I know that many conservatives have praised Comrade Barack's retention of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. Now, considering some of the people he might have selected, there is cause for a small amount of relief. But let's look at Robert Gates more.


However, Gates has instead focused his attention on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has been no friend to the United States Air Force. Gates essentially fired the Secretary of the Air Force, Michael Wynne, and the Chief of Staff, General Michael Moseley. The official reason for the firings was a number of embarrassing incidents involving Air Force custody of nuclear components. But many--myself included--suspect that Wynne and Moseley's advocacy for more funding to fix an Air Force that is wearing out at an alarming rate  doomed them. Gates was also quoted criticizing the services for having "next-war-itis," that is, planning and preparing for wars with the likes of China, Iran, or Venezuela rather than the counterinsurgencies of Iraq and Afghanistan. As part of Gates dismissal of conventional war fighting strategy, he has been a strident foe of the much-needed F-22A Raptor.

A few years ago, Gates' strategy might have had merit. But as events with Russia in Georgia show, the days of conventional wars between nation states are not over. The Pentagon would be delinquent if it only focused on one type of conflict. Of course, the Democrats and many Republicans don't want to fully fund the Defense Department because it takes away from social architecture and pork spending.

AOI respects Gates' service in the CIA, and Gates is probably a better choice than say, John Kerry. Yet AOI suspects that Gates' focus on the limited wars that America is engaged in will give Comrade Barack political cover to cut other defense spending.

With one former Clinton Adminstration appointment after another...and with the piece de resistance being Hillary herself, the media are of course missing the most important question:



What do Bill and Hill have on Obama? It must be something very good for him to pick all their cronies.

No I don't buy all this nonsense about Comrade Obama wanting experience and the Clinton Administration being the most recent Democratic Socialist administration to choose from. Nor do I buy any talk of Hillary doing it for the country.

The Clintons have something on Dear Leader. Whatever it is, it must have come up late or else they would have used it during the campaign. There's no way Comrade Obama would want the Clintons hanging around the White House unless he was forced to have them.

You're going to need one to clean up all his slobber from his interview tonight with Amber Lee Ettinger, a.k.a. "Obama Girl."


Okay Bill, yeah, she's hot. But she did do her part to elect a Socialist. So please keep your drool in your mouth next time.

Having seen the two-night interview with Super Sarah on Greta Van Susteren's Fox News Channel show, all I can say is that I still love you Super Sarah!

There's been some talk that Mike Huckabee wil consider a 2012 Presidential run. Is he the man for the GOP to put up against Comrade Obama?

On tonight's O'Reilly Factor, reporter Carl Cameron reported that "sources" within the McCain campaign had come forward with stories that Super Sarah was actually a dolt (didn't know Africa was a continent, couldn't name the countries in North America), a diva who refused interview prep for Katie Couric, and was a "shopaholic."

All true? Carl thought so. Bill thought the shopping complaint to be "nitpicking." Is it also possible that McCain staffers--having a dismal campaign now on their CV, are looking for some CYA?

Even if the stories are true, while embarrassing, it simply matches Joe "Hello Folks" Biden and his gaffe-a-day.

Super Sarah didn't lose the election for McCain, no matter what some exit polls might have said. McCain had ZERO chance of winning until she was selected. McCain ran a pathetic Bob Dole-like campaign. Any of us bloggers could have torn Comrade Barack apart in the debates and McCain was weak. McCain only latched onto the socialism issue too late.

It's really up to Super Sarah now what she wants to do next. She has far more grass roots support than McCain ever did or ever will have.

One thing lost amongst the many fears about how Comrade Barack will handle foreign policy is the plucky Republic of China, better known as Taiwan. Little known outside of those in the military and intelligence community, the People's Republic of China has steadily been modernizing its military over the last 13 years to put it in a position to evict the United States from the Western Pacific and bully Taiwan into rejoining the fold. The PRC does not quite yet have the amphibious capability to successfully invade Taiwan; but it has positioned dozens of surface-to-surface missiles within range of the island. It could easily threaten a devastating missile attack on Taiwan.

NUMA...Nationa Unity My A**. Enough with all the politically comments on both sides about coming together and uniting. Give me a break. Did the left wing unite behind President Bush at all? After 9/11? How long did they unite behind President Bush? Four months?

