REPUBLICAN ARLEN SPECTER - READ YOUR CONSTITUTION

Rhino Republican Arlen Specter former Chairman and current ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee stated in reference to the President being, as Bush put it, "the sole decider, " concerning military strategy and deployment wrongly asserted that " the decider is a shared and joint responsibility." Specter was claiming that according to the Constitution the President of the United States and the United States Congress share responsibility for deciding the use of, strategy and deployment of the military. For one who claims to be a Constitutional lawyer and considered by many to be a learn'ed man when addressing Constitutional matters, this supposed, "expert, " missed the mark by a long shot on this one.

Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution states, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into actual Service of the United States." As Commander in Chief he is the sole officer of the government responsible for the use of the military in, "service of the United States." As Commander he is responsible for deployment orders, strategy, and the exercise thereof of all military service when defending this nation. He is the Constitutionally charged civilian authority over the military when the armed forces are called into service.

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states - each of the following are clauses of this section pertaining to the Congress and the military:

To declare war.....To Raise and support Armies.....To provide and maintain a Navy.....To make Rules for the Government and regulation of the land and naval Forces.....To provide forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union.....To provide for organization, arming, and disciplining, the Militia.

Each of the Congressional Constitutional responsibilities calls for either provision, discipline or regulation of the military and not assisting in command, deployment or the development of strategy.

The responsibility of a Commander whether Commander in Chief or a field Commander is the development and execution of military strategy and the decided use of both military personnel and equipment. The Founding Fathers assigned this responsibility to the President in order to prevent long and drawn out debate by the many members of Congress as to the use of and the Command and control of the military. Their decision to Constitutionally assign the responsibility of civilian command solely to the President was to allow quick action in defense of the nation and equally as quick decision making for strategy to protect this nation and the soldiers in the field rather than having them wait for the havoc that would ensue if every member of Congress were to debate military in field service.

For Arlen Specter to contend that Congress has equal responsibility in the service of the military is not only misreading the Constitution but an attempt to usurp the command authority of the President. Congress controls the military purse strings but the command and control of military activities and the deployment of forces when the military is in the service of the nation belongs solely to the President.

Ken Taylor

IRAQ VET MISTREATED AT, "PEACE, " PROTEST

One of the shameful and disgusting memories of the Vietnam era was the treatment of our troops when they returned home. Many were spit upon, verbally abused and some were even physically assaulted by gangs of anti - war activists all in a form of protest against the Vietnam War. These actions were then and are still now inexcusable and this nation pledged NEVER to allow our service men and women to be demonized and mistreated again. That is until the peaceniks have once again shown their anti -war face in opposition to United States presence in Iraq.

Sean Hannity has been documenting on his radio and television program the story of Army Cpl. Joshua Sparling. Cpl. Sparling was severely wounded in battle in Iraq causing extensive damage to his leg and has been in Walter Reed Hospital in Washington since returning to the United States to recover from his wounds. Cpl. Sparling had been trying to save his leg and has experienced numerous surgeries and skin grafts to accomplish this all in the hopes of returning to his Unit and continue the fight that he sacrificed for and whole heartedly believes in. Unfortunately the Cpl. lost his battle to save his leg and in December it was amputated and he is now going through the rehabilitation process and being fitted with a prostheses.

Last weekend Cpl. Sparling left Walter Reed and went to the Washington Mall to meet the anti - war protesters and attempt to express to them his feelings about his duty and his support for the war. At one point he did have the opportunity to address a group who was meeting just off the Mall and had a cordial response though they disagreed with Sparling's beliefs and conviction.
Afterward he went to the Mall and joined a large group of soldiers and Iraq supporters who were peacefully expressing their opposition to the anti -war protest. When Sparling was discovered to be a wounded Iraq veteran is when the trouble began.

Many of the, "peace, " protesters began taunting him with the Vietnam era chants of , "baby killer, " and actually making fun of and telling him he , "got what he deserved, " in reference to the loss of his legs. The peaceniks then began raising the rhetoric to the point that several spat at Cpl. Sparling with one actually hitting the veteran and several had to be held back by park police because they were threatening to as they put it, "take out, " Cpl Sparling and three in particular stated that they would, "get him, " when the police were not there to protect him.

So is this the anti - war crowds idea of, "supporting the troops, " while being against the war ? This again shows the hypocrisy of those who claim support for the troops while condemning their mission. One goes hand in hand with the other. Those at the anit - war rally only expressed what they truly feel about out soldiers with their actions toward Cpl. Sparling as they protest the war and the very men and women that are making tremendous sacrifice to protect their freedom to protest as well as defending our other liberties.

An entire generation of American service men and women were treated like criminals and returned home to scorn rather than gratitude for their service and sacrifice. We swore it would never happen again, yet here we are at war and once again many are leaving our troops hanging out to dry. The Senate is poised to vote for a useless resolution that does nothing but express to the troops that our elected officials do not support them and emboldens the enemy into believing that if they continue to kill our brave men and women the United States will run rather than stand. The truly criminal act is not the mission that our soldiers are so bravely and successfully fulfilling nor their loyalty and belief in their duty, but rather the blatant and continual rhetoric and actions of elected officials especially those on the left, the anti - war crowd and the vocal leftists who are pursuing an agenda that is bringing retribution to our troops and undermining their mission and their moral.

Cpl Sparling and the thousand of heroes who wear the uniform in service to this nation deserve better. They deserve our praise, our thanks and our complete and determined support in what they do, their sacrifice and their voluntary and loyal commitment to their duty, this country and freedom! Thank you Cpl. Sparling for your service and sacrifice. Though I do not abide in any way the actions of those who attacked you at the Mall or the Senators who do not support you, I offer this apology as a grateful American for their crude and cruel treatment of you. There is NO excuse nor any reason for it. And to you and all of our bravest and finest thank you for your service, sacrifice and commitment to the cause of freedom both here at home and abroad.

Ken Taylor

IRAQ IS NO VIETNAM - THE SUNDAY COMMENTARY

"Bringing back memories of Vietnam, " or , " Iraq has become a quagmire like Vietnam, " or, " just as in Vietnam, " or this famous misleading quote from Senator Ted Kennedy, "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam." I heard the news reports from Saturday's protests against our presence in Iraq until the comparisons of Iraq and Vietnam made me sick to my stomach. 60's throwback icons like Susan Sarandon, and, "Hanoi, " Jane Fonda were among the , "celebrities, " who spoke at the Washington Mall. Now that a new generation is listening to politics , "Hanoi Jane, " has decided to come out of the anti-war closet thinking that the newbies have not heard of her traitorous acts during Vietnam when she visited the North Vietnamese stating that our troops were war criminals and then at the , "Hanoi Hilton," an infamous POW prison in Hanoi the capitol of North Vietnam attempted to coax our soldiers into admitting their, "war crimes, " against North Vietnam. Well Ms. Fonda we do remember and we still hold you accountable for your acts and still consider you a traitor.

Accounts of the protests range from a few thousand to over 100 thousand, the latter estimated by the organizers of the protest but denied by Mall park police. This is the first misconception as a Vietnam comparison. The protest of the 60's were many times extremely violent and when they met at the Mall the numbers were in the hundreds of thousands. Many of those who protest today are left overs who still live in the 60's and jump on any, "anti," band wagon to bring back old times. The , "Hey, Hey, Ho, Hoers, " and the rhymers were in abundance. While there is opposition to Iraq it is small in comparison to Vietnam

The only true comparison of Iraq and Vietnam is the way it is being used as a political tool and that the Democrats are threatening to defund the war or restate the use of force authorization issued in 2001 in order to tie the President's hands and leave the troops abandoned as was done near the end of Vietnam.

