UN HUMAN WRONGS COUCIL

It might come as no surprise that, here at Montag's World, we take a dim view of the United Nations. Despite the glowing and benign intentions expressed by the founders of this institution, the best that can be said about it is that it has become a debating forum for corrupt, third-rate, anti-Semitic, Third World bureaucrats.

Worse, it is totally incapable of seeing how corrupt, inept and ineffective it is. Despite, for instance, the absolute corruption of the UN Oil For Food program, Secretary General Koffi Annan was allowed to continue in his post. The UN is incapable of stopping any war or human rights violations, nor can it even recognize genocide, as exhibited by their fecklessness toward the Sudan and Darfur.

While siding with America's enemies at every turn, they insist upon destroying our own sovereignty. Yet they rely on our largess for their anti-American, anti- Liberty programs.

Perhaps the best solution to the problem I've heard involved moving the UN, approximately 500 feet to the East. Of course, that's mere humor and satire, since that would put the UN smack in the middle of the East River. But it does illustrate the frustration and anger that this world body engenders in many Americans.

Many Americans, that is, that are not members of the Left.

This may be something of a continuation of a theme from yesterday's column. For what we will examine today is the new UN Human Rights Council and its official in charged with investigating Israel, Prof. Richard Falk, of Princeton University.

It is perhaps laughable, if it weren't so despicable, that the United Nations has formed this council (see the story at NPR) to review all 192 member states of the UN regarding their human rights records. However, the first nation they plan on investigating is Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians. If that weren't bad enough, they unanimously chose Prof. Falk to lead the investigation.

So, who is Prof. Richard Falk? Why is he such a wrong choice for a study of the Israeli-Palestinian situation?

Prof. Richard Falk is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Law and Practice, Emeritus at Princeton University, Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara and a member of the World Federalist Institute, an organization dedicated to forming a world government and abolishing nation states.

In short, Prof. Falk is an extreme Leftist.

That the UN Human Rights Council selected him to a six year term investigating Israeli behavior vis a vis the Palestinians is curious, to say the least. According to the BBC, he is on record "drawing the comparison between the treatment of Palestinians with the Nazi record of collective atrocity, because of what he described as the massive Israeli punishment directed at the entire population of Gaza."

Hello! Israel is under daily attack by Muslims, and they are guilty of atrocities? Is this at all a point of concern to the Left? Probably not.

Nor is Prof. Falk backing down from his comments. The BBC further elucidates with another quote:

"If this kind of situation had existed for instance in the manner in which China was dealing with Tibet or the Sudanese government was dealing with Darfur, I think there would be no reluctance to make that comparison."

Apparently, Prof. Falk wasn't paying attention to the UN and its failure to condemn China and the Sudan.

To say that Prof. Falk is anti-Israel would be to vastly understate the case. The man has no willingness to at all consider the simple fact that Israel was the first free nation in the Middle East, that Palestinians in Israel have more freedom and Liberty than in any other Arab nation.

But then, Prof. Falk seems to be incapable of understanding that Islamo-fascists are really out to kill Americans and bring the Global Caliphate to fruition. The New York Sun reports that he is also calling for a UN investigation into the role of American neo-cons in the 9/11 attacks.

That's right, folks! Richard Falk is also one of those 911Truth.org maniacs. These are those poor, deluded souls who think that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were really inside jobs, perpetrated by the Bush administration at the urging of the neo-cons, for the express purpose of invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

Please note that Liberals always use the word "neo-cons" as a euphemism for "Jews". Just as they engage in projection when claiming Conservatives are bigots (see Real Racism and its Lethal Consequences in yesterday's Montag's World) the tag, "neo-cons" is a code word. In this way, they can deflect any accusations of anti-Semitism.

Not only did Prof. Falk write the forward for David Ray Griffin's 2004 conspiracy theory book, The New Pearl Harbor, he actively sought to find a publisher for the book.

On March 24th, 2008, Prof. Falk, in an interview with radio host Kevin Barrett, said the following:

"It is possibly true that especially the neoconservatives thought there was a situation in the country and in the world where something had to happen to wake up the American people. Whether they are innocent about the contention that they made that something happen or not, I don't think we can answer definitively at this point. All we can say is there is a lot of grounds for suspicion, there should be an official inves-igation of the sort the 9/11 commission did not engage in and that the failure to do these things is cheating the American people and in some sense the people of the world of a greater confidence in what really happened than they presently possess."

He doesn't think he can answer the question of whether Americans made 9/11 happen? This, my Friends, is nothing short of wading in the fever swamps of paranoia. Why is this man allowed to walk about among us without adult supervision?

