I'm Sick of the Crap

No one took notice

2010-04-23T04:47:00.000-04:00

When the American Revolution began in 1776, most of those living in the colonies, outside of a couple hot spots, hardly noticed. Even in Boston, those who lived away from where the Tea Party was held, only read scant newspaper reports. Farther away, in New York, Philadelphia and beyond, the American Revolution was just a conversation topic in town squares. Few realized what was about to happen, or that the greatest nation in history was going through its pre-natal struggle.

Today, that great nation has been temporarily hijacked by determined socialists and globalists who want to bring America down to the same level as the rest of the world -- socially, economically and militarily. They have made remarkable progress in a short time. Profit has become a dirty word, the heart of free enterprise, Wall Street has been reviled and redistribution of wealth is commencing apace.

But, before you start to think that you can hear the fat lady warming up, consider a couple of facts. First, this nation was born in a manner unique in history. Common folks rose up against tyranny and created an army of patriots from farmers and merchants, took on the most powerful kingdom on Earth, and won. We then experienced the worst civil war ever fought between residents of the same country, and survived, mostly intact. We then leveraged the power of the free market, exercised our freedom and became the most powerful and prosperous nation that ever existed on the face of the Earth.

We then went on to defeat our main rival in a war where both sides had the power to end all life on the planet. We were able to accomplish all this because the American dream of freedom and liberty resonate so strongly with the human spirit.

Now, we have been temporarily sidetracked by a coalition of frustrated communists, social misfits and self-hating neurotics. The progress they have made in a short period of time is remarkable and discouraging. It is understandable that this may be seen as irreversible. But only if you don't believe in the burning desire for freedom that beats in the human heart.

The new American Revolution that has started with the Tea Parties has begun in earnest and we have moved past the stage where no one is noticing it. The movement is now front and center in American politics and American life. Just as the first revolution in 1776, this one is unstoppable and will ultimately restore America to an even greater place than it was. You can count on it.

Mornin' Joe Has Left and Gone Away

2010-02-18T05:49:00.001-05:00

In today's (18 Feb 2010) Townhall.com, Joe Scarborough of MSNBC's Morning Joe bemoans the fact that he has been attacked by Brent Bozell and other fellow conservatives. He then goes on to suggest they should be more Reagan-like, like he is, according to Joe. Let's see if we can help him understand why he is getting the kick back.

Yes, Joe, you are surrounded by liberals who always seem to flock like geese in the Lame Stream Media. Yes, Joe, you do defend conservative principles. And, yes, Joe, we believe that you are probably a conservative at heart.

The problem is, whenever you attack a conservative, even if the criticism is justified, all you do is to encourage the gaggle of liberals around the table. They love it when a conservative goes off on a conservative. You have to remember that liberals are not concerned so much about the logic of the argument as they are about the person who made the argument in the first place. In their minds, George Bush was evil, so, if he said 'the sky is blue,' they would convince themselves that it was actually orange. And, probably related to global warming to boot.

Why don't you try this? Instead of attacking Bush, Limbaugh and other conservatives, why don't you go after the politics of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama? Not the individuals, I'm sure Obama is a hale fellow well met, but his political views are right out of "Mein Kampf." (Hitler was a socialist, you know.)

Joe, you rightly advised conservatives to spend more time advocating less government and more freedom, not knocking individuals. Why don't you take a bit of your own medicine?

Let’s Have the Debate on Global Warming

2009-12-12T05:35:00.001-05:00

The Global Warming debate has hit an impasse. Those who believe that there is irreversible catastrophic man-made warming turn a deaf ear to any skepticism, while those who are not convinced are becoming increasingly skeptical. The recent leaking, global warming advocates call it ‘stealing,’ of email communications from the climate study group on which all of the scientific conclusions are based, reveal a pattern of unscientific behavior.

It is obvious that the scientists charged with studying global were personally, and financially, dedicating to proving that man is causing a global train wreck, and that reducing CO2 emissions is the only way to avoid a disaster of massive proportions. Enough is enough. We are talking about science here.

Those who believe in the theory are anxious to declare the debate to be over, and label anyone who questions how they arrived at their conclusion to be a ‘denier,’ or worse. Science is never “settled,” as they are now trying to assert. A few facts are in order, then a proposal that will end the debate, or at least put it on a more logical and scientifically sound track.

First fact, it is completely unacceptable that one institution, rather obscure until the global warming issue, has the only set of keys to the study of climate kingdom. The email leaks show that, in their fervor to prove the global warming theory, head scientists fought the release of raw data, and deliberately deleted data rather than letting it out of their control.

Second, it is not in step with normal scientific protocol for all the data and analysis to be done in one place, by one group of people, as is the case with the global warming theory. There are claims that other study groups have reached the same conclusion independently, but when closely examined, it inevitably turns out that the data they relied on was not independently acquired, but based on the single source of data, which has now been destroyed.

Third, for a scientific conclusion, or at least, a consensus of opinion to be reached, there has to be a vigorous, no holds barred, open debate at which theories are laid out, attacked and defended. That has not happened with the global warming debate, despite the fact it is being used to turn the structure of the entire world on its ear.

How to resolve this? Here is a proposal that could change the way the global warming debate is being conducted and take the politics out of the center of the debate. Let’s allocate US$1 Billion and one calendar year to get the job done the right way. Considering what the cost estimates are for avoiding a sea change in the world’s economy, a billion does not even rise to the level of chump change. And, given the fact that we are nowhere near doing anything about it, one year is a hiccup.

We take the billion and cut it in half. One half goes to the pro global warming camp and the other half goes to the skeptics. Since any scientific debate is based on advocacy of a theory, the pro side has to put forth its theory in scientific terms. The anti side then gets to attack the theory in an attempt to prove it incorrect. Each month, there will be a debate between the two sides, broadcast live to the world, and published in print. After the 12 monthly debates, there should be a clearer understanding of the issue by everyone.

There are a lot of details to be worked out, but instead of holding a pep rally for global warming, like Copenhagen, a world wide conference to implement this scientific debate should be held.

The Real Damage of Obama

2009-11-24T05:32:00.000-05:00

There has been much said about the damage Obama is creating to free enterprise, business, national security, and foreign policy. But, the real risk is far greater and could be impossible to repair later. The Great American Experiment was an incredible balancing act by our Founding Fathers. The thirteen colonies had diverse economic, social and cultural characteristics, and getting them to agree to a single national government was an amazing accomplishment.

