After the “debate”, there has been a backlash against Donald Trump.  I haven’t seen any new poll’s yet but wouldn’t be surprised at any gains or losses.  We here at SUFA are frustrated with the low information voters.  I think Trump, FOX and most that we watch are playing to that vast audience.  Mitt Romney won his debates with Obama if truth and accuracy were the criteria used to judge.  But he lost in the real world where playing a crowd and selling a lie can determine the winner.  An article at AT caught my attention.  The author is disappointed  with FOX’s low tactics.

Millions of conservatives were looking forward to the GOP debate like kids waiting for a new Avengers film.  Sick to death of leftist moderators going after Republican candidates with malicious intent, this debate was going to be different.  With the moderators being from Fox, this debate would be classy and substantive.  There would be none of Stephanopoulos’s trick questions meant to destroy, like when he asked Romney if he thought birth control should be legal.  Chris Wallace has a lefty bent and, like his father, can be quite arrogant, but Bret Baier is one of the best in the business.  And Megyn Kelly, whom we’ve watched since she was Megyn Kendall, is usually incisive and elegant.

Our fantasy was not to be.  Right out of the box, Kelly asked Trump a lowbrow question that belied someone’s many hours of opposition research.  The tone was instantly set.  This debate was going to be like a tacky reality show, unworthy of the candidates, with the possible exception of Trump.  Fox was going to take out Trump with glee while 24 million people watched.  They were so proud, and they stooped to his level to do it.  Rather than let him betray his own ignorance on legitimate topics, like how he would actually secure the border or how he would fix health care or his knowledge of the Constitution, they went for the low-info voter, trigger-warning crowd with a question about name-calling. 

The whole fiasco was pathetic.  Fox News fell from its lofty aerie on Thursday night into the Neverland of degenerate gotcha politics.

There is not much I disagree with there, but what happens later when a Republican faces a Democrat?  Whether it’s Megyn Kelly or George Stephanopoulos asking Trump wife-beating questions, the questions will be asked.  The real issue should be how he responds.  I think he did poorly.  Better answers like, “what did Rosie say to and about me and compare my response.  You can’t even repeat her language.  Take my other words in context.  Do I say some over the top things on a reality TV show?  Maybe.  Maybe there is a reason it’s so highly rated.  When I’m there I’m doing a job.  I’m being me but I’m expected to have an impact.”  But he didn’t say anything like that.  Instead he took shots at the moderators.  I don’t think it played well, but the one statement on political correctness scored well and for the masses, that may be all they heard.
A couple of day ago, I was talking with some friends.  My objections to Trump his past statements on staying in Iraq and keeping their oil, building a wall and making Mexico pay for it.  A Trump fan spoke up and mostly shouted “Trump was right.  “After the towers fell, after Iraq attacked us, we should have stayed and kept their oil.”  My response, none of the hijackers were from Iraq, 17 were from Saudi Arabia and the were based in Afghanistan, which was why we invaded them.  “On Mexico, I think Trump is right there too, they should have to pay after all the expenses we have to pay when they come here illegally.”  So you want a war with Mexico?  No, why?  How are you and Trump going to make Mexico pay for this wall? “ I don’t know but I think Trump has a plan and I want to hear it but think he’s right.”
I think the debates are simply a reality TV show.  They are not intended to allow us to choose our best candidate.  They act like it’s to inform us but carefully prevent us from being informed.  I would want each candidate to answer each question.  What would you do about the situation in Iraq & Syria with ISIS/ISIL?
What would you do about the situation in the South China Sea with China looking to claim contested territory?
What would you do about the situation in the arctic with Russia now claiming treaty protected, international territory?
Gun control?
But it’s all just a media circus.  The winner will be who puts on the best act.


“Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that if she decides to seek the White House again she would try to bring Republicans from red states and Democrats in blue states into a “nice, warm, purple space”…

“Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO who is flirting with a Republican presidential bid in 2016, took some tough shots Tuesday at the likely Democratic front-runner – effectively accusing Hillary Clinton of running for office on a record of air travel.

“Like Hillary Clinton, I too have traveled hundreds of thousands of miles around the globe,” Fiorina said. “But unlike Hillary Clinton, I know that flying is an activity, not an accomplishment.”

Fiorina spoke in Atlanta at a luncheon hosted by Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp. It marked at least the second time in as many months she has gone hard after Clinton; Fiorina previously criticized Clinton during an address last month at the Iowa Freedom Summit in Des Moines.

On Tuesday, Fiorina said that despite Clinton’s extensive travel as secretary of state, “every place in the world is more dangerous today than it was six years ago.”

She also went after Clinton over recent reports on how the Clinton Foundation had lifted its own ban on foreign donations, and potential conflicts of interest that could arise from that should Clinton run for the White House.

“Really? This is the best we can do is to have yet another decade of campaign finance scandals?” Fiorina said.”

Marko Rubio

I see a lot of good and bad with Rubio.  Overall it’s good, but just barely better than Bush or Trump.  I think the attraction  we have for him may be his electability.  He is suitable to to the Repug base and would attract some minority voters.  So it comes down to, not would he be a good POTUS, but could he beat the Democrat’s?

On the issue of Homeland Security funding, yes the Repug’s are playing political games.  So are the Democrats.  They will not allow a vote in the senate.  Both are guilty and our commander in chief is the worst.  But I for one don’t think it is that urgent.  Homeland did not protect Boston.  To me it is a largely ineffective bureaucracy.  I see stories on Homeland Security arresting sex offenders and NFL copyright offenders and wonder how terroristic those crimes were?  My belief is local police and citizens provide the most security.  It would help if the border patrol were allowed to do their jobs.

The Don

Donald Trump keeps teasing us with a possible run for POTUS.  I can see many good things he would accomplish.  He knows business and economics.  He knows how to make deals and would likely be able to work with both parties to accomplish his goals.  And there is where I start having concerns.  Would his agenda be good for America, of good for Trump?  He knows real estate.  Would he reform Freddy/Fannie and advert another housing bubble, or reward himself and his investor friends?

In the end, I don’t think it matters.  He would be competent on domestic issues.  On foreign affairs, he scares me almost as much as our current POTUS.  On Iraq he has stated several times we should have kept their oil.   Sounds like a “Robber Baron” foreign policy to me.  And while it might be good for our military industrial complex, I don’t think it will be good for America or the world.

