In what has become an all too familiar practice for world leaders when times get tough at home, the Prime Minister of Canada, Paul Martin, is blaming the US for a record number of murders in Ontario’s largest city. In 2005, there have been 78 murders in Toronto, with over half the result of gun violence. Naturally, there can be but one cause in a situation like this…why it’s America of course. America is exporting violence to the streets of Canada. That makes perfect sense, in fact why not blame America for every murder committed everywhere in the past 230 years?

Martin, along with the mayor of Toronto, argue that the easy availability of guns, some of which have been illegally smuggled in to Canada from the US, has led to the high murder rate. In fact, the mere existence of guns has been known to drive gun owners, gun shop owners, soldiers, policemen, gun manufacturers and distributors into mad demon possessed killing rages. In fact even seeing a gun will drive a person to kill, or so the story goes according to the prime minister.

So why is Martin blaming America for the tragedy of gun violence in Canada? Because Canada isn’t the heaven on earth, Canadian officials would have us believe. Because Canada faces real problems of poverty, unemployment and cultural permissiveness and criminal victimization, which are fertile grounds for criminality. Its much easier for Martin to place blame on America, rather than own up to the fact that their country faces real problems requiring real solutions. This sentiment was echoed by, Toronto security analyst, John Thompson, calling Martin’s position a “cop out.” As Thompson noted, Canada has a gang problem, not a gun problem. For politicians like Paul Martin, a Mussolini in training, its much easier to distract the electorate, especially in the run up to an election, with phony assertions of blame rather than recognize Canada’s real problem issues.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/27/canada.crime.ap/index.html

As we noted several days ago, the Iraqi elections were indeed credible. The Sunnis who make up less than 20% of the Iraqi population charged fraud after preliminary results indicated that their parties only won about 19% of the seats in parliament. Apparently the Sunni skill of bomb-making doesn’t extend to mathematics. The Sunnis were so “outraged” that they took to the streets. This is a tactic the Sunnis, who are new to democracy, borrowed from their supporters in the American Democratic Party, who trumpet a similar charge when they loose elections. If you can’t win legitimately then castigate the results and sow the seeds of doubt in order to de-legitimize the actual winner.

Unlike the Democrats, however, the Sunnis have been chiefly responsible for a murderous terror campaign in Iraq, that has led to the deaths of thousands of innocent men women and children. They rue the day Shiites assume a leadership role in the country after 70 years of Sunni oppression, most recently under the iron fist of Saddam Hussein. The Sunnis therefore have threatened violence, big surprise, if their assertions of fraud are not investigated. Now the UN has come out in support of the Iraqi parliamentary elections noting that they were very much above board, as we have stated.

What the Sunnis hope to accomplish is to instill a sense of fear in the Shiite majority so much so that they will grant concessions to the Sunni, giving them a greater voice in government, disproportionate to their electoral standing. What the new Iraqi government does at this point will be critical. If the government stands firm and refuses to knuckle under to intimidation, there is a real chance democracy may take hold in Iraq. If they appease these groups under threat of violence, Iraq’s democracy will be permanently weakened setting a precedent, which will be impossible to shake. A government that submits to threats can never successfully govern.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1448317

Shortly before the Christmas holiday, 4th grade teacher Kate Rudloff was out for the day and her class was being covered by a substitute, who during a reading of a Christmas poem, told the class the truth about Santa Clause, noting that Santa (i.e., Saint Nicholas) died in 394 AD in modern day Turkey and upon this individual, the modern fairy tale of Santa is based.

Many kids, who had been lied to by their parents since their earliest memories, reacted with shock and outrage. How could Santa not be real, they pondered? Naturally parents were furious. After all their attempts to deceive their children in order to get them to behave, while secularizing a religious holiday for material gain, had gone awry. Parents contacted the PTA, the principal and the school board. Some demanded that the substitute be disciplined, others that she not be allowed to sub at their school again. Why? Because she refused to lie to their children?

The school reacted by showing kids the movie “Polar Express” and parents reassured, their misguided children that Santa was indeed real. Some even made reference to the editorial: "Yes, Virginia, There Is a Santa Claus." Well sorry to rain on the parade of quite a few parents, but no there is no Santa Clause and those who engender this lie to their children are doing a disservice to themselves and their children. Perhaps it could be argued that this sub acted in poor judgment, after all its not her place to dictate how some parents choose to raise, and mis-0inform, their children, she would have been well advised to leave well enough alone, but to be disciplined for not promoting a lie, what nonsense!
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3349275

According to a recent report, college graduates today aren’t as proficiency as they should be when it comes to literacy skills. According to Michael Gorman with the American Library Association, "Only 31 percent of college graduates can read a complex book and extrapolate from it." This isn’t surprising in fact it shouldn’t come as a surprise if most could not even define the word “extrapolate.” As we at the Phalanx have been warning for some time, this generation is entering an era of diminished returns when it comes to intellect and appreciation for knowledge. The long and short of it is there is no appreciation for knowledge.

We live in an era of distraction, of bread and circuses. The consequences of this report can and will be far reaching. Not only for today’s adults but future generations as well. The test conducted, were by no means far reaching, they were simply designed to measure the average adult’s ability to read and understand simple instructions and tasks through reading. This included reading the labels of food products and understanding a newspaper editorial. The results show a significant decline in just the last decade. It’s no surprise that this decline coincides with the rise of the Internet.

Experts are at odds over what the cause may be for this alarming trend, but we aren’t. Some argue it’s a shift in culture and demographics, which is a tired and dishwatery excuse at best. Others contend that there is a problem in the educational system, which is partially true, but the fundamental cause is clear. It is the same cause for America’s consistently poor showing in head to head academic measurements with other industrialized and developing countries.

American culture, with few exceptions, places little value on knowledge or education. When children come home from school, do they see mom and dad reading or engaged in intellectually stimulating conversations? No, they see mom and dad watching an inane situation comedy or the umpteenth football came of the season. The trend continues at school where kids are bombarded with distractions to their education, distractions such as obsession with school sports, even at the expense of academics, obsession with appearance, obsession with sex, obsession with music and other counterculture icons. As a society we immortalize the achievements of athletes and musicians, while ignoring the accomplishments of scientists or businessmen and women.

These misplaced values aren’t lost on children who place no more value on reading than they do working in a mill town. The results of this study should come as a warning, a warning which is likely to go unheeded. And sadly there may come a day when our convenience and sloth obsessed culture discovers that we are no longer number one, and not even number 20 as we already are in terms of education.
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/1205/26natliteracy.html

Sunni Muslims took to the streets en masse to decry last week’s parliamentary elections. Sunnis claim the elections were rigged in favor of the Shiite-Kurd coalition, who are expected to dominate in the new parliament once the results are officially announced next month. Unlike in previous elections Sunnis turned out in force at the polls, but so too did the Shia and the Kurds.

By a form of reasoning that only makes sense to the Sunnis, who took time out of their busy schedule of killing their fellow Iraqis, the Sunnis should dominate, just as they did under the iron hand of Saddam Hussein. Sunni clerics have fanned the flames of discontentment among Sunnis, who will now certainly return their nasty habit of killing innocent men, women and children. Some blame, Shia dominated Iran for complicity in the “election fraud” as they see it.

There is one fact the Sunni seem to have forgotten. Shia, outnumber Sunni by a considerable margin in Iraq (in fact Sunni make up less than 20% of Iraq’s total population, while Shia account for over 60%), so it stands to reason that Shia candidates would dominate in a new parliament. According to some preliminary figures, the Iraq Accordance Front, a collation of Sunni Arab parties, received approximately 19% of the vote, which is directly proportionate to the Sunnis population in Iraq. The Sunni’s however, aren’t going to let a pesky thing like facts stand in the way of a good protest.

So what lies at the heart of these unfounded allegations, which were even rejected by the United Nations? The Sunnis are afraid a Shia dominated government will exact revenge on the Sunni for years of state sponsored murder and oppression. The Sunnis are making it known, through these protests, that if they don’t have their say in the new government, there will be no peace for Iraq, a promise they have already lived up to for well over a year.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-12-23-election-challenge_x.htm

It is distinctly possible that the Nazis ran a more objective court system than the new Iraqi government. In what other court system in the world can a defendant repeatedly stand in the docket a repeatedly yell at the judge and launch into irrelevant tirades about a court’s legitimacy? In what other court system in the world can the accused simply refuse to attend court on their own say so? This is not a court proceeding, this is a circus that makes a mockery of justice.

Saddam Hussein is a defendant, accused of very heinous crimes. A high profile defendant, yes, but a defendant nonetheless and he should be treated as such. He should not be allowed to launch into pro-Saddam diatribes in the middle of court. If this defendant is incapable of maintaining self control in court then he should be restrained and if need be bound as his lawyers argue over his fate. Saddam, ever the master of treachery and propaganda, is using this trial to achieve his own ends. He seeks to castigate others while absolving himself of any blame or responsibility for years of slaughter and mass murder.

There is no doubt Hussein will be found guilty (but then again perhaps there is doubt), and he knows that, but he now seeks to change his image in the mind of ordinary Iraqis, championing himself as a martyr for Iraqi nationalism. Let us not forget that these proceedings are televised and shown live to the Iraqi public. The Iraqi government must take steps now to restore some semblance of justice. If this trail denigrates into a farce, as it appears to be doing, the message will not be lost on the Iraqi public. Their respect for justice and the rule of law will be sorely tested.

While we can understand why the Iraqis wanted to televise the trial, to show Saddam as the caged animal he is, it was most certainly a mistake to allow this trial to be televised. It gives Saddam Hussein a regular platform to launch into his tirades, like Mussolini from the balcony. The former Iraqi leader is far too shrewd for his captors, having escaped from similar predicaments in the past. Whether or not he will escape from this trial is now anybody’s guess.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/22/saddam.trial/index.html?section=cnn_latest

Should companies be compelled to make life easier for their competitors? Why should Microsoft make life easier for its competitors, does that not fly in the face of the spirit of free market competition? The EU has threatened the Redmond software company with daily fines of 2 million euros unless it complies with an order to give competing firms greater access to Microsoft technology. The company was ordered to provide interface documentation that would allow non-Microsoft work group servers “to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers.” Microsoft argues, correctly so, that turning over such information violates intellectual property rights, which it does.

