If Condoleezza Rice testifies before the House of Representatives, the Attorney General should be fired along with every other attorney in the Executive Branch.

The Executive Privilege protects Rice from the trolling that Democrats hope to accomplish. These people will stop at nothing to discredit this administration. The Democrats can not be trusted to be fair. They will distort. They will mislead.

While Rice is one of the brightest people in government, even she is vulnerable. People who want to find a problem will look until they create one. Just ask Scooter Libby.

President Bush needs to draw a line in the sand and not let any of his staff cross it.

He needs to call the Democrats to task for their positions, for their wasting time that could be spent on issues like border control.

There should be no meetings. There should be no off the record discussions.

There can be no compromise because they don't compromise.

The President is engaged in an ideological war with the left.

All seems fair in this game, so let us hope he is careful.

We should all be paying attention to the runoff elections the French will hold on May 6th. (See article from the Guardian) or (article by BBC) or (article in NY Times)

The recent preliminary vote brought out nearly 85% of the eligible voters- a remarkable turnout. The candidates included moderately conservative Nicolas Sarkozy (the most pro-America candidate of the group), centrist Francois Bayrou, socialist Segolene Royal, the far right Jean-Marie Le Pen and several other far left candidates.

The May 6th election pits Sarkozy against Royal in a runoff fight that will have great significance for France and the world. In a time when the America needs as many friends as possible to sustain efforts to improve the conditions in the Middle East, a victory for Sarkozy would be a signal that relations with France could be on the upswing.

Sarkozy threatens the left, like any conservative would, because he actually thinks the French welfare state should be reduced. (A segment of French society is very concerned they may have to actually work a full work week.) He wants to protect French corporations and supports efforts to increase law and order by cracking down on crime.

Royal will have to convince many in the mainstream of her willingness to govern from the middle. Her campaign will be telling for U.S. politicians who are faced with a similar struggle. France has become increasingly conservative as the country confronts issues with which we are familiar in the U.S.: illegal immigration, the failure of many immigrants (particularly from Arab and African countries) to culturally assimilate, excessive taxes, burgeoning debt, increasing violence amongst the youth in certain regions of the country and growing numbers of the citizenry who are disinterested in working and producing at a competitive level.

In France, and in the U.S., these liberal politicians repackage themselves to appear more conservative than they are because it is the only way they have a shot at winning. Will the people of France see through the campaign promises to recognize the chameleon-like position changes for what they are: ploys to capture power. Will people in the U.S. recognize the shifts in our own politicians' positions.

France has begun to move to the right as the people have begun to realize that dangerous policies of tolerance have shifted their culture towards collapse. The French are fighting for the survival of their culture, whether they recognize it or not. Only the French can decide if their culture should be preserved.

Their decision will influence world politics and certainly have an impact on relations between the United States and France. Let us all hope the people of France elect Sarkozy. Of the two candidates there can be no question: A Sarkozy win holds the most promise for rebuilding our relationship and for pulling France back from the liberal abyss into which it has sunk over the last several decades.

Reuters reported on a speech given by Archbishop Angelo Amato. (click here to read) The spokesman for the Vatican spoke today against gay marriage, abortion and euthanasia. The positions taken should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the teachings of the Catholic Church as promulgated by the Vatican.

The Church has stood firm against what Amato referred to as "'evils that remain almost invisible" because the media presented them as "expression of human progress.'"

Amato took the position that the media uses language to minimize the truths about many issues being debated in cultures around the world. Amato rightly challenges the media's use of language to support political positions- citing terms like "centre for reproductive health' to refer to abortion clinics and referring to euthanasia as "death with dignity"- because those terms support the evolving morality of the left.

People often seek to bend the teachings of religious institutions to justify their own behavior. To date, many faiths have modified their teachings to tolerate and accept behavioral choices of individuals to meet the people where they are, so to speak. The Catholic Church recognizes humans make mistakes and people can seek forgiveness through confession. Those who repent are forgiven. (click here to read a relevant portion of the Catechism)

The Vatican has refused to bend its teachings to accommodate the interests of parishioners who seek absolution for ongoing lifestyle choices. The Church is right to stand firm against members and Parishes who seek to subvert the teachings of the Church for their own personal reasons. If a person does not agree with the Church about fundamental issues, then that person can abandon the Church to find false comfort from another, more liberal, religion.