Ted Cruz

I like Ted Cruz.  I think it’s great when someone stands up to their own party.  But, does he have what it takes to be president?

Jeb Bush

Jeb Bush thinks he can ride Common Core to the White House.  He is using it as a litmus test to prove he is not a scary conservative and will not upset the federal gravy train.  This is a grave misjudgment.  It will be as toxic for him, as Romneycare was for Romney.

Bush would usher in the complete capitulation of our education system to the progressive agenda.

Sara Palin

I like Sara Palin.  By most accounts, she did a good job as Alaska’s Govern.  She has said things I agree with and has been out front on many issues such as the “Death Panels”.  But I find it hard to think of her as my pick for POTUS.  She is more qualified and has the qualities I look for, but something is lacking.  Her humor appeals to me, reminding me of Reagan’s which was both charming and effective.  Am I applying a double standard?  Maybe…  In the end I think there is a lack of substance to her positions.  Anyone can oppose and find fault with what another has done.  But a leader will put forth a plan, stake out a position.  Be firm with Russia?  What does that mean?  “Double, supersecret probation”?  And I think this goes for all who court this office.

Scott Walker

The race for the Republican nomination has started.  It is vital that Republicans nominate a conservative leader who will use Republican political strength to implement a peaceful, lawful, but revolutionary change in the way Washington does business.

Establishment Republicans like Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney do not see the need for radical change and do not have the rhetorical skills to make the case for such change.  Moreover, RINO nominees have proven electoral poison in presidential elections.  Scott Walker offers the best chance to win the general election and then to use a Republican Congress to transform American government.

Rand Paul

My first pick as of today would be Rand Paul.  I think we play the role of the world’s policeman too often.  At the same time, we were attacked on the 11th of September.  If there is to be a fight, I would rather it be on their property than in America.  So can we critique Senator Paul?

An Experiment

Dale says:  “Looking at the list of republicans who want to run for president, I get the weird feeling even Bernie Sanders, socialist senator from VT could beat them.”

Yes, but why?  Can most of us here at SUFA agree on a candidate?  How about for an experiment, we review first, the Republican candidates on foreign policy.  I will post a page on each one and ask all to start with what they like and dislike on their position on foreign policy.

JAC had some great comments starting with: 

“The entire debate over US foreign policy is linked to WWI and then WWII. Especially Hitler’s legacy and how it has been used in the USA.

We have argued moral and ethical principles long enough to easily see why it is NOT OUR BUSINESS.

But then the Specter of Hitler causes us to gasp……….”but if we stopped them now we might be saving millions in the long run”.

Of course, we have no way of knowing if this is true, false or only partially true. And once we allow the emotion of the “Hitler phenomenon” to take hold, we sacrifice our principles of non aggression.

I submit that if it were not for Hitler and the Nazis the USA would not be embroiled in wars around the world. The citizens would not stand for it and the elite would not have the propaganda tool needed to get their approval.”

An article at American Thinker caught my eye, a small part reads:

Now it is my assertion that the vast majority of GOP politicians over the last century can be classified into one of the following three categories:

  1. RINOs – meaning that they do not really believe that progressivism and big government are bad for America – it’s just that the Democrats are screwing it up and Republicans should be entrusted  with the task of implementing the progressive agenda because they will do it more efficiently and cost effectively than liberal Democrats have or could.
  1. CRUELs – that is, confused Republicans who are unable to exercise leadership. These are conservative politicians whose hearts and minds may be in the right place, but they are unable to: (i) articulate their beliefs; (ii) explain the connection between progressivism and the ills that beset the nation; (iii) describe clearly how conservative policies will enhance liberty and economic prosperity; and (iv) deflect the vicious slanders that the Democrats hurl at them.
  2. CCCs – that is committed, conservative constitutionalists. These are politicians who have a clear understanding of what the progressives have wrought and how the country has changed. They can envision and describe the bleak future that awaits us if we don’t have a major course correction. Furthermore, such people also have a clear idea of what must be done to return the country to its founding ethos, re-institute the ideals of free market capitalism, constitutional and limited governance, and American exceptionalism and thereby restore the republic. Moreover, they can explain these ideas clearly and simply.

So is there a savior in the crowded field? If so, who is it? Well, here are my assessments of the various candidates (the list will not be exhaustive).

RINOs: Romney, Christie, Graham, Snyder, Ehrlich, Gilmore, Kasich;

CRUELS: Santorum, Perry, Palin, Cain, Bachmann, Paul;

CCCs: Cruz, Carson, Pence, Walker, Bolton.

You have, of course, noted several missing names: Bush, Huckabee, Rubio, Jindal, Ryan. These are the folks that I am unable to definitively pigeon-hole. Several (like Huckabee, Rubio and Jindal) are not RINOs, but I can’t decide between the other two categories. The other two (Bush and Ryan) might be RINOs, but I am not sure.

Remember my Name…

President Obama has stated the Paris attackers do not represent Islam.  It seems half the media want the story to be about the backlash and/or racism against Muslims.  I ask, who gets to name their belief?  ISIS/ISIL state they act on behalf of the Prophet.   Boko Haram just slaughtered some 2,000 and claim their belief in Islam as justification.  The French seem to accept the attackers were Islamic.  But a kinder, wiser, more interested in football President of the United States thinks they are all wrong.(1)

Police just arrested a man threatening to kill John Boehner.  The man was a bartender with a history of mental illness.  He also claims to be Jesus Christ.  Does that make him a Christian?  Do I have to accept that label?  I think not.  What Christian organizations are calling for anyone’s death?  There is a difference in what a lone madman does compared to the acts of large, worldwide organizations.   If Al Qaeda claims the Paris terrorists and they claim to have struck for Al Queada, who gets to redefine them?

As a side note, it seems pictures of the Prophet are allowed. (2)  Insulting the Prophet would be another matter, but Christians have also endured equal insults without responding with violence.  As for Obama & his opinion, when has he been right about anything?   And yet he speaks for America….



A slang basketball term for “in you’re face”!

Here is the relevant portion of the interview transcript, as published by the Post.

Q: You know where this is going, though. Even in the period that you’ve been on vacation in the last couple of weeks, in Iraq, in Syria, of course, in Africa, al-Qaeda is resurgent.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but, David, I think the analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.

