Buchanan, Dobbs and Ron Paul Have it More Right Than Wrong.

The free ride on the back of the world reserve currency, the dollar, is over. We need a policy that favors savings and investment over spending and speculation. A policy that raises real wages and manufactures goods in the USA is a sensible and necessary strategy. In our hearts we knew something was wrong and it is. America first is not all that bad of an idea.


Lou Dobbs says U.S. leaders have squandered the nation's wealth.

NEW YORK (CNN) --

President Bush's assurances that we'll all be "just fine" if he and Congress can work out an economic stimulus package seem a little hollow this morning.

Much like Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke's assurances last May that the subprime mortgage meltdown would be contained and not affect the broader economy. And it seems Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has spent most of the past year trying to influence Chinese economic policy rather than setting the direction of U.S. economic policy.

There is no question that Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will quickly come up with an economic stimulus package simply because they can no longer ignore our economic and financial crisis. That economic stimulus plan will amount to about 1 percent of our nation's gross domestic product, an estimated $150 billion.

But all of us should recognize that the stimulus package will be inadequate to drive sustainable growth in our $13 trillion economy. An emergency Fed rate cut and an economic stimulus plan are short-term responses to our complex economic problems, nothing more than bandages for a hemorrhaging economy.

Bush, Pelosi, Reid and the presidential candidates of both parties have an opportunity now, and I believe an obligation, to adjust the public policy mistakes of the past quarter-century that have led to this crisis. And only through courageous policy decisions will we be able to steer this nation's economy away from the brink of outright disaster.

We all have to acknowledge that our problems were in part brought on by the failure of our government to regulate the institutions and markets that are now in crisis. The irresponsible fiscal policies of the past decade have led to a national debt that amounts to $9 trillion. The irresponsible so-called free trade policies of Democratic and Republican administrations over the past three decades have produced a trade debt that now amounts to more than $6 trillion, and that debt is rising faster than our national debt. All of which is contributing to the plunge in the value of the U.S. dollar.

At precisely the point in our history in which this nation has become ever more dependent on foreign producers for everything from clothing to computers to technology to energy, our weakened dollar is making the price of an ever-increasing number of imported goods even more expensive.

All Americans will soon have to face a bitter and now obvious truth: Our national, political and economic leaders have squandered this nation's wealth, and the price of this profligacy is enormous, and the bill has just come due for all of us.

Bernanke endorsed the concept of a short-term economic stimulus package, but he cautioned that the money must be spent correctly: "You'd hope that [consumers] would spend it on things that are domestically produced so that the spending power doesn't go elsewhere."

Just what would you have us spend it on? The truth is that consumers spend most of their money on foreign imports, and any stimulus package probably would be stimulating foreign economies rather than our own. Imports, for example, account for 92 percent of our non-athletic footwear, 92 percent of audio video equipment, 89 percent of our luggage and 73 percent of power tools. In fact, between 1997 and 2006, only five of the 114 industries examined in a U.S. Business and Industry Council report gained market share against import competition.

And let's be honest and straightforward, as I hope our president and the candidates for president will be: This stimulus will not prevent a recession. It may ease the pain for millions of Americans, but a recession we will have. The question is how deep, how prolonged and how painful will it be. Unfortunately, we're about to find out how committed and capable our national leaders are at mitigating that pain and producing realistic policy decisions for this nation that now stands at the brink.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.

Fred Thompson Ho Hums into History

He Will Get Over the Disappointment

Postmortem on the Thompson Campaign
Lee Cary American Thinker
January 22, 2008

The autopsy on the Thompson campaign will find that it succumbed to a host of -ion diseases: equivocation; expectation; communication; and perception.

Equivocation: Last summer the "will he or won't he" saga of Fred's potential entry into the presidential race was the political version of the play Waiting for Godot. Speculated deadlines came and went, and still no Fred. The summer storyline was a tease that became a snooze. Anticipation built, subsided, and built again - several times. And with each run-up to his possible entry into the race, the voting public cared just a little less. Equivocation does not play well with voters.

