Time to be one nation again

How good and how pleasant it would be, before God and man, to see the unification of all Americans (borrowed of course from the great Bob Marley's 'Africa Unite')

Seriously, more than anything at all, this is what I want. If Barack Obama can manage to accomplish this, I will be the first one in line to offer him praise. Nothing angers me more than politicians who put their party ahead of the good of the country. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, is a good example. I really hope that Obama will move away from actions like Reid's. At the moment, I'm still trying to decide if Rahm Emanuel was a good pick to be Obama's Chief of Staff. On one hand, the man can be mean, angry, and extremely partisan, but on the other, he is of Israeli descent, and speaks fluent Hebrew. Could this be a signal to Israel that he intends will uphold America's alliance to the Jewish State? I hope so. I also hope that it will be a slap in the face to scumbags like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who embrace Obama's victory as a victory for criminal regimes across the world.

Say hello to Rahm, our president-elect's new chief of staff. He speaks Hebrew and his father immigrated to the United States from Israel.

Throughout my blog posts, I have always been consistent with my belief that hating the president gets us absolutely nowhere--in fact, I think that the violent hatred the anti-Bush/war movement has created the last few years is partially responsible for the situation the country and the world are in today. I want President Obama to exceed and I, like all Americans, am honored to see history made...that does not mean that our new president should be given a free pass. My greatest fear is that he will follow through on his commitments to the "antiwar" groups and pull our soldiers out of Iraq, even after so much sacrifice from both Iraqis and Americans. Thankfully, it appears Barack will not do that...the heroes of Iraq have already triumphed over the forces of terrorism.

There is another thing I am very thankful for...I am so happy to see the election process over with. After two years of obsessive reporting on the news, it has finally come to an end. Now, let's try to solve the issues with something other than words.

Wow...

I'm going to give my thoughts about the presidential election before I head to the polls tomorrow. Until then, check out this video...its a little creepy, I must add.

Barack Obama, Israel, and Iraq

I am already tired of hearing about the presidential election...seriously, you can only listen to so much of it, and it starts to get depressing. I have been trying to watch Fox News and CNN lately and I would say about forty percent of the time, the news is either about Barack and Hillary, fifty percent is about unnecessary stories most informed people would have no interest in, nine percent of the news is about John McCain, and lastly, you could squeeze in just a little bit of international news (which is what I watch the news for in the first place) to make up the remaining one percent. I am no media analyst, but this is the rough impression I get from when I watch the news. There is a reason why I prefer international media--the BBC, the Dawn, etc.

Anyway, this was an interesting story from BBC:

Barack Obama has pledged unwavering support for Israel in his first foreign policy speech since declaring himself the Democratic nominee for president.

He told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), a prominent Jewish lobby, Israel's security was "sacrosanct" and "non-negotiable".

He also said he would do "everything" to stop Iran getting a nuclear weapon.

As the Democrats' primary season ended, Mr Obama received the support of enough delegates to clinch the nomination.

His rival, Hillary Clinton, has yet to concede.

Okay, great...Barack Obama is pledging support for Israel. He has also stated he wants to go after Al-Qaeda in the tribal belts of Pakistan. Now, if only he would make a pledge like this to support Iraq no matter what...and stand beside the Iraqi people, regardless of poll numbers or what his left-leaning base says. I would sleep a lot better if I knew that both candidates--McCain and Obama--were saying the right things on foreign policy. Obama has made history being the first African-American to secure the democratic nomination for president, now I suggest he do something just as symbolic...he should take McCain up on his offer for both of them to visit Iraq and see first-hand the amazing progress that is taking place over there. They could meet with American and Iraqi commanders on the ground, and promise that no matter what, the United States will support Iraq in its battle against Al-Qaeda and Muqtada's boys in Sadr City.

Both McCain and Obama have repeatedly stated they want to unite the country and end "partisan" politics, and I think that a joint visit to Iraq to make a promise to the Iraqi people would be the best way to do that.

Whatever it takes...

Sorry, but I am just a little angry right now. I feel I cannot stand by as the DNC, the far-left, and the so-called "antiwar" movement continue to threaten our efforts in Iraq. The recent controversy with John McCain and his comments about staying in Iraq for the "next 100 years" is ridiculous. To those of you pulling the strings over at the DNC, I say this to you...well, first off, screw you!

