In recent postings James_Biga and Thomas_Valletta have eloquently expressed the frustration and fear so many of us feel about how the Iraqi war is being hijacked by Liberals, who are attempting to recreate the debacle of Vietnam all over again as they attempt to confront terror using their methods. As each day brings us more examples of Islamic extremism and barbarity, the stakes involved become enormous, and we have to consider the question : Can Liberals lead us to victory over IslamoFascism.

The answer is a resounding NO, reflecting the seeds of defeat which Liberalism carries within it , and nurtures, in the form of multiculturalism and moral relativism. You cannot defeat an enemy who you seek to understand and sympathize with. Indeed, this is the premise of Liberalism: if we only realize we are all the same, we won’t fight with each other, an example of the high moral sounding rhetoric so adored by the intelligentsia which has no application in the real world, where differences not only exist, they are a matter of life and death. To try and step into the shoes of the enemy, and identify with his grievances, is to remove your determination and will to victory. We cannot hope to get into the minds of the terrorists who kill innocent children, nor should we want to.

What we must do is defeat them, or they will destroy us. To be victorious, we need those values which man has held sacred for millennia, including patriotism, family, and God, and which has also come to include the love of liberty, not license, and freedom, not anarchy, all concepts which Conservatism defends from the onslaught of Liberal dogma, for without the strength of will and courage these inculcate in us, indeed without the belief that we are special and worth saving that these values represent, we are doomed to relativistic ambiguity and weakness, sitting ducks for those driven by religious certainty and maniacal fervor.

Periodically throughout history great civilizations like the Romans have had to withstand the onslaught of barbarians intent on destroying all they stood for. Perhaps the greatest threat was the fascism of WWII, when most of the US still subscribed to those beliefs like flag and family which would have been described as American as apple pie; thank God Churchill and FDR were not trying to “understand” Hitler, or we would all be talking German now. Today, in a country of latte drinkers, those attributes which gave us the strength to defeat that enemy are disparaged by many who think they are above such childlike beliefs and who live in a world where there is no good or evil, just differences to be understood and bridged. Those who believe this, the Liberal mantra, are more than naïve, they are criminally reckless, and that evil which they refuse to recognize sees in them the decadence and weakness they abhor and seek to destroy. And as they are being killed and subjugated , the Liberals will be explaining why this is a good thing, and how they deserve it.

If we are to defeat the newest barbarians, and prevent the world from descending into tyranny and horror, it will be up to Conservatives and our values to lead the way. Without us, the lights will go out, and darkness will engulf us all. We cannot give up.

As another close Congressional race was finally decided, this time for a Floridian Republican, the Democratic candidate immediately did what has become common practice on the Left- announced a lawsuit contesting the results. While not quite up there with the loser of Mexico's presidential election having himself sworn in as head of a treasonous, parallel government, nonetheless we see here the same refusal to accept defeat that has become the Democrat standard operating procedure since 2000. In accepting the decision of the electoral system there is a clear moral advantage for Republicans, who, while on the losing end of several very close races this year, graciously respected the will of the people and the integrity of the process, while Dems insist on refuting reality and blaming everybody but themselves when they are defeated,  oftentimes  insisting  on legal remedies and anything else that can prolong their agony, while at the same time casting the American political process in the worst possible light.  They are bad winners, and worse losers, and should be ashamed of the implications their behavior makes about American democracy.

This article by Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post rehashing the Liberal nonsense justifying an immediate withdrawal  from Iraq really doesn't deserve much effort in terms of rebuttal, but I found two things interesting and annoying at the same time. First, most of his justification comes down to Kissinger's recent statement about the war not being  winnable from a military aspect, but that political and diplomatic negotiations are necessary. Coming from a lifelong diplomat, I cannot really see why this is either surprising or considered news. It is also interesting that Robinson conveniently left out Kissinger's statement that an immediate withdrawal would be disastrous for the region, but Liberals are never that stringent about facts, so I guess we can forgive him. However, I wonder why anyone is shocked to learn that political negotiations are necessary to end a war unless the victorious army wants to impose a colonial administration. The famous saying that war is politics by other means is perfectly accurate in correlating the two, and therefore both are necessary to achieve victory. However, either one is insufficient, and withdrawing from Iraq before establishing a stable government removes the most powerful leverage we have in seeking to create a republican democracy there. When negotiating and bargaining you should always seek a position of strength, something Liberals just don't seem to understand in the international realm. Our army is a power which focuses the attention of the various factions, and the need for  political negotiations makes its presence that much more important.

