At that time, America had a conservative president in the White House, who, in addition to being responsible for the worldwide outbreak of AIDS and the nation’s homelessness problem, also thought to “intercept nuclear weapons and destroy them as they emerge from their silos.”

For on March 23, 1983, President Ronald Reagan revealed to the American people his vision for the nation’s protection by asking this question:

“What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?”

Hence, SDI, or the Strategic Defense Initiative was born.

Predictably, the liberal chattering class in Washington as well as the mainstream media–already in near hysterics over Reagan’s “evil empire” remark made just week’s earlier in a speech in Florida–greeted Reagan’s policy initiative with derision, scorn, and fear.

From their standpoint, elected Democrats in Washington were part and parcel of a mindset that permeated the 1960’s, 70’s, and until Reagan came to Washington , were destined to carry over into the eighties and beyond: The concept, or policy, of MAD, or otherwise known as “Mutually Assured Destruction.”

Reagan knew that talk of arms control was nothing more than a vehicle for Soviet nuclear arms expansion. For Reagan knew early on–since 1969 when the SALT talks (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks) began–that:

“There is a myth that arms control agreements automatically produce arms reduction. Well, between 1969, when the SALT talks began, and the mid-eighties, the Soviets increased their number of strategic nuclear weapons by thousands, and under the limits set by the SALT I and SALT II agreements the number could have reached thousands more. That might be arms limitation, but it sure wasn’t arms reduction.”

The work started by Ronald Reagan in 1983 was carried on by President George H.W. Bush, but essentially shelved by President Bill Clinton until a CIA report initiated by congressional Republicans in 1994 dragged him kicking and screaming back into it in 1998. In 1991, Bush the senior refocused SDI into something more like a land-based national missile defense system (NMD).

For his part, Clinton finally signed the National Missile Defense Act in July, 1999, investing further money into the program but stressing that “no decision on deployment has been made.”

In January, 2001, newly elected President George W. Bush entered the White House, and shortly thereafter, announced in May that he would be committing to a national missile defense system, which would in turn “violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the former Soviet Union,” much to the consternation of MAD- Democrats and their legion of liberal supporters in the media.

On that day, Bush stated: “This treaty (the ABM) does not recognize the present, or point us to the future. It enshrines the past. No treaty that prevents us from addressing today’s threats, that prohibits us from pursuing promising technology to defend ourselves, our friends and our allies is in our interests or in the interests of world peace.

“This is still a dangerous world–a less certain, less predictable one. More nations have nuclear weapons and still more have nuclear aspirations. Many have chemical and biological weapons.”

These technologies are being spread to “some of the world’s least-responsible states.”

Meaning states like Iran , North Korea , China , possibly Syria , and, until this president decided to deal with him, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.. Liberal naysayers can play games regarding Hussein having WMD’s or not. Clear-thinking people know he had them, used them, and would have most certainly sold them, given the chance.

America was right in 1983 to support Reagan and his SDI initiative, and until the media and the Democratic Party decided to choose politics over national security, the American people supported this president as well. And that support has paid off.

Though it received little press–far less than it should have– America now has a working missile defense system. On January 29, Reuters reported the following:

“Within a year, the U.S. missile defense system should be able to guard against enemy attacks, while testing new technologies, said Brig. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly, deputy director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency. The United States activated the ground-based system last summer when North Korea launched one long-range and six short-range missiles.”

The latest test results are stunning: “O’Reilly said the missile defense system, which includes sea-based and ground-based interceptors, and powerful X-Band radar systems, achieved success in 14 of 15 flight tests. The United States has 14 interceptors in Alaska and two in California , primarily to counter North Korea.. O’Reilly said the number in Alaska would grow to 21 within eight months.” (source)

Further still, there is more “Star Wars” in the works. From the Air Force Times, this “futurama-type” news: “The YAL-1A, a modified Boeing 747-400F known as the Airborne Laser, will test-fire its low-power laser in flight for the first time as part of a long-term test phase at the Air Force Flight Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., according to an Air Force report. The Airborne Laser, part of the Missile Defense Agency’s Ballistic Missile Defense System, is designed to identify,
track and shoot down enemy ballistic missiles shortly after they launch. (source)

So where would America be if its Reagans and Bushs listened to the heavily-biased and agenda-driven reporting of such anti-American periodicals as the New York Times?

In a “six-month period commencing in December 1991, the Times ran 17 anti-SDI articles, op-ed pieces and editorials denouncing SDI as, among other things, a ‘“bizarre, costly concoction….science fiction…lunacy…sheer fantasy…’” The Times gave front-page coverage to Teddy Kennedy’s Senate speech deriding SDI as “Star Wars,” likening the idea to a science fiction movie or a video arcade game, and thus providing SDI foes their slogan-of-choice.” (source)

It is 2007, and there are enemies of the United States that have the ability to launch nuclear missiles, and kill millions. Because of the vision of Ronald Reagan, and the belief of future GOP presidents, SDI is a reality, and it will save lives, and cause the North Koreas and Irans to think: Success is far from guaranteed anymore, but U.S. retaliation is a certainty.

So please, call it “Star Wars” if you like, but give thanks to a man who saw the future so much clearer than anyone else in the country, and believed in it enough to take all the slings and arrows that the Democratic Party and the liberal media could hurl at him.

Like the Iraq war of today, in 1983 there was one political party invested in victory, and the other invested in America ’s defeat for the sake of political power.

In 1983, Reagan gave America the courage to dream big. Because he did, the world may yet avoid the “Nuclear Winter” so many feared. Thanks to Reagan’s “Star Wars” initiative, actual, real wars may be avoided–wars where the human cost is unimaginative.

Let’s take Sunday’s NFL playoff championship games between the Chicago Bears versus the New Orleans Saints, and the Indianapolis Colts versus the New England Patriots.

