Thanksgiving is over, Congress is back in session, and the world is spiraling downward into a millennium of darkness and misery. But if you believe a bevy of leftist bimbettes who have been popping up on FOX News all morning, we should all just put our faith in the government of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama.

They claim that government is our friend and government will take care of us, and government will do everything for us if we just put our faith in government. I even heard one of Harry Reid's stooges call a woman who was offering an opposing viewpoint a Liar on one of the Fox morning shows. Obviously the left is going hysterical and pulling out all the stops to force us to once again mindlessly accept government mandates as good and inevitable.

Sorry Charlette. The great sleeping giant of American public opinion has been awakened, is aware and is not happy. Trusting that bunch of lame-assed dipsticks in Congress is no longer an option. But there are a few things that could bring some level of respect back to the table.

How about this? The proposed amendment to the US Constitution below has been streaking around the Internet for the past several weeks, so much so that I have received it from no less than a dozen separate places. None of the sources forwarded it from someone else in my address book, so I have concluded that wherever it originated, the proposed 28th Amendment has really caught fire.

How about if we put everything else on the back burner and put this on an emergency basis? With the exception of getting more troops to Afghanistan there are no emergencies pending. Yes you blithering morons who blabbed about "defeat" on all of the Sunday talk shows, we can too win there!

Urgent, maybe, priority, maybe, but emergency no. Only our troops are facing life and death issues and they need everything we can give them. So, read the proposed amendment, and then we'll talk a bit more.

Amendment 28

Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.

What I like about this amendment is that it puts into words what should be obvious to all American citizens even if they do serve in Congress. We are supposed to be a representative democracy where Congress does not RULE but rather SERVES.

It is obvious that many people in the ruling party in Congress have forgotten how our government is supposed to work, and instead are applying their own regulations. It is obvious that many in our government have forgotten or never learned that we are a society that does not have formal classes that rule the masses.

We are a society where people who are born to material riches can squander their inheritance and they will in fact fall to the bottom. They have no birthright that guarantees them a standard of living and a place in society no matter how worthless they are as individuals.

By the same token, a person who is born to penury can rise to the top levels of this country and no one can take that away from them, except of course the government which is constantly trying to dumb down our most productive people.

We repeatedly hear the Office of Propaganda - also known as the Mainstream Media - harping about how Congress is going to pay for its latest mind-numbingly stupid idea by "taxing only the rich."

THE RICH do not constitute a specific class in America. THE RICH, for the most part, get rich by very hard work, putting in long, long hours on the job that themselves come after extraordinary efforts at meaningful eduction. That is how individuals become rich and people who put in that much time and effort at education and work should not have the fruits of their labors ripped from them because a bunch of other people who don't want to work that hard, whine about not getting their "fair share."

We have no classes in America. We have levels of society that are fluid and borderless, with citizens moving through them in exactly the direction their efforts take them. Work hard, keep an eye on what the government is doing - because it rarely is doing anything productive - and rely on yourself rather than banks, the stock market and especially the government, and you will do well.

Get involved in drugs, alcohol, gambling and other nefarious activities and you'll eventually trip and fall. But the great thing is that even bad fortunes can be reversed if you go back to the basics and learn from your mistakes.

So, think about that for a moment and then take a long hard look at the US Congress. Here we have a group of less than 700 people out of 300 million, who think that simply by winning a popularity contest they suddenly become wise beyond all others, and privileged as well.

They take our tax dollars without asking a word about our opinions, they commit our unborn great-grandchildren to lifetimes of fiscal slavery by squandering trillions of dollars that they don't have. They limit our basic constitutional rights under virtually every Article and Amendment and they do it without so much as a thought to what we think, even though their job is to do OUR bidding, not their own.

So how about this Amendment 28? It would require Congress to do for and unto itself what it does unto us. I like it. I like it a lot. I like it every bit as much as I like terms limits.

Let's table the debate on the government taking over health care insurance - that's what they are really doing. Congress is not debating Health Care. We have excellent health care in America, the best in the world. It can always improve, but it still is pretty damn good.

Congress and the Obama Administration are nationalizing health INSURANCE because it is a great way to take taxpayer dollars without calling it a tax. Believe me, Congress is just finding a new way to tax us by claiming it is going to provide universal health care.

We already have universal health care as I have written before. No one in America is denied medical care when they need medical care. If they go to a clinic or emergency room the law requires that they be treated, and the taxpayers are already picking up the tab.

All that will change under Harry Reid's proposal, or Nancy Pelosi's proposal or Barack Obama's proposal is that the government will collect the premiums (taxes) and it will be mandatory to pay, rather than voluntary as it is now.

So let's give ourselves a break from the stress and frustration that the classless Congress is heaping upon us. Let's start calling our Senators and Representatives and impress upon them our determination that what is good for us, is good for them. Or else.

11 months to Judgment Day.

Several years ago I realized that my lawn will never be used as a practice putting green, but instead will always be a haven for dogs and kids.

That doesn't mean it isn't mowed regularly, or that I don't rake the leaves in the fall. I do the required maintenance each year, and put down some lime and fertilizer from time to time as necessary.

I don't use herbicides or bug killers because I don't want poison seeping down into the ground water, or affecting living creatures above ground either. I also like the look of hundreds of dandelions each spring. My grandmother used to make dandelion wine and used the greens for salads, but I don't.

I just like to see all those yellow flowers spread out amongst the green grass, nearly as much as I like the daffodils that burst through the late snow each year to let me know that warmer weather is on the way.

Today, with a house full of family, many of whom are children, I am reminded that I will always occupy a place in society that never will be pristine or perfectly groomed. But my part of the world still has its purpose and fulfills certain missions, one of which was evident from the joyful way my grandchildren exited my daughter's car upon arrival yesterday.

I'm sure that part of their joy was happiness at being out of the car after navigating several hours of holiday traffic, but they also know that once here they can run and play with very few rules other than the usual - no sharp sticks, no hitting, play nice with each other and the dogs, etc.

If they get muddy, so they get muddy. We can always do another load of laundry. If they fall down, they'll pick themselves up and start over. Dogs will bark, children will yell and holler and the lawn will endure some more wear and tear.

The front and back lawns both have paths worn in them from the dogs doing their daily patrols, alerting me to other people, other dogs and other animals. If the not-so-gentle patter of little feet create another path or two, so what? In the spring I can always buy another bag of grass seed.

It is obvious that the grandkids are thankful for their freedoms this Thanksgiving Day, and I am thankful that I have a good family here, good family out in the wider world, and a home for them to return to on occasion.

There are four generations under this roof today, starting with my mother, then my wife and me, then my daughters, then the grandchildren.
The oldest and the youngest taking a break together.

But we are missing one part of the family, and while I would love it if he were here, there is a higher calling at work today.

My son Kevin, who lives in Florida and is a commercial airline pilot - or was until the industry tanked - has a different type of mission today. As I write this, he and his girlfriend are flying his four-seater Cherokee from Tampa Bay to Panama City, and then to Mobile, Alabama, to pick up a female German Shepherd named Gretta who is narrowly escaping euthanasia.