Expectation: Thompson's popularity as a TV and movie personality had us primed for a superstar candidate. We expected a real-life version of his portrayal of the confident and decisive D.A. on Law & Order. Of course, this was unfair of us, but not unexpected. Instead of standing behind a bank of microphones and boldly announcing his candidacy on the front steps of President Andrew Jackson's Hermitage Mansion, he filled a deep-sunk lounge chair on the Jay Leno Show and announced in a style meant to be laid-back. Instead, it played as laid-down.

Communication: After seven years of a President whose strength, even as his supporters will acknowledge, is not public speaking, we expected and hoped to be impressed with Fred's speeches. This, too, was unfair. In most of his acting roles, Fred was only called upon to deliver relatively short monologues. And even then, retakes were always an option. On Law & Order, Fred's character would typically listen to lawyers postulate, ask a question or two, and then render a concise and insightful judgment. In real-life, this is a skill valuable to any occupant of the Oral Office. But he didn't often display it on the campaign trail.

Fred was a disappointment as a platform speaker. He often held his hands in the classic "spiders-doing-pushups-on-a-mirror" position that conveys nervousness. He voiced frequent "hums" while he searched for his next words. And, when he was using a manuscript or notes, he looked down while saying the final (and often most important) words of a sentence while looking for what came next. In short, if he got professional presentation skills coaching he didn't heed it. Instead, he opted for his natural style, and natural didn't work.

Perception: Voters perceived Fred as a lethargic candidate. Sure, the media helped build that perception, but so did his behaviors. In the debates he engaged only intermittently. When he did, he was great! But he more often appeared disinterested. Perhaps it reflected his distain for the sound-bite addicted media. The reason is not important, only the impact. And the impact was that voters perceived him as detached from the fray. Not aloof or arrogant, just not engaged. As he failed to garner support, his unaltered laissez faire style deflected voters, who wanted to support him, toward other candidates.

Senator Fred Thompson was like a gifted sprinter who didn't seem to like running.

So he's left a race he never really entered.

The GOP will now pause for brief melancholic moment as the man who might have been an historic candidate goes home to Tennessee.

Nato Chooses to Win.

The west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the "imminent" spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new Nato by five of the west's most senior military officers and strategists. Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred."

Ian Traynor in Brussels
Tuesday January 22, 2008
The Guardian

Calling for root-and-branch reform of Nato and a new pact drawing the US, Nato and the European Union together in a "grand strategy" to tackle the challenges of an increasingly brutal world, the former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insist that a "first strike" nuclear option remains an "indispensable instrument" since there is "simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world".

The manifesto has been written following discussions with active commanders and policymakers, many of whom are unable or unwilling to publicly air their views. It has been presented to the Pentagon in Washington and to Nato's secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, over the past 10 days. The proposals are likely to be discussed at a Nato summit in Bucharest in April.
"The risk of further [nuclear] proliferation is imminent and, with it, the danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible," the authors argued in the 150-page blueprint for urgent reform of western military strategy and structures. "The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction."

The authors - General John Shalikashvili, the former chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff and Nato's ex-supreme commander in Europe, General Klaus Naumann, Germany's former top soldier and ex-chairman of Nato's military committee, General Henk van den Breemen, a former Dutch chief of staff, Admiral Jacques Lanxade, a former French chief of staff, and Lord Inge, field marshal and ex-chief of the general staff and the defence staff in the UK - paint an alarming picture of the threats and challenges confronting the west in the post-9/11 world and deliver a withering verdict on the ability to cope.

The five commanders argue that the west's values and way of life are under threat, but the west is struggling to summon the will to defend them. The key threats are:

· Political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism.

· The "dark side" of globalisation, meaning international terrorism, organised crime and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

· Climate change and energy security, entailing a contest for resources and potential "environmental" migration on a mass scale.

· The weakening of the nation state as well as of organisations such as the UN, Nato and the EU.

To prevail, the generals call for an overhaul of Nato decision-taking methods, a new "directorate" of US, European and Nato leaders to respond rapidly to crises, and an end to EU "obstruction" of and rivalry with Nato. Among the most radical changes demanded are:

· A shift from consensus decision-taking in Nato bodies to majority voting, meaning faster action through an end to national vetoes.

