Showing Respect For
The New President

By Anthony Leone

Maybe it’s a generational thing. The previous generation was fighting two unpopular wars: A combat one in Vietnam and a Civil Rights battle on the home front.

More than 40 years ago, that young generation was split between showing respect for the establishment or spitting in its eye.

And as time went by, it seems as if each new generation grew bolder in showing disrespect and discontent with elected leaders to the point where it goes beyond petty remarks to downright nasty comments.

Sadly, it’s just not appalling remarks, but the attitude towards a president or any elected official. These new attitudes have become increasingly brazen and shameful in recent years.

Many Americans, sadly, were atrocious and downright mean to President Bush these last eight years, as a recent example. They’ve called him stupid, a murderer and a warmonger, with little regard to the fact that he is the President of the United States of America. Many of these same people have childishly said that he is not their president because they did not elect him.

And sadly, this childish demeanor has unjustly been aimed at President-Elect Barack Obama. Because certain people cannot see beyond either his skin color or simply his political beliefs, they have already said that he is not their president.

And this type of ignorance is being spread far and wide, from liberals to conservatives, to voters and politicians and vice versa. It's the increasing political bias of the people that is creating this near socially accepted disrespect for any elected official.

Believe it or not, there was once a time in this country when saying a discouraging word about any U.S. president would result in a bloody nose by anyone, despite his party affiliation.

But where is that respect now? We must respect whoever is in office, whether we have voted for that person or not. Yes, we can disagree with the president. We would not be called Americans if we refused our First Amendment rights if we kept silent about things we do not agree with. It was not what our Forefathers fought for.

However, there is a strong, bold line between disagreeing and being disrespectful. We must bring back that level of respect to our elected officials, especially the ones we disagree with most. It just furthers hateful feelings and severely slows the healing process this country desperately needs.

So I welcome, respect and honor Barack Obama as my new president. But I will also respectfully disagree with any of his policies, decisions and so forth.

Hopefully, all of my fellow Americans will do the same in welcoming Barack Obama into the White House as commander-in-chief. After all, it’s the respectful thing to do.

Teaching Children About 9/11

By Anthony Leone

One of the few devastating dates in American history that will forever be burned in our history books and in our hearts and minds is Sept. 11.

Today, many are reliving the nightmare of seven years ago and are sharing personal stories of where they were when they discovered that their nation was being attacked and what they were doing at that very moment.

But there are a group of Americans who do not know what happened on Sept. 11 because they were either too young to remember or comprehend the day’s events or were not even born.

That is why it’s important that we teach America’s children and youth about the importance of this day and what it truly means to be an American, with all of the glories, sorrows, duties and responsibilities that are attached to being a citizen of this great nation.

While young children may not fully understand the complexities of the horrific events that occurred or how it changed our lives or forced this country to go into war with the enemy, they still need to know the importance of what went on.

Explaining it in simple ways that children can understand will help them grasp the meaning of 9/11. While just labeling “terrorists” as “bad guys,” may seem like sugarcoating what they truly are, it will help a 6-year-old boy or girl to know what happened.

Some parents will feel that explaining to a young child that planes were used to destroy buildings or to kill thousands of innocent people is too harsh, then simply saying that the “bad guys” attacked this country might be enough to satisfy their curiosity until they are older to understand.

But children should also learn about the heroism that was displayed by the passengers and crew on Flight 93 and how their sacrifice saved countless lives. They are the embodiment of what it means to be an American and to be a hero.

Yes, the details of what happened in Shanksville, Pa., are not pleasant and it will be hard to explain it in children-friendly terms, but it simply needs to be taught to the children. It is a critical piece of education for them.

Just like it is important to explain to them how this country came together on 9/11 and how people, total strangers really but Americans nonetheless, from different states where going into New York City and Washington, D.C., to help with the rescue and relief operations.

Children need to learn about these modern-day heroes, because they are as legendary as the citizens who came together and fought against tyranny and for independence more than 200 years ago.