You may think me an extremist for what is to follow. But how exactly does this country remain the UNITED States of America? It has not been united for at least eight years, if not longer. Look at this electoral map--the urban areas went for Obama; the rural areas went for McCain no matter what "color" the overall state was.

What do we conservative Red staters share in common with Blue staters?

Do we agree on economic policy like taxes?
Do we agree on social policy like abortion?
Do we agree on the types of judges that should be appointed?
Do we agree on the Second Amendment?
Do we agree on foreign policy?

Where do we find compromise to remain a Union?

What we have is two opposing camps that vie for the incredibly unbelievable "undecideds" out there. Thus, one side holds the other hostage in a Presidential victory.

I grew up in the 1980s and I particularly remember 1984, the year of the Los Angeles Olympics. The patriotism in this country was unbelievable. People all over this country waved American flags with pride. Reagan and Bush carried every state but Minnesota.

Look at this nation now. One side--the Obama left--only waves the American flag when it serves its purposes.

The political trend after the end of the Cold War has been the dissolution of nation states into smaller constiutant parts--the Soviet Union (and Russia itself) and Yugoslavia stand out. Are we immune in this nation to this trend? Can we all just get along?

Other than pop culture, some songs, and some sports, what else do we share besides geography?

I'd like to know because I see troubled times ahead.

Okay, if a majority of Americans in the corrupt Blue States and cities are going to put an end to 232 years of the greatest experiment in individual liberty and private property rights...well we might as well call Buckingham Palace tomorrow and tell Her Majesty that it's all over, we're sorry, and can we come back?

Considering how the media went ga-ga over Colin Powell's treacherous endorsement of Comrade Obama, I began thinking back to the aftermath of the First Gulf War. If you'll remember, President George H.W. Bush was prevailed upon by his advisors--including Powell--to end the war early after images of the infamous "Highway of Death" made him fear that public support for the war would erode. Bush also felt that the UN mandate to evict Iraq from Kuwait did not include removing Saddam. Another argument put forth by President Bush was that the Arab members of the Coalition would have left had they removed Saddam.

 The result was that two Republican Guard divisions escaped destruction at the hands of the US Army's 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized). These divisions then helped Saddam put down Kurdish and Shiite rebellions that might have undone his rule.

Were General Powell and National Security Advisor Brent Scrowcraft right? The liberal conventional wisdom was that stopping the war early was the right thing to do as it avoided the messiness of an occupation of Iraq. I am certain in light of the left wing antipathy for the Iraq War, they would still postulate this.

But it's clear in hindsight that President Bush made a huge mistake in not toppling Saddam in 1991. Consider the following:

1. Bush and his advisers were still stuck in the Vietnam Syndrome. I remember seeing CNN's video of the Highway of Death with my father at a pizza place and though some customers took a glance, it was not a huge talking point.

2. If the Coalition had removed Saddam, the UN might have protested it but so what? The UN sure didn't stop Bill Clinton and NATO from attacking Yugoslavia over Kosovo in 1999 (or Bush's son in attacking Iraq in 2003).

3. As for the Arab nations leaving the Coalition, President Bush seems to have been misguided by his PR of a grand coalition. General Schwarzkopf blasted the performance of the Arab forces after the war. The Syrians, mistrustful of its Western partners, did little. The Gulf Nations only had token forces. The Saudis and Egyptians woefully underperformed. Once the Coalition had launched from Kuwait, it would have relied largely upon Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for its logistics. The Gulf Nations might have ejected Western forces if they had continued to Baghdad. But it's doubtful that the Saudis--so dependent on the West for support--would have done so. Kuwait, obviously, would not have.

4. In 1991, the US Army had not yet been hurt by Bush and Clinton's defense cuts. The active duty Army had 18 divisions. Today it has 10 (though some recent personnel increases give it an effective strength of perhaps 12). Those extra 8 divisions surely would have been enough for all the "Boots on the Ground" advocates during a 1991 Occupation.

5. The Soviet Union was about to collapse and a mischievous Vladimir Putin had not arisen to foil American ambitions around the globe.

6. The People's Republic of China was still recovering from the Tiananmen Square Massacre, and not yet in a position to likewise trouble American foreign policy.