Second, which is worse, advocating a solid, 100% commitment to the brave Iraqis who are fighting some of the most evil people out there, or advocating abandoning them for political purposes, as you people have done? If 100 years is what it takes to stop these terrorists, then so be it. I'm not one to say things like this, but if the DNC continues it propaganda campaign by showing images of Al-Qaeda's work and then calling for us to abandon Iraq, I will be happy to watch their party implode within itself as Barack and Hillary battle it out for the nomination. These people certainly deserve it.

Some might say to me, "C.H., your views aren't in line with the views of the American people". Well, I don't really care. I cannot put into words how tired I am with Iraq being a political issue. This is not an issue politicians should be using to get votes. These disgusting ads and statements coming out of the DNC headquarters need to stop, period. Enough with the debate over WMD's, the War on Terror, and whether or not it was right to go into Iraq. At the very least, can all of us, whether liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, or any other affiliation, agree that helping the people of Iraq rebuild their country and fight a savage and evil enemy is the right thing to do? ALL of us should want success in Iraq, no matter who we want to see in the White House.

Dancing for genocide

Found this in the New York Times:

The heavy fighting that broke out last week as Iraqi security forces tried to oust Shiite militias from Basra is reverberating on the presidential campaign trail and posing new challenges and opportunities to the candidates, particularly Senator John McCain .

The fierce fighting — and the threat that it could undo a long-term truce that has greatly helped to reduce the level of violence in Iraq — thrust the war back into the headlines and the public consciousness just as it had been receding behind a tide of economic concerns.

How cute. As the Iraqis finally take a stand against the Iranian axis of terror that has wrapped southern Iraq in a death grip, we have none other than the biased media once again beating the drums of failure. But wait, it gets worse:

The Democrats, who are calling for phased troop withdrawals, are beginning to point to the fighting in Basra as evidence that the American troop buildup has failed to provide stability and political reconciliation — particularly if the fighting leads one militia, the Mahdi Army , to pull out of its cease-fire; that could lead to a new spate of sectarian violence across the country. Some are saying the fighting strengthens their case for troop withdrawals.

Is anyone willing to look past their own personal politics anymore? Do we really have to go back on this road again? Please people, go back to debating issues like abortion...talk about the economy...run vicious campaign ads, but please don't drag innocent people into this. This is a time where we should be supporting the Iraqis' decision to route out these terrorists and criminal elements that are loaded with Iranian cash and weapons. This is not about right and left...its not about George W. Bush, and its not about the presidential election. Instead, its about our moral values and the difference between right and wrong. For the sake of preventing the slaughter of innocent people, let's finish the job and not make the same mistakes we did with Basra in 1991, when we abandoned the Iraqi Shiites and left them at the hands of the Republican Guard.

Democrat infighting and Iran's antics: Which will be a bigger factor?

These last few weeks, Senator John Mccain has had the opportunity to prove to voters that he is the best choice for president. Indeed, while Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have been destroying one another in the civil war that is threatening to split the Democratic Apart, Mccain has been traveling overseas, pledging support to our allies, and actively raising money on the campaign trail. Recent Gallup Polls have placed Mccain several points ahead of both Obama and Clinton, especially on Iraq. All the while, he has been facing very little resistance as the left and the democratic party focus their fury on one another.

Still, there are outside forces that can threaten the outcome of the election more than Jeremiah Wright's tirades, Bill Richardson being labeled "Judas", and Bill Clinton being compared to Joseph McCarthy, all of which the democrats have inflicted on themselves with a ferocity that rivals the attacks on President Bush. There are far more threatening challenges out there, and one of them could very well be the Islamic Republic of Iran.

From the BBC:

The most senior US general in Iraq has said he has evidence that Iran was behind Sunday's bombardment of Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.
Gen David Petraeus told the BBC he thought Tehran had trained, equipped and funded insurgents who fired the barrage of mortars and rockets.

