Today I am posting a column written exclusively for Winter's Soldier Story by an aviation enthusiast who has an insider's view of gas taxation politics as it applies to the aviation industry.

Today we inaugurate an occasional offering From The Flight Deck.

As a pilot I can tell you there is no better feeling than taking off early in the morning from Tampa Bay on a 179 heading to Key West, spending an hour or two in the domain of the Gods, watching your friends stuck in rush hour traffic below, working or relaxing in the Keys for the day, then returning home without even once encountering gridlock or road rage. Days like this are what many of us mean when we say we are living the American Dream.

But the government is working to kill this dream for many who have achieved it, or aspire to it. We are told that the Federal Aviation Administration is in a funding 'crisis' and more money is needed to enhance the air traffic technology system - a process that has been ongoing for years.

So, even though this administration touts itself as being solidly opposed to increased taxes, and wants to enhance opportunities for the small businessman, including those who have discovered that a small plane can open up entire new worlds of business opportunities, the suggested fix is - new taxes, this time by doubling the tax on aviation fuel used by private pilots!

Is this a 'read my lips' moment?

To add insult to injury, we are continually enhancing the air traffic technology system with funds already derived from airlines and passengers paying ever-increasing taxes disguised as 'fees' for one thing or another, every time they buy a ticket.

Could someone explain to me how the government can spend so many years and so much money on air traffic control technology to increase the safety of air travel while reducing the number of people needed to do the job, but still claim to be in a safety crisis and thus needs to increase taxes yet again?

Try that rationale in the business world and see how far you get. Can you imagine the director of IT telling a corporate CEO that even though the IT department has spent tons of additional money to do more work with the same or less staff that they're still coming up short? Well that's the FAA argument.

The government saying that it has been successful in downsizing human costs in air traffic control through the use of enhanced technology, thus it now needs more money, makes about as much sense as saying the French are the best war fighters in the world and we should model our military after theirs!

This would be a good time to fill you in on a couple of important details about flying in America. We have the safest air traffic control system in the world - bar none. To help maintain and improve this system, General Aviation (private) pilots are already paying 30 cents per gallon in taxes on aviation fuel, nearly double the price Americans pay in federal gasoline taxes for their automobile.

But now the government wants GA pilots to pay 70 cents per gallon, a rate that far exceeds the highest automobile gas taxes - state and federal combined - in the country! I should note here, for those whose answer to everything is "tax the rich" that you don't have to be rich to be a pilot or own a plane. You have to be responsible, have dedication, excellent motor skills, depth perception and hand-eye coordination, but the average high-end SUV can cost far more than a good single-engine four-seat private airplane.

So, let's not get into this 'if you can own a plane you have enough money to pay more taxes.' OK?

I have wanted to fly ever since I was a child. My uncle was an F-18 fighter pilot and when I was a teenager he took me to the base at Miramar, California, home of the Top Gun school where he was an instructor, to see that beautiful plane doing "touch and go" maneuvers. I even witnessed a "proper wave off" - a full afterburner climb within 10 feet of the runway. I was so close I could smell the burnt rubber and feel the scorching heat. That experience only added to my desire to fly.

But flying was one of those dreams that seemed as likely as winning the lottery - not because it's impossible, but sometimes life just catches up with you and the next thing you know you have other responsibilities and other priorities. It costs money to rent planes and pay instructors while you study and train for a private pilot's license, instrument rating, and beyond.

But, this is America, the birthplace of flight and if you have a dream, you're one step closer to living it. For me, the dream was there, and the intent was there, so I went out and worked to achieve my dream, complete with multi-engine commercial license with instrument privileges.

But now, through yet another form of taxation, it seems as though the government has come up with yet another way to take away some of our freedoms. As usual, "we the people" didn't get to vote on it either.

Does doubling the taxes on aviation fuel limit the amount of hours some pilots will be able to fly each month? "Tough," says the government, "pay up!"

There is an incredible level of hypocrisy here. The Bush administration says it is working for the small businessman and individual freedoms. But how many jobs will be affected by the reduced hours that many private pilots will fly due to the increased cost of fuel? How many small airports across the country will see less flights, thus less demand for people to do all the jobs that revolve around the aviation industry?

Is this a way to take the ability to fly, unfettered by the limits of highways, traffic and speed limits, out of the hands of the average citizen and relegate it once again to only the rich and privileged? Are we one step closer to being required to obtain permission from the government before heading off to the Keys for a day of work or relaxation?

I recently had a great opportunity to meet with some aviators from an earlier generation, flight crews from B-29 bombers who laid it all on the line for our country more than 60 years ago. These gentlemen were quite eloquent in their reasons for taking such enormous risks back then, so that two generations later people could continue to work in and build this country, on the ground as well as in the air.

The one word they expressed most frequently when asked why they went to war for America was "freedom." It was a pleasure and honor to speak with these heroes, but I could only wonder whether the freedom they spoke of will soon be taxed and regulated to a point where it is only a wisp of a memory in a fading dream.

Let me start out by saying up front that I listen to Rush Limbaugh, and I never listened to Air America.

I used to enjoy Al Franken when he made his living as a comedian, but I never considered him to be a serious politician or even commentator, so when he decided to take up the left-wing point of view I moved on.

I listen to Rush for a number of good reasons, and I also use some of his lectures as the basis for civics instruction in the home schooling I provide for my daughter. (For those of you who are already typing up smarmy commentaries to send to this column, don't waste your time. I won't read them and I won't publish them. I know what I am doing and I don't need your input.)

All that being said, I was more than a little interested in the attempts to create a furor over Rush's parody of the Peter, Paul and Mary song from the 60s, Puff The Magic Dragon, which in the world of Rush became Barack The Magic Negro to the same tune.

Now, for those of you who don't listen to Rush, before you get on the torches and pitchforks bandwagon, Rush Limbaugh didn't come up with that phrase. It actually was written in the LA Times and that was a response to a Sen. Joe Biden comment that Obama was "clean and articulate," apparently an unexpected development in the world of black politicians for Biden.

So, in the wake of that comment, and the expected response from Al Sharpton, the LA Times prints a column about Obama, which included the phrase "magic Negro" basically on the theme that Obama, with a virtual un-Sharpton image, might just be the first black man who could be elected president of the United States.

It didn't take Limbaugh long to put together a parody of that statement, with the singer sounding very much like the Reverend Al singing through a bull horn, Sharpton's trademark from his street protest days.

As could probably be expected, myopes on the left who pretended not to know where the original statement came from started agitating to do something to Rush for having the audacity to say Negro, and especially to say it in a song parody. As it turns out, the myopes have been totally unsuccessful because while they pretend not to know where the phrase came from, just about every legal American citizen who understands English knows exactly where the phrase came from, and there isn't going to be a Don Imus moment for Rush on the Magic Negro issue.

That is history. Here is what I would suggest Sen. Obama should do if he is serious about his run for the presidency.

Embrace the song. Learn it, sing it, hum it, play it every time you enter a room full of potential donors just like Hail To The Chief is done for the president.

Why would he do this you might ask?

For an answer I have to turn the clock back to the late 60s and the anti-Vietnam War movement. During that time I was a Marine engaged in preparing for, fighting, and coming down from fighting in that war, rather than demonstrating against it, because I had an uncanny ability to foresee the future and I didn't want millions of Southeast Asians to die at the hands of the communists. Unfortunately, I was ignored while the anti-Vietnam War crowd got all the attention and millions of Southeast Asians died at the hands of the communists.

During that time there were many, many songs labelled anti-war, sung by contemporary artists who knew where to make a buck even if they were supporting murderous communists who were were hell bent on world domination and didn't care how many people they killed to achieve it.

Two of the more famous of these songs were the I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin-To-Die-Rag (also known as the Vietnam Rag) by Country Joe MacDonald who performed with the band Country Joe and the Fish, and the other classic, Alice's Restaurant by Arlo Guthrie.

Now, considering that I and about three million of my best friends were applying our uncanny abilities to foresee the future by fighting to save Southeast Asia, and thus the world, from the murderous communists, you might think that we would have been really, really upset with songs like those. But we weren't.

In the first place, we liked good music. We also managed to keep a collective sense of humor. Instead of getting all bent out of shape over these songs, we embraced them! We learned them, we sang them, the musicians among us learned to play them on various instruments, in fact, my unit, Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 161 even adopted Alice's Restaurant as "our" song!

We also liked Peter, Paul and Mary very much, especially Mary, and learned all their songs too. The fact was, we, far more than most people who were back in the states protesting against us, truly understood the brutality of war, and while we fought to win, we also understood far better than most protesters just how awful war was as a means of settling disputes.

So we did our jobs, and along the way, sang "Whoopee we're all going to Die!" and "You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant" with total abandon. Whatever intent may have accompanied the decisions to write, record, and perform those songs, if negatively impacting our morale was an objective, it flat out didn't work.

Sen. Obama could have the same result. Here you have a bunch of left-wing myopes, not-so-distant cousins of the Southeast Asian communists who murdered millions of people in their quest for world domination, trying to make an issue out of a non-issue, and along the way making Sen. Obama look like just another thin-skinned, humourless race-baiter.

That second part is a hidden agenda, but if you think about it for a second you'll see that it would work. Sen. Obama could possibly get the Democratic nod if he gets an overwhelming majority of the vote from black Democrats, but if he can't show that he can relate across the entire political spectrum, including all parties and all races, he won't get the general vote, which means he will lose the election.

