I watch Fox News Sunday nearly every week while I'm eating my Sunday breakfast. It's what I do, and often it gives me ideas for columns which I then write while I'm digesting.

Or sometimes, not digesting.

Today is one of those NOT days. From the opening interview with White House senior advisor David Plouffe who should be Barack Obama's poster boy for obfuscation and double talk, to the discussion panel in the second half of the show that all but ignored Herman Cain's dramatic straw poll win in Florida yesterday, I was constantly reminded that Washington, D.C., insiders are pretty much what's wrong with this country.

HERMAN CAIN

Why? Well let me answer a question by asking a question.

Who decided that once he got into the race for the GOP presidential nomination Texas Governor Rick Perry was automatically the only person who could challenge Mitt Romney? Who determined that he would be the automatic frontrunner?

The media that's who. The media fed us a bunch of gift wrapped and pretty looking polls that said who we should be focused on, but once you looked inside there was no background information on who was polled or what they were asked. Yet those polls said we should be swooning over Perry.

So Perry got into the race, Republican voters got a good look at him and his numbers did a nose dive. I didn't know squat about the man before he entered the presidential debates but I'll tell you something … I disagree with him on immigration, border defense and his decision to approve mandatory vaccinations for teenage girls in his state by executive order.

I seriously doubt I will vote for him if he still is around during the primaries next year.

Last time around I voted for Mitt Romney and I may or may not vote for Romney again, but that will depend on whether Herman Cain, Rick Santorum and a couple of others are still in the race. And this is what really aggravated me about Fox News Sunday this week.

After a stellar performance during Thursday night's GOP debate in Orlando, Florida, Herman Cain gave a rousing speech before the Florida Straw Poll and then trounced the GOP field winning 37 percent of the vote.

This was a remarkable accomplishment considering that while he has been an excellent debater and is the only GOP candidate with an understandable and working plan for completely revamping the US tax system, like many other candidates he gets nowhere near as much face time from the media as the "frontrunners." But on Fox News Sunday his stunning victory was defined instead as a backlash against Perry, a fluke, of no significance.

This, even though Fox News touted the Florida Straw Poll for days prior as the vote that had successfully chosen the GOP nominee going all the way back to 1979. But Saturday, it was just so much ... well, you get it.

Each debate in which Perry and Romney appeared they were given center stage and most of the time to answer questions. Even though there were as many as 9 candidates in the debate it often seemed that the media only cared about two … and candidates including former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum said as much.

But all Perry and Romney have been doing is ignoring sage advice from candidate and former GOP Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich – not to give in to the media manipulation and bash each other to death – and instead have spent the last two debates bashing each other to death. So when we have other candidates who are focusing on the issues – and Cain had great answers to viewers' questions about small business and Obamacare – I think it is only natural that the voters are going to start paying attention to their answers and ignoring the alleged "front-runners."

NOTE TO PERRY AND ROMNEY CAMPAIGNS: I have not read either of your books, in hardcover or paperback, don't care to and won't after listening to you brag about them ad nauseum in the debates. I wouldn't pick them up if they were in the used books one-cent sale at my local library. Get off your books and let's hear what you plan to do for the country. OK?

Fox News Sunday panelist and conservative columnist William Kristol apparently wrote a scathing article after Thursday's debate – in which Perry stumbled repeatedly – with the one word headline YIKES! He obviously doesn't think the rest of the field is worth considering.

Kristol based his opinion on the opinions of other political operatives and campaign insiders, who told him "they want to get along with the possible nominee and the other candidates and their supporters. They don’t want to rock the boat too much." Maybe, just maybe, he should leave the beltway for places other than Manhattan, and talk to some real people for a change.

Out here in America, I see a lot of people who very much want to rock the boat. We're sick of the media telling us what the media thinks we need to hear and not one word more, we're sick of the same old crap from the same old politicians and we're sick of the media not doing its job.

How many commentators told their audiences last week that when Barack Obama stood underneath the I-71/I-74 bridge over the Ohio River from Kentucky to Cincinnati that the bridge doesn’t need repair but already is in the advanced planning stages for complete replacement that is scheduled to start in 2015? Outside of Neil Cavuto name me one. If you know of another I add the caveat they have to have said it in a voice louder than a whisper.

That bridge is obsolete, carrying double the traffic that was anticipated when it was designed in the 1950s and a massive replacement project that includes miles of rebuilt Interstate highways in both states was well in the works before Obama found out about it. Did you know that … other than reading it in the column I wrote about it last week? Ever wonder what else the media isn’t telling us?

I have a different point of view than Kristol about the debate and the straw poll. After hearing Herman Cain's comments on how to help businesses, Michelle Bachmann state the obvious about what constitutes the Fair Share the government should take from our earnings – nothing – to some excellent insights on foreign affairs and federal spending from Newt Gingrich, an admirable effort by Santorum to not be relegated to also-ran status by the media, Ron Paul's unique and accurate views on the Constitution, not to mention humor from Gary Johnson and international expertise from Jon Huntsman my one-word headline would be HOORAY.

Hooray for the GOP, hooray for the voters who are getting some real choices for a change, and hooray for the United States of America which in just over one year will have a real chance to bring ourselves back from the edge of ruin.

Yesterday in Florida a real poll was taken. And unlike the 1,000 or less people the media polls from anonymous sources, this one involved more than 2,600 people who identified themselves and spoke up. Herman Cain trounced the rest of the field because people are listening to him and liking what he has to say.

They don't make snide comments about whether his nine-nine-nine tax plan will work; they sit down and go over it the way he did and apparently they like what they see. He does after all have a degree in mathematics; how many political panelists can say that?

Are the DC pundits correct that his win was a backlash against Perry and Romney? Well, why didn't more people vote for the other candidates? Why was Ron Paul so far back in the pack? Or Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich and Michelle Bachmann?

I'll tell you one very real possibility. People voted for Herman Cain because they like Herman Cain.

So when we talk about polls, let's talk about real polls that involve real people who are asked one very simple question: As of today, who in the GOP field do you like the best to put up against Barack Hussein Obama in November, 2012?

Yesterday, very real people in Florida answered that question with an overwhelming vote for Herman Cain.

I guess it finally had to come to this – judging presidential candidates by a somewhat less than objective analysis of their campaign websites.

I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn’t seen it myself, but I did, last Sunday morning on Fox News Sunday. Host Chris Wallace was grilling GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain on his 9-9-9 Tax Plan and Cain was explaining in detail just how it would work and why it would invigorate business, leading to more jobs and recovery from the recession.

Cain also detailed how American workers would have far more control over their wages and expenditures under his plan.

Wallace responded to Cain's explanation by saying that he didn't see the information on Cain's website. Cain responded to Wallace by saying that's because it isn’t on his website.

Wallace asked Cain, "Why not?"

Cain responded that the information Wallace was asking about is not on his website because he doesn’t want it on his website. That seemed to give Wallace a bit of a pause, but frankly I found it to be refreshingly honest.

I have a website. You are probably reading this on my website. I pay for it, and I pay the webmaster who maintains it for me. It's mine; if I don’t want something on it you can bet that it won't be on it. As far as I'm concerned Cain was making a pure statement of ownership and Wallace was acting like an Obama Socialist who thinks the general public owns and controls every facet of our public and private lives regardless of who is paying the bill.

Overall, I'd have to say that Wallace was doing a pretty good job of pressing Cain on the specifics of his proposed tax program, and Cain was doing a pretty good job of answering Wallace's questions. I did get a bit of a chuckle when Wallace said that unnamed people at Fox News weren't sure that Cain's proposal adds up.

Cain responded by detailing exactly how he arrived at his program, what revenues it would bring to the government and the breaks it would give to both individuals and businesses. Cain then reminded, or perhaps informed, Wallace that he majored in mathematics in college before becoming a highly successful businessman.

So Wallace then challenged Cain on the identities of his economic advisers. Cain told Wallace the name of his chief economic adviser but Wallace wasn't satisfied, saying Cain has more than one and he wants to know who they are.

Cain responded by refusing to tell Wallace the names of his other economic advisers. Wallace asked why not, and Cain responded that he did not have permission to use their names in a public venue as being associated with his campaign.

Once again, Wallace seemed somewhat unsettled by that response.

And once again, I think Cain did what he should have done. I have no doubt of his business acumen, nor that he has people helping him formulate his plans for economic recovery and the future of America's tax structure.

I also have worked in politics long enough to know that most campaigns of substance have people supporting them out front and others who work behind the scenes. There is nothing nefarious about this; some people just want to help but are concerned that the candidate won't get the nomination and they don’t want to burn bridges with others who may get the nomination.

All in all, Cain has repeatedly shown that he knows his subject matter, he is willing to discuss it openly and in detail and he is not likely to back peddle on his positions. When he actually gets asked questions in the GOP debates he answers clearly, concisely and he makes sense. Often he gets enthusiastic applause from the audiences.

