Today's Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board brings up the issue of radical Islamic terrorists being held in Guantanamo Bay in their column, "Injustice at Guantanamo".

We were thinking to ourselves why would the United States not quickly bring to trial and if appropriate execute these terrorists. We decided to look at how President Franklin Delano Roosevelt handled a similar situation in WWII. Here is what history tells us according to Wikipedia.

When the United States entered World War II, Adolf Hitler ordered German saboteurs [terrorists] to wreak havoc on the country. The responsibility for carrying this out was given to German Intelligence (Abwehr). In June 1942, eight agents were recruited and divided into two teams: the first, commanded by George John Dasch, with Ernest Burger, Heinrich Heinck and Richard Quirin. The second, under the command of Edward Kerling, with Hermann Neubauer, Werner Thiel and Herbert Haupt.

On June 12, 1942, U-Boat U-202 landed Dasch's team with explosives and plans at East Hampton, Long Island, New York. Their mission was to destroy power plants at Niagara Falls and three Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) factories in Illinois, Tennessee and New York. However, the team was observed following landing by a Coast Guardsman who immediately raised the alarm. After being captured, Dasch and Burger gave a full confession to the FBI and obtained more lenient treatment.

Kerling's team landed from U-584 at Ponte Vedra Beach (25 miles [40 km] south-east of Jacksonville, Florida), on June 17. They were tasked with laying mines in four areas: the Pennsylvania Railroad in Newark NJ., canal sluices in both St. Louis and Cincinnati, and New York City's water supply pipes. The team made their way to Cincinnati, Ohio and split up, with two going to Chicago, Illinois and the others to New York. However, the Dasch confession led to the arrest of all of the men by July 10.

All eight were tried and convicted by Military Commission. President Roosevelt approved the sentences. The constitutionality of the military commissions was upheld by the Supreme Court in Ex parte Quirin and six of the eight men were executed by electrocution on August 8. Dasch and Burger were given thirty-year prison sentences. Both were released in 1948 and deported to Germany. Dasch (aka George Davis), who had been a longtime American resident prior to the war, suffered a difficult life in Germany after his return from U.S. custody due to his cooperation with U.S. authorities. As a condition of his deportation, he was not permitted to return to the United States, even though he spent many years writing letters to prominent American authorities (J. Edgar Hoover, President Eisenhower, etc.) requesting permission to return. He eventually fled to Switzerland and wrote a book, titled Eight Spies Against America.

There you have it. FDR captured all eight German terrorists by July 10, 1942. He created Military Commissions, had the U.S. Supreme Court bless the Commissions, held the trials, and executed 6 of the 8 terrorists by August 8, 1942.

Thirty days from capture to execution. Now that's what I call swift justice.

By the way, the current Military Commissions are based upon those created by FDR in 1942.

Why haven't we moved this quickly to deal with the very deadly and dangerous terrorists being held in Guantanamo, Cuba? Because we are in fact a nation of laws. Even though we are at war we are providing these terrorists with all the legal, moral and responsible opportunities to defend themselves under international laws.

As Colonel Morris D. "Mo" Davis, USAF (Ret.) the former head prosecutor said, ""Some imply that if a defendant does not get a trial that looks like Martha Stewart’s and ends like O. J. Simpson’s, then military commissions are flawed. They are mistaken. The Constitution does not extend to alien unlawful enemy combatants. They are entitled to protections under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which ensures they are afforded “all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”

"Justice John Paul Stevens, in the Hamdan decision that rejected an earlier plan for military commissions, observed that Article 75 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions defines the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable. A comparison of Article 75 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 shows military commissions provide the fundamental guarantees."

Keeping enemy combatants in prison makes perfect sense to you and me. Letting them out means they will just go back to doing the only thing they know - killing Americans. Even the Herald-Tribune editorial board recognizes this when they point out, "A former detainee, transferred to Kuwait for trial and later acquitted, was involved [in] a deadly suicide bombing in Iraq last month, the U.S. military confirmed Wednesday [May 7, 2008]."

As for using Club GITMO as a propaganda tool, so what. What do you expect those who plot each and every day to kill our soldiers, innocent Muslim men, women and children, and anyone else who get in their way to do?

Guantanamo is a shining example of the slow, sometimes tedious and lengthy, process of bringing terrorists to justice. Defense lawyers, including those from the ACLU, are tying up the process with appeals. The Supreme Court is involved, again. Colonel "Mo" Davis called, "the Supreme Court's intention to review the Military Commissions Act "meddling": "This constant uncertainty and meddling certainly takes a toll on people, It would be nice to have some certainty for a change."

GITMO mirrors our own criminal justice system, which takes years to convict and decades to finally put to death the most horrible murders.

Our take is the Sarasota Herald-Tribune is using this issue as a political hammer to bash Bush. All three Presidential candidates have said they will close GITMO down. That is nice but does not do anything to speed up the clear need for swift justice in the case of these radical Islamic terrorists.

Where is FDR when you need him?

Waldo Proffitt our friend and columnist for the Sarasota Herald-Tribune writes an interesting article on the high price of gasoline titled, "Will desperation bring change?".

Waldo is hoping, "The high price of filling up the fuel tanks of cars or trucks just might motivate millions of voters to demand elected officials "do something" or get out of the way for those who will."

The time to do something has long passed. In 1995 President Bill Clinton vetoed an energy bill that passed both houses of Congress to drill in ANWR in Alaska. Had he signed that bill we would be pumping at least 1,000,000 barrels of American oil into our economy.

Anyway, let's look at the specific proposals of Waldo and present our view on each of them.

Waldo's Proposal 1:

Waldo states, "The first thing we can do is conserve energy, including electricity, because much of our oil and natural gas is used to generate electricity. Kilowatt hours saved are barrels of oil saved."

Actually this is not true. The issue is not conservation, it is where we get our power from. Fifty percent of all of America's electricity comes from coal. If we really want to save oil and natural gas, which is much more expensive than coal, we would build more coal plants like they are planning to do in Europe. America is the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have billions of tons of coal. Enough to last us at least 200 years.

If you are worried about increased pollution by using coal don't be. In fact the energy industry as a whole has done a fantastic job reducing pollutants according to the James Madison Institute.

According to America's Power Florida only gets 29.2% of our power from coal. We get 16.9% from petroleum, 38% from natural gas and 0.1% from hydroelectric. If we went full tilt to coal we would dramatically reduce our costs and save oil and natural gas. Because of our heavy use of oil and natural gas Florida is the 13th most expensive state for power generation.

For example, our neighbors in Georgia, who are ranked 25th in cost of electricity, pay 7.63 cents per KWH of electricity, while we pay 10.45 cents per KWH. The difference? Georgia gets 62.7% of its energy from coal, 23.2% from nuclear, o.6% from petroleum and 9.4% from natural gas. Get the picture?

Waldo's Proposal 2.

Waldo wants to reduce our dependence on oil by a combination of conservation and efficiency. He says, "for starters we could raise mandated auto fuel efficiency by, say, 40 percent. Of course, increased production of hybrids would make it easier to reach that goal quickly."

The problem is conservation and greater efficiency are not the answers. According to the Manhattan Institute, "The history of the twentieth century is one of gigantic increases in efficiency—and even larger increases in consumption. The American economy has experienced massive efficiency gains: for each unit of energy, we produce more than twice as much GDP today than we did in 1950. Yet during that period of time, our national total energy consumption has tripled. Paradoxically, when it comes to energy, the more we save, the more we consume."