But, it involved compromises that strained the new republic at the seams, especially as regards slavery. The strain was so great, that it ended up with eleven states seceding from the union. It took a devastating war fought within its borders resulting in heavy military and civilian casualties to reunite the United States. Wars in the late 19^th and early 20^th Centuries solidified the reformed country by focusing on common external enemies.

Keeping the country together through World War II, Korea, and the subsequent Cold War was relatively easy. But, since the Vietnam War, the country has continued to drift politically. We are now defined as Red States and Blue States. This is more than a distinction driven by election results; there are fundamental differences in core values. Just travel from South Carolina, one of the reddest states, to California, one of the bluest, and you will see that differences that are so vast as to be irreconcilable on issues like abortion, gun control, health care reform, separation of church and state.

Keeping an increasingly diverse 50 states together is not an easy task, and one that is not fully appreciated for its difficulty. Staying in control is a difficult job for the political leadership. It is an art, not a science, nor is keeping the country unified a given.

In many ways, 9/11 was an opportunity for America to reunite once again against a common foe. But, as we approach the 10^th anniversary of the most devastating attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, the drift has begun anew. George Bush, a moderate conservative president, was able to find common ground, as did Bill Clinton, and his father. Even the feckless Jimmy Carter avoided causing deep divisions despite a very left wing orientation.

Obama is different. He has not shied in the slightest from confrontation, despite campaign rhetoric that he would re-unite the country. This nation is more deeply divided than it has been since before the Civil War. It is so bad that the governor of the second largest state, Texas, has talked openly about secession. There are secessionist movements in several states and twelve state legislatures have passed legislation re-asserting State’s rights.

Even if a unifying event such as 9/11 occurs, there is no guarantee that the nation will unite under Obama. The left and right are not in agreement as to what an appropriate response would be, so whatever he would do would further alienate one side or the other. We seem to be in a downward spiral that is without a foreseeable bottom.

If Obama continues to divide and govern as irresponsibly as he has, pushing legislation that is unpopular and locking the GOP out of the process, the political divide will continue to widen. There is no good that can come of what may be Obama’s greatest threat, failing to keep the fabric of the nation from unraveling.

I Was Wrong About Thomas L. Friedman

2009-11-19T03:58:00.003-05:00

There are times in man's life when he just has to admit he was wrong and move on. Today is one of those times. In his New York Times op-ed of November 17, entitled, "What They Really Believe," self appointed green nanny Thomas L. Friedman says:

"And we believe the best way to launch [Energy Technology] is to set a fixed, long-term price on carbon — combine it with the Obama team’s impressive stimulus for green-tech — and then let the free market and innovation do the rest."

And, all this time, I thought he was an avowed anti-capitalist communist. I guess I was just wrong. I should have seen the signs when he had a chapter in his book, "The World is Flat," entitled, "China for Just One Day."

Take a close look at the theme here, it is ludicrous on the surface of it -- fix the game, then let the free market work. In "The World is Flat," Friedman strikes a similar theme, if we could just have a totalitarian government for one day, we could destroy capitalism, then let the "free market" work. Friedman has the odd view that government should make a set of counter-intuitive rules and regulations before turning anything over to free market innovation. You have to read the Constitution to understand how truly wrong this is. Thomas Jefferson would scoff at this notion, as would anyone who values liberty and appreciates the importance of free markets.

But, the really disturbing thing is that many of those who share his "green" views also share his political philosophy, including, of course, Barack Obama and his minions. The good news, if there can be any in the light of an increasingly disconnected and fanatic one-party government, is that the attempt to destroy capitalism known as "cap and trade," may finally be dead. Majority Leader Harry Reid, soon to be the ex-Senator from Nevada, has delayed any debate on cap and trade until the spring. By then, we will be into the mid-term election cycle, joblessness will be approaching 12% and the country will hostile to any plan that will kill even more job growth.

The bad news is that a lot of people at the EPA read Friedman's column, and armed with a Supreme Court decision that carbon is pollution, will try to implement the scheme without Congressional approval. In fact, they are already implementing it, and threaten to accelerate the process. It will take court action to stop them before 2012, when America gives Obama what is likely to be a failing report card. In the meantime, those who care more about power over others, like Friedman, will have field day, and may nanny the rest of us to death.

The only thing that I was wrong about regarding Thomas Friedman was when I thought in his heart of hearts, he really loved America. About that, I was truly wrong.

Blinded by the Right

2009-11-18T08:11:00.000-05:00

A recent Facebook post by a friend of mine, and the ensuing dialog with her liberal friends, are a crystal clear illustration of the most significant characteristics of the American left. In her post, this lady, who is suffering from advanced breast cancer, expresses outrage at the recent decision of the U.S. Preventative Services task force raising the age for mammograms to 50. She is so outraged that she made the entire posting upper case. An experienced writer, this indicates the depth of her revulsion for the decision.

She and her liberal friends begin to flog, deservedly so, this idiotic action, which could put millions of women in harm’s way. As the dialog unfolded, one of the participants came to the conclusion that this proved why we needed to reform the health care system and pass Obamacare.

This jaw-dropping conclusion was quickly agreed to by all those engaged in this dialog.

To most of us it is clear that this kind of bureaucratic meddling, resulting in the rationing of essential preventive health care is a flash forward to what we can expect with a government take over of the health care system. Decisions about individual health care will be taken out of the hands of doctors and patients, and relegated to rigid government rules based on economic concerns.

This dialog on Facebook also illustrates what is one of the most distinguishing characteristics of today’s American liberal, the ability to completely deny the obvious. It is a classic case of ignoring the elephant in the room.

How is the left able to pull off this incredible act of denial?

Part of the answer lies in the vilification process the left uses to advance their agenda. If they can hang a label of “evil” on the opposition, they can justify seemingly illogical conclusions by destroying the credibility of the opposition. This is why the left spends so much time attacking the people who oppose them instead of the ideas they oppose. It is much more efficient to undermine Sarah Palin, say, than it to try and counter each of her opinions individually. It avoids the need to have any meaningful dialog on the issues themselves.

Just look at the health care debate. What do you hear Democrats say when Republicans question whether it is affordable? They talk about the obscene profits earned by health insurance companies, leaving the question of affordability untouched.

