Dear Senator Boxer,

There has been much public discussion about your comments to General Michael Walsh of the Army Corps of Engineers when he testified before your Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works last week. You interrupted General Walsh while he was answering–by all accounts courteously–your question to him about repairing levees damaged by Hurricane Katrina.

Senator, you interrupted the general to scold him for referring to you as “ma’am,” and asked him to address you as “Senator,” since by your own explanation you had worked hard to attain that title.

Ma’am, may I point out that “ma’am” is a term of respect to any married woman, as “sir” is to any man. Military culture requires people in uniform to address superiors by one of these terms, and no possible disrespect could be interpreted from this.

Ma’am, may I further point out that in your remonstrance of General Walsh, you did not reciprocate the respect you demanded from him, referring to him neither as “General” (which would be correct), “Brigadier” (which the Brits prefer when addressing a one-star), or “Sir” (which would at least indicate common courtesy).

In fact, Mrs. Boxer, you demanded respect and deference from some one who not only deserves the same courtesy, but you managed also to show none in return.

Barbara, you must know that the Army Corps of Engineers is a branch which devotes a tremendous amount of its time and effort here in the United States, building dams and levees and engineering waterways and other important public works.General Walsh spent several years in your home state of California as the Corps of Engineers built, modernized and maintained the vital systems that keep the water flowing to all residents of the Golden State.

Babs, surely you must recognize that the work of General Walsh as an army engineer in the service of Americans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is at least equal to whatever campaigning and politicking you did to become a Senator. This is not to mention the vital humanitarian work General Walsh did in Iraq to build hospitals, schools, roads and other infrastructure in the war-torn country. Further, it does not take into account General Walsh’s service to his country in the United States, Europe and the Persian Gulf, nor does it credit the general’s master’s degree in construction management from the University of Florida, nor his studies at the Army Command and General Staff College.

Honey, I’m sure your advisors will tell you that Americans hold the military in much higher regard than Congress, and that your rude and abusive behavior to a senior member of that military can only reflect poorly on your judgment, manners and mental acuity. In fact, sweetie, your exchange with General Walsh will only serve to widen the esteem gap between soldiers and Senators, to the soldiers’ favor.

In sum, Barbie baby, you would be well advised to issue a sincere public apology to General Walsh and the Army Corps of Engineers, and consult a reputable etiquette book before again speaking in public. Otherwise, the respect you so crave will be ever more difficult to earn. 

I’ve been having trouble coming up with a column lately, and certainly not because there are fewer official decisions to object to.  Rather, I find it difficult to express my objections to current administration policy with the existing vocabulary, without veering into invective.  Therefore, I decided to make up a few of my own terms to deal with the issues before us.

For example, how does one describe an administration that seems completely divorced from the reality of the nuclear threats from Iran, North Korea, Communist China and whoever ends up running Pakistan?  But one must also address the relentless apology tours of the President as he asks forgiveness for our military’s fight against oppression, our nation’s imprisoning of terrorists, and our moral leadership on the world stage?

What is the term for a president who is both asleep at the wheel and endlessly seeking forgiveness?  NAPOLOGIST.

What is the term for a Supreme Court nominee who openly ridicules the system of checks and balances that underpin our Constitution, vows to legislate from the bench, and believes that her own Hispanic heritage and gender make her more qualified than any white male?   But the term must also infer the widespread outrage and reaction this nominee causes in the opposition.  Cultural and sexual chauvinism and incited panic would both be encompassed in the term HERSPANIC.

We need a word that conveys a president who has spent four months multiplying our massive debt with unprecedented spending, but also needs three jets to take the First Lady on a dream date to New York, including one plane just for the press.  A president who is unconcerned with the fiscal realities of the nation, yet fully capable of lavishing his attention on his own social calendar can only be called OUTDATING.

How does one describe a President who, during his campaign, vowed to close Guantanamo Bay and bring the prisoners to the United States for trial and incarceration?  But the term would also have to include the refusal of any governor to host the prisoners, and the president’s own immediate reversal of his own policy.  If one were to advise this president to carefully study a situation before making unenlightened decisions that would not lead embarrassing situations, it might be called GIT MO INFO.

