Al Gore's climate change scaremongering took another hit yesterday when the Minority Staff of the Senate Environment and Public Affairs committee released a report documenting how over 400 influential scientists from over two dozen countries had disputed human-caused global warming claims during 2007.  This report is available  at http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport  Although this report will not be approved by Committee Democrats, including the committee's bird-brained chair California's Barbara Boxer, it contains a lot of useful information including biographical information on these scientists and links to their research. Examples of findings from these scientists is that fluctuations in the earth's climate have occurred throughout history and that there is nothing unprecedented in recent climate change, the silliness of the idea that one can change the earth's climate as if it were the temperature on their home thermostat, that solar winds and cosmic radiation affect global temperatures, that global warming has happened several times in the past, that claims of carbon dioxide increases being climatically harmful are absurd,  that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, and that the media should think about the psychological damage it is doing to inviduals, particularly children, with its hyperbolic reporting on climate change issues.

This report's release on the first day of winter in the northern hemisphere is particularly appropriate and we can only hope it pours cold water on the demagogic hysteria being perpetrated by Airhead Al Gore and his pseudo-environmental and pseudo-scientific hucksters in the media, certain sectors of academe, and in some governmental policymaking circles.  Another useful piece of information recently announced by Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, the ranking member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, is that the Congressional Budget Office http://www.cbo.gov/ has recently released information showing that the emissions cap and trade schemes favored by Gore and his ilk are essentially fraudulent and will have the effect of redistributing financial resources from poorer individuals to more affluent ones.

With the imminent arrival of the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire presidential primaries so soon after the new year, there has been even more emphasis on the pivotal role these two states play in the presidential election process.  For as long as I can remember, both of these states have assumed its their divine birthright to be the first to anoint the Democratic and Republican presidential front-runners, if not determine the presidential nominees for both of these parties.  I have nothing personally against Iowa and New Hampshire.  I've enjoyed the times I've traveled in these states and appreciate their unique histories and scenery.  But enough is enough and it's time for  Congress to intervene and give some other states the opportunity to cast the first votes in future presidential election campaigns.

One way this could be done would be dividing the U.S. up into regions such as the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, South, Midwest, Mountain West, and West Coast/Pacific and give primary or caucus voters in individual states within those regions the opportunity to cast their ballots first in the early stages of the nominating process e.g. January/February.  Under this system, which could begin with the 2012 nominating season, sample states for each region which could go first might include Maine, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Indiana, Utah, and Hawaii.  In subsequent presidential election years, you could designate other individual states from those regions. 

Census Bureau regional geographic designations could be used to assign states to particular regions.  After the January/February time frame for each year states, could have the freedom to choose when they want to have their presidential primaries in March and later.  This would give more states and their primary voters the legally mandated opportunity to choose their parties presidential nominees, it would require presidential aspirants to visit states besides Iowa and New Hampshire during the year leading up to these primaries and become conversant in issues of interest to people in those states, and it would provide enormous economic benefits to those states.  Most importantly it would give voters in states besides Iowa and New Hampshire to feel more directly engaged in the presidential nominating process at its outset and increase participation in this nominating process.  It's time to end Iowa and New Hampshire's presumption of presidential electoral pretentiousness and let other states and their people's have a crack at being the first to vote for the next President.

The ACLU and their useful idiot allies in the liberal media and Congress are aghast that the CIA destroyed tapes of interrogations they did of Al Qaida prisoners a few years back.  These tapes showed these terrorists being waterboarded which the "tender sensitivities" of these terrorist apologists like those just mentioned consider "torture."
Heaven forbid, that we actually try to produce actionable intelligence from these sadistic scumbags before they and their colleagues have the chance to commit attacks against U.S. military and civilian targets!  Do these dimwitted critics of coercive interrogation think that releasing such tapes will help us in our efforts to defeat terrorism?  Do they ever stop to consider that release of such tapes might be beneficial to our enemies by revealing our methods for interrogating terrorist operatives?  Has anyone in our national security policymaking community told the ACLU to butt out of matters that are not it's business?  Isn't it time the government started cracking down on the ACLU and its efforts to obstruct national security policymaking?  (Such a crackdown on the ACLU, including seizing organizational financial assets, would also have positive effects on our society in areas such as criminal justice and social policy given the ACLU's abysmal record of supporting the wrong side on practically every public policy issue.)

