Gordon Brown’s Reaction to Terror

Gordon Brown took office as Great Britain’s Prime Minister replacing Tony Blair on June 29, 2007. On the same day, two related terrorist plots were foiled – in part by the idiot terrorists themselves. The next day, they tried it again in Glasgow. With doctors like this roaming the face of the earth, it’s a wonder malpractice insurance is as low as it is. Gordon Brown has received accolades for the way he has handled the situation.

Personally, I don’t know a whole lot about Brown except that he stands in stark contrast in style to Blair and appears to be a friend of the United States as well. He is being roundly cheered for his response, which has essentially been to tell Brits to carry on.

OK. I get it, but I would have found him more likeable and more credible if I had heard him give Blair some credit for the phenomenal investigation that MI5, presumably in cooperation with other intelligence agencies around the world, has conducted in the past few days. Brown didn’t put together a team in a few hours capable of conducting a James Bond style operation reaching around the world to capture terrorists as far away as Australia-heading-for Pakistan within a few days. No, that was put in place by his predecessor during the previous 10 years.

It’s all well and good that Gordon Brown be the leader, the strong leader that learns from the mistakes of the past – as we all should. But Tony Blair deserves better than to be thrown out like yesterday’s garbage, and he will get better treatment than that here. Those are HIS fingerprints you see around the throats of these terrorists.

Thank you, Prime Minister Blair for that and so much more. May your successor be as successful and memorable – flamboyant and charismatic or not. We will see and assess Browns mettle during their prosecution.

Immigration Reform – Deformed (Mexican Food)

The immigration bill was killed; now it’s alive again. It apparently has more lives than a cat. I am being called a racist on the news shows (even on Fox News by Geraldo) because I believe the laws of the land ought to be enforced. You know, the ones on the books making invasion of the United Stated illegal since 1986, signed by Reagan and enforced by no one since then.

So for those of you who may agree with me, here is the next argument intended to assault your integrity as soon as the new version of this idiot bill sees resistance. I’m preparing you for it now, so don’t say you weren’t warned. ”Oh, you don’t mind eating Mexican food, but having a few Mexicans around to cook it for you is objectionable, you racist.”

Here is the correct response. “No you [add expletive if desired. You’ve earned the right at this point] moron. I love legal Mexican food, preferably cooked by legal Americans of Mexican descent. And by the way - that Mexican-American crap, or any other hyphenated American. I don’t want them cooking my food either. I want Americans in America, who think of themselves as Americans - not any kind of hyphenated American, and if I had my way, anybody who thinks of themselves as a hyphenated American would be deported to wherever they used to hyphenate, since that is obviously where they would prefer to be. Anything else?”

No, they won’t learn a thing. But the important thing is they will not have tricked you into feeling guilt you had no business feeling.

Meanwhile, Bush and the Congress are continuing to ignore the will of the people – that they do their jobs in enforcing current laws (like the 1986 immigration law and the 2006 fence authorization) rather than create a third law to ignore. These are the activities that serve as the principal argument for term limits. Can’t we extend them to include the Congress?

Maybe Cheney becoming a fourth branch of government isn’t such a bad idea. Who in their right mind would want to be associated with what we have in there right now. That’s all I can stand to write right now as my stomach is bothering me, and believe me, it’s not the excellent Mexican food I had for lunch.

Democratic Leadership – Enabling Hamas Victory

The first tangible results of the soaring U.S. popularity triggered by the leadership of the Democratic Party’s “surrender-to-anyone” policy and George W. Bush’s “placate-the-idiots-in-Congress” policy are in. Iran and Hamas have been emboldened, and now they control the Gaza strip. For the first time since 9/11, the terrorists are winning. Way to turn the tide of the war, Senator Reid, Speaker Pelosi, and President Bush. Was this the change America voted for in 2006? Happy Flag Day.

When Israel pulled out of Gaza 3 years ago, it was in its own interest, declaring that the area was indefensible. Israel was right, apparently. The result will be a clarification of Palestine’s actual position, a single voice with a single objective – the destruction of Israel.