Q: But that JV team jus[t] took over Fallujah.

THE PRESIDENT: I understand. But when you say took over Fallujah –

Q: And I don’t know for how long.

THE PRESIDENT: But let’s just keep in mind, Fallujah is a profoundly conservative Sunni city in a country that, independent of anything we do, is deeply divided along sectarian lines. And how we think about terrorism has to be defined and specific enough that it doesn’t lead us to think that any horrible actions that take place around the world that are motivated in part by an extremist Islamic ideology is a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into.

The transcript shows that the president was asked about al Qaeda-affiliated groups in Iraq, Syria and Africa, which would include ISIS, when the president made his remark about the “JV team.”

Recent coverage of the Paris terrorist attack leaves me wondering if anyone in the media ever listens to their own words.

“The attack was very well planed”.

“Originally, they went to the wrong address”.

“The attack was very well executed”.

“The first lead was one of the attackers left his license in the getaway car”.

One  discussion stared with one of them being a “pot-smoking, pizza delivery guy ten years ago.  OK, he changed his career path and fought & trained to be a terrorist.

Another noted the similarities between the Boston & Paris attacks.  Two cities, two brothers.

What brilliant insight!  Can  you link it to them having penises?  One issue I will buy into is the economic environment you males face.  Self destructive behavior is rarely rewarded.  School drop-outs face a hard battle to prosper.   Pot smoking bums usually get what the earn.  Since they don’t work, they earn very little.  Not surprising some blame the world for not rewarding them.  The stand-out in most reporting is they were Islamic.  The media continues to insist these were not Muslims.  Sorry, but it does not matter what you or President Obama label them.  They describe themselves as Muslim.  That is the only relevant, common factor.

Junior Varsity is however, a proper comparison with the standard of reporting we are getting…

Shall be Infringed. A discussion on open carry.

“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  The second amendment as written and intended, died years and years ago.  The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could restrict firearms ownership.  Machine guns now require a federal license.  Fighter jets and tanks are tightly controlled and always unarmed.

Last year, Arkansas passed a law intended to clear up the language in the law allowing carrying a firearm in a vehicle.  It has & is legal to transport if unloaded & the ammo stored separate where it cannot be loaded quickly or easily, and you are on a journey.  (or any other lawful reason to have a firearm) (1)   Poor wording of the revision led many county attorney generals to interpret it as allowing open carry as a constitutional right.  The Arkansas State Police have issued their own opinion that open carry is not legal and they will arrest any and all that make that attempt.

Sadly, I find myself conflicted.  I lean libertarian & want as few laws and restrictions as possible.  I am a strong supporter in the second amendment and especially the right to defend yourself.  But I do not want to see open carry expanded.  Arkansas, along with Texas, South Carolina and  Oklahoma  restricted open carry during the post-Civil war Reconstruction era.  About a dozen states allow open carry of handguns without requiring a permit.  Another dozen allow with a permit similar to a concealed carry permit.  Some states also allow open carry of long guns such as shotguns or rifles.

Notice, I do not ask for any restrictions or new laws be passed in these open carry states.  I simply do not think it wise to push for more open carry.  My concern is it will be used to commit a crime.  Be it a terrorist, foreign or domestic that parades into a crowded event, heavily armed, and attempts a massacre.  Or peaceful protesters, such as in Ferguson, are infiltrated by armed thugs, intent on violence.  If open carry is legal in that state, any attempt by police to ascertain the legality of the armed individuals will be decried racist.  And after blood is shed, they will blame the police for failing to protect the public.

And my fear is some on the left want such an occurrence to promote more restrictive national gun laws.  Ronald Ritchie,(2) the “witness” who reported John Crawford to 911, insisting he was a threat, later recanted his story.  Anti-gun activists are advocating reporting of any open carry. (3) Was John Crawford “Swatted”?

And some will say, why insist on restricting our freedoms on what if’s?  I will agree they have a point.  I will also point out, in the 90’s, a man was wondering “what if” I can get some of my followers to hijack an airplane and fly it into a skyscraper….  So what if we all agree there are threats in today’s world.  What is the best way to combat them while allowing the most freedom?

And just now, a terrorist attack in Paris.  France has very tough gun control laws.  “They were armed with Kalashnikov rifles and are also believed to have had a rocket-propelled grenade.” 

1.  How did they get their weapons?

2.  What other laws would have prevented this?

3.  Would open carry help or hinder the police & government?





Happy New Year!


Feeling Jolly?

One thing I can celebrate this season is I do not live in NY City.  (Or anywhere near St. Louis)(Or any other large, mufti-generational controlled Democratic city)  With the protests escalating, I wondered how popular is  their mayor?  De Blasio beat Lhota  72.2% to 24%. Voter turnout set a new record low of only 24 percent of registered voters.  After the recent murder of two officers, he has called for calm and a pause in the protests.  And he is being mostly ignored.  I wonder if that surprises him?  He won a “landslide”.  But with only one quarter of those registered to vote bothering to cast a ballot, he can’t claim any popular mandate.  Another number, it appears only one third of New Yorkers register to vote.  De Blasio won three quarters of one quarter of one third?  Being generous with some rounding, I make that to be about seven cents out of a dollar he can claim as supporters?

I feel sorry for Mayor De Blasio.  He is mayor of a city that does not like or respect him.  He or his administration seem to have ordered a crackdown on tax evaders selling bootleg cigarets that resulted in a nationally witnessed, tragic death.  He then castigated his own police force for their actions despite his involvement. Some free advice Mr. Mayor, more prayer from you and less talk.  You are the part of the problem, not part of the solution guy.  And the holiday’s are a big revenue producer for the city?  How much is raked in due to New Years Eve celebrations?  So you have a welcomed mob celebrating and possibly a violent mob protesting?  Will alcohol be added?

I hope the mayor and all have a blessed Christmas, with love, joy and family.  Sadly, I think this reflects how many now view Christmas.

Lost Innocence?

Australia has just suffered a terrorist attack.  On Morning Joe they said they had “lost their innocence”.  They were making the same statement when Canada had that attack on Parliament.  At first I agreed or accepted their description, but now after consideration, I say no.  Was this either of their first mass attack?  Answer, no(1), no(2), many, many no’s…  It’s unlikely any country is innocent or a virgin to violence.  Instead a case might be made for Islamic terrorism.

