It's probably be safe to suggest that most Americans are aware that factions within the Palestinian organization are fighting each other somewhere 'over there,' but beyond that they probably don't know and care even less what this means for Israel and the wider western world.

Basically, Hamas, the more aggressive of the two sects, is kicking the hell out of Fatah, which ruled for a long time but now is not doing so well. For the time being this is only in the Gaza Strip. Fatah is still controlling the West Bank, but who can say how long that will last.

By early evening, on Thursday, June 14, Hamas had run Fatah out of the Gaza Strip and many Fatah fighters were seen fleeing to Egypt, while their brothers-in-arms were surrendering, and being paraded around by their fellow practitioners of the Religion of Peace before being summarily executed.

It's so hard to keep track of all the players in this ever so serious game of international mayhem. We have factions within the Muslim religion that hate each other, and then we have factions within the factions, who also hate each other.

While a lot of people look at the fleeting images of the carnage on television and say 'good riddance' we actually have a stake in the outcome of this fighting and its overall affect on the Middle East.

Since Hamas is the more aggressive of the two factions, and would love like to see Israel blown to smithereens, an overall Hamas victory is not good for the west. Since Fatah is considered in some quarters to be only a bit less rabid than Hamas, and probably deep in its vindictive terrorist supporting and creating heart would also like to see Israel disappear from world maps, a Fatah victory would be slightly better for Israel in the short term, but the long term is another issue.

The difference lies in what some Islamo-fascists call the Near enemy versus the Far enemy, as was explained in excellent detail in the current issue of the American Legion magazine. I strongly suggest picking up a copy if you are eligible, and reading the article.

Basically Israel, as well as moderate Muslims everywhere, represent the Near enemy, and we, the United States of America, represent the Far enemy. Once the Near enemy is vanquished, the Far enemy, meaning the United States and our allies, becomes the primary target. Depending on the outcome of various tactics and attacks, the terrorists have alternated between targeting Near or Far enemies over the past several decades.

Now, what on earth does any of this have to do with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and more to the point, Paris Hilton?

Well, if Hamas wins all the area controlled by the Palestinian Authority, that being both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, you can bet that Iran's main madman in charge, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, known none-too-affectionately in this column as Green Bean Almondine, will be first in line to help out with lawyers, arms and money as the terrorists turn their focus on Israel.

Ahmadinejad, or Green Bean, already has been arming the terrorists, and providing training and money. He has said repeatedly that he also wants Israel wiped off the map, and just a while back said the clock is already ticking, apparently meaning the countdown clock.

It could be argued that the sudden uprising by Hamas and its savage victory in the Gaza Strip in which opposing forces were executed right in front of their families, was a product of Green Bean's evil genius and is part of his countdown. If that is so, Israel can well expect to see another escalation in the launching of incoming missiles, and probably should expect to be attacked on two fronts simultaneously, both from the Gaza Strip and Lebanon.

Combined with guerrilla attacks from inside the West Bank, even if Fatah still is in charge there, and even if Fatah doesn't support the attacks on Israel, the possibility of a very hard fought war looms in Israel's near future, which ultimately would mean US involvement in one form or another.

You'd think with all the short- and long-term ramifications of this fighting it would be the dominant news item on every television and radio station in the country. You'd think.

But it isn't. The dominant news item is Paris Hilton and whether she had a good day in prison today and whether any other inmate was there for her, or to take a picture of her seated on the porcelain goddess, except in prison the goddess usually is stainless steel. How awful for her.

With the non-stop Paris coverage, useful only in that it put a halt to the non-stop Brittany and Anna Nicole coverage, it seems that no one is watching Green Bean, and from this vantage point, he is sneaking up on us.

But while he prepares to move new bomb masters into Gaza, we are hearing that Paris stood up, or Paris sat down, or Paris sneezed, or Paris yawned, or Paris blew her nose, or Paris scratched an itch or Paris itched a scratch. All Paris, all the time, all meaningless, trivial drivel.

Which leads me to consider that the entire Paris Hilton lifestyle, drunken driving conviction, and its aftermath is quite likely a tactic planned and executed by Green Bean. Obviously, the mainstream media, not to mention Fox News, has fallen for it.

Why else would anyone care? She is nothing more than a used up, spoiled rich kid who long ago lost anything that might have remotely resembled attractiveness. That whole screaming at the judge diversion the other day seemed like a major reaction to coming down off her drug habit cold turkey, she certainly can't be considered desirable by anyone who wants to go through life without worrying about contracting incurable sexually transmitted diseases, not to mention that her voice is cloyingly annoying.

So what is the attraction? Right. There is none, hence my theory that she is a plant for Almondine, and he is using the distraction to move more of his plan to destroy Israel into place.

I would caution Israel that the next step is further isolation, and then all out military engagement. It probably would be a good idea for the Israeli Defense Forces to increase the pace of that advanced training they're instituted since their somewhat ineffective and totally embarrassing display up in Lebanon last summer.

The Palestinian Authority has no commercial or industrial base, no real Gross Domestic Product, certainly not when you realize where it is located and how many people live under its rule, so it is highly unlikely that it will create the tools of war itself. What it does have is plenty of suicidal maniacs who are so uneducated, living in squalor, with little hope for any kind of a real life such as is enjoyed by the vase majority of the rest of the civilized world, who are easily duped into readily believing in blowing themselves up to reach a higher plane of existence.

Green Bean also is of that philosophy, although it also could be argued that he sees the Palestinians as competitors and if he helps get them annihilated he will ultimately have the top spot in the world of terrorism all to himself.

That is just speculation, but who knows? In the meantime, the situation in the Gaza Strip does not bode well for Israel, which means it doesn't bode well for us. I think it is time to take our bloodshot, painfully stressed out eyes off of losers like Paris Hilton and start focusing on Palestine and Iran. All Terrorist News, All The Time.

If you look at the insane world that is the United States Congress in a sliver of a time frame, you might conclude that our top governing body has gone totally berserk, and that the nation is in an unprecedented period of decline.

In truth, Congress has pretty much always been out of control, going all the way back to its earliest days. Even before the Declaration of Independence there was manipulating, disagreeing, spying and back stabbing. There have been fist fights, duels, bribe giving, bribe taking, and even secessions.

The biggest differences between then and now are that the amount of money available to buy off the average available Congressman has grown to a point where it has to be transported around in truckloads, (or stored in freezers) and the top of the line madams (a nice way of saying female pimps for a bevy of really good looking prostitutes) keep their lists of well known clients in an electronic database instead of in a separate set of books hidden in the wall behind a picture.

But the really big news these days is not that Congress is contentious, but that so much of this seemingly directionless bickering is aimed at helping out the world communist movement. That most ineffective, and most brutal of all the forms of government ever attempted by man is once again trying to work its way back into a position of dominance, with Red China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam and Venezuela joining forces to bring back their glory days of deprivation and wholesale human slaughter.

Now, just as in the early 70s when America's military, and then South Vietnam's military, won the Vietnam War, only to be sabotaged by Henry Kissinger and his pro-communist allies in the Congress, our military is again winning all the battles against a desperate enemy while some of the very same people who brought about the fall of South Vietnam are again working to undo all the military is accomplishing in the War on Terror.

The reason? If the United States and its allies are weakened due to extended war with the Islamo-fascists, (who are being propped up and rearmed by the communists) and America's citizens are totally fed up with the incessant pissing matches in Congress, it will be much easier to infiltrate the U.S. both politically and physically. Creeping communist takeover here we come!

Now, as in the 70s, (and the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s too) the American media not only has been co-opted, in many cases it is a willing partner to those who are working for the downfall of democracy.

Before going any further I should say that I realize that not every Congressman, Senator, aide, lobbyist, operative or financial backer who is part of this circus is a communist. Some have other political philosophies, but have formed a coalition of sorts with the pro-communists - that would be Kissinger, Kerry and Kennedy for starters - in hopes of advancing their own agendas and ultimately prevailing.

Yeah, lots of luck on that one. I have to wonder if any of these dreamers have ever looked closely at the tally on humans slaughtered worldwide by communist regimes since 1917. Try in excess of 100 million for a ballpark figure!

When we aren't preoccupied with Congressional sex or bribery scandals, we can just turn on the TV to see the latest waste-of-time Congressional hearing on the latest attempt to discredit and run off some George Bush appointee or cabinet member. Few of these hearings go anywhere, although occasionally someone like Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to the vice president, has his life turned upside down and destroyed in the process.

But the big fish get away, because it takes a lot more to sink a president than what is available to the average vulnerable Congressional committee chair, even if he does hold hearing after hearing. But that is the point here. These hearings aren't really intended to nail anyone, they are intended as a distraction, and if occasionally some hapless public servant gets the shaft, well so much the better.

No, these hearings, along with the non-stop media fascination with the latest antics of the latest sleaze bag, drunk, doped up, brain fried celebrity, are all intended to keep us looking the other way. Meanwhile, thanks to the Clinton Administration, which legalized the sale of advanced electronic rocket guidance circuitry to the Red Chinese by reclassifying it as video game circuitry, the Red Chinese have built a highly advanced ballistic arsenal.

Their spies also were successful in obtaining the secrets to our stealth and sonar technology, and proved this last year by sneaking one of their subs right inside an American Navy task force without being detected. Then they 'painted' one of our communications satellites with a laser beam, and followed that up by destroying one of their own obsolete weather satellites with a rocket, just to show us they could do it.

The Red Chinese also have been building their navy and ground forces for several decades now. The question now becomes, to what end?

Well, for starters you can say world domination. That was always the goal of communism and just because the conditions that spawned the communist movement in the 1800s no longer exist for the most part, that is no reason to halt a perfectly good plan to take over the planet.

