A conversation about fatherhood!

Today, we spoke with Rick Johnson of Better Dads, an organization about fatherhood and children. Click the radio icon and listen to the show! (www.BlogTalkRadio.com)

Their website is: www.betterdads.net

Please check them out and offer whatever assistance you can.

Rick came to my attention when I read:

"Children in father-absent families are five times more likely to be poor and ten times more likely to be extremely poor."(Single Mother Statistics)

Rick's newsletters and periodical stress the value of fathers in today's family.

Check it out!

What's going on at NASA?

For years, many of us admired NASA for its astronauts and incredible achievements. Unfortunately, NASA has been hit by some very bad news, from a woman chasing another woman to drinking on the job.

Of course, it represents a few people. Most NASA employees are first rate professionals. Sadly, they have given NASA a black eye!

Clean up the bad apples and reach for the stars!

The professors who are telling the truth about Che!

Dr. Humberto Fontova has exposed Che Guevara. His story is impressive:

"Humberto Fontova was born in Havana, Cuba. He and his family of 5 attempted to leave in 1961, but only 4 of them were successful. Humberto Fontova Sr. (author's father) was grabbed by the milicianos. He yelled to Esther (mother) and the 3 kids (Humberto age 7, Patricia age 8, and Enrique age 5) to "Go ahead!....Whatever happens to me, I don't want ya'll growing up here!" The next day, from a cousin's house in Miami, Esther called Cuba and found out that Humberto Sr. was in La Cabana, firing squad central where 2100 men and boys were murdered. Humberto Sr. stayed there for 3 months and then was released and returned to his family in New Orleans."

Today, I read Che! You've Got To Hide Your Love Away By Mike S. Adams:

"My request is based on my concern that the rising number of Che Guevara t-shirts among UNCW students reflects a profound ignorance of his life and his true legacy. I think that building a Guevara Memorial in the center of campus would go a long way towards remedying this kind of ignorance."

Well written Professor Adams. Thank you for challenging the ignorance of so many students and others!

Che was a criminal, a first class charlatan and someone who is burning in hell! He does not need any statutes, unless you think that the firing squad is a place for people that you disagree with!

He wants to be a progressive donkey now!

According to the latest Rasmussen, we can say that The American Public: Still Reaganesque:

"The survey revealed that 44 percent of the respondents rated the phrase "like Reagan" positively, followed by "progressive," favored by 35 percent, "conservative" (32 percent), "moderate" (29 percent) and at the bottom, "liberal" (20 percent)." (Washington Times)

Furthermore, the Dems don't like being called liberals anymore. Also, they are not saying that Reagan was a "moron", unpopular around the world and the worst president ever. They used to say that back in the 1980s but not anymore!

Drop the YouTube debates!

Over the new few weeks, Republicans should call for a massive change in the YouTube debate format. In other words, no more "snowballs" or "singing questions".

We are talking about a presidential election. As Newt Gingrich indicated yesterday, we have serious issues on the table.

Shouldn't we have a serious debate?

Great post from our friend Don Surber!

A few weeks ago, Don Surber was a guest on my show. He was great and very informative.

Today, Don hit one out of the park! See Dems worried the Surge may work!

Don was referring to a TV interview with Democratic Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina:

"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us. We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report.”

Don makes the key point:

"Wait a second here: Who is the enemy to Clyburn? The Republican Party or al-Qaeda?"

The Democrats made a huge mistake in investing themselves in defeat. How does a political party win when their country loses? For example, can you imagine Republicans hoping for D-Day to fail to get at FDR in '44?

At some point, people have to think about their country. Unfortunately, too many Democrats were thinking about Moveon.org!

Thank you, PM Brown

Today, PM Brown met with Pres. Bush and I loved this:

"In this century, it has fallen to America to take center stage. And let me acknowledge the debt the world owes to the United States for its leadership in this struggle.

America has shown by the resilience and bravery of its people from Sept. 11, 2001, to this day that while buildings can be destroyed, values are indestructible; that while lives may be ended, the belief in liberty never dies; and that while hearts may be broken, the faith in a better future is unbreakable." (Partnership for the Ages)

PM Brown is exactly right. Since WW2, the US defended Western Europe from Soviet tanks, protected the world's sea lanes and kept the peace. (And we pay 22% of the UN budget!)

Like many other Brits, PM Brown grew up hearing how US GI's defended the UK from the Nazis many years ago. It's nice to hear PM Brown speak so well of the US!