Essentially, the EU is ordering Microsoft to prop up failed companies who can’t compete on the merits of their own products. Why should a company be required to aid its competitors? Some would argue that Microsoft is a monopoly? A monopolistic situation, however, implies a lack of choice; where there is one supplier for a particular product, in this case an operating system. This supposition is clearly flawed. At no point in the history of modern personal computing has their ever been a true monopoly in operating systems, as there has always been a plethora of choices for consumers. Consumers can choose between Linux, Solaris, Mac OS, Windows, Unix, etc…

Because 75% (or more) of consumers prefer Microsoft products is not an acceptable grounds for alleging Microsoft is an illegal Monopoly. Indeed, even if Microsoft were to become the only supplier of operating systems in the world, this came about as a result of competition in which rival producers failed to measure up. If General motors were to developed a new, highly efficient automobile engine, should that company be compelled to simply turn over its research to rival carmakers so they could compete? Of course not. Should Coca Cola be compelled to turn over its secret formula just to aid Pepsi? Should Kentucky Fried Chicken reveal all of the original herbs and spices used in preparing its chicken just to aid Popeye’s?

Microsoft, because of its unparalleled and unrivaled success, however, must submit itself to arbitrary and socialistic business rules in order to placate European regulators. In a free market environment firms produce goods and services, which consumers then purchase. Those goods and services, which have the greatest appeal to consumers will become a success. Those goods and services that lack appeal go the way of OS/2, the Commodore 64 and the Amiga. Even though we are and have for some time been loyal fans of the Mac OS, anyone with common sense can clearly see that this ruling is flawed and anti-free market.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4552214.stm

In a party line vote, which saw some members switch sides. The US Senate barely passed a bill calling for cuts of $40 billion in the next budget. It should be noted that this is the first cap on spending increases since 1997 and at that it is only a drop in the bucket. When talking about a budget of trillions of dollars, $40 billion is practically meaningless.

Under Bush, government spending has expanded significantly, and this spending has not been limited to the war on terror. The President has declared 2009 as a target date for cutting the deficit in half. This is a lofty goal, but given the spending spree enjoyed by Washington politicians, there is real doubt that such a goal can be achieved. Much of the cuts in the bill passed yesterday involved entitlement programs. Though these cuts are only nominal, Democrats were no less angry, arguing it will adversely affect the poor and the middle class, a charge that has no basis in reality or common sense.

Again the Democrats fail to recognize that such entitlement programs have done little to alleviate poverty in the past 40 years. In reality it is inaccurate to categorize this meager bill as a budget cut. The country will continue to spend more on these services than at present, this can hardly be construed as a “cut.” The bill simply calls for a cap on the rate of increase. This reality is lost on many Americans due to the failure of our educational system, which places little emphasis on understanding economics. Sadly, the Washington crowd will not accept the inescapable need for genuine budgetary reform.

The US budget is far too large, and requires a massive overhaul. In the last few years, the government has re-embraced a carefree spending attitude, after having balanced the budget some time ago. What is truly needed are strict limits on spending, with certain legal measures in place to prevent excessive spending, such as a balanced budget amendment.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20051222-122615-6877r.htm

A prisoner, who has been accused of at least seven rapes used bed sheets to escape from a Miami lockup. Reynaldo Elias Rapalo escaped on Tuesday. He was noticed by a visitor who saw a prisoner scaling the walls like Spiderman using a makeshift rope. Since that time authorities have scanned neighborhoods and communities and even contacted authorities in Honduras, in an attempt to track down the rapist.

Rapalo, has been accused of targeting women as young as 11 and well into their 70s and was set to go on trial later this winter. So how did this rapist escape? Apparently he simply climbed through the ceiling in his cell to the roof and then scaled the wall using bed sheets. How is it that a serial rapist can manage a relatively easy escape? Why would a prison be designed whereby inmates have access to the roof? What kind of planning is this? “We're looking at every avenue of how we can fix this problem,” a prison official noted.

The solution however is quite simple. Instead of designing these unnecessarily complicated prisons, why not construct a medieval style structure with only one entrance and one exit? Prisoners could congregate and sleep in a massive communal area. Guards would oversee operations from a high vantage point, inaccessible by prisoners, sharpshooters would ensure civil behavior in the prison. There would be no privacy and certainly no opportunities to construct makeshift ladders or time to plot elaborate escape plans.

Rapalo’s escape puts the entire city of Miami on edge, especially those women living in the area close to the prior attacks. This man represents a serious threat to society. Police have warned that he should be considered armed and dangerous, which would make a shoot to kill order entirely justified.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-12-21-fla_x.htm

The picture you see to your right is NOT ANWR, but the leftist, determined to block oil and gas exploration in Alaska would have you believe otherwise. The picture, below, however, is a fair depiction of the region in question. Today the Senate handed yet another defeat to those determined to open ANWR to drilling. The left would have us believe that drilling to the Alaskan refuge would have a grave impact on the environment and native species, but this is a misnomer. The left would also have us believe that the amount of oil in ANWR is insignificant. This too is incorrect.

To be accurate the amount of oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge would not lead to a significant reduction in gas prices, but this is not and should not be our primary objective. Our primary objective must be to lessen our dependence on an unreliable and at times, hostile source of energy, like Venezuela and the Middle East. Is new exploration the only answer? No! Drilling and new exploration is only one aspect of a much-needed national energy policy. Something both parties have failed miserably to produce. While at least the GOP has managed to come up with a partial plan, which consists solely of drilling for new sources of oil. The Democratic plan has been non-existent.

What is need is a comprehensive, multi-pronged strategy. Something the Phalanx has been calling for for some time. This strategy would include both a long term and short-term component. In the long term, we MUST find alternatives to this non-renewable and finite resource. A plethora of options are available to us, including synthetic liquid fuels (SLF) derived from coal, Ethanol derived from corn and sugar cane, hydrogen and fuel cell powered vehicles. In the short term we must pursue strategies that lessen our susceptibility to the volatile oil market. This includes increasing use of hybrid technology and greater fuel efficiency for existing vehicles.

Increasingly manufacturers have demonstrated that these technologies needn’t be cost prohibitive and if the US government took steps to provide incentives for manufacturers to produce and consumers to purchase, such a strategy could prove quite effective. Sadly the good ole boys in Congress, who lack both vision and incite continue to pursue one-sided strategies or no strategies at all. Yes, we must drill in ANWR, but we mustn’t limit our thinking to only one solution to solve our nation’s energy needs. Truly, it would be a shame if the next generation remains dependent upon technology developed over 10 generations ago.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/21/arctic.drilling.ap/index.html

If there is one thing Washington politicians can be relied upon for, its hypocrisy. Time and time again, the rival parties trade positions on issues in a game of political musical chairs. During the Bush administration, the left has played this game with increasing skill. Such skill became readily apparent when the entire Democratic party forgot that they had been calling for Saddam Hussein’s ouster for years and they also forgot claims made by every person of influence in the party from Clinton on down that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps the Democrats really did forget or more accurately, they correctly assumed that their hypocrisy would be ignored by the press, as they sought to undermine the president.

The hypocrisy of the left with regard to issues of race and equality is readily apparent as well and has been for decades. The Democratic Party, which champions itself as the party of equality, lacks any minority representation in the upper echelons of leadership and regularly promotes programs that bind the poor to the state, like foster children, preventing them from breaking the bonds of poverty. Now it seems what’s old is new again. The left recently erupted in furry over the revelation that the NSA has been involved in domestic surveillance activity, without prior court oversight or authorization. Many leftists have expressed shocked at the revelation and openly called for investigations.

This shock as we reported Sunday, is all a game of smoke and mirrors. There is no shock. Senate Democratic Leader, Harry Reid and House Democratic Leader, Nancy Pelosi have admitted having prior knowledge of the project and have received regular briefings on the program. Only now that they see and opportunity to win political points do they express phony outrage. So is the president correct, is the use of foreign intelligence appropriate for spying on US citizens? Most assuredly not, the program appears extra-legal at best and if such forms of espionage are necessary then that should be the domain of the FBI. What’s the point of having a Bill of Rights, if our government can bypass or constitutionally protected rights on their own say so?

The inappropriate nature of the program, however, doesn’t lend support to the Democratic position, as they have been complicit in such activities for years. Under Bush’s predecessor, Clinton oversaw the expansion of the massive Echelon project, which is a massive surveillance program involving the US intelligence community, as well as those of Canada, Britain and Australia. This program initially developed to intercept Soviet communications during the Cold War was expanded in the 1990s and is used for commercial and individual surveillance. Echelon is used to eavesdrop on practically every form of electronic communication and data transmission in the world.

Democratic complicity in domestic intelligence gathering is further evidenced by the fact that both of the last two Democratic presidents authorized US intelligence to do the exactly the same thing that Bush is now being criticized for. Clinton authorized searches and surveillance of US citizens without court order and Carter, the supposed champion of human rights did the same thing during his watch. Links to the executive orders authorizing such intrusions are linked below.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-20-bush-skepticism_x.htm

Elbridge Gerry would be proud. No other governor in Massachusetts history has had a more profound impact on the American electoral process than this 19th politician. Gerry is most famous for his role in redrawing the congressional districts in his home state, enabling his party to secure victory. The practice quickly became known as gerrymandering and hasn’t fallen out of favor with today’s equally unscrupulous politicians. Recently, the Supreme Court announced that it would address the issue of gerrymandering insofar as it relates to a redistricting map in the state of Texas. This time, the maps were drawn by Republicans. The GOP, however, is not alone in this practice as Democrats have attempted to use the power of redistricting to enhance their political power as well.

The problem of gerrymandering extends from the fact that the process is entrusted in the hands of politicians, which is no more reliable than the proverbial fox guarding the hen house. Indeed, since each of us have some measure of political bias we are all inclined to fudge if given the opportunity. The solution to gerrymandering, however, is quite simple. An independent commission in each state should oversee the process. A commission whose sole purpose it is to redraw congressional, legislative and other political maps. This commission should be forbidden from using any information other than population statistics. Voting patterns, income level, education level, home valuations, race and ethnicity, etc should not be used in the redistricting process, thereby ensuring an unbiased and largely objective map. Better still the process could be accomplished in a matter of seconds by feeding the applicable data into an aptly designed computer-mapping program.

Sadly such a solution will not even enter the mindsets of the Supreme Court as they evaluate the Texas case, in fact none of the parties involved would favor such a move as it would deny them the opportunity to manipulate the electoral process further still. Throughout history politicians in this country since Elbridge Gerry have used this gerrymandering process to silence their rivals or to oppress certain groups. In this latest case the Democrats charge that the Texas map denies them equal and fair treatment. The constitution, however, doesn’t recognize political parties as a distinct group, whose rights must be protected. Indeed, such affiliation shouldn’t even be considered in the redistricting process. In fact such information should not be recorded in the first place. Citizens should not be required to register with a party in order to vote, much note have that participation measured and counted for use by crafty politicians to shape their shadowy agendas. While detailed census information is valuable, the law should expressly forbid such data from being used for political expedience.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1219/p08s02-comv.html

Yesterday a US District Court Judge ruled that teaching intelligent design in a school science class is a violation of the constitution. The move, which is certain to anger Christian groups, is the correct one. It is not the place of the state to espouse or teach religion or spirituality. The state is a poor teacher as it is, as witnessed by our public education system. It is foolhardy at best to expect our public schools, therefore, to teach religious dogma in the classroom. In 2004, the school board of Dover, PA decreed, that intelligent design (i.e., creation) should be talk in Dover science classes. The premise being that students should be made aware of the premise that man (and the universe) was created by an unseen intelligent (and presumably omnipotent) power.