But that is a long term goal, and you don't get all this aggressive about something that far off in the future. Which means we need to look at possible short term goals that require neutralizing the free world's armed forces while at the same time applying massive amounts of manpower and armaments against potential opponents.

Where would all that come together? My first best guess is Taiwan, formerly known as Formosa. Taiwan, for those who may not have been paying attention the last few decades, was the last refuge of the Nationalist Chinese, who fled there in 1949 after losing a civil war to Chinese communists led by Mao Tse Tung, the all-time number one, mass murderer in all of human history.

Since America is a democracy, and since communism is the antithesis of democracy, we were the Nationalist Chinese government's most stalwart ally until the presidency of james earl carter, who stiffed the Nationalists on December 15, 1978. On that day carter terminated our relations with Taiwan and recognized Communist (Red) China, the most murderous regime in the history of the world, after Congress had adjourned for Christmas, shoving aside a Senate resolution that it should be consulted before any change in our previous treaty with Taiwan.

Taiwan lies about 100 miles off the coast of mainland Red China, but it also has control over some islands in the Taiwan Strait (formerly the Formosa Strait) including Quemoy and Matsu. In the 50s and 60s frustrated Red Chinese communists regularly shelled Quemoy and Matsu in retaliation for their refusal to capitulate to the teachings of Mao.

Although the coastal islands were regularly shelled, Taiwan itself was out of artillery range. That was then. Now it is easily within rocket range.

Taiwan also seems to be a major psychological sticking point for the Red Chinese. From a western standpoint, a relatively small island group, with a relatively small percentage of the Chinese population living there, shouldn't seem like such a big deal. But the Red Chinese are the people who fired a bunch of newspaper editors within the last week for inadvertently letting a minuscule classified ad get past them. It was printed in only one paper and had only one date on it - that being the Tiananmen Square massacre 18 years ago.

The ad didn't mention the massacre where the Red Chinese (people's) Army slaughtered thousands of pro-democracy demonstrators. That would have been too blatant. It just had the date, June 5, 1989.

So figure, these guys are so thin-skinned that even though they pride themselves on their ability to bring more than a billion people under their control through the wanton slaughter of any and all who disagree with them, they really don't like anyone talking about it. If someone talks about it, the Red Chinese leaders lose face, and you don't want your average Red Chinese leader losing face. Lots of people die that way.

But, in Taiwan, where democracy is the rule of law, they talk about it. Obviously, this will not do, at least from the Red Chinese leadership point of view.

There has been a ton of saber rattling over Taiwan from the Red Chinese for decades now, but I sense that something is in the wind, and that something could well be an invasion of Taiwan.

There is one major obstacle to an all out invasion and takeover of Taiwan, however, that being the 100 miles of open water in the Taiwan Strait. It is a formidable obstacle. Not impossible, mind you, just formidable.

The Red Chinese, with something like 1.4 billion people to draw upon, can easily field a ground force of 1 million troops or more. The issue is getting them over to Taiwan to fight the Nationalists.

The two most likely methods would be by landing boats, and by large troop-carrying aircraft. But both methods have severe vulnerabilities. Guided missiles and anti-aircraft fire from the ground, in addition to torpedoes from both surface craft and submarines, as well as fighter aircraft from both the Taiwanese and U.S. armed forces would play havoc with such an invasion force.

But what if, considering the Red Chinese advances in targeting and guidance systems, they convinced that air-headed nut case in North Korea, Kim Jong Ill, to launch one of his so-so rockets with a mid-yield nuclear warhead attached. Suppose that rather than aim it at a populated area, he shoots it up over the Taiwan Strait, and it explodes, say five miles up in the air.

Yes there would be human devastation, on a limited scale according to the Red Chinese way of looking at things, but more importantly, the electronic surge from such a blast would fry all the guidance circuitry and radar in use by the Taiwanese defense forces, and ours too if we were in the area.

If you combined that with a couple of rocket shots at US communications satellites needed by American forces to guide virtually all of our weapons systems, you suddenly have a very naked and very vulnerable target.

Suddenly, thousands of landing craft filled with Red Chinese soldiers, and thousands of military and commercial transport aircraft also filled with thousands of Red Chinese soldiers can descend on Taiwan, and the island is in for a blood bath. There still would be fighting, and it would be brutal, but mainland China has an endless supply of manpower, and no qualms about using it regardless of the casualty levels.

In the communist view of the world, if they start a war, and in the war every single person on earth dies, except one, and that one is a communist, they win. Seriously, that's the way they think. I honestly don't know if these butchers killed more innocent civilians or more of their own troops in their unending quest for domination.

If the Red Chinese send a million-man invasion force to Taiwan, and 70 percent never make it across the strait, they still have 300,000 fighters on the ground. That is a massive army, twice the number that we currently have in Iraq, and once it gets a foothold, it opens the door for nonstop reinforcements.

Regarding our response, let's face it, if the Red Chinese could take out U.S. communications and targeting capabilities, their allies in the U.S. Congress would throw in the towel in a heartbeat. We claim to be a world power, but we have a real soft spot in Congress. Taiwan would find itself fighting alone while America sat around debating what to do, or whether to do anything.

So what do we do to protect ourselves and our allies in Taiwan from such a scenario? I suggest the same thing that guerrilla fighters and terrorists do when they are overpowered by our technology. We go back to basics.

Long before radar, and global positioning systems and satellites, the United States and other armies and navies in the world had some really, really good artillery and naval gun crews. They relied on experience, dead-reckoning, Kentucky windage, and good eyes.

They got the job done without all the gee-whiz technology. It wasn't pretty, and casualties were higher, but they won, time after time.

If I was in a leadership position in Taiwan I would make sure that my coastal defenses had a plan B, which would be to return to use of artillery and anti-aircraft batteries that work with or without electronic guidance systems. I would train all my gunners to be just as proficient at old-fashioned point and fire shooting, as they are at the newer electronic methodology.

Then I would take a close look at my island and decide where the Red Chinese would most likely land, and where they would least likely land. Then I would build up the defenses in both places equally, and place quick response defense teams in close proximity to both.

Remember, the Allied D-Day invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944 worked because the Germans got complacent and arrogant. They figured the invasion would land at Calais because it was closest to England.

Then they figured bad weather would postpone any military activity so their best commanders were no where to be found when the invasion fleet appeared off the coast of Normandy, not Calais, on a stormy day. The fighting was vicious nonetheless, and well into the morning of June 6 the issue was in doubt for the allied troops.

But the German defenses broke when Navy gunners sailed right up to point blank range and started blasting the German guns - using dead reckoning and Kentucky windage.

I recommend we prepare for the worst, and prepare for the unexpected. I figure I am not the only person to come up with this scenario, nor the first. Once again, I would much rather be wrong than right about this, but something is in the wind.

Russia's Premier Vladimir Putin, known in this column as RasPutin, is running his mouth at President George Bush, because Bush is working with some eastern European countries - Poland and the Czech Republic - to install defensive missile systems that could intercept missiles fired from the Middle East toward Europe.

The United State says the shield targets potential Iranian nuclear weapons, not Russian nuclear weapons. Russia says that's an "insufficient" explanation, and RasPutin has warned that a new shield could require Russia to re-target missiles toward Europe or take other buildup measures.

What? Why?

Where exactly does Russia even come into this equation? I'm asking this from a common sense perspective, not a diplomatic perspective. Why would one or two countries taking measures to defend themselves from a third country have any impact whatsoever on Russia, and why would that require RasPutin to target them with his nukes too?

We have an ongoing and escalating situation in Iran where the nutcase running that country, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, better known here as Green Bean Almondine, is working like, well like a madman, to develop a nuclear weapons system, so he can further export his version of the Islamic religion with some real muscle backing it, and Europe is one of his main targets, after Israel.

News reports on the proposed missile defense system say that "Russian suspicions were roused earlier this year when the U.S. chose the Czech Republic and Poland as the missile defense sites. Putin spokesman Dmitri Peskov promised 'uncomfortable consequences' if the shield is deployed 'next to our borders' without more acceptable explanations from the United States.

But, he added: 'Russia is the last country in this world who is thinking about confrontation or starting another Cold War.'

OK, then, just what is our favorite little commie in the whole wide world thinking about? Why would he give even so much as a minute's thought to a couple of independent countries doing what they can to protect themselves, and possibly their neighbors to the west, from missiles fired by a madman bent on world domination.

You would think that with Russia's history of wiping out all forms of organized religion during the unfortunate 70-year-plus period known as communist domination, that RasPutin wouldn't be much of a supporter of people who want to use their religion to dominate everyone, including him. You'd think that he'd want to do everything in his power to wipe the Islamo-fascists right off the face of the earth, and if he was going to re-target his missiles anywhere, he'd be thinking of Tehran first, not Warsaw.

Unless, as has been posited on this site numerous times, Russia and China are still holding out hope for a resurgence of communism, and hoping that an all-out war between Muslims, Christians and Jews will so weaken all three, and so completely turn off the majority of the world's population to religion in general, that communism will seem like a good idea. Possible?

Under that scenario, China and Russia would support the Islamo-fascists with both arms and diplomatic assistance, create multiple fronts for the US and its dwindling supply of allies to weaken America's ability to fight an even more expansive war, and simultaneously build up their own arsenals to be ready to hit whoever is left standing after the Muslims, Christians and Jews are done fighting.

So, China and Russia are supporting the Islamo-fascists with both arms and diplomatic assistance, they are helping create multiple fronts (including, and perhaps especially right inside the US Congress) for the US and its dwindling supply of allies to weaken our ability to fight an even more expansive war, and have you seen what they are doing to build their own military forces in the last few years? Wow!

