The Patriot Post

“In reality there is perhaps no one of our natural Passions so hard to subdue as Pride. Disguise it, struggle with it, beat it down, stifle it, mortify it as much as one pleases, it is still alive, and will now and then peek out and show itself.” —Benjamin Franklin

It depends on what the meaning of the word “path” is Let us revisit, for a moment, Bill Clinton’s contortive definition of the word “is.” This, of course, was the tiny two-letter term he wrestled with during his grand jury testimony in 1998—a testimony during which he lied about his sexual relationship with a young intern named Monica Lewinsky. Yet even as the forensic evidence made his sworn statements untenable, Clinton refused to ‘fess up to what had long since become fodder for Leno and Letterman.

This week, those legacy-starved Clintonistas, reacting to an ABC docudrama called “The Path to 9/11,” demonstrated that they’ve not changed a bit since 1998. The five-hour, two-part television series was a calumny, they cried, since it depicted eight years of Clintonian negligence and malfeasance. This time, we suppose, it depends on what the meaning of the word “path” is...

In a fiery public letter to ABC that none-too-subtly threatened to pull the network’s broadcast license, a handful of Democrat senators charged that “presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law.” We have to ask, does “inaccurate misinformation” mean it’s true, or what?

The Democratic National Committee warned the Demo faithful that “’The Path to 9/11’ is actually a bald-faced attempt to slander Democrats and revise history right before Americans vote in a major election... The miniseries, which was put together by right-wing conservative writers, relies on the old GOP playbook of using terrorism to scare Americans. [It] mocks the truth and dishonors the memory of 9/11 victims to serve a cheap, callous political agenda. It irresponsibly misrepresents the facts and completely distorts the truth.”

Having gotten the memo, the New York Times editorial board was just as quick out the gate, writing, “When attempting to recreate real events on screen, you do not show real people doing things they never did.” If only such muscular statements were to guide the news content of the Gray Lady—Jayson Blair, call your office. The uber-Leftist Nation magazine, ever-present to protect us from ourselves, warned readers that David Cunningham, director of “The Path to 9/11,” may be a part of that great conspiracy that threatens us all—evangelical Christianity. “Cunningham is no ordinary Hollywood journeyman,” says The Nation. “He is in fact the son of Loren Cunningham, founder of the right-wing evangelical group Youth With a Mission...”

Haven't posted for a while, but here is a good read. Been everywhere lately. Especially youtube.com and typing in the search for videos on Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, etc.... scarey stuff, and enough to make you want to reach into that screen and strangle those bastards! Sorry, I support our troops, may god bring them home safe and sound....

For educational only

The Patriot Post

Patriot Vol. 06 No. 37 Digest | 15 September 2006

THE FOUNDATION

PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE

And now he’s at it again.

“The Path to 9/11” was so offensive, in fact, that Team Clinton wasn’t content to let their attack dogs do the dirty work for them. Referring to a scene in which she alerts the Pakistanis to an upcoming U.S. strike on Osama bin Laden, Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called her portrayal “false and defamatory.” Clinton White House aide Bruce Lindsey, currently at the helm of the William J. Clinton Foundation, also scolded ABC: “It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known.”

Disgraced former National Security Advisor Sandy “Socks” Berger complained that the film “flagrantly misrepresents my personal actions.” Unfortunately, we’ll never know exactly what Berger’s “personal actions” were, since his last official act before the 9/11 Commission was to admit to removing classified documents and handwritten notes from the National Archives on two occasions in 2003. Berger destroyed these vital documents, which pertained to the Clinton administration’s record on terrorism. He then pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for his actions and was stripped of his security clearances.

In a letter speaking for Clinton, Lindsey and Clintonista lawyers demanded the network “pull the drama.” “The content of this drama,” the claimed, “is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely.” ABC responded by announcing a disclaimer that would call the miniseries a “dramatization” containing “fictionalized scenes.”

Finally, even Bill Clinton himself came out swinging, but like his impeachment testimony eight years ago, his self-defense quickly turned to self-parody. “I just want people to tell the truth, you know, and not pretend it’s something it’s not.”

Truth, as we know, is not exactly the lingua franca of the Clinton crowd. So, assuming that we know what the meaning of “is” is, what is the truth?

