Monday, August 22, 2005

FDR Proposed Private Accounts - By Rod D. Martin

It is amazing how many people are listening to our underhanded politicians (from both parties) about this issue. All these rich bastards want is the money that would go into your account, where they would no longer be able to get their hands on it to spend on pork projects that get them reelected if this plan goes into effect.

This is the only way to go, this way empowers the people and disempowers the politicians. Who should own your money, you or Congress? Who worked for it?

-- Ichabod Crane

FDR Proposed Private Accounts
By Rod D. Martin
August 22, 2005

To hear today's Democrats talk, Franklin Roosevelt would be spinning in his grave if he heard today's debate about Social Security private accounts.

They're only half right. He'd be spinning if he heard today's Democrats.

Roosevelt was many things, but he was no fool, not on this point. The man who gave us the New Deal understood perfectly the limitations of Social Security. In honest moments, politicians correctly note that "Social Security was never meant to pay for 100% of your retirement." And to pay for the part a government pension scheme couldn't, FDR had a very modern-sounding idea.

Announcing his plan on January 17, 1935, Social Security's founder said: "in the important field of security for old people, it seems necessary to adopt ... voluntary contribution annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age."

In other words, private accounts.

Seventy years later, Roosevelt's words ring truer than ever. Social Security taxes -- just 1% back then -- now consume between 12 and 15% of most Americans' income. They effectively eliminate any possibility of separate retirement savings without serious sacrifice.

And for what? Social Security checks remain a pittance, certainly nothing anyone should have to depend on as a monthly income; and with a $255 death benefit, they don't even pay enough to bury you.

Worst of all, you don't own your own money. You can't pass it on to your wife, you can't pass it on to your kids. And since government spends every dollar as soon as it comes in -- the trust fund is a myth -- there's not even any guarantee you'll get to keep your money yourself.

But as President Roosevelt taught us, there really is a better way.

Under President Bush's plan, Social Security could finally fulfill its promise. Private account-holders could look forward to between three and five times the monthly check available under the current system. Most Americans would retire on a higher monthly income than they had when they were working.

And they wouldn't have to invest in anything risky to achieve this, or give up the safety net of government Social Security, or even obtain any specialized knowledge of investing. The tens of millions in (incredibly successful) private accounts around the world -- from Chile to Britain to Australia to the public employees in Galveston, Texas -- have already shown us the way.

Some pundits have pronounced the President's plan dead; but the rumors of its death are greatly exaggerated. Social Security reform can still happen, and happen this fall once Congress returns.

The best bill before Congress -- by a wide margin -- is Ryan-Sununu. It proposes placing half of your Social Security tax money in an account which you alone control: you will own it just like your IRA or 401(k). This would not only give every American a much higher retirement income than any other bill before Congress, it would also solve the problem of Social Security's impending bankruptcy: as more Americans use their private accounts instead of burdening the current system, the Ryan-Sununu plan would create an ongoing multi-trillion dollar surplus roughly twenty years out.

This would completely eliminate the solvency crisis. More than that, it would give the current generation of retirees a huge benefit increase, and everyone else an enormous tax cut.

President Roosevelt understood: Americans need the right to contribute their hard-earned money to their own voluntary personal retirement accounts. These PRAs will let every American -- even our very poorest -- accumulate real assets, real nest eggs for retirement, and real inheritances for their children.

No one will benefit from this more than the lower and middle income working-class, who can never quite get out of poverty because the current system taxes away too much for them to save. No one, that is, except black Americans, whose lower life expectancy means they frequently die before ever receiving Social Security at all, and aren't allowed to pass anything on.

IRAs and 401(k)s have sparked an enormous capitalist revolution, transforming millions of regular Americans from ordinary workers into investors. It's time to complete that revolution. Let's help every American participate in this very American dream. It's time the poorest among us had the same benefits from our free market system that most of us take for granted.

It's the least we can do, for their sake, and for President Roosevelt's vision.


Rod D. Martin is Founder and Chairman of Vanguard PAC. A former policy director to Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Special Counsel to Founder Peter Thiel, he is a member of the Board of Governors of the Council for National Policy, a Vice President of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA), and editor and co-author of Thank You President Bush, the definitive handbook to the second term.


Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

The Long War or the Short Surrender - from The Federalist

This, IMHO, is the finest publication on the web or anywhere. I'm posting this here, now, to remind those who have lapsed in their memories of what we're fighting for and why. The cause never changes, just the enemy and the place. this is a fundamental battle for the right to exist.
The following is an excerpt from the 29 July 2005 Federalist Patriot No. 05-30 Friday Digest
-- Ichabod Crane



"[I]t is a common observation here that our cause is the cause of all mankind, and that we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own." --Benjamin Franklin



Top of the fold -- U.S. National Security: The Long War or the Short Surrender (Part III of a three-part series)

In the 1990's, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there was a new sense of security in the West, particularly in the U.S. But the Free World had unwittingly traded the Cold War for the Long War -- "unwittingly" because after eight years of Clinton administration antics, and eight months of the newly-installed Bush administration's effort to reorder national priorities, most Americans were unaware that another deadly enemy had coalesced in our midst.

That false sense of security terminated abruptly on 11 September 2001, when one of this enemy's brigades attacked the World Trade Center -- for the second time. The first WTC attack on 26 February 1993 was treated by the Clinton administration as a "criminal act." Subsequent attacks by this enemy against Khobar Towers, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the USS Cole were also investigated as criminal acts. The same would have been true after 9/11, except that President George Bush had the resolve to call this attack what it was -- an "act of war" -- terrorism carried out by an asymmetric enemy calling itself "al-Qa'ida" (The Base), which was part of an international unified Islamic terrorist network supported, in part, by nation states like Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria.

This was a new kind of war, but it was war nonetheless.

Unlike symmetric threats emanating from clearly defined nation states like Russia and China -- nation states with unambiguous political, economic and geographical interests -- this asymmetric enemy defies nation-state status, thus presenting new and daunting national-security challenges for the executive branch and U.S. military planners.

Perhaps the most difficult of these challenges is the task of keeping Americans focused on why this asymmetric threat must be engaged (short of periodic catastrophic wake-up calls). Unfortunately, in deference to sensitivity and diversity, the Bush administration has yet to use the words "Muslim" or "Islamic" when attempting to define or, dare we say, "profile" this enemy. But the Bush administration, and the administrations of our Allies, depend on public support to prosecute the Long War ahead with Islamists.

Targeting al-Qa'ida and its Saudi protagonist Osama bin Laden may have initially precluded diminishing public support for the so-called "War on Terror," but protests against operations in Iraq and elsewhere are taxing morale both at home and on the warfront. Only two things can curtail this retreat. Either the Bush administration can do a better job of defining this enemy and its lethality, or the enemy can hit us again -- and as noted in parts I and II of this series, this enemy has the potential to hit much harder than it did on 9/11.

The latter is assured if the former fails.

President Bush must rightly define this enemy as Islamist zealots of Jihadistan, a borderless nation of Islamic extremists constituted by al-Qa'ida and other Muslim terrorist groups, calling for jihad, or "holy war," against "all the enemies of Allah." (If you're reading this, you are likely a non adherent -- and an enemy of Allah.) These Jihadis seek to disable the U.S. economy using any means at their disposal, and thus, undermine our political, military and cultural influence around the world. Ultimately, they want to contain or kill those who do not subscribe to their Islamofascist cult of hate.

The President must also convince our countrymen of the certainty that against Jihadistan, there is no neat Cold War doctrine like Mutually Assured Destruction to stay offensive measures. In this war, the only doctrine that can keep the enemy at bay is that of preemption -- and it must be maintained as long as there are Islamists capable of doing the West harm.

President Bush told the nation, "This is a long war, and we have a comprehensive strategy to win it. We're taking the fight to the terrorists abroad, so we don't have to face them here at home. We're denying our enemies sanctuary, by making it clear that America will not tolerate regimes that harbor or support terrorists."

Indeed, it will be a long war, and his Doctrine of Pre-emption is the best directive for strategy. But short of clear public comprehension of what constitutes "the enemy," which is a prerequisite to sustained public support, this essential war will be short-circuited, and Jihadis will, once again, move the warfront to our homeland.

There are plenty of domestic enemies who would undermine public support for the war against Jihadistan for purely political reasons. After all, there are midterm elections in 2006 and a presidential election in 2008. Rep. Nancy Pelosi claims, "The president's frequent references to the terrorist attacks of September 11 show the weakness of his arguments. He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of September 11, knowing that there is no connection between September 11 and the war in Iraq."

Sen. Harry Reid (who voted for Operation Iraqi Freedom) says, "The president's numerous references to September 11 did not provide a way forward in Iraq. ... 'Staying the course,' as the president advocates, is neither sustainable nor likely to lead to the success we all seek."