The other comment that really annoyed me was Robinson's referral to Vietnam, a sore point I will never get over. We lost in Vietnam because of journalists like him who sapped our collective will, and convinced us we were losing when the opposite was true [the Tet offensive should go down in history as the most disastrous  US victory in history because of the MSM's spin on it. The Viet Cong lost just about every engagement they fought in it, yet we were the ones demoralized.]. Vietnam was the first politically correct war ever waged, where we restrained ourselves from using our collective might and as a result prolonged a campaign we should have won easily and that we finally had to forsake, and that is truly a shame we have to live with, but we must never allow that to happen again.It resulted in a disaster for the people of SouthEast Asia who died by the millions once the dominos fell [something Liberals seem to always gloss over] and it left the US in a depressed state that it took years to overcome.  We cannot afford that now against an Islamofascist enemy which is seeking to destroy us  with the help of the Liberal MSM.

This article reports on a group of ex-justice department officials , led by Janet Reno, who are contesting the procedures being used to try terrorist suspects, who they believe instead should be processed through the American criminal legal system with all the attendant rights that implies. At present their concerns pertain to Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a suspected sleeper cell agent of Al Quaida and the only detainee in the US. They find it reprehensible that  he can be held indefinitely without being tried by a system which is designed to be biased for the defendant [embodied in "guilty until proven innocent"], and which, due to the decisions of Liberal judges over the years, has coddled and liberated many obviously guilty people in the name of protecting their "rights" by formulating legal concepts like Miranda, the exclusionary rule, and just cause, all there to protect and err on the side of the accused. As a result , even someone who most people are sure killed two innocent people, O.J. Simpson, can walk away a free man under our legal system. The difference between proof and sufficient proof under a criminal trial is obvious to anyone who has watched "Law and Order", and the idea that somebody who is contemplating using a WMD to kill thousands or millions of people could be released because a search warrant was not in order is both frightening and instructive, for it illustrates the difference between the War on Terror and a law enforcement problem.  In the latter we are willing to let a guilty man go free to protect those who might be innocent; in the former we can never take the chance of releasing someone who is planning to kill innocent Americans by the hundreds or thousands or millions. Reno and her Liberal friends do not understand this and if they succeed in their crusade,  we may all pay a horrible price .

Michael Barone's article, which is a plea for Conservatives to come up with new ideas, is , as everything he writes, thoughtful and correct in its essentials. However, on this site it has elicited a number of criticisms for saying that big government is here to stay:

To be sure, this is big-government conservatism. But who thinks we're going to get rid of big government? Bush's approach has been to enhance choice and accountability, to rely more on markets and less on government commands.

As a Conservative, I , too, take offense at the thought that we have to accept Big Government as a fait accompli, an idea that goes against everything that we stand for and believe, and the clearest difference between us and Liberals. However, I do not think Barone's statement is necessarily a refutation of Conservatism, but rather a modification in the tactics for limiting government.

To consider my proposal, first realize that the abhorrence of Big government felt by Conservatives is due to the potential for abuse and even tyranny which arises when power is concentrated in a limited number of hands. When the US was being created, the response to this concern was the system of checks and balances which would always serve to restrain the exercise of governmental power.

I would also include in my criticism of Big government that I have yet to find anything it does efficiently and well, so on a strictly economic basis I shudder when I hear Liberals recommend it solve another one of our problems.

Now as the country has grown infinitely more complex through the centuries, the responsibilities of government have grown. Would it be better  if these had been restricted? I would say absolutely YES, but Conservatives, as opposed to Liberals, deal with the practical and real, and therefore we have to acknowledge conditions on the ground, an analogous situation to warfare, where tactics are always changing to adjust to reality. However,  our strategy must remain the same, and this is to limit government, and restrict it from becoming oppressive. To accomplish this, market mechanisms and private initiatives have been incorporated into many of the Bush policies, as a way to "check" the power of government, and  limit it to a supervisory role. Again, my gut instinct is always to avoid any government expansion,  but at the same time if we can restrict it to a refereeing role, well that is a situation I can live with, and not anything resembling the omnipotent Government of Liberal myth and fairy tales. Liberals love to point to the current administration and denigrate its Conservative credentials. and yet they passionately hate it, because they recognize that the limited government responsibilities that have been created by its policies is antithetical to their dogma. Their hatred speaks volumes about the continuing Conservative success at limiting government for the sake of freedom even as we address the problems confronting our Nation.

