This is a screen shot of the Muslim Americans for Obama '08 on Senator Obama's Presidential web site. It discusses positions on Muslim issues. This page has been taken down after several recent news articles came out critical of the links from this page to radical Islamic organizations.

The following is verbatim from the above web page:

ISSUES & SOLUTIONS

Question: What are issues and recommendations for solutions that are unique to Muslim Americans?

1. A Law against harrassment of a Muslim women wearing Hijab at the Airport, DMV and other public arenas.

2. Institute a Law to allow Muslim Employees to take a hours off from work for Friday Jummah Prayer.

3. Make the 2 Eid's, recognized National Holidays on Calendars with days off from work.

4. Optional Halal meals in federal buildings, public schools and colleges.

5. Provide prayer areas suitable for Salah and Jimmah, in public and private facilities. (i.e. Malls, Airports, Universities, and government buildings.)

6. Organize a Muslim American group to assist in recommendations for US foreign policy affecting majority Muslin countries.

As we pointed out in our article "Obama has links from his Presidential web site to radical Islamic organizations" - We continue to find troubling relationships between Senator Barack Obama and radical Islamic organizations.

We will continue to connect the dots.

We attended a series of National Security panel discussions and briefings, culminating in a showing of the award winning documentary Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West in Naples, Florida this weekend.

We met many men and women representing a cross section of America who came together to learn about the threat posed by radical Islam to the world. Around three hundred concerned citizens came to the presentations, showing of the documentary Obsession and the panel discussion.

The event was conducted by the Florida Security Council's founders Tom Trento, Mike Tranchina and Elaine Roy. The Florida Security Council has put on similar briefings for the Florida legislature, hosted by House majority leader Representative Adam Hasner, civic groups, law enforcement, business leaders, religious groups, and concerned citizens.

The Naples expert presenters were noted Naples community leader and event host Jack Tymann, former President of Westinghouse International, Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, physician, former U.S. Navy Commander and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and Sam Kharoba, noted law enforcement trainer, software consultant and founder of the Counter Terrorism Operations Center.

What I learned at the National Security Briefing was the following:

1. We are not fighting a War on Terror. Terror is simply a tactic used by our enemies.

2. We are in fact fighting a global war against Radical Islam or Islamism. The fundamental difference between Islamism and democracy is the relationship between government and religion. The Koran for Islamists is not a guide for laws but rather the guide for laws.

3. We need to know and understand the enemy. We need to recognize that they are fighting a total war against the West. The unconditional surrender of the West is their goal. They look at Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other hot beds of radical Islamic activity as battles in the great war against the West.

4. We need to understand ourselves. We must be prepared to fight a long total war against radical Islam. We must commit to bringing to bear all our social, economic, political and military power against this enemy. We must win regardless of the cost.

5. We must unite as Americans and stand strong together. We must understand that we are fighting for our lives and the lives of our children and grandchildren. How we fight Isalmism today will determine the political, religious and social world our grand children inherit.

6. We are in a critical clash between American ideas and Islamist ideas. However, we have not engaged in a real discussion of these ideas. Our media, universities, businesses leaders, religious leaders and politicians have all abdicated their responsibility to confront radical Islam because of political correctness and a fear of offending Muslims.

7. Only a grass roots effort by concerned citizens will turn the tide.

After the briefings many asked what can we do. The answer is clear.

First we must all be personally engaged in learning about radical Islam. Next, and this is critical, we must each do whatever we can to get the word out. The most important asset we bring to the table is what we used to call our "Rolodex" file, now we call it our e-mail list. This is the list of all contacts we have made over the years. People who know us and we know them. Most importantly we listen to and trust one another. Finally, we want our friends to join with us and take action to confront radical Islam.

Last, what do we want as an outcome. Here are some thoughts on that. Perhaps you can add to this list.

1. Our Presidential candidates must discuss the War against radical Islam in detail. We all need to know what is their action plan for defeating radical Islam. No plan is not an answer.

2. Our media, universities, businesses, churches, synagogues, and mosques must engage in a meaningful public debate on radical Islamic ideas versus democratic ideas.