The Vatican has refused to bend its teachings to appease Catholics who deviate from acceptable behavior or to increase its popularity amongst secularists or members of other faiths who would weaken the Church to further their own positions.

The Vatican must encourage members of the Catholic Church to stand against politicians who seek to pass legislation that runs counter to the Church's teachings. If the Church and its followers do not stand up to protect and defend what is right under Natural Law, societies across the world will continue the downward spiral towards secularism. Secular law without a moral compass can more easily become mob rule with no regard to right and wrong.

As Pope John Paul II said, "The truth is not always the same as the majority decision."

Religious institutions should be the constants that hold people and societies accountable for their behavior. When a community can not rely on religious institutions to provide consistent moral guidance, where can they turn.

There are absolutes. Whether we like it or not, the Church should help us all remember that.

The United States Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Partial Birth Abortion Ban has caused upset on the left in a way that I thought only George Bush or Dick Cheney could trigger.

This decision was slightly shocking in that the Justice Kennedy chose to include very descriptive language to make the point that Partial Birth Abortion is a horrifying procedure that reasonable people do not support.

In reality, this decision merely offers the Right a slight appeasement and may actually ignite the far Left. We'll see what impact the decision has over the next few months as NOW and other left leaning groups continue their efforts to scare women into believing we are on the verge of returning to pre-Suffrage times.

I have written a fairly long commentary on the decision- too long for the blog. Click here to read it

So, an 82 year old woman pulls out her gun and shoots out the tires of an intruder's car, while using her walker for support. (click here to read the AP story on MSNBC)

Venus Ramey, a Miss America from 1944, lived alone in Waynesburg, Kentucky and said "I'm trying to live a quiet, peaceful life and stay out of trouble, and all it is, is one thing after another" in reference to the invasion of her property.

This spunky woman candidly told reporters she would not have hesitated to shoot the intruder had he approached her- she was ready to shoot to kill.

This woman behaved as law abiding gun owners should. She protected her property with reasonable force and used her gun to ensure that no harm came to her while waiting for authorities.

This is not the kind of story gun-haters like to hear because this woman does not reflect the stereotypical portrait painted by the anti-gun crowd. This is a woman who demonstrates one of the reasons why people in the United States should have the right to own gun- to protect their personal property and their lives.

I hope her gun was registered so local authorities don't have to haul this woman off to the hoosegaw.

After Corzine's accident, the initial spin was some guy in a red truck caused the accident.

After a serious search for this reckless driver, we learned that they had found the driver and he would not be charged as he was disabled, mentally.

Now it appears the truth is a little murkier.

MSNBC reports that Corzine's driver was cruising along at a brisk speed of 91 miles per hour, 26 miles per hour over the speed limit. The state trooper had the lights flashing as it approached the truck from behind. The other cars involved in the accident appear to have been responding to the speeding Governor, approaching too quickly from the rear.

The New York Times wrote more extensively on the issue. Corzine, who was on his way to participate in a meeting with Imus and the Rutgers athletes, was injured because the truck tried to get out of his way and swerved. This was not an emergency meeting that would have required Corzine to risk life and limb to attend. The trooper drove the vehicle in a reckless manner that resulted in life threatening injuries for the governor and untold attention and embarrassment for the poor guy in the red truck.

The guy in the red truck should be thankful for little black boxes. And he should be asking if the trooper was speeding at Corzine's direction.

Another reason to encourage abstinence amongst teens and singles: The sexually transmitted disease Gonorrhea is becoming increasingly resistant to regularly used antibiotics.

The CDC is now recommending doctors prescribe cephalosporin antibiotics exclusively because the resistance rate to the regularly used antibiotics has risen too high. The CDC has concluded there is now only one class of antibiotics available to predictably treat gonorrhea.

The CDC recommends changing antibiotic choices when 5% of the bacteria cases are resistant. In 2006 approximately 13% of gonorrhea cases nationwide showed resistance with some cities (Philadelphia, San Francisco, San Diego, Honolulu) presenting rates greater than 20% among heterosexual males. 38% of cases amongst homosexual and bisexual men were resistant. This is up from less than 1% on 2001.

