If you want to know what this country will be like if Hillary is elected next year - and the Democrats keep control of the House and Senate - all you have to do is look at Western European democracies in the 1970's: socialistic economies with massive government-run social programs.

That is Hillary’s goal for ‘her’ United States.

Two recent signs that this is Hillary’s ideal plan:

• Her new national health care plan - to cover everyone - will cost - by her own estimate - a whopping $110 billion per year; (if her estimate is $110 billion per year, you can safely double it and then halve it again to figure out the ultimate cost: $250 billion per year);

• Her just-released “Baby Bond” plan to give “every baby born in the United States a $5,000 bond upon birth” to pay for college or housing - she was vague about this. Another $20 billion per year.

• When asked how these programs will be paid for, her staff always has the same answer: “we’ll only raise taxes on the rich.” (Of course, it is their definition of “rich” that will cause trouble down the road as they will inevitably have to raise taxes on middle income people to pay for this coming socialism.)

Now, let us face some facts:

• The Democrats are going to keep control of both houses of Congress in the 2008 elections - regardless of what happens on the top of the ticket in the presidential race. In fact, the odds are good that the Democrats will actually pick up seats in both houses of Congress.

• If Hillary - or any Democrat - is elected president next year, he/she will have the whole ball of wax: the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate. This means they can - and will - launch one of their national ‘themes’ i.e. the Great Society, the New Deal, the Fair Deal.

• And this will be - especially if Hillary makes it to the Oval Office - socialized health care, federal mandates, huge domestic spending programs - even bigger than the entitlements we already have. And massive tax increases on the middle class - because that is the only way to pay for these programs; taxing the rich isn’t going to be enough;

• A simple rule: liberals love to spend money - period!

• So they will go hog-wild in 2009 with a whole new liberal era - patterned in great part on 1970's England, France, West Germany, Sweden, Norway and the other semi-socialistic democracies.

• Interestingly, by the 1980's many of these countries began to reject this socialism - even if at first it had sounded so promising. Margaret Thatcher came along and led the charge against a failed experiment. Helmut Kohl in Germany and others followed suit.

• Eastern Europe - now 17 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall - was addicted to nationalized, communist, from-the-top-down mandatory social programs since the Soviet invasion of the late 1940's. These nations are now fighting to get rid of these elements - and the remaining bureaucracies - and get going on true free enterprise and capitalism.

• Hillary-ism will, of course, ultimately fail to deliver the promises they will make. In the process, they will further dampen our economy, implement new ‘entitlements’ that are virtually impossible to terminate and saddle our nation with even more debt - and we Republicans do not have a leg to stand on in attacking this fiscal irresponsibility because the past 6 years under a GOP Congress with a supposedly-conservative President has been a fiscal disaster.

The 2008 GOP presidential candidates better be prepared to paint a truthful picture of what is coming in 2009 when the Democrats have full power.

What kills me is that the flip-flopping Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani - both of whom had to work with Democratic legislative bodies when they held office - happily went along with their liberalism instead of fighting and leading, as Reagan did with a Democratic House in 1981.

Sadly, none of our GOP candidates can lead us out of a wet paper bag.

And this void invites Big Trouble - in the form of a new leftward swing of the political pendulum.

Thursday, September 27, 2007





I learned today that Medicare has just stopped reimbursement for a crucial leukemia drug - ARANESP - made by Amgen - even though this is an FDA-approved treatment for leukemia.

When Medicare does this, private insurance companies follow and thus ARANESP will soon disappear if something isn’t done soon.

This is a total disaster for thousands of very, very sick people.

I am asking you - as an American citizen who still runs this country - to help lead the charge to get Congress to override Medicare and mandate that ARANESP continue to be approved.

Here is what you can do:

Call your Congressman and Senator is DC - all you have to do is call the main number - 202-224-3121 - and they’ll connect you to your Congressman and Senators.

Get ahold of a staffer and BEG them to step in and override Medicare - and fast!!!

Please do your best on this - and soon!

Let’s all do this - today! Let’s see if we can move the government to do what we want. Thank you!


On Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York and the United Nations: isn’t it amazing that no one in Congress, the White House or the so-called Mainstream Media - or even Talk Radio or Fox, for that matter - ever mentions the fact that most of the remaining 52 American hostages from the 1979 illegal seizure by so-called Iranian ‘students’ are certain that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was one of their captors?

In fact, most remember him quite well as one of the toughest and roughest anti-Americans who advocated torturing the hostages and discussed executing some of them - within earshot of the hostages.

So - assuming that he is indeed guilty of this international crime - and we should take the word of our fellow Americans that he was one of their tormentors - then how can we allow him into the United States without arresting him?