Our intelligence community needs to have nearly complete freedom of action to gather and exploit intelligence from our enemies without interference from amateurs such as interest groups, Congress, or the courts who have no understanding of the issues involved in conducting interrogations of hostile terrorists and military forces.  The tapes should only be used by our intelligence community for training and information archival purposes.  We cannot hope to defeat Islamist terrorists by tying our hands behind our backs and engaging in ritualistic orgies of rhetorical self-flagellation about how we "don't want to become like the terrorists."  We need to remember that we are not engaged in an abstract philosophical debate in Plato's cave or enlightment Parisian salons but in the mortal combat of a religious war between Judeo-Christian values of religious and political liberty and totalitarian messianic Islam which seeks to extinguish the human soul in the medieval dungeon of a Taliban-dominated world.

Conservatives have reflected great diversity of opinion and angst over whom to support as the next President.  The candidates in the Republican field each have significant strengths and weaknesses.  The winner of the Repubican nominee will face a formidable challenge from the Democrat candidate whether that individual be HIllary Clinton or Barack Obama and dealing with a public frustrated over the protracted war against terrorism, frustrations over real or perceived Bush Administration policy failures,  and economic anxieties stemming from high energy prices and serious problems with the mortgage housing industry.

When this campaign season began, I was concerned over who would be the best individual to carry the conservative banner in 2008.  Over the summer  of 2007 and beyond, I have become increasingly convinced that Mitt Romney is the person best suited to assume the presidency and promote conservative governance.

Let's start with the issue of Romney's Mormon religion.  As a Protestant Reform Calvinist, I have serious problems with aspects of Mormon theology.  We need to remember, though, that we are electing a commander-in-chief instead of a theologian-in-chief.  We also need to examine the practical and moral impact of the policies a president will advocate and implement.  I believe that the policies a President Romney will advocate  and implement are Christian friendly and sound public policy.  It is better for a political leader to advocate and implement policies which are Christian compatible (even if that individual may not be to our overall theological liking) than to have a President who proclaims they are a Christian but supports abortion on demand, same-sex marriage, and other policies antagonistic to Christian morality and good quality governance.  Consequently, I would support a secularist conservative over a liberal Christian for public office due to the overall quality of their policies and, hopefully, because their personal lifestyle reflects Christian compatible standards of integrity.

Some Conservatives have criticized Romney for his purported "flip-flops" on abortion and same sex marriage.  Why are these critics upset because Romney has joined the right side of these issues?  His experience as Massachusetts Governor with court-mandated same-sex marriage had a profound effect on him and played a critical role in his move to our side.  We would do well to remember that new converts to a cause often bring greater energy and enthusiasm to a cause than those who have been walking the walk and talking the talk for serveral years.

Romney brings excellent business experience which will prove effective in managing the federal government, cutting waste, and seeking administrative reforms.  Even though Massachusetts is a heavily Democratic state, he used his intellectual firepower to convince legislators of the need to implement reforms to rectify the state's large budget deficit when he took power in 2003.  Romney is also a good listener who can incorporate intellectually credible viewpoints from diverse sources into his policymaking.  I believe Romney is the smartest fo the Republican candidates and will be able to make a strong and compelling case for restoring conservative principles of governance after the disappointing decline of some of these principles during the Bush Administration.  I also believe he is best-suited to holding together the Republican coalition of national security, economic policy, and social policy conservatives.  Romney will also be able to more than hold his own intellectually against Clinton and Obama.

Romney earned my enthusiastic support by saying we should expand Guantanamo Bay as a site for holding terrorist detainees.   He has a realistic understanding of the long-term nature of our struggle against Islamist terror.  I also believe he has the communication skills to bluntly tell Americans this reality and to explain  the reality of the protracted nature of this struggle in a way the Bush Administration has been reluctant to.  He also recognizes the abject failure of current immigration policy and would implement tough but fair immigration policies to enhance national security, promote societal cohesion, and retain our anglocentric cultural ethos.

Romney will bring his extensive managerial and executive administrative experience as governor to managing the federal government.  He will seek to eliminate waste and duplication in federal programs which, as we conservatives know, is rampant in areas of federal policymaking such as agriculture, intelligence, social assistance programs, health care, environmental policy, statistics, and so many other areas.  His proposal to effectively eliminate taxes on savings is also something true fiscal conservatives should enthusiastically embrace.  Conservatives should strongly support policymakers who favor governments, like individuals, living within their means and saving for a rainy day.  Those who save money should be rewarded instead of penalized by the federal tax code.  I also believe Romney will seek to enhance the efficiency and fairness of the tax code by moving toward a flat rate income tax.

