Thursday, August 30, 2007

Al Sadr Waving the White Flag!? Don't Bet On It!

The world is agape - storm clouds have passed, the sky is clear, and blue birds are singing, all because Muqtada Al Sadr, the rotund wannabe Muslim cleric who has been leading a charmed existence in Iran as his terrorist minions attack anyone who is not them in Iraq, is calling off all hostile acts against US forces for six months!

What a wonderful development! Boy, should we be grateful. A major terrorist leader has finally seen the light, is realizing the error of his ways, and wants to just get along.

Yeah, and I own bridges in both Brooklyn and San Francisco that I am selling for a good price. You get to put toll booths up and start collecting revenue immediately, without leaving your own living room! Really.

Al Sadr is the guy whose terrorists shot at our forces from inside a mosque as they were moving toward Baghdad to topple Saddam Hussein. Due to horrendously uninformed political interference, Al Sadr was allowed to live, build an army of terrorists from hundreds to more than ten thousand, and shoot at and bomb our forces with impunity ever since.

Only when our leadership finally got serious about putting the hammer down on internal terrorists in Iraq did Al Sadr's fortunes begin a slow reversal. He fled to Iran where his partner in terrorism President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave him shelter, sanctuary, communications abilities, arms, and support, just like Saddam Hussein did for Abu Al Zarqawi, the number two guy in Al Qaeda, before we invaded Iraq.

Al Sadr made a brief foray back into the country a few months ago in an effort to rally his followers who already were getting slammed during the buildup to the Surge, the offensive now ongoing throughout Iraq. When the Surge actually kicked off in June, one of the first areas to benefit from the gloves coming off was the Sadr City slum area of Baghdad where Al Sadr's terrorists had freely roamed ever since our politicians had allowed Iraqi politicians to declare it off limits to American military efforts.

That little scenario should tell us all we need to know about political considerations interfering with military operations, and about Al Sadr. The political world should never, ever, interfere with the methodology of military operations, except to authorize them at the outset, give a clear definition of the end goal, and set reasonable rules of behavior for our forces, which are already contained in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the Geneva Conventions.

Al Sadr lives and operates in a slum. Thus no matter how high or wide he goes in this world, you can bet the farm that he will never forget the hard lessons he learned in the streets. Given the elevated status of his father, who actually was a trained and educated Muslim cleric, Al Sadr probably didn't share his peers' physical experiences in the world of street fighting.

But he is very likely to have absorbed the tactics and attitudes of the street fighters just from being immersed in those surroundings.

People like Al Sadr never, ever really surrender. They will appear to surrender if they are physically bashed almost to death, are within seconds of meeting their maker, have no other recourse, and know in their hearts and minds that the entity which administered their bashing will without hesitation finish the job.

Then they will appear to surrender. Then they will live, curse the existence of the force that defeated them, and plan in every waking moment, as well as in their dreams, how to exact their revenge.

That is what Al Sadr is doing now. He hasn't called a cease fire because he has seen the light and now wants to cooperate.

His forces have been taking a walloping from US forces, and quite likely are tremendously weakened due to deaths, capture and desertions. He is waving the white flag to give himself and his Iranian allies time to find some new recruits, rebuild his devastated forces, and reconsider his political options without the pressure of getting shot.

His attempts to initiate a temporary truce have nothing whatsoever to do with wanting to get along and be part of a new progressive Iraqi government. He is buying time, and plotting.

He is what he is and nothing can change that. Snakes do not evolve into koala bears, sharks don't morph into guppies, and street fighting terrorists don't suddenly become benign ambassadors of peace and goodwill.

The worst possible thing our troops and our politicians can do is to give credence to his cease fire, back off the military efforts against his terrorist forces, and give him and Ahmadinejad time to figure how to get out of the mess they are in thanks to the Surge.

I would like to think that even though many mistakes have been made along the way in the War on Terror, especially in how we handled the security issues in Iraq after Saddam fell, that we are intelligent enough and adaptable enough to have learned from these mistakes.

Al Sadr's very presences on the Iraqi scene, both politically and militarily, is testament to the lack of knowledge, experience and understanding of the politicians who meddled in the military efforts in Iraq. The best way to undo the damage caused by people who obviously are long on textbook theory and very, very short on real-life experiences, especially on the battlefield, is to keep up the pressure on Al Sadr's Mahdi army. Our end goal should be nothing less than killing or capturing every last person who signed on with him.

Secondary to that goal should be the death or capture of Al Sadr himself. Alive and free to move about among his supporters in Iran he will continue to plot, to recruit, to bomb and shoot not only at our forces but at Iraqi civilians too. As long as he is on the scene, we will not have the total trust of the Iraqi people, which is essential to finally creating a stable ally.

Al Sadr reminds me of the late professional wrestling champion Buddy Rogers, who had a standing routine of begging for mercy in center ring whenever his opponent was getting the best of him. The opponent, who was in on the ruse, would threaten to smack Rogers into oblivion, but then, much to the displeasure of the crowd which knew exactly what Rogers was up to, would have mercy on Rogers.

At which point Rogers would nail his opponent with a low blow, or take some other nefarious action resulting in Rogers winning and his opponent being vanquished.

That was for show. That was entertainment. Al Sadr is for real, and if he is treated as anything other than a lying, manipulating, murderous terrorist, our forces and the Iraqi civilians will suffer for it. This is not the time to look away and get all smug and self-satisfied.

Now is the time to put even more pressure on Al Sadr and the Mahdi army. I repeat, nothing should be considered sufficient except its total annihilation. Anything less, and I will be back here in a year saying "I told you so."
Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Gonzales Gone; Sharks Circling Next Victim?

Fins to the left
Fins to the right
And you're the only
bait in town.

Jimmy Buffett was right on the money when he sang those lyrics to Fins, about the bar scene, but they also apply to the conduct of our Congress in Washington, D.C.

The latest victim of the "We'll investigate you until you die from a million nibbles" mentality, practiced beyond obsession by the likes of California Congressman Henry Waxman, California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, California Senator Barbara Boxer, and Nevada Senator Harry Reid - what the hell is in the water out there? - is now-former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

He pulled the plug this week after a year of endless battering by Congressional Democrats with alleged terrorist collaborator Waxman leading the charge.

Now there is more blood in the water, and you know how it is with sharks and blood. Once they get a whiff of it they go into a feeding frenzy and totally lose control. I guess that happened with Tom DeLay and Lewis "Scooter" Libby already, but the Gonzales resignation is just more evidence to support the theory.

It is probably worth noting that the voluntary departure of Karl Rove, the outgoing presidential adviser whose name was synonymous with evil as far as the left is concerned, is seen as a victory by Waxman's forces. I hope so. I don't think that is the case at all, and I love it when arrogance is rewarded with an comeuppance.

In Gonzales' case, the big deal that Democrats in Congress pushed endlessly was over the entirely legal and entirely normal firing of 8 federal prosecutors. People in that position know going in that it is a presidential appointment, based as much on politics and personality as performance and ability, and that if the president decides he wants someone else in your position, you are gone.

This happened in the opening days of the Clinton administration when he fired more than 90 federal prosecutors, nearly the entire US Attorney workforce. There was not a peep of protest from Congressional Democrats, despite their often-voiced concern over the 'excesses' of the executive branch.

Yet, in the Gonzales case, even though Waxman and his cronies in Congress held hearing after hearing, and interrogated witness after witness, they couldn't find a single thing that Gonzales did wrong - except he apparently is a far better legal scholar than witness. So they immediately began screaming that since they couldn't find anything wrong, there must be a coverup.

Yes, that is insane! It is nuts! It is outlandish! It is a waste of taxpayers money, not to mention the time of the paid public servants who are sitting through these Kangaroo Courts instead of doing their jobs!

But worse, the American Terrorist Media, the living embodiment of lap dogs and lemmings, covered the endless hearings and the ludicrous statements from Waxman and friends as if they were hearing a new set of commandments straight from the mouth of God! Without question or challenge!

I bet Harry Reid and the Merry Puppets - John Kerry and John Murtha and Ted Kennedy Nancy Pelosi, and Chuckles Schumer - were dancing a jig over their latest coup. I bet.

With more than 100 investigations thus far, and Sen. Harry Reid, abetted by Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy and Chuckles Schumer, bragging that he'll bog Congress down with 100 more if they feel like it, I'm sure we haven't seen the end of their posturing and deliberately undermining our government. That is after all what they are doing.

Congressional Democrats haven't found anything to support their claims of illegal activities - come on, Libby was only guilty of a bad memory after the fact - but that hasn't stopped them from so poisoning the country's mood against Congress that it has lower approval ratings than pedophiles.

I get the feeling they are doing this on purpose, seeing as how they have collaborated with terrorists by broadcasting and holding press conferences outlining our tactics and strategies. These public commentaries have no valid purpose except to give our enemies hope that they can defeat us politically since they are getting hammered militarily. What better way to destroy our country and form of government than by gutting it of all purpose and common sense from within?

Yet, somehow I get the sense that maybe this isn't such a great moment for them. Let's consider for a moment a comment made a week ago when Rove was interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. Rove opined on what the Congressional Democrats would do if the executive branch suddenly started issuing subpoenas for staff members of selected Senators and Congressmen.

There would be an outcry of Biblical proportions I'm sure.

But let's think about this for a minute. Why doesn't Bush start issuing subpoenas for Congressional staffers in such high profile and eminently dangerous cases as leaks of national security programs to the New York Times?