Unlike New York Daily News personality/sports writer Mike Lupica—who fancied himself to be a Bush-basher if only for a day—I will not be commenting upon something of which I know little of. Link

Instead, let’s talk about race and the utter sanctification that the media-at-large bestows upon it, and its ceaseless attempts at “colorizing” the news when able.

Both Chicago and Indianapolis won their games. But immediately after the first paragraph from two separate news stories from the AP, the usual media-imprimatur took form:

“He took Dungy along for the ride, helping his coach finally get to the big game and make some history along the way. In two weeks, Dungy will join Chicago ‘s Lovie Smith in the Super Bowl, where together they will be the first black head coaches to meet in the NFL’s biggest game.” Link

“Lovie Smith became the first black head coach to reach the NFL’s marquee game in its 41-year history and roughly four hours later, his good pal and mentor Tony Dungy of the Indianapolis Colts joined him.” Link

So what is the hoped-for media perspective here? That two superb football coaches managed to secure a spot in organized sports greatest spectacle, the Super Bowl? Or is it the “blacks advanced another step today in culturally bereft and ever-prejudiced America by…template the media is looking to forward?

Surely, we have seen this time and again, and some that read this may be saying, “Hey, so what? We know what the media is up to, and we don’t buy it.” That’s fine for most of us, but a good plurality of people don’t get it, and the plurality I speak of is practically everyone outside the demographic of white males, ages one to 100.

Can anyone give me a valid reason why it is necessary in this day and age to keep looking for markers that “anyone but white males” has crossed over? Does not this type of behavior promote separatism and race-consciousness?

What’s wrong with just trumpeting the marvelous efforts by both coaches? Are they not Americans first, and black second? Why does this concept seem not only foreign to the media, but to so many of these “minority” groups themselves?

Possibly because the status of the underprivileged or whatever one chooses to label minority groups, has its advantages—not the lest of which is an almost supernatural effect on the media to remind America that everyday in America is still like a day in Selma, Alabama, circa 1964.

Everyone knows this to be folly, including the mainstream media. And though there are professional race pimps like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, that is another story for another day.

It is a stunted and perverse perspective of America that the liberal media look to promulgate through news story and editorial alike. And sadly, it seems wholly acceptable to those who are continually cast as victims in “racist’ America.”

Never mind that blacks in America today dominate the major sports markets. That is not the point here, nor is it ever–if rarely–discussed. The point is these two men–Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy–coached great games. That is the story.

We see this all too often in politics as well. We have seen it in Iraq now for three plus years, as nothing good can possibly come out of Baghdad. As the saying goes, “If it bleeds, it leads.” In Iraq it was always “If it bled, it led.”

We see it in the greatest story never told during the Bush presidency, the economy. With the exception of energy prices-which are now receding–and medical care, the economy has flourished under this administration.

The housing market seemed to set monthly records, as did the stock market. Unemployment is at an anemic 4.4 to 4.3%, inflation is low, and wages have risen about 1.1% in 2006. The federal budget deficit has been cut in half—a full three years sooner than Bush had said he would be. Link

Inheriting a Clinton-era recession, President Bush accomplished all of this while navigating scandal-mania via companies like Enron on Wall Street, 9/11, the war against terrorism, Tsunami relief, Hurricane Katrina relief, and other little items–like the largest government entitlement since Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” giveaway, a Medicare drug benefit that some estimate costing a cool one trillion dollars.

The mainstream media verdict? Bankruptcy lines form to the left, and soup lines to the right. But thank goodness, we have black head coaches going to the Super Bowl! And it’s about time!

America is fed a daily bill of goods by its pessimistic and thoroughly political media. One wonders what the headlines would be if, say, a Democrat were in the Oval Office?

Why, the cure for cancer—among many other amazing things–would be just around the corner. All is well. All is well, because the media says so, but just not now.

Ever since his “coming-out party” in 2004 as the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention in Boston, Massachusetts, Obama has garnered much fawning praise, and is now considered as a contender for the White House in 2008.

Pardon me for sounding decidedly contrarian when speaking of Obama’s presidential aspects, but I would sooner believe that Howard Dean had become the Archbishop of Canterbury.

But what of Mr. Obama himself? Do you think he believes it? Well, he might upon seeing his name so celebrated after barely being sworn in on January 4, 2005. On April 18, 2005, Time Magazine designated Obama as one of “The World’s Most Influential People,” citing Obama as a “Leader and Revolutionary.”

On October 17, 2005, writer Andrew Stephen of the influential British journal, New Statesman, lists Obama as one of “10 people who could change the world.”

Time Magazine strikes yet again, with liberal soothsayer Joe Klein penning the October 23, 2006, cover story that reads: “Why Barack Obama could be our next President.”

Further accolades include honorary doctorates from no less than four major universities, like Northwestern and Xavier. Why, there is even talk of canonization within the holy halls of the Vatican for Saint Obama.

And all this for a man who has barely reached the two-year mark in the Senate.

But on a serious note, the public knows much about Barack Obama. Well, let me rephrase that. The public knows about as much about Obama as the mainstream media allows. And what is allowed is as follows:

Barrack Obama is young. He is energetic. He is oh-so-comfortably and confidently religious. He is “above” the usual party labels like “liberal” and “conservative.” He is handsome. And, he is black.

Now, it seems I heard a lot of these superlatives applied to another recent contender for the White House in 2008. With the exception of being black, former Senator John Edwards was feted with much the same.

Mr. Edwards is back, and this time he brings his “two America’s” campaign without the baggage of 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, who inspired no one in 2004, and matters even less today. Edwards has learned a lesson, and maybe he will learn a few more in time for 2008. But more on that in a moment.

For all his media-trumpeted attributes, Barack Obama is a Senate “back bencher” who has done virtually nothing in the scant two years that he has been there. Aside from becoming the media’s present-day darling and poster boy for perceived political even-handedness, Obama has–so far–had an unspectacular career.

