Kill the Bush tax cuts, stop rewarding the rich during the recession

In another display of stunning hypocrisy, congressional Republicans continue their fight to reward the rich during the recession. During the upcoming campaigns, Republicans will claim to represent every American, but that’s hardly the case when it comes to tax policy. This time the battle is over whether Congress should extend Bush’s 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and the GOP is siding with the rich over the middle-class.

Read the rest at The Loop.

Obama's Deepwater Response Another Disaster

The year and a half disaster known as the Obama administration has completely crystallized in their response, or should I say in the President's non-response, to the outrageous oil spill containment measures, and lack thereof, in the Gulf of Mexico.

On April 20th, an eon ago as far as appropriate disaster response by the government should be concerned, there was a fire and explosion on a British Petroleum (BP) licensed oil drilling rig known as the 'Deepwater Horizon' which was operating approximately 42 miles off the Louisiana coast at the time. Two days later the rig sank, and a 5-mile long oil slick became visible.

By April 25th, the US Coast Guard estimated that the rig was leaking approximately 1,000 barrels of crude oil per day into the waters of the Gulf. Within 3 more days that estimate had risen dramatically to 5,000 gallons per day. Still no effective response by President Obama or his administration. It would be another day, nearly a week after the initial incident, before he would announce "every single available resource" would help resolve the situation.

It would take until May 2nd before the President deemed the oil spill important enough to clear space from his busy schedule of private-industry takeovers, debt-and-tax raising program creation, and irresponsible financial entity bailouts to squeeze in a visit to the disaster area.

Over the next two weeks, the Obama administration would watch stoically and dispassionately as the oil spread towards Louisiana, reaching the Breton National Wildlife Refuge among other places. Despite leaving the incident in the hands of those who created it, Obama himself had the nerve to finally issue a statement on May 14th in which he chided the companies involved for creating a "ridiculous spectacle" of trading blame. Meanwhile, as Obama played Nero and fiddled, his Rome continued to burn as the oil slick continued to spread.

By May 19th the oil slick began to wash ashore at the Louisiana mainland and dangerously spread into heavy currents that could easily carry it on to Florida and beyond. Nine days after that, over a month after the initial incident, Obama finally made a 2nd visit to the area stating "I am the President, and the buck stops with me". But not apparently the oil slick, which continues on now with no end in sight as the month of May draws to a close. Some estimates are that at the current rates of oil spreading and poor effectiveness of response, it will not be contained until August.

During the administration of President George W. Bush, the liberal-controlled and Democratic Party-biased mainstream media and the Dems themselves all displayed self-righteous anger and indignation at the President and his team for what they deemed a particularly slow response in the exact same region of the country in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Waiting for a similar reaction to Obama's non-action in the Gulf, one can hear the crickets chirping.

There will be the usual hand-wringing from the lib circles here. Calls to halt offshore oil drilling have already begun. The President himself had recently commented that the procedures and equipment in today's modern world were safe and secure. He was, in that instance, absolutely correct. Just because of one accident, no matter how large, we should absolutely not stop searching for American resources and doing what it takes to extract and utilize those resources. Just because one plane or bus crashes, people don't stop flying or riding the roads.

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin had it right when she led the call to "Drill baby, drill!" during her Veep run two summers ago. New geological surveys have revealed massive natural oil reserves are likely right here in the continental United States. Those are in addition to what we already know exists in her home state in the ANWAR reserves.

Despite her critics cat-calls, Palin loves here home state, and would never endanger it, and has led the fight to get those reserves opened and get the drilling going. She is absolutely correct, and needs to be supported publicly by all those who recognize the truth of energy resource management.

The United States needs to lessen our dependence on foreign sources of oil, be those sources from the Middle East or Russia, or from closer to home in Mexico or Canada. We have an abundance of those resources right here, and we need to go after them. Alternative energy needs to continue to be explored and developed, but those sources are not currently available or viable, and likely will not be for decades to come.

President Obama's excrutiatingly slow and ineffective response to this oil spill disaster is itself yet another disastrous example of the incompetence of his administration. We shouldn't extrapolate that by worsening our national economic situation.

Tea Party Should Not Be A 'Third' Party

There has been a great deal of angst among the Lefty Lib community regarding the emergence over the past year or so of what has become known as the 'Tea Party' movement. The liberals who now control the Democratic Party should be concerned, because they and their political leaders led by President Barrack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have awoken a sleeping giant.

That sleeping giant is the true Conservative movement that the majority of Americans feel a natural affinity towards. The people who make up real main-stream America. Hard-working, family-rearing, tax-paying, God-fearing, America-loving, law-abiding folks who want government out of their lives. Who recognize that low taxation, modest regulation, secure borders, and the teaching of and support for American exceptionalism are the true path to lasting recovery, not the socialist style policies of the Obama administration.

That sleeping giant has been embodied by the Tea Partiers. The term, based on the 'Boston Tea Party' protesters of Revolutionary War days, evolved from those people at the grass roots levels of the Conservative movement who held and/or attended town hall meetings that sprang up across the nation during 2009 in response to the various government takeovers, bail outs, and spending programs enacted and proposed by Obama and the liberal Democrats.

Since those numerous and emotional town hall events, the Tea Partiers have taken to the internet, the radio waves, and the blogosphere to continue to push a return to basic, traditional American values and away from the government entitlements, social programs, and massive spending undertaken by the Dems.

But a problem has cropped up among some within the Tea Party movement itself. They have become so disenchanted, rightly in many cases, with some recent and current Republican politicians that they have floated the possibility of becoming their own 'third party' in American politics. This new formal 'Tea Party' would be wholly conservative in every way.

There is one major flaw to such an idea. It is a loser.

The only people who would actually benefit from a third 'Tea Party' made up of conservatives would be the Democratic Party and all of it's ultra-liberal politicians, consituencies and benefactors. Such a party would basically amount to a splitting up of the Republican Party, leaving the Dems to dominate organized politics for the forseeable future, and dooming America to their socialist tendencies, the very programs and ideals that the Tea Partiers stand against.

The 'Tea Party', such as it is, should remain exactly what it is - a movement. It should never try to become a third political party, thus damning itself to the destruction of the very causes for which it was established. What it should do, however, is hold Republican politicians at every level - particularly at the state and national levels - to traditional American and Conservative standards and values.

Remaining organized, active, and vocal will ensure that no longer will the Republican Party nominate a Progressive candidate as it's standard bearer, as it has in recent years with both George W. Bush and John McCain. Instead the Republican Party will have as it's out-front leaders those who support less governmental spending and intervention in our lives, lower taxes, a strong military, secure borders, a judiciary that interprets rather than creates laws, and programs and policies aimed at keeping America strong and independent.

Those on the leading edges of the various groups that make up the most vocal sections of the Conservative movement in America must keep the heat on the politicians and the Republican Party as a whole, while at the same time tempering and better channeling the emotions of those who would sabotage the Party and imperil it's future from within. Only by sticking together and remaining strong will we be able to overcome the Liberals, the Progressives, and the Democrats, elect conservative Republican majorities, and begin to roll back the Obama policies, dismantle the Obama programs, and return America to common sense.

Real American Hero: Brandon Darby

For the past couple of years I have written a semi-regular series of articles here titled "Real American Hero", all of the previous entries of which can be viewed by clicking on that 'label' at the bottom of this original post here at the http://www.mattveasey.com/ website.

Beginning with the very first article whose subject matter was Arizona Senator and former American POW John McCain, each of the entries has highlighted a hero from the American military. These were people who put their lives on the line, and in many instances laid down those lives, for their country. And except for McCain, every one of them was virtually anonymous outside of their own closest inner circle of family and friends.

But it is not just within the military that we can find individuals whose significant contributions have gone mostly unnoticed, and this article is going to begin the process of incorporating some of those civilian stories into the series as well. The story of Brandon Darby, a former radical leftist activist who openly called for the overthrow of the U.S. government turned Real American Hero, is a fitting one with which to begin.

Darby is a good ol' Texas boy who grew up to harbor and cultivate anti-government and anti-establishment feelings. He became an outspoken critic of fellow Texan George W. Bush during his presidency, in particular following Hurrican Katrina. It was in the relief response to the Katrina disaster in Louisiana that Darby began to come to some prominence.

As Matthew Vadum tells the story in Town Hall magazine, Darby used $50 of his own money to co-found the group 'Common Ground', a supposed relief agency that was in actuality a far-Left political activist organization that included a number of former Black Panther members. It was during and thanks to his experiences with this group that Darby's social and political viewpoint began to change and mature.

During the process of trying to restore some semblance of order and peace and rebuilding of lives in New Orleans, Darby met and began a relationship with an NOPD commander named Major John Bryson. At first completely distrustful of and at odds with one another, Darby and Bryson began to see as they worked both together and separately for the rebirth of the Crescent City that not only were each not the other's enemies, but they were indeed on the same side.

