The world we want.

NRO has this beautiful but sad story of a Rabbi serving in Iraq who helps comfort a dying boy with verses from the Holy Koran, in the language that the boy would be familiar with.

Read the whole thing. It is touching. But as a Catholic Priest comes to comfort the Rabbi, the Rabbi wonders this:

"I thought to myself, isn'’t this the kind of world we are fighting for-- — a world where an Imam teaches a Rabbi words from the Holy Koran to comfort a young Muslim boy, and that rabbi himself is comforted by a Christian, a Catholic priest."

Yes, this is the world we want. A world where we respect our differences, not kill because of them. We want a world where murderers, like the one who killed this boy, cannot roam free.

The Rabbi says this also:

"There are many Americans who ask why we'’re here. Why are we sacrificing so many American lives and placing so many in harm'’s way? What is the purpose of it all? Well, I don'’t really know the big picture. But from my small sector of the battlefield, the reason I am here is to give "“the least of these,"” my children over here, a shot at "“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"— just like my other children living in America."

This is also the world we want. A world where children are raised in freedom. Not just our children, but every child.

This is what we all want, isn't it? If bringing liberty and free elections to Afghanistan and Iraq doesn't bring us this world, what will?

If helping stabilize the middle east, reducing the incidence of islamo-fascist terrorism, and providing models for other Arab nations and people doesn't bring us this world, then..I ask again, what will?

Because we all agree...A world free of terrorism and providing liberty for all in the Middle East--

This is the world we want.

The Cotillion ...

is up!! Stephanie from Free Thoughts is hosting. What is cool about Stephanie is that she is in Italy. The Cotillion is officially international!

To hell with our government and troops,

as long as we win the next elections. (the Democrats strategy translated into simple terms)

Let me put this as briefly as possible. The Democrats have nothing to run on in '06. So, as was laid out in this Nov. 6th memo from Senator Rockefeller, they decided to take advantage of the general public's ignorance on how intelligence is handled and say that the President saw something VERY different than the Senate Intelligence Committee did regarding WMD's. When in fact, as is cited below, the Robb-Silverman Commission found the reports were not that much different at all. AND that there WAS NO DISTORTION or even pressure from the White House regarding intelligence.

Democrats were hoping the public wouldn't really hear or focus on the facts of the commission. (which the media would be just fine with) But they forgot about us. The bloggers.

Interestingly, as Froggy points out here, Presidential Candidate John Kerry said that he would have given the authority to go to war even knowing what we know NOW. (emphasis mine)

GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found. Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."

So given the fact that this whole bogus argument is about being "lied" to about WMD's, it seems the Democrat's Presidential nominee would have gone to war even if it had been proven at the time that Saddam didn't have them.

The Democrats know the President didn't lie. This was all part of a grand plan to fool the public and to hell with troop morale and our efforts in the war on terror.

Shame on them. Shame. Shame.

links via PW

UPDATE: Ace has the goods on Tim Russert showing Sen. Kennedy what liars the Democrats are and some interesting thoughts of his own about this whole "we were misled!" strategy.

UPDATE2: Ace has the goods on Chris Wallace showing Senator Rockefeller what a liar he is as well. (I have got to keep up with the Sunday shows!)

Bush is setting the record straight.

Thank God.

From “Setting the Record Straight: The Washington Post On Pre-War Intelligence":


The Washington Post Implies That The Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) Was Superior To The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) Given To Congress:

“But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President’s Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community’s views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country” (Dana Milbank And Walter Pincus, “Asterisks Dot White House’s Iraq Argument,” The Washington Post, 11/12/05).

But The PDB Was The Focus Of Intelligence Reform And Was More “Problematic” Than The NIE Given To Congress.

# The Robb-Silberman Commission Found The PDB To Contain Similar Intelligence In “More Alarmist” And “Less Nuanced” Language. “As problematic as the October 2002 NIE was, it was not the Community’s biggest analytic failure on Iraq. Even more misleading was the river of intelligence that flowed from the CIA to top policymakers over long periods of time--in the President’s Daily Brief (PDB) and in its more widely distributed companion, the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief (SEIB). These daily reports were, if anything, more alarmist and less nuanced than the NIE.” (Charles S. Robb And Laurence H. Silberman, The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, 3/31/05, Pg. 14)

# The Robb-Silberman Commission Reported That The Intelligence In The PDB Was Not “Markedly Different” Than The Intelligence Given To Congress In The NIE. “It was not that the intelligence was markedly different. Rather, it was that the PDBs and SEIBs, with their attention-grabbing headlines and drumbeat of repetition, left an impression of many corroborating reports where in fact there were very few sources. And in other instances, intelligence suggesting the existence of weapons programs was conveyed to senior policymakers, but later information casting doubt upon the validity of that intelligence was not.” (Charles S. Robb And Laurence H. Silberman, The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, 3/31/05, Pg. 14)