Kevin Barrett isn't much better, by the way. He is the co-founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth. Naturally, he speaks well of the demented professor saying, "I would put him on a list of scholars who are sympathetic to the 9/11 truth movement."

As can be seen from this YouTube clip, Mr. Barrett honestly believes that Islamo-fascists had nothing to do with 9/11, and that there is no reason to believe that other terrorist attacks around the world were by Muslims.

Of course, from my personal experience of graduates of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, I'm not really surprised. This is the most extreme of the most extreme Left in America. If Mr. Barrett was a professor there, and he was, that would go a long way to explain my radically Liberal friends who graduated from that school.

Getting back to the subject, though, here we have a man, who is obviously opposed to Israel and its right to defend itself from aggression, who has long been involved in anti-American causes, who actually contributes to the mental miasma known as 911Truth. And the United Nations appoints him to study Israeli violations of human rights?

Folks, the facts are clear. The United States has no business being in the United Nations. If they want to meet in New York, then let them pay the rent that the real estate actually deserves. While those Third World bureaucrats are at it, maybe they can also pay their parking tickets.

The UN has, without a doubt, long ago passed its use-by date. Time for America to get out and start leading the Free World!

Copyright April 10th, 2008

CAN'T TAKE THE LEFT SERIOUSLY ON NATIONAL SECURITY

Well, we once again have General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testifying to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Although the Democrats have toned down their rhetoric somewhat -- telling MoveOn.org not to run any "General Betray-us" ads and not stating outright that they think the good General is a liar -- they left little doubt on this, the first day of hearings, that the Left simply cannot be taken seriously on matters of national security.

The New York Times piece on the matter provides the quotes from the various Democratic contenders for the presidential nomination. Clearly, neither of them is ready for prime time.

Hillary, the lovely and talented wife of the priapic Bill, cited what The Times calls "sluggish political progress and a questionable recent Iraqi military campaign in Basra" to make the dubious point that the surge, ably led by Gen. Petraeus, wasn't working. Said the would-be Madame President, “It might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again."

Right! We aren't getting any results. Check your sources, Hillary. Violence all over Iraq has gone down. The Iraqi government has come up with oil revenue sharing plans. Sunnis, once given the cold shoulder in the Shiite majority government, are now taking their places in the government and the military with outstanding results. Oh, and that mission in Basra? Much has been made about the 1000 Iraqi deserters, but no mention of the 96% or more who stayed and fought bravely.

Just a little historical reminder: the Iraqis are trying to do what our Founding Fathers did when they formed our government. They are doing it under fire from outsiders (al Qaeda, Iran, and Syria) and they are doing it in a part of the world that hasn't seen anything like representative government in its entire history, until the founding of Israel in 1948. More importantly, they are doing it faster than our Founding Fathers. If this is failure, than we need far more of it in the world.

Speaking of Iran, none of the Democrats on the Armed Services Committee seemed at all interested in Gen. Petraeus' account of Iranian interference in Iraq, principally among the Shiite militias, but also through their puppet, Syria, which is arming and aiding al Qaeda and other Sunni fighters. It's not as if Iran doesn't have a dog in this fight. If the Democrats get their way, Iran will be left in control of Iraq, whether the Sunnis or the Shiites win out. Either way, they'll be dancing to Tehran's tune.

Which, of course, brings us to the Saintly One, Barak Obama, who spent his time in the limelight on the Committee to restate his view that the Iraq war was a “massive strategic blunder.” OK, so what do we do now, other than turn tail and run?

Elsewhere, Saint Obama has called for direct talks, a "diplomatic surge" he called it, with Iran, saying that "I do not believe we are going to be able to stabilize the situation without that." He also wants to put pressure on the Iraqis to step up to self governance by pulling American troops out. Said His Holiness: "I think that increased pressure in a measured way, in my mind, and this is where we disagree, includes a timetable for withdrawal. Nobody is asking for a precipitous withdrawal."

Did someone say, "Neville Chamberlain"? Saint Obama seems to think that if we just sit down with the mullah-tocracy of Iran and send our troops home from Iraq, all will be suddenly right in the world! Doesn't anyone read history anymore? We are talking about Islamo-fascists. Iran has made countless deals with the West. They've gotten concession after concession. And every one of those deals they have violated. So Saint Obama wants to talk some more? Let me know how that one works out!

While Saint Obama is making his pitch for a "diplomatic surge", it seems that Iran has been honoring past agreements about their nuclear program by announcing the completion of 6,000 new centrifuges to make even more fuel for a power program and, more likely, weapons use. This thanks to the outstanding (well, maybe not) efforts of the UN and the European Community, which has been trying to get Iran to stop.

