You know, I love the Palestinian area because there the terrorists in Hamas and Hezbollah are killing each other. It's not that I want any human being to be killed. It's just that if some evil people are willing to kill innocents, I would rather the evil people consume their time killing each other rather than having time to go out and kill the innocents they desire to kill. The more such people that kill each other, though sad, the better!

I am no way mean to equate the evil of the Democrat Party with terrorists who kill innocent people. I just mean to make an analogy regarding these character-terrorists who have mastered the politics of personal destruction (as in Judge Bork, and Judge Clarence Thomas, et. al.) in which they, like terrorists, never bother to discriminate whether the victimes of their attacks are actually guilty of anything other than disagreeing with their world-view. And especially since they aren't actually now killing each other, but their presidential candidate are just engaging in underhanded, truth-distorting, politics of personal destruction against one another, I am thoroughly enjoying the show. How about you? Come on, admit it! Aren't you enjoying it too?

It is unbelievable, though not surprising, that the media (a) is trying to convince the American people that the Michigan Republican primary today or the primary in both parties in Nevada and South Carolina next Saturday are a "must win" for any candidate, or (b) that its too late for any candidate. This is absurd stupidity.

It is so early in the process, and the process has been so biased toward liberal voters, that the MSM wants Americans, and particularly the Republican base, to believe that these early and proportionally trivially small votes are conclusive as to who is going to be nominated.

What is so absurd about this is that:

[1] the Iowa caucuses involve a very small group of people consisting of (a) people so involved in political campaigns, or (b) people with so little to do that they are willing to spend five hours one evening at a caucus debating with everyone else who shows up in the caucus--a population that has dramatically changed in the last few decades in Iowa to be a much more liberal population;

[2] the New Hampshire primary is (a) open to crossover voting, and even allows people from other states to vote by simply saying at the poll on primary day that they plan to move to NH some time in the future, and (b) had their polling places on primary day filled with buses and cars from Massachussets and other states bringing "moderates (liberals) to vote in the New Hampshire primary, biasing the Republican primary toward John McCain and Mike Huckabee;

[3] The Michigan Republican primary today only offers a total of 30 possible delegates that are divided up both by district and at large votes that are divided up proportionally to the number of votes for each candidate, so "the winner" does not receive a great advantage in the delegate race;

[4] Reality is that (a) the number of delegates decided so far has been only 112, with estimated rusults of Romney with 30, Huckabee with 21, McCain with 10, Fred Thompson with 6, Ron Paul with 2, Hunter with 2, and Ron Paul with 2, (b) only 30 delegates to be decided today, and they will be distributed both by district and at large votes to be distributed according to the popular vote, (c) only 182 Republican delegates to be decided from tomorrow through Jan 29th's so called "must win" Florida primary, (d) thus, only 142 delegates will have been decided by the end of today, and only a total of 324 by Super Tuesday on February 5; (d) On Super Tuesday alone, 1111 delegates will be decided! (e) Then 455 votes will be decided in the 22 state primaries that follow Super Tuesday, and (5) a grand total of 1900 Republican delegates will be elected, meaning that for any one candidate to win the Republican nomination, he must garner over 950 delegates.

[5] This means that prior to Super Tuesday, February 5, the number of delegates that will have been selected is less than 29.2% of the number that will be selected on Super Tuesday alone, and is only 17% of the total number of Republican delegates to the convention. So, if the race is still close, those elections after Super Tuesday could be the "must-win" elections who will decide the party's nominee. To call anything prior to Super Tuesday a "must win" election is to engage not only in sheer stupidity; is is the height of foolhardiness or total deception. I will leave it to you to decide which is the case for our MSM and our political pundits.

It is important to remember as we consider all of this that primary elections can turn on a dime. Reagan was not the projected nominee after New Hampshire in 1980. On the Democratic side, look at what happened to Howard Dean with one speech just prior to the New Hampshire primary. Until that speech and the MSM's distorted coverage of it (based on dictates from the Democrat hierarchy?) that blew up on Dean, he was the unquestioned front runner with all the momentum in the Democratic primary campaign. That was turning on a dime. But history's events can present not just dimes, but huge bombs.