The Washington Post Implies That There Have Been No Findings On The Use Of Intelligence:
"But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush’s commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: ‘Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry.’” (Dana Milbank And Walter Pincus, “Asterisks Dot White House’s Iraq Argument,” The Washington Post, 11/12/05)

But Congressional And Independent Committees Have Repeatedly Reported No Distortion Of Intelligence

# The Bipartisan Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Report “Did Not Find Any Evidence” Of Attempts To Influence Analysts To Change Intelligence. “Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities. Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President’s visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.” ("Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, 7/7/04, Pg. 284-285)

# The Robb-Silberman Commission Finds “No Evidence Of Political Pressure.” “These are errors serious errors. But these errors stem from poor tradecraft and poor management. The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community’s pre-war assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.” (Charles S. Robb And Laurence H. Silberman, The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, 3/31/05, Pg. 50-51)

# The British Butler Report Finds “No Evidence” Of Intelligence Distortion. “In general, we found that the original intelligence material was correctly reported in [Joint Intelligence Committee] assessments. An exception was the ‘45 minute’ report. But this sort of example was rare in the several hundred JIC assessments we read on Iraq. In general, we also found that the reliability of the original intelligence reports was fairly represented by the use of accompanying quali cations. We should record in particular that we have found no evidence of deliberate distortion or of culpable negligence. We examined JIC assessments to see whether there was evidence that the judgements inside them were systematically distorted by non-intelligence factors, in particular the in uence of the policy positions of departments. We found no evidence of JIC assessments and the judgements inside them being pulled in any particular direction to meet the policy concerns of senior of cials on the JIC.” ("Review Of Intelligence On Weapons Of Mass Destruction,” Report Of A Committee Of Privy Counsellors, 7/14/04, Pg. 110)

via Protein Wisdom.

Discuss.

Look! I was interviewed for an online women's magazine!

SadieMAG.com asked me some questions about women bloggers. The article is titled "Broads on Blogs." It describes women's blogs pretty accurately:

Left, right, salacious, serious, bitchy, ballsy, Bush-bashing or liberal-smashing, women have entered the blogosphere in growing numbers, amassing devoted followers along the way. Female bloggers represent the entire political spectrum, some offering original reporting, others unabashed activism--all hosting a forum for anyone with a computer to weigh in on the controversial subject at hand.

Here are my excerpts:

Kathy, who hosts Right Wing Sparkle (www.rightwingsparkle.blogspot.com) and prefers her real name not be used, remarks, "The benefits of an active blogosphere commenting is that so many voices get heard. The disadvantage is that unfortunately so many of those voices are shrill and insulting. I hate that. But," she adds, "my Dad always said that 'cream rises to the top,' so I think that eventually the main blogs that will be read by the general public will be those who carry on civil discourse and voice their opinions in a thoughtful manner."

On what I do while blogging:

The Texas-based Kathy, of RightWingSparkle, does her e-mailing between running a carpool, helping her two kids with homework and starting dinner. (note: I have four kids, but who's counting?)

On what I think of Wonkette:

Kathy states it more bluntly: "Any woman blogger on the web can use her sexuality to gain readers. But is that what we want?"

On the difference in male and female blogging on issues such as abortion:

Kathy cites the example of abortion. "Women bloggers on both sides will post long and emotional and detailed essays. Male bloggers throw a few sentences at it."

On whether you can tell what gender a blogger is by reading them:

Notes Kathy, "I think it's fairly easy to tell if it is a man or woman blogger. We are different, after all, even in the way we write."

Could the answer to the abortion debate be found with the internet???

While I was working with women in crisis pregnancy in the 80's and 90's, our main problem was getting the information to the women who needed it. The MSM certainly wouldn't give us any publicity (even though we did offer a "choice" after all). Advertising was expensive and all of our money went into services for the girls.

But now I read that internet banners may actually be able to reach out to girls who truly want help. And the great thing about it is young women today are all about the internet. That would be the first place they would probably look for help. WND has this referring to internet ads put out by LifeDonor.com:

Along with images of young women, the ad includes the text: "Pregnant? Scared? You have options. Click here now."

"Research has indicated that 70 percent of women contacting OptionLine and believing they may be pregnant are considering an abortion," the Life Donor Program website explains. "However, once they visit a Care Net pregnancy center, less than 10 percent follow through with terminating their pregnancy. Ninety percent will choose life!"

