Doing the right thing is oftentimes not the easy thing to do. With regard to Saddam Hussein, President Bush's course of action is the right thing to do, though it certainly isn't easy. This is counter to the Clinton model of executive leadership, always putting a finger to the wind to test popular opinion. What amazing foresight Winston Churchill had:

"Nothing is more dangerous in wartime than to live in the temperamental atmosphere of a Gallup Poll, always feeling one's pulse and taking one's temperature."

This is why President Bush is also not listening to the "news" media and the peace protestors (whom with, again, I have no problem regarding exercising their right to protest, rather with their reasons). Despite what the "news" media would have you believe, the current peace movement does not reflect the popular will of the American people. Even if it did, that still wouldn't make it right.

"The Founders understood that democracy was important, but if you didn't filter it through a republican system you'd be just as likely to end up with a tyranny of the majority as you would with a healthy society. Don't worry, I won't quote the Federalist Papers, but trust me, it's in there." --Jonah Goldberg

The "news" media and peace protestors would be wise to hearken this advice, as well:

"We do need to remind everybody that tyrants don't respond to any kind of appeasement. Tyrants don't respond to negotiation. Tyrants respond to toughness. And that was true in the 1930s and 1940s when we failed to respond to tyranny, and it is true today." --Condoleezza Rice, U.S. National Security Advisor, over this past weekend

Tyrants don't respond to peace protests and sycophant "news" media in other nations as well. At least not in any way that would make them less of a tyrant.

Riddle me this: why was it okay for President Clinton to go into the Balkans without approval of the U.N. Security Council, but it's not okay for President Bush to go into Iraq--where there is a WMD threat--without the approval of the U.N. Security Council?

A study by Washington University (of St. Louis, MO), published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, of 311 Australian twin pairs, concludes that teenage pot users are five times more likely to use or abuse cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, sedatives, or alcohol. The study was undertaken to prove the opposite. Sorry, NORML. Keep trying to spin the positive aspects of marijuana. I'm sure Woody Harrelson needs something to do with all of his copious spare time.

You have to admire and respect a conservative startup at one of the bastions of leftist thinking. They give away the 4,000 copies they print to Berkeley students, and have no advertising, relying on donations.

Some times, real life is just too much fun to have to make up fiction. (Yes, I know I'm paraphrasing; sue me. Thanks, Jim.)

Riddle me this: what good is it to have U-2 flights over Iraq, in the hope of locating production and storage facilities for weapons of mass destruction, if we're going to tell the Iraqis when the plane flies and where it goes?!?!? (thanks, Brian)

What is it with the "news" media and the hippie-throwback peaceniks out there? Oh, Saddam and the Iraqi government are making all of these concessions; we certainly can't go to war now. We must give the inspectors more time. We must extend the time for inspections to continue. Why? I have yet to hear one good reason why. Let's see: Hans Blix, in his report Friday, called for more inspections. Gee, that couldn't possibly be because he is a weapons inspector, could it? There's great job security in being a U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq; they've been working there off and on for more than 10 years. You find myriad violations of 1441 and earlier resolutions, passed by the very body you work for, yet your answer is not to punish the offending government, but rather to push for inspections to continue. How idiotic and foolish is this? The U.N. itself, vis-a-vis Secretary-General Kofi Annan, is calling for yet another resolution to be passed before military force can be used against the Hussein regime. Why? Resolution 1441 already accounts for the need to use military force in the event of a material breech. I would say the illegal importation of 350 SA-2 rockets is a material breech. Saddam's regime has declared only 8,500 liters of anthrax, while the U.N. inspection teams believe there are 25,000 liters. So we're missing something on the order of 16,500 liters, with no proof of their destruction. Sounds like material breech. With each passing day, the United Nations shows how irrelevant is has become in international relations. Pop quiz: name one conflict in the world the United Nations has successfully resolved without the use of some kind of military force since its inception. Good luck. I'm still waiting for a President with the guts to not only pull the United States out of the now irrelevant United Nations, but NATO as well, and to stop the subsidization of an increasingly hostile-to-America U.N., giving them the boot from our soil. Let them go set up in France, Belgium, or Germany. The "news" media and peaceniks are all running around congratulating Saddam on his joke of a presidential decree, as if such a promise from a known liar is worth the paper it's printed on. Speaking of all of the peace-love-and-happiness anti-war protestors, please allow me to congratulate you. You have managed to ingratiate yourselves with a mass murderer, with a man known for invading his neighbors and gassing his own citizens. I hope this makes you happy. Oh, and that "smoking gun" you all keep whining about?

