By Lance Thompson

Recently I overheard a neighbor proudly showing his new truck to the guy next door. In response to appropriate appreciation, the new truck owner made this statement: I refuse to participate in the recession.

Slowly, the wisdom of this profound statement sank in. A recession, like any other manifestation of mass hysteria, requires participation to continue. People must have faith in a recession, must contribute to it, must convert others to believe in it. Otherwise, the recession would collapse for lack of support.

How do we know there is a recession in the first place? The media, bearer of all dire tidings, tell us so. It is clear to most Americans, based on a recent poll that rates the media among the least trustworthy of institutions, that those who bring us the news have an agenda. Part of that agenda is to elect Barack Obama. To achieve that end, the media must convince Americans that the economy is in a nosedive, so that we will seek relief from the junior varsity Senator from Illinois.

The media keep the news about rising gas prices, falling home prices, massive layoffs and the weakening dollar in the headlines and on the tops of the newscasts. There is no pessimistic economic indicator that doesn’t rate its own computer graphic, economic victim interview, and concerned look from the news reader.

Falling home prices certainly affect all homeowners. Journalists and commentators point to the phenomenon as proof of a worsening economy. However, when home values were rising just a few years ago, the exact opposite situation, the media were characterizing that as bad news as well. Even though rising home values added billions to the net worth of American homeowners, the media concentrated instead on the diminishing percentage of Americans who could afford the average home–the negative side of rising home values. Likewise, as home values fall, you will not hear reports in the media about the increasing affordability of homes. As prices come down, a larger percentage of the population can afford to buy homes, but this aspect is ignored by recession cheerleaders.

Economists gain access to the media and notoriety by volunteering their views on the coming recession. If you’re an economist with a doom and gloom forecast, you can be booked on a network show faster than an Olympic gold medalist. But The Wall Street Journal recently featured a story about foreign investors from Abu Dhubai buying the Chrysler building. This is a structure whose value is inextricably tied to the value of American commercial real estate. It is not an asset that can be purchased and shipped to the Middle East like some other token of wealth. Buying the Chrysler building is an $800 million bet on the future health of the United States economy. The views of economists are interesting, but none of them are playing with their own money.

High fuel prices impact everyone, but there are benefits to four dollar gas as well. Chrysler is spending almost $2 billion to retool a Detroit plant to build fuel-efficient, car-based SUV’s. It is a major investment in Michigan, which has been losing manufacturing jobs to other states for a generation. Boeing’s fuel-efficient 787 is the best-selling new airliner in history, with airlines around the world clamoring for the gas-sipping jet. High fuel costs have made Americans trade in gas guzzlers for fuel-efficient hybrids, and made American corporations increase their energy efficiency. Those habits will continue.

It’s not all good news, of course. Some people are doing well and some are having a tough time, which is pretty much the way things have always been. Most people’s relationship to the economy is intimate rather than general. The recession is a generalization, and certainly a subjective assessment. Not everybody is out of work, not every home is in foreclosure, not every business is going under–although that’s the way it looks on the news.

From personal observation, I see signs of a very healthy economy. My mother’s real estate office in Sacramento, a city with one of the highest foreclosure rates in the country, has seen business increase dramatically in the last two months. We have friends in Colorado who have added a premium zip-line attraction to their resort, and their business has doubled since last year. My wife, who recruits animators and visual effects artists for movies, has never been busier helping studios hire talented individuals.

There’s no such thing as a recession that affects everyone equally. There are challenges and opportunities in every economic situation. No matter what the media are talking about, people everywhere are starting or running businesses, looking for employment or employees, making investments in their homes, families or businesses. The principles that govern these activities don’t change just because the media says the economic sky is falling.

So I will gladly join my neighbor and refuse to participate in what the media wants us to believe is a recession. I’ll continue to do my job, pay the mortgage, buy groceries and gas, and put something away for a rainy day, as most people do most of the time. And I look forward to the day when the purveyors of gloomy economic forecasts will learn firsthand about economic reality by looking for work themselves.

by Lance Thompson

When President Kennedy set the course of the United States toward a manned mission to the moon, our nation mobilized its human and technological resources to get there first. We committed, we innovated, we overcame countless obstacles, and we prevailed in that race. Now, after resting on our manned space exploration laurels for forty years, we find ourselves in a race with many more competitors. Winning this new race will require recognition of the principle that frontiers are settled by those who stand to gain from the activity, and who are certain that their interests will be protected by the rule of law..

In a 25 July article for Fox News, Steven Hoffer lists the competitors. In Project Constellation, the United States plans to send four astronauts to the moon to establish a lunar outpost.by 2020, and a manned mission to Mars by 2037.

When President Bush declared Constellation to be a solely American project, the European Space Agency partnered with Roskosmos, the Russian Federal Space Agency, to develop the Advanced Crew Transportation System, a manned capsule to be launched from the new Russian spaceport Vostochny in 2018.

The Russians are also working on their own design, the Kliper, a lifting body craft capable of carrying a crew of six. The Kliper would be ready for launch in 2012. The Europeans are also pursuing a separate program to develop a three-person space ferry for shuttle trips to and from low-Earth orbit.

