork in his hind quarters. He will get his, one way or another. But our response to this video says much about the state of the war. Moveon dot org recently called General Petraeus a traitor, but they mentioned nothing about Bin Laden's video, or its carefully timed release. I wonder who this organization is more upset with?

And speaking of the lunatic Left, these people - led by the Moveon crowd - have slandered a highly decorated military officer, and did so with absolutely no proof supporting their character assasination. It was disgusting behavior, but not nearly as disgusting as the Party's reaction. Not one Democrat candidate or party leader has condemned Moveon and the radical Left for their behavior towards Petraeus. NOT ONE! Could that be because Moveon represents a large chunk of the Dem voting base? Could that be because these leaders don't want to anger the radicals for that very reason? Knowing the right thing to do but failing to do that right thing out of fear of bad consequences is called cowardice. I think that's a fitting description here. These people want us to trust them in our fight against Islamofascism, yet they don't have the guts to stand up to their party's own radical nuts. Not even the folks on this very site who tend to lean Left have condemned Moveon's actions. How pathetic.

Despite the lack of fortitude from one of the two major parties, we have made progress in this fight. Yes, some mistakes were made, never has there been a mistake-free military campaign. But it appears as though we are on the right track, and Iraq is the front-line. Don't anyone out there kid themselves. Iraq is THE forefront in the war on terror. There isn't a single Islamic jihadist who would disagree with that. I think it even surpasses Israel in importance to them.

In Iraq, we are fighting a guerrila war. To win a guerrila war, you have to turn the people against the guerrilas. You do that by giving the people a reason to hate them. You give the people freedom...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Give them security, and soon they see the guerrilas as a threat to that security. And you don't try to do this one nation at a time, you do it one segment of that nation at a time. Ask any military strategist how to win against a guerrila enemy, and they will tell you the same thing. THAT's what we are currently doing in Iraq. The people of Bagdad have been given freedom, and now they are being given security. Next, they will reject the guerrilas that threaten what they've been given. That will slowly spread to the rest of the country until the guerrilas have nowhere to go. Iraq becomes free and secure. Its neighbors soon follow, and then an entire region has rejected the fascists. That's how you defeat the doctrine of hate.

We are engaged against an ideology that teaches totalitarianism, and history has taught us that humans will reject totalitarianism if given the chance. But the people must be given the alternative. Give them that alternative, and those that threaten it will soon be defeated. We're on the right path in Iraq. It starts with Bagdad, and Petraeus seems to be succeeding, although many are calling him a traitor for it.

Can we win this war? Of course we can. But the question is, can we win when so many in this country are actively working against our troops and our efforts on the ground? I don't know. This seems to be unprecedented. I do know that success in Iraq is critical. It is the Gettysburg of our fight.

The Left must have a US defeat in Iraq. Anything else would be a political disaster for them. And if we are defeated in Iraq, then achieving success in the global war on terror will be impossible. We will be unable to rid this planet of the radicals who only wish to convert or kill. Iraq is key in this fight, without victory there, we cannot win elsewhere.

Remember that at the polls each November.

Congressional Democrats are trying to undermine U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus' credibility before he delivers a report on the Iraq war next week, saying the general is a mouthpiece for President Bush and his findings can't be trusted. "The Bush report?" Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq. "We know what is going to be in it. It's clear. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' The top Democrats — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California — also referred to the general's briefing as the "Bush report." FULL STORY

I don't think it's necessary to remind my readers, but I will anyway. General David Petraeus is a four star general, career military man, with an impeccable service record and a long history of great success in his career. He is a man of integrity, and (for those who don't know) questioning the integrity of a service member is not taken lightly. That is exactly what these Democrat "leaders" are doing. General Petraeus has not even issued his report, and already these people are trying to paint him as a puppet for the President. Personally, I think it's disgusting behavior and I would like to see a formal apology from each of them. Petraeus has done nothing to bring into question his integrity. At the very least, I would expect our Congressional leaders to respect that. But, apparently, that's asking too much.