“Efficiency fails to curb demand because it lets more people do more, and do it faster—and more/more/faster invariably swamps all the efficiency gains,” Peter Huber and Mark Mills state in The Bottomless Well. Or, as Huber characterized this “efficiency paradox” in a 2001 Forbes column: “More efficient jet engines … cheaper tickets … more passengers … more jets in the air.” The same holds true for cars, lightbulbs, power plants, and everything else that uses energy.

Waldo Proposal 3:

Waldo wants, "Solar. Great strides are being made in the conversion of sunlight to heat to steam to electricity -- the most significant being ways to store solar energy. One of the most promising is to use the sun to heat molten salt to high temperatures and then use the molten salt to make steam to drive turbines at night or on cloudy days."

Here are some cons of solar energy from PowerPedia:

• Limited areal power density: For electrical generation with photovoltaics, the average irradiation power density is approximately 1 kW/m² usable by 8-15% efficient solar panels.
• Intermittency: It is not available at night and is reduced when there is cloud cover, decreasing the reliability of peak output performance or requiring a means of energy storage. For power grids to stay functional at all times, the addition of substantial amounts of solar generated electricity would require one or more of the following;
  • energy storage facilities, such as Pumped-storage hydroelectric facilities, are needed to 'gapfill' low points in solar generation
  • other renewable energy sources (i.e., wind, geothermal, tidal, wave, ocean power, etc) would need to be active, or
  • backup conventional powerplants would be needed. There is an energy cost to keep coal-burning power plants 'hot', which includes the burning of coal to keep boilers at temperature. Natural gas power plants can quickly come up to full load without requiring significant standby idling. Without changes in the energy supply and control system (such as a shift to using current hydropower as nighttime/backup across wider regions or the incorporation of more renewable power), few coal power plants could be displaced, according to critics.
• Locations at high latitudes or with frequent substantial cloud cover offer reduced potential for solar power use.
• Solar cells produce DC which must be converted to AC when used in currently existing distribution grids. This incurs an energy penalty of 5-10%.

Waldo's proposal 4:

According to Waldo, "Wind. With rotors nearing 500 feet in diameter, windmills are among the more efficient sources of non-fossil power. Some people consider them unsightly, onshore or offshore. I would think their visual impression no worse than that of an open-pit coal mine. They are getting pretty close to being competitive in price to oil."

Let us give you a real example of using wind power. Shorty after Governor Crist signed three Executive Orders last year capping carbon emissions the plans to build five coal plants in Florida by 2012 were canceled. These plants combined would have produced 4,150 MW of much needed power for our state. To make up this deficit using wind power we did some rough calculations on what it would take to make up for the 4,150 MW of power.

Here is what we learned:

1. The Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center in Texas remains the largest wind farm in the world with a total capacity of 735 megawatts (MW) spread across approximately 47,000 acres in Taylor and Nolan counties near Abilene in west central Texas. The wind plant consists of 291 1.5-MW wind turbines from General Electric and 130 2.3-MW wind turbines from Siemens.

2. We used the bigger 2.3-MW wind turbines (which are 370+ feet tall) from Siemens to meet our current power deficit of 4,150 MW. That means we would need 1,805 wind turbines. We know from the Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center that they needed 47,000 acres for their 421 wind turbines. So we in Florida would need 4.29 times the acres of the Texas wind farm or approximately 201,508 acres.

Bottom line we would need approximately 201,508 acres of land to simply replace the capacity of the cancelled plants. Of course, Florida can put the wind farms in the Gulf of Mexico and bypass the need to use massive amounts of land. Either way the solution of using wind power is difficult at best to meet the current deficit, let alone any future energy needs due to growth.

Waldo's Proposal 5:

Waldo demands, "Ethanol. No, not ethanol made from corn. That has proven to be a mistake, driving up the price of corn for human and animal consumption beyond any acceptable level. Rather ethanol from sugar, biomass, agricultural wastes, and non-food crops."

Clearly the use of ethanol from corn, which the environmentalists and folks like Waldo raved about is bad. Fertilizer runoff from Mid West corn fields used to produce ethanol has caused the "dead zone" in the gulf to grow, food prices to go up and food riots to occur in many parts of the world. So what is so great about ethanol from sugar, biomass, agricultural wastes and non-food crops? Nothing.

A dark cloud looming over biofuels is whether producing them actually requires more energy than they can generate. After factoring in the energy needed to grow crops and then convert them into biofuels, Cornell University researcher David Pimental concludes that the numbers just don’t add up. His 2005 study found that producing ethanol from corn required 29 percent more energy than the end product itself is capable of generating. He found similarly troubling numbers in making biodiesel from soybeans.

“There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel,” Pimentel says.

Waldo's Proposal 6:

Waldo states, "I have not mentioned coal or nuclear. More reliance on coal, of which we have a gracious plenty, is not an option unless we can burn it in a way which does not add to the threat of global warming. As of now, we do not have a proven technology to do it. Nuclear is fine with me, but lots of people find it scary, and it may not be politically feasible."

Actually there is a great technology called "clean coal". The federal government said yesterday [May 7, 2008] that it will spend $61.1 million for a clean-coal project in Ohio, a major step in deciding whether it is commercially feasible to burn Midwest coal without emitting the carbon dioxide thought to cause global warming.

The money will be funneled to a demonstration project in the Mount Simon Sandstone formation in Darke County in western Ohio.

About 1 million tons of carbon dioxide from an ethanol facility will be injected 3,000 feet into the sandstone formation.

Proponents contend that the process, known as carbon sequestration, is crucial for the future of Ohio coal. If electric utility plants can burn coal without causing global warming, it would provide a major boost to Ohio's coal industry.

We have written many times about the hoax that the primary cause of global climate change is human caused. Finally, we are big proponents of nuclear power. It is clean, cheap, safe and renewable. We are big fans, as is Dr. Meg Lowman from New College, in both fusion and fission nuclear power.

What is the real problem with higher gas prices? Supply.

We have shown above that altering demand (conservation or greater efficiency) does not cause use to go down. Rather use increases with conservation and efficiency.

Prices do go down when you increase supply. The best way to lower energy prices, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, is to accelerate production of all forms of domestic energy.

We have taken off the table drilling for more fossil fuels in Alaska, the East and West coasts and in the Gulf of Mexico. We have not built a new gas refinery in over 30 years. We have not built a new nuclear power plant in over 40 years.

It is time, as Waldo says, to ""do something" or get out of the way for those who will". We agree. Waldo get out of the way.

We have published many articles and reports about Senator McCain, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. We have not come out and actually said why we support Senator McCain over Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Well here is a partial list of reasons. We hope you will comment on our take on issues and present your own ideas.

1. Senator McCain will make the Bush tax cuts permanent and cut the size and growth of government at the Federal level. Senators Clinton and Obama have both said they will let the Bush tax cuts expire. Senators Clinton and Obama have proposed at least $600 billion in new or expanded government programs when they take office.

2. Senator McCain has never requested an ear mark and said he will veto any bill with an ear mark in it. Senators Clinton and Obama have used ear marks extensively, with Senator Obama obtaining an earmark in 2007 for the hospital that his wife works at, right after the hospital gave her a raise from $190K to $300K.

