More government controls, we are told, are necessary to solve problems such as skyrocketing health-insurance prices, lack of competition among insurance companies, the inability of workers to keep their insurance policy when switching jobs, etc.

Really?

Then why do giants of the computer industry like Google, Microsoft and Apple compete vigorously without a “public option”? Why do we have such plentiful, affordable food without a government “food insurance mandate”? Why does laser eye-surgery, which is not covered by Medicare or government insurance laws, get better and cheaper all the time, while the price of health services the government is most involved in, skyrockets?

The answer is that these other markets are (comparatively) left free–while health care has been manipulated by government “solutions” for decades. Thus, our health–care discussion should focus, not on how government controls can solve our problems, but on how government controls have caused our problems.

Take for instance the common complaint that individuals can’t keep their health insurance when switching from one job to another. The only reason so many individuals can’t keep their insurance in the first place is that they get it through their employer–a phenomenon that was institutionalized by the government post-WWII through tax laws that make individually purchased insurance far more expensive. We don’t face the same problem with car or home insurance when we change jobs because we don’t buy it through our employer.

Or consider the general phenomenon of skyrocketing prices for health insurance. The ways in which the government drives up prices are many and gory, but here are a few.

State insurance-mandates force companies and individuals to buy policies covering all sorts of expensive treatments they wouldn’t otherwise buy coverage for: chiropractic care, psychiatric care, prenatal care. Every such “benefit” means higher costs. Those who would prefer just to purchase insurance against medical catastrophe and pay for everything else out of pocket are prohibited from doing so.

More broadly, since the 1940s, on the idea that health care is a “right” that others must provide, the government has made Americans collectively responsible for each other’s health care, whether through collectivized employer plans or through Medicare; thus, on average, “every time an American spends a dollar on physicians’ services,” explains health economist John Goodman, “only 10 cents is paid out of pocket; the remainder is paid by a third party.”

People consuming medical services on other people’s dime consume a lot more. Prices are further driven up by numerous restrictions on the supply of medical professionals, such as protectionist licensing laws that prevent doctor’s assistants, nurse practitioners, nurses, and paramedics from competing with doctors on services they are well qualified to perform (fixing minor bone breaks, diagnosing the flu, etc.).

When supply is artificially limited, and demand artificially increases, prices explode. (Any system promising “universal care” experiences this–the much-vaunted “affordable” European system just deals with it by severe rationing.)

This is just a fraction of the story of how government has mangled the market for health care–a story any honest discussion of health care needs to study and learn from.

Then we will start to hear proposals for a truly progressive idea: a market in health care where the individual is responsible for his own health, the medical profession is truly free to compete for his dollars, and the government has been removed from the equation–the private option.

Alex Epstein is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, focusing on business issues.

Thus the GOP could continue in its delusions of relevancy, while clearly abdicating any real qualities of leadership. Simultaneously, it would be helping implement the liberal agenda that in reality was orchestrated to empower the Democrats. Meanwhile, the disillusionment among the base of Republican voters would eventually cause a political collapse of the party.

By 2009, it has become undeniable that the plan ultimately worked, although some unexpected events along the way delayed, for a time, the Democrat effort to seize total control of the United States Government. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 briefly shook the nation from a former complacency that had enabled the wayward and corrupt Presidency of Bill Clinton.

President Bush, having embarked on that misbegotten “new tone” effort at finding “middle ground” with the left during his first eight months in office, was suddenly confronted with the reality of the Islamist threat, and had to redefine himself and his presidency as one committed to the reestablishment of a safe and secure American homeland.

The public focus on this aspect of his agenda proved to be a saving grace, circumventing the landslide of Republican losses in the 2002 mid-term congressional elections that inarguably would have ensued, had the Bush White House and Republican Congress been characterized solely by his contemptible pandering to the left, the resultant increase in the size and scope of government, and the inevitable bloating of the national budget that followed.

Nevertheless, the tides of public cynicism eventually caught up with Bush and the Republican Congress. In 2006, America thoroughly repudiated the direction in which these GOP “moderates” had taken it, giving control of both the House and Senate to the Democrats.

Failing to discern the message sent by the electorate in the starkest of terms, the unrepentant GOP continued on its disastrous course. In 2008, with the prospect of archliberal “Republican” President John McCain further sabotaging the conservative movement from within, frustrated and disgusted voters bolted, allowing Barack Obama to assume the nation’s helm by default.

Yet a close examination of the subtleties of the McCain political debacle reveals the truth of what heartland America was expressing during the past two major elections, and what the GOP needs to acknowledge if it is to turn the political tide back on the left. So far however, it does not seem to be getting the message.

John McCain lagged badly in the 2008 pre-election polls, except for the brief period after he had chosen Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. And had the McCain campaign spotlighted her bold and distinctly non-erudite ways, instead of becoming embarrassed by her and attempting to minimize her prominence in his campaign, the outcome of that race might have been entirely different.

Since that time, with the Republican Party in a shambles, Palin and grassroots conservatism have clearly undergone a renaissance. Yet among the Republican “elites” this reality has not yet been comprehended. The mood among conservative Americans is one of outrage and frustration at the status quo, generating an incredible energy and commitment to do something about it.

It is crucial to understand that this groundswell is not about cult followings and personalities, and by her own words, Sarah Palin knows this to be true. Admittedly, the prospect of her appearance at any rally can guarantee an enthusiastic crowd of thousands. But ultimately, such gatherings are not about her. On numerous occasions, far larger crowds have assembled across the nation at “Tea Parties,” and other protests, without any such notable figure on hand as a draw.

Likewise, the sales of her newly released book “Going Rogue” are astronomical. But contrary to the deluge of liberal media distortions which falsely depict a public intrigue over the “He said/She said” squabbles within the McCain/Palin campaign, readers are far more interested in the principles Sarah Palin espouses and courageously represents.

Americans have come to the grim realization that their country and its government is being wrested from them, and they instinctively understand that it is up to them to get it back. Otherwise, the greatness of freedom and prosperity that they once knew will be lost forever.

This is the message that is motivating real America, and that resulted in the recent stunning Republican victories in Virginia and New Jersey, as well as the incredibly strong showing of Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in New York District Twenty Three. Still, it appears that within Republican Party circles, the disastrous plan is to continue “business as usual.”

In the upcoming Illinois Senate race, as well as the Kansas District 4 Congressional race, “moderate” (read: liberal) candidates are being preselected and anointed by the Republican Party leadership, thereby virtually guaranteeing a repeat of New York District 23, which ultimately fell to Democrat Bill Owens. No doubt, this preposterous “scheme” is being pursued elsewhere.

America is not, and will never be, inspired and motivated by a GOP strategy of diluted liberalism, especially when the full strength version is available right across the aisle. If the Republican movers and shakers can muster the courage to field and support truly conservative candidates, America will rally to them. It would be a tragedy if they once again “fumble” at such an opportune moment.

Christopher G. Adamo has been active in Wyoming politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets American made products including the incomparable Abigail Adams Bedspread Set from Bates Mills. Contact information for Chris Adamo, and his archives, can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

The trigger for the ruling is an employee who objected to travel by plane and was subsequently fired for not doing his job. Consequences however, may be more in line with the observations of so-called “global warming skeptics” who have long-since recognized that Gore’s followers accept his message on faith, and spread “the word” as blind evangelists in contradiction to scientific fact. Far from being a religion of love an peace, its highest apostles characterize non-believers as evil and advocate force and violence as a means of control. Al Gore himself is seen as being in it for wealth and power.

Founders of western civilization, those who maintained and nurtured it, have consistently been objective thinkers – concerned about what is actually true and false, right and wrong, and what works and doesn’t work. Real religion played an essential role in directing people away from superstition and ignorance. A central element effecting western civilization was the rejection of the idea that particular human beings have devine rights. Equality, democracy, and universal human rights took hold.

If the final decision favors Mr. Gore, a new order will begin. Whenever propaganda has been sufficiently developed and implemented to have gathered a following, non-believers will be required to accept and adapt. Such a ruling would mean that Britains would be required, for example, to respect Hitler’s Holocaust and employees would get time off to throw rocks through windows at McDonalds restaurants. Politicians will become bishops in a new Church. It would in effect become illegal to be sane and reasonable.

Power shifts to create a new world order are quite popular today among the Political Class. We may be seeing the final phases of a shift back to the days when political leaders can force populations to treat them as Gods and rights will be replaced by pseudo-religious obligations.

The latest firearm femme is Kimberly Munley,  the erstwhile savior of Ft. Hood, Texas, credited with stopping murderous madman Nidal Hassan all by herself, even as she was peppered with bullets in the process.

According to the military, and subsequently regurgitated by the media with little or no investigation, it was like a scene out of Dirty Harry, with Munley playing the role of super cop so well that Clint Eastwood would have bowed and handed over his .44 magnum in red faced shame.

It turns out that this isn’t how things happened at all.

Who’da thunk, eh?

The name of the person, ahem, man, who actually took Nassan down is Sgt. Mark Todd, a retired soldier working on the army base as civilian police officer. He was the one who got the job done and ended the nightmare at Ft. Hood.

Currently, there is no question of Munley’s bravery. She apparently did her job and probably deserves our admiration. Pardon the insertion of words like “apparently” and “probably.” History tells us that we need to reserve judgment till the facts are in; facts that the media tends to treat like the loose change in a million dollar transaction.

But even if Munley’s actions ultimately prove exemplary, we need to acknowledge that were it not for the confusion created by the pursuit of a sensational story about a heroic woman, the headline would have simply read, “Gunman Taken Down by Police,” and Sgt. Todd would have been lucky to even have his name mentioned.

And now that the hero has been identified as a man, we can watch the media lose interest in that part of the story like a car salesman loses interest in people with bad credit.