This explains how Democrats and leftists can vote to pass bills they do not even read. All they need to know is that the right opposes a particular bill, and they can justify passing it. No debate is necessary.

Doubt that this is true? Go read a few of the left wing web sites, like Daily Kos and Huffington Post. You will see that they are clearly blinded to issue by hatred of those on the right.

2009-09-11T07:49:00.002-04:00

The debate on health care has brought one fact to crystal clarity. When liberals, like Barack Obama, find their ideas challenged with logical, rational arguments, they attack the questioner, not the question. This was evident in the president's address to Congress on September 9, 2009, when he said, "Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action."

Translation --- "No more discussion, we are going to do it my way." Not that a lot of discussion about substantive issues has happened anyway. That has been suppressed or demonized, at every turn.

This is a pattern we have seen innumerable times already. When liberals are faced with counterarguments or challenges to their ideas, they normally respond with anger, outrage, ad hominem attacks, ridicule or outright verbal violence.

Why? Why can't liberals not do as Obama says, and engage in civil discourse? Why can't Obama follow his own advise and engage in a give and take over the issues, like in Debate 101? Simple answer, because they can't.

Liberal arguments for destroying the best health care system in the world, the best financial system in the world, the best military int he world, the best government system in the world, are all the same. Because we wanna! We don't like it. It's not fair. Wa wa wa! Their argument for destroying what we have is based on a simple principle.

Let me give you an example.

If you want to see a liberal turn purple, just make a statement like, "The United States of America is the greatest country that has ever existed on the face of the Earth, and is the only hope for all mankind." I once said this to a far-left journalist friend. There was a flash of light, a loud explosion, and only a grease spot was left where the liberal was standing. This journalist has never been heard from since.

Were it only this simple!

Liberals have a deep seated hatred of the United States. They see it as a flawed country, ruled by despotic right wingers, evangelical Christians and corporate fat-cats, who enslave the masses and promulgate racism, promote greed and spread injustice for all. If you want a clear example of this, just tune into the Bill Maher show. You know the type - cool, elite, intellectual, effete. They can be seen hanging aroung college campuses, sneering at the ROTC cadets that walk by. Or, at cocktail parties, laughing at all the institutions of our society, our heroes our morals, our religion.

But, don't ever challenge their closely held beliefs with logic. If you do, stand back so you don't get hit with the exploding liberal lard that will fiy.

“What's wrong with a little Socialism?”

2009-02-23T08:36:00.001-05:00

Yesterday, I met my liberal Democrat friend for our weekly breakfast, a tradition we have continued for many years. We talk family, friends, sports and, yes, even politics. Nothing has changed for decades, except he now has fruit and bran muffins; I have stuck with artery clogging fried eggs, up, toast (not whole wheat), high cholesterol breakfast meats and potatoes. He is lean and trim, and has had bypass surgery, I am overweight and disgustingly healthy. Life is not fair.

“So,” he said, chomping a dry muffin. “you must be impressed with the way that Obama has hit the ground running.” He flashed a wide grin, bits of muffin clinging on his lips, teeth and chin.

I nearly choked on a forkful of gooey egg, greasy bacon and starchy potato. “Impressed,” I said, swallowing a heart stopping load of food. “Impressed does not begin to describe my feelings.” I took a draught of my regular coffee, laden with cream and sugar.

My friend looked perplexed, and said, as he took a sip of his herb tea and honey, “What does that mean?”
I told him how appalled I am at the turn this country has taken since Obama's inauguration on January 20, just 4 weeks ago. As he looked on, shocked to discover that there was someone who was not riding a wave of euphoria. His reading of the New York Times and viewing of MSNBC and CNN lead him to believe that the entire country is on a post-inauguration high.

“It means,” I said, “that I am saddened and concerned to see our country make a 180 and head down the road of socialism.”

“So,” he said, “what's wrong with a little socialism? Capitalism has not done so well lately.”
My friend's sentiment is not unlike what many citizens and politicians are saying, or implying lately, sometimes even from the right. In normal times, just saying, “socialism” would be enough to end a political argument. But these are clearly not normal times, so let's take a stab at answering the question directly.

Simply put, socialism is a system where citizens are promised results, not just opportunity. Our Constitution promises the “pursuit of happiness,” but does not guarantee that any particular citizen will attain anything, but will not be restricted from pursuing any legal goal. Socialism preaches that every citizen has the right to certain entitlements, and the state endeavors to provide them to its citizens. Socialists believe that under capitalism, too much wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of too few, who then exploit the less privileged. Socialists advocate a more even distribution of wealth and power, “spreading it around,” to quote a recent Obama phrase.

Under the socialist ideal, effort is rewarded, regardless of results, and accumulation of wealth by a few is prevented, so that more may enjoy the benefits of what society has to offer. The sad fact is that often even a minimal effort is not required, and everyone gets entitlements, deserved or not.

So, what is wrong with wanting to make sure that all citizens are provided for, and that more can have a better lifestyle by taking from the overabundance of the privileged few?

The problem is that to implement socialism, basic freedoms have to be curtailed or abolished. For starters, socialism is built on government ownership or very tight control of industry and commerce. This means, obviously, that citizens' rights to freely pursue business opportunities are severely limited by the government. Property rights must also be greatly curtailed, and the personal accumulation of wealth abolished. The government becomes the arbitrator of who succeeds, and to what extent.

There are those, notably liberal Democrats, who argue that government can provide this oversight and regulation without impinging on freedom, and without autocratic governance. Unfortunately, there is not a single historical example where a democratic society and socialistic principles have co-existed.

So, to the point, what is wrong with “a little socialism?” Nothing, if you don't care about freedom and liberty.

George W. Bush - Last President of the United States of America

2009-02-09T14:47:00.006-05:00

It was a good run – 216 years, 43 Presidents, 111 Congresses. The United States of America rose from a far-flung colony of Imperial Britain to the last superpower left. We won wars, hot and cold, with Spain, Barberry, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, Mexico, numerous Indian tribes and other, lesser powers over the years. No country ever bore more faithful allegiance to freedom and liberty as did the USA. Although its tenure did not match the run of other long running nations, like the Roman Empire, the Chinese dynasties or Ancient Egypt, no country ever freed more people, or brought more peace or greater prosperity than did the brain child of the Founding Fathers.

But, now, sadly, it may be gone.

