The six party talks regarding the North Korean nuclear program have reconvened.    They will go nowhere.    By

The lack of meaningful reaction by the United States and the U.N. to the explosion of a nuclear device by the North Koreans has emboldened the North Korean leadership.    Negotiation with thugs is an oxymoron; such people understand only the language of force.     Sensing correctly that no one has the stomach to aggressively confront them, we can expect the North Koreans to soon up the ante by exploding one or more additional nuclear devices and export their knowledge to other rogue regimes.   Such is one consequence of the failure of nerve which has infected the American government.

Today comes the assertion by the Iranian president that Iran is a nuclear power.     It seems inevitable that Iran will test a nuclear device in the near future.    Soon, then, a regime lead by a certifiable lunatic who daily speaks of a future in which the United States has disappeared and threatens to wipe Israel from the map will possess nuclear weapons.   Unlike other nuclear powers, and even the North Koreans, Iran is more than likely to use a nuclear bomb.

For years Iran has ignored and brushed aside warnings concerning its nuclear program, which have uttered by the United States, the European Union and Israel.    President Bush has said repeatedly that an Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable.   Yet the United States has abdicated dealing with the Iranians to the Europeans and the United Nations, with the predictable result that nothing has happened to retard the Iranian program.    The President betrayed American national interest by subcontracting this issue to parties who lacked the leverage or will to effective deal with the problem.

George Bush now has a decision to make.    The Iranians are counting on the president's domestic opponents and his preoccupation with Iraq preventing him from taking aggressive action to eliminate or significantly setback their nuclear program.   Bush has said that a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable.    Will he act, or will the Iranians join the North Koreans in demonstrating the hollowness of American warnings?

 

President Bush is the first president in American history to be fighting simultaneous wars abroad against and foreign enemy and at home against a domestic one. Abroad the enemy is Islamic fascism; at home it is the combination of the defeatist media, ultra leftist academia and entertainment industry, and the bulk of the Democrat party. What these enemies have in common is a desire for American defeat and disgrace in Iraq and around the world.

About the media, what more can be said? The media reports from and about Iraq have been filtered through the prism of sedition and defeat virtually from the beginning. And these reports have inevitably taken a toll on the morale of the public and the support for the effort in Iraq. I have personally heard comments from individuals whom I know to be solid conservatives, who have become convinced that Iraq is another Vietnam and we are should expend no more lives or treasure there.

The Democrat Party has been relentless in undermining the administration. Far from being the loyal opposition, Democrats are invested in American defeat. Leading Democrat politicians have compared our military’s conduct to the worst of Sadam’s regime. Part of the opposition can be attributed to Bush hatred but it is primarily motivated by an article of faith among leftists, that the United States is a force of oppression and evil in the world and deserves to be defeated. For these people, American defeat in Iraq is to be desired for its own sake and in order to discourage future administrations from being proactive in defending American interests abroad. Perversely, the American people have elected a Congress whose liberal leadership shares many of the feelings and beliefs of those who wish the United States defeated.

The Islamic fascists have openly stated their desire to force the United States to cut and run from Iraq and the entire Middle East. At this juncture in history that goal is shared by the Russians and Chinese, who have their own fish to fry in the region, as well France and most members of the European Union, our so-called allies, who simply wish to see the United Stated humbled. It is a remarkable collection, former communists turned totalitarians, communists turned capitalists, dying socialist societies and socialist wannabes, along with seventh century Moslem fanatics, united only in a common desire to humiliate and defeat the United States of America. If they are successful in destroying the American will to win, not just in Iraq but anywhere, the consequences will be calamitous.

President Bush has one final chance to turn the tide of defeatism and retreat taking hold in this country. What is at stake is more than simply winning in Iraq; it is the soul of America. If he fails, if we fail in Iraq, the United States is finished as the preeminent power in the world.

 

 

 

 Christmas trees are going back up in the Seattle/Tacoma Airport.    The commission responsibile for operating the airport had removed the trees under threat of a federal lawsuit from a Jewish rabbi, who complained that no menorah was displayed.   During the few days the trees were absent the rabbi denied that his objective was to force removal of the Christmas trees.   An attack of common sense apparently occurred and the commission voted to return the trees.   

The whole affair is a minor example of the confusion caused by wrongheaded Federal court decisions on religion/state issues intermixing with the secular faith of multiculturalism, with its prime tenet, political correctness.    In a more sane time,  no one contemplated for a moment that Christmas trees on public property posed any constitutional issue.   However, over the last 50 years a succession of decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have thoroughly mangled the interpretation of the establishment of the First Amendment to the extent that now most public officials and bodies take the safe course of stripping any contact with or mention of religion in a public activity.    The court decision's have empowered the malcontent, effectively giving him a veto over the government giving anything more than the most passing and petty nod to the religious feelings of the majority of the populace.   Combined with the hypersensitivity of public officials these days to any perceived slight of a minority of any type,  the inevitable result is to slight and denigrate the majority faith.   Perversely,  polictical correctness, touted an the expression of "tolerance,"  in fact tolerates only those opinions and faiths which do not command majority allegiance, and suppresses the opinions and faith of the majority.

