Free Republic

Because Americans can't seem to live without crappy Chinese widgets, President Bush is practically down on his knees in supplication to the leader of a nation that in comparison makes Hitler's Germany look like Vatican City.

Grinning amiably on the podium next to Bush as millions languish in Chinese political jails awaiting organ harvest or execution, or clandestinely meet for Christian services in somebody's secret basement for fear of being shot, Hu Jintao must be smugly aware of his advantage. Jintao represents his Communist Party, and rules without question, while Bush barely ekes out a 40% approval rating among his own countrymen and must endure unceasing criticism and recrimination from an opposing political party.

To make matters worse, when a righteous protestor challenges the Chinese despot, President Bush apologizes. For what, one might ask. For the free exercise of a God-given right?

Of course, the ass-kissers in the White House protocol office were beside themselves. Heaven forbid that Jintao might be subjected to American free speech. Certainly the woman who was graciously escorted from the press conference by uniformed officers will not be facing the certain penalty of such dissent in China, namely getting her head blown off in a soccer stadium, with the bullet's cost picked up by the family of the victim.

As the President and Jintao glad-hand each other and plan the next round of trade talks, China continues to force women to have abortions, executes dissenters, actively persecutes Christians and other believers, violently stifles alternative political views, aids and abets the enemies of America, builds an offensive army in preparation for expansion, and plots and plans for eventual world domination.

And our President grovels for Dollar Tree.

Much of old-stream media's recent sensitivity to religion would be welcome, if the hypocrisy wasn't so rank.

As crazed Moslems around the world burn down buildings and threaten to decapitate cartoonists because of a few Danish editorial cartoons portraying Islam's prophet Muhammad in caricature, writers and editors in the United States are engaged in retrospective hand-wringing about the hurt feelings of the mob. Never mind that Islamic "journalists" have said much worse about Jews and Christians for many years, or that a free press has evaporated anywhere Islamic control has been established. One could never have imagined that America's stalwart defenders of unfettered expression, quick to condemn even timid suggestions of self-censorship, would suddenly be questioning the efficacy of a free and open press that would dare treat Islam to the same disrespect that has been directed at Christianity for years.

After all, major American newpapers and media, like their Islamic counterparts, have never hesitated to condemn and degrade Christians and Christianity. At the same time, as if to stick it to America's majority of believers, the media has promoted every socially destructive agenda and distasteful Hollywood escapade. The most recent example of this is the fawning frenzy over "Brokeback Mountain", a film that graphically depicts a "love" story between two gay sheepherding cowboys. Of course, Mel Gibson's reverent portrayal of Christ's last days is hate-filled and anti-Jewish to America's media elites, but two men sodomizing one another in a pup tent is high art.

But in this case, American media has lost its collective nerve, which is really not surprising when you consider that they are, at the very heart, cowards to begin with. The Associated Press has chosen not to reprint the cartoons in question, saying that "we do not distribute content that is known to be offensive". ABC news ran very fleeting images on "World News Tonight" and "Nightline". NBC has been airing only part of the cartoon, CNN has reported with the graphics blurred, and CBS has refused to show the cartoons at all. Only Fox News aired the cartoon deemed most offensive to Muslims-a drawing that depicted Mohammed wearing a turban shaped like a bomb, and only Fox's Brit Hume has mustered the common-sense to point out the "kinds of slurs against Christians and against the Jewish faith that are regularly spread abroad in the Arab world by the mass media and by many of the imams themselves".

Amazingly, European media, constrained by many different governmental restrictions and controls, has shown a greater understanding of the concept of free press and speech than their American counterparts luxuriating in nearly unlimited constitutional protections. Serge Faubert, chief editor of a French daily, invoked the 18th century free-thinker Voltaire in defending the publication of the cartoons, saying he did not agree with the sentiments, but would defend to the death the right of the cartoonist to make them. England's Daily Mail columnist Peter Hitchens wrote in his column that "the myth of Moslem tolerance needs to be exploded. Muslims should not be allowed to dictate what is, and what is not, published about them." Robert Menard, director of the media rights group Reporters Without Borders said that "modernity" was now at stake. Dozens of European newspapers and magazines have reprinted the cartoons, generally saying that the issue was not the cartoons themselves, but whether newspapers should be allowed to publish them.

Apparently, having your neighborhoods and national flags burned by roaming Moslem thugs, intent on stifling free expression and murdering those who practice it, brings a certain clarity of thought presently missing from the editorial boards of American media.

