Though the hostages are now safely returned to Great Britain, and Iran has not been allowed to kill them, the recent crisis over this seizure, is an ultimate defeat for the Great Britain, and for its ally the United States. Our regional credibility was lessened, because we did not stand up to Iran. We allowed Iran to walk all over both the US and the UK, and their regional power has been strengthened.

Iran tested us, in a way they haven't tested us since 1979. Because of increasing global tensions, and the US's much stronger stance on global terrorism, I believe that Iran tried to challenge us again, to see how we would react. The problem (for us) is, that we reacted in precisely the same way. The day before leaving office, Jimmy Carter signed the Algeirs Accords, which released the hostages, but in return gave Iran everything it asked for. Essentially (and not at all surprisingly) Carter totally capitulated to the demands of terrorists.

The Iranian problem began in 1979, and should have been taken care of in 1979. By allowing them to remain a viable political force in the region, we have only created a greater problem for our country now, after 30 years of radical islamic domination have gone by. The refusal by the US and UK to use force against Iran have shown Iran that once again, they can accomplish quite a lot without risking retaliation, and therefore have the upper hand in this struggle.

This was a defeat for the United States, even though the hostages were British. It is also a defeat for Great Britain, but as an American I am more concerned at the moment about the United States. Our steadfast refusal to use force against Iran amounts to a capitulation once again to their demands. They demanded we release some of their prisoners - and there goes an Iranian "diplomat" from our custody. Though perhaps unofficial, this was almost certainly designed to please the Iranians.

We allowed the hostages to be removed to Tehran, where they now report they were blindfolded, bound, and stripped during "interrogations." We should never have allowed them to hold these people for this long without consequences. Iran has not suffered anything as a result of this hostage seizure. The sanctions were in place before they took the hostages, and new, tougher sanctions have not been implemented. So what has Iran lost? More people saw them for how terrible they are, but that makes little difference - Iran has never really tried to conceal the fact that they are the world's most evil nation.

The British government should come out and say that British ships are now being ordered to fire on any aggressive actions taken by Iranian military units. These soldiers didn't fire back, because it was not their policy to do so. That policy must change if we are to stand up to Iran.

This is also a victory, because Iran had the upper hand the entire time. The Iranian government is not made up of idiots, just maniacs. They played a very good game of international chess, and have put the US and Great Britain, at the very least, into a stalemate, and possibly into a very powerful checkmate. The hostages were seized on Iranian terms. The hostages were moved on Iranian terms. The actions done to the hostages were on Iranian terms. The release of the hostages, was - guess what - on Iranian terms.

Neither the British government or the United States exercised any of the power that would have given US the diplomatic upper hand, and allowed us to dictate to the Iranians how best to resolve this conflict. Yes I realize that the hostages were released, and that Great Britain and the US threatened more angry words if the Iranian's didn't capitulate.

But if you're an apocalyptic madman like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or the Ayatollah Khameini, do angry words from the US or Great Britain really scare you? And even if they do, you're trying to summon the 12th Imam by creating an international holocaust, so does it even matter? Of course it doesn't, and Iran has won because of this.

Iran is the most dangerous nation on planet Earth, and it is necessary and essential that their government be destroyed, or it will mean a very dangerous situation for the US in the very near future. Iran is anxiously developing nuclear weapons, and will not hesitate to use them against Israel or the United States if they acquire working weapons.

No action taken by the two nations that SHOULD be taking action to stand up to Iran, have been forceful enough to curb Iran from this path of destruction. It is imperative that the US realize we cannot sit idly by and let Iran do what it wants. Talking to them will not work, has not worked, and will NEVER work. Action is necessary in dealing with nations like Iran. They need to believe that they CAN step too far, and that if they do, retaliation will be swift and precise.

We all remember Nancy Pelosi announcing that she "came in peace" to Syria, with a message of peace from Israeli leaders, including Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert. However, in an announcement released today from the Israel Prime Ministers Office (PMO), dubbed a "clarification," Nancy Pelosi's claim is disputed, claiming that Israel never gave her any message of "peace" to carry with her to Damascus.

