Are you brave?

My fellow Americans. It has come to my attention that support for the war in Iraq is falling. Why? I ask you to sincerely reflect upon this in your quiet moments.

During discussions I've participated in with people who support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq I have attempted to understand their point of view. I'm perfectly willing to be convinced that we should withdraw from Iraq. But nobody has convinced me. I have yet to hear a war opponent give me a good argument for leaving Iraq. And now, I'm beginning to think that their opposition to the war is grounded in the selfish, short sighted and possibly disastrous desire to oppose anything and everything that comes from the Bush Administration; in other words, their opposition to the war is based on politics. Since the presidential election of 2000, I've heard people claim that the election was stolen by Bush. And in 2004, sure that they would see John Kerry win only to see him lose in another close election, the opposition to Bush has grown into irrational hate. When I cruise the World Wide Web, and I come across chat boards in which I find images of George Bush photo shopped into grotesque images of Adolph Hitler, or a chimpanzee or any number of childish things, I automatically tune them out. I refuse to listen to anyone devoid of the self discipline to participate in a discussion in an adult, civil manner.

The war in Iraq is an unconventional fight. It is a kind of war we have little experience with. It is not quite an insurgency, and it is not quite a fight against terror, it is something else, something in between, it is a hybrid war, a war with the hallmarks of several different kinds of war, but for the sake of this entry I refer to it as an insurgency. It will take us some time to figure out how to fight it effectively, the history of warfare tells us that. To expect the insurgency in Iraq to be put down by now is unrealistic. Historically insurgencies have always been lengthy efforts, requiring patience and determination from the counter insurgent. But in the society we live in, where we routinely receive instant gratification our ability to stay focused, our willingness to accept delayed gratification seems to have gone the way of the Do Do Bird. My friends, the only way we will lose in Iraq is if we allow it. Our military has had a steep learning curve, but they've figured this out and now, they need our unwavering support. Indications are, that our government has finally figured it out as well, and they need our support as well. This will not require any sacrifice on the part of the average American family, all it requires is for America to stop being hyper critical.

And now my friends, what will happen to Iraq if we leave? First, you must answer this basic question; do you care? It seems to me that in listening to the war opponents lament the loss of innocent Iraqi lives, that America does care. And since that is the case, pulling out of Iraq now makes no sense at all. Because if we do, Iraq will become a blood bath. If you think the sectarian violence is bad, consider this. If we leave, an all out civil war will erupt in Iraq, pitting the Shia majority with the active support of Iran, against the Sunni and Kurd minority. The killing will be countrywide, it will be Kosovo all over again only worse, ethnic cleansing on such a massive scale that it might be better described as genocide.

Do any of you trust Iran? Why would you possibly support our withdrawal and hand Iraq over to Iran complete with gift wrapping and ribbon? This my friends, without a doubt, will give international terrorism a home base, a sanctuary the likes of which they have never had before, complete with military arms, ammunition and equipment sitting around unattended ready to use. If we leave, who will be left in Iraq to prevent this? The Iraqi government is not strong enough, the Iraqi military isn't strong enough, there will be nobody to oppose the bad guys and the Iraqi people will be at their mercy.

The basic problem, most Middle East experts agree is the situation with Israel and the Palestinians. If we leave Iraq, our credibility or whats left of it, will be in tatters. It was bad enough that upon driving the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait during Operation Desert Storm that President Bush told the Iraqi Shia that if they took up arms against Saddam Hussein that we would assist them, and then to have abandoned them allowing Saddam to massacre them by the thousands. What will remain of our credibility, if after overthrowing Saddam, allowing chaos to ensue, only to leave before the job was done? Who would possibly take the chance in trusting us again? Iran will become the sole dominant force in the Middle East, along with a much weakened Israel. Israel, still smarting from the Lebanon conflict, and with the prospect of unilateral withdrawal completely discredited, will have little leverage with Iran. And my friends, it would only be a matter of time. A simple matter of time if we left, that the sectarian violence in Iraq turned into all out civil war, drawing in Iraq's neighbors, igniting a regional conflict and ultimately resulting in a military attack against Israel. And then, guess what? We will be back in the Middle East, participating in a bigger, more costly, more deadly war as an ally of Israel.

It is time for Americans to find their backbone. It is time to draw from the well of the generations of Americans past. For, they had the courage, discipline, the basic understanding that if they did not do the hard thing now, that they would be required to do a much harder thing later.

This fight is more important than perhaps most of the war opponents think. This fight isn't about oil or imperialism, those are just meaningless buzzwords used cavalierly by the opponents. It is a fight for our survival. This is a fight to change the attitudes of future generations of Iraqis, Arabs, and muslims. If we do not defeat the enemy in Iraq, they will have virtual free reign to recruit, finance, plan future terrorist operations and to train future terrorists for generations to come. Is that the kind of prospect that you want to leave to your children and grandchildren? Radical Islam is on the march. Who is going to oppose it if we do not?

My friends, it is far too early to give up. You defeatists out there who lack the courage of our ancestors, you need to educate yourselves and you need to wake the hell up. For all of the talk of how grim the situation is, to those of your prone to believe the politically motivated doomsday sayers I say; think for yourself! We overthrew the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein, liberated more the 50 million people from these two murderous, oppressive regimes. Don't you feel good about that? To write off the effort in Iraq as lost at this point would be like writing off the possibility of democracy in Europe because the failure of the revolutions in 1848. The problem in Iraq isn't that the people reject democracy. It is that there is not enough democracy there yet.

The enemy is getting support from Iran Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria. Do you note any democracies in that bunch? For all the yammering about how democracy doesn't stand a chance to grow in Iraq, has a credible alternative been offered by the anti war crowd? That's my whole point. The anti war crowd isn't thinking this through! Are we to return to the pre 9/11 paradigm and supporting our "friendly" dictators like Mubarak or the Saudi Royal Family? If our support for the Shah of Iran or of Yasser Arafat taught Americans anything, it should surely be that a secular strongman cannot keep the lid on indefinitely. We have to fix this, just like we did in Europe and Japan.

Again, we will not win overnight so stop acting like we should people! The President has told us from the outset that this fight would be a long one, and since the American people aren't suffering in support of it, whats the beef? Do not forget my friends many Americans were in utter despair at the prospect of the Cold War. In the late 1940s, communism appeared to be an unstoppable force, just as Islamism does to us today. Our enemies then; China and the Soviet Union were far, far more powerful than Al Qaeda and Iran are combined today. When Whittaker Chambers publicly broke with the Communist Party in 1948, he declared, "I know that I am leaving the winning side for the losing side." Yet the West ultimately prevailed. And just as the Soviet Union collapsed in record time, with the dismantling of the Berlin Wall and the Inter zonal German Border Fence, so, the cancer of Islamism in the Middle East could fall apart even faster than any of us expect! It could be, that all that is required is for a functioning model of democracy in a major Middle Eastern country. There is a little talked about fact of the Middle East the main stream media doesn't tell you about, there is a huge, underground, grass roots hunger for democracy among the younger generations in the region, yes, it's true. In Egypt, Iran, the people of the region yearn for change, to modernize, the dissatisfaction is palpable in the streets from Cairo to Tehran and the spark these people may only need is for Iraq to succeed and they will set themselves free.