John Kerry alleges that President Bush has fabricated a "third rationale" for the war: "The first, of course, was weapons of mass destruction. The second was democracy. And's to combat the hotbed of terrorism."

The President, in the national interest, must take the offensive against these opportunistic detractors in order to restore public support and confidence in the Long War. For we can be certain that this war will last beyond his presidency. Just how long might it last? That depends, in part, on how one defines its origin.

If the war began in 627 AD, five years after Islam's founding, when Mohammed committed his first genocide against a Jewish tribe, then the war is an epic struggle between Islam and other religions, especially against Jews and Christians, which is to say its conclusion is not foreseeable. If the war is an extension of the middle-age invasions of the West by rapacious Islam, whether the start date is the victory of Charles Martel at Tours (732 AD), the back and forth of Crusades (1095-1669) or defeats like Constantinople (1453 AD), the siege of Vienna (1529 AD), the fleet at Lepanto (1571 AD), or the gates Venice (1683 AD), then the war is a clash of civilizations which likely has centuries of conflict yet ahead.

But if the war against Jihadistan began, as suggested here, on 11 September 2001, taking into account that Jihadi attacks on Western targets date back to the 1960s, then it will likely continue for decades. After all, it took 70 years to topple the Evil Empire.

"Our generational commitment to the advancement of freedom, especially in the Middle East, is now being tested and honored in Iraq," says President Bush. As we approach the fourth observance of 9/11, we can be sure that Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, Kennedy and their Leftist cadre will run a masterful campaign of disinformation. Such a campaign will surely test the resolve of the American people, and the Bush administration would be well advised to begin vigorously cultivating public support by forthrightly defining this mortal enemy.

The Long War may yet end on a day when the West and its beacon of liberty, these United States, surrender. Of course, the consequences of surrender will be much worse than the consequences of the war itself, but a free nation must be free to do as its collective will chooses -- even it that means choosing to lose.

For the duration, pray that our capability to defend the U.S. on more than one theater warfronts while prosecuting the long war against Jihadistan is not tested.

Quote of the week...

"September 11 for me was a wake up call. Do you know what I think the problem is? That a lot of the world woke up for a short time and then turned over and went back to sleep again." --British Prime Minister Tony Blair

On cross-examination...

"Thousands of innocent civilians such as [Theo] van Gogh have been murdered by Islamic extremists -- in Darfur, Gaza, India, Israel, Lebanon, London, Madrid, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey and the United States. The carnage gives credence to the adage that while the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, the vast majority of global terrorists most certainly are Muslims. The killers always allege particular gripes -- Australian troops in Iraq, Christian proselytizing, Hindu intolerance, occupation of the West Bank, theft of Arab petroleum, the Jews, attacks on the Taliban, the 15th-century reconquest of Spain, and, of course, the Crusades. But in most cases -- from Mohamed Atta, who crashed into the World Trade Center, to Ahmed Sheik, the former London School of Economics student who planned the beheading of Daniel Pearl, to Magdy Mahmoud Mustafa el-Nashar, the suspected American-educated bomb-maker in London -- the common bond is not poverty, a lack of education or legitimate grievance. Instead it is blind hatred instilled by militant Islam." --Victor Davis Hanson

Open query...

"British citizens, who happen to be Muslim, murdered over 50 people, including themselves. Or, was it Islamists, who happen to be British, killed innocent people? It makes a difference. Brits today, Americans tomorrow, must know who their domestic enemies are and what kind of war they are fighting to win. Assuming Brits or Americans have the will to win. This World War is between a totalitarian ideology, born of a relatively barbaric culture, against all humankind." --James Atticus Bowden, military futurist (Does anyone think these bloody attacks will cease because we wish it were so?)

Thursday, August 11, 2005

Spreading Hate - By Linda Chavez

The real question is why are the leaders of the Black Community doing this? The Republicans seem to be all about extending the clause that is about to expire, after all; and, no one that I’ve heard, on either side, have spoken out against it. The most egregious abuses have been fixed, and are a permanent part of The Voter Rights Act of 1965; the part that is scheduled to expire are those things that southern democrats originally balked at, saying they were ‘unconstitutional’, leading to the compromise to put a sunset clause on them.

