[via the ap]:

At the root of the dispute is McCain's decision to call attention to a Hamas adviser's apparent affinity for Obama. The adviser, Ahmed Yousef, said in a recent interview: "We like Obama and hope that he will win the election."

...

"This is offensive, and I think it's disappointing, because John McCain always says, 'Well, I'm not going to run that kind of politics,'" Obama said. "And then to engage in that kind of smear, I think, is unfortunate, particularly since my policy toward Hamas has been no different than his."

The Illinois senator added: "For him to toss out comments like that, I think, is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination. We don't need name-calling in this debate."

[via foxnews.com] we get Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef' words:

“We don’t mind–actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance,” Yousef said in response to a question about the group’s willingness to meet with either of the Democratic presidential candidates.

(Full interview)

First, it's offensive?  To point out Hamas seems to have a preference for one candidate over the other?  Second, it's a smear?  It's their position, right?  McCain hasn't said Obama likes it or accepts it or is grateful for it or endorses it et al.  It's just the facts.  Third, it's name calling?  Ok, I haven't heard every time McCain has brought this fact up or read everything on it but what name is he calling Obama?

Obama to his credit did say, "We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction... We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and abide by past agreements.”

But McCain is drawing the distinction that it's Obama's stance on foreign policy that seems to get Hamas's thumbs up:

The McCain fundraising e-mail says Obama’s stands have earned him “kind words” from Hamas. “John McCain's foreign policy provides a stark contrast to the policies of Barack Obama,” writes Ferry. “While Senator Obama would surrender in Iraq and hold talks with the Iranian regime, John McCain will never surrender in the struggle with Islamic extremists."

If I was Hamas and I'm hearing a presidential candidate who wants to pull out of/surrender in Iraq, says he believes we should be having talks with the "Iranian regime" [who seem "...intent on Israel's destruction..."], I would like him too, despite Obama saying "we must not negotiate with a terrorist group..."  Because it means there is hope that I won't get shocked and awed.  I might be able to convince him not to attack us, that we just need to talk just a wee bit more.

McCain is saying nothing more than Hamas likes Obama's foreign policies better then his own.

~tohu.va.vohu

foxnews.com:

A Border Patrol agent discovered a metal wire strung between two border fences in San Diego that appears to have been placed there to injure officials, kpho.com reports. When pulled tight the wire appears to have the capacity to decapitate a person.

Border Patrol claims that if the wire, strung about 150 feet between San Diego's two border fences, were pulled on from the Mexican side it would be high enough to strike an agent on an all-terrain vehicle in the neck, kpho.com reports.

The agency says the wire discovery comes amid rising violence targeted at Border Patrol agents in San Diego, kpho.com reports.

AP via foxnews.com:

Hezbollah's leader vowed Thursday to retaliate against Israeli interests anywhere in the world for the assassination of Imad Mughniyeh, one of the militant group's most notorious operatives, warning of a war without boundaries in a eulogy delivered to throngs of fist-waving mourners.

Israel ordered its military and embassies overseas to go on alert earlier in the day and recommended Jewish institutions around the world do the same, fearing revenge attacks for the car bomb that killed Mughniyeh Tuesday night in Damascus.

...The fiery speech by Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah at Mughniyeh's funeral signaled that the Iranian-backed Shiite guerrilla group was ending a policy it has proclaimed for years of battling Israel only on Israeli or Lebanese territory, raising the specter of attacks in Western or other countries.

...Hezbollah and its Iranian backers blamed Israel for killing Mughniyeh, but Israel denied involvement. In a videotaped eulogy broadcast on a giant screen to thousands attending the south Beirut funeral, Nasrallah said Israel had taken the fight outside the 'natural battlefield' of Israel and Lebanon.

'You have crossed the borders,' said Nasrallah, himself in hiding because of fears of assassination since the summer 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah. 'With this murder, its timing, location and method — Zionists, if you want this kind of open war, let the whole world listen: Let this war be open.'

The thousands of black-clad mourners in the ceremony hall raised their fists in the air, chanting, 'At your orders, Nasrallah.'

...Unlike many Middle Eastern leaders whose speeches are riddled with idle threats, Nasrallah is known for delivering on his promises.

