Secession in Sudan

Just a short entry tonight: this story was brought to my attention by an African missionary.
Apparently there is a distinct possibility that southern Sudan may secede.

November 11, 2007 (KHARTOUM) — South Sudan could unilaterally split from the north because of a dispute over the oil-rich region of Abyei in Africa’s largest country, leading Islamist opposition party leader Hassan al-Turabi said on Sunday.

Sudan is currently in a period of uneasy "stability" after the end of the civil war there in 2005, with a coalition government uniting the nation, though unresolved situations like Darfur belie any perceptions of actual peace...

Observers say the biggest obstacle to reconciliation is the unresolved status of Abyei, which is on the north-south border.

"I realise now that this is a very critical issue — it could risk something very serious for the whole deal," Turabi told Reuters in an interview. "It might provoke the south to proceed directly towards a proclamation of secession."

They have also not yet accepted UN peace-keeping forces.

(Hmm, perhaps they spoke to the Congolese...)

-()4|<.

Warming? Cooling? Whatever is convenient

The BBC News reports that not only has global warming disappeared to be replaced by global cooling, but that this cooling trend will continue for some time.

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

Why so truthful all of the sudden? It's hard to know the motive. Perhaps the bald-faced lies perpetuated by the rabid global-warming crowd were finally so obviously at odds with reality that cooler heads (pardon the pun) decided that if any vestige of the human-caused climate catastrophe crowd were to survive, it would have to be admitted that climate change was at very least not confined to warming trends and rising sea levels.

I personally am rather confused by the warming catastrophe crowd, considering some of them seemed to be convinced that by tomorrow morning the Atlantic might very well be lapping at our thresholds, while others were simultaneously predicting an apocalypse so slow in coming that we might well be living on other planets before it arrives.

Meanwhile, evidently it was getting colder all the time...
Now record cold temperatures are being seen all over.

We should note, however, that while climate change skeptics see this cooling as justification for their skepticism of inexorably rising global temperatures, true believers' faith in the heat death of the world by our own hands continues unabated:

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.

What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

Yes, thus spoke the oracle: Centuries-long ice ages may interfere, as in the past, but at some day in the hypothetical future, it will get hotter than it is now. Other scientists agree:

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.

But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

Notice the language here. Does anyone not realize that this has taken on all the artifices of a religious institution? Dr. Latif, worried that he might be perceived as a nonbeliever in Warming, clarifies that despite the scientific data stating otherwise, he is not a skeptic! Yes, we must have faith that the heat is coming. Ignore the cooling trend. Just believe. Sooner or later a heating trend will re-emerge, then we can start all this up again.

Meanwhile, the American people are less and less convinced; polls show that significantly fewer Americans are worried that Florida will go the way of the Siberian land bridge any time soon...

The new poll found that only 57 percent of Americans believe there is “solid evidence” for the existence of global warming, compared to 71 percent in April 2008.

Additionally, the poll shows that the percentage of Americans who believe global warming is caused by human activity has dropped from 47 percent last year to 36 percent today.

One can only hope this means we'll hear less hysteria about carbon footprints and other such nonsense related to carbon dioxide levels, which have never been causally linked to warming anyway. But "Cap-and-Trade" is already here, and something tells me that more of the same taxes are coming whether facts or the American people back them up or not. It's not a question of reality or democracy anymore. As President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus (currently being sidelined in the EU for being a disagreeist) has pointed out, global climate change politics is just a power-play.

So should we sit idly by and watch our freedoms be taken for whatever trendy excuse the religio-scientific backers of the liberal pan-bureaucracy may contrive? We already have been. And that realization is by far the most frightening thing I'll encounter this halloween...

-()4|<.

Update: Transparency

It would appear that the Democratic party is backing off of it's "transparency in government" goal.

House Democrats blocked the public from attending the unveiling ceremony of their health-care bill Thursday morning, allowing only pre-approved visitors whose names appeared on lists to enter the event at the West side of the Capitol.

Only pre-approved visitors are allowed to hear what the massive health care bill is going to do? And they've gone so far as to block off normally public entrances. If they are unwilling to let the public hear about the bill, can we expect to get the promised 72 hours for everyone to read the bill before voting occurs? The Obama administration seems to be breaking a lot of campaign promises. I wonder if anyone in real journalism will notice.

UPDATE: Looks like the promise to leave the final bill up online for 72 hours has been officially broken.

Conservativity Rising

It appears that more Americans are identifying themselves as conservatives this year.
Gallup has the numbers...

Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.

Predictably, liberals in charge of government have caused a number of Americans to react by shifting towards the opposite end of the ideological spectrum. This is partly because this time, they are so much more dramatically militant, in-your-face liberals than Americans are accustomed to seeing in positions of power. (People, for example, such as Obama adviser Robert Reich who say things like: "We are going to have to, if you are very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you, maybe, going for another couple of months. It's too expensive. So, we're going to let you die.")

