Isreal has been forced to go to war.  They didn't want to.  Isreal desperately wants a peaceful sloution to their troubles.  Their enemies want to irradicate them.  Therefore, Isreal must fight for their survival.  They fight against Hezbollah and Hamas, who most people understand are controlled by Syria and Iran.  So if Isreal wants to win this war (or at least this round in the war that started in 1948), they probably need to take care of Iran and Syria, not just Hezbollah and Hamas.  I say, go get 'em.  Godspeed.

In Iraq, the "insurgency" is being fed in large part by Syria and Iran.  If we really want to ever win the global war on terror, we not only have to get bin Laden and al-Qaeda but we have to take care of the crazy Islamists in Iran and Syria. 

Do you see where I'm going with this?

It seems logical to me that the USA needs to stand shoulder to shoulder with our only true ally in the region and fight.  We can let the Iraqi army and police take care of their country while we send our brave fighting men and women to fight in a coordinated effort with Isreal.  Bill Bennett likes to say that "you are either on offense or you're on defense."  Right now we seem to be on defense in Iraq.  The Isrealis have decided it's time to go on the offense.  If we join them, I think we could break the spirit of those who wish to destroy our way of life.  Now is the time for action.

I am trying to figure something out.  We are engaged in a culture war.  That I know.  What I'm having trouble with is who are we fighting against? 

Obviously, the Islamo-Facist Jihadist-Terrorists want to destroy our culture.  And it seems that the American Liberals desire to change the culture until it bears no resemblance to the Judeo-Christian way of life our Founders established and served us well for over 180 years.  There is also the indirect, passive-aggressive assault from most of Europe and the rest of the world; to believe that George W. Bush is a greater threat to the world than Osama bin Laden. . .

I'm also going to throw in Communist dictators Castro (if he's still alive), Chavez, Crazy Kim from N. Korea and China's President Wu.  Am I missing anybody?

The question is this, are these random groups that only share a hatred of the US and our culture, or is there some other common denominator?

Of course there is the element of "hate the best player" syndrome, but does that explain it all?  Socialism vs Capitalism can connect modern American Libs and the Europeans.  I can't help thinking there is something more.  I really don't know, I am hoping to get some discussion.

The discussion over the new Superman movie's "adjustment" of the famous tagline might be over by now, but if Bill O'Reilly can still write about it, my two cents aren't too late. 

So the producers didn't want to offend any America-haters.  They claim that Superman transcends nationality.  That he is an international, even inter-galactic superhero.  It's hard to argue with that, the Man of Steel  would always help anyone in need, anywhere, any time.  However, I'd like to argue that standing for the ". . . American way" is something different than standing for "America" or "Americans".  Most rational people would probably agree.  Did those making the newest movie misunderstand this distinction?  I don't think so, I think they know that fighting for the American way is different from fighting for America.  The question that I want to pose is this:  is the American way of life something worth standing up for regardless of where in the universe one might be? 

I think we all agree that America hasn't been a perfect utopia for everyone.  This nation has been responsible for some atrocities in its past.  However, the American IDEAL of individual freedom is one of the best things to be found in this fallen world.  Don't be ashamed.  Stand with Superman and fight for truth, justice and the American way every chance you get.

That's the question I've been asking.  It applies to many of today's issues, but after watching the president talk about immigration, that's the topic of the day.  Logical1   got it right (I hope I got that hyperlink). 

It seems easy to me:  1)  control the borders.  Whatever it takes, control the borders.  2)  deport the ones you catch in the natural course of life.  Criminals, traffic offenders, etc. need to be sent back if they are here illegally.  3)  end public assistance to illegals.  No welfare, no in-state tuition, no free medical unless followed by a one-way ticket out, none of my tax dollars to illegal immigrants.  4)  punish the employers.  How do you know Americans won't do the jobs if they don't get the opportunity?  Wages and therefore prices might go up, but I think we can handle that.  5)  then and only then do we even begin to talk about what to do with the hard working illegals who've been here 10, 15 20 years.  They need to be punished some how and then work toward some kind of legal status.

The President and all of the electeds want to agree what to do at step 5 before they even consider step one.  A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, boys and girls.  Let's get to steppin.  A favorite of mine, Indiana's own Mike Pence has gone over to the dark side of the immigration debate.  Is it really all about cheap labor?  Would we sell our souls just to save a few cents at the produce counter?  I guess so.

I'm going to try this blogging thing one more time.  I've tried a couple of times before, but it hasn't worked out so well.  I have lots of thoughts, both shallow and deep, that I think I want to share.  I'm just not so good with words or sharing thoughts (ask my wife).  I am commiting to faithfully posting for the rest of this year and see how it works. 

I don't know if anyone will read them or not, but I'll do my best.  Leave comments and let me know how it's going, be honest, I can handle it.