A close associate has pointed out to me that even though we are waging war in two countries and have toppled two governments in response to the September 11, 2001 attack on our country, it is likely that in the past two decades illegal aliens from Mexico have committed more crimes, harmed more people, destroyed more property and cost our economy far more than the 9-11 tragedy.

While that attack was concentrated in both space and time, thus highly visible and creating more of an impact on the American psyche, the long-term damage to our country and citizens from the influx of illegal aliens is more subtle, but ultimately far more dangerous, he notes.

Thus, it only makes sense, based on our past actions against Islamo-terrorists, that we should attack the country that is sending the most illegal aliens into the United States, that being Mexico.

As my associate puts it, "After the September 11 attacks our economy lost 1,000,000 jobs, billions in damages, and some 3000 people murdered.

"If we look at the illegal immigration issue as it stands today, we have an invasion force of between 10-20 million people. The physical damage and economic impact to towns, cities and states along the border is in the billions, and that doesn't even address the crime issues, especially in areas with high drug and gang activity. So why haven't we toppled Mexico's government yet using the same logic?"

He further points out that the 10-20 million illegals, some with no skills, are free to roam the country and do as they please, but try getting in legally on an H1-B visa. That visa, for skilled workers, requires a company sponsor, but if workers on those visas lose their jobs, they also lose their right to be in this country.

Based on all the inequities in the current system it is obvious that something needs to be done and right now! So war just might be the solution.

Declaring war on Mexico also would provide us with an opportunity to redress some centuries old grievances. It is fashionable among some so-called, self-anointed 'leaders' in the Hispanic community to claim that the United States 'stole' the American southwest from Mexico, and thus modern-day Mexicans have a right to invade and 'reclaim' that area for Mexico.

Some American politicians are saying the same thing. (I was going to call them 'stupid' American politicians, but that would be redundant.)

Considering the fact that the American Southwest and California were sold to the US by the Mexican government, and the fact that it was less land for the same money as the Louisiana Purchase, and that vast tracts of that land were inaccessible mountains and inhospitable desert, nobody 'stole' anything, except perhaps the Mexican government, which put a major bait and switch over on America.

We got a far better deal with the Louisiana Purchase that included some of the most arable land in the continental United States, portions of at least three major navigable rivers, plus access to the western Great Lakes, and I don't hear the French complaining about it. Do you?

So let's get real here.

There is however, one fly in the ointment, so to speak, but one which could provide the key to the entire issue, the Gadsden Purchase.

The Gadsden Purchase was worked out between the government of Mexico, and the US Congress in 1853 to settle ongoing border disputes between the two countries. It was a tract of land along the southern border of what is now New Mexico and Arizona.

Congress couldn't agree on how much land to authorize in the purchase, due to concerns about the looming Civil War and whether the new lands would be pro- or anti-slavery. Also, the biggest reason behind the purchase, aside from definitively setting the border between the US and Mexico, was to provide a workable route for a southern transcontinental railroad, running from New Orleans to the Pacific, parallel to the Union Pacific route across the plains further north.

For a number of reasons, it was never built, probably because so few people live in the region even now that it would have been a money loser from the get-go.

Citizens of Mexico weren't very happy about the Gadsden Purchase, for starters because they didn't get all the money they agreed to - a million dollars of what was sent to Mexico literally 'went south' along the way and never showed up for delivery.

It has been a point of contention for a century and a half, although no one who was alive back then is still with us, and no one alive now was actually involved in the issue from either side. (I shouldn't have to say that, but judging from the rhetoric I see on the immigration issue it is obvious that we need to put this all in perspective on occasion.)

So, with that as a basis here is my plan. First we declare war on Mexico.

Then we get the Democrats in the US Congress to bemoan the state of the American military, and get their public relations firm, the leftist mainstream American media, to run thousands of front page stories about the military being spread too thin to actually do any fighting in Mexico.