FOX News is hosting another debate tonight and has asked viewers to submit questions to the candidates. So I can't help but wonder if out in the wide world of American voters, someone asked Herman Cain if he has attached a detailed analysis of his economic recovery program on his website, and if not, why not.

I didn't submit a question but if I did I think that after watching Fox News Sunday last week the question that would have interested me the most is: "Do you think my website makes my thighs look big?"

Dumbed-Down Fuzzy Math on the Buffett-Law-of-Shame Taxes Initiative and Creativity

At what point did the United States of America change its basic purpose from a land of opportunity to a land of sloth and indolence?

Obviously it happened, because on Monday, September 19, 2011, the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama teamed up with capitalist billionaire Warren Buffett, to levy a burdensome tax on anyone else who ever aspires to financial independence.

Aside from the news reports that Warren Buffett is in the middle of a billion-dollar tax dispute with the federal government and is lying to the public that enabled his excesses so as to limit his own exposure, it seems that control over the government is the underlying issue here. Allow me to elucidate.

Remember in the decades after the Vietnam War when the news media reported that children of refugees from the communist atrocities in Southeast Asia were doing exceptionally well in American schools? Remember how the Oriental kids were found to be excelling despite facing major language and cultural barriers?

That wasn't new. Successive waves of immigrants from all over the world, of every racial, ethnic and religious background on the face of the earth have done the same thing virtually from the founding of the New World colonies. America has long been seen from other viewpoints as a true land of opportunity, where nothing was guaranteed, but hard work, industriousness, native intelligence and a measure of creativity could reap rewards that were virtually unheard of elsewhere.

People who came to America from other lands and worked diligently to learn the language, become educated and apply what they had learned to creating opportunities for themselves were not genetically gifted people. They had seen what repression does to the human spirit in Europe, Africa, Asia and South America and had the initiative and fortitude to take a chance on their reasonably unhampered abilities to apply themselves to the fullest.

With each succeeding wave of immigration many observers grudgingly acknowledged that the successes of the immigrant children had as much to do with the work ethic of their parents as anything else. Until now that is.

Now we have the Obama-Buffett Law of Shame in which anyone who earns more than $200,000 annually or $250,000 for couples - which includes just about any small business with a half-dozen employees - will get slammed with a massive increase in their tax rates. When you cut past all the campaign speeches and political rhetoric what we find is that Obama, Buffett and people of their ilk want small businesses and people who are on the cusp of financial independence to pay for the wanton, recklessness spending by the federal government.

As long as these people, who have been steadily moving up the social and economic ladder as a result of their own efforts, are tasked with paying for the excesses of the federal and state governments, it is less likely that they will amass the resources to challenge the government and business manipulators now in control. So even though we know that what is going on in Washington is wrong, even the best equipped among us will be powerless to make substantive change because we'll be too busy just treading water.

It should seem obvious to even a casual observer that the real issue here is not Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid, which can be fixed with a reduction in American foreign aid to hostile countries and transitioning to a consumption tax instead of a productivity tax. No the real issue is the unwillingness of the Obama Administration to curb its voracious appetite for uncontrolled decadence exhibited not only by his wanton spending habits as president, but also by the administration representatives in Congress who refuse to consider serious spending reductions.

Creating another income stream, using the communist class warfare terminology "The Rich" as guinea pigs, not only absolves the administration and Buffett, hereinafter referred to as Obama's Lackey, of the responsibility to curb spending, it buys Obama time to conjure up another re-election strategy since the one he is using now is not working.

Obama claims this is not class warfare "it's math," but it's obvious when you run the real numbers that Obama either suffers from math anxiety as well as depression, he also must have attended one of those dumbed-down schools where the curriculum is geared to the slowest student in the class.

What is really amazing to me is that I spent a good portion of this morning listening to the Fox Business Channel starting with Stuart Varney's show, and aside from Charles Paine didn't hear a lot of people talking about how regressive and unfair the entire income tax system is from the outset.

America didn't have a permanent income tax until the Woodrow Wilson administration, although there was one to fund the Civil War – which kind of answers the "unfunded war" nonsense the Democrats have been bandying about lately as an excuse for Obama's lack of fiscal discipline. There were other taxes and levies in those years though, and America did pretty well as a country without taxing productivity.

The late 1800s saw repeated efforts to enact an income tax by various Socialist and Populist political parties, including the Democrats, who finally got their way in 1913. Note to my Connecticut conservative readers: hold your heads up high, fellow citizens, our state was one of three that flat out rejected the income tax amendment.

Oh, for the days of common sense and true social responsibility.

Despite all the rhetoric, just about every political commentator of every political stripe says this travesty won't get past Congress, primarily because the Republicans, as well as a lot of Democrats, in the House of Representatives are uniformly opposed to it.

But the Obama-Buffett Law of Shame has sparked a lot of discussion and frankly I'm disappointed in where the talk has gone. When Stuart Varney and other Fox Business anchors are discussing how much of an income tax is "fair" it is obvious that the progressives of previous centuries eventually were successful because smart people don't even consider that taxing their productivity is inherently unfair.

The proper amount is nothing. Not a cent. Not a fraction of a cent is a fair tax on productivity.

Why do you think the efforts to scrap the current tax code and enact a flat tax or national consumption tax are referred to as the Fair Tax? Because it is NOT fair to tax the hardest working, smartest and most productive members of society just because they are hard working, smart and productive.

Did you know that even after the Woodrow Wilson administration started making use of the windfall profits it received from the first income tax another three decades went by before the federal government started automatically withholding taxes from workers' pay?

Before that, taxpayers wrote periodic checks to the government to pay for their taxes, monthly, quarterly, annually, whatever. So, even though they were powerless to control how much the government taxed them, they still had power over if they paid or not, at least until Franklin Roosevelt used the military needs of World War II to enact payroll withholding.

Consider, and here I am referring to every person of every political persuasion who reads this column, how much power we would still have over the US government if we paid our taxes from our bank accounts instead of the federal government just grabbing what it wants first and then in its infinite benevolence, allowing us to keep the rest. Except the part the states take.

Now think about this. If the US scrapped the current regressive, anti-growth, counter-productive tax code and initiated a version of the Fair Tax, consumption tax, or national sales tax instead, who would have control over how much tax we pay? We would.

As in WE THE PEOPLE. Imagine that. If we controlled the amount of tax dollars available we'd have some input on spending too.

And that my fellow citizens is the real issue here. If we were to regain – note I said "regain" – control over our own tax expenditures we would regain a measure of control over the federal government.

Take away the government's ability to withhold taxes without responsibility for how those taxes are spent and you have citizen control over the government. If I remember my history correctly, I believe that is just what the founding fathers intended.

President Obama is campaigning against the Republicans in the US House of Representatives who may or may not pass portions of his most recent "jobs" bill, by going to GOP leaders' home districts and complaining about their deteriorating bridges.

According to Obama's latest campaign strategy the state of the country's roads and bridges is clearly the responsibility of House, which is controlled by the GOP. But what is really shown by this tactic is that neither Obama, nor his campaign staff – sorry, White House aides – understand the procedure for funding bridge repairs, nor who takes responsibility for them.

Or, they're just lying to the public. More on that in a minute.

Next on his list is the Brent Spence Bridge carrying Interstates 75 and 71 over the Ohio River between Kenton County, Kentucky and Cincinnati, Ohio. Obama is scheduled to go there on Sept. 22 to bash the GOP and blame them for the bridge's deficiencies – specifically House Speaker John Boehner whose district is nearby.

Like many bridges on the federal interstate system the Brent Spence Bridge was designed in the late 1950s and built in the early 1960s. Like so many others of its era, when the interstate highway system was completed it opened previously inaccessible areas in Kentucky to suburban sprawl, which generated flight from the cities and traffic.

The original capacity of the bridge, named for the late Democratic US Congressman who represented the district, was 80,000 vehicles per day. It now sees nearly double that amount and the daily traffic forecasts are upwards to an anticipated 180,000 vehicles per day by 2030.

The bridge is being portrayed by the White House as "functionally obsolete" which if you know what that means, isn't quite such a big deal, but if you don't it sounds dangerous, and the White House is using it as a poster bridge for creating a sense of urgency.

The truth about the Brent Spence Bridge is that it is already well into the system for replacement, a massive undertaking that requires the combined operations of the Ohio Department of Transportation, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, and the Federal Highway Administration.

The original bridge was opened in 1963 at a cost of $10 million and is now the second busiest Interstate Highway bridge in the country. But the new bridge will be designed for the anticipated excessive capacity and will cost about $500 million – think Solyndra in terms of where the administration could have made better uses of federal tax dollars.

According to the Ohio DOT's website construction is slated to begin in 2015.

Last week Obama went to Virginia and used the same tactic to bash the GOP Congressman from that area, going on about more than 90 bridges that if you believe his spiel are set to collapse at any minute dumping trillions of unsuspecting voters into gorges, chasms and rivers.