...Nasrallah warned Israel that its alleged killing of Mughniyeh was a 'very big folly' which will be avenged.

'Mughniyeh's blood will lead to the elimination of Israel. These words are not an emotional reaction,' he said.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, who came to the funeral in Lebanon, offered condolences to the family and Mughniyeh's associates, before accepting condolences himself. Underlining Iran's close ties to Hezbollah, he sat between Mughniyeh's father and Hezbollah's deputy leader.

'He's not the first martyr, nor will he be the last on this path,' Mottaki said, reading a statement of condolences from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with an interpreter translating into Arabic. 'There will be hundreds and millions more' like him.

Afterward, the coffin was carried outside through the crowds of mourners, who marched with it to a nearby cemetery, praying aloud, as some chanted 'Death to Israel' and 'Death to America.'

...I can almost stomach three hours of Michael Medved again.  Finally.  He only "went of the rails" [not literally] once yesterday from what I heard when he tried to tout how conservative McCain is with Dinesh D'Souza.  Medved, we'll get behind him.  Quit with the rhetoric we just don't agree with.  Medved should take a cue from Patrick Ruffini.  But he had a great first hour talking about the killing of Imad Mughnieh, then had a mostly informative hour with Dinesh D'Souza, and then wrapped it up with a great hour talking to one of the council members on the board from Berkley.  If you can get a hold of those hours, it is well worth it, especially the third to hear the mindset of a well established far left liberal minded woman.  It's good to say that again about the Medved show.  [Now if he wouldn't be so "demeaning" and "overbearing" and "rude" et. al. as it seems, I would enjoy him more.]

from Haaretz.com:

"The Lebanon-based guerilla group Hezbollah announced Wednesday that the group's Deputy Secretary General Imad Mughniyah had been killed Tuesday night in a bomb blast in a residential Damascus neighborhood, and accused Israel of responsibility for the explosion.

'With all pride we declare a great jihadist leader of the Islamic resistance in Lebanon joining the martyrs ... The brother commander hajj Imad Mughniyah became a martyr at the hands of the Zionist Israelis,' said a statement carried on Hezbollah's television station.

The Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem initially declined comment, but later issued a statement denying Israeli involvement."

And why does this matter; from foxnews.com via AP:

"...Mughniyeh, a Shiite Muslim not known to be connected to the Sunni al-Qaida or Taliban, harkened back to an earlier era of terror — a secretive, underground operator who was one of the first to turn Islamic militancy's weapons against the United States in the 1980s but whose name was not even known until years later.

He emerged during the turmoil of Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war, rising to become Hezbollah's security chief, and the dramatic suicide bombings he is accused of engineering in Beirut were some of the deadliest against Americans until al-Qaida's Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

...Mughniyeh, born on Dec. 7, 1962, in the south Lebanon village of Tair Debba, joined the nascent Hezbollah in the early 1980s and formed a militant cell known as Islamic Jihad, or Islamic Holy War, said to be Hezbollah's strike arm though the group denies any link to it.

He is accused of masterminding the first major suicide bombing to target Americans: the April 1983 car bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut that killed 63 people, including 17 Americans. He is also blamed for a more devastating attack that came six months later, when suicide attackers detonated truck bombs at the barracks of French and U.S. peacekeeping forces in Beirut, killing 59 French paratroopers and 241 American Marines.

He was indicted in the United States for the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847, during which Shiite militants shot Navy diver Robert Stethem, who was a passenger on the plane, and dumped his body on the tarmac of Beirut airport. The hijacking produced one of the most iconic images of pre-9/11 terrorism, a photo of the jet's pilot leaning out the cockpit window with a gunman waving a pistol in front of his face.

In the 1980s Mughniyeh was also believed to have directed a string of kidnappings of Americans and other foreigners in Lebanon, including the Associated Press's chief Mideast correspondent Terry Anderson — who was held for six years until his release in 1991 — and CIA station chief William Buckley, who was tortured by his captors and killed in 1985.

...Israel accused Mughniyeh of involvement in the 1992 bombing of its embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina in which 29 people were killed.

Argentine special prosecutor Alberto Nisman also accused Mughniyeh in the 1994 bombing of a Buenos Aires Jewish center that killed 85 people. Prosecutors said Iranian officials orchestrated the attack and entrusted Hezbollah to carry it out.