We have seen the media play kissy-face time and again–even to Republicans. Arizona senator and 2008 presidential wannabe John McCain was touted as a great “moderate and farseeing voice of reason,” but that was yesterday. Obama is today.

So why all this attention given to Obama? My guess has always been that he is a work in progress, and that work is the media’s making of a vice-president. Maybe this is obvious to some, but far too many see Obama as presidential material, and brother, he just can’t fill those shoes as of yet.

It is preposterous to think that a man of no experience in a chamber consisting of 100 Senate-sized egos can snatch the presidency of the United States, overzealous media aside. Rather, put Obama with someone who has the money, organization, and seasoning to be a presidential contender.

Surely, everyone knows that I am talking about Hillary Clinton. Or am I? Hillary has all of the above in plenty, but also has something else aplenty, and that is considerable negatives. While Hillary may attract the hard left vote (which she will get), Democratic Party legacy voters, and a sizable contingency of women voters, she will not make it without someone like Obama to dull her shrillness, and the polarization that a Hillary Clinton candidacy has inspired around the country.

Obama can mitigate this, and bring the minority vote home in a big way, as minorities will only see a minority, and not an unqualified candidate. Obama will attract new voters to offset what is sure to be a surge of other new voters simply out to vote against Hillary.

This puts two-year Senator Barack Obama in a powerful position, possibly much more so than Hillary desires.

Without Obama, or someone so hubristically celebrated as he, Hillary Clinton may never get out of the primaries. If Hillary feels the pressure, and sees her poll numbers mired in the upper-thirties to low-forties, it will be “vice presidential” running mate Barack Obama.

This can happen very easily, unless…

Unless that other once-upon-a-time media darling, John Edwards, is bold enough–or desperate enough–to take a risk here and take Obama and run with him.

The media will not be able to resist the temptation and desire to crown such a political duo as America’s “New Politicians.” Young, handsome, cutting-edged informed, and of course, non-partisan.

The media hyperventilating will be of epic proportions. It would be as if George Clooney and Leonardo Dicaprio had come to inhabit 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue–intellectually gifted, of course. It might even be described as close to nirvana as America can get!

Well, it would be something like that.

Is Barack Obama presidential material? No. Will he declare as a candidate for 2008? No. Is he being thought of as a vital key for 2008, and the Democrats “triumphant and long-overdo” return to power in the White House? Indeed.

Obama may be an empty political suit to all who really take a moment to actually look at what he’s done, but he fits the bill quite nicely in this, the latest round of mainstream media kingmaking, or more personally put, the ornament that adorns the arm of Hillary Clinton, or John Edwards.

In 1994, the electorate sees a motivated and impassioned GOP come out of the political wilderness and take control of the House of Representatives from a thoroughly scandal-scarred and idea-bereft Democratic Party.

What follows is a slow but steady ideal and ethical erosion of policy that may finally have caught up with the Republican Party. In this, the two major parties in Washington claim a distinction, but may fundamentally lack a difference.

Once upon a time, Republicans had a field day pointing out the inability of one President Bill Clinton and by extension the Democratic Party from stumbling into one scandal after another.

So now, the present-day GOP, led by President George W. Bush, have lately been rocked by illegality, scandal, charges of racism, and anything else that the Democrats and their happy helpers, the mainstream media, can pin on them.

Witness the bizarre yet mammoth troubles of House member Mark Foley, (R-Fla.) who, besides resigning his seat last week immediately after reports that he sent sexually inappropriate e-mails to underage male congressional interns, may now possibly face criminal charges, maybe even a charge of pedophilia.

Preceding Foley’s complete lack of moral judgment and his “thinking with my–ahem–little head” behavior were the over-publicized yet real troubles of former House majority Leader Tom DeLay and his dealings with K-Street’s top super lobbyist and now convicted felon, Jack Abramoff.

Though DeLay was essentially found innocent of any wrong doing in relation to Abramoff, just the association with him was enough to end his political career. But then, the facts never got in the way of a good story when it came to election politics.

Like grass within the cracks of concrete, other political scandals started cropping up. In March of this year, California Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham gets eight-plus years in prison for taking bribes from defense contractors.

Ohio Representative and GOP leader Bob Ney pleads guilty to corruption charges in connection with Jack Abramoff and withdraws from his reelection campaign, and further resigns from the House of Representatives.

Even tenuous circumstances–and outright fabrications–like the troubles that now dog Senator George Allen, (R-Va.) over the supposed use of racial epithet to describe blacks seem to take on a new meaning when lumped together with all else that ails the GOP.

And the record for the GOP to run on? Well, it can’t be all terrorism, all the time, can it? If your President Bush, the obvious answer is a resounding “Heck yes, it’s all we got!” Four weeks out from Election Day, it certainly seems as much.

Though the economy is the best that it’s been since the late nineties, it still remains the most underreported story of the last five years. Low unemployment (4.7%)? Budget deficit lower than expected (111 billion less)? Non-threatening core inflation rates?

Who cares? We have the GOP congressman possibly engaged in serious “criminal behavior” with minors. Gas prices plunging nationwide (down 17%)? Hah!

Democrats and the media are too busy happily proclaiming that they were right all along last year when the designated the GOP as being wed to a “Culture of Corruption.”

And right now, as disgraced Congressman Mark Foley packs up the contents of his House office, who can, with unvarnished conviction, argue with them?

During the last two election cycles, Republicans bucked the odds and added seats to both houses of Congress. Thanks largely to the commitment of President Bush to fight terrorism at home and abroad and keep America safe, the GOP managed to stay out of trouble just long enough to get past those elections.