None of this would matter but for the malpractice in this area by the U.S. Supreme Court, with its nonsense that the First Amendment commands a "wall of separation" between church and states.   No matter how many times they say it,  it doesn't make it so.   Noting in the language of the First Amendment , the views of the drafter or of the members of the ratifying Congress and states legislatures,  or the tradition and practice of the American government and people for the first 170 years of our  history supports the view that the First Amendment requires a wall of separation between religion and state.     When the Court makes a decision which is untethered from the text and history of the Constitution then that decision is illegitimate and the other branches of government nor the public should defer to or respect the decision.     The time is long, long past for the Court to be put in its proper place in the Constitutional order and if doing so requires outright defiance, so be it.

In the meantime, I'm happy the Christmas trees are returning to the Seattle airport.    The trees should be joined by a nativity scene with Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus, along with a banners stating, "Peace on Earth, Good Will to Men,"    and "Jesus in the Reason for the Season."   If some malcontent is going to object to Christmas trees, why not give him something to really get worked up over.

 

In a fight to the death, the terms of the conflict will devolve to the tactics employed by the most ruthless, remorseless side. If one side insists on fighting by a higher, more moral standard, that side can win battles and manage a stalemate in the conflict for a time if it has overwhelming superiority. However, in a prolonged conflict, even the superior power will be defeated if it refuses to adopt its own version of the tactics employed by the other side.

At the beginning of World War II, the British refused to bomb German factories and other civilian sites because they considering doing so to violate the rights of the property owners. The Germans, on the other hand, had no reluctance in bombing British and French cities and noncombatants. As the fighting progressed and after France fell to the German invasion, the British understood the stakes involved in the conflict and the evil nature of the enemy. They recognized that victory at all cost and by all means by morally justifiable not only to preserve England as a free society, but to spare other peoples the horror of a Nazi victory. Hence, as their war papers reveal, the British were prepared to use poison gas against German troops as a last resort should the Germans successfully obtain beachheads in an invasion of Great Britain. We almost know that Great Britain and the United States pursued a bombing campaign against the German homeland that devastated whole cities and killed hundreds of thousands. None of this was a particularly moral way of making war and would have shocked and horrified people if the tactics had been suggested but a few years earlier. However, the war was won, an achievement for which the whole world can be thankful.

The United States has refused to employ the same tactics of its opponents in wars since Korea. As a result, we have not won a war since (the incursion in Panama and the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait were not wars but battles involving no long term commitment). Our military has been restricted in the means by which it is to obtain its objectives and now operates under so many rules that military lawyers are proliferating. Our opponents are not so impaired. Their objective is not to win "right" but simply to win, which they define succinctly as killing us. In the meantime we have almost reached the stage that our troops will have to read prisoners "Miranda rights" before they can be interrogated. Our society’s obsession with "rights’ and legalism has infected the armed services, to the detriment of the nation’s ability to defend itself. We discourage aggression and promote caution in war making, an oxymoron in concept and execution.

It is no accident that the United States won all its wars until we accepted a draw in Korea. In all conflicts up to then, it was understood and expected that the military would kill people and destroy property and in the course thereof ugly, ruthless things would have to be done to obtain victory. War, to paraphrase General Sherman, was "hell" and there was no time to brood over or complain about the tactics used to defeat the enemy. Whether it concerned the preservation of the nation or the union, all means which advanced the cause of ultimate victory were acceptable, because the thing to be accomplished by victory was far preferable to alternative.

The bottom line is that in order to defeat the jihadists we must jettison the effete ethos that war can be fought clinically and by legal code. Effective war against the jihadists will result in the unfortunate deaths of noncombatants. Our opponents have conclusively demonstrated they regard the murder of innocents or the wanton destruction of property as perfectly legitimate means of warfare. We must demonstrate that we are fully capable of the ruthless killing of them and their sanctuaries, wherever found, even if in the midst of cities or in mosques or if they gather at a funeral. These barbarians can be allowed no safe havens anywhere, anytime.

Currently the United States it not yet ready to fight. We have not reached the point that we believe ourselves sufficiently at risk to wage total war against the Jihadist threat. Our "kid gloves" conduct of the Iraqi campaign, the court rulings which circumscribe our handling of terrorists we have incarcerated, the uproar over modest surveillance programs of terrorist communications, bespeak a society still in a peacetime frame of mind. I fear it will take a death of tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands, before we awake from our delusion this threat can be managed as it has been.

 

 

 

 

Justice Stephen Breyer, in an interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News, remarked that the U.S. Supreme Court must promote the political rights of the members of minority groups and look beyond the Constitution’s text when necessary to ensure that "no one gets too powerful."

Who does this pompous windbag think he is? The justices of the United States Supreme Court swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not to serve as advocates to promote the political rights of any group. They have no authority, WHATSOEVER, to "look beyond" the text of the Constitution in making their decisions, unless the case itself does not involve a provision of the Constitution. In those case the plain language of statute or the common law which reflects the traditions and values of our people is the guide. The justices of the Supreme Court are not some sort of knights whose mission is to slay contemporary dragons.