Clearly, Saint Obama is not at all mature enough, nor knowledgeable enough, to take the helm of this great nation. Negotiating with Islamo-fascists is every bit as futile as negotiating with Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich. It's worse than futile. It lets our leaders slap themselves on the back for a job well done, while the real enemy laughs at our naivete and goes about the business of fascists everywhere: total global domination.

Which, by the way, is also the ultimate goal of Islam itself. On this matter, I don't think that the Republicans are much better than the Democrats. It annoys me to no end when President Bush says that the Islamic terrorists have hijacked a "great religion of peace". Even a casual perusal of the Qu'ran will show you how uninformed that is.

That being said, at least the Bush administration has taken this fight back to the enemy in their lands, rather than here in the United States. Whatever their weaknesses, the Republicans, especially the Conservatives, are far and beyond superior to the Democrats and the Left when it comes to national security.

Let's not forget that, until 9/11/2001, we were getting hit by Islamo-fascists at least once every other year. The Clinton years are especially illustrative. The absolute most that the Clintonistas did against al Qaeda was to fire a few cruise missiles. Even then, they tipped them off by warning Pakistan. Worse, they picked the day the priapic Bill Clinton was waiting to see if he had truly suborned Monica Lewinski's perjury before the grand jury. Other than those less than useless pinpricks, he did nothing!

On the other hand, the case can be made, based upon the afore mentioned statistics, that the Bush policies have actually made Americans safer. After all, how many attacks have we experienced since we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq?

Let me count... Oh! We haven't had any! Yet the Democrats still insist that President Bush has made us less safe than we were in the 1990's.

This is why the Left and the Democrats cannot be taken seriously on national security.

They really don't get it!

Copyright April 8th, 2008

WAR IN PERSPECTIVE

The Legacy Media -- by which, I mean, ABC, NBC, CBS, the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc. -- have been waiting for more than a year for this week's big story. Now they are pounding us over the head with it.

We are told that we have achieved "a grim milestone", according to ABC News. Voice Of America tells us that both Bush and Congress "Respond With Grim Messages to US Military Death Toll In Iraq". MSNBC, meanwhile, tells us that President Bush remains resolute, while Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi frets that “Americans also understand that the cost of the war to our national security, military readiness and our reputation around the world is immense and that the threat to our economy — as the war in Iraq continues to take us deeper into debt — is unacceptable."

All of these "news" stories are told in a way that purposely slants the message to the Left, toward the anti-war, toward the un-American and the unpatriotic. They are told in a way that is designed to make us believe that none of this is worth our time, money or blood. But is that an accurate picture?

Let's try to put things like war and peace into perspective. Let's look at what America represents and what we have done for the world. And let's examine how our Liberal friends denigrate our towering achievements.

First, by way of disclaimer, I am not, nor have I ever been a member of the United States Armed Services. I was just too young to be drafted for Viet Nam. When I was young and irresponsible, I led a young and irresponsible life. With the coming of the Gulf War I was too old to serve.

However, despite claims to the contrary from the Left, I am capable of forming an opinion on the matter and I see no reason not to share it with you, the reader. After all, most folks have no experience with being a murderer, yet they have opinions on the subject of murder. Half of all people will probably not get pregnant, but they have opinions on abortion. Most folks don't take drugs, but they have opinions about drug laws. Therefore, I will offer my opinions on war and peace.

No one who is sane actually wants a war. Wars should only be fought when our American interests are involved, either directly or through threats. At the same time, America cannot afford to back down from a fight, especially in these times of Islamo-fascism and international terrorism.

We will not debate here the justification for going to war in Iraq. I know the old shibboleth "Bush Lied People Died", and the constant refrain "So Where's the WMD's?" I won't belabor the point made by the 9/11 Commission Report's twenty three paragraphs detailing Iraq's cooperation with al Qaeda. Nor will we look at Kenneth Timmerman's excellent investigative reporting about Iraq's WMD's in his book, Shadow Warriors: The Untold Story of Traitors, Saboteurs, and the Party of Surrender . Nor will we consider George Sada, whose book, Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied & Survived Saddam detailed how Saddam hid those WMD's, with the help of Russia and Syria.

No, what we will look at is the Iraq War in the context of past American wars. The principal question asked will be "Why is the Iraq War death toll considered so important?"