This will, in turn, lead to an escalation of Palestinian attacks on Israel. Israel will defend itself, be condemned by the both the world and the Democrats in Congress for trying to stay alive, and the world will be sucked in. The bad guys will be gleeful as they send their pawns to inglorious death, and the good guys will be kicking, screaming, wringing their hands, and wasting valuable time searching their souls and consciences.

Israel’s decision was based on a number of assumptions, the most important of which was continued and unwavering U.S. support. Since we are in the process of figuring out how to renege on our commitment to the citizens of Iraq, can our commitment to Israel be far behind. Not to renege would violate the Congressional surrender policy. Since they have now made war inevitable, they had better start formulating their surrender strategy now unless they want to look something other than stupid for a change.

Enter Joe Lieberman, the only person in the federal government talking sense and speaking his conscience. Take out Iranian nukes, he suggests, before they exist. For most Democrats in Congress and virtually all liberals, this ought to make perfect sense. It is nothing more than political abortion – kill the nukes in the womb, so to speak. It is a second chance to relive 1938 all over again. President Bush had better re-grow some cojones (At least he had some at one time, unlike Congress.), and the world had better start listening to the only member of Congress making sense, working for America, and speaking his conscience.

Side note on Lieberman: I hereby officially forgive Joe Lieberman for his “not guilty” vote on Clinton’s impeachment, even though I still disagree with it.

Immigration Reform - Deformed

The proposed immigration bill being sold to us by the Bush administration and the leadership in the U.S. Congress is the equivalent of the Iraq surrender bill. This is the Mexico surrender bill born of the same mindset, the same misguided expediency, and with the same consequences.

The irresponsibility of the Bush administration and all the prior administrations in not enforcing the laws currently in place is astounding. I, along with many others, believe that this has been the result of pandering to the Hispanic vote. It succeeded. If my belief is correct, President Bush, will have the blood of Americans on his hands when the WMDs that may have crossed the border under his watch are used on us. That, sadly, will be his legacy, just as intern sex and 9/11 are Clinton’s legacy.

Legacy calculation:

• War in Afghanistan +10
• War in Iraq +15
• Best economy ever +5
• Supreme Court Appointments +7
• 10,000 people die from WMDs that crossed our borders with the blessing of the U.S. Government -2,000,000
• Destruction of the Republican party -4,000

Incidentally, other administrations share the legacy hits on the WMDs on a sliding scale, with those to whom the highest urgency should have been most apparent taking the biggest hits as follows:

• Bush 43 -2,000,000
• Clinton -1,500,000
• Bush 41 -500,000
• Reagan -100,000
• Carter -4,000,000 (for nurturing terrorism)

The Congress, complacent in this, will have an equally disgraceful legacy as the enablers of the no-border policy and the obstructionists of all that truly protects us.

But I digress.

How is the immigration bill surrender? It is the attitude that you cannot deport 12,000,000 law-breaking, illegal aliens. It is true that you can’t if you don’t try. John McCain, in defending this crappy bill in typical government fashion, has said that deporting 12,000,000 people would overwhelm the legal system. Oh, so it IS possible, then Senator?

What does private industry do when faced with a sudden, temporary, overwhelming, necessary project? It quickly creates a large, temporary organization where everyone understands that there is a defined end to the project and after which their employment will end. It streamlines the process by which it achieves the necessary production (like military tribunals to deal with the invading force) and does not allow it to overwhelm the remainder of its organization. Mitt Romney knows how to do it. He did it in business, he did it in the Olympics, and he just can’t wait to do it in Washington – his words on his commercials. Well Governor, can/will you do it?

In addition, we are currently all up in arms about the irresponsibility of a tuberculosis patient, Andrew Speaker, who endangered hundreds of people by defying a CDC no-fly order repeatedly. Many believe, as I do, that he should be in jail. Not one of us believes his plea of ignorance or his sincerity in apologizing after the fact and after being apprehended. It doesn’t help that he is a lawyer either. His activity could well be dwarfed by what could be coming across the border while we turn our heads the other way.

