Limbaugh, Breitbart … And Georgetown Law SEX!

The biggest rap against America's two largest political parties is that the Democrats can't keep their hands out of our wallets and the Republicans can't keep their noses out of our bedrooms.

Those points of view merged last week when a Georgetown University Law School student, Sandra Fluke (pronounced FLUK … as in DUCK) went before a Congressional committee and averred that American taxpayers are responsible for her sex life, specifically paying for her contraceptives.

Democrats agree with her, and Republicans are outraged, but found themselves behind the 8-ball in a dispute that shouldn’t even be in the news. And yes, I am an active Republican but I really don't give a damn what you do in your bedrooms!

Fluke's statement to the Congressional committee reveals the obvious – that the dumbing down of the American educational system has reached what used to be some of our best institutes of higher learning, since law students, like medical students, once spent most of their time in class or studying. If they had sex it was fast and furious and then it was back to the books – but that obviously has changed.

Sandra Fluke
GETTY IMAGES

Ms. Fluke also said she represents an ocean of similar-minded female law students who also need taxpayer dollars - at a rate of some $3,000 each - to buy their birth control pills so they won't have to be inconvenienced by telling their sex partners to get their own protection.

Frankly, if I was a young undergraduate I would immediately apply to Georgetown Law, if for no other reason than it seems to have achieved the reputation as the most sexually active campus in America. Getting free sex with no strings attached apparently is not only possible at Georgetown Law, it is likely.

But I have a word of caution to aspiring Georgetown Law students. Anyone who has this much sex, which apparently is not only indiscriminate but also unprotected since Ms. Fluke seems concerned only with not getting pregnant, should take their law dictionary and look up terms like "sexually transmitted diseases." Then they should explore related subjects such as HIV/AIDS, incurable herpes, syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia.

I haven't seen anything in all the media coverage about concern for sexually transmitted diseases which proves that the children and grandchildren of the 60s-era hippies, who also believed in free sex, got their brains fried so badly from all the drugs they were taking that they forgot the horrible truth of how many lives were ruined through that lifestyle.

To support that contention Ms. Fluke says that she needs $3,000 to pay for her contraceptives. Apparently we're talking about birth control pills here, since a gross of condoms can be bought on line for far less, and handed out like candy to eager potential sex partners.

Did I tell you that Georgetown Law is a Jesuit School, and that it has been reported that Ms. Fluke, a nearly 31-year-old sexual activist who finally expects to graduate this year, selected it particularly because the Jesuits don't believe in contraception? And now the once hallowed halls of Georgetown Law have become the symbol for the term "den of inequity," particularly when we are discussing licentiousness.

Ms. Fluke has written that American employers and other institutions that provide medical insurance coverage also should pay for people of one sex who aren't happy with the body they were born with and want one that resembles – but can't function as – a body of the other sex. In fact, this apparently is her true calling in life.

Now, the real issue here is that Ms. Fluke is asking Congress to tell every entity in America that provides some form of insurance benefit to others that it MUST provide coverage for sex change surgery, contraceptives and who knows what else.

Her viewpoint probably is unconstitutional besides being stupid, and it has resulted in a firestorm of criticism. For instance, Rush Limbaugh got in trouble the other day by referring to Ms. Fluke as a slut and a prostitute, and plenty of other people chimed in with similar comments. Limbaugh also said that if he was going to pay Fluke and her girlfriends to have sex, he at least wanted access to videotapes of their encounters.

RUSH LIMBAUGH - WWW.RUSH LIMBAUGH.COM

Frankly, I think that was a reasonable position even if his advertisers made him back off on this issue. I also read or heard her referred to as a pig, a skank, a round-heel, a mattress-Mary, and a fairly creative list of similar adjectives.

But I am not going down that road and you won't see those terms applied to her in this column. I am not commenting on her sexual proclivities I am commenting on the unconstitutionality of the government getting into the insurance business, which will occur if it drives private insurance companies out of business by imposing requirements that are financially impossible to sustain.

Then we get Obamacare and instead of indirectly paying so other people can have indiscriminate, unprotected sex, we will be taxed directly. By then, it will be too late.

Limbaugh and others apologized for their comments, primarily because in an obviously well-executed plan of attack the left went after his advertisers, and the weak-kneed among them pulled their ads from his show. But Limbaugh isn't the first to feel the heat over his conservative positions in the recent past.