What is the difference between an Islamic terrorist and the Oklahoma bomber?  To the majority of us, I suspect we do not care.  None of our values excuse using violence against innocents because you don’t like their religion, government or whatever their cause.  It is simply, criminally insane.  The one difference I can see is there are Islamic states or nations.  ISIS, Iran and others are willing to wage war.  Timothy McVeigh did not raise an army against the FBI or IRS and start conquering sections of the USA.  (and how many of us would join an anti-IRS army?)

Muslims insist women be treated differently, to say the least.  Most Muslim countries severely restrict women’s rights and allowable activities.  They are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia.  In Pakistan the Taliban does not want them to be allowed to attend school.(3)

I’m not offended or bothered by the “lost innocence” remarks.  I think we have all been there with an death or tragedy, struggling for something to say.  But for the hosts of a supposedly serious show on news and opinion, I don’t see much thought behind the remark.  If anything, I see an active attempt to frame the discussion away from the differences.  A terrorist attack claiming to represent a minor fringe movement is very different than one who attacks in the name of the second largest practiced religion in the world.  There are 2.2 billion Christians and 1.6 billion Muslims.  I was very pleased to see after the attack in Australia, a new universal condemnation issued by the Muslim groups in Australia.  As a Christian, I reject anyone who kills and claims it’s in Christ’s name.




Economic Warfare

Recently I watched the Sandra Bullock movies, “Miss Congeniality” 1 & 2 with my family.  A lot of laughs & it made me think about all the contestants asking for world peace.  And don’t most people in the world want peace?  But if so, why is there so much conflict?  I think much of it in the Middle East is religious.  There seem to be various factions of Islam that refuse to allow other factions of Islam, any Jews or Christians or any non- believers to live in peace (except as slaves).  I don’t think we will be answering that one anytime soon.

But what about the rest of the conflicts/wars?  And this may be part of the cause of M.E. strife.  The first Gulf War as at least fought in part because Kuwait was overproducing oil and driving the price down which caused Iraq economic distress.(1)  Russia has invaded former providence’s.(2)  They have shut off and  manipulated the oil, natural gas and coal they supply to Europe and these former Providences.(3 & 4)  The US and many NATO partners have imposed sanctions on Russia in response to their aggressions.  Crimea is again, part of Russia.  Will Ukraine follow?  It’s already a cold winter for them over there and energy (heat) supplies are scarce.   I feel sorry for them and their situation, independence or freeze?

Consider also the impact other players have on world economics.  The US is now the largest oil-producing nation and this has driven the price of oil down.  OPEC has responded by NOT cutting production, which caused more price drops.  While I think this is a good thing for the US and the world in general, Russia and the OPEC nations suffer because of the results.  Ask yourself, how do you view Japan?  Friend and we love their cars & TV’s?  The same Japan that declared war on the USA  as retaliation for the US cutting off oil sales.  It did not work out for them as well as they planned, but there can be consequences for any action.

Another facet is currency manipulation.  It’s funny that members of our government complain because China plays games with their monetary value while we announce our Quantitative Easing 1, 2 & 3 policy. Is it OK for the US because we came up with such a cool name?  It seems every country is doing nearly the same.(5 & 6)

I for one, am an advocate of US energy independence or at least the pursuit of that goal.  I think lowering the cost of energy is beneficial to the majority of the world in general, and especially for the US individually.  Another benefit might be to reduce world conflicts, especially terrorism.  If oil drops from “Black gold” to silver, there will be less funding for terrorists.    Russia has also been increasing tensions with military flights comparable to the  “cold war” era.  Russia and OPEC have also been supporting some of the “green” agenda’s in the US.  Imagine that, the Saudi’s are willing to pay for anti-fracking movements, film’s, etc…

At the same time I applaud what is happening to the energy market, I have reservations on the sanctions and currency manipulation that we engage.  Oil price fluctuations are more a “free market” result.  The others are deliberate actions of governments against other governments.  They can be considered hostile acts.  They can be grounds for war.  It would be foolish for Iran, Russia or any other nation to directly attack America.  But then, was the 9/11 a direct attack?  No nation took credit or blame.  Afghanistan was invaded for harboring the terrorists, not for the attack.

I wish I could think of a clever, sage closing  to express my thoughts….  Maybe if I borrow from  someone else?  Venezuela’s President Nicholas Maduro described the move as imposing “insolent imperialist sanctions”.(7)








Things Left Unsaid….

I am a (pale) white male living in middle America.  I recently have spoken to two black male (African-American) friends on the Ferguson shooting and unrest.  (PS, they are not offended by the term black, nor I white or many other descriptive terms)  One friend is outraged insisting race has to be a factor in the shooting and acquittal.  He has been the target of profiling and I believe him to be correct in many of his experiences, he was guilty only of being black.  But I too have been “profiled”, many times as a teenager & young man.  I think nearly everyone in America has felt themselves subject to unfair treatment at the hands of multiple “civil servants”.  Life ain’t fair.

Our other friend is also a cop.  He was reluctant to offer an opinion on Ferguson.  I pressed him, what would he do as a police officer facing a 300 lb., 6’8″ Michael Brown.  “Man, I don’t know”.  “It would be tough.”  But if someone grabs and punches a cop like that, he will not be walking away?  “No, they’re gonna take him down”.  Right, whatever force required….  Necessary force.

What bothers me most is the media generated frenzy over this and Travon Martin.  I’m not happy or wishing anyone death, but in both cases the evidence shows them to be the aggressors, not the victims.  I asked the first friend if he had heard of John Crawford.  No, he had not, but after my pestering, now he does.  A 12 yr old was shot in Cleveland for holding a BB gun.  How can that be, the media cries!  Another innocent child shot for no reason except being black!