When Austrian President - and former UN General Secretary - Kurt Waldheim was found to be a Nazi officer guilty of war crimes and hiding his past for over 40 years, he was put on a ‘watch list’ here and not allowed back into the US - not even to visit the UN in his official capacity as head of the Austrian Government - despite the ‘diplomatic immunity’ automatically accorded to visiting heads of state.

But Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is going to come here - and get away with his crimes from 1979-1981? He is going to come here and speak at Columbia University - one of America’s best universities - and no one is even going to bring up the hostage crisis?

Are we going to allow him to get away with it?

In fact, all the so-called ‘students’ - and their Iranian governmental patrons - have escaped unpunished for what they did back then: seizing sovereign American territory - our embassy and consulate - and illegally detaining dozens of American citizens in often deplorable conditions for 444 days. They still have our embassy, by the way; they have turned it into an anti-American museum detailing their glorious defeat of Carter and the USA.

Even the sanctions President Carter imposed on the Iranian Government back then were dropped as he tried to recover the hostages.

For those who might say, “Oh, drop it! That’s 30 years ago! Let bygones be bygones” - here is the (sad) truth: when criminals break the law and get away with it they feel above the law and thus are likely to do other criminal acts.

Ahmadinejad - and the radical mullahs who are his source of power in Tehran (and in Qum, the home of radical Islam) - is indeed an international war criminal who is operating with total impunity!

No wonder he happily breaks more international laws: 1) Shipping millions of tons of weapons to Hamas on the West Bank to use against Israel - and, it turns out, on the more reasonable Fatah branch of the Palestinian leadership; 2) Supporting, training and equipping Hezbollah up in Lebanon as they cause repeated trouble for both Israel and for the moderates in Lebanon; 3) The covert arming of Shi’a Iranians in their uprising against the Sunnis - and against US troops.

Yes, he has said awful things - such as the Holocaust never happened and that Israel will soon “cease to exist” - but saying them is not a crime, even though they give us a peek into this war criminal’s twisted mind.

It are his tangible actions for which he must be punished.

And that begins with his 1979 crimes against the United States.

His defense?

He has admitted to being one of the ‘students’ but says he was not involved with the seizure of the US Embassy; instead, he has claimed, he was advocating the seizure of the Soviet Embassy. (Oh, how we should wish they had tried that one! Iran would cease to have existed!)

His consciousness of guilt is clear here: he was indeed one of the radical ring-leaders for the 1979 embassy seizure.

The United States is a paper tiger if we try to sweep this war criminal’s crimes under the rug.

What has become of our once-great country?


Some call it their ‘conscience.’

Others say it is the voice of God inside us.

Some call it the “Christ within.”

Many describe it as “that voice inside me that tells me what to do - and what not to do.”

Have you heard it?

Do you listen - or ignore it?

Many people do listen - and have had tremendous success following that ‘little voice.’

From making money to picking the right mate to changing careers to all sorts of decisions, listening to your conscience - or to the God within you - is one of the most powerful keys to a happy and successful life.

Along with it come other related skills: intuition, having a ‘feeling,’ having a ‘hunch.’ All these things are part of the same aspect of the love God has for each of us. He indeed speaks to you - if you are willing to listen.

A note: have you noticed lately in this society - for some reason - how so few people actually do listen? Instead they are on transmit - constantly talking at people, instead of engaging in a true back and forth.

The most dangerous question you can ask these days is: “How are you?” - which, in the past, was a throw-away ice-breaker that didn’t require an answer other than “fine.”

But now for some reason people want to tell you their whole life story at the drop of a hat!

Anyway, back to listening:

Wise people of faith know that - if you listen - God will help guide you through life. Knowing this is a joy because you are not alone! He is here - looking after you - and answering your prayers!

But the keys are: A) You have to believe; B) You have to ask; and C) You have to listen and then pay attention to the answer for it may not be what you expect or delivered how you expect it.

Do you really believe human beings - with the incredible bodies and minds and talents and skills that we have - were created by chance? By some random happenstance?

Or do you believe that we are indeed created in God’s image and have a divine purpose in life?

If you believe that, then ask yourself this: would God create people, plop them down on the Earth and abandon them? Or would He be available to help, to teach, and to guide. In Christianity, we believe that Mankind went so astray that God had to dispatch his only son to teach people how to live properly. And - even then - some of them rejected these teachings and tortured and killed this son!

So - some believe in God and some do not.

But if you do - and if you ask, you “shall receive.”

And part of your “receiving” is the privilege of hearing that Little Voice advising, recommending and guiding.

Trust it. Believe in it. Listen to it.


Let us analyze the domestic political implications of General David Petreus’ and Ambassador Crocker’s Congressional testimony:

1) Clearly orchestrated by the Bush White House, the testimony’s goal is simple: hold enough GOP Senators and Representatives in line to guarantee that a veto of a Democratic-mandated troop cut will be upheld. Period.