Or, how about the allegations contained in Robert "Buzz" Patterson's new book, War Crimes, that Waxman himself helped pave the way for the anti-troop, pro-terrorism organization Code Pink to deliver more than $600,000 in supplies to Al Qaeda terrorists in Fallujah, Iraq while they were fighting a pitched battle against American Marines? Maybe he should become the subject of a federal investigation rather than sitting in judgment of others, especially considering he isn't fit to take out the garbage for most of the people he has targeted for career termination.

I have a feeling that rather than knuckling under to the pressures of an out-of-control Congress, Bush may just be clearing the decks to get into it in a big way, which most of us out in America land would love. Maybe, instead of handling Congress with kid gloves, Bush is taking the gloves off, and is about to reveal that he is wearing brass knuckles.

That would be a good thing. His approval ratings would soar, we could soon be calling Congressional Democrats and their turncoat Republican allies 'knuckleheads' and have evidence to prove it. Out enemies' morale would plummet, our troop morale would soar, and fence-sitters all over the world would suddenly be dropping down on our side.

Executive branch subpoenas for Congressional staffers. What an idea. I say we start with Waxman's chief of staff and then his home office coordinator. You never know what might be squirreled away in the file cabinets back in California.


Last week I wrote about Rove's appearance on Fox News Sunday and how he showed why he is considered a master at media relations, especially in that he deflected question after question from Wallace that he couldn't answer without putting himself in legal jeopardy. Also, he didn't let Wallace put him on the defensive about comments he had made a few years ago.

Also discussed that day was a claim from pro-left columnist Bill Moyers that Rove was an agnostic, even though he professes to be a religious man.

Moyers wrote back to Wallace, in a missive that Wallace put on the screen this past Sunday, saying in essence that Wallace was unprofessional, and backing up his earlier story by claiming he got it from three different newspapers.

But Wallace lowered the boom on Moyers, pointing out that none of the news outlets Moyers referred to had actually interviewed Rove or had any other first-hand evidence to back up their claims, just opinions from Democratic 'sources' out to tarnish Rove's reputation.

Then Wallace took the gloves off!

He noted that the best source of information on a person's closest beliefs such as religion is the person himself. He noted that first person interviews are taught in Journalism 101, no kidding he said that, and said in effect that Moyers obviously wasn't one to let the facts get in the way of a good story!

Whoo-hoo! That was good!

Score that one big time for Wallace! Lesson? The man will take criticism if it is justified, but don't for a minute screw with his reputation or sense of professionalism. President Bush might be slow to take the gloves off, but Chris Wallace showed on Sunday that he has no fear of slugging it out over the right issue.

My read on it? If you want to screw around with Chris Wallace, come big or stay at home.

Oh, by the way. He passed the Jennifer test. That might not mean anything in the halls of Congress or inside the beltway, but around here it is a pretty ... big ... deal.
Sunday, August 26, 2007

(Ras) Putin, Put Your Shirt On: Mid-Life Crises Are Private Events

The world went bonkers last week when photos were smuggled out of the great Russian outback called Siberia showing Russian President Vladimir (Ras)Putin shirtless, flexing his bis, and tris, and pecs, and delts.

What did it mean, what did it mean, the pundits asked relentlessly?

The photos of him shirtless - OK, they were released, not smuggled out - were often matched with news coverage of Russian bombers, presumably carrying nuclear weapons, on flights near American and European air space. The Russians had stopped such flights more than a decade ago after the Soviet Union collapsed, but resumed them a couple of weeks ago.

Then there were the statements that the Russians are again going to be selling advanced munitions on the international market, and the outlandish claim that the land underneath the Arctic Ocean popularly known as the North Pole, is now Russian territory.

OK, so what is going on here? A renewed communist 'Surge' to help the Islamo-fascists in their war against the world? A behind-the-scenes alliance with China to become the dominant world superpowers, again spreading the communist philosophy, regardless of how many times it has failed?

I don't believe so, even though Russia and China did hold joint military exercises last week.

No, my choice in this quiz is none of the above. I believe the Russian president is having a bit of a mid-life crisis, and needs to re-establish his Alpha-maleness. It also appears that something or someone recently said or did something that rubbed him the wrong way, and he is letting the world know he isn't happy about it.

The syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, commenting on this issue the other day, noted that it isn't likely (Ras)Putin is pushing for a return to communism, regardless of what is going on elsewhere in the world, because Russia would suffer for it, rather than profit.

Krauthammer maintains that our pal Vlad is a nationalist first and foremost, and he is doing what any strong leader of a once strong federation would be doing to keep his citizens on his side.

Good points.

So where was Vlad recently, and what might have happened to get him in a tizzy?

How about the G-8 summit in June? He was there with the leaders of the other major industrialized nations, the US, Great Britain, Italy, France, Germany, Japan and Canada, but did he get the respect he believes he deserves?

Maybe the French said something about Russian food, or the Italians insulted his sexuality. Maybe someone said or did something that they never even thought would be taken badly, since it wasn't intended that way, but was the final straw.

I mean, even a Russian president can have feelings, right? Don't I just sound like a leftist suburbanite mom though?

All kidding aside, we should remember this about RasPutin. He made it to the top of the secret police when the Soviet Union was still intact. After its collapse he made it to the top of the semi-democratic government that took the place of the communist system.

That tells me the man is smart, ruthless, strong, and most important, adaptable. I might bust his stones in this column, because I am an American and I can, but don't ever underestimate this guy or sell him short.

Maybe he can't bring us back to the brink of World War III, and I doubt that is his goal. But he still has a sizable store of ICBMs tipped with nuclear warheads, a workable Navy and submarine force, and even if his bomber fleet is aging, they can still get the job done if they get through our defenses. Which means he has to be taken seriously.

Which may be all that he wants. I wouldn't discount more complicated motives out of hand, but sometimes the most complicated of situations have the most basic of solutions. I say, start with the basics and see if somebody at the last economic summit stepped on RasPutin's toes and didn't say excuse me.

If we can figure that out, we can figure out what to do about it.

I have a suggestion - naturally.

Down in my basement I have a fairly complete gym. I have been a weightlifter since my early teens, and still work out regularly. My home gym is complete, but not elaborate.

It is more along the lines of the Eye-of-the-Tiger gym that was in one of the Rocky movies. I keep it that way on purpose. It has no fancy machines, no pulleys or levers or 'equivalent weight' selectors.

It has free weights, benches, a power rack, and some cardio equipment. In my gym, you lift weights.

That having been established, here is my offer. I will serve as a go-between, inviting both President Putin and President Bush to my house, and we will do a standard two-hour workout. Start with a cardio warm up, then chin-ups, sit-ups, and push-ups, then free weights.

We'll do a form of circuit training such as I learned in the Marines, so we hit all body parts, which means everyone will have an opportunity to show off their best lifts or exercises. I guarantee you, about mid-way into this workout, once the endorphins kick in, we'll all be talking easily, like old friends, and whatever is bothering Mr. Putin will come out.

When we're done there I have a few cords of wood out back that need cutting into stove-sized pieces. This would give Mr. Bush an opportunity to show off his well-known skills with the chain saw.

As an added benefit, we would have two important leaders of two important countries, doing physical labor, which tends to bring out the best both in terms of seeing your results, and building teamwork. The only condition is that RasPutin has to keep his shirt on. I have neighbors. They wouldn't be amused.

That's it. Nothing more. I think it would work. Could someone forward this to presidents Bush and RasPutin? Thanks, I believe it will go a long way.

Oh, and next time the media runs a photo of RasPutin topless, could someone send him a picture of Arnold - you know who I mean - and make the note that this is just a Governor in the US? That should put things in perspective.
Thursday, August 23, 2007

DC Insiders Tiptoe Around Real Iraq/Vietnam Connection

President Bush gave a great speech at the VFW national convention earlier this week, linking our actions in Iraq and the wider War on Terror with what we had done as a nation in World War II, Korea and Vietnam.

He made the point that when Congress, through the Case-Church Amendment in 1973, cut off all funding to South Vietnam, Southeast Asia fell, and millions suffered at the hands of the communists as a result. Among the many outrages and tragedies of this devastating turn of events was that only the previous year our South Vietnamese allies had successfully fought off a major offensive from the communist north using its ground troops backed by our air power.

President Bush gave a great speech, long overdue, well received by the war veterans, and certainly laid out the future for Iraq and us if we again turn our backs on a developing ally and let chaos reign.

My only disappointment with the speech was when the president started listing the numbers who had died at the hands of the communists country-by-country. In South Vietnam it was in the tens of thousands in the concentration camps - which the communists in Congress and the media still refer to as re-education camps as though they were some kind of adult education facilities.

That number is OK is guess. I have been told by people who should know that approximately 60,000 died in those camps from executions, starvation, and forced labor including clearing land mines from old battle areas.

But there also were an estimated 1,000,000 Vietnamese boat people who fled the communists, taking to the South China Sea in anything that would float, at least for a little while. I have seen estimates that of that one million people, some 300,000 never landed on safe ground.

Bush also said in his speech that "hundreds of thousands" of Cambodians were killed by the Khmer Rouge communists when Phnom Penh fell soon after Saigon was lost. But that number is the one the Associated Press was using in the early 90s, and it was constantly being whittled down as though somehow reducing the raw numbers would mitigate the carnage caused by the rampaging, rabid communists.

That strategy, to minimize the atrocities committed by the communists, continued until a research team from Yale University went to Cambodia and reported back that the number of civilians slaughtered by the communists was much closer to 3 million, based on the number of mass graves found and the number of remains found in each grave.