We must never forget what happened on this date and it is our duty that the next generation of this country does not forget either.

Palin Picked Because Of Sex?
By Anthony Leone

Who is Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin? She’s basically the counterpart of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Essentially, they’re the same: Very little political experience, both pretty young compared to their older partners and both are minorities, more or less.

Presumed Republican presidential candidate John McCain made a calculated risk that just might help him. He selected Palin just because she’s a woman and to attract the good number of Hillary supporters, especially women, who are still bitter that Obama got the Democratic nomination and not Hillary Clinton. Many have already joined McCain’s camp.

But what does Palin offer besides her female attributes? Actually, plenty. She has been elected to a city council, then a mayor and then onto the governor of Alaska. While not having much experience in the big political pond of Washington, D.C., she does have more experience than Obama when it comes to being a leader.

Obama has been in the Illinois Senate and a U.S. Senator, where he represented the people. Palin has held positions where she has led the people. That means that people voted for Palin to be their leader, which is a bigger responsibility than electing someone to represent you.

She has certainly worked very hard on the state level and even upset fellow Republicans when it was not in the best interest of the party. While appointed chairwoman of the Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, she investigated fellow commission chair and Republican Randy Ruedrich about breaking state ethics law. The result was that Ruedrich resigned and that he paid a $12,000 fine.

This and other incidences shows that Palin has what it takes to stand up to her own party in order to do what’s right. Certainly a very courageous talent that is desperately needed in Washington. This should make Republicans and Democrats shake in their boots, because Palin seems to be the type of leader that isn’t going to be intimidated by higher powers and she’ll easily adapt to the big changes that Washington has to offer.

Some have criticized McCain for choosing an inexperienced Palin to be his vice presidential running mate, because he has been attacking Obama on his inexperience. Certainly fair, however the difference is that it’s the experienced McCain who is running to be the president, not the inexperienced Palin. Certainly a big difference and it is an inexperienced Obama who is running for president.

But with her tough-as-nails leadership, even Palin must realize that there is only one reason why McCain picked her over veteran politicians who are more familiar with the goings on of Washington.

The question is: Is Palin OK that McCain is using her sex to help him win female voters and the election? That and many similar sex-base questions are certainly going to bombard the Republican duo and they should be asked. After all, Palin seems almost perfect to counteract a biracial Obama. He will certainly get a lot of the black vote, while Palin can help with getting the women vote.

It does seem to be blatantly obvious why McCain singled out Palin to be his vice presidential running mate and a slick political move. It's clearly a desperate attempt by McCain to unseat Obama's growing chances of winning the White House.

It is a shame that Palin is not solely chosen for her impressive, but limited political leadership. Only time will tell if this was a wise political move on McCain's part come November.

Washington Post Columnist Misfires Over Gun Safety

By Anthony Leone

In a column that appeared in last Sunday’s Washington Post, Arthur Kellermann blasts Justice Antonin Scalia’s assertion that keeping a handgun will protect the homeowner from burglars.

In the Justice’s opinion in the recent Supreme Court’s decision that the Washington, D.C., gun ban was unconstitutional, he wrote that a handgun can “… be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police.”

Kellermann, a professor of emergency medicine and public health at Emory University in Atlanta, offered the following in his column: That owning a gun is not a good deterrent to criminals, there are few cases that guns are used in self defense, that guns are used to commit suicide, and that Scalia’s scenario of holding a gun in one hand and using the other to call the police is “ludicrous.”

But let’s take these one at a time. Kellermann maintains that in a study that he conducted more than 20 years ago shows that more people actually shoot themselves or their loved ones than the actual criminal in the Seattle area. Thus, he maintains, “… that the risks of keeping a loaded gun in the home strongly outweigh the potential benefits.”

