Who Says Congress Doesn't Do Anything?

The Senate passed a bill today that will require TV commercials to be no louder than the shows that they are interrupting. I think that the Democrats might have just shored up their support with the Hulu demographic.

Sacrilege with Andrew Breitbart! Where is the Outrage!

Am I the only one who caught Andrew Breitbart on television last night saying that the Ten Commandments were "a butt to masturbate to?"

Or something along those lines. What a disgusting abuse of the first amendment! Why is there not more of an uproar over this?

Bill O'Reilly Doesn't Think One's Words Should Be Used Aganist Them. Not Even His Own.

Bill O'Reilly has now claimed that he too has video clips of Christine O'Donnell saying some "crazy stuff." He is choosing not to air it, for now. 

He claims that it is not relevant, but that if it should become so, he will roll it out. Which I think is completely acceptable. What I do not understand are the next couple of comments that he made in regards to the Delaware Senatorial race.

Bill O'Reilly, a professional journalist with a serious (read: high rated) television show, casually claimed in referring to the Delaware Senatorial race, that he would take the "Witch" over the "Marxist." Now I for one do not understand how it is that a "journalist" is aloud to so blatantly to vie for a political candidate and still be taken seriously as a journalist. Such nonsense would never happen over at CNN.

More importantly, Bill O'Reilly said that he faulted Democrats in the story for using Christine O'Donnell's words against her. Now of course this is insane on so many levels. If this woman had a massive resume to sift through, and all we were focusing on was some decade old quote she made on what was essentially a comedy show, then fine, I do not disagree. But we are talking about a woman who is basically a clean slate to the American people. She has been on TV many times, but she was far from a household name until her upset in Delaware last week.

How else can we judge her than with her words (and the actions that are coming out left and right about her campaign finance scandal)? And by judge, I do not mean look down upon, belittle or mock.By judge I mean understand the woman she is so that we can understand the Senator that she would be. 

Now when I first read this quote for Bill O'Reilly, I thought that I would do a quick youtube or google search and find some great moment of O'Reilly hypocrisy wherein he was using some poor saps words against him. Lord knows he does so nightly. But I didn't even have to go that far.

Bill O'Reilly referred to Chris Coons, the Democratic candidate in Delaware, as a Marxist. I was curious where that notion had come from, or if that was just his code word for Democrat. Well guess what: Chris Coons referred to himself in a student newspaper as a "bearded Marxist." 

Now Coons claims that this comment was taken out of context and he was actually speaking tongue-in-cheek about how his old Republican friends looked at him once he switched political parties. Regardless of the context, does it matter? Moments after saying that one's words should not be used against them, Bill O'Reilly used Chris Coons words against him. Maybe it is because Coons printed his words and O'Donnell said hers on television. Maybe it is because a Witch in the political process is less scary to O'Reilly than a liberal. Regardless of the reason, it is some more good old fashioned hypocrisy from the Fox News Dream Team.

But in all fairness to Bill O'Reilly, he really deserves our respect. He truly put his money where his mouth was. He did not just talk, he also walked. Bill O'Reilly, in calling Coons a Marxist, proved that he does not even hold his own words against himself. He is not a hypocrite. Every word out of everybody's mouth is in-one-ear and out-the-other, including his own. So there is no cognitive dissonance involved in ignoring himself; to be true to his word, he really had no other choice.

The True Cost of War

A report came out today that American troops in Afghanistan have been shooting Afghans "for sport."

See the full report here.

Of course there is little to say about such terrible news.  I just feel it is worth pointing out (perhaps an obvious point, but certainly one worth thinking about) that the cost of war cannot always be measured on paper. While the financial costs may be massive, and the lives lost on all sides immense, what cannot ever be fully understood is the full psychological effect that the war will have on its survivors.

There is the argument that the wars in the Middle East have turned more of "them" against "us." True or not, these are not the people I am talking about.

We are giving children guns and sending them off to what is literally the most psychologically stressful job in the world. They live in a kill-or-be-killed world and clearly they are not able to turn that off just because their shift is over. It goes back to their units with them, and it comes home with them to the States. These same people have to be counted on as Mothers and Fathers, Husbands and Wives, Sons and Daughters, employees and co-workers. But we have broken them. 

This is an inevitable cost of war, and does not in an of itself make war wrong or unjustified. But it should be remembered that saying that you support the troops should mean, whenever possible, never having to ask them do anything that could put their lives in danger. Supporting the troops and supporting war are not synonymous. If anything, they are polar opposites.

