Some people simply can’t let go of history…the Japanese can’t accept that they were the aggressors during WWII. The French can’t accept that their revolution wasn’t and some Southerners can’t accept the reality of the US Civil War.

In South Carolina, the family of a 15-year-old high school sophomore is suing officials with Latta High School because the young secessionist was wearing a shirt with the Confederate Battle Flag. Candice Hardwick said she wanted to wear her rebel clothing to honor one of her ancestors who fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War. Schools have long held that they have the right to ban certain clothing deemed to be disruptive. The family’s suit alleges violation of Candice’s First Amendment rights. So the question is does Candice have a right to wear her rebel attire in school?

Generally it is accepted that public schools can implement dress codes and/or ban certain apparel if it can be genuinely shown to be a disruption. The Supreme Court has found that students cannot be prevented from engaging in non-disruptive speech and simply because an article of clothing is deemed offensive does not necessarily imply it is also disruptive.

This is an excellent case study in the boundaries of free speech and a legitimate argument can be made in either direction, but one must ask the question why is Candice and her family so concerned about this rebel flag at the expense of her education? One doubts Candice’s family would go to such lengths to ensure that the 15 year old mastered calculus or clearly understood the complexities of economics or biology…no her family wastes its time of confederate battle wear, as if this will help her find gainful employment. Would anyone venture to guess Candice’s high school GPA? Chances are her parents won’t expend any resources to advance that cause…
Link to Charlotte Observer article

According to IAEA Chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, Iran poses no imminent threat to the west. Well I guess that’s it we can all stop worrying a return to our normal routine…Coming on the heals of a dishwatery meaningless UN Security Council resolution that called on Iran to stop uranium enrichment, it should come as no surprise that the forces of appeasement have won the day. From Europe to Russia to the IAEA, there has been undisputed recognition that Iran is working to develop a nuclear weapons capability, yet no one seems willing to do anything to counter this threat.

The complicity among the various powers is significant and there is enough blame to go around among US, European and Russian leaders. Through the weakness of these groups, the Iranians have been emboldened and show no signs of a willingness to end their nuclear research and development.

Tyrants are very mindful of history and precedent. During the pre-WWII era, Hitler watched closely as the world did nothing as Mussolini and Hirohito carved out spheres of influence in Africa and Asia. Correctly assuming that the so-called “democracies” would be too timid to act, Hitler launched his own land grab, 40 million dead Europeans later and he was finally stopped.

Today the Mullahs of Tehran have seen first hand how North Korea broke one promise after another, now a nuclear power in its own right, the North Koreans still flaunt their newfound status. Tehran has thus assumed that the so-called democracies will again do nothing just as they did with North Korea and just as they did 60 years ago…how many millions will die this time around?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran31mar31,0,1743315.story?coll=la-home-headlines

The five veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council (US, UK, France, Russia and China) have come to an agreement on the language of a Security Council resolution calling on Iran to cease Uranium enrichment and return to negotiations (appeasement discussions). Initially, the EU and US had pushed for sanctions against Iran if they fail to comply with the resolution. China and Russia, however, long friends of the Islamic Republic, balked at any penalties for Iran, if the mullahs of Tehran fail to comply. In short, Iran has no incentive to draw back from the brink and likely will continue on its present course.

This “resolution” as it were has no meaning and no force, the one thing the Iranians will respect. Russia and China, as we have noted on numerous occasions, have gone to great lengths to protect Iran. Iran is a strategic economic and trade partner with Russia, buying military equipment and other advanced technology, which they have used to develop their indigenous nuclear research program in the first place. China, on the other hand, is becoming increasingly dependent on foreign oil and gas reserves and will do nothing to threaten that supply, as such it is in the interest of both China and Russia to obstruct UN action at every turn, which have done with this meaningless, League of Nation-esque resolution, which will only encourage tyrants.

History has shown that even when Security Council resolutions threaten the use of force, its architects soon loose heart, serving only to embolden rogue regimes, such as Iraq, who disregarded the UN for over a decade. Iran too has vowed to ignore the resolution and the 30 day time limit imposed….In the end there can be but one result: tyranny will again triumph as the nations of Europe, Asia and North America rest idly by while a renegade nuclear power emerges in our midst.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4859540.stm

Lets suppose The Phalanx moved into the auto business, and we produced the “Phalanx 5000” a 300 horse-power, 4-door sedan with no radio, no air conditioning and no windshield wipers. The 5000, however, was so economical with great pick-up, that consumers purchased the vehicle in great quantities nonetheless. Because the 5000 came with no radio or other accessories, several 3rd party manufacturers decided to produce accessories that could be installed in the 5000. ABC Radio produced a car stereo for the 5000, Johnny’s AC could produce an air conditioning unit and Rain-B-Gone Corp could sell windshield wipers.

As Phalanx Motors became profitable and began to invest more in R&D we decide to include more standard features on the Phalanx 5000, we not only included a radio, AC, windshield wipers but even a heater. With this move companies like ABC Radio, Johnny’s AC and Rain-B-Gone have a choice, they can innovate and produce a compelling product which consumers will purchase even with the inclusion of such standard features on the Phalanx 5000 or they can turn to the government and demand Phalanx Motors not include such features on future models.

Naturally, any court would balk at compelling GM or Toyota to include competitors components in its vehicles, but this scenario perfectly illustrates the predicament of the world’s largest software maker: Microsoft. Regulators in the European Union have expressed concern that the next version of Windows, known as “Vista” will prevent consumers from using competitors’ applications.

"We're concerned about the possibility that the next Vista operating system will include various elements which are currently available separately either from Microsoft or other companies," an EU spokesman noted. “The Commission's concern is that computer manufacturers or consumers might be prevented from having a proper choice between different software packages."

Microsoft has noted that its customers have a plethora of choices to choose from with regard to various software applications. But even if they didn’t, should Microsoft be compelled to give a competitive advantage to its rivals. If Microsoft chose to develop an operating system, which only worked with Microsoft software, would that not be their prerogative? At no point in time have consumers been forced to choose Microsoft, but if they do, one should not expect that company to cede its market share to a rival.

Microsoft, contrary to popular myth, is not a monopoly. Such an economic designation implies a lack of choice, which simply is not the case. Consumers can choose between a number of operating systems and software, including: Apple’s Mac OS, Sun’s Solaris or Red Hat’s Linux, to name a few. To impose such restrictions would be no different than compelling Toyota to give consumers a choice between transmissions from GM, Ford or VW and such restricts on any firm are an affront to the spirit of free enterprise.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/29/AR2006032900417.html

Agents with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), managed to successfully smuggle radioactive material in to the United States from both the Mexican and Canadian borders. This provides further evidence that border security in the US is a joke to say the least. While legislators in Congress distract themselves and the electorate with time consuming debates on the status of illegals in this country, not a single thing is done about the problem of lax security in our ports and along our northern and southern border.