Recently, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told a global security conference in Munich that "Islamic radicals seek to take over governments from North America to Southeast Asia and re-establish a caliphate they hope, one day, will include every continent" under the control of Islamic Sharia law. He warned that the rise of Islamofascism "could be as deadly as Nazi Germany and the early decades of the Soviet Empire", both of which triggered the slaughter of millions of innocent people. A day before, he told an audience at the National Press Club that radical Islamists "have designed and distributed a map where national borders are erased and replaced by a global extremist Islamic empire".

While the old-stream American media falls all over itself to show deference to hypocritical followers of a crazed and destructive religion, don't expect them to report on the continually emerging threat to Western freedom posed by these radicals.

After all, two queer cowboys are so much more palatable.

Way left syndicated columnist Molly Ivins, who probably hates George Bush more than any other person in America, has publicly jettisoned support for Hillary Rodham-Clinton's presumed presidential run in 2008.

Since Susan Estrich, that other really obnoxious liberal commentator, has come out in support of Hillary, one can imagine the potential for a roiling bitch-slap encounter if these two ever face each other on CNN.

But apart from the delicious spectacle of frustrated Democrats ripping themselves apart over an election two years away, Republican should hope that Ivins wins hearts and minds among Rodham-Clinton's handlers.

In Ivins' insular world, populated with fever-swamp crazies like Michael Moore and Howard Dean, Rodham-Clinton is acting like a despicable moderate unable to conjure the courage of her own convictions, especially when it comes to the war in Iraq. There is no wiggle room among the hard-left on this issue, and it is not nearly good enough that Clinton regularly criticizes Bush on his handling of the war. She voted to go to war in the first place, and among what has become the mainstream Democratic Party, that is as bad as relegating poor teen mothers to back-alley abortions.

Ivins also believes that most American are actually clamoring for new initiatives out of Washington, such as raising taxes, punishing oil companies and cutting defense spending, and charges that Clinton and the Democrats are weak and feckless for not forcefully making these issues their own.

Clinton's adept managers know this to be false, and only have to look at the overwhelming slap-down of John Kerry during the last election to prove it. They know that publicly taking such policy stands would be political suicide, even with an electorate apparently in gridlock. But Ivins and her ilk are so thoroughly blinded by their hatred for Bush and disdain for the voters that rational though is precluded.

As if to prove this, Ivins conjures up the memory of Eugene McCarthy, the recently deceased radical leftist who made Hubert Humphrey look like a conservative during the 1968 Democratic primary. "If no one in conventional-wisdom politics has the courage to speak up and say what needs to be said, then you go out and find (someone) with the guts to do it". Somebody needs to remind her that McCarthy was crushed when it came time for Democrats to actually vote, not to mention he was one of the few Democrats who later called for Bill Clinton's impeachment or resignation. But in the fog of hysteria, there is no reason to be had.

But Ivins holds sway in Democratic circles, and her words will not go unheeded among Clinton's supporters. They are already panicked about the next presidential election, and see Hillary as the only chance they've got. Rodham-Clinton cannot hemorrhage such high-profile support and expect to appeal to the radical left, who driven by seething hatred and rage, contribute most of the money. At some point very soon, financial expediency may compel her to move markedly left. Such a move would ingratiate herself to the party loyalists, but might very well functionally sabotage any hopes that she may have to be elected president.

Republicans cannot lose here. If Clinton refuses to placate the wackos in her party, Ivins is right to assume another more palatable candidate will emerge, such as Howard Dean, and anyone like Dean would be soundly rejected. If she moves left, and spends the next couple years establishing a record of crazy-talk, Americans will never elect her if the Republican candidate has even a hint of moderation.

Let's hope that Rodham-Clinton chooses the latter course. There would be nothing as satisfying as watching the Clinton legacy self-destruct once and for all.

1. Millions of dead babies is a civil right, but millions of dead turkeys is a holocaust.

2. Pilgrims were Christian fundamentalists.

3. Having a national holiday to thank God for our blessings violates the separation of church and state.

4. Thanksgiving is a uniquely American holiday, and anything American has got to be bad.

5. If all the money people selfishly spend to gorge themselves on Thanksgiving was instead confiscated by the government and given to the poor, what a better world this would be.

6. Families travelling by car and plane to visit relatives drastically increases pollution levels, and therefore hastens global warming and world-wide climactic catastrophe.

7. In our sexist society, women are forced into the kitchen to cook and clean for hours while men watch football and drink beer.

