What’s that, consumer confidence at 3 year high? Just last week USA Today released a poll showing the majority of Americans had a negative impression of the economy. Consumer confidence measures the health of the economy by evaluating the feelings of the very consumers who bolster that economy through daily use of goods and services.

According to the Conference Board Consumer Research Center, the latest figure reflects growing optimism about the overall state of the US economy and the job market in particular. How can this be? Only last Thursday, we were told that the general perception amongst the American public was such that the economy was stagnant and a prevailing fear about the future was dominant. Some 60% of Americans said the economy was faltering and nearly just as many believed the economy was getting worse. Now we hear that consumer confidence is the highest it has been in nearly 4 years?

Obviously these two reports on the mood of the country can’t be reconciled. On many occasions we have discussed how the media uses polls to stir, rather than measure, public opinion. This can be accomplished by asking leading questions or setting up a scenario, which leads to the desired outcome, perhaps this was the strategy in USA Today’s most recent, “who hates Bush today” poll. Perhaps with the next poll results USA Today will release the questions as well.

The simple fact of the matter is polls can be manipulated. Thus a more accurate measure of the US economy should be the incontrovertible facts, which clearly demonstrate our ongoing success. With the exception of last quarter, which we suspect will be revised upwards once final counts are made, the US economy has consistently grown at a rate at or near 4%. A record number of jobs have been created, while businesses continue to expand.

Only those seeking the never-ending government handout harbor an ever-negative view of the economy. People, who have squandered opportunities or failed to act, should feel negative as time has and will continue to pass by the sedentary or inert, as well it should be.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8FFOBF00.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down&chan=db
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-26-bush-sotu-cover_x.htm
http://www.thephalanx.com/2006/01/majority-america-on-wrong-track.html

In a radical departure from their earlier stance, both Russia and China have joined with the EU and the United States in calling for UN action regarding Iran and its wayward nuclear program. For some time the Russians and the Chinese have opposed involving the United Nations in the stalemate, opting instead to call for another try at diplomacy.

The fact of the matter is diplomacy has been tried for 2 years now with no meaningful results. In the meantime, Iran has inched ever closer to the development of a nuclear arsenal, with which it can arm insurgents and radical Islamic terrorists around the world. With the Russians and the Chinese on board, however, it is now hoped that Iran will see the futility of further smokescreens. This hope, however, is premature. Iran has played both ends against the middle before and knows full well that Europe is anxious to avoid a conflict, China wants no disruption in oil flow to fuel its economic engine and Russia is salivating from profits scored by feeding Iran’s nuclear ambitions in the first place.

With this knowledge Iran should have no difficulty in stringing the Security Council along until it has fully developed a nuclear arsenal, just like North Korea, then the mullahs of Tehran will be able to call the shots. Even if decisive UN action is taken, which is highly unlikely, it is tantamount to nothing. Never before in the history of the world have sanctions succeeded in bringing a tyrant to terms. The only thing sanctions will do is strengthen the resolve of Iran’s tyrannical regime.

Indeed, with UN action, the Iranians will have scored a great victory in the world of radical Islam as they stand up to the West in the face of overwhelming circumstances. What the Iranians understand is force and a real threat of force, perhaps only one country, Israel, realizes that, but tiny Israel may have met its match when it comes to taking action and if they move to act as they most likely will, the world will surely be engulfed in terror the likes of which we have never before experienced.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran31jan31,0,7973829.story?coll=la-home-headlines&track=morenews

Thomas Murphy, a UPS delivery driver in the city of Chicago was beaten nearly to death by a gang of malcontents from a nearby school. Perhaps most troubling is the fact that this gang of youths, numbering 15 to 20 teens, were not high schoolers but, middle school students, meaning their maximum age would be around 13 years old.

Murphy reported being forced to stop when a teen stepped in front of his delivery vehicle; he was then beaten over the head and repeatedly kicked by several delinquents. There is no word as to what was the motivation for the attack. Perhaps these youth were angry because they are destined to work minimum wage and feel embittered towards people who work hard for a living. Perhaps it was nothing more than a game and perhaps they were simply malcontents with no redeeming characteristics whatsoever, a likely scenario.

As we have said time and time again. Where are the parents? Perhaps they were busy bludgeoning a FedEx driver across town? They certainly weren’t at home instilling values and respect or even an appreciation for hard work. This incident highlights the growing problem of adolescent crime and a bankrupt culture that coddles youth and foments criminal behavior. These young criminals should be hunted down and punished, serving as a lesson to other young criminals in the making.
http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_030190225.html

Apparently the only thing separating the learned from the ignorant is the variable X. In Los Angeles, like most communities around the country, students are required to pass Algebra in order to advance scholastically and subsequently receive a high school diploma. For most students around the country, such a requirement has no lasting impact as Algebra is no more complicated than playing with blocks in kindergarten. Not so in the LA Unified school district. Algebra is such a difficult subject for some LA students that many students fail the course countless times, only to drop out of high school after persistent failure.

Since 2003, LA Schools have required students to pass both Algebra and Geometry, in order to ensure that graduates received a meaningful education. Since implementing this strategy, the school system has witnessed a significant increase in the number of dropouts. The problem is so significant that over 40% of high school freshman fail Algebra. These figures highlight the failure of some of this country’s public schools. Small wonder, the US lags behind the rest of the industrialized world in terms of math and science. The simple fact of the matter is this failure is not only a failure for students and schools, but the parents as well.

What exactly is going on with the schools in California? Last year we discussed the fact that many 12th graders were failing the required graduation exams, which tested a student’s language ability on an 8th grade level. So what exactly are students in LA learning, not math, not language arts, not science? By 2016, students in LA will be required to take Algebra II as well, which spells certain doom for many LA County students.

What does it mean for this country when nearly half of high school students in one of the largest school districts in the country can’t pass a course that many students take in middle school? With the significant failure rate, it should come as no surprise that some parents are calling for a relaxation of LA’s graduation requirements, which will only exacerbate the problem. Unfortunately, failure is endemic in LA, and of those that did pass a course like Algebra, nearly 1/3 received Ds, which is BELOW AVERAGE.

The state of schools in LA is not unique; around the country there are similar stories. Schools certainly shoulder some of the blame, by some accounts many teachers lack the credentials to even teach subjects like Algebra. At California State University-Northridge, a mid-level college which churns out many LA elementary teachers, over 1/3rd earned Ds or Fs in their first college-level math course. With such marginal experience it comes as no surprise that students leave their formative grades without a solid base upon which to build.

Schools alone are not to blame, however. As teacher Shane Sauby recounted many students ignore homework, refuse to study and regularly cut class. As a result many of these students repeat the same class over and over, sometimes with the same teacher, and subsequently drop out all together. Where are the parents? Parents that refuse to take an interest in their child’s education are no doubt failures themselves who continue that tradition by modeling exactly the wrong values and work ethic. Students lack any appreciation for knowledge or education and thus come to school, unprepared, uninterested and unconcerned about their futures (or lack thereof). Many students profiled in a LA Times story skipped more classes than they attended, yet we are supposed to be surprised that students are failures.

In addition to parents some “experts” have called for a dumbing down of educational standards, arguing that subjects like Algebra may not be right for all high school students. This is certainly true, after all, someone will have to serve fast food or pick up garbage in the future

Below is a sample question from the LA school standards, followed by a brief layout used to solve the problem.

A 120-foot-long rope is cut into 3 pieces. The first piece of rope is twice as long as the second piece of rope. The third piece of rope is three times as long as the second piece of rope. What is the length of the longest piece of rope?

A) 20 feet
B) 40 feet
C) 60 feet
D) 80 feet

Show your work:
3t + 2t + t = 120
6t = 120
t = 20
Largest piece: 60

If you cannot figure out with relative ease that the answer is C, please stop reading and proceed to the nearest Sylvan learning center and refrain from reproducing.
http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-me-dropout30jan30,0,3211437.story

If there is one thing we at the Phalanx can’t abide, its revisionist history. People who look upon the Japanese as innocent victims in WWII or holocaust deniers are nothing more than ignorant buffoons attempting to advance a sinister agenda. One of the earliest revisionist movements began in the late 19th century, as southern Civil War veterans, still smarting over their devastating defeat at the hands of the North, sought to recast their role in history.

No longer was the War Between the States one fought to ensure the continued bondage of black slaves, now the war was a noble cause to preserve southern heritage and the southern way of life. Suffice it to say that way of life was built upon the immoral, illogical, anti-free market and socialistic institution of slavery. Southern heritage (i.e., White Racist) organizations have tirelessly argued that the Civil War, and the secession movement that precipitated it, had nothing to do with slavery.

Most recently that endless campaign to legitimize state sanctioned racism continues again. This time the battle line has been drawn at a local public school in Blunt County Tennessee. Students at a local high school sought to “express themselves” by wearing t-shirts with the confederate battle emblem to school. Once they were noticed by the administration, school officials asked the students to change clothes or leave the premises, the enlightened young leaders of tomorrow, chose the later, after all what red neck would chose education over expressing a fondest for their racist heritage? Soon their parents got into the act, turning this expression of ignorance into a free speech rally. The parents have threatened to sue the school system, which is the typical American response in a situation such as this. The students, for their part argue that the entire situation was blown out of proportion and their intentions have been misconstrued. "The confederate flag was just a battle flag…,” noted Derek Barr a student at William Blount High School. “It had nothing to do with slavery. And I think a lot of people are getting the wrong picture on this, thinking we're being racist, but we're not."

To be fair, Barr and his fellow students are right on one account, if a person chooses to wear a flag depicting the confederate battle flag, they are very much within their rights. Our constitution protects the rights of individuals to express views, which may be contrary to the accepted views of society or which may be deemed offensive. By the same token these brain dead parents, who probably never lifted a finger in support of their child’s education until this fight over the flag, should be honest with themselves and the public at large. This fight is not about a proud southern heritage, this fight is not about freedom of speech, this fight is about the expressed desire of some local racists to thumb their noses at others by highlighting their personal bigotry and hatred.

The confederate flag and the defunct confederate nation it represents is very much a symbol of racism and hate.

The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically.

Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition.

Alexander Stephens
Vice President, Confederate States of America, March 21, 1861 (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=76)

There can be no doubt that Stephens spoke correctly of his nation’s founding principles. The Confederate Constitution makes a point to vigorously defend the perpetual condition of slavery in the south. While rednecks like those in Blount County Tennessee argue that secession and the confederacy had nothing to do with slavery, learned individuals need look no further than the actual secession ordinances and subsequent proclamations issued by the seceding states declaring slavery as the principle justification for the dissolution of the Union. These facts are well-documented points of history.

The Confederacy is a symbol of hate and thus so to is its flag. Why else would unquestioned bigots like the KKK use the flag as their symbol, because it symbolizes heritage? No, because of the fear and hate it stands for. If these flag proponents, are so concerned about “southern heritage,” why is that they choose only to recognize that period in southern history from 1861-1865, why not honor the heroes of the American Revolution or World War II? Or why not recognize some of the work of many great southerners like Crawford Long, Juliet Gordon Low, Martin Luther King, Margaret Mitchell, Sam Houston, etc… What is it about this particular period in history that makes it so unique? We all know what that unique characteristic is and so to do the racist bigots who protest under the guise of free speech.
http://www.volunteertv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4424448
http://americancivilwar.com/documents/ordinance_secession.html
http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_south_carolina.html
http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_mississippi.html
http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_georgia.html
http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_texas.html
http://americancivilwar.com/documents/isham_harris.html

In practicing the art of propaganda, one of the first acts is to convince your intended audience of an alternative reality. Propaganda is designed to distract, re-shape opinion and to deceive. This is a strategy employed with expert skill be the left in this country, and abroad. Perhaps one of the greatest feats of Mussolini-esque distraction perpetrated by the left has been their success in convincing the vast majority of us that Saddam Hussein never possessed weapons of mass destruction.

The facts have been all but ignored as the left as sought to portray Bush as a warmonger who went into Iraq for no justifiable reason. The fact of the matter is Iraq most certainly did possess weapons of mass destruction. This has again been confirmed by a top Iraqi general, Georges Sada, in a recent book entitled, “Saddam’s Secret. Sada a Christian, like former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, was a Saddam loyalist nonetheless and a top ranking Iraqi Air Force general. Sada claims, Hussein transferred is WMDs to Syria as it became apparent that a US invasion was imminent. Sada claims some materials were flown to Syria, while others were transported via truck convoy.