However, in the 1995 article, “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun,” by Gary Kleck, Ph.D., from the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University, showed that “about 1.5 to 1.9 million” cases of people defending themselves from criminals by using their handguns. That doesn’t sound like a few cases of self defense. In fact, that sounds like a lot of potential benefits.

While Kleck’s critics say that his numbers are too high compared to other studies, he maintains that some of those studies do not include people who used a gun as a deterrent and not firing it, among other things. Kleck also mentions in his article that other studies that show much fewer cases of people defending themselves with firearms are only low because of poor-questioning and fact-finding methods.

But Kleck is not the only one with criticisms in his studies. In a 1997 Reason Magazine article, it alleges that Kellermann is guilty of excluding critical information in his anti-gun studies, such as in one study, Kellermann, according to the article, left out incidents where guns actually deterred criminals. The article also claims that Kellermann is also guilty of misusing other people’s studies to support his biased views and that he refuses to give his full data to back up his studies. The magazine is not the only publication that question’s Kellermann’s objectiveness.

In an article in a 1995 issue of Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Daniel D. Polsby mirrored Reason Magazine’s allegations that Kellermann does not provide data of his studies for review. Polsby is the Dean and Foundation Professor of Law at George Mason University in Arlington, Va.


And while Kellermann maintains that there are few cases of guns used in self defense, if one goes to the blogs Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog and Gun Watch, one will find nearly daily updated news stories of citizens using their guns to protect themselves and others. Obviously, these news articles and blogs are not peer-reviewed cases, but they are hard to ignore and certainly puts a sizable bullet hole in the notion that very few people use their firearms for protection.

Kellermann states that many people use guns to commit suicide. Sadly, the reality is if someone who is truly unhappy with his or her life, that person will find anyway to end it.
In Japan, where the country has a strict gun ban, many people are committing suicide by using the latest popular method of mixing common household cleaners and breathing in the fumes.

The sad truth is people will find any means to end their life. Going after the cause of a person’s suicide and treating it is far more productive than demonizing one particular method used to commit suicide.

Finally, we come to Kellermann’s attack on Justice Scalia’s scenario.

“Scalia’s ludicrous vision of a little old lady clutching a handgun in one hand while dialing 911 with the other (try it sometime) doesn’t fit the facts,” Kellermann wrote.

However, that’s exactly what happened to 80-year-old Phyllis Friesen, as reported by the Ravalli Republic.

One evening, Friesen, of Sula, Mont., woke up to a man ransacking her cabin, where she lives alone. When she asked the man what he was doing, he didn’t answer and continued with his destruction. That’s when Friesen went into her bedroom and pulled out her .357 pistol and dialed 911.

“It wasn’t as frightening as it would have been if I didn’t have the gun,” she told the Ravalli Republic.

The police came and took the intruder away. But according to Kellermann, even though this case clearly illustrates Scalia’s scenario, he would call this ludicrous.

Now the reality is people will misuse guns, either intentionally or unintentionally. Accidents will happen. And another truth is that criminals break laws. If they didn’t, we would not call them lawbreakers.

Yet Kellermann maintains that owning a gun is a public health risk. But for more than 30 years, Washington, D.C., had a gun ban which resulted in very high crimes and deaths by criminals who still got their hands on guns.

However, it’s not a public health risk for an honest citizen to own a gun to defend one’s self, but it is a public health risk to create laws that benefit the criminals more than the people. To think otherwise would be ludicrous.

Supreme Court Takes Second Amendment Out Of D.C.’s Crosshairs

By Anthony Leone

Many Second Amendment supporters are cheering as the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the nation’s capital had no right to restrict honest citizens from owning hand guns.

The controversial 32-year-old ban was held by gun control advocates as the ultimate, yet delusional, weapon to preventing crime and something that the rest of the nation should be doing.

However, the advocates always became silent when people mentioned how dangerous Washington, D.C. was because of the ban. This is because the ban did not stop criminals from obtaining guns from different areas and bringing them into the nation’s capital.