Personally I think the left-wing myopes are a bunch of racists who really want to keep black people down, all the while they are claiming to be the champions of minorities. But as long as they keep Sharpton and others of their ilk out in front, claiming to be the official spokesmen for the black community, the left-wing myopes know they will always have a division between black and white Americans.

But if Barack Obama takes the opposite approach, and takes Barack The Magic Negro as a theme song of sorts, it will have exactly the opposite affect. It will show that he has a sense of humor, it will show that he doesn't get riled by the small stuff, it will show that he doesn't hold grudges against inconsequential things even if they are parodies of him, and it will show Americans of all other races that he won't be constantly playing the race card.

And it will bring attention to the fact that he just might have the qualifications to be president!

In short, it will make Sen. Obama appear to be a genuinely balanced, human candidate, with a good sense of humor and perspective. It will shoot him light years ahead of Hillary Rodham Clinton, and attract a lot of interest from unaffiliated voters, who really hold the keys to political power in America if they decided to vote.

Think about it. It would work.

As the troop levels in Iraq increase to the number required to fully carry out the current offensive referred to as The Surge, the Run-and-Hide rhetoric from the Democrats and turncoat Republicans in Congress also has risen to a level that can best be described as shrill.

Both houses of Congress have passed bills calling for our defeat in Iraq, which President Bush will rightfully veto, and once again the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction is the focus of the pro-terrorist arguments. The WMD issue is and has been a diversion, useful for limited political purposes at home, but in the long run harmful to the US, our allies, and our troops who are fighting this war.

So once again, it is time to revisit those halcyon days after 9-11, but before we invaded Iraq, to take a look at what was really going on. First, everyone and their brother, going back to 1990 and the Gulf War, believed that Saddam Hussein had and would use WMDs. He had gassed the Kurds, killing thousands, and was actively working to build a nuclear bomb, leading politicians from the middle of the Clinton Administration onward to call for his expulsion, overthrown or death whichever came first.

But then came 9-11, and our successful invasion of Afghanistan. US troops joined with the Northern Alliance of Afghan fighters which had been actively, but not successfully opposing the Taliban. Together they made short work of the Islamic extremists who had turned Afghanistan into a living hell and had provided a haven for the leaders of the terrorist movement that attacked us on 9-11.

During that fighting, a little known but historically significant event occurred that would have far-reaching ramifications on American politics and unified support for the War on Terror. A Taliban leader, Abu Al-Zarqawi, who was close to the leadership of Al-Qaeda, and would become much closer, was seriously wounded in the fighting.

His wounds required extensive hospitalization in a modern facility for short-term stabilization, long-term treatment, and then would require extensive physical rehabilitation in a secure environment.

Al-Zarqawi was evacuated and transported not to Pakistan, not to Somalia, not to Syria, not to Iran, but rather to Iraq, to Baghdad in fact. (The fact that this occurred should give us a better idea of the extent and resources of the world terrorist movement.) There he was given sanctuary, security, treatment and rehabilitation all under the watchful eyes of Saddam Hussein, whose son Uday ran the hospital where Al-Zarqawi was being treated.

Ultimately he was back on his feet, so to speak, and was released. But Al-Zarqawi did not return to Afghanistan, or follow Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al-Qaeda, into the sanctuary of the mountains on the border with Pakistan. Instead, he stayed right where he was in Iraq.

Why? Because the Taliban had been effectively demolished in Afghanistan, there was no army to speak of, a major political reform movement followed the defeat of the Islamic extremists, and he no longer had a political or military power base.

But in Iraq, Saddam Hussein gave him sanctuary and training camps to mold a new generation of suicidal extremists along with the security and financial support to carry out his mission. It was obvious to anyone who was monitoring world-wide terrorist activity that Iraq would be the launching pad for the next wave of terrorist attacks on the US.

George Bush was given this information and decided that it would be best to take out Iraq, including its leader Saddam Hussein and any terror groups he was supporting, before we were attacked again.

Bush had enough support in America to carry out his plan. We had been enforcing no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq since the Gulf War, international sanctions had been in place, but strangely enough, not working for the better part of a decade, and Americans were in no mood for diplomacy anyway. Bush had promised to track down and "smoke out" the terrorists who had attacked us, wherever they were hiding, and if that was Iraq, so be it.

But somewhere along the way someone convinced Bush that we needed an international coalition supporting us to effectively carry out an invasion of Iraq without harming our international standing. Here is where the WMDs came in.

Bush and his administration created a list of reasons why we needed to invade Iraq for presentation to the international community. Saddam's pursuit of WMDs was on that list, although pretty far down from the top. But since WMDs in Iraq would be more of a danger to his neighbors, and even our so-called allies in Europe, than they were to us since Saddam didn't have the delivery capabilities to reach the US, they became the focus of the drive for international support.

Unfortunately, the center for international support was in New York City in the Untied Nations building. But in that building, dozens of alleged diplomats who should have been solidly on our side, were secretly taking huge bribes, hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes, from Saddam Hussein through the UN administered Oil For Food program, to let him circumvent the economic sanctions, which is why they weren't working.

As later investigations would show, these diplomats included representatives from France, Germany, Russia and China, all of whom were on the UN Security Council that would have the last say in whether that august body would support Bush. Surprise of surprises, they voted to "get tough" with Saddam, and to enforce even more sanctions, but no way would they support an invasion.

So we went ahead, with huge support from the United Kingdom, Poland and dozens of other countries across the globe that fully understood the ramifications of letting Saddam go unchecked - and weren't a bunch of bribe-taking thieves and charlatans.

But in the eyes of the American Left, also known as the Democratic Party, it wasn't the right coalition, therefore it wasn't valid, and the criticisms began - small at first, but growing over time. These same critics, by the way, were saying that a successful invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam would take three years and cost tens of thousands of American lives.

We all know how wrong that prediction turned out to be. Our troops devastated everything in front of them from the southern border of Iraq to Baghdad, and were poised to destroy Saddam's northern army, which turned south from Kurdistan and headed toward Baghdad to do battle with our forces, but mysteriously melted away into nothing on the way south.

And right there, amidst a stunning victory, the criticisms began. We didn't use enough troops, we didn't anticipate such a quick victory, we didn't plan for the aftermath, we didn't secure the borders, we didn't have enough MPs, we didn't stop the looters, we didn't secure weapons caches, we didn't do this, we didn't do that. The fact that we had overthrown, and eventually captured Saddam and his murderous, rapist sons, and in the process had totally disrupted Al-Qaeda's plans for further attacks on us, was disregarded as inconsequential.

Then, horror of horrors, it was revealed that the much anticipated (or dreaded) WMDs were nowhere to be found. Suddenly, WMDs became the only reason why we invaded Iraq, and suddenly George Bush and his administration had become world-class liars.

Frankly, I think that response had far more to do with our shutting off the bribery pipeline than anything remotely involving real criticisms of progress in the War on Terror.

I believe, based on hard experience that can't be learned in any formal school setting, except for the University of Hard Knocks, that when you encounter a potential adversary, the extent of the weapons he may use is NOT the first thing you need to know. When you are facing a potential adversary, the first thing you need to know is whether he is in fact an adversary - in other words you need to know intent.

If you leave an office building late at night, your car is on the far side of the parking lot, in the dark, and you suddenly see a hulking figure between you and your vehicle, you don't ask yourself whether that person is armed, and with what. You ask yourself what that person intends.

For all you know, it may be a security guard, assigned to walk you to your car safely. But if he is not, if he is in fact a mugger, your first responsibility is to ascertain intent, not weaponry.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein and Abu Al-Zarqawi's intent was evident all across that country. So we went in and took them out before they could carry out their plans.

Yet, from the point it became evident that we couldn't immediately find WMDS, regardless of the fact that a new political system was born in Iraq, regardless of the fact that we are helping rebuild an army that serves its citizens rather than murdering them, regardless of the efforts to bring an end to age old hostilities that have constantly kept the Iraqis from even dreaming of, much less achieving, their full potential nationally and internationally, and regardless of the fact that we have killed tens of thousands of terrorists elsewhere, rather than here, our efforts in Iraq have been portrayed by America's Democrats and the mainstream media as an unworkable mistake.

Nonsense. I don't know if I am more surprised by the outlandishness of the claims by the Run and Hide proponents, or that so many Americans seem to be unaware of just how difficult and dicey any military campaign can be. There are no slam dunks.

We won WWII, but not without costly and lethal mistakes. Take some time to review the battle history of the North Africa campaigns, the battle at Anzio, the Battle of the Bulge, the Battle for Leyte Gulf, just to name a few. Major mistakes were made on all of those fronts and cost lives in numbers that Congressional Democrats and the media would salivate over today.

But each time we recovered, and drove on to victory. If a Republican sitting in the White House had been presiding over a war rife with the kind of mistakes that occurred on FDR's watch, the calls for impeachment would be deafening.

I don't agree with everything that the Bush Administration has done, and I shouldn't be expected to, nor should anyone else. But it is important despite occasional disagreements to keep the war in perspective, and not take our eyes off the ultimate goal which still is to keep our borders secure and defeat world-wide terrorism.

Our troops have helped create a new Iraq whose citizens have a chance for freedom and democracy. This new Iraq can be a real ally to the US, a stabilizing force in the Middle East, and a deterrent to further terrorist attacks against us.

Not everything that was done in Iraq was done perfectly, yet we still are showing tremendous progress on all fronts. To arrive at these conclusions we must view the war from historic and military perspectives, and above all we should listen to the troops.