3. We want a "surge" of action that will lead to an "awakening" in America as it has in Iraq's Anbar province.

4. Just as in Iraq we need groups like the Sons of Iraq, the alliance of Sheiks and neighborhood groups like Concerned Local Citizens in the global Muslim community to denounce and if needed to fight terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

5. We need a anti-jihad jihad. We need Imams to declare publicly a jihad against radical Islam.

6. We need Muslims to embrace the idea of the separation of church and state. That there is a difference between one nation under God and a nation ruled by Allah.

7. We need to embrace the ideals, values and religious beliefs passed down to us by our fore fathers. We must not forget that we are Americans first and foremost. All other ethnic, religious and race differences are secondary to being an American.

8. Finally, we cannot become complacent. We cannot say it is somebody else's problem. It is too far away to worry about.

We have taken the first step and joined the Florida Security Council. We encourage you to get involved. If you want to know how just e-mail me at rswier@comcast.net.

There is liberal media outrage that the United States shot down a rogue satellite using a missile from an Aegis cruiser.

In a story, "Shot in space" a local liberal editorial board questions if, "criteria needed for weighing risks and benefits, and determining when [space] launches are warranted? Are adequate protocols in place for warning other nations about well-intended shoot-downs? Is a new treaty needed to restrict the development and use of anti-satellite weaponry? Should international rules of space warfare be written?" They go on to state, "...neither the United States nor the world would benefit from an arms race in space."

The editorial quotes U.S. Representative Edward Markey, D-Mass., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, [who] told The New York Times: "The geopolitical fallout of this intercept could be far greater than any chemical fallout that would have resulted from the wayward satellite."

"The Bush administration's decision to use a missile to destroy the satellite based on a questionable 'safety' justification poses a great danger of signaling an 'open season' for other nations to test weapons for use against our satellites," Markey said. "Russia and China are sure to view this intercept as proof that the United States is already pursuing an arms race in space, and that they need to catch up."

It is amazing that the Democratic Chair of the House Homeland Security Committee is against a system that provides security to the homeland.

Congressman Markey, what about China's shoot down of a spy satellite last month? Was that provocative. Is that a signal that China is starting an arms race in space? Where are you and the New York Times on that issue?

This is just another example of how weak the Democrats are on national security and the liberal media fall right in line with them.

The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI or Star Wars) was started in 1983 by President Ronald Reagan. It has been continually funded by Congress, although Bill Clinton and other Democrats tried to kill it in the 1990s, and now has proved successful in destroying a rogue and dangerous U.S. satellite. We have now a proven, functional and deployed anti-missile defense system.

Russia, China, Iran, North Korea beware.

Our anti-missile defense system was part of the reason the former Soviet Union came to the bargaining table under President Reagan to negotiate reducing the worlds nuclear arsenal. That was good for the world and world peace.

We should continue to refine SDI and deploy it globally to protect ourselves and our allies. Plans are currently underway to deploy SDI in Europe. We hope that Congress, this and future administrations will deploy it in the the Pacific (Japan, South Korea or Taiwan) and the in the Middle East (Iraq, Pakistan, India). That is what will keep the world safe from rogue nations like Syria, Iran and North Korea or Russia and China from launching nuclear missiles against the United States or our allies.

Democrats in Congress and the liberal media want us and our allies defenseless, supine and open to attack by enemy nuclear or chemical missiles. It sounds like the Democratic position on terror before 9/11. Will they ever learn?

Democrats and the New York Times on anti-missile defense have the mentality of 1980 peace nicks. They need to get real and recognize that China and Russia are threats along with their surrogates Iran, Syria and North Korea.

Representative Markey, Senator Barack Obama and the New York Times say we can always "hope" our enemies will "change" and so we can all live in harmony and peace. Empty ideas like this are dangerous and in our case can be deadly.

We believe in "Peace thru Strength".

Well Fidel Castro has stepped down but, unfortunately, not out. Communist Cuba is now under the iron hand of brother Raul.