China achieved manned space flight in 2003 and plans an orbital mission and space walk to coincide with the 2008 Olympics. India's Project Chandrayaan is preparing for lunar missions. Japan has established a goal to land astronauts on the moon by 2020 and establish a base by 2030.

So our competitors in the space race include close allies and partners as well as long-time rivals and old enemies. What is the motivation behind this new and worldwide enthusiasm for space exploration?

Certainly, recent discoveries have increased interest. Frozen water on Mars and the possibility of finding the same on the moon means that the most essential components to life may already be awaiting astronauts at their destinations. Water, and its elemental components hydrogen and oxygen, can not only sustain life but also provide fuel for manned outposts.

A generation ago, scientists were theorizing about the possibility of planets orbiting other stars-now astronomers have identified hundreds of planets in other solar systems, some quite similar to Earth. With each new discovery, the potential value of new worlds increases.

It is possible that the other entities engaged in the new space race wish only to expand human knowledge and understanding to benefit all mankind. But that would be a first for Russia and China. It is more likely that for these nations, the high ground of space offers the chance to gain a significant military advantage over the United States. Certainly, there is no reason to believe that the military resurgence of China and Russia would stop as their nations cross the boundary of the stratosphere.

The United States never exploited its lead in the space race, and has abided by the Outer Space Treaty we and other United Nations members signed in 1967. Treaty signers, in part, agree that exploration of the moon and planets shall be carried out for the benefit of all mankind, that the moon and other planets shall not be subject to national appropriation, and that military bases and weapons shall be forbidden on the moon and other planets.

It may be that some of the nations currently engaged in the space race are doing so for the benefit of all mankind. History proves that the United States has certainly adhered to this principle. But it is certain that not all the spacefaring nations share this philanthropic goal. Russia and China have armed our enemies, challenged us militarily, and aggressively expanded their global reach (Russia most recently by claiming large parts of the Arctic, China by continuing to claim sovereignty over and threatening annexation of Taiwan). There is nothing in the history of these nations that indicate that any conquest of new territory will be shared with other nations. There is ample evidence that new territory and the resources obtained there will be eagerly consumed and jealously guarded.

This is the principal reason why the United States must abrogate the Outer Space Treaty. Our government alone does not have the capacity or will to explore and settle the last frontier. Only with the cooperation of private enterprise can the vast promise of other worlds be discovered and developed. But private enterprise will not invest the vast sums required if the profits must be shared among all nations. The reward must equal the risk, and the Outer Space Treaty forbids this.

Likewise, the settling of new worlds cannot occur without the rule of law. It is evident from history that international justice is ensured and enforced only by the military of the United States and our allies. The United States military is the implacable foe of terrorism and aggression, the reliable savior in the face of peril or the wake of disaster, the most self-disciplined and widely trusted force for good on our planet. It is most likely that our military would maintain the same standards on other planets as well.

Many nations, both friendly and hostile, are racing toward the wide open frontier of space. While each nation has a unique agenda, all are certainly interested in enhancing their own positions. Only by abrogating the Outer Space Treaty and becoming the dominant presence on the moon and other planets can the United States be certain that the realm of new worlds will be a peaceful and prosperous one, and not a lawless frontier.

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

Winston Churchill wrote: “The farther backward you can look the farther forward you will see.”

The character Madame De Farge in Dickens’ “Tale” was a rag woman who sat next to the guillotine and knitted as she mocked the poor men who were having their heads chopped off.

Victorian London was the setting. Its backdrop was a blur of smoke, soot, abject poverty, and death. Rampant crime infested the city. Pickpockets, hoodlums, drunkards, opium dens, prostitutes, gamblers and stranglers all had their way because of ineffective law enforcement. The greater blame lies with the upper-crust social elites. It was their reluctance to care enough and use whatever influence was within their power to force government and politicians to mend the fractured and treacherous mores running roughshod within their communities.

If we could place an x-ray image of that era’s London over any one of our liberal-dominated, high-crime American metropolises of 2008 ( e.g ., New York, Los Angeles, Detroit or Chicago), the images would match almost perfectly. In effect, we are doing a slow march backwards into the dense lawlessness and chaos that preceded what we have unfortunately come to regard as “a civilized way of life.”

An ever-growing divisiveness between the political right and left – affords us an opportunity to paint with words the model for what a Conservative City (the “CC”) and a Liberal City (the “LC”) might one day look like (and perhaps sooner rather than later). We present this black and white rendering (in a parallel universe without shades of gray) as a window into a future that likely lies ahead.

The good citizens of the CC, United States of America, rise and shine like everyone else, except they navigate their days with little to fear from their neighbors, or even strangers. The Constitution grants them the right to protect themselves and their property from harm. Likewise, there are no worrisome eminent domain laws because in the CC their home is truly their well-fortified castle. Neither outlanders crossing their borders, nor Sanctuary City policies — or even the remote possibility of tyranny, shall darken their door.