The whole campaign could be altered entirely by a major gaff by a candidate, by a major revelation about some facet of a candidate's life or personal history, by a major attack by terrorists or North Korea on a NATO or Pacific nation or one of our naval vessels, or by China attacking Taiwan or making some hostile move with the massive naval force it has built up over the last twenty years. More likely, the entire campaign could drastically turn on some previously unforseen event that focusses the attention of the electorate onto some priority issue that suddenly overrdes all their previous appraisals concerning the basis upon which they should cast their vote. The one thing we know about history, including history's impact on elections, is that history will always surprise us.

A Youth With A Mission training (YWAM) center was attacked Saturday night, 2 "missionaries" killed in their beds. These are young people from churches across America who volunteer, get paid nothing, and have to raise from their families, friends, and their home churches the expenses for their mission in foreign nations, primarily 3^{rd world nations.}

Then yesterday morning during worship hours, five people were shot, killing 16 and 18 year old sisters in the "Work" family as they were getting out of their van to go into the church building at New Life Church in Colorado Springs.

Pastor Brady Boyd interviewed on Fox. Reported that:

1. Assailant had enough ammo to kill a hundred people in this large 3,000 member church whose facility covers 30,000 square feet..

2. Amazingly, the church for years has had a plan in place for such an attack, with some 20 volunteers who are trained and armed to defend the church in such an attack.

3. They had heightened the protection yesterday after the YWAM attack. One female member, a former law enforcement officer, had attended early service, and was stationed in forum at center of the church, as security when she heard the shots in the parking lot. She rushed toward the sound of the shots, found the assailant in the hallway of the church, shot him twice, killing him.

TWO ISSUES:

1. A church with armed protection? Isn’t this against command, thou shall not kill, and Christ concerning turning your cheek and loving those who persecute you?

First, the command is not to "murder" rather than "not to kill". It is commanding us humans not to presume to kill an innocent person.

Second, concerning Christ's teachings to turn the cheek, we at times confuse Christ's personal ethics for how we behave with fairly decent persons with whom we have a relationship and social ethics for societies at large. Christ never told Roman soldiers and even centurians, some of he most violent persons who ever lived, that if they became disciples of his they had to quit the Roman army. They only had to refrain from using their position of power to extort money from innocent civilians,

Third, there is no incompatibility between love of a perpetrator and protecting the innocent from the perpetrator by killing him..

When a decent person kills in order to defend innocents, they aren't the ones who made the choice that someone would die today. They only made the choice of who would die once an evil person has decided to kill—the evil person or the innocent person? That is all this woman volunteer did at the church. She didn't initiate killing anyone yesterday. She only responded once the killer began his spree by deciding that since someone was going to die, it should be the perpetrator rather than more innocents.

2. Where is the outcry by the media that this was caused by leftist politicians like Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, and John Kerry who constantly engage in hate speech against the "extreme religious right" and "fundamentalists" of all religions?

Church burnings have been increasing for decades. Where is the outcry from congress for an investigation of extremist leftist groups that could be fostering this?

Remember the instant reflex after Oklahoma City bombing to blame the extreme right’s speech, even though the reverse ended up being the truth?

This thing has been incredible since the beginning, a seeming attempt by the Justice Department if not the administration to intimidate all border agents into NOT doing their jobs and to silence all advocates of strong borders by making it look like such a position is held by hateful, murderous racists. The entire episode has been a setup of these two border agents from the beginning in which Sutton and his associates, and possibly persons above him, have cared not one wit about the truth or about justice, but have only used these two border agents as the sacrificial victims in a political game with no honor or integrity limiting the evil that could be done to further the players' agenda.

"He told some lies," March Stelmach, the assistant U.S. attorney representing U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton admitted under questioning by the three-judge panel."

