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 serv