WAKE UP CALL!

This just in from Reuters: Muslims are now more numerous than Roman Catholics. Until 2006, the Roman Catholic faith was the single largest denomination in the world, at about 1.13 billion people. Islam is now estimated to hold the allegiance of 1.3 billion.

This is not to say that Catholicism is losing membership. The article points out that, as a percentage of the world's population, Roman Catholics still account for about 17.4%, as they have for years. What accounts for the difference is a much higher birth rate for Muslims.

Christianity as a whole, still counts for 33% of the population, or about 2 billion people. Islam, however, is growing fast.

All things being equal, this news shouldn't cause too much alarm. We here at Montag's World are all about religious tolerance. Hey, you can believe in anything (or nothing) you want, so long as you don't try to force your beliefs on me or mine.

Which is where the problem with Islam comes in. Tolerance is not exactly one of the virtues of Islam. Nor do the fundamentalists among them have any love for such niceties as "separation of mosque and state", religious freedom, representative government, gay rights, women's rights, or just about anything else we in America take for granted.

In short, all things are not equal. We are looking at a faith whose mindset dates back almost 1,500 years and which is bent upon world domination, or The Global Caliphate.

If you doubt me on these points, then read the works of Mark A. Gabriel. Personally, if I were to take any one's word on the subject of Islam, it would be Prof. Gabriel's. The man was once a scholar of the Qu'ran in Egypt, until he had a crisis of faith involving matters of Jihad and terrorism. When he converted to Christianity, he had to flee Egypt and take his current name, both for his own protection and that of his family back home. He details how the Qu'ran commands the faithful, in no uncertain terms, to "slay the infidel" (that would be you and me, folks!) or make them "submit" (which is the actual translation of the word "Islam") to Islam through either conversion or a tax so steep that it is only just short of death.

Then again, you can read Craig Winn's excellent book, Prophet of Doom, online. Winn insightfully blends four or five different translations of the Qu'ran, the Hadith, and the Sunnah, or the recorded history of Mohammad and his "religion" written by Bukhari, Mulim, Ishaq, and Tabari. These aren't rabid bigots, or "virulent" Zionists casting false accusations against Islam. These are the earliest and the most trusted sources of the faith.

Let's put aside Political Correctness and get honest here. Islam has been at war with the world (indeed, even with Muslims themselves) ever since Mohammad came down from his mountain. As Mr. Winn writes:

Islam is a caustic blend of regurgitated paganism and twisted Bible stories. Muhammad, its lone prophet, conceived his religion solely to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money. He was a terrorist. And if you think these conclusions are shocking, wait until you see the evidence.

The critics of this work will claim that Prophet of Doom is offensive, racist, hatemongering, intolerant, and unnecessarily violent. I agree - but I didn't write those parts. They came directly from Islam's scriptures. If you don't like what Muhammad and Allah said, don't blame me. I'm just the messenger.

That's right, folks! This is the Qu'ran and Islam's oldest, "holiest" writings saying these things.

Being that the Qu'ran calls Jihad the most important work of the faithful (and no, Allah isn't talking about "the spiritual fight of the inner soul", as many apologists speciously claim) it is absolutely reasonable that this heightened birth rate can be construed as "Jihad by other means". In other words, where they can't slay us outright, they merely breed faster than we can. Either way can further Islam and bring about the Global Caliphate.

I don't pretend to know the answer. After all, how can you fight 1.3 billion people? Is the rest of the Western World even aware of the danger that this burgeoning "religion" represent? Will we in America have the stomach to face this peril?

There is one thing, though, that we can -- indeed, we must -- do. We must recognize the truth of the enemy. Saying things like "Islam is the religion of peace", like we were some kind of Miss America contestant, is merely hiding our collective head in the sand. What "religion of peace" kills victims of rape because they dishonored their families? What "religion of peace" stages violent protests against mere cartoons?

Ann Coulter once famously said, "Muslims are the only group who kill because they're angry people have called them violent."

That woman is so right in so many ways!

Copyright March 30th, 2008

WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?

One group of folks are never asked, by the Legacy Media at least, which American political parties they prefer. Yet, you can look between the lines of the Legacy Media and see a few signs.

Take the bombing of the New York City Army recruiting station in Times Square this morning. Who would do such a thing? Personally, I find it telling that eight Democrats from New York received letters ranting about America and including a photo of the station. Why would they send them to Democrats?

Then again, there's this story from South America. It seems that, when Colombian forces took out that FARC camp in Ecuador, they found a bit of intel. One of the terrorists killed in the attack had a laptop computer, which gave up all sorts of evidence that Hugo Chavez, the diminutive dictator of Venezuela, has been helping them along for the last ten years.