Unlike Vietnam US loses are minimal in comparison. Combat deaths in Vietnam range from a low figure of 57, 605 to a high figure of 58, 159, with the number on the Vietnam War Memorial at 58, 178. Iraq combat deaths as of January 27th are at 3, 079. The Iraq invasion was in March of 2003 which equates to 46 months in theatre and an average of 67 American loses per month. United States combat involvement in Vietnam lasted nearly ten years with a peak total of 553, 000 troops in 1969. The peak years of combat were from 1964 - 1971 with total combat loses of 56, 009 during the eight year period. This is an average of 7002 American loses per year, which is a far cry from the totals of Iraq. While every soldier lost is a tragedy especially for their loved ones the distortion by the media and the left with continual body counts and Vietnam comparisons is ridiculous.

Unlike Vietnam we are fighting an enemy that attacked us. Many on the left try to spin that Iraq is not part of the global war against terrorism but the evidence and the truth shows otherwise. While Iraq was not directly involved with 9/11, documents are numerous showing Hussein's support financially to Al Qaeda and many forget the terrorist training camps especially that which contained an aircraft fuselage used for teaching the most effective way to hijack a plane. Also forgotten were the murals showing planes hitting the twin towers with Iraqi symbols on the planes. Additionally there are continual reports of battles against Al Qaeda in Iraq and the call by their leaders to their loyalists to continue the fight with the US in Iraq.

Where Iraq has similarities to Vietnam lies in the continual media bias against the war and the use of their influence to shape American opinion and feelings about the war. As in Vietnam every news account makes mention of a body count not as a memoriam to those who have sacrificed but as a tool to turn the country against the war. And as in Vietnam this tactic is working. The other similarity is the political use of the war to push an agenda. Democrats are using Iraq to hammer at the President and in so are assisting the media in turning the nation against the war. Political badgering played a pivotal role in turning America against Vietnam and it is doing the same today.

The President mentioned at the end of the State of the Union Address that, "our cause in the world is right." While most in retrospect see little justification to Vietnam the goals and accomplishments in Iraq are just and necessary. While many on the left claim otherwise in their political use of the war, our troops have brought freedom from a tyrannical regime to more than 50 million people. We have eliminated a threat to the world through the distribution of weaponry both conventional and WMD that were being and would have been used by Islamic radicals in their Jihad against the United States. Victory in Iraq brings with it a free ally, a stability through Democracy in the region, the elimination of a harbor of terrorism and a country who terrorist would use as a base of operations. It also brings with it a weaker Iran as a free nation will be at Iran's border showing the people of that Islamic terror state what freedom is and that they too can have a country free of the Islamic radical influence.

Ken Taylor

APOLLO 1 - HEROES REMEMBERED

It was a crisp , by Florida standards, January 27th when 40 years ago Virgil, "Gus," Grissom second American in space and veteran of Mercury and Gemini flights, Ed White, Gemini veteran and first man to walk in space and Roger Chaffee the rookie, were lifted to the top of the powerful Saturn V rocket and entered the first Apollo space capsule for a test launch simulation to prepare for their upcoming flight which would usher in NASA's quest for the moon. The Apollo capsule was new technology in 1967 and far advanced of the previous Gemini and Mercury systems which had launched America's manned space program. It was also built by a new contractor to NASA, North American Aviation, and had proven to be a complicated night mare that had numerous minor cliches that had shown in previous system tests but none of which was considered enough of a problem to cancel the mission and the manned launch simulation designed to test the performance of the Command Module operating on internal power for the first time. If successful the launch was scheduled for February 21 and a two week orbit around the earth as the first phase in the eventual flights to the moon.

Grissom, White and Chaffee entered the Command Module at 1PM expecting a short countdown and launch simulation but problems immediately began to surface. The first delay until 2:20PM was caused by a sour smell in Grissom's suit, finally at 2:45 the hatch was sealed and pure oxygen was pumped into the craft. Further problems developed from oxygen sensor alarms to continual communication problems backing the test up until 5:40 PM when it was put on hold. Most of the countdown procedures had been completed by 6:20 PM but the count was held a T - minus 10 minutes at 6:30 to again fix communication problems.

At 6:31 PM Roger Chaffee's voice was heard over COM link, "We've got fire in the cockpit." A few seconds later the transmission ended with cries of pain. Ed White was seen on monitors attempting to open the hatch but because of several hatch bolts it could not be opened quickly. The hatch also opened inwardly in order to create a stronger seal in the cockpit and because of the hot gases from the fire the hatch was impossible to open. Within seconds the pressure was so high it eventually ruptured the capsule. Because of the fire and the need to extinguish the flames it took an additional five minutes for the ground crew to open the hatch and by that time the three crew members had sucommed the fire. Though their suits had melted to the point that Grissom's and White's suit had fused together and they each had extensive burns it was determined that they had died from smoke inhalation.

Their sacrifice caused a redesign of the internal systems of the Apollo Command Module correcting numerous flaws in both the working systems in the craft and the design of the interior making it more accessible to the crew. These three brave American's who gave of themselves in the exploration of space paved the way for the success of future flights and the eventual landing on the moon by Apollo 11 in July of 1969. Astronauts in the Apollo program consider their success to be on the shoulders of the crew of Apollo 1 and each successive flight paid tribute to the bravery and sacrifice of , "Gus, "Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee, American heroes.

Ken Taylor

DEMOCRATS AND IRAQ - A NEVER ENDING FLIP FLOP

The Senate is poised to confirm Lt. Gen. David Petraeus as the new Multi National Commander in Iraq who stated that he could not fulfill the mission without the addition of 21, 000 troops that the President is sending. Despite this confirmation of strategy by the new commander the Senate led by the Democrat majority is preparing to pass a resolution against the policy and the House is promising to follow suit as promised by Nancy Pelosi. Democrats have continually flip flopped concerning Iraq and the video below is just a small reminder of the continued hypocrisy that Democrats have displayed on Iraq.



Democrat Hypocrisy on Iraq

"THE STATE OF OUR UNION IS STRONG !"

In his sixth State of the Union Address last night President Bush declared the strength of our Union. This statement is typically at the beginning of most State of the Union Addresses but the President chose last night to appropriately end his annual report to the Congress with this statement about our nation. The speech covered a myriad of initiatives ranging from decreasing our oil energy consumption by 20% in the next ten years to a payroll deduction program for health care designed to allow the uninsured through eliminating the deduction according to family or single status at a certain income level thus allowing a savings in payroll taxes substantial enough to allow for the purchase of health insurance. This was combined with a usual laundry list that the President would like to see pass through Congress but with the Democrats in the majority passage possibilities are slim unless Bush can find some of the newly elected to side with his proposals. With Nancy Pelosi in the House and Harry Reid in the Senate opposing anything that comes from the White House this is not likely since they have a strong arm hold of loyalty from the newly elected.

Now to the portion of the Address that was most anticipated, the war and especially the troop increase that is being instituted by the President. Several times during this portion of the Address which encompassed that last nearly half hour of the speech President Bush made several references to the war and not only the necessity of victory but outlined the consequences for The United States and the Middle East if the war effort were to fail. Many of the victory references were directed to the fight against the common enemy and not mentioning the, "new strategy, " nor Iraq just the defeat of terrorism and those that use it as a means to attempt to force their radical Islamic beliefs of others. A very telling reaction on the part of Democrats occurred in three specific moments during these references to victory or achieving a goal that leads to success in the war. The Democrats not only did not acknowledge the call for victory with a standing ovation as Republicans and the Gallery did but they would not even clap in response to the call.