Western intelligence also links him to Khobar Towers bombing, the Western official said."

Even more information can be found about the devastation this man left in his wake.  You can also read further about Robert Stethem and find his Arlington page.

At the end of an article siting some of the above information Hugh Hewitt stated the following: "The war against radical Islamists is ongoing and brutal though largely ignored by the Democratic presidential candidates.  See if either Senator Obama or Clinton comments on either of these killings today."  But they won't and I think a caller I heard on the Michael Medved show expressed it the best when he said [and I generalize] that it will not be recognized as a victory against the war on terror/radical Islamists because liberals don't believe there is a war on terror/radical Islamists, because they believe whole heartedly that what we are engaged in is an illegal war that rests on the solders of Bush, Cheney, and their minions.  They have isolated any idea/concept of war they may have to two fronts, Iraq and Afghanistan.  And those fronts in no way have anything that coincides with terror.  It is completely two separate ideas to them.  Terrorism doesn't exist except in the warped idea that it is we that are the terrorists torturing and killing the innocent in mass droves.  Halliburton given the reins for the power to suck in more money et. al.  Even if Obama or Clinton believe/understand/realize there is a war on terror, those that casts the votes for them don't, so they won't acknowledge it.  Sorry Hugh, but no luck.

On the local KKNT the Patriot 960 radio station I heard a clip of McCain saying he would get Osama bin Laden:

"He promised to capture the leader of Al-Qaeda.  'And my friends, I want to look you in the eye and tell you, 'I will get Osama bin Laden.' McCain said, 'I will bring him to justice. I know how to do it.'"

I think it actually had a little more in the clip.  McCain, if I remember right, went on to say he was the ONLY ONE who could do it.

Soooooooooooo...  you want to help us out here McCain or you going to leave us hanging?  Why are you leaving this ace in your pocket?  Aren't you the man for national security despite the fact that you want to close Guantanimo and make waterboarding illegal [very good article about McCain's stance on issues]?

"McCain said 'restoring America’s sullied reputation abroad will be ‘a top priority’ if he wins the White House.' How would McCain do this? He has a 'series of measures to roll back Bush policies':

'I would immediately close Guantanamo Bay, move all the prisoners to Ft. Leavenworth and truly expedite the judicial proceedings in their cases.'

McCain also has repeatedly railed against water-boarding, calling the practice torture -- even though it does no lasting physical or mental damage. Water-boarding is one of the most effective interrogation methods we have and was used successfully on Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who confessed to a number of ongoing plots against the U.S. and gave up information that helped authorities arrest at least six major terrorists.

McCain even teamed with Senate Democrats in using the water-boarding issue to delay the confirmation of Michael Mukasey to be attorney general. He told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in a Nov. 4, 2007, interview:

'I am confident that [Mukasey] will declare that practice illegal, and therefore, I will vote to support his nomination.'"

If you know how to get him why haven't you told Bush?  You  know the current President!?!  A fellow Republican other than name only!?!  You know, fellow conservative, in the looses sense!?!  That guy - you remember him.  The guy you been pissed off at since the 2000 election, along with the majority of the liberals.  Why now talky-talky to him of how to get him?  Wouldn't it be better to get Osama sooner rather than latter?  Maybe curtail some violence?  Or is that your ace in the whole of the presidency?  How about a hint?  Can you give a general area idea?  Maybe get the bin Laden construction company to build a neon sign pointing to the cave he's sipping on goats milk with his islamo facist buddies?  The guys were are fighting?  The ones you keep mentioning you'll get?  You know?  Give us a Tommy Boy discription:  "He's not so much here, or here, but he's really more in this general location."

So I got a question, let's say Romney picks up the Republican node and Romney wins the general, are you going to share it then?  Ok, let's go the other route, let's say Obama or Clinton win the nod and go on to win the general, are you going to share this golden nugget of information with them?  Or are you going to still keep it in your secret vault for when you run the next time, or the next time, or the next time, till 2052?  Should I trust you on the ability to fight and win this war if you are not willing to share the ball every now and then with those that can make use of it because it's not you throwing the ball?  Wipe the tears kid, play the game.  So what you are saying is if I want to get Osama bin Laden, I've got to elect you and only you?  SOLD.  I'm in.  Boy that wasn't hard.  See you conservatives, that's all it takes.  McCain + President = Capture of Osama bin Laden.  Romney / Obama / Clinton + President = No Capture of Osama bin Laden.  New McCain bumper sticker [if you develop it, I get royalties unless McCain takes that possibility away]:  McCain 2008:  Only one who can catch Osama bin Laden.