Sorry, but I can’t agree on this one.  A shame?  Yes, a tragic shame.  But the police were called saying he was waving & pointing a gun at passer’s by.  The “gun” also had the orange safety tip removed, which may or may not have had an effect.  They were responding to a deadly threat.  I wish we were not in a world where police are so keyed up to threats but there have been mass shootings by 12 yr old’s and younger.  Had the child done everything perfectly, I would like to think it would have been one of those memorable life experiences for all.  But he didn’t.  I don’t blame him for not understanding a life or death command to “drop it” or “show me your hands”.  I don’t blame the parents for him being out on a park bench with a BB gun that looked like a real gun.  I don’t blame the cops.  Blame won’t help here…

I asked my friend his thoughts on the Garner Grand Jury verdict.  He was surprised the protests were so peaceful.  He said he hoped the “black community would unite and continue to protest this crime.”  I asked him if he was prejudice?  WHAT?  Why would you ask me that?  Because even though I agree with you on the NY jury decision, you excluded me from your protests.  I don’t agree they did it because he was black & the point there is you or I could never prove it anyway.  You can prove they violated their “no choke hold” procedure.  You can prove excessive force.  You can prove involuntary manslaughter.  But if you make it about race, you lose me.

I think we should be having a conversation about police use of excessive force.  I don’t see the media, the president or any of those with the ability to have these conversations truthfully seeking to have them.  The one’s they champion are the wrong examples.  John Crawford was, IMO, “gunned down”.  As with the 12 yr old, police were advised someone had a gun and was threatening others.  The caller has now admitted he lied.(1)  He made two calls claiming Crawford was loading an assault rifle, pointing it and children, etc…  Here I am tempted to blame and use some name calling, but I’ll leave that to others.  But even with those calls, as I see it, the police did not follow procedure.  The shot an innocent man in the back without properly evaluating the situation or allowing him a chance to surrender.  And again I say, race was/is not a factor.

But excessive force?  That is what I see with Garner.  I think police should be judged and held accountable when they exceed their authority.  Are they public servants or our masters?  Sometimes that happens.(2) 

Springsteen wrote “American Skin (41 Shots)” to protest the police shooting death of Amadou Diallo.  Yes, a black man.  The defense is he reached for his wallet/ID.  Right or wrong, police perceive any attempt to reach into pants/pockets, etc, as a likely threat.  They react as if you are reaching for a gun.(3)  If there is an honest desire to have a “conversation”, I say we have to leave out the race card.  Since the media won’t, maybe we should ask, who is paying for or supporting these protests?(4)  It appears to be an assortment of Marxists, Socialists, Islamic, immigrants rights, black rights, progressives, etc..  Or Obama’s true supporters.  Are there any “Blue Dog” Democrats left in congress?  Seems they have all been driven out by the extreme left-wing.  This extreme left-wing is driving the mob’s and inciting racial tensions, civil & police relations and simply inciting violence.  Violence feeds on violence.  Hit a cop & he hits back.  Then others get involved.

One way to control a conversation is to frame it in a way that favors you position.  Abortion?  The left will start it with a serial rapists, HIV positive, who has impregnated multiple teens.  Defend that “righities”.  In the same way, police violence is framed as racism.  In the cases of Martin & Brown, it appears they were the aggressors.  They initiated violence.  Pity the black persons on those juries who could not convict a white man for self-defense.  They face relentless peer pressure for not being racist.  Had the media used Crawford for their argument, the majority of Americans would have joined in the outrage.  The leftists pushing this do not want that!  Instead they use instances where the majority will not be swayed be accusations of racism where simple, self-defense is obvious.  They are not being merely disingenuous, they are deliberately starting with a false premiss to then use it to propagandize the event.  If you don’t agree and support their position, you are a racist.  They want to lose this battle!

If these left-wing agitators are Obama’s supporters, what is it they (and Obama) want?  Violence just for the blood?  No…  To see a bunch of cops killed or injured?  NO, because President Obama is pretty much the top cop.  Department of Justice, Homeland Security, FBI all answer to him.  So why would Obama want this tension?  Why would he court riot’s?  Well the left is always wanting bigger government.  Communism with a small “c”.  Many of our inner cities are distressed.  Detroit is bankrupt and has cut off the water to thousands for non-payment.  The UN has even investigated for human rights violations.  Tens of thousands of Americans living in poverty are being told the rich or the whites or the police are responsible.  “The Republicans don’t care about you poor people, they want you to starve.”

So what is the goal is creating unrest?  I think just to grow the government.  Senator Obama campaigned and called for a civilian national defense force equal to our military.  Everybody at the event cheered.  Every conservative/Republican/libertarian/ thinking person shouted WTF!!!  (WTF=where’s the fire)(Volkswagen owners say where’s the Farfegnugen)   The L.A. riots were long past.   We had two wars going, but those were outside threats.  None of those cheering Obama supporters asked, why?  What is the need for this super civilian defense force?  And I think Obama may be creating the need for that force.  What a play!  Blame the police for violence so he can hire even more police to “suppress” the violence…..  And the people who his police force will battle were the ones who elected him.   And who says voters are stupid?





Selective Outrage

Featured image

TMZ Politics has a great tweet tonight that summarizes the absolute absurdity of the liberal national news media’s priorities:

The alleged child rapist is Terrence Patrick Bean. Brett Decker of USA Today reported the story on the evening of Thursday, November 20:

Conservatives complain that President Obama gets a free pass from the media, which acts as a de-facto public-relations shop for the Democrat in the White House. Never has that charge seemed truer than now as an ugly rape scandal unfolds on the West Coast.

On Wednesday, Portland, Ore. police arrested Terrence Patrick Bean, who has been charged with two felony counts of having sex with a minor last year. This man is not just any old guy accused of having sex with a 15-year-old – he’s a big-money Democratic donor and liberal political activist with connections inside the Obama White House. Bean raised more than a half-million dollars for Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign.

– See more at:

As for me, every time someone talks to me about Michael Brown, I now ask if they know who John Crawford is…..


Featured image

Or Happy Thanksgiving.

New page…

Yada, yada…

Or open mic, or complete mid-term election coverage.  Voted yesterday and was very pleased to have so many libertarian candidates.   I voted for Tom Cotton (R) and Elvis Presley (L)

The Swine War

I would like to discuss ISIS/ISIL and the US tactics or strategy in dealing with what we are told is a threat to the United States.  But first, let me share what the Arkansas Game & Fish Commission has to say about hunting wild hogs.  It may only make sense to me since I have recently been swine hunting.