Then in 2006, Darby undertook a trip to Venezuela as part of a group seeking funding from the Marxist government of Hugo Chavez to keep Common Ground in operation. Chavez had been subverting American influence in the region by funneling discounted fuel oil through Congressman Joseph Kennedy of Massachuessettes, whose TV commercials painted Chavez as a friend to America's poor while portraying President Bush as disinterested at best.

When Darby arrived and began to meet with the Venezuelans it became obvious that helping New Orleans and Americans was the last thing on their minds. What they really wanted was to set up a terrorist network of guerrillas that would operate out of the swamps of Louisiana and begin work towards undermining the American government further.

As Vadum also reports, Darby was further alienated from his original Leftist beliefs when a long time friend from Texas, Riad Hamad, tried to hijack a new relief group that Darby was trying to start called 'Critical Response', which would have sent medics into Middle East and African war zones to help civilians who were caught there in cross-fire exchanges.

When Hamad began to suggest that the medics could be sent to Israel and put on motorcycles or in ambulances that could be fitted with bombs to kill Jews, Darby decided that law enforcement needed to be informed and approached the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force. This was a radical departure for the Lefty radical who previous to his relationship with Major Bryson in New Orleans would never have trusted law enforcement.

Darby was having the epiphany that many intelligent former Leftist and liberals have when they begin to wake up and realize that the world is not some utopian social experiment, but a real place where real people have to live out real lives, and where the worst power ever wielded has come from Marxist, Socialist and Communist governments. Darby began coming to an appreciation for the brilliance of the American system.

Without letting on to any of his many friends among the Leftist community, Darby began to work with the FBI as an informant in matters relating to these threats from Radical Islam and other segments of the violent underground community. It was here that Darby took the actions that completed his transformation from radical to right, from revolutionary to American hero.

At the request of the FBI, Darby infiltrated the Austin (Texas) Affinity Group, which had become allied with other radical organizations to form what had become known as the "RNC Welcoming Committee", a group that planned not to welcome but to completely disrput the Republican National Convention in Minnesota in 2008.

During his infiltration of the group, Darby met with and eventually informed on two individuals, David McKay and Bradley Crowder. These two had manufactured homemade riot shields for use in St. Paul to help radicals block the streets and keep GOP delegates from attending the convention. Their group also gathered gas masks, slingshots, helmets, knee pads, and even manufactured Molotov cocktails. Thanks to the cooperation of Darby, their plots to injure and possibly kill people at the convention were thwarted.

Darby could have continued to follow his original far-left impulses. He could have taken the Chavez regime money and fully funded his own organization and went along with plans to undermine America. He could have fully established his medic network in the Middle East and aided plans for attacks on Israel. He could have justified in his own head that somehow he was using the terrorist and Marxist groups himself to help needy people. Instead, Darby saw what was right. He saw that violence and power and hatred were what these organizations were truly about, not any kind of change in order to help real people. And as he truly compared these foreign groups and governments to his home, he awoke to the beauty of America.

Brandon Darby woke up in time to help save American lives and help keep the American system of peaceful political selection moving forward. As he said to Vadum: "I started to realize how brilliant and miraculous the American system of checks and balances was...that has been working since this nation was founded. I realized just how hard a task that is." He went on to state: "I'm proud of helping people, but I'm ashamed of what I used to believe. Thankfully, I had the honor of serving my country by working undercover with the FBI and participating in efforts to protect the safety and civil rights of others."

Clearly, Brandon Darby now gets it, finally. Having travelled the road of anti-establisment liberal to right-thinking American traditionalist myself, I can fully appreciate much of the journey that Darby has taken. You could have never told me that I would grow to become an American law enforcement officer, just as I'm sure you could not have told Darby that he would ever become an FBI informant. But in his willingness to do the right thing, and in his awakening to a full appreciation of the greatness of his nation, Brandon Darby certainly qualifies as a civilian Real American Hero.

Elections Have Consequences

For the past year it has become the public mantra of Democratic Party politicians: "Elections have consequences." Whether they were talking about bailing out large corporations or taking over the banking, auto, and health care industries, that simple phrase has been their fallback position.

To some extent, that is true. When the nation elects a leader such as Barack Obama, the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, it has definitely sent a message. A majority of the citizens of the United States spoke up in November of 2008 and sent the message that the direction the country was headed during the Bush years was not one that they wanted to continue following.

The American electorate sent a clear message for 'change' to Washington politicians at that point. The problem, however, and it is a big one for the Dems, is that the voters quite obviously wanted 'change' with a small 'c', not the "Change" that marked the Obama campaign's signature slogan.

What Obama was trumpeting was "fundamental change", a message that he banged home time and time again. The mass electorate heard those words and decided that he meant a simple change in direction, something they wanted indeed. What he actually meant was to change the very nature of what it meant to be America as a nation.

After winning election, Obama got his house in order, got his Democratic Party leadership organized, and then set out down the path towards that fundamental change from a democratic, capitalist society to a full-blown European-inspired socialist one. The American 'system' that had made us the envy of the world for generations had somehow "failed" in is words and needed to be almost completely trashed.

Problem was, the American public didn't go along for the ride. As the depth and scope of Obama's vision of change came into view and practice, as Dem national leaders like Nancy Pelosi in Congress and Harry Reid in the Senate began to push the legislative agenda, it became crystal-clear to Americans that socialism was the order of the day.

The Democrats were making a fundamental political mistake, one that the Republicans had made a couple of times in the last couple of decades. They assumed that their election to power now gave them a mandate for major changes to America, and they began to institute those major changes.

Quickly, the American public began to voice their concerns. In every major public opinion poll, the public shouted at the top of it's lungs for the Dem leadership to slow things down. Some changes were needed to the system, yes. But almost no one wanted socialist restrictions and control to replace democratic capitalism's freedom and liberty.

Socialism has failed everywhere that it has every been tried on earth. The reasons are quite simple. Taking away incentives from individuals to work harder, to dream bigger, to achieve more results in less production. Citizens come to rely on their government to provide for them. Eventually, the government can no longer do so, because it simply lacks the resources.

You cannot possibly tax individuals and businesses enough to sustain government control. And let's face it, that is the only place that government gets it's money. Government is, in fact, you and I. We pay into the system to keep it functional. We elect people to run things as our representatives. In a socialist system, those representatives just keep raising and raising our taxes to take on more and more control over our everyday lives.

Eventually a system such as the Obama administration is attempting to install will collapse on itself because it is economically unsustainable. But before it does, society will degenerate into a mess of ennui and disillusionment, or worse. If those who have control in a socialist system see that control slipping away, their response has often been to use force to remain in power. They change the laws and keep themselves in the life boats to protect their own interests as the ship sinks around them.

Many Americans did understand that this would be the direction that Obama and the leading Dems would take once in power. Those are the tens of millions who voted against them. They are now being joined by the millions 'in the middle', those Americans who wanted the small 'c' of 'change', not the capital 'C' of Obama's socialism.

Yes, Democrats, elections have consequences. However, what you are failing to remember is the lessons of politicians and Parties past. That there is always another election coming. This November, Americans will again go to the polls. All signs point to the Dems losing control of Congress, which will seriously cripple Obama's ability to continue his agenda.

Obama and Pelosi and Reid have led America down this path of 'Change' at full speed, recklessly disregarding the public's wishes time and time again. Reid and many of his Dem leadership co-horts will undoubtedly pay the price in the Fall of 2010. They will pay that price because, despite their election victories in 2006 and 2008, they are now ignoring the American electorate in 2010.

Now is a time of opportunity for the Republican Party to reassert itself, but it must be willing to return to basic American principles of democracy, capitalism, and traditional exceptionalism in order to take full advantage. The Republicans must reflect core American values, pledge a change in direction to fiscal sanity and responsibility, and to fully and effectively preserving and defending our nation and it's founding principles.

In the fall of 2010, the Democrats will be reminded that elections do indeed have consequences. When they lose their control over Congress, their control over the purse strings and the power and the direction, then they will cry and wail and moan. They will blame one another, point fingers, and become disgruntled. And they will have no one to blame but themselves, because elections do indeed have consequences, the next one as strongly as the last one.

Smerconish Begins to Show His True Stripes

An article for the Philadelphia Inquirer, as politically liberal a rag as exists anywhere in America today, titled "Sorry, but for me, the party is over", written by local quasi-celebrity Michael Smerconish was published in that paper's Sunday, February 21st edition 'Currents' section.