3. Senator McCain will appoint strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court. Senators Clinton and Obama will appoint judges that make public policy from the bench, something that goes completely against our constitution and the role of the judiciary.

4. Senator McCain understands the global war against radical Islam and the imperative to win in Iraq and Afghanistan. The consequences of losing and pulling out are catastrophic. He wants to end the fighting quickly but continue to have a presence in Iraq for the long term to stabilize the region. Senators Clinton and Obama simply want to pull out, regardless of the consequences or implications.

5. Senator McCain will be a very formidable negotiator and free trader. Senators Clinton and Obama want to scrap NAFTA and are anti-free trade. Senator Obama has said he will meet with dictators and rogue leaders with out preconditions.

6. Senator McCain wants to fix the economy by allowing it to right itself. He is for cutting regulation, lowering taxes on businesses, funding research and entrepreneurship. Senators Clinton and Obama want more regulation, higher corporate taxes, they want to tax profits and are for more government control.

7. Senator McCain wants to provide all Americans access to heath care via affordable, transferable, and cheap health care insurance. He wants to give individuals a $5,000 tax credit like we do to corporations to allow them to buy their heath coverage. He is for a market based system and getting government and insurance companies out of the way of the medical decision making process. Senators Clinton and Obama want socialized medicine, which has been proven not to work.

8. Senator McCain is pro-gun and pro-life. Senators Clinton and Obama are anti-second Amendment and both support late term abortions with Senator Obama supporting the killing of babies who survive an abortion even if they are out of the womb.

We strongly disagree with Senator McCain, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama on two issues.

1. Human caused global warming. Scientific research has now proven that CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are not the cause of global warming. The Global Warming science has been debunked. Global warming is no longer a scientific theory it is a political movement much like we saw with DDT. The science behind the DDT scare was debunked however the political movement went on and it killed tens of millions of innocent men, women and especially children mostly in Africa. We are seeing the same thing with the global warming political movement and ethanol. People are starving so we can feel good about filling up our SUVs.

2. Torture. Senators McCain, Clinton and Obama want waterboarding taken off the table as a method of interrogation. We believe strongly that waterboarding must remain on the table as the "nuclear option". The President must have the authority in specific cases to personally authorize our CIA to waterboard an individual or individuals for high value, time sensitive intelligence. For example, should we capture Osama Bin Laden the President must have the authority to waterboard him, if deemed necessary.

That it our say. What say you?

We have decided to rename our local paper the Sarasota Hypocrisy-Tribune for their editorial, "Warm dead zones".

In the editorial they link the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico to global warming and use an article in Science magazine to prove their point. The problem is the scientists who wrote the article aren't sure that global warming is the culprit.

According to Phil Berardelli of ScienceNOW daily news, "The team doesn't yet know why some areas are worse off than others, adds physical oceanographer and lead author Lothar Stramma of the University of Kiel in Germany. Although models predict oxygen reduction due to warming, he says, ocean circulation may also play a role, perhaps by transporting oxygen away."

So ocean circulation may also play a role. "Models" predict oxygen reduction? Remember the UN's IPCC models have been proven wrong on human caused global warming.

Berardelli states, "an international team cobbled together all available data on oxygen content of tropical waters collected since 1960, concentrating on six areas for which the records were the most complete."

Cobbled together? Tropical waters (where water is supposed to be warmer anyway)? Six areas where the records "were most complete"? Cherry picking the data input?

Sprintall, one of the scientists states, ""The results definitely exceeded my expectations". Expectations? I thought scientists trying to prove a theory were open to all data available.

Let's look at some facts.

1. The earth cooled between 1940 and 1975 even though global CO2 emissions from the use of fossil fuels increased dramatically. The Science team looked at data starting in 1960. So 15 years of the early data came from a global cooling period.

2. Global warming stopped in 1998. We have in fact entered a global cooling period that is predicted to last until 2015 according to current research. So of all the data the Science team looked at from 1998 to 2007 we were not warming. Nine years of the data came from a time the planet was not warming. So that leaves the period between 1975 and 1998 (23 years) when the planet warmed 0.7 degrees.

3. According to a 2006 article in Mother Earth News, "the dead zone is human-made: runoff from farms in the Midwest adds as much as 7.8 million pounds of nitrate fertilizer to the Mississippi River and its tributaries each day during peak loading periods, which then runs downriver and empties into the Gulf. As it does with plants grown on land, the nitrogen causes algae and plankton in the area to flourish, using all available oxygen in the water. The result is hypoxia, an oxygen depleted dead zone in which fish and other marine life simply cannot survive."

4. The Environmental Working Group reports that, "Taxpayers have been subsidizing wasteful commercial agricultural practices that hurt an important source of our fish...Farmlands in 15 percent of the Mississippi River Basin send 80 percent of the critical spring surge of fertilizer pollution into the Gulf. Farms in 124 counties that make up 5 percent of the Basin send 40 percent of the spring fertilizer pollution load to the Gulf."

5. The Herald-Tribune in its own editorial, "Corn-based caution" states, "the recent expansion of corn farming in the Midwest, in response to higher prices triggered by ethanol production, has been linked to a spreading 'dead zone' in the Gulf of Mexico." This reality is backed up by National Geographic.

So is the "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico due to human caused global warming or human caused production of corn based biofuels?

The answer: It is caused by growing corn to produce ethanol and other biofuels.

Why are we growing crops for fuel? Of course, to fight global warming.

As we reported earlier the Democratic controlled Congress passed an energy in 2007 that called for a massive expansion of the production of ethanol. To produce the additional eight billion gallons of corn ethanol use mandated in the energy bill will require growing 20 million more acres of corn. In Florida it would mean massively expanding sugar cane production, which will impact the Everglades.

The UN has already rung alarm bells saying that ethanol production for fuel is harming the world's poor. A UN report released just days after the Bali conference on global warming states, “Unless new policies are enacted to protect threatened lands, secure socially acceptable land use, and steer bio energy development in a sustainable direction overall, the environmental and social damage could in some cases outweigh the benefits.”

Stratfor in April 2008 reported that, "High food prices have sparked a great deal of unrest over the past few weeks. Indeed, the skyrocketing cost of food staples like grain has caused protests involving thousands of people in places such as South Africa, Egypt and Pakistan. These protests turned deadly in Haiti and even led to the ouster of Prime Minister Jacques-Edouard Alexis."

There you have it. The cause of the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is not caused by global warming but rather by human caused production of ethanol to help stop global warming, which is a failed theory. The result of this ethanol and biofuel program pushed by environmentalists and liberals has many unintended consequences. We may be soon killing people with this wrong-headed idea, let alone fish in the Gulf of Mexico.

It is amazing how hypocritical the Sarasota Herald-Tribune really is on the "dead zone". That is why we renamed them the Hypocrisy-Tribune.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune in their editorial, "Guantanamo's tainted trials" uses the words of yet another decorated veteran to falsely accuse the military of a, "political agenda [that] has compromised the justice system at the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

To prove their case they quote decorated retired Air Force Colonel Morris D. "Mo" Davis. First we thank Colonel "Mo"Davis [pictured here] for his service to this great nation.