What does the CDC know about the dangers crossing our borders? How many Americans have already been killed by illegal aliens either while committing crimes or driving with or without a license?

I take back my previous statement about Bush having American blood on his hand if WMDs are used. He and the Congress already have blood on their hands – innocent blood. The only question is “How much more blood do you really want on your hands?” Don’t tell me. Show me – now.

Honoring the Fallen on Memorial Day

We honor by our actions, not our words. Through our actions we honor those or dishonor those who made us, those who taught us, those who invested in us, those who shaped us.

As we make the politically correct noises on this Memorial day, we ask ourselves why the fallen fell, why they were willing to fall, how we feel about why they fell, and what we are willing to do to keep their dreams alive. Are their dreams our dreams?

Every soldier who has taken up arms has known all too well that their death was part of the equation. They knew it in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Cold War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War (1991), and the Iraq War (2003). They knew it equally well during the many preparatory operations, other battles and skirmishes, such as the various rebellions, interventions, and unanswered attacks such as the attack on the USS Cole. Those of us who were not asked to pay the ultimate price knew it and honor our comrades by remembering it always.

They served in all cases to preserve and strengthen the United States. We honor them when we do everything we can to continue that goal, assuming we believe it a worthy one. I believe it to be.

I believe that all who fight to achieve these goals (soldiers, politicians, and citizens) honor them by acting. I believe that all who don’t fight to achieve these goals (soldiers who refuse to fight, politicians who surrender and signal weakness to the enemy, newspapers who report state secrets unauthorized on their front pages, citizens who remain uninformed, refuse to vote, and demean the leaders who have stepped up in the hour of America’s – and, by extension, our – need) dishonor them.

Remember that on your Memorial Day picnic on your day off and reflect whether it is just another paid holiday or something more meaningful. Honor them as you would your parents, your favorite teachers, your God. Honor them by doing those things that they valued, taught, and sacrificed for. And not just on Memorial Day – from this moment on.

Suicide Bombings Are Apparently OK Now?

I guess all is right with the world then, isn’t it? According to the Pew Research Center poll of 1,050 young Muslim adults in the United States, 26% said that suicide bombings are an acceptable tactic to defend their religion.

When you break that number down, 2% say that it can be justified often, 13% say sometimes, and 11% say rarely. That 2% is still a lot of potential suicide bombers, and that is cause for concern.

This same poll shows 5% expressing favorable views of Al Qaeda with about 25% abstaining. Why abstain? There is only one reason that I know of, and that is fear of the 5% becoming 30%, which I now must assume to be the real number. Additionally, only 40% believed Arab men carried out the attacks of 9/11/2001, despite all the evidence to the contrary. The implication is that we need to resume strip-searching little old lady grandmother types. Yeah, right!

This group also favors the Democratic Party by six to one. What does that tell us? Let’s see. 86% of a group deluding itself about the worst attack ever by foreigners on American soil and has a 30% favorable view of Al Qaeda favors Democrats. That tells me that the Democrats are perceived as BFFs (Best Friends Forever) of Al Qaeda by the Muslim community. I agree with that, incidentally, and I don’t come to that conclusion lightly or based only on the Pew Survey.

Recall the interview of left-wing producer Michael Moore by libertarian Bill O’Reilly. During that interview, Moore at one point asked O’Reilly if he would sacrifice his child to go die in Iraq. Ignore for the moment the incredible irrelevance of the question (since the fate of O’Reilly’s child is in the child’s hands – not O’Reilly’s) and focus on the implication. The tactic is one common among anti-war interviewees. Could that indicate a dearth of actual logic? Let me save you the trouble; the answer is yes.

