A Washington man has plead guilty for his part in a horse sex case, that has befallen the community of Enumclaw, 35 miles south of Seattle. Apparently, James Michael Tait (sorry folks we were unable to find a picture of Tait), a 54-year-old resident, of Enumclaw, entered a neighbor’s barn without permission (along with another man) to engage in sexual intercourse, such as it is, with the neighbor’s horse. Tait confessed to local authorities, telling officers he videotaped fellow buffoon, Kenneth Pinyan having sex with the horse.

During the deranged encounter Pinyan suffered massive internal injuries, which ultimately led to his death. Tait faired much better, however, he received a suspended sentence and a $300 fine. Tait was ordered to stay away from his neighbor’s barn, but not horses. Tait was also ordered to perform 8 hours of community service. Something tells us, he won’t be working as a stable attendant. Since no one’s rights, except the horse’s, were violated, Tait’s sentence was understandably light. In our opinion justice would have been served simply by ordering Tait to wear a sign indicating he has sex with horses. Perhaps it could read: “I had sex with a horse and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.”
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/30/D8E700JG0.html

Three years ago, French President, Jacques Chirac openly mulled the idea of an international French news station, to cover world events from a uniquely French perspective. After years on wrangling the French government’s wishes have finally come true. In a move that would surely make Josef Goebbles proud, the new network known as the French International News Network (CFII), will be an arm of the French government thereby ensuring “impartiality. According to government officials, the network should begin broadcast next year beaming the message of surrender, appeasement, socialism and stagnation to Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

Fortunately Asia and America have be spared this latest French export for the time being. Chirac has made no secret of the fact that he wishes this channel to serve as a subjective pro-French media outlet to advance French interests. Chirac noted that France "must be at the forefront of the global battle of images, that's why I am resolved that our country should have an international news channel". Like CNN and Fox News, this channel will broadcast “news” 24 hrs a day 7 days a week and will be owned by the French government and the TF1 commercial television network. According to a government spokesman, "the aim is to bring France's values and its vision of the world to everywhere in the world." Knowing what we do about French values, that’s reason enough to worry.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4485256.stm

Nothing displeases a leftist more than to acknowledge a reality contrary to their long held beliefs. As any reader of the Phalanx is no doubt aware, the US economy has excelled, growth far exceeds the rest of the industrialized world, unemployment is low and inflation remains in check. Nonetheless, the left has repeatedly ignored these obvious signs of a prosperous economy in their effort to denigrate Bush and gain political power. In so doing, they hope to create an alternative reality. As any economist worth his weight in T-Bills can attest, success in an economic system is as much dependent upon tangible economic progress as it is dependent upon perception. Perception equals reality and if there is a perception that the economy is faltering, people will stop spending, businesses who loose money and lay off workers and before you know it the economy truly is faltering, thus the left can create a scenario by which they can champion themselves as saviors.

Unfortunately, for the left, this strategy has failed to yield the desired result. The New York Times, the mouthpiece for the left as much as Pravda was the mouthpiece of the Soviet Union, has published an article begrudgingly accepting the inescapable reality of the American economy’s success. “By most measures,” the New York Times reports, “the economy appears to be doing fine. No, scratch that, it appears to be booming.” The NYT went on to acknowledge economic growth exceeding 4% for the last quarter, which is more than quadruple the economic outlook one would find in leftist poster child France (or even Germany or Japan), where double digit unemployment and zero economic growth have become facts of life.

At some point during the article, the NYT reporter apparently came to his leftists senses, reporting that this economic growth isn’t expected to continue. The Times argues an invariable economic downturn is on the horizon for next year. Much of this prediction is based on the perception that the housing market will decline with rising interests rates, causing a ripple effect throughout the economy. In reality the economy is and always has been cyclical by nature. It is the government’s duty, therefore to create and foster an environment, which softens economic downturns and accelerates economic advances. This is achieved by reducing tax burdens and providing incentives for businesses to expand (such as reducing interest rates), allowing further job creation. Will there be an economic downturn at some point in the future? Most certainly. No economy expands nonstop forever. There will inevitably be a contraction at some point. Will that be next year? Highly unlikely, so the Democrats will just have to keep trying to shatter perceptions.
Link to New York Times article

Recently, several westerners were taken hostage in Iraq, by members of the Iraqi Insurgence. Kidnapping had seemed to have gone out of favor with these terrorists, but in light of recent events perhaps these murdering Muslims have had a change of heart. The terrorists aired footage of local Arab TV and repeated their familiar claims and use of imagery. Among the hostages taken were four “peace activists,” who the insurgents charge were agitators and spies. Iraqi officials believe the insurgents are stepping up attacks and kidnappings in the run up to December’s parliamentary elections.

These “peace activists” belong to a group called Christian Peacemaker Teams. This organization has been protesting against the war in Iraq since before the war began. The group’s response to terror, however, demonstrates why terrorists are so successful. In a statement the group argued: "We are angry because what has happened to our teammates is the result of the actions of the U.S. and U.K. government due to the illegal attack on Iraq and the continuing occupation and oppression of its people." You will notice that these peace activist don’t blame the terrorists, after all the terrororist are some how excused for their actions, they had no choice right? All terrorism is the result of actions committed by the US and Britain? The terrorist’s actions are therefore wholly legitimate.

The left often repeats this tactic. They insist on advancing the tired theory that terrorism began with the war on Iraq. Islamic terrorists, as we at the Phalanx have demonstrated on numerous occasions, have been murdering, kidnapping, hijacking and destroying with reckless abandon for decades! Terrorists resort to kidnapping because it works. When they kidnap these western journalists, activists and so on, their home countries send in high-level negotiators who offer bribes and incentives to the terrorists, sending home the message that evil deeds can yield financial and political gain, thus the terrorists are emboldened.

These activists claim the Iraqi people are being oppressed and this is correct. They are being oppressed by the same sort who have resorted to kidnapping. They are being murdered in the streets by their fellow Muslims. They are being kidnapped and their businesses ransacked and their homes and places of worship destroyed by people who claim to represent the interests of Iraqis. Nothing, however, could be farther from the truth. These terrorists represent their own agenda and sadly some leftists organizations freely play into their hands. Christian Peacemaker Teams claims they are the only ones telling the truth about Iraq, but in reality their truth is distorted by their politics, not unlike the insurgents themselves.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177122,00.html

The generosity of the French welfare state is well known. Last summer, French President Jacques Chirac, highlighted the French welfare state as a model for the rest of the world, while denigrating Anglo-American society. Under the French system, those who have jobs receive exorbitant holidays and extremely limited work hours. Under the French system it is extremely difficult to fire French workers, no matter how incompitent or unproductive. Those who don’t have jobs receive cost of living allotments to cover food, housing, transportation, etc. Under the French system, no matter how slothful, unproductive, lazy or useless a person may be, the French government will see to it that their needs are provided from cradle to grave.

With the arrival of the bitter cold in France, French authorities have issued weather alerts throughout the country, with a special note of caution to be mindful of the homeless, who are especially susceptible to the cold temperatures. Wait a minute, homeless in France? How can this be in a country that spends 1/3 of its GDP on various welfare programs? How can a country, so committed to the notion that people are wards of the state when they won’t do for themselves, have a homeless problem, and a significant problem at that, with several hundred thousand across the country. In France a low-income family can receive subsidized housing and well over $1000 each month in additional benefits. Not to mention universal national health care system and retirement benefits.

How much of a deadbeat must a person be to be homeless in France? We already know that most homeless represent the very least man has to offer. These are the people who have done nothing to avert such disastrous conditions and maintain their lifestyle through the generous handouts of passersby, but in France where the state goes out of its way to provide for such vermin, these people must be especially useless. The French and any welfare system is a system of serfdom, which offers little in the way of incentive for people to work or achieve. Further demonstrating that a culture of dependency is not the wave of the future as the left would have us believe, but a slippery slope toward disaster.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/051128/ids_photos_wl/r1610376258.jpg

For some time we have witnessed American society go to great lengths to eradicate every last vestige of faith in our culture. Of all faiths none has been more attacked than Christianity, perhaps because the majority of Americans claim to be Christians. Perhaps nowhere is this assault more apparent than during the month of December. The “Christmas” season, for example, is now the “Holiday” season,” but apparently even this is not enough, now it seems the tree many Americans decorate in their living rooms is no longer a Christmas Tree, but a “Holiday Tree.” Yes a holiday tree. In fact up until this year when US House Speaker Dennis Hastert instructed otherwise, the tree on the lawn of the US Capitol was known as the Holiday Tree.

So why the controversy and why the need to change? Quite simply, some businesses and political officials feel the term Christmas may offend those who aren’t Christian. While others simply regard the dominance of faith in America as a direct assault to their vision of a supreme state. Why then are they celebrating a Christian holiday? Christmas is a celebration recognizing the birth of Christ, not the birth of a prominent atheist or Muhammad or Buddha.

It is quite perplexing how people who don’t go to church, don’t own a bible and who reject Christ, feel the need to otherwise celebrate a Christian holiday. Is it simply because they want to receive a gift or is it because they don’t want to be left out? It is devoid of logic just as it would be illogical for a non-Muslim to celebrate Ramadan or a gentile to rejoice in the coming of Rosh Hashanah. What’s next, referring to a Menorah as holiday candles or Christmas Day as Holiday-Day? If some people are so offended by Christmas, then perhaps they shouldn’t participate in Christmas festivities and return the holiday to actual members of the Christian faith. Just as Hanukah is a holiday for Jews and Diwali is a holiday for Hindus.
http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20051129-120703-5977r.htm

Anyone who is familiar with the Phalanx is certainly familiar with Hugo Chavez, the hard-line socialist leader of Venezuela. In recent weeks, Chavez has taken time off from is normal schedule of deriding the US to bash Mexican President Vincente Fox. Chavez became enraged with Fox after he sought to renew interest in a hemispheric free trade agreement at a recent summit in Argentina. Chavez labeled Fox a stooge of the United States and a war of words ensued, which still hasn’t been resolved. The story of Fox and Chavez highlights a struggle most of Latin America is facing. While Fox has embraced free trade and a favorable business climate, Chavez has done the opposite. Chavez, a socialist, has sought to restrict business, while exerting greater government control. He has also imposed limits on the press and silence opposition to his rule. In every sense, Chavez is a dictator and as a result, Chavez the socialist is increasingly popular among Venezuelans, while the outgoing president of Mexico is not popular at all.

This story is being repeated in other Latin American nations, like Argentina, but why? Why are the socialists on the upswing while the advocates for free enterprise are on a downward spiral? The answer is clear, socialists give people what they want to hear. While Free Enterprise proponents promise opportunity for those who seek to achieve, socialist promise handouts, free this and free that, regardless of effort or ingenuity. The problem is the socialists can only promise. They can’t deliver. Witness Hugo Chavez, his promises to reduce poverty, provide housing for the poor and create jobs have all proven to be empty promises. Chavez hasn’t created any jobs, the housing crisis in Venezuela continues to be a problem and poverty levels have actually increased, yet Chavez remains popular. It is for this reason that Chavez is a popular target for the Phalanx.

More than any other Hugo Chavez epitomizes the strategy of the left everywhere in the world. It is a strategy of empty promises, state control and distraction and it is the goal of every leftist everywhere. Chavez’s goal is not so much to reduce poverty or help the down trodden in his country, so much as it is to enhance his own political power. This is why he has clamped down on the press, silenced the opposition and installed puppets throughout the government. To maintain his power, however, he must remain popular with the masses. This is achieved by two methods. First he must tell the people what they want to hear. Promise them anything and above all never tell them anything about hard-work or personal responsibility. Never tell them to stop having children they can’t afford, never tell them to stay in school and work hard, just tell them the government will provide for their needs.

Chavez, however, is no fool, he knows the socialist model is a failure and leads only to stagnation and economic deficiency, witness Europe, so he must distract his people from this inexorable reality so as to remain popular. This is achieved by levying blame for the country’s problems on others, preferably outsiders or someone or something the people are already jealous of, like the United States. This is commonly known as pulling a Mussolini. It is for this reason that Chavez constantly charges that the US is threatening to invade or any other host of tirades Chavez has cooked up. For the most part this strategy works. It not only works on the poor of Venezuela, but it works in Argentina, Brazil and even in America, which is why the leftists in the Democratic party look to Chavez as a model to stage their return to power. It is also for this reason that Chavez launched an attack on Vincente Fox, when Fox pointed out this reality. “We have some presidents, fortunately a minority, who blame other countries for all their problems," Fox noted. Chavez, therefore was forced to slam Fox or risk being exposed for the sham that he is. Invariably as the number of lazy, irresponsible poor increase in Latin America and the rest of the world the leftists will become increasingly popular and the path of least resistance all the more inviting for more and more countries and governments.
Link to article in Toronto Star

So what should America be thankful for? America should be thankful for its continued resilience and vitality in the face and constant external threats. We at the Phalanx have been saying this for some time, now there is further proof that the American economy, already the world’s largest, is also the world’s most competitive. The consulting firm Deloitte ranked the United States number one because its high degree of economic stability and favorable environment for business. The nations of Scandinavia and Germany rounded out the top five. The remaining members of the top ten included: Japan, Australia, the UK, Canada and Switzerland. The results of this survey should come as no surprise, The US was ranked most competitive last year and in 2003 as well.

Even with constant agitation from the American left, the US economy continues to serve as a model for the rest of the world. Unlike our rivals in the west, the US has fomented a business climate, which allows industries to grow and prosper. This growth has enabled the US to quickly emerge from recession while cementing solid job growth. Our economic growth model exceed all rivals in the developed world and further demonstrates the fallacy of leftist ideals as exemplified in nations like France where job growth is non-existent. France is a model leftists in this country yearn to emulate, regardless of its obvious failure.

