Americans don’t have enough holidays.

Unlike our Euro brethren, who take off all of August to refresh themselves after their grueling 25-hour work weeks, those in the U.S. can’t catch a break.  Sure, we have Arbor Day and Wildflower Week, but we need to celebrate more.  So it’s only appropriate to propose a holiday to which we can all relate, one that stays with us for more than just a day.

National Colonic Month.

No, not the colonic used to flush the body of evil red meat. That would be pointless since, according to a new study, just looking at a hamburger increases the likelihood of death by 900 percent.

National Colonic Month would be the collective feeling of having a gas pump forcefully inserted where the sun doesn’t shine by the United States Congress each time we refuel our cars, buy groceries, heat our homes, lay people off, lose our jobs, pull out our hair and contemplate “crimes of opportunity” (aka siphoning your neighbor’s gas tank), all in the name of making Arab sheiks the world’s first trillionaires.

Since America has perfected its current position of being bent over a barrel, its posterior wide open and ready to receive whatever comes, what better time for a national colonic of Middle Eastern petroleum?  And here’s the best part.  Given America’s insatiable appetite, National Colonic Month would just roll from month to month. So whether gas is $4 now, $5 in the summer, or $9 when the Washington braintrust strikes Iran, we will never have to worry about a shortage of colonic activity.

Of course, as with any procedure, there are side effects.  In our case, it hurts a lot more as the price goes up, hemorrhaging can occur, and decay and disease may soon set in. And since we are the only doctor in town, yet remain impotent to solve, let alone diagnose, the problem, the prognosis for recovery isn’t good.

Kind of reminds you of Fletch’s most famous line, “Using the whole fist, Doc?” 

In America’s case, it’s a lot more than a fist.

*****
It’s really tough to figure out who is dumber: Congress or the people who elect them.

Are people up in arms about skyrocketing gas prices? You bet.  My answer? Shut up and take your colonic.  It’s no one’s fault but your own, so deal with it.

Oh sure, there are renewed calls for drilling now that gas is $4/gallon --- just like in 2008 when it hit $4.50.  But then the economy tanked, oil prices collapsed, and gas returned to “normal” (under $3).  Result? Back to complacency.  The only thing that got drilled was the people, but they were too ignorant to know better.

Now that prices have spiked again, we are looking for a scapegoat.  Obama is a convenient target, and while he is partially responsible, so are his blamers, namely the Republicans. Consider:

1) It was George H.W. Bush who implemented the moratorium on offshore drilling.  And it was Junior Bush who, rather than being proactive by opening up ANWR and reversing Dad’s mistake while he had significant majorities in Congress (and let’s face it --- after 9/11, he could have had anything he wanted in the name of security), waited until gas spiraled out of control to call for drilling.  Too late, as the Democrats slammed the door in his face.

2) A local Republican congressman told me during a 2010 interview that he couldn’t introduce a drilling bill while in the minority. Uhh, sorry, but Civics 101 says differently. The bill may not make it out of a Democratically-controlled committee, but it absolutely could have been introduced.  And, by the way, that would have been a coup, since Obama made offshore drilling and nuclear power a cornerstone of his 2010 State of the Union address.  But the GOP response? He didn’t really believe that. 

Remember, this is the same president who just green-lighted the first new nuclear power plants since 1978.  A Democrat doing that is akin to Ronald Reagan calling for a ban of all handguns.  But rather than work with the President on a (yes---Republican!) issue, the result was bitter, partisan attacks. Hence, no offshore drilling.

3) But Mr. Obama doesn’t get a free pass. He recently ridiculed those who advocate “drill, drill, drill” to lower energy prices. Well, not to be a stickler, but if you produce more of something, the price will, in fact, drop.  Yes, we should all be more energy-conscious. That’s common sense. And alternative energy resources should be developed so long as they are market-feasible. But let’s be real. Oil is the unrivaled king of the energy world. Since that will not change for decades, if ever, it’s time to remove our heads from the colonic area and do what we all know has to be done: drill domestically.

Obama delayed the Keystone XL Pipeline, which was a mistake.  But what damn near everybody is missing is that, save for a relatively small amount of product from North Dakota, the oil is all Canadian.  Granted, getting oil from our Canuck friends is certainly better than relying on Middle Eastern nations, but it misses the point entirely.  Why are we not responsibly drilling on our own turf, keeping the jobs and revenue stateside?