And did it ever occur to the distinguished justice that if any one institution in American government can be said, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have become too powerful, that institution is the United States Supreme Court, which has been engaged in a continuous campaign of usurping power over the last 50 years. Case after case the Court has injected itself into issues which are none of its business and made decisions without support in the text or history of our Constitution and laws. This is an illegitimate, rouge court, whose members routinely subvert the delicate balance of powers between the three branches of the Federal government as well as between the national and state governments, and conjure up "rights" out of whole cloth when it suits them. The time for the president and Congress to reign in this bunch has long past, and their failure to do so is an abdication of responsibility.

Justice Breyer obviously believes that the members of the Court are like Olympians, vested with the power to adjust society to reflect the morals and opinions of these god-like beings. In fact, he voices the views of a tyrant, who believes himself unbound by the Constitution and laws he is sworn to enforce. In this he is emblematic of the liberal jurists who dominate the Federal judiciary.

Such a man has no business being a judge on any court of the land, and certainly not the highest. When, oh when, will the people get enough of these judicial tyrants and rise up and demand they be put in their place?

 The polls tell us that a large majority of the American people believe in God.     A lesser but still healthy majority believe in Heaven and Hell and in a Devil.   Pundits interpret these polls as indicating Americans are a religious people but I think such an interpretation is misleading.   

The fact that a person acknowledges a belief in God does not tell us what he believes about God or how that belief influences his life.   Adolf Hitler, from all accounts, believed in God, but clearly what he believed about God and how it influenced his life is dramatically different from a typical view.     A person may believe in God, may believe in the afterlife, or in a satanic force, but evidence little or no indication that these beliefs influence the conduct of his life.    Most Americans may believe in a divine being, an afterlife, or in an evil one, but this does not make them religious.    Indeed, what they believe in this regard may be profoundly  wrong.  True religion involves an abiding faith, which requires a deep conviction uniting the heart and mind.  This is the human soul, which from creation has written in it the capacity to know God.     This faith actuates and motivates the thoughts, opinions and conduct  of the believer.   This faith molds the character of the believer.  In the language of the old hymn,  God is the potter and man the clay.   I think that only people who are blessed with such faith should be considered truly religious.   Consequently, understood this way,  really only a small minority of Americans can be considered to be truly religious.

Present day American society and culture do not support the argument that the we are a religious people.   Majorities retain loyality to certain forms and traditions ("In God We Trust" on coins,  "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, marriage as a union of one man and one woman)  but I think that for most of this majority  none of these causes stirs any real emotion.    Oh, the latest judicial outrage might cause  dinner table protest or outburst at the local bar, but  individuals feel no personal stake in the outcome of these debates.  For the majority who claim to be religious,  whether "under God" stays in the Pledge of Allegiance is a one day story, having the same weight in their lives as a blown call by an official in yesterday's football game.      They don't agree with it, but it doesn't affect them in any spiritual sense.    In America, expressing religious belief has become perfunctory, something that is expected but not acted upon.  

In fact, Americans are uncomfortable with genuine religious faith.    People of deep faiith are much too "hot" for our society, which likes its role models to be "cool" and detached.    People whose lives are centered around praising and serving God, particularly the God of the Old and New Testaments, are viewed with suspicion and distaste.    Popular entertainment mocks these people and ridicules their faith, an example of the ignorant making fun of that they do not understand.

I should state now that I do not intend the above to be too severe an indictment of the American people.  As I have written in previous blogs,  I believe the American people to be by and large a generous, good hearted people.   We still possess, most likely as the residue of our forefathers and those saints still among us, at least some loyality, even if superficial, to essential moral precepts.    I still believe this is the best country on earth.   None of this, however, can disguise the truth that every day witnesses the dimunition of religious influence in our culture, to our detriment.

Ironically,  the enemy dedicated to our destruction,  the Islamic  jihadists,  view the United States as a Christian nation at war with Islam.   Obviously they are ignorant of the thorough secular nature of American society and how Christianity has been marginalized in our nation.   Equally obvious is the fact that they have not throught through their rationale for believing us decadent and weak.    The jihadists believe their strength derives from their dedication to serving their God, Allah, and they are invigorated by their faith to fight to the death against the infidel.   If the United States were really the Christian nation the jihadists believe us to be, then our faith in our God would strengthen us to carry the fight to them.   In fact, it is the secularism of American society which has gutted our spirit and deprived us of the fiber to combat the jihadist enemy.   At this moment in our history, when deep and abiding religious faith is more needed in the United States than ever for the sake of our people, the twin maladies of multiculturalism and political correctness stand as social and cultural barriers to that spiritual revivial.    Each works in tandem to deny truth: that some cultures are superior to others; that some so-called religions are in fact death cults; that there is a such a thing as good and evil; that the "historically oppressed" may be even more murderous and barbaric than their alleged oppressors, and so on.  