No one wanted Gretta, and she was due to be put down, but a rescue network that in this instance required the cooperation of nine different people matched up Gretta with a lady in the Tampa Bay area who had a place for her, but not the means to get her from Louisiana to Florida.

Enter PilotsNPaws www.PilotsNPaws.org and my son, who told me yesterday, "I can't go on that site too much because I'd be doing rescues every day."

Kevin and his girlfriend have been rescuing unwanted dogs for years now and he has flown German Shepherds to new homes in the past. They haven't done this on Thanksgiving though, but when I asked him about giving up his holiday his response was "I can't rescue them all but I can sure try." Then he added, "I can eat turkey tomorrow."

When he touches down in Mobile, he will meet a like-minded person who also is taking time this Thanksgiving Day to drive Gretta to the airport where she will board, get both back seats all to herself and begin the final leg of her journey home. I am immensely proud of his part in this endeavor.

It is a tradition on my part to take a moment on Thanksgiving Day and remember back to 1968 when I spent the day flying as a machine gunner with Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 161 HMM-161, delivering turkey dinners to Marine infantrymen along the DMZ in Vietnam, and others along the Laotian border.

I always drink a toast to those Marines I flew with, the grunts on the ground who benefited from our efforts, and those of my friends who did not make it home. I also take a moment to thank all who are serving our country, and who have served, at home and abroad, making sure that the freedoms that far too many Americans take for granted are kept intact.

Those traditions will continue today, and every Thanksgiving Day as long as I am able. But today I also am thankful for other traditions enjoyed by my family, and while some are welcome for their familiarity others are equally welcome for their originality.

Next spring I will reseed parts of my lawn and remember that dogs and kids had a great time wearing out the grass. Meanwhile, in Tampa Bay a lady who needed a dog, and a dog who needed a lady will be enjoying their time together because for all that is wrong with this world, there also are many people like my son who put things into proper perspective, and share a portion of their lives so future Thanksgivings will have special meaning for others.

Happy Thanksgiving!

UPDATE: As of Sunday evening, November 29,2009, my son informed me that he had taken part in a weekend of rescues that resulted in saving 7 adult dogs and 11 puppies from euthanasia. He flew all over Florida, put in eight-hour flight days on Thursday, Friday and Saturday, met several other pilots and lots of rescue volunteers who were also part of the effort. They did well and I am proud of them all.

Jodi Rell's announcement that she won't be running for another term as Connecticut's governor has resulted in such a massive upheaval on the Republican political landscape that it probably can be measured on the Richter Scale.

Two contenders for the Republican nomination to oppose incumbent Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd have changed direction, opting in one case to go for the governor's slot and in another to run for a House of Representatives seat instead.

In both cases we are seeing common sense blended with astute political maneuvering, because in both cases the senatorial candidates were trailing GOP frontrunner Rob Simmons, the former Congressman from Connecticut's 2nd District who is maintaining a consistent double-digit lead over Dodd. Their decisions to abandon the senatorial race and head for greener pastures speaks volumes about Simmons' strength in his home state, and the fact that their chances are better in other races.

Even though Dodd is increasingly coming under fire from his own party, at this moment it doesn't appear likely that he will crumble under the pressure and step aside. Dodd is far too entrenched and far too powerful to fold his tents and slink away into the night. He also is getting solid support from President Obama and it is unlikely that he will lose that support.

Even if Dodd eventually does shrink from the fight, any Democratic replacement currently on the horizon will still attract sufficient voters that the GOP in turn requires a serious campaign from a serious contender who can step into the Senate without missing a beat. The next Senator from Connecticut must be able to enter the fray on issues of health insurance, banking, housing, the economy, and national defense with knowledge and the strength it brings.

The only Republican candidate who can offer the requisite knowledge, skills and abilities is Simmons, who also has such a solid background in foreign affairs, between his lengthy military service as an intelligence officer, as well as his work in the Central Intelligence Agency, that he will require virtually no break-in period.

Aside from Simmons, there are two contenders left in the race for the GOP nomination, Linda McMahon, former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, and Peter Schiff, a Fairfield County money manager. I mean no disrespect here, but while McMahon is spending heavily on advertising and still getting little to no traction, Shiff is barely on the radar.

Interestingly, in the most recent Quinnipiac University Poll, Simmons maintained his advantage despite the money spent by his opponents on campaign ads. Like McMahon, Tom Foley, a successful businessman and fund-raiser who was rewarded for his efforts to raise money for George Bush with the ambassadorship to Ireland, had instant access to millions of campaign dollars. But those millions could not launch him ahead of Simmons and Foley's camp announced yesterday that he now is turning his sights toward the Governor's seat.

Likewise, Connecticut state Sen. Sam Caligiuri has withdrawn from the senate race, and instead is entering the race for Connecticut's 5th Congressional District.

Leaving McMahon as the most serious challenger to Simmons. But McMahon, successful businesswoman and all around nice person that she is, is politically vulnerable on several fronts.

Let's forget for just a moment the seaminess of the world of professional wrestling, with its violence, repeated allegations of drug abuse, sexism and sexually oriented content that may attract some young voters, but likely won't help secure the GOP nomination.

McMahon has a lot of explaining to do particularly in convincing Republican voters, who will have the final say in the selection of a candidate to oppose Dodd, that she really is a Republican.

McMahon has a checkered history of political support, and until late this summer had given roughly as much money to the Democrats as she did to the GOP. But to actually show an even-handedness on her part, you have to track her political contributions all the way back to the late 1980s.

Then, when McMahon began to take fire for her financial switch-hitting she rushed to the bank account and wrote a $30,400 check to the National Republican Senatorial Committee! Wasn't that nice of her? I'm sure the national Republicans were happy to receive the donation, but does she really think Connecticut's GOP voters won't notice the hypocrisy? And lately, she has been dropping $500 to local town committees here, and $250 to local town committees there.

And this is supposed to buy her support?

Especially when she made pretty significant donations, well over $10,000, to various Democratic candidates and causes in the last three years, including - get this, to Rham Emanuel, the chief strategist and hatchet man for none other than Democratic President Barack Hussein Obama, mmmm, mmmm, mmmm!

So, given that the Republicans have the final say in selecting a candidate, either through the party convention next spring, or through a primary next summer, how is she going to convince us that she won't be falling right in line with Obama's Long March to the far, far left of the political universe?

Even if, by some weird alignment of celestial bodies, McMahon does get the GOP nomination, she will have some explaining to do to offset the Dodd attacks. Dodd is hellbent on keeping his post and anyone who faces him must expect incessant attacks that will be vicious, and expensive to overcome - even for someone who is committed to spending tens of millions of their own dollars for a job that pays about $180,000.

We can certainly expect that Dodd will immediately take up the issue raised this month by the Journal Inquirer newspaper in Manchester - that McMahon accepted millions of Obama's stimulus money to keep her professional entertainment wrestling empire afloat. But WWE personnel still got the axe, so where did the money go? To the McMahon's personal savings accounts?

I don't know, but you can bet that Dodd will be asking that question - every single day.

America's voters are engaged, enraged, informed and not the least bit inclined to accept any candidate who is not solidly on the side of bringing some common sense back to Washington, D.C. Linda McMahon is to be commended for her interest in the American political system, but she has woefully little to offer in the way of solid GOP credentials.