I've said before, US failure in Iraq is crucial for the Democrats. If we succeed, their hopes for '08 are sunk. It will take years for them to recover after all of their anti-war "we've lost" rhetoric. They know it, and so do all of us. Responsible congressional leaders would refrain from commenting on this until the report was issued, and then would be careful not to assault the integrity of a highly decorated Army General. But the Dems have far too much at stake here. They're pulling out all the stops, and I can only hope the American people see this for what it is...cheap politics.

But they 'support the troops' right? Of course they do, that is until the troops actually start showing progress, then they become Bush's puppets. These people don't want to hear that we may be succeeding in Iraq, and they certainly don't want the American people to hear it. Hillary Clinton is already measuring for White House drapes. A drastic turnaround in Iraq would be a huge wrench in those plans.

Of course, the Dems can't openly advocate for US failure in Iraq. No, that would be an even bigger disaster. So they find themselves in a tough spot. US success in Iraq would be a catastrophe for them, yet they can't openly undermine our war effort. So what do they do? Simple. They undermine the war in a more subtle manner, an example of this would be attacking the credibility of a fine US military leader who deserves nothing but the utmost respect. This appears to be the Dem strategy, so if any good news comes out of Iraq they will surely be quick to hang their negative spin on it. Which is fine...that's politics. But assualting the integrity of General Petraeus? It seems that nothing is beneath today's Democrat party.

"I've been in elected office longer than John Edwards or Hillary Clinton," said Obama. "I've passed more bills I'm sure than either of them --certainly in the state legislative level."

This was Barak Obama's response to a recent question dealing, of course, with his perceived lack of experience. Obama has been a victim of today's "gotcha" political climate. He's made a few simple blunders and those blunders have made their rounds in newspapers, television and the blogosphere. I personally think it's not fair, but that's how politics is nowadays. Obama isn't the only one victimized by this. There will be more.

But, if I were advising Mr Obama I'd tell him to take a different approach. Instead of defending his "lack of experience", I'd recommend he relish in it. After all, Obama is running as a common man type of candidate. In my book, not having experience in politics is a plus. I'm sure I am not alone. Politicians have made a mess of things over the past several decades. So if I were a candidate and someone accused me of not having experience as a politician, I'd wear that one with pride. The last thing we need is "experienced" politicians, and listening to them argue over who has passed more legislation or worked longer in politics is boring and quite off-putting. How about we let common citizens run things for a change? The candidate who embraces that concept will see his campaign take off.

Make no mistake, I am not endorsing Obama. There is very little the two of us agree on and I think he is way off in this war on terror thing (not to mention his plan for health care, totally disastrous). But I do like the notion of Obama perhaps not having experience as a politician. I count that as an asset. So, Senator, I recommend you own it. Let the other guys thump their chests about being experienced politicians. You may be surprised at the response you get.

Thanks to Chuck for the feed. President Bush recently unveiled his plan to help homeowners in this time of increased foreclosures and mortgage defaults. Bush wants to see the FHA play a role in helping people refinance their homes at lower rates to keep them from defaulting. Of course, the FHA is a government program, funded by taxpayer dollars. The people in question originally financed their homes with adjustable rate mortgages, that when matured converted to a much higher interest rate...such is the risk of the ARM. You get a lower rate, but it's a dice roll. Now, President Bush feels it's the government's job to bail out those who rolled the dice.

