War on terror is a terrible misnomer

Let's call a spade a spade. The war on terror isn't any such thing; it's a war on Islamic radicalism and any right-thinking government official knows it. Islamic extremists have one goal: the destruction of the West and the conversion of the world to Islam. If anything, we should thank the radicals for telegraphing their goals in advance.

I know, it's called a war on terror because captives can be called combatants who are not provided rights granted to prisoners. But make no mistake: combatants have declared war on this country and they should be treated like war criminals.

The first time I heard al-Qaeda mentioned was more than 20 years ago during an FBI briefing for members of the FBI National Academy Associates at the U.S. Air Force Academy. A special agent trained in foreign espionage said that even then Islamic cells were in American cities waiting for word to attack. Today, cells are located in cities around the world.

The finest minds in the intelligence world say other attacks -- possibly nuclear -- will occur sooner rather than later. Enemy sophistication and communication improves daily. The problem is that political fighting between Democrats and Republicans strengths enemies and weaken national resolve.

President Bush is right when he says the war against militant Islam will be a long one. How do Democrats respond? They call the president stupid and out-of-touch. Such language emboldens the enemy and makes them believe they are winning.

The enemy is not winning, thanks to the president, FBI and intelligence units in this country and elsewhere around the world. But the job hasn't been easy, given the far-left's penchant for believing anything George Bush stands for should be opposed.

But no matter which administration is in office, this war is not going away. If anything, it will intensify. Future generations will call it the most destructive war in history.

How long will it last? It depends on how long it takes Muslims to realize that nuclear street-fights will not defeat the United States. The only way Muslims can defeat us is to move here in sufficient numbers to control of the non-Muslim population.

That's happening today in Spain, France and England. Can it happen here? Not for another 50 or 100 years, and perhaps not even then given the fact that 90 out of every 100 Americans own firearms. But Muslims have been waiting for this opportunity for 900 years, ever since their militant expansion was turned back by Christian Spain. They won't give up as easily this time.

There's nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine

I try hard not to use labels when describing people. Rush Limbaugh is what he is and so is Chris Matthews. But it's hard not to use labels to describe liberals and conservatives when they pound away at each other.

Part of this is the fault of Republicans who have Ann Coulter making outrageous statements about John Edwards' wife. But then along come Democrats demanding equal time to balance what they perceive as conservative bias in talk radio.

Only they don't want equal time based on the merits of their message because few people are interested in such blather. That's why it's called the Fairness Doctrine. Logic is balanced with illogic.

Why didn't the left demand equal time for conservatives when Al Franken was the left wing equivalent of Coulter? I didn't hear conservatives demanding equal time.

Conservatives change stations when they hear something they don't like. Liberals are different; they want the station put out of business.

That's why the left's attempt to force radio stations to give liberals equal time is a joke. If people don't like what radio stations broadcast, they won't listen. If people don't listen, there won't be advertisers. End of problem.

That's not good enough for liberals. Their goal is a forum for views that don't depend on advertisers for financial support. But somebody would have to pay for it.

You got it - it would be tax-supported or free. If it were free, the media would be forced to charge conservative programs twice as much to pay for a liberal response. The result? Fewer advertisers and fewer conservative programs.

It was media that opened the door for Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Coulter. It was liberal bias at ABC, NBC and CBS that gave us Fox News and Bill O'Reilley. Conservatives saw an opportunity and took advantage of it. It's the American way.

Then there's the New York and Los Angeles Times newspapers, whose editorial writers are consistently on the left side of American politics. These folks will love the Fairness Doctrine as long as it means more revenue for them.

Liberal programming doesn't stand a chance in the competitive world of advertising. That's why liberals are upset. They want to silence talk radio. Hence, the Fairness Doctrine, to force radio stations to give equal time to liberals.

The market should prevail in all things, including what goes out over the air. If a majority of people want to listen to liberal shows, the Al Frankens of the world will survive. If people prefer the Limbaughs, O'Reilleys and Hannitys, that's what will dominate the airwaves.

And that's the way it should be. From this corner of Pikes Peak Country, I'm Jere Joiner and this has been my 2 cents worth. Now it's your turn.

Coloradans get a second chance with Bob Schaffer

Someone wrote once that opportunity is a runner with a huge shock of hair. You see him coming from a long way off. As he rushes by you grab for his hair only to discover he's bald in back - your hand comes away with nothing.

Coloradans will get a second chance next year to elect Bob Schaffer to the U.S. Senate. With Wayne Allard's decision not to run for a third term, Schaffer will be pitted against former state senator Mark Udall. If the election of Ken Salazar to the U.S. Senate is any guide, the decision of whom to support couldn't be clearer.

Salazar represented Colorado well as the state's attorney general. His views were moderate and as a result he had broad support. Once in the Senate, however, Salazar aligned himself with the far left. Any pretense at moderation was left behind in Colorado.

Coloradans can expect the same thing if Mark Udall is elected. That's because Democrats in Washington are controlled by radical leftists. In order to get along, they have to go along with liberals like Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Ted Kennedy.

We know what we will get from Bob Schaffer - a man who keeps his word, remembers his constituency, and stands for Colorado values. One thing is certain with Bob Schaffer: what you see in Colorado today is what you'll get in Washington tomorrow.

That's my 2 cents worth from Pikes Peak Country. How about yours?