Scott Fenstermaker, Esquire - Pinhead

For those that don't know, Mr. Fenstermaker is one of the lawyers for the 9/11 terrorists. He says that he will not be in the courtroom for the "trial of the century", (my emphasis) but he has some part to play in this charade. Today I sent Mr. Fenstermaker an e-mail asking him to define his role for me. Since it was sent only today I have yet to receive a reply. If and when I do I will gladly post it here once I have informed Mr. Fenstermaker. By the way, he encourages people to e-mail him at scott@fenstermakerlaw.com.

Then why am I already labeling him a pinhead, you ask? I would think that it's pretty clear, but let me give you my thoughts anyway. For starters these terrorist scumbags need to be tried by a military tribunal before their executions not by a civilian court in NYC. Scott- can I call him that, it's so much easier to type, I can, thanks- says that there will be propaganda expressed by the "defendants" during the trial, but he won't elaborate on what type. Well, we already know what type will be spouted by the terrorist and Scott just doesn't seem to care. Or maybe he's just giving the typical lawyer answer by saying he doesn't know. So it appears that Scott is in favor of a show trial, because after all that's all this is.

But the kicker for me and what made me make Scott the subject of today's entry is the article I read by Ed Morrissey on Hot Air.com. The article is a series of e-mails shared by Scott and Ed. At the end of one of the epistles is this comment by Scott, "By the way please tell your subscribers that I still don't know who attacked the World Trade Center and, yes, I still don't care. From the perspective of those who died, it makes very little difference who killed them. From the perspective of everyone else, it's frankly none of their business, unless they sit on the jury of course. Print that loud, wide and clear." Holy s*&*, did I read that correctly?

Is Scott a real life physic? How the hell does he know what the dead think? I doubt that he spoke to any of them just before they were killed. Are we beginning to see why I think of Scott Fenstermaker, Esquire as a pinhead?

Then of course is the part of how for the rest of us it's none of our collective business who killed these people. What? For the families of the victims, I believe that it most certainly is their business. As for the rest of us, you had better believe that it's our business. Our country was attacked by terrorists that slaughtered almost 3,000 innocent men, women and children for nothing more than an ideology. We have since been at war with that ideology, thousands more have died.

I also saw an interview Scott did recently on the O'Reilly Factor. In that interview Scott said that he didn't care if people hated him. He actually said that he was "honored" that people would hate him. He thinks that the people who hate him also hate the rule of law.

All this coming from a graduate of the Air Force Academy. I find it hard to believe that a person who has worn the uniform of one of our branches of the military could say these things.

I don't hate Scott. He isn't deserving of my hate. It would take too much energy and I won't waste it on him. I feel sorry for him. He is so wrapped up in being a lawyer for these lowlifes that he seems to have forgotten that these atrocities were committed against his fellow Americans. He just doesn't seem to get it. Besides, I read some of the comments made about Morrissey's article and many other folks are pouring their hatred his way.

To me he's just another liberal lawyer trying to get his 15 minutes.

Or in other words, a pinhead.

And a major league one at that.

Webster's defines pinhead:
1. the head of a pin
2. something very small or insignificant
3. a very dull or stupid person

The Senate Version of Health Care

Well, we knew it wouldn't be long before the Senate rolled out it's version of the health care reform. I didn't think that Harry Reid would actually try to outdo Nancy Pelosi, but it seems he has made a valiant attempt. 2,074 pages for one bill, wow. That's the only word to describe it. Who could read such a bill? I bet it would put an insomniac to sleep.

Even after all the legal mumbo-jumbo is filtered out and us normal folk were able to understand it, would we back it? I won't if it means that I have to trust the government to run the health care industry. Now I know it won't happen overnight and the left claims that it won't happen at all. But let me ask you this, when have you ever known the government, and I don't care if it's a republican or democratically controlled government, to get it's hooks into something and ever let it go? I can't think of a single time. If you can, let me know.

So now let's take a look at the basic ideas behind reform. The first, I believe, is to make sure that everyone is covered by some sort of insurance. Define everyone. Is it citizens only, or does that include folks that are here both legally and illegally? Is it taxpayers or people that file a tax return? We all know there is a big difference there. I'm curious to hear the answers.