8. None of the Pilgrims were black, gay, or had abortions.

9. Why celebrate the arrival of the white man, who eventually stole the continent from the peaceful, environmentally friendly Indians?

10. Thanksgiving takes attention away from the UN's International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, on November 25.

Now that conservatives have torn themselves apart over Harriet Miers, and the President has nominated Alito, it may be time to examine the fundamental flaws in conventional mindsets that predictably pulls nominees from the legal profession every time. This practice reveals a degree of elitism that illuminates the great distance we have moved away from original constitutional intent.

First and foremost, the Constitution was never intended to be high-brow legal dissertation. It was, and still is, a document written in fairly common language and understandable to the common man. There are fairly simple concepts detailed within, recognizing certain God-given rights enjoyed by all men, and framing the appropriate relationship between the people and government. There is nothing about the document that is esoteric. It is exactly what it is. It certainly does not take a lawyer to understand the meaning.

Why then, does every Supreme Court nominee have to be a lawyer? The Consititution does not require a Supreme Court judge to have spent years pursuing a law degree, or endless hours in retentive legal pursuits at some high-powered law firm, to be a member of the Supreme Court. There are no specific requirements at all. In fact, at the time of the Constitution's drafting, many lawyers were self-taught men, who may have studied under another lawyer, but who likely did not have formal legal education. In any event, wisdom and common sense are not exclusive to lawyers, and today that profession often attracts individuals with neither. Lawyers also have the unfortunate tendency to become obsessed with legal precedent and the writings of other lawyers and judges, and in this world the convoluted examination of fairly simple concepts becomes and end unto itself. Using strict Constitutional principles, however, allows quick disposition of lower court precedents: If the decision is not based on what can be specifically read in the document, the decision is wrong, and must be rejected as unconstitutional. Examples of this are the mythical right to abortion, and any gun control law ever applied to a law-abiding citizen.

Interpreting the Constitution requires only one skill: The ability to read. Believing that only lawyers and judges can understand it is to deny the brilliant accessibility intended by those who wrote it in the first place.

Apparently, an American military unit in Afghanistan first killed, then burned the bodies of several Taliban terrorists last month. In video shot by an Australian photojournalist traveling with the unit, blackened corpses smoke in the background as American psychological operations soldiers read taunting messages into a radio, challenging the remaining terrorists to show themselves and fight. The messages accuse the Taliban of being "cowardly dogs" and acting like women, and of being a "disgrace to the Muslim religion". That last insult is interesting, however, in that the Taliban were doing exactly as Islam commands: kill infidels, whenever and wherever they can find them. But that discussion is for another time.

Of course, the predictable outrage has begun, with the Pentagon promising that anyone involved in the alleged misconduct, or who violated the tenets of the Geneva Convention, would be held "appropriately accountable". Get ready for another round of Abu Ghraib-like coverage from the old stream media, and non-stop cycling of the video on CNN.

The reaction to this incident is indicative of how far away from resolute determination we, as a nation, have drifted since World War II. In those days, no one raised an eye brow when hundreds of living Japanese soldiers were incinerated by flame throwers during the battles of Tarawa and Iwo Jima, or when soldiers engaged in the common practice of repeatedly shooting dead enemy they encountered to make sure the enemy was truly dead. Americans watched this as well, not on video but on film shot by military photographers and shown in theatres as a news reel prior to the Saturday night matinee. I was not there, but I am confident that no one in the audience felt the least bit sympathetic for those Japanese soldiers, or questioned whether the American soldiers were engaged in enemy "desecration", as charged in this latest incident. That is because everyone knew the Japanese were committing atrocities exponentially worse against our soldiers, on a regular basis. Americans also instinctively knew that victory against such an enemy, battle-hardened and seemingly fearless of death, required cold-blooded resolve. Fighting a "civilized" war against such an enemy, which did not surrender until after nearly half a million civilians were destroyed by nuclear weapons, would have led to defeat.

The Islamist enemy we fight today is equally determined as the Japanese in WWII, and like the Japanese are motivated by nationalism and religious fervor. They do not recognize any rules of war, other than those written in the Koran and Hadith, and a thousand years of bloody imperialism and murder. They have but one goal: the establishment of an Arab and worldwide caliphate, which excludes all other religions, and subjugates all other peoples as merely slaves of the Islamic state. They cannot be reasoned with, or dissuaded, or distracted from their God-driven mission. This enemy rejects mercy as weakness, and understands and respects only force and power. The only way to stop them is to kill every last one of them, and extending the Geneva Convention to such terrorists was the first mistake of this war. It may be the reason we lose.