The Democrats Might Have Accomplished Something!

It looks like all this warning against a GOP takeover of the House and the Senate has done at least one thing: soured Republicans on McConell and Boehner.

A new poll out finds that the majority of GOP voters think that the pair should lose their roles as the head of the party in the Senate and the House respectively. 

That means that should the GOP take back either wing of the Legislative Branch, the Turtle and the Tanner might not be coming with them. 

So either the Democrats succeeded in branding them as bad for America, or somehow Americans have decided that saying NO is not a solution if you want to lead. But for everyone else, keep at it.

Karl Rove is Duplicitous (?!) and Sarah Palin Comes Dangerously Close to Admitting that Fox News is Partisan

See the story here.

Christine O'Donnell won her primary and the pundits are hitting the breaks and making wild u-turns. 

Karl Rove, as I predicted in an earlier post (not about Rove per se, rather about all Republican enemies of O'Donnell) has changed tune on her abilities. 

Sarah Palin went on Fox News and instructed O'Donnell to get onto the network and start getting her message across. (Aren't there laws that are specifically based against such manipulation of the media?)

As long as Justin Timberlake doesn't take anyone's shirt off, I guess nobody really cares.

Israeli Government Office Websites Stop Accepting Payments on Holidays/Sabbath. Does That Mean I DON'T Have to Pay My Parking Ticket?

Currently, Israel allows anyone who wants to, to pay hospital fees, renew passports, extend visas and the like, to do so online. That will not change.

What will change is that people will no longer be able to take advantage of these services on the Jewish Sabbath or High Holidays. For context, it is against Jewish law to exchange money on the aforementioned days. But not all Jews follow this specific dictate (nor for that matter are all people in Israel Jewish). 

But that is irrelevant to Israel's "religious minority" who currently controls the interior, health and religious affiars ministries. 

So now, if you are a tourist, a foreign worker, a secular Israeli Jew or an Israeli citizen of any other religion, you have reason to thank Israel's growing theocratic ways. Despite the fact that you do not adhere to this law in your own life, you will now be forced to follow it in at least one capacity, thus smoothing your entry into heaven, or Florida, or wherever, at least slightly. 

It seems to me that this would be like America, the nation that invented separation of church and state, outlawing sales of alcohol on Sundays (except of course where football is concerned) or telling one religious group that they cannot build a mosque (err, I mean place of worship) anywhere that they want, assuming that all laws are followed and paper work abided by.

Thank the founding fathers that we would never have to worry about having another's religious views being forced upon is in this great nation. Not in Washington's America. Not in Jefferson's America. And praise be to Jesus Mohammad, Moses, Joseph Smith, George Clooney or L. Ron Hubbard (stated in order of relevance), not in my America.

Jon Stewart Offers Interesting Analogy About Dangers of Trying to "Defeat" Terrorism

Last night, while interviewing (it begins at 3:06) England's Tony Blair, Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show, gave an interesting analogy on the notion of trying to "defeat" terrorism.

He said that he has cockroaches in his New York apartment. He calls the exterminator and they come and fumigate. But the cockroaches inevitably return. If he wanted to truly be rid of these pests once and for all, he could seal off his apartment from the outside world and drop a continuous stream of bug bombs inside to keep them out. But what kind of a life would this leave for him and his family?

Blair does not really respond to this analogy, but it is an interesting way to think about the problem. Of course we have to be careful about seeming to "belittle" terrorism as a problem. Senator Kerry once said that we needed to get to a place where terrorism was nothing more than a nuisance. The Bush/Cheney team had a field day promising that they would never look at terrorism in such light terms. They would hunt it down, root it out and destroy it. Well they had eight years (seven if you start counting post-9/11) and of course they never came close to reaching that absurd and unattainable goal.

And I, for one, cannot blame them for falling short. Rather I blame them for claiming that it was possible in the first place. We as a nation need to look at terrorism realistically. We need to combat it with everything we have. But, as Jon Stewart says, we will no sooner destroy every last terrorist than we will see an end to cockroaches in New York or trashy reality shows on MTV. It is just the nature of the world. 

We can attempt to invade every nation with terrorists within it, but I think that the US is now officially on that list. And I know that England is. So in the meantime, let us do everything in our power to fight terrorism without lying to ourselves that terrorism can ever truly be "defeated.:" It cannot.

Maybe it's Time Congress Went the Way of Acid Washed Jeans and Rudy Giuliani's Politcal Career

The two parties cannot even get together to agree to cover 9/11 first responders' medical bills!

