If you ever doubted that Evil exists, all you have to do is look at the news recently. Two stories have come to the fore that demonstrate the tantalizing and seductive nature of the Devil:

1) Christ was married, had a son and his grave has ben found.

Oh, really? Says who?

Says James Cameron, a Hollywood producer desperate to make an even bigger mark from his latest documentary than he did from TITANIC.

The obsequious news media has fallen all over themselves to broadcast this latest ‘revelation.’

Well, the true purpose of this story is to undermine the fundamentals of Christianity itself. If Christ was married and fathered a child - and his body still exists, that means no resurrection thus no truth to the underlying purpose of the New Testament.

Please don’t doubt that this story surfacing now is a mere coincidence while we - Christians - are at war with Fundamentalist Islam. Indeed, Evil wants this story out there - and believed by many. Evil wants to undermine the Faith of billions of Christians who marvel at God calling home His Son to set the example of the after life in Heaven - and the power of Forgiveness.
Believe this: we are engaged in an epic struggle of Faith - faith that what we believe in is indeed God’s will - and that what these radical murderers believe in is wrong and the work of Evil.

So, just at a time when our Faith is being questioned by this phony archaeological ‘find,’ the Radical Muslims will try to convert those wavering souls that their way is God’s way.

It is decidedly not His way.

2) In Tehran three months ago, the Iranian Government - the most radical Fundamentalist Muslim entity - convened a ‘Holocaust Conference’ to disprove the Holocaust. Speaker after speaker - including David Duke - rose to challenge the fact that the Nazis killed six million Jews during World War II.
Why - in 2006 - 61 years after the death camps were liberated and emaciated survivors limped back to life to tell their stories - would these crazy Persians want to ‘undo’ a historical fact?


They want to de-legitimize the founding purpose of Israel in 1948: that the displaced Jews from Europe deserved a land of their own after all of the West allowed Hitler to exterminate millions of Jews.

So, the Iranians figure, if the Holocaust never happened, then Israel’s purpose was illegitimate and thus is no longer necessary. And then these nutbags - armed with nukes - can feel good about wiping Israel off the map.

That is exactly what they are up to - and it is Evil, like the ‘finding of Christ’s body’ story is evil.

And both stories come at a particularly dicey time in man’s development. Indeed, we are at a crossroads. Either we re-affirm our belief in our values - or we succumb to the heathen’s lack-of-values. And then we are no better than they are.

Our Western society has grown weak and flabby and soft while our enemy is growing madder and more demented by the minute. We have yet to grasp the nature of the Radical Muslim: he believes death is a good thing, and it is even better when he takes some Christians and Jews along with him.

Thousands of madrassas teach this idiotic theory to tens of thousands of unsuspecting Muslim children every day. The ‘best and brightest’ of these students become the suicide bombers ‘privileged’ to take Christians and Jews to Islamic Heaven with them.

Since 9/11 - a wake-up call if there ever was one - the U.S. Government has not even begun to fight this Evil. We have squandered the unity that 9/11 gave us - a unity among Americans and a unity world-wide against this type of Evil.

The 2008 election is our next best chance to restore a sense of Americanism - focused on what we share together rather than on what divides us.

So far, no leader has yet stepped forward who understands any of this and who is willing to say and do what must be done to win this epic battle against Evil - an Evil that is all around us - as evidenced by these two news stories.


With less than a year to go until the first caucus in Iowa and all the following primaries and caucuses, it is becoming clear that the War in Iraq - and basically nothing else - will drive this race in both parties.

Other traditional issues - lowering taxes and curtailing government spending for the GOP - and health care and more government spending for the Democrats - are taking a back seat to our national focus on Iraq.

In other words, Iraq is so consuming that it is sucking all the oxygen away from these and other vital issues.

In the Democratic race - which has gelled more quickly - Hillary is the clear front-runner, with Obama and John Edwards on her heels; the others are way, way behind. But it is still early - and a lot can and will happen before next January.

Iraq is huge to the Left - and they are the majority of actual primary voters and caucus-goers. As we saw in the August U.S. Senate primary in Connecticut, the Ned Lamont-MoveOn.org anti-war voters have a passion that skews turnout toward their side. This anti-war slice of the Democratic Party has seized on Hillary’s refusal to ‘apologize’ for her 2002 vote for the authorization to go to war. And the longer she refuses to say she is “sorry,” the more they are going after her.

