According to recent reports, Republicans on capitol hill have lost all support for Attorney General Gonzales, and are actively trying to persuade the president to get a replacement for the battered attorney general, after his alleged role in the firing of 8 US attorney's was revealed last week. Additionally, Republican leaders suspect that deputy attorney general Paul J. McNulty will also resign, after giving inaccurate congressional testimony earlier this year.

This, if you ask me, is a terrible decision. Liberals can never have enough blood. They asked for Rumsfeld, and got him. They wanted somebody to hang for the Valerie Plame affair, and Scooter Libby is now a guilty man. They are after Gonzales... and it sounds like Republicans and the President are going to cave. This is a terrible idea. The Bush Administration needs to learn that they cannot continue to give into Democratic and left-wing demands - that this will only increase their appetite for high-level Bush Administration officials.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has made some interesting remarks as of late. He has claimed that he is speaking with foreign leaders in an effort to bridge relationships between their countries and the United States of America. He says he wants to repair the "extraordinary damage" the Bush administration has caused to US credibility around the world.

Says Dean: "I am trying to build relationships with other governments in preparation for a Democratic takeover. I want to make clear that there is an opposition in America and that we are ready to take power and that when we do, we are going to have much better relationships with them."

What is it with Democrats and interfering with Presidential responsibilities? Are they that power hungry that they believe they can do better than the President, even when they are not in office? Do they believe that it is there job to make up for the president's mistakes? Do they believe that they should act where the President will not? I don't know what they believe, but in case after case after case, I see Democrats increasingly violating core principles of our Constitution. They want to steal away the command of the armed forces from the President. They want to now take away his power to make foreign policy and to conduct foreign policy.

This is not the first instance either. John Kerry and others were over in Iran and Syria earlier this year, "building relationships" with leaders of those countries, because they believed their foreign policy was better than the president's, and that they should go ahead and exercise it even though they had no legal right to do so. It pisses me off to no end that people believe they can just ignore the constitution like this, and pretend certain provisions don't exist.

The Democrats don't have to like that the Republicans hold the white house. The fact is they do, and until that is no longer true, the Democrats do not get to make and conduct foreign policy. That is a strictly executive responsibility, as defined in Article II of the US Constitution. The Democrats don't even have to agree, and they can certainly voice that disagreement (though they perhaps should propose some clever alternatives). They do... should... NOT however get to decide they don't like the President's foreign policy, ignore it, and operate as if they themselves run the country.

It is also interesting that Dean says he doesn't like "magical thinking," when referring to Democrat claims that victory is inevitable. However speaking with foreign leaders in preparation for a "democratic takeover," seems like magical thinking to me. What makes Dean think the Democrats stand an ice-cubes chance in hell of winning come November 2008? Their positions don't resonate with people, and the only reason they won in 2006 is because the voters were upset about Republican inefficiency and corruption.

This kind of thing makes me hopping mad, and I hope there are others of you out there like me, who hate to see our Constitution violated in such a manner. The Democrats need to learn where the line is, and what that line is, and they need to remember that it is the PRESIDENT who is in charge of foreign policy, NOT THE CONGRESS. Again, they don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. The Republican's didn't supersede the President's authority when Democrats were President. This is because Republicans generally believe in following the Constitution, like it or not.

Pursuing a course that fulfills Diane Feinstein's promise 2 months ago that more "forceful" legislation would follow if the non-binding resolution were voted down, the Democrats introduced a resolution for a vote today that would call for a pullout of Iraq troops by March 31, 2008, and would have it start within 120 days. Republicans easily blocked this resolution in a 50 - 48 vote, that was 12 short of the 60 needed to end debate. The Democrats are realizing that it is not easy to legislate for a country, and that it is equally difficult to infringe on the President's constitutional prerogative.

In the House however, the House Appropriations committe voted 36 - 28 to recommend a bill that would call for troop withdrawal by September 1, 2008. They brushed off a veto threat from the President, and overcame opposition by Republicans who were rightfully against this measure.

This may pass the House, because the filibuster doesn't exist in House rules. However I suspect the president will veto it (he said as much), and they don't have nearly enough votes to override the veto. This just shows more setbacks to Democratic plans, and shows once and for all that they cannot and will not stop this war, because the American people do not want to do so.

