As the ink dries on President Barack Obama's order to close the U.S. terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, America stands to lose her most effective correctional institution.

While the president and his aides figure out what to do with the remaining enemy combatants residing in the P.O.W. camp affectionately known as 'Gitmo', one startling statistic has received little notice in the mainstream media -- the recidivism rate.

Recidivism, the repeated criminal acts of released convicts, has been the shame of the U.S. "correctional" system for years. Keep in mind that, thanks to progressive thinking in criminal justice, the purpose of prison is no longer to punish and shame the criminal and to keep him off the streets as a public service. No, our prisons exist to help a criminal to come to grips with his emotional challenges and to re-integrate him into society as rapidly as possible...usually before the expiration of his sentence.

According to a 15-year study by the Bureau of Justice, the statistical arm of the Justice Department, two out of every three released convicts get re-arrested within three years of leaving the big house. For violent criminals, 61.7 percent get caught again, and about 40 percent re-convicted. Of course, others likely commit crimes but don't get caught.

Supporters of keeping Gitmo open have noted that as many as 61 former Guantanamo detainees, after release, have returned to the fight, rejoining the network of Islamic jihadists. While this is an alarming fact, and our nation needs a P.O.W. facility to keep these men from returning to their old line of work, allow me to commend the correctional efforts of the staff at Gitmo and to recognize their success in rehabilitating men who had previously devoted themselves to destroying Western civilization.

Only an estimated 11 percent of the 520 detainees thus far released have returned to the fight. This means that Gitmo has a recidivism rate one-sixth the national average. It ought to be the envy of all in the stateside "correctional" industry, whose wardens should be paying $5,000 each for day-long seminars to learn 'The Gitmo Way'.

How do they do it?

What happens at Gitmo to pacify and rehabilitate these men, who have been trained in al Qaeda camps and captured on the battlefield, or while plotting horrific attacks? What techniques account for the fact that nearly nine in 10 of them have apparently not resumed their jihad?

While cold statistics don't answer the question, let's take a moment (how about a national holiday?) to express our gratitude to the staff at the detention center for this roaring success.

Then, let's bring them back to the states so they can run our "correctional" facilities ... Gitmo-style!

---

Scott Ott, editor-in-chief of the leading family-friendly daily news satire source, ScrappleFace.com, and anchor of SNN, writes periodic non-satirical pieces like this one for Townhall.com. He's also contributing author of "The New Media Frontier", Crossway, 2008, and a dynamic public speaker available through Premiere Speakers Bureau.

After George W. Bush defeated Al Gore, and later John Kerry, for the presidency, countless Democrat-owned cars bore bumper stickers with clever phrases like 'Not My President' or 'Don't Blame Me I Voted for Kerry'.

As a conservative evangelical Christian who voted for McCain-Palin, and for every other Republican on the ballot yesterday, let me say for the record: Barack Obama is my president.

I stayed up past midnight to watch his victory speech. I wept (a little less than Jesse Jackson) because the moment stirred me with gratitude for how God has thus far corrected America's most crippling birth defect -- racist discrimination.

I take my president-elect at his word when he says to those who didn't vote for him: "I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president too."

Mr. President, the best thing you can do for us is to lead a new generation to live out the American dream as you have. In other words, President Obama, I pray that your example will serve to create a wave of citizens whose lives follow your own storyline.

This would produce an America comprised of people who...

• can choose where to school their children (as your Mom chose private school for you),
• work hard to achieve their goals,
• dedicate themselves to lifelong learning,
• marry persons of the opposite sex and remain faithful to them,
• bear living children and bring them up in a two-parent home,
• take advantage of free markets and their own skills to earn money,
• negotiate their own compensation,
  
• manage that money responsibly,
• demonstrate a willingness to serve our nation.

Mr. President, while your official policy statements envision a nation very different from the one that produced your extraordinary success story, I know that you're still relatively new to civic life and you seem willing to learn. You strike me as a quick study, who can really make a difference when he sets his mind to it.

Leaders tend to attract people who are like them, and to inspire people to emulate them. Sometimes it's hard to recognize the factors that have shaped our own existence. Take a moment to consider how your life exemplifies the principles that have made this nation great.

What we need now is not policies to implement your stated ideology. We need for you to recognize the true power behind your own inspiring story.

---

Scott Ott, contributing author of The New Media Frontier, is a writer, public speaker and creator of the world's leading family-friendly news satire source, ScrappleFace.com. His columns at Townhall.com are not satirical.

The so-called Troopergate investigation report, released Friday by a panel in Alaska, is the best thing to happen to the McCain-Palin campaign since the Arizona maverick chose the Alaskan hockey Mom as his running mate.

Republicans should embrace it as a way of telling the story of why government must be reformed. It is the perfect picture of how government bureaucracies shield the incompetent and immoral among them, and waste taxpayer dollars trying to nail concerned citizens who cry 'foul'.

The investigation, dubbed Troopergate in the same imaginative way that every scandal since Watergate has been appended with a 'gate', ostensibly had nothing to do with a State Trooper, but with a member of Gov. Palin's cabinet whom she tried to re-assign to other duties after he refused to get on board with her administration's agenda.

In addition to his budget differences with the Palin administration Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan inexplicably failed to fire state trooper Mike Wooten who had Tasered a 10-year-old boy, drank beer in his squad car and illegally gunned down a moose. Mr. Wooten happens to be the former brother-in-law of Gov. Palin. The investigator, Stephen Branchflower, who earned a $100,000 for his probing, found that the governor failed to restrain her husband from pushing for the trooper's dismissal. This inaction on her part Mr. Branchflower labeled "abuse of power" although his report acknowledged she did nothing wrong in dismissing Mr. Monegan.

