Don't know if I'm going to be full time, or part-time, but I have some things to say.

As we head into the fourth year in Iraq, the sixth year total in the War on Terror, what have we learned?

First, we know that US forces cannot be beaten on the battlefield, that they still are the finest and best trained soldiers in history. We know that they can fight and win in the worst of conditions, from the deserts of Mesopotamia to the peaks of the Hindu Kush. We know that they maintain technological superiority, but that is still less important than the quality of individual who wears the uniform.

We have learned however that the only force that can defeat the US is itself. In fact, our enemies have the blueprint for success against the US: patience. Just wait, we will slowly, but surely, tear ourselves apart.

We can no longer fight long and/or bloody conflicts anymore. Normandy, Bastogne, and Iwo Jima are as distant, and unimportant, as Bull Run, Antietam, and Cold Harbor. They are not hallowed ground but names students memorize, and directors now trivialize. Korea was not long, less than three years, but it was bloody, with 33,000 Americans dead. Vietnam was indeed both, ten years long and 58,000 dead respectively.

At least in both conflicts we could clearly define the enemy. And, at least there was even justification for Vietnam, as events in the South, Cambodia, and Laos were to prove. As well, a Marxist in Pyongyang is still causing nightmares for America, Japan, Taiwan, and even her benefactor, Beijing. That communism was in its death throes in the late 1980's seems all to obvious now, but how soon we forget that the 1970's saw communism's apogee.

Today, unlike perhaps any war in the past, we fight without propaganda or even without hatred. No longer do "loose lips sink ships" or "lick stamps and lick the Kaiser" resonate with Americans. Dominoes is a pizza, not what will happen to democracies.

After four years in Iraq we don't hate the Iraqis, and we don't wage war against them. Their former dictator had his trial and now awaits execution. His offspring are dead, while the enemy remains a nameless and faceless entity. This leaves us perplexed as to what we are fighting for, who we are fighting, and more to the point, why exactly are we fighting.

Certainly by now, most Americans have come to the conclusion that whatever happens in Iraq, they will surely never be pointing missiles at us. And even should Iraq descend into chaos, civil war, or even theocracy, who really cares what happens to "those people", or what happens "over there". The sentiment that "those people can't govern themselves" or "we don't understand their culture" sounds more akin to 19th century British parliamentarians than 21st century liberals.

But it is increasingly obvious that they are anything but "liberal".

Realists are now the new icons, as if decades of appeasing tyrants, accommodating our supposed "friends" while they paid blood money to terrorists, and dialogues with very real enemies is either novel, enlightened, or even prudent. Maybe, just maybe, those that brought us here ought be given one last chance to fix their mess. Why is it then that it seems they are interested more in covering up their past errors and preserving their place in history books? Do they fancy themselves a modern Metternich? Or are they unaware how he fared? Or do they even care?

Perhaps what we have learned here is that we need a clearly defined enemy and some appreciation of a very real, very direct, and very dangerous threat. Existentially, Iraq is a worthy and necessary battle, part of a much broader and very important struggle. But, sans proper leadership, and there has been a dearth from the Bush administration, if those four are to be the imprimatur, than without question, to a large percentage of the public who initially supported the operation, the judgement is: vague, barely, barely, and barely.

Besides the unnerving revelation that the US can not, or will not, fight long engagements anymore, this current fight has revealed some other uncomfortable truths.

Four centuries of warfare have been superseded by 60 years of peace, and our allies have forgotten the ways of their great grandfathers. The critics of Iraq will argue that the administration failed to bring our allies along. The truth is much much sadder. Our allies, who were it not for our blood and treasure would be subjects of a Kaiser, helots to a Fuhrer, or comrades in the proletariat, have forsaken us. What the Iraq war revealed was not their unwillingness to fight, but rather their inability to fight.

Sixty years of benevolence did not raise an independent and mature Europe, but a forever teenager, in his thirties, still living with his parents, unable to find work, still trying to "find himself".