Glenn Beck who is a firebrand of commentary and evidence against the left has been exiled from FOX News, and Judge Andrew Napolitano who was one of the few people to give FOX viewers a real-world explanation of what the current administration is up to has lost his show too. Napolitano has been relegated back to the "guest commentator" status. Beck is gone.

Then we have the death of conservative activist Andrew Breitbart, who went out to walk his dog one night last week and was found dead on the sidewalk. Know what makes me suspicious of his death?

The very first report I heard on it said in the very first sentence that the 43-year-old died "of natural causes," even though there had been no such determination. Yet news anchors, who should know better than to say what caused someone's death unless there has been a definitive medical ruling, were trumpeting "natural causes" from the very first moment.

Then came the videos of Breitbart saying that President Obama will be "vetted" this year, and that he has videos of Obama in college that will shock America! And then he died.

This is strange; in fact, so strange that to me it is highly suspicious. After an autopsy was performed I heard one news anchor say Breitbart had died of "some kind of heart problem," although the results of the autopsy have not been released thus far and won't be for some weeks yet.

Autopsies are far more specific than that, and yet a left-wing outlet is already floating the theory that Breitbart may have used illicit drugs, thus contributing to his own demise. The same outlet is discounting questions raised by conservative radio host Michael Savage on the oddity of Breitbart's death. I hope the left is wrong and that it is just up to its usual character assassination tactics regarding both Breitbart and Savage.

It seems there is an ongoing effort to shut down conservative communicators so they won't get in the way of an Obama reelection - which would be a travesty for this country - and Sandra Fluke was just one piece of the puzzle. But I have a solution.

If the oh-so-sexually active women of Georgetown Law are so concerned with unwanted pregnancies, why don't they just switch to sex with other women? Seriously. Many in the lesbian community would probably appreciate the opportunity to do some good for America, over the long run they would gain significant stature in the eyes of taxpayers, STDs would decrease, abortions would not be an issue and everyone would walk away happy.

Oh, don't tell me you don't think it would work. I am so tired of negativity.

What was that line Paul Newman had in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid? "I have vision and the world is wearing bifocals."

Obama to Troops – Run and Hide! Time to Get Out - and Impeach the Prez!

US President Barack Hussein Obama, commander-in-chief of America's armed forces, had three words of advice to US troops who are in danger of assassination in Afghanistan by the very people they are there to protect.

Run and hide!

Immediately following his decree hundreds of once proud American forces were seen leaving their posts at joint American-Afghan government buildings and heading for the hills en masse.

Obama's latest atrocity against our armed forces, apologizing for the inadvertent burning of muslim holy books that were desecrated by imprisoned muslim holy warriors, thus far has resulted in the murders of four American troops, and the wounding of at least seven others. No one in the Obama administration has the backbone or any other body parts necessary to demand apologies and trials for those responsible for murdering our troops.

Nonetheless, in yet another attempt to reduce the United States of America to an obsequious shadow of its former self as the acknowledged world champion of human rights and opportunities, Obama kowtowed to the Afghan president last week and apologized profusely for interrupting the muslim holy warriors' in their use of their holy book as scratch pads.

Afghan islamo-fascist mobs immediately went on a rampage of murder and destruction. Way to go prez.

Two of our dead soldiers Lt. Col. John Loftis, of Paducah, KY, and Major Robert Marchanti of Baltimore, reportedly were murdered by shots to the back of the head while they were at their desks in the Afghan Interior Ministry, apparently by someone they knew and trusted. Two others were killed and seven wounded in a more typical fashion after an Afghan soldier shot at our troops and mobs of rioting Afghan thugs and terrorists threw grenades over the walls of US compounds.

At least 9 more troops were wounded in a bombing attack on a US base Tuesday.

Apparently our troops are under orders not to return fire when fired upon, meaning they are on suicide missions, which means the government probably has violated their enlistment contracts since I doubt "suicide missions" can be found as part of the agreement. As commander-in-chief Obama is directly responsible for all violations of service members' agreements, thus the responsibility rests with him.

Obviously it is time to put a halt to pre-election rhetoric and start working on impeaching the president for high crimes and misdemeanors. I believe that being an accessory to murder classifies as a high crime.

After bowing and scraping to filthy thugs, murderers and thieves, resulting in the murders of our troops, Obama has scurried back into the sanctuary of well-secured media events and is busy talking about pond scum, while manipulating the stock market and unemployment figures to create a phony image of a dynamic presidency.

Obama seems blissfully unaware of the havoc he has caused yet again, and was seen in the following days polishing his "look presidential" image.

