Is it just me, or has the news lately seemed like a Flashback to the 1970’s? We have high gas prices, high food prices, rising inflation and rising unemployment. All that is missing is the polyester Leisure suits and the bad hairstyles. 

In 1973, OPEC embargoed the U.S. because of its support of Israel in the 6-day war. Now, it looks like they are punishing us for removing Saddam Hussein. The reasons don’t matter, because the effect is the same. While there is no embargo directed specifically at the US, the restricted OPEC production is achieving the same increase in prices, only without the long gas lines. 

Of course, higher fuel prices drive prices up on all other goods in which transportation costs are a significant contributor (e.g. food, clothing, office supplies, etc.) While the government has seen fit to omit fuel prices from the consumer price index, the multiplier effect of rising energy prices is finally spilling over into all other facets of the economy. 

The only question that remains is, what we shall do this time?

The wage-price spiral and ensuing unemployment that resulted in the stagflation of the 1970’s cannot be far behind. The misery index sited by Democratic Candidate Jimmy Carter, in 1976 was only 13%. By the 1980 election, it had risen to 21% (7.5% unemployment plus 13% inflation). 

Federal Reserve Chairman, Paul Volcker, prescribed bitter medicine to break the cycle, driving the Prime Interest rate up to 20%. The economy came to a complete stand still. President Reagan’s tax cuts did not begin to take effect in stimulating the economy until 1983.  If Jimmy Carter had been reelected, would the economy have ever recovered? Jimmy Carter once argued that the energy crisis was the “moral equivalent of war,” drawing upon William James’ call for National conscription of America’s youth to service. However, we find ourselves today in a genuine war against an enemy financed by our own oil purchases. Only in today’s post-modern insanity could we find ourselves paying for our own destruction.

This madness has to stop.

Drill here, Drill now, pay less is entirely inadequate to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. It is not enough simply to supply our own needs for petroleum. Our allies need energy, as well. Perhaps, if we had engaged in a strategy that not only supplied us with sufficient oil, but also guaranteed our allies access, they would not have found it necessary to engage in the “Palaces for Oil” campaign with Saddam and now with Iran.

We must not only make all of western civilization energy self-sufficient, we must completely crush OPEC.

OPEC has used its power to not only enrich themselves, but also finance the greatest threat to western civilization since WWII. We cannot allow Iran to complete development of its nuclear weapons. We cannot allow North Korea or Pakistan to continue to spread their knowledge of manufacturing nuclear weapons to nations such as Syria or even Saudi Arabia.

The United States and its allies must financially destroy OPEC and forever disband it from reforming. World Peace, or at least Freedom from Islamic Terrorism, is at stake.

First, we must cut loose from the bonds of our own making when it comes to petroleum production and refining, then we must embark on a mission of complete and total energy independence for our allies and us. 

Whatever it takes!

We must then prepare to seize all financial assets of the OPEC nations and blockade their ports, if necessary, in order to force their dissolution.

Teddy Roosevelt would have never stood for foreign nations seizing our plants and equipment and using them against us, as we have let the various nations of OPEC, including Mexico and Venezuela, do to us.

Wars are won not only on the battlefield, but also in cutting off the supply lines supporting the troops engaged in fighting. It is time that we cut the cash flow financing Islamic Terror. Our attempts at focused response in Afghanistan and Iraq have failed to curtail Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and the rest. It is time that we change our strategic objective and accept the fact that the war on terror will only

end when the only thing that they have left to fight with are sticks and stones.

While John McCain may not have come to this conclusion, yet, Barack Obama will NEVER reach it. The “moral equivalent of war” has been replaced by the real thing. Therefore, we need a commander in chief, not an appeaser in chief. The choice may be painful for some, but we have no other realistic option. We must elect John McCain President of the United States, not Barack Obama. Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead!

So retrieve your mood ring and pet rock from inside the pyramid and boogie on down to the nearest discotheque. (My 8-track is on the fritz!)

As the late, Frank Zappa once said, Sheik yer bootie, and let’s go kick some Sheikee Butt!

Everyone in the “Professional” work place is familiar with the expression:  Don’t burn your bridges!  It’s an apt description for how conservatives in the Republican Party feel about Senator John McCain.

He steadfastly refused to acknowledge their dissatisfaction with his stance on numerous issues, let alone the legislation that he cosponsored.  Worse yet, the Senator thumbed his nose at the conservative base describing their most respected spokesmen (Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell) as “agents of intolerance.”  On the issue of illegal immigration, he treated constituents within his own party, as xenophobes and racists. 

Senator McCain believes that he knows best.  (Having been raised in the 50’s he must see himself as a modern-day Robert Young.)  He embraces the old civics lesson of the politician as “delegate” rather than representative.  The Senator revels in his role as Maverick; going against the grain of public opinion to do what is right, but unpopular.  Indeed, the mainstream media have lauded him repeatedly for his “principled” stand against the conservative base, his willingness to reach across the aisle to embrace Democrats in providing real “solutions” to problems, rather than rely on partisan ideology.