Naturally, the left has dismissed Sada’s claims as the stuff of fantasy and the media has all but ignored his book and his claims. The president, just as he has done with the economy and the progress of the war has allowed the left to control the debate. He has allowed the fiction of Iraq’s WMDs to devour the truth. The fact remains that Iraq DID possess these weapons, a reality previously acknowledged by the left, before and after Bush took office.

Even the left acknowledges that Saddam Hussein possessed such weapons at the conclusion of the Iraq war in 1991, in the years that followed, Saddam Hussein never produced one single shred of proof that these weapons were ever destroyed, a fact that is not refuted by any party. Indeed, Saddam refused to cooperate with weapons inspectors from the moment the guns fell silent, until the day he was toppled. In 1998, President Clinton and Tony Blair authorized massive bombing of strategic sites across Iraq. Why? Because Iraq was complying with UN resolutions to scrap its WMD program? Certainly not. As recently as 2003, Saddam was still turning away weapons inspectors. Why? Because he was in full compliance?

The facts simply do not add up. If Iraq no longer possessed such weapons then were is the evidence of their destruction. If weapons systems have been moved, which they most likely were, then it would stand to reason that there would be no trace of their existence, but if such weapons were indeed destroyed a plethora of evidence would readily present itself. The reality of Saddam Hussein’s complicity in WMD production and possession is well known to the left. Every prominent Democrat from Bill and Hillary Clinton, to John Kerry and Ted Kennedy have acknowledged as much during the Clinton and Bush presidencies, yet now we are supposed to forget that such statements were ever made and operate under the assumption that the last 12 years never took place.

The fact that so many people accept this as gospel is a testament to the skill of the left in their ability to wield propaganda that would make even Dr. Goebbles cringe. Are the American people stupid, or just easily manipulated? Clearly it is one or the other when facts can be so easily dismissed. When contrary statements can be easily ignored. Mussolini would certainly be proud.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&issue=20060126
http://www.thephalanx.com/2005/12/hidden-truth-iraq-did-possess-wmds.html

The media and leftist politicians have tried ceaselessly to portray the US and its economy in the most negative light possible. Consistently, leftist politicians, contrary to factual evidence, have berated the US economy as faltering with devastating job losses and stagnate growth. The leftist media, for their part, have continuously published slanted polls to drive the message home. The ultimate goal is to convince the American people that America is on the wrong track and who’s to blame for that? Obviously the president and his allies in the Congress.

The left wants desperately to return to power, even at the expense of truth and reality. This is the same strategy employed by the left in addressing the issue of Iraq. Leftists have ignored the reality of Iraq’s WMDs and have even forgotten their own statements on the matter as they stake out a position contrary to the president. The press ignores the hypocritical nature of these positions, as it would be contrary to their leftist agenda to report such conflicts. Again, USA Today has released yet another poll highlighting the mood of the American people. According to the USA Today poll, 60% of respondents rated the economy as “fair” to “poor.” Such a result boggles the mind and lends credence to one of three possible explanations. The respondents have been thoroughly brainwashed by leftist negativism, the respondents are categorically stupid and have no hope of understanding even the most basic economic concepts or the poll was conducted in a welfare office. Barring those scenarios, there simply is no way on Earth a logical human being could view the American economy as fair or poor without a serious mental defect.

Even the leftist politicians in Congress know the truth, though to admit such would be contrary to their political interests. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been created each month while GDP has grown consistently at over 4%. Indeed, the US economy has far eclipsed every other industrialized economy in the world from Japan, to Germany to Great Britain. Economic growth during the past three years rivals the economic boom of the late 1990s, yet the media and the left portray the economy as languishing in recession. Such a position is inconsistent with facts, yet the administration does nothing to advance that reality, ceding the argument to the left and allowing them to set the debate in the country.

The fact of the matter is, the US economy is performing exceedingly well. Should Americans be concerned because backward companies like GM and Ford continue to falter? Yes, but their ongoing troubles are not indicative of the overall health of the US economy, their difficulties are the results of poor management, high labor costs and a failure to understand their own markets, it does not reflect a general decline in the US economy or even the auto industry, if so, how does one account for the fact that companies like Honda, Toyota and even Chrysler increased their domestic auto sales? The simple reality is, the state of the Union is good, very good indeed, to think otherwise is a reflection of one’s own ignorance, rather than an acknowledgement of reality.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-26-bush-sotu-cover_x.htm
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/gdpchg.xls

It seems the Russians have revived a deal, proposed last year, to enrich uranium in Russia, to supply Iran’s nuclear energy needs. In the past Iran has balked at such a proposal, but now, as opposition to a nuclear Iran intensifies, the nation seems more willing to entertain the notion. The Chinese, who also hold considerable influence on the UN Security Council, have also voiced their support for the proposal, anything to avoid a disruption of oil supplies from Iran. Under this proposal Iran could continue to pursue the development of nuclear power to supply its “energy needs” and the crucial step of enrichment (a major stepping stone toward weapons development) would take place in Russian territory, presumably this step will forestall fears that Iran is enriching uranium to develop nuclear weapons.

On the face of it, the European Union, which has been the chief negotiating power with Iran, has voiced their skepticism over the deal, and rightly so. There is a strongly held belief by US and EU officials that this latest act is nothing more than a delaying tactic on the part of Iran, and perhaps even the Russians as well, who benefit mightily from their many dealings with the Islamic state.

As we have noted on numerous occasions, the Iranian nuclear issue is one of many contradictions and suspicions. Why would a nation with 10% of the world’s known oil reserves need to develop a new source of energy? Why, if their research was for peaceful purposes was it hidden from the world, only to be exposed by Iranian defectors to the west? Why invest billions in nuclear research when it is a lack of capital investment, not cheap electricity that has contributed to Iran’s continued economic stagnation? The Iranians are lying and that lie will be revealed sooner or latter.

The Iranians have warmed to the Russian proposal because their research is incomplete, by agreeing to the Russian terms it is hoped that international pressure will be reduced. The Iranians, correctly postulate that the EU is anxious for an opportunity to back down from their bellicose posturing, just as Prime Minister Chamberlain was anxious to back down at the Munich Conference. The Iranians have no intention of abiding by the Russian proposal; it is simply a smoke screen. The Iranians will continue to process uranium in secret, only to reveal years from now, just as North Korea did, that they have nuclear weapons. When that day comes, as it surely will, the world situation will be altered dramatically. For the first time in history an expansionistic, radical Islamic state will possess the means to destroy the world in the name of Islam. At that point we will have no one to blame but our selves.
http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=262452

Since the 1990s, the Chinese economy has consistently grown at a rate exceeding 9% each year. Most recently, the Chinese economy eclipsed the UK to become the 4th largest economy in the world. The Germany’s economy continuing to falter, its only a matter of time before China surpasses Germany as well, leaving only Japan and the US. Though technically a communist nation, China has thoroughly embraced the concept of the market economy.

Once a supplier of cheap goods and products requiring minimal skill to produce, China is now maneuvering to become a high tech Mecca unto itself, rather than simply a manufacturing center for companies based in the US, Japan and Taiwan. Sadly, China’s economic success can now serve as a model for the west. China is lifting millions out of poverty every year, and that is being accomplished, not through grandiose social welfare projects, which serve only to entrench poverty. China is lifting millions into the middle class by creating a fertile climate for business to prosper. With over 1.2 billion people, China offers vast market potential for western companies seeking to expand. To attract these businesses, the Chinese have offered incentives to encourage foreign direct investment (FDI). This strategy has paid off handsomely.

China’s economic success has had ripple effects around the world, as supplies of petroleum have become scarcer and construction materials have become more expensive. As China has expanded, so too has domestic Chinese industry. Chinese manufacturers like Haier, Lenovo, Geely and Chery are expanding their base at home and know looking to compete in the global market, with major consequence for US, European and Japanese industries.

The Chinese, its seems, have forgotten about democracy and the promise of representative government, as average Chinese flock to the cities in search of a new middle class lifestyle, or have they? By the Chinese government’s own account, there were over 87,000 incidents of local unrest in the past year. China is hemorrhaging as its society undergoes significant growing pains. Market freedoms will inevitably lead to greater social and political freedoms, just as market integration has rendered the threat of conflict with China all the more unlikely. The key to this continued evolution in China is engagement, unlike our flawed policy vis-à-vis Cuba.
http://today.reuters.com/business/newsArticle.aspx?type=ousiv&storyID=2006-01-25T081641Z_01_PEK232222_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESSPRO-ECONOMY-CHINA-DC.XML
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10779158/

It is not uncommon for people, institutions and even nation-states to harbor deep seeded hatred and resentment for the successful, likely attributable to their own personal failures as individuals. For some time now the EU, has been ruthlessly going after Microsoft Corporation on a host of charges stemming from the argument that Microsoft is “abusing its monopoly” in the area of personal computing. The supposition is laughable. Microsoft is NOT a monopoly. A fundamental tenet of economics holds that a monopoly characterizes a market environment in which there is only one source for a good or service, and thus no market competition for the supply of that good or service. This supposition does not apply to the desktop computer market, nor has it ever, since Microsoft entered that arena in the mid-1970s and with the first production of Windows in 1985, Microsoft has always been one of many players in a crowded field. For years users had a plethora of OS choices.

Early computer users had a choice of Unix, CP/M, later OS/2 and of course operating systems by Commodore and Amiga, not to mention the Mac OS. Today those choices continue with Linux, Solaris and the venerable Mac. While it is true that many players in this field have long since retreated, their retreat is can be attributed to their own failures, as Microsoft developed solutions favored by the market. Microsoft should not be punished simply because other companies failed adapt and lost their competitive edge.

To the European Union, such facts are irrelevant, in their mind, Microsoft as the world’s largest software maker, by far, is inherently wrong and must therefore provide a level playing field for its competitors by releasing trade secrets, which will allow those competitors to gain an upper hand. Initially Microsoft sought to fight the move, but under significant threats from European regulators to impose daily fines on the software giant, Microsoft has relented to pressure and will release the source code to its popular Windows operating system. This capitulation is a defeat for the concept of free enterprise and even strikes at the foundation of intellectual property rights.

No company, no matter how liked or reviled, should be compelled to reveal trade secrets in order to boost the position of a competitor. This would no more make sense if the case were Toyota who developed a new fuel injection system that boosted automobile efficiency 100%. Certainly the development of such technology would give Toyota a competitive advantage should the government therefore force Toyota to make this technology open to the public? Of course not, any more than the government should force Grandma to give up her cherished cookie recipe. This is nonsense of the highest caliber.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8FBS0D80.htm?campaign_id=apn_tech_down&chan=tc

To hear a story of a 16-year-old child demanding $100 for beer, one should immediately conjure up images of someone on a direct path toward a maximum-security prison in the not too distant future. Its bad enough that a 16-year-old would be drinking in the first place, but who are we kidding, quite a few teens imbibe on a regular basis, but $100 worth of beer? That’s more like submersion.

As it turns out the story of 16-year-old Kurt Cass is more than a story about underage drinking. Kurt Cass did more than demand $100 for beer; he put a razor blade to the throat of his own grandmother and demanded money, after she refused to finance his binge. After returning home from his beer run, young Kurt found that poor grandma had locked the doors, unfortunately she should have called the police.

Kurt was so enraged by the fact that the door was locked that he kicked the door down and proceeded to bludgeon his grandmother with fists, a 2x4 and a piece of PVC pipe. Fortunately help arrived to end Cass’s rampage. According to police Cass has been charged with aggravated assault, aggravated battery, attempted robbery, and kidnapping. For some reason he was not charged with attempted murder. If someone holds a razor to a person’s neck, they aren’t threatening that person with assault, they are threatening death, to say nothing of beating a grandmother with a 2x4.

This hellion should be prosecuted with the utmost rigor of the law, never again to see the light of day. Cass’s trip to prison is now assured, where he will meet a rare form of animal, just anxious for a new plaything. A fitting end for a portrait of a piece of trash.
http://www.tampabays10.com/weird/weird_article.aspx?storyid=24334

Prior to his election defeat earlier this week, Canada’s Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, attempted to blame the US for increased crime in the US, after all Canada is a bastion for civility, where crime is unheard-of and people never resort to violence as a means of solving disputes, or so we have been lead to believe. As it turns out Canada is no stranger to crime, in fact it seems Canada’s rate of violent crime is twice that of the United States.