4) Natural gas just hit a ten year low, while oil (and gasoline) are soaring. Go figure. So the wells that should be tapping the unlimited, clean-burning natural resource literally beneath our feet are being capped, killing jobs and entire industries.  Well, except for colonics.

5) Most disturbing is that our local congressional representatives are spending their time holding hearings on the closings of the Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips refineries. No, that’s not a joke. Congressman Pat Meehan and Senator Bob Casey are looking for answers as to how the closings will affect oil prices and impact national security.  (This should be no surprise, as Congress routinely holds hearings on weighty matters such as how the College Football Bowl Championship should be decided).

Perhaps I could save a boatload of taxpayer cash by releasing the results of a poll conducted of a sixth-grade class I teach.  The closings will be bad. Very bad. Prices will continue to rise, since if there is less of something, its cost will increase. And we will be less secure. Next hearing?

When did we start prioritizing national security anyway? Congress cares infinitely more about the national security of Middle Eastern sheikdoms than it does America, despite some of those nations funding anti-American terrorist groups with our petro dollars.  And all for one reason: their oil.

Here’s the bottom line: as long as we refuse to domestically drill, American soldiers will continue to die in Muslim lands.  And no amount of hearings, protests, or political rhetoric will change that. And let’s be honest. Our men and women are not “fighting for our freedom,” nor are they “keeping the war over there.” They are simply doing the bidding of a Congress ---and the people who elect them --- who are too complacent, or worse, impotent --- to do the responsible thing: protect America by harnessing our vast and unparalleled domestic energy resources.

And there’s no colonic to cleanse the soul from the blood we all have on our hands.

So to be crude, stick it in and fill ‘er up, Sheik.

An accredited member of the media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Don’t Be Surprised If Romney and Gingrich Bow Out At The End

About the only job better than weatherman --- where you can get it wrong half the time and still remain employed --- is political pundit.  These guys make an art out of looking dumb, and doing so with authority.

In the last few years alone, we have been told that Obama had zero chance of beating Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney was sure to be the GOP nominee in 2008, and now, the President can’t win re-election because Romney will beat him.  That last prediction, of course, is predicated upon Romney winning the Republican nomination, which the pundit brain trust is now telling us is a done deal after Mitt’s victory in Florida.

But just as it wasn’t over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, as Blutarsky taught us in Animal House, this race is far from over.

And the most comedic part is that the “experts” don’t even know it.  If they just took a walk outside their ivory towers, they would discover that there are still many elections --- not coronations --- yet to come, and that Newt Gingrich hasn’t been vanquished. 

This is not to say that Romney won’t end up the winner.  In fact, that’s a good bet since he has money and organization advantages over Gingrich. But to say it’s all but over is simply foolish.

Cutting through the pundits’ white noise, it is worth looking at where the race really stands. Never before have there been three different winners in the first three contests, so that alone should be a caution sign for traditional predictions. Mitt Romney has won two of the four contests, including the winner-take-all state of Florida, and yet the total number of delegates awarded so far amounts to just five percent.

Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, for various reasons, cannot win the nomination, but they can and will garner delegates, as many states award delegates on a proportional basis based on popular vote.

Without question, Gingrich will be in the hunt for the long haul. Following a disappointing fifth-place finish in New Hampshire, after which the “experts” wrote him off for good, he roared back to a thundering victory in South Carolina. In all likelihood, he will win a number of states on Super Tuesday, and in the contests that he doesn’t, will post strong second place finishes.

(There is another reason for Gingrich to stay in the race: the possibility that Romney will say or do something that would catastrophically implode his candidacy.  Mitt came close this week when he said “I'm not concerned about the very poor…You can focus on the very poor, that's not my focus.” Such blunders run in the family, as his father, former Michigan Governor George, crushed his quite viable presidential aspirations by stating he was “brainwashed” into supporting the Vietnam War.  The game was over the very instant he uttered that word.)

Short of a Romney implosion, Gingrich won’t win the nomination outright, but the impact of his candidacy could be substantially greater: he may deny Romney the prize.  If the three “challengers” to Romney can keep Mitt from attaining that “fifty percent plus one” number, it’s a whole new ballgame.

And while such a scenario was unthinkable to many pundits just a few weeks ago, it is becoming increasingly plausible.