Care Net is a nationwide network of pregnancy centers that sponsors the program, along with Heatbeat International.


I worked with The Nuturing Network, which provides free health care and job and college transfers for young women in crisis pregnancies. Started by a former Fortune 500 CEO, Mary Cunningham Agee, she began by asking Planned Parenthood if she could interview a sampling of the women who had had abortions in their clinics, PP gave permission and Mary found that over 90% of those asked said that they would not have had the abortion if they had known there was help and alternatives out there for them.

If those numbers from Optionline and The Nuturing Network are even close to being right, then the internet could finally give women what we as society have for so long neglected....a real choice.

And no one on either side would have a problem with that. Except the radicals, of course.

Moonbat central.

I don't call everyone on the left a moonbat. Most are just good intentioned misguided souls, but these guys.....they are moonbats. Here is a sampling:

Your government is openly torturing people, and justifying it.

That's right. Just like Iran, when young women are caught having sex, we hang them from a crane until they die. You have caught us.

Your government puts people in jail on the merest suspicion, refusing them lawyers, and either holding them indefinitely or deporting them in the dead of night.

People? Just regular people?? Are you sure you don't mean TERRORIST SUSPECTS??? Oh, that's right. To you there is no difference.

Your government is moving each day closer to a theocracy, where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule.

Really? Gee. They forgot to tell us Christians about this religious overthrow. Let me go check my e-mail.

People look at all this and think of Hitler— and they are right to do so. The Bush regime is setting out to radically remake society very quickly, in a fascist way, and for generations to come. We must act now; the future is in the balance.

Right. Bush is just like Hitler. Using the Amtrak to round up undesirables I'm sure. I wonder where he is killing them? Of course, first he had to deny free speech to those who oppose him.....hey...wait a minute!!!!

via LGF

Sick Image.

Little Green Footballs has this:

In an admiring photo essay on the making of suicide bomber propaganda film “Paradise Now,” the BBC reaches a new low in the caption of a photo of Palestinian child abuse: Shooting Paradise Now.

Caption for photo:

Palestinian children learn at a young age about the struggle for freedom. To some, the Palestinian martyrs are heroes. Here a child poses for a photograph at a rally organised by militants.

UPDATE: Quake orphans are being "adopted" by terrorist groups. h/t Jill

Bush Lied? Part 2

Jeff at Protein Wisdom lays it all out.

It's long. It's good. If you still believe that Bush "lied" or misled anyone regarding intelligence about Saddam and WMD's then you read this and tell me how Jeff is wrong.

Al Qaeda are throwing down family members now.

The face of radical insanity.

They offer a "explanation" to the Muslim world:

"It said it had ordered the suicide attacks on the hotels "only after becoming confident that they were centres for launching war on Islam and supporting the Crusaders' presence in Iraq and the Arab peninsula and the presence of the Jews on the land of Palestine."

As Ace points out, weddings are "centres for launching war on Islam?"

Uhh..no. I don't think the people of Jordan are buying that one:

"On Thursday thousands of Jordanians protested across the country to denounce the head of the al-Qaeda terrorist group in Iraq, Zarqawi, America's most wanted enemy. They marched through Amman chanting: "Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!"

Bush lied?

Ok, now the lefty talking point is that Bush "manipulated" the intelligence, or "kept" some of it away from the key Senators that looked at it and then voted to go to war.

Rove is a genius. I mean he knew way back in 1998 that all this would happen and somehow got Bill Clinton to say this to his Joint Chiefs of Staff:

"(Iraq) admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability — notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production."

— Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff, Feb. 17, 1998

No one can blame Bush for "manipulating" anything for what Clinton believed in 1998. The only difference, of course, is 9-11 and Bush's determination to take no chances.

I have said it before and will say it until the left finally aknowledges it. We found an international terrorists training camp in Iraq in the first week of our invasion. Terrorists+biological warfare capability=take no chances.

So the left's talking point of basically saying "Gosh, Bush just fooled us!" has got to stop. (or as I read somewhere else, "we are dumber than Bush"..heh.) h/t to dave in comments of last post. Pretty sad when I can't even remember when I read something in my own comments. I BLAME BUSH!!

The President's Speech Today Rocked.

Here is the whole thing.

Bush finally made clear some things that needed to be made clear. One important thing was to define who we are fighting and their goals: (emphasis on what the terrorists themselves said)

"Many militants are part of a global, borderless terrorist organization like al Qaeda — which spreads propaganda, and provides financing and technical assistance to local extremists, and conducts dramatic and brutal operations like the attacks of September the 11th. Other militants are found in regional groups, often associated with al Qaeda — paramilitary insurgencies and separatist movements in places like Somalia, the Philippines, Pakistan, Chechnya, Kashmir and Algeria. Still others spring up in local cells — inspired by Islamic radicalism, but not centrally directed. Islamic radicalism is more like a loose network with many branches than an army under a single command. Yet these operatives, fighting on scattered battlefields, share a similar ideology and vision for the world.

