Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resignation this week concluded a political torture chamber which had gone on for several months and limited the Administrations's ability to effectively communicate why the NSA wireless surveillance program is necessary and why the firings of some US attorneys are politically justifiable.  Gonzales is a good man but he was ill-equipped to be an effective manager of the Justice Dept's complex bureaucracy and he was clueless in how to defend administration programs against rapacious political opponents like Patrick Leahy and Charles Shumer.  If I had been forced to resign like that, I would have delivered as many rhetorical kicks in the groin to Leahy and Shumer as I possibly could in my resignation speech.

Different names have been floated in the conservative and nonconservative political blogospheres as possible replacements for Gonzales.   One name, I've heard which I will heartily endorse is former Missouri Senator Jim Talent who currently is a Heritage Foundation scholar.  Talent has strong substantive knowledge of national security matters and would be a more effective communicator of administration anti-terrorist policies than Gonzales was.  I think he would have a relatively easy Senate confirmation due to the tradition of senatorial courtesy and by the need for the Justice Dept. to have a firm hand on the till who can begin to restore departmental continuity.

Loyalty to friends is an admirable trait, but there is a danger of a President remaining loyal to an official out of friendship even though that official;s performance, whether intentional or inadvertent, has damaged the President's political authority and the credibility of his administration's policies.  All of those things happened with Gonzales, and it's time for the Bush Adminstration and its congressional critics to move beyond the Gonzales affair and focus on important  issues facing the Justice Dept. in areas such as immigration, terrorism,  intelligence gathering., drug policy, and other areas.

Larry Craig has been a good conservative for most of his political career.  Unfortunately, this week's revelations that he apparently solicited a  homosexual sexual encounter with a policeman in the Minneapolis Airport earlier this summer, and that he may have engaged in other similar sordid acts, have shot his credibility to shreds and he should resign to save the Senate, the people of Idaho, and the conservative movement from further damage and embarrassment.

What's especially troubling , besides the hypocrisy of supporting conservative morals and policies than engaging in immoral behavior, is the report that he sought to play up his status as a Senator when he was arrested by the Minneapolis airport police officer.  Why do so many politically prominent figures think they are immune from legal or moral accountability?  The recent arrest of House Veterans Affairs Committee chair Rep. Bob Filner, a San Diego Democrat, over an incident at the Dulles Airport  luggage claim area, is another reflection of the politicians gone wild mentality that  is responsible for legislators having such low public approval ratings.

Craig needs to own up to the fact that he has a problem with homosexuality and seek requisite religious and psychological counseling.  (Assuming there are still psychologists that still believe homosexually is morally aberrant behavior that can be corrected).  His case illustrates the dangerous pervasive spread of this perversion in our culture.  Someone should be able to use a bathroom in a public place without having to worry that a lecherous pervert wants to make a move on them while they are heeding nature's call.  Conservatives need to point out the destructive results of homosexual behavior no matter how much Barney Frank and other political and media apologists for gay rights howl.  Our country is asking for serious trouble if we allow such perversion to persist and continue to believe that sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage is acceptable.

This week's meeting between President Bush, Canadian Prime MInister Stephen Harper, and Mexican President Felipe Calderon should be seen as a normal meeting between North American leaders to discuss issues of mutual concern.  Instead, the meeting has been greated with histrionic foolishness by the antiglobalist left and some xenophobic isolationists on the right who see this meeting as some sinister form of imperialist globalization or an assault against U.S. sovereignty.  Such claims are patent nonsense and reflective of utter stupidity by these critics.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America that these three countries have formed is a result of normal efforts to promote effective policymaking and collaboration between these countries whose economies are increasingly interlinked by NAFTA.  This partnership is also important because our countries must work together to cooperate on issues such as the environment, energy, immigration, and anti-terrorism matters.  Each side can choose how much cooperation they will engage in and no one's national sovereignty is jeopardized.  The partnership's website www.spp.gov/ provides a variety of informative information resources.
As Europe increases its level of cooperation and China and East Asia become increasingly important economic and political power blocs in international affairs, it is in the best interests of the North American countries to collaborate together to promote their interests against the Europeans and the Asians when such interests are in opposition to each other.