What are their motives in tarring the very people who are working to keep this going? Indeed, it sounds like they’d rather see section 5 expire! -- Ichabod Crane

Spreading Hate

By Linda Chavez

August 11, 2005

Passage of the Voting Rights Act in August 1965 was a proud moment in U.S. history. For the first time, millions of African Americans living in the Deep South, who had been excluded from fully participating in the political process for 200 years, were finally enfranchised. The battle to secure those rights cost many lives of both blacks and whites. So why is it that some black leaders have taken the occasion of the 40th anniversary of this seminal event to engage in hate speech?

On Saturday, thousands of activists gathered in Atlanta to commemorate the signing of the Voting Rights Act. Speakers at the rally included House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga.; Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.; and entertainers Harry Belafonte, Dick Gregory and Greg Mathis, a Michigan Superior Court judge who stars in his own TV series. But instead of celebrating the triumph of this great law, many -- if not most -- of the speakers used the occasion to try to scare African Americans into thinking the Republicans in Congress and President Bush were about to rescind the protections the Act guarantees.

There was much talk of “stolen” elections. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., said, “The last two elections were stolen. They were stolen and so we will not rest until we reclaim our democracy, and this is what today is all about.” Judge Mathis referred to the 2000 elections as “the biggest election crime in history.” He told the enthusiastic crowd that the “thieves” in the Republican Party “need to be locked up.” Harry Belafonte warned, “We must stand vigilant, as there are those among us who would steal our liberty and steal our souls.”

Belafonte referred to blacks serving in the Bush administration as “black tyrants,” and went even farther in an interview with Marc Morano of “Hitler had a lot of Jews high up in the hierarchy of the Third Reich,” Belafonte told Morano, an anti-Semitic canard meant to smear as neo-Nazi both the Bush administration and the African Americans who serve in it.

You’d think by the vicious rhetoric at the march that President Bush was trying to revoke the Act. Nothing of the sort is true. Most sections of the landmark legislation are permanent, including the ban on literacy tests, once a favorite method to keep qualified black voters from exercising their right to vote. Certain provisions of the Act -- most notably Section 5, which requires covered jurisdictions to submit even the most minor changes in voting procedures to the Department of Justice for pre-clearance -- will expire in 2007, but they were always meant to be temporary. Indeed, these provisions might have been declared unconstitutional, despite the incredible recalcitrance of Southern politicians in 1965, but for the promise that they would expire after a time.

Congress should drop the pre-clearance provision of the Voting Rights Act and another section enacted in 1975 requiring non-English ballots to be provided in some jurisdictions. The pre-clearance provision makes little sense today. There is no evidence that jurisdictions covered by Section 5 -- many of them now governed by African-American politicians -- would try to disenfranchise black voters.

And non-English ballots were a bad idea in 1975 and an even worse one today. The Hispanic population in 1975 was predominantly U.S.-born and English-speaking. Today, there are virtually no U.S.-born Hispanics or other minorities who do not speak, read and write English. Although an increasing proportion of the Hispanic population is foreign-born -- about half of adults in this group -- English proficiency is and should remain a requirement for citizenship. As for the relatively small number of eligible voters who can’t read an English ballot well enough to make an informed decision, letting such voters bring someone into the ballot booth to assist them would be far more efficient than printing up millions of ballots in Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Tagalog, and other languages.

The irony is that no prominent Republican politician is even suggesting that Section 5 or the bilingual ballot provisions of the Voting Rights Act not be extended when they expire in 2007. To the contrary, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Majority Leader Tom Delay and Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner want these provisions extended another 25 years. But that won’t stop some demagogues from spewing hate and spreading lies.


For more information on how unions spend their members’ money, see Linda Chavez’s latest book, “Betrayal: How Union Bosses Shake Down their Members and Corrupt American Politics,” is now available in paperback.



Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Our Tratorous Press, by me and several others (credits included)

I’ve made mention of this before:

Where was the story about the only woman to win a Silver Star since WWII? You’d think that the liberal media (and their love of all things feminine) would have kept this story in the headlines for days. Did you see it? …at all? What was her name? It is: Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester, of the 617th Military Police Company, a National Guard unit out of Richmond, Ky. Remember her, you’ll hear her name again from me, at least, no one else seems to have the balls to mention her! (Item #1, below.)

There was also a Congressional Medal Of Honor recipient, did you know that? What was his name? PAUL R. SMITH Sergeant First Class, United States Army (Item #2, below.)