Trooper Wooten, by the way, is still Trooper Wooten.

Now, the normal way to handle such a non-scandal in politics would be for McCain-Palin to claim that Gov. Palin was exonerated of wrongdoing in the removal of Mr. Monegan, and to brand the probe as political shenanigans. This, of course, is what the campaign as thus far done.

However, if I were whispering in Sen. McCain's ear, I'd tell him to grab this bull by the horns and give it a shake.

Trooper Wooten's continued presence on the force illustrates the near-impossibility of removing bad apples from government. Even the governor can't get a guy fired who has violated the law and his obligation to uphold it. Think about this: a cop Tasered his own stepson...and he's still a cop.

Sarah and Todd Palin knew of Mr. Wooten's character since they had first-hand knowledge of his divorce from her sister -- a proceeding the media passively and euphemistically calls 'messy'. The media storyline is that the governor and the 'First Dude', blinded by familial love, tried to bring down Mr. Wooten to get revenge for the pain he caused their sister. The hunting violation, the drinking violation and the electrocution of the child get mentioned in passing, as if these were expected behaviors of law enforcement officials and not significant factors in Mr. Wooten's ongoing qualifications to protect and serve.

Frankly, Trooper Wooten's behavior gives a black eye to the entire Alaska state police force. After all, if such a man is allowed to keep his badge, what other kinds of criminals daily strap on a state-issued sidearm to enforce the law at which they personally scoff. If you were Sarah or Todd Palin, would you not do everything in your power to get this guy fired?

But instead of confiscating his gun and his badge, the state embarks on an investigation of the whistleblowers -- the Palins. The state spends $100,000 (at least) of taxpayer money to hire an investigator to probe whether the governor abused her power.

Abused her power? Sounds to me like Alaska's chief executive has no power. She can't re-assign a member of her own cabinet without sparking an investigation. She can't even get a low-level state employee fired who has violated his code of conduct and the law at least three times.

And this is just a snapshot of the kind of mediocrity and malfeasance that government fosters and perpetuates.

Anyone with an ordinary sense of justice would conclude that Trooper Wooten should have been removed from the force long ago.

"My friends," Sen. McCain should say, "Sarah Palin and I are going to Washington to end the culture of inside dealing, empire building, incompetence and corruption that takes money from your pocket and makes a mockery of the rule of law. We're not just going to pluck out a few obvious bad apples, we're going to upset the apple cart."

Then Sen. McCain should overtly draw a connection between this case and the current global financial quagmire.

It's this kind of capital crime culture -- infesting capitol buildings from Juneau to Washington D.C. -- that makes it possible for Congress to cause an economic crisis, and then to spend your money on phony investigations in an effort to blame someone else. Meanwhile, the real criminals continue to drive around in tax-funded cars drawing tax-funded paychecks. This, my friends, is abuse of power, and somebody has to stop it before it undermines the foundations of our Constitutional Republic.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Scott Ott is a writer and dynamic public speaker available through Premiere Speakers Bureau.

About 18 months ago, I announced that I was pretending to run for the presidency. Frankly, the day-to-day responsibilities of work, church and family have prevented me from taking a very active part in my own faux campaign.

However, I did manage to participate in last night's televised debate, moderated by former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw. This morning, I reviewed the video and published transcripts on the internet and found that most, if not all, of my contribution to this civic forum had been mysteriously deleted. So, as a public service, I here provide a transcript of the questions and my answers to help you make a well-informed decision at the polls on November 4.

Tom Brokaw: We're going to have our first question from over here in Section A from Allen Shaffer. Allen?

Shaffer: With the economy on the downturn and retired and older citizens and workers losing their incomes, what's the fastest, most positive solution to bail these people out of the economic ruin?

Scott Ott: Lock all the doors on Capitol Hill. Let the phrase “do-nothing Congress” become a rallying cry, and a positive thing, by preventing the passage of new laws, bailouts, rescues or other attempts to restrict or direct the movement of free markets.

Brokaw: Obviously the powers of the treasury secretary have been greatly expanded. The most powerful officer in the cabinet now. Hank Paulson says he won't stay on. Who do you have in mind to appoint to that very important post?

Scott Ott: That’s a ridiculous question. Next.

Brokaw: The next question comes from Oliver Clark, who is over here in section F. Oliver?

Clark: Through this economic crisis, most of the people that I know have had a difficult time. And through this bailout package, I was wondering what it is that's going to actually help those people out.

Brokaw: Are you saying to Mr. Clark, and to the other members of the American television audience that the American economy is going to get much worse before it gets better and they ought to be prepared for that?

Scott Ott: Mr. Brokaw, I speak English like many people in this country still do, so don’t bother translating and reinterpreting the questions for me.

Mr. Clark, what will help these people is to restore our trust and commitment to free market capitalism. The sooner we can get Congress and its agents to stop trying to manipulate the economy, the sooner the healing can begin. Economies run in cycles. They always have. Government intervention caused a false boom and now the markets, like water, are seeking their own level. If we allow that to happen, we can begin to grow again. But if we step in, then we will succeed only in propping up a facade which caused these troubles in the first place. Mr. Clark, as you know, life is sometimes difficult. But wrestling with, and overcoming, difficulties is what makes us men. People struggling to overcome challenges have built this great nation and they will rebuild our financial system now.

Brokaw: In all candor, do you think the economy is going to get worse before it gets better?

Scott Ott: Of course. What a silly question. Look up the definition of 'cycle' when you get a chance.