This war must be fought, and we must destroy the enemy. If we do not, the consequences will be catastrophic. We MUST NOT hand Iraq over to Al Qaeda, and it angers me to no end that this is precisely what the Democrats want to do.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks has confessed to a variety of crimes against the United States, as learned in statements released yesterday. Recent reports suggest that at least some of his claims are highly exaggerated - he could not possibly have done all this stuff - but this confession illustrates something important about our interrogation techniques.

I guarantee you that we did not get this information from KSM by chatting about the niceties of civilization over tea and crumpets. We waterboarded the SOB, and that's how we got what we needed. To those liberals who are continually opposed to waterboarding (which doesn't constitute torture, not in the slightest), look at this. We have learned things from a man who could break in no other way.

KSM confessed to 31 different things, ranging from the 9/11 attacks to plots to kill Jimmy Carter and other former US presidents. Some of the things he confessed to include: The 1993 WTC bombing that killed six and injured almost 1,000, the bombing of a nightclub in Bali, as well as financial support for organizations that plotted attacks against America.

KSM's involvement is debateable in many of these attacks. While it is not likely that he was in no way involved in these attacks, it is more likely that he had only minor roles in some, while being a key player in others. All criminals exaggerate, and terrorists are no different. Particularly this terrorist, who has been captured and removed from public eye for 4 years. This is likely the last time he will get any "public" statements, and he has to make a scene.

It also shows us what kind of enemy we are dealing with. The sheer magnitude of the attacks planned by KSM illustrate the threat jihadism is to America, and it shows that we ARE in constant danger of more attacks is we do not keep up the vigilance and keep trying to destroy our enemies where they are. It also shows that the enemy will stop at nothing to see us destroyed, and is doing his best every day to accomplish that end. It also shows that terrorists never cease to be a threat until they have been buried, because they can still use public forums to rally people to their cause. (Even in death they can be martyred, and thus dangerous even from the lowest circles of hell).

This is really a fantastic story.

The GOP have started their opposition to the Democrat-backed troop withdrawal bill in both the House and the Senate. This was followed by a veto threat - rightly - by President Bush, who made it clear that he would not allow Congress to infringe on his prerogative as commander-in-chief. According to a white house statement made earlier today,  the legislation "would hobble American commanders in the field and substantially endanger America's strategic objective of a unified federal democratic Iraq."

The bill calls for troop withdrawal starting in the next 12 months. The GOP has decided to let the matter come to debate - something that they had previously not done. The reason they have caved on this point, is because they did not want to be seen as blocking debate on the most pressing issue facing this country. They also believe they can derail the matter when it comes to a final vote - generally by filibuster, though they may even have enough votes to block it.

I sure hope the GOP leaders know what they are doing. I understand the desire not to be seen as blocking debate - they are running for election again in a year and a half. However, if they cannot derail this bill as planned, the effect would be disastrous for our country, and it would be extremely hard to come back from a defeat in the Senate like this. I don't think the legislation will pace, though the possibility is there that this could pass.

Regardless, I am certain it will not be able to get the 67 votes required to override a presidential veto. I am not worried, but it still sets a dangerous precedent for our government when the Senate and the House infringe on the president's prerogative as Commander-in-chief. They don't have to like the job he's doing - at times, I don't as do other conservatives. That said however, only the Democrats are proposing to take his constitutional responsibilities away from him.

Chuck Schumer now publicly called for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, claiming that the choice to fire 8 US attorneys was politically motivated, and that this somehow is an egregious violation of the President's and AG's constitutional responsibilities. Schumer also accused Gonzalez of making a false statement to Congress while testifying in hearings about the firings, claiming "We were told by the attorney general that he would, quote, 'never ever' make a change for political reasons."

"It now turns out that this was a falsehood. As all the evidence makes clear that this purge was based purely on politics." says Schumer. What Schumer fails to talk about however, is the fact that President Clinton fired all 93 US attorneys (save one), when he took office, and nobody complained. That is because it is the president's job to hire and fire US attorneys - they work for him. It is well within the President's authority to fire these people, and even if it was for political reasons, you cannot tell me that all 93 of Clinton's firings were because they were all bad lawyers. Bush 1 must have gotten at least 1 person right.