But what will stop a complete slide into minority-status for the GOP now? Don’t count too largely upon Bush, whose popularity and poll numbers resemble college football scores than anything worth shouting about. If the Democrats can manage to actually use these GOP missteps smartly, a change in majority may come to pass next month.

However, that’s a very big “if” when one considers just who comprises the Democratic Party. It is the party that has consistently overplayed its hate against the Republican Party. From the theatrics at the Paul Wellstone memorial, the outspokenness of former Presidents Carter and Clinton, to the made-for-TV assassination of President Bush, the party of FDR can’t seem to roll a rock downhill.

For the GOP though, the nightmare will continue, at least for a few more weeks, anyway. Expect Democrats and the media to sensationalize everything from Mark Foley’s incredible lack of judgment, to Vice President Dick Cheney “menacing scowl” at a New York Times reporter.

But in the end, Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. As this campaign season now goes from bad to worse, the GOP might soon be running campaign ads that will basically say:

“Vote GOP, because the alternative is even worse than we are.”

Indeed. It is this same liberal media that hides behind the protections of the First Amendment, and its self-imposed importance as the society’s protector via a free and unvarnished press. Yes. And if that is true, that penny stock you bought in 1987 really is worth millions today.

So, while the New York Times busies itself by exposing the National Security Agency’s efforts of tracking terrorism within and outside the countries borders, the Washington Post decides to tell the world of top al Qaeda captives being held in secret prisons in and around Eastern Europe. Yes. “Unvarnished,” as in “no bias.”

Obviously, free and clear-thinking Americans see just how dangerous a free and unvarnished liberal media can be. In the bag for terrorism many moons ago, papers all across the country like the New York Times and the Washington Post also excel in not reporting the good news that flows alongside the bad. Let’s take the case of one Aaron W. Simons.

Simons, a 20-year old Marine Lance Cpl. from California, died while fighting in Anbar province, Iraq on April 24. Simons leaves behind his family and friends who loved him so, and his comrades-in-arms who admired the faith and poise of so young a man as Aaron.

And Aaron also leaves behind little Hamade Hadeal.

Hamade is an Iraqi girl who, at the tender age of twelve, was actually teaching these “trigger-happy redneck” Marines how to speak the Iraqi language. It was here, at the Iraqi troop quarters, or Jundi hut as it is called, that Aaron first encountered Hamade.

Upon meeting Hamade, Aaron discovered through talking with his fellow soldiers that she was going to die unless something was done, and soon. For Hamade’s lack of a simple pair of sandals, deadly parasites that are found within the Iraqi soil enter through the feet, and attack the body’s organs. This vastly complicated a condition (kidney disease) that had already claimed the lives of four of Hamade’s siblings.

In Hamade’s case, she will need a kidney and liver transplant just to give her a shot at life. Even after this, Hamade will need anti-rejection drugs and medication that may well cost some $15,000 per month.

Even before this was known, Lance Cpl. Simons and fellow Marine Lance Cpl. Ian Kutner decided that whatever it took, little Hamade would have a chance at life. It was after Simons was tragically killed in Iraq that his parents learned of their son’s efforts on behalf of Hamade. But then, word had spread.

By the sheer determination of organizations like the Modesto Blue Star Mothers, whose sons and daughters die daily in foreign lands protecting the freedoms that this nation enjoys, Hamade is getting that chance at life. With the help of others like Rep. Dennis Cardoza, (D-Calif.) and Marine Lt. Col. Larry White and Navy Cmdr. Tara Zieber, Hamade becomes somewhat symbolic of what the American spirit, inspired by a God that cherishes life, can do. (www.mcvbluestarmothers.org)

As of this writing, Hamade is getting the medication she needs to buy her precious time–time to go to Jordan in order to be evaluated, and decide which course of action best to take. Because of the determination and love shown by Cpl. Kutner and Cpl Simons, and the outpouring of goodwill and generosity that Hamade’s plight has generated, Hamade may not only live, but also become a citizen of the United States, as Cpl. Kutner is aggressively seeking to adopt her.
(www.modbee.com/local/story/12502890p-13218699c.html)

The story of Hamade may well start and end here in this very column. As far as I can tell, very few have written about people like Hamade and the many others like her. I do not just speak of a little Iraqi girl whose life may end shortly, but the fact that it is the American spirit that drives men such as Aaron Simons and Ian Kutner to not only free a country of tyranny, but to also display the compassion that walks hand in hand with the casualties of war.

How do the Iraqis see this? From the Modesto Bee, the only major paper known to have reported on this compelling life and death story, it was summed it up this way:

“The story of the Marines who befriended an Iraqi girl is leaving a deep impression.

The goodwill is keeping soldiers alive. The Iraqi community recognizes what the Marines are trying to do.”

And the rest of the mainstream media? Better you should hope for actual world peace than think the New York Times or the Los Angeles Times would actually pen stories that would make America proud and confident about what is happening in Iraq. When one wonders just why President Bush’s poll numbers are in the toilet, think no further than the media’s obsession with bad news, and the continuing cadence of the war on terrorism death-count in Iraq.

It’s time to ask just what the American media are doing by continually writing about the “desperate and dire circumstances” thrust upon the country by a Republican president and his Republican Congress, and purposely creating a vacuum concerning the good news that is a daily part of the war as well.

It is time that this liberal and partisan media get away from the daily pursuit of writing of the political death of Bush and Republicanism in general, and start writing about what it is that makes America great. One can report the bad, yes. But one should not ignore the good. It is here that the media acts like the 21st Century version of Tokyo Rose, and carries water for the very terrorists that seek to replicate 9/11.

Dying for one’s country as Aaron Simons did is the ultimate sacrifice a soldier can make. To say that men like Aaron Simons are heroes is, of course, an understatement born out of the callousness of war, and the sometimes pedestrian view of war taken by the populace at large.