The United States will not prevail against the forces of darkness and evil that the jihadists represent unless a spiritual revivial takes place in this country.     The true God is not Allah but the God who has made himself known through the Holy Bible, and the only avenue to reconciliation with the true God is through his son, Jesus Christ.   The God who gave his son to redeem the world does not embrace the murder of innocents as an act of faith.   This God grants life to the full, an experience the truly religious among us are now enjoying, and is available as a free gift to those who recognize their need for Him, and accept his Son, Jesus Christ, as their personal savior.   

We must truly become the Christian nation the jihadists seek to destroy, in order to avoid destruction.   The reader may disagree; unlike the jihadists I don't call for your beheading.    Being a good people, professing a belief in God, and hoping for the best will not grant us victory.   Observing religious forms and observances are no substitute for true faith and worship from the heart of man.   

When I was a kid I remember the Platte River in Nebraska being described as a mile wide but an inch deep.  In America today,  most  is called religious belief is like the Platte River.   If we hope to overcome the demonic forces behind the jihadists, true faith must borrow deep and wide in the soul of the American people.  

Leaving Iraq in defeat will end America’s role as the global superpower. Pax Americana will be over and the beginning of a dangerous new period of jockeying for position in the world order will be accompanied by the uncertainty and unease which greets all momentous change.

Iraq represents to the world a test of American fortitude. Friend and foe alike sense that the United States lacks the stamina for conflict, even on the low intensity level found in Iraq. They look to our retreats from Lebanon (1983) and Somalia (1993) when we sustained casualties, our lack of, or muted reaction to the first World Trade Center attack, the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Africa, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole by al-Qaeda. They see our lack of action regarding the North Korean nuclear test and the declared determination of Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. Our enemies are becoming more emboldened. Regularly the United States is taunted by Hugo Chavez and the Iranian president. China surfaces a submarine alongside one of our aircraft carriers. The Syrians murder a Lebanese government official who opposed them. The Russian KGB president has opponents murdered in England. The debate in the United States among the chattering classes appears focused not on victory in Iraq but on how best to withdraw. All of this communicates an unmistakable message of weakness which excites our enemies and worries our allies.

I think it beyond contradiction that the majority of the American political elite, both Democrat and Republican, wish to bug out of Iraq without regard to the consequences. They are only looking for a fig leaf rationale to allow the act to be labeled somehow a thing of honor, as if painting lipstick on a pig makes the pig a beautiful woman. What passes now for "realism" among the Council on Foreign Relations types would in a more honest time be called what it is: cowardice and betrayal. What was once unacceptable and hateful, i.e., the abandonment in the field of friends and allies who are risking life and property to fight with us, is now urged by some as an appropriate policy.

If the so-called leaders of the nation lack the fiber to sustain the Iraqi conflict when considering the historically low casualties, then the United States has no business deploying forces overseas again. Any probable enemy now knows the Achilles heel of the American people and understands that defeating the American military in battle is unnecessary so long as it can the practice modern warfare of the jihadist: manipulate the American media, which is ever eager to broadcast the worst about the military; engage in hit and run operations on a periodic basis to inflict a few deaths on American units; intimidate the local civilian population by acts of terrorism and murder, to disrupt daily life and leave the impression of chaos. An enemy with the stamina to hold out for more than a few months will almost certainly prevail. Since the American elites who dictate policy lack the staying power to prevail in a conflict involving any casualties for any period of time, it makes little sense to waste lives and treasure sending forces abroad into any possible zone of combat. Liberals would find this situation agreeable, since they think the only good use of the U.S. military is in humanitarian operations anyway.

If we are not going to fight to win, what justifies the hundreds of billions of dollars expended on the military? If we lack the backbone to sustain a conflict when our nose gets a little bloodied, what is the rationale for maintaining troops in harm’s way? If we lack the will the backup our warnings with real force, why should anyone be worried about what we say?

Americans will find that accepting defeat in Iraq has consequences far greater in scope and danger than the abandonment of South Vietnam. The home front will be a caldron of bitter recriminations splitting the nation. A large portion of the American public does not and will not accept a political class dominated by defeatists who for the second time in a generation engineered an American defeat.   When the epic scale of the calamity which has befalling American interests becomes more apparent, there will be a reckoning in this country rivaling that which presaged the Civil War. Contemporaneously, it is inevitable that an American pullout from Iraq will lead to the collapse of the Iraqi government, resulting in adjacent countries intervening in Iraq for their various reasons. The Middle East will collapse into regional war involving nations and sects dominated by barbarians more suited for the 7^th than the 21^st century.    The butchery will be unimaginable and the potential use of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction probable.

Meanwhile, China will move against Taiwan.   Does anyone really believe that the American people would support a war with China over Taiwan? Stated a bit differently, does China or Taiwan believe that the United States would fight to protect Taiwan, for the perception these nations have will dictate their policy and what happens.   If I were an official in Taiwan, I would not count of the United States to come to my defense, no matter how many times our government offers assurances.  If I were the defense minister of any nation dependent on the United States for assistance in the event of attack, I would be convening my staff to reassess my plans.