Whether these terrorists were killed in combat, or lined up against a wall and shot on the spot, should make no difference to anyone who wants to win this war, and it certainly makes no difference to the Islamists who hate us regardless. They will never be tempered by our mercy, nor moved by our kindness, and will only use our humanity against us at every opportunity. If a few burned Taliban corpses drew more terrorists into the gunsights of our military, then the psy-ops soldiers who did this should be given medals, not reprimands. Our enemy has refined cruelty and inhumanity as both strategy and tactics. Those that voice sympathy demonstrate a weakness of resolve, and provide aid and comfort to an enemy that would never have been tolerated 60 years ago.

After all, this is a war for our survival, no less dangerous to our continued existence as a nation than during WWII. Toughen up, America. Or at least, keep your weakness to your self and let those with greater fortitude fight the battle unhindered.

Political correctness and cultural "sensitivity" will prevent an accurate and truthful examination of what is really going on in the hurricane destruction zone, especially in the New Orleans area. But news reports of lawlessness, looting, violence and vandalism might lead some to call into question the apparently razor thin veneer of civilization that exists in black communities throughout America, a veneer that tends to evaporate everytime social services are not available to placate the residents.

As black residents ransack abandoned homes and businesses, shoot at rescue helicopters and fire fighters, threaten police and National Guard troops simply trying to help, and blame the government and President Bush for what really amounts to their own bad life choices and disaster planning, comparisons to similar disasters in other parts of the country should be made. For example, why did we not see such wholesale societal breakdown ten years ago, when Hurricane Andrew decimated Homestead, and other cities in Southeast Florida?

The answer is certainly not poverty. Median income for a family in New Orleans is $32,338 compared to Homestead's median family income level of $26,409. In fact, the per capita income for New Orleans is significantly greater than Homestead as well, $17, 258 vs. $11,357. In Homestead, 31.8% of the population are below the poverty line, while only 27.9% of the population in New Orleans fall below the poverty line. More children live under the poverty line in Homestead than in New Orleans, 43.9% compared to 40.3%.

What about family structure? Not likely, since 22.4% of the families in Homestead have a female householder with no husband present, as compared to 24.5% in New Orleans.

What about level of devastation? Certainly, New Orleans, being below sea level, is mired in muck and mud, electricity and water services are non-existent at this time, and hundreds may be dead. But many of those killed in New Orleans ignored common sense warnings to evacuate for days, and chose voluntarily to stay. However, Homestead was without power and water for weeks and much of the city was razed by the force of Andrew, which killed 23 people and caused nearly $30 billion in damages. Even two years later, the devastation was obvious, and there were still relocation centers inhabited by people who had lost homes.

While reports from Homestead described neighbor helping neighbor, and a shaky but calm attempt to restore services and civilization, there were few incidents of looting and violence. The situation in New Orleans is just the opposite. There, the law of the jungle prevails. Unlike Homestead, where National Guard troops were sent primarily to render aid and comfort, the National Guard is being sent to New Orleans to restore order from societal chaos, and take back a city under rampage.

Is there any demographic difference which might explain why two similar situations result in two very different outcomes? There is.

Homestead, like most of the area destroyed by Andrew in 1992, is 2/3 white. New Orleans and the surrounding area is 2/3 black.

No one ever wants to admit that all cultures, even sub-cultures within our own country, are equally positive, or equally valuable. While it has not always been true, much of American black culture today is violent, angry, dependent, resentful and destructive. Black culture rejects education, the American Dream, parental responsibility, and earned respect. It embraces foul rap music, easy money, misogyny, the welfare state, and respect from the end of a gun or through other violent means. Black culture labels a successful mainstream black man an Oreo, and an integrated black man an Uncle Tom. Black culture believes that even now, a century and a half after slavery, white people owe them everything. And they will burn their own neighborhoods down if they don't get it: Watts, 1966. Newark and Detroit, 1967. Miami, 1980/82/89. Los Angeles, 1992. Benton Harbor, 2003.

Any questions?

Thanks for the info. This was the first non-blog post I had done. I will know where to place it next time my blood boils...hope I did not waste too much of your time :)

Apparently, you were the only one who had a problem with it... most agreed in principle to what I said, even if I was a bit reflexive in my condemnation. Chalk it up to writing when I was hot...of course some may have disagreed, and did so in an intelligent, cogent manner. I never meant, nor should I have insinuated, that my comments were to be interpreted as the benchmark for thought.