One reason I dedicated this column to the HMM-161 Greyhawks, who are again serving proudly and effectively in Iraq, is because I served in 161 when I was in the Marines. In fact I spent most of my active duty time in that unit.

I heard from two current members of my former unit within the last week, both deployed to Iraq, both career Marines. When you communicate with the people who are actually tasked with doing the fighting for the 99 percent of America that is not in the service, and the 93 percent of America that has never been in the service, one word comes across consistently.

"Motivated."

There are things these Marines, and by extension all our service members, know because they are in the middle of the fighting. They know we are winning, they know the other side is taking a horrendous beating compared to our casualties, they know Iraq is progressing to democracy and sustainable freedom, and they know the biggest threat to achieving an overall victory is not the terrorists, but the US Congress.

I heard a Democratic Congresswoman say on Fox News last Saturday that 60 percent of the Americans believe we should withdraw from Iraq immediately. Bull! I'd love to see the poll that she is quoting, and I don't mean the results, I mean the methodology. I'd love to see how the questions were worded, who was polled, and what choices they were given for answers.

Even polls that are done honestly are going to be skewed since the media reports only on car bombings, suicide bombers and American casualties, thus skewing our knowledge and thus our opinions. It takes time and effort to find out what is really going on in Iraq and the answers aren't in the mainstream media or polls.

What Americans really want in Iraq is evidence of progress and victories. Based on what I hear from the people actively engaged in the fighting there is plenty of progress and there are plenty of victories but the media has no interest in reporting them.

So I will pass this on to all who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially my Marine brothers and sisters, particularly to those in helicopters, and especially the Avionics personnel of the HMM-161 Greyhawks. Regardless of what you may have been told, your predecessors who fought in Vietnam didn't just win every battle, we crushed the communists, and twice they were ready to surrender until they were bailed out by communist sympathizers in the US Congress and the media.

Ultimately South Vietnam fell not because we ever lost anything, or did anything wrong on the military front. South Vietnam fell because our government was infiltrated - and some who are responsible for the debacle in Southeast Asia 30 years ago are still in Congress today - and they pulled the plug on an ally who demonstrated in 1972 that they could stand pretty much on their own if we still supported them.

The same thing is happening today, but there is one huge difference. The Vietnam vets got no support from the general populace and far too many Americans willingly believed every lie they were fed by the media.

But we are still here, and we know the truth. As the Gathering of Eagles in Washington, D.C., on March 17 showed, we can and will stand up for our country, ourselves, and most especially our troops. We don't need the mainstream media because we have the Internet. We can communicate with each other, we can communicate with you, and we are doing it.

We will not let the same thing happen to you that happened to us. We will not desert you as previous generations of Americans did to us. We fully understand the enormity of your task, but we also understand and support your ability to carry it out.

For those of you in 161's Avionics section I would also pass on one last point. When I served in 161 in Vietnam, and flew gunner in addition to my regular duties, we lost three members of the Avionics section KIA, and five more wounded, out of the 20 killed in our deployment.

Not one day has gone by that I don't think of my friends from back then, those who survived, and those who did not. It was difficult to say the least, the conditions were atrocious, and many of us refined 'bitching' to a high art form as a way of relieving the tension.

In the years since, your predecessors have gone on to many other endeavors - teachers, small business owners, entrepreneurs, writers, farmers, fishermen, builders, administrators and managers to name just a few. Most married and became parents, raised families, contributed to their communities. In short, we achieved the American dream and made contributions on many fronts.

But for all of us, regardless of what happened in the US Congress, and despite our complaining while in the combat zone, (I admit I was one of the biggest offenders) our time together in the Marines, especially as members of the HMM-161 Avionics section, was an unparalleled experience.

So take a moment when you can, and absorb every facet of your current deployment. Commit to memory the faces, the names, the sounds, the smells, the sensations of where you are, and what you are doing. If you are a writer, take notes. Keep copies of your orders. Get home addresses for your friends in 161 and other units.

The day will come when this will end, and you will understand what I am saying now. You will be the victors, you will be the ones who put terrorism down. You will want to reunite. You will want to remember, not forget.

Above all, stay 'motivated' and dedicated to the task. You are winning over there. Those of us who did serve, and did fight, know and understand this.

America pulled the rug out from under us and our allies three decades ago. We will NOT let that happen to you. Remember that 25 million veterans and our families, regardless of political affiliation, are on your side and are fully supportive of you.

As difficult as it may seem, try not to pay attention to the nonsense you hear from Congress or in the media, and don't let it get you down.

Concentrate on winning the war over there. We have your backs over here.

Semper Fi

In 1958, when I was very young, then-Vice President Richard Nixon visited South America and along the way his motorcade was stoned in Caracas, Venezuela's capital. Nixon and his wife Pat were spat upon.

I remember seeing the incident on television and reading about it in the local papers. I also remember that it made me sad to think that the vice president of the United States of America, my country, was treated so poorly by one of our neighbors. But at least back then, members of America's executive branch had to travel outside the country to experience anarchy, street riots, out of control politics, and sheer lousy manners.

Nearly fifty years has passed since that unfortunate incident, and now our country has deteriorated to the point where an American president can be treated like a doormat without ever leaving the Oval Office. If you were to believe the daily talking points hammered out by the Democratic Party, run by left-over communists making one last stab at world domination, and their public relations agency, the Associated Press, you would think that America is one step away from sliding into the ocean and joining the Lost City of Atlantis.

Since I care about politics, and the state of our military, I often am tuned in to a variety of news outlets, but all I hear from the vast majority of them is bad news.

Even when the news is great, it is portrayed as bad news. If our guys win a battle in Iraq or Afghanistan, we don't hear that they won, or how many terrorists they killed, captured or wounded. We only hear about our losses, which, while regrettable, are usually minimal in comparison to the victory we won - but you don't hear that.

Case in point - I wrote recently that the AP makes a big deal of it if Taliban fighters cross the border from Pakistan to Afghanistan, attack a village, kill some local police and take over the village square for a few days. But when NATO troops or the Afghanistan army attack, kill hundreds of Taliban and send the battered remnants limping back over the border, you hear nothing.

Well, on Thursday a Taliban army unit attacked a small village in Afghanistan, and it took them five hours in a pitched battle against the local police to overrun the village square. Two police and the mayor were killed, and 10 Taliban were killed.

The AP reported that the Taliban took over the entire district, and what an embarrassment this was to the Afghan government! Yet when the Afghan army units got there - to the village, not the district - the mighty Taliban had run for the border to lick their wounds. That didn't get very much play from the AP, which should be of no surprise to anyone.

On the domestic financial front, when the stock market tanks for a couple of days, the media claims it signals the end of the capitalist economic system. When it reaches new highs, it simply means the rich are getting richer, while the poor are being used as step ladders.

When unemployment drops to historic lows, it barely gets a mention. When hundreds of thousands of new jobs are created, they aren't the right kind of jobs. According to the media and the Democratic party, every single job created in America since George Bush was elected is a menial, minimum wage embarrassment that proud and capable people would never stoop to if they weren't in dire straits.

When the minimum wage issue arises, which is used to create an artificial benchmark from which unions boost their wage and benefit demands, it seems that every single minimum wage earner is an uneducated, single parent with 12 children who will never get promoted or take advantage of adult education opportunities.

And every single one of these issues is George Bush's fault! Or so the media would have us believe.

Global Warming? George Bush, even though it has been going on for more than a century. American dependence on foreign oil? George Bush, even though he at least is promoting alternative fuel use and development.

Gas prices? Bush. High cost of chain store coffee? Bush.

Lousy date last night? Bush. Bad hair day? Bush.

Crime? Bush. Weather? Bush. Gun Control? Cheney. (Hah, just checking to see if you're reading.)

Aside from the War on Terror and the Battle for Iraq, the number one issue on most Americans' minds is illegal immigration. While we certainly have to come up with a cohesive national policy on that issue, let's face it, the issue exists because millions of people are trying to get in to the United States. Why? Because things are so much better here than in most of rest of the world!

Are there things George Bush does that I don't agree with? I certainly hope so! I don't vote in elections from the local to national levels to put puppets into office. I want to hear ideas that are different from mine, I want to debate issues, and I want to see that creative thinking is going on all along the political process.

If you want lock-step, mindless, bureaucratic governments, go to communist or socialist countries and see how you like it there. I guarantee you, not one of them has an immigration problem. Most of them have human rights issues and armed guards to keep the labor force in, otherwise all they would see is the heels of their citizens as they run for the borders to get out!

I saw Jesse Jackson on TV this morning, getting ready to march in New Orleans because that city hasn't been cleaned up or rebuilt after Hurricane Katrina despite the US Congress providing billions of dollars in aid to do just that! So whose fault is that? George Bush? Hardly.

He isn't responsible for the ineptness and corruption in New Orleans any more than he was responsible for keeping federal troops out of Louisiana during the emergency. Unfortunately, far too many Americans have no idea that the section of the federal code detailing how and when federal troops can be deployed for law enforcement purposes in national emergencies - formally known as Posse Comitatus - requires that the governor and legislature of affected states approve the deployment except in cases of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons use, or insurrection.

Personally, I think the president should have invoked the insurrection clause when Louisiana's governor, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco refused to allow the military to be deployed for nearly a week in the aftermath of Katrina, while the residents of New Orleans suffered. I also think President Bush was far too lenient on her and should have been screaming from the rooftops that she was the primary obstruction. But that is one of those areas where I disagree with him and it isn't a matter of national security.