What do you call a White House press secretary who never answers a direct question, speaks in sentence fragments that would mystify the most devoted text messenger, and whose incoherent syntax defies analysis?

This master communicator explains policies with a series of unintelligible monosyllables, ducks challenges with a dismissive glazed-over expression, and considers giggling an effective verbal riposte. This executive staff position should simply be known as MISPOKESMAN.

I’m sure more terms will arise as events dictate, but we should apply these first few as needed.  I’ll be on holiday for the first half of June, so maybe the next couple of weeks’ events will inspire an entirely new vocabulary.

Over forty years ago, Baby Boomers were encouraged to experiment with drugs (smoke it, snort it, pop it, shoot it) as part of embracing the cultural changes, the culture clashes, and the “cultural revolution.”  The idea was to detach from the existing conventions and societal hierarchies.

The merits, as well as the excesses, of that era continue to evoke strong emotions, often in the form of nostalgia or regret, and perpetuated through film and music.  There are some who have never moved on, who remain stuck in a “ganja” haze, and are perfectly content.  And there are the others who moved on but maintain that recreational drugs (marijuana, for the most part) are no more harmful than an occasional cocktail.

We can’t debate the experts’ analyses of maturity, self-control, addictive personalities or religious tenets in this short commentary.  What we can do is lay out a common sense position for legalizing marijuana in the U.S., which might help turn the tide of extreme violence that is racing at breakneck speed onto our border states.

There is a very real danger proliferating up and down California’s border with Mexico, and the war being waged against the Mexican cartels for the running of illegal drugs is now spilling into our country.  At the same time, Mexico, like California, is on the verge of financial and social collapse.  The reason for these failures is the hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal drug money.  If marijuana were legalized, those hundreds of millions would find their way into city coffers.  The “illegal” aspect remains the exclusive reason for the violence.

The root cause of this war is Americans’ insatiable thirst for illegal drugs.

Exacerbating the bloody conflicts is Americans’ unapologetic unwillingness to “just say no,” like the naïve anti-drug campaign of the 1970s.  It might’ve been cool back then to spit in the face of common sense, but today that cool has been overshadowed by the savage violence associated with drug traffic.  Self-indulgence and lack of personal responsibility makes victory in a war on illegal drugs impossible.

1920s Prohibition will never again be revisited, because no one who enjoys fine wines, champagnes, beer, and old Scotch will ever sacrifice that pleasure.  Alcoholic beverages have become the most accessible and legal choice to escape our every day stresses (which are mounting exponentially).  The irony is that alcohol kills 6½ times more American youth than all other illicit drugs combined.

Protecting our children should always be the primary focus in eradicating the illegal drug pipeline.  However, it goes without saying that our best-laid plans for our children’s safety and well-being can be overridden by peer pressure to be cool.  Endless adoration of celebrity “bad boy” and “bad girl” behavior, and movie glamorization of violence in the drug trade turns this battle into a joke.  And who is having the last laugh?  The cartels.

California is on the verge of bankruptcy, and so the political lobbying to legalize marijuana is going into overdrive. This convinces us, at least, of the efficacy of possibly generating huge tax revenues through the sale of “legal” grass.  Whether you agree or not, legalizing marijuana is an idea whose time has not only come but may be the only way to survive what has already escalated into a protracted un-winnable war, not only on our southern border but also in Afghanistan.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy estimated that between 1989 and 1998, American users spent $39 billion to $77 billion yearly on cocaine and $10 billion to $22 billion yearly on heroin. To arrive at these estimates, they multiplied the number of users by their typical expenditures, and then converted the resulting estimates to 1998-dollar equivalents. Most of the downward trend resulted from changes in the consumer price index.  The U.S. now spends over $19 billion a year on the war on drugs.  That money would be better spent on prevention rather than on interdiction.

We are not saying that America should revive the 1909 marketing of pharmaceuticals - “…marijuana, heroin and morphine…is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health,” but that we use common sense to regulate the distribution as we do for all other drugs.  Heck, all you have to do is advertise the side effects on television and that’s enough to scare you.  Will there be abuse?  Yes.  Can we live with it?  Don’t we already?  The best way to police drugs is to police ourselves and stop flushing taxpayer dollars down the toilet (with the evidence).