Historians will argue for years, centuries, perhaps, about what caused the demise, but they will mark the event with the cover of Newsweek magazine for February 16, 2009. The cover showed a handshake symbol, one hand red, one hand blue, with the headline shouting, “WE ARE ALL SOCIALISTS NOW.” The article celebrates the event, and even declares that the USA is now “French.”

I wonder if this means we will now ban the use of words other than English in commerce as does France with French. Maybe we can also look forward to riots, universal unions, anti-business laws, government mandated 35 hour work weeks, month long vacations, curbs on freedom of speech, and unfettered immigration. Oh, I guess we have that last part already.

Unfortunately, the November elections heavily favored those who want to end the system of capitalism spawned by the Founders. It is doubtful that they will change the name of our country, but everything they founded, even the national symbols are at risk. There has been a desire for changes in the National Anthem (too militant), the National Bird (too violent) and even the name (States have no rights).

There are those of you who read this that will say I am being rhetorical and overly alarmist, let me explain. The Founding Fathers understood that to achieve the benefits of a free market economy, basic freedoms had to be guaranteed. (These freedoms were not granted, but recognized as coming directly from the Creator.) First to be elicited were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (Not a guarantee of happiness, just the right to pursue it as you wish.) Next, came the enumerated rights in the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.

Without unfettered access to these basic freedoms, the promise of America can not be fulfilled. Now, to achieve socialism, some, or all of these freedoms have to be severely curtailed, or outright eliminated. The unwashed masses are persuaded to give up these God-given, Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms for a social safety net, "justice" and promises of a better life. Whether these promises are realized or not, is up for grabs, because once the freedoms are ceded, they cannot be peaceably restored. The history of socialism is a series of failures, with not a single success story.

We are at a tipping point. If the American public falls for the empty promise of socialism, the Great American Experiment will be over, and the country known as the United States of America will cease to exist.

Then, George W. Bush will have been the last President of the USA.

Free Enterprise and Global Warming

2008-09-16T10:18:00.001-04:00

Thomas L. Friedman, the New York Times columnist, who has been pushing for higher gas prices for the last several years, is promoting a new book, “Hot, Flat and Crowded.” No, the book is not about the oxygen bar at a ballerina convention. It is about, you guessed it, global warming, or “destabilizing climate change.” Proponents of global warming theories have had to change the branding because of recent scientific evidence that there is no warming actually occurring.

I confess I have not yet read the book, but I will, because Friedman’s last book, “The World is Flat,” was one of the most amusing books I ever read. Until his latest book makes it to a library near me, I will have to base my comments on hearsay, what Friedman himself says about his book. (Buying his he would not be Green.) Friedman seems to be an unassailable source, because on his website, Friedman proclaims himself to be “fearless, incisive, forward-looking, and rich in surprising common sense about the world we live in today.” I guess he forgot to mention modest.

He told David Letterman during his appearance on the show, that one of the chapters in the book is entitled, “China For A Day.” The concept is simple. If Friedman could become the tyrannical, human rights abusing dictator of the United States for just a single day, he could forever change the dynamic that underlies energy policy in the US. With an impish Robert Barone grin, Friedman says, “China for a day, but not two days.”

How reassuring!

It is an interesting notion. If we made Mahmud Ahmadinijad the dictator of the US for a day, we could forever end the threat of nuclear war. He would simply launch an all out nuclear war, thus replacing the threat of war with the reality.

But, back to the ballerina convention. Friedman is frustrated that the American public will not see the logic in his lifelong desire to see gas prices at $5 a gallon, at least. If the free market (UGH!) cannot establish and maintain that level, Friedman wants a tax to be levied to assure that gas will never again be cheap enough for people to actually be able to afford it. He reasons that prohibitively high prices for fuel will provide an incentive to move to greener sources of energy that cannot compete with gas on price.

No, I am not making this up. The only thing more remarkable about lusting after high gas prices is that the New York Times actually keeps running Friedman’s column. Maybe in New York City, nobody but cab drivers care about gas prices.

I am not a psychiatrist, but I can see that Friedman has a Freudian angst about free markets. In his mind, free market dynamics keeps getting in the way of what he calls “Geo-Greenism,” his name for the national energy strategy that will restore the competitiveness of the US, our image abroad, save the planet from overheating, make America “healthier, richer, more innovative, more productive, and more secure,” at the same time, bring a second perfect NFL season back to the Miami Dolphins. OK, I made the last part up, but as long as we are dreaming, why not?

His theory is that, if the US leads the way to higher energy prices, the world will see that we are not only geniuses, but are leading the revolution “with the first Green President and a Green New Deal, spurred by the Greenest Generation.” Maybe this should be called the Irish Revolution, but Friedman has coined a new word, ET, Energy Technology, for his next technological revolution.

The hitch in Friedman’s giddy up is that being Der Führer of the US for a day is not nearly enough to start his Green Revolution. He needs to be the Emperor of the World for an indeterminate period of time. Anything short of that, and it just won’t work. Because of free markets. There’s that term again, but if countries like India, and, oh, yeah, China, don’t decide to risk their economies, political stability and futures on unproven theories about green house gases, they will gain a tremendous competitive edge on those that do.

In fact, many countries will probably see a Green USA as an opportunity to gain on the big boys. The choice that Friedman offers is crystal clear, economic prosperity or Green. And, the bet is based on odds that have yet to be determined, since Al Gore decided that the debate over global warming was over.

Friedman’s proposition nicely sums up the frustration that all global warming – oops, climate change – advocates feel. When gas prices are too low to launch a revolution, it is difficult to convince people to pay more, when they can pay less. Friedman and other Green Revolutionaries do not understand this phenomenon at all. They also have trouble understanding why truck drivers prefer black coffee over a double mocha caffeine free latte with artificial whipped cream.

But, don’t worry, Friedman’s next book will deal with that. It is to be called, “Lukewarm, Watery and Sweet.” In it, the award winning author suggests that caffeine laden coffee be raised in price to $5 a cup. That will teach those truck drivers to do things right. Friedman just can’t trust free markets to get the job done.

Political Terrorism

2007-10-10T04:07:00.000-04:00

There is another terrorist attack occurring in America, right under our very noses.