DUDS KILL!!

Meanwhile, a semi-official Afghanistan website says that NATO officers – NATO mind you, not American officers – have agreed to find, arrest, try and convict those responsible for burning the korans. I guess that means that the troops responsible will be lined up against a wall in downtown Kabul and shot – or video taped having their heads cut off slowly by dull machetes in the manner of journalist Daniel Pearl.

Again, and repeatedly, these books were defaced by imprisoned islamo-fascist terrorists who used the muslim holy books' pages to send notes back and forth between themselves, in direct violation of the teachings they claim to uphold.

One of several approved methods of disposing of unserviceable korans by the way is burning. Or they could be tied to a rock and thrown into a flowing river, or buried in the ground. I guess who ever consigned them for burning should have just dug a pit, thrown them into it and no one would have been the wiser.

It appears that the real act of stupidity here was sending them to the base incinerator for disposal, knowing that Afghan citizens are employed there and likely would see them in the fire, thus creating another firestorm, pun intended.

Several years ago when I first started this blog I wrote that the War on Terror would likely take us 60 years to win, with the first 20 years devoted solely to military operations to eradicate the islamo-fascist terrorists. Then we would need a second twenty years to enforce the peace on a generation that might yet spawn more jihadists, trying to recreate the "good old days," and then another 20 years to educate the as yet unborn generation in the true ways of world peace and cooperation.

We are barely halfway through the first segment of that strategy and Obama the Weak is already throwing in the towel even though our forces have won every single major battle thus far.

Although I have supported military victory in Afghanistan from the start, I now say we should take all of our troops out immediately because with Obama as president there obviously is no way they will be allowed to do their jobs effectively. If they are surrounded by any more mobs, our troops should shoot every damn one of them.

If so-called "innocents" are involved, too bad, they shouldn't have been there. Let God sort them out.

And if our departure leaves a "vacuum" which could be filled by the resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda, I think we should fill it with a few hundred of the nuclear tipped missiles that Obama wants to destroy. What better way to destroy them than to detonate about 50 megatons at roughly five miles directly above Kabul?

And we could use up a few hundred more low yield nukes along the border with Pakistan in the "tribal regions" where the Stone Age inhabitants conjure up plans to continue the war of terror on all western civilizations. We could give Pakistan sufficient warning to get out of Dodge first, and if they didn't - tough.

Either way the borders would be unusable for a very, very long time and no one would be alive there anyway. I bet even the Russians would back us on that plan, not that we need anyone's permission to defend ourselves. That would still leave us with thousands of nukes to use against any remaining pockets of resistance.

But I guess in reality this is just wishful thinking. We are now governed by the weakest, candy-coated, fawning, hand-wringing apologist imaginable, and anything that would even remotely resemble true leadership in this administration could only be accidental – for which an apology would immediately be issued.

Coming to a "Theater" Near You? Perhaps!

The Battle of Athens, veterans against a corrupt government -- at home. History repeating or conspiracy theories run amok? You decide.

Florida Debate Showcases Santorum, Paul; Others Not So Hot

If you didn't watch the GOP presidential debate Thursday night, hosted by CNN, and your only input on how it went came from news reports, you could be excused for thinking that Mitt Romney had a great night.

He didn't and neither did Newt Gingrich, and I say that as a teacher of communications and public speaking at the college level. I was not impressed by either and many people with whom I have spoken since, who did view the debate, had much the same impression.

It was a dismal debate performance for Romney and Gingrich and reinforces the question that many Republicans have been asking for months now; why are GOP candidates subjecting themselves to debates hosted by liberal moderators who are in Obama's camp and want him re-elected? It was dismal because both Gingrich and Romney came across as spoiled brats who absolutely, positively had to get the last word.

Totally childish, hardly presidential.

The actual winners clearly were Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, although their performances may not translate to enough votes in the Florida primary on Tuesday to change the outcome. Florida's primary is winner take all, and both Paul and Santorum appear to be too far back in the polls to make much of a difference. (I use the word "appear" because the polls we have been assaulted with for the past week are incomplete, have huge margins of error, and probably are no closer to accurate than they were in Iowa.)

Nonetheless, Santorum came across as a knowledgeable adult who admonished both Gingrich and Romney to knock off their childishness and petty personal sniping, and stick to the issues.