The biggest policy mistake made by any President was John F. Kennedy's decision to abandon the Cuban freedom fighters at the Bay of Pigs. His mistake brought us to the brink of WW III with the Cuban Missile Crisis and has kept the people of Cuba under communist rule ever since. Over the decades they have suffered under a failed Communist system. Castro has not embraced capitalism at the expense of his people.

What is interesting is the liberal media's love of Castro and hate of the United States. You can already see it via their "concern for the people of Cuba". In an article by a local liberal paper, "Castro out but not down" they call for us to "Lift the embargo".

Their rationale is, "In light of the financial success experienced by many Cubans who emigrated to the United States, economic engagement, rather than punishment and isolation, seemed the more humane course and the most likely strategy to have toppled Fidel. And, perhaps, the U.S. could have filled a vacuum that has recently led Venezuela and China to invest in Cuba....But for decades, America let dogma get in the way of good sense, just as the former president of Cuba did."

Let's look briefly at recent history when we have economically engaged with dictators.

Let's start with Adolf Hitler, we tried to appease him with the Sudetenland and that led to WW II. We tried to appease Japan by looking the other way when they invaded Korea and China and it led to Pearl Harbor. We tried to appease Joseph Stalin with detente and it got us the Cold War.

Now let's look at more recent attempts at economically engaging dictators.

President Clinton signed an agreement with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il. We gave them economic aid and oil to keep the North Korean people from starving. The outcome, Kim kept the money for his cronies and millions of his people starved to death or died in concentration camps. He developed a nuclear weapon and sold the technology to Iran and other nations.

How about the West and UN dealings with Saddam Hussein? The UN Oil for Food Program was exactly what liberals call "economically engaging". With the "economic engagement" money Saddam built palaces, murdered and tortured his people. The program became corrupt and Iraqis suffered. There was no food for the oil!

Today we have another form of economic engagement going on with Venezuela and Iran. The Western nations buy oil from these countries on the open market. Billions flow into these countries. Do their dictators use those monies to raise the economic standards of their people? Both countries use their revenues to shore up their regimes and spread communism and radial Islamic terrorism around the world.

We engage economically every day with China and Russia. Both those countries have used our "economic engagement" to become less democratic, more confrontational, more militaristic and their people suffer more and more.

The only thing dictators understand is power and the use of power to get what they want. What the West must do, led by the United States is, to confront this evil, not subsidize it.

Liberals never learn from history. They constantly want to "economically engage" with evil in hopes of appeasement. Consistently we get the same result - our dollars are used against us, like they were on 9/11.

  The following is a recent conversation overheard between two journalists named Daryl and Tom who work for the New York Times Company.

"Have you noticed that profits are down 20-30% at the Los Angeles Times and Boston Globe this year? Did you know that the San Diego Union-Tribune eliminated more than 100 jobs, one-tenth of its work force. The Chicago Sun-Times began a major round of newsroom layoffs, then put itself up for sale, and publishers in Minneapolis and Philadelphia warned that tough economics could force cuts there? "

"Shush, don't say anything or we could get fired. I heard that the big wigs in the New York Times company, who owns the LA Times and Boston Globe, are getting big salaries and bonuses while us peons get laid off."

"Why do you think our profits are down so much?"

"I don't know. Maybe it is because we make our money off of the pain and suffering of others and people are tired of reading about it."

"No, that can't be it. People love to read about rapes, murders, fires, hurricanes, tornadoes and suicide bombers. People love watching train wrecks, we are just giving them what they want. Remember our motto, 'if it bleeds it leads'."

"Well if it isn't the bad news maybe people don't like it when we coerce people in government to sell us national security secrets about wire tapping and prisons in Europe that undermines our ability to fight terrorists and harms our government."

"No that can't be it. I get great e-mails from my friends from Berkeley, the Daily Kos, Code Pink, MoveOn.org, the Huffington Post, Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Osama, and the Democratic National Committee. They say keep them coming. They really love us in Congress because they use our stories as an excuse to hold hearings. If they didn't hold hearings what would they do? Win the war on terror, fix Social Security, cut taxes and reign in government spending? Don't be silly."