He said Iran was adding what he described as "lethal accelerants" to a very combustible mix

Isn't that just lovely? Once again, now that Iraq has set itself on the right track, Iran has decided that it does not like that idea. As disturbing as it is to suggest, Iran does have the ability to influence the US Presidential election by activating one, perhaps two, Mahdi Army splinter cells in places like Baghdad and southern Iraq. On Friday, the cease-fire declared by Muqtada Al-Sadr was threatened as Iraqi security forces and Shiite militiamen battle it out in the southern city of Basra. If you watch the morning news, you will likely get the impression that the fighting is nothing more than internal instability among Iraq's factions, which could be precisely what the Mullahs in Tehran and their surrogate fighters want.

The idea of a terrorist-state influencing who the leader of the free world will be is enough to unnerve any good American. But why would the Iranians want to do that? Well, for one thing, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have called for a withdrawal from Iraq and face-to-face meeting with Iran's leaders. They have also labeled Bush's policies as the main reason for Iran's actions across the Middle East, even though Iran has been destabilizing the region with a vast network of terror cells for decades, long before President Bush ever stepped into the Oval Office. With that, an Obama or Clinton administration with a perceived weakness on foreign policy would give Iran the opportunity to dominate the region and increase its standing on the world stage.

Replenishing a shortage of villains:

So what do the terrorists do when they're infrastructure has been destroyed and the people of Iraq have turned against them? Basically, they import some more terrorists, and Iran, Syria, and other countries export death to Iraq's cities. As I write this, I can't help but think of it as a hotline...1-800-Henchmen (remember, DieHard last year?). Well, I think that sums it up pretty good. It's almost humorous to picture Mookie Al-Sadr and the other insurgent groups getting on the phone with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his puppet masters in Tehran to order more thugs, criminals, and murderers over the border. The truth is, that might not be that far off from how it works.

The difference though, is that this is very real. It not only threatens the innocent people caught in the middle of this in Iraq and elsewhere, but the broader world as well. Unfortunately, America and our allies overseas are divided like never before, and the people who want to make the world a more dangerous place are working overtime to exploit that.

When the facts tell a different story...

On Tuesday, when speaking in Amman, Jordan, Senator John Mccain came under attack for suggesting that Al-Qaeda militants are working with Iran in their effort to bring about instability to Iraq. Sure enough, the critics came out swinging, saying that Iran and Al-Qaeda could never work together because Iran is a Shiite theocracy and Al-Qaeda adheres to a radical Sunni Muslim ideology. But then again, Iran's actions across the Middle East indicate it is a lot more interested in achieving power and influence as opposed to preserving a Shiite system of beliefs. For one thing, Iran is the primary supporter of Hamas, a terrorist group that "adheres" to the Sunni denomination of Islam. Hmmmmm...why would Iran, which is Shiite, want to work with Hamas?

From the Jerusalem Post:

A week after Shin Bet head Yuval Diskin informed the cabinet that Hamas terrorists train in Iran, a commander in the extremist militia admitted as much to The Sunday Times.

Reportedly, the group has been sending gunmen to train with Iran's Revolutionary Guards for the past two years. Currently, the unnamed commander told the British paper, some 150 gunmen are being trained.

Hamas's members enter Iran via Syria and avoid having their passports stamped. Syria is also home to "more basic training" than that given in Iran. Gunmen deemed of outstanding quality receive extra training and return to train others in Gaza.

The most promising members of each group stay longer for an advanced course and return as trainers themselves, he said. Those unfit for combat return to "serve" in a research unit.

To read more about Hamas' admission about the group's involvement with Iran, the Times Online gives a more detailed analysis.

Anyway, so maybe that debunks the incorrect assumption that terrorists who adhere to different beliefs are unwilling to put that aside for the sake of fighting a common enemy, which in this case would be Israel. But Mccain specifically mentioned Al-Qaeda. While any connections to Iran and the notorious Al-Qaeda in Iraq seem more sketchy, it has been documented in the 9/11 commission Report that Iran may have looked the other way as AQ terrorists were passing through its borders. It's also been suggested that Iranian officials maintained contact with AQ's leadership.

Then there's the allegations that suggest Iran is supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan. If you listen to the critics, the Iranians would never do such a thing, seeing as the Taliban, like Al-Qaeda, are "Sunni extremists". But there's one thing Iran might regard as more of a threat than the Taliban--a democratic Afghanistan on its doorstep. Indeed, if the Afghan reconstruction efforts succeed, it could be a severe blow to Iran's attempts to clamp down on the pro-democracy movement inside its own borders. Therefore, is it all that surprising that the Iranian soldiers patrolling the border would be willing to pass off caches of weapons to Taliban insurgents if they knew if was going to be used to kill American and coalition soldiers?

