February 1979 - in Tehran - the War Against the West began.

The Shah of Iran had been deposed - in large part because a rube President Jimmy Carter, who couldn’t even name the leaders of crucial countries when he took office and who pulled the plug on our decades-long support for the Shah’s government - and the Ayatollah Khomeini had returned from exile in a tent outside Paris to crowds of millions along the route from the airport.

It was a scene that would effect us all for decades to come.

Khomeini instituted a total Fundamentalist Islamic Revolution that took a modern, secular Persian society and turned it into a backward, repressive society which treated women as third-class citizens and set about destroying American and Western influence in the Middle East.

We first became directly involved when the American Embassy was stormed on November 4, 1979 and the 53 hostages seized.

That first hostile act against the United States was the Declaration of War that launched 25 years of hostilities from Tehran against America and her allies.

Hostage-taking in the 1980's by Iran-sponsored Hezbollah in Lebanon, numerous world-wide terrorist actions (Germany, France, Scotland, Saudi Arabia), tons of guns and bombs shipped to the PLO and wholesale support for fundamentalist Muslim terror groups are the result of the Ayatollah’s 1979 ascendancy to power.

Today Iran - not Iraq - is the Number One Threat to this country. Awash in oil they are building - with help from Russia - nuclear power plants which produce the key ingredients to manufacture nuclear bombs. Now, why do you suppose they are doing that?

Perhaps to give/sell/trade these weapons to subsidiary groups to use against the United States and her allies? And to increase their ‘legitimate’ standing in the world community? (After all, they have learned that the USA only attacks non-nuclear nations.)

The Bush-led focus in this country on Iraq has been a bit misguided. In the 1980's the Reagan Administration saw Iran as the Big Threat and thus quietly aided Saddam as a way to ‘block’ Iran from its adventurism.

The first President Bush did not continue on to Baghdad at the end of the Gulf War precisely because he knew that without that ‘check’ in Baghdad Iran would be free to roam about the region.

Today it is becoming clearer by the day: the 60% of the Iraqi population - the Shia Muslims - want their election to be held on January 30th because they know they will win it. And, once in power, they will form a loose alliance with their fundamentalist brethren in Tehran. The combined oil reserves of Iran and Iraq will make OPEC look like a pauper!

Iran will have gotten just what she has wanted for more than 20 years: a foothold on Arab territory and even more influence in the oil community. And America will have given this to Iran - through the blood of our soldiers, the money of the American taxpayers, and the tragic ignorance and miscalculation of yet another President who knows little about the Mid-East.

What happens if Ayatollah Sistani’s Shia party wins the majority of seats in the Iraqi government - as is very likely in January (why else do all the Kurdish and Sunni parties want the election delayed for 6 months?) - and the new, now-sovereign Iraqi government says to Washington, “We thank you for deposing Saddam and his evil sons and Ba’ath Party, but now we ask that you pack up your troops and leave Muslim territory in 30 days.”

What will we do then?

Will we have, in fact, helped the Iranians and the fundamentalist Muslims to expand their reach and power in the Middle East?

Will the new Iraqi Government actually be more of a threat to the United States than even Saddam was?

Will the combined Iran-Iraq oil monster wreak havoc on our economy through higher oil prices - or perhaps even induced ‘shortages’?

What began in 1979 is still with us. But we are now about to witness - and indirectly assist - Iran expand its power and reach.

What a tragic miscalculation.


Like a bad, bad nightmare that just won’t go away, the Clinton are back.

Last week was a preview of the next four years: Hillary Clinton running for President in 2008 to complete the second half of the now-infamous Co-Presidency she had bragged about in 1992.

The plan is clear: Hillary is running - and Bill will be pulling the strings from behind the scenes, something he is very, very good at.

They intend to return to the White House on January 20, 2009.

Can this happen?

Yes, it can.

First, there is little doubt that Hillary can secure the Democratic nomination in 2008. Who is going to beat her? John Edwards? No way; his stock fell during his Vice Presidential run as he came across as a total pretty boy lightweight.

John Kerry is talking about running again. Who is he kidding? What Democratic primary voter is going to trust Kerry again?