The problem for Obama is that not all bridges are created equally. There are federal bridges, state bridges and local bridges; all determined by which road crosses them. When he's talking about 90 bridges in one district it could range from something as big as the Delaware Memorial Bridge to a culvert over a small stream or ditch.

Generally speaking, local municipalities and towns take care of their bridges through local taxes and bonding initiatives, states maintain their bridges through state taxes, and also maintain the Interstate bridges through a federal formula that puts money into the pot.

The federal government gets the money to divvy up among the states partly from highway tolls plus our gas and road use taxes. But with that money comes regulations. There are maintenance plans and schedules, and for new construction there has to be a study, a plan, and a design phase.

Almost without exception, governmental agencies from the local to the national levels have an inspection, maintenance and planning schedule for every bridge for which they are responsible. But money sets the agenda and every single bridge is scheduled for repair or replacement based on priorities set by the people who inspect their bridges and how they compare to others in their district.

The Brent Spence Bridge project can’t even begin until the parties involved do all the planning and designing, which will include traffic, stresses, materials, drainage, anticipated growth, air quality, and hundreds of other issues. There has to be a noise reduction study, and a rerouting study for all the traffic that uses the bridge now. There even is a question of what to do with truck traffic.

So when the President of the United States of America throws out a blanket statement that a congressman is responsible for the state of a bridge or bridges in his or her district, he really is showing an amazing lack of understanding of the process or he is deliberately blowing smoke up the voters' panties.

And this is just one issue on his expansive agenda. Have you taken a close look at his efforts to eliminate taxes on corporate jets, or take away deductions for charity?

Guess who owns a corporate type jet and does lots of charity work? Hollywood actor Harrison Ford.

The AARP magazine in the August issue did a great article on Ford noting at one point that he undertook an intensive flight training program on both fixed wing and rotary aircraft when he was in his early 50s. He now owns 8 aircraft ranging from a Bell helicopter to a trans-Atlantic jet.

(When asked how he can own 8 aircraft and yet, as a longtime environmentalist, reduce his carbon footprint Ford replied that "I only fly one at a time." I like that response.)

Ford makes no apologies for loving to fly and using his aircraft to go on business trips as well as taking his families on vacations – thus avoiding public airports, paparazzi and giving his family a measure of privacy.

But Ford also has very quietly used his helicopter on rescue missions in the mountains of Wyoming where he has a home, and in 2010 used his jet to fly doctors and supplies to a remote area of Haiti after the earthquake there. He did not seek, nor receive publicity for his efforts there, any more than he did for his work with the local search and rescue force in Wyoming.

He is an Honorary Board Member of Wings of Hope which is billed as the world's oldest and largest volunteer, humanitarian, aviation-based charity. It is non-political, non-religious and doesn't take any tax dollars from the government.

Ford also is a staunch supporter of Israel which may not sit well with the current administration in the White House, even though he donated more than $30,000 to Barack Obama's campaign, mostly in the primary stage. He is a lifelong Democrat, but did donate $1,000 to John McCain's primary campaign in 1999.

So, are the policies of the Obama Administration going to hurt long-time supporters like Harrison Ford?

Obviously he deserves to get kicked in the teeth for playing roles as Compassionate Conservative government officials, including the President, and obviously he qualifies for tax breaks if he is incorporated – and why would a man reportedly worth $300 million not protect his life's earnings legally?

Ford isn't the only celebrity in this position; actors, entertainers, sports figures, and many others who make millions each year but rarely are defined as "The Rich" qualify for tax write offs on their travel and charitable work. Quite often I don't agree with their politics but that really isn't the issue here is it?

Aside from Warren Buffet who brags that his secretary pays more taxes than him, but falls short of restructuring her compensation so she wouldn't, I think these people have worked hard to get their rewards and deserve to keep as much of their earnings as possible. But are they now defined inside the White House as the "Useful Idiots" who will get screwed over by the very people they supported?

Sure looks like it from here.

The United States of America observed the 10-year anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on us in myriad ways and in myriad places yesterday, and as far as I can tell no observances were interrupted by further attacks by Islamo-fascist fanatics.

New York City and Washington D.C., two of the targets in the original attacks were on high alert after federal officials said they received information from credible sources that the observances would be targeted ... but nothing happened. That could be due to the high level of security of course, but nothing happened in the rest of the country either.

Here in my little community the second week in September has marked Harvest Fair weekend for more than 40 years and it's a pretty big deal. On really good years the attendance at our fairgrounds has approached a quarter-million visitors over the course of 4 days, which is a lot of people to pack into a small place.

Other fairs ran in the waning weeks of August in this area, which is harvest time in New England, there are more coming in the next few weeks, and of course the big state fairs got a lot of attention from visiting politicians in the summer.

Starting Friday The Big E, which is shorthand for the Eastern States Exposition will open for its annual run, which goes until Oct. 2 this year in Springfield, Massachusetts. It too will see hundreds of thousands of visitors from across the northeast and beyond.

This is what we do in the Northeast, and Midwest and elsewhere at this time of year, and it is exactly what we should continue doing. I remember someone saying 10 years ago that the best way to defeat terrorism is to not let it force us into cowering in our homes like frightened weaklings, but instead we should go shopping, in other words, do the things we normally do.

My family attended the fair on two days this year, partly to get some fair food, partly because I was invited to sell books with the New England Horror Writers - books on war and elder abuse qualify as "horror" even if they are non-fiction - and partly because my youngest daughter entered one of her hand-painted gourds in the Arts and Crafts competition.

(She won a blue ribbon. Photo below. Please allow me a moment to be a proud father.)
My daughter, who is 17 now, started painting gourds like this one, titled Lilacs, about three years ago. She bought her first practice gourds from a farm in California then starting growing her own in our family garden out back.

Once the gourds are harvested they have to be cured outdoors over the winter and the following year they are cleaned and ready for painting. She has a great eye and a steady hand and has produced dozens of varying sizes on a range of themes.

This is part of our art requirement for her home schooled curriculum. Anyway, in addition to bragging a bit - my oldest daughter just graduated from nursing school so it's been a great couple of weeks for the Winter family - I just wanted to point out that even though most Americans aren't directly engaged in fighting terrorists, we as a country are doing our part to defeat them.

Or more to the point, at least we are doing our part to not let them defeat us.

I don't know whether the threats against Washington and New York were real or just something to get us unsettled, but the fact is, nothing happened. The ceremonies and remembrances were poignant, the people who were murdered a decade ago were properly honored, and life went on as it is intended.

We still have a long way to go in this war, and if you were reading this column several years ago when I first started writing it, you may recall that I said it would take at least 60 years to put an end to it. I broke that down into 20 years of direct combat, and 20 years to demonstrate to societies that would wage war on us that our methodology is better and to stamp out any remaining pockets of terrorism, and finally 20 years for a new generation to completely forget that terrorism in the name of religion actually was advocated and practiced.

Americans aren't used to grinding it out over the long haul, we like to fight our wars, defeat a discernible enemy and get back to business as usual. But war isn't like that any longer.

Virtually every military in the world knows it can't defeat us in a head-to-head confrontation so the enemies of freedom and democracy have changed to terrorism, attempting to wear the populace down by unceasing attacks on the weakest and most vulnerable targets.

Fortunately our military has taken the fight to the terrorists and for most of the past 10 years we have kept large scale attacks at bay, despite incident such as the Ft. Hood shooting and others. The last time I was updated, which was some time ago, I was told that our military had sent more than 50,000 potential terrorists to their version of paradise - and that's a good thing.

It doesn't mean the war is over, and I still maintain that we have at least two generations of struggle ahead of us. But we have been eminently successful to this point.

As long as we keep doing what Americans do, and long as our spirits stay high and our willpower stays strong we will prevail regardless of how long it takes. In the meantime, I recommend that you go out to a fair - ride the rides, try games of skill, admire the fruits of the harvest, the animals, the arts and crafts, the entertainment.

Defeat terrorism, have a good time!

Could someone please define "unfunded war?" Does that mean we have slave labor producing equipment and ammunition and unpaid conscripts doing the fighting?

People who want to quit the fight against terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan for political leverage are using that phrase a lot and are setting the US up for more terror attacks in the future. Yet that phrase is an inaccurate piece of pure propaganda.

Was the Revolutionary War unfunded? Or any that followed, keeping our country secure and free? There is no such thing as an unfunded war in American history and if we didn't fight back after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 – and continue that fight as long as terrorists exist – where would we be now, and where will we be in 2020?

I have been writing about war and politics in one venue or another for 30 years now, and I am seeing some very unsettling similarities between past actions that worked against democracy and freedom and those that are taking place now.

In the 1970s and 1980s the "Blame the Vietnam Veteran" game was all the rage. The media, working on behalf of the politicians they favored pushed hard on that cause when it was revealed that communist governments were slaughtering millions of Southeast Asians and no one could ignore the carnage.