· The abolition of national caveats in Nato operations of the kind that plague the Afghan campaign.

· No role in decision-taking on Nato operations for alliance members who are not taking part in the operations.

· The use of force without UN security council authorisation when "immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings".

In the wake of the latest row over military performance in Afghanistan, touched off when the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, said some allies could not conduct counter-insurgency, the five senior figures at the heart of the western military establishment also declare that Nato's future is on the line in Helmand province.

"Nato's credibility is at stake in Afghanistan," said Van den Breemen.

"Nato is at a juncture and runs the risk of failure," according to the blueprint.

Naumann delivered a blistering attack on his own country's performance in Afghanistan. "The time has come for Germany to decide if it wants to be a reliable partner." By insisting on "special rules" for its forces in Afghanistan, the Merkel government in Berlin was contributing to "the dissolution of Nato".

Ron Asmus, head of the German Marshall Fund thinktank in Brussels and a former senior US state department official, described the manifesto as "a wake-up call". "This report means that the core of the Nato establishment is saying we're in trouble, that the west is adrift and not facing up to the challenges."

Naumann conceded that the plan's retention of the nuclear first strike option was "controversial" even among the five authors. Inge argued that "to tie our hands on first use or no first use removes a huge plank of deterrence".

Reserving the right to initiate nuclear attack was a central element of the west's cold war strategy in defeating the Soviet Union. Critics argue that what was a productive instrument to face down a nuclear superpower is no longer appropriate.

Robert Cooper, an influential shaper of European foreign and security policy in Brussels, said he was "puzzled".

"Maybe we are going to use nuclear weapons before anyone else, but I'd be wary of saying it out loud."

Another senior EU official said Nato needed to "rethink its nuclear posture because the nuclear non-proliferation regime is under enormous pressure".

Naumann suggested the threat of nuclear attack was a counsel of desperation. "Proliferation is spreading and we have not too many options to stop it. We don't know how to deal with this."

Nato needed to show "there is a big stick that we might have to use if there is no other option", he said.

The Authors:

John Shalikashvili

The US's top soldier under Bill Clinton and former Nato commander in Europe, Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw of Georgian parents and emigrated to the US at the height of Stalinism in 1952. He became the first immigrant to the US to rise to become a four-star general. He commanded Operation Provide Comfort in northern Iraq at the end of the first Gulf war, then became Saceur, Nato's supreme allied commander in Europe, before Clinton appointed him chairman of the joint chiefs in 1993, a position he held until his retirement in 1997.

Klaus Naumann

Viewed as one of Germany's and Nato's top military strategists in the 90s, Naumann served as his country's armed forces commander from 1991 to 1996 when he became chairman of Nato's military committee. On his watch, Germany overcame its post-WWII taboo about combat operations, with the Luftwaffe taking to the skies for the first time since 1945 in the Nato air campaign against Serbia.

Lord Inge

Field Marshal Peter Inge is one of Britain's top officers, serving as chief of the general staff in 1992-94, then chief of the defence staff in 1994-97. He also served on the Butler inquiry into Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and British intelligence.

Henk van den Breemen

An accomplished organist who has played at Westminster Abbey, Van den Breemen is the former Dutch chief of staff.

Jacques Lanxade

A French admiral and former navy chief who was also chief of the French defence staff.

So Much Uncertainty in the World...

There is so much uncertainty in a world which desperately looks to leaders for guidance.

Sympathizers seek answers from al-Qaida

By LEE KEATH, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 34 minutes ago

Sympathizers submitted hundreds of questions to al-Qaida deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri's "on-line interview" before a recent deadline. Among them: Why hasn't al-Qaida attacked the U.S. again, why isn't it attacking the Israelis and when will it be more active in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria?

So far, there have been no answers.

Al-Qaida's media arm, Al-Sahab, announced in December that al-Zawahri would take questions from the public posted on Islamic militant Web sites and would respond "as soon as possible."

More than 900 entries — many with multiple questions — were posted on the main Islamist Web site until the cutoff date of Jan. 16. After the deadline, the questions disappeared from that site and no answers have yet appeared.