In the end though, these people--Iran, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and the Taliban--betray everything the religion of Islam teaches by murdering innocent people and justifying violence by holding a Koran in one hand, and an Ak-47 or a bomb detonator in the other. If they are okay with doing that, why would they care if they had to work together with a group that has hijacked a different denomination?

I do not know what Mccain was thinking when he made the statements. Maybe he has researched this issue and read through some of the reports (like the ones I've linked to) or maybe he just assumed that terrorists are all like-minded murderers in the end. One thing's for sure though, no matter what they believe, both Iran and Al-Qaeda are determined to prevent progress towards reconciliation in Iraq, and are willing to kill those who get in their way.

Frightening

The words of Barack Obama's Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, are disturbing. At times, you have to wonder if this guy actually believes what he is saying. To be fair, Obama has distanced himself from the comments, but nevertheless, these anti-American tirades are frightening.

However, Obama should explain to potential voters why he has been attending this particular church for so many years.

If only it were this easy...

The race to become the leader of a superpower is no easy battle. To do so, one must raise a lot of money, know the issues, have experience, and appeal to the people--the voters who will decider whether or not they are fit to be leader. The current race for president here in the United States is a perfect example of just how difficult this accomplishment is. Just look at the ongoing battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, along with John McCain's struggle to win over conservative voters.

But what if it was easier? What if Hillary Clinton could simply decide that Barack Obama was not fit to be president and had the government shut his campaign down? What if President Bush decided he wanted to have a conservative in the White House in '09, and appointed Dick Cheney as the republican nominee, while eliminating the most serious challengers on the other side. Sure, to make sure it still looked like a "fair" election, maybe he would allow someone like Ralph Nader or Ron Paul to run, but in the end, his choice would end up being the victor. Yep, it would be pretty easy to hold onto power if you were in control of who could and could not run.

In Russia, that is exactly has happened. President Vladimir Putin, who is barred from running for a third term under the Russian Constitution, appointed a hand-picked successor to replace him. On March 2nd, Dmitry Medvedev, Putin's candidate, was elected to office with over 70% of the vote. Of course, its always a lot easier to win if the most formidable opponents are banned from running, protesters are beaten in the streets, and critics meet suspicious deaths. Now that he is stepping down as president, Putin is expected to take the role as Prime Minister...while his buddy Medvedev will serve as President. The most likely scenario is that Putin will be able to continue on with his current policies, while holding onto a seat of power.

This shouldn't be a surprise though. President Bush might consider Putin to be a "good man", but the west should have been able to see this coming. For years, Putin has been attempting to rebuild Russia's image by consolidating power across the region. His regime has restricted free speech and he has increased the production of military weapons, all while supporting countries like Iran and helping them enrich uranium.

It sure is an interesting way to hold on to power though, isn't it? If the bad blood between Clinton and Obama seems bad, or the antics of Anne Coulter attacking John Mccain seem intense, then you just need to have a look at what's unfolding in Moscow. Not to mention, some Americans might be unhappy with our current president, but at least they can verbally attack him without having to worry about being beaten or arrested.

One thing's for sure, Vladimir Putin is a scary man. Whoever wins the presidential election this November, he/she will have the task of dealing with Putin and the KGB...and it will not be easy.

Some thoughts on Barack Obama and what his presidency would mean for this country

I read a post by Iraqi Mojo earlier about Barack Obama and his surging popularity, along with the challenges he could be facing (his middle name among other things). Well anyway, it got me thinking "what if this guy actually wings the presidential election this November?" After all, he's poised to crush Hillary Clinton in the upcoming primaries, and more and more Americans seem to be desperate for "change" these days.

To give my personal opinion, I like Obama. I think he is a good, honest man who for the most part stands up for what he believes in. He's managed to attract Americans from all walks of life and seems to have the ability to be a uniter, as opposed to the divisive and polarizing figures presidents Bush and Clinton were and have been. However, as Dennis Miller put it on the O'Reilly Factor the other day, "He has everything except my vote." Indeed, I could not cast a vote for Obama, not at this time anyway.