We’ve had it both ways for nearly a century: alcohol (legal) on one end of the teeter-totter, and drugs (illegal) on the other.  Should it balance?  Would it be worth the time and money invested to legalize marijuana?  We say yes, because, so far, the anti-drug policymakers have yet to provide cohesive answers as to why the current strategy on the war on drugs, which costs billions of dollars and thousands of man-hours, has never worked.

Americans will always abhor and complain about the violence associated with drug crime. At the same time, however, they also need to take a long, hard look in the mirror and face the real problem.

Many people I respect believe that conservatives cannot appeal to a majority of voters simply by saying “no” to the socialist agenda now guiding our government.  They say we must have an alternate positive plan, rather than simply obstructing the rush to totalitarianism.  I disagree.

A train headed for a washed-out bridge benefits immensely from anything that safely halts its headlong rush toward destruction.  If the passengers realize the danger, they would also perceive the value of halting forward progress.

But for those who require a positive plan, one is available and easily understood.  As so many profound ideas these days, it comes from the source of much modern wisdom–half-hour network comedy classics.  In the NBC series Seinfeld, the character of George Castanza suffered week after week from the results of his chronically poor judgment–lost jobs, broken relationships, public humiliation and personal embarrassment.  In one episode, George realizes that the source of his troubles is his own warped instinct to always make the wrong decision.  He further decides that he will, from that moment on, always do exactly the opposite what his instincts tell him to do.  Instantly, he finds success and happiness — all because he decided to “do the opposite.”

This is the positive alternative conservatives have been looking for.  Obama spends trillions of dollars we don’t have, and plunges the nation into debt we can never repay.  Saying no to this is certainly sane and responsible, but doing the opposite would be even better.  Instead of increasing spending, how about reducing it?  Would reducing spending play well with the electorate?   In a recent poll, Californians faced with a massive state deficit preferred the solution of reducing spending to raising taxes by a 3 to 1 margin.

Obama has abandoned long-time allies to their fates by canceling defense programs and dismissing vital relationships, gone hat in hand to our sworn enemies to apologize for America’s foreign policy, and demonstrated tolerance for outrages committed by rogue regimes.  Certainly ceasing these self-defeating behaviors would be a positive step.  But how much better to do the opposite–install missile defense systems in Poland because it strengthens a stalwart ally, support Israel in defending itself against terrorists on all sides and a nuclear-ready Iran, acknowledge and strengthen our special relationship with the United Kingdom, and show pride in and demand respect for the sacrifices generations of Americans have made to defend freedom and liberty throughout the world.

Obama has vastly increased government control of private industry.  The current executive branch is now in the executive suites of banks and lending institutions, automobile manufacturers, and soon health care providers.  Obama has bought a majority share of Chrysler with taxpayer money, then handed it over to union bosses.  Clearly, simply saying no to all of this Marxist nationalization of private industry would be a demonstration of sanity.  But doing the opposite would qualify as insightful and visionary.   Allow the ruthlessly fair free market to pick winners and losers rather than government bureaucrats.  If companies cannot compete, then they must fail and make room for those that offer what the public wants.  Artificially propping up inefficient companies rewards incompetence and punishes competitors who are actually doing things correctly.  Taking government out of private industry energizes, enables and encourages investment, innovation and success. 

Obama promises to raise taxes on the rich, on businesses, on the most successful entities in our society and economy.  This is a policy that, again, punishes success.  Not punishing success, and refusing to raise taxes, is a definite improvement.  But doing the opposite–reducing taxes on successful individuals and enterprises–is infinitely better.  Encourage and reward success with lower taxes, and we shall certainly have more of it.  Our economy will expand, employment will grow, revenues will increase, just as it did under Ronald Reagan, and in response to George W. Bush’s tax cuts.

I do not agree with those who say conservatives cannot simply be the Party of No.  A few administrations ago, “Just say no” was First Lady Nancy Reagan’s advice to kids to avoid drugs.  It was widely ridiculed by the Left and the media.  Yet drug abuse undeniably begins voluntarily, which requires an affirmative response, not to mention a substantial investment.  Just saying “no” when drugs are offered effectively eliminates the problem.