Then we call for a cessation of 'hostilities,' and initiate 'diplomacy' to break the 'deadlock.' Then we import some real, first-rate genius-type State Department negotiators, hopefully some leftovers from the jimmy carter era. Remember, those are the guys who gave away the Panama Canal, stranded Taiwan, and helped set up the Islamic-fascist republic in Iran.

In quick order they emerge from their negotiations with a 'breakthrough' announcement.

We agree to cease hostilities, and Mexico agrees to stop sending 'enemy combatants, spies and troops' across our border. We agree to give a strip of land along the southern edge of the original Gadsden Purchase back to Mexico, equivalent in value - in today's dollars - to the $1 million that was never paid in 1853. (Any American citizens within the area who don't want to become part of the expanded Mexico will be compensated for their losses at the rate of $100,000 per acre, plus all relocation expenses.)

Then, and here is where it really gets good, we declare all illegal Mexican aliens currently in the US to be Prisoners of War. We immediately begin a roundup of all POWs, with the full cooperation of the Mexican government, with the stated purpose of allowing them to go back home without penalty.

Since the Gadsden Purchase was supposed to be a railroad route, obviously there is plenty of land there that is perfect for laying down some tracks. We take about 300,000 of the most able bodied illegal aliens - excuse me, POWs - and put them to work building a spur from the Columbus, San Antonio and Rio Grande RR route, down through the territory in question and back up again. Track for the Union Pacific went down at the rate of a mile a day back in the 1800s, with no modern machinery and far less labor. We should be able to ten times better today.

Then the President of the United States issues an emergency executive order under his wartime powers authority, to take as many empty Amtrak passenger cars as necessary - I figure about 10,000 would be good - the nice ones with plush seats, rest rooms and air conditioning, and we start taking the POWs home in style.

The American military will provide self-contained meals, like the ones our troops eat, and down in the newly expanded country of Mexico the International Red Cross will set up a vast sea of tents housing living quarters, administrative offices, medical facilities and processing rooms to help everyone move expeditiously back to their home of origin.

If we take 24 trains a day, one every hour, with 50 cars per train, and 60 passengers per car, we can help return 72,000 POWs each and every day. That means a million every two weeks. That means in just six months we would have the issue under control, or at least well on its way toward resolution, depending on just how many illegal aliens are actually in the country and how many of them are Mexican POWs! Oh, and only the southern facing doors on the passengers cars will be able to open, just so no one gets off on the wrong side and in the confusion heads north instead of south.

Now, tell me we haven't come up with a workable solution to an unimaginably complex problem here. (For the record, it isn't me or most of the rest of mainstream Americans who think it's unimaginably complex. But Congress does, which tells you all you need to know about the American Congress as it stands at the moment.)

Yes, I think we have found it. A solution that works out in everyone's best interest, and should even have John Kerry glowing about our new found friends and respect in the international community. It will cost some money up front, but by this time next year we should be seeing major benefits, and best of all we won't have to listen to all the crying and whining from Congress about how hard they are working on finding a solution to the immigration issue.

Could someone please pass this along to John McCain?

A video making the rounds on the Internet, titled Aztlan, shows immigration demonstrators in the United States, carrying a sea of Mexican flags and rallying for the 'rights' of illegal immigrants. Aside from the hypocrisy of breaking United States immigration laws and then claiming to have 'rights,' what is truly astounding is the sound track.

The narrative includes segments of speeches given by Hispanic government leaders in California, and Hispanic college professors in California and Texas. Their message is twofold: first, "White" America is dying off and Americans of Hispanic descent should breed like rabbits so they will eventually gain numerical superiority; and, second, that all of the American Southwest and California actually belonged to Mexico, was forcibly taken by the United States, and therefore should be retaken by force.

On one hand the commentary is horribly uninformed, on the other it is abysmally stupid.

The uninformed part is that Southwest America is the rightful motherland of all Mexican descendants.

The truth is that until the 1500s what is now known as Mexico was the domain primarily of the Aztecs, and the remainder of the Southwest and California was home to other indigenous American tribes. Many scientists believe they had been here since at least the last Ice Age, which ended some 10,000 years ago, during which the Bering Land Bridge provided a direct route to the Americas from Asia.