One would easily view this as a testament to the fact that bravery from men in uniform is commonplace. After all, how many bother to remember the name of the second guy to walk on the moon? We are a culture that remembers firsts. We love the groundbreakers, the top dogs, the Super Bowl winners, and have collective amnesia about anything else. When it comes to an absolute victory by the heroic actions of a woman under fire, we are still awaiting the benchmark event.

And in our desperation for it we are giving the media a pass to create one for us out of thin air.

We saw a sadly similar story in the matter of Jessica Lynch, the American Soldier who became an iconic figure in the Gulf War via that Hollywood style propaganda machine we also call The Pentagon. And why? Not because she did anything of military significance, but because the managers of the war recognized that a flesh and blood ballerina barbarian was a bonanza of 24 carat PR. And they knew the story, at least initially, wouldn’t face much scrutiny from the media, or from an American public that would race mindlessly to embrace the whatever they were told.

And I specify “American” because it was an American fabrication. Or as Group Captain Al Lockwood said regarding American and British military handling of the story, “We had two different styles of news media management. I feel fortunate to have been part of the UK one.”

Who knows if the British are more patient for a real heroine, or if they are holding out for one of their own.

Still, Lynch was such a great opportunity for America that the military reported she had been shot during the firefight that led to her capture, then stabbed and beaten by her captors. None of it was true. Gleefully undeterred by the facts, officials made a short, expertly edited film production of Navy Seals and Army Rangers converging on and aggressively securing the hospital where Lynch was being held. Rather where she was being compassionately treated by civilian doctors for injuries she suffered when her vehicle crashed.

The problem was that there was no enemy around to pose a threat, or to justify the orchestrated, Entebbe style raid. The enemy had already moved on, leaving Lynch behind to be taken care of at the hospital. A fact, it seems, that the military was well aware of before going in after her, and one that found its way to the cutting room floor before the official story was OK’d for release.

It was a story so staged and scripted that you could almost hear a The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shout, “Cut! That’s a wrap!” after the first news conference on the “rescue.”

It was, however, a win-win for everyone. America had its heroine, and The Pentagon had its feel good moment; an entertaining and uplifting anecdote from the war at a crucial time when support was starting to lag.

And it worked for a while in spades, though it left an American public largely ignorant of the fact they were duped.

People seem happy with it, though. Our proclivity to embrace fantasy where it comes to women appears bottomless. We have turned an entire collective consciousness into an episode of Xena- Warrior Princess, lending us to sit with happy, vacant, smiles, shirts covered with popcorn as we watch her battle ten men at a time, nine of them standing in the periphery, making jerky, ambiguous movements while they wait in queue to be the next one she dispatches with ease.

We love Laura Croft and are transfixed by Uma Thurman slicing her way through legions of martial arts experts with her Hattori Hanzo sword. Female butt kicking is high profit hokum for the big screen, and perhaps staves off our appetite for the time when the real life Dirty Harriet finally makes her debut.

It would seem harmless enough. After all, it’s only human nature to indulge in fantasy. Whether that is Sigourney Weaver walking over dead marines to wipe out a horde of aliens with acid for blood or Buffy the Vampire Slayer destroying armies of the undead doesn’t make much difference.

But in the real world we should take pause. Nine soldiers lost their lives in the battle that resulted in Jessica Lynch’s capture. It was a battle in which by her own account she never fired a shot, but rather hit her knees to pray when the bullets started flying.

And rather than do the right thing, which would have been to go pick her up from the hospital and quietly retire her back to civilian life, we turned her into Sally Stallone and toasted her bravery. We made her a hero of fools.

In the other tragedy, 13 people lay dead at the end of Hassan’s rampage. A somber enough event to warrant some respect for the truth, and a good measure of diligence in getting to it. But in the end, it was the headline, the right headline, that mattered, not the story behind it. And it is a shameful example of media gone awry in the pursuit of realizing a fallacious dream.

Like all forms of fraud on behalf of women this ultimately hurts them.

Someday, the inevitable will happen, and a woman will emerge as a bona fide hero on wheels. But once the public has been taken through so many more rounds ala Jessica Lynch and Kimberly Munley, she will only be taken with a grain of salt.

And that will be insanely attributed to sexism against women, which the media will gladly, and redundantly, report.

Paul Elam is the Editor-in-Chief for Men’s News Daily and the publisher of A Voice for Men.

Naturally, the Democrat leadership is trumpeting the win by Bill Owens in the New York race as a defining characteristic of the current political landscape, validating everything from the budget-busting “stimulus” bill to the Democrat push for socialized health care. Yet Owens typifies the fraudulent nature of such a claim, having perpetrated a complete flip-flop of his professed opposition to the “public option” once he had achieved a victory at the ballot box. In typical liberal fashion, upon securing victory he abandoned every conservative principle that he had touted during his campaign, and now supports the worst aspects of Obamacare.

Nevertheless, he won on Tuesday. If his rambling trek to the halls of Congress represents the manner in which Democrats can maintain their hold on power, so be it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA) will gladly accept the presence of such minions if that is how she is to remain at the top of the heap.

It therefore behooves the Republican Party, if its leaders have any expectation of regaining their former political clout, to contemplate the situation in New York with uncharacteristic objectivity and immediately set about to fix the horrendous mistakes made there, in order to ensure that such foolishness is not repeated. For if the GOP once again ignores the glaring evidence and reverts again to its recent abysmal tactic of attempted pandering to the “middle,” a series of repeats of the New York 23 outcome will just as inevitably follow, and the Democrats will retain or perhaps fortify their hold on power in Washington. At this critical juncture, America simply cannot afford such a fate.

Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate, lost to Owens by four percent, which is hardly a poor showing considering how severely the deck was stacked against him. The Republican Party began its foolhardy endeavor in this election by selecting Diedre Scozzafava, an ultra-liberal candidate with connections to the party inner circles as well as major leftist political players. Instead of focusing, as they should have, on what was wrong with Owens, the clueless Republican Party then dumped nearly a million dollars into Scozzafava’s campaign, often running political ads against Hoffman on the very basis of his conservatism.

Once it became apparent that the liberal Scozzafava was going to be blown out in the general election, she dropped out of the race. But the malignancy of her liberalism was not yet fully manifested. While hapless Republicans lauded her for the noble deed of abandoning a bid that would have proven to be an embarrassing and resounding loss, and extolled her as a great member of their party, she proceeded to endorse Owens, the Democrat candidate.

Against such a backdrop of delusion and confusion, the conservative Hoffman plugged along, maintaining his message of traditional values and true fiscal stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Ultimately, his effort was not sufficient to overcome the obstacles thrown in his path by both major parties. Yet he managed to display a coherent message that generated an amazing degree of momentum in a short period of time. Had he been properly supported from the outset of the race, and had Owens been exposed for the disingenuous fraud that he is, the end result could well have been completely different.

So where does this misbegotten profusion of errors leave the GOP and its prospects for significant gains in next year’s races? The lesson is simple and unchanged from times past. If the party establishes and adheres to a goal of truly advancing the conservative agenda (a move which should be undertaken immediately), it can benefit greatly from every devious liberal effort to unravel the fabric of America that the Democrats pursue between now and Election Day 2010.

On the other hand, if liberal Republicans repeat their double-minded attempts to find politically “safe” ground that bears outward commonality with that of the Democrats, they can expect to be relegated to the political outback for the foreseeable future.

Real America has roared in the past several years, and in particular since the advent of the Obama regime. The grassroots protests, “Tea Parties,” and Town Hall confrontations are merely reflections of an electorate that has no intention of seeing its country and its heritage mutated beyond recognition, from a free and prosperous society into one of subservience and repression.

Such sentiments are aimed primarily at those Democrats bent on perpetrating this transformation, but also at Republicans who, out of stupidity, cowardice, or some misbegotten devotion to “bipartisanship,” refuse to appropriately confront the liberal threat and effectively neutralize it.

Contrary to the propaganda regularly offered as “analysis” by the liberal media/Democrat Party Axis, the backlash against Republicans in 2006 and 2008 was by no means an embrace of the mindset of the political left. The American people overwhelmingly identify with conservatism, but no longer with Republicans, who all too often disavow any loyalty to it. Having vainly attempted to ingratiate themselves with the political “center,” GOP “moderates” lost touch with the conservative base.

America is ripe for a reestablishment of those former ties. But it remains to be seen whether the Republican Party will recognize and seize this opportunity to return to its roots and return to power. It would be a welcome change.

Christopher G. Adamo has been active in Wyoming politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets American made products including the incomparable Abigail Adams Bedspread Set from Bates Mills. Contact information for Chris Adamo, and his archives, can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

Sadly, however, one series of battles continues to be ignored.

On June 3, 1942, the Japanese bombed Dutch Harbor, located at the Aleutian Islands, west of the Alaskan peninsula. Three days later, they landed on the islands of Kiska and Attu, culminating in the only battles of the war fought in North America. Many of the men there went through hell.

Remarkably, the battle is barely known.

One person who has not forgotten is renowned World War II historian, Donald Goldstein. Goldstein, a retired University of Pittsburgh professor, authored one of the only books on the campaign, called the “Williwaw War,” named for the freezing, high-velocity winds flowing from Siberia and the Bering Sea, which made service in the Aleutians a constant misery.

“It was strategically very important who controlled those islands,” says Goldstein. The Americans stationed there “kept the Japanese from the West Coast and from invading the U.S. mainland…. From a strategic point of view, you can’t underestimate the situation there. Look at a map! The Aleutians aren’t very far from Seattle.”

In the Aleutians, American troops battled not only the Japanese, but debilitating weather and boredom. To combat the fierce and unpredictable williwaws, soldiers leaned forward as they walked, before falling on their faces as the winds abruptly ended. They battled blinding, waste-deep snow, dense fog, sleet that felt like a sandblaster.

To escape the climate, troops spent hours inside. The boredom was so bad that some drank anything they could find. There were stories of casualties from “torpedo juice.” Morale was awful.

“War is boredom mixed with moments of stark terror,” says Goldstein. “You sit and wait. And then all at once it comes.”