According to the statement: "although Israel is interested in peace with Syria, that country continues to be part of the Axis of Evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East."

The statement further moves to explain that Israel will believe Syria wants peace when Syria "cease[s] its support of terror, cease[s] its sponsoring of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations, refrain[s] from providing weapons to Hizbullah and bringing about the destabilizing of Lebanon, cease[s] its support of terror in Iraq, and relinquish[es] the strategic ties it is building with the extremist regime in Iran."

For her part, after meeting with Assad, Nancy Pelosi was very "pleased," and was apparently convinced that the SOB leader of Syria wants something resembling "peace" (which will be about as "peaceful" as Stalinist Russia). According to Pelosi: "[The meeting with Assad] enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well."

This story is too good. Nancy Pelosi is not only over in Syria against the wishes of the government - which is after all, the agency responsible for conducting foreign policy - she is making things up in an effort to make peace. This really shows the lengths leftists will go to for "peace," which they believe can be achieved by mere talks with evil people.

The fact is, these same evil people want to destroy this great nation, and will stop at nothing to get it done, despite what Nancy Pelosi, or anybody else says.

The real reason Nancy Pelosi is over there - and I've said this from the beginning - is not because she hopes to get anything realistic accomplished. Even Nancy Pelosi, at the end of the day realizes that it is up to the president to implement foreign policy (she seems to think that is wrong, and will try to circumvent it whenever possible, but even she is not able to totally ignore Article II).

She is over there, so she can come back and explain how "good" it will be for the US to talk to Syria. This is a purely political position, so she can further work to circumvent and undermine Bush Administration foreign policy, and present arguments that contradict the policy of the Bush Administration. She is going to come back here, and explain how successful the mission was. She's going to say that if we only TALKED to Syria a *little* bit more, we could turn them over to the right side, they'd see the light, and stop sponsoring terrorism.

That if we just TALKED a little bit more, everything would be alright, and Syria would abandon its alliance with Hezbollah and Iran, and cut off all its ties to terrorists. That if we just TALKED, Assad would stop brutalizing his own people, and open his country to free and democratic reforms. That if we just TALKED, women would not be brutally subjugated by the society of the country.

That if we just TALKED everything will be alright.

Whether or not TALKING will work, Nancy Pelosi has no Constitutional right to engage in these discussions, unless authorized to do so by the Bush Administration (which she was most certainly NOT). This is an unconstitutional visit, and upon returning she should be harshly reprimanded - as should Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison, as well as any other people who went with her.

This is perhaps one of the most worthless, and most frivolous infringements on personal liberty by government in some time (then again, perhaps not). In San Francisco, they have approved a ban on plastic grocery bags, in favor of canvas bags, which they call "a new breed of bags."

My question is, why? Plastic bags cannot pose that great a harm to the environment, and they are certainly convienient. Plastic is light and generally strong, whereas canvas is heavier to drag around with you (especially when it's full of groceries).

This is just another attempt by the enviroNazis to take away our freedom, take away our liberty, and force us into their ultra-leftist, socialist "utopia." that they so desire for this country. It will not end up that way, but I for one am outraged at this kind of nonsense. Why don't we ban plastic altogether? Why stop with grocery bags? Why not ban most child toys, most... everything.

Hell, ban paper too. It kills the trees. And better yet, how about we ban breathing! Those c02 emissions are killer!

It's frustrating to see stuff like this come to fruition so easily, and with so little public notice. It is something that, although minor (now), should have attention (and outrage) drawn to it, so people stop infringing on the personal liberty of Americans.

This story is really too long to sum up here, so I'm going to post a link, and then write my comments.

Here's the link

First, this shows us their intent. Like every other hostage-taker, they intend to parade those soldiers around, humiliate them, and make them "confess" to a variety of crimes. It is essential that the United States and Great Britain retaliate to this kind of behavior. Hostages should not be taken, and Iran must respond.

That they make the woman wear a Hijab explains perfectly the inherent problems with Iranian society and government. Women - even... nay, especially non-muslim women - are thought to be tools of the men, to be used and abused at their pleasure. Furthermore, this abject humiliation is disgusting and pathetic.