Homer Simpson:  "Oh, if you couldn't tell, I was being sarCASTic!"
Marge Simpson:  "Well, duh!!"

I remember McCain bringing up this in a debate and when asked he said something to the effect of building up the spying capabilities and something else.  It was hard to catch what he was saying because he kind of fumbled and mumbled the answer.  I think he was unprepared to have someone ask exactly how he was going to do it.  But the Wall Street Journal got to the bottom of it:

"John McCain says in almost every stump speech that he knows how to capture Osama bin Laden and that he’d follow the al Qaeda leader to the 'Gates of Hell.'

So Washington Wire was wondering, what does McCain know that President Bush and the Pentagon don’t about how to sweep up America’s most elusive enemy.

'One thing I will not do is telegraph my punches. Osama bin Laden will be the last to know,' he said today while riding on the back of his bus between Florida events. In other words: he’s not telling. Why not share his strategy with the current occupant of the White House? 'Because I have my own ideas and it would require implementation of certain policies and procedures that only as the president of the United States can be taken.'

That response, of course, echoes Richard Nixon’s campaign promise in 1968 to stop the Vietnam War. Nixon also declined to say what his plan was. America’s involvement in the Vietnam war continued until 1973.

As for the Gates of Hell themselves, McCain says he knows all about them. 'I think I’ve been close,' he joked."

Bet you have Mr. Senator McCain.  If you say so.  Not only will Osama be the last to know, everyone else will be too.

So i was looking up info for this and came across a site called answerbag.com were you can pose a question and get a response.  I found someone who posed this question:

"John McCain vowed to capture Osama Bin Laden. Do you think he could get the job done?"

And for right now this is the top answer out of three [and my personal all time favorite]:

"I doubt John McCain could find a dog in a 20x20 square foot room with a GPS device and a rifle+scope."

McCain, great hero, great man, lousy senator, lousy conservative/Republican.

~tohu.va.vohu

From the AP:

"Two women described as mentally disabled and strapped with remote-control explosives — and possibly used as unwitting suicide bombers — brought carnage Friday to two pet bazaars, killing at least 91 people in the deadliest day since Washington flooded the capital with extra troops last spring.

Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, Iraq's chief military spokesman in Baghdad, said the women had Down syndrome and may not have known they were on suicide missions, but gave no further details on how authorities pieced together the evidence. He also said the bombs were detonated by remote control."

And unfortunately this isn't the first of it's kind:

"Even the use of the handicapped in suicide bombings is not unprecedented in Iraq. In January 2005, Iraq's interior minister said insurgents used a disabled child in a suicide attack on election day. Police at the scene of the bombing said the child appeared to have Down syndrome."

This is evidence of the enemy we fight.  Not just in Iraq but coming on a global front.  This is what they are willing to resort to.  We are much better than they.  Never accept anyone telling you different.  It does matter that we are there.  It does.

~tohu.va.vohu

From Ann Coulter:

"At least under President Hillary, Republicans in Congress would know that they're supposed to fight back. When President McCain proposes the same ideas -- tax hikes, liberal judges and Social Security for illegals -- Republicans in Congress will support "our" president -- just as they supported, if only briefly, Bush's great ideas on amnesty and Harriet Miers."

"No person living in the United States of America, Chris, ought to live in the shadows, ought to live in fear, ought to hide."  ~Mike Huckabee, Fox Forum, Jan. 6, 2008.

Actually I want criminals and those that have broken the law to live in the shadows, live in fear, and to be hiding.  [And I want them to be found out and brought to justice.  I want them to do the right thing.]