We know the vision of the radicals because they have openly stated it — in videos and audiotapes and letters and declarations and on websites.

First, these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions. Al Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, has called on Muslims to dedicate, their "resources, their sons and money to driving the infidels out of our lands." The tactics of al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists have been consistent for a quarter of a century: They hit us, and expect us to run.

Last month, the world learned of a letter written by al Qaeda's number two leader, a guy named Zawahiri. And he wrote this letter to his chief deputy in Iraq — the terrorist Zarqawi. In it, Zawahiri points to the Vietnam War as a model for al Qaeda. This is what he said: "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam — and how they ran and left their agents — is noteworthy." The terrorists witnessed a similar response after the attacks on American troops in Beirut in 1983 and Mogadishu in 1993. They believe that America can be made to run again — only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences.

Second, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country — a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments. Over the past few decades, radicals have specifically targeted Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Jordan for potential takeover. They achieved their goal, for a time, in Afghanistan. And now they've set their sights on Iraq. In his recent letter, Zawahiri writes that al Qaeda views Iraq as, "the place for the greatest battle." The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. We must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war against the terrorists. (Applause.)

Third, these militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. Zawahiri writes that the terrorists, "must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq." He goes on to say: "[T]he jihad ... requires several incremental goals. ... Expel the Americans from Iraq. ... Establish an Islamic authority over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq? Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq."

With the greater economic, military and political power they seek, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction; to destroy Israel; to intimidate Europe; to assault the American people; and to blackmail our government into isolation."

So for all of you who don't believe anything President Bush says, will you believe what Zawahiri says to Zarqawi?

And The President once again reminded us of a few things we have accomplished in this war on terror. And heaven knows he needed to, since the media doesn't seem to interested in informing the public of them.

"Together with our partners, we've disrupted a number of serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September the 11th — including several plots to attack inside the United States. Our coalition against terror has killed or captured nearly all those directly responsible for the September the 11th attacks. We've captured or killed several of bin Laden's most serious deputies, al Qaeda managers and operatives in more than 24 countries; the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, who was chief of al Qaeda's operations in the Persian Gulf; the mastermind of the bombings in Jakarta and Bali; a senior Zarqawi terrorist planner, who was planning attacks in Turkey; and many of their senior leaders in Saudi Arabia."

These are no small things.

The guy has a point.

The Washington Post has this:

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley came out strong in the briefing room yesterday to issue a rebuttal to "the notion that somehow the administration manipulated prewar intelligence about Iraq."

Ahem. Listen up. (emphasis mine)

"Some of the critics today," Hadley added, "believed themselves in 2002 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, they stated that belief, and they voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq because they believed Saddam Hussein posed a dangerous threat to the American people. For those critics to ignore their own past statements exposes the hollowness of their current attacks."

The article goes on:

"Hadley noted that the presidential commission, led by retired judge Laurence H. Silberman and former senator Charles S. Robb (D-Va.), said it found no evidence that administration officials manipulated intelligence."

So is it possible for the left and the Democrats and the media to stop beating this drum and let's move forward with what has to be done NOW? Because while it is all well and good to grasp at anything in order to win the next round of elections, shouldn't the focus be more on doing what needs to be done in Iraq? For once, can we put the country first and elections second and let this administration WORK instead of defend itself??

The Jordan Terror Bombings...

hit close to home. A personal story that reminds us all that as safe as we may feel here, terror can still touch us.

via Mudville

Veterans Day.

Yesterday, after helping with homework, cooking supper, feeding the kids and cleaning up, I had to rush my 8 yr old to basketball practice. After practice he had to change in the car for his 2nd grade "Patriotic Program."

On the drive there I was grumbling to myself about this silly programs they do at school (you can only imagine how many I have been to). My attitude couldn't have been worse. The kids were dressed in red, white, and blue t-shirts. I was expecting the usual "singing" and boring stuff.

I couldn't have been more wrong.

The gym was decorated with red, white, and blue stars with the names of veterans that each child knew. I had written the names of my Dad and my Father-in-law on a star about a week before, but didn't expect the emotional impact that seeing all those stars and all those names would give me.

About eight older veterans were sitting in the front. We started out with The Pledge of Allegiance and then the Principal asked all those who had served or were serving to come forward for a thank you gift. About 2 dozen came forward and the whole gym interrupted in clapping, cheers, and whoops. No one stopped clapping until the gifts were given out and the Veterans and soldiers sat back down. I was already wiping my eyes.