Seems more than just possible or feasible doesn't it? Seems likely doesn't it?

George Bush was scheduled to meet with RasPutin at the G8 summit in Germany today to discuss this issue. We can only hope that Bush sees through this diversion for what it is, and uses whatever means he has at his disposal to defuse it. It isn't just the fate of the free world that hangs in the balance here, the fate of the whole world hangs in the balance.

Sometime during the day Tuesday, June 5, 2007, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, will find out whether he is being sentenced to jail for allegedly making a false statement to a grand jury investigating whether someone in the Bush Administration deliberately leaked the identity of a formerly - supposedly - undercover CIA agent.

Despite what you may have heard on the news, no one was convicted of leaking the identity of an undercover CIA agent, because the person at the center of the controversy, a CIA worker named Valerie Plame, was not an undercover agent, and her identity had been known to friend and foe alike for more than a decade. So that little detail fell by the wayside, but along the way, during one of a seemingly endless series of appearances before a federal grand jury that literally couldn't find anything else to indict anyone else on, Libby made a statement one time that contradicted a statement he made another time.

AaaaaaHA! Gotcha!

Libby was tried before a jury in Washington, D.C., that included a journalist, which was the first mistake. Libby said he never knowingly made a false statement, but did have a memory lapse. But during the trial his lawyers failed to convince a judge to allow them to show that the chief witness against Libby, NBC TV news personality Tim Russert, also had had memory failures of the exact same nature that Libby claimed.

That tactic is called "impeaching" a witness, which merely shows that the testimony may not be as solid as it appears, and is used in legal defenses if at all possible. Since the judge didn't allow Libby's lawyers to expose the flaws in Russert's testimony, that alone should be the basis for an appeal.

And an appeal is exactly where this needs to go. Actually, this case needs to go right down the tubes because it has been a political circus from day one, not a real example of government corruption. It is a total waste of taxpayer money, not to mention the tens of thousands of man hours that have been wasted by people who are supposed to be working for the public.

Frankly, I think George Bush should have stood up for Libby immediately upon hearing that he was convicted by a tainted jury, and pardoned him right then and there. That would have been the manly thing to do, that would have been the presidential thing to do, and that would have been the right thing to do.

Unfortunately, President Bush, who is perpetually portrayed as fiercely loyal to people close to him, slammed the door in Libby's face and says he will wait until the legal process plays out before making a decision. I know, I know. Bush has inside political advisers, courtiers if you will, whispering in his ear that it might be politically risky to pardon Libby now, and he might suffer in the polls, and the Democrats and their Public Relations firm, the American media, will go on about it endlessly.

Tough. I wonder what these brainiacs who clothe themselves as presidential advisers were telling him about Ted Kennedy's immigration bill that Bush is supporting like a teeny-bopper at her first boy-band concert?

Unfortunately for Libby, the sentencing comes before the appeals, and Libby apparently is short of funds, which has prompted a fund-raising drive by his supporters.

I usually would throw appeals for help from people inside the D.C. beltway right into the circular file, based on the unwillingness of said inside the beltway people to listen to or help out the rest of America when we need it. But I received just such an appeal the other day from Mary Matalin, who is well known as a solid and respectable voice for common sense in Washington.

I read the appeal from the Libby Legal Defense Trust and decided I would send them a check. (P.O. Box 96418, Washington, D.C. 20090 in case you'd also like to help out.) I decided to do this because I also value loyalty, and virtually all the loyalty I have seen in this case comes from Libby, and none of it is going back his way.

I don't think he did a damn thing wrong, the prosecutor knew nearly from the outset that the fake "leak" in the fake Plame case didn't come from him, and Libby is being made a scapegoat. I don't like seeing people who have devoted their entire lives to serving the American public getting screwed by the American government, so I'm going to help out as best I can.

You'd think a guy in Libby's situation would have a ton of big-bucks fat cats running in to write huge checks for him, but the funding appeal says even a $25 donation would be really nice, which just goes to show you that in D.C., loyalty is to the position not the person. Since Libby no longer has the position, the "supporters" who hung around him for years, laughing at all his jokes and telling him how much they admire him, are no longer to be found.

OK. We'll help. Screw those fair weather hypocrites.

Now, while we're on the subject of President Bush and loyalty, what the hell happened to his loyalty to us, the American public, especially those of us who have stood by him thick and thin? What is going on with this incredibly insufficient, flawed immigration bill, and why the big rush to push it through Congress, consequences be damned?

Anyone who has spent any time at all observing the Washington political scene has to know that something far more than meets the eye is going on behind the scenes, as evidenced by the people who are allying themselves behind the bill.

First is Ted Kennedy, the Senate's ultimate liberal, who is getting high praise from Fred Barnes executive editor of The Weekly Standard, who can pretty accurately be described as the quintessential conservative. Then Kennedy himself is praising George Bush, which pretty much convinces me to go out in my backyard and build a really big boat. And then Bush is praising the bill.

This isn't right, the world has turned upside down, the earth has reversed the direction of its rotation, and I'm not buying it!

What really hurts though, is that Bush is finally coming out of his shell, swinging the big bat, fighting hard and tough, which we have wanted him to do for years as the political circuses continued non-stop in D.C. But he is blasting the very people who put him into office twice!

WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON?

People have a right to question this bill. The government apparently has no idea whatsoever how many illegal aliens already are in this country - the figures now range from the 11 million used only a month ago to as many as 20 million now. The methodology for identifying criminals - aside from the fact that they are here illegally - in their midst is flawed to the point of being laughable, it allows undesirables to slip into the country permanently, and it doesn't give anywhere near enough time to do thorough background checks - just for starters.

Americans have the right to question this bill without being labelled bigots!

Something is hidden behind this bill and a consortium of Washington insiders is pushing hard as hell to get it passed before the public is let in on what it is. That is my assessment and I make that assessment based on nothing more than long experience with politicians, but I'll bet a dinner at a good restaurant that I'm right on the money.

Politicians don't make unholy alliances such as we are seeing on the immigration bill without an overriding reason for it.

The sad thing is that they aren't letting the rest of us in on what is behind this sudden rush to pass a bill that contains loopholes big enough to drive a truck through. Bush should have trusted his countrymen on the real reason for invading Iraq - the terrorists we had beaten in Afghanistan were migrating there to set up a new base of operations with Saddam's consent - instead of going to the Untied Nations with that WMD garbage.

And Bush should trust us now to do the right thing about the immigration bill. We aren't stupid as the beltway insiders apparently believe, and we can make some pretty good decisions when called on and given ALL the facts.

But the immigration bill is flawed, Scooter Libby is getting screwed over, and President Bush isn't trusting us. To me that is the ultimate disloyalty.

Alleged anti-war, 'peace' activist Cindy Sheehan has rebuffed an offer from the pro-troop, grassroots organization Move America Forward to purchase 5 acres of land Sheehan owns in Crawford, Texas, and has raised the potential sales price to such astounding levels she should be nailed with a windfall profits tax.

Sheehan purchased the land near President George W. Bush's ranch in 2006 for $52,000 using insurance money from her son Casey Sheehan's death in Operation Iraqi Freedom. She dubbed the land Camp Casey, supposedly in honor of her son, although she had been roundly criticized prior to that for a two-year lapse between his death in Iraq on April 4, 2004 and when she finally allowed a tombstone to be placed on his grave in Vacaville, CA, on May 26, 2006.

Sheehan had said she didn't want a tombstone on her son's grave because it would require her to accept his death.

Cindy Sheehan declared last year that the land in Crawford would be used for her anti-war purposes until President Bush's "resignation or impeachment." However, this Memorial Day weekend, after launching an equal-opportunity smear campaign criticizing Congressional Democrats who don't support her leave-Iraq-immediately positions, and being criticized in return, Sheehan resigned as the face of the anti-war movement, and announced that the land is for sale.

Move American Forward immediately drafted plans to make an offer on the land and turn it into a memorial park honoring all the heroes of the War on Terror including Casey Sheehan. In addition to offering to purchase the land, Move America Forward has prepared an artist's concept of a memorial to the troops "Monument to America's Heroes" which can be viewed at the Move America Forward website www.MoveAmericaForward.org .

But no sooner had the offer been made public than Sheehan flat out turned it down, claiming the property is hers to do with as she pleases and it will be "a cold day in hell" before she would sell to Move America Forward so it could be turned into a memorial park.

Sheehan's few remaining backers have said the land will go up for auction on eBay with a starting bid of $80,000, a 65-percent profit in one year. That puts her in the company of previous generations of scalpers, price gougers and profiteers who made financial killings by selling tracts of western lands.

It also proves the lie of her so-called 'cause' all along. This obviously was never about her son, it was all about money, and she lied about it from day one. Now that she has gained national media attention, and the price of the land can easily be manipulated simply by filing false bids on eBay, she stands to make a huge profit from her estranged son's death.

Remember, the $80,000 is just a starting figure. In the case of Move America Forward, any bid would have to far, far exceed that starting price, since, as Sheehan's spokeswoman told the media, Sheehan would "never knowingly sell Camp Casey to Move America Forward, even for $5 million."

Interestingly, regarding the price of the land, I saw in one of the news reports on the issue that Sheehan is claiming improvements to the Crawford property including road upgrades and water line installation make it move valuable, thus the increased asking price. Sixty-five percent more valuable in one year? Minimum?

And while we're on the subject did she actually pay for any of this? Improvements to local roads are usually done at the cost of the local taxpayers as are water and sewer lines. The property owners pay increased property taxes based on the assessed increased value to the land to pay for the improvements, and pay usage fees for water and sewer when they hook into the lines.