Perhaps what is most troubling about this GAO operation is the fact that radiation alarms were sounded as the material was smuggled across the border but the operatives were waved through nonetheless…what good is our security if a fast talking false document presenting operative can move at will across the border with a potentially deadly cargo? What is equally disturbing and further proof that the hoopla over immigration is misdirected is the fact that agents easily penetrated the US-Canadian border just as they did with the US-Mexican border.

This investigation did not address port security, though there is no doubt that had they tried, the agents would have been equally successful. Sadly, the US does an even poorer job of screening for radiation at our many ports. Those cargo containers that are checked represent only a small portion of all the containers that enter the US every year. It has been nearly 5 years since the Sept 11th attacks and the government continues to play fast and loose with our national security.

Once again the politics of distraction proves that that which is right and that which is popular often conflict…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4852410.stm

Two stories currently dominate the headlines: the rioting on French streets over a new labor law and renewed efforts to curb illegal immigration in this country. As syndicated radio host John Gibson points out, Illegal immigrants are protesting over their perceived “right” to come to this country and work, while French youth are protesting over their right not to work (or to work sloppily) without consequence. While illegal immigration may very well be a problem in this country one must give those Hispanic protestors credit: Their protests have been largely peaceful, their French counterparts have been maniacal in their violent tirades throughout France.

Yesterday over a million Frenchmen marched through the streets of Paris and other French cities, attacking police, torching cars, breaking windows and generally demonstrating why French youth can’t find employment in the first place…French youth have been joined by laborers, bringing strikes to public transit, airports, public utilities and even schools. A fine example these teachers must be as they instill the entitlement mentality in yet another generation of Frenchmen.

The French government has called for negotiations, a clear sign that they will soon acquiesce to the demands of the students…ensuring unemployment and limited opportunities for a new generation. Given this mentality it comes as something of a surprise that French students haven’t come to expect high grades without the requisite mastery of the material.

All things being equal, America can be grateful that illegal immigrants are clamoring to work in this country, with no job security or stability whatsoever, while French youth demand lifetime job security regardless of merit….
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-france29mar29,1,5221306.story?coll=la-headlines-world
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189420,00.html

Last week, students in France launched a massive protest across the country in opposition to a new law, which grants employers the ability to dismiss young hires within the first two years of employment.

The bill proposed by French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin was conceived as a means to reduce unemployment among France’s younger population; in many cases unemployment for youngsters exceeds 20%. The French, long accustomed to cradle to grave government handouts, saw the measure as an affront to France’s cherished social welfare model.

Initially, these protests were limited to students, now it seems trade unionists across France have taken up the mantel of Karl Marx and joined the students in massive protests and crippling strikes. As The Phalanx predicted last week, the French government will most assuredly cave, as they always do. Mob rule is an accepted method of democratic change in entitlement minded France. The government, which has already called for “talks,” will soon back pedal entirely has De Villepin very much wants to be president of France (who knows why) and will not risk the ire of the French electorate.

If such a modest measure as this has no hope of passage, how will France ever adopt significant structural change to reverse its continued economic decline? The answer, quite simply, is it won’t. As long as the government ascends to will of mob mentality, the French state will remain a bastion for stagnation, high unemployment and a general lack of innovation.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-03-28-france_x.htm

The Phalanx has already made it clear that the ongoing brouhaha over illegal immigration is much ado about nothing and a non-issue design to divert attention from the realities of political paralysis in Washington…by the same token, however, those Hispanics across America protesting efforts that forbid services for illegals and other measures are pulling a Mussolini of their own. Should the federal government or any government within the US consent to provide non-emergency services to non-citizens? Certainly not! Proposals before congress, while being distractionary simply require public and private organizations and firms to observe the letter of the law…how radical!

Phalanx to students: Go back to class
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/27/060327202800.c290z4uh.html

President Bush will never go done in history as a great orator, but then again neither did Harry Truman. Like Truman, Bush presides over a war that has not been popular at home, though his motives in pursuing that war were right on the money. Like Truman, Bush has taken a hard-line vis-à-vis, the enemies of the US, Islamic Radicals replacing communists. And like Truman, Bush has suffered from consistently low poll numbers, even after winning a clear-cut election victory. Whereas the oratory of both Bush and Truman would never be mistaken for Lincoln or Roosevelt, Truman’s motives and ability to communicate those motives were never in question. Lately, however, Bush has attempted to spell out is vision for America on a semi consistent basis. His message has still been diluted, especially with regard to Iraq or the war on terror, but it’s a start. Today, Bush spoke out on the increasingly volatile issue of immigration and his message was profound and accurate.

Speaking at a naturalization ceremony this morning, Bush called on the Congress to enact a guest worker program. He also pointed out something that is glaringly obvious to those objective minded Phalanx visitors. The immigration issue has been used by certain vocal politicians as a distractionary issue to make a name for themselves, clearly as they lack the vision or courage to tackle more pressing issues.

"No one should play on people's fears or try to pit neighbors against each other…No one should pretend that immigrants are threats to America's identity because immigrants have shaped America's identity,” Bush said.

Yes this country should enforce its borders, as the president has said, and yes a porous border can be used by Islamic Radicals to visit harm upon our shores, but the reality is our border with Canada is just as porous as that with Mexico, indeed, quite a few radicals have been caught slipping into this country from the Great White North, given Canada’s loose immigration policies, yet where is the outrage? Where are the moves to deal with Canada? The fact is there is one thing that separates the issue of our border with Canada and our border with Mexico, Mexicans and the bigotry they inspire in the minds of certain backward Americans.

Under the guise of a security threat politicians seek to capitalize on the petty fears and stereotypes to paint illegal immigrants as the second coming of Al Qaeda. Should our borders be protected…yes. Should people observe the laws of this country and be required to enter legally…yes. Are illegal immigrants already in this country a major threat to American identity and security…absolutely not. The number of illegal immigrants seeking public services is minuscule. Indeed, as a proportion of the country’s overall population, more illegals are working than some of our own homegrown deadbeats.

Make no mistake about it, illegal immigration is an important issue, but in the grand scheme of things it pails in seriousness compared to more pressing issues like Social Security, terrorism, Medicare and energy independence. These issues pose a more immediate threat to the long-term viability of this nation, yet cowardly politicians conveniently ignore such issues, why? Because they can distract the electorate with an easy vote getter: immigration, while doing NOTHING to solve the nations more pressing problems. Ricardo and Jose aren’t likely to bankrupt this country; social security and Medicare may very well. Pablo and Carlos aren’t gunning to destroy American democracy; Al Qaeda and foreign oil dependence may very well just.

While the merits of a guest worker program are debatable, the president is right in noting that several Mussolini-esque politicians are seeking to capitalize on this non-issue, solely for political gain…achieving little in the process.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-27-immigration_x.htm

In 2001 in the wake of the September 11th attacks, the US military launched Operation Infinite Justice (later renamed Enduring Freedom), to root out the enemy from its base of support in Afghanistan. Under its new moniker “Enduring Freedom,” the military’s goals were expanded to not only removing the notorious Taleban/Al Qaeda coalition from power, but also entrenching democratic freedoms in that war torn country.