But for those who believe conservatives need a specific plan to counter the tide of socialism sweeping across the country, the solution is clear and simple.  Take any policy of the current administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress and just do the opposite.  In every case, such a course will result in greater success, expanded liberty, and a brighter future for Americans.

On the other hand, continuing in the current direction will result in America becoming a pitiful minor character in a show about nothing.

I never thought much about religion, until they started taking it away.

No prayers at graduation ceremonies or before the football game.  Remove the Ten Commandments from the courthouse and public square.  Excise the cross from the city seal.  Banish “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance.

I read about the teacher who was advised not to mention her religion at school.  Later she was asked to sign a petition that she would not teach religion.  All but two other teachers at her school had signed, her colleagues told her, and it wasn’t a religious school anyway, so why not just go along?  Ultimately, all the teachers signed the petition except the woman in question.  She was later transferred to another school.

Can you guess where this incident took place?  San Francisco?  New York?  Washington D. C.?  No, it was in the German town of Tilsit, in 1936, as documented in the book “Frauen,” Alison Owings’ oral history of women living under the Third Reich.

Whether it’s Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the Peoples Republic of China, or any other government that subjugates its people, totalitarian regimes can’t tolerate religion because oppressed people must have only one master–the state.  Religion is the last bastion of faith, hope and freedom for the individual–and none of those essentials are permitted under totalitarian regimes.

Once in this country--founded in part by those seeking religious freedom--God, church and faith were woven into the fabric of our national character.  The Declaration of Independence proclaims that our fundamental rights are endowed by our Creator, not granted by our government.

But in recent decades, religion and the religious have been under attack–assailed in individual and class action lawsuits, intimidated by threats from the ACLU, savaged by activist judges who have no fear of Judgment.  Those who are guided by faith are portrayed in America as “the religious right,” marginalized as a fanatic fringe.  President Obama chose to observe the National Day of Prayer privately, rather than in the customary public ceremony, putting as much space between himself and people of faith as possible.  Candidate Obama spoke of the ignorant masses who cling to their guns and religion.

No minority group in the world is as frequently vilified and freely targeted as Christians.  The Catholic Church vies with the CIA as the villain of choice in modern films. Newsweek  Magazine recently reported on “The Decline and Fall of Christian America.”  Such stories appear regularly in the mainstream press, though there is scant coverage of religion’s recurring resurrections.

The goal is clearly to erase religion as a force in our lives.  Nowhere is this more evident than in matters dealing with gays.  First, the Left asked for tolerance of the gay lifestyle.  Then came pleas for acceptance.  Then they wanted equal rights, which blossomed into gay pride days and parades  Soon after, they demanded special protections for gays from discrimination, defamation, and depredation.  Then they insisted that gay lifestyles be taught as part of school curricula, even as every vestige of religion was expunged form those same classrooms.  Gay marriage is now legal in five states.  And a contestant in the Miss USA pageant (Carrie Prejean of Vista, California) is declared ineligible to compete because she dared to give an answer to a question about gay marriage that reflected her deeply-held religious values.  Thus, holding a religious opinion that differs from the views of the Left can lead to the authorities taking away a lifelong dream.  Who knows what the next dissenter will be forced to forfeit?

So maybe Newsweek is right, and religion is dead.  Maybe Americans of faith are a shrinking and increasingly maligned minority.  And if you don’t share those religious views, perhaps you think this is no great loss.  But if those who govern us are not guided by divine inspiration, if they do not answer to a higher authority, if they do not recognize any power greater than their own, then we are all at their mercy and must hope that we never incur their wrath.

And ask yourself, what is the next idea we’ll be forbidden to believe in?

When the president alludes to his mandate the messages are delivered with the smug satisfaction that he need not explain himself nor defend the mind-boggling amount of taxpayer dollars he is throwing at every problem that comes his way, much like throwing spaghetti against the wall.  But in his case, if it sticks, we’re cooked.

His fan club, apparently so overwhelmed with his rock star “tude,” doggedly cling to the “hope” he promised.  “Hope” and “Change” were, after all, burned into his teleprompter.