Europe's opposition on "principle" was easily accepted by our domestic opponents, an all too easy mask to cover up the gross incompetence of European forces. They were helpless in their own back yard as a Serb thug massacred thousands, only to be rescued by the ugly Americans. The only grace was that the president then had visited Europe as a lad, to protest a war, to learn the ways of his "betters". He was one who was more like them, wanted to be like them, not an illiterate cowboy, redneck, and of all things, Christian.

So a stab in the back at the UN was seen as a gesture not at us, but at HIM. Refusing to fight was seen as protest not at us, but at HIM. And of all things the Europeans shared with the fifth column here, it was hatred of HIM.

Our enemies have also learned much from this war. Besides patience, they have learned that there will be willing filmmakers who will produce vile, propagandist tripe. And said filmmakers will receive honored status at the Democratic National Convention.

Our enemies have also learned that the press will not only be neutral, but highly antagonistic to the US. Stories real or imagined will dominate the news. Korans being flushed need not be true, only "possibly" true. Either way, it doesn't really matter.

Pictures of glorified hazing will be printed on the front pages of every major newspaper, ad nauseum. Newscasters will pass judgement on the situation, without any basic understanding of what they are proclaiming. An NBC newscaster's recent declaration of civil war underscores the idea that those who know the least sadly have the most impact.

Troops will know that what happens in the field will be mis-reported, or unreported. The biggest complaint of most returning troops is simply that the facts on the ground are completely at odds with the stories run at home.

Former presidents will head overseas and criticize the US, undercut our objectives, actively encourage those who might, to otherwise not, support us.

Those in our congress who forcefully supported the war will abandon the effort, at the first sign of difficulty, for purely political causes, less the netroots come after them in the primaries.

Any claim need only be more far-fetched and bombastic than the last to be valid. Lies, conspiracy, oil, Haliburton, et al., none need proof or validity. Moral equivalency has taken a new direction, whether a president is compared to Hitler routinely or our troops opening new gulags or being compared to storm troopers.

As we have learned much from this war, as have our enemies, what can we conclude?

First, in the future, our campaigns will be of necessity quick and bloodless. Post-modernity and its progeny multiculturalism have prevented us from us so much as the slightest bit of hatred. Thus, any long campaigns which require sustained national morale will be difficult if not impossible.

So, if our campaigns are to be quick and rather bloodless, than what will they look like. They will look more like the 1990's meals-on-wheels, humanitarian, police missions that were all too inept at anything other than proving to our enemies that we would not fight.

Or, perhaps, something much worse, much more ominous.

As we maintain a supreme technological edge and massively disproportionate firepower, how soon will it be until Americans ask their leaders when they're going to actually use it. As long as US military might remains the sole sword of Damocles, it might just have to fall.

We could very well have made Iraq a quick and bloodless campaign. But we chose a different path. What if we, in the future, decide that a) we need to act, but b) don't want to suffer the bloodletting? We very well have the capability for both.

Ruling out the use of massive, indiscriminate, and deadly firepower plays our hand long before the cards are even dealt. They have learned, a lesson that dates back to Vietnam no less, that as long as they keep the fighting below a certain level of intensity, we will simply not respond in masse.

Clausewitz is famous for many things, but perhaps less appreciated is his maxim that the cost of fighting should never exceed the benefits gained. In other words, the costs in Iraq are quite high (though not by historical standards) while the benefits are not clearly, tangibly, greater. Thus, we can conclude that Iraq is the last campaign of its type we will fight for some time.

We can also conclude that for many years hence, wars will be partisan affairs. There will come a time when a democratic president attempts to lead the nation into war. And the time will come when his, or her, party will blindly support the action, less they be unpatriotic, or worse.