The political planets are aligning, the landscape is settling, and if Linda McMahon wants to be part of this country's political future, it would be wise of her to find a somewhat less conspicuous position from which to launch her political career. There she can show by actions, rather than ads and campaign statements, that she really adheres to conservative values and is not just another Democratic plant hoping to keep the left in control of the country.

It is said that once an administration becomes the object of ridicule, it is lost as far as public confidence is concerned.

The Obama Administration already has been ridiculed not only on the late night network talk shows during the week, but even on the left-leaning Saturday Night Live. The federal Office of Propaganda, also known as the Mainstream Media, has gone on the attack against its own base, assigning reporters to "fact check" comedy skits, when - if there was a shred of ethical behavior left in the Office of Propaganda - it should "fact check" itself. (Further evidence that the left is cannibalistic.)

Now, the concept of ridicule has moved out of the comedy circuit and into the wider world of entertainment. Mark Stein, a member of the late 60's band Vanilla Fudge has recorded and released on You Tube the video below, asking President Obama just what is going on. This is not a right-wing tirade, as the left wing labels virtually everything and everyone who has the audacity to question the president and members of his administration.

This comes right from the heart of Mr. Obama's base. He is disappointing a lot of people, but most importantly, he is disappointing those who put so much faith in his message of "hope and change." As everyone seems to be asking these days, "How's that working out for you?"

Somewhere along the line when Barack Obama got elected we apparently missed the new regulations that say he is untouchable and not to be treated like every other person who ever was president of the Untied States. Mr. Obama supposedly walks around in an aura - or maybe a bubble - and no one is supposed to reach inside.

When I received this video it had only been viewed 250 times. I don't necessarily agree with every line of lyrics, but I do agree with the overall theme. Now that I bring it to you lets get moving on passing it around. Sooner or later, we all deserve an answer to its central question.

As this article goes to press, the US Senate is poised to debate the secretive, over-bloated, extraordinarily expansive, useless, exorbitant Federal Takeover of Health Care bill.

The point of today's debate is to overcome a Republican effort to shoot the bill down by the venerable strategy of filibuster, rather than allowing lame duck Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to ram it through against the wishes of the majority of American voters, according to every poll that is worth a damn and a few that are not.

The point of this bill, which will cost at least three generations of living Americans, in addition to the unborn, multiple trillions in additional taxes, fund abortions through tax dollars, and take away the right of self-determination on which medical procedures will be covered, is supposedly to give medical insurance coverage to about twenty million Americans who can't get coverage now.

It will NOT cover about 20 million other Americans. When you take the alleged 50 million Americans who don't have insurance now, subtract the 12 million illegal aliens who already get free medical care at emergency rooms and clinics, courtesy of US taxpayers, and the 20 million Americans who fund their own medical coverage because they figured out that they can save in the long run, the net impact of this bill is ZERO!

Yet it will cost TRILLIONS! That is a number followed by 12 zeros.

How about this? A decent family health care policy costs about $7,000 per year. So if you multiply $7,000 times the 20 million people who aren't covered - but still get medical care on demand courtesy of US taxpayers - it comes to 140 billion dollars. One hell of a lot of money I agree, but one hell of a lot less money than multiple trillions. So why don't we just pick up the tab for insurance policies?

It will save TRILLIONS!!! TRILLIONS!!!

And don't forget, no one in America goes without medical CARE! If you are sick and go to a clinic or emergency room they have to treat you even if you can't pay. It is the law! Signs are posted in emergency rooms all across the country in multiple languages saying you can't be denied care!

So what the hell are we debating this garbage for when we have troops in Afghanistan waiting for someone to remember that they won't be having a Happy Thanksgiving, a Merry Christmas or a Happy New Year this year because the president and the Congress are sitting on one thumb, sucking on the other and playing SWITCH every other week?

This is not health care reform. This is a hostile government takeover of the medical and insurance professions and a bite out of individual freedoms.

How are people who who can't afford a private medical insurance policy now, suddenly going to be able to afford a public insurance policy from the government that many analysts say will cost more than private coverage? Where are these people suddenly going to get the money to pay for these policies, which they will be REQUIRED to do under the new law, and if they don't they'll face fines and prison time?

This is beyond hypocritical and beyond contradictory. It is an insult to every thinking American and further proof that Congress has gone haywire. I keep hearing that there is more cocaine inside the DC beltway than in the entire country of Columbia and this insanity gives a lot of credence to those claims.

Because these nutcases have to be high to even be taking this nonsense seriously. This is far more than nationalization of two more industries, this is communism at its purest.

We have troops under fire in remote areas of a remote land where another batch of nutcases hatch plot after plot to destroy us by fire, and the Congress is saying and doing nothing because the president can't make up his mind, despite the will of the public. But we have Saturday sessions on Nationalization of the medical and insurance professions because the greedy bloodsuckers who call themselves members of Congress have figured out they can bleed this country dry by passing these bogus bills.

And the biggest disappointment of all is Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman who rode to victory in the 2006 election - against his own Democratic Party and the Republicans - on the backs of Connecticut's veterans who saw him as an isolated voice of support in a cacophony of anti-military sentiment in Congress and the media.

The Hartford Courant reported this week: that some lawmakers including Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) have indicated that while they may support a procedural vote to begin debate, they may not support the final bill. Underscoring the difficult road ahead, Reid spent more than an hour in his office Wednesday afternoon meeting with Nelson and two other Democrats wary of his health plan, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

I don't want indications from my senator. I don't want to hear what he may not do, because that implies he MAY do just the opposite. Senator Lieberman could vote for the filibuster, and put an end to this insanity today.

That would give voters some breathing room until next year's elections when we can throw these jackals out on their butts. Instead he is just toeing the Democratic Party line even though the Democrats have cast him aside like yesterday's fast food wrappers. He says he'll vote for debate but MAY vote against the final bill.

How about just shutting this farce down right now, going back to the hearings on the Islamic terrorist who killed 13 people in Ft. Hood, and making it very clear to President Obama that he needs to act on behalf of our troops in Afghanistan and I mean RIGHT NOW?

The media is concentrating on the three reluctant Democrats who say they oppose this bill, but are being bought off as we speak - with taxpayers dollars! A hundred million for Louisiana alone? Well, at least we know that Senator's price.

What did Lieberman get for letting his principles fall by the wayside? I know what he lost. He lost the support of the very people who put him in office last time, but won't be there for him next time.

Health care reform my rear end. There is no reform here at all and this is NOT about health care. This is an erosion of rights and liberties, and a massive effort to con a complacent, under-educated, dumbed-down populace that will quickly go from being a disorganized herd to an organized herd, and Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi are leading the way to the slaughter house.

Most Americans serving in the US military are too young to have been alive when the administration of John F. Kennedy helped knock off Ngo Dinh Diem, the president of South Vietnam in 1963.

OK, maybe Kennedy didn't actually pull the trigger, but he didn't shield his ally either. When word reached the White House that Diem was in trouble with his own government and military, Kennedy promised non-interference if a coup occurred. So forty-six years ago this month, On November 1, 1963, South Vietnamese generals overthrew the Diem government and killed Diem.