While an American must admit without any degree of hesitation that crime in America is appalling and more needs to be done, it would be foolish to argue that crime in America is impacting crime in Canada. In fact, since the 1970s, the FBI has noted a significant decline in violent crime nationwide, during that same period crime in Canada has risen constantly. Paul Martin, however, attributed crime in Canada to lax gun laws and a “culture of violence” in the United States. What the Canadian leader has ignored is the country’s growing gang problem in several large cities including Toronto and Vancouver as well as a seeming aversion to tackle crime and impose harsh penalties for perpetrators.

In fact, according to columnist David Frum, in 2003 (the most recent year for which statistics are available), the violent crime rate in the United States was 475 per 100,000 people compared with 963 in Canada, with similar results for sexual crimes. According to Frum, Canada’s crime has increased as it has adopted more restrictive gun ownership policies, leaving guns in the hands of criminals while removing them from law-abiding citizens.

It’s debatable whether or not gun ownership comes into play one-way or the other. The fact of the matter is in both the US and Canada, culture plays a major role in the prevalence of crime. In many developed and developing countries, some with restrictive gun polices and some without, crime rates are far lower than in the US or Canada. As is usually the case with matters such as this there is no simple answer, but there are simply wrong answers, paramount among them would be blaming America for Canada’s failures.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/24/150547.shtml?s=ic
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

With the Iraqi election results now official, Shiite and Sunni political parties are headed to the negotiating table. Both sides are seeking to forge a coalition government. No party won an outright majority in the Iraqi parliamentary elections, but the Shiites did win a plurality. Because neither the Kurds, the Shiites nor Sunnis won a majority, a coalition government is necessary.

Even before the election results were official, Sunnis protested the results as being fraudulent. Preliminary results had indicated that Sunni aligned parties only won between 19 and 20% of the vote. To the Sunnis, the main backers of Saddam Hussein and the subsequent insurgency, such results were clearly fraudulent because they did not receive an overwhelming majority. The fact of the matter is, however, Sunnis only make up 1/5th of Iraq’s population and thus the results were clearly not fraudulent, as election observers could further attest.

The massive protests, however, were calculated, signaling to Shia and Kurd that if the Sunnis did not receive a significant role in a future Iraqi government there would be ongoing hostilities with the Sunnis. The Shia apparently got the message, as they have bent over backwards to include the Sunnis in power sharing talks, when the Kurds and Shia alone could have forged a coalition to govern Iraq. One of the most volatile points of contention, aside from the murderous rampage of the insurgents is the matter of Iraq’s next Prime Minister. Presumably the Shia may agree to a Sunni leader if the Sunni will agree to stop killing any and everyone who crosses an Iraqi street.

The prospects for Iraqi democracy aren’t promising. The fact that the Sunnis were able to win concessions simply by protesting an obviously legitimate vote, does not foment great trust in representative government, but rather enshrines the mob mentality that the Sunnis have embraced wholeheartedly.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-01-25-iraq_x.htm

Rightist in America are falling all over themselves with joy, after 12 years of Liberal Party rule in Canada, the Conservatives are again in power, though at the helm of a minority government, thus requiring a junior party, such as the Bloc Quebecois or the New Democrats. The Conservatives have gone through a period of significant hemorrhaging over the past decade. The Conservatives briefly split into two factions, the Alliance (previously the Reform Party) and the original Progressive-Conservative Party, only recently reunited to form a solid front against an increasing corrupt Liberal government, first under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and then Paul Martin. Not only have the Liberals labored under a lingering cloud of corruption, but to distract voters from their ongoing failures they have sewn the seeds of anti-Americanism, not unlike their European counterparts, in a pitiful attempt to maintain their hold on power.

For years this strategy worked, during the last election the Liberals rode a tide of anti-American jealousy all the way to another election victory. More recently, the outgoing liberal government of Paul Martin even attempted to blame a rise in gang violence on the US, perhaps this foolish step was too much even for the brainwashed Canadian electorate to take. In yesterday’s election the Canadian electorate, finally dislodged the distraction prone liberal failures. The new Prime Minister designate, Stephen Harper, is cut from a different cloth than outgoing Paul Martin, he is a 46-year-old economist with plans to boost the economy and improve relations with the US.

Dare we say it, but Mr. Harper will most assuredly fail. The Canadian public has been brainwashed for 12 years and as long as Bush is in power, Mr. Harper will be under intense pressure to distance himself from the US, he may even be tempted to blame America from time to time for Canada’s failures. Once a population has become dependent on increasingly leftist policies, like Canada, it becomes extremely difficult to wean them off, witness the fact that today’s’ GOP is just as much the party of big government as the Democrats ever were. We must also realize that while the Conservatives have gained the upper hand in the Canadian parliament, they did not when a majority, only a plurality, which will require a collation partner, probably the New Democrats, the Bloc Quebecois will not join a government so opposed to Quebec succession as the Conservatives.

Nationally, the Conservatives only won 36% of the vote, meaning nearly 2/3 of Canadians do not embrace the conservative agenda of lower taxes and a tough stance on crime. What this means is Canada’s ruling coalition will have a weak platform from which to govern. We give Canada’s new government 2 years before they again fall from power, the lure of socialism has become too great for some Canadians and they will soon maneuver to bring back the liberals, with or without their corruption.
http://www.canada.com/national/features/decisioncanada/index.html

Imagine if the Nuremberg war crimes trials had been conducted in the same manner as the trial of Saddam Hussein, it is very conceivable that high-ranking Nazis like Herman Goring would have gone free. The trial of Saddam Hussein is a joke in every sense of the word. The session today was again cancelled coming only days after the lead judge in the case was replaced.

On the few occasions when the trial does take place, it is nothing more than a grand standing opportunity for Saddam and his henchmen. There is no order in this court; there is no semblance of justice and thus no hope for a fair trial and a meaningful outcome. Such a mockery of justice would never be allowed to happen in even the most kangarooiest of kangaroo courts. This trial was designed, not only to punish Saddam and his architects of death and destruction but also close the door on this dark chapter of Iraqi history, signaling to the Iraqi people that a new era had begun.

Rather than closing a chapter, this trial has long since denigrated into a circus, with Saddam Hussein as the master of ceremonies. With the results being less than favorable to say the absolute least. The people of Iraq, if they haven’t already, will soon develop a contempt at the mere hint of the term “rule of law.” Gone are the days when Iraqis could hope for meaningful reform and closure. This trial has taught the Iraqis that Saddam Hussein still carries power and influence, even while in shackles, perhaps even lending credence to the Islamic insurgency.

Both the Iraqi government officials and the US are to blame for this travesty. By giving Hussein a forum, he is able to position himself as a martyr, Hussein is able to coerce and manipulate his audience. In no criminal trial anywhere in the world would the accused be allowed to carry on as Hussein has. At this point the authorities might as well let Saddam go and give him his standard villa in the South of France, which is traditional fare for ousted dictators.
http://www.forbes.com/business/manufacturing/feeds/ap/2006/01/24/ap2471289.html

According to Welsh busybody, Cliff Arnall, a health psychologist at the University of Cardiff, today is the worse day of the year. By Dr. Arnall’s calculations during the month of January people are brought down by the weather and the fact that they have accumulated massive debts during the holidays. He also argues that by this point people are beginning to break their New Year’s resolutions and thus feel like failures. Such factors come to a head by January 23rd and thus today has been deemed the worse day of the year.

In a sense Arnall is right, those irresponsible wretches racking up huge bills that they can’t afford, should feel bad, those people who break their resolutions are failures. Does that make today any worse? No! These people are universal failures regardless of the day.
According to Arnall this is a time when people have little to look forward to. How about breathing, how about family and about faith, how about 2nd chances, which each and every day represents? Those that have nothing to look forward to, it can be safe to say, have probably made nothing of their lives and thus January 23rd is probably no different than July 23rd or October 23rd.

Arnall has devised an intricate formula, presumably designed to ensure his tenure at the University of Cardiff.

W+ (D-d) x TQ
———————————
M x NA

The variables involved in this ridiculously meaningless equation are the breaking resolutions or (Q)uiting a bad habit, lack of (M)otivation and (NA), the need to take action, whatever that means.

The University of Cardiff must be truly proud of this braggart for devising perhaps one of the most meaningless pieces of scientific drivel as yet created by man. Anyone who allows their mood to be dictated by factors such as the weather isn’t much of a person in the first place. Life is what you make of it. Perhaps Dr. Arnall’s formula holds some validity when evaluating the lives of certifiable failures, but those who make responsible decisions in life and strive to achieve should have no problem dealing with today or any day, short of a real personal tragedy, which consists of more than a credit card bill or a rainy day.
http://news.scotsman.com/features.cfm?id=108812006

A number of our readers disagreed with our position on Terry Schiavo during the height of that controversy last year, but in our disagreement there is one subject upon which we can all agree. Every adult should have a living will, every adult should clearly outline their wishes in the event that they are incapacitated and appoint and executor to ensure that those wishes are carried out. In the case of Terry Schiavo, no such action was taken, leading to a bitter and ongoing struggle between Terry’s “husband” and her parents.

Terry’s husband, Michael Schiavo married his long time lover this weekend. Schiavo had long claimed that his wife was in a persistent vegetative state, with no hope of recovery, a position later supported by an autopsy. Her parents, however, argued that there remained the possibility that she could survive with continuous advances in medical technology, something that was equally possible. The reality is Michael Schiavo should never have been regarded by the state as an appropriate spokesman for Terry’s wishes. Why? After all, he was her husband? Yes he was her husband, but how many wives would won’t an adulterous husband who was living with another woman, by whom he had two kids, to speak on their behalf?

Terry Schiavo’s condition is irrelevant to the fact that her husband’s life after the incapacitation of Terry rendered his impartiality questionable at best, which calls in to question his true motivations. Michael Schiavo, who had once committed himself to maintaining Terry’s life, even pursuing radical treatments to further that objective, changed his position after winning a medical malpractice suit, which included funds to maintain Terry’s life. After that suit, Schiavo soon began a relationship with another woman, only then did he “remember” his wife never wanted to be kept alive artificially, how convenient.

Critics, mostly on the left and fellow libertarians have argued that the government should never have become involved in such a matter. Under normal circumstances this would be an accurate assessment, but in the case of Terry Schiavo such a position is flawed. As stated, Michael Schiavo had a conflict of interest. No one would question the involvement of the state when a child were neglected or abused, in such cases the court would appoint an impartial third part to represent the interest of the child, Terry Schiavo deserved the same. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-22-schiavo-remarries_x.htm

In a recent NBA game in Chicago, Antonio Davis of the New York Knicks, stormed into the stands, when, by his account, his wife was threatened by a fan. For his antics, Davis was suspended for 5 games. Meanwhile the fan that supposedly threatened Kendra Davis has charged that it was he who was threatened by Ms. Davis and he further refutes claims that he was drunk.

Now the fan, Michael Axelrod, is planning to sue Davis and his wife for “slander and battery” for the ripe sum of $1million. According to Axelrod a verbal altercation between he and Ms. Davis ensued after she grew enraged at Axelrod’s booing during the game. Later Antonio Davis rushed into the stand, before being taken back to the court by a referee. “Fans nearby began yelling at the woman to sit down and she went into the row of seats to confront another fan…I started trying to wave more security down, then I turned around and Antonio Davis was standing right there," Axelrod said. Anyone notice anything peculiar about Mr. Axelrod’s account of the incident? Exactly when did the battery take place? Or for that matter, the slander?

Are we to believe that a verbal argument at a basketball game rises to the level of defamation of character? And doesn’t battery require actual contact? By Axelrod’s own account the confrontation was verbal, perhaps if one flails their arms in the air such an act constitutes battery and slander. Once again another baseless suit motivated solely by opportunistic reasons. This fan is no more entitled to $1 million dollars than the readers of this article. In fact he’s not even entitled to a free ticket, at the most he should receive a small box of popcorn for his troubles and perhaps a the help wanted ads so he may find gainful employment rather than resorting to litigious extortion.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2006-01-19-fan-davis_x.htm

Earlier this week, New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin noted that his city would again be a chocolate city, so all you of the vanilla or caramel persuasion, it would be advised to head north. After much fallout, however, mayor Nagin apologized, not once but twice, saying all were welcome in New Orleans.