Throughout 1950's, 60's and even into the early 70's the communists in China always referred to the United States as a "paper tiger." It seems the characterization was about 40 years premature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The San Francisco Board of Education has voted to discontinue junior ROTC classes in the San Francisco Public School in protest of the military "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy regarding homosexual servicemen and to protect school children from the baneful consequences of militarism. This follows last year’s decision of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to spurn permanently docking the U.S.S. Iowa along the city’s waterfront as a museum, partly resulting from one supervisor observing that he hadn’t been proud of anything the U.S. military had done since the 1940's.

It’s clear that the elected leadership of San Francisco, who presumably represent the feelings of the populace, want nothing to do with the rest of the country. In their opinion the natives living eastward beyond the Bay (at least extending to Hudson River) are all warmongering, bloodthirsty, racist, sexist, homophobic bigots, a collection of rubes deceived by Bible thumpers and nationalistic propaganda.

There is no point debating these cosmopolitan sophisticates of San Francisco. Facts and logic have no place in the Liberal world view that has captured the minds of the citizens of the "City by the Bay." This is, after all, Nancy Pelosi’s home turf, a city more worried that its children will be more damaged from exposure to U.S. military through ROTC or an old battleship than a trip through ground zero of Gay America, the city’s Castro District. These are, indeed, San Francisco "values," and they are irreconcilable with the values of the vast majority of Americans.

There being such a wide gulf between the views of San Franciscans and the rest of the United States, with one so clearly contemptuous of the other, I propose a divorce. The City and County of San Francisco are coterminous and being situated at the upper end of the peninsula, could easily become its own, separate legal entity, somewhat like Monte Carlo or as Hong Kong once was. There is no reason the people of San Francisco such suffer the indignity of being associated with the United States, and vice versa. San Francisco should become a free city.

Of course, this would mean no more state of federal tax dollars would flow to the city, either directly or in the form of transfer payments to the residents, including social security. The United States would have no obligation to defend the city or assist it when the next big earthquake levels the place. San Franciscans would no longer pay state or federal taxes of any kind. The city should have no problem making alliance with like-minded governments, liberal governments, like China or maybe France. Who knows, European tourists might find the place even more attractive if it were no longer part of the United States. Being a city of progressives, no good San Francisco resident would object to increasing the tax burden to make the city self-sufficient.

There is much to gain and little to lose from San Francisco becoming a free city. Each side would no longer be embarrassed by the antics of the other. San Francisco would be free of the constraints that state and federal law now impose on its progressive instincts. The United States would be free of a city of fruits and nuts. Truthfully, would anyone outside of California really miss San Francisco? Would anyone in San Francisco miss the United States?

It is the accepted wisdom that the struggle in Iraq cannot be won by military means. This may be true; however, we don’t know the accuracy of the statement because we have not tried military means to win it.

Part of the problem is that the upper echelon of the military has no experience with waging total war to absolute victory. No one is left over from the World War II era in which the goal was to total victory, which meant killing as many of the enemy as quickly as possible, and the destruction of the support systems which sustained him in the field. Today’s three and four star generals came of age during a period in which the United States has deliberately restrained the use of its power in fighting and settled for outcomes short of victory and even defeat. Beginning with Korea, continuing with Vietnam, and in virtually every venue the military has been deployed in anger since, the ultimate military objective has never been the total expiration of the enemy and all that sustains him. As a consequence, the generals in the Pentagon today have never planned a conflict in which total victory was the goal.

As the military has become less a force to kill people and destroy things, the natural evolution is for officers to replace an emphasis on aggression and war-making with the political arts needed to foster upward promotion, budget enhancement, and political approval. Taking risks is discouraged; consultation with the military attorney in the Judge Advocate General’s office is encouraged. An overemphasis is placed on technology and exotic weapons. A new orthodoxy takes hold, in which victory becomes a flexible concept incorporating outcomes short of defeating the enemy. Involvement in regions or conflicts requiring close combat with the enemy and the inevitable casualties of such conflict are to be avoided at all costs.

A new mind-set is needed in upper command of the military. The idea that war can be relatively bloodless, that its costs in the death of innocents or in damage to property can be limited, is fatuous. Not only is it fatuous, but as regards the jihadist enemy, which makes its home among the population and draws some support from the natives, the idea is a prescription for defeat. This enemy and his support systems must be killed where found, without undue worry about collateral damage. Apologies and compensation can be made after victory is won. A war against terrorists cannot be won if commanders’ first inclination is to consult with the JAG corps.

Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan would know what to do about the insurgents in Iraq, as would George Patton or Douglas MacArthur. Each understood that in war killing the enemy and destroying his will and ability to fight was the first and foremost objective, and the morality of the means is measured by the consequences of victory or defeat. During World War II, the Allies did not hesitate to level the enemies’ cities and devastate his civilian population in the belief that doing so would hasten the day that victory was won. The United States atomized two Japanese cities to win the war. These actions were justified because, as terrible as the actions were, it was essential to win the war to preserve the nation. Does anyone argue that an Axis victory was preferable?