In this article, Smerconish reveals what every true local Philadelphia Republican has known for more than a year. The man who has billed himself as THE local Republican voice, who glommed on to the popularity of programs such as Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor", and who attached themselves at the hip to commentators such as Sean Hannity, is in fact not a Republican after all.

The article, which carried a secondary headline where it continued on page C3 titled "Parting ways with the party, after 30 years", reveals that Smerconish recently had an epiphany of sorts. And he had it while standing in line at, of all places, the DMV. The Inquirer, of course, then bent over backwards to advertise this alleged political change away from conservatism. But is it really a change at all?

Smerconish goes to get his license renewed and the clerk asks him at one point as to whether he would also like to change his voter registration party affiliation. Why this is an appropriate question for some clerk at the DMV to be asking in the first place is never revealed, nor ever fully explored by the allegedly dogged journalist.

Smerconish then goes on to reveal that this was his "hallelujah" moment. One can imagine a mystical light shining down on him from above and revealing that he is actually not a Republican, nor is he a Democrat, but instead he is that most cherished of ideals. He is an "Independent" thinker, beholden to no party values! Hallelujah!

He has the clerk switch his voter registration status from 'Republican' to 'Independent', leaving behind his party of the past three decades. Smerconish writes that in doing so he is better reflecting his personal values. He claims that actually, he is "not sure if I left the Republican Party or the party left me. All I know is that I no longer feel comfortable."

Now let me state before I go on that I myself have switched my formally registered political affiliation a few times over the years. As I have explained in full detail before here at this blog, during my 20's in the 1980's I was a fully-indoctrinated liberal Democrat. It was at some point during the first Clinton administration where I had my own 'hallelujah' moment, realizing that my values and positions had evolved to conservative ones. I made the switch to Republican and have not looked back.

During the time that I was a registered Democrat, however, I switched my party affiliation from Dem to Republican a couple of times. Each time I did so at the request of and specifically for my father, who was involved in the political process and publicly supporting Republican candidates such as John Egan for Mayor of Philadelphia. I would always switch back to Dem following the election cycle, and remained so until making the permanent switch during the mid-90's.

However, unlike the spineless Smerconish, I did not ever try to paint myself with the brush of mediocrity that is the act of being a registered Independent. Smerconish tries to make himself out to be some sort of victim to the system. "Where political parties used to create coalitions and win elections, now they seek to advance strict ideological agendas."

Malarkey! Political parties have existed in America since the earliest decades of our founding, particularly in the years following George Washinton's first Presidency. From those early parties like the Whigs through to Teddy Roosevelt's "Bull Moose" Party to today's liberal-dominated Democrats, political parties have displayed polarizing differences in their platforms and in their personalities.

Smerconish tries to defend his decision by pointing to a handful of examples of party inclusion of disparate ideas and visions. In every party there will always be individuals who are slightly moderated from the main party platform and ideals. But you rarely, if ever, can find a full-on conservative Democrat or a full-on liberal Republican, especially among the politicians.

That may prove Smerconish's point, that the parties are indeed ideological, but the fact of the matter is that situation has been in existence since those early years of our Founding Fathers. It didn't suddenly happen in the last election cycle. It didn't slowly develop in recent decades. Political party ideology has been around forever.

The fact is that Smerconish began broadcasting full-time in the early years of the George W. Bush administration in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He took up the Republican mantle fully, supporting most Bush policies and positions vocally and publicly, including the use of torture on terrorist suspects.

Over the next half-dozen years, Smerconish became a quasi-celebrity, his public conservative positions landing him gigs as a guest host for O'Reilly and Glenn Beck and his largely conservative writings leading to New York Times best-sellers. Smerconish made a lot of money and gained a measure of celebrity in these years thanks to what were perceived to be his intact, well thought-out, mature political and social positions.

But what also was going on is that Smerconish was doing all of this while working at a local Philadelphia radio station. He was not a nationally syndicated host with a vast network of listeners supporting him, he was broadcasting in one of the most liberal cities in America. His stated positions made him a number of political enemies, and shut him out of a number of local sources.

Realizing over time that he was not going to break out nationally as had people like Beck and Hannity, Smerconish saw himself stuck in Philly and treading water. Then suddenly it happened, the savior, Barack Obama, came along with his glib tongue and his two faces. Smerconish began earlier than most to sense the momentum of the Obama campaign, and the alleged Republican talk radio host did the unthinkable in endorsing Obama for President.

It was in this moment that those of us who had suspected for years that Smerconish was simply a charlatan opportunist, using 9/11 and the Republican Party popularity of the early part of the last decade to his advantage, got our proof of that as fact.

There is no way that anyone who took any time to evaluate a politician's actual record before endorsing them, as a public personality with a radio talk show in a major market should, could ever find anything other than the facts. Those facts were that simply from his voting record and previous public associations, Barack Obama was one of the most, if not the single most, liberal members of the United States Senate.

Michael Smerconish threw in with Obama because he saw the momentum switch, believed strongly that Obama was going to win, saw that Obama was articulate and intelligent, and further believed that the sun was setting on the ideology of conservatism. Smerconish basically glommed on to the next big thing to maintain his local audience relevancy.

In the beginning it was actually a good thing to say that he was a Republican who was supporting Obama. In that way, Smerconish could actually try to portray himself as not being ideological himself, despite what was out there in the public purvey for the past half dozen or so years.

But as time has gone on, Smerconish has become more and more enamored with the Obama celebrity himself, tossing aside the substance of the issues for increased access to the administration. Thanks to his position as 'the Republican talking head who supports Obama', Smerconish was actually given the first live radio broadcast, interview, and listener question-answer session from inside the White House with the new President in August of 2009.

A man whom I happen to admire, Glenn Beck, has been an outspoken registered Independent for some time now. But with Beck there is a major difference. He legitimately sees and eloquently expresses his own ideology of American exceptionalism, pointing out with detailed precision how leaders of both parties have been led astray by political and social 'progressivism' and calling for a return to the Constitutional direction of the Founders.

Whatever their motivations, I still believe that whether it be in Beck's principled stand against progressives or in Smerconish's unwillingness to publicly embrace either his change to liberalism or that he has no political backbone, registering as and championing oneself as a registered 'independent' is a bit disingenuous. There is no doubt that Beck's conservative lean would, for example, find him in the voting booth ever pulling the lever next to the name of any current Democrat, while there are any number of Republicans who share his basic ideals.

In contrasts to Beck's independence status, Smerconish is simply a fraud. He is an opportunist who now sees his best opportunity at continued celebrity by casting in with Obama and his liberal followers. Smerconish is waiting for this type of characterization. He is waiting for it and expecting it so that he can use it as well. He is waiting for conservatives to let loose on him for his alleged betrayal.

No, this indictment of Michael Smerconish and his allegedly changed political positions and resulting party registration change do not stem from feelings of betrayal. They come from a long-held belief that the man is all about himself, not any true, bedrock values or political positions. He has no political backbone whatsoever, and has only proven his irrelevancy with this registration switch. That is one man's opinion based on what I have seen and heard.

It is also my opinion that this move to alleged 'independence' is only itself a temporary move. Right now, Smerconish senses the unsure direction of the future political winds as Obama's plans prove to be the socialist failures that many of us predicted. I predict here that Michael Smerconish's political independence itself will not last, and that it is only a matter of time, and more security in the direction of those future political winds, before the big 'R' is back, or before the big 'D' takes a permanent place on his voter registration.

For local Philadelphia morning drive-time radio listeners, you do indeed have a choice. The intelligent, articulate, personable Bill Bennett can be heard by sliding your radio dial over to 990AM weekdays from 6am-9am. There, Bennett's 'Morning in America' program is a part of the "intelligent, conservative talk" that local station WNTP offers each weekday. The one thing that Bill Bennett will never be accused of by anyone is being spineless, and you won't ever see him change his political affiliation for career or financial expediency.

Real American Hero: Michael Murphy

On October 7th, 2001 in direct response to the 9/11 attacks on America which had occurred less than a month earlier, the United States military launched 'Operation Enduring Freedom' in Afghanistan to wipe out the bases from which the terrorist al Qaeda organization was then operating.

The American military worked with a group of coalition forces, and a group of Afghani Northern Alliance forces, and was able to quickly wipe out the abusive Taliban military that were operating in the region and drive them from power. This began an effort which continues today to establish peace and stability in the historically backwards and worn-torn nation.

It was into this continuing conflict that Michael P. "Murph" Murphy from Patchogue, New York entered in early 2005. Murphy was a natural athlete who enjoyed playing football and soccer as a kid, and who became a life guard as well. He went on to attend Penn State University where he graduated in 1998 with degrees in both Psychology and Political Science.