Why? Well his position on Iraq is the main reason. He tends to embrace the far-left's stance, which is that the war was a big mistake and we need to get out as soon as possible. Obama has pledged to begin withdrawing troops soon after he takes office, and I believe that would be a disaster. If he would re-evaluate his position (and I don't think that will ever happen), I might be more supportive of him. To simply jump on the "Bush lied people died" bandwagon in an attempt to score votes is ignorant and just plain stupid. Obama can condemn Bush's handling of the war all he wants, but the fact is, ridding the world of a terrible human being like Saddam Hussein was justified and necessary. And even if he is opposed to going into Iraq in the first place, a seemingly intelligent man like Barack Obama should be able to foresee the humanitarian disaster that would tear the country apart if it does not have a functioning government and security force before U.S. troops begin packing up. If the so-called antiwar movement is alarmed by what the terrorists have been doing in Iraq these last few years, then they have a rude awakening coming if these evil people are able to operate unabated...and it would be a crying shame if that were to happen after so much progress has been made in Iraq. The horrific images of rebel militiamen terrorizing innocent people and burning villages across Eastern Congo and the forgotten jungles of Africa could be making their way into the streets of Baghdad if Iraqis, Americans (both liberal and conservative), and the international community do not find a way to work together in the best interest of the Iraqi people.

The other problem I have with an Obama presidency is his proposal to deal with countries like Iran, Syria and North Korea. Obama has pledged to meet Iranian officials face to face, and I also think that would be a big mistake. Giving legitimacy to the bloody theocracy in Tehran or the brutal regime of Bashar Assad in Syria would be harmful and counter-productive. In reality, if you are going to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the leader of a country that has sworn to destroy Israel and arms terror groups all over the globe, why not propose a face-to-face meeting with Mullah Omar and other Taliban leaders in Afghanistan? Secondly, as strange as this sounds, President Bush is another good example of naive diplomacy. Yes, President Bush regularly holds talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom he has referred to as a good man. I'm sorry Mr. President, but Vlad is not our friend...far from it in fact. While we've been trying to convince ourselves that Putin is our friend, he has consolidated power in Russia and has supported some of the world's most dangerous men, like Kim Jong Il in North Korea and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Numerous political opponents have also met suspicious deaths, and Russia's recent acquisition of new weaponry certainly raised questions. Therefore, if Barack Obama decided to buddy up with Ahmadinejad and reach a mutual understanding regarding his country's nuclear program, who to say a similar debacle will not happen?

In the end, Barack Obama may be the right man to solve some of the domestic problems going on here at home...he might even be able to serve as a uniter between the ideologues and haters in Washington who spend more time bashing each other than actually solving problems. However, his views on foreign policy are questionable, if not simply misguided and wrong.

What ever happened to the old phrase "United We Stand"?

These last few days have shown just how divided Americans are over how to move forward. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to fight for the Democratic nomination while John Mccain continues to struggle in his quest to win over the conservative voters. The dissatisfaction with Senator Mccain was more than apparent on Saturday when Mike Huckabee scored symbolic victories in Louisiana and Kansas. With Romney out, Huckabee appears to be the only candidate left for the far-right of the conservative movement and Republican party to embrace.

From the AP/Fox News:

James Dobson, one of the nation's most prominent evangelical Christian leaders, backed Mike Huckabee's presidential bid Thursday night, giving the former Arkansas governor a long-sought endorsement as the Republican field narrowed to a two-man race.

In a statement first obtained by The Associated Press, Dobson revisited his declaration on Super Tuesday that he could not in good conscience vote for John McCain, the front-runner, because of concerns over the Arizona senator's conservative credentials.

Dobson said given the situation at that point, he was reluctant to choose between "two pro-family candidates whom I could support" _ Huckabee and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

But Dobson wrote that Romney's announcement Thursday that he was suspending his campaign "changed the political landscape."

"The remaining candidate for whom I could vote is Governor Huckabee," Dobson said. "His unwavering positions on the social issues, notably the institution of marriage, the importance of faith and the sanctity of human life, resonate deeply with me and with many others ... Obviously, the governor faces an uphill struggle, given the delegates already committed to Senator McCain. Nevertheless, I believe he is our best remaining choice for president of the United States."