An LA community which is plagued by dangerous raccoons finds itself unable to do anything about it because the local government agency in charge of animal control wants to instill a "reverence for life"  amongst its citizens [see article ]. Even in La-la land some are decrying this as political correctness gone amok, as recurring life threatening attacks on pets have caused people to fear for their safety.  The government response is truly amazing:

"As we develop these programs that demonstrate our compassion for creatures completely at our mercy, it makes for a more compassionate society all the way around."
 
Now, its heartwarming to see the Liberals on the Left Coast caring for life, and I am sure they supported the recent effort in Spain to grant special rights to apes to protect them from being the victims of human imperialism, but I have to admit that it bothers me that these same compassionate, understanding  souls probably condone abortion as a right of  women, and,  while harming a raccoon is not allowed, killing a fetus is probably no problem at all in LA. And to think that some people believe Liberals have their priorities all mixed up.

Conservatism, like any philosophy that is adopted by a wide ranging group of people , has begun to be “fuzzy” around the edges, as different emphasis and beliefs are grafted upon it. On this site I have seen secular cons, libertarians, paleos, neos, as well as the usual smattering of closet liberals who try to convince us that their beliefs are either compatible with, or better than, ours. Therefore, for my own mental housekeeping, and perhaps yours, I am attempting to clarify some of the basic policies of Conservatism, and why these are the stands we have taken.

As I have written before, the basic premise of Conservatism is that Man is not perfectible, but rather that he is, indeed, fallible, but in this fallibility is all that makes us human, including our talents, ambitions, desires and aspirations. Victor Davis Hanson has referred to this as our tragic fate, for we are destined to have heartbreak and disappointment, but overcoming and triumphing gives us the chance to be heroic, indeed to be more than we ever dreamed. Perfection comes in one flavor, while humanity’s palette is infinite. That is worth the acceptance of our frailty and imperfection.

The other foundation of Conservatism is a belief in a Higher Power, which bestows upon us certain moral absolutes which are not subject to majority approval or social engineering. I have debated this point with people who call themselves Secular Conservatives, a name I consider an oxymoron; if you go back to Burke, the founder of modern Conservatism and work your way to the present, belief in God is an integral part of the philosophy, and indeed, was a major demarcation point with the secular Liberals, who threw religion out with all the other building blocks of society after they stormed the Bastille and began the march towards their paradise, a path which ended with Marx and Communism, when religion was denigrated as the opiate of the Masses. Now you can subscribe to small government, capitalism, family values and many of the other tenets of a Conservative, but unless you believe in God, you are not one by historical definition. To redefine it is to create something else all together.

Having stated it’s axioms, how does Conservativism play out in the world? First and foremost, there is an overriding fear of government, which is recognized as a route to tyranny. Even if the goals are justified, a Conservative knows that power corrupts, and that even the best of intentions can, and will, lead to unforeseen consequences. Therefore governmental power should be minimized, and when it is necessary, checks and balances incorporated to prevent its accumulation in any one man or group of men. And just as important, Conservatism recognizes that government cannot change men, that the governed do not mirror the government, but rather the government reflects its citizens. Improvement comes by people changing, not by fiat from a paternalistic authority. Thus quotas, affirmative action, redistribution of income, entitlements, and all the other programs which are meant to make society “better and fairer” are recognized for what they are: futile attempts at social engineering which lead to more governmental power, more waste and more corruption.

At the same time, all those institutions and processes which have developed over time, sometimes thousands of years, and which counter balance government, and indeed protect us from it, are defended. Thus marriage and its values, the fundamental unit of society for thousands of years, is held sacred, and attempts to change its basic nature are fought. Gay marriage is looked upon for what it is: not an attempt to create another stable unit of civilization, but rather an indirect attack on what marriage stands for, and in European countries which have instituted it, Gay marriage has resulted in decreasing marriage rates and increasing out of wedlock births, for once marriage loses that special place it holds in society, and becomes just another option for living together, it quickly declines since the commitment and self abnegation it demands quickly loses their appeal.