I also believe Romney's judicial appointments will be of individuals whose constitutional philosophies are comparable to Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas.  A President Romney will appoint judges  who interpret the law as our constitutional framers intended, not interject faddish liberal interpretations, and resist the temptation to usurp the roles of elected legislators, governors, and the President.

Rudy Giuliani would be strong on defense which is a critically important value in my estimation.  He has serious problems with his immigration policy stances.  He also has trouble working effectively with people of different viewpoints.  His liberal positions on abortion and homosexual rights are extremely disappointing and his marital track record is also appalling.  I could see him as Secretary of Homeland Security or in a prominent criminal justice position but he is not presidential material.

John McCain has a distinguished military and public service record.  However, his campaign finance legislation is a blatant infringement on our First Amendment rights and his de facto support for illegal alien amnesty cannot be pardoned.  I am also concerned over his reluctance to support coercive interrogation techniques on terrorists which is abysmally ignorant given the fact that effective interrogation of such individuals to extract timely and actionable intelligence requires using unpleasant tactics.

Mike Huckabee has an appealing  and unpretentious personality and was a reasonably effective governor.  Unlike some conservatives, I'll give him a break on state tax increases because he had to work with a Democratic legislature and because there are some instances when state governments need to raise taxes because the services carried out by some state government programs cannot be done by local governments or the private sector.  I am opposed to his national sales tax which would disproportionately hit the poor and usurp states rights to impose  sales taxes.  Do you really want to be reminded ot federal taxes everytime you buy something at the store?  I also find Huckabee's permissive stance on illegal immigration troubling and his paroling a convicted rapist who went on to murder a woman reflects seriously flawed Michael Dukakis-like judgement.  I am also strongly opposed to his apparent embrace of protectionism as a way of coping with economic uncertainty.

We need a President who supports expanding U.S. access to the global economy instead of restricting the access of U.S. businesses and consumers to this economy.  Have we not learned anything from the Smoot-Hawley tariff of the great depression?  We need to have educational programs in this country promoting the essential value of expanded free trade from elementary school thru college.  Being able to spout evangelical Christian rhetoric like Huckabee does is not enough.  Sound policies and sound conservative  intellectual and ideological principles behind those policies must be the basis of a presidential candidate's campaign.

This election is ultimately about having the intellectual substance, communication skills, and the personal character necessary to be President and to fearlessly confront the domestic and international  challenges and opportunities facing our country.  Mitt Romney has the proper historical understanding of our governing principles, professional experience, personal temperament, principled leadership, and moral character necessary, as today's  Texas A&M speech demonstrated, to represent our country on the domestic and international stages.  His communication skills give him the ability to persuasively promote conservative policies to moderates and independents.  He has the ability to intellectually demolish Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's fatally flawed visions and policies to win the general election.  I firmly believe that Mitt Romney is the man capable of providing the quality conservative leadership and vision our country needs at this time in its history and call on conservatives to support him.

Recently, I mentioned that Australian Prime Minister John Howard, despite his succesful economic management and overall political leadership, was facing defeat in Australia's elections.  That loss, unfortunately, came about this past Saturday as the Conservative Liberal-National Party coalition was defeated by the Labour Party and the coalition's 11 plus year run in power comes to an end.  Labour was able to capitalize on a desire for change, hysteria over climate change, and stimulating hysterical opposition to the Howard Government's Work Choices legislation which would give employers more flexibility in hiring and firing workers.  Unfortunately, the mythology of the aggrieved worker still retains a powerful hold in the Australian psyche and, since the Labour Party is heavily influenced by unions, Work Choices is likely to be overturned.

Kevin Rudd, the incoming Prime Minister, has moved his party to the right and will probably govern pragmatically on most issues.  Unfortunately, his Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard, is a hectoring and patronizing leftist termagent cut from the genetic and ideological code that produced Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer.  Gillard will be in charge of workforce policy and her experiences and pronouncements in this position should be instructive to anyone who wonders what a Hillary Clinton presidency could be like.

A key test for Rudd will be whether he maintains Australia's commitment to Iraq.  During his campaign, Rudd talked about withdrawing Australian forces from Iraq, where they have done yeoman's work, but maintaining or even increasing their role in Afghanistan.  Hopefully, now that power is within his grasp, Rudd will recognize the critical importance of supporting the Iraqis and have the cojones to stand up to the howling leftists in some sections of his party who want to cut and run.  This would be particularly stupid now that the surge is producing positive results.