It's easy enough to search the Internet and find out just how many Americans died in past wars. Wikipedia alone has a detailed accounting, from the Founding to today:

• The Revolutionary War: ~25,ooo
• The War of 1812: ~20,000
• World War I: 116,615
• World War II: 405,399

But the number that really jumps out a grabs you is that for the Civil War. That war, which only lasted four years, killed approximately 625,000 Americans. This is a stunning death toll, especially considering that the Union, which ultimately won that war, lost far more than the Confederacy.

Contrast that, if you will, with the Iraq War. We had just past the five-year mark of hostilities in Iraq and we have just reached the death toll of 4,000. How can anyone be other than thankful that our death toll is so low?

To be sure, no one wants dead American soldiers. The fact that the death toll is so low should not be used to minimize the sacrifice of those fallen soldiers. What we need to remember though, is that we are winning a war while keeping the risk to our soldiers at an absolute minimum.

Meanwhile, our friends on the Left are bemoaning the high number of wounded in Iraq. This sounds suspiciously like the new reports about air bags in cars, reducing the death rate from accidents, but increasing the injury rate. Obviously, given advances in modern medical treatments and advances in rapid transportation of the wounded, the ratio between the dead and the wounded will be much different than in past wars.

Let us also remember that this time around, as opposed to almost every war in our past, our military is completely volunteer. These men and women, on their own accord and with full knowledge of what they are getting into, put themselves in harms way. They do this for America, for American interests, and also for the betterment of their fellow Man, regardless of his nationality.

For despite the official reasons given for going into Iraq, there is also an ancillary benefit that has appeared. Iraq, and also Afghanistan, have, for the first time in their long and bloody history, elected governments. As a result of President George W. Bush and his efforts to defend our nation, and especially thanks to our brave men and women in our Armed Services, fully 55 million people actually had a say in their governance. And those people went to the polls to participate in spite of the threats from the Islamo-fascists that made the invasion of their nations so necessary.

The American Left may belittle these brave warriors. They may try to claim that they were stupid, or they were duped. They may try to make the case that they were so poor that they had no choice. The Left may claim that President Bush got us into the wars under false pretenses or, even worse, staged the attacks on 9/11 to justify the invasions.

These lies, however, will never besmirch the honor of the American soldier and his commitment to Liberty, both here in America and abroad.

So, although one death in combat may be too many, in the context of what America represents to the world -- Liberty -- 4,000 war dead really isn't that much, considering that not only America remains free, but that 55 million other human beings now have a chance for that very same precious, God-given commodity.

We, here at Montag's World, are proud to be Americans!

Copyright March 25th, 2008

REALITY CHECK

Many of my friends on the Left believe (rather, they claim to believe) that every single recommendation of the 9/11 Report should have immediately become law and/or official United States policy. Had President Bush, immediately upon entering the White House, presciently knew what those recommendations would be and enacted them in the first months of his presidency, 9/11 would never have happened.


Perhaps. But then, had Bill Clinton not had Jamie Gorelick build that wall between the CIA and the FBI, perhaps something could have been done earlier. Or, as demonstrated by Robert "Buzz" Patterson in his book Dereliction of Duty, if Bill actually took time out from Monica Lewinsky to take Osama bin Ladin down, perhaps this column might not be necessary.


Be that as it may, there are problems looming for the United States, problems that none of the current Big Three candidates for president seem likely to address. These problems all stem from one major issue: illegal immigration.


By way of disclaimer, let it be known that my position on illegal immigration has evolved somewhat. Now, being a radical free market social Conservative with major Libertarian tendencies, and all things being equal, I am generally an open borders kind of guy. Put the government back into its Constitutional bottle (end all social spending, cut taxes as low as possible, radically simplify the tax code, make English the official language, etc.) and no one would really care how many people came from what countries to make a life as an American. Should our economy have a downturn and we aren't able to absorb all those immigrants, well, the market would settle that: news of hard times would get back to the homeland and the flow of immigrants will slow, perhaps even stop.


Nowadays, however, all things are not equal at all. We were attacked on 9/11. Most of the nineteen hijackers were not only in the country illegally, they had multiple drivers' licenses and identities. It has become painfully obvious that open border policies have failed to prevent this act of war.


And what do our leaders, of both political parties, have to offer for solutions? Sadly, only more open borders.


Today's immigration mess didn't just appear out of thin air. The problem goes back at least forty years. Ted Kennedy, back then, decided that our old system of immigration wasn't fair enough. Twenty years later, immigrants from Europe, who by and large share our values, were discouraged in favor of Latin Americans. Not only that, enforcement of our borders was given short shrift.


Of course, twenty years later, there was a public outcry about the burgeoning illegal immigration problem. Ronald Reagan, facing a Democratically controlled Congress, made a deal. The idea was that the border would be closed but, in the meantime, illegal aliens already here were granted a one time amnesty. So what happened?