Then the kids came in. All dressed in red, white and blue waving small flags. My son's class had Uncle Sam's hats on and danced and sang "Yankee Doodle Dandy." There was a great big blue bucket in the middle of the gym and someone read a poem about mixing blue for bravery, white for purity, and red for something I can't remember, and the kids put big pieces of colored confetti in the bucket. Then the poem said to mix it, and they did. And then the poem said we had made "Old Glory." They then pulled out a flag as big as a small room and started "waving" it as they held on to all sides and sang "It's A Grand Ole Flag." The confetti in the middle would fly up and down as they did this. A beautiful sight.

There were more songs and dances and they ended it by playing Lee Greenwood's "I'm Proud To Be An American" in which every person in the room sang along and cheered again when the song ended.

It was wonderful. Like an unexpected gift.

Sometimes we need to be reminded who paid the price for our freedoms.

As we left we were given a poem that was written from the perspective of our Flag. The poem was reflecting on how in times past when the American Flag led a parade people would stop and put their hands over their hearts, but not anymore. The Flag in the poem was asking if we had forgotten all the men and women who had died for it? And if we had forgotten all the freedoms our Flag represented? The Flag in the poem then requested that the next time we see our Flag in a parade or elsewhere to stop and put our hand over our heart.

You damn betcha I will.

Did ya'll see..

the Kurds commercials they showed on Fox News this morning? The one I saw was a bunch of them thanking America. One young man points at the camera with his purple finger and says "Thank you America."

You want to feel really good about what we have done. Go here and scroll down to the bottom for the commercials and click.

Sweet. Truly sweet.

Another Open Thread.

Discuss anything again.

Suggested topics?

How are we suppose to stop relying on foreign oil if we can't even drill in a frozen tundra?

Why are Republicans such wimps and compromisers when they are in power? At least the Democrats knew how to mow over the Republicans the 40 something years they were in power.

Did San Francisco even watch the looters on TV during Katrina? Can anyone say..."earthquake?" Trust me, you are going to want your gun then.

Star Power!

I saw Sen. John McCain on The Jon Stewart show night before last. He is, without question, the wittiest politician to go on the show. He is able to keep up with Stewart joke for joke and that is a pretty amazing feat. I have only seen the really big comedians be able to do it as well.

Yeah, yeah, everyone here knows I love John McCain. I love him despite his sins. Despite all the compromising, the gang of 14, the big ego, and the MORTAL sin of finance reform that ticked off every libertarian on the planet.

I keep telling everyone he is the only one with the star power and charm to beat Hillary in 08'. I hope powers greater than me (like the RNC) see that as well.

I won't sit here and gush about him being a true war hero in every sense of the word and his years of public service because we all know that isn't important in a Presidential election....;-) What IS important is "perception" and the overall feeling Americans get from their candidate. That is the way it is.

Watching him on Jon Stewart convinced me even more. If he can charm Stewart (and he did) and Stewart's lefty audience then he can certainty charm America. And charm is one thing Hillary is severely lacking in.

I might mention one more thing and then I will try and put off my cheering for him until closer to the election. McCain can't raise his arms above his shoulders because they were broken so many times in the 6 yrs he was in a POW camp. (one in which he could have left early because of his dad, but wouldn't leave his men) So every time he is suppose to raise his arms in the politician wave, America will be reminded of his sacrifice and his service to our country.

Let's see Hillary beat that.

What does this say about us?

I hadn't heard much about the school shooting in Tennesee on the news, so I decided to google it. This was about all I came up with.

A Principal at a high school gets shot dead by a student and we hardly notice. Maybe because of things like this. Even high school football games have become deadly.

I see this over and over in this country. We become numb to the evil that surrounds us. We shrug or shake our heads and wonder what can be done, and then off we go to Starbucks.

Was Columbine so awful that everything else seems tame in comparison?

Yes I know, I know...

Lots of things happening! I'm busy here!

Bombings in Jordan.

When will the sane people in the Middle East truly step up to the plate to fight terrorism?

Oil executives explain to Congress why they are in the business to make money.

I know I am not objective on this, but give me a break. When you are in the oil business it is feast or famine. We have been through 7 layoffs. Lawmakers don't seem too interested in us when we lose our jobs, do they? American Oil Companies in no way control the price of oil. Do the American people know this?

Another investigation of a leak?

Yeah, I know. It's probably payback. Here's an idea. How about the Justice Dept. START SAYING NO TO STUPID INVESTIGATIONS. No one in America cares about leaks. Really.