The stakes in Iraq are almost as high. The consequences of an American victory in Iraq are immeasurably superior to any other alternative, not only for the United States but also for the entire Middle East. An American defeat will propel the enemy, the apostles of seventh century barbarism, to advance on all fronts, in Africa, Europe and Asia, and assuredly, North America. There is no negotiation or appeasement of this enemy. There is no modus vivendi to be reached with him or his religion. The American military, the American political class and the American people must relearn what are forefathers understood, that when the choice is between survival of our children and our way of life or subjugation, what is morally appropriate is victory, and all that is necessary to achieve that end.

First, let’s disabuse ourselves of the idea that the Republicans are a sure thing to regain Congress in 2008.   Democrats thought the same thing in the period after 1994 and it took an unpopular war and multiple missteps by the Republicans to hand the majority back to the Democrats this year.   Incumbents are very difficult to dislodge and Democrat incumbents will spend the next two years doing everything necessary to secure their seats for 2008.

In addition, now that they will be in power, Democrats are certain to liberalize voter registration and voting laws to allow virtually any warm or dead body to vote without challenge.  Being masters of voter fraud,  they will expand the pool of potential voters to facilitate their  machinations on election day.  Many of the House districts which traded parties  this election are closely divided and rest assured the Democrats will manufacture as many new votes as possible to hang on to their gains.

Second, the results of this election confirm the perception held by Bin Laden and the jihadists that the American people lack the stamina to wage an extended military conflict.  I happen to believe the jury is still out on that question, but Bin Laden has voiced this opinion and yesterday’s results will provide support to that view.   What can no longer be disputed is that the American people have no stomach for a military conflict which lacks firm parameters to define victory or which they believe is not being waged to military victory.  Just as was the case with the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the public will not support continuing conflict for amorphous, ill-defined objectives, or for "nation-building."  This position has its positive aspects, since it basically limits the freedom of action of a president to engage in foreign policy adventures involving the military; on the negative side, and particularly as regards this conflict with the jihadists, our adversaries recognize that if the United States does not initially employ overwhelming force and win a knockout victory in short order, then all the enemy must do is outlast us to prevail.   As the Bush Administration did not commit overwhelming force to conquer Iraq and destroy the insurgents there, do not expect it to change course and do so now.  Rather, it is now probable that the Bush Administration will soon adopt the Aiken strategy on Iraq: declare victory and promulgate a new approach, perhaps involving a partition of the country, which will lead to our rapid "redeployment" outside Iraq.   In other words, "cut and run."

Third, the conservative position that persons illegally in this country should not be rewarded for their crime is now dead as a doornail.   President Bush, who on this issue is as bad as any liberal could be, will now team with the Democrats to essentially legalize millions of illegal aliens in this country and pave the way for an influx of millions more.   Of course, as many as possible will be registered to vote.

Fourth, the chance to build a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court who will adhere to the text and history of the U.S. Constitution is gone for now.   A Democrat Senate will never confirm a bona fide conservative to the Court and the Bush Administration will not nominate or fight for one.   Look out for another Anthony Kennedy or David Souter.

Fifth, as this is being written it is announced that Donald Rumsfeld is out as Secretary of Defense.   Of course the explanation is that this change had been in the offing before yesterday’s elections, but it is a bad omen and reflective that the Bush Administration intends to move leftward and position itself more in the mode of the administration of the first President Bush.   Such a turn, together with the sellout on illegal immigration, will rupture the Republican party by driving principled conservatives from the party.

The only bright spot in this tableau is that liberals and Democrats being who they are, they can only restraint themselves for so long until they overreach. Only time will tell what will trigger the reaction, but it is sure to happen.   They won’t be able to help themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

This year’s mid-term elections are perhaps the most fateful in American history. The Republicans, the party in power, manifest classic symptoms of intellectual exhaustion and the abuse of office which comes with being too long in power. The Democrat party, the party out-of-power, has been hijacked by its most radical elements, from which many of its candidates have distanced themselves while running stealth races masquerading as conservatives.

In normal times the Democrats attaining a majority in one or both houses of Congress, while disagreeable, would not be dangerous to the national security. This year’s elections are so critical however, for one salient reason: the conflict with Islamic fascism. On this issue the Democrat party’s position is hazardous to the nation’s survival. The base of the Democrat party and most of its leadership do not consider the United States at war with Islamic fascists who are intent on our destruction. Rather than continuing the fight by all means against these barbarians who would murder our women and children at first opportunity, the Democrats would revert to the Clintonian model of treating the jihadists as a nuisance, a problem for the criminal justice system. Rather than engaging the forces of darkness and death abroad, far from the streets of New York or Los Angeles, the Democrats would retreat from Iraq (and will from Afghanistan also), leaving the terrorists the winners in the field. This course would result in the terrorists returning to the United States to attack us here, not to mention the bloodbath for those left behind. Even if one disagrees with the Iraq War, it cannot be denied that the jihadists are concentrating their efforts there, and while so occupied, they are not perpetrating attacks within America. The Democrats believe that Islamic fascists and fundamentalists can be talked to and negotiated with. While always on the ready to criticize Christian fundamentalists as fanatics to be denigrated and walled off, Democrats seem incapable of recognizing true fanaticism when the religion is Islam. Democrats fail to understand that there is no negotiating or reasoning with this enemy, which must be defeated and destroyed.