Feral Hogs are Pests

Feral hogs are not native to the United States. They are an invasive species, a public nuisance and a threat to Arkansas. They compete for food resources, destroy habitat by rooting and wallowing and will eat ground-nesting birds, eggs, fawns and young domestic livestock. They also carry up to 45 bacteria, diseases and parasites, including Trichinellosis, Brucellosis and swine herpes virus.

Hunting and shooting feral pigs has been implemented for the last few decades. It can chase feral hogs away from crops or food plots temporarily, but they soon return or become a problem for a neighboring landowner. Studies show at least 66 percent of a hog population must be removed each year just to prevent it from growing. Hunting has shown to reduce hog populations by only 8 to 50 percent.

The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission recognizes large-scale trapping as the most efficient and economical means currently available to reduce feral hog populations.

Sport hunting of feral hogs has been more hindrance to hog removal than benefit. Illegal relocation of hogs for hunting purposes has spread the problem to new areas. The shooting of individual hogs also thwarts large-scale trapping efforts by agencies because increased disturbance makes it nearly impossible to catch the whole sounder, or family group, at once.

Lets ponder these statements for a minute.  “Hunting has shown to reduce hog populations by only 8 to 50 percent.  Sport hunting of feral hogs has been more hindrance to hog removal than benefit.  The shooting of individual hogs also thwarts large-scale trapping efforts by agencies because increased disturbance makes it nearly impossible to catch the whole sounder, or family group, at once.”

Now let me compare this to what I see as our war strategy.  We began fighting terrorism in a new manner with the change in our Commander-in-Chief (aka “The Drone Warrior”).  A policy of remote killing of high value targets practiced under Bush was expanded into the main effort to wage war.  As quickly as politics allowed, Obama lead us out of Iraq and is attempting still to extract us from Afghanistan.  And to be fair, he had little to do with getting us in these wars.  But he asked for the job, so should be accountable for how he closes out these conflicts.  Our military has always made & officers a high value target & employed snipers to destroy leadership.  It has proven it’s worth on countless battlefields.

But this is a different kind of battle.  On a true battlefield, the opposing army would be destroyed or forced to surrender.  If they retreat, they would be pursued and destroyed.  War is usually waged where you win, die, or surrender.  You fight the other guy until he is no longer a threat to you.  This new war, without a battlefield, killing a leader just creates a vacancy.

“The shooting of individual hogs also thwarts large-scale trapping efforts by agencies because increased disturbance makes it nearly impossible to catch the whole group.”

One change in this war on terror is ISIL becoming a regional power.   Unlike most terror organizations the US has faced, here we have actual armies and battle fields.  This is the type of fight our military is designed to engage.  But only if allowed to use tactics proven to be effective.  Air attacks are the per-cursor to land war.  It means “boots on the ground”  If the desire is to “win” this or any war, the enemy must be killed or captured.  Our air war can destroy any hard targets and many or most vehicle assets, but still leaves survivors to continue the fight.  It also may “train” smarter, more capable leaders.

Our Commander-in-Chief outlined his strategy to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the terrorist group known as ISIS.  What can be said about this “strategy”?  Does it not simply describe any battle or war?  You attack and degrade the enemy (funny way to describe bombing, blowing up people and weapons…must be lawyer-speak where unpleasant words are never spoken.  War is a conflict or military operation..)  What is not said is how long will we be degrading the enemy?  Part of his strategy includes other nations providing the “boots on the ground”.  And to give credit, he & his advisors recognize it will take an army to kill or capture the ISIS terrorists.  But how well grounded in reality is this plan?  The Middle East is full of factions that hate each other.  Our VP proposed a three state solution just for Iraq.  Iran & Iraq fought a very bloody war in the 90’s.  Syria is fighting a civil war and the US has sided against their government which Russia is supporting.  Turkey when faced with invasion let a town face ISIL alone because it was a Kurdish settlement.  Who are the allies Obama thinks will contain ISIS after we preform our “strategic strikes”?  The saying, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is a fallacy in this situation.  Our best hope is for them to hate each other more than they do us….  And they are to be the “trap” and contain ISIS…

Another funny thing, both Democrats and Republicans are calling for this war.  They differ only is how to wage the war. 

“Bruce Braley, the Democratic Senate candidate in Iowa. He picked up a Republican-held House seat largely on the strength of his opposition to the war in Iraq. He backed cutting off funding for military operations and spoke out against the surge.

When his opponent warned at a 2006 debate of chaos if the U.S. cut and ran, Braley responded: “Chaos already is ensuing in Iraq.”

Just last August, Braley demanded Obama get congressional authorization before taking any military action in Syria.

Now Braley is running against military veteran Joni Ernst in one of the most contested Senate races in the country.

“ISIS is a threat that must be stopped,” Braley said during a debate Sunday. “Anytime American citizens are attacked by a terrorist group, they need to be brought to justice or to the grave.””

When has ISIS attacked America?  They did behead a journalist.  He went to Syria, in a war zone.  Journalists are killed frequently when they elect to go to dangerous places to report.  There cannot and should not be an expectation of safety for anyone who deliberately puts themselves in harms way.  So why is everyone banging the war drum?   Whatever happened to “Code Pink” and their anti-war protesters?  If Bush & his wars were wrong, why is this a war we should fight?

ISIS has declared America their enemy and announced their intent to attack us.  Hasn’t Iran done that multiple times?  And a few others?  One line of reasoning makes sense of the call to arms.  When the boy sticks his finger in the small hole in the dike, plugging the small leak.  It’s much easier to fix/contain than allowing the hole to grow, where a hand or a bulldozer cannot stop the flood.  ISIS could sweep across Iraq if not stopped.  They would have greater resources, namely huge quantities of oil to sell & trade.  Could they then take Jordan, Syria, or Iran?  It’s all possible.  Looking at a map, it’s hard to explain how Germany conquered so many countries.  Ditto for Japan.  But all this really points to is the need for all Middle East countries that feel threatened to act.  Obama took us out of Iraq.  They were happy to see us, the invader leave.  Syria is not a friend.  Jordan & Israel are but I don’t hear them mentioned in these calls to war.