PM Brown disappointed the international left by refusing to call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. On the contrary, it appears that PM Brown is willing to stick it out!

PM Brown and Pres. Bush will have their differences. It is only natural for a US conservative Republican and a UK Labor PM to think differently. However, there are no differences on the big issues. (Brown Disappoints Critics of Iraq War)

Soccer gives the Iraqis something to smile about

During Saddam's reign, Iraq was a police state. There were mass graves, unspeakable repression and unbelievable brutality.

Since Saddam fell, Iraqis have voted three times and put up with daily terrorist attacks.

Yesterday, Iraqi had a chance to smile and cheer for something. The soccer team won and everyone was thrilled.

Iraq has so much potential. It has oil and a wonderful people. Let's hope that this is the beginning of something new.

Iraq is the central front

A couple days ago, Pres. Bush gave a great speech on Iraq and Al Qaeda. It was clear, well delivered and a persuasive argument! (Al Qaeda. . .in Iraq)

At this point, we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq.

If they win, then they will claim victory and expand their operations to Europe and the US.

If we win, we will deliver a serious knock out punch.

It's our choice. We win or we lose.

Iraq is also a test of will. Who will quit first? Who will go home first?

A few years, Bin Laden predicted that the West did not have the will to fight. He came to that conclusion in the 1990s when the Clinton administration took punches and did not fight back.

Should we win in Iraq? Frankly, can we afford to lose? The answer is no.

At some point, we need to start thinking in terms of US national security rather than just partisan "cheap shots". If we lose then a future Democrat president is going to have face this problem again.

Let's get it right now! Thank God that Pres. Bush is willing to be unpopular to do the right thing.

Let me recommend this from Robert Tracinski who writes at TIADaily.com:

"Surrender in Iraq would validate the terrorist insurgency as an infallible winning tactic.

It would validate that tactic far more thoroughly than our previous retreats from Somalia and Beirut, and losing this time would make it ten times harder to demonstrate our ability to win a counter-insurgency war in the future." (Iraq is a Test We Cannot Fail)

Clifford D. May is the president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism. He wrote:

"Opponents of the U.S. mission in Iraq say they want to "change course." Most refuse to specify what their new course would be.

Others say they want U.S. troops to "redeploy" to friendly countries in the region.

But in international relations, nothing cools a friendship like defeat. For any regime to rely on the United States for security after the United States has abandoned Iraq would be high-risk.

In fact, it would soon become apparent that the continuing presence of American forces invites subversion, terrorism and assassination of those in power." (Imagining defeat in Iraq )

It won't be pretty if we walk out in defeat.

Want to break down our military morale? Send them home in defeat!

Therefore, it is important to keep our cool and our eye on the ball.

We must win in Iraq!

P.S. For more, see The War in Iraq: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions by James Phillips:

"While WMD were not found, some may have been moved to Syria in the convoys of hundreds of trucks that crossed the border just before the U.S.-led intervention and during the first few weeks of fighting. Moreover, prohibited missiles were found inside Iraq, a clear violation of the U.N. Security Council resolutions and the cease-fire that ended the 1991 Gulf War.

And the threat to the U.S. was not solely from WMD or missiles.

The Iraq regime sought to assassinate former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait in 1993, supported a wide variety of terrorist groups against American allies, including Israel, and routinely fired on U.S. warplanes that were enforcing the U.N. no-fly zones.

During his reign, Hussein invaded two countries, fired missiles at three other countries, used illegal chemical weapons against Iran and his own people, and left behind at least 300,000 victims in mass graves."

P.S. For a little fun, check out this video! It's a modern version of Patton talking about the Iraq War.

Could it be that we are actually winning?

As usual, I checked the Internet early this morning for some overnight stories. I was very happy to read A War We Just Might Win By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK:

"Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.

As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with."

Not bad. Could it be that we are winning and so many Democrats can't stand it?

In the end, O'Hallon and Pollack urge Congress to keep it going until 2008.

Later this morning, two of my favorite blogs added their commentary.

Power Line said this:

"My fear, though, is that the leadership of the Democratic Party sees progress on the ground in Iraq as bad news, not good. I think many Congressional Democrats are committed to defeat, for political and ideological reasons. If so, they won't be swayed by this kind of report."

Captain's Quarters added this:

"The chief change comes at the top. General David Petraeus has transformed the mission, the strategy, and the tactics, which has transformed morale and set the US on track to building the Iraqi nation from the bottom up, instead of the top down. The men and women on the ground understand and appreciate the difference, and they have responded with enthusiasm."