A Gonzalez top aide, Kyle Sampson, resigned yesterday amidst the phony controversy, but Schumer has said this will not be enough - that Sampson will not be the next Scooter Libby, the next fall guy for a corrupt administration. According to Schumer: "Attorney Gonzales's chief of staff may well have obstructed justice," Schumer said, adding that if Gonzales knew what Sampson was doing, "that's a pretty severe indictment, which means he doesn't have the foggiest idea of what's going on in the Justice Department." (quoted from AP story).

What again, Schumer is failing to realize, is that there is no justice to obstruct. The Senate has no right to tell the president whom he can hire and fire - they can impeach, but short of that there is nothing they can do except complain.

My question is, why did nobody complain when Clinton fired all the US attorneys? Because it wasn't an issue then. Sure, it seems a little extreme, but it IS the president's authority to do so. I do not mind the Senate complaining when there is an issue to complain about. But I am sick and tired of the Senate trying to trample on the constitutional responsibilities of the executive branch. People in the Senate are so concerned about tyranny of a man - the Executive - that they have forgotten another kind of tyranny, that of a legislator. During the lead up to the American Revolution, the United States was upset with Parliament, not the King. Only at the very end, as the revolution was beginning in Lexington and at Bunker Hill, and only really with the publication of Common Sense did the revolutionaries begin to point their anger at the king.

Our constitution is not designed to limit Executive power. It is designed to limit all kinds of power in all branches of government. The Constitution is designed so that neither the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches become too powerful. When I see the Senate and House trying to abridge the Executive's constitutional authority and responsibilities, I fear for what is going to become of our government, and our wonderful system. Tampering with the Constitution is not something to be trifled with, by any of the Branches.

But it seems that the Democrats do not care, and are intent on stripping this President of every legal responsibility he has. This is dangerous, and I for one, cannot and will not stand for it.

According to statements released from the United Nations, the major powers on the UN security council are close to agreement on what sanctions to inflict on Iran as the result of its continual non-compliance with UN orders to cease all uranium enrichment activities. The new sanctions, described as "modest," would likely include an arms embargo (why haven't we done this before now?), as well as freezing the assets of companies connected with Tehran or nuclear development (why hasn't this been done either?

There will not be an embargo on arms imports (just exports), and there will not be a travel ban, however the sanctions will cut off loans to the Iranian government.

Ambassadors came out of the closed door meeting optimistic at what had been accomplished, but also cautious because every proposal in the package is up for potentially heated debate as the 5 veto-wielding powers decide what course to pursue against the rogue state.

"There are still some concerns, and some delegations have not given full agreement. But we have, I think, made overall good progress," Acting US Ambassador Alejandro Wolfe said. "It's a package approach, and so there are things that we're very pleased about, and things that we're less pleased about — and likewise for probably every delegation involved."

This is troubling. Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons, and the Security council can't decide what type of sanctions to inflict? What amount of taunting, of snubbing, and of illegal uranium enrichment does Iran have to carry out before the UNSC realizes the importance of inflicting heavy sanctions? And these proposed sanctions - they are far from as harsh as is needed.

WHY AREN'T WE FREEZING ARMS IMPORTS!! Iranian made weapons are turning up (not perhaps coincidentally in the hands of Iranian born, Iranian trained fighters) all over Iraq, and we aren't stopping them from just buying more weapons from the outside world? And will an arms export embargo really matter? It seems to me that you can never have enough guns in this region - forcing them to hang onto theirs would only help, not hurt.

This decision is stupid. The choice to drop the mandatory travel ban is also stupid. The sanctions should freeze, cripple, and isolate Iran from the rest of the world. Anything less is far short of the ultimate goal, which is forcing Iran to disarm. It is becoming increasingly likely - as far as I can tell - that the only remaining option is the military option. The UN is worthless on this matter (like almost all others), and has proven its worthlessness time and time again by failing to implement harsh sanctions immediately.

I've called this post "The US Must Declare War on Iran part IV" If you've read the other 3 parts, you'll know what my case is, and why I believe we can no longer wait. Suffice to say, the fate of our nation - potentially of the world - and certainly of freedom hangs in the balance, should we not be able to defeat Iran. Make no mistake - I believe the United States will win in a conflict with Iran. It is nearly inevitable that we will.