Since the President earned his undergraduate degree at Yale, why would he not use the figure that researchers from his Alma Mater had determined was a far more accurate description of the carnage the communists had waged on that country?

(American communists and collaborators like John Kerry and his latter-day supporters from the defunct Vietnam Veterans Against the War claim that this was not a bloodbath. But, based on five quarts of blood in the average human body, and a bathtub that holds, let's say 60 gallons, then if you kill 60 people and drain four quarts of blood from each you have enough for a bloodbath. Since millions were slaughtered by the communists, I'd have to say that there were hundreds of thousands of bloodbaths.)

Kerry changed his comments recently to say there was no "massive" bloodbath, but I think millions of gallons of blood equate to "massive" no matter who you are. I suppose Kerry is wracked with guilt over his complicity in the carnage that swept southeast Asia, and along with his other collaborators like Kennedy, John Murtha and others who are on the Choose to Loose bandwagon is trying to compensate for his inadequacies.

I guess he and his buddies can't face the reality that their actions directly caused the death of millions and misery for millions of others, so now they are in denial and try to cover up their part in this tragedy by pointing accusing fingers at others who attempted to prevent it. It isn't working.

I should point out that President Bush isn't the only one who uses a watered-down version of the tragedy in Southeast Asia when speaking of our involvement there. Yesterday afternoon, on the Rush Limbaugh show, I heard a caller who backs our troops and our efforts in Iraq, make the statement, without contradiction from Rush, that in Vietnam we had fought to a military "stalemate" and that the communists had secretly been seeking a "ceasefire."

Wrong on both counts, but I don't blame the caller or Rush Limbaugh. These inaccuracies are the inevitable result of more than three decades of misinformation on the Vietnam War and fall of Southeast Asia, straight from the American Terrorist Media and the communist sympathizers and collaborators in our government who caused the debacle there.

The truth is that the North Vietnamese Army admits to losing an estimated 1.4 million troops killed in action! That is more than twice the size of the communist army at the start of the war.

That is not a military stalemate. That is an overwhelming military victory by the US and our allies and a defeat of monumental proportions for the communists.

The communist losses also extended to the Viet Cong, whose guerrilla force of some 70,000 troops was wiped out, while its political cadre was devastated by American and South Vietnamese counter-insurgency forces.

Faced with such devastating losses, the North Vietnamese feared that the US would launch an invasion across the DMZ, wiping them out entirely, and wanted a surrender on terms that would allow them to continue ruling the north. This situation occurred in 1969 after the second Tet Offensive, and a year of devastating battlefield losses.

It reoccurred in 1972 after the ill-fated Easter Invasion of the south by a communist force of some 250,000 troops including armor and artillery. According to American estimates at least 75,000 of the communist invaders were killed, although information from Russian secret police archives say the actual communist losses were more in the range of 150,000 killed in action in addition to the loss of fully half of all their artillery and armor.

This crushing defeat for the communists resulted in Jane Fonda's highly publicized treasonous trip to North Vietnam. In my belief Fonda betrayed her country and all humankind not because of her career, but because she had long been a very public communist supporter and she wanted to reassure the communists that if they hung on a while longer, they would win in the US Congress what they couldn't win on the battlefield.

Fonda and her cohorts, like John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy, had the US Congress sewn up and proved it within a year when the Case-Church Amendment passed by a veto proof margin. John Murtha joined them in 1974, after the amendment passed, but he was sitting in Congress when Saigon, and then Cambodia and Laos fell.

Thus despite victory after victory by the US and its allies, the government of the United States, in the person of Henry Kissinger and associated collaborators in Congress and the State Department, rolled over and handed the communists everything they asked for, and couldn't get by force. In the end, millions died, millions were displaced, and millions lived lives of abject misery under the grinding boots of communist totalitarianism.

Why is this scenario not discussed at the highest levels of our government when the goal apparently is to keep the American public supportive of the War on Terror which is under fire by the very same people whose treasonous actions caused the fall of Southeast Asia and set the stage for the war we are now fighting?

I believe it is because the devastation in Southeast Asia was caused by collaboration on the part of the communists who had infiltrated the Democratic Party, and rule it to this day, and their weak-kneed Republican counterparts who either were collaborating or didn't have the wherewithal to stand up for America's military and our allies.

If anyone in Congress had simply done an objective review of the battlefield situation in mid-1969 and again in mid-1972, instead of relying on communist sympathizers in the US media like Walter Cronkite, who lied through his teeth about our efforts in Vietnam, they would have seen that victory had been steadily in our grasp since the end of Tet 1968.

If there had been any kind of effort to offset the misinformation campaign, the Big Lie that Kerry and his supporters were pushing, if we had continued to fund the South Vietnamese even if we didn't actually have troops there, millions would have survived.

I have to laugh when I hear that some in the US Congress didn't want to support the South Vietnamese because their government was corrupt.

Do you see the hypocrisy here? The US Congress calling someone else's government corrupt? Oh, man, stop it will you? I'm laughing so hard my sides ache. Calling someone else corrupt? The US Congress? Oh brother that one is a hoot! Can you say PORK BARREL? Can you say EARMARKS? Can you say STACKS OF CASH IN THE FREEZER?


Rush's caller also made the mistake of saying the South Vietnamese had a series of puppet presidents starting with the overthrow of the Ngo Dinh Diem government in 1963 when John Kennedy was in power. This is just wrong. They did have a couple of interim presidents, but Nguyen Van Thieu came to power in 1967 and stayed there until the collapse in 1975.

That was hardly a revolving door government, anymore than the US presidency. And if you want to determine for yourself whether Thieu was a "puppet" check on his outrage at the concessions Henry Kissinger gave to the communists at the Paris peace talks.

Then if you really want to be educated on the duplicity of the US government in the 70s, check on Kissinger's involvement in leaving behind hundreds of US pilots who had been shot down over Laos and taken prisoner by the murderous communist Pathet Lao forces.

Although our military and the CIA knew that hundreds were alive and in captivity, that issue has not been resolved, and to this day there are families who have never been given an honest accounting of what happened to the men they sent off to war to fight for the likes of Henry Kissinger, John Kerry, John Murtha, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Carl Levin, and on, and on, and on.

Frankly, I think it is time for President Bush to start righting the wrongs of the 70s. He is on the right road to be sure, but there is far more to be done.

Why has he not made an accounting of the POWs shot down over Laos a priority? I realize that his father was part of the government then, as were Bush family friends, and some of the responsibility must fall on them as well as communist collaborators like Kerry and Fonda. And I realize that we must hammer out a new reality with Vietnam so we can regain use of the ports like Da Nang and Cam Ranh Bay to offset the resurgent Chinese and Russian military efforts in that region.

But history will not judge George W. Bush based on his family connections. It will judge him based on performance and successes and whether in the final analysis he did what is right for America and for humanity.

Perhaps I am being too critical and too direct here. Maybe President Bush is showing by his steadfast refusal to knuckle under to the resurgent communist and pro-terrorism sympathizers in Congress that he is doing the right thing for America, and the world.

Maybe his approach is better than mine and as long as we win this war, support a developing ally until Iraq can stand on its own as South Vietnam once did, then the ends will justify the means.

But somewhere in America there are families who deserve to know the truth about the men they sent to a long ago war, who never came home. And all across America there are Vietnam veterans who don't for a second believe there is an "honest debate" over whether we should have gone to Vietnam in the first place.

We stuck up for an ally, we gave other countries in the region time to stand against the communist juggernaut, and we started the ball rolling that ended with the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union. For 15 years we gave the people of that region a taste of freedom, and the only reason that some don't have it to this day is because the United States Congress showed once again that the sworn word of an American politician is worthless when circumstances change.

So the president can do it his way, to a huge audience, and I'll do it my way, to a minuscule audience, and only time will tell which was the best approach.

But I bet we'd agree on one overriding issue.

If America is to thrive, and America's military is to continue to successfully defend our country, then Americans have to know without reservation that the decisions to go to war are sound, and that collaborators who have the blood of millions of innocent victims on their hands will never again be allowed to undermine and undo the successes of core Americans who understand by personal experience the reality of giving in to terror.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Who Is Fighting In Iraq. Why They Are Fighting. Why Eagles Are Landing In DC

On occasion I suspend my writing duties for a day and turn this forum over to people who have something to say and a more than passing ability to say it. This is one of those days.

Deborah Johns is one of the strongest women I have ever met. Her son William is a Marine who came home from his third tour last May, and may go back again.

There is no doubt in my mind that Deborah agonizes over her son's safety while he is gone, but there are people who think only of themselves, and then there are people like Deborah and William.

In her own words:

My son, U.S. Marine William Johns, has served three tours of duty in Iraq, and stands ready to be deployed for a possible fourth tour and ... I couldn't be more proud of him.

We've heard time and again from those in our nation who choose to root for defeat and surrender to Islamic jihadists in Iraq. You've heard their refrain, "If you believe in this war so much, why don't you go enlist and serve?"

Well my son is serving, and yet that doesn't stop them from attacking the pro-troop efforts I've been involved in for the past several years.

My son along with hundreds of thousands of other sons and daughters is fighting to ensure that we all have the right to freely express our views, including those who call for surrender to jihadists in this war. But our troops are also fighting for the rights of those of us who stand behind them to have our voices heard as well.

I've been asked to serve as one of the spokespersons for Move America Forward's upcoming "Fight for Victory Tour," a patriotic, pro-troop national caravan that takes place September 3rd - 15th.

