Are we really having a debate in this country about how we treat terrorists? Is anyone really under the assumption that terrorists sit around debating how they are going to treat us? Obviously, they sit around debating about us but its not whether or not they want to kill us, because thats already their stated mission. The only debate they are having is the means by which they will reach their desired ends. Am I the only one who finds it ironic, nay idiotic, that some of us are wanting to give terrorists the rights that they actually despise or that we're going to make them privy to the very judicial system for which they have no desire to be involved in.

Of course, there is the argument of "if we don't treat them better than they treat us then how are we any better than them?" Well, we aren't flying planes into their buildings. We're not blowing up their embassies or their naval vessels. We're not making videos of the beheadings of their citizens. We're not BAKING their children and then serving them on a platter. We're not burying torture victims in mass graves. It is utterly sickening the moral relativism that some people will practice just so they can have a reason to protest or to find something wrong with the U.S. They want to blame the U.S. first and foremost without even thinking that maybe Gitmo and these other anti-terror measures we've been taking since 9/11 have kept another attack from occurring. No, looking at things objectively and with sincerity is not what those types of people care to do.

The bottomline in this whole debate is this: you don't go into a shootout with a knife. You don't go into a streetfight with one hand tied behind your back. If you do, you're one of two things: an idiot or a really big idiot. The fact that some would purposefully tie the hands of the members of our military and intelligence services is an incredibly dangerous and idiotic idea. Tell me how interrogation methods that are actually performed on our own troops in their survival training should be considered torture? Are they uncomfortable and painful? More than likely, but that doesn't make them torture and if one person gets "tortured" to save thousands of lives have we really broken any moral codes?

Its time that we all realize we're in a war for our survival. This isn't like the wars of the last century. This war can hit any of us anywhere. What will be our course of action when those suicide/homocide bombers we hear about in Israel start walking into our shopping mall and supermarkets or getting on our public transportation. Will we not use any means necessary to prevent those attacks then? So why should we not use those means to prevent attack NOW?

It wasn't too long ago that all these Global warmingist scientists came out and said that all the increase in hurricane activity in recent years was due to global warming. Well, apparently, there is a dissenting view of this theory. It is unbelievable just how psychotic Liberals can be. They will use anything, and I mean anything to gain and hold on to power. Even if global warming is happening as is claimed it will have nowhere near the outrageous effects that it is claimed will happen.

I just don't get how people will allow themselves to fall victim to this insanity. Global warming is at best a scientific THEORY. However, most scientific theories have more evidence that proves them rather than disproves them. Being generous the research on global warming is possibly 50/50 prove/disprove. Just look at these lists of scientists who oppose the "consensus" view: here and here.

Even in the "Consensus" view of global warming they talk about how basically nothing can be done to stop the effects of warming.

"Scientists from 113 countries issued a landmark report Friday saying they have little doubt global warming is caused by man, and predicting that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level will "continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.cientists from 113 countries issued a landmark report Friday saying they have little doubt global warming is caused by man, and predicting that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level will "continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution."

So, essentially, these scientists say that no matter what is done to stop our current pollution levels, global warming will happen regardless. This single point by the IPCC/UN shows just how idiotic all these claims are and how completely illogical these people show themselves to be. They say WE cause global warming, but there is nothing WE can do about it. They believe WE control nature enough to cause environmental catastrophe, but we don't control nature enough to stop catastrophe.

Are they not making the point of many global warming skeptics who say all this "warming" is a natural cycle? Are they not essentially arguing themselves out of their own points? It is incomprehensible that people who are undoubtedly intelligent and probably mostly brilliant can come up with such drivel. It will take much more research before I will be convinced of any of this talk of manmade global warming. Until I see much more evidence that does not get contradicted after more research then i just cannot believe that global warming is anything more that the natural cycle of the earth's climate.

An excellent monologue by Rush Limbaugh on the status of Conservatism. He discusses some of the recent things Newt Gingrich and other Conservatives have been saying about the "End of the Reagan Era." I am personally astounded that Gingrich has come out and basically agreed with Mike Huckabee that the Republican party needs to remake itself and put aside Reagan Conservatism.

Gingrich led a Republican Congressional victory by being an overt and unapologetic Reagan Conservative. Why would he feel the need to suddenly remake the Republican party when the time he led the party based on Conservative principles the party won an astounding victory and led to some solid reforms of the Federal government.

The remake of the Republican party needs to be quit spending like Liberals and get back to the core Conservative principles of small government. Moving the Republican party to a "Populist/Finger in the wind" type mentality accomplishes nothing in terms of promoting those principles which have defined Conservatism and the Republican party from 1980 up until a few years ago.

It is really scary that a hero of the Conservative movement, who has benefitted greatly from the principles of Conservatism, would essentially agree with the Populist tone of a Mike Huckabee or a John McCain. It will be the end of the Rpeublican party if Huckabee is the nominee. Yes, he'd draw the social conservatives probably in record numbers, but he would leave the fiscal conservatives and the national security conservatives looking around for a candidate to vote for.