The first of these calls to victory stated, "With the distance of time, we find ourselves debating the causes of conflict and the course we have followed. Such debates are essential when a great democracy faces great questions. Yet one question has surely been settled... that to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy." This was greeted by a standing ovation by everyone.....except Democrats who sat on their hands and their butts!

The second call to victory was, "The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity. And I say, for the sake of our own security ...Wee must." Again met with a standing ovation by all except Democrats who repeated their seat warming gestures.

The third came when the President mentioned a nuclear Iran, "The United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran, and made it clear that the world will not allow the regime in Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons." Again met with a standing ovation by all except Democrats who even with the mention of their beloved United Nations their only response was to warm their seats.

While I did not expect the Dems to respond favorably to anything concerning the battlefield of Iraq because of their opposition to our presence there and their lack of the acceptance of the fact that it too is a theatre in the War against terrorism, their lack of responsee simply to the idea of victory blatantly proves that victory is not only excluded from their vocabulary but is not something that they desire or a policy that they favor but an action in which they oppose. This seat warming response to American victory in the war gave evidence that surrender is the creed of Democrats and withdrawing without victory is their only goal.

After introducing wonderful examples of Americans who shine forth the essence of who we are through their love of country, entrepreneur spirit and heroism both at home and in the ranks of Americas finest as represented by Silver Star recipient Sergeant Tommy Rieman, President Bush closed The State of the Union address with these words of inspiration, " We have been through a lot together. We have met challenges and faced dangers, and we know that more lie ahead. Yet we can go forward with confidence.... because the State of our Union is strong ... our cause in the world is right ... and tonight that cause goes on, God bless!"

Ken Taylor

HILLARY CLINTON - THE RUN BASED ON A LIE

It has now been three days since Hillary, (the Hildabeast), Clinton announced her candidacy for the 2008 Presidential bid. The talk shows, morning news fluff shows and commentators have been buzzing about her possibilities and her viability especially in light of the new media darling Barak Obama. Yet despite his new found celebrity when Hillary announced all eyes focused on her and the whirlwind that surrounded Obama faded. In all of the hype and the speculation that has surrounded her announcement there are two facts that stand out concerning her candidacy and especially how she will be handled by the media for the next two years.

First - her candidacy is based on a lie. I have not heard in any interview, commentary, news sound bite or anything else for that matter one mention of her lie to the people of New York as she ran for re-election as the junior Senator from that state. From the very beginning of her re-election bid she was asked repeatedly whether she was considering a run for the Presidency in 2008 and in every instance either she or one of those assigned as a spokesman for her emphatically denied any thought of running in 08. Infact in several occasions she stated that she was thinking only of 06 and not beyond and that if re-elected she would serve her entire six year term and NOT run for President. The people of New York bought into this snow job because in polls conducted prior to the 06 election the question was asked whether they would vote for Clinton if they thought she was running in 08. The response by New Yorkers was overwhelmingly against her re-election if she planned on an 08 bid. Polls showed that if she was not running in 08 she would win re-election to the Senate with at least 60% of the vote. If she were running in 08 and not completing her six year Senate term she would only receive 35 - 40 % of the vote thus losing her Senate seat. Her deception in New York gained her re-election to the Senate and now just over two months later she fulfills her lie to the people of New York and announces for 08. This is a Clinton trait that she has in common with her husband. She like Bubba beleives that the Presidency is her destiny and she will say or do whatever she has to in order to fulfill that destiny. Truth or lie in the Clinton mind the end justifies the means.

Two - she will NEVER be scrutinized. Hillary has a great deal of baggage to bring into a run for the Presidency. Baggage that stems from her eight years as First Lady with lingering questions concerning her actions while in the White House, ( remember Travelgate?), as well as her involvement in White Water along with a myriad of other questions shrouded around her. Will she receive the grilling on this baggage as other candidates do? No ! The media even in light of the hype with Obama favor Hillary and she receives only favorable reporting and when asked questions she is delivered the largest softballs that any politician has ever received. In an interview on the Today Show this week she was asked about her candidacy and her familiarity as a candidate. She mentioned a statement made by, "a friend, " that she is the most famous woman in the country that no one knows anything about. Of course she said that this was one of the goals of her candidacy to let the American people know who she is. This too is a fallacy that will remain so until election day in November of 08 providing she gets the nomination of the Democrat Party. While Hillary is well known, no one knows her. She is again shrouded in mystery and we see only the superficial image that she wants everyone to see and not the conniving, angry and manipulating woman that those who have worked with her describe. Of those only Dick Morris has survived in the public arena as all other critics have disappeared from public view. For the next two years while other candidates both Republican and Democrat will receive the almost excessive scrutiny both politically and privately that accompanies anyone running for President, Hillary will remain an enigma to the public being portrayed only as she wishes people to see her. In debates, interviews and reporting she will be treated with kid gloves and when questioned will receive softball questions as she always has, designed to make her look and sound Presidential.

The next two years will be a constant barrage of Hillary. While Obama and Edwards do have viable chances of giving her a run for the nomination, she is the , "rock star, " and when all is said and done her liberal ideas will be released to satisfy the base thus gaining her the nomination. Her catch 22 will then come into play as she will have to reverse herself considerably to capture moderates in the 08 General Election which will also cause her to lose liberal support prior to the election. While I see her winning the Democrat nomination her catch 22 situation and her polarizing effect with the electorate, she's either loved or hated no in between, will be her undoing to win the Presidency. Come to think of it she may very well complete her six years as junior Senator from New York! The Hildabeast Watch continues.

Ken Taylor

NOTE - Because of her dropping off daily coverage on the national screen for a time I temporarily dropped , "The Hildabeast Watch, " column. Now that she has announced her candidacy this weekly column will start back up again and can be found in the upper sidebar.

WAR AGAINST TERRORISM, DOES THE LEFT UNDERSTAND ? - THE SUNDAY COMMENTARY

London underground 2005, Madrid, Spain train bombings 2004, Bali 2002, The USS Cole 2000, Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia 1996, The World Trade Center 1993, The World Trade Center, The Pentagon and United flight 93 September 11, 2001. The list goes on. Terrorist attacks in The United States and throughout the world. Attacks that each have their own distinction and method. Attacks that have had devastating consequences to countries, families and individuals. Attacks that were carried out by a host of organizations with names like, Al Qaeda, al-Jihad, Armed Islamic Group, Hezbollah, Hamas and a host of others. Attacks aimed at everyone but whose targets held the precious lives of innocents that became casualties in a war that until September 11, 2001 no one fully realized or accepted actually existed. A war declared specifically against The United States and Israel yet carried out against the entire world. The aggressor in this war follows an ideology that states if one does not believe the same Islamic fanaticism that those who fight this war do then death is the answer and world domination by this ideology is the goal.On September 20, 2001 in answer to this declared Islamic war against The United States and the world President Bush declared a change in policy which recognized terrorism as an act of war and no longer a criminal offense whose perpetrators were sought only by the courts. This war declaration by the President not only sought the entities performing terrorism but the states that sponsored and supplied terrorists and their activities of war. Upon this declaration and change in United States policy the President was applauded by each member of The United States Congress setting aside all party differences heralding as one with the President the resolve of a nation whose citizens and sovereignty had been attacked.

