Sarah Palin for VP

For the first time in a number of months I am once again excited about the Presidential Race. I was certain McCain was going to pick either Romney or Pawlenty. The more I look into the Governor from Alaska, the more excited I get. She is a true conservative. That will turn some people off, and excite others. She has only been in elected government for a few years, but she has some very clear opinions on a variety of issues. She is pro-life, her oldest son is about to go to Iraq, she is a lifetime NRA member, she has been billed as a “reformer” and has the experience to back it up. She supports developing America’s resources to provide energy independence. She got elected as Governor of Alaska by first defeating the incumbent Governor in the Republican primary, and then defeated a former Governor in the general election. She has a history of attacking both Republicans and Democrats when they make wasteful decisions in government.

She abandoned the “Bridge to Nowhere project”. She said that if Alaska needed a bridge, they would pay for it. I really admire that opinion at the State and Local level. Just imagine: an official who doesn’t believe the Federal Government is the solution to every problem. She is against gay marriage, while defending homosexuals from discrimination.

There has been a lot of criticism of McCain for picking someone with as short a resume as hers, when Republicans have been pointing out how thin Obama’s own resume is. I think there are two very large differences between Sarah Palin’s resume and Barack Obama’s. First, Palin was a Governor, not a Senator. That is a very important difference. As Governor, you are the one ultimately responsible for your state. As a Senator, you delegate, or work with others to pass laws that the executive branch then enforces. You may or may not agree with Mrs. Palin, but you can look at her experience and see exactly where she stands on most issues. The same thing can’t be said for Obama.

Secondly, she is the nominee for Vice President, not President. As President, Obama is the leader of the Executive branch of the U.S. government, and the leader of his party. As Vice President, Sarah Palin would only become President in the event something happened to McCain. Presumably, she would have some time in the office of Vice President before taking on the mantel of President. She will also be able to pick a Vice President to work with her that compliments her, much as Obama has chosen with Biden.

At the end of the day, voters will have to decide who they like more; Obama / Biden or McCain / Palin. I am very excited about the Republican ticket. I think a number of voters are going to start supporting McCain and Palin the more they learn about her.

I also think it is important to take a step back today. No matter which ticket is elected in November, we are truly living in historic times. If the Democrats win, the first Black man will have been elected President. If the Republicans win, the first female Vice President will have been elected. Both of these are historical firsts, and both dramatically change Presidential politics starting with their elections. Never again will the office of President and Vice President be the exclusive domain of old white men. For this, we as Americans should be proud.

Quick Notes: Biden and Russia

Once again, it is time for an exciting issue of Quick Notes. There has been some "exciting" news on the Presidential front, and some distrubing news on the international front. On to my thoughts...


Democratic VP Candidate Joe Biden: After a really poor performance by the chosen one last Saturday at Saddleback, Presidential candidate Obama tapped Joe Biden for his VP candidate. I think the best you can say for this pick is that it was a "safe" pick. Biden is a little closer to the middle of the road than Obama. Of course, Obama is so far out in left field it doesn't take much to get closer to the middle. Biden has some of the same "elitist" baggage that Obama has. During the announcement today, Sen. Obama introduced Sen. Biden as the next President. "President" Biden then refered to Obama as Barack America. I am hoping for a number of slip ups like this over the next couple of days to really make the DNC convention exciting.


Russia: Russia has pulled some troops out of Georgia, and entrenched others. I think very few people believe that Russia is ready to give up Georgia. Russia now controls the port of Poti. I believe this gives Putin control of oil shipments leaving Georgia. At the very least, it is a huge hold on what comes and goes to Georgia.


Talk and threats aren't going to work to get Russia out of Georgia. It is time for the United States, the United Nations, and NATO to act. I purpose the following response:


First, the International Olympic Committee needs to remove the 2014 Olympic Games from Russia. These games are set to be held a few miles from Georgia. There is no better insult to democracy than to go through with them. A boycott isn't enough. Athletes shouldn't be penalized for the actions of a nation that acts like this. The games could be sent to somewhere else, somewhere that might send a clear message to Russia. Perhaps the Ukraine?


Second, The G-8 should immediately disolve and reconstitute itself as the G-7, minus Russia. This has been an imperial grab by mother Russia, and Putin needs to know the other nations of the world will not accept this.


Third, the Ukraine and other former Soviet states should be offered expidited admittance into NATO. If Russia's actions are a message to tell the U.S. and NATO to back off, our response should be clear. We will not back down from bullying tactis.


Finally, Russia has been very unhappy with the missle agreement the U.S. has agreed to with Poland. We should offer the same agreement to the Ukraine.


Russia wants to make a play to control all oil in that part of the world, and control all of the former Soviet states. The rest of the world needs to show mother Russia that the days of the empire are done. If Russia wants to be part of the mature world, it needs to act like it.

Unelectable

The following is from the "debate" on Saturday night at Saddleback Church:

Question: Senator Obama, as a pastor I have to deal with this all the time, all the pain, all the conflicts. I know it is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions. At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?

Senator Obama, presumptive Democratic nominee for President of the United States: "You know, I—I, eh, er – I think that whether you're looking at this from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is above my pay grade."

Is that really the best answer Senator Obama could give? This is a presidential debate, and Obama can't give an answer to this question. Anyone who has thought about this issue has an answer for it. I would like to think that Senator Obama had some sort of answer to this question when he voted against abortion legislation as an Illinois State Senator. Rich Lowry writes today:

"In 2007, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that the Freedom of Choice Act would be the first piece of legislation that he would sign as president. The act would not only codify Roe v. Wade, but wipe out all current federal, state, and local restrictions on abortion that pass muster under Roe, including the Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal funding of abortion. This is not the legislative priority of a man keenly attuned to the moral implications of abortion."

This is the "legislative priority" of a man who has a very definite belief on abortion. As a state senator, Obama voted a number of times against pro-life legislation. In the Illinois Senate, he voted against protecting the rights of babies who survived an abortion and were born. Think about this point for a minute. A baby survives an abortion and is born into the world. However, because the mother intended for the baby to be aborted, the doctor should kill the baby. Most people would do whatever they could to protect this newborn baby. Obama voted against protecting the baby more than once. He felt these babies had no rights and deserved no protections. He thought doctors shouldn't be required to provide life saving treatments to babies who were outside the womb.

His answer Saturday night was dishonest and repulsive. For someone who is running for President of the United States to take a serious question about a serious issue such as abortion and simply respond with, "…that is above my pay grade," should show the American people that the Senator is not ready to be President. Maybe we should all do Senator Obama a favor and keep him at his current pay grade in November so he won't be overwhelmed with these questions.

Book Review: Dark Horse

Of the 24 books I have reviewed on this site, only one was a fictional book. That should say that a fictional book has to be something pretty impressive for me to review it on here. Ralph Reed's first fictional book, Dark Horse: A Political Thriller, qualifies as something impressive. Dark Horse is a political thriller set in a present day election. The book opens up at the Democratic Convention where the presumptive nominee, California Governor Robert Long, has the nomination stolen from him at the last minute. But as the dust settles, and some questionable facts emerge regarding the Democratic nomination (and the delegation from Virginia) Robert Long starts to consider the unthinkable: an independent Presidential bid.