This sort of thing horrifies decent people, who react away from it. But it works both ways, and people are sadly vulnerable to pressure on how they ought to think. It's a natural process; those same outraged people might well trend back into liberal territory under a conservative administration. (or what passes for one these days)

In fact, it's likely that these are indeed middle-grounders who moved towards the fringes of the liberal camp during the later Bush years, in reaction to issues such as the Iraq War and the perceived threat of anthropogenic climate change, but who are now drifting back to the average American slightly-conservative-but-not-very-well-informed moderatism.

It has been predicted that America will continue to follow this trend, due if nothing else to higher birthrates among conservatives. (though this trend is greatly eclipsed by the ongoing northward migration of and birth rates among immigrants, which will play a far greater role in political shifts in America to come) Yet at the same time, polls clearly indicate that younger Americans (the 18-29 crowd) are much more liberal than their older counterparts.

One thing that sticks out, however, is that the increases in Conservativity (if one may so phrase it) and in Liberalism, while somewhat antagonistic to each other, both came at the expense of the moderate camp, which has been in decline since 2005.

In other words, people are slowly moving away from the middle, towards the opposite ends of the spectrum. Further information on the Gallup site confirms this:

While these figures have shown little change over the past decade, the nation appears to be slightly more polarized than it was in the early 1990s. Compared with the 1992-1994 period, the percentage of moderates has declined from 42% to 35%, while the percentages of conservatives and liberals are up slightly -- from 38% to 40% for conservatives and a larger 17% to 21% movement for liberals.

Yet some of us refuse to see the issue as we are being told to see it. That is, with two camps (Republicans on the conservative to moderate-conservative side, and Democrats on the liberal to moderate-liberal side) fighting for the attentions of the balanced Americans in the center who haven't chosen a side yet.

Sometimes the old paradigms need to be replaced. This conception of the two party system is one of them. I don't agree with much I hear from either side these days, and I think I'm not at all alone in that. Obama captured the hearts of a large portion of America's population by getting them to believe that he was "for them", in a deep and meaningful sense. His falling popularity seems to be a sign that Americans are starting to realize that he is not. (whether they grasp on a collective scale that many of his policies are exactly the opposite of what we need right now, or were merely empty rhetoric, remains to be seen. If that is beginning to happen, we'll see popularity levels around 40% before the end of his first year, I suspect.)

Americans want representation by their government, and the simmering dissatisfaction that makes itself known at things like the tea parties, town hall meetings, and other demonstrations will only increase as Washington in general, together with this administration in specific, attempt to hijack our nation for their own ideologies.

-()4|<.

The Forum Troll President

I have had an interesting time picking a story to write on for the past few days. An extremely busy weekend made it easy to delay the choice altogether, but I realized that I was shying away from stories involving our president. Enough has already been said about him, certainly, and yet I find myself writing one more entry about him today.

Obama has achieved and maintained total media saturation (indeed, with the media's acknowledged support and involvement) since his nomination, with significant coverage before then. That has not diminished. With the reception of the Nobel Peace Prize, the failed bid for the Olympics in Chicago, the situation in Afghanistan; everyone is waiting to see what the president will do.

Even aside from the media, in our national discussion President Obama has been like an especially controversial troll in a forum; some take his side and defend him, others hate him with that special hatred reserved for forum trolls, but either way he has now taken whatever discussion existed prior to his involvement and focused it entirely around himself and his statements.

This is what President Obama, consciously or unconsciously (considering the skills of his media team, probably consciously), has done on the national stage. Perhaps it's also the forte of a populist president; if you wish to run as a personality and not a platform, your personality must necessarily remain in focus if your goals are to be achieved.

Obama has gambled daringly that his 'brand' is sufficient to sustain loyalty to his goals and ideals. This has largely worked. (with perhaps the notable exception of the tea-party attendee types, who have been marginalized by the White House as disagreeists. Whether they can be successfully marginalized or not is a question for another time, but while they are numerous, they are still a clear minority.) It's interesting to note that if his brand becomes unpopular, his clout vanishes. He is only left with the usual political maneuvering, in a field where he is still a newcomer.

But for now, the president has the world's attention. The peace prize was as clear a sign of this as could be given. Consider Bono's recent editorial in the NYT. It's quite glorifying of President Obama, and at the same time surprisingly pro-American. More insightful pundits than me will doubtless pull many valuable observations from his take, but let me focus on one of the most obvious: The world is calling, and Obama is America's chance to respond.

Obama is our first global president. Perhaps fitting as America's power and influence in the world peaks and enters a decline (perhaps 'the' decline, but it's too early to call), a man has risen to the top who is using that high platform to spread idealism throughout the world. Many feel, as does this writer, that some (not all) of those ideals are flawed at best. But that is irrelevant in a global sense. I submit that the world in general feels more ownership of our president than we do, and that is both based in his approach to the world, and mirrored in his response to it.