For starters, eight long years passed between the first World Trade Center attack in 1993—one month into Bill Clinton’s first term in office—and the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001, eight months after the end of the Clinton presidency. But while some blame for failing to prevent the attacks must be assumed by the Bush administration, we must also remember that, as journalist and intelligence expert Ronald Kessler concluded, it was not a matter of connecting the dots. “The truth was that there were no dots to connect.” The reason for this inability to connect the dots—that is, the absence of actionable intelligence against Osama bin Laden and al-Qa’ida—lies squarely at the feet of the Clinton administration.

Bill Clinton has admitted as much. Speaking to the Long Island Association in 2002, he confessed to turning down an opportunity to take custody of bin Laden: “He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan, and we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.”

Perhaps Mr. Clinton forgot that bin Laden had in 1995 been named a conspirator in the first WTC attack. Later, in his testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Clinton dismissed his own statement as “inappropriate” which is to say, “truthful.”

The 9/11 Commission’s own conclusions on the Clinton administration’s accountability are equally telling. In 1998, the year that al-Qa’ida bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, U.S. assets had the opportunity to capture bin Laden at his Tarnak Farms compound in Afghanistan. According to the Commission’s report, “Before it was canceled, [senior CIA operations officer in Afghanistan, Gary] Schroen described it as the ‘best plan we are going to come up with to capture [bin Laden] while he is in Afghanistan and bring him to justice.’ No capture plan before 9/11 ever again attained the same level of detail and preparation.”

The Commission Report also asserts that Clinton “effectively relied on the CIA” for counterterrorism planning, even though Clinton stopped receiving the CIA’s Presidential Daily Brief and rarely, if ever, communicated with Director George Tenet (http://PatriotPost.US/news/tenet0404.asp). Further, while the Clinton administration continued to treat terrorism at home as merely a matter of law enforcement, “the relationship between the [FBI Director [Robert Mueller] | http://PatriotPost.US/news/mueller.asp] and the President was nearly nonexistent.”

Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson, who carried the “nuclear football” during the Clinton years, says Clinton missed not one but several opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. According to Patterson, who consulted on “The Path to 9/11,” Clinton’s failures to act against bin Laden directly facilitated a decade of terrorist attacks against the U.S. leading up to 9/11. “[W]e could have prevented the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, we could have prevented 9/11 and we could have prevented the bombings of the embassies in Africa if President Clinton had taken one of these opportunities.” Patterson continued, “We had eight chances at least to either nab bin Laden or to kill him.”

Bill Clinton’s cowardice all along the path to 9/11 is clearly a disgrace—perhaps even a criminal dereliction. Let’s just pray that the events of September 11, 2001 (http://PatriotPost.US/September11/), mark the end of the “Clinton legacy” on terrorism.

Quote of the week

“In fact, Clinton did sign the presidential finding saying that we needed to either kidnap him or kill him, but just signing a piece of paper didn’t result in any kind of action, because every time it came down to it and we had a chance to get bin Laden dead or alive, President Clinton chose not to.” —Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson

On cross-examination

“So where was the [New York] Times—and everyone else—finding Soviet-style censorship in Team Clinton’s demands that the ABC film be pulled? Instead, they sympathized with Clinton, editorializing: ‘One suggestion: When attempting to recreate real events on screen, you do not show real people doing things they never did.’ For the record, the Times was utterly silent when CBS planned to feature Ronald Reagan declaring people deserved to die of AIDS.” —Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell

Open query

“If Bill Clinton wishes in the future to complain about historical inaccuracies, I suggest he first answer one question: What handwritten notes, and by whom, were on the three copies of classified documents (out of five) that Sandy Berger chose to steal and cut up with scissors in 2003, smack in the middle of the 9/11 commission’s investigation? When we know the answer to that question, Bill, then and only then will you be entitled to complain about historical inaccuracies in the record.” —Maggie Gallagher

The BIG lie

“The film, a fictionalized portrayal of the nation’s failure to head off the attack on the World Trade Center, was shown Sunday and Monday. The second episode was wrapped around a live speech by President Bush, so it was especially unfortunate that the most questionable scenes all seemed to make the Clinton administration look worse, and Mr. Bush look better, than the record indicates.” —New York Times editorial

GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

Remembering 9/11, defending the war in Iraq After a solemn tour of the sites of the attacks of September 11, 2001

(http://PatriotPost.US/September11/), President Bush spoke to the nation on the five-year anniversary of that fateful day. He did a fine job of restating the reasons behind the war we’re engaged in, and why we cannot, under any circumstances, afford to pull out of Iraq: “If we do not defeat these enemies now, we will leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons... The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad.”