Ultimately, after a series of ineffective replacements, South Vietnam's government was lead by President Nguyen Van Thieu from 1967 until a few days before the communist takeover on April 30, 1975. Only three years earlier, in 1972, the South Vietnamese armed forces, backed by massive American air support, annihilated a communist invading force of 250,000 troops, killing as many as 150,000 communist troops, and destroying half of all the communists' armor and artillery.

As a result the communists fired their most famous general, Vo Nguyen Giap, who was credited with beating French forces in the 1950s. But in 1972 the communists had been beaten so badly they were contemplating surrender, as they were in 1969 after being crushed by American troops.

In coming months, after the American traitor Jane Fonda visited the defeated Vietnamese communists, carrying a message not to surrender because help was on its way from the corrupt American Congress, the North Vietnamese decided to drag their feet in ongoing peace negotiations. So American President Richard Nixon unleashed a massive bombing campaign of the north. But presidential adviser Henry Kissinger convinced Nixon to halt the bombing only two days before - as was later revealed - the communists would have surrendered unconditionally.

This was followed by the signing of the Paris Peace Accords in March 1973 over the vigorous objections of President Thieu who knew his country had been shafted. Then the traitorous US Congress enacted the Case-Church Resolution which effectively ended all aid to South Vietnam - economic, humanitarian and military.

Two years later, alone, running out of ammo, and abandoned by the US Government, the south fell to another massive communist invasion. In the next five years millions of South Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians were slaughtered by the rampaging communists.

What do you suppose was the reason the traitors in the US Congress gave for allowing an ally to be overthrown and its populace imprisoned, tortured and butchered? They said the Thieu government was "corrupt."

Can you believe that? The US Congress having the temerity to call another country's government "corrupt?"

Why have I taken the time to teach this history lesson? Because it is being repeated all over again in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who was elected after the US overthrew the Taliban and Al Qaeda in 2002, sending them fleeing to Iraq and the mountains of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, has fallen out of favor with the Barack Obama Administration. Even though we have thousands of troops in Afghanistan again fighting the resurgent Taliban, and even though our troops have suffered thousands of casualties there while inflicting horrendous casualty rates on the Muslim extremists, President Obama is teetering on just throwing in the towel, bringing our troops home, and hunkering down in the White House bunker waiting for the next attack on our soil.

Do you know the primary reason the US Government, and its allies in the Office of Propaganda (mainstream media) are giving for once again screwing an ally? They say Karzai's government is corrupt!

Can you believe that? The US Congress having the temerity to call another country's government "corrupt?" So, let's just quit and expose our country to another terrorist attack launched from the exact same spot where the 9-11 attacks were hatched.

Did you know that in the 1971 South Vietnamese elections President Thieu was the only candidate because his opponents called him corrupt?

Did you notice that this year the primary opponent to Karzai's reign stepped aside because he says Karzai is corrupt?

Do you remember that adage about those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it?

Let me ask you one question. If the government is corrupt what is the better path - to clean up the corruption or expose millions upon millions of innocent people to murder, rape and destruction?

If you are having trouble coming up with an answer to that, consider this - the next populace that will be murdered, raped and destroyed if we again abandon a key ally won't just be the Afghanistan people. It will be us too. Think about that.

I've heard some people say that Obama won't abandon Karzai because he is sympathetic to the Muslim faith. I think that is a diversion.

Obama - through the Rev. Jeremiah Wright - has Christians thinking he is a Christian, and through numerous statements to the Muslim community has the Muslims thinking he is one of them.

I don't think he is either. He has surrounded himself with communists of the most bloodthirsty type, and I believe is a secular communist, hoping to pit the Christians and Jews against the Muslims so they will beat each other to death and the communists can take over. I have written about this previously, and the only thing that is new is that Obama is now leading the effort from within the US.

While you are contemplating that remember this: As we enter the Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's holiday seasons - people who weren't raised Christian please feel free to substitute your favorite religious holiday for Christmas if you are so inclined - up in the mountains of Afghanistan, American troops are exposed to death every single day.

They are cold and will be a lot colder as winter sets in, they need reinforcements and other support, and they are willing to take the risks and shed their blood to keep the rest of us free. But they are there because they believe in America - not Barack Obama and certainly not his view of America. They believe in the America as it was intended by our founders and through our Constitution.

It is clear that Obama could give a crap less about our troops. I was reading a quote from the Washington Post on the Atlas Shrugs blog today that said Obama told US troops in South Korea that they make good "photo ops."

Really? Well not all the troops in South Korea were included in that backhanded praise. I have it straight from the front that many troops who had gathered along the route of the President's motorcade to take photos of the Commander in Chief were completely ignored.

The Prez wouldn't look at them, wave to them, nothing. If they weren't useful for his photos, he wasn't interested in posing for their photos. It isn't that they support him - most don't. But most Americans who are in the presence of the President will try to take a photo for posterity - the day they stood near the president or something like that.

But Mr. Obama wouldn't even give them a wave or a smile from his passing motorcade. Thanks Mr. Obama, we'll remember your kindness next Election Day.

The Post article read: Obama arrived on the base 3:19 p.m. local time (1 a.m. Eastern Standard Time), and received a rousing welcome from 1,500 troops in camouflage uniforms, many holding cameras or pointing cell phones to snap pictures.

"You guys make a pretty good photo op," the president said.

Standing on a riser wearing a blue suit and red tie, with a cluster of troops and a large American flag behind him, Obama expressed "the gratitude of the American public" and said his meetings in four countries over eight days in Asia will help deliver a "safer more prosperous world for all of us."

Uh - yeah. I guess. How about instead of listening to platitudes from a guy who thinks troops are just good background for his publicity photos, we listen to a few comments from the late South Vietnamese president on what happens when you trust the government.

"Don't listen to what the Communists say, but look at what they do."

"The United States did not keep its word. Is an American's word reliable these days?"

"The United States did not keep its promise to help us fight for freedom and it was in the same fight that the United States lost 50,000 of its young men."

"You ran away and left us to do the job that you could not do."

"To live without freedom is to have already died."

Some pretty smart people are taking apart the Obama Administration's claims that the nearly 1 trillion dollars worth of stimulus money that he and the Democrat-controlled Congress authorized shortly after he took office is positively impacting our economy.

In fact just the opposite appears to be the case according to many reports and comments I have heard over the last several weeks. Stimulus money apparently hasn't made much of an impact at all, and now people are wondering just where it all went.

For instance it turns out that the Cash For Clunkers program was a clunker itself, costing the taxpayers about $24,000 for every car that was purchased as a result of the program. We also are hearing from every corner of the country that tens of thousands of jobs that were claimed to have been created or saved due to stimulus funds actually were fabricated.

There also are reports that whatever good the stimulus money might have done has already been done and we should not expect to see the unemployment figures decline any time soon. Those figures also are not really accurate because the 10.2 percent that has been bandied about for the past week only reflects those unemployed American workers who are still receiving unemployment benefits.

Workers who have been unemployed for too long and have given up on looking for non-existent jobs still are unemployed, but not counted. I have heard several times that the true figure for unemployed workers is somewhere in the range of 1 out of every 5 - or about 20 percent, not 10 percent. That is sobering, scary actually.