Gonorrhea rates are continuing to rise across the country. The CDC recently released a study of gonorrhea rates in 8 western states that should concern all of us. Rates in these states are up 52% from 2000 - 2005. This study found the prevalence of gonorrhea to be 85.6 cases per 100,000 people. There is tremendous disparity between racial groups: Whites: 50.4 cases /100,000; Hispanics 91.1/100,000; Blacks 537.6 cases per 100,000.

Gonorrhea. like other bacterial infections, must be treated with antibiotics. As bugs become resistant, it is vital that drug manufacturers develop new drugs to combat these superbugs. There is concern in the medical community that progress towards new antibiotics is not progressing quickly enough.

Additionally, gonorrhea will cause infertility in up to 10% of infected young and adult women because it attacks the fallopian tubes and uterus. Most women don't rush to be tested for STDs after a sexual encounter but delay in treatment can cause complications to be more severe.

As our young people begin considering their sexual options, we must arm them with facts to inform their decision. In 2005, over 66,000 girls and 28,000 boys aged 10- 19 tested positive for gonorrhea. (See CDC Data) 6600 of these young women will have made a choice that will leave them infertile. Did they know the risks?

Elizabeth Edwards doesn't like her neighbor. She has referred to her neighbor, a man she has never actually met, as a "rabid, rabid Republican" because he brandished a gun while on his own property. I have known a lot of working class Republicans in my lifetime and have never noticed any of them to be particularly rabid. Oh my gosh! How could he! While I am not a gun owner, I can understand a person who has a gun making that fact known when people trespass on his property.

Perhaps Mrs. Edwards has spent a little too much time in the America for Democrats who live in 28,000 square foot houses. Apparently her neighbor, Monty Johnson, is a working class stiff who has lived on the property in question for all of his 55 years, fixing it up along the way. It seems that Mr. Johnson doesn't have the luxury of a trial-lawyer type bank account to pay for all the landscaping one sees at the Edwards' home.

This is a travesty for the Edwards family. It really is unfair that they would spend millions on their new home only to have to share air with a man who would lease his garage to a mechanic. Mr. Johnson should be glad that the Edwards family has moved in next door and brought the media with them.

Who wouldn't want to live next to a person like Mrs. Edwards? She moves in with her grand plans to build a home 10 times bigger than the average person will ever own. Her new mansion has beautiful grounds surpassing 100 acres. She seems to have a clear understanding of the kind of homes, and people, she, her husband and her children would like in their neighborhood. (Of course, with a yard as big as hers, Mrs. Edwards won't really be talking over the fence with her neighbors.) Ms. Edwards seems to believe that because she has moved into the neighborhood, everyone else should alter their property to meet her standards.

Mr. Johnson's home and 40 acres is run down and "slummy." His "slummy" property seems to be an eyesore for her. (I wonder what kind of view she has of his home. Is she ever home to look at his home?) Why shouldn't she ridicule him nationally with name calling? Why shouldn't he be thrust into the public eye and forced to defend the way he has chosen to use the land his family has owned for generations?

Many people around the country have lived on their property for generations. Increasingly, these property owners are being pushed out by people like Mrs. Edwards. The people who have roots in communities are often working class people with limited likelihood of dramatically increasing their personal wealth. Many of these people can't put a value on their property because there is no clear correlation between property value and the memories and history a person has tied to their familial property.

As the upper class continues to move out from the suburbs to try to find more land for their bigger houses, property once considered worthless begins to appreciate. Property taxes go up as well. Suddenly people who assumed they would spend their entire lives in one place find they can not afford to remain in their homes. Cities raise property taxes and / or rezone land to try to force people out. More and more homeowners are finding themselves in Mr. Johnson's position, minus the wife of a man running for President.

Mrs. Edwards has publicly branded this man a nut. What kind of classy woman is she? Perhaps she should show her appreciation for the common folk and reach out a hand. I doubt he would bite. Mr. Johnson has virtually no recourse. He says he will most likely move for financial reasons but otherwise he also stated: "I don't want to live somewhere where someone is always complaining about me."