My fellow Americans, as we well know, only democracy can satisfy the deepest desires of human nature. The question is not the outcome in Iraq now, it is how many people on both sides will die in the intervening decades? As our historic fight against communism and fascism suggest, determined American leadership can lower the death toll and speed up freedom's victory.

A retreat from Iraq now, will only serve to delay the inevitable emergence of democracy in the Middle East, it will only prolong the suffering of the Iraqi people and the people of the Middle East (for they are indeed suffering) and it will almost preordain, a major conflagration in the region, a conflagration that will draw us back to the region only under much more dire circumstances.

Think about it.

Ahmadinejad; Graduate of the Adolph Hitler School of how to win friends and influence people.

Ahmadinejad; Hitler reincarnate.

In my previous blog I commented on Hugo Chavez's speech before the UN. I can't comment on that babbling monkey without commenting on his partner in crime, the current President of Iran.

Like Chavez, Admadinejad addressed the UN recently. Although Admadinejad attempted to present himself as a genuine, enlightened, worldly politician, the reality of his deeds do not jibe with the picture he attempts to paint.

Ahmadinejad is attempting to remake his image in the west. He would like us to forget the prominent role he played in the Tehran Hostage Debacle during the Carter Presidency. Unfortunately, Americans have a short memory so it serves us well to examine this sorry excuse for a human being.

Ahmadinejad's speech to the UN was overflowing with lies and illusions that were designed to capture the imagination of the UN membership. So, he conveniently left his Islamic-fascist ideals back in Iran. Missing from his UN speech was his call for the outright destruction of Israel. Relying on his penchant for revising history, which appeals the the left of America. He continues to try to deny the legitimacy of Israel's existence.

Also missing from his UN speech? His declaration that "Islam will conquer all the mountain tops of the world." In it's place he called for "justice, spirituality, ethics, compassion and respect for human dignity." But who are the enemies of these universal values? According to Ahmadinejad, certainly not Islamic fundamentalists such as himself! After all, Islamic fundamentalists kill most non-muslims with equal vigor and elan, be they Christian, Hindu or Jew in the name of muslim supremacy and who also murder their own people for crimes like political dissent. Of course, the enemies of these universal values are the United States, and the United Kingdom, isn't that obvious? The guilty parties are the "hegemonic powers" who abuse their "privileged" status on the UN Security Council to escape accountability for their "aggression, occupation and violation of international law."

By comparison to Chavez's clownish performance before the UN, Ahmadinejad tried to present himself as an enlightened leader, modern and inclusive. But it is exactly this hypocritical posturing that makes this megalomaniac such a dangerous man. Ominously Hitler-like, Ahmadinejad is attempting to lull the world into appeasement and passivity while he plans behind closed doors to develop nuclear weapons and finances global terror with his nation's oil profits.

This man is intelligently playing the Palestinian victim hood card before a willing international audience. But his stand boils down pretty much to this. Why should a group of European survivors of the Holocaust (which he denies ever occurred) have any right to occupy a land thousands of miles from Europe "at the expense of driving millions of rightful inhabitants of the land into homelessness? To anyone with even a general understanding of history, Ahmadinejad is telling lies wrapped in a sympathetic package of bogus claims.

If I could speak to Mr. Ahmadinejad I would tell him I'm sorry to pop your delusional bubble, but the Holocaust did happen. It is beyond disingenuous for him; in the face of overwhelming evidence to deny it happened. To deny the Nazi slaughter of six million innocent Jews, demonstrates a true madness, a calculating evil temperament and an sinister motivation.

His accusations that the Israel has no right to exist stems from his delusional mind. The Jews preceded the muslims in that region by centuries. The Jews have been living in Israel for over three millennia. The Persian, King Cyrus recognized Jew's claim to their homeland. After King Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon (central Iraq) in 539 BC, he liberated Jews held captive in Babylon for three generations and encouraged them to return to their homeland in Israel and rebuilt the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. About a thousand years later in 641 BC, the Caliph, Umar decreed that Christians and Jews should be removed from most of Islamic holy lands of Arabia, and resettled them by force in lands assigned to them in Syria and Palestine. During this time in history, followers of Muhammad themselves believed that the Jews belonged in Palestine.

In 1948, Israel was recognized as an independent state by the UN . But the Arabs rejected the presence of an independent Palestinian state. The Palestinians already living inside Israel could have stayed, as some did and became Israeli citizens. Yet it was neighboring countries who encouraged the Palestinian inhabitants to leave their homes, with the promise that they would be allowed to return in short order after the Arabs attacked and drove out the Jews. For over twenty years the Palestinians could still have had their own state on the West Bank. Israeli forces were not driven out, from there or in Gaza until the 1967 when war convinced the nation of Israel that for their security the needed to be there out of necessity.

All Israel has ever wanted is to be left alone to live in peace and openly as Jews in their own lands without interference, and they were forced to fight for it on several occasions. In so doing Israel has never suppressed the rights of others who lived in Israel to practice their own faiths, which is exactly what Islamic fascists like Ahmandinejad have refused to tolerate in muslim controlled lands regarding non-muslim faiths. Instead of peace, Israelis have faced escalating campaigns to wipe them out. His words on justice, peace and human dignity before the UN runs hollow in the face of his actual intentions. If Iran ever procures a nuclear device he will use it on Israel, I guarantee it. And that will only be the opening act of his cause of global conquest in the name of Islam.

The United States and United Kingdom have proven to be responsible members of the UN Security Council and that international peace is their prime motivator by the blood and treasure our peoples have sacrificed for those causes. The US and UK championed the formulation of the UN from the destruction of WWII and together we have kept it together with financial contributions over it's life span. The US alone pays 22% of the UN's annual regular budget and billions more for other UN functions and programs. Guess how much oil rich Iran has contributed? .15%. No member of the Organization of Islamic Conference or the African continent are even in the top ten list of contributors to the UN's 2006 budget. Considering Ahmadinejad's repeated call for the destruction of Israel, a member in good standing in the UN, Iran should be expelled immediately from the UN altogether for violating this basic UN Charter! Rather, Iran is rewarded while Israel is penalized and vilified for protecting herself. Israel pays three times the amount that Iran pays, even though Iran is rich from oil sales and it has three times the share of the world's Gross Domestic Product than Israel.

The US and other functioning democracies in the world have consistently displayed compassion for the world's poor with massive public and private donations of aid. While the pretenders like Ahmadinejad of Iran seek to exploit their plight for political advantage, it's repugnant! While the US has acted as a leader in trying to prevent new genocide, such as Dafur in the Sudan, Africa, while members of the Non-Aligned Movement and Organization of Islamic Conference have either sat on their money or have aligned themselves with those who are committing genocide against their own people.

The history of WWII must be re-taught again and again to new generations of Hitler wannabes like Ahmadinejad. But alas, it seems the world democracies who lived through that horror and conquered fascism are the only ones who possess the courage to display the moral authority to rise and challenge fascism again, in our own lifetimes.

In a revealing editorial called "Sleeping with a devil in Islamic clothing," by a Somali journalist Bashir Goth, he describes the new Islamic fascist regime in Somalia, we get a taste of the Islamic-fascist idea of peace, justice and human dignity. It is not a pretty picture. The Somalians' native culture, identity, including their language is being wiped out before their eyes, much as the Taliban did in Afghanistan and the Arab muslims have done for centuries in Persia where Ahmadinejad is the latest in a long line of Islamic fundamentalists who have tried to stamp out the native Persian language, religious beliefs and culture.