Brokaw: Thank you. We're going to continue over in Section F, as it turns out. This is a question from Teresa Finch. Teresa?

Finch: How can we trust any of you with our money when both parties got -- got us into this global economic crisis?

Scott Ott: You can’t trust us with your money. That’s why you should keep as much of it for yourself as possible. Demand lower taxes. Demand that the government stops trying to run things that aren’t required of it in the Constitution. Vote the bums out who have been picking your pockets since the last election day.

Brokaw: There are new economic realities out there that everyone in this hall and across this country understands that there are going to have to be some choices made. Health policies, energy policies, and entitlement reform, what are going to be your priorities in what order? Which of those will be your highest priority your first year in office and which will follow in sequence?

Scott Ott: 1) Cut taxes -- corporate, individual and nuisance taxes. Eliminate the death tax. 2) Eliminate government departments and programs not mandated in the Constitution. Department of Education goes first.  3) Privatize almost everything but national defense.
Mr. Brokaw, my energy policy is this: Get out of the way and let the energy markets function. My health care policy is this: Get the government completely out of the health care business. My entitlement reform proposal is this: If you’re an American citizen your entitlements are outlined in the Constitution. Nothing else is guaranteed.

Brokaw: We have our first question from the Internet tonight. A child of the Depression, 78-year-old Fiorra from Chicago.
Since World War II, we have never been asked to sacrifice anything to help our country, except the blood of our heroic men and women. As president, what sacrifices -- sacrifices will you ask every American to make to help restore the American dream and to get out of the economic morass that we're now in?

Scott Ott: Fiorra, I’m going to ask some Americans to sacrifice their dream of having a Sugar Daddy who bails them out any time they get into a rough patch. I’m going to ask many of you to sacrifice your member of Congress by voting him or her out of office at the mid-term election. I’m going to ask you to sacrifice the false security of government control and to exchange it for the real potential that comes from personal initiative and hard work.

Brokaw: President Bush, you'll remember, last summer, said that "Wall Street got drunk." A lot of people now look back and think the federal government got drunk and, in fact, the American consumers got drunk. How would you, as president, try to break those bad habits of too much debt and too much easy credit, specifically, across the board, for this country, not just at the federal level, but as a model for the rest of the country, as well?

Scott Ott: My administration would set an example of fiscal rigor by trimming expenses, cutting whole departments, and not buying anything for which we cannot pay cash. In addition, we would spur economic growth by slashing taxes, and reducing government regulations that exist solely to produce politically-correct social outcomes. We’ll put a stop to decades of efforts to use the tax code to overcome human nature and to create a collectivist Utopia.

Brokaw: We have another question from the Internet. We have a question from Langdon in Ballston Spa, New York, and that's about huge unfunded obligations for Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlement programs that will soon eat up all of the revenue that's in place and then go into a deficit position.

Since the rules are pretty loose here, I'm going to add my own [thoughts] to this one. Would you give Congress a date certain to reform Social Security and Medicare within two years after you take office? Because in a bipartisan way, everyone agrees, that's a big ticking time bomb that will eat us up maybe even more than the mortgage crisis.

Scott Ott:  Langdon’s question made more sense than yours, Mr. Brokaw. So, I’m going to answer his while trying not to laugh at yours.

Langdon, you’re absolutely right. We have made promises that we can’t keep based on current revenue projections. What’s worse is that, if we don’t do something, Congress will continue to expand the size and influence of these programs so that the ultimate price will grow much greater. The only solution involves pain, but here it is.
1) Cap program benefits at their current levels. Don’t even allow cost of living increases.
2) Cut taxes to spur revenue growth.
3) Create free market options so younger Americans can opt out of Social Security, Medicare and the like.
This is called planned obsolescence, and the sooner we start, the better.

Brokaw: The next question comes from Section C over here, and it's from Ingrid Jackson. Ingrid?

Jackson: Sen. McCain, I want to know, we saw that Congress moved pretty fast in the face of an economic crisis. I want to know what you would do within the first two years to make sure that Congress moves fast as far as environmental issues, like climate change and green jobs?


Scott Ott: Ms. Jackson, I’ll move as fast as climate change does. I’ll sign a global warming bill that will jack up your taxes and louse up the free market just as soon my Oval Office carpet gets damp with salt water from the rising Atlantic Ocean.

Brokaw: Should we fund a Manhattan-like project that develops a nuclear bomb to deal with global energy and alternative energy or should we fund 100,000 garages across America, the kind of industry and innovation that developed Silicon Valley?

Scott Ott: Neither. We should stop trying to interfere with the American people’s dreams.  Innovation doesn’t come from Washington, it springs up from among the people. It doesn’t need fertilizer to sprout. It just needs Congress to stop spraying it with poison.

Brokaw: Next question comes from the E section over here and it's from Lindsey Trella. Lindsey?

Trella: Selling health care coverage in America as a marketable commodity has become a very profitable industry. Do you believe health care should be treated as a commodity?

Brokaw: Quick discussion. Is health care in America a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?

Scott Ott: Responsibility of the individual. The United States has the greatest medical care system in the world. Free markets got us here, and free markets will continue to improve the products and services that suit an ever-expanding range of customer preferences, needs and price ranges.

Brokaw: We want to move on now. If we'd come back to the hall here, we're going to shift gears here a little bit and we're going to go to foreign policy and international matters, if we can...Phil Elliott is over here in this section, and Phil Elliott has a question. Phil?

Elliott: How will all the recent economic stress affect our nation's ability to act as a peacemaker in the world?