So that's it, huh? The far-right of the conservative movement is perfectly willing to abandon John Mccain for a man who has actually suggested that the Constitution needs to be more in line with the word of God...a man who by his own admission knows very little about foreign policy. Never mind the real problems...like political terrorism and the blood-soaked regimes that support it...the most important issues to these people is preventing same-sex couples from marrying and protecting unborn fetuses and embryos.

Finding Unity:

No matter who wins the election in November, it is essential that he/she finds a way to bring everyone together and appeal to all sides. While his intentions have been good, its hard to dispute that George W. Bush has divided this country to an unprecented level. Today, we have far-left protesters attacking military commanders simply because they have positive news to report from Iraq, we have crazed loons preaching 9/11 conspiracy theories, and we have right-wing Christians proclaiming that marriage and abortion are the most important issues. But perhaps the most harmful rhetoric comes from the anti-Bush crowd and their claims that the Bush Administration is "hyping up" the terror threat, even as Al-Qaeda and other groups continue to carry out horrific atrocities across North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia, while directly threatening Europe and Western interests abroad. Bush has done a terrible job at bringing people together, there's no doubt about that, but the people who are opposed to him have inflicted just as much harm on the unity in the "United" States. What was once open-minded political debating is now nothing more than ranting, hatred, and anger. That point was made obvious back in October, when CA congressmen Pete Stark accused President Bush of getting "amusement" over the deaths of soldiers in Iraq, as ridiculous as that sounds.

It's fair to say that the debate over how to solve the problems facing this country is not about right and left, but right and wrong. We're never going to get anywhere unless our leaders spend less time defending their ideologies, admit that everyone has made mistakes, and start working together.

The "right" has gone wrong

We have breaking news here at United World...Ronald Reagan is no longer relavant. If the man is mentioned one more time, I don't know what I'll do. These propaganda attacks by right-wing commentators like Anne Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh against John Mccain are ignorant and unwarranted. Mccain is a good man who has much to offer. He has the ability to serve as the uniter this country so desperately needs (yes, that is a "United World Endorsement").

There's no question that Senator Mccain has split with the conservative movement and Republican Party on numerous occasions. However, that's not necessarily a bad thing. With the events happening around the world (see the two posts below), meaningless issues like gay marriage and tax cuts don't really matter in the bigger picture. Hopefully, all of these angry conservatives will realize that.

To sum it up, I have a link to the latest article from author and Front Page Magazine contributor Kenneth R. Timmerman. In it, he makes a pretty good point about what the most important issues are, inlcuding the Islamic Republic of Iran, Al-Qaeda, and Vladimir Putin's Russia.

While I don't always agree with them, I've always admired Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity for standing up for what's right. Today however, it looks like they are focusing more on the ideology of "conservatism" than the things that matter.

John Mccain's victory speech

NH voters decided to go with John Mccain, a moderate, free-thinking candidate who is not afraid to speak out against the fringe movements in Washington, both far-right and left, just as he understands how important it is for the US to finish the mission in Iraq.

Great new Giuliani ad

I think Mike Huckabee and all of his supporters should take a minute to watch this.

Losing touch with reality?

Well, I was right. Barack Obama did win the Iowa caucus yesterday, and like I said I would, I congratulate him over his victory. However, there are some rather alarming results that have come up as well.

First of all, Iowa's conservatives decided to go with Mike Huckabee, a man who by his own admission claims to know nothing about foreign policy. The far-right is so wrapped up in its obsession over abortion and gay rights that they completely overlooked the two republican candidates who see the broader picture: Rudy Giuliani and John Mccain. Last week I was listening to Sean Hannity's radio show when a man called in and proclaimed that he would not be voting for anyone who was pro-choice or in favor of gay marriage. Seeing as Mike Huckabee is a step closer to taking the GOP nomination, it looks like that's where the lines are drawn: between right and left. No one out there seems to care about right and wrong.