Usually, only when private roads are improved does the responsibility for payment rest on the individual landowners. Is Sheehan claiming that she personally paid for improvements to the gravel road? Did she personally pay to have a water line installed?

I'd like to see the bills for that work. If she didn't she is obviously trying to pass another lie off on the public, and if she did she foolishly spent the money from her son's insurance policy since as mentioned above, it is up to the local or state government to handle road and public utility improvements.

Regardless, this issue has finally revealed in all its ugly details just how false, phony, despicable, lying and manipulating Sheehan and her backers have been. This has never been about the death of her son, this has always been about her and is one of the most reprehensible uses of a human death for personal profit that I have ever seen.

And this woman claims to be anti-war, pro-peace?

I have been very, very reluctant to jump on the anti-Sheehan bandwagon and her name usually doesn't appear in this column. There is a reason for that, which I have stated before, but which bears repeating.

Everyone handles grief differently, especially when it stems from the death of a family member. I know this from personal experience because many years ago, a few years after I had returned from Vietnam, my 18-year-old brother died tragically in a traffic accident.

He had done nothing wrong. He was simply a passenger on a sunny Sunday afternoon, in a car driven by his friend who made a youthful error in judgment for which they both died. No alcohol, no drugs, not even speed. Just a fateful, and fatal accident.

My family was devastated by my brother's death. All of us. The extent of that devastation was never more apparent than a day a couple of years ago, after my father had died, when I visited my mother and found a picture of my long-deceased brother in a prominent spot in her living room.

I asked why it had suddenly appeared after so many years, and she told me that my father had felt such guilt over my brother's death, even though he had absolutely nothing to do with it, that she was not allowed to put his photos out because it was too upsetting to my Dad. It has been 30 years, but the pain of my brother's death has never dulled for my family, and I suspect this is common.

So I have tried very hard to understand that Cindy Sheehan may well have been dealing with her son's death in her own way, and although that way obviously angered many people, I was reluctant to join the criticism.

Until now. The situation with the property in Crawford, Texas is so coldly calculating, so impersonal, so money grubbing and deceitful, that I can no longer see this as a manifestation of grief. It is an obvious attempt to profit from the death of her son, who by many accounts from other family members, never would have agreed with the stance Cindy Sheehan has taken in his name.

This is classless, crass and abominable. Shame on her and every war profiteer who ever stood alongside her claiming to be speaking in the name of peace. What a pathetic collection of money grubbing charlatans. It is a shame that losers and liars of their ilk are allowed to call themselves Americans.

Speaking of which, here are Sheehan's own words on what she thinks of our country: "America ... tortures people contrary to the Geneva Conventions and the 8th Amendment to the Constitution; America ... imprisons people without due process or giving them a Writ of Habeas Corpus; America ... kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people for greed; America ... attacks a country that was weak and no threat to our own; (America) a country that is the hated laughing-stock of every other country."

Sheehan and her followers don't live in the America I believe in.

Hopefully this isn't over yet. Sheehan bought the land in Texas using an intermediary and Move America Forward may well use the same tactic to purchase it from her. Also, eBay rules apparently won't allow Sheehan to discriminate against bidders, so if she goes forward with the auction in that venue, even if she keeps inflating the price, she may not be able to reject Move America Forward's bid.

Regardless of how this ends, the truth has finally emerged about Cindy Sheehan, her followers, and what they really stand for - The Almighty Dollar.

Welcome to Cindy Sheehan's land of Capitalism Run Amok, where a mother will sell her son's memory to the highest bidder, and use every facet of human emotion to jack up the price.

In an act of what can only be considered true compassion the pro-troop organization Move America Forward has offered to bail anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan out of her financial troubles by buying a 5-acre tract of property Sheehan owns near President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas.

The proposal from MAF also includes plans to erect a monument on the property to the heroes of the Afghanistan and Iraq fighting in the War on Terror.

The artists' rendering of the monument:

Sheehan rose to national prominence as the darling of the left-wing anti-war media when she accused President Bush of needlessly causing the death of her son Casey who died fighting terrorists in Baghdad.

She camped out on the road leading to the Bush property attempting to recreate a 60s era anti-war movement. Although some fringe elements did join here there, she also was opposed by many Gold Star families, whose sons and daughters also were killed in the fighting, and Blue Star families whose sons and daughters are fighting the terrorists and who opposed her stance on the war and the president.

On Memorial Day this year Sheehan announced that she was stepping down from her leadership role in the flailing anti-war movement, after she had begun questioning Democrats in Congress as she had previously questioned Republicans, and was roundly criticized by her own backers for her statements.

Move America Forward is chaired by Melanie Morgan, who with co-author Catherine Moy, wrote the book American Mourning: The Intimate Story of Two Families Joined by War, Torn by Beliefs which compares how two American families reacted to the loss of their sons in combat in Iraq.

The book relates how Cindy Sheehan's reaction was so different from Joe Johnson, whose son Justin was Casey Sheehan's best friend and who also died in Iraq a few days after Casey. Morgan, co-host of the morning drive-time radio show on KSFO in San Francisco, with Lee Rodgers, sent me the following news release from Move America Forward:

SACRAMENTO - The nation's largest grass-roots, pro-troop organization, Move America Forward - www.MoveAmericaForward.org - is announcing today its plans to acquire the 5 acres of land in Crawford, Texas that had been used by anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan and her supporters.

Move America Forward has retained the services of award-winning real estate agent, Holly Williams - www.HollyCountry.com - to broker the deal. Once the land has been obtained, Move America Forward plans to erect a "Monument to America's Heroes" on the property.

"I'm honored to be able to broker such a deal, and help turn this piece of land into a memorial that honors our brave men and women who fought for our freedom overseas. I am familiar with the land having spent time in Crawford and seeing first hand how Sheehan used the land to undermine the mission of our troops. I can't think of a better use than to buy the land that was used to defile our troops and turn it into something beautiful that honors them," said Holly Williams.

Sheehan acquired the 5-acre plot of land in July 2006 for $52,500 using insurance money from the death of her son, Casey Sheehan, in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Cindy Sheehan declared at that time that the land would be used, "until George's (Bush) resignation or impeachment." However, this Memorial Day weekend Sheehan reversed course and gave her "resignation" as the face of the anti-war movement, announcing that the 5-acres in Crawford, Texas were up for sale.

"This land has been used as a staging ground for anti-war activists to denounce and denigrate the heroic service of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. It is our intention to turn this around and make this the site that will honor the heroic accomplishments of the men and women who have fought with honor and courage in the war against Islamic terrorism," declared Melanie Morgan, Chairman of Move America Forward.

Robert Dixon, Executive Director of Move America Forward, said the money to purchase the land would come from the financial contributions of Move America Forward's one-million members.

"We've already raised the initial sum to kick-start this effort and we will be collecting donations to fund both the purchase of this land and to pay for the construction of the Monument to America's Heroes," Dixon said.

As I said at the outset, this is obviously an act of compassion with a true sense of honoring the troops. The biggest question now, however, is how will Cindy Sheehan respond to an offer to permanently honor her son, and the other men and women who served as well.

There is a basic concept in street fighting that if a potential adversary is bigger and more powerful than you, the first order of business is to get that adversary off guard, then smack him in a vital spot so you can bring him down to size.

The best way to do this is to appear non-threatening, even friendly if necessary, and get close enough to land a sucker punch. An even better technique is to take a two-by-four and hit the big guy across the shins, which inevitably bends him over in extreme pain, which gives the smaller combatant a clear opportunity to hit again, harder.

If you just want to get your adversary's attention, you hit him with the flat edge of the board, which hurts, but spreads out the pain over a wide area. However, if you really intend to inflict some damage, you try to land a blow with the sharp edge of the board, which means a far more concentrated, and far more incapacitating encounter.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, known none-too-affectionately in this column as Green Bean Almondine, employed this technique in recent days, lulling the Bush Administration into a false sense of security through his willingness to send envoys to Iraq for direct talks with the US for the first time since the unpleasantness of the late 70s.

Bush bowed to international pressure for "talks" and sent our guys to sit down with Green Bean's guys. They shook hands, talked all day long, got exactly nowhere, and then adjourned, promising to have another day of "talks" at some undetermined time in the future.

No sooner had the Iranian envoy gotten out of the area, and while the Bush Administration was still basking in the afterglow of "acceptable" international relations, than the media reported that gunmen dressed like Iraqi police kidnapped 5 British subjects right in the center of Baghdad.

The Brits were snatched from a Finance Ministry facility in a mock police raid that Iraqi officials said was carried out by the Mahdi Army Shiite militia. You may recall that the Mahdi Army is the enforcement arm of the fake cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr's criminal enterprise.

Al-Sadr bolted from the Sadr City slum in Baghdad where his enterprise is headquartered immediately after being tipped off by the media that US forces were going on the offensive known as the "Surge" and were no longer adhering to the diplomatically enforced "hands off" policy.

Al-Sadr, courtesy of Green Bean, hid out neighboring Iran, which is openly backing his efforts by sending bombs, terrorists and training cadre into Iraq to undermine the Iraqi government and the US War on Terror.

Al-Sadr hid out in Iran for nearly four months, but showed up last week in a city south of Baghdad, along with an entourage and a few thousand screaming followers, claiming once again that he was going to be a major force in determining Iraq's future, and demanding that U.S. troops leave.

Once again, we either missed, or were not allowed to take advantage of, an opportunity to blast him into paradise ... because we were going to sit down and "talk" with his principal supporter in the volatile Middle East.

Almost simultaneously with Sadr's reappearance, and the simple yet effective diversion by Green Bean - agreeing to the talks - was the raid that resulted in the capture of the Brits.