Scott Ott: The money that we waste trying to rescue businesses and individuals from their own decisions could be going to project American strength through military power to those who mean us harm throughout the world. The greatest force for peace in world history is the mighty and ever-ready U.S. military. They form a deterrent wall against opportunistic aggression. Overcoming the economic challenges through the means I have already mentioned will also free up revenue to increase our espionage efforts worldwide. Our intelligence community provides the invisible fence to keep our enemies at bay.

Brokaw: Let's see if we can establish tonight the Scott Ott doctrine for the use of United States combat forces in situations where there's a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security. Take the Congo, where 4.5 million people have died since 1998, or take Rwanda in the earlier dreadful days, or Somalia. What is the Scott Ott doctrine for use of force that the United States would send when we don't have national security issues at stake?

Scott Ott: Your question assumes that we have no national security interest in Africa. Why, do you suppose, these genocidal wars are happening there? Are they just tribal skirmishes or local conflicts? Do you actually believe that the United States can be isolated from such slaughter? With porous borders, the territorial and political aspirations of China, Iran, Venezuela, Russia and others, and the never-ending desire of radical Islam to dominate the globe, no cranny of civilization lacks national security implications for the United States. That said, we have to weigh our options in the moment, and do the best we can with what we have, without compromising our principles. Ultimately, we have to take the long-term view that the world is going to become more democratic, and our national calling is to be forever at the forefront of the battle for freedom.  

Brokaw: Next question comes from the F section and is from Katie Hamm. Katie?

Hamm: Should the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and not pursue al Qaeda terrorists who maintain bases there, or should we ignore their borders and pursue our enemies like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War?

Scott Ott: Ms. Hamm, I plan to be the President of the United States in a few months. When I am, I will receive daily security briefings and frequent bulletins at times of heightened activity. It is then, and not now, that I will make the tough decisions about the appropriate response to targets of opportunity. I’m sure you understand why any credible candidate for president would not dare to discuss such issues in a public forum.

Brokaw: The senior British military commander, who is now leading [in Afghanistan] for a second tour, and their senior diplomatic presence there, Sherard Cowper-Coles, who is well known as an expert in the area, both have said that we're failing in Afghanistan. The commander said we cannot win there. We've got to get it down to a low level insurgency, let the Afghans take it over. Cowper-Coles said what we need is an acceptable dictator. If either of you becomes president, as one of you will, how do you reorganize Afghanistan's strategy or do you? Briefly, if you can.

Scott Ott: First of all, I would consult with American military commanders and let them work out coordination with allied commanders in theater. Secondly, our strategic interest in Afghanistan is to foster the natural inclination of the people to have freedom. Public discussions about whether we’re winning, or speculation about whether we can win, will do nothing but shake the confidence of the local people in the future of their hopes and dreams. In other words, shut up and fight.

Brokaw: This question is from the Internet. It's from Alden in Hewitt, Texas. How can we apply pressure to Russia for humanitarian issues in an effective manner without starting another Cold War?

Scott Ott: I’m not sure what you mean by humanitarian issues. If you mean the Soviet-style invasion of Georgia executed by Russia earlier this year, then we stand with our allies and send a clear signal to Moscow that we won’t tolerate a revival of Stalinist imperialism.

Brokaw:  This requires only a yes or a no. Ronald Reagan famously said that the Soviet Union was the evil empire. Do you think that Russia under Vladimir Putin is an evil empire?

Scott Ott: Ronald Reagan said what he said, when he said it, for a specific strategic purpose. He wasn’t just playing rhetorical games with a retired news anchor who’s still fishing for a controversial sound bite. Next question.

Brokaw: All right. Over in section A, Terry Shirey -- do I have that right, Terry?

Shirey: As a retired Navy chief, my thoughts are often with those who serve our country. I know both candidates, both of you, expressed support for Israel. If, despite your best diplomatic efforts, Iran attacks Israel, would you be willing to commit U.S. troops in support and defense of Israel? Or would you wait on approval from the U.N. Security Council?

Scott Ott: That’s two questions. #1: Yes. #2: No.

Brokaw: All right, we've come to the last question. It's from Peggy in Amherst, New Hampshire. And it has a certain Zen-like quality, I'll give you a fair warning. She says, "What don't you know and how will you learn it?"

Scott Ott: I don’t know the limits of what God can do with a nation that’s fully devoted to Him. I hope to learn by devoting myself.

Brokaw: Thank you very much, Mr. Ott.

Imagine the post-Usama world -- that Utopian realm which emerges after President Barack Obama orders the Pentagon to rupture U.S. relations with Pakistan, and sends planes and troops into the lawless tribal borderlands of Waziristan, easily snatching al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden from his subterranean condo and putting him on trial at The Hague.

Now what happens?

Sen. Obama has campaigned for president under the assumption that for the past seven years the Pentagon and the CIA have barely, or rarely, attempted to capture the world's most-wanted man. Of course, our military and intel community have all been distracted by Iraq and by spying on innocent Americans at home, so we lacked the resources to go after Usama. Sen. Obama believes that once we bring the troops home from Iraq, nabbing the terror mastermind will be a cinch, and peace will be upon us.

Let's say he's right, and we get Usama. Is that the end of al Qaeda?

Does Sen. Obama believe that Usama is the only jihadist smart enough to lead the decentralized terror network? Once he's safely in prison (no doubt serving 20-years to life) will our nation will again be safe?

What if there's another leader, or dozens of others? What if we get Usama but the terror attacks don't stop? Senator, do you know the definition of the word 'decentralized'?