Our spiritual beliefs should be apparent to any longtime reader of the Phalanx, nonetheless, it is incumbent upon the state to avoid interference in matters of faith. Yes evolution is a theory and yes there are alternative theories, including many scientific theories. These theories, however, are theories of a scientific nature and thusly, appropriate fields of study for a school science class. Intelligent design, regardless of one’s spiritual beliefs is not a matter of science, but a matter of faith and it would be grossly inappropriate, not to mention, unconstitutional to mandate the government teach matters of faith to our children.

Those interested in religious education should take the steps to provide their children with a faith based education in a private or church based school, rather than shirk their parental responsibility in lieu of the state. If a parent can’t afford to do this they must rely on home and church to instill these values, otherwise parents should not have children they can’t afford to care for. Much like the welfare brethren who constantly scream for higher minimum wage and increased government handouts. We at the Phalanx never ceased to be amazed by the fact that people who supposedly call for a strict and literal interpretation of the constitution (i.e., conservatives) never tire in their efforts to use the government to impose their will on others. Christ did not call for the state to impose his faith on others; he sought to lead by example, perhaps its time that his supposed followers did the same.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design/

This week, the Law Commission in the United Kingdom proposed introducing grades or categories of murder, not unlike the system in operation in the United States. Presently, murder convictions in the UK carry a mandatory life sentence, as they should. There is no 1st or 2nd degree murder. Now under new proposals from the commission, courts should consider a person’s intent and whether or not there was an intention to kill.

Frankly, a person’s intention is and should be considered irrelevant. The fact of the matter is a person is dead due to the actions of another, in such a case a person should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Only in a situation of self-defense or an accident should there be an exception. Murder is murder, no manslaughter, vehicular homicide and so on and so forth. Why should we hold such a carefree and cavalier attitude toward the value of human life? If a person kills out of rage or through methodical planning it should make no difference, just as it makes no difference to the mortality of the victim who is just as dead.

Under the British proposals, for example, a person who’s plan was to cause "serious harm," but not kill, could be charged with 2nd degree murder. Such a proposal is a victory for criminality. If a person intends to cause harm and their actions result in the death of another, that is murder without question and no distinction should be made in Britain, America or anywhere else for that matter. It is unfathomable that a civil society would seriously consider such a move. We at the Phalanx can only ask why.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4544238.stm

In what would be an all too familiar scene on the streets of Paris, commuters in the nation’s largest city must face the grueling task of traveling to and from work without public transit. In many American cities such a strike would only inconvenience a select few, but in a city where most residents don’t even own cars a transit strike can be truly devastating. More than 7 million passengers, who normally use NYC transit each day, must now confront the chaos of New York streets, thanks to transit union. "This is a fight over dignity and respect on the job, a concept that is very alien to the MTA," the union president argued. What it really is, however, is extortion.

So what do the union members want? Higher pay, naturally. They called for salary increases greater than the 3% proposed by the transit authority and refused calls for new employees to pay a portion of healthcare costs, like most workers in America already do. As mayor Bloomberg noted, a transit strike is illegal and will result in significant financial penalties for all strikers. These financial penalties aren’t sufficient. Each and every striker should be given an ultimatum: return to work or be dismissed outright with no pension whatsoever. Criminals should not be given deference, especially when they exhibit a complete disregard for the welfare of others, in this case 7 million others.

The proposals made by the transit authority were completely within reason and in line with workers in most any other public or private work setting. If new employees are unhappy with the package of offerings and incentives the transit authority provides, then they would be advised to seek employment elsewhere, as is their right. These strikers who on average earn over $50,000 per year, should be pleased with the salaries they earn as is, after all we’re talking about driving a bus, not brain surgery. If anything, transit workers make too much, relative to the level of skill required to operate a bus or subway train and should forfeit their raises for those public servants who risk life and limb each and every day (i.e., fireman and police). If NYC officials are wise, they will host massive job fair during this strike to interview replacements for these strikers. Perhaps this could also be an opportunity for NYC to explore automation, perhaps not for buses but certainly for trains, some communities have already ventured down this road with great success. The cost savings alone would be tremendous.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-12-20-nyctransit_x.htm

Within the past week, it has been revealed that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on US citizens in communication with foreigners abroad. The left is obviously “outraged” not so much because they object to the practice, however. Can anyone truly believe that the socialists in this country wouldn’t gladly authorize domestic spying should they one day come to power? The left is outraged because it is politically expedient and represents another opportunity to castigate the president, given the fact that their tired strategy of downplaying success in Iraq is starting to wane. Frankly we at the Phalanx, while not pleased with the idea of domestic spying without due process, were certain that this practice was under way by the NSA for years. So we did some checking and you know what…we were right. Not only has the NSA been spying on our communications since the Clinton era but even the revelation that the NSA under Bush has continued the practice comes as no surprise to the leftist leadership. Both Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid, have admitted having known about the program and received frequent briefings on the subject.

In spite of this reality, leftists expressions of shock and outrage abound as they now call for investigations, hearings and so forth. The reality is the left cares nothing for civil liberties, only politics as they again try to undermine the president for their own political purposes. An NSA program known as Echelon has been in operation for years, long before Bush came to power. This set-up allows the NSA to eavesdrop on telephone conversations, emails, etc…Under President Clinton, the program, which also involves Britain, Canada and Australia reached its zenith, long before the war in Iraq, Sept 11 or the invasion of Afghanistan, yet where was the outrage then?

Echelon has been an open secret in Washington for years, yet the left was mysteriously silent, indeed, they were complicit in its operation. Now the left will do as they did with Iraq, and once again the media will work in tandem with the left so as not to allow the left’s word’s to betray them. It is important to remember that in Washington, memories are short and alliances are paper-thin. It should be noted however, that regardless of who is to blame, the idea that we are spying on our own citizens is reprehensible. We are a nation of laws and such extra-legal steps to secure our borders represents a degrading of our way of life. This is not the position of the left, irrespective of their “outrage” and sadly its not the position of the right either.
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=58353
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-18-nsa-70s_x.htm
http://www.endtimeprophecy.org/Content/Articles/Articles-Echl/echln-12.html
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html

By the millions, Iraqis are lined up to cast votes in Parliamentary elections for a new permanent government. No more voting for interim leaders or constitutions, finally, the Iraqis will decide on who will lead for the next four years. Regardless of your position on the war in Iraq, there is no debating the fact that these elections represent a monumental achievement for a nation, which only a few years ago, was ruled by a brutal murderous tyrannical government. The polls, which will close at 9:00 AM eastern time, have seen huge numbers turn out, even among Sunnis. These elections, if successful, will serve as a model for the Middle East, something the radicals of Islam want desperately to prevent.

In spite of the success of the elections, in spite of the large turnout (putting turnout in this country to shame), and in spite of the relative calm and upbeat attitude of most Iraqis, there is one group who will try to the uttermost to castigate these elections as either a failure or meaningless. Who would be so foolish as to argue the elections currently underway in Iraq are a failure? The left, naturally. The likes of Howard Dean, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi want nothing more than to portray this experiment in Iraq as a failure, for the same reason that they have tried in vein to convince us that the thriving American economy is failure. The left, like most politicians, are driven by an insatiable desire for political power and influence. To achieve that end their political opponents must be defeated and the best way to defeat an opponent is to dismiss that rival as a failure.

This desire for power and influence is nothing new in politics. What is new is the depraved leftist desire for America to fail at every turn. Left yearns for America to fail in Iraq, to fail in the war on terror, to fail on the economy. The left desperately clings to hope of failure, only then can they succeed. To this end they will employ any means to disparage an opponent, even at the expense of national security. This is evidenced by their hypocritical position on Iraq. Where once they called for Saddam ouster under Bill Clinton, now they long for his return. Where once they spoke highly of the economy, even when it was performing poorly (as during the 2000 election) now they falsely claim that 4.3% economic growth and unprecedented job growth is failure.

The agenda of the left is readily apparent to the learned, which is why the left cultivates a culture of dependency, with relatively no emphasis on independent achievement or objective thought. Make no mistake about it; a victory in Iraq is a victory for America, though it may be a defeat for the left. We should further note that a victory for the left is a defeat for America and puts us on the road to serfdom, in the words of author F.A. Hayek.
Link to New York Times article

In a further example of the continued erosion of the American educational system, three Florida high school students are facing charges after an oral sex-escapade at a local high school (in the classroom of all places). Apparently one student (aged 18) paid a 16-year-old girl to engage in oral sex with another. Are we the only ones wondering what kind of class it is were a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old would interact? Either the 16-year-old is really smart, which we doubt, or the 18-year-old is a buffoon, which is highly probable.

These three represent new entrants into the coveted role of “dredge of society.” Here we have an institution of learning, presumably, but are the kids focused on learning or improving their opportunity for success in life? Of course not, they are interested in sexual perversion and prostitution. What a fine example their parents must have set for their children. Can there be any doubt what type of parents these three children must have? One child is a whore, another a john and the third a pimp. Such a fine collection of miscreants is certainly the reason why America continues to lag behind the rest of the industrialized world in terms of academic prowess.

So who’s to blame? Is it the school? No, unless they have a pro-oral sex in the classroom policy. Is it the teacher? Highly unlikely! The blame squarely falls on the parents, who during their child’s formative years in which they were supposed to be instilling a value for hard work, knowledge and respect for others, they were either instilling an entitlement philosophy, which holds that all one’s needs can and must be fulfilled at their leisure, without regard for others or they were instilled with no values whatsoever, which would account for the fact that these vermin so easily succumbed to carnal urges, not unlike a rat or dog. Yes, we said it; these children are no different than rats or dogs. Transfer to an alternative school, is hardly sufficient for these people. They should be expelled. Let their parents play a larger role in their education and home school them for the duration, and thereby prevent their negative influence from corrupting others.
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/topstories/news-article.aspx?storyid=48816

What’s the leader of a tyrannical authoritarian regime to do if they’ve been “elected” on a pledge to aide the nation’s poor, stir economic growth and create jobs? The answer to that question is quite simple; you follow the model of Hugo Chavez, well known for his skill in pulling a Mussolini. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has taken this message to heart, knowing full well he is unable and perhaps unwilling to take steps to promote opportunity for his people. After all to create opportunities for individual achievement lessens a person’s dependence upon the state, in this case a radical authoritarian theocratic state. Ahmadinejad is no less aware, however, that his people expect results and here is where the art of pulling a Mussolini is honed into a science.

