Book Review: Why We Fight

I posted the dedication fromWhy We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism a few days ago. I thought the opening dedication was very moving, and was equally impressed with the rest of the book. I just finished the book and immediately sat down to write this review. It is a short book (less than 200 pages in the paperback edition), however many of the points are very powerful and are very powerfully made.

This is not a book for someone who believes America is no better or worse than any other nation on the planet, and doesn't want to hear anything to the contrary. Dr. Bennett writes of patriotism, right and wrong, and the undeniable truth that some things really are worth fighting for.

The original edition of this book was released in 2002. The paperback edition that I stumbled across at a used bookstore is an updated version. It includes a new introduction entitled “Blaming America First”. Dr. Bennett explains why this mentality is so deadly to our country. The original introduction (“A Moment of Clarity”) is also included in the paperback edition.

I thought many of Dr. Bennett's arguments were well laid out and hard to counter. Dr. Bennett uses this book to discuss patriotism and the anti-America movement since September 11^th. He examines the pacifist movement. This book is also interesting because it makes a case for our action in Afghanistan and Iraq before we entered Iraq. Don't open this book expecting to see a lot of talk about WMD's. Many forget there were other reasons to go into Iraq. The epilogue should be required reading. Dr. Bennett uses it to lay out the case for removal of Saddam Hussein.

On a larger scale, Why We Fight seeks to shine a light on the anti-America movement that has been in this country since the 1930’s. It also argues why Patriotism is something we should be instilling in our children along with a fundamental understating of what it means to be an American. How can we hope to survive when reports look at our government with suspicion, but take petty dictators and tyrants at their word? Dr. Bennett makes the case for Israel and our continued support of that nation.

This book should be required reading for high school students, and for anyone who thinks patriotism is something to be avoided. For those of us who believe being a patriot is a good thing, this book is a welcome reinforcement of that belief.

Senate Reaches New Low

The actions by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, John Kerry, Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, and other Democratic Senators over the last 24 hours have reached a new low point for American politics. These 40 Democratic Senators, who suddenly develop outrage whenever their patriotism is questioned, have attacked Rush Limbaughs “unpatriotic and indefensible comments”. On the Senate floor, they disparaged Rush, and impugned his reputation. Remember, Rush Limbaugh is a private citizen. He is not an elected official. Rush would not be able to say the same thing about these Senators in Senate chambers as they said about him.

Agree with Rush Limbaugh or disagree with him, if you don’t like what he says, don’t listen. I disagree with the New York Times for running the Moveon.org ad. Therefore, I have no intention of buying the New York Times. Rush is a citizen of the United States. The U.S. Constitution, Amendment number One, which most liberals claim to cherish, guarantees Rush the ability to say whatever he wants on his own radio station. People can choose to listen to what he says or not.

As I said in a previous post, no one who objectively listens to the segment that Rush has been miss-quoted from can possibly come away with the impression that he was talking about soldiers who served in Iraq. There were stories about phony soldiers in other news outlets leading up to Rush’s comments. Senator Reid, Senator Clinton, and the other signatories of the letter to Mark Mays of Clear Channel or either not doing their homework, or are intentionally misleading the public. Either way, they have now publically embarrassed themselves and the U.S. Senate.

If we wish to be charitable and grant they haven’t done their homework, then all 40 members who signed this letter should resign from office in disgrace. To think that a U.S. Senator would ask a media agency to, “…publicly repudiate these comments…,” without doing his or her homework is beyond belief. This action comes very close to censoring a media outlet. Surely a Senator would do his homework before embarking on such a course. If he or she hasn’t, the Senator should be asked to leave office.

If, as is more likely, these 40 Democratic Senators are intentionally misleading the public, we should still demand they resign. A U.S. Senator is a public servant. Many Senators (both Republican and Democratic) have forgotten that. If they are going to go to the floor of the U.S. Senate and intentionally lie as a matter of cheap theatrics, we don’t need them in office. Surely intelligent adults from both sides of the political spectrum can agree that this debate was a colossal waste of time and public money. Do the Democrats who control the Senate believe this is the most pressing issue of the day?

Either these 40 Senators are too lazy to seek the truth in this matter, or they prefer to intentionally mislead the public with regards to Rush. These Senators owe Rush a formal apology from the floor of the Senate. Of course, that would require these Senators have some sort of honor. I seriously question that after seeing this letter.

I Support Rush!

I wasn’t planning on writing about the “Rush Scandal”. In case you haven’t been following this, some media outlets and uniformed bloggers are attacking Rush Limbaugh for calling soldiers who oppose the war “phony soldiers”. However, I have already received one comment on it from a reader, so I thought I would comment where everyone can see my response. The comment was posted in one of the older links, so you might not have seen it. The Anonymous comment I received asked:

“So, Andy, will you denounce Rush, now that he's publicly called soldiers--including some who have been killed in action--'phony soldiers'? Or is it actually OK to trash the patriotism of soldiers you don't agree with?”

My response is beyond a shadow of a doubt, and in no uncertain terms, “No”. Why you ask? Because this story is being manipulated and Rush’s words are being reported out of context. I am a Rush fan, and as such, I am also a 24 hour subscriber to his site. One of the advantages I have as a subscriber is complete access to his library of shows. On the particular day in question, Rush wasn’t referring to a soldier who disagreed with the war. He was instead referring to people who claim to be soldiers, or who claim to have been decorated soldiers, but who are not.

In Rush’s case, he was referring to “corporal” Jesse MacBeth. As Rush has pointed out on his show, “corporal” MacBeth became a hero to many anti-war groups. In a scene reminiscent of John Kerry during Vietnam, MacBeth told the press about the abuses and travesties he and other U.S. soldiers did in Iraq. He claimed to have witnessed soldiers killing hundreds of men, women, and children. As Rush said on his show, “In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth describes the horrors this way: ‘We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque.’”

The problem with “corporal” MacBeth is that it was all made up. Jesse MacBeth was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. Turns out he washed out of boot camp. No service. No corporal.

Rush isn’t the only one who has reported on these phony soldiers. The Weekly Standard has been reporting on Scott Thomas Beauchamp. He is an actual soldier. However, he also made up stories about atrocities committed in Iraq that were never committed. His stories have been reported by the New Republic, only to have Mr. Beauchamp say he no longer stands by his stories. ABC News has even done stories covering the rash of people claiming to be soldiers who weren’t. On the coverage, Charles Gibson even used the phrase “phony soldiers”. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Gibson isn’t facing the kind of hatred Rush is facing right now.