Presumably, he would go after the new leader of al Qaeda, put him in jail, then pursue his replacement, and so on.

Sen. Obama's Usama-centric view of jihad fails to comprehend that radical Islam is not a personality, it's an ideology, a worldview, a movement. As a Muslim martyr in suicide sportswear prepares to trigger his package, distributing his entrails and hot shrapnel over a crowded marketplace, he doesn't shout "Usama Akbar!" He shouts the name of his bloodthirsty God, proclaiming Allah's greatness in the slaughter of the innocents. Capturing or killing Usama won't stop this terror.

Sen. Obama utterly fails to comprehend what we're fighting -- a "nation" without borders, a kingdom without a king, and a fighting force without medics whose best "soldiers" almost invariably die the first time they do battle.

We should, and eventually will, get Usama. But that's not a plan for fighting jihad. It's a tactic in an overall strategy...a strategy which Sen. Obama has failed to develop or reveal.

During a CNN.com panel Thursday at the Republican National Convention, the discussion turned to Gov. Sarah Palin's use of sarcasm to attack the Democrat duo facing off against her and John McCain. As a member of the panel, I was asked if Gov. Palin's speech was too mean to reflect a "Christian attitude".

My colleague on the panel, Asma Hasan, author of "Why I Am a Muslim," is a self-described "religious person," recently-registered Republican and Hillary supporter, who noted, "I did think she [Palin] was a little mean."

Upon further reflection, away from the glare of TV lights, I'm wondering if a better question might be: Is Sarah Palin meaner than Jesus?

In chapter 23 of Matthew's gospel, Jesus goes off on a rant against those who "exalt themselves."

Speaking directly to his adversaries he accuses them of hypocrisy for running around proclaiming rules for others to live by, and boasting of their own good behavior, while they slam the door in the face of those others. He says they work hard to make converts to their way, and then they make their followers "twice as much a child of hell" as they are. (v. 15)

That's not a very "Christian" thing to say, Jesus, is it?

But Jesus isn't done yet. He accuses his opponents of focusing on small matters while ignoring what's really important -- "straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!" (v. 24)

If I didn't know it was Jesus talking, I'd think that was sarcasm. I wonder if he's like that because he was homeschooled?

But wait, there's more. He nails them for putting on appearances that don't match their inner character: "you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence." (v. 25)

He calls them "blind guides"and says "you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness." (v. 27)

That's not very nice either. It's kind of "unappealing," don't you think?

His diatribe reaches a crescendo with this ultimate smack down: "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?" (v. 33)

Jesus, of course, is not trying to destroy them, he's trying to teach them the error of their ways and to win some of them over to his way. He could have just stopped at verse 12: "Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."

But to do surgery, you usually need a scalpel. Sarah Palin's gentle jabs at Barack Obama pale in comparison to the way Jesus "owned" the scribes and Pharisees. That's not to say that Gov. Palin never has, or never will step over the line and wind up on Mean Street. But let's put to rest this idea that you can't express brutal truth, even with sarcasm, and still be a follower of Jesus.

(St. Paul, Minnesota) -- From my Everestine perch 123 yards above the floor of the Xcel Energy Center, John McCain appeared roughly the size of an Oompa Loompa. His voice, far from the measured cadences of Barack Obama, often got lost among the shouts and cheers.

Sen. McCain speaks near a stage whisper at times. It's the kind of voice that gets you to lean in.

The world of the mainstream media will little note what he said here, but history will remember what he did here. John McCain redefined what it means to be a septuagenarian.

It struck me about halfway through the speech that most elderly people that I know cling to the past, reminisce about "the way it was" and look with bemusement or disgust at the many changes which have transformed our world.

This old man comes from a different breed of fogey. His speech was replete with calls for specific change in the way government operates...from killing pork barrel projects, to transforming our energy policy, to equipping a new generation of workers for the technologies that have reshaped our lives.

He's not the codger who scoffs at cell phones, internets and iPods. He's the sage who sees in these technologies the jobs of the future, and the betterment of our lives.

Rather than getting stuck in his ways, Sen. McCain seems willing to re-invent everything but his principles.

Rick Warren, the pastor of Saddleback Church where Sen. McCain turned the tide and kindled the passion of the base, is known for saying, "Methods are many, principles are few. Methods always change, principles never do."

Thursday night in St. Paul, Americans saw a whispering warrior with principles like still waters that run deep, who has lived enough to realize life is a river that never stands still.

I'm a conservative. So, despite my misgivings about Sen. John McCain, I planned to join millions of my fellow conservatives in voting for him in November with one hand on the stylus and the other pinching my nostrils shut.

That was before Saturday night's Civil Forum at Saddleback Church, hosted by best-selling author and Pastor Rick Warren.

Saturday at Saddleback John McCain won my vote.

I no longer support him by default, or out of fear of what a 'President Obama' might do during his four-year reign of error. I'm now voting FOR John McCain, rather than simply against the alternative. And if I'm not mistaken, I believe we will look back on August 16 as the day the electoral tide turned.

Not only did Sen. McCain say most of the things conservatives wanted to hear -- on taxes, energy, abortion, etc. -- but it was how he said it that fired enthusiasm.

He spoke directly. He spoke definitively. He spoke from the heart with rational conviction.

What shall we do about evil?
   "Defeat it," he said, and went on to name it: radical Islam.
When do babies get human rights?
   "At the moment of conception," he said.
Which Supreme Court justices do you wish were gone?
   The four most liberal, he said, listing their names.

His answers were so clear and succinct, that Pastor Warren actually got to ask Sen. McCain more questions than Sen. Obama heard.