But what moral ground can they hope to stand on? Clearly, other than partisan loyalty, they will be hard pressed to justify support for war. And, given the acrimonious nature of our political system (not in and of itself a bad thing), foreign policy is just "one more thing" to fight over. Who could blame the Republicans for being the "loyal opposition", seeing how the democrats were not only legitimate critics such as Senator Biden, but borderline traitors who held mock impeachment hearings inside the House basement, one of whom is now set to head the House judiciary committee.

And can we ignore the incoming speaker who, for purely personal reasons, dismissed a senior democrat, a women no less, from the leadership of the House intelligence committee? Only the firestorm from attempting to replace Rep. Harmon, of impeccable credentials and much experience, with an impeached judge, solely to placate a vocal constituency and exact revenge for Rep. Harmon's voting in favor of the Iraq war prevented it.

But some good news has come from all of this too. The once deified United Nations is now sullied and perhaps, hopefully, beyond repair. It is far better at turning its back on genocides in Rwanda and Sudan, its troops raping girls in the Congo, parlaying sanctions into billion dollar jackpots in Iraq, or allowing petty tyrants the one thing said thugs will not give their own people: a vote, than it is at promoting democracy, peace, and human rights.

And perhaps, Theo van Gogh and Pym Fortuyn did not die in vain. Maybe, the residents of Londonistan, Paristan, and Romistan are finally seeing that the enemy is not at the gates, but in the back yard, prying open the glass door, and signaling his friends to hop the fence. It could be too little too late, as Europe birth controls itself into oblivion. Or it could be the plague, shattering Europe's calm, calling into question long the long established order.

And maybe, just maybe, our reticence is not necessarily a bad thing. We even knew enough to put troops in the Soviet Union after World War 1, so that communism would not spread. And if we're becoming isolationist today, it hardly compares to the 1920's. While we might be unsure of Iraq, there's no support for immediate withdrawal and there are no America First committees. We will come around again. We did in 1941. It will be costly however.

We have learned much: we can no longer fight long, difficult conflicts; we can and will defeat ourselves; our wars had better be quick and painless; our wars are partisan affairs; our friends really aren't.

And we've learned that in spite of all the cause for concern, there just might be hope.

In the debate over immigratoin reform, a solution so simple and easy to implement has been completely overlooked: biometrics. Documents can easily be forged, but fingerprints, retina scans, DNA, and other like technologies cannot. In fact, fingerprints and DNA aer admissible into court as evidence so their validity is not in doubt.

Anyone with a few hundred dollars can purchase a comptuer, printer, and software capable of reproducing authentic looking documents for illegal immigrants. In addition, the onus is on businesses to verify and keep track of them, tasks which they are not trained for nor overly inclined to do. And I can't say as I blame them, it being one more task pawned off on them that the government is not only authorized, but mandated to do.

Thus the beauty of such a program.

Proving the citizenship status of people is much easier than provig the legality of their residence. Thus, any non-citizen will be required to get fingerprinted at the very least in order to acquire necessary employment documentation. Yes, citizenship documents can and still will be forged, however, all native born citizens have birth certificate records on file at the hospital, and all naturalized citizens have records with federal and I presume state authorities. These are easily obtainable through moderate cost, wih reiable security, should the need arise. It is hardly an imposition to ask a hospital to provide a certified brth certificate, mailed directly to the government, completely bypassing the employer and employee.

For reference, USB fingerprint scanners already exist, prove quite effective, and cost around $100.

Those desiring to come here to work and those desiring to stay simply need to get fingerprinted. "Hold on a minute, this is big brother" the civil libertarians will say. But, teachers, policemen, child care providers, pretty much anyone in public service, and many other fields get fingerprinted. I've heard no complaints from the teachers' union, policemen's union, civil service unions, or employment lawyers when potential employees are asked to submit fingerprints, or even urine. And even at that, this doesn't require citizens to get fingerprinted.

Surely one wishing to come here and work cannot expect to be afforded all the rights and privileges of citizenship. We are simply asking for a little extra verification, that's all. If they so desire to work here, and be here, and we feel it necessary to let them in, then the least they can offer us is some modicum of proof that they are willing to abide by our laws.