Paul showed a sense of humor and grasp of reality that has been missing in previous debates, usually because he gets off on his foreign relations tangent and loses the audience. That didn't happen Thursday night, and instead he had a great one-liner and a shot at the moderator, Wolf Blitzer, that were very well received.

Paul's best one liner came when Blitzer asked him what he thought of Gingrich's plan to restart the space program and build a colony on the moon by 2020. Paul responded that other than sending some politicians to the moon, he didn't think it was a good idea, which the audience loved.

When Blitzer took a shot at Paul's age by asking whether he could reasonably expect to survive four years as president, Paul challenged everyone on stage to a 25-mile bike ride, and then warned Blitzer "You know we have age discrimination laws, so you'd better watch out."

But as is often the case in these debates, Gingrich and Romney had far more face time than the other two candidates and used it in non-stop bashing of each other. In fact, when Gingrich attempted to call a truce and stick to the issues, Romney acted like a petulant prima donna and refused.

You can blame both of these candidates for their gutter tactics, but I think it bears repeating that it was Romney who started the war by dumping $3.5 million in negative ads on Gingrich's head in Iowa, which led to a Santorum victory, although you wouldn't know that by the media coverage.

Yet, ever since Iowa, the fighting between Romney and Gingrich has taken center stage and seems to lead the news at every hour of the day. This even when Americans are being taken hostage in Egypt and Obama is proposing massive cuts in our military at the same time our biggest adversary, China, is going in the opposite direction.

Instead of news, we get character assassination.

In fact, I was contacted Friday by a close associate who lives and works in Florida and was told that the debate Thursday night solidified his decision to vote for Paul, even if it is only a protest vote. And he is not alone.

"The air down here is poisoned with attack ads," he told me, and the negative impression he was getting from both Gingrich and Romney was only reinforced by their actions at the debate.

Romney has been lauded by the media which has all but anointed him as the GOP candidate - caucuses, primaries and conventions be damned - but he actually came across as a petulant sixth-grader in his snit over Gingrich's attacks on his record and his money.

Gingrich for his part, came across exactly as he shouldn't have when he proposed to space agency workers that he would restart our space program that was shut down last year by Obama, and colonize the moon by the end of his second term as president.

It was bad enough that Romney accused him of interstate pandering by promising needed projects to residents of every state where he campaigns, but Gingrich should have seen the jokes at his expense coming from the far side of the moon.

It didn't take even one news cycle for a FOX News commentator to refer to Gingrich as a "lunatic" pun intended, hah, hah, hah.

Let's put aside the hypocrisy of the media that two generations ago lauded President John F. Kennedy for his vision of putting an American on the moon ahead of the Russians, both for national pride and security.

Let's put aside the fact that modern technology and understanding of our universe have gone light years further than they would have in the same time without all the research and development that went into our space program.

Let's just focus on the fact that our space program, such as it is, now is run by the Russians and the Chinese, neither of whom can reasonably and reliably be considered friends or allies. What the hell is wrong with our country when we concede the effort to benefit from the exploration of space to the two countries on this earth who would still love to see us crushed and groveling in the dirt?

Romney said he would fire anyone who proposed a moon colony to him. I think a functioning colony might be outside the grasp of our current financial status in the next eight years, but a controlled effort to do it should not be ridiculed. On that issue Romney should be fired for failing to grasp international intrigue and lacking imagination and vision.

Gingrich also has a problem here, and it is one that surfaced earlier in the campaign but was ignored by most of the media. Gingrich is a highly intelligent man, but his intelligence seems to be focused in philosophical concepts without a corresponding level of ability in the technical or scientific arenas.

In short, Gingrich's intelligence doesn't make math as easy and natural to him as government and politics.

Someone should have told him that even mentioning the moon in the current political environment would leave him wide open to media assaults, not to mention ridicule from Romney and his supporters. Gingrich would have won the hearts of space workers simply by vowing to put them back on the payroll without going Kennedyesque.

But he did and now he will have to live with it.

We can only hope that in the remaining 46 states (or 53 if you are an Obama supporter - thank you Sarah Palin) our GOP candidates take a deep breath, and in the case of Romney and Gingrich start acting like adults and leaders instead of spoiled children in a school yard fight.

One debate does not a campaign make, but frankly, if I have to watch another two months of this nonsense I may be taking my vote elsewhere. Remember, it is the Obama administration that is running this country into the ground, and it is Obama who must emerge as the loser on Election Day.

Anything less would be - uncivilized.

Shays to Enter Connecticut GOP Senate Race; Campaign Could Be Mirror Image of National - And That's a Good Thing!