What shouts to me is first, we have no goal in this war.  “Err, stop the bad guys from killing?”  Which bad guy’s and in what countries?   There are a lot of borders in that region.   Reality is our “strategy is to start bombing them and hope we slow them down enough to buy some time and make a plan.  Plan “A” to get other countries to handle the ground war.  Plan “B” might be get past mid-terms and then commit US troops.  (No doubt, it will be the Republicans fault by then)

As it stands today, ISIL is smuggling millions of dollars worth of oil across several borders every day.  How likely is it that they cannot and will not export fighters?  Couple that with the thousands of illegal immigrants seemingly crossing our southern border at will and the reality is our defense is an assumption that the enemy is too dumb or lazy to hit back.  They clearly have the ability and funding.  I think our air attacks will give them more incentive to target the US .  (not that I doubt they will or would not seek to attack us, just we were a lower priority)  I would suggest we pray, but our government seems opposed to that as well….

And let me give the final word to one of our Allies…


On Thursday, the Syrian National Coalition, which is recognized by the United States as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people, told Foreign Policy that the plan “just doesn’t make sense strategically.

“The only way to defeat ISIS is to defeat ISIS. You cannot be reactive and wait for them to besiege liberated towns and villages,” said Oubai Shahbandar, a senior advisor to the group.

Mid-Term Yawns

Considering the impact the coming November elections could have on the federal government, it seems to me that the media is almost bored with the topic.  Yes there are stories and coverage, but the feverish coverage shown in the past seems lacking to me.  Democrats won control of the House, Senate and Presidency in 2008.  They lost the House in 2010, then lost their super majority in the Senate, but somehow kept the Oval Office.

I still wonder how Romney lost, but credit it to the media advocacy of Obama.  They were still praising his vision on foreign policy while the ruins in Benghazi were still smoldering.  They accepted and championed the lie it was linked to an anti-Muslim video.  There was no scandal because the media would not report it as a scandal.

Now today with Iraq and Syria poised to fall, Libya still in turmoil, there is still media cover for Obama.  A respiratory virus common to Central America is hitting nearly every state in North America, but the media see’s no link to Obama’s open border policy.  Instead, the only worthwhile event is Ebola, which cannot be blamed on the POTUS.  Republican demands for a travel ban are met with accusations of racism.

I don’t expect any major shift because of the election.  I think the old media is killing itself with blatant dishonesty that is apparent to all but the most partisan and gullible.  If/when the New York Times, ABC, NBC & CBS news  die, I will both celebrate and morn their passing.

Only the Losers

Erdogan bombs Kurds in Turkey

Another twist in our war against Islamic State. The government of Turkey bombed the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) in southern Turkey on Sunday in retaliation for attacks on Turkish forces. It’s the first time in two years Ankara has bombed the Kurds.


There was no immediate comment from the military on the report that it bombed Kurdish positions, once a regular occurrence in southeast Turkey but something that had not taken place for two years.

Hurriyet said the air strikes on Sunday caused “major damage” to the PKK. They were launched after three days of PKK attacks on a military outpost in Hakkari province near the Iraqi border, it added.

“F-16 and F-4 warplanes which took off from (bases in the southeastern provinces of) Diyarbakir and Malatya rained down bombs on PKK targets after they attacked a military outpost in the Daglica region,” Hurriyet said.

It said the PKK had attacked the outpost for three days with heavy machine guns and rocket launchers. The general staff said in a statement it had “opened fired immediately in retaliation in the strongest terms” after PKK attacks in the area, but did not mention air strikes.

Another event, Susan Rice, our National Security Adviser announced Sunday that Turkey was allowing the US to use some of their airbases to fight ISIS.  Turkey promptly reputed that statement. 
Who would fight a war where every ally is bound to resent and hate you no matter what you do?

Supressing the Majority

A man who was shot after authorities say he beheaded one woman and attacked another at an Oklahoma food processing plant from which he had just been fired has regained consciousness and was interviewed by detectives Saturday.

Alton Nolen, 30, remains hospitalized in stable condition after Thursday’s attack at the Vaughan Foods plant in the Oklahoma City suburb of Moore, Police Sgt. Jeremy Lewis said. He said that Nolen will be charged Monday with first-degree murder and assault and battery with a deadly weapon and that he may also face federal charges.

I have noticed the media and most politicians bending over backwards to not call this terrorism or link it in any way with Middle East violence or radical Islam.  And to be fair, it’s not unusual for someone to go crazy and start killing co-workers, family members or random strangers.  It happens every day somewhere.  What is different to us is the beheading and someone claiming to be a Muslim or who has converted to that religion being the murderer.

Obama has stated we are safe from terrorists.  Ft. Hood was workplace violence.  What was Boston?  We are bombing Iraq & Syria but are not at war?  Maybe I just can’t find the right phrase that is politically correct enough to describe these situations?  The Oklahoma murderer was trying to convert co-workers to Islam.  He is also outspoken about hating white people.  But apparently, this wasn’t a terrorist act or a hate crime?

It’s funny/strange remembering around 15 years ago.  I had/have friends with badges.  Talking with them and feeling their frustration in dealing with abusive spouses (wife beaters).  Many, many times they were called and would sometimes haul the man away, just to have the woman recant & refuse to press charges.  One thing that encouraged them was terroristic threatening charges.  It was a legal tool that allowed them much greater sentencing and easier abilities to pursue charges.

  § 5-13-301. Terroristic threatening. 1975. Amended 1995.

(a) (1) A person commits the offense of terroristic threatening in the first degree if:
(A) With the purpose of terrorizing another person, he threatens to cause death or serious physical injury or substantial property damage to another person; or
(B) With the purpose of terrorizing another person, he threatens to cause physical injury or property damage to a teacher or other school employee acting in the line of duty.
(2) Terroristic threatening in the first degree is a Class D felony.
(b) (1) A person commits the offense of terroristic threatening in the second degree if, with the purpose of terrorizing another person, he threatens to cause physical injury or property damage to another person.
(2) Terroristic threatening in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor.
(c) (1) (A) A judicial officer, upon pretrial release of the defendant, shall enter a no contact order in writing consistent with Rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure and shall give notice to the defendant of penalties contained in Rule 9.5 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure.

And we all have heard or read about race crimes and seen their prosecution.  But it seems all or nearly so were white men who hated blacks.  I think racism is wrong.  I think hate is wrong.  But I think making special crimes out of only certain groups that have been victims is a mistake.  If we are all equal before the law, then adding a special rule, “but if you don’t like homosexuals and are charged with battery, it become a hate crime”. 

Judge  “Did you strike the defendant?”