What has become as dangerous as a truckload of C-4 is that hope, by itself, is not always enough.  Those same BHO groupies are “stuck on hope” because they still subsist on the incessant superficial media coverage of President Bush’s financial blunders.

Obama’s followers have yet to understand or accept where their fearless leader has taken Americans in these first 100 days – straight down Thomas Crapper’s throne.  If they persist in their blind adoration, they’ll be enjoying their just desserts a la commode.

Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts, in his March 2008 article entitled The Collapse of American Power, offered this bleak assessment: “…the fact of the matter is that the U.S. is bankrupt.”  That statement was made during the Bush Administration.  What conservative Americans are learning, while liberals continue to savor the Chosen One, is that one trillion dollars of debt has morphed into several trillions, a staggering amount most humans cannot wrap their brain around.  It is turning recovery into a mathematical impossibility.

The “in the tank” media, reports every little Bear market rally as if recovery was at hand.  And whenever Ben Bernanke speaks, his presentation is reminiscent of “When E.F. Hutton talks, people listen.”  That’s the joke of course, because we all know what happened to E.F. Hutton.

And so goes Wall Street.  Not so very long ago, everyone listened to Alan Greenspan too.  And look where we are now.  “The thrill is gone” as B.B. King said, “free from the spell” of Wall Street economists.

For you recalcitrant liberals, there is the National Bankruptcy Survival Guide, in which Seth Van Brocklin explains the difficulty in quantifying the national debt.  As he states: “Once numbers start getting up into the trillions, they literally become mind-numbing.”

By way of illustration, Van Brocklin explains just how large one trillion dollars actually is:  “If you were able to earn $1 per second continuously, you would accumulate $1 Billion after 33 years.”  But, to make $1 Trillion at the rate of $1 per second, “it would take 33,000 years.”  We’re pretty sure you can now visualize twelve times that amount, which is roughly the national debt under the current Administration.

It’s difficult not to feel and sound morose at times.  The present Administration (as well as the numerous fiscal blunders and catastrophes of previous Administrations) have forced the American People to duck and dodge an unrelenting monetary meteor shower which is hitting us all left, right, and center.  Even the Administration’s indignation over Bernie Madoff seems rather comical when you step back in order to see a bigger picture, that is, the federal government now running the biggest Ponzi scheme in history.  But with a solid majority, the bad guys aren’t even getting a slap on the wrist.

The president rode into office on a wave of popularity with a promise to fix the economic mess he inherited (as we are constantly reminded).  He’s smart, but not that smart.  If he were the brainchild his followers touted he is during those nightmarish months of campaigning, he wouldn’t now be crushing the country with a spending tsunami.  And as the country is crushed, so are our lives, our livelihoods, our dreams and aspirations, and, most tragically, our children’s future.

As elected leader of the U.S., one would either have to be totally unprepared, inexperienced or ignorant to not understand the magnitude of this economic crisis.  A logical conclusion would be that this President is either too ignorant, OR fully understands and is lying to Americans -- perhaps running the economy, and thereby the nation, into the ground to realize a larger ideological agenda in the naïve belief it’s for the greater good.

The saddest part is this: even if conservatives were to reclaim the majority in Congress, slash taxes across the board, break the hold unions have on industry, resurrect manufacturing and purge entitlements to illegal immigrants, those efforts would only be a blip on the radar of history.

While the media doesn’t even try to conceal their bias anymore, they continue to squash the opposition through the denigration of patriotically concerned Americans who are now fighting back to save our Republic.  It is not a pretty picture, and there will be no honor at the end of the day for the media.

This is why the TEA party participant numbers are swelling.  No matter what kind of negative hype the media invents, citizens are on to them and there’s a new wave of optimism about to crush the Left’s favorite milieu – carefully crafted ignorance.

We know for a fact (and readily admit) that there are just as many academically intelligent people on the left as there are on the right. After all, America wasn’t conceived and built by dummies.  We, therefore, cannot understand why logical and common sense answers are being cast aside or rejected entirely—the way a demented fisherman tosses the filets of his catch into the drink and tries to sell us the innards.  Americans won’t be buying your stinking innards much longer.  Looming inflation won’t let them.