Where is our fucking press? It would seem that they are to busy pushing an agenda to report the fucking news! I am so fucking pissed (even in the British meaning), I could just spit!
The traitorous press, at least during Vietnam, gave the enemy ‘body count’ back then; today there is only the daily drone of American casualties and stories about their families. I call that 20 minute segment of the news, “the anti-conservative, anti-war, anti-American news segment.” What else can it be called?

The press is showing, beyond reasonable doubt, that they are in charge of the liberal agenda. Hopefully, with the help of me, and others, it will be their entire undoing!
I am so incensed I can hardly contain myself. See item 3. below as well, for what got me going (again).


There is a virtuous fear which is the effect of faith, and a vicious fear which is the product of doubt and distrust. The former leads to hope as relying on God, in whom we believe; the latter inclines to despair, as not relying on God, in whom we do not believe.Persons of the one character fear to lose God; those of the other character fear to find him.--Pascal

Veritas vos Liberabit!God Bless America!


Woman Soldier Receives Silver Star for Valor in Iraq
By Sgt. Sara Wood, USA
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 16, 2005 – For the first time since World War II, a woman soldier was awarded the Silver Star Medal today in Iraq.

Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester, vehicle commander, 617th Military Police Company, Richmond, Ky., stands at attention before receiving the Silver Star at an awards ceremony at Camp Liberty, Iraq, June 16. Hester is the first woman soldier since World War II to receive the Silver Star.

Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester of the 617th Military Police Company, a National Guard unit out of Richmond, Ky., received the Silver Star, along with two other members of her unit, Staff Sgt. Timothy Nein and Spc. Jason Mike, for their actions during an enemy ambush on their convoy. Other members of the unit also received awards.

Hester’s squad was shadowing a supply convoy March 20 when anti-Iraqi fighters ambushed the convoy. The squad moved to the side of the road, flanking the insurgents and cutting off their escape route. Hester led her team through the “kill zone” and into a flanking position, where she assaulted a trench line with grenades and M203 grenade-launcher rounds. She and Nein, her squad leader, then cleared two trenchs, at which time she killed three insurgents with her rifle.

When the fight was over, 27 insurgents were dead, six were wounded, and one was captured.
Hester, 23, who was born in Bowling Green, Ky., and later moved to Nashville, Tenn., said she was surprised when she heard she was being considered for the Silver Star.

“I’m honored to even be considered, much less awarded, the medal,” she said.

Being the first woman soldier since World War II to receive the medal is significant to Hester. But, she said, she doesn’t dwell on the fact. “It really doesn’t have anything to do with being a female,” she said. “It’s about the duties I performed that day as a soldier.”
Hester, who has been in the National Guard since April 2001, said she didn’t have time to be scared when the fight started, and she didn’t realize the impact of what had happened until much later.

“Your training kicks in and the soldier kicks in,” she said. “It’s your life or theirs. ... You’ve got a job to do -- protecting yourself and your fellow comrades.”

Nein, who is on his second deployment to Iraq, praised Hester and his other soldiers for their actions that day. “It’s due to their dedication and their ability to stay there and back me up that we were able to do what we did that day,” he said.

Hester and her fellow soldiers were awarded their medals at Camp Liberty, Iraq, by Army Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, Multinational Corps Iraq commanding general. In his speech, Vines commended the soldiers for their bravery and their contribution to the international war on terror.

“My heroes don’t play in the (National Basketball Association) and don’t play in the U.S. Open (golf tournament) at Pinehurst,” Vines said. “They’re standing in front of me today. These are American heroes.”

Three soldiers of the 617th were wounded in the ambush. Hester said she and the other squad members are thinking about them, and she is very thankful to have made it through unscathed. The firefight, along with the entire deployment, has had a lasting effect on her, Hester said.
“I think about it every day, and probably will for the rest of my life,” she said.

News Archive

Our first Medal Of Honor Recipient from Iraq-
Rank and Organization: Sergeant First Class, United States Army
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty:
Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action with an armed enemy near Baghdad International Airport, Baghdad, Iraq on 4 April 2003.

On that day, Sergeant First Class Smith was engaged in the construction of a prisoner of war holding area when his Task Force was violently attacked by a company-sized enemy force. Realizing the vulnerability of over 100 fellow soldiers, Sergeant First Class Smith quickly organized a hasty defense consisting of two platoons of soldiers, one Bradley Fighting Vehicle and three armored personnel carriers.