And I don't even need to remind anyone what has been suggested for people desiring to purchase firearms.

Those fingerprints could be kept in a federal database which is easily acessible from any computer. The potential employee simply scans his fingerprit, the comptuer checks it with the federal registry, and an answer is returned in short order.

Now, the beuaty of this system extends even further than the workplace. We've no doubt got a serious security issue regarding immigration, with the criminal statis of immigrants not a trivial concern. We simply send the fingerprints back to the country of origin it provides a rather effective means to discern the status of the applicant.

But wait, some countries have poor records, are unreliable, will not give us the truth. Fine. If data is unreliable, they can be issued a provisional work visa, conditional upon their conduct while here. As they'll already be fingerprinted, any crimnal act will be esaily traceable. Again, as a school teacher, my fingerprints ar a matter of record with at least the state of California.

Okay, so what about the 11-12 million already here, already working, and not documented (or whatever the politically correct term is these days)? They too will eventually have to get fingerprinted.

This will not stop the some day laborers, farm workers, and others from being employed by indiviuals and small businesses. But those jobs represent a small percentage of the total illegal immigration/jobs structure. There coule not possibly be 11 million jobs of that nature. No, the real lure is the larger businesses: from fast food, construction, manufacturing, to all sorts of other businesses that are benefitting from the cheap labor. Look, the Chamber of Commerce isn't going to lobby congress so that a few million homeowners can get their gardening done by someone else so they can take their kids to the beachon Saturday.

The fallacy of "jobs Americans won't do" is becoming more obvious every day, except to those who live in DC.

Which again is why the fingerprinting plan is so simple and effective.

I was at McDonald's last night with the family and they had a big banner posted for job openings starting at $8/hour. Let's just say that the place was not filled with high school kids behind the counter. The Carl's jr. across from my school is offering jobs that start at pretty much the same, and again, 3000 teenagers 100 yards away and not a one employed there. Hmmm...I wasn't a math major, but something just doesn't add up.

The best part of the plan is that it puts the burden squarely on the government to set it up and maintain it. Which I presume is exactly why it will neevr happen.

Norm Geras today defends the Euston manifesto and offers it as a Path out of denial. While I am wholly sympathetic to those on the left who have not given up hope for freedom and democracy to pevail, and their frustration at the enablers of dictators in their ranks, I cannot help but feel he is pining for a different era.

First, the acknowledgement that deposing Saddam and like-minded brutal regimes is a good thing is worthy of commendation. Once, it was the left who wanted to make the world safe for demcoracy, be the arsenal of democracy, and bear any burdern and pay any price. Now, that mantle has passed to the right.

From concerns over the global slave and sex trades, the genocide in the Darfur, or even the status of Afghani women, the momentum and energy is on the right. It should not be this way. Isn't the most "liberal" idea in the world self-determination?

It should also be commended for its anti-anti-Americanism. Who else has given so much to the world and asked for so little.

Overall it deals primarily with more global generalities such as: ending racism, human rights for all, democracy, equality, freedom, openness, and freedom of ideas. But, it is overly broad and in fact obfuscatory regarding economic matters. They support international trade unions and greater economic equality. And it is there where the left has yet to a) answer for its past failures and b) provide new ideas.

Socialism was perhaps the world's second greatest failure, its big brother communism being the worst. Statist economies, the mother's milk of left/liberal thought, have proven to create equality only in misery and stagnation. Today, the fastest growing economies are not surprisingly, the freest economies. China has all but renounced Maoist collectivism, India replaced its state run system with a modern capitalist one, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan, and a host of Asian nations are thriving employing the simpl ideas of private property, free enterprise, and individual rewards.

Contrast that with Europe, the home of proto-socialist economy. Throughout the continent, growth is almost non-existent, unemployment perpetually double digit, and massive welfare, entitlements, and job protection bankrupting. It cannot even sustain its own population anymore, probably no greater indicator of a people's future expectations.