Our greatest fear is searching for, but not finding, viable solutions to reverse the trade and industry mess in which we find ourselves. The more research we find out, the more we realize it is becoming impossible to clean up after this disaster.

Americans must find a way to strike a balance between regulation, to protect against greed, but at the same time allow everyone to pursue their dreams unhindered by a parasitic socialist system designed to quash our freedoms.

The TEA party participants are looking for that balance and we will not settle for less.

The eager applicant, clutching his resume, strides confidently through the doors of the Enemies of America Human Resources Agency, and is immediately disheartened by the long lines of would-be terrorists, assassins, saboteurs and spies seeking jobs from the overworked bureaucrats of the jihad.

The employment counselor, Mulli al Rashiri, in his traditional Ghutra and short-sleeved thobe, motions the applicant to a chair.

“My name is Mohammed,” announces the applicant, handing over his resume.  “I want to join the fight against America.”

Mulli the counselor glances at the resume and shakes his head.  “I wish you’d come a year ago.  Everybody was hiring–al Qaeda, the Taliban, Iran death squads.  Could have got you a free trip to Venezuela just for an interview.  But now–nothing”

“But I am qualified in demolitions, firearms, subversion,” Mohammed pleads.  “I was voted Most Likely to Be Interviewed by MSNBC by my terrorist training class.”

“Just no need these days.”

“I can infiltrate the CIA, learn all their secret interrogation methods.”

“The Obama administration has already made those public.  And even if they hadn’t spilled all their secret interrogation techniques, the American Attorney General is prosecuting the lawyers who authorized them.  We have nothing to fear from the CIA.”

“I’m very good at propaganda.  I could devise campaigns to make the Americans look weak and untrustworthy to other nations.“

The counselor holds up his hand.  “Obama’s already done that.  He has abandoned the Eastern Europeans, belittled the British, kowtowed to the Russians, befriended Hugo Chavez, and answered the North Korean missile launch by promising not to weaponize space.  There is nothing you can do to weaken or embarrass the Americans that their president hasn’t already done.”

“How about sabotage?  I could penetrate their advanced aircraft factories and destroy their state-of-the-art fighter planes.”

“The Secretary of Defense already did that when he cancelled the F-22 program.  No need to destroy their front-line fighters–the Americans are scrapping the entire program.”

Desperate, Mohammed struggles to find a place in the fight.  “I could learn white collar crime.  I could work on Wall Street, destroy their financial system.”

“Obama has already taken care of that with his stimulus and spending bills.  America is spending trillions of dollars they don’t have, nationalizing banks and private industry, bringing in socialized medicine.  Obama is engineering the total collapse of the American financial system.  Do you really think you can do worse than that?”

“But I need a job.”

“So does every terrorist in the world.  Look, when Bush was in charge, and we were losing twenty, thirty, fifty holy warriors a day, we were desperate for new recruits.  But now I get thousands of applications for every job.  Even to be an entry-level community organizer for ACORN, you have to know somebody.  Ever since Obama and the Democrats took over, the job market in terrorism, insurrection, and anti-American subversion has plummeted.  Unemployment among terrorists has skyrocketed.”

“What should I do?”

“There’s always a need for suicide bombers.”  Mulli the counselor points to a long, stationary line of last-resort applicants.  “Good benefits, full retirement.”

Mohammed shakes his head.  “I was looking for something with more of a future.”

Mulli checks his computer.  “Al Franken is looking for a chief of staff.”

Mohammed pretends not to hear.  “I have a master’s degree from the Anti-American University in Tehran.  Maybe I could teach.”

Mulli shakes his head.  “It would take years of hard work and study to be able to indoctrinate American students to hate their country more successfully than the subversive teachers, textbooks and social programs already established in the American educational system.”

Mohammed’s hopes are crushed.  “All my life, I have studied how evil the United States is.  I hate America.  I want to tear America down.  There must be something I can do.”