The book follows the election as the three candidates (Republican, Democratic, and Independent) battle for the White House. The story is told from the perspective of those closest to the candidates; their strategists. Many of the issues covered in this fictional election could easily have been taken from the current election. There were a number of times I recognized similarities between characters in the book, and members of real life presidential politics. Mr. Reed has the experience to make the book feel like a real election. Reed served as a senior adviser to the 2000 and 2004 Bush campaigns, was chairman of the Georgia Republican Party, and has been the executive director of the Christian Coalition. But don't think this is a propaganda piece for the Republican party. Two of my favorite characters in the book (and ultimately the main characters) are Democrats.

Dark Horse is a very easy read. The story is action packed with scandals hitting each of the candidates, political espionage, and an attempted terrorist attack on U. S. soil during the election. The main characters feel like real people. They aren't good or bad, but like most of us, have good and bad qualities.

I would recommend this book to anyone who enjoys suspense or any type of "thriller" book. The cover says it is a "political thriller", and I thought it was a page turner. I hope Mr. Reed writes a sequel using some of the characters from this book. Who knows, there is always the bid for a second term.

A Return of Mother Russia

Russia has continued the war in Georgia, despite a EU brokered cease fire. This is likely to continue to get nasty, so I thought I would give my readers a quick history lesson, and bring everyone up to date on the latest reports from Georgia. I would also be disappointing my readers if I didn't weigh in on my thoughts as to what the motives are behind Russia and what the next steps in this conflict could be.

History

Georgia declared its independence just before the breakup of the Soviet Union. Around the mid 1990's, Abkhazia and South Ossetia began to have significant separatist movements. Prior to last week, these areas had been functioning independent of Georgia. Russia has had significant influence in the disputed areas including involvement in the government, stationing "peace keepers" in these areas, and even issuing Russian passports to residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Last week, Georgia decided it was tired of the attacks into it from the South Ossetia region and sent in it's military to try and bring the area under control. They failed. Russia responded to the attack by sending it's own military into both disputing regions, and then launching a campaign into Georgia.

Today

Russia now has complete control of both South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Rumors prior to today said that the Russian military either controlled or had encircled the city of Gori. Between capturing Gori and launching an attack from Abkhazia, Russia now controls the major East West highway in Georgia, effectively splitting the nation in two. Up until yesterday, Russia stated there would be no more military operations, that Georgia had been punished enough.

Today found the Russian army moving towards the Georgian capital of Tbilisi. Reports in the capital were getting messages to, "Get out now!" Russia has also cut off the capital from Georgian Ports. This evening, it appears that the Russian military did take control of Gori. The original claims by Russian officials that they had not take Gori were based on splitting hairs on how you define the term "capture a city".

Now What?

It looks as if Russia may be intending to annex not just South Ossetia and Abkhazia (something they have wanted for a long time), but Georgia as well. Georgia also has the only major pipeline that brings oil from the Caucasus to the West outside of Russia. I think Prime Minister (Tzar?) Putin may be hoping to destroy it before this is done. Whatever Putin's motives, this war is a clear signal to the world and to the former Soviet Nations: Russia is the big gun on that side of the world and if former Soviet countries make attempts to join NATO, or become close with Europe and the U.S., watch out.

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has been dispatched to France and then Georgia to try and negotiate a settlement. She will be working with the French to do this. Hopefully this cease fire will go over better than the last one. I expect any settlement will include Russia controlling South Ossetia and Abkhazia at a minimum. At the end of the day, Putin and Mother Russia will have invaded a free and democratic nation, and will be rewarded for their effort. I hope I am wrong, but I don't believe the EU or the United Nations are strong enough to force Russia back inside her own borders. My one hope is that immediately after a cease fire that holds, NATO will grant immediate membership to any of the previous Soviet states that want it.

Quick Notes -- Gang of 10, Energy, and Georgia

The late William F. Buckley once said, "I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University." I wish to change that just a little. After watching the campaigns of both Senator Obama and Senator McCain, I would rather be governed by a random lottery of 1000 people in the United States than our current elected Congress and Senate. I have lamented many times that neither Obama nor McCain represent the best from their parties. This week has further depressed me on the ability of our currently elected representatives. This means you get to enjoy a somewhat expanded version of Quick Notes.

Energy. Without looking at the polling data, I think it is safe to say that Energy has become the number one issue of the election. This can always change. On a daily basis, I see more in the paper, on radio, and on TV about energy and gas prices than any other issue. There are a number of positions out there. Obama wants to stop using oil in our country in the next ten years. He also wants to give "middle class families" a $1000 check to help with prices at the pump. How would he pay for this? With windfall profit taxes on big oil companies. If we put profit taxes on oil companies, what do we really think will happen to the price of gas?

McCain has been better on this issue. He has changed his position on off shore drilling. He wants to increase nuclear power in the U.S. He even wants to increase our alternative energy production. I agree with these issues, but don't believe they go far enough. I am an "all of the above" kind of guy. I believe we need to drill for oil in our country wherever we believe it is economically feasible. If that means off shore, in ANWR, or in the Grand Canyon, then do it. We need to build more nuclear power plants in the U.S. If France can get 80% of their energy from nuclear power, why can't we. The Pickens Plan calls for more wind energy. I am skeptical, but the plan calls for it to be financed 100% from private sector funds. Any alternative energy that private financiers want to go for, I support. They use their money, they drive the market, and if they are successful, they should reap the profits. This is Capitalism at it's best.

This is a long winded way of saying that there is an issue out there that both McCain, and the Republicans can win on this year. Conventional wisdom is that this year, Obama should win, and the Democrats should pick up seats in both the House and the Senate. Imagine turning that on it's head. However, into this discussion steps...

The Gang of 10. Democrats aren't the only one trying to drive a stake in the discussion of off shore drilling. 5 Republicans in the Senate have joined the fray. There is a great article on this at Get Drunk and Vote 4 McCain. If you follow politics, and are a conservative Republican, all you need to hear is Lindsey Graham and bipartisan compromise. These two phrases generally mean Democrats get what they want, and Republicans get screwed. The Gang of 10 plan allows off shore drilling, but only in a few states, and with the permission of those states. It bars drilling in ANWR, it provides $84 billion of tax incentives for alternative fuels that are paid for with new taxes on oil companies. These senators have decided they can tax certain companies to provide incentives to their competitors. Imagine Congress taxing Microsoft and giving the money to Apple. Or taxing Starbucks and giving the money to McDonald's. It is arrogant, unwise, and against the very nature of our market economy. The five Republicans, Graham (R-SC), Chambliss (R-GA), Isakson (R-GA), Thune (R- SD), and Corker (R-TN), have shown a colossal lack of judgment.

Georgia. Turning to world events, Russia has started a full scale war with the nation of Georgia. This is a very complicated matter that I may more fully explain in a future post. However, something to keep an eye on is the possibility of a nuke being used in this engagement. When the Soviet Union collapsed, 5000 small nuclear weapons went unaccounted for. The government of Russia said they were destroyed, and that all evidence of their destruction, and all correspondence ordering their destruction was also destroyed. In addition, Georgia was sitting on some nuclear weapons, which they turned over to Russia in exchange for U.S aid. In both of these cases, there is a chance that some nuclear weapons (some as small as 44 lbs) may be in the hands of the Georgian government, or some of the smaller groups fighting in this engagement. If they feel that Russia is about to take over their entire country, Georgia may feel it has no option but to set one of these off. Keep an eye on that part of the world to see what happens.