Seemingly, not only has Sutton been willing to sacrifice the lives of two decent law enforcement officials for the political agenda that is driving his campaign against border agents, but he is willing to break the law by withholding evidence in a trial against those innocent men. How is this any less of an atrocity and a crime than that committed by Mike Nifong in the Duke lacross case?

Congressmen should not merely be asking for a pardon for Compean and Ramos. They should be asking for reparations to be paid out of the Justice Department's budget, and moreover, they should initiate a criminal investigation and a disbarment filing against Johnny Sutton.

It is unbelievable though not surprising that the Despotcrats and their lacky media, or visa versa (I have never been able to get clarity about which of the Despotcrats and the mainstream media are the lackies of the other) are seizing upon the "key judgements" of the NIE report to claim both that President Bush has again been "lying" and "war mongering" in his warnings about Iran's nuclear program which have been just more hype just as been the rest of the war on terror.

But there is another point that I feel is vital about this flawed report. It is the fact that WMD's are never found in terrorist states by the U.N. or the enemies of America on the left. There were hundreds of drums that were found after our troops conquered Bagdad, drums that were filled with deadly nerve agents and were stored in Saddam's missile sites all over the desert around Bagdad.

But the U.N.'s IAEA teams (on which the U.N. a year prior to our going into Iraq had replaced experienced nuclear experts with novices who had no expertise) said that these nerve agents could have been insecticides of Iraqi farmers. Wow. Who would have thought that Saddam could have been so kind to the peasants of Iraq. And those mobile poisoness gas vans. Oh yeah. The IAEA said they could have been mobile units for cleaning up chemical spills. You know, its amazing how thoughtful a guy that Saddam was.

So, now three guys with an agenda against President Bush and the war take the facts that have not changed since the 2005 NIE which had said Iran was getting within a few years of being able to make several nuclear weapons, and they say those facts now suggest that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons--even though the current report does clearly show that Iran is still aggressively pursuing the refining of highly enriched uranium for which the only purpose is nuclear weapons. But you see, to the left pursuing highly enriched uranium which only purpose is to make nuclear weapons is not to pursue nuclear weapons, just as having nerve agents in missile silos is not to have WMD's.

In the insane world of the left, when the evidence proves something is occurring that you don't want to admit is occurring, you just change the definitions, and "voilla", the problem no longer exists!

We better wake up, or one day a lot of us and our children are going to be killed in mass by non-nuclear or non-WMD weapons. I suppose, however, at that point the survivors could merely redefine "massive" or "death".

Jennifer Flowers is considering voting for Hillary?  That's big news? What's so surprising about that?

Why not? Flowers is clearly a Bimbo who had no standards for a twelve years. Why should she have any standards now? Besides, she and Hillary have so much in common. Bill was unfaithful to both of them on numerous occasions with a number of other bimbo's.

Well, once again we have a fascist totalitarian on the left taking away freedom of the press and freedom of speech "for the good of the nation". Of course, no one in the MSM is covering it.

Wait a minute, you say. There has been a lot of coverage both of Hugo Chavez closing down the onl remaining opposition radio station because "they are a threat to the nation", but also of the massive protests in Venezuela over the closing down of the popular station!

Well, yes. There has been a lot of coverage of that. But I was speaking of Al Gore saying that opposing voices that he refers to as the voice of unreason must be kept off the airways, and paricularly talk radio, because they are hurting the nation by encouraging the abandonment of reason by the innocent but gullible masses.

So, Al Gore defines reason as his opinions. And anyone who disagrees with him is advocating an abandonment of reason. And the masses--that's you and the rest of the priviate citizenry--just aren't sharp enough to sort out the truth through the meshing floor of public debate. So, for our sake, reason must be protected by silencing those who disagree . . . errr . . .who oppose the clear reason of the left.

And the MSM talking heads to whom Gore makes this speal just nod their heads at the amazing perspecuity of Mr. Gore, the totalitarian fascist.

So, we should be concerned about Chavez and what he is doing in Venezuela? Why? He's only doing what Al Gore says needs to be done and what the Dems in congress want to do with "the fairness doctrine".