I can't find Reid's bill online to get the answers to these and other questions that I have. One of the biggest questions I have is why it cost so much. If the government makes new regulations for the insurance industry to follow, how does that cost the government, meaning you and me, anything? I realize that the government wants to give tax credits to lower income folks that would have a hard time paying the additional costs that the government is requiring them to pay. So isn't that just giving them back their premium money? Isn't that the government, again meaning the taxpayer, picking up the tab?

That part seems to me to just be an expansion of welfare. It's another government giveaway that will be abused like every other. We all know that there are plenty of folks out there that will immediately figure out a way to scam the system. Whether that is by criminal means or just plain laziness, it will happen.

Did I use the "L" word again? You bet'cha. Sorry 'bout that, I just couldn't resist. Yes, Pollyanna there are plenty of people in this world that will allow others to shoulder the burden for them. I see it plenty in my line of work. I have heard every excuse under the sun why they can't work or find a job. Most of it is pure laziness and a lack of self respect.

So, it's who does it cover, why does it cost so much and how does this improve care for all in this country? Oh, that's right, we haven't covered that yet, have we? It won't improve things for me and my family. I believe it will make things more difficult. Why you ask? Millions more people and the same amount of doctors makes for longer waits. That is just logic, nothing to do with ideology. I go to the doctor for check ups and surgery. That's it. I don't go when I get the sniffles, I only go when I really need to. When I needed surgery on my back and then on my neck, I couldn't wait around for the doctor, I needed both right then. But still there was a bit of a wait, what happens next time, how much longer will the wait be?

I also think that if doctors become overworked and feel underpaid then we will have an exodus from the profession and fewer wanting to get into it thus creating even more of a backlog. I don't begrudge a doctor for the money he/she makes. They went to college for an extended period of time, learned a subject that most of us would have a hard time with and should be compensated well for their skills. Would you want someone that was just an "ok" doctor working on you or a loved one, I think not.

Don't get me wrong, the idea is noble, it's just not practicable at this time when we are already facing huge deficits created by our former and current administrations, an economy that continues to struggle a bit and a mind set in Washington that we are going to spend our way out of debt.

It's just not reality, Pollyanna.

Jon Stewart a Journalist/Watchdog?

Before all you fans of Jon Stewart get all ticked off at the title, let me assure you that this is not a hatchet job on Mr. Stewart. That's not to say that I am a fan of his, I'm not. And it's because I don't find him funny. Obviously many do or his show wouldn't be so popular. Now that we have that straight, let's sink our collective teeth into someone else.

Today I read an article on Newsweek.com by NBC anchor Brian Williams about Jon Stewart. He refers to Stewart as going from "optional to indispensable" in the media world. Really? He's a comedian that makes fun of politicians. Usually conservative or republican politicians. Ok, we've uncovered why I don't think Stewart's show is funny. The thing that Williams gives Stewart credit for is "the system of checks and balances" that he feels Stewart has created. Wow, all by himself? Jon Stewart the creator of a system of checks and balances? I thought that was created by the authors of the US Constitution when they wrote about the freedom of the press.

Williams goes so far as to admit that when he is thinking of running an "inane" piece on the evening news, he just sends a copy of the tape to Stewart's office, in an effort to keep the interns from having to actually watch the telecast, and then rethinks his position on running the story that evening. Williams also wonders how the media has ever lived without someone like Stewart. It sounds like Stewart has just become an editor at NBC News. Congratulations, Jon. I hope they haven't forgotten to pay you for your services.

Well, I guess this is in line with former White House communications director Anita Dunn's opinion of Stewart. She thinks that Stewart is a brilliant investigative journalist. A leading figure in this field. This from a person that thinks Chairman Mao was a great political philosopher. Wow.

Now unlike Ms. Dunn and Mr. Williams, I have done a little research on Jon Stewart. His degree from William and Mary is in psychology, not journalism. In his professional background there is nothing to suggest that Stewart has ever worked in any field even closely related to journalism. Oh, I get it, since Jon sits at a "fake" news desk and lampoons politicians, he's a journalist. Ok, it's starting to make sense now.