Meanwhile, they have ‘created’ Barrack Obama into a major candidate in large part because he is - in their parlance - ‘pure’ on Iraq. That means he was always against it - not this “If I knew then what I know now I never would have voted for it” nonsense that Hillary, Edwards and John Kerry throw about.

Hillary - while refusing to apologize - has now introduced legislation - purely for symbolic reasons - to begin the ‘redeployment’ of the troops out of Iraq within 90 days. She hopes this move will mollify the Left; it won’t. Many of them blame her as an ‘enabler’ for this war.

Meanwhile, on the GOP side, McCain is falling steadily - as predicted long ago here - mainly because he is seen inside the Right as a phony, an opportunist and an arrogant jerk who has treated people awfully through the years. Also, he is leading the charge for even more troops in Iraq - a position no one favors any more except some whacky neo-cons.

His main opponent - for the moment - Rudy Giuliani is also pro-surge but has lately begun to hedge his bets on Iraq. He sees that Iraq is heading down the drain no matter what we do - and he hopes not to be caught up in it.

The other Republicans - Romney, Huckabee and Brownback - aren’t getting much traction these days for a number of reasons. But any one of them can catch fire later - and so can a new entrant later in the process.

For now, though, Iraq is the predominant issue - and one that is hurting Hillary, McCain and any of the others who tie themselves to Bush.

One thing they all wish for - and the Iraq Study Group was set up to arrange - was to get out of Iraq by the time of the New Hampshire Primary. That does not now appear to be a likely event.

All politicians running in 2008 fear the consequences of the Iraq War on their re-election plans. Hillary, for example, would much rather run on health care and other ‘mommy issues’ than on this war.

And many Republicans would prefer to run on a good economy rather than a bad war.

So, as we continue on into this very odd pre-election year, keep in mind that Iraq is shaping the race in unexpected and unintended ways. With President Bush not really interested in the 2008 race - after all he has no Vice President running - he is not making war decisions ala LBJ in 1968 in order to impact the November election.

All of this means one simple thing: Iraq is a live hand grenade thrown into the electoral process. No one knows what is going to happen, whether the grenade’s pin has been pulled and if and when a huge explosion will occur.

So be prepared for unintended consequences - and surprising new developments this year.


The 2008 race is already in full swing - thus requiring us to examine this contest way, way before it matters. Here is where we are:

1) The Democrats: Hillary has clearly vaulted - thanks to unprecedented free media coverage of her every move - into front-runner status. (Mort Zuckerman said on the McGlaughlin Group that “Hillary is the strongest front-runner we have seen for years for the Democrats.” That may not be such a good thing, Mort.)

Her trip to Iowa two weeks ago reversed her sagging poll status (she had been in fourth place to John Edwards’ first place); that is all changed now. She is apparently in the lead.

The same applies to New Hampshire where her close one-point lead over Barrack Obama has been stretched into double digits.

So, Hillary is the leader - and thus the target of Obama and Edwards. And that is not a good position to be in. You’d prefer to be behind and gaining as you head into the primaries eleven months from now. Being out in front puts a gigantic political bulls’ eye on your back - and everyone is aiming at you.

Plus, her two main opponents have an issue to use against her - and an issue that plays to the Democratic Left: her refusal to ‘apologize’ for her vote to authorize the use of force in 2002.

As Hillary refuses to apologize, she looks like the ‘triangulating,’ “I voted-for-it-before-I-voted-against-it,” blame-Bush and take no blame for my own vote Senator that she is.

There indeed is a reason no sitting US Senator has been elected President since JFK in 1960; Senators have to vote on so many riders and amendments that explaining them always gets them in trouble.

This is indeed becoming a major problem on the campaign trail for Hillary. You can see Bill Clinton’s hand here, too. He is undoubtedly counseling her to think ahead to the November 2008 general election and try to remain in the ‘political center.’

But meanwhile the political Left - which has the anti-war passion and will dominate the caucuses and primaries - will turn more and more against Hillary as things pick up steam. Obama and Edwards will drive that anti-Hillary sentiment.