The timing couldn't be more critical, with General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. troops serving in Iraq, required to report to Congress by September 15th on the progress of "the Surge" of U.S. troops in Iraq.

Move America Forward will be putting on 27 pro-troop rallies in cities along the "Fight for Victory Tour" caravan route. At each pro-troop rally we'll also collect cards and letters of support for our wounded warriors and deliver them to our recovering troops at Walter Reed Medical Center at the completion of the national pro-troop caravan.

So my question to you is this: will you stand up for our troops and be counted? Will you please drive along part or all of the caravan route with us in your own vehicle? Will you turn out for one of our pro-troop rallies along the way?

I will give up 2 weeks away from my family to go on the road and salute our troops and support them here on the home front. What I ask of you is that I not be alone in this effort.

Deborah Johns
Director of Military Relations, Move America Forward

Now I'd like you to hear straight from the source, the results of the work our troops are doing for our country, for Iraq, and for the entire freedom loving world.

The following is excerpted from Lt. Col. Robert 'Buzz' Patterson's new book, War Crimes, The Left's Campaign to Destroy our Military, and Lose the War on Terror.

This is a thank you letter from the Mayor of an Iraqi town, Tall'Afar, that had been crushed by the iron grip of Islamic jihadists, and was liberated by soldiers from the US Army's Third Armored Cavalry Regiment.

To the Courageous Men and Women of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, who have changed the city of Tall'Afar from a ghost town, in which terrorists spread death and destruction, to a secure city flourishing with life.

To the lion-hearts who liberated our city from the grasp of terrorists who were beheading men, women and children in the streets for many months.

To those who spread smiles on the faces our our children, and gave us restored hope, through their personal sacrifice and brave fighting, and gave new life to the city after hopelessness darkened our days, and stole our confidence in our ability to reestablish our city.

Our city was the main base of operation for Abu Mousa Al Zarqawi. The city was completely held hostage in the hands of his henchmen.

Our schools, governmental services, businesses and offices were closed. Our streets were silent, and no one dared to walk them. Our people were barricaded in their homes out of fear; death awaited them around every corner. Terrorists occupied and controlled the only hospital in the city.

Their savagery reached such a level that they stuffed the corpses of children with explosives and tossed them into the streets in order to kill grieving parents attempting to retrieve the bodies of their young.

This was the situation of our city until God prepared and delivered unto them courageous soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment who liberated this city, ridding it of Zarqawi's followers after harsh fighting, killing many terrorists, and forcing the remaining butchers to flee the city like rats to the surrounding areas, where the bravery of other 3d ACR soldiers in Sinjar, Rabian, Zumar and Avgani finally destroyed them.

This military operation was clean, with little collateral damage, despite the ferocity of the enemy.

God bless this brave Regiment; God bless the families who dedicated these brave men and women. From the bottom of our hearts we thank the families.

To the families of those who have given their holy blood for our land, we all bow to you in reverence and to the the souls of your loved ones. Their sacrifice was not in vain.

Najim Abdullah Abid Al-Jibouri
Mayor of Tall'Afar, Ninewa, Iraq

I think you can see why I preferred to let the people who are directly involved in the War on Terror speak for themselves. Both Deborah and the Mayor of Tall'Afar had more to say, and you can see the full texts at Move America Forward, or in Buzz Patterson's book, War Crimes.

If you were on the fence about travelling to DC next month I hope this has convinced you that showing up to support our military and Gen. Petraeus is one of the most important actions you can take to keep our country free. Full information on what, where, and when can be found at the Eagles Landing website,

I'll see you in DC on Sept. 15.
Sunday, August 19, 2007

Karl Rove Gives Chris Wallace A Media Relations Lesson; Sen. Patrick Leahy A (Moon)Bat Man Extra!

WOW! I don't say that often in a positive sense but WOW!

Outgoing presidential adviser Karl Rove appeared on Fox News Sunday this week where he was promptly ambushed by host Chris Wallace, and promptly turned into the ambush, opened fire on full automatic and left the field victorious.

Wallace wasted no time in going after Rove, showing part of a speech Rove had given a few years back in which he was critical of Democratic Party leaders and their weak-kneed stance on national security and the War on Terror.

After the tape played, Wallace turned on Rove, expecting to see him rocked back on his heels defending himself. That, after all, is the classic attack mode of modern talk television. Take a portion of what a person says, wrap it in a different light, and leave the target flopping like a fish out of water trying to explain their positions.

And all too often it works. All too often, politicians or pundits respond by waffling, or explaining, or backing away from what they said, and end up looking weak and indecisive.

To say that Rove was having none of that is putting it mildly. To say that Rove turned the segment right back on Wallace and stuck it to him is getting warmer. To say that Rove stuck it to Wallace wrapped in barbed wire and razor blades is right on target.

Rove responded not by getting defensive, but by pointing out that the segment of the speech shown was just that, only a smidgen and taken in this case horribly out of context. Rove then proceeded to put it in context - that he was talking about some horrendously dangerous, some might even say treasonous, comments by members of the Democratic leadership at that time.

These comments included that we should have 'negotiated' with the Taliban rather than kicking their asses in Afghanistan, and what is possibly the most heinous of all commentary out of the Democratic Party since 9-11, when Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin compared US troops to the murderers who served under Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot.

Rove then added to Wallace, on full attack mode, "I have a copy of that speech with me. I'm sure you haven't read it, so I'll leave it for you."

Rove didn't back off his previous commentary, he stood by it, and repeated it without apology or fear. Note to aspiring office holders: watch this segment and watch Rove. Then find yourself a media relations expert who can help you achieve this level of competence under fire.

Before I go further let me note, I genuinely respect Chris Wallace and his approach on FNS. I have heard he is a Democrat, but you wouldn't know it by the way he works. His questioning of Rove was no different than the manner in which he has approached interviews with Democratic leaders, and he may well have been playing devil's advocate, or just doing his job as an investigative journalist.

I also should point out that I have never met Karl Rove, we don't travel in the same circles, and I doubt he will ever call me for advice or just to chat. As my friend Melanie Morgan pointed out once when we were discussing those of us "out here" in America, versus the inside-the-beltway crowd, I don't know his email address and I don't have his cell phone number on my speed dial list.

But what I saw on FNS this Sunday marks the difference in how people without Rove's obvious talents handle a tough interview, compared to his approach. He showed in mere seconds why he is considered brilliant by his supporters, and his reviled by his enemies.

Rove's methodology Sunday was a textbook example of what I teach my clients, including politicians and others who expect to be involved with the media. It generally takes considerable practice under the right conditions to become at ease in a tough interview when the lights and cameras are on you, and Rove showed that he either has done phenomenal work to get to this stage or he is a natural.

It didn't stop with his speech either. Later Wallace tried to pry inside information from Rove on the still yawned-about Valerie Plame affair. But Rove noted that even though Plame and her husband Joe Wilson couldn't get past first base legally or in Congress, they still are attempting to pursue a civil suit in that ludicrous engagement, and there is little he can say on that issue without exposing himself to further litigation.

When Wallace pointed out that the civil suit has been dismissed, Rove noted that the Plames - or is it the Wilsons? - have said they will appeal that dismissal so the case may yet go before another tribunal. "Nice try," was Rove's answer when Wallace asked the same question a half-dozen different ways.

Rove did leave two interesting points of information though - that he had never leaked Plame's name to anyone, that her name was already being bandied about inside the beltway when he was first asked about her by someone who already knew who she was, and that his only other comment to a reporter was that he (Rove) didn't think the situation was worthy of a story.

And from that ladies and gentlemen we get a full-blown inside-the-beltway scandal that involves thousands of hours of Congressional testimony and research, not to mention legal and staff costs in the millions, and the destruction of a least one career, - Lewis 'Scooter' Libby - not for doing anything wrong, but for having a fallible memory.

And the Democratically controlled Congress wonders why virtually no one in America thinks it is doing a good job?

The left continues to hammer away at President Bush's approval ratings, which have been on the rise ever since the White House went on the offensive and started telling America what is really going on in our government instead of reacting turtle-like to every newly manufactured controversy.

But that is obviously just a time-worn leftist method of deflecting attention from the numbers that matter most, the numbers of Americans who think Congress should be flushed down the Potomac if it wasn't for the environmental damage and resultant fish kill.

There are myriad lessons to be learned from Rove's appearance on Fox News Sunday. The most basic of them are: know your subject; don't allow yourself to be intimidated; don't hesitate to set the record straight when a journalist phrases it inaccurately or unfairly; and don't fall into the trap of explaining yourself. Restate your positions in front of a hostile audience with the same conviction you use with a friendly audience.

Oh, and for the left-wing extremists who are destroying the Democratic Party, and attempting to destroy America too: It is impossible to be regarded as Eagles when you act like turkeys.

Leahy A MoonBat-Man Extra!

Briefly, because it isn't worth more than a brief mention, did you see in the news that Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the most weak-kneed liberal in the Northeast, which is really saying something, has a role as an extra in the latest Moon-Batman movie?

Seems the ultra-liberal apologist senator spends an inordinate amount of time reading comic books, and fantasizing about being a superhero!

Before you get all defensive here, I don't believe there is anything wrong with most comics, as long as you keep them in perspective. I personally like Mad Magazine and have since the early 60s. But I am not a Senate committee chairman, and I don't envision myself playing Spy vs. Spy from dawn to dusk.

Leahy, on the other hand, obviously has a difficult time separating his fictional superhero self from reality.