Fast forward to Afghanistan 2006. The Taleban is long gone, Al Qaeda has abandoned the country for greener pastures and a democratic government with a constitution ensuring democratic freedom has been adopted in Afghanistan. Among the many freedoms protected under the Afghan constitution is Freedom of Religion, one of the Four Freedoms for which Americans have fought and died for, too many times to count.

Afghanistan, while ostensibly supporting freedom of religion, has also enshrined Sharia (Islamic) Law as the foundation of is criminal and judicial code. Given such reality it was only a matter of time before the principle of religious freedom was challenged. How can a country profess tolerance for varying faiths (or the absence of faith) when the nation’s court determine ones fate based on the Koran?

Abdul Rahman, found out the hard way that Sharia and religious freedom mix about as well as oil and water. Rahman is an Afghan who converted to Christianity 16 years ago. Rahman was reported to the authorities by his family who challenged his custody claims in a divorce proceeding due to his religious conversion in 1990. Like the 19th century British policy of “once a subject always a subject,” the conservative clerics saw Rahman’s conversion as treachery. He was threatened with arrest and eventual execution if he did now disavow Christ and return to the Islamic fold.

Islamic law calls for the death of any adult male who converts unless they suffer from a mental disability, so much for the principle of freedom. Clearly Islam is less concerned about saving souls and more concerned about imposing a rigorous and draconian social order. Rahman didn’t know his place and was arrested and put on trial after he refused to return to Islam. Afghan Prosecutors called for the death penalty as Rahman’s case was a clear cut case of apostasy. As Muhammad in his infinite wisdom said: "If anyone changes his religion, kill him," thus forming the basis of the charges under Sharia.

Surely American and colation forces didn’t fight and die to enshrine religious intolerance and state sponsored death for so-called apostates. Given the instense media scrutiny and political pressure this case has created, leaders in Afhghanistan have sought a middle road, intsense pressure from the EU and the US has no doubt weighed on the Afghan leadership, but so too have calls for Rahman’s death, which have been echoed from Mosques and political leaders across the country. To find a solution, judicial leaders had moved to have Rahman declared mentally unfit, afterall anyone who would convert from the peaceful and tolerant and forward thinking Islamic faith is surely insane. While the government may be seeking ameans to sweep this case under the rug, it is unlikely the radicals and concervatives on the streets of Kabul and other Afghan cities will be so eager to forget, they have staged massive protests calling for Rahman’s death, after all he has insulted God.

Now it appears that Rahman will indeed be freed, averting a major embraassment for President Bush, but the principle of religious freedom remains under threat in Afghanistan and soon we will again hear calls for the death of a Christian or other non-Muslim who dares challenge the Islamic faith.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1771924

The Orange Revolution in Ukraine is apparently over, thus the Orange Revolution has more in common with the so-called French Revolution than with the American Revolution. It, like so many political movements throughout history, was consumed by petty rivalries, political infighting and a united and vocal opposition. In 2004, authoritarian pro-Moscow forces were forced from power in the wake of a rigged election designed to ensure Moscow’s continued influence in the country.

With much fan fare, a new era was ushered in under the leadership of Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. The two power players did not get along and within a year President Yushchenko had dismissed Ukraine’s first female prime minister.

Now in the wake of new parliamentary elections it seems they have paid the price for their political infighting. Forces loyal to Moscow, and thus loyal to the authoritarian Putin have gained a significant number of seats in the Ukrainian parliament.

While the fractured Orange revolutionaries still maintain a majority, their numbers have been greatly diminished and furthermore, it is unlikely that the former revolutionary allies will be able to forge a lasting coalition, thereby ensuring that Moscow’s efforts to tighten the reigns on its former Soviet brethren will continue in earnest.
http://en.rian.ru/world/20060327/44856047.html

America has long been plagued by the litigious curse, the curse is caused by an entitlement mentality and one of its symptoms is frivolous lawsuits. Most recently we here the story of several Walgreens customers. These individuals are suing the drug store chain essentially because they were insulted. These customers are suing the company because its pharmacies included less than flattering descriptions of their customers in their internal database. According to the suits, one woman was labeled: “CrAzY!!" and "psycho" another was described as “SHADY."

"It hurt my feelings so bad," said one disgruntled customer who is among the litigants suing the drug store chain, it is unclear what monetary damages they are seeking.

On what grounds are these “plaintiffs” suing? According to the suit one woman is suing on allegations of “negligence” and “intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Are these legitimate grounds for a lawsuit? In certain cases negligence certainly is a legitimate grievance. To win a case on the grounds of negligence, however, there must be actual damages, which are the result of said negligence. So what’s the damage? Hurt feelings? Are we now free to sue anytime our feelings are hurt?

While those Walgreens employees should be held accountable for their actions, the offended parties are deserving of nothing more than a heartfelt apology, if that, assuming the slurs were inaccurate and even under such circumstances the employees should not be compelled to apologize.

Perhaps those Phalanx visitors with legal expertise will provide insight into this latest experiment in frivolity.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-pwalgreens23mar23,0,5994094.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

There can be no doubt that Japan has its share of problems, chief among them being their stubborn refusal to own up to their horrendous record of brutal atrocities during the Second World War. Since that time, however, Japan has been a trusted Cold War and post-Cold War ally. Japan has been a model democracy in the region and a champion of the free enterprise system. Though they could be more receptive to completely opening their domestic economy to foreign trade. Given the strength of the Japanese-American relationship it comes as no surprise that anger is growing in Japan over the continued presence of 50,000 US servicemen and women stationed in that country, particularly on the island of Okinawa.

Once again an American has been sentenced to prison for raping a Japanese woman. Dag A Thompson was sentenced to nine years in prison for raping two Japanese women. Frankly, nine years is too generous for such a person. Japan’s anger is understandable and generally unfathomable to ordinary Americans.... Not only have there been several high profile assaults and rapes committed by Americans in Japan, but Japan is home to over 50,000 US servicemen and women, such an indignity has not been visited on the US since the early 19th century, when British forces remained in US territory well after the American Revolution and what was the result? The War of 1812.

Those Americans who violate the laws and customs of a nation in which they are a guest should be subject to those laws. Those who represent the United States should be especially mindful of the sensitivities of a local population. There simply is no excuse for the ongoing problem of sexual assaults perpetrated by perverted and depraved American soldiers. Such men should be hastily drummed out of the service. Unfortunately the Constitution does not allow such embarrassments to be deprived of their citizenship.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4840082.stm

It is well known, though rarely acknowledged, that with success one becomes a target, this is true for individuals, corporations, and nations. In the annals of corporate success, no firm can compare with the Wal-Mart, the retailer, has gone from a marginal player in rural Arkansas, to the nation’s largest employer and one of the world’s most successful companies. To achieve this goal Wal-Mart has been a vigorous competitor in the national and international retail market. With that success, Wal-Mart has naturally been targeted by the friends of the idle, the dredges of society, the socialists, the LCDs, the entitlement generation and those who have simply rested on their laurels while others applied the requisite elbow grease needed to become an individual success.