Well, the Democrats got their amnesty, but blocked all attempts to close our borders, despite their solemn promise. News of the amnesty went South, and still more desperate people went North. Today, we are given estimates of between twelve and twenty-two million illegal immigrants in America.


First of all, there is no way to enforce a serious legal code, not if almost anyone can enter the country at will. And then, how do they get around pesky identifications and taxes and such? No problema! That's what they have identity theft for!


Of course, absent the terrorist threat and absent a government actually following the Constitution, this situation is untenable. Consider how the federal government, either through acts of Congress or the courts, has mandated that these illegal aliens are eligible to all the rights and protections that citizens or legal immigrants are entitled. Consider also, the poor folks whose identities have been stolen for the illegals' benefit. You see, of course, that one broken law begets another, and another...


Now, let's throw in Islamo-fascism and the terrorist threat. The way our borders are currently enforced, does anyone really doubt that terrorists can easily get into the country through Mexico? Does anyone doubt that the "coyotes", those who engage in human smuggling, are taking offers from al Qaeda and the like?


If you doubt me on this, consider the 9/11 Report:

• According to the Report, al Qaeda owns, of all things, a travel agency in Mexico!


• The Report notes that the hijackers committed various irregularities regarding their visas, passports and other documents. Some entered the country illegally, some overstayed their visas, most had fraudulent drivers' licenses. All of this to gain access to American airliners to be used as guided missiles.


• Members of the panel asked many questions about the failures of our Immigration and Naturalization Service, as well as failures on the part of the FBI and the CIA

There is no doubt that, had our border enforcement been better, the 9/11 hijackers would not have had as easy a job to do.

Now, we have several recent stories, which I've culled from World Net Daily:

• Mexico has just arrested two Iraqis with false Bulgarian passports. They suspect that they are being purchased by jihadists for $10,000 from Mexicans in Greece.


• Quoting WND: "In addition, earlier this month, Norwegian authorities reported that Iraqis affiliated with al-Qaeda and former Baath Party members may have slipped into Kuwait after obtaining $15,000 Norwegian passports. Authorities in Kuwait say they are on the lookout for any Iraqi citizen bearing a Norwegian passport."


• Let's not forget that dozens of Iraqis were arrested entering Monterrey, Mexico, illegally, heading for the United States.


• Joseph Farrah, the editor of WND reported in 2003: "While President Bush considers a broad-based amnesty plan for millions of illegal aliens in the U.S., there is growing evidence the Mexican border continues to be used as a covert entry point for the smuggling of Arabs into the country."

We are facing a very serious threat, my Friends. While Chuck Schumer might holler for stricter security in our ports, he has little positive to say about securing our borders.

President George W. Bush has been strong on the War on Terror (God bless him!) but when it comes to securing the border? Chuck Schumer might as well have been the president, for all the differences (or lack thereof) in their positions regarding "comprehensive immigration reform".

John McCain likes to "reach across the aisle" to the Democrats. In this case, we just dodged a bullet with the McCain-Kennedy Bill, also supported by President Bush, which would totally fail to close our borders, while simultaneously granting amnesty to all those illegal aliens who've broken our laws. Been there, done that in 1986. In this time of war, do we need to repeat the mistake of Ronald Reagan?

Yes, McCain has promised on the campaign trail that he "gets it". He's learned his lesson and that he will shut down our borders but good the first thing when he gets to the White House. Yup! And I can sell you a slightly used bridge in Brooklyn for a measly couple of grand. With McCain in the White House and the Democrats in charge of the Congress, we'll have almost all of Mexico, along with whatever al Qaeda operatives there are, in the US and voting Democrat within ten years.

Hillary and Obama aren't any different either. Both want our borders open. Both favor granting illegals drivers' licenses. Neither of them, in last night's debate in Texas, wantto take a stance on making English our official language. In short, both like the influx of unskilled, under educated, illegal immigrants who have no interest in actually becoming Americans. Of course, that would, presumably, not be an obstacle when registering them as Democrats!

Now don't think that I am anti-immigrant. On the contrary, I love immigrants. I'm the grandson of immigrants. But I want immigrants who come here to become Americans. These are not the sort who become illegal aliens.

Read my opening comments about open borders, all things being equal. The mess we're in today is because my ideas about government and immigration were never implemented. We opened our borders without putting the government back into it's Constitutional bottle.

Then again, when I was an open borders guy, we weren't at war. As many folks have noted, 9/11 changes things. What we found out in the aftermath is that we are far too vulnerable thanks to illegal immigration.