I'm getting tired of some people saying we shouldn't be arguing about peoples records or how different policies won't work.  Illegal immigration is an issue, so we have to hash it out.  I want to know, as a voter, someone's record on an issue, because it will inform his/her decision in the future.  Stand up to what you have done in the past and defend or clarify your previous positions [*cough* McCain [2] + "I have never ever supported amnesty
and never will." ~John McCain, Fox Forum, Jan. 6, 2008.] + [look as some numbers].  Romney has given a response to his record of saying "...immigration proposals by McCain and others as 'quite different' from amnesty".  Now it's up to the public to either believe his response or not.  I'm not going to say what they should do.  But at least don't duck the issue.  If you did it, own it, and defend it.  Don't turn into Hillary and start crying that someone is contrasting your record.  [Soon I'll be hearing them say that Romney [and others] is bullying them.  And you can't do that...]  It's called a debate.  Debate your record and debate the issue.

And I don't like the line that this is being used to divide us.  It's exactly what will unite us.  Whatever happens to make those here illegally become legal, it will unite the country.  Keeping people under the banner of illegal only makes a divided country.  Something needs to be done.  Defend your record or change it and move on.

Saying it divides us reminds me when Barack Obama said in a debate in June of last year, "...this is the kind of question that is designed precisely to divide us..." when asked of the candidates to raise their hands if they believed English should be the official language in the United States.  I agree with the response from Dennis Prager about Obama's comment [about 7 min. in]:

"This is such a play on words...  Folks! The whole point of making English the official language is to unite us!  It's all backwords!?!  One language unites!  Many languages divide.  Ask Canada!  Canada is much more divided since French became an equal language with English.  Since when do multiple languages unite people?  It's upside down thinking.  Upside down, and they applauded.  Oh, what a crowd...  ...a language unites.  Isn't that obvious?  It's not the question that divides, Senetor Obama, it's multiple languages in a society that divide.  ...One of the only things that unites Indians is English because of British Imperialism, otherwise they have no way to talk to each other in India.  ...Where is there an example of multiple languages uniting people?  That was demogogary Senetor Obama!  ...I am stunned at how emotions overwhelm the rational process."

I want to know who is going to be best equipped to handle the problem with immigration and I need to know someones record to make a educated decision.  Let's here it.

And this goes beyond illegal immigrants of Mexico and various other origin as I have learned and now fear [with more reports coming out instep with past findings].  Is it about illegal immigrants - yes.  Is it about national security - you're darn tootin'.

~tohu.va.vohu

I've tried to weigh Huckabee with the other candidates to see if he was feasible and deserving of my vote but I keep coming to a resounding no.  But after the Iowa caucuses there might be a possibility I would have to mark on my ballot, come the general elections this year for President, for Mike Huckabee.  So as I watched the Fox Forum last night, Sunday, January 6, 2008 Mike Huckabee did something that made me lose more respect for the man.  It was in an interchange between Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Chris Wallace:

WALLACE: Governor Huckabee, at an earlier debate, you had a memorable exchange with Governor Romney about your plan that would have allowed the children of illegals in-state tuition to college. And, at the time, you said we shouldn’t punish children from the actions of their parents.

On the other hand, shortly after that, you came out with a very tough immigration plan, which mandates that all illegals must leave the country and return to their home within 120 days if they want to become legals. Aren’t you in effect, in that plan, punishing those very children that you said you didn’t want to punish?

HUCKABEE: Not at all, because as long as those children are here and people question their authenticity for being here, they live in the shadows. They live hiding.

No person living in the United States of America, Chris, ought to live in the shadows, ought to live in fear, ought to hide. The beauty of this country is we live with our heads up. We live with dignity, we live with pride, we live with honor, and as long as people are living illegally, they can’t.

And I know I’m going to be questioned, do I still stand by that idea that we treat the children differently, who didn’t commit a crime? And let me just be very clear, yes, I do stand beside that, because I don’t think you punish a child for what a parent did.

Now, the fact is, under the plan that I put forth — and it’s tough. It says build a fence. It does say after you have a fence, I believe built by American laborers with American material, people should be asked to go back and get in the back of the line. The only place to get in the back of the line is in their home country. There’s no line here.

ROMNEY: How about the kids in school, them, too, or not?

HUCKABEE: Mitt, I’m talking to Chris right now, if you don’t mind.

WALLACE: Well, that is actually a question I was going to ask.

HUCKABEE: Well, you can ask it, but I’ve decided that you’re the moderator of the debate, not Mitt, and he’s tried to engage me in this.

And I appreciate you very much, but I believe I’ll let Chris be the moderator here.