An often overlooked but extremely important factor in determining the nominee is that many of the states have different legal rules concerning their delegates.  A handful of states, including delegate-rich Pennsylvania, do NOT require their delegates to commit for the candidate who won the state.  Put in layman’s terms, come convention time, delegates from the Keystone State can cast votes for any person they wish, whether or not the candidate won the state or even participated in the primary process.

Obviously, in normal election years, Party unity is assured because the nominee is determined early in the process.  But this year is anything but normal.  And there is precedent for delegates breaking ranks.

In 1980, George H.W. Bush handily won the primary election in Pennsylvania over Ronald Reagan.  The Reagan folks knew they weren’t going to win, so they pulled a coup by ensuring that the delegates elected were loyal to The Gipper. So despite Bush winning by 100,000 votes, Reagan emerged with roughly 70 percent of the state’s delegates morally committed to him.

Given that situation, a major concern for Romney is getting the right delegates to achieve the right majority.  But since Mitt has been running for President for five years, spent hundreds of millions in that endeavor, and still can’t come close to getting 50 percent of GOP primary voters, that might be a daunting task. 

While still a “long shot” scenario, don’t be surprised that, after all the states have voted, no one emerges a winner.  If neither Romney nor Gingrich can successfully make a deal with Paul or Santorum to acquire their delegates, the country may see two men who despise each other hold a joint press conference announcing that, for the good of the Party, they are withdrawing from the campaign and releasing their delegates.

And then it would become the Wild West. Backroom conventioneering would take on a life of its own, with countless deals being struck to choose the most unifying Republican ticket to take on Obama.

And who might top that list?  Well, put it this way. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie would do well to start using a treadmill. More than anyone else, Christie’s ability to tell it like it is, take no prisoners, and bulldog his way to success --- despite major Democratic majorities in the state assembly --- make him a Party favorite.  He is one of a very few who commands respect by the Establishment, rank-and-file grassroots activists, and Tea Parties alike.

Republicans, Democrats and Independents may not always agree with Christie, but they always know where he stands, and his speak-from-the-heart style is a breath of fresh air in a world of sound bites, talking points and focus groups.

Christie may have foreseen this scenario, possibly explaining why he declined to run in the brutal primaries. And for those who predict Christie as a Romney VP, forget it.  He is nobody’s Number Two, and almost certainly would not sign on to a meaningless ceremonial post when he could have, quite possibly, captured the top prize for himself had he wanted to do so.

Should Christie decline an offer made at a brokered convention, the list of frontline candidates grows relatively thin, but undoubtedly Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and, dare we say it --- Jeb Bush! --- would certainly be in play.

This scarcity of good candidates is testament to what happens when a political party refuses to build its bench with folks who actually believe in things, instead promoting those whose “turn it is.” Look no further than Bob Dole and John McCain. It’s pretty sad that in the election many Republicans are calling the most important in American history, the GOP can muster so few viable contenders.

No matter how it eventually plays out, the battle for the Republican nomination will go on for at least the next four months, and that’s a good thing. Despite the conventional wisdom as postulated by pundits that divisive primaries only serve to weaken the Party’s candidates and needlessly give an advantage to the opponent, the opposite is true. Combative and lengthy primaries make candidates stronger, sharper and better prepared for the rigors of a general election presidential campaign. Barack Obama proved that in his protracted battle with Hillary.

And given that Obama is in the driver’s seat to emerge victorious in November, a long primary season --- and even a brokered convention --- could be just what the doctor ordered to energize the Republican Party and unify what is now a very discontented base.

President Christie, anyone?

An accredited member of the media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Six Muslims were arrested this week for allegedly plotting to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey, with the expressed intent to "kill as many American soldiers as possible."

It was yet another attack that was foiled on U.S. soil, and credit must be be doled out where it is due.

The FBI, despite all its baggage (and there is quite a lot), did a commendable job of injecting its informants into the inner circle of these terrorists, and they pulled the plug on the undercover operation at the right time. There seems to be ample evidence for conviction.

The electronic store clerk's decision to tip off authorities regarding the suspects' suspicious activity was an act of extreme bravery, for he put his personal safety well behind the good of the country. How many people can ever say that they directly saved the life of another human being, let alone many? By doing the right thing, he is most deserving of "hero" status.

Perhaps most deserving of credit - President Bush. While he has done many things wrong, and is justifiably criticized for his mistakes, too often he is not credited when things go right under his leadership. This is such a case.