As far as the current situation in New Orleans, Jackson said his real concern is that the former residents of that city won't return, and that will upset the voting demographics and Congressional representation there, which is the real reason he is marching there. The money is there, the aid is available. If New Orleans and Louisiana's government bureaucracies are too inept or corrupt to handle it properly, investigate yes, prosecute if necessary, but don't blame it on George Bush. There is only so much he can do.

In Iraq, I have had my disagreements with the president. I think we were far too lenient with the militias, especially the militia run by Muqtada Al Sadr, right from the start. I disagree with Rules of Engagement, and I vehemently disagree with the way our service people have been arrested and treated for claims of wrongdoing that aren't standing up to scrutiny.

If someone is shooting at our guys from a mosque or other 'holy' building, we are not the ones disrespecting their religion. They are, and the building should be leveled if that is what it takes to get the bad guys at minimal exposure to our guys.

If terrorists are hiding in neighborhoods and the residents of those neighborhoods are cooperating with them, it should be a free fire zone. I don't like it any better than anyone who has never gotten closer to a war than their TV or movie screen, but it is the best way to ensure the safety of our troops.

If you can drop a bomb from an airplane or a shell from an artillery battery without holding the gunners responsible for innocent deaths - in a war - then the same conditions should apply to the infantry. Other than provable incidents of troops deliberately targeting the civilian populace for crimes not involving split-second decisions in combat, the Rules of Engagement should be tossed!

Al Sadr should never have been allowed to build his militia and we never should have agreed to stay out of Sadr City. If you want to bring security to Iraq you start out by being the baddest guy on the block and you make sure that any anarchists who challenge you are flattened, immediately and irrevocably. That is how you create a secure environment out of chaos.

Those points aside, I am happy that the president has changed commanders in Iraq and is embarking on an offensive designed specifically to bring stability there long enough for the Iraqis to get their feet solidly on the ground. I am happy that he is standing firm in the face of some outright treasonous comments from Congress - Democrats and Republicans alike - and I am confident that given full support from their commander in chief, our troops will accomplish their mission.

On the political front, I was told by a very well educated Republican operative the other day that we have to be "civil" in our dealings with the Democrats. Really? Where is that written? Who said that?

Are the communists who run the Democratic Party being civil to anyone who disagrees with them? Check it out. They attack people in or running for office on every single level of the political process from local to national, and even international if they don't like our UN ambassador.

Every day America is forced to sit through interminable accusations and hearings in Washington, none of which has accomplished anything, but which perpetuate the appearance of chaos in our nation's capital.

Vice President Dick Cheney and President Bush are portrayed as murderers who engineer wars just to keep their friends rich, but no one talks about how successful they have been in preventing further terrorist attacks on our shores since 9-11. They both have lost valuable members of their staffs because the communists running the Democratic Party have targeted them for disposal, and say outright they intend to "get" this or that staff member. Karl Rove is the name they use most often.

Meanwhile, no one says squat about leaks to the media from within Congress on our surveillance, detention or financial tracking methodology. If those leaks had occurred in the World War II, the perpetrators would have been caught, tried and most likely, shot.

If I had one suggestion for President Bush it would be to take a good hard look at the people who are surrounding him inside the DC beltway. It is nice, it is absolutely wonderful, to have highly educated staffers and operatives and telemarketers.

But if they have only formal education and have no life experiences that give them the ability to apply that education, the result is ineffectiveness - in other words, you lose elections, you lose Congress and your life becomes infinitely more difficult.

A highly educated, Washington-based staffer who doesn't know that the Gathering of Eagles is not a Republican fund-raising unit, and who worries more about what his liberal Democratic friends will be saying over cocktails after work than whether we are effectively combating efforts to dismantle our form of government, is not being helpful.

This is a hard time for America, and overall George Bush is doing well, despite what is said about him on the political front. But he and Vice President Cheney have far more to worry about than constant belittlement and distractions from their political opponents.

Instead of running for cover and hiding away as they are doing now, the Republican fence-sitters and even the Republican turncoats in Congress should be standing up and taking on some of the fight so the executive branch can function as it should. Otherwise, they can expect to see their seats move from the R to the D category in coming elections.

Remember, I live in Connecticut, where the state Republican Party was dominant a decade ago and now is an endangered species. It didn't happen because the Democrats were so much better, it happened because our party was infiltrated, distracted, and rendered ineffective.

All the while people who were in office did nothing, said nothing, and now are on the outside looking in.

Harry Reid, Nevada's Democratic Senator, the grand poobah of the U.S. Senate, the man who is sending U.S. troops to their deaths daily through his unchallenged support of terrorists in Iraq, says he doesn't have to respond to Vice President Dick Cheney's criticisms because Cheney has a 9 percent approval rating.

Aside from the stifling hypocrisy of a man leading the U.S. Senate at the same time he has gone over to the side of the enemy in the War on Terror, and has a second job as a cheerleader for Islamo-fascists, Reid's claims that he doesn't have to answer for his actions are the best example yet of his disdain for the American system. Reid obviously has forgotten that he is a public servant, not a tyrant or dictator, and as such he is required to explain himself regardless of who is questioning his actions.

But I'd also like to get a look at the polling sample that says the VP has a 9 percent rating. Since I work in public relations I am familiar with polling and how it can help potential clients.

What I have found is that you can do an honest poll and get some real results that are helpful in directing your marketing and advertising efforts, or you can be a political hack and turn out poll results that were scripted beforehand and serve only to give you what you wanted in the first place. (In my firm we only do honest polling.)

The methodology for skewed polling is pretty straightforward. If you want to get an overwhelming result against the death penalty for instance, your best bet would be to do a sampling of death row inmates. If you can't get access to enough of them to give you a "fair" sample, then you get a mailing list from an active anti-death penalty group and use those people for your sample.

But polling has become far more sophisticated than that. Professional pollsters know that they can predict the results of their questioning based on how they frame the question, the potential answers provided, who they question, the population demographic they sample, and even when the people polled are questioned.

In my little corner of the universe, when I am in the company of people I consider friends and allies - which by the way includes Republicans, Democrats and Independents, veterans and non-veterans who nonetheless support the military - people generally like the VP. Far more people like him than dislike him, and they think he is doing a great job of speaking up and out for America.

Some people think Vice President Cheney is the only Washington figure speaking out for America and while they are royally frustrated with the Republican Party in general, their dissatisfaction doesn't extend to the VP.

So if I ran a poll today of let's say 100 acquaintances, and threw in maybe a dozen staunch Democrats who would say they hate the VP even if the VP was Mother Teresa, I could turn in an approval rating well in excess of 80 percent. I guess that would mean I can approach Reid and MAKE him answer why he is supporting the terrorists who are killing our troops.

This over-reliance on pre-engineered polls is dangerous, not to mention ridiculous. We send people to Congress to represent us, but we also give them the opportunity to let us know what is going on in places like Iraq where the average citizen has little to no access.

But instead, we have Congress continually using supposedly objective polling data to support political positions that actually have no resemblance to reality. The polls not only are skewed themselves, but the information given to the public by the media, on which the polls are then based, is also skewed.

So we end up with a constant cycle of decline, rather than an informed populace. This could not happen if the mainstream media wasn't just a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, but unfortunately most Americans still get their news from people who have their own political agenda.

For instance, if a bomb blows up in Iraq, according to the Democrats, the communist media and especially Harry Reid & Associates, it means we have failed for that day, that week, and that month in that area, especially if bombs have blown up in that area before.

But what these bomb blasts really mean is that the terrorists have failed at intimidating the residents of that area, and we are still there, and they can't mount anything remotely resembling an offensive that has a chance of succeeding.
It means they are failing. They haven't defeated us, they haven't defeated that neighborhood, they haven't cowed anyone and they have to return repeatedly using the most heinous, cowardly means possible to try yet again to make their point.

This type of terrorism has failed time and again. It failed when used by communists, anarchists, Nazis, and now Islamo-fascists, yet we see Reid and the Congressional Democrats using their version of these events to push their 'Run and Hide' philosophy.

There are many things wrong with the way the war in Iraq has been handled, and virtually all of them come from political interference from people who have never been in a knock-down, drag-out fist fight, and have no idea how to proceed to victory in that arena.

We let enemies like Muqtada Al-Sadr go, when we had him in our grasp, which allowed him to turn his 'army' from a group of a few hundred to several thousands, all by use of terror tactics.

Today, the whole world knows that we are in the middle of an offensive against Al-Qaida in Iraq, as well as Sadr's army, and that we don't even have the troops who will be engaged in this 'surge' up to full strength. Why? Why do we know so much about what is happening today, and is intended for tomorrow and beyond?

One reason why the allied invasion of the German empire succeeded on D-Day, June 6, 1944, was because the Germans didn't know where our troops were going to land. It was brutal fighting, and we lost more than 4,000 killed in a few hours that fateful morning, but the landing in Normandy succeeded because some of the German Army's best troops and equipment were elsewhere.

We didn't alert the Japanese as to which island the Marines would be hitting next in the Pacific campaign during WWII, so why do we alert the terrorists not only that we are starting an offensive, but where it will happen, the timetable involved and even how many troops will be there?

Muqtada Al Sadr heard we were coming to his neighborhood even before this 'surge' got underway, and took off for Iran where he was giving sanctuary and the ability to maintain lines of communication with his troops. That ladies and gentlemen, is just plain stupid of us.

Lately, Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the multi-national force in Iraq, has been called to Washington to brief the Congress on the progress of this offensive, that still isn't up to full steam. Why?