The editorial board uses this respected veteran as a hammer to strike at the administration of President Bush. The editorial board states, "Abusive interrogations, imprisonment without charges and broken rules of evidence are some of the ways that the White House, Justice Department and Pentagon have compromised traditional American principles of justice following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks."

What they don't tell you is what Colonel Davis said in his June 26, 2007 New York Times op-ed article, "The Guantanamo I know".

In his op-ed piece Colonel Davis states, "LINDSEY GRAHAM, a Republican senator from South Carolina, is right: “The image of Guantánamo Bay and the reality of Guantánamo Bay are completely different.” It is disappointing that so many embrace a contrived image. Reality for Guantánamo Bay is the daily professionalism of its staff, the humanity of its detention centers and the fair and transparent nature of the military commissions charged with trying war criminals. It is a reality that has been all but ignored or forgotten."

Colonel Davis goes on to say, "Some imply that if a defendant does not get a trial that looks like Martha Stewart’s and ends like O. J. Simpson’s, then military commissions are flawed. They are mistaken. The Constitution does not extend to alien unlawful enemy combatants. They are entitled to protections under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which ensures they are afforded “all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”

"Justice John Paul Stevens, in the Hamdan decision that rejected an earlier plan for military commissions, observed that Article 75 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions defines the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable. A comparison of Article 75 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 shows military commissions provide the fundamental guarantees."

According to Wikipedia, "[Colonel] Davis called the Supreme Court's intention to review the Military Commissions Act "meddling": "This constant uncertainty and meddling certainly takes a toll on people, It would be nice to have some certainty for a change."

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board does not explain why Colonel Davis resigned as chief prosecutor. They state, "Davis resigned last fall as the Pentagon's chief prosecutor of terrorism cases. He said at the time he felt pressure from superiors to win convictions before U.S. elections this November so the administration could say the Guantanamo trial system works.

This is not true, which means it is a lie. Colonel Davis resigned because he did not like his new boss.

In October 2007 Colonel Davis resigned from his position as Chief Prosecutor and became the Head of the Air Force Judiciary stating that "The guy who said waterboarding is A-okay I was not going to take orders from, I quit", hours after he was informed that General Counsel William Haynes would be his superior.

Finally, Colonel Davis has been highly critical of other officers who have used their positions to make political statements.

In a March 5, 2007 New York Time article by Raymond Bonner titled, "Terror Case Prosecutor Assails Defense Lawyer" states, "The prosecutor, Col. Morris D. Davis, said that the lawyer, Maj. Michael Mori of the United States Marine Corps, should not be making public appearances in Australia in uniform on behalf of his client, David Hicks, and that he faced possible prosecution for some of his remarks."

The article goes on to state, "He [Major Mori] compared Colonel Davis’s statements with remarks made last year by a senior Pentagon official, Charles D. Stimson, who was then the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, who said that corporations should consider not using law firms that represented Guantánamo detainees pro bono. His remarks brought a torrent of objections, and he was forced to resign."

Colonel "Mo" Davis was a fierce prosecutor of terrorists. He said, "Remember if you dragged Dracula out into the sunlight he melted? Well, that's kind of the way it is trying to drag a [terrorist] detainee into the courtroom."

We again thank Colonel "Mo" Davis for his service. We have tried to provide the full story and background on this issue, unlike the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.

We are concerned that the Sarasota Herald-Tribune is in a precipitous retreat from journalistic and ethical standards as they push their single-minded political agenda.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board has an excellent piece titled, "Recruits with a record - Don't jump to conclusions about the military's felony waivers".

The editorial rightly points out that, "Last year, the Army granted 511 felony waivers, more than double the 249 granted in 2006. The Marine Corps' waivers increased from 208 to 350.While these are large [percentage] increases, the waivers represent a tiny fraction of the more than 180,000 active-duty recruits who joined the military in 2007."

They also state, "The military says it is extremely judicious in granting waivers. Applicants for waivers must submit character references, are personally interviewed by commanders, and must be approved for enlistment by a brigadier general or a higher ranking general."

Let's put this in perspective.

At the February 2008 meeting of the Sarasota County Veterans Commission, Florida Senator Mike Bennett talked about his run ins with the law when he was a young man. He told about how a judge gave him the option of jail or joining the U.S. military within 24 hours. Senator Bennett went downstairs from the court room and joined the Navy. Senator Bennett voluntarily served four tours in Vietnam, distinguishing himself in combat operations. He went on to start a successful business and of course run for the Florida Senate.

At the same meeting Eugene (Top) Harrison, USMC (Ret.) came to the podium and said he joined the Marines under similar circumstances. Top Harrison is a highly decorated veteran of the Korean War and Vietnam. He taught in and retired from the Sarasota County School District. Top Harrison taught at risk kids in the dropout prevention program at Venice High School. Top Harrison's son is an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel currently serving in the Middle East.

We miss the time when judges had the option of sending troubled youth to the greatest institution on this earth, the U.S. Armed Forces, rather than the worst institutions, our prisons.

The U.S. Military has the ability to transform bad behavior into good behavior. It has done this for centuries. Military training and service provides structure and discipline to those without it. Military service instills duty, honor and personal responsibility in our youth.

Now for the liberal hypocrisy.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune and Democrats in Congress question, "whether the number of waivers is being increased for the right reasons, and whether that change is affecting the military's performance."

What does this mean. Right reason? Isn't putting criminals to work in an honorable profession the right reason?

We know of a company in St. Louis, Missouri that employs thousands of criminals, including felons (murders, etc.). This company provides one third of the pay to the prisoner to purchase personal items, puts one third of the pay into an interest bearing account for the prisoner so they have a nest egg to draw on when they finish serving their sentence, and the final third is paid to the State of Missouri. The annual payout to the State of Missouri for this program is approximately $15 million.

Doesn't it makes sense to put properly screened felons to work. If they are not working then they will fall back on the only skill they know, crime. That costs all of us. Would it not be better that they be given the chance to redeem themselves by serving our nation?

You would think that the liberal Democrats in Congress would be looking for ways to turn more criminals into loyal soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune wants questions answered about these 861 Army and Marine recruits. Having the military follow these soldiers and marines around to collect data on them just makes matters worse. Putting more pressure on them needlessly can do more harm than good.

Don't worry, if they fail the military will take care of that. I trust our military leaders to make the right decisions on who enlists and who does not. I personally believe that giving someone on the road to disaster a better road to travel is both moral and good public policy.

What do you think?

In yet another one of the most amazing articles in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune titled, "Showdown in Sadr City", the editorial board is finally worried about the people of Iraq.

That is the good news. We as Americans must help our Iraqi friends bring peace and prosperity to all neighborhoods in Iraq. We fully agree. What ever it takes we must win against the evil that has infected Iraq. This evil is Radical Islamists like Al Qaeda, Al Sadr and militias backed by the Iranian theocracy.

The bad news is the Sarasota Herald-Tribune blames the Iraqi government when it says, "While U.S. and Iraqi troops continue to fight for control of Sadr City, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has so far failed to fulfill a promise of a multimillion-dollar program to restore the battle-scarred sector."

Let's see now, Iraqi troops are battling for control of Sadr City and the Iraqi equivalent of Waste Management has not gone in to pick up the garbage. Gee, I wonder why not?

That is like blaming the Mayors of some of our largest cities because their Waste Management trucks will not go into certain areas of Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles or Detroit because the gangs control the neighborhoods and shoot at them. I don't think our garbage collectors make enough to face Radical Islamist militias armed with rocket propelled grenades provided by Iran.