Smaller governing units, such as states, which tend to be more responsive to their citizens concerns, are also held in higher regard by Conservatives than Liberals, who see them as standing in the way of their attempts to reorganize the country according to their precepts. The logical extension of this is that Conservatives defend nation states against global institutions, which are the ultimate Big government, and therefore see in the UN an effort to run roughshod over the sovereignty of the US, as the tyranny of the third world nations replicates the raw democracy of the French Revolution on a much bigger scale as they attempt to bring the mighty low out of envy and greed. A Conservative understands that nations behave like people and follow their self interests, and that force is often a necessary deterrent or corrective. The UN negates the idea of balance of power and power politics, and replaces it with rule by mob, which is really no rule at all. Its wonderful to think that we can all sit down and talk out our problems, but that is not how the world works, as every nation seeks its own advantages. Therefore, all that is accomplished is that the US, the greatest power in the world, is leashed and restrained, and the opportunity for the peace which historically has been enforced by the most powerful nation, whether the Pax Romana or Pax Britannica , is missing, and the world is in turmoil.

Abortion and euthanasia, which this past week was recommended for consideration for sick infants in Britain, are looked upon as a violation of the Natural Law which God has bestowed upon us, and whereas a Liberal sees abortion as an empowerment for females, a Conservative sees it as murder. This is really a cut and dried difference which I do not believe can be bridged. One cannot countenance murder for political expediency or to make women feel better about themselves, which has somehow become the countervailing argument. This, perhaps more than anything else, demonstrates the diametrically opposed views of Liberals and Conservatives, and puts the lie to the Liberal belief that all things are subject to rational discussion and solution. If life is sacred, murder is reprehensible, and no sophistry can change that.

Lastly, I saved the argument for capitalism, which, in many ways, is the most eloquent solution ever devised by men to address a fundamental problem, that of production and allocation of resources, which is what an economy is. Capitalism, which arose over centuries, actually accepts the selfishness of man, and uses it for the greater good in a way no Liberal formulated and imposed program has ever done. The famous “invisible hand” of the marketplace actually takes the individual actions of millions of people and creates a system which has produced more wealth in a hundred years than had been in the previous 5000 years of civilized life. For a Conservative, this beautiful mechanism, which acknowledges men’s greed and aspirations, and instead of defying them with government proclamations and regulations, allow them to work for the betterment of all is the ultimate example of how society should operate, and any attempt to “improve” it by the imposition of socialistic principles and regulations is fought with all available forces. In some respects there is no more important concept to defend for a Conservative.

So there you have it. It is certainly not an exhaustive examination of all the policies and beliefs of Conservatism, but it does touch on the major ones, and hopefully I have succeeded in tying them together by demonstrating the principles which under gird them. I think it is important that Conservatives recognize that we should never defer to the supposed high road and morality that Liberals claim as their own , as they look down their noses at what they perceive as our selfish and mercenary policies. We, too, seek to improve the world, but recognize that reality is messy and cumbersome, and not able to be ignored. Not for us the ivy towers which house the Liberal pundits who see the world as they would like it, not as it is. It is all well and good to formulate fairy tales, but in the light of day they dissipate like so much fluff. While Liberalism gives birth to the fanciful and fantastic, which oftentimes turns into the horrible and dangerous, Conservatism has been busy making the world a better place by seeing it as it is, and guiding it to what it can be. For that we should all be proud.

As Conservatives lick our wounds after an electoral defeat, and endure some criticism from Liberals about what spoilsports we are, I thought this article about the defeated Mexican Leftist Lopez Obrador might offer us some lessons as to how to behave when we lose a vote. It seems Mr. Obrador has declared a parallel government, of which he is , naturally, the head, and he is now soliciting donations from the suckers...I mean his supporters to fund so far unannounced activities. So there you have it...the correct way to lose an election is to announce you didn't and begin to suck money from the people who put their faith and trust in you. Hmmm...maybe Liberals really don't know how to accept defeat very well after all. Surprising, considering how much practice they have.

I usually agree with Bill O'Reilly, though his populist tirade against the Oil Companies must have been written by Nancy Pelosi's speechwriter, but I have a bone to pick with him regarding his new book "Culture Warrior". Try as I might, I cannot figure out the real differences between his Traditionalists and Secular-Progressives and good old fashioned Conservatives and Liberals. Yes, he tries to finesse this, and creates some minor points of divergence, but let's be real, or in his terms, cut out  the spin.

All Liberals are secular , regardless of what superficial homage they might pay to religion [especially recently] and there is a fundamental reason for this: acceptance of God implies there are Absolutes in the Universe, specifically in terms of morality and ethics, and this is anathema to a Liberal, who is raised on the mother's milk of multiculturalism and moral relativism, and who cannot abide by the thought that there exists a Higher Power who can restrain their effort to create a better world. Hence they take every opportunity to restrict religion in the public square, while waving the banner of Darwinism in their crusade against believers, who stand in the way of their perfecting Man. And this clever segue leads to the other basic tenet of Liberalism, progress, which they believe is ever onward, a march Marx took straight to a Communist heaven. Therefore, all Liberals are secular progressives [progressive and liberal are often used synonymously].