The trap is to fall for an irrelevant premise, another indication of just how stupid we here at the bottom are perceived by the left-wing in America. Say “No” and you are a hypocrite. Say “Yes” and you are a hateful, unloving parent, but at least you have a conviction and may be respected for it. The 26% of the Muslim community as represented in the Pew poll has said yes to their Iraq-equivalent question, and are therefore, by implication, worthy of respect from the left wing. What does that make the left wing? In my view, it makes the left wing Al Qaeda’s BFF.

Other indications are there as well, ranging from the retreat from fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, to protests that blame America for 9/11.

There is one more troublesome point about the Pew poll. It does not define what constitutes an attack on Islam. I think we can safely assume that Osama bin Laden would be among that 26% suicide bombing enthusiast number. In his view, not being what most of us consider to be radical Muslim fascist would constitute an attack on Islam. What is the definition for this 26% - make that about 273 potential suicide bombers? That’s a lot of potential innocents’ death, and it’s just a small statistical sample. And as for that 2% - about 21 people – look out. That’s more than it took to kill 3,000 innocents in the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon on 9/11.

Still, let’s all join the lunatic conspiracy theorists and the Muslim community that denies that 9/11 was executed by Arab men despite the crowing by the Arab men who executed it. And while we’re at it, we had better leave our borders open for a few more decades and step up our strip searches of grandmas before it’s too late.

What’s Wrong with Iraq Again?

Call me stupid if you must and think you are able to defend it, but what is the problem with the Iraq war again? As far as I can see, Iraq is THE right war at THE right place and THE right time. All the criticisms I hear daily are hollow, oft-repeated lies and/or irrelevancies that gain traction with weak politicians incapable of fighting for principle any more and people stuck in the sixties. Live in the now, people.

Let’s review the criticisms one by one.

• Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction: So what? That wasn’t the basis for the attack. The basis for attacking was that the dictator who lost the first Gulf War that he started 12 years earlier ignored the terms of his surrender. Prior to being invaded, he led us, and the world, to believe that he would retaliate with WMDs in hopes of preventing the enforcement of 17 U.N. resolutions. Anyway, we know he had WMDs because he used them on the Kurds in the 1980s. Verdict: criticism is an irrelevant lie.
• Saddam was not in league with Al Qaeda: Again, so what? That wasn’t the basis for the attack either. Besides, who says that Al Qaeda is the only enemy we should attack? In any case, they follow the same philosophy of ruling the world through terror. It’s a little like the triple-Axis of WWII where if you pay too much attention to Germany, Japan would come after you. Yeah, we should have waited for that to happen (heavy sarcasm). Verdict – the criticism is irrelevant, but given past human history, would probably have become a lie given a few more years.
• We should be going after Al Qaeda; they are the ones who attacked us: You might want to wake up and see that Al Qaeda is who we are fighting in Iraq. Oh sure, there is the Iranian influence aiding and abetting Al Qaeda, but without Al Qaeda, the Iranian government is nothing. Verdict – the criticism is a denial of what we are already doing – a flat-out lie.
• Soldiers are dying in Iraq: That’s right. Soldiers die in wars. The only way to prevent soldiers from dieing in a war is to surrender. The real issue is whether the current engagement and risk of lost treasure is worth the cause. The cause is the survival of civilization since there is no civilization on earth that does not violate Islamic law as interpreted by Al Qaeda. Verdict – True, but irrelevant, fact based on all the other factors on this page and elsewhere.
• We are less safe now than on 9/11/2001 – 3,000 Americans died on 9/11/2001; 0 since then to-date. Verdict: A lie told to you by people who believe you are a retarded, cool-aid drinker. Don’t be.
• The world is less safe now than on 9/11/2001 – Since 9/11/2001 there have been a number of attacks around the globe by terrorists in Madrid, London, and elsewhere. Most of the socialist governments in Europe have lacked the balls to deal with internal threats and many have paid the price. If they haven’t had an attack yet, they will. Russia has seen the terrorist threat to the United States as an opportunity to attempt to revive the old Soviet Union, by making our task more difficult, blocking efforts at every turn. Vladimir Putin, like all socialists, is just not smart enough to realize that he also is a target of Al Qaeda. Verdict: This one is true, but not because of the Iraq war.
• World opinion is against us – Who gives a rat’s ass? Do we have the moral courage to stand up for what is right and, in the process, our own survival or not? The United States is the greatest country the world has ever known, and it did not get to be that way by following world opinion? We ought to be ignoring the U.N. like Saddam did. We, except for the liberal Democrat leadership, are unlikely to attack ourselves over U.N. resolutions, and nobody else has the resources or the guts. Verdict: irrelevant.
• If we stopped the aggression in Iraq, everything would be OK: Yeah, because that worked so well in the days leading up to 9/11/2001 (heavy sarcasm). Incidentally, what is going on in Iraq is not aggression; it is the enforcement of 17 UN resolutions. If you like the U.N., you should be happy that someone is giving it teeth. If you don’t, then let me hear you argue for U.N. dissolution. Verdict: doesn’t deserve a response, but here is one anyway. Try not to criticize while on hallucinogenic drugs from now on.