While I was disappointed that Huckabee one last night, I was even more alarmed that Ron Paul was the winner of a Myspace primary conducted recently. I know, I know, it's just a stupid Internet poll, but that website has millions of users...I wouldn't be surprised if more people voted in the Myspace poll than in the Iowa caucus, where only about 100,000 people from farm country go out and vote. Paul also came in fifth place in Iowa...ahead of Rudy Giuliani and Duncan Hunter. The fact that this kook was able to take in more than 10% of the vote is rather frightening. Remember, this is a man who who wants to withdraw all troops from Iraq, Afghanistan, and most of the world, believes isolationism and non-intervention are the answer to solving the problems facing the international community, and launches verbal tirades on Abraham Lincoln for going to war against the south and starting the Civil War. If the majority of myspace users and 10% of Iowa caucus goers actually believe in this nut's world views, we should be very afraid. Let's not forget that this guy has also managed to raise record fundraising in very little time, so obviously there are plenty of people who are just as nutty as he is if they are willing to give him money. 10% of the people who voted yesterday have indeed lost touch with reality.

The Democrats...

It was encouraging to see the majority of democratic voters choose someone who is honest and stands up for what he believes in, as opposed to a flip-flopping phony like Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. While I don't really agree with ANYTHING Barack Obama says on foreign policy, I do commend him for standing up for standing up for his beliefs. For example, Obama has been against the Iraq War from the beginning, while Clinton and Edwards have gone back and forth, making statements over the years that often contradict each other and their original position: which was to authorize the war and take military action against Saddam Hussein. Although they would like to rewrite history, the fact remains that both Edwards and Hillary were just as anxious to go into Iraq and get rid of Saddam as Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. Despite that, Edwards just recently declared he would withdraw all troops from Iraq...including those who are helping to train the Iraqis. With all of the success we've had in Iraq, why John Edwards would want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with such an idiotic statement is beyond me.

Now that Iowa's over, its time to get ready for New Hampshire. United World has not made any predictions yet, but it would be good if Romney, Giuliani, or Mccain is able to beat Mike Huckabee and put and end to this extreme, far-right conservatism that is sweeping across the republican side and drowning out the voices of reason and unity. It also wouldn't be bad if Obama can manage a victory and put Clinton and Edwards out for good.

Hopes and predictions for the Iowa Caucus

Not that I'm anything close to someone who knows what their talking about when it comes to analyzing polls and predicting the outcomes of elections, but I figure I'd take some guesses. The truth is, my mind has been over in other parts of the world, in places like the Middle East, North Africa, and Russia.

As far as the Republicans go, I think Mitt Romney will win tomorrow. For the democrats, I think it will be Obama...

Yes, Barack Obama, a man who I have a lot of respect for due to his honesty. I even think he has some good ideas for solving some of the domestic issues in this country. However, I don't think he has a clue about what's going on in the world today. Nevertheless, I will be happy for him if he wins.

As I said before, my favorite candidate so far is probably Rudy Giuliani, seeing as he separates himself from the extreme right unlike so many other republicans. Unfortunately, he has a very small following in Iowa and is trailing way behind in the polls.

I also like Mitt Romney. His views about solving the problems facing the world are similar to Giuliani's, he just has a record of extremism when it comes to gay marriage. It's important to note that I'm far more concerned about about a bloody salafist terror group trying to impose its will on countries like Iraq, Algeria, and Pakistan than I am about two dudes, or girls for that matter, falling in love and getting married. A personal issue like that isn't going to blow up a cafe or cut people's heads off.

What about Mike Huckabee, the self proclaimed "dearth" on foreign policy and right-wing Christian minister who has frequently gone after Romney's mormon faith. I really don't like him, but obviously I will support him over the democratic nominee should he get the nomination.

Now, should Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, or Ron Paul ever get elected president I will be going into self-imposed exile somewhere overseas, probably in Dublin, Ireland. All of those people repulse me beyond all reason, with Edwards and Paul being the worst. Just today, Edwards announced he would pull all troops out of Iraq...even the ones training the Iraqis so they can take control of their country...and he said it with a smile on his face. The man has sold his soul to far-left bloggers and its really shameful, seeing as the man voted to authorize the war in the first place.

So here are my predictions...Romney for the republicans, Obama for the democrats. Get out there and vote Iowans.