If you are in the vicinity of Hartford, Connecticut around noon on Wednesday, January 25, 2012 - tomorrow in layman's terms - you might want to stop by the Old State House and catch former Congressman Chris Shays as he launches his campaign for US Senate.

Shays, who spent more than two decades representing Connecticut's 4th Congressional District, will not be alone in the race which now has at least five contenders. His best known opponent is Linda McMahon, former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment and the loser in her Senate match-up two years ago with Sen. Richard Blumenthal, former Connecticut Attorney General.

All five of the Senatorial candidates attended the Friday night dinner meeting of Grassroots East, a GOP support group for the sprawling 2nd Congressional District that runs from the Connecticut River to the Rhode Island border, and from Long Island Sound to Massachusetts. (Connecticut is a fairly small state, but I love to say sprawling, especially since I have friends in Texas where a modest-sized ranch could swallow up several states the size of Connecticut with room left over.)

In addition to Shays and McMahon the other Senatorial candidates are Brian K. Hill, Kie Westby and Peter Lumaj. The Grassroots East event attracted about 200 area Republicans so everyone who is running for office had a prime opportunity to meet, greet, and campaign. Peter Lumaj's supporters even left a brochure on my windshield which I discovered when I was driving on Rt. 2, but it didn't fly off so I got to read it when I got home.

I hadn't met Chris Shays prior to the Friday night event, but I was invited to attend by my friend and former 2nd District Congressman Rob Simmons and we were joined at Rob's table by Chris and his wife Betsi. They made for enjoyable, entertaining and knowledgeable dinner companions - as did Rob's wife and daughter - and it was a wonderful evening.

Shays' decision to enter the Senatorial race will make this an interesting political year for Connecticut's Republicans, much as the abundance of contenders for the GOP Presidential nomination are keeping the public eye on that race nationally.

McMahon announced she would be seeking the seat being vacated by former Democrat, now Independent and outgoing Senator Joseph Lieberman almost as soon as she lost the race to Blumenthal. There are many party insiders who believe that she deserves the nod, but there are many others who - citing her negative poll numbers - think the race should be wide open.

Linda McMahon - Washington Times Photo

I've been hearing on the national scene that some GOP power brokers aren't happy having four candidates still going strong. It is is somewhat irritating to them, if you believe the national pundits, that none seem inclined to bow out and support Mitt Romney who, like McMahon, was the candidate of choice for some party insiders.

The same probably will be said here in Connecticut about Shays and the other candidates, but I disagree, both statewide and nationally.

I couldn't be happier that we have multiple candidates in our high-profile races and I hope they all wage vigorous, issues-related campaigns so voters can get a good idea of their strengths, weaknesses and the real issues facing our state and our nation. The voters win under these circumstances which I believe is the point.

Shays spent a lot of time in the US Congress because his district, which has an abundance of Democrats in cities like Bridgeport, where he lives, nonetheless kept sending him back. His loss in 2008 is attributed to many Independents and Republicans in the 4th voting for Barack Hussein Obama, for which I imagine they are now kicking themselves.

Shays, like Simmons, knew his district and knew that to continue representing the voters there he had to walk a very fine line. On one hand he had to work for the continuing support of his party, which got easier with each election but still required adherence to conservative values.

But he also had to represent the entire district when he got elected, which meant he had to keep the moderates, independents and liberals happy or at least not too made at him.

On the national level we are bombarded with the mainstream GOP theme that to get the voters' support a GOP candidate has to be the most conservative or "the base" won't vote for him. Thus we are bored to tears with debate after debate that at some point has an exchange based on the "Qui es mas conservative?" issue.

Each candidate trots out his conservative votes and positions and the opponents jump all over him with examples of times they were not so conservative.

Truth is, as Rick Santorum has been saying, when you represent a state you have to represent the majority values of that state even if your personal beliefs are different. Connecticut is a blue state, and New England also has a blue (liberal) reputation so Republican candidates have to show that they not only are the best qualified in their party, but in the entire state.

I didn't ask Chris Shays directly how he intends to wrest the nomination away from McMahon, who was roundly criticized two years ago when she ran against Simmons and was accused of buying the state GOP convention vote. (McMahon is said to have spent upwards of $50 million on that losing effort and many Connecticut Republicans expect no less of an effort from her this time.)