2019 - Into the 10^th Year of an Obama Presidency

Miles away in the LC, residents still yearn for One World Order so they can at last be liked and respected. Within the LC, registered gun owners, ( i.e ., the state police) watch impotently as criminals roam unbridled by a justice system (bolstered by the ACLU) which places their unlikely innocence above that of their victims. Gangbangers mark their territory with impunity painting graffiti by moonlight, and by day flaunt their undeterred lawlessness with unregistered guns. The LC Police, still hampered by Special Order 40, watch helplessly as the number of alien criminals grows and become more emboldened. Threat of imprisonment doesn’t deter them as criminality segues to and continues to operate from within their prison walls. Murderers will never be eradicated through execution, nor spared the opportunity to rot in jail.

In the CC, children of all creeds and colors read, write and calculate their bright futures. Education and patriotism are their priority. Every morning, with hand over heart, they recite the Pledge of Allegiance because they are proud to be Americans. They are allowed to pray, which has always served well as a moral foundation. And they thrive because parents and teachers guide them with a gentle yet firm hand, without fear of frivolous lawsuits or government interference. Students learn self-esteem through competition in school sports -- earning their place on the team.

In the LC, classrooms are packed to over-crowdedness with “undocumented immigrants.” It is not only politically incorrect, but against the law to refer to them as “illegal aliens.” In this situation, frustrated teachers from grade school to high school lag behind in their efforts to learn the languages and customs of all the cultures that still refuse to assimilate, or who have forced themselves on the LC society because they can. They give nothing and expect everything in return for free.

Teachers work in fear of students that call the shots in classrooms, playgrounds and the surrounding neighborhoods. These young people, the majority of whom will drop out before graduation, are the future employees of LC fast food restaurants and giant home-building stores. During the course of their tenuous employment, they will be unable to cope if computer systems crash, because they won’t be able to make change – in plain English, add or subtract, let alone factor in the exorbitant sales tax.

Their parents (if they’re lucky to have two at home) will be busy working overtime to pay those oppressive taxes while their children round out their educations playing violent videogames or hanging out at the mall.

In the CC, successful business owners, both large and small, are rewarded for their hard work with low-to-no taxes which they happily reinvest for growth. In turn, they keep the unemployment rate low… well, there is no unemployment rate. In the long run, the CC might need to begin advertising for the best and the brightest in the LC just to fill entry-level jobs.

LC businesses and factories are closing down and moving out of state because unions and taxes have eroded profits, incentive, and competition. Welfare lines are growing longer, as well as the queues at the Unemployment and Social Security offices. There aren’t enough young, legal Americans left to keep Social Security afloat. A contributing factor is that the number of state-funded abortions has grown exponentially.

The LC boils over with illegal immigrants sucking up its remaining resources. The last Emergency Clinic overflows into the streets with the uninsured. To meet the demand for police and fire department personnel, the city has lowered its recruitment standards and is accepting the high school dropouts. At the same time, all the best-trained doctors and dentists have fled to greener pastures in the CC.

CC retirees plan vacations and other leisure activities made possible by early privatization of Social Security. The CC ended taxation of personal retirement accounts years ago. In fact, the CC ended capital gains and death taxes too. Rest in Peace has taken on new meaning.

The CC’s borders are well protected by a highly trained and educated volunteer militia. Potential terror threats are dealt with in a clean and efficient manner. There’s no messing around in the CC. Its borders are sealed tight and that’s the way its citizens sleep – tight.

Over in the LC, citizens are always looking over their shoulders -- for a stray gang bullet, perhaps? Identity checks at airports have been eliminated for fear of insulting anyone’s ethnicity. The few foreign terrorists that have been arrested are wreaking havoc on an already shaky economy where taxpayers bear the cost of legal representation and the endless appeals of jihadists entitled to the same rights as legally-born and naturalized citizens. They have no idea when – not if, but when – the next terrorist attack will occur, because there are so many restrictions on the intelligence agencies.

The LC will, should terrorists attack again, proceed to hunt them down like other criminals. When caught, they will be read Miranda rights via an Islamic interpreter. The already poor citizens of LC will be forced to house foreign terrorists locally the rest of their natural lives. This will be accomplished by -- you guessed it, more taxes.

In the CC, the atmosphere is generally festive throughout the year as they celebrate their freedom and the significance of each and every tradition and holiday without fear of recrimination.

In the LC, Christmas, like Independence Day or Memorial Day, is treated as just another day off from work to watch a ball game, get drunk, or hang at the mall. Yes, there are twinkling lights and the smell of plastic holiday trees, but angel tree toppers and Christmas carols are symbols of a bygone era thanks to vocal atheists and weak civic leaders. Public religious displays have also been outlawed or condemned. “In God We Trust” was removed from their currency, and churches and synagogues have been converted into homeless shelters and shoe outlets.

At home, a turkey and all the trimmings are served around the dinner table, but no one raises their voice to heaven to give thanks for the provender. The only thanks are for the cook or the caterer. Amen.