That was more than five years ago and what has changed since then. Have the Islamic fanatics surrendered or declared that they no longer have war like intentions or seek world domination ? No, infact though their capabilities have been greatly diminished thanks to our heroes on the field of battle their resolve has not changed nor have their objectives to kill all who do not follow their ideology and the domination of the world by fanatical Islam.

Has the President changed in the declaration against terrorism and the states that sponsor and supply terrorists ? No infact his resolve seems to strengthen every day as he seeks to defend this nation and fulfill his Constitutional duties, "to preserve, protect and defend." Then have we as a nation lost our resolve to fight terrorism ? To a certain extent we have. Every nation at war grows war weary and this war is no exception. But the constant barrage of negativism that is pounded into our living rooms every day by a main stream media intent on following an agenda that disagrees with the war, we as a country cannot be expected to keep our resolve as all we see because of this bias are perceived failures and body counts rather than success which is in abundance and the heroic efforts and accomplishments of our military.

This then brings us to the final question. The source of the majority of the negativism against the war are liberals and their representative in Congress who have taken every opportunity since shortly after the President's declaration of September 20, 2001 to use the war as a political football to gain power and legislative charge in Washington. They have used every means at their disposal to hamper the war effort, eliminate or tie up tools necessary to fight the war, charge that troops and the President either are or use Nazi like tactics and oppose any and every plan or proposal that has come forth while never offering any constructive idea of their own. There are one of three conclusions that can be made from the actions of the left concerning the war. They either do not understand the real and dangerous threat that Islamic fanaticism poses to this country. Or, they believe that the threat is real but exaggerated. Or they understand the threat and because of a lust for political power do not care and wish only to fulfill their agenda regardless of the consequences to the nation.

If it is the first then it is past time for a wake up call to most Democrats and liberals. Islamic fanatics who seek the destruction of our country and way of life do not care about party affiliation nor whether you understand them or realize their goal. Conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, men, women and children everyone who do not believe as they do is a target by whatever means they can muster for death and they will only be stopped by their on destruction in which this war that we fight has as its first and foremost goal.If they believe the threat is exaggerated then I refer you to the above paragraph. Islamic fanatics do not care what you believe or accept they only want you dead. That is not an exaggeration but a fact!

If fulfilling a political agenda while understanding the threat is the goal of the left then you are an unwitting accomplice in the Islamic fanatics goal of the destruction of the United States. Every political tactic used for political gain whether it is a useless resolution against a strategy or the threat of pulling funding. Or accusing our troops of misdeeds, torture and not winning the fight while using liberal lawyers to defend the, " civil liberties, " which do not exist for detainees held under the rules of war and who because they are not citizens of the country and at war against her have no rights under our Constitution, undermines this war and your blindness to the truth could be our very undoing as a nation.

We are at war period! A war that we did not seek nor wished to fight but a war that was thrust upon us none the less by an enemy who declared war on us long before we understood. A war that encompasses many battlefields from Afghanistan to Iraq, from the Philippines to Israel and unfortunately even the very halls of our own Congress as fighting the war has become a war amongst ourselves to seek the final victory. Political dissenting is a right afforded us by our Founders but dissenting for the sake of political gain at the expense of the nation in a time of war borders on sedition. Can we win without unity ? Yes because we have the finest and bravest men and women in uniform who are united in the cause of freedom and the defeat of our common Islamic fanatical enemy. And we have a President who understands the threat and whose resolve has not wavered, who believes in our military and uses all means at his disposal to win. Without unity though the result of victory can and will be achieved the road to that result will be longer, cost more in dollars and the precious lives of our bravest and best and tax the patience of the nation even further. But victory must and will be ours.


Ken Taylor

GLOBAL WARMING - TELL THAT TO LOS ANGELES

In case you don't recognize the skyline pictured above it is Los Angeles, California. And in case you don't recognize what is in the background that is SNOW. Yes it snowed in Los Angeles. This is not only rare but highly unusual for the Los Angeles basin. The resulting snow and unusually cold temperatures are the result of an extremely strong El Nino' that has parked itself in the Pacific off of South America and brought with it record setting warmth in the Northeast, Central and Southeast portions of the country and record setting cold to places like California especially Southern California and massive snow fall amounts in places like Denver, Colorado and the states of Oklahoma and Texas with ice in Southern Texas which again is highly unusual. So what happened to Mr. Gore and his Global Warming ? Well let's just say that once again our wonderful planet is showing that climatologicl changes take place as a normal happenstance which bring with it extremes that once again proves that changes whether hot or cold are a normal and natural occurrence in our planets process of existence.

I do wonder one thing. Over the last two years whenever Global Warming fear master Al Gore has delivered a major speech or presentation concerning his fantasies about man made warming that particular location was either experiencing the coldest day on record or at least one of the top five coldest on record. Was he speaking by chance in Los Angeles yesterday and is HE directly responsible for Global Cooling ? Anyone that has heard his slow monotonic vocal delivery can certainly understand how cooling could occur!

Ken Taylor

HINZSIGHT REPORT CONTRIBUTING WRITER

A few weeks back I spotlighted The HinzSight Report as The Blog of the Week. Since then there have been a few things taking place. First, the HinzSight Report is running but the official kick off is February first. This excellent site has the makings and administrative expertise to become one of the , "big boys, " in the website world. Tremendous wealth of news and information as well as commentary by several writers in which I have been invited to join. The Webmaster at HinzSight have graciously extended the invitation and I have accepted as a Senior Writer for the HinzSight Report. I am honored for the opportunity and look forward to a successful growth in this new and exciting venture. My first article was submitted for inclusion today and will be posted soon. The link to the HinzSight report is in the title of this post and of course will be well worth adding as a link to your site and becoming a source of information as you blog.

Ken Taylor

IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN AND HILLARY ?

Senator Hillary, (the Hildabeast), Clinton is on a , "fact finding, " trip as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee to evaluate needs and investigate the President's strategy from a first hand look in the field. Translation, she wants the press coverage. Now to what she is saying. Madame Hillary in an attempt to sound like she knows what she is talking about is calling for a phase out of troops in Afghanistan, this as Commanders in the field have requested additional troops and the Afghan government wants our continued presence. Hmmm, maybe we could turn this into a phase out of Hillary. Anyway back to her plan. She is also calling for a, "redeployment, " of US forces out of the Baghdad area in Iraq, I would assume in an attempt to force the hand of the Maliki government into taking over all security whether they are ready or not. This too as violence in this one area called the Sunni Triangle consists of 80% of ALL the trouble in the entire country and Madame Hillary's, "plan, " is to leave the main area where we are needed the most. I am sure that this trip will afford plenty of photo ops with the troops to boost her stock as a viable Presidential candidate.

First her, "plan." - In Afghanistan there is still a certain amount of Taliban resistance this combined with recent intelligence that Al Qaeda is setting up base in Pakistan right on the border with Afghanistan combined with the insistence of the Afghan government that they not only want but need a strong US presence in the country and the request of additional forces by field commanders only underscores the need for a continued strong US presence. Yet Hillary's answer to all of this is to call for a phased pull out and basically ignoring the Commanders and the Afghan government. Let's see Commander in Chief 101 states that a good CIC listens to his field Commanders and requests of strong allies. Her next, "plan," involves Iraq and redeployment. It is well known that Baghdad and the surrounding areas is the problem in Iraq. It is also well known that Iraqi Forces are not yet ready to handle security solo. Thus the reason for the President's troop increase at the request of Casey and Iraq field Commanders. Again ignoring all of the obvious, Hillary's answer is redeployment out of Iraq. Sounds like her husband and Somalia during the infamous Black Hawk Down incident. When things get hot pull out and save political face.