Thus, I have a suggestion for the producers. How about we rewrite the ending so the "distinguished gentleman" ends up leaving a very public, political career and retires to the deep woods of the Northeast Kingdom where he lives in a deer camp, reads comic books every waking hour, talks to Bambi, and contemplates his navel?

Then we can sit back and wait to see if life will imitate art!
Friday, August 17, 2007

Eagles Landing in DC - Again! Why? We MUST!

Tho' much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield!

Tennyson's closing stanza to his poem Ulysses could well describe many of our nation's veterans, especially those of us from the Vietnam era and earlier, who once again will be gathering in Washington, D.C., to offset planned anti-military, pro-terrorist rallies scheduled for mid-September.

The anti-democracy, pro-communist, pro-terrorist organization ANSWER, backed by liberal money, will again turn out demonstrators, some paid, some uninformed, some horribly lacking in basic intelligence, to disparage our form of government, intimidate shaky politicians, and desecrate our national memorials.

Once again, a counter-umbrella organization of veterans and pro-troop forces will stand vigil to protect our monuments, counter the hate-filled rhetoric of those who are attempting to bring about the downfall of the United States, and shore up those politicians who need a visual show of the true positions of mainstream Americans.

Among the groups working on the DC event are Eagles Landing, Move America Forward, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Vets For Freedom, Gathering of Eagles and many others. Each has its own particular niche to fill, and all are committed to showing overwhelming support for our troops and Gen. David Petraeus, architect of the offensive currently underway in Iraq known as the Surge.

Gen. Petraeus is scheduled to report to Congress in mid-September on the progress of the Surge, and the pro-troop forces intend to be there to let him know America is behind him.

There are many efforts underway to blunt the pro-troop movement, with some even questioning its sincerity and the need for another showing like the successful Gathering of Eagles on March 17.

On that day, vets and pro-troop supporters overwhelmingly outnumbered the ANSWER groups, and showed America that we can organize, can speak to the issues, and demonstrate to Congress that there is far more to reckon with in the American political arena than a relative handful of miscreants who are afforded far move coverage and credibility than their numbers and actions deserve.

So, having done it once, why are we going back?

For starters, neither the pro-terrorist, pro-communist, anarchist forces, nor the media, nor Congress ever expected the Gathering of Eagles to be so successful. America's veterans had not united in such large numbers with such passion in recent memory.

That turnout of patriots was a surprise to the anti-democracy forces, and please, don't bore me with this "Peace-loving, anti-war" drivel. I SAW the demonstrators in DC on March 17. I SAW their placards and signs, heard their anti-American rhetoric and speeches. They are NOT peace-loving, anti-war, rank-and-file Americans.

Their group was comprised of Islamo-fascists, communists, socialists and anarchists, none of whom were spouting anything remotely resembling "peace."

If there were any true peace-loving, anti-war demonstrators in that group they were totally hidden by some of the most virulent, filthy, anti-American, anti-democracy, anti-capitalism riffraff imaginable. They came to DC not to demonstrate and make a point using their Constitutional rights to assemble and speak. They came to tear down, destroy, and deface!

Right alongside them, providing all the free public relations capabilities it could muster was the mainstream American media. If the Gathering of Eagles was mentioned at all, by the New York Times for instance, we were lied about, and efforts to correct those lies have been met with stone silence, not that there should be any surprise there.

But our memorials are considered sacred ground, and veterans and our supporters will stand as one to protect them when threatened by spray painters, chisel wielders, and cretins who believe they are making a statement with vats of ink and urine and feces.

Also, among the senior ranks of today's pro-troop forces there is a long-held resentment of the pro-communist forces, conspirators and collaborators, including Jane Fonda, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, John Murtha and Henry Kissinger who successfully conspired with the mainstream media in the early 70s to cut off all aid to South Vietnam, abandon an ally, and set the stage for the slaughter of millions of innocents.

We have never forgotten the treasonous commentary and political cowardice that caused this calamity, nor the semi-successful effort that continues to this very day to blame it on the military, especially those of us who fought in Vietnam and won every major battle. Military historians know that there has rarely been such a lopsided victory as that won by America and our allies in South Vietnam, and never has such a total victory been so totally sabotaged by cowards and traitors in our government even as we fought to keep Southeast Asia free.

We more than any other group of Americans understand that we can not stand by idly, as America did then, and let a similar calamity occur in the War on Terror and the Battle for Iraq. We understand more so than any other group of Americans, that if we do to the current generation of servicemen and women, what was done to us, it will only be a matter of time before the suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks occur on own land as they now do overseas.

Yes, we are getting on in years. We don't look as we did 40 years ago or more. Our hair is gray or thinning, or gone, and we are no longer the trim and twenty military models that we were then.

But deep in our hearts, the fire still burns. Deep in our hearts we know the cause is just and the battle must be fought.

Deep inside where it matters most there still is strength and determination and pride. Deep inside where it matters most we know that if we sit back today and allow the communists, terrorists and anarchists to rule the streets, as America did a generation ago while we were away at war, then the next generation will grow up in an America devoid of freedom, an America where the light of liberty has been extinguished.

We are going to Washington because we know from hard and bitter experience that America WILL NOT.

Unless we do it, the job won't get done. Unless we do it, anarchists, terrorists and communists will rule the streets, intimidate the politicians, alter the course of history and destroy the world's single greatest hope for the advancement of humanity.

We were the recipients of the sabotage and treachery that marked the US Congress in the Vietnam and Korean eras. We were the recipients of overt acts of hostility, matched only by the more subtle, but equally devastating silence from friends and family who believed without question the lies that were told about our service.

But unlike those who abandoned us then, and turned their backs on us then, we will not abandon this generation of fighters. The men and women in uniform who are striving so valiantly to drive the terrorists into oblivion, the men and women in uniform who are performing so magnificently on the field of battle, will NOT return to an America that resembles the America of the 60s and 70s.

This time an American ally that needs only time and assistance to arrive at the point where it can stand on its own, taking on its own internal matters, and providing for its own external defense, will not be abandoned by spineless traitors and cowards who can blithely shrug off the slaughter of millions, so long as it doesn't directly affect them.

This time, there will be no Silent Majority. This time the majority will roar its support of the General, its support of the troops, its support of the efforts to crush terrorism where it takes root, and its disavowal of those who would destroy our homes, our families and our country.

WE are going to Washington because if we don't, hard and bitter experience has shown that no one else will. WE are going to Washington because there is a job to do, a country to be saved from both external and internal forces that would destroy it, and WE are the people with the drive, initiative, knowledge and ability to take the fight to our enemies where ever they lurk.

We are going to Washington because WE MUST!
Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Straw Polls and Straw Men; What Does It All Mean?

Before too much time goes by, and now that the dust has settled a bit, the results of the Iowa Straw Poll held last Saturday can give us a glimpse into the minds of the voters, and the character of the candidates.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was the hands-down winner, and considering that he spent millions to convince about 4500 Iowans to vote for him, it would have been a crushing defeat if he finished otherwise.

The final tally was as follows:
1. Mitt Romney - 4516 votes, 31%
2. Mike Huckabee - 2587 votes, 18.1%
3. Sam Brownback - 2192 votes, 15.3%
4. Tom Tancredo - 1961 votes, 13.7%
5. Ron Paul - 1305 votes, 9.1%
6. Tommy Thompson - 1,009 votes, 7.3%
7. Fred Thompson - 231 votes
8. Rudy Giuliani - 183 votes
9. Duncan Hunter - 174 votes
10. John McCain - 101 votes
11. John Cox - 41 votes

Romney winning was no surprise, but Mike Huckabee doing as well as he did was a major boost for his campaign. Interestingly, Huckabee spent about $90,000 on his effort in Iowa to the millions spent by Romney.

Also, while Romney paid for an entire fleet of buses to bring his supporters to the polling place, Huckabee paid for none. However, Fair Tax advocates, who are backing Huckabee because he has the foresight to see the wisdom of the Fair Tax, and the backbone to say so, did pay for buses to get his supporters out and voting.

That is what commentators are referring to when they say "grassroots."

If you refer to the list above, you will see that Tommy Thompson, who did actively participate in the Straw Poll, finished 6th. Thompson, no relation to Fred Thompson who did not participate, but was a write in candidate nonetheless, made campaign appearances on his motorcycle, and said that if he didn't finish in the top he would quit. He didn't and he did.

After Tommy Thompson there is a gathering of non-participants, including Fred Thompson, who has not formally declared his candidacy yet, New York City's former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain, both of whom are formally declared candidates. Giuliani brushed off his showing since he wasn't in the race, and McCain has nosedived into an abyss.

But what I find interesting about that grouping is that Fred Thompson finished significantly ahead of Giuliani. That shows me that while Thompson is relatively flat in various polls, since he continues to put off his formal declaration, he still commands a serious presence in the minds of the voters.

Giuliani should have done far better in Iowa, through nothing more than name recognition, and that he didn't even finish first in the non-contenders should be a matter of concern for him as well as a matter of encouragement for Fred Thompson.

Now that Tommy Thompson has quit the race and won't be around to confuse the voters any longer, Fred Thompson may want to reconsider when and how he will formally announce. Fred Thompson's support has flattened, with many potential supporters saying they are tired of waiting for his decision.

When he does announce he will have to do it with flair, and a sustainable flair at that. He may want to take a look at Romney's post Straw Poll media appearances for a clue as to how NOT to proceed.