Is this an unfair generalization or characterization of Liberal America? Maybe it is. But which city would you rather live in? You get your chance to vote on it in November.

by Lance Thompson

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki gave Barack Obama a boost last week by meeting with the Democrat presidential nominee and endorsing Obama’s plan for a troop pullout in the German magazine Der Spiegel. Such profound gratitude has not been shown since the Brits voted out Winston Churchill after leading his nation safely through World War II.

Now that President Bush and General Petraeus have done the heavy lifting of knocking off Saddam Hussein, putting down insurrection, and fighting al-Qaeda and Iraqi Quds Force terrorists, al-Maliki is evidently anxious to get rid of his country’s saviors. "Here’s your hat–what’s your hurry?" is a phrase that comes to mind.

Maybe President Bush deserves no thanks for freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator, despite intense political pressure to cut and run and the abject defeatism embodied by the Democrats. Maybe our armed forces deserve no appreciation for defending Iraqis from their enemies, both foreign and domestic, and rebuilding the country from electrical grids to schools and hospitals. Maybe John McCain deserves no credit for backing a vastly unpopular troop surge last year that resulted in the relatively safe and thriving Iraq that Obama breezed through on his very tardy visit to the central front on terror. But at least al-Maliki could have remained neutral in the American presidential election, rather than hosting and endorsing the plans of the candidate who fought against the Iraq war from the very beginning (until Obama realized we were winning).

Maybe al-Maliki thinks Obama has the election clinched, and wants to buddy up with the new Commander-in-Chief. But the slight was no accident–it was a deliberate slap in the face of the people who made it possible for al-Maliki to rise to his position of leadership of an emerging democracy.

In a similar exhibition of inexcusable ingratitude, the American people seem anxious to see the end of the Bush administration. With approval polls below 30%, Bush is one of the least popular presidents in recent history. Certainly, Bush has made many mistakes. He’s soft on illegal immigration, he championed the immensely expensive prescription drug bill, and he kept his veto pen in the drawer while the Republican congress spent like drunken Democrats.

But in the war against the Islamic jihadists that hit our shores on 11 September 2001, President Bush has been resolute and steadfast. Previously, terrorist attacks were treated as crimes. Bush rightly recognized that it was a war, and set the course of our nation to wage that war and win it. The political will was behind him only briefly, but the Democrats soon turned to opposition as they realized it was going to be a long, hard struggle. Typically, they cast their lot with the other side. As George Bush struggled mightily to bar the door against the terrorists, the Democrats castigated him for using an illegal lock.

Bush paid a heavy political price to prosecute the war, and was almost alone in insisting upon the surge (John McCain was one of a very few who supported it.) Now, we have the upper hand in Iraq, we have an oil-producing democracy in the Middle East for the first time since Carter pulled the rug out on the Shah, and we have not had another terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11/01. On the most urgent issue of our time, George Bush has been a stalwart champion. Yet less than 30% of Americans approve.

This November, Americans will choose a successor to George Bush. And on 20 January 2009, he will leave the Oval Office in the hands of a new president. Let us hope by then Americans will demonstrate the class and good manners that al-Maliki could not muster, and say goodbye to the Commander-in-Chief with respect for his determination and at least some gratitude for keeping us safe.

by Lance Thompson

I had a bad habit. I started when I was young, and always thought I could control it, but I could never get enough, and when I was deprived, the cravings were intense. One day, circumstances forced me to quit, cold turkey. It wasn’t my choice, but it was my good fortune. It’s been a year, and I’m still clean–no television signals coming into the house.

When I was a kid, the drug was not very powerful–three channels, black and white. It started innocently with a couple of shows after dinner, then on weekends, and after school. It became more seductive with color sets and as favorite shows switched from shades of gray to rainbow hues–Combat, The Fugitive, even Andy Griffith.

In high school, when other kids were involved in sports or social activities, I continued to feed the habit. There wasn’t a moment to spare on weekends--The Rockford Files was on Friday nights, and Saturday was the CBS lineup of All in the Family, Mary Tyler Moore, The Bob Newhart Show, MASH and The Carol Burnett Show. Then Monty Python showed up on PBS. There was no time for anything else.

In college, while most other dorm residents considered a stereo system the most vital piece of electronic equipment (this was before computers), I happily hooked up a portable color TV and aimed its aerial toward the transmission towers. I rationalized that it was necessary to my academic major–motion picture/television–but for me it was a security blanket of broadcast entertainment.

My career in motion picture advertising and script writing allowed me to continue the excuses. I needed the TV to see the spots I helped create or watch the shows I wanted to write for. It was a necessary tool, but the truth was, I was the poster child for Must See TV. I could say it was part of my job, so the TV was on while I worked, when I relaxed, when I wasn’t even in the room.

Then CNN came up with 24-hour news, and I saw the riveting images of the first Gulf War on a TV set in a pizza parlor. I remember the film of Vietnam that was air-mailed home to be shown on the nightly news, but this was live, front-line coverage, 24 hours a day, with video of bombs dropping, missiles launching, tanks rolling across the desert. It was history as it happened. Surely, there was no way I could turn this off.