2) The fact that Petreus and Crocker’s first media interview will be on Fox News with Brit Hume means the White House goal is just to play “to the base.” They don’t care about the Democrats, Independents or the public at large. This is simply a campaign to maintain President Bush’s ability to keep the troops there through January 20, 2009 - as he has said he’s do for the last year. (Remember the “I’ll stay even if only Barney the dog and Laura support me” statement?)

3) Brilliantly planned by Bush spin-meisters, the Bush White House has dominated this ‘to-cut-back-troops-or-not-to-cut-back-troops’ debate for the past month, culminating with the President’s surprise drop-in visit to Al Anbar Province last week. Team Bush has shaped and dominated the debate while Congress was on recess - and guaranteed that the ‘stay-at-current-troop-strength’ argument has won - for at least the next six months.

4) What effect does this have on 2008 politics?


Going into the primaries and caucuses in January, Iraq is now certain to be the Number One issue - and will greatly affect both the GOP and the Democrat races.

5) In the Republican race, the main candidates all back the Bush Plan - even though 64% of the American people oppose it. But GOP primary voters still support the President and still want a hawkish policy toward Iraq.

So the GOP candidates - especially Rudy, Romney, McCain and now Fred Thompson - all echo Bush.

They seem not to care how this will damage or perhaps cripple them in the general election; right now these candidates will say and do anything just to get nominated. (The GOP race this year is indeed predicated on the fact that many on our side believe the Democrats will pick Hillary and then she will prove to be un-electable; Rudy and the others are just dying to run against Hillary as they ‘know’ she can be defeated in 2008 - even with the GOP - thanks to Bush - crippled and reduced to minority party status.)

6) The Democrats: Petreus’ Report will radicalize the Democrats even more. Why? Democratic voters and donors were already furious that the Democrat-controlled Congress hasn’t been able to stop Bush and the war. So they are now more likely to vote for an anti-war Democrat in the primaries.

Hillary - who was so hawkish she could have been a Republican back in 2002 because she wanted to disprove her life-long anti-Vietnam War/anti-military sentiments - senses this anger and has carefully tried to move Left into this ‘anti-war’ universe. Not all the lefties buy her ‘conversion,’ nor do they trust her.

Obama is ‘pure’ on the war: he was always against it. But he hasn’t proved to be the candidate they thought he’d be. He is more of a lightweight than they knew.

Edwards has flip-flopped on the war - but did it long enough ago that it hasn’t hurt him.

But Iraq - and the now-certain continuation of this war - will dominate the fall and early winter as we head into Iowa and New Hampshire.

And let us make no mistake about this: Iowa Democratic caucus-goers are both very liberal and very anti-war and very politically aware of everything.

Hillary - already trailing Edwards in Iowa - could lose Iowa on January 14th. If she does, that could greatly damage her.

7) The 2008 general election: Iraq - and a possible recession - will dominate the campaign. If we tip into recession, as some economists are now predicting, there is no telling what effect that will have on the race. Supposedly that will hurt the “party in power - the GOP.” But, in fact, both parties are in power these days - so who gets the blame for a recession?

8) As for Petreus: he arrived at Fort Myer last week with his senior staff - four PhDs and one Rhodes Scholar - to prepare for this week’s testimony.

That staff is worrisome: egg-head scholars are not the people we want fighting wars. We want warriors, not academics. This is all too reminiscent of Robert McNamara’s Best and the Brightest - who so screwed up Vietnam that we are still paying for it.

9) Politically, Iraq is a losing issue. Period. When 64% disagree with your policy, you are on the wrong side.

And when only 5% - that’s right - a paltry 5% trust the Bush White House to make the correct Iraq policy decisions, then you know the policy is going bad.

Petreus - who works for Bush and who must please Bush - has set the stage for continued divisiveness over Iraq.

Almost 5 years ago another General - Colin Powell - used (up) his credibility when he went to the UN and claimed hard evidence of Saddam’s WMDs.

It proved to be totally false.

Powell’s credibility was forever shattered.

Now comes another general - this time armed with fancy graphs and charts instead of sample vials of ‘anthrax’- who also is spending down his remaining capital to sell a policy that few are buying.

Conclusion: Iraq - like Vietnam in the 1960's and 1970's - is the dominant political issue of our time.

And nothing will change until the 2008 election. The question is this: will the American people ‘speak’ in that election about Iraq - or will anti-Hillary sentiment overcome Iraq as the issue? And will that election’s winners ‘hear’ the people?

Or will they mis-interpret the election results - especially a Rudy or a Romney - and read an anti-Hillary vote as a pro-war vote and thus continue a policy the majority of people no longer support.