Iraq is tough. However, most Americans understand that a premature withdrawal will be dangerous in the long run. (Hasty Iraq pullout seen as high risk)

At the end of the day, Democrats will try to destroy General Petraeus when he comes to Washington in mid-September. They will try to destroy his credibility. The insurgents will do their share by blowing up a lot of innocent people.

At the end of the day, Petraeus will win. Why? First, he is right and very professional. Second, Congress has such low approval ratings! (16% Say Congress Doing Good or Excellent Job)

Put me down as one of those who thinks that we've turned the corner in Iraq. It won't be easy sailing but we are navigating down the right path.

At the end of the day, good news is good for the US and Middle East stability. Unfortunately, good news is bad news for the party of Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan!

The majority that can't do anything!

Have you ever seen anything like this? The Democrats won the mid-term elections and declared a mandate to change everything.

Today, they are facing a huge backlash from the country.

Why? Because they have not done anything.

Back in '95, the new Republican majority passed a bunch of new laws and made a difference. The current Dems have not done that!

Divided government is actually good. It forces compromise. It usually results in better government.

In this case, divided government has not worked. My guess is that the Democrats have another 6 months to change the public perception. Otherwise, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will be electoral liabilities to the party's nominee in 2008!

I guess that Alberto told the truth after all!

Of course, I want public officials to be truthful and honest. No one should lie to Congress. At the same time, Congressmen should not play partisan games by setting up perjury traps.

This whole Alberto Gonzalez show is shameful and demonstrates how pathetic the Democrats are:

""You've got an interesting situation when members of Congress, knowing that somebody is constrained by matters of classification, they can ask very broad questions ... they know the person sitting on the other side cannot answer thoroughly in an open session," White House spokesman Tony Snow said." (Democrats accused of sandbagging Gonzales)

The Democrats are playing games. AG Gonzalez is operating in the real world, i.e. terrorists are plotting to blow up one of our cities and kill thousands!

AG Gonzalez can not answer every question in a public session because some of this stuff is confidential. (What's Generally Referred to as "Truth")

My guess is that the Dems are overplaying their hand and coming across as a bunch of bullies who just want to get Alberto Gonzalez.

It won't work politically. Beyond that, this kind of "gotcha" politics is poisonous for the country.

The "we can't govern so we need a distraction" Democrats!

First, what happens when your base votes for a change in Iraq but you do not have the courage to make it happen? Frankly, the Dems are afraid of implementing anything in Iraq because decisions have consequences, such as Iran moving into southern Iraq, or Hezbollah moving into Lebanon, or the price of oil going over $100 a barrel!

Second, what happens when your "6 for 06" agenda is "0 for 07"? The Dems have majorities but they can't pass anything!

Third, what happens when your congressional leaders have negative appeal? (Reid 27% Favorable Pelosi 40%)

Fourth, what happens when Pres. Bush has a higher approval rating than Congress? (Bush 39%, Sixteen percent (16%) say Congress is doing a good or an excellent job)

The answer is "get Alberto" and a distraction called the "attorney scandal".

Today, I read Beneath Contempt (The U.S. attorneys controversy is about politics, not the law) BY KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL:

"So the idea that Congress now gets to win this battle by simply declaring the other side criminal is bizarre. Under that twisted logic, Mr. Bush has just as much right to grant himself a similar power and hold Mr. Conyers in criminal contempt for interfering in executive-branch business. This is not, obviously, a very grown-up way of settling constitutional disputes."

Again, this is not about the firing of attorneys. Pres. Bush had every right to hire and fire these people. They are political appointments! What's new with that?

This is about keeping the base distracted. This is about keeping Cindy and Code Pink busy so that they don't show up at the next Democrat press conference with "You lied about Iraq" placards. (It's Bad To Be Crazy. Isn't It?)

Here is a preview. Check out the "topless oldies" that showed up to protest the war at Hillary Clinton's San Francisco office.

The left is angry. In fact, they are so angry that a bunch of women took off their blouses and decided to protest the war! I guess that this a new version of the "burn your bra" marches from the 1970s!