One thing is clear from the questions: Self-proclaimed al-Qaida supporters are as much in the dark about the terror network's operations and intentions as Western analysts and intelligence agencies.

Some of those posting questions sound worried: Does al-Qaida have a long-term strategy?

One, allegedly a former Arab al-Qaida fighter in Iraq, complained about Iraqi fighters discriminating against non-Iraqi mujahedeen.

Others wanted advice: Should followers be focusing their jihad, or holy war, against Arab regimes, or against Americans?

Like many in the West, the questioners appear uncertain whether al-Qaida's central leadership directly controls the multiple, small militant groups around the Mideast that work in its name, or whether those groups operate on their own.

Journalists also were invited to send questions and a few of the entries are labeled with the names of European and Asian newspapers. Diaa Rashwan, an Egyptian security expert in Cairo, also suggested some questions were probably submitted by intelligence agents looking for clues to al-Qaida's thinking, but there was no way to verify that.

The vast majority of questioners, identified only by their computer usernames, appear to be supporters of al-Qaida or the jihadi cause, often expressing praise for "our beloved sheik" and "the lion of jihad, Sheik Osama."

Many appear frustrated that al-Qaida is not doing more.

"When we will see the men of al-Qaida waging holy war in Palestine? Because frankly our situation has become very bad," writes one, with the username "Seeking the Path." "As for al-Qaida in Saudi Arabia," he asks, "are there efforts to revive jihadi action there after the blows that hurt us?"

Another, signed "Osama the Lion," asks: "Why doesn't al-Qaida open a front in Egypt, where there are wide opportunities and fertile ground for drawing in mujahedeen?"

Another, called "Knight of Islam," asks, "We are awaiting a strike against American soil. Why has that not been done? Why are the Jews in the world not struck?"

In videos over the past years, al-Zawahri has repeatedly spoken of opening new fronts against all those lands — but little has occurred. Saudi Arabia has waged a fierce crackdown that has killed or captured many in al-Qaida's branch there. In 2005, al-Zawahri announced the formation of a branch in his homeland, Egypt, but nothing has been heard of it, although Egypt has suffered terror attacks.

In his videos, al-Zawahri always depicts al-Qaida as moving steadily toward victory — something none of the questioners directly challenges. But they seem in need of reassurance, pressing for more specifics about al-Qaida's plans than al-Zawahri normally gives.

"I think they (al-Qaida's leaders) were aware (that) ... everyone was no longer buying into the propaganda about how great they are," said Jeremy Binnie of Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Center. "This was put forward as a propaganda exercise and to make it look like they are responding to these concerns."

A few who write in claim to be active fighters in militant groups. One, with the username "Phenixshadow," says he is a member of the al-Qaida branch in North Africa that has been blamed for attacks in Algeria.

"What do you expect from us? Should we follow the instruction of the mother organization to target the 'far enemy' — the Zionist-Crusader (America) — or do we focus our efforts on the apostate regime (Algeria)? Or do you advise a middle path of striking both enemies?" he asks.

Another, signed "Alfirati60," says he is a Syrian who joined al-Qaida in Iraq before its leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed in a U.S. airstrike in 2006. The writer complains bitterly about al-Qaida's decision to form an umbrella group with other Iraqi insurgents known as "The Islamic State of Iraq."

"Things got worse after the organization joined the Islamic State, when Iraqis took over all the issues," he writes. The Iraqis care "only about liberating Iraq not about establishing God's law," an apparent reference to the al-Qaida goal of a single Islamic state.

"Indeed, they neglected many of the (non-Iraqi) brothers since they care only about the safety of Iraqis and Iraq."

"So I ask you, our sheik, is this just?" he writes. "There are many, many violations of Sharia Islamic law that those (Iraqis) who join the Islamic State commit, like failing to kill spies or apostates" — those who work with Americans — "because they are Iraqis."

He writes that he left Iraq and returned to "Sham," the old Arabic name for Syria and Lebanon. "I'm sorry to go on and on, our sheik, but you should be informed of what's going on" in Iraq, he says. "We want to act in the Sham, and we are ready to do so. We lack only the material and moral support from you."