Bush’s proposals unveiled Friday are designed to help combat those defaults. They would make it easier for borrowers now holding adjustable rate mortgages that are resetting to higher monthly payments to refinance those loans using the resources of the Federal Housing Administration. The FHA is a Depression-era agency created to help low and moderate-income Americans afford homes....Bush’s proposals follow a number of measures already introduced in Congress to deal with the mortgage lending crisis. Many Democrats said while they welcomed Bush’s ideas, they felt they did not go far enough and should be modified to help more people....Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said he believed Bush’s announcement Friday represented a major ideological shift for the administration, which has generally favored free-market solutions to problems rather than increased government involvement. “The president has gotten out of his ideological straitjacket and seen that in times of crisis, one of the jobs of government is to help,” Schumer told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference.....FULL STORY

Chuck Schumer's definition of help is rather loose. Remember, the people in question basically made bad financial decisions. Everyone knows the risk of an ARM mortgage. But Schumer and, apparently, President Bush feels it is now the government's job to grant these people a reprieve, at taxpayer cost. No longer are we responsible for our own financial decisions. No longer do we have to take into account financial risk. Big brother government will bail us out.

And this is life in a "free market".

"A new film about the real-life rape and killing of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl by U.S. soldiers who also murdered her family stunned the Venice festival, with shocking images that left some viewers in tears. "Redacted", by U.S. director Brian De Palma, is one of at least eight American films on the war in Iraq due for release in the next few months and the first of two movies on the conflict screening in Venice's main competition. Inspired by one of the most serious crimes committed by American soldiers in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, it is a harrowing indictment of the conflict and spares the audience no brutality to get its message across FULL STORY

First, DePalma can make whatever film he wants, you know, freedom of speech and all. So if he wants to make a film about one of the military's low points, then fine. He has that right. It's important to note that the soldiers in question have been arrested, tried and convicted and are currently serving punishment for their criminal behavior. But what bugs me about this guy is the following statement that he made at the festival about his film:

"The movie is an attempt to bring the reality of what is happening in Iraq to the American people."

The reality of what is happening in Iraq? A brutal rape and murder of a 14 year old girl is what DePalma considers the 'reality of what is happening in Iraq'? That's about as asinine as it gets. I've talked to a few people who served in Iraq, and none of them describe the rape and murder of 14 year girls as the 'reality of what is happening in Iraq'. But, DePalma would have us believe that they're wrong, and he even goes so far as to say that the mainstream media is part of the "corporate establishment" and is therefore not reporting what's really happening in Iraq.

Yes, you read that right. DePalma thinks the media is not reporting what's really happening in Iraq. You know, all those rapes and murders of 14 year old girls. They're not getting reported, so DePalma felt the need to make a movie about it. In truth, a US soldier can't even give an Iraqi a dirty look without the media making accusations of abuse and torture, but DePalma thinks they're all part of the establishment....because they're not reporting all those rapes and murders of 14 year old girls.

No doubt it will be a popular movie. I'm sure Rosie, Sarandon and Matt Damon already have their tickets. Any movie that gives the US military a swift rib-kick is sure to be a hit with the Left. They can't wait...but, don't forget, they "support the troops".

Remember, this is the same guy who brought us "Casualties of War", a movie about, what else, US GI's brutally raping and murdering a Vietnamese woman. DePalma seems to think US soldiers are nothing but a bunch of murderous rapists, and the media fails to show the American people the truth. This guy is out there. So when will he make a movie about Saddam's mass murders and brutal regime? Or the Khmer Rouge? Don't hold your breath.

The reality of what is happening in Iraq? Unbelievable.

It appears Hillary and Obama have received an interesting endorsement.

Ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro is tipping Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to team up and win the U.S. presidential election.Clinton leads Obama in the race to be the Democratic nominee for the November 2008 election, and Castro said they would make a winning combination.

"The word today is that an apparently unbeatable ticket could be Hillary for president and Obama as her running mate," he wrote in an editorial column on U.S. presidents published on Tuesday by Cuba's Communist Party newspaper, Granma.

He went on to praise Bill Clinton:

Castro said former President Bill Clinton was "really kind" when he bumped into him and the two men shook hands at a U.N. summit meeting in 2000. He also praised Clinton for sending elite police to "rescue" shipwrecked Cuban boy Elian Gonzalez from the home of his Miami relatives in 2000 to end an international custody battle.