The Power Line nailed this one:

"The President replaced eight or nine U.S. Attorneys who had served out their terms with other qualified nominees. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President. That's really all there is to that story. But it became the pretext for a fishing expedition by the Democrats, and as soon as they found a conflict between testimony by two witnesses--something that inevitably happens in just about any investigation--they started howling for a perjury prosecution. These are dark days in Washington, and not because of Alberto Gonzales." (Curiouser and Curiouser)

Last week, the congressional approval ratings went down again. Wonder if it has something to do with this witch hunt?

The sports pages are a bit weird these days!

For years, the sports page was the place to go and distract yourself from reality. No war. No Congress. No pandering to constituents.

Today, the sports page is a lot different. Now, we have allegations that an NBA referee was on the take. Now, we read that Michael Vick is accused of sponsoring dog fights out of his home. Last, but not least, Barry Bonds is 2 shy of passing Aaron on the all time list.

It's a bit strange....isn't it? Sports is no longer a refuge from the world's problems!

It's Friday: More good news about the US economy!

The US economy is doing great, unless you are a miserable whiner who still counting votes in Florida:

"The second quarter's performance was better than the 3.2 percent growth rate economists were expecting. It was the strongest showing since the first quarter of 2006, when the economy expanded at a brisk 4.8 percent annual rate.

Gross domestic product measures the value of all goods and services produced in the United States. It is considered the best barometer of the country's economic fitness.

"I think the confidence level of companies has come back. That's why there was a modest pickup in capital spending," said Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics." (Economy Growth Is Best in a Year)

We have never had a perfect economy but this one is pretty good!

Would you like to tank this economy? Go ahead and raise taxes on the so called "rich":

"The simple reality behind wealth creation is that it occurs when society’s most productive members are left to innovate as freely as possible from governmental roadblocks to growth." (Wanna Raise Taxes on the Rich? Reduce the marginal tax burden on success By John Tamny)

Not convinced? Check around the planet. What economies are growing and which ones are shrinking:

"The adoption of stable, low-inflation monetary policies in Brazil, Mexico, South Africa and Turkey and the enactment of low, flat taxes in Russia and some Eastern European countries during the 1990s are paying major dividends with strong growth that is helping to pull the U.S. out of an economic slumber, he said." (China powering world economy)

Again, low taxes and less government interference works like a charm. It works, unless you are a miserable whiner who is still counting votes in Florida!

A word about The Battleground Poll

On Thursday, we interviewed Brian Nienaber of The Tarrance Group, one of the most successful full-service polling and strategic research firms in the United States. Today, we spoke about the latest Battleground Poll.

Let me recommend:

•Republican Strategic Analysis (By Brian Tringali)

Listen to show on www.BlogTalkRadio.com and check the figures! For more shows, click on the archives buttom to the right!

Do the Democrats really want a debate on executive privilige?

During the Clinton years, we had a debate about executive privilege. Guess what? I supported Clinton. Why? Because I believe that we have 3 independent branches. Also, I support a strong executive.

Today, the Democrats are trying to exploit "executive privilege" for political gain. What's going on? The Democrats do not have the courage to cut the funding for the Iraq War so they must distract their base with superficial attacks on Pres. Bush and VP Cheney.

At the end of the day, this is another Washington spectacle. It accomplishes little! It won't help Congressional approval ratings. Why? Because the public is sick and tired of all of this partisan stuff!

For a little history, see Fight Over Documents May Favor Bush, Experts Say! That's right! Pres. Bush will rely on Pres. Clinton's to make his case! Bush and Clinton are right on this one!

What happens when "cute but clueless" has to answer a national security question?

On Monday night, Senator Biden reminded his fellow candidates that a quick withdrawal from Iraq would have bad consequences. In fact, it was Biden and no one else on the issue of national security. It's hard to believe that Biden was the only one with a sobering view of the real world!

It's a shame that the base did not hear it.

The base is madly in love with Obama, the closest thing to a crooner since Frank Sinatra charmed young women some time ago.

Obama is Frankie Avalon. Obama is Elvis. Obama is Johnny Mathis. Obama is Sammy Davis.

Obama is everything except a serious candidate for the presidency.

Check out this answer about meeting with the likes of Hugo Chavez and the head case from Iran. Worse than that, check out his reasoning:

"I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire.

And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them."

However, it is a bit more complicated than that:

"Good heavens, what a simpleton. He has missed his own point. When President Reagan was in the throes of the Cold War, and he and his advisers needed to decide upon a strategy that would forestall bloodshed, they did congregate on the notion that talking with Gorbachev would likely redound to the benefit of the United States.

And do you know what? It did.