Congress and Their 5 Week Vacation

Pack 04 has once again taken me up on an offer to write on here. Here is his guest post, hope you enjoy!

It has probably been beaten to death by now but why not pile on:

Sen. Tom Coburn: We’re fighting hard. You need to be fighting hard.

Sen. Jeff Sessions: If the government is not functioning, it’s difficult to know how to help them.

Rep. Chris Shays: If they go off on vacation for two months while our troops fight — that would be the outrage of outrages.

Sen. John Warner: An action of that consequence would send a very bad signal to the world that they don't have the resolve that matches the resolve of the brave troops that are fighting in the battle today.

Sen. John Kerry: An Iraqi Parliament that spends July and August sitting around a swimming pool while their country descends into further unrest.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: While our troops are in harm's way there and the need for us to see strong political change, it seems they've left before their work was completed.

Words spoken around the time the Iraqi government was planning a 2 month vacation last summer. Last Friday by a vote of 213-212 the House decided to take a break and go on vacation. I suppose nothing bad is going on in America. Energy prices are high, we are in a “recession,” people cannot afford to get medicine or healthcare, the war in Iraqi is still going on. I guess these issues we were led to believe are not as critical as thought. Those are all things the House can do something about. Maybe they are just going to telecommute.

They are going on vacation using/spending money that they receive from our tax money. The Speaker of the House gets $217,400 a year, $169,300 a year for the rest of them. They also get a cost of living increase. I work for state government, most likely my promised cost of living increase is going away because the state has not collected as much. Do you think they will decide not to give themselves a cost of living increase?

They are going on vacation and my Dad who lives hours away from me had to cancel his vacation to see me because he cannot afford to travel down here. I get to see him very little every year. I cannot afford to get up to see him either for the same reason. Let’s look big picture, this month troops are going to die, people are going to get sick and stay sick because of lack of affordable health care, kids are going to go hungry because people had to choose between buying food or driving to work.

The evil republicans and a few democratic voted to stay to solve problems. They lost but I am proud of them. What do the republicans need to do now? Stay in DC and work. Send photographers out to take pictures of the Democrats on the beach. Run ads showing who is doing what. Win in November.

McCain’s VP Choices

There has been a lot of speculation on McCain's possible Vice Presidential choices. I have seen articles promoting particular choices and commentary attacking others. Since this seems to be the newest past time, I thought I would join in. There are a few generic qualities most Presidential candidates look for. The VP candidate should complement the policy choices of McCain. The candidate should be able to bring a state or two with him / or her. In McCain's case, I think the campaign would be wise to look for someone who also looks presidential. Obama and his advisers are likely to attack McCain on his age. Therefore, McCain should probably pick someone that he believes the American people would accept as a President. As such, here are my Good, Bad, and Odd predictions.

The Good. These are the candidates that I think would bring something to the table, and I would personally be excited about. First out of the gates would be Mitt Romney. Many conservatives would prefer him to McCain for President. Romney has an impressive business resume, and the economy is likely to be a center stage topic in October. Romney is also likely to take Michigan off the table, and may even deliver a few other states. A very close second could be Condoleeza Rice. I have written about her before as a great VP candidate. I think her resume looks good, I think she takes race off the table this cycle, and there are many voters who respect her and would respond to her.

The Bad. Senator Joseph Lieberman. There are a number of rumors about a possible "Unity ticket" with McCain and Lieberman. Let's put aside the fact that McCain almost did this dance with Kerry. Lieberman isn't a Republican and shouldn't represent the party on the ballot. I respect him (as many conservatives do), but I disagree with him on 90 % of the issues. Far from reassuring me, if something terrible happened to McCain, I would not want to see a President Lieberman. I call this the "doomsday option". If we see this ticket it is either because McCain really doesn't want to win in November, has been reading his press from the 2004 election cycle, or his senior staff has decided they don't like McCain or the Republican Party. If McCain picks Lieberman before the convention, I could even see a new Republican candidate coming out of the convention.

The Odd. What fun is speculating on the VP choices without throwing a curve ball that no one expects? Here is mine: Brett Favre. That's right, the record holding Green Bay quarterback who may or may not be in uniform this season. Before we dismiss this too quickly, let's look at the pluses. First, he has name recognition. A McCain / Favre ticket is likely to take Wisconsin and Minnesota. That's 27 electoral votes that went to Kerry in the 2004 election. Plus, Favre may do well in cities that have NFL teams. Many of those teams are located next to large cities. Where do Democrats traditionally do well? Second, it has been rumored that the McCain camp is hurting for cash. The Packers are rumored to have offered Favre a $20 million payoff to stay retired. If McCain could get Favre out of their hair, perhaps they could create a 527 (Concerned Packers for 2008) that could use the money advertising for the ticket. Finally, Favre looks healthy enough to take on the Presidency. Compared to everyone else in the race (Obama included) he looks like a Greek god.

Those are my picks. On the off chance we do end up with the McCain / Favre ticket, remember where you heard it first.

My Day as Al

As most of my readers know by now, I like to participate in the Mystery Topic Challenge put on by Blog Ninjas. If you are a regular blogger, or just enjoy reading blogs, I can't recommend these two sites enough. The latest challenge is a pretty interesting one:

Blogs, for the most part, tend to be personal and egocentric. For this challenge, choose someone, real or imagined, in the news, a world leader, or a bum on the street. Write a post as if you were in their shoes for one day. You can write on any subject you'd like, but it MUST be from someone else's point of view.

I was working pretty hard on this topic. I thought it was a very interesting one. I decided to burn the midnight oil so to speak, and I stocked up on fast food so I wouldn't have to leave the computer. I had been furiously writing an interesting article on the Supreme Court from the perspective of Justice Thomas when I must have dozed off…

I awoke in a private jet somewhere over the Pacific (or was it the Atlantic? I never can remember where I am in these silly private jets). I had been working on my Power Point presentation again when I must have fallen asleep. Luckily, my trusty Mac notebook was sitting on the desk next to me waiting for me to add the next image. I hate it when I mess up my presentation. It bothers me so much, I had a new computer (complete with three monitors) installed at my home in Tennessee with a backup of my work. If I spill a Diet Coke or Taco on this notebook, I can always get the backup.

My plane was landing. I looked out to see the familiar scenery of the United States. The Country isn't perfect, but one day it will be. I was starting to remember. I had just given a presentation overseas, and was due for another one in California in a few hours. I was pretty tired, but this was important stuff!

As the plane touched down, I climbed into my waiting SUV. The driver had the air conditioning running so I wouldn't have to suffer in the heat while the car warmed up. It was a little bit irresponsible, but I had made sacrifices. The last time I came into this airport, I had three SUV's waiting for me and my staff. This time, it was the one SUV, and two smaller cars. Off course my staff sacrificed by not starting the other cars until they were in them. This was all the more reason for my A/C to be running, I had to wait on them!

Tonight's dinner was an expensive one. This would help me raise more global awareness, and provide me with more money to buy carbon credits. I had encouraged attendees to drive to the function in car pools, use public transportation, or better yet ride a bike. Too bad I would need these three cars to get there.

