What Do Miss Americas And Afghanistan Have In Common?

At first blush, one would think, not much. But recently, a number of Miss Americas, and one Miss Utah, who is also a former sargent in the Army, traveled to Afghanistan to meet with the troops.

Oh, you might recognize one woman in particular, especially if you are a fan of The Amazing Race, as I am. Yes, Erica Kleinschmidt, one of the final three pairs in this year's Amazing Race, is one of the six Miss Americas who went. Watch it here:



Moving, isn't it? And after Obama's "Push Me, Pull Me" policy for Afghanistan, I am sure our troops needed this lift.

And for a bit of a shift, since we will be decorating our Solstice Tree today, I have a fitting tune for you. First, may I just say, I freaking love having a tree inside my house. The way it makes the whole house smell brings a smile to my face every time. Until I have to sweep up the needles on the floor, aided in their decline by my four energetic cats.

Anyway, for a little treat, here is a moving holiday tribute:



I meant "moving" in the cracking up laughing sense!

Hope you enjoyed it. I gotta get to that tree.

"Barack Obama Is No Churchill"

So the other night, Obama had his big Afghanistan speech. Finally, after months of waiting for a decision regarding the request by General McChrystal, Obama laid out his plan, pretty much what had been telegraphed to us before the speech (yet, he still had to get in his photo op and applause, lest he whither away).

Naturally, there has been lots of response to that speech, as well as the location in which Obama chose to have it. Here is one of my favorite All-Stars, Charles Krauthammer on the Speech:



Uh, yeah. Krauthammer followed up this panel with a commentary, "Uncertain Trumpet," which lays it all out.

And how about our friends across the pond? What did they think of Obama's big speech? Well, the headline alone gives it away, "Barack Obama Is No Churchill." Nope, not even a little bit:

One of the first decisions President Obama made upon taking office was to remove a bust of Sir Winston Churchill from the Oval Office and send it packing to the British Embassy. The gift, a present from the British people in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, was pride of place in the White House under George W. Bush, but was seen as surplus to requirements by his successor. Hardly a good omen for an increasingly unpopular president, whose nation is actively engaged in a global war against a brutal enemy that seeks the destruction of the free world.

Speaking at West Point last night, Barack Obama badly needed to display some Churchillian grit, but there was none on offer. As Commander in Chief President Obama has to project leadership, strength and determination before his country and his foes, as well as offer reassurance to Washington’s international allies. All were in short supply in front of the assembled cadets .The speech was less a rallying cry for victory over barbarism, than a dull professorial-style lecture that sought to justify his confused approach to the US mission in a cold and clinical fashion that simply failed to convince or inspire.

Ah, yes - the bust of Churchill that Obama could not WAIT to get out of the Oval Office. Talk about telegraphing tone - yikes.

Back to the speech itself:

Parts of the highly defensive speech were heavily partisan in nature, involving attacks on the Iraq War, as well as the previous administration’s approach to Afghanistan. He also could not resist a boast that “I’ve prohibited torture”, and that he has pledged to close down the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. For a 40 minute speech there was barely any applause from the largely muted audience, except towards the end when he spoke of American values and its distinguished history.

The president went to great lengths to avoid referring to the enemy as terrorists, and refused to use the word Islamists, preferring to refer to the war as a “struggle against violent extremism.” At times it was a weak-kneed address better suited to a group of adoring left-wing students in Paris, Strasbourg or Berlin than the US military academy. Even the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was stone-faced throughout.

After nearly three months of painful dithering over whether to launch an Iraq-style surge against the Taliban, the president disappointingly offered less than half the number of troops that his own commander on the ground had requested. General Stanley McChrystal had sought up to 80,000 soldiers to guarantee success, but was given just 30,000.

