When ABC wanted to air a docu-drama miniseries about the events leading up to September 11th, the Clinton Administration, along with scads of other Democrats, complained about the depiction of Clinton, Berger, Albright and others in the film. While President, Bill Clinton passed up numerous opportunities to either capture or kill Osama Bin Laden, but he and members of his administration wanted ABC to cut any scene about such matters from the film. They claimed that the scenes in the film were "fictional" and "exaggerated" eventhough NewsMax.com published a recording of Clinton admitting his Bin Laden mistakes in a 2002 interview.

And so, as always, when something isn't going the way Democrats like, they run to their lawyers. Because of legal pressures being placed on ABC by Clinton's lawyers, the scenes revolving around Clinton's decision not to capture Bin Laden were edited.

Did the Bush Administration complain at all about blame being placed on them in the film? Nope. Did President Bush run to his lawyers when Michael Moore made an entire movie attacking him? Nope. In actuality, I can't recall one time when President Bush, or a member of his administration, sued someone for making a movie or show attacking them. Yet, when ABC tries to tell some form of the truth (the series is a "docu-drama," not a "documentary") Clinton jumps all over it and makes them change it.

Now look at this latest film debuting in Toronto: Death of a President. The film, made in England, depicts President Bush being shot and killed during a fictional visit to Chicago in 2007. The filmmakers went out of their way to make the movie as realistic as possible, digitally graphing President Bush's real face on to an actor's body. They splice this with real footage of Bush visiting Chicago on past occasions to make the whole thing seem all the more real. The movie then continues to show what it would be like under a Cheney presidency.

The mere idea that a filmmaker (a foreigner no less) would make a movie about the murder of a sitting president is indecent and uncalled for. You may disagree with the man and his policies, but going out of your way to make a realistic demonstration on how to kill him is ridiculous. But, as absurd as it all seems, President Bush has yet to sick a team of lawyers on the people responsible for this film. While I certainly think he should, as the film (unlike the ABC docu-drama) actually presents a security threat, it is important to note that he hasn't. Bush continues to take heat from the radical left, and he doesn't retaliate.

When President Clinton threatens to sue ABC for making a drama about his failures, it's considered righteous and deserved. If President Bush would ask that a film depicting his murder not be shown in America, people would cry that he was limiting someone's rights or taking away their freedoms. There is a double standard happening here that just isn't sitting well with me.

[I wrote this letter to the editor last Monday evening, but since it hasn't yet been run, I'm assuming it won't be. However the argument I make is still very relevant, regardless of if you've read the letter to which I refer.]

In response to Monday’s “Don’t Confuse Incumbents” letter, Mr. Giammaria has his facts wrong on Senator Santorum.

Saying that the Senator doesn’t fight for the “little guy” is a nice liberal catchphrase, but it’s unfounded. Santorum has been improving economic growth by working to bring PA employment to a 16-year high (AP 7/25/06). Thanks to Santorum’s efforts, hourly wages also increased 3.8% from April 2005 (Bloomberg 5/5/06), and he continues to support raising the national minimum wage. Santorum also fights for small businesses, farmers, and all workers in the state of Pennsylvania by voting against the Senate amnesty bill. Let’s not forget that he also fought to keep Pennsylvania’s military bases open, securing hundreds of jobs in the state.

And for the record, he did vote to raise the minimum wage, as well as extending relief to the death tax, with bill HR 5970—a bill that Senate Democrats voted against.

The Senator continues to fight for the “little guy” by trying to reform Social Security. He passed the “Social Security Guarantee Act” which keeps seniors’ Social Security safe from reform. The Senator promoted creating personal Social Security accounts, which would help college kids--like myself--as well as younger generations of workers from losing their retirement savings in a broken system! And of course, the Senator’s pro-life, pro-family legislation (PBA Ban Act, Project Safe Childhood Act, Schools Safe Act, etc.) has helped the littlest folks of all: infants and the unborn.

If you take a look at Rick’s record, you’ll see that he has continuously fought for the oldest in Pennsylvania all the way to the youngest.

Michael T. Rubino
Monaca

A friend recently pointed me in the direction of this great new ice cream company starting up in the Washington D.C./Virginia area. Along the lines of "W" Ketchup (which I proudly used during the 2004 election) comes the Star-Spangled Ice Cream Company. Using such great slogans as "Sweet Taste of Freedom" and "Ice Cream with a Conservative Flavor", the company donates 10% of what they make to the Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund--which was founded by Col. Ollie North.