But this bit of common sense was lost to leading gun control advocate Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who said this about the ruling:

“I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it.”

And this is despite the fact that Washington, D.C., was once this nation’s murder capital. Apparently, Feinstein had her fingers in her ears on her way into the Senate during this time.

Many people are pleased with the ruling, because now honest citizens can start defending themselves against lawbreakers who do not follow the rules, hence their name, lawbreakers.

People like Feinstein do not have a clue as to what is really happening in places that have gun control. England has a strict gun ban and all it resulted are criminals still using guns or knifes to rob and murder their defenseless victims.

A dose of reality is needed for those who honestly believe that restricting decent Americans of their Second Amendment rights is a way to handle crime. And another dose is needed for those who believe that adding another law on top of similar ones will help matters.

Let’s enforce the laws that we have now and make sure that the criminals are punished and not honest folks.

Maybe if politicians like Feinstein did something about the crime in Washington, D.C., then law-abiding citizens would not have the need to purchase firearms to protect themselves.

Kucinich’s Impeachment Quest May Hurt Obama’s White House Bid

By Anthony Leone

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush. But his quest to remove the President from office may hurt presumed Democratic nominee Barack Obama’s own quest to win the 2008 election.

What was the reaction by his fellow Democrats? They pretty much opposed the former presidential candidate’s futile efforts. In fact, Democratic leaders are expected to table the resolution by referring it to the Judiciary Committee, where they hope it will be buried and forgotten.

The articles deals with such things as the Iraq war, global warming, allegedly holding American citizens and “foreign captives” (let’s call them terrorists) illegally, voting rights, and President Bush’s handling of Hurricane Katrina, just to name a few. But let’s focus on the Iraq war.

Now, let’s forget a few things about why the impeachment will fail, such as how the U.N. never enforced its own resolutions against former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, so no one knew if he really had his weapons of mass destruction. Or that the U.N. voted in agreement to the resolution that Saddam still had WMD.

Or how former President Bill Clinton ordered Operation Desert Fox to deal with Saddam’s weapons programs, after Iraq failed, again, to provide U.N. weapons inspectors with an honest account of them. Or how there were reports that Saddam shipped his WMD to Syria before the 2003 war.

But let’s remember that a great number of Democrats who said many times during the buildup of the war that Saddam was a danger to America and the world with his deadly weapons. Did they lie too? They saw the same information that the President saw. So, does that mean there will be an impeachment for Bush and the Democrats?

And more importantly, this will not only shatter Obama’s chances for the White House, but the Democrat’s as well. Why?

Obama was strongly against going into Iraq from the very start. And here is a speech he gave in October 2002 at an anti-war rally that will probably come back to haunt him:

“(Saddam) has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him,” the possible future president said nearly six years ago.

Now, if Kucinich’s goal is to get rid of President Bush from the White House, it could also rid the Democrats’ goal from getting into it.

This is why House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer and fellow Democrat and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have said that they would not pursue impeachment charges against the President. Because not only will it air the Democrat’s dirty laundry that a good number of them voted to give President Bush the power to go to war, but it will show how they are not unified if their presumed nominee was against going to war.

And more importantly, Obama’s speech is a huge weapon against him. He said that Saddam had WMD and knew that Saddam was a threat to the world and that U.N. resolutions were useless against the bloody dictator. But he didn’t think removing him was important enough for America’s safety.

Wow. What a thing to say. Because the Republicans can highlight this speech and point to Obama’s global inexperience and how he should not be the one to answer the phone about a national security threat at 3 a.m.

Granted, I believe the President should have handled the war better. He should have given the U.N. weapons inspectors a lot more time before considering military use. His administration should not have allowed retired generals and other former military leaders to sell the war to TV networks. But it still boils down to one thing: At the time, we found ourselves in a global terror war and we needed to know once and for all whether or not Saddam had those weapons. And because Kucinich opened up this can of worms, the Democrats are going to have a hard time putting the lid back on.