"Well maybe we need to print more bad news about the War in Iraq?"

"That would be great and sure would get our readership up but unfortunately we are winning in Iraq. There isn't any blood and gore that we can put on the front page. It is so bad in Iraq that even the grave diggers are facing a recession because of the drop in body count. It is so sad. It seems our fortunes go as does the grave diggers in Iraq. Strange isn't it?"

"How about we bash Bush?"

"No, Nancy, Harry, Hillary and Barack are doing that for us. Old news!"

"Well maybe we need to go to the files and pull out the "this economy is the worst since the great depression" stories we published during the 2004 Presidential elections and reprint them?"

"No, that won't work. We have already milked the "we are in a recession" story line already. We need to be much more creative."

"I got it. Let's talk about the obscene profits made by other companies to hide the fact that we are going under?"

"That's a great idea. Let's see now, who can we pick on? I know, our favorite - big oil."

"That's a great idea. Big oil is always worth a headline or two. They make lots of money because they provide us with always available, cheap fuel to heat our homes, run our cars, our factories, our hospitals, our schools, our power plants, and keep just about everything else in the economy chugging along."

"I'll call one of our editors right now and tell him we are doing a story on big oil profits."

"Great we need the work."

In a column by local political reporter Jeremy Wallace titled, "State Democrats pressing on" we get the liberal view of the lose - lose that Florida Democrats and their party faces.

Jeremy portrays Democrats as pressing on? Yeah, to a train wreck! It is wonderful to watch but how did this happen?

First, Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee stripped Michigan and Florida of all their delegates to the national convention because both states moved their primaries up. Democrats disenfranchised their own voters. This moving of the primary date was great for Florida Republicans because it allowed their voters to settle on a presidential candidate early. It turns out Florida was critical to the selection of Senator John McCain. Cudos to the Republican state legislature. You killed two birds with one stone - got our nominee picked in February and set the Democrats up for a political disaster.

Second, the Democratic race for president rather than being settled on Super Tuesday is neck and neck. Projections are that it will remain close until the Democratic Convention in August.

This means, according to the pundits, that two groups of delegates could determine who wins the Democratic primary - delegates from Florida and Michigan and/or super delegates.

Both options are suicide bombs.

If the Democratic party allows the delegates in Florida and Michigan to caucus and select delegates and those delegates are seated at the convention - advantage Clinton. Downside Obama and his followers, because of DNC rules, are disenfranchised. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. If the DNC sticks to its guns and does not allow Florida and Michigan to seat their delegates, advantage Obama. The DNC disenfranchises all Democratic voters in these two states. A lose - lose.

Now the super delegates. Some are speculating that if the race between Clinton and Obama is virtually tied coming into the Democratic National Convention, the winner could be decided by super delegates. The party of every vote counts and is counted could select its nominee by delegates that were not selected by the voters. Visions of horse trading in the smoke filled back room abound. Both candidates have already spent money to buy the votes of super delegates by donating to their political campaigns, advantage Obama because he donated the most.

For Republicans this is great. While the Democrats are fighting over voters based on race, gender and class and bribing super delegates, we happily move forward to our convention and the win in November.

Voters now finally realize that Democrats are the party of voter disenfranchisement, bigotry, racism and class warfare. Democrats are truly dividers. Memories of the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago are re-appearing.

This lose - lose for Democrats is a big win - win for Republicans.

Finally there seems to be a slow awakening to the growing problem of easy access to prescription drugs that are then abused and at times lead to death.

In our column, "What if" we lamented the amount of time, money, media attention and political capital spent on stopping smoking. We have seen governments ban smoking in public places, hospitals, businesses, restaurants, public beaches, and recently an attempt to ban smoking in our homes. We have police patrolling beaches looking for smokers rather than tracking down drug dealers. We asked what if all these resources were focused on illegal drugs instead?