She should look beyond the fact that he votes Republican and has a "Go Rudy Giuliani 2008" sign on his property. Now is not the time for the Edwards camp to alienate potential voters. Trust me, they will need all the help they can get.

Geraldo Rivera rivals Rosie at times! Rivera and Bill O'Reilly went at it last night on O'Reilly's show. The debate: Whether drunken illegal aliens are a problem. Rivera thinks they are not, at least not because they are illegal.

On the heals of a double murder by a drunk illegal alien, Rivera wants us to believe that deporting this particular drunk illegal wouldn't have mattered. These poor illegals come here to work, support their families... He actually said we have lured them here. (This is like saying people with nice houses lure criminals or people with nice cars deserve to have them stolen.) According to Rivera, deportation is just the wrong solution. Drunk drivers are the problem and they should be punished. Rivera urged O'Reilly to be fair.

Yes it is true that all drunks should be heavily punished. We know that many who drink and drive will be repeat offenders. Sadly, our justice system routinely fails to punish drunks. If our government wanted to make a dent in this problem, legislatures could pass laws requiring the police confiscate cars on the first offense, no exceptions. (I don't care if the drunk won't have a way to get to work. I don't care if someone loaned a car to a drunk. I really don't.) There are countless tools not being used to deter drunks and we should throw every strategy available at these people. Ultimately, jail should become home to those who repeat after punishment.

The truth is we are stuck with the citizen drunks. Illegal alien drunks, on the other hand, can be deported. Legal immigrants not yet naturalized can also have their permission to be here revoked. Any person who is not a citizen of the United States should be on notice that any law breaking behavior can result in deportation. Why do we even need to discuss this like there is a question about it?

We have not "lured" illegals here, thereby forever giving up our right to control our country's borders. When an illegal pointedly breaks the law, there should be a consequence. Geraldo is nuts if he thinks we have given up our right as a country to deport people who break the law.

If the drunken illegal would have been deported after his first offense, or his second offense, two young girls would still be alive today. Parents would still have dreams of high school and college graduations, of weddings and of grandchildren. Instead they will have the face of this pathetic man forever etched in their memories.

The United States must come up with a plan to deal with illegals. Maybe the new policy should be: Every time an illegal alien who actually has a real job is deported, a person waiting in line is allowed in through legal channels. Their entry would be based on a willingness to accept the job left open by the illegal. (I would bet good money that many who want to come to America would agree to take ANY job offered if it got them in the door.) This would solve both problems- get rid of those who disregard our laws and increase immigration to necessary levels by rewarding the law-abiders who have followed the rules. Policymakers can come up with rules about how long a person must work at a job to ensure the workplace is secure. (I am available to help them if they would like.)

Millions around the world wait patiently in line for their turn to come. There is nothing fair about illegals jumping the line ahead of those who follow the rules. It is indisputable: a disproportionate number of illegal immigrants are Hispanic. We therefore have a problem with Hispanic people that is more pressing than addressing the European illegal aliens who may be sneaking into our country. (I am in support of an equal opportunity deportation solution and would expel every illegal discovered under any circumstance.) (And I would give every illegal alien apprehended a lifetime ban.)

Geraldo: All illegal aliens are a problem. Drunk illegals are just a bigger problem.

According to The Hill, Newt Gingrich and John Kerry will square off about the environment on April 10th at 10 a.m. in the Russell Senate Office Building.

Kerry and his wife care a lot about the environment. I am positive they are carbon neutral and are solely responsible for planting at least a couple of hundred trees, funding some windmills (not off the coast of Hyannis Port) and capturing some methane.

Gingrich plans to unveil his total plan for environmental policy on November 1, 2007. This should be a great sneak peak.

This could be priceless for political junkies who get to watch. Let's hope C-SPAN airs it.

This Yale flag-burning story provides interesting fodder for several reasons:

Whose flag was burned? The CBS version of the AP story states the three students, one of whom being a Pakistani born American citizen, set fire to an American flag hanging outside a home. Last time I checked, one person does not have the right to trespass on another person's property and then burn that person's property. Did this flag belong to these men? If not, where is the homeowner?