So first off we get suckered, then we get smacked. And that is just the set up. The next shot we take is the one that will matter. It hasn't been delivered yet, but you can be sure it is coming.

Regular readers of this column are well aware that I have been very, very reluctant to join the chorus of critics who fault President Bush and his administration for everything from the weather to their daily horoscopes. I make the point that I don't always agree with his tactics, but I also temper my criticisms by pointing out wherever possible that many of his decisions were based on good and solid reasoning, that just came to a different conclusion than mine.

The reason for this is simple - I agree that we should have gone into Iraq, because the terrorists moved there after we beat them in Afghanistan. Also, I have been ever watchful of the ongoing 60s style movement on the left to again undermine our troops, ostensibly by saying the war is the issue not the military, when the real issue all along has been the military. I don't want to give the left any ammo.

I am firmly convinced that just as we overwhelmingly defeated the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese communists in Vietnam, regardless of what the media continues to say about it, we also can defeat the Islamo-fascists we are fighting now. But the media now, as then, is flooded with negativity and daily body counts on our side, all the while ignoring our successes, terrorist body counts, and the real casualty issue, the number of Americans who would be dead or wounded from terrorist attacks if our military was not where it is, doing what it is.

On the domestic scene Bush is more than a little distracted by the uproar over the newest incarnation of an immigration bill, and I was hesitant to pile on only because there already is so much criticism from the conservative base. But in the last week or so I have heard Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy praise the president, conservative editor, writer and commentator Fred Barnes praise Ted Kennedy, and the president praise a bill that even his staunchest supporters say has more loopholes than a sieve.

Obviously something is terribly awry inside the Washington, D.C., beltway. But I don't want an obvious attempt to sucker us into a situation in Iraq that will cost us the lives of American troops if not dealt with immediately go unnoticed and unremarked upon.

Ahmadinejad is up to something and we have only seen the first phase of it. He went completely out of character by agreeing to talk with us, using a three-carrier battle group in the Persian Gulf as an excuse to make us believe he is really worried. The carriers are there because Green Bean is moving forward in his efforts to make bomb grade nuclear fuel from his nuclear power plants, against all the pointless and unenforceable resolutions from the Untied Nations.

So he ignores the resolutions and sanctions, continues to move forward with his nuclear program, we send in some carriers and suddenly he is more agreeable? No he isn't. This is an old ruse, and one which is easily recognizable to anyone who has ever had to fight their way out of a sticky situation, especially one where there are no rules.

But most of Bush's advisers inside the Beltway apparently have never had to fight their way out of anything, at least on a physical level. Politics they understand, but street fighting is not their forte.

In the meantime the New York Times has run a story revealing that some people in the Bush Administration are privately talking about getting out of Iraq sooner rather than later. It isn't by accident that Al-Sadr showed up right on the heels of this revelation, regardless of whether it is accurate.

Al-Sadr and Green Bean smell fear, real or imagined, and they are hoping to exploit what they see as weakness in the Bush Administration. To make their point, and to hurry the rumored retreat of American troops, Al-Sadr and Green Bean will likely intensify their efforts against US forces, hoping that increased casualty levels will convince both the Congress and the Bush Administration to cave in and run away.

The short-term impact on our troops and the long term impact on our country will be devastating if Bush allows this scenario to play out. Ahmadinejad has suckered Bush into letting his guard down, and has responded with a two-by-four across the shins.

That was bad enough, but this bears repeating. Another shot is coming and it is coming soon. The follow-up to the board across the shins is usually a slam upside the head, right on the temple.

If, as is often reported, Bush has only a handful of advisers whom he trusts, it would be advisable for them to figure out what this translates to in terms of our presence in Iraq and prepare for it. When this blow will be delivered is the only question. That it will be delivered should be a foregone conclusion.

Another in an occasional series From the Flight Deck

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal on challenges facing the airlines mentioned how Northwest was having a very difficult time completing timely luggage transfers between connecting planes.

Apparently, after all the cutbacks that have been plaguing the industry, Northwest couldn't attract sufficient numbers of dependable ramp workers - luggage handlers - at the starting wage of $8.75 an hour.

Northwest management decided that to attract more dependable workers they should up the starting wage and agreed that a $1 per hour increase would do the trick. We're not talking highly skilled tasks here, but still, timely luggage arrival is a major factor in airline customer satisfaction, which is a major factor in helping potential customers decide which airline to select when they travel.

In accordance with contract dictates the Northwest management approached the union leadership proposing to increase the ramp workers' starting wage by $1, with the end goal of increasing customer satisfaction, attracting more customers, and keeping everyone employed.

The union responded that it was an all or nothing issue. Either all the other job classifications immediately got a raise by the same amount proposed for the baggage handlers, or no one got a raise.

Rather than working with management, helping improve the product, and bringing on more customers, which would bring in more money, which would lead the union to a far better bargaining position in the next round of contract talks, the union leadership typically went for instant greed over long term common sense.

The cost of immediately increasing everyone's wage base by $1 per hour was far outside of the company's abilities, so Northwest scrapped the idea. Everyone lost.

Northwest is now looking to outsource its ground/ramp work.

So, at what point in this issue did the union really look after the workers and balance the long term benefits with short term goals, which would have led to a stronger corporation and better wages all around? Right. Never.

Now let's talk about Wal-Mart and the national left-wing efforts to run it into the ground because Wal-Mart workers aren't unionized.

Although I now am in the flight industry, I started my working career right out of high school, while I was attending college, at the Sam's Club division of Wal-Mart. When Wal-Mart and Sam's Club first came to my community the crowds applying for positions there were huge, and it was obvious that with such a vast pool of potential employees, the firm was in a position to select the best. I was proud to be among those who were offered positions.

I spent several years with Sam's Club, starting out stocking shelves, unloading trucks, driving forklifts, and ultimately moving upward in the organization until I was managing people and merchandise.

It was obvious that if I had decided to stay under the Wal-Mart umbrella the stairway always led upward and the opportunities for advancement were constant. This applied across the board to everyone who came to work with a decent set of skills and a positive attitude; race, gender, and age all were irrelevant. Motivation was relevant.

In recent years I have become increasingly aware of how the country's business climate can affect my job possibilities, and have taken to watching the Saturday morning business blocks on Fox News. Unfortunately, in the interest of presenting balanced perspectives, these blocks are loaded with pro-union talking heads, often claiming that Wal-Mart treats its employees harshly, and that a union would solve all their woes.

What a crock!

When I joined Sam's Club I was trying to find a job that paid well and had a flexible schedule so I could continue my education. I also wanted to do some traveling, and having employment opportunities in other areas of the country if I decided to relocate was a major consideration.

Not only did I find that I could work a wide range of hours that fit my school and personal schedules, but Sam's management had no problem with me moving around the country just as long there was a club in the new area with a need that I could fill.

With that as a background I have been listening with a heightened level of astonishment as these TV "experts" discuss Wal-Mart's relationship to its employees, and how Wal-Mart employees are just too stupid to know there is a better life out there if only the union was involved.

What they don't talk about are all the things Wal-Mart provides in addition to flexible schedules and working conditions, those 'other' factors commonly known as benefits. The benefits were great! I may not have been able to go to the doctor with a hangnail and pay $10 for the visit, but should I have encountered an illness or injury, my medical benefits were there for me.

In addition to medical benefits, I also had a stock purchase plan which allowed me to purchase Wal-Mart stock at discounted rates. For a person in their 20s this was a gold mine. I also was able to invest in the company's profit-sharing plan.

Those are just some of the tangible benefits I received during my tenure at Wal-Mart.

One of the intangible benefits I received was the training on how to be an effective team leader/manager. It was unparalleled and provides a model that other industries certainly could use to their advantage. The training I received then still is valid in my career today.

To those who say we who work or worked at Wal-Mart are too stupid to know better I say, perhaps you need to take an updated IQ test. Then, when you see the results, sign up for some remedial training in basic business management.

Wal-Mart's critics are using the same tactics that they use against our people in the armed services - making false statements, or selecting a small sliver of data that reflects only a minuscule portion of the overall picture, but portraying that sliver as the whole.

To what end? Look what the unions have done for GM and Ford in recent years. Toyota is killing America's car manufacturers because the unions don't care about the long term. It bears noting here, that when unionized workers are laid off or go on strike, the union representatives and executives don't suffer. Their salaries are paid from workers' dues, not by the company, so when others are on strike or unemployment with reduced or no income, their union reps talk sympathetically, but they aren't the ones sacrificing.

On the corporate level, the unions simply won't let organizations do what they have to do to stay competitive. And in the culture of Wal-Mart, every cent of cost they cut directly impacts the costs of the merchandise.

Just for the sake of argument lets say the union finally gets established inside of Wal-Mart - who do you think is really going to pay for the increased costs? That's right - the employees and the consumer.

For all you pro-unionists out there, take a look at what happened when your cohorts kept going after Halliburton. They finally pulled up stakes and moved to the UAE.

Using that as an example, I would look very carefully at what can happen if you continue to target the country's LARGEST employer outside of the federal government.

Memorial Day, USA. Parades, speeches, shows of support for the troops, followed by backyard picnics, time with the family, perhaps even the beginning of vacations and summer leisure.

Well, for some of us. On this Memorial Day the family of Deborah Johns is celebrating and thanking God for her son William's safe return from Iraq. He has just finished his third tour there as a Marine and received a well-deserved hero's welcome Saturday when he arrived in San Francisco.

For my sister-in-law, my nieces, and our entire extended family, there is a different mood, as this Memorial Day marks the end of my brother-in-law David's first week in Iraq. His first tour as a U.S. Army pilot is just beginning as is the long year of waiting and worrying.