Much has been made of recent statements by Talk Radio Show Hosts Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Hugh Hewitt, Sean Hannity, etc. in their criticism of Senator McCain.  However, the portrayal that they are leading the charge is fallacious.  In fact, they are merely reflecting, not amplifying, the sentiments of conservative Republicans across the nation.  It is not, as Party Moderates claim, these “extreme” conservatives that are tearing the Republican Party apart.  As both Zell Miller and Ronald Reagan have said, “I didn’t leave the [Democratic] [Republican] Party, the Party left me.”

Senator John McCain is the one who “burned” bridges with Reagan Conservatives in the Party, not the other way around.

Now, that Senator McCain has all but sealed his win of the Republican nomination, he is attempting to patch things up and make nice.  However, he appears to draw the line at actually saying, “I’m sorry.”  His lack of regret, let alone remorse, for his treatment of loyal conservative Republicans was audible in his speech last week before CPAC.  Nary a contrite word was spoken, merely hollow promises to live up to the very ideals he has spent the past eight years denying with every major piece of legislation he has sponsored in the Senate.

In domestic relationships, saying that you are sorry is considered a minimum starting point in order to make up.  In some cases, harsh words spoken cause so much anger, hurt, and resentment that no amount of apologies can bridge the gap to reconciliation.  Each must accept the dissolution of the marriage and go their separate ways.

Is Senator McCain truly willing to repair this bridge?  And is the olive branch he has extended to the Republican conservative base sincere, not just to win the election.

This year’s Republican Convention is in Minneapolis / St. Paul, Minnesota, the site of last year’s horrific freeway bridge collapse.  It seems there were a few fires on that bridge, as well.  A prophetic glimpse into this year’s future?  To paraphrase Shakespeare,

“Alack, our terrene moon
Is now eclipsed;
and it portends alone
The fall of John McCain.”

Well, maybe it’s more of a fantasy.  After all, it involves John McCain as President.  No, that doesn’t necessarily make it a nightmare.  Way back in the 1980’s, Saturday Night Live performed a little skit in which Ronald Reagan was portrayed as a driven, involved President leading an exhausted staff through a planning session for new legislation.  An aide interrupts and introduces a child for a photo op.  Reagan stops what he is doing and engages the child as his friendly, carefree, smiling caricature for which he was so widely recognized.  Once the photo-op was concluded and the door was closed, he resumed his near manic state of verbally flogging his staff to wake up and get with it, as he once again began to lead them all in an intricate discussion of the proposed legislation.

The obvious point being what if the real Ronald Reagan was like this fantasy depiction, rather than the laid back hands-off manager.

In my dream, Senator John McCain is elected President on November 4^th and takes office in January 2009.  After a long, legislative career in Washington D.C., kissing butts and making nice with the political class from both parties, he is finally the big Kahuna!  His lifetime ambition is realized, and he is President of the United States of America.

Instead of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, etc., it’s my way or the highway!  In my dream, President McCain unveils a new persona; not the wimpy, let’s get along, nor the liberal, stick-it-in-your-eye anti-conservative, but a REAL conservative, to the right of even Ronald Reagan.

In my dream, President McCain builds the two-layer fence the entire 2,500 mile length of the Mexican-American border, enforces employer sanctions, ends all benefits to illegal aliens, and then asks America:  Now, can we discuss Visa’s?

In my dream, President McCain doesn’t ask Congress for balanced budget, he DEMANDS one, with the Bush tax cuts made permanent, AND a corporate tax cut, AND a capital gains tax cut.

In my dream, President McCain eliminates the departments of Education and Energy. 

In my dream, President McCain tells Saudi Arabia that if they want any ammunition for the various weapon systems that we sold them, or repairs, or vital military protection from Iran, they had better start pumping oil and bring the price back down to $20 a barrel, or they will be out in the cold.  And they better dismantle OPEC and never threaten to embargo the free world again, or we will come collect our equipment by which they harvest their precious oil.  And if we can’t come get it, then we will make damn sure that they won’t be able to use it!

In my dream, once OPEC has been defanged, President McCain not only secures the U.S. southern border, but also secures the Iraqi-Iran and Iraqi-Syrian borders with a clear strike against the installations set up along both borders.

Iraq stabilizes almost immediately, the mullahs are overthrown in Iran, and Al Qaeda surrenders in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In my dream, President McCain tells Syria to get out of Lebanon, or else!  After the little demonstration at the Iraqi border, Syria complies.

In my dream, President McCain tells Syria to stop supporting Hamas and Hezbollah.

In my dream, President McCain tells the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and Hezbollah to stop attacking Israel, or we will simply let Israel loose to go medieval on their behinds!

In my dream, President McCain appoints the most conservative justices to the Supreme Court since the 1880’s.  Roe v. Wade is overturned within six months.  Kelo is overturned soon after and property rights are fully restored, neutering the environmental whackos once and for all.

In my dream, President McCain, rescinds Sarbanes-Oxley, CAFE standards, and a host of regulations restraining American businesses.