All is not rosy for the US, however. Growing deficits will place significant strain on the US economy. Rising costs from oil and our foreign oil dependence also will weigh heavily in the coming years. It is absolutely essential that the President and Congress take steps to reduce the massive federal deficit, before it becomes unmanageable. We must also take steps to significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Practically every foreign oil producer in the world is either hostile toward the United States or is volatile politically and socially. Thus these sources can’t be regarded as stable energy resources, but unreliable ones. The US must vigorously pursue a multi-pronged energy policy, which includes increased domestic oil production, greater energy efficiency and the development of oil alternatives. This needn’t be done in a heavy-handed European manner, but should be pursued following the competitive example exemplified by US business policy. Industry should be encouraged through economic incentive to pursue these outcomes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4477802.stm

Since February we at the Phalanx have endeavored to give you the most hard-hitting insight into the minds of the left, the lazy, the depraved, the incompetent, the undemocratic, the criminal and the immoral. But we like you, value and appreciate our families far more than this activity or any other. Therefore, in light of President Lincoln’s designation that the last Thursday of November should be set aside as a national day of Thanksgiving, we will take a break from our regular musings to spend time with our families. We hope that you will do the same and enjoy the holiday season.

Speaking of Thanksgiving, however, one has to ponder why the left hasn’t launched an all out assault on “Thanksgiving” after all, Lincoln’s proclamation calls on his fellow Americans to give thanks to “our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.” Perhaps in their haste to destroy individual responsibility, they have decided to let stand this blatant recognition that the state is not supreme.

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God…

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility and Union.

-Abraham Lincoln, October 3, 1863

Happy Thanksgiving America! Please be sure to visit next week as we continue our efforts to shine the light of truth on the shadows of corruption, depravity and incompetence.
Link to President Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Proclamation

For some reason the AIDS crisis holds a special place in the hearts of the left. To be true, AIDS is a devastating and merciless killer, but AIDS unlike many other global killers is 100% preventable. No one ever caught AIDS by coughing on someone or shaking their hand. This disease is not contagious like TB, SARS, the Bird Flu or Ebola, nor is AIDS random striking regardless of one’s efforts to prevent it like Cancer. Indeed, AIDS isn’t even the world’s most deadly killer. Regardless of this the UN has released another infamous report, noting, with much trepidation how the number of people living with AIDS is at an all time high.

According to the United Nations, the number of people with AIDS increased by over 5 million people last year, to over 40 million. Yes these numbers are disheartening and it is unfortunate that so many people wake up to an inevitable death sentence. But are these numbers as staggering as the UN report would have us believe? Perhaps not. In the first place the global population has increased by over 100 million people every year for several years now, so it should come as no surprise that the number of people living with AIDS is at an all time high.

Most of the people contracting AIDS reside in the 3rd world, which also accounts for 99% of the world’s population growth. This isn’t a coincidence it’s a direct by product of an increasingly cavalier attitude about sex. Yet the UN and the left place the blame for the spread of this disease on the shoulders of the developed world. Like clockwork, AIDS activists demand more funding for AIDS, but why? Like poverty, which we discussed earlier, AIDS today is about personal responsibility, people who make irresponsible decisions in life, such as frequent and unsafe sexual intercourse with many partners are destined to contract AIDS. Those strung out on drugs, who share needles with other degenerates are equally at risk. Gone are the days when people contracted this disease from hospital blood transfusions, gone are the days when people can claim ignorance of the disease as a defense. This is no a radical, revolutionary concept, but an inescapable reality. At present $8 billion dollars is spent annually combating the AIDS virus, but is this amount justified?

According to the aforementioned UN report, 25 million have died from AIDS since 1981, but how many people have died from Cancer, heart Disease, Diabetes? According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 7 million people die from Cancer each year (12.5% of all deaths), with 11 million new cases annually. Based of those figures, over 170 million have died from Cancer since 1981, but where’s the outcry? Unlike AIDS, only about 1/3 of all forms of Cancer are preventable. Diabetes, another global killer claims nearly 4 million victims a year (9% of all deaths). Today over 130 million people are currently afflicted by the disease. Far more deadly than Cancer or Diabetes is Heart Disease, accounting for over 16 million deaths each year (29% of all deaths). Heart Disease, like AIDS is preventable, but unlike AIDS, Heart Disease can’t be traced to one single preventable incident, yet we spend far more on AIDS research than heart disease. Why?

Yes AIDS is a deadly killer and as we have noted, according to this UN report, 25 million have died from AIDS since its discovery in 1981, but millions more have died from Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes and other equally deadly ailments. But where is the outcry, where is the demand for more money, where are the vigils and demands for cheaper drugs? Are the victims of AIDS somehow more important than a cancer victim or someone who dies from a heart attack? Given the fact that more money is spent on AIDS than any other disease, save Cancer, one cannot help but feel that AIDS victims are indeed held in higher regard.
Link to CTV article
http://www.who.int/whr/en/

According to a report issued this week by the United Nations, hunger kills nearly 6 million children ever year, with a large number of those deaths occurring in sub-Saharan Africa, in fact there are more malnourished and dieing children today in that region than a decade ago. Many of the deaths are attributed to various treatable diseases, which are brought on by the abject poverty that plagues the developing world. According to the UN study, there are over 200 million malnourished people living in sub-Saharan Africa alone, this number rises to the astronomical figure of over 800 million when figuring the regions of Asia, Latin America and portions of Russia and Eastern Europe.
According to the report, “hunger” and “malnutrition” are the principle causes of poverty, illiteracy, disease and death in the developing world. So what’s the UN solution? The UN report emphasizes the importance of providing adequate amounts of food for children, as the primary vehicle for breaking the cycle of hunger. Boy, those UN researchers really have a knack for stating the obvious. The report argued hunger must be combated through economic growth, agricultural investment, education, and political and social stability. US Agriculture Secretary, Mike Johanns, argued free trade was an essential tool in the war against hunger. To some extent Johanns is right, free trade will reduce food costs significantly and lead to greater productivity, but lack of food is not the principle cause of African hunger. What the UN and the left fail to acknowledge is the role personal responsibility plays in the fortunes of every individual. Whether they live in the richest country in the world or the poorest.

Why is it that the UN fails to call these country’s to task for their astronomically high birth rates. The developing world and indeed, the poor everywhere, are plagued by high birthrates, which make self-sufficiency practically impossible. With so many children being born into poverty, the cycle of squalor and depravation becomes all the more impossible to combat. These irresponsible people, who can barely afford to feed and cloth themselves, can’t make the effort to avoid pregnancy? According to many reports nearly 99% of all births occur in the developing world. Yet we are surprised that our efforts to reduce hunger continuously turn up short. Only 19% of couples in Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, use contraception, compared with nearly 70% in the developed world. Some would argue that the poor can’t afford to use contraception, but something tells me a child costs more in the long run than a condom, so if you can’t afford the condom wouldn’t it be a safe assumption that one couldn’t afford the child? And thus the simplest solution is to avoid scenarios, which lead to pregnancy. Lets hope we don’t have to spell it out for our readers. But are people in such desperate need of carnal pleasure that they are willing to risk jeopardizing the life of a young child, simply to satisfy their need for sexual gratification?

No high birth rates alone aren’t the cause of all the world’s poverty, but we can be assured that with more reasonable figures the problems that plague sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of the developing world would be greatly diminished.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4459348.stm

Since 2002, Jose Padilla, a US citizen, has been held in a military stockade without being formally charged with a crime. According to the US government such action was warranted in light of the fact that he was viewed as an enemy combatant. When Padilla was arrested in 2002, it was alleged that he was involved in a plot to detonate a radiological (dirty) bomb in a major American city, presumably Chicago. Padilla was arrested at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport after disembarking a plane that had just arrived from Pakistan.

Padilla is no saint to be sure; the former street thug has a lengthy criminal history in several US states. At some point Padilla, converted to Islam, presumably in jail. According to US officials Padilla first traveled to Afghanistan after his conversion in 1998. At some point it is premised that Padilla became affiliated with Al Qaeda and received instructions while in Afghanistan and later Pakistan on terror tactics and made plans for the detonation of a dirty bomb. Finally this week, Padilla has been charged. But not for his involvement in a plot to bomb a major American city, indeed, his indictment simply mentions his plan to incite jihad in America.

Now that Padilla has been indicted he will be transferred from military to civilian custody. Essentially, Padilla has been indicted for being a member of Al Qaeda, who’s stated aims are clear to most Americans. While there can be no mercy for terrorists and the purveyors of indiscriminate destruction, we at the Phalanx are concerned. How is it that an American citizen can be held for 3 years without charge, simply because the administration says to. Either we are a nation of laws or we aren’t. If the assertions that Padilla is a terrorist are legitimate then why not try the man? This country should not stoop to the level of the terrorists in order to fight them. We are a nation of laws and US citizens should not be held indefinitely in military prisons simply because we don’t want to try him.

As we have noted, this country is a nation of laws, governed by a constitution. How can Bush call himself a strict constructionist after such a stunt? The president has no legal authority to suspend habeas corpus, except in times of rebellion, which clearly does not apply. We at the Phalanx are as committed as anyone to wiping the scourge of terror from the globe, but does this mean we must surrender our rights as citizens. If so haven’t the terrorists already achieved their goals? And why is it that simply being a member of Al Qaeda is an indictable offense, for which a person may serve life in prison, while membership in similar organizations caries no similar consequence. We submit that other terror groups should be treated with equal disdain, including our own domestic terror organization known as the Ku Klux Klan. That being said, if Padilla is indeed guilty of these crimes, his fate should be no different than Al Qaeda has in store for the rest of us.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4460566.stm

We have noted for some time how leftist in the media, politics and entertainment work overtime to convince us that the country, its economy and society as a whole is in the toilet. We frequently hear published reports described the plight of the victims of poverty. This strategy of denigrating the American economy is fundamental to the leftist strategy for regaining control. If they can create a scenario in which the outcome is seen as bleak, the Democrats can portray themselves as the only saviors for the faltering American economy. It is for this reason that everyone from John Kerry on down has constantly talked of the poor state of the American economy.

The left ignores any and all evidence to the contrary, such as the housing market, relatively low inflation, the rate of economic growth (especially when compared to the rest of the industrialized world) and low unemployment. To some extent the leftist strategy has worked, according a USA Today/Gallup Poll, some 60% of Americans believe the economy is getting worse, though the facts strongly disagree. The strategy works because the President and his allies have failed to respond in the face of an overwhelming onslaught of negative (and unfounded) criticism. The strategy also works because the left has convinced an entire slice of the US population that they are entitled to a certain lifestyle regardless of hard work or effort.

USA Today recently chronicled the profiles of low wage earners as symbolic of the economic problem America faces and also noted how such realities have spurred increasing calls for an increase in the minimum wage (yes they continue to beat that dead horse). Invariably, some Americans have faced increasing difficulties. Is this due to a faltering American economy or the actions of George Bush? Certainly not, it is a result of lifestyle choice. Each and every person in this country has an equal opportunity to succeed or fail. People choose to have families they can’t afford to support, people choose to ignore educational opportunities, people choose not to make sacrifices to get ahead (preferring to rest on their laurels or relishing in the fact that the government should provide for their every need and want).

Indeed, this is the reality of the entitlement generation. Should we feel guilty because some poor wretch has squandered every opportunity for success? No we should feel indignant, if not enraged, as these people who have wasted their lives now seek to waste our money and for that they should be ashamed.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2005-11-22-wages-1a-cover-usat_x.htm

Last September Germany held parliamentary elections, in those elections the leftists Social Democrats and the conservative Christian Democrats were virtually tied in members elected to the Bundestag. Since that time the two parties have been jockeying for positions. The conservatives were insistent that their leader, Angela Merkel, take the reigns as chancellor, while the leftist wanted Gerhard Schroeder to remain in the position.

Finally after much compromise, Merkel has been sworn in as Germany’s first female Chancellor and the first conservative government since the 90s, but after so much compromise it is doubtful Merkel will be effective. The CDU had to make several concessions on taxes, wages and other issues that figured prominently on the CDU campaign platform. Essentially, to become prime minister, the conservatives had to abandon their reform agenda and embrace the failed polices of Gerhard Schroeder’s leftist coalition. The leftist were not and have not been interested in reform, as a result, the German economy has languished for several years now, just like France. Growth is virtually no existent, unemployment exceeds 10% and there seems to be no hope in sight.

Germany’s one hope for change was destroyed when the sheepish German electorate fell for Schroeder’s leftist propaganda. We at the Phalanx predicted Schroeder would defy the polls and eek out a victory, and while Schroeder himself is no out of the picture, his legacy of failure lives on. So what can we expect from the Merkel government? Nothing, just more of the same and after a year or two this grand coalition will falter and the conservatives will be blamed even though it is the policies of the left and in many cases leftist ministers in the German government who have orchestrated this continued failure. Because Merkel will be blamed the Social Democrats will be swept again into power in 2007 or 2008 and the German’s will continue to pay the price for voting for the status quo.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-11-22-germany-merkel_x.htm

A Pennsylvania girl who was supposedly kidnapped by her 18 year old "boyfriend" wasn’t kidnapped after all, according to law enforcement officials, in fact this girl choose a murderer over her own family and not just any murderer, but the man who killed her parents. What kind of filthy trash of a human being is this? According to authorities Kara Borden (14) freely ran off with David Ludwig (18) after the the pedophile gunned down Borden’s parents in cold blood. Ludwig had kept his girlfriend out to past midnight on Nov 13. Borden’s parents subsequently confronted the pedophile who then killed the parents. Ludwig has admitted to the killings and noted that he intended to kill Borden’s parents, after they informed him he would have to end his pedophile relationship with 14 year old Kara.