Rudy Giuliani speaks out on Benazir's assassination

As of now, I have to say that Rudy Giuliani would be the best choice for president. I think he has what it takes to lead this country and battle terrorism. United World has not endorsed any candidate yet, but there's no doubt in he would make a good leader. He's not a religious fanatic like Mike Huckabee, he's socially liberal, and he does what he thinks his right. Issues like gay marriage and abortion are unimportant in the broader picture, and hopefully the conservative zealots who claim to care most about these issues realize that when they head to the polls. The rather disturbing developments that have been coming in this month from Algeria to Pakistan certainly remind us that their are far more dangerous threats out there than a woman deciding to terminate her pregnancy or a same-sex couple getting married (FYI...I consider myself to be 100% neutral on these issues).

Regardless of who wins in Iowa next week, central Asia is falling apart and terrorism is marching on Pakistan. Things look like they're going to get a lot worse before they get better and we need someone who knows what they're doing.

Bill Clinton's house of waffles

I was watching the news this morning and was shocked to hear Bill Clintion say he never supported the Iraq War from the beginning. In the late 90's, when the bombs were falling in Baghdad, Bill was saying that the UN weapons inspections were a sham and Saddam was working on a clandestine weapons program. In the lead up to the war, his colleagues--including John Kerry, John Edwards, and Hillary--were all calling for the invasion of Iraq to neautralize Saddams "stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction" and bring freedom to the people of Iraq. Predictably, as problems in Iraq arose and the democrats distanced themselves from the invasion, saying it was Bush's war and the "mess" was all because of mismanagement by Donald Rumsfeld, the man the democrats see as the anti-christ himself. Now its all about "changing course" in Iraq, meaning we need to declare failure. At the end of the day, politicians only care about power and Bill and Hillary are the perfect example. To be honest, I'm surprised Bill is taking an even more extreme anti-war stance on the war instead of trying to spin Hillary's waffling into supporting it. In earlier posts, I've warned that the democratic campaign for the White House is in serious danger of imploding if the American people find out the truth about what's really going on in Iraq--the facts that violence has fallen almost 80% in Baghdad and Iraqi people are rising up to fight extremism. The media is sure to do its best to try and ignore the progress, but it will only work for so long. That's why It won't be a surprise if Hillary wins the nomination and starts changing her view on Iraq AGAIN. Before today, I had respect for Bill Clinton (aside from his catostrophic decisions regarding Rwanda and Somalia). I believe he accomplished some good things for the United States during his time in office. But this just shows he is like all the other politcians. Even some republicans who have stood beside the Bush Administration are jumping ship because their terrified of losing votes. President Bush on the other hand, doesn't seem to give a rat's ass about poll numbers or how the American people feel. He does what he has to do, which means succeeding in Iraq and allowing democracy and freedom to flourish in that region. As far as the 2008 presidential election is concerned, I don't know what's going to happen. Bill and Hill's supporters obviously believe the lies they are telling them about being anti-war from the begining. Even though Iraq is turning aroud (6,000 Sunnis stepped up to man checkpoints across Iraq today), the ship has already left the dock with the anti-war movement taking hold across the US, as I've said before. I want to say the American people will somehow get smarter and reject Hillary's phony positions, but I don't know if they'll realize it by then. I don't even know how the Clinton's really do feel about issues like Iraq since they change their views according to how the country feels. I have an uncle who once told me that politicans should only be allowed to serve one term. That way they never have to worry about getting re-elected and can focus all their energy on improving this country. That's the way it should be.

What's there to say about Congressman Ron Paul?

Last month, a left-wing organizational known as moveon.org launched a vicious assault ad against an American commander, reaching a new low-point in politics. Last week, a congressman went on an anti-American rant, accusing President Bush of getting amusement from the casualties of the Iraq War. These loons might be on the liberal side, but are there people on the right who share the same misguided beliefs? Let's take a look at congressman Ron Paul. I listened to the debate today and got to hear some of his rather "unique" opinions on what's going on in the world today. He has condemned the war in Iraq, and by his own admission claims that he would pull out faster than any of the democratic presidential candidates. He says that he's a republican, believe it or not, but this guy is an isolationist, one of those "God bless America and no place else" type of people. Ron Paul's crowd thinks that all we need to do is withdraw to our own borders and mind our own business and the world will be a better place. He blames America for 9/11 and screams about all sorts of conspiracies as to why we're in Iraq right now. In truth, although his ideology is different than that of groups like Moveon.org, at the end of the day, they really aren't much different. They all despise George Bush, they hate the War in Iraq, and they believe that America is the problem in the world.