That nobody in governments wants to take any action is surprising and astonishing. I realize it is gut reaction to want retaliation, however often the gut reaction is right. We need to start destroying the Iranian navy, and the Iranian economy. The sanctions that the UN has imposed will not do it. The only option is that the US and Great Britain do it bilaterally (or perhaps with other help), because it is vital that Iran not be allowed to get away with this.

The Iranian government is a government of terrorists, and it is imperative that the United States and Great Britain not show complacency in this action, and act to both free the hostages, and eliminate the threat. I see no other options.

I've heard many proposals about the type of action the United States and Great Britain should take in relation to the current hostage crisis that Iran is involved in. Iran kidnapped 15 british sailors and marines, and is holding them in Tehran, treating them no doubt with classic Iranian hospitality (listen to tales of the 1979 hostages to find out just how "hospitable" this actually is).

Here's what I propose. We cannot afford to directly invade Iran right now. Iraq has not yet been totally secured, and until that happens, any hope of invasion is doomed to disaster. It is not, keep in mind, necessary that we invade them at all (even after Iraq is secured), but my point is that the possibility will not open up until Iraq has been throroughly secured.

What I propose is as follows, a combination of views I have heard other people express. First, talking is absolutely not the way to go. When Iran gets in trouble, they take hostages. They have done it multiple times, and are doing it again now. It's what they do. We must make them learn that this kind of behavior is intolerable to the United States and other freedom-loving westernized nations, and that there will be repercussions (other than harshly worded letters!).

We should first systematically bomb both Iranian naval vessels, and Iranian oil and gasoline refineries. These are keys to their military and economy. However, for the maximum effect, we should not do it all at once, in one fell swoop. If we did that, we would have no options to turn to if they fail to comply. We should bomb 1 naval vessel, and 1 oil refinery per 24 hours, until they give back the hostages.

This kind of action, an open act of war against a western nation, is the type of thing that cannot and should not be tolerated. Iran must pay, at least in some respect for declaring war against western nations, sponsoring and harboring terrorism, and killing American and British soldiers and civilians, as well as taking hostages.

My guess, is that if we (and the Brits) systematically dismantle the Iranian navy and the Iranian economy, it will not take very long at all for them to cave. "International pressure" is not working, and the result will simply be the death of the hostages, or perhaps their release. But in matters like this, it is not whether the hostages are released or not that matters. It is the fact that the hostages were taken at all that is important. Even if they give the hostages back (as I hope and pray they will), they should not have taken them in the first place, and must face some consequences for such actions.

According to a recent story out of Iran, concerning the 15 captured British sailors taken by Iran earlier this week, Iran may decide to "prosecute" these sailors under espionage charges, claiming they are spies. According to a website run by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Brits would be put before a court and indicted for spying on the Iranian country.

The site, referring to the British soldiers as "insurgents" had this to say: “If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offenses.” This followed reports by Iranian government officials that the sailors had been taken to Tehran to answer for their "aggressive actions."

This is not the first time Iran has said they will indict (if they can do that in a dictatorship) western soldiers under espionage charges. In 2004, 8 British soldiers were blindfolded and paraded about on television, then released after 3 days of captivity. However, these reports are extremely serious because the penalty for espionage in Iran is death (no surprise there... the penalty for just about every other crime, except those perpetrated against women is also death.)

Iranian student organizations are calling for the prisoners to be held until the US releases 5 revolutionary guard members it captured in Iraq last year. This claim was backed by high-ranking Iranian government officials. This news comes as the UN decides on tougher sanctions against Iran, punishing them (sort of) for their refusal to halt uranium enrichment activities.

I think it is apparent at this point that Iran wants war. We are falling headlong into a war with Iran, and I think it is better that we embrace it now, before they have nukes, than after they have achieved nuclear power. If we wait, the war will still come, but will be ultimately much more devastating for our country, for our people, for the Iranian people, and for the world.