Howard Dean? Doubtful. Evan Bayh? Nice but sort of bland.

No, Hillary - barring some unforeseen event - is the odds-on likely Democrat nominee in 2008.

Then the question becomes the general election. Can she win it?

The answer is simple: in a two-way race, no. She is a polarizing figure who isn’t going to steal one red state away from the GOP - and may very well lose several of the narrowly-won blue states.

But - and this is the key - if the 2008 race is a three-way race ala 1992 when Independent Ross Perot siphoned crucial votes away from the first President George Bush - then Hillary could win with a mere plurality of the vote.

Let us remember that in that 1992 race Bill Clinton only won 43% of the vote; and again in 1996 Clinton only got 49% of the vote against Bob Dole and Ross Perot. (For all the talk about how wonderfully popular Bill Clinton was we need to remember that he never once had a majority of the American voters vote for him.)

Would you doubt that the Clintons are already grooming some third-party independent to run in 2008 to again allow a Clinton to win?

The very real threat of the Clintons returning to the White House cannot be dismissed; they are revolutionaries who hate tradition and American values. In their eight years in the White House they greatly damaged American national security:

1) They imposed Politically Correct hiring practices at the CIA - thus robbing our spies of the ability to gather intelligence from ‘nefarious and shady’ sources;

2) They turned the US Armed Forces into a ‘social experiment’ with a push for gays in the military and women in combat. The result: the lowest morale - ever - in the service when they were in the White House;

3) They corrupted our security for campaign cash: allowing our top military and scientific secrets to ‘find their way’ to Red China in return for illegal campaign contributions to their campaign - and their Presidential Library.

Because the Clintons are a real threat to the future of our country, we must all band together to stop them. The first step is to stand up to all their lies, mis-statements and distortions. That is why we have begun the Counter Clinton Library. You can visit us on the web at and see what we are all about.

Ann Coulter has just joined with us - and Dick Morris, Bob Barr, Gary Aldrich and many other are helping us build this counter-point to the Clintons.

Someone has to have the guts to stand up to the Clintons - before they are suddenly back in power again.


The 2004 elections are over - thank God - and before everyone starts speculating endlessly about 2008 (which is ridiculous fodder three long years before the Iowa caucuses), let us explore other - perhaps more important - matters:

Ten days ago one of my best friends committed suicide.

He was 51, married with five children, a wonderful, kind, caring fellow with tons of friends and absolutely no enemies whatsoever.

He and I went to Harvard together and then graduate school at the same time.

He was truly one of my best friends.

We had the memorial service this past Saturday out in Michigan and it was devastating to find out this man’s internal psychological suffering - and the rather meager success modern medicine can sometimes make in treating depression and overwhelming anxiety.

My friend, Steve, was clearly depressed; I had detected it during a spate of September phone calls. I consulted my girlfriend about whether or not to mention it to him. (I had a similar dilemma 14 years ago with my paralyzed brother that made me gun shy: in that case I did say to my brother, “Tim, would you agree to take an anti-depressant pill regularly?” He had become paralyzed 16 months earlier but, as is so typical of depression, he did not believe he was depressed.)

My girlfriend urged me to go ahead - so I did. “Steve, as a friend who only cares for you and wants you to be happy, can I mention something that might be sensitive? I detect on our recent calls that you are depressed - no crime in that - and I think you ought to go to a doctor and see if an anti-depressant like Prozak might work for you.”

His response? Denial that he was depressed. Period.

Well, guess what? At that very time of that conversation, I have now learned from his family, he indeed was in therapy and on multiple medications . But he did not or could not admit this to me.

Why not?

Is it because there still remains a stigma about depression and emotional and mental illness in this country? And that many of us do not want to admit suffering these all-too-common maladies?

Here was Steve, a graduate of Harvard College, Harvard Law School and Oxford University - a supposedly enlightened soul - who would not admit to any of his long-time friends that he was in therapy.

His anxiety was corrosive. In the words of his sister, “He couldn’t stand living in his own skin.” He couldn’t sleep and operated simultaneously on two levels: one was his ‘public’ face of the same old Steve; the other was a rapidly deteriorating lawyer/banker who could no longer even read a contract and understand it. His confidence was shot and he was in a bad way.