It's 9/11 first responders and we are not covering their medical bills? What is going on with our Congress when even this simple act is too complicated?

See the full story here.

And maybe it is time to start considering a nation-wide policy wherein we "Vote for the Other Guy*."

(*Or Gal.)

You heard it hear first. Unless of course the Other Guy or Gal is in the Tea Party and then please feel free to vote your conscious.

Rebuplicans Blocking a Tax Cut?

They claim they are stopping a tax hike for the rich.

In the process, they are preventing a tax break for the middle class.

Both of the above links take you to the same place, because both of these statements are true. Just as both of these statements are false. Obama is not trying to raise taxes, he is simply considering not renewing temporary tax cuts made by President Bush. The Republicans are not blocking a tax for the middle class, they are saying that is it all or nothing.

I would be curious to see the Democrats concede that the tax increase for individuals earning over $200,000 or for couples earning over $250,000 will not be raised. Instead, the tax cut will expire only if you earn over a million dollars a year. Five million? How about a billion? Will Republicans be willing to have voters going to the polls in November knowing that their tax cuts expired because the Senate Republicans were looking out for a true minority: billionaires.

If Democrats are trying to shape the message, this might be a strong way to go about it. Give even the upper middle class a (longer) break, but let those with a ten digit salary (or worth) pay their fair share.

US to Sell Saudis $60 Billion Worth of Military Equipment so that the Saudis Can Finally Build a Church or Synagouge

The US is on track to sell Saudi Arabia, our great oil bearing friends in the Middle East, $60 billion worth of weapons. See the BBC report here. 

Now let us put that $60 billion figure into prospective. According to Global Issues*, last year the US spent $712 billion on its military (that is over 46% of the GLOBAL military spending of last year!). China was a DISTANT second with $100 billion. After them was France with $63.9 billion. No one else on the list is above $60 billion. Not the UK or Russia (both close but under), not India (it's only slightly above half way to the $60 billion marker) and not Saudi Arabia. For those who are wondering, the list only shows the top 15 countries spending and Israel is not on it. They are apparently nowhere close to those kind of numbers.

(* - Feel free to read up on Global Issues here.)

For some more perspective, $60 billion is higher than the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the following nations (according to CIA.gov): Lithuania, Costa Rica, Uruguay, Luxembourg, Jordan, Cambodia, Albania, Georgia, Iceland, Jersey (a place I am not familiar with but which cannot be as bad as the New Jersey), Belize and many, many other countries.

We are selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, a country that brutally oppresses women. A country that has not even the faintest semblance of democracy. And most importantly, a country without a single Church or Synagogue. Not one Church or Synagogue!!!

So of course I am now patiently waiting for our moral authority of day's-gone-by, none other than Mr. Newt Gingrich himself, to come forward and decry this sale. When they start putting crosses on mosques, then we can talk about Tomahawk Missiles and Unmanned Drones and whatever other fun toys we will be sending their way. In the meantime, Saudi Arabia needs to play nice with its infidels.

Since this will probably happen no time soon, while you wait, feel free to read what old Newt said recently regarding President Obama having a "Kenyan, Anti-Colonial Worldview." It's a classic. 

Newt 2012!

HG Wells is Invading England!

Or something like that. "Killer Shrimp" are invading England. We can only assume that, like Rock and Roll and tight pants, they will be in America soon enough. They are eating small fish and, wait for it, other local shrimp (that's right, they are cannibals!!!). Is it possible that we are next?

See the whole story here.

But be forewarned, they ARE coming and they do not like how you have been eating their friends! So watch out.

GOP Civil War for Biden's Old Seat

The Tea Party and the GOP are battling in Delaware. The primary for the Senate race is fast approaching. Delaware GOP party chairman Tom Ross, who is supporting the more moderate and member-of-the-establishment Mike Castle, recently stated that the Sarah Palin backed Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnell is "not a viable candidate for any office in the state of Delaware. She could not be elected dog catcher."

Read the larger story here.

What I want to know is how Ross, and the rest of the Delaware GOP, are going to back away from this infighting gracefully should O'Donnell emerge victorious. Can you imagine her running in the general election and having Democratic attack ads quoting the local Republican leadership attesting to her abilities, or lack thereof? If she does win the primary, it is going to be so great watching Ross et. al. have to get out there and stump for her and talk back all of their attacks. Maybe Ross will try and explain to us the great import on the role of dog catcher in Delaware. Either way, he probably cost the GOP the vote of any trained canine specialist in the state.