To me it seems the reason that the media and Ms. Dunn are infatuated with Jon Stewart is his personal political views. Here's where we get to a bit of Stewart bashing. In 2000 he described his political views as socialist or independent. Listing both is a shrewd way of covering one's arse, don't you think?

Independent can mean too many things. It could signal that one is fed up with the way the government is being run by the two main parties or that a person is somewhat in the middle of the road and takes something from both sides of the aisle. But socialist has a pretty clear definition. To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities.

Or to use the number 2 definition from Webster's dictionary, A - a system of society or group living in which there is no private property. And B - a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

It seems that we are well on our way to "B", but not to "A". Mr. Stewart owns a 6,000 square foot penthouse apartment in the Tribeca neighborhood that reportedly goes for $5.8 million. Don't fret, I don't begrudge Jon a penny of his net worth, with his self description as a socialist he just seems to be a hypocrite.

A Comment From the Left

Or should I say left field? A comment was left for me by a Tom Degan of Goshen, NY about yesterdays entry. Well, not really a comment, but an excerpt from his own blog at www.tomdegan@blogspot.com. I want to thank him for taking the time to read my blog and leaving a comment, now let me tell you about his.

It was obvious from the jump that Mr. Degan is a liberal, if that word is strong enough, and his post did nothing but bad mouth Sarah Palin and her book. I couldn't resist leaving a comment. I tried to be nice, I hope I succeeded. The majority of others that also left comments naturally agreed with Mr. Degan and just talked smack. There was one other that dissented. I was glad to see that.

One thing I mentioned in my comment to Mr. Degan was that if anyone had an idea on how to fix the problems we face as a nation, I am willing to listen. I think in past postings I have tried to express a solution to the problem I was bloviating about. There was none of that in the other comments.

It is one thing that we all need to do. Not anyone person has all the answers so we must listen to other ideas. There may actually be part of that idea that makes sense to you. So I encourage you to read "The Rant" by Tom Degan and leave him your thoughts. Just keep in mind that Mr. Degan has a different style of writing than I. Well, as much as I hate to admit it, he is a better writer than I am, but then again, this is the only writing I do other than writing police reports. I can tell you those can be a ripping good read. I hope you noticed the sarcasm in the last sentence.

If we can come together as a nation, there is nothing that we can't figure out. I know it seems difficult with all the different opinions out there, but if we don't we are condemned to the continual infighting and name calling. Such as Mr. Degan calling the Republican Party in the 23rd district of NY, a-holes in a previous column. Get it, Tom? Say you think a comment is stupid, or call someone what they are such as a terrorist or a scumbag criminal, or even a racist when it fits and you can back it up, but just using any swear word that comes to mind to describe an entire group is counterproductive. Have I been guilty of this in the past? Maybe, probably, but I will try to be more careful in the future.

But have no fear, whenever the left irritates me, as they usually do, I will continue to post my feelings right here. I will continue to do so in my usual style of not sugar coating a thing and being as subtle as a brick.

Reviews of "Going Rogue"

In case you live under a rock you've heard that Sarah Palin's new book, Going Rouge, came out yesterday. As you might imagine, the liberal media is lambasting the former Governor's efforts. But this is nothing new, the media has been in non-stop attack mode for more than a year now against her. So when I read some of the reviews, I was not surprised in the least.

Michiko Kakutani of the always impartial New York Times (notice the sarcasm there?) writes, "Going Rogue is part campaign spin, part earnest autobiography, part payback hit job." I'm guessing the last bit is about Governor Palin's remarks about some McCain campaign staffers.

Speaking of which, former McCain aid John Weaver comments, "the score settling by someone who wants to be considered a serious national player is petty and pathetic. " Is Mr. Weaver suggesting that scores need to be settled? I'm thinking so. Maybe Mr. weaver should of thought of how he was acting during the campaign.

And to continue along the same lines, we this comment form the Associated Press fact checkers, "Going Rogue has all the characteristics of a pre-campaign manifesto, the requisite autobiography of the future candidate." And this from the 11 folks that the AP put on this.

