The Fairness Doctrine Congress should pass consists of two requirements for the licensed broadcast media. First, for each poll “result” reported the media should make the polling information available to the public. For example, we should be able to find out all the questions that were asked, all the answers, who was polled (not personal information but demographic information, party affiliation, what geographic locals, etc.), who conducted the poll, who paid for the poll, and the party affiliation(s) of those that conducted the poll.

Second, when a licensed media broadcasts a news article all the news gathered, excluding all personal information, should be made available to the public. We should be able to find out what they chose NOT to tell us as well as what they broadcast. That would be fair! This could be as simple as posting it on-line or subjecting it to something similar to a Freedom of Information Act compliance requirement for licensed broadcasters.

 

Why are the Democrats in such a hurry to get Congress to vote on withdrawing the troops in Iraq? For the last 4 years members of Congress keep telling us they know what is going on in Iraq. They continually brag about visiting the troops in Iraq. Members of Congress serve on the Intelligence and Defense Committees. Could they have inside knowledge that causes them to believe the surge is working militarily and is winning the hearts and minds of the people in Iraq that will result in a political solution? The media has reluctantly been reporting successes, although these reports are buried in a story deep in the paper.

These politicians have invested their political future in declaring that we have failed in Iraq and can not win. Their political strategy requires us to loose and, just like Nam, if they have to make that happen they will. If they support the troops and wait for general Petraeus’ September report demonstrating we are winning, these politicians will be uncovered for what they are. Their political leverage and integrity for the 2008 election will be severely damaged. They have put all their chips on the table and can not afford to allow the country to win or they might loose in 2008.

 

The uproar by congressional Democrats about the release of 9 federal prosecutors raises an interesting question that the media has ignored. The Democrats assert that these prosecutors were asked to investigate allegations of illegal activity by Democrat members of Congress. It is asserted that the prosecutors were asked to leave because they failed to investigate and prosecute Democrats.

Why do the congressional Democrats believe they are above the law? Why should Democrats be exempt and not be investigated or prosecuted? If there are reasonable allegations and the investigation discloses nothing, they would be exonerated. Had such an investigation had not been conducted on Democrat Congressman Jefferson the Justice Department would not have caught him with $90,000.00 in his freezer.

 

The New York Times reported that the President was considering a reduction in the number of troops in Iraq in 2008. The Times cast this possible future reduction of troops in Iraq as a capitulation to Democrat Party Pressure by the President. Virtually every Sunday talk show and the papers that reprinted the Times article followed the Times lead assumption. At best this assumption was a guess and an opinion. It is an opinion based on a rumor. What kind of journalistic integrity is this?

The President is the one person that has held firm in his belief in fighting the Terrorist War on Humanity, regardless of election pressures, for 6 years. The Times now implies he is giving in when he does not have any future elections to worry about!

While the political pressure is significant it is equally plausible that our new antiterrorist military strategy in Iraq is beginning to show signs of success. The recent conversion of tribal leaders in the Anbar Province is a good example of success. Rather than give our troops and military any credit for doing a good job and hopefully enabling a political solution, these reporters and political pundits depict the efforts of our troops as a loosing misguided effort that the USA can’t win. They consider the only possible consideration for a reduction in troops is the failure of our military and troops. It wasn’t even mentioned that planning for a future reduction could be because our military is succeeding and a political resolution is on the horizon. Of course this possibility might lend support to those that have been supporting the fight against the 30 year old Terrorist War on Humanity. The Times coverage on Iraq has made it clear it would not want to print such a positive article.

God forbid if the NY Times were to genuinely speak positively about our service personnel or say anything that would encourage public confidence in the USA.

 

The revival of the Clinton foreign policy of appeasement sends a loud and clear message to the world that we are afraid to defend ourselves and guarantees that the “Terrorist War on Humanity”, that has been waged for 30 years will continue. Senator Dick Durbin asked, “How many of our solders do we have to bury?” The answer; Many more will die under his leadership. Our recent history makes clear, the position Durbin and his party have taken guarantees we will be burying Americans from this war for probably another 30 or more years. A review of the world post 1970 history with these terrorists confirms the Islamist terrorist philosophy on war – that the West, including Americans, are weak and do not have the courage or conviction of their principles to fight to defend themselves. Islamist terrorists believe Western politicians, including American politicians, are more concerned with domestic power than defending themselves at home much less on the world stage. So far they’re right.

This slowly growing domestic political cowardice, our consistent practice of withdrawal from areas that call for military action, our insistence on self-blame for every world problem (always asking the aggrieved party what we did wrong and how can we fix it), and the inevitable loss of respect and political and economic influence with the rest of the world, is causing the loss of jobs and capital resulting in our economic isolationism. We have turned a global corner. International corporations are no longer viewing the USA as the one bastion from which they can safely function, find the worlds’ best personnel (lost jobs), and strongest financial markets. We have not lost all – yet. But the changes that occurred in the 80’s and 90’s and continue to the present, make it clear we have turned the corner.