What this story is really about is left wing political groups who are trying to take comments out of context to generate bad press for Rush and other conservatives. They hope no one will do their home work to see what Rush actually said. Many on the left have bought these stories hook line and sinker. There are many issues you may disagree with Rush on. However, if you are going to disagree with him, at least get your facts straight and disagree with something he said, and not something someone wants you to think he said.

Just a Quick Note...

This is going to be a very short post. I started reading a new book tonight, Why We Fight, Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism by William J. Bennett. The dedication to the book hit my like a hammer so I thought I would share it with everyone. From the dedication to Why We Fight:

This book is dedicated to the heroes of

Flight 93. When duty called, they rose to the

task and fought for control of an airplane,

saving countless people in Washington, D.C. –

including, perhaps, me. They said, “Let’s roll,”

and they made concrete the meaning

of courage and citizenship.

The Next Step with Ahmadinejad

Over the last few days Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has continued his dance with the United Nations and the West. His goal is quite simple: a nuclear Iran. He has successfully stalled and bullied the United Nations, all the while racing to get nuclear capability. Every time the United Nations has given Ahmadinejad a deadline, he has given the United Nations the finger, and continued to do what he wishes.

The United States and Israel have both said they will not tolerate a nuclear Iran. France has now gone on the record saying that war may be necessary to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. French President Sarkozy said if the United Nations allows, “Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, we would incur an unacceptable risk to stability in the region and in the world.” Germany, one of the countries that have stalled sanctions against Iran, is calling for a tougher stance against Iran. The German government has even said they don’t believe sanctions are going to work.

Where does that leave the world? If the world truly believes Iran can’t be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, it is time to make some very difficult decisions. Those decisions may include military action in Iran. The United States and Israel have probably (and hopefully) drawn up a point of no return scenario. This would be a list of criteria that would require an immediate military response. We may not have hit that time yet, but it is fast approaching.

For those who argue against a military action, it is time to get deadly serious with Iran. Former Governor Mitt Romney released his plan for Iran this week. His plan is tough, and works to so isolate Iran that if Ahmadinejad were to continue to press for nuclear technology, the world would have reason to respond militarily. Governor Romney’s plan includes:

1) Putting Iran in a diplomatic isolation.

2) Tougher economic sanctions against Iran.

3) Call on Arab states to join this effort. This would require the Arab states to support the government of Iraq, stop all financial support of Hamas and Hezbollah, and thaw relations with Israel.

4) Communicate to the people of Iran. There are those within Iran that do not share the views of Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs. Governor Romney believes we should do everything in our power to help those people.

5) Create a Partnership with the “entire world of Islam”. Romney argues that, “[o]nly Muslims will be able to permanently defeat the radical jihadist threat. We should help them any way we can.”

The full text of his outline can be found at the National Review Online. Ahmadinejad has made it crystal clear to anyone who is listening that he is going to acquire nuclear technology. He has also made it crystal clear that he intends to destroy both Israel and the United States. If the leader of a nation tells me he wishes to commit genocide and destroy my country, I tend to take him at his word. The current process is failing. The United Nations and the IAEA continue to demand and ask Iran for cooperation when Iran has no intention of giving it. Really isolating Iran may be the only way to avoid a military strike. Once Ahmadinejad has acquired a nuclear weapon is too late.

Book Review: The Reluctant Fundamentalist

I resist the urge to review works of fiction on this site. I read many historical and political books, and between those, I will insert the occasional thriller, suspense novel, or fantasy story. I don’t review these books because they don’t really have anything to do with this site. However, every rule has an exception, and The Reluctant Fundamentalist by Mohsin Hamid is my exception to the rule.

The Reluctant Fundamentalist does contain some political commentary so it isn’t too much of a stretch for me. The entire book is set in one evening and is told through a narrative by the main character, Changez. The book begins with a chance encounter of an unnamed American in the Pakistan village of Lahore with Changez. Over the next few hours, Changez shares tea and a dinner with this American, and retells his own story of living in America.

It seems a younger Changez attended school in America, fell in love with a beautiful woman named Erica, and gets a job at a very prestigious firm in New York. This has the formula for a great success story. September 11, 2001 changes Changez’s world. He is out of the country on business when he learns of the World Trade Center attacks. His reaction is one that may or may not surprise the reader. After 9/11, Changez finds everything about him changing. His relationship with Erica and her ghosts, as well as his coworkers, changes.

What makes this book so powerful is the way the story is told. The entire book is a narrative from Changez. The information we get regarding his previous acquaintances, as well as the unknown American, are all gathered from the narrative. It is a form of storytelling I haven’t read before, and is worth reading simply for the uniqueness of it. The narrative kept my attention from the first page until the dramatic ending.

The politics of the book are not cut and dry. While Changez, and the author, become critical of American policies in the Middle East, Changez also points out the unique opportunities he got in America. While I disagree with some of the assessments in the book, I thought they were very interesting. From a political perspective, it was interesting to read the statements of a fictional Pakistani character from a very real Pakistani author.

I would encourage others to read this book. It is a very quick read because of the size and the way it is written. Mr. Hamid told Amazon.com that he had 1,000 pages of manuscript that he stripped down to 180 in order to reach the essence of the book. The book is a very good read, and will definitely leave you wanting to discuss it with others.

Ahmadinejad's 2007 U.S. Tour

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran will be speaking at the United Nations next week. I am not comfortable with the thought of our government allowing him to travel to the United States. However, as part of our treaty to host the U.N., we have agreed to allow those who the U.N. calls to speak into our country. What I am more outraged about is Ahmadinejad’s current plans to speak at Columbia University and to visit Ground Zero.

Columbia University was contacted by an Iranian Ambassador and asked to allow the President of Iran to deliver a speech at the University. The President of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, will introduce the man who has denied the holocaust and who has threatened to wipe Israel from the face of the planet. The University describes this as an, “…opportunity for faculty and students to engage the President of Iran.” Mr. Bollinger said he told the Iranians that Ahmadinejad would be introduced with, “…a series of sharp challenges…” on the issues facing Iran. I am sure the thought of facing the President of Columbia University has frightened the man who has given the proverbial finger to the world while he seeks a nuclear program for Iran. Mr. Bollinger also says, “It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible.” Mr. Bollinger has extended this courtesy to a man who is responsible for killing Americans. At the same time, Mr. Bollinger has refused to extend the same courtesy to the ROTC program. While he will allow someone such as Mr. Ahmadinejad the “freedom of speech,” at Columbia University, in 2005 Mr. Bollinger helped defeat an effort to bring the ROTC program back to Columbia. Terrorist and tyrants are apparently welcomed at Columbia University, but not those who would defend against them.