The United States is somewhere in the middle: a post-modern, post-industrialist economy, struggling to adapt to a technologically driven and information based global economy. It's college graduates will compete against each other, and against people 10,000 miles away. It's growth is rapid, averaging 4-5% the past few years, continuing what is an over two decade period of unequalled expansion. Yet, 75 million or more retirees will soon drain trillions from the treasury, while the group that has accumulated the greatest mass of wealth, the elderly, will continue to do so at an even more alarming rate.

This is not doomsday paranoia, but rather the very real and widely acknowledged fate that everyone from Brookings to Heritage agrees upon.

So, Europe is slowly dying while America is seeing the first signs of cancer, both suffering from exposure to the carcinogen of left/liberal statist policies. Massive welfare rolls, untenable retirement promises, and the need to import large sectors of unskilled, low wage, menail labor all contribute to the growing problem.

What answers have the left? None. What new ideas have the left? None. Surely that must be the reason for the vitriol, for when you are devoid of answers, your faith lost, your foundation crumbling, like the pogroms of the medieval world, fear and scapegoats are all you have.

What is the solution then? Simple: free markets, free trade, and profit driven capitalism. Yet it is these things towards which the left is most antagonistic.

Sadly, the left cannot, or will not, link the inalienable rights of man with the economic freedom of man. For what better expression of freedom is there than the ability to do what one pleases with his talents, abilities, and desires, and profit from them.

Rousseau, the great Enlightenment thinker said that "no man has a natural authority over his fellow", and this is the heart of left/liberal philosophy. It is also thoroughly adopted and respected on the right as well.

But Rousseau also said of man that "His first law is to provide for his own preservation, his first cares are those which he owes to himself; and as soon as he reaches years of discretion, he is the sole judge of the proper means of preserving himself, and consequently becomes his own master." Thus there is an equally vital, and equally necessary, component to freedom of which absence or denial of is the absence or denial of liberty itself. That freedom would be economic.

Acknowledge that. Now that would truly be a path out of denial.

With the recent surge in gasoline prices, everyone has a solution from a windfall profits tax and tax rebates, to partisan politics and demagoguery. But the real answer lies in a class most should have taken in college, if they could have squeezed it in between HIST 101: USA - Evil Hegemon or Fascist Empire and LIT 101: Deconstructionism - How Males Perpetuate Gender Apartheid.

That class would be ECON 101.

In every economic system, regardless if it's a socialist or communist one, or a capitalist one, there is supply and demand. And in every economic system, regardless if its socialist or communist, or capitalist, there is a finite amount of goods and resources available, otherwise known as scarcity. Even in state run economies, the simple fact is that you can't have it all. In other words, the principle of scarcity applies universally. In a command system, scarcity is dealt with easily: the omnipotent state allocates resources as it sees best, usually with the threat of violence to those who disagree.

And just as in a free market system where households have to make decisions about what they want, and what they give up (called the opportunity cost), so too in even the worker's paradise are economic decisions (trade offs) made. Usually, as in the case in North Korea, it means missiles or food.

And even in command economies, there is a mechanism that affects what is made: price. Now, we often think of price in terms of dollars (or yen, euros, etc.), but currency only reflects a shared agreement of what we think the paper is worth in relation to what it can buy. That aspect of money is called being a storer of value. The other aspect is called being a medium of exchange, in that it is infinitely easier to carry around paper bills than chickens or shoes, or car parts.

The price, as mentioned above, is actually not the dollars but what you have to give up for an item. Again, we usually think of it in dollars, but think of it like this: you have fifteen dollars in your wallet and you see two CD's you'd like to buy at the local music store (do any of those exist anymore?). You can buy one or the other, but not both. So, you buy the latest gangsta rap cd (because you keep it real) and pass on the latest pop country CD, because again, you keep it real.