Just imagine that eternal scene, where Reagan, haggard after a long night’s negotiations, asks everyone to leave the room and, seule, tells Gorbachev: “Look, we’ll halve our arsenal if you halve yours.”

And Mikhail Gorbachev agreed. He agreed because

1) he was rational;

2) he had interests before and above the deliberate destruction of his enemy, the United States; and

3) he was not pathologically suicidal.

Those three conditions do not attach in full to any of the small, nimble, aggressive enemies of the United States swarming about today.

They are largely irrational; given the intergovernmental institutions of the world they stand to lose very little from their aggression; and many are divinely inspired to kill themselves in pursuit of their cause.

Obama wants to sit down with Kim Jong-il because Reagan sat down with Gorbachev?

The man deserves to be laughed out of this race immediately, on account of wanton foolery." (Barack Obama is an airy fool by Joe Malchow)

Obama is simply a nice man who opposed the war during his Illinois Senate days. By the way, I don't recall any Democrats quoting state Senator Obama in 2002 but maybe I missed that! Back in Oct '02 and Mar '03, most Democrats thought that people like Obama were liberal fools who were still living in the 1960s!

Here we are. Frankie Avalon is singing Venus and the Democrats can not get enough of it!

For more on Obama, see OBAMA WILL SURRENDER MORE QUICKLY THAN HILLARY and Genocide Flip.

No courage to cut the funding so let's distract them with impeachment!

Let me set the table.

On one side, you have a bunch of Democrat political leaders who promised a new direction but do not have the courage to cut the funding. After all, Democrats could end this war by simply exercising their congressional prerogative, i.e. the power of the purse!

On the other side, there is Cindy Sheehan and the angry left. Let's just say that they are pretty angry. Why? Because Cindy and her pals were lied to! After all, it was Cindy and her pals who licked envelopes and made a ton of phone calls to get people to turn out and vote Democrat last November.

Check out the latest from Cindy:

"The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th century, except the other Bush debacle.

The Federal Reserve, permanent federal income taxes, not one but two World Wars, Japanese concentration camps, and not one but two atom bombs dropped on the innocent citizens of Japan -- all brought to us via the Democrats.

Don't tell me the Democrats are our "saviors" because I am not buying it -- especially after they bought more caskets and more devastating pain when they financed and co-facilitated more of President Bush's abysmal occupation."

Is Cindy irrational or what?

Welcome to the angry left, Mrs. Pelosi! They are going after you and Senator Reid now!

So what do these Dem leaders do to keep Cindy and the angry left at bay? They talk about impeachment:

West Hollywood joins call for impeachment...Feingold Proposes Censuring Bush...

They talk about Cheney.

They lie about the US government listening to private conversations.

They do everything possible to downplay any good news coming out of Iraq.

Will it work? Perhaps but for a short time!

Sooner, rather than later, Cindy and her pals will storm the Congressional leaders. It won't be pretty but the Dems deserve it for lying about Iraq!

By the way, it started last night:

"Last night, the Hillary Clinton for President Campaign celebrated the opening of its new San Francisco headquarters with a party coinciding with the Democratic presidential debate. Far-out antiwar groups Breasts Not Bombs and Code Pink infiltrated the party to stage a topless protest--against Hillary, I guess, but I'm not sure why." (It's Bad To Be Crazy. Isn't It?)

A note about poverty and marriage

FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society were noble efforts to end poverty in the US. Yet, we still have poor people. Why? Government can not end poverty!

Obama, Edwards and Clinton are not serious about ending poverty. What they want to is to make government bigger and create more dependency, i.e. voters who vote for them and get checks in return.

Linda Chavez makes these two points:

'First, many of those living below poverty today are new immigrants, both legal and illegal. They are newcomers who lack the education and skills to attain a middle class life, at least initially. The poverty rate for non-citizens, 20 percent, is twice the national average, but it has declined substantially since 1993, when it was almost 30 percent; this despite the fact that there are many more immigrants here now, including substantially more illegal aliens.