Murph had been accepted to law school, but decided instead to serve his country by challenging himself to try to become a Navy SEAL. He entered the Navy's Officer Candidate School in fall of 2000, and over the next two years trained with various Army Airborne and Navy SEAL units. He finally realized his goal of joining the Navy SEALS on his deployment at Pearl Harbor in the summer of 2002.

The SEALs are perhaps the most integral part of the Navy's special operations force. They are experts in special recon and direct action missions. They take their names from the terrain in which they operate: the Sea, Air, and Land. Only an elite few are equipped and able to make it through the rigorous training, and Murph had joined that group.

He was first sent to the Middle East in the fall of 2002, and over the next few years served various roles and missions in Jordan, Qatar, and Djibouti before being assigned to Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan in early 2005. It was here as an assistant officer-in-charge of SEAL Vehicle Delivery Team One's 'Alfa' platoon that he would make the ultimate sacrifice for his country.

On June 28th, 2005, Murphy was assigned to lead a team of four SEAL's in what was known as 'Operation Red Wing', an effort to kill or capture a Taliban leader by the name of Ahmad Shah who himself commanded a group of fighters known as the 'Mountain Tigers'.

Murphy's team successfully infiltrated the area, but were stumbled upon by some passing local goat herders. The team had to decide whether to allow the locals to live and move along, or to kill them and ensure their presence remained unknown. They voted to let the herders live. A short time after the locals left, a large Taliban contingent surrounded and attacked the SEALs.

The SEALs tried to escape, but were in desperate need of backup. Murphy's communications man ran out into the open to try to get a better signal and was shot in the hand. Murphy realized the radios were not working in the mountainous area, and fought his way into the open himself to try his cellphone. This call for help was answered, but Murphy was shot in the abdomen. He returned to cover and continued to fight off the enemy despite his fatal injuries.

Murphy's call for help was answered by a helicopter with reinforcements, but the chopper was shot down by an RPG killing all 16 persons aboard. The fighting went on for two hours, resulting in 35 Taliban soldiers being killed. However, Murphy and two of his team succumbed to their wounds. In total, 8 Navy SEALS aboard the chopper added to Murphy and his two team members made for the highest number of SEALs killed in action since Vietnam.

The lone surviving member of Murphy's team, Marcus Luttrell, had been blasted over a ridge by an RPG and knocked unconscious. Some time later he regained consciousness and managed to crawl away, but was so badly injured that he could not signal to the searchers looking for him. He was ultimately found and tended to by some local villagers, who managed to keep the Taliban from taking him before finally getting him back into American hands after a few days.

On the 4th of July, 2005, Michael Murphy's body was finally discovered by a military search and rescue team and returned to his family for burial in his home state of New York. On October 7th, 2007, President George W. Bush presented the family with his Medal of Honor. His actions had allowed the location of his unit to be made known to American forces, which ultimately led to Luttrell's rescue.

As has been stated here before, the Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration that can be awarded. In his citation, it was stated that Murph had "demonstrated extraordinary heroism in the face of grave danger" and went on to state: "Demonstrating exceptional resolve, Lieutenant Murphy valiantly led his men in engaging the large enemy force."

The citation went on to conclude: "In his final act of bravery, he continued to engage the enemy until he was mortally wounded, gallantly giving his life for his country and for the cause of freedom." Michael Murphy thus became the first American so honored for their role in Afghanistan. His father, Daniel, later stated that Murph carried with him a patch from the NYFD's Engine 53 and Ladder 43 "as a symbol of why he was there and what he was doing."

Throughout our history, brave men and women have risen to the challenges and responsibilities of repeatedly defending the cause of freedom that is at the very core and nature of the United States of America. Before we came into existence there was never a nation such as ours, and it is only because of the heroic and selfless sacrifices of individuals such as Michael P. Murphy that we continue to exist and thrive today.

NOTE: This is the latest in a continuing series titled 'Real American Heroes', all entries of which can be viewed by clicking on the label below this article at the www.mattveasey.com website

2009 American of the Year: Glenn Beck

This was a year of tremendous change for America, and the vast majority of it was not for the good. Our national debt, already out of control as the year began, has now soared to previously unimaginable levels. Our government has taken over control of large portions of private industry, and is poised to take over even more in the coming years.

On the international front, we have become indecisive and noncommittal in fighting a war against a determined Islamofascist enemy that continues to look for ways to attack us, kill our citizens, and deal crippling blows to our economy and our way of life. Thanks to recent election results, we face a future of increasing debt and taxation and decreasing personal freedom and liberty.

Not willing to stand by and simply whine and complain on the airwaves, radio talk show host Glenn Beck took his blossoming television program from CNN's Headline News and moved to the Fox News network in early 2009. This move allowed him to get out from under the umbrella of the liberal mandate of CNN and into the Fox world that allows fair and balanced reporting of all sides of the issues.

Beck then began a year-long education of the American people on civics, history, and current events that was quite simply not being discussed anywhere else in any clear and consistent manner. For his efforts as a truthful voice crying out in the wilderness, and for his out-front leadership of traditional America, this website is proud to name Glenn Beck as it's 2009 American of the Year.

Beck follows in the footsteps of previous honorees Pat Tillman (2004), Bill O'Reilly (2005), Rev. Billy Graham (2006), P/O Chuck Cassidy (2007), and President George W. Bush (2008). While many years have seen a number of worthy individuals fall just short while being considered, no one really came close to challenging Beck for this year's honor.

There is no doubt that websites, magazines, and news programs run by and catering to ultra-liberals, socialists, and Europeans will look to make their 'Person of the Year' selections soon. Many of them will no doubt select Barack Obama for his, uh, for...hmmm. There is the whole being sworn in and becoming the first-ever minority, well, half-minority President in American history thing. But then that is really a ceremony.

Should we give someone an award for contributions during an entire year when all they really accomplished was ceremonial? Well, apparently they give out the Nobel prize for accomplishing nothing. But this website will not fall into that trap.

The more important thing would seem to be not winning an election, but what you do once you are in office. Other than driving up debt, decreasing freedom, and lessening national security, it's hard to find any accomplishments of Obama this past year.

This year, Beck released another in a what is fast becoming a series of best-selling books. His latest is titled "Arguing With Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government" and in it he takes on these targets with simple facts. Gun control? Government-run health care? Illegal immigration? You might think that you have an opinion, but in this book, Glenn will help you to understand the facts.

The 45-year old Beck did more than lend a leading voice to the most worthy cause of protecting and preserving the U.S. Constitution and restoring American exceptionalism, though that enough would be worthy of the honor. As a concrete measure, he organized the '9-12 Project' to embody the spirit that the vast majority of Americans felt on the day after the 9-11-2001 terrorist attacks.

Beck's '9-12 Project' is based on 9 principles and 12 values that embody this spirit. The principles include basic ideals such as "America is good", "I believe in God", "The family is sacred", and "The government works for me." The 12 values are: honesty, reverence, hope, thrift, humility, charity, sincerity, moderation, hard work, courage, personal responsibility, and gratitude.

Beck also gave a voice to the 'Tea Party' movement which grew at formal town hall gatherings all across the country during 2009. Based on the 'Boston Tea Party' concept of protest against excessive government actions and taxation, these localized events exploded into a massive taxpayer march on Washington on September 12th, 2009.

His style is one of intellectual inquisitiveness mixed with what he himself calls a 'rodeo clown' persona. Open about being a recovering alcoholic, Beck sprinkles his television program with the same humor that is a hallmark of his radio show, adding formal charts and graphics and video accompanied by simple presentations made by him alone standing at a chalkboard. He engages guests at both venues of all political persuasions in conversation rather than rancorous debate.

Critics of Beck's programming presentations have often used terms such as 'fear-monger' and 'conspiratorial', and yet almost never do you here any substance behind such accusations and commentary. As is a hallmark of the liberal community in general, name-calling is about all that the left has to offer up in rebuttal when challenged on-air by Beck's biting tongue and sharp wit.

In September of 2009, Beck was highlighted by the usually left-leaning Time magazine in a cover piece titled "Is Glenn Beck Bad For America?" In this sweeping article that basically painted him as one would expect from a liberal tome, Time had this to say of his programming: "As melodrama, it's thumping good stuff. But as politics, it's sort of a train wreck — at once powerful, spellbinding and uncontrolled." What the magazine did not say is perhaps the most telling thing. It did not say that he is a liar.

There are any number of radio talk hosts, television commentators, political pundits, comic satirists, and armchair politicians out there. But exactly because he is so "powerful, spellbinding and uncontrolled" as well as truthful, Glenn Beck taps into the raw nerves of the large numbers of Americans who are as rightfully frightened for the future of our once-great nation as he himself has become.

For his expressive courage, his moral conviction, his articulation of truth, his love of America, he is an example to us all. For what he has overcome in his personal life to become a wealthy, influential opinion shaper, as well as a devoted, loving family man, he is an example as well. For all of this, and for his work with the '9-12 Project' and the 'Tea Party' movement, Glenn Beck is this website's 2009 American of the Year.