We pointed out in our column that it takes decades to die from the effects of life long smoking but mere seconds to die from a lethal mixture of heroine, cocaine and prescription drugs. We also pointed out that tobacco does not fund narco-terrorism, gangs and drug cartels. Trafficking in illegal and now prescription drugs does.

In a local editorial, " Needed: coordinated effort on prescription-drug use" we find a call to arms, finally. Recently we attended a short discussion of the growing prescription-drug abuse problem from attorney Ronald. J. Flipkowski. Ron has been in the business of apprehending and prosecuting illegal drug dealers for over 20 years. He pointed out the growing problem with a lack of checks and balances in both prescribing and dispensing dangerous but legal prescription drugs such as methadone, oxycodone and fentanyl.

What is even more shocking is the comment by a local pharmacist that, "The amount of dubious prescriptions for oxycodone, methadone, fentanyl, other miscellaneous opiates and benzodiazepines that enter my pharmacy is not only frightening, it's appalling."

The pharmacist said he suspects most of the purchasers resell the drugs at huge markups, a suspicion echoed by police.

Dubious prescriptions? If the pharmacist thinks they are dubious then why doesn't he check them out? Where are the doctors, drug companies and pharmacies on this issue? That is, in part, where the solution lies. A computer system that links doctors, hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies would go a long way in preventing this abuse. It would also help real patients know that what they are getting from different doctors is not a deadly mix. We have hundreds of thousands of people killed annually from the normal use of prescription drugs.

Ron pointed out in his overview of the prescription drug abuse problem that people "doctor shop" by going to different doctors with complaints that require one of the opiates or benzodiazepines, they get multiple prescriptions, and then go to different pharmacies to get their prescription filled. While they may pay a few dollars per pill over the counter they can make hundreds of dollars selling them illegally. Luckily a representative from Congressman Vern Buchanan's office (FL, D-13) was at the same presentation and took notes. The issue is gaining interest. However, we do not believe that government is the solution.

In our previous column we asked" What if we outlawed the glorification of drug use in Hollywood, in our society and by our children? What if we made our businesses, our homes, our beaches, our neighborhoods, our schools and ourselves drug free rather than smoke free?

Answer: We would solve this growing problem.

There is a great article in the Aspen Times Weekly, "In election 2008, don't forget angry white men" written by Garry Hubbell. Here is a part of it.

There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.

His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his share of taxes and works hard.

The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding.

He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.

The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn’t bother him.

The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.

His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.

He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.

Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”

He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.

He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.

Are you an Angry White Man?

It is sad to read a local editorial from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune titled, "Florida's example for the world". The editorial is focused on smoking and fighting the evil tobacco industry. I wish the media would spend as much time talking about the greater threat and human suffering caused by illegal and now prescription drugs.

What would happen if in this editorial you substituted the words "illegal drugs" for the word "tobacco"? What if we spent the $58 million in Florida on an anti-drug ad campaign. What if the World Health Organization would do more studies about the death, crime and destruction caused by the trafficking, sale and use of illegal and now prescription drugs.

What if we considered that it takes decades to die from the effects of smoking but seconds to die from a deadly mix of heroin, cocaine and prescription drugs?

What if we considered the fact that tobacco does not cause criminal activity, fund vicious gangs that murder innocent children, fund drug cartels that assassinate politicians and the police, and fund terror organizations like Al Qaeda and the Taliban?

What if we and the UN spent more money stopping rather than studying the human suffering caused by illegal drugs. What if we took the focus off tobacco and really focused on the families destroyed, youth addicted, mothers on cocaine and heroine whose children are born drug addicts, death toll from illegal and now prescription drug abuse and crime caused by illegal drugs?

What if we outlawed the glorification of drug use in Hollywood movies, in our society and by our children? What if we made our businesses, our homes, our beaches, our neighborhoods, our schools and ourselves drug free rather than smoke free?

What if?

The liberal media is touting the vote yesterday in the Congress to declare waterboarding as "torture", denying our President and future presidents the ability to use this technique in special circumstances.