President Ahmadinejad must distract his people from the realities of his own failed promises and do so in such a way as it unites his people behind a common vision or goal. For the radicals in Iran, that distraction is readily apparent: anti-Semitism. Hatred of Israel and calls for its eventual destruction have been a hallmark of Iranian foreign policy since 1979. Given this reality it should come as no surprise that President Ahmadinejad has repeated his much maligned supposition that stories of the Holocaust are a “myth.” Ahmadinejad, who made similar claims last week, and has already called for Israel to be wiped off the map, argued that the Holocaust was invented by Europeans as justification for the creation of a Jewish state in the heart of the Middle East. The land, therefore, should be returned and if the Europeans persist in making the claim of Nazi extermination of Jews, then Europeans are to blame and should set aside land in their territory for a Jewish state.

With this new statement, it can be argued with a large degree of certainty, that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is perhaps one of the most ignorant world leaders in the annals of human history (or perhaps the most cunning), putting poor Hugo Chavez to shame. We at the Phalanx won’t bother to argument the merits of Ahmadinejad’s claim that the holocaust is a myth. To do so would make as much sense as to argue that the sun doesn’t exist or the Vietnam war never happened or the internet doesn’t exist. The claim is devoid of merit, reason or historical validity. By making the statement, however, Ahmadinejad accomplishes two goals: he ruffles the feathers of his hated enemy and distracts his people from his own personal failures as the caretaker for a tyrannical “revolution.”

The reality is there has been a sizeable Jewish presence in modern day Israel for over 30 centuries. It is the birthplace of Judaism and Israelis have lived and died in the region since before Mohammad or Islam were even blips on the radar. Perhaps Ahmadinejad would consider returning the lands stolen by Muslims as they expanding (through conquest) across the Middle East, Europe, Asia and Africa. These lands were controlled by Christians, Jews and indigenous groups for centuries, yet Ahmadinejad is conveniently silent on the legitimacy of these holdings. Perhaps once these land adjustments are made then Ahmadinejad can call Israel to task for any perceived injustice he feels have been inflicted.

And what of these injustices? For all Ahmadinejad’s talk about supporting the Palestinian cause, what has he or Iran done for the Palestinian cause, other than train suicide bombers? Not much. Have they provided financial aide? Have they offered educational opportunities for Palestinian youth? Have they sought to create opportunities for growth and development in Gaza or the West Bank? No all they have done is to foment terror and violence, which is the principle reason why that region of the world is one of the poorest on Earth. Ahmadinejad, like his predecessors and his contemporaries, is all talk and that we can depend upon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4527142.stm

In 1972, an Islamic terror group, Black September, slaughtered the entire Israel Olympic Team at the Munich Olympics. The group stormed the Olympic Village taking the athletes hostage, and demanded the release of fellow militants in Israel and Germany. The inept German government botched the operation from the start and in the end Black September gunned down all of the Israelis. The government of Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir resolved to hunt down the murders and those who planned the operation (Operation Wrath of God).

This year, acclaimed film director and producer, Steven Spielberg will release “Munich” a film that chronicles the events that followed the terror attack on the Munich Olympics. The film, which is slated to be released later this month, has already come under attack. Some argue the film portrays the events following Munich as “score settling.” Many Israelis are up in arms over the film. They argue the reprisal killings carried out by Israel’s hyper secret service, the Mossad, were designed to prevent future terror attacks, which it was, but even if it wasn’t what’s wrong with revenge, what’s wrong with retribution? Yes Israel had a score to settle and rightly so. One could argue the US had a score to settle after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor or after the September 11th terror attacks. Does that mean our response was any less justified? Certainly not!

Since when is it wrong to punish a murderer for their evil deeds? Israel, was wholly within its right to hunt down the perpetrators of slaughter and terrorism as it not only eliminates the possibility of future mayhem committed by these madmen, but it also serves as a lesson to other potential terrorists who may harbor similar designs.
Link to Reuters article

Several polls have showed a steady increase in the President’s job approval rating. Only a few weeks ago. President Bush’s approval rating hovered around the 30s now that number is beginning to climb. For some time now the Phalanx has lamented the fact that Bush has allowed the left to set the agenda in Washington. He has allowed the left to cast the economy in a negative light, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He has allowed the left to control the spin on the Iraq war, in spite of all available common sense (and Democratic hypocrisy). He has walked away from fight after fight on social security, school reform, Medicare, etc…

Having a president who is resolute in his convictions is meaningless if he is unwilling to take the time to convince the American people that he is doing the right thing. Without the support of the public no leader can govern effectively. It seems the president has finally gotten the message. More and more, the president has been speaking about Iraq, speaking about progress in the war, speaking about democracy and speaking about tough decisions. He has even begun to speak about the amazing vitality and resilience of the American economy, though not nearly as much as we would like, certainly not as much as Clinton in the 90s or Reagan in the 80s.

The president still must do more. He has an obligation to provide clear direction and up until a few weeks ago he had failed miserably in that task. Today we can give him a C-, but much more work is needed. Its time the president dispel the Iraq War propaganda perpetrated by the left. Its time the president, tout the progress (significant in every respect) of the American economy. In short, its time the president acted like the president and not some timid schoolboy, incapable of speaking up for himself. The President, however, has his work cut out for him. There is a growing population indoctrinated with the entitlement philosophy who have come to expect reward without effort. There is a growing chorus from the minimum wage (and minimum skill) workers of America who expect greater return for their minimum skill jobs and then there is the leftist Democratic part, determined to convince everyone that subservience to the state is the path to progress.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-12-bush-approval_x.htm

Today most everyone is familiar with the scourge of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Iran has made no secret of its desire to develop an indigenous nuclear program. The Iranians, ridiculously claim this program is designed for peaceful energy purposes. Countries rich in natural resources like oil and natural gas don’t invest billions in secret labs and production facilities for peaceful energy purposes. Countries don’t hide their plans from the entire world when they are engaged in peaceful activities. The fact that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons is all but an open secret.

For some time now, Britain, France and Germany (EU3) have been negotiating with Iran to hopeful force Iran to terminate its nuclear program. Iran, as one would expect, has balked at any and all suggestions that would result in a termination of its nuclear program. At the same time its president has made no secret of his desire to eradicate the nation of Israel. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, noted that Israel would be “wiped off the map.” He followed-up this asinine statement with a demand for Israel to be moved to Europe. Making his feelings on the issue of Israel all but clear.

The UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has already warned that Iran may be only months away from developing the ability to produce nuclear weapons at its leisure. This places enormous strains on Israel as Iran has made no secret of its desire to destroy Israel and the Islamic Republic is busy developing a nuclear weapons capability. It has already developed long-range ballistic missiles for delivering such weapons and most recently it signed a billion dollar deal with the appeasement minded Russia to purchase anti-aircraft technology. By all accounts, Iran is gearing up for a showdown. This puts Israel in a catch-22. If they sit back and wait for Iran to develop these weapons, Israel will be in grave danger (by Spring 2006, Iran will have systems in place to counter an air assault). If Israel strikes now, it risks an all out war with Iran and perhaps the entire Mid-east. Furthermore, how can Israel sit back and wait, given Iran’s stated goal of wiping the Jewish state “off the map.” Would any country, in a similar situation, wait for the inevitable?

Apparently Israel has resolved to give Iran until March, that’s when the IAEA issues its next report on Iran, if the UN and the EU3 can’t compel Iran to turn back from the brink, Israel has made it clear that it will move to put an end to Iran’s nuclear program. “We have the ability to deal with this and we’re making all the necessary preparations to be ready for such a situation,” noted Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. If Israel does indeed strike, the fallout will be tremendous. Those timid world leaders who now condemn Iran will turn on Israel, knowing full well the country had no choice. The Islamic world will call for all out war. Global terror will likely increase 10, perhaps 100 fold. Iran, for its part has already been maneuvering to increase its involvement in terror operations. According to the Times of London, Iranian officials recently met with the heads of several terror groups before those groups stepped up terror attacks against Israel. As we speak the pieces are now falling into place as the next major Mid-East war is set to begin in March.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074,00.html

In 2003, no country cried louder than France when it came to the issue of the war in Iraq. France was so virulently opposed to the war you would have assumed Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein were kissing cousins. France went out of its way to protect Saddam and Iraq from an eminent US and coalition invasion. So what has been France’s reward for standing up for the forces of radical Islam? France is now seen as vacillating and weak and therefore a prime and easy target for Islamic radicals.

Appeasement, as we have seen time and time again throughout history only emboldens an aggressor. Aggressors do not respect weakness, it is simply regarded as an opportunity to exploit a weaker player and bring about a desired outcome. Witness Hitler after the betrayal at Munich in 1938, “this is my last territorial demand in Europe,” the German dictator exclaimed and less than a 6 months later Hitler marched into Czechoslovakia and then the rest of Europe. Only a few years earlier Hitler had watched as Mussolini carved up Ethiopia and Albania without so much as a whimper from the appeasement minded League of Nations.

Today, we see that the lessons of appeasement have yet to be embraced by some. France and other European nations like Italy and Spain who have demonstrated such weakness and cowardice in the face of radical Islam find themselves easy prey. Only a few weeks ago, Islamic youth were rioting in the streets of Paris and other French cities and what was the French government’s response? Promises of more assistance, more welfare programs and more dialogue. The message to radical is clear: make a nuisance of your self, cause chaos and mayhem and reap the rewards. Now reports from France indicate an Islamic Terror Network operating in the country was planning major attacks. This is a country that went out of its way to appease radical Islam. Yes indeed a lesson has been learned, unfortunately, the lesson has been learned by the terrorists.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4520862.stm

“Look at me, look at me, look at me” is the rallying crying for protests scheduled for tonight’s game between the Atlanta Falcons and the New Orleans Saints. Hurricane Katrina evacuees plan to protest at the Georgia Dome in Atlanta because New Orleans plans to host Mardi Gras festivities next March. New Orleans officials and the tourism industry are anxious to paint the Big easy in a different light hoping it will spur a re-birth of tourism and revitalize the dormant tourism industry and the city itself, which is now bankrupt has ¾ of the cities residents have been scattered across the country.

Katrina evacuees, however, object, arguing that focusing attention on revelry distracts from the suffering of Katrina victims and planned efforts at reconstruction. Protestors argue that it is “insensitive” to host a party with so many suffering. In reality, these evacuees are upset because the return of Mardi Gras to New Orleans means that the New Orleans poor will no longer be the center of attention. What would these people have the city of New Orleans do? Wallow in self-pity in perpetuity? Tourism is one New Orleans’s largest industries. Hotels, restaurants and other travel destinations in the city depend on tourists. A large number of New Orleans residents work in this industry. The return of Mardi Gras is essential for New Orleans and those interested in returning to work anytime soon. After all, without tourism what else does the Big Easy have going for it? Not much unless you are in the law enforcement or social welfare business.
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/1205/12mardigras.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-12-11-new-orleans-tourism_x.htm

In the leftist mind there is nothing greater in life than the state. The state is religion surpassing, Christ, Buddha and Mohammed in the minds of the left. The state, as the supreme entity, therefore has absolute authority to dictate every aspect of our lives. Sadly, this view is not only harbored by leftist, but some on the right also look upon the state as an arm of their personal religious and moral beliefs and seek to impose their will through government.