Just selling regular ice cream and donating the profits to charity wouldn't be all that special. The coolest thing about the ice cream (excuse the pun) are the names of the flavors: "Iraqi Road"; "Smaller GovernMint"; "Gun Nut" (which was endorsed by Ted Nugent); and my personal favorite, "I hate the French Vanilla." The website also lists a number of other flavors currently in development, such as "RushMallow"; "Cherry Falwell"; "Orange Alert Sherbert"; and "Choc & Awe."

Of course, I am totally trying to get my hands on a pint... but right now the only way to get them in Western PA is to order 6 pints at a time. The company is expanding their products into retail stores in the eastern United States, so keep a look-out.

The idea of raising the minimum wage always sounds like a good thing, right? Wrong. In fact, raising the minimum wage does tremendous damage to small businesses and the consumer. It's a subject that traditionally Republicans have been against, which is why I was so surprised when I heard that a bill raising the wage $2.00 was making it through our state government and was being signed into law by Governor Rendell.

Why on earth would our elected officials (and especially the Republicans) in the state House and Senate vote for such a thing? They clearly didn't listen to their constituents, and instead went ahead with their "pay raise" mentality. Perhaps they thought they would try and make up for their pay grab last summer by raising the wages of everyone else, instead of themselves. Whatever their reasoning, it worked. Now the minimum wage is on the incline in our state.

I guess I should be happy that it was a state decision and not a national one (as most things should be). But the passing of this pay raise only really does two things: help get our legislators re-elected, and make Governor Rendell look good.

Now, you may be saying: What's the problem with raising the minimum wage? Imagine a pond, sitting very still, very calm. Now toss a pebble labeled "$2.00 increase" into that pond and examine all of the ripples it creates. Firstly, it will hurt small businesses. While the raise is incremental over two years, and businesses with under 10 employees are put on a slower increment track, the fact is that these companies are going to have to pay there workers more than they had planned. Then you must look at the next ripple: if the businesses have to pay their employees more, they are going to have to charge more for their product. Which means that the price of goods will rise to cover the price of wages. So suddenly everyone will have to pay a little bit more for the stuff they normally buy, which is something that, as Americans, we always have trouble dealing with. And of course Unions will be demanding more money now as well, which is something they have always done when the minimum wage is raised.

The common argument for raising the wage is quite naive: how are people supposed to raise a family on $5.15/hr? They aren't. The minimum wage was never created to support a family, but rather it was to encourage growth and education. It was designed for students and people starting on the low end of the totem pole, hoping to work their way up. It is specifically not a "Living Wage" (which is a wage limit designed to support a standard of living). For those trying to make it a living wage, they are stretching a system that simply wasn't designed for that sort of thing.

As my brother says, it's like trying to park an SUV in a compact car space. People are still going to try to make it work, and it's only going to end in disaster.

News is just starting to break about Bob Casey Jr's campaign crossing the line between fair play and family endangerment! According to the Rick Santorum blog, members of Casey's campaign were found snooping around the Santorum house in Penn Hills. Santorum said on KDKA Radio, “This guy won't debate. He won't talk about issues. He won't do anything, but he'll support people who will look in my windows and find out what's going on in my house. This is ridiculous.”

Police have been called on to perform extra patrols of the neighborhood to assure the safety of Santorum's family and their own. Rick and Karen Santorum also issued an open letter to Bob Casey:

Dear Bob,

We are writing to express our outrage regarding the actions of your campaign, which have put our six young children at a serious safety risk. Last night, we learned with deep dismay that a Casey operative admitted on KDKA-TV to trespassing on our property and viewing the inside of our home. Further, your campaign issued a press release yesterday that falsely says that we do not stay in our Penn Hills home. This reckless statement is not only a lie, but alerts those who may want to enter the home illegally. Your despicable actions have greatly endangered our children's safety.

Let us remind you that while Rick is a U.S. Senator, Karen and our six young children are not. You are welcome to criticize Rick's positions, but putting our children's privacy and safety at risk has certainly crossed a line we never expected. If anyone associated with our campaign ever put your wife or children in any type of risk, he or she would be fired immediately.