We know that the United States of America, and other democratic nations, are currently fighting a war against Islamic fundamentalists, who use terrorism as a tactic to further their agenda. But, right here at home, another group is also using terrorist tactics to get their way, and to impose their will on the American people. This political terrorism is even more insidious because it is being conducted by those in authority in our government. First, let's define what "terrorism" really is.

Terrorism, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is:

(a) Policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; (b) the employment of methods of intimidation; (c) the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized.

Thus, logic and reason are thrown out, and strong arm tactics to force compliance are employed. Radical left wing Congressman Henry Waxman of California, has become a terrorist, using this definition. He has commissioned his staff to monitor, on a ongoing basis, the broadcasts of his perceived political enemies, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other with whom he does not agree politically.

Instead of attacking their ideas with ideas of his own, Rep. Waxman is resorting to using the power of his Oversight committee to harass and threaten his opponents, a policy intended to strike with terror those with whom he does not agree, the classic definition of terrorism. Government monitoring of free speech is one of the most basic violations of human rights. At its core, terrorism is a cowardly act, intended not to engage in meaningful dialog about substantive issues, but to prevail by fear.

Rep. Waxman is not alone in his cowardice, he is joined by a growing number of liberal Democrats, including Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, Dick Durban, Tom Harkin, Harry Reid, and others , who have given up trying to convince, and have decided to intimidate instead.

Will their totalitarian strategy work? Well, if history is any indicator, the American people eventually see through disingenuous political tactics and, above all, resent bullying. The country was founded by people who refused to bow to the King of the most powerful country on Earth at the time, and showed that the ideals of freedom and liberty can prevail over the dark forces of political terrorism.

Get the Story Straight

2007-08-08T04:45:00.001-04:00

The hottest new story making the rounds is the saga of "reporter-blogger" Scott Thomas Beauchamp, an Army private, who wrote gut-wrenching tales of abuse in Iraq. He had the readers of New Republic up in arms over stories of our soldiers ridiculing women disfigured by war, animal abuse and disrespecting ancient bones. Not that it takes much to get the ultra-left readers of New Republic up in arms anyway. But, there was one, teeny, tiny problem with Beachamp's reporting. It was lies. He admitted that he made it all up, or most of it anyway.

Using the Ratherian proposition, lefties excused the outright lies by saying that the kind of abuse that Beauchamp wrote about " and worse," is "probably happening in Iraq every day." You have to admire people who don't let a little thing like the truth get between them and their irrational beliefs. New Republic is upset that the Army is "short circuiting" its own attempts to get at the truth. Tsk tsk, what a shame, the US Army will not stand aside and let the editors of the New Republic check the story they have gotten wrong from the beginning.

The most important point of this story is not whether Beauchamp lied or didn't lie, and it is not even whether bad things are happening in Iraq. They probably are. They always do in war. The point is FOCUS. Those who are rabidly hoping for a major American defeat in Iraq, and the editors and writers of New Republic are among them, are using this kind of story to assist in the effort to lose.

Of course bad things are going to happen in war. Bad things happen every day on the streets of New York, Los Angeles, Dayton, OH and Chicken Bristle, KY. What the mainstream media does is to focus on these small events, and using Political Correctness and feel-good politics, get us to anguish over them. And, we do. I hate to be crass, but the whole Abu Ghraib incident should have been on the back of Section B once, not on the front page of Section A every day for weeks. When maniacal suicide bombers send themselves to Paradise, the Arabic word for "Hell," and take dozens of innocent lives with them, our friends at the New York Times and other radical papers, blame it on George Bush. You have also admire people who don't let logic interfere with their firmly held convictions.

All of this journalistic manipulation of the truth and putting agenda over fact, is for the simple purpose of changing the dialog. The big point here is, when you send brave and dedicated people out on a mission, risking their lives, you watch from afar, and stay focused on winning the war, not micromanaging their every move.

The New Republic piece was just this sort of story, designed to divert the American public's attention away from the real story, how the forces of freedom and liberty are slowly, but surely, overcoming decades, and centuries, of abusive, oppressive rule by blood thirsty tyrants in Iraq. It's very simple, win in Iraq, and a new way of life for Muslims in the Mideast ensues; lose in Iraq and new way of life for Americans may well ensue. One we will not like at all.

A Challenge to my Muslim Brothers

2007-08-03T06:25:00.000-04:00

I often hear Muslims declare that "Christianity is no different than Islam" in its intolerance. Worse, some misguided atheists and leftists try to represent that Christianity is actually worse than Islam, and that Christian fundamentalists are more dangerous than Islamic jihadists. They cite some of the extreme statements by a few Christian sects and splinter groups to bolster their fantastic claims.

I agree that that modern Christianity is intolerant, intolerant of religious violence and terrorist tactics. How many terror attacks have been made in the name of Christianity? How many religious wars are being fought to spread Christianity? How many legitimate Christian clergymen are asking for Christians to kill in the name of their religion?
None that I am aware of, however, there is always the possibility that some fanatic somewhere will do something awful in the name of their religion.

So, here is my challenge to my Muslim brothers.

I disavow all violent acts in the name of Christianity, and I renounce anyone who commits, encourages, or abets such acts.

Muslim Brothers, will you do the same?

On this Day in 1826

2007-07-04T07:36:00.000-04:00

On the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, two of the lions of the Revolution, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, the second and third Presidents of the United States, lay dying. Adams was at his home in Boston, Jefferson at his Monticello Virginia home.

Fellow patriots, both signers of the Declaration, they started out friends, after John Adams made an impassioned speech supporting Thomas Jefferson's Declaration in 1776.

Later, politics drove a wedge between them. Adams was the vice president un George Washington and Jefferson was Secretary of State. Adams was so frustrated by vice president Jefferson, declared, "At least I will outlive Jefferson."Adams was seven years younger. So upset at losing the presidency to Jefferson after a hotly contested campaign, in 1801, Adams, the incumbent, refused to attend Jefferson's inauguration, and spent the day riding around Washington in a horse drawn carriage.

After Jefferson left office in 1809, Adams reached out to his former adversary and began writing letters to Jefferson. Jefferson responded, and they became fast friends once again.

On his deathbed, Adams' last words were, "Thomas Jefferson survives!"
Unfortunately, he was mistaken, Jefferson had actually died a few hours before, making Adams' earlier prophecy come true. It is said that messengers announcing the deaths of the friends, dispatched from Boston and Monticello, passed each other on the road.