So, what was the cost of keeping it real? The pop country CD. Oh, and when you leave the store and feel the twinge of hunger in your stomach, the cost, or price if you will, is also not being able to buy lunch. Yes, you have credit cards, but the cost then of the lunch becomes a future purchase. The incentive there is something called marginal utility, but that's another discussion.

In a market economy such as ours, in addition to price, there is another mechanism at work: profits. Taken together, the price and profits mechanisms interact to restore balance (called equilibrium) to the economy. When external forces intercede, such as rent controls, price supports, subsidies, barriers to entry, or other non-market factors, equilibrium will a) not be restored and b) create greater imbalances (disequilibrium).

There is no doubt that gasoline prices have "hurt" customers as of late, and it is a cost that redounds to all sectors of the economy. Consumers are forced to make a series of ever more difficult choices as they cannot just stop driving. So, why is the pain good?

Right now almost everyone is aghast at the "record profits" of the oil companies. One would expect such of democrats, but even Republicans are now jumping on the demonizing bandwagon. But rather than that, how about championing the fact that they are so efficient that their costs are so low. How about praising the fact that they will now have necessary capital to invest into new technologies and new development. Oh wait, that's a problem as the oil companies are forbidden from drilling by the very same people who criticize them for their "greed". So, the simple fact is that they have no place to put the money. Period.

Now, record profits also have the added benefit of encouraging further exploration, market entry, and most importantly, research into alternative fuels. One would expect, all other things being equal, that profits would encourage firms to take a risk. However, once they realize their profits, they are thus susceptible to being accused of "greedy". This serves as disincentive to market entry. Why take the risk when you will be "rewarded" with scorn?

But the real pain is reserved for the "little guy", no better exemplified by poor Katie Couric pleading for the president of Shell Oil to "feel the pain" of average Americans. Funny request coming from someone who is going to get millions for nothing more than reading the news, whose greatest asset is her "perkiness".

But why is the pain good? See, pain is not an economic concept but rather the effect of the price mechanism taking over people's reasoning. In a normal system, as prices of good A rise, consumers will naturally change to good B (called the substitution effect). However, there is currently no viable alternative to gasoline.

So, again, why is the pain good? Because for years, we have traded what amounts to fantasy for reality. Fantasy, in this case is perpetually cheap fuel and a pristine environment, while reality is a ever growing world economy and thus demand for fuel, with increasingly limited current resources. So, the pain will force consumers to make choices, in this case, higher gas prices driven by limits to domestic oil production or lower prices driven by expanded drilling and profit fueled (no pun intended) alternative fuel research.

It will also force lawmakers to reconsider its ethanol and nuclear policies as well. Considering that most of our electricity is petroleum generated, simply increasing the amount of nuclear generated electricity directly reduces our demand, and thus price, for oil.

The pain will also force the auto manufacturers to produce more fuel efficient cars to meet consumer demands. Currently all the major auto makers are doing this, and all have poured billions into hybrid car technology. That the domestic auto makers are late to the hybrid party is more a factor of the consumer fantasy translated into less demand for such cars. But, as the pain increases, so too will the demand, and the car companies will be forced to produce more hybrids.

So, the pain, if we must call it that, is very good. It is actually the result of diseconomic forces that have skewed the market for too long. But, it is also the signal we need to force the economic, and political, changes which will bring about balance. Anything to lessen profits or ease the pain only delays the inevitable, worsens the situation, and perpetuates the fantasy at the cost (pun intended) of reality.

It's simply Econ 101.

Perhaps the only reason that I've stayed a Republican this long is because I always figured they would defend the country and especially national sovreignty. No longer. The democrats gave up any pretenses about being serious on national security about 1972. Carter's weakness and ineptitude, Mondale's nuclear freeze, Dukakis riding in the tank, Clinton's military social engineering, to Kerry's well, here the list is so long...but in every case, you could expect the democrats to sacrifice national security interests for the expense of a few polling points.

