I have to hand it to England's Prince Harry, the young British Army Officer who was thwarted in his efforts to join the War on Terror in Iraq after the heads of the Royal Family said "Absolutely NOT!"

He took the rebuke to his dedication in stride and when no one was looking headed straight to Afghanistan where he joined the War on Terror fighting Al Qaeda's minions there, the Taliban. OK, I'm exaggerating about how he got there; he did it by convincing his elders that he could and should stand up for freedom.

But he did display a remarkable focus on the objective and adjusted his tactics, as a true military professional would, and ultimately accomplished his mission.

Unfortunately for the British Army, and the free world, word of the Prince's participation was leaked on the Drudge Report website and immediately became a media sensation, which means he now is going home early. British Army tours in Afghanistan usually last six months, according to news reports, while Prince Harry has served 10 weeks.

Air Chief Marshal Jock Stirrup, Britain's defense chief, decided to pull Prince Harry out of the combat zone because news of his presence there is seen as adding another layer of risk to him and his fellow soldiers.

As a result of the exposure on the Drudge Report, the Defense Ministry released video of the prince serving in Helmand Province. I saw news clips of the Prince firing what appears to be a .50 caliber machine gun, my personal favorite weapon, and felt a tremendous sense of pride and admiration for that young man. He obviously did not join the military just to wear the uniform and benefit from the reflected glory of others who put their lives on the line.

He went out to do the right thing for his unit, his country, and the free world. That kind of dedication is common in the military services, although it is rarely publicized by the MainStream Media since it goes against the accepted wisdom that the terrorists are just misunderstood victims of capitalism, and only need some attention and heartfelt discussions to put an end to their savagery.

But by going into combat against terrorism, the Prince has circumvented the political manipulators in the world media, because the entertainment segment of that same media carries far more weight and will cover his service regardless of what the political bosses do.

I am sure that the Prince is not happy with the decision to make him leave early, but he still is quite an example for his age group in the free world. Unlike the non-military youth of the Vietnam generation, which allowed itself to be suckered into taking action on behalf of the murderous communists, the non-military youth of this generation seem to be disconnected from the War on Terror - except those who live in European neighborhoods that are terrorized Islamo-fascist thugs.

There is a saying in the United States that the American military is at war, but America is at the mall, which unfortunately I find to be reasonably accurate. We haven't been attacked since 9-11, and the Democrats, through the communist dominated MainStream Media, keep saying we don't need to be fighting terrorists in Iraq, so therefore far too many Americans believe there is no threat.

But Bonny Prince Harry has shown that there still are people in this world, even people of privilege, who understand what is at stake and are willing to stand up for freedom and personally get involved. Why this had to be publicized on the Drudge Report only Drudge himself knows for sure, but even though the prince now has been yanked from the front lines, his actions still will be viewed in a highly favorable light.

Prince Harry has been serving in Afghanistan's volatile southern Helmand province since mid-December, according to news reports. His deployment had been disclosed to reporters under embargo, meaning the media was on its honor not to report on it, due to safety concerns for the prince and his regiment. Once again the free press strikes a blow at the free-world military.

In what we colonists see as typically British understatement, the defense ministry said it "deplored" the leak by "elements of the foreign media."

"However, this was a circumstance that we have always been aware of and one for which we have had contingency plans in place," defense ministry officials said. So chalk one up for the British Defense Ministry, knowing in advance it couldn't trust the World Terrorist Media.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the prince had demonstrated that he was an exemplary young officer. "The whole of Britain will be proud of the outstanding service he is giving," he said.

Harry, 23, is the first member of the Royal Family to serve in a combat zone since his uncle Prince Andrew flew helicopters during Britain's war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands in 1982.

Prince Harry was supposed to go to Iraq with the Blues and Royals regiment in May last year but the assignment was canceled because Al Qaeda terrorists threatened he would not make it home alive.

The Prince trained at Sandhurst military academy and joined the Blues and Royals cavalry regiment as a cornet, the equivalent of a second lieutenant. After his request to deploy to Iraq was turned down, the prince threatened to quit the army if he was kept from combat assignments due to his position in the Royal Family.

Well, now he has seen combat, and I don't want to hear any bad mouthing going on about how long he was there. Any combat veteran can tell you that it doesn't take long to become a veteran once the shooting starts.

The Prince is now a member of a select brotherhood, and he can stand with pride for the rest of his life, knowing that he did what was right; he was where he was needed, when he was needed.

The Price has stood up for freedom, liberty, and the best of humanity, and his service is all the more remarkable for the fact that he could have avoided it altogether.

For that we owe him our deepest appreciation.

Two presidential hopefuls, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Hussein Obama, are trading shots on what could, would or should be done in the future regarding the Battle for Iraq in the War on Terror.

Obama said during a debate with his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, that he wants US troops out of Iraq yesterday, but might send them back in "If Al Qaeda is trying to establish a base in Iraq."

That in itself is a less than rousing statement, but wait, there's more.

McCain responded during a campaign speech that Barack should have known that Al Qaeda already is in Iraq, and we have to deal with that reality. McCain added, and I am paraphrasing here, that surrender is not an option.

Barack then said in response that the only reason Al Qaeda is in Iraq in the first place is because George Bush and John McCain started a war there.

And that my friends is where Barack Hussein Obama dug himself into a hole he will never be able to get out of, regardless of whether or not he gets the Democratic nomination.

Because Al Qaeda was in Iraq before we went there, in the person of the late Abu Al Zarqawi, one of Osama Bin Laden's top leaders in the world terrorist network. He was in Iraq recovering from wounds suffered in Afghanistan, fighting alongside the Taliban against the US. You can check this out in depth in Stephen Hayes' book The Connection.

Detractors say the book doesn't make a convincing argument that Saddam was in on the 9-11 attacks. It doesn't need to and I don't care about that. It does prove that Saddam was helping Al Qaeda after 9-11, while we were fighting against Bin Laden's terrorists in Afghanistan and that is all that matters. Bush had already said we were going smoke out and hunt down terrorists wherever they were and that was good enough for America, including Democrats, in 2001.

When AAZ was seriously wounded, he didn't go to any countries with known terrorist leanings, such as Pakistan, or Somalia, or Iran, or Syria. No, he went to Iraq.

There he was welcomed by Saddam Hussein (no relation to the presidential candidate of the same - middle - name) who put him up in the country's best hospital in Baghdad, run by Saddam's son. They gave AAZ sanctuary, security and the best of medical treatment.

Upon recovery, and here is where Barack's goose is cooked, AAZ didn't return to Afghanistan, or go into hiding in the mountains in Pakistan, or head over to Iran to suck up to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, aka Green Bean Almondine. No sir, he stayed right were he was.

And there, in the city streets and desert sands of Sadddam's Iraq, AAZ began to rebuild the terrorist network that largely had been destroyed in Afghanistan. He was given carte blanche to establish terrorist training camps, and it is reported that he even had an airplane fuselage set up in the desert specifically to use in training for hijackings.

That is the heart of the issue on why we went into Iraq rather than somewhere else. We took preemptive action against what was going to be the next terrorist launching pad for attacks on the US and the rest of the non-Islamo-fascist world.

To be sure, the Weapons of Mass Destruction were there at one time, and from the mid-1990s onward were an issue for virtually every single member of Congress who could get in front of a camera and microphone to let the world know they were tough on defense. But then, when the massive stockpiles of WMDs that the Clinton White House said were in Iraq were not found, the Democrats turned to the communist-tested methodology of deflecting criticism from themselves.

They pointed their fingers at George Bush and brayed as loudly as possible, "Bush Lied, Bush Lied."

The fact that by extension they also had lied, if indeed, Bush had lied, which he didn't, was never brought up a single time in the mainstream media because as we all know the mainstream media is the American propaganda organ for world communism.

Communists are nothing if not stupidly predictable, because they are incapable of independent thought, so they plod along like brain-dead beasts of burden yearning for the day when the workers of the world rise up and throw off the yoke of capitalism. Communists seem to have a universal mental defect that relegates them to a permanent state of denial that won't allow them to see that the world that spawned their vision of humanity has changed tremendously in the last two centuries and they simply are no longer current or relevant.

The communists in the American media and the Democratic Party, including Barack Hussein Obama, think that if they can portray the War on Terror as a religious war pitting Christians and Jews against Muslims, they can step in to take over if both sides beat themselves into submission. So they have been harping on the WMD issue ever since, believing it helps their cause.

Unfortunately, mistakes were made by the Bush Administration when attempting to gain support for the invasion of Iraq, especially in the Untied Nations. Rather than focusing on AAZ and his efforts to construct a new terrorist launching pad, the emphasis in the Untied Nations was on the WMDs.

This entire approach was flawed from the beginning, however, because most of the UN representatives on the Security Council who had veto power were already being heavily bribed by Saddam who was illegally diverting oil for food money away from his countrymen and was using it to grease the palms of well-placed UN officials.

To compound the error, there was no massive communication effort to explain to America what we had done and why, and the WMDs have since entered the national consciousness as the sole and flawed reason for deposing Saddam.

John McCain was right in what he said to and about Obama on the Iraq War. But he still has an uphill battle, if he is to effectively use his position on the war to his benefit during the larger campaign, assuming that he does get the nomination.

Communists believe that if they repeat the same lie over and over and over and over and over, it somehow becomes truth. After time, especially if there is no effort to offset this mindless drivel, some people will accept it as such. Most of these people are in the media or the national Democratic Party which compounds the problem.

The White House should have been communicating the truth for the past four years, but didn't so it is up to McCain's campaign to do this year what should have been done in 2003.