If this doesn’t sound like a PR coup for Iran, then the President’s next stop on his agenda will. The President of the country that helps fund and organize Hezbollah will visit Ground Zero. Think of how these two events will play on Arab television. President Ahmadinejad will be shown addressing a group of America’s Youth. This image will fade to scenes of Ahmadinejad touring the site of the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

So that this doesn’t sound like a simple partisan issue, I thought I would close with statements from a Republican Presidential candidate and a Democratic Presidential candidate. Both quotes come from WABC in New York by way of Matt Drudge:

“Under no circumstances should the NYPD or any other American authority assist President Ahmadinejad in visiting Ground Zero. This is a man who has made threats against America and Israel, is harboring bin Laden’s son and other al-Queda leaders, is shipping arms to Iraqi insurgents and is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. Assisting Ahmadinejad in touring Ground Zero – hallowed ground for all Americans – is outrageous.”

-- Mayor Rudy Giuliani

“It is unacceptable for Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who refuses to renounce and end his own country’s support for terrorism, to visit the site of the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil in our nation’s history.”

-- Senator Hillary Clinton

We have agreement on an issue that truly should be offensive to all Americans.

Movie Review: An Inconvenient Truth (Part II)

An Inconvenient Truth was released in 2006 and shows Vice President Al Gore giving a slide show to an audience. The slide show is about global warming. Mr. Gore argues that global warming is the most important challenge we face today. The movie is split between Mr. Gore’s presentation and scenes of Mr. Gore working on his slide show on a Mac computer (displayed prominently many times) with a voice over of Mr. Gore.

Mr. Gore opens his presentation with the joke, “I use to be the next President of the United States.” While this line probably works great in a live presentation, it is a little confusing as an opening for his movie. This line, among other things, contributes to a bit of identity crisis for An Inconvenient Truth. The movie is part documentary, part biography of Mr. Gore, and part political commentary on President George Bush’s administration. Unfortunately, the movie doesn’t really pull off any of these plots.

There are numerous examples of a kind of “split personality” within the movie. For example, there is a “Simpsons” type cartoon early in the movie that tries to explain man-made global warming. While it is entertaining, and I enjoy Bart Simpson et al, the cartoon feels a little odd as part of a documentary. The constant breaks that stop talking about global warming and start recapping Mr. Gore’s life are also a little out of place in the overall context of the movie. There are a few shots at President Bush and his administration beginning very early in the movie. Since these shots seem to be attacks for the sake of attack, I don’t understand why a movie maker would include them in a documentary that claims to be scientific in nature.

During the “biography” portions of the movie, Mr. Gore’s career as a college student and senator are discussed, and his active role combating global warming since he left politics is covered. However, his actions as a Vice President for eight years are covered in one sentence about Kyoto. And that one sentence doesn’t discuss why Clinton and Gore didn’t get Kyoto ratified by the United States. I have always wondered why Mr. Gore didn’t do more about global warming as Vice President, and his movie doesn’t answer that question. About three quarters of the way through the movie, there is a quiet montage of events surrounding the 2000 Presidential race. Since Mr. Gore’s time as Vice President is barely discussed, why is this montage even in the movie?

While An Inconvenient Truth heavily covers the belief in man-made global warming, it only refers to the other side of the debate as the “So-called Deniers”. It fails as a documentary because it fails to spend any real time covering the other side of the debate. Much of the “science” in this movie has been questioned elsewhere. The only comment I will add to that is that many of the evidence presented in the movie is anecdotal at best. Showing a photo of a location and then another of the location years later doesn’t prove anything or disprove anything.

Overall An Inconvenient Truth is quite painful to watch. I was eager to see why this movie deserved the accolades it got and simply couldn’t discover a legitimate reason for them. I would rate this movie as a “D” at best. I would recommend this movie to someone who was convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was man-made global warming and that it was the biggest threat of our time. Then I would only recommend the movie if that individual had two hours with nothing better to do.

There are many, many positive reviews of An Inconvenient Truth available on the net and the print news. Feel free to read them, but if you want my opinion, stay away from this movie; it just isn’t worth your time.

Movie Review: An Inconvenient Truth (Part I)

I was challenged a few months ago by a reader on here. At the time, I was discussing some of the articles that had come out critical of An Inconvenient Truth. Familyman, one of the regular readers on here, challenged me to see the movie and make my own decisions. I took him up on his challenge.

I want to lay out my thought process before I review Mr. Gore’s movie. It was very important for me to be as fair to this movie as I could be. If I saw An Inconvenient Truth, and thought it was a good movie, I wanted to say that here. If I saw it and didn’t like it, I wanted to be able to explain why. Because I want to take some time and explain my thoughts before I saw the movie and how I hoped to be as impartial as I could be in reviewing it.

For a full discussion of my thoughts on man-made global warming, refer to my article under the same name from a few days ago. In a nut-shell, I don’t believe man-made global warming is the greatest catastrophe facing us. I also question whether it is even an issue. I think much more research still needs to be done before this is placed in the hands of policy makers. I also question Al Gore’s motives in pushing this issue. If man-made global warming is such a crisis, why didn’t Mr. Gore do more about it while he was Vice President? Why didn’t the United States ratify Kyoto under Clinton / Gore? I hoped the movie would address this.

Based on what I had heard about An Inconvenient Truth I was expecting a documentary explaining the science and theory of global warming. I expected the movie to explain both sides of the global warming argument, but to be tilted towards one side. My understanding going into the movie is that it was suppose to make us more concerned about global warming.

In order to keep as much bias as possible out of my review, I watched it the first time without taking any notes, and simply watched the movie. I gave the movie a few days to settle in my mind, and then watched it again. The second time through, I paused the movie and made notes as I went.

When I finally got a copy of An Inconvenient Truth, I also happened to be reading the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism. There is a chapter in that book that discusses the movie. I waited to read that chapter until I had seen the movie. I didn’t want it coloring my opinion any more than it already was.

Because I have done a lot of discussion on here about the science and “consensus” with global warming, I wanted to keep my criticism of the science behind the movie to a minimum. For an in depth discussion of some of the science, and the comments that has lead too, click on my global warming tag.