Romney was interviewed on Fox News Sunday and asked about two recent gaffes in his campaign. One was a revelation that 20 years ago he took a 12-hour motor vehicle trip with his dog confined in a travel kennel on the top of his automobile. Animal lovers don't find that too encouraging, and I would rate his response to pointed questions from Chris Wallace as unsatisfactory. (The dog loved it, and I loved my dog.)

Similarly Romney was asked about his response to a questioner who noted that his (Romney's) sons have not served in the military. Romney responded that they can best serve their country by working on his campaign and getting him elected president.

Flippant. Just like his response to the dog question.

There is a very simple answer to the question of why a candidate or a candidate's relatives aren't or didn't serve in the military. The military is not for everyone and everyone is not needed in the military.

Recruiting is on or above goals, even the higher goals for an expanded military, and less than 1 percent of all Americans are serving. Only about 7 percent of all Americans have ever served. There are many ways to serve the country and they are every bit as necessary as military service.

The only question that a candidate should be concerned with on a numbers-of-voters basis is whether they support the military. The answer to that better be YES and their actions should back up their statements. Roughly 93 percent of all Americans will be on board with that.

Which brings me to Romney's post Straw Poll appearance on the Hannity and Colmes show Tuesday night.

Romney made a reference to 'the other side' when discussing the War on Terror. Liberal Democrat Bob Beckel, who was sitting in for Liberal co-host Alan Colmes, immediately jumped on Romney demanding to know exactly to whom he was referring when he said 'the other side.' Beckel further insinuated the Romney better not be talking about left-wingers who oppose the war, such as Beckel himself, when he said 'the other side.'

Romney should have answered "You better believe I'm talking about you. 'Your side' includes Harry Reid who has declared the war lost, and claimed the Surge was a failure only days after it was officially launched; Barack Obama who falsely claimed our troops are indiscriminately bombing Iraqi villages; Sen. Dick Durbin who compared American troops to Pol Pot's communist murderers; Rep. Henry Waxman who is said to have paved the way for delivery of $600,000 in supplies to terrorists in Fallujah when they were locked in battle against our Marines; John Kerry who has claimed our military personnel are dumb, which is amazing coming from a stooge like him; Presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton who says she regrets authorizing our troops to fight terrorism, and wouldn't do it again, even as they are winning battle upon battle; Rep. John Murtha who falsely alleged that US Marines in Haditha, Iraq were guilty of cold-blooded murder, and refuses to apologize even as charges against them are being dropped; and Nancy Pelosi who has made unauthorized trips to enemy countries, AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and supplicated herself before foreign rulers who are actively supporting the terrorists who attacked us.

"You are damn right I am talking about you. Don't give me this 'I support the troops but not the war' crap. You are part and parcel of a segment of the American political landscape that is actively aiding and abetting our enemies in the War on Terror! You are judged by the company you keep and even if you personally didn't help our enemies you are supporting people who do. YES! I AM talking about you.

"You Bob Beckel, and the people you represent, are not patriots. Many of the people you support should be brought up on treason charges. I definitely am talking about you!"

Well, that's what Romney should have said. But he didn't. He waffled. He tiptoed around the question, showed an amazing lack of backbone, and once again showed us the profile of a typical, milquetoast American politician.

No, no, no, of course he wasn't referring to the great and magnificent Mr. Beckel, he just meant those terrorist guys. Yeah, right, what he said.

I don't know what the other polls say, but in my internal polling mechanism Romney dropped like a stone after that segment. We are in a war. We have people in our own country and in our own government who are actively and loudly supporting the 'other side' whether that be Al Qaeda, or resurgent communists.

A candidate who is too skittish and too squeamish to call that situation as it is, rather than worrying about political correctness when we have people trying to kill us, is not equipped for hardball world politics.

The candidate who has backbone, intestinal fortitude, and other appropriate physical and mental characteristics to answer that question honestly without retreat, without apology, is the candidate who will win the hearts and votes of America. With the Iowa Straw Poll behind us and the formal primary votes still months away, we can only wonder at this point in the process whether he exists.
Monday, August 13, 2007

Move America Forward Honcho Takes on the Left

There are some Americans who believe that we should be a kinder and gentler country, that our military is misused, the troops don't really understand how they are being 'used' by big business, and we don't do enough for the poor and downtrodden of the world.

Some Americans believe we should pull back, way back from foreign entanglements, and concentrate on border defense. Some of the latter are more conservative than liberal in their outlook on life and see 'nation building' as a detriment to our own interests. Some of these folks will sit down with you and have an honest, if spirited, debate on the direction the country is taking, and whether it could do better.

But then there are people who live in America, but don't consider themselves Americans, even if they were born here. They see themselves as 'citizens of the world' and America is just where they built their house, got their education, and make piles of money. But they don't consider America 'home' or themselves to be Americans.

Somewhere in their heads something went wrong in the developmental stage, and they emerged as willing pawns for anyone who could concoct a good story that America is the source of all evil in the world, anything American is wrong and bad, and those who consider themselves Americans are a scourge on the earth and should be eliminated.

These people are the Liberal Left.

These are the people that retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson exposes in his new book, War Crimes, The Left's Campaign to Destroy Our Military and Lose the War on Terror. While many of the left's efforts to bring down America are well documented, Patterson has some truly eye-opening revelations in his book, including how one of the most virulent left-wing, anti-American members of Congress facilitated delivery of supplies to terrorists in Iraq even as they were engaged in fighting against U.S. Marines in Fallujah.

Patterson, who is Vice-Chairman of Move America Forward, the nation's largest pro-troop organization with over a million members, was also White House aide during the Clinton presidency, carried the nuclear 'football' - thank God he had his hands on it rather than Bill or Hillary Clinton - and has an inside insight that simply is unparalleled.

Patterson reveals that the extent of the hatred the left has for American and the lengths its members will go to bring about the country's downfall is truly astounding. His observations should serve as a wake-up call for anyone who thinks the only war we are fighting is overseas. War Crimes reveals in appalling detail just how many people are working against our country, who they are and what they are doing.

Start for instance, with the media. It is common knowledge that the so-called Main Stream Media has been run by communist sympathizers since before the Vietnam War. It also is fairly well known that during the Vietnam period the media mounted a coordinated offensive against the military, political and business establishments, denigrated serving members of the armed forces as well as the veterans. The Vietnam era media deliberately spread massive amounts of disinformation about military successes in Vietnam in a successful effort to alter political direction.

When the communists in Southeast Asia went on a rampage of slaughter, the media conveniently blamed it on the American military and Vietnam veterans for non-existent losses on the field of battle which the media claimed was the driving factor enabling the communists to gain control.

Now, in a continuation of that Big Lie program, the media is working both overtly and by more subtle means to turn Americans against the military and the War on Terror. It starts with the way the terrorists who thrive on mass murder and slaughter of innocents are portrayed in the media - militants, insurgents, perpetrators, captors, rather than what they are - murderous, insane assailants bent on world domination.

Then there are the less subliminal methods - National Public Radio's senior editor Loren Jenkins, for instance, instructing his reporters that "the game of reporting is to smoke em out." Not terrorists, or terrorist leaders, but US troops.

When confronted with concerns that his instructions could reveal secret troop movements or expose allied forces to ambush from the terrorists, Jenkins responded, "I don't represent the government, I represent history ..."

And this from an organization that gets a portion of its funding from tax dollars!

Then we have the leftist politicians. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, John Murtha, Richard Durbin, and Chuck Schumer are among many in the left who are drawn to cameras and notebooks like moths to a flame.

But the designation for the all-time lowest form of traitorous sludge has to go to Congressman Henry Waxman of California. Patterson reveals that Waxman sent a letter to the U.S. Ambassador in Jordan that is considered to have facilitated efforts by American hating, leftist-supporting organizations Code Pink, and United For Peace And Justice, to deliver $600,000 in supplies to Al Qaeda terrorists in Fallujah to help them battle US Marines who were driving them out of that city.

Yet Waxman, who should be brought up on charges of treason and forced to answer just what the hell he was thinking when he aided and abetted terrorists fighting our troops, has the unmitigated gall to continually hold hearings in Congress attacking the Bush administration in an effort to gain a political edge!

War Crimes also dissects American academia, which has long been a bastion of anti-American propaganda, or the "Ayatollahs of Hate" as Patterson has re-named them. He makes a good case for why federal funds should be withheld, legally, from those institutions that prohibit military recruiters, or make it so difficult for them to work on those campuses that they are effectively, if not outright, banned.

Then there is Hollywood. We know about Ed Asner, Jane Fonda, Barbara Streisand, Martin Sheen, Charlie Sheen, Sean Penn, Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Moore, and Danny Glover with their pro-communist stances and efforts to subvert the military. But how about George Clooney, Matt Damon, and Woody Harrelson among a laundry list of others who are profiting obscenely from living and working in America while attempting all the while to bring it down?

Even America's veterans are used to further the leftist efforts to destroy America. Take for instance the benign sounding Veterans For Peace. Sure, every combat vet hates war and would like to see it end, right?

Not this way. To quote War Crimes on Veterans For Peace, "Founded in 1985, the organization actively supported Nicaragua's Marxist Sandinistas, aligned itself with Fidel Castro, denounced America's actions in Iraq, and with the assistance of ANSWER held a "Korean War Tribunal" convicting the United States of war crimes during the Korean War." ANSWER is the coalition of pro-communist, pro-Islamofascist, pro-socialist, and anarchist organizations that advocated defacing the Vietnam Memorial and other national monuments in DC last March, and is again advocating that its members attack our memorials in September.