What is ever so elitist is the quote by New York Times reporter Michael R. Gordon that, "some parts of sprawling Sadr City have been under U.S. and Iraqi military control for weeks..." implying that the Iraqi government should turn on a dime to fix the sewers, provide electricity, pick up the garbage and open the schools. A high standard by anyone's count. Maybe we should hold the Mayor of New Orleans to the same standard.

Let's get real. The evil doer is Mookie Al Sadr and the Iranian Quds Force backed militias. They are keeping the battle going in Sadr City. They are the ones keeping the money from flowing into Sadr City. They are the ones who have not reconciled with the Iraqi government to allow money to flow into Sadr City to fix the sewers, provide electricity, open the schools and pick up the garbage.

Why, because they want to keep power and control by keeping the people of Sadr City poor, angry and suffering. Mookie and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard do not want money to flow into Sadr City. If it did Mookie and Iranian Quds forces would no longer be in control. With them out of control peace would follow. Money would flow and services would be restored.

The people of Sadr City need an "awakening" like the one that occurred in Anbar province and Baquba, Iraq. Only when the people of Sadr City realize that peace and prosperity mean more than killing innocent men, women and children to implement Sharia law, will things change in Sadr City.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board gets it totally wrong blaming Prime Minister al-Maliki.

Does it ever occur to you that liberals always side with the enemies of America, freedom, liberty and peace? Sadly, again, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune is pushing its political agenda by not attacking our real enemies but rather attacking our friends and allies.

The Iraqi people and those that live in Sadr City deserve better. What do you think?

UPDATE from the Multi-National Corps, Iraq:

Iraqi Army provides first aid supplies to Sadr City residents.

BAGHDAD - Iraqi Army soldiers conducted a combined medical assessment in the southern portion of the Sadr City district of Baghdad. The operation was supported by the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Multi-National-Division - Baghdad, and provided citizens with essential medicines and personal hygiene supplies at Joint Security Station Tharwa 1. For the assessment, Iraqi Security Forces provided military and civilian doctors to ensure visitors received medical supplies and were not in need of immediate or critical medical care. Citizens ranging from the very young to the elderly received medical attention at the station. Dealing directly with the ISF, the Iraqi people living in Sadr City witnessed the ability of Iraqi Forces to care for them. More than 400 citizens received medical care in less than two hours, making the event a successful one. "It really turned out good. It was successful and turned out better than I thought," said Capt. Ryan Mendenhall who serves as the fire support officer. Mendenhall said he was surprised by how quickly the people reacted and came to the project.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board again tells only one side of the story in their column, "Climate change of heart".

In their column they support the Lieberman/Warner Senate Bill 2191. Their only support for this onerous bill is, "He [President Bush] warned that "bad legislation would impose tremendous costs on our economy." But Bush's own EPA says the gross domestic economy would grow 80 percent from 2010 to 2030 under the bill, just one percentage point less than it would without the new policy."

That's it. The EPA says that gross domestic product will only drop by 1%. Again, the Herald-Tribune only tells you less than half of the story to fit their political agenda which is, "mandatory restrictions on emissions and, even better, a carbon tax..."

As we have said many times human caused global warming is a hoax. Current scientific research has shown that global climate change is caused by the sun. Read our articles on this here, here and here.

Now let's talk about the real costs of "mandatory restrictions" and a "carbon tax".

Dr. Margo Thorning, Senior Vice-President and Chief Economist for the American Council on Capital Formation, testified before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in November 2007 on the impact of S.B. 2191. This is a link to her full testimony.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune had full access to this testimony and yet reported on none of it in their editorial. Why, because it shoots down their justification that there will be no economic impact of S.B. 2191.

Dr. Thorning in her testimony points out the following:

1. Meeting the carbon emission goals of S.B. 2191 are impossible simply because of projected population growth in America from a current 308 million to 363 million by 2030. The more people the more homes, more businesses, and cars - the more fuel and power needed.

2. The U.S. Department of Energy projects a 30% increase in carbon emissions from 2012 to 2030, even taking into account increases in energy efficiency and technology to reduce green house gases. The projection is for an increase of 6,613 million metric tons of CO2 (MMTCO2) by 2020 compared to the mandated target reduction of S.B. 2191 of 4,432 MMTCO2. Meeting the targets of S.B. 2191 just can't physically be done.

3. Per capita emissions fell by 0.8 percent from 1990 to 2000 and are projected to fall by 0.6 percent from 2000 to 2012. However, due to population growth, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects per capita emissions to increase 12.2 percent from 2012 to 2030.

4. Looking at the European Union's (EU) efforts to reduce green house gases, the model for many, we find a failure. The EU 15 (the most industrialized countries) have a Kyoto Protocol target of an 8 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2010 to 2012. The European Environmental Agency's latest projection (October 2006) shows the EU 15 emissions will increase by 7.4 percent above 1990 levels by 2010.

5. Dr. Thorning also testifies that any cap-and-trade or carbon tax will simply be passed on to consumers in higher fuel and energy prices.

Again, to read all of Dr. Thorning testimony and view her slides go here.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune lies to its readers implying minimal impact on GDP growth with S.B. 2191 saying, "But Bush's own EPA says the gross domestic economy would grow 80 percent from 2010 to 2030 under the bill, just one percentage point less than it would without the new policy."

The EPA actually projects that S.B. 2191 will cost at least 4.0 percent of GDP when implemented.

According to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, "This bill [S. 2191] is patterned after the Lieberman-McCain bill which an MIT study earlier this year found would cost $3,500 per family of four. According to an EPA analysis, Lieberman-McCain would impose a price increase for oil of 20% and for natural gas of 23%. This will have enormous impacts, especially on the poor."

"A 2006 survey of Colorado homeless families with children found that high energy bills were cited as one of the two main reasons they became homeless. (LINK) The Lieberman-Warner is even more stringent than the Lieberman-McCain bill on covered sectors, but fails to provide any more environmental benefits. In addition, the United States Senate has passed two resolutions that any climate action must neither harm our economy nor fail to include developing countries. Lieberman-Warner does not pass that test."

So there you have it. This is a bad bill based upon a bad scientific theory, harms the poor, and will cost you and me trillions of dollars. We believe that any carbon emission legislation must first do no harm to our people or economy, and must include developing countries.

Our biggest concern is that the Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board's column on this bill is plain wrong. This is either lazy journalism, dis-information, or political propaganda. You decide which.

In their editorial the liberal Sarasota Herald-Tribune focuses on one proposal by Senator John McCain in, "Gas-tax break is a mirage".

First the liberal editorial board cherry picks what Senator McCain said. Here are the exact words he used on suspending all taxes on gasoline:

"I propose that the federal government suspend all taxes on gasoline now paid by the American people -- from Memorial Day to Labor Day of this year. The effect will be an immediate economic stimulus -- taking a few dollars off the price of a tank of gas every time a family, a farmer, or trucker stops to fill up. Over the same period, our government should suspend the purchase of oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which has also contributed to the rising price of oil. This measure, combined with the summer-long "gas-tax holiday," will bring a timely reduction in the price of gasoline. And because the cost of gas affects the price of food, packaging, and just about everything else, these immediate steps will help to spread relief across the American economy."