It's natural to see the loony left oppose this agreement, but disappointing to see some Conservatives oppose this out of sheer ignorance of how domestic and international government organizations work.  Some of these Conservative isolationists and protectionists need to quit living in fear and get their lazy posteriors on to the websites of government agencies, their congressional oversight committees, and those of their foreign government counterparts to learn how these agencies and international agreements work or don't work effectively.  If they have concerns about how the Security and Prosperity Partnership is working, they should interact with officials from those agencies and their congressional representatives and make constructive suggestions for improving such agreements  instead of spouting ignorant nonsense in oped columns or on their websites.   If they take more constructive approaches, they might actually get invited to serve as consultants or on committees these organizations establish to deal with problems they're confronting.

Karl Rove, the White House political advisor and strategist to President Bush, announced his resignation today.  Although the political winds have been bleak for the President since the Nov. 2006 election, Rove can look back on a remarkable legacy.  His political strategic skills helped lead Bush to two Texas gubernatorial victories and two presidential election triumphs.  In 2002, Rove's skills helped the GOP regained control of the Senate when presidential parties do not, according to political orthodoxy, gain seats in the first off-year election of a presidency.

Rove made mistakes, like any other political strategist, but he enjoyed remarkable success, and did much to motivate conservatives to support the President and thwart the nefarious political designs of his opponents.  Rove is likely to rank high in terms of historically significant political strategists.  Although he does not have a college degree, Rove possesses a scholarly insight that I find appealing.  He is an acute student of the currents of American political history.  He admires President William McKinley and as a librarian specializing in governmental, historical, and political information resources, I eagerly await his projected book that will undoubtedly be a crucial documentary resource on the Bush 43 presidency.  I also hope his book contains some good rhetorical groin kicks against the president's leftist critics.

One of the things I enjoyed the most about Rove was the way he drove the president's leftist critics into apoplectic rages.  Listening to these deranged dimwits, you would think Karl Rove was responsible for every natural or man-made catastrophe since January 20, 2001.   The current outcry of congressional dumbocrats demanding that he testify before them in the U.S. attorneys firing controversy, is particularly enjoyable considering their abject ignorance of how important the confidential advice aides give to Presidents during the policymaking process is to effectual policymaking.  Does anybody want to predict if we will actually see Patrick Leahy and John Conyers froth at the mouth in their rage at Rove?  Now there are a couple of YouTube moments for you.

Being a close aid to the President takes long hours and can impose a toll on one and their family.  I hope Rove can enjoy some down time and look forward to hearing what he has to say in his book.  Thank you for your terrific work and commitment to public service.

John Howard has been a very successful Australian Prime Minister.  Since his conservative Liberal-National Party coalition was elected in 1996, Australia has experienced considerable economic success which resulted in the coalition's being reelected in 1998, 2001, and 2004.  Howard has reinforced Australia's position as a country that punches above its weight in international political and security matters.  Australian forces are currently serving in East Timor, Afghanistan, and Iraq.   They have suffered relatively few casualties in these conflicts so that has not really been a significant factor in dampening Australian morale. Howard has been a stalwart ally of the U.S. in the war against Islamist terror being willing to send troops to Iraq despite the howling of leftist critics at home.  Australian troops remain there today and part of their responsibilities include running the Baghdad Airport.

Howard, nevertheless, is facing a predicament.  Despite generally good economic signs in Australia, although there is concern over rising interest rates and how that might affect mortgages, Howard and his coalition are facing a significant political challenge from the opposition Labour Party lead by Kevin Rudd.  Even the most successful parties and leaders, sometime run out of steam or sometimes public opinion may get excited by the prospect of something new.  Rudd, unlike some Australian leftists, seems to be genuinely supportive of U.S. policy objectives but he would not be as loyal or enthusiastic an ally of the U.S. as Howard and his coalition government have been.  Howard is a very resourceful politician and may yet be able to pull out a fifth term when Australians head to the polls later this year.  U.S. conservatives should do everything they can to encourage Howard and his team and be grateful for the support they've provided the U.S. in the war against Islamist terror.  A key reason for Howard's electoral success, besides his solid record of governance, has been his ability to identify with middle-class "battlers" who work hard and play by the rules to get ahead in life.  Hopefully, Howard will confound his leftist critics and be able to continue pursuing policies that help these "battlers."