Liberally-minded (in the modern political sense) Americans feel very strongly the pressure of the rest of the world opinion weighing in, and are finally basking in the glow of a president they think they just might be proud to show the world. For example, let us consider that the left end of the political comedy spectrum (SNL and the Daily Show), previously unwilling to mock Obama even in a tangential sense, are now doing so. But unlike former president Bush, it is not his ideals that they mock, nor his actions, but his inaction. Obama is their applicant to the rest of the world, to demonstrate their solidarity, to show that the world's most touted issues (environmentalism, poverty, nuclear disarmanent, etc) are their issues as well. They see this as their shot to be at the world's table not because of American's power, (a reason they would despise, like a crass and socially awkward uncle who nevertheless is invited to every family party because he also happens to be extremely wealthy) but as sensitive, knowing, and worldly intellectuals who belong there. Obama is their personified manifesto, their best shot yet at getting in. They don't want him to mess this up.
Neither does the rest of the world, as Bono writes:

"The Nobel Peace Prize is the rest of the world saying, 'Don’t blow it.'"

Conservatives often make two mistakes in their response, either blowing off the rest of the world altogether as irrelevant (short-sighted, unwise, and furthermore uncharitable: in these times, "no man is an island" applies to nations more than ever), or else attacking those ideals of Obama which are demonstrably false, yet without supplying their own methods of dealing with the problems he purports to be solving.

Example of the latter: People do need health care. I believe that no plan currently circulating through our congress would be anything less than a disaster, but our current situation is clearly inexcusably bad as well. While I have heard many compelling reasons given in impassioned speech as to why Obama's plan should be consigned to a place where the worm does not die, nor is thirst ever quenched, I have not yet heard a single agreed-upon workable alternative solution by those opposing the Obama plan.

What does that accomplish on a national level? The president (who seeks to advance his goals by the force of his own personality, remember) could easily claim that the attacks are not really against the health plan, but against himself. In fact, he doesn't even need to say this. His backers can do that for him. And we see that this is exactly what is occurring now. To return to the analogy, the troll has struck again. The forum topic is no longer health care, but all the commenters' opinions of the troll himself, generally expressed in wholesale irrational favor or disfavor. Few bring forth a detached, logical analysis of the forum troll and his arguments. He is now setting the agenda. His provocative statements, and existing opinions about his kind, generally reduce all conversation to endorsements, rejections, or endless bickering. Eventually the topic is closed, no meaningful progress having been made on the subject.

If we seek to have a meaningful national dialogue on anything worth accomplishing, this trolling must end. The president has ushered in a new era in which every political argument defaults back to himself. He remains the center of attention, and as long as we all argue about him, he wins. For is not that the goal of the troll?

-()4|<.

September 11th, 2008?

It is possible that, on September 11th, 2008, at 11AM, our nation's financial system was attacked and almost destroyed.

This is not a shock claim, or the contrived theory of a few fringe lunatics, this is a fact. On a morning in September, $550 billion suddenly began to be electronically extracted from our nations money markets. This could have led to a total collapse of the system had it not been quickly shut down.

But don't take my word for it. Representative Kanjorksi from Pennsylvania has the facts. He starts talking about it around 2:00. Listen carefully.




The collapse of the US economy and the end of our political system as we know it?

His words, not mine. If I am understanding him correctly, they were briefed on the 15th, and the attacks took place the preceding Thursday. He said 11AM. That means the massive withdrawal started on September 11th, 2008, 11AM. Within a few minutes of the exact moment of the 7th anniversary of the planes hitting the towers in NYC.

Why has this information not been made more public? I don't know, but the knowledge makes me uneasy. The sudden, urgently needed bailouts, the subsequent shock to the world's financial system, the major shifts in our national economy, the government acquisition of large portions of the financial infrastructure and automotive industry, now the call to shift away from the US Dollar and stop using it for oil transactions, all this resulted from the sudden withdrawals on that day.

This is not even new information. It came out this past February, as best I can tell. Did you know? I didn't. But now you know too. And it doesn't take a genius to realize that something's seriously wrong here.

-()4|<.

The global reign of the dollar is over?

Soon the US Dollar will not be the currency used for oil transactions, The Independent (UK) reports...

"In the most profound financial change in recent Middle East history, Gulf Arabs are planning – along with China, Russia, Japan and France – to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar."

First thought: I don't really blame them. Our leaders have been irresponsible enough in handling our economy, and our problems have spilled over and affected the entire world's economy. If the dollar is going to be unstable, swapping to a basket of currencies makes sense.

Second thought: "a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar." - A fledgling pan-Arabic Muslim currency, anyone? That sounds like a portentous global economy shift waiting to happen.

And lest you think that this is merely a hysterical prognosis of some fringe economist:

The plans, confirmed to The Independent by both Gulf Arab and Chinese banking sources in Hong Kong, may help to explain the sudden rise in gold prices, but it also augurs an extraordinary transition from dollar markets within nine years.

The article darkly hints at a future conflict between the US and China over Middle East oil, but we will pass over this idle speculation for the meatier material on actual Chinese involvement in the situation:

China imports 60 per cent of its oil, much of it from the Middle East and Russia. The Chinese have oil production concessions in Iraq – blocked by the US until this year – and since 2008 have held an $8bn agreement with Iran to develop refining capacity and gas resources. China has oil deals in Sudan (where it has substituted for US interests) and has been negotiating for oil concessions with Libya, where all such contracts are joint ventures.

Furthermore, Chinese exports to the region now account for no fewer than 10 per cent of the imports of every country in the Middle East, including a huge range of products from cars to weapon systems, food, clothes, even dolls.