He said his favorite U.S. president since 1959 was Jimmy Carter, another Democrat, because he was not an "accomplice" to efforts to violently overthrow the Cuban government.

FULL STORY

Jimmy Carter was Castro's favorite, and Bill Clinton was praised for helping Castro "rescue" Elian Gonzalez. Really? Rescue him? That's not how I remember it, but then again communists do have their own version of history. Gonzalez was removed at gunpoint from the arms of his family, denied asylum, and deported back to a communist nation openly hostile towards the US. But, Castro is right, Clinton was very helpful in that matter. To so many on the Left, deporting immigrants is out of the question unless it means deporting back to a communist nation.

And Jimmy Carter is adored by Castro because he somewhat restored diplomatic ties between the two nations. Let's see, Cuba is a nation that attempted to build nuclear launch sites just 90 miles from our coastline without apologies and nearly brought the world to nuclear holocaust. And Mr Carter decides he wants to be friends with them again.

And now Castro seems to favor Hillary and Obama. To me, that says a lot.

Time is of the essence lately. Yours truly may be limited in substance until the weekend, but I will do the best I can. Today, I hit the highlights:

Idaho Senator Larry Craig denies being gay. So, some time back the Senator plead guilty to disorderly conduct for supposedly propositioning another male in an airport restroom. Now, he contends those charges and says it was a mistake, mainly due to his failure to obtain legal counsel. Okay, whatever. But the issue isn't whether the Senator is gay, which for some reason is what he wants to focus on. No, the issue is whether or not this man propositioned someone for sex. If this is true, the Senator should resign his position. The Senate is launching an ethics probe (there's an oxymoron...Senate ethics probe) and apparently there will be more to come.

Alberto Gonzalez resigns. I don't know much about this guy, but I do know that he got a raw deal. I'm not exactly sure why the Dems focused so much energy in "getting" this guy, but it apparently worked. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing on his part. My only disappointment was in his handling (or lack thereof) of the Campian and Ramos case. Otherwise, I feel for this guy. Now, what's really scary is that Bush is considering Chertoff as his replacement. Yikes!

Hillary favors a national smoking ban. I'm not a smoker. In fact, the odor makes me want to gag. But I am getting a bit tired of people treating smokers like the lepers of our time. National smoking ban? Gimme a break.

Senator Harry Reid: ""Most Americans, and a bipartisan majority in Congress, believe this strategy is not in our national interest and the time for a major change in strategy is now."

What the Senator means is that we need to change strategy before this strategy succeeds. Everyone knows that if the troop surge works, and is the first step to a safe, secure and stable Iraq, then the Dems are doomed. They will have no chance in '08. So, Reid is working hard to change the course before we succeed.

One more Vick post and then I'm done. This is an excellent column by Jemele Hill of ESPN, for those out there who try to make the Michael Vick fiasco an issue of race. Thanks to Robert for the feed.

Dear young, black men:

Today, many of you are angry. You are angry at a society that has swiftly and vigilantly punished a superstar quarterback for dogfighting, but often looks the other way as a grotesque number of black men die in the streets. You are angry at the NFL, which has punishments some of you feel unfairly targets those who look like you. You are angry at Michael Vick's buddies and criminal cohorts for "snitching" on Vick, noting that trainer Greg Anderson, a white man, sits in federal prison with his lips sealed, protecting Barry Bonds and refusing to cooperate with authorities.

You are feeling a lot of things -- some possessing merit -- but I caution you not to make Vick a martyr. Do not applaud him for taking his comeuppance like some modern-day gangster. Do not blame others for Vick's predicament when he alone should be held accountable for his actions.
Let this historic unraveling be a wake-up call for the young, black men caught up in the same lifestyle that claimed Vick. Let his prison sentence send the message that a continued allegiance to street culture successfully keeps young, black men frighteningly behind in American society.
As the Vick case shows, millions of dollars are little protection if a certain mentality remains. Until now, Vick was considered one of the lucky ones. He rose out of poverty to become one of the most mesmerizing athletes of our time. He went from nothing to millions. He wasn't the American dream, but the American reality. He had the support of a city, of a people and he struck a chord with many young, black men because they saw themselves in him -- rebellious, strong and heroic.