In my dream, President McCain blocks automatic remittance of legal fees to firms who sue the U.S. Government.  The ACLU declares Bankruptcy the next day.  Afterwards, he passes legislation eliminating punitive damages, thus enacting the most aggressive tort reform ever envisioned.

In my dream, President McCain commissions that the face of Ronald Reagan be carved into the face of Mount Rushmore!

In my dream... Whew!  That’s enough already.  I had too much to dream last night!

But I’m sure you get the point. 

If only....?

Dre-ee-ee-ee-ee-eam...dream dream dre-ee-eam... (Everly brothers).

This charming film about an undersized Notre Dame Football player harkens as much to another film about Notre Dame, Knute Rockne, as it does to our desires to see a renewed dedication to the conservative principles realized by the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, the Gipper.

Reagan’s theme was simple:  Return to the principles of our forefathers, the author’s of our Constitution and The Declaration of Independence.  These principles succeeded for over 145 years, prior to their abandonment in the age of the New Deal.  From a man, once a faithful Democrat and defender of the New Deal came a message that repudiated all that the New Deal stood for, Government rescue from the free market.  By 1980, it had become clear that the cure was worse than the disease.

Ronald Reagan pursued the return to liberty, via Free-Market economics vigorously, reducing taxes, regulations, and government control of Americans’ daily lives.  However, his mission was left incomplete.  Other distractions drew his attention away.  The cold war was not yet over.  In defeating the Soviet Union, President Reagan used up much of his political capital with Congress.  Not enough was left to complete the task of liberating America from the Nanny state.

Likewise, President Bush has found it difficult to make the strides promised in fixing Social Security, Medicare, and out-of-control Federal spending.  Too much political capital had to expended in staying the course in the war on terror.  It will be the task of the next president to follow through on both the war on terror AND the Conservative vision of smaller government.

The question is:  Who should that next President be? 

Who, among the various candidates, will lead us against these challenges?  Well, first of all we can rule out any of the Democratic candidates.  After all who among them is not calling for more government spending and control?  But what of our Republican candidates?  Who among them most passionately believes and embraces these core principles of lower taxes, smaller government, peace through strength, and moral conscience drawn from our common Judeo-Christian heritage?

All of our candidates share our common faith heritage, whether Catholic, Baptist, Episcopalian, or even Mormon.  Each has emphatically defended maintaining a strong National Defense, if not the war on terror.  However, only two remaining candidates have stood strong and fast on the fundamental principles of smaller government.  They are Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani. 

Ron Paul, while a staunch defender of smaller government, lacks a clear vision of how to achieve this goal, and has so far failed to win a single primary. 

Unfortunately, while Rudy may have a plan, he also has yet to win a primary.  This is truly a dilemma for conservative Republicans.  Rudy is vilified for his lack of conservative principles by social conservatives.  Let’s start alphabetically with Abortion.  Rudy has openly acknowledged his support for a woman’s right to choose.  He clearly will not be supporting an amendment to the constitution for the Right to Life.  However, even if he did support such an amendment, it is highly improbable that it would ever be accomplished, since we lack the support in Congress from which such an amendment must originate.  More importantly, Rudy has pledged to support the appointment of strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court and all other federal judgeships.  For social conservatives, this is the most critical point of focus.  For it is the Federal courts that have been the instrument of our undoing, going back to the Scopes Monkey trial, the “separation of Church and State,” to the more recent Lawrence vs. the State of Texas, establishing a “Right” to commit sodomy.  Furthermore, strict constructionist judges will do more to protect the second amendment right to bear arms, than all of the trips to gun shows by the other candidates combined!  With Ted Olsen as his legal adviser, Rudy’s pledge comes with a degree of trustworthiness that his critics appear unwilling to grant.  Perhaps it is time for them to reconsider. 

While lacking military experience may seem a weakness, let’s not forget that our revered Ronald Reagan also had not served.  Reagan’s lack of service, in no way weakened his resolve, nor undermined his judgment on the decision of when to deploy our troops.  Based on his performance during 9/11, is there any doubt that Rudy can remain cool under pressure?

The MSM has attempted to aid the Democrats by distracting the American Public from the fact that the Surge is working and instead focusing on the economy.  Senator McCain’s own self-admitted weakness in the area of economics removes him as a champion for smaller government.  Governor Mike Huckabee has been all over the map with economic policies ranging from the Fair tax to opposition to school vouchers and had once proposed a national smoking ban, hardly the stuff of a small government conservative.  Finally Mitt Romney, while clearly demonstrating incredible business acumen, has failed thus far to demonstrate a philosophical dedication to the principle that the government that governs best, is the government that governs least.  However, successful his Massachusetts Health Care Plan may appear to be, it is fundamentally in opposition to this core conservative principle.  Just as many conservatives have been critical of our current president’s no-child-left-behind act and its intrusion by the Federal Government into what we believe to be a local affair, Governor Romney’s willingness to engage the Federal Government as a solution to our health care woes poses a far greater threat to our individual freedom.