The Chinese tend to be practical economists these days. A burgeoning economy in desperate need of resources such as oil to fuel its rise is well-served by increased economic ties to the countries with said resources. And unlike us, they are not likely to go about things in an ambivalent manner, hesitating between pragmatic manipulation of the areas with the resources we need and condemnations of our "self-serving" involvement there. The Chinese economic engine needs more oil to run on, and thus they will do what it takes to get more oil.

Meanwhile, we won't even drill for the oil we already possess domestically. Small wonder our economy is flagging while theirs is set to pass us by mid-century.

Chinese financial sources believe President Barack Obama is too busy fixing the US economy to concentrate on the extraordinary implications of the transition from the dollar in nine years' time. The current deadline for the currency transition is 2018.

Perhaps this is a misunderstanding. President Obama has given no sign that this would be a move that he disagreed with. In fact, such a shift seems perfectly in line with the "New world order" he likes to give speeches about. (that speech was meant to be uplifting; upon reading the transcript I was instead quite interested in determining exactly what worldview our President holds. Not one in which the British are held in high regard, that much is certain...) I would not be surprised at all if he gave a speech lauding the move away from the US dollar, as a good plan to diminish US hegemony and level the world's playing field. He is, after all, not only a US citizen, but "a fellow citizen of the world." (second paragraph of the transcript)

This means, apparently, that he would never be so jingoistic as to put the concerns of his own country above the concerns of others. Which is lovely, except that he is not the president of the world, he is the president of the United States of America. His responsibility is not to "remake the world once again

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/24/obama-in-berlin-video-of_n_114771.html

" (the last words in his speech), but to lead our nation in a responsible way.

So the dollar is on its way out as a global medium of exchange. Is anyone willing to fight for it?

Not our Elected Citizen of the World in Chief.

-()4|<.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/24/obama-in-berlin-video-of_n_114771.htm

An Economy of Errors

Two reports about the economy, within one week of each other:

First report: (Sept. 24th) New unemployment claims drop unexpectedly!

WASHINGTON -- The number of newly laid-off workers seeking unemployment benefits in the U.S. fell for the third straight week, evidence that layoffs are continuing to ease in the earliest stages of an economic recovery.

The Labor Department said Thursday that initial claims for unemployment insurance dropped to a seasonally adjusted 530,000 from an upwardly revised 551,000 the previous week. Wall Street economists expected claims to rise by 5,000, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters.

Second report: (Oct. 1st) New unemployment claims rise unexpectedly!

WASHINGTON -- First-time claims for jobless benefits increased more than expected last week in the U.S., a sign employers are reluctant to hire and the job market remains weak...

The Labor Department said Thursday that initial claims for unemployment insurance rose to a seasonally adjusted 551,000 from 534,000 in the previous week. Wall Street economists expected an increase of 5,000, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters.

So one week, they are excited to report that job claims fell from 551,000 to to an adjusted 530,000. The next week, they are surprised to report that the claims rose to an adjusted 551,000 -from- 534,000. Amazing...

Fundamentals of economic growth are more or less a given. In exceptional times, people construct elaborate theories to pretend the fundamentals can be ignored. (I recall breathless economic forecasters demonstrating how in theory, the tech bubble could go on expanding forever; a never-ending boom with no bust.)

But sooner or later they always come back. You cannot ignore the basic rules of national economies forever and get away with it. We listened to the music, now it's time to pay the piper, and he doesn't accept debit or credit.

The roots of our economy are being hacked away, and these people are trying to gauge its strength by counting the number of leaves that haven't fallen yet. I suppose if the whole tree falls down, they'll be delighted to report that an unexpectedly high number of new fungi growths indicates that life is returning to it after all...

-()4|<.

5 More Qom-style nuclear plants in Iran?

WND News is reporting that the UK's MI6 has discovered 5 more nuclear facilities in Iran, hidden in the mountains.

Deep-cover MI6 agents who have described the workings of the once-secret underground uranium enrichment plant near the Iranian city of Qom now have discovered a staggering five more similar operations, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

We don't normally feature breaking stories on this blog, my focus being more on the analysis of the issues behind the stories. However this one seemed important enough to mention. (and drudge hasn't said anything about it as of this writing) The article is short, I have copied the relevant content here:

They, like the Qom facility, are buried deep inside the mountains of north Iran and are guarded by divisions of Revolutionary Guards.

The details were sent this weekend to some G20 leaders who met in Pittsburgh when the Qom facility was revealed to the world.

The MI6 agents have established that, like Qom, the new plants are staffed by nuclear scientists from Iran's main weaponization program. It is known by the acronym Metfaz, and is headquartered at 180 Western Avenue in the Pars district of eastern Tehran.

Details of the MI6 discovery were hand-delivered to Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, over the weekend by Sir John Scarlett. They contained a detailed picture of what was being built at the five new plants.

A senior intelligence source said the data came from "an Iranian nuclear scientist's smuggled laptop, defectors and satellite imagery."

The highly unusual indication of the source material is seen as a deliberate attempt by Western intelligence to rattle the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that a further vital part of his nuclear plan has been discovered.