A Huckabee or McCain nomination quite possibly would be the death knell of the Conservative coaliton. I'm a member of all three parts of the Conservative base and like some of the things Huckabee and McCain have talked about, and I could probably hold my nose and vote for McCain, but I cannot vote for someone who wants to remake the Republican party in the image of populism, no matter how strong his social conservative credentials may be.

I have not blogged in some time now. There have been some big things going on. The most important of all was the birth of my first child, a beautiful baby girl on October 17, 2007. It is amazing to watch her grow and to know that I have a huge responsibility to make sure she is given all the love and support she needs. I am truly humbled to be a father and cannot really put into words the feelings that go along with it. All I hope is that I can be as good of a parent to my child as my parents were to me. I didn't always like what they made me do, but i see now there was a "method to their madness," if you will. I am incredibly blessed.

In this op-ed, Newt talks about the failures of not only the Federal government but of the political process in America. It is refreshing to hear someone willing to speak up and legitimately voice issues without being vitriolic.

The scandal involving Senator Craig from Idaho is yet another ugly stain on the legislative branch of our government. Unfortunately, politicians either do not learn from others mistakes or do not care because we continually see this kind of depraved behavior. Neither party has the market on corruption, both are equal offenders. It looks, more and more, like it is time to have a true "Anti-incumbent" election. No matter who your Congressmen or Senator is now all Americans should vote for his competitor in 2008.

Obviously, that would only mean 1/3 of the Senate would be new, but the whole House of Representatives would all be fresh faces. Granted they would probably still have ties to organizations like the current incumbents have, but it would at least send a message that we're tired of politicians abusing their status and expecting us to overlook their egregious behavior. You would be hard pressed to find ONE Senator or Congressmen who does not have a long list of earmarks he has tried to secure and even has secured. Even that "Constitutional Purist" Ron Paul has a very large list of earmarks he has pursued.

Had the original parameters for choosing Senators been left alone we could probably have some reform of that institution, but instead politicians found it necessary to "correct" the Founders by making Senators popularly elected rather than chosen by State Legislatures. Big mistake. Now Senators need only "Bring Home the Bacon" in order to keep their constituency happy and voting in their corner. Whereas if Senators were appointed by State Legislatures, as was originally prescribed in the Constitution, those government bodies could remove them from office immediately for corruption and other misdeeds. That would also give State Governments a vested interest in what is being done at the Federal level.

For whatever reason, there has been this constant dilution of Federalistic principles over the course of American history. Politicians have ignored, time and again, the "Founding Principles" of this country. I am not maintaining that everything the Founding Fathers devised was perfect or right, but it could not have been as inefficient, corrupted, or illogical as the Federal government is today had we followed the core principles of our Founding. Maybe our problem is we are hoping that 535 Aaron Burr's will act like George Washingtons.

We lack leaders of the same "stuff" that defined George Washington. Leaders who are concerned about their private dealings having an "appearance" of impropriety. Leaders who are concerned about their reputations, rather than worried about maintaining power. Leaders truly seeking what is best for America, rather than seeking what will fatten their wallets. Were Washington and the other "Founders" perfect? They were not. However, it is very hard to look back at their deeds and words and say they were only looking out for themselves. Sadly, looking out for themselves is the current modus operandi of our Government leaders.

Not that we needed proof that those who advocate socialized medicine are insane, but here is an article from Newsbusters that details huge problems with the French healthcare system. This is the kind of system Liberals in the United States want to have here in America. 50% of a workers paycheck in France goes to unemployment, retirement, and healthcare. FIFTY PERCENT! I would venture to say Canada, Sweden and other universal healthcare countries are on par with that amount as well. Liberals always want to point out that the U.S. is ranked rather low in the World Health Organization studies on a nation's health, which is why many say we need universal healthcare to increase access. That line of thinking is wonderfully debunked in this column.

As the saying goes there is no such thing as a free lunch and that applies to everything. We MAY get more access in a universal system and it MAY be cheaper for some, but it will not be as good from a quality care standpoint as what we presently have and it will be nowhere near as innovative as our present system. Healthcare in the U.S. doesn't need a government takeover the prescription for healthcare is competition. Lets insurance companies compete for business. Let doctors set their prices for procedures. Let consumers decide what is needed for their health after good consultation from their doctor with no insurance middle man involved. All universal healthcare will do is take out the insurance middleman and replace him with a government middleman.

Is it not enough, watching our government squander the Social Security system or all the fraud and inefficiency that inundates the federal government, to keep us from buying into the insanity of socialized medicine. Those politicians who advocate universal healthcare want one thing and that is more governmental control over our lives. They want voters dependent upon more and more entitlements because that ensures they keep getting votes from the government dependents. The Federal Government in its present form is the antithesis of what the Founding Fathers envisioned and it is shameful for politicians to further the governments power for their own personal job security. Where have all the statesmen gone?