So I ask again, what is the problem with the Iraq war? It is none of the above for sure. The only real problem is that the Iraqi people have not yet won it. And if WE surrender, THEY never will win it and we all lose.

Wake up and defend your world while you still have one to defend.

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Pelosi?

You should be – whoever you are. If you’re not you should be seriously questioning what is wrong with you. If you can’t do that by yourself, then get help. Once you have completed this first step, you have a duty to ask yourself what is wrong with those who do not yet fear this woman as you do. So in the interest of providing you that help, assuming you need it, and of getting this country back to having a reasonable line of succession and having a reasonable Congress, let me help you with a few observations.

Nancy Pelosi is two heartbeats away from the Presidency of the United States. And one of those heartbeats, despite its strength of mind and character, grows increasingly fragile as time passes. You should now have a sense of constitutional urgency about the situation.

Nancy Pelosi recently visited Syria – a terrorist state and enemy of the U.S. – for what? She says she was bringing the Presidents message. Well, the President is a big boy and is capable of delivering his own message. Better yet, he has Condoleezza Rice, whose job it is to deliver the Presidents message and does it better than anyone else. Here is the message “We don’t talk to terrorists.” By going at all, she acted to rescind the message – not deliver it. We, here at the bottom, understand this message. Some at the top – like the Speaker of the House – apparently don’t. If she does, she is lying about it. Either way, she doesn’t belong in a position of power in our government. You should now have a picture of a confused, back-stabbing liar. Convinced yet?

OK, I’ll continue. She is now talking about visiting the terrorist government of Iran. Does she have a list of terrorists that she needs to contact? It would have helped if she had published that list during the campaign – more honest too. I am a little surprised that she hasn’t visited Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro yet, but we have time and Fidel hasn’t been all that well lately. You should now have a picture of a dishonest politician who did not reveal her real agenda during her campaign. Convinced yet?

No? OK. All this exists against the backdrop of refusing to pass a war-funding bill capable of being signed into law before her Middle-Eastern vacation to aid and comfort America’s enemies, which, of course could not be postponed for the purpose of passing decent legislation. Passing legislation? Yes, her job - the one that she doesn’t much care to be bothered with. You should now have a picture of a woman unable and/or unwilling to do her own job, but who is hell-bent on making sure she keeps others from doing theirs, thinking that will make her look good.

So why am I not as critical of Harry Reed in the Senate? I am; he is her partner in incompetence and publicly has supported her undermining of foreign policy at the expense of our troops and their mission. He has also pushed a similarly nonsensical bill through the Senate. But he’s not the one who is two heartbeats away from the Presidency.

Anyone who does not condemn her vacation activities is complacent in aiding and comforting the enemy, and is not worthy of any position of authority in the U.S. government. This especially applies to anyone of any party running for President of the U.S. Even if you don’t condemn her activities on ideological grounds, you should condemn them on constitutional grounds. This is not her job, and those Presidential candidates who refuse to speak up are saying that it’s OK for the Congress to have its own separate, contradictory foreign policy when they become President (Apparently, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards are all OK with that.). Even if you don’t condemn her actions on a constitutional basis, you should at least be suspicious of someone who justifies her anti-American activities with a vacant, robotic stare except when she declares that “…there’s a new congress in town…” Who is the cowboy now?