Her probable motivation - Yesterday Barak Obama announced his exploratory committee for a Presidential run in 08. He has become the Democrat and media darling lately and it has long been known that Hillary has had her eye on the 08 nomination despite all of her deception to the contrary. Going to Afghanistan and Iraq, making statements about strategy and troop deployments etc., gives her a perceived look of being Presidential which has not been the case for Obama. Hillary will announce her bid for 08 most likely by Summer. Hillary is a savvy politician and of course she is a Clinton and knows how to use any means available to give a perceived look for the cameras. Remember the incident with her husband Bubba and the rocks shaped into a cross on the Normandy beach while walking in contemplation on the rockless beach ? Hillary works from the same play book as her husband and will manufacture any and all opportunities to give her an advantage over her opponents. The new Iraq strategy announced by the President and her position on the Armed Services Committee offered the ideal opportunity for political hay without having to officially announce her candidacy and making headlines at the same time as her rival for the nomination.

As 08 draws closer look for more Hildabeast Presidential type photo ops and especially after she announces her candidacy. She will use her Senate seat which she promised the people of New York in order to get their vote would be in place with her in it for the entire six years as a catalyst to the 08 nomination.

Ken Taylor

IRAQ AND M.I.A. DEMOCRATS

This country has long been known for initials. We citizens chant , "USA, " when we cheer for our country. Several President's are know by their initials, JFK, FDR, and "W", just to name a few. We use initials for agency's like the FBI and the CIA. Sports leagues and associations are best know by their initials, the NFL , NBA and MLB. In times of war initials become common place for several actions such as KIA and MIA. The latter as you may have noticed is in the title of this article in reference to Democrats. Now the common use for these initial, MIA is typically, "Missing In Action, " and is reverently in reference to soldiers who are missing during combat duties. While the meaning of missing does apply to Democrats and their plan for Iraq the more appropriate word for the, "M, " in the initial is, "Mouths." "Mouths In Action, " a very appropriate and accurate description of Democrats and the continual rhetoric and lamenting concerning The United States presence in Iraq.

Last week the President announced his new strategy for Iraq which included as its base the addition of 20, 000 troops to the current forces already in country. This combined with several other aspects created the new strategy for Iraq in which the President as Commander in Chief instituted and it is a plan that he has stated repeatedly that is his decision and he is will not back down from it despite Democrat critics.

Now the interesting thing from the Democrat side of the political isle is that once this new strategy was announced almost in absolute unity and using the same catch phrases Democrats lashed out at the new plan stating both in the press and in hearings that quickly followed that it was the wrong strategy and the worst strategy in US history. Yet as their rhetoric flew the Democrats MIA approach had two very telling aspects in their opposition. First, along with their whining not once did ANY Democrat offer even the smallest hint of an idea or plan or even a suggestion that they could possibly come up with one. Of course this is nothing new with the Democrats and Iraq. Since the beginning of this conflict Democrats have had nothing but opposition and whining concerning Iraq with no substance in their arguments other than anger and disagreement with Bush and not one idea from any leader or even the rank and file Democrats. Second the essence of their compliant this time is the, "surge, " in troops that is a key part of the President's plan. What adds hypocrisy to their MIA complaint this time is that many Democrat leaders just recently called for troop increases that is until the President made it part of his plan then it became the worst strategy in history. One prime example is hapless Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who on December 17, 2006 in a press conference called for troop increases specifically for the violence in Baghdad yet once the new strategy was announced was one of the first to lash out at this idea since it came from the President.

President Bush does not create this strategy while sitting at his desk late at night in the Oval Office and announce to his staff the next morning, " hey I've got a new plan." This strategy was developed with a combination of high level advisors but most importantly from military leaders both at the Pentagon and in the Iraq theatre who have a first hand view of the situation and who also have the military expertise to understand what is needed. Of course Democrats as usual found retired military officers with name recognition who claim it is the wrong approach. A political game that could be played in any war by any politician because a retired General can always be found who, without first hand knowledge, can second guess the actions of existing active commanders. Additionally war never has been an exacting science it is gathering the best intelligence and making the best decision based on that intelligence and current operations to create a strategy that works.

Why Democrats feel they can second guess military experts and field commanders without first hand knowledge is puzzling until one considers the true goal of the constant barrage of criticism and opposition to any plan or strategy ordered by the President. If Bush is for it they are against it. If he had announced that he was pulling out 20, 000 troops Democrats would have criticized his actions by stating that it is the wrong move at the wrong time. They cannot nor ever will be satisfied with anything that comes from a Bush White House and that is precisely why they are MIA, (Mouths In Action), Democrats. Always whining and opposing without offering anything constructive only practicing the politics of destruction.

Ken Taylor

THE ANGRY AMERICAN - THE SUNDAY COMMENTARY

"Angry American." This is a title, a description yeah almost an honor that has been given to Americans since the beginning of our Republic. Throughout our history, " Angry American's, " have brought about change not only within our own country but also on the world stage. Being an, "Angry American, " has represented a certain patriotic fervor that when roused provides a resolve that has not only changed the course of history but has a dose of righteous indignation that meets injustice heralding freedom in its path. It was "Angry American's, " who recognized the injustice and the abusing of freedom by the British Crown in the 1760's and 70's that united the Colonies to declare independence thus giving birth to this new land of freedom and liberty for all. "Angry American's," following the dictates of their free conscience divided this Union in 1861 bringing Civil War thus creating the defining moment of our new nation and in whose end brought a , "new birth of freedom, " and a renewed strength which insured that this nation would survive through time. "Angry American's, " refused to accept personal defeat in 1929 and their resolve through hard work helped this nation survive, "The Great Depression." "Angry American's" rose with one voice on December 7, 1941 and through a, "terrible resolve, " lead the world in the defeat of nations seeking world domination through tyrannical rule and the elimination of freedom. "Angry American's," grew withing our ranks and ended the American Inquisition under Joseph McCarthy. "Angry American's, " fearing Soviet domination fervently prevailed through 40 years of Cold War until the collapse of Communism as we knew it in 1989. Our history is filled with "Angry American's," who understanding that freedom and liberty is precious and something that cannot be taken for granted who have risen, spoken out, fought and yes even died to insure that this nation should remain free.

In recent years the term, "Angry American, " has taken on a new meaning that divides our nation as never before. "Angry American's, " have become individuals who are angry at America and rather than exercising a patriotic fervor as in the past they use the premise of freedom of speech as a platform to lash out at the nation and blame the very source of that freedom namely, The United States, for every conceivable problem that exists in the world. This type of ,"Angry American, " seem to dominate headlines and find their way into the very fabric of our nation. Creating an anger by Americans who find disgust in their words and actions and in many respects and embolden enemies who seek to destroy our land by providing them with political propaganda as these enemies quote the , "Angry American, " in an attempt to show the world the ,"righteousness, " of their fascist cause and displaying discord within the hearts of the American people. First this is not advocating the control of freedom of speech. This precious right given us by the wisdom of our Founding Fathers is one of the cornerstones of our Republic. The original intent of the Founders in establishing this as a right to all Americans was to provide a means to voice dissention with the government without fearing retribution for our words. Government dissention through the exercise of this freedom has brought about much needed change throughout our history and has prevented many disasters that could have proved harmful to our nation. This freedom also requires a personal responsibility as it is exercised and it is there that this new crop of , "Angry American's," have not only wavered from the Founders intent but are abusing this freedom and hurting the very nation that provides their platform.