"Dithering" would be the operative word. Or, you could use "hemming and hawing," if that suits better. The point is, a decisive president Obama is not. But there is something else he is:

There was also deflating talk from the president of a clear timetable for withdrawal of forces by July 2011, a hugely risky move that hands the initiative to the Taliban and its al-Qaeda allies. In justifying his withdrawal strategy he declared America could not afford to ignore the cost of the war, which at $30 billion this year is massively dwarfed by Obama’s $800 billion pork-laden stimulus package.

Significantly, there was no mention at all of the British contribution, and the Anglo-American Special Relationship was not even on Obama’s teleprompter, let along his radar screen. Great Britain will shortly have over 10,000 troops on the battlefields of southern Afghanistan, and has lost more than 230 brave servicemen and women alongside their American counterparts. The sacrifices made by America’s closest friend deserve to be acknowledged by the US president but were met last night with callous indifference.

And there it is. Do you get the impression that the UK is not so enamored (enamoured - to be inclusive) of Obama? No doubt, it started with the removal of Churchill's bust from the Oval Office. Then came the numerous slights to Prime Minister Brown who got not so much as a State sandwich on his first visit (in stark contrast to the big huge State Dinner for the Indian Prime Minister). And then the failure to acknowledge the sacrifice of our allies in theater with us.

It all comes down to leadership:

America and the free world need stronger leadership than this. Instead of turning to Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill as role models Barack Obama has so far chosen a middle way of compromise and uncertainty. That must change if the West is to triumph in Afghanistan. The addition of tens of thousands more troops is a step in the right direction, but is simply not enough to secure victory and is dramatically undercut by the bizarre announcement of an exit in 18 months.

The war in Afghanistan is ultimately a battle between good and evil, and is essential to the defence of the United States, Great Britain, Europe and all who believe in the cause of liberty and freedom. It is a war that is vital to keeping our cities safe from attack by Al Qaeda. It must be led by a president who firmly believes that it can be won, and who is willing to commit the resources necessary to bring the enemy to its knees. Today was a huge opportunity for Barack Obama to outline a clear, coherent strategy for victory, and he spectacularly failed to grasp it.

I would have to concur with the final assessment - Obama is not a world leader. He may be a world PLACATER, or a World Courtier, but a Leader? No, most definitely is not, not by a long shot. Spiegel's take is summed up in this paragraph:

Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.

One could say that.

Since I mentioned the West Point cadets, and in case you didn't know this already:

Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond "enthusiastically" to the speech. But it didn't help: The soldiers' reception was cool.

One didn't have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama's speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan -- and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war -- and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.

Many of us are not the only ones to acknowledge the timing of the withdrawal:

For each troop movement, Obama had a number to match. US strength in Afghanistan will be tripled relative to the Bush years, a fact that is sure to impress hawks in America. But just 18 months later, just in time for Obama's re-election campaign, the horror of war is to end and the draw down will begin. The doves of peace will be let free.

Yes, so coincidental, Obama's time-frame and his re-election bid. Hahahahahaha. (Click HERE to read the rest.)

At least now others in the world are beginning to awaken to the reality that many of us knew: Obama is a Poseur, completely incapable of governing, much less acting as the Commander in Chief. His continued use of our military, including the West Point Cadets, as a "photo op" to prop him up is disturbing.

Worst of all, though, he has managed to give aid to our enemies by telegraphing to them exactly how long they will have to go underground. He has aided them in his bid to play both sides. He's not just a failed leader, but his announced withdrawal time line is detrimental to the effort, thus to our military, possibly our country. And for that, he is a disgrace.

New York Says No, New Jersey Says Probably Not, And Rick Warren SHOULD Have Said No

One more state has joined the growing list of states that will not permit same sex marriage: New York. Yes, New York which has the largest population of LGB people in the country in NY City. This headline says it all: New York State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill.

I admit, this one really shocked me, even more than Maine. What else surprised me was that it wasn't even that close a vote:

The State Senate defeated a bill on Wednesday that would legalize same-sex marriage, after an emotional debate that touched on civil rights, family and history. The vote means that the bill, pushed by Gov. David A. Paterson, is effectively dead for the year and dashes the optimism of gay rights advocates, who have had setbacks recently in several key states.

The bill was defeated by a decisive margin of 38 to 24. The Democrats, who have a bare, one-seat majority, did not have enough votes to pass the bill without some Republican support, but not a single Republican senator voted for the measure. Still, several key Democrats who were considered swing votes also opposed the bill.

Mr. Paterson made an unusual trip to the Senate floor minutes after the last vote was cast, saying, “These victories come and so do the losses, but you keep on trying.”

True, there are wins and losses, and yes, we just have to keep on trying. But there are some agencies against which we are fighting that will be difficult to overcome:

The state’s Roman Catholic bishops, who had actively lobbied against the bill, said they were pleased by the vote.

“While the Catholic Church rejects unjust discrimination against homosexual men and women, there is no question that marriage by its nature is the union of one man and one woman,” Richard E. Barnes, the executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference, said in a statement. “Advocates for same-sex marriage have attempted to portray their cause as inevitable. However, it has become clear that Americans continue to understand marriage the way it has always been understood, and New York is not different in that regard. This is a victory for the basic building block of our society.”

Not quite sure how I can read that as anything other than being unjust, but that's just me Still, this was not the overriding factor:

In the end, it was not an issue that broke down along racial lines, or even religious and agnostic divisions. In fact, nine of the Senate’s 11 black members voted in support of same-sex marriage.

“When I walk through these doors, my Bible stays out,” said Senator Eric Adams, a Brooklyn Democrat who compared the law preventing same-sex marriage with laws that kept blacks and whites from marrying. “I believe there are certain moments here where we can benchmark our lives by the votes we took.”

The debate was as personal as any to take place in the Senate chamber in years. Senators spoke of their experiences as Jews and Baptists, as blacks and women. They spoke of spending long nights contemplating their votes and the deceased gay friends and relatives who inspired their decision.

Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson, a Democrat who represents parts of the Bronx and Westchester County, spoke publicly for the first time about her gay brother, who was shunned by her family and moved to France.

“He had disappeared from our lives. And my father worried, but he could not ask him to come home,” she said, fighting back tears. Ms. Hassell-Thompson said she searched for her brother and eventually found him and asked him to come home. But he told her he was hesitant because he felt his family did not want to see him. “I said, ‘But your sister does.’ ”

Hold on, I need a moment...

Okay. Unfortunately, not everyone felt similarly:

State Senator Rubén Díaz Sr. of the Bronx made an impassioned argument against same-sex marriage, describing his continued opposition as reflecting the broad consensus that marriage should be limited to a union between a man and woman. “Not only the evangelicals, not only the Jews, not only the Muslims, not only the Catholics, but also the people oppose it,” he said.

Senate Republicans had said before the vote that they believed their members could provide a few votes for the bill.

“There may be a few, that’s very possible,” said Senator Thomas W. Libous of Binghamton, the deputy Republican leader. “Everybody’s feeling is get it on the floor and let’s vote it up or down. It’s been talked about enough. Let’s get it done. I think it’s going to be very close.”

Ms. Krueger said before the debate began that she was optimistic the bill would pass, but added, “It depends on whether Republican votes are delivered.”

But, as it turned out, not close at all.

New York has now joined a growing club:

Had the legislation passed, New York would have become the sixth state where marriage between same-sex couples is legal or will soon be permitted. But now that it has failed, New York becomes the latest state where gay rights advocates have made considerable progress only to see their hopes dashed.

Last month Maine became the 31st state to block same-sex marriage through a referendum. The Maine State Legislature had voted to legalize same-sex unions earlier this year, but opponents of gay rights gathered enough signatures to put the measure on the ballot.

Last year, California voters repealed same-sex marriage after the State Supreme Court said that gay couples had the right to marry.

Unlike in Maine, however, New York does not have a referendum process that allows voters to overturn an act of the Legislature.

The State Assembly had already approved the legislation, and Gov. David A. Paterson had said he would immediately sign the bill if it made it to his desk.

Shortly after midnight on Wednesday, the Assembly voted 88 to 51 to allow same-sex marriage. Though the Assembly has already passed the bill twice, a quirk in New York’s legislative code required the Assembly to pass the bill again before the governor can sign it.

As the vote approached advocates on both sides of the debate were pushing ahead with a last-minute effort to shore up support.

“We’re working it as hard as we can,” said Senator Eric T. Schneiderman, a Democrat who represents the Upper West Side and who supports same-sex marriage. “It feels very good right now. It feels like its going to happen. But this is an issue where some people don’t want to declare themselves until the last minute. And I think, believe it or not, I think there are one or two people who are really still torn.”

Demonstrators on both sides of the issue were relatively scarce in the Capitol on Wednesday. A small group of Orthodox Jews gathered outside the Senate chamber, one of them holding a sign that read “Gay Union/A Rebellion Against the Almighty.”

Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss of Monsey, N.Y., said he traveled to Albany to remind the Senate “that the world belongs to the Almighty, and they have to reckon with his rules and his law.”

As John L. Sampson, the Senate Democratic leader, walked into his office on Wednesday morning, he flashed a thumbs-up to same-sex marriage supporters standing a few feet from the protesters. But Mr. Sampson acknowledged he did not know how the vote would turn out.

“I’ve got my work cut out for me,” he said.

So do a lot of us, apparently.

And it doesn't stop there: A Surprisingly Dark Day For Gay Rights In New Jersey. Just next door to New York, the LGB community is engaged in a battle that they may not have expected:

Support for gay marriage in Trenton is draining away like water from a tub as nervous legislators scurry towards safer political ground.

"I can’t say I’m confident now," says Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen), a lead sponsor. "I think we still have a pretty good chance. But people are getting nervous and weak-kneed."

Bad as that sounds, know that Weinberg is spinning this as best she can. Several other senators, supporters and opponents, say the movement is all but dead.

"They’ve lost the momentum," says Sen. Kip Bateman, a Somerset Republican who considered supporting the measure until last week. "I don’t think it’s going to happen."

So mark this as a black day for the cause of gay rights in New Jersey. Marriage equality was supposed to be the big prize, the final measure of respect, a sign that gay families were indeed equal under the law.

Instead, gay couples and their children are getting another ugly reminder that their families are regarded as second-class, as something less than the families next door.

Gay activists are bitter about what they see as betrayal. Democrats, especially Gov. Jon Corzine, told them over and over to wait for this moment.

And now they are getting tepid support, or none at all.

"Many of us in the progressive movement just want to throw up," says Steve Goldstein of Garden State Equality, the state’s leading gay rights group. "Democrats put out one hand out to ask for money, and with the other they stab you in the back." (Emphasis mine.)

This is a refrain that is becoming more and more common from the LBG community. Many within the community are waking up to the realization, one shared by many women, that the DNC could care less about them, simply paying lip service and nothing more. Obama picking a homophobic, anti-choice chair for the DNC pretty much says it all.

Back to Trenton:

So what changed in the last month? Why did supporters get so nervous?

For one, Corzine’s big loss has Democrats rattled. Republican Chris Christie united his party, and did well in Democratic strongholds like Middlesex County. He didn’t emphasize the gay marriage issue, but when asked, he promised a veto.

Democrats were rattled again when voters in Maine rejected gay marriage in a referendum, the 31st state to do so.

Perhaps most important, the Roman Catholic Church in New Jersey threw its muscle into the fight. Bishops and priests spoke against it from the pulpit, and more than 150,000 parishioners signed petitions in opposition.

Several legislators said they were impressed by that show of strength, given that Catholics make up more than 40 percent of the state’s population.

"Any time you see that kind of passion, you have to pay attention," said Sen. Jennifer Beck, a Republican from Monmouth County. "You’re elected to be the voice of the people who voted for you."

Finally, there were discouraging noises from Sen. Steve Sweeney, a South Jersey Democrat who will take over as Senate president in January, replacing Sen. Richard Codey (D-Essex).

Sweeney suggested that the legislature should leave this issue aside for now, and focus instead on the economic crisis. It was pure political nonsense, because the legislature is not even considering major economic bills.

But the signal was sent.

Indeed, and it is one that seems to be appearing all too often these days. And the result is all too predictable:

So the senators began to peel off. Codey found himself counting heads to reach 21, the magic number to win passage. He couldn’t get it from Democrats, so he reached out to Republicans.

"Codey called me," Bateman says. "I’m told they (Democrats) have 14 or 15 votes on this. I told him they have one or two (Republicans) at most."

At tense moments like this, most politicians behave like herd animals. They are careful not to stray far from the pack. And if one of them gets rattled, everyone runs.

What we have on our hands today in Trenton is a bunch of scared herd animals. And it’s not a pretty thing to watch.

Only 2 percent of voters said this is the most important issue to them. And these skittish Democrats are almost all in gerrymandered districts that were drawn to ensure they win by large margins.

Ask senators privately what would happen if they all voted their consciences, and you get the same answer over and over: It would pass with votes to spare.

But our leaders, these puny men and women, are too scared to stand up and be counted.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could drum up a voter backlash against that?

Oh, I think a backlash is coming on a bigger scale, but for now, the message is all too clear: Members of the LGB community are not equal.

And then there is someone who SHOULD have said no, and that would be noted Homophobe, Pastor Rick Warren, he of Obama's Inauguration fame. Pastor Warren is getting notice for what he would NOT do:

Rick Warren Refuses To Condemn Proposed Ugandan Law Executing Gay People

That would be President Obama's friend Rick Warren. Rick Warren who says he even ate dinner with a gay couple once. Rick Warren who says he doesn't hate gay people. Funny, then, that Rick Warren refused to condemn Uganda's proposed legislation to executive people for being gay and HIV positive. From Newsweek via Box Turtle:

But Warren won’t go so far as to condemn the legislation itself. A request for a broader reaction to the proposed Ugandan anti-homosexual laws generated this response: “The fundamental dignity of every person, our right to be free, and the freedom to make moral choices are gifts endowed by God, our creator. However, it is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations.” On Meet the Press this morning, he reiterated this neutral stance in a different context: “As a pastor, my job is to encourage, to support. I never take sides.” Warren did say he believed that abortion was “a holocaust.” He knows as well as anyone that in a case of great wrong, taking sides is an important thing to do.

Oh, I'd go one further. Rick Warren has taken sides before. He did it with Prop 8. On the side of the haters. But now he won't do it when they're talking about executing gay people? Why, because it's a foreign country and Rick doesn't get involved in foreign politics, only our own? Yes, I remember well when Jesus told us all to be good Christians only in our own backyard.

I don't remember that passage and I have read the Christian Scriptures a number of times. Oh, wait - that's because it isn't in there. And, I don't remember Obama speaking out about that practice, either. Birds of a feather he and Warren.

It's hard to even know what to say at this point. It really is. It is just hard to live in a country in which so many people are willing to discriminate against you. I totally understand why the brother of the NY State senator moved to France. I, too, hope to end up living somewhere in which people see me as fully human, and where my almost 14 yr relationship is deemed as worthy under the law as other of my fellow citizens. A place in which I am not just treated as equal, but seen as equal. Heaven knows, that would be some change I could believe in...

Where Al Qaeda and Health Care Collide

Who would have guessed there would be a connection between the current Health Care debate, and what's missing from it, and al Qaeda? Not me, until I read this article recently,
Let America Have The Smallpox and Anthrax Vaccines. Why is this important? Aren't we done with that whole smallpox thing? And Anthrax - wasn't that just a scare up on Capitol Hill?

Turns out, we should be mighty concerned:

“I sleep like a baby,” says U.S. Air Force Colonel Randy Larsen (Ret). “Every three hours, I wake up screaming.”

It’s little surprise that Larsen has such trouble getting shuteye. As executive director of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, Larsen spends his days and many nights visualizing mushroom clouds over U.S. cities and emergency rooms clogged with victims of biological attacks. Among his many solutions to America’s WMD challenges, this may be the easiest: Let Americans get immunized against smallpox and anthrax.

“Smallpox and anthrax are our two biggest biological threats,” Larsen tells journalists gathered here on November 16 by the Heritage Foundation. “Smallpox and anthrax are the only biological threats for which we have FDA-approved vaccines. We have enough smallpox vaccines for every American, but not enough anthrax vaccines even for 10 percent of our population. Once we increase that supply, we can take these two risks off the table.”

Let's stop there - why is there only sufficient vaccinations for 10% of the population for a deadly biological threat? Why are we not getting them? Why are they not discussing this as a critical component of ANY health care reform? Just wondering. And for good reason:

Voluntarily immunizing Americans against these two diseases would deter terrorists from plotting such attacks. Even vaccinating some Americans would create “herd immunity,” whereby those who stay healthy would impede an epidemic’s progress, much as firebreaks retard advancing infernos.

Larsen’s commission offered this sobering conclusion last December: “Unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013.”

Holy crapoli - that is a most sobering assessment. It gets worse: In an October 21 progress report, this bipartisan board cautioned that “a one- to two-kilogram release of anthrax spores from a crop duster plane could kill more Americans than died in World War II,” specifically, 380,000 (emphasis mine). “Clean up and other economic costs could exceed $1.8 trillion.” “Dark Winter,” a June 2001 high-level simulation exercise, assumed that a covert smallpox attack would infect 3.3 million Americans, one-third fatally.

A biological attack’s psychological impact would be incalculable, especially if healthy Americans saw their smallpox-infected neighbors as contagious “enemies” to be shunned.

That is a staggering number - more people could be killed by a relatively small amount of anthrax than died in WWII. And the idea that smallpox-infected people would be shunned, and viewed as "enemies" is a threat I can see played out in my mind's eye, unfolding like a Hollywood movie.

There is more, and this will make you sit up straight in your chair:

America’s Islamofascist enemies have stayed busy in this sphere.

“I was directly in charge…[of] the Cell for the Production of Biological Weapons, such as anthrax,” Khalid Sheik Mohammed told a Guantanamo military tribunal on March 10, 2007. KSM was 9/11’s chief architect and al-Qaeda’s self-described “Military Operational Commander.”

The Commission’s crop-duster scenario was conceived after Americans discovered two Afghan anthrax laboratories. “The 9/11 Commission Report” says Jemaah Islamiah agent Yazid Sufaat “would spend several months attempting to cultivate anthrax for al Qaeda in a laboratory he helped set up near the Kandahar airport.”

Interestingly enough, Sufaat was captured thanks to information that American interrogators gleaned after waterboarding KSM. Had America not dampened KSM’s nose, US soldiers or civilians already might have had Sufaat’s anthrax up their nostrils.

“Four pounds of anthrax…carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the US, are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single hour,” laughed Kuwaiti professor and terrorist sympathizer Abdallah Al-Nafisi in a speech broadcast February 2 on Al-Jazeera and translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute. “One person, with the courage to carry four pounds of anthrax, will go to the White House lawn, and will spread this ‘confetti’ all over them, and then will do these cries of joy. It will turn into a real ‘celebration.’”

Four pounds - smaller than a regular size bag of flour - is all it would take to kill 350,000 Americans. It boggles the mind, or at least, mine.

With our current border control issues, I think we can all see how this could happen. Especially when I tell you that the Obama Administration, in its infinite wisdom, has decided to CUT the number of border patrol agents, by a total of 384. I thought that was ridiculous when it was just a matter of the current stream of illegal immigrants getting into our country as is, much less when the specter is raised of an Anthrax-bearing al Qaeda terrorist is coming through the tunnels.