What a joke. The AP should feel as silly as CNN for fact checking the SNL skit on Obama's accomplishments.

The only even slightly positive review I've seen comes from Melanie Kirkpatric of the Wall Street Journal, "As a politician she comes across as a prodigious worker capable of of mastering complicated issues." Wow, someone that gives her some credit for being more than a hockey mom.

Well, it seems that the reviews by the NYT, AP and a former McCain aide are not surprising at all, but are they fair? I guess when you read the book you can make up your own mind. I have yet to read the book, but I will when the copy I ordered arrives. Unlike the president I plan to read the book, mainly because I like some of the things I've heard from Governor Palin and the way she just seems to speak from the heart and as a regular person is a nice break from all the political double speak we usually get from politicians. But I have to give the president credit for admitting that this book won't adorn his nightstand for the next week.

What I still can't understand is all of the media's acrimony directed at Sarah Palin. If the left is so sure that Palin is a non factor in any future political race then why is the press so hard on her? Yes, I equate the left with the media. But still this is something I don't understand. I saw an article by Eugene Robinson on the Hot Air website yesterday that compares Palin to a "lite" version of Eva Peron.

Is Sarah Palin going to run for president in 2012? Only she knows for sure. One thing I do know is that if she survives this publicity tour she will definitely be a force to be reckoned with.

Don't count out the pit bull with lipstick.

The Bow Part II

How much longer are we to put up with the protocol impaired Uncle Barack bowing to foreign heads of state? Yesterday when the clueless one bowed to Emperor Akihito of Japan it marked the second time in less than a year Obama has made the same blunder. Does he not have a protocol officer on his staff?

In 233 of this countries existence, our government representatives have not bowed to anyone. It's not out of disrespect, it's because we don't bow to anyone, plus it seems like heads of state just don't bow to one another. I saw a video on You-Tube this morning showing 45 times the Japanese emperor greeting foreign heads of state and other diplomats. Not once was Akihito bowed to, nor did he bow to anyone. This video included dignitaries from other Asian countries with similar customs. I doubt that it's a coincidence.

Another video I saw on this incident begins with Uncle Barack's motorcade arriving. Then we see the president walking towards the Emperor and his wife. First the big bow to Akihito, a much smaller one to the Mrs. and then the continual nodding of the head as if still bowing to the couple as they walk in a building. I cringed while watching it.

Uncle Barack just threw a bunch of supporters under the bus with that bow. Remember how the media and the lapdog Robert Gibbs were so adamant about how Obama didn't bow to King Abdullah? Well, it appears that they didn't know what they were talking about (no surprise there, especially about Gibbs) because he has done it again. Lie to me once and I believe it, shame on you. Lie to me twice and I allow it, shame on me. Not that I really believed it when I was told about the supposed non-bow to the Saudi king. That's right, he was bending over slightly because the King was so much shorter than he. Will the same excuse be recycled for this latest boner on the part of our president?

This continuation of gaffes on the part of Uncle Barack and Auntie M is getting rather embarrassing. Between the constant bowing and the patting on the back of Auntie M to the Queen of England, someone needs to educate these two. Okay, here's the first lesson. Rule number one, no bowing, ever. Rule number two, don't use the double handed handshake, ever. Rule number three, no patting on the back, ever. Are you starting to see a pattern here? I hope so.

But then again what are we to expect? This guy was only a partial term Senator and then because he has the gift of gab and he wasn't John McCain, he gets elected president. But because of his lack of experience I would have thought that someone, anyone, would have told this guy about protocol. It appears that it didn't happen.

And because it didn't happen, what are we stuck with? Well, it would appear to be a president that doesn't know a thing about how to greet a foreign leader, or that he should have his hand over his heart when the military folks around him are saluting or that he shouldn't ever speak without his teleprompter telling him what to say.

It seems that the POTUS is a bit of a DOOFUS.

The Return of Khalid

I heard today that Khalid Sheik Muhammed and four others that are responsible or the 9/11 attacks are being returned to New York to stand trial in civilian court. I about crashed my car. Then there was Attorney General Eric "the coward" Holder continually referring to the "alleged" crimes of these scumbags. I just couldn't believe what I was hearing as the words came through the speakers of my car radio.