In a local article, "Torture is torture" you hear the argument if the military doesn't allow it by their field manuals then the CIA should follow the same rules. This argument is false on its face as the two agencies have completely different missions. Consistency is not a compelling reason to take the option off the table. National security is a critical reason to leave it on the table.

The second argument used by the liberal media, the ACLU, anti-torture proponents and Senator John McCain is the "reputation of the United States is hurt" or we lose the moral high ground. Both of these arguments assume that our terrorist enemies follow some code, some form of rule of law, the Geneva Convention or international law when it comes to torture. They do not. Terrorists do not care about the moral high ground or the rule of law. Both are anti-thematic to their goal, which is the destruction of the West.

Islamic militants are fighting a total war and demand the unconditional surrender of the West. We are fighting a limited war and Congress is trying to take a key technique in fighting the war on terror off the table. We are losing the war on terror by default.

President Bush, understanding the enemy and the threat, has said he will veto the bill passed by the Congress. We hope that the Senate sustains his veto. They must, for their primary role is to protect our citizens, not to be politically correct.

The article we referenced above asks, "Why veto a bill making that conclusion clear to American agencies and the world?"

Our answer to this rhetorical question: waterboarding is the nuclear option to prevent the killing of innocent American men, women and children. Remember 9/11.

You never take the nuclear option off the table, ever. That is good national security policy, sends a signal to our enemies that they may be subjected to this technique and allows our intelligence services the option to use it in those unique situations when you have captured someone with critical times sensitive information, like knowledge of the imminent detonation of a nuclear weapon.

For more discussion of waterboarding please visit our columns, "Lets be nice to terrorists who want to kill us", "Democrats knew about waterboarding in 2002 and didn't object", and The CIA Interrogation Tapes and the "Judicializing" of Warfare.

Update: There is a great article titled, "A Few Minutes Well Spent" by the National Review Online about waterboarding. We recommend you read it. It points out that, " Less than five minutes. That's the total amount of time the United States has waterboarded terrorist detainees. How many detainees? Three."

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune again wants to do the same things in their editorial, "Confronting violence" and they keep expecting different results. This is called insanity.

In their editorial about growing gang and drug related violence they lament the, "brutality roaring through our communities, from Rubonia to Newtown to North Port and Punta Gorda. The stories are not uncommon in our nation, but they are happening here, in long-troubled neighborhoods, in normally peaceful public places, in streets where it was once a common assumption that a child was safe to ride his bike."

Strong words. Sound like Baghdad? This is the fear they use to demand action. But what are their solutions?

"There are marches. And forums. And candlelight vigils. And talk of building parks and basketball courts and persuading young people early in their lives to avoid gangs and drugs.

All of those efforts -- particularly, we emphasize, the call for a major reinvestment in early-childhood education -- are commendable. Each initiative sends an important message to cold-blooded killers that there are people here who care, who will demand justice, who will not cower."

Gangs will cower because we hold candle light vigils and invest in early childhood education? I don't think so. Gangs are vicious, without values and destructive. Our law enforcement must be as vicious in attacking them and we must support their efforts.

They go on to refer to a grand jury report on gangs that recommends better witness protection programs, restricting bonds on gang members and more police and prosecutors.

All of these are doing the same things and expecting different results. None address the root causes of gang and drug related violence.

We wrote two columns on gangs, "Gangs and broken families" and "Fix the flaw in Gun Datatbase".

Why do our youth join gangs?

According to Dr. Gerald L. Zahorchak in testimony to the U.S. Senate on January 19, 2007, "Research has shown two major reasons, or 'root causes,' why young people join gangs.

First, these kids seek a sense of identity and fellowship. A gang provides its members with a degree of belonging the members think they cannot achieve outside of the gang’s culture. In essence, the gang functions as an extension of, or substitute for, the family or the community.

Second, and perhaps ironically, these kids seek safety. Kids who live in an area that is already overrun with gangs and who are subjected to gang violence often join gangs in an attempt to obtain safety and protection from the violence."

We believe that the solutions presented by the Herald-Tribune article, which will most probably be embraced by our politicians are off target and address the symptoms and not a cure.