As for Conservatives, they are, by definition, those who seek to conserve the traditional ways of doing things which they feel time and man's collective intelligence have proved work. A Conservative is ALWAYS a traditionalist, something that should not have to be pointed out, especially to someone as savvy as O'Reilly.

So every time I hear Mr.O'Reilly use his new terms, what comes to mind is the person who renamed used cars as "pre-owned", a brilliant marketing ploy which really just repackaged old clunkers and allowed them to become respectable. O'Reilly never has referred to himself as Conservative [at least I have never heard him], yet has no trouble calling himself a Traditionalist. Fine, if this is just an attempt at coloration which allows him to maintain some semblance of neutrality on his show, more power to him. If, on the other hand, he is trying to create a new proprietary demarcation between people which he can claim as his discovery, well, if he tried to patent it , I think it would be rejected as just restating what has existed for hundreds of years. There is a Culture War, and I respect O'Reilly for engaging it, but in the spirit of honesty and reality, let's call a Liberal a Liberal . And if there is anyone out there who can show me the error of my ways, please, feel free to explain what I am missing, and why we need new terms for old foes.

Wonders never cease- the NY Times published an article today which accurately assesses the military situation in Iraq, and explains why leaving prematurely [whether you call it phased withdrawal, pulling back, putting more responsibility on the Iraqi forces or any of the other euphemisms for cut and run that the Dems advocate] is not really an option. Granted, it comes a week after the elections when it can do no harm to the Democratic candidates who have never seen a military engagement they could stomach, but better late than never. Perhaps this is an indication that the Liberals, now that they have power, will be more realistic about Iraq. Or maybe this one just snuck past their internal censors. Whatever the reason, enjoy it; it maybe a long time before you get to agree with Times again!

Poor stupid Conservatives that we are, we have been laboring under a vast misapprehension  about the meaning of the phrase "swift boating" as it has been used by various Democrats over the last two years. When Kerry initially turned a boat into a verb, we thought he was saying that those were unsubstantiated rumors spread by vindicative men who were just out to sink his candidacy. However, John Murtha has now used the same term [see article] to describe the use of a video showing him being investigated under Abscam to undermine his attempt to be the majority leader of the party who is promising to clean up the culture of corruption [who says Democrats have no sense of humor?]. See, we had it all wrong. "Swift boating" really means "How dare you listen to anything disparaging about me which could cost me an election. I don't care what proof you have, I insist it's wrong, and refuse to acknowledge its validity".  Come to think of it, we should have realized that's what it meant when Kerry used it too.

John West of the Discovery Institute, which is pro-intelligent design, has written a great article about Darwinism, and the attempt by some conservatives to either except it outright, or use parts of it to justify a traditional morality, while ignoring the dangers it poses, not least of which is that it has come to represent the new infallibility which Liberals trumpet and use against their enemies. As I have often noted, Liberals seem to lack an "irony" gene [to put it into terms they should appreciate] and so do not understand the perversity of their denigrating Religion for claiming absolute truth, while making the same claim for Science, when any Scientists will tell you that they never find " ultimate answers”, they only construct theories which fit the facts until they are inevitably overturned [hence Newton's Universe and laws were replaced by Einstein's]. Ignoring this, Liberals wage their crusades behind the infallibility of their science, and woe to anyone who opposes them, as their much heralded appreciation of freedom is the first casualty of their campaigns. West's article is interesting, informative and well written, and should be read by all Conservatives who have ever thought about Darwin.

A stellar international assembly, including Kofi Annan and ex-Iranian President Khatami, people I know I hold in the highest esteem for their great works, have announced a solution to the Islamic-Western rift which is responsible for all those poor, misunderstood Islamic Terrorists killing innocent people: just resolve the Israelis- Palestinian conflict. In their infinite wisdom, they have declared this predominantly a political, not  religious, conflict, and as soon as the poor Islamofascists no longer feel oppressed by the infidel in Palestine [and they did also mention Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechyna and a few other places in passing...no big deals I guess to pacify these too] everybody can start being nice to one another. Is it my imagination, or can I hear the new leadership of Congress whooping for joy as they prostrate themselves before the shrine of civilized international negotiations which will bring us peace in our time [and let me give Neville Chamberlain credit for that memorable phrase which was mainly forgotten in the chaos of the ensuing world war].