Cletus  ” You damn betcha”  “Knocked him clean out with one punch”

Judge  ”  And do you have a history of gay bashing, jokes and negative posts on facebook?”

Cletus  ”  Yes I do!  Isn’t there a First amendment right to speak my mind?”

Judge  ”  Cletus, I find you guilty & this is a hate crime with a mandatory five year sentence”.

Cletus  ”  But he kissed me…right there in front of Cooter & everybody!”

I suppose we will have to wait to see what other charges are filed.  Myself, I have low expectations.  If he were a white male it would be different.  But here in the new America, we don’t want to offend our killers.

Economics of Jihad

It appears we are starting to target the oil ISIL is selling to support there activities.  I think that is a great start.  I wonder though about our Arab partners & their motivation.  Are the Saudi’s worried about the military threat, the cultural/religious threat, or is it all about the money?  And we should apply that same question to the US and all the others that want in this fight.

Another possibility to consider, the Saudi’s have been exporting their extremists since the seventies.  Might have been a smart policy at the time, encourage them to leave and be someone else’s problem.  Now that problem is “coming home to roost”.  (Tnks.  Rev. Wright for the phrase)

Being a simple man, I think the simple answer is follow the money.  It’s all about money and power.  None of the players involved care about any of the lives lost or about to be risked.  The current strategy of hitting hard targets insures a large number of these terrorists will fade and scatter.  They will live to fight another day and the next battlefield may be closer to home than we will enjoy.

Independent Thinking

Before the Scottish voted to remain in the United Kingdom, I had a brief conversation with an Irish Priest.  Back in the seventies, he morally supported the IRA.  Hard to imagine a priest supporting even with words what appeared to be a violent terrorist group.  But he was there & I never have been to the UK.  In our conversation I mentioned I could see parallels between their pressing for independence and the increase demand for states rights here in the US.

And in our Declaration of Independence:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

We are only looking at the early stages of the increase of illegal immigrants and the consequences.  A new respiratory virus is making the rounds in an increasing number of states.   Is this tied to the immigrants the federal government forced state and local officials to ignore health safeguards for?  My children were  REQUIRED to have proof of immunization along with other documents.  Is this not a result of the presidents policy to ignore the law?
The IRS “follows the law whenever we can”…  What would happen to anyone that told the IRS that during an audit?
And even now as the truth starts to emerge on Benghazi, the media continues to try and provide cover for the Democrats.
I still think the truth will prevail.  I think there will be a push back against Democrats.  Sadly, I think the Republicans that are a near equal part of the problem will benefit the most.  That makes us all the losers who seek to live in a free country.  Maybe we need to follow the Scottish example and call for a succession vote?


Before a test, most school kids have to complete homework assignments.  It teaches us important lessons in life.  Fail to do you’re homework and you are likely to fail in your assignment.  Now we have our president announcing military action against ISIL, a terrorist group, and including multiple allies to assist in combating this threat.  Funny thing, it looks as if he failed to inform them they were going to support us in this new war…

“Thursday morning, the Middle East woke up to news that Obama expects their governments to sign up for as many as three years of airstrikes and military intervention in Iraq and Syria. The media reaction was decidedly mixed.

Echoing Turkey’s opposition to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Arab News reported that “Turkey will not allow a U.S.-led coalition to attack jihadists in neighboring Iraq and Syria from its air bases, nor will it take part in combat operations against militants.””

Add to that, Russia warns against an attack on Syria.  How far is our “Peace President” prepared to go….

What if??

History is full of second guessing.  Mistakes in the Super bowl, NASCAR, etc and all our major conflicts.  Currently most thinking people are critical over Obama’s handling of the ISIS crisis.  Our liberal journalists are outraged and demanding justice for the two reporters beheaded on UTube.  Lets first stop right there and ask, is this grounds for the US to declare war?  If so, does this mean the US government is now guaranteeing  the safety of all American journalists that enter war zones?  Is it tied to human rights and what the UN will rule on how people are treated?  If so then I think we will be limited to declaring war on Israel or ourselves.  Everyone else seems to get free passes for some reason.

Back to our history, did our media force the US to declare war on Spain?  I feel for the families of the reporters and agree it was/is horrible beyond words.  But so too were the thousands or tens of thousands raped, brutalized and killed by ISIS.  Is our reason for entering this conflict the reporters or to protect human rights?  How many other conflicts have we ignored?  Is it because ISIS has declared war on  America?  Didn’t the terrorists in Nigeria also declare war on us after kidnapping those school girls?

The latest outcry by FOX & the Repug’s is that Obama has had intelligence on ISIS for over a year.  Why has it taken him so long to act?  Might be a fair question, but if so, then when do the questioners think he should have acted and what is their justification?  A year ago they were rebels fighting the regime in Syria we would like to see overthrown.  It is possible we supplied them with weapons.  There are also reports the Saudi’s and other ME powers supported ISIS.  So a year ago, all the Obama critics would have supported his actions at that time.

Then they invaded Iraq.  Should we have immediately jumped back into that hornets nest?  I can agree with the critics that Obama did not try very hard if all to secure a balance of forces agreement which was part of the excuse for our pull-out of Iraq.  With the corrupt president they elected, is that a realistic expectation?  The military we rebuild has fallen apart due to blatant corruption of their democratically elected government.  At what point does it become our duty or right to step into this conflict.  And if we do, who’s side are we even on?  Obama took us into Libya.  A dictator was disposed and murdered.  No tears from me, but how are things in Libya today?  Ongoing civil war with militant Islamic’s   gaining enough power that Egypt had to step in with military strikes.

Slowly, oh so slowly, Obama finished his last vacation, got in the last golf games and has returned to deal with this crisis.  The world did not end while he was away.  Many innocents did die, but that doesn’t mean he could have saved them.  But now he’s acting.  And I find myself asking myself an unthinkable question, what if Obama was right?  Only on this, on responding to ISIS/ISIL.  He is meeting with NATO, bringing them in.  He is meeting with several Middle East powers that want us to act.  If the world wants us to enter this conflict, what are they committing to the conflict?  Before we put boots on that ground again, I want to see Jordan, the Saudi’s and other players put their people where their mouths are, in the front lines, in front of our troops.  And all these war mongering journalists, I’d like to see them right there with them…