The recent compromise on wireless surveillance reached between the Bush Administration and Congress is a step in the right direction although it should be authorized for longer than six months.  A key provision of this agreement is that it allows such surveillance to be conducted if both the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence authorize it.  Bringing the Director of National Intelligence into the process seems an eminently sensible move since it allows for an extra official with an intelligence background the Attorney General may not have  to proofread and provide additional agency perspective on whether such surveillance is necessary.

It's been quite amusing to hear the displeasure many congressional Dumbocrats have expressed at this agreement.   You should ask such individuals if they really want to see another attack against  the U.S. homeland because we were unable to conduct surveillance operations against terrorist operatives due to obsolescent and onerous bureaucratic restrictions?.  FISA laws were enacted during the 1970s, long before telecommunications technologies includied cell phones, personal computers, blackberries, instant messaging, and the panoply of personal communication devices existing today.  Histrionic critics of this prudent legislation should remember that unless they are planning a terrorist attack against Americans or have provided aid and comfort to those planning such attacks that  they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT!  They can go on living their lives and even make idiotic statements about the wireless surveillance program without worrying about federal agents prying into ther lives.  Then again, intelligent analysis has not been a hallmark characteristic of wireless surveillance program critics..

U.S. relations with many countries are often described as "the most important bilateral relationship."  During the Cold War's most intense period U.S.-Soviet relations fit this category.  China's increasing importance in world affairs is often described as the U.S. most important bilateral relationship.  The U.S. also has important bilateral relationships with countries such as Israel and Pakistan and our relationship with India is becoming increasingly important as demonstrated by the controversy over the nuclear agreement we have reached with that country.

However, I think our relationship with Britain remains our most important bilateral relationship.  Since World War and the crucial Roosevelt-Churchill cooperation engendered during that conflict, the relationship between the U.S. and Britain, and the President and Prime Minister of these countries, has been absolutely critical in presenting to the world how the most important democracies respond to global events including security crises threatening our freedoms.  This has proven true in Republican, Democratic, Labour, and Conservative governments.  A sad instance of this relationship not working was when the Eisenhower Administration, in a fit of anti-colonialist pique, decided to not support, but actively oppose the valiant efforts of British Prime Minister Antony Eden's government, to stop up to the terrorist extortion of gasbag Egyptian dictator Gamal Nasser during the 1956 Suez Crisis.

More positive instances of Anglo-American cooperation include the close cooperation during the 1980s between President Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the just ended relationship between President Bush and Tony Blair.  A new chapter in Anglo-American relations began today with Prime Minister Gordon Brown meeting Bush at Camp David.  Brown may not have the deeply warm relationship and chemistry that existed between Blair and Bush.  I think he's enough of a pragmatist to realize that both of our countries need each other and have comparable vital interests.  I also believe Brown is a strong and secure enough person to ignore the leftist isolationist ninnies which still remain influential in the British Labour Party.  His assertive and reassuring response to the recent bombing attempts in London and Glasgow demonstrate a man who's sure of himself.

It is vitally important that British and American foreign and security policies speak from the same general page of the hymnbook.  As the principal exemplars of political and moral freedom in the world, both of our countries must serve as unflinching bastions against individuals and forces threatening democratic governance.  These forces have included Nazism, Communism, and now Islamist terror.  As friends we can pursue different, though hopefully compatible visions on how to fight the threats we face, but we must remain united in our desire to advance political freedom and promote greater religious pluralism in the Middle East.

It is correct to say that the Anglo-Saxon reconciliation that occurred in the late 1800s and the 20th century is of providential derivation.  I believe God wants our countries to stand up for what is right in world affairs and fighting Islamist terror is the right course for us to pursue our national destinies.  May God grant President Bush and Prime Minister Brown and their foreign and national security advisors, the wisdom to continue pursuing our vitally important relationship lest we bring comfort to porcine Islamist terrorist swine who believe they can separate us.