My fear is that too many of our political elites, on both sides of the political divide, just don't see it.

Copyright Feb. 22nd 2008

WE'RE WINNING! WE'RE LOSING! I'M SO CONFUSED!

If you're confused also, you're not alone. Trolling through the Internet for newsworthy items to comment upon, I found two headlines on The Drudge Report right next to each other. The first, from The Politico said "Pelosi calls Iraq a 'failure' ". The second, from the British Times Online said just the opposite: "Al-Qaeda leaders admit: 'We are in crisis. There is panic and fear'".

So which is the truth and which is the lie? Well, according to Montag's Immutable Law of Nature No. 6 ("What's good for America is bad for the Democrats and vice versa") it would have to be Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat Speaker of the House.

Oh, to be sure, Ms. Pelosi made a point of praising out troops in Iraq. “The troops have succeeded, God bless them.” After all, the Democrats' canards have always included "But we support the troops!"

So, if the troops have succeeded, where is the failure? The Politico tells us that Ms. Pelosi explains: “The purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq. They have not done that.”

Don't worry, folks! I'm as confused as you are! The troops have succeeded, but they have failed? That's sort of like John Kerry: "I actually voted for the $87 billion -- before I voted against it." Will the Legacy Media rush to Pelosi's defense and say that she, like Kerry, are too nuanced and intelligent for us mere mortals to understand?

The simple fact is, today's Democratic Party is owned -- lock, stock and barrel -- by the Kook Fringe. These are the lunatics who are still fighting over the 2000 election and how it was "stolen" from Al Gore. Many of them even think the 2004 election was stolen from Kerry. These are the guys who tell us it was all a war for oil, while the price keeps shooting through the roof. They are also those freaks who frequent web sites like 9/11 Truth and such. And if a Democrat dares to be sane? Well, look what happened to Joe Leiberman. The Kook Fringe Base will try to destroy him.

Pelosi goes on at length, denigrating the achievements we have made in Iraq. When asked by Wolf Blitzer (the report was about a CNN interview) if she wasn't worried about losing any ground gained by the surge, she replied:

“There haven't been gains, Wolf. The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure. The troops have succeeded, God bless them. We owe them the greatest debt of gratitude for their sacrifice, their patriotism, and for their courage and to their families as well."

People, you can't make this stuff up! The troops have succeeded, but Iraq hasn't had the reconcilliation that Ms. Pelosi wants. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Constitution has no provision for the Speaker of the House to handle foreign policy, right? I mean, that's an Executive Branch responsibility, isn't it? I thought so.

And hasn't General David Petraeus reported, in an interview with Reuters, that the influx of foreign jihadists entering Iraq is down some 50%? And this is a failure how?

Could Iraq be doing better in the political sphere? I'm sure they could. But they just elected their own government, and they've got an awful lot on their plate. After all, the Founding Fathers didn't just conjur up a government immediately after the Revolutionary War. It takes time to build the institutions that make up a government.

And wasn't it only a couple of years ago that the Left was accusing the United States of creating a puppet government in Iraq? If it's a puppet government, then why can't the President just order the reconcilliation expected by Nancy Pelosi?

No, the Iraqis are governing themselves, and any reconcilliation or political reforms will be on their terms, not Nancy Pelosi's. But then when haven't the Democrats want things both ways?

Meanwhile, we have to go to Britain's Time Online to find out that captured documents and letters from Al Qaeda in Iraq show that the terrorist organization is crumbling and in disarray, thanks to the surge in American troops and the wholesale defection of Sunni tribal leaders who have decided to join the Americans and the Iraqi government in fighting the insurgents.

Correct me once again, but, if the Sunni tribal leaders are joining the Iraqi government, isn't that reconcilliation? What in the world is Nancy Pelosi talking about?

Well, don't expect Ms. Pelosi or Hillary or Barak to get any tough questions about American successes in Iraq. After all, we had to go to a British paper to find out about them. Haven't you noticed how Iraq has dropped from the Legay Media's coverage of the news? Sure! I know that "if it bleeds it leads" and all that. But let's not forget the political ripples good news such as this can create.

The Legacy Media is -- let's face it -- in the tank with the Democratic Party. L. Brent Bozzell and others have long ago documented their Liberal bias. It is an established fact. And since the Legacy Media is in bed with the Democrats, then you just know that any news that's good for America will be buried and/or ignored. So you can guarantee that the leaders of the Democratic Party won't get any serious questions about out successes in Iraq.

But then, that's what the New Media is all about. I'm talking about talk radio, places like the Drudge Report and Montag's World, the little blog that could!

Don't think that we'll let this happy nonsense slide by unremarked!