Where was the flag? The Connecticut Post reported the flag was mounted to the house and had to be pulled down to prevent the fire from spreading. The police were not responding to a call about the fire. They were returning to the area, after giving the students directions, to verify they found their way to wherever they were going. What would've happened had the police not returned to the area? These three men engaged in reckless behavior that could have destroyed not only a flag but a home, the personal possessions of the homeowner, irreplaceable personal objects, etc.

Who are these three men? One of the men, Said Hyder Akbar, is a Pakistani-born American. He wrote a book about Afghanistan. Gillian Blake, his editor called him "an incredibly articulate, mature, sweet,smart guy." Interesting descriptors for an "alleged" arsonist. One of the other men is Greek and the third is British. Public Defender Sanford Bruce reports these three "gentlemen are clearly happy to be in the United States and happy to be attending Yale."

I am sure they are glad to be here, taking advantage of our liberty, our quality of life and our tolerance. These three men are a disgrace and don't deserve to share space with people who appreciate all our country has to offer.

What is protected speech? We have to tolerate American citizens who exercise their free speech in a legitimate, legal, manner. I hope the authorities don't confuse free speech with what reportedly happened in this circumstance. These three should be charged with any and every crime possible under local law.

Burning a flag is not a prank. While I think it is ridiculously insensitive and disrespectful for Americans to burn the flag, Americans have the right to do so when they do not violate some other law. Americans who burn the flag under the guise of "protected speech" are generally engaging in a very serious protest about some government action they oppose. When foreigners outside of America burn the flag they do so to demonstrate their dislike of what America stands for: individual liberty. Foreigners who are privileged to stand on American soil should maintain a proper amount of respect for this country and its symbols while they are here. Again this was not some prank and anyone who believes that these three are a crew of America-loving peaceniks is simply delusional.

These men were not engaging in an act of protected speech designed to make a greater point. They lit the flag on fire and then slithered away like the snakes they apparently are.

Why did these young men burn the flag? We may never know why these men burned the flag but we can draw a conclusion. According to the report this evening in The Guardian their lawyer would like people to believe that these three were not trying to make a political statement.

If these men do not understand the implications of burning the American flag, especially during a time when we have soldiers fighting overseas, risking their lives, I would like to know how they were able to secure entrance into Yale? Their lawyer may buy this story but most reasonable people will see through this. Was there really nothing else for these apparent pyromaniacs to burn?

These are smart guys who made a decision to burn an American flag. These guys made a statement and many Americans have heard it.

I have scoured the Internet and have not found a single mention of the religious leanings of any of these men. It is a question that reporters should ask. We are engaged in a war against terror that is a war between the sane world and fundamentalist, extremist Islam. People who embrace the beliefs of radical Islam do not respect the freedoms so cherished by Americans. Did these men burn our flag because the American flag represents religious freedom and the strength of America's Judeo-Christian roots?


Yale is a recognized liberal university that would most likely offer a trusting welcome to people whose beliefs differed from those of the average conservative. Lets hope New Haven hasn't become the place that those who seek to undermine America go to for safe haven.

Is anyone paying attention to Somalia?

This country has been war torn for decades and without a central government for much of that time. Some would contend that in January the radical Islamists, the Islamic Courts Union, were beaten back in the Battle of Ras Kamboni.

The war has continued. The past week has seen a dramatic escalation of violence between the Ethiopian and Somali troops and the Islamic and clan insurgents. Hundreds of civilians have been killed and the hospitals are overwhelmed. Nearly 100,000 people have fled the violence since February. The many reports on AllAfrica offer details on the fairly dire situation in Somalia. The UN pleas for an end to the violence continue to go unheeded. Refugees are being turned away by nearly every country in the area. The dead remain in the streets as people fear for their safety.

Control of Somalia provides control over the Gulf of Aden, the entry point to the Red Sea from the Indian Ocean. If radical Islam succeeds in gaining control of Somalia, the countries around the Red Sea will be increasingly vulnerable. Maybe it just doesn't matter.

How does one pardon someone who did nothing wrong? What a lot of nerve.

There is one winner in the latest hostage crisis: Ahmadinejad.

He stands before the cameras, grinning and acting as though he single-handedly avoided an international crisis. He says he has given all of us a gift with his pardon. This is like a thief returning to the scene of his crime and offering his plundered objects as a gift to the store owner. This is no gift, it is both a slap in England's face and a mockery of international rules of engagement.