I haven't met William Johns, but we certainly know a lot about him. In March, I interviewed his mother, Deborah, for this column, and she gave us quite an insight into the pride and fear that a mother feels as a son goes to war.

As a single parent she had wanted William, who was a top-rated baseball player, to go to college on an athletic scholarship, a dream that crashed when William sat out his junior year due to an injury. That year William became interested in the military, and decided he wanted to become a Marine.

Deborah eventually signed his enlistment papers and after graduation from high school William left for boot camp, then infantry training, and ultimately was assigned to Iraq where he was a sniper.

While he was gone, on his first tour, then his second, then his third, Deborah became a vocal and active supporter for our troops and a welcome counterpoint to the negativity of the mainstream media.

She and her friend Colleen Tanenbaum organized the first meeting for Marine Moms in Northern California, she worked with her church and a local radio station holding donation drives for the troops, and she encouraged people to put yellow ribbons on their trees to support them.

News reports say that even though he has served three tours in Iraq, William still has three years to go on his enlistment and conceivably could go back again. It is my hope that he won't have to and I'm sure his family feels the same way.

Deborah's description of her son leads me to believe that he probably is very much like my brother-in-law David, and it appears there is much the two warriors share, including their faith and sense of duty to their country and freedom.

David has been in the Army for more than 20 years, both active and reserves. He has not been in combat previously, but he is not the kind of man or soldier to shirk his duty. His absence will be felt deeply, but I also know him to be the kind of man who wants to be able to look inside himself and know that he did what was necessary for his country and family when he was needed.

David is a quiet and dignified man of enormous personal character and faith, a man I consider to be a born leader, and most certainly the kind of man I would have been proud to fly with in Vietnam.

He is simply one of the most competent individuals I have ever met, has an understated sense of humor, and a way of quickly seeing through the phony trappings of life to get to the reality that lies below.

I hadn't thought he would be in the rotation to go to Iraq, but I have to also say that I wasn't all that surprised when I heard he was going. David's sense of duty and responsibility is such that he would never allow someone else to fill his slot, nor would he leave the defense of his country overall, or his family in particular, to others.

I don't know where David is assigned yet, or how to get in touch with him, but when I do you can be assured that I will be in contact with him often. I already hear regularly from Marines and other service members who are in Iraq, some serving with units I served with in Vietnam.

Their input is invaluable to understanding and appreciating all that is going on in that war zone. I am anxious to hear my brother-in-law's take on the Surge and the mission there overall. One thing I will know without question is that whatever he can tell me, within the confines of mission security, will be honest.

I have tried to put myself into David's shoes mentally and remember what my first weeks in a combat zone were like. It was blindingly hot when I got to Vietnam, a few weeks after the onset of the dry season, and I was stationed near the DMZ on a coastal plain that probably has more in common with deserts than jungles.

Sand, wind and constant oppressive heat are my memories of that time and that much I share with him. It will take him a few weeks at the least to acclimate to the heat, and then he will have to deal with work days that regularly last up to 16 hours and sometimes even longer.

He will face hours, perhaps days, of sheer boredom, interrupted by minutes of violence of a kind that even television images can't accurately portray. I have no doubt that he will rise to the challenges he faces. He is that kind of man.

Beyond that, our tours probably will have other areas of commonality, and it is my hope that when he returns we will have times to talk about these things as one veteran to another. I have always been immensely proud to have David as a brother-in-law. In fact, I have been very lucky across the board to have inherited a family full of in-laws much like him.

But a transition is underway, one which will take many months, perhaps even a year or more, and when it is completed, in addition to being my brother-in-law he will be my brother-in-arms. That is a special distinction.

Later today I will go the center of my community, join up with other veterans, and march in our annual Memorial Day Parade. I will take part in memorial services to previous generations of veterans, and listen to the speeches and the roll call of those who died fighting for us. But my mind will be elsewhere, somewhere in the sands of Iraq, where my brother-in-law has answered the call and taken up the cause of freedom.

Memorial Day, USA. Parades, speeches, backyard picnics, even the beginnings of vacations and summer leisure. For some of us.

But for many American families, represented by the two warriors I write of today, Memorial Day will forever mean something a bit different, and more precious.

For the Johns family, their warrior, who has given so much of himself for his country, so selflessly, has returned, and for now the war and the wait are over.

For David's extended family, the war and the wait have only just begun. We will be thinking of him today, as we will throughout his tour, and we will say silent prayers for his successes, his safety, and his return to his family and country.

Such is the price of war. Such is the cost of freedom.

Pamela Geller who writes the Atlas Shrugs blog - http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/ - has been hammering away for several months now on clothing stores that sell look-alike Palestinian terrorist headgear as some kind of fashion 'chic.'

I have been remiss in not following her lead more quickly, but I have seen this so-called 'fashion' wear on two occasions in recent months and while this is comparatively late, it still is worth noting.

In both cases the wearers were not unaware teen-aged twits who don't know the difference between cool and uncool. In both cases the wearers were groups of teen-aged (or young twenties) twits who knew exactly what the clothing stood for and wore it anyway.

Once was at the Gathering of Eagles in Washington, D.C., when the checkered headwear covered the empty craniums of a group of wannabe anarchists, who were also wearing black, carrying Palestinian Authority flags and had their faces masked so their parents couldn't tell it was them.

The second time was last week when a similar group gathered with the other pro-communist demonstrators at the Coast Guard Academy's graduation ceremonies in New London, Connecticut. They also wore black and again hid their faces presumably so their mommies and daddies wouldn't pull their support payments.

Teen-aged rebellion is not an unfamiliar concept to me. In fact, my father considered it one of my identifying characteristics before I left home to join the Marines. So rebelling against authority is not something I generally have a big problem with, so long as that rebellion doesn't bring harm to others and their property.

But I also was reminded last week of an incident that happened long ago in the lunch room of my elementary school when I was 10 or 11. A classmate, who had been waiting in line, turned to another boy, raised his arm in the Nazi salute and declared "Heil Hitler."

A Jewish girl who was standing a few feet away instantly dressed him down, no maybe I should say she verbally filleted him, explaining just who Hitler was, what he had done to so many people in Europe and why his name and symbols were especially reprehensible to members of the Jewish faith.

The thing was, most if not all of my classmates agreed with her, not him. That is because most of our fathers and uncles had fought in WWII, and many had been on the drive across Europe that ended for some with the liberation of the concentration camps.

The stories of those horrors were all too real and personal for schoolchildren of my generation, and the Nazi swastika was a hated symbol that wasn't even allowed to be displayed in mock 'war' games.

But now, a generation or more later, it is considered desirable in some areas to wear the clothing that emulates that worn by some of the worst butchers on the face of the earth since Hitler died and the Soviet Union fell. Why is this? What is wrong with people that their view of life is so skewed that they would openly embrace and propagandize a segment of the human population that uses murder, torture, sexism, racism and wanton abuse as tools of the trade?

The animals these young geniuses are mimicking are so lacking in basic human dignity and intelligence that they will turn on members of their own race and religion at any provocation, however slight or contrived. They attack like rabid dogs and glory in the dismembered bodies of babies and the elderly as proof of their manhood.

Their tactics and strategies are the most heinous and cowardly ever visited on the human race and yet we have children in our own country who openly copy them.

There probably are myriad reasons for this. Television violence, video game slaughter, all enjoyed with detachment that also allows participants to get up for dinner before resuming play, certainly have a part in it.

But I think there is more. The 60s spawned one of the most pampered, drugged out, egotistical, me-first generations to ever disgrace the face of the earth. To this day some of its disciples glory in statements such as "If you remember the 60s you weren't there."

Well I was there, and I wasn't wandering around in a non-stop drug induced haze that continues to this day, and I remember it pretty well, especially fighting the communists in Vietnam, as do the majority of people I have called friends over the years since.

But the children of the psychedelic generation are in many cases the children who have no sense of responsibility for their actions now. They don't relate to the carnage the terrorists spread wherever they go, because their parents can't tell them of the carnage the communists spread in the 70s - can't or don't want to, because it would be the proof of the lie that was their lives then and is their lives now.

The 60s were a wonderful time in many ways, but they also were a horrible time. And the people who thought smoking dope or injecting hallucinogens into their bodies was somehow going to make terrorism go away are the same people who brought us incurable sexually transmitted diseases, destruction of the family unit, and a third generation drug war that has wreaked havoc on our citizenry.

Unfortunately, for many of these 'Children of the 60s' their brains are so fried that they not only can't remember what they did back then, they have no idea what they are doing now.

So we get teen-aged twits who think emulating terrorists somehow makes them desirable, or even tough, although I have yet to see a one of them who could make it through military boot camp.

A friend who was with the Gathering of Eagles at both the Coast Guard Academy and DC, and who just happens to be a 3rd-degree black belt in karate, had to be restrained from teaching some of these air-headed dope fiends a lesson in reality last week, especially after they started dragging the American flag he had fought for through the dirt.

Cooler heads prevailed then, and my friend was reminded that he would be the one who ended up in jail if he kicked the crap out of the wannabe terrorists, regardless of how much they deserved it.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be anyone around to teach these punks what an 11-year-old Jewish girl so eloquently explained to a classmate in my school lunch room many years ago. Too many people have grown up in this country without having to fight even for a second for their 'rights,' and their children have no family lore on which to base their decisions on right, wrong and fashion sense.

And the real tragedy is that if the terrorists they emulate were ever to win the war we are now fighting, the first people they would torture, maim, rape, abuse and eventually kill, would be the very same idiots who think that wearing offensive clothing is a sign of solidarity.

President Bush's commencement speech at the Coast Guard Academy graduation Wednesday revealed a litany of planned terrorist attacks on the US that have been intercepted and defused before they could be executed.