So Vietnam vets – most of whom didn't even realize then that America had won every major battle in that war and pushed the communists right to the edge of surrender before Washington and the news media bailed out Hanoi – became the scapegoats.

From the very first word I typed about Vietnam my goal was to tell the truth of what I had seen and done, and to do everything in my power to right the wrongs that were being perpetrated on my fellow Vietnam veterans. When I wrote my first book, Masters of the Art, I didn't do it because I expected to get rich from it – and I didn't – I wrote it so there would be a truthful legacy for the Marines I served with and all others who fought in Vietnam to pass on to our children.

Now, here it is three decades later, we are engaged in the War on Terror and we again are dealing with a manipulative agenda-driven media, politicians who think nothing of using the war to further their careers, political meddling with the military, and total disregard for the troops.

We are fighting in two theaters with extremely hostile terrains where our enemies are using adjacent countries for support – Iran and Pakistan – while our troops are generally restricted from attacking those refuges – just like Laos and Cambodia in the Vietnam War. We also are fighting against ideological enemies who hide out in the indigenous populations, terrorizing the common people to gain their support, and using them for shields when our fighters get too close.

In the face of these political and tactical similarities we also have a government that is showing – perhaps deliberately – signs of weakness.

I have written that the first major mistake of the Vietnam War was President Richard Nixon's decision to announce troop withdrawals at exactly the time when we had the communist military leaders looking for an excuse to surrender after years of devastating losses. Nixon could have put an end to the war by showing strength and determination; instead he prolonged it and ultimately caused the betrayal of South Vietnam because he showed weakness and indecisiveness.

Today, President Barack Hussein Obama is following in Nixon's footsteps, overruling the advice of military commanders, withdrawing troops when they should be working to eliminate the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and exhibiting a reckless disregard for their safety and effectiveness.

After Vietnam fell in 1975 the media and political lies about how that happened and why were stunning in their duplicity, inaccuracy and viciousness. Even when the American public began to realize – after the Iranian hostages came home on Jan. 20, 1981 – that the Vietnam vets were getting a raw deal, the media changed course only slightly and labeled us as "victims" of a lost-from-the-start policy, ravaged by Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, walking time bombs.

Once again, the same strategy is being applied to today's vets. The war has been labeled "unwinnable" by modern politicians, much as the Vietnam War received the same label from the late CBS news anchor Walter Cronkite – who later was revealed to be a communist sympathizer, which in effect means he was a communist – after the Tet Offensive of 1968 in which American and allied forces were overwhelmingly victorious.

The current atmosphere of political meddling goes all the way back to the invasion of Iraq which not only proved successful, but was a natural and obvious extension of the Bush Doctrine. Then President George W. Bush promised that not only would the terrorists who participated in and supported the attacks of 9-11 be hunted down, but so would any country or regime that harbored them.

When the Taliban was routed in Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002, some of its highest leaders, including Abu Al-Zarqawi, one of Osama Bin Laden's most trusted advisers and a member of his inner circle who was wounded fighting US forces, fled to Iraq. There, with the support of Saddam Hussein, they began rebuilding the terrorist empire, starting with training camps in the Iraqi desert.

Virtually the entirety of the US Congress supported Bush when he sought Congressional approval to invade Iraq, and many of his later critics openly averred that Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction and would not hesitate to use them against the US. But when those weapons were found to have been removed from Iraq, some even as Americans were invading, the same politicos immediately began a torrent of abuse against Bush and his policies that nearly resulted in the withdrawal of troops in failure.

But a basic truth of war fighting is that the weapons used by your opponent should not be the primary reason to fight. Bush apparently understood this, stood firm and deviated from Nixon's example, increasing the numbers of troops rather than withdrawing.

The troops showed that with the proper numbers and support they can and will prevail. They did and now Iraq is attempting to build itself as a democratic – but still threatened – country.

But politics is interfering again as Obama has suddenly and inexplicably defied the military commanders and escalated the planned draw down to a level that not only is unsustainable but probably increases the danger to our troops as well. He either doesn't realize, or more likely, doesn’t care that the troop withdrawal on his political timetable not only endangers the under-strength troops who remain, but nullifies the sacrifices of thousands of Americans and Iraqis who died to defeat terrorism in that theater.

In Afghanistan Obama is misusing some of our most highly trained special operations troops to meet his political objectives. This was shown in the August 6 loss of a CH-47 Chinook helicopter loaded with more than three-dozen troops, most of them American special operations forces who were employed in an operation that should have required regular infantry.

All across American today people are being asked to remember the attacks of a decade ago and the thousands of American citizens who died that day. But after nearly 10 years of war, which would make the War on Terror our SECOND longest war if you don't count the century of westward expansion and non-stop wars with indigenous Americans, we are on the cusp of throwing away all that has been won and sacrificed in their memories.

We literally can't wait until next year's election to stop this. President Obama seems to have accepted that he is most likely a one-term president despite the all-out efforts of pollsters to portray his support as strong and sustainable, and he also seems to be going all out to undo everything that was accomplished in the past decade.

Obama is thumbing his nose at our system of government, waging war without Congressional or public approval, appointing bureaucrats to circumvent our Constitution, placing our troops in danger, weakening us militarily, financially and economically.

It is time for the US Congress to stand up, speak out and open a bipartisan investigation into his actions. If we want to truly honor the memories of those who have died in the War on Terror it is time for America's political leaders to act like Americans.

The Republican presidential contender debate Wednesday evening is over and the president's big speech on the economy that followed it Thursday night is over and two things are certain.

The market remained steady, even gaining a bit, after the GOP debate Wednesday, and it is tanking once again after our president outlined his latest and greatest plan for recovery on national television Thursday night.

All morning I have listened to various commentators, some of whom are trying to cut the president some slack by saying that he said some nice and hopeful things, while the more honest among them are saying his speech was just more empty promises and blame shifting. Regardless of your point of view on his speech, which frankly, wasn't all that good even from a technical standpoint, the market is dropping like a rock today.

Yes I know that Stuart Varney says today's market problems are a response to issues in Europe, particularly Greece, but still, it seems that every time Obama speaks the market tanks.

Essentially the president said he wants to put more people back to work on roads and bridges which is great if you are in the road or bridge business. He also wants to cut taxes for everybody except the highest level producers which seems great except he wants the people who actually work the hardest and create the most jobs to pay even more, so people who pay little or nothing can continue to pay little or nothing.

On top of his negative effect on America's business climate, he also wants Congress to make his proposal into law, he wants Congress to do it right now, and once again read it later. And ... he wants Congress to figure out a way to do it!

The issue here is that Congress is not tasked with doing the president's bidding, he is tasked with making his staff do his bidding. That's not disrespectful, it's just the way our government works.

If a Congressman or Senator has an epiphany he or she is required to tell their staff to get hopping on making sure it isn't just a pipe dream. If the president sees a light bulb go on over his head, he is similarly required to tell his staff to get it done.

But if Congress determines that the president's numbers are just so much pie in the sky promises with no solid accounting behind them and won't work, guess who gets blamed? The way the president delivered his speech last night it will suddenly become the fault of Congress that the plan he outlined isn't being enacted.

He is hoping that by this time next year the voters will forget what he asked for and he will be in a perfect position to blame the Republicans in Congress for his inability to deliver on anything. His administration is one of failed policies and grandiose statements but little in the way of real accomplishments so his real task is to confuse the issues, confuse the voters and try to look good while he's doing it.

After watching the GOP debate Wednesday night, despite the best efforts of the moderators to trip up the candidates or portray them in unflattering lights, it was glaringly obvious that what Newt Gingrich said was true ... every single person on that stage is better equipped to be president than the current occupant of the White House.

Speaking of the debate, if I was running any of the campaigns except Mitt Romney's or Rick Perry's I would scream bloody murder for a better position on the stage next time. NBC put Romney and Perry in center stage, next to each other, and did its best to make the entire debate all about them, with a little window dressing from each of the other candidates.

But Gingrich was wise to them and in one of the best comments of the night refused to answer a set-up question - one of many - and called out moderator Brian Williams for his blatant efforts to get the GOP contenders bashing each other.

There were some really good moments for some of the candidates who didn't get all the air time they would have liked, including Gingrich who continues to show he really does get it, and Herman Cain who again showed a rock solid grasp not only of economics but of politics too. If Cain can't get the nomination I hope he is seriously considered as the VP running mate or perhaps a cabinet position.

Ron Paul did not have a good night in my opinion, not did Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann or Jon Huntsman. Maybe in the next debate their positions on stage can be shuffled and they will be more visible and not trying to say everything all at once.

I think the best part of the night, after Herman Cain remarked that if God requires a 10 percent tithe then the United States government should be happy with 9 percent, was the audience's response when Williams tried to corner Perry, the Governor of Texas, on that state's death penalty.