It does not help when the stories of just how heroic and compassionate a man as Simons–and so many others in this war on terror–are short-shifted and purposely ignored and relegated to obscurity for political king-making, ala the media.

In a land torn by the trials of war, a flower springs forth that grows strong, and its roots are deep. By the strength of this one flower, others follow, and the seeds of the one multiply into the many.

“The Hamades Story” is a story that needs to be told to an American public that has grown weary of war primarily because of a liberal media that has told it to.

As Ronald Reagan knew, the American spirit is unconquerable, whether that spirit finds itself in Iraq during war or back home during peace. America is still that “Shining city on the hill” that Reagan spoke of, and that is because America and its people are forged by the deeds of people like Cpl. Aaron Simons.

Shamefully, the liberal media can only report the bombs in Iraq, and ignore the flowers that bloom there daily.

*The parents of Aaron W. Simons, John and Charlotte, have asked those interested in helping Hamade Hadael to work through Our Children International. Its Web site is www.ourchildreninternational.org.

“The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake.”
( www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071701154.html )

Ahh, the self-importance and smugness of the chattering class! Cohen, whose column is showcased by the Washington Post and syndicated nationwide, continues by stating with mind-numbing clarity that Israel would do best by letting her enemies pummel her.

Richard Cohen is firmly of the idea that Israel should “hunker down” and hope terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas, and sovereign terrorist states like Iran “get distracted and move on to something else.”

Upon reading Cohen’s op-ed, the discerning reader must now ask oneself just what it is he means. Does Cohen mean…?

* Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist factions decide to go legit and sell the Middle East’s version of Amway products. Or might Cohen mean…

* There is no chance for peace–ever–between Israel and the entire Middle East, including Hezbollah and Hamas, and in that case…

* “Something else,” means that there are no more Jews to slaughter in Israel because there is no more Israel. That leaves plenty of free time for Hezbollah and Hamas to plan their next Jihad-extraordinaire—like coming to America to kill Americans wholesale?

That may be good news for Cohen, who will undoubtedly tell the American people through the magic of opinion journalism to “hunker down” and wait for terrorism to “move on.”

What Richard Cohen means in this penned flatulence that masquerades as serious commentary is that Israel should–ahem–bend over, grab the ankles, and just take it.

And according to Cohen, why not? I mean, what’s a few million Jews in Israel among one and a half billion Arabs and Muslims? If Cohen’s advice were to ever be taken seriously, the obvious answer regarding Israel is extinction.

And regarding Israel’s sovereignty? According to Richard Cohen, Israel should not even exist.

Stupid Jewish state! How selfish is Israel to exercise the concept of self-defense, or even more perverse to some–beltway op-ed writers particularly–the very thought of self-preservation.

When Americans read and hear what modern-day liberals like Richard Cohen have to say, you wonder if they are tempted to laugh at the sheer ridiculousness of the guy, or slap a net over him.

These days, liberalism as practiced by Richard Cohen and the paper he writes for is not a political belief system inasmuch as it is a sickness of sorts. Symptomatic of the sickness is the basic perversion of the concepts right and wrong, and good and evil.

Liberals like Richard Cohen are not only wrong, but they are dangerously wrong. Cohen cannot even bring himself to condemn Hezbollah or Hamas. Instead, Cohen gives them a free pass, explaining that “zealots are not amenable to reason.” But condemn Israel for defending herself? Like bees to honey, it’s a certainty that liberals like Cohen will always blaze forth in doing so.

Zealots, Mr. Cohen? Do you mean the kind of zealotry that you and the left have carried out against a sitting president in a time of war? It is the zealotry of the absolute hated of blind rage, or the willingness instantly to torpedo anything President Bush is for or supportive of, for the sake of revitalizing the left’s severe power outage in Washington.

Is that the zealotry you speak of, Mr. Cohen?

Further, I think it is breathlessly stunning how someone as positioned as Richard Cohen is can instill thought and opinion so radically different to anything other than the obvious truth: Israel has every right to defend itself, and utterly destroy Hezbollah and its patron states like Syria and Iran.

I guess when I think about it, the Washington Post has done its readers a great service. By running these thoughtless and hyperventilating pieces that pretend to be cogent and analytical thought by someone such as Cohen, the Post reminds us all regarding the stark differences between those invested in freedom and its future, and those who are invested in the status quo, and fear.

People like Richard Cohen are liberal simpletons, certainly. But people like Cohen are also dangerous, and should be labeled as such.

Finally, Richard Cohen and the Washington Post underline why America looks rightward politically these days. Cohen further illustrates the stark differences between the clear-eyed right that fight this war against terrorism, and the close-eyed left who would gladly watch America and her allies–like Israel–fall to terrorism if only to see themselves reseated within the corridors of power in Washington.

A recent column by Washington’s premiere political pundit, Robert Novak, only underlines the obvious: The question is not If Giuliani runs, but When he openly declares that he is running. Though Novak does not say when, I would speculate that Giuliani will announce by the end of this year. (http://townhall.com/Columnists/RobertDNovak/2006/07/08/rudy_for_president)

A recent Gallup Poll asked the question of its participants: Who they would opt for as the Republican front runner in the 2008 presidential election? At the end of day, Gallup had Giuliani at 29%, while Senator John McCain, R-Ariz, came in at 24%.
(www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/9/122917.shtml)

What’s worth noting here is that the battle for the 2008 presidency will be fought by two well-known political figures who both share the non-too-complimentary appellation of “RINO,” or “Republican in name only.”

Though Giuliani is considered by conservative GOP insiders as too socially liberal to capture the support of the hard-core right of the party, this writer believes otherwise.