That arrangement went on uninterrupted for thousands of years after global warming melted the glaciers, swamping the land bridge and isolating the Americas. (Sorry, can't blame that one on George Bush, he wasn't involved.)

The Aztecs and other tribes carved out their territories, and established societies, lasting until Cortez the Killer came ashore in the 1500s bringing war, disease and devastation to the entire region. Spanish Conquistadors travelled throughout the area conquering tribes, forcing them into slavery, and laying waste to their homes, families and societies. Terrific record, wouldn't you say?

Then came the Mexican War - Remember the Alamo? - which ended in 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. In that treaty, signed by the United States and Mexico, what became the American Southwest was SOLD to the US by Mexico, for $15 million, in addition to the US agreeing to absorb another $3 million in debts owed by the Mexican government.

Considering the condition of much of that land - arid desert and unusable mountains - I'd say that Mexico came out way ahead, far more so than the French who four decades earlier had SOLD the Louisiana Purchase - much larger and containing the Mississippi River - to the United States also for $15 million.

Based on the arguments the Hispanic leaders are using to call for the return of the American Southwest, Mexico had no rightful claim to it in the first place, since it was taken through force, and has no claim to it now since it was sold through agreement by both governments.

Now let's get to the stupid part.

One of the primary reasons many immigrants, legal and otherwise, come to the United States is to escape oppression, crime, squalor, illiteracy, unemployment, scarcity of resources and hopelessness, all of which directly result from the number one affliction facing the human race - overpopulation.

They come here first and foremost for opportunities - opportunities to build homes, families, careers and meaningful lives. They can do this because democracy and capitalism provide opportunities limited only by the boundaries of the human mind.

To do this there has to be a manageable population that provides sufficient skilled and educated workers to supply the goods and services that drive our economy, but not so many people that the labor supply exceeds the labor need, resulting in high unemployment.

The surest way to upset this delicate balance is to suddenly flood the country with people who either have no skills, or who have skills for which there isn't sufficient demand. Then you get unemployment, followed by crime, squalor, and hopelessness in an ever downward spiral. That is why there are controls on immigration, and why immigrants to this country are supposed to be able to show that they can make a contribution, not just come here and live off the labors of others.

To actively preach that the way to emancipation is through overpopulation is stupid, just plain stupid.

And while we're on the subject of numbers, let's take a look at the commonly held political 'wisdom' concerning the Hispanic vote. First and foremost, to lump everyone of Hispanic descent into one voting block is to engage in stereotyping and at least latent racism.

To say that someone is of Hispanic descent and imply that it means a similar background, heritage, and political persuasion is akin to saying someone is of Asian or European descent and thus thinks, acts and votes like all others of the same heritage.

The Japanese have a different culture than the Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, and so on. Europeans can be as diverse as the difference between Scandinavia and Greece for instance, and Hispanics also come from a wide range of geographical and societal origins.

For that matter, Spaniards can also be classified as Europeans, so where does that leave us?

In terms of a voting bloc, to say that 'Hispanics' all vote the same way is to ignore the differences in priorities between say Cubans, Filipinos, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and Colombians, to name just a few. They have a language and genetic background in common, but then, so do many white people who speak English. But socially and politically there also are myriad differences.

I know this from personal experience because one of my five or six best friends I had in the Marines was of Hispanic descent, Mexican actually, who lived in Texas. Our backgrounds has more similarities than differences and we saw the political world in a similar light.

When my unit from Vietnam was planning a reunion 20 years after we served there, the first trip I made to see a long-lost brother-in-arms was to his home in Texas. His mom had moved to this country when she was young, and had clung to her language and customs, but her children were Americans first and foremost. (She also could cook Mexican specialties with a flair you'll never find in chain restaurants - but that is another story.)

Even after 20 years we still shared similar political philosophies, although I did find one major difference. To stay in shape he played tennis while I lifted weights and took Tae Kwon Do. Everything else was pretty much the same though. But I also remember him debating political matters with others of Hispanic descent who didn't see things the way he did. Thus to assume that all voters classified as Hispanic will vote the same way is naive, and a sure way to lose an election.