The past behavior of the jihadists offers no indication that they will give up the fight if we turn tail and run, or, as Fightin’ John Murtha and the Democrats like to say, “redeploy.” Like any fascist entity (http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=494), the jihadists are empowered by any perceived weakness in their enemies. Unless we continue to take the fight directly to them, they will chase us back to our shores and revisit us with an attack far beyond the scale of September 11.

Yet the Democrats refuse to acknowledge this reality. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) actually went so far as to say that we’d be safer with Saddam Hussein in power than we are now. With all due respect, we’re wondering what this guy’s smoking. Lily-livered liberals like Rockefeller claim that if Saddam was not responsible for 9/11, then there was no reason to attack him. What they don’t understand is that the Bush Doctrine, which they initially supported, called for Saddam’s removal from power because he was a vocal and proven supporter of terrorism. He was actively seeking nuclear weapons, and if left to his own devices he would have attacked us. But there’s no sense arguing that probability with the senseless ones. Instead, let’s turn to some more Demo slight-of-hand—blaming the President for playing politics with that which they’ve already politicized.

Before President Bush even uttered a word Monday night, the Demos began wailing that he’d politicized 9/11. Yet he made no demands of Congress, did not accuse domestic opposition of standing in the way of victory (even though they are), and called for national unity in this struggle. They accused President Bush of trying to shore up support for his “failed war” in Iraq. Yet we all know that if he didn’t mention Iraq at all, they would have accused him of ducking the issue. It seems to fly right over the pointed heads of the liberal class that it is they who have politicized this struggle, and it is they who created the division that currently exists in this country.

This week’s “Braying Jackass” award

“We think there’s a lot of politics in the president’s speeches—one every day on terrorism. They think they can’t win the elections unless they talk about terrorism all the time. We think we ought to talk about a new direction (http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=488) for the country.” —DNC Chairman Howard Dean (http://PatriotPost.US/news/lunatic.asp)

GOP abandons immigration reform

With just a few weeks left on the legislative calendar for this congressional session, Republicans have decided to set aside consideration of an immigration-reform package. Instead, they claim the need to focus on national-security issues. This is unfortunate, because immigration reform is a national-security issue; in fact one of the biggest security issues facing the country.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has acknowledged that broad immigration reform will not happen before the fall elections, but he hopes that the public will recognize that the Republicans have at least done some work. In fact, it may the most important work of all—border enforcement. To date, the Senate has budgeted for 3,736 new Border Patrol agents, 9,150 new detention beds for arrested illegal immigrants, and 370 miles of fence along the Mexican border. This has resulted in a 25-percent drop in the number of illegal aliens coming across the border in the last eight months.

House members can look upon this as a victory, since they’ve been seeking border enforcement—not legalization of illegals, like many of their softer Republican colleagues in the Senate. The issue of temporary-worker status is bound to come up next session, but for now the GOP can claim some (and we do mean some) success at the border.

NRA focuses on states

The National Rifle Association has discovered that battles in state legislatures are often more easily won than those in Washington. Their strategy has adapted accordingly. While there is little regarding guns going on in Congress at the moment, the NRA has been extremely busy across the country, achieving victory after victory in state legislatures. In the last 12 years, 23 states have passed laws allowing citizens to carry firearms—Nebraska and Kansas just this year. Fifteen states now have “stand your ground” laws allowing potential victims to use deadly force with a gun to stop an attack. Also, as we found during Katrina, laws against “emergency” gun confiscation are necessary, and ten states have passed them (a federal bill is also in Congress).

The NRA’s success has been so pronounced at the state level that Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre noted, “The closer we get back home, the stronger we are.” Even the Brady Campaign admits that.

Constitution Day 2006

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America... Done... the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our LORD one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.” —George Washington and the delegates

Sunday, 17 September, marks the 219th anniversary of the Constitution’s signing by our nation’s Founders. In recognition of this day, The Patriot Shop (http://PatriotShop.US/) invites you to browse our selection of Founding Documents (http://PatriotShop.US/index.php?cPath=36), including our popular Constitution booklets (http://PatriotShop.US/product_info.php?cPath=36&products_id=124) and Declaration and Constitution parchments (http://PatriotShop.US/product_info.php?cPath=36&products_id=438).