Giuliani made his mark in political circles by joining the office of U.S. Attorney, eventually rising to U. S. Executive Attorney. In 1975, Giuliani went on to Washington to eventually become the third-highest ranking member–Associate Attorney General–in Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Giuliani)

Giuliani was then appointed U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, where he gained national standing by indicting such notables as Bill and Hillary Clinton pal Marc Rich and Mafia crime boss Paul Castellano. Giuliani first became mayor of New York City in 1994 until the close of 2001, and is now the CEO of Giuliani Partners LLC.

The primary contest that will eventually come down between Sen. John McCain and Giuliani will be fought on a number of fronts.

On the basis of name recognition, Giuliani bests John McCain by a considerable degree. Known as “America’s Mayor” after the catastrophic events of 9/11, Giuliani was Time magazine’s “Person of the Year” in 2001, and since has appeared all around the country, campaigning for GOP local and national candidates across the country.
(www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,1101011231,00..html)

McCain, though popular, is not as much the household name as Rudy Giuliani is, instead garnering an inordinate amount of attention through the mainstream media. While Giuliani is certainly noticed by the press, McCain is constantly feted by the press. Labeled in some circles as the “media candidate,” most notably by radio personality Rush Limbaugh, McCain has become recognized primarily for his willingness to buck his Republican Party, and specifically, President Bush.

It is this distinction that will probably get McCain plenty of air time and space among the liberal press. However, he will pay a price, and the price will be the abandonment of nearly the entire conservative base come the presidential primary.

By contrast, Giuliani, though politically moderate-to-left on some social issues, will be more palatable than McCain to the voters for the simple reason that he is viewed as a man of courage, conviction, and leadership. To many, McCain comes across as the mainstream media has dubbed him–a “maverick” or “courageous” Republican willing to dare the wrath of the “intractable hard-right of the party” in order to defy the George W. Bush led GOP.

On the issues themselves, McCain and Giuliani will both have their problems.

But McCain’s positions and past votes within the Senate–of which Giuliani has none to worry over–will make it harder for him to claim solid platform-Republican credentials, much less conservative ones. McCain authored the Campaign Finance Reform bill, which to many in the GOP is a travesty against free speech. McCain has consistently voted against nearly all tax reform or tax cut programs proffered by the Bush administration.

McCain has also embraced the president’s ill-advised immigration reform plan, or as most call it, “amnesty-lite.” Amusingly, you now see McCain shifting his positions on some of these issues–like the immigration bill–as the campaign for 2008 draws ever near. But that is what a voting record is for; it never lets the advancement of time or events forget those votes.

Giuliani, though better positioned for lack of a Washington paper trail, has problems of his own. While iron-jawed and conservative on crime, taxes, and national defense, Giuliani has work to do on gay rights, gun control, and a linchpin of the GOP base, abortion. (www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Rudy_Giuliani_Abortion.htm)

I believe that Giuliani will modify his position on all these issues. He will do what so many have done before him regarding these issues, and that is to stress the commonality that he shares with the base–like being against gay marriage-a maybe even reverse on a key issue, like partial-birth abortion. (www.issues2000.org/Rudy_Giuliani.htm)

In all, I think the Republican base will be more forgiving and receptive of a Washington outsider who turned who turned out to be a living icon of strength and purpose after America suffered its most egregious loss of life on American soil since World War II.

McCain, by contrast, has worn out his welcome by his continuous attacks against Bush, and his willingness to relegate his GOP loyalty to a back seat for the sake of a Sunday morning spot on “Meet The Press.” McCain has done much to cultivate this image.

Giuliani will campaign on the events of 9/11 and showcase his well-documented leadership, the same thing that has sustained Bush through nearly all else in his presidency. McCain will claim that he has stood fast with Bush since 9/11, and so he has.

But at the end of the day, the GOP elephant never forgets. The party faithful will find it difficult to elect the maverick senator from Arizona, instead opting for the stalwart and iron-willed mayor from New York, who helped show a nation the way back into the light of a new day when the chaotic and nightmarish darkness of 9/11 threatened to bring America to its knees.

Well, I, as a non-Muslim–who, by the way, is trying to be killed by Muslims who hate me for not being a Muslim–have a few words I want to share with my American Muslim “brethren.”

It is your silence that will condemn you to the deepest and darkest hells imaginable. Further, I condemn you, along with the actual terrorists that seek to kill me and my countrymen. Your silence is your weapon against America, and it is your doom regarding your soul.

In Miami this week, seven men were indicted for: conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, namely Al Qaida; conspiracy to provide material support and resources to terrorists; conspiracy to maliciously damage and destroy buildings by means of an explosive device; and conspiracy to levy war against the government of the United States.
(source: Washington Post)

Meanwhile, the rest of the country’s legitimate Muslim population of about three to four million people is indicted by the rest of America for: conspiracy to act as if nothing is wrong with their religion or their unconscionable and dangerous silence regarding what is carried out in the name of said religion. (source: adherents.com)

Yes, my Muslim friends. Some will call this commentary a rant. The liberal sympathizers among the mainstream media and the Democratic Party certainly will. But hey, if you can stay silent while your fellow followers of Allah conspire to knock down the Sears Tower in Chicago, then I can gustily open my mouth and castigate you for that silence.

But when it comes to killing, Muslims are anything but silent. Indeed, the typical Muslim-Islamofascist seemingly takes on the countenance of a circus ringmaster-at once filled with grandiose promises of deadly acts, coupled with the overall zeal and unshakable belief of the performance itself.

So, it is of no surprise to hear that the “Miami Seven” as I shall call them, sincerely hoped to wage a “full ground war against the United States.”

As Americans, you should know that your Muslim brothers here and abroad go to bed at night dreaming of ways to “kill all the devils we can.” For the unsure or confused reader, please read the word “devil” as “you.”

Of course, no movement, for that is what Islam behaves as when it seeks to shackle others within the confines of its belief and dogma, would be complete without a mission statement: The Miami Seven kept it simple; They wished to inflict a bloodbath upon America “just as good or greater than 9/11.”