A common feature of Middle East political commentary is the statement that their would be no terrorism, or far less terrorism, if the "Palestinean problem" would be resolved.  What this means, in the finite wisdom of much of the world's diplomatic establishment, is creating a Palestinean state alongside Israel in the misguided belief that such states could "peacefully coexist together."  Nearly six decades of history should put that utopian notion to rest but it's hard to wean a drug addict from their needle or nasal cocaine inhalations.

U.S. administrations of both political parties have let themselves fall for this dangerous nonsense.  So have the United Nations, European Union, and numerous other interested parties.  Let's review some history.  A two-state solution could have been possible at the time of Israel's creation in 1948 if the Palestinean inhabitants of Israel had taken the opportunity they were given.  Unfortunately, they didn't and they were dispersed throughout parts of the Middle East in the aftermath of Israel's successful 1948 independence war.  Rather than recognize this new reality, the Arab world nursed its grievances and like a squealing pig demanded the "right of return" for Palestinean refugees and continued attacking Israel and indoctrinating their emerging generations with pathological animosity toward Israel.

In June 1967, fearing a preemptive Arab strike to wipe out its nation, Israel launched and carried out the audaciously successful Six Day war, destroying multiple Arab armies and regaining control of the West Bank of the Jordan, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula.  {Read Michael Oren's superb Six Days of War for more info on this brilliant military campaign).

Unfortunately, the Arab world didn't learn that it couldn't destroy Israel and it continued cultivating Palestinean resentment and victimhood.  It also launched a skillful diplomatic campaign claiming that it would live in peace with Israel if Israel would retreat to its pre-1967 borders.  Naturally, such a step would be strategic suicide for the Israelis.  Israel has made numerous territorial concessions to the Palestineans and the Arab world in the subsequent four decades but peace and lasting security remain elusive.  The recent appointment of former British Prime MInister  Tony Blair as Middle East envoy, coupled with continuing troubles in Iraq, mean there will again be renewed emphasis on the mythical Middle East peace process.

There will only be a solution to the Palestinean problem when two things occur.  First and foremost, the Arab world must quit clinging to the fantasy it can destroy Israel and use the Palestineans as their vehicle for this.
This will require drastic changes in the world view and educational system of much of the Middle Eastern Islamic world including accepting the reality that it is God's will that Israel exist and prosper.  Secondly, the world and the international diplomatic community must dispense with the delusional notion that there is an ethnically unique "Palestinean" people entitled to their homeland.  The Palestineans are ethnic Arabs and should be assimilated into Arab countries such as Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and others which have stoked their ethnic grievances with blood money payments without demanding any kind or moral accountability from them.  Palestineans, if they chose to live in peaceful tolerance and cooperation, could also choose to become Israeli citizens and become prosperous and influential citizens of Israel if they chose to abandon their independence and Islamist fantasies.  If Palestineans choose to do this, they have a greater chance of economic prosperity, legal empowerment, and political access than they would in most Arab countries.  I believe their are Palestinean members of the Israeli Knesset which is Israel's parliament.

The present Palestinean political factions, Fatah and Hamas, are two sides of the same gangster coin.  Supporting either of them is antithetical to Israel's interests and to our long-term security interests in the region. Both of these parties have been against U.S. security interests as long as they've existed.   Fatah is exceptionally corrupt and Hamas, despite their social welfare promoting veneer, is nothing more than a Mediterranean version of the Taliban.  We should encourage Israel to reclaim Gaza and tell those who don't like this to abandon their Palestinean revanchist fantasies and require the Palestineans to assimilate into the broader regional community instead of clinging to separatist nationalist fantasies that have been aided and abetted by the international diplomatic community for far to long and at grievous human and economic costs.

This is my response to yesterday's House vote calling for troop withdrawal from Iraq.  With apologies to Alfred Lord Tennyson.

On into the valley of appeasement charged Pelosi, Murtha, and their ilk
Forward to political posturing with manure while House Democrats  intend to smell like silk

Theirs not to reason why
Theirs to condemn innocent Iraqis, Americans, and others to die
Their souls to smug and stupid to make credible reply

Such perfidous infamy shall not fade
Yesterday's fecal strewn charge House Democrats made
Dishonors the sacrifices and progress already made
Cowardice to Islamist terror has a new aide-
It's the Pelosi and Murtha deranged brigade.