When you read War Crimes you realize that the leftist efforts against America are far more than an annoyance. The left has deliberately caused the downfall of Southeast Asia and set the stage for millions to be slaughtered there. It is working to set the stage for a similar collapse in the Middle East, and a guaranteed slaughter of similar proportions there.

But these are just stops along the way. The ultimate goal is the downfall of America, and if you think previous instances of slaughter were huge, wait until you get a look at what these organizations have in store for us.

But we do have recourse. Our military is performing magnificently in the War on Terror and the Battle for Iraq, our security apparatus is withstanding repeated assaults on its tactics and methodology from the left that uses news outlets like the New York Times to publish our military and intelligence secrets, and in the final analysis we are a nation of commerce and laws.

On the commerce end I suggest we begin by boycotting any movie that either stars or uses in any way, any actor, director or producer who spews anti-American rhetoric, visits America's enemies, or in any way supports communists, terrorists or any other American enemies in their off time.

We aren't saying they can't work, but there is nothing that says we have to buy their product. I say start with Clooney and Damon. Their last few movies have been stinkers anyway. And when I say boycott, I mean not just at the theaters, but at the movie rental stores, DVD sales, and pay-per-view too.

Unfortunately, most of the American hating, vile spewing morons get 70 percent of their income from foreign sources, so a total boycott would only mean a 30 percent reduction in their income. But hey, how many people want to see their paychecks reduced by 30 percent overnight?

We can also boycott news organizations that reveal military and security secrets or work to destroy troop morale under the guise of First Amendment rights. They can still publish, but we don't need to read the New York Times or any other pro-communist organization.

We also should boycott the top five advertisers of any news outlet that works against America and the troops. And we should make it very clear to these advertisers exactly what we are doing and why. Take away the big five advertisers from any print or electronic outlet in American and you definitely will get their attention.

We can also use the law to eliminate all federal funding to any institute of higher education or any public school system that bars, bans, or takes any measures whatsoever to prevent military based programs or military recruiting efforts. Many colleges and universities are awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants each year that not only help pay bills, but also attract high quality scholars and researchers.

But they then use the students and researchers as captive audiences that are bombarded with years upon years of non-stop anti-American propaganda.

How about we cut off the funding, and divert it to the service academies. Want a quality education and an opportunity to work on major research projects? Attend West Point, Annapolis or the Air Force Academy. Everyone else, sorry 'bout that.

On the other end of the law, it is high time to start applying the treason statutes to anyone, regardless of their party or position, who aids and abets our enemies. That includes those who leak and print or broadcast national secrets as well as those who deliver direct aid to terrorists fighting our troops.

I suggest we start with Henry Waxman.
Friday, August 10, 2007

Gen. Petraeus To Lead An Army of Thousands; Leftists Quitting War Against US, Deserting Sinking Ship

A movement is underway across America and beyond to ensure that when Gen. David Petraeus, who is leading the ongoing offensive against Al Qaeda in Iraq, comes to Washington on Sept. 15 to testify before Congress, an army of veterans and our supporters will be watching his back.

Another nationwide installment of A Gathering of Eagles, modeled on the wildly successful event on March 17 when tens of thousands of pro-troop, anti-terrorism demonstrators blocked leftists' access to national war monuments that had been targeted for defacing, is gathering momentum with an even broader base of support than we had last winter.

The pro-terrorism anarchists at ANSWER, the umbrella group of anti-democracy agitators who are heavily funded by anti-American anti-military organizations, are planning another anti-troop rally Sept. 15, complete with a scheduled 'die-in.' They again are calling for their supporters to deface the Vietnam Memorial and other monuments on the National Mall.

The Gathering of Eagles core organization which was the prime organizer in the March event, and was joined by Move America Forward, the largest pro-troop organization in the country, will also get a boost from Eagles Landing a new group that is comprised of some of the original members of the GOE. The original group has evolved into a full-time organization that is taking on anti-military protesters at numerous locations across the country, while Eagles Landing is focusing specifically on rallying troops for the Sept. 15 event.

The Military Order of the Purple Heart again is taking a major role in the September rally, as it did in March, and efforts are underway to get more involvement from the national veterans organizations.

One difference in the planning for the next Gathering of Eagles is to keep a large continent of Eagles on hand throughout the day, to deflect any attempts to mar the memorials after most of the day's activities have ended. In March, anarchists returning from a rally at the Pentagon after the vast majority of Eagles had departed, attempted to overwhelm Park and Capitol police to attack the Vietnam Memorial.

They weren't successful, but this time the Eagles will stay around for the full day, just as insurance.

It is interesting to say the least, that as even the most hard-line pro-left news outlets are forced to acknowledge that substantial gains are being made in Iraq, left-wing politicians from both parties are now attempting to jump on the pro-troop bandwagon. Their leaders in Congress are switching the emphasis of their anti-military rhetoric to complaints about unmet political objectives, but for the moment the rank and file are scrambling to undo their anti-troop activities over the past several years so they can appear pro-troop in time for the next election.

But we shouldn't be fooled by this sudden switch to the other side of the fence, so to speak, because it has nothing to do with the troops, the war, or a sudden eruption of epiphanies under the Capitol dome.

The left is and has been at war with America for decades, and for most of that time has been able to operate with impunity. Beginning in the 30s and escalating in the 40s and 50s the left successfully infiltrated the American media, our Congress, our public schools and universities, and our government.

Under the guise of passing laws that are supposed to help the poor and underprivileged, the left has eroded our liberties, saddled us with out of control taxes, restricted our access to the media and dumbed down our national educational system.

Nonetheless, Americans who still believe in personal initiative, secure borders, a strong defense department and minimal government, have managed to organize, circumvent the mainstream pro-terrorist media, and oppose efforts to turn this country into a socialist state headed for communism.

So when you see Democratic members of Congress and Republican turncoats suddenly jumping on the pro-Surge bandwagon and mouthing pro-troop platitudes, you aren't seeing a change of heart, you are seeing camouflage. They are merely attempting to clothe themselves in a uniform that will enable them blend in with the victorious side when our troops emerge victorious in Iraq.

Oddly enough, I don't believe we have seen the last of the fighting or casualties, and those who are flipping now may well wonder whether they changed sides too quickly. But over time we will prevail, and when that happens, the previously anti-troop anti-military forces in Congress will be scrambling to give the impression that they really supported the troops all along.

Funny. I wrote several months ago, a couple of times in fact, that if the administration gave the troops a chance, and didn't tie their hands with impossible Rules of Engagement, they would never let their country down. I don't recall anyone sending me messages or posting replies at the end of those columns saying they agreed with me.

I just remember a non-stop flood of anti-troop sewage flowing out of Congress every single day.

So when I see these former critics suddenly turning into cheerleaders, I am not fooled. They haven't changed their minds, and they aren't changing sides. They are just going to ground, hiding out, waiting.

They haven't given up on their ill-advised efforts to turn America into another second-rate socialist/communist enterprise where the concept of personal freedoms isn't even a whisper of a dream, must less a reality. They are just hiding out, and believe me they will be back.

Remember in 1990 we thought communism was dead forever. But don't tell that to the Chinese.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007

I Still Like Fred Thompson; But Just Who Is Mike Huckabee?

Fred Thompson has easily been the recipient of the most free publicity of any non-candidate in the race for the presidential nomination, not all of it necessarily favorable, yet if anything I am more interested than previously in what he will contribute when he formally declares his candidacy.

But on the fringes of the national consciousness, and steadily moving into the limelight, is former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. He is doing very well in the preliminary polling on the upcoming Iowa straw poll, he has been on national television with increasing frequency, and best of all, every time he opens his mouth he makes sense!

I saw Huckabee on Fox News Sunday a few weeks back and was impressed with his responses to some pointed questions from host Mike Wallace. For instance, when asked about a tax increase he had approved in Arkansas he didn't duck the issue as many politicians would, instead he engaged it head on.

The tax increase was specifically for a much needed improvement to his state's roads and bridges, Huckabee said, and was approved by 80 percent of the voters. OK, I am no lover of taxes and especially tax increases, particularly when many states, including mine, are running billion dollar surpluses while touting even more taxes.

But when the voters are given a choice, and they say yes, then I believe it is up to the government to respond accordingly. Case closed. I am not ignoring Huckabee's critics who say there were other tax increases too, but I want to see for myself what they were all about, rather than just discounting a candidate because he doesn't meet someone else's template.

Huckabee also is the first national candidate I have seen who openly advocates the elimination of the income tax, social security tax, gas taxes, cigarette taxes, beer taxes, tax taxes, and taxes on the tax taxes, and replacing it with a one-time national sales tax, known more familiarly as the Fair Tax.

According to a book of the same name that has been circulating for a few years now, written by syndicated radio host Neil Boortz and Georgia Congressman John Linder, the cumulative effect of all the taxes we pay on income and purchases is well in excess of 50 percent on the dollar. The Fair Tax would reduce this burden to a one time 23 cent sales tax on all first-time purchases, (you would pay sales tax when buying a new car, for instance, but not a used car) which would have no negative impact whatsoever on income the government needs to run the country.

In fact the worst impact of the Fair Tax would be to eliminate the Internal Revenue Service, and layoffs of a bunch of tax lawyers and accountants on K Street in Washington, D.C., who make careers out of explaining the annual changes in the 10,000 page tax code. Sorry, but repressive taxation has resulted in the layoffs of far more skilled workers in industries across this country after their companies moved to cheaper pastures.