7. Iran, which has supplied and supported the Iraqi insurgency, was still recovering from the Iran-Iraq War.

8. In the United States, public support was overwhelmingly in favor of the War and in that afterglow, probably would have been more supportive of an occupation than it would be 12 years later. The memories of Saddam's aggression were fresher in the average American's mind.

9. Most important, the Coalition already held much of Southern Iraq. With the Republican Guard destroyed, as General Schwarzkopf said in his famous post-war press conference, could have strolled right into Baghdad. Now that is an oversimplification, but the Coalition had to go through southern Iraq once again 12 years later.

When people ask me today if I still support Gulf War II (or the "Iraq War" as the press calls it), I say yes. The only way I say no is if it ends up costing the United States the ability to attack Iran if necessary. Iran, after all, has caused more harm to the United States than just about any other foreign nation since 1979. But all other things being equal, I believed Gulf War II was 12 years overdue, WMDs or not.

So to tie this back to Obama, before we anoint sainthood on General Powell, consider that his "wisdom" in 1991 was not so wise...and made the eventual removal of Saddam much more costly in blood and treasure than it would have been.

Historian, multi-linguist, naturalist, bird watcher, policeman, National Guardsman, volunteer cavalryman, Governor, President...

Happy Birthday Teddy Roosevelt.

My goodness, how we need you today more than ever.

What's being lost in the whole Bill Ayers debate is just how an unrepetant self-proclaimed Marxist terrorist can walk the streets of the United States a free man and even be a friend of a Presidential candidate. Just a few short decades ago, such a man would be under surveillance by the FBI, which would just be waiting for an excuse to scoop him up.


The liberal iconic President of the 20th Century, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, had no problem imposing press censorship during World War Two and letting Hoover round up enemy aliens hours after Pearl Harbor. German saboteurs--who were not wearing uniforms--were tried and executed by a military tribunal.

However, this country has lost its way when it comes to traitors and subversives. John Walker Lindh takes up arms against his country for the Taliban and gets 20 years without parole...only for his lawyer to suggest he could be free in 17 years. The worst and most devastating spy in American history, John Walker, escapes the gallows with a life sentence despite years of compromising national security to the Soviets. The New York Times regularly publishes leaked information out of the intelligence community or Pentagon and they hide behind "Freedom of the Press."

Do you think FDR and Hoover would have let these folks get off so lightly?

"Joe the Plumber" has done what John McCain has failed to do thus far--expose Barack Obama as a socialist. He got Barack when  the candidate's guard was down and there just happened to be a camera rolling.


Should Obama lose, we will look back at Obama's conversation with Joe as our Midway--the turning point that saved America.

God bless you Joe!

After listening to Scott Rasmussen on John Gibson's radio show, I have had enough with polls. Listen to Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Gibson, and even Rush Limbaugh on the radio and every day it's a review of the daily tracking polls. We already know that some of these polls are biased towards Democrat voters. We also know that none of the polls predicted the close 2000 and 2004 elections.

So enough already.

There should be a law that blackouts all polls a month out of an election. With the liberal mainstream media promoting them, slanted polls discourage conservative voters and give a distorted view of what the American people "want." Polls then become news which is discussed ad infinitum.

The United States in 2008 is not hard to dissect. About forty percent are liberal, another forty percent are conservative, and the remaining twenty percent watch "Dancing with the Stars." It's those twenty percent that sadly determine the fate of the nation.

So if we're going to focus on polls, pollls, polls, let's just do away with the national election and just have an American Idol phone in hosted by ACORN.

Can't say I watch any of her stuff, but 21-year old "Gossip Girl" actress Blake Lively is hot.

Such a waste...But Cuba is nice in October.

Er, WAS hot.

Seeing you in the MoveOn.org video that is aimed at parents voting for John McCain was a huge disappointment young lady!

The video mocks the ads where parents address children off camera about sex or drugs. As detailed by Foxnews.com, Lively ends the ad by saying to parental figures: "And if you're ever out somewhere and you're considering voting McCain, just call me. I'll pick you up. No questions asked."

Perhaps we can blame it on the ignorance of youth.

Well Blake, I promise you that when we have to arrest you for collaborating with a subversive organization, we'll try to get you a nice cell.

I hear Cuba's nice in the fall.