There are many good policy reasons important to conservatives for Republicans retaining control of Congress, particularly the Senate which confirms Federal judges. However, the overriding reason that Republicans must be retain a majority of the Congress is that Democrats simply cannot be trusted with the protection of the nation. Everything in their intellectual and ideological fabric argues against the Democrat party supporting the actions essential to defeating the jihadists.

An old joke is that a man should vote as if his life depended on it. This year, the joke is no laughing matter. The American people cannot turn away from this enemy and retreat and expect to be left alone. The jihadists consider themselves at war with us and they will not relent in their efforts to kill us regardless of the results of our elections. This election will decide if we will continue to carry the fight to the enemy or if the enemy will bring the fight to us.

 

The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that the state’s constitution, written in the 19^th century, affords homosexual couples who so desire the right to the state granting their a status equivalent to marriage or marital status itself. The Court deigned to grant the state legislature 180 days to amend New Jersey law to comply with its ruling.

It is now an old story for the judicial branch to concoct out of thin air constitutional "rights" consistent with the prevailing elite attitudes. The Federal constitution and those of the 50 states contain sufficiently elastic words and clauses that the imaginative judge can manufacture all sort of new, trendy rights of the kind to delight the chattering classes, Hollywood, and liberals in general. The intent of the framers of the document in question or the views of the public who live under it are not relevant to liberal judges, who view themselves as the avant guard of societal evolution (to borrow a phrase), free from the tawdry biases of the masses, while breathing new life into tired old documents drafted by narrow minded white males.

It should be obvious that only liberal judges are capable of the colossal egos necessary to issue such rulings as made by the New Jersey court, and before it the courts in Vermont and Massachusetts. Great gall is needed to discard over 5000 years of human history and the tenets of every major religion and conclude that legislative restriction of marriage to a union of male and female is "irrational." It should be understood clearly that rulings such as the made by the New Jersey Supreme Court have absolutely NO basis in our history, NO basis in the common law, NO basis in the historical record relating to the drafting of the state constitution, and NO basis in the commonly shared values of the public. The decision is not one of law but a coup d’ e-tat masked as a court case.

The entire premise behind such decisions is the notion that legislation cannot be the product of the moral views held by the majority. This is an argument utterly subversive of republican government. Virtually every issue, even regarding the tax code, has an element of moral content, of what behavior should be encouraged, discouraged, or prohibited. The argument that a law cannot regulate or proscribe conduct based on the moral views of the majority emasculates representative government. "Rights" imposed on an emasculated majority will never enjoy the respect or support of the people. Such rights will be under consistent attacks and attempts to curtain and eventually undo them. Witness the never ending conflict regarding abortion.

Sometimes it seems that everyone believes that courts are infallible and that their decisions are to be enforced without question. This is an attitude foreign to our forefathers. They would recognize tyranny for what it is, whether practiced by a king, parliament, or an imperial judiciary. The executive and legislative branches of government violate their oaths of office when they do not take action to reign in rogue courts. The constitutions of every state and the Federal constitution provide ample tools to trump a judiciary acting illegitimately. The public must insist that their elected representatives protect the public’s right that legislation reflect the moral values of the majority. Should the other branches of government fail in their duty, the day will soon come when well meaning patriots conclude that a higher loyalty dictates outright defiance of a tyrannical judiciary.

 

There is not a more disgusting spectacle that a politician in full fright mode. Previously firm positions soften and principles not subject to compromise become amiable to amendment. So it is with many Republican candidates as the general election of November 7^th approaches.

Many Republicans now profess to question the initial decision to invade Iraq. Others deride the Administration’s strategy in combating the insurgency there. Obviously, there are legitimate questions to be raised about the failures of intelligence which contributed to the decision to invade Iraq. There is much to critique concerning the Administration’s actions in that country since. However, the point is that the very same Republicans now crawfishing on the Iraq War raised no such questions or criticisms when the decisions were made. It is the prospect of electoral defeat which has caused them sudden reflection.

Republicans will not secure election by echoing Democrats on the Iraq War. It is rarely remarked that a significant percentage of Americans which the polls reflect as opposing the Iraq conflict do so because they believe the Administration has not gone far enough in combating the insurgency and are suspicious that we lack commitment to do what is necessary to prevail. These Americans do not wish to "cut and run" but hold and fight with increased force and violence until the insurgents are destroyed. They disapprove of a policy which seems more directed to postponing defeat rather than pursuing victory. When the numbers of these Americans are combined with those who continue to approve of the Iraq War, a majority wants to persevere in Iraq to victory.