America was right in getting ahead of the terrorist curve in Iraq and despite the mistakes made in pursuing the war there, our forces are decisively defeating the terrorists and their communist backers. Iraq is moving forward politically and economically and nothing that Democrats or communists say will change that truth.

McCain should repeat that truth over and over and over and over, until the point where he has told the Big Truth exactly one more time than the communists in the Democratic Party have told the big lie.

He can do it with a slogan. Democrats Lied, Al Zarqawi Died!

Kind of has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

There is a Democratic candidate out in the American political wilderness who is giving commentators, columnists, and his opponents absolute fits because he apparently is ashamed of his middle name.

It has come to the point that if someone introduces him, or speaks about him when introducing someone else, and uses the candidate's full name, the media goes into spasms. "He used his middle name!"

Now, normally this wouldn't be such a bad thing. When I was a child I knew that President Dwight Eisenhower's middle name was David, President John Kennedy's middle name was Fitzgerald, President Lyndon Johnson's middle name was Baines, and I knew that Harry Truman's middle initial was "S" but I had no idea it didn't stand for anything. I had heard of Franklin Delano Roosevelt but he was gone well before I was born.

All of these men were giants in their times, and each served as president. Even now, in the middle of this presidential primary race, the candidate of whom I speak is running against another Democrat whose middle name - Rodham - is used all the time. In her case there is a bit of a discussion on whether to call her Mrs. followed by her married last name, or just go with her first name and no other identifiers, like Madonna or Liberace.

But for reasons which are obscure at best, the other candidate doesn't want his middle name spoken, written, or broadcast. Apparently, like most of us, his names reflect his heritage, and it would appear that this candidate is ashamed of his heritage, even though he campaigns to a great degree on being the FIRST of this heritage to have a serious shot at being President of the United States.

What a conundrum! He wants to be first of his heritage, yet he is ashamed of his heritage and thus discourages use of one of his names that more or less pinpoints his heritage.

Frankly, the only way I see out of this situation is to stop using any of his names. We just don't know if for some reason he may start feeling a bit hinky about his first and last names too, and then all the people who had been using those methods of identifying this candidate will be back in a quandary.

So, let's just figure we won't use any formal name at all. From now on this candidate will be HE WHOSE NAME CANNOT BE SPOKEN, and using that as an identifier, people will know of whom we speak.

There is precedent for this. If you watch the Antonio Banderas movie The 13th Warrior, one of my favorites by the way, you will note that the evil which the 13 warriors are fighting can never be identified in a spoken word, at least not by the peasants the evil is consuming. Warriors can say the evil name, but that is because they are warriors who fight evil, not peasants who get consumed by it.

Then there is that actor or singer or whatever who used to call himself Prince, apparently because Elvis already was The King. But then the pretender to the throne realized he would never be The King, even after The King had died, (Long Live The King) and the Prince was always and forever going to be Prince, so he got all hinky about it and started calling himself something else.

For a while it was The Performer Formerly Known As Prince, and then it became a name that wasn't a name because it wasn't pronounceable.

Now, that kind of nonsense is expected in the American pop music scene due to the heavy influence of drugs, minimal IQs, and low expectations. But out in the American political arena it really is more of an issue, primarily because when the poll workers count the votes, they have to know who people voted for, and how many votes were received by each.

If you have a candidate identified as HE WHOSE NAME CANNOT BE SPOKEN - but he hasn't legally changed his name to that moniker and he appears on the ballot by his legal name, which no one is allowed to use and everyone thus has forgotten, you are in a world of hurt when it comes time to do the counting. Let's all take a deep breath and think "Where was I in November, 2000, and please don't say Florida."

Frankly I find this all bemusing, if not out nonsensical. A person who enters politics in America should know going in that every facet of his or her life is open to minute scrutiny by opponents, the media, and let's not forget the voters.

To run for president without divulging who you are, what you are all about, and where you are coming from, ensures you are in for a big disappointment on Election Day when the votes are counted - unless you have played a winning politician in the movies and people vote for you based on that.

There is a concept I teach to my clients, especially those who are running for office, which I call "Embrace the Obvious."

That means exactly what it says. Everyone already knows this candidate's middle name, and they know it has both racial and religious connotations. The candidate's detractors are saying that there is something hidden and subversive about his testiness over people speaking his full name.

His supporters say that his religious and racial backgrounds shouldn't be disqualifiers when we vote for president, and frankly I think they have the Constitution on their side either written or implied.

So what is one to do? Better to burp and bear the shame or not to burp and bear the pain?

He can start letting people know who he is and taking credit for his heritage instead of trying to hide from it by embracing the obvious and saying, "This is who I am, it doesn't mean what my detractors are saying and I refuse to budge."

Otherwise, voters will be going to the polls in November and selecting a candidate other than HE WHOSE NAME CANNOT BE SPOKEN, since that won't be one of the selections.

Is it possible to run a write-in campaign for someone known as HE WHOSE NAME CANNOT BE SPOKEN?

Rush Limbaugh has been talking about the Republican National Committee's uncertainty over how to take a fight for the presidency to Barack Hussein Obama's doorstep without being labeled racists.

For the record, Barack Hussein Obama, running for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States, was born of a white mother and dark-skinned father, and he has dark skin, although some have said he actually is a dark-skinned Asian or Arabian man, not a dark-skinned African man. Either way I could not care less, and neither do most Americans who reside outside a 25-mile radius of Washington, D.C.

Is there something inside the DC beltway that deteriorates the brain cells if you stay there too long?

OK, Republican National Committee, with a bow from the waist to Jeff Foxworthy:

If you won't fight as hard and as effectively as necessary to win the presidency using every weapon at your disposal, because your opponent is black - you might be a racist.

If you think you have to have a separate game plan for a black liberal as opposed to every other liberal - you might be a racist.

If you are so afraid of losing voters because Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will criticize you for criticizing your opponent's race, even if you don't - you might be a racist and you probably should take a different job.

Here is a basic plan on how to fight Barack Hussein Obama without being a racist.

Take the fight to him on each and every front, use all of his liberal stances on every issue against him JUST LIKE YOU WOULD AGAINST ANYONE ELSE AND DON'T USE THE WORD BLACK - oh, or NEGRO either.

If this guy can't stand out on the national political stage and take the gloves off without curling up in the fetal position and sucking his thumb if he thinks someone notices that he happens to be a black liberal Democrat, then he has no right to expect votes from the likes of Joe Frazier, George Foreman or Muhammad Ali.

He has no right to expect a vote from Ray Charles or Little Richard or Chubby Checker or Fats Domino. He has no right to expect support from Snoop or Fifty Cent or any other rapper or any other politician, or businessman or sports figure or housewife or factory worker or anyone else of any profession or background, who also is black, period.

There are no kid gloves in politics. There is no "special" category. Can you imagine how an Obama presidency would be regarded if he won because the rest of America was afraid to debate him straight up due to his color?

I can see it in the history books now. The presidency with an asterisk. The "Affirmative Action Presidency." Obama is better than that, black America is better than that, and if there is to be a true race with a true winner, then there should be no special rules, real or implied.

Jackie Robinson went through hell breaking the color barrier in professional sports, but he hung in there and played like a champ, and that is why he succeeded. Ali took years of criticism, much of it racially inspired, and he even lost his heavyweight boxing title at the height of his career, but he hung in there.

Black musicians used to have to stay in different hotels than the ones where they played. Rosa Parks made an issue that she could ride any damn place on the bus she wanted.

And now we finally have a black man running for president of the United States and we are all worried about what someone might say about us if we are too harsh or too critical?

Go ask Kenny Norton if Ali gave him a pass. Ask Ali if George Foreman gave him a pass.

Ask Serena Williams if her sister gives her a pass.

Good grief. This is ridiculous. Only a person who is out of touch with the reality of the wider United States of America would even worry about this.

If Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton tries to throw the race card into this race (pun intended) the backlash will be overwhelming! Americans of all races and colors are sick to death of this garbage.

America is the land of opportunity for everyone who is willing to do the work and put in the effort. You get nothing handed to you, unless you are willing to live at a government established subsistence level.

If you want the brass ring you have to go for it full tilt and prove that you are capable, regardless of the obstacles. Race is one of the easiest obstacles to overcome these days, unless you let it defeat you. Using race to say you can't criticize the stands and positions of a black man who wants to be elected to the highest office in the entire world is racist.

It also is chickens**t! If Barack Hussein Obama doesn't have the guts or the toughness to fight for this job regardless of what is thrown at him, he doesn't deserve the job.

Does anyone remember George Bush or even John Kerry getting a pass? I don't.

Wake up and smell the coffee RNC. Get out there and get swinging. If you don't say a racial word, and someone falsely accuses you of using race as a weapon, kick the crap out of them! That's how you get votes.

And if Barack stumbles, make damn sure someone helps speed his fall. Anything less is racist.

Barack Obama showed this week that John Kerry, who came home from an abbreviated tour in Vietnam to sabotage the war effort and falsely brand American troops as psychotic mercenaries and murderers, is more than a figurehead supporter in the Obama campaign.

Obama, in a naive attempt to show that he is capable of handling the role of Commander in Chief, made a statement that is reminiscent of Kerry's lies about Vietnam. Obama said he said he heard from an Army Captain whose platoon was sent to Afghanistan with 24 troops instead of 39 men because 15 of his soldiers had been diverted to Iraq.

Obama said that, "As a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current Commander in Chief."

That ladies and gentlemen is the kind of commentary that comes from someone who is clueless about the military, or shares Kerry's anti-American agenda. First, captains lead companies, not platoons, which are headed by lieutenants, and if Obama had even a scintilla of military knowledge he should have known that.

But even if the comment about diverting troops from one mission to another was accurate, which is highly doubtful, there is a Grand Canyon-wide disconnect between numbers of troops on a particular mission and how they are equipped. There simply is no correlation between one statement and the other.