Basic human rights are being denied in Somalia, as radical Islam has done in every area it has managed to take root. "The warlords use brute force to coerce people and the Islamists use brute religion to dehumanize people" wrote Bashir Goth. Islamic law (Sharia) is being applied through brute force. People who do not dutifully pray five times a day face the death penalty, he reports. Women are shackled at home.

Bashir Goth concludes: "Allowing them (the Islamists) to fulfill their agenda under the pretext of returning Somalia to peace is not only myopic but also foolhardy and sleeping with a devil in Islamic clothing." (Source: The Middle East Media Research Institute, Special Dispatches Series - No 1290, September 15, 2006, from Awdalnews.com, August 26, 2006).

This is the kind of world that this little man, (Ahmadinejad) has in store for the world if he gets his hands on a nuclear weapon. You are a FOOL if you believe this Islamic fascist nutcase when he boldly lies and manipulates the vocabulary of Western enlightenment and democratic values as he did in his pack of lies and accusations at the UN last week.
Ahmadinejad is an evil man bent on bringing about the Islamic version of the apocalypse. He desires to hasten the appearance of the hidden Imam which is supposedly to usher in an era of Islamic domination of the world.

I say, if you give this man an inch, he will take a mile, and then you will discover too late, you were a willing fool. He will lead you to slaughter. He will smile at you and shake your hand if it brings about the downfall of everything non-muslim in the world. Ahmadinejad is as evil as they come. He is trying to use our open, freedom loving society, our compassion, our freedom of speech and our tolerance to bring about our own destruction.

THE DEVIL!

Hugo Chavez is the devil!

I watched the President of Venezuela deliver a speech to a virtually empty UN a couple of days ago. A speech in which he called President Bush "The Devil" no less than eight times. I sat on my sofa doing a slow burn as I watched theatrics the likes of which have not been seen since the days of Adolf Hitler. Somehow I think Fidel gave him some tips on his delivery during Chavez's visit to old Fidel a few weeks ago.The few UN members who bothered to stick around and listen to this chattering monkey were given quite a treat, but it was not a speech befitting the UN. It was a display of arrogance, it was the epitome of self righteous indignation. It became obvious to me that the UN members who stayed in their seats to listen to this idiot were of the same mind as Chavez, for I heard laughter, chuckles and applause throughout his inane, baseless diatribe and I took solace in the fact that most of the UN members knew that he wasn't worth their time. In short, Hugo Chavez made an absolute idiot of himself in front of the entire nation. He should have painted his face with clown makeup.

Hugo Chavez had the audacity to criticize the United States and our president, as though Venezuela is perfect. Lets just take a moment to take a look at the wonderful state of Venezuela under the dictatorship of Hugo "The Devil" Chavez shall we? Who knows, maybe we'll learn how to govern a proper democracy?

The members of the UN who graciously sat through Chavez's speech against President Bush are among the very same UN members that have urged Venezuela to repeal laws that allow for the prosecution and imprisonment of it's citizens who disrespect certain state officials, naturally including El Presidenta Chavez for up to 40 months. Additionally, Chavez's Venezuela may also prosecute citizens for "defaming" the government as well. The UN and Human Rights Watch have urged Venezuela to repeal such laws as Argentina, Costa Rica, Paraguay and Peru have done already. Chile and Panama are in the process of repealing such laws.

Human Rights Watch has also expressed concern as the Venezuelan Congress dealt a sever blow to independence by packing the country's Supreme Court with 12 new justices. Five years ago Presidential Candidate Chavez promised to enshrine the principle of judicial independence with a new democratic constitution. After his election, the Chavez government betrays that promise by expanding the court from 20 to 32 members with the 12 new members all being members of Chavez's Fifth Republic Movement. This court packing law also gave the governing coalition the power to remove judges from the court without the two-thirds vote required under the constitution.

The state effectively controls television and radio broadcasting. Through the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television the state, through loosely worded rules on incitement of breaches of public order can penalize broadcasters legitimate expression of political views.

The people of the United States should be outraged by Chavez's remarks. His criticism should ring hallow for every day, he increases his power through abuse of his authority.

Chavez is a socialist, claims to embrace democracy while totally rejecting the claim he's a dictator. But if you'll recall your history, Chavez eventually was elected president after his failed coup attempt in 1992 which resulted in the deaths of 14 soldiers and over 100 civilian and military injuries. Ever wonder why Venezuela is even more divided that the United States? Chavez and his allies took it upon themselves to circumvent democracy with their coup attempt! And he now has the audacity to claim he believes in democracy? Where were his beliefs in 1992? Ultimately the president they were trying to overthrow was removed from office the next year as a result of charges of corruption, which makes it abundantly clear, the Venezuela political system was healthy and capable of dealing with such abuses through legal means, his coup was a complete waste of time, and unfortunately people died as a result.

In 1994 after serving two years in prison for his coup attempt, he was graciously pardoned as was his main ally Francisco Cardenas. In 1998 he ran a populist campaign that was funded in large measure by millions of dollars in illegal contributions by two foreign banks. During his campaign he swore to abolish the traditional political system, put an end to corruption in government and eliminate poverty in the country. In 1999, the Venezuelan Constitution was rewritten by a group of Chavez supporters. This new and "improved" constitution tremendously increased the power of the president and weakened the power of the legislature.

In 2000, Chavez was not surprisingly re-elected under the new constitution. Amazingly enough, his opponent was his chief ally, Cardenas, and between the two of them, they captured 97% of the vote. Surprise of surprises, Cardenas is now the Venezuelan ambassador to the United Nations. This would seem to indicate that the voters of Venezuela had to choose between the lesser of two evils that had a mere eight years prior, been traitors to the country.

In 2004, Venezuelans attempted to recall Chavez was impeded by the government, recall supporters were subject to intimidation but eventually a recall referendum was held. Chavez, allegedly survived with 60% of the vote in his favor. That recall was endorsed by President Carter, but exit polls indicated the opposite; that Chavez was effectively recalled by 60% of the voters. The vote was marred by a lack of transparency and obstructionism during the process that led to the US News and World Report to agree that there was compelling reason to believe that Chavez only retained his presidency due to massive voter fraud!

Has Chavez made good on his campaign promise to improve the lot of the poor in his country? It seems doubtful according to most UN and Human Rights Watch reports. Chavez seems to be spending the bulk of his time and effort in office in rigging a way for him to stay in office longer than the constitutionally mandated two terms. Time will tell in that regard.

Chavez undoubtedly engaged in traitorous acts against his country, was imprisoned, accepted illegal campaign contributions from rich multinational companies while claiming to being interested in helping the poor, he created a new constitution handing him more and more power. His only subsequent election was against a coup co-conspirator of his 1992 coup attempt who is now ambassador to the UN, it is likely that he was recalled by the voters of Venezuela in 2004, his government is rife with the exact corruption as previous governments and he is already attempting to rewrite the constitution so he can continue as the president.