And to top it all off, people are now saying that so-called stimulus money is being counted as funding "shovel ready" projects, when many of those projects already were funded by other sources previous to the passage of the stimulus package.

So where has all the stimulus money gone? My vote is that somewhere in this country, maybe in many locations in this country, the foundation is being laid for the Obama Security Force - that huge federal police force he was advocating in July 2007 on the campaign trail in Utah and before. Remember that? The police force that was to be as large and as well funded and equipped as the American military?

Meaning it had to have about $500 billion per year to equip and sustain. Meaning that if only 10 percent of the stimulus has actually been used, there is plenty stashed away somewhere for a huge force of thugs, including brown shirts and jack boots.

Why do I feel this way, especially absent any direct evidence? Well, for starters, you can convict a person in America on circumstantial evidence, if the preponderance of the evidence points toward that conclusion. The rule in American courts is proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" not beyond "a shadow of a doubt" so I don't have to show specific acts if I can show a movement in that direction.

So let's start with the fact that an overwhelming majority of Americans are wildly unhappy with President Obama's actions, as shown by recent polls where his approval rating has dropped to about 42 percent.

Then it gets worse as people are going apoplectic over the nationalization of the health care system, not to mention his bowing to the Japanese emperor and endless apologies to other countries, most of which have historical records that make America look holy in comparison.

Yet, Mr. President is absolutely unfazed by any of this. He continues to send out his stooges who continue to fabricate, manipulate and outright lie to the American public, which isn't fooled by any of them. Yet the administration continues on its merry way seemingly oblivious to the level of dissatisfaction that is on the verge of exploding in his face.

What would keep anyone from reacting, pulling back, and rethinking their plans when so many people are showing so strongly that those plans are on the wrong track? Two options are possible right off the top of my head. One would be absolute denial, which could play a part in this, and the second would be the knowledge that you have the armaments and muscle to impose your will on the populace regardless of what the populace wants.

Then we have this issue of terrorists being tried on American soil, in a New York City court and the claim that "when" they are convicted, not "if" but "when," they could be housed in the maximum-security Thomson Correctional Center, about 150 miles from Chicago that is underused and will be the perfect place to put people who are a danger to the American public. Depending on your definition of "a danger to the public."

OK, so there are five terrorists, and thousands of cells in that prison - 1600 to be specific. Even if you bring all the 215 terrorist detainees in Guantanamo to Thompson if this all goes through, the government will have about 1,300 available cells in Thomson. Who is going to fill up the rest of the cells?

We wouldn't keep that prison open, and running at a huge deficit, just for a relatively small number of terrorists would we? Especially when we already have a prison for those terrorists - offshore - in a place called Guantanamo!

In a statement last week the Thomson prison was referred to as a "virtually vacant, state of the art facility." So why does the Obama Administration want to duplicate what it already has in a much safer area, especially when Guantanamo was specifically built for terrorists and they would have one hell of a time creating problems for the American public if they ever escaped?

Officials toured the facility last week and it is worth noting that they didn't specifically say the prison would being utilized for Guantanamo detainees. But federal officials did say that overcrowding is a "serious issue and one of the reasons why the Bureau of Prisons is interested in viewing Thomson Correction Center."

I see. And aside from 250 or so terrorists, where exactly are federal officials expected a surge of prisoner to originate?

As part of the conversion at Thomson the Bureau of Prisons and Defense Department would enhance security measures to "exceed" those of the nation's only supermax prison - the maximum security prison in Florence, Colorado.

Here's another issue. Diversion. By that I mean the Obama Administration is working hard to not only explode our national debt to levels never even imagined in the history of this country, in fact doubling the national debt in a matter of months, but to keep our eye on that ball. The whole world knows this is economic suicide but the Obama Administration, supported by the Pelosi House of Representatives and Reid Senate, continues to pile on when we could turn this around by one vote of Congress.

Why? My vote goes to keeping us watching the right hand so we aren't aware of what the left hand is doing. There are many other facets to this theory, more than I want to explore at the moment, but the possibility that much of what concerns us - stimulus money, national health care, Afghanistan dithering - may be just what the President ordered to keep us from eyeballing what he is really doing.

Unfortunately, I no longer have faith in this administration, nor do I believe the president can be trusted. Whatever he is doing I doubt it is for the benefit of the American public. And from this vantage point, keeping an eye on his plans for a national security force should be a matter of overriding national interest.

Just when we thought things couldn't get any worse on the international scene, the president of the Untied States, Barack Obama, the philosophical cellmate of world wide communism, is desperately trying to convince 300 million Americans that more than a billion Chinese wrongly believe he worships the late murderous communist leader Mao Tse Tung.

I guess all those Obamao posters and T-shirts popping up in every market in China, especially those showing Obama in a Mao cap and a Red Guard uniform, were just China's answer to Saturday Night Live. But FOX News and CNN didn't seem to share the humor. In fact, it was on FOX that I saw the report of the Chinese security apparatus - cops in America - detaining a CNN reporter who was doing a story on the T-shirts and the image they send to Americans who are wondering just who they elected last year anyway.

The official line was that all the street vendors who were selling T-shirts with the Obama Red Guard logo were ordered to remove them in advance of his visit. But not everyone got the word, or not everyone complied because western news outlets, which apparently didn't exist in China until just this week, suddenly discovered plenty of the incriminating items of apparel.

Here, I'll show it to you again in case you missed the one at the top of the column.



I have been saying for some time now, as have many other Americans, that if it walks like a communist, and talks like a communist, and surrounds itself with communists, and the Chinese general public makes and buys T-shirts showing it as a communist, then it probably is a communist. "It" would mean President Obama in this case.

When he was done bowing and scraping in Japan, and backing way, way, way, way off pending international climate change legislation, Obama went inside the walls of the Forbidden City for an out-of-sight meeting with China's President Hu Jintao.

Now, the US Office of Propaganda - aka the Mainstream Media - claims that they had a wonderful dinner, lavish might be the more appropriate word, and that Obama put the Chinese Premier in his place. Only lemmings and the Democratic Party faithful really believe that line. The real deal is that China is holding US markers worth three-quarters of a trillion dollars which puts the Chinese in the driver's seat of the American economy.

Obama might have talked smack to a bunch of Chinese students at a town hall meeting - "It's time China opened up access to the Internet!" Yeah, that'll show them - but he wasn't dictating anything to anyone once they got out of the public view. You see, Obama's policies are screwing up the US economy and things are getting worse every day. These are his programs - stimulus bills that only stimulate unknown businesses in make believe locations, for instance - and all we have to show for them are higher unemployment and a deepening national deficit.

The Chinese don't like the way things are going because they started making serious investments in the US economy way back in the Clinton administration. They have made great leaps toward casting off many of the trappings of communism, at least in the way the Chinese people can now pursue entrepreneurship, and their efforts to withdraw from the image as the world's most restrictive communist state while moving toward capitalism has been going on for a couple of decades. They own the Untied States, because they are the bank for the Untied States, thanks to successive administrations of shameless buck passers, but that also means they want, they need, a strong dollar. If the American economy goes bust, the dollar goes bust, and the Chinese are holding nothing more than worthless paper. Thus, Obama's decision to destroy the US free market economy and install a government run economy is pretty much out of sync with everyone except Kim Jong Ill, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Mamoud Ahmadinejad.