The question is, will that conflict come before or after Iran has developed a nuclear weapon? The Natanz facility, which Iran has refused to let inspectors or cameras into, will eventually have enough reactors to create dozens of nuclear weapons per year. Are we going to wait until Iran has a nuke stockpile? By then it's too late - any conflict will quickly become a nuclear one.

We are running out of time. The US must declare war on Iran, and destroy them before their nuclear weapons are armed and aimed at our country. Their government must be toppled now, if we are to avert nuclear holocaust in the future.

A German man, whose name is not known, was discovered to have taken a chainsaw to his family's summer home, splitting it precisely in two. The man, who is in the midst of a divorce, said he did so to settle the matter quickly and easily.

After splitting the house, he used a forklift truck to move his portion of the house to his brothers home nearby.

This story caught my eye, and seems both hilarious and fascinating. Those Germans... And to prove I'm not making it up, here's the text, as well as a link.

BERLIN (Reuters Life!) - A 43-year-old German decided to settle his imminent divorce by chainsawing a family home in two and making off with his half in a forklift truck.

Police in the eastern town of Sonneberg said on Friday the trained mason measured the single-storey summer house -- which was some 8 meters (26 feet) long and 6 meters wide -- before chainsawing through the wooden roof and walls.

"The man said he was just taking his due," said a police spokesman. "But I don't think his wife was too pleased."

After finishing the job, the man picked up his half with the forklift truck and drove to his brother's house where he has since been staying.

Here's the story!

Top Democrats in the House have backed down from an addendum to a military spending bill which would require President Bush to get congressional approval before going to war with Iran. Conservative Democrats, GOP house members, as well as some pro-Israel members of the house lobbied successfully for the change in strategy. This is one attempt at destroying the US Constitution that has been shot down. Let us hope the others are struck down just the same.

This news comes as Democrats are pursuing an initial "test vote" on an Appropriations bill that would require President Bush to withdraw troops from active combat on or before September 1, 2008. Dick Cheney today, coming out hard against Democrats, said this only helps the enemy by giving him a clock to watch. This bill is foolish and dangerous, and I applaud the President for saying he will veto it should it pass the house (I doubt it will get past the Senate filibuster). Even if it passes the house, there is no way it will garner the 2/3 majority needed to override the president's veto - but it will set a dangerous precedent nonetheless.

House GOP leader John Boehner also had the right idea. In a statement issued today, he said "Republicans will continue to stand united in this debate, and will oppose efforts by Democrats to undermine the ability of General Petraeus and our troops to achieve victory in the Global War on Terror." It is good to hear these statements from our leaders, because they are the people in charge of deciding the fate of this war - and let us hope they have made the right decisions.

Another statement by Cheney, released today, explains that it is ridiculous for members of the House and Senate to oppose tying the administrations hands in relation to Iran, but support tying the administrations hands in relation to Iraq. "It is simply not consistent for anyone to demand aggressive action against the menace posed by the Iranian regime while at the same time acquiescing in a retreat from Iraq that would leave our worst enemies dramatically emboldened and Israel's best friend, the United States, dangerously weakened," he said.

It seems the Democrats have more than they bargained for, now that they are in the (very slim) majority. Though they have their far left nut-jobs who are demanding a withdrawal immediately, the conservative and moderate Democrats oppose tying the commander-in-chief's hands too much - which is good because it is a dangerous path to enter. This is just the latest of many resolutions the Democrats have released that are doomed to fail, because of GOP opposition, and because the Democratic platform simply does not resonate with people.

At least now they have the balls to admit what it is they stand for - a total retreat from a hot war zone, that would have catastrophic results for this country. They have passed the "non-binding" stage, which sends harshly worded letters of disapproval to the President. Though I oppose them, it's nice that they finally are showing their true colors - that they stand for retreat, defeat, and weakening of America.

Additionally, many democratic leaders didn't count on something they should have foreseen. In order to win election in November, the Democrats had to nominate several moderate and conservative Democrats. However, these Democrats are not in line with the rank-and-file leftists who are increasingly prominent within the party, and will not go along with such measures as timetables for withdrawal, and legislation attempting to tie the President's hands in foreign policy matters. Since the House majority hinges on having all Democrats vote the same way - 15 defections and the nay's outnumber the aye's - the Democrats need to work hard to keep everybody in line. This will be difficult considering leftists want one thing, and the more conservative Democrats something totally different.