Finally, in the case of lower taxes and smaller government, no one has outlined a more clear and concise plan the Rudy Giuliani.  With Steve Forbes as his advisor, Rudy has garnered the support of the Club for Growth.  From reducing corporate taxes and capital gain taxes, eliminating permanently the estate “Death” tax, and the equally despised Alternative Minimum Tax, Rudy has outlined a real stimulus package designed to strengthen our economy by eliminating the very tax burdens that make America less competitive abroad.  These changes will do more to restore economic growth and encourage companies to keep jobs in America, than anything proposed by any other Republican candidate, let alone the Democrats.

Sincerity and truthfulness matter.  Rudy remains consistent in his stand on issues. Rudy has not flip-flopped on any issue since the start of his campaign, well over a year ago.  What other candidate can legitimately make the same claim?

The appointment of strict constructionist Judges and the shrinking of the Federal Government will do more to restore our ability as social conservatives to maintain and strengthen moral values, than all of the pledges to support a right to life amendment will ever accomplish.  As Ronald Reagan said, “Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.”  No candidate embraces this core principle with greater zeal than Rudy Giuliani.

Mike Huckabee is a perfect example of just how far left the Democratic Party has moved.  As has been opined before, JFK, if he were alive today, would not recognize his own party.  As recently as the 1984 Presidential election, the demographics of the Southeastern and Southwestern (Texas and New Mexico) regions of the US were considered stalwart Democratic states.  Even though most of the Democrats from these states were substantially more conservative on social issues than those in the Northeast or West Coast, they remained Democrats, a tradition embedded in their history going back over 100 years!  Some of our finest defenders of American Values at home and abroad, such as Senator Sam Nunn (Georgia), and Senator Fritz Hollings (South Carolina) were Democrats who frequently sided with President Reagan on issues of National Defense and Foreign Policy.  Ronald Reagan persuaded many old-time, southern Democrats to cross lines and vote for him for President, even as they sent Democrats to the House and Senate.

“The times they are a changing!” sang Bob Dylan.  How true it is!  These same regions produced Newt Gingrich (Georgia) and Dick Armey (Texas), who led the Republican Revolution of 1994 with the Contract for America.  (See http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/4/25/131113.shtml)

Bill Clinton preceded Mike Huckabee as Governor of Arkansas, but the two did not govern the state very differently.  The fundamental values of Arkansas haven’t changed, only the name of the political party of many Arkansas voters has changed.

Mike Huckabee is as legitimate a conservative, as is any former Blue-Dog Democrat that has joined the Republican Party.  Not to contradict the wise one, Rush Limbaugh, but this is part of Reagan’s Legacy:  The conversion of Conservative Democrats to Republicans.  Of course, the rise of the far left in dominating the Democratic Party may have contributed a little to the change, as well.  When the Democratic Party began to block ALL opposition to abortion at its conventions, embrace same-sex marriage, and characterize anyone who disagreed as knuckle-dragging Neanderthals, more than a few southern democrats feeling unwelcome in the Party of their Parents and Grandparents, became Republicans.

While Mike Huckabee may not carry all three legs of the proverbial stool with which Reagan united the Republican Party, he is a welcome addition to our “BIG” Tent!  Our Goal as “complete” conservatives must be to work on converting our southern brethren to “Fiscal” conservatism, to go along with their already existing social and Foreign Policy conservatism.  And enjoy watching the Democrats continue down the road of irrelevancy!

Early in the campaign, Rudy Giuliani was criticized for being a Liberal on social issues, and therefore, undeserving of the Republican nomination.  Likewise, Mitt Romney was accused of “flipping” his stand on abortion, albeit, in the right direction, and therefore untrustworthy as a true “social” conservative. Both candidates apparently lacking sufficient bonafides to carry forward the conservative banner, failed to secure endorsements from any of the nationally recognized leaders of social conservatism.  Since then, Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy and David Keene has endorsed Mitt Romney.  Both endorsements have been met with skepticism from the social conservative base.  Currently, Mike Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, is enjoying a strong showing in Iowa.  The MSM is also backing him as the heir to “compassionate” conservatism espoused by President Bush.  However, the Club for Growth, the Cato Institute, and others have severely castigated the former Arkansas governor as a spendthrift, and therefore, not a “true” conservative. 

The latest polls from South Carolina show undecided Republicans outnumber the current leader, Mitt Romney 28% to 17%.  The Conservative Base of the Republican Party is dissatisfied, and undecided.  No single candidate satisfactorily embraces both Fiscal and Social Conservatism the way Ronald Reagan did.  Moreover, the countdown toward the Iowa and New Hampshire Primaries is less than 40 days!

What choice should “Social” conservatives make? 

Is there some rationale that would justify choosing one candidate over another, if we are forced to choose between Fiscal and Social conservative positions?

Here is my rationale for choosing Fiscal conservatives with moderate to liberal social leanings (e.g. Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, or Fred Thompson) over Social conservatives with moderate to liberal fiscal attitudes (e.g. Mike Huckabee).