You can bet your bippy that when Hu Jintao disappeared behind the walls of the Forbidden City with Obama at his heel, the conversation quickly turned from amiable platitudes to "Just what the hell do you think you're doing? We've got three-quarters of a trill invested with you guys and my people aren't going to like it if the dollar tanks and takes our investments with it."

Now, personally, I don't think the Chinese should own so much as a dime's worth of the US, but the fact is they do, and for now they could well be our best chance of Obama backing off his conversion to communism. If the world's biggest communist nation has seen that the best way toward freedom and prosperity for all is the market place, they aren't going to suddenly change direction just because someone else wants to go all retro.

There is no doubt in my mind that a lecture was delivered inside the Forbidden City and Obama was the recipient. There also is no doubt that Obama was being ordered around like a busboy at an all you can eat buffet, and he wasn't saying squat in response. Hu and Obama are cellmates, and Hu is the Alpha Male. Obama is his kid, and his job is to run errands, take orders and provide whatever the Chinese president needs to make him happy. Obama is a beta male, ( just barely ) and he knows he is further down the pecking order than his counterparts on the international scene. Obama, his advisers, and his political associates have been hard at work running the American economy into the ground ever since January to prepare the country for the imposition of total government control.

But now he has been told that a failed American economy, and particularly a move toward communism when most communists are moving toward a free economy, is not particularly desirable.

It is high time Obama gets himself back on Air Force One, starts studying free market economy textbooks and makes an effort to get people off of unemployment and doing something productive instead. Because the last thing he wants American voters to see is Hu Jintao ordering him back to China, telling him to jump when Hu says "Jump," and Obama asking "How high?" on the way up.

I mean a picture of that kind of exchange would be worse by a hundredfold than bowing to an emperor or a king, not that Obama would ever consider embarrassing the entire Untied States with such an obsequious display.

Americans are understandably upset about President Barack Obama's decision Friday to bring five terrorists who planned the 9-11 attacks to trial in New York.

The decision was announced by his attorney general while Obama was out of town - once again bowing to the leader of another country. But to make believe this was done without the approval of the president as some have claimed, thus leaving us with the option that it was an overreaching decision by an opportunistic appointee, is sheer fantasy. As my late father would have said, "Don't give me that guff!"

This was an Obama decision, yet as his repeated public displays of subservience to other leaders, first to the king of Saudi Arabia, now to the emperor of Japan, have shown, he is not the kind of president who will stand up for himself, his country or his decisions.

It was hilarious back when Obama bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, a harshly Moslem country, and his aides claimed he wasn't really bowing, just looking at his shoes, or for a quarter he dropped, or his contact lens, or maybe was just checking to make sure his zipper was zipped. But as the recent overseas photo from Reuters shows below, Obama has a habit of checking his zipper, or bowing, take your pick. Either way his actions are unseemly.

It is absolutely amazing that the announcement to hold terrorist trials in New York came while Obama was bowing to the Emperor of Japan so that he was once again shielded from the eruption of public dissatisfaction with his decision.

Obama is great on apologizing for America, but he won't face his own countrymen, if he actually believes we are his countrymen, if he can use a subordinate to take the heat.

Legions of citizens believe this decision - to bring terrorists to our soil - is a gross error on Obama's part for reasons ranging from simple acquiescence to the terrorists' demands - they want to be tried in New York the scene of their highest success - to matters of national security. If you believe the Obama Administration's assertions that this is a great idea, then you probably love the part of the movie Animal House where Kevin Bacon screams "All is Well, All is Well," while he unsuccessfully attempts to halt an onrushing mob.

The administration is definitely screaming "All is Well." For instance, Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed said on Fox News Sunday this morning that there is no way any of these terrorists will be released. Period. Well, then why are we going through this charade of a trial? Reed said they won't be acquitted and they won't be released. So, just how is this going to impress all those Moslem nations when they see the outcome is preordained? Is that how they do it in those countries? Justice is just a word, not a real part of their government? When Chris Wallace asked what happens if they are released and then picked up again for further attacks against us, Reed said in essence, "Not to worry."

OK, I'm not worried. I'm not worried that they'll get released, or maybe I should say not too worried, but I am very worried about other issues.

Because what this decision really accomplishes is to give the terrorists rights under American law, through the pre-trial process of Discovery, that once again provide access to our intelligence and security secrets. Methodology, sources, undercover agents, both foreign and domestic, all will be at risk as the terrorists' lawyers use our own system to determine how evidence against their clients was gathered.

Conservative columnist Bill Kristol made this very point on FNS today noting that it happened in the 1995 trial of the Blind Sheik under Bill Clinton's administration. The B.S. was convicted of the first World Trade Center bombing that was marginally successful. He was sentenced to life and is now sitting in prison providing daily evidence to legions of terrorist wannabes around the world that he is a martyr to the cause. Meanwhile, reams of intelligence info were placed in the hands of these very same terrorists, and what happened as a result?

Oh yes, the bombing of the Khobar Towers American military housing in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of two American embassies in Africa, the bombing of the USS Cole, and let's see, what else? Oh yes, of course, the second bombing of the World Trade Center, successfully this time, the bombing of the Pentagon and the crash of Flight 93 in Pennsylvania when passengers thwarted another attempted hit on Washington, at the expense of everyone on board.

It is obvious from his trips overseas to avoid the media each time he acts - or doesn't - that these issues may be necessary stepping stones for the president's overall goal, but they aren't urgent. It is obvious that he is moving steadily in the direction of destroying the American government as it has existed for more than two centuries and replacing it with something much closer to communism.

His administration is marked by manipulation of a fawning media that now is little more than the Office of Propaganda; manipulation of the housing market and mortgage banking enabling a government takeover of many financial institutions; nationalizing the auto industry; and the ongoing attempts to nationalize health care.

He sees no urgency even in making a decision on the fate of thousands of US troops facing enemy forces overseas. And he sees no urgency in answering the desperate pleas of the millions of Americans who believed that he stood for meaningful change, not change that would destroy our country.

He is leaving the people who believed in him, supported him, and voted for him swinging in the shifting winds of change, and they are both unhappy and powerless. They have been deceived and they know it, but admitting it will take time. Which is why nothing about terrorism, our government, our troops or our country is in the URGENT box on Obama's desk.

Nor are these issues ever likely to be marked urgent. Because this administration is not about America, freedom and democracy, it is all about Obama, and his ego. These issues will become urgent for America only when they become urgent for Obama.

It would have been nice, especially for his supporters, if Obama really intended to bring positive change to our country. But as he is showing, his change is not for the better, and it should seem obvious that it is going to get much, much worse.

It is Veterans Day, November 11, 2009 and I want to take this opportunity to thank all who are serving and all who served. I especially want to remember those members of Marine Medium Helicopter squadron 161 with whom I served in New River, North Carolina, and in Vietnam, and of course, the "grunts" we supported.