We call on you to immediately dismiss your campaign spokesperson and anyone else on your staff involved with this malicious effort. Anything short of the dismissal of these individuals is your endorsement of this repugnant act.

Your immediate attention to this unfortunate matter would be much appreciated by every member of our family.

Sincerely,

Rick and Karen Santorum

Casey's statement? He, along with the DNC of Penn Hills, claim that Rick lives in Virginia. Is Bob Casey that out of ideas? Can they find nothing else to attack Rick about? Or is every Senator who serves in Washington expected to report every day from his home state? The idea that Santorum staying in Virginia while Congress is in session isn't outlandish or unheard of. Surely you don't hear people in Hawaii asking if Senator Daniel Kahikina Akaka really lives there. It's another cheap political attack that has clearly gone too far.

I would say that they could resolve this in a debate... but we all know Bob Casey Jr. would never go for that.

Today I dotted the I's and crossed all the T's on my tax forms. I've never been happy about having to do this, because unlike most people I know, I have to pay the government instead of getting a nice return. These are the pitfalls of freelance designing, I know, but having to go through this mess every year has done nothing but remind me why I am a Republican.

It's been the standard conservative theory that lower and less taxes will lead to a stronger, more competitive economy. Cutting down paperwork, getting rid of the IRS, and not punished successful people all tend to be high on our priority list. And far off in the distance, I hold that Libertarian dream of a true flat tax where my income is left untouched and I can buy all of the used, tax-free stuff I like... oh that will be the day.

But the Fair Tax Initiative is a long way off. While President Bush has been trying to reform the tax code, as well as making his welcomed tax-cuts permanent, most politicians don't even want to think about something as drastic as a flat tax. Why, without the IRS how would our government function? Most can't even imagine living in a country where we get to keep 100% of our paychecks and pensions. It's a shame, really. Because until then, we'll be wasting millions of those little Post-it "sign here" tabs.

This Sunday is the 3 year anniversary of Saddam fleeing Baghdad, and NewsMax has compiled a very extensive list of the progress the country has made. Writer Dave Eberhart says, "Over the last six months, according to recent polling data, two-thirds of Iraqis surveyed have steadily expressed the belief that the Iraqi Security Forces are winning the battle against terrorism."

All of the stats and information has been taken from the Pentagon's massive new report: "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq," which was recently issued to Congress. Eberhart took the time to comb through the thick document for some of the more pertinent topics. His report features stats on Iraqi security forces, increased support from all religious parties, increasing effectiveness of law institutions, economic activities, and international support numbers. It's very extensive, but proves that we are making substantial progress in Iraq that is largely being ignored by the Mass Media.

Click here to read the entire article.

Bush's State of the Union Address Tuesday night was an excellent speech for him. While he really didn't unveil anything groundbreakingly new (just reminding us of some of his domestic campaign issues, and taking a hardline stance with Iran), he did present a quality 50-minute speech that sounded good. No one's going to be attacking him on stuttering or mispronouncing words. No, Bush was superb.

I greatly enjoyed hearing about Cindy Sheehan's arrest just minutes before Bush entered the House to give his speech. Of course, she was invited there by Representative Lynne Woolsey, a Democrat from California, to do nothing but cause trouble. Security saw her walking in with a shirt that had an anti-war message on it (and the law strictly prohibits protesting inside of the House of Representatives). Looks like she'll have to wait a little longer until she can be in a room with the President again.

As is usual with State of the Union Addresses, people applaud more than the President speaks. Sometimes its a bipartisan cheer, usually when the President makes a general statement like "Americans are human" or says "I want to thank our troops." Both sides have to cheer for statements like that, otherwise they look utterly ridiculous... then again, this evening one party did end up looking utterly ridiculous, but I'll get to that. So sometimes there is a very partisan cheer. When people enter the House and sit down, the stands are divided in half, GOP on one side and Dems on the other. So it's very obvious when the Republicans agree with what the President is saying. You see an entire side of the room stand and cheer, and the whole thing sort of resembles a botched "wave" at a football game.