Of course, John McCain is not a perfect candidate. No one is. But Saturday night, he demonstrated the kind of fortitude, conviction and willingness to speak truth regardless of political consequences that will make him a great President of the United States of America.

The Conservative's moral quandary has been washed away in blast of bold conviction from the man whom we can now unabashedly support for president.

If conservatives seek someone to illustrate to the nation their glorious vision of bootstrap freedom, perhaps no better exemplar appears than Sen. Barack Hussein Obama of Illinois.

Child of an immigrant father, Barack Obama has, by all accounts, lived the American dream, cutting a bold path of accomplishment through life, embodying many of the principles to which conservatives cling with righteous zeal.

Taught from the 5th grade on in a private school, he has demonstrated the efficacy of choice in education.

With no help from Affirmative Action, he earned acceptance at Occidental College, then Columbia University where he acquitted himself well enough to eventually gain admission to Harvard University.

There, based on his academic performance and success in a writing competition, he achieved the lofty post of editor of the Harvard Law Review. In the next year, Mr. Obama was elected president of the Law Review, which led to a publishing contract and an advance payment on his first book. He has since gained millions of dollars through his writings. He was graduated with great distinction, earning a J.D. from Harvard -- a degree for which he, doubtless, diligently labored many long hours, forsaking immediate gratification in pursuit of a long-term dream.

Early in his career, he worked for a church-based community group, serving as one of the "thousand points of light' of which President George H.W. Bush spoke glowingly. He served in, and helped to start, several non-profit organizations intending to apply his skill and industry to better the lives of others, and thus share the blessings of liberty.

A paragon of family values and respect for life, Barack Obama started his own life un-aborted, and subsequently passed on that blessing to the two children born of a marital union with his spouse...who is a woman.

Mr. and Mrs. Obama have used their skills to accumulate wealth, allowing them to purchase a handsome mansion in a fine neighborhood, to drive quality vehicles, to fly for business and pleasure and to see the world. All of this was, of course, made possible by their combustion of vast quantities of petroleum products.

Living in this land of equal rights and equal opportunity under law, secured by the mightiest military force ever assembled anywhere, Barack Obama has persuaded thousands of his fellow countrymen to vote him into elected office -- first at the state, and then national, level. Now, he stands on the doorstep of receiving a major party nomination for the presidency. Each day he goes about his campaign flanked by men who carry concealed firearms, not as hunting tools, but as weapons to protect human life.

Yes, Barack Obama is the living embodiment of the beauty and truth of conservatism.

However, having eyes, he does not see. Sen. Obama seems unaware of the underlying foundational principles which have made his life one of blessing, wealth, dignity and honor.

Until he awakens to these principles, he is not fit to serve as president. Nothing more endangers American liberty than a child of liberty who spurns his parents.

In the meantime, the McCain campaign should make this simple promise to voters: President John McCain will strive to enhance the kind of liberty that allowed Barack Obama to live out his dreams in these magnificent United States.

Every sports fan knows there comes a time when the game plan has collapsed, and the star has stumbled. Wisdom and experience dictate that you yank the starter, put in a promising second stringer and go to Plan B.

For the Republican party, that time has come. It's time to bench Sen. John McCain, and replace him with someone who can inspire the base of the Republican party as he, or she, stands boldly for its basic principles.

Don't tell me that McCain trails by only seven points in the polls. Don't tell me that Sen. Obama got no bounce from his recent international junket, and that the rookie is bound to make a momentum-killing mistake. Don't plead that we're too close to November, and any alternate candidate wouldn't have time to build a grassroots campaign. And don't make me laugh by suggestion a great VP pick will cure what ails him. These are the excuses of unprincipled losers.

Grassroots conservative constitutionalists still ache for an opportunity to throw their enthusiastic support behind a like-minded, visionary candidate. It's not too late. We have not yet nominated the Senator from Arizona. He is still simply presumptive.

Sen. McCain has already defined the 2008 election as a referendum on Barack Obama -- a strategic blunder which undercuts any claim that McCain has to leadership ability. If he should happen to win, he will have succeeded in redefining the Republican party in a way that will send conservatives running.

The primary election system as it is -- a product of the last 40-years of media-driven politics -- is broken. It's a terrible way to pick a leader. Instead of choosing the boldest advocate for conservative, constitutional government, it has produced a nominee who proved least offensive the most primary voters. Remember, the primary system belongs to the party, it's not a Constitutionally-mandated process. My fellow Republicans, it's ours. If it's not working, we can change it. Conventions used to have a purpose beyond coronation and inebriation. It's time to restore that purpose.

Of course, I have just branded myself as a traitor to the party, or some kind of enemy of Sen. McCain...or worse, a secret ally of Sen. Obama. I'll spare you the self-defensive denials.

Conservatives lack only one thing at this pivotal moment in history: Courage.

If nothing changes, yes, we will vote for Sen. McCain, because the alternative is unthinkable. However, the individual votes of the committed core won't provide the margin of victory. Sen. McCain has our votes by default. What he needs is our hearts, which stir our voices and move our feet.

Conscience compels us to act now for the sake of this great nation.

Bench McCain.

Every time you hear Sen. Barack Obama say that Afghanistan is the central front in the war against terror, you should cringe, and then stock up on imperishable food, gold coin, jerry cans of diesel, and ammo...lots of ammo.

The Democrat presidential nominee has yet to comprehend the nature of the enemy. Frankly, most Republicans are also afraid to call it what it is.

We're not at war against terror. Terrorism is merely a set of tactics used by those who lack the muscle to wage conventional war. Terrorism consists primarily of spectacular acts of cowardice designed to scare women, children and other non-combatants in order to intimidate governments into submission. We're not at war against terror.