This wasn't something the Democrats counted on, and despite their best efforts to cover it, they will eventually break under the strain of leadership, just as the Republicans did.

We will soon be rid of this annoyance to the US war effort, and this internationally renowned blockhead. I'm sure he's a fine person and all that, but as the leader of a government, he's about as effective as Jimmy Carter, or James Buchanan. His vote against war in Iraq is still a problem for me - I can't get it out of my head that a country that's supposed to be our ally will not help us fight people who want to destroy us - and the French too. That the French government could be so ostrich-like is both scary and astonishing.

He has been president of France since he won election in 1995, after a come-from-behind victory. After serving two six-year terms, Chirac, now 74, has seen fit to retire after his backers - conservative French - left him for another candidate running against him. Chirac postponed this announcement that he would not seek another term, to avoid becoming a lame duck too soon.

I'm no fan of the French government, and I doubt the guy after Chirac will be any better. Yet Chirac is symbolic of a French government that just doesn't understand the types of threats we face in the modern world, and believes all enemies can be placated by talks and discussions - because they worked so well in France...

On the other hand, France isn't known for its military prowess... see the Maginot line... so do we really want their help on the battlefield?

On Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, former senator and actor Fred Thompson said that he has not ruled out a white house run, depending on how the challenge shapes up in the coming months. Thompson has a part on Law and Order, and has acted in multiple other films and TV shows.

He is also a Republican, and a very conservative person.

There's not a whole lot to really say about this, but it is an interesting development no? Particularly if he decides to run, then it will be extremely interesting to see how he stacks up against Giuliani and McCain.

The Democrats are at it again. Falsely believing their election in 2006 was a mandate to withdraw this country from its obligations in Iraq, they are pursuing votes on initiatives that would begin the troop withdrawal by early next year. They want to establish a clear legislative timetable for withdrawal of American troops, and will work to see those initiatives passed into law.

Luckily, President Bush has said he will immediately veto any measure that would either cut funding for the war, or begin the withdrawal of American troops. Adding to the fray, are the moderate and conservative Democrats, elected in November from traditionally conservative states, who are reluctant to encroach on the powers of the commander-in-chief, which is explicitly forbidden by the US Constitution.

It is possible to get a bill like this passed in the House, where the rule of unlimited debate is not allowed, and thus all measures must be voted upon. In the House, "majority rules," which means if the Democrats are united, they will pass any measure they want to against GOP opposition. However, they do not have the required 2/3 majority necessary to override a presidential veto, so even in the House, passing something over the Presidents veto will be extremely difficult.

In the senate, it is a much tougher story altogether. First, they only have 50 active votes. The Republicans have 49. Because the Senate has unlimited debate, the Republicans can filibuster the bill, and prevent any vote from taking place unless 60 senators vote for Cloture, which will end debate and force a vote. However, Joe Lieberman is likely to vote against Cloture (as well as the bill), as are almost all the Republicans in the Senate. As a result, it is unlikely that the Democrats will gain the now 12 votes they need in the Senate to force a vote on the bill.

Even if they do, the President will veto it, in which case the Democrats need still another 7 votes to override the presidential veto. So, it is highly unlikely that anything will happen of these binding resolutions - just like nothing came of the non-binding resolutions passed earlier this year. Still, to me it is the thought that counts. There are two major problems I have here, that are unrelated to my stance on the War (which I support of course).

First, is the message it sends to our troops. Our men and women in uniform are over in Iraq dying to keep our nation safe and free. They are trying to bring democracy to a fledgling nation that has just broken free from the bonds of tyranny, and they are trying to kill the vicious enemies who want to destroy the United States and her allies. We are asking them to die to protect us, and to kill to protect us, tasks that are no small matter.

By voting to withdraw them before their mission is over, you are not telling the troops "we care about your safety and want you to come home." The time for that was when voting to go to war in the first place, which has long passed and most Democrats did not take the opportunity to do so. What you are telling the troops, is that the United States does not believe they are good enough to do their mission. They have been assigned a mission, and by cutting them short, we are telling them they are not good enough to accomplish it.