Tonight, however, the Democrats did find a chance to stand on their own and cheer... and their reasoning was appalling, disturbing, and down right hilarious. It came at a time when Bush was just beginning his talk about domestic issues (these resided in the second half of his speech.) Bush began saying that Congress failed to act a year ago, when he proposed plans to save Social Security. Instantly, whoops and hollars erupted from one side of the House as cameras cut to liberal Democrats jumping up and cheering like kids watching a Disney movie. I couldn't believe my eyes... they were actually celebrating LACK of ACCOMPLISHMENT. Democrats were proud of the fact they have accomplished absolutely nothing these past five years, and instead of done nothing but block and naysay everything this President would like to do. And more importantly, they were proud of not finding out a solution to a problem that will affect all of us very personally in about forty years: Social Security.

Never before have I seen a group of politicians who have lost their way like America's Democratic Senators. Instead of proposing anything new, any original ideas or plans, they will filibuster and lie about Republican intentions. The cameras cut instantly to Hillary Clinton, who was smiling and laughing like she has just won the lottery. I can only imagine what she was thinking: "We did it! We fought President Bush on his idea of fixing a problem before it happens! Now generations of young people will have terrible retirements!"

Of course, their applause was silenced once Bush finished his sentence: "yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away." And then a roar of Republican cheering burst out, reminding the Democrats that they have done nothing but prolong the inevitable. I couldn't help but feel like I was watching an episode of Jerry Springer-- one of the ones where the audience is split on the issue, and they squabble back and forth while the people on stage just want to finish what they were saying.

The rest of the President's speech went on unhindered by obnoxious cheers of stagnation. And while I didn't bother to listen to any of the pundits ramble on about what they thought of the speech... instead I shut off the television confident in our country's leader, and a little wary of those who celebrate failure.

Apparently, there are a group of folks who are working hard to get Al Gore to run again for President. Yeah, because it's such a great idea. This was first reported by US News & World Report:

"It's Gore Time," says a political strategist and fundraiser who is opening a bid to get Gore into the race. Gore friends see his recent political and business moves as proof he's preparing to run. Allies say that in speeches, Gore has found his voice to address domestic and world issues. And in raising money for his Current TV network, which targets the critical youth market, Big Al has built an issue base and donor network that's competitive with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton 's.

Hot diggity dog! Apparently "Gore Time" is an endearing term that should get people excited for Robo-Veep's return. When I read the phrase "Gore Time" I couldn't help but think of a really boring bull slamming into a small, helpless child while screaming, "I invented the internet!"

Al Gore has gone from that boring, lifeless shell of a man while under Clinton's wing, to a burly, wild-eyed CEO who often looks like Vince McMahon from the WWE. Remember when Al had that beard? Wow. I can't wait for him to run just so the GOP can put that picture in a commercial!

I actually hope that he runs. Part of me thinks he is a tad more likeable than Hillary, at least in liberal circles. Just think of all the fun sound clips we'll be able to use against him. Like that one time he freaked out and screamed "He played on our fears!" Oh that's a goodie. Al Gore has become one of the biggest jokes in politics, so let's cross our fingers and look for a Clinton vs Gore showdown!

After having a day to reflect, and research, President Bush's decision to nominate Harriet Miers for Supreme Court Justice I must say that I don't find myself as upset as some Republicans. There were alot of knee-jerk reactions yesterday by such prominent political commentators as Rush Limbaugh and Bill Kristol, both challenging Bush's nomination. Everyone was hoping that Bush would pick the most openly conservative justice he could find, perhaps one of his appellate court nominations, however I think Bush was pretty smart in going the route he did.

The nomination, and eventual confirmation, of Justice Roberts ended up being a larger fight than I had anticipated. It's true, there was no question about his confirmation, and the only ones that really opposed him were the leftist grand-standers who oppose everything Bush does, but do you honestly think Bush would have been able to push someone like Janice Rogers Brown through? Sure, technically it could have happened, since we have the majority in both parts of Congress, but it would have been a vicious battle that would have only served to hurt the President's approval rating even more. Bush has never been one to back away from a fight, but he also knows how to pick his battles. I see this more of a strategic move: pick someone that doesn’t have much of a record, who hasn’t been a judge before, and who’s motives are largely unknown to the public. That way Teddy, Hillary, Schumer, and the rest of the gang have hardly anything to complain about. So when Miers flies through the confirmation process, Bush wins another easy victory, and fulfills another campaign promise.