After killing the Bordens, Ludwig drove off only to see Kara Borden running after him. Ludwig stopped and his child lover got in the car for what they supposed to be happily ever after. According to Ludwig she wanted to "get as far away as possible, get married, and start a new life." Up to this point Kara’s family, or what’s left of it have gone out of their way to portray the 14 year old as a victim of her “boyfriend.” Kara’s actions in the aftermath of the killings demonstrate that she is no crime victim, but a crime accomplice. Not only is she an accomplice, but a heartless cruel wretch of a human being. What kind of person would want to “start a new life” with the man who killed her parents. Without hesitation, Pennsylvania authorities should charge young Borden as an adult for murder, perhaps 20 years to life will teach her the importance of family.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_us/parents_slain

“No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.” So reads the 27th Amendment to the US Constitution. Simply put, if Congress receives a pay raise, such an increase cannot take affect until after the next election. The idea being that voters will have a opportunity to evaluate members of Congress and determine whether they are fit to return after enacting such self-serving legislation.

The 27th Amendment, which was initially proposed in September 1789, only took affect in May 1992. Since that time Congress has enacted more pay raises than any sane person or law clerk would care to count. Each and every pay increase has been enacted to take affect virtually immediately, blatantly disregarding the 27th Amendment’s requirement of an intervening election. Just last week, Congress did it again. The House and Senate gave themselves a $3,000 raise, and while the leftist media has portrayed this a money grab by the GOP, it should be noted that the Democrats enthusiastically went along for the ride, just as they did when they controlled the Congress.

How can the United States Congress get away with such a blatant disregard for the law? In the first place, the ignorance of ordinary citizens plays a role. Most people can’t quote any amendment to the Constitution, much less the 27th and even if they could Congress has been clever enough to refer to these pay increases by a more palatable term: “cost-of-living increases.” Such cost-of-living increases are automatic, unless blocked by the Congress, making the current Congressional salary over $165,000 per year, which is about $164,999 too much. Don’t we all wish we could give ourselves a cost-of-living increase whenever it pleased us? The fact of the matter is, however, even a cost-of-living increase is an unquestionable violation of the Constitution. The 27th Amendment simply refers to variations in “compensation” which would include a cost-of-living increase.

If anything, Congress deserves a pay cut and a significant one. Their performance as legislators is a joke at best. While they drive this country into bankruptcy, each criticizing the other for record deficits, they enact raises for themselves, without so much as an inkling of debate. Our elected leaders should truly be ashamed. We at the Phalanx, encourage our readers to contact their Congressman and make them aware that such chicanery has not gone unnoticed.
Link to Washington Post article

Bill Clinton marked the first anniversary of his presidential library by coming out against the hard-line rhetoric that has become all too familiar in Washington these days. Increasingly, the left has stepped up their attacks on the president and his administration, with charges that Bush lied and/or mislead the public with regard to the causes of the war in Iraq. The Democratic strategy is understandable, however. As with any war, the population is apt to grow weary when there is the perception of a lack of progress, a perception that is perpetuated by the media, who reports Iraq in a very one sided manner, ignoring progress toward the training of security forces or democratization. Because of this downbeat perception and because of the Bush administration’s seeming inability to articulate its strategy or plans for the future, much less to defend the actions it has already take, the left smells blood and has stepped up their vitriolic attacks 100 fold.

During Clinton’s speech he spoke about his differences with Bush over Iraq, tax cuts and the deficit and called for greater conciliation and compromise, while acknowledging that he too ignored such calls during his own presidency. Its unclear exactly what type of political game Clinton may or may not be playing. Perhaps he is laying the foundation for his wife’s expected presidential run in 2008, by convincing the electorate, that Sen. Clinton is more pragmatic than her loud-mouthed Democratic cohorts. In reality, we can expect nothing in the form of conciliation. What we can expect is more virulent attacks and perhaps a more vigorous response from the White House, something that has been sorely lacking in the past, or perhaps, Bush will capitulate. One would like to think that Bush has more gumption that that but given his track record, we aren’t sure. Its not enough for the President to say we won’t cut and run in Iraq, he must convince the population why. The president must recognize the fact that without the support of the people he cannot govern and frankly in a representative government one would hope so.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-20-clinton_x.htm

After several weeks of chaos in the form of rioting, guns shots and street fires, the French Republic is returning to normal. To commemorate this return to normalcy, the French are celebrating with one of their favorite past times…a strike. On Monday, French rail workers are set to strike. Anyone familiar with France is quite familiar with the fact that strikes are a way of life in France.

France, as we at the Phalanx have noted on several occasions, is a nation that has indoctrinated itself with the spirit of entitlement. The French populace have come to expect certain handouts from their government. Because of this, France has become a model for mediocrity, its economy is a shambles, its industries and people are unproductive, its government is inept and its foreign policy is ineffective. In every way France is a failed state, clinging to international organizations like the EU and the UN as a means to enhance its faltering influence. Because of the entitlement attitude of its citizens, the French have become particularly sensitive to even the suggestion that their welfare state is in danger. French rail workers are nervous that the French national railway, SNCF, will be privatized.

For those who don’t know, privatization is a four letter word in France and even the suggestion of privatization is cause for French workers to take to the streets. Privatization invariably leads to greater efficiency, which means less reliance on a host of unproductive and unfire-able workers, so its of no surprise that the French detest the notion of privatization. What’s interesting in this case, however, is the fact that no one in the French government is suggesting that SNCF will be privatized. The French Transport Minister, Dominique Perben, has assured the workers that privatization is not in the cards. Nonetheless, workers plan to strike money just for the heck of it and in France, that’s more than sufficient, small wonder the French economy is facing double digit unemployment and stagnant growth.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/11/20/france.strike.ap/index.html

Since the first shots were fired in the Iraq war the Phalanx has been in a bind. While we support the war on terror, the war on Iraq is far more complicated. There is no question that Saddam Hussein was a threat, he did indeed possess biological and chemical weapons and most certainly played a role in giving aid and comfort to terrorists, but so too has Iran and Syria. Yet we have no plans to invade Iran or even the volatile North Korea. Indeed, the Middle East is only strategically important because of the prominence of oil. If the US wasn’t dependent on foreign oil supplies then our need to intervene in Middle Eastern affairs would be greatly diminished.

More and more, Americans are embracing an isolationist foreign policy. According to a Pew Research poll, an increasing number of Americans feel the US should head the words of our first president and avoid foreign entanglements (though we are fairly certain they didn’t quote Washington). Anti-Americanism is at an all time high around the world, and while this is no reason, in and of itself, to alter our foreign policy, we should also be mindful of the fact that the US no longer needs to play the role it played during the Cold War.

Why must the US expend resources to defend the likes of Western Europe and South Korea or even Japan, regions of the world where hostility toward the US has increased? Are not these countries capable of their own defense? Certainly they are. America should focus on defense of its internal security, the prevention of hostile foreigners from entering this country and the expansion of trade. Through free trade, we enhance our prosperity as well as the prosperity of our trade partners. The US should consider playing a less prominent role as a fixture in policing foreign conflicts. Should we abandon the war on terror then? No, absolutely not, but our heavy reliance on overt military action rather than covert responses placed a heavy strain on our resources.

Indeed, America’s war on terror should resemble Israel’s Operation Wrath of God where the Israeli Secret Service (the Mossad) secretly hunted down the terrorists and masterminds behind the Munich Massacre in 1972. Adopting such a low profile also deprives terrorists of a recruiting tool as they can’t point to US military operations when seeking new terror enlistees. With the current administration’s apparent paralysis, with regard to articulating its position on Iraq and the war on terror, its no surprise that a growing number of Americans embrace isolation, but in a sense, some degree of isolation would be advantageous.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4447128.stm

President Bush and the administration stepped up their efforts to “hit back” at critics in the last few days. Yesterday, the President, now in South Korea, and Vice President Cheney, responded to charges that they manipulated intelligence and mislead the American people, with regard to the Iraq war. For some of you who may not remember, the Phalanx, has never been a big fan of the war in Iraq, frankly we see the strategic importance of the region tied to oil and we have a problem with our dependence on commodities that originate in a hot bed of murder, terror and despotism.

Nonetheless, the president’s arguments in the run up to the war were fairly accurate and Democratic charges are baseless at best, and calculated ploys to undermine this country at worst. Over the past several months, Bush and the GOP have seen their poll numbers continue to decline has the Dems have hammered them constantly and continuously over the war in Iraq, meanwhile the president has done nothing, said nothing and perhaps doesn’t even care. We have derided the president for his timid response and his unwillingness to confront his opponents with the obvious facts. Now it appears the president has decided he no longer wants to be a lame duck and seems willing to take a more aggressive stance in defending his position.

While in Korea yesterday, the president lashed out at his critics. Why does the president wait until he’s out of the country to respond? "What bothers me is when people are irresponsibly using their positions and playing politics. That's exactly what is taking place in America," the president noted. What kind of response is that? This is the type of ambiguous, empty mouthed response that does nothing to change minds. Dick Cheney, also speaking yesterday said charges of misleading the public was "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever made in this city." Here again another tepid, meaningless response.

For the life of us, we can’t figure this administration out. It was clear that Saddam had biological and chemical weapons and possessed a nuclear weapons program. This was admitted by Saddam, the UN, and prominent Democrats, including Clinton, during the Clinton presidency and after. Evidence of such programs were also found in Iraq after the war, yet Bush stays silent on this and refuses to point out the hypocrisy of the American left. Saddam had clearly established links with terror organization, this too the administration has been silent on, not to mention the massive level of genocide committed under the old Iraqi regime. This is what the administration should be saying and not just while visiting Korea, but everyday, on the news on the radio in the paper, at bill signings, while greeting foreign heads of state. He should remind the American people of the facts. But all the administration can say is the charges are “dishonest.” And where are the sheepish GOP members of Congress, when do they plan to open their mouths? They too should remind this country of the inescapable truth or it will be hello socialist majority in Congress. Perhaps if Bush is unwilling to stand for his positions then perhaps he deserves his lame duck status…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1644774,00.html
http://usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-16-bush-strategy_x.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4444584.stm

No doubt many of you are familiar with the ordeal of Michael Steele in Maryland. Steele is the Lt. Governor of that state and a Republican, he just also happens to be Black. Steele is running for Senate in 2006 and his candidacy has got the Democrats running scared. Many leftists are afraid Steele could rest the seat from Democratic control in next year’s election. As a result, Democrats have spared no punches in launching their attacks on Steele. The attacks, however, aren’t based on Steele’s record or his position on the issues, they are based solely on one issue, Steele’s race. You see, the party of equal opportunity and racial equality is anything but. The Democrats, it should be noted, have come to expect subservience from the Black community, just as they do from all their constituents and when individuals break from that perceived bond, the Dems view it as a betrayal and waste no time in striking back, by whatever means they deem appropriate. It should further be noted that the Democratic record of racial equality is a farce; one of false promises and hypocrisy, so it should come as no surprise to anyone that the news of another prominent Black moving to the GOP will spark further racially tinged protest.

Derrick Wallace, head of Orange County, Florida’s NAACP made the switch this week. Naturally, the local GOP in Florida is thrilled with the news and the Dems are obviously upset, after all how can they portray themselves as champions for civil rights, when civil rights leaders abandon them. Over the coming weeks and months we can expect this story to play out in the following way: First fellow Black leaders in Orlando, those firmly brainwashed by the Democrats will come out against Wallace. They will dismiss him as a rogue who doesn’t represent the interest of the black community, much like the Democrats they support. This attack from Wallace’s own race, will open the door for the White elitists within the Democratic party to attack him. This same strategy has been employed against Steele in Maryland. Then there will be increasing calls for Wallace’s ouster as head of the Orange County NAACP. This outcome is preordained.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/columnists/orl-maxwell1705nov17,0,2971218.column?coll=orl-news-col

Anyone who reads the Phalanx on a regular basis recognizes that Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez is a popular subject of discussion. But why? Why so much interest in Chavez and not other leaders in Latin America or indeed the world? Quite simply, Chavez represents the present and the future…the present and the future of the world leftist movement. Since coming to power in 1998, Chavez has been recognized for two things: lofty promises and anti-American diatribes. Chavez came to power on a vow to be a champion for the poor, unfortunately for Venezuela his movement is rooted in words rather than deeds. Under Chavez, foreign investment in Venezuela has declined significantly. Under Chavez, the number of people living in poverty has increased and the housing shortage, a major component of Chavez’s empty promises, continues to plague ordinary citizens.

As a socialist, Chavez is the archetypical Mussolini-esque politician. Chavez has promised his citizens heaven on earth, but has only succeeded in enhancing his own power. He has silenced opposition, and rules as a virtual dictator, ignoring the rule of law. Under Chavez, the state is supreme and the individual and individual achievement are inhibited. It is for this reason that Chavez has chased out missionaries working with indigenous tribes in rural regions, they threaten to sow the seeds of individual responsibility, thus undermining Chavez’s goal of a subservient class of citizens. Under normal circumstances the populace would grow weary of a leader who has failed to live up to his lofty promises, but here again Chavez excels as an expert propagandist. Chavez controls the media and has even created a national news network that never ceases to sing the praises of Latin America’s answer to Mussolini.