Sooner or later the U.S. would realize it had to lead the world to stop Global Warming. Sure it would require sacrifices, but the things that are most important (like the glaciers and the polar bears) usually require a little sacrifice. It would mean slowing the U.S. economy down a little, and maybe curbing the birth rate, but we have a few too many people and a little too much money in the U.S. anyways. Who do we think we are? Shouldn't China or India have a chance at being the worlds' lone Super Power?

On the way to the dinner, I was able to insert a new picture from my Hollywood friends. It was a great image from the movie Day After Tomorrow, and it showed the damage we were doing to the Earth. Of course it was computer generated, but I hadn't been able to find any real pictures that looked as good. It's OK to tell a little white lie to help the environment. My staffers had left a news paper article for me. It seems the United States had just put the polar bears on the "Threatened Species List". I was proud. Sure there were more polar bears around today than at any point in recent history, but with global warming right around the corner, who knows what could happen 50 or 100 years from now. And besides, this opens the way to sue those Oil companies because of the damage they are doing through Global Warming to the "threatened" Polar Bears. It was looking like a good day (as good as it can look with Global Warming breathing down on our necks).

My assistant called from the front seat. "Mr. Gore, Senator Obama is on the line and would really like to speak with you," she had just said…

I awoke in a cold sweat. Wow, a few eco friendly miles in Al Gore's shows (or SUV). That really wasn't what I was expecting. Now, go enjoy the other entries to this challenge while I take a steel wool shower…


Now go enjoy these other entires. Remember to vote for your favorite!

Hiro Gets Game by Mr. President

In Someone Else's Shoes by Stella

My Day As Al by Andy D

Coming of Age in the Shoes of Another by MooPig

I Am A Woman Damned by Jayne d'Arcy - feel free to appreciate, but she's not eligible for the favorite vote.

To vote: Go to the MTC Blog

Political Friends Goes to Washington

It may be hard to believe, but I have never visited Washington, D.C. This October, I am going. I hope to make this the first of many visits. I love our nations history, and Washington is one of the places to really learn about that history.


I am looking for advice on the "must see" things in D.C. I am committing to going to the National Archives. Past that, I am open to suggestion. So, if you have any ideas, let me know. Thanks ahead of time for any advice.

Bill Russell for Congress!

I am a Conservative.

I believe in the sovereignty and security of this one nation, under God. I believe the primary role of government is to provide for the common defense and a legal framework to protect families and individual liberty. I believe in rugged individualism because individuals can make far better choices than any government entity in providing for families, protecting households, choosing doctors and health care plans, and deciding which teachers and schools are best for children. I believe prosperity is best ensured by what Adam Smith called the "invisible hand" of a natural, price driven economy.

-- Lt. Colonel William Russell

Wow. These are the words I am dying to hear a Republican presidential candidate say. I would also love to hear them coming from a Republican running to represent me. In this case, they come from Lt. Colonel William "Bill" Russell, who is running for the Pennsylvania 12^th Congressional District. You may ask, "Who is the current Representative from the 12^th District, Pennsylvania?" That would be John Murtha. If you follow politics, and know who Murtha is, you are probably thinking that Lt. Colonel Russell doesn't stand a chance. Let me give you a few facts Michelle Malkin reported on today:

• The Second Quarter reports brought some troubling news for Rep. Murtha: Russell outraised him 6 to 1. By the way, active duty military personnel (such as Lt. Colonel Russell) are not allowed to actively campaign until they complete their military service

• A judge ruled in February that Russell had failed to collect enough signatures to get on the primary ballot. However, more than 4,000 write in votes later, Russell's name is now on the general election ballot.

• On the morning of September 11, 2001, Russell and his pregnant wife were working at the Pentagon. They both escaped unharmed.

• Lt. Colonel Russell has served for 28 years in Active and Reserve service. This includes six tours in hostile fire zones. He is a veteran of both Iraq wars.

Went I went to the William Russell for Congress website, I kept finding more and more reasons to support the Lt. Colonel over John Murtha. Murtha is as corrupt as they come, and even some Democrats are tired of him. During the write in campaign, Russell had to get 1000 votes to get on the ballot. He got 4,000. He also got an additional 1,000 Democratic write in votes!

I don't ask my readers to contribute to a political campaign very often. Michelle Malkin points out that the bulk of his donations during the 6:1 route of Murtha were $50 or less. If you are thinking of contributing to a campaign this year, this is the one. Lt. Colonel Russell can't actively campaign until September 1^st, so anything you can spare ($5, $15, $20 or more) would help him out, and may put a corrupt politician out of a job.

Book Review: In Defense of America

There is a special place in my heart for foreign written books that defend the United States. Mark Steyn's America Alone is a good example, and so is In Defense of America by Bronwen Maddox. I happened upon this book purely by accident. I read the book jacket, and decided to read the rest of the book. It is a small book (about 216 pages long). I read it in one day. I highly recommend it.

A word of caution: This isn't a defense of everything that the United States has ever done. Ms. Maddox and I disagree on some pretty significant points (such as the war in Iraq). Ms. Maddox also takes the United States to task for issues she feels we got wrong. However, she also points out that the United States has done many good things, and that our country is founded on some very incredible ideas. The ideas set forth in our founding document are foreign to most of the rest of the world. Ms. Maddox says, "The American enterprise can appear anachronistic at a time when countries are shedding fractious provinces or breaking into pieces entirely. But it still represents a profoundly civilized goal: to overcome ethnic and religious differences in uniting people willingly into one country."

She points out that while it is commonly held that we have lost our image internationally, there were many criticisms of the United States during the Clinton administration. She also points out that Europe would be naïve to expect a dramatic change in U.S. foreign policy with the next President, even if it is Senator Obama. Most in Europe don't understand the fundamental way our government works. I would argue that many within the United States don't understand the basics of our Constitution, let alone our Government. The power to run our government is divided among the different branches of government. The President cannot do everything. Many things (like the use of troops) require Congressional approval. Because of this, a stark, dramatic change, is very hard to accomplish in America.

Finally, In Defense of America contains recommendations for the United States going forward, and a few cautions for our international critics. Many in today's world hope that the United States is reluctant to become involved in international events after Iraq. We may be cautious to use our military, or to even criticize other nations after the twists and turns we have faced in Iraq. This would be bad for the world as a whole. There are many times that the United States is the only one with a military able to defend other nations, and the will power to defend those nations. We also tend to send more aid to problem areas than many groups of countries. A world with a Untied States that "minds its own business" could become a very dark, and very scary world.

I recommend this book to all of my readers. It is a quick read. I promise you will find points that you disagree with. I also promise that the arguments that Ms. Maddox sets forth will be very thought provoking, and worth your attention.

Alcohol and Politics for '08

My wife sent me a link to a website a few days ago. I have had so much fun on the site, I thought I would share it with my readers. If you have been wondering how to vote in November, this site is just for you. Get Drunk and Vote 4 McCain gets its name from a comment in an Ann Coulter piece. Ann Coulter recommends we have parties across the nation to get drunk then vote for McCain.