You should now have a sense of constitutional urgency that a lying politician, unable and/or unwilling to do her own job, interfering with those who want to do theirs, acting like the cowboy Al Gore once accused President Bush of being, and providing aid and comfort to our enemies, is just two heartbeats away from becoming the leader of the free world. Suddenly, the freedom of the good guys appears in greater jeopardy while the freedom of the bad guys looks pretty solid.

Remove Nancy Pelosi!

Responsible politicians will work for Nancy Pelosi’s removal from her position. Republicans should work to convince their counterparts on the other side of the isle. Democrats should realize that she doesn’t represent mainstream Democrats – just the crackpots who voted to remove the U.S. military from contact with schools in San Francisco. If Nancy Pelosi became President, where would the U.S. military be removed from next? Would there be a U.S. military at all? Probably not. The U.S. military was weakened substantially under Clinton, and he wasn’t nearly as radical as Pelosi.

This is dangerous for the top, the bottom, and everyone in-between.

The Road to Damascus

First the bad news - Nancy Pelosi has arrogantly followed though on her plan to undermine U.S. foreign policy by lessening the isolation of one of America’s enemies. It has been plausibly argued that this act has provided aid and comfort to all of America’s enemies by virtue of providing aid and comfort to Syria. After all, if she is willing to talk to Syria over the objections of the officials we have elected to actually carry out foreign policy (and, by extension in our democracy, against the wishes of the American people), why would any of our enemies assume she would not talk with them as well? The answer is that they wouldn’t; in fact, they would assume exactly the opposite. When done consciously, aiding and comforting the enemy is the definition of treason. Since I have always doubted the speaker’s consciousness, this is where I must halt my logic. Unfortunately, the damage is the same, conscious or not.

Now the worse news - Statistically, someone in the Democratic Party has to be smart enough to know that these actions aid and comfort the enemy. Whoever that is and however many of them there may be, since they are conscious, they must call for her replacement as Speaker, since her continuing as Speaker would continue to aid and comfort the enemy. I don’t know who they are – but they do, and they have a responsibility to act. If none act, what am I to conclude? Should I conclude that Democrats place partisan politics above the welfare of the country or that none of them are both smart enough and ballsy enough to hold responsible office? I am uncomfortable either way.

Here is the Speakers latest report to the American people. "The road to Damascus is a road to peace."

Well, I guess that depends on who is on the road and what they are driving. If it’s an American-made fleet of tanks driven by anyone on its way to eliminate the current leadership of that once-proud country, then it’s the road to peace. Too often it has been state-supported Hezbollah terrorists driving bomb-delivery trucks toward Israel. That is not the road to peace.

The road to Damascus – Where are Bob Hope and Bing Crosby when you really need them? If Damascus is such a wonderful, peace-loving place, why not take the Speakers activism to the next level? If the Speaker is such a successful ambassador, why not just offer to be the ambassador to Syria, since she seems so anxious to do that job?

Oh yeah, I forgot for a moment – lack of consciousness.

Now the good news – The U.S. Congress, as a body, did no damage today, as its members were either on an undeserved 2-week Easter vacation or overseas meeting with our enemies.

At least, that’s the way it looks down here at the bottom.

Mystery of the Great U.S. Economy

One of the growing number of things that President Bush gets little or no credit for is the fantastic U.S. economy over the course of his administration. This appears to run in (or against) the family and is the fault of the liberal mainstream media in the U.S. encouraged and fueled by liberal Democrats, hungry for ever-more power, both of whom appear to just make stuff up as they go along.