For the statist, which includes all on the left and many on the right, subservience is key. It should come as no surprise, then that the state often exerts its authority over the individual in increasingly bizarre and unusual ways. Who knew, for example, that the sale of a transit token was illegal (even at face value)? Apparently Don Pirone didn’t know, he came to the aide of a fellow rider at an Atlanta transit station. Pirone noticed a rider having difficulty with a token machine and offered him a token of his own. The grateful rider gave Pirone the $1.75 cost for the token and went about his way.

Sadly, that’s not the end of the story as two adages come together in a perfect whirlwind (“no good deed goes unpunished” and “the state is supreme”). A transit cop with the Atlanta transit authority (MARTA) witnessed the transaction and placed Pirone under arrest. After such vile felons must be stopped no matter the cost. Police confiscated the $1.75 and cited Pirone, after detaining him for over 2 hrs. Pirone will now have to answer the charges in court. MARTA defended the policy, arguing the officer was wholly justified in its “crack down.”

In the words of William Lloyd Garrison, “that which is not just is not law.” While Garrison was referring to the far more serious issue of slavery, the premise is sound. This transaction involved two consenting adults, there was no deception and no one’s rights were violated; yet the state saw fit to intercede in order to regulate behavior. If Pirone, had received $1000 for the token, it should be of no concern to the government, so long as no parties were coerced. Where does it end? The Supreme Court has already ruled that our property is not our own. Now it seems all actions must first meet with government approval before they can be sanctioned. Our lives therefore are no longer our own as the state exerts increasing authority over the individual.
http://wsbradio.com/news/1209tokenarrest.html

Anyone who has ever done it, must know how difficult it is to move a house. Its an arduous an expensive process, which isn’t always successful. Now imagine moving an entire country of over 7 million people. That’s exactly what Iranian strongman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, proposed yesterday in a speech in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. The Iranian President, who has already stated that he would very much like to see Israel “wiped off the map” noted that he doubted the validity of the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad said: "Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces and they insist on it to the extent that if anyone proves something contrary to that they condemn that person and throw them in jail…Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, our question for the Europeans is: is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem?"

The president went on to argue that if the Holocaust did occur as Europeans “claim,” then they should cede some of their territory for the creation of a Jewish state, he specifically volunteered Germany or Austria. The Iranian painted Israelis as outsiders having no reason to reside in the former Palestine and therefore Israel should be moved. Regardless of the fact that Israel is the historical home of Jews. Apparently the schools in Iran aren’t quite up to snuff if Ahmadinejad is convinced that Jews and Israelis have no place in the region. Exactly, where does he suppose Judaism originated. Exactly where did historical figures like King David rule?

There has been a sizeable and continuous Jewish presence in present day Israel for thousands of years, long before there was even an Islam. Perhaps Ahmadinejad would be willing to cede territories in the Mid-East and Asia that were conquered by Muslims during their expansionistic period, which they now seek to revive. Iran, as a matter of state policy has declared its intention to destroy the state of Israel, at the same time the renegade Islamic Republic, continues to support terrorism on a global scale. Now the country is seeking the development of an indigenous nuclear weapons program a prospect, which poses great danger for the civilized world, of which Iran clearly wants no part.
Link to Reuters article

When a people, either by force, complacency or ignorance submit to an authoritarian government, invariably the people will suffer. There is no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship as it inevitably deprives people of one of God’s most essential gifts: free will. We have seen throughout history the price people of paid when submitting to dictatorship. The annals of history read like a who’s who on Hell’s most famous citizens: Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Khan, Napoleon, Ivan the Terrible and so on all of these historical figures valued political power far more than acting in the interests of the people they supposedly represent. Today, there are no regimes as brutal and as murderous as a Hitler or a Stalin, but there are quite a few that rise to the level of a Mussolini.

Frequent readers of are certainly familiar with the travails of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, but what of Africa’s tin pan tyrant? What of Robert Mugabe? Mugabe made a name for himself by leading Rhodesia (later Zimbabwe) out of oppression at the hands of that country’s white minority government. Like most politicians however, Mugabe became corrupted with power. As president of Zimbabwe his decline into madness began when Mugabe decided to institute land reform. Mugabe argued that White owned farms, which account for the vast majority of land ownership should be distributed to the majority black population, after all, this land was stolen form the native inhabitants during the colonization of Rhodesia in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Frankly, Mugabe’s basic premise was sound. The land was stolen and the native inhabitants were entitled to compensation of some form, but that compensation should have come from the government, if at all, or more aptly from Britain, the instigator of Rhodesian colonization in the last century. In taking land from White farmers, Mugabe, deprived Zimbabwe of its most fertile and productive land. Zimbabwe for years was known as the breadbasket of Africa, producing enough food stores to supply its needs and those of its neighbors. After land reform, this land passed into the hands of unskilled subsistence farmers with no knowledge of modern agricultural techniques. As a result, Zimbabwe began to experience food shortages and starvation has now become a major problem for the countries 12 million people.

As a dictator, Mugabe has used oppression, violence and political favoritism to ensure his continued hold on power. During the last presidential “election” he ensured his own victory through fraud at the expense of the vocal opposition. Since then Mugabe has sought to punish those who support his political rivals. Most recently he has ordered the demolition of townships across the country, which the government says were constructed illegally. As a result, over 700,000 people have lost their homes and their livelihood. To make matters worse, Mugabe has denied UN offers of assistance for the new homeless of Zimbabwe. Mugabe, naturally denies the fact that his evictions were targeted at his political rivals, claiming the demolition of thousands of homes was designed to clear out crime infested cities (and we thought eminent domain was a problem).

The UN now says Zimbabwe is in meltdown and the country is spiraling into chaos. They point to halving of the Zimbabwean life expectancy, food shortages, lack of social services, etc. Indeed, Mugabe even disallowed the UN from supplying tents to the hundreds of thousands of homeless who now reside in the streets thanks to their esteemed president. At a UN Conference only this summer, Mugabe along with Hugo Chavez, charged that it was America and the West at the root of third world poverty. Perhaps on that day his mirror was broken. As we see, the price of dictatorship is high indeed and its roots are all too subtle.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4101228.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4508078.stm

People living in the Arctic regions of the globe have come up with a new get-rich-quick scheme and yes the litigious curse strikes again. Residents of Canada, the US, Russia and several Scandinavian countries have joined forces to bring about a lawsuit against the United States. So why are these people suing the United States? Because America is the world’s number 1 polluter and therefore solely responsible for global warming and the destruction of the Arctic habitat.

This is yet another example of the entitlement mentality run amok, these people who obviously have contributed nothing toward the betterment of their own lives, now seek to blame others for their short comings and in the process earn a fast buck. This pending lawsuit, if it ever comes to pass, is flawed on many levels. In the first place, there is no documented proof of damage to their habitat. Indeed, by their own admission they charge that pollution will not has, but will (future tense) damage their habitat. "For Inuit, warming is likely to disrupt or even destroy their hunting and food-sharing culture as reduced sea ice causes the animals on which they depend to decline, become less accessible, and possibly become extinct," a spokesperson for the opportunists noted.

In most countries, including the US, a party cannot sue for damages that have not yet been inflicted. In the second place, there is a considerable amount of evidence that points to the fact that some rise in temperatures is consistent with a cycle of warm and cold spells the Earth has endured for millennia and indeed, such temperature fluctuations are in some ways attributable to increases in solar activity. Assuming, as the president has recognized, that some global temperature change is a result of man-made causes, how is it that these people came to sue the United States? By most measures the US accounts for 25% of carbon emissions in the world, as well as 25% of the world’s economic output. Why hasn’t the European Union been mentioned? Where are China, India and Japan? Why have these countries been omitted? If anything these countries are far more responsible as their level of pollution is disproportionate to the their economic and industrial output.

Assuming everything is true, which it isn’t, and carbon pollution alone is responsible for global warming, these people have not even been harmed by their own admission and even if they had, why single out the US? The answer to that is simple. These people are both opportunists who seek to earn their fortune through frivolous lawsuits, rather than actual work and at the heart of it; they are anti-Americanists, who seek to blame America exclusively for the world’s troubles.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/051207182757.ht1oak7y.html

In another nod to the secularists, President Bush ushered in the festival of Holiday (i.e., Hanukah) yesterday with a lighting of the traditional “Holiday Candles” (i.e., Menorah). Holiday commemorates the good luck (i.e., miracle) in which oil at the Jewish building (i.e., Temple) incredibly (i.e., miraculously) burned for 8 days, rather than 1. “This act commemorates the victory of freedom over oppression, and of hope shining through darkness. Today, that light still burns in Jewish homes and synagogues everywhere. And, today, that light will burn here in the White House,” the president noted. He meant to say however, “lets light this meaningless candle as a symbol of nothing honoring nothing to appease and placate all atheists everywhere.” The president was joined by a Houston resident with an unusual hat (i.e., Rabbi Skoff), who represented some organization in Houston (i.e., United Orthodox Synagogue in Houston). Ultimately this holiday activity had no real meaning beyond that which pleases every American on an equal basis.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051206-4.html

What’s more important than security, peace of mind and moral fortitude? If you are Russian the answer is clear: money. Russia has been criticized, most vocally by the United States and the EU, for agreeing to a $1 billion arms sale to Iran. But why? Iran is an acknowledged sponsor of terrorism. It gives tacit and in many cases blatant approval (and financing) for terror attacks around the globe. Russia, on the other hand, has been a frequent target of Islamic terror. Hundreds upon hundreds of Russians have died at the hands of Islamic militants, including dozens of children just last year. Yet Russia continues to provide military aide and assistance to Iran.

Russia is largely to blame for the current Iranian nuclear weapons crisis, having provided the Islamic republic with crucial technology to enrich Uranium. Russia has sold Iran intricate missile technology with which the tyrannical state can now threaten its neighbors and now Russia has agreed to sell “defensive” weapons to Iran, including sophisticated anti-Aircraft equipment. Russia, naturally defended the agreement noting they were completely within their right to sell arms to Iran, without western interference. What Russian officials really mean to say is “we need the money” and thus we are willing to appease terrorists and sponsors of terrorism for financial gain. For all Vladimir Putin’s tough talk about stand tall in the face of Islamic terror, it is just that: talk.