And yet conservatives are freaking out. Why? Because Miers isn’t a flag-waving anti-abortion protestor who is riding into the Senate on a white horse that has “Save the Babies” written on the side of it. Don’t get me wrong, I’m as pro-life as can be, but conservatives, especially those who only vote on abortion issues, freak out the minute a justice isn’t completely open about their views. Come on people! It’s all strategy! Why on earth would a conservative judge show their hand and tell the judiciary committee that he/she is against abortion and will overturn Roe v. Wade ASAP? With Specter heading up the questioning, that’s a ticket straight to the unemployment line. Take a hint from Roberts, who is a Catholic and a Constitutionalist; he didn’t reveal any of his views when it comes to ruling on cases. Bush himself said that these judges should not go through litmus tests, despite BOTH sides wishing they would. And so people are concerned that Miers isn’t a true “conservative judge” because she has no past record. They fear what they don’t understand, but I say hold hope. It’s true that we don’t know a whole lot about her, but slowly the facts are rising to the top… Miers has donated money to Texans United for Life, a pro-life group run by Kyleen Wright; she was also getting good marks from James Dobson from Focus on the Family. It’s these little hints that tell us where she could be headed in terms of ruling on certain cases without her coming out and proclaiming it.

Dick Cheney was interviewed on Limbaugh yesterday, and repeatedly said that she would be a conservative judge who would not legislate from the bench. I have no reason not to believe him, and I trust our President and Vice President. Bush is hoping for a speedy confirmation process so that she can get on the bench before the end of the year. He made a good move by nominating her, in my opinion.

"In this place, there's a custom for the funerals of jazz musicians. The funeral procession parades slowly through the streets, followed by a band playing a mournful dirge as it moves to the cemetery. Once the casket has been laid in place, the band breaks into a joyful 'second line' -- symbolizing the triumph of the spirit over death. Tonight the Gulf Coast is still coming through the dirge -- yet we will live to see the second line." These were the closing lines of President Bush's address to the nation this evening, which he gave from Jackson Square in New Orleans. President Bush gave this speech tonight to announce new initiatives regarding the rebuilding of Louisiana.

I was listening to the speech during my drive home, and at first I was a tad concerned about the direction he was taking that part of the country. After his ideas settled in my mind for a while, however, I realized that most of what he's promoting is routed in classic conservatism.

Bush hit the nail on the head when he said, "It is entrepreneurship that creates jobs and opportunity; it is entrepreneurship that helps break the cycle of poverty; and we will take the side of entrepreneurs as they lead the economic revival of the Gulf region." It's this sort of empowerment that will allow the people of New Orleans, who used to rely on welfare and government handouts, to take their future into their own hands, to get jobs, create businesses, and reduce the poverty level. This brand of thinking comes straight from the conservative thinker's handbook, a free market in which small businesses drive the economy. It's an incorrect stereotype (as most are) when people say that Republicans only care about big business. The truth is, they care about BUSINESS. All business, big or small. It's the very definition of capitalism and the economy that spirits democracy and freedom. By people actually working in New Orleans, in theory, the poverty level would lessen or disappear.

The one thing that initially concerned me with Bush's speech was the amount of money the federal government will be spending to rebuild. One thing that the GOP has always prided itself on, since the very beginning, is limited government. That means less spending, less federal involvement, and more freedom for the American people. Of course, this can't always be the case. That's when I realized that no matter what this money is going to be spent. It's in the statutes that we must rebuild after a disaster like this hits... so no matter if there is a Democrat or a Republican in office, the $200 billion is going to be spent. The difference lays in how it's going to be used. It's logical to assume that a Democratic president would probably hand it over as a form of welfare, giving these displaced people money until they can get back on their feet... and of course they wouldn't, they would just live the good life and never get jobs. Bush is taking the classic Republican route by saying, "We'll give you enough money to cover the costs of educating yourself so you can get a job, or the money it will cost to take care of your kids while you are out looking for a job. We'll give you some land if you promise to build a home on it. We'll give you tax breaks if you open a small business. You just have to get up and do it!" Now, I'm just paraphrasing, but this is essentially what he's doing here.

What's happening to Louisiana is a total revamp in terms of how that economy will run. The Democrats, for years, have had their chance to make things work down there. All we got was one of the most crime ridden cities in America. It's time for Republicans to give it a shot. As Rush Limbaugh said today on his radio program (the most listened radio show in the country), "It has been nothing but political opportunism and corruption and a demonstrated failure of ideology and that failure is liberalism." It's proven that conservative economic policy works, and works well. Enterprise zones and tax breaks for businesses is the best way to rebuild, and rebuild quickly. There is a reason America has the best economy in the world, it's because of the spirit of independent capitalism. And I believe that this sort of method is going to work alot faster than government handouts and welfare programs.