Also, even though voters who classify themselves as 'Hispanic' may be the fastest growing demographic in the country, they still account for only about one-eighth of the total population. Even if every single Hispanic woman in the country gives birth to a child tomorrow it still will be a generation before they are old enough to vote.

Do you know what they call second-generation immigrants in America? Americans.

Know why? Assimilation.

Kids go to American schools, even if they still speak their native tongue, learn the ways of capitalism - by absorption if not through schooling - see the opportunities open to them, and by and large move toward turning those opportunities into realities.

To say that in 40 years voters of Hispanic descent will be the largest demographic in the United States is not only fortune telling, it is irrelevant. We have no idea what events will transpire between then and now to make or break that prediction, we only have the snapshot of time labelled 'now,' to judge by, and that snapshot can change in a heartbeat.

Voters who are two or three generations removed from the country of their parents' or grandparents' birth are going to be far more concerned with what is going on in their neighborhood and their lives, than in what is happening in the 'old country.'

But politicians on the local and national stages still fall into this trap, and they forget that the next election is still in the 'now' category, not two generations in the future. The 87.5 percent of Americans who are not of Hispanic descent are the biggest demographic by a mile, and all indications over the past several years are that as a voting block, they are fed up with pandering politicians and political 'leaders' who preach divisiveness and racism as a means to their own limited, personal goals.

Want a prediction that has a better than even shot at coming true? The presidential candidate who has the strength of character and fortitude to stand up and say he will enforce existing immigration laws, complete the fencing and take other 'real' border enforcement actions on the southern border, deport illegals, and clamp down on employers who provide jobs for them, is the candidate who will get elected by a landslide.

Meanwhile, we get 'leaders' who push pandering speeches and mindless videos that do nothing to improve the fortunes of their compatriots, nor to solve the overall issue of immigration control. Which leaves us asking, are they horribly uninformed, or stupid for making those statements and distributing those videos?

Or are they deliberately misrepresenting the facts to foster stereotypes and create divisiveness that does nothing for their ethnicity, and only gives them a lucrative moment in the spotlight, at the long-term expense of the Hispanic community they claim to represent?

I have been up front right from the start that the primary reason I write this column is to draw readers to my website, where if they find my observations interesting, they may also decide to purchase a copy of my book Masters of the Art, A Fighting Marine's Memoir of Vietnam. That is marketing.

But to take one step back from the present, I wrote Masters of the Art in the first place to help offset the negative press that Vietnam vets were saddled with, thanks in large part to John Kerry and his friends at the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. I wanted readers to get a good look at real people who really served, what they accomplished in Vietnam, and how the US government sabotaged what we did over there, setting the stage for millions of civilian deaths at the hands of the communists.

Recently, as our troops fight the War on Terror, it has become obvious that some people who were responsible for the fall of Saigon in 1975 are still in government and trying to do the same thing to today, especially in Iraq.

So Masters of the Art has become a blueprint that shows what will happen on the world stage if Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Murtha, Reid, Clinton, Obama, Kissinger and their cohorts weren't challenged and stopped.

Based on those preconditions, I rarely mention other books here because that is not the purpose of this site. But occasionally I find a book or an author who has a message that I believe should be passed along, and I put that rule aside for the moment.

Today is one of those days, primarily because the subject matter of a new book An Enormous Crime by by Bill Hendon and Elizabeth Stewart, is American POWs who were left behind after Henry Kissinger and the US Congress approved the Paris Peace Accords and declared that all POWS had come home in 1973.

That subject has been close to my heart for decades. I wrote about it in the 80s and 90s when I was a journalist and I have always believed that some of our people were left behind, especially after former Marine POW Bobby Garwood emerged from Hanoi in 1979 - and was promptly screwed over by the US Government.