Here is the key: put pressure on her...grind her down, tick her off...put her under stress. A) That’s what campaigns are for: to see how a potential president would handle pressure; and B) we’ll see the ‘real’ Hillary re-emerge: shrill, nasty, angry, unattractive.

2) GOP: Rudy is indeed the hot item right now. But I caution people: we have a long, long way to go. There is much to happen, and much more to learn about Rudy. He is talented, but filled with problems, contradictions, things in his past that might hurt him. Plus, he is a bit strange. And he, too, doesn’t do as well when he - himself and his candidacy - is under pressure; he gets nasty and testy. When his city was under pressure - 9/11 - he was as calm as a cucumber. But when he himself is challenged, watch out. He isn’t what he appears to be on first blush.

McCain is in dire straits, real trouble. And he and his advisers know it. They are panicking, having big trouble raising money, and are advancing their announcement schedule from next fall to a few weeks from now.

McCain is a dying candidate. You can sense that he is headed downhill. He never was liked by the GOP Base - and the more he tries to win their affection - and he can’t do it because he has insulted too many people for too long - the more his patrons in the So-Called Mainstream Media fall out-of-love with him.

Bottom Line: McCain is toast. But he will not go down easy. He will also get nasty toward anyone who appears to be ahead, so look soon for McCain to hit Rudy.

Romney will do well raising money, but his flip-flopping on issues has damaged him greatly. He remains an attractive-on-tv candidate but the air of ‘opportunist’ and ‘phony’ is now all over him and we must wonder what he can do to alleviate it.

Conclusion: no one - absolutely no one - can predict what is going to happen in the next year.

Iraq is the underlying factor in both races - and events there (including the inevitable continued deterioration) - will drive the campaign.

Whoever is up today will not be up a year from today.

So then the question becomes: who will be up when the votes are counted?


Eight days before the special election for State Senate in Nassau this week, an upstate New York GOP county leader drove for hours to Nassau Republican headquarters in Westbury. He had been summoned to an urgent meeting by state GOP chairman - and long-time Nassau GOP "boss" - Joseph Mondello. Before the meeting was to start, this leader spoke to me over lunch about the upcoming Senate race, keeping in mind that a Democrat hadn't won a state Senate seat on Long Island in more than 20 years.

"We ought to be able to win this race. . . . We're sending down 50 workers for the final weekend, and the counties that don't send foot soldiers are sending money. . . . Mondello knows what he is doing . . . the Nassau GOP machine is the best in the country," he said.

The man was stunned when he finally went in for his meeting and was shuffled off to one of Mondello's assistants - denied face time with a fellow county chairman. "Arrogance," he later called it, shaking his head. And he was just as stunned when the Republicans lost the election.

His big mistake was to assume that Mondello knows what he is doing. County Clerk Maureen O'Connell's campaign was run by Mondello - and she lost to Legis. Craig Johnson by a humiliating 54 percent to 46 percent.

The Nassau GOP used to specialize in elections like this one, where turnout tends to be low. Putting boots on the ground and pulling voters out to the polls was its strength. But that was before Mondello's time.

Awash in cash and party workers from across the state, Mondello should have been able to get out enough voters to keep the seat in Republican hands. Instead he acted in typical fashion, allowing Democrats to take the offensive and set the campaign agenda and then countering with second-rate commercials, shlocky direct mailings and an inefficient get-out-the-vote effort. Perhaps not surprising for a 68-year-old, he also ignored the new wave of Internet campaigning that is revolutionizing politics.

The Nassau GOP once was the preeminent Republican political machine in the country. The day Mondello took over in late 1982, Nassau Republicans held virtually every countywide office, plus all four congressional seats. A local Republican, Alfonse D'Amato, held a U.S. Senate seat. The party controlled all three towns and dozens of judgeships. Today, after 24 years of iron-fisted rule by Mondello, we have become a minority party - holding just one countywide office - despite a registration advantage.

How did someone with such a miserable track record get to be state party chairman? Last November, after the Democrats had won an overwhelming statewide victory, State Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno - the last remaining elected Republican leader - feared a possible coup and hand-picked Mondello so he could maintain control. With no other candidates coming forward, a shell-shocked and desperate Republican State Committee unanimously rubber-stamped this selection.

