This past week on Hugh Hewitt's show, Newt Gingrich suggested a pretty amazing move for the war on terror.  He basically said, take out the one oil refinery that Iran has and put a naval blockade on them to cut off oil supplies, and it would shut down the Iranian economy in weeks, if not sooner.  

According to the Hugh Hewitt show, the Brit soldiers who were recently taken as hostages were not allowed to fire back at those who were about to capture them.  In actuality, the British navy could easily accomplish "The Gingrich Maneuver" and perform this action on their own--maybe even get their hostages back as a result--and put the tyrannical Iranian government in a real bind with their own people. 

The Iranians, who have taken this desperate measure of capturing these hostages may well be on the ropes as a result of the surge in Iraq.  It seems to be working, but America is TOO impatient. 

Those in government who back the soldiers and would allow them to do something about the Iranians (as efficiently as Gingrich suggested) and clean up things in Iraq have their hands tied now.  Those of you who voted for Democrats last Fall because of "corrupt" or "inept" Republican policies have begotten a monster.  And the monster is the Democrat majority.  My only hope is that two years will be enough for the American people.  We can only hope.  -Cal Samuel August 

 The firing of 8 US attorneys.  What a shock.  I'm so angered and disturbed by this travesty of justice.  Why didn't President Bush fire them all and hire new ones?  No, he should have cleaned out as many Clinton cronies as he could have when he first got into office.  He's been paying the price since then.  How about this?  He could fire them all now.  And of course, pardon Scooter Libby while he's at it.  

Obviously being defensive all these years when the media has attacked hasn't helped.  So, the Democrats were allowed to make many false charges about a "Culture of Corruption" which of course anyone who was paying attention knew was "the pot calling the kettle black."   

In the meantime, Tom DeLay will be defending charges that were brought against him about corruption.  He of course bowed down and stepped out of congress.  Why?  Especially when he didn't do anything wrong?  He complains about the "criminalization of politics."  Why didn't he fire back?  Why didn't he take it to every Democrat who actually had done wrong, and expose their tactics.  Check out his article if you didn't read it already.   

http://townhall.com/columnists/TomDeLay/2007/03/19/the_criminalization_of_politics

Now the Bush administration seems to be letting the Attorney General twist in the wind during all these recent accusations.  The president all these years has tried to take "the higher road" morally, I guess.  Instead of being defensive, he should have turned the tables on media and congressional thugs who kept firing at him. 

And the "Right-Wing conspiracy" is alive and well?  Wait, did Hillary Clinton really mean that as she complained about it in a recent speech?  Didn't she mean "Left-wing" conspiracy?  Let's consider charges against Republicans for everyday, not at all out of the ordinary political happenings.  Isn't postmodernism interesting?  A person can redefine anything benign, mundane, and commonplace and paint it as criminal, conspiratorial, malignant whatever you want.  (Do we really want 4 or 8 more years of a Clinton?  Especially the less likeable one?  Come on, Hillary's quip here is pretty absurd and laughable.) 

DeLay was on the Laura Ingraham show today, and was concerned about the direction of conservatism for the next several years.  He said that unless conservatives get organized soon, we may well be seeing another Clinton presidency.  Then why did YOU quit Mr. DeLay?  Conservatives shouldn't quit in such a crucial times.  Conservatives should be fighting back and fighting hard.  

Negativity and defeatism do not define our nation.  Conservatives are tucking in their tails, and sulking in their own self-pity.  (Chad who commented on the last blog here, don't be discouraged-Repubs are still our best bet-we can't be isolationists).  In the meantime, liberals own another kind of negativity and defeatism.  Every day they are attacking the president.  When will they actually have something to offer America other than I can scream and complain vote for me!  America will vote for a positive agenda.  America is still the "City on the Hill" don't give up on her!  -Cal Samuel August


 

Someone I am acquainted with, conservative by nature, suggested that it would be difficult for her to choose from the most popular Republican candidates for president right now. We’ve learned a lot of dirt about the political candidates available, sometimes things we may remember hearing about a few years back, but perhaps would like to forget. Conservative Republican voters seem to place a great deal of import on traditional moral integrity and values, whereas it seems that on the side of left-leaning Democrats there is a wholly different set of values—let’s just call them nontraditional.

Without completely excusing it, let’s face it: due to the nature of the job, the moral lives of many politicians Republican and Democrat are reprehensible. Plain and simple. How is this the case? In trying to get to the top of one’s field, it sometimes means stepping on the backs of others. Ever watched the CBS show “Survivor”? Have you ever seen someone win that game and fully maintain his or her integrity? Arguably, it’s a very difficult proposition. Now think of a profession where that kind of game is on 24-7, year after year. Public figures will undoubtedly make mistakes, and in many cases commit enormous hypocrisies in order to further themselves or their desired proposals. In other instances, sometimes politicians lose their humility or forget humbler origins in their rise to the top, taking on an elitist mentality.