Russia has sacrificed its long-term security interests for short-term cash infusions, which is why the authoritarian Putin would not hesitate to sell weapons systems to hostile regimes including Iran. Sadly, Putin’s actions will only result in the deaths of more Russian children. But then again, given Russia’s track record, they are perfectly willing to sacrifice the lives of their own people, in pursuit of state policy.
Link to Reuters article

Yesterday an Iranian military transport crashed in a Tehran suburb. The plane collided with a 10 story apartment people killing dozens of people in the plane and on the ground. Current figures put the death toll at 110 people, including dozens of journalists who were on the transport flight. Those in the Iranian press and victims’ relatives are complaining of the Iranian military’s negligence in the crash. According to reports the C-130 had been experiencing technical difficulties. These difficulties had delayed take-off and persisted during the flight. Critics argue that the plane should not have been allowed to take off, given the obvious safety concerns. Iranian government officials deny any complicity or negligence in the cause of the C-130 crash.

So if the Iranian military is not to blame for the crash of this C-130, then who is? Quite obvious in fact for any anti-American regime worth its weight in propaganda leaflets. Its the United States of course. According to the BBC, the Iranian military has at least 15 US made C-130s dating back to the period before the revolution. Iran’s aviation industry, both civil and military have a poor safety record, which they promptly blame on a lack of spare parts from the United States. Are we to believe that a nation that invests billions to develop an indigenous nuclear weapons program (to wipe its enemies off the map) or to develop long range ballistic missiles can’t afford to maintain, or replace aging aircraft?

Once again, the mullahs in Tehran, will look for any excuse to blame others in a fashion reminiscent of Mussolini. Tehran, having had no official contact with the United States in over 25 years still can resist jibes at the “Great Satan.” The facts, however, speak for themselves. In a nation who regards human life with as little regard as they do a Kleenex, can we really expect any true concern over passenger safety or anything else for that matter?http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4506074.stm

There is plenty of ammunition for the president if he chooses to use it. With each passing day there is further evidence that the US economy continues to defy the naysayers (i.e., the Democratic Party). Already in the past week there have been glowing reports about US economic growth, which exceeded 4% for the most recent quarter and stellar job growth for the month of November, with some 4 million jobs created in the past 2 years and now the latest report: US productivity increased by the highest percentage in 2 years to 4.7%, which exceeded most analyst’s expectations. At the same time, labor costs also declined.

These figures further demonstrate the robust energy found in the US economy. Contrary to the words of American leftists, America’s best days aren’t behind her. The economy is not on the wrong track as prominent leftists like Kerry and Kennedy have argued. America is prospering, but the left tirelessly persists in maintaining the fiction that the country is languishing in the doldrums, all this for their own maniacal purposes of course. So what do these latest figures mean for the American worker and the American consumer? Higher productivity means higher profits for American industry, without added costs for consumers, higher productivity is also equated with higher salaries, with a diminished threat of inflation. Once again president Bush has been handed inescapable proof that his economic policies were correct and the path implored by his opponents was foolhardy, now the question remains whether the president will point out this reality to the American people or will he continue to allow the left to control the debate in this country.
Link to MarketWatch article

This year we have heard with increasing regularity, outrage expressed by Christian and non-Christian alike over the issue of Christmas. Many Christian groups are appalled by efforts on the part of some local governments and retailers to refer to the season as the “Holiday Season” or “Winter Break,” as if that wasn’t bad enough, the furor over calling trees “Holiday Trees,” rather than “Christmas Trees” has sparked even greater outrage. Some groups have called for boycotts of retailers that refer to this period as the “Holiday Season,” or wish people “Happy Holidays,” rather than “Merry Christmas.” So is this much ado about nothing? Yes and no is the not so simple answer. Christians celebrate December 25th (January 7th for Orthodox Christians) as the birth of Christ Jesus, in fulfillment of prophecy. It is perhaps the 2nd holiest day of the year, after Easter. Since the 20th century, however, Christmas has been secularized by non-Christians and non-practicing Christians.

The holiday, once revered for the birth of Christ, is now viewed by many as a day to realize their materialistic obsessions. It should come as no surprise, that true Christians lament the expunging of Christ from Christmas. After all, during what other December holidays do we erect a tree and decorate it? It is therefore foolish to call such a symbol a holiday tree, when this is a symbol of Christmas. Christian concerns over the secularization of Christmas are indeed misplaced, however. Rather than decry efforts by secularists and atheists to remove “Christmas” from the Christmas season, why not decry the commercialization of Christmas in the first place. Why for example do we exchange gifts on Christmas? Exactly what does this have to do with the birth of Christ? About as much as Easter Eggs and Easter Rabbits have to do with the resurrection of Christ.

The reality is, those who know nothing of Christ, don’t want to be excluded from the season and thus the secularization of Christmas began in earnest with the dawn of the commercial era and the holiday’s religious and spiritual significance was all but lost in the shuffle. For many who “celebrate” (i.e., exchange gifts) during Christmas, Santa Clause (i.e., Saint Nicholas) is far more important than Christ. Gift giving derives from a practice begun by Saint Nicholas (i.e., Sinterklaas) in modern day Turkey, who made a practice of giving gifts to the poor. In honor of Nicholas, a practice began of repeating his accomplishments on December 5th, the date of Nicholas’ death, which somehow came to be associated with Christmas. In some countries, however, these traditions have remained separate, such as in the Netherlands and portions of Germany, where Christmas has retained its religious significance and Dec 5th is a day of gift giving.

Christians therefore should recognize the fact that Christmas has become a secular holiday for non-Christians and would be to surrender “Christmas” and designate another day as the official date to honor the memory and spiritual significance of Christ’s birth. After all, no one knows Christ’s actual birth date, why not choose a time during the year when actual Christians can come together in worship and reverence, not for themselves and not for the purposes of finding sales and/or exchanging gifts, but for the purpose of honoring the man they claim to follow. Most scholars recognize that December 25th was most likely not the date of Christ’s birth, chosen simply by Rome, after the empire embraced Christianity and indeed was probably born in the late summer or early fall. Thus such a move would not be without precident.
Link to article in Atlanta Journal-Constitution

With the president of Venezuela firmly in control of the body that oversees elections, with the president exerting tremendous control over the media and freedom of speech, today’s headline should come as no surprise. Imagine if the Democrats or the Republicans won every seat in Congress, such a result would be instantly dismissed as a farce in this country, but in Venezuela just such a result is accepted as a matter of course. In Venezuela parties aligned with Hugo Chavez have won every seat in parliament, giving Chavez unprecedented authority to change the constitution at will. Chavez’ path to dictatorship is now complete.

Opposition parties refused to participate in this weekend’s elections arguing that the cards were stacked against them with unfair election practices being employed by the oversight board. These oppositions groups subsequently encouraged their supporters not to participate in the elections, which accounts for why turnout measured only 25%, with most polling stations virtually empty. Naturally, Chavez accused the United States of being behind the election boycott, but such charges should come as no surprise to Chavez watchers, after all America is to blame for all of Latin America’s problems, right?

While the opposition may argue that this week’s elections lack legitimacy, this will in no way stop Chavez from assuming absolute control of the Venezuelan state. To Chavez’s credit, he has exploited the media with amazing skill, rallying the nation’s poor to his cause once again, even as he fails to deliver on even one single promise. Mussolini would certainly be proud. Under Chavez, the Venezuelan economy has languished, job creation has been abysmal and poverty has increased, but because Chavez is so skilled in the art of distraction, he has managed to convince is constituents that he is somehow their savior. The people of Venezuela, however, will only have themselves to blame. South America has a long tradition of tin pan dictators who promise much, but deliver little and Chavez is the successor to this great tradition.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4496586.stm

Leave to the Germans to mix Christianity and pornography. A Christian youth group in Germany has come up with a new method to attract young Germans to the flock. Their solution: perversion. The group based in Nuremburg, came up with the idea to put together a calendar depicting events in the Bible, each image having blatant sexual overtones. What’s even more amazing is the fact that church leaders appear to condone the practice.

"It's just wonderful when teenagers commit themselves with their hair and their skin to the bible," one German pastor noted. Now we recognize that most people in Europe today are avowed atheist, but is this really the appropriate solution? Participants argue the calendar is designed to interest young people. Yes it will interest young people, but interest them in what? Will it interest them in serving god or loving one’s neighbor? No it will interest these perverts in sexual exploitation of women, women who are too ignorant to know when they are being exploited in the first place. Great job!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4494938.stm

Is the state of Israel months away from destruction? Is the US months away from coming under nuclear attack? Is Al Qaeda months away from gaining access to a nuclear weapon? These questions have become all the more legitimate in light of revelations from Mohammed El Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Commission (IAEA). El Baradei noted that if Iran succeeds in developing a uranium enriching facility, it would be a question of months before Iran was capable of producing atomic weapons. The Islamic state, therefore, could be only a few months away from the unthinkable. If Iran succeeds in developing such weaponry, the geo-political landscape in the Middle East, and the world will be forever altered. Iran’s hard-line president has already made his position on the issue of Israel abundantly clear, they are to be wiped off the map. But Iran will not stop with Israel, the temptation to export nuclear terror well beyond its borders will be far too compelling for the mullahs of Tehran to resist, after all, over the past 25 plus years Iran has made terrorism an arm of its foreign policy.

Iran continues to insist that its nuclear energy program is peaceful, this as it refuses to cooperate with inspectors or even accept compromise. The reality is, Iran has as much interest in peaceful nuclear energy development as Al Qaeda has in donating to the Anti-Defamation League. El Baradei has warned that all parties involved must tread carefully as a confrontation with Iran would undermine negotiations. Iran, however, is negotiating from a position of strength. The Europeans have already revealed themselves to be weak negotiators, having made concession after concession, to which Iran has responding with an abrupt “no thank you.” The premise that Iran is pursuing nuclear development for peaceful, low-cost energy production is laughable and preposterous. Iran has one of the world’s largest stockpiles of oil and natural gas, yet we are to believe that they are developing nuclear energy as a low cost alternative to fossil fuels. If this were a business plan, most investors would have long since bailed. Exactly how is investing billions upon billions of dollars to replace an energy source that is far cheaper to produce, a low cost alternative?

Iran is without question pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, which will (not may, will) lead to a major conflict between Israel and Iran. A conflict of nuclear proportions. Israel’s Ariel Sharon, has made it clear that his nation will react to Iran, if it becomes a nuclear power, a not sow veiled threat, given Israel’s history.
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.236339408&par=0

A bitter fight is raging in California between liberals and conservatives (what else is new). The fight pits proponents of the death penalty against those who oppose it. Stanley Tookie Williams is a convicted murderer and founder of the bloody street gang, the Crips. Williams was convicted of four murders and is suspected in several others. For his crimes, Williams was sentenced to death in California. Having exhausted all appeals, Williams is scheduled to die on December 13.