Sorry for the late reply, work and all.. but I noticed that you not only read it, but stuck around to make several comments. Glad I could provide you with some entertainment. Here's some advice: when you see my comments, just ignore them. In the meantime, lighten up.

Point taken.

I apologize if I was not clear enough, but my main point was not so much support for Tancredo as criticism of Hewitt for the hypocrisy of calling Tancredo fringe and then having a loony fringe group like CAIR to answer Tancredo's comments.

Hugh Hewitt condemns Tom Tancredo as a "fringe nut", then plants lips on CAIR spokesman's behind during today's "Hugh Hewitt Show".

As I have long suspected, Hewitt is little more than a country club Republican. He sees no threat from the unchecked Mexican invasion of illiterate illegals, and now he is heartily criticizing Tancredo's suggestion that Mecca and Medina be destriyed in the event of a WMD attack on America. He obviously has spent too much time on the links with other like-minded RINO's because he just can't bring himself to realize that we are in a religious war against Islam! To make matters worse, he is now showing outrageous deference to a spokeman from the Southern California chapter of everyone's favorite radical Islamic front organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

This is not completely unexpected from a guy who has been weak on abortion, weak on immigration reform, weak on the second amendment, and so on. True Conservatives should react accordingly. I do not intend to listen to his ridiculous blather any longer.

Exactly. But even more serious than being dead-weight, those are the people that are going to get us killed because of their inability to recognize that evil flourishes, sometimes in the form of evil religions.

It took nearly four years but the arrogantly stubborn, and dangerous, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has finally felt the heat of an angry backlash, and is launching a desperate public relations campaign that will attempt to convince America that Islam, after all, is a religion of peace. What's next? A full page New York Times ad from the Aryan Nation describing how it's members really don't hate blacks and Jews?

Since CAIR never does anything that is not related to its own self-interest, or more specifically the interests of radical Islam, the group must have gotten the message that Americans are sick of hearing about Islamic peace and tolerance. But if CAIR really believes a few slick commercials showing apparently mainstream Muslims condemning terrorism will sway rational thinking individuals from seeing the truth, they are as crazy as the wild-eyed mullahs that send homicide bombers into holy war against the Judeo-Christian West. Then again, they might think the rest of us infidels are simply idiots.

In the ads, CAIR claims that "Islam is not about hatred and violence. It's about peace and justice". Try telling that to the victims of nearly 3000 individual Islamic terrorist attacks that have occurred around the world just since 9/11, or to the millions of Christians, Jews, and other religious followers who are persecuted, prosecuted and executed in Islamic nations simply for going to a different church, or try to refute the fact that while not all Muslims are terrorists, all terrorists tend to be Moslems. Name any Islamic country, and there you will find a level of religious bigotry, intolerance, violent reprisal, and vindictive hatefulness against non-believers unparalleled in recent history. Collectively, the state-sponsored religiocentricity of modern Islamic nations makes the Crusades and the Inquisition look positively tolerant by comparison.

The ads also try to tweak those who have been stunned by the deafening silence from the Islamic world when it comes to terrorism. "We often hear claims Muslims don't condemn terrorism and that Islam condones violence", CAIR says in the ad, "and we want to state clearly that those who commit acts of terror in the name of Islam are betraying the teachings of the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad". Have not these people read their own religious texts? What the Quran does not address regarding a Muslims duty to kill everyone who will not subjugate to Islam, Muhammad's own words in the Hadith makes very clear. Don't believe it? Read it yourself. Since most Americans have never read the Constitution or Shakespeare, let alone the Quran and Hadith, CAIR assumes its audience can be so easily duped. And please, save me the comparisons between the Christian New Testament and these other books. When it comes to flat-out mayhem, wife-beating, adultery, calls for death and destruction against one's enemies, and creative methods of murder and torture, Jesus just can't hold a candle to Muhammad.

CAIR also complains that the religion has been hijacked by "criminals" who have misinterpreted the teachings of Islam, and that only a small number of Moslems are involved in either the acts of terror, or who give support to the terrorists. "We refuse to allow our faith to be held hostage by the criminal actions of a tiny minority". Such pretty words, but CAIR itself is an organization with a very questionable stand on terrorism. CAIR's leaders initially denied that Osama bin Laden was even involved in the 9/11 massacre, but was finally embarrassed into acknowledging his role three months later. In 1993, CAIR called the conviction of the original Trade Center bombers a "travesty of justice", and the conviction of the mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman a "hate crime". CAIR has also been directly involved with The Holy Land Foundation, which was ultimately found to be collecting money for the terrorist group Hamas, and shut down. In fact, Steven Pomerantz, the FBI's former chief of counterterrorism, has concluded that "CAIR, its leaders and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups".