Secondly, what the Sarasota Herald-Tribune does not tell you is Senator McCain's vision for the economy and America's future. There are many more important points in his speech than the suspension of all gas-taxes.

The liberal Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board does not want you to know about them. Well we do.

Here are some of the really important things that Senator McCain said in his breath taking speech on the economy at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, PA:

"We need rules that assure fairness and punish wrongdoing in the market. We need tax policies that respect the wage-earners and job creators who make this economy run, and help them to succeed in a global economy."

"Americans are also right to be offended when the extravagant salaries and severance deals of CEO's -- in some cases, the very same CEO's who helped to bring on these market troubles -- bear no relation to the success of the company or the wishes of shareholders."

"In the end, the truest measure of prosperity in America is the success and financial security of those who earn wages and meet payrolls in this country. Many are waiting for their first homes... their first big break... their first shot at financial security. And helping them will be my first priority in setting the economic policies of this nation."

"...many in Congress think Americans are under-taxed. They speak as if letting you keep your own earnings were an act of charity, and now they have decided you've had enough. By allowing many of the current low tax rates to expire, they would impose -- overnight -- the single largest tax increase since the Second World War. Among supporters of a tax increase are Senators Obama and Clinton. Both promise big "change." And a trillion dollars in new taxes over the next decade would certainly fit that description."

"I will use the veto as needed, and as the Founders intended. I will veto every bill with earmarks, until the Congress stops sending bills with earmarks. I will seek a constitutionally valid line-item veto to end the practice once and for all. I will lead across-the-board reforms in the federal tax code, removing myriad corporate tax loopholes that are costly, unfair, and inconsistent with a free-market economy."

"...we will institute a one-year pause in discretionary spending increases with the necessary exemption of military spending and veterans benefits. "Discretionary spending" is a term people throw around a lot in Washington, while actual discretion is seldom exercised. Instead, every program comes with a built-in assumption that it should go on forever, and its budget increase forever. My administration will change that way of thinking."

"In my administration there will be no more subsidies for special pleaders -- no more corporate welfare -- no more throwing around billions of dollars of the people's money on pet projects, while the people themselves are struggling to afford their homes, groceries, and gas. We are going to get our priorities straight in Washington -- a clean break from years of squandered wealth and wasted chances."

"I will send to Congress a proposal to cut the [corporate] taxes these employers pay, from a rate of 35 to 25 percent."

"I will also send to the Congress a middle-class tax cut -- a complete phase-out of the Alternative Minimum Tax to save more than 25 million middle-class families more than 2,000 dollars every year."

"Our tax laws and those who enforce them should treat all citizens with respect, whether they are married or single. But mothers and fathers bear special responsibilities, and the tax code must recognize this. Inflation has eroded the value of the exemption for dependents. I will send to Congress a reform to increase the exemption -- with the goal of doubling it from 3,500 dollars to 7,000 dollars for every dependent, in every family in America."

"What we need is a simpler, a flatter, and a fair tax code. As president, I will propose an alternative tax system. When this reform is enacted, all who wish to file under the current system could still do so. And everyone else could choose a vastly less complicated system with two tax rates and a generous standard deduction."

"Those who can afford to buy their own prescription drugs should be expected to do so. This reform alone will save billions of dollars that could be returned to taxpayers or put to better use."

To read the full speech and the sweeping reforms that Senator McCain is proposing go here.

We continue to be amazed at what the liberal Sarasota Herald-Tribune wants you to know but more importantly what it doesn't want you to know.

Their editorial is at best dis-information and at worst political pandering to the liberal view point and dishonest journalism.

Well it must be Presidential election time. The Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board in its column, "Rational for abuse, Congress should examine legal opinion's impact on interrogations" goes after our soldiers, the Department of the Army and of course the Bush administration.

What a great way to change the subject from Senator Barack Obama's pastor saying Sunday our founding fathers (that's Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, et. al.) “planted slavery and white supremacy in the DNA of this republic.” Senator Obama saying of small town Americans, "they get bitter, and they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Or Senator Hillary Clinton saying she dogged bullets when visiting Bosnia - a lie.

The anti-war left wingers love it when the liberal media brings up a new conspiracy theory.

First of all it is always good to point out the falsehoods in the liberal media's editorial. Let's start with, "Congress should explore whether Yoo's reasoning was extended to the military interrogation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib."

There is no reason to explore whether or if Yoo's memorandum was involved in the Abu Ghraib incident because an investigation of influence by the then Chain-of-Command was done by the Army. Allegations of "improperly communicating interrogation policies" was a clear part of that investigation.

By the way. I do not think any member of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board has any experience in the Inspector General Corps and investigating General Officers. Well I have. I was the Deputy Inspector General of the U.S. Army Western Command (now U.S. Army Pacific Command) from 1985 till 1990 when I retired. I have investigated General Officers, assisted DAIG investigations, and know the procedures. They are thorough and exacting. If any criminal activity is found it is immediately turned over to the local office of the Army Criminal Investigation Division and Judge Advocate General for action and prosecution.

Let's look at the findings of the Army's investigation into Abu Ghraib available on the Army website. Here are excerpts from a May 5, 2005 Army press release on the investigation:

Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, then commander Combined Joint Task Force 7 (CJTF7), was investigated by the Department of the Army Inspector General (DAIG) for the following allegations:

1. Dereliction in the performance of duties pertaining to detention and interrogation operations

2. Improperly communicating interrogation policies

The DAIG found each of the allegations unsubstantiated. Lt. Gen. Sanchez is currently serving as the Commander of V Corps, headquartered in Heidelberg, Germany.

Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski, then Deputy Commander Combined Joint Task Force 7 (CJTF7) was investigated by the DAIG for the following allegation:

1. Dereliction in the performance of duties pertaining to detention and interrogations operations.

The DAIG found the allegation unsubstantiated. Maj. Gen. Wojdakowski currently is serving as a Special Assistant to the Commanding General U.S. Army Europe headquartered in Heidelberg, Germany.

Maj. Gen. Barbara G. Fast, then C2 intelligence officer Combined Joint Task Force 7 (CJTF7), was investigated by the DAIG for the following allegation:

1. Dereliction in the performance of her duties

The DAIG found the allegation unsubstantiated. Maj. Gen. Fast currently is serving as the commander of the U.S. Army Intelligence Center and Fort Huachuca, Ariz.

Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, then Commander 800th Military Police Brigade, was investigated by the DAIG for the following allegations:

1. Dereliction of duty

2. Making a material misrepresentation to an investigating team

3. Failure to obey a lawful order

4. Shoplifting.

The DAIG found two of the allegations unsubstantiated, while the allegations of dereliction of duty and shoplifting were found to be substantiated.

Based upon the DAIG investigation, Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Dick A. Cody issued Brig. Gen. Karpinski a memorandum of reprimand and directed that it be filed in her Official Military Personnel File. The Commander of the U.S. Army Reserve Command, Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, formally relieved Brig. Gen. Karpinski from command of the 800th Military Police Brigade on April 8.

Today, the President approved a recommendation to vacate the promotion of Brig. Gen. Karpinski from her rank of brigadier general. This action was in response to a recommendation by the U.S. Army Reserve Command commander, the Chief of Staff of the Army, and the Secretary of the Army to the Secretary of Defense and the President. This decision reduces her rank to colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve.