Shays apparently has taken this into account and is completely prepared to take the nomination process out to the rank and file Republicans if McMahon is again succe$$ful in convincing a majority of party delegates to vote for her. A primary is a good idea in these conditions and I think it would be better for fall campaigning if the eventual winner has the support of a majority of voters.

If you sense a recurring theme here it is that I believe the voters have a very good idea of what is good for them and if given a real choice will vote for the candidate who can best deliver the conditions that will again make us strong, viable and competitive.

Our state deficit is in the billions of dollars and our national deficit is in the trillions. This is unacceptable. If it continues it will lead to the collapse of our entire system of government, and as of this November we will survive as a state and nation only if the very best people are elected to lead us out of this mess.

Chris Shays could have walked off into the sunset with his wife Betsi and said he had done his best for long enough and now it is someone else's turn. But he believes he has much left to offer and to prove his point he will be standing before a crowd of supporters at the Old State House in Hartford tomorrow at high noon.

He won't mind if you stop by to listen to his vision and say hello.

Domestic Terrorists, Piracy, Conspiracies and ME?

Did you ever add one and one and one and get three, but still not like the answer?

I did, and the answer scares the hell out of me!

The first "1" was the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), also known as House Bill 3261 which the government claims will stop people from using the Internet to steal or make money from copyrighted material.

But yesterday some major Internet sites including Google and Wikipedia along with thousands of others, shut down completely in protest of efforts to enact SOPA into law. The bill's critics say it is part of an ongoing effort to stifle free speech, clamp down on whistle blowing and knock the pins out from under the free flow of information.

The second "1" is the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012, which has amendments that allow for indefinite detention of American citizens on US soil, who normally are not under military control.

The third "1" is the definition of "Domestic Terrorists" as interpreted by the Obama Administration, which has a lot of people fearful that it includes Internet bloggers such as me. In theory, the detention law and domestic terrorist definitions are supposed to give law enforcement officials and the military additional tools with which to protect us from Islamo-fascists.

Since the definitions are terribly vague, however, it is more than possible that the full weight of the government could be brought to bear on ordinary, law-abiding citizens who are doing nothing more than exercising their constitutional rights to free speech, assembly, and to redress their grievances with their government! (The assembly in this case would be of the 'virtual' kind since it is done on the Internet.)

According to news reports Section 1021 of the NDAA requires military detainment of people belonging to terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda or the Taliban and their supporters. Actually I think that includes numerous organizations that made up the nearly defunct – as in "it hurts to camp out in the cold" – "Occupy" movement.

But when you realize that the Obama Administration's definition of a domestic terrorist includes: veterans (check); conservatives (check); supporters of the original constitution (check); supporters of the second amendment to the US Constitution (check); male (let me take a look. Yes! Check.) Christian, (check); supporters of the Fair Tax as opposed to production –income – taxes, (check); opposed to the IRS making criminals out of wage earners who want to keep what they earn (check); oh, and white (Last time I looked. Check.)

Then we have further vague definitions that surfaced in the last couple of days including people who blame the government for what is wrong with the country (most voters of virtually all parties. check); people who use the Internet to draw attention to their beliefs, and seek out like-minded individuals (check); and people who believe in conspiracies.

Let explain something here. Legally, a conspiracy exists when as few as two people plot between them to do something that is harmful or illegal. So when a couple of congressmen or senators find a place that is out of range of cameras and microphones and decide to support each others bills, such as SOPA, it is legally a conspiracy, since SOPA clearly poses potential harm to the American public.

So yes, I believe in conspiracies. (check)

Oh, and lately there have been some additions to the institutional paranoia that marks the Obama Administration in particular and our government in general. People who stock up on flashlights and batteries, and people who buy more than 7 days worth of food are now considered potential terrorism suspects. People who pay for motel rooms with cash instead of credit cards – maybe a couple involved in an illicit tryst for instance – now might be terrorists.

Must I remind you that the Northeast of the United States received two weather whacks last year, once from storm Irene and again from an October snowstorm that both times knocked out the power and left communities hard pressed to provide the basic necessities to people who had lost their food, heat and access to water for weeks on end? Such people, including yours truly, stocked up on dried goods, batteries and generators to help prepare for any future calamities.

But now, we might be domestic terrorists. (check.)

Here is an example of what I consider to be a real conspiracy. Does anyone have an accurate and up-to-date accounting of the trillions of dollars in stimulus money that the Obama administration has appropriated to itself? Last I heard, hundreds of billions of dollars have not been spent and no one knows where they went.