A number of Internet resources allow us to keep an eye on events in Australia.  American Conservatives should be particularly grateful for John Howard's principled and resolute leadership and his support for and strengthening of strong U.S.-Australian relations.  We wish him well in his retirement.

Ian Smith, the former leader of Rhodesia (now known as Zimbabwe) died recently in South Africa.  Smith lead the former British colony's unilateral succession from Great Britain in 1965.  This act was greated with indignation by the British Government and much of the politically correct "right thinking" international community in the throes of anti-imperialist sentiment of the 1960s and the utopian belief that all African countries could be successful members of the international community once European "colonial shackles" were thrown of.

Smith sought to promote Rhodesian national sovereignty in the face of this indignant international opposition.  He presciently warned that the tribalism in his country made black majority rule a highly problematic proposition.
Yet the international community lead, sad to say by Britain, ignored Smith's insights and subjected Rhodesia to an international array of sanctions.  Despite these sanctions, Smith's country enjoyed a relatively prosperous and politically democratic existence by African standards.  Civil war in the 1970s took its toll and Smith conceded to a transition to majority black rule by 1980, while warning of problems that would lie ahead.

After Rhodesia changed its name to Zimbabwe in 1980, the country's leadership was assumed by Robert Mugabe whom history will remember as one of the most criminal, incompetent, and sadistic dictators in Africa's contemporary history.  Smith remained a member of his country's parliament for a few years in the 1980s, but was forced to resign after a falling out with the increasingly paranoid and tyrannical Mugabe.  Smith wrote his memoirs in 1997 which bemoaned the condition his country was falling into and died in exile in South Africa.

Zimbabwe, if properly managed and run, should be one of Africa's shining stars.  It has good agricultural potential and had, at one time, an educated populace.  Zimbabwe's agricultural, industrial, and human capital potential have been squandered by Mugabe and his goons in a fit of ethnic tribal victimology, Marxist influenced dictatorial skullduggery, and international indifference.  South Africa, which has the political, economic, and military capability to topple Mugabe's regime on its own, sits in smug indifference because it doesn't want to be seen as vindicating Smith and other critics who warned of the problems of black majority rule in ZImbabwe.
The Organization of African Unity sits on its smug posterior and tries to excuse Mugable and his henchmen.

Back in the late 70s and early 80s, a few prescient observers such as Smith warned that Zimbabwe's transition to black majority rule would not be easy and that there would be problems.  For their sagacious insight, Smith and these observers were denounced as racists, imperialists, colonialists, and other terms of opprobrium from the leftist dictionary.  Yet these critics were right and can now say "we told you so."  White run Rhodesia was far from perfect and Smith was not without flaws, but his country was becoming more prosperous and was on its way to becoming more democratic if it could have been allowed to work out its own development without external interference from a jealous British colonial power and power hungry leftist mobs such as those headed by Mugabe.

Eliminating Mugabe and his despicable regime, whether done by South Africa, or some combination of British Commonwealth powers, would be a signal that African countries are serious about reforming themselves and creating more prosperous and democratic futures for their citizens.  Keeping Mugabe and his criminal thugs in power demonstrates to the world that African countries are more concerned with protecting their political and economic power base at all costs, regardless of their impact on their populations, that they aren't interested in being a constructive part of the broader global community, and are more concerned with engaging in ethnic tribalism and anti-colonial rhetoric than trying to honestly face their problems and improve the lives of their citizens.

There have been incidents of nooses being found in various academic institutions around the country.  Some of this stems from the recent incident in Jena, LA where a noose was placed on a tree in front of a local school.  Because of its association with  lynching, nooses have a particularly unsavory place in  American cultural history.  My hometown Marion, IN received a lot of notoriety in 1930 when a miscarriage of justice resulted in two criminals being hung by a noose in the courthouse square before normal judicial proceedings could commence.  This incident is ably documented in James Madison's 2001 book A Lynching in the Heartland.