"[President Bush's] critics demand a smoking gun [before attacking Iraq], but the problem with waiting till one is found is that a smoking gun has just been fired. It will be too late." --Paul Greenberg

Please, get a clue. This is not a war about oil. If America had oil-based imperalist aspirations in the Middle East, then we would have driven all the way to Baghdad in 1991, and stayed in Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia when we had the chance. And if it weren't for the environmental extremists, many of whom are the same people "marching for peace," the United States would be happily drilling all of the oil it needs itself. Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction; he has used them in the past, both in the war with Iran and against his own citizens. No evidence has been provided by Hussein that he has ceased production of said weapons, nor has any evidence been provided that he has complied with international resolutions calling for those weapons' destruction. Let us be perfectly clear: the burden of proof regarding destruction of any WMDs rests with Saddam Hussein, not the United Nations inspections teams or any other government. He has failed to provide this proof. It has been proven that there is a link between the Hussein regime and al-Qaeda, the latter of which has sworn to do all it can to attack and harm the United States and its allies. If you think that Hussein is not willing to supply WMDs to al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations willing to attack mutually perceived enemies, you are foolish and naive.

On the February 12th "The View," the ABC show created by Barbara Walters, former Good Morning America staffer and WABC Radio talk show host Joy Behar suggested some sort of nefarious doings by Bush operatives: "This is incredible timing. Really. I mean, here we are trying to find the link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, in comes the tape that exact day. The timing is better than Hugh Hefner finding Viagra at 78. You know what I'm saying? Here's a man all his life, did whatever he wanted, and now that he's old he has Viagra. Same idea." Former NBC News reporter Star Jones chimed in: "Really wagging the dog this time." Then Queen Latifah, who was nominated on Tuesday for an Academy Award for "Best Supporting Actress" for her role in the movie Chicago, wondered: "Don't you want to know what's real and what's not? I remember when I was a kid, you know, this whole Cold War thing. They had us scared of the Russians. 'The Russians, the Russians, the Russians.' So it's almost like what's real and what's not?" Like anyone rational would trust her to know. So, because we won the "Cold War thing" there never was a threat, millions didn't die because of communism and no one was enslaved by Soviet expansionism? --from the Media Research Center And my wife wonders why I have no respect for any of these Hollywonks.

To wrap up Federalist coverage for today, I'd like to offer up my favorite results from their latest "Two Cents" reader feedback, wherein readers were asked to finish the sentence, "Going to war without the French is like..."

• Going to war without the French is like...well...World War II.
• Going to war without the French is like.... deja-vous!
• Going to war without the French is like...going to war WITH the French
• Going to war without the French is like...planning the Normandy Invasion without Yves San Laurent
• Going to war without the French is like...going on your honeymoon without your mother-in-law
• Going to war without the French is like...a 9-11 benefit concert without Hillary Clinton
• Going to war without the French is like...Texas barbeque without a croissant
• Going to war without the French is like...I'm sorry, war without whom?
• Going to war without the French is like...going to Marine boot camp without a "Best of Liza Minnelli" album
• Going to war without the French is like...going to a Mensa convention without James Carville
• Going to war without the French is like...going to war without Fonda, Streisand and Sarandon, et al
• And last, but certainly not least, Going to war without the French is like...well, VICTORY!!!

bq. "An internal review at the Social Security Administration found that the agency has paid accused felons between $76 million and $283 million in SSI benefits since 1996, the year Congress banned felony fugitives from receiving them. Auditors also estimate that other Social Security programs, in which payments to fugitives aren't banned, could be granting fugitives up to $179 million each year." --The Federalist, 03-06 Digest For crying out loud. Pick a year, grandfather in every citizen born -before- in or before that year, and let's work toward paying their retirement benefits and getting rid of the SSA so that future generations do not have to watch their income be siphoned off, never to be see it return at the same rate it was taken. And how sad is it that it took Congress 40 years to determine that felons should not be receiving Social Security benefits?!? Update (2:10pm): from Carl Brueckner in the same Federalist issue:

• Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
  A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democrat-controlled House and Senate.
• Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?
  A: The Democrat Party.
• Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?
  A: The Democrat Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.
• Q: Which party decided to give money to immigrants?
  A: That's right, immigrants moved into this country at 65 and got SSI Social Security. The Democrat Party gave that to them although they never paid a dime into it.
• Then, after doing all this, the Democrats turn around and tell you: the Republicans want to take your Social Security.