Now, you may call these people civilized, but I choose not to. And there is not a single thing anyone can do about that. Nor can such organizations as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) do anything. Already, CAIR seeks to distance the Miami terrorist plot from Muslim and Islamic circles in general, by calling on the media not to refer to the seven Muslim terrorist arrested as “Muslims.”
(source: CAIR)

For those who care, take a few moments and find out what CAIR is really all about. The website, “Anti-CAIR” has more documented information regarding this pseudo-terrorist organization than one cannot safely ignore.
(www.anti-cair-net.org/)

As for overall Islamic relations in this country, well, that can be summed up in several words: They are non-existent.

That is no fault of America, or its constitutional law. Nor its president, who has spoken of Islam as a “peaceful religion” more times than actual Muslims have. In fact, President Bush has said this so often that Americans have wearied of hearing it, and consequently no longer believes it, especially when these “peaceful” followers of Islam are trying to kill people in America, and all over the world.

Muslims come to America and live a life that, until then, they had only dreamed of. Muslims open businesses that cater to other Muslims, religious schools only for Muslims, form Muslim-dominated neighborhoods, and checker the landscape with Muslim churches, or Madrasa’s.

Maybe, it really is time to rethink just who comes to America, and what it is they do when they are here. Though the critics and enablers will write to me of people like Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski, both domestic terrorists of wide repute, spare me of the “it’s not just Muslims” summations.

Americans are tired of these “needle in the haystack” examples. We know the difference between an aberrant anomaly, and a way of life chosen by tens of thousands of Muslims around the world.

All one needs to do is look at the celebrations after 9/11 that occurred in nearly all Islamic countries to know that this call to kill “unbelievers” or “Christians,” or as the Miami Seven put it so succinctly, “Devils,” is real.

America is here for the oppressed of the world to come to. We are the “shining city upon the hill” as Ronald Reagan has said. And if America had to have walls, those walls would always have a door. America is the premiere beacon for the rest of the world.

But some may not be ready for America, and America is certainly not ready for them. The freedoms that separate this land from any other are a blessing for those who adhere to the spirit of those God-given freedoms, and those who would conspire to use those freedoms against us.

It is time for an “American Fealty Act of 2006″ to wind its way through Congress, and the land. For those who cannot recite a simple oath of love and honor to the country they live in, a plane ticket awaits to bring you and yours back from whence you came.

Naturally, I am eager to see my Muslim friends embrace this concept, and be the first on line to show everyone just how this is done. But then again, I doubt my Muslim friends would rise to the occasion. Their past and present actions show me no other decision is possible.

Now boarding for Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern destinations.

Vincent Fiore is a freelance political writer who lives in New York City. His work can be seen on a host of sites, including the American Conservative Union, GOPUSA, Human Events, and theconservativevoice. Vincent is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance and a contributing writer for NewsBusters.org. He receives e-mail at: Anwar004@aol.com

What a difference a few weeks make! If someone had said to me last month that we would have bagged Zarqawi in Iraq, I would have replied that there was a better chance of me sprouting another head. It takes a little good luck, as well as all the hard work our brave servicemen and women have been doing in Iraq, to make that happen. And, Dad, at the time, that seemed unlikely in the least.

And heck, it surely seems like if I didn’t have bad luck, I’d have no luck at all these days. Sorry to sound so 1992-ish, Dad, but it has been that type of presidential term.

You had a Democratic Congress and the Iran-Contra/Caspar Weinberger scandal; I have Osama Bin Laden and a press corps gone stark-raving liberal-mad.

And don’t think the Democrats in Congress don’t see this. Now I really understand why Mom genuinely disliked those folks over at the New York Times. I’m sorry, Mom, that I ever even doubted you.

It’s just amazing, though, how good the last two weeks have been. First, we finally “Bring Zarqawi to justice,” which is what I have to say to the press instead of what Rover said to me, which is “we killed that son of a .” Well, you get the picture.

And speaking of my chief counsel: Karl is “officially” off the hook, and there will be no “Fitzmas in July” as the bloggers like to say. Come to think of it, I think the mainstream media was echoing that as well.

Even the polls are starting to look up a bit, as I was down there in Nixon-territory for quite some time. Still not as good as we need to get them, but it’s a start, and I hope to heck that the conservative base sees that its president can “take a licking and keep on ticking,” or something like that.

Why, Dad, we even managed to keep my emergency request bill at a manageable 94.5 billion. The Senate tried to roll over me, like they did with you dad when they buffaloed you into raising taxes in 1990. The House held the line, but the Senate tried for a few billion more. I stood tough, and threatened a veto, though I cannot for the life of me seem to find that darn veto pen.

But I guess the best was going off to see the troops in Iraq. Mom, dad, it was just a success all around, as I met with the new Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, and urged him, like dad would often say to us kids, to “seize the moment” in Iraq.

We are going to stay the course there, and we are going to win.

But I think this momentum, or this “good week” as the press calls it, has been happening for a bit. Just look at who I brought into the fold recently, right? Josh Bolton is now chief of staff, Tony Snow is press secretary, and I got Hank Paulson as treasury secretary. How’s that for staff talent, dad?

I’m being told that the biggest moment of the week was the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. I felt a sense of triumph for the Iraqi people, and the American people who have been so patient with me, when “Maj. Gen. William Caldwell displayed the framed picture of Zarqawi’s lifeless face in triumph at a news conference last week.”

Of course, the media don’t see it that way. Already, they are starting to say regarding my good fortune that “That’s when the ‘Bushisms’ happen. That’s when we see his hubris.” Yeah, I think that was Claire Shipman reporting that on “Good Morning, America.” I mean, the week is barely over, and already I’m toast. Well, Mom, you always said that if you have nothing good to say, don’t say anything. I wish the media would take a cue from you. (www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=2083881)

After I returned home from Iraq to that Rose Garden news conference that was nothing short of a chest-beating exercise in politics, I got to thinking of our party’s chances in November, and I like them.