Though Brig. Gen. Karpinski’s performance of duty was found to be seriously lacking, the investigation determined that no action or lack of action on her part contributed specifically to the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib.

Col. Marc Warren, then Staff Judge Advocate for Combined Joint Task Force 7 (CJTF7), was the subject of a preliminary screening inquiry (PSI) conducted by the Department of the Army’s Office of the Judge Advocate General for allegations of:

1. Professional impropriety under lawyers ethics rules

2. Dereliction in the performance of his duties.

The Office of the Judge Advocate General found the allegations to be unsubstantiated. Col. Warren currently is serving at Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C.

To date, the Army and the Department of Defense have conducted 10 separate comprehensive investigations examining all aspects of detention operations. The major inquiries are based on more than 1,700 interviews and more than 16,000 pages of documents. Additionally, over 360 criminal investigations examined allegations of detainee mistreatment. Thus far, allegations against more than 130 military members have been addressed in courts-martial, non-judicial punishments, and other adverse administrative actions.

Regarding officer accountability, roughly 25 percent of the adverse punishments to date have been applied against officers, who make up about 16 percent of the total Army force. While there are still officer cases that remain open, to date, the Army has taken the following actions against officers in the ranks of brigadier general to warrant officer:

Brigadier General - Promotion vacated, relief from command, one letter of reprimand

Colonel - One non-judicial punishment

Lieutenant Colonel (four officers) - Two letters of reprimand, two non-judicial punishments

Major (three officers) - Three letters of reprimand, one non-judicial punishment

Captain (10 officers) – Three courts-martial, one other than honorable discharge, five letters of reprimand, one non-judicial punishment

1st Lieutenant (four officers) – Two courts-martial, one letter of reprimand, one non-judicial punishment

2nd Lieutenant (two officers) - One other than honorable discharge, one letter of reprimand

Chief Warrant Officer 3 - One court-martial

Chief Warrant Officer 2 - One court-martial.

Investigations into detainee abuse allegations are rank immaterial and will continue until all cases are completed. Investigators are persons of integrity, are under no undue command influence, and are charged to proceed wherever the truth leads in assessing accountability. Detainee abuse is not tolerated. The Army is committed to ensuring all Soldiers live up to the Army Values and the Law of War regardless of the environment or circumstances.

I for one have had enough of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune making political hay by attacking our Army simply to distract the public from the real and present danger of Radical Islam.

Their call for an investigation of our Army is both politically motivated and unnecessary. If they want to know what happened then read the full Army report.

How would you like a job that didn’t require you to have a high degree of accuracy, and not be held accountable for wrong decisions or opinions? A job where expressing a point of view or an opinion based more on conforming to a certain form takes precedence over fact-based observations and accuracy of predictions? Think of it: you wouldn’t have to be burdened by the same tiresome, worrisome standards as the rest of the world, namely, that failure to adequately predict what is going to happen costs you your job and reputation.

Well, welcome to the world of liberal commentating. In this job, you need not be burdened ever again with the annoyance of being correct in your predictions, or explanations of the way things work. In fact, you will be supported by colleagues and associates who, using various means, will adhere to these same opinions irrespective of reality, and distort objectivity in order to create reverse justifications for a principle or a broadly held set of views and ideas that are considered above the requirement of having to be proven or demonstrated to actually work.

You will be joining an elite group, allied against the mundane and pedestrian multitudes of those whose work necessitates that they are highly correct in their prediction and execution of duties, validated by real measures, and have an accuracy rate above 50%. You will enjoy the unearned luxury of opining and criticizing from a position of automatic moral superiority, based on nothing more than supposition and assumption that any Leftist position or opinion emanating therefrom is to be taken not only as one with extra bonus points (no matter how intrinsically illogical or phantasmagorical), but also, the burden of proof, the standard of didactic will be lower, the breadth and width of allowable self indulgent piffle shall be of a greater amount allowable to you.

Another not inconsiderable benefit to liberal commentating is the deliciously rare privilege of not having to show appropriate wisdom and experience commensurate with your actual chronological age. You can freeze your public persona through your work at your previous pubescent or barely legal drinking age. Your worldview can remain at a static college freshman level, with all the naiveté, excitement, and warm thrill of adolescent confusion and idealism. The pressure of growing up, and the labor of reconciling the real world with your insular college indoctrination need not occupy your time and pursuit of perpetual insulation from the pain of expository and corrective experience.

Upon acceptance, you will be given a tutorial package of various tools and concepts, such as French political, social, and moral rationale that can derail any principled attempt to hold you to account or justification for your positions. We provide more than just the liberal standard bag of neutralizers of criticism, such as dismissing those “Real World” types as “simplistic”, “unsophisticated”, “parochial”, “unimaginative”, and so on. Your cover and evasive strategy will be the posture of the “World Citizen” and adopting European attitudes (moral equivocation, ambiguity, relative ethics), with vagueness and evasiveness pretending to be depth and profundity. You will learn various rhetorical “tricks” and deflections that are necessary and essential, due to the shallow, easy and intellectually non-rigorous nature of your educational background in journalism, education, social sciences, and similar “ethnic” studies curricula. We in the “Cause” know that these require little demand on the intellect, and that making good grades depends on the “right” responses and “correct” points of view.

Send your résumé to begin an exciting career excepting yourself from the work necessary of the rest of the world. And prepare for a of life sneering at your intellectual and moral betters.

In their editorial, "The honor and the burden" the Sarasota Herald-Tribune just can't keep from taking the opportunity to hate President Bush using the pretense of honoring the death of an American hero.

I do not know if any member of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board has ever lead men and women in combat or served in a military leadership position, other than Command Sergeant Major USMC (Ret.) John Annis, or had someone under their command killed.

Well we have. We can tell you that the burden felt at the loss of a fellow soldier by those non-commissioned officers and commissioned officers in the chain of command lasts a life time.

General Peter Pace, USMC (Ret.), former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, traveled to the Vietnam Memorial Wall in Washington, D.C. immediately after his retirement ceremony on October 1, 2007. When he arrived at the wall he went to the name of Guido Farinaro where he stood for a while, then bent down to place a small card (pictured above) against the Wall. This card said,"For Guido Farinaro, USMC. These are yours, not mine. With love and respect, your platoon leader. Pete Pace."

This is the life long burden all military combat leaders carry.

When Vice President Cheney said, "He's the one who has to make the decision to commit young Americans." and bears the greatest burden. He was right.

Of all the Commanders in our Armed Forces the Commander in Chief bears the greatest burden of all. President Bush was crying when he presented the Medal of Honor to the parents of Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael Monsoor.

We know the President will never stop crying in his heart as he remembers the 4,000 plus men and women who have paid the ultimate price in the defense of our great nation.

We cry with the Monsoor family, with his chain of command, and especially President Bush. But we also are thankful and proud of those like Michael who volunteered to keep us safe.

We are ashamed of the Herald-Tribune and the editorial board for using his death as a cheap political tool to attack President Bush. That is truly hateful and sickening.

Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Propaganda Minister said, "The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed."

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune continues to tell the greatest lie ever told in their editorial, "Changing places". What is the big lie? Global warming is caused by humans.