In An Enormous Crime, Hendon and Stewart make the case that our government knowingly left hundreds of POWs in Vietnam and Laos in 1973, and that every administration since then has covered it up. The authors say the government was caught in a series of lies because billions of dollars in war reparations were demanded by the Vietnamese and promised by Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon at the Paris Peace talks, but were never delivered.

The POWs were bargaining chips to ensure that the money was paid as promised, and when it wasn't the POWs were left at the mercy of the communists. That is not a new story, it has been around ever since the 70s, but the media has conveniently ignored it for the most part.

Now, however, in addition to compiling a mountain of evidence that has been rumbling around underneath the Mainstream Media radar for decades, An Enormous Crime also implicates Arizona Sen. John McCain, presidential candidate and the ultimate Vietnam veteran, for aiding in a decades long cover up that strikes right at the heart of everything that matters to American veterans.

As a close friend and fellow Marine Vietnam veteran said to me after reading about this latest release, "If this is true, why would anyone ever again want to join the military and defend this country?"

Why indeed?

For three decades now we in the Vietnam Veteran community have focused our anger on John Kerry and the lying, manipulating phonies who joined him in the VVAW. And rightfully so. Kerry obviously had an agenda when he went to Vietnam, filmed his 'heroic' exploits, phonied up his awards, and then deliberately sabotaged his country and his fellow veterans by staging phony 'testimony' that branded us as sociopaths.

So few of the alleged 'veterans' who joined the VVAW and 'testified' to their war crimes while in combat were actually Vietnam veterans, they should have named the organization the Wannabe Vietnam Veterans Against the War. The media never made much of that little issue then or now, however, and there still are many who believe without question all the worst that they hear about Vietnam vets, thanks to Kerry.

But while our attention was focused on Kerry, another question also should have been asked. What if one of our own, and especially one of the most visible and respected of our number, was up to his eyeballs in burying evidence that American POWs were still alive in Southeast Asia and trying desperately, even after all this time, to get our attention so they too could finally come home?

What if John McCain was saying publicly that the Vietnam War is over and to put it behind us, knowing all along that for some it is not and never will be?

This again is not the first time this allegation has surfaced. For instance, back in 1992 in an article on McCain in the U.S. Veteran Dispatch, writer Ted Sampley stated that of all the members serving on the Senate Select Committee on POW and MIA Affairs, "None ... have been as vicious in their attacks on POW/MIA family members and activists than the man behind the mask of war hero, former POW, and patriotic United States Senator."

That article has resurfaced recently, and I have seen some McCain supporters react strongly against it. That is fine by me, as long as the reaction is based on evidence that the article was inaccurate, rather than an emotional attachment to the Senator.

For the record, I have long been a John McCain supporter and had planned on working on his 2000 campaign as a volunteer in the Tampa Bay area when I lived in Florida. He never made it there, as we all know, but I have met him since, and other Vietnam vets I know and respect in the political arena are closely aligned with him.

But that only means it is even more of a requirement that he face this issue squarely and honestly, and let those of us who have supported him over the years know just what has been going on - in an open arena, where he can be queried and his responses can be analyzed and challenged if necessary.

I supported the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth when they put the pressure on John Kerry to explain his actions - or lack of them - in Vietnam, as well as his actions and lies after Vietnam. I believe their cause was just, their participation in the political process was honorable and necessary, and thanks to them the real John Kerry was exposed for all to see and judge.

People such as Kerry and McCain who are vying for the position of President of the United States must understand that we have a right as American citizens to know who they are for real, not just the public relations version their campaign staffs want us to know about. If Kerry can be held up to scrutiny, so can, and so should, McCain.

The overwhelming majority of Vietnam veterans I have met over the years have put their service into perspective, and have gone on to productive lives. But we also have many lingering questions and solidly formed opinions about what we did, and what people like Kissinger and Kerry did to us.

Kerry's VVAW membership, his lies about our service, his support of world communism, all are hotly debated in some quarters, even to this day.

Some say let it lie, let it go, it is in the past and bringing it up again does no one any good. But we are again engaged in a divisive war and Kerry is again at the forefront of those who would cut the legs out from under our troops even as they are fighting against an enemy that can, will, and has attacked us on our own shores.