Mayor Nagin’s concern for the racial makeup of New Orleans, which by most accounts wasn’t much of a city in the first place, is purely political. Nagin is concerned about his reelection prospect. Before Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans was over 60% black. Today that figure has changed significantly, Nagin, is desperate for as many of the city’s poor and minorities to return as quickly as possible, thereby boosting his reelection prospects. This represents the simplest strategy to achieve his political ends. More complicated, however, would be to call for a re-birth of New Orleans, a city radically different from its past, a city of economic and social revival. This strategy would be far more challenging for Nagin, which is why he has opted for the former.

Rather that concerning himself with the racial makeup of the Big Easy, Nagin should be concerned with the work ethic of those who return. By every account, New Orleans had one of the largest collections of drags on society anywhere in the developed world. New Orleans, while being a tourist Mecca, was also one of the nation’s poorest cities. This was largely attributed to the culture and work ethic of its inhabitants. Their race is (and should be) of no consequence. History shows that deadbeats come in all shapes and colors. Minimum wage, minimum skilled, minimum motivation is not the path toward New Orleans’ resurrection.

Indeed, Nagin and other state officials should be calling for hard workers, the educated and the productive to come to New Orleans. Aside from the Central Business District and various tourists sectors of the city, New Orleans mirrored a third world encampment rather than a modern American city. If New Orleans is to be reborn then the deadbeats and the unproductive dead weight that was Pre-Katrina should never return. Perhaps then New Orleans can be a city to marvel and a city of prosperity, rather than a city of degradation, sloth, corruption and incompetence.
http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/world/national/2006/01/18/neworleans-mayor060118.html

In a move that comes as no surprise, Syria, an unofficial member of the axis of evil, has wholeheartedly endorsed Iran’s efforts to develop “peaceful” nuclear technology. Syrian President (and dictator) Bashar Assad, still licking his wounds after being chased from Lebanon is looking to Iran to bolster its own position in the Middle East. Syria, like Iran is also facing the threat of UN sanctions for its complicity in the assasination of former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafic Hariri. Assad is a long time supporter of Iran and Iran’s new fire eating president recently paid a visit to his fellow terror state.

Syria, like Iran contends that as a sovereign state it is Iran’s right to pursue the development of nuclear technology, something that is allowed under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Technically, Assad is correct and some outside observers would question the calls of the US and the EU to halt Iran’s nuclear program. If it were any other country, with a few exceptions, Assad’s argument would be legitimate. But in the case of Iran the issue is not as benign as the mullahs of Tehran would have us believe. Iran is an avowed an admitted sponsor of terror. Iran’s aggressive actions and desire to destroy Israel are widely acknowledged. Iran simply cannot be trusted with nuclear power.

Unlike conventional weapons, thereby we could wait for Iran to act before retaliating; nuclear weapons are far more devastating with far greater long-term consequences. America and the world cannot afford to wait idly by as Iran emerges as a nuclear power. Indeed, Iran is far more dangerous than North Korea, who by most accounts is quite content to oppress and starve its own people. North Korea, unlike Iran, does not represent an entity bent on world conquest; Iran does and has said as much, noting that Islam is destined to rule the world.

Given such realities, a hard line must be maintained vis-à-vis Iran. America, cannot act alone, on this matter, not only because it would impose a logistical nightmare for the US but also because if America acts alone it will serve only to bolster Iran’s position in the world, America, however, cannot rely solely on the Europeans to take the lead on this matter. Europe’s poor negotiating stance and its flirtation with appeasement served only to embolden Iran as much as Russian technology served to equip Iran.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=84540e4b-0f89-4cb8-935b-aa236d8fdabb&k=22990

What is going on in France these days? Recently the French government has been uncharacteristically bellicose with regard to the Iranian crisis. Calling an end to diplomatic negotiations with Iran and calling for tough action to confront the Iranian threat (though the tough action they propose is still rather timid), now the French are threatening to use nuclear weapons? Earlier today, the French government made it clear in no uncertain terms that France stood ready to respond to any terrorist attack with the use of nuclear weapons.

What has happened in France is the realization that years of appeasement and turn style immigration has left the French state extremely vulnerable. That vulnerability was made evident with the devastating riots that occurred last fall, largely at the hands of Islamic immigrants. Now witness the danger that is Iran. The country is developing ICBMs capable of targeting Europe, they have announced their desire to “wipe Israel off the map” and now they are moving ahead with a clandestine Nuclear weapons program. These events surely have the French welfare state in utter panic. France clearly realizes that if Iran becomes a nuclear power, its only a question of time before Islamic radicals around the world begin threatening the use of nuclear weapons.

Jacques Chirac, who took it upon himself to make this dire pledge, noted that “Against a regional power, our choice would not be between inaction or annihilation.” In the present state of geopolitics, however, annihilation is a very real danger for all of us, if terrorists gain access to nuclear weapons. For this very reason Iran’s flirtation with nuclear power is extremely disconcerting. Perhaps France has awoken from its slumber. In reality, however, it will take more than UN sanctions to change the minds of the mullahs in Tehran, there must be a genuine belief that Iran itself is in danger and even then there is no certainty that these radicals will pursue a rational course of action, lest we forget their credo: submit, convert or die.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/e805e2d4-88e6-11da-94a6-0000779e2340.html

As if the constant maneuvering by the GOP to impose religious standards weren’t enough, now the Democrats are stepping into the picture. State Democratic leaders in the Georgia General Assembly have proposed legislation, which would authorize the creation of elective courses that would teach the bible in a historical context.

The Democratic sponsors of the bill contend that there is an educational need for these courses, as it will enable students to better understand Shakespeare or the foundations of our democratic government. Is this for real? This is nothing more than a poorly veiled attempt to reintroduce religious education in schools, not unlike the ongoing strategy of the creationists?

Above all, the Democrats argue that this course is not about teaching faith in schools, and they are right, its about pandering to religious conservatives who can’t get it through their heads that public schools are not the place for religious instruction. The Democrats should be commended for taking a page from the GOP playbook, however. James Carville would surely be proud.

Any course that teaches the bible in a public school environment is a state endorsement of religion, no matter how its supporters may define it. If parents are so interested in imparting a Christ centered education for their children why not enroll their children in a private Christian school rather than calling upon the state to assume that responsibility? That’s what responsible parents do.

In this case the left is simply pandering for the votes of traditionally Republican voters in an increasingly Republican state. If successful, look for more such strategies throughout Red States across this country.
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/stories/0119legbible.html

Some of us believe that debate and political discussion is healthy in a representative form of government. In Venezuela, however, there is one subject that is beyond debate or discussion and that subject is the country’s leader, Hugo Chavez. Apparently to criticize the Mussolini of Latin America is to destabilize the country, or so Chavez would have us believe. That certainly sounds like “democracy” to me.

During Mass in the city of Barquisimeto, Cardinal Rosario Castillo, rightly criticized the Venezuelan president for eroding democratic freedom in the country. Castillo warned that Venezuela had “lost its democratic path” and was headed toward dictatorship. Naturally, the Cardinal was correct and nowhere is that more evident than in Chavez’s response. "This is part of a provocation, part of a conspiracy, there is nothing innocent about this. It is a plot to destabilize the country," Chavez noted during his weekly television and radio show. This is the archetypical rote response given by Chavez and his cronies when he is criticized. Chavez attempts to sidestep the issue, by putting his critics on the defensive accusing them of imagined conspiracies and efforts to remove him from power.

In reality Chavez is succeeding only in solidifying his hold on power, while his empty promises go unfullfilled. Recently a conference of bishops in the country, challenged Chavez’s assertion that his “revolution” was benefiting the poor, something we at the Phalanx have said all along. Indeed, under Chavez, the poor have faired even worse, but Chavez’s master skill in the art of distraction has shielded this reality from public view, the fact that Chavez practically controls the media certainly aides that cause.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/01/15/chavez.church.reut/

China is the largest country in the world. It’s economy has surpassed France as the fifth largest and before long, China will eclipse even the United States. China is spending billions on science and technology and because of the vastness of its market; foreign investors have flocked to do business in the country, lifting millions of Chinese out of poverty every month. The Chinese government is selling advanced weapons systems to rogue nations and dictators in every corner of the globe.

Now the Chinese are seeking to expand their influence on a global scale. China’s government has sought to promote trade and finance deals around the world from Africa to Latin America and throughout the Asia Pacific region. As a result of China’s efforts, the authoritarian behemoth is seen as benign, while the US is seen as a global threat. Why?

Chinese leaders have no interest in encouraging democracy or spreading freedom around the world. Indeed, it would be counterproductive for the Chinese to advance the concept of representative government as it would threaten the stranglehold China’s leaders have. They are interested solely in financial prosperity. So far this strategy has proven successful and through a combination of political ruthlessness and economic liberalization the communist government continues to distract the Chinese people from the fact that they lack even basic freedoms of speech, religion, press, etc…While China continues to invest in business, industry and infrastructure throughout the developing world, its influence continues to grow, in some cases at the expense of the United States.

The US, however, isn’t the only country to take notice. India, another rapidly expanding nation, has looked on China with envious eyes as China secures one trade deal after another. Through expanded trade, nations like China gain access to a wealth of resources to fuel its ever-expanding economy, which threaten America’s dependence on same resources. Its time America takes notice, before another set of tyrants, this time in Beijing begin dictating terms to the US.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4619956.stm

With growing concern over Iran’s nuclear program, there is an increasing fear that a showdown between Iran and the west could lead to a significant energy crisis. Iran has even hinted at using its vast oil wealth to retaliate against the west if sanctions are imposed.

Now Guy Caruso, head of the U.S. Energy Information Administration, has warned of skyrocketing petroleum prices. According to Caruso, the world cannot afford to loose access to Iran’s petroleum reserves. The mullahs of Tehran are keenly aware of this fact and for this reason they have a clear advantage in on again, off again negotiations with the EU3.

The Iranians are negotiating from a vantage point of strength and they are aided by the fact that two of their largest benefactors, China and Russia, are adamantly opposed to sanctions or any serious threats to Iran. Once again we see the err of our ways as the US and the west in general, have failed to plan for the future.

The US lacks a reliable alternative to petroleum and as a result, every tin pan dictator with more than a few barrels of crude to their credit can dictate to us the new world order or shift the global balance of power. Witness Hugo Chavez in Latin America. Until we embrace alternatives and provide incentives for businesses to innovate in this sector, the US will continue to find itself in such a position.
Link to Reuters article

Don’t let anyone tell you that the GOP is not in the hip pocket of wealthy developers. Last year the GOP proposed legislation in the Georgia legislature that would have given developers carte blanche to seize land through eminent domain, not for the purpose of public works projects such as bridges, roads and schools, but for private development projects. After much outcry across the state, the GOP tabled the idea. Then came the controversy Supreme Court ruling last summer, which gave local communities the authority to seize land under the auspices of eminent domain and turn it over to private developers.

According to the Supreme Court, boosting tax revenue could be considered a “public use” insofar as it relates to the subject of eminent domain. After that decision was handed down, local communities and states around the country pledged to enact legislation to circumvent the ruling, thus protecting the property rights of citizens across the country. Not everyone, it seems, got the memo. GOP legislators have sponsored a bill that bears a resemblance to the same bill they tried to push through last year. Once again the provision was buried in the bill, but its intent is crystal clear. The fact that the GOP would try to push through this blatant anti-American piece of legislation highlights their questionable loyalties.

Property rights are one of the fundamental hallmarks of our American society. Even in communist China the government is taking steps to secure the property rights of citizens, while our own government is underhandedly trying to steal that property. Once the fit hit the shan, the GOP went out of their way to assure the public that language in the bill authorizing land condemnation was a mistake. The only mistake, however, was in giving the GOP control of both houses of the state legislature. If these corrupt politicians can’t recognize that their paramount duty is to protect the rights of citizens and uphold the constitution then it is time that they be shown the door. Corporations and developers do not elect representatives to government, citizens, however, do and hopefully those citizens will take the appropriate steps next fall to correct this oversight.
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/0105edeminent.html
http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=74703

The Martin Luther King holiday is a time for reflection on the struggles of our civil rights era past, but sadly it is also a time for race baiting politicians to score political points and this year is no exception. New York Senator, Hillary Clinton used the backdrop of the King holiday to attack the Bush administration as one of the worst in history. The senator also likened the US House of Representatives to a “plantation” which squelches opposing views. “We have a culture of corruption, we have cronyism, we have incompetence,” Clinton noted in a speech to a mostly black audience in New York. The one truth about politicians is the fact that without exception, most are hypocrites at heart. The fact that any person with the name Clinton can stand up in public and decry corruption is laughable. Furthermore, for a Democrat to complain that dissent is not tolerated is equally hilarious. No Political Party in history has done more to undermine political debate and discussion, castigating their opponents as evil and deriding those with differences of opinion. Even members of their own party, who don’t tow the party line, are left out in the political wilderness.