I will post the review itself next, but I wanted my regular readers to know how the review was developed.

Moveon.org and New York Times Reach New Low

On Monday, Moveon.org ran an ad in the New York Times titled "General Petraeus or General Betray Us". The ad was a full page ad, and ended with the comment that "...General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us." This was in preparation for the General's testimony before Congress. Since that time, many in the blogosphere and in the conservative news have attacked Moveon.org for the ad. A group of 31 Senators wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asking him to denounce the add.

I had not originally intended to write about this. However, the more I think about this particular ad, the more it bothers me. I believe Moveon.org has a right to present a view in a political debate. And as the General himself said, Moveon.org has a first amendment right to buy ad space and present their opinion. I think that is the General showing he has more character than the collective group over at Moveon.org.

We are constantly told by those who “support the troops, but not the war” that it is the lowest of lows for us to question their patriotism. How many articles have been written accusing the President of attacking one Democrat or another’s patriotism? Many times, it has seemed to me that the only thing Democratic law makers hate more than President Bush is to have their patriotism questioned.

And yet, here we have a Democratic political action group who has accused a Four Star General in the United States Military of treason and traitorous behavior. Moveon.org’s add is despicable and should be condemned by members of both parties. The moveon.org add attempts to disparage the character of General Piraeus without offering any evidence, and with the sole objective of trying to discredit the President’s strategy.

The New York Times also shares some of the blame in this. I am sure there is someone working at the Times who reviews every add before it goes to print. For whatever reason, that individual or group of individuals saw nothing wrong with their paper printing a character attack on a Four Star General in a time of war. Moveon.org has shown its true colors, and the New York Times has shown how much of a “news” paper it is.

I would also challenge the Democrats in Congress to denounce this add. There are 31 signatures on the letter to Senate Majority Leader Reid. I feel confident that at least one of those is a Democrat. Surely the House Democrats can summon up enough courage to get 31 Democrats to send a similar letter to Speaker Pelosi.

Maybe it is time we really examine the “Patriotism” of those who won’t denounce this add.

My Ramblings, Part two

There has been some pretty hot debate on here about global warming, so I thought I would change things up with another "ramblings" post. I got the ramblings idea from another site, and really enjoyed my first attempt. I might make this a semi-regular part of the blog. So, without further ado, here are my thoughts tonight…

I think Senator Craig shouldn't resign. I don't condone what he is accused of doing in the Minneapolis airport. However, if you break down exactly what happened, I don't think he did anything that warranted his leaving the Senate. He plead guilty to a misdemeanor. He isn't accused of having sex in the bathroom, gay or otherwise. The Democrats have said because he is a member of a party that claims to have morals, he should leave because of his actions. This is a slippery slope for the Democrats. Does this mean the Democrats are a party without morals? What would they do if they had a party member who did something scandalous?

For example, Ted Kennedy plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of leaving the scene of a crime at Chappaquiddick. Should he resign? Nancy Pelosi is accused of using her position on a committee to steer contracts to her husbands company. She removed herself from the committee after the scandal came out, and the husbands company stopped bidding on those contracts. Harry Reid is accused of numerous unethical land deals in Nevada. He has attempted to get federal road projects in Nevada that would improve the price of property he owned. Sen. Robert Byrd is a member of the KKK, and was elected Cyclops.

I think the Republicans should have let the people of Idaho make their own decisions with regards to Sen. Craig. If they decided they didn't want him in office anymore, that is their decision. Both Republicans and Democrats have bigger issues to worry about in Washington than a misdemeanor.

"A McDonald's worker…was arrested and jailed Thursday night for putting too much salt and pepper on a police officer's hamburger," reports Fox News. As the story plays out, the worker claims some salt fell into the bowl she was mixing hamburger meat in. The worker ate one of the burgers later. However, when a police officer bought one of the burgers and got sick, the worker was arrested and charged with reckless conduct. The worker says the camera recording her work station will prove it was an accident. I am sure she will have her day in court, but I can't believe those police officers really felt the need to arrest her. And I can't believe McDonalds actually makes the patties on site.

Fred Thompson announced he is running for President. After flirting with it, and the Republican base for some time, he is now officially in the race. Personally, I think he has waited to late. I think he has made mistakes by not attending some of the debates, including the one that was held the night he announced. Next year will tell us if he is a genius, or if he misplayed the entire thing.

That's all the ramblings for now. My next post will be about Al Gore's movie, and then I am going on a global warming hiatus for a few days. There has been a lot of discussion on global warming on here. If you are looking for the latest, check out this, or this.

Book Review: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism

I just finished The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism)and wished to share my thoughts on this book. I also thought this would serve as a good counter to my movie review of Mr. Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. I bought this book from the Conservative Book Club, and I continue to be pleased with the books I have bought from them.

This is the second book in the P.I.G. series I have read and have thoroughly enjoyed both books. This book is very well written and very easy to read. The author, Mr. Christopher C. Horner, is a Senior Fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He has testified in front of the U.S. Senate regarding man-made global warming. He has given numerous addresses to various European governments and agencies. He has appeared on numerous TV news shows and has been a guest on an assortment of talk radio shows. Mr. Horner is a lawyer. However, don’t let that scare you away, and don't let that make you think any less of his arguments. His scientific discussions are clearly footnoted to an assortment of scientific works that the reader can easily find.

I really liked the way the book is laid out. There is a discussion on the political nature of the “man-made global warming movement”. There is also a scientific discussion against man-made global warming. There is an entire chapter devoted to An Inconvenient Truth as well as one devoted to the Kyoto Protocols. The book has numerous footnotes for each chapter, and a good index. This book can serve as a reference for many of the topics brought up in the typical global warming discussion.

I thought the chapters on An Inconvenient Truth and on the Kyoto Protocols were the most interesting. I waited to read the chapter on Mr. Gore’s movie until I had watched it for myself. I felt that watching the movie and then reading this chapter was a very good point-counterpoint and served to highlight both sides of the argument. The chapter on the Kyoto Protocols provided some very useful information I hadn’t seen before. For example, the chapter discusses how the United States is doing in relation to Kyoto and how the European signatories are doing. Mr. Horner also discusses the actual cost to implement Kyoto in the United States, and what the most adamant supporters of Kyoto say it will do for us. One question I have always had about Kyoto is this: If the treaty is so important to us, why didn’t the United States ratify it when Bill Clinton and Al Gore were in office? Mr. Horner covers that as well as Senate Resolution 98 which was introduced by Senators Robert Byrd (D) and Chuck Hagel (R). This senate resolution forbids the United States from being a signatory to any protocol or agreement that,”…would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.”