The cure is long term, requires a total change in our social behavior, is against the current socially liberal mind set and requires a total rethinking of our government programs.

The solution is build strong traditional families. It is that simple and that complex.

Here are a few ideas on how we can strengthen our families:

Mandate that there is a father and mother in every home with a child.

Subsidize traditional families at all levels of government - socially, morally and economically.

Implement government rules, processes, procedures, regulations, laws and taxes that support traditional families.

Repeal any government rule, process, procedure, regulation, law or tax that does not support traditional families or subsidizes/rewards single parenting or divorce.

Punish single parenting and divorce - socially, morally and economically.

Celebrate marriage, traditional families, stay at home moms or dads, in wedlock child bearing, and healthy and safe homes.

Mandate we have in each family household with a child one of the parents work a full time job.

Mandate couples be counseled by a church, synagogue, public or private counselor on the roles and responsibilities of marriage before issuing a license.

Mandate applicants for marriage licenses be tested for drugs and sexually transmitted diseases.

Mandate sending every child to preschool at the church, synagogue, public or private school that parents choose and pay for. For married couples tuition is free.

Mandate every child in every school be tested randomly for drugs, including steroids.

Do these sound draconian? Do they go against the grain of our current social values? Or will they, and other ideas you may have, re-establish the fundamental building block of our communities and our society - the traditional family?

Strong families, fathers and mothers in every home, drug free schools, churches and a community that completely supports all four will eliminate our violence problem. Continuing to do what we are doing will simply lead to more violence.

What do you think?

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) met with Attorney General Bill McCollum to protest his showing of the documentary "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West" to all of his 500 employees.

CAIR demanded that AG McCollum repudiate the film Obsession and stop showing it, let CAIR "re-educate" those staff who saw Obsession, and let CAIR be part of an advisory group that can help law enforcement work with Muslims.

AG McCollum categorically rejected the first two requests and accepted the third with conditions.

According to Central Florida News 13, "The [CAIR] leaders complained the [Attorney] general has given what they call a prejudicial movie more play. State House majority leader Adam Hasner said that was exactly the point.

In April 2007, Hasner held a widely-attended viewing party of his own in a Tallahassee theater.

"It starts off by saying, 'This is not a movie about all Muslims.' It's a movie about radical Islam, and so I think it's very clear it's not propaganda, and I think the groups that are making this an issue are really showing themselves to be sympathizers with radical Islam," Hasner said.

In spite of it all, McCollum said he had no regrets. Far from hosting what critics call a propaganda movie hour, he argued it was directly connected to state business.

"It's the only film that I'm likely to show like that, but if another one comes along, we'll show it," McCollum said.

We are proud of the positions taken by our Florida political leadership on the showing of a documentary that presents a true and accurate picture of the evil posed to the world by radical Islam. Just read the stories or watch TV and you will see daily examples of radical Muslims killing innocent men, women and children.

A comprehensive article by the Counterterrorismblog.org states, "CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. The Washington Times reports that since 2000 CAIR’s membership has dropped from 29,000 to 1,700. American Muslims have effectively rejected CAIR’s bid to be their leader. This speaks well for the American Muslim community and its readiness to distance itself from those linked to terrorism."

In Florida, Governor Charlie Crist signed an Executive Order in July of 2007 capping carbon emissions. Since signing the order five coal fired power plant projects have been canceled. The five plants, which were to come online by 2014, would have produced approximately 4,150 MW of electricity.

Some people believe that wind power is the solution for our future energy needs. So let's look at what it roughly takes to produce 4,150 MW of wind power to replace the current power deficit.

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.

Let's say that we use the bigger 2.3 MW wind turbines (which are 370+ feet tall) from Siemens to meet our current power deficit. 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.

So there you have it. We need to immediately get the property rights to 201,508 acres of land so that we can begin the process of meeting our current electricity needs in Florida.

Oh, by the way, Texas is trying to build a larger wind farm on 66,000 acres of land and the environmentalists are going crazy because wind turbines kill migrating birds. Of course Florida environmentalists will not complain about killing birds because if we don't stop human caused global warming now all the birds are dead anyway - right?