Clinton went on to laud Democrats for most, if not all, of the progress made in this country regarding civil rights. In a sense Clinton is correct, Civil Rights era legislation would not be possible with out the leadership of key Democrats, but such legislation would not be law today without the efforts of the GOP, who voted in overwhelming numbers in favor of both the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act, something Democrats cannot claim, in fact only 63% of Democrats in the House voted in support of the Civil Rights act, compared with roughly 80% of Republicans.

Since the 1960s, however, no party has done more to undermine people long oppressed by Jim Crow and segregationist policies. The Left has promoted one program after another that serve only to foment a culture of dependency. They have discouraged entrepreneurship, limited choice and opportunity for education and discouraged hard work and resourcefulness through mindless welfare projects, which promote idleness. Indeed, it is the modern Democratic Party that has wholeheartedly embraced the plantation concept. Not only have they dismissed those whose views contrast with their own, but they have fully embraced a paternalistic mentality, not unlike the planters of yore.

Generations ago, slave owners maintained that the slave system was beneficial, that slave owners were in a better position to care for the slaves than the slaves could themselves and thus in a better position to make decisions on behalf of the slaves. This too is the paternalistic covertly racist attitude of the Democrats, who contend that the state, and by extension the left, is best suited to make decisions on our behalf as they “know best.” Sadly, many prominent Black politicians embrace this Democratic position. Are they brainwashed? Perhaps, some however, like the house slaves of that bygone era seek only to reside in the big house and eat the master’s scraps; in return they must surrender their independent thoughts.

Not only are Democratic policies insulting and detrimental to minorities and the poor, but when is the last time you saw a minority in a leadership position within the Democratic Party? One need only ask Party Chairman, Howard Dean how many Blacks he has on staff. No he’s too busy courting those voters with “Confederate Flags” remember? And what of Mr. Elitist himself, John Kerry? Even Bill Clinton did less to promote minorities through the ranks than the current President Bush, yet we are to believe that minority rights are of paramount concern to Democrats. And yet the Dems argue that it is the left that is intolerant, just ask Michael Steele of Maryland which party is more open to dissent. Michael Steele, who is black, is the GOP candidate for US Senate and has become a frequent target by Dems even have even resorted to racially tinged attacks, why? Because they are just so tolerant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/nyregion/17speech.html

Last week we brought you the story of Jessica Bradley, an Atlanta teen who was asked to leave Covenant Christian Academy after the school administration learned of an inappropriate sexual relationship. Last week we noted that Jessica had been expelled, in reality, it seems young Jessica was simply asked to withdraw. Not that there is much difference.

In response to the school’s actions Jessica’s father filed a $1million suit against the school for invasion of privacy and breach of contract. Jessica’s father argued the child was asked to leave because of a same-sex kiss at a slumber party, the school, however, contends it was more than a kiss, arguing that Jessica admitted to a sexual relationship with a fellow student, who was also asked to leave the school. In the Bradley’s suit, the family argued that the student guidelines are vague and unenforceable. This argument is certainly debatably. According to the handbook, “any behavior, on campus or away which indicates that a student has disregard for the spirit of the school standards, would be sufficient reason to ask for him/her to withdraw from Covenant Christian Academy.”

While it is unclear what denomination Covenant Christian belongs to, there is no Christian denomination that condones of sexual activity for a 14 year old girl. The Bradley’s claim of vagueness is ludicrous. The Bradley’s have since moved to Pennsylvania, where their quest for a sexually provocative Christian school is likely to go unfulfilled. We at the Phalanx will keep our loyal readers updated on the progress of this most frivolous of lawsuits.
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/0117metexpel.html

In a move that should come as no surprise, the tyrannical regimes of Russia and China have made it known that they oppose taking a hard-line regarding Iran and its nuclear program. Russian President Putin is opposed to the use of sanctions as a means of coercing Iran and even opposed to taking the matter before the UN Security Council. While we at the Phalanx have been arguing for some time that neither sanctions nor the UN can or will do anything to restrain Iran, Russia’s Putin is motivated by other factors, namely money. Let us not forget that Russia is primarily to blame for this crisis in the first place. They have sold Iran nuclear technology as well as advanced weapons systems. Russia and China are favorite suppliers of tyrannical, despotic, authoritarian regimes around the world.

If sanctions were imposed on Iran, it would interfere with Russia and China’s ability to sell weapons and technology to the mullahs of Tehran. For this reason, Russia has called for a measured approach. Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov even went so far as to argue that sanctions had done nothing to retrain the actions of Saddam Hussein and would therefore have no affect on Iran, something we have been arguing for sometime now. Though Russia at the start of the Iraq war was fully in favor of the sanctions regime. So have the Russians been convicted by an overwhelming desire to help the poor of Iran? Not likely, considering the way they treat their own people.

Recently, China argued that referring Iran to the Security Council would only make matters worse, now both Russia and China argue for alternatives. With the Sino-Russian coalition adamantly opposed to UN action, one would assume they would propose alternatives, especially in light of the fact that they are the cause of this crisis. One, however, would be wrong, rather than offering alternatives to break the impasse with Iran both the tyrants of Beijing and the tyrants of Moscow have simply argued for patience. What exactly does that mean? Should the world wait patiently while Iran develops nuclear weapons only to supply them to every terrorist from here to Timbuktu?

In reality both Russia and China have a vested interest in protecting Iran, just as they did with Iraq. The European Union on the other hand stands to loose either way, Iran is a major European oil supplier, but they would also be the prime targets of a nuclear Iran. The Europeans also lack the fortitude for a showdown with the Iranians, leaving only the US. America, however, is in no position to move on Iran. The left who once championed action against Iraq, would turn on Bush, just as they did with Iraq, even though they now call for a swift response to Iran. Indeed, the leftist propaganda machine in this country would act quickly to destroy any chance of acting resolutely with regard to Iran. If by some remote chance, however, the US or Europe does take action, we can rest assured that terrorism around the world will increase 100 fold. Making Iraq seem like a picnic, lest we forget who is the architect of modern terrorism in the world.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/17/iran.nuclear/index.html

Anyone with a semblance of intelligence is clearly aware of the situation involving Iran and its nuclear program. Those who aren’t aware of this situation are too busy obsessing over Brad Pit and Angelina Jolie or watching the umpteenth football game and such.

Faced with the prospect of being referred to the United Nations Security Council, a meaningless gesture that will do nothing to solve the Iranian problem, Iran has taken a defiant stand. Again the Iranians have asserted that they have a right to nuclear power and reaffirmed that they are not developing nuclear weapons, which sheer nonsense. To make matters even worse, the Iranians are threatening consequences if sanctions are imposed. Most recently, the Iranians have played the most potent hand they have: oil.

The Iranians have argued that if sanctions are imposed oil prices will skyrocket. Iran is one of the world’s top five oil producers and as such they must be taken at their word. Or should they? Iran, with an economy highly dependent on oil and high levels of unemployment, cannot afford to cut off its primary resource to international trade. The situation with Iran is quite volatile and in reality any sanctions that may or may not be imposed on Iran will have absolutely no affect whatsoever. There is no historical evidence that sanctions have ever achieved their desired goal.

If sanctions are imposed, it will only harm the Iranian poor, solidifying the hard-line position of Iran’s leadership and serving as a rallying point to stir nationalistic passions. Iran knows that the EU and even the US are unlikely to use force and therefore, they can take a defiant tone. Iran unlike, Libya a few years earlier, does not fear invasion, the lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan have been lost, thanks to leftists who have rallied against those actions, eliminating their effectiveness as deterrents. What Iran understands is strength and at present only Iran is exhibiting such strength. In fact the only concern is Israel and they simply lack the resources to completely destroy Iran’s WMD resources.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,16518,1687381,00.html

Politicians on both the left and the right frequently foment and create controversy, creating an issue by which they can offer themselves up as a savior. Venezuela’s Mussolini (i.e., Hugo Chavez) is one such example. Closer to home, however, Democrats and Republicans use this strategy as a means to drum up support for their faltering images. Issues like abortion and immigration are such examples. Another such example is the State of Georgia’s election law reforms.

Last year the state legislature passed a law requiring a valid photo id before any resident could vote in an election. Almost immediately, “advocates” for the poor and civil rights leaders claimed the measure would serve only to suppress the votes of minorities and the lower class. A charge we at the Phalanx dismissed as much a do about nothing. Nonetheless, opponents sued and won an injunction from a federal judge who argued that requiring people to pay for this ID was tantamount to a poll tax, in spite of the governor’s assurances that the poor could receive IDs at not cost. We can begrudgingly accept the judge’s reasoning. This year the legislature sought to correct that oversight, authorizing funds to provide IDs for low-income voters, when they register to vote. Even this, however, has been met with opposition from the same chorus of leftist “advocates” They claim the legislation will suppress votes and is a slap in the face to the poor and minorities.

Are we missing something? Exactly how is it that a FREE voter ID infringing upon the rights of the poor and furthermore what does a voter ID have to do with race or ethnicity? Absolutely nothing. Most advanced industrialized countries require photo ID in order to vote, even in Iraq. In these countries there is no mention that such a practice is overtly racist for the simple fact that the rule is applied equally to all citizens, just as in the Georgia case. Regardless of this, several prominent local civil rights leaders have shouted the charge of racism and have sought increasing media attention, the real objective of this fight. Yesterday at the state capitol in Atlanta, officials were present to honor Martin Luther King for his birthday celebration, noticeably absent was King confidant and Congressman, John Lewis. The consistently inarticulate Lewis argued it was hypocritical to honor King in the same building with the same people who passed the voter ID revision and therefore he couldn’t in good conscience participate.

Never before have so many seemingly intelligent people taken to a cause for which there is no legitimate grievance. This is simply a non-issue to garner media attention and to advance the premise that the Democrats fight for minorities and the poor. The left is hoping that its constituency will be swayed by the media attention rather than peruse the facts of the matter. It’s a clever strategy in a state that has become increasingly difficult for Democrats to win support, but such a strategy also reveals the desperation of the left.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5542132,00.html
http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=74535

We at the Phalanx will not be able to publish an assortment of gripes this Friday, but we would like to leave you with the following thoughts to ponder this morning: The US and EU are now preparing to refer Iran to the UN Security Council. Quite simply this will have absolutely no affect on Iran’s nuclear activities. If anything it may hasten them. At no point in the history of modern man has sanctions EVER succeeded in persuading an enemy to curtail an undesired action. It did not work against fascism in the 30s or communist revolutions in the 50s and 60s or Islamic tyrants thereafter. It will not work here. Libya, for example did not reform its ways because 20 years of sanctions was just the right amount of force. Libya reformed out of fear that the US and its allies might use force on the wayward nation. Iran has no such fear and is thus inclined to pursue its nuclear ambitions. Even if Iran were of the belief that the US might use, force, witness Iraq and the mockery the left has made of that overture. A nuclear Iran is a foregone conclusion…depend upon it.

George Gillespie, an Ohio man is suing AOL and fellow internet chat room buddies for harassment. He is suing for the tidy sum of $25,000. What can we say of this. Sadly, our court system allows such frivolity to prevail on numerous occasions. A loser pays legal system would ensure that such opportunists are kept at bay. Who knew that insults online were so costly?

Angelina Jolie and Brad Pit are having a baby. If you in any way care about this news you are most certainly lost and reading the wrong web site. Those who care about such news represent all that is in decline in America. Those who are more interested in fluff and pop culture than substance are one of the fundamental causes of America’s slide from preeminence. But go ahead and obsess over the news, after all someone has to work fast food, we’ll get our scientists, doctors, businessmen and engineers from some place else.

What is to be the result of high taxes, restrictive employment polices, burdensome social welfare projects and reduced economic incentives for businesses? In a word: stagnation. Several of Europe’s leading economies are experiencing this reality first had as they continue to stagnate in the fall out from years of socialist policies, which continue to take their toll across Europe.

According to recent figures, Germany’s economy, barely growing as it is, experienced a slowdown in 2005. The German economy grew by less than 1% last year, down from 1.4% during the previous year (Compared with over 4% for the US economy). After eight years of leftist leadership under Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, the Germans should be thankful their economy is not in recession. Nonetheless, economic growth shows no signs of recovery in early 2006, unemployment remains high, over 10%, and business expansion is nonexistent. One would hope that under the conservative leadership of Angela Merkel, Germany’s fortunes would improve, but given the fact that she leads a fragile left-right coalition government, such hopes may prove fleeting.