We're not even at war against al-Qaeda -- that's just a particular brand name of a product that's distributed worldwide under dozens of labels but contains the same active ingredient. We're at war with people who cling to an ideology that is nothing less than Satanic. Even if you think that Satan is no more than an abstract concept created to represent evil in the human heart, you must know that this wickedness has taken millions captive. It has done so mainly through a particular channel -- Islam -- a word which, appropriately, means 'submission'.

Apparently the words of Mohammed in the Quran are well-suited to convincing people that peace and the worship of God are best achieved by immolating secretaries and stockbrokers in New York City, or exploding retarded women by remote control in the crowded markets of Baghdad. These tactics are seen to advance the cause of Islam, not only among freaks in the radical fringe, but among the silent majority of Muslims who seem quietly happy to read these headlines, and to watch the aftermath video. Western culture in general, Christians and Jews in particular, are finally getting their comeuppance. So what if a bunch of our fellow Muslims are torn apart in the process? Call them collateral martyrs (peace be upon their scorched and severed heads).

Sen. Obama, a man who aspires to be our commander in chief, tells us that a nation called Afghanistan is where this threat dwells. Yet, he says, it does not dwell in Iraq. He tells us we need to get out of Iraq. Meanwhile, he says he would send two more brigades of U.S. troops into the misty mountains along the Afghan border with Pakistan, presumably to capture Usama bin Laden, thus winning the war on terror.

Afghanistan is a convenient refuge for the moment for al-Qaeda and the Taliban. When our military secures it, and freedom's song is finally sung among these long-tortured people, what then? Will the enemy surrender for lack of refuge? Is there nowhere else from which he can stage his attacks?

Our enemy is not constrained by geography or politics. His central command center is the human heart, so his places of refuge are legion. You can destroy his arms depots, level his training centers, interrupt his funding, pick off his lieutenants one by one. This we can, and must, do.

But to pretend that you can corner him in Afghanistan, and arrest him or snuff him out, is worse than naive. It's a willful ignorance that will bring us into submission. This is the Obama Doctrine.

Chris Matthews' initial reaction to the death of colleague Tim Russert can be summed like this: Bush lied. People died.

Yes, MSNBC's Chris Matthews found a way to use even the death of a beloved journalist (there's a term you don't see often) to again roll out the liberal chestnut that the Bush-Cheney cabal had manipulated Americans into war by raising the specter of nuclear weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein and like-minded ne'er do wells.
 
The Hardball host's live shot from Paris last night gave vivid illustration to the expression "like a belch in church."

Asked by a justifiably teary-eyed Keith Olbermann to reflect on the sudden death, Mr. Matthews professed his love and admiration, calling Mr. Russert "everyman", a "true patriot", "Mr. America" --  by which he meant that the Meet the Press moderator had supported the Iraq invasion because of the trumped-up threat of nukes.

In other words, Mr. Matthews clearly implied, Tim Russert was like the rest of you rubes who were suckered by Bush.

Less than two minutes into his fond memories of his departed colleague, Mr. Matthews called Mr. Russert's privately-expressed concern about atomic terrorists "the essence of what was wrong with the whole case for the war."

It's hard to fathom a soul so craven that he would use a eulogy to resurrect his timeworn attack on the stagecraft of the Bush administration. But the overflow of Chris Matthews' darkened heart also spilled onto the rest of us 'patriotic Americans' who were fooled by what Bush-Cheney Inc. was "selling." In a nutshell, we're all just a bunch of hard-working dopes like Tim Russert.

"Tim was...us, the American people," said Mr. Matthews.

Of course, by 'us' he doesn't mean 'me and you', just 'you'.

In an uncharacteristic moment of staggering truth, Mr. Olbermann then paraphrased news doyen Barbara Walters in noting, "This is a loss for the country. This is a loss in terms of the ability to get information from an honest broker -- someone who managed a neutrality that the rest of us dream of, perhaps. How big is that gap that we have now seen opened today...How big is the loss, and how on earth is the American public going to fill it in terms of getting the information it needs for the vital choices ahead?"

Mr. Matthews wisely dodged the query, perhaps because the answer is painfully obvious. Having the Olbermann-Matthews dynamic duo discuss this valid question would qualify as satire of the highest order.

How indeed?

As I watched the parade of journalists reminiscing about Tim Russert's integrity and passion for his craft, I realized that not one of them would merit a five-hour interruption of programming on the day of his death.

Timothy J. Russert -- a serious, joyful, gracious, tough, hard-working objective journalist -- died June 13, 2008, at the age of 58. The last of his professional line, he left no survivors in the field. In lieu of flowers, cancel your cable subscription and use the money to take your Dad to lunch each week for the rest of his, or your, life.

Dear Sen. Obama,

Now that you are back on the market, so to speak, having abandoned your church home of two decades to allow your friends to "worship in peace", I'd like to invite you to consider my church. Let me tell you a little bit about it.

Senator, in my church we love and worship Jesus. We believe the Bible is the word of God. Our preachers faithfully proclaim the gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. Our people live out their faith in a variety of ways, from feeding the poor, to providing medical care in rural Africa and elsewhere, to taking the good news of Jesus to Tanzania, France, England and several dozen other places around the world.

Sen. Obama, if you love Jesus, and enjoy the fellowship of others who share your faith in Christ, then you and Michelle and the girls might feel at home here.