Kucinich is the little engine that shouldn’t. He either does not realize or care that he is sabotaging his party’s chances for the White House. And Kucinich is showing how ineffective Obama will be as a Commander-In-Chief.

Kucinich’s impeachment crusade is like Don Quixote’s battle with the windmill: There is nothing there that warrants these charges.

Solutions Needed To Help Troubled Youth

By Anthony Leone

Many around the world were shocked when they learned that a 25-year-old Japanese man allegedly used his truck to run down a group of people, jumped out of his vehicle and stabbed 18 people, killing seven in Tokyo.

In fact, knife attacks have become too familiar in Japan, once proud of its low crime rates. This past March, there was a random stabbing outside a train station in Tokyo and in January of this year, five people were hurt in another stabbing attack, reports Reuters.

Over in the United Kingdom, The Times did a feature article on teen-agers and how they deal with gangs and knife attacks, which are becoming too common. Just looking at someone the wrong way or telling another teen what town they are from can result in a “shanking” or stabbing.

The residents of the two countries believe they share a common link to the cause of crime: No one will listen to them.

The teen-agers in the United Kingdom claim that the police are accusatory towards them, especially towards black youths, and the Japanese believe that the family structure is deteriorating.

“Recently, peoples’ relationships have become strained,” 29-year-old Taishi Ikeda, of Japan, told Reuters in an interview. “There’s no-one to talk to when you’re troubled.”

Granted, there are many factors for the decline of society, such as economics, politics, trouble in the home, or just the individuals themselves. The list certainly goes on and on.

Trying to find a solution will not be easy for this problem. Knee-jerk reactions are not going to help, such as the one from Japan’s top government spokesman Nobutaka Machimura, who suggested tighter restrictions on obtaining survival knives, like the one allegedly used by the 25-year-old man.

Some people believed that tighter or even complete gun control in the United Kingdom and Japan would drastically reduced violent crime. However, it just made criminals seek out other weapons to harm or kill innocent citizens.

Either tougher new laws or enforcement of current laws can be productive in punishing criminals. However, more is needed to reach out to youths before they find their way into a dead end alley with a person holding a sharp instrument of death in his hand.

Politicians and police should make more of an effort to helping or improving social programs to keeping kids off the streets. They should also make sure that counselors are on hand to help discuss the problems that most young people, and even young adults, are facing.

But while we feel sorry for the terrible conditions that troubled youths and young adults find themselves in, it should not excuse any crimes that they commit. Wrong is wrong and it should be punished.

But there needs to be more recognition on the solutions to prevent these people from finding themselves in a hopeless situation.

Sure, there are many youths who do great good and go unnoticed. And it’s important to recognize the good deeds done by others to show us all that there is a lot of hope left in this world.

However, showing the negative is just as important, because it shows where we as a society and as a people are failing and how we need to address and fix these problems.

What Does An Edwards’ Endorsement Mean?

By Anthony Leone

The big breaking political news yesterday was that former presidential candidate John Edwards jumped on the Obama Bandwagon and offered his endorsement.

But what does this mean? Nothing really. It means that those who still support Edwards because they like what he stands for, even though he dropped out of the Democratic primary race at the end of January, will go to Sen. Barack Obama.

The Illinois senator’s main rival, Hillary Clinton, was hoping to have the former North Carolina senator’s support. Besides his issues, both Clinton and Obama would gain Edwards’ delegates and former donors. And ironically, North Carolina was the state that Obama won last week.

The need of Edwards has been so great that both of the political rivals courted Edwards in February with individual private meetings to talk about the issues, among other things.

And why did the New York senator want the former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate’s support, besides the delegates? Edwards represents the old Democratic Party in a lot of ways. He’s one of the few candidates that talked about helping the lower class while others in both parties were falling over themselves to mention in every speech how they are going to help the middle class, just to gain their votes. Certainly, a high-profile former candidate like Edwards, whose soft image has warmed a lot of Americans, is what Hillary needs to show the public how in touch with them she is by having a humble man support her.