The editorial board has embraced the ideology that we must reduce human caused carbon emissions in order to save the planet from global warming. The problem is scientists are proving every day that global warming is in fact not caused by carbon emissions but rather by activity on the sun. Scientists have proven that historically warming occurs prior to a rise in carbon emissions. Finally, scientists have proven that the temperature has not risen since 1998 and we may in fact be entering a global cooling period.

As Lord Christopher Monckton said, "The alarmists are alarmed, the panic mongers are panicking, the scare mongers are scared; the Gores are gored. Why? Because global warming stopped ten years ago; it hasn't got warmer since 1998," he points out. "And in fact in the last seven years, there has been a downturn in global temperatures equivalent on average to about [or] very close to one degree Fahrenheit per decade. We're actually in a period ... of global cooling."

So why is the Herald-Tribune editorial board telling the big lie? Well here it is in their own words, "because the EPA for almost eight years has worn a black hat as big as President Bush's home state of Texas."

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board hates President Bush, his administration and all it stands for, or against - in this case human caused global warming.

You see the Sarasota Herald-Tribune not only believes the big lie that global warming is caused by human use of fossil fuels but also believes that President Bush is the devil and wants to kill us all by not enforcing carbon emission standards via the EPA on our power industry.

The result of basing public policy on the faulty scientific theory that global warming is human caused is folly at best and dangerous at worst. Hatred of President Bush blinds them to the truth.

But the bigger the lie the more it will believed. We choose not to believe the big lie because it is a lie.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune has a excellent editorial titled, "NATO at a crossroads".

We fully agree with the editorial board when is says that, "NATO should not compromise its commitment to accomplishing the crucial mission in Afghanistan."

Historically, there have been many issues facing the West and by definition NATO, which as pointed out by the editorial board, "has outlasted the Soviet Union, helped quell genocide in southern Europe and successfully expanded beyond the imagination of its creators."

NATO has morphed from an initially regional self-defense alliance into a proactive Western military force involved in a global war against radical Islamists.

As we have said many times, the West is not fighting a War on Terror. Terror is a military tactic. Nations do not fight wars against military tactics. Nations fight wars over ideologies.

What we are fighting is a global War against radical Islamists. Radical Islam includes nations such as Iran and Syria. Radical Islam includes groups like the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda. Diverse entities tied together by a single ideology.

The Global War against Radical Islamists is like all other wars. There are hot fronts and cold fronts in the war. The hot fronts are currently in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The cold fronts are in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Australia, and North America.

The hot fronts are characterized primarly by the engagement of military forces in direct contact with the radical Islamists, supplemented by economic, political, and diplomatic initiatives.

The cold fronts are characterized by aggressive intelligence/counter intelligence operations, economic, diplomatic, political and law enforcement actions to prevent the infiltration of radical Islamists who would do harm to the national security or launch attacks against sovereign nations and their people.

We disagree with the report by the Atlantic Council of the United States. The West and NATO can only lose the Afghanistan front if the United States and Europe lose the will to win.

None of the major radical Islamist military and para-military organizations, taken together, can defeat the West and NATO. We can only defeat ourselves by either pulling back from the fight or abandoning the battlefield altogether.

There are many working toward just such a scenario including radical Islamists, anti-war activists and some in both liberal and conservative parties in Europe and North America.

We must maintain our resolve and win on all fronts and thereby win the global War Against Radical Islamists.

We hope our Presidential candidates and the West in general enter into an open discussion of this threat and work together with Muslims around the world to help them solve their problem of radicals who have taken over Islam and preach violence and death.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board in their article, "Report: Low Grad Rates in U.S. Cities" presents the findings of the American Promise Alliance headed up by Colin Powell and his wife Alma.

The report finds that inter city schools have particularly low graduation rates. This is all nice, well and good. More reports showing our schools are failing. More summits that will end up finding that our schools are failed institutions. Why are our schools failing? Because they are government run monopolies that empower teacher's unions rather than parents and students.

The Herald-Tribune is silent on what should be done to dramatically change our schools for the better. They are silent - we are not. Here is what we recommend you do.

In 1983 a major study was conducted by the National Commission on Excellence in Education looking at our then failing schools. From this landmark study a book was published titled, "A Nation At Risk: the full account".

We recommend all business leaders, educators, school board members, parents, students, and concerned citizens re-read this book.

Below are the recommendations from that book. The need for these recommendations to be implemented are greater now than ever before. We question that we have the will to do so.

We present them for your consideration:

We recommend that State and local high school graduation requirements be strengthened and that, at a minimum, all students seeking a diploma be required to lay the foundations in the Five New Basics by taking the following curriculum during their 4 years of high school: (a) 4 years of English; (b) 3 years of mathematics; (c) 3 years of science; (d) 3 years of social studies; and (e) one-half year of computer science. For the college-bound, 2 years of foreign language in high school are strongly recommended in addition to those taken earlier.

We recommend that schools, colleges, and universities adopt more rigorous and measurable standards, and higher expectations, for academic performance and student conduct, and that 4-year colleges and universities raise their requirements for admission. This will help students do their best educationally with challenging materials in an environment that supports learning and authentic accomplishment.

We recommend that significantly more time be devoted to learning the New Basics. This will require more effective use of the existing school day, a longer school day, or a lengthened school year.

This recommendation consists of seven parts. Each is intended to improve the preparation of teachers or to make teaching a more rewarding and respected profession. Each of the seven stands on its own and should not be considered solely as an implementing recommendation.

We recommend that citizens across the Nation hold educators and elected officials responsible for providing the leadership necessary to achieve these reforms, and that citizens provide the fiscal support and stability required to bring about the reforms we propose.

The report also directly addresses parents and students. We re-print this section so all parents and students may reflect on them.

To Parents

You know that you cannot confidently launch your children into today's world unless they are of strong character and well-educated in the use of language, science, and mathematics. They must possess a deep respect for intelligence, achievement, and learning, and the skills needed to use them; for setting goals; and for disciplined work. That respect must be accompanied by an intolerance for the shoddy and second-rate masquerading as "good enough."

You have the right to demand for your children the best our schools and colleges can provide. Your vigilance and your refusal to be satisfied with less than the best are the imperative first step. But your right to a proper education for your children carries a double responsibility. As surely as you are your child's first and most influential teacher, your child's ideas about education and its significance begin with you. You must be a living example of what you expect your children to honor and to emulate. Moreover, you bear a responsibility to participate actively in your child's education. You should encourage more diligent study and discourage satisfaction with mediocrity and the attitude that says "let it slide"; monitor your child's study; encourage good study habits; encourage your child to take more demanding rather than less demanding courses; nurture your child's curiosity, creativity, and confidence; and be an active participant in the work of the schools. Above all, exhibit a commitment to continued learning in your own life. Finally, help your children understand that excellence in education cannot be achieved without intellectual and moral integrity coupled with hard work and commitment. Children will look to their parents and teachers as models of such virtues.

To Students

You forfeit your chance for life at its fullest when you withhold your best effort in learning. When you give only the minimum to learning, you receive only the minimum in return. Even with your parents' best example and your teachers' best efforts, in the end it is your work that determines how much and how well you learn. When you work to your full capacity, you can hope to attain the knowledge and skills that will enable you to create your future and control your destiny. If you do not, you will have your future thrust upon you by others. Take hold of your life, apply your gifts and talents, work with dedication and self-discipline. Have high expectations for yourself and convert every challenge into an opportunity.