From time to time Chavez further distracts his people by diverting attention from domestic concerns and focusing attention on a perceived external enemy. Chavez is the typical leftist who blames others for their problems. The same people who blame the West for 3rd world corruption and high birth rates. The same left that calls for highly progressive taxes to punish those who are successful. The same left that blames the victims for the actions of criminals. The same left that blames society for Johnny’s failure to perform in school. Indeed, Chavez is the perennial leftist. Blame is his ultimate tool and strategy and quite often it is America he blames and if blame isn’t sufficient he creates scenarios that are reality only in his head. Scenarios for which only Chavez has a solution. Who can forget Chavez’s claims of assassination attempts or the assertion that Halloween was a conspiracy of the US design to instill fear around the world, never mind, the fact that Halloween customs are over 2000 years old and originated in Ireland. How many times has Chavez charged that the US was spying or invading? How many times has Chavez asserted that Venezuela’s very existence is under threat? The figures are no doubt astronomical.

Chavez’s tactics are not lost on leftists here at home. Witness the broad appeal Chavez commands, such devotion is not lost on the Harry Rieds, Nancy Pelosis and Hillary Clintons of the world. These tactics are emulated by the left, who purposely make wild and unsupported accusations, realizing that some are some easily deceived. Hence these charges will be accepted as fact. The left in this country, soundly blame others for their problems and the problems of their constituents, creating a scenario in which only the left has a solution, setting the stage for a subservient class of citizens in this country, dependent on the state and incapable of individual decision making.
http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action=fullnews&id=53589
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-11-15T233826Z_01_MCC585073_RTRUKOC_0_US-VENEZUELA-USA.xml&archived=False

Yesterday we told you how an upcoming UN summit in Tunisia would be a show down between the US and its rivals as they sought to rest control of the Internet from its creators. The US has maintained administrative control of the Internet since its inception in 1969. As the Internet has become more and integrated in our daily lives, rival forces in Europe and in the developing world have demanded a greater say in the operation of the Internet. The US, however, maintained that it would not give up administrative control as there was no clear advantage, not to mention that a crucial tool in the hands of the UN would be a disaster, like every other UN administered program or initiative.

For the time being it appears that crisis has been averted, the US was unwilling to relinquish control but floated the idea of an international forum to discuss issues pertaining to the Internet, the forum’s decisions would be non-binding but would give other nations, who have invested nothing in creating the Internet, a sense of involvement. In reality the anti-US camp realized their position was untenable. The US most certainly would not have given up control and these countries further realized that creating a new Internet, in addition to being inefficient and costly would create more harm than good for the dissemination of information and commerce. This international forum is nothing more than a face saving measure for the international socialists who failed in their bid to assume control for something for which they were neither responsible nor significant in growing or maintaining.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4441544.stm

Control of the internet isn't the only hot button issue at this week's UN summit. There is also movement afoot to create digital tax. This movement takes center stage at the U.N. World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis later this week. The UN has already called for voluntary contributions to the “Digital Solidarity Fund,” but some advocates are calling for a more reliable revenue stream, what we would recognize as a tax. This tax would be imposed on wealthy nations, to fund various technology projects in the developing world. The taxation program was first proposed by Senegal and has naturally gained the support of a number of 3rd world nations, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and France. The idea behind this tax would be to close the digital gap between the West and the developing world.

As we noted this fund is currently a voluntary initiative but given the growing chorus from poor nations, we can most certainly expect a push for a binding international treaty, which will enshrine a digital tax on the productive to augment the unproductive. Given the dire straits some poor nations find themselves in, one must call into question the priorities of those who advocate the Digital Solidarity Fund. Poverty has many causes and certainly there are numerous factors that have depressed conditions in the third world, but the Internet has little to do with any of them. The primary difference between successful developed nations and unproductive third world nations lies in the fact that successful nations are less corrupt, there isn’t constant racial and ethnic violence and for the most part these developed nations don’t have irresponsibly high birth rates. How can a country prosper when corrupt officials have no respect for democratic ideals or the rule of law? How can a country prosper when various ethnic groups waste time and resources harping over petty centuries old grudges? How can a country prosper when women keep having children, when they are incapable of taking care of themselves, placing a further strain on society and the government? How is the Internet going to solve these problems?

Yes the Internet is a wonderful tool and a helpful resource, but just as computer access won’t teach Johnny to read in the local public school, computer access and the Internet won’t solve the problems of the developing world. The Internet is little more than window dressing to hide the real issues. Poverty needn’t be a perpetual condition, however, a number of third world nations have cast off the shackles of the past to emerge as prosperous nations. Korea is a prime example, once a nation of rural peasants, South Korea now has one of the highest living standards in the world. The same can be said of Singapore, Taiwan, Poland and even India is beginning to move in that direction. Even in Sub-Saharan Africa several nations have chosen a path to prosperity, countries like Mauritius, Uganda and Ghana. These nations serve as models for their Africa counterparts as they have embrace democracy and the rule of law, allowing a far greater degree of prosperity than their regional counterparts. Mauritius for example has the region’s highest standard of living, with unemployment below that of some western nations, including Germany and France. These countries have prospered because they share certain fundamental characteristics. They have embraced the rule of law, they respect the concept of representative government and they foster an environment that allows individuals to prosper and innovate.

The world’s poorest nations are still plagued by brutal dictators or perpetual violence and mayhem. These are the real problems in the 3rd world. Prosperity is inexorably linked to social responsibility and civility. These ideals are lacking in many corners of the world and no amount of handouts will change that. Indeed, further taxing the prosperous, further erodes the incentive to be prosperous. Most successful people do not work hard everyday so they can finance someone else’s retirement. What is needed is a work ethic. Why not export that instead?http://business.bostonherald.com/technologyNews/view.bg?articleid=112004&format=&page=1

In the past we have noted that there was a growing chorus coming from several corners of the globe for the US to relinquish administrative control of the Internet. Over the past few months that chorus has grown louder, with several leading developed and developing nations calling for UN control of the Internet. At the upcoming UN World Summit on Information in Tunisia, the US is expected to face an enormous amount of pressure to hand over that control to some international body.

In 1969, the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) created a loosely integrated network of computers that could share information and data over various distances. This network, then known as DARPA Net later came to be known as the Internet. Since that year the Internet has undergone rapid and worldwide dissemination. First embraced by US research universities from MIT to Cal Tech to Carnegie Mellon to Georgia Tech during the 1970s and 80s. By the early 1990s big business began to recognize the Internet’s enormous potential, which ultimately led to the emergence of the Internet as a tool for consumers. Today the Internet has become a global resource, embraced in distant lands and industrial Meccas around the world. Since inception, much of the Internet’s backbone has rested securely in the hands of the United States. Today the US Dept. of Commerce retains control of these super computers that direct traffic to websites and email addresses across the vastness of cyberspace. The UN’s Working Group for Internet Governance (WGIG) has called for an end to US domination of the Internet and control by a UN body, composed of various world governments.

The UN group has argued that by placing the Internet’s backbone in the hand of an international body, it will improve development. In reality the US does not exert a great deal of control over the Internet. In the late 1990s, the US created ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), this organization ensures that the various world networks around the globe communicate with one another as intended; this operation is overseen by the Dept. of Commerce. The UN, and indeed the world must be reminded, that it is the US that has invested the time, money and research in Internet development. It is the US that created the Internet for its own purposes. If the UN and other foreign bodies are dissatisfied with the direction of US policy, they would be well advised to put up their own money and time to develop their own system. And indeed, some have threatened just such action if the US doesn’t submit to their demands. Indeed, these rivals would quickly discover that in their rashness, they will have succeeded only in making life more difficult for themselves. In light of such reality, perhaps America should call their bluff.

US officials have noted, there is no discernable advantage to the creation of a UN oversight body for the Internet. This is typical of the busy bodies in the UN who see nothing wrong with taking that, which is a product of someone else’s labor. Many countries complain that since the “master root server” is housed in the US, the US government could essentially wipe out a nation on the Internet or deprive such nation of access to the Internet. The assertion, however, is laughable. Anti—American propagandist, want nothing more than to strike at anything symbolically under US control, no matter how benign that may be. Fortunately, the Bush Administration’s credit, they have made it clear that the US will not entertain any suggestions that alter the existing structure of the net and rightly so. Key members of Congress in both political parties support this position. The Internet is a US creation, that has been managed well by the US, other nations through a combination of jealously and a never-ending desire to undermine the US see the Internet as a nothing more than a means to accomplish that goal. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4436428.stm

There is no scenario we can envision in which Hugo Chavez would apologize for anything, no matter how over the top or no matter how wrong it may be. Chavez has staked his entire political career on lies and slander. So it comes as no surprise that Chavez has refused to apologize for disparaging remarks made in reference to Mexico’s President, Vincente Fox. Indeed, Chavez called Fox’s bluff and recalled his ambassador first. Fox has now responded in kind. There is no telling where this will go. Look for Chavez to dream of more wild fantasies, like supposed invasion plans by Mexico, miraculously discovered by Chavez himself.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4437024.stm

The ongoing feud between Venezuela’s Benito Mussolini Hugo Chavez and Mexico’s Vincente Fox is heating up. Fox is one of many Latin American leaders who supports the creation of a hemispheric wide Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Fox, like any pragmatic leader clearly sees the benefits free trade offers for all parties involved. Expanding markets and enhancing possibilities for economic growth is the reality of free trade, as witnessed in Europe and North America. Certainly, there will be elements in any economy that will loose out in free trade, but these loses are outweighed by the considerable benefits.

Hugo Chavez, an outspoken critic of anything affiliated with the United States, wasted no time in voicing his opposition to the proposal. Chavez, it should be remembered is a socialist and like most socialists, his paramount concern is the enhancement of state power, not the enhancement of individuals. In spite of Chavez’s claims he is no friend of the poor. His anti-American rhetoric is strategically designed to draw attention away from his failure as a populist as he consolidates power, while doing nothing to alleviate poverty or grow the economy. Indeed, under Chavez, the poor are worse off than they were before he assumed office. Chavez’s comments serve only to instill fear in the population, while focusing their anger on an external enemy, rather than the true culprit. As President Fox pointed out after the recent Summit of the Americas, "we have some presidents, fortunately a minority, who blame other countries for all their problems."

Because Chavez’s rhetoric demands his opposition to any and all things affiliated with the US or its proposals it was only natural that he would come to criticize other Latin American leaders who also support the idea of a hemispheric free trade area. Chavez derided Mexican President, Vincente Fox as a puppy of “the empire” (i.e., the United States), he later threatened Mexico, much in the way he has threatened the US on numerous occasions. The US generally ignores Chavez’s comments, not so much because they are taking the high road but because they can’t afford not to. Venezuela is one of the world’s largest oil exporters and the US can ill afford a disruption in oil supplies (something Chavez clearly recognizes and uses to his advantage). Here again we see the dangers of dependence upon foreign oil. Mexico, however, is not constrained by such circumstances. Mexico is a major oil and natural gas producer in its own right and has no fear of Chavez. Mexico has demanded an apology from Chavez for his threats or they will sever diplomatic relations with the Mussolini of Latin America. This one is not likely to be resolved soon. But perhaps in the end Chavez will be exposed for the farce he truly is.
http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=c831b0ab-7698-4564-8d5b-7e0b529ca1dd

The Phalanx has long complained that the President has allowed his political detractors to set the mood in Washington and among the American people. The constant barrage of negative criticism at the hands of the president’s leftist criticism have come to be accepted as fact. Any demagogue or propagandist can tell you that if a charge is repeated often enough it will be accepted as fact, especially in the absence of a vigorous counter. This is chapter one in the art of pulling a Mussolini. In 4 years president, Bush has consistently failed to respond to his critics, even during the 2004 presidential campaign, his responses were tepid at best. When the left claimed that the economy was in the toilet, Bush did nothing. Sure he refuted the charge, but not nearly often enough and certainly not loud enough and rarely did he use the considerable amount of evidence available to him to support his claim, thus giving the impression that his critics are accurate.

On Iraq, Bush has allowed the left to set the agenda again, first with the causes for the war and now with the progress of the war itself. The president was so committed to conveying his message in the run up to the Iraq war and now seems content to sit back and do nothing as the left revises history. Now it seems the president has gotten the message, in the coming days reports indicate Bush will use the words of his detractors against him. Bush will quote president Clinton and leading Democrats in the House and Senate who warned against Saddam Hussein and the impending use of WMDs. The fact of the matter is Clinton, up until the moment he left office in 2001 and other leading Democrats well into 2003 and even 2004 argued that Saddam was a significant threat with devastating weapons. Only when election season drew near did the Democratic opposition begin to change its tune and only then did the left loose their collective memories.

Indeed, Iraq possessed such weapons, they admitted as much after the Gulf War and never produced a single shred of evidence indicating they had destroyed these weapons as Iraq was required to do. If Iraq had no such weapons then whose weapons did they use on several occasions prior to the Gulf War and why admit to possessing something they didn’t have which would require UN inspections of secure government sites and why produce no evidence of their destruction over a period of 12 years if this was indeed the claim?

The left has also disputed Iraq’s links to terrorism. This in spite of the fact that Saddam regularly paid the families of suicide bombers, harbored some of the world’s leading terrorists and Iraq’s intelligence forces met on more than one occasion with the Sept 11th hijackers, facts which are supported by the 9/11 commission report. Given these incontrovertible facts, how then are the Democrats able to make such traction with their clearly imagined and false statements? Because Bush does nothing, offers no retorts, produces no contradictory evidence, indeed, Bush’s replies have been tepid and dish watery at best. Its no surprise a majority of the public have come to doubt his sincerity. We know the facts and even we have to doubt when the president stands by like a dear caught in the headlights.