I am not the only veteran who feels this way. Vets for Freedom, an organization of Iraq and Afghanistan vets, www.vetsforfreedom.org has issued a blistering response to Obama's comments.

Vets for Freedom State Captain and Afghanistan veteran Daniel Bell said in a press release this week that, "Yet again Senator Obama has demonstrated the loose grip he holds on the reality of these conflicts."

"Senator Obama's comments are insulting not only to those who have served and are still serving in Afghanistan but to all who serve in the armed forces. I can attest from my first-hand experience that these comments are incredulous and that we were supplied all the tools necessary to complete our missions."

Bell continued "His (Obama's) statements ... assert that he lacks the necessary knowledge to make serious judgments on military matters, that he is prone to dangerous exaggeration, and that he is grossly unaware of the facts on the ground."

From its website, Vets for Freedom is a nonpartisan organization established by combat veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its mission is to educate the American public about the importance of achieving success in these conflicts by applying first-hand knowledge to issues of American military strategy.

The part about first-hand knowledge brings me to the second part of this column, Hillary Clinton's inability to capitalize on a major gaffe by the Obama campaign.

Obama's comments are sickeningly reminiscent of Kerry's phony "testimony" before Congress a generation ago when he fabricated allegations about the conduct of the military in Vietnam. Although Kerry's conduct in the 70s helped bring about the fall of Southeast Asia and the slaughter of millions at the hands of communist death squads, a small group of people who claim to be Iraq War veterans see Kerry as a mentor and are planning a replay next month of his infamous Winter Soldier charade of that era.

Many veterans' organizations including Vets for Freedom are working to expose the hypocrisy of this effort, and ensure that this generation of veterans isn't smeared as Vietnam vets were. I have one request for Obama - give us the name of this alleged Army captain who made these claims. Let us interview him and get the evidence we need to determine the veracity of your statements.

With an issue like this creating an uproar among America's veterans, Hillary Clinton should be able to go on the attack and make some serious inroads against the Obama campaign.

But the leadership of the Democratic Party has dug itself such a deep anti-military hole, and is in such overt denial about the military and political successes in Iraq, that she is powerless to use the one issue that could help her the most when she needs it the most.

National level Democrats have been claiming for more than a year that the military effort in Iraq is a failure, and as I wrote months ago, switched to saying the political effort has failed after it became clear that the military has the terrorists on the ropes.

Now the little news that occasionally seeps out of Iraq says the political objectives are being met too, but still, national Democrats say we have lost and should turn tail and come home immediately.

The only separation between the positions staked out by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is in how fast they would order our troops to run in retreat if either is elected Commander in Chief.

Neither of them is willing to discuss how fast the terrorists would be chasing our guys, or how many of our citizens would be slaughtered by emboldened Islamo-fascists if they were in charge, but you can bet that scenario isn't far from the minds of most thinking Americans.

So Hillary goes into the Texas and Ohio primaries badly needing a win, with a made-to-order issue handed to her on a silver platter, yet she is left watching Obama pull further and further ahead because her hands are tied by her own political philosophy.

Kind of ironic isn't it? Or is it a better example of poetic justice?

The FAA is investigating a complaint that pilots on a flight to Hawaii were sound asleep in the cockpit instead of reading the newspaper or talking politics like normal.

I immediately contacted a close associate who has given us some valuable insights on the workings of the aviation industry in this space previously, and he naturally had some input.

So without further ado, my guest columnist gives us a look at what goes on when the cockpit door closes and you push back - CAUTION THIS IS NOT FOR SQUEAMISH READERS!

FROM THE FLIGHT DECK
Well it looks like some of my brothers and sisters did it again. The FAA has opened an investigation into whether some pilots fell asleep during a trip from Honolulu to Hilo on Feb 13th.

Well I have news for you ... they probably did fall asleep! And it happens more often than you think.

The computer can fly the plane and if anything serious happened the alarms and bells would have gone off. And let me be the first to say, the passenger jet manufacturers make sure that when the fire alarm goes off it can awaken Rip Van Winkle from a 20-year nap.

Beyond that, the fire bell is a little more difficult to shut off than the snooze button on your alarm clock. It's a guarded switch so you have to lift the guard first and then press, meaning you have to be fully awake and aware enough to both shut off the alarm and deal with an emergency.

In fact the new Boeing 777 is so automated that every 15 minutes or so the computer will prompt the crew to make an input just to make sure they're not "incapacitated."

The real story behind the sleep-deprived flight crew is "why does this happen?"

The short answer regards the pilots' work rules. Pilots are compensated based on flight hours, not how many hours they are on duty. What's the difference you ask?

If a pilot checked in at the airport at 7 p.m. and has been there for 15 hours, he is "on duty" all that time. But if that pilot only flew for 5 hours, the paycheck is only for 5 hours, not the full time the pilot was working.

So let's say a pilot is scheduled for 5 days a week for the next 4 weeks at 15 hours per day. 15 hours x 5 days = 75 hours per week on duty. Multiply that by 4 and you get 300 hours on duty in a 4-week period.

But if pilots only fly 5 hours each of those days then they will only be paid for 25 hours per week x 4 weeks. Using this example you have a pilot who worked 300 hours in one month but was compensated only for 100 hours.

Ask yourself how many other folks who collect an hourly wage only get compensated for one-third of the time they worked.

The pilots also don't have a choice about being at the airport, or how long they will be there until they are assigned a flight. Some days pilots check in and are flying within an hour, and other days they can sit in the ready room for hours and hours without an assignment.

In truth, pilots and flight crews are "on duty" whenever they are in uniform and in a public arena, since their actions in the terminal or coming and going reflect on their industry and their carrier every bit as much as their skills in the cockpit.

Now, these pilots in Hawaii have it even worse. They're part of a regional airline called Mesa Air Group. Many pilots and aviation employees believe Mesa Air Group has one of the worst working rules contracts in the entire industry. But don't take my word for it.

Try logging on to www.airlinepilotforums.com. Once on the site go to the regional tab and post a message that you’re new to the industry and thinking of working for Mesa. You have been warned.

Mesa pilots are only allowed 8 days off per month. And MAG management will push their pilots right to the extremes of FAA working rules. Before you respond that "If they don't like it, leave," consider the severe pilot shortage that is on the horizon.

Pilots' time on the job should be calculated from the moment they check in, not from the time the aircraft door closes, as is the standard now. A pilot's performance is unquestionably going to be different if the trip leaves at 14.75 hours into a 15-hour day, rather than if the trip leaves 3 hours into a 15-hour day.

It may not be right that we are hearing more and more often of pilots sleeping in the cockpit. But we should understand the reasons behind the situation, and while not desirable, it isn't as dangerous as it may seem.

More to the point, it can be rectified by applying the same standards to pilots' wage and hours regulations as those taken for granted in other sectors.

So if I get the New York Times and all its insinuations and innuendos correct, John McCain, who now is 71, and married to an absolutely gorgeous woman who certainly will do the United States proud if she becomes First Lady, also has enough - er, uh, manliness - to carry on with a beautiful lobbyist on the side!

Wow! The Republican Party finally has something to crow about!

Yeah baby! That McCain, he's my guy! Somebody get me a McCain T-shirt will you? A nice photo of the presidential hopeful on the front flanked by two beautiful women will do nicely.

We'll have to work on a slogan. At the moment I am just in total awe about this guy. This is so cool! I bet the New York Times never figured McCain would become a sex symbol after it slandered him!

The basis of the story that I wrote about earlier today, along with everyone else in the world, says that McCain's aides were worried about his 'relationship' with a beautiful lobbyist - female, just to keep the record straight - so to speak - back in 1999 and 2000 when he was first seeking the GOP nomination to run for president.

That is eight years ago - WHEN HE WAS 63! Way to go Senator McCain YOU DA MAN!

I have thought for decades that this stuff was limited only to Democrats, and frankly it always bothered me a bit. I mean, I am proud to be a Republican and all, but does membership in the Republican Party always have to be about "Issues?"

Finally we have a candidate who not only can turn a woman's head; he apparently can turn several at once.

McCain is now the living embodiment of every heterosexual male's most exotic fantasy. Whew! After all that, getting elected president is going to seem - dare I say it? - Yes, ANTI-CLIMATIC!

Whooo-hooooo. You go guy!

Do you know why we keep getting these situations erupting, so to speak, in our highest levels of politics? TESTOSTERONE!

That's it. The stuff that makes a man a man and the more of it the better!

Some scientists believe that way, way, way back, humans tended to band together for protection and males were expected to have more than one mate to continue building the species. Meanwhile females were expected to have limited numbers of mates, to be sure they were selective and mated only with the most likely to thrive.

That meant only the strongest, fastest and smartest males got to mate with the females. Well, here we are, hundreds of millennia later, and occasionally those old time feelings surface in the middle of a floor debate on telecommunications regulations.

I always thought that liberal Democrats were hiding their true cravings and just acting like they were OOOHHHH so sensitive around women, so conservative males wouldn't catch on to their little game.

Obviously, Senator McCain was keeping a close eye on the competition when he was reaching across the aisle. This puts his actions in Congress in an entirely different light.

OK, I am kidding and I know this bothers the senator and his family and I am not making light of the impact it has on them. But still, if you have to deal with this kind of nonsense in the middle of a presidential campaign, you may as well make the most of it.

Finally, a shot of humanity has been injected into this interminable primary race!

Bill Clinton, eat your heart out! Gary Hart, go sit in your rocking chair. Hugh Hefner, you are hereby demoted to Used To Be!

Republicans have John McCain and tomorrow I want every Republican male in the country to stand up, strut your stuff, and holler from the rooftops - I'm a John McCain Republican and I am HOT!