Information in the speech included some that is newly declassified that gave a broad and sobering view of the intensity of ongoing Al Qaeda efforts to again breach the defenses of the United States and again unleash horror on our citizens. These include bombings, repeated use of aircraft to attack buildings and people, and efforts to poison the water supplies of our major cities.

All were real plans, all were progressing to a horrible conclusion, all were intercepted and defused by our intelligence services, the FBI, police and military. So far.

I was invited to attend the ceremonies as a member of the Connecticut GOP delegation that welcomed the president to our state, and listened closely to his account of the ongoing, behind-the-scenes efforts to keep the terrorists at bay while our troops are fighting them head-on elsewhere.

While I was at the academy, family members were watching the president on the Internet, and the reaction when I returned home was even more dramatic than what I observed on the scene. "We were given a warning," was the succinct and all-to-accurate assessment of his comments.

The huge audience at the academy, several thousand, was warmly receptive to the speech and especially the president's acknowledgement of the major role the Coast Guard plays in our nation's defense.

But I can't help wonder just how far the impact of that speech will extend. A common expression regarding the War on Terror is "The military is at war, America is at the mall."

Unfortunately this seems to be all too true, as a large percentage of our population either has concluded based on no information or false information that we have successfully thwarted the terrorist threat permanently, or that if we up and leave Iraq now there will be no further repercussions to our country.

I believe many Americans have been lulled into this false sense of security because we have been so successful on one hand and the media has been remiss in not reporting either the extent of our successes or the extent of the continued efforts by the terrorists on the other. For instance, it only recently has been reported that the anticipated, full-scale Spring Offensive by Taliban/Al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan has failed to materialize.

Why? Well because American and NATO troops have been killing terrorists, and especially their field grade commanders there with enormous success. But we don't hear too much about Taliban and Al Qaeda failures, all we hear is how many American or coalition troops have died.

As an example, according to a CNN website, casualties in Afghanistan since the 9-11 attacks are "575 coalition deaths -- 386 Americans, one Australian, 55 Britons, 54 Canadians, one Czech, three Danes, six Dutch, nine French, 21 Germans, nine Italians, one Norwegian, one Portuguese, four Romanians, one South Korean, 20 Spaniards, two Swedes - in the war on terror as of May 21, 2007." I should point out that although these numbers are supposed to be combat casualties in the Afghan theater it turns out the total includes deaths due to accidents, and even some in other areas including Kuwait and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Nonetheless, according to some reports, coalition forces have killed more than 1,000 terrorists in Afghanistan this year, which has put a major crimp in the Taliban's plans to launch any kind of major offensive.

But as American and coalition troops are fighting these maniacs, many Americans are getting really annoyed that they have to be continually reminded of this pesky War on Terror. Presidential candidates don't even want to call it what it is, a War on Terror. They want to come up with some inane, sound-bite, bumper sticker slogan that makes it appear to be different and less dangerous than what it is.

Unfortunately, some Americans in the most unlikely of places are buying into this nonsense. While I was inside the Coast Guard Academy a group of protesters, sponsored by the pro-communist coalition A.N.S.W.E.R, was outside on one corner of the street leading directly to the main gate, touting the downfall of capitalism, sporting terrorist-chic clothing, and dragging American flags in the dirt.

Fortunately, a similar-sized crowd of veterans, organized by Connecticut Gathering of Eagles liaison and former Marine James Bancroft, was on the other side of the street offering an opposing viewpoint. News reports said there were more pro-communist, pro-terrorist supporters than veterans, but Bancroft obviously was far better prepared tactically and had obtained permits that enabled the veterans to extend from the corner of the street more than a hundred yards right to the main gate.

Carloads of families and friends coming in to attend the ceremonies had a brief encounter with the pro-communists, but an extended encounter with the veterans. Good move on Bancroft's part. After the ceremonies had ended, the veterans, as usual, cleaned up after themselves, while the A.N.S.W.E.R. protesters left graffiti including defacing the main sign at the entrance to the academy.

Between the graffiti, the high school kids in terrorist headgear and masks, which really upset the platoons of police on the scene, and the abuse of the American flag, it is hard to find any validity to their viewpoints. The support for communist criminals like Che Guevera and speeches calling for an end to capitalism give a true indication of the intent of the alleged "anti-war, anti-Bush" protesters.

Yet, a person sitting near me claimed that the people outside the gate were well meaning, mainstream Americans who were legitimately exercising their right to free speech. I see. I guess wearing clothing that mimics and celebrates terrorist organizations who routinely murder, torture and rape civilians as a military tactic, carrying signs celebrating communist criminals, and dragging upside down American flags in the dirt are appropriate displays of the "New Patriotism." I must have missed the memo on that.

I'm glad Jim Bancroft, the American Legion Riders and hundreds of other veterans and their supporters lined the street into the academy. If the rag tag, anti-American anti-democracy forces on the other side are indicative of some people's definition of 'mainstream' America, it is clear that another point of view is necessary.

President Bush opened up to America on Wednesday and those who were listening received a rare and while disturbing, nonetheless welcome insight into the information he sees every single day. It would be good for our country if more Americans look up his speech on the Internet and take the time to study what was revealed.

While I appreciate the opportunity to learn more about the daily status of the war against us, one thing in the president's speech that I found technically correct still needs comment. He said, accurately, that one big difference between the War on Terror and the Vietnam War is that back then we were fighting an enemy that could not, and did not intend to invade the US.

Now, we are fighting an enemy that already has shown it intends to and can attack us in our own homes.

Technically that is correct. North Vietnam couldn't invade us here. But North Vietnam was only one piece of the encroaching communism puzzle. I would invite the president's speech writers to take a map of the world as it existed prior to 1917, and then decade by decade from 1917 until 1965 color in all the countries that had fallen to communist domination in red.

Then make a bar graph of the percentage of the world population that was also enslaved by the communists, decade by decade, with a sidebar also showing the continents where communism was making inroads. What you will have is a very visible and very dramatic display of just how far and how fast communism was progressing in its drive to take over the world.

North Vietnam may not have been able to invade the US. But communism, like Islamo-fascism, was driven not by one country, but by ideologues, who respected neither national boundaries, nor international law. Communism was on its way and we now know that even the US had been infiltrated, in our media, our state department, our universities, and our Congress.

Whether North Vietnamese agents would have launched the eventual attack on us is not relevant. What is relevant is that an attack was coming, sooner or later, and the US government decided back then to make a stand in Vietnam before we had to make a stand in New York City.

As a result of having to divert enormous percentages of their resources to Vietnam for more than a decade, the seeds were sown for the ultimate bankruptcy of the Soviet Union, which was the outcome we had wanted.

What the downfall of the Soviet Union showed was that communism was beatable, if we stayed strong and united in our determination to fight it. Many Americans from the 1930s through the 1970s tried to portray communism as a benign economic system that actually was far better than capitalism, much as a speaker outside the Coast Guard Academy claimed on Wednesday.

The truth was that communism was not much different than the terrorism we are facing today, and in practice it was a repressive, brutal governmental system that merely replaced the old forms of government with a new, more controlling, more deadly form.

It would be hard to find a more terrible form of government than communism, but I believe the terrorist have found it. One significant difference between the communists and the terrorists is that the communists didn't believe in any deity, thus they didn't willingly go out on the battlefield to commit suicide.

There were some enemy suicide squads in Vietnam, but no more or less than you will find in any military at war.

But the Islamo-fascists believe in a deity that rewards slaughter, and promises an unbelievably unlikely paradise to its adherents, especially if they blow themselves up to further the cause.

It will be hard to defeat the terrorists, just like it was hard to defeat the communists in the Cold War. But it can be done, if America stays focused, united and aware.

President Bush did his part at the Coast Guard Academy. He told America the truth, he opened up the parts of the files that he could and gave us a glimpse of what he sees every day.

The issue in this case is not President Bush. The issue is just how many people still think A.N.S.W.E.R. represents mainstream America, and whether the rest of the population will wake up and pay attention, or just head off to the mall.

The taxpayer-funded Public Broadcasting Service has censored conservative San Francisco radio talk host Melanie Morgan, and banned her from future appearances, after she stood up to and refused to be bullied by a liberal male guest on the News Hour show earlier this month.

PBS claims that Morgan was banned due to viewer complaints that she was "rude" to her opponent on the segment, because she interrupted him four times. But a review of the transcript shows that interruptions were a two-way street, as they are on many such formats, and that her opponent interrupted Ms. Morgan an equal number of times without rebuke or penalty.

In the fantasy world of equality for the sexes, supposedly a bastion of left-leaning outlets such as PBS, the diminutive Ms. Morgan's refusal to be cowed by a larger and presumably stronger male guest would have been seen as a triumph for feminism. But if there were any lingering doubts about the moral bankruptcy of the feminist movement, and the left in general, after its tepid reaction to the myriad sexual abuse scandals during the Clinton administration, the decision to to ban Ms. Morgan is obviously the final nail in liberal feminism's coffin.

The scenario that led to Ms. Morgan's censorship was a debate on News Hour between her and Jon Soltz, co-founder and chair of VoteVets.org, an organization that supports withdrawing from Iraq.

Soltz served as an Army captain in Iraq for about four months in 2003, and says he speaks for veterans of the War on Terror. Soltz said that his organization "is the leading political organization in America of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. And not only do we represent thousands of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, but we represent over 40,000 veterans and support our veterans across the nation.

And we're working as part of a much larger coalition, Americans against Escalation in Iraq, which represents many, you know, base organizations, the Center for American Progress, MoveOn.org, and so forth."