Opponents to the War on Terror use many of the same phrases and tactics as the opponents to the Vietnam War used, and no wonder - many are the same people. Our troops are falsely accused of atrocities, jailed even, when the evidence says otherwise, they are labelled as fighting a battle that can't be won even as they win victory after victory, and efforts in Congress to nullify their successes continue daily, just as they did during Vietnam.

But we have the history of Vietnam to show what will happen if we let Congress decided the conduct of our nation's defense. Kerry claimed in a debate with Swift Boat Veteran John O'Neill on the Dick Cavett show in 1970 that if we left Vietnam to the communists there would be "no blood bath."

Could he possibly have been more wrong? The US government's refusal to intervene to prevent the carnage that raged over Southeast Asia after the fall of Saigon stands as one of the most egregious and reprehensible moments of cowardice ever displayed by the United States Congress.

Many just turned their heads and looked the other way, preferring to mouth the mantra that it was inevitable, when in fact it was all too preventable.

Outside of governmental circles I still see former members of the VVAW, especially those who really were sick of war and wanted something better in its place, explaining their actions then as youthful indiscretions. I understand their quest for peace, but I can't approve of their actions then, nor their refusal to acknowledge even today the travesty that was brought down on America's military and the millions of Southeast Asians as a result of the VVAW's treachery.

It would be relatively simple for a former VVAW member to put that issue to rest, however. Recant and repent.

Acknowledge that what Kerry and the other VVAW leaders did then was treasonous and ultimately fatal to millions. Apologize for supporting them then, and use the knowledge gained from observing their methods of manipulation to ensure that a similar scenario doesn't play out today in the Middle East.

That, I believe, is an honest and effective approach that would put an end to most debates on the issue.

Kerry obviously will never recant, nor repent. He had his chance during the 2004 campaign, and wouldn't acknowledge that what he did was wrong.

McCain on the other hand, still has opportunities to deal with the looming issue of what happened to America's POWs from the Vietnam War. There must be a definitive answer to whether we ransomed the lives of more than 300 patriotic American military men who went to fight for their country.

An Enormous Crime says our government did just that - ransomed them and betrayed them - and John McCain knew it.

These men fought for our country believing that if they were captured we would do all in our power to secure their release. If our government did not live up to that requirement because a handful of politicians and bureaucrats considered it politically expedient for the moment to betray them, we owe it to our brothers-in-arms to bring it to light.

From one Vietnam vet to another, this is not an issue that can or should be swept aside, and if there is even a thread of truth in An Enormous Crime, Sen. John McCain has some explaining to do.

This Father's Day marks the eighth since the "Old Man" passed away. Despite knowing him for nearly 53 years, it has taken this long for me to put into words what an incredible paradox of a human being he was, and how even with all that could be characterized as faults and weaknesses, I still have a deep respect for him, and miss the good parts of him every day.

I don't remember exactly when I started referring to him as the Old Man, except that he wasn't old then. In the village of Wynantskill, New York, about 10 miles east of Albany, where I spent my teen years back in the 60s, most of the kids I grew up with called their fathers the "old man," as in "My old man really belted me last night." I do know that I never thought of calling him Old Man to his face.

Which brings me to the late Wilson Winter Jr., born in Dundee, Scotland in June, 1916. Died in August, 1999, in Albany, NY.

One of the most impressive things I remember about him, not the most flattering, is his temper. The best example I can give you of how it flared comes from the huge coal furnace that heated our home in Wynantskill for several years, which my older brother and I stoked with long pokers to get it burning hot.

Sometimes we'd keep the end of a poker buried in the hot coals until it took on a white-hot intensity. The Old Man's mood could change from ice cold to that white heat in an instant and you didn't want to be within arm's reach when it did. He was just shy of 6 feet tall, lean and had a powerful punch.

I never knew where his temper came from or why it flared. Maybe it was from being uprooted from his native land twice in his youth. His family came to American in 1923, went back to Scotland in 1924 and returned again the following year for good. The Old Man had crossed the Atlantic Ocean four times by his ninth birthday.