This laptop contained correspondence between Raul Reyes, the lead terrorist killed who also served as the "public face" of FARC; Manuel Marulanda, the legendary supreme leader of the Marxist group; and Ivan Marquez, FARC's man in Venezuela. The upshot of the documents on the seized laptop is that Venezuela is working with FARC to overthrow the government of Colombia, which is an American ally.

Also, little remarked upon in the Legacy Media, is this little datum: it seems that FARC and Chavez are rooting for Saint Obama in the US presidential race. Reports World Net Daily:

Writing two days before his death, Reyes tells his secretariat comrades that "the gringos," working through Ecuador's government, are interested "in talking to us on various issues."
"They say the new president of their country will be (Barack) Obama," noting that Obama rejects both the Bush administration's free trade agreement with Colombia and the current military aid program.
Reyes said the response he relayed is that the U.S. would have to publicly express that desire.

So, apparently, someone in Saint Obama's camp is working with Marxist narco-terrorist, who fund their operations with the poison sold to our people, who murder, bomb and kidnap, and who seek the violent overthrow of a government friendly to the United States. Where have we seen this before?

Looking at past behavior, one can be certain that the Democrats in Congress, as well as those vying for the Presidency, will not be entirely friendly with the Colombian government. After all, Charlie Rangel (D-NY) feted Fidel Castro, another friend of FARC, when he last visited New York. And more recently, he had a trip to Cuba partly funded by the Castro government.

We all remember, also, the hapless Jimmy Carter, who allowed one ally of the United States after another to fall to Marxist and Islamo-fascist forces. And the Democrats who sided with Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas, while President Reagan, whose power it was as President, was trying to unseat the Marxists and let the people of Nicaragua have a chance at electing their own government.

Well, Ortega got elected el Presidente of Nicaragua last year, and he's been pretty chummy with Chavez and the Castro boys. Now, he's dabbling in American politics. The International Herald Tribune reports Saint Obama has received the endorsement of formet Soviet lackey and Marxist thug Daniel Ortega.

It just gets more and more surreal, folks! Not only does Saint Obama have a rather sordid and Marxist past (see It's An Obama-Nation!) he is now garnering the support of noted, if not in all cases still breathing, Marxists from South America.

Is he walking and quacking enough like a duck yet?

Aaron Kline, the Israeli journalist and author of Schmoozing With Terrorists, has documented exhaustively the preference of Jihadists and other Islamo-fascists for Democrats and Liberals in American politics. Take any video or audio tape by Osamma bin Ladin, for instance. Every point he raises comes straight out of the Democrats talking points memos.

The Democrats, I've often pointed out, cannot be trusted to define, let alone defend America's national interests. Historically, they have been on the wrong side, every time:

• The sided with the Confederacy


• They promulgated Jim Crowe and fought the Civil Rights Act of 1964


• The started (with a lie) the Viet Nam War and then tried to hang Nixon with it, in the end causing us to quit, rather than to achieve victory.


• They opposed the liberation of Kuwait.


• They opposed Reagan's efforts to win the Cold War.


• And now they oppose America actually winning another, more dangerous, war, the War on Terror.

With a track record like this, is it any wonder that America's enemies are rooting for Saint Obama?

Copyright March 6th, 2008

DON'T BELIEVE IN ELF'S!

What with the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11, the War on Terror, bombing raids in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, as well as various covert operations around the world, it would be quite easy to forget that, here in America, we have our own homegrown terrorists.

Some of them are radicalized Muslims. Tim McVeigh is often blamed on the Right, although not even the militia movement would have him. And Liberals and other Pro-Choicers love to point to the two or three cases where a Pro-Lifer shot an abortion doctor or planted a bomb in an attempt to prove it is the Right that is violent.

These cases, however, pale before another loosely affiliated group. This group is estimated by the FBI to be responsible for more than 1,200 "criminal incidents (vandalism, terrorism, theft, destruction, etc.) with damage estimates into the tens of millions of dollars. Indeed, this group is regarded by law enforcement and Homeland Security officials to be the leading domestic terror organization in the country. In fact, just this morning, they made the headlines once again with the destruction of five luxury homes in Woodinville, northeast of Seattle, Wa.

This group is none other than the Earth Liberation Front., or ELF. I really don't know why, but when you Google ELF you have to follow a link for Viagra. So please ignore the ad at the top of their site.

Begun in England as an offshoot of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), the terrorist organization quickly spread throughout Europe, eventually arising in North America. The organization is very loose, with individuals or cells working independently and rarely seeking public attention. This is to avoid scrutiny and surveillance by the authorities.

Although there has yet to be a fatality attributed to ELF, that is merely a matter of pure luck. They are known to drive spikes into trees meant for harvest as lumber, jeopardizing the life and limb of the poor lumberjack who hits said spike with his chainsaw.