The attacks of 9/11 struck a blow to the U.S. economy that many thought would take years to recover from. According to a September 28, 2001 report from the Fiscal Policy Institute in New York, the economic cost to New York alone was $16.8 billion. The stock market reflected these fears. So I think the fact is pretty well-established that when a skyscraper is destroyed in New York, it tends to depress the economy.

It is now generally agreed among reputable economists that the Bush tax cuts were instrumental in sparing the nation and our trading partners much worse economic performance than what actually came to pass.

Enter the Iraq war, one of the most brilliantly executed and strategic wars in history, the crowning touch to a uniquely patriotic and successful career for which Donald Rumsfeld will never be justly recognized in his lifetime. We won, incidentally, back in 2003. What you currently see in Iraq is the Iraqi revolution – the attempt of the Iraqi people to free themselves from the tyranny of Islamic terrorists (Islamic terrorists are terrorists who have hijacked Islam, incidentally.).

Iraq became a magnet for terrorists because a free and democratic Iraq would mean the expansion of American influence and the loss to terrorists of a safe haven and ally. The fact that terrorists are focused on retaking Iraq means that they are not knocking down skyscrapers in New York or Chicago. That is a good thing. It is a good thing for the people (Americans and legitimate non-citizens) living and working in those buildings. It is a good thing for the U.S. and global economies.

It is the current Iraqi revolution that is enabling the great U.S. economy. It is the current Iraqi revolution and our participation in it (which we should be proud of, just as France was proud of participating in ours) that the anti-war crowd screams about because they have to scream about something, apparently. The anti-war crowd is, by extension, protesting the fact that the U.S. economy is too good, too many skyscrapers are being allowed to remain standing, too many people are being allowed to remain alive in those buildings, and too many families are not being destroyed by the loss of loved ones living and working in those buildings.

For more information on how many lives are at stake in the short run, please see my article of 3/26/2007 – “Dead Heroes=9/11/Victims – The Ignored Upside.”

Thank you again President Bush.
Thank you again Secretary Rumsfeld.

Congress Doesn't Even Disgrace Itself Well

Not only has the U.S. Congress passed bad war funding bills, buying souls and votes for pork in an effort to pass bills that every single person in both houses of congress knows will not be signed into law, but they couldn’t even agree on a unified, bad bill to send to the White House before Easter vacation – a vacation that they neither need nor deserve.

In a time of war, the U.S. Congress takes two weeks for an Easter break rather that complete work on a bill (even a bad one) that would go to the President to fund our troops so they can protect our country.

As long as I’m at it, how many of us get 2 weeks off for Easter? How many of us here at the bottom (You know, the people who pay these hardy vacationers their hefty salaries and fund their ample staffs.) get anything more than 1 day off, usually for Good Friday, and that is usually a floating holiday. The U.S. Congress, however, which continually disgraces itself by passing legislation designed to turn the middle-east over to terrorists, needs a 2-week vacation from its otherwise grueling 3-day work week – not the 5-day work-week we were promised pre-election. On the bright side, it’s 2 weeks during which the Congress is likely to do no further harm.

Not that I hold President Bush blameless. I don’t. Why is he not calling members back for an emergency session of Congress? I thought we were at war. I know we are at war. The soldiers in Iraq are not getting an Easter vacation; neither should the U.S. Government as long as their futures are being held up by partisan politics.

Remember that new direction we supposedly voted for back in November, 2006? It’s now almost 5 months later, and this wasn’t it! We did not vote for the American people to be forced to fight the war on terror on 3 fronts - Iraq, Afghanistan, and the U.S. Congress.

Wake up, people.

Congress Disgraces Itself Yet Again, Part 4

The U.S. Senate joined the House of Representatives in disgrace today by selling out for the same dirty pork that the House members sold out for. Who gets the blame today in addition to the Democratic Party leadership, written off long ago as hopeless, America-hating, white-flag marketers and the Democrats who sold out for pork and/or rubber-stamped the House pork? It’s the Republican members joining them.