Never was that the case with the Republicans. Goldwater "spoke truth to power" and was right about Vietnam. Nixon actually sent the bombers to the North and brought the comunists to the table. Remember, they asked for the peace talks so we'd stop the bombing. Reagan defied all the polls and put missiles in West Germany and tried to put them in space. While the left called it Star Wars, the Soviets called it quits.

I expected the Republicans to be the party of respect for our laws, our borders, and our national identity. I expect the democrats to risk our safety and sovreignty for a few votes. I mean, they never took the communists seriously, they don't take global terrorism seriously, do I really expect them to see the border invasion as anything but an "opportunity".

With the passage of bills in the senate that guarantee social security benefits to illegals, the republicans are now no longer the party of national sovreignty. Yes, there was a difference in patriotism between democrats and republicans. Yes, republicans saw America as the shining city on a hill, while democrats who viewed America favorably saw it more as just another nation, and those who viewed it as evil found a place at the demcoratic table.

Now, republicans are equally as willing to sell our sovreignty for a few votes. They are even willing to buy those votes with federal largesse. They say it isn't amnesty, but it is. You break the law and get: citizenship and federal beneifts. You abide by the law and get: nothing.

I believe I will make a movie called "The Soul Stealer" which will take place in Washingtoc DC. It will have a cast of hundreds, who travel to the nation's captial, and within a few years, their soul is gone. They look and talk the same, and on all outward appearances, they appear to be unchanged. That is untill they vote on legislation.

In the lead will be the Senator from Arizona, his supporting actor will be a drunk from Massachusettes.

And like every other cheap horror movie, this one will have numerous sequels, with the same plot, and same outcome. Oh sure, the names will change, but the carnage will be the same.

The only thing that can keep me from voting for not-republican in November is the demcorats are, if you can believe it, far worse. How did we get this government? How did we get those two parties?

Sure, I make no attempts to hide my opposition to things like abortion, gay marriage, and the other social issues that the left has tried to force down my throat. Perhaps that is why I feel strongly, as liek most people, I frankly don't see them as serious national issues. If Frank and Steve marry or not, hell, my life's not going to be one iota different. But force me to, and I will fight. And I guess I'm guilty, as I let those issues sometimes cloud my votes. But, it wasn't as if the republicans fired the first shot. The assault on the American culture began on the left.

But I've had it with the republican party. The democrats make no attempt to hide their crass pandering, their disdain for the family, their contempt for American miltitary and world power. But the republicans? That wasn't the republican party. Reagan didn't pander, he lead. He knew America's strength was in family and faith. And he knew America must wield her power to protect and defend freedom.

And he would have never supported giving away American national sovreignty.

I've had it with them. If I'm wrong, then convince me otherwise. Else, I will re-register as decline to state.

And like the Gipper, will know that I didn't leave the party, the party left me.

Perhaps I shouldn't be so, but I can't help but feeling as thoroughly disappointed as I do right now. After reading the transcript of the president's speech last night, I finally threw in the towel. By now, all the talking heads have broken down every word, parsed every phrase, spun every point.

National guard, guest workers, whatever. Frankly, I can't remember a time when the government, and its leaders, were so completely at odds with the will of the people.

Oh, we don't want to offend people. We can't just close our borders. We can't just deport people. We're a nation of immigrants. The list goes on.

Let me tell you something: I'm offended. Yes we can close our borders, and abso-freakin-lutely we can deport people. In fact, we do so all the time. Not just to anyone who came from south of the border.

We're not a "nation of immigrants", we're a nation of immigrants who wanted to be American. And there is a world of difference. Look, there's been migration of peoples throughout history, and most often, it's been by force, of arms or nature, but force nonetheless. Very rarely has there been a single place where people really wanted to leave behind their entire lives for.

And guess what George, we're it.

I know that I should be offended, but not exactly how, when the president says "jobs Americans won't do".

I guess I'm either a spoiled, elitist snob, the kind those radicals in Philadelphia took care of. Or, I'm the laziest SOB in the world. Or maybe I'm just a racist pig, who thinks that some work is good enough for "those peoples" but not for "my peoples". However you slice it, it's rather damning of the entire country.