If he is in charge of the fighting in Iraq, and our troops are in the middle of an offensive, his place is in Iraq, doing his job. If Congress needs yet another bogus round of hearings to micro-manage the military, then the uninformed among them should charter a plane, go to Iraq, and sit around the Green Zone cooling their heels until the General or his aides have a moment for them.

They he can brief them all at once, and get them the hell out of his hair and get back to fighting the war.

This appearance in Washington not only took him away from his post during combat, a court-martial offense for anyone below the rank of General, unless his name is John Kerry, it was counter-productive at worst and meaningless at best.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi refused to attend the General's briefings, and instead talked with him on the phone. But then we get a skewed version of what the general said.

Pelosi claims he agreed with her and Reid that the war in Iraq can't be won. That isn't what I heard the general say. I heard that he says a military victory is only one facet of ultimate victory there, the others being political, social and economic stability.

If Gen. Petraeus believes we can't score a military victory in Iraq then he should have been screaming it from the top of the Capitol building as well as in the halls of Congress. He should have been telling Congress to get us out of Iraq right this minute and the consequences be damned! That is his job and he should say so.

But he didn't say that, and it was disingenuous of Pelosi to imply otherwise.

But you watch. Reid and Pelosi, abetted by the media, will continue to claim that the war not only can't be won, it already has been lost. They will repeat the big lie, their accomplices in the media will continue to spread the big lie, and ultimately polls will show that some majority percentage of Americans believe the big lie.

But it still will be a big lie. And we can only hope that Dick Cheney will continue to expose it for what it is, and understand that out here in the real country called America, his approval rating is far higher than 9 percent, and we don't like Harry Reid at all.

Al-Qaida-in-Iraq, the Islamic-extremist group that lately is enjoying an elevated status in the world of terrorism thanks to Senate Democrats Harry Reid and Carl Levin, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, is claiming 'credit' for a suicide truck bombing that killed nine U.S. paratroopers and wounded 20 in Iraq Monday, April 23.

It was the deadliest attack on ground forces since Dec. 1, 2005, when a roadside bomb killed 10 Marines and wounded 11 on a foot patrol near Fallujah, and marks an escalation in tactics used by the terrorists.

According to numerous statements from Reid and his cohorts in Congress, US troops have been wasting their time in Iraq, fighting people who aren't Al Qaida terrorists, but instead represent competing factions within the Muslim religion, in short, a religious civil war. However, news reports said the statement taking credit for the attack came from The Islamic State of Iraq, an insurgent umbrella group that includes terrorists such as Al Qaida.

The statement said it sent "two knights" in explosive laden dump trucks into the base, a highly unusual action for terrorists fighting America's armed forces. The first truck exploded, knocking a hole in the building's defenses, and the second truck then drove into the building before it too exploded.

"The first knight exploded his truck on them and he was followed by his brother in the second truck, exploding it on what remains from the soldiers inside the headquarters," the terrorists' statement said.

The victims were all members of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division. Military spokesmen have said that 15 of the 20 troops who were injured returned to duty.

"Almighty God has guided the soldiers of the Islamic State of Iraq to new methods of explosions," according to the statement on the terrorists' web site. Apparently Reid and Almighty God have been collaborating on how to employ new tactics to best advantage in Iraq, and when to use them for maximum political impact in the US.

It doesn't take an expert on military tactics to figure out that recent statements from Reid, Levin and Pelosi that the war in Iraq has been "lost" by America and its allies, emboldened the terrorists to use the new and more dramatic tactics. Congressional Democrats use near daily press conferences to showcase every enemy action and bombing as proof of their point of view.

In fact, virtually all of the discussions on the conduct of the war including the number of American casualties, the number of troops America is employing, where they are to be stationed, and when, are held at news conferences or Congressional hearing rooms rather than closed-door meetings where terrorists would not have access. Rather, what should be classified discussions on the conduct of the war are broadcast live to a world-wide audience including the terrorists who use them as intelligence gathering opportunities.

The use of a suicide bomber in a direct assault against U.S. forces was unusual because terrorists, who according to reliable reports are being killed at a rate at least ten times that of coalition forces, usually rely on remotely detonated roadside bombs and hit-and-run attacks. Superior firepower and tactics used by Americans and other coalition forces regularly result in heavy terrorist casualties.

However, it is rare that the news organizations covering the fighting in Iraq reveal any information on terrorist casualties. Print, electronic and Internet news reports from Iraq over the past week have discussed numerous clashes and bombings and are pinpoint specific about coalition casualties, but contain no information on terrorist casualties.

There is no doubt in my mind that the renewed vigor and change in tactics by the terrorists is a direct result of Congressional interference in the conduct of the war. This includes messages of support directly to the terrorist forces in the near-daily news conferences, ongoing efforts to undermine America's current offensive by attempting to set withdrawal deadlines and funding cut-offs, and issuance of statements that discourage troop morale while simultaneously invigorating the terrorists.

There is no doubt in my mind that the non-stop pro-terrorist rhetoric from Reid, Levin, Pelosi, their supporters and Republican turncoats is working to invigorate and inform the terrorists. When the ongoing offensive began for instance, terrorist forces, including their leader Muqtada Al Sadr, fled as fast as they could, with Al Sadr going into hiding in Iran.

But Congressional Democrats have waged an intense disinformation campaign ever since the so-called "Surge" began, giving the impression that American troops will soon be gone, and in recent days attacks on Americans, other coalition forces and Iraqi civilians have intensified.

Reid, Pelosi and Levin can spin this any way they want and employ an army of apologists to try to deflect blame from them. But I have no doubt that the attack on the 82nd Airborne troops and the recent escalation by the terrorists is a direct result of their public statements.

Maybe when the bodies of the brave paratroopers who died in Iraq Monday are brought home for burial, Reid will tear himself away from the Washington media spotlight, or his vast real estate holdings in Nevada to attend every single funeral. There he can explain to the troops and the families of the deceased exactly why he is sending regular messages of support and encouragement to the enemy that caused their deaths.

I have visited Fort Bragg where the 82nd Airborne is based, and knew several members of that elite force many years ago. If today's paratroopers are anything like their predecessors, I am sure that Senator Reid, and anyone who accompanies him, such as Levin, Pelosi and their supporters, will be greeted and dealt with appropriately.

First there were the reports, duly buried by the pro-communist American Terrorist Media, that a Chinese Navy submarine had sneaked right up on one of our aircraft carrier groups, completely evading our most advanced sonar capabilities.

Then they 'painted' one of our communications satellites with a laser beam, showing that they could target it for destruction if they were so inclined. A month later they destroyed one of their own older weather satellites with a rocket, demonstrating that they weren't kidding around and could smash our defense satellites too.

Now we find that the widespread contamination of pet food that caused deaths and serious sickness to dogs and cats across the country resulted from a deliberate act of sabotage in - you guessed it - China.

Then, when US government officials told the Chinese that they wanted to inspect the plants in China where the contamination took place, the Chinese open-trade policy suddenly went south. The response from China was along the lines of "Uh, visas? What visas? We don't have your visas. Don't you have your visas? Gee, we can't let you in without visas? I guess you'll have to apply for new ones. It'll take time though."

Yeah, just enough time to get into those plants and make sure that anything that might constitute incriminating evidence is long since departed.

As a recap on the pet food contamination issue: Federal officials say ingredients imported from China - and used in the more than 100 brands of recalled pet foods -may have been intentionally spiked with melamine, an industrial chemical used in plastics and fertilizers, to boost their apparent protein content. The Food and Drug Administration is investigating how the melamine contaminated at least two ingredients imported from China, wheat gluten and rice protein concentrate, used in the pet foods.

China's immediate response was to block the FDA's efforts to inspect the facilities that manufactured these melamine-tainted ingredients.

Taken together these incidents and 'provocations' to use one of the communists' favorite words, amount to a continual assessment of our defenses - probing the perimeter as we used to say in Vietnam. They obviously are looking for weaknesses, ways to get to us on a number of fronts simultaneously, and by all appearances, they have found something.

They know that they can evade our sonar. They know that they can destroy our communications satellites, which would render much of our essential military communications inoperative. (Let's all take a moment to properly thank the Bill Clinton administration.) This is more than communications between headquarters and far flung field ops; it also would include targeting systems right on the battlefield, including tanks, artillery and air cover, cell phones, and global positioning systems.

Now they also have a good idea of just how well, or unwell, our food inspection system works. I consider the pet food incident a test of our system. This time it was Pekingese, next time it will be us.

How long have we been worrying about possible contamination of our food and water by terrorists or other enemy forces? Is there an outside chance that the e-coli bacteria outbreak a few months ago was also deliberate sabotage, right here inside the USA?

How much food do we import from China anyway? Lots. Fruit, vegetables, and fish for starters, all of which have had contaminated shipments stopped on the docks when they arrived in American ports. CBS News reported today that some of the same contaminants found in the pet food supply also made it to the human supply before quietly being pulled.

Some say the contamination and animal deaths are to be expected, a natural outgrowth of globalization due to China's fractured food supply and inspection system. Maybe that's true, but it also doesn't hurt, if you are a die-hard communist still holding on to dreams of world domination, to use those flaws to create problems for your number one adversary while simultaneously probing and testing defenses.

It seems with all the constant pettiness in Washington, D.C., the non-stop attacks on one administration official after another, the incessant public battling over the conduct of the War on Terror, and especially the Battle for Iraq, that our other adversaries, the Chinese and Russians, are making hay while the sun shines.