Any leader will tell you that the buck stops with him, for good or ill. Under President Bush's watch, the United States has not been attacked since Sept. 11, 2001. That's five and a half years - and that's a record for which he can be extremely proud. There isn't any doubt that terrorist cells have been operating within America's borders for years, and continue to do so today, as evidenced by this latest episode. There have been numerous terror organizations and plots that have been uncovered and stopped, as reported in the media. But there most certainly have been other victories, which, for security reasons, have not been made public. That is a fact of life in the intelligence community - you get criticized when something goes awry, but can't always garner public accolades when operations are successful.

George Bush has overhauled the intelligence community and formed the Department of Homeland Security, both monumental undertakings. Since this is his Justice Department, and his CIA, he must be given credit for successes such as diffusing the Fort Dix plot.

It is unfortunate when partisan politics and ego get in the way of doing the right thing. Far too few acknowledge the president's role in saving lives, and that is simply unacceptable.

However, this Fort Dix story is not just about terrorism. It is also about an issue that closely correlates with the war on terror, and one that, if implemented, would be the single most effective measure to increase America's security immediately and exponentially.

It's about illegal immigration.

Three of the six arrested were in America illegally, and had been for quite some time. Yet they enjoyed virtually all of the benefits of citizenship, including quality education and jobs, without actually being citizens. Benefits, by the way, that were paid for by the taxpayers.

Kind of ironic, isn't it? We support and pamper illegal aliens, who in many cases are here with explicit knowledge of the government, who then turn around and try to murder American soldiers.

Something doesn't quite add up.

If America had a wall on its entire southern border - one that was actually built, not just "funded" but in limbo - the people's wrath might be tempered. If the Justice Department went after the real criminals on the border - and not United States Border Patrol agents doing their job - perhaps anger would be mitigated. Americans don't expect perfection, but they do expect their government to try.

Maybe if just a fraction of the money our government spends coddling known illegals was used to beef up the security personnel and equipment on all our borders, then illegal immigration wouldn't be such a hot-button issue.

If law enforcement was allowed to profile in search of terrorists ... wait, scratch that last one. Someone just told me that the Dix Six were blond-haired, blue-eyed Swedish Catholics. I will get back to you after I verify the veracity of that information.

The president, as Commander-in-Chief, must take the good with the bad. While he should be applauded for his efforts at Fort Dix, you have to wonder if such a plot would have ever taken place if our borders had been sealed and adequately staffed, especially if such efforts had begun on Sept. 12, 2001. We're not constructing a complex skyscraper, mind you. It's a wall - with barbed wire, cameras and other technological gadgets thrown in, yes - but still just a wall. Take it from somebody whose toolbox is the phonebook: it's not that difficult or expensive to build.

The failure of the president and Congress to act on such basic, commonsense issues is inexcusable.

The government assures us we are safer by ripping grandma out of the airport line and taking away her nail clippers, but that is an illusion. We rationalize our safety when told to take our shoes off, yet the vast majority of airline freight - present on almost every commercial flight - is never X-rayed. And our port security? It's a joke.

The point is that until our government gets serious about protecting our shores by tackling illegal immigration head-on, we are no safer. Terrorists will continue to walk across the border with a Tecate in one hand and a bomb in the other.

As has become our custom, we are fighting this war with a self-imposed hand tied behind our back.

It doesn't take stars on your shoulder to realize that's no way to win a war.

On far too many occasions, the media gets a story wrong. Whether that stems from laziness, ignorance or incompetence --- or all three --- the people deserve better.

As the drama of Pennsylvania’s nationally-followed primary played out, two major stories emerged.

The media got only one right.

*****

First, the one they got wrong.

As Senator Arlen Specter was heading for defeat --- the end of an era --- at the hands of Congressman Joe Sestak, the prevailing sentiment was that this result somehow translated into a “message to Washington.” This was usually followed by commentary that it showed people were angry at the policies coming out of the nation’s capital.

People are angry, to be sure, but this race had nothing to do with that.  In fact, Sestak’s election, from a policy standpoint, was an affirmation of Barack Obama’s agenda.

Sestak --- an incumbent, by the way --- not only voted for bailouts, the stimulus, federal takeovers of industry, and national health care, but wants to go considerably further.  More taxes, more spending, more regulation, more bureaucracy --- flat-out, Sestak just wants more government.