Chavez deserves nothing from Americans but our contempt. Over the past few years, Chavez has made headlines not through anti poverty campaigns or fighting corruption in the government, but through a domestic was-the-dog campaign in which he has attempted to convince the citizens of Venezuela that an American attack is imminent, and by a more recent international campaign that is characterized by an inflammatory anti-American message. His domestic agenda is clear, to unite Venezuelans against an imaginary American military strike, in this way he distracts the people from whatever complaints they might otherwise voice against him as the move ever closer to the election in December. His anti-American rhetoric seems to be focused on gaining prominence in the eyes of the world and to gain support for his call for Venezuela to be given a seat on the UN Security Council; which is laughable and would be an utter disaster.

If it were not bad enough to have an idiot, tinpot dictator in the western hemisphere to step into the role of Castro, Chavez is supporting Iran in their nuclear program. He has also allied himself with Syria and hopes soon to meet with the pot bellied pig in North Korea. He has threatened to stop selling oil to the US. Chavez is clearly an irrational man conducting a dangerous foreign policy that borders on brinkmanship. He is attempting to solidify a bloc of anti-American nations to oppose and undermine the US. He even went so far as to recommend that the UN be moved from the US to some other location, and naturally he offered Venezuela as an option. While he obviously hates our President, he has also made it abundantly clear that he is opposed to the "American Empire", and that does not refer to President Bush alone, he's talking about America proper. I predict that Chavez is going to be the President of Venezuela for decades, when Bush is long gone.

Many countries may not be fond of our President, but there is a difference between disliking our President and creating an anti-American alliance that will in all probability be in existence long after Bush leaves office. I tell you here and now, the only way Chavez will relinquish office is through death or political uprising at the hands of the people of Venezuela.

Americans should understand and remember that Chavez is not our friend. He is a liar who will stoop to any means necessary to bring about our downfall. Not only is he actively engaged in creating an anti-American alliance, he is forming that alliance with the most brutal and irrational governments on the face of the earth, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba. At least two of these unstable countries is in or about to join the nuclear club. And all are safe haven to state sponsored terrorists. This week for example, Iran and Venezuela signed an agreement to produce gun powder and small aircraft in Venezuela, why gun powder? Does Iran intend to use it for their peaceful alternative power program too?

My fellow Americans, we have our differences, and regardless of how you feel about President Bush, that fact is Chavez is opposing him to curry the favor of those who do not support him. Do not let Chavez fool you into thinking he is your friend. Remember the reality of how Chavez got to the presidency. Remember he is a socialist, his lack of attention to his campaign promise to alleviate the suffering of the poor, who constitute 50% of the population of Venezuela by the way. And remember the fact that he is trying to recruit rogue states into an alliance against our country.

Think about this, Chavez hangs onto his power by using the tactics that many accuse Bush of using regarding election fraud. It is reasonable to conclude that those who make these kinds of accusations against the President of the United States should hold Chavez to the same standard, should they not? Yet, some who accuse Bush excuse Chavez. In so doing, they do a disservice to the democratic principles they claim to hold in such esteem.

In the 1980s the US treated an Iraqi dictator as a friend because he was opposed to the US's enemies in the region; Iran. Ten years later, he became our enemy and the conflict that ensued has torn our unity apart. Some Americans that approve of Chavez are the same ones that accuse past administrations of stupidity in supporting Saddam in the early years. But these same people have not learned an important lesson from that mistake; That the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. Just because Iraq stood against Iran did not make Saddam any less brutal. Likewise, certain Americans need to come to the realization that the fact that Chavez opposes Bush does not make him a friend of the American opponents to Bush.

We have far more things in common with one another than we do differences. One thing, one man that should unite us, is that cackling monkey, Hugo Chavez.

Christiandom stirring?

Once again my friends, we are treated to the spector of peaceful muslims on the march in western cities, over the reading of statements uttered during a religious war that occured over 500 years ago. Pope Benedict is now the target of vicious attacks, from verbal insults to threats of death.

Pope Benedict's merely reading a historical quote has touched off yet another firestorm of muslim protest, yet another round of red faced, frothing at the mouth protests as well as murder, vandalism and threats.

My friends; think, think about what has transpired. It is high time that westerners, whether religious or not, begin think about what we are faced with.

I will not belabor the fact that Islam is full of contradictions, which is really where it derives it's strength. That Islam easily lends itself to the justification of violence and making war. That once a person becomes a muslim, he is fairly considered a slave to the religion. That politics and Islam walk hand in hand. In the Islamic world, everything is based on Islam, the law, government, worship, dress, diet, personal conduct, there is no such thing as free will in Islam; one does indeed "submit" to the religion. Read more about Islamic teachings here.

A fellow blogger who happens to be a Catholic attended mass this past Sunday. After the mass was concluded and he was leaving historical Westminster Cathedral was met with about 100 muslim protestors. You can read his account here.

An Italian nun was shot in the back in retribution in Mogadishu.
Pope threatened with suicide attack.
Greek Orthodox Church in Gaza Attacked.
Pope apologizes, but violence continues.
Transcript of the Pope's speech.

My friends, if it is not now patently obvious to you then you are purposely hiding from reality. There is an element within the Isamic world community that while finding it perfectly legitimate to comment on Christianity, indeed to openly condem and criticize it, they cannot and will not tolerate the same.

What does the future hold in store regarding Christian/Muslim relations? I do not know, but the consequences are quite ominous. It is my hope that moderate muslims will soon speak out and that the radical element be effectively marginalized and be squeezed out.

Voices of reason from Muslim leaders.

Muslims are to blame for the Crusades.

I offer you the Crusades.

The Crusades are often cited a major justification for terrorism, especially by the tall dog, Osama bin Laden who never fails to describe the American war against terrorism as a new Crusade against Islam. It is this kind of historical ignorance that contributes to the sad situation and feeds the fire burning in the Islamic world. Muslims seem predisposed, indeed eager to believe this tripe. And it appears, so do many of us in the west. I have heard this statement so many times that I began reading about the Crusades extensively and what I found indicates that the Christians did not strike Islam first. It is often said that those who do not understand the past are doomed to repeat it. That is a relevant statement, for it appears we in the west do not understand that Islam has been a religion of violence since it's inception and throughout history. Let us take a few moments to examine the history of the Crusades.

It begins with the holy book of Islam, the Koran. According to the Koran. In my research I discovered some passages in it, that indicate to me that Islam is a religion based on not only submission, but violence and warfare! Take a look for yourself:

"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)

"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216)

"The only true faith in God's sight is Islam." (Surah 3:19)

"Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people...They desire nothing but your ruin....You believe in the entire Book...When they meet you they say: 'We, too, are believers.' But when alone, they bite their finger-tips with rage." (Surah 3:118, 119)

"If you should die or be slain in the cause of God, His forgiveness and His mercy would surely be better than all the riches..." (Surah 3:156-)

"Seek out your enemies relentlessly." (Surah 4:103-)

"The Jews and Christians say: 'We are the children of God and His loved ones.' Say: 'Why then does He punish you for your sins?" (Surah 5:18)

"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)

"Believers, when you encounter the infidels on the march, do not turn your backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except it be for tactical reasons...he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home..." (Surah 8:12-)

"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme." (Surah 8:36-)

"If you fear treachery from any of your allies, you may fairly retaliate by breaking off your treaty with them." (Surah 8:51-)
"...make war on the leaders of unbelief...Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them..." (Surah 9:12-)

"It ill becomes the idolaters [non-Muslims] to visit the mosques of God..." (Surah 9:17)

"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)

"It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith [Islam] to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters [non-Muslims] may dislike it." (Surah 9:31-)

"If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men." (Surah 9:37-)

"Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (Surah 9:73)

"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)

"Fight for the cause of God with the devotion due to Him...He has given you the name of Muslims..." (Surah 22:78-)

"Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Surah 48:29)

"Shall the reward of goodness be anything but good?...Dark-eyed virgins sheltered in their tents...They shall recline on green cushions and fine carpets...Blessed be the name of your Lord..." (Surah 55:52-66-)

So, you see, the Koran demands, orders, compels muslims to seek the destruction of all who will not bow to Islam. I didn't bother to post the Koran's guidance about the issue of owning slaves, marrying more than one wife, etc. I think these passages are enough to illustrate my point. Islam is a religion of domination.