As Bernard Lewis recently pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, the recent political trends in the United States confirms to the Islamist radicals that their assessment was correct and that “they only need to press a little harder to achieve final victory.” Politically motivated actions by politicians like Durbin bolster terrorist belief in their victory and ensure that our children and grand children will have to burry more Americans because we failed to defeat the enemy now. This crop of political lions from OZ better find the wizard and get some patriotic (not patronage) courage soon or they have guaranteed more war and death for thousands more Americans over at least two more generations. It appears we are just beginning the second 100 years war.

Leaders of this Congress keep telling us it is wrong to repeat the same failed strategy but that is exactly what this Congress intends to do. It is considering passing legislation modeled after its proven failed 1986 immigration legislation. The only difference is that this time they are going to make the same mistake on a much larger scale.

Proponents say, but “this time it is different” because we “will” secure the border. This is a false statement. There is nothing in the legislation that guarantees the borders will ever be secured. Congress, true to its modus operandi, has again set “benchmarks” to be achieved. The same misrepresentation was made to us in 1986 when we were told the border “will” be secured. Immigration reform is necessary but all the legislation in the world will make no difference if the borders are not secured first. If members of Congress were honest about this issue they would not only admit but insist that the borders have to be proven secured before any immigration reform can take affect. This means that illegal alien crossings would be 99% stopped for at least 2-5 years before immigration reform would become effective. We have secured and stopped all unauthorized intrusions for 50 years into “Area 51” and we can do the same for our borders. Notwithstanding their hollow rhetoric, the only reason we have not secured our borders is because those in power, Congress and the President do not want to secure our borders.

The Democrats just want more voters and power, not what is best for country. Republicans want cheap labor and not to loose political ground. Both are strictly self-serving motives and are not the actions of statesmen. The presently proposed immigration reform bill, that appears likely to pass, lays a strong foundation for replacing all those in Congress that put the interests of their respective parties, over the interests of our country by supporting this bill. An immigration reform bill with out first physically (not just by paper fiat) securing the borders will have little if any positive effect. Why should any one go through all the obstacles the Congress temporarily imposes for legal status when they have all they want at no or very little cost? If they are deported they can be back in a week with out any hassle. To paraphrase the old saying, “Lie to me once shame on you, lie to me twice, shame on me.” We would be well served to remember this when it comes time to vote.

If the World Bank removes Paul Wolfowitz the United States should remove itself from the World Bank.  The transparent plot by the entrenched corrupt bureaucracy, lead by its “ethics” committee, to remove the head of the bank makes it quite clear that he was becoming effective in cleaning up the corruption. He had become a potential risk to those involved in the corruption.  Paul Volker should be called to investigate the members of their “ethics” committee.

The overwhelming support for Wolfowitz by the poor African nations that are benefiting from a more ethical World Bank make the Banks’ addiction of corruption obvious.  These countries are tired on being ripped-off buy the corrupt bankers, many of whom are European and are leading the charge to remove Wolfowitz.  

A Wolfowitz removal will signal it is time to divest ourselves of any cooperation or support for the only world institution as corrupt as the UN.  If the United States and the other countries that are truly interested in helping poor countries started a new bank, a Global Ethical Bank, it is clear they would immediately have the best clientele from these struggling nations.  Only those nations interested in maximizing the financial benefits to its people would transfer debt or apply for credit because they would be the only countries willing to comply with the more stringent and ethical standards to ensure the money is getting to whom it is supposed to go and be put toward its intended use. 

 What ever existing financial obligations we have with the World Bank will remain the same whether we stay there or not.  Why keep putting more money in a failed financial institution?  We can start over with a bank that can work and accomplish the goals the failed World Bank was intended to accomplish.  The removal of Wolfowitz is proof that the inner circle controlling  that bank does not want to, and will not tolerate, the inspection, discovery and removal of corrupt systems and personnel.  We can only win by starting a new bank.

 On May 6, 2007 Meet the Press announced the headline that “Weapons of mass destruction were never found” in Iraq. This is not true. How can a leading news organization not know, or ignore, what has been reported by other equally respectable news organizations? The BBC reported in July 2004 that we found 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium and 1,000 “highly radioactive sources” in Iraq. According the James Woolsey, the CIA Director under Clinton, that is enough to make approximately 150 nuclear bombs (each weighing 20-25 lbs.).

In August 2005 it was reported by the Washington Post (with photo) that we found approximately 1,500 gallons (about 6 tons) of chemicals for chemical weapons that were “destined for attacks on American and Iraqi forces, and civilians. . .” Russert failed to mention this on May 6^th when he said, “Weapons of mass destruction were never found.” Why does the show not disclose these, and other findings of WMD’s to us, but rather it continues to engage in misinforming the public? Is this intentional?

It would have been enlightening if Russert would have asked George Tenent who cleared Senator Rockefeller to go to Arab states neighboring Iraq, just before our invasion, and tell them about our plan to invade Iraq. Rockefeller admitted this on national TV. Oddly enough it was about this time when 18 wheeler convoys were observed going from Baghdad to Syria as well as the flights by the gutted 727 and 747 that were reported to be carrying WMD’s to Syria. If such a disclosure to foreign countries was authorized, why didn’t the Secretary of State do it?