What a mess!


OK. The summer is over. Labor Day has come and gone - and the 2008 campaigns are already in hyper-drive. Let’s analyze the present state of affairs in both parties:

The GOP:

This week, Fred Thompson announces - finally - online and on Jay Leno Wednesday night and Thursday, with trips to Iowa, New Hampshire and Florida included.

This will be a gigantic Yawn as Fred is a boring speaker with no internal fire and no passion. He is no Reagan - and is not the ‘savior’ the GOP desperately searches for. He isn’t even the ‘unifying conservative’ that the Right hopes him to be. He has a political tin-ear; his instincts should have made him join the race in June when he was Hot-Hot-Hot. By waiting - and having numerous stories about his wife running the campaign and canning numerous staffers - he has dissipated the excitement many felt about a Thompson candidacy three months ago.

The already-announced candidates will be debating up in New Hampshire on Wednesday night while Fred joins the race - too late.

The Republican field hasn’t changed much: Romney is ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire and is thus the front-runner to win the nomination despite anemic national poll numbers. (Those polls, by the way, are useless indicators of nothing; the key polls are state-by-state polls, and in the key first two states Romney is sitting pretty.)

Rudy Giuliani - by blowing off Iowa - has severely damaged his chances of winning the nomination as he faces two quick Romney victories. His Florida-is-my-make-or-break-state strategy is flawed; Iowa and New Hampshire will give Romney the Big Mo. Florida won’t counter-act that for Rudy.

McCain is done. Nothing more to say about this miserable figure who has done so much to hurt and demean others. Good riddance to McCain! I hope each election Night is agonizingly difficult for him.

Ron Paul? Had some mojo going until he blew it at the Iowa Straw Poll - and this week he couldn’t even beat Duncan Hunter in the Texas Straw Poll - in his home state! He’s all done. A good man with some good ideas - but he just isn’t a great candidate.

Mike Huckabee is the odds-on favorite to be anyone’s Vice Presidential choice because he is a southern, social conservative. He could still score some points for president, too, but where is he going to win even one primary?

So, as of the beginning of September, the GOP nomination is Romney’s to lose.

Interesting note: he has the highest negatives of any candidate in either party - followed by Hillary.

What if next year the race is between these two?

Can you just see the total disgust of the voters at having to choose between the two least-liked candidates?

The Democrats:

For John Edwards - and Hillary, too in an odd way - everything rides on Iowa.



Because Edwards sees the race this way: Hillary is the inevitable nominee...she can’t lose...she may be the next president...she is the greatest thing ever! (So say her supporters and many in the So-Called Mainstream Media.)

Yes, she is way, way ahead in those national polls.

OK...so what happens if little ole John Edwards beats her in Iowa?

Doesn’t he become The Man? The Giant Killer?

And doesn’t his victory shatter her inevitability?

That is his thinking. And he may very well be right. Plus, he is strong in Iowa - and has been for years.

Plus, as we have seen in 2003/2004, Iowa Democratic caucus-goers actually calculate with their head as much as they vote with their hearts.

The liked Howard Dean in 2004 but calculated that he couldn’t/wouldn’t win a general election.

John Edwards - and his wife - are spreading the same message about Hillary all over Iowa: she is the one Democrat the Republicans want to run against! And, they say, look at the last two Democrats elected to the White House: Carter and Clinton, both southern, white moderates - just like John Edwards (so they say).

Hillary has been fighting back by doing what she always does: trotting out her husband, an enormously popular figure in Democratic circles. (A supposedly committed feminist, Hillary interestingly always hides behind and uses her man to help her.)

Barack Obama is also a factor in Iowa and New Hampshire. But it is Edwards who is gambling on a win in Iowa.

Would this be a fatal knock-out blow to Hillary?

Well, it would show her to be a lot more vulnerable than many want to accept - and would make many Democrats re-assess her electability in a general election.

Plus it would hurt her in New Hampshire, just eight days later.

That Big Momentum coming out of Iowa soars right up to the Granite State and makes these first two states almost the whole enchilada - especially now with all the other states just two weeks later on Tsunami Tuesday. And independents can vote in New Hampshire’s primaries - and who knows what they may do.

Conclusion: Romney is actually in better shape than many realize for the nomination - and Hillary teeters on Big Trouble should she lose Iowa.

So don’t buy any of this “the race is over” nonsense.

It hasn’t even begun.

As for the 2008 general election, the GOP starts off with huge problems - the biggest of which is in the Oval Office and is determined to keep us in Iraq through the end of his term.

But that is for another column.

First, we have to navigate the primaries.

And then there is the strong possibility of an Independent Third Candidate to tap into the widespread despair and anger out there and to take on both parties.

More on that soon.