WALLACE: What about the children in school?

HUCKABEE: Well, here’s the point. If the families go back, they’re going to take their children with them. And when those children go back and then they get in line and they get back into the United States, then this issue is resolved.

The reason we have the problem we have is because our federal government has broken it, has caused it to be dysfunctional, and we’ve got to get it fixed.

The one thing I do agree, whether it’s with Senator McCain, Mayor Giuliani, Fred Thompson, anyone here, is that this problem isn’t going to get solved by seeing if we can throw flash words at each other. It’s going to get solved when we sit down like reasonable human beings and decide that we’ve got to do something that fixes the problem by sealing the border, first and foremost. But I absolutely believe that as a governor, I had to educate those kids. That wasn’t an option for me. The mayor had the same situation in New York. By law, you educate children and, also, it doesn’t make sense to turn kids out on the street, because then you’re going to end up with a much bigger problem in the education policy.

WALLACE: Governor, I’m going to give you 30 seconds…

HUCKABEE: OK.

WALLACE: … because we need to move on.

Thirty seconds. If you have the child of an illegal immigrant and he is in high school in Little Rock, and now under the Huckabee – President Huckabee’s plan, he and his family all have to move back to Mexico, aren’t you punishing that kid? He’s a sophomore in high school and now he’s been dragged out of Little Rock, and he’s living in Tijuana.

HUCKABEE: I guess his parents could leave him there if he’s a senior in high school, but I think most families, particularly if you understand about most of the immigrant families, they’re a family-loving people. These are not people that want to split their families up, they want to keep their families together.

They come here for their families, Chris. They come here so their kids will have an opportunity. They come here so their kids have groceries to eat.

These are people who don’t come here because they’re escaping wealth so they can come to poverty. They’re escaping poverty so they can have a chance to have wealth.

And the point I’m making is that if we’re going to have this problem fixed, let’s actually fix it. And all the rhetoric that we’ve thrown out about who is more for amnesty and who is less for amnesty, I mean, a lot of that is pure nonsense.

What we need to do is say, seal the border, have a plan to get in the back of the line. No free rides.

We won’t have amnesty. And I think every one of us, including John McCain, agrees with that. Get a system that we can live it, and then let’s don’t ever make this mistake again.

We all love to invoke the name of Ronald Reagan. Let’s not forget, with all due respect, Ronald Reagan was the one who signed the amnesty bill back in the ’80s that’s given us the mess now.

We all love him, we all want to be like him, but even Ronald Reagan can make mistakes. And we need to fix the mistake.

Not engaging Mitt Romney and his question was extremely rude and inappropriate.  It was condescending and patronizing.  Mr. Huckabee didn't even acknowledge Mr. Romney with eye contact, he stared forward and treated Mr. Romney like wallpaper.  I remember acting that way to people back in high school.  When I did it, it was to tick people off and try and make them out to be a ignoramus a bother.  It was the ultimate rude factor to deliver.  Astonishingly I've seen children do the same thing, "I'm not talking to you, I'm talking to Joe Blow so please don't talk to me!  I don't like you."  After listening and watching the exchange, frustrated and a bit angry, I stood up and pronounced, "What an [donkey derriere]!"  Are you sitting there saying, "tohu, chill out, it was nothing.  Let it go, Huckabee was only keeping the discussion moving forward."  Alright, I will buy that but only if he didn't have the following exchange moments earlier with Mr. Fred Thompson about Guantanamo:

WALLACE: I want to move on to another subject, but I want to give a couple of people time to clean up here.

You got a mention of you, Governor Huckabee. You start. One minute.

HUCKABEE: On the Guantanamo issue, I felt we should keep it open until the court case had come down indicating that there was no real substantive difference in whether they were in Guantanamo or Leavenworth. And I think that sort of changes the picture.

The fact is, I don’t care what the rest of the world thinks. I care what America thinks. And it’s become a divisive issue.

I went to Guantanamo, I visited it. Quite frankly, I visited every prison in my state. I know a little bit about the difference between what we operate and what we were operating at Guantanamo.

It wasn’t that it wasn’t too bad. The truth is, it was too darn good.

The conditions down there were amazingly hospitable. I thought a little bit too much for my taste, considering what these people had done.