That said, the American will to prevail in Iraq is now a very brittle thing. As chinks appear in the resolve of heretofore stalwart defenders of the war, it will be only natural for the public to question continuing the entire enterprise. As retreating from Iraq without victory will have catastrophic consequences for us and those we leave behind, Republicans who now voice doubts as a short-term election strategy are doing themselves and the nation no service.

We already have one political party in this country committed to defeat and disgrace in Iraq. We have no need for another.

The news is that the White House is busy formulating "time tables" to present to the Iraqi government.   Presumably if the Iraqis fail to meet the time tables then we will draw down our forces in the country and let the chips fall.  

However labeled or categorized, if the Administration
has indeed succumbed to the mindset we must be out of Iraq, whether by a date certain, or by the Iraqi government attaining or not attaining certain goals and
objectives, then the mindset necessary for victory has been abandoned and one of defeat and ignominy has taken its place. 

Victory is not defined by deadlines and war is not fought according to time tables.    When the belief takes hold that it is acceptable for Americans to leave Iraq without  securing victory, the contest becomes simply a matter of endurance, with the insurgents secure in the knowledge that if they will hold on just a little longer, Iraq will be theirs.   Meanwhile, on our side, more voices will  loudly question why we sacrifice blood or treasure in a country we've already decided to leave, to achieve goals not particularly important to us. The countervailing voices, those that insist we must remain until the objectives are met, will become weaker as time passes and casualties mount.   Americans will not long sustain a conflict in which victory has been
discarded as an option.  In this aspect the parallel to Vietnam will be accurate, for just as the United States abandoned the South Vietnamese to their fate, as ignominious an act as ever committed by this nation, so we will in the end abandon the Iraqis to the jihadists.

Far from setting time tables, whether for withdrawal or the attainment of results,  the United States should
loudly reassure the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people of its determination to defeat the insurgents and secure the nation.   Having undertaken the task, we cannot afford now to "bug out" under pressure.  No nation can expect others to respect its word or commitments if it retreats whenever it encounters difficulties or sustains casualties.   Leaving Iraq under pressure from this enemy would be vastly more costly to our nation than the retreat from Vietnam.   Then the enemy did not have designs on the American homeland; the enemy in Iraq is one spearhead of a foe with the avowed goal of destroying our society and replacing it with Islamic caliphate.  

Once before in this generation a fifth column of liberals and fellow travelers, aided and abetted by the media, sabotaged the effort of the American Army in the field.  Americans forces left Vietnam not in defeat but without victory; defeat was accomplished by the Democrat dominated liberal Congress, which subsequently prohibited essential aid to the South Vietnamese government, ensuring its defeat.  Millions of innocents in Vietnam and Cambodia paid the price with their lives.   Now, another fifth column of liberals and the liberal media, recycling the same false arguments, often voiced by retreads from the Vietnam era, are working assiduously to undermine another American army, this time in Iraq.   They cannot be allowed to prevail again.  

The Bush administration must not succumb to the temptation of time tables or deadlines.   The enemy in Iraq must be destroyed, whether it takes one year or twenty.   Of this there can be no negotiation or compromise.  Anything else is to again suffer the United States of America as complicit in ignominy and the death of innocents.

If the polls are to be believed - a big if - then the voters are poised to return the Democrats to power come November 7th.   Should this happen many of us will have to reevaluate our opinion of the American voter. 

The United States is engaged in a war with an implacable enemy dedicated to our destruction.  The Democrats deny we are involved in a war.   The Democrats do not consider the enemy to be "implacable" or dedicated to our destruction.   In fact, most Democrats would prefer to relegate the entire effort against the jihadits to the back burner, a matter to be primarily addressed by the judiciary through the criminal justice system and an occasional airstrike or cruise missile attack.   Most Democrats believe we can negotiate with the jihadists and, through demonstrations of our good will and with minor concessions (such as throwing Israel overboard), reach a modus vivendi with them.   Democrats have an almost religious faith in the effectiveness of the United Nations and reject the idea that American national interest might requires action without the approval of that organization.  

Essentially, the Democrats would pretend that September 11th never happened; that the jihadists present no serious threat to our society; and, that American foreign policy is legitimate only is vetted by the U.N. Security Council.

I simply find it impossible to believe that the American voter would give this party control over the U.S. Congress.   To do so now, during these times, would represent a historical turning back from the call of history, a repudiation of American leadership of the struggle against barbarians intent on the destruction of Western civilization.   The jihadists, Iranians and North Koreans would perceive that the Bush administration has effectively suffered a vote of "no confidence" from the American people and will be paralyzed into inaction, unable to counter mischief.   Our enemies will view the American government as too busy with partisan infighting to concentrate on the external threat.  This view may not prove accurate, but our enemies will view their freedom to act as being greatly enhanced, thereby increasing the risk of miscalculation and conflict.  

American voters should ask themselves one question when they decide what party to support in this election: who would the jihadists prefer to win?    The jihadists are voting Democrat every day in Iraq by escalating the level of violence in a transparent effort to influence the result of our elections.  American voters should not reward them on November 7th by opting to return to power their party of choice.