Copyright Feb. 11th, 2008

THE FOX AND THE HEN HOUSE

In searching for a solution to the ongoing hostilities in Iraq, we've had our friends on the Left squawking for "a new direction". Of course, they offer little in the way of actual suggestions. Among the most laughable was Jack Murtha saying he didn't want to cut and run, but to redeploy the troops somewhere in the region, somewhere like Okinawa.

Recently, we've had the Iraq Study Group, led by known multi-lateralist James Baker. True to form in Washington DC, the ostensibly secret meetings leaked like a sieve. One suggestion leaked was that the US seek the aid of Iran and Syria in quelling the violence in Iraq.

Probably to derail such a US effort, Iran and Syria made overtures to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to work on ways to secure Iraq's security.

Question: Why isn't this like Adolph Hitler making overtures to the Polish government to help them from their attempted rescue by the Allies?

If there is any doubt that Iran and Syria are the last countries to ask for help in Iraq, let's just look at how they are helping Lebanon. Hezbollah has rearmed and is stronger than ever, thanks to the Bush Administration pressuring Israel to a ceasefire before the irregular wing of the Iranian Army was destroyed. One after one, each and every politician in Lebanon who is opposed to Syrian influence is assassinated, most recently Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel yesterday.

Oh, and let's not forget a moment that Iran runs Syria which has been funding, manning, and arming the Sunni insurgency. And while we're at it, let's not forget that Iran also runs the Shiite militias that have been running roughshod over the Iraqi body politic.

Iran, it seems, has been playing both sides against the middle in Iraq ever since the fall of Saddam. Iran is the source of almost all the IED's that have been plaguing our troops. They have been helping to ship in foreign fighters for the cause of jihad.

So why would the Iraq Study Group want to invest so much hope in Iran? Recall, James Baker was the same guy who helped shape Bush the Elder's policy vis a vis Iraq back in 1991. Those guys thought it would be best for all involved to leave Saddam Hussein in power. They had as much faith in America's ability to lead the world as, well... as Democrats.

As for al Maliki, can we question his decision? Intellectually, I suppose we can. But in actual practice? He was duly elected by his people to lead his nation and who he talks to is really up to him. Personally, I wish he wouldn't. But I am not an Iraqi, so I don't have a say.

However, here in America, we have to look at these multilateralists and ask: What's wrong with you?

In 2004, we had John Kerry talking about "passing the global test" and embracing France, a country that wouldn't help us get Hitler out of Paris, let alone Saddam out of Baghdad. Now we have folks urging us to pull out of Iraq so that the terrorrists will like us like they did before we elected George Bush the Younger. We have American radical groups founded by noted Marxists and staffed by the grandchildren of convicted and executed Soviet spies suing in Germany to have our Secretary of Defense charged with war crimes. And Charlie Rangel wants the draft to stop war and get cheap labor for the Nanny State.

And still, the limp spined cry out for an international consensus before America does anything. We are now to be "citizens of the world", and forsake loyalty to the country that the rest of humanity wishes it could live in or be like.

At the risk of repeating my essay on First Principals, let me remind you, Faithful Readers, that America is the one country that does, and has done, more than all other nations combined throughout the entire history of the world to better the lot of all mankind. We feed more people. We have allowed more folks to achieve a degree of Liberty heretofore unheard of. We have deposed more tyrants than any other nation in history.

In short, America is the one force for good in this world that can be relied upon to actually succeed. And where we have failed? It was merely a loss of will. We gave up, plain and simple, in Viet Nam.

And the Democrats want us to give up again in Iraq. They want to relive their glory days, when the attended protest marches, unbathed, and "stuck it to the man, man!"

They simply do not believe that America is, in fact, a force for good. When Liberals are asked

if it is good that Saddam Hussein is no longer torturing, raping and executing his people, many actually say "No! Iraq was better off under Saddam". Those are the rare brutally honest Liberals. Most hem and haw and try to change the subject.

If Iraq wants to have Iranian/Syrian help with the insurgency, then there is little the US can do about it. We went there to give the people of Iraq control of their country and this is a decision of their own elected officials.

But I will say that this is a terrible idea. It is putting the fox in charge of the hen house, nothing less.

Copyright November 22nd, 2006

One wonders just what is in the water in Washington DC. Or is it up in Harlem, in NYC, where Charlie Rangel's district is located? Something is wrong somewhere, but I don't know where!

What is old Charlie thinking about? It seems that every year, he proposes that America reinstate the draft.