As the fight developed, Sergeant First Class Smith braved hostile enemy fire to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers from an armored personnel carrier struck by a rocket propelled grenade and a 60mm mortar round.

Fearing the enemy would overrun their defenses, Sergeant First Class Smith moved under withering enemy fire to man a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on a damaged armored personnel carrier.

In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded.

His courageous actions helped defeat the enemy attack, and resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of numerous wounded soldiers.

Sergeant First Class Smith’s extraordinary heroism and uncommon valor are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, the Third Infantry Division “Rock of the Marne,” and the United States Army.


Trashing our history: troops in Iraq
Thomas Sowell (back to web version)
August 10, 2005

Back in June, this column pointed out that it is impossible to fight a war without heroism -- but that you would never know that from the mainstream media. Nothing heroic done by American troops in Iraq is likely to make headlines in the New York Times or be featured on the big three broadcast network news programs.

That fact has now been belatedly recognized in a New York Times opinion piece, but with a strange twist.

After briefly mentioning a few acts of bravery in Iraq -- including a Marine who smothered an enemy grenade with his own body, saving the lives of his fellow Marines at the cost of his own -- the Times’ writer said, “the military, the White House and the culture at large have not publicized their actions with the zeal that was lavished on the heroes of World War I and World War II.”

Think about that spin: The reason we don’t hear about such things is because of the Pentagon, Bush and “the culture at large.”

Neither the Pentagon, the White House or “the culture at large” can stop the newspapers or the televisions networks from publicizing whatever they want to publicize. They all have reporters on the scene but what they choose to feature in their reports are all the negative things they can find.

The very issue of the New York Times in which this essay appeared -- August 7th -- featured a front-page picture of a funeral for a Marine killed in Iraq. If you judged by the front page of this and many other newspapers, our troops in Iraq don’t do anything except get killed.

The plain fact is that the mainstream media have been too busy depicting our troops as victims to have much time left to tell about the heroic things they have done, the far greater casualties which they have inflicted on their enemies, or their attempts to restore some basic services and basic decencies to this country that has been torn apart for years by internal and external wars -- even before the first American troops arrived on the scene.

The unrelenting quest for stories depicting American troops as victims -- including even front-page stories about the financial problems of some National Guardsmen called to active duty -- has created a virtual reality in the media that has no place for heroes.

Senator John Kerry has called the activation of reservists and National Guardsmen “a backdoor draft,” as if joining the reserves or the National Guard is supposed to mean an exemption from ever having to fight. The theme of troops as victims has been a steady drumbeat in the media, because of the way the media have chosen to filter the news, filtering out heroes, among other things.

This virtual reality can become more important than any facts. Even a young lady interviewer on Fox News Channel -- of all places -- recently asked a guest how long the American people will be able to continue supporting the war in Iraq with all the casualties.

All the American deaths in Iraq since the war began are not even half of the deaths of U.S. Marines taking the one island of Iwo Jima in a couple of months of fighting. And Iwo Jima was just one battle in a war that was raging on other fronts around the world simultaneously and continuing for nearly four long years.

It is not the casualties which are unprecedented but the media filtering and the gullibility of those who accept the virtual reality created by the media.

This is a re-creation of the media’s role in the Vietnam war, where American victories on the battlefield were turned into defeat on the home front by the filtering and spin of the media.
Even the current Communist rulers of Vietnam have admitted that they lost militarily in Vietnam but hung on because they expected to win politically in the United States -- as they did, with the help of the Jane Fondas, the Walter Cronkhites and a cast of thousands in the streets and on campuses across the country.

The very people who have been anti-military for years, who filter out American heroes in battle, are now proclaiming that they are “honoring” our troops by publicizing every death by name, day in and day out.

Has the dumbed-down education in our schools left us so ill-equipped that we cannot see through even the most blatant hypocrisy?

©2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Contact Thomas Sowell Read Sowell’s biography QUICK LINKS: HOME NEWS OPINION MEETUP C-LOG ISSUES

Friday, August 05, 2005

Advice For Ambassador Bolton - By Oliver North

This needs no further verbiage, except, perhaps, to say "Well said, Ollie!" -Ichabod Crane
Advice For Ambassador Bolton

By Oliver North

August 5, 2005

Congratulations, John, on your new assignment as the United States’ permanent representative to the United Nations. Please know that these good wishes are offered in the same spirit that I would applaud Hercules on his willingness to cleanse the Augean stables.