And when it came to the Aleutians, it came with ferocity. Shortly after bombing Dutch Harbor, the Japanese took Attu and Kiska. Thirteen months later, in August 1943, American forces sought to drive them out. Kiska was easy, since Japanese forces had bailed out two weeks earlier. Attu, however, was another story.

Attu was taken back only after a horrible fight. Japan fought to the last man. Facing defeat, 500 Japanese soldiers committed suicide with their own grenades. Whereas Dutch Harbor witnessed fewer than 100 casualties, U.S. burial patrols at Attu counted 2,351 Japanese bodies. Total U.S. casualties were 3,829—549 killed. Some believe it was the bloodiest battle of World War II.

And yet, few Americans have heard of the battle. Notes Goldstein: “Even [at the time] there was hardly any press coverage. If you ask most people today where Attu is they have no idea…. It’s forgotten.”

Do the veterans of this campaign feel neglected?

“Oh, yes,” says Goldstein. “They’re bitter. These guys never got the credit they deserve.”

Many of the unrecognized survivors suffered premature deaths once they got home. One was Andrew Boggs Covert, a tall, lanky fellow who had worked at Pullman Standard in Butler, Pennsylvania prior to the war. Boggs found himself drafted into the Marines Corps as a 30-year-old with seven children. His surviving son, Jim, recalls riding to Pittsburgh to say goodbye to his father in 1942.

It was not a permanent goodbye, as Andrew survived the brutal combat. “He told me about some of the hand-to-hand stuff,” says his son today. “It was traumatic. But he was matter of fact: ‘Do it, take care of it, serve your country, get over it.’”

Still, getting over it was not that easy. Andrew died in October 1966 at age 54.

A survivor who outlived Andrew was Leonard Levandoski of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, a member of the 11th Fighter Squadron, who spent two grueling years at Attu.

A few years back, while writing for a newspaper, I tried to track down Leonard on a tip from the Department of Veterans Affairs: “This guy is perfect for you to interview,” said the press person. “Every year he writes letters-to-the-editor trying to get people to remember what happened. He’ll be thrilled to get your call.”

When I called, Leonard’s wife, Geraldine, answered. “Who is this?” she said slowly. When I gave my name and purpose, Geraldine began to cry. “Leonard just passed away,” she told me. “He waited years for someone to call.”

Many of those veterans have now passed away. The years have slowly faded, with no one calling about the Aleutians. It is about time we remember.

— Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His books include “The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand” and “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.”

Apparently, Moore thinks that capitalism is a system where the government bails out and controls the financial sector, or one whereby a few rich people dominate the entire structure and keep everyone else poor. Both are leftist caricatures that have nothing in common with capitalism properly construed, as best described by its first and best exponent, Adam Smith.

So Moore’s film needs a new title. Perhaps something like, “Corporatism: What the Left Thinks Capitalism Is.”

Watching Michael Moore rail against corporate bailouts in the early scenes of his latest movie, a free marketeer might wonder if perhaps the film maker has inadvertently blundered into the truth. Among other things, he rips apart the notion that government and big business partnering up is good for the little guy. About half-way through the movie, I actually caught myself thinking: Do Michael Moore and disciples of Adam Smith actually agree?

Eventually the film predictably drifts leftward, criticizing “excesses” such as high foreclosure rates, individuals hurt by (downward) stock-market swings, problems with a privatized jail and, of course, the fact that rich people are, well, rich (this from a guy worth millions himself). Moore also makes a faux-religious argument, asking some priests, “What would Jesus do?”

Many on the left similarly cite such “excesses of capitalism” as their reasons for opposing a free-market system. The reality, of course, is that most of these excesses have nothing to do with capitalism. Indeed, things like high foreclosure rates are the result of government policies that subsidized and virtually forced banks to give mortgage loans to people who couldn’t afford the home. The financial and stock-market crashes of one year ago were byproducts of the inevitable collapse of that house of cards.

But alas, excesses and villains are what sell movie tickets. Perhaps Moore will expand on the theme with films on the excesses of non-capitalist systems? How about these?: The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia (two million murdered), the Soviet Union (65 million dead), Communist China (70 million dead), and so on. Now, those are some excesses, and gripping ones at that.

Michael Moore incoherently argues that we need to replace “capitalism” with a true American system: “Democracy.”

Ironically, a true capitalist system is the best and most pure system of the democratic ideal: individual consumers and producers engaging in purely voluntary and mutually beneficial exchanges. This could not be more different from government and politics, the hallmarks of which are coercion and dishonesty.

Here’s how economist Walter Williams defines capitalism and the proper role of government in such a system:

“Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private ownership and control over the means of production. The distribution of goods and services and their prices are mainly determined by competition in a free market. Under such a system the primary job of government is to protect private property, enforce contracts, and ensure rule of law.”

Capitalism is a system that has pulled millions upon millions of people out of poverty, but Michael Moore is profoundly ignorant of that. When pressed in an interview, he said he “doesn’t want to get caught up in titles.” He apparently doesn’t want to get caught up in truth either. Yet, condemning a system without understanding its basic principles sells movie tickets—i.e., it makes money—and earns the praise of others who share Moore’s ignorance.

Before this film was released, Moore wrote, “The time has arrived for, as Time magazine called it, my ‘magnum opus.’ I only had a year of Latin when I was in high school, so I’m not quite sure what that means, but I think it’s good.”

Michael Moore may have had one year of Latin, but he either skipped or flunked Econ 101.

— Jarrett Skorup is a 2009 graduate of Grove City College and former student fellow at The Center for Vision & Values. He is a research intern at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Mich. Mr. Skorup can be reached at Skorup@mackinac.org.

The 2010 mid-term congressional races could easily become a rout of the left, with heartland America energized and active as it has not been in nearly two decades. According to current trends and polling data, next year’s races are nearly guaranteed to go decidedly to the right. Unfortunately, the Republican Party has opted to soften its stances and pursue a strategy of “inclusiveness,” which in reality represents a shift to the left, and out of the good graces of heartland America. Nowhere is this travesty more flagrantly on display than in the upcoming New York District 23 special election.

Overwhelmingly rural, House District 23 barely went for Obama in last year’s election. And as was the case throughout the nation, the Democrat ticket was helped immeasurably by the insipidness of the McCain campaign. Clearly, this district is not a “lock” for the Democrats. Yet, when selecting a Republican nominee in the upcoming election its Republican Party apparatus sought to “lead” by following, and chose the extremely liberal Republican Assembly Woman Dierdre Scozzafava. On most issues, she is at least as far left as Bill Owens, the Democrat.

Worse yet, notable figures within Republican circles, such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and current House Minority Leader John Boehner are endorsing the Scozzafava candidacy purely on the basis that she calls herself “Republican.” From their perspective, giving the seat to someone who holds that title is somehow superior to allowing it to go to a Democrat. Yet recent history paints a starkly different picture.

In Pennsylvania in 2004, then “Republican” Senator Arlen Specter faced a stiff primary challenge from Congressman Pat Toomey. Believing that Specter would somehow help garner Pennsylvania for George W. Bush in his re-election bid that same year, the President made over two dozen campaign appearances on behalf of Specter. Clearly, this boosted Specter’s political fortunes and helped him win a razor thin victory over Toomey, whereupon he immediately turned on Bush and the GOP, siding with Democrats in several key votes. Ultimately, in the wake of the 2008 Obama victory, Specter came out of the closet and declared what honest observers knew all along, that he was indeed a Democrat.

Is this the great Republican strategy to turn the country back from its current downfall? Do Republican “leaders” really believe that the outrage from middle America over the thuggish nationalization of industry, banking, and possibly the healthcare field by Obama and his minions can be channeled into a boost for the candidacy of a “me too” liberal Republican like Scozzafava?

At least when the Trojans of yore brought that confounded wooden horse into their midst, they did so in total ignorance of the danger it represented. It would have been beyond credible, even in a fable, to contend that they might have still accepted it, knowing its sinister contents, under the absurd auspices that doing so would ensure a greater number of warriors to fight the impending battle against the Greeks. Yet that is precisely the mentality of those who claim an allegiance to conservatism while supporting the likes of Scozzafava.

Fortunately, conservative America has finally had its fill of the empty “RINO” promises. All of the stirring rhetoric of a well-crafted party platform is absolutely meaningless if the party proceeds to accept and even embrace a liberal agenda. While some true conservatives are still working within the GOP in an effort to regain control of it from its liberal captors, others are working outside the party to jolt it with a dose of reality, and hopefully gain the attention of its myopic upper echelon.

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, making good on her promise to continue the political fight from outside of public office, has endorsed the candidacy of Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate. In this she is joined by former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey and former Senator Rick Santorum, along with an enormous and extremely energized contingent from grassroots America.

Few on the political “inside” appear to have any comprehension of just how much is at stake in the District 23 race. If Scozzafava somehow manages to win, she will be heralded as the embodiment of what the Republican Party needs to become in order to regain majority status in the Congress and Senate. Consequently, any Republicans running to the right of Scozzafava in subsequent races would invariably be marginalized on the nightly news and among the party liberals as being “out of the mainstream,” thus giving all Republicans an enormous obstacle to overcome in their electoral pursuits.

Yet nothing could be farther from the truth. The political ground occupied by Scozzafava is exactly what destroyed GOP momentum in the last decade, and what ultimately cost it in 2006 and 2008. Conservatives know this, and so do the liberals. Only the Republican “insiders” remain oblivious.

From as far back as the Nixon Administration, Republican political fortunes have risen and fallen in direct correlation to the party’s embrace or abandonment of conservative principle. Things are no different this year, despite the stunning successes of the Obama machine in 2008. Disillusionment with the current Administration, by itself, is not sufficient to bolster Republican popularity with voters. Only a real conservative opposition will properly address the outrage and energy of traditional America and, with the promise of a real reversal of the present destructive and unconstitutional liberal agenda, rally the conservative grassroots to victory in 2010.