The other message I am concerned about, is the precedent this will set. It is necessary to go back to the constitution here to see just what the precedent is now. Under Article I, section 8, the Congress of the United States is given the power to "

declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

Nowhere does it say in here that Congress shall have the authority to run the army - thus to give them orders. Nowhere does it say that Congress can "undeclare" war. And nowhere does it say that the Army has to answer to Congress. Rules for their government are under the authority of Congress. That is, they can decide how tribunals will be run and that sort of thing.

What does the Constitution say about the Executive?

"Section 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." - Article II, Section II

Thus, it is the PRESIDENTS job to command the Army and the navy - tell which soldiers to go to which places and to do what. Obviously, it is not that simple, but the fundamental principle within still applies - that is, Congress does not have the constitutional authority to tell the military what to do, when to do it, or how to do it, nor should they.

During the American Revolution, the Continental Congress was in charge of the army. It was a disaster - the result was Valley Forge and other nightmares. This is because in the military, the one thing never done - and this rule is accurate and goes back to the beginning of armies - is the sharing of command. Command is delegated - that is, the President delegates battlefield authority to his generals, who do the same to their subordinates, and so on down the line until you encounter the enlisted personnel. Yet command is not shared - that is, there are not two people who have the same identical authority. If Top General gives an order to Bottom General, Bottom must carry it out. No order given to Bottom (short of an order from someone with higher rank than Top) can supersede Top's. Thus is the principle - one man in command. This is why it is necessary to have the President be commander in chief. The president has the sole ability to act swiftly to adapt to conditions on the battlefield. Congress has to debate before it takes any action, and as a result it takes longer. This is fine when debating laws, but when prosecuting a war it has and will prove disastrous.

So this precedent that I'm concerned about, is that Congress will have the authority to be commander-in-chiefs, that is, to take this authority away from the president, that is to encroach upon it. Congress cannot run the military - the filibuster is a good example. What if one party filibustered the order to attack a certain target? It is an insane notion to think of the Senate or worse, the House, running the military.

Whether you agree with the President's actions or not, it is dangerous to mess around with the Constitution like this. The founders were explicit in what they intended - no law can violate the Constitution and still be valid. The Constitution explicitly gives authority over the command of the militias, the army, and the navy to the President, not to Congress. Congress has declared war - as is their Constitutional right. This is to protect against warlike presidents who wish to become dictator. However, once war has been declared, besides funding issues, Congress does not have any more authority over how events on the ground are run - these require a single person in charge, in our country, the President.

The other problem with this precedent, is that if Congress starts ignoring certain parts of the Constitution, what is to prevent them from ignoring others? If they can encroach on the Executive's right to prosecute a war, who is to say that they cannot (or will not) encroach on the right of people against self-incrimination? Or the right of people to bear arms? Or the right of free speech? Or the right to public trials, due process of law, and the right to defend yourself?

How can anything in the Constitution be sacred - as that Constitutional text is supposed to be - to our governance, if the Congress can blatantly disregard important portions of it, portions that are in the first two articles of the Constitution. The founders felt this information was important enough to put in the front, and we should respect their decision. Tampering with stuff like this will spell disaster in the next war, and will make it much harder for the United States to win anything.

The politicians in all branches already interfere too much with the Generals and the military. Let the military do its job, let it defeat the terrorists, and stop trying to get in the way. When politicians try to run wars, only disaster occurs - as in Vietnam. This is already a dangerous precedent, and we do not need it to get any worse by giving Congress the reigns over the prosecution of the war.

Like it or not, it is up to the President to decide how the war is run. Congress can cut funding, and express its disagreement, but the authority over what actions are taken place on the ground is ultimately the Presidents. He can choose to listen to disagreement or not to listen, but that is his choice. Congress has no other power to do anything to affect the prosecution of the war. The options made for Congress is extremely clear - cut funding, or express disapproval. They have already done the first, and it was ignored (and didn't pass the Senate). Since they know how much flak the Democrats took in the 70's for cutting funding for the Vietnam War, they are not anxious to repeat that mistake (and rest assured, it was a mistake in the 70's, just as it is now). So they are pursuing extra-constitutional means to achieve the same objective, and are disregarding the rich and important history of the document, of our nation, and are ignoring an important precedent, a precedent that must remain if this country is to be victorious in any more wars - or even to survive.