I'd much rather see a resurgence of productivity based on reasonable operating costs, than the continued employment of a class of people who will have no problem whatsoever selling their skills across the street, rather than on a faraway continent.

Wallace also noted that there was some question as to the accuracy of the 23 cent figure, stating that some analysts believe it is actually higher, perhaps 34 cents instead of 23.

Huckabee responded that the higher figure was touted by a panel the Bush administration appointed to study the Fair Tax. Huckabee disagreed completely with that conclusion, and noted that unfortunately, some members of the panel came from that K Street area with a vested interest in the status quo.

So I'm with Huckabee on that count too.

And, for good measure, I saw him on the news this morning doing a very good job of explaining the defects in the air traffic control system that keeps passengers waiting in misery on the tarmac all too often when they should be on the way to or already arrived at their destination.

It appears that on the national level at least, the Republican Party has a bench with some depth. If you pay any attention to the polls, as I have said before, you would just go home and wait to decide which New Yorker you like best, Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani.

But remember, most of the major media is headquartered in New York, with D.C. as a backup, so it would be much easier to report on two candidates who live within minutes of the primary cable and network news headquarters, than someone who lives out in America!

I was one of those journalists who believed in physically patrolling my beat, rather than relying on telephones and someone else's version of events, so I have no problem with requiring the news organizations to travel out to the rest of the country. I have no doubt that in many cases, not all but many, the media would love to see a subway campaign rather than one based in faraway places, like Arkansas or even Tennessee.

I think America would be better served by a race that requires journeys beyond the Hudson River.

There is a long way to go in this presidential race, and I don't see any reason to commit to any candidate yet until I have had a good chance to check out their positions and beliefs. Obviously, considering the amount of money that Republican donors are holding back until the race narrows a bit, many others out there feel the same way.

Thompson was criticized on some conservative talk shows recently for his choice of a campaign manager who has been an advocate of open borders, which I also oppose wholeheartedly. But you don't vote for candidates based on their staff selections and whatever beliefs may be held by the people who work for them, you vote for a candidate based on what the candidate believes.

I can tell you from experience in the field of political strategy that many people who are good organizers and thus good selections for campaign staff, have personal political beliefs that may be diametrically opposed to the candidate they represent. I guess the best course of action here would be to ask Thompson what he thinks of the entire open border concept and make up our minds based on his response.

(Hint: Henry Kissinger also favor open borders. If Thompson aligns himself with that charlatan, my vote is definitely going elsewhere.)

There are myriad issues swirling around the ongoing debates and campaigns. I believe most of them will be forgotten long before election day next year. I have a ton of local races to keep track of, and issues that will much more directly affect me this November and beyond, that for the moment require at least as much of my attention as next year's presidential race.

But I would bet that a year from now the voters are going to be looking most favorably at the candidate who is strong on defense, strong on national security, strong on support for the troops and the War on Terror, strong on border security, and strongly against all the giveaways that have been falsely labelled by Congress and the media as Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

I don't expect a perfect person to be my preferred candidate because I know it isn't possible. But I do expect honesty, strength, openness to the degree possible in the Oval Office, and most certainly a high level of basic common sense. Is that person out there?
Monday, August 06, 2007

O'Reilly's Ratings Must Be Slipping; Attacks on the Base Don't Work

The O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News cable channel has long been the show that liberals love to hate. Not that they don't also hate Sean Hannity, but he is offset at least in presence by Alan Colmes, while O'Reilly is a solitary lightning rod.

Well, he used to be. But for some time now O'Reilly has been ... off his game.

He has made comments regarding the War on Terror and the Battle for Iraq that can be construed as less than supportive of our troops - dismissively saying the war is lost - he has gone on the attack against some basic conservative groups that hardly qualify as subversives, most recently the Free Republic, and he has resorted to shouting matches with Geraldo Rivera in Jerry Springer-like segments.

(On a side note, an acquaintance went to high school years ago with Geraldo Rivera. But back then it was "Gerry." Things that make you go HMMMMMM.)

Back to the present, it has been quite some time since I watched the O'Reilly show with any regularity. I make every effort to watch Special Report on Fox with Brit Hume at 6 p.m., because there I get a comprehensive wrap-up of the day's news, some humor, and two panel discussions on current issues.

If I am channel surfing later in the evening, I might check on O'Reilly to see if he has an interesting guest, or if Michelle Malkin is guest hosting. If Michelle is on, I tarry much longer, but if O'Reilly is on and I am not interested in his guest, I move on and try to find a classic movie.

By many accounts, I am not alone in this. Many people who don't see themselves as conservatives, but certainly aren't liberals either, have been saying for some time now that they don't appreciate O'Reilly's lack of support for and faith in our troops or his departure from basic common sense, in an apparent and unsuccessful attempt to appear "fair."

The left is not fair. It preaches fairness, but only to give a false impression to people who don't have time or inclination to look more deeply into left-wing positions. Anyone with O'Reilly's reputation who attempts to kiss up to the left will get a positive response only for as long as it takes to destroy him, then he will be left on the shore like so much driftwood.

It seems that is where O'Reilly is heading.

Another issue with O'Reilly is the extent of his show preparation. Take for instance, this response from my occasional guest blogger who submits airline related information FROM THE FLIGHT DECK.

O'Reilly did a recent segment on airport security after a local television station in Arizona reported lax terminal security after midnight. Here is the response:

One of the drawbacks of being a pilot is spending a lot of time in hotels where you usually find yourself watching the same tired old TV shows. The other night I was in this predicament watching the O'Reilly Factor, when he aired a segment about airport security in Phoenix, AZ.

I have become accustomed to the media not knowing it's elbow from somewhere else when it comes to aviation, but this case really irked the hell out of me!

The segment concerned the terminal security shutting down at midnight, until the early shift arrives at 4 a.m. In the meantime, a security guard stands at the access point to controlled terminal areas checking IDs, since only airport workers are allowed in these areas, although they don't go through metal detectors.

An airport issued ID is required to go through this checkpoint to enter the controlled areas. This apparently isn't sufficient for either the local reporters, or O'Reilly, but what should have been highlighted is the fact that to be issued an airport ID one has to pass a federal background check.

But according to the O'Reilly Factor the flying public is at risk because terrorists are nonetheless going to compromise these low-paid airport workers who are then going to sneak "something" into the secured area.

This 'conclusion' showed a horrible lack of preparation or research on this segment.

First, let's not gloss over the fact that 19 people completely changed the way the world flies on 9-11. Another 20 people who weren't even in this country made it necessary to restrict the amount of liquids that can be brought on a plane, when a plot to bomb 10 overseas flights was uncovered in England.

There obviously was little to no research on this issue because they missed the fact that airline pilots, many of whom are not very well paid either, usually bypass security altogether. There also are other airport employees who bypass security and they don't make much money either.

For instance, as was reported in the Orlando Sentinel earlier this month, a flight from Orlando to Puerto Rico had "contraband" smuggled on it which turned out to be illegal firearms and drugs.

A JetBlue Airways employee at Orlando International Airport is accused of accepting four handguns and two machine guns from an undercover agent posing as an international weapons trafficker. The weapons were destined for Puerto Rico, court records show.

His arrest was the second time in five months that federal agents identified airline workers at Orlando in plots to smuggle guns to the island.

If O'Reilly was serious about his pre-show research he would have found out about these incidents and disclosed how the guns made it on the aircraft in the first place. A complaint filed by the ATF alleged that the airline worker met with an undercover agent and agreed to smuggle weapons to Puerto Rico for $4,500.

Two things should stand out here. One, the worker wasn't paid much to commit a crime, and two, federal law enforcement was plugged into the smuggling ring. That doesn't mean the feds catch everyone every time, but it obviously is a lot harder to get a crime like this past them than O'Reilly would have you believe.

In March and April, FBI agents arrested five people suspected of being part of a ring that smuggled drugs and guns on flights from Orlando to San Juan. Those arrests prompted Congress to mandate a full review of security procedures at the nation's airports.

The truth is, except for senior pilots at the top national airlines, virtually everyone in the airline industry is underpaid these days. There will always be exceptions, but that doesn't mean there is a flood of anti-American sentiment that will send droves of ticket agents, baggage handlers, pilots and flight attendants into the arms of the terrorists.

O'Reilly, do some research, pal.

What this all boils down to is an ongoing disconnect between O'Reilly and his audience. His recent segments with the shouting matches, attacks on conservative organizations and poorly researched 'exposes' shows that he is scrambling to maintain relevance, but it appears he is clueless as to how to succeed.

I have a suggestion. Go back to basics. Remember the demographics, especially the political demographics of the audience that once watched your show faithfully. We know we can find Hate America diatribes anywhere on broadcast network news and talk shows, and in myriad left-wing webs sites.

We don't need any more of their rantings, unless it is just to hold them up as an example. What we need is a show that has no qualms about exposing the fallacies in the left-wing, pro-terrorist, pro-communist attacks. What we need is a show that tears them apart point by point.

That kind of show will attract a large and faithful audience. Anything less is a show that starts off with built-in obsolescence.

Heed this advice and the O'Reilly factor may regain its previous credibility. Heed it not, and the show may well end up being renamed the Malkin Factor.


hypoctite sm

Granny Snatching


Signed author copies


NEW! e-Book Available on Amazon

Masters of the Art

Masters final cover
Personalize inscription


NEW! e-Book Available on Amazon and Barns & Noble

Blog Archive





Popular Posts