Then came FoxNews, with the same incessant events and commentary, but with a conservative bent. Suddenly, I was following elections, campaigns, candidates, issues. September 11^th, everyone was glued to the TV, watching as one unbelievable and horrifying image replaced the last. There was always something on, something that demanded to be seen.

Then my venerable Sony 27-inch gave out, finances were tight, we couldn’t afford one of those cool new flat panel jobs. We were moving out of state, we’ll get the new set when we get settled.

Withdrawal was hard at first, but there were distractions–packing, repairs, moving. The same in reverse at the new house. Days went by, then weeks with no television. The surprising part was, it got easier every day.

Sure, I missed the FoxNews gang–Brit Hume, Chris Wallace, Bill O’Reilly. But I didn’t miss the wall-to-wall coverage of celebrity excesses, missing person cases, lurid trials and spring break bacchanalia. I didn’t miss the contrived debates between partisan pundits, the MSM’s delight in detailing our setbacks in Iraq or their refusal to highlight our triumphs. I didn’t miss the breathless polls, the tragedy of the week, or the coverage of the coverage.

There were fine examples of episodic TV I’d miss–The Shield, Boston Legal, the Dick Wolf franchises. But the vast majority was neither entertaining nor original, so that was not much of a sacrifice. Old movies and documentaries were always on at my house, but the constant commercial interruptions for products and remedies that required awkward explanation to my nine year old daughter would not be missed.

My work finally necessitated that we get a new television–a cool flat panel, not very large, so that I can watch the movies whose marketing campaigns I help create. We also use it for DVD’s that we rent or buy or borrow from the library. But we don’t get broadcast or cable signals, not even local stations. My daughter’s friends at school ask if she’s Amish.

News comes from the internet–Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, periodicals and local news sources all have online representation now. But I can pick and choose the stories I follow rather than just watching whatever the news director thinks will pull in the most viewers.

Adjustments were made, but they weren’t arduous. And there have been numerous benefits. Fifty bucks a month is what cable cost in Los Angeles, where we used to live. Six hundred a year saved. That feels good.

There’s also a great deal more time. I don’t know how many hours I devoted to just watching whatever was on, but I’ve reclaimed that time now. I’ve read about fifty books in the last year, quite an increase from the TV days. I spend more time with my daughter, with no blaring box competing for our attention. I have time to write, teach, or just sit back and relax to good music.

My attitude, I am told by those in a position to notice, has vastly improved. Less irritable, more positive, more willing to go on a walk, play a board game, or go to the theater. This may be due to the smaller, friendlier town we moved to, but a brighter perspective can at least be partially explained by a lack of daily doses of loud, sensational AV input.

The house is quieter and more relaxed. There always used to be breaking news, or bulletins, or just overly insistent commercials to underline the unexpected hazards and calamities that seemed to occur with alarming regularity. There are still crises in the world, in the country, right here in our town. We’re aware of them, but we aren’t treated to the most graphic and disturbing video coverage of those events, and they now seem as far away as they really are.

TV was a habit I never thought I’d break, and, like all addicts, I know I’m never really cured. But a year has passed unplugged, and it feels great. I recommend it.

by Lance Thompson

In every presidential election I can recall, the Democrats have always been at pains to proclaim that their candidate is "the smart one" and the Republican is the "dumb one."

Gerald Ford was portrayed as a bumbler compared to Jimmy Carter, who served in the nuclear navy. Ronald Reagan was consistently branded simplistic, uninformed, senile and always just "an actor reading lines." Walter Mondale ran on a platform of superior competence against Reagan.

Michael Dukakis proclaimed himself architect of the Massachusetts miracle, while George H. W. Bush was chided for lacking "vision." Bill Clinton, the Rhodes scholar, and Gore were the smartest guys in the room, ready to save the country from recession. Their battle cry, "It’s the economy, stupid," left no doubt who the stupid one was supposed to be. Clinton made Bob Dole look tired and out of touch.

Al Gore and George W. Bush were both Ivy Leaguers, but Bush was portrayed as a dumb, lucky son of privilege compared to the Ivy League-educated Gore (Both were average students, Bush at Yale and Gore at Harvard. Interestingly, Gore’s lowest grade in college was a D in a natural sciences course. This is the man who won the Nobel Prize for his warnings on global warming.)  Finally, John Kerry tried to blame the war, the economy and the weather, on Bush’s stupidity, but the country didn’t buy it.

Consistently, Democrats elevate education and intellect as a vital attribute to a presidential candidate, always pointing out that their choice is smarter than the Republican. But that particular argument isn’t being employed this time around.

Yes, the Obama campaign has sullied John McCain with the "too old, too out of touch" pitch, but none of that seems to stick. People already know John McCain is old, and he seems mostly out of touch to conservatives, and at least partially sympathetic to liberals.

Surprisingly, few Democrats have been making the argument that Obama is the intellectual superior in this race. Perhaps this is because when Republicans, early in the contest, complimented Obama as erudite or intelligent, Democrats quickly claimed that such compliments were thinly veiled racism, damning the black candidate with faint praise. They ridiculed Republicans for being surprised that a black candidate could speak coherently. Actually, we were surprised that any Democrat could speak coherently.