Though the list is long and those who are in the ranks of this form of, "Angry American, " seem to grow daily several immediately come to mind.

Cindy Sheehan - Though she has the right and privilege as an American to protest a war she does not agree with she has crossed this line of personal responsibility in her speech when she constantly calls enemies who have killed and continue seeking to kill Americans , "freedom fighters." She blames The United States for their plight and sympathies with their hatred for America. She claims to support our troops while vilifying their actions and accusing them of abusing those captured in battle. This is not patriotism but a hatred for America and seeking to blame this nation for Islamic radicals whose only cause is to kill and destroy anyone that does not believe as they do.

Professor Ward Chamberlin - His abuse of his free speech and anger at America has given him cause to claim that America received what she deserved on September 11. He has referred to the thousands of precious souls lost in the World Trade Center as, "little Eichmanns, " in reference to Nazi SS Leader and manager of Jewish deportation to death camps Adolph Eichmann. Chamberlin is but one example of a rash of , "educators, " who are using their charge as teachers of our nations youth as a platform to indoctrinate them with an ideology that America is an unjust nation and the cause of suffering and trouble throughout the world.

Al Gore - While this former Vice President is not as blatant in his hate America rhetoric as others he too is using his, "Angry American, " speech platform as an opportunity to accuse The United States of causing the destruction of the world. Citing our industrial might and the fact that we have more vehicles on the road that any other nation on earth as well as a host of other similar examples, Gore is touring the world with his global warming fantasies of man made destruction with The United States as the main culprit.

Ted Turner - Turner's form of , "Angry American, " can encompass many examples but one stands out above the rest. In his speech delivered before Congress shortly after the attacks of 9/11 President Bush stated that, "you are either with us or with the terrorists, " in reference to aggressively finding and eliminating terrorist groups and the states that sponsor them. Turner in an recent interview stated that he had a problem with that call by the President, because he was not sure which side he was on. He is also on record as stating that the 9/11 terrorist were, "very brave at the least."

CNN - While this news network founded by Ted Turner has many correspondents from other countries than America, the network itself is American and has as it prominent news personalities Americans. Their anger is evident in most of their reporting as it is decidedly slanted against the United States. Many examples from CNN's past have shown that their personnel while citizens of the United States value news reporting over loyalty to country since even as far back as the first Gulf War Bernard Shaw was debriefed by US commanders about what he witnessed in Baghdad as a reporter and refused any information citing that he was a journalist and did not give information to either side. They have displayed a disgust for American forces as they,"in the interest of fairness, " solicited and aired a propaganda video of terrorist killing and dragging US soldiers in the streets making only comments of how clearly one can see the dead troops. CNN is not alone as an American news agency in its blatant hate America reporting.

While this list of the new crop of , "Angry American's, " whose hatred for America is readily displayed through their free speech platform of America being the cause of the worlds woes, could go on almost endlessly, it is a sad statement of where this nation seems to be heading. Our unity even through troubled times in our love of country and our belief in the founding principles and freedoms that are only offered in this land have been a force that has allowed us to grow as a nation and to become the light of liberty to the world as well as the most powerful nation on earth. Abraham Lincoln once stated, " At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." Is this form of, "Angry American, " one of the, authors and finishers, that Lincoln referred to ? Calvin Coolidge once stated, "Patriotism is easy to understand in America - it means looking out for yourself by looking out for your country. " Hating America and expressing that hatred through the exercising of free speech is far from patriotism. It is a form of dissention that does not accept responsibility for its result nor understand the danger that it creates as it emboldens our enemies. In the familiar words from the beautiful song of American patriotism, "God Bless America, " I offer this stanza that was composed as a prayer within the song as a reminder to our allegiance to this nation that we love, " stand beside her and guide her through the night with a light from above." GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Ken Taylor

BLOG OF THE MONTH

Throughout 2006 I selected a blog of the Week to spotlight and recommend to readers. As you may have noticed the blogroll is getting rather long and as such for 2007 this spotlight is changing to a Blog of the Month spotlight. I will post the spotlight on the fourth Sunday of each month and will also add a special link at the top of the sidebar as an additional spotlight for the entire month while also and adding it to the blogroll where that blog will be a permanent link. Thanks as always for visiting TLL, TCT.

Ken

IRAQ - THE NEW STRATEGY

In a prime time speech last night President Bush outlined a new strategy concerning American involvement in Iraq. The foremost part of the plan and the most controversial from a political stand point is an increase of 21, 000 troops deployed to the country. Most of that number will be positioned in and around Baghdad which is where 80% of the problem is. President Bush citied that the reason for the increase was that in controlling the sectarian and terrorist violence that is plaguing Iraq, US and Iraqi forces while successfully clearing out insurgents and terrorists in the many provinces in and around the capital city because of an insufficient amount of troops once the area was clear and the troops left these areas were occupied again by insurgents. The increase will allow enough troops to hold these areas preventing a return. The President also called for Iraqi forces and the government to step up to the plate stating that the presence of The United States was not open ended therefore Iraqis will be more involved with US troops embedded as advisors and for support. The President also mentioned an increase of about 4000 to the Anbar Province which is an Al Qaeda strong hold that the terrorist group is attempting to use as a launching area and base for their activities in Iraq and elsewhere.

I am going to take a moment at this point to ramble because of the Al Qaeda presence that is in and has been in Iraq in which those who oppose our mission there and especially liberals have denied and continually avoided in order to spark greater controversy over Iraq. For Al Qaeda to attempt control over one province in the country signifies a strong and a long standing presence in Iraq which is according to those who oppose Iraq the ONLY terrorists or group that we should be fighting regardless of terror states like Iran, and other groups like Hezbollah who all use similar terror tactics and or support groups like Al Qaeda. The left has made it obvious in light of the recent attacks by US forces in Somalia against Al Qaeda of their hypocritical attempts to use Iraq as a political tool rather that supporting an extremely important front in the War on Terror. I have not heard the first complaint by the left over the US presence which includes Special Forces ground troops now in Somalia nor have I heard any protesting by radicals. The claim for this, one can bet, is because we have attacked Al Qaeda yet those same liberals and protesting radicals vilify US presence in Iraq which are also fighting Al Qaeda as well as elements from terror states like Iran. Nor will they accept the fact that has been proven time and again that Al Qaeda presence was in Iraq long before we moved in and the Hussein regime supported them financially and allowed traiming facilities in Iraq.

Now back to the President's new strategy. In addition to the troop increase Bush also added that there will be political benchmarks set for the Iraqi government, expecting the Maliki administration to keep to its commitments and crack down on outlaw tribal leaders who are helping to stir the violence. Strengthening Iraqi territorial sovereignty will also be vital thus taking a stronger stance concerning Iran and Syria and stopping the influx of men and material that enters from these terror states. As a way of supporting this the President has dispatched and additional Carrier Task Group to the region as a warning to Iran especially.

Democrats were quick to jump in with their opposition to the plan with the Democrat response delivered by Senator Dick Durbin who if you recall compared our troops to Nazi SS troops in WWII during a rampage last year on the Senate floor. Durbin stated the Democrat position that the troop increase was the wrong move and we should rather be pulling out of Iraq to force Iraqis to take control of the situation whether they are prepered or not. Most experts agree that this Democrat idea would leave Iraq in anarchy since the US presence is the calming factor despite the current level of violence. Notice also that with this call for pulling out rather than completion of the mission Democrats propose nothing as an alternative, which has been what they have been doing all along.