Since he, like the President, believes government knows best, how is that, in any way, a “message to Washington” and a repudiation of the current political environment?

It’s not.

Remember that this was a Democratic primary election, and Joe Sestak’s positions appeal to the Party’s Leftist base. And why not? He is one of them.

We also heard that there was an anti-incumbent message, which, overall, is true. Specter fatigue was running high, given that he has been a senator for a third of a century. But even that was a smaller factor in his defeat.

This senate election became a referendum on whether Specter was an untrustworthy political opportunist due to his party switch last year. Sestak’s ad showing Specter, in his own words, justifying his switch because it would “enable me to be re-elected” was the turning point in the race.

And it certainly didn’t help Specter when TV ads showed him not only being embraced by Sarah Palin, but being called an “ally” who could be “counted on” by the Devil himself --- at least to the Leftists --- George W. Bush.

Specter had a major credibility problem, and Sestak had enough money to inform voters of that --- over and over again.

That’s the whole issue, plain and simple. How anyone can extrapolate anything else is just ridiculous.

You want a “message to Washington?” Look to Tea Party candidate Rand Paul’s stunning victory in Kentucky, or if Pat Toomey beats Sestak in the fall, but don’t look to the Sestak-Specter race.

*****

The story the media did get right was Barack Obama’s abandonment of Specter in his hour of need.  Of this, there is no dispute.

And make no mistake, Obama should --- and will --- pay for his callous, calculated and crass political decision.

After successfully wooing Specter to join his Party, and immensely benefitting from that switch (as Specter was THE decisive 60th vote in favor of the stimulus), Obama blatantly turned his back on his one-time ally, humiliating an against-the-wall Specter.

Why? Because the President put politics before principle.  Despite the fact that he gave his word ---in front of the entire nation --- that he would help Arlen in any way, Obama broke that promise.

Specter saw the election slipping away, and repeatedly implored the President to campaign in Pennsylvania for him.  But those calls were rebuffed. 

It makes no difference whether Obama’s appearance would have helped or hurt Specter.

That is completely irrelevant.

What matters is that the President --- our leader and supposedly a role model --- broke his word to save his own skin.  Or so he thinks.

Ironically, the very reason Specter went down --- lack of credibility --- will now haunt Obama as he hurriedly tries to pass his agenda before Republicans win a sizable number of congressional seats this fall.

“What’s that, Mr. President?  You want my vote on a controversial issue, and in exchange you’ll give me A, B, and C, and, geez, you’ll even campaign for me when I need you?” 

That question will be echoed repeatedly between now and November as the President advocates cap-and-trade, spending and tax increases,  Wall Street reform, internet regulation, and a host of other issues.

And you know what he’ll hear more often than not?

“Hmmm.  You know I love you, Mr. President.  The same way you told Arlen that you loved him.  But after you hung him out to dry when he needed you most, you can’t blame me for thinking that your promises are a bit hollow right about now.  And by the way, you’re not up for re-election this year.  But I am.  So don’t take this the wrong way, but don’t let the door hit you in the derriere on the way out!”

Obama’s calculated move of not stopping in Pennsylvania, while flying over it on election day, was viewed as a political gain.  Short-term, he may be right.  But in the long-term, which in this case is the next 6 months, his decision will backfire in a big way.

Give George Bush credit for doing one thing right (which is not an easy thing to do).  He gave his word that he’d go to the wall for members of his party facing tough election challenges. And he came through in a big way.  Despite the risk to his prestige and political capital, Bush crisscrossed the country stumping for his allies.  And he emerged a stronger leader because of it.

Barack Obama may be naïve in many policy matters, but he should have been smart enough to know the value of keeping his word, both personally and politically.

But he didn’t. And he will suffer the consequences.

Want the most fitting possibility? Specter could actively campaign against, and attempt to derail, Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination.
After all, he voted against her before as Solicitor General, and now he has nothing to lose.

Literally.

And for that, he can partially thank Barack Obama.

Aren’t paybacks hell?

"I believe that the will of the people is reflected sooner or later in the will of the government.”

So says the only man in America who can make George W. Bush look like a genius --- John McCain.  The Arizona senator was making a prediction that the Democrats would pay a heavy price for passing government-run health care along purely partisan lines.

If you didn’t know how incompetent McCain is, you’d actually think he makes sense.

But unfortunately for John and his dysfunctional Republican Party, the real message of the health care debate is still lost on them.