Or maybe the Democrats are saving the "Obama is smarter" argument for later in the race, when they need to bring out the big guns. But usually the intelligence argument has already been made at this stage.

The most likely reason that Democrats haven’t portrayed Obama as smart is because he is so very adept at proving he’s not.

Obama claims his uncle or great uncle (the story changed almost as soon as it hit the internet) was one of the American troops who liberated Auschwitz, when in fact the Nazi concentration camp was liberated by Russians. Obama said he was inspired by seeing civil rights marches in Selma four years before he was born. He credits a Kennedy-Kruschev meeting in 1961 as "helping to end the Cold War," when in fact it emboldened Kruschev to establish missile bases in Cuba. He’s confused about the conflicting political claims on Jerusalem. He believes the physical size of terrorist sponsor states like Iraq, Syria, Venezuela and Cuba make their nuclear ambitions insignificant. His explanations about his associations with Reverend Wright and the terrorist Bill Ayres were inconsistent and dishonest. Obama would be a great motivational speaker, but you wouldn’t want to bet on him in the Jeopardy finals.

If Democrats had a candidate who had demonstrated intelligence or profound insight in any concrete fashion, they would be extolling those virtues constantly, as they have in previous campaigns with other candidates. But this is not the case with Obama. Democrats know their candidate can’t compete in one of their favorite arenas.

In short, Obama can’t claim to be the intellectual candidate because he’s not convincing in the role. He has energized his supporters with promises of change, but he has not backed those promises up with policy. He is young, inexperienced, and easily confounded by unanticipated questions and challenges.

It’s possible that this aspect of Obama doesn’t bother his supporters, who are excited by his youth, freshness and electrifying personality. But you can bet the Democrat campaign managers are thinking about it. They, at least, are demonstrating intelligence by staying silent on the subject.

George Armstrong Custer lost his luster and got whacked at the Little Big Horn.

Senator John McCain spent five years of his life inside a Viet Nam death camp, was beaten and tortured, and survived to tell about it. He too has lost his luster (with conservatives) and is getting whacked by a previously fawning media.

Custer was vain, arrogant, ambitious, reckless and a risk-taker.

McCain is also vain, arrogant, ambitious, reckless and a risk-taker. But is McCain riding the trail rejecting conservative core principles along the way to become our latter-day General Custer? We’ll call our pork barrel fighter “Lt. Custard.”

General Custer designed his own extravagant uniforms: polished jackboots, tight-fitting corduroy trousers, his trademark wide-brim hat, a black velveteen hussar jacket with silver piping, and a red cravat on his sailor shirt with silver stars on the collar. He was a natural blond, and wore his hair in long ringlets which he dusted with cinnamon-scented hair oil.

Lt. Custard could use a makeover and some hair but we won’t go there. We’ll leave that up to the media as they break all the rules of propriety and point out every freckle, age spot, bump or suspicious wound on his vast forehead.

General Custer lost his Division’s train as well as his personal luggage to a band of Confederates at the Battle of Trevilian Station.

Lt. Custard carried his own suitcases between planes in airports before, during and after the Primaries. Is this a sign of confidence — or of being lost in the political wilderness?

General Custer loved publicity and often invited journalists to go along with him on his campaigns so that they could report his battlefield panache.

Lt. Custard is a media darling so long as he speaks liberally about Liberals’ pet issues, which he does with disconcerting ease aboard the Straight Talk Express.

General Custer jeopardized his military career when he testified against the abuses and severe ill treatment of Native Americans barricaded inside government reservations.

Lt. Custard jeopardizes our national security and economic stability when he promotes unlocking America’s borders to millions of illegal immigrants and promises to close GITMO if elected.

In 1867, Custer went AWOL to see his wife and was court-martialed. The army suspended his duty for one year.

In 2007, Lt. Custard went AWOL on conservatives. This boosted his chummy relationship with Democrats in Congress and (dramatic organ music) the PRESS.

It could have been the 1860s, but more likely the 1960s when once proud journalists, honor bound to tell the truth, launched an expedition towards the conquest of young American braves.

It continues to this day as they propel their so-called crowning achievement, Barack Obama, into the fractured leadership of the Free World. We will call these so-called journalists the “Sue.” Why? Because it’s damn near impossible to instigate legal action against them when they cower behind the stone walls of Fort First Amendment.

Former Sue (and Viet Nam war correspondent), “Sitting Bull-Gore,” has made a stand against the alleged warming of the earth. He has turned this fantasy into a rallying point for the disaffected of every blue state (and raked in millions of dollars with this scam, affording him and Tipper Canoe to live lavishly – and hypocritically – on their energy-hogging Tennessee estate).

In comparison, Lt. Custard’s half-hearted attempt at environmentalism consists of trying to save 1% of the pristine Alaskan tundra. This has been met with mockery by the Sue and their ignoble carbon credit-eating -- Sitting Bull-Gore.