While CAIR has excelled at quickly claiming Islamophobia and coming to the defense of every Muslim accused of a crime, no matter how heinous, the group's own stand on religious freedom has been even more suspect. During a May, 1998 CAIR-sponsored event, several featured speakers made anti-Semitic statements, including calling Jews "the descendents of the apes". Two months later, CAIR Chairman Omar M. Ahmad told a crowd of California Muslims that "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth".

While the group may try to appeal to generally tolerant Americans and fool those gullibly raised on the fantasy that all religions are the same, these two incidents are more illustrative of CAIR's, and Islamic, true beliefs.

But then, according to the Quran, lying to the infidel is a Muslim duty (Sura 66:2).

Since liberals are so blinded by their disdain for America, they have been unable to recognize their own culpability in Islam's war against the West.

Before the smoke settled and the blood dried in London, the latest front in the world war against Islamofascism, brain-addled liberals were once again projecting the blame to America. The terrorists would stop trying to kill us, they say, if only we would abandon our military bases in Muslim nations, or jettison the Israeli democracy in favor of a Palestinian theocracy, or waste millions of dollars down another African Islamic rat-hole, or stop flushing Korans down the prison commode, or other such tiresome nonsense. Of course, anyone with a semblance of historical perspective or reason knows that Islam will not alter its destructive course until the world is crushed beneath the weight of a vindictive Allah. All you have to do is listen to their own words, and read their own history. But proving once again that liberalism, like Islam, is a mental disorder, America's most strident objectors, usually libertines who make both a hobby and a career out of bashing this country for any reason, would of course be murdered first under such a regime.

There are certainly reasons for Islam's declared battle against America, most fundamentally originating in Islam's perception of Western societies as decadent and godless, and the root cause of Islam's inferior position in the world. While there may have been a time, a thousand years or more ago, when Islamic culture somewhat resembled civilization, those days are long past, and what remains are substantially illiterate Moslems eeking out a subsistence living. Neutered and weak, Islam's failure to thrive is juxtaposed in sharp contrast to Western success and hegemony, and the absence of any lasting positive contributions from nearly a billion followers is staggering in its implications.

This is understandably difficult for Moslems to explain, since Islam dismisses Christianity and Judaism, the very basis for Western success, as inferior and unenlightened religions, and which views itself as the final word of God. Since God can't be wrong, there must be another explanation. If it wasn't for those Satanic Christians and Jews, the reasoning goes, Moslems would be living in comfort and ease, instead of languishing embarrassingly in some of the most crushing ignorance and destitute poverty the world has ever seen. Everywhere Moslems look, their religion and culture has proven a dismal failure. Islamic jealousy and self-hatred is evident and acute, and manifested in its dark worship of death and the malleability and willingness of young men to blow themselves to pieces in order to be worthy of Allah.

But beyond evident feelings of inferiority, other equally strange and sinister internal struggles seem to compel the Islamic fundamentalists. By subjugating women with humiliating strictures, and reacting violently to any female autonomy, Moslems men seem to live in perpetual fear of women, and their own lack of masculinity. While publicly denouncing homosexuals as sinful and decadent, it is well known that homosexual behavior is prevalent in the Islamic world. It was long-rumored that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat enjoyed an active, and barely hidden, homosexual sex life, preferring young boys and men. In fact, Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founding father of Islamic fundamentalism, openly legitimized specific homosexual acts. In the book "The Sayings of Ayatollah Khomeini: Political, Philosophical, Social and Religious (The Little Green Book, ISBN 0-553-14032-9), a well-documented compilation of his speeches and writings, he is quoted as saying "if a man sodomizes the son, brother or father of his wife, the marriage remains valid". Also, sex with children and animals does not appear to be outside of normal Moslem sexual behavior. Khomeini writes in his book "Tahririlvasyleh" (volume four, Darol Elm, Qom, Iran 1990) that "a man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. . . sodomizing is acceptable". He further states that "a man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on". Both of these books are widely distributed in Iran, the birthplace of modern Islamic terrorism.