But ultimately, because most of Edwards’ policies and beliefs closely resemble Obama’s, he gave his support to the candidate with the most delegates. And because of that, and because they are alike in other ways, there was an alternative reason why Edwards threw his support to the leading Democratic political candidate and it’s because of that title that eluded him in the 2004 presidential election: Vice President.

Yes, it’s very possible and extremely likely that Edwards is setting himself up to become Obama’s right-hand man. After sacrificing his role as senator for the role as president four years ago and the failed Kerry-Edwards ticket in 2004, this may be the only chance he has left of getting into the White House with some dignity, unlike Independent Ralph Nader, who has not won the presidential election in the last 16 years, but keeps running anyway.

Is it hypocritical of Edwards endorsing Obama and seemingly setting himself up as a vice presidential candidate while just a few months ago he criticized the Illinois senator for his inexperience? Sure it is, but that’s the game of politics. But whatever their rivalry was, it is nothing compared to Obama and Clinton’s. They drew a lot of blood and attacked each other. Having an Obama-Clinton ticket would be a little hard to swallow for some Democratic voters after the months of mudslinging between the two.

And Edwards may be a better choice than Clinton. Having a biracial black man may not set too well for many older Democrats and Republicans who are unhappy with the presumed GOP nominee John McCain. But having a woman like Hillary Clinton, who has been caught doing a few dirty tricks during this campaign and represents the far left of her party, will leave a bad taste in their mouths.

Granted, a ticket like that is what many middle-aged and young voters are hoping for. That would be a true symbol that the races and sexes are now equal. But still, it may be too much for some close-minded voters in both parties, who cannot look past a person’s skin color or reproductive organs.

So, besides sharing the same anatomy, Edwards and Obama do share the same philosophy, such as fighting special interests in Washington. They are very close on the issues and seem to be a far more believable match than Obama and Hillary. And with Hillary vowing to fight to the very end in this race, and may destroy the party in the process, Edwards might be a better choice of uniting the Democrats if Obama gets the nomination.

Let’s not be too surprised that Obama shatters the predictions of many political analysts, who have been saying that Hillary maybe his VP, and chooses Edwards instead. After all, politics is a funny little game. You just never know what will happen sometimes.

No Matter Who We Are …

By Anthony Leone

The recent news wires are reporting that more than 12,000 people have died as a result of China’s 7.9-magnitude earthquake, while 18,645 are buried under fallen buildings and debris.

Many more are missing and feared dead, especially school children caught in the destructive force that has shattered homes and destroyed families.

Just days ago, the people of Myanmar were caught in another of nature’s devastating forces in the form of a cyclone, which has left 34,273 dead and 27,838 missing.

Both of these cataclysms have resulted in children becoming orphans, wives into widowers and husbands losing their beloved spouses and parents who have become childless.

Too many times tragedies at this biblical scale have a way of making people realize how much the same we all are. Thousands of miles away, we can feel the sorrow and the pain of those caught in the destruction that has gripped China and Myanmar.

And despite political and cultural differences, generous people and nations look past these differences and see their fellow humans in need of great help and donate what they can.

Former President Ronald Reagan once said that if there was a huge threat to the Earth, her children would reunite and conquer the threat. Why do we have to wait for such a threat for us to come together once and for all when disasters like these should be doing this?

When we can place ourselves in the situations that these tragedy-stricken people have found themselves in and feel their anguish and despair, then that should be the first step towards unity.

Obama’s Arrogance, Bill’s Stupidity

By Anthony Leone

It hasn’t been a good week for either of the two Democratic presidential juggernauts.

Just Friday it was reported that Sen. Barack Obama basically called small-town Pennsylvanians uneducated rednecks because they don’t know how to express their frustrations with the government, so they hold religion and guns close while shunning away immigrants.