Maybe it was the way the New York City school system of that time tried to homogenize the immigrant population, making him repeat Americanized versions of the English language until all trace of his Scottish brogue was gone. (Why saying "wateh" for water was preferable to rolling his r's I'll never understand, but that was the result.)

It could have been a form of Post Traumatic Stress from being blown off the USS Princeton during the Battle of Leyte Gulf in WWII, spending three hours treading shark-infested waters and worrying about Japanese planes strafing him before he was rescued. Whatever the cause, that temper was a sight to see, and fear.

The Old Man didn't believe in "spare the rod and spoil the child," or so he said, but it was practiced by just about everyone back then so he did too. He actually told me once, after a particularly hard spanking with his leather belt, that "this hurts me more than it does you." Right.

After his temper the Old Man's powerful lungs left an indelible impression. Before moving to Wynantskill my family lived on my grandparents' farm in Center Brunswick, between Troy and Bennington, on a side road off Rt. 7. When I was about 8 years old the town built a Little League baseball field about 150 yards down the road from our house.

Even with the stands packed with screaming fans he could stand in our front yard and yell my name loud enough to be heard down at the field. His voice not only had to carry over distance and the immediate din, it also had to wend through a solid line of huge willow tress along the 'crick' between our house and the ball field.

That voice had a frightening aspect as well, as was evidenced during an incident in Troy somewhere around 1953. He was making a right turn in front of the Rensselear Polytechnic Institute dorms, when a student, waiting to cross the street, elbowed the Old Man's DeSoto with a loud 'thump' as we passed, figuring we'd keep going. No way. The Old man locked up the brakes, jumped out and launched into a blistering tirade.

I mean he verbally filleted that future engineer. My Mom was in the passenger's seat going "Wilson, Wilson, Wilson, stop, stop, stop, Wilson, Wilson" all to no avail. My brother and I must have looked like a couple of Kilroy characters, with just fingers, noses and two sets of wide eyes peering over the back seat. Mom wasn't talking to him by the time he got back in the driver's seat, but in his world he had scored big against a wise guy, and that story was retold for years.

The 60s were tough years for the Old Man. I think he ran right into a mid-life crisis at the same time his oldest sons were running into early manhood. He wasn't ready to hand over the mantle, and there was no way that was going to be an easy time in that house.

He had been an athlete, playing semi-pro baseball and basketball, and that man could run! I remember my brother lipping off to him from across the yard one evening and then running for his life, as though he actually could find a refuge somewhere. Big mistake. You didn't lip off to the Old Man, and outrunning him was not an option.

I certainly didn't help things either. One Monday night after I turned 18 I intercepted him as he was leaving to go bowling, telling him I had quit college and joined the Marines. The Old Man bowled every Monday night as long as I can remember, right up to the year he died, and that night was no exception. But much later, well after midnight, he came home to wake me and tear into me over my decision. His first words had nothing to do with the Marines though. He let me know I had screwed up his game.

Against his wishes I left to be a Marine and serve in Vietnam. He drove me from Wynantskill to the Albany recruiting station in January 1966, dropping me off at 7 a.m. About three hours later as the sergeant marched a line of us to the train station to start the journey to Parris Island, I saw the Old Man's car pass slowly by, even though he was hours late for work. I realized only then, that despite all the faults and the hard shell, he must have cared so deeply, and couldn't leave until he saw me head to the train.

I gave him another shock a little more than two years later when I called him from the docks in San Diego to tell him that I was shipping out to Vietnam on the Princeton, a helicopter carrier built to replace the ship he had served on until it was sunk. There was a long silence on the phone after I relayed the news.

Many years later he finally told me that despite all the bravado he had shown when he talked about the war, he actually was terrified when he spent those three hours in Leyte Gulf. It wasn't heroics then, he finally said, it was pure fear - fear of sharks, fear of Japanese planes, fear of drowning, fear of being left behind. I often wondered if I would have been so anxious to charge off to war myself if he had told me the truth about his combat experiences when I was growing up.