He, of course, had to divert the waters of the Peneius and Alpheus to accomplish his task. To flush the effluence from the corridors of the U.N., you may have to do the same with the Hudson and East Rivers. Please permit me to assist you in that task by throwing in my two cents -- which is, by the way, more than I think we ought to waste at the United Nations next year.

First, look under every rock. The corruption at the U.N. didn’t begin with the Oil for Food scandal and it certainly doesn’t end there. The United Nations is nothing more than bureaucracy piled atop waste, wrapped in fraud, covered with abuse -- all of it funded by American taxpayers who foot 22 percent of U.N. dues -- more than any other nation. We also pour billions of dollars more into the coffers of its related agencies.

As with the Oil for Food rip-off, these entities have no accountability. Lord only knows what the U.N.’s unelected globo-crats are doing with our money. Since Kofi refuses to hold his cronies accountable, John, you must.

Second, use the carrot and stick approach. The U.N. is run by people who wander through life like Rodney King, wondering, “Can’t we all just get along?” America’s big carrot is money. Kofi and cronies are addicted to American cash and dream daily of new ways to get more of it. Withholding the greenbacks -- along with the threat of sanctions -- are the big sticks.

Remind your new “colleagues” that last month the U.S. House of Representatives voted 221 to 184 to withhold 50 percent of U.S. dues to the U.N. until reforms are implemented.

By now, you’ve seen Kofi’s plan to expand the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). John, we don’t need more of these characters weighing in on America’s national security and sovereignty. Only three times in the U.N.’s history has the UNSC acted expeditiously and appropriately.

On June 27, 1950, the council adopted a resolution to “furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area.”

In 1990-1991, George H.W. Bush convinced the Security Council to endorse the coalition he had built to turn back Saddam Hussein’s aggression in Kuwait.

And in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, the Security Council agreed to help the United States oust the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. Three times in 60 years is not a record of great accomplishment.

The U.N. “Human Rights Commission” is a sick joke. If your “fellow ambassadors” don’t fix it or finish it next month, tell ‘em that the American taxpayers are going to cut off the cash and stop underwriting dictatorial makeovers for the likes of Robert Mugabe, Fidel Castro and Muammar Qaddafi.

The same thing goes for the U.N.’s so-called “peacekeepers,” who have been accused of child rape in the Congo and killing unarmed civilians in Haiti. If the keepers of the keys in the Big Blue Building on Turtle Bay fail to apprehend and punish the pedophile perpetrators of these crimes, cut the cash.

Don’t be afraid to stick it to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), either. The Iranians are building nuclear weapons, the North Koreans are making more of them, and the IAEA can’t decide what to do about either rogue dictatorship. Let Mohamed El-Baradei know that we’re blowing the whistle on his Keystone Cops -- and the Russian, Chinese, French and German firms that provide the nuclear weapons know-how and technology.

John, because this is a family-friendly publication, let me put this next piece of advice in Latin: Non illegitemi carborundum est. Hate to put it this way, John, but Kofi and his cronies really don’t like you any more than the liberals in the U.S. Senate do. You’re not going to be invited to the all-night cocktail parties at Manhattan’s hot spots. The New York Times welcomed you to the Big Apple by observing that you “will not be wreaking diplomatic havoc anywhere else.”

Take these as compliments. You no longer have to travel halfway around the world just to have a maniacal dictator like North Korea’s Kim Jung Il call you “human scum.” At the U.N., you can get those kinds of kudos every day. Hang each one in your heart as a trophy to American ideals.

After the treatment you received at the hands of Senate liberals, the striped pants set at the Big Blue Building are pikers. Shame them with your work ethic -- you get more done before breakfast than these guys do in a month.

Finally, John, try to bring a little humor to the place. U.N. bureaucrats are the most uptight, self-righteous group of pompous, incompetent airheads to gather in one place since Jimmy Carter’s last Cabinet meeting. Before your first meeting in the Security Council, go over and say hello to the French ambassador and, just before he sits down, slip a whoopee cushion on his chair.

The Chinese communists secretly love that kind of humor. The Brits will be appalled at the flatulent nature of the joke, but will endorse the target. If anyone complains, tell ‘em it’s U.S. retaliation for Jacques Chirac slobbering all over the first lady during her last visit to France.

Oh, and one more thing. When speaking with Kofi and his cronies, try to avoid using words like “sovereignty,” “national security” or “integrity.” You can tell by the corneal glaze-over -- those words only confuse him.




Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.