My only thoughts right now have to do with the other spending the government is doing right now. Despite Bush's wish to keep his bills "pork-free," senators have loaded up his farm and highway bills with so much spending that they barely resemble their once-lean selves. Every congressmen wants to grab a little cash for their state when it comes to highway repair and construction, and now the plan is so bloated that one might think a Democrat wrote it. Now that the plan to rebuild has been unleashed, I think Congress needs to go back and trim the fat off of these expensive expenditures and put some of that cash elsewhere. Oh, and tap ANWR and build some more refineries (you know, because I always have to throw that in there.)

Bush's speech was quite a home-run tonight, and will hopefully help bring up his sagging approval rating. He acknowledged the fact that government response to the crisis was terrible, and he's taking care not to just rebuild New Orleans, but rebuild it without the poverty that was so evident before. As the former Governor of Louisiana said afterwards on ABC Radio, "The devil's in the details." We'll see what happens to Bush's plan as it gets pushed through Congress.

Things are looking pretty nasty out there. I have felt sort of out of touch with the happenings of the world since we have opted to not get cable in my dorm room. I read the Drudge Report at least three times a day, keeping on top of what I can... but it wasn't until today, when I listened to Hannity and watched the news, that I realized the insanity and devastation that is going on down in the South. That, mixed together with the added stress that outside forces are placing on the American economy and the war in Iraq, could make for a pretty bleak view of the state of our beloved union. And yet, I remain cautiously optimistic as I have full faith and trust in our president's leadership abilities.

The situation on the ground in New Orleans and the surrounding areas and states is something out of a movie. Actually, it's out of a few movies. The equation consists of one part "Mad Max", another part "The Warriors" with a healthy helping of "Waterworld." It's absolutely sickening to think that there are so many pathetic lowlifes out there that are taking advantage of this situation for personal gain. There are numerous, and nauseating, accounts of thugs looting TVs and DVD players, raping women, killing cops, and warring amongst rival gangs. There are hundreds of accounts of heroes saving lives; people sticking out their necks for the safety of those who can't help themselves. But all of this seems to be overshadowed by the dark and terrifying side of human nature.

I just sat in awe as I heard stories about a car jacker shooting a police officer in the head in order to get away with a Cadillac, or a man killing his sister of a bag of ice. It's simply horrid that people would stoop to this level of animalism (a scene eerily similar to that of Spielberg's "War of the Worlds"). But I also have to wonder why these states weren't better prepared for this. It was a category five hurricane that was immanently bearing down on these states, and yet people obviously weren't properly evacuated. This storm certainly didn't sneak up on New Orleans or Alabama. I just have to wonder what the governors and mayors were thinking.

Although it is not evident how badly these people were coddled all of their lives. After seeing clip after clip of urban residents screaming about how the "state" and the "government" needs to be taking care of them, I am beginning to realize how important it is to stress independence and self-reliance. These people waited around expected to be handed an answer, handed a safe-haven, and now they are left with nothing. The politicians of New Orleans are largely to blame, and after seeing these videos and interviews, it's clear how little they did to help these people rise up.

What bothers me almost as much is the opportunist liberal senators who are trying to pin this on President Bush. There are a number of Democrats out there using this tragedy for political gain, taking every chance they can to make a pot shot at our Commander-in-Chief. Ted Kennedy was quoted saying that this whole natural disaster may not have happened if President Bush had joined the Kyoto Treaty or had done more to stop O-Zone depleting gases. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the leftists would blame a NATURAL disaster on Bush. They would blame the lack of oxygen in space on Bush if they could. But I applaud the President for taking the first steps to helping these struggling people. He has already stated that the national government will bear the burden of the $1 Billion+ a day expenses it will take to clean up the area. This certainly isn't going to help our bloated budget. Some folks would be apt to argue our deficit is so large due to the war in Iraq, but then again all of those petty, pork-barrelled highway projects the Senate plugged into Bush's highway bill aren't helping either.