With Democrats on both sides of the continent, and Republicans stuffed like turkey dressing in the middle, the Sue wage a relentless and merciless war with their poison pens on conservative candidates. Every endeavor to keep the Sue in check during the Iraq War has only served to consume precious military resources. Instead, the Sue immediately made a slap-dash prediction that the war would be a rout (naturally not in our favor) even before the first 50-caliber shot was fired.

They then followed up with a relentless volley of “Recession! Recession!!” until they have nearly made it so. They have since become even more aggressive, arming themselves with one-sided fiction delivered at warp-speed via the Internet (which was invented of course by Sitting Bull-Gore). The Sue has become a fierce foe more dreaded and deadly than any past or present European press corps.

Republican candidates, when confronted by members of the Sue tribe should just ask for a blindfold, a cigarette and a quick scalping to spare their family, religious beliefs and personal integrity from being publicly torn to shreds and tossed into the Little Big Horn River.

This is the formidable and unrelenting fighting force that Lt. Custard and the GOP are forced to contend with. The Sue’s bellicose behavior offers no white flags, no treaties or time-outs. In spite of attempts to bribe or mollify them, they remain uncompromising.

The Sue was once warmed by Lt. Custard’s glow. Now they rally round the impressive – but downright baffling – forked-tongue oratory (not worth a wooden nickel) of their charismatic presumptive leader, Barack Obama, known euphemistically as “Crazy Horse.” Recently, a tribe of over 65,000 Left Wings joined Crazy Horse at an Oregon political war party. Impressive indeed!

The Sue and the Left Wings fear that Lt. Custard might be impetuous with Persia’s…uh...Iran’s leader and plunge us head-on into yet another Great War. Crazy Horse, on the other hand, plans to Pow and Wow known-terrorist leaders. This “Brave’s” naïve effort to smoke the peace pipe has the same fishy tang as the abject ramblings (and catastrophic failures) of demented Ex-Chief “Head-in-the-Clouds” Carter.

Although Lt. Custard courted the Sue over the years, they remain stubbornly single-minded in their support of Crazy Horse. Lt. Custard has been warned by his base to keep watch well out toward his Left as he navigates the campaign trail. He has let us conservative warriors down in so many unexpected ways, such as clamoring for oil drilling while simultaneously shutting down prospecting in the tundra – this in spite of hard assurances the caribou will not be harmed. At the same time, Lt. Custard has yet to notice the abundance of free-range buffalo in Yellowstone.

by Lance Thompson

The BBC reported on 23 June that Tran Trong Duyet, the former commander of the North Vietnamese Hoa Lo military prison where John McCain spent five and a half years, now considers John McCain a friend and "would vote for him." Mr. Duyet disputes McCain’s account of his captivity, denying that prisoners were beaten, tortured or mistreated. Evidently, Mr. Duyet does not regard the prison’s nickname, "the Hanoi Hilton," as the least bit ironic.

Still, the endorsement of an old enemy is nothing new in politics. After one of the most bruising primary battles in recent presidential history, Hillary Clinton calls Barack Obama a friend, and tells of how proud she was to have competed against him for the nomination. She will work hard, she promises, to reunite the party and see Obama elected. Surely this is no greater turnaround than that of a former North Vietnamese officer endorsing a former American prisoner.

One could ascribe Mr. Duyet’s last-minute endorsement to selective memory or the propensity to idealize the events of one’s past. But we must also consider a more sinister motive, one that eventually tempts all who come in contact with a presidential contender–personal advancement.

It is no secret that McCain and Obama are compiling lists of potential cabinet officers and political appointees. Mr. Duyet, currently retired and keeping fit as an amateur ballroom dancer, must be thinking about a third act in his life–surely he still harbors goals and aspirations. With his military background, he could be angling for Secretary of Defense. As a former officer in a former Soviet client state, he would have knowledge of Communist tactics and technology–both of which are bound to be hot topics with a resurgent Russia and a restive Communist China on the new President’s agenda.

Likewise, the hot seat of the attorney general might be a target. Mr. Duyet’s familiarity with incarceration and--at least according to John McCain--interrogation would put him at the forefront of the controversial Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo Bay detainees. If the liberals on the Big Bench insist on giving terrorist prisoners every possible break, then we should have an attorney general equally insistent on the same. The breaks he gave to his prisoners were more physical in nature than legal, but Mr. Duyet would certainly be a worthwhile advocate against a judiciary that seems at least sympathetic to this country’s enemies.

But Mr. Duyet seems eminently suited for one particular position that would give him a forum to demonstrate his new-found friendship for John McCain and catapult him back into the public eye. The unimaginably challenging job of White House spokesman cries out for a man of Mr. Duyet’s credibility and conviction. This position requires a person who does not mind that his every statement is disbelieved, his every utterance is questioned, his every smile or facial tic assumed to be rehearsed. Mr. Duyet obviously has no trouble at all expressing the most preposterous and laughable ideas with an absolute faith that they will find acceptance from a gullible public.