Since approximately 1.4 million servicemen and women have served in Afghanistan and Iraq since the terrorist attacks of 9-11 it is apparent that even including veterans from other eras, Soltz's power base amounts to less than 4 percent of all who have served in the War on Terror.

By contrast, Ms. Morgan chairs Move America Forward, which represents "over a million people who belong to our organization, which is the largest pro-American, pro-troop organization in the United States. And we are a group that speaks loudly for the military families, Gold Star family members who still support the war, who still support the president, and our efforts to stabilize Iraq, and the global war on terror ..."

But numbers aren't the issue here. The issue is that Ms. Morgan gave as good as she got on the show, stood her ground, refused to be bullied and as a result has been censored. Apparently conservative women are welcome on the News Hour only when they are demure, keep their eyes downcast, their voices barely above a whisper, their hands folded in their laps with a lace hanky handy to dab their eyes when they are suitably chastened, and adhere to the approved propaganda line instead of having a mind of their own.

When a man speaks she is supposed to be quiet, when a man disagrees with her she is supposed to immediately recognize the error of her ways, and above all she is never, ever, to disagree or be reproachful to any man, any time, but especially in public.

Shame on Melanie Morgan. Considering that she grew up in a very liberal family, and has spent her entire career in journalism and broadcasting, I bet she actually believed the leftist ideologues who said she could aspire to the American Dream with every bit as much fervor as her male counterparts. I bet she believed in the dictates of feminism as espoused by left-wing role models.

Really, she should have known better. (You, dear reader, do get the sarcasm and irony dripping from the previous paragraph, right?)

The arguments that were presented on PBS the night the lights went out on feminism are pretty well known to those who follow the American political scene. Soltz wants the US out of Iraq, has no use for George Bush, and supports withdrawal ala John Murtha, a former Marine Vietnam War hero whose derring-do and courageous battlefield exploits have made him the leading expert in Congress on the War on Terror. (Yes, more sarcasm.)

Ms. Morgan supports the Surge, the ongoing offensive in Iraq, and wants us to leave when we are victorious. I should point out, however, that on her morning radio show on KSFO in San Francisco, which can be heard on the Internet as well as on Bay Area radios, she and co-host Lee Rodgers have been highly critical of President George Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, not to mention his stance on immigration.

As the co-author with Catherine Moy of the acclaimed book American Mourning: The Intimate Story of Two Families Joined by War, Torn by Beliefs she is more than a little familiar with the issues surrounding the war in Iraq and its impact on America. As a featured speaker and highly visible backer of the Gathering of Eagles in Washington, D.C., on March 17, who has donated her services and even her own money on occasion to support worthy veterans' causes, Morgan comes to the table with considerable credentials.

Yet, when she stands up for her beliefs on the taxpayer-funded Public Broadcasting Service she is immediately slapped down, told to mind her place, which apparently is several steps behind any man who holds differing opinions, and banned from future appearances.

What are they saying? Apparently a young man with obvious political aspirations on the left side of town can portray himself as speaking on behalf of veterans, and that is acceptable to PBS.

But a woman who speaks for an organization with a documented million-plus supporters is not allowed to disagree with the aforementioned young man without being banned from the taxpayer supported public airwaves.

Hello censorship, pleased to meet you propaganda, goodbye feminism. Considering the way Morgan was treated we should probably be thankful the powers-that-be at PBS merely said she was disrespectful instead of calling her a bitch. I mean, that is the left-side code word for a woman who has strong opinions, and has the temerity to challenge a male, right?

I read the transcript of the exchange on PBS and the one thing I did not see was anything remotely resembling disrespect or disinformation coming from Morgan. What I saw was a woman who has opinions diametrically opposed to those of the featured guest, that being a male who served in the armed forces, and the confidence to meet said male veteran head on, issue by issue, with no backing down and no waffling.

Well, we certainly can't have that now can we?

Ms. Morgan said on the Hannity and Colmes show Monday night, May 21, that she wants a public apology from the show's producer. Morgan said she had several phone conversations with the producer prior to the show and was told that it was going to be a no-holds-barred, gloves off confrontation and to come prepared. So she did.

An apology may be enough for Melanie Morgan. But the public that pays the salaries of the propagandists on the News Hour and other PBS shows deserves far more.

It is time for Congress to stop the merry-go-round hearings displaying Democrats' dislike for our first Hispanic Attorney General and let Alberto Gonzales get back to doing his job. My first suggestion would be a full-scale investigation of PBS funding and expenditures to determine whether any improprieties exist.

That should be joined by a FCC investigation into whether taxpayer's were deceived into supporting a political propaganda outlet when they thought it was a non-political source of information.

And besides the apology that Ms. Morgan is due, the producer of the show should be fired.

I have said in this space on other occasions that I realize I may not be able to change the world, but I can tend to business in my own back yard. So, while the fat cats and power brokers at PBS may not care about my opinion, I can have an impact in my area.

I have supported PBS programs in the past, but as of now, any future support I may have considered for Connecticut Public Television, which carries the News Hour, will be diverted elsewhere. And it will stay diverted until the News Hour producer is sent packing.

One spinoff of the highly successful Gathering of Eagles in Washington D.C. on March 17, where some 30,000 veterans turned out to stand vigil over the national war memorials and show support for our troops, is a system of regional organizations that are carrying on the work of the original gathering.

Veterans and our supporters have already organized vigils and counter-demonstrations in places where the far-left, pro-terrorist, pro-communist, pro-socialists have previously gathered with impunity to spew their messages of hatred and opposition to democracy.

This Wednesday, May 23, veterans from through New England and further will be gathering at the Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut, to cheer on the graduating cadets, and to give their friends and relatives a vision of support when they arrive for the ceremonies.

The pro-communist group A.N.S.W.E.R (you can look them up on the Internet if you wish, I'm not giving them any more space here) has also taken out a permit to demonstrate at the academy. It isn't by chance that President George W. Bush is the commencement speaker, of course, but the pro-terrorist groups are making a huge tactical error by using a graduation ceremony at one of the country's service academies to voice their hatred of the president and democracy.

Many of the protesters claim that they support the troops, but oppose the war and the president, but their decision to stage a demonstration at the Academy shows the hypocrisy of those statements. There is no way they can stand outside the academy gate spewing anti-American hatred and claim that they aren't attempting to disrupt troop morale.

It never ceases to amaze me that people who live their lives under the sheltering umbrella of democracy, and owe the very freedoms they abuse to the troops who defend them, are the loudest in their denunciations of the military.

I don't care if someone has differences of opinion with George Bush. I have my own differences of opinion with some of his decisions, not all, but some, and that is one of the beauties of democracy. I can say so, I can write it here, I can email my friends, I can go stand on a street corner and spout off if I want.

But I don't have to infringe on others to make my voice and my opinions known. I wouldn't take my ideas, however mild or extreme they might be, to the doorstep of a service academy on graduation day, which is no more than an obvious attempt to smear what should otherwise be a proud moment for the grads and their families.

There is a special place in the hearts of many in New England, with its seafaring tradition, for the Coast Guard, and I have a personal reason for sharing that feeling. Two decades ago, when I was a journalist, I spent a couple of days out on the North Atlantic on an 80-foot Coast Guard boat, during a patrol that was participating in Operation Grunion, intercepting boats smuggling drugs into New England.

The captain's chair in the wheelhouse was 17 feet above the waterline, and the reason I remember this is that the seas were at 18 feet and rising, meaning every time we went down in the trough between waves, we couldn't see over their tops. I had ridden out two typhoons during my time in the Marines, one in the Pacific and one in the South China Sea, both times on LPHs, helicopter carriers, so I wasn't exactly unfamiliar with rough seas.

But riding the roller coaster of a North Atlantic storm in an 80-foot Coast Guard cutter on patrol is an experience all its own.

LPHs aren't huge ships, but they were a hell of a lot bigger than the patrol boats and cutters the Coast Guard calls home. I didn't get seasick on that ride, but I still came away at the end of the patrol with a wider and deeper appreciation for the "Coasties" and their capabilities.

So when I heard that New England veterans associated with the GOE were going down to New London to stick up for our newest generation of soon-to-be veterans, I didn't hesitate to sign on.

I don't care that people want to voice their disagreements with the President, and I also don't believe we should be showing up every place they do to counter them. That kind of thing gets old pretty quickly and this isn't about silencing free speech.

But just as we had good reason, based on their own comments, to believe that ANSWER and its affiliates intended to deface our memorials in DC, and would have if they could have gotten through the police and the veterans, I also believe that protesting a graduation at a service academy is shameful and boorish.

Parents who have supported their children through college, and most certainly also are dealing with their own private fears and concerns over the next duty station their grads will attend, should not have their day besmirched by a bunch of people who do an awful lot of talking, but very little in the way of real performance. By that I mean, when was the last time you saw an American leftist pulling up stakes to permanently relocate to a communist country?

Yeah, me too. Right around the never mark on the American history timeline. Lots of talk in those groups, but very little direct action. Maybe they do study their own history and are acutely aware of how many people like themselves end up in labor camps or in front of a firing squad in countries the communists control. But obviously, aside from talking and showing that their upbringings were lacking, they never seem to want to experience the communist Utopias in person.

So the pro-communists, pro-terrorist people will shout their slogans, and carry their signs, but as in DC, there will plenty of evidence that another point of view exists as well. I don't expect to see 30,000 veterans at the academy Wednesday, but the major veterans organizations, including the Connecticut American Legion department and Veterans of Foreign Wars have been active in publicizing the gathering, as has the Marine Corps League, and the American Legion Riders.

It should be an interesting event. I'll be the guy with the sign that says USMC Salutes USCG - Semper Peratus, Semper Fidelis.