It is imperative that Iran be stopped, and this is clearly an act of war. Taking soldiers prisoner, sending them to the capitol, and charging them with espionage must be an act of war if the two countries are not currently at war with each other (which they are not technically). It is vital that we deal with the threat of Iran before it becomes too late and we face another arms race, or nuclear showdown.

The Iranian government MUST be toppled, there is now no choice. The time for diplomacy has passed, the time for a "peaceful" resolution of this conflict has passed. The west must take up arms against the Iranian government, whether we like it or not. We will have some help by resistance groups within Iran who oppose the jihadist rule they are subjected to. There is no other option I fear, and the consequences of waiting are far too great to ignore.

The interests of our country, of our people, and of the world are at stake, and we do not have the luxury of time. This new act by Iran shows they have no intention of stopping this collision course they are on. The United States simply has no other option by to attack Iran via air (not necessarily with an invasion), to stop their nuclear production, and we cannot let up until they free the soldiers who have been captured. Acts of war in our modern world cannot go unanswered. An act of war is just that - the proof that two nations are in open, armed conflict with each other. Britain and Iran should now be at war, and the United States and Iran have been at war since 1979 when the hostages were kidnapped.

We must attack and destroy Iran before it is too late!!!

A group of sixth graders holding a mock trial in which they heard opposing arguments for and against the "fact" that global warming is caused by humans, voted that Global warming is NOT caused by humans. It was part of a class in paleontology.

I'm actually on the college mock trial team (though we debate legal-type cases, not global warming) it's a blast (just a side note about your author :-)

It is a sad day when 12 year olds have more sense than people who run for President (Al Gore), or people who are currently senators and representatives... or a bunch of other people.

I still maintain that global warming is caused by a gigantic, gargantuan, massive, super-big, enormous ball of super-heated, flaming, extremely hot gas that (in space-terms), lies not too far from here!!

But that's another story.

In a largely party-line (but not totally) vote 218 - 212, the House of Representatives voted officially for a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. According to the legislation, passed over the threat of veto by President Bush, calls for the withdrawal of US troops by September 2008, or sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain deadlines and requirements. According the Democrats, this was to meet the mandate placed on them by voters in 2006 elections.

Says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war. The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not."

Meanwhile, Bush has renewed his threat of Veto, and has said that his strategy needs time, but that it IS working. And Bush is right. The strategy is working, and for that I'm glad. I have to admit, even I was a little skeptical at the beginning, but I trust the President to know enough, and have enough advisers to explain to him what must be done to secure victory in Iraq.

This resolution - and the House Republicans called it such - is tantamount to an admission of defeat in Iraq, much as the Democratic-led congress did in the 1970's during Vietnam. This allows our enemies, radical islamofascists, to believe that they have beaten us - and in truth, I suppose they have (or at least the Democrats). Though it pains me dearly to admit it, almost every single democrat has lost to the terrorists, because they have claimed defeat, and have started pushing for it.

Thankfully, the Republicans are still willing to fight somewhat for their beliefs, and stood up to the Democrats. This bill will be vetoed, because the President believes (rightly) in this war effort, and (despite what Democrats say), knows the stakes, and knows what MUST be done.

We cannot afford to withdraw prematurely, not now, and not ever. We MUST stay until the job is done. If there were (are) objections to the war, they should have been raised before we went to war - that is the time for debate about invading a country. Once that invasion takes place, whether you have concerns or not you should silence them and vote - and call - for victory, and refuse to accept anything less.

It pains me that the party founded by Thomas Jefferson has descended into such chaos, and such nonsense. It also pains me that more than half of the members of the House do not believe in America, do not believe in the righteousness and justness of this war, and do not believe in our troops. This is a vote of no-confidence.... nay, it is a vote against every person in the United States, and every person whose life has been made better by this country in the last 231 years.

It is despicable, and I am glad the President will veto it. I pray we will hear no more about this rubbish, but I'm also afraid that I'm wrong.

Have I not been claiming for quite some time that the United States and her allies have been at war with Iran for the last 30 years (since 1979), and that the United States and her allies will have to face up to this at some point? Perhaps that point is at hand, though I doubt it.