Critics charge that Wal-Mart’s wages are too low, that it skimps on health care costs and is a threat to small business. Such charges, are without merit and are championed by those with little or no understanding of economics and those who decry the concept of individual responsibility. Indeed, Wal-Mart pays an appropriate wage for what is essential unskilled labor, performed by employees whose value to a firm is largely limited. Should Wal-Mart shoulder the blame for those who chose not to pay attention in school, for those who lacked an appreciation for hard work, rendering their opportunities for success fairly limited? Is Wal-Mart to blame for the bad decisions and poor choices of the poor and various low-income earners? If anything, Wal-Mart should be commended for hiring these entitlement minded socialists who expect others to reward them for their failures.

Into this scenario walks former UN Ambassador and Atlanta mayor, Andrew Young. Young, a civil rights activists and former MLK confidant. Young has taken a position with Wal-Mart. Young has long been a champion of economic opportunity and sees Wal-Mart as a means of reviving long decayed neighborhoods. For his support of Wal-Mart, however, Young has been vilified by his fellow “activists” who view this action as an affront to the poor and the down trodden. "Maybe he knows something that other advocates for economic justice don't," said Rev. Joseph Lowery, another Atlanta civil rights leader.

If Lowery and other Young critics were indeed activists for “economic justice” as they call it, they would be the most vocal critics of those who believe it is within their purview to demand reward regardless of merit. Justice demands that those who work hard meet with success and those who squander opportunities and fail to pursue their education or look to others for handouts should become failures.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/23/D8GHF9P0L.html

Unlike many of its competitors, GM’s manufacturing costs are astronomical, much of these costs are tied up in the cost for labor. For years General Motors has tried new strategies to reduce the cost of labor, but the UAW has consistently resisted such moves and in so doing they have crippled a once vibrant and dominant US company.

These high costs have left GM (and Ford) weakened. They must charge more for their products to recoup these high costs, but in so doing they price themselves right out of the market. If GM lowers its prices to remain competitive, then they loose money, given the high production costs embedded in each vehicle sold. UAW workers have resisted moves towards increased productivity and increased automation, strategies long employed of Asia and European rivals. Indeed, using non-unionized American employees, Hyundai, Toyota, Honda, etc…produce thousands of vehicles for far less than their American counterparts.

Given the fact that GM has been unable to convince the unions of the need for greater efficiency, the firm as been reduced to simply dismissing employees as a means of lowering costs, a financial strategy which has a poor track record to say the least. Now GM is offering to “buyout” its employees. The firm is offering early retirement, to nearly 100,000 GM workers. General Motors and its Delphi subsidiary are offering to pay workers up to $140,000 to quit or take early retirement. The announcement has struck a sour note with many employees who have called on the Union to fight, arguing the move is a slap in the face and robs employees of their “future.”

What these workers fail to understand is: if they continue to drag down the company with their union inspired intimidation tactics, there will be no company left to fight. In reality GM needs to do more than simply shrink its job force, the firm must shrink its unionized job force. As along as the UAW dictates the terms of employment for autoworkers in America, the US auto industry will remain crippled, leading to eventual extinction.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-workers23mar23,0,7977327.story?coll=la-home-headlines

The authoritarian Russian President Putin is in the midst of a state visit to call on the Tyrants of Beijing. Both Putin and Hu (the Chinese President), have similar goals when it comes to geo-politics. Both view themselves as re-emergent powers, both are authoritarian regimes (though Russia is nominally a democracy), both are rigidly nationalistic (a diversionary strategy encouraged by the government to distract from the apparent lack of freedom), and both view themselves as obstacles to western hegemony. As such, both nations, as a matter of course, pursue a foreign policy designed primarily to contrast with that of the west, particularly the United States.

Nowhere is this divergent foreign policy more apparent than in their dealing with the rogue state of Iran. Iran, as is well documented, is hurriedly pursuing the development of an indigenous nuclear weapons program. Much of Iran’s initial progress in this regard has come thanks to reckless technology transfers from nations like Russia and China.

China and Russia’s position vis-à-vis Iran is motivated by two inescapable realities. In the first place, both nations are greatly interested in their short-term economic advancement. China is desperate to fuel its growing economic engine by acquiring access to oil and natural gas. Russia is equally desperate to spur economic growth through lucrative trade deals with the Mullahs of Tehran. Both nations also see no harm in Iran becoming a nuclear power (contrary to their public statements) because they will serve as yet another check on the West. Much as the European powers refused to tackle the problem of 18th century Barbary pirates, because they attacked the shipping of their rivals.

The Sino-Russian coalition, therefore, have opposed any move to punish or sanction Iran for their nuclear program, even though they fully recognize the fact that Iran’s nuclear program has a military component. Russia as also admitted that Iran’s futile efforts at “negotiation” are nothing more than stalling tactics to advance their program. Indeed, Iran’s former chief negotiator admitted as much during a conference of mullahs in Tehran earlier this year. Given these realities it should come as no surprise that the Authoritarian Putin and Hu have come out in opposition to UN sanctions, currently being discussed among Security Council members. "China and Russia exchanged views and both sides agreed the Iran nuclear issue should be resolved through diplomatic means," said a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign ministry. This statement can be translated to read: “We both support Iran’s efforts to develop a nuclear weapons program and will do nothing that interferes with our lucrative financial and economic arrangements with Tehran.”
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060323/2006-03-23T092025Z_01_PEK127666_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-NUCLEAR-IRAN-CHINA-DC.html

On the Korean peninsula the government in the south has a stated aim of eventual re-unification with the Stalinist north, as a result of this unification policy, the south goes to great lengths to avoid offending the north, presumably, this charm offensive is designed to win friends north of the 38th parallel ensuring a favorable attitude toward reunification. This policy has created a climate of appeasement in South Korea as the government refuses to speak out with regard to the North’s nuclear program or its blatant human rights abuses. This policy has become so entrenched that a majority of South Korean youth now view the north as an ally and the US as an enemy. Only, this week, the “friendly” North Koreans vowed to strike first in a conflict with the US, claiming to have missiles capable of reaching the western shores of the United States. North Korea continues to violate international and bilateral agreements on nuclear weapons, claiming such weapons are needed to fend off an eminent invasion, taking a cue from Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.

In realty a conflict between the North and the United States would not come unless initiated by the Koreans. The US has no incentive to engage the north in armed conflict, furthermore, the South can’t be trusted in the event of a conflict and even if they could, with South’s major population centers so close to the North Korean border, casualties among the civilian population would be exceedingly high, causing major hardships across Asia and having a drastic affect on the global economy.