You might ask yourself, why not all muslims pick up the rifle and fight? I submit to you, that violence is not the only option available to muslim crusaders. Take a look at the immigration rates of muslims to Europe, how about the use of oil as a weapon? The use of the media to spread propaganda, brainwashing their children? Give it some thought, you'll find that the muslim crusader is quite devious. But, the goal is the same, to make Islam the dominate religion on earth.

To further illustrate my point take a look at this:

Omar M. Ahmad founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) said:"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant" he said. "The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America , and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth," he said.

Are you paying attention now?

Misconceptions about the Crusades are all to common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power hungry popes, fought by fanatical Christians. They are often further defined as having been an early breed of imperialists bent on forcing western ways on poor peaceful muslims in the Middle East.

To begin, the Crusades were in every sense, defensive wars, a response to muslim aggression. The Crusades were an attempt to defend against muslim conquests of Christian lands!

The Christians of the eleventh century weren't paranoid religious fanatics. The muslims were attacking them, invading and conquering their lands. During this period in history, Islam was spread almost exclusively by the sword! Muslims divide the world into two abodes, the abode of Islam and the abode of war. No other religion, in the eyes of Islam has an abode. As a rule, Christians and Jews can be tolerated but only in a muslim state, dominated by Islam! But by traditional Islamic teaching, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed, their lands conquered and their people subjugated, converted to Islam, or killed. In the seventh century when Mohamed was waging a war against Mecca, Christianity was the predominant religion of the region.

Islam struck against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They achieved successes in Palestine, Syria and Egypt which were at the time, the most heavily Christian areas of the known world, but the were vanquished quickly. By the eighth century, muslim soldiers had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk (Turks) conquered Asia Minor (modern day Turkey), which had been Christian since St. Paul. The Roman Empire, known then as Byzantine, was reduced to little more than Greece. Out of these desperate circumstances, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to Christians in western Europe that they would fall next without their intervention.

This is what gave rise to the Crusades. It was not the brainchild of a power hungry pope or rapacious knights seeking plunder. It was an understandable response to more than four centuries of muslim aggression, and by that time they had conquered two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christians had to defend themselves or be subjugated by Islam. The Crusades were that defense!

Pope Urban II, called upon the knights of Christiandom to push the muslims out during the Council of Clermont in 1095. The knights responded. Thousands took the vow of the cross and prepared for battle. The generally accepted portrayal is that they were eager for plunder, that they were nothing more than lackeys of the pope. But think about this. Scholars verify that most of the crusading knights were generally wealthy men with more than enough land and money to last a lifetime. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake what they thought was a holy mission. Since crusading was not cheap, many of the Crusaders financed the campaign with their own money and assets, many impoverished themselves in the effort. The Crusaders believed in the cause and did believe it was a holy cause. Each of the Crusading Knights were well aware of their sins, the sinful nature of man. Some volunteered for the Crusades as a sort of penance to cleanse themselves of sin. Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak to us today, if we will only listen! Yes, some Crusaders became rich from the campaign, but the vast majority of them returned with nothing!

Pope Urban gave them two goals, both would be central the effort. First, rescue the Christians of the East. The second goal, to liberate Jerusalem and other holy places made holy during the life of Christ.

Consider the writings of Pope Urban II's successor, Pope Innocent III who wrote:

How does man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them? Is it by chance that you do not know that many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the muslims, tortured with innumberable torments?

Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith, an expert on the era says "Crusading" was understood as an "act of love," in this case, the love on one's neighbor. The Crusades were seen as an errand of mercy to right a terrible wrong. As Pope Innocent III wrote to the Knights Templar, "You carry out in deeds the words of the Gospel, "Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends."

Pope Innocent also speaks to us from the past, through his writings:

Consider most dear sons, consider carefully that if any temporal king was thrown out of his domain and perhaps captured, would he not, when he was restored to his pristine liberty and the time had come for dispensing justice look on his vassals as unfaithful and traitors...unless they had committed not only their property but also their persons to the task of freeing him? And similarly will not Jesus Christ, the king of kings and lord of lords, whose servant you cannot deny being, who joined your soul to your body, who redeemed you with precious blood condemn you for the vice of ingratitude and the crime of infidelity if you neglected to help him?

Indeed, the Crusading Knights believed their mission a holy one.

The fact of the matter remains, and it is a fact; the reconquest of Jerusalem, was not imperialism, or colonialism, but an act of restoration and an open declaration of one's love of God. Medieval men knew, that God had the power to restore Jerusalem himself. But they interpreted his refusal to do so, a test, a blessing on them.

So, we can see that the motivation of the Crusading Knights, saw their mission as holy.

It is also often assumed the the goal of the Crusades was the forced conversion of the muslim world. But nothing could be further from the truth. From the perspective of medieval Christians, muslims were the enemies of Christ and his church. It was the Crusader's task to defeat and defend against them. That was all. Muslims who lived in Christian lands were allowed to retain their property, and livelihood, and always their religion. Throughout history it has been the muslims who demanded that others convert to Islam.

I don't need to drive the issue into the ground. But it is obvious to me, and I hope to you also and if not, I hope that you will reflect upon the history of the Crusades with all of the intellectual honesty you can muster.

A total of five Crusades were launched to free the holy land, but the first Crusade was the only one that realized the goal of freeing Jerusalem and Christians who lived there. It is also interesting to note, that upon taking Jerusalem, no campaign to convert muslims to Christianity was undertaken. Christianity is about forgiveness, Islam is about submission.

Looking back over time, it is too easy to look in disgust at the Crusades. Religion is a poor excuse for war after all. But we should at least be honest with ourselves as to why the Crusades occurred. We should also be ever mindful, that our ancestors would have been just as disgusted at us for fighting wars over political ideologies. But, both the medieval knight, and the modern Soldier fight for their own world and everything in it, for things important to them. Both are willing to suffer in service to something they hold dear, something greater than themselves. Whether or not you choose to admire the Crusaders or not, it is an undeniable fact that the world as we know it today would not exist without their sacrifices. The ancient faith of Christianity, with forgiveness as its core value, with it's respect for women, disdain for slavery not only survived the muslim onslaught, but flourished. Without the Crusades, Christianity might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam's rivals, into extinction.

In the year 2006, we find ourselves once again at odds with Islam. And as it was in medieval times, it is today. The west is defending itself from a religion predisposed to violent behavior, with world domination at it's goal. It would do us well to recall the Crusades and remember throughout history, just who has been attacking whom?

