I was very happy to read this piece — A War We Just Might Win by Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack:

“Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.

As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.”

Not bad.

In the end, O’Hallon and Pollack urge Congress to keep it going until 2008.

Later this morning, two of my favorite blogs added their commentary.

Power Line said this:

“My fear, though, is that the leadership of the Democratic Party sees progress on the ground in Iraq as bad news, not good. I think many Congressional Democrats are committed to defeat, for political and ideological reasons. If so, they won’t be swayed by this kind of report.”

Captain’s Quarters added this:

“The chief change comes at the top. General David Petraeus has transformed the mission, the strategy, and the tactics, which has transformed morale and set the US on track to building the Iraqi nation from the bottom up, instead of the top down. The men and women on the ground understand and appreciate the difference, and they have responded with enthusiasm.”

Iraq is tough. However, most Americans understand that a premature withdrawal will be dangerous in the long run. (Hasty Iraq pullout seen as high risk)

At the end of the day, Democrats will try to destroy General Petraeus when he comes to Washington in mid-September. They will try to destroy his credibility. The insurgents will do their share by blowing up a lot of innocent people.

At the end of the day, Petraeus will win. Why? First, he is right and very professional. Second, Congress has such low approval ratings! (16% Say Congress Doing Good or Excellent Job)

Put me down as one of those who thinks that we’ve turned the corner in Iraq. It won’t be easy sailing but we are navigating down the right path.

At the end of the day, good news is good for the US and Middle East stability. Unfortunately, good news is bad news for the party of Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan!

You can read this and other articles by Silvio Canto on his blog MY VIEW by Silvio Canto, Jr. You can also listen to his twice weekly radio program, Canto Talk, on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons (check schedule for segment times).

Let the games begin! The designating petitions are filed and the candidates are running. The first obstacle for some is the primary election in September. In most of the districts with the primary, this is akin to the real thing in November. Far too many districts are so Gerrymandered that whoever wins the primary is going to serve in office.”

Some politicians have no opposition for anything. They are the only candidate, because running an opponent would be futile—a waste of time and money. Too bad, because even in a losing cause, a good candidate can bring in new ideas and at least give the voters a chance to cast a protest vote. Unopposed candidates tend to develop arrogant attitudes and sometimes become complacent about the job.

As a campaign heats up, we see interesting commentary in the media. One of the major stories is how much money each candidate raises. This is important because we can see how much support he or she has and from whom the support comes. It also solidifies our opinion that we have the best government money can buy.

Each candidate says they need the money to “get their message out.” Unfortunately, for too many running for office the message is negative about their opponent. What a message! “Vote for me because the other guy is a louse.” Then, we get details about the opponent’s personal life and past mistakes. Believe it or not, sometimes the accusations are half-truths or downright lies.

We remember former President Lyndon Johnson when running for Congress, telling his aide to spread the rumor that his opponent had improper relations with a pig. The aide said: “But, that’s not true!”

Johnson smiled and replied: “I know, but let’s make him deny it.” He won the election, and as the story goes, got his margin of victory from people who had been buried for several years. The election was not really fair, but it was upheld because at that time it was considered that Democrats were so loyal that they could be counted on for a vote even after they died.

Hopefully, the Board of Elections has corrected that situation, but we can recall where designating petitions had signatures from people who actually didn’t sign them. As a former political activist said; “All signatures are good if they are not challenged.”

The challenges are now being made and candidates try to gain an edge by getting the opponent’s petition thrown out because of fraud and even by a technicality. The technicalities are sometimes so trivial it gives a huge advantage to an organizational endorsed candidate because the parties have experienced people to check and re-check the petitions to avoid the technicalities before they are submitted.

Once the candidates are certified to run, the fight starts to shape up. While primaries can be expensive, it can help the winning candidate in the general election because the name recognition factor comes into play. A good candidate will go door-to-door during the primary and this is an important part of campaigning. If they make a good impression, it counts heavily in the general election.

While the endorsed candidates and political parties hate primaries, the media revels in them. It generates revenue and gives political columnists something to write about. Hopefully, it also will stimulate interest in the process by the voters.

We get the government we deserve!

*One example of a gerrymandered district is New York’s 28th Congressional District, for which Congresswomen Louise Slaughter (Democrat) has been incumbent since 1986, over twenty years. On the map, it looks like a pair of earmuffs.

Budd Schroeder is a member of the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association. He is Chairman of the Board of the Shooter’s Committee On Political Education (SCOPE) and a Director of the Judges & Police Conference.

As I write this, the federal government is having problems with illegal immigration, border control, passport issuance, and a few other things. What makes you sure that they can handle health care? Frankly, the answer is that they can’t.