In 2003 and 2004 he used the draft as a scare tactic. In the youth media, the idea seemed to spread like wildfire. Bush was going to reinstate the draft! The Republicans didn't have enough bodies to feed to the war machine! Old folks were going to murder more of America's youth to further their mad plans of world domination!

What was left out of all these hysterical screeds was the simple fact that it was Charlie Rangel (D.-NY) who sponsored the bill. Of course, it was all Bush's fault that he had to do it. He was just trying to save the American military from being undermanned.

So, in 2004, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives called Charlie's bluff. They put his bill up for a vote. And it failed to pass, 402 to 2.

Of course, you would guess that Charlie Rangel was one of the two. And you would be wrong! Not only did Rangel vote against his own bill, he sent out letters to his colleagues urging them to also vote against it.

He tried it again this past year, offering up another bill to reinstate the draft, but the Republican controlled House wasn't going to give him another chance to embarrass himself.

Now, with both houses of Congress in Democratic hands, Old Charlie is back! Slated to be Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, he is dusting off his old bottle of snake oil and is offering up to the new leaders of Congress.

Even with his own party in control, there doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm to reinstate the draft. Little wonder, since, when given a chance, Rangel didn't even support his own bill.

This begs the question: Why would Charlie Rangel, a flaming Liberal albeit not actually clinically insane, engage in such an obvious exercise in futility? Is Charlie losing it? Or is he merely crazy like a fox?

Although I asked the question, I will refrain from speculating on Rangel's sanity. Perhaps we should look at his own explanation:

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administrationwould
never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that waspresented to
the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congressand the
administration thought that their kids from their communities wouldbe placed in
harm's way."

Ah! That explains it! This is all part of a plan to ensure that America never goes to war again! We'll ignore, for the moment, the simple fact that we went to war in the past while the draft was still in effect.

That might actually work, since the Viet Nam War garnered so much opposition due to the unpopularity of the draft. Of course, the constant misreporting of the fighting might have something to do with it.

No, there must be something more. What else could Charlie Rangel be after? Well, he had this to say on the matter:

"I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft. I
think to do so is hypocritical."

Is that it? Another attempt to demonize Republicans? He certainly won't get Democrats to vote to reinstate the draft, especially since he won't vote for it. No, I think we have to dig a bit deeper. Here's what else Rangel had to say:

"If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as
somepeople have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without
adraft."

Oh, so he supports redeploying the troops from Iraq into Iran? That can't be right! He hasn't supported any military action anywhere it would actually do America any good. Haiti? Send 'em in! Bosnia? Bomb 'em into the Stone Age! Islama-fascist terrorist? Absolutely not! We might lose some soldiers and France would hate us!

Charlie Rangel has made the accusation that the voluntary military, which has done America just fine for the last generation or so, puts too many poor and minority youth into harm's way, since, according to this theory, the military is the only way for them to get an education and job skills. Again, for the purposes of this essay, we will ignore the facts, which are that the military has a higher education than the average of the American population and that it represents a pretty accurate cross section of the American population, except, of course, for those whose minds were poisoned by the Upper West Side Liberals who hate the military.

Wait a second! Hold the phone! Wasn't this exactly what that stuffed suit, John Kerry, said about our troops with his "botched joke"? I do believe it is! Said the humorously challenged Senator:

"You know, education--if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do
yourhomework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you
don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

We must be barking up the wrong tree, because this is what all Liberals think about our military personnel. What other things are Liberals interested in? What about socialism? We return to Charlie Rangel's comments. He spoke of alternatives to military service, saying:

"young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to
thisgreat republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools,
inhospitals."

And, naturally, there would be various incentives like education benefits to be handed out to those who are drafted. Yes, folks! We are talking about the Nanny State again! Cradle to the Grave, Charlie Rangel and the Left want to take care of us. Don't you feel all warm and fuzzy knowing this?

If you dig far enough into a story about the Democrats, sooner or later you get to the truth. Charlie Rangel doesn't want the draft to improve the military or to expand the War on Terror. In fact, he doesn't even believe that we are at war with Islama-fascists. He doesn't want to embarrass the Republicans. His chairmanship of the House Ways and Means committee is embarrassment enough.

No, Old Charlie wants the draft to further his dreams of a socialist Utopia, wherein all of us pull together for the "common good", as defined by the Liberal elites. Does this sound like the America we grew up in?

Do we really need a draft to get people to "volunteer" to work in hospitals and such? Can anyone really be a "volunteer" when he is drafted to do it?If you are as confuse as me, maybe there really is something wrong with the water in at least one of Charlie Rangel's offices.

I just hope it isn't contagious.

The idea of the draft is, well, daft!

Copyright Nov. 21st. 2006