Al Gore managed to make it into the news over the weekend by participating in the global extravaganza concert to fight  purported global warning.  It never ceases to amaze me that jet setting pop stars and politicos, who are not known for their conservative lifestyles, have the self-righteous gall to tell us how we should live our lives, what kind of energy we should consume, how we should travel, and somehow possess the omniscient wisdom to tell us what is the best way to preserve our global environment.

Gore is the absolute master of hypocrisy in this regard.  This is an individual who leaves an enormous carbon trail traveling all over the world proclaiming his purportedly transcendental environmental wisdom and being treated like a messianic prophet by degenerate galoots who probably don't know the difference between carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.  Gore proclaims his environmental wisdom yet maintains an enormous house in the Nashville area whose monthly electric bill was recently revealed to be $10,000.  As a  basis for comparison, if my wife I had maintained our approximate monthly average electric bill it would take us nearly nearly six years before we paid $10,000.  While Gore is jetting the world spreading his "gospel," his namesake son was in the news for yet another arrest for drug possession.  For normal people, keeping their children away from drugs and trying to be competent parents would be higher priorities, but not for Airhead Al Gore for whom his sacrosant environmental zealotry is more important than his son's well-being.

Just after being elected Vice-President in 1992, Al Gore toured Thomas Jefferson's Monticello and when shown the statues of a number of important figures in early American history such as Benjamin Franklin, John Paul Jones, George Washington, and the Marquis de Lafayette, ignorantly asked "Who are these people?"  During the 1992 vice-presidential debate Al Gore got his butt spanked by the purportedly intellectually inferior Dan Quayle.  Gore refuses to debate prominent Danish environmental alarmist skeptic Bjorn Lomborg who undoubtedly would intellectually take Airhead Al to the woodshed.

Human-caused climate change is a significant personal and public policy issue that needs to be dealt with in a rational fashion and does not mandate heavy-handed governmental regulation as mandated by Gore and his galoots.  It would be easier to take Gore seriously if he actually spent less time traveling the world and took more modest steps such as driving a car with higher gas mileage, planted trees in his yard, tried being a competent parent, and quit kidding himself that he was some self-appointed oracle whose raison d'etre was enlightening "ignorant rubes" such as me about ordinary cyclical weather changes.  However, Airhead Al is so puffed up with his titanic ego and his global army of sycophantic zealots that I doubt any kind of humility is genetically encoded within him.  The best way for Al Gore to fight global warming would be shutting up and encasing himself in a block of ice!

President Bush's recent decision to commute Lewis Libby's unjust  sentence is a welcome step in the right direction although a preemptive pardon would have been nicer still.  Libby had an understandable lapse of memory in the midst of dealing with the heavy workload of being the Vice President's Chief of Staff coupled with the additional stress of having to deal with Patrick Fitzgerald's dubious prosecution against him.  Libby, unfortunately, still has a heavy fine to pay for his conviction and his ability to practice law again is in question.  Still, it was a wonderful early 4th of July present to see the fraudulent Joe Wilson frothing at the mouth over the president's decision.  In his television appearance, Wilson looked like a  dessicated Roman candle  that  has run out of steam.  Perhaps, the Bush Administration should consider sending him and his "socialite operative" wife on a very public mission to examine Iran's nuclear program as a "reward" for their behavior.  I don't think they will have the Washington Post' style section in Iranian prison libraries..  Hearing Charles Schumer froth at the mouth is also delightful.  Perhaps he could accompany the Wilson's on their trip to Iran.  The only request I'd make of the Iranians is no hostage exchanges once the Wilson's and Schumer are in their clutches.

This morning, while driving to work, there was an interview on NPR's Morning Edition with Vermont "Senator" Patrick Leahy.  Leady chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee and was in the news because this committee has voted to issue subpoenas to various Bush Administration officials about the national security agency's wireless surveillance program.  Congressional committees have the legal power to issue such subpoenas, but a desire for justice is not what's motivating Patrick Leahy in this matter.