Many on the right are wondering how to vote this season. Conservatives can't vote for Obama because he has the most liberal voting record in history. Of course, he has only been in the U.S. Senator for less than one term. Perhaps if he stays in the Senate for a few more terms his voting record would change. This Presidential campaign is the first real campaign Sen. Obama has ever had to run. In addition to his lack of experience, I don't like where he stands on the issues on any given day.

In contrast, McCain doesn't like me. I agree with him on one or two issues, but disagree with him on more. He has made a name out of working with Democrats in the Senate. While McCain is preferable to Obama, he is still McCain. How is a conservative suppose to vote this year and still look at themselves in the mirror?

Get Drunk and Vote 4 McCain may have found the answers. The writer / writers have been pointing out some of the many problems with McCain (like his recent endorsement of Obama). Their articles are rated on how many adult beverages a conservative needs to drink after reading the article. Stop by and see what you think. I am adding it to my link list on the right hand column in case you need it. I hope you enjoy their site as much as I have. Now, what should I drink on election night...

The Best Candidates We Have?

The new cover of the New Yorker has been reported in the media in some detail over the last 24 hours. In case you missed it, the New Yorker ran a cover that it claims is satire. It shows Barack and Michelle Obama in the Oval Office. Senator Obama is clad in Muslim garb, and Michelle is wearing militant gear. There is a picture of Osama bin Laden hanging in the background while an American Flag burns in the fire place. The Obamas are doing a fist bump in the center of the scene. The New Yorker has said they were poking fun at all of the rumors that have circulated about the Obamas.


In response, he Obama campaign has attacked the New Yorker. The campaign called the cover tasteless and offensive. It seemed to be yesterday's biggest news item. The entire day I wondered, "what will happen the first time a President Obama gets negative media?" Is it "Presidential" to attack the media because you don't like the way they portray you? How would Barack Obama handle a foreign leader going to the U.N. and calling him Satan? What happens when a Saturday Night Live skit portrays him as something other than the messiah?


During the last week I have also been disappointed with Senator McCain. Last week, McCain distanced himself from yet another adviser. It seems any time someone in McCain's camp, talk radio, or even the Republican party says something, McCain tries to prove he is still young by sprinting to the microphone to distance himself from that person. This time, it was Phil Gramm. Mr. Gramm had the tenacity (or audacity?) to say something that is actually worth considering. He said that we are currently in a "mental recession". He isn't the first to argue this point. Simply put, while the economy isn't perfect, it isn't in the "text book definition" of a recession either. Could get there, might not, but isn't there now. Many other people have debated this same point. Secondly, he said that we have become a nation of whiners. Once again, he isn't the first person to make this argument either. Senator McCain may not agree with the statements, but did it justify throwing yet another supporter under the bus?


I think both parties have failed to put their best candidate forward this year. We are probably headed for more moments like both of these over the next couple of months.

Thoughts From a Guest

I am always encouraging people who comment on here to give me any ideas they have for blog posts. I have also asked a few regular readers to write something to use for a post. Most of these readers are people who don't have their own blogs. Pack04 has taken me up on the offer. Without further ado, here is his post. I hope you enjoy it, and feel free to comment as if this were any other entry.

I saw a report that home foreclosures are still increasing. I might not be completely getting how many families in the country own homes but this has been going on for a while. Can it be possible that there really are that many loans given out to people that should not have gotten them? Or is it possible that people that were making payments on the houses are now looking at it and saying hey I do not have to pay and the government will bail me out and not make me pay?

Senator Obama was talking in a speech to Spanish speaking people about how he does not think it is right to make a law making English the official language of the US (I agree). He said rather than passing that law we should all learn to talk in a foreign language. That is hypocritical to say if you don’t speak English you do not have to learn another language but if you do speak English you have to learn another language. By the way, when is he signing up for his foreign language classes?

He also said he was embarrassed for America because when we go overseas we do not speak the language of where we are going but people from overseas who come here know English. Well I am not sorry that I was born in a country that speaks the most common language in the world. Should we not be concerned that a person who wants to be the face of America is embarrassed by Americans? I can see being embarrassed by our actions as a country as a whole but he is saying he is embarrassed of me because when I went to Europe in February I could not speak Hungarian, German or Czech. Being embarrassed of the people is just wrong.

What does Jesse Jackson want? You would think it was for black people of his race to do everything that a white person can. So you would think that when a black person has a chance to become the President you would not want to bring physical harm to them. This makes me believe his actions are meant to keep blacks down so that he can keep getting their money. If he admits that blacks are equal he is out of a job.

Fair media coverage: Fox news reported that things are going good in Iraq so much so that the Iraqi government is talking about requesting a scale back of American troops there. CNN reported about how another person was killed in Iraq. Which to believe? I don’t know.

Of course President Bush looks like a fool because he responded by saying he does not want to put a timetable for withdrawal. I believe, as President Bush has said in the past, that we should stay there and help our ally until they no longer request our help. To say no to their request is foolish.

Number One Issue in ’08: Gas Prices?

I have written a few times on this site about energy and gas prices being an issue this Presidential Election season. I am now convinced that it could be a very big factor in not just the Presidential election, but Congressional and Senatorial campaigns as well. Gas prices hit an all time high today for our national average at $4.11 a gallon. The Democrats campaigned on lowering energy and gas prices back in 2006. So far, they haven't done anything about it. $4.00 appears to be the point when most Americans begin to lose patience with the "environmental movement" and decide it is time to do something. A few days ago I saw a t-shirt selling on ebay. The shirt had a picture of a polar bear and said, "I'd drill through his A—, for cheaper gas!" I have always been amazed at the good PR the Polar Bear gets. Let's not forget that this is an animal known to stalk and kill people, and routinely eats seals. Why do you think the Polar Bear hangs out on ice?

I digress. Many Republicans are pushing hard to at least get a floor vote on off shore drilling. Pelosi and Reid are both playing this down. Neither of them wants a roll call vote with their members voting against off shore drilling come November. I'm not a professional campaign manager, but I bet a very effective add could be made with a Representative or Senator voting against drilling, and gas prices at $5 in November. Pelosi has said she won't allow any energy bills to see the floor for fear that an off shore drilling vote could come up. Reid has said he doesn't think anything will happen in the Senate, but Republicans and some Democrats don't agree with him.

There is a move in the Senate to create a "Gang of 14" style compromise. According to the Politico, this would show up in a bill that opens up the coast for drilling, but includes some conservation or alternative fuel measures. Depending on the language, there is a real opportunity to get some meaningful legislation passed here. There are already Democrats committing their support to this bill. If it passed in the Senate, there would be more pressure on the House to do something.

I called a U. S. Representative’s office today to discuss off shore drilling with them. I called as a simple voter, and not in any way associated with this blog. While discussing the merits of off shore drilling, and discussing alternative energy such as bio-fuels and nuclear power, the staffer I talked to wouldn’t commit one way or another for the Representative they worked for. At one point in the conversation, the aide even asked not to be quoted. I have never been told from an elected officials office that they didn't want to be quoted while talking to a voter. I took one very clear message from this: This particular Representative isn’t willing to commit one way or another on this issue. If that is true, then Reid and Pelosi may be in for a loss as Democrats work to craft a bill with Republicans against the Democratic Leadership’s wishes. This could make this years Congressional and Senatorial campaigns much closer than the conventional wisdom.