Christopher G. Adamo has been active in Wyoming politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets American made products including the incomparable Abigail Adams Bedspread Set from Bates Mills. Contact information for Chris Adamo, and his archives, can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

Easy: Character. The men running the war are mentally the wrong ones to do it.

Think about this for a moment. Suppose that your boss at the lab or law firm or newsroom demanded that, when he entered the room, you leapt spasmodically to your feet, stood rigidly erect with your feet at a forty-five degree angle like a congenitally deformed duck, and stared straight ahead until he gave you permission to relax. You would think, correctly, that he was crazy as a bedbug. If he then required reporters to stand in a square so he could inspect their belt buckles, you would either figure he was a gay blade or call for a struggle buggy and some big orderlies. This weird posturing is not normal, nor are those it appeals to.

Suppose you showed up for freshman orientation at Princeton and your professors bellowed at the tops of their voices, three inches from your face, “Your shoes ain’t shined good, puke. Get down and give me fifty.” (Pushups, that is, which in the military doesn’t mean the better sort of bra.) You would decide that the loon had lost whatever mind he had ever had, and call Domino’s for a cheese pizza, double Haldol.

Should you be so unwary as to suggest the foregoing in print, the response will usually be that militaries need discipline. True, and so do newspapers. However, there is a distinction between discipline and ritualized lunacy. At every publication for which I have worked, the editor was clearly and absolutely in charge. Yet I, seldom senior, could say, “Yeah, Wes, but if we do that, won’t thus-and-so bad thing happen?” His decision was law, but he was happy to hear from subordinates, who might know something he didn’t. Editors do not require vaguely sadomasochistic submissiveness.

This hoopla is not of use in combat. The Taliban seem to be doing rather well. Do you suppose their commanders check their beds to be sure that a quarter will bounce from their blankets?

Now, what kind of kid wants to go for robot training at West Point or boat school at Annapolis? Statistically these kids are bright, gregarious, “motivated” (a favorite military word), athletic, perhaps Eagle Scouts. Psychologically they want (need?) to live under a regime of rigid conformity and obedience that would appear as absurd as it is if we were not accustomed seeing it among soldiers. That is, they are autoselected not to think for themselves or question decisions from above. They are exactly what universities exist not to produce.

The service academies reinforce these unfortunate characteristics. Their schooling consists of four years of learning what to think, not how to think. There are hours of running in formation (“If I die on the Russian front….”), close-order drill, manual of arms (“Hen-spection…harms!”). Why? There is no military value in being able to shift your rifle from shoulder to shoulder crisply. Like the endless inspections of everything, all of this participation in the hive inculcates groupishness and a curious sense of safety in conformity.

The effects are remarkable and, from a standpoint of civilization, undesirable. Large authoritarian organizations make easier the compartmentalization of morality. A colonel typically will be a good neighbor, civic-minded, responsible, unlikely to steal your silverware or kick your dog. If the Pentagon tells him to bomb a city he has never heard of and has no reason to bomb, killing people who pose no threat to him, he will. He feels no individual responsibility for atrocious behavior ordered from above. “I vas only followink orders,” the Nuremberg defense, is the bedrock of military ethics, if any.

Men trained in conformist obedience can work marvels. They just don’t care whether the marvel is good or evil. If you need to handle some vast natural disaster, call on the military. They have the manpower, the aircraft, the medics, the co-operation to get things done now. They will stay on their feet for forty-eight hours without sleep. They take the “mission” (another favorite military word) seriously.

What they do not do particularly well is wage war. Why? Because they have in their minds a view of war that is partly that of offensive linemen—you close with the enemy and destroy him—and partly martial romanticism. They speak of duty, honor, country, bravery, fallen comrades, proving oneself. Military history is rife with silly pageantry, nobility of spirit, glorious charges, and impracticality. Having been trained to think rigidly, they do.

Before Agincourt, there were things the French might profitably have learned about long bows, but didn’t bother because chivalry didn’t concern itself with peasants. It was the glory of the thing, not whether they were committing suicide. English generals killed 20,000 young Brits in one day at the Somme; they hadn’t compared the ideas in their heads with then-current military reality (such as that infantry charges over long distances against massed machine guns, artillery, and barbed wire are not especially productive, unless you manufacture embalming fluid.) Authoritarian group-think, love of ritual, romanticism, inattention: not a happy brew.

Further, military service encourages an often-catastrophic sense of masculine potency. Running in formation with fifty other men (“lef-rye-lef-rye-lef-rye-layeff….”) or watching a fighter cat-shot from a carrier deck—the thrill is gonadal, appealing to something deep in the male psyche, a challenge flung at life. It is wonderful, but not a sound basis for judgement.

A consequence is a tendency for militaries of the First World to gravely overestimate themselves, and thus underestimate their enemies. This is why they usually expect wars to be far shorter and cheaper than they turn out to be. As recent examples, the French did not expect those slanty-eyed little zipperheads (les jaunes) to win in Viet Nam, nor did the Pentagon have any idea they the US could possibly lose 60,000 dead and the war in that country, Iraq would be a cakewalk, and those louse-infested towel-heads in Afghanistan had no hope against American swoosh-kerpows. The US military in particular has a compulsory can-do attitude, with slogans like “The difficult we can do today, the impossible takes a bit longer.” This substitution of morale for comprehension is regularly disastrous.

Having no idea what they are getting into is almost doctrine among professional officers. A major does not become a colonel by saying, “General, the French didn’t do all that well at Dien Bien Phu. Maybe we ought to, you know, do something else. We could invade Vanuatu.”

America’s problem is not that its generals prepare for the last war, but that they don’t prepare for it, and then fight it again the same way.

More Fred here.

On Sunday the 25th the news broke from the local television station:

Redmond man jailed on rape, assault charges

Posted: Jan 25, 2009 01:19 AM EST

Kevin Dennis Driscoll

By Kate Paul, KTVZ.COM

A 30-year-old Redmond man was arrested Saturday on rape and four other charges in an alleged assault that occurred more than 24 hours earlier, police said.

Redmond Police detectives also executed a search warrant on the home of Kevin Dennis Driscoll as part of the investigation of an alleged sexual assault that occurred in Redmond early Friday morning, said Det. Sgt. Cory Chase.

Driscoll was arrested around noon in Redmond and taken to the Deschutes County Jail, where he was booked on first-degree charges of rape, sodomy, sex abuse and unlawful sexual penetration, as well as fourth-degree assault. Initial bail was set at $382,500.

At a northwest Redmond home, Driscoll allegedly took advantage of a young woman he’d met just hours before.

Police say Driscoll and the young woman met at a bar early Friday morning.

After a few too many, the pair left with a group to go hot-tubbing. That’s when police say things got way out of hand, and Driscoll got aggressive.

Neighbors of Driscoll said Monday they were stunned to learn a nearby resident would do something like that. They said most in the area are easy-going and keep to themselves.

“It’s quiet you know, and nice, nice people – nice neighborhood to live in,” said Alfredo Arreola. “But you never know who’s around.”

It’s a family-oriented neighborhood because of its location, right next to an elementary school, raising serious concerns and fears for parents on Teak Street.

“You’ve got to be more careful and check on the Internet to see who’s around,” Arreola. “Because you’ve got to take care of your little ones.”

-

That was it, a one hundred and four word press release indicting a man in front of his whole community and terrorizing an entire neighborhood. Furthermore, a fax was promptly sent to Kevin’s employer the next day informing them of his arrest which would lead to his suspension and eventually his termination. Guilty or not, Kevin’s life will never again be the same.

The investigation started with the requisite photos of bruises on the woman’s body, the absence of which would have led to him not being arrested and not having his name broadcasted all over the news. Also, there was the documentation of the account she gave of events as follows from a Forensic Report dated April 23rd 2009:

“Briefly, per the police reports, the alleged victim had been to at least two lounges late on the evening of January 22 and early in the morning of January 23, 2009. She indicated that she had drunk “to the point of intoxication.” She and a number of other individuals went to a house for the purpose of “hot tubbing.” After being in the hot tub she reportedly went to lie down on a bed in one of the bedrooms and sometime later the defendant joined her in the bed. Reportedly the defendant then sexually (vaginally and anally) and physically assaulted her, including biting. She reported two separate sexual assaults by the defendant with him standing at the foot of the bed after the first assault in some fashion to keep her from leaving. During the first assault she reportedly struck the defendant; however during the second assault she did not attempt to resist. The defendant subsequently gave her a ride to her car and provided her his name and phone number.”

The set of photos were documented as being taken at the police station and nowhere else. All other photos in a rape case are supposed to be part of a regular set of photos taken at a hospital where the “rape kit” is performed. No photos were ever provided to the forensic expert or to Kevin’s attourneys that were specifically identified as the photos taken at the hospital.

The stories differed significantly. Included in her account was her trip to Kevin’s house in a taxi, one which several eyewitnesses and video refute. Excluded in her account was the documented fact that she had sex with her acquaintance, Dennis Baker, in the hot tub, a fact that she denied at first and then later admitted too when she realized that there was an eyewitnesses to that event. Dennis account of events, as described in a written statement taken by a Brian Buchanan, include that he and Mellissa went over to Kevin’s in a friend’s car and not long after had some limited sexual contact in Kevin’s driveway, something that was caught on a video from a camera affixed to Kevin’s garage. Later, according to the same statement they found themselves alone in the hot tub out back where she aggressively initiated sex with him. During the encounter Dennis noticed some bruises on her body and asked where they came from to which she did not reply but only “turned her head to one side “ avoiding eye contact “like she did when she was nervous.” In this same document, Dennis points out that he is “friends” with her husband and that he doesn’t believe the events at Driscoll’s house occurred as described by his wife. According to her husband, the document notes, they had to move away from the town they were living in previously because of bogus charges filed by her that ruined their reputation.