Second, neither Obama nor Edwards addresses the issue of family breakdown and its relationship to poverty. The poor are disproportionately made up of women and their children. Poverty rates for families headed by a single white woman with children under 18 were 25.3 percent in 2005; for similarly constituted black families, the rate was a shocking 42 percent. But for married couple families, the comparable rate for whites was just 6.1 percent, and for black families it was only 8.3 percent.
So why aren't Obama and Edwards talking more about marriage as an antidote to poverty?" (DEMOCRATS' NEW WAR)

Chavez is right. Want to really do something about poverty? How about promoting marriage and responsible behavior between the sexes:

"Children in father-absent families are five times more likely to be poor and ten times more likely to be extremely poor."(Single Mother Statistics)

Single mothers are an economic disaster in the Hispanic community. They are creating a permanent underclass of poor people who have babies out of wedlock and do not complete school. (Hispanic Family Values? by Heather Mac Donald)

The African-American community has been devastated by the collapse of marriage:

"Most important, children who are raised by their married, biological parents do better across every measure of economic, social, health and educational well-being than children raised in other family arrangements. In fact, when comparing families of similar socioeconomic status, these black children have similar outcomes as their white counterparts. Marriage is the great equalizer." (Marriage Is The Great Equalizer For Blacks By Roland Warren)

Want to end poverty? Promote marriage and responsible behavior.

Don't send them a check. Tell them to fill out a marriage application and act responsibly.

The Dems need a debate with serious questions

On Monday night, YouTube an CNN had a debate. Frankly, it was a joke! My friend Ed Morrissey had two great posts:

"The problem with last night's debate didn't have so much to do with the venue or the format, or even the use of questions through YouTube -- but with the quality of those questions. As I wrote earlier, the questions selected had little substance, which allowed the candidates to use tired campaign talking points instead of talking about real issues."

To be fair, Senator Biden had some serious replies about Darfur and a premature withdrawal from Iraq. Beyond that, it was the usual collection of nonsense that has turned the party of Harry Truman into the party of Michael Moore.

The Republicans are next. I hope that CNN and YouTube take this whole thing a bit more seriously.

After all, we are talking about the election of the president of the US!

Guliani has a lot of potential

Take a look at this from Gallup: Giuliani Would Be Acceptable Nominee to Nearly 3 in 4 Republicans

Why are so many Republicans willing to vote for a candidate who supports abortion?

There are three answers. First, leadership. Second, leadership. Third, leadership.

At the end of the day, a president can not change Roe v. Wade. It takes judges, in this case another justice like Alito or Roberts.

Last but not least, a Guiliani-Huckabee ticket would have a lot of electoral potential. Also, Huckabee will probably give one of the memorable acceptance speeches in history!

I like Guiliani-Huckabee a lot!

A word about the young people who are wearing the uniform

In past blogs, I have written about the courage, commitment and sacrifice of US troops. For a long time, US troops have freed more people than any author, writer, poet, singer, "Hollywoodie", journalist, college professor or pacifist.

From France '44 to Iraq, US troops have liberated more people than any other military force in history.

Bottom line: US troops are liberators!

Let me recommend The 9/11 Generation by Dean Barnett:

"It is surely a measure of how far we've come as a society from the dark days of the 1960s that things like military service and duty and sacrifice are now celebrated. Just because Washington and Hollywood haven't noticed this generational shift doesn't mean it hasn't occurred. It has, and it's seismic."

I see this in my neighborhood. I know two young men who went into the military because they want to serve their country. They had other options but they chose to serve their country during war. Our own #3 son is considering a career in the Marines.

This is a great article. Let's salute the troops!

Gracias, Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan

We started this month with a post about Mexican politicians blaming the US for their problems. (Dear Mexican politicians: Blame yourselves not the US!)

Today, we say "thank you" to Arturo Sarukhan, Mexico's ambassador to the United States, for telling the truth:

""It's very hard for Mexico to preach to the north what it does not do to the south," Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan said in a meeting with editors and reporters at The Washington Times, referring to Mexico's felony penalties for, and sometimes cruel treatment of, those caught crossing its southern border.

"Unless we correct the fundamental challenge of the violation of human rights of Latin American or Central American migrants crossing the border into Mexico, it's very hard for me to come up and wag a finger and say you guys should protect the rights of my citizens in this country," he said, adding that changes to the Mexican law are now pending.

Mr. Sarukhan, who presented his credentials as ambassador to President Bush in February, said his government is taking a new tack since the December inauguration of President Felipe Calderon, who has toned down the public relations push for an immigration bill in the United States and is instead trying to build infrastructure, combat corruption and create jobs to keep workers at home." (Mexican envoy hits own policies)

It's about time. It's refreshing to see Mexican officials publicly admitting what they know privately.

Last year, Banco de Mexico's chief came to Dallas and delivered a similar message. (Finally, a Mexican official who makes sense on illegal immigration!)