The second and third Presidents of this country had died on the same day, the 50th anniversary of the Declaration, just hours apart.

Have a safe and happy Fourth of July.

May God bless the United States!

America's Worst President

2007-06-18T15:41:00.000-04:00

Former president Jimmy Carter has recently declared that the Bush administration's foreign policy is the "worst in history," proving that, as a historian, Carter may have been a competent nuclear engineer. But, Carter has an excellent reason for giving Bush the crown of thorns. It is called "deflection." Anyone with young children is familiar with the concept. You see Jimmy stealing a cookie and you begin yelling at him. He says, 'yes, but Johnny took a piece of your cake!'

Carter is trying to re-direct the attention away from his disastrous foreign policy that is directly responsible for starting the mess in the Mideast today. His sins are many, but let's look at two.

First, he took the high ground away from Israel by drawing a moral equivalence between Egypt, who had instigated two wars, and Israel, who won those two wars. This inane act enabled many of those countries who were hesitating to align with the Arabs because it might reveal their innate antisemitism, to go ahead and do so. That Carter is anti-Israel is a matter that is proven by his writings and declarations; whether he is anti-Semitic is up for grabs, but the evidence is strong.

His second, and greatest sin, was that Carter decided to turn his back on the Shah of Iran when he asked for U.S. help in quelling the Islamic uprising raging in his country. Carter's excuse for inaction was a fear of alleged human rights violations that might ensue. The impact of his pulling the Persian rug from under the Shah was that Carter provided the concrete block that broke the camel's back, and enabled the Islamic revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini to succeed.

In handing Iran over to Islamic extremists, James Earl Carter, the 39th President of the United States accomplished something that centuries of Islam struggle could not; he created the first Shi'ite government in history. Thus, the most extreme flavor of Islam, the sect that yearns for the battle of Armageddon so the 12th Imam can emerge from the well and slay all non-Muslims, finally achieved the means to end the world.

Congratulations, Jimmy, you may be judged by all history to have not only been the worst president of the United States, but the worst head of state in modern history.

It is Time to Impeach

2007-04-18T00:05:00.000-04:00

There has been a call in some quarters for the impeachment of the President. The reasons for this are vague and emotional, but seem to center around a disagreement over policy, or a perceived failure of the Iraq war. [sarcasm] Unfortunately, these are not impeachable offenses. [/sarcasm] Impeachment is only an alternative where "high crimes and misdemeanors" are involved.

There is a situation that may meet this criteria, and deserves the attention of Congress. The Logan Act, passed in 1799, prohibits any U.S. citizen from conducting foreign policy without authorization. It says, in part:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

The President was very clear in his disapproval of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's recent trip to Syria, where she bungled a "message" from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Ulmert to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Since we are clearly in a "controversy" with Syria, and the Constitutional authority for conducting foreign policy rests solely with the President, Speaker Pelosi is apparently guilty of a "high crime."

If they really want to keep the House, Senate and make a serious play for the White House, the Democrats should initiate this action. Left to her own devices, Nancy Pelosi will undoubtedly pull other bone headed pranks to satisfy an ego as large as the jet plane she demanded, and screw up the Dems ambitions. There are murmurs of a Pelosi trip to Iran. If they leave the loose cannon to roll around on the deck, the Democrat ship will likely sink before the next election.

"I support the troops, but . . . "

2007-02-04T11:45:00.000-05:00

How often have we heard someone say, "I support the troops, but I don't support their mission."? I have been trying to parse what this odd sounding phrase really means, and cannot see any logic in it. Maybe the word "support" is what is in my way.

So, I drag out the ol' Funk and Wagnalls and look up "support." Let's see, um, "to approve of and encourage." No, that doesn't sound like what Nancy Pelosi had in mind. How about, "be actively interested in and support the success of?" Well, certainly the first part is right. Most of the left wing and anti-war types are obsessed about the war as part of the BDS. But, how about the second part, wishing for the success of the mission?

That is a bit more problematic for the Democrats. Clearly, none of them is willing to openly root for the failure of the US in Iraq as did Jane Fonda in Vietnam. But, neither are they willing, for the most part, to openly express the notion that they are hoping we "win" in Iraq. Ask a leftie what they think about that, and you will get a range of responses from intense hemming and hawing to logical reasons why the mission is doomed to failure, no matter what we do.

So, back to supporting the troops, but not the mission. I cannot imagine how that can be. It is like saying that you "support" your hometown baseball team, but you don't want them to win the World Series. How can you root for the team, but hope they are not successful?

It is nonsense, and I don't buy it.

Experts say that a US failure in Iraq would have far-reaching and disastrous implications. Iraq would become a haven for terrorists. A loss there would prove Osama bin Laden' s theory that the US does not have the stomach to actually win against determined Islamic terrorism. A US failure in Iraq would serve to unite the Islamic jihadists, creating an unnatural coalition of Sunnis and Shias to drive Western influence from the Mideast. And, worst of all, the new front in the war on terrorism would likely open on US soil, in Europe, or both.

So, how could apparently patriotic Americans really wish that we lose in Iraq, with all that would entail?

It is simple. It is the latest escalation of partisan politics. The needs of a political party to dominate is given a higher priority than the needs of the country. I am sure that the majority of partisan hacks don't talk in these terms or even consciously plan our demise. I would imagine that they have done what I think is the worst mistake a person can make. When you start to believe your own BS. I am sure John Kerry believes that serious negotiation with America's enemies would yield positive results, despite the historical evidence.

My only question about negotiating with the likes of Iran and Syria, dictatorial Islamic republics headed by tyrants, is, "What magic words would you say to them to get them to change their behavior?" In 1939, after the armies of the Third Reich rolled a blitzkrieg across Poland, Illinois US Senator, William Edgar Borah, famously said, "Lord, if I could only have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided."

I would ask Sen. Kerry the exact same question I would ask Sen. Borah. "But, what would you say?"

No, unfortunately, history has shown it is impossible to talk a fanatical dictator down without backing up your words with a credible military threat.

And, to be able to make a credible military threat, you have to support the troops, and the mission.

Greetings from Sunny South Carolina

2007-02-01T10:14:00.000-05:00

These were the scenes that greeted us here in the Midlands of South Carolina this morning at, 8:10 AM. Not very typical for this area, but we have pictures now for this year's Christmas cards!