Social conservatives who are fiscally liberal will allow the Federal government to continue growing in size, and therefore, continue to increasingly regulate every aspect of our daily lives!  Our current President is known as a “Big Government” conservative.  (What an oxymoron!) 

Advancing social conservatism demands smaller government, especially the Federal Government.  The ACLU, NARAL, and other Liberal organizations would not be successful at blocking and overturning State and Local standards, if it were not for their ability to enlist the aid of the Federal Government on their behalf.  The Federal Government’s intrusion both Legislatively and Judicially interferes with State and Local standards of morality. 

Fiscal conservatives that successfully shrink the size of the Federal Government will inherently tip the balance back in favor of the States and local communities, empowering them to establish and maintain standards of morality that they desire.  This includes everything from abortion, gay marriage, stem-cell research, etc.

Social conservatives, who abandon smaller government ideals, unwittingly render their fight for moral standards impotent.  On the other hand, Fiscal conservatives, by actively shrinking the size of government, inherently reinforce conservative social values by neutralizing the only tool secular progressives have ever successfully wielded against community standards:  the Federal Government.

Fiscal conservatives, who also commit to appointing strict constructionist judges, will achieve greater success in advancing the social conservative agenda, than any “compassionate” or “Big Government” conservative ever could!

Conservatives should not abandon the Republican party, and stay home on election day, just because the candidate nominated does not fulfill their expectations for supporting traditional values.  Both in the primary and the general election, a vote for the Truly, Fiscal conservative candidate IS a vote for family values!

Many of you have spent the past several weeks calling, writing, and/or faxing your Senator about the Immigration Reform Bill. Most of you opposed the bill, which is why it was stopped; or was that the real reason that it was stopped?

What I am about to propose is not the result of any belief in “secret” conspiracies, but a cynicism born of experience in watching Washington Politics. The Immigration Reform bill failed because no one really wanted it to pass! The authors included features in the bill that ensured it would be opposed by both sides of the Political spectrum. Why? Because both sides have vested interests in maintaining the status quo.

The Republicans, backed by big and small businesses alike, prefer to keep the immigrants illegal, so that Labor costs remain cheap. Currently, illegal immigrants accept less pay than American workers do because employers hold the threat of firing them at will and reporting them to INS. The current law recreates the same labor environment that existed prior to passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Workers were entirely at the mercy of the employer. Little or no safety protections were provided; no increased wage rate for overtime was paid, and no minimum wage existed. Why would employers voluntarily give up such an advantage, especially in the Midwest and Northeast, where labor provided by illegal aliens has become the most successful “scab” Union-busting workforce ever discovered! (Not that I am endorsing Unions, but illegal is still illegal!) Once “regularized” the formerly illegal immigrants can negotiate on equal footing with American workers for better wages and benefits. They can join Unions, petition the EEOC, OSHA, and a host of many other legal avenues to lay claim to rights and benefits previously denied. Only the competition from new immigrants, driven by the law of supply and demand, will provide downward pressure on wages. Employers will no longer be able to hold the threat of arbitrary dismissal or deportation over their heads, as a means to keep wages below what the “legal” market would bear. These are the rather obvious reasons why Republicans oppose the bill.

Democrats also oppose the bill, but for different reasons. Unions provide the single largest block of contributions to Democratic campaign coffers. Supporting Immigration Reform would antagonize this special interest. Even the desire for NEW Democratic Party members that might arise out of such a high volume of newly registered voters is insufficient incentive to risk losing the votes, and more importantly, the cash contributions from the nation’s Unions. (A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush!)

In reality, neither political party wants immigration reform. The only question that remains is who to blame for its failure. Political points can still be scored by whichever side can successfully place the blame for failure on the other.

Immigration Reform is doomed, not because Conservatives are holding out for enforcement, or because Liberals want to relax the path to citizenship even further, but because both sides like the current system, just the way it is.

The only game they are really playing is pin the tail on the Donkey (or Elephant).

 I don't have the greatest track record of having my "letters to the editor" published by the Arizona Republic.  Therefore, I am posting my view here on my blog.  If they print my letter, that will be gravy, but I'm hoping to persuade all of you who read this to join the chorus calling for the complete removal/replacement of the Arizona 9/11 Memorial!  If you don't see the similarity, then check out Michelle Malkin's take on the United 93 Memorial Michelle Malkin on United 93 Memorial, and these photos posted at HotAir.com of the Arizona 9/11 Memorial:  Arizona 9-11 Memorial).

Gov. Napolitano, Tear Down this Memorial!

The Arizona 9-11 Memorial is a disgrace and an INSULT to the thousands of men and women who lost their lives on September 11, 2001. It’s not just about the nutty political statements engraved into the memorial, but the very structure itself is an insult! In Shanksville, Pennsylvania, the political extremists tried to build the same “structure” there. What is that structure? It’s an Islamic Crescent! Local residents and families of the victims exposed the hidden agenda of the United 93 memorial and demanded that it be changed. Arizonans, we have been snookered! This structure should NEVER have been approved. It’s not about Islam, per se, but about the fact that the very perpetrators of the attacks claimed themselves to be committing their heinous acts in the NAME of ISLAM! This alone, should explain why it is entirely inappropriate to build a memorial in the shape of the Islamic Crescent! (If the Muslim community wished to contribute to the memorial expressing outrage against the attackers and condolences for the victims and their families, that might be acceptable, even with a crescent symbol.) However, this outrageous structure built in the shape of an Islamic Crescent is UNACCEPTABLE! The entire structure should be removed and sold for scrap. We need a NEW Commission, whose every action is publicly reviewed, to build a memorial that will be true to the memory of that day!