Ironically, much of what the left has supported, such as women's rights, homosexual rights, animal rights, abortion rights, pornography, drug use, and secular humanism are now cited by Islamic scholars to justify Islam's war against the West, and America in particular. In fact, it would have been nearly impossible to use such justifications fifty years ago, but with the successful incremental introduction of liberal thought into our own culture, such philosophy is common and nearly mainstream. While liberals would argue that these societal changes are signs of enlightenment, and others would view these issues simply as the dispassionate advance of civil liberties, Moslem religious leaders will continue to exploit this dichotomy which allows such apparent Godlessness to thrive in the greatest nation the world has ever produced.

Liberals have given the terrorists a convenient excuse to hate America.

President Bush may in truth be the only person in Washington who does not have an abortion-rights litmus test, but for the sake of his party and his legacy, he better get one. Real quick.

For Democrats, abortion is the very heart of the party, its money and its supporters. Every Democratic candidate, even for state offices, are embraced or rejected based on abortion philosophy. Every Democratic support group, including MoveOn.org, Emily's List, and People for the American Way, worship the culture of abortion like a religion, and would never, ever give money to a non-believing Democrat. Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman were forced to change previously pro-life positions to be palatable to the party, and John Kerry rejected his own Church to run in 2004. Conversely, Zell Miller was ostracized by his own party primarily because he became pro-life.

There may be slight disagreements within the party on other issues, such as support for the war in Iraq, but to be a Democratic politician in America today means that you must unreservedly support a woman's right to kill her own baby. Here's the proof: name even one Washington Democrat who is pro-life. Now that Miller is gone, it won't be easy. And when it comes to the Supreme Court, the only branch of government that can presently affect abortion law, you can bet this party would ignore every other consideration if Bush was to bring a pro-choice nominee to the Senate floor.

Such as Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, for example.

While Democrats have warned that nominees like Michael Luttig and Emilio Garza would instantly bring a Democratic Senate filibuster, there has been muted criticism regarding the possible Gonzalez nomination. Little wonder, since Luttig and Garza are known to be solidly pro-life, and Gonzalez has proven himself to be a supporter of abortion rights, ruling that children have a right to procure abortions without parental notice, and pledging to support Roe vs. Wade. With those credentials, even Gonzalez's most strident opponents during his AG confirmation hearings, who accused him of being the architect of US "torture" policy on terrorist detainees, would probably support him in the end.

Since the Republican Party is more tolerant of diverse abortion views, pressure on Bush to nominate someone like Gonzalez will come from both sides. While the party platform officially remains pro-life, advocating a constitutional amendment to ban abortion and calling for the choosing of pro-life judges, many powerful and influential Senate Republicans are unashamedly pro-choice, including Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter. Bush's dismissal of abortion philosophy as a relevant factor in gaining his support was evident when he chose to campaign to re-elect Specter, rejecting pro-life candidate Pat Twomey during last year's Pennsylvania Senate race. Bush has proven his willingness to abandon the conservative base of his party when it was politically expedient, and this precedent, and Bush's angry reaction to recent conservative criticism of Gonzalez, is ominous.

But Democratic apologists for Gonzalez are as equally troubling. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called Gonzalez "qualified for the Supreme Court", saying the president should not have to respond to such criticism from "the far right", and Sen. Charles Schumer, who voted against Gonzalez for Attorney General, issued a statement proclaiming that the potential nominee has a "very strong resume". Similarly, the director of the leftist activist political group People for the American Way, Ralph Neas, criticized the "religious right" for their misgivings about Gonzalez.

With Republicans in charge of the Senate, and with politically powerful and well-funded conservative groups like James Dobson's Focus on the Family already warning the president not to pick someone like Gonzalez, and instead nominate a judge willing to overturn the Roe vs Wade decision, Democrats are panicked, and ready for war. After all, these organizations are simply reflecting the official platform of the Republican Party. A quick read of liberal newspaper editorials and activist web-sites indicates an underlying level of hysteria not seen until now. As the party continues to decline in influence, progressively losing one political battle after another, the liberal groups that keep the Democrats flush in money will demand what could very well turn out to be the party's last stand over the defining issue of the modern Democratic Party. Radical activists are well aware that American opinion is quickly moving away from abortion support, and therefore cannot afford to lose the courts, for fear the citizens of each state might very well seal the fate of abortion law.

There is also the chance that Bush's political advisors, and possibly Bush himself, may be tiring of the constant battle with a tenacious minority party, which is supported by the powerful mainstream media and which becomes more strident and radical with every passing day. With other pressing matters of interest to the president, such as Social Security reform and a world-wide war against Islamofascism, Bush may view the court fight, and its potential to change the course of abortion law in this country, as a lesser priority. He was, in fact, strangely quiet during the previous Senate battle over his appellate court nominees, and showed little interest in intervening personally to end the Democratic filibuster and get an up or down vote for solidly pro-life nominees. Several languish without a vote even now, some after being blocked for years.