He was still a tough guy when I got home from the Marines, and from time to time we'd go out together, still as father and son, but also as adults on a more even footing. I realized then that he had a sense of humor that matched his temper, that he was very, very smart, despite limiting his formal education to some advanced trade courses on the college level, and he had an incredibly detailed memory that among other things could pull sports trivia spanning decades out of a hidden vault to be reused at will.

But for all of his toughness, the wind went out of his sails, and the edge dulled on his anger and temper in May 1973, just a little over 34 years ago. On a Sunday afternoon my younger brother Larry became the kid from his high school class who died in that year's car wreck. It happened in mid-afternoon and before dinnertime my father had to make the decision to pull the plug on the life support equipment that was keeping Larry's vital functions working. The Old Man was never the same after that.

Somewhere in there he stopped being the Old Man and became Dad. In short order he retired from his federal job, even though he was only in his mid-50s, sold the house in Wynantskill and moved to Florida. He stayed there for a few years, made a little money and ultimately moved back to the Albany area. He and my mother traveled extensively over the years, but never owned a house again.

When he was in his early 70s he suffered an aneurysm in his brain, and despite recovering, it was the beginning of the end. He still drove, bowled, and showed an occasional flash of that old tiger, but never like the original. Against my wife's counseling he still smoked, eventually limiting it to a daily half-dozen cigarettes.

In July 1999, only a week after completing a doctor's checkup and being told he was in great condition, he was diagnosed with liver cancer. The doctor had said he didn't need another appointment until September. He died in August. One of his last remarks to my wife was "I told you cigarettes wouldn't get me." Gallows humor to the last.

On a sunny summer day the Old Man was laid to rest in the family plot in Oakwood Cemetery, Troy, New York, not far from the gravesite of national icon Uncle Sam, and right next to Larry, together at last after nearly 30 years.

I've thought a lot about him in the years since, about all the things I just mentioned, but also about his steadiness, how he hardly ever took a day off from work, preferring to treat a head cold with a shot of whisky and a stomach virus with a shot of vodka, then heading back to the shop. He wasn't a big drinker when we were kids, but he did like clams and beer, and corn on the cob in the summer.

When I was 9 or so he took the family to the foremen's picnic at the Scaghticoke Fairgrounds. He got a snootful of beer that day and my mother had to drive home, her outrage heightened by the indignity of a cop following her and my old man baiting him from the back seat. It was another of those "Wilson, Wilson, Wilson," days.

He provided for his wife and children, he did his best to help us understand that America was a place for each generation to do better than the last. He acknowledged his mistakes from time to time, but also preached "don't do as I do, do as I say."

I believe the mark we make in the world isn't always immediately apparent, as in the case of artists who become famous only after they die. In time I'm sure I'll understand the Old Man and his contribution better, and perhaps after I'm gone my descendents will be able to see a pattern that ultimately led to a significant contribution from our family.

There are many "like father, like son" possibilities that could have become part of my adult makeup - but didn't. I don't believe in spanking my children. After some of the beatings I took, by fists as well as leather straps or other implements that were handy, I consider hitting kids to be a form of abuse not instruction.

I don't glorify war, rather telling my children as many stories as I can remember, good and bad, encouraging them to question authority, not blindly accept its dictates. We descended from a bloodline that fought for king and country without interruption for more than 1000 years, and while I still believe we should contribute to the general defense, I also insist that we know all the reasons behind our decisions.

Despite these apparent differences, as the years pass and I grow older I occasionally look in the mirror and catch a glimpse of the Old Man looking back at me. I know there are still many similarities, many parts of him that have been passed on. I believe it is up to me to use these talents and capabilities wisely and improve on what I was given. The final judgment on whether I was successful will be made far, far in the future.

For the moment all I can say is that he didn't go this way unnoticed, and he still is missed. And if you don't mind me borrowing a movie line, with the passing of Wilson Winter Jr., as with The Great Santini, the world may have become quieter, but it also is a much less colorful place.

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.