Perhaps the largest ripple (excuse the pun) to come from this disaster is the immediate rising gas prices. Just today prices lept about $.70 in Western PA, making the average price of gas $3.19. While that is cheaper than some places, it's definitely the highest I've seen in my four years of driving. America is caught in a rather tough spot. On one hand, the gas prices were rising anyways due to the lack of oil refineries in the States (of course, we'd like to build more but those enviro-weenies won't let us... but they sure are happy to complain about the high price of gas!). Now that this hurricane took down a bunch of oil lines, prices temporarily sky rocketed until they can get the things back online. Of course, now would be a great time for America to tap the oil that is just wasting away in the Pacific or in ANWR. The first to complain about the gas are the first to kibosh any idea the right has to fix the problem. But I digress, because this is becoming exactly what the left is trying to do: make this tragedy political.

But what good can possibly come out of all of this? While do I say that I am cautiously optimistic? Because, as Reagan so often showed, optimism is what gets stuff done. Sitting around and moping about the destruction and looting isn't going to solve the problem. Swift action, heroism, prayers and support are what's going to change the situation down there. This president is capable of all of that. He has faced so many challenges and tragedies during his four and a half years in office, and I know that he is the right man for the job. We need to get the national guard, coast guard, and any available police officers down there to crack a few thug-skulls and get everything under control. When we stop the rioting and looting of children's hospitals, then the strength of the human spirit can take over and begin to put that place back together. I give much praise to the great state of Texas, who has already vowed to take in over 100,000 refugees, giving them shelter, food and aid. I am just curious to see how much international aid we get (since we helped so much in the tsunami relief just months earlier).

Keep that chin up... things will get better.

Senator Rick Santorum, one of the most powerful Republicans in the Senate and one of the finest politicians from PA, has released a new book today. Titled "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good", the book is a statement on the family in today's society and how we need to bring back values to the home. Santorum states that the best way to do this is through a strong family (not a village, as Hillary Clinton's book "It Takes a Village" suggested). The book was just released into the market today and is already #120 on Amazon.com (and quickly climbing).



Check out the book today!

Now that the G8 summit has passed, amidst terrible bombings in London, everyone is talking about how to help Africa (a topic that seems to pop up every few years). Of course, as always, we have our friends in Hollywood telling us how things should be, with a new campaign called One. Not to mention the Live8 concerts that happened all around the world, reminding everyone that we are bad people for letting Africa become the way it is.

But is the answer to Africa's problems more money, like these celebrities seem to think? Is Bono really on to something aside from making terrible music? Or is this just another vain attempt by the celebrity elite to appear humane, and to make Bush and America look selfish and uncaring?

The truth is that President Bush has tripled funding to Africa during his term as president, and has just agreed to up it a little more on the request of our friend Tony Blair. But the answer is not to give money to the country, because we've done that in the past and everything is the same. No, the answer is to help the country flourish in the best ways possible: through industry, democracy, and capitalism.

The One Campaign, a new Hollywood marketing racket brought to you by the same folks who speak out on everything, offers this solution: the United States should give 1% of its national budget to Africa. Team America is right, these people need to be shot! Thanks George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and Nelson Mandella for that great insight on how to fix a problem. They want us to send $25 Billion dollars over there to that money pit, just so it can be squandered and spent by the tyrants, dictators, and gang lords that control most of the poorest countries. That's more money than we give NASA! It's this sort of wanton charity call that costs Americans money with little to no result.

The Live8 Campaign had a similar message, which was to give tons and tons of money to Africa. This time, however, they got gaggles of bands to play all around the world, while they show pictures of sick kids next to pictures of leaders in the G8 Summit. They effectively sent the message that these leaders are to blame for these kids being sick and hungry. And while I was happy to hear that Geldof (the Live8 organizer) said "No Bush bashing!", there were enough mixed messages sent out by these images to make people think these countries and leaders are rich, evil white guys.

These "artists" have a poor understanding of the situation over there. Bono can visit the President all he likes and compliment Bush just to win him over, but changing Africa isn't going to come with raised donations. But how do we do it? How do we bring this beautiful continent out of the "jungle", so to speak, and into the healthy real world?

Well firstly, you have to remove the dictators, terrorists, and gang lords that run those countries. Any aid given to the countries goes right into the palaces and armies of the tyrants that run them. The only way that help reaches those people is through missionaries, and I don't think all these actors in Hollywood are ready to throw down their scripts and race to feed kids. But once these evil leaders are removed, and proper and just governments are elected, then the first steps to well-being are accomplished.