The thrust of Williams' question was whether Perry loses any sleep at night worrying if the state has executed innocent people during his terms as governor. But Williams prefaced his comment by saying how many people that is, 234 death row inmates exactly, and the audience erupted with applause and a few cheers as he was speaking. That response was obviously discomforting to Williams.

I guess some of these ever so arrogant journalists really don't understand that lots of people disagree with them and don't really care what they think. I was really proud of Perry sticking to his guns on that subject too ... no pun intended.

All in all, I believe the two nights of politics showed that when the mainstream media gets involved in running the whole show - Republicans debating and Obama pontificating - the American people lose.

Nonetheless, over the course of the two nights we got a glimpse of what might be possible in the GOP debate, and we got a good review of current reality in the White House. I don't think NBC intended either outcome.

There is a lot of discussion on the news today over whether anyone will be watching President Barack Hussein Obama's speech on his "new" jobs program tonight, since it will only be late afternoon on the west coast and during the pre-game warmup slot for football fans on the east coast.

I think that in the interest of non-partisan involvement in government and learning all we can about the issues that will face us in the presidential election of 2012, I should put significant effort into convincing people to watch the speech.

So, at the urging of, and in conjunction with my son, we are debuting the Presidential Drunk With Power drinking game to be played during Obama's speech tonight and at any other appropriate time.

Note to persons with substance abuse issues: don't go any further if this will offend you. I mean you no harm, but life does go on.

Here's how you play. Get a case of beer, more if you have an opponent on scene with you. Get yourself a fifth of good whiskey if you like American spirits, or whisky if you like Scotch or Canadian brands. You can substitute here with vodka, rum, tequila or similar distillations, but no liqueurs.

Place the booze within arms reach in the room where your television or radio is located. Keep the beer iced, get shot glasses for the liquor.

Turn on the television or radio at the appointed hour depending on the time zone where you live.

These are the rules:

Every time that President Obama says the word "infrastructure" you drink a shot, and a gulp of beer.

When he says "investment" your opponent takes a shot and a beer. (If you can't do this in person get an Internet buddy and use your videocam to keep an eye on each other.)

Every time Obama blames the process - as in "Congress must" or "the political parties must" - take another shot and finish the beer.

When Obama blames someone else for the current state of affairs, your opponent takes a shot and finishes his or her beer.

If Obama says he "inherited" this mess, take a double shot and chase it with a full beer.

If Obama claims some form of administrative victory, regardless of how small or picayune, your opponent takes a double shot and a full beer as a chaser.

When Obama says "Clean, renewable or green" both of you take a double shot and shotgun another beer.

Every time Obama changes his gaze from the right teleprompter to the left or vice versa, attempting to look presidential and convey a sense of urgency, as if he suddenly realized his job is at stake, take several gulps of beer and shake your head in amazement.

Keep this up for as long as he speaks or you can understand what he is saying. The last one standing and still coherent wins, if that is possible.

Oh, one last rule. If Obama says directly, or intimates, that "This is Bush's fault" you both must take four shots in a row followed immediately by two beers. This is different than, and probably an expansion of, the rule on the word inherit.

So that's it. Better than just about anything else you might be doing tonight and it will make all the political posturing palatable. Good luck.

p.s. Don't drive after playing this game, and expect to wake up tomorrow feeling terrible and wondering what just happened. Pretty much the way America has been feeling for nearly three years now.

Have you noticed how people in government have been crying for civility and bipartisanship recently, simultaneously shedding crocodile tears while bashing the daylights out of each other?

Well, we finally have achieved true bipartisanship, albeit on the backs of America's combat veterans.

Both Democratic President Barack Hussein Obama, the commander in chief of America's armed forces, and Republican Governor of Texas, Rick Perry have snubbed the Veterans of Foreign Wars! Both received the traditional invitation to attend the national convention, to be held in San Antonio, Texas this year from August 27 - September 1, 2011.

In Obama's case he not only is refusing to attend the convention, he also will not send an appropriate substitute from his administration to stand in for him!

Perry, as the GOP frontrunner for the nomination to face Obama next year, meaning he too wants to be commander in chief, and as the governor of the host state, not only snubbed the VFW's invitation to attend the convention, he initially didn't even bother to respond.

To Perry's credit when the National Commander of the VFW issued a press release publicizing their behavior, he recanted and "adjusted his schedule," so he now will make an appearance.

Good for him. I'm sure it will simple to explain his behavior at his next campaign appearance.

The invitations to the White House and governors of states that host the annual convention are not idle social or politically inspired gestures. They have a very real purpose to the veterans' community, as shown by the official VFW statement on the issue.

"The VFW has had a long-standing tradition of inviting the sitting president to address our convention. We want to know where he stands on veterans' affairs, and we want those remarks made in public and on the record," said Richard L. Eubank, the national commander of the nearly 2 million-member organization.

"When the President is unable to attend, it has always been customary for the White House to choose a high-level administration official as an alternative speaker," Eubank continued.

"It is an insult of the highest magnitude that for the first time in the history of the VFW, the White House has apparently decided that this great and iconic organization of combat veterans and all of its members are not worthy of its notice by not at least offering a first-tier speaker from the administration."

Eubank is a Marine Corps retiree and Vietnam combat veteran from Eugene, Oregon. I would imagine that with proposals being aired in Washington to help reduce spending by cutting veterans' pensions, the questions and answers this year would be of special interest. They also might want to discuss Afghanistan, troop withdrawals that fly in the face of advice from military commanders, misuse of special operations forces resulting in more than 30 deaths earlier this month, and similar matters.

Less than 1 percent of all Americans are serving in the Armed Forces, including all reserve and National Guard Troops. Overall only about 7 percent of Americans have EVER served in the Armed Forces meaning 93 percent of the people in this country owe their freedoms and liberties to this incredibly small band of citizens.

President Obama Salutes America's Combat Veterans

Further, even within the 1 percent and the 7 percent, far smaller percentages have actually served in combat. All who serve deserve our thanks and respect, and I will always hold a special place in my heart for those who have faced the bombs and bullets.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a member of the VFW, have been since 1985, and still hold an office within my local post where I also am a Past Commander. I have not held state or national offices in the VFW.

The VFW is the largest organization of America's combat veterans, and the behavior by both of these individuals is atrocious. I'm sure I can find plenty of speeches by both of them where they swear they support the troops.

Regarding Perry's initial lack of reaction, Eubank said, "The VFW also has a tradition of inviting the governor of the host state where its annual
convention is being held to come and welcome and greet our convention delegates. Although Governor Perry was similarly sent an invitation 3 months ago, apparently our invitation was deemed not important enough for the governor's office to at least accept or decline the invitation.

"Governor Perry's candidacy for president does not provide him an excuse for bad manners. The White House and Governor Perry can rest assured that the 2 million members of the VFW and its Auxiliaries will remember this discourteous treatment for a very long time to come."

Frankly, Perry's campaign communications director should strongly recommend that his first words to the men and women at the convention be "I am very sorry for the inadvertent confusion over my attendance. I was so busy saying my prayers and campaigning for president that your invitation was momentarily set aside. That situation has been rectified and I am happy and proud to be here."

When Perry realized the magnitude of the gaffe he had made he contacted the VFW and said he would be very happy to address the convention. Thus, Eubank issued the following statement: "I am pleased to learn that Texas Governor Rick Perry has been able to adjust his schedule and will be attending the 112th VFW National Convention next week in San Antonio. We are appreciative that the governor will be available to welcome and greet VFW Convention delegates to the Lone Star State on Monday, August 29th at 8:35 a.m. And, we likewise look forward to welcoming him to our annual convention."

The VFW's National Convention hosts a number of other speakers as well, including prominent members of the cabinet, military and civic leaders, business leaders and everyday people honored for their exemplary service.

How much do you want to bet that next year, with the convention being held only months before the Presidential Election, that Obama himself will find plenty of room on his schedule to attend, speak, do the grab and grin for photo ops, and make sweeping pronouncements about the greatness of America's veterans? I bet he'll go to the American Legion convention as well.

Any takers? No? I'm not surprised.

Wasted. It's one hell of a word.

In Vietnam it was used as a verb, a synonym for kill, as in "We wasted a whole company of NVA on that operation."

Back in the USA, especially on college campuses, wasted meant being high, stoned, due to the use of various mind altering substances.

Webster's defines waste as: to damage or destroy; emaciate; enfeeble; or "to squander."

It's the last definition that applies here, in regards to the destruction of a US Army CH-47 Chinook helicopter on August 6 in Afghanistan that took the lives of 30 Americans, 8 Afghan troops and one dog. Aside from three helicopter crew members – the pilot, co-pilot and gunner – all the rest of the Americans were Special Operations forces, many from the US Navy's SEAL Team 6, but also including Army and Air Force special operations troops.