The Congress has agreed to a non-binding vote for the new strategy which would allow the President's plan to move forward and the opportunity to succeed. Regardless of ones position on Iraq the answer in not a quick fix nor is it a situation that we can abandon as is suggested by the Democrats. To allow Iraq to drift into anarchy and leave the country in a manner that the enemy would consider a defeat of the United Sates will only hand over Iraq to terrorists and embolden groups like Al Qaeda and states like Iran into furthering Islamic radicalism and increasing terrorist activity on a global basis. Iran would in fact dominate the region and the ensuing result would be puppet states under Iranian control with oil and nuclear capability as a bargaining chip to black mail the world. We must and will prevail in Iraq and the revision of strategy that was presented last night places us well on our way to that outcome.

Ken Taylor

PRESIDENT BUSH AND THE 110TH CONGRESS

The new Democrat controlled Congress is in the midst of the much touted , "100 hours, " in which the House is passing their agenda without following usual Committee procedure by sending legislation directly to the House floor thus preventing debate or revision by Republicans. As the 110th Congress begins the 2007 legislative term there is a considerable amount of talk and speculation as to whether President Bush and this Congress will be able to achieve anything or complete gridlock will occur because of the difference in ideologies. Much of the capability of achievement will depend on several factors not the least of which is the ability of the President to shape policy with a Congress that is in many ways polar opposite to his agenda. The question of whether the President will compromise in order to get along with House and Senate leadership or will he work the Congress in order to press for his agenda is one that is hanging heavily on policy that is developing and will be developed during the course of the next two years and especially 2007 as the precedence will be set by actions taken early in this Congress. Can Bush get anything passed ? There are several possibilities and several more obstacles that will determine whether he is a President who is politically viable in his last two years or a two year lame duck.

The Reagan Example - With the exception of the Senate for the first two years of the Reagan Presidency, President Reagan had to contend with a Democrat Congress yet despite this fact was able to pass much if not most of his agenda during his eight years in the White House. Reagan faced a very partisan Congress with the likes of , "Tip, " O'Neal as Speaker of the House and Robert Byrd as Senate Majority Leader. Most Democrats viewed Reagan as an inept President and as such greatly underestimated his leadership and his political savvy which gave him an advantage early in his Presidency but as time continued they learned not to take Reagan for granted and fully understood his steadfast commitment to policy and the Reagan agenda along with his excellent leadership. President Reagan not only steadfastly stood his ground with Congress but he put together a coalition of moderate to conservative leaning Democrats in both chambers of the Congress who agreed with much of his agenda and with the Republican Minority used this coalition to push, "Reaganism, " through an opposing Congress. Does President Bush have the strength of leadership to do the same with the 110th Congress ? One thing that Bush has proven over the last six years is that he is a man of principle and does not waver from his convictions and his ideological beliefs. On the other hand like his father he has a tendency to compromise in certain situations to express a spirit of bipartisanship which has also come back to bite him with Democrats that go back on their word. One prime example is the , "No Child Left Behind, " act that Bush sponsored with the help of Ted, "the swimmer, " Kennedy. Since the passage of this bad legislation Kennedy has used its failure to lamblast Bush on education though he was just as responsible for its passage and implementation. If Bush on the other hand can follow the Reagan example and court the so called, "blue dog Democrats, " who campaigned on a more conservative platform such as, anti abortion and pro gun etc, creating a coalition for passage of his agenda his last two years can be productive. If he believes that his only course of action is to work with the present leadership who have made it clear that they disagree with virtual all that the President has done and wants to do he will find himself either having to continually compromise or constantly use the VETO stamp causing gridlock and nothing will be accomplished over the next two years. Either way the last mentioned course makes Bush a two year lame duck President.

The Obstacles - The two main obstacles to a Bush Congressional, "blue dog, " coalition are Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Both fully believe along with the rest of the new leadership that the 2006 election was a mandate for their agenda rather than what it truly was a vote of disappointment in the GOP. In other words the voters fired Republicans but did not actually hire Democrats but since voting for a Democrat was the only way to fire a Republican the Democrats took over. Because they believe they have a mandate they will try to do as the House is doing in the first 100 hours and force through their liberal agenda. If the President can put together the , "blue dog, " coalition then he should be able to a certain extent shape legislation but that is also where the next Pelosi/Reid obstacle comes in. Both shaped the course of the 2006 election for Democrats. With a combination of their obstructionist actions,( in the Senate especially), to all GOP legislation, their working of the liberal media with falsehoods and exaggerations and fielding candidates that the voters would see as more conservative, both Congressional leaders are expecting payola and loyalty from the rookies they helped to elect. Pelosi and Reid will make it very clear to the new crop in both chambers that they owe their seat to the leadership and as such they will be expected to vote accordingly as legislation is put forth by the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader. Whether these, "blue dogs, " are more interested in their political future or actually fulfilling campaign promises that are somewhat different than the agenda of the leadership will greatly determine whether Bush can create a coalition that will allow him to shape legislation his direction.

Presidential leadership on the part of Bush will be necessary to drive any agenda that Bush wants to field. Pelosi has already arrogantly threatened Bush concerning the addition of more troops in Iraq as she stated on one of last Sunday's talking head shows that he had better have good justification for the increase because Congress held the purse strings and while they, "support the troops, "( which includes by the way providing the necessary funds for their mission and protection), she intimated that she would use a lack of appropriations for the war to force the hand of the President. Strength of leadership reminding her that he is the President and not cowing to threats like this one will also go along way in allowing the new crop to vote their conscience and not just follow the herd because the leaders tell them they must. Working with an opposition Congress does not mean compromise nor gridlock. President Reagan proved it in the eighties and President Bush has an opportunity to repeat Reagan's success if he will but do it!

Ken Taylor

BACK UP AND RUNNING

Due do a server crash last Sunday as I was adding to the template the page stopped during publishing and low and behold everything except the header was not saved. I attempted to retrieve my template from my computer and found that it to was gone. Looking finally to the page views in the history, I found that the template page saved only the hit counter. So needless to say I was out of options other than to rebuild. I have had certain portions ready since yesterday but the outage problems with Blogger have prevented until now re-establishment of what I had. Thanks for your understanding and for the many of you who have e-mailed me with your concern. I will be working to get all of the links re-established as time permits but until then posting will continue as always. Thanks again and as always thanks for being part of TLT, TCT.

Ken Taylor

110TH CONGRESS, FIRST 100 HOURS - THE BEGINNING OF THE DEMOCRAT DECEPTION

I have been following politics for quite some time and there is one fact that I have learned for which my friends on the left will disagree but a fact none the less, Democrats lust for power, despite claiming otherwise embrace liberalism and believe America should be a socialistic society. They can't help it is in their make up and regardless of how they try to position themselves to the voters to try to win an election once they actually get to work in Congress they always follow the three facts that I stated above. Nancy Pelosi and the new Democrat leadership is taking control of the House today as is Harry Reid and the new Democrat leadership in the Senate. Throughout the election of 06 candidates and leaders alike portrayed themselves as either moderates or leaning conservative in order to get the vote. After the election and the great media hype that followed both Pelosi and Reid pledged bipartisan cooperation both with the President and with Republicans in both chambers of Congress. They also pledged a moderate agenda in conjunction with the new crop of , "blue dog, " Democrats that are taking their first Congressional oath. Now the day has finally come for the Democrats to prove that they are truthful and actually wanting to lead in a spirit of bipartisanship and what do we see ? The usual lust for power that has now been satisfied taking control of congress and Pelosi manipulating the agenda and House procedures to block the GOP from even debating their liberal agenda. Let's look at the facts of their deception.