Germany, however is not alone, both France, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands are reeling from ongoing economic stagnation, some nations, like France also must confront continued social decay as symbolized by last year’s riots. Until these countries move to create favorable environments for business and encourage individual entrepreneurship, while also lifting leftist policies that restrict firing of inefficient and incompetent workers, one can expect Europe’s stagnation to continue.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4604986.stm

So how much influence does Hugo Chavez have over America. Today, US Today posed that very question in an exploration of the country's oil influence. Chavez, an avowed, anti-American socialist revolutionary, has frequently threatened to cut off Venezuelan oil to the United States in the event of a showdown with that country. Venezuela is one of the largest oil exporters and a principle source of oil for the US. In reality these conflicts between the US and Venezuela are mostly a figment of Chavez’s imagination. Nonetheless, the stranglehold Chavez has over our economy is very much real, not imagined.

The Venezuelan state-owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela S.A., and by extension President Chavez, owns Citgo, one of America’s largest refiners of petroleum. As USA Today pointed out, the significant spike in gas prices after Hurricane Katrina, demonstrates the comparative weakness of the US economy, when only a fraction of our refining capacity is threatened. Citgo, on the other hand, controls 6% of US refining capacity. With a company like Citgo, whose leadership is openly hostile to the United States, the company could very conceivably be used as a weapon against America, a weapon to which the US would be extremely vulnerable.

Its debatable whether or not Chavez would use such a weapon, after all, revenues from gas sales are what keep Chavez and his political supporters in power, Chavez therefore is unlikely to threaten such a gravy train, but the possibility does exist. This precarious relationship also highlights the increasingly untenable position of the US with regard to our energy policy, or lack thereof. Sadly both political parties continue to bury their head in the sand. Republicans insist only in drilling for oil domestically. While drilling for oil, would certainly help to relieve some dependence on foreign oil, it would not eliminate that dependence and it would only serve as a stopgap measure. America’s insatiable need for energy requires a more radical approach. While the GOP stays true to their call for increased domestic drilling, the Democrats offer no solutions at all, only to oppose Republican proposals, which symbolizes their self-destructive policies.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2006-01-11-citgo-cover-usat_x.htm

Not all nations are twiddling their thumbs while Iran inches ever closer to full nuclear capability. While the EU3 condemn Iran’s latest moves to resume nuclear research and the White House vows to keep “talking,” reports from Israel indicate that the Jewish state is seeking more drastic alternatives. While prime Minister Ariel Sharon may be incapacitated, the Israeli government continues to move ahead with plans for a strike on Iran.

The Israelis are well aware that they cannot stop the Iranian program outright. The Iranians learned their lesson from Osirak raid in 1981 and have dispersed research facilities across the country and even under ground. The best the Israelis can hope for is to delay the inevitable and inevitable it most certainly is. The Israeli strike would be filled with danger. The Israelis lack stealth technology and would be forced to rely on long range bombers like the F-15, such planes would be easy targets for Iran’s anti-aircraft batteries. Indeed, Iran recently made a deal with Russia to upgrade its anti-aircraft technology; no doubt, this deal has hastened Israel’s plans to move ahead before such weaponry is in place, as it would make a successful raid much less likely.

The Israelis are in a race against time that has been prompted by the complete and total failure of the EU3 (and to a lesser extent, the Bush Administration), who have done nothing of substance to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The EU3 have offered Iran concessions, which have amounted to nothing more than favorable trade deals, but have taken no real steps to back up their word’s with actions. Sensing the empty threats and fears of meaningless sanctions, the Iranians, in a fashion reminiscent of Adolf Hitler, have not hesitated to continue their nuclear weapons plans. Those plans have been advanced by super-power hopefuls Russia and China who will stop at nothing to undermine the West, even at the expense of long-term global security. The Russians in particular, while condemning Iran’s nuclear actions through diplomatic channels, have been chiefly responsible for the current impasse.

Russia, however, will not have long to wait when the chickens come home to roost. Russia has seen its fair share of Islamic terrorism and we can be certain that once Iran proliferates nuclear technology throughout the radical Islamic world, the weapons used against Russians will bear their mark. It is therefore understandable that Israel’s thoughts have turned to preemption, as they did during the 1967 war. Israel, knows it cannot depend on anyone and since they would be the first target of a nuclear Iran, they rightly figure that they have nothing to loose. Unfortunately, for the rest of us a strike on Iran, be it now or later, will almost certainly lead to a wider war in the Middle East, perhaps the final war of Islamic conquest that radical Islam has been hoping for.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/53948.html

First there was the case of the Hindu family who sent their children to a private Catholic school, later expressing outrage that a theology class counted towards the child’s GPA, now we have the case of Jessica Bradley, a 9th grade student expelled from Covenant Christian Academy in the Atlanta suburb of Loganville. Her offense? Apparently young Jessica was engaged in a kissing tryst with other female students at a slumber party. Minor perhaps, but not to officials at Covenant Christian, who promptly expelled Jessica for what the schooled deemed to be inappropriate behavior.

As the school pointed, out students are bound to observe guidelines set forth in the school handbook, which state that "any behavior, on campus or away which indicates that a student has disregard for the spirit of the school standards, would be sufficient reason to ask for him/her to withdraw from Covenant Christian Academy." Jessica’s father, however, disagreed, arguing the standards were “vague” and “unenforceable.” Now the Bradleys are suing the school for the ridiculous sum of $1 million. They claim breach of contract and further argue Jessica’s rights were violated. If ever there were a frivolous lawsuit, this would be it.

While Jessica certainly may have the right to engage in any manor of sexual behavior she desires, a private school is not bound to admit students who don’t uphold the standards they are trying to impart. The school was very much within its rights to expel young Jessica. If the family found the guidelines vague or confusing, they would have been well advised to clear up any discrepancies before their child was admitted. Christian schools exist for those parents who are interested in maintaining certain values and moral standards for their children in a Christian setting. If parents disagree with that view they should find an institution that best suits their needs and values. Clearly, the values of the Bradley’s were not in sync with Covenant Christian Academy.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Covenant Christian Academy overstepped its authority in dismissing Jessica Bradley, which it most certainly did not, how is it that the Bradley’s arrived at the sum of $1 million? Certainly that doesn’t come from lost tuition and fees. According to Covenant Christian’s web site, tuition for 9th grader Jessica Bradley would have totaled $4,575 plus $907 for books and fees per year. Jessica received an education up to the point that she was expelled, at the most she may have been out of school 2-3 weeks, the time it would take to locate a new private school or register for public school. If Covenant was indeed in error for dismissing Ms. Bradley, the very most she would be entitled to is $411.15 (the prorated amount for 3 weeks of schooling at Covenant Christian), anything more would be excessive beyond reason.

As we have stated the school was certainly within its rights to dismiss any student who’s value system conflicts with the teaching of the school, but on the other hand was the school’s action in keeping with their avowed faith? One of the essential and fundamental tenets of Christianity is forgiveness, just has Christ forgave those who persecuted him. How can a school justify such an act and maintain the spirit of the Christian faith? It would seem the school would be bound to offer students, found in violation of school guidelines, a 2nd chance, only after such an offer was rejected would a school be morally bound to dismiss a student. Nonetheless, that is a matter for the school and not a matter of law, as the Constitution does not allow the state to impose its beliefs or the values of society at large on a religious organization.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/0111gwxkiss.html
http://www.covenant-cougars.org/

Today the Bush administration has warned the Iranian regime that they face the threat of UN Action for resuming nuclear activity. The warning was issued by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, a call that has been repeated, though more timidly, by the EU3 and by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Iran has made it clear that it sees nuclear power as a basic right of a sovereign nation. At the same time the Iranians persist in advancing the fantasy that their nuclear research is solely for peaceful purposes. Such a premise is nonsense in the highest sense. Iran is one of the world’s largest producers of petroleum and natural gas, yet we are to accept the proposition that they are willing to invest billions in new sources of energy?

For over 2 years the EU (and by extension, the United States) have been talking with the Iranians, attempting to persuade the tyrannical regime no to advance its nuclear ambitions any further and to no avail. The Iranians consistently thumb their nose at the suggestion that they give up “peaceful” nuclear energy. The Europeans have offered concession after concession further entrenching the perception that the Europeans are negotiating from a vantage point of weakness. Now Scott McClellan says, “We'll continue talking,” when asked if Iran’s latest move would force the hand of the Security Council. Translation: “we will do nothing.”

In reality a threat of UN action is meaningless, just as it was with Iraq. UN action toward Iraq languished for over 12 years and when events finally came to a head several key members including France and Russia balked at taking any action whatsoever, just as they would do in a showdown with Iran. Russia a major partner with Iran, who is perhaps chiefly responsible for Iran’s advance in nuclear technology, would most certainly object to UN action and indeed, several EU nations are major Iranian trading partners as well and can’t be expected to offer much in the way of pressure on the Iranian regime. Meanwhile, the Bush administration stubbornly refuses to directly engage Iran, thereby relying on the EU’s negotiating prowess, which leaves much to be desired to say the least.

In the end the result is all but assured, Iran, a nation committed to global Islamic domination, a worldwide sponsor of terrorism, will not only develop nuclear power, but nuclear weapons as well and shortly thereafter, those weapons will be proliferated across the militant Islamic world…depend upon it.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=amnSuT4b_MWQ&refer=us

Submit, convert or die, that is the inescapable and undeniable mantra of radical Islam. This credo, by which these radicals live, however, is not a new one, it could have been heard 800 years ago just as easily as last week. Radical Islam’s ruthless desire to conquer all is well documented. From the moment this faith emerged on the world stage, radical practitioners have taken up the sword of conquest, seeking to lay waste to all those who oppose them wherever they may be. Throughout history, Islam has not been spread by the acts and deeds of missionaries but under threat of death and destruction. Around the world, signs of a global assault are readily apparent.

In Nigeria, Kenya and Sudan Christians are slaughtered. In Thailand Buddhists monks and school teachers are butchered. In India Hindu temples are sacked and politicians murdered. In Indonesia school girls have been beheaded. In the Philippines tourists are kidnapped. In Australia lifeguards are attacked. In France rioting leaves homes and businesses in disrepair. In Britain and Spain trains are bombed. In Russia schools are riddled with bullets. In Latin America synagogues are attacked. In Germany cemeteries have been desecrated and in the Netherlands film makers murdered. Each day the list grows longer and more traumatic.

Perhaps no one has been more vocal about the reality of radical Islam than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s fiery new president. Since taking office last summer Ahmadinejad has made a name for himself as the defacto spokesperson for Islam’s radical elements. He has resumed Iran’s nuclear efforts, thumbing his nose at the paltry and dish watery efforts of the EU3. He has dismissed the Holocaust as the stuff of fantasy and he has openly called for the annihilation of Israel. Most recently Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made it clear to an audience of theological students that Islam is destined to “rule the world” and Islam must prepare for this inevitable reality.

According to Ahmadinejad, Islam should not be restricted to a particular region or ethic group, but it is Islam’s place to spread globally, encompassing all the people of the world. Quite conceivably, some would prefer suicide to such a fate, though this would serve only to please the likes of Ahmadinejad and the radical mullahs of Tehran. As telling as the Iranian presidents words maybe, he isn’t the first. Islamic scholars from London to Cairo have made it clear that the world is divided in to two parts: the Islamic world and the as yet to be conquered Muslim world. Perhaps we can take solace in the fact that we, as the soon to be conquered, have a choice: submit, convert or die. As Sheikh Usama bin Akhmed, a professor at Drexel University, noted, “Of course it goes without saying that soon all shall be forced to convert to our religion and follow our beliefs.”
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48268
Link to Drexel University article
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/943

What’s a developing country to do if it is experiencing a population explosion, which far outstrips the ability of government and private industry to absorb? Well, if you border a wealthy, resource rich country with a plethora of available jobs for low skilled immigrants, you send your people packing and that’s exactly what Mexico has and continues to do. Mexico has called on the United states to move ahead with a guest worker program, which would allow illegal immigrants to remain in the US legally, provided they have gainful employment. Such a program, insofar as Mexican authorities envision it, would also allow a continuous stream of new migrants across the border into the United States. Mexico was joined in this effort by Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Belize and Panama who also criticized efforts in the US to build a border wall or further criminalize migrants from the region.