Now I hate to be a spoilsport, but I feel a few things should be pointed out. Firstly, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on for nearly 60 years, if not 2000 if you want to use a longer frame of reference, and "solving" it will be no mean feat. However, maybe we should ask ourselves if  this even would end the jihad so many of the Islamic fanatics have announced and are trying to implement. Well, let's see: for starters, do you think those kids in France who seem to have a personal vendetta against moving vehicles really care about the Palestinian question? Or how about this: I don't remember any of the 9/11 hijackers being Palestinian; were they all just motivated by the love of their fellow Arabs [please note that Palestinians have always been treated as second class citizens by the other Arab nationalities. The Jordanians basically threw them out during Black September, and that opinion seems to pervade the whole Middle East]. And all those Al Quaeda attacks against the government of Saudi Arabia, the protectors of the most sacred shrines in Islam, are these, too, a demonstration of filial unity with those poor Hamas followers who only want to wipe Israel off the face of the map in order to get a warm and fuzzy feeling for the West. Last but not least consider Iraq, where Sunni's and Shiites kill one another with glee, the difference between the two having to do with the return of a mystical Iman; that sure sounds like a political debate to me, and when those Palestinians are made happy by whatever tricks Kofi and the UN have up their sleeves, I am sure that all will be forgiven between these two warring sects of Islam, and everyone can sit down and discuss whatever they haven't discussed in a few hundred years of hating and killing one another. 

I cannot understand why so many of us foolish Conservatives believe that we are facing a cultural war inspired by an imperialistic religion which seeks to destroy or subjugate the West. It's all just a misunderstanding which the UN will set right by implementing some educational programs, maybe a few business relationships [boy that oil for food program was sweet! Think they can do it again?] and perhaps finally setting the boundaries for the new Palestine. I mean, just think of all the successes the UN has had in "solving" international crises like Darur, the Congo, Rwanda,...but I digress. I am sure that whatever they do  will put this whole misunderstanding behind us, and we can all live in peace.

One last thought. Do you think Liberals also still believe in the Easter Bunny?

Rosie O'Donnell, that foreign policy maven and all around pundit, actually said that we shouldn't fear terrorists because "They are mothers and fathers"[see article item #7] as if this means they could not be a threat to us. 

Actually this beautifully summarizes the Liberal tendency to claim to be multiculturalists and understanding of others' points of views when in reality they project their beliefs and perspectives onto everyone else, and thus fail to understand what is actually confronting us. By saying they are mother and fathers O'Donnell creates a visual of a loving family nurturing and protecting their children while just trying to make a loving home for them, same as  we do in the West; this is "Father knows Best" relocated to Palestine. In reality, yes, the terrorists  are parents in the sense they have children, but they encourage those children to go out and kill innocents, and when they blow up a cafe in Israel or a building in NY, those parents take pride in the murderous activities of their offspring, who are following in their footsteps. Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, had a son who was killed fighting the Israelis [see article]. How does this in any way reduce the danger  he poses to peace in the Middle East? If anything, his fanaticism is just reinforced by his sacrifice of a child.

This Liberal disconnect from reality and delusional interpretation of a dangerous world is what saps their resolve and ability to confront the mortal dangers that confront us, and, when they are in positions of power, endangers all of us. Yes Ms. O'Donnell the enemy confronting us are mothers and fathers, as was Stalin, Ghengis Khan and Castro. What in God's name does that have to do with the danger they pose?  How naive can you be?

With the  announcement  by the South Koreans that they will not help us interdict ships suspected of carrying supplies for the North's WMD programs, the time is right for us to reassess our security relationship with them. We still have thousands of troops stationed there, with all the associated costs and attendant danger that armed forces facing one another are always subject to. Now I would have to describe myself as a hawk in terms of my beliefs regarding the protection of  our  interests and Allies, but I find myself growing more and more disgusted with the South Korean Government and its Sunshine policies toward the North. After all, as a strategic partner they lost their worth with the end of the Cold War, and as an economic competitor, they are being replaced by the Chinese. We need to focus their attention by forcing them to contemplate a world where they would have to protect themselves from the madman on their border without our aid, and if that doesn't change their minds, then we should pack our stuff and leave. Somehow, even as I am sure the  omnipresent Liberal  college students will be in the street cheering such a possibility, I doubt it will come to that. But if it does, we might someday see how much protesting those students do under Kim Jong Il.