NOTE: To view the write-ups for all of the 'American of the Year' winners simply click on to that label below this article at www.mattveasey.com

Islamism Series: What Are We Prepared to Do?

In the 1987 film 'The Untouchables', Kevin Costner plays famed lawman Elliot Ness, who is tasked to lead a fight against the violent empire of infamous crime boss Al Capone in Chicago during the Prohibition era.

In the beginning, Ness tries some of the usual law enforcement tactics of the day, but appears to be going nowhere in his efforts to defeat Capone. Finally his right-hand man in the film, street cop 'Jim Malone' as played in an Oscar-winning performance by Sean Connery, turns to Ness and asks him a blunt question: "What are you prepared to do?"

This is always the single most important question that needs to be asked, understood, and answered before committing to fight any war at any level. Whether at the level of law enforcement fighting criminal groups to keep the public safe on the home front, or at the level of national armed forces fighting enemies from abroad with the same goal, this simple question cannot be avoided.

Decades ago a war was declared against the United States by the forces of radical Islam around the world. It was declared with public statements, and those statements were backed up with physical attacks against American troops, citizens, and interests abroad and eventually with attacks against the American homeland.

For years the answer to that question of "What are you prepared to do?" seemed to be a tit-for-tat response. They blew up something of ours, we lobbed a missile at something of theirs. The international community cried if we killed civilians in our attacks, but shed no tears for American Marines and other service persons and civilians killed in attacks against our embassies or troops.

Nothing much changed until finally the radical Islamists were able to pull off a large-scale attack right here on our own shores with the physically, financially, and emotionally devastating attacks of September 11th, 2001 against Washington and New York.

Less than one year into his first term in office, President George W. Bush was faced with the question for the first time: "What are you prepared to do?"And for the first time, an American leader did not pull a knee-jerk response by lobbing a missile. For perhaps the very first time, an American leader and his team actually sat down and took a good, long, hard look at the reality of the situation.

The United States was not the victim of some random attack by 20 guys who hijacked some planes. The United States was attacked by an entity which viewed us as a sworn enemy and wanted nothing less than either our destruction or our capitulation to their worldview. Join up with Islam completely or die, that was and is the message from this enemy.

This was not the usual, traditional type of enemy, and fighting them would require an entirely new mindset and commitment level. In days now long gone by we could identify an enemy as a nation-state or group thereof, and largely pinpoint this enemy and defeat them on a geographical battlefield.

The enemy that we now faced was more of a network of ideological radicals scattered in both large and small groups all over the globe, including some in our own country, that was in some cases well-funded and trained. In some cases this network was being expressly, implicitly, or tacitly supported by a nation-state.

Faced with destruction, devastation, and death on his home front on his watch, President Bush answered the question fully when on September 15th, 2001 he said "This act will not stand. We will find who did it. We will smoke them out of their holes; we will get them running; and we will bring them to justice. We will not only deal with those who dare attack America, we will deal with those who harbor them, and feed them, and house them. Make no mistake about it. Underneath our tears is the strong determination of America to win this war. And we will win it."

In this statement, Bush correctly recognized that the problem was not only with the people who actually pulled off the attacks of 9/11, but fully extended to those who supported and nurtured these people both physically and ideologically. Bush also here became the first American leader to publicly acknowledge that we were at war, and further, he promised that we would win that war. But he also went further, recognizing that this war would be long:

"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. And the American people must be patient. I'm going to be patient. But I can assure the American people I am determined, I'm not going to be distracted, I will keep my focus...It is time for us to win the first war of the 21st century decisively, so that our children and our grandchildren can live peacefully into the 21st century."

The problem was clear, a war was declared on us, attacks were taking place against us, and Americans were dying. The problem was recognized with an acknowledgement that we were indeed at war. The question of what we were prepared to do about it seemed to be answered appropriately: we would fight wherever necessary for as long as necessary to win decisively to ensure lasting peace.

While we dealt them blows on their home bases in Afghanistan and began to establish a democratic foothold in the Middle East both there and in Iraq, the Islamists continued the war with attacks on the trains of Madrid, Spain on March 11th, 2004 and on school children in Beslan, Russia on September 1st, 2004 and on the buses and subways in London, England on July 7th, 2005 among others.

Unfortunately a problem began to develop. As we finally took the fight to the radical Islamists, some Americans, particularly Democratic Party politicians who were out of political power and their media lackeys, all too quickly forgot the pain and destruction of 9/11 and the many other Islamic attacks on America and our allies. They began to use the continuing war and the inevitable American service person deaths as a political football.

During the final 2,682 days of his two terms stretching over more than 7 years following those 9/11 attacks, the policies and strategies of President Bush and his team kept the United States safe from any further successful attacks by a determined enemy who was demonstrating all around the rest of the world that it was still very capable of delivering death and destruction.

The current American administration wants desperately to end our involvement in this war. It was elected largely by painting President Bush as a hateful war-monger and won with a promise to take that very action, in fact. However, on actually taking office and being faced with the reality of the situation themselves, Barack Obama and his people seem surprised to find that is it not America that is the problem after all.

This past week saw a reminder from al Qaeda and the radical Islamists that this war is far from over. They again attempted to use airliners to deliver devastating attacks against the United States on American soil. In fact, they continue to seek nuclear, bio-chemical, radiological and other weapons of mass destruction in what will likely one day be a successful large-scale attack on the United States.

The radical Islamists do not care what American political party is in power. They do not care what the skin color or sex or age is of the American president at any given time. They care only about one thing, that America openly convert to Islam and accept Sharia Law as the ruling cultural influence and legal authority. Anything less will result in the continuation of the war from their end.

That is the real important thing that we need to remember, that a war is not over just because we pull many or even all of our troops out of any country. Vietnam did not end when we Americans fled with our tails between our legs. Instead, the victorious North Vietnamese slaughtered an estimated 4.5 million South Vietnamese who our brave military persons had been protecting. But hey, a bunch of hippies and newscasters felt better, so it was okay.

Unless we become even more determined to fight this war against radical Islam with stronger conventional forces and tactics backed by more determined diplomatic energy and support to the region in finances and infra-structure development over what will likely be decades of commitment, we will lose. And the ramifications of our failure now will be even greater than our failure to win in Vietnam.

It likely won't happen suddenly or overnight, and maybe not even over one generation. But Islam and its accompanying discrimination, intimidation, and hatred will eventually win out. Either that, or some totalitarian regime of Communism led by Russia or China will become the dominant power. The failure this time of the world's beacon of freedom, the United States of America, will be a devastating blow to freedom everywhere.

So as every bomb explodes, as every school is attacked, as every head is lopped off, as more Americans are threatened and killed, as our leadership continues to talk tough after an attack while plotting our retreat the question begins to shout out to the American public. Do you want to become Islamic, or die? If the answer is neither, then you are again faced with that one simple question: what are you prepared to do?

NOTE: This continues the ongoing 'Islamism Series', each entry of which can be viewed by clicking on to that label below at www.mattveasey.com

Join the 912 Project

The picture accompanying this story might look like a scene out of some late 1960's, Gump-esque, anti-Vietnam War rally with counter-culture hippies, radicals, and others disenchanted with the actions and policies of their government protesting those actions and policies.

However, the picture, one that many of you likely have never seen because the former mainstream media does not want you to know about these events and thus fails to cover them or underpublicizes them, is not from the 'Summer of Love' but rather it is from the end of this very past summer. September 12th, 2009 to be exact.

The Americans in this counter-culture demonstration, the new generation of 'radicals', gathered in the National Mall between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument and all over Washington, D.C. to demand fundamental change.

You might have heard that before somewhere, the "Change" idea? The one word slogan was deftly used in last year's U.S. presidential campaign by Barrack Hussein Obama. It was meant to galvanize those sitting on the fence in the election to support a change from the policies of the George W. Bush administration which had governed for the previous eight years.

But while Obama and his people sold that idea as a change from Bush policies to what they described as some new, more enlightened and peaceful era, what they were actually selling was a bill of goods. Their real motive was a change in the very fabric, culture, and traditional values of America.

During their first year with full control of the American political process since 1994 the Democratic Party has shown that it's transformation from a centrist, populist party fighting for the middle class to one that is completely dominated by it's fringe left and bent on massive social change is now complete.

Just since coming to power in January, Obama and his lock-step congress led by California congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and Nevada senator Harry Reid have driven America further into debt than the combination of every political generation before them. And while risking financial catastrophe they have begun to risk our very safety and security with their weak foreign policy approach.