July 4th

The July 4th holiday is one of my favorite holiday's in the year. Today is one of the few days that everyone is willing to celebrate America's greatness. Throughout most of the rest of the year, it is somewhat "In" to criticize America. Criticism is fine, but it is a little one sided when it isn't paired with a mention of some of the great things this country has done.

America isn't perfect. No institution created and run by men will ever be perfect. However, with all of her faults, America is still a great nation, and one that many would do anything to live in. We give more aid to foreign nations than any other nation. In some cases, we give more than almost any other grouping of nations. We help our critics. Since World War II, Europe has looked to the United States to protect her. Our military accepts this burden, even while Europe insults it in public. Those who criticize our nation from within are given protection and the freedom to do so.

When delivering his Gettysburg Address, Lincoln said some very moving worlds regarding the national cemetary that was being dedicated on the Gettysburg battlefield. The Address wasn't given until November of 1863. However, the Battle of Gettysburg was on July 1-3, 1863. Given the dates of the battle, and my own literary license, I feel it is appropriate to quote Lincoln today:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

It is the people who have gone before us, and the every day American today, that make this nation great. Today, we should celebrate our nations heritage and greatness. Happy 4th of July.

Book Review: A Crime So Monstrous

"There are more slaves in the world today than at any time in history." Stop to really think about the meaning of that sentence. In today's society, we abuse certain words so much that their original meaning no longer affects us. On example would be the word hate. Hate is dropped so much in talking with one another, on TV, and even in papers, that it no longer has the same meaning it once did. The words slavery and slave have also fallen victim to overuse. In the above sentence, a quote from A Crime So Monstrous: Face-to-Face with Modern-Day Slavery, the author isn't talking about union workers not making enough money. He isn't talking about evil Republicans being "slaves" to the oil industry. He isn't even talking about children working in sweat shops for a few cents a day. In this context, slaves are, "…human beings forced to work, under threat of violence, for no pay…" In this context we are talking about slaves in the classical sense. A mental image of a person in chains with no hope for ever seeing a better future might be a more accurate picture.

Now that we have defined the word slave, the first sentence is worth repeating. "There are more slaves in the world today than at any time in history." To me, that is simply a stunning statement. The website Free the Slaves estimates there are 27 million slaves in the world today. I became interested in this topic after reading a novel devoted to slavery in today's world. The author noted at the end that the book was based on a real slave story he covered as a journalist. I couldn't believe that something like this existed. And if it did exist, surely it was only still practiced in remote parts of the world.

As I started reading A Crime So Monstrous by E. Benjamin Skinner, a news story broke just outside of Atlanta. A local sheriff and his wife were arrested for keeping a slave from India in their house to act as a nanny for their children. According to U.S. Attorney David Nahmias (as originally quoted in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution), "This type of abuse is insidious, as it preys upon those who are vulnerable due to their immigration status and unfamiliarity with this country's legal system." The nanny was able to escape thanks to the help of some neighbors. Mr. Skinner opens his book with a story of slavery in Haiti, complete with a walk through of how easy it is for anyone to buy a child in Haiti. His point is that,"… 600 miles from the United States, and five hours from the desk of the UN Secretary-General, you have successfully bargained a human being down to the price of cab fare to JFK." While reading this book, the Atlanta slavery story broke. That story took place about a 45 minute car ride from my house.

Mr. Skinner interviewed a number of current and former slaves for his book. He travels around the globe and in many cases puts his life in danger to follow the story. At 295 pages, the book is a very easy read. I read the last 100 pages in a single night because I couldn't put the book down. The notes at the end are well documented, and the author provides a list of sources where you can get more information on modern day slavery. I would recommend this book to all of my readers. I am also adding a link to the Free the Slave website for any interested in more information on slavery.

Mandy

Welcome again to my entry for the Mystery Topic Challenge. For those of you who haven’t been by the Blog Ninjas, or MTC site, go check it out. There are a some very good bloggers who participate in both of those sites. Once again, it is time for a Mystery Topic Challenge. This challenge is:

We all have things we’ve never revealed about ourselves on our blog, things our readers wouldn’t know about us but might be interested to know as it gives them a better insight into who we are. Here’s your chance!

Tell us about something that you’ve never written about on your blog before.

This was a tough one to do for me. I racked my brain for some insight that you might be interested in that could also help explain my views on this site. Some tidbit of information that would give you a great “Aha!” moment the next time you read my thoughts on freedom, taxes, and the President. I was really at a loss on how to answer this challenge, so I did what I always do when I am out of ideas, I clear my mind, and I picture…

…a bar. At first the bar looks like any other bar you might stumble into. When you first walk in, you hear the constant and shifting hum of a number of conversations all happening at the same time. Some of the languages you recognize, some you would swear you have never heard before. Glasses clink as the bartender hands out more refreshments, and a light melody is playing near the stage at the front of the bar. A spot light is on the lone microphone. You’re in luck! It looks like its karaoke night!

The crowd grows quiet. A man has broken himself from the crowd and approaches the stage. You can feel the excitement pick up a beat or two. This is a rare treat! This particular guy is always in the bar, but rarely ever graces the stage. From behind you, you hear the rustle of the owner of the bar as he gets more attentive. Two people sitting near the front start to sweat. They know this tall, dark, brooding guy in a dark trench coat doesn’t want to be on the stage. But someone’s life depends on this song. Slowly the man, a very dangerous looking man, approaches the microphone. The vampire (because that is what the man is) starts off very tentatively, “I remember all my life, raining down as cold as ice…” Those in the bar (human and demon alike) who haven’t heard Angel sing before are sorely disappointed. As the song continues, and the music ramps up (“…I never realized how happy you made me, oh Mandy…”), Lorne, approaches the bar. The owner (demon?) addresses the crowd and gets Angel off the stage. Now that Lorne has seen Angel sing, he can tell Angel the information he needs…

For those of you who don’t recognize it, this is a scene from Angel. Not just any scene, but a scene where the hero (a centuries old vampire with a soul) has to reveal himself to a crowd in order to get some information to save a life. He does it by singing his favorite song.

I am a big Joss Whedon fan (creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly, and Serenity). I am also a pretty big David Boreanaz fan (who can currently be seen in Bones), and I like the music of Barry Manilow (I really have no idea what he is up to now).

Sometimes we need to have a minute or two to ourselves to clear our heads, or to hear the tuning fork that guides our lives. Whenever that happens, I go to You Tube and do a search for “Angel sings Mandy”. It always helps me.

Now that I have entered my submission, and need a good place to hide for some time, go see all of the submissions at the Mystery Topic Challenge blog. Vote on your favorite, and then cruise around the site to see what other great bloggers are hanging out there. There are links below for each of the contestants in this challenge. Enjoy.

Jayne d'Arcy


MooPig


Andy D

Habeas Corpus (Part Two)

In my last post, I began describing potential consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision in Boumedine v. Bush. This is the case where the Supreme Court ruled that enemy combatants held on foreign soil are guaranteed habeas corpus rights. These same rights are denied to military service members and illegal immigrants. Today, I wish to illustrate two more problems with this decision, or unintended consequences and I wish to offer my humble solutions to fix this decision.