Now, where's that T-shirt. Come on, will you? Hurry up with that slogan. I want to finish it tonight so I can wear it to the senior center in the morning!

The New York Times went on the attack against John McCain today, accusing him in a cheap, tawdry, gutless sort of way, of having an extramarital affair with a female lobbyist a decade ago, and influencing a government agency on her behalf.

Some reports say the Times has been sitting on the story for eight years, ever since McCain was running against George Bush for the Republican nomination.

But why?

I read the story. There is nothing in it that couldn't be obtained from an active imagination, distaste for Republicans, and one or two telephone calls. In fact most of it is rehashed political history, that has been published many times and many places before.

There appears to be only one aim this story - to give the Times a lame excuse for impugning McCain's reputation, by leaving the impression without coming right out and saying it, that he had an affair a decade ago.

Maybe.

This is worse than the garbage the Times wrote a couple of weeks ago about troops coming home from war and killing people.

I bet the publisher is still scratching his head and wondering why his circulation is down, his ad revenue is down, and he has to lay off 100 newsroom employees.

How about this? You publish an unending series of stupid stories like this on your front page and your readers migrate to Fox News?

To his credit, McCain, with his wife at his side, faced directly into the ambush in a not so cheap veiled way, and in a morning press conference told the Times to stick it where the sun don't shine.

The Times report, not unlike most of its reporting, was fraught with innuendo and insinuation, but lacking in direct evidence. This appears to be classic fodder for a Rush Limbaugh parody. He often makes the point that communist news outlets like the Times are short on evidence, but long on the seriousness of the charges, regardless of whether they hold water.

I can hear the Limbaugh version coming down the pike already - "Those are pretty serious charges, Mr. McCain. What do you have to say for yourself?"

Limbaugh weighed in on the issue first thing off the bat on his show today, making the valid point that McCain shouldn't be surprised by the story. McCain has been friends with many of the Times favorite liberals for a long time, but now that McCain is the GOP front runner the Times turned on him.

Or did it?

Nonetheless, it still is a dirty attack. Fox News and other outlets were calling it into question nearly immediately.

Fox News Washington Bureau Chief Brit Hume reported on the issue this morning and said the Times had responded to questions about the delay in printing a story that by reasonable accounts should have been spiked eight years ago, by stating, "We publish stories when they are ready," adding that it was "a long time in the works."

Wow, I guess so.

Hey, Times! I have a tip for you! Did you guys hear there was a giant flood? Yeah some guy named Noah built a boat and saved a bunch of animals! Maybe if you hustle you can get an interview with him.

Hume noted "this is pretty thin stuff for the front page of the New York Times." Thin, but not surprising.

There are supposed to be three independent sources to corroborate any "investigative" story that calls a person's character into question or alleges illegal behavior, and you don't convict someone on innuendo. Either you have the story or you don't.

Well, that's the way it is supposed to be. Apparently the Times thinks it is sooooo important it can just rewrite the rules of journalism to fit its own anti-Republican agenda.

News reports also said the Times ran the story because another outlet was going to do a similar hatchet job, and the Times didn't want to be beaten on a story it had been sitting on for nearly a decade. One of the primary rules of investigative journalism is to not be rushed into publication due to pressure from competing news organizations. The Times should know that.

The biggest question I have on the story is whether it is merely yellow journalism or has sunk to the level of libel.

For the young and uninformed, yellow journalism is a derogatory reference to news reporting that relies on sensationalism without proof, and is considered to be unethical and unprofessional.

Libel on the other hand, involves knowingly printing a falsehood, recklessly going ahead with the story knowing that it is untrue, and having malice against the subject of the story.

McCain will have to decide whether to sue the Times for libel, or just denounce it as a fount of yellow journalism, which most aware readers already know.

It shouldn't be too difficult to prove that the Times has a special hatred for all things Republican. You can pick any issue any day and Republican bashing is bound to be in there somewhere.

There are a number of questions facing us but the first and foremost is why? Why this story, and why now?

Limbaugh reported that if it was intended to create problems for McCain among Republican voters it is having the opposite affect. He is getting calls and emails from GOP voters who had been sitting on the fence who now are saying they will be donating to McCain's campaign.

Is it intended as just the beginning salvo in an effort to place McCain behind whatever Democrat gets the nomination? Maybe. They could have brought this up any time in the last 8 years. Why now if not to destroy his candidacy?

But why didn't they do it before Iowa? Why didn't they do it when his campaign had run out of money last summer?

What is the motivation behind the story and its release only now when McCain appears to be the Republican candidate?

Perhaps the secret lies in the word "appears" to be the GOP nominee. Is McCain concerned that Mike Huckabee could do well enough in the final weeks of the primary campaigns to deny him the outright nomination? Is it possible that Texas could go for Huckabee?

Are there enough potential GOP delegates still unspoken for to give Huckabee a big chunk of control at the convention? Hey, I don't know the answer either, but if McCain is such good friends with liberals and especially the management at the Times, it is reasonable to at least query whether there is some reverse psychology going on here.

Sure, bash McCain in the Times, get the GOP undecideds to swing his way, and clear the decks for a primary delegate victory.

Could be. Who knows? Either way the Times comes out as unprofessional, unethical, and untrustworthy.

But then, we already knew that.

National Geographic's just released special on Vietnam nearly had me convinced for the first two segments that someone finally was going to get it right on that war and do justice to those of us who served there.

The key word is "nearly." And upon reflection, I'm not sure they got it right in the first two segments either, after hearing differing viewpoints from vets who served during the early part of the war in 1965 and 1966. We'll save that part for a later column.

However, in its segment on the aftermath of the Tet Offensive, the period in which I served as a Marine helicopter gunner, the series went off on a historically inaccurate tangent and once again, a crucial factor in that war, the massive losses sustained by the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) in 1968 and 1969, that pushed them to the brink of surrender, went unreported.

I don't understand the media's reluctance to accurately cover that time period from an objective viewpoint, showing that the years of escalating US troop strength and battlefield victories finally came to fruition. In that year, the US and allied forces broke the back of the communist military, yet it was completely ignored by National Geographic as other documentaries have done in the past.

Only through understanding our successes from Post-Tet 1968 through mid-1969, can students of the Vietnam War come to grips with the enormity of the betrayal by the US government - of those who fought there, and those who lived there.

How do you just jump over a year in that war, as if it was insignificant, when that was the year that drove the communist military to seek a surrender? How do you do that and call your product accurate?

National Geographic reported that troop withdrawals from Vietnam were started by President Lyndon Johnson in 1968, after the overwhelming US victory in the communists' Tet Offensive of February and March that year.

That simply is wrong. Johnson did not initiate troop withdrawals. That error was compounded by the completely indefensible statement that after Tet there were "fewer troops and a less aggressive strategy" in Vietnam throughout 1968. That isn't just wrong, it is false.

In fact, US troop levels increased dramatically after Tet '68, reaching the highest point in the war a year later in April 1969, when nearly 540,000 American military personnel were in Vietnam, giving us numerical parity with the communists for the first time in the war. In addition, a more mobile strategy was employed by the US all across Vietnam. Operation after operation from the Delta to the DMZ resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of communist troops, and the annihilation of entire communist divisions.

But those overwhelming successes were barely mentioned in the special, and unfortunately, that lapse drew down its better parts.

National Geographic even contradicted itself in this segment, later reporting that troop withdrawals began after the battle of Hamburger Hill in mid-1969, which is accurate. Some judicious editing would have been helpful here.

There were some very good points in the special, including veterans' reaction to Walter Cronkite sabotaging American public opinion by broadcasting that the Tet Offensive - rather than being an overwhelming victory - proved the war couldn't be won, but would result in a stalemate. It also noted that nearly 50,000 enemy troops were killed in Tet, a rate that was in the vicinity of 50 to one compared to US losses.

To someone who was directly involved in the vicious battles of Tet or Hue City, the war certainly could be viewed negatively, especially if they left without seeing the end result of their efforts. But there is a basic flaw in interviewing people who served in only one segment of that long war and using their limited vision of what was happening to them as a measure of what was going on in the overall picture.

Former Marine and author Phil Caputo was a central figure in the report and his displeasure with his service there, as well as with the outcome of the war, are undisguised. Caputo's Rumor of War was one of the early books on Vietnam, and it quickly led me to read other books by Vietnam vets, including Fields of Fire by James Webb, who was not interviewed in the special.

But Caputo was in Vietnam in the early stages of 1965 and 1966. He was long gone by the Tet Offensive that kicked off in February 1968. By the time Tet was over, the Viet Cong guerillas that Caputo had fought no longer existed as a viable military unit.

I am not bashing Caputo here, but I am critical of how his viewpoint was displayed and woven into the rest of the report.

Virtually all of the fighting from Tet '68 onward was against main force North Vietnamese communist forces because the Viet Cong had been rendered ineffective as a fighting force. Although the North Vietnamese Army had been fighting in the south for at least three years before Tet '68, Caputo likely would not have recognized the war as it was fought two years after he left that country.

Among the highlights that National Geographic did not report on was the "mini-Tet" fighting in May 1968, when the communists tried unsuccessfully to regroup and strike back after their drubbing in February and March. There was no mention of the second Tet Offensive in 1969 in which the communists foolishly tried to fix what they hadn't gotten right the previous year, and again failed, nor of any of the myriad battles between the two Tets in which US forces were totally dominant.

There also was a notable lack of perspective in the coverage. Telling of the horrors of war from the standpoint of the lower ranking enlisted men and officers who do the fighting is certainly an effective way of seeing the unvarnished truth - from one vantage point.