All the while, they and their supporters in the puppet media have begun to tear away at the very fabric of American spiritual and institutional culture, lurching it ever closer to collapse and their ultimate goal of a communist/socialist, totalitarian, government-run life for all.

Tens of millions of American did not vote for Obama or for much of any change in the last election, albeit as the lesser of two evils. Millions sat it out because they were not happy with the choices, even when they believed Obama was bad for America. And now millions more who did vote for that 'Change' have begun to realize that they were hoodwinked by these elitists masquerading as commoners.

In response to these mounting attacks on the American traditional way of life and value system, Americans from all walks of life, all races and social standings, began to mobilize at the grass-roots level, forming the beginnings of what has now grown into "The 912 Project" movement.

The movement began to organize with responses at a series of town hall meetings held by the Obama government meant to sell their socialist health-care program. Regular everyday people showed up and began to speak out against these policies. Then the 'Tea Party' movement was born, taking its name from the famous 'Boston Tea Party' protest action during the run-up to the Revolutionary War. This all culminated with the massive rally on September 12th, 2009 in Washington, D.C. Popular radio and television commentator Glenn Beck, among others, devotes a great deal of time and effort to spreading the message.

The term '912' or '9/12 mindset' comes from the idea that in the immediate aftermath of the attacks against our nation by islamofascist terrorists on September 11th, 2001 (9/11) the entirety of the population was together. We all were wounded, outraged, mourned, grieved. We all demanded and sought retribution and we all clearly saw the enemy and the dangers which they posed beginning on 9/12, the day after the attacks.

Since the first months after the attacks, however, the continued passing of time has seen many Americans drift away into a state of passiveness and apparent forgetfulness. They seem to lack the knowledge that the enemies who attacked us then continue to look for further opportunities to attack us now, and on a grander scale.

There also are some Americans who have intentionally moved past that post-attack period and are happy that many others have forgotten. These are actual Americans who believe that we simply got what we had coming to us on that fateful day in September 2001. They want a version of what the terrorists want, a complete change in American ideals and culture.

Only these Americans want the opposite direction of change. Whereas the islamofascists want America to become an islamic theocracy with the Koran as the basis of its laws and the ruling clerics as the interpreters of social and cultural doctrine, these liberals want an open, anything goes society. They want to force their version of equality and collective group-think, based on what the government believes is best for everyone. Both ways directly attack the very ideals that America was founded upon.

The organizers of 'The 912 Project' tapped into that feeling from the day after the 9/11 attacks, that remembrance that we are all one nation, that our freedom is unique and vital, and that the ideals which the Founding Fathers of our nation established are worth both fighting and dying for.

The project bases it's organization on 9 principles and 12 values upon which it hopes to begin the process of refounding traditional America. The 12 values are: honesty, reverence, hope, thrift, humility, charity, sincerity, moderation, hard work, courage, personal responsibility, and gratitude. Pretty radical stuff, huh?

The 9 principles are even more radical, depending on whether you share the Obama-led view that government is the boss, knows best, has all the answers, is unaccountable, and that you should just shut up if you disagree. These 9 principles are:

1) America is good
2) I believe in God and He is the center of my life
3) I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday
4) The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
5) If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
6) I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
7) I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
8) It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion
9) The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.

While admitting that I agree with the vast majority of these principles and values, I have not always lived up to some of them. That is going to change. I am looking forward to dedicating myself completely to these basic foundational ideals in my life, and a fight to return them to their rightful place at the center of American culture, society, and law.

If you share the belief that America is the land of the free and the home of the brave, that God has blessed America, and that we are supposed to be a nation of the people, for the people, and by the people then you need to look into 'The 912 Project' more deeply and consider dedication yourself in some way.

NOTE: As always, the title of this entry is a link to further information on the subject, in this instance taking you directly to 'The 912 Project' website.

Where Will You Be When the Missiles Drop?

During his State of the Union address back in January of 2002, President George W. Bush famously called the nations of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea an "Axis of Evil", criticizing nations that sponsored terrorism and were seeking weapons of mass destruction. Liberals everywhere, and especially their cheer leading media, called Bush a war monger and a liar, among other choice names.

Sitting here over seven years later, we understand far better that President Bush was in actuality simply a truth teller.

At the time of Bush's speech, former Iraqi leader Sadaam Hussein was still in power. He had already shown his propensity for evil and terror by using weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He tortured political enemies, and his sons used 'rape rooms' to satisfy their own lusts and to further punish political enemies. Thankfully, the United States acted to rid the world of this evil power structure.

In Iran, a crazed President came to power under with the blessing of the Islamic religious leadership. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad began to assail the United States with threats of destruction and domination by Islam and accelerated Iranian efforts to develop or otherwise obtain nuclear weapons. A nuclear weapon in the hands of a fundamentalist Islamic regime will mean devastating war at some point in the near future. They are simply that crazy.

For years, as the U.S. took the first steps against that 'Axis of Evil' by destroying and dismantling the repressive Iraqi power structure and installing the beginnings of a nascent democracy, and while we kept up pressure on Iran to change course of its own volition, we pretty much turned a blind eye towards North Korea. Oh, there were statements made, and back channel discussions held, but nothing concrete.

So what have the North Koreans done during that time under the direction of their crazed, despotic ruler Kim Jong Il (pictured)? They have aggressively pursued a nuclear weapons and missile strategy, warning western nations not to interfere, and now have nuclear weapons and are developing the missile systems necessary to deliver them against their enemies.

For the past few days, the USS John McCain, a Navy destroyer, has been tailing a Korean ship named the Kang Nam, off the Chinese coast. The reason is that this ship has been found to transport illegal goods in the past. Korea stated on Wednesday that if the U.S. intercepted the ship, they would consider it an act of war: "If the U.S. imperialists start another war, the army and people of Korea will...wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all."

Very soon, the U.S. leadership under President Barack Obama is going to be faced with the choice of confronting North Korea militarily, or facing a world where a hostile dictatorial regime has nuclear weapons capable of wiping out American cities. Will Obama try to talk while the North Koreans build missiles and bombs? Will America become like Europe, issuing strongly worded statements, with nothing to back them up? Will he fiddle while Rome burns?

It turns out that President Bush was not lying about these aggressive regimes after all. Maybe we can just allow as many nations that wish to do so to build nuclear bombs and missiles, right? After all, who are we to tell other countries what they can and cannot do? How arrogant, right? As long as we are nice to them, they won't bother us, right? If only the world had been nicer to Adolf Hitler, right?

Peace comes through one thing, and one thing only: strength. If you have it, but show that you are unwilling to use it, then you may as well not have it at all. Now many have voted for Obama to get us out and keep us out of military conflict. So perhaps if you're a liberal who voted for him, the more important question that you should be asking yourself is, where will you be when the missiles drop?

Why Nancy Pelosi Should Step Down

The case against Nancy Pelosi remaining Speaker of the House is as simple as it is devastating:

The person who is No. 2 in line to be commander in chief can't have contempt for the men and women who protect our nation. America can't afford it.

To test how much damage Speaker Pelosi has done to the defense of our nation, ask yourself this: If you were a young man or woman just starting out today, would you put on a uniform or become an intelligence officer to defend America, knowing that tomorrow a politician like Nancy Pelosi could decide you were a criminal?

Would you?

This Isn't About Politics. It's About National Security

The controversy swirling around Speaker Pelosi isn't political - she may think it is, other liberal Democrats may think it is, and the media may want it to appear that way.

But this isn't about politics. It's about national security.

At issue is whether Speaker Pelosi was informed, at a briefing by intelligence officers on September 4, 2002 when she was the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, that the CIA had used and was using enhanced interrogation techniques - specifically waterboarding - on captured al Qaeda terrorists.

From a Question of Memory to a Question of Criminality

Prior to her now infamous press conference last week, Speaker Pelosi insisted that the CIA had not told her in 2002 that waterboarding and other enhanced techniques were being used. At last week's press conference she went beyond this position to assert that "the only mention of waterboarding at [the September 2002] briefing was that it was not being employed."

In contrast, Leon Panetta, the current CIA director, wrote a memo last Friday to CIA employees in which he stated that "our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of [Al Qaeda terrorist] Abu Zubaydah, describing 'the enhanced techniques that had been employed.'"

And so the question, prior to her rambling press conference, was one of memory: Did Speaker Pelosi remember correctly the briefing she received in 2002?

If she had confined the controversy to her memory versus the CIA's, Speaker Pelosi may have saved herself. She would be guilty of irresponsibility and incompetence perhaps, but that would basically be it. Not good, but not disqualifying.
Pelosi on the CIA: "They Mislead Us All The Time"

But Speaker Pelosi did not confine the question to the reliability of memory. Instead, she made the allegation last week that the CIA intentionally misled her - misled Congress - and not just once, but routinely.