Iran says it has taken 15 British soldiers captive after they supposedly ventured into Iranian waters. The Royal Navy however (an entity I'd be MUCH more likely to believe), says they were operating under Iraqi jurisdiction and territory, and that the seizure was unjustified. This is also not the first time. 8 British servicemen were seized in 2004 in a similarly hazy-boundary area of the Persian Gulf.

The United States should help seize on this unjustified action, and put Iran in its place. There are sanction votes coming up in the UN. They aren't brutal, but they'll start. Immediately afterwards, the United States should make it extremely clear that we will not tolerate actions like this (to us OR our allies), and demand that Iran back down or else.

I'm not advocating war yet - though that is ultimately what I think it will come to. Regardless, something has to be done, because Iran needs to know they do not control the mideast, and any further attempts to extend their authority will be met with the fiercest of resistance. If they do not learn this message now, they will grow more unruly in the near future, and they will become a bigger and bigger problem.

Congressman Mike Rogers' home is under guard after his office was vandalized last night in Lansing. The building was vandalized with anti-war messages (no doubt from one of those compassionate lefties). Two security cameras were destroyed, and numerous acts of vandalism were carried out on the building. A poster that reads "There is blood on your hands" was pinned to his office building. They also sprayed red paint all over the building, and over a "Support the Troops" sign pinned to the outside wall.

This is why so many on the right doubt the left's assertion that they are compassionate and that they care about their fellow man. Certainly - and I've made this distinction before - liberals generally care about people, and want to make the country better, as do conservatives (they differ on the methods and the means, but they have the same generally objective).

Leftists (and to a smaller extent, those on the far, far right), however, want nothing of compassion, kindness or caring. They want to be obnoxious, cause harm, and generally start fights. They want to see this country destroyed for whatever reason, and they vandalize the offices of congressmen.

This is pathetic if you ask me.

Interesting, very interesting. A "Global Warming Awareness" walk, designed to raise interest in the environment took place this week, but those participating had to brave a snowstorm in order to walk. As they moved across the state of Massachusetts during an end of the year snowstorm, the "Interfaith Walk for Climate Rescue" braved forceful winds and biting cold, as well as inches of snow.

Here is testimony from one of the leaders of the group, Rev. Margaret Bullitt-Johns. “It was windy and cold. I was walking on the front of the line and I felt like I was bow of a ship with the wind just coming into my face."

I love it.

In a 94 - 2 vote today, the Senate voted to restrict the authority of the justice department to hire and fire employees. A provision of the Patriot Act allowed President Bush and the Justice Department to hire and fire attorneys without congressional approval. However, amid the "scandal" involving the firing of 8 US attorneys, the Senate has decided to restrict this power, claiming that the Bush Administration abused it.

This is really stupid. If it was in the Patriot Act, then there was a clear national security reason to have this law in place. Now the Democratic controlled Senate has voted to repeal this portion of the law. What is to stop them from repealing other portions of the Patriot Act? Nothing. They could repeal every effort we have made to combat terrorism in this country, including ending our wars, and destroying our efforts to secure this country.

My next question, is where are the Republicans? 94 - 2 means almost every single Republican voted to limit this authority of the justice department over hiring and firing attorneys. The Republicans have lost all confidence - and they are not standing up for what is right. They did not stand up for Scooter Libby, and they are not standing up for the Attorney General, neither of whom did anything remotely illegal.

According to the Democrats who sponsored this measure, it is to remove the politicization of US attorneys. "If you politicize the prosecutors, you politicize everybody in the whole chain of law enforcement," said Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

Here's my question. How is forcing Republican nominees to sit through Democrat-run confirmation hearings de-politicizing the "whole chain of law enforcement?" You know these attorneys will be grilled on such issues as the Patriot Act, their support for the Iraq War, their stance on torture and interrogation and whatnot. In reality, none of these issues matter, since the US attorneys prosecute what cases they are told to prosecute (as all prosecutors do), and take orders from the Justice Department.