And later this week, former President Bill Clinton decided to “help” his wife by reopening the old Bosnia wound. If that wasn’t enough, he even got the facts wrong and he admitted to the public that Hillary told him to shut up about it. Talk about a henpecked husband, which only further portrays the female presidential candidate as an ice queen.

But getting back to the more important issue, what is really interesting is that earlier this month Obama was trying to woo over gun owners by waving the constitutional rights flag, but not telling them his misfiring voting record. But then he tells some rich donors in San Francisco that small-town Pennsylvanians are backwoods people and how they feel that the government has failed them.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” Obama said, as reported by The Huffington Post.

Now, this is wrong on many levels. One, it’s hypocritical of him to even mention how people seek religion for guidance, considering the controversy between himself and his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. And Obama is still dusting himself off from that political debacle.

But two, Obama is stereotyping these Pennsylvanians, which is supposed to be a huge no-no for liberals and Democrats, unless that’s stereotyping too.

In addition, he’s basically describing these Pennsylvanians as single-minded people who don’t understand the issues that this country is facing.

The Illinois senator has not only made a hole for himself with Pennsylvania voters that he is trying to win over, but has opened himself up for attacks by Hillary and the likely Republican presidential nominee, John McCain.

Courting the gun vote should be one of the huge priorities for any Democratic presidential candidate if he or she hopes to win any political race. After all, in recent years Democrats are viewed as being against the Second Amendment.

And respecting how one embraces religion should be a cake walk for even a first year politician. But insulting one’s way of life will reasonably make that voter get down on his knees and take aim at Obama.

Who Says There’s No Smoking Gun Between Saddam, al-Qaeda?

By Anthony Leone

Many Democrats and liberals have been hell bent to say that President Bush lied about his alleged claims that former Iraqi President and dictator Saddam Hussein had connections with terrorist group al-Qaeda may want to take a peek at a recently released report.

“The Iraqi Perspectives Project Primary Source Materials for Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents,” was recently released and while it stated that there were no direct links (or smoking gun) between Saddam and the terror group, which claims responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, there sure does seem to be enough dots to show that the bloody dictator had Sunday Tea with a few members of al-Qaeda.

For example, it has been known for a long time, and this report mentions it, that Saddam had a long relationship with terrorist organizations and supplied them with training grounds, funds and equipment. What many Bush critics don’t want to acknowledge is that al-Qaeda and Iraq’s former dictator had common objectives and a limited working relationship.

“At times, these organizations (Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network) would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust,” stated on page 559 of the report.

And then there is the liaison with Ayman al-Zawahiri, prominent leader of al-Qaeda and leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad.

“Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al-Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives,” stated on page 62 of the report.

So, just using those two passages alone, the report does state that there was a strong link to Saddam and al-Qaeda. Granted, no one is saying that Saddam had bin Laden over for poker night but there was a type of link there. And that is just al-Qaeda.

At the moment, there is no proof that both parties worked on the 9/11 attacks and President Bush never stated such a thing. But the fact that Saddam Hussein was a loose cannon who already had an established history of lying to the U.N. and breaking resolutions, among other things, America could not stand quietly by, waiting to be attacked again.

Going into Iraq to determine if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was the right course of action. Taking military action so soon after U.N. weapons inspectors went in there is up for debate.

But the job of any American president is to protect the people and to ensure their safety. And that is what the president was doing. We may not agree with how President Bush went about it but it was something that had to be done to finally determine how much of a threat Saddam actually posed to America.

To read the complete report, please click here.

Hillary ‘Misspoke’ About Being Shot At?

By Anthony Leone

Much like her husband, who didn’t know the meaning of “is,” it appears that Hillary Clinton doesn’t know the meaning of “misspoke.”

While trying to beef up her dismal experience as First Lady, the Democratic presidential candidate, who is currently in second place, told an audience at George Washington University last week about her trip to Bosnia in 1996. But since I don’t want to do any misspeaking let’s have Hillary do it:

“I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base,” she told the audience.