Now the president has adopted a new strategy, given that he has allowed so much time to pass and done so little to salvage his reputation, it may be too late. Perhaps the president is of the opinion that a noble cause doesn’t require a dignified response to obvious lies and slander. In a perfect world perhaps he would be right. But in a perfect world, politics wouldn’t eclipse national security in the minds of our political leaders. In a perfect world the opposition wouldn’t try to undermine a president even at the expense of the country. The president must be mindful of the fact that if he looses the support of the people he cannot govern and in the end what good are noble intentions without measurable results?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/14/iraq.intelligence/
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/13/131646.shtml

As the editor of the Phalanx, I receive a great deal of unsolicited junk mail in both my personal and professional life, but perhaps nothing has taken me aback quite like the socialist diatribe I recently received from the Leftist Leader, Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi’s letter began with the following question: “Do you really want to be told the truth?”

Right away I knew I was in of a snow job. Pelosi begins by pointing out that 59 million Americans voted against Bush’s “four years of failure.” Pelosi further notes that Bush’s margin of victory was the smallest margin of victory for a sitting president since Wilson. What Pelosi fails to point out is the fact that Bush won re-election with a clear majority of the vote, something no Democrat has done since Carter in 1976. She goes on to deride the Republican leadership because of the recent incitement of Tom Delay, leading one to assume that Democrats are devoid of scandal. Pelosi then goes on to point out that the war in Iraq is not going well, contrary to Bush’s claims. What evidence does Pelosi use? Well clearly she can’t site the successful Iraqi elections, the success of Iraqi commerce or the fact that Iraqis have assumed the bulk of the responsibility for security. What Pelosi does site is the US death toll in Iraq. What does she use as a barometer? Certainly Pelosi doesn’t site the fact that the death rate in the Iraq war is by far the lowest of any US war. In 2 years in Iraq, approximately 2,000 servicemen have been killed in the line of duty. Lets contrast that with other American wars. In Vietnam nearly 6,000 had died in a 2 year period, in WWII the figure would rise to 75,000 and during the Civil War the figure rises to an astounding 300,000. The death of any serviceman is tragic but in comparison with historical reality, Pelosi’s premise simply doesn’t hold water.

Also in Pelosi’ letter she blames Bush for the increased federal deficit, arguing it was the Bush tax cuts that eliminated the surplus. No Ms. Pelosi the tax cuts did nothing to create the deficit. Indeed, since the tax cuts, government revenues have increased significantly. Pelosi ignores these facts because it does not support her version or reality. She can’t get away with this because her leftists supporters are equally ignorant. If Pelosi was truly interested in the “truth” she would correctly identify the recession, which began during Clinton’s last year in office or the Sept 11th terror attacks that exacerbated that recession or the increased spending attributed to the subsequent war on terror as the principle cause of the current deficit.

Pelosi concludes her socialist diatribe with an appeal for financial support. Perhaps what is so disheartening is the fact that many Americans, mostly the uneducated and the socialist elitists will fall for this line of propaganda at the drop of a hat.

-The Phalanx Editor

Nothing pleases the left, and the press who sustain them, more than to report on the difficulties facing President Bush. A story in USA Today discusses the difficulty facing the GOP in congress as the President’s poll numbers continue to decline. USA Today and other media outlets have frequently reported with glee on the declining poll numbers of the president, since the moment he won a second term. They have gone to great lengths to portray him in the most negative light. Leftists in the Democratic Party have regularly painted Bush as a villain, a story that the media subjectively disseminates without even a token critique.

Recent polls of note have shown that more and more Americans feel the US is loosing the war in Iraq. Naturally, this is untrue but constant terror attacks in Iraq and the constant leftist assault have conveyed that opinion nonetheless. So, what does all this tell us? It tells us that the left’s disinformation campaign is a rousing success. Many “experts” will site the on going violence in Iraq as evidence in support of this view, but this violence is symbolic of something else. It is symbolic of the fact that the media has consistently presented a bleak view of Iraq from the onset. It is certainly true that Iraq is a dangerous place, but danger is only one aspect of the Iraq story. The country has made dramatic progress. This progress is rarely reported; even successful elections and the approval of the Iraqi constitution are given on slight attention. As the president has noted, a stable government is necessary for Iraq’s future and for the ongoing stability of the region and that step is being accomplished. More and more, Iraqis are shouldering more of the burden for their security and defense. More and more Iraqi civilians exercise freedoms that were unheard of under the Saddam era, more and more the Iraqi government is able to find and hunt down terror cells operating in its borders. These are success stories. Yes Iraq is violent, but that is to be expected. We are fortunate that we don’t live in the Civil War, American Revolution or World War II eras, as the government would have been compelled to surrender even on the cusp of victory.

The president, however, must shoulder a portion of the responsibility for his decline in the polls, however. Not since the election has the president clearly disseminated his message to the American people. Furthermore, the president remains inexplicably silent when it comes to issues like WMD and the farce that Iraq never possessed such weapons. Even Democratic leaders from Clinton on down admitted a contrary reality only a few years ago and while they now base such statements and Bush’s “faulty” intelligence, many WMD claims were made by the left BEFORE Bush took office. Bush also fails to highlight the incredible success of the US economy or the progress made in recovery from terror attacks and a recession. Perhaps the president should take a few more lessens from the Great Communicator and a few less from Karl Rove.
http://usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-13-gop-struggles_x.htm

There is no question that the world is experiencing climate change, after all, the world has always undergone climate change. There have been ice ages, periods of exceptional rain, droughts and everything in between. One must remember that many of the world’s great deserts weren’t always that way. The Sahara, for example, was once noted for its greenery.

Recently, the UN issued a report citing concern that many countries, especially in Africa are experiencing droughts, which have drastically curtailed food production. The UN report mentions countries like Niger, Zimbabwe, Sudan, and others. What the UN report doesn’t mention is that each of these countries border or lie in existing deserts, and these deserts have been growing for hundreds of years, long before man even heard the term fossil fuel. What the UN also fails to note is the fact that practically every country facing a food shortage is experiencing a population boom due to skyrocketing birthrates.

These irresponsible countries are finding it increasingly difficult to feed their population because they are growing far more rapidly than any country can sustain itself. These countries, because of their high birth rates, have long suffered faltering economies and limited economic growth as their economies buckle under the strain of a growing and fairly young population, which is unable to contribute to the work force. These countries therefore are dependent on outdated, inefficient agricultural techniques, reminiscent of the 15th century.

Yes, fossil fuels pose a danger, which is why we continuously strive to become more efficient, and why we at the Phalanx continue to deride America’s outdated and woefully deficient energy policy, but we must consider the purpose of the UN’s report. It is not so much a goal to draw attention to Africa’s plight, as it is an attempted blow toward capitalism. The UN and its leftists backers have long sought to strike at the capitalists, especially the US and how best to do this than by crippling our economy, which is why they endorsed the wickedly one side Kyoto Treaty. They will never rest.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1517746,00.html

No one has done a greater disservice to the faith they supposedly profess than the Reverend Pat Robertson. On more than one occasion, Robertson, has uttered statements that clearly contrast with the message Christ delivered during his time on Earth. Now Robertson has told an entire town that a natural disaster is eminent and that when such a disaster does occur they should not turn to God for comfort.

We should commend the good reverend for modeling Christ in both word and deed. I can just hear Jesus telling the people of Jerusalem not to turn to God in their hour of need, it sounds just like him. Oh wait a minute, no it doesn’t it sounds like a wayward reverend with not concept of how be a steward for his faith. Residents in the town on Dover, PA recently voted out a school board that called for the teaching of intelligent design (creationism) in science classes in the public schools. To be true, there are certainly citizens in Dover who would be classified as Atheists, Secular Humanist and others opposed to the free exercise of religion. Others still were most likely opposed to the state sponsorship of religion, which the teaching of creation certainly is.

Evolution is not a scientific fact, but a theory of science nonetheless and should be taught as such in a public school science class. Creation is not of science but a spiritual matter that is unique to the Judeo-Christian faiths. If we are to be a nation of laws and not of men or of whims then we must resist the temptation to mandate the teaching of matters of faith in the public forum, for when that day comes, who will decide what is spiritual and what is not and what will be the fate of those with contrasting beliefs? Shall they be deported or forced to convert. America should not adopt the strategies of radical Islam. Pat Robertson’s message therefore is clearly one of intolerance and it is further proof that he does not embrace the premise of separation of church and state.

Parents who want to teach the importance of spirituality to their children should do it themselves and not ask the state to do it. If they seek further reinforcement of those beliefs they should have their children attend church and religious schools. Indeed, parents should be prepared to make sacrifices and fund a private education, rather than turning the public schools into religious schools. Don’t worry citizens of Dover, regardless of what the wacko Pat Robertson says, you can continue to turn to God in time of need. To resist theocracy is not to turn from God, reverend.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Robertson_Evolution.html

Hugo Chavez, who prides himself for being a master of the politics of distraction is at it again. Since the Summit of the Americas in Argentina, Chavez has been emboldened. Anti-Free Trade rioters in the Argentine capital turned the summit into a farce. Chavez, a vocal critic of free trade and all of its proponents (including the United States), took advantage of the situation to decry free trade as a scheme perpetrated by America and George Bush.

Of the 34 countries participating in the summit, 29 were in favor of setting up a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), but Chavez’s Venezuela led a chorus of opposition that also included an equally vocal Argentina and a more pragmatic Brazil. During the conference Chavez was openly hostile to those whose views differed from his (the typical response of a demagogue). Such hostility was evident in Chavez’s relationship with Mexico’s Vincente Fox. Chavez called Fox a “puppy of the empire” because of his support for a free trade zone. Chavez, in typically socialist fashion argued that any free trade agreement would only benefit US companies and decried Fox for surrendering to the United States.

Chavez, however, wasn’t the only one to criticize Fox, Argentina’s President Nestor Kirchner was also critical after Fox complained that Nestor, as host did nothing to bring about consensus among the summit participants. Mexico as one of the principal NAFTA partners can attest to the fact that free trade is most certainly beneficial to all parties involved. The suggestion that only US companies will benefit further demonstrates Chavez’s tactic of distorting and distracting in order to advance his own position. Contrary to Chavez’s position, in some cases American companies will be at a disadvantage in a free trade arrangement as Latin America has a comparative advantage in the production of certain goods and services. Certain goods and services are easier and cheaper to produce in Latin America, by contrast certain products require greater technical skill or are capital intensive and in such cases the US may hold a comparative advantage. Chavez, however, is a socialist and has no interest in free trade, his interest lies in maintaining the state’s stranglehold on power. To suggest that Chavez is interested in enhancing his people’s prosperity or fostering a greater sense of self-sufficiency among the nation’s poor is a misnomer. Chavez’s track record demonstrates his commitment only to his own political power at the expense of Venezuela’s citizens.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=aegcxeSfBsBA&refer=latin_america

According to a report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, over 20% of US citizens continue to smoke. While the study does reveal that the number of smokers in the US has been in steady decline for years, the fact that 1/5 of our population knowingly chooses to shorten their own lives demonstrates a high level of stupidity amongst our population.

It has been over 40 years since the US Surgeon General warned Americans of the significant health risks posed by cigarette smoking. The fact that some continue to light up well into the 21st century is absolutely disgusting. No one alive today should be allowed to seek damages from a tobacco company or related entity for damage to their health, that is unless that company forcibly compelled them to smoke with no hope of stopping. As we have stated the health risks are well know. Anyone, therefore, who has taken up smoking since 1964, should not be allowed to profit from their suicidal habit.

It should be noted however, that we at The Phalanx, oppose government efforts to ban smoking or limit its use by adults. If these people choose to waste their lives away, it is their choice. There is one, arena, however, where the government should be involved: parents who smoke around their children. Such individuals are no better than parents who physically abuse their children. Parents are suppose to protect their children and keep them safe from harm, not introduce carcinogens into their system causing harmful damage to their health. In such circumstances parents forfeit their parental responsibility and should not be allowed to raise children.

The study by the CDC was telling not only because of the high number of smokers in America but also because who these smokers are: the poor and the uneducated. In other words, those who have done nothing with their lives away, categorically demonstrating that those who smoke in this day and age are indeed among the dumbest people on Earth.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-11-10-smoking-rates_x.htm

In a recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Group, only half of respondents believed the press was treating the Bush administration fairly. Considering how hard the media, the left, and others have worked to undermine the administration and considering how vacillating the President has been with regard to his critics we are frankly shocked by the numbers and amazed that anyone could see through such smoke screens. According to the poll, even some Democrats (what’s left of the moderate wing in the party) recognized some bias within the press, though that number was still rather small. This administration, like any administration has suffered its share of setbacks, but perhaps no president has seemed more willing to rollover and play dead like this one has.

Bush certainly isn’t the first president to confront a media hostile to its policies, but none have been so timid in their willingness to fight and convey their message. Perhaps the administration has embraced a defeatist attitude or perhaps they aren’t sure what their message should be. As we stated earlier this week, there is a growing threat that the GOP will loose control of the control, just as they have lost control of the budget, social security reform, energy policy, and the war in Iraq. While a growing number in the media recognize the fact that there is a clear bias against the president, this will be of little conciliation when the country has fallen back into the hands of the tax and spend and socialize left.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20051110-125120-3866r.htm

Yesterday we posted an article on strip clubs. That article had two basic points: 1. government should not be in the business of dictating whether or not such businesses can exist and 2. regardless of this, those who patronize such facilities are symbolic of this country's slide into depravity and such patrons lack basic moral values, while demeaning women. This article seems to have struck a cord with some, prompting the following response from a reader:

I disagree with your article. Visiting is not a sign of no morals and it is not degrading women. Those girls enjoy what they do and make a lot of money doing it. Some are career women and some are just doing it to pay off college. As far as the wife being a slave to the man no way. I think it is healthy for guys to go off doing stuff like that on their own. Male bonding is good thing. And visiting only would make you more appreciative of the wife you have at home. Heck, some wives have even been known to go there with their husbands.