Convert to Islam or die!

I wonder if anyone else thinks that the recently released FOX news reporter Steven Centanni disgraced himself when he converted to Islam at the end of a gun? Something to think about isn't it?

I say it is Gutless! Absolutely gutless! What would you have done? What would I have done? I would have told the savages that kidnapped me that I'm not converting to a backward religion of violence that celebrates the killing of people that don't think like me, I've been a Christian all my life and now in my last moments on earth you expect me to flush it down the toilet? Shove it up your ass! As a stubborn crusty old sergeant, I think I can safely say, I'd either not be a muslim right now, or I'd be dead!

If I would have converted to Islam, I would at least hope I would come back to my family ashamed of myself. But more than that, I would expect my country to be disappointed in me. I truly hope that my country would classify my conversion to Islam as a convenient act of cowardice.

As of yet, I have noted no sign from Centanni of even a little shame. Lets just get down to brass tacks here shall we? Centanni took the cowards way out. He did it to save his precious hide. And worse yet, I see no indication that our society sees his conversion as an act of cowardice. This is an indication of how spineless Americans have become. We don't even seem to recognize categories of courage or cowardice any more.

What does this say about us? Americans are willing to convert to Islam in the face of adversity? Gutless! Centanni only served to deepen the opinion of our enemy that we want to live so badly that we will convert to Islam when faced with torture or death.

Another nail in the coffin America. Just another nail in the coffin. Wake up! We are in a fight for our very survival!

Support the troops!

I know Iraq hasn't turned out quite like we were told it would. But I want America to think about something. Just because the going has become tough doesn't mean we should give up, cut and run, whatever you want to call it. All it means is; the going has become tougher and we knew that it would. This is an insurgency, and historically an insurgency is a tough nut to crack.

The one thing that should be foremost in the minds of every American is that our troops need and deserve our unwavering, total support. Americans, with the exception of higher fuel prices and inconveniences of additional security measures at airports have not been asked or required to sacrifice anything. We should be exceedingly grateful to our troops, who have taken 100% of the sacrificing in this war on their shoulders alone, they are sacrificing, we aren't. Except for the occasional homemade billboard displaying "We Support Our Troops" or the yellow magnetic stickers on vehicles, I don't see an outpouring of support for our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen and Coast guardsman and frankly as a combat veteran myself this just flat out pisses me off. Don't they deserve our support no matter what our individual opinion of the war is? I hear it time and again, "I support the troops but not the war," but nobody has been able to explain how to do that, I call bullshit on them!

How has the war impacted your lifestyle here at home? What's the beef really? Be honest about this, your life has hardly been negatively impacted at all with very few exceptions and those are more inconveniences than sacrifices. What we have in Iraq, are dirty, filthy, scum of the earth, murdering bloodthirsty, power hungry terrorists, mufisden, who deliberately murder innocent Iraqis, kindnap civilians, cut the heads off of innocents and desicrate the dead in an effort to do exactly what seems to be happening, to divide Iraq along sectarian lines, and scare and demoralize the Americans back home. Why are we giving the enemy exactly what he wants? Did you not understand the nature of these animals? We have come to a crossroad. What will America do? What are YOU willing to do?

As for me? I'm supporting the troops as I always have. I will support their mission as well, for the two cannot be separated. I'll continue to write on my little blog, and call for the redoubling of our efforts in Iraq. That means sending more troops to Iraq to get this civil war thing under control, to deny freedom of movement to the mufisden, to expose them as the liars they are, and to provide adequate security for the Iraqi people. To do that, we must make some adjustments to our strategy and tactics. I think the prime concern should be in providing a secure environment in Iraq, to do that we have to have Soldiers everywhere. They need to be visible to the Iraqi people, they need to mingle with average Iraqis, to build good relations, the Iraqi people need to get to know our Soldiers as people, not just Ninja Turtle looking stormtroopers laden with battle gear stuck under a kevlar helmet passing by on patrol, this does not build trust.

There is one basic reason for the current situation in Iraq and that is that we failed to project our military might in sufficient strength and numbers to control the terrain, towns and cities of Iraq. Our troops are not being out-fought, they aren't being out-thought, however in the strategic realm, our civilian leaders seem to be stuck in reactive mode. The insurgents have the initiative. Americans need to demand we fight this war harder! Demand we fight seriously with every means at our disposal rather than whining like whipped puppies to withdraw! My God, I can't for the life of me figure out what happend to America's backbone!

We are just a few adjustments away from turning things around in Iraq permanently. Insurgencies have been defeated before and this one can be defeated too. President Bush warned us early on that this war would be a long one and it would take resolve to see it through. Back then the Congress and the American people supported him in this endeavor. Why have we turned out back on him, and our troops?

Everyone knows the the mainstream media lie. There are multiple instances of prominent media personalities being caught red handed lying, even manufacturing documents to damage the president's reputation. Everyone knows the media sensationalizes, everyone knows they will tell the tragic story while ignoring the boring good news, highlight the alleged war atrocities as though they were fact, they are quite content in sullying the reputation of our military over unsubstantiated accusations, painting our recruiters as rapists and thugs who press kids into the military, it's crap! The media is every bit as culpable for the drop in support of the war effort as anyone, probably more so. But they could care less, it gets ratings and to the media moguls, that's what its all about, that's all that matters, and Americans are sucking it up. If today's media were reporting on world war II, do you think we would have had the guts to stick with it? Close your eyes and imagine Dan Rather informing the country of American casualties at Iwo Jima, imagine him describing the landing at Normandy, The Axis would have won and Jews might be extinct. Imagine the main stream media reporting the Civil War. The media would have taken a neutral stance on the issue of slavery no doubt. And would have supported the Confederates in their right to secede from the United States. Face the facts America, we knew this war would get tough at some point and we would have to adapt, innovate and overcome, we have always had to do that, in every war we've ever been involved in! Face the fact America, the main stream media doesn't mind lying to you if it gets them ratings. Think for yourself! Terrorism isn't going away anytime soon, even if we gave up in Iraq today!

Remember your roots, remember your history! Forget about what Europeans think about us, how do they impact your life? Do you think they really care about us? Screw the UN! What have they done for America lately? Remember what our ancestors faced, remember the sacrifices that every day Americans made in support of the troops back then, and that you have sacrificed nothing. At least not yet. But if we give up in Iraq, we will feel the ramifications for generations, and we'll fight them again (if we survive), you can count on that, only next time we might be fighting them in our own backyards. You had better wake up America, nothing can stand in the way of a united American people. The only reason we will lose in Iraq is because the folks back home gave up on the troops. Don't let that happen!