When a person gets to the level of the presidency, especially in today’s 24 hour media environment, and with the near-microscopic scrutiny of the details of people’s lives, who won’t have skeletons in the closet, foolish gaffes, tainted political relationships, egos and the like? In other respects, who won’t be painted a certain way by the media in order that someone else they prefer might look better?

So you see, amid a field of “bad”, “unpleasant”, “dull”, “foolish”, “tainted”, “narcissistic” choices, you’re going to have to pick someone. In some cases the labels stick; in other cases you will be choosing the lesser of evils. What you are picking though, is not necessarily someone without skeletons in his or her closet, but someone who can lead. Some of the best leaders have had to learn from the worst of mistakes.

I want to vote for someone who will:

1. Be tough on terror and our nation’s enemies.
2. Pick good judges, especially for the Supreme Court (I prefer strict constructionists who hold to the original intent of the Constitution, not see it as a “plastic” document, stretching it beyond recognition).
3. Make our nation economically strong.
4. Improve communities nationwide.
5. Represent our country well across the world.
6. Be a strong check versus the other powers of our government.
7. Be able to make tough decisions in the face of adversity.
8. [Fill in other virtuous presidential leadership qualities here . . . .]

If we stick to it, our system works. Are there some candidates with personal moral problems? Yes. I’m not sure there is one without issues or personal problems. That doesn’t mean that candidate can’t be a good leader, in spite of the fact that he or she may have some blemishes, even serious ones that will have to be explained. Some “good” people in moral terms make lousy leaders politically. As elections roll around again, I want a strong leader. That’s what our nation needs and who I’ll have to vote for. In spite of personal flaws (and all people have them), may God use that person for good. –Cal Samuel August

 As an observer keeping tabs on the situation over the course of the last few years, something seems not right. Let us make an analogy. In the story of the Count of Monte Cristo a man is wrongly accused, and his life is made a living hell when he is put in a jail from which he can probably never expect to escape. Except that he does. And when he gets free he seeks revenge on all the enemies who put him there.

There is another count this day, and his freedom unfortunately may be a long time in coming. The count of Monte Plameo. His real name is Lewis “Scooter” Libby. Libby will be the fall guy for the whole “Valerie Plame” scandal which if you know anything about it should really not be considered a scandal at all.

Some might say this proves Iraq was wrong, and of course as Democrat Howard Dean is indicating it’s just the tip of the iceberg. Meaning that “Plamegate” (as it is so ridiculously called) can be followed all the way up to the highest ranks of the Bush Administration. Joe Wilson, was quoted (as I heard on the Rush Limbaugh show) as saying that now Valerie can rest. Yes, poor Valerie. Her sleepless nights end. Except, we can only imagine the living hell of Mr. Libby. Our laws dictate that a man is innocent before being proven guilty. Right? In reality, it seemed like the man was guilty with no possibility of being proven innocent.

The trial was really supposed to be about the Bush Administration “exposing” Valerie Plame as being a covert agent of the CIA. All the prosecution could really get was small potatoes. Libby, all in all, is small potatoes. The witch trial libs really wanted Cheney, but all they got was “Scooter.” And he was not guilty of actually “exposing” Valerie Plame – what all the investigations were really supposed to be about, but a “crime” of a procedural nature having nothing to do with the real issue.

If we actually believe that Mr. Libby is guilty of the procedural crime—let’s hold out that hypothetical—is Mr. Libby going to get 25 years jail time for this—the max? Does this punishment really fit the crime? Those who are lobbying for such a punishment shouldn’t we really think about this? Couldn’t this happen to anyone in politics? Couldn’t anyone be investigated, and then have charges trumped up for misspeaking? Yes, it could happen to anyone—as it seems to every couple years—even a Democrat. To use language a liberal can understand, this really seems mean-spirited. This is someone’s ego trip.

To use language that reasonable people can understand, this is not justice. This is tyranny. Murderers and drug dealers frequently walk free released on “procedural grounds,” and now are we going to put someone in jail on “procedural grounds” (spending probably millions in taxpayer money), over something that isn’t even the real issue? If he really did lie here; at the most treat him like Sandy Berger.

So I believe in some odd way that Libby is the count of Monte Plameo. What a waste of taxpayer money. President Bush, if he isn’t exonerated please free this man before you leave office. –Cal Samuel August

For more soon, go to: mythoughtworld.com

After some technical difficulties this week, my full detailed article and opinions on the Discovery Channel's upcoming documentary about a spurious Jesus tomb find have been posted at Mythoughtworld.com.

Please feel free to check out that article, or read some much briefer thoughts in the article below this one.  -Cal Samuel August