When asked about finding these weapons, and whether they are secured and not available to our enemies, neither Senator Harry Reid or Representative Nancy Pelosi (or NBC for that matter) have denied these reports or cared enough to investigate and report the security of these weapons. “Meet the Press” and members of Congress should be more concerned about reporting all the facts, as well as assuring us of the security of these weapons than on covering up information and not telling us the truth.

What is a "neoconservative"? How is he or she different from an old conservative? Are they younger? This is a meaningless label often used by political partisans and the media to impart a negative image or feeling toward the person referred to. Hence the apparent motive for the term that connotes the false impression of some one as a new convict - the "neocon". What objective journalistic value is there to justify the use of such a prejudice term other than to intentionally shape public opinion into the speakers’ desired mold? How many of these same journalists and political partisans have used the term "neosocialist" when referring to Hillary Clinton?

Maybe a neoconservative is simply some one that has returned to or found their historical foundations and basic principles – what Milton Friedman might call a "classic liberal." Is this what makes some politicians (and media) so upset and vitriol – the possibility that a "neoconservative" is a Milton Friedman "classic liberal"?

 

The phrase “Global war on Terrorism” is NOT an accurate description of what the world is experiencing. A more accurate description is the “Terrorist War on Humanity.”

The civilized world did not declare a war on anyone. It was after 25 years of unanswered attacks and murders by radical, and purportedly religious, terrorists who have used a distorted religious premise to justify their murders around the world that resulted in the September 11, 2001 slaughter of nearly 3,000 innocent people. This finally triggered action to defend the free world against this aggression by an enemy who has no borders and uses terrorism as its primary weapon. From that point on those that value freedom have been engaged in mounting a defense to defeat this War on Humanity by terrorists.

When the press reports that there is a “Global War on Terror” it implies that humanity was the aggressor in initiating this 25 year old war. That is inaccurate and wrong. With the thousands of murders in numerous countries around the world, over more than 25 years, the terrorists have opened many fronts and theaters of war. Iraq is only one theater of battle in this defensive struggle.

If we “redeploy” (a euphemism for run away) again, as Congress has forced us to do in the past, we will ensure the global integrity and success of the Bin Laden Doctrine (View Here). They have made it clear their goal is to either kill us or convert us. That is how they will take what few freedoms and measure of tolerance it has taken humanity so long to develop.

 

Osama Bin Laden has set a course and strategy based on the historical performance of the USA since WWII. He has stated, based on this strategy, they can defeat the USA. The Korean War was the likely seed for the concept of the “Bin Laden” Doctrine when we accepted a half victory, and our congressionally forced withdrawal (or “redeployment”) from the Viet Nam war (in which we did not loose one battle) gave his Doctrine birth. Since then the Bin Laden Doctrine has proven successful in numerous attacks and conflicts such as the 1991 bombing of the World Trade Center, bombing Marines in Lebanon, the Somalia retreat (another “redeployment”), Saudi Arabia bombing of troop barracks, USS Cole attack, etc. It is a strategy that has not yet been defeated.

Bin Laden and his followers do not fear retribution for their attacks. They believe the Bin Laden Doctrine has proven to be, and will continue to be, successful. The fault of our failures is not with the members of our armed services nor their leaders. A historical review discloses that the basis for our failures lies with our politicians. Bin Laden knows that if he can continue to cause “loss of life and treasure” to the USA (regardless of their losses) our politicians will use our political system to compel us to pay the long term price of increasing the continued risk to our national security.

Based on our history Bin Laden believers are convinced they can count on our state of denial, ignoring isolated attacks and that we will continue to avoid or run away from the immediate and increasing danger. History is repeating itself. Bin Laden is relying on our congressional approval of this scenario happening again in Iraq and Afghanistan. Continued failures, resulting from the lack of political will, to defend ourselves against this 25 year old war, will only result in increasing the price to be paid in more blood by future generations. This is a price our politicians are willing to pay for securing temporary political power for their own self interest.

Until we become determined to defend ourselves against this ideology, that has sworn to kill us and eliminate representative government from the face of the earth, the Bin Laden Doctrine will continue to rule. If we run away (or “redeploy”) from Iraq it will stand as another confirmation by this Congress that the Bin Laden Doctrine is successful; our self-inflicted political division will cause us to self-destruct again to achieve personal partisan political power.

Bin Laden knows that they can use the media as their primary weapon to defeat us by manipulating our political system. The new Congress is already hard at work to fulfill the Bin Laden prediction; that we have a government that is not committed to defeating his Doctrine and does not have a strategy for doing so. This congressional conduct guarantees that not just the next President but many more will have to carry on this war.

The fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are only two theatres of battle in our war against the Bin Laden Doctrine. Iran has adopted the Bin Laden Doctrine! I have not heard any plan from the candidates (presidential or congressional) addressing how we will defeat the Bin Laden Doctrine. What do the congressional or the presidential contenders propose for us to defeat the Bin Laden Doctrine? How are they going to protect our citizens and preserve our way of life? None will even address this global war. We deserve an answer.