The recent recurrence of these hanging nooses are examples of despicable human behavior that cannot be eradicated by "hate crime" statutes or the diversity and sensitivity training hailed as panaceas by adherents of the diversity cult prevalent in our academic institutions.  When such incidents occur, these fools respond by demanding more diversity training and denouncing supposed institutional racism as being responsible for these institutions.  Yet the publicity over these incidents only adds fuel to the fire of the victimology of liberal diversity advocates and emboldens the perpetrators of these disgusting acts.  These activities should be quietly investigated by local law enforcement and the perpetrators should be punished if they can be caught.  Such incidents are only going to decline when educational institutions, particularly universities, stop classifying people as members of groups and begin treating people as individuals who are created in God's image who have strengths and weaknesses he has assigned to them.  The idiotic liberal focus on group identity has to end and liberals must recognize that you can no more abolish racism or other boorish behavior than you can abolish racism or any  other naturally occurring phenomena.

Kentucky's gubernatorial election saw incumbent Republican Ernie Fletcher defeated by Democrat Steve Brashear.
Fletcher, a former congressman, was elected in 2003 with great promise as Kentucky's first Republican governor since Louis Nunn served from 1967-1971.  Fletcher, unfortunately, decided to squander his promise by allowing the state's civil service system to become politicized and his actions subject to criminal investigation.  He paid the price for it yesterday.  Fletcher had come to power in part as a response to public outrage over scandals in the administration of his Democratic predecessor Paul Patton.

As conservatives, it's second nature for us to want to criticize government and, heaven knows, governments at all levels do things and engage in policies that merit criticism.  If we seek to hold political power we must exercise that power morally and responsibly and not engage in gimmicky schemes like Fletcher practiced with the state's civil service that do not improve governmental services but only serve to foster preening egos and fuel the criticism of liberals that conservatives are only interested in money, greed, and power for its own sake.

The incoming Kentucky government is promising to run what it sees as an ethical government.  Remember when Bill Clinton proclaimed his presidential administration would be "the most ethical in history.?"  Kentucky's last two gubernatorial administrations have left a legacy of tarnished corruption that only strengthens public cynicism of the political process.

Although I live in Indiana, I have family ties in the central Kentucky area and received one of my graduate degrees from the University of Kentucky.  I'm saddened when I hear of governmental malfeasance and especially disappointed when the officials of the party I support engage in such corruption.  Fortunately, Kentucky's outgoing Lt. Gov. was critical of Fletcher's conduct but this was not enough to spare the Kentucky GOP from losing the governor's mansion although some other Kentucky statewide elected officials were able to survive.

The moral of this story is that those who elect us expect us to govern with integrity and competence and keep governmental spending under control.

This may seem like a strange title for a posting originating from Indiana.  Oil prices are now approaching $100 a barrel.  There seems to be no apparent end for the upward spiral of oil prices which will have spillover effects in food prices and numerous other areas of economic activity.  Our society needs to take a careful look at how we use energy and to cut out unnecessary uses of energy.  To me, it's more important that existing finite energy resources be used for essential economic activity such as transporting goods and services and transporting ourselves to and from work and for legitimate pleasure activities.  Auto racing is a frivolous and wasteful use of energy resources that could be better used for other economic activities.  (Expect howls of protest from NASCAR nation and other auto racing afficianados).

I don't know how much gas and oil are used in auto races such as the Indianapolis 500 or Daytona 500 but it has got to be enormous for individual races let alone multiplied exponentially for all the races occurring in NASCAR, the Indy Racing League, Formula I, and other forms of auto racing..  (I know ethanol is being more widely used in auto races but it still represents a tremendous waste of energy).  Think about how much more gas and oil we'd have access to if it was not squandered on the adolescent passion for fast driving which I admit I have succumbed to.  Unfortunately, I don't think the Energy Dept's  Energy Information Administration or National Renewable Energy Laboratory have done research or collected statistics on this but that would be a worthwhile use of their resources.

Our discussions of ways to promote more energy sufficiency should leave nothing off the table.  Will our political leaders at all levels, have the guts to question the necessity of auto racing at a time of protracted global conflict with Islamist terrorists and at a time of unending oil price increases?  Will sportscasters have the guts to ask auto racing stars such as Tony Stewart, Danica Patrick, and others why society should indulge their sport at a time of energy resource constraints? During World War II, the Indianapolis 500 was not held due to the need to conserve energy for the war effort.  There's no intellectually credible reason why that could not occur now.  The auto racing energy could use its mechanical and engineering expertise to assist in national efforts to produce more fuel efficient cars and trucks.  I await your flames and, hopefully, thoughtful responses. Real conservatives support conserving our natural resources and making efficient use of them instead of promoting profligate waste.