As his execution has drawn near, the case has come under increasing scrutiny with a growing chorus of liberal activists calling on Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to grant Williams clemency. The Phalanx has long held that the death penalty is no deterrent, it is used sparingly, selectively and is rarely carried out. Even if a person has no moral objections to the use of the death penalty, how can someone view this punishment as a deterrent when it takes years, if not decades, to be carried out? Williams, for example, was convicted and sentenced to death in 1979. This is no deterrent, meanwhile Williams enjoys prison life, associating with former gang members, regular exercise, entertainment and three square meals a day. Indeed, some murderers have a better life than the poor whose only crime is laziness.

Throughout 2005, leftists have argued Williams has reformed and is therefore entitled to clemency. They argue he has written children’s books and renounces gang violence. In other words, the lives of four people can be excused by writing a couple books, I suppose one could argue that because Hitler was an author he was excused for the murder of millions? While we at the Phalanx may not feel the death penalty offers any measure of deterrence we are equally opposed to any special treatment for Tookie Williams because of any activities he has been engaged in while in prison. Ultimately, Governor Schwarzenegger will have the final say at a clemency hearing scheduled for December 8.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/13296102.htm

Joseph Lieberman might as well turn in his membership card to the Democratic Party. The Senator from Connecticut has violated the cardinal rule of today’s leftist movement. He has defended the policies of George W. Bush and the penalty for this heinous crime is to be ostracized by fellow Democrats just as former Senator Zell Miller was. Earlier this week Lieberman wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal defending our strategy in Iraq, noting that the US is on the right track as Iraqis shoulder an ever increasing security responsibility in that war torn country. Lieberman pointed to several signs of progress and economic growth across Iraq and inescapable proof of the continued move toward a full-fledged Iraqi democracy. For his troubles, Lieberman has been all but ignored by his fellow Democrats, who’s strategy since 2001 has been to denigrate Bush at every turn, even at the expense of national security, in order to retake the Congress and the White House. Now some Democrats are even musing the possibility of supporting a Democratic challenger to Lieberman in the Connecticut primaries, serving as a lesson to any other Democrats who may seek to stray from the party line.

We must conclude that Lieberman added insult to injury when he recognized a fact, that the left has convinced us is fantasy. Iraq did possess weapons of mass destruction. Since the Iraq war began, the left has been looking for an angle to exploit, which could further harm Bush, they have foolishly claimed that the war in Iraq is the cause of terrorism, a nonsensical premise, propagated by opportunists, not leaders. They have also erroneously asserted with equal vigor that Iraq did not possess WMDs. As Lieberman correctly asserted this position is in error. By every account, be it UN, US, UK or Iraqi, Saddam Hussein DID possess WMDs at the conclusion of the Gulf War. He was charged with destroying those weapons and terminating its WMD programs. In 12 years, Iraq never produced one single strand of evidence demonstrating that it had complied with those terms. Indeed, in the years that followed, Iraq refused to cooperate with weapons inspectors. Yet the left asserts that sometime before the Iraq war, Saddam dismantled his weapons program, destroyed his stockpiles, all the while continuing to refuse cooperation with the UN in order to risk invasion.

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

The fact of the matter is the left was right then and they are lying now. Their motives, however, are clear, they seek a return to power at any cost. The motives of George Bush, however, aren't so clear. What is perplexing is the fact that Bush refuses to recognize reality and point out the lies and hypocrisy of the left. The simple fact is Iraq did possess WMDs and evidence of that has and continues to be discovered in Iraq. As Senator Lieberman noted: "The so-called Duelfer Report, which a lot of people read to say there were no weapons of mass destruction - concluded that Saddam continued to have very low level of chemical and biological programs." Unfortunately, this reality is obscured by an opportunistic Democratic Party, a culpable media and a gullible public.
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/2/132602.shtml
http://www.dnronline.com/opinion_details.php?AID=1859&sub=Editorial

As sure as we live and breathe, if you live in America, you have been lied to by quite a few people. You were lied to by your parents on the subject of Santa Claus, a shameful pattern which only distracts from the true meaning of Christmas. You were lied to by your high school sweetheart when they said they would always love you. You were lied to by your children when they said “I didn’t do it.” But perhaps the biggest lie, sadly, comes from our elected representatives in Washington. Indeed, with few exceptions practically every utterance is deception in the highest sense. These politicians of all parties, genders, races and from all regions of the country are governed by the same motivation: power. The seek to be reelected and to enhance their political influence, thusly they are wholly willing and capable to employ all manners of deceit and treachery to achieve those objectives.

The lies your congressmen have told you are many and the list expands with each passing minute and hour. These are but a few of the lies we have been told: Social Security is best managed by the government, private development constitutes public use, raising taxes increases government revenues, a progressive income tax is not a back door to socialism, incessant government spending and pork barrel projects are essential, every American has a right to a job, the death penalty deters crime, welfare helps to alleviate poverty, socialized medicine is the wave of the future, everyone can’t afford to go to college, Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, the US should never act unilaterally, the minimum wage is too low, free trade is harmful to the US economy, agricultural subsidies are necessary, terrorism is caused by the war in Iraq, the economy is performing poorly, etc.

Needless to say we could go on for some time, but we are fairly confident that our readers are keen to notice when the wool is being pulled over their eyes. Exactly what lies will our congressmen tell us tomorrow. Be sure to visit often as we will be glad to point them out.

How many times have we seen it this year alone? There have been countless examples of child molesters and sexual predicators attacking children after serving time in the penal system. How many children must be victimized before states enact tougher sentences for these depraved predicators? There is absolutely no justifiable reason to release these people. A registry is insufficient. Even if these convicts do register on the various lists across the country, that doesn’t stop a crime from happening, it only gives police a lead during their investigation, which is unacceptable.

It is clear that these people have not been “rehabilitated.” If that were the case, then there would be no need for a sex offender registry in the first place. Yesterday, Joseph Smith became only the latest example of failed policies regarding sexual predators as the Florida jury hearing his case, recommended death for his brutal rape and murder of 11-year-old Carlie Brucia. Frankly, death is far too generous for this individual. Even so, there is no guarantee Smith will ever be put to death with years of appeals ahead of him; he may even outlive Brucia’s parents, further demonstrating how the death penalty fails as a deterrent.

In the case of Smith and so many others, a deterrent would not have been necessary if the system functioned properly. At the time of the assault and murder, Smith was in violation of his probation, yet the “judge” refused to uphold the law and return this psycho to prison. Under no circumstances should a rapist or murderer ever see the light of day, especially when that rape and/or murder involves a child. Sadly, leftists will argue for the rights of criminals but who will speak for the victims and who will speak for society at large?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-12-01-killersentencing_x.htm

Years ago, when someone criticized another for an offense they were equally guilty of it was said that it was like a “pot calling a kettle black.” Well it seems the BBC is the pot. The BBC issued a report today on the issue of race and equality in America on the anniversary of Rosa Parks’ refusal to give up her seat for a white man on a Montgomery bus. According to the report, equality between the races remains elusive, with only marginal progress since the hey-day of the civil rights era. So what’s the Phalanx’s response to this report: hogwash (since we’re using old sayings).

Is their racism in America, Yes, absolutely. In fact you would be hard pressed to find anyone in this (or any country) who is completely unbiased. Racism, today, unlike 50 years ago, however, is not institutionalized or enshrined in our laws. Each and every America has equal opportunity with free access to schools, courts, medical attention, etc. Yes there is prejudice, but sadly human nature precludes this or any country from eradicating all prejudice in men’s hearts. No legislation can change a person’s personal views and the feelings in their heart. This is one reality that the BBC should be clearly aware of. Indeed, racism and prejudice is a matter of course in Europe. Racial and ethnic violence are all too common across Europe, from France, to Britain to Germany and so forth.

Britain, in particular, is no bastion for racial harmony. How many members of parliament have ever been Black? Only a handful, compared to the significant numbers elected to Congress in the US each year. Some 40% of blacks in Britain claim to have experience discrimination in the work place. A majority of Britons believe non-whites have “damaged” British society over the last half century. In fact a majority of Britons, regardless of race, freely recognize British society as “racist.” Frequent readers of the Phalanx might argue that we are pulling a Mussolini, by drawing attention away from the issue of equality in America. Quite the contrary, we are simply highlighting the hypocrisy of the report’s authors.

According to the BBC, progress has been made on issues of race in America, but “a substantial gap remains.” The report points out that ¼ of Blacks live in poverty compared to a tenth of the white population. Statistically, Blacks are still twice as likely to be jobless as white people, as they were in 30 years ago. Blacks are also more likely to be the victims of and perpetrators of violent crime. According to NAACP Chairman, Julian Bond, this is a legacy of slavery, where "black skin still acts as a mark of difference - for many white Americans, a negative difference." These factors, which Bond attributes to race are conditions brought about not by race, but by poverty. Poverty for which there is no excuse today.

Is racism to blame for such poverty? If this question were posed 50 years ago (or even 30 year ago) the answer would clearly be Yes. Posed today, the answer is most assuredly No. Can someone living in poverty today, blame his station in life on the poverty of his grandparents. No, it’s a poor excuse to justify complacency. Poverty, as we have stated on numerous occasions, is a direct byproduct of personal choices: Choices not to work hard in school, choices not to pursue student loans to go to college, choices not to have children for which they can’t afford and so on and so forth. Race is a cop out and does a disservice for those hardworking people (black or otherwise) who overcome difficulty and adversity to achieve success.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4482988.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2002/race/

An organization known as WakeUpWalMart, commissioned a national opinion poll on Wal-Mart. The poll was conducted by the Zogby group. The poll was designed to gauge the opinion of the average American with regard to their feelings on Wal-Mart. As one might expect, WakeUpWalMart is no fan of Wal-Mart. They have accused the world’s largest retailer of paying sub-standard wages and generally mistreating labor.

Respondents in the Zogby poll were asked to choose between two carefully worded statements: 1. "I believe that Wal-Mart is bad for America. It may provide low prices, but these prices come with a high moral and economic cost for consumers" and 2. "Wal-Mart is good for America. It provides low prices and saves consumers money every day." Now to the average feeble mind these may seem like two fairly standard questions. But it you pay close attention the poll is clearly weighted toward question 1. Both questions acknowledge that Wal-Mart generally provides consumers with low cost consumer goods, but question 1 is worded in such a way as to encourage a favorable choice and that’s exactly what occurred, 56% of respondents chose question 1.