Visit The Patriot Shop (http://PatriotShop.US/index.php) today for these and other great patriotic offerings.

Also check out our 10th Anniversary Sale (http://PatriotShop.US/index.php?cPath=49) for discounts on some of our most popular merchandise.

All sales proceeds at PatriotShop.US support our Mission of Service (http://PatriotPost.US/main/service.asp) to America’s Armed Services, and help ensure that The Patriot Post (http://PatriotPost.US/subscribe/) is distributed to hundreds of thousands of military personnel and students without a fee. The Patriot receives no corporate, foundation, political or special-interest funding. Our mission and operations are funded by—and depend entirely upon—the financial support of American Patriots like YOU!

Mike Pence states the conservative case Rep. Mike Pence gave a report this week about conservative action during the 109th Congress. Pence’s Republican Study Committee has stood at the forefront of the conservative cause while many other Republicans have bought into the big-spending soft social view that used to differentiate them from liberals. The RSC’s efforts to put caps on entitlements, force pork spenders to be accountable and reform parliamentary procedures to check big spending bills did not all meet with success, but they did put Congress on notice. The RSC also successfully fought efforts to provide taxpayer dollars for embryonic stem cell research and also defended life by defeating attempts to fund abortions overseas and at U.S. military bases.

Pence noted that the RSC did significant work in defending and forwarding the conservative cause during the last two years. However, he also stated that success can come only if we send more conservatives to Congress. “While a few conservative voters think the answer lies in handing the reins of Congress over to the other side, we must fight that message of defeatism and state with conviction; not more of them, more of us!”

Bolton seeks deadline for UN to clean up UN Ambassador John Bolton suggested that the U.S. should hold the world body’s feet to the fire and threaten to withhold payments to the United Nations if serious reforms are not enacted by 31 December. “Is good management and lack of corruption too much to ask for?” Bolton asked, remarking that the UN is crippled by poor leadership and a complete lack of accountability.

Bolton currently waits in limbo while the Democrats contemplate whether they want to filibuster his confirmation to a full term as our UN ambassador. Many Americans believe that if the UN cannot be made to be more effective, it should be scrapped and replaced with something else. In our humble opinion, that die has already been cast. We agree that the corruption and anti-Americanism within the culture of Turtle Bay cannot be reformed without monumental change. However, we cannot afford to sit idly by while tyrannical forces around the globe gather weapons of mass destruction to strike a deadly blow against the free nations of the world.

The ascendancy of the New York Democrats New York Demo gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer and Senator Hillary Clinton easily shrugged off their primary opponents this week, all but assuring their victories in November. Spitzer, the state’s current attorney general, has come under fire for using his position to shake down Wall Street firms and redistribute the money to powerful unions that have reflexively endorsed his candidacy. His Republican opponent, John Faso, has made known Spitzer’s abuse of power and his intention to raise taxes in a state famous for scaring away business, but Faso must be suffering a Cassandra complex, because few people seem to be listening. Democrats across the state are already chilling the champagne as Election Day approaches. What will prove interesting, should Spitzer win the day, is how his outsized ego compares with Hillary’s as they vie for national attention and support.

Having Chafee is better than losing the majority Rhode Island “Republican” Lincoln Chafee narrowly defeated primary challenger Steve Laffey this week, and that is likely to translate into a victory for Chafee in November. Despite the fact that Chafee is probably the biggest thorn in the side of the GOP for his consistently liberal voting record, the RNC gave him all the support he needed to defeat the conservative Laffey, who would likely have lost to the Demo challenger in November. Were the stakes for Senate control not so high, Chafee would probably have been left to twist in the wind. Perhaps if there were no cakewalk to Democrat victory in Connecticut, Joe Lieberman might have received the same support from his national party.

NATIONAL SECURITY

Sanctions for Iran?
He said what? “We’re partisans of dialogue and negotiation... We’re available, we’re ready for new conditions.” So spoke Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad in reference to his country’s nuclear program on Thursday, on his way to New York, where the UN General Assembly will convene on Monday. New conditions? Dialogue and negotiation? Ahmadi-Nejad’s words sound false to anyone who has watched the back-and-forth over Iran’s nuclear program since 2003 and wondered what all of the “dialogue and negotiation” has produced to date.