I would encourage anyone who is interested in the man-made global warming debate to read this book. If you enjoyed Al Gore’s movie, you should spend some time simply reading Mr. Horner’s chapter on An Inconvenient Truth. Most importantly, anyone who believes that there is a scientific consensus about man-made global warming should read this book. Regardless of your position on the debate, after reading this book you will be left with a feeling that there are a lot of unsettled questions.

It really is amazing where you might find inspiration for a new topic. Having written on other sites about the placement of Al Gore's book at a local bookseller, I am now always on the look out for unexpected inspiration.

The State Fair in Minnesota this weekend provided a few examples of just such inspiration. The gentleman above was kind enough to pose for a picture next to one of the rides. As you can see from his t-shirt, he and I wouldn't agree on politics. And while I would agure that getting elected to the Presidency suggested a certian amount of knowledge, I decided not to debate the issue with this Fair go-er. He was kind enough to pose for this picture, and I was afriad he might ask me about the Preisdent that my home state produced. If he had called me on that point, I might have lost the arguement.

However, another source of inspiration hit me at the Democraitc Party's both. There, along one wall, they had a board where people could leave post it notes on why Norm Coleman shouldn't be re-elected. Here is the board:

As I looked over the reasons Democrats were upset with Norm Coleman, I noticed something: None of the notes really had anything to do with Mr. Coleman. Most of the notes said things like, "Becuase", "Ditto", or "Bush is an Idiot". None of them were really complaints about Norma Coleman. Many were complaints about Bush, and some were notes accusing Mr. Coleman of being a Bush "lap dog". I found it interesting anyway. And before I left, I placed my own note on the board that promptly got attention:

I did leave the tent inspired to watch Mr. Gore's movie An Inconvienient Truth. I was surprised a few times during the movie, dissappointed at other times. I am going to watch it again this weekend with a notepad in hand to prepare for my review.

Have a good weekend! And leave me a comment if you have run into a political statement in a surprising place.

My Position on Man-Made Global Warming

With some of the debate happening on this site, and with my promises to review a global warming book and Mr. Gore’s movie, I thought a little explanation of my own thoughts on global warming may help for the coming articles. I don’t claim to be a climatologist. It seems like every news agency has a complete staff of those, so we don’t need any more. I have read a few books on global warming, I have studied geophysics a little, and I enjoy reading articles that appear in the news about global warming. I am not paid by any oil company, research institute, or President (current or former). However, if anyone out there knows how I could get paid by these groups for my opinion, please let me know.

First, there is no consensus about man-made global warming. If you don’t believe me, check out my global warming tag and see how many comments I get on my global warming posts. Most of them are quiet heated (on both sides). Even if there was consensus, science has nothing to do with consensus. Political policy involves consensus, but not science.

Secondly, there is a lot about the Earth’s climate we don’t know. Scientists don’t understand how clouds form or their exact effect on climate. They know clouds effect the environment, but they are not sure to what degree. Global computer models that are constantly sited are only as good as the assumptions the programmer puts into them. The data we do have is very small and incomplete (accurate hurricane measuring didn’t really start until 1944) when compared to the age of the planet. For every study citing ice cores or tree rings as evidence for global warming, I can show you another study that says the exact opposite.

Third, there is no proof that global warming is a bad thing. If the planet was to increase its temperature by 1 degree over the next 100 years, that might be beneficial. It could cause an increase in plant life and human life. Hot weather kills less than cold weather. If we knew a 1 degree increase might cause an additional 1000 deaths in the summer, but save 10,000 lives in the winter, would that be bad?

I believe that the Earth is getting warmer. I am just not sure how much of that is man’s fault. The Earth’s climate is constantly changing. It has been since before man got here and will be for a long time after we are gone. Just by existing on the planet, man has some impact on his environment, as do all other creatures that inhabit the Earth. The question is: what component of the Earth’s warming is our fault? Various sources claim the Earth has gotten warmer over the last century. The amount varies from less than 0.4 degrees Celsius to about 1.0 degree. I don’t believe all of that is man made, but how much of it is?

I also believe that most “solutions” currently offered by environmentalist are unrealistic. Many of them would cost a tremendous amount of money for very little real benefit. The more extreme solutions even wish to implement a population control with no settlement having more than 20,000 people. Think of that the next time you are in New York, London, or San Francisco.

We need real research to solve what component of the current climate is a result of man. Then we need to decide if there is anything we can actually do to change the Earth’s climate. We need to figure out if we should change the environment, and if the change is worth the cost. If the best we could do is to lower the temperature by 0.01 degree at a cost of $100 billion would that be a good investment?

I hope I haven’t rambled too long. I also hope this helps clarify my views on global warming and gives my readers a base line for the upcoming book and movie reviews. As always, I welcome comments about this or any other post.

Another Muslim Cartoon Scare

American newspapers have entered into a new phase of self censorship today. The “Opus” comic that runs in many major newspapers was pulled from most papers this weekend, and won’t appear next weekend. What could cause the Washington Post and other papers to pull the comic? It has dared to, “… [take] a humorous swipe at Muslim fundamentalists.”

Fox News has a complete rundown of the story. While I don’t like Salon.com, they are running the comic in its entirety. Salon deserves credit for this. You can view the comic at Salon and make your own decisions about just how scandalous this comic is. Apparently a running joke has been one of the Opus characters trying different religions. Last week, the comic poked fun at the late Rev. Jerry Falwell. I don’t remember hearing any outcry from conservative Christians, and I don’t believe I remember reading on Drudge that the newspapers were worried about the reactions of Christians to that comic.

The Washington Post had some initial concerns with the new installment of Opus. Being the responsible editors that they are, they decided to show the comic to some of the Muslim staffers to “gauge their reaction.” Fox News said that these staffers reacted “emotionally” so the Washington Post decided to pull the comic, and send a warning out to the other papers that feature the comic. When asked why the previous strip that poked at the late Reverend Falwell wasn’t also flagged, Writers Group comic editor Amy Lago said she didn’t think the readers would misunderstand the humor in it. Apparently, there are fears that Muslims might misunderstand the humor in the current Opus comic.