Time for the U.S. to get out of California

2007-01-20T03:45:00.000-05:00

News Items:
Sectarian Violence Rages
Ethnic Cleansing in LA
Violence Continues

I never thought I would join the chorus of people that I considered to be the "cut and run" crowd, but I now believe it is time for the U.S. to start a phased withdrawal from California. We have occupied this sovereign nation for too long. It is far too late to debate the reasons we invaded California in the first place, but we have not been greeted as liberators, and we should not put our people in the middle of a civil war.

News: FBI Joins L.A. Policing Effort in War

The Administration has stubbornly ignored the advice it has been given, refusing to ask the neighboring states of Nevada and Oregon for help, instead beginning an escalation of the war.

I believe that the U.S. presence in California is only making the situation worse, and that we should begin an immediate withdrawal, first from L.A., then the holy city of San Francisco and, eventually, the rest of the state. We were misled, and events have shown that are not wanted there. The U.S. cannot provide a solution for the strife that have torn this troubled state for generations.

News: Execution Botched

The situation in L.A. was further inflamed by the botched execution of a sectarian leader. U.S. and California officials mistakenly believed that the execution of gang leader Tookie Williams, would mitigate the violence in war-torn L.A. But, instead, he has achieved martyrdom, and may be more influential in death than he was in life.

It is time to pull out, now.

If the Administration continues to ignore the will of the American people, then we should de-fund the effort by ceasing all purchases of iPods and Napa Valley wines. While I realize this is a radical move, it may be the only way to end what was a tragic mistake.

Rangel's Rant

2006-11-29T08:05:00.000-05:00

In National Review Online, fellow writer W. Thomas Smith Jr., exposes the partisan hypocracy of Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY). Rangel, appearing on Fox News Weekend last Sunday, reiterated his call for a reinstatement of the draft, since "No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits." He went on to say that no young person would ever choose to serve his country in Iraq, and only does so because they have no other alternatives for education or employment.

BULL DINKY, Congressman!

Smith does an excellent job of debunking Rangel's asinine assertion, and details his intentional distortion of the facts. I am only going to offer my personal experience to the dialog.

My son and four of his buddies sat in my living room in Melbourne, Florida on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. They had just come home from high school, of course aware of the horrors, but having not seen them for themselves. As they stared in disbelief at the horrible scenes, they began to talk about it. One by one, the four of them said that they wanted to do something, and swore to join the military upon graduation. All seniors, the pledges were not some distant dream.

All of them ended up fulfilling the promises they made that fateful day. (The fifth is a wonderful friend and good person, but would not have done well in a military environment.) All of them have done at least one tour in Iraq, one of them, two. All came back relatively unscathed, but did experience losses of buddies.

At the time, we lived in a tony, upscale waterfront community, and all of the five lived in at least middle to upper middle class homes. All were college material, whose families had plans and resources to send them to school. Contrary to what Rangel said, none of them joined just to get the educational benefits. I met many soldiers over the years of my son's service, and never once did anyone ever say, or imply, that they joined the Army out of desperation or for the economic advantages.

I think that Congressman Rangel knows full well that what he said is not true; he has access to the detailed statistics. I suspect that he is deliberately lying to make political hay. But, he does a lot of damage to his country and our military when he does this.,He either doesn't care, or maybe he did not join the military out of a sense of duty, but only for personal gain. Either way, he has shown that the politics are more important to him than his loyalty to the nation he is supposed to serve.

This the kind of partisan crap that I, and many others, are sick of. Please, for the good of your country, Congressman Rangel, cut out the crap.

Remember Sputnik

2006-05-16T20:37:00.000-04:00

Rich Tehrani, a business associate and the publisher of TMC publications, has a very interesting discussion on his personal blog about the sad state of education in our country. He relates how, in a visit to his family's homeland, Iran, he noticed that his cousins had 4-5 hours of homework a night, contrasted to his 1-2 hours. I am a bit older than Rich and remember when I had 4-5 of homework every night also. My children rarely had any.

This is a sad state of affairs, and I think children today are being robbed of a full education by a system that seems intent more on its own needs than educational needs of our youth. The powerful NEA lobby and association has doggedly fought every attempt to improve education. As a result, we are in a heck of a mess. There is more priority given to rewarding effort and not achievement, and the amount of actual education that happens is greatly reduced.

Are you aware that World War II history is not taught in most schools today? In one California school system, there is more time spent on Iran Contra than on World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam, combined. Who could argue that the impact of major 20th Century wars are many times more important than a silly scandal? Remember what George Santayana said,

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

This is a long term problem with a complex solution, but nothing will happen until parents begin to demand change.

Let's Party!

2005-02-20T22:18:00.000-05:00

Last week's election of ultra-partisan Howard Dean to the Chairmanship of the Democratic National Congress, has shown me that the Democrats intend to continue their steady descent into partisan hell. There is little doubt that the Democrats will lose more credibility as they move farther away from the soul of the American voter. I heard Dean and his surrogates talk about what they were going to do to reverse this trend. It is obvious that they have seriously misinterpreted the results of the last election.

The Democrats did not fail to get their message across to the voters of the country, as they all said, to a person. Nor did the voters reject the messenger, John Kerry. The message was delivered loud and clear, and the voters rejected the message, not the messenger.

The sad part of this is that the one who suffers the most is the American people. Our political system is based on multiple points of view being freely offered, vigorous debate, and the best compromise being hammered out. I think all Americans agree that we would not benefit from a one party system. The majority of us believe that other points of view should be represented. Two parties are better than one, but still not the optimal solution. Big parties are big tents, so issues become lost or distorted. Abortion is just such an issue and forces party decisions on small matters. It is as difficult to be a pro-abortion Republican as it is to be an anti-abortion Democrat. There are examples of exceptions to this, but they are rare indeed.

If two parties are better than one, then wouldn't three be better than two? In fact, the Founding Fathers did not address the issue of political parties in the Constitution, by design. Some wanted to ban them entirely, but in the end they decided the cost to freedom of banning political parties was more than the cost of the damage they could cause.

Sometimes I wonder.

True Colors

2005-02-13T14:48:00.000-05:00

I am addicted to the Sunday morning news and talk shows. It is spontaneous discussion, not subject to the careful vetting of other forms of communications. There are more insights into the evils of partisanship than you could get by spending an entire week reading magazines and newspapers.