The Zogby poll also gauged public perceptions about Wal-Mart in other arenas. The results of one question revealed that 33% of respondents felt Wal-Mart was a retail monopoly. A retail Monopoly? Clearly 33% of this poll’s respondents are too ignorant to be relied upon for anything except the most minuscule and unimportant of tasks. By most estimates, Wal-Mart’s retail market share is around 20%. This hardly constitutes a monopoly. Granted Wal-Mart is a prominent player in the retail industry, but this is attributed to the fact that it provides a service desired by consumers, as evident by its continued growth. The supposition that Wal-Mart is a monopoly implies a lack of choice for consumers, which in and of itself is a statement based purely in ignorance and stupidity.

WakeUpWalMart contends that the retailer is “bad for America.” Why? Because it pays its employees a fair wage based on their level of skill. The average employee is undeserving of anything beyond minimum wage. Their tasks require minimal training and can be performed by anyone over the age of ten. Just as the average homeowner wouldn’t pay a neighbor $300 to mow his/her lawn, Wal-Mart shouldn’t pay exorbitant wages for employees to stock shelves and unload trucks. Yes it is true that some Wal-Mart employees have families, families for which minimum wage provides marginal subsistence, but therein lies the problem. People shouldn’t raise families and have children they can’t afford if the best they can do is minimum wage.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20051201-1110-retail-walmart-poll.html

If someone walked into their local Sears and Roebuck they wouldn’t expect to walk out with a refrigerator free of charge would they? If a person drove up to a mechanic, they couldn’t expect a free oil change. If someone strolled into a grocery store, they wouldn’t receive free food, so why should a family expect a free visit with Santa, when they refuse to purchase the requisite photograph. This may come as a surprise to members of the world socialist movement, but malls are businesses, they exist to make money through the sale of goods and services. A mall Santa is a service sold at the mall, just as a Chanel Bag or Estee Lauder perfume is a product sold at the mall.

Regardless of this capitalist reality, the Maria Grigorian of Massachusetts expressed outrage when her daughter was denied a visit with Santa because the mother would not purchase a portrait. Apparently, the mall is supposed to provide this service as a courtesy for patrons. Why not also provide free food in the food court, or free haircuts at the salon or free shoes at the Foot Locker? Where does it end? By what precedent should Grigorian expect free services? Visits with Santa aren’t a right enshrined in the Constitution.

From this brief story we can already tell what type of indoctrination 4-year-old Michelle Grigorian is destined to endure. She will no doubt grow up to be a full fledged leftist, with a full understanding for those things she believes she is “entitled” to regardless of work, effort or merit. I suppose we could feel sorry for the child that she didn’t get her visit with Santa, but where does the fault for this lie? With the mall? No with the mother! "I am a single mom and don't have that money right now," Maria Grigorian said. In other words because I am poor and made equally poor decisions I am therefore entitled to preferential treatment. Naturally, the mall relented, because making a profit is the worse thing a business can do in America, thanks to leftist indoctrination. Take notice welfare recipients, this is your cue to go to the finest restaurant in town and demand service because you are “poor” and therefore special.
http://www.local6.com/news/5435940/detail.html

We’ve all heard the stories. People suing because they spilled hot coffee on themselves and so forth. This constant drumbeat of frivolity continues unabated, as Joe Six Pack seeks to make a fast buck any way he can, so long as it doesn’t involve hard work. As result America is plagued by a litigious curse. People view the courts as a means, not only to solve disputes, but to win fast money. Remember the woman who sued her neighbors because two girls delivered cookies to her door “scaring” her in the process? This is the type of nonsense that the litigious curse inspires. We could blame the lawyers but they aren’t to blame. The real blame lies with the lazy, sloth obsessed plaintiffs who are averse to earning an honest living. At least the lawyers are actually working.

Now the brilliant minds who brought us the assault on Big Tobacco have a new target: Coke. According to court documents, a lawsuit against Coca-Cola alleges that the soft drink maker intentionally uses caffeine to addict children to its sodas. The plaintiffs in this case aren’t ignorant smokers, who can’t read a warning on a cigarette carton; they are the parents of several school age children. These “parents” are setting a wonderful example for their overweight children. The message to their children and society at large is clear, why take responsibility for your own actions when there is someone with deep pockets who you can blame instead. In this case the parents blame Coke for the weight problems their children face.

Coca-Cola, would be well advised to counter sue these money grubbing parents for defamation of character, slander and libel. Coca-Cola isn’t the cause for obesity. Indeed, Coke has been around for over a century and its ingredients haven’t changed in generations, yet we are to believe that Coca-Cola founder Asa Candler purchased the Coke formula from Atlanta pharmacist John Pemberton and marketed it across the country in some diabolical 19th century scheme to create an inferior race of sloth obsessed obese children. Sadly, Coke may face a real hurdle in this case, if the plaintiffs can find the right jury, one filled with minimum wage deadbeats, welfare moms and other drags on society who constantly blame others for their predicaments.

Regardless of the outcome of this suit, however, the real criminals are the parents, those suing Coke and thousands of others who instill no values in their children. Who raise their children on junk food, while ignoring healthy foods and discouraging exercise either by word or by their equally slothful example. These are the true causes of obesity. But as our society has fallen victim to this deadly litigious curse, its unlikely the truth will be accepted.
http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/coke/1105/29bizcokesuit.html
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/business/13289176.htm

Remember the Kyoto Treaty, signed in Kyoto, Japan in 1997 by 140 countries, including the United States. The treaty supposedly was designed to cut “greenhouse” emissions in select countries, including the US and Europe. Though President Clinton signed on to the treaty, he never submitted to the Senate for ratification. Why? Because while Clinton may have valued a photo opportunity, he also recognized that the Kyoto Treaty would have crippled the US economy, which would reflect poorly on him. When Bush took office in 2001, he made it clear that he too would not submit the treaty for ratification and furthermore, indicated that Kyoto was as good as dead in the eyes of the United States. Bush, however, called on the Kyoto signatories to join the US in discussions on a Kyoto alternative. The response from Europe and elsewhere was a collective silence. In that silence the true intentions of the Kyoto signatories becomes readily apparent.

Those who drafted and signed on to this agreement have (and had) no interest in reducing CO2 and other “greenhouse” emissions as they claim. We know this because two of the world’s top five polluters were not bound to the treaty at all. China and India, whose economies continue to expand at a rapid rate, are among the world’s largest polluters. How can any treaty with the stated aim of reducing emissions ignore two top five polluters? Further proof that this treaty was designed specifically to target the US is evident by the lack of interest in discussing Kyoto alternatives. If these countries were truly concerned with the environment then they would jump at the opportunity to develop strategies that would ease pollution. In reality, they were only interested in solutions of their own design, which would ensure a weakening of the US. Some countries, like France, have declared it as a matter of state policy to weaken the US.

Meanwhile, Chinese officials at the UN Climate conference in Montreal this week called the US and the Bush administration to task for not signing on to Kyoto (easy for them to say since they aren’t bound to it). One official, Sun Guoshunis, also stated that it was unfair to expect India and China, as developing nations to endure the same cuts as developed nations. Perhaps India can be considered a developing nation by some standards, but China is one of the 5 largest economies in the world eclipsing France, Britain and Germany and soon to eclipse Japan. China also has a large manufacturing base. For China to declare itself a developing nation at this stage in the game seems awfully convenient. Sun also noted that the US is the largest polluter and the largest polluter per capita. What Sun failed to note, however, is the fact that the US is the world’s largest economy and its share of global pollution is proportionate to its share of global economic and industrial output. China’s share, however, is disproportionate to its share of global output. What does this mean? It means that while the US is a major polluter, the US is also extremely efficient in use of resources, unlike China, whose waste contributes disproportionately to overall global pollution.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/11/30/climate.change.china.ap/index.html

Yesterday we discussed the continued parade of positive economic data on the state of the US economy. Indeed, we have been constantly talking about the continued success of the US economy all year. On average, the US economy has created almost 200 thousand jobs per month. By that rate the economy will have created some 2 million jobs in this year alone. According to figures released this week, the US economy grew at a rate of 4.3% for the most recent quarter, far exceeding analyst’s expectations. In spite of Hurricane Katrina and its devastating affects, the US economy continues to “boom” as the New York Times pointed out.

Not only is the economy expanding at a very healthy rate, but unemployment remains low (5%), in spite of significant job losses in the Gulf region. Inflation also remains relatively low. This combined with the fact that the US continues to be ranked as one of the healthiest environments for business and we see that the propaganda spewed by the left on an almost daily basis is just that, propaganda, devoid of truth or legitimacy. This reality would be hard to ascertain by gauging the average man on the street. As we have noted time and time again President Bush has done little to toot his own horn, only now is he beginning to show any backbone with regard to Iraq by standing up for his position. Generally, however, his dishwatery speeches fail to deliver the knock out punch that is necessary. Yes the president has acknowledged that the US must stay the course in Iraq, but he fails to communicate why, nor does he confront the misconception that Saddam possessed no weapons of mass destruction or address the issue of terrorism and the need to confront terrorists, while dispelling the premise that the war in Iraq has caused terrorism. This has gone on for so long that we have come to accept the reality that Bush will allow his opponents to rewrite history, with little more than a peep.

Apparently, its not just on the issue of Iraq that Bush is willing to cave. With the economy doing so well, as we have noted, why no word from the White House? During the Clinton era, the president wasted no time in taking credit for even the most insignificant news about the US economy, so much so that the 90s economic boom is equated with president Clinton. Few realize that without Clinton’s early tax increases, the economy would have grown even larger, few also realize that the economic recession of the early 2000s began under Clinton’s watch. Few recognize this because Clinton was a master at communicating his ideas before the American people. Clinton also had willing accomplices in the media, a luxury Bush does not have, but this is no excuse. As CNBC’s Larry Kudlow points out both Clinton in the 1990s and Reagan in the 1980s were masters at communication. They showed no hesitation in taking credit for the success of the US economy.

“If former President Clinton had overseen this economy, he’d have held daily Rose Garden news conferences to mark the occasion. In fact, former President Reagan did just that in the booming 1980s -- he gave speech after speech touting the success of his supply-side tax cuts. Yet President Bush seldom goes into the current economic story, and when he does it’s just a mention.” Kudlow noted. Kudlow’s account is extremely accurate, in fact the warning signs were apparent even during the 2004 presidential campaign. Bush never attempted to articulate just how incredible our success has been. Here we have an economy going into recession in 2000, then in 2001 we have a massive terror attack, which further crippled the economy, not to mention the subsequent war on terror. Yet we were (and are) creating tens of thousands of jobs daily, the economy expanding and inflation well in check. John Kerry should have had no legs to stand on.

Today this presidential paralysis continues, but the president isn’t alone, even Republicans in Congress seem to lack the ability to speak for themselves. What little we do know about the economy has been voiced by the leftist media. For this Bush and the GOP have no excuse. When the GOP looses the Senate and possibly the House in next year’s congressional elections they will have no one but themselves to blame.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4485314.stm
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/larrykudlow/2005/11/30/177140.html