Tibet's Dalai Lama is currently touring Indiana.  He visited and dedicated a Tibetan cultural center at Indiana University in Bloomington and will be speaking at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana.  I have nothing against the Dalai Lama.  He's a well-intentioned man who's Tibetan people have been wronged by Chinese communist aggression and tryanny.  The hysteria he produces from the Chinese Government is quite remarkable.  It's to bad President Bush kept his White House meeting with the Dalai Lama private out of an unnecessary concern with offending the Chinese.  At least the President publicly appeared with the Dalai Lama at the ceremony where he was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal.  The President should have followed the example of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a fellow conservative, who will publicly meet with the Dalai Lama when he visits Canada in November.

Despite the Dalai Lama's humanitarian character and instincts, it's troubling to hear so many people refer to themselves as "his followers."  This reflects the all to prevalent spiritual vapidity of so many people in this country, and other countries for that matter, that seek to gravitate to any religious figure or belief system outside of Jesus Christ and Christianity.  Their is considerable longing for religious meaning and authenticity but, unfortunately, to many people seek to follow cults or "spiritual advisors" or other philosophical fads without realizing that Jesus Christ is the only way to spiritual fulfillment, personal salvation, nirvana, happiness, or whatever you want to call personal spiritual fulfillment.

The advocates of Hillary style socialist medical care are in a lather over President Bush's veto of the supplemental children's health care (SCHIP) legislation.  You would think the sky is about to fall in on the health care of American children if you believed the petulant whimperings of the Dumbocrats.  The president's veto is a prudent response to an attempt to make more Americans dependent on the federal government for their health care.  Renewing SCHIP under its present guidelines will enable the program to reach truly needy American children.  The proposed expansion of SCHIP is just another Democratic attempt to expand an entitlement program beyond what is necessary.  It would be to much for the Dumbocrats to actually support measures that would increase the ability of people to acquire more health insurance such as being able to buy such insurance across state lines or expand consumer choice in acquiring health care insurance.  Dumbocrat health care wonks such as Hillary and Nancy Pelosi think that individual Americans and their families are intellectually incapable of making such rational decisions and need the intervention and "guidance" of self-appointed governmental health care apparatchiks such as themselves to make critical health care decisions.  Fortunately, it looks like there are enough votes in the House to sustain the President's veto of this liberal power grab.  Nevertheless, make sure your umbrellas are strong enough to withstand the rhetorical tears the Democrats will ejaculate if this legislation is vetoed.

The American political system has allowed groups of all partisan and ideological hues to peacefully participate in the political process.  Such is the genius of the framers in creating the First Amendment.  These groups have often made valuable contributions to our political discourse.  Unfortunately, some of these groups have not made valuable contributions to our political debate.  One of these groups is moveon.org .  This extreme leftist group was established around the time of the Clinton impeachment.  It favored excusing the multiple political, constitutional, and moral crimes committed by the 42nd "President" and urged the country to "move on."  Since then, this pack of degenerate vermin has continued its descent  into the maelstrom of the American left  favoring defeat in the war against Islamist terror and the whole litany of the parasitic leftist blogosphere.  It recently accused General David Petraeus, a decorated soldier with a distinguished intellect and career of accomplishment,  of treason, for which has it been justifiably criticized by multiple sides of the political spectrum.  We need to be even stronger in our criticism of the degenerates at moveon.org  The term I use to describe these twits probably cannot be used on this family oriented forum but, since this organization got their start defending Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky, readers can be creative with their descriptors. 

Osama bin Laden has reared his ugly face, voice, and despicable doctrines again with his newest video designed to coincide with the upcoming 6th anniversary of 9/11.  His latest diatribe contained anti-globalist and anti-capitalist rantings from the orifice known as his mouth.  Such rantings, believed to be inspired by an American dipstick follower of his, are surprising considering the money Bin Laden has used to finance his terrorist network came from his father's construction business and are of capitalist provenance.  Perhaps Bin Laden has been using his free time in his Waziristan cave, or wherever he is, to catch up on his reading and has been drinking from the socialist and antiglobalist fountains of Noam Chomsky, Barbara Ehrenreich, or other socialist secularist pagans a "good Muslim boy" should avoid.  You wonder what entreprenurial Muslims in bazaars, markets, and other Islamic world emporiums think of Bin Laden's latest pseudo economic rantings.  Maybe it will help potential sympathizers of Al Qaida realize that Osama is not good for their financial bottom line.