Leahy has a long standing record of opposition to U.S. antiterrorism efforts and a propensity to leak classified information.  During the 1980s, Leahy served on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.  Those serving on this committtee have an especially solemn obligation to keep tight control over the sensitive information they have access to.  Most Senators, and their House counterparts, serving on congressional intelligence committees keep this information protected.  Not, Patrick "loose lips" Leahy.

During the 1980s, Leahy disclosed classified information that one of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's phone conversations had been intercepted.  Information gleaned from this intercepted conversation  was used in the operation to capture the terrorists who hijacked the Achille Lauro cruise ship in 1985 and Leahy's leaking may have resulted in the death of at least 1 Egyptian operative involved in this operation.  Leaky Leahy struck again when he allowed an NBC reporter to look at the draft of a Senate Intelligence  Committtee report on the Iran-Contra scandal and Leahy was eventually forced to resign from this committee due to his illicit behavior.

Two decades later, Leahy is chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee where he still has access to classified information because that committee has jurisdiction over the FBI, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and other national security matters where preserving classified information is critical.  You would think that Leahy's senatorial colleagues would have learned that it is dangerous to trust him with classified information.

Leahy and his leftist  lugnuts in the Senate are upset over the Bush Administration's wireless surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency against suspected terrorists and their sympathizers.  Leahy and his useful idiot colleagues claim they want to know about the legal rationale used to justify this program.  What they really want to do is cripple our ability to gain actionable intelligence information about the activities of terrorists desirous of attacking the U.S. and our interests.  Leahy really wants to score cheap political points against the President and our antiterrorist policies.  It's beyond Leahy's intellectual and moral capacity to suggest policies that would actually help us fight Islamist terror.  He's more concerned with providing aid and comfort to America's enemies behind a veneer of legal and constitutial rhetorical rectitude.

Unfortunately, Leahy comes from a state that has gone so kooky leftist, that  Vermont town meetings have featured resolutions calling for Vermont to secede from the U.S.  Obviously, the land of Ben and Jerry has not learned that secession has not been a legally viable option since the Civil War.  Perhaps, the Bush Administration should look at imposing an exceptionally punitive form of reconstruction upon Vermont so that state and its increasingly dissolute electorate can learn to vote properly.

I hope Bush Administration officials compelled to testify before Leahy and his committee have the guts to  tell  the Vermont vermin to take his objections to the wireless surveillance program and shove them  up his bodily orifices!

The British Government has just announced that it will knight author Salman Rushdie.  Rushdie's claim to fame was the fatwa to murder him for his novel Satanic Verses  issued by the late and unlamented Ayatullah Khomeini back in the late 1980s.  I'm not really familar with Rushdie's works and since he's associated with leftist literary circles he's probably not real friendly to many conservative ideals.  Still, anyone who earns Khomeini's wrath has at least some things going for him.  Anyway, the British government's decision to designate him "Sir Salman" has gotten the Islamist yahoo movement up in arms.  A Pakistani cabinet minister has expressed outrage over the purported injury this has caused to Muslim sentiment.  No doubt, there will be demonstrations by various literary critics and literary deconstructionists in the Islamic world which will probably result in injuries and death.

I actually think the British government should make a broader distribution of knighthoods and other honors to those who have "offended" tender Islamist sensitivities.  How about President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, British, U.S., and other coalition soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, Israeli governmental, military and intelligence personnel, the Danish cartoonist(s) who drew the Mohammed cartoons, a posthumous honor to the late Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, Ayan Hirsi Ali, and any Jewish, Christian, or other religious leader who hasn't succumbed to multicultural political correctness and has publicly excoriated Islam for the blood-stained legacy it continues bequeathing to the world.  Let me know if there are any other worthy candidates for knighthoods I've forgotten.

Recent years have seen an unfortunate resurgence in the activities and success of death penalty abolitionists.  Thanks to the growing prevalence of DNA testing, numerous liberal journalism school activists, such as those at Northwestern University, have convinced themselves that it is their duty to "liberate" violent criminals from death row.  This situation was made worse a few years ago when Illinois Governor George Ryan, smarting from a self-inflicted political corruption scandal, decided to "ease his soul" by effectively shutting down Illinois death penalty program.  The high-handed sanctimony of European Union criminal justice policymakers who claim that capital punishment is barbaric makes matters worse and makes it impossible for nations desirous of admission to enter the "sanctified" EU if they have the death penalty in their criminal justice statutes.