Lets talk about Democrats

Before the euphoria over the earth shaking victory of Ned Lamont over Joseph Lieberman in the Connecticut primary, the liberal Democrats have had cold water rudely splashed in their faces. How can this be? Joe Lieberman is now polling in front of Ned Lamont in the Connecticut general election campaign. But the liberals had not finished slapping each other on the back for this stunning anti war referendum, this clear cut rebuff of President Bush's war in Iraq! The polls are suddenly not to be trusted! Maybe the Connecticut voters at large know something about Ned Lamont that the rest of America doesn't. Allow me to offer my opinion of this "cut and run" spineless liberal; Ned Lamont is not a serious man. His family background suggests at best a tradition of tone-deafness to threats from America's enemies. He is the grand-nephew of Corliss Lamont, an infamous Stalinist who , if he was not, as he claimed he was not, a card-carrying member of the Communist Party, arguably cheated the party of dues payments. This is not to suggest the sins of the ancestor should be visited upon the child, but it is legitimate to notice when failure to take the measure of our enemies runs in the family of a would-be U.S. Senator, if the candidate himself today appears to be carrying on that tradition. And I also happen to think Ned Lamont hates the military. He deserves a drubbing in the general election.

I apologize to those of you who, like me, knew what was going to happen in Connecticut. I am a bit disappointed that I must explain this, but how could a liberal not realize it? As is normally the case, liberals are in denial, they continue to burrow their heads ever deeper into the sand, exposing their backsides. And Lieberman is preparing to kick it but good.

I am an independent voter, I don't carry water for either party. But I'm sick and tired of the liberals who hold Republicans to a higher standard of conduct then they do themselves. So, if any liberals read this, allow me to give you a few pieces of advice that might help the Democrats in the upcoming election cycle.

Get rid of your tired, old, worn out, failure of a campaign strategy. Dump it, have you not learned the lesson? It isn't working and it won't work this time either.

For the last thirty years or so all I've ever heard from Democratic candidates is; Republicans are bad, Republicans are evil, Republicans want to take away your civil rights, constrain your liberty, force you to go to church, take money from your pay check, allow the ultra rich to get away with not paying taxes, cut social programs, cut education, increase military spending, start wars, etc, etc, etc. When should I expect these bad things to happen?

Tell me this liberals, because as an independent voter I have no problem casting a ballot for a Democrat. But what you have consistently failed to do is tell me why I should vote Democrat. All I've ever heard from liberals is why I shouldn't vote for Republicans. But I've learned through trial and error, that voting for something is far better than voting against something. And that's basically it. So, this begs the question; why haven't the Democrats tried to convince me why I should vote for one of them?

When I talk to Republican friends of mine, they have no problem in explaining their core values and vision for America, they can run it down for me in thirty seconds. But my Democrat friends can't do that. Most of them are filled with so much angst and anger that all they can do is spew a hateful diatribe against President Bush and Republicans. But they can't articulate their core values or their vision for America, they simply cannot do it. This leads me to the conclusion that they don't have core values. When I look at the Democratic party, I see a loose conglomeration of single issue activist groups, all huddled under the Democratic umbrella, and the Democratic leadership doesn't know what to do with them. They dare not alienate any of them. So the Democrats have no choice but to cater to the demands of these diverse one issue groups in the hope to keep them in the camp. Promise them anything until you get what you want.

How is it that I hear that prominent Democrats are holding meetings and conferences in remote locations to figure out what their core values are? What their message should be? Because, they don't have core values.

I hear liberals constantly saying things like, "we need to set a clear agenda" " we need to get the country going in the right direction." that's all well and good and the Democrats will capture their base, but that's not going to get any of them elected.

The liberals are cock sure that anti war sentiment will grow under their care and that alone will sweep Democrats into Congress and the Oval Office. But if you liberals refuse to heed the lesson of the Connecticut primary and the looming Joe Lieberman victory in the general election, you don't deserve to become the majority in Congress, or to win the White House, because your just plain dumb if you don't get it. The American voter doesn't want to be reduced to voting for the lesser of two evils, they want to vote for something. The liberals are forgetting about our booming economy, low unemployment, the fact that we have not had another terrorist attack on our soil, and so on and so on, etc, etc. If, the American voter is reduced to voting for the lesser of two evils, they will be more likely to vote incumbent. And the Democrats will be left scratching their heads once again and behind closed doors lamenting how stupid the average American is, that he could be so easily duped by the Republicans. When the real reason is, the Democrats don't stand for anything.

The Democrats are actually positioned by dumb luck to do well in the upcoming elections, but they aren't smart enough, they aren't disciplined enough to knock off the negative politics and focus on themselves, to find their message, articulate their agenda and how they plan to implement that agenda.

You watch, Joe Lieberman will win the Connecticut general election, I predict that officially here and now. Democrats will call me stupid, and ignore all of the warning signs, they won't change their tactics and will end up on the short end of the stick again. You can bet on it, just sit back and enjoy the Democrats in the center ring.

I take no pleasure in criticizing our president, in my opinion he occupies the Oval Office in what must be the most demanding term of any US President since Lincoln. But I've got to call'em they way I see'em so here it is. I started to smell a rat some months ago when the illegal immigrant debate heated up. Watching the protests of thousands in the streets of our cities holding Mexican flags high, US flags upside down. Having to listen to immigrants brag to the television cameras about how they were intimidating the Congress. And the deafening silence from the Senate, and the White House, I was perplexed and I was pissed off. It is clear to me that the nation wants the president to take firm, bold action to curb the virtually uncontrolled illegal immigration flow into our country.

I've learned additional details that make the hair on the back of my neck stand up. I recently have had what previously would have been considered an insane thought, and that is that there is a secret movement to merge the US, Canada and Mexico into a kind of "supernation."

Here is just some of what I've found.

President Bush seems to have an irrational resistance to take any action on the southern border or to enforce our existing laws that require the deportation of illegal immigrants. Is it possible that some in government know something that we do not? We have been unaware of the backroom wheelings and dealings with the governments of Mexico, Canada, business leaders and certain groups who favor a sort of merger of the three nations. Is there a movement to eliminate the borders between the US, Canada and Mexico? Read on.

Ever heard of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP)? I'll tell you more about it shortly, it is a very interesting group.

Few news organizations have addressed this issue. I thought it was a silly thought when it first entered my mind. Who could possibly be in favor of merging three sovereign nations? But, it seems that at least some in news media have taken notice.

Lou Dobbs of CNN Moneyline said this: "A regional prosperity and security program?" He asked in a recent program. "This is absolute ignorance. And the fact that we are - that we reported this, we should point out, when it was signed. But, as we watch this thing progress, these working groups are continuing. They're intensifying. What in the world are these people thinking about? You know, I was asked the other day about whether or not I really thought the American people had the stomach to stand up and stop this nonsense, this direction from a group of elites, an absolute contravention of our laws, of our Constitution, every national value. And I hope, I pray that I'm right when I said yes. But this is - I mean, this is beyond belief."

It looks like Lou Dobbs is on the case; this is good. What has Mr. Dobbs and a growing number of Americans troubled began March 31, 2005, when elected officials of the US, Mexico and Canada agreed on the agenda of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. The agenda of this group has been secretive until now. These leaders agreed to work toward easier and faster moving of goods and people between the countries. Here is a transcript of Lou Dobbs from a June 21 edition of his news program on CNN:

Republican Representative Tom Tancredo (Colorado) who is chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus and who authored a book called "In Mortal Danger," seems to be the only elected representative who has called the White House to task. He has demanded that the Bush Administration fully disclose the activities of the government office implementing the trilateral agreement, and notes that if it is true, it has no authorization from Congress. Further, he wants to know who makes up the membership of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) groups along with all documentation that exists.