The next step is to enter the world market. The only way to bring people out of poverty and terrible living conditions is to trade, invest, and build up your economy. Africa is full of so many natural resources that could be developed, traded, and sold to other nations. Get rid of the gangs that control the diamond mines and bring in real, honest companies to mine that majesty and immediately you will see the markets change over there. There is also oil and other natural resources in Africa that can not only be sold to other countries, but also help to rebuild the ruined cities and countries on the continent. If you industrialize and enter into a capitalist society, things are going to turn around for the better. This certainly isn't something that's going to happen quickly, and it would take generations of people to make the change into the modern world (if that is something the people of Africa even desire), but it would certainly work better than throwing money at the problem.

A good example of what I'm talking about can be found in South Korea, a once communist strong hold liberated during World War II and the Korean War, it's now flourishing thanks to democracy and capitalism. It's capital, Seoul, is one of the most technologically advanced cities in the world. The country is currently a front-runner in the research of cloning and human DNA. Other examples of the free market working are India, which has managed to raise itself up thanks to some globalization and job creation; South Africa, which is one of the most modern countries in Africa; and many of the South American countries, which are doing very well thanks to sugar trade and tourism. It's a system that can work, and has worked in the past.

I'm not saying all money given to the continent is a bad thing, because there are some nations there that have good governments, but just plain need money. However, a $25 Billion dollar whim isn't something that's going to be put to the best of uses with a good market and a reliable government to back it up.

Someone needs to send an e-mail to Democrats saying that comparing America, US Military, the Bush Administration, Gitmo, and Republicans to Nazis, Soviets, and various dictators is neither effective nor reputable. The claims aren't based on anything but hype and sensationalism, and do nothing but offend and discredit those attacked and their attackers. This is not how you bring about change in American policy, this is not how you get people to listen, and this is not how I want my government (because yes, even Democrats are a part of my government) to work.

I think at first, congressmen held back the references to Naziism and Fascism, saving them for a real shocker on the senate floor. Sort of that nice "snap!!" to make their speech really effective. You want to make someone look bad, call them a Nazi. And so that's what many of the Democrats were doing, off and on throughout Bush's first term. But now it's all the rage to call various Bush policies, practices and institutions slanderous names, regardless of who you may offend.

The latest, and most insane attack, was brought about by Senator Dick Durbin's remarks about Guantanamo Bay, referring to it as a Gulag and a Nazi institution. Thanks, Dick, that's going to make the majority of Republicans really want to hear you out and move to close the facility. He cited that we were "torturing" prisoners down there by turning off the air conditioning, or playing rap music too loud. I've listened to Glenn Beck scream at the top of his lungs about this for a week now... but then again, maybe that's why these senators are saying such things. They want to hear Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly fume about this on their radio shows, and that way they can't talk about the real issues that the senate isn't dealing with.

Certain members of congress, including Rep. Pelosi, are calling the Iraq war a "grotesque mistake" as others cite that declining military enrollment numbers spell doom for our nations weary soldiers. And yet I have to wonder why no one wants to join the army. Perhaps it's because members of the army are being compared to Nazis! Perhaps members of our own government refer to the war as a "quagmire" and a "mistake"! Instead of supporting our troupes and our military, they do everything they can to dishearten them. As Dick Morris say in his book "Off with their Heads", our very own members of congress and media sometimes commit larger acts of treason than the blokes we have down in Gitmo. They may not be giving army secrets to the Chinese, but they are doing everything they can to lower the morale of this nation and of our military.

Calling Guantanamo a Gulag, and referring to our interrogation methods as practices of a concentration camp, senators are turning this entire discussion into one of hyperbole. The senate has done absolutely nothing over the past few months, and in all honesty the Republicans in congress are trying to make some decisions, pass some laws, and solve some problems. It's okay if Democrats don't agree with the solutions GOPs present to various problems, however they are required to present their own solutions. They are filibustering, they are skirting around the issue, and they are name calling, but they refuse to vote on judicial nominees, John Bolton, or any sort of social security reform. The spirit of this democratic system is debate and discussion, and they are pushing away these votes because they fear they haven't won over enough moderate GOP hearts to get their way. Well here's a little hint: