Police Chases now in Question?

At 10:42pm near Atlanta, Victor Harris was clocked going 73 mph in a 55 mph zone by Coweta County deputy, Clint Reynolds. Rather than stopping, Harris sped up and fled the officer. At this point, Deputy Timothy Scott joined the pursuit.

When Harris took the chase into a mall parking lot, Scott attempted to block him from exiting with his crusier. Harris, however, seemed to have other plans as he simply rammed the cruiser and kept going. As the chase progressed, it led to speeds upwards of 90 mph on small roads.

At this point, Scott requested permission to initiate a PIT (Precision Intervention Technique) maneuver with the hopes of ending this chase without anyone getting in harms way. He was granted permission from the shift supervisior over the radio, "Take him out, take him out." Upon hitting the rear of Harris's car, Harris lost control and sent his car off the road, ending up in a ditch...paralyzed.

Now Harris is suing Deputy Scott, and the department, for his maneuver. He claims that this was a violation of his 4th Amendment rights and a usage of excessive, deadly force. His attorney has stated that the police could have simply continued the pursuit or ended it and shown up at his home later.

This is a joke, right? I wish it were.

This man fled from law enforcement officers, then became a danger to the community with his erradic driving. Did I mention he also rammed a police cruiser in the parking lot of a mall trying to escape? "By continuing to flee in a vehicle, the suspect does not merely seek to elude capture, but risks harming the public (intentionally or unintentionally) in the process," stated Scott's attorney. Furthermore, Harris's attorney must be lost since he thinks the police should have simply let him go and checked his home later. Yes, lets let the criminals run get away because we don't want to risk injuring them as they flee...and of course they'll be easily ready for arrest later on when we look for them.

When is this portion of our society going to stop blaming our police officers for their actions in response to the criminals they match up with daily? These brave protectors have to make difficult decisions everyday, and they only get more difficult when people begin to pick apart their efforts. With this trend, there will come a time when they do not act due to fear of backlash...then they will be hounded once someone innocent is hurt as a result. When performing their job, it is impossible to be efficient when they are given a high level of doubt in their actions.

"The reasonableness of force must be assessed from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight," noted Solicitor General Paul Clement, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer. I agree, and this suit will not fly.

This case will be entering the Supreme Court in Georgia on appeal.

New Plan in Iraq

No, this has nothing to do with the war effort. The Iraqi Cabinet approved a new legislation today that manages the country's vast oil industry, as well as distributes its wealth to many portions of the population. This is a major breakthrough in U.S. efforts to push the country's Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish groups to reach agreements and overall stability.

The plan calls for revenues to be distributed to all 18 provinces based on their given population. This plan solves the problem that have had Sunni provinces nervous, since most of Iraq's oil is in the Kurdish north and Shiite south. Prior to this legislation, Sunni Iraq feared being cut out of a fair share.

This is a huge step (yet another) for the people in Iraq as their elected representatives are working to pass legislation. We are close to victory as we are continually seeing positives in the country that has been torn for over 25 years. With Iraq's economy now beginning to pick up speed, more and more people will begin to come to the table and become a part of the new beginning. The future is bright.

An Invitation...

To Alex Wernquest of the University of New Haven,

This is in response to your comment on my post: Lost Liberals. I thank you for all the attention you've granted me in recent weeks. Maybe not so much the personal attacks, but I'll let that slide.

First off, the Charger Bulletin did print your letter. Maybe you missed it. Very interesting points, I thank you for pointing out the errors in my arguments. This past week, I submitted a second work to the Bulletin that covered your points and strengthened the argument that I put forth.

Now, I want to make an invitation. Since you seem so confident in your arguments and feel the need to attack me personally, I want to give you an opportunity that would get you out of the confines of your room and computer screen. Lets get it all out on the table, shall we? Our radio show is on WNHU Mondays, Noon to 2pm...I welcome your presence at anytime, simply let me know beforehand and we'll have a seat and mic waiting for you. If you would not like that venue, we can definitely work something else out. Let me know what is best for you, the ball is in your court.

Just do me a favor...when your making an argument, stick to the facts. I don't mind that your facts are weak and poorly utilized, but when you attack me on personal aspects, you lose credibility.

If it makes you feel better, I will go on the record and apologize for spelling "Allah" and "loosing" incorrectly. As for my sense of humor, I hope you catch up some day.

By the way: Christianity (or any religion) is very relevant in a political argument as politics is the facilitator between the people and legislators. The people in this country are very religious, weighing in at over 78% Christians. Other notable factions: Judaism at 1%, Muslim & Islam at 1% and Atheists at 10%.

Stalling for time in Iran

Earlier today, Iran's Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, issued a statement claiming that the United States could not endure another war and pushed the idea that negotiations is the best way to deal with the current nuclear standoff.

I'm sorry, but this is a load of bull. This past week, Iran ignored a UN sanction to halt nuclear development, even going so far as to building hundreds of new centrifuges. The United States (us) has taken this very seriously, vowing to take care of this threat if necessary. Dick Cheney said that the U.S. was working with it allies to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear weapons programs, and that it was Washington's preference for that to happen peacefully. He concluded, "But all options are still on the table."

As far as I can tell, Iran is stalling. They have been caught, numerous times. Their leader has been quoted in public stating his hate for Israel and the western world, as well as his intentions to acquire nuclear weapons. Now they are using the division here at home over the current war in order to try and prevent us from taking action against their nation. This has essentially turned into a situation where Iran is teasing us and saying we can't stop anything they are doing because "America in [is not in] a position to impose another crisis on its tax payers by starting another war in the region."

Are they serious?

The answer is yes, very serious. On top of that, they are right. Without being united here at home, they know that they can push us around politically on this issue. They also know that the only way we will unite against them is if another attack comes to our people...by then will it be too late? Time will tell.

In my mind, they have broken the rules and should pay dearly. I think this show of who can flex their muscles the most in the middle east needs to come to an end...and we are the nation that needs to do it.

Lost Liberals: Bin Laden, 9/11, WMD's and Iraq

This will be my tribute to a new category of individuals in the political arena, the Lost Liberal. Although they have been prevalent the past couple years, their arguments are rarely exposed...so here I go.

First off, some of you claim that we are not any safer today than we were on 9/11. Really? Maybe you have forgotten the 5+ years of safety here at home where not 1 American live has been lost to an act of terrorism on our soil. Don't think there have not been attempts.

No, none of the 19 hijackers were Iraqi. So why did we invade Iraq? Saddam Hussein and his regime were killing their own people in massive numbers, threatening our allies and violated 16 UN sanctions over 12 years as he was suspiciously doing SOMETHING. In that time, the UN, CIA, Hillary Clinton, France and many others (aka: everyone) believed he possessed WMD's or was attempting to acquire them. However, you blame the current administration...why? Because it's politically convenient. Additionally, Saddam also publicly announced his support for terrorist organizations and harbored them. I was all for the invasion, but maybe you forgot the famous words immediately following 9/11 "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." Quick note: Many of the hijackers on 9/11 entered this country on Iraqi visa's and Iraqi passports...

Now, one other mistake that short-sighted people make is comparing this fight to other wars. This is not a fight against a country or nation, it is a fight against a sect of radical ideologues who fight under no flag. Therefore, we need to go wherever they are welcomed and supported to ensure they are not allowed to enter our borders and kill again. I understand that it's easy to be complacent, as our fight against them has been very successful.

What about Bin Laden? Well, if he isn't dead already, he's hiding in a cave somewhere hooked up to a defibrillator cursing the progress we've made against his forces (maybe asking Ala why he's loosing). I am proud to say that we are focusing on his followers who are fighting our soldiers right now and would gladly fight you if given the chance. I will say this: When Bin Laden and Saddam meet in Hell, they will be sure to compare notes on how Osama "awakened the sleeping giant" and Hussein got called on the biggest bluff of all time.

Finally, to all of you who say those of us who support our nation's efforts should be joining up and fighting, please read my taking of that Poor Argument. Also, if we all went off, who would be here to tell you your wrong and make sure you don't cut off the protectors?

With that, lost liberals, I welcome you to the political table. Your rants that focus on the past and lack the full scope of things have certainly changed the political landscape. As always, I look forward to/welcome your opposition (and hopefully some new points).

A Win with Guantanamo Bay

The District of Columbia Circuit Appeals Court ruled 2-1 that civilian courts could no longer rule of whether or not the military is legally holding foreign suspects. This is a huge victory for the current administration and their Military Commissions Act, which was pushed through last year to set up a system to prosecute terror suspects. Keeping detainees out of the US Court system was a major aspect of the act.

Although this will more than likely be appealed to the Supreme Court, it should stand up to their votes as well. It was the Supreme Court that struck down the last plan for prosecuting terror suspects, prompting the creation of the Military Commissions Act.

What needs to be realized here is that those who are detained for terrorist acts against any facet of society is not entitled to the same rights US citizens are granted under the constitution. Once we get into the international arena, the responsibility of dealing with terrorists falls onto the military.

I'm sorry, but I am not going to grant the same rights we are promised as US citizens to the hijackers of 9/11 and their counterparts.

"Piss on the Troop's Head's and tell them its Raining..."

I encourage everyone to check out the works that come from our troops. You can read their words and browse their blogs at http://www.blackfive.net/. Here are some quotes:

"You (Sen. Carl Levin and Democrats) only want to cut off funds for any missions that might lead to victory, but you want to make sure you fund the defeat. Remarkably calculating and extremely cold-blooded as you leave enough troops there to manage the defeat and any lives lost only prove your position that it was a lost cause."

"If the Dems block these troops, we're screwed. We need them. We are as effective as we can be right now, but with more personnel we could be doing a lot more. They are doing it for political reasons and I hope it bites them in the ass come election time, because if they win it is definitely going to bite me in the ass here."

"Support the commander in chief. He is doing the right thing, against all odds and against the public opinion polls. There's a good reason I don't run my Platoon by public opinion. If I did we would probably spend our time here living inside the wire."

"Boys, you've got to have faith. We're winning this war, just like we've said all along. As long as we don't surrender and walk away, we will have the victory. Faith and time are all it's ever needed."

"Piss on our head's and tell us its raining..."

These quotes are not just from this website, but the other soldier's works linked along the side as well. Enjoy.

Lack of Support

"What I would say to members of Congress is: Calm down and take a look at what's going on, and ask yourself a simple question: If you support the troops, would you deny them the reinforcements they think are necessary to complete the mission?"'

Tony Snow's words ring true as the Senate Democrats stated earlier today they may attempt to hinder Bush's ability to "wage war" in Iraq. The idea calls for the passing of a more limited version of the 2002 measure that approved the use of force against Saddam as he violated his 16th UN resolution in 12 years. Essentially, the Dems would like to include restrictions on where and how our forces could fight, hopefully pulling them out of a majority of the action and away from the violence.

They never quit, do they? What they fail to see is that by hindering the Commander and Chief's ability to fight the war, they are preventing our troops on the ground from fighting the enemy as well. This just exposes that our current Democratic party is simply fighting politics against the Republican President...not a war against the insurgencies that would love to see their opponents held back on the battlefield. A measure that pulls support from our soldiers will never pass, and will just upset the American people.

Harry Reid says this is a "very deep hole. We need to find a way to dig out of it." Is he serious? Everyone was on board with bringing down the evil regime in 2002 and so on...but now its politically convenient to speak out against it. We are not in a "hole," Harry, we are involved in a fight against a dangerous enemy that needs to be put down, not empowered. Keep it up and that is what will happen.

Yes, Cut the Funding for our Protectors...Great Idea

Now that the congress has failed to pass the purely symbolic, non-binding resolution against the troop surge, they are going to focus on something I did not think they had the fortitude for: The funding for the war.

The White House released the following statement. "This week's voting gave the world a glimpse of democracy's vigor...The next votes should provide unmistakable assurance of this nation's resolve in achieving success, supporting the cause of democracy, and stopping terrorist forces in their ultimate aim of bringing their violence to our shores."

Glad to hear it, I look forward to the debate. Essentially, the democrats are going to try and prove they are not completely full of it when they speak out against our efforts by trying to cut funding for the war. This would force the president and our forces to cut back as well. Great message to send to our soldiers...and they enemy they face. John McCain put it well, stating that these measures were a "waste of time" and "insulting to the public and the soldiers." The way I see it, we have a General on the ground in Iraq saying he needs the additional troops in order to secure the dangerous parts of Iraq (Sunni Triangle), and politicians here at home attempting to prevent that support. This only makes the conditions more dangerous. By the way: Outside of the Sunni Triangle (major Baghdad region), 90% of the public in Iraq have reported feeling "very safe" in their neighborhoods (www.defenselink.mil). Give them the support to finish off the rest.

Now, what I do not get is the fact that the Democrats claim they support our troops whole-heartedly. How can that be so? They do not believe in what they are fighting for, their actions, and are now going to attempt to cut off their monetary support. This all comes after failing to pass a resolution that simply said a majority of the congress was opposed to an escalation. Do they really think a majority is going to be for cutting the funds out from under our protectors?

These are dangerous waters we are beginning to get into. Our enemies now have a group of people in this country who are attempting to cut the support of their opposition and remove them from the battlefield: The Democrats.

Start writing to your congressmen/women people...

Poor Argument

This is a simple argument that those opposed to the war use often on supporters. I myself have heard it many times, most recently from callers into the radio show.

"If you support the war so much, why not go off and fight it yourself?"

I personally cannot stand hearing this weak argument for the simple fact that one must assume a couple things:

1. Those who are not fighting are not true supporters
2. Those who are not true supporters do not really believe the cause is right or true

They use this point to try and show a fallacy in the points people like myself use to support the war. With that, we have forgotten a key aspect in our society that has made us strong in the past: The war effort touches everyone. Whether you be a soldier on the front line, factory worker, engineer, or consumer in our economy, we are all a part of this war on one aspect or another. Just because one isn't fighting does not mean they have nothing to do with our national effort for security and freedom. Supporters are key.

What is support today? It is taking a stand and believing our efforts are true. It is having faith in the actions of our brave troops overseas (It is also being public about that faith). Putting up the above argument places a separation between the people and our protectors. Not a safe mindset to hold in time of war.

Now, for those of you who have thrown this argument to me or planned to in the near future: I received my Army information packet today. I do believe in our efforts and have faith in victory. Yes, so much so that I will gladly fight to protect these freedoms we all enjoy here at home.

Just because I feel my place is there does not mean this applies to everyone. Do not go and crucify those who do not follow, yet still stand in the face of your criticism to show support for those who protect our country. In these dangerous times, against this determined enemy, that we need people like them.

To close, those against the war are more than welcome to hold their views, that is one of the freedoms we fight for. Nevertheless, to argue against us by claiming we truly do not believe in our words is a terrible way to make a point. Argue with the facts and make a point. I welcome it.

Quick note: It can be easy for you to be complacent as you sit safely in the corner of your room, strum your guitar and spew nasty messages and poor arguments at people like myself...just remember who is out there fighting to keep that corner of yours so safe.

Iran: Stop it, or you are Next

This (above) is going to be my message to Iran. Now if I only ran the nation...

However, we do have a President and administration that has come out strong against Iran, their support of the militants in Iraq and their continued enrichment of uranium. The past couple of days have also been interesting. The time line goes as follows:

1. Secretary of Defense Gates, "U.S. Has Evidence That Iran's Helping Insurgents in Iraq."
2. Iran then Denies U.S. Charge That It Is Arming Terrorists in Iraq
3. The Democrats then Urge Administration to Go Slow With Iran Evidence

To sum it all up, the Pentagon decides to release portions of the evidence we hold linking Iran to the terrorist insurgents. Iran, of course, denies any involvement. With that, our amazing Democratic party decides to push the administration to "go slow with Iran." Going slow with a nation like Iran sounds a bit dangerous to me. They are supplying our enemies with mass amounts of training, arms and explosives (the leading killer of our troops in Iraq). Maybe we need to wake them up and remind them why you don't mess with the most powerful nation on the planet.

I may sound a little high and mighty myself here, but there is a point where we need to stand up against those who threaten us, our allies, and kill our soldiers. Last time I checked, those were "fightin' words."

C.W. Post RA's Fired

Another ridiculous story of those within the majority being mistreated. Five Resident Assistants at the CW Post campus of Long Island University were fired on February 2nd for creating a video for class that depicted Muslim terrorists holding a rubber duckie hostage. Subsequently, they were fired from their jobs as RA's and threatened to be expelled from the university after a Muslim group on campus considered it "culturally insensitive." The administration obviously agreed.

My beef: Why has this happened? Film majors make a comedic short film for class on terrorism, should they have used Asian females to play the roles? Course not, they were used in the nail salon parody...

See what I mean? Why can't we keep our humor where it is. Why have we become so uptight for the sake of not offending anyone in any way what so ever. If one makes the argument that they should have taken into consideration the feelings of everyone, then no video is possible to make and they should eliminate interaction between all people.

Most of the lines used in their video came from "Team America: World Police," which is written by the creators of South Park. No one went after them for their movie. You know what? No one would go after a Muslim group if they made a video of White's playing bad cops, white collar criminals, war profiteers, etc...and they shouldn't be. Leave the students alone.

All in all, the five students are suing for their jobs back and $2.5 million in compensatory damages since they have been called racists, psychologically troubled and had their video compared to the 1998 dragging death of a black man in Texas. Like I said, ridiculous. They have the support of many at the university and will not be expelled. A judge has issued an order preventing any additional punishment on the students from the university and their attorney is confident in a successful outcome.

Did you Know?

The following information is all verifiable at the Department of Defense website, www.defenselink.mil. Thanks to Kathryn Wilberding for sharing it with me...I will now share it with you all.

Did you know that 47 countries have re-established their embassies in Iraq? How about the fact that the Iraq government employs 1.2 million Iraqi people? Or that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate?

Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq? Yes, and phone usage has gone up 158%. How about the fact that Iraq has an independent media consisting of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations? Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004? Yes, in the middle of the warzone.

Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 new schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been completed in Iraq? Did you know that Iraq's higher education system now consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges as well as 4 research centers, all currently operating? How about the 4.3 million Iraqi children that were enrolled in primary school by mid October? No?

Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational? They have 5 patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment. Did you know that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operational squadrons, including 9 reconnaissance aircraft and 3 C-130 transport aircraft which operate day and night. They have also since added 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers. Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?

Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers? Or of the 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks? I didn't.

Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq? They consist of the 364 the schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities. Yes, progress for the people.

Finally, did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have now received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?

Course you didn't know. I didn't even know. The reason is because the high and mighty media sees fit not to discuss the positives of our actions, which undermines the perception of the United States. This all leads to more seperation in our society and a weaker nation overall as we stare into the face of a dangerous and determined enemy.

Snickers Bars Controversy?

This is ridiculous.

On Super Bowl Sunday, the Mars Corporation ran a commercial for Snickers, the official candy bar of the NFL. Long story short, it included two men accidentally kissing over a Snickers bar, then doing "something manly" to make up for it: Ripping out their chest hair.

I thought the ad was hilarious, as did most people. However, there is a small sect of society that disapproves, believing this spot adds to anti-gay sediment. Of course, Rosie O'Donnell and GLAAD at the head of it all. "This type of jeering from professional sports figures at the sight of two men kissing fuels the kind of anti-gay bullying that haunts countless gay and lesbian school children on playgrounds all across the country," states the Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese.

No. Wrong. If that's true, maybe they should remove all commercials that have a comical twist, because they all poke fun at one facet of society or another. Simply because the gay community has control of the microphone right now doesn't give them the right to take down whatever they please.

It gets worse: The National Restaurant Association called an ad featuring Kevin Federline as a fast-food worker demeaning to the industry. It was dumped before airing.

The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention complained about the insensitivity of the GM commercial that showed a factory robot leaping from a bridge after it was fired for a making a mistake. Their statement? "[It] is offensive to the tens of millions of survivors of suicide loss nationwide. In its carelessness, it portrays suicide as a viable option when someone fails or loses their job."

Where are we going as a society when we keep spot checking little idiosyncrasies that bring enjoyment to the majority. Rosie O'Donnell sees herself as the spokesperson for the gay community, and with that, has cost me a great commercial that was downright hilarious. There are commercials that poke fun at everything I represent as well, but you don't hear anything from me. Maybe it's because I have a sense of humor...and it really doesn't matter that much.

In the end, Snickers pulled the ad, from TV and their website. I wish they had stood their ground and refused to apologize. Now we just have one more thing added to the list of "inappropriate" material that is forbidden from everyday life. We need to fight these "controversies" that are only defined by a minority of those in this country. It changes who we are and what we stand for, going way beyond commercials and advertisements. Take notice.

Quick note: I went out and bought a few Snickers bars today...your should all partake, they are amazing.

Senate Democrats: Put up or Shut up

Earlier this week, the non-binding resolution that looked to vote a lack of confidence in the President and his plan to further support the troops was halted by Senate Republicans (and Joe Lieberman). All this resolution was going to be was an officially voted in "disagreement" with the presidents plan. It did not prevent the surge in any way and means nothing in the realm of policy making.

However, just having a measure like this proposed hurts the support and moral for those in combat (see the post below). Simply put, this was to be an official "we don't like what your doing." Speaks volumes to our troops, huh?

Another thing that baffles me here: The General who said he needed the troop surge, David Petraeus (Above Photo), was recently voted in unanimously by the Senate. Am I missing something? Or is it just bad politics? Please let me know...

Heres my beef: If those who voted for this resolution (all Democrats minus Joe) really don't like the war or President Bush's new plan, then why not introduce legislation that would cease funding, prevent the surge and force a cut back? Don't wuss out with a resolution that sounds tough but means absolutely nothing when it comes to policy. All you are doing is hurting the support here at home and overseas by putting into question the very essence of being a defender of freedom in this nation.

Now, I'll tell you why no such legislation will hit the floor of Congress...the Dems are all talk and do not possess the fortitude to deny or pull any support from the war effort. I see this as a good thing because it means that the newly elected Democrats aren't complete nuts: They recognize the importance of the War on Terror and it's essential support.

This does, however, mean they are liars. They win local elections boasting anti-war positions and basically trash talking everything that they could find in the current administration. Now the first big move from the President comes and all the Dems do to combat it is a non-binding "we don't like you." By the way, they are all up in arms about how "evil" the Republicans are for disagreeing with this resolution that does nothing.

All this does is give publicity to how unsupportive our elected representatives are when it comes to our soldiers in combat. In the end, this entire mess adds up to a more divided nation, making a tough battle even tougher. "United we stand, Divided we Fall."

Bill Arkin Rants makes NBC and the Washington Post

I know I am a week late on this story, but it keeps gaining attention and we covered just yesterday on the radio show (we only go once a week currently, but we're working on that). I am actually glad I had the delay in covering this story because so much has come of it, and I want to cover all of that as well.

Essentially you have Bill Arkin, an NBC "military analyst" and washingtonpost.com writer, who has recently come out spewing hate towards our troops fighting overseas. He began this rant following an NBC report that gave the microphone to the troops at the front lines (finally) in which soldiers were talking about how close we were to victory and how hard it is to keep pushing forward when there is a lack of support at home. 21 year old Specialist Tyler Johnson stated that critics "should come over and see what it's like firsthand before criticizing." To me, this was a quality story that needed to be heard since we have not heard it since the beginning of the fighting.

Arkin disagrees with me. "The recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work." He contends that the troops should shut their mouths and take the "obscene amenities" we (the taxpayers) give them. You can read his entire rant and recap of the NBC story here. He made a mistake by exposing who he really is...

First off: How dare you Bill...I cannot believe that someon of your mindset, who sees our armed forces as mercenaries, is allowed a voice ourside far-left blogs on the internet. Shame on NBC for hiring and promoting him as an even-minded military analyst. Washingtonpost.com, I have to beef with you because I would've expected this from your print.

Next, if you disagree with the war, fine. However, you need to recognize that if you are willing to be against what our troops are fighting for, you are inherently not in support of them. People think these troops are over there against their will (or for amazing benefits and pay according to Arkin) and do not believe in the cause.

I've said it from the beginning: The only way to get a quality view into what is going on over there, listen to those who know first hand. Thank you NBC for finally giving us a look into what our troops are saying and dealing with. I encourage everyone out there to reevaluate this war and look beyond what the high and mighty media feeds you.

Beyond that, let NBC and washingtonpost.com know how offended we as Americans are to have someone like Arkin portraying our news for us.

Senate Resolution Fails

The Senate voted today to end debate and vote on the new resolution that would end support for the troop surge of into Iraq that the President called for a couple weeks ago. The vote failed to pass, falling far short of the 60 votes required. This comes as a huge win for both the President and supporters of the Iraq War.

What baffles me is that it wasn't too long ago that the Senate unanimously voted in the new General, David Petraeus, who called for a surge of about 20,000 additional soldiers to help sweep and secure hostile areas and put down the violence. Now the Senate majority (Democrats) has decided to try and vote down this support? What message does this send to our forces overseas? It can't be reassuring.

This situation gets even more confusing when you take into consideration that some of the people who organized this resolution ended up voting against it (John Warner, R-VA). Joe Lieberman also turned heads by being the only Democrat to vote against the resolution. I love the guy because he still sticks to his guns when it comes to what he believes is right.

All in all, this is a very complicated situation...but in the end, it means nothing. The surge is going on as we speak and will hopefully spell good things for the upcoming summer months. All we can do is unite and grant our troops the support and drive that make them the best soldiers on the planet.

Running Bulls

We have a strong economy. The credit for this strong economy goto George W. and his administration which has worked to fix the high spending from early in his term. Ever since the tax cuts in 2003, our nation has seen 42 months of consecutive job growth and strong increases in the stock market. As of closing today, Both the Dow Jones industrials and the Russell 2000 index of smaller companies closed at new highs with 12,673.68 and 807.77 respectively (the Russell 2000 hitting 800 for the first time ever on Wednesday). Standard & Poor's and the Nasdaq are also up with record highs.

All of these gains come during a very successful week which included a report from the federal reserve that boasted a solid economy and inflation in check. We are in good times friends.

What I am getting at is that we are living in a tremendously good time to be an American, and even moreso if you are invested in this economy. People are making more money, unemployment is at an all-time low and the future looks bright...as long as the Democrats don't screw it up.

We have people like Hillary and John Edwards who want a $120 billion national health care system, and plan to pay for it with increased taxes to everyone. We have Nancy Pelosi who loves raising taxes so that she can go forward with endless social programs. The one thing we do not need right now is an increase in taxes. This will only hurt our economy and take money AWAY from us, the people. As far as I'm concerned, we have done a damn good job with the nations money when it's given back to us.

All in all, people are making money and spending how they see fit which is creating a strong nation economically. I pray that our new congress does not turn it around (and blame it on conservatives).

By the way, our strong economy has also helped out internationally:

• Japan's Nikkei stock average closed up 0.78 percent
• Britain's FTSE 100 finished up 1.28 percent
• Germany's DAX index closed up 0.92 percent
• France's CAC-40 rose 0.96 percent.