The situation in Iran is swiftly reaching a breaking point; we will see what happens. It comes down to whether the world powers decide whether Iran will be allowed to achieve the status of a nuclear power. If not, I am curious how a body defined by inaction will then act.

-()4|<.

The Underside of the Economy

The jobless rate for people aged 16-24 (and who are not students) is over 50%. With minimum wage increases the past three years, it may come as a surprise that this group of people has been hardest hit by the economic downturn we've experienced. The minimum wage (set currently at $7.25) deters the hiring of young inexperienced workers. Over the past 3 years the minimum wage has increased 23% while there has only been an 8% increase due to inflation. The government has required businesses to increase pay at about three times the market rate. While this is beneficial for people who are employed, it makes it more difficult (fiscally) for companies to hire people without there being an increase in the amount of money made by a company. Raising the minimum wage during an economic slump, while a nice idea, really only makes the problem worse for those who are seeking jobs and do not have much experience.

To remedy this businesses must be encouraged to hire people. The theory was that tax incentives would get businesses hiring. Tax incentives that are effective get companies hiring. The current incentives are not worth the cost of hiring. Companies are trying to make money. Small tax credits in an economy where everyone is spending less have little effect. A significant change in the way government handles business needs to take place. Unfortunately, I do not see either side rushing significant aid to anything but banks and car manufacturers. Cars, lending, and taxes do not an economy make.

Iran's Nuclear Plant Circus

Why so naive, world?
The Iranian government is having a field day with this.

If you read news online, you already know that Iran has a second nuclear power plant. But there is much more news here than you might think.

First, the LA Times article has this quote from President Obama.

Speaking before the Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh, President Obama said the plant is a "direct challenge" to global nonproliferation. He added, "Iran must comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions and make clear it is prepared to meet its responsibilities as a member of the community of nations."

Oh, and UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown chimed in, doubtless trying desperately to tie himself to President Obama in any sense, having already been snubbed repeatedly at the G20 and having chased Obama through breakfast just to get a chance to speak with him. But that's another story.

Added Brown: "The level of deception by the Iranian government, and the scale of what we believe is the breach of international commitments, will shock and anger the entire international community. The international community has no choice today but to draw a line in the sand."

Oh dear. How many times has Iran heard that line? Something tells me they aren't impressed.

But there is more heavy-handed political-speak to come. This from the Washington Post article. Be afraid Iran:

"Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow," Obama said, detailing how the facility near Qom had been under construction for years without being disclosed, as required, to the International Atomic Energy Agency. "International law is not an empty promise."

"Ah, now I see", President Ahmedinejad was quoted as saying. "The first 14 times you said that and did nothing I did not believe you, but now on this 15th time I see that you are serious."

Ok no, I made that quote up. What he actually said was this:

"If I were [President] Obama's adviser, I would definitely advise him to refrain making this statement because it is definitely a mistake," Ahmedinejad told Time magazine Friday in an interview in New York that took place even as Obama was publicly revealing the plant's existence. "It would definitively be a mistake."

Now the plot gets thicker.

But White House officials said Western intelligence agencies have known about the facility for several years and believe that Iran acknowledged its existence Monday in an attempt to head off intense criticism that they knew was coming.

"We believe that the Iranians learned that the secrecy of the facility had been compromised," a senior White House official said Friday morning. "We've been aware of this facility for several years, building up a case so that we had very strong evidence."

I'm willing to hazard a guess that in this case "Western intelligence agencies" means MOSSAD, aka Israel. Unless Iran was too obvious, and some kid found it on google earth...

The basic alleged situation is that everyone knew Iran had the extra power plant, they just rushed to condemn it once Iran realized that they knew, or something.

What it boils down to is that there has been no strong, unified international effort to force Iran to stop, even though (remarkably) nearly all nations agree that Iran with military nukes would be a terrible idea. Ahmedinejad is somewhat insane, but definitely not an idiot. He knows what he can get away with, and he's been doing splendidly so far.

Sooner or later this is all going to come to a head when the Israelis decide it has to end, and send an air strike. That may not succeed as well as the Osirak operation in Iraq did; Russia is supplying Iran with advanced air defense weaponry at the same time as it suggests it might be open to the idea of sanctions. (Putin likes to have his cake and eat it too, it would seem.)

Now the real question in all of this to me is not necessarily what happens to Iran, but to what extent their national sovereignty matters these days. That is to say, we are all pointing fingers at international bodies and saying "Why aren't you doing anything?". Do we really want the UN to be able to do something? Do we want them in the position to be able to go into a sovereign nation and by force, violate their sovereignty and impose international will on them?

Sure, this time, it's Iran. What if international consensus decides that America should give half of Texas back to Mexico?

The argument still smolders in this country over state's rights and how the Federal government is encroaching on their last remainders. Perhaps the real movers of the times are ignoring the tea parties and such things because they know that protests against national government excesses are irrelevant in the face of coming international law with teeth. It would matter little how many Americans or American congressmen agree or disagree with environmental issues if the UN could simply declare it to be international law and demand all nations conform to it. (and be able to enforce that demand)

So in all of the controversy over Iran and their nuclear program, before you think "they should do something about that", stop and ask yourself. Who are "they", and how much do we really want them to be able to do? And if we don't like what they can do, is there anything we can do about it? Not really. We live in different times now.