“Have you thought about becoming a community organizer?”

by Lance Thompson

The nationwide tea parties last week, despite being ridiculed and denounced by the mainstream media, were the beginning of an undeniable national movement to wrest control of the government from the big spenders and even bigger taxers. Though conservatives were much more numerous than liberals, the tea parties were not necessarily friendly to Republicans, especially those who favor big (expensive) government. This tells me that tea parties, with no allegiance to either the GOP or the Democrats, may give rise to the long sought-after third party–the Tea Party.

One does not need to be a reader of tea leaves to discern the clear and concise plank--smaller government, lower taxes, greater accountability. Being a grass roots organization, Tea Party collectors could solicit donations in Tea Cups at such Tea-friendly venues as NASCAR races, gun shows, and Wal-Mart parking lots.

Certainly the Tea Party would draw mostly from the Republican ranks, just as a new political party based on gourmet coffee houses would draw mainly from the Democrats. Seldom feeling welcome among the environmentally correct, caffeine-agitated, New York Times-addicted denizens of Starbucks, Tea Party members could meet for a cup in Tea Houses featuring FoxNews monitors, incandescent lighting, and RV hook-ups.

The Tea Party would have a big tent open to all–decaf and high octane drinkers, steaming hot and refreshingly iced afficionados, straight black and passion fruit devotees, not to mention traditional lovers and instant converts.

The Tea Party must be prepared for vicious assault from the media character assassins who serve the Left. TP-ers will have to prepare for such biased headlines as “Trouble Brewing for Tea Party,” “Tea Leaks Leave Stain on Coattails,” and the old favorite, “Teapot Dome Scandal.” Pinko pundits will tell Tea Party members that they’re playing into the hands of the Chinese tea producers, the Japanese tea ceremonialists, and the English tea purists. But this Tea Party will have a distinctly American flavor, just as the original one did in November 1773.

Ultimately, all political parties need a leader and standard bearer. I suggest we search for a man or woman who believes in the plank, is unwilling to dilute core principles, and is unafraid of being squeezed by both sides. For the time being, let us call that leader “Earl Grey,” and plan for a nominating convention in Darjeeling.

Whether this third party will be a tempest in a teapot remains to be seen. But Americans have had a sip of a refreshing new political flavor, and they seem to be warming to the idea. If nothing else, it has been an excellent way to let off steam.

by Lance Thompson

Over the weekend, the US Navy rescued Captain Richard Phillips from pirates who had boarded his commercial civilian ship, tried to seize it, and held him at gunpoint for five days. Navy marksmen shot three of the four pirates holding Phillips in a lifeboat, and took into custody the fifth pirate who was “negotiating” for the captain’s life. The nation should cheer the actions by the US Navy, welcome Captain Phillips home with open arms, and take this opportunity to establish a strong anti-piracy policy.

That policy should be that pirates shall be executed as terrorists on the spot. There is no need for a trial. Five armed pirates boarded a defenseless ship and attempted to seize it and its crew. The crew fought back, regained control, and the pirates departed with one hostage, threatening to kill him if their demands weren’t met. There is no defense, no excuse, no extenuating circumstances for piracy. The two remaining pirates in this incident should be executed immediately, before they reach port. Their remains can be displayed as a reminder of the fate that awaits their kind.

Some have commented already that the decisive end of this incident will encourage more violent acts by pirates. These are the same deep thinkers who believe that being nice to terrorists will lessen the severity of terrorist attacks. Pirates and terrorists have freely chosen careers of murder and depredation in which they prey on the innocent and unarmed. There is no defense or excuse for this behavior. There is only one suitable penalty–death.

Pirate apologists will say that this in unrealistic, particularly in hostage situations. But hostage situations work both ways. In this incident, as in so many others, the pirates threatened to kill their hostages. By the same token, pirates also know that the hostages are their only shield against punishment for their crimes. If hostages are killed, pirates must know that they will face execution–not a lengthy legal battle that will turn them into celebrities.

For additional leverage in a hostage crisis, any pirates held in custody by the nation attacked should be put at risk. For every innocent hostage harmed, a pirate will be executed immediately. If the nation should run short of pirates in custody, that nation should apprehend pirates (such as Abdullah Lami, a pirate who is holding a Greek ship in the Somali town of Gaan), those who support pirates, those who supply pirates, those who defend pirates, those who speak for pirates, those who profess to be pirates (such as self-described Jamac Hebeb, who advised all future hostage-takers to kill their hostages before they can be rescued), and those who are related to pirates. It is time that the enemy be put at the same level of risk as the civilized world. The penalty for piracy is death, and that penalty applies to anyone involved.