After a week of speculation on why so many high ranking, specially trained troops were on one helicopter, especially so many from the same team, how their helicopter was downed and what they were doing there, one theory is taking precedence.

The Special Operations forces were on that helicopter doing that job because the regular infantry troops who normally would have been used on an operation of that nature were pulled out of their combat roles to satisfy the politically motivated timetable for troop withdrawals promised by President Barack Obama.

In fact, until late this spring a US Army infantry unit was based within a mile of where the Chinook was hit and would have been responsible for security operations in that area. But they were withdrawn, apparently in anticipation of Obama's order to begin troop reductions in direct opposition to the advice of his senior commanders.

From the instant that the public learned of the Chinook crash, people with knowledge of the normal tactics and operating procedures of Special Operations forces began questioning why so many were on one aircraft, and the nature of their mission.

The Pentagon first said the troops were a Quick Reaction Force on the way to help out a US Ranger team that was on a nighttime raid to kill or capture a local Taliban leader. According to CNN the Rangers were under heavy fire from Taliban insurgents and in dire need of support.

But that raised the question of why there were no gunships – helicopters or C-130s – on station. Then it was revealed that the Rangers secured the crash site with no casualties, instantly calling into question the claim that the Chinook was on a rescue mission.

That claim also led to the question of why a Special Operations force – at that time the Pentagon had not yet released the identities of all those killed on the aircraft and most reports indicated that all the passengers were members of SEAL Team 6 – would be used as a reaction force for another special operations unit, a job that again would normally would be handled by regular infantry troops.

The fact that so many members of SEAL Team 6, the unit that killed Osama Bin Laden, were aboard instantly prompted questions of whether they were ambushed and killed in retaliation for his death. That theory required that someone with inside knowledge of the team's activities and whereabouts would have alerted the Taliban to its presence – a possibility, but also one that requires a high level traitor somewhere along the line.

It seems unlikely but that theory persists in some circles.

Later in the week the Pentagon revised its explanation and said the Ranger unit was on a mission to kill or capture a local Taliban leader – a valid mission for the Rangers who themselves are special operations troops. But military officials said some Taliban were escaping and the troops on the Chinook were called in to provide a blocking force.

But again, that merely reiterated the question of why conventional infantry were not used, and again, why so many Special Operations Forces were on one aircraft. Standard Operating Procedures called for such teams to be split up on several aircraft so the loss of one would not mean the loss of all team members.

It wasn't until after the remains of the dead were returned to Dover Air Force Base on Wednesday August 10, and President Obama made a highly publicized and ultimately controversial visit to the base, that information was released on the true makeup of the occupants of the Chinook.


Shadow President Barack Hussein Obama

Obama banned all media from Dover when the remains were returned and said he was banning all photos of the coffins at the request of families. But personnel on the base during the president's visit said he also wanted to be sure there were no pictures that showed him and the coffins together.

Obama did bring the White House photographer to the base, without the knowledge of Pentagon officials. Obama and a few of his entourage had an "artsy" picture taken, with him in silhouette saluting – something off in the distance.

On Friday FOX News finally was able to report the names, services and military occupations of all the deceased, and also showed video footage of the crash scene, with graphics indicating that the Chinook came down in the midst of a Taliban ambush and was hit in midair by numerous forms of weaponry. Sources in military intelligence say the Chinook was hit by at least three RPGs in addition to automatic weapons fire.

The FOX report revealed the true extent of the forces on the Chinook, a combat air controller, pararescue specialists, high altitude - low opening (HALO) parachutists, divers, a cryptologist, explosive ordnance disposal technicians assigned to the SEAL team, and one dog. The force consisted of SEALs and other Navy special operations personnel, in addition to both Air Force and Army special operations troops.

By Special Operations standards a 30-man, multi-service force is huge, and normally would be on a mission that could have included capture or killing of extremely high level targets, hardly the task assigned them on Aug. 6.

The regular army unit that had been stationed near the crash site could have assisted the Rangers without the need for outside forces. In fact, had the regular Army troops still been in the area it is questionable whether the operation would even have been necessary.

The use of Special Operations troops to do the job normally tasked to regular infantry unfortunately is not unusual for the Afghanistan Theater in the War on Terror. Until recently, with the exception of the initial invasion in 2001, Afghanistan has been treated like an unimportant backwater in the war – even though the September 11, 2001 terror attacks were unleashed from there.

Even after the major successes of American and allied troops aligned with the anti-Taliban forces in 2001, the terrorist Taliban and Al Qaeda forces have persisted, never really disappearing. When American commanders turned their attention to Iraq and pursued fleeing Al Qaeda fighters there, Afghanistan operations became the responsibility of NATO forces, and success seemed to become a dirty word, with the terrorist forces rebuilding their ranks and taking over huge swaths of the country virtually unimpeded.

After the American victory in Iraq, American commanders and politicians again focused on Afghanistan where the situation had deteriorated terribly. An increase in American fighters there was approved by Obama but he also announced that there would be a withdrawal date, determined by Obama's promises to his political base, not conditions on the ground.

Obama also said when he announced his troop withdrawal policy that he was going to turn much of the work being done by conventional infantry in Afghanistan over to Special Operations Forces, a comment that led many analysts to envision small teams doing covert work that would result in strikes on the Taliban by drones, conventional aircraft or artillery.

Now it is obvious that Obama's comments meant he would replace the line infantry units with the highly trained special operations troops, who not only have many more years invested in specialized training, but often are much higher in rank than the typical fighter in an infantry company. Thus a review of the ranks and specialties among the Special Operations fighters lost on August 6 shows that they had accumulated more than a century of experience – and will be very difficult to replace.

Yet the Obama Administration continues to bumble along ignoring the criticism of his Dover "photo op" as he focuses on a three-day campaign bus tour paid for by taxpayers. Next, he's taking his family to Martha's Vineyard for a week's vacation.

FOX News reported that at least three investigations have been launched to determine what happened on that dark Afghan night. In my circles, the Obama Administration is so universally distrusted that the word "whitewash" is heard frequently. In fact, this week the Washington Times published a story in which an unnamed "Commando" placed the blame for the August 6 incident squarely on the shoulders of the local commanders.

Maybe so, but they were taking orders from much higher up the chain of command and the guys on the bottom should not have to take the blame for the guys on the top.

We may have to wait a long time to determine how these investigations turn out, but one thing is certain right now. Barack Hussein Obama is the commander in chief, and it was his order to reconfigure the troops in Afghanistan, regardless of whether or not he had direct knowledge of circumstances that led to the death of so many troops.

As such, to quote one of his predecessors, the buck stops with him. These deaths, and all others in the War on Terror from Inauguration Day 2009 onward, are directly tied to him, and we can only hope the American voting public remembers the events of August, 2011 in November, 2012.

Meanwhile, across America, families, friends and colleagues are mourning the deaths of the Special Forces personnel and all others who have died defending this country, while their commander in chief shows once again that he is not fit to lead.

Minnesota had a .500 day in Ames, Iowa yesterday, with US Rep. Michelle Bachmann winning the straw poll, and that state's former Governor Tim Pawlenty coming in third, and ultimately dropping out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

Right on Bachmann's heals was Rep. Ron Paul, coming in second only 152 votes behind Bachmann, which I find troubling and hope doesn't indicate that he'll be a front runner going into next year's caucuses and primaries. I'll explain in a minute.

Pennsylvania's former Sen. Rick Santorum made a great showing, coming in fourth, which had him walking on clouds since he had made a big deal of being ignored by the national media and was considered to be way back in the pack. At least the GOP voters in Ames were listening to his message.

Similarly, right behind him in a shocking fifth place showing - for the media - was former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain, who no one is talking about today.

Herman Cain

But Cain is changing the face of the GOP presidential race, with a message directly from the business world where he has been an overwhelming success. Cain is showing the independent and disenchanted Democratic voters that not only do we have a diverse field of viable candidates, but that we are on the same page to a great degree with our opposition to the failed administration of the vacationing Barack Hussein Obama.

Now, just to get our bearings, we should take a second to review why the third-place finisher is dropping out of the race, while the fourth- and fifth-place finishers are celebrating. In a word - Expectations.

Gov. Pawlenty put a lot of time, money and personal appearances into the Ames Straw Poll, which in itself may not have been a really good move. Considering the amount of effort he put into Iowa, Pawlenty was expected to beat Michelle Bachmann. He didn't come close.

Now Pawlenty can't go back to his financial backers and show that people are listening to, and more important, responding to his message. He can't expect to raise much more money and that puts his candidacy to an end. In retrospect, did he really expect to do better than Michelle Bachmann who was born and raised in Iowa, and whose family counts among that state's earliest settlers?

Santorum and Cain, however, were not expected to place anywhere near the top and since both did they can both claim momentum, which can keep them going at least through January when the caucuses begin. Santorum and Cain both did well in the GOP debate last Thursday, both have a clear and convincing message and both can be formidable opponents for the so-called "top-tier" candidates.