While mistakes can be made in applying the death penalty to violent criminals they are rare.  You can avoid the death penalty by not committing murder.  It's really very simple but don't expect liberal abolitionist imbeciles to grasp elementary criminal justice and moral logic.  The problem with the death penalty in the U.S. is not that it exists, but that it takes so incredibly long to implement executions.  It can take decades and enormous rounds of appeals before the death penalty can be carried out.

Effective reform of U.S. death penalty laws should begin by eliminating appeals to the Supreme Court for non-federal crimes.  If a burglar kills a liquor store clerk during a robbery their highest round of appeal should be to the governor of the state where the crime occurred.  The federal courts do not need to be clogged with non-federal criminal trials.  Only one round of appeals should be filed and states should get financial incentives such as criminal justice grants for carrying out executions in an expeditious manner.  Organizations such as the ACLU and death penalty abolitionists individuals and organizations should not be allowed to file appeals for sentence commutation of convicted murderers sentenced to death.  That should only be done by the defendant's attorneys if the defendant wishes to avoid execution.

Another thing to ask snide death penalty opponents is how much of your own money are you willing to pay to support a prisoner sentenced to death in lifelong imprisonment which includes feeding, health care, and various other services?  The Indiana Dept. of Corrections website states that is currently costs $58.99 per day and $21,531.35 per year to keep an adult inmante incarcerated in a state correctional facility.  The latest statistics I have for federal prisoner  costs are $19,802 per inmate per year for federal fiscal year 2003.  The 2003 federal figure is an 18.7% increase from 2002.  I wonder how much this has gone up since then.  Let's take the current Indiana figure of $21.535.35 and multiply it by forty years.  If I've done my math correctly that adds up to over $861,000 dollars and that does not account for inflationary adjustments or court or legislative mandated prisoner rights perks that may occur during this time.  Throw figures like this at death penalty abolitionists and see if they're willing to foot the bill.  Ask them if they'd like to adopt a death row prisoner and use payroll deduction to directly subsidize their incarceration?

We wouldn't have so many prisoners on death row if we had a society that prized moral accountability, stable two parent marriages and families, and if our society valued self-control and responsibility.  The best way to avoid the death penalty is simple:  don't commit violent crimes.  Unfortunately, that is probably to difficult a message for liberal death penalty abolitionist and ignoramus European Union bureaucrats to comprehend.

One of the most remarkable developments in the ongoing intellectual and moral struggle against Islamist terror is the emergence of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  She was born in Somalia and later emigrated to the Netherlands where she became a member of the Dutch Parliament becoming an advocate for greater rights for Muslim women and promoting the assimilation of Muslims into Dutch culture.  She achieved notoriety for collaborating with the late Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in making the documentary film Submission about how repressive Islamic cultures degrade and oppress women.  This film incurred the wrath of the Dutch Tabliban School of Cinematography resulting in Van Gogh's murder and Hirsi being placed under police guard.  In an all to familiar show of spineless appeasement of Islamist extortion, the Dutch government eventually decided it would be easier on them if Ayaan Hirsi Ali left the Netherlands.

The Dutch loss is America's gain.  Ali is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute where she researches the relationship between Islam and the West, women's rights in Islam, Islam's role in Europe, and violence against women stemming from religious and cultural arguments.  She is the author of two books Infidel and The Caged Virgin:  An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam. 

She is justifably critical of the role of Islam in promoting terrorism, suppressing women, and seeking to intimidate opponents.  An unfortunate by product of this belief is her secularism.  Nevertheless, she is a force of courage, passion, and reason freedom loving countries and individuals should look at with appreciation in the years to come.  She could drive her Islamist enemies even more crazy by converting to Christianity.  That would be the ultimate intellectual and moral coupe de grace against her critics.

You can learn more about Ayaan Hirsi Ali and read some of her work at http://www.aei.org/scholars/filter.all,scholarID.117/scholar.asp

In a world where far to many people have naive and ignorant beliefs about the true nature of the Islamist enemy, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a welcome breath of fresh air and uncompromising realism.