The co-founder of the Minutemen Jim Gilchrest chimes in; "It's time for the Bush Administration to come clean. If President Bush's agenda is to establish a new North American union government to supersede the sovereignty of the United States, then the president has an obligation to tell this to the American people directly. The American public has a right to know." The right to know indeed Mr. Gilchrest!

The head of the SPP Office; a woman named Geri Wood told Worldnet Daily, that the work had not been disclosed because, "we did not want to get the contact people of the working groups distracted by calls from the public."

Is the actual reason for President Bush's foot dragging on taking action on our southern border because he has a secret goal to expand NAFTA into something bigger? Phyllis Schlafly commented on the topic by saying this: "Is the real push behind the guest-worker proposals the Bush goal to expand NAFTA into the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which he signed at Waco, Texas, last year and reaffirmed at Cancun, Mexico, this year?" She asks. "Bush is a globalist at heart and wants to carry out his father's oft-repeated ambition of a 'new world order.'" She out and out accuses the president and others behind the effort of wanting to obliterate US borders in an effort to increase the Mexican population transfer and lower wages for the benefit of US corporate interests. Schlafly continues; "Bush meant what he said at Waco, Texas, in March 2005, when he announced his plan to convert the United States into a 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America' by erasing our borders with Canada and Mexico," she said. "Bush's guest-worker proposal would turn the United States into a boardinghouse for the world's poor, enable employers to import an unlimited number of 'willing workers' at foreign wage levels, and wipe out what's left of the US middle class. Bush lives in a house well protected by a fence and security guards and he associates with rich people who live in gated communities. Yet for five years, he has refused to protect the property and children of ordinary Arizona citizens from trespassers and criminals." Harsh words, but not completely inaccurate. And an eye opening remark coming from one of Ronald Reagan's most loyal supporters.

The Pittsburgh Tribune Review, noticed the seeming momentum toward some kind of North American Superstate. The paper mentions an idea of replacing the US and Canadian dollars and the Mexican peso with "the amero" along with the current efforts to build a NAFTA - like super state. Citing the meeting of the three national leaders at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, in March, 2005, the editorial warns: "Canadians, Mexicans and Americans who value the sovereignty of their respective nations should be concerned."

The Tribune Review noted a synergy between the plans of the national leaders and the agenda of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) seen by them as a secretive, shadowy elitist style governmental body. The CFR did issue an announcement in Waco that was signed by President Bush and his Canadian and Mexican counterparts.

The CFR also published a report in May called "Building a North American Community, it calls for, redefining the borders of the US, Canada and Mexico, and the creation of a super-regional governmental body and the North American Paramilitary Group to ensure that Congress does not interfere with whatever the trilateral union feels like doing." said the paper.

The CFR report is a five year plan for the establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community with a common outer security perimeter.

When I consider all of this I see it as laying the groundwork for a merger of the US, Canada and Mexico, what else could it be? It calls for common economic space, for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital and people cross all borders freely as well as the creation of a paramilitary group for it's defense.

The CFR strategy calls specifically for the nations to harmonize visa and asylum regulations and efforts to harmonize entry screening. The report goes on to state that Bush, Fox and Martin "committed their governments" to this goal March 23, 2005 in a meeting at Waco, Texas.

The Amero is not a new idea for it was proposed by the Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank, in a monogram titled "The Case for the Amero" in 1999.

Get this! Last month, the SPP made a move in plain sight. In Washington, on June 15, US Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Mexican Economy Minister Sergio Garcia de Alba and Canadian Minister of Industry Maxime Benier joined North American business leaders and named the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC). This seems to indicate that the March 2005 meeting was not a joke and that plans announced by the three national leaders then, would continue to advance. The NACC was first announced by Bush, Harper and Fox, although few took notice then.

The NACC is comprised of ten high level business leaders from each country, the NACC meets annually with North American government officials to provide recommendations and help set priorities for promoting regional competitiveness in the global economy. Take a look at the membership, these are highly powerful businessmen and we all know the influence that business can leverage on our governments. United Parcel Service Inc. Chairman Michael Eskew; James Kilt, Vice Chairman of Gillette Inc.; Douglas Conant, President of Campbell's Soup Co.; Frederick Smith, Chairman of FedEx Corp.; Lou Schorsh, Chief Executive of Mittal Steel USA.; Joseph Gilmour, President of New York Life Insurance Co.; William Clay Ford, Chairman of Ford Motor Co.; Rick Wagoner, Chairman of General Motors Corp.; Raymond Gilmartin, CEO of Merck & Co, Inc.; David O'Reilly, Chief Executive of chevron Corp.; Jeffrey Immelt, Chairman of General Electric.; Lee Scott, President of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.; Robert Stevens, Chairman of Lockheed Martin Corp and Michael Haverty, Chairman of Kansas City Southern.
That is an impressive list by anyone's standard.

Gutierrez stated that the Bush Administration is determined to develop a "border pass" on schedule despite worries about it's implementation. The new land pass is to be in effect for Canadians, Americans and Mexicans by Jan 1, 2008.

Consider the relative secrecy of the US government in the work to build the NAFTA Superhighway and the US/Mexican Totalization Agreement and who knows what else and you have a recipe for a government making some potentially nation shaking news. And so far, this has been done very quietly, I for one am quite shocked by it, even if it does tend to explain the lack of vigor with which our government is taking on the illegal immigration issue.
As a member of the voting public we should all do our duty to educate ourselves on this issue and begin communicating with our elected officials about it.

For some shocking news read about the NAFTA Superhighway project and further take a look at this chat board frequented by American truck drivers, . And if that weren't enough take a look at the US/Mexico Totalization Agreement, this agreement provides (among other things) social security benefits for naturalized Americans which seems perfectly reasonable. However, the agreement allows naturalized citizens to make the date of their social security benefits retroactive to the date they came to America, even if they did so illegally, and that in the event of their death, the benefits will go to a designated beneficiary even a non-US citizen living abroad, . Although our government would like us to remain blissfully unaware of these two items, there are some good websites that address both. I recommend that you google up some of them and read.

In closing, I'd like to mention that the president of North American Super Corridor Coalition (NASCO) a non-profit group that describes itself as being dedicated to developing the world's first international, integrated and secure, multi-model transportation system along the International Mid-Continent Trade and Transportation Corridor to improve both the trade competitiveness and quality of life in North America. The president of NASCO (George Blackwood), who earlier began the North American International Trade Corridor Partnership. As a matter of fact, NAITCP morphed into NASCO. A NAITCP summit meeting in 2004 that was attended by senior Mexican government officials, heard a speaker by the name of Robert Pastor, an American University professor who wrote "Toward a North American Community"
A book promoting the development of a North American union as a regional government and the adoption of the "amero" as a common monetary currency to replace the dollar and the peso. Pastor was also the vice chairman of the May, 2005 Council of Foreign Relations task force entitled "Building a North American Community" that presents itself as a blueprint for using bureaucratic action within the executive branches of the US, Mexico and Canada to transform the current trilateral Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America into a North American union regional council.

My fellow Americans, think about this. Bush, Fox and Martin the "Three Amigos" have already gone too far and it is up to us to stop this insanity. Americans have no obligation to finance the economic recovery of Mexico, nor should we take on a similar responsibility for Canada, that is work for the Canadian and Mexican governments and peoples. Don't Americans have enough on there collective plate at the moment?

I think so.