Chuck Hagel of Nebraska is seeking the presidency, and has turned on the administration in an apparent effort to court the anti-war vote that the Democrats have convinced him carried the 2006 election. I encourage Senator Hagel to switch parties as quickly as possible. His presidential ambitions are over. Conservative Republicans are not defeatists and will therefore never choose him to carry their banner. The Democrats cannot respect him because of the ease with which he flipped, so despite the fact that they are happy to use him as their pawn, he won’t carry their banner either. But at least if he switches parties, the good people of Nebraska can see who he really is and vote him out of office.

Gordon Smith of Oregon represents the state where our troops are being burned in effigy. Coincidence?

These two senators had the power to stop the Senate from joining the House in the disgrace that is the surrender movement. They declined to step up.

I am sorry to say this as well, but I must. I am sick to death of the people in government (and in the media for that matter) referring to each other as great Americans and patriots. Here at the bottom, people who pander, and surrender, and sell out their principles for pork are never, ever seen as great Americans or patriots. They are seen as third-rate politicians who fear for their own petty, cushy, careers (and little else) while squandering taxpayers’ money and being effective only at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Anyway, that’s how it looks today from here at the bottom. We wanted Victory – You gave us Surrender by a vote of 51-47.

Dead Heroes=9/11 Victims - The Ignored Upside

Not too long ago we reached a grizzly milestone in Iraq – to the apparent glee of the blathering anti-war crowd so deeply invested in American defeat. Almost as depressing is the fact that the conservative commentators that I have heard have blown this off as irrelevant. If they don’t believe that they haven’t blown it off, they certainly haven’t emphasized or embraced the silver lining in this dark cloud enthusiastically enough to suit me. They are wrong. It is extremely relevant and extremely silver.

What is most relevant is that the grizzly milestone was reached more that 5 years after 9/11/2001 and after 4 years of combat in Iraq. To see what is most silver, let’s do a little math, keeping in mind that the purpose of the military is, ultimately, to protect the citizenry who supports them at home while they implement and support diplomatic policy and initiatives at home and around the world.

I’ll use round nice numbers in an attempt to keep this simple enough for even the most logic-challenged anti-war activist to follow. On 9/11, 3,000 people were killed by terrorists in an unprovoked attack here on United States soil. REMEMBER? In the months after 9/11, the military disrupted ongoing terror operations that would have killed more Americans – by most estimates, many more Americans. How many? Although I firmly believe that there could have been the equivalent of a 9/11 about every 3 months, I am willing to concede a minimum of 1 per year.

Doing the math based on the minimum yearly 9/11-equivalent, the military and related intelligence has saved about 15,000 (3,000/year for 5 years) American lives at a minimum. The more realistic scenario of a 9/11-equivalent every 3 month would yield a total of 60,000 (3,000/quarter for 5 years) American lives. And this doesn’t even take into account all the dead terrorists who will never harm anyone again, American or other – BONUS! Keep in mind that a single dirty bomb would likely triple this number and a single nuclear strike could send the number soaring into the hundreds of thousands if not millions. Overstated you say? Not with maniacs out there who already have nuclear capability or are trying desperately (happily risking the well-being of their citizens) to develop nuclear capacity and are unrestrained by instructions from their God that using it would be wrong.

So is the military doing its job? You betcha! Has the cowboy from Texas done his number one job? Yep! Do Americans recognize and appreciate it? Based on the polls, I must conclude that they apparently do not.

Are the anti-war, cool-aid drinkers really that anxious to have us all incinerated or do they require some remedial math? I have done my best to provide the remedial math, but, truthfully, I have no clue. Maybe you do.

But I do know two things:

• Right now, this much maligned cowboy-President from Texas, his Vice-President (hated in America for once running a successful American corporation successfully, of all things), and his team are all that stands between you and the next holocaust.
• We have less than 2 years to find someone as tough and principled as President Bush to take his place and be willing to stand between us and the next holocaust despite the politically-correct pressure to surrender and the lack of appreciation demonstrated by the American public.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the armed services and intelligence services as well as to your chains of command.