Shortly after they had finished having sex others joined them in the hot tub and they reported staying there for a long time. Kevin had gone to bed while the others had been in the hot tub and trusted his friend Pete to look after things. Mellissa exited the hot tub and wearing nothing but a hooded sweatshirt was seen heading towards Kevin’s room. Dennis, before leaving some time later, looked through the house for Mellissa calling her name and upon not hearing anything decided that she may have gone home with one of the others and left himself. Driscoll stated that she unexpectedly came into his room when it was dark and pursued sexual relations with him. He said that they had sex twice, once when she first entered the room and once just before they left the morning after. Early the next morning video footage from the camera affixed to Kevin’s garage documented Kevin entering his car and having it warmed up before Mellissa entered it on her own volition and they drove off. Later footage from a camera near the Fireside Lounge where her car was still parked showed Kevin giving Mellissa his phone number before saying goodbye.

After his release from jail Kevin got an attorney, Ted Coran, who specializes in sexual assault defense cases and the original trial date was set for June 6th, 2009. Coran assured Kevin that as soon as Dennis’ account of what had happened was presented that the charges would be dropped and Kevin would not have anything to worry about. District Attorney Welsh Ashby was originally assigned to try the case but not long after the case was scheduled a new prosecutor was assigned and immediately it was rescheduled to September 22nd. The new prosecuting tourney’s name was Jody Vaughan.

Jody Vaughan has had a storied past in the Oregon Criminal Justice System. She has been practicing since 1986 and was an assistant DA in Josephine County until 2004 when she got the same job in Deschutes County where Driscoll was booked. While in Josephine County she prosecuted a case in which a 65 year old man by the name of T.J. Burris of Hugo Ore. Burris was sentenced to twenty years in prison for a crime that he and many others say he did not commit. Burris, then an elder at the First Assembly of God church in Grants Pass, Ore., was accused by his granddaughter of beating and sexually abusing her. Two trials were held for this particular case the first of which he was found not guilty. Apparently, the not guilty verdict wasn’t good enough for Vaughan and her boss, Timothy R. Thomson, who boasted a 95% conviction rate in their county. In spite of a confession by the alleged victim between the trials that the allegations were false Vaughan and Thomson were able, through the testimony of the parents of his granddaughter, who had a well documented past of fraud as well as other crimes, to convict Burris and he spent the next eight years behind bars with the remainder of his sentence being served as a parolee. There are no less than six complaints filed against Vaughan during her career as a prosecutor and she is also famous for aggressively prosecuting DUI cases in the county. Thomson has since taken the job of Union County D.A. and has worked for the Oregon Department of Justice.

The treatment of the forensic evidence in the Oregon v. Driscoll case mirrors the cavalier attitude towards testimony and evidence shown in the Burris case. When Kevin’s attorney approached Vaughan in order to procure further photos supposedly taken at the hospital as part of a routine rape kit procedure they were not forthcoming. A document dated January 27th 2009 from the Redmond Police Department was given to Kevin’s attorney stating that Leahey came down to have additional photos taken. Stating that “photos had already been taken and she didn’t see the need for more to be taken” she only volunteered to have those injuries not in her vaginal area photographed. When approached by Coran about the photos of her vaginal area Vaughan stated ambiguously that the photos were either lost or were part of the set that he already had of the bruises examined by the forensic expert on April 23rd.  Coran was incredulous. To date there are no photos of her vaginal area that show any trauma to the area.

Furthermore, the forensic report prepared on the 23rd of April clearly states that the bruises appeared to be much older than would have occurred anytime the alleged events happened due to coloration of the wounds. Also, the report said of the alleged bite mark on the upper right chest that “this area of the body is not protuberant and I think it would be difficult, if not altogether impossible, to create a bite mark in this region without a corresponding bite mark.” Put simply, there are no pictures of the alleged injury to the vaginal region, a forensic expert who had excellent credentials and was well published dismissed the injuries as having taken place the night of the incident and that it was doubtful that there were any bite marks and the presence of testimony by someone who was intimate with Leahey moments before the alleged incident occurred noted the presence of such injuries did not stop Vaughan from pursuing a conviction.

Vaughan’s treatment of the case as it pertains to trial dates and other alleged activities of Driscoll pending trial is also very curious, if not alarming. The trial has been delayed twice with the current date being set at November 3rd 2009. Since Kevin’s release from jail he has been under house arrest and wears an ankle transponder to monitor his movements. Vaughan has accused Driscoll of tampering with the transponder, something that Kevin’s case handler vehemently denies. Former girlfriends of Kevin who happened to not have very flattering things to say about him were corralled in front of the judge at a pretrial hearing in order to qualify them for testimony and the judge refused to let them testify. Allegations were also made by Vaughan that Kevin had made withdraws from ATMs in the area which can be proven false because they were made by his friend and sister and photos are easily procured from the bank cameras. Vaughan has also produced another “expert opinion” to counter the forensic report. A general practitioner from the area who has no forensic experience has been scheduled to testify in the case in order to increase the likelihood of a conviction. Coran calls this a typical case of pitting one doctor against another in order to dissuade the jury.

The press has been extremely ambivalent about the case. Repeatedly, Kevin’s close friend, Angela Dundas of Bend Oregon, has approached local media outlets to tell Kevin’s story and referred them to the work of Joseph Snook, and investigative reporter that writes for a publication called the U.S. Observer that bills itself as a watchdog for Oregon public officials. One of their favorite targets is Vaughan who has apparently given them much fodder for articles in the past. KTVZ has been on record saying that they felt that the U.S. observer is little more than a tabloid and have told Dundas that their writers have a wild imagination. Dundas’ response has been that “they don’t know anything that I didn’t know from the beginning.” However, no coverage other than their original report broadcast on the 25th of January and that of the U.S Observer has been offered to the public about this case.

The translation, of course, is that Americans and Europeans must henceforth bankrupt themselves to fund a global socialist agenda, lest global warming, which has not revealed itself in a decade, will rise up to consume those greedy Western capitalists with fire and brimstone.

Consider the real problems facing Brown’s England. Mired in past socialist exploits, England’s economy is inarguably in decline. Its unemployment rate is topping eight percent. The structure of English society, once the most influential in the civilized world, has been devastated by the systematic dismantling of tradition and morality. The most popular name for newborn “English” males is Mohammed, a statistic that certainly does not portend a resurgence of the former greatness of Britannia any time soon.

Yet rather than confront, or even dare to publicly recognize the dire threats facing his country, Brown chooses instead to demagogue the myth of “global warming” (by whatever name it is presently being touted) in order to solidify the power grab by the United Nations. Perhaps if he can keep his people sufficiently alarmed and bewildered with worries of being swallowed up by the rising tide of the Atlantic, they will neglect to notice that their nation is on the verge of taking that proverbial one-way journey in a handbasket.

Unfortunately for America, Gordon Brown is not alone. During the past nine months, this technique has been revealed as standard White House operating procedure. Barack Obama resorts to similar behavior every time his far-left agenda appears to be faltering, which of late has been on a daily basis.

Despite strident liberal efforts to implement government health-control through congressional sleight of hand and subterfuge, the American people have become informed on its real ramifications, and by large margins want no part of it. Nevertheless, Nancy Pelosi, the far-left House Speaker, and equally liberal Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid intend to ram the groundbreaking measure through the Congress by any means necessary.

An epic battle is shaping up between the leftist federal government, and those peasants out in the American heartland who doggedly cling to the notion that the country belongs to them and their posterity. This contest promises to evolve into liberalism’s “Tet Offensive,” the outcome of which, they hope, will be a decisive victory over the America of “Tea Parties,” talk-radio, and alternative media.

So the Obama regime, along with its accomplices in the Congress and on the network news, is pulling out all of the stops. Key to this effort is the vilification of any and all who, no matter how factually or honorably they do so, would dare to stand in the way of the liberal juggernaut. And the ugliness of the effort is astonishing. Only a few years have passed since the time when nothing of such a despotic nature would have been tolerated within these shores.

In response to the only real media scrutiny of Obama’s socialist scheme, which came from Fox News, White House senior advisor David Axelrod actually asserted that Fox is “not a news organization.” One can only assume that, among Obama’s many unappointed and unaccountable “Czars” lurks an individual seeking to determine what is or is not fit to disseminate to those ignorant masses on mainstreet, and censor it accordingly.

Unable to counter the information from Fox with facts, the Obama response is to attempt to destroy the messenger. And what of that “First Amendment” business about freedom of speech? Surely an Obama appointed judge can “clarify” it for us all, in order to prevent the excesses of Fox, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh from hampering the Obama agenda. If Hugo Chavez can pull it off in Venezuela, why not here?

Similarly, Obama is now going after the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which in the wake of its voiced opposition to government run “healthcare” and business killing tax hikes ostensibly meant to “save the planet,” received a rebuke from White House operative Jen Psaki. In an October 20 statement, Psaki derided the organization for allotting “millions of dollars against productive efforts under way to reform the regulatory structure, provide access to affordable health insurance for more Americans and reduce the impact of greenhouse gas emissions — all plans essential to the continued growth and recovery of our economy.”

In other words, if you object in any way to the socialist bulldozer, you are guilty of opposing “access to affordable health insurance” for your neighbors, and ultimately want to undermine the purported economic “recovery.”

Amazingly, while engaging in this war against real America, Obama is brushing aside the deteriorating Afghan situation. Worse yet, he has been absolutely silent on the obvious encroachment and attempted infiltration of the U.S. Congress by the “Council on American/Islamic Relations (CAIR), an Islamist front organization with known ties and allegiances to terrorist organizations.

Sadly, average Americans now must contend with a government that is openly hostile to their livelihoods and the prospects for the future, but accommodating to dangerous adversaries and the real threats they pose. On the other hand, during the past year, the power of the common citizen has manifested itself in a profound and unprecedented manner. The massive 9-12 gathering in Washington D.C., “Tea Parties,” and burgeoning Tenth Amendment movement are but a glimpse into the well of energy and passion that is the heart and soul of traditional America. By their malevolent arrogance, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, may have roused that “sleeping giant.”