I have resisted the call of those who compare the “War against Terror” to Vietnam. Our early victories in Afghanistan and Iraq completely undermined their shrill cries of Quagmire. The claim that we could not succeed where the Soviet’s had failed seemed a dim reminder, not of the invincibility of the enemy, but of the sad state of the Soviet Army toward the end of the Soviet Union’s brief 60 year history. But that was 5 years ago. Things have changed and NOT for the better! Political Correctness has now overwhelmed our natural instinct for self-preservation.

America has never lost a war! However, once upon a time, we did walk away from one. After 30 years, there are still many who believe that we did the right thing by walking away. They pat themselves on the back for their courage in standing up to the evil war mongers. They take pride in the fact that fewer of our soldiers died because we brought them home, stopped the draft, and ended the war. Not a single one of them has ever, EVER acknowledged the horrific deaths (over 1 million!) at the hands of the communists in Vietnam and Cambodia after we left. In their rose-tinted view of history, they are heroes, deaf to the cries from the grave of all those we abandoned to the barbaric Pol Pot and Soviet backed Vietnamese. However, even if we were to grant them clemency for failing to stand by our allies; they should not be pardoned for the deaths of American soldiers caused by their criticisms during the war.

The demands by 60’s anti-war activists for restraint from attacking the enemy hiding in Cambodia, even as they were attacking us, killed American soldiers just as surely as if they had pulled the trigger themselves. The political constraints on our military to “hold the line,” but never advance beyond it to fully defeat and disarm the enemy led to many more deaths than should otherwise have occurred. The unwillingness of the anti-war critics to accept the consequences of their actions in the deaths of American soldiers in Vietnam has now blossomed into an even more arrogant, denial of the consequences of their politically motivated constraints on our soldiers in the current war being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is why we must now drop all pretense and openly denounce these anti-war leftists, as unpatriotic. When your own political desires outweigh the value of American soldiers’ lives, you are no longer a patriot!

The actions of the anti-war lobby have resulted and will continue to result in the deaths of American soldiers. Constraining our soldiers, with politically correct “rules of engagement” causes hesitancy. Hesitancy, in the face of enemy attacks, results in death for our soldiers, instead of death for the enemy. Furthermore, the constraints shackling our “rules of engagement” shield the enemy from our best opportunities for Victory, leaving them alive to attack and Kill us another day! It is this last consequence that has been exposed by the most recent events in Afghanistan, where a funeral attended by over one hundred Taliban was NOT attacked because of politically constrained “rules of engagement.”

We have left loose in our midst the very enemy we are there to destroy, and consequently, provided them many more opportunities to kill our soldiers. This action reveals more than any other how the anti-war leftists have truly succeeded in transforming the “War against Terror” into another Vietnam. God help us, but I will never, ever again leave the statement “Dissent IS Patriotic” go unchallenged! Our soldiers’ lives depend on it!

Congressman Vernon J. Ehlers, R-Mich, conducted a Field Hearing in Phoenix, Arizona as Chair of the Committee on House Administration concerning voter fraud in Federal Elections. Because of Arizona’s passage in 2004 of Proposition 200, all residents of Arizona are required to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote and proof of identification at the Poll before casting votes. In attendance at the hearing were Congressman J.D. Hayworth R-AZ, Congressman Trent Franks, R-AZ, Congressman Raul Grijalva D-AZ, and Congressman Ed Pastor, D-AZ. Testimony was presented by Jan Brewer, Arizona Secretary of State (R), Andrew Thomas, Maricopa County Attorney (R), Karen Osborne, Director of Elections, Maricopa County, Penny L. Pew, Director of Elections, Apache County Arizona, Daniel Ortega, Attorney, Mary Wilson, President League of Women Voters, and Raphael Behr, President, Intertribal Council of Arizona.

Chairman Ehlers emphasized that the hearing would address all voter fraud, not just the specific example of illegal aliens attempting to vote. He joked about his desire to be buried in the Chicago area, so that he could continue voting long after he passed away. Similarly, he relayed a joke about a man in Tennessee, who registered both himself and his dog. The local election committee chose to look the other way, until he got greedy and registered both of them in 3 different Precincts.