It is impossible to confirm independently whether any of questioners are really active fighters. Nor is it possible to verify that the interview offer really came from al-Zawahri, although it was posted with the logo of Al-Sahab, which issues his videotapes.

But the questions focus on the same issues that Western terrorism experts have long debated, including how much direct support and command al-Zahwari and bin Laden give to militants in Arab countries and Europe.

"We hear a lot about the non-centralization of al-Qaida," one supporter writes. "Is the loss of direct control by al-Qaida's leadership over the jihadi cells harmful to al-Qaida? ... Does al-Qaida intend to try to reassert its control?"

Others want to make sure al-Qaida has a long-term strategy.

"Does it just go from event to event as some claim?" asks "Raji al-Quboul." "Do you have a body that studies events and reviews them to correct mistakes and assess them?"

Many, of course, ask about the health of bin Laden, who rarely appears on video.

Another hot topic is Iran. Several ask why al-Qaida does not attack the mainly Shiite nation. They express concern over rumors of an understanding between al-Qaida and Iran. "One of the lies spread to fight al-Qaida is that al-Qaida is linked to Iran," one writes. "They point to your failure to attack the Iranian regime."

Many others simply ask for advice on how and where to join jihad. One man says he is a 23-year-old living with his divorced mother.

"I want to travel to join jihad and I sought my mother's permission, but she would not give it to me," he says. "Can I go without her permission?"

___________________

Struggling with recent setbacks and severe losses, Al-Qaeda Inc. is looking for ways to reconnect, reinvent and regain market share. While Al-Qaeda tries to stay relevant, its acolytes seek reassurance and direction. Interesting...

Which Candidate Can Help Housing?

There is so much distortion in housing, one knows hardly where to begin to fix the problem. Some of it is structural. Too many overly large houses were built in almost every market. Do not be surprised to see many of them converted into twin units in the future.

No surplus dollar holders are going to start throwing money at housing again and make no equity loans. The problem is intensified by vanishing equity. It is inconceivable that housing prices will continue to go anywhere but south.

It will spill over to all parts of the economy. The reverse wealth affect will affect automobiles and consumer hard goods markets for some time. It is also hard to believe that presidential and congressional candidates are going to argue to permit markets to take their course. That will not happen. Someone will win the coming election. There is a real possibility and likelihood that someone will make things worse. Any ideas?


Overvalued homes discourage buyers
By Patrice Hill
January 21, 2008

Home prices are falling at a record pace and are down by 6 percent or more from their peaks, but economists say that may be just the beginning.

Computer models show that home prices remain as much as 50 percent too high in major cities, where even households with twice the U.S. median income of $47,845 often are unable to afford median home prices ranging from $400,000 to more than $600,000.

The overvaluation of homes has created a buyers strike as potential buyers sit on the sidelines waiting for prices to fall. How much prices have to drop to bring buyers back into the market has become a critical question for the housing market and the economy.

Hanging in the balance is not only the health of the housing and finance industries but also the accumulated wealth and chief asset of the nearly 70 percent of Americans who own their homes.

James Haffly, an Alexandria defense worker, would like to buy a house in the Washington area but thinks that prices are way too high and must come down substantially.

"Housing is out of reach for many folks here unless they have a rich relative," he said, noting that having a high-income, dual-earner family doesn't suffice anymore to buy a typical "starter" home for about $400,000.

He's hoping that the 1 million to 2 million foreclosures predicted nationwide this year will help to drive down prices to affordable levels.

"I mean, here we are at $125,000 a year, and to buy a home on the low end means spending 40 percent of our take-home pay. Something ain't right. I wouldn't buy in this market, not with rent amounts at half or less of what a house payment would be."


Mr. Haffly said he is willing to wait a year or more until prices fall to a level he can comfortably afford. Meanwhile, he can take advantage of the many good deals available on rental housing — sometimes offered by desperate real estate investors who are renting out properties to avoid foreclosure.

The eagerness of buyers to see prices drop puts them at odds with millions of homeowners and banks who financed home purchases and refinancings during the housing boom. These homeowners and lenders face big losses and even foreclosure if prices fall too far. The 5 percent to 25 percent drop in prices in some D.C. suburbs already has spawned record foreclosures and losses.