I got a few words of advice, how about telling all those people to just get off their behinds and work. Look at what we've become. A hurricane hits New Orleans and poeple are sitting around waiting for the government to help them out. Hey, get off your ass, and get the hell out of there. But sitting and crying that nobody's going to help you? And we wonder why there's work no "Americans" will do?

We can't even get a wall built. Of course I know why, there's no Americans who would build it.

The president won't even admit the most glaring truths: the millions on public assistance, the hundreds of thousands that clog our jails, the enclaves of unassimilated, and the almost aparthied society that appears, like the sun, just above the horizon, but just out of sight, if we really don't look too hard.

The greatest crime in all of this? It's so transparent. We can clearly see that the president and the republicans are pandering, which we've long grown to expect of democrats. They are purely concerned about not alienating "new" voters, yet they have no idea how many "old" voters they're losing. Funny thing about us conservatives, we won't be taken for granted.

The left turned its constituency into lemmings, but us on the right, we're different. See, the left tells you what they're going to do for you, and you vote for them. The right tells us what they're not going to do to them, and we vote for them. Somewhere the republicans lost sight of just they represent. We do not want the government telling, doing, making, assissting, regulating, or doing anything other than the what the very narrowly defined constitutional limits allow.

See, when Pelosi and her cohorts call this a "do nothing Congress", conservatives applaud. Not Pelosi, but Congress. Liberals see gridlock as a sin, we see it as a blessing.

But now republicans have become the big-spending, over-regulating, government-knows-best, party we've detested all these years. We've always known welfare politics was about "bread and circuses", and now the republicans have taken "if you can't beat 'em" approach.

We know full well that cheap labor drives up profits and stock prices. But I won't fall prey to the "coporate greed" angle completely. Because we know the left wants a "diverse" America, code for ABC or Anything But Common. We know the left wants texts rewritten, multi-lingualism and multiculturalism, basically the destruction of a singularl American culture.

We know that both parties are playing equally fast and loose with money and favors to capture el voter. Well, Americans of all stripes are taking note, and paying heed.

We are demanding you act. Don't give us "comprehensive reform", give us a wall. Enforce our laws. Offend a few people. When the Mexican government says they'll sue us for using the Guard, get on television and tell them to shut the hell up. Tell them we have a right to enforce our laws, and protect our borders.

This isn't a liberal or conservative issue, but an American one.

I really thought the president "got it" regarding the war on terror. In spite of his failures to lead the nation, to talk to the people, to keep us informed, I still believed in him. I'd love to blame the media, and yes, they're partly culpable. But he could have spoken out against them. the democrats are partly to blame as well. They set out to destroy him and his presidency. But he could have taken the fight to them as well.

But the blame falls squarely on his shoulders. He bears responsibility for the state of his presidency. Even the immigration speech was because he let events get out of control. I've never been more disapointed.

I am unaware of ever a time of the level of politicization of the armed forces, especially by retired generals. General William Odom weighs in with the latest anti-Iraq war proclamation. Let's take a look, shall we.

In reality, a civil war in Iraq began just weeks after U.S. forces toppled Saddam.

Yes, Iraq is in civil war, but it wasn't as if it was a peaceful place before the invasion. And, given what could be occurring, with the large and well trained Iraqi forces, one has to believe that while troublesome, it has been so far contained.

Pulling out will most likely result in Sunni groups’ turning against al Qaeda and its sympathizers, driving them out of Iraq entirely.

They're doing that already. Pulling out would leave them stranded.

It should by now be clear that political power can only be established via Iraqi guns and civil war, not through elections or U.S. colonialism by ventriloquism.

US colonialism? That is an amazing claim. Someone please tell me how we've "colonized" Iraq?

Hiding behind the argument of troop morale shows no willingness to accept the responsibilities of command. The truth is, most wars would stop early if soldiers had the choice of whether or