America's say in world affairs is only determined firstly by her economic might, and secondarily by her military supremacy. The economic might is vanishing before our eyes, and a good portion of America's clout with it. Watching the irresponsible way our government is handling the crisis doesn't help the world view us in a more favorable light, either.
The traditional American response has been "Well, the world can take a hike."
But that statement has only been possible because we had the power to back it up.

Losing that power, we will merely have the attitude of a superpower without the force to sustain it. Don't think some nations will lose any time putting us in our place.

Wake up America. As goes our economy, goes our standing in the world. As goes our standing in the world, goes our national sovereignty. If those in Washington want to chip away at the strengths in our economy according to their ideologies, rather than solve the problems there according to practical reality, they are betraying our nation in a more fundamental sense than any Revolutionary War Benedict Arnold or Cold War Rosenbergs possibly could have.

-()4|<.

Nuclear Disarmament MADness

The UK's Guardian is reporting that President Obama is planning to drastically reduce and eventually eliminate our nuclear arsenal.

"Barack Obama has demanded the Pentagon conduct a radical review of US nuclear weapons doctrine to prepare the way for deep cuts in the country's arsenal, the Guardian can reveal."

The policy of MAD - Mutually assured destruction - was initiated during the Cold War and continues to this day. Essentially, MAD dictates that you keep enough nuclear weapons that a devastating attack on your country can be returned in like kind, ensuring that if one nation begins a nuclear exchange, both parties (and to some extent their allies) will be more or less annihilated, thus preventing such an exchange from ever occurring. Critics may argue that this policy is indeed "mad", but as it is obvious that such a nuclear exchange never occurred, it's hard to argue that it failed.
One very important point is this: MAD is not concerned with the quantities of warheads, but with the RELATIVE quantities. So the issue is not to have a certain level of nuclear strength, but to retain nuclear parity.

Apparently Russia, pleased with our removal of the planned missile shield sites in Eastern Europe, has indicated it might be willing to reduce their stockpiles as well.

"Russia has approximately 2,780 deployed strategic warheads, compared with around 2,100 in the US. The abandonment of the US missile defence already appears to have spurred arms control talks currently underway between Washington and Moscow: the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, said today that chances were "quite high" that a deal to reduce arsenals to 1,500 warheads each would be signed by the end of the year."

So, this retains nuclear parity, assuming that both sides have the means to verify that the deal was being followed. The Doomsday Clock will be turned back a few minutes, and all will be well. Except...

"Obama has rejected the Pentagon's first draft of the "nuclear posture review" as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials."

Most people agree that it would be wonderful to live in a world in which nuclear weapons did not exist. However, we do not. And we cannot pretend that we do. And now more and more nations are developing such capabilities. Pandora's box has been opened, and one cannot gather the destructive powers released and enclose it again.

The Soviet Union's leadership clearly did not wish for their own destruction. They viewed a massive nuclear bombardment on their nation as resulting in their destruction, and thus took steps to avoid it. Thus, MAD succeeded, at least on the most important level of preventing global nuclear pandemonium.

Now think of a nation like Iran. I should say that I have no issue with the Iranian people. The Iranians that I have met have tended to be intelligent and likable. But their highest leadership in recent years have shown (through things such as demanding the utter destruction of Israel and denying the holocaust, for example) that they are both genocidal and out of touch with reality.

Imagine if Iran does develop nuclear weapons, a feat they are currently on the brink of accomplishing. Now imagine if an even more unstable set of radical Islamic leaders came to power. They could proclaim that a unilateral strike is mandated to please Allah by destroying Israel, and as such that Allah will protect them from any retaliatory strikes. They might also determine that truly destroying Israel must be accompanied by destroying their ally, the 'great satan' America. Their missiles cannot reach us here in the CONUS (Continental United States), but what about our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan? The concept of MAD is thus totally destabilized, and the risk of nuclear war grows perilously near.

This is purely hypothetical, of course. But it is hypothesis grounded in reality, and a realistic observation of the tendencies of nations.

What is unrealistic is trying to pretend that nuclear weapons never existed, or that, having existed, they can be eliminated forever.

We live in such a world where policies as outrageous as MAD are required to keep the peace. In such a world, where every nation desperate for power and respect on the world stage is racing to acquire nuclear weapons of their own, a push to eliminate all of ours is not altruistic or visionary, it's madness.

-()4|<.

Disagreeism?

We often hear about "-isms" these days.
Feminism. Chauvinism. Marxism. Capitalism. Atheism. Fundamentalism. Racism... the list goes on. Anyone you can label as a "something-ist" is identifiable as belonging to the corresponding "-ism"

With a few rare exceptions (feminism being a notable one), to be labeled an -ism by those who label such things is to automatically be made equivalent to a warped philosophy, a wrong, possibly dangerous way of thinking. (Capitalism also used to be an exception, but look how the word is being used now...)