OK, now check this out, from July 2008 when Obama was campaigning out in Colorado.




Now that you've seen the video, consider that establishment and upkeep of a full-sized national police force such as the Gestapo, or the Russian NKVD, or the East German Stasi, would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and where would a person in charge get that kind of money without too much oversight? Well, first you use your Congress to appropriate far more than you need, then you fund a bunch of no-brainer initiatives – like Clunkers for Cash – that waste billions of taxpayer's dollars which gives you the image of a spendthrift who can't keep track of his toys, and while everyone is focused on stupid diversions, you build up your national secret police force.

Meanwhile, you pass initiatives that supposedly portray you as a tough-on-terror wartime president, when you really are stripping away the individual rights and protections of the American public that won't catch on until it is too late. Now that is a conspiracy.

I was watching the Republican debate on FOX News the other night and I couldn’t help but think of all the things that are going on behind our backs, seemingly not connected, but in reality part of an overall plan, when Ron Paul made the remarks that got him booed by South Carolina Republicans.

Paul said he believes that we should follow a Golden Rule policy of 'Do Unto Our Enemies AS We Would Have Them Do Unto Us.'

I don't agree with him on that, although I do agree that our income tax should go back to being zero percent as it was before 1913.

But when protecting our country from all enemies "foreign and domestic" I say we should follow a more realistic policy of Do Unto Our Enemies BEFORE They Do Unto Us!

That is neither terrorism nor a conspiracy theory. That is just plain common sense!

United States Marines Under Attack From ... US

It certainly looks like a bad time to be a US Marine.

First we have nearly every major politician and bureaucrat on the national scene, not to mention senior military officials, going apoplectic over a video of four US Marines p---ing on the bodies of some dead terrorists in Afghanistan last summer.

Then we have the ongoing court martial of SSgt. Frank Wuterich, a Connecticut native who is the only one of the original eight Haditha Marines to still be facing trial on murder charges - nearly everyone else has had all the charges dropped, and one other Marine who went to trial was exonerated on all charges, so how Wuterich gets singled out is perplexing to say the least.

Aside from the "so-what" factor in the international p---ing contest, given that enemy combatants have long been p---ing on each other after especially bloody battles, the fact is, US troops have endured far, far worse at the hands of our enemies going all the way back to the French and Indian War. Just ask John McCain the Vietnam era POW and current Arizona senator who was one of the first people to jump up and convict the Marines even before they were positively identified or the video authenticated.

I guess he misses his old buddy, the late John Murtha D-PA, the "King of Pork" who used the media to convict the Haditha Marines, calling them cold-blooded murderers before even a shred of evidence was presented.

And Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has never served in the military and whose only exposure to battle was a faked claim of coming under sniper fire in Bosnia when she was First Lady sure had plenty to say about it.



Clinton apparently is upset that the video which surfaced last week even though it is at least many months old, will mess up the ticklish appeasement talks between the US State Department and the Taliban terrorists. You know, the people who joined with Al Qaeda to attack us on 9-11-2001 and whom we vanquished in 2001-2002.

Then after we handed over conduct of Afghan operations to NATO which spent the next five or six years messing the place up royally, the terrorists (Taliban) enjoyed a Renaissance of Terror which helped them achieve an explosion in recruitment. And now, according to the administration of the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces the Taliban "is not our enemy." Really, can it get any more Alice in Wonderland-like than this?

We even have the commandant of the Marine Corps convening a massive investigatory effort headed by a hand-picked general to get to the bottom of it ... so to speak.

Does the commandant know that according to folk lore Scottish Sword Dancing originated during the Highland Clan era when the leader of whatever clan defeated whatever other clan in battle danced over crossed swords, one his and one belonging to his vanquished foe? And that some legends even say that the swords were crossed over the bloodied head of his rival?

Kind of makes taking a p--- seem pretty tame in comparison doesn't it?

UPDATE: A reader sent me the following, which certainly gives Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), a former Army lieutenant colonel a huge boost in my book. From Rep. West: I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu. Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors being killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah. All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq?

The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file ... . As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.

The over-reaction to the video of the Marines relieving themselves on enemy terrorists is similar to what occurred after the media falsely reported that Marines slaughtered innocent civilians in the town of Haditha, Iraq on November 19, 2005. SSgt. Wuterich is charged with 12 counts of unpremeditated murder associated with the deaths of 24 Iraqi civilians following an IED attack on the 12-man squad he commanded that killed one Marine and wounded two others.