Why is this happening? I think that Pres. Calderon understands that Mexico must change rather than export people to the US. This is a good start. It's good to see that Mexico is addressing its structural problems. You can not improve yourself until you admit that you have a problem.

The Yankees won't catch Boston

Stop the analogies to 1978. Stop it. This is 2007 not 1978.

The NY Yankees may win the wild card title. They are currently 6 games back behind Cleveland. It could happen.

As of today, my money is on Boston winning the AL East!

Bottom line: We have not been attacked since 9-11

Go back to 9-11 evening. Go back to 9-12 morning. Didn't you think that we would be attacked again? I did. Most people did.

In fact, most of the country was horrified for the next bomb to go off.

Where are we? We have not been attacked since 9-11. 2,000 days without an attack!

Are we lucky? A little bit.

Are we stopping terrorists? Absolutely:

"In its "key judgments," the NIE observes that "greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past five years have constrained the ability of al Qaeda to attack the U.S. Homeland."

It notes that the measures put into place since September 11, 2001, have "helped disrupt known plots"--last year's foiled attempt to blow up airliners over the North Atlantic being just one of them.

And it observes that terrorist groups "perceive the Homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11."

If this is evidence of the Administration's alleged failures, we need more of them." (Terror Estimate)

Pres. Bush has done a great job in defending the US since 9-11.

Of course, no one can pitch a perfect game forever.

Sooner or later, we will be hit again. At the same time, the evidence shows that we have made life a lot more difficult for terrorists.

Sadly, the latest NIE report turned into another opportunity for The New York Times and opportunistic Dems to take cheap shots. The Dems don't have the courage to cut the funding but they can take lots of cheap shots!

We have not been attacked and that's a pretty good bottom line!

Bush 34%, Congress 14%

Who would have believed this last winter? Frankly, I didn't! I thought that the Dems leadership would enjoy some kind of a honeymoon after the Reps made so many mistakes.

So what happened? No honeymoon!

First, the Dems can't get anything done. They have majorities but they can't get anything passed.

Second, and most important, the Democrats elected a bunch of centrists who do not share the Pelosi view of the world.

So what's next? Who knows?

Will this marriage survive its first anniversary? Let's see what happens!

What happens when the lunatics speak for a party?

Here we are. Read any poll and this Congress is low and getting lower. Yesterday, we discussed the latest Zogby poll. In previous posts, we've discussed other polls that reach the same conclusion.

What's the problem? The Democrats' problem can be reduced to Kennedy, Gore, Pelosi, Durbin and Murtha. Add Reid, too.

You can not govern by catering to a left wing base that wants Bush's head on a platter.

It's time for the Dems' leadership to get serious about getting something done. Otherwise, they may become the first "single digit" Congress in polling history!

Cindy and the left: What a sick story!

My wife and I have some good friends who lost their son in Iraq. (We remember Nathan Aguirre, a young man killed in Iraq)

Nathan was a local kid who graduated from high school and pursued a military career. He was in Iraq by choice. He believed in the mission.

Over the last two years, Cindy Sheehan has made a fool out of herself and stained her son's legacy. Like Nathan, Casey volunteered to serve in Iraq. Like Nathan, he is a hero.

At first, I did not make too much about Sheehan's antics. I understood her pain. I cut her some slack because she lost a son in Iraq.

Unfortunately, Cindy turned into a useful idiot for the left. She became a spokeswoman for leftists causes, from Hugo Chavez to traveling down to GITMO. In the end, it was all about Cindy! (The epic narcissism of Cindy Sheehan)

Now, Cindy is no longer useful for Democrats. Why? Because Cindy is attacking Democrats for promising to end the war and not delivering on those promises.

Where are we? Cindy has been thrown overboard by the same people who put her on the main stage.

What a tragedy. Yet, what else do you expect from Michael Moore and the angry left?

How fanatics are killing the global warming message, part 2

As I wrote before, I care about the environment as much as the next guy. After all, I live in this earth. Conservatives and liberals may think differently but we do share the same planet earth.

So enjoy this cartoon! It tells you a lot about where we are in this debate!

The investors love Bush!