Two weeks ago - on a Monday - his worried wife of 18 years rushed Steve to a psychiatric facility and had him admitted with the word “suicide” clearly listed on the top of the front page of the chart.

Steve couldn’t sleep - anywhere - and especially in this hospital so first thing Tuesday morning he “sweet-talked” a nurse to let him out.

He drove to his sister’s house. His sister and wife then convinced him to at least go back for the day for testing and evaluation. He agreed but left each afternoon and returned to his sister’s house. Thursday afternoon he climbed into a bathtub at his sister’s house and slit his left wrist and bled to death.

The suffering this wonderful man must have gone through leading up to this decision - probably months or years of inner deterioration - and the knowledge that he would be leaving behind a wife and five young kids - all make this episode a total and incredible tragedy.

The lessons for us all?

There are many. Among them:

Mental and emotional illness is perhaps the most difficult of all sicknesses to diagnose correctly and to treat.

The stigma still exists - and that drives many patients away from confronting their problem.

Psychiatrists and psychiatric institutions can and do make mistakes - with tragic consequences.

Once ‘suicide’ enters the equation, family and close friends must rush in to prevent this act, if possible. Hospitals cannot allow a nurse to be “sweet-talked.”

Don’t give up on a friend or relative when and if they deny depression. It is very, very common. And it certainly is no crime to be depressed. We must get rid of that stigma.

We also do not need to go too far the other way either. Anti-depressants work in many cases; but they are not the be-all and end-all. They are a treatment for a disease. But ultimately we need to find a cure to depression and anxiety through still-undeveloped brain chemistry diagnoses and permanent cures.

We have many problems in this country. Mental and emotional illness is one of the biggest. We all need to help each other when any of us is in trouble.


A week ago an Air National Guard F-16 accidently strafed a New Jersey elementary school. Thank goodness it was the weekend and no one was hurt.

But it makes us all wonder: if one F-16 can accidentally shoot up a school in New Jersey, is it possible another F-16 eight years ago accidentally ‘loosed’ an air-to-air missile and inadvertently shot down TWA 800?

Or is it also possible that Islamic terrorists launched a surface-to-air (SAM) missile and brought down that Paris-bound jet?

Few serious people who have examined the evidence surrounding TWA 800 believe the Clinton Administration explanation of an ‘electrical short’ in an empty fuel tank. It just is not credible to think that a 747 blows up from a ‘short’ in an empty fuel tank. Why was the tank empty for a trans-Atlantic flight anyway?

Plus hundreds of Long Islanders saw a streaking object launch upwards and impact the jet; so, too, did nearby flight crews and a helicopter pilot with a military background who saw the object and “knew immediately it was a SAM.”

Was this an early Al Qaeda attack? Or perhaps another attack from Iranian Ayatollahs who actually launched this war against the West when the 53 American hostages were seized on November 4, 1979? Did Clinton cover it up because it was his re-election year and the Atlanta Olypic Games were just three weeks away?

And why was the CIA brought into this case if it was merely a domestic airline ‘accident’?

Which brings us to a most disturbing new report of thousands of un-accounted for Stinger missiles. The New York Times story says,
“American intelligence agencies have
tripled their formal estimate of shoulder-firedsurface-to-air missile systems believed to be at large
worldwide, since determining that at least 4,000 of the
weapons in Iraq's prewar arsenals cannot be accounted for,
government officials said Friday.

A new government estimate says a total of 6,000 of the
weapons may be outside the control of any government, up
from a previous estimate of 2,000, American officials said.

The officials said they did not know whether missiles from
Iraq remain there or have been smuggled into other

Is it only a matter of time before one or more of these Stingers is used to down an American airliner here at home and thus plunges our economy into a downturn?

Why is it taking so long for our government to equip all our commercial airliners with electronic ‘countermeasures’ before it is too late?

Now that the election is over, we need to focus all our energies on preventing these dreaded weapons from being used here.

And we need to do it now.