HUCKABEE: So it’s a matter of believing that we ought to have policy that brings this country together and not tears it apart. I don’t think where we keep these people is as important as it is that we keep them and we don’t let them go.

THOMPSON: They get certain rights if they come here. They could get habeas corpus rights, being physically here, that they wouldn’t otherwise get if they were in Guantanamo.

HUCKABEE: The courts are in a case right now to decide whether or not that that’s going to be held.

THOMPSON: As they are in Guantanamo. I mean, that’s the assumption that they will be there.

HUCKABEE: But what I’m saying is if they’re going to be the same…

THOMPSON: If they’re going to be brought here…

HUCKABEE: … in Leavenworth as Guantanamo, it shouldn’t matter where they are geographically.

THOMPSON: That’s not the situation. It would be different if they were in Guantanamo — I mean, if they were in Leavenworth.

WALLACE: I want to move on to immigration...

Mr. Huckabee was more than willing to have a discussion with Mr. Thompson about Guantanamo.  Without even a hint of not acknowledging Thompson's direct retort to his statements.  He willingly engaged Thompson's inquiry for about a minute, giving back and forth exchanges about four times.

What he did to Mitt Romney was sad, uncalled for, and inappropriate.  It was a mini replay of what all the candidates did on the Saturday debate, dog pile Romney.  And they keep calling Romney's compare and contrast ads divisive and attacking.  I don't see personal attacks like others are lumping on to Romney.  It's not working on me.  In fact, it's ticking me off.

Mr. Huckabee, that was rude and I didn't appreciate it.

And did you follow Mr. Huckabee on the illegal immigration stuff?  I didn't.  It didn't make sense, first he has a responsibility to give kids an education [I can't argue about elementary and high school because I don't know what the law requires or allows right now, but I didn't know the state[s] have a responsibility to give kids a college education.  If that's true, I would like a refund or get covered for more college education, because I thought the issue for that was his backing a bill that would have given instate college tuition to the children of illegal immigrants, which in the last major election Arizona voted no on.], but then he said the families, with their children, would have to go back to their own country to stand in the back of the line [So that means they can't get instate college tuition?  Or get an education in the lower grades?  Because they are the children of illegals and ipso facto illegal?], but then apparently they can leave the kid to finish high school [so what happens after he's finished with high school?  Back of the line?], all the while not really answering the direct question[s] and adding fluff and using an emotional argument about kids eating and poverty.

I had a discussion with my mom about the idea of instate college tuition and "punishing the children for what the parents have done."  She pointed out the verses found in Exodus 5, 34, and Deuteronomy 5 [red hearing "honorable mention": 1 Cor. 15:22] that say, "For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me..." and don't "...keep My commandments."  But be clear of the distinction between this and what is required in making a decision of who should be put to death for the father's/son's sin in Deuteronomy 24 and Ezekiel 18.  I think there is an argument for children reaping and ipso facto shouldering the burden of a fathers iniquity.  A father who does not obey the law of the United States by coming here illegally doesn't have a child who is miraculously made legal.  The father has put the burden of being illegal on his children.  Isn't the father who has done a disservice to his son?  Shouldn't the father have gone through the proper channels to become legal so his children would have the ability to obtain instate tuition?  Let's say a person comes into the United States illegally when his children are young, like the age of 5.  To give his children the best opportunity and access to all rights of a citizen, shouldn't he be trying for 13+ years to become legal?  Isn't that the responsibility of the father?  But let's say he comes illegally when they are older, like 16.  Isn't it the father who has made a choice of not trying to do something earlier to become legal and has has caused a burden to try and become legal for a teenager that will soon become an adult?  I was talking to an elderly gentleman and he brought up the current view of the younger generation that they want all the benefits of being married without actually going through the process of being truly married [the sex, the living together, the economic help, the status, the children, et al.].  Isn't giving instate tuition just like that?  People want all the benefits of being a citizen, or being an instate citizen, without actually going through the process of becoming a citizen?  [If it's broke, or hard, let's fix it but let's follow and not deny the rules and structure we currently have.  We should work inside the confines of what we have until we have something else.  That's what we need to do.  red hearing:  shoot I'm going to be responsible for paying a tax because my parents will die!]  Am I off on this?  That's a legit question, not rhetorical.