But sooner or later there has to be some perspective. If a private attached to one squad is caught in an ambush, and sees his fellow soldiers killed or wounded it is certainly tragic to all involved.

But if that squad is one of 200 operating under control of a regimental commander, usually a Colonel, and the other 199 are successful in achieving the mission objective, then the view on that battle changes drastically when seen from the Colonel's perspective.

There also needs to be a far better understanding of military tactics and the reasons behind them. The battle of the Ia Drang Valley in which about 400 members of the US 7th Cavalry were locked in a vicious struggle with an NVA division of more than two thousand troops was a prime example. It was not our strategy in Vietnam to take and hold empty country. We were there to kill communists. In that battle the US lost 79 troops killed compared to 1,800 communist troops killed.

National Geographic claimed the US Army "declared victory" and left the battlefield, leaving the impression that it wasn't really a victory. The US Army left the battlefield because most of the communists were dead, and those who weren't retreated to sanctuaries in Cambodia!

More important, no one examined why the North Vietnamese had huge numbers of troops hiding in the mountainous jungles of that Central Highlands region. Military units don't just wander around aimlessly looking for something to attack. They were there for a purpose.

In Vietnam, the Central Highlands are a classic invasion route, and the east-west Highway 19 is used to split the south in two pieces, separating government and military commands. Military scholars say the NVA were in the Ia Drang to do just that, split the south in two, and the 7th Cavalry prohibited the NVA from achieving their objective, proving that they did more than just kill communists.

While the Ia Drang got a lot of attention, other, longer and even more successful battles were not mentioned at all.

National Geographic covered the events from 1965 to Tet 1968, but then jumped to the battle for Hamburger Hill in 1969, as if the year in between had never happened. If you are going to report on the difficult battle at Hamburger Hill, then you should report on the equally difficult but overwhelmingly successful Operation Dewey Canyon which the 9th Marine Regiment conducted nearby.

Dewey Canyon was a classic operation against the NVA and the communists were crushed. But that was only one of dozens of such operations carried out in the previous nine months that destroyed the main force North Vietnamese Army. The communist military commanders later revealed that during this period they were trying to convince the political leaders in Hanoi to surrender before they were eliminated, or the US invaded the north.

But this is also when President Nixon publicly announced that he would begin withdrawing troops, just as victory was finally at hand. It was Nixon's untimely and ultimately fatal blunder - declaring tactical and strategic objectives in the media - that convinced the communists to hang on.

The special did do a good job covering Nixon giving away operational secrets when our troops invaded sanctuaries in Cambodia, by telling the world that they would go no further than 19 miles nor stay longer than two months. That was a classic case of political expediency driving military operations and it was another abominable lapse on Nixon's part.

I found it interesting that the special did report the overwhelming disparity in communist dead versus American dead in the operations it covered. It is interesting because we constantly heard from the media during the war that the number of communists killed in battle was nowhere near what the military claimed - actually it was far higher. It would have helped in our comprehension of the Vietnam War if the media's duplicity in undermining the military's credibility during the war had been noted.

Overall, I got the sense that National Geographic pushed the "inevitability" of South Vietnam falling to the communists, when a review of its report shows that exactly the opposite was true.

US, South Vietnamese and allied troops, put a horrendous beating on the communists as the final figures show. America lost 58,000 troops there in 15 years, 48,000 of them to combat, the others to sicknesses and accidents. The communists lost 1.5 million; more than twice the number they started with in 1965 when their standing army was about 600,000 troops.

The communists never won a major battle, never took and held any South Vietnamese territory, were no different than terrorist thugs in their treatment of the South Vietnamese, and were completely out thought and out fought on the military front.

South Vietnam's armed forces stood their ground and defeated the communists decisively in 1972 when the communists mounted a major armored offensive along three fronts, including the Central Highlands, dubbed the "Easter Offensive." Here too, the special seems to have mixed signals. It said 120,000 communist troops invaded the south - most other sources put that number at 250,000 - and 100,000 communists were killed.

The number of communist deaths is at least in the ballpark, but National Geographic claims that the south was incensed when the Paris Peace Accords were signed without insisting that 140,000 communist troops still on southern soil be required to withdraw. If 120,000 invaded, and 100,000 were killed, then it would seem that some 20,000 still remained.

Other sources, that use the higher number of invading communists as a base point, say there were about 60,000 communist troops scattered about the south in jungle and mountainous retreats after their defeat in the Easter Offensive.

Although the Southern troops proved in 1972 that they were capable of holding their own against the communists, their reward was to be sold out in Paris by Henry Kissinger, and sold out again in the US Congress by the Case-Church Amendment that ended all aid to our ally.

The enormity of the betrayal of the democratic south, and the betrayal of the nearly 3 million Americans who had fought in Vietnam was lost in the translation. National Geographic noted that President Nixon had promised the south that he would bring back US air power if the north attacked again after the Paris Peace Accords were signed in 1973.

But President Gerald Ford took office after Nixon resigned in disgrace, and, operating under the restraints of the Case-Church Amendment, reneged on that promise. Ford even gave speeches in 1974 telling the world that the US would not intervene if South Vietnam was attacked again. Meanwhile the South Vietnamese armed forces were left without spare parts to keep aircraft and armor operating, and few bullets or shells for their rifles and artillery.

When the communists invaded again in 1975, using limitless supplies of the latest in armor and technology gleefully supplied by the Soviet Union, fighting back was not an option for many South Vietnamese units because they had nothing left with which to fight.

Especially noteworthy for its absence was any reporting on the holocaust that the communists unleashed on all of Southeast Asia after South Vietnam fell. There was no mention of the one million "Boat People" who fled the communists on the South China Sea, the hundreds of thousands who were thrown into concentration camps where they were used as slave laborers at best, or tortured and murdered at worst.

There was no mention of the fall of Laos or Cambodia where communists slaughtered some 3 million people for "crimes" such as working in government offices, teaching, wearing western clothes, or wearing glasses.

It seems terribly incomplete to produce a special on Vietnam without a single mention of the atrocities that were inflicted by the communists after the US government abandoned its allies. It also is disingenuous at best not to mention the betrayal of US troops who fought there, and the willingness of our government and media to blame the fall of Southeast Asia on us.

National Geographic took a step in the right direction, but once again, showed that there is a long way to go before a truly comprehensive account of that war is aired.

You can tell that things have gotten desperate on the campaign trail.

A video is making the rounds showing a scruffy white guy claiming he performed a sex act on Barack Obama in the back of an automobile, after they had done cocaine together. This alleged encounter took place in the late 90s according to the alleged participant, not way back when Sen. Obama was in the throes of youthful indiscretion. The senator has written of past drug abuse in his autobiography but maintains that it was long ago and far away and isn't relevant to his current incarnation.

I'll get back to that in a minute, but the other big deal on the Democratic race this weekend is a review of the Senator's racial heritage which concludes that he is NOT the first BLACK presidential candidate in America, although he may be the first American presidential candidate of Arabian heritage!

I got this from the Atlas Shrugs blog, http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com and you can check it out further there. It has origins in the national media including the Washington Post and Chicago Tribune, but I have neither the room nor the inclination to rehash it all here. Check out Atlas Shrugs and if you want to take it further be my guest. I am simply pointing out that all this information is swirling around out in the political universe.

Having a hard time keeping up with all this, or have your information sensors gone into overload and shut down? Interesting isn't it, that all the questions are surfacing about Obama, but Hillary seems uncharacteristically quiet?

So, is the video a product of the Clinton camp dirty tricks, or has John McCain cut a back room deal with his preferred opponent, or is it just a case of anti-Barack hysteria that independent activists have produced to sink his campaign?

Who knows? I don't. The guy who appears on the video probably does, although even that isn't certain. He does challenge Barack to take a lie detector test, saying he will too, apparently to prove the truth of his allegation.

The problem with lie detector tests is that a pathological liar can pass them. It isn't whether or not the subject is telling the truth that matters, it is whether or not the subject believes he is telling the truth, that allows liars to pass polygraphs.

But the allegations and challenges aside, my problem with this video is that it panders to the basest and lowest of human emotions and prejudices while there are so many honorable and valid ways to challenge Barack's qualifications to be president.

If you want to beat Barack, go on his inexperience in foreign affairs, his state of denial over the War on Terror and our continuing victories and mounting successes in Iraq. Pin him down on gun control and the Second Amendment; ask him about welfare, social security, national defense.

Personally I am sick to death of seeing candidates running for office only to be sabotaged by back street scumbags who are willing to do just about anything for a few bucks. It isn't just that viable candidates get tossed out of the race, it is that other, possibly far better and more qualified candidates won't even consider entering politics.

If we don't like the way things are going in Washington, we have to change the manner in which we decide who gets to go there first. I have a friend who responds to anyone expressing surprise over human frailties "If you plant potatoes, you get potatoes."

If we keep eliminating qualified candidates for office based on their innermost private lives - and I am NOT talking about drug abuse or semi-public sexual encounters here - we will be left with people who in all likelihood are no better than those who are eliminated, but have sold out to special interests so they won't be exposed.

And let's get to the heart of the issue regarding Barack Obama and his sexual preferences. Have you seen the videos of his rallies where thousands of gushy, twittering little girls are just so excited about being near him? Have you seen the news on this fainting phenomenon where these gushy little girls get so oxygen deprived that they swoon?

Do you honestly think those groupies wouldn't do his bidding in the campaign bus if he asked? Don't kid yourself. Barack is to politics what the Stones are to rock 'n' roll.

Even if he is gay, or bisexual, why would he waste his time having a sordid liaison with some crud? Barack Obama has been a rising star in political theater for well over a decade, and don't think for a minute that he just suddenly burst on the political scene.