"They mislead us all the time," she said.

She charged that the CIA, deliberately and as a matter of policy, violated the law by lying to Congress.

And with that allegation, Speaker Pelosi disqualified herself from the office she holds.

Why Did Pelosi Escalate the Controversy into a Full Scale War With the CIA?

And the question that remains is why? Why would Speaker Pelosi escalate the small skirmish she found herself in over the 2002 briefing into a full-scale war with the CIA?

Perhaps it's because if America knew that Speaker Pelosi consented, fully informed and without complaint, to waterboarding back in 2002, it would reveal the current liberal bloodlust over interrogations for what it is: The Left's attempt to hunt down and purge its political opponents.

Remember what America was like in September, 2002, less than a year after 9/11.

America was terrified. As I said on ABC Radio last week, our entire defense, intelligence and justice establishment expected that there would be additional al Qaeda attacks, we just didn't know where and we didn't know when.

If Pelosi Consented to Waterboarding in 2002, the Bush Policy Is Vindicated
If Nancy Pelosi believed that waterboarding was justified in 2002 - just like Porter Goss, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Tenet - then a policy of selectively using enhanced interrogation techniques in carefully circumscribed ways in order to prevent future attacks - in other words, the Bush Administration policy - is vindicated.

But rather than admit that President Bush, when faced with an array of difficult choices, made the hard choice that kept the nation safe, Nancy Pelosi has instead retreated into the cheap sanctity of ignorance. She didn't know, so she claims. That's why she didn't do anything about it.

But President Bush did know. It was his job to know, and he made the tough choices needed to save American lives.

It was Nancy Pelosi's job to know too. But to avoid culpability for the choices she supported, she's now telling us she didn't know. And she's calling the intelligence officials who say otherwise liars and criminals.

Shame on her.
Speaker Pelosi Has Made America Less Safe
Speaker Pelosi has damaged America's safety.

She's made America less secure by sending a signal to the men and women defending our country that they can't count on their leaders to defend them.

And every day they spend worrying about being politically persecuted is a day we are made more vulnerable to a nuclear attack on one of our cities, a biological attack on one of our subways, or a bomb going off in one of our malls.

America is losing ground because of Nancy Pelosi's contempt for those who defend her.

Democrats owe it to their country and our national security to replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

WRITTEN by Newt Gingrich in his newsletter Volume 4, No. 20 dated May 20th, 2009

Why No Obama Jokes?

What's so unfunny?

That's what some comics - citing the scarcity of satire directed at President Obama and his administration - want to know.

Claiming that his peers are "panicky" about "being called a racist," stand-up legend Jackie Mason said too many once-fearless satirists are settling for "hero worship" of the new U.S. president.

The Great Presidential Comedy Drought of 2009 can't be chalked off to a lack of satirical fodder, said comic Jeffrey Jena, founder of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy blog. ("Looking at politics and life from the right side," proclaims its motto.)

"Letterman used to do a 'Bushism of the Week.' " Why hasn't he started one with Obama?" Mr. Jena said. "There's plenty of those moments, the 'Ohs, and 'Umms' or 'I don't speak Austrian.' "

"Late Show" host David Letterman was scathing in his mockery of President George W. Bush. But on his show recently, he scolded those who would mock the new president's reliance on the teleprompter for "political nitpicking," saying Mr. Obama is "at least out there trying" to cope with "impossible" political challenges.

"What really can you say wrong" about the determined new president, Mr. Letterman asked rhetorically while introducing a short film called "Teleprompter vs. No Teleprompter." The segment contrasted a clip of a fluent passage of rhetoric from a formal Obama address to Congress with one of a tongue-tied Mr. Bush trying to extemporize in a televised informal question-and-answer format.

Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show," another erstwhile scourge of presidential foibles during the Bush years, has morphed into a political loyalist, rising to the defense of Mr. Obama with angry rants against critics of the president such as CNBC's Jim Cramer and Internet news aggregator (and Washington Times columnist) Andrew Breitbart.

To some, like self-identified Christian comic Brad Stine, the kid-gloves treatment of Mr. Obama is blatant political cheerleading.

"Because their candidate was elected, they're hesitant to mock that thing which they approve of," Mr. Stine said.

Others see comics simply deferring to the sensitivities of audiences who aren't ready to a laugh at a president who's not just a political leader but a transcendent historical symbol of black achievement.

"In New York, nobody wants to hear anything anti-Obama," said Linda Smith, a stand-up comic, Obama booster and teacher at Caroline's School of Comedy in New York. "And even if they do, right-leaning comics must walk through a historical minefield to mock the first black president."

Radio and Fox News Channel talk show host Glenn Beck, who kicks off a six-city stand-up comedy tour on June 1 in Denver, suggested that both fear and political calculation are inhibiting factors. Comedians like Mr. Letterman are "either afraid, or they know the power of comedy as a weapon and they like using it as that," he said.

"We're now into biased comedy. We can't even laugh without a political agenda," said Mr. Beck, who cites "The Simpsons" as a show that skewers both sides without fear or favor.

Mr. Mason, for one, has no qualms about tweaking the new president, explaining that it's all a matter of striking the right tone.

"People love it. I don't do it with hate. Even liberals laugh at it," he said. "The truth of the matter is, if it doesn't sound like hate, and it sounds like a legitimate joke, it's OK."

Julia Gorin, an avowedly conservative comic, is also careful to create the right atmosphere. She said she begins the Obama part of her act by reminding audiences how her fellow comics have been taking flack for the lack of Obama jokes.

"That orients people the right way," Miss Gorin said. "I'll run into problems, sensitivities, without doing that."

Can the vacuum of uninhibited presidential satire create an opening within the comedy ranks for a new breed of right-leaning comics?

Comedian Nick DiPaolo said that although the new administration provides an opening for conservative humorists, that won't mean they suddenly start appearing on Mr. Letterman's couch.

Mr. DiPaolo, who mixes conservative-friendly material into his act, said the people behind the major entertainment shows "aren't going to let someone right of center jump into the arena."

Lee Camp, a left-leaning stand-up comic and Huffington Post contributor, questions whether the pool of right-leaning comics is big enough to take advantage of any opening created by the election of Mr. Obama.

Creative types tend to lean left, both in comedy and in other art forms, Mr. Camp said. Comics typically try to identify with the "everyman," while conservatives tend to favor big business, Mr. Camp said, which is a turnoff to the average comedy club habitue.

All bets are off, though, should the president have an intern malfunction or similar scandal. If that happens, right-wing comics will "be popping up everywhere," he said.

Mr. Beck said society needs comedians to skewer those in power, no matter the party affiliation.

"We deflate everybody. As a guy who's been deflated lately, it keeps you in check," Mr. Beck said. "Whoever the president is, they have to know that they're not a king."

WRITTEN by Christian Toto and published today by The Washington Times

Will April's Showers Bring May Flowers?