But Vick let you down. He betrayed you. He heightened the stereotypes of black men instead of eroding them. Racists certainly will feast on Vick, but he was the one who made himself an entrée.

You can say Vick was persecuted unfairly by the white media, say we should be more concerned with the war in Iraq than an illegal dogfighting ring or say his downfall wouldn't be a 24-hour news event if he were the highest-paid white quarterback.

But it's impossible to stand on moral high ground while trying to defend something so low. Vick did something wrong, something against the law, something disgusting and vile. Even worse, he appears to be the financial backer and mastermind behind the dogfighting ring.

I understand Vick's guilt is a tough, humbling thing to swallow because the one thing black men in this society understand is the feeling of being piled upon, discounted and discarded. Last year, several studies showed that American black men are failing at an alarming and heartbreaking rate. More than half of black men in the inner cities don't have a high school diploma. There are more black men in prison than in college. Everyone else in society -- whites, Latinos, women -- is gaining ground, but black men are falling further and further behind in virtually every category........FULL COLUMN

Bravo, Ms Hill. My hat's off to you.

To piggyback my last post, I find it interesting how so many people are deeply appalled by Michael Vick's crime, mainly due to the brutal treatment the dogs received. On this very site, an anonymous commenter suggested the possibility of a death sentence for Vick. Huh?

And, let's not forget this statement on the Senate floor by Robert Byrd: "...cruel, sadistic, cannibalistic business of training innocent, vulnerable creatures to kill...Barbaric!," he yelled. "Let that word resounding from hill to hill, and from mountain to mountain, and valley to valley across the broad land. Barbaric! Barbaric! May God help those poor souls who'd be so cruel. Barbaric! Hear me! Barbaric! I am confident that the hottest places in hell are reserved for the souls of sick and brutal people who hold God's creatures in such brutal and cruel contempt," he said. "One is left wondering, who are the real animals: the creatures inside or outside the ring?"

Something tells me the Senator feels Vick's behavior was barbaric. Sick and brutal people who hold God's creatures in such brutal and cruel contempt? How poetic. And the good Senator is not alone. Indeed, there is a lot of outrage over Vick's behavior, and there should be. But I can't help but wonder: Why are so many people outraged over dog-fighting, and yet seem to be okay with abortion, and in some cases partial birth abortion? Are these dogs' lives really that much more valuable than human fetuses? It's an interesting question no doubt, so let's use Senator Byrd's voting record as an example to answer this question.

In a vote that would prohibit governmental discrimination against medical entities that refuse to perform elective abortions, Senator Byrd voted against the bill.

In a vote to show whether or note Congress supported the Roe v. Wade decision effectively making elective abortions legal, Senator Byrd voted for it.

Senator Byrd voted against a measure that would prohibit government funding for research on human fetal tissue

Vote to pass a bill that requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells.Senator Byrd voted for it.

To summarize, Byrd is okay with destroying human life for research and convenience, but opposes the destruction of dogs for entertainment, that's what he considers barbaric. Abortions? Not so much. Not that I'm picking strictly on him, he is not alone. Many people out there feel the same. How they reconcile these two positions is beyond me. Barbaric indeed!

Michael Vick will plead guilty to federal dog-fighting charges, which means he now faces up to five years in prison and perhaps much more. But not if the NAACP has anything to say about it.

I have refrained from commenting about Vick until now, mainly because I believe in "innocent until proven guilty" and I've been rather disgusted at how the mainstream media tends to convict before any evidence is heard. Case in point, the Duke Lacrosse team. So, while I was disappointed to hear of Vick's potential involvement in all of this I still held out hope that he was not guilty. I was wrong.