He was on stage with Kerry four years ago at the Democratic convention, remember? That wasn't by chance. That was probably planned out years in advance. People have been keeping an eye on him, guiding him, and moving him along at exactly the right pace.

If you want to know Barack Obama, go back and look at his backers and handlers for the past decade. When you know them, you'll know him.

You can bet the farm that they know his sexual preferences and whether he has drug habits. And you can put a second bet down that if he wanted sex with a guy in the back of a limo, it would be a fit, good looking guy, not some wasted, washed up, coke snorting loser.

But in the final analysis, I have to pass on a comment that came from a close associate the other day. He was noting that the GOP primary race started out with lots of choices and high hopes for some new blood and new ideas in Washington, but appears to have ended up with a long-time insider with some good points and some baggage as the presumed - but not confirmed - candidate.

On the Democratic side we have mirror images of America bashing, liberalism trying to convince their base that each is more liberal than the other.

My associate put it best and I will not attempt to improve on his question: "With 300 million people in this country, is this the best we can do?"

Did you see where the US Navy is going to shoot one of our spy satellites out of the sky because it isn't working and is going to crash back to earth?

The news reports are saying it never worked in the first place and we have to blast it into smaller pieces because it may not burn up entirely when reentering Earth's atmosphere and it could spew toxic fuel over hundreds of square miles. Or, some of the pieces could drop on the Wicked Witch of the north, kind of like a house dropping on her sister in the Wizard of Oz, or a meteor hitting you on the head.

But I have a question here, because something about this doesn't seem right. Isn't the United States of America the most advanced country in the world, in terms of space flight, space exploration, rocketry and electronics? Haven't we been putting rockets, satellites, and people into space for decades?

Isn't our success rate phenomenal, albeit at the cost of some courageous and vital members of our society?

Then can someone explain to me how a billion dollar plus spy satellite that made it into space atop one of the most advanced rocket systems known to man, suddenly "just didn't work?" It is reasonable to figure that it was tested, probably many, many times, before it was launched, right? But suddenly, it just never worked?

Now, do you remember how back in the Clinton years all kinds of military secrets somehow made it to Red China which suddenly made quantum leaps in its knowledge of rocket guidance, sonar and lasers?

Remember how a communist Chinese submarine snuck up on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific a couple years ago and we didn't know it until the sub surfaced? Remember how they shot one of their satellites out of the sky, and then "painted" one of ours with a laser?

Yes sir, that's exactly what I'm thinking.

Maybe this satellite was working but the Chinese disabled it with one of their advanced lasers! Maybe this satellite was supposed to keep an eye on the massive buildup of the Chinese armed forces, which, as I have written here in the past, is probably intended to create an invasion force large enough to take over non-communist Taiwan.

OK, so if the Chinese did disable that satellite, why are we shooting it down? Wouldn't it just disintegrate upon reentry?

Well, not entirely, apparently. According to the news, which I realize, is the least credible of sources, our government originally believed that this satellite posed no more of a threat on reentry than your average, everyday meteor.

But suddenly it was determined to be a huge threat and we had to do something about it.

The official explanation is that the unspent rocket fuel in the satellite contains Hydrazine. It would appear that this satellite was in a somewhat low-level orbit, meaning the Earth's gravitational pull would have an effect on it, so its guidance rockets would have to be fired occasionally to keep it aloft, as well as to reposition it for a better look at ... stuff.

The government can now make a case for blowing up the satellite due to the presence of hydrazines which are clear, colorless liquids with an ammonia-like odor. Small amounts of hydrazine occur naturally in plants, but most are manufactured for use as rocket fuel, boiler water treatments, and in cancer research of all things. Hydrazines also catch fire easily, and quickly evaporate when released into the air, where they are broken down within minutes or hours at the most.

Hydrazines usually break down into less toxic compounds within a few days if they enter the soil, and within a few weeks if they enter water. So, depending on where this satellite would crash, it would appear highly unlikely that there would be a massive contamination from the fuel, especially considering that the fuel would be the most likely part of the satellite to burn on reentry.

So what are we really concerned about here?

Well, before I give you the entire theory in a nutshell, we should review the actions of Congressional Democrats who scurried out of the Capitol and headed for the hills yesterday so they wouldn't have to vote on a permanent extension of an anti-terrorism measure involving the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Ever since George Bush began keeping tabs on terrorists calling each other and emailing each other and basically communicating with each other after 9-11, the Democrats have been trying to tie his hands by claiming he is illegally monitoring conversations inside the US. The illegal part is that with communications which originate overseas, and involve known or suspected terrorists or their supporters, our intelligence agencies don't need warrants to monitor them. But occasionally our enemies call their agents inside the US where things get a bit murky.

The Bush Administration, which it should be noted, has kept us safe for the past seven years, insists that it doesn't monitor internal communications without a warrant, unless the communications originate from terrorists and other enemies outside the US, but come into the US. Another major factor is that the communications are usually very brief and need to be monitored on the spot. Thus if our intelligence forces had to wait for authorization each time, we would be missing vital information that has been used to keep us safe.

The Bush administration wants to permanently extend its right to monitor terrorists, and at the same time, protect telecommunications companies that assist our intelligence services from lawsuits filed by Democrats, the ACLU and other communist and terrorist sympathizers. The MIA Congressional Democrats, who say they are just looking out for our best interests, don't want to restrict the rights of their supporters - communists and other terrorists - to sue phone companies that help keep us safe.

Their absence, with the current law expiring, could provide a window of opportunity for terrorists and communists, such as those in Red China, to communicate with each other with impunity, as our intelligence services would not be able to legally monitor their communications. If they do, they could be brought up on charges similar to those faced by members of the armed forces who are being charged with crimes for killing terrorists and sympathizers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With all that as background, here's the theory. The hydrazines pose little to no real threat, even if somehow or other the rocket fuel didn't burn up on reentry. But if a big section of the satellite, which probably has major heat shields incorporated into its design to protect the electronic components from direct exposure to the sun, made it back to earth, wouldn't the components inside be intact too? Possibly.

And wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that since this was a highly advanced spy satellite, these components and their designs would be highly advanced and very, very secret? All reasonable expectations and assumptions, right?

So I think we are blasting this spy satellite to smithereens because we don't want it to fall into enemy hands, that being the Chinese, Russians, Islamo-fascist terrorists or Congressional Democrats.

I think we have to be sure it is totally destroyed, because we can't legally monitor conversations overseas between enemy forces, including Chinese, Russians, Islamo-fascist terrorists or Congressional Democrats who headed for the hills without voting on the bill that would give our forces the right to do so without fear of prosecution.

It is reasonable to conclude that the Democrats and other communists want to talk to and email each other concerning the splashdown location of the satellite remnants without being monitored, which could get them arrested and tried for treason.

Thus the Navy has no option other than blasting the Little Satellite That Couldn't into itsy-bitsy chucks that will be guaranteed to burn up, thwarting the plans of our enemies to gain more knowledge of our intelligence capabilities, since the Clinton era is long over and that channel is blocked.

What would be the upshot of all this conspiring? First the Chinese and our other enemies would have updated information on our intelligence capabilities. Second, their allies in Congress, the Democrats, could be hoping that with our surveillance capabilities compromised there might be another attack on the US by Al Qaeda terrorists.

Then, they could use that as an issue in the presidential race to claim that George Bush has failed in protecting the country, which would draw attention away from the fact that the Republican nominee is a war hero while neither of the likely Democratic nominees has any idea what the military does, now how it does it. The Congressional Democrats could then attempt to offset their deficiencies in the military and national security arenas.

So that is it. Obviously there is far more to this satellite thing than meets the eye. For the dubious minded, I do NOT have to prove any of this to qualify as a bona fide conspiracy theory. YOU have prove it is WRONG!

Rotsa Ruck on that one! Oh, one last thing, is there any way to upload the coordinates of the Berkeley, California City Council chambers into the satellite guidance system? Maybe an advanced hacker could find a way around the power problems and give our little piece of space junk just enough power at just the right time to guide it straight down onto that world terrorist training headquarters while the council is in session.

That certainly would solve a whole bunch of problems at one time.

Aside from the fact that Mike Huckabee had a very good weekend, followed by a so-so showing in the "Potomac primaries" and still can look forward to an upswing in delegates if he wins Texas, and if you can forget for a moment that Mitt Romney has a solid block of unreleased delegates, then the three so-called frontrunners in the race for the presidential nomination are all US Senators.

If you can hack through the rhetoric, you will find the occasional "If I am elected ... " promise. If you can hack through the next layer of rhetoric you should be able to find what the candidates plan to do on issues such as immigration and veterans' care and benefits.

My question to the three senators is Why Wait? We have three people locked in desperate struggles to get the nomination to run as their party's candidate for the next leader of the United States of America, all three currently in positions of power and influence in the US Senate, and all we can get is "Wait and see what I'll do!?"

How about all three of you get off the dime and do it now? How about some real initiatives to close the southern border, stop throwing border guards in jail for paperwork foul-ups, let them shoot at invaders who are shooting at them, stoning them and flinging Molotov cocktails at them? How about we spend as much money securing our border as we are sending to Mexico to secure its southern border?

While we're on the subject, have any of the esteemed presidential candidates spent any time this week, or plan to, at the hearings held by the Joint Senate Armed Services/Veterans Affairs Committees?

The first one was on Tuesday at the Hart Senate Office Building where there was testimony on Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs improvements - done or in the pipeline - relating to the care of wounded and ill service members.

Also, coming Friday, beginning at 10 a.m. - at the Rayburn House Office Building, the Military Personnel Subcommittee will hear testimony on the Army's medical action plan and other services' support for wounded service members.