The answer, of course, is almost nothing. True, the UN Security Council finally had to move its collective keester and pass Resolution 1696, but 1696’s August 31 deadline for Iran to cease enrichment has come and gone. Iran remains as openly defiant as ever, and who can blame them? Even before the UNSC could convene to consider its next step, Russia poured cold water on the idea of sanctions. And even if Russia’s patience with Iran wears thin, there remains China and its UNSC veto—along with its economically crucial need for imported oil. Would China ever withhold its veto and approve sanctions that would wreck its own economy? How many European nations will continue to support sanctions when oil hits $125 a barrel?

Virtually every aspect of the nuclear standoff works in Iran’s favor. Iran possesses ten percent of world oil reserves and faces splintered opposition from a body that must vote in a majority to impose sanctions, let alone maintain them. (See UN Oil-For-Food, 1993-2002.) Finally, Iran has the advantage of time. Time to reach weapons-grade enrichment and then weaponization, and time before President Bush—the only world leader with the apparent will to take on Iran—leaves office. Iran has stalled the UN for three years now. If the UN allows Iran to stall for another 14 months, it will virtually guarantee a nuclear-armed Iran—and possibly an ensuing nuclear war.

This week’s “Alpha Jackass” award:

“Be forewarned: Don’t be surprised if they hype the Iranian nuclear crisis come October, if all other appeals to fear are failing as the midterm election approaches.” —John Kerry (http://PatriotPetitions.US/kerry/)

New investment model de-funds terrorism According to a report issued by the Center for Security Policy, 100 of the largest U.S. pension funds invest, on average, 15-23 percent of their holdings in companies that conduct business in terrorist-sponsoring countries.

Recently, the $27-million Missouri Investment Trust (MIT) became one of the first in the nation to become “terror-free.” By utilizing a screening system the fund developed with Conflict Securities Advisory Group, the trust forgoes investments in countries that have been sanctioned by the U.S. for their terrorist activity. Portfolios currently being screened for possible removal from MIT include Deutsche Bank, HSBC and Royal Dutch Shell.

As author and security expert Frank Gaffney noted, “Thanks to (Treasurer Steelman’s) leadership, a model has been created that should be followed by every public pension fund in the country—starting with the many-billion dollar Federal Thrift Savings Plan for which all executive branch, congressional and other federal government employees are eligible.”

Hamas and Fatah cut a deal Sometimes, even terrorists must yield to reality. Since ousting the Fatah party earlier this year and taking control of the Palestinian government, Hamas, dedicated to the destruction of Israel, has found itself shunned by the international community, drained of Western aid and unable to govern in any meaningful sense of the word. Coming to terms with this situation and hoping to end its isolation, Hamas this week agreed with Fatah to form a “national-unity government,” although details of exactly what this would entail are still sketchy. Initial assessments suggest this move may work, as the European Union has already indicated it may resume aid, even though this ‘unity government’ would include other delightful Palestinian factions like Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The U.S. and Israel are, wisely, taking a much more skeptical view of this terrorist government. As with Hizballah in Lebanon, the Palestinian situation is a prime example of a how a terrorist organization cannot become a bona fide political party. Without respect for human life and the rule of law, democratic governance is impossible.

National POW/MIA Recognition Day 2006 Today, 15 September, is National POW/MIA Recognition Day, when we as a nation pause to remember those members of America’s Armed Forces taken as prisoners of war or declared missing in action while serving their country and defending our freedom. The following is excerpted from this year’s Presidential Proclamation designating today National POW/MIA Recognition Day:

“When our country and the world have needed brave Americans to advance the cause of freedom, our men and women in uniform have proudly stepped forward and selflessly endured hardships to defend liberty. We are grateful to all who have served, and on National POW/MIA Recognition Day, we give special honor to the extraordinary patriots who have been prisoners of war and to those who are still missing in action. We take inspiration from their valor and loyalty and will not rest until we have accounted for them all.

”On National POW/MIA Recognition Day, the National League of Families POW/MIA flag is flown over the White House, the Capitol, the Departments of State, Defense, and Veterans Affairs, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Korean War Veterans Memorial, World War II Memorial, U.S. military installations, national cemeteries and other locations across our country. The POW/MIA flag is a symbol of our Nation’s resolve never to forget the service and great sacrifice of the heroes who have carried out liberty’s urgent and noble mission, even at the cost of their own freedom. On this day, we express our deep appreciation to each of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines and our enduring commitment to achieve the fullest possible accounting for all of our men and women in uniform who have been prisoners of war or are missing in action.“

We invite all our readers to join us in prayer for those still unaccounted for and for the families they left behind. May we never forget their service.