There was a remarkable exchange this morning between Chuck Grassley, a Republican Senator from Iowa and Charles Rangel, a Democratic Representative from New York.

Here is the final exchange over the Iraq war:

Grassley:The natural goal of people all over the world is simply to be free. It's natural.

Rangel: By American troops?

Grassley: It is in man's basic nature, going back to John Locke, that people want to be free and that they are born free.

Rangel: They don't want their children to die for other people's freedom.

What could Rep. Rangel possibly have been thinking? Taken at its surface, it negates all wars, revolutions and civil actions leading to freedom, including the Revolutionary War which established this country. People's children died in that war establishing the freedoms for the rest of the country. Even if you presume that he meant to indicate that Americans don't want to fight the freedom of people in other countries, it still negates World War I, World War II, Korea, the Spanish American War, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, and dozens of other US military actions.

And, what about the actions of his hero, Bill Clinton, in Kosovo, Bosnia and Somalia?

As a veteran, Rangel must surely realize the cost of freedom is dear. But, his selfish and hopefully, disingenuous, declaration that no American should ever die protecting the freedom of someone else, is an indication of what we all suspect; Rangel and other foolish partisans are not to be trusted with the future of our country.

My Latest Hero

2005-02-05T14:47:00.000-05:00

I have never been much for hero worship. The site of rabid fans going agog over a particular quarterback, a rock star, or an author, appears silly to me. I have appreciated or admired certain people, but I have rarely elevated them to the status of a hero. It is a very special honor that I have only conferred on a handful of people.

I have added a new name to the slim roll of my personal heroes. His name is Cpl. David P. Retske of the US Army. And, yes, he is related to me. In fact, he is my youngest son. He departed today to an undisclosed location (really) in Iraq. as part of the 19,000 other soldiers from the 3rd Infantry Division, who are rotating back to that nascent democracy. Iraq is a troubled country, full of danger and death. I would be lying if I said that I was not worried. In fact, I am as scared as I can remember being. But, I am immensely proud of him. Proud to the point of hero worship.

To understand why his bravery has moved me so, let's go back the day it started – September 11, 2001. There is no need to rehash the horror and anger of that day, but, as it happens, the greatness in men is often born of tragedy. Late in the afternoon of that fateful day, David and several of his closest friends were watching the wall to wall coverage. At that point, we still did not know the enormity of the attack, or what would come out of it. Rescuers were heavily involved in what turned out to be a largely futile search for survivors. They believed that hundreds, or thousands, of survivors might be pulled from the wreckage. The sad truth was that not even many remains would be recovered.

Stunned and outraged by the heartless and unwarranted killing and destruction, David and a couple of his companions swore to become part of the solution, and to join the volunteer army. David scored high on pre-entrance tests, and had his choice, not only of which branch of the service he wanted to join, but what job he wanted. He could have played safe, relatively so, and joined the Air Force or Navy, whose recruiter wanted him so bad, he jokingly offered me a decommissioned battleship if I could convince David to become a sailor.

But David knew what he wanted and chose the Army. He wanted to be close to the action and directly engaged. The Army offered this, and he became a UAV – Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, or drone, pilot. After a year long tour in Korea, he is a crew chief with the fabulous flying model planes team. These incredible machines are taking an ever increasing role in the prosecution of the effort in Iraq, and elsewhere.

Even though David will probably not be clearing the streets of some Iraqi terrorist stronghold, being in Iraq is dangerous enough.

Whatever you may think about the advisability of US involvement in Iraq in the first place, we are there, and we must win. It is important for the US, the people of Iraq, the world, and the future of democracy. With heroes like David, I am confident we will win, although I may not sleep much for the next twelve months.

A Descent into Partisan Hell

2005-01-31T14:46:00.000-05:00

After hearing some of the most incredible partisan whining about the election in Iraq, I am amazed at how the hatred for George W. Bush can overtake good sense.The voices are, for the most part, from the same liberal side of the house that has been carping, justifiably so, about US support for facist dictators over the years. Propping up or ignoring tinhorn autocrats like Manual Noriega and Saddam Hussein, just because they did not openly oppose us was wrong. Just like opposing free elections in Iraq just because one hates Bush is wrong.

One thing I have learned in life is that two wrongs do not make a right, they only make a double injustice.

Way to go, Tim Russert!

2005-01-30T14:45:00.000-05:00

I have to hand it to Tim Russert, the host of Meet the Press. He did an hour long interview today with unsuccessful Democratic Presidential candidate, John Kerry. I suppose that the reason that I am not a talk show host or producer is that I cannot recognize brilliance when I see it. I have to admit that having an interview with the loser and re-hashing the issues that lost him the election would never have occurred to me.

Who is next, Tim? The loser of last year's Super Bowl? Or, how about the runner-up from the Miss America pagent. All we ever see is the winners, gloating and sharing the secret of their success. We need to hear from those who tried hard, but could not win. There are many lessons to be learned here.

The possibilities are endless.

New Math on WMD in Iraq

2004-11-07T14:41:00.000-05:00

Listening to the talking faces on the Sunday news programs and the columnists in the newspaper makes me wonder if they are applying New Math principles on the issue of WMD in Iraq. Many, no make that, most, . . . . OK, all, of the Democratic or liberal commenters are still saying things like. "went to war on false pretenses," or "lied about WMD," or "no WMD in Iraq."

They are obviously not thinking about the implications of what is being reported in Iraq in the aftermath of the UN instigated flap over the allegedly missing Al Qaaqa weapons. The number that jumped out at me was that Iraq had 500,000 TONs of explosives. Do the math,

500,000 tons x 2000 lbs/ton = 1,000,000,000 pounds of explosives.

That is one BILLION pounds of explosives.

You read regularly, too regularly, that a suicide bomber straps on a pound of explosives and kills 6 to 20 people. If you use the average, or 13 people per pound of explosive, and multiply this times the one billion pounds of explosives that Saddam Hussein had stockpiled in Iraq, you could kill 13 billion people with the explosives he had on hand.

According to the World Pop Meter on the US Census site, there were 6,398,849,298, just over 6 billion, people in the world when this blog was written. Thus Iraq had the capacity to kill the entire population of the world Two Times Over. If this does not qualify as "Weapons of Mass Destruction," then perhaps we need a different definition of what that term means.

Continuing to insist that Iraq had no WMD is CRAP!