-RH

In response to the reader, we must respectfully disagree. It doesn't matter why they [strippers] do it or how much fun they have. A prostitute or even a drug dealer can go to college and have fun too. If people want to take drugs or sell their bodies that's their own personal choice and shouldn't be a matter for the state (unless they infringe upon the rights of others). The point is such behavor is a sign of our diminished moral values. Why its done is of no consequence. There simply is no way a married man can go to a strip club and ogle over a stripper and lust after that woman and think that his actions will have no bearing on his marriage. Yes men can (and should) do things with other men (male bonding, if you will) but why does such "bonding" have to be sexual in nature? It would be no different if he jumped on stage and had sex with the woman, either way he is cheating on his wife. This doesn't help a marriage, if anything the man will fantasize about the woman while with his wife, he won't appreciate his wife more (unless the stipper is truly repulsive, in which case one would assume she wouldn't be hired). These women are sex objects, pure and simple, to be lusted over. If they are not then every father in America should have no problem with their daughters doing this for a living. In fact these morally debased women should come to schools for career day.

In California, a state that firmly embraces the flawed theory of government by plebiscite, voters soundly rejected 4 proposals pushed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, to reform the California political scene. One proposal would have increased the probationary period for teachers before they could attain tenure. Another would restrict the use of union dues for political uses (the unions used those same dues to ensure this proposal’s defeat). Schwarzenegger also sought a change in how legislative districts are drawn and called for limits on state spending.

In all four cases, Schwarzenegger’s plans went down to defeat. Now the once popular governor has been forced to eat humble pie. Frankly, Schwarzenegger has only himself to blame. Schwarzenegger is the leader of the most liberal state in America. The leftists have a stranglehold on California politics. There is no way the California governor could seriously have expected the bastion of leftist ideology to cut off its nose to spite its face. Indeed, by opening up the process to the mindless drones that make up the left wing of the California electorate he played into the hands of the unions, leftists and the Democratic Party.

Perhaps, Schwarzenegger was fooled by his perceived star power. Once this fight was taken to “the people” the demagogues on the left were ensured of victory. They were able to employ their familiar scare and Mussolini-esque distraction tactics to manipulate the electorate into voting no. Schwarzenegger was further crippled by the fact that he alienated several groups simultaneously, allowing them to pool their resources, painting the governor as a villain and thereby ensuring victory.

Though Democrats control the legislature, he would have faired far better in Sacramento. Schwarzenegger could have used the momentum of his election victory to push through such reforms in more palatable doses. Now the actor turned governor, must go on a charm offensive, not only to repair his stature, but also to ensure that the broken system that is California can be meaningfully repaired. Schwarzenegger should focus on more pressing issues, paramount among those issues is the state’s outrageous spending habits. Battles with teachers and unions can be reserved for another day.
Link to "Globe and Mail" article

Recently we applauded moves by the GOP in Congress to open a small track of land (Section 1002) in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for drilling. While we recognized the fact that the oil tapped from the region would only slightly reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we noted that any relief would be beneficial, particularly in the short term as the US transitions to oil alternatives.

Now it seems such applause was premature. The measure was defeated, not by Democrats, but by several Republicans who made it clear they would not support a budget bill that contained the oil drilling provisions. So once again our government has failed us. Once again our leaders in Washington have opted for maintenance of the status quo. Not only have these spineless politicians opted not to take steps to reduce foreign energy dependence, by boosting domestic production of petroleum, but they don’t even offer alternatives.

Perhaps we could sympathize with these politicians if they were promoting the development of petroleum alternatives or offering economic incentives for manufacturers to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles (notice we said incentives, not mandates). These politicians complain at length about spiraling gas prices and unreliable sources of foreign oil. They vilify oil companies, whose profit margins are easily eclipsed by the likes of Microsoft and Apple Computer. But in realty these politicians are all talk. Their words are meaningless. Perhaps they are truly ignorant of economics, perhaps they don’t care, but in reality it’s none of the above. What these politicians are after is political power and they will say and do anything that is politically expedient and boosts their chances for re-election, then and only then can we expect substantive developments from Washington.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3451196

The list grows ever longer with each passing hour, day, week and year. More and more countries can add themselves to the list of radical Islam’s terror victims. Today we can add the Kingdom of Jordan to that list, though technically speaking; Jordan has seen such terror inspired violence before. Yesterday coordinated bomb attacks in the city of Amman killed dozens at Amman area hotels.

So far the death toll stands at 57, with hundreds injured. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi claimed responsibility for the attack in the name of Al Qaeda. Al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian himself, is responsible for hundreds, if not thousands, of murders over the past 2 years in Iraq and now it seems he is expanding his focus. Presumably the hotels that were struck were targeted because of the large number of westerners staying at those hotels. Many of those killed, however, were Arabs, but this is of no-consequence to radical Islam, they draw no distinction between Arab or Westerner, Christian or Muslim. Their goal is simply to inflict as much pain and suffering as is humanly possible. To foment a climate of fear so overwhelming in scope that the mere mention of the name Al Qaeda inspires talk of submission.

Of all the countries in the Middle East, opinions polls indicate that Jordan has harbored the most support for the terror war being conducted by Al Qaeda and the like, with the vast majority of Jordanians sympathizing with the goals of radical Islam. Jordan, by contemporary standards, however, is a largely secular nation. Under the rules of the game, as laid out by Al Qaeda and company, such lax observance of Islamic orthodoxy makes Jordan a fair target. Remember the credo: submit, convert or die. Its not sufficient in the minds of radicals to be labeled a Muslim, one must be a Muslim in the mold of an Ayatollah or a Ben Laden. Perhaps this act of savagery will open the eyes of the blind.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1639339,00.html

In a free society we must tolerate certain nuisances. We must tolerate ignorant hicks who shout racial epithets. We must accommodate the views of cults and those who share sympathies with radical Islam. We must even share the stage with those whose moral views contrast sharply with our own.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the ongoing battle many local municipalities face it dealing with strip clubs. The city of Anchorage is facing just such a battle, but they are not alone as local governments confront this issue across the country. Many local governments have sought to restrict and limit the growth of the sex industry (including strip clubs) within their boundaries as they seek an improved image. Strip clubs are seen as a blight on the public landscape, attracting a seedy crowd, while discouraging tourism and business expansion. Do strip clubs have a right to operate, yes it is free speech, but can municipalities restrict such entities, yes. Through zoning ordinances, strip clubs can be regulated or restricted to certain areas. The extent of that regulation remains to be seen. Some governments have taken regulation to new extremes regulating how close people can stand to one another or who can touch who and what not. Adults should not have such regulations imposed on their person.

The existence and prevalence of these establishments, however, does speak to a continuing moral decline and a culture, which endorses such depravity. Those who endorse and support such establishments cannot deny they are exploitive and may well argue a woman exists to serve the man. Yes a man, single or otherwise can go to a strip club anytime he wants, just like a smoker can light up anytime he wants but that doesn’t mean it’s a good decision. The only way a married man can go to a strip club and still have a good relationship with his wife is if that wife is subordinate or a slave to the man and the woman is ok with that. No one with a healthy attitude or respect for a woman can endorse, much less patronize, a strip club. Nonetheless, there existence, like so many reprehensible things in our culture, is protected speech and government should not make attempts to impose morality on those who clearly lack morals. http://www.ktuu.com/cms/templates/master.asp?articleid=1717&zoneid=1

Last night was an election night like those conducted in so many in local towns and counties since the first colonists set foot on these shores in 1607 and like so many elections since then, several hot button issues have dominated. In Kansas, where technically it wasn’t an election night, a hot button issue was voted on nonetheless. The hot button issue was evolution or creation; depending on what side you come down on. The Kansas State Board of Education voted to enact a new science policy, which mandates the teaching of creationism, along side evolution in science class.

Why are so many Christians, who claim to endorse the principle of separation of church and state supporting an imposition of fundamentalist doctrine into the public schools (and please no comments about how its not in the constitution, we here at the Phalanx keep a copy in our wallets)? There is no question that intelligent design is not a scientific theory it is spiritual. The issue is not whether evolution is accurate or not, as any intelligent scientist would have to admit, evolution is a theory which cannot be scientifically and categorically proven, but it is a SCIENTIFIC theory of the origin of man. It would be a disservice to science students to teach that evolution is fact. On the other hand, creationism is not of the scientific realm. Belief in creation is not prefaced in an ability to prove or disprove its tenets. Belief is rooted in faith.

Christians who want to raise their children to be mindful of that faith should reinforce those spiritual beliefs at home and in church or they can do like so many committed families and send their children to a private school, where they can ensure that their children receive an educated rooted in faith, after all, why have children if you can’t afford to give them the tools they need to succeed in life. Parents who send their children to state schools, should not expect the state to endorse a particular spiritual or moral beliefs. We either stand by the Constitution or we oppose it. But Christian, Muslim and Jew alike must embrace the rule of law, rather than bend that law to suit their own ends.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3448104

It is a forgone conclusion that the Republicans will loose control of Congress in 2006 and stand a strong chance of loosing the White House in 2008. Lets face its face the GOP has done a miserable job since gaining both the White House and Congress. Spending is out is out of control and all of the president’s grandiose promises will never come to fruition. The only real fear is the Democrats, who are destined to be worse once they gain total control. In reality it seems the government functions best when divided. Such as during the late 1990s when the GOP controlled Congress and Clinton and Company kept shop in the White House.

If the Democrats gain control of of both the legislative and Executive branches of government we can be sure to see a new era in America an era of astronomical spending that will make the Bush spending spree seem almost tame. An era of increased vulnerability as the Dems neglect national security and an era of diminished individual liberty. Unfortunately the GOP will bare much of the blame for this travesty as they have become wholly corrupted by power, falling into the Democratic trap. Can anyone in this day and age say exactly what the GOP stands for? That’s assuming they actually stand for something. How foolish are these Republicans? Clearly they must realize that the deck is already stacked against them. Democrats, like the hardened political soldiers they are, will exploit every weakness and the media, already a tool of the left, has been itching for the GOP to trip up and with perfect consistency the GOP has provided plenty of material.

Its a pity this country doesn’t have a strong third party, in the mold of the Libertarians, who can deny either side a majority thus keeping the parties relatively honest, forcing them not to surrender to the excesses of power. In a few years America will be a very different place, but we only have ourselves to blame. As a nation, a larger and larger proportion of our society have come to believe that government exist to absolve individuals of personal responsibility, regardless of the fact that such an act also absolves us of personal freedom and even free will. Such a renunciation of choice will succeed in creating a subject class of citizens, we need not hesitate to call them slaves. Slaves, not to a plantation owner or wealthy planter, but slaves to the state. This master, however, like the masters of the antebellum era also claim to act in our best interest, but God did not give man free will, only to surrender it to another man.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/08/D8DONNCG0.html

During Hurricane Katrina or during any hurricane for that matter, local and state governments bare the lions share of the responsibility for coordinating relief efforts, evacuating civilians, opening shelters etc. The federal government’s role is largely advisory, unless state and local officials request additional federal assistance. In the case of Hurricane Katrina, inept local and state officials bickered amongst themselves. Even Mayor Nagin in New Orleans admitted that Louisiana Governor Blanco, dropped the ball and failed to ask for needed assistance in a prompt and timely manner.

The criticism of FEMA and the federal government largely highlights the failure of our educational system as so many people came out of the woodwork to deride Bush for the failed federal response. Had these leftist critics paid closer attention in their government, civics and poli-sci classes they would have realized we live in a de-centralized federalist system, with limited powers invested in the federal government and a number of duties delegated to the states (for the same reason public schools are local, not federal and states issue drivers licenses, not Washington). These critics argue that a centralized federal response was needed. Leftists, for years, have sought to strengthen the power of the federal government, at the expense of the state, and thus the individual. Leftists around the world champion the cause of an overarching forever-dominant centralized government.

Indeed, centralization proponents from every corner of the globe criticized the US government, while ignoring Louisiana’s incompetence during Katrina. In the wake of the current crisis on French streets, we now see how well centralized government performs in a crisis and clearly the answer is: not very well. Jacques Chirac and his centralized government have been about as effective as Nero in 64 AD as Rome burned around him. Indeed, one has to ask where are all the critics now? Where are all the Bush detractors who argued Bush “did nothing” because the people in New Orleans are poor? Should we therefore conclude that Chirac is doing nothing because these people are poor as well? What’s good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander, or in this case…the frog.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/08/D8DOD9487.html

Since Neil Armstrong first set foot on the moon in July 1969, the US has been the preeminent leader in space technology and space exploration. This preeminence has led to the development of a number of scientific and technological breakthroughs for government, businesses and individuals. Beginning in the 1970s, however, America’s direction in space became more clouded. The US, foolhardily decided to invest billions in the clearly flawed space shuttle program. Even today, some NASA officials (including its administrator, Michael Griffin) admit the shuttle program was misguided at best (and a failure at worse).

In spite of these set backs and lack of focus, America has still led in space technology and space exploration. This is evidenced in the success of NASA’s unmanned space program and the pioneering achievements in satellite technology. Recently, efforts have been made to refocus America’s direction in space. NASA has finally decided to scrap the shuttle program and focus on more efficient and cost effective space delivery systems. The US, under President Bush’s direction has also committed itself to a return to the moon by 2018, it remains to be seen if the US can achieve this goal. To do so, NASA will have to re-direct resources to focus on the moon program. Sadly, we spend billions on pork projects and welfare initiatives to buy votes from Topeka to Nome, but won’t lift a finger to spend on projects that enhance our national prominence, advanced science and technology or spur business development in areas where it is most needed.