I found a segment of a MilitaryVideo.com video, that now is on You Tube, of the 9th Marine Regiment conducting Operation Dewey Canyon in norther I Corps in early 1969. The operation was led by Gen. Raymond Davis, a Medal of Honor recipient who served in WWII, the Korean War where he fought at the Chosin Reservoir in the action for which he was awarded the MOH, and as commander of the Third Marine Division in Vietnam.

If you read the Wikipedia entry on Gen. Davis in Vietnam you will be misled into believing that until January 1969 the Marines were huddled down in base camps, not doing their usual job of aggressive contact with the enemy. This is not true.

It was in 1967 under the Lyndon Johnson Administration and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara that the ill-conceived and ill-fated McNamara Line along the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Vietnam forced the Marines into a defensive strategy that was counter to our tactical training and overall strategic objectives. But when Gen. Davis arrived in Vietnam in April 1968 he immediately put an end to that concept and it was at that time that he freed the Marine combat battalions from their defensive postures.

I know, I was there from May 1968 through June 1969 most of which was spent with my brothers in HMM-161 under the command of Lt. Col Paul W. Niesen. We flew thousands upon thousands of missions with every single Marine regiment in northern I Corps in addition to missions in central and southern I Corps. The strategy employed by Gen. Davis worked exactly as it was intended and operations such as Meade River and Lancaster II put a major hurting on infiltrating North Vietnamese units, stopping them dead, literally.

Dewey Canyon, launched in January 1969, was the crown jewel of Gen. Davis' tour in Vietnam and was a textbook example of how to move infantry units through rough terrain in bad weather, while staying under the cover of nearby artillery units.

Dewey Canyon stifled the communists' attempts to resupply their troops in South Vietnam and significantly reduced their ability to mount a second Tet Offensive, which was its goal. Wikipedia says it didn't permanently halt the flow of supplies down the Ho Chi Minh trail into South Vietnam. Well, it wasn't supposed to permanently stop the flow. If that was the intent, we would have stayed there. That wasn't the nature of the operation nor the overall US strategy.

The You Tube video I found has a couple of great shots of my former unit HMM-161 engaged in troop lifts into the battle zone. You can tell it is 161 by the white winged horse on the upper aft section of the helicopter. The numbers 47 and 29 lower on the tail indicate helicopters that were assigned to our squadron.

I have been watching the lead up to the Marine Corps Birthday and Veterans Day with considerable interest in recent weeks and the one thing I keep noticing is that virtually every channel and every network jumps right over much of the Korean War and nearly all of Vietnam when they show photos of veterans. Still lots of coverage of WWII, and lots of coverage of the current engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, but even though Vietnam veterans are the dominant demographic in the veteran community, and we fought the longest American War, and we won every single major battle, we still can't get more than a flash of remembrance. So I am giving you something to look at here.

I wish I had the entire Military Channel segment on Operation Dewey Canyon, but all I could find was the four-minute segment below. Nonetheless, it gives a good representation of the fighting and the terrain and especially of my unit in action. Considering that we are now focusing the action in the War on Terror back on Afghanistan which has similar if even more rugged terrain, today's commanders might want to review the strategy that Gen. Davis used in Dewey Canyon, and the results it produced.

It has been more than 40 years since Operation Dewey Canyon, and a lot of water has gone over the dam, but I haven't forgotten the Marines I flew with, nor the grunts we supported, in this case the 9th Marines and 3rd Marines.

For all who serve or served and those who support those who served please also visit this website: www.jensensutta.com:80/slideshows/RTB for a beautiful tribute to veterans.

To all of them, and to all other veterans Happy Veterans Day. I hope this finds you well and happy. Semper Fi

In the hours after the horrific news broke that a madman, Nidal Hasan, had gone on a killing spree at the US Army's huge base at Ft. Hood, Texas, killing 13 people and wounding 30 more, the first question on my mind was whether this was part of a terrorist conspiracy.

Back in the Good Old Days of the Bush Administration - in an investigation that began in 2006 and resulted in terrorism arrests in 2007, America broke up a plot to do similar damage at Ft. Dix, New Jersey. Five muslim terrorists have been convicted in that case and now are in federal prison.

Then, in Little Rock, Arkansas last summer police arrested Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad -- a 24-year-old Little Rock resident formerly known as Carlos Bledsoe -- on a first-degree murder charge and 15 counts of engaging in a terrorist act after killing one solider and wounding another at an Army recruiting station.

So it is reasonable to ask if yesterday's attack is another piece of a hidden puzzle.

That question has not been answered yet, even though the FBI rushed out with a "no-terrorism link" statement even before the extent of the carnage was fully documented. Then President Obama pulled a horribly ill-advised press conference, ostensibly to give us a measure of calm assurance.

But it started out with the commander-in-chief commenting at length on the successful conclusion of an Interior Department conference, to extended cheering and clapping from members of the audience. This while Ft. Hood personnel were still assessing the extent of the rampage.

So the "all is well" posing didn't convince me of anything except there was an immediate overreaction to assure us that this was not the work of another terrorist expressing hatred for the United States.

What we have found out since is that this was indeed another incident of hatred for the United States. In this case the shooter decided to act against military personnel in this country, at a military facility. In this case the alleged shooter was a disaffected Army officer who had immediate access to his victims.

A FOX News interview yesterday with a retired Army Colonel who had worked with the alleged terrorist gave us extensive insight into the mind of the shooter. I have posted a You Tube video of the interview here for your perusal.



Further interviews revealed that Hasan went into the military against his parents wishes, and had been bad mouthing his country over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for years. He apparently is of the mindset that if we just left the Taliban and Al Qaeda alone they wouldn't bother us.

Which means he is either delusional or he didn't read about more than 30 years of terrorist attacks on the US, including the 9-11 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.

We are supposed to believe this guy went on a rampage because he was harassed for arguing with fellow officers over the War on Terror, and that his mind snapped because as a military psychiatrist he heard horrific things from people who actually served in combat.

I guess his lawyers will claim Post Traumatic Stress By Proxy. What a crock. This guy was in the Army for 10 years, and got bad performance reviews. His entire history in the military is shaping up to be anti-American.

More information is coming out all the time and none of it is good. The shooter didn't die as originally reported and it is now likely that he will stand trial for his actions.

Sympathy for the devil will not be a factor in public opinion, nor in a jury's opinion either. And yes, he should go to trial, not be squirreled away in some insane asylum where we can never learn what really was behind this tragedy and travesty.

National commentators are doing their best to either build up, or shoot down, the significance of Republican victories in Virginia and New Jersey in Tuesday's elections.

I am thrilled about those victories, and I believe they do in fact mark a huge shift in the minds of voters - away from the movement toward communism now evident in Congress and the White House, and back toward the basics of our form of government - free markets, and equal opportunities to excel for all citizens.

But there are other indicators concerning last night's elections that may give an even better overview of the mood of the country and the voting public.

Take Connecticut, a small New England state that is consistently colored blue on national maps, meaning it supposedly is a liberal, leftist state that falls solidly in the Democratic camp. Yet in community after community in Connecticut yesterday, Republicans who held the highest offices kept them, and in many places where the Democrats had ruled, often for very long periods, voters turned them out.