Dad, I have never seen such silliness in a party then what I see in the Democrats. Take those two resolutions voted upon in the House and Senate. You would think Senator Kerry would have learned his lesson in 2004, with his flip-flopping and “I voted for the war before I voted against it” nonsense. Instead, Kerry loses big-time, 93-6 on his own resolution that called for the withdrawal of the troops. And they call me dumb. (AP)

The House vote was more of the same, but that resolution stated a “completion of the mission” in Iraq and rejects any “arbitrary” deadline for an American troop withdrawal.”

The outcome? The vote was 256 to 153, with over 75% of the Democratic Party voting against that bill!

With Democrats, it does not even seem to be a question of pulling out or not anymore. Now, it’s just a question of when. (souce: NY Times)

Well, I have to get back to the residence, as Laura is waiting patiently for me to return. Dad, happy Father’s Day to you. And Mom, I love you, and i will see you both soon at the house. I think I will try to push through that immigration reform that I have been working on, and also see if I can get Frist to push through some of those judges that have been sitting on the back burner for so long.

Heck, Mom and Dad, it sure is good to be president when you have a few victories in your pocket and a song on your lips, but I know that these victories are always fleeting. But then again, the fortunes are such in Washington that even the most besieged have their days in the sun.

Come November, we all just might look back at these few weeks in June and realize just how timely, and possibly majority-saving, these events were. Of course, it helps that the opposition party makes about as much sense these days as a nun in a brothel. I will, as always, keep you both up to date. The twins say hello.

Your Loving Son,
Dubya

Vincent Fiore is a freelance political writer who lives in New York City. His work can be seen on a host of sites, including the American Conservative Union, GOPUSA, Human Events, and theconservativevoice. Vincent is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance and a contributing writer for NewsBusters.org. He receives e-mail at: Anwar004@aol.com.

As dozens of freshman House members assumed their elected offices, they happened to also assume the mantle of responsibility in regard to the electorate’s want–and need–for change.

After 40-plus years of Democratic rule and ideology in the House of Representatives, the voters could not have spoken any clearer. The American people, quite simply, wanted and demanded by virtue of their votes, good governance.

That was in 1994, when it was good to be conservative in ideology, and most importantly, in practice.

In 2006, Republicans, who hold the majority of power throughout Washington these days, have fallen short.

In the House, the leadership of Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert has generally been average to fair, but also politically motivated, even to the degree of bad legislation.

It is this “legislation for legislation’s sake” that drives conservatives to take a–metaphorically speaking–apathetic leap off a cliff and into the somewhat vast demographic known as the “non-voter.”

In the Senate, things have even been worse. In the world’s most deliberative political body, these 100 lords of the land (or so you would think, the way these monuments to self-centered indulgence carry on) debate as if each one of them were robbed of their natural and proper birthright: the presidency of the United States.

Republican majority leader Bill Frist has only lately began to show a few tentative signs of leadership, but one wonders if the senator from Tennessee is a day late and a dollar short.

Frist has allowed the “principled and courageous” moderate wing of the GOP to run roughshod {read as: bad legislation} over not only most the president’s second term legislation and agenda, but the conservatives in the Senate as well.

How important and prevalent are the conservatives around the country? Ask future presidential candidate John McCain after he loses in 2008, and you may find out. Though conservatives seem not to rank within Washington proper, it is a far different view outside the beltway.

Though conservatives outnumber both moderate and liberal Republicans in both houses of Congress, one might hardly think so. For validation, one might look at nearly all the legislation that has made it out of that chamber.

From immigration, to the recent tax cut package, and all the way back to the “cover my incumbent-butt” Hurricane Katrina billion-dollar giveaway, conservative principle in the Senate was about as rare as Hillary Clinton wearing a blue dress.

But don’t blame the Democrats, folks. After all, they did just fine as Washington’s political powerbrokers when they were running the country.

Eventually though, power will corrupt most of the time. Over the span of time, Democrats became complacent and expectant, and finally, abusive while in power.

But the same paucity of purpose and haughtiness of office that eventually ended the 40-plus years of rule now infuse the ranks of the GOP.

Gone are the heady days of the “Gingrich Revolution” and the GOP’s “Contract with America.” In its place, an unsettling sense by those voters who helped propel the class of 1994 to victory that the actual wall of separation between the two major political parties is, at first blush, thick with ideology, but in reality, something else entirely.

Though politicians tend to lay it on thick when on the campaign trail trolling for votes, the legislation coming out of Washington these days is uncomfortably reed-thin in practice.

Aside from the “R” and “D” that follows everyone that works and lives inside the beltway, there isn’t much else that separates the political class.

Certainly, it seems that official Washington increasingly looks to the people as a hindrance-to be dealt with offhandedly, and with contempt. The idea of actually serving the needs of the constituency that they represent seems abstract to say the least.

Polls throughout the years have basically indicated that Americans are fed-up with Congress, and are generally untrusting of either party. But the onus will fall unto the Republicans, as being in power makes all the difference in the world, though one could say that the two major political parties in power bear a distinction without a difference these days.

The GOP has a way to go in order to turn the tide of defeatism and disappointment that lives within the hearts of the party faithful. It remains to be seen if recent events–like the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the tough spending caps that Bush has demanded– will help the GOP regain its footing come November.

But I know one thing that is certain, because we have seen it happen before our eyes: If it is truly a “distinction without a difference” regarding the Democrats and Republicans, then there is no distinction to be made at the ballot box this year.

In politics, there are few fates worse for a movement than losing its identity.

Republicans, the bell tolls for thee. If it is to be the Republican’s winter of discontent, then it will be of their own doing. Instead, why not be distinctive from the other guy, and make a difference.