Christopher G. Adamo has been active in Wyoming politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets American made products including the incomparable Abigail Adams Bedspread Set from Bates Mills. Contact information for Chris Adamo, and his archives, can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

To ensure imported food safety, federal agencies must focus their resources on high risk foods and coordinate efforts, according to a report released last week by the Government Accountability Office.

The report, submitted to the US Congress and obtained by the National Association of Chiefs of Police, assesses how the Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection, the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service are addressing challenges in overseeing the safety of imported food.

It also assesses how the FDA utilizes resources by working with other entities, such as state and foreign governments, and attempts to determine how the FDA is using its Predictive Risk-Based Evaluation for Dynamic Import Compliance Targeting system to oversee imported food safety.

US agriculture generates more than $1.5 trillion per year in economic activity and provides an abundant food supply for Americans and others. There are continuing concerns about the vulnerability of US agriculture to the deliberate introduction of animal and plant diseases by those wishing to harm American citizens.

“The big problem is money be spent to monitor food products being imported into the United States. So far, the budget for food safety is minimal when compared to other government programs. For example, politicians push for vaccinating millions of Americans against what they characterize as a deadly flu epidemic, yet they do not seem concerned over a very real threat to all Americans — contaminated food,” said political strategist Mike Baker.

Federal agencies also have been conducting vulnerability assessments of the agriculture infrastructure; have created networks of laboratories capable of diagnosing animal, plant, and human diseases; have begun efforts to develop a national veterinary stockpile that intends to include vaccines against foreign animal diseases; and have created new federal emergency coordinator positions to help states develop emergency response plans for the agriculture sector. However, the United States still faces complex challenges that limit the nation’s ability to respond effectively to an attack against livestock.

CBP, FDA, and FSIS claim they have taken steps to address challenges in ensuring the safety of the increasing volume of imported food. For example, CBP maintains that the system importers use to provide information to FDA on food shipments; FDA electronically reviews food imports and inspects some foreign food production facilities to prevent contaminated food from reaching U.S. shores; and FSIS employs an equivalency system that requires countries to demonstrate that their food safety systems provide the same level of protection as the U.S. system.

However, gaps in enforcement and collaboration undermine these efforts. First, CBP’s computer system does not currently notify FDA or FSIS when imported food shipments arrive at U.S. ports, although efforts are underway to provide this information to FDA for air and truck shipments.

“This is a problem we see with law enforcement agencies, intelligence agencies and other government entities,” claims former police detective and Marine intelligence officer Sidney Frances.

“Whenever we see multiple government agencies involved in one single function, there will almost certainly be some kind of Snafu,” he added.

This lack of communication may potentially increase the risk that unsafe food could enter U.S. commerce without FDA review, particularly at truck ports. Second, FDA has limited authority to ensure importers’ compliance with its regulations. Third, CBP and FDA do not identify importers with a unique number; as a result, FDA cannot always target food shipments originating from high risk importers.

Finally, CBP faces challenges in managing in-bond shipments–those that move within the United States without formally entering U.S. commerce–and such shipments possibly could be diverted into commerce. FDA generally collaborates with select states and foreign governments on imported food safety. FDA has entered into a contract, several cooperative agreements, and informal partnerships for imported food with certain states, and some state officials told GAO that they would like to collaborate further with FDA on food imports.

However, citing legal restrictions, FDA does not fully share certain information, such as product distribution lists, with states during a recall. This impedes states’ efforts to quickly remove contaminated products from grocery stores and warehouses. FSIS has begun to make available to the public a list of retail establishments that have likely received food products that are subject to a serious recall. FDA is also expanding efforts to coordinate with other countries.

In particular, through its Beyond Our Borders initiative, FDA is pushing the US government to station investigators and technical experts in China, Europe, and India, to provide technical assistance and gather information about food manufacturing practices to improve risk-based screening at U.S. ports.

According to FDA, inspectors will analyze food shipments using criteria that include a product’s inherent food safety risk and the importer’s violative history, among other things, to estimate each shipment’s risk. A 2007 pilot test indicated that the system improved FDA’s ability to identify products it considers to be high risk while allowing a greater percentage of products it considers low risk to enter U.S. commerce without a manual review.

On Friday, government officials with the Homeland Security and Justice Departments stated that the veteran lawman’s deputies could no longer make arrests based on a person’s immigration status. However, during an interview on Fox News Channel’s “Your World with Neil Cavuto,” Sheriff Arpaio told viewers that he and his deputies would continue to enforce the law and pointed to Arizona state laws that he would enforce.

In response to the federal complaints regarding his activities, Sheriff Arpaio dispatched deputies on a two-day “crime suppression” operation. While heralded by the men and women he serves, Arpaio’s sweeps have been characterized as racial profiling by opponents of immigration enforcement.

The nationwide enforcement of immigration law has been under the gun since President Barack Obama took his oath of office. Many political leaders, mostly Democrats, have targeted enforcement agencies and agents over the past few months with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi calling immigration raids “Un-American” and Congressman Luis Guttierez calling Border Patrol agents “The Gestapo.”

Attorney General Eric Holder has also threatened Arpaio with a federal investigation of his Sheriff’s Department and its activities as a result of his success at capturing hundreds of criminal aliens.

“Nothing has changed,” Arpaio told a Reuters reporter while overseeing an operation in a suburb northwest of Phoenix. “We’re still going to be doing what we’ve been doing tonight and during the last two and a half years. I don’t take orders from anyone.”

Sheriff Arpaio first carried out the sweeps after his deputies underwent training offered by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that gave participating state and local police officers authority to make immigration arrests during the Bush Administration. However, during the Obama Administration deputies have now lost their arrest powers as far as immigration laws on the streets.

The Homeland Security Department claims the reason for curtailing the program with local law enforcement is the current restructuring of the ICE program. However, Arpaio states that his officers are still allowed to determine the immigration status of detainees held in county jails.

Sheriff Arpaio was first elected in 1992 and is praised for his success in reducing violence and crime within his jurisdiction. While strongly supported by a majority of citizens in his county, Arpaio is routinely lambasted by Hispanic activists, liberal organizations and civil rights leaders such as Rev. Al Sharpton.

Sadly, at the same time as this government/media crackdown on Arpaio, the Department of Homeland Security estimates that the total unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States is 10 million. Their total includes those who entered the United States illegally and those who entered legally but overstayed their authorized period of stay. Critics dispute the federal statistics saying that the number of illegal aliens is closer to 20 million.

Another recent study by the GAO estimates that there are about 15 million illegal aliens living in the United States. The study estimates that nearly 700,000 aliens enter the United States illegally or overstay their authorized period of stay each year.

Their report contained information on the number of criminal aliens incarcerated, their country of citizenship or country of birth, and the cost to incarcerate them. Congress also requested that the GAO provide information on the criminal history of aliens incarcerated in federal and state prisons or local jails who had entered the country illegally.

In the GAO study of a population sample of 55,322 illegal aliens, analysts found that they were arrested a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien.

Nearly all of the illegal aliens in the study sample had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests. They were arrested for a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses, averaging about 13 offenses per illegal alien.

One arrest incident may include multiple offenses, a fact that explains why there are nearly one and half times more offenses than arrests.

Almost all of these illegal aliens were arrested for more than 1 offense. Slightly more than half of the 55,322 illegal aliens had between 2 and 10 offenses. About 45 percent of all offenses were drug or immigration offenses. About 15 percent were property-related offenses such as burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and property damage. About 12 percent were for violent offenses such as murder, robbery, assault, and sex-related crimes. The balance was for such other offenses as traffic violations, including driving under the influence; fraud–including forgery and counterfeiting; weapons violations; and obstruction of justice.

Eighty percent of all arrests occurred in three states — California, Texas, and Arizona. Specifically, about 58 percent of all arrests occurred in California, 14 percent in Texas, and 8 percent in Arizona. In addition, the FBI estimates that there are upwards of 50,000 illegal aliens who are members of crime gangs such as MS-13, the Mexican Mafia and the Latin Kings.

“If the US Attorney General and his boss President Obama are concerned with investigating criminal activity, perhaps they should focus on criminal aliens and gangs rather than persecuting an effective law enforcement commander such as Joe Arpaio,” said former NYPD detective and Marine Sid Frances.

On Monday, October 19, top talk show host Glenn Beck will expose President Barack Obama’s latest power grab: control of the Internet. The show (aired on Fox News Channel at 5:00 PM EST) is a must-see for anyone interested in freedom and limited government, and it’s a welcome change from the Obama propaganda one gets from most news organizations.

However, on September 3, this writer exposed this stealth Obama-Congressional operation in a column worth reading to understand the danger American’s face when the government sets its sights on the last bastion of freedom of expression — the worldwide web. And, of course, they are using the problem of cyber crime to rationalize their takeover.

A Senate bill (S.773) if passed would give the President of the United States the authority to declare a “cyber emergency” and close down the Internet by disconnecting users.

In addition, it will require professional IT people to be certified by the federal government, something that angers many IT technicians and those who believe in the First Amendment. Americans are being deceived by the news media and their elected officials in Washington, DC and it’s Americans who will suffer from that deception, according to information technology experts.

This stealth legislation is being sponsored by the powerful and highly partisan Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and the liberal Senator Olympia Snow (R-ME), claim critics.

“The fact that a man [Rockefeller] who visited other nations to give them a heads up about our intentions [to invade Iraq] would now suddenly care about security is laughable,” said political strategist Mike Baker.

“But there is no laughing about a government that wants to control cyber space, the last bastion of freedom of speech in our crumbling democracy,” said Baker.

“What irks President Obama and the other liberal-left politicians is that fact that while they’re pampered by the mainstream news media, talk radio and the Internet are not in the tank for them,” he added.

During a White House announcement televised on Fox News, CNN and other news networks, Obama said he will appoint a cyber security coordinator—or Cyber Czar—for the critical infrastructure that all Americans depend on.