BUSINESS & ECONOMY

AMT set to hit middle-income Americans Born of a Democrat congress in 1970 to close the loopholes used by rich people to avoid paying taxes, the Alternative Minimum Tax never achieved the goals its authors anticipated. Even a major revision in 1978 never raised the expected revenue.

However, as time passed, inflation rose, followed by a steadily rising economy. More and more people were earning more than they had ever expected. Times were good. Then some of the highest earners suddenly found that their legitimate deductions and exemptions didn’t count with the AMT, and they paid much more in taxes.

In 1970, 19,000 souls paid the AMT, but today millions do, and more will every year. Whereas the ”standard“ income tax with its exemptions and deductions is indexed to inflation, the AMT is not. If Congress doesn’t change or repeal the AMT, middle-income filers will experience a major tax increase in 2007—next year. By 2010, one in five taxpayers will pay the AMT, as will nearly all taxpayers between $100,000 and $500,000.

One sensible solution is to replace the bloated, complex income-tax system with one of the many excellent flat-tax plans proposed over the last decade. Another excellent plan calls for a national sales tax. Tax reform is long overdue, but let’s do it right.

OPEC holds steady as prices fall OPEC, whose 11 member states control 40 percent of world oil production, agreed this week to hold output quotas at their present level as oil prices continue to drop. Crude oil prices have dropped 17 percent on the New York Mercantile Exchange since their all-time high in July, and gas prices in the U.S. are down for a fifth straight week to a nationwide average of $2.62 per gallon. This is due in part to the end of the summer travel season, but also to high worldwide inventories of petroleum and slower world economic growth. European ministers also believe that credit is due to the potential of a peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue, but all that really means is that the EU-niks intend to do nothing to stop Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. The quota is expected to drop soon, however, if prices continue to drop. Perhaps here in the U.S., if we started pumping our own crude again, we wouldn’t have to worry so much about that.

Take the Feds out of risk-management We’ve commented on this before, but some things bear repeating. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (http://PatriotPost.US/news/katrina.asp), flooded homeowners lacking flood coverage faced a Hobson’s choice: Sue or lose everything. The stage for this Mother of All Messes was set when the federal government created the current hybrid regulatory scheme: A federal flood-insurance program intended to encourage insurers to stay in flood-prone markets by relieving them of flood risks.

As is too often the case, the law of unintended consequences perverted these good intentions, and new construction in high flood-risk areas exploded due to the availability of artificially cheap federal flood insurance. In times of crisis, it seems the government often lives by the Pareto Principle, wherein 80 percent of the consequences stem from 20 percent of the causes (inadequate federal levees, sluggish FEMA responses, building in flood zone, etc.). Congress must reform the federal flood program to discourage construction in risky areas and to forbid future coverage after any claims are paid by the government.

Rather than depend on the government for catastrophe management, we encourage our readers to protect themselves and their families by viewing our disaster preparedness guide (http://PatriotPost.US/useprpc/). Why wait? As Ben Franklin put it, ”Have you something to do to-morrow; do it to-day.“

CULTURE

Immigration & assimilation: A second birth While the number of Muslim immigrants arriving in the U.S. dropped dramatically in the aftermath of 9/11, those numbers are now taking a steep turn in the opposite direction. According to the Department of Homeland Security and the Census Bureau, approximately 96,000 immigrants from Muslim countries became legal residents in 2005—a number that has not been seen in more than 20 years. According to the Department of Homeland Security, over 40,000 immigrants from 22 Muslim countries were admitted to the U.S. last year, the highest official number since 9/11.