One further qualification that Mr. Duyet offers. With the recent treasonous tome by former White House spokesman Scott McClellan fresh in the public mind, Mr. Duyet at least acknowledges that once, long ago, he and John McCain were on opposite sides. Compared to Scott McClellan’s professions of friendship toward the President that lasted right up until the first review copies of his book came out, Mr. Duyet’s service would be a model of frank and forthright square dealing.

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

The structure and strength of conservative ideals as they stood against the anti-climaxes of the Republican state primaries must now be examined based on the outcome of those primaries. Scrutiny should not involve what should have been or could have been but what has in fact occurred, which is, John McCain has pitched past his competitors and is the de facto conservative leader.  It is clear that while the polls fluctuated almost daily on the issues most important to Americans, the war on terror continues to guide our priorities. That is the clear answer for all that didn’t see the contentious result coming.

Prior to his present poll position, Republican prophets of doom came out en masse to belittle and accuse McCain of numerous gross breaches of his fiduciary duty as a conservative. They continue to repeat and remind that he is not worthy of the People’s trust for his myriad anti-establishment and self-serving political maneuvers (McCain-Feingold; McCain-Kennedy; McCain-Leiberman; McCain-Kennedy-Edwards; the McCain-Reimportation of Drugs; his vocal opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts; his hostility towards American enterprise; McCain-ACLU; the Gang of 14, etc.), all of which have been deemed unsound and ill-advised for this nation. Yet, even in the face of conservative forewarnings, McCain the maverick has, to the party’s bewilderment, scored the most delegates.

With these facts in mind, we will reluctantly agree to cast our votes for John McCain. As conservatives we must support the nominee – but (and this is a big but) only if his decided choice for the vital post of Vice President is made with exuberant logic and not with undignified or compromising haste. This, of course, is not John McCain’s style, but it is critical that he understands and accepts that the party base will not give him Carte Blanche to reinvent conservatism. If he concedes to a second-in-command who is less than fearless or lacks a moral calling, he will lose the support necessary to regain a majority. His choice of a running mate must be a man who has America’s best interests at heart and who can step into the leadership position at a moment’s notice.

The break Americans deserve today is for John McCain to select Mitt Romney as his running mate.  It is by no means a “Happy Meal” for dyed-in-the-wool conservatives. However, the GOP should carefully examine and consider our future, and once they are able to set aside both men’s personal differences they would come to realize that a McCain-Romney unification is a palatable and sensible combination.

It goes without saying that both the President and his linear successor, the Vice President, require ceaseless patience and perception if they are to effectively pilot this nation through the ever-darkening threat of jihadism. Both must have the ability to instantly recognize the gravitas of national and international situations, and if necessary, tighten control over them before they unravel, such as the current chaos in Pakistan. Mr. McCain knows this and of that we can be certain. If he offers us a fraction less than a balanced ticket, Americans will lose confidence and inadvertently cede power to the Left in November.

Even taking into account their political adversities, McCain should acknowledge that his and Romney’s stated positions are uniquely suited to right the listing negatives – that the sum total of their parts will equal a worthy and formidable team.

Critics of Romney couldn’t be more mistaken. Mitt Romney is a patriot. He is also highly intelligent and a pragmatist. And that would be a complementary asset for John McCain and for this country.

Romney has the keen ability to be, when necessary, analytical and tough. This is a parallel to how Ronald Reagan approached and dealt with problems. Romney’s refusal in September 2006 to provide state police protection to Mohammed Khatami, a former president of Iran, was immediate and swift.  He then denounced Harvard University for extending an invitation to Khatami.  This was critical decisiveness under pressure. He likewise did not hesitate to urge the United Nations to revoke an invitation for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at their general headquarters in September 2007. Mitt Romney sees people and situations for what they are and isn’t afraid to “hands-on” deal with it.

There seem to be two ways for Americans to fully grasp the paramount importance of keeping the war on terror a political priority. We can read the numerous well-researched non-fiction books available on jihadism or we can sit back and look at “Deal or No Deal” while waiting for another attack.  Hugh Hewitt described correctly this general unawareness that plagues America: “they don’t know what they don’t know” – because far too many Americans and their children no longer take the time to read. But they will ultimately get it if and when we all GET IT.

John McCain and Mitt Romney “get it,” as they have both represented.  That clear and present danger that looms over everyone’s heads propels them both to want to do everything, no matter the cost, that is necessary to protect and defend our country.  In his concession speech at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference), Romney said, essentially, that our countrymen must choose a leader who understands the very nature of the enemy and hence how to save from harm the future of America.

We cannot deny that John McCain does understand the nature of the enemy, and he does have the experience necessary to qualify him to make the claim that he would be a good President.  However, as we said, pulling the lever in his favor will be much easier if his selection of a running mate is, in character, confidence and strength, the best man for the job.  That best man is Mitt Romney.

It is our concerted opinion that the indefatigable and experienced team of John McCain and Mitt Romney will trump the leading inexperienced liberal opponent’s mantra “Yes, we can” with the conservatives’ “YES, WE WILL.”