April was a pretty rough month in any way that you want to size it up. Record spending, debt, unemployment. A major shift towards socialism by our government. Increased attacks on the sacrament of marriage by homosexuals and liberal thinkers. And then finally ending with an attack by a Swine Flu pandemic. It's all a bit much for a normally happy soul such as mine to take in for one big reason. There is no end in sight. President Obama was only recently elected, and just took office three months ago. He still has more than three years at a minimum in office, and if the magnitude, scope, and pace of his 'Change' continues as it has thus far it will be an agonizing three years. One thing that I have come to appreciate over the course of these past three months is the utter joy and euphoria that Obama elicits in his followers. It makes me jealous, because frankly I have never, ever had that feeling for a President of the United States. Forget Kennedy and Johnson, I was just a baby. As a young child, Nixon and Ford certainly were not high on my priority list. I liked Jimmy Carter at first. He spoke to my youthful desire for progressivism. He was a minister and brought a certain amount of credibility and morality to the office, which was important to the country after the dishonesty of Nixon's Watergate. And he was intelligent too, a genius, at least that's the rep that the media was passing around. It was Jimmy Carter that began to ruin things for my early liberalism. By the end of his term he was proving to be a major letdown, and I'm still trying to figure out that whole 'genius' thing. His and liberalism's weaknesses were on full display in the face of the emergence of radical Islam, Soviet aggression, and America's energy problems. But still, politics and these major issues at this point were still only news stories to me, fleeting images on the TV set, and I would quickly change the channel to a ballgame or a comedy and go back to my own inner liberal feelings. During the 1980's, Ronald Reagan was king, but I didn't support the kingdom. I didn't vote for 'The Gipper' either time. Here was the first time in my lifetime where it was obvious to me that a large portion of America was feeling something for a President that I just wasn't getting. It was disconcerting to me, because I was beginning in my 20's to actually pay more attention to national and world affairs. I was a liberal Democrat and became a joiner, with paid memberships in 'Greenpeace' and 'Amnesty International', and with subscriptions to 'Rolling Stone' and 'U.S. News & World Report', and enjoying anti-establishment music videos on the new media outlet of MTV such as Genesis' "Land of Confusion". But something began to change. The optimism of the 'Morning in America' days that Reagan led, the return of outward signs of American patriotism, the general feelings of positivism were creeping into my psyche a little at a time. His demand that the Soviets "Tear down this wall!" followed by that event actually happening was a watershed moment, the moment when I began to think to myself "Why are there so many millions of people seeing what I am not?" and I began to realize that these folks couldn't possibly all be evil or idiots, and I actually began to open my mind to thoughts and ideas outside of my previously grounded liberal thinking. But it still wasn't a transition. I still voted for Dukakis in 1988, because I simply was not ready to vote for George H.W. Bush for President. He was as establishment as you could possibly get, and a former head of the C.I.A. to boot, and I simply did not trust a former head of a spy agency to be my leader. When he eventually led us into the Gulf War, all his faults were on display in my mind. I didn't understand the whole Iraq issue. My naive liberalism still had me being sold by those talking heads and celebrities who lamented our 'going to war over nothing but oil' and other such talk. In 1992, with my own life going through major changes on many fronts, I remained a liberal thinker for the final election. When Bill Clinton was elected, it was the first time in my life to that point that my candidate had won, and I was excited. His youthful exuberance was infectious, and I genuinely believed that he would make things better. But I also by this time was already in the habit of looking at issues deeper than the surface, reading and researching major issues beyond just what I was being sold on what I increasingly was noticing was an obviously biased mass media in newspapers and on television. I hated the idea that these folks seemed more like cheerleaders whenever a Democrat was involved, and like antagonists when a Republican was involved. It was all so obvious, and it was turning me off. When I realized that all of the positive economic turns of the early Clinton years were going to happen no matter who was President, that they had actually begun in the final months of the Bush administration, and yet the Dems were trying to take credit, I began to experience my first bit of cynicism towards my party and its politicians. By the end of Clinton's first four years the transition was complete. My own personal scales had tilted towards conservatism over liberalism, and as Newt Gingrich led the 'Republican Revolution' of 1994, I was amazingly in tune with their message and supportive of this man who just a couple years earlier I would have viewed as a negative influence. I was still a Democrat, but I did not vote for Clinton in 1996. The second Clinton term was what fully shoved me over to the conservative side, and my final flip to an actual change of party to the Republican side. Still, even with the election of George W. Bush in 2000, I was not excited. Seeing Al Gore for the quack that he has turned out to be, I was simply unbelievably relieved with the narrow outcome in Bush's favor. Bush was not the conservative that I was becoming, but he was much more tilted in that direction than Gore and his followers would have been. The attacks of 9/11 and President Bush's outstanding leadership in the following months and years cemented my support for him, and helped cement my conservative beliefs. But he never elicited that outright joy as a follower or supporter. And obviously Obama will never elicit those feelings for me. And yet I look around at his followers and I realize something. His supporters are every bit as enthused and enthralled as Reagan's were back in the 1980's, and I was on the outside back then as well. I don't get it, but I am trying to learn more about Obama's programs and ideas beyond what the media on both sides is trying to feed the public. So far, the more that I learn the worse it looks to me, but I am going to try to keep learning and stay open. The showers of April turn to flowers in nature in May. We can only hope that the showers brought on our nation by the early Obama actions in April will bloom into flowers in May, but I don't hold out hope. May has not started well, with an announced SCOTUS opening and the specter of the likely appointment to the Supreme Court later in the year of what will almost definitely be its most liberal member ever. The Swine Flu is still advancing, with a possible retreat for the summer but a return in the fall. Chrysler joins the growing list of formerly private businesses in the auto, banking, insurance and other industries now controlled by the government. It is still raining. But I won't let it get to me. One thing that age and experience teach you is that if you wait, the sun will indeed come out tomorrow. There are signs of hope. We have rid ourselves of Senator Arlen Specter, a RINO (Republican In Name Only) who saw the writing on the wall that we were going to dump him in the upcoming primary and who then ran for the Democratic cover like a coward. And I still hold out hope that one day I will have that President come along who inspires me and elicits that passionate adulation of feeling to go along with a support for their policies and direction that Obama's supporters feel today. Someone like Newt Gingrich, Bobby Jindal, or Sarah Palin. You gotta keep that smile on your face and in your heart, and keep your own dreams alive.

Tea Parties Signal New American Revolt

On the night of December 16th, 1773, American colonists who had grown weary of British taxes on all sorts of goods boarded three ships in Boston harbor and dumped crate loads of taxed tea into the harbor waters. This protest against 'taxation without representation' became known down through history as 'The Boston Tea Party', and is considered a defining moment as the colonists moved towards declaring their Independence just two and a half years later. Today is April 15th, and it is also the deadline for American citizens to file their income tax returns. All across the country, a new revolutionary movement has been building for months, and it will continue in over 500 locations across all 50 states with today's nationwide 'Tea Party' protest events. What has ignited this grass-roots, web-based fire storm is the unprecedented turn towards a more massive government structure with greatly increased tax burdens for all American individuals and businesses. It is a bipartisan effort battling the situation that began with President Bush's $168 billion dollar 'stimulus' that has been taken to even worse levels by new President Barack Obama. As was posted by The Heritage Foundation, "Americans have grown more and more wary of the ever expanding size and scope of the federal government." Obama's supporters continue to send up the smoke screen message that his plans will cut taxes for those making under $150,000 per year in income. What they fail to tell people is how the vast majority of those making just over that figure are small business owners: bar owners, dry cleaners, restaurateurs, gift shops, diners, hair cutteries, and many more. They will all see their taxes rise, which means that their customers will see their prices rise, or these businesses will reduce services and/or employee jobs, or all of these eventualities. Some will even have to close their doors for good, further worsening the jobs situation. What lies behind the Obama tax cuts for the lesser income individuals, which include myself and my family as well, are not any desires to help us out. What lies behind them is an effort to expand government control of a greater and greater portion of our everyday lives. They hope to do this by forcing us out of self-support, out of dependency on jobs in the private sector, and into a process where we look to the federal government for our support. Force some companies out of business with tough tax policy, then make those remaining take federal 'bailout' money to remain in business, with the condition of yielding power to the government to regulate those businesses as they see fit. The government, not private industry, becomes the vehicle that drives the nation. This is, despite what Obama and Democratic political administration officials whine, pure and simple Socialism. President Ronald Reagan himself said it best when he stated that the nine most frightening words in the English language are: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." Making individuals reliant on the government kills wide-spread and large-scale innovation. History has proven this time and again. Capitalism is the vehicle which drove the world to it's greatest technological, medical, and societal heights over the past two centuries. Freedom was the fuel for that capitalist vehicle. History has also proven that the way to overcome financial problems is to lower taxes, loosen regulation, and allow the market to readjust itself. When you try to control the markets, you only accomplish one thing - control. It is that political control and power that Obama seeks. Millions subordinate to the government, reliant on it for their very subsistence, and indebted to politically support it in order to sustain those new 'benefits'. All the while, the cost to all of us will be reduced quality in services, and reduced overall benefits to society due to a decrease of innovation. With all of the spending that the Obama administration has embarked upon with their reckless 'stimulus' and 'bailout' packages, not to mention the numerous and incredibly substantial programs that they intend to implement, it is only a matter of time before they will be forced to raise taxes on that middle class whom they now say will get a break. At some point, these bills will have to be paid, and at that point, as the website hotair.com says we in the middle class "will get hammered." Today's wide-ranging 'Tea Party' events will attempt to begin to spread that message more widely. The mass media has largely ignored this grass-roots movement to date, solely because it flies in the face of the Socialism that the newspaper industry needs in order to remain viable and alive financially. Newspapers all across the country are dying because their ultra-liberal editorial sections and news coverage have driven the masses to other sources. The same goes for television news rooms, most of whom have seen their ratings drop precipitously in recent decades for the very same reason. These industries blame the internet and cable television for their demise, failing to acknowledge that it is conservative and moderate websites and cable news programs that have flourished. The fact is that the 'silent majority' in America remains traditionalist, if not conservative, and it is these individuals who are growing the Tea Party concept and other movements. President Barack Obama has significantly overplayed his hand, and we can only hope that 'We the People' can stand up and attempt to minimize the damage until we can get him out of office for good. In the aftermath of the original Boston Tea Party, Samuel Adams wrote that the acts were not those of a lawless mob, but was instead a principled protest and the only remaining option the people had to defend their constitutional rights. The same momentum is building today, and the Tea Party is just one step in this new American revolution.