Thanks to the new influx of immigrants, areas such as ”Little Pakistan“ in New York have been revitalized. After 9/11, numerous immigrants living in this area packed up and left and the number of students at the elementary school dropped by half. Now, five years later, it’s clear that many Muslims are fleeing the totalitarian regimes that represent the real Islam (http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=494). Little Pakistan is again becoming home to immigrants striving to assimilate into American life. Indeed, according to one Pakistani immigrant, ”I came to the United States because I want to improve myself. This is a second birth for me.“

Left mobilizes on ”don’t ask, don’t tell“ While the effort to repeal the military’s ”don’t ask, don’t tell“ policy through the legislative branch has not been successful, homosexual-rights groups are now pushing their agenda by recruiting homosexual military wannabes who would have enlisted were it not for the policy. The new tactics that activist groups such as Soulforce employ include sending openly homosexual men into military recruiting stations, where they openly announce their sexual orientation. One such Soulforce campaigner said that he knew his openly homosexual orientation would result in being rejected by the Army, but he did it to ”make a point,“—even though he said he didn’t want to be judged by his sexuality.

Proponents of the policy’s repeal who cite the ”urgent“ search for recruits fail to compare their political agenda to hard facts: all of the U.S. Armed Forces will fulfill their recruiting goals for the fiscal year, with the Army exceeding its August goal by almost 3,000. ”Don’t ask, don’t tell,“ one more of the failed policies of the Clinton administration, has decreased military efficiency and contributed to the normalization of deviant behavior. As opponents warned at the time, ”Don’t ask, don’t tell“ was an incremental strategy for the Left’s agenda of homosexual norming (http://PatriotPost.US/papers/03-32.asp)—now we know they were right.

The elephant in the room

After 50 years of expediential matrimony, is the death knell sounding for the foremost political union of our time? In his new book, The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party, New York Post columnist Ryan Sager contends that the ”fusion“ of moral traditionalists and libertarians, long the bulwark of the Republican Party, is on the brink of ruin.

Following a courtship based on utilitarian aims—libertarianism’s smaller-government guards against the moral corruption feared by traditionalists—the marriage of convenience affected the Republican sweep of government. Basking in their newfound power, says Sager, Republicans exchanged the principle of small government for a promise of benevolent government, endangering their unifying conviction and threatening to produce a party foreign to both conservatism and liberty.

Sager’s thesis is compelling, but we would offer a slightly different take. (Many evangelicals are, after all, libertarians.) The primary fissure in the Republican Party is not between libertarians and evangelicals, but between libertarians and conservatives. The former compares apples and oranges—a philosophy of government versus a religious worldview—while the latter frames the issue more precisely. Whereas libertarians seek to minimize government to the greatest extent possible in every situation, conservatives are constitutionalists: They want government to be strong where to Constitution so dictates, and nonexistent where the Constitution is silent.

Will Republicans continue to hide behind the faccade of marital bliss? Or will they confront the elephant in the room and recommit to limited government? Unchecked, the marital feud—whoever you consider the participants to be—promises to end in annulment, leaving true Republicanism, the lone child of the union, to suffer most.

And last...

Step aside, Rush. Back off, Bill. Three new voices hit the radio waves recently, and the titans of talk radio may just take a ratings hit. Or not. The motley crew of Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem and Rosie O’Donnell are backing a new radio network for loony left-wing women to combat conservative talk radio and its ”male point of view.“ The new ”GreenStone“ is billed as ”a clear alternative to the polarizing, highly political talk commonly heard on AM radio.“ Or, as Steinem puts it, ”What we are doing is more populist, centrist and community-oriented.“ Indeed, despite the fact that only three affiliates have thus far signed on, we in our humble shop can’t imagine three more populist, centrist and community-oriented women than Steinem, Hanoi Jane and Robustly Abominable. Go get ‘em, girls.

Lex et Libertas—Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for the editors and staff. (Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families, especially those of our fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who have died in defense of American liberty while prosecuting the war with Jihadistan.)

SUPPORT THE 2006 PATRIOT FUND

Link to our Secure Commerce Page at—http://PatriotPost.US/support.asp

The Patriot Post (PatriotPost.US) is FREE by E-mail! To get your own subscription, link to—http://PatriotPost.US/subscribe/

REPRINT AND FORWARD POLICY

Subscribers may reprint or forward The Patriot Post (PatriotPost.US), in whole or part. If reprinting, please include the citation "The Patriot Post (PatriotPost.US)" in accordance with our Subscriber/User Disclaimer. For questions, contact our legal department at Legal@PatriotPost.US.

*PUBLIUS*

"FRUIT FROM THE TREE OF LIBERTY"

The Patriot Post (PatriotPost.US) is protected speech pursuant to the "inalienable rights" of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

In God we trust.

....

just found this interesting to read and share amongst my freeper friends.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.