The press was making a big deal of John McCain and Barack Obama shaking hands on the floor of the Senate Tuesday, supposedly a preview of our presidential candidates. But did either of them make it to the hearing in the Hart building? Did they listen to testimony, or take notes, or just stop by to let everyone know veterans are high on their list of priorities?

If they have time to schmooze for the cameras, they should have time to stay up on veterans' issues, and immigration issues.

Between the aging Vietnam and Korean War generations, the unanswered questions stemming from Gulf War service, and the immediate needs of both physical injuries and combat stress from the ongoing War on Terror there is no end to issues concerning veterans.

So much so that for the casual observer, these issues can be overwhelming. Fortunately, I have help from two experts, Lt. Col. Charles Revie, a Vietnam veteran who is retired from the US Army with a 100 percent service-connected disability from Agent Orange exposure. Charlie is the Legislative Director for Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees, which represents hundreds of thousands of disabled military retirees. Web site: http://usdr.org

He in turn informed me of the work of Michael Parker, also a retired Army Lt.Col., whose work is best described in his own words as "a very active advocate trying to fix the Defense Disability Evaluation System."

In the recent past, Michael has assisted and filed briefs with the Veterans Disability Benefits Commission, The Dole/Shalala Commission, The Independent Review Group, The DoD, the military services, the Veteran's Administration and numerous veterans' service organizations.

Michael noted in a brief concerning this weeks hearings that "While much progress has been made on fixing the Defense Disability Evaluation System, much work remains."

Among the issues Michael and many other veterans believe should be reviewed are:

1. DoD/Congress must stop the Department of the Navy's practice of administratively separating individuals due to service connected disability. The Navy (evaluation boards) are finding members fit for duty despite the severity of their service connected disabilities. These members' commands are then administratively separating them because their disabilities prevent them from performing their duties in all operational environments. This procedure ends up avoiding the payment of legally due disability benefits.

2. DoD/Congress must allow service members who have been medical discharged access to the Discharge Review Board to seek relief.

3. Ensure all service members with qualifying medical conditions are evaluated by the DES (Disability Evaluation System) to determine their fitness and disability benefits due. Many service members, (especially activated Guard and Reserve members), with qualifying disabilities, are being discharged from active duty without being evaluated by the disability evaluation system. This is a violation of DoD policy and results in members being denied legally due disability benefits.

This is just the tip of the iceberg on veterans' issues that are affecting our active duty service members and retirees. Once again, and as often as necessary, veterans are the only classification of Americans who put so much on the line for so little, and could die or be seriously injured in the course of their duties. Taking care of those who are no longer able to serve and those who have retired should be a no-brainer for our elected officials and the federal bureaucracy.

So, how hard do you think it should be to get something done DURING the campaign, instead of just making promises that will be forgotten once the votes are counted?

Maybe we should make a list of interim goals that can and should be reached by Congress before the end of the summer. Then we can seriously evaluate the input from all the candidates, but especially the two who are left standing.

That would certainly be an objective method to determine who is really working and who is just talking.

Ron's Note: This article was written for Human Events and was run on Tuesday, February 12, at www.HumanEvents.com. It is reprinted here with permission.

Lost in the shuffle of national politics, snuggled in the underbelly of the anti-war movement, a small group of disgruntled Iraq war veterans - who may or may not really be veterans - is attempting to recreate John Kerry's most despicable betrayal of the Vietnam generation.

The group, Iraq Veterans Against the War, is imitating Kerry's discredited Vietnam Veterans Against the War by planning a "Winter Soldier inquiry" in March, using a format that is similar to Kerry's phony Winter Soldier inquiry a generation ago.

In the original Winter Soldier "investigation" on January 31, 1971, members of VVAW met in a Detroit hotel where, during the next three days, more than 100 people who claimed they were Vietnam combat veterans, "testified" to routinely, under orders and as a matter of policy, committing or witnessing atrocities in South Vietnam.

Partly as a result of media coverage of that travesty, Kerry's group was successful (for a time) in branding Americans who served in Vietnam as war criminals, and tarnishing the image of the American military.

The imitation IVAW Winter Soldier event will be held March 13, 2008, at the National Labor College in Silver Spring, Maryland, with testimony also scheduled for the 14th and 15th. This time however, the generic allegations of murder and other atrocities will not go challenged.

Veterans, both from the Vietnam and current eras are understandably outraged that once again the American left is working to discredit the honorable service of our military with phony claims of atrocities willingly committed by troops who apparently are either mentally unstable or intellectually unable to differentiate between right and wrong.

Among the organizations working to oppose the IVAW is Eagles Up, headed by Col. Harry Riley, US Army (ret.), a decorated Vietnam veteran and co-organizer of the highly successful Gathering of Eagles counter-demonstration that opposed Cindy Sheehan and the ANSWER coalition in D.C., on March 17, 2008. Riley is now sponsoring Eagles Muster, http://www.eaglesup.us/.

The Veterans for Freedom and Gathering of Eagles organizations are among other groups that also are opposing the IVAW. More on their efforts next week.

Riley states on his website "No one stood up when John Kerry and his lying malcontents dishonored America and our troops and we know what happened ... lying Winter Soldiers and gutless politicians sold out America and millions in South East Asia."

Yet, despite the anger of those who support the troops and plan to make a showing in Washington next month, Kerry's spawn may be doing America a huge favor.

It was years after the false testimony alleging widespread war crimes in Vietnam before Americans learned the truth. By then, South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia had fallen to the communists with whom the VVAW was allied. Only after the damage had been done did the truth leak out, that the overwhelming majority of Kerry's "winter soldiers" had either not been in the service, not in Vietnam or not in the capacity they claimed.

But this time, the truth will probably be proved and published immediately. Kerry's clones are publicizing their efforts widely, and even providing the names of troops who say they committed war crimes while in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Suppose America takes their stories at face value? If we do, we have first-hand evidence of criminals who have infiltrated our military, committed crimes against the populaces of Afghanistan and Iraq in the name of America, and thus should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and international law.

Even before that, we need complete identity packages on all who testify. IVAW organizers say they are hoping 100 such criminals will participate. Rather than follow the John Kerry model of alleging very specific and horrific crimes, committed by vague individuals in uncertain times and places, this time there should be specifics.

We must demand that each "witness" who testifies to war crimes be identified by their full name, instant electronic fingerprint checks to corroborate identities, dates of service including time in Iraq or Afghanistan, the job they were assigned while in the military, their chain of command, including immediate supervisors both enlisted and officers, and the time, date, and location of the alleged atrocity.

Some material distributed by the IVAW or its supporting organizations says that lower ranking enlisted men and officers should not be identified to encourage them to testify. We cannot allow them to get away with that. This format flies in the face of each American's constitutional right to face his or her accusers.

In this case, the IVAW is claiming President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and other members of their administration also are war criminals. Thus members of the administration retain their basic constitutional right to face those who are making such claims, just as their accusers have an obligation to be very specific about their allegations.

In addition, the Nuremberg trials against Nazis who murdered millions in World War II established that "I was only following orders," is not an excuse for committing war crimes.

The Nuremberg Principles, state in Principle IV, "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." This also nullifies the claim that war crime participants are innocent because they view the Iraq War as an illegal War of Aggression, also defined in the principles.

America maintains volunteer armed forces, thus everyone has a moral choice to serve or not.

If the IVAW wants any credibility in this venture, it must specifically identify the people who are claiming they participated in war crimes. Those claiming they witnessed war crimes, and did nothing to stop these heinous acts, should be prosecuted as accessories.

America can not allow another generation of its honorable warriors to be falsely accused, nor for a small minority who may have committed crimes while on duty in the war zones to go unpunished. If they are posers they should be exposed under the Stolen Valor Act, and if they participated in crimes against humanity they should be prosecuted.

Winter Solider participants who testify to committing crimes against the civilian populace in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere should be referred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to be charged with war crimes for their actions. In fact, since Kerry is their model and mentor, and he is such a strong proponent of International Law superseding American laws, it is feasible that members of this generation's Winter Soldier investigation could opt to be referred to The Hague for prosecution.

Of course, in that case it would be appropriate to read such participants their rights under the Slobodan Milosevic Doctrine.

Before we get too far down the line, it is worth noting that about two weeks ago, before the current debacle known as the Hillary Clinton campaign was really foundering, her husband, ex-president Bill Clinton got the best of it in a face off with a 9-11 conspiracy theorist.

This didn't get a lot of coverage in the media haunts I frequent, mainly Fox News, but it was broadcast and I did see the former president out on the campaign trail extolling his wife's virtues. As he gave his speech, Mr. Clinton was being heckled mercilessly by a person in the crowd who claimed the 9-11 attacks on the US were an inside job.

This line of thought is similar to the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory which said President Franklin Roosevelt let us get attacked on purpose so we could go to war and end the Great Depression. In the present case, either the Bush or Clinton administrations, or both, knew the 9-11 attacks were coming.

Better than that, they not only knew the attacks were coming, they were part of a huge international conspiracy. This says it was easier to go to war with Iraq over a few billion dollars worth of oil by sacrificing buildings, infrastructure, 3,000 victims and a trillion dollar hit on our economy, than by simply enforcing United Nations mandates.

This theory says the two administrations knew that Saudi Arabian terrorists were taking flight training in the US, and helped plot out the scenario that has become known as 9-11. I have heard this many times, occasionally from college students I teach, and each time there are huge gaps in the credibility of this theory.

They use carefully cropped photos to show "evidence" that it wasn't really an airplane the hit the Pentagon. They use highly questionable, well actually flat out inaccurate science to support the claim that the Twin Towers' collapse was the result of carefully planted high explosives, not burning aviation fuel.

I have heard the unbelievably stupid comments from uneducated "celebrities" like Rosie O'Donnell, who said steel, which is created through the process of melting metal, "doesn't melt."