Arson and explosives are also a favorite weapon of these "eco-terrorists", as they have become known. Car dealerships that offer SUV's, ski lodges, fur farms, laboratories, almost anything that they can claim is injurious to the Earth and its inhabitants, can be a target. The term they use for their vandalism and violence is "monkeywrenching".

Early acts were rather small: gluing the locks on a neighborhood McDonald's while defacing the property with their mottoes. Spiking trees soon followed, as did actually living in the trees to prevent their harvest. Laboratories were trashed as their animals were "rescued", setting back years of medical research. In one case, dozens of minks were released into the wild, the Elves, as they call themselves, not realizing that the minks would turn on each other resulting in painful death for most of the animals they "saved".

The began to set their sights on bigger targets as time went by. Car dealerships are destroyed on a regular basis. In 1998, they burned down a ski resort in Vail, Co.

They tageted a 200-plus unit condominium in San Diego, Ca., leaving behind posters saying "If you build it, we will burn it" and "The ELF's are mad". This act caused some $20 million of damage and required the heroic efforts of more than 100 firefighters. As noted before, it was only a matter of luck that no one was injured or killed.

The blaze today northeast of Seattle, Wa, comes as Briana Waters' trial for eco-terrorism begins for her role in the destruction of the Center for Urban Horticulture, at the University of Washington's Tacoma campus. Not only are these enviro-weenies dangerous, they aren't too terribly bright. Apparently, they were under the mistaken assumption that the lab they destroyed was engaging in genetic modification of trees for an urban environment. They mistook breeding for gene modification.

The Woodinville homes were showcases of luxury homes that are actually friendly to the environment. They were "Built Green", as the practice is called, using technologies such as water permeable sidewalks, extra insulation, and recycled materials. Unfortunately for the Northwest division of Centex Homes, the builder of the destroyed homes, that wasn't good enough for ELF, which left behind a banner reading ""Built green? Nope black! McMansions in RCD's [an acronym for "rural cluster developments"] r not green. ELF"[sic]

Not only are the ELF's environmentally conscious, they are also only semi-literate.

One thing that should be noted is that firefighters were kept away from the burning homes for fear of booby traps. Again, it is only a matter of luck that no one has been hurt yet by these vicious idiots.

It should come as no surprise that these eco-terrorists are Leftist anarchists, closely related to ideologically to the sort of Marxist bombers represented by Bill Ayers, a friend of Saint Obama (see It's An Obama-nation!) Indeed, their goals are almost identical: the destruction of American economic power, the radical redistribution of wealth, and the institution of socialist Utopian ideals.

Nor should it be news to anyone that their acts of arson and violence are usually more destructive of the environment than their targets themselves. After all, how much worse is a raging inferno, pollution wise, than a McMansion or an SUV left unmolested?

Years ago, Rush Limbaugh coined the term "watermelons" to describe the modern environmentalist movement. For, you see, just like the favorite summer snack, the modern environmentalist is green on the outside, but red on the inside.

Truer words have never been said!

Copyright March 3rd, 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

NO COMPARISON

Now it is all but official. John McCain has little, or nothing, between him and the Republican nomination. The rest of the primaries might be nothing more than formalities.


Mitt Romney has stepped aside, leaving Mike Huckabee angling for the Number Two spot in McCain's inexorable drive to the Republican nomination. Ron Paul, playing to part of the "crazy uncle in the attic that no one likes to talk about", is still in the race. Of course, that is merely for comic relief at this point.


Having read the speeches today of both Romney and McCain, I thought that a comparison would be in order. The two candidates show remarkably different attitudes toward Conservatives.


John McCain finds himself in terra incognita. His is one of the only campaigns that, having secured the nomination (or all but the signature on the document) he has to go back and secure his base. Ever since Richard Nixon, Republican candidates had to make more Conservative noises to gain the nomination, and then had to move "toward the center" to secure the election itself. Similarly, Democrats had to appease their most Liberal base for the nomination and move to the center in the general election. John McCain finds himself with broad support among Liberals, Democrats, moderates and Independents.


Unfortunately, the base of the Republican Party -- Conservatives, that is -- have been left cold by his penchant for "reaching across the aisle". McCain correctly notes that the Gold Standard for Conservatives, Ronald Reagan, often "reached across the aisle" to Democrats. This is supposed to allay Conservative fears, I guess. But Conservatives know that this is misrepresenting what Reagan was about.


Sure, Ronald Reagan "reached across the aisle" to the Democrats. However, he did so to bring them over to his point of view. Reagan didn't move his policies to the Left when he "reached across the aisle", he moved the Democrats to the Right. On the other hand, McCain has made a two decade career of siding with the Democrats on issue after issue.

• He explained his vote against the Bush tax cuts with Democratic rhetoric, calling them "tax cuts for the rich".


