As 2007 drew to a close, embarrassed journalists sought to play down American military successes and avoided questioning Democrat presidential contenders about their predictions of inevitable failure in Iraq.

Magically, Iraq disappeared from the headlines - except on those rare occasions when a problem could be reported. At the close of a year of stunning progress, media stories on New Year's Eve leapt to report that 2007 had been the deadliest year for US troops.

You had to read deep into the columns to learn that those casualties occurred in the first half of 2007, as we battled and defeated the terrorists and militias - or that, in recent months, American and Iraqi casualties have plummeted as a relative peace broke out.

The greatest media story of 2007 was the one you never read (unless you read To The Point):

2007 was a strategic catastrophe for Islamist terrorists - and possibly a historic turning point in the struggle against al Qaeda and its affiliates.

[We welcome legendary political strategist Arnie Steinberg to TTP, whom we hope to have as a regular columnist advising us throughout the 2008 campaign. I have known Arnie since 1966 when he helped me lead Youth for Reagan  during Ronald Reagan's triumphant campaign for governor.

Arnie has created or advised hundreds of political campaigns at all levels, written two graduate texts on politics and media, and is an expert in every phase of campaigns, especially free/earned and paid/advertising media. 

He has produced, written and directed television and radio commercials for many candidates, ballot measures and issues.  He has conducted more than 1700 surveys and focus groups.  I asked him to set the Republican parameters as we go into Iowa and New Hampshire.  We are privileged to have him be a part of To The Point.  ---JW]

Once the Republican nominee is chosen, we will be told what the turning point was in his campaign.  And history then will be rewritten about how inspired it was.  The reality is there are few brilliant campaigns; typically, the winning campaign  is the least bumbling. 

So let's handicap the GOP aspirants a week before Iowa - Paul, Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, Giuliani, and McCain - from a campaign standpoint.  I can tell you there'll be some surprises.

Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.

Antarctica is getting colder.  Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007.  Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever.  South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades.

Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze.  In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina's peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina's apple harvest. 

Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide.  On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius.  If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naïve.

The most consistent theme running through liberal-left opinion since September 11, 2001, has been concern for the well-being of the enemy. The latest example is the contrived scandal over the CIA destroying tapes of interrogations of two captured terrorists.

The first instinct of responsible members of Congress is to fulfill their duty to protect Americans from attack. Now they are pushed by ideological zealots to not only accord foreign adversaries "rights" that will protect them from effective U.S. counteraction but to harass their countrymen on the front lines in this deadly conflict.

Indeed, for a liberal, the entire concept of an adversarial "us and them" is to be rejected. Adversaries are just people whom we have not taken the time to understand.

Nothing could be more fundamentally wrong as a basis for dealing with the real world.  An unwillingness to differentiate between friend and foe is a fatal handicap in making national policy.

Suddenly, a new national debate is beginning about the national security, economic and other implications of Persian Gulf potentates using their petrodollars to buy up strategic American assets.

Most recently, the Emir of Dubai's purchase at fire-sale prices of 4.9 percent of the largest U.S. bank, Citigroup, caused a level of unease not seen since he tried to buy his way into many U.S. port facilities.

Almost completely unremarked thus far has been a parallel - and in many ways far more insidious - effort to penetrate, influence and dominate America's capital markets: so-called "Sharia finance."

Some estimates suggest an amount nearing one trillion dollars is now being invested around the world under this rubric. If trends continue, all other things being equal, such funds may grow to many times that amount within a few years.

As one Islamofascist puts it, Sharia investing is simply "financial jihad against the unbelievers." 

Paul Krugman, Princeton economist and columnist for The New York Times, has no problem with coercing people to do what they'd rather not do. So it's no surprise that he favors the universal health case system advocated by Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. 

He is worried, however, that under the more modestly coercive system advocated by Barack Hussein Obama, "healthy people could choose not to buy insurance-then sign up for it if they developed health problems later." 

Under Hussein Obama's system, argues Professor Krugman, "People who did the right thing and bought insurance when they were healthy would end up subsidizing those who didn't sign up for insurance until or unless they needed medical care."  The old free rider problem, nothing very novel at all.

Yet the problem arises only if there is coercion involved in the first place.

Recently, Tina Griego, journalist for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, wrote a column titled, Mexican Visitor's Lament.

She interviewed Mexican journalist Evangelina Hernandez while she was visiting Denver.  Hernandez said, "They (illegal aliens) pay rent, buy groceries, buy clothes....what happens to your country's economy if 20 million people go away?"

That's a good question --- it deserves an answer.  Over 80% of Americans want secured borders and illegal migration stopped.  But what would happen if all 20 million vacated America?

For starters here in California where I practice law, if 3.5 million illegal aliens moved back to Mexico, it would leave an extra $10.2 billion to spend on overloaded school systems, bankrupted hospitals and overrun prisons.

For months, Mrs. Hillary Clinton has hinted that Sen. Barack Hussein Obama, less than three years into his first Senate term, lacks the preparation to deal with U.S. foreign policy challenges. In a speech last Monday (11/19), she suggested the nation's budget deficit, income inequality and lack of comprehensive health coverage also required a more experienced steward.

As the Associated Press reported: "The economy needs help and fast, Hillary Rodham Clinton declared Monday, claiming the experience for the job and saying the nation can't afford to break in a newcomer... ‘There is one job we can't afford on-the-job training for - our next president. That could be the costliest job training in history,' Mrs. Clinton said. ‘Every day spent learning the ropes is another day of rising costs, mounting deficits and growing anxiety for our families. And they cannot afford to keep waiting'."

Good grief. What plausible claim does Miss Hillary have to experience in managing a national economy, balancing a budget or fixing income inequality? Even on health care, according to her husband, the aspiring "First Louse" (he wants to be called First Laddie, but I think the derivation from First Spouse works better) claims that she didn't have much to do with HillaryCare - it was his fault.