North Korea is a nation that thrives on deception; the totalitarian regime in Pyongyang is notorious for its lies and duplicity. The south, in ignoring Kim Jong Il’s abuses is doing itself a disservice and playing into his hands. Just today a recent North Korean defector revealed that the tyrannical regime in the North kills infants who are born with physical or mental disabilities. "There are no people with physical defects in North Korea," Dr. Ri Kwang-chol told a South Korean audience. So complete is the brainwashing of Korean youth that Ri’s assertions are all but ignored. The Seoul government has gone out of its way to avoid offending the north, to the point where Dr. Ri’s warnings will most certainly go unheeded. The South’s “don’t rock the boat” policy will ensure that thousands more will die. Indeed, there may come a time when the Korean peninsula may be reunified, but it may very well come at the expense of individual liberty and representative government.
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060322/2006-03-22T123122Z_01_SEO27580_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-KOREA-NORTH-RIGHTS-DC.html

In his own round about way, President Bush hit the nail on the head in discussing Iraq yesterday. The president conceded that the road to a permanent peace in Iraq has been a rocky one, but he also pointed out that much of the successes in Iraq have been ignored by the media and the left, which is one in the same for all intents and purposes. Bush pointed to the growing role of Iraq’s security forces and to the successful de-terrorization (not Bush’s words) of several Iraqi cities.

Bush’s speech, however, was conspicuous for what he did not say. Iraq, as we have noted on numerous occasions, was doing exactly as the president warned in 2003. Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, Iraq was fomenting terrorism, Iraq was destabilizing the region and Iraq was committing unspeakable atrocities under the Baathist regime. There is incontrovertible evidence to support this argument. Bush, however, has once again failed to point out these realities, only spotlighting the equally glaring reality of the media’s one-sidedness in covering post-war Iraq.

As British Prime Minister Tony Blair recently noted, there was a time when “progressives” (a detestable and erroneous term) cherished human rights and the growth of democratic government. Now it seems these very people, simply want peace at any cost; mass murder, torture and genocide are freely ignored so long as it requires force to combat. Today’s so-called progressives (regressives would be a more accurate term) are the champions of appeasement; they view peace as simply an absence of armed conflict, even if such peaceful comes at the expense of security or liberty.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” -Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

The answer to Patrick Henry’s question is not readily apparent, apparently freedom is worth fighting for under the right conditions (i.e., under the leadership of a Democratic president), otherwise freedom be damned if by sacrificing our freedom and security we can score political points.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bush21mar21,1,7334617.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/20/bush.transcript.ap/

Lest we forget, Russia’s genuine attitude regarding representative government, one need only look at their track record.

In Russia, the authoritarian President Vladimir Putin, stripped Russians of their ability to elect their regional governors, under the guise, that appointing such officials would give Russia a leg up in fighting terrorism. Then the Russian government has sought to prosecute those who challenge (either vocally or politically) the authoritarian Putin. The Russian government has also labored to strictly control the media content, those news outlets that report stories unfavorable to the administration may quickly find themselves out of business. Then there was Russia’s ill-fated support for the former totalitarian regime in Ukraine, whose electoral shenanigans led to the Rose Revolution.

Now the Russians are at it again, as the Neo-Fascists in the Kremlin have just issued a report asserting that the clearly fraudulent “elections” in neighboring Belarus were legitimate. According to the Belarus Central Election Commission, president Alexander Lukashenko was re-elected with 83% of the vote. European observers have dismissed the election results. The State Department correctly refers to Belarus as Europe’s last dictatorship, obviously ignoring the Russian example for political reasons.

Exactly why is it that Russia is so eager to support totalitarianism in Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus and so on? Through these dictatorships, Russia has been able to extend its influence throughout the former Soviet Union. Still smarting from the dissolution of the USSR 14 years ago, the Kremlin has become increasing tolerant of authoritarianism as a means to reverse history.

Russia and Belarus have a particularly close relationship. There has even been talk of a federation between the two nations. As such, Russia has consistently backed President Lukashenko. And Lukashenko isn’t keen to see a repeat of the popular uprisings that emerged in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan and has thus vowed to crack down, clearly the actions of a champion of democratic freedom. Russia’s desire to legitimize these sham elections will only serve to harden resistance to Russian influence in the region. Perhaps those neo-fascists in the Kremlin should consider hiring the Rand corporation or some other research based think tank, perhaps then they would embrace a policy of supporting peaceful democratic change, rather than suppressing it, perhaps then Russia’s reputation in the region would be enhanced and the influence they so desperately want, would be forthcoming.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-03/20/content_4324309.htm

Time and time and time again, we hear stories of convicted sex offenders striking again. Now we have the case of Kenneth Glenn Hinson, a useless piece of garbage if ever there was one. Hinson was released from prison 5 years ago after serving 9 years for raping a 12-year-old girl. At the time, South Carolina officials recommended Hinson be placed in a program for violent sexual predators, a move rejected by the Judge Edward Cottingham, who doesn’t remember the case.

Hinson is now accused of kidnapping and raping two 17-year-old girls in a dungeon he constructed below is home. One can rest assured that these two girls will remember Hinson. Fortunately, the two teenaged victims managed to escape from the underground confinement, meanwhile Hinson remains on the loose. Authorities consider him extremely dangerous.

Exactly how many times must this happen before society awakens to the reality that these sexual predators cannot be rehabilitated and should not be allowed to roam free? The premise that 9 years in prison is sufficient for the brutal rape of a 12 year old is ridiculous to say the least. At a minimum Hinson’s punishment should have been life in prison, now two more children have had their lives irrevocably altered due to the release of this madman.

The Phalanx is never one for the expansion of federal authority at the expense of the states, but if states remain unwilling to confront the overwhelming problem of violent sexual predators, then perhaps the federal government should intercede.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/17/underground.dungeon.ap/index.html

No we aren’t talking about the French in 1763 or 1815 or 1871 or 1940 or 1954 or 1962, in this case we are speaking of political capitulation. Only Tuesday we discussed the reaction of French youngsters to a new labor law passed by the French National Assembly. Under this new law, employers would be encouraged to hire French youth with a stipulations that such employees could be fired within 2 years at the discretion of the employer. Naturally, this move has been viewed as a threat to the French Social Model of entitlement, stagnation and complacency. In the intervening period French student protests have become more vocal and more violent. The French populace has been engrained with the concept of socialism since the days of the Paris Commune in 1871. The concept that a worker must prove his or her worth to an employer is a foreign concept to say the least.

As we predicted Tuesday, the French have now capitulated. Though officially, the French President, Jacques Chirac has only called for dialogue to discuss the new employment bill. The word dialogue, however, is a French euphemism for appeasement, just as the government did during the Muslim riots last fall. Unfortunately, France has long been governed by mob rule, those disaffected with the rule of law simply abandon it at their leisure, venting their frustrations through street violence and general chaos and as what generally happens in France the government seeks to placate the mob, whatever the cost.