I believe this is a perfect example of the true nature of Islam in today’s world. While Islam may have once been the religion of peace, it is no longer viewed that way, and with good reason. Anyone who doesn’t remember the fiasco over the Dutch cartoons or The Satanic Verses can do a quick Google search for it. There are no other religions in the world cause this sort of reaction in Western papers . The very same papers that are nervous about “the Muslim reaction” didn’t even think about a Christian reaction to a comic. I would argue the editors wouldn’t bat an eye at a comic poking fun at any other religion out there (with the possible exception of man made global warming).

If Islam is going to exist with the Western world, it is going to need to coexist with it. This comic is very, very tame by Western standards. If Islam truly is the religion of peace, then people should be allowed to discuss it, or criticize it without fear for their lives. And if the Western media is still a place where ideas and news can be discussed, then it must stand up to cowards and tyrants who would bully the media from covering topics the bullies don’t like.

My Ramblings....

This post is a little different from my usual post. I am just updating my normal readers on the goings on and what is coming up. If you aren't interested in a few ramblings, it would be a good idea to stop here and check back sometime tomorrow. Otherwise, don't say I didn't warn you....


My Schedule: I am traveling off and on over the next week and a half. I hope to update this site tomorrow, Wednesday, and sometime over the weekend. Be forewarned that I am traveling and because of that, I won't make any promises. Next week I will be back home and my schedule should be back to normal.


Global Warming: I haven't written much about global warming lately. That hasn't stopped those who believe passionately in global warming from attacking me lately. For the latest on that discussion, check out my last post. I am currently reading the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism. This has been a very thought provoking and entertaining book so far. Look for a Book Review on it in the coming weeks. On that same note, I have a promise to Familyman that I still intend to keep. I promised him I would watch Al Gore's "documentary" on global warming. I have a copy of An Inconvenient Truth. Since I am traveling so much, I am going to put the movie on my iPod and watch it on a plane or two. As with the P.I.G. book, look for a review on Mr. Gore's movie in the coming weeks as well.


The Newark Executions: Michelle Malkin is continuing to follow this story even though the main stream media doesn't seem to know it exists. I can't find much information on it from CNN or Fox News. However, Mrs. Malkin is doing a very good job of keeping attention focused on it. She has pointed out that more details are surfacing in this case that point to the gang MS-13. An additional adult was arrested and, as with the other adults, his immigration status is also "questionable". It is questionable in that he didn't have a valid drivers license or social security card, but was arrested with a U.S. Passport that authorties weren't able to say was a valid passport. This is an appaling story that needs to be followed. I encourage everyone to check out Michelle Malkin's website for the latest on this story.

I hope you enjoyed these tidbits. I am also asking for a few book recommendations. I am constantly writing book reviews and I always write book reviews about books I like. I am asking for recommendations from my readers with a different political belief system than my own. So, for those of you who believe that bigger government is better, or that we should have a national healthcare system, or that man-made global warming is going to kill us all, let me know what you think. Now is your chance to give me the titles of the books that you are sure will change my mind.

Thanks for reading, and check back in the next couple of days when I will return to my regular format.

Book Review: America the Last Best Hope

In 1921, the English writer G.K. Chesterton came to America to travel and speak. He, like other foreigners I mention in Volume I …saw us better, in many ways, than we saw ourselves. What he saw here, what he found here, is a reaffirmation of what I attempt to recapture about our country – describing it as Abraham Lincoln did: “the last best hope on earth.”

This passage is how Dr. William “Bill” Bennett opens America, the Last Best Hope Volume II. This volume covers U.S. History from 1914 to 1989 (or from a World at War to the Triumph of Freedom as the book is subtitled.) I think Dr. Bennett does a good job of capturing that essence Chesterton saw in America and that Lincoln described.

I chose to start in the middle of Dr. Bennett’s series because it covers a time period that I wasn’t taught much about in high school or college. Most of what I know about our own history since World War I is because of my own reading. I thought this would be a great way to expand on that knowledge. What I found was Dr. Bennett covered such a wealth of material that calling it “expanding my knowledge” probably doesn’t do it justice.

Dr. Bennett devotes a lot of time to the different Presidents and their policies from WW I to the Cold War. One would expect that in a history book, but Dr. Bennett does a good job of examining each President critically. He points out the success of each President, and also illustrates their failures. However, far from dwelling on our countries failures (of which we have our share) he spends an equal amount of time on those things our country should celebrate (of which there are many).

Dr. Bennett has argued in other venues that we must build up our history program in our school system. He states in this book, “It is sad but true that American students know less about American history than any other subject they study.” Dr. Bennett describes American history as the “glory and romance” of our nations story. The quote comes from the National Archives: The glory and romance of our history are here preserved in the chronicles of those who conceived and built the structure of our nation. Dr. Bennett’s book is the type of patriotic examination of our history that should be used in schools to teach American history. His book lends a romantic feel to our history.

I would recommend America the Last Best Hope to schools but also to anyone who is curious about our history. Dr. Bennett breaks the topics in his book along major time periods in our history and provides a good overview to each chapter. I enjoyed reading it from cover to cover, but it would also serve as a useful reference book to someone who was writing about prohibition, FDR, World War II, Vietnam, or the Cold War. Finally, anyone who wants to know more about America would benefit from reading America, the Last Best Hope.

New Details in the Newark Executions

Last week I posted on politics.wikia about the executions of three teenagers in Newark, New Jersey. For the most part, details have been very sketchy in the main stream media, while the blogosphere has been hoping mad. The more information that comes out, the more outraged I am about this.

Iofemi Hightower, Dashon Harvey, Terrance Aeriel, and Natasha Aeriel were ordered to kneel down in front of a wall and were then each shot in the head. Natasha Aeriel is the only one who has survived the attack. There are some conflicting reports, but it appears authorities have arrested five individuals, two adults and three minors. The two adults, Jose Carranza and Rodolfo Godinez, are both foreign nationals with criminal records. Carranza has been confirmed as an illegal immigrate, there is some question as to whether Godinez was in the country legally or not.

Carranza has been indicted twice this year. He was indicted in April on aggravated assault charges. In July he was indicted, "…on 31 counts which included aggravated sexual assault of a child under 13 years old and endangering the welfare of a child he had a duty to supervise" [emphasis mine]. The sexual assault began when the girl was five years old and continued over the next four years. He should never have been allowed back on the streets as a normal citizen with these kinds of charges. However, being an illegal immigrant, with no ties to this country, he shouldn't have been given the chance to shoot four kids in the back of the head.