Yesterday, the stock market hit 14,000! It is a new record high! Obviously, someone likes what Bush is doing:

"In just the past year alone, the Dow has gained a remarkable 30 percent. Meanwhile, Europe and Asia are up about 30 percent, Japan 23 percent, and emerging markets more than 60 percent. Clearly, the world is voting -- with real money -- for the American system of free-market capitalism. And it's my strong suspicion that the majority of the global investing community supports the Iraq War and a steadfast U.S. commitment to stop terrorism. They seem to know that if the United States doesn't do it, no one else will." (A Stock Market Vote of Confidence for BushBy Lawrence Kudlow)

So cheer up. The economy is doing well.

An interview with General Petraeus

Why am I confident about the new strategy in Iraq? There are two reasons: Pres. Bush and Gen. Petraeus!

Pres. Bush is committed to victory and Gen. Petraeus is in the process of delivering it.

On Wednesday, the general spoke with Hugh Hewitt. Click here for a transcript and the audio version!

What did the all night debate accomplish?

We are indeed making some progress in Iraq. It is the kind of progress that does not compete well with suicide bombers or bombs going off in a marketplace that kill 85 people!

Yet, progress is happening. Today, I saw Now, An American Vision for Iraq By Charles Krauthammer:

"The bargain is certainly working for us. The recent capture of the leading Iraqi in al-Qaeda's Iraq affiliate is no accident, comrade. You capture such people only when you have good intelligence and you have good intelligence only when the locals have turned against the terrorists.

The place of his capture -- Mosul -- is also telling. Mosul is where you go if you've been driven out of Anbar and Diyala and have no other good place to go. You don't venture into the Shiite south or the purely Kurdish north where the locals will kill you."

Eventually, the good news will break out. It won't be a perfect ending but we are headed in the right direction in Iraq.

Let's talk about polling with Zogby International

On Thursday's show, we spoke with Fritz Wenzel, Director of Communications for ZOGBY INTERNATIONAL.

We discussed samples, likely vs registered voters, and many of the things that go into polling.

Also, we reviewed the latest poll:

"While Bush’s job approval rating has stabilized, opinion of the work Congress is doing continues to plummet. The Zogby poll shows just 14% give Congress positive marks, while 83% give it negative marks—this in the wake of an acrimonious scrimmage over immigration reform that failed to pass muster in the Senate and died, experts have said, until after the 2008 presidential election."

The interview will be available in the archives over the weekend. Click the radio icon to the right!

Can the Dems afford victory in Iraq?

Normally (like 99.9999% of the time), I'm sleeping around 3am. However, I got home late Tuesday night and found myself sitting in front of the TV. Fortunately, I got to watch a bit of the Senate debate. No one does it better than John McCain. No one explains the war better than Senator McCain:

"No one can be certain whether this new strategy which remains in the early stages can bring about greater stability.

We can be sure, should the United States seek to legislate an end to the strategy, as it is just beginning, then we will fail for certain. Mr. President, I read this -- earlier this resolution.

This rusting incredibly says that we can only -- the mission is restricted to only fighting Al-Qaeda.

I guess that Al-Qaeda will have to wear T-shirts that says that they are Al-Qaeda, and I guess our troops are expected, if someone's planting an IED, "Excuse me, sir, are you Al-Qaeda, or are you a Shi'ite? If you're Shi'ite, go ahead and plant it." (McCain 2008 )

Great stuff.

The overnight speeches did not matter. The Democrats could not get the 60 votes for cloture. Nevertheless, Rick Moran is right that it was A SURREAL DEBATE:

"Remember, the Democrats do not have a plan, do not have a clue on what to do next in Iraq. The “timetable” is a smokescreen. They no more expect Bush to meet that timetable than they do pigs to fly. It is political gamesmanship, nothing more."

That's right. This is about giving the anti-war base something to chew on. They don't have the courage to step up and cut the funding.

IBD is right:

"Instead of all-night pajama parties and obtuse legislative ploys, why can't Democrats be honest and just shut off war funding?

Answer: They know it would betray our troops and turn Iraq into a slaughterhouse." (Can't Let Bush Win)

That's right! The Dems are just playing games. It's a shame that they are playing games with something as serious as the national security of the US.

We are witnessing a rather amazing scene. On one side, Pres. Bush is committed to victory. On the other side, many Democrats have invested themselves in defeat.

What if Bush is right? What if we stabilize Iraq and continue to destroy Al Qaeda?

How did Democrats put themselves in a corner where victory is a loss for them?

How did the party of FDR, Truman, LBJ, JFK, Humphrey and Joe Lieberman allow that to happen? I don't know. However, I do know that a successful conclusion to the Iraq mission spells trouble for the Dems!