“…public necessity can be proclaimed by a mob as well as by a government.” – Horatio Seymour, 1863

This in and of itself is a form of appeasement. The architects of mob rule, clearly realize that their strategy works and with each success they are further emboldened, ensuring that the cycle of violence will continue.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4817056.stm

For the first time in over two decades officials from Iran and the United States will hold high-level talks. The subject of discussion: Iraq. The Iranians and the US are seeking a meeting of the minds to settle the issue of Iraq, coming to an agreement on the future of that country and its relationship with its powerful neighbor. The US, realizes Iran holds considerable influence with the majority Shia population in Iraq and if Iran can be brought into the fold, perhaps there is hope that an Iraqi civil war can be averted. Not that the mullahs of Tehran can be expected to embrace reason.

The talks have not come without limitations. According to the White House, these talks will be strictly limited to the subject of Iraq. There will be no discussions of Iran’s nuclear program. Why? Even during the height of the cold war, the US and the Soviet Union continued to engage one another. If Iran is truly the great threat Bush claims, then why ignore the Iranians?

Once again an opportunity is lost. Had the United States engaged Iran directly on the nuclear issue two years ago, perhaps the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons could have been averted. Instead, the US has rested its hopes in the EU3 (Britain, France and Germany).

The US must and should engage Iran directly, not only on the subject of Iraq, but nuclear weapons and terrorism. There is but one thing the Iranians will respect: force and the threat of force. The Iranians have nothing to fear from Europe and will continue to demand concessions from these appeasers. Sadly, Bush will stubbornly refuse to sit down with the Iranians and thus a grand opportunity to avert disaster will be lost.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4813048.stm

As if low public approval, never-ending conflict in Iraq and skyrocketing budgets weren’t enough, Bush seeks to add to his headaches by singling out Iran as the greatest threat to America’s future.

Is Bush right?

He most certainly is! Iran and its overt and covert support for terrorism, its clandestine development of nuclear weapons, its vows to wipe out Israel and its claims of the eventual domination of the world by Islam should give any rational human being cause for alarm, unless you are a radical Islamist. Iran poses a very real threat to Europe, the Middle East and the United States. Iran has significantly expanded its military prowess in recent years and its nuclear weapons program continues, in spite of pledges that such research is for “peaceful” purposes. Perhaps Iran defines peace as the absence of those who oppose their will, not unlike the communist view of peace.

In pointing to the reality of the Iranian threat, Bush again asserted the right of the US to resort to preemptive action to counter a perceived threat, such as the one posed by a nuclear armed Iran. If there is one thing we can say about this president, he is consistent and unfailing in his resolve and stubbornness, he will not back down from this position, even in the face of overwhelming opposition. The president, however, has a problem, he has lost considerable credibility, with such mishaps as the Cheney shooting debacle, the UAE ports deal, not to mention his ongoing inability to refute the lies and slander of the left in their opposition to the war in Iraq or the larger war on terror. Given these handicaps, it is unlikely the president will have the much-needed public support to launch any preemptive strike on Iran, short of an Iranian attack on US soil.

In a very real sense, Bush’s failure to communicate, places us in greater risk, as he lacks the ability to muster much needed political capital to deal with the Iranian nuclear crisis. Bush’s failure is magnified by the fact that this administration has allowed the appeasers of Europe (the EU3) to take the lead in negotiations with the Iranians. The Iranians, however, have manipulated the EU3 to such an extent that their threats to Iran have proven quite hollow. If negotiations fail to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear program, force will be needed. Iran, however, will never voluntarily abandon its atomic program, and only in the face of certain destruction would they even begin to acquiesce, such a threat from the EU is meaningless, Russia and China have only given nominal opposition and the US government is crippled by the leftist propaganda machine.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/16/bush.security.ap/index.html

Recently Treasury Secretary Snow warned that the US is dangerously approaching the debt ceiling set by Congress ($8.2 trillion). Beyond this ceiling the US government is forbidden from borrowing. This poses a dilemma for a government that has become obsessed with deficit spending. It is simply inconceivable that this government has incurred such a debt, with little to show for it.

Sadly, the Congress is set to raise that limit to $9 trillion, while taking now steps to reign in excessive government spending. On the contrary, leading politicians in both parties have proposed increases in government spending on a host of new initiatives. Many of these spending measures will succeed only in ballooning the debt even further, with no measurable benefits to speak of. In the past generation government spending has grown by leaps and bounds. Comparatively, the US public debt as a proportion of overall GDP is in the moderate range among nations of the world, nonetheless, at the rate of increase, the US will soon eclipse its ability to repay the debt. Indeed, at this very moment servicing the debt (i.e., paying the interest on the amount owed) accounts for a sizeable portion of the government’s budget. Today interest on the debt accounts for 10% of the overall budget.

According to the US Treasury, nearly half of the federal debt is held by foreigners, such a scenario poses serious challenges for the US. There is always a risk that foreign governments make cease buying government securities, particularly if there is a growing sense of financial insecurity. At no time in our history, except for a brief period during the presidency of Andrew Jackson, has there been no federal debt. Since 1980, however, the rate of increase has become quite staggering. In 1980, the US debt was just under $1 trillion, in ten years that number had trippled. Today as we approach the $9 trillion mark, the US will soon be forced to confront serious challenges. The greying of America will ensure a contracting workforce, coupled with a growing number of Americans seeking assitance at the public trough through social security and medicare. At present US debt measures approximately 63% of GDP, but this figure is expected grow over the next decade. It should come as no solice that such figures are comparable with nations like France and Germany, given their history of high unemployment and slow economic growth.

The US must begin to take steps to curtail deficit spending, particularly in areas of entitlements, which account for a sizebale portion of the overall federal budget (Medicare: 14%, Medicaid: 7%, Social Security: 21%). Congress could begin that process today. Instead of simply raising the budget ceiling, Congress could (and should, but won’t) impliment a measure of budgetary restraint. Given the political climate, such efforts aren’t likely to be entertained. The GOP has proven they are just as easily swayed by pork politics as the Democrats. Even modest attempts to slow the growth of various expenditures are decried as “cuts.” Thereby ensuring that no significant action will be taken in the near term.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/15/D8GCCFO01.html

By Sharon Hughes, UGC (Unaffiliated Guest Contributor)

Actor Rob Reiner, who gained his fame as 'Meathead' on the popular All in the Family sitcom, has successfully taken his liberal television political views to California's governement. But he has his eyes on the nation as well. The Washington Post describes his "dual crusade: to change the direction of politics and to improve the performance of kids in schools. He bids, someday, to be the Democrats' answer to Ronald Reagan."

It was just a few years ago, in 1998, when Reiner's Prop 10 passed and got him appointed as the first Chair of First 5 California Children and Families Commission by Govenor Gray Davis, to implement Prop 10's "health care, preschool and other critical services to prepare them (preschoolers) to succeed in school."

Prop 10 put a 50-cent per pack tax on cigarettes and has generated more than $4 billion since 1999, with 20 percent of the money going to First 5. In 2004-05 alone First 5's share of the money was $119 million. Today Reiner and his commission are facing a full-scale audit into allegations they used government money to promote his newest initiative, Prop 82, which will be on California's June ballot. If passed, Prop 82 will establish universal preschool for all 4 year olds in the Golden State.