The reality is, however, those who fragrantly shirk our laws in their efforts to gain entry into the United States are criminals and should be treated as such. Groups like the Minutemen have also shown that effective border security is possible, but only when given the resources needed to perform the job effectively. In fact, Mexico exercises a similar strategy when dealing with illegal immigrants along its southern border, apparently, however, what’s good enough for the goose is not good enough for the gander.

Mexico, and other Central American nations, benefit greatly from illegal immigration. As we have mentioned these countries, like so many developing countries around the world, continue to be plagued by irresponsibly high birth rates. In fact, if not for Mexico’s continued population explosion that nation would be one of the more vibrant economies in the western world. Because of its population problem, however, the country must confront crippling poverty, lack of employment opportunities, limited access to public and social services, crime and corruption. Immigration serves a release valve to reduce the pressure caused by so many people. Mexican immigrants working in the US also serve as a valuable source of revenue for the Mexican government. It is estimated, that immigrants are the greatest source of foreign currency in Mexico, 2nd only to petroleum.

Given this reality, it comes as no surprise that Mexico and other nations are up in arms over efforts to reduce illegal immigration. Mexico, however, should do more to reign in irresponsible social behavior, thereby eliminating their dependency on illegal immigration. As is true in most cases, there are two sides to this coin, there is reality and there is the reality of the distraction focused politicians seeking to win votes this November by capitalizing on resentment of foreigners, specifically Mexicans. Yes illegal immigration is high; there is no question that porous borders can (and do) pose a threat to our national security, as these borders could be exploited by terrorists. Most of these immigrants, however, are not threats to American society and contrary to popular opinion are not here to exploit our social services and welfare programs. Most are here for employment, of which there is a great deal and higher standard of living. They come because there are jobs available. Jobs that many Americans choose not to do, preferring to remain dependent upon the state.

Politicians look upon immigration as a perfect distractionary issue. Being perceived as tough on immigration can be a boon to a faltering election campaign as it plays on the fears and prejudices of a mindless electorate, who has been duped into ignoring the real issues confronting this country, such as energy dependence, the war on terror, public education and crime. Politicians know they have no meaningful solutions to these problems so they tackle non-issues like abortion, displaying the Ten Commandments and immigration. In reality this highlights the failure of our politicians as leaders and our citizens so easily swayed by Mussolini style tactics.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/10/D8F1LRCO5.html

Since the launch of the Space Shuttle last year revealed the gross incompetence of NASA officials in repairing an un-reparable cosmic wreck, the US space industry as floundered. Today, the US lacks any reliable means to transport human beings into space. Because of this colossal failure, the future of the International Space Station (ISS) is now in doubt. No other ISS partner has the means to deliver the large complex equipment and infrastructure to the station, meaning the station will likely never be finished.

Lat year, NASA Administrator, Michael Griffin, admitted that the space agency had been on the wrong track, that wrong track actually began with the initial development of the Space Shuttle program in the 1970s. Even Griffin recognized that shuttle development was misguided. The Shuttle has never lived up to its promises, when first proposed. Indeed, the Shuttle is not reusable, it has not been a source of revenue for the space agency and it has never come close to the number of annual flights it was supposed to make. Last year’s grand total for shuttle flights, for example, was 1, hardly a crowning achievement for US engineering prowess.

Meantime, Russia serves as the only country with the ability to bring astronauts and supplies to the International Space Station. Now NASA has signed a multimillion-dollar deal with the Russians, which will allow the US to continue to share space on Russian vessels going to and from the ISS. This deal marks the lowest point in NASA history. Gone are the days of Apollo or Gemini, now NASA is forced to outsource the very arena it was created to advance. Michael Griffin was 100% correct when he noted that NASA had lost its focus, while the unmanned space program, shows promise, manned exploration by the US is more legend than reality.

Part of NASA’s failure can be blamed on bureaucracy, mismanagement and poor decision-making. It can also be blamed on a sense of arrogance and complacency coming on the heals of America’s earlier successes. It can also be blamed on a lack of competition and the end of the space race and yet even with these explanations, that doesn’t account for the whole story of NASA’s fall from grace. NASA’s failure is also a failure of American culture, just as is the failure of public education in America. Americans simply have no interest in space or science. That has given way to a culture of instant gratification, pop entertainment and passive spectator sports, this decline is symbolic of our regression as we continue to slide, nations like China and Iran continue to advance. Hard work and perseverance are quickly waning in favor of handouts of sloth. A new day is dawning and without a sudden realization of what is at state, we may as yet awaken to a very dark day indeed.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/01/06/nasa.soyuz.flights/index.html

Harry Belafonte and a coalition of “activists” called on Latin America’s favorite strongman, Hugo Chavez, to pay homage. Belafonte argued that millions of Americans support the “socialist” revolution of Chavez, contrary to the words of the world’s greatest terrorist, George Bush. Belafonte failed to expound on why he regarded Bush as a terrorist but as we have seen from countless historical examples, leftists are never encumbered by facts or reason.

In stating the support of millions for Chavez style socialism, Belafonte was actually correct, however. Sadly, there are millions of Americans who support such policies. Millions of Americans have only paper thin support for representative government, like Chavez, millions firmly believe people should be free of independent thought and serve simply as wards of the state, not unlike Chavez. Many feel that others are to blame for their many problems and self inflicted wounds, not unlike Chavez, and constantly seek to pull a Mussolini and distract other from the realities of their own failures.

With time this chorus of malcontents and drags on society grow more numerous. Chavez, to his credit, has been quite skilled in distracting both Venezuelans and foreign leftists of the inexorable realities of his “revolution.” Chavez is nothing more than a fascist, one who believes in the preeminent power of the state, one who believes that dissent and opposition should be crushed, one who believes that individuality and independent decision making is a threat to his hold on power, just as his hero, Mussolini. All the while, Chavez has done nothing to solve his country’s woes. Even if Chavez was a true socialist and actually cared for the plight of his own people, using his country’s wealth of natural resources to offset Venezuelan poverty, such solutions would prove both fleeting and unworkable in the long run. Socialism deprives individuals of the motivation and incentive to achieve as individuals, opting rather t or rest on their laurels and depend upon the state for salvation, leading to crippling debt and economic stagnation (witness France).

Belafonte, has made it clear that he is an admirer of the fascist model, his intolerance for differing opinions is well chronicled from previous “activist” outings. His support for socialism and state control is self avowed, and while he may be correct, there are many who would be quite amiable to a socialist revolution in this country, those who would rise up in opposition would outnumber these “socialists” 10 fold. Or would they?http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060109/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_belafonte_5

An extensive study conducted in North Carolina revealed two things about the burgeoning Hispanic population in that state. In the first place the study reveals that the boom in the Hispanic population has led to an increase of some $9 billion in consumer spending. The study, however, also reveals that with the growth of Hispanics in the Tar Heel State, wages for low-skilled workers have been depressed.

Many outspoken labor groups argue that Hispanics, who are willing to work for less (statistically), depress low-skilled wages by $2 billion dollars. We at the Phalanx hate to rain on this parade, as we certainly aren’t fans of porous borders or illegal immigration, but Hispanics aren’t to blame for these low wages. Wages are low for low skilled workers for one simple reason: its LOW SKILL, which is just a hair above NO SKILL. People who lack skills should receive a low wages, for the simple fact that anyone with two hands and two legs and a marginally functioning brain stem can perform the same tasks.

If these labor spokesman are displeased with this inescapable reality then they must do what hardworking Americans do everyday: learn the skills that engender them to their employers, seek the education which makes them invaluable, stop seeking handouts and start putting forth the requisite effort that is the foundation of individual success and above all stop blaming others (i.e., Hispanics) for your own personal failures.
http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/hall/newfullstory.asp?ID=99741

Between Pat Robertson and the President of Iran its anybody’s guess who is worse. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for his part, expressed his fondest hope that Israeli Prime Minister Sharon, not recover from his recent stroke, calling it Gods retribution, a sentiment echoed by 700 Club founder Pat Robinson who also called the Sharon’s seemingly devastating stroke God’s retribution upon Sharon for his peace policies.

We have come to expect such rhetoric from Ahmadinejad since taking office last year and sadly we have long since expected such heartless, cruel and arch-typical anti-Christian rhetoric from “Reverend” Pat Robertson. Robertson thrives on controversy and advancing a form of Christianity more akin to Mussolini than Christ. With out fail, Robertson consistently delivers such non-scriptural diatribes; it’s amazing he has any following at all.

Naturally, the media broadcasts Robertson’s brain-dead statements with great fanfare; after all, no one has done a better job at denigrating Christians and Christianity than Pat Robertson. In the past Robertson has called the citizens of Dover, PA damned, and called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, and other outlandish statements, which surely endear him in the eyes of the left, after all he is doing their job for them. Great example Pat, surely Christ would be proud.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060105/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_israel_sharon_1
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/05/robertson.sharon/

Florida children in failing schools are out of luck if they seek better opportunities for their education, now that the state Supreme Court has ruled that school vouchers violate the state’s constitution. Florida law calls for uniform system of free public schools. Under the Florida voucher system, students in failing schools could receive vouchers to offset the cost of tuition at private schools. Opponents sued, arguing the vouchers divert money from public schools and also violated the principle of separation of church and state.

In this ruling the court has condemned hundreds, if not thousands, of Florida children to mediocrity, in a mindless attempt to impose a punitive leftist agenda. Why should our children serve as guinea pigs in schools that fail to make the grade? These failing schools aren’t behind due to lack of money, countless studies and comparative examples demonstrate without question how money plays only a marginal role in the success or failure of public education. These schools are failures because of mindless bureaucracy and a culture of indifference practiced by parent and community alike, a culture that has relegated these children to mediocrity, a culture that doesn’t value education.

Now the one opportunity these children have to escape from the doldrums has been whisked away thanks to a coalition of leftists fearful that some parents may use their vouchers to send children to (dare we say it) a religious school. The court’s ruling is not only morally and ethically deficient but constitutionally the ruling is without merit. The state’s public education needs are satisfied through a voucher system and if they aren’t then the constitution should be amended at once. It is abhorrent that children should be denied opportunity and choice to placate bureaucracy.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-05-florida-school-vouchers_x.htm

For weeks and months, before during and after the 2004 presidential election Democrats claimed that our economy was faltering, that job growth was nonexistent, that families were hurting and so on and so forth. More recently, Democrats have been mum on the economy, and sadly, so has Bush.

We know why the left has been silent but we are at a loss to explain the president’s silence. The economy has been and continues to roar. Last quarter the US economy grew by over 4%, which far exceeds most every country in the industrialized world. Job growth continues to be stellar as those who want jobs can and do find them. Inflation remains in check and most recently it has been revealed that new jobless claims are at a 5 year low, the lowest rate since before the recession of 2000. Job growth has remained strong in the months after Hurricane Katrina much to the chagrin of naysayers and leftists hoping to use the economy as a weapon against Bush.

In realty the US economy has been performing well because of the president’s tax cuts and a climate which favors economic growth. The left has attempted to cast dispersions in the minds of the electorate in order to sow the seeds of doubt, thereby creating a perception of impending economic calamity. Thus far this effort has failed and it has become increasingly difficult for the left to play this hand as the increasing flow of good news about the US economy consistently contradicts leftist claims. The president, to his credit, has begun to speak more openly about the US economy, but he must do more if he is to overcome years of propaganda fomented by the left.

The year 2006 promises to be another stellar year for the economy, barring any unforeseen disasters. Does this mean we can be assured of a leftist defeat this fall? Not quite. Iraq continues to be a sticking point and if measurable progress is not made soon in turning over Iraqi security to Iraqis look for a socialist revolution on Capitol Hill, one that would make even Hugo Chavez blush.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/05/D8EUI2AO0.html

Yesterday, 59-year-old Lonnie Latham was released from an Oklahoma jail. He had been arrested the previous day on charges of lewd conduct. Apparently, Latham propositioned a male undercover policeman outside an Oklahoma hotel.

So what’s wrong with this picture? Well it might have something to do with the fact that Lonnie Latham is a prominent pastor in Tulsa, Oklahoma and an outspoken critic of homosexuality. Naturally, Rev. Latham claimed that he had been “set up” and that he was simply ministering to people outside the hotel. Perhaps the problem lies in Latham’s definition of the word “ministering.” That certainly isn’t why most Christians attend church. Naturally, the media was quick to highlight this fairly insignificant story, not such much to expose a hypocrite, as this occurs everyday, but because it denigrates Christians and to do so is a crowing achievement for our leftist media.