Who thinks this is a good idea? But of course, it could only be Uncle Barack. What does the master manipulator have up his sleeve? Is this just another way to victimize the people of New York?

Then with these lowlifes being tried in civilian court many other issues come into play. One of the most important is discovery. Scumbags 1-5 get a free civilian lawyer who will immediately ask for a change of venue and then for everything the government has as far as evidence goes. I don't care about the change of venue but discovery could very well expose our intelligence gathering processes as well as confidential informants. In a military trial these things would be kept under wraps because the media would not be allowed in. Unless Obama says they can come in.

Then there is the security issue. How much will it cost just to shuttle the terrorists between the jail and the courthouse? I think that because of the lengthy process ahead of us, it will be astronomical. Of course we also need to be concerned of a possible attempt to free the terrorists by their comrades.

Of course the life of the judge, jury and prosecutors will be threatened. It happened before in the case of the blind Shiek who was tried for the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. When will we as a nation learn form the past? Or should I say, when will the liberals learn from the past?

Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) is thinking about working up a bill that would prohibit the terrorists from being brought to New York for trial. He says that he has been to Gitmo and they have a state of the art courtroom that has security as the primary focus. Millions were spent on this project and now Uncle Barack wants to eschew Gitmo to spend millions more by having the show in New York.

These terrorists are not bank robbers or kidnappers or money launderers, they are terrorist murderers. They were at war with the United States and committed an act of murder during wartime. They should therefor be tried by a military court before their executions.

I would by a ticket to that.

I Smell Death on You

Today the US Army filed 13 counts of premeditated murder against the terrorist Hasan. That means when he is convicted that he will be eligible for the death penalty. Good. If we could execute him 13 times, better.

Hasan will be defended by a retired Army Colonel. I wonder how this guy sleeps at night. I know that everyone deserves a lawyer to assure that he has had their rights protected, but how is this slick mouthpiece going to get his terrorist client off? He isn't, or more likely, he can't.
There isn't a jury in the world that will let this guy off.

The terrorist Hasan had the letters SOA on his Army business cards. The SOA stands for Soldier of Allah. Why did no one pay any attention of this and do something about it? If someone puts into print that they are what this lowlife is, how could this be ignored?

So before long we get to spend a whole bunch more money to give the terrorist Hasan his day in court. It will be for show only. Then we get to wait for years while he does the appeals thing and maybe before he dies of old age we get to execute him. I hope it doesn't take that long.

I wonder how many folks in the military are going to lose their jobs over this. Most certainly some need to. They let political correctness get people killed. They should pay with their jobs and pensions.

The only thing the Army has done right in this whole mess is charging the terrorist Hasan today. Now let's see them go the whole nine yards on this one. Let's hope they don't drop the ball on this and allow this scumbag to live too long after the trial.

The terrorist Hasan is the poster boy for capital punishment.

The Beltway Sniper

Tonight at 9:11 PM John Allen Muhammed was executed for one of the beltway sniper killings in 2002. Too bad we can't undeadify him and execute him again for each of the murders he was convicted of. Sound harsh? Tough. What this guy did with his stepson Lee Boyd Malvo, he can't be killed bad enough for.

Do you remember those three weeks? People getting killed in gas stations, parking lots and even just mowing their grass. One of the other of these lowlifes hid in the trunk of a car and killed these folks from long range and for no reason.

So tonight the folks of Virginia put this one dog down. Even liberal DA Kaine was willing to give Muhammed the death penalty. That's how heinous these crimes were. Good for Mr. Kaine for having the guts to stand up and do the right thing. There was absolutely no reason to keep this scumbag alive for the next 25 years or so until he nature took him. The poison in the syringes was much less expensive.

It's too bad that more states don't have the death penalty. As it is only 37 of the 50 states have the statute. Ok, I realize that means only 13 states don't have it, but I would like to see all have it. I wouldn't want to live in a state without it.