Now, to help Hillary, I’m going to tell her what a “lie” is and what “misspeaking” really means. First, the “lie.”

As her campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson has said, Hillary has written about and spoke about her exit out of the plane before and now she misspoke. Well, the fact is, in the past, Hillary did tell the truth about the landing. There were snipers in the area but not where her plane landed. In fact, funnyman Sinbad, who was with Hillary and her daughter Chelsea, stated it was a relaxing trip.

A CBS report at the time doesn’t mention Hillary running for her life at all and that report can be found on YouTube.

So, she clearly lied about her exiting situation and certainly didn’t misspeak. Misspeaking is saying that she landed on a Tuesday instead of a Monday. Calling her daughter Chelsea “Chestnut” is misspeaking. But saying she ran for her life under sniper fire but was really walking calmly is a lie.

And here’s another lie: “… there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the First Lady.”

Well, I’m sure it’s very tongue-and-cheek because it sounds like it but with Hillary “Ran With Our Heads Down” Clinton, you never know. In that CBS report mentioned above, it states that she was the one who planned the trip to Bosnia and no one sent her.

So, why lie about risking her life at all? Maybe the fact that she’s losing so badly to Sen. Barack Obama and she wanted to really strengthen her weak foreign policy experience. Because let’s face facts: Hillary has only held an electable title of U.S. senator since 2001, while her Democratic presidential rival has been an Illinois State senator from 1996 and then a U.S. senator since 2004. Say what you will about Obama’s lack of experience but he has far more experience as an elected leader than Hillary.

And this is not some oversight on Hillary’s part or even an exaggeration that many politicians seem to enjoy doing. This was an out-and-out lie and a desperate attempt to show the delegates that she has more experience than Obama.

All politicians lie to make themselves look better and Hillary is no different. However, lying about being in danger with your own daughter in tow should leave a bad taste in anyone’s mouth. And if she’s doing this to a fellow Democrat, then we better start wearing a raincoat if she does get her party’s nomination, because then the mud will really start to fly.

The Spectre Of Spitzer

By Michael Quaranta

The recent scandal that has enmeshed former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer in a web of prostitution and evident corruption has led many to wonder how could one so promising, so intelligent, make such a monumental blunder.

Spitzer coasted to power on a platform of reform. With a crusader’s mantra, he targeted and destroyed many of Wall Street’s elite. It was on the heels of these “victories” that Spitzer catapulted to the governorship of the State of New York.

Now, after having been accused of moving money in order to solicit the services of a high-end, global prostitution ring, Eliot Spitzer has become, in the eyes of the public, what he long claimed to be fighting against. Spitzer has been accused of spending as much as $80,000 on prostitutes over a 10 year period, according to various news sources. This is rather ironic, since as attorney general for New York State, he was well known for prosecuting and breaking up prostitution rings.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen; so the saying goes.

It did not help Spitzer that he handled most of his cases in a high-handed, almost brutal fashion. His quote to New York State Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco (“Listen, I am a f****** steamroller and I’ll roll over you and anybody else”) was just a glimpse as to the volatility of his demeanor.

The fall of Eliot Spitzer was long over due in coming. After the State Trooper scandal in July of 2007, where his staff ordered the State Police to keep special records of Republican Senate majority leader Joseph L. Bruno’s whereabouts, to his executive order to grant drivers licenses to illegal aliens, which was hotly contested, along with his arrogant view on how politics should work, all contributed to the universal condemnation of this fallen star of the Democratic Party.

Eliot Spitzer brought nothing new to the scene of New York politics. He created nothing; contributed nothing.

At best, his most memorable contribution to politics was a greater appreciation as to how hypocritical and mean-spirited the game can be. In the end, Eliot Spitzer will be remembered; not for his failures in office, but for the ironic way in which he failed his constituents.

Karma really does exist after all.