Spirit of bipartisanship - Speaker Pelosi, (sends chills up ones spine doesn't it) pledged a spirit of bipartisan cooperation in her new leadership position but now that she has the power in hand what does she do with it ? In order to quickly pass her 100 hour agenda all House bills are being pushed straight through to the House floor for a vote rather than going through committee in order to prevent Republicans from debating, adding provisions and attempting to change the liberal make up of the Democrat agenda. Some spirit of cooperation. Not only is Pelosi using her power as Speaker to bypass House procedures to force the agenda through but she is excluding the opposing party thus creating a one party rule in the House. 100 hours, 100 days, 100 weeks it will not matter, now that Pelosi has the power that she has wanted for so long she will manipulate legislation in this manner or another in order to push her agenda through the House.

Moderate to Conservative legislation - As I mentioned before Democrats portrayed themselves in the election as moderate to conservative candidates in order to win votes for which they obviously were successful. Also promising with that portrayal that they would govern from the middle in order to satisfy the voters who elected them. Now that they are actually legislating what does their agenda look like ?

1. Raising the minimum wage - liberal
2. Increasing funding for embryonic stem-cell research - liberal
3. Ending oil company subsides - liberal
4. Seeking lower drug costs - by regulating the drug industry thus hurting competitiveness in the market - liberal
5. enacting the 9/11 commission's national security recommendations - most of which are already in place except those that call for a change in Congressional authority over intelligence which is what the Dems have stated they will not do which makes this a hollow point since it will do nothing - liberal because it is for show only which libs are famous for
6. Reducing interest rates on student loans - on the surface sounds good but the effects are dangerous. Reduced rates will make dollars easier to acquire which will cause students to borrow more thus creating greater debt. Additionally the cost to tax payers will rise from 6 to 9 billion dollars to subsidize the reduction through government money. A bill designed to create a greater social hold on lower class students - liberal

It has become painfully obvious that as Speaker Nancy Pelosi will do exactly what liberals have done whenever controlling power. She will use that power to manipulate the House in order to control legislation and push a liberal socialistic agenda all the while claiming the they are doing what is best for the American people. The Democrats believe that the 2006 election was a mandate for their agenda and not what it truly was, a backlash against the then Republican Majority. Their belief that they are acting in the best interest and with the blessing of the American people will be their arrogant un - doing!

Ken Taylor

SADDAM HUSSEIN EXECUTION CAMERAMAN ARRESTED

This past Sunday in The Sunday Commentary I wrote that one of the obvious predictions of 2007 would be that like a bad penny Saddam Hussein despite his execution would not go away. Here we are in only the third day of the New Year and this prediction came to pass even sooner than I had expected as he is one of the top headlines in today's news. A video of the execution that was taken on a cell phone has been circulating on the web and has attracted considerable attention especially with those who have been celebrating the death of the Butcher of Baghdad. Along with the celebration that the video has sparked there have been continued calls for an investigation into who took the video and in the taunting that took place during the execution. Today an anonymous source in the Iraqi government has stated that a high official in the government who was present at the execution has been arrested and is being questioned for taking the video. Let's get real here, what is the big deal about taunting Hussein who brutally killed hundreds of thousands of people during his reign as dictator of Iraq ? Does telling this animal , "go to Hell, " a place that had already been reserved for the murdering scum constitute taunting ? Aw did it hurt his wittle feewings before he dropped through the floor ? Also one would think with the continued fear by many Iraqis that Hussein is not really dead and is waiting somewhere to return and the rumors by the conspiracy nuts that this was a body double the Iraqi government would be pleased that this video surfaced showing that this monster is truly dead. The official who is being detained for taking the video was held for insighting sectarian violence by taking and posting the video on the web. Again let's get real here ! These factions do not need this video to create violence because they have been doing this to each other for a thousand years and this video is but one more excuse to continue something that is in their blood. Getting up on the wrong side of the bed or their milk being slightly warmer for their breakfast is more than enough reason in their mind to create violence so this video has not added or taken away from any insighting of violence. It has only been proof positive to a people who desperately wanted to see this man dead and gone. Sure the Sunnis are mad because with the end of Saddam went the end of their reign as supreme tribe though they are a minority. They do not like it not so much because they thought Saddam was a great friend and their sworn leader but because his favor for them gave them privileges and perks that they will not have in a free Democracy where all Iraqis are treated equal. This sugar coating of his execution and the attempt in recent days to try and show the , "softer, " side of Saddam in order to make him look human is getting ridiculous. Remember Hitler was an artist and enjoyed painting but that did not stop him from killing six million Jews. His execution should have been held in a public square as it was in the old west or even Victorian England so the entire country could have watched either in person or by a televised event. Saddam did not hesitate to kill, mame, rape or torture anyone and for the world to complain that this monster was mistreated and that the release of his execution in video was wrong is taking political correctness to a dangerous and ridiculous extreme. The monstrous Butcher of Baghdad is dead and Iraq need no longer fear his return or his rule. That is something to celebrate not hide, sugar coat or condemn.

Ken Taylor

PRESIDENT GERALD R. FORD - A NATION BIDS FAREWELL

The nation bade farewell to a good, decent and honest man today who history will remember as our 38th President and a grateful nation will remember as a man of integrity whose steadfast leadership and courage during a time of turmoil promoted healing and restored dignity and calm to a government shadowed by painful division and chaos. As we begin a new year this thankful nation took pause today to remember and celebrate the life and service of President Ford as three former President's and five former first ladies gathered with President and Mrs. Bush and several thousand other mourners at the National Cathedral in Washington to join before the flag draped casket with the Ford family to honor this humble man from Michigan who served this nation both in the Navy and as a public servant for thirty four years until Inauguration Day in January, 1977. For one in the congregation it was a time that brought back painful memories that placed her as one with the Ford family in a particular way as Nancy Reagan was in attendance at the Cathedral for the first time since June of 2004 when in a similarly moving service we bade farewell to her beloved Ronnie. President and Mrs. Bush as they did for President Reagan paid their respects to President Ford the day before the funeral service as they visited the Capitol Rotunda yesterday. The President then today as in 2004 with Mrs. Reagan escorted Mrs. Ford through the Cathedral to join her family as they shared with us their sorrow for the man we called President but who they called husband and father. President Ford was eulogized by former President Bush, former Secretary of State Henry Kissenger, Tom Brokaw and as he did for President Reagan, President Bush paid tribute on behalf of a grateful nation, "In President Ford ... America found a man whose character and leadership would bring calm and healing to one of the most divisive moments in our nation's history." The President also stated, "President Ford's time in office was brief, but history will long remember the courage and common sense that helped restore trust in the workings of our democracy." Dr. Henry Kissenger in his eulogy stated tha President Ford was, "unassuming and without guile, perfectly equipped to restore Americans' confidence in their values and institutions." This was President Ford, a humble man of strength, honesty and dignity whose love of country far out weighed any political thought or ambition who became President though never seeking the office but in assuming the duties gave this nation what she needed in a time when she needed so much. Now as was stated by clergy during the service Gerald R. Ford has entered the Kingdom of Heaven and his earthly figure is returning to his boyhood home of Grand Rapids, Michigan so that they may honor their favorite son before he is laid to rest. Gerald Ford the 38th President of The United Sates of America, House Minority Leader, Congressman, Lt. Commander in The United Sates Navy, All American in football at the University of Michigan, father, grandfather and husband but most of all a great and good man whose honesty and integrity will be remembered throughout time. Farewell Mr. President.

Ken Taylor