Vick is an incredibly talented athlete. He had ways of making people say "wow". In short, he was fun to watch and had a very bright future ahead of him. It's a shame that he's basically flushed all of that for some cheap thrills. It's amazing to me how some athletes are hell-bent to waste their talent and self-destruct. Add Michael Vick to that list. Up to five years in prison and a lifetime of shame next to names like Kobe Bryant, OJ Simpson, Joe Jackson and Pete Rose.

Amidst all of this, the question being asked is: When will Vick be allowed to play football again? Yes, this reflects poorly on our society, but it's still a legitimate question. Interestingly enough, the NAACP has quickly jumped to Vick's defense, asking the NFL to avoid suspending the superstar quarterback. NAACP president R.L. White said that Vick "made a mistake" and should be allowed to learn from it. He feels that any prison sentence Vick receives is punishment enough and that an NFL suspension would be harsh. Well, I understand the argument, but I couldn't disagree more.

First, the crime. White speaks of it (along with many other Vick supporters) as though Vick was ticketed for jaywalking. This man committed a serious crime. Brutal cruelty to animals represents human behavior disturbing in every sense of the word. Many clinical sociopaths are identified early because of their tendency to engage in such behavior. Any psychiatrist will tell you that someone capable of brutality towards animals is also capable of the same towards humans, which is one of the reasons why this is against the law. So, Vick will plead guilty to a very serious crime and with that comes serious punishment. Five years in prison is fair, although I highly doubt he will get that much.

So what happens after his prison term? White says that Vick's debt to society would then be paid and the slate wiped clean and Vick should then be allowed back into the NFL. Well, the debt to society might be paid, but what about the debt to the NFL? Vick's behavior reflects very poorly on the NFL, not to mention that he is yet another professional athlete with a felony history. I'm not the only one getting tired of these guys behaving like the rules don't apply to them.

Let me put it this way: If I were to commit a felony, my license to practice medicine would likely be revoked, meaning I could never practice medicine again. Other professional organizations are similar. I wouldn't object if the NFL suspended him for life, although that is also highly unlikely lest they risk a racism charge. Felonies and professionalism don't mix, and Vick is a professional. With that comes responsibility and violating that responsibility carries penalties. Yes, he needs to serve time, but that's not the only consequence he should pay. My guess is the NFL will suspend him for the length of his prison term and allow the suspension to be served while in prison. The NFL tends to be gutless that way (along with all other professional sports organizations). Hopefully, the individual teams will refuse to sign him. Vick committed a major crime, and he should lose his career for it. The NAACP is wrong.

Politics and family...do they mix? Lately there have been a few rumblings in the 2008 Presidential contest and this seems to boil down to that ever present question: Is a candidate's personal life of concern to voters? We saw it a bit in 2000, when George Bush sternly warned reporters to keep their mitts off his daughters, and for the most part they have. So it's no surprise to see similar things with the latest candidates.

First, we have Michelle Obama, who has come out of her shell lately, talking about how much they value traditional family values and how much emphasis she and her husband place on their family. She added: "if you can't run your own house, you can't run the White House." Take that Hillary. Or was she jabbing at Guiliani?

Speaking of Rudy, at the latest GOP debate he got a little miffed when a voter asked how he'd expect the American people to give him loyal fellowship if he was having a hard time getting it from his own family. Guiliani's response sounded like a schoolyard bully who'd just been punched in the stomach: "The best thing I can say is kind of leave my family alone, just like I'll leave your family alone." Wow. I think someone just struck a nerve with Rudy.

So is a candidate's family off-limits? To a certain extent, yes. Sometimes being decent means leaving them alone. Take Al Gore's son, for example. He is struggling with addiction and severe legal problems. Let the family deal with it. No need to smear. No need to ask questions. This kid has problems, what else is there to report?