I spent some time in my last post talking about the precedent of the Supreme Court. Previous courts have held that the writ of habeas corpus doesn’t apply to enemy combatants captured in a time of war. This court has disregarded precedent of previous Supreme Courts, and its own decision in 2006. If the court is willing to throw out precedent, does this open the way to a Roe v. Wade challenge? The only reason most people give to leave that decision alone is because it has become law of the land, and is now legal precedent. The Supreme Court has shown it is willing to ignore precedent and Roe v. Wade defenders should be worried.

This decision also infringes on the constitutional separation of powers. Our system is designed to give the other branches of government the ability to reign in a branch that abuses its powers. The President created a system for dealing with enemy combatants, the Supreme Court said that system was wrong and needed to be fixed with the help of Congress. The President worked with Congress and Congress passed laws on how prisoners would have their cases reviewed at Guantanamo. The two branches of government elected by the people worked together to find a solution. This doesn’t sound like the rouge actions of one branch. The Supreme Court has decided that it can rule the other branches of government wrong. Five un-elected justices decided they could determine war time policy better than the elected representatives of the people.

How do we fix this? Believe it or not, there are a number of ways. Here are my solutions, from band aid fix to serious fix. The more deliberate the solution, the harder it would be. My first solution is the easiest to do. Congress can now pass laws that detail how court proceedings for foreign combatants are to be carried out. For example, Congress could say that in cases involving enemy combatants, the combatant has no right to review classified information or to interview the soldiers that captured them.

Secondly, Congress could legislate what court (or courts) might have jurisdiction over trials involving enemy combatants challenging their designation. If only one or two courts had jurisdiction, only a handful of judges would need to be trained on dealing with military cases in time of war. Perhaps Congress would decide that these cases can only be tried by FISA courts.

Finally, and my personal favorite, Congress has the ability to change the number of Supreme Court justices. The U. S. Constitution does not spell out the size of the Supreme Court. We have nine justices now, we have had ten in the past, and the original court was set up with six. Congress could pass the Judicial Reconciliation Act of 2008 (named by me) and double the size of the court. 18 justices cuts the amount of power any one judge wields in half. This would be tough to do (it would literally require an act of congress) but would send a clear message to the court, and would reign in some of the more “activist” members.

Like Roe v. Wade, in the court has imposed its own views of how the law should be written, and not how it actually is written. The Supreme Courts job isn’t to create new rights. The Supreme Court is to rule on standing laws. The Supreme Court failed last week. I hope Congress and the President can clean up the courts mess.

Habeas Corpus (Part One)

Last week the Supreme Court ruled that enemy combatants held at the U. S. base at Guantanamo have the right to challenge their status in Federal court. The 5 – 4 decision has been hotly debated. The decision of Boumedine v. Bush grants writ of habeas corpus to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield in a time of war. These combatants are not U. S. citizens and most have never set foot in the United States. The decision also ruled that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was unconstitutional. This is largely being reported as a defeat for President Bush. I believe it is much more ominous than that, and you might not realize why.

Nothing exists in a vacuum, and this decision is no different. In order to understand the future problems with this decision, we need to examine its past. After 9/11, the Justice Department believed the Supreme Court would stand by precedent and not apply constitutional rights to enemy combatants held outside the United States in a time of war. Turns out, the Supreme Court isn’t really worried about precedent. Remeber this, we're going to revisit it later.

In the 2006 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case, the Supreme Court ruled that military tribunals set up by President Bush were not in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. However, the court also ruled that if the President wanted to proceed with trials in Guantanamo Bay, the President should get Congress to pass laws with direction for how the cases are going to be handled. This is exactly what Congress did.

As John Yoo wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “[u]ntil Boumediene, the Supreme Court had never allowed an alien who was captured fighting against the U. S. to use our courts to challenge his detention.” He goes on to say:

In World War II, no civilian court reviewed the thousands of German prisoners housed in the U. S. Federal judges never heard cases from the Confederate prisoners of war held during the Civil War. In a trilogy of cases decided at the end of World War II, the Supreme Court agreed that the writ did not benefit enemy aliens held outside the U.S.

What does this decision mean? Being a fan of the "Law of Unintended Consequences", I thought I would speculate on some of the possible outcomes of this decision. One outcome I have heard debated in a number of sources is: What do U. S. forces do with people captured on the battlefield? Many believe the U. S. Military is now going to have to collect evidence, and mirandize enemy combatants. Imagine this, a soldier is fighting for his life, bullets are flying, and he see’s someone come around the corner with a Soviet RPG. Does he have to read this person their Miranda rights before deciding to fire or not?

Others believe our forces will simply not capture terrorist on the battlefield. They argue it will be more effective to simply kill the bad-guys where they find them. I don’t think this is very accurate. Our soldiers are warriors and have behaved honorably in combat. I believe it is much more likely that they will simply turn any captured enemy combatants over to the police and secret police of the country they are in. If we capture an Iranian officer in Iraq, we turn him over to the Iraqi Army and ask to sit in on the interrogation. If this happens, does the combatant receive better treatment in Iraq than he would have received in G’itmo?

What if we capture Osama bin Laden? Sen. Obama has said he believes that the terrorist should stand trial. For those of you old enough to remember the O.J. trials, imagine a similar fiasco with the mastermind of 9/11 at its center. Do you believe the bin Laden fortune and the money of the clerics in Saudi Arabia can afford a good attorney? Democrats and Liberals are always big on our international image. Imagine how we look if Osama is found not guilty in one of our own courts. Perhaps he could even stand trial in a court in New York.

I will leave you with that mental picture until tomorrow. Come back tomorrow for a few more problems with this decision, and my humble recommendations for how to fix it.

Quick Notes – Great President, Drill Here, and the Political Machine

It has been about three weeks since the last issue of "Quick Notes". A lot has happened in that time, and there is a lot happening today. Without further ado, here are your Quick Notes:

"W" the Great President. Ann Coulter wrote a very strong defense of President Bush last week. She argues that future generations will look at President George W. Bush as a Great President. Her best reason: no attack on U. S. soil from Al-Queda since Sept. 11^th. As Ms. Coulter points out, how many people would have thought on Sept. 12^th that we could go seven years without another attack from Al-Q here? I remember quite clearly people on TV and around the water cooler saying that it wasn't a question of if, but only a question of when. Everyone was certain we would be hit again, and many thought it would be a matter of days, perhaps a month. Instead, we are in 2008, and still no Al-Q attack here.

Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less. American Solutions is running an online petition to get Congress to allow more oil exploration in the United States. I don't believe any serious effort can be made to reduce oil and gas prices without more domestic exploration. As of this writing, the petition is at 1,034,451 signatures. Their original goal was 1,000,000 signatures. Having passed that, they are shooting for 4,000,000. Go sign the petition, and get your bumper sticker.

Political Machine. I want to end this Quick Notes with something fun. Stardock software has created a game called "Political Machine". In the game you select a candidate for President and run their campaign. The 2004 version was very detailed and considered one of the best political simulators available. I tried the 2004 version once and had to have the newest one. The game is cheap ($19.95) and is very well done. You can choose from an existing candidate (like Obama or McCain) or create your own (maybe Rush Limbaugh for President). If you are a political junkie, you will love this game.