We can only hope that as the soldiers make their way back to the free world, the international community will pursue sanctions against Iran for all of their menacing behavior.

Sadly, this situation has probably emboldened Iran. It has also possibly encouraged the idealists to believe that Iran only wants to get along, which will further hamper efforts to change Iran's course.

Be clear: There is a growing threat in Iran. The current Iranian president and the mullahs who control him are like a cancer in the Middle East. Anything done to facilitate his ongoing suppression of freedom will haunt us in the future.

See an interesting piece by Daniel Hannan printed in the Australian for another perspective.

The most interesting bit of information in a Tucson Citizen article about the man with "extreme" TB living in an Arizona jail was found in paragraph 6: Robert Daniels was diagnosed with "extreme multi drug resistant tuberculosis" while living in Russia with his wife and son. Daniels, who has dual citizenship, came back to the United States to get treatment.

When he sought treatment, doctors realized the strain he carried was drug-resistant and also mutating within him. Only 15 other people in the country carry this strain. Daniels agreed to live in a halfway house and follow rules to protect the community, including continuing treatment and wearing a mask in public. Not surprisingly he failed to comply.

The article does not provide information about the origins of the other 14 people with multiple drug resistant TB, however the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned of a growing problem in China, Mongolia and the Philippines. As early as 1998, doctors were warning of an impending crisis related to resistant TB, also called "Ebola with Wings" in Russia.

According to the WHO, only 4% of TB cases in America are drug resistant. In Latvia the number is 19%. In September of 2006, the WHO reported on a study completed in South Africa: 221 out of 544 patients had multi-drug resistant TB. Of those cases, 53 people had extensive drug resistant TB. 44 of the 53 people tested positive for HIV. 52 out of the 53 people died within 25 days of diagnosis.

These numbers are terrifying. People with HIV are particularly vulnerable to all varieties of TB. Those infected become a breeding ground for the virus to mutate and strengthen. While right now, the average healthy person is not particularly vulnerable to these strains of TB, over time these strains will strengthen. Like with other viruses, elderly people and children will be the most at risk. Eventually we either develop vaccines or the general population becomes increasingly at risk. As these strains mutate, developing vaccines lose their effectiveness. This is why the flu shot is given every year.

It is human nature to push limits. Most people will not take the initiative to protect others. Most people when left unsupervised will make decisions that are convenient for themselves. Daniels is not unique in his decision to knowingly expose other people to his virulent condition.

These drug-resistant strains of TB should be of concern to people in the U.S. While we can all feel for those who are quarantined, the government has a duty to protect the country from public health threats. Daniels should remain in quarantine as long as he tests positive for this strain of TB.

Our government should begin testing all immigrants who want to enter our country for communicable diseases. Those people who test positive should not be allowed to enter our country. Any illegal alien who is discovered to carry a communicable disease should be deported immediatly to their home country. Americans who have lived abroad, particularly in countries known to have high rates of these communicable diseases, should also need a medical clearance before returning to the States.

U.S. citizens who have acquired a communicable disease abroad should be treated before returning to the U.S. If that is not possible, they should be brought back in the safest manner possible for other travelers and then quarantined until they are medically cleared. (Would you want to sit next to a person with drug-resistant TB on your flight home from vacation?)

Requiring medical verification of good health is a reasonable expectation for those who want to travel to the United States. Quarantine is a responsible, reasonable requirement for those people who would knowingly place innocent people in their communities at risk.

Apparently the U.S. is not the only country struggling with illegal aliens.

Al Jazeera reports that Russia will implement a ban to prevent foreign nationals from selling goods in the marketplace. Many of the targeted illegal foreign nationals come from China. The government hopes the ban will improve employment opportunities for Russian citizens.

In Russia, legal foreign nationals must renew documents a minimum of once per year and reapply for a new work visa. The maximum a foreign national may remain in the country on a work visa is 2 years. Workers must be tested for AIDS, Syphilis, Leprosy, TB and drug use. They may be required leave the country every 3 months but can not stay in the country uninterrupted more than 2 years.