I just don't see Huckabee as a candidate for me.  I don't like his idea for banning smoking in public places [2] [3], I don't like his views and record of what he did and tried to do on immigration, I don't agree with his views on Guantanamo, I don't like populist views, I don't like the big bad corporations talk [Larry Kudlow + he sounds like my friends -- corporate greed, the United States is all about materialism; that's why we suck, we're greedy, his personal attack on the Leno show [55 sec. in] and on the campaign trail, et al.  I'm not even close to being in the middle class but I'm sick of the rhetoric.  I don't buy it.], I don't like his views on Wall Street, I don't like his speeches he's delivered on foreign policy [truly sounds like Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama] [2], I don't like that he was clueless of the NIE report and wasn't clear on current events in Pakistan, or clear on immigration statistics [trying to make them fit into a square peg], I don't appreciate his use of his faith [if he is going to use it, own it], I'm not sure how to take his lifting of the Cuba embargo even though he changed positions on it [2], and having Michael Medved be an apologist on him isn't helping [he was/is wrong on the amnesty/immigration bill, he was/is wrong about McCain, and he's wrong on a lot of his points with Huckabee].

~tohu.va.vohu

In case you missed it, California Rep. Pete Stark (D) said the following  in Congress during the debate of the inappropriately expansive [early blueprint/rough draft for socialized medicine] SCHIP bill:

"Republicans are worried that they can't pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq.  Where are you going to get that money?  You gonna tell us lies?  Like you're telling us today?  Is that how you're going to fund the war?  You don't have the money to fund the war or the children.  But you're gonna spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq and get their heads blown off for the presidents amusement."

And to make sure you don't miss it, YouTube.
This needs to be spread around.  "Hello McFly" this is from in the same party that is the majority in both congress and senate.
sad.

Radio Disney had "chosen by God" taken out of a promo for the movie 'The Ten Commandments'

Radio Disney was to broadcast a radio spot for Promenade Pictures, makers of the film "The Ten Commandments," but the company sent an e-mail earlier this month instructing that the phrase "chosen by God" be stripped from the script.

"Our BS&P [Broadcast Standards and Procedures] said Both scripts need to include the studio mention and omit the following line: CHOSEN BY GOD.... Please let me know if you have any questions," reads the e-mail, sent Oct. 2 to Promenade media buyer Casey Baker by Radio Disney Network sales associate Jason Atkinson.

And here is their explanation:

Radio Disney has said in other media reports that it made the request because its policies require mention of the studio in its commercials and it decided to replace the "chosen by God" phrase with "from Promenade Pictures" because the original script made it sound as though the actors were chosen by God, not Moses, as was the intended meaning.

Mention of God isn't prohibited in the company's standards and procedures, according to Radio Disney.

I think they could have asked that they include the studio name without taking out "chosen by God" but that may just be me.  Kind of interesting that it is that phrase chosen to be taken out of the promo.  Actually I don't find it interesting as much as I find it depressingly predictable.
And I don't know if I agree/or how I feel with the Promenade president and Chief Operating Officer Cindy Bond response:

Bond said that because Disney has just the target audience the film seeks — children and 'tweens — she complied with Disney's request and had the ad redone without mention of God.

"To walk away from a place that has our exact core audience ... I ordered the spot to be recut and re-edited," Bond said. "If you get them into the theater, they'll hear plenty about God."

But I would agree with:

"In connection with the Ten Commandments, I did find it offensive," said Promenade president and Chief Operating Officer Cindy Bond. "God in our movie is the main character. You rip the whole guts out of the piece."

Yoni Tidi has an article quoted at his blog that states a daily newspaper in Palestinian, the Palestinian Authority, printed a cartoon clearly showing someone praying for the killing of Americans [a picture of the cartoon is on his site too].  This is evident that it's meant for Americans because the missiles are flying towards a B-2 Bomber.  And who foots the bill for that piece of superb machinery?

I'm young in my involvement in political understanding.  Some things I need the advice of others.  So I'm wondering if Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is correct in this foreign affairs opinion of establishing a Palestinian state.  Is there viable concern or water under the bridge?

Secretary of State Condoleezza said Monday "[Frankly, it's] time for the establishment of a Palestinian state," and described Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts as the most serious in years.

Full story...