But what's Reiner and his campaign not telling us about his newest initiative?

First, what Reiner says Prop 82 will do:
-Establish "free" voluntary, half-day state/government-run preschools for all 4-year-olds regardless of want or need.
-Will be funded by taxing the top 1.7% of income earners in California, increasing taxes to 11% on individuals with taxable income of $400,000 / couples of $800,000 or more.
-Will Cost an estimated $2.3 billion a year. (That's $8,000 per child which is more than some kindergarten through Grade12 schools pay for a full day).
-Requires all pre-school teachers to have a Bachelor’s Degree.
-Kids who go to preschool will do better in kindergarten and elementary school, graduate from high school, attend college, get better jobs with higher salaries and become happy consumers who will be less likely to do drugs and commit crimes than those who don't go to preschool.
-Based on a RAND Corporation study (funded by the pro-universal-preschool Packard Foundation) claims for every $1 spent on preschool, society will get back $2.62 in long-term benefits such as better student performance and lower crime.

What Reiner is not telling you:

Claiming he consulted with educational experts, interestingly Reiner failed to sit down with any associations representing preschools. He failed to consult with any of the California K-12 school reform groups. And he never talked with any home-schooling organizations. So, who did he consult? The existing interlocking layers of dysfunctional bureaucracy, California state, county and district levels of education, where parents, voters and taxpayers have very little say or control. Prop 82 will hand preschools over to the same bureaucracy .

Reiner also fails to consider the substantial analysis and findings on the effects of early preschool on under 5 year olds in his efforts to gain preschool for all. Consider:

Stanford University Findings:

In their review, "How Much is Too Much? - the Influence of Preschool Centers on Children's Development Nationwide' they detail their analysis which utilized data from 14,162 kindergartners and their parents and teachers. Which found that children from poor families had gains in cognitive skills when attending preschools by about 10%, and double that for English-proficient Hispanic children. However, they also found that there is less evidence of cognitive skill gains for youngsters from middle-class home, or for other children from lower-income families compared with their counterparts who remain at home with a parent.

The Stanford study also states that there is little known about possible impacts from the duration (the age at which children enter preschool) or the intensity (hours enrolled each week) of attendance. And that attendance in preschool centers, even for short periods of time each week, hinders the rate at which young children develop social skills and display the motivation to engage classroom tasks. This confirms other studies showing increased behavior problems caused by out of home care.

More Findings:

In January 2006, UC Santa Barbara researchers found that whatever student achievement gains can be attributed to preschool attendance largely evaporates after a few years in elementary school. In other words, by about 2nd grade skill levels of children who attended preschool and those who did not were the same and remained so throughout the rest of their education.

UC Berkeley Professor Bruce Fuller issued a study last year that examined research on teacher education and preschool, and found that studies claiming to show a connection between teachers holding bachelor's degrees and better student performance were statistically and methodologically flawed.

Georgetown University Professor William Gormley admits a universal pre-K program may or may not be the best path to school readiness. There is inconsistent evidence as to whether universal preschool helps improve the short-term performance of middle and upper-income children.

Other information to consider:

Lance T. Izumi, Director of Dducation Studies and Senior Fellow in California studies at the Pacific Research Institute says about Prop 82 specifically, "Preschool for all is a seductive proposition, but the reality is that the purported benefits would likely be much less than what Rob Reiner and his cohorts are promising. And with experts arguing that Reiner’s cost estimate of $2 billion is way too low, universal preschool looks to be a very expensive bad idea."

John Bruer, author of “The Myth of the First Three Years” and President of the James S. McDonnel Foundation writes,"Brain science has nothing to say about what happens to babies' brains when parents read to them. There's nothing wrong with reading, but in other cultures they're not as concerned with it as we are. We have to be careful in our attempts to use biology to justify our values. Human children thrive under a great variety of social and cultural conditions. Yes, kids should be ready to read when they start school. But starting at age 7 is not a biological constraint."

Dr. Karen Effrem, pediatrician, and board member of the ICSPP (International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology) said regarding this issue, "There is a significant element of indoctrination in these programs as evidenced by the Head Start national standards and the National Association for theEducation of Young Children standards that bring up issues of gender identity, homosexuality, environmentalism, and social activism with three andfour year olds. Preschool does not raise test scores. Despite a quadrupling of the number of four year olds attending preschool nationally over the past 40 years, test scores in reading, math, and science have remained stagnant over the same period.” See her testimony before the Minnesota Senate Early Childhood Finance Division: Dr. Karen Effrem Testimony Against SF 2841 - Preschool Socioemotional Screening

And just for the record, Paul Haubner, a specialist for the National Education Association has said, "The schools cannot allow parents to influence the kind of values-education their children receive in school; that is what is wrong with those who say there is a universal system of values. Our (humanistic) goals are incompatible with theirs. We must change their values.“

I don't think so!

When looking at Prop 82, or any universal preschool-for-all proposals, we need to keep in mind that while little kids need and deserve a secure place to spend their days where they can grow and develop during the first 5 years of life, that home is still a child's best "preschool" for the vast majority of American children. If mom must work, daycare is a better alternative. More on that in Part II.

-------------------------------

Sharon Hughes is President of The Center for Changing Worldviews and a radio talk show host on KDIA in San Francisco, RIGHTALK.com, and online at Oneplace.com. Her column appears in many recognized news sites and publications, most recently FRONTPAGEMAG, Publius Pundit and NewsBusters.org.

For further information visit her Website http://www.changingworldviews.com

In the past the Phalanx has railed against the death penalty, quite frankly the death penalty is no deterrent, it is applied too sparingly with little consistency from state to state. When it is applied the condemned thrive on death row for decades before their sentences are carried out and quite a few innocent men have no doubt gone to their deaths thanks to wrongful convictions. That being said, every now and then there comes a case that seriously tests one’s convictions. Today is such a day. Earlier today, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced the arrests of more than 25 people in an international child pornography ring.

This investigation, which began in Canada, has netted 13 domestic child porn perverts (CPPs) and 14 others in Australia, Canada and Great Britain (an English speaking alliance of child molesters). According to officials with the Justice department, the CPP suspects frequented online chat rooms complete with live streaming video of pedophiles molesting children, including one such low life molesting an infant.

While the death penalty may not deter these vermin, a lifetime of hard labor and atoning for their many crimes would certainly be a start that in conjunction with chemical castration would ensure that such filth could never again endanger innocent children. These CPPs are deserving of no special treatment, no consideration, no sympathy and no understanding. It will be interesting to see what type of defense these pedophiles mount; no doubt these sycophants will blame “society” for their criminal lust. If these dredges ever again see the light of day then one can truly say that there is no justice in this country.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-03-15-child-ring_x.htm

Today the kangarooiest show on earth continued unabated at the “trial” of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen. The circus master himself, Saddam Hussein, took the stand in his own defense. Once again Hussein claimed he was the head of state in Iraq and further claimed that he was the head of the insurgency, which is brutally murdering hundreds of fellow Iraqis each and every week. Saddam, as he gave his testimony went on to urge is fellow Iraqis not to fight amongst themselves, discrediting is initial claim of leadership in the insurgent movement, calling on his fellow Iraqis to rise up against the occupiers.