“We will ensure that these networks are secure, trustworthy and resilient,” he said. “We will deter, prevent, detect and defend against attacks, and recover quickly from any disruptions or damage.”

The cyber security office will orchestrate and integrate all cyber security policies for the government, the president said. It will work closely with the Office of Management and Budget to ensure agency budgets reflect those priorities, and, in the event of major cyber incident or attack, it will coordinate government response.

The cyber security coordinator will be a member of the national security staff and will serve on the president’s national economic council.

But Critics point out that any high-tech program that entails government intrusion should be carefully monitored by not only the US Congress but also private sector experts in cyber security and computer-based espionage.

“People went ballistic when they discovered the Bush White House authorized the interception of telephone and other electronic communications by intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and rightly so. Yet, I haven’t heard a peep from these same people who claim they are concerned with ‘privacy rights,’” said security expert and former NYPD cop Mike Fitzgerald.

“This may come back to haunt us as the first step down a truly slippery slope,” said former the Police detective and director of security.

“The technology involved is so complicated that it may take computer scientists to discover whether the government is protecting Americans on the worldwide web or spying on them. And what are businesses that rely on the Internet supposed to do if the President closes down the Internet?” asks Sam McCarthy a former police commander now a computer security expert..

The cyber infrastructure is not limited to the federal government. The office will work with state and local governments and international partners to combat cyber attacks, and also will work with the private sector to ensure an organized and unified response to future cyber incidents, Obama stated.

Experts agree that America’s economic prosperity in the 21st century will depend on cyber security, which also affects public safety and national security. However, most experts contacted said that cyber security should be the responsibility of the private sector not government officials.

“We count on computer networks to deliver our oil and gas, our power and our water,” said McCarthy.

“Computers help run public transportation networks from the skies to subways, he noted, and hackers have launched attacks on electrical grids,” he said.

Part of the Obama program is a national campaign to promote cyber security awareness and digital literacy. The effort also will be part of the president’s initiative to build a digital work force for the 21st century. However, according to security experts, Obama is seeking powers never before given to a President even during the height of the Cold War.

“Once Americans realize what’s happening it may be too late thanks to Obama’s supporters in the news media. Do a search and you won’t see stories about this power grab in the major media,” warns Baker.

*CHOOSE bright, flame-retardant costumes or add reflective tape to costumes and candy bags so children are easily seen in the dark. In addition, carry a glow stick or flashlight.

*PLAN a trick-or-treating route in familiar neighborhoods with well-lit streets. Avoid unfamiliar neighborhoods, streets that are isolated, or homes that are poorly lit inside or outside.

*NEVER send young children out alone. They should always be accompanied by a parent or another trusted adult. Older children should always travel in groups.

*ALWAYS walk younger children to the door to receive treats and don’t let children enter a home unless you are with them.

*BE SURE children do not approach any vehicle, occupied or not, unless you are with them.

*DISCUSS basic pedestrian safety rules that children should use when walking to and from houses.

*CONSIDER organizing a home or community party as an alternative to “trick-or-treating.”

*MAKE sure children know their home phone number and address in case you get separated. Teach children how to call 911 in an emergency.

*TEACH children to say “NO!” or “this is not my mother/father” in a loud voice if someone tries to get them to go somewhere, accept anything other than a treat, or leave with them. And teach them that they should make every effort to get away by kicking, screaming and resisting.

*REMIND children to remain alert and report suspicious incidents to parents and/or law enforcement.

“Child safety is important year round, but Halloween is an especially important time for parents and children to pay extra attention to their surroundings and not let their guard down,” said Nancy McBride, National Safety Director of NCMEC. “It is important that parents exercise a few basic safety precautions to help ensure that Halloween is both fun and safe.”

This year the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children observes its 25th anniversary. NCMEC has played a role in the recovery of more than 138,500 children. Today more children come home safely than ever before. In 2008, NCMEC helped recover more children than any other year in the organization’s 25-year history, raising the recovery rate from 62 percent in 1990 to 97 percent today. And more of those who prey on children are being identified and prosecuted. Yet too many children are still missing and too many children are still the victims of sexual exploitation. There is much more that needs to be done.

NCMEC: www.missingkids.com
NACOP: www.aphf.org

The new law will provide $1.5 billion each year from 2010 to 2014 for schools, hospitals, roads, agricultural aid, roadwork and other development projects.

“This act formalizes that partnership, based on a shared commitment to improving the living conditions of the people of Pakistan through sustainable economic development, strengthening democracy and the rule of law, and combating the extremism that threatens Pakistan and the United States,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said

However, critics say they do not believe building schools and hospitals will do much to stop the Taliban and Al Qaeda and that what appears to work in Iraq will work in Afghanistan, a nation that’s been war-torn for many years prior to the US-led invasion.

“This is the liberal-left strategy for fighting a war against terrorists: build schools and hospitals. In other words, increase the number of targets for the enemy — the Taliban and Al Qaeda,” said former NYPD detective and Marine intelligence officer Sid Franks.

“This strategy may have worked in Iraq, but the Afghan terrorists and radicals have been hardened by years of fighting warlords, Russia’s military and now the US. They don’t want our schools and hospitals and Obama just doesn’t get it,” said Det. Franks.

“As usual, when faced with a problem most US politicians believe throwing taxpayers money at it is the solution,” said political strategist Mike Baker.

Meanwhile, on the same day as Obama’s law-signing, terrorists attacked three security agency buildings in Pakistan today, including the Federal Investigation Agency headquarters and two police training centers in Lahore. In addition, a suicide car bomber struck in the northwestern city of Kohat, and a bombing in Quetta in the southwest of the country left more dead.

There were five terrorist attacks in less than 24 hours and at least 40 people have been killed in the latest Taliban attacks.

These attacks follow a rash of violence in Pakistan by an increasingly emboldened Taliban, including an attack over the weekend on Pakistan’s army headquarters.

The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad strongly condemned the terrorist attacks in Pakistan, vowing continued U.S. support to help Pakistan combat violence, according to Donna Miles of the American Forces Press Service.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Pakistan Army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani following that attack to express personal condolences for those killed, while emphasizing continued U.S. support.

Mullen has made numerous trips to Pakistan during the past 18 months, and talks regularly with his Pakistani counterparts about their stepped-up counteroffensive against extremists.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said today the United States is encouraged by the way the Pakistani government is “taking on the threat that exists in their country.”

“The Pakistani government looks like they are committed to taking the necessary steps to deal with this threat,” he said.

Whitman called the attacks particularly troublesome because, he said, they take their biggest toll on innocent civilians.

U.S. embassy officials in Pakistan expressed outrage today over the latest string of attacks.

“The horrific injuries and loss of life witnessed in Lahore, Peshawar and Kohat today, along with those lost in the attack on the Pakistan Army General Headquarters, are another stark reminder of the amoral nature of those who commit such acts,” a statement released today declared. “These attacks will not deter the people of Pakistan from continuing in their commitment to a free and democratic society.

“The United States will continue to support the people and government of Pakistan in combating all forms of violence,” the statement continued. “We mourn the senseless loss of life and extend our condolences to the victims’ families, friends and community.”

Our nation is coming apart at the seams, and Barack Obama is proving to be absolutely inept, or worse, at dealing with the situation. Instead of honestly assessing things and advancing solutions conceived in the best interests of the American people, he presses mindlessly forward with his ultra-liberal agenda, ignoring or deriding those who make any effort to forestall his destruction of the great institutions of this country. In league with him are the leading players of the Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA), both of whom have exhibited a vile degree of contempt for real America, and both of whom are pivotal figures in next year’s elections.

Reid, as a four-term incumbent and currently the most powerful member of the United States Senate, faces an uphill battle next year, currently trailing in double digits behind potential Republican challengers. And while Pelosi, despite her deranged political philosophy, is secure in her equally disturbed California congressional district, the fringe-left Speaker of the House has become a paragon of everything grassroots America reviles and hopes to expunge from this thoroughly corrupted and perverse government.

In many respects, 2010 is shaping up to be a pivotal juncture in the course of the nation. The intense anger and outrage expressed at the massive “tea party” gatherings throughout 2009 are likely to metamorphose into decidedly anti-liberal voting patterns next year on election day, which could likewise translate into major gains for the Republican Party. However, such a scenario is by no means secure. And as usual, within the GOP are forces that, if allowed to act unchecked, may yet sabotage the entire situation.

Democrats are on the ropes. So once again, those vaunted Republican “moderates” are attempting to come to their rescue. Whether motivated by stupidity, cowardice, or an underhanded intention to ensure that liberalism ultimately prevails in America, the usual suspects, while identifying themselves as Republicans, are giving aid and comfort to the left, at the ultimate expense of their supposed colleagues on the right. It is high time that their duplicity be exposed and underscored, so that their malevolent impact on conservatism can be finally neutralized.

At a critical milestone in the Democrat attempt to implement a government takeover of America’s healthcare industry, Senator Olympia Snowe (R.-ME) came out in support of the measure in the Senate Finance Committee. Thus she provides the bogus fig leaf of “bipartisanship” that Democrats so fervently desire.

Elsewhere, “Republican” forces are working hard to counteract the enormous influence of Christian and pro-life conservatives in the Party. Somehow, despite the mountains of historical evidence to the contrary, those morally rudderless pragmatists believe this would be a great boon to Republican electoral fortunes, doggedly refusing to accept that by remaking the party according to their “centrist” philosophies, they would ensure the abandonment of the party by enormous numbers of true conservatives.

Thus, their efforts continue. And in them the real animus towards Sarah Palin among GOP “moderates” becomes evident. Despite her lack of an Ivy League pedigree, or perhaps owing to it, Sarah Palin sees moral issues in black and white and, unlike her Beltway insider antagonists, is not afraid to say so. As such she poses a great threat to the Republican “business as usual” Washington crowd that occasionally plays to the right (especially at election time), but ultimately seeks its own advancement.