But, do the voters have a right to know what's going on with Rudy and his kids? And why did Hillary not leave Bill? The latter brings in a question of character. Did she stay with him because she adamantly opposes divorce? Or to spare Chelsea? Or, did she stick with him because it would help her White House chances in the long run? I think these are legitimate questions and perhaps Hillary would be better served to answer them.

As for Rudy, all this secrecy is hurting him. What's going on with his kids? His former wives? I don't think people are out of line asking. And why can't Rudy give at least something resembling an explanation. "My kids and I often don't see eye to eye, and divorces hardly help."

That's it. Would anyone have trouble understanding that? No, of course not. We all have interesting family dynamics we deal with. Rudy's mysterious secrecy is hurting him in the eyes of the conservative base, and don't think for a second the Dems (especially Hillary) aren't itching to exploit that as much as the GOP is chomping at the bit to get at Hillary. It should be an interesting campaign.

I am sure everyone is aware of the McDonald's cheeseburger case, but let me hit the highlights. A man in West Virginia ordered a quarter pounder with no cheese. He has a severe allergy to cheese, enough to cause a potential life-threatening reaction, and told the staff 5 times to hold the cheese. Of course, they put cheese on his burger (who out there hasn't had problems with this). The man went home to watch movies with his friends (apparently in a dark room), bit into the burger, and within minutes began having a severe allergic reaction. He was rushed to the hospital and treated. Fortunately, he survived with no adverse outcomes. Now, he is suing McDonald's for $10 million. His friends have also filed suit claiming their lives were put in danger because they had to rush him to the hospital. And here we go again.

First, before we start assaulting McDonald's, let's not forget that the plaintiff still has the majority of the responsibility here. Yes, he told them 5 times no cheese, but still I wonder: Why didn't he check to make sure the order was right before taking a big bite from the burger of death? Again, we've all been victimized by incompetent fast-food workers and it seems like he put a little too much trust in them. Thankfully, I don't have any serious allergies, but if I did and there was possibly something on my burger that could kill me, I would check before I ate it. This guy shares some of the blame for his brush with death and that should not be forgotten. And his friends? Come on. If they're going to sue McDonald's then they should also sue their friend - since he is partially to blame.

As fas as the lawsuit, it sounds a bit ridiculous. $10 million? I understand the concept of punitive damages. They are meant to be just that...punitive. And you can't punish a billion dollar company with small awards, so the damages have to be hefty. That's why a woman gets $3 million for spilling coffee on herself. I don't think punitive damages are always bad. Sometimes big industry needs to be punished. However, I do believe these damages should not be given to the plaintiff or his attorney. That just encourages unnecessary litigation. Punish the offender. Give the money to charity. That will eliminate a good deal of the frivolous lawsuits that are gumming up our courts.

Finally, if I'm a juror the plaintiff would have to convince me that the McDonald's corporation was the one at fault, and not some careless burger-flipping teenager at the grill. I would like to see company policy on special orders, mechanisms for checking those orders, and disciplinary procedures for employees that don't uphold company policy. I would think that it is McDonald's policy to give the customers what they ask for. Expecting them to police every single employee is unrealistic. So, if this guy has a case, then it appears his case is with the person who made the burger more so than the company he works for. Why isn't he suing that person? We all know the answer to that.

Similar things happen in medicine. A doctor writes an order for a medication. The order is correct, the medication is appropriate, but the nurse mistakenly gives the wrong thing and it causes a harmful event. Who gets sued? That's right...the doctor. Why? Because the doctor is the one with the money. Is that fair? Of course not, and it's one of the reasons why many states are currently in medical crisis. So that's why I think my idea about awarding punitive damages is the right idea. A person shouldn't get $3 million for basically being an idiot and not realizing that coffee is hot and may burn. Cover the medical costs and damages for the plaintiff, but give the punitive award to someone who shares none of the blame. I think it would go a long way to solving some of the problems of our litigious society.