Cain has made a point on numerous occasions that he still is working on building national name recognition and thus has a distinct disadvantage when compared to the rest of the field, all of whom have been in the political area for years. That his message is taking hold was evident, however, when Cain spoke to the Straw Poll attendees Saturday afternoon.

Cain promised that he would never remove the phrase "endowed by our creator" from the Declaration of Independence - as Barack Obama did in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute on Sept. 18, 2010. When Cain made that point the applause and cheers were overwhelming.

So, while Cain polled fifth overall, he still out-polled such GOP heavyweights as former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich; Texas Gov. Rick Perry who announced his candidacy at a stop in South Carolina about midway through the Straw Poll voting and received nearly 800 write-in votes; former Massachusetts Governor and acknowledged national front-runner Mitt Romney, and others.

That means people were listening to his message and responding to it. That means Cain will likely be in the race at least through the early caucus votes and that means GOP voters nationally will be seeing and hearing from a broad range of backgrounds and will have some real choices when the binding votes are cast.

As for Ron Paul, who nearly toppled Bachmann in her own home state, due I believe to a well established and fiercely loyal following that has been with him for years, he showed once again in his Saturday speech that he should not be president of the United States. He did this by saying one moment that he is a proponent of free trade, and the next that we should withdraw all US troops from all overseas posts and bring them back inside the US borders.

Besides coming across as rabidly isolationist, Mr. Paul claims to be the opposite of Obama, yet his foreign relations positions show him to more of a mirror image of the current president.

Free trade across the globe has been maintained since the first ancient navies floated wooden rafts on big ponds by the military forces that are necessary to keep the trade routes open. If Mr. Paul stopped to think about it for a minute he might remember the line "to the shores of Tripoli" from the Marine Hymn, referring to the Marines taking on the Barbary Pirates at the behest of Thomas Jefferson in 1803 and onward.

I would like to see our troops disengage in places like Libya where we are doing no good and getting nowhere and don't even appear to have a battle plan. But elsewhere such as Japan, Germany and South Korea, countries cited by Mr. Paul in his Saturday speech, we are there to insure that the trade routes stay open and previous histories of dominance by dictators and brutal regimes are not repeated.

Mr. Paul might get cheers and votes from anti-war supporters across the political spectrum, but they are not realistic, in fact I see them as hopelessly naive, and I don't see him going much further when real votes are taken.

The final votes at the Ames Straw Poll were: Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)- 4,823 votes
Ron Paul (R-Texas)- 4,671 votes; Tim Pawlenty - 2,293 votes; Rick Santorum (R-Pa.)- 1,657 votes; Herman Cain - 1,456 votes; Rick Perry - 718 votes; Mitt Romney - 567 votes; Newt Gingrich - 385 votes; Jon Huntsman - 69 votes; and Thad McCotter (R-Mich.) - 35 votes.

The Ames, Iowa Straw Poll is held only in years prior to the presidential election when there is not a GOP incumbent. Let's hope the next one isn't held until 2019.

Eight Republicans who want to be president of the United States met on the stage in Iowa last night in a debate hosted by FOX News and the Washington Examiner.

The Winner? FOX News and the Washington Examiner!

I say that because the debate was at times heated, humorous, informative, off the wall and certainly thought provoking. In short it was great live television, and even though there is some criticism that some candidates resorted as often as possible to talking points and campaign rhetoric, there was more than sufficient spontaneity to offset the prepared comments.

Among the night's luminaries were former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich who showed once again that his intellect is sharp and his grasp of national and international issues is wide-ranging; Ron Paul who showed that if he ever became president he would give Barack Obama a run for the title of worst ever; and Herman Cain who got far too little attention.

If there was a dead spot in the night, for me anyway, it was that the panel of questioners, who overall were excellent, focused too often on the pissing match between former Wisconsin governor Tim Pawlenty and current Wisconsin Representative Michelle Bachmann.

Both are intelligent, opinionated and knowledgeable, but I don't see either of them as a national front-runner despite the polls in Iowa, and I don't care what they think of each other. I don't care who did what or how they interpret it and encouraging their back and forth attacks only took time away from the other candidates.

I watched both of them on Fox News Sunday over the past couple of months and I decided a week ago that when the primary season comes around I definitely won't be voting for Pawlenty. I made this decision because after questioning from Chris Wallace - on FNS, not during the debate - Pawlenty commented that Bachmann's level of experience is similar to that of Barack Obama's, adding words to the effect that we have seen how that worked out and we don't need to repeat that mistake.

When Wallace then asked Pawlenty point blank if Michelle Bachmann is another Obama, Pawlenty ducked the question! All he had to say was "Yes" or "No."

Instead he responded like a typical politician, using a lot of words but saying nothing. Obviously, if he is going to compare Michelle Bachmann's voting record and experience level to Barack Obama's then he is saying the two are similar and thus she is not worthy of the presidency.

But to try and parse or spin his comments is just more obfuscation and we don't need that, do we?

I was very pleased to see that when Herman Cain had an opportunity to speak he not only was forthright about his positions and past statements - in addition to having real world knowledge of how business and the economy are supposed to work - he also has learned from past slips.

For instance, on a FNS show a few months back he was not well versed on the issue of the Palestinian claim to Right of Return in the more-than-a-half-century-old dispute over the land that now comprises Israel. Cain muffed that question on FNS but obviously went right out and studied up on it because he was far better prepared last night.

Cain also did not duck questions about his support of the residents of Murfreesboro, Tennessee, who do not want a Muslim center in their community. A group of residents filed suit against Rutherford County in 2010 after the Regional Planning Commission gave the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro site plan approval for a 58,000-square-foot facility.

FOX questioners have made reference to Cain's position on this dispute several times, with the implication that his resistance is racially based and as a black man he should know better.

But Cain has articulated his position in-depth numerous times and repeatedly has made the point as he did in the debate that his opposition is not to the Muslim religion, but to the institution of Muslim Sharia law in ANY community in the United States of America. Sharia law is based on the tenets of the Muslim religion and is seen by many to be inconsistent - in areas such as equal rights for women - with modern society and legal principles.

Cain was well-versed on the Constitution noting that it does not prohibit the practice of religion, but has no room for people in any American community to establish their own laws that are different - in the case of Sharia, markedly so - from our Constitution.

Elsewhere, I have watched Ron Paul on many occasions and while he has some positions on national issues that I totally agree with, his grasp of international affairs leaves me shaking my head. It is one thing to say you don't agree with the deployment of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but to say that Iran has good reason to want atomic weapons and that there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq are not supportable positions.

And to say kind things about Iranian strongman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - who wants to destroy Israel and thinks that if the world ends in a massive explosion of heat and light he will wake up in an instant in his version of paradise - is flat out naive.

So, thanks but no thanks on Rep. Paul.

Probably the most controversial question of the evening came from panelist Byron York, political correspondent for the Examiner, who, quoting Michelle Bachmann in an interview she gave in 2006 saying she was "submissive" to her husband, asked if that would carry over to the White House if she is elected president.

The crowd booed York but I think it was a fair question especially since Bachmann said she and her husband define submissive as meaning "Respect." I looked up submissive, submit, submission and several variations of that word, especially seeking synonyms and found nothing that even came close to "respect."

Interesting. Maybe we should vet her husband.

Overall, it was a good night, and the candidates at least had an opportunity to showcase their beliefs and positions. Bret Baier was a perfect moderator, and York, Chris Wallace and Susan Ferrechio of the Examiner were both fair and incisive in their questioning.

My scores: New Gingrich, up; Herman Cain, up; Tim Pawlenty, down; Michelle Bachmann even; Rick Santorum, even; Jon Huntsman, down; Ron Paul, down; Mitt Romney, even.

The next big deal is the Ames straw poll tomorrow which is a non-binding popularity contest that really has no great weight or meaning beyond what the media gives it.

What we'll learn tomorrow is how successful the candidates have been at convincing the residents of Iowa that they would be a perfect choice for president. After that, there is a long wait for the caucus and primary votes where the race for the nomination picks up speed, and drops off the losers.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was all over the international news this week, calling out the United States as international parasites, and trying to impress a group of Young Communists by climbing a rock wall without a harness and attempting to bend a frying pan with his bare hands.


He didn't get the job done on the frying pan, but it seems as though he probably could score some points with young Russians who were born years after the jackboots of communist oppression were lifted off of their parents' necks. And lest we forget, those jackboots were put there to a major degree by Putin himself, when he was a big noise with the Russian Secret Police.

Putin is known for getting headlines, but it appears there is far more to his grandstanding this time than meets the eye; certainly more than the national or international media cares about.

Putin likes the world to see him as a strongman, not one of these American and European unweaned international metrosexual pusillanimous purveyors of pap who think the United Nations is the answer to humanity's ills. Putin is a stand-up guy, who, whether you agree with him or not, is right in your face if you disagree with him or are in the way of his intentions.