When will the Senate get this through its thick skull?

This is a very aggravating story. The details are fairly unclear - some say it was an outright violation, some say they did incorrect paperwork. Regardless, it is not good for the FBI for many reasons, and it is extremely upsetting to me as a conservative.

First, the PATRIOT Act was carefully crafted to give law enforcement the tools it needs. While there are holes in some places, these generally should be amended by other laws, not by breaking the ones that exist. I'm not sure the FBI did this, but its just a warning that should be heeded by all people in government, particularly in law enforcement/espionage work.

According to the latest report, the FBI improperly used the Patriot act to secretly obtain loads of personal information about people, a Judge concluded on Friday. The FBI also has been accused of underreporting data to congress about its use of the PATRIOT act. Attorney General Gonzales has left open the possibility of criminal prosecution, and has ordered a further investigation.

"There is no excuse for the mistakes that have been made, and we are going to make things right as quickly as possible," he said in a speech on Friday. FBI director Robert Mueller said he was to blame for not including more safeguards to protect people. "I am to be held accountable," Mueller said, but said that he does not plan to resign.

Muller also said that scarcely a single terrorist arrest goes by in which the Patriot Act has not been used, which is why it is important to have the Patriot act. I agree, and I realize the necessity of the Patriot act for catching terrorists. However, violations like this are going to upset people in congress and around the country. The FBI must not mess with a good thing. If they do, the Patriot act will likely be repealed, and the FBI will have to go back to pre-9/11 measures to catch terrorists in a post-9/11 world. This will not work, and will open our country up to the possibility of more attacks on our homeland.

So the FBI was stupid here. Regardless of how egregios the violations are, it is important to realize what public (and congressional) reaction is. It is not a good reaction, and too many more mistakes may lead to the Patriot act being repealed. If that happens, I fear the results. So the FBI should shape up and follow everything to the exact letter, so Congress has no reason to get upset (other than the Democrats who are just generally upset the entire time).

In Akarp Sweden, a 49 year old single mother has been sued for smoking in her own garden. Her neighbor wants 2000 dollars in damages, as well as 200 more dollars each time she lights up in the future. The complaint was filed by her neighbor (who is also a lawyer), and she has received a summons to appear in court to respond.

"It makes me sad and angry," the 49-year-old single mom told Aftonbladet. "Should somebody else be able to control my life?"

She also says she has picked a place to light up more than 20 feet away from his property, and that she has made other concessions to her neighbor's dislike of cigarette smoke. Yet the plaintiff claims that he is hit with cigarette smoke every time he steps outside, and that he cannot open his windows.

I have a hard time believing that cigarette smoke travels 20 feet and still retains its odor, or at least enough of it to make a home smell. It seems to me that this woman has been more than accommodating, and that her angry (lawyer) neighbor is just out for some blood. There is no way this smoke is harmful to the neighbor. Perhaps it smells - an accusation which I highly doubt - but that's it. If you're a grown man (lawyer) and you can't tolerate a bit of a smell, then I feel sorry for you. That's pretty sad.

Though its in Sweden, I want to point it out so I can explain what the anti-smoking nazi's want to those of you that don't believe what they want. They want to destroy personal freedoms in this country. They want to make our country like Sweden, where you can be prosecuted for smoking on your private property, in an outdoor area. They want to tell us what we can and cannot do, because they believe it is right.

To liberals, those people that are upset are righteous, and those that are content are malicious. In every area of society, culture, and politics, liberals are busy trying to change those that are upset about something - major or minor - and make them content, at the expense of everybody else. Conservatives believe that unhappy people should certainly try to get happy - that is, with some assistance from elsewhere - but that this should not come at the expense of the content.

I can't really remember where I first heard this, but I think it was in the comment of a blog post somewhere I've been to recently (though I'm not exactly sure). It still remains as the best solution to the global warming problem I've ever heard.

It suggests that all the Al-Gore types should try and hold their breath to cut down on c02 emissions. Perhaps it's a solution?

Pretty cold, but if you REALLY need something done....