China has also set its eyes on the moon and may achieve the goal of landing men on the moon by 2017, one year before the United States. While the US struggles to get children interested in science and technology, Chinese schools have to chase prospective students away with a stick. In America we spend billions each year on education, yet we continue to falter. In America science and technology businesses are forced to hire foreigners because there aren’t enough Americans to fill the ranks. America is quickly loosing its grip. Our obsession with pop culture, football stars and the inane is causing America to fall behind in the race for dominance. Is China’s move into space a threat to the United States? No. China’s success in space and in other aspects of science and technology is symbolic, however. It signifies a decline in American know-how and American innovation. As we struggle to teach children to read on their grade level, our rivals will soon eclipse us. Perhaps we are wrong; perhaps China’s moves will do for America what Sputnik did in the late 1950s. Perhaps Americans will begin a new love affair with science. Perhaps children (and their parents), will demand improvements in science education. Who are we fooling though? How can the periodic table stand up to Britney Spears and Lebron James? It can’t and soon, American may not be able to stand as well.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2005-11-07-nasa-foreign-competition_x.htm

We have regaled you with stories of Islamic extremism in every corner of the globe. They have struck on the high seas, as piracy, previously limited to commercial shipping in SE Asia, has now struck the passenger cruising industry. They have struck in Latin America, they have struck in Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan, Nigeria, Iraq, Thailand, China, Russia, Spain, Britain, the Netherlands, America, the Philippines, Indonesia and countless other places around the globe. Their reach is global and their objectives are deadly. One place they have longed to strike is Australia. They have come close before, striking Australian tourists with devastating affect on two separate occasions in Bali, Indonesia.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard had warned that Australia was not immune from the global threat of Islamic radicalism and their pandemic of fear, and now we see how true that statement must have been. Australian police have rounded up 17 terror suspects in Sydney and Melbourne. According to authorities, these radical Muslims were planning a major terror strike in at least two major Australian cities. The suspects were found to have stock piled weapons and bombing making chemicals. As we have stated previously the threat from radical Islam is real and it is global.

To the left, including the media, they will try to tie this thwarted attack to the war in Iraq, but as Prime Minister Howard has pointed out on several occasions, western targets have been struck by these Islamist long before Iraq and indeed, several countries this very day are being targeted by Islamic radicals though they have had no involvement in Iraq or the wider war on terror, most notably France, who did everything in its power to stop the Iraq war, yet they are now the victims of Islam’s incessant march to global dominance.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/11/08/australia-plot051108.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4417306.stm

While France burns and Iraq smolders and the Philippines quiver, and Russia recoils, and Afghanistan shakes and Sudan buckles and Thailand mourns, we witness yet another example of radical Islam’s march across the globe. That march, however, is not restricted to land. Over the weekend Islamic pirates, that’s right we said pirates, attempted to attack a cruise ship off the coast of Somalia. God only knows why a cruise line would regard the coast of Somalia as safe cruising waters. The pirates, spotted the ocean liner and saw it as an easy target, the radicals loaded two cigarette style speedboats and sped out to engage the ship, not unlike their Islamic brethren from the late 18th and early 19th century when the Barbary pirates of North Africa attacked western ships in the Mediterranean, these modern day Barbary pirates equipped with machines guns and rocket- propelled grenades, sought to capture a western prize.

These terrorists, and that’s exactly what they are, fired on the ship and launched grenades as well. Fortunately, none of the grenades detonated and the quarry was eventually able to escape. Much of the credit for the cruise liners escape must go to the captain, who first attempted to ram one of the pirate ships before making a dash for the open sea. Fortunately, his vessel was far too speedy for the under matched pirates and the cruise ship, known as the Seabourn Spirit was able to effect an escape. Perhaps, no one is more upset by this unrest, than Kenya.

Kenya has already been the site of two Al Qaeda inspired terror attacks in 1998 and 2002 and unfortunately shares a border with Somalia. Kenya receives hundreds of millions in tourist dollars every year and is one of the most popular tourist sites in Africa, the country can ill afford an interruption in tourism precipitated by Islamic radicals in Somalia. The fact of the matter is, one can turn to practically any spot of the globe and will find examples of Islamic radicalism. But this trend is not new, as many leftists would have us believe, even Islamic piracy, and one needn’t look back to the Barbary Pirates of the 18th century. One can look to the Malacca Strait off the coast of Indonesia. This region is a vibrant shipping channel and it is also a hotbed for piracy, most of which has been perpetrated by Islamic radicals. So fearful is Singapore of Islamic pirates, that they have significantly boosted funding for their navy to patrol waters in an around the area. And who can forget the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in the Mediterranean? Indeed, this is a global war; the only problem is some of the combatants don’t realize it yet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4413782.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3908821.stm

For two weeks now France has been gripped by rioting. We have chronicled the failures of the French government in creating conditions ripe for such troubles, but we must not discount the madness and savagery of the rioters themselves. These thugs have shown no mercy as they have targeted schools, churches, businesses, cars, etc. While largely ignored by the press and most political figures, the fact remains that these rioters have one thing in common. It is the same common denominator that unites the insurgents of Iraq, the 9/11 hijackers or the Taliban, that being Islam.

The vast majority of these French rioters hail from North Africa and the Middle East, the French government argues that much of their plight can be attributed to the fact that these 1st and 2nd generation immigrants fail to integrate into French society. What the French fail to realize is that integration is not a part of their agenda, if anything their goal is disintegration of French society, such as it is. We have recounted similar stories in Britain, Germany and the Netherlands, where a growing Islamic population is creating a new order in Europe and with it new sources of conflict. While many of these immigrants may very well be peaceful, a sizeable proportion of them have grander goals in mind, not unlike those of the Moors. They seek a position of dominance.

While the French government certainly have created conditions that lend credence to the arguments of the Islamic radicals, perhaps there is little the French government could do that would actually placate these rioters, especially if their goal is live out the familiar credo: submit, convert or die. French governmental policy has long emphasized the integration of immigrants into French society, clearly such policies are failures, but then again no policy can be successful when those who are the targets have a very different agenda. Perhaps Europe will wake up to the ever growing threat in their midst before its too late.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9938333/site/newsweek/

Rioting continues throughout France. What began as a relatively isolated incident in a Paris suburb has spread across the country, with government authorities incapable of restoring order. The rioting has seen the destruction of many public buildings, including schools, the destruction of private businesses, most of which are family owned and the torching of hundreds upon hundreds of cars all across the country. France hasn’t seen this much street violence since 1969 and the Charles De Gaule era. Nonetheless, the violence shows no sign of waning and despite promises from French government officials, the authorities have not been successful in their efforts to clamp down on violence. Without question the rioters are taking advantage of a situation to spread chaos and mayhem.

Many rioters and sympathizers claim that the poor and immigrant families feel desperate and believe they have no hope in French society. They argue jobs are hard to come by and this frustration has spilled out into rampant violence. In France the unemployment rate exceeds 10% nationally, but is much higher in some neighborhoods. Even if the complaints of rioters are legitimate their actions invalidate their complaints, making them nothing more than violent thugs. Exactly how do they hope to improve their situation by destroying their neighbor’s livelihood? French society has been groomed on an entitlement attitude, so it is clear that there is a sense that if one person in French society is not prosperous then no one should be and thus attacks on their accomplishments are wholly justified.

The rioters and their sympathizers also claim frequent discrimination by the authorities, wait a minute isn’t this the same country that criticizes America at every turn? We’ve known for some time that France has a serious problem with anti-Semitism, with frequent attacks on cemeteries and synagogues, but apparently they have problems with most minorities as well. Complainants argue, authorities frequently harass minorities on the streets and this discrimination extends to the private sector as well. In reality France is simply a nation in decline. The street thugs turning life into a living hell for ordinary citizens seek nothing more than violence for violence’s sake, but their sympathizers point out stark contrast between the France that their government like’s to portray abroad and the real France, one with high levels of poverty, unemployment and rampant discrimination. French governmental policies have succeeded only in making a bad situation worse. French economic policy exacerbates unemployment and limits the opportunities of many to find success on their own. Yet France continues to champion its social and economic experience as a model for Europe and the world….we think not!
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L06660116.htm

Today the US House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a measure that would withhold federal money from states and local governments that use eminent domain to confiscate homes and businesses for private development. The bill passed 376-38, the fact that it did not past unanimously attests to the fact that the House has been infiltrated by fascists, socialists or both. This measures comes in the wake of the most heinous Supreme Court decision since Plessy vs. Ferguson in 1896.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled that the taking of private land for private development could be regarding as a “public use” a clear affront to the intent of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London has created an unusual alliance between liberals and conservatives, with both groups fearing the obvious implications for government abuse of power. As noted, not all Congressmen supported the measure, one such individual was Rep. Bobby Scott of Virginia. He argued: “We should not change federal law every time members of Congress disagree with the judgment of a locality when it uses eminent domain for the purpose of economic development.” With these words, Rep Scott has demonstrated with glaring accuracy his disloyalty to the US Constitution, his reckless disregard for the rights of property owners, his socialist sympathies and it further shows just how unfit he is to serve in the United States Congress. We can only hope that Scott will be soundly defeated in next year’s elections. What the socialist Scott doesn’t realize and what most socialists don’t realize is the fact that the Constitution clearly protects private property and it is the Supreme Court that overstepped its authority in this matter when it contravened the Constitution.

The president has enthusiastically supported the bill and justifiably so. One of the reasons governments exists is to protect citizens and their property, not to exploit them. While we applaud the efforts of the House in passing this bill and hope the Senate will quickly follow suit, we must also note that this measure doesn’t go far enough. Since the Supreme Court has clearly reneged on its duty to interpret the Constitution by superseding it, Congress must move to establish a Constitutional amendment which defines in no uncertain terms the difference between “public” and “private” and expressly forbid the seizure of private property for the later.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/04/eminent.domain.ap/index.html

Yesterday the Senate voted to authorize oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Republicans have been pushing for years to open a small swath of ANWR for drilling, arguing it will lessen our dependence on foreign oil. So how much oil can be found in ANWR? The answer to that question depends on what side you are on. To the GOP and drilling proponents, ANWR will serve as a major step toward reducing energy dependence. According to some estimates from the 1980s, ANWR could contain 17 billion barrels of oil and 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. According to Democrats and drilling opponents the amount of oil to be found in ANWR is miniscule. Critics further contend that drilling in ANWR is a stunt that will have little impact on gas prices or foreign oil dependence. It is estimated that without ANWR oil, foreign oil will account for 68% of oil use, with ANWR 64%, in 2025. Is anyone else struck by the fact that this country will still be dependent on the gas powered internal combustion engine in 2025? How sad is that? We aren’t opposed to drilling in ANWR, in fact quite the opposite, but we are inclined to agree with the Democratic opposition that drilling is tantamount to a drop in the bucket, even by the most liberal estimates. Unfortunately, Democratic critics can do only that: criticize. As usual they fail to offer any real alternatives to America’s energy crisis. And that’s exactly what it is…a crisis. Republicans are no better, they are best likened to a one trick pony or a singer with only one tune. The best the GOP can do is propose more drilling (in Alaska or in the Gulf). This isn’t leadership and further demonstrates the blindness and unimaginative thinking that dominates both parties. Early versions of the internal combustion engine were developed in 17th century China and today’s gas-fired internal combustion engine bares little difference from the versions that emerged in the late 1850s. If this country remains, remains dependent on such out dated technology a generation from now, then we have truly declined as a nation and as a people. We have known for years that dependence on foreign oil is volatile at best, yet we have failed to encourage the development of alternative power systems or engine designs.

For some time now, ThePhalanx.com has called for a consistent, diverse and balanced energy policy. Such a policy would weigh the immediate need for greater oil production with the long-term need for greater efficiency. Up until now, the US has pursued neither a long term or short term energy policy; indeed, our energy policy is non-existent and consists mostly of political bellyaching from both sides of the aisle with only piecemeal solutions, if that. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have failed in this regard. It is in our best interest to produce more oil, as it will free the nation from a volatile source of energy, while depriving our enemies of a revenue stream that can be used to finance more terrorist and jihadist endeavors. But this is only a short-term solution. Not only should we encourage the development of more fuel efficient vehicles but we should encourage the development of petroleum alternatives. By pursuing alternatives and greater technological efficiency we also improve our environment. For this very reason both hard-line environmentalist and those interested in protecting our country’s national security should be working diligently to bring about real change. How do we do this? Do we compel industry? Not exactly. We provide incentives. Incentives for producers and incentives for consumers. Such incentives could entail considerable tax breaks to innovate, while giving citizens incentives to buy. We give opportunities for rivals to compete, driving down production costs. Inevitably, as gas prices continue to soar, as the threat of inflation looms, and as oil producing tyrants in the Middle East and Latin America become more emboldened, the powers that be will have to listen.

This administration and every previous administration since Carter have been sorely lacking. US officials, in an apparent collective memory lapse, fail to grasp the real threat energy dependence holds for the United States. While new energy sources become increasingly difficult to identify. The country fails simply refuses to take any steps to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and the anti-American dictatorships these oil revenues support. Even the supposed environmentally conscious Democrats, have failed to capitalize on this significant threat to national security. 60 years ago the Nazis developed an extensive program to produce synthetic liquid fuels (known as hydrogenation) to power their war machine. Today America faces a threat no less dangerous than the Nazi thugs of WWII, yet we have developed no comparable solution to the looming energy catastrophe we face. America has abundant natural resources and technical sophistication to deal with this crisis. Today alternative energy sources can be derived from hydrogen, ethanol, natural gas, coal hydrogenation, fuel cells, and so on. This country’s leaders, however, continue to lack the foresight to prepare us for our inevitable futures, while our enemies fatten their wallets for the equally inevitable jihad.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/03/D8DL6FO86.html

In this increasingly litigious society, one can always expect more and more outrageous claims. The case of Bob Dougherty of Boulder, Colorado is one such example. Mr. Dougherty is suing Home Depot. Apparently Dougherty went to use a public restroom at a Home Depot store in October 2003. When Dougherty was finished he found himself stuck to the seat. Apparently a practical joker had lined the seat with glue. What kind of idiot sits on a public restroom toilet with out looking? This man must be one of the filthiest humans on earth. Once the patron realized he was stuck, he called out for help, a store clerk heard his calls and radioed the message in to a superior. Apparently, store officials presumed Dougherty’s cries were a hoax, a logical conclusion, after all, how often do people get stuck to toilet seats? It’s probably not a regular occurrence at Colorado Home Depot stores. Eventually store officials called an ambulance who freed the man.