Since 1976 1,176 people have been executed in this country while 3,315 have been sentenced to death. Texas leads the way in both categories with 443 executions with 369 awaiting their turn. That's an average of over one execution a month for the last 33 years. Actually it's 13.4 executions a year.

But the number of people getting sentenced is over 100 a year while only 35.6 get executed. I think we need to pick up the pace. We will never catch up at this rate. The amount of money it takes to keep these guys on death row is astronomical. It would save the states a lot of money in the long run.

Sure there are plenty of people that are against the death penalty, but what do they know? They see the world through their rose colored glasses and believe that all can be redeemed. I think they should do some ride-a-longs with their local PD's and take a good look at the type of folks that have been in and out of prison. Maybe then they will see that only the absolute worst of the worst are executed. Even if the death penalty isn't a deterrent, having it can give some states a chance at justice for their victims.

Without it we risk more John Muhammeds.

Diversity Becoming a Tragedy?

Gen. George Casey thinks that if the diversity of the US Army becomes a casualty in the aftermath of the Ft. Hood killings it would be a greater tragedy. That is why he is parroting the president and telling the rest of us to not jump to conclusions. Excuse me? Did he really say that? Does he actually expect me to stand idly by and let the powers that be play their little games and not say what the world seems to know?

I've got an idea for you Gen. Casey, resign. Thank you for your service to our country. Now you can retire and go fishing or whatever it is you like to do. Making comments like this is reprehensible and you should be ashamed of yourself. A soldier above all others should be able to recognize the enemy. You allowed the president to pimp you out, shameful.

Uncle Barack is acting no better. He also says that we should wait before making a conclusion on the motives of the terrorist Hasan. Is this the same president that referred to the Cambridge Police Department as stupid for arresting his friend? Yes it is. Was the president also friends with Hasan?

Since more and more information about the terrorist Hasan is coming to light, I will ask again, why the hell was this scumbag allowed to stay in the Army? Oh yeah, it was because no one wanted to be perceived a racist because this terrorist is Muslim. And the Army wanted to get it's money worth out of him since he got that free medical degree. Not free really, you and I paid for it.

This politically correct BS is destroying our country from the inside. Tell it like it is. Howard Cosell did and he did pretty well for himself. If a person is a scumbag, call him a scumbag. I will call the terrorist Hasan a scumbag and worse until the day I die. Because that is what he is.

Remember, he worshiped in the same mosque as two of the 9/11 hijackers listening to a radical anti-American Imam. Don't tell me that he wasn't effected by it because I don't believe it. The terrorist Hasan also tried to contact Al-Qeada. Why? Do you really think it was to get on their Christmas card list? I doubt it.

This political correctness has now cost 13 American lives and still our government refuses to acknowledge this. Why? Could it be that Uncle Barack Hussein Obama really doesn't like the idea of saying anything bad about Muslims?

He had better wake up. This will not be the end of it. After only ten months on the job, he has suffered a terror attack on our soil. This after deriding the former administration for it's policies.
At least after the first attack, there wasn't a second.

So don't worry Gen. Casey, the Army will remain diverse, the Muslims currently serving will not be subjected to any harassment. Mainly because I want to believe that they are good soldiers and will do their duty to their country.

But the next time someone starts spouting their anti-American rhetoric and saying that they are Muslim first and American second, you had better think twice about this pusillanimous attitude this administration displays.

Because who knows how many the next terrorist in our midst kills.

Ft. Hood, Texas

Yesterday a Muslim terrorist killed 13 American heroes at Ft. Hood, Texas. A heroic effort by Sergeant Mumley saved an untold number. She was wounded in the firefight, but hung in there and pumped four rounds into the terrorist. Good for her. Sgt. Mumley standing tall in the face of extreme danger epitomizes the heroism exhibited by our folks in uniform.

Did I mention that the terrorist scumbag was a major in the Army? An American Muslim that joined before the attacks on 9/11. Lately he had been expressing his displeasure of American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. He had even posted in a blog that a suicide bomber is akin to a soldier that throws himself on a grenade to save his comrades. And no one thought to pull this guy aside and ask him what the hell was going on?