Is/Pal Negotiations Hit Snag Over Whose Turn to Bring Hummus

Two sides have different ideas about what to talk about first

Netanyahu wants to start the next round of talks, in Egypt's Sharm el-Sheikh, talking about security and Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state (see my substantial previous post on the topic here) while Abbas wants to talk about the borders of the future Palestinian state.

In other words, each is asking for something that the other can inherently not give. Abbas can and will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state because that undermines the 1.2 million Palestinians living within Israel's recognized borders (seriously, see my previous post here). Israel can certainly not start talks by setting borders for the future Palestinian state because that means telling a potentially massive amount of Israelis that their homes are not secure, without having anything real to show in return for their sacrifices. 

While all of these issues will have to be dealt with eventually, the talks should probably start with something simpler, like quantum physics or the two sides enduring mutual anger over the Crusades.

In the meantime, Clinton should probably bring the hummus and pita, Mitchell the falafel and Netanyahu and Abbas should both simply agree to come to the meeting without pre-conditions and with open minds. Happy Holidays to all.

America's Two Sexiest Republicans Get it on.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, of Sacramento and Kindergarten Cop fame, recently tweeted: "Over Anchorage, AK. Looking everywhere but can't see Russia from here. Will keep you updated as search continues."

Sarah Palin, for whom the jibe was clearly intended, waited a few days and retorted: "Arnold should have landed; I could have explained our multi-billion dollar state surplus and US energy security efforts. What's he been up to?"

Someone get these beautiful people in a room before the sexual tension kills us all.

9/11 Freedom Rally in DC

For any of you out there in the DC area this weekend, there will be a 9/11 Rally for Freedom of Religion, Worship, and Conscience at 2pm on Freedom Plaza. That is on Pennsylvania Ave in NW DC. It should be a good day and it is important that another voice is represented on September 11th, as it is looking like it might be a scary day nationwide for good old American values.

Come if you can and post your experience on here. I'd love to hear about it. If you have pictures or videos, send them on (bifocalpoint@gmail.com) and I will post them to the site. 

Here is to freedom and equality for all...in our lifetime.

It's official, Fidel Castro is now on AIPAC's payrole.

Or something like that. I don't know what to think about this new article by Jeffrey Goldberg (see it here) where he details several days that he spent in Cuba, at Fidel's request. Apparently Fidel saw Goldberg's story about Iran and Israel and decided that this was the guy to set his record straight.

Fidel came out surprisingly strongly for Israel, which is not exactly his norm, saying that he can understand their fears after facing unprecedented levels of persecution throughout history. He even questioned Holocaust denials by the King of Holocaust deniers, Mr. Ahmadinejad of Iran. He also admitted that he made mistakes during the Cuban Missile Crisis (!!!). Imagine a leader admitting to his mistakes.

My thought is either AIPAC got to him or he sees an opportunity to finally best his old friend, the US. I think that he is trying to get himself a Nobel Prize by being the one to finally negotiate a peace settlement. Or maybe he is senile. Or some combination therein. Tell me what you think Castro was thinking, inviting Goldberg to his home. Winner might just get a first class trip, all expenses paid, straight to Havana.

Peace Talks, and Talks, and Talks.

For the nth time in umpteen years, Israelis and Palestinians are sitting down together to talk about peace. What does it mean, no one yet knows. But both sides left agreeing to come back, which is always a good start.

One significant difference between these talks and the talks hosted by our last two fearless leaders, Clinton and Bush, Jr., is the fact that President Obama did not wait until the last few minutes of his term, as the ink was drying on the inauguration invitations for the next guy, to announce an attempt to make history and solve one of the world's most intractable conflicts. So that is something.

And THAT's the good news.

Netanyahu is holding his coalition together with both hands and some duct tape. He does not currently have the ability to make any significant concessions, lest his coalition, stacked heavily-although not entirely-to the right, finally take its ultimate plunge into the abyss of Israeli history books. Netanyahu is not the first Prime Minister in Israel to be given a second shot at the position, but it is hard to imagine Bibi getting a third shot at the prize in the foreseeable future.

Now we have to remember, for all of Netanyahu's edge and stance, he is also one of the only Israeli Prime Minister's to accede territory, however small (the other two being through-and-through righties Begin and Sharon). He is a pragmatist, even if he wishes that Israel, the world, and President Obama would forget it.