Ultimately, economists say, how far prices fall could be a critical factor determining whether the U.S. economy experiences only a mild downturn this year or a full-blown recession with wrenching dislocations for homeowners and bank failures that the nation hasn't experienced in nearly two decades.

"The underlying cause of the problems in the financial sector is a persistent fall in house prices," said John Makin, economist with the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. He expects prices to keep declining until next year for a cumulative reduction of 15 percent nationwide. Such a decline could involve much bigger drops in high-priced cities such as Washington.

Like many economists, Mr. Makin is concerned about the consequences of such big price drops. While it might make houses more affordable for first-time home-buyers, it is hurting homeowners who made a habit of tapping into their housing gains during the housing boom to finance an array of purchases from second homes to college educations. The home-fueled spending was an important impetus to economic growth in recent years.

"The drop in house prices has removed a large part of the elastic credit and wealth appreciation that helped to support consumption during the period of zero savings since the last recession in 2001," Mr. Makin said.

The tense standoff between buyers and homeowners is slowly playing out in the home sales market, where sales have fallen by half since 2006 as buyers wait for bigger price drops and better deals. Many homeowners are pulling their homes off the market rather than sell at steep discounts that buyers are demanding.

"Sellers continue to adjust their price expectations downward but not quickly enough to keep pace with declining demand," said Stephen Bedikian, research director at Real IQ, which tracks home prices in the top 20 U.S. markets.

The group found that price drops accelerated in high-priced cities such as San Francisco, San Diego and Washington at the end of last year after a credit crunch sharply restricted mortgage lending.

Three types of loans were particularly affected: jumbo mortgages of more than $417,000 needed to buy high-priced homes, loans for people attempting to buy homes with no down payment, and "subprime" borrowing by those with shaky credit.

Mr. Haffly puts himself in the latter two categories. He and his wife are attempting to repair their credit after problem credit-card debt put them into a troubled category. On top of that, they would need to finance 100 percent of their home purchase because they have not saved enough for a down payment.

The difficulty buyers are having getting loans is making it harder and even impossible for some to buy high-priced homes, putting further pressure on sellers to lower prices, analysts say.

David A. Levy, head of the Jerome Levy Forecasting Center in Mount Kisco, N.Y., estimates that house prices have to fall from 30 percent to 50 percent from their peaks now that many of the loan products that made homes affordable to first-time buyers have disappeared.

Estimates of how far prices must fall often are based on the historic relationship between home prices and rents. A model comparing the monthly cost of renting versus homeownership in major U.S. cities developed by RBS Greenwich Capital finds home prices overvalued by 24 percent in the D.C. area and 16 percent nationwide at the end of last year.

Among the biggest losers as prices continue to drop are banks and brokerages, which have provided mortgage financing for much of the nation's $23 trillion housing stock. Mr. Makin estimates a 15 percent drop in home prices would cause a $3.5 trillion loss of home values nationwide.

Such a gigantic loss eclipses the $1 trillion of capital banks and brokerages have on hand to offset their share of the losses, he said. Because of that, he predicts banks will be scrambling to shore up their finances — and as a result restricting lending to consumers and businesses — for some time to come.

Their troubles will weigh on the economy, which Mr. Makin expects to fall into recession. He also thinks that bank losses will lead to failures of some financial institutions and an eventual federal bailout of bank depositors that will eclipse the 1980s savings and loan bailout in size.

"This time, the cost — even excluding shareholders — could run to $500 billion," he said

Mac is Back. McCain Wins in South Carolina.

Short of a miracle, Rudy Giuliani is done. Florida will determine that. Huckabee has probably eclipsed and that leaves Mitt Romney, who picked up more delegates in Nevada than McCain did in South Carolina, to be the only candidate who can challenge McCain. The non dd214 wing of the Republican Cardinals detests McCain, but like an old Timex he takes a licking and ticks on. McCain disappointed many over immigration but the choices are narrowing.

We live in interesting times.

Don't call it Bluegrass

Saturday night
at the Elephant Bar

More Uncle Earl

"My yesterday was blue dear. Today I am a part of you dear."