• He has sided with the Democrats over the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, urging the closure of the base and the inclusion of enemy combatants in American civilian courts and prisons, presumably giving them access to the same rights as American criminals. He would also deny our interrogators the tools they need to quickly elicit information from detainees that would prevent further terrorist attacks.


• He has sponsored the most serious breech of the First Amendment in American history, teaming up with Russ Feingold to create campaign finance "reform", which neither gets money out of politics, nor empowers anyone but the Legacy Media and the unions. Does anyone seriously believe that he would ever appoint judges to the Supreme Court who would rule against McCain-Feingold?


• Speaking of judges, McCain led the infamous "Gang of 14", that left the Senate with the ability to block any judges they disliked with a minority of dissenting votes, rather than the majority demanded by the Constitution.


• McCain-Kennedy, meanwhile, made a mockery of the rule of law, failing to secure our borders, while simulaneously creating all sorts of incentives to violate American immigration law. He claims it isn't really amnesty, but it didn't provide for any real enforcement and totally ignored border security.


• And what Conservative in his right mind would suddenly decide that Global Warmism can be averted with Cap & Trade laws that would, incidently, stifle the American economy? And yet, here we have the putative nominee of the GOP cosponsoring the economically devastating McCain-Leiberman Bill.


• McCain is claiming the Pro-Life mantle, while voting for embryonic stem cell research, and opposing a Constitutional amendment to define, once and for all, marriage as a state between a man and a woman. So why vote for Barak or Hillary, when we've got McCain?

Now, today, with the nomination all but sewn up, John McCain speaks before the Conservative Political Action Committee, or C-PAC. Suddenly, he's a Conservative. He tells this august body of Conservative thinkers and activists that he has "a responsibility, if I am, as I hope to be, the Republican nominee for President, to unite the party and prepare for the great contest in November." So, where was he for the last 25 years?

He also makes this spectacular claim: "I am proud to be a conservative, and I make that claim because I share with you that most basic of conservative principles..." Of course, in "reaching across the aisle", one should never let those "most basic of principles" get in the way!

Lest you might confuse him with being blind to his controversial nature, McCain acknowledges his "occasional" lapses from Conservative philosophy: "Surely, I have held ... positions that have not met with widespread agreement from conservatives." Looking back at the above list, one could be excused for exclaiming, "Well, DUH!" Apparently, the Senator from Arizona has been hiding a mastery of understatement.

Of the November elections, he says that, rather than debating small differences between the Parties "We are arguing about hugely consequential things." OK! But where, exactly, besides the surge in Iraq, does McCain really differ from the Democrats?

In summation, McCain says that he is the Conservative candidate because he says he is. Therefore, all us Conservatives need to get over any belief that "...I have occasionally erred in my reasoning as a fellow conservative..." and get behind him as the Republican nominee.

This is condescending at best. This is almost as insulting as Dorothy Rabinowitz calling Conservative critics of John McCain and his record "semi psychotic". As far as I'm concerned, the only thing "semi psychotic" is this inane effort to recast Conservatism as John McCain. Such an effort is Orwellian.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has shown what a class act he really is. Yes, he dropped out of the primary race. But he did so for the best of reasons: he wants to see whomever the Democratic nominee is to go down in defeat in November. Hence, although he has garnered enough support around the nation to continue, especially among Conservatives, he would step aside to prevent the sort of internecine bloodletting that would all but hand the White House over to the Democrats.

Of the need for Conservative values, he said "We face a new generation of challenges, challenges which threaten our prosperity, our security and our future."

And of failure to embrace these Conservative principles? "I am convinced that unless America changes course, we will become the France of the 21st century—still a great nation, but no longer the leader of the world, no longer the superpower."

Truer words have never been spoken! One of France's biggest problems is that it is losing its culture thanks to unrelenting Muslim immigration and an overexpansive welfare state. An Obama or Hillary administration (or McCain, for that matter) will send us ever onward down that slippery slope.

Romney warns us of the perils of electing a Liberal to the White House: "Economic neophytes would layer heavier and heavier burdens on employers and families, slowing our economy and opening the way for foreign competition to further erode our lead." Don't forget that John McCain belittled Romney's business experience saying "I did it out of patriotism, not for profit", as if there was something unpatriotic about being a businessman.

Friends, put the two speeches, both delivered to C-PAC on the same day, side by side and compare. Clearly, Mitt Romney showed himself to the true Conservative. John McCain tried to obfuscate his record in Congress, while wrapping himself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan. (A comment posted on a news article about McCain said "I don't want to see what's under that mantle!")

Romney only had to speak of his beliefs, he needed no props. McCain had to trot out all those old photos of him with Reagan.

McCain kept claiming to be the Conservative candidate.

Romney merely spoke about what that Conservative stands for.

The distinction is clear. And the Republican Party didn't get the best man.

Copyright Feb. 7th, 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