Latham’s arrest clearly demonstrates his hypocrisy and the inescapable reality that some of homosexuality’s fiercest critics are among its legions of practitioners. Latham’s arrest, however, also demonstrates the imbecility of modern government. Why are Oklahoma police wasting both time and resources to arrest people for this meaningless crime? If two consenting adults wish to engage in “lewd’ acts so be it, as long as their crime doesn’t infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others then there is no crime. Perhaps then hypocrites like Latham wouldn’t have to scurry about under cover of darkness to realize their homosexual fantasies, while condemning the practice in the light of day.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-05-pastor-arrested_x.htm

Ford Motor Company, which has been reeling with declining sales and loss of market share has announced that it will reveal its much ballyhooed restructuring plan on January 23rd. Ford, like GM, has been hurting in the highly competitive domestic automobile market. During the late 1990s Ford (and GM) was flying high, but those days are gone and the company is again feeling the pain. It is hoped that in this restructuring plan, Ford will take steps to stop the hemorrhaging and return to profitability. This will not come to pass unless Ford abandons a host of failed policies, which have led to this debacle.

Most financial analysts expect Ford’s restructuring plan to center on job cuts and plant closings. If it does, Ford is doomed. Job cuts and plant closings will not solve Blue Oval’s woes. Ford isn’t reeling because it has too many plants and not even because it has too many employees. Ford is reeling because it has not been paying attention to the market. There’s a reason, for example, why fellow Big Three automaker Chrysler isn’t facing financial woes. In the first place Chrysler didn’t shift its entire focus to the manufacture of inefficient gas guzzling SUVs in the 90s. Chrysler focused on a more diverse offering of products, with an eye toward market appeal. This gamble has paid off generously for Chrysler, which is performing better than its sister company, Mercedes-Benz.

Ford, and GM, must think out of the box, as the over used saying goes. Ford must become diversified. Yes SUVs and heavy trucks do have a place in the automobile market, but they shouldn’t be the sole source of economic growth for a company. Furthermore, Ford should read the writing on the wall and follow the path of Toyota and Honda and accelerate the production fuel-efficient and hybrid vehicles, particularly in a volatile gasoline market. Exactly why is it that Honda can design, test, and mass produce new hybrid engines in less than 18 months, while Ford takes years to produce one hybrid vehicle, which is of sub par efficiency the moment it comes off the assembly line?

Ford should take steps to combat the erroneous perception of a quality gap, by offering hesitant consumers an incentive to purchase their vehicles, such as extended warranties and maintenance packages, a program Chrysler recently introduced for its vehicles. Ford must also take steps to produce more efficiently, thereby reducing overall costs per vehicle. This can be achieved through a greater investment in automation and providing incentives for workers to work safely and efficiently. Finally, Ford must pay closer attention to the market and know their customer. Companies that produce products for which there is no market are destined to fail, such as Pickup trucks with a 12 mpg fuel rating when gas cost over $3/gallon. Yes some customers want trucks, but others want minivans, small and midsize cars or station wagons and they want these vehicles to have appeal, innovative aesthetics as well as all the bells and whistles which make owning a car exciting. As along as Ford (and GM) fail to understand this, they will continue to misstep, loosing both money and market share. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10698291/

Hugo Chavez has been overjoyed recently. First his political supporters “win” EVERY seat in the Venezuelan parliamentary “elections,” paving the way for unobstructed constitutional changes that will cement Chavez’s hold on power and now a new ally in is socialist movement, Latin American style. Bolivia's newly elected president Evo Morales has made it crystal clear that he will join forces with fellow South American socialist, Chavez in the fight against "neo-liberalism and imperialism." Presumably this statement is meant as a jibe against the United States.

While it is clear that Morales is a socialist, it remains to be seen what other similarities he may have with Chavez, such as the Venezuelan president’s aversion to democracy and affinity for distraction oriented politics a-la Mussolini. Given Morales’ initial statement and his recent state visit to Cuba, we may have a hint of where Morales’ loyalties lie and we fear democracy may be the first casualty in Bolivia. Upon receiving Morales for a state visit in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez noted that their two countries were forming an “Axis of Good” to rival the true Axis of Evil centered in Washington and including America’s allies. Morales, like Chavez has also made it clear that under his leadership the state will exercise greater control over the country’s natural resources, particularly the country’s vast natural gas reserves.

While Morales bares many similarities with Chavez, there is the possibility that Morales is genuine. While Chavez has championed himself as a savior to his country’s poor, he has done little in reality to solve his countries vast social ills. Poverty has increased under his rule, housing shortages continue unabated and in spite of the fact that his government has enjoyed an economic windfall due to increases in oil and natural gas, little of this revenue has been used to revitalize and diversify the nation’s economy as few new jobs have been created. In reality, Chavez is a typical Mussolini-esque politician who makes grandiose promises, but consistently fails to deliver. Indeed, the only thing Chavez has succeeded in doing is clamping down on free speech and democracy.

Chavez was a career military officer, who in typical Latin American style staged a military coup in 1992, the coup failed. Chavez then tried a new rout to power (just as Hitler did after his failed coup in 1923) capitalizing on the high levels of poverty and discontent with the ruling regime in his home country, Chavez championed himself as a voice for the common man and promised revitalize the economy (just like Hitler in 1933) he also promised to redistribute wealth and end the power of the elites. Indeed, Chavez’s path to power was helped by the fact that the former rulers of Venezuela, who championed free market capitalism and democracy were in reality demagogues in their own right who exploited the country’s wealth and resources for their political purposes.

Chavez, however, is doing the same thing as those he reviled, while claiming a mandate for socialist change. Because his rhetoric is so tantalizing to the poor, few recognize that Chavez, a man who’s past clearly demonstrates a passion and lust for power, has done no more for the poor or the economy than the nation’s previous leaders. Bolivia’s Morales is a very different person, a man who made his living as a poor farmer and rancher, who even today rents a one bedroom flat in the capital. He has never demonstrated a thirst for power and influence and appears to harbor genuine concerns for his nations’ poor, many of whom are natives who were oppressed for decades by the country’s political elites, who like the elitists in Venezuela exploited the country’s wealth failed to advance democracy and giving credence to the socialists who are now averse to the advantages of free market capitalism, which Morales rejects. Are we apologists for Morales? Certainly not! Socialism cannot bring prosperity in any setting as it destroys the very fabric that makes innovation and success possible. Morales, however, like most poor in these Latin American countries have been fooled. First they were fooled by past leaders who championed capitalism and democracy, though they were advocates of neither (leaving a bad taste for capitalism in the mouths of many). Then they were fooled by socialist demagogues like Chavez who champion the cause of the poor, while in reality they champion the cause of themselves. Perhaps Morales is more than he appears. Time will quickly tell if he is a demagogue or a democrat.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4576972.stm

According to recently published reports, there is a strong likelihood that John Kerry will run again for president in 2008. The former Democratic presidential candidate has taken an increasingly vocal and prominent position on various issues since his defeat in ’04, presumably this has been for the purpose of maintaining his visibility and stemming the juggernaut that will be Hillary Clinton, when she announces her candidacy sometime late next year. Kerry himself has not spoken about 2008 and most would agree that is it is premature to speak about the next presidential poll, but there is no question that Kerry still harbor’s presidential ambitions, which have not been silenced since his only political defeat at the hands of George Bush.

Kerry continues to raise money, both for himself and other Democrats, but does Kerry have a real chance? The answer is clearly no! Kerry was a lackluster candidate at best and was chosen as the nominee simply because Dean was a buffoon and the other candidates were even more lackluster than Kerry. In 2008, Kerry will face a true politician, one with a significant following among the masses and a penchant for take no prisoners campaigning. There can be no doubt that Hillary Clinton will run for president and will most assuredly receive her party’s nomination. Indeed, it is highly probable that the nomination will be decided before March 2008.

The Democrats recognize that even with the tacit support of the media and the ongoing indoctrination of a mindless electorate, they will still loose as long as they continue to nominate dish watery, pandering, waffling, flip-flopping politicians with no real core or belief system. And while Hillary Clinton may flip-flop and pander, she certainly is not a dish watery politician and while she may or may not have a core set of beliefs, she is ambitious and driven by power and influence, a great combination for a campaign.

The real question is whom the GOP will choose. The Republicans face a tough mountain to climb as they look to succeed Bush. Much will depend on Bush himself and how he confronts his critics and the left over the next 2 years. Bush, must respond forcefully to the naysayers and must stand firm for his beliefs and clearly articulate that position to the public, a lesson he has only recently started to learn. The Republicans also must choose between a laundry list of poor choices with only a few stars, like Condoleezza Rice and Rudy Giuliani, both however, may face a tough nomination fight when seeking to appease the one-issue conservatives who base all their decisions on non-issues like abortion.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-kerry-2008,1,792490.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

In our limited abridged coverage over the last 2 weeks we recently touched on the explosion of violent crime in the city of Toronto, Ontario. There, the number of murders has doubled since last year, though still far less than comparable US cities. Many of these murders have been committed using firearms, a point that was not lost on the Canadian prime minister, who argued that the increase in crime was a direct result of loose guns laws in the United States.

Paul Martin argued that America was exporting a culture of gun violence. From that statement there is one truth and one farce. In the first place it should be noted that America is without question one of the most violent countries in the industrialized world. While compared to countries like Brazil or Russia, our crime rate is relatively low, but when compared with our neighbor to the north or Japan or Britain we have an astronomical crime rate, that is the shame of this country. There are numerous causes for high levels of crime, liberals will naturally blame “societal factors” such as poverty or limited social services, a conclusion that has no basis in fact given that countries with far greater disparities between rich and poor and far greater numbers of people living in poverty have much lower crime rates. Conservatives blame the justice and penal system, but this too is not the answer. The cause is a culture of permissiveness and a society, which increasingly shirks moral responsibility.

In this sense, the prime minister is correct. The prime minister is mistaken, however, in arguing that high crime rates in Canada are due to American access to guns and its culture. Indeed, violence in America was far more prevalent in the 1970s and 80s than it is today and the crime rate was much higher, at the same time access to guns was far greater, yet there was no subsequent spill over in violence in Canadian cities. Why? Because this has not been and is not the cause of Canada’s crime problem.

As some Canadians, like John Thompson with the Mackenzie Institute, have pointed out, blaming the Americans is a convenient diversion, which distracts from the real problem of gangs on Canadian streets. In realty the government in Canada has ignored this growing threat while continuing to take a soft line, vis-à-vis crime and as a result the problem has been allowed to fester to the point where it is now spilling over into Canadian streets with deadly results. Toronto police have admitted that gangs have become a real problem, with over 70 street gangs identified by police authorities. As long as the US and Canada are neighbors, look for the Canadians to blame any serious problem on the United States, rather than own up to the harsh realities of their own problems.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-01-02-toronto-guns_x.htm

What’s a declining empire to do when its influence over its neighbors have waned and those neighbors have elected western leaning leaders, contrary to your desires. Well if that nation is Russia and you possess vast stockpiles of oil and natural gas reserves you use that resource as a political weapon to re-exert influence.

As of today, Russia has cut off gas imports to the Ukraine, after Ukraine balked at a significant price increase imposed by Gazprom, the state run Russian gas giant. Gazprom has demanded the Ukraine pay $230 per 1,000 cubic meters of gas, more than quadrupling the current price that country pays for its energy resources. Russia argues that it can no longer continue to offer below market rates to former Soviet states. In reality, Russia continues to offer more favorable rates to states, which tow the line, like Belarus. Ukraine, however, had the audacity to elect a president who was not personally chosen by the authoritarian Russia President, Vladimir Putin.

Ukrainian President Yushchenko has called on Russia to implement a phased price increase, but Russia has nixed any such suggestion. Yushchenko, has called such a position politically motivated and this is a correct assessment. Fortunately, Ukraine is only dependent upon Russia for 30% of its oil needs. Like the US and every other country dependent upon petroleum, the Ukraine, should recognize the impending need for progress and innovation in the energy sector. Most of the world’s oil reserves rest in the hands of tyrants: like the mullahs in Iran, Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin and so on. Such individuals simply can’t be trusted as the fuel for the engine of world economic growth.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/12/31/russia.ukraine.offer.ap/index.html