Secretary of State Brewer testified about the implementation of rules required to bring the State into compliance with Prop. 200. She documented the number of provisional ballots cast in two recent local elections, the first elections held since the new rules were adopted. (Prop. 200 passed in November 2004, but it took until January 2006 before it was actually implemented due to delays resulting from court challenges as well as foot dragging by the Arizona Governor and State Attorney General.) Secretary Brewer gave specific details on the number of people who returned after casting a provisional ballot that same day with proper ID, and the number of individuals who NEVER returned with proper ID, even with a grace period of 3 – 5 days following the election. For example, an election conducted in May 2006 had 155 provisional ballots cast. 43 returned that same day with proper ID. Approximately 96% of the voters who cast the remaining provisional ballots never returned with proper ID to validate their ballot. (Was it because they considered it moot, once the election results were posted or because they were attempting to vote fraudulently?)

Additional testimony from County Attorney Andrew Thomas revealed that his office was engaged in prosecuting 10 individuals for registering to vote without proof of citizenship, four of whom actually voted in an election. This is only the beginning of the investigation. More charges will likely be brought for additional cases before the investigation is complete.

Prior to the passage of Prop. 200, no mechanisms existed in Arizona for documenting voter fraud. This did not stop Mary Wilson, National President of the League of Women Voters from describing the problem as “miniscule” and “imaginary.” Similarly, she and Daniel Ortega, a local Phoenix Attorney and activist, described all attempts to validate voter eligibility at registration or polling locations as “onerous.” Rep. Ed Pastor expressed concern about the “chilling” effect that such rules have already had upon voters in Arizona. Raphael Behr, President of the Intertribal Council in Arizona described the difficulties faced by Native Americans living on reservations in circumstances that did not provide the type of alternative documentation acceptable to the Secretary of State’s office in order to register to vote, or cast their vote at the polling place on Election Day. Congressman Pastor relayed a personal story about the difficulty faced by his 86-year old mother, who no longer has a valid driver license nor a birth certificate to provide proof of ID at the Poll.

In response, Secretary Brewer and Penny L. Pew, Director of Elections for Apache County Arizona described the lengths to which the State of Arizona has gone in order to overcome these problems for the large Native American population in Apache County. Indeed, the Secretary’s office mails to every voter registered in Arizona, a unique Voter ID card AND a sample ballot, both of which are acceptable as Proof of Identification at the Polls. It was clear from the discussion that more work needed to be done to assist Native Americans, who often have no permanent address, with obtaining valid identification for use at the polls.

The overriding incongruity of the hearing was the extreme weight placed upon the requirement that no voter be “disenfranchised” while at the same time belittling any question as to the integrity of the process. Several witnesses pointed out that the number of people being prosecuted represent less than 0.02% of the voters in Maricopa County. However, Secretary of State Jan Brewer pointed out that those who failed to return with proper ID after casting a provisional ballot in her examples represented 0.5% of the votes cast. Elections have been decided by fewer votes than this.

Historically, our justice system hailed that it was better that a thousand guilty men go free, than even one innocent man be wrongly convicted. This appears to be the model selected by the League of Women Voters and all others opposing any attempt to ensure the integrity of our election system. It is better that 1,000 votes be cast fraudulently, than even one legitimate vote be denied!

A balance must be struck between the desire to preserve the right to vote for all who legally possess it and the need to preserve the integrity of the system from all who would subvert it. Sadly, neither the Democratic Party, nor activist organizations, such as the League of Women voters or the Arizona based Valley Interfaith Project have expressed any desire for such balance. (Are these goals truly as mutually exclusive as these leftists make it appear?)

Chairman Ehlers opened the hearing by announcing that anyone who wished to provide testimony to be entered into the record could do so up to seven days from the date of the hearing, via email or US Mail. This allowance was made due the lack of time during the hearing to entertain more witnesses.

However, the Valley Interfaith Project, found this allowance wholly inadequate. At the end of the hearing, a spokesperson for VIP, along with about 20 followers forcefully approached the dais, over the protests of Chairman Ehlers, to present a one-page document to be entered into the record; and then proceeded to march, single file out of the hearing.

One final note on the conduct at the hearing. Chairman Ehler had to chastise the audience on at least three separate occasions to remain silent and NOT cheer, boo, or otherwise express agreement or disagreement at the end of a statement. Each member of the committee was respectful to the witnesses and kept the grandstanding to a minimum, with the exception of Rep. Raul Grijalva, who felt it necessary to pander to Raphael Behr, President of the Intertribal Council of Arizona, by referring to him as the only one in the room who was not an immigrant. Pardon me, Congressman Grijalva, but over 80% of the room was filled with people who were not immigrants. I myself am a fifth generation American. Most of us strongly resent being portrayed as anything other than native-born Americans. It would be nice if Congressman Grijalva could match his behavior to the standards of conduct expected for such an august body as the US House of Representatives, rather than that of a Junior High School Student Council.

Wow! Now, I know what constitutes a “Disproportionate” response. It’s not Israel’s response to Hezbollah attacks from civilian locations within Lebanon. It’s the media’s response to Mel Gibson’s drunken slander of “Jews” from the back of a squad car!