Originally a total of 8 Marines were charged with crimes following the battle but all charges against all the others have been dismissed, except for one Marine who went through a full trial and was found innocent of all charges. (One Marine turned against his comrades in exchange for charges against him being dropped. But his testimony turned out to be so full of holes that he has been doing more damage to the prosecution than to Wuterich. Oh, and he claimed to have p---ed on a dead Taliban fighter in Haditha but nothing was made of it.)

Battalion commander Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, also faced criminal charges for failing to adequately investigate the incident, which were eventually dropped, since the government investigation of his investigation showed that the Marines didn't murder anyone and that media reports that initiated the entire fiasco were fraudulent.

Since the government couldn't find anything to charge Lt. Col. Chessani's Marines with, they had to conclude that his investigation must have been thorough and appropriate because he didn't find anything amiss either. But Chessani's career ended nonetheless, and for reasons that defy common sense the government is still trying Wuterich, apparently attempting to salvage something, anything, of its pathetic missteps against our Armed Forces.

I have written in the past and will repeat it here, that one of the most hypocritical facets of the current political atmosphere within our military is the insistence that the people who are at the point of the spear, our ground combat forces, are required to adhere to Rules of Engagement that simply are impossible to apply in close-quarter combat without significantly increasing the risk of injury or death to our own forces.

If an artilleryman fires a shell on an approved mission that for unknown reasons goes awry and hits a friendly position or a civilian position, little to nothing is done to the man who actually fires the cannon. The shell could go long or short for many reasons - bad ammo packing back in the states; unexpected atmospheric conditions on a flight that can span a dozen miles and more for instance - but the man who pulls the trigger rarely is held accountable.

If a pilot in a jet bomber anywhere from ground level to 30,000 feet, drops a bomb that hits the wrong target, once again, little if anything is done to the pilot. Everyone knows that munitions fired from high altitudes at high speeds can go off target; even if there is an inquiry, it is rare to blame the pilot when so much is out of his control.

But put an infantryman in a warren of houses and twisted narrow streets with rocket and sniper fire all around, and insurgents running into and out of houses where civilians are cowering in fear and suddenly he is supposed to act like RoboCop instead of a scared kid whose heart is pounding, ears are ringing and whose mouth is as dry as cotton.

He is supposed to force open the doors of house after house where enemy troops had been firing at him only seconds earlier, clear the rooms without being shot himself, usually by throwing a grenade inside, and then enter the darkness and make split second decisions on whether anyone is inside and if so, if they are enemy or civilian. He is supposed to be able to see in the smoke and darkness and know without question that any movement is either friend or foe, all in a split second.

If he survives the battle, where the terrorists routinely enter homes in the towns they have occupied and kill the inhabitants before running out the back so they can blame the US for atrocities, the American fighters face an onslaught from a communist inspired media and chicken-s**t politicians and military "leaders" who have no qualms over convicting innocent members of the Armed Forces.

I dare Hillary Clinton or John McCain to go through a combat infantry course that includes house-to-house and street fighting and see how well they'd do - not in real combat where a mistake can cost you your life and the lives of your friends - but just in training. I bet they'd both fail miserably.

These continued attacks on our troops, stabbing them in the back here at home while they are overseas attempting to preserve our freedoms and way of life, are certain to have a long-term negative impact on our military.

Most warriors go into battle with an "I'm here to kick a$$ and chew bubble gum and I'm all out of bubble gum," attitude. But how long can we expect our warriors to maintain the warrior spirit if they are perpetually second-guessed by a bunch of desk riders and chair polishers back in Congress and the Pentagon?

Over-reactions as in the Haditha fighting and now the Afghanistan Urination Situation, could make this a very bad time to be in the service. Unfortunately, we have honorable young men and women who are trying to do something honorable for people who have no honor.

There is a better way to show support for our troops than to go off the wall in a needless investigation that results in a career ending court martial. Ask the Marines if they did it, and if they say yes, ask them why. Then write down their explanation, and put a letter of reprimand in their personnel files.

Oh, and write the letter in disappearing ink.

If the Taliban, those rascally little devils that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and John McCain like so much, don't want to be shot and p---ed on I have another idea. How about they stop shooting and blowing up our guys? Then our guys will stop p---ing on them.

As for Ms. Clinton, Mr. Obama, Mr Cain and the rest of the DC political and military hand-wringing, appeasing sycophants who have so much to say about our fighters, I have three words for all of you ... pi$$ off wankers!