I would submit now that it's possible another -ism is being added to the list: "disagreeism".

Adherents of this way of thinking are marked by their stubborn and misguided refusal to agree with popular opinion, perceived popular opinion, or with those who feel that their positions should also be held by all correctly-thinking people.

For example: "It is a responsibility of government to make sure everyone's standard of living meets a certain level"

Disagree? You are clearly not compassionate, are probably a greedy, racist, capitalist pig, and might possibly be a disagreeist. (notice how the -isms run together. More on that later)

Nancy Pelosi recently made an impassioned plea to the disagreeists, that they might cease their divisive ways (which apparently also inherently lead to violence) and stop making statements that people might possibly misinterpret. I believe "incitement" is the term used.
Notice the implication: Those of you who voice your disagreement need to take responsibility, because it may cause other people to act violently.
The condemnation is not on those who take words and run with them, and make personal decisions to act violently, it's on the disagreeists who won't just relent and agree with us already.

(That comment about a "balance between freedom and safety" also happens to make me nervous. Those definitely shouldn't be a zero sum gain. Otherwise, they keep talking about how we're safe... how not free does that then make us?)

Now, let us be clear. Any group of people with a common, deeply held conviction can begin pegging others as disagreeists, if those who disagree are perceived to be a minority in that context.

To use the obvious example, both sides of the political spectrum more or less accuse the other of this on a regular basis. Both feel that normal, "everyday", "grassroots" Americans support them, and those who disagree are the "ultra-liberal left", conspiring Marxists who want us to become a Socialist state ruled by Big Brother, or "right-wing fundamentalists", gun-toting, Bible-waving fringe groups that are irrelevant and can be ignored as such. (even if hundreds of thousands of them show up on your front lawn in DC. Thanks to everyone who went!)

Clearly, we here at MC side more often with the gun-toting, Bible-waving fundamentalists, if you prefer to label them as such. However, we have never questioned your right to disagree. In fact, we encourage it. The dialogue tends to be fruitful.

And notice, Pelosi isn't questioning that right either. She's merely indicating ominously that your disagreements might lead to violence which you will then be held responsible for, that's all.

To cite another example of this, and also how -isms run together, let us look at Jimmy Carter's recent assertion that criticism of President Obama must be racially motivated. (This, of course, motivated by Joe Wilson's now-famous outburst)

"I think it's based on racism," Carter said in response to an audience question at a town hall held at his presidential center in Atlanta. "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."

No doubt, many do feel this way. But I note that Condaleeza Rice was highly respected by many of the people who now greatly dislike President Obama. Could it possibly be that they actually reject Obama's ideology and policies, totally apart from the race with which he identifies? And what of the growing numbers of African Americans who also find themselves losing the faith they once had in President Obama?
But Carter is not finished.

"Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care," he said. "It's deeper than that."

Aha! There you have it. It would seem that what Carter is actually condeming is disagreeism. A sincere debate would never result in someone accusing President Obama of lying, because clearly Obama would never lie. The only outcome of a sincere debate would be you agreeing with Obama. Unless... you are a racist. This is currently one of the most commonly attributed motives for disagreeism. You disagree because... you are a racist. Or a capitalist. (ie, greedy person who wants to take poor people's money to line your already bulging wallet) Or whatever -ist you care to supply.

Having discovered the principle of disagreeism, we can trace its effects through Obama's presidency. Americans who didn't vote for President Obama? Fundies clinging to their guns and Bibles. Americans who disagree with Obama at town hall meetings? Fringe groups. (some clearly were, but all of them?) Americans who disagree with Obama by massively protesting in Washington? Irrelevant. Americans who disagree with Obama by accusing him of lying during a speech? Racists.

And now, a la Pelosi: Americans who -still- disagree with President Obama? Potential inciters of violence. And remember the "freedom vs. safety" line. If disagreeists incite violence, you must be kept safe. Unfortunately, that apparently can only come at an equivalent cost in freedom.

So: Disagreeists incite violence
Violence reduces safety
Safety comes at the expense of freedom

The message is clear: Disagree with us, risk losing some freedom.

We will see, Madame Speaker. But if the recent Washington rally is any indication, more Americans disagree with you every day.

-()4|<.

We're going to need more tea...

On September 12th, a massive crowd descended upon Washington DC.
They were there to protest big government, runaway spending, and the growing realization that our government increasingly no longer represents or acts in the best interests of its citizens.

Good descriptive article from WND with some pictures here.

UPDATE:
Excellent set of mostly high quality photos of the crowd, along with time-lapse video showing the surge of people attending, can be found here. Note that the signs are almost all home made. This is not some manufactured crowd, these are concerned individuals.

The New York Times dot com article was titled "thousands stage protest of big government".
The White House said the day before that it was "unaware" of any rally.
The main stream media generally did not cover it.

Well, it was more than thousands, and it was more than tens of thousands.
This article on the Obama inauguration crowd demonstrates that there could easily have been over one million protesters. (see the diagram at the top) It appears that the numbers at least rivalled those of the inauguration of Lyndon B. Johnson, at 1.2 million.