Over time, an entire class of posturing “conservatives” has been revealed. In the wake of the 2006 electoral disaster, in which both the House and Senate changed from marginally Republican to solidly Democrat, prominent Republicans including Senator John McCain and former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Pennsylvania seized on what they believed was the opportunity to purge the GOP of its Christian/conservative influence. Both offered disparaging words about the supposed political liability of the “religious right” on the gloomy Republican electoral results. And as the abundance of evidence proves, both were inarguably wrong.

In truth, conservatism must be solidly based in traditional Judeo-Christian morality if it is to be conservatism in any sense. So-called “fiscal conservatives” (Senator Snowe considers herself one) merely profess the ludicrous notion that they can confront liberalism’s resultant social rot at a far lower cost than that expended by the Democrats.

Predictably, when disastrous expansions of the nanny state result from such double-minded “governance” on the Republicans’ watch, they lamely attempt to defend themselves by claiming that their spending levels are still far lower than what the opposition would have perpetrated.

It is sad that this posturing among Republican “moderates” is as vapid as the current day “defenses” of policy offered by Barack Obama. In the face of massive job losses during his term in the White House, he insists that had it not been for his trillion-dollar “stimulus package,” the numbers would have been far worse.

Come November of 2010, people will indeed be looking for a real and positive “change” in the composition of this out-of-control federal government. And at this opportune moment, it is no longer sufficient for Republicans to campaign solely on the faults of the Democrat left. If true conservatives in the Senate and House are going to present themselves as a worthy alternative to the abysmal status quo, they must immediately begin defining themselves and the GOP as starkly contrasted from the Democrats. And, they must not allow imposters from the Republican Party’s liberal wing to seize the debate and thereby blur the differences between right and left.

Christopher G. Adamo has been active in Wyoming politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets American made products including the incomparable Abigail Adams Bedspread Set from Bates Mills. Contact information for Chris Adamo, and his archives, can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

There were five terrorist attacks in less than 24 hours and at least 40 people have been killed in the latest Taliban attacks.

These attacks follow a rash of violence in Pakistan by an increasingly emboldened Taliban, including an attack over the weekend on Pakistan’s army headquarters.

The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad strongly condemned the terrorist attacks in Pakistan, vowing continued U.S. support to help Pakistan combat violence, according to Donna Miles of the American Forces Press Service.

The embassy issued the condemnation of the attacks as President Barack Obama signed a law that provides $7.5 billion in nonmilitary aid to Pakistan over the next five years. The funds are part of a comprehensive plan that recognizes the importance of confronting the root causes of extremism as well as extremists themselves, stated Miles.

The new law will provide $1.5 billion each year from 2010 to 2014 for schools, hospitals, roads, agricultural aid, roadwork and other development projects.

However, critics say they do not believe building schools and hospitals will do much to stop the Taliban and Al Qaeda and that what appears to work in Iraq will work in Afghanistan, a nation that’s been war-torn for many years prior to the US-led invasion.

“This act formalizes that partnership, based on a shared commitment to improving the living conditions of the people of Pakistan through sustainable economic development, strengthening democracy and the rule of law, and combating the extremism that threatens Pakistan and the United States,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said today.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Pakistan Army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani following that attack to express personal condolences for those killed, while emphasizing continued U.S. support.

Mullen has made numerous trips to Pakistan during the past 18 months, and talks regularly with his Pakistani counterparts about their stepped-up counteroffensive against extremists.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said today the United States is encouraged by the way the Pakistani government is “taking on the threat that exists in their country.”

“The Pakistani government looks like they are committed to taking the necessary steps to deal with this threat,” he said.

Whitman called the attacks particularly troublesome because, he said, they take their biggest toll on innocent civilians.

U.S. embassy officials in Pakistan expressed outrage today over the latest string of attacks.

“The horrific injuries and loss of life witnessed in Lahore, Peshawar and Kohat today, along with those lost in the attack on the Pakistan Army General Headquarters, are another stark reminder of the amoral nature of those who commit such acts,” a statement released today declared. “These attacks will not deter the people of Pakistan from continuing in their commitment to a free and democratic society.

“The United States will continue to support the people and government of Pakistan in combating all forms of violence,” the statement continued. “We mourn the senseless loss of life and extend our condolences to the victims’ families, friends and community.”

Arpaio’s deputies attended the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Center in order to be trained for immigration enforcement as part of their regular law enforcement and jail management duties. In addition to the DHS attempting to curtail Sheriff Arpaio’s immigration enforcement activities — he states he will not stop arresting illegal aliens — Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, is threatening to investigate Sheriff Arpaio and his department.

Sadly, at the same time the Department of Homeland Security estimates that the total unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States is 10 million. Their total includes those who entered the United States illegally and those who entered legally but overstayed their authorized period of stay. Critics dispute the federal statistics saying that the number of illegal aliens is closer to 20 million.

Another recent study by the GAO estimates that there are about 15 million illegal aliens living in the United States. The study estimates that nearly 700,000 aliens enter the United States illegally or overstay their authorized period of stay each year.

Some illegal aliens in the United States have been arrested and incarcerated in federal and state prisons as well as local jails, adding to already dangerously overcrowded prisons and jails, the Government Accountability Office reported to the US Congress’ Homeland Security Subcommittee on criminal aliens that were incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails.

Their report contained information on the number of criminal aliens incarcerated, their country of citizenship or country of birth, and the cost to incarcerate them. Congress also requested that the GAO provide information on the criminal history of aliens incarcerated in federal and state prisons or local jails who had entered the country illegally.

For a population of aliens that entered the country illegally and were incarcerated in federal or state prisons or local jails, the GAO report addressed the following questions: How many times have they been arrested? How many and what type of criminal offenses have they been arrested for? What states were they arrested in?

In the GAO study of a population sample of 55,322 illegal aliens, analysts found that they were arrested at a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien.

Nearly all of the illegal aliens in the study sample had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests. They were arrested for a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses, averaging about 13 offenses per illegal alien.

One arrest incident may include multiple offenses, a fact that explains why there are nearly one and half times more offenses than arrests.

Almost all of these illegal aliens were arrested for more than 1 offense. Slightly more than half of the 55,322 illegal aliens had between 2 and 10 offenses. About 45 percent of all offenses were drug or immigration offenses. About 15 percent were property-related offenses such as burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and property damage. About 12 percent were for violent offenses such as murder, robbery, assault, and sex-related crimes. The balance was for such other offenses as traffic violations, including driving under the influence; fraud–including forgery and counterfeiting; weapons violations; and obstruction of justice.

Eighty percent of all arrests occurred in three states — California, Texas, and Arizona. Specifically, about 58 percent of all arrests occurred in California, 14 percent in Texas, and 8 percent in Arizona. In addition, the FBI estimates that there are upwards of 50,000 illegal aliens who are members of crime gangs such as MS-13, the Mexican Mafia and the Latin Kings.

“If the US Attorney General and his boss President Obama are concerned with investigating criminal activity, perhaps they should focus on criminal aliens and gangs rather than persecuting an effective law enforcement commander such as Joe Arpaio,” said former NYPD detective and Marine Sid Frances.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he’s the former editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.

To subscribe to Kouri’s newsletter write to COPmagazine@aol.com and write “Subscription” on the subject line.

Grayson ruffled feathers and spread glee among the partisan flock a couple of weeks ago when he made this claim:

“If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: die quickly. That’s right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick.”

How Grayson could know enough to debate the matter is a bit of a mystery. How many times do we need to mention it? Congressional Democrats are in such a hurry to “do something” about everything, that there’s no time to write, read, or discuss the substance of legislation before agreeing to it. It was a bizarre claim to be sure, but since their “hope and change” has been provoking national rebellion, any distraction is apparently welcome.

Presumptively, the Republicans should have a “health care” plan. Maybe one that would compete with the mystical conjurings of Democrats – costs nothing, does everything. Don’t talk about substantive details though. That would counter-act the magical spells cast upon it by the Wizard-in-Chief Barack Obama. Just imagine, as Alan and Barack want you to, clicking your heals together three times as you do, that the result might be something that you want.

Or how about this? We could all go live in the United States of America again where Congress isn’t actually supposed to be in the insurance business and providing sales commissions to its members. We could imagine instead, on firmer intellectual ground, that they’re trying to pull another fast one on us, overstepping their Constitutional authority again, trying to do something as corrupt as a petrified turd in a drain pipe.

More recently, Grayson stepped to the podium to once again say that he won’t apologize for his earlier remarks – fueling speculation that he might be subtly poking fun at Republican Congressman Joe Wilson for apologizing after yelling “You lie!” during Obama’s stump speech to Congress. (What else should I call it, really?) He had some additional remarks.

“[The American People] understand the if Barack Obama were somehow able to cure hunger in the world, the Republicans would blame him for over-population. They understand the if Barack Obama could somehow bring about world peace, they’d blame him for destroying the defense industry. If fact, they understand that if Barack Obama has a BLT sandwich tomorrow for lunch, they will try to ban bacon.”

Well, Barack Obama did win a Nobel Peace Prize for talking about peace and harmony. If imagining things based on flowery speeches is good enough for the Norwegian Nobel Committee – oh wait, the American people actually have to live with the real-world results and pay for them – even die for them when it becomes too expensive (especially without jobs) to heat homes and buy food and pay taxes and when foreign military actions are not properly managed. That can be especially frustrating when many in the rest of the world are content to leave the expenses and heavy lifting to Americans, and then stand around complaining as they do it.

But those nasty Republicans better stay away from banning BLTs. Bacon might not be good for our health, but I like it. While we’re at it, let’s allow smoking in public places again. A lot of people – American people – like that but somebody came along and banned it. The Democrats should also consider lifting the ban on proper history and civics lessons in public schools, citing the Pledge of Allegiance, singing the National Anthem, and praying. These things are all being replaced by activities that are truly bad for our health.