In all likelihood we have more than a billion friends in the Chinese and Russian populaces, but we have zero friends in their governments. They are still communists - in practice in China, at heart in Russia - and like the Islamo-fascist terrorists we are fighting, they believe the battle should go on on forever, regardless of the cost.

It works very much in the communists' favor if America and our western allies end up in a religious war pitting Christians and Jews against Muslims. We can see by the conduct of the communists' allies and fifth-columnists in Congress that extended warfare can have a debilitating effect on the country.

If this is repeatedly hyped in the media, as it is, the public eventually becomes psychologically war weary, much as troops encounter battle fatigue after long periods in combat.

The best evidence of this is President George Bush. Have you taken a close look at him in public appearances lately? The man is exhausted, and probably suffering from sleep deprivation, as we all would be if we were perpetually fighting both foreign and domestic battles.

I don't believe the Democrats in Congress are as interested in sending members of the administration to jail as they are in exerting constant pressure on Bush on the domestic front, hoping to wear him down and assist the terrorists who aren't doing as well on the foreign military front.

They were successful in getting Tom DeLay and John Bolton out of loop, but that didn't stop anything. Scooter Libby, who didn't do anything wrong, nonetheless is facing a jail term for perjury, but he probably wouldn't have been convicted if he had been tried anywhere except in a D.C. court.

Then it was on to Alberto Gonzales, who also didn't do anything wrong, but you wouldn't know it from the Democrats' statements combined with the royally unfavorable press coverage. Then we have the ultimate threat to 'get' something on presidential adviser Karl Rove. I have yet to hear exactly what it is that DeLay, Gonzales or Rove have done that earns them these constant attacks, but obviously wrong-doing isn't a prerequisite.

All you have to do to prove this is to listen to some of the unbelievably stupid comments from Congressional Democrats - that lack of evidence of wrongdoing is evidence of a cover up!

The upshot of the constant pressure from the Democrats and a handful of Republican turncoats, is the appearance of distraction and inability to cope in the Oval Office. If continued successfully for another 18 months this could result in a change in political parties in the executive branch to match the changeover in the legislative branch.

But that short-term goal, and the short-term gain it would represent, ignores the long-term damage to our country. The Democratic majority in Congress, led by Sen. Harry Reid, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, already have shown that they have no stomach for any kind of real fight, other than their nursery school-level verbal slap fests in the media.

With wimps like them in charge the terrorists wouldn't have to fight any longer, they'd be able to march in and take over unopposed. Then Reid and Pelosi would learn the terrible truth about their duplicity, but by then it wouldn't just be all over for the collaborators, it would be all over for all of us.

There is a sure way to offset this. President Bush needs to take Pelosi, Reid, Levin, and the turncoat Republicans by the throat and smash their stupid, pudding filled heads into a brick wall - figuratively speaking of course - until they start to get the message.

That would ensure that their supporters in and out of Congress would crawl back under their rocks and garbage piles, just like cockroaches when the lights come on, and we can get back to sensible governance.

There will be some resistance, of course, from Democrats, the media and turncoat Republicans, but it will be short lived. But Bush has to come out swinging and I don't mean verbally.

He needs to invoke the powers of his office to apprehend and bring to trial the collaborators and spies who are undermining his office, the war effort, our troops and our country. If he does it forcefully and completely he will have the full support of the majority of Americans.

Anything less, and he will get 18 more months of the same old attacks, resulting in failed initiatives, a lost war, and a failed presidency.

There is a groundswell of anger and frustration growing within Middle America, crossing racial, ethnic, gender, generational, religious and political lines.

It is aimed at the Democratic leaders of the House of Representatives and Senate and was fueled this week by claims from Michigan Senator Carl Levin and Nevada Senator Harry Reid that the war in Iraq is lost.

Levin declared the war lost on Fox News Sunday, April 15, and this week Reid said, "I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week."

House Minority Leader John Boehner responded "He is telling our enemies they have won. ... Mr. Reid's comments are demoralizing to our troops, and just plain wrong."

"Just plain wrong" doesn't cut it. Their claims, and supporting commentaries from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are so outrageous, so harmful to our troops, so un-American that citizens across the spectrum are calling for their arrest and trial on treason charges.

Meanwhile, Americans are equally angry and frustrated that President George Bush appears to have done little to nothing to stem the escalating attempts by the Democratic majority in Congress to sabotage the war effort, our troops and our country. I am not talking about giving speeches here.

I have seen some of the president's recent speeches, and they are certainly to the point. But we are way past the time for talk, and well beyond the threshold for direct, effective action.

I share the country's outrage as do many who lived through similar lies and sabotage in the Vietnam era. We are well aware of the resultant carnage in Southeast Asia. But I would like to take my outrage in a slightly different direction.

I don't think Reid, Levin and Pelosi should be tried for treason, because that would imply that they are Americans. I think they should be arrested and tried as spies, collaborators and infiltrators, because there is no way in hell they can be citizens of this country.

On paper, maybe. But in the heart where it counts the most, no way.

Many people believe Reid, Pelosi, Levin and their supporters should be tried under the section of the U.S. Constitution that defines treason as giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy. I would agree except that they may be able to beat the charges by claiming what I believe to be true - they can't give aid and comfort to the enemy because they are the enemy.

Citizen: a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it.

Spy: a person employed by one nation to convey classified information of strategic importance to another nation.

Collaborator: to cooperate with or willingly assist an enemy of one's country.

Ever since 9-11 we have worried about terrorist "sleeper cells" emerging from within our country to wreak havoc on our citizens. We have been diligently searching for bombs, sabotage to our infrastructure, or possible nuclear, chemical or biological attacks. But I think we were looking in the wrong places.

Reid, Pelosi, Levin and their supporters are engaged in an ongoing campaign to dismantle our efforts to protect ourselves from terrorists and defeat them militarily. While the terrorists have been soundly defeated in every battle we have fought with them, and have made no gains anywhere, the internal campaign by their collaborators in the US Congress has been steadily eroding our national will and abilities.

I believe Reid, Pelosi, Levin and their supporters constitute a sleeper cell that has emerged from hiding and is wreaking havoc on our country.

I am not saying that they as representatives of the people don't have a right to voice their concerns. But we are in a war and although none of them ever served in the military and thus have no personal point of reference to understand the impact of their words, they certainly have been told enough times by enough people of the magnitude of harm they are causing.

They are saying that men and women who are engaged in combat operations against terrorists in Iraq, the same terrorists who also are fueling an internal war between factions of the Muslim religion, are making needless, futile sacrifices.

How can you make a statement like Reid made, or Levin made, and then expect our service personnel to willingly go out on the field of battle? The answer is simple. You can't.

The only thing you can and should expect from our military once you have made a statement that they are fighting a lost cause is that they would want to disengage as quickly as possible before any more damage is done.

If the Reid, Pelosi, Levin triad actually believes we are losing in Iraq and should retreat as fast as possible, there is a time and place for questioning the strategies, tactics and possible outcome of war fighting. It is in closed-door discussions between top civilian and military leaders with no media present, not in front of a bank of TV cameras and reporters.

Making their false claims in front of the media not only shows their assertions to be politically motivated for short-term gain at home, it also uses the world media to send messages directly to the terrorists that the United States has no will to continue the fight through to victory.

When terrorist leaders, like any other leaders, get good solid intelligence that their tactics are working and the enemy, in this case us, is wavering, they unquestionably will redouble their efforts, regardless of the cost to them, because they have been given more than reasonable assurances of ultimate victory.

Reid, Levin and Pelosi know this. They are obviously anti-American, to say nothing of unpatriotic, but they aren't completely stupid.

Yet, in all of the rhetoric, there is one question that no one seems willing to ask these self-anointed military geniuses. If we are losing the war, could you tell us where and when this occurred?

We have lost somewhat more than 3,000 troops over a five-year period, about 500 less than the number of U.S. Navy personnel killed over a three-month period in the Battle of Okinawa in WWII. I mourn those losses as do all real Americans.

But in the meantime, terrorist casualty figures compiled from military and press accounts from outside of America show that at least 35,000 and possibly more than 50,000 of their fighters have died.

I can find no instances of battles or campaigns lost by coalition forces in Iraq, Afghanistan or Somalia. I can find no instances of our generals surrendering their flags, their swords or their troops. We have had minimal instances of POWs taken by the terrorists.

So where exactly did this defeat occur? Where did we lose? Answer that one please.

Meanwhile, the world media is showing pictures this week of a 12-year-old boy beheading a Pakistani man who was charged with collaborating with the anti-Taliban forces. Some say this is an example of the reprehensible teachings of the terrorists we are fighting.

I agree, but I also would point out that in Vietnam as communist casualties escalated beyond comprehension - an estimated 1.4 million North Vietnamese troops killed in action, and the entire 70,000 man Viet Cong guerrilla force wiped out - the communists turned to younger and younger replacements to fill their ranks.

Considering the magnitude of the terrorists' losses in this war thus far, it is reasonable to conclude that they also are recruiting from ranks of children, who obviously are easier to delude. We have to ask ourselves if the Muslim religion really has an unlimited supply of uneducated stooges who are willing to blow themselves up on the odd chance that a limited and quite fantastic version of paradise might be waiting for them.

There are signs all along the way that our military is having a devastating effect on the terrorist ranks. But those successes are not even mentioned in the American Terrorist Media because they don't fit the template of their political aims.

To show any signs of weakness now, and to deliberately transmit false claims to the terrorists while simultaneously undermining support for our troops is more than unpatriotic, it is cause for arrest and trial.