Christie Carden, the organizer of the very successful Huntsville Alabama tax day tea party we covered here back in the spring, was there as well. Describing the turnout, she said:

"GET IT RIGHT, PEOPLE! Even Fox News is reporting "tens of thousands" marching in D.C. I was there. Crowds went all the way to Washington Monument on ONE SIDE of the Capitol, AND all the way to Pennsylvania Ave and 14th St on the OTHER SIDE. "

Mike Pence also gave a speech, the beginning of which can be seen here:





We'll let you decide if you think it was significant to have this kind of crowd, of conservatives (who typically don't protest in large numbers), many of them senior citizens, on a national holiday weekend, who travelled all the way to our nation's capitol for a one day rally.

This is something new, or something rather old that we've needed for a long time.
Washington would be wise not to ignore it.

Yet their response has mainly been to do just that, or dismiss it as irrelevant.
Some party officials have attempted to picture the organization as fringe radicals opposed to the health care plan. (Of course, the tea party movement started far earlier than the health care issue, but spin is the order of the day)

A few more cynical commentators have said that the moment the economy improves, these kinds of protests will largely evaporate. That may be true. People are less likely to turn out when they don't feel directly threatened.

However, the numbers in Washington surpassed all expectations, even for those who helped organize it. If this many Americans are motivated enough to actually pay to go to DC, how many are sitting at home, equally motivated but without the time or money to attend?

3 million people is 1% of our entire national population. By some accounts, over half that many people showed up. And the exact number is not even important, clearly there is a national shift in mindset occurring. What affect will all this have on the 2010 elections? Time will tell. Meanwhile...

Remember, remember, the 12th of September.

-()4|<.

8 Years Later

The weather here in Dallas is quiet and overcast this morning.
A fitting accompaniment to the day's memory.

It has been 8 years since then. Children now in third grade do not remember the events that occurred this day in 2001, because they were not yet born.

Those of us old enough to feel the impact of that day said "we will never forget".
Have we remembered?

On that day, we all came together. Everyone was an American, and differences were put aside, at least temporarily. President Bush stood on the rubble with a megaphone, and we all agreed "never again".

Well, it hasn't happened again. We demanded more security, and we we got it. Lines at airports, Patriot Acts, increased government control. Are we safer? Hard to say. Probably, we are.

At what cost has our increased security come?
The "War on Terror" continues, with the lives of many soldiers lost. (I say lost, but not wasted)
Yet after many setbacks and many hard-won victories (heard about Iraq much lately in the MSM? There's a reason for that.), are we any closer to defeating global terrorism?
Is that even a meaningful goal?

I have written that we cannot defeat Islamic fundamentalist terror groups if we do not ourselves possess principles as deeply held as theirs. I hold to that statement, and maintain furthermore that the current cadre of unqualified, opportunistic career politicians (on both sides of the aisle) are clearly not up to the task.

Accusations of irresponsibility from other nations hurt because they are true. Our national economy is deeply and integrally tied into the world economy, and those who should have wisely governed our spending have foolishly increased it beyond all reason, passing laws which led to the collapse, then spending unprecedented sums of taxpayer money to feed the bonfire they started. In doing so they destroyed not only vast portions of our own national wealth, but contributed to the destruction of other countries' wealth in the process.

We do not live in a vacuum; our actions affect the rest of the world significantly, and it will react in various ways, whether justly or murderously. This lesson at least one would think we would have learned after September 11th. I do not think any reasonable person can suggest that we are to blame for the events of that day, but one could probably suggest that if we had been paying attention, we would have seen it coming. When will we realize that we, as normal American citizens, need to demand accountability from our elected officials? And to elect competent and qualified people? The alternative is to let those who failed to see 9-11 coming, those who ruined our economy, and those who seek to exploit and direct a culture of entitlement to maintain their control, turning this nation into something utterly different from what the founders conceived. We elected them with the understanding that they would govern well and rightly, but they have done neither.

Even as I write this, thousands of Americans are en route to Washington DC for what could be the biggest 'Tea Party' yet, to protest a such a government. One that seemingly goes its own way now, regardless of the views of its constituents, or the dictates of economic and social reality.

The protesters' choice of day is fitting; what better way to honor those who fell on this day eight years ago than by using the following day to attempt to ensure that the lessons we should have learned from their deaths not be disregarded by an entrenched and power-hungry bureaucracy whose only concept of "change" is further entrenchment and encroachment?

Let us live in freedom, because the gift of a life is too precious to be managed by a government institution. Perhaps that is the best lesson we can take from this day, 8 years later.

-()4|<.

Back in Business

Well, summer is over, and so is our break here at MC.

Expecting posting to resume as of now. We'll see how much time I can devote to it as we go. I will certainly begin with a reduced schedule, and possibly increase as the season continues.

I'd like to shift gears a little, however. Other blogs do an excellent job of analyzing the important news as it happens, and I have realized that I have neither the time nor an interest in attempting to beat them at their own game. I'd like to begin taking a more reflective approach, and look at how individual news stories of interest fit into a larger scheme of how the world is changing these days.

So bear with me as I adjust to my new schedule, and we will hopefully uncover some interesting "stories behind the stories" in the days to come.

-()