Also, even though the Soviet Union with its brutal repression of lands under Russian control has been dead for two decades, Putin still is capable of backing up his words with actions. Not like it was 25 years ago, but still formidable in many regards.

I've been told that lately those intentions include a renewed presence in Hanoi - yes Hanoi, capital of Vietnam, where it was the Russians who provided most of the support for the communist regime during the Vietnam War. The Vietnamese apparently still owe the Russians about $10 billion - which buys a lot more in Vietnam and Russia than it does here.

So the Russians are in Hanoi now, using diplomacy to get them where they really want to be - Cam Ranh Bay the massive deep water port that has extensive support facilities built and expanded by the United States in the 1960s.

After South Vietnam fell to the communists in 1975, and after they crushed a rebellion of the South's rice farmers - the communists classify them as "peasants" - in 1977 when the farmers discovered what collectivization is really all about, and after they put hundreds of thousands of people into concentration camps where tens of thousands died, and after a million more fled on the South China Sea as boat people with about 300,000 never making it to shore, and after Cambodian communists went on murderous rampages that made the Vietnamese communists look like Boy Scouts, Russia and Vietnam signed a 25-year agreement that gave Russia extensive rights in the ports the US built.

The website Russian Defense Policy http://russiandefpolicy.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/return-to-cam-ranh/ states in a blog written last October that "According to Newsru.com and Vremya novostey, in 1979, Moscow and Hanoi signed a 25-year agreement by which the Soviet Pacific Fleet's 17th Squadron gained access to Cam Ranh. Vietnam allowed the Soviet Navy to base 10 surface ships, 8 submarines with a submarine support ship, and 6 auxiliaries at the port. The Soviets had POL storage, an ASW (anti-submarine warfare) and missile armaments base and technical service unit, a Naval Infantry sub-unit, and an air regiment at Cam Ranh.

The base was initially free, but Hanoi asked for $300 million in rent in 1998. In 2001, Moscow decided not to extend its agreement with Vietnam, and the last Russian elements departed Cam Ranh in mid-2002."

Now you probably are asking yourself what is prompting Russia to suddenly be taking an interest in Vietnam again. Actually, you should first be asking yourself why we, meaning the United States of America, also are taking a renewed interest in Vietnam.

For starters, there have been plenty of people in the US trying to renew relations with Vietnam - the communists that is - for decades, partly through trying to convince the American public to "get over" the war, all the while pushing the false claim that Vietnamese farmers, the Viet Cong, defeated the world's greatest military. But the American public is far more educated than the people who like to think of them as sheep are prepared to believe, and they know that the American military didn't lose a single major battle in Vietnam, the entire VC military was annihilated in 1968 and 1969, and that the northern communists were given a free hand to destroy the south by our own State Department and Congress.

So efforts to increase tourism and business opportunities have fallen short. I've been invited to go back several times in the last 10 years and really have no interest - until very recently.

AMERICAN LEADERS - OBAMA, KERRY

I don't want to visit the communist "Victory Museum" in Saigon where Jane Fonda and John Kerry are displayed prominently as Heroes of the Revolution. I also don't want to return to the scene of battles where we shellacked the communists only to read their self-serving propaganda on little plaques where they declare victories that they never enjoyed during the fighting.

RUSSIAN LEADER - VLADIMIR PUTION, ENOUGH SAID
That being said, we are expanding our diplomatic presence in Hanoi at the same time the Russians are, and we are once again locking horns with our old enemies - and depending on the point in history, our old friends - over the diplomatic tables. Why?

China.

Republican President Richard Nixon went to visit China in 1972, leading to the abandonment of Vietnam by the US Congress in 1973, and the fall of the democratic south to the communists in 1975. He was credited with "opening" China to the west.

Ever since, subsequent Democratic administrations in the US have been giving more and more business and secret technology to China, and worrying the hell out of our Pacific allies including Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, not to mention the Russians.

jimmy carter renegotiated our long-standing agreements with Taiwan to appease China, even though Taiwan is the last bastion of a democratic Chinese government. Likewise, Bill and Hillary Clinton helped the Chinese get their hands on our rocket guidance technology by reclassifying secret circuitry as video game technology, at the same time our 99-year lease for bases in the Philippines lapsed thus denying us access to the massive Subic Bay naval facility, Clark Air Force base and others.

The Clintons' largess led to generational jumps in Chinese rocketry and satellite capabilities, and since then they also have acquired our sonar technology and our stealth technology, including samples of the paint used on the Black Hawk stealth helicopter that went down in Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan when the Al Qaeda leader was killed by US Navy Seals.

A friend who studies the region told me about 20 years ago that major world powers were ignoring China's advancement in its naval forces, which was not considered a smart move. Since then Democratic administrations have gone out of their way to help the Chinese while simultaneously weakening the US.

The alignment of forces in the Pacific and Southeast Asia can be easily figured out if you take an objective look at what happened there after the democratic governments in South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia fell to the communists after they were abandoned by the US in 1975. In all three countries the communists went on a rampage of reprisals, slaughtering millions of civilians from the very young to the very old, while imprisoning and enslaving millions more.

As bad as things were in Laos and Vietnam, they were much worse in Cambodia where the communist Khmer Rouge forces went on a four-year orgy of murder, rape and torture. At least 2 million Cambodians, nearly half the country's population, and probably many more, were slaughtered.

In fact, the "excesses" of the Khmer Rouge which were hidden from public view by a compliant media, eventually became too widely known and were seen as an embarrassment to "moderate" communist regimes worldwide. The situation became so egregious that Vietnam's communists ultimately invaded Cambodia's communists in an effort to stop the slaughter before everyone was dead.

In that conflict the Vietnamese were backed by the Russians who had backed them during the war with the United States, but China jumped in and helped out the Cambodians. China even launched an invasion of North Vietnam's border provinces to draw some of the Vietnamese forces away from the war in Cambodia.

Ultimately the Vietnamese communists prevailed over the Cambodian communists and the slaughter and torture were brought back to "acceptable" levels. But in that region, the Vietnamese still hate the Chinese, and even though the Russians were seen as humorless cheapskates, they still are considered an ally.

To add to the chaos, the world now has a fawning US president who bows to Muslim terrorists, and kisses the asses of Chinese officials at every opportunity - remember he made the Dalai Lama use the trash entrance at the White House so as not to offend the Chinese who are systematically eliminating the people and culture of Tibet and Nepal.

Barack Obama has shown by his own actions and those of his bureaucrats, cabinet members and advisers that he believes the US should be relegated to a third-world trash heap for having the audacity to emerge as the leader of the planet, and he obviously is quite content to let China take over and dictate our future.

But, President Obama notwithstanding, the United States still has people who believe we can regain our world status with appropriate leadership in Congress and the White House, and even the hand-wringers realize that there has to be some kind of counterbalance to an unbridled Chinese presence in the Pacific and Indian oceans.

Use of the deep-water ports in Cam Ranh Bay and DaNang - also housing US built facilities - is key to an economically viable deployment of naval forces in the area.

We know this and Vladimir Putin knows this. And as much as Putin hates the US, you can bet he hates the Chinese more.

That point wasn't expounded on to a great degree but this segment from the Russia Defense Policy website does give the briefest of hints to the thinking of at least some Russian military and political leaders:

"Izvestiya quotes independent military analyst Aleksandr Khramchikhin:

"Theoretically, I welcome the reestablishment of a Navy base at Cam Ranh. For Russia, it is a very composite and most useful facility abroad. Without it, the operations of the Pacific Fleet are impeded. Also very little remains of the Pacific Fleet. This fact, however, doesn’t change the usefulness of the base at Cam Ranh. Such a step could, of course, create certain foreign policy difficulties for Russia. I suppose the U.S. and China will express dissatisfaction, but this will hardly have any real effect. As concerns Vietnam, it would pay to view it as our most important ally. Russia largely cast it aside after the collapse of the USSR. This was a gross mistake worth correcting."

It's worth recalling Khramchikhin may view Vietnam through a slightly Sinophobic prism."

That last line speaks volumes. Slightly Sinophobic. I bet.

So, we saw Mr. Putin take the international stage once again, but don't dismiss his presence as theatrics. He was making a point. Obama was probably out golfing or sneaking a smoke behind his wife's back, and I doubt he cares in the least what Putin is doing.

But there are plenty of Americans who are paying attention, and they should be.

Note to my Russian readers: Yes I know you read my blogs. And not just from Moscow either. Please pass this message on to Mr. Putin: If you want to do strongman tricks it pays to practice in private before you fail in public. There are techniques to all of these tricks.

Yes you have to be strong, but you also have to know the technique. Hint: heat the frying pan before you try to bend it. Not to the point of cooking your hands hot, but beyond room temp. Metal tends to bend more easily at higher temperatures.

You're welcome.