But while the focus of America's growing anger is the Democratic majority in Congress, many also are totally fed up with the administration's apparent inability or unwillingness to deal effectively with those who are sabotaging our country. Take a look at three items a regular reader sent me this weekend ...

1) Bush and all the members of the Federal government act like its "them" against "us," when in reality we the people hold the power. But instead the administration is more concerned about "getting along."

2) How incompetent must you and your administration be to: 1) allow Scooter Libby to go on trial when there shouldn't have been an investigation; 2) not be able to expose who's leaking secrets to the NY Times; and 3) your attorney general is under fire.

The last is all the more ridiculous when we remember that the very people who are now putting the current AG's feet to the fire didn't say s**t when Janet Reno ordered the assault resulting in the murders of more than 80 people, including women and children, at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, TX. And let's not forget the execution of an innocent wife, son, and infant child at the fiasco in Ruby Ridge, ID.

This government seems to be great at going after American citizens but we just let the Chinese and all others have full access to our defense secrets. Brilliant by God!

3) Mr. President, you swore an oath to God to faithfully discharge the duties of
your office. Yet, you have people in your administration and in Congress committing treason on a weekly basis and take no action. You know you're not faithfully discharging your duties.

These aren't rantings of a disquiet mind. They are representative of emails I have seen from across the country. I have been asked many times in recent months when America will reach the "tipping point" and rise up against the fools and incompetents who are selling us out.

I believe that time has come. I understand that President Bush is a good Christian, and he may well feel that turning the other cheek is a preferred form of governance. Maybe so if it was him who was getting hit on the other cheek. But is is not the President who suffers the most from his lack of action, it is the American populace and specifically our military.

It is way past time to stop turning the other cheek. It is time to "loose the fateful lighting of his terrible, swift sword."

Mr. President, you are the commander-in-chief of the best and most powerful military in the world. They want, need, and deserve a man of vision, action and dedication leading them. They will go to the end of the earth for you and this country and give up their lives if necessary. But you must see beyond the needs and rhetoric of the DC beltway, and give our country the leader it deserves, and you claim to be.

A groundswell of anger and dissatisfaction is building across America. Soon, it will become a tsunami. It would be far better to ride that wave, than to stand in front of it.

Contact information:
Fed up with the status quo in Washington? Want to say so, directly the the people causing your dissatisfaction? Here are a few numbers to try:

Reid's fax is 202-224-7327 in D.C. and 702-388-5030 in Nevada.

Pelosi's fax 202-225-8259 in D.C. and 415-861-1670 in California.

MOAA also provides a toll free number to call Congressmen 1-866-272-6622 ... when the operator answers ask for the Senator/Rep you want to reach.

Have a nice day!

America is in shock. America is mourning the victims of the shootings at Virginia Tech. America is grieving and needs time to grieve.

Out of respect for the families and friends of the victims, I decided to temporarily suspend this column this week to observe a period of mourning. It was not much, but it was all I had to offer.

Many years ago, in one of those situations that all too often seems like just yesterday, my family experienced a similar tragedy and loss that was at once the result of appalling negligence and a deliberate act of violence. For decades I have felt and observed the devastating impact it had on my family and people close to us.

With this as a background I felt that the most respectful thing I could do to appropriately express my respect and condolences for the victims, their families and friends was to mourn the loss of so many innocents in silence.

During this period I have had many opportunities to observe the responses of individuals, organizations and countries around the world, and I have to say, I am appalled at how quickly some used this tragedy to press their own political agendas.

The first, and most barbaric responses came virtually immediately as spokesmen for the American left jumped up screaming "I told you so, I told you so! See? See? Gun control! If there were no guns in America this wouldn't have happened."

They were so anxious to use a monumental tragedy for their own purposes that some didn't even take time to express their condolences to the victims' families and friends.

The response from the Islamo-fascists around the world was typical and to be expected - Allah is paying America back for being the Great Satan. That nonsense is so predictable I could probably write five paragraphs of it here off the top of my head, do an Internet search for the key words and find a verbatim example out there somewhere.

Of considerable surprise was a comment from Australia's prime minister, who has benefited from considerable goodwill and support here in America, who also said that this shooting was a result of our "gun culture." More on that later.

But it was the communist party in Italy that really ticked me off, calling this tragedy "As American as apple pie."

What an incredibly mind-numbing, ignorant, Neanderthal commentary. Only knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, bottom feeders would stoop to such a despicable level of uncivilized commentary.

But I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Communists world wide have been bashing the United States for decades. After all, we represent freedom of choice while they advocate totalitarian government control at any cost, including truth.

Yet, while communists within in the U.S. and worldwide have a vested interest in painting a false picture of American society, especially regarding gun ownership, there is a substantial body of research that shows a completely different picture, one that the communists, fascists and terrorists would prefer to suppress.

Take for instance an ongoing scholarly work that was released last year in Canada. Titled Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence by Gary A. Mauser, professor at Simon Fraser University and Don B. Kates (retired) this working document reveals some startling facts about gun ownership and crime that unfortunately doesn't make it into the media.

Italicized below are some excerpts from that work that I believe are important to share with you. The full text can be found at http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1564/ and believe me, it is worth reading.

One is the compound assertion that: (a) guns are uniquely available in the U.S. compared to other modern developed nations, which is why (b) the U.S. has by far the highest murder rate.

Though this has been endlessly repeated, in fact b) is false and a) substantially so. The false assertion that the U.S. has the industrialized world's highest murder rate is an artifact of politically motivated Soviet minimization of true Russian homicide rates since at least 1965.

As of many years before that date Russia had extremely stringent gun controls which were effectuated by a police state apparatus providing for extremely stringent enforcement. So successful was that regime that few Russian civilians have firearms and very few murders involve them.

Yet manifest success in keeping its people disarmed has not prevented Russia from having far and away the highest murder rate in the developed world. In the 1960s and early '70s, gunless Russia's murder rates paralleled (generally exceeded) those of gun-ridden America. As American rates first stabilized and then steeply declined, Russian murder increased so drastically that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times higher than the U.S.

Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, has a murder rate 10 times higher than gun-dense Norway and Germany where handguns are legal and gun ownership in general is very high

The same pattern appears when comparisons of violence to gun ownership are made within nations. Indeed, "data on firearms ownership by constabulary area in England" show "a negative correlation." i.e. "where firearms are most dense, violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest" (quoting a description of what American data have also consistently shown). Many different data sets from various kinds of sources are summarized as follows by the leading text: ... there is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates: across (1) time within the United States; (2) U.S. cities; (3) counties within Illinois; (4) country-sized areas like England; (U.S. states); (5)regions of the United States; (6) nations; or (7) population subgroups ...

Whatever the reason, the upshot is that violent crime, and homicide in particular, have plummeted in the United States ... In 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990s. This contrast should provoke thinking people to wonder what happened in those nations adopting policies based on the belief that introducing more and more restrictive firearm laws would reduce criminal violence. Perhaps the United States is doing something right.

Capping decades of severe restrictions on gun ownership throughout the British Commonwealth, the last half of the 20th century saw several of the countries in the Commonwealth impose Draconian firearm laws, confiscating hundreds of thousands of firearms from owners law abiding enough to turn them in.

Canada brought in universal gun registration and banned small handguns, the United Kingdom banned all handguns, Australia banned semiautomatic firearms, and both the Republic of Ireland and Jamaica attempted sweeping firearm bans. These gun laws were adopted amid predictions that they would stem violence, but ... none of these measures can be shown to have successfully reduced criminal violence, homicide or suicide in any of these countries.

More of Professor Mauser's research at http://www.garymauser.net/

It occurred to me in this past week that the willingness of America's critics, even from countries that claim to be our friends and allies, to constantly portray Americans as world-class bad guys, itself may be partly to blame for tragedies such as the Virginia Tech shootings.

Virtually anywhere you go in the world, governments and groups take great delight in bashing the US at every opportunity. I believe this is done to cover up and compensate for their own failures and inadequacies, but the end result is that many in the world believe it is fine to murder Americans.

I think that this "Bash America culture" leads some already demented people to think that Americans are useful only when we are targets.

But in this context, I'd like to ask Italy's communists whether they thought so little of us in WWII when gun-toting Americans were inching their way up the Italian peninsula under fire from Italian fascists and German Nazis, neither of whom had much use for communists.

Was that as "American as Apple Pie?"

And while we're on the subject of communism and shootings, when Joseph Stalin exterminated subjects of the Soviet Union who didn't share his views or simply got in his way at a rate exceeding one million per year, was that as "Russian as Borscht?"

When Mao Tse Tung, was similarly exterminating millions of Chinese - estimates vary here, it could have been as 'low' as 40 million or as high as 70 million - was that "As Chinese as Lo Mein?"

When Pol Pot, the late communist leader of Cambodia was slaughtering millions of his subjects was that "As Cambodian as Prahok?"

How about Fidel Castro? When he went on an extended extermination plan, wiping out his subjects by the tens of thousands (instead of millions,) did that make him benevolent? What that an example of "As Cuban as good cigars?"

There is only one reason I can find why countries want their citizens disarmed. That is so the citizenry has no means available to forcefully disagree with the government when the government thinks it exists to dictate rather than serve. Unarmed citizens against tanks make great photo ops, but they are historically totally ineffective.

It is obvious that the world's communists and other terrorists would love to see the United States disarmed. Their zealotry is so rabid that they can't even use their well-honed propaganda machines to make their outlandish comments at more appropriate times, preferring to hit our grieving citizens when the impact of this tragedy is immediate.