With clockwork like regularity, Saddam gives an Oscar caliber performance each day in the Kangarooiest of Kangaroo Courts we have seen in modern history, at least on the days when he decides to attend.

Indeed, under Saddam’s leadership, the Iraqi court system had far more credibility than this so-called tribunal. This circus has long since denigrated from actual trial into nothing more than soapbox for ex-dictators and tyrants. The legal authorities in Iraq have no authority, the defense attorneys and their clients regularly violate the rules of the court and use the trial as a forum.

Meanwhile those Iraqi who still watch the trial have been given a poor example of the rule of law in action. Indeed, what they have learned from this trial only enhances their acceptance of mob mentality. Hussein, for his part, should be commended for his expert mastery of propaganda. Even in captivity, he still commands considerable influence.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1727729

Europe catches a cold, or so goes the old expression. French society has been bankrupt for decades and in the coming years so too will its treasury, which given the cohesive nature of the European Union, could soon lead to a ripple affect across Europe.

France is an excellent case study in the ills of socialism and the dire straits all left leaning regimes will face at some point in time. France with its exceptionally high taxes and rigid economic controls demonstrates how attempts at socialized government lead to stagnation and a lack of innovation. The French government imposes a host of draconian restrictions on domestic businesses, none more outlandish than harsh restricts on terminating employment.

In France it is nearly impossible to dismiss an employee. These tenured employees range from janitors, to managers to engineers etc. An employee is immune from firing even in the midst of gross incompetence; as such businesses are hesitant to hire new employees for fear of the unknown. And because France imposes further restricts on the length of time an employee can work (even voluntarily), French industry, like its agriculture, is notoriously bloated and inefficient. Recognizing this fact and in an effort to combat double digit unemployment and stagnant economic growth (near 0%), the French government recently passed a new law, the First Employment Contract. This act, allows employers to hire young people (under age 26) and gives firms the freedom to dismiss those employees within 2 years.

The move, specifically designed to combat youth unemployment, which ranges from 20-40% across France, has been met with stiff resistance from the very people the bill was designed to help. French students have taken to the streets in honor of their favorite past time: rioting. In France, mob rule has been the order of the day since the days of the so-called French Revolution. “The street will speak,” said Bruno Julliard, leader of a French student union. Invariably the government will be forced to back done as they have done time an again when attempting to enact such reforms. French culture has firmly and perpetually embraced the entitlement mentality and as such reform is all but impossible. These latest riots highlight to imbecility that governs French society.

The notion that a firm would not be permitted to dismiss unproductive and inept employees is very much a socialist creation. Those who prove their merit should have nothing to fear, but in a culture where self-sufficiency and creativity have long give way to sloth and complacency one can expect nothing less. France and its continued slide should serve as a warning for American leftists.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4802964.stm

It should come as no surprise to most Americans that government entitlement programs expanded significantly during the past five years. The period from 2000 to 2005 saw the greatest rate of increase since Lyndon Johnson’s not so “Great Society.” As of 2005, the US government was spending over $1.3 trillion dollars on various entitlement programs, a 22% increase over the past 5 years.

The largest component of this increased spending came from health care costs, specifically Medicaid, which provides health care benefits for the LCDs of society. This rapid growth of social welfare in America does not bode well for the long-term viability of the American economy. These leaches on society will inevitably drive this nation into bankruptcy.

Not only are inept and cowardly politicians to blame for the unprecedented growth of entitlements in America but so too is society at large. The left in particular has cultivated an entitlement mentality, which discourages self-sufficiency and encourages dependency and a sedentary lifestyle. Leftists argue that the government should assume a paternalistic role in nurturing society. As such we have seen a steady decline in the work ethic of ordinary Americans and an increasing expectation that it is the responsibility of the state to supplement one’s income, to feed one’s children and so on.

Gone is personal responsibility, gone is accountability and gone soon is the American dream. Today it is perfectly acceptable to have children we can’t afford and live beyond our means, just so long as the state stands by to pick up the pieces of our meaningless lives. This government cannot continue to expand at these exponential rates, as we will soon outstrip our ability to provide such services and no amount of leftist inspired tax increases will offset the difference.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-13-federal-entitlements_x.htm

Pulling a Mussolini: the act of drawing attention away from one action (such as a personal failure) through deception and distraction (i.e., Hugo Chavez or the Democratic Party leadership)

Mussolini-esque: Having the characteristics of pulling a Mussolini.Dredges of Society: (Not to be confused with the dregs of society).

Dredges of Society: (Not to be confused with the dregs of society). The dredges represent the sediment (as in to dredge the Savannah River) that has settled to the bottom of the barrel those in society who prey on others, who have accomplished little in life and aren’t likely to do so in the foreseeable future.

LCD (i.e., Lowest Common Denominator): see Dredges of Society, those who represent the very least humanity has to offer.

Kangarooiest: Having the extreme characteristics of a Kangaroo Court, a show trial (as in the Trial of Saddam Hussein).

Entitlement Generation: Those in society who expect the state to provide for their every need, with little thought given to individual responsibility

The Left: Those who advocate socialist leaning principles in an ongoing effort to enhance the primacy of the state, while diminishing personal responsibility (i.e., the Democratic Party)

Tyrants of Beijing: The tyrannical, distraction obsessed leaders of China.

Mullahs of Tehran: The tyrannical, distraction obsessed leaders of Iran.

Islamic Radical: Muslim extremist who live by a simple credo (submit, convert or die.). Their goal is the complete subordination and destruction of the west and its people.

Welfare: Handout, something which destroys the will of an individual creating a subject class of citizens, we need not hesitate to call them slaves (i.e., slaves to, and dependent upon, the state)

Kyoto Protocol: A failed effort by the anti-American nations of Europe and their leftist allies to undermine the US economy by creating a faulty, one-sided "treaty to protect the environment" thru drastic cuts in emissions, while ignoring two of the world’s largest polluters (China and India).

Chicanery: Dubious tricks and deception, designed to distract or fool an audience to achieve a outcome favorable to one’s self.

The Nit Pick method: The gradual wearing down of opponent, through excessive demands, forcing a rival to concede greater and greater amounts (akin to appeasement)

Litigious Curse: Growing tendency in America to sue for the most trivial of offenses.

This week the president begins yet another hopeless effort to boost support for the war in Iraq. At this point his efforts are all but dead on arrival. The President will no doubt give more of the same tired speeches. Gone are the days of the president’s post 9/11 glory, gone is the tenacity of the 2004 campaign, in its place we are left with dishwatery platitudes that have no effect on popular opinion whatsoever. For months, Bush had the opportunity to set the record straight on Iraq, Bush could have reminded the population and the world the Iraq did indeed have WMDs, Bush could have highlighted the success of Iraq’s political rebirth or the dawn of representative government in t