There are, of course, issues with widespread vaccinations:

Today’s dilatory federal rollout of swine flu shots offers little confidence that government can deliver smallpox and anthrax inoculations with speed and tranquility, especially after a shocking attack turbocharged public anxiety.

Instead, these vaccines should reach thousands of hospitals, clinics, and doctors’ offices now. Americans calmly could request them during routine medical visits, rather than overwhelm government agencies amid widespread panic after thousands of citizens have fallen ill — or worse.

Al-Qaeda and other vicious killers surely have a “To Do” list of horrors they would love to hurl at us infidels. Let’s deny them at least these two potential murder weapons.

Mr. Murdock, a New York-based commentator to HUMAN EVENTS, is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

I don't know about you, but this scares the bejesus out of me. Our borders are already porous, through no fault of the border control guards - there are simply too few of them, and fewer now, thanks to Obama. I cannot even IMAGINE the logic - or lack thereof - that went into that decision, but this very real scenario, by a respected member of the Intelligence Community, should give us all pause.

There is a solution, though, and a relatively painless one at that. Vaccinations would solve the immediate problem, and minimize the potential threat. The time is not soon enough, especially if an attack of Anthrax is imminent. Even still, better to begin now than wait until it is too late.

Now, about those border guards...

Before The BIg Speech on Afghanistan

The contents of which we pretty much already know at this point (thus raising the question why we still have to listen to Obama), a whole bunch of people are protesting the expected surge. One group is Code Pink:



Another person who thinks we care what he has to say is Michael Moore, that arrogant, sanctimonious windbag (okay, okay - I admit it - I own Fahrenheit 9/11 and used to like him), who seems to think he is both a military strategist and a member of the Intelligence Community. He wrote Obama a letter laying it all out for prior to the speechifying. Moore says Obama should NOT listen to the generals on the ground regarding Afghanistan because we are a civilian nation. In other words, he thinks the generals should be told what to do by the likes of Moore, apparently, as opposed to listening to the people who are actually in theater. I guess Moore missed it when Obama was campaigning and made the claim that Agfhanistan was going to be his primary focus in the War on Terror. Oh, right - no one actually listened to what he said, just the melodic, dreamy way in which he said, it.

Excuse me - I have to go throw up now.

Don't take my word for it. Here's Obama in his own words (you won't have to wait long for it):



It gets better. Moore, with his apparent connections to the Intelligence Community, claims there are fewer than 100 members of Al Qaeda still in Afghanistan. Now, I know a bunch of people have gone to Pakistan. I get that. But, where the hell is Moore getting this information, which, if true, I assume might be classified? I'm just wondering.

Te letter goes on (and on). Feel free to click HERE if you care to read any more of it.

You can watch the speech tonight, if you wish. Or you can read this NY Times article and get the scope. I can bottom line it for you: 30,000 troops over 6 months, not as many as Gen. McChrystal wanted, but big surprise there. And, Obama will set a timeline for when the US will start pulling back those reinforcements. You're welcome!

Bottom line, Mr. Moore, and Code Pink - Obama s actually keeping one campaign promise, even though he dragged his feet for months before he did it. Believe you me, no one is more surprised than I am. And maybe now you know you should have actually paid attention to the "Words, Just Words" that were coming out of his mouth during the campaign and not being lulled into your Obama LaLaLand of Happy Rainbow Unicorns. Just a thought.

Oh, just in case you don't know this about me, I am not a war hawk, not by a long shot. But on this, going after the people who attacked us, I think we are right, Code Pink and Michael Moore notwithstanding. Do I wish we had accomplished our mission there already? Absolutely. Should we leave before we do? No. That sends a dangerous message - people can attack us, and after a while, we'll just give up on finding them. These are patient people. They will wait until our guard is down. I don't see how we can afford not to continue in Afghanistan until the job is done. Can you?