I have seen the rebuttals from highly educated mechanical and chemical engineers. I have seen detailed analyses from physicists who can show through fairly basic advanced math - that really isn't an oxymoron, nor a contradiction in terms - exactly how and when the steel weakened sufficiently to start the chain reaction collapse.

But I don't need to go that far here. I just want the name of the rubbish company.

I can hear it now, "What is he talking about? What rubbish company? What does a rubbish company have to do with the government conspiring to attack our own country so Bush and Clinton and Cheney and the rest of them could profit from this war?"

I am talking about the rubbish company that hauled away the drywall.

Again, I can hear it. "Drywall? What drywall? What does drywall have to do with anything?"

OK, back to basics. Drywall, or sheetrock, is used to finish off the interior of rooms in buildings ranging from sheds and garages, to homes, to commercial offices. It is made from pressed gypsum plaster, contained on both sides by a form of paper that is just shy of cardboard.

It usually comes in 4 foot by 8 foot sheets for ease of handling and installation, but there are many variations especially for commercial use. It is usually screwed into the interior frame of offices and homes. Then a sealant is applied to the seams between the sheets, over which goes a strip of special drywall paper and then more sealant goes over that. The sealant also is used to cover over the screw heads so the result is a nice, flat, smooth, uninterrupted surface.

When the sealant - it's called mud by drywall workers - is dry, it can be sanded for a final smoothness and then the whole room is painted. If the job is done right, the untrained eye can't tell where the seams or the screws are located.

Now, here is the rub. If, as the conspiracy theorists say, thousands of pounds of extremely powerful high explosives were planted at strategic junctures of the Twin Towers' supporting steel framework, you would have to remove thousands of pounds of drywall to get to those points.

Did I mention it is heavy? It is. It also comes in differing thicknesses and it gets heavier as it gets thicker which makes sense. But, when you are dismantling drywall, you can't just unscrew it, because you can't find the screws just by looking and even if you could, the screw heads are full of sealant so you can't get the blade of a screwdriver into them.

Construction workers know this, and thus, when they remove drywall, they know that it won't come out in sheets the way it was installed. So the preferred tools for removing drywall are BIG F'ING SLEDGEHAMMERS AND PINCH BARS!!!

To get drywall out you have to BASH THE CRAP OUT OF IT AND RIP IT OFF THE WALLS!!!

To the uninitiated THIS MAKES A BIG F'ING MESS!!

Good grief this country is getting more and more dumbed down with each passing day. Doesn't anyone work for a living anymore?

I learned this because I worked construction when I was going to college, and later built my own home. But all you have to do to see this is go to any demolition site and sure enough, there will be a big old mess o' drywall.

Demolition workers know this ahead of time so when they are going to remove drywall they rent huge rollaway dumpsters from rubbish collection companies. The companies bring the dumpsters to the site, line them up along the entrance of the building where the workers will be coming and going, and when they are full they haul them away.

So, since no one has photos of the miles of electrical wire that would have been necessary to blow up a bunch of bombs simultaneously, at least give me the name of the rubbish company that provided the dumpsters for the drywall. We can then check the receipts and find out who signed for the dumpsters, and who paid for them.

I don't even need the names of the clean up crews who had to vacuum up the mess that was left, or the drywall guys who reinstalled the new drywall to cover up where the old drywall was removed, or the drivers who hauled the dumpsters away, or even the painters. Just give me the name of the rubbish company that supplied the dumpsters and we can go forward from there.

Bill Clinton got to a point with his conspiracy theorist that he finally shut the guy up. He told him, "I have listened to you," and further that he had let the guy scream and shout.

Then Clinton pointed at the guy and said bluntly "9-11 was not an inside job." He went on that 19 Saudi Arabians flew planes into our buildings and killed 3,000 of our citizens including hundreds of their fellow muslims.

He finished by telling the guy "We look like idiots" when we maintain that 9-11 was done by our own government as terrorists continue to attack and kill our troops overseas, and plot further attacks on our homeland. It was really nice to hear the audience applaud him.

Frankly, from my perspective, it was one of Bill Clinton's best moments. I think half the reason his wife is having such a hard time in her own party is that only a fraction of the country's Democrats really believe in the anti-war rhetoric that the rest of the Democratic field is spewing. They look like idiots saying they are going to pull the plug on a war we are winning.

The former president has shown that while he certainly is partisan in his politics and will use whatever tools he has at hand to help elect his wife, he does understand that it is necessary to stand up for America, especially if you want to lead America.

Actually, Mr. Clinton may have engaged in a bit of overkill when he put the smackdown on that conspiracy theorist. I just would have asked him to give me the name of the damn rubbish company.

Berkeley California, the city that back in the 60s actively marketed the concept of violent protest as a means of destroying public education, now thinks it is hunky-dory to enjoy all the benefits of US citizenship without any of the responsibilities.

As I noted at the end of last month, (Leftists In California Bite the Hand That Protects Them) the Berkeley City Council has voted to tell the US Marine Corps that Marine recruiters are unwelcome, uninvited intruders to their fair city. Berkeley officials also voted to give space outside the recruiting office to the radical group Code Pink where they are urged to "impede, passively or actively" the Marine recruiters.

I was tipped off to this issue last month by Melanie Morgan, co-host of the morning drive-time show on KSFO radio in San Francisco, and chairwoman of Move America Forward, the country's largest pro-troop organization. MAF and its supporters already were working to publicize and counter the actions of America's Dumbest City. As my headline today notes, something out there is just not right, and inter-species breeding is as good an explanation as any.

As can be expected, the Berkeley council's actions have resulted in a firestorm of criticism across the country. A confrontation is scheduled for Tuesday night when veterans and our supporters, spearheaded by representatives of MAF, will square off against the pro-communist, pro-terrorist, weirdoes and whackos aligned with Code Pink. You can go to MAF's website http://www.moveamericaforward.com/ for information on travel and lodging.

Code Pink members are the same degenerates who stand outside the gates of the Walter Reed military hospital on Friday nights and yell insults at wounded service members, many of them amputees, who are going out on weekend liberty.

The pre-fight maneuvering has gotten so involved that Code Pink, which was outnumbered and out-debated by Move America Forward on the sidewalks in front of the recruiting office last year, now is trying to take up all the seats in the Berkeley council chambers so MAF supporters will be shut out. Morgan and MAF went to Berkeley in October with more than 400 supporters to back the Marines, who opened the recruiting center there about a year ago.

This time, the council apparently intends to invoke the city fire regulations on how many people can legally occupy the council chambers, in an effort to stifle public dissent.

Note to Berkeley City Council - Move To A Larger Venue - duh! If you want to exercise free speech yourselves, you can't deny it for those who disagree with you. That is, unless you are coming right out and saying for the whole world to see that you are communists and believe in that failed philosophy's system of selective "rights for everyone."

What's next? Pogroms? Hippie Death Squads? Another Red Purge?

Code Pink organizers have done everything possible to give the impression that they are somehow relevant in today's world, but usually very few people care what they think or do. That is, until they attack our wounded troops, interfere with efforts to defend our country, or send money to Al Qaeda terrorists even as they fight our troops in Iraq, which Code Pink has done in the past with help from part of the California Democratic Congressional delegation.

But there are efforts underway to bring a semblance of common sense to this outrage. For starters, U.S. Senators James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia), Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-Oklahoma), John Cornyn (R-Texas), and David Vitter (R-Louisiana) have introduced the Semper Fi Act of 2008, which would rescind over $2 million in hidden earmarks for Berkeley in the 2008 Omnibus Appropriations bill. In addition the bill would transfer the funds to the Marine Corps.

U.S. Congressman John Campbell (R-CA) is introducing a companion bill in the House of Representatives. Did you notice the absence of "Ds" indicating party affiliation? And this in a presidential election year no less.

Senator Inhofe has commented, "By interfering with military recruiting, the city of Berkeley is hampering our ability to protect this nation. While the city of Berkeley and the protestors are free to say whatever they like, free speech is not a protection from consequence."

Senator DeMint added, "Berkeley City Council members have shown complete ingratitude to our military and their families, and the city doesn't deserve a single dime of special pet project handouts."

Rank and file Americans such as Nicholas Provenzo my brother Marine and fellow member of the Together We Served website, also will be traveling to Berkeley to submit a petition on behalf of our fellow veterans.

Nick says that "While the debate over the war is what we see on the face of this conflict, the problems with the Berkeley City Council's actions run far deeper than the mere question of whether the war is proper.

"The Council seeks to prevent the Marines from recruiting in Berkeley. This effort is nothing less than a brazen assault on the Constitution because it attempts to subvert the constitutional responsibility of the Congress to raise an army. No local government can claim the power or the mandate to oppose the national government in this mission.

"Furthermore, the Berkeley City Council's actions are grossly unfair because they attack the Marines for policy decisions they do not make. The armed forces must remain strictly non-political and obey the constitution and the laws passed by the civilian government. It is no overstatement to say that anything less than complete fidelity is license for disaster.

"I am struck that even veterans who have been outspoken in opposition to the current war nevertheless have chosen to support our boycott petition on these terms. Perhaps it is because as veterans, we each took a common oath to support and defend our Constitution, even with our very lives if need be.

"The justification for this dedication is simple; the Constitution is the means by which we peacefully manage our disputes with one another. Thus ... whether though ignorance or as part of a willful and deliberate act, the Berkeley City Council's reckless actions are an affront to the very fabric of our union and cannot be tolerated.

"If the Council refuses to correct itself and focus its efforts on items that are the proper focus of a local government, it will find itself isolated, defunded, and stripped of its legislative authority. The choice is theirs."

To that I can only add, Semper Fidelis.