So Netanyahu's juggling act comes out in a repeat of his imaginative claim from last year that, new to the ether of peace talks, it would be unacceptable for Israel to make peace with the Palestinians without a full recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

On the surface, this is simple enough. Israel is the Jewish state, let whoever wants to make peace with them say it out loud. But this was not asked of Sadat of Egypt nor King Hussein of Jordan, and Israel willingly signed treaties with both of these parties.

Why ask the Palestinians, who have no (and will continue to have no) standing army, potentially no control of their borders or air space, and certainly no right of return beyond whatever is specifically spelled out under any ultimate peace plan, when the same was not asked of Sadat-the-Giant, or King Hussein, over whom Israel had no such control.

The answer of course is because they can. Well, if they are less concerned with peace than constituency that is. Time Magazine's Karl Vick just wrote an interesting, if not perfect, cover story about why Israel has moved on from peace (an excerpt can be read here). The question here is really less about Israel than about Netanyahu. Netanyahu does not have the coalition to allow him to make serious concessions. Requiring Palestinians to recognize the Jewish state as, well a Jewish state, is tantamount to asking them to take their beating and say "uncle" all the same.

Before you go jumping to the comments section to tell me that I hate Israel and/or that I am ignorant and/or that I should die, and so on, give me a second. Please. In any real peace, a peace that can be accepted by either leader and brought back to the people without outright riots and secession, both sides are going to have to make serious concessions. Israel is going to have to dismantle SOME settlements and outposts, accept SOME leniency with Palestinian borders and find SOME way to allow the Palestinians to claim Jerusalem a shared city, even if mostly only on paper.

For the Palestinians, they are going to have to accept that some settlements are not settlements, but permanents, that they are never going to receive any real semblance of the Right-of-Return, that they are (at least for now) not going to have an army or any real control over their borders or their airspace, and that Jerusalem is never going to be as "theirs" as they had hoped.

This is going to be painful for both sides. Decades (nearly a century) of war, and hardship, and talks, and brutality, and vitriol, and anger, and everyone is going to be unhappy. But that is what compromise is. If everyone cannot be happy, then everyone needs to be the least amount of unhappy as possible.

When all is said and done, the best case scenario for a future Palestinian state is going to be hard-to-swallow, difficult-to-sell and a work-in-progress state that might never stop being a work-in-progress. It IS going to be noncontagious and indefensible. It IS going to be a shard of what the Palestinians feel is their deserved state. But, God and Allah and Jesus and Glenn Beck and whoever-you-choose-to-bow-down-to willing, it is going to be a state.

To then ask the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, despite the fact that within it their are over a million Palestinians (about 1/5 of the population of Israel) and that the Palestinian state will be full of people who still wear necklaces with keys to their old homes in Haifa, Jaffa and so on (cities that will certainly remain a part of Israel), is akin to kicking them while they are down.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, I understand the sentiment. You have been fighting so long for the Jewish state. Essentially you are asking someone to tell you that you were right, that your brother and your friends did not die in vain, that your life's work mattered, that you, and your people, are real and legitimate.

But it is never going to happen. Just like you are never going to accept the Right-of-Return for a significant number of Palestinians, they are never going to lower their head and grant you this victory.

But honestly, that is not really the point, is it? You are not demanding this for the Palestinians or for the Israelis. You are doing it for your coalition and for President Obama. If you somehow defy the odds and reach peace, your coalition is doomed to fail. If you cannot give a good reason for reaching peace, you are going to piss off on angry, dumped-on American President who has been getting beaten up from every side recently and may (he just may) decide that you are a battle worth fighting.

And who knows what happens then.

To all of those of you who have been waiting patiently, you can now tell me to die, and all that fun stuff. I will try not to take it too personally.

I'm on Twitter and Sarah Palin Does Not Want to Know What I think.

I just created my Twitter account. Follow me on there. My handle is, you guessed it: BiFocalPoint. (Are you seeing a trend yet?) You will get all of my humor, my sass and my wit without all of those pesky characters (letters, numbers and punctuation, not people). Nw wtch me lrn 2 abrevi8!

The first person that I followed on Twitter was, naturally, Sarah Palin. Why go to CNN when I can just create a Twitter profile. It is all that anyone talks about these days. She is the news.

I clicked on follow her, and within just a few minutes, her Middle America hospitality (which I know a lot about being from the South) returned the favor and followed me right back. For a minute there, I thought that I might have been special.

But our love was not meant to be. Apparently she monitors that thing pretty closely and did not like my Joe Miller is HOW Conservative? post. I was hoping for a signature Sarah punchline for my little game, but alas, it is not to be. At least not tonight.