Authorities believe Godinez was preparing to flee to Mexico and then El Salvador in order to avoid being arrested for the murders in Newark. Records indicate that he may have been in the country illegally as well. Godinez was ordered deported in 1993 and there is no record he ever left the country. Two of the youth's arrested in the case, one of which was Godinez's brother, had recently started bragging that they were members of the gang MS-13. The house Godinez was arrested in also netted 10 other illegal immigrants during the arrest.

While the media doesn't seem to be covering this story, it is an outrage that Carranza and Godinez were even on the streets able to carry out this crime. Newark's status as a "sanctuary city" has contributed to this crime as well. When a city stops enforcing certain laws, people like Carranza, Godinez, and the members of MS-13 will start ignoring all of the laws. If illegal immigrants are arrested for violent crimes, they should be held without bail until their court date. In addition, "Sanctuary Cities" should be held accountable for violating the law. In addition to loosing federal funds, the city officials that decide on the "sanctuary" status should be tried the same as the criminals. In the murders of Iofemi Hightower, Dashon Harvey, and Terrance Aeriel, Newark officials helped put Carranza and Godinez there that night. The failure of Newark and other officials to deport illegal immigrants that break the law contributed to the death of these three teenagers.

Unity '08

This is going to be a little bit of a different post. I am not going to try and convince you of anything. Instead, I am asking my readers to investigate something, and give me their feedback.

A few days ago I got an email from a group called Unity 08. This group is working to get a third party ticket nominated and on the 2008 Presidential ballot. At this point they don’t have any specific issues or solutions they are running on. Instead, they are hoping to nominate a Republican and a Democrat to run (one for President and one for Vice-President).

They have decided that the two party system no longer provides us with the best candidates. Unity 08 believes that the Republican and Democratic ticket will be dominated by the extreme right and left. By nominating one member of each ticket, they hope to have a very center ticket.

The email provided me with a link to fill out an online survey. If you don’t visit the site, I do recommend the survey. I thought it was very interesting, and made me look at a few things in a different light. However, be warned. The survey says it takes about 10 minutes. I believe I spent closer to 25 or 30 minutes on it.

In addition to the two party ticket, they are accepting nominations for delegates. If you think this is the ticket for you, you can submit your information online to be one of their delegates. The delegates will discuss what issues will be critical to the Unity 08 ticket in the spring of 08. This “nominating convention” will be held online. After the convention, they are doing a secure sign in that will allow you to vote on the ticket. Again, this is done online. One thing I do like is how they are taking this to the 21^st century. They say on their site that they have hired a legal team, and are complying with all Federal Election laws.

My knee jerk reaction is to be against this. I believe you create a ticket, or a movement. by having some driving ideal or solution. I think leaving the entire definition of the “party” up to random voters will make it hard for many people to become passionate about the ticket. The only way to defeat a Republican or a Democratic ticket is by being passionate about what you believe in.

I think this is a very interesting idea. It would be very hard to vote for a ticket I didn’t believe in. However, I am interested in how the debate of the issues might go. I would encourage everyone to check this group out. They seem to be serious. Of course, this could be a clever ruse by a third party candidate to try to build momentum. Anyway, if you check it out, let me know what you think of the group or the survey. And I promise my next post will be back to arguing one side or another of an important point.

Time to Ban Chinese Products?

In what seems to be a daily happening, there has been another major safety warning issued for a product made in China. As of this writing, there hasn't been a recall on the product. The new recall involves vinyl baby bibs that have been found to contain three times the amount of lead that is allowed in paint. While there hasn't been a true recall, parents have been warned that if they have these bibs and they are damaged or torn, they should be thrown away.

This "non-recall" comes on the heel of a number of other recent recalls on items and products from China. Recently an assortment of toys have been recalled because of the lead in their paint and toothpaste and dog food have been recalled because of toxic ingredients that have been found in them. Whether this list of recalls is directly because of the Chinese government or not, the government does have its share of blame in this. Just as our government passes standards for products made in the U.S.A, the Chinese government has a responsibility to provide an assurance that the products from it's country won't kill consumers in other countries.

When the recalls started, many news agencies wrote of the "open secret" in China. It seems it was well known that certain industries were replacing ingredients with ingredients that could hurt the consumer. While I have never been to China, if this is true, then the Chinese government is as much at fault as those businesses that made the products that are now being recalled.

It is time to discuss a possible ban on Chinese imports. A government's role is to protect its constituents first and foremost. It is time for the United States to consider what it needs to do to guarantee citizens can buy products without fear they may kill them. China has been preparing itself for an eventual war with the United States for some time. Many argue that China has already started this war on the economic front. It was a travesty for the United Nations to award this communist nation with an Olympics. We shouldn't be worried about hurting the feelings of the Chinese regime. We should be concerned with the well being of our citizens. If China can't promise their products are safe, maybe the United States should ensure no one here will die from those same products.

Should New Jersey Stand Trial?

I have a new piece up at Politics.wikia. I wrote a piece for them about the illegal alien who executed three college students in Newark. He had been indicted twice before for violent crimes and was out on bond.


Drop by Politics.wikia and let me know what you think.

Romney in ‘08

I am finally ready to declare my support and the support of Political Friends. We are endorsing Mitt Romney for President in 2008. A friend told me when Mitt first declared that I should watch him and I would be impressed. Months later, I have to say that he was right. My friend originally said I would want to support him because he was a Republican that got elected Governor of Massachusetts. While that is an impressive feat, there are other things I like about Gov. Romney as well.

First, I think a critical factor for any candidate this season is how they view Iraq and the war on terror. Governor Romney's site has "Defeating the Jihadists" as one of its prominent issues. I have been impressed by some of his public statements and his support for President Bush's troop surge. Governor Romney has called for a surge of support for the troops. On his official website, he says, "An effective strategy will involve both military and diplomatic actions to support modern Muslim nations." He calls for America to lead a "broad-based international coalition" to defeat the jihadists. Both of these points seem to be ideas that Democrats can support as well. He also calls for something many have called for in the war against jihadist, "…the rejection of violence by moderate, modern, mainstream Muslims."

Secondly, I am pro-life. Much like Governor Romney, I had a different belief before I truly had to confront what abortion meant. Governor Romney says that once he had to look at legislation involving abortion, he came to believe that abortion was wrong. I agree with that. When my wife got pregnant, I was confronted on an almost daily basis with the fact that another human life was growing within her. This life deserved to be protected and have a voice in what happened to it.