Of course, we're not perfect. We lack some of the features to which your family has become accustomed. For example, our pastors never talk about political candidates from the pulpit. There's not a whole lot of angry screaming -- in fact, none. No preacher here has ever called down God's condemnation upon our native land.

In fact, on Memorial Day and Independence Day and Veterans Day, we praise God that we live in a free land, thanks to the willing sacrifice of those who bled and died that this nation might live. We actually sing, from time to time, 'God Bless America', because it's a prayer to the one who has secured our liberty that he might guide us even in dark and troubling times.

We're Republicans. We're Democrats. We're Independents. We're political apathetics. We're Americans. Above all, we're people who love Jesus. Through Jesus, we have come to love others, even those with whom we disagree. We're happy that "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death." (Romans 8:1,2)

If you like liberation theology, at our church you get it, but it's not limited to the poor, or to any particular race, because "if the Son (Jesus) sets you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:38) no matter what you look like or how much you earn.

So, Sen. Obama, now that you're church shopping, why not stop by?

For a man who's all about "change" this one might be refreshing.

Sincerely,
Scott Ott

A World War II veteran, closer now to 90 years than 80, told me he once had a dream that he died and was reunited with his fellow soldiers who had perished between Normandy and the Ardennes.

They were all as he remembered them, young men. He, however, in the dream appeared as he does today -- well advanced in years. They didn't know him at first, he being now decades their senior. It disturbed him to see himself that way, and to be seen by them an old man.

They left their youth on the beach.

Manhood rushed upon them, and they waded in -- wave upon wave. Then, just as suddenly, the life-tide ebbed, seaping into the sands of Omaha, Utah, Juno, Gold and Sword.

Those who fell left memories of perpetual youth and vigor, boldness, daring, duty and courage. They left their youth on the beach.

And what of they who slogged on through sand and mud, through hedgerow and hamlet, through field and forest eventually returning to their homes? What of they who rode the transports back, building homes and families, building vibrant communities and lasting institutions? They too left their youth on the beach.

All of the boys died that day near Cherbourg, Le Havre, Dieppe and Calais.

Beneath the deafening roar of artillery, amid the smoke and stench, manhood marched ashore soaked in salt and blood, and a decade passed in a moment. Only snapshots of youth remained. Only men lived on, aged beyond years.

Generations rolled by, and a thousand daily flag-bedecked caskets mark now each passing day. Those who left their youth on the beach with their fallen brothers of another century now leave their bodies for a distant shore.

Every war exacts its toll.

We left our youth on the beach, and in the sweltering jungles, among the snowclad hilltops and in the choking sands.

Yet green limbs, pruned in the flower of life, have somehow rejuvenated this land. 

Those who died inspire us, and those who live return to lead and transform us.

America's status as "the land of opportunity" can be proved by this single fact: Frank Rich gets paid to write columns for The New York Times.

In other nations, a man with no rationality, no moral perspective, no sense of justice nor fairness, would find it nigh on impossible to rise through the ranks to such a lofty perch. He might be able secure work as a mid-level propagandist for a communist regime or fascist dictatorship, but to parade in public as a man of thought and reason -- one of a handful of opinion-shapers for "the paper of record" -- would have to remain a dream if he didn't possess the great gift of U.S. citizenship.

His Sunday, May 4, "Op-Ed" column in the Times (The All-White Elephant in the Room), for example, attempts to liken Sen. John McCain's endorsement by a couple of TV preachers, with Sen. Barack Obama's 20-year relationship with his pastor, the race-bating Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The implication that receiving an endorsement from a celebrity implies the candidate supports everything the celebrity ever said or did is childish at best. Perhaps we should apply the same standard to Hollywood celebrity endorsements, and we should impute to Democrat candidates, all the loony statements and immoral behavior of their famous friends.

In any case, Sen. Obama is not in political hot water because of Rev. Wright's endorsement, but rather because of his long-term, close relationship with this bigoted, conspiracy theorist, to whom the Illinois senator looks for spiritual leadership for himself and his young daughters.

Of course, Frank Rich would have you believe that Sen. McCain takes no flack because he's white, not black, like poor Sen. Obama. 

It's not a real issue, of course, not even to Frank Rich. It's just a springboard to dive into the Democrats' favorite topic this year -- American racism, or more specifically, Republican racism.

Did you know, Mr. Rich points out, that there are no black Republican members of Congress? Ipso facto, Republicans are racists.

Of course, any time a black Republican rises to prominence (Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and J.C. Watts come to mind) blacks in the Democrat party brand him or her as an 'Uncle Tom', because in the modern liberal mind, Black = Democrat, and anything else is betrayal of the race.

Indeed, the Democrat party has done an admirable job convincing people of its love and loyalty to blacks, even as the party promotes programs and procedures that ...

• denigrate black competence and intelligence (Affirmative Action and a state monopoly on schooling),
• destroy black families (welfare),
• create permanent ghettos (HUD Section 8 housing), and
• not just decimate the black population, for that means killing only 1-in-10 -- the Democrat party actively, passionately pushes policies that target the race for genocide, with white "physicians" slaughtering a full 50 percent of black infants before they ever draw breath.

This is the platform which has made Democrats out of some 75-to-87 percent of black voters. Perhaps, Mr. Rich would prefer that Republicans stop touting freedom, justice, reverence for life, opportunity, self-reliance, community-based solutions and less-burdensome government, and would instead try to woo black voters with the promise of mediocre education to prepare their children for the joys of life on the dole, living in a slum, and avoiding overpopulation by having whites winnow their young from the womb.

Frank Rich laments that we have not yet, in earnest, begun our national conversation on race.

Well, Mr. Rich, let it begin now.