My question is why the hell was this guy still in the Army? The people that supervised Major Nadil Malik Hasan are partly to blame here. I don't want the ghosts of the dead to haunt those responsible, but for a few nights would be ok with me.

It is only lately that Hasan had been spouting his anti-American rhetoric about the wars. Only once it became clear that he was going to get deployed to Iraq himself. If he didn't want to go to Iraq or Afghanistan, then he should have gotten out of the Army. If he has been in since before 9/11 then he has had to re-enlist at least twice between now and then. So the excuse I hear about his not wanting to fight other Muslims is BS.

So now 13 families are planning funerals for their loved ones. 38 others have been wounded and who knows how many will be adversly effected for the rest of their lives. Soldiers expect to fight in battles in foreign lands. They don't expect to get gunned down in a medical center waiting for shots prior to deployment.

Is the reason this guy wasn't kicked out months ago because he was a Muslim? if that is the case, then this is more tragic than originally thought. Should his religion have been a factor on whether or not he was able to join? Of course not, since it is a recognized religion, but once that religion becomes a detriment to his ability to serve, then things have to be reevaluated. I don't care what that religion is. If it becomes clear that because of religious ideology a soldier is no longer able to serve effectively, then they have to go.

My biggest problem with the aftermath of this is that this scumbag's life was saved by medical personnel. How much money was wasted on keeping him alive? How much more money will be wasted searching for a reason and then keeping him in prison? More than I am willing to spend that's for sure. Besides, I can give you the reason, he is a radical Muslim terrorist. Case closed. And it didn't cost millions, nor take months.

My youngest daughter today said that she would have no problem "accidentally" bumping into the ventilator, turning it off. And if you knew her, you would be as surprised as I was. But, I agree with her wholeheartedly. My wife thinks we should keep him alive so we can hang him later in a very public execution.

That's not a bad idea either.

Election 2009

Well tomorrow is the first election during the Obama administration. As we all know, most of the talking heads on TV and radio say this is a referendum on the Obama regime. I think that this will settle some of the argument about that, but it's not the entire story.

As we see in the 23rd District of New York, the Republican has dropped out. Now it's a Democrat versus a Conservative. A third party candidate has made a big noise in a small area. Will this translate into a larger movement in this country for next year's election? Only time will tell. But it is interesting, isn't it?

Another question is, will a Conservative Party become a reality or will it be like the Independent Party that Senator Joe Lieberman belongs to? Now the Independent Party hasn't been around too long and I still haven't seen a national convention, but that doesn't mean that it will not happen.

But with the exit of Dede Scozzafava (R) in New York this is an exciting time for those of us that consider ourselves conservative more than just Republican. Besides, Dede wasn't really a Republican in my opinion. She has been described as a RINO, republican in name only. I won't even give her that much credit.

This is a woman that is pro-life, supported the Stimulus Plan and is in favor of gay marriage. Sounds more like a democrat to me. How about you? The media calls her a moderate Republican. Sorry, but there's no such thing. If you believe more in the things that the more liberal of us subscribe to, then you are a liberal. Period. Dede isn't a Republican, she is a Democrat. She should just change parties and call it a day. I've heard rumors she was going to pull an Arlen Specter party switch shortly after winning.

Those that consider themselves to be a "moderate Republican" or worse, a "liberal Republican" here's some advice, just go ahead and call yourself a Democrat. Leave the Republican party and start putting a "D" next to your name. You will not be missed.

I for one welcome a new version of the Republican Party. It has been said that the Republicans had lost their way and were drifting left. Maybe, maybe not, but they certainly needed a reminder of what they stand for. Remember that a conservative view (sorry about that) is one that wants smaller government, lower taxes and believes in the free market system.

Besides, if you want a referendum on the Obama presidency, look no further than Ford Motor Company. Today they announced a third quarter profit of $1 Billion. Now remember, Ford is the only one of the "Big Three" that didn't take bailout money. In other words, they don't have interference from the the federal government.

Or, did you notice that Uncle Barack had a meeting this morning with his economic advisers? He said that more needs to be done to create jobs. What the hell was the stimulus for? I think it was a waste of money, but what do I know?

But there is the true referendum.