Book Review: Moment of Truth in Iraq

Michael Yon is perhaps the most respected reporter in Iraq. He is a former Green Beret so he knows what it is to be a soldier, and knows how soldiers think. He has also been embedded with troops in Iraq more than any other reporter, so he also knows what it is like to be a journalist in a war zone. Anyone who wants an honest and accurate assessment of the War in Iraq must read his book Moment of Truth in Iraq: How a New 'Greatest Generation' of American Soldiers is Turning Defeat and Disaster into Victory and Hope

Michael Yon has become famous for his blog posts and dispatches from the front lines of Iraq. In this book, he draws on some of his dispatches and photos and adds to it a comparison of how Iraq looked when he first embedded with troops versus his most recent "deployment". Far from being a cheerleader for the Bush administration, Mr. Yon points out many of our errors in the early phases of the war. He notes that if Al-Queda had made more of a few of our mistakes, we would have had no chance to win the war. Mr. Yon doesn't subscribe to the view of today's left wing either. He points out that we have come far, and are winning the war now. It isn't won, but it can be.

Michael Yon is obviously a fan of today's soldier. However, he doesn't allow that to cloud his judgment. He notes the failures and successes of our troops, their commanders, and their Iraqi counterparts. Anyone reading this book with a preconceived notion of how the Iraq war has gone is likely to have their beliefs called into question. I was no exception. As much as I believe we went to war for very valid reasons, and that we have tried to do our best, I cannot escape the fact that we have made great mistakes in Iraq. Anyone who doesn't question their views on Iraq after reading this book hasn't really paid attention to the book.

At some time in the future, the War in Iraq will be taught in history classes. We are at the point where we can make that story a success or a failure, the choice is ours. Whatever we decide, future generations will start their study of the war with Moment of Truth in Iraq.

Democrats and Oil Just Don't Mix.

It would be hard for anyone alive not to know that gas prices are at an all time high. I would bet a gallon of gas that gas prices are going to factor big in the election this year. Everyone running for election or re-election this year is going to have to address the price of oil.

So, what do we do about the price of gas? To solve any problem, we must first find what may be the cause or causes of said problem. If the Republicans have any brains, they will make the argument that gas prices are directly the result of a Democratic Congress. Don't believe me? Sit back and prepare to be dazzled.

I did a little homework (something most members of Congress and the Senate fail to do). The price of a gallon of gas on January 22, 2001 was $1.46 per gallon. On June 9th, 2008, the price of a gallon of gas is $3.98. Today, most people are placing the average price of gas around $4.00 or $4.05 per gallon. It would be easy to look at this and say, "Well, we have two oil men in the White House, it must be their fault!" Of course, one would think that oil men would understand perfectly well how oil prices work. But lets dig a little deeper (no oil pun intended).

Over the course of the Bush Administration, the price has gone up 63% over seven years! That translates into 9% per year! Before my Democratic fans get outraged, I have more numbers to share. The price of gas on January 23, 2006 was $2.31 per gallon. That translates into an increase of $1.67 since Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Reid, and the Democratic Congress took over. Again, on a per year basis, Pelosi and Reid can claim credit for a 21% increase per year in gas prices! And, worse still, if we give Bush credit for all the gas increase before the Democratic Congress, he gets 86 cents over 5 years. I think Pelosi and Reid still win.

Some of you out there might think I am skewing numbers to my own benefit. Let me end with a question based on what the Democrats want to do, and what most Republicans want to do.

Question 1 (Democratic Plan). Many Democrats are in favor of a "wind fall profit tax" on oil companies. What do you think this would do to the price of a gallon of gas?

Question 2 (Republican Plan). Most Republicans are in favor of domestic drilling. If Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and Clinton had a press conference tomorrow and said they would remove all obstacles to domestic exploration of oil, what do you think would happen to the price of a gallon of gas?

Baby Survives Abortion

Sometimes Life will survive no matter what man does. Some things are just meant to be. If God wants something to happen, it will happen. You probably agree with at least one of those statements. A recent story proves these points.

Jodie Percival and her fiancée got pregnant last year. This was Mrs. Percival's second pregnancy. Her first ended in the death of the baby 20 minutes after it was born. Their first son, Thane, died because of a genetic condition which caused cysts to grow on his kidneys. Mrs. Percival was on the pill because she did not want a second pregnancy. When she got pregnant anyway, her fiancée and she decided they couldn't deal with the loss of a second child, so Mrs. Percival decided to have an abortion.

She had the procedure performed when she was eight weeks pregnant. However, at nineteen weeks, she felt a flutter in her stomach and went to the doctor. She was then informed that her baby was still alive. She says that she was angry at first. She had decided to have the abortion performed and she felt the hospital had let her down. The hospital apologized, but said that in very rare cases, a baby terminated at eight weeks can survive the procedure.

Her second son, Lewis, was born in November, and has only one functioning kidney. He was born with the same condition that killed his brother, and that Mrs. Percival was afraid he might get. However, Lewis apparently decided that if he was going to survive the pill and an attempted abortion, he wasn't going to let a little thing like a kidney problem stop him. As of the news stories that broke this week, both Lewis and his mom are doing fine.

Doctors say that Lewis will require an operation, but that he should be able to lead a normal life. Whether you believe in God, Karma, or just nature, it would seem that some times, man doesn't know best.

No More Funding for Planned Parenthood

Michelle Malkin has an article today about Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. (commonly referred to as simply Planned Parenthood) has a number of roles in today's world. They are most widely known for their defense of abortion rights. In Michelle's article today, she, "…turns the spotlight on the nefarious business practices of the government-funded, billion-dollar Planned Parenthood empire." Michelle argues that if Congress is going to interrogate the practices of other industries like oil, tobacco, banking, (and I would add baseball), when are they going to look at Planned Parenthood?

Before reading the article, I had no idea that Planned Parenthood received taxpayer funding. Michelle has looked at the annual report for Planned Parenthood Federation of America and found they, "… had a total income of $1.02 billion – with reported profits of nearly $115 million,"{emphasis mine}. One third of the entire budget for Planned Parenthood is provided in the form of State and Federal grants and contracts. That is $336 million of taxpayer funds going to a group that encourages and helps provide abortions.

Michelle's article is very disturbing in its implications. Why are taxpayer funds being used to fund abortions? Why at this level? After reading Michelle's article, I wondered why Planned Parenthood was getting one red cent of tax payer money? According to the Planned Parenthood website, the group pursues a number of activities. Those activities include: providing reproductive healthcare for men, women, and teens (with affordable products according to the website); providing "honest sexuality and relationship information in the classroom" for "young people"; and "leading the reproductive health and rights movement". The last activity is a very nice way of saying "fighting for abortions".

Many Americans disagree with Planned Parenthoods take on these issues, and disagree with their means. Should those Americans be forced to help fund Planned Parenthood? Shouldn't Planned Parenthood justify their need for hundreds of millions of dollars of tax money when they have a total income of over one billion dollars with over a million dollars in profits? They claim on their site that more than 400 celebrities volunteer with different Planned Parenthood boards. Perhaps that is a better source of funding than tax money.

Michelle Malkins article today covers some of the horror stories associated with Planned Parenthood. Some of them are very tragic. If Planned Parenthood believes in abortion rights and wishes to defend them, more power to them. I don't think the tax payers should be providing them with $300 + million to do it with.