The United States has approved the visa request of Ahmadinejad, who wishes to speak to the UN Security council in anticipation of increased sanctions by this body against his country. He will be travelling with a large contingent of Iranian officials, and will be speaking about his country's uranium enrichment programs.

Officials at the state department claim that the US does not want to be seen as hindering travel plans of the Iranian leaders, and has thus granted his request for a US visa to land in New York and visit the UN building. Meanwhile, the draft resolution has been approved by the UNSC Permanent members, and is circulating amongst the 10 elected members. It is expected to be voted on and pass within the next few days. Ahmadinejad wishes to personally exercise his nations right of rebuttal.

I asked this same question last summer, when Ahmadinejad was travelling here. Why do we continue to grant this man a visa? Haven't we figured out that our countries are at war? That Iran is our ultimate target in this war because they are the worlds biggest state sponsor of terrorism? That Iran declared war on us in 1979? Why are we letting the leader of a foreign country who is directly hostile to the United States, on our soil, into our streets, and amongst our citizens? Yes I realize he is only going to the UN building, and that he is probably not going to carry a bomb or anything.

But it is the thought that counts. We are giving Hitler a visa, and I don't think that is right. I'm outraged (again) at this, and I personally think that the State Department should just refuse Ahmadinejad entry into our country. That this man is allowed to step one foot on the freest and greatest country this world has ever seen sickens me. Indeed, I think he taints our country by being here, and I would do almost anything to see him removed.

It's sickening and disgusting that such a man be allowed to come to our country, even on such a limited purpose as this.

SEND THE UN TO HAITI!!! (Then we won't have this problem)

According to a recent AFP report, Iran has banned inspectors from one of its nuclear facilities, one that would be able to produce industrial strength uranium very soon, according to those who are familiar with the facility. After promising in February to let inspectors into Natanz (while at the same time banning cameras from that location), Iran has gone back on their offer and have refused to let inspectors into the underground bunker at Natanz.

This news comes of course, as the UN Security Council is meeting to debate increased sanctions against Iran because it has violated multiple orders to stand down in regards to its nuclear program. I think it is apparent at this point that confrontation is basically inevitable. Iran continues to antagonize the United States, and refuses to back down, and the UN seems (as usual) helpless at averting conflict. Iran must hurt so they back down, and so they stop developing nuclear weapons.

I have to honestly ask - is there anybody in the world who actually believes Iran? There are certainly people that do not care, but is there anybody who actually believes that Iran is developing uranium for purely peaceful purposes? Or perhaps, we should be more concerned about what Ahmadinejad means by peace. Surely, after the United States, the west, and those awful, awful Jews are gone, the world would be much more peaceful? Ahmadinejad has said that he believes as much.

So in reality, I suppose they ARE pursuing nuclear technology for "peaceful" purposes. It's just that in order to achieve their twisted form of "peace," they must blow up an entire hemisphere, and much of the remaining half as well.

According to a recent study, 1/3 of the people in Washington DC are functionally illiterate. Here is the AP report.

WASHINGTON (AP) - About one-third of the people living in the national's capital are functionally illiterate, compared with about one-fifth nationally, according to a report on the District of Columbia.

Adults are considered functionally illiterate if they have trouble doing such things as comprehending bus schedules, reading maps and filling out job applications.

The study by the State Education Agency, a quasi-governmental office created by the U.S. Department of Education to distribute federal funds for literacy services, was ordered by Mayor Anthony A. Williams in 2003 as part of his four-year, $4 million adult literacy initiative.

The growing number of Hispanic and Ethiopian immigrants who aren't proficient in English contributed to the city's high functional illiteracy level, which translated to 170,000 people, said Connie Spinner, director of the State Education Agency. The report says the district's functional illiteracy rate is 36 percent and the nation's 21 percent.

Adults age 65 and older had the lowest literacy score of any group, the report found.

The District of Columbia Chamber of Commerce, which contributed to the report, said the city lost up to $107 million in taxes annually between 2000 and 2005 because of a lack of qualified job applicants.

Interesting... very interesting.

"Adults 65 & Older."... I'm willing to bet most of the work here...