President Bush has won a decidedly larger victory than anyone - me included - predicted. The popular vote difference is a testament to the pro-Bush passion of Republicans, conservatives, evangelicals and others worried over terrorism, liberalism and permissiveness.

My vaunted theory of the Passion Differential did not happen.

Instead, the pro-Bush passion outvoted the anti-Bush passion.
The anti-left, anti-Massachusetts liberalism passion came out in a huge outpouring of votes for GW Bush - and against John Kerry.

And at the same time, the GOP picked up four crucial Senate seats and even increased their ruling majority in the US House of Representatives.

We even saw the end of Tom Daschle, the Senate Democratic leader.

This was a banner night for the Republican Party.

My own feeling is muted: I am ecstatic over Republican gains in the Congress, but I have a long-running problem with Team Bush - especially the former President and his cronies ( many of whom serve in this Administration.) The first President Bush has been and still is complicit in the abandonment and cover-up of our US POWs left behind (when he was CIA Director) in Vietnam, Laos and Russia. The lies from this crew have been - and still are - shocking. The deceptions and perfidious behavior are disgraceful.

His son has carried on his father’s policies - thus my antipathy toward his Administration.

Of course, John Kerry and John McCain were directly involved in this cover-up. Kerry is an awful, evil, devious creature - and McCain is perhaps the worst person I have ever encountered in my political life.

Today is not a day to write about the POW issue - and the government’s cover-up; that is for another column on another day.

Today is for analyzing the results - and figuring out what they mean.

Those results prove we are a conservative country - and that the Democrat Party is hopelessly out-of-touch with America.

Hillary in 2008? Well, do you honestly believe she could do better than Kerry? Or will the conservatives come out to defeat her even more heartily than they did yesterday?

It is a truly conservative country. And for that we should be grateful.


Beginning last spring I wrote of the theory of the Passion Differential - the difference between the anti-Bush forces and the pro-Bush forces.

I added that the Democratic nominee was basically irrelevant to this race; that the anti-Bushies were creating a wave of support and all the Democratic nominee had to do was to climb aboard an imaginary surfboard and “ride that wave” to victory.

Well, we are now a day before the biggest election since the epic 1980 battle between the failed presidency of Jimmy Carter and the electoral tidal wave ushered in by his challenger, Ronald Reagan. What is going to happen tomorrow?

A tsunami of new voters, young voters, recently registered-by-the-Democrat Party-and-George Soros voters, minority voters and unhappy-with-the direction-of-the-country voters is going to swell the voting lines all day tomorrow.

We are going to have an unprecedented turnout - the largest ever - and that is not good news for the GOP and President Bush. The higher the turnout - and some estimate upward of 120 million voters - the better it is for Kerry because those new voters are coming to vote against President Bush.

How do we know this?

• Early Voting numbers are at an all-time high. In Florida people are willing to wait 3 ½ hours to vote on a Sunday!

• Absentee ballot applications are at an all-time high.

• There is unprecedented interest and passion across the board for this election. All polls ask that question - and over 70% of voters this year claim to be paying “a lot of attention” to the race.

• Viewership for all 3 debates was substantially higher than for the 3 debates 4 years ago.

• The Democrats, ACT and their labor pals have a better get-out-the-vote operation than Bush and the GOP do.

Polling of those who have already voted in Florida is decidedly anti-Bush; the same in Iowa where Kerry is leading 56-39 among those who have already voted.

Yes, early voting polls could be an aberration; but that is doubtful.

Plus the best pollster - John Zogby, who was the only correct pollster 4 years ago - now shows a Kerry surge in the Battleground states (except Ohio). Zogby predicts a Kerry victory tomorrow.

What indications to look for tomorrow?

Cable TV will have cameras positioned in key precincts around the country. If we see lines literally around the block, we will know that indeed the huge turnout is underway. And if it is, the race may not even be that close. Exit polling will be done by the 5 TV networks - and the results will seep out by late afternoon (they always do).

Prediction: the anti-Bushies will defeat the pro-Bushies tomorrow night by 3 points in the popular vote and will garner over 280 electoral votes.

Oh, yeah....John Kerry - sitting atop the surfboard on this anti-Bush wave - will be the President-Elect.