She stopped following me!

Just like that. Not even a warning or a :(

So internet world out there, its official. I did not wake up this morning prepared for it, I did not savor every moment of the days leading up to it, but it is official nonetheless: I am part of the problem. Which makes me sad. Won't someone out there write something out there to cheer me up. Preferably a story about Our Lady of Alaska, and definitely nothing that you would not want your mother to read. I look forward to it. The best story get immortalized... in my heart. So lay it on thick.

See you in the blogosphere.

Alaska's Joe Miller is so Conservative...

How conservative is he you ask?

Well forget about his Tea Party credos. Shortly after officially winning the Alaska GOP Senatorial primary, he admitted that Alaska has long been reliant of Federal money but foresaw what would happen to the State as the Federal coffers started to go dry.

His solution is as follows:

"We have to be prepared for that, and the way to do it, of course, is to progressionally transfer holdings of the federal government to us."

So the correct answer is:

Joe Miller is so conservative, he won't even USE the word Progressive (or any derivation therein). Congrats to all of you out there who got the right answer. Have another "correct answer" for how conservative Joe Miller is. Post it here. Wittiest answer gets all-out props on the BiFocalPoint...for at least a week. Guaranteed.

We Must Protect Ground Zero at All Costs!!!!

Ground Zero is under siege, that much is evident.  Unholy people are trying to take over the neighborhood, previously pristine, and taint it with their filth. Did you know that right now, at this very moment, it is possible for a man with the flu to walk right up to Ground Zero and spit on the ground. The very area could become contaminated indefinitely.

But this is America and there is always a way. We will protect this hallowed spot for our children and our grandchildren at any cost, won't we? If so, then there is really only one feasible solution and I have it for you. That is right, you heard it hear first. Others WILL co-opt my idea, but just remember that BiFocalPoint saved Ground Zero, and the nation that loves it, from terrorists, fanatics, abortionists and salmonella. My solution even solves that disgusting point of Mayor Michael Bloomberg that the area is not sacrosanct; it is currently surrounded by bars and shops selling pornographic materials. In America!!!!!!

Well, not for long. Soon enough, anyone who wants to visit Ground Zero will do so with the help of the Coast Guard or with a swim suit and snorkel.

If we could pick up Ground Zero and move it someplace safe, of course we would. Someplace flat where we could keep an eye on it from every direction. Preferably somewhere in the Main Land, where it could be observed and protected by good, hard-working Americans. And not by, ugh, New Yorkers. But that is ridiculous. Obviously. It would almost certainly be damaged in the move.

My next thought involved a Plexiglas bubble and a lot of duct tape, but I would not want to make it impossible for good, strong-valued Americans to ever again be able to enter this sacred area. No, that would be punishing us all for the crimes of some. That could never work.

I considered watch towers and armed guards, but then you would presumably need bathrooms right there at the site. At GROUND ZERO!!!!!! Unthinkable.

Where does that leave us? We cannot move it, we cannot enclose it with plastic or men. There is but one obvious solution. The time has come, once and for all, to build a moat around Ground Zero. It is really the only acceptable way to keep this spot, which saw so many Americans fall in the name of honor and pride, forever pristine and virgin from the slime and the filth of that disgusting city within which it happens to stand. No, New York is simply not good enough for Ground Zero.

We will build a moat, and much as its neighbor the UN, it will be a sovereign entity. When we go to the polls every two years, we will vote, as a nation, on its upkeepers. Any one who wants to visit will plead their case to the public and referendum will decide for whom the single drawbridge descends. Those in Washington will have no power on this sacred place, it will be unsullied by their unscrupulous ways.

The time has come to protect Ground Zero from the world. The moat must be built. Grab your shovels, your axes and your children and get to work America! Before New York allows it be just another nameless construction site, burdened motionless with red tape and bureaucratic incompetence and surrounded by encroaching filth on all sides.

Ground Zero belongs to us. Let us dig deep and let us dig wide so that no one can ever take that away from us. The time has come. Ground Zero, we are coming to save you.

Some light reading on Sarah "Barracuda" Palin

Click here to read a fascinating piece on the woman we all love to love. Or hate, fear or mock. Whatever the case may be, this article will help you get inside the head of the Thrilla from Wasilla, the Sasser from Alaska, the Queen of Mean and the always the Prom Queen. Parents be warned, while scant, there is a bit of salty language. But nothing vulgar. It's long, so get your popcorn ready in advance. It's a worthwhile read.