Every foreign visitor must register with the local government agency. The fine for an individual failing to register with the local government is several thousand dollars. A worker who fails to comply with the rules will most likely be deported and placed on a black list to prevent further entry for several years. The fine for a business that employs a person who is not registered is $30,000 (800,000 rubles) per violation.

I wonder if any Russian oblasts allow an illegal to get a Russian driver's licenses or to vote in elections? Does Russia allow the children of these illegals to have unfettered access to public schools? I wonder if Russia has begun offering classes in Chinese to help these children succeed in school. Does the Russian government print materials in Chinese to ensure the Chinese can read the information? Can any illegal access health care?

The answers: No drivers' license. No voting. No Chinese spoken in the public schools. (There are English speaking schools, but parents make a contribution to send their children to these schools.) The government does not translate documents to help illegal foreigners. The illegal may get immediate care but without money will not have access to any sort of non-emergency care.

Russia faces a growing struggle with illegals and like the U.S. will be faced with difficult decisions about how to discourage illegal immigration while ensuring that legal immigration continues in a manner that aids the country.

Our goal should not be to emulate all Russian policies, but if Russia can find a way to track foreign workers, the U.S. shouldn't have a problem developing a comprehensive system as well. If Russia can hold people accountable, the U.S. should be able to hold people accountable. We like Russia, should not facilitate illegal migration.

The Russians are right to protect their culture and their language. Without a common language and an appreciation of common cultural goals (like individual freedom, property rights, religious freedom...) a country will weaken. As U.S. policy becomes more tolerant of people who don't want to assimilate into the American culture, it becomes increasingly vulnerable.

Americans need to protect our country from those who want to undermine our rule of law and our very existence. Increasing the penalties facing illegal aliens and the businesses that employ them would be a great place to start.

HR Clinton has $36 million in the bank after adding $10 million from her Senate war chest to the $26 million she has raised so far. She has so much money that she will have no problem returning the money funneled illegally to her PAC by Pakistani business man Abdul Rehman Jinnah.

This may be hard to believe but he also orchestrated donations to Boxer's last reelection campaign.

No one should care that campaign finance laws were violated: the story will be about how one of the U.S. Attorneys, who wasn't fired by the Bush camp, got involved in an FEC issue as a political hack to undermine Clinton's campaign.

As the Senate has nothing better to do, be looking for hearings on the Hill to get to the bottom of this.

There goes the Neighborhood...

Can you imagine a set of grandparents burdening their neighbors with the presence of their three year old granddaughter? It's happening in a retirement community in Florida and the other AARPers aren't going to take it! Granted, the rest of the community moved to the area to get away from children and the rules are clear: No residents under the age of 18.

Sadly for this young child, her mother is a drug addict and there are no other family members available to take her in. The grandparents hoped their daughter would clean up but she hasn't. The grandparents have listed their home but it hasn't sold. They can not afford to move until they sell their property.

Let's hope the community gives the grandparents time to sell their property and move so this child doesn't have to be displaced again. Really, how much trouble can this one little girl cause their neighbors?

"We have not journeyed across the centuries, across the oceans, across the mountains, across the prairies, because we are made of sugar candy."- Winston Churchill, 1941

Clearly Iran thinks otherwise. The Iranian government is toying with Britain and Tony Blair, who needs to act in a decisive manner, soon. The notion of diplomacy is laughable. How does a country negotiate with another country that acts in such a blatantly disingenuous way?

While the pacifist optimists talk about how we should all be able to get along, the extremist Mullahs in Iran are laughing at the West. These Islamic fundamentalists know that many in the West have no backbone and will not fight to protect their soldiers. They believe that we Westerners do not have the will to fight for anything, for long. Increasingly, they seem to be correct.

So Britain ponders its options while the Iranians threaten to put the soldiers on trial and violate the Geneva Convention in numerous ways. There is no outcry from the American Left.

As Iran releases video of English soldiers explaining how they entered Iranian waters, the most important audience is the Iranian people. These people only know what their government tells them. They see these British soldiers admitting to entering Iranian waters and they are angry. They do not see these soldiers as victims, as hostages of their government. They do not think these statements are coerced.

The video of the Iranians throwing rocks and firecrackers at the British Embassy says all we need to know.

If Churchill isn't turning over in his grave right now...