Governor Romney also has executive leadership. Many Republican and almost all Democratic candidates can't claim that. Romney was President of the Mormon Church, and Governor of Massachusetts. As Governor, he looked at running his state as he would run a business. Because of that, he lowered taxes in Massachusetts and increased revenue to the state. He believes in keeping taxes low and in simplifying our incredibly large tax code. I too believe in both of these points.

Finally, I believe it is a good thing to have someone in office that believes in God and has a core faith. Romney is quoted in the Boston Globe and on his site as saying that our love of liberty, love of country and love of God are what make us a successful nation and society. Romney believes that Americans look for a, "…purpose greater than ourselves in life." That kind of belief in the people of our nation is critical for a President of this great nation. I don't see that in other candidates. Because of that, I am supporting Mitt Romney for President.

The Iraqi Parliament takes a Vacation

In a recent editorial, Cynthia Tucker, of the Atlanta Journal – Constitution, argues that since the Iraqi parliament is taking a month vacation, it is time to pull our troops out. Her column spends no time discussing any of the military or political strategies that might argue for or against a withdrawal from Iraq. She argues that the very fact that the parliament is vacationing doesn’t really matter. In her opinion, since, “[s]ome block of Shites or Summies is always stalking out,” we shouldn’t expect the Iraqi parliament to get anything accomplished anyway. If our troops can fight in 130 degree weather, then the Iraqis can hold parliament in session. If the parliament won’t convene, then we should go.

Mrs. Tucker isn’t alone in her opinion. I am sure there are many people who would agree with her. I also believe the Iraqi parliament should be doing everything they can to provide for the security of their country. The parliament probably has plenty of work to keep them busy. However, if the democracy that is forming in Iraq is going to work, then the Iraqi voters need to hold the parliament to task. I don’t believe we should threaten our ally. It is in our best interest to have a democratic Iraq. That democracy is going to make decisions we aren’t going to like, and threatening to withdraw our help isn’t the knee jerk reaction we should be looking for.

My criticism of Mrs. Tucker is that she doesn’t acknowledge what might happen if we pull out. While I agree that the parliament should probably be criticized for taking a month off, I disagree with her lack of concern for what the aftermath of a United States troop withdrawal might look like. When the U.S. left Vietnam, millions died in South Vietnam, Cambodia, and in the surrounding waters. No one is arguing that anything less might happen if we leave Iraq.

Mrs. Tucker also fails to consider an additional key point in this discussion. If the parliament of a fledgling democracy like Iraq is going to take pointers on behavior and what is expected of them, where might they look? What lessons would they take from the behavior that our own congress has shown over the last seven months? If the Iraqi parliament has studied the political theatrics of the U.S. House and Senate, we should be thankful all they are doing is taking a month off.

And finally, is there any chance we can convince our congress to take a month off?

Thoughts and Prayers for victims of 35 W Bridge

Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of the victims of the bridge collapse in Minnesota.

Democratic Leadership betting against America?

There seems to be more and more people who believe the surge in Iraq is working. On Monday, I wrote how the New York Times and Newt Gingrich are both saying we need to stay the course. I have written numerous times on here about the cost of America leaving our allies in Iraq on their own.

Since Monday, there are more and more articles appearing on the web discussing both the New York Times comments on the Iraq war, and the reaction by Democrats. Before I question the motives of some of the Democrats, I want to point out that I don’t believe all Democrats, and certainly not all Democratic voters think like Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, et al. For example, the House Majority Whip, James Clyburn (D-South Carolina) says that success in Iraq is a real problem for the Democrats. The more good news out of Iraq, the less likely the “Blue Dog Caucus” of Democrats are to vote to leave Iraq. If the Republicans and the Blue Dogs are both willing to wait on the September report from Petraeus, Pelosi and Reid won’t be able to get the votes to require our troops to leave Iraq. Hence the “real big problem” as Rep Clyburn put it.

There have also been many comments and articles on the Junior Representative from Kansas and her comments. While the House Armed Services Committee was being briefed by General Jack Keane, Rep. Nancy Boyda (D- Kansas) walked out of the briefing distressed. When she returned, she said, “There is only so much you can take until we in fact had to leave the room for a while. So I think I am back and maybe can articulate some things -- after so much frustration of having to listen to what we listened too.” Rep. Boyda went on to say, “Those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country instead of saying, here’s the reality of the problem.” What did General Keane say that upset her so much? While noting that there are still problems in Iraq, the General was explaining some of the success we are currently having in Iraq. How can the United States succeeding in Iraq be so offensive?

The New York Times did a poll recently to gauge the American support for the war in Iraq. When they found that people who supported the United States going to war in Iraq had risen from 35 percent to 42 percent, they were confused and bewildered, and immediately redid the poll. The problem is that the second version of the poll showed the same result: American support for the war in Iraq is increasing, not decreasing.

And finally, for those of you keeping score at home, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) is also supporting the surge. In addition to being a Democrat, Rep. Ellison is also the only Muslim in Congress. The AP quotes him recently as saying, “The success in Ramadi is not just because of bombs and bullets, but because the U.S. and Iraqi military and the Iraqi police are partnering with the tribal leadership and the religious leadership.”

While we are a long way from leaving Iraq, there is a lot of good news coming out of Iraq. Many believe the surge is working. However, the Democratic leadership doesn’t want to hear it. While Boyda is a junior member, it is not that hard to imagine Reid, Pelosi, or Murtha trying to follow her example at the next military briefing they get. The Democratic leadership is actively pulling against any success by the American military in Iraq. Many politicians before them have tried to bet against America with their political careers. What happened to those politicians? They find themselves on the ash heap of history. Pelosi, Reid, and the rest better learn to support the country they claim to represent, or start brushing off those resumes.

American Congress for Truth Blog

I have written about Bridgette Gabriel on this site before. She is a Christian who grew up in Lebanon as the country was invaded by Muslim fanatics. I reviewed her book, Because They Hate, and I still believe it is a very important book that everyone should read.

Mrs. Gabriel now heads up the American Congress for Truth. This group is dedicated to warning the West about the growing threat of radical Islam. After I read her book, I went to the site and signed up for email notifications. These notifications are typically quick articles about radical Islam.

I received an email in the last couple of days that announced a new blog for American Congress for Truth. I have added it to my link list and encourage everyone to visit the blog. Already, they have a wealth of information on the site.