Thus, I would like to pass on an invitation to Italy's communist party. And I would very much appreciate it if the leaders of that party could extend this invitation to others of their ilk from around the globe, and the leaders of terrorist organizations wherever they exist.

If you are so crude, so boorish, so unsophisticated and so uncivilized that you can't even allow us our time to grieve without also having to deal with your petty comments and ignorant remarks, please do us a favor - go stick you heads way down deep in a vat of Chianti.

Stay there, upside down, immersed in the best that Italy has to offer until I decide to get back to you.

But don't hold your breath.

Of all the racist comments that have been tossed around the airwaves over the Don Imus imbroglio, the most asinine I have heard yet, aside from his, came from a black rap-industry executive who was interviewed by Michelle Malkin when she was guest host on the Bill O'Reilly show this week.

I didn't catch the man's name, but he claimed that the filthy, sexist lyrics that dominate the most popular rap songs are required by the owners of the record companies that produce rap music. These people he claimed, are "white slave masters," and it is all "whitey's" fault that black rappers glorify drugs and violence, demean black women, and produce videos that are one click shy of live sex shows.

Apparently, these same white "slave masters" are forcing this guy and all the rap artists to take their multi-million dollar salaries and buy huge homes, expensive cars and jewelry, and live extravagant lifestyles. Oh, the Horror of it all. Make them stop, someone please!

In response to what was obviously a tongue-in-cheek question from Malkin, this guy replied that he does in fact believe that George Washington bears some responsibility for this filth. Not George Bush, mind you, the guy that the left claims is responsible for every other bad thing on earth.

He says the responsibility for drug and alcohol abuse, gang violence, prostitution, classlessness and filthy mouths rests squarely on the long-dead shoulders of George Washington!

Let's get something straight right now. I, as a white Christian male, am sick to death and fed up to my eyeballs with being blamed for every unpleasant factor and historic malfunction of the human race, by everyone who represents a racial, ethnic, or religious group that is different from mine.

My ancestors are Irish on my mother's side, Scottish highlanders who themselves descended from Vikings on my father's side, and despite long and exhaustive research I can't find a damn thing about my ancestors ever being involved in the American slave trade!

My father and his family arrived here from Scotland in the mid-1920s, long after the Civil War had ended and slavery had been outlawed. My Irish grandmother came here a decade before him, when she was a slip of 16 year old, by herself, with no attachment to anyone in this country, and no involvement in the long since passed slave trade.

The closest I can find to anything involving slavery is that the Vikings, from whom I am about 1,000 years removed, did occasionally take slaves during their raids along the coast of northern Europe and England around 900 A.D., as did every other military power in existence at that time! But by and large, these slaves were IRISH! Maybe even the occasional ANGLO-SAXON.

Yes, Viking ships did make rare forays as far away as Africa, and one of my ancestors, a member of Clan Gunn, is said to have been part of an expedition that made it as far as modern-day Massachusetts 100 years before Columbus 'discovered' America. But that expedition was for exploration, settlement and trade, not slavery.

So enough of this slavery crap already. No one is alive in the U.S., nor the entire world today, who was kept as a slave in the American south. No one. And let's not forget, the slave trade from Africa to the New World was allowed to flourish by and large not because massive numbers of white European soldiers invaded Africa, but because warring African tribes took their enemies hostage in the interior and marched them to the coast where they sold them to the slavers.

Slavery was a reprehensible facet of human existence for thousands of years, and it was practiced by all races, and all races profited from it.

Here's another bone to chew on. Before, during and after America became the United States of America, my Scottish ancestors were slugging it out to retain their homes and way of life, all of which were under siege from the ENGLISH! Other WHITE GUYS!

From the Battle of Culloden in 1746 onward, the English engaged in the Highland Clearances against my ancestors. The Clearances were a 100-year reign of terror and genocide that ended the clan way of life, murdered and displaced thousands upon thousands of Scots, many of whom were forced to the shores where they were put on the first ship going anywhere, separated from homes, friends and family, and never allowed to return.

Since Clan Gunn was located in the Caithness area of Scotland, far in the north, the Clearances didn't directly affect them until after the War of 1812. Clan lore says that around 1816 land speculators showed up in Clan Gunn territory and were promptly run off.

But they returned with the English Army, and my unarmed ancestors (the English had imposed gun control on the Scots - sword control too) made a valiant, but fatally flawed stand against the English, which the clan lost. The survivors were forced off their land and dispatched to the four winds and the seven seas. It is said that many ultimately made their way to what is modern-day Ottawa. My father's family went south to the Dundee area where he was born a century later.

None of my direct ancestors were here before the Civil War, nor took part in it on either side. But just for historic record, we should note that in that war, which ended slavery, roughly 360,000 northern troops were killed and another 370,000 wounded. The vast majority of them were WHITE!

Here's another point. When I went to bed last night I decided what time to set my alarm for, and when it went off this morning I decided whether to get up or hit snooze. When I did get up I decided what to have for breakfast, which way to turn when I left my driveway, and what I was going to do with my day.

There are inequities in life to be sure, not just in America, but across the world, yet by and large most Americans of all backgrounds get to make the same choices and decisions I do from morning til night. We can decide whether or not to pursue higher education, what fields we are most interested in, whether to join corporate America or work for ourselves, where we want to live, and how we want to live.

And the great thing is that every single one of us, regardless of race, creed or color, gets to make those choices. Even better, in America it is against the law to prevent anyone from pursuing the life of their choice due to the above mentioned race, creed, color, national origin, religious beliefs, gender, sexual orientation, or just about anything else.

If you don't like the life you are living, change it. In America you can do that.

Now, about Juan Williams. I have watched him on television several times a week for years now, primarily because my favorite news shows are Special Report With Brit Hume where Juan appears as a panelist; and Fox News Sunday hosted by Chris Wallace where Juan also is a panelist.

For a long time I discounted Juan's point of view because it is always liberal left and appears to come straight from the Democratic National Committee's daily talking points. My television screen is the unfortunate victim of a fair share of eruptions from me at something Juan said that contradicted what I believe.

But I began to change my mind about him somewhat when FOX did a segment on his daughter launching a program to obtain prom gowns for girls whose homes had been destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.

I gained additional respect for him when his book Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America was published last August. In it he is critical of the current generation of black leaders and maintains that the black community should stop blaming everything and everyone else for every ill, real and perceived, and start taking responsibility for their actions, or lack thereof.

I also was impressed by Juan's willingness to stand up for his point of view when so many other black leaders, particularly Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, were once again playing the race card in the Imus issue. Sharpton and Jackson, who I think are co-pastors of the Church of the Crooked Path to Divine Self-Absorption, came across as the ultimate hypocrites - and Hillary Clinton stooges - by chastising Imus and Sen. Barack Obama, who had nothing to do with the issue - but giving only lip service to actually taking on the rap industry and its degradation of black culture.

Juan was interviewed several times and aside from the fact that no one made Imus say what he said, he put the blame for this entire culture right where it belongs, on the rappers who created it, exploit it and profit from it. I think we need to hear a lot more from Juan Williams and and lot less from Jackson and Sharpton.

In my view of America, we aren't a motley collection of individuals with no common goals, we are a collection of cultures that share a common goal of freedom. I see America as the ultimate steel girder. Not the make-believe steel that only Rosie O'Donnell has ever seen, the kind that can't melt, but real steel, the kind of metal alloy that uses a variety of ores to make the original iron even better.

Added to iron, metals such as nickel and manganese give steel its tensile strength, chromium increases the hardness and melting temperature, and vanadium helps reduce the effects of metal fatigue. Chromium and nickel give stainless steel a hard oxide on the metal surface to inhibit corrosion.

Each in its own way is viable, useful and valuable. But when a bar of iron sits next to a bar of nickel or chromium or manganese, they retain their basic properties and nothing more. It is only when their properties are combined that they make the materials that enable us to build, expand, survive and thrive.

America needs to combine the strengths of all facets of our society if we are to survive and thrive in this world.

I believe the real black America, the one that gets little to no coverage from the mainstream media, is the black middle class that has quietly taken advantage of the civil rights legislation enacted in the 60s. Those laws enabled black families to pursue equal job and education opportunities and as a result there has been an exponential explosion of the middle class.

But only the downside of black culture gets the coverage. Thus, I am calling on Juan Williams to work with other black leaders who share his beliefs and start turning this around. The first step in that process is ensuring that the next time an issue of this nature arises, and it will, we all know that, Juan Williams or Charles Payne, or Clarence Thomas or Colin Powell should be the 'go-to guys' for the mainstream media, not Sharpton or Jackson.

Those last two have a vested interest in perpetuating racial tensions in America because they make their livings off of exploiting those tensions. I don't believe they represent the real black America at all, yet the real black America is suffering because of their dominance of the media, and as a result all of America is suffering.

Juan Williams, due to his familiarity with the media and high visibility, should take the lead in forming an umbrella group of like-minded black leaders. They should insist that the TV and radio networks and national newspapers seek them out for opinions, rather than going for the race-baiting cheap-shot tactics that dominate now. They can and should work to ensure that the true voice of black America is the one that gets the media attention, and that the detrimental aspects are exposed for their shallowness.

For my part, I promise to stand shoulder-to-shoulder and back-to-back with Juan in any fight of this kind. Maybe the only changes I can make exist in my own back yard, but it is a start and my backyard is still one piece in the puzzle. I'll also let Brit Hume deal with the political debates. My television, and my wife, will thank me for it, and Brit is far better at it anyway.

So, what do you say Juan? The ball is in your court.