The following appeared in the 03-06 Digest of The Federalist:

By now you know that five of the seven astronauts who died aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia were U.S. military officers. The mission commander was Air Force Col. Rick D. Husband. Navy Cmdr. William C. McCool was the pilot of the Columbia. Also on board were Air Force Lt. Col. Michael P. Anderson, Navy Capt. (Dr.) David M. Brown and Navy Cmdr. (Dr.) Laurel B. Clark. The death of all seven crew members was tragic, though given the indelible images of planeloads of civilians being flown into WTC1, WTC2 and the Pentagon, the shock of those horrible images of STS-107 falling from the sky was, somehow, benumbing. One month ago, seven Marines were killed when their KC-130 fell from the sky in western Pakistan. Their names were not published by any media outlet. No network operating on a 24-hour news cycle had dramatic graphics and music to accompany endless special reports. No flags were flown at half mast, and many are scrambling to set up trust funds for their spouses and college funds for their children. Just two days before the STS-107 breakup, an Army UH-60 broke up in flight 12 clicks east of Bagram, Afghanistan, killing four servicemen aboard. Their names were never in print. Our point, of course, is not to take away from the honor due and afforded the Columbia crew, but that same honor is no less due every one of our countrymen whose life is given in defense of our liberty. We grieve the loss of each and every one of these courageous Patriots, and our prayers go with their families.

I heartily second this assessment. Remember, respect, and honor our servicemen and women. Freedom is not free.

Today is Abraham Lincoln's birthday. The Great Emancipator was fond of saying that God created all men as equal, and proved as such with the Emancipation Proclamation, and laying the foundation for what would become the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. An evil Republican, Lincoln did more for the black American than any Democrat of his time. They were too busy seceding from the Union and keeping the black American chained in slavery. Lincoln also signed in to law the act of Congress which placed the motto "In God We Trust" on our national currency. Lincoln didn't have a problem with this because he was educated enough to know that there is no such thing as the separation of church and state, since he was familiar with the principles upon which our nation was founded. Happy Birthday, Mr. President. May we not squander the legacy you left us, so "that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

You have to love the Left. When it comes to liberating the Iraqi people, ousting a sociopathic dictator in possession of weapons of mass destruction, hunting down and exterminating terrorists bent on the destruction of the United States, and Western civilization in general, we are "not at war." They claim it's not a "real war," since Congress has not declared such. Right. Like Congress can declare war on a relatively faceless entity with no geographic boundaries (al-Qaeda). Or if we go to war in Iraq, President Bush doesn't have the authority because Congress hasn't declared war on Iraq. Gee, just like Kennedy and Johnson in Vietnam, right Demos? Oh, but let the conversation turn to money, and specifically taxes, and the Left suddenly reverses course:

"If Bush is a serious war President he would increase taxes. This is a time for sacrifices. This is a real war and we need money to pay for it." --Evan Thomas

So evidently we are at war, so long as half of the citizens of this country are forced to carry a larger tax burden while the other half contributes nothing. I have an idea for Mr. Thomas (Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek, by the way): how about the federal government end funding of unconstitutional social programs and departments like midnight basketball leagues, the Department of Education, the Social Security Administration, foreign aid to "allies" like France and Germany, and our subsidization of the "United" Nations. Then the government of the United States would have the money to pursue its primary constitutional duty, the defense of our nation "against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Yet another instance where I am ashamed to share a surname with this moronic windbag:

Monday morning on Today, however, Turner maintained that Iraq is "too small to pose a threat" to the U.S. and kept up the usual liberal mantra about how poverty fuels terrorism as he told Matt Lauer that "trying to make it a better world is my top priority. A more equitable world, that's really the best way to combat terrorism is to, is to build a world where nobody's angry enough to want to be a terrorist."

You can read the full analysis here. I'd like to see poverty erased from this planet as much as the next person, but you don't go about it in a way that smacks of communism. We have seen that experiment fail in our lifetime, yet people still think it is the answer.