While this may sound harsh or uncivilized, it is the only possible response to the terrorism of piracy. Do you ever wonder why Iranian ships, Russian ships, Red Chinese ships are never seized by pirates? It’s because pirates know that those governments will retaliate swiftly and mercilessly. Is it more civilized for us to put all those who sail under our flag at risk, merely so we can appear to be humane and civilized? If we don’t punish piracy severely, we become complicit in its wickedness, and we contribute to its awful human toll.

Just as with terrorism, piracy will not cease until pirates are certain that their acts will be met with swift and certain justice. Pirates have chosen to hold innocent people at risk to realize financial gain. One who becomes a pirate forfeits all claims to mercy, compassion, and the benefits of humanity. These are enemies of the civilized world, and they should be exterminated as one would deal with pestilential vermin.

by Lance Thompson

It’s impossible to know whether hindsight will assess the current administration as the most corrupt, the most inept, or the most dangerous in history, but there is certainly an opportunity for Obama to rate highest in all three categories and claim the Triple Crown.

In the corruption column, Obama moved quickly to fill his cabinet and administration with tax cheats (Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner) and terrorist sympathizers (Attorney General Eric Holder and National Intelligence Council chief Charles Freeman).  The only reason there aren’t more criminals in the administration is that several nominees withdrew their names when their questionable pasts were exposed–Governor Bill Richardson (under federal investigation for trading state contracts for campaign contributions) and one-time Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and private consultant Nancy Killefer (tax troubles for both).  Harold Koh, Obama’s pick for the State Department’s legal advisor, finds nothing wrong with applying Muslim Sharia law in “appropriate” cases.   Obama has brought the 2010 Census under the control of the White House, and is enlisting the vote-manufacturing experts at ACORN to recruit census takers.  And let’s not forget that Obama campaigned for and signed a stimulus bill that neither he nor many Democrats nor any Republicans in Congress ever read--the most costly single piece of legislation in history.

In qualifying for the ineptitude crown, Obama has demonstrated a supreme lack of diplomatic grace, despite campaigning on the promise to improve America’s image in the world.  He presented the British Prime Minister with movie DVD’s unviewable on European video systems, and the Queen with a video i-pod that included video coverage of his own speeches.  His state department denied the existence of a special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom.   Obama’s recent speeches abroad, besides denigrating American commitment and sacrifice to a free Europe, also demonstrates such a dismal knowledge of 20th Century history and geopolitics that no one could ever doubt his Ivy League education. Obama has also suggested that Americans in uniform provide their own health insurance; subsidized GM, fired its CEO, and then indicated the company may be better off declaring bankruptcy; spent the first few weeks of his presidency declaring the “worst economic crisis since the Great Depression,” then switched to rosy outlooks and predictions once his cripplingly massive spending bills were passed.

But Obama scores highest in the “most dangerous” category:

He vows to rid the American arsenal of nuclear weapons while more rogue regimes than ever before are racing to perfect them.

His answer to a record national debt is to treble and quadruple that debt with mindless spending and unprecedented waste.

He slapped key ally Israel in the face by sending a billion dollars of aid to the terrorist government of Gaza to repair damage inflicted in the recent conflict.

He cravenly offered to bargain away our missile defense of Eastern European states while begging the Russians to cease their military aid to Iran.

He met the defiant launch of a North Korean ICBM with anguished hand-wringing and a complaint to the permanently ineffectual United Nations.

His Defense Secretary strips major military programs from the budget even as every other government program enjoys unprecedented largesse.

Most corrupt, most inept, most dangerous–certainly Obama has competition for any one of these honors from administrations past.  But we have never had a president who scored so highly so quickly in all three categories.  Of course, Obama could jeopardize his chance at the Triple Crown if he were to suddenly demonstrate competence, judgment and integrity.  But personally, I think his lock on the title is unassailable.