If President Bush is so naive as to believe that abortion should have nothing to do with his choice of the next Supreme Court judge, he may well risk losing the support of his only dependable base. Just as liberals would never forgive Democrats for failing to fight for a woman's right to kill her own baby, conservatives will never forgive Bush if he fails to try to stop them.

You are technically correct, as Little Black Sambo by author Helen Bannerman is apparently set in India. However if you go to on-line encyclopedia Wikipedia and search for the book's title you will see a very revealing depiction of the 1898 book cover. Also, www.newdeal.feri.org has pictures of 1930's American Sambo dolls. In the US, Sambo has generally been depicted as a stereotypical African looking person, with the major exception of a now-defunct pancake restaurant chain called "Sambos" that depicted Little Sambo as a relatively light-skinned individual, with very generalized features. Finally, the term "Sambo" has often been used as a racial slur towards blacks.

A postage stamp depicting a popular black comic book character in disparaging manner has caused the Bush Administration to issue a rare critique of the Mexican government.

Evidently, the White House is more concerned about politically incorrect cartoon characters with exaggerated Negro features, reminiscent of our own Aunt Jemima and Little Black Sambo, than a southern border flowing with illegal aliens and potential terrorists, or a Mexican government hopelessly mired in corruption and drug cartel control at the highest levels. Considering President Bush's chummy personal relationship with Vicente Fox, and his inexplicable embrace of uneducated, unskilled invaders who invariably drain away precious public funds, it is hard to believe he mustered enough gumption to be critical of Mexico, about anything.

If he wished, Bush would not have to look very hard to find fault with Mexican behavior, and a racially stereotypical cartoon on an official Mexican postage stamp is not even close to the most disconcerting. Almost every aspect of our relationship with this country, beyond some questionable economic benefit, is tainted with dangerous implications for our own. Most blatantly, President Bush has been an ardent supporter of various schemes to bring illegals into mainstream status. Of course, many Mexicans, and many radical nativist organizations like La Raza, believe that there is no such thing as an illegal Mexican alien, because the United States stole the border states from Mexico in the first place. In fact, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has been linked to La Raza. Apparently, Bush is not uncomfortable being associated with an organization that calls for completely open borders, and the establishment of a new Mexican controlled region called Atzlan, where California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Texas now exist. Hundreds of documented illegal incursions by the Mexican Army across our border indicates that at least a few Mexican military officials see the border as tenuous, at best.

Ironically, another ominous example of border vulnerability emerged yesterday, when two Iraqi men were arrested by Mexican police just as they were about to enter the United States. Certainly, the state of corruption and ineptitude of Mexican police agencies bought off with drug money does not inspire confidence that such apprehensions are, or will become, common-place, or that a few thousand pesos would not have resulted in the men being allowed to cross with Federale assistance. While Mexico's own southern border is aggressively controlled like a police state to keep out the Central American riff-raff, Vicente Fox and his government call for open borders with the United States. Of course, the flow of poor migrants who will ultimately become a border to society in innumerable ways will be a one-way street. It is hard to imagine an American welfare family in, say, San Diego, uprooting to go live the good life in Tijuana.

Although Mexico should be a rich oil country, it continues to languish as a third world nation because of gross corruption and mismanagement, and Fox and his upper-class supporters are happy to see their own huddled masses, mostly those of mestizo Indian origin, leave and become someone else's problem, in turn benefiting from billions of American dollars flowing back to Mexico's economy. Until there is a Mexican George Washington, able to inspire his people to freedom and liberty, that country will continue to rot from within. George Bush, usually a sincere advocate of free and just societies, does no favors for the people of Mexico by remaining silent in the face of such staggering injustices, simply because many of his business supporters wish to use illegal aliens like indentured servants.

A thick-lipped, frizzy-haired, flat-nosed cartoon character on a Mexican postage stamp has done what decades of corrupt governments, millions of illegal aliens, disregard for national sovereignty, and mini-military invasions were not able to do: agitate this administration into critical action against Mexico.

Sadly, we are not likely to see it again.

So much for Rove's reputation as a political genius...And it does not say much for the President's force of will or willingness to battle anti-American sentiment within our own country. He should be at the forefront of condemning these collaborators, and America would rally behind him. As it is, the Democrats steal all the oxygen, and he and the Republicans look neutered and weak.