Bill O’Reilly has a great new column on this subject — Socializing with Socialism:

“Right now the point man for socialized medicine is Michael Moore, whose new movie says Cuba is a great place for medical treatment. Unless, of course, you dissent from Fidel. Then you might not have to worry about medical treatment because you could be dead.

In the making of his movie, Moore took his cameras to Cuba but, alas, failed to mention that, according to The World Health Organization, the health system in the USA is better than in Fidel’s socialist paradise. I’m sure Moore’s oversight was accidental.”

Please drop the idea of socialized medicine. It does not work.

At the same time, I do think that the government has a role in making sure that Americans can pay for private health insurance. I would favor tax credits or even premium payments on behalf of people who can’t afford it.

There are many things that we can do to improve the delivery of our excellent health care. Socialized medicine is not of those things!

You can read this and other articles by Silvio Canto on his blog MY VIEW by Silvio Canto, Jr..

The “comprehensive immigration reform” bill S.1639 did not pass in the Senate last month because the senators felt the heat from their constituents. This is a good thing, because the bill was seriously flawed and would have wrought havoc on America in a short period of time. When the liberal pap is shunted aside and the facts are brought to light, illegal immigration, left unchecked, creates myriads of problems.

As it stands now, “cheap labor” and “people doing jobs that Americans won’t do” are myths promoted by businesses who are interested in higher profits. The cheap labor is by far offset by the financial drain on social services, education, health care and the criminal justice system. Social services for illegal aliens alone drain billions of dollars away from necessary services for Americans.

The illegal immigration and labor problems could be solved if the government got serious about solving them. The politicians still can consider the plea from farmers that “we need the immigrants to pick our crops.” Here is an idea.

Make being in the country illegally a misdemeanor and punishable by a year in jail. If the person has forged documents, it is an E felony. Selling the documents is a D felony and making the counterfeit documents is a C felony. Increase the focus on arresting these people and putting them in prison.

But, didn’t we just say the influx of illegal aliens was draining the prison system? Sure, but if we get agreement from unions and a law is passed to make convict labor a part of the criminal justice system we would have a labor supply to pick crops.

First, we would use the convicts to work in the fields and charge the farm owners at least minimum wage for the labor. The prisoners would have the option of working or not working, but give them a day off from their sentence for each day of work. The prisoners would have to pay income tax. They would also have to pay for room and board in the prison.

They could be unionized and that should satisfy organized labor about taking “union jobs.” The rest of the money would be placed in an account for the prisoner to be given to him upon release from his or her sentence. Part of the money would be used to send him back to his country of origin and he would have a stake to make it in wherever he came from.

This would have to be coordinated with laws giving strict punishments to employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. The laws regarding counterfeit documents should greatly aid in protecting employers. If the document he accepted was a fake, the charge against the worker would be upgraded into the felony class and a longer prison term would be automatic.

The prisons should be able to accommodate women and children. They could be housed in special facilities where the children would be schooled and taught English. Prisoners in all facilities would be required to learn the language. Having a baby born in the US should not make them citizens. That incentive must be stripped from practice. If at least one of the parents is not here legally, the baby is a citizen from his parent’s country of origin.

Illegal entry must not have any desirable benefits for the aliens. With those gone, the incentive to break our laws is removed. The privileges and rights of citizens must be limited to citizens. Those who break these laws should be treated humanely, but strictly.

The big obstacle is the congress. Do they have the will to do what is right for the people who elect them and pay their salaries? They will if their constituents insist on it and refuse to re-elect them if they don’t. We get the government we deserve.

Budd Schroeder is a member of the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association. He is Chairman of the Board of the Shooter’s Committee On Political Education (SCOPE) and a Director of the Judges & Police Conference.

We’ve reached a critical point in this Iraq debate. My position is that we should wait until General Petraeus presents his report in September. Let’s give the general a chance to implement his plan.

In the meantime, it is absolutely incredible to hear what some Democrats are saying. Frankly, why don’t they just cut the funding? Yet, they are afraid to do so! They fear the consequences.

In other words, the Democrats are so convinced of their approach that they are afraid to implement it.

On the other hand, Pres. Bush is resolute. He was great at last Thursday’s press conference:

“When we start drawing down our forces in Iraq it will be because our military commanders say the conditions on the ground are right, not because pollsters say it will be good politics.”

We are watching an incredible scene. On one hand, Pres. Bush stands for what he believes and will take the hit in the approval ratings. On the other hand, the Democrats do not have the courage to actually cut the funds and implement what they keep talking about.

In this debate, I’ve hitched my wagon to Pres. Bush. I believe that historians will applaud my decision!

You can read this and other articles by Silvio Canto on his blog MY VIEW by Silvio Canto, Jr..