Stamford, a city in Fairfield County which borders New York, went Republican. So did Trumbull, another Fairfield County community up the Merritt Parkway from Stamford that had a Democratic First Selectman who seemed invincible. Perhaps those GOP victories could be viewed as inevitable since Fairfield County is seen by the rest of the state and probably the country as being all about money, and money is not doing well in Fairfield County, Connecticut, these days.

Out-of-work executives are as common in that section of Connecticut as out-of-work machinists are in the center of the state.

But Norwich, a small city near the Rhode Island border which is best known as the home to two gambling casinos, also turned out its long-time Democratic mayor and replaced him with a Republican. This is a stunning reversal as Norwich has long been seen by local political strategists as a Democratic stronghold. Republicans running for a regional office that encompasses Norwich, work to keep within 1,000 votes of their Democratic opponents, hoping to make up the difference in mostly rural communities outside the city.

A Republican mayoral victory in Norwich, Connecticut has as much significance in terms of reading the minds of the voters, as the ouster of New Jersey's Democratic governor. Part of the reason for the GOP victory was a split Democratic Party, which is usually the case, but it gives Republicans a great opportunity to show what can be done.

As I listened to the national pundits this morning, all I heard were predictable commentaries from Democrats who universally were grousing that there really isn't a shift of mood. Democrat strategist Bob Beckel for instance, said on FOX News that voters aren't really angry, and this was supposedly proven by the drop in turnout.

If voters are angry, he claimed, the turnout is high.

I disagree. Anger manifests itself in many ways, and while the turnout was down in some places it was up in others. I believe that is a factor of how successful the party leadership on the local level was in defining the urgency of the issues.

In New Jersey and Virginia the battle lines were clearly drawn and voters clearly understood what was at stake. If Democrats stayed home in sufficient numbers to allow Republicans with lower voter registration numbers to prevail, then a significant number of voters were angry, but chose different ways to display that anger. Whether it is defined as anger, disenchantment, cynicism, or apathy, call it what you want - they didn't vote Democratic and the result is the same.

Conversely, if Republican leaders in some communities and regions were able to capitalize on voter dissatisfaction with the economy and other issues, good for them. But victories achieved because the opposition was uninspired should not be considered lasting victories.

It is up to the Republican Party at all levels to capitalize on voter dissatisfaction first by clearly defining the issues that are facing us now, in the coming months, and the coming years, and then by showing Independent and Democratic voters that we have a better plan.

We may not be able to convince significant numbers of hard-core Democrats to cross over to the Republican side, but if we can show that the GOP has better ideas and better candidates then we can motivate our own base, attract Independents and hopefully show that yesterday's victories are just the tip of the iceberg.

Yesterday's showing in so many communities big and small is an indicator that should not be lost on Republican party leaders.

Republicans are not machine politicians as is the case in places like Chicago, because the machine exists primarily on patronage. Thus party leaders doling out taxpayer funded jobs usually aren't the driving factors in Republican victories. A core Republican principle is personal initiative, not living off the welfare state, either through direct welfare payments or indirect welfare such as patronage jobs that aren't needed, but are funded through ever increasing taxpayer payments.

So Republicans must attract voters based on better candidates who clearly define by their statements and past actions who they are and what they believe. The GOP also has to clearly define the issues and show why Republican values give us better options to solving them.

In communities where turnout was low, local leaders should determine right now how they intend to motivate the electorate next year. If this election is to be considered a bellwether for the near future, then motivation and turnout are key factors in keeping the momentum.

This also is a golden opportunity to recover GOP losses from the past decade, especially if you believe the statements from Democratic leaders like Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Shultz, who also is Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee.

She appeared on FOX News this morning, poo-poohing yesterday's results and indicating that for Democrats it's nothing to worry about - just "electoral history." Other succinct comments from Shultz included such gems as "historical trends" and that giving any credence whatsoever to yesterday's victories amounted to comparing "apples and oranges." Really, she said that.

Is she kidding? And as far as any changes to Democratic strategy that might result from yesterday's vote - "Our incumbents are battle tested ... they are reaching out." But apparently, not too far.

And the one comment that I guess was to be expected - "The only one that matters is New York 23" meaning the 23rd House District in way, way upstate New York where the Dems actually won after successfully splitting the GOP by running a RINO Republican In Name Only.

I see. That's where we should focus our attention, not on Virginia, or New Jersey, or even on the myriad small towns like mine where the GOP swept the election.

OK. You just keeping talking Deb, that's what you're good at.

This is not my idea. I got it from my son who passed it along after he got it from someone out in the Internet, and I even saw a reference to it on the weekend news. It was FOX News if you must know and it was on a panel discussion. I can't remember who said it on Fox because the faces are beginning to run together but it doesn't matter.

We are within a day of the first anniversary of President Barack Hussein Obama mmmm, mmmm, mmmm's election as President of the Untied States of America - that is not a typo. I used to write Untied Nations because I think that body is totally screwed up, and now it also applies to the Untied States of America because this country is now officially more screwed up than I have ever seen it.

This country is now officially more screwed up than my mother has ever seen it and she is nearly 93, meaning she was born before the end of WWI; saw the Great Depression up close and personal; nearly lost her husband, my father, during the Battle for Leyte Gulf in WWII; saw Kennedy die; saw Johnson blow Vietnam right out of his you know what; saw me go off the fight in Vietnam; saw Nixon, Ford and Kissinger screw up our military victory there and turn it into a political defeat; survived the jimmy carter presidency; saw hope resurrected through Ronald Reagan; saw it get screwed up again in the Clinton years; wept over the attacks on 9-11; cheered for our victory in Iraq; and now believes Obama is bound and determined to destroy America in her lifetime.

Obama for his part is still, through his lemmings, gofers, and stooges, blaming everything that is wrong in America on George Bush. You only have to look at the polls in the high profile races around the country to see how well that is working for him.

So someone out in the uncontrolled territories of America came up with the following and it is spreading across the Internet faster than Swine Flu on the Rotisserie Networks.

Without further ado, please give some thought to completing the following, "If George Bush had":

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompTer installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non- existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potato as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

There are numerous versions of this theme out on the Internet although I found the full script on Tom McMahon's website but he referred to the Grouchy Old Cripple website, which from my standpoint is one great blog. But Politico had a version, and the GOP itself is talking, half-seriously, about doing a website on that theme.

So, I don't know where it started, but I wanted to pass it along just in case you hadn't seen it. And to point out that all across America, and all across the political spectrum, ordinary people who aren't pushing a party line, as well as many who are, have noticed that our anointed president is getting a huge PASS from the American Terrorist Media, which is now revealing itself to be in cahoots with the American Communist Media - or possibly has been the American Communist Media all along.

Can you answer one question for me? Considering who Obama has appointed as Czars - a suspect title if ever there was one - not to mention nationalizing the banks, the financial industry, the housing industry, the auto industry, as well as attempting to nationalize medical care and the insurance industry, is he upholding his oath of office?

See for yourself: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Where in the Constitution does it allow the President to nationalize so many industries and bankrupt future generations by running the national debt to proportions that go beyond the power of mere mortals to comprehend? Is he living up to his oath, or does the phrase "to the best of my ability" serve as an escape clause?

Worth thinking about, isn't it?