Mondello has now rewarded the party with a loss in his first crucial race as state chairman - and in his home county.

As Nassau chairman, Mondello has failed as well - at every step. He has kept his job by making the Nassau GOP his personal fiefdom and ATM, staffing it with loyalists who owe him for some past favor or government post. He has rooted out anyone who dares to disagree with him. And he has milked the chairmanship for all it is worth, cashing simultaneous paychecks from the GOP, OTB (when he was the head of Nassau County OTB) - and now the state GOP - as well as his law/lobbying firm.

The loss this week of a safe Republican seat exemplifies Mondello's political malpractice and arrogance over the past 24 years. And it highlights why the Nassau Republican Party must remove him when his term ends, about seven months from now, and start over.

The party needs to get back to block-by-block, district-by-district organizing - combining online technology with old-fashioned shoe leather. It needs a younger, dynamic leader who is open to new ideas and dissent and - most of all - views the Republican Party as a vehicle to change government, not as a tool to enhance his or her own career.


Rudy Giuliani is - supposedly - running for President. Assuming that he is - and there is much doubt that in the end he will give up all his business interests and $1000,000 per speech fees to run - let us examine what he brings to the table:

1) He projects a ‘tough’ image. He talks tough, looks tough - and indeed was tough as Mayor of New York.

Is being ‘tough’ what America wants in 2008? Hasn’t GW Bush also been a ‘toughie’ for the last 6 years?

2) Rudy was indeed competent as Mayor - whether you agreed with him or not. Competent. Knows what he is doing. On top of things.

Is this trait why he is doing so well in the polls?

3) Rudy has been married three times and had affairs.

Why does the supposedly-moral GOP suddenly embrace him? A man who lived with two gays after his wife threw him out of Gracie Mansion? The GOP is going to support this?

4) How much do the voters in polls - one year before the primaries - really know about these candidates? Do they know all of Rudy’s baggage? His pro-abortion position? His pro gray rights position?

Are GOP voters willing to switch on all these positions now?

5) Rudy wins all the head-to-head polls against Hillary or Obama or Edwards.

Will GOP voters ‘calculate’ the ‘winnability’ of a candidate into their votes in a caucus or a primary?

Democrats did this in 2004 - rejecting Howard Dean because they thought he couldn’t win in November and John Kerry could.

But will GOP voters do the same with Rudy - seeing him as a general election winner - even if they disagree with him on their pet social issues?

6) Name ID: many political observers believe these early polls mean absolutely nothing - that they are mere measurements of a candidate’s name identification.

Is Rudy that well known? All across the country? The Mayor of New York City is a household name all over the country? Why? Because of 9/11?

He has been basically gone from the political scene for years - other than the 2004 convention speech - and yet he is the best known GOP candidate? Is that possible?

7) There is much ‘dirt’ yet to be revealed about Giuliani.

This is whispered about - including by his own staff. Bernard Kerik, the sleazy former Police Commissioner, is often mentioned. And more women from his pre-Judy days as Mayor. Rumor has it that ex-NYC cops are just waiting to spring all sorts of anti-Rudy dirt they were privy to when they guarded him.

8) No New York City mayor - ever - has won any election for any office higher than mayor. Ever.

Does this historical fact mean anything at all? Is it relevant? Or does history indeed show us patterns of future behavior?

Is there an anti-New York City bias around the country that so far is not showing itself in the polls?

9) Rudy’s judgements:

Last year he called GW Bush “one of our greatest presidents.”

He also judged Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s election as president of Iran “as a sign of civilian control returning to Iran.”

Both observations show poor judgement, pandering to the GOP base (which used to love Bush but is cooling on him now) and awful foreign policy ignorance.


Rudy is more hype than anyone wants to admit. He is no conservative - and that explains why the So-Called Mainstream Media so far likes him. His agenda is often their agenda.

Somehow it doesn’t seem likely that a socially-liberal moderate Republican is going to win the GOP nomination.

But, after the mess Bush has made of American politics, there is no telling what voters might ping-pong to.

Hillary and Obama were un-electable a year ago; today they are leading the polls.

So who knows where we are heading.