According to Dougherty he sat on the toilet for about 15 minutes before the clerks made the call. By Mr. Dougherty’s own account, Home Depot isn’t to blame for the incident but he does blame them for letting him “rot” on the toilet for 15 minutes. Presumably, there are those who will argue that this man’s grievances are legitimate. We, however, are not one of those people. In the first place this man should have looked before he leaped, clearly cleanliness is not a paramount concern to this individual if he considers a simple act like looking at a toilet seat too burdensome. In the second place, Home Depot was not responsible for his predicament and their reaction was perfectly reasonable given the outlandish situation. Perhaps Mr. Dougherty should be compensated for his time. The court should take his hourly salary and give him ¼ of that figure as compensation for the 15 minutes he spent glued to the toilet seat at Home depot. Perhaps if he is still unsatisfied, Mr. Dougherty can sue the glue manufacturer.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/03/D8DL4JHO4.html

For over a century, Frenchman have been engrained with the belief that the state is their provider. This message has not been lost on recent settlers in France, though we are at a lost to explain why anyone would voluntarily settle in France. Nonetheless, the French state has created this entitlement culture over a period of decades, as a result the primacy of the state is unquestioned and when individuals encounter setbacks in their lives, it is the state that must accept responsibility, not the individual. Increasingly, however, France has found it difficult to live up to its entitlement promises. The French economy is in a shambles and unemployment is astronomical.

The French social model, championed by Jacques Chirac has superior to the Anglo-American model is a failure. France has succeeded only in creating a subject class of people so dependent upon the government that it is surprising they don’t call the Prime Minister when it is time to relieve themselves. The French economic and social order has stifled innovation, what else can account for the fact that no substantive innovation or breakthrough has emerged from France in centuries? As the French government has consistently failed its people, while destroying their work ethic, it is no surprise that Frenchmen in the Paris suburbs have taken to the streets. For a week now, Frenchmen in the suburbs NE of Paris have been rioting, torching buildings and now firing at police and fire crews. Rioting, however, is nothing new for the French people. For years it has been the standard method for the French populace to exact concessions from their government. Given the success of the practice in the past, its no surprise that today’s French are employing the same lawless tactics. Bare in mind that the French psyche is engrained with two philosophies: entitlement and appeasement. For this reason the French government will take on an even greater paternalistic role, while rewarding the rioters with numerous concessions. In the end there can be but one result: maintenance of the status quo. Unemployment will remain unchanged, the disaffected will continue to be so and the French state will exalt itself as a father figure, while ordinary citizens absolve themselves of any degree of personal responsibility.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4401670.stm

Frequent visitors are no doubt surprised by today’s headline, but your eyes do not deceive you. So what is Senator Clinton correct about? She is correct about South Korean sentiment vis-à-vis the United States. Senator Clinton made her comments during a confirmation hearing for Gen. Burwell B. Bell who has been nominated as commander of U.S. Forces Korea. According to the senator, South Korea is undergoing “historical amnesia,” forgetting the role the US has played in securing their safety and freedom from communist aggression for over 50 years, not to mention the major part the US has played in the economic miracle that is South Korea. And the senator is correct that the leadership in South Korea has fanned the flames of Anti-Americanism, a popular strategy for leftist politicians. There is even a movement afoot to remove a statue of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the savior of the south during the Korean War. We should not, however, be surprised by this turn of events, our sacrifices have been all but forgotten elsewhere in the world, why not Korea? Now the south’s leaders seek to drive a deeper wedge in the US-Korean relationship. Given this turn of events, one has to ask, why are we spending billions each year and committing tens of thousands of troops in defense of a country that increasingly denigrates us in word and in deed? America should call it a day, pack up every last soldier, close every single base and leave the defense of South Korea to the South Koreans. The South’s Army’s is one of the largest in the world, why should America continue to waste resources in this manner? Indeed, even if the north were to take advantage of the situation to make a move on the south, America should do nothing, abrogating all treaties and signaling to the world that the days of dependence on America are numbered.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/front2453677.121527778.html

What’s the best way to deflect criticism? Accuse your opponents of the same offense that you have been charged with. In Maryland state politics, if you are an Uncle Tom, accuse your opponents of being a Tom. Black Democrats (a synonym for house servant) have come out against Republican Lt. Governor, Michael Steele with a vengeance. They have thrown Oreos at him, they have called him an Uncle Tom, and they have portrayed him as a Sambo and have done so unapologetically. We have already recounted the racial hypocrisy of the Democratic Party and this showdown in Maryland is yet another example. Steele’s Democratic opponents say the criticism is justified because Steele is a Republican and Republicans do not represent the interest of the Black community, and Democrats do? Black Democratic politicians in Maryland are the epitome of hypocrites and in their race bating attacks they demonstrate that racist attacks can be condoned if they are not directed toward them. Indeed, these Democrats are the true Uncle Toms. They have done nothing to advance the interest of their communities. That is unless you consider creating a subject class of citizens who are dependent on the state, and demanding hand outs that diminish one’s work ethic, working in the best interest of anyone. These Black democrats walk in lock step with the elitists, paternalistic power structure of the Democratic Party a party whose policies have done nothing to lift even a single person out of poverty. If anything, such policies make the grip of poverty even worse. What really interests these politicians is political power and though the Democratic elites only give these Black politicians scraps off the table, the Toms are willing to fight for those scraps, no matter how many people they must tear down in the process. If subservience is in the interest of Blacks then the Democrats are the party to choose. If dependence and limited ability to make decisions for yourself is desirous, then the Democrats are the way to go.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20051101-104932-4054r.htm

Since the Madrid subway bombings and the Italian appeasement of kidnappers in Iraq, terrorists have found that certain countries can be neutralized by simply by striking at them directly. In the aftermath of the Madrid terror attacks, Spain promptly voted out the popular conservative government and pulled its troops out of Iraq. Al Qaeda also relied on kidnappings as a means to bring about its goals. In kidnapping an Italian journalist these Islamic radicals found that certain governments were willing to pay for their release, thus setting off a wave of kidnappings in Iraq. These terrorists then attempted to employ the same strategy against Britain, but in spite of the July 7 subway bombings and the many lives lost, Britain has stood resolute, thus far, and has refused to cave in to terrorist’s demands.

Now there is word that these Islamic terrorists are hoping for better luck in Australia. The Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, has warned that certain intelligence suggests that Al Qaeda may be planning an attack in the land of oz. Australians are no stranger to terrorism. In the Bali bombings in Indonesia, dozens of Australians were killed at the popular tourist destination. But Australia itself has never been hit. There is no doubt that the Prime Minister would not cower in the face of terror, he has made that point clear on numerous occasions, but what will be the reaction of the Australian people? Will they stand firm in the mold of Britain or will they shrink and cower in the mold of Spain and Italy? We’d like to think the Australians understand that surrender only invites more terror. We’d like to think that Australia understands the costs of appeasement but only time will tell.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1854465,00.html

Now that the employee pricing deals have become a thing of the past and now that gas prices have shot through the roof, GM, Ford and to a much lesser extent Chrysler find themselves in a familiar spot: sales declining and loosing money. So what is the reason, why can’t GM and Ford seem to get their act together? The reasons for the Detroit’s problems make for a laundry list and hearken back to the 1970s. During the 70s Detroit developed a reputation for producing gas guzzling vehicles that were poorly constructed and unreliable. To an extent this reputation was well deserved. Since the late 1990s, Detroit has corrected this problem, but the perception of the Detroit quality gap persists. How then can Detroit overcome the perceptions of a quality gap with Japan? The same way Korean automakers did. First they corrected the problem and then they provided incentives for customers to come back. These incentives did not entail radical price cuts, which serve only to further the perception inferior quality. They provided incentives that enhanced the perception of quality, such as expanded warranties. Detroit must also deal with the problems posed by organized labor. Labor unions have stifled innovation and modernization in Detroit for years. Because of union resistance, GM and Ford have been unable to reduce cost and increase productivity, like their Japanese counterparts who rely far more heavily on mechanization. GM and Ford must also fully embrace innovation, Detroit is so laden with bureaucracy that innovation is significantly stifled. Rival auto-makers like Honda develop new engines which find their way to market within months. GM innovations take years (if not decades). While Ford has finally managed to produce a couple of hybrid vehicles, we are still waiting for GM hybrids, to say nothing of hydrogen-powered vehicles. Perhaps the threat of bankruptcy will force Detroit to change.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/01/051101214945.t2l4fd5a.html

Since the devastating earthquake that struck Pakistan last month, aid agencies, the UN and the Pakistani government have appealed for more and more aid. As usual one of the first countries to respond was the United States, donating food, clothing and millions in relief funds. In addition to this assistance the US military has sent teams to help with rescue and donated the use of helicopters to airlift aid into the most hard to reach places. Just as during the tsunami in SE Asia or the famine in Somalia, the US has come to the aid of a Muslim country, and just as in those cases, the old adage has proven true: no good deed goes unpunished.

In this most recent incident a US helicopter was fired upon while operating a relief mission near the city of Chakothi. According to the military the firing was identified as a rocket propelled grenade. Though Pakistani authorities say it could have been dynamite. This explanation however, doesn’t hold water, given recent experience in Iraq and Afghanistan; our forces are more than capable of identifying hostile fire, a sentiment that was echoed by the US Commander in the region. "Our air crew is familiar with RPG fire," noted Nick Balice with the Disaster Assistance Centre.

In light of this event, it begs the question, while America and other western nations are giving to the relief effort where are the supposed champions of Islam? Where is Al Qaeda? Where is Zarqawi? Where is Ben Laden? Indeed these Muslim “heroes” are responsible for killing more Muslims than they have ever helped. Yet America is portrayed as an enemy. It’s a strange world indeed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4397586.stm

President Bush has made his choice to replace the retiring Sandra Day O’Connor. His name is Samuel Alito, an appeals court judge appointed in 1990. Alito unlike Harriet Miers has a long record, which conservatives praise and liberals deride. It is this record that will be the subject of intense scrutiny when Alito goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the coming weeks. Already, liberals have lined up to complain that Bush did not choose a “consensus” candidate. Some have even suggested that Alito’s nomination could be filibustered, which could set up a showdown over the very issue of judicial filibusters.

Democrats complain that Alito’s nomination would push the court to the right. Is this something we should be surprised about? Could we not safely assume that if a Democrat were making the nomination, that choice would push the court to the left? The left in this country has embraced the strategy that they will oppose anyone or anything that isn’t in sync with their leftist agenda. Whereas in the past Democratic congresses approved Republican appointments and vice versa, now the left is out of power completely for the first time in 50 years and thus their only hope is to influence policy through the judicial branch of government. To this end, they must oppose any and all justices, who don’t share their leftist ideology. Over the coming weeks every aspect of Alito’s record will be reviewed and studied by the left in the hope of scuttling this nomination like they have done with so many nominations from this president. Perhaps the greatest fight will be over abortion, an issue that continues to divide this nation. This tired, distractive and divisive issue is one that never seems to go away and is sure to make the Alito nomination the greatest supreme court fight since Robert Bork.

For all the fireworks, however, none will be greater than we can expect when liberal firebrand John Paul Stevens retires. At age 85, Stevens is certain to be the next justice to leave, his replacement will tip the balance between conservative and liberal for years to come. The right must surely hope that he will retire within the next 3 years as the Republican’s chances of holding on to the White House after Bush are slim at best.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4395668.stm

Vladimir Putin is only the second freely “elected” president in Russia’s history. So far Russia hasn’t had the greatest track record when it come to presidents. America’s first two included George Washington and John Adams, and were followed by a number of highly qualified individual who were committed to the concept of representative government. Putin and Boris Yeltsin, however, have a far more dubious track record. While Yeltsin was notorious for being drunk on the job and his administration was noted for graft and corruption, Putin is noted for his authoritarianism, and ongoing corruption in his administration as well.

Under Putin, freedom of the press has been all but eliminated and the voice of any opposition has been silenced under threat of arrest and imprisonment, which makes it fairly easy to win an election. Its no surprise that Putin remains popular in the polls, with state media singing his praises 24-7 and most opposition silenced Putin is virtually a god to the Russian people. In spite of his ongoing popularity and his dominance of the Russian Duma (Parliament), it comes as a surprise that Putin has announced that he will not seek a third term when his current term expires in 2008. Such a move would require an amendment to the Russian Constitution, but such an act is insignificant in contrast with the laborious task of altering the US Constitution. Putin, however, is not one who is likely to give up power very easily and even Putin has left the door open for some last minute shenanigans.

Putin has argued that he will not allow Russia to become “destabilized” after the March 2008 election. Its anyone’s guess what such a statement could mean, but it would not be far fetched to believe that Putin could declare marshal law or take some other extra-legal act if he is unsatisfied with the results of the election. Russia has never had a traditional democratic transfer of power. Putin initially became president in 2000, when Yeltsin before his term expired, giving Putin the position of incumbent and allowing him to use the power of the Kremlin to solidify his hold on power prior to the next election. Perhaps Putin plans to appoint his successor as well.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/31/D8DJ6ARG0.html