OK. So who wants this wind farm in their back yard?

Wait! I have a better idea, let's put the wind turbines in the Gulf of Mexico, like they did in Massachusetts ! We won't need any land, right? So much for the pristine million dollar views of the gulf. Of course the upside is we will get rid of those pesky seagulls when they fly into the wind turbines.

Wait! What happens when the wind doesn't blow? Not my problem. I am buying a home generator!

Tom Tryon, of the liberal Sarasota Herald-Tribune, wrote an excellent editorial defending the record of Senator John McCain.

Titled, "This election isn't just about what conservatives want" Tom points out that, "The guy survived years in a prisoner of war camp in Vietnam, was elected four times by Arizonans to the U.S. Senate and overcame a rough and tumble campaign to all but lock up the Republican nomination this year. Plus, he's fended off the attack dogmatics of the Foxes and the right-wing radioheads, who cry that McCain's not "conservative" enough because he:

Challenged the Bush administration's chicken hawks, most of whom stayed stateside during the Vietnam War, in opposition to torture and mistreatment of prisoners of war and enemy combatants.

Opposed the president's tax cuts because they weren't accompanied by offsetting reductions in spending.

Sided with President Bush on a strict yet practical immigration-reform plan."

In his article "Decision Time" for Townhall.com Ollie North, a respected conservative, states, "My 'colleagues' in the so-called mainstream media gladly roll their cameras and recorders for those who assert that "McCain is not a real conservative" or who say, "I can never support him," and the ones claiming, "I just won't vote this year." It is, for me, a disheartening display because I have, as we say in the Marines, "been there -- done that."

Ollie goes on to endorse Senator McCain because the War on Terror trumps all, "Sen. McCain has pledged to win this war [on Terror]. We must do so, for the consequences of failure would be staggering. But as he has acknowledged, he cannot do that without the support of conservatives who man the phone banks, raise the funds, walk the precincts and turn out the vote on Election Day. I hope my fellow conservatives will decide as I have: We need John McCain as commander in chief."

We agree with liberal Tom Tryon, and conservative Ollie North. We agree with the hundreds of conservatives, including President Bush and most recently former Governor Jeb Bush, who have called Senator McCain a "true conservative".

We believe that the Reagan Revolution began with a coalition of fiscal, social, and foreign policy conservatives uniting to make this nation great. This coalition made America the leader in the world. Not everyone was all three, some may have been only one but we all came together across party lines. Together we won the Cold War, set the conditions for a great America based upon strong families, less government, lower taxes and the greatest military in the world.

Given the comments above from those on the left and the right, you can feel this coalition coming together again.

Now is the time for all conservatives to call those friends who are Independents and Democrats that hold many, but perhaps not all, of our values and tell them about our candidate John McCain.

We all need to fully support our presumptive nominee for President. We look forward to proudly saying - "President elect John McCain".

According to the Heritage Foundation we are facing extinction. It is not due to global warming but rather from the decline of the human family.

One of the most ominous dramas of modern times is quietly unfolding. Social scientists and economists agree – we are headed toward a demographic winter of serious economic and social consequences.

The effects will be severe and long lasting and are already apparent in much of Europe. 59 nations – with 44% of the world’s population – are now experiencing below-replacement birthrates. Worldwide, there are 6 million fewer children (under age 6) today than there were in 1990.

The United Nations estimates that if current trends continue, by 2050 there will be 248 million fewer children (under age 5) than there are now. Overall, Europe’s fertility rate is 1.3; a birthrate of 2.1 is needed just to replace current population.

In this century, countries such as Italy, Spain, Russia and even France could cease to exist – at least as they’re currently constituted. Drawing on experts from many countries and diverse disciplines – demographers, economists, sociologists, psychologists, civic and religious leaders, parliamentarians and diplomats – Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family is a groundbreaking documentary that reveals how deterioration of the natural family can lead to demographic disaster.

View the trailer for “Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family” at www.demographicwinter.com.