Now, let’s get this straight: I am NOT defending what Mel Gibson said. But let’s at least took a good look at what he really said. Gibson said “F-----g Jews!” followed by “The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.” and finally asked the arresting officer, James Mee, “Are you a Jew?” He did not claim that Jews make bread from the blood of Palestinian children, as taught in Madrassahs across the world. He did not recite from the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” as is done in every Arabic Newspaper throughout the Middle East. He didn’t even lay claim to the Jews running Hollywood. Mel Gibson, under the influence of alcohol, made embarrassing ethnic slurs during an arrest. That’s the fact, Jack! All of the amateur psychoanalysis by every talk-show host in the nation really can’t justify inferring anything more from this incident.

Furthermore, Mel Gibson has issued one of the most profoundly humble apologies that I have ever read. Questioning its sincerity seems pitiful and childish. Mr. Gibson has been accused of being an anti-Semite ever since it was announced that he would film “The Passion.” Insulting him personally wasn’t sufficient for some, so they went after his Father, accusing him of being an anti-Semite and holocaust denier. The man was well over 80 years old and in ill health. Maybe someone should have cut him a little slack. Now, this incident occurs, and it becomes another excuse to pile-on the “Mel Gibson hates Jews” bandwagon. Enough is enough. The hyperbole and vitriol expressed towards this man is completely unwarranted. The punishment should fit the crime. He has expressed sincere remorse and a desire to make restitution for his actions. What more does he need to do to satisfy the “holier than thou” accusers?

In the midst of the horror being perpetrated against civilization in the name of real hatred of Jews, can we all just ‘get a grip’ about this incident and accept it for what it is: an expression of the human failings of a man struggling with addiction? Bombing Hezbollah and Hamas is warranted; bombing Mel Gibson, even verbally, is not.

 I cannot be a one issue malcontent. I cannot walk away from this President even over something as fundamentally important as protecting our borders from illegal immigration, drug runners, and terrorist infiltrators. His stance in support of Israel against Hezbollah and Hamas is just too stunning to ignore!

Whether Israel is viewed as a proxy for our fight against Syria and Iran and their interference with our objectives in Iraq, or simply an ally who needs our support, President Bush has remained firm in his refusal to acquiesce to international calls for an immediate cease-fire.

How much longer can Hezbollah continue to launch missiles at Israel before they run out? Will they be able to obtain more? From Whom? And what exactly will be Israel’s response when proof of Syria’s and/or Iran’s delivery of artillery and missiles is finally broadcast for all the world to see?

If Syria and Iran are foolish enough to allow themselves to be drawn into this conflict, then they deserve everything that will be coming to them. When the smoke clears, what will remain? Will Syria be able to form a government without terrorist members? Will Iran? If the insurgents in Iraq lose Iran and Syria as sugar daddies, will they simply dry up and blow away?

If the only terrorist financiers remaining in the Middle East are Yemen and Saudi Arabia, will they finally be forced to change, exposed to international scrutiny? Oh, but for the many more constructive uses of oil money that these Islamic Barons could provide, other than funding Madrasas bent on educating another generation of fanatics devoted to murdering Jews and Infidels!

Side Note: Building a Mosque in Miami should not be denied on the basis of the teachings in the Koran, or of Islam, but on whether or not they promise NOT to teach hate and violence. Peaceful Islam is welcome, but a false front for a Madrasa designed to inculcate another group of impressionable, down-trodden youth in the philosophy of violent overthrow of our Infidel government should be firmly denied!

Finally, for those who have not yet seen the video, Tony Snow demonstrates once again why he was such a BRILLIANT choice to replace Scott McClellan. Check it out!

Tony and Helen: Together Again!

Hezbollah has called for open war with Israel! If they honestly believe that they can defeat Israel, then they truly are insane. The more likely outcome is that they will finally draw Syria into an open conflict with Israel.
While no one wants to see war erupt, now that it is here, the best chance for peace is outright annihilation of the terrorist regimes (Hezbollah and Hamas) and their #1 sponsor, Syria. Israel should not stop until Hezbollah and Hamas have too few members left alive to fight another day. If Syria chooses to join the battle, then may God have mercy on their citizens. The Syrian government should be utterly destroyed.
By wiping out Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria, Israel will have isolated Iran as the sole remaining sponsor of terror in the region. It will remove Syria and Lebanon as sources of insurgents in Iraq and bring to light the degree that Iran is both financing and militarily supporting the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq.
While engaging Iran directly would open up the Middle East War to its highest level of conflict in modern history, it may also bring about the greatest opportunity for lasting peace. No other nation stands at the forefront of terror, as does Iran. We have neutralized Afghanistan and Iraq. Neutering Syria and Iran NOW would come as close to putting an end to the War on Terror as any opportunity we are likely to see in the next 10 years.
These are indeed tumultuous times; however, we should not be too quick to jump into negotiations for peace. Israel’s opponents are NOT honorable! They will strike again, if Israel lets them live to do so. Instead of putting pressure on Israel to negotiate, the US should be putting pressure on Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah and for Syria to promise to stay within its borders. Neither promise is likely to be accepted, let alone kept by Lebanon or Syria.

Absolute and Total Victory by Israel over Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria is truly our best hope for peace and an early end to the War on Terror.