However, Bin Laden's latest rantings may win him many new converts in the Western world.  Some Congressional Democrats such as Dennis Kucinich might want to embrace Islam based on these new Quranic "revelations."   The  cadre of  unreconstructed socialists,  Marxists, antiglobalists, and anarchists, in leftist student, administrative, and faculty academe, might have found their latest messiah.  Perhaps Bin Laden, will receive lecture invitations from various "progressive" organizations around the globe. Will Osama leave his cave and march in the next antiglobalist rally at an IMF meeting or the Davos Forum?  Will he provide poverty and anti-debt relief advice to Bono on MTV? Maybe Harry Belafonte, Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio, Barbara Streisand, Sean Penn, and other bird-brained leftist actors will make "pilgrimmages" to Bin Laden's hideaway and seek to imbibe of his wisdom.  Stay tuned.

It's good to read about the lives and careers of America's founders.  There are numerous instructive biographies of the lives and times of America's early leaders.  These biographies are of varying qualities with some providing sound analysis of individuals and the times they live in while others bring all the liberal imbecilities of early 21st century America such as  analyzing whether these individuals were homosexual or were emerging feminists or adherents of a supposedly racist, patriarchal, or misognyist society.

Many conservatives are familiar with biographies of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, and other founding fathers.  Another founding father they should become familiar with is Alexander Hamilton.  This summer, I had the distinct pleasure of reading Ron Chernow's magisterial biography of Hamilton.  This framer embodied what would become known as the American dream.  Born in the Caribbean of a unstable family, Hamilton emigrated to the U.S. colonies and served with distinction in the American Revolution becoming an aide to George Washington.  His influence continued to rise as he wrote many of the works in the Federalist Papers which were crucial to ratifying the U.S. constitution.  He became the first Secretary of the Treasury doing much to establish the free market economic conditions that were essential to the U.S.' rise to global economic dominance.  Hamilton also is largely responsible for creating the U.S. government's statistical system documenting U.S. government revenues and expenditures and wrote many papers on the economic performance of the U.S. during his tenure as Secretary of State which remain instructive reading two centuries later.  Hamilton also made significant contributions in establishing the U.S. Customs Service which was the collector of U.S. government revenues in the decades before the IRS was established.

Hamilton would experience the slings of political misfortune after Washington's presidency ended.  He had significant character flaws such as an impulsive temper and aggraved "sense of honor" which would ultimately result in his being killed in an 1804 duel with Aaron Burr.  Hamilton also entered an idiotic and immoral affair with Maria Reynolds which saw him get blackmailed by Reynold's husband.

The distinguished historian Forrest McDonald has also written a valuable biography of Hamilton during the 1970s which Townhall contributors would find useful.  Chernow's biography, however, is more expansive, and likely to be more readily available in libraries and print or online bookstores.  Hamilton, alas, lacks a memorial in Washington though you can visit the Hamilton-Grange site run by the National Park Service in New York City.
I encourage you to take the opportunity to read Chernow's adroit analysis of Hamilton's life and career, in all its victories and defeats, when you get the chance.

Later this month, General David Petraeus will release his report to Congress and the President on the status of military efforts in Iraq.  Given the recent progress, U.S., Iraqi, and coalition forces have experienced, particularly in Anbar Province, critics of the war effort will clearly be disappointed that Petraeus won't call for throwing in the towel.
Even though Petraeus' report will likely acknowledge that there are significant challenges to success, the report will mention that the surge has had many beneficial effects and that ultimate results in Iraq cannot be dependent on the short-term political time frame of next year's presidential election or on the infantile attention spans of antiwar critics.

Those individuals favoring a quick U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq are asking for all kinds of trouble for the Iraqi people, regional Mideast stability, the effect on the U.S. military, and the affect on the U.S.' ability to respond to future national security crises and conduct a protracted war against Islamist terror.  I strongly recommend that all who are concerned with Iraq's future, regardless of where they stand on the war, read "Iraq and the Consequences of Failure" by the noted foreign affairs and national security analyst Max Boot.  This article appears in the newest issue of Australian Army Journal at www.defence.gov.au/army/lwsc/Publications/journal/AAJ_Winter2007/journal%209.htm
It provides an invigorating slap of cold water in the face of any war critic who thinks a premature withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq would be consequence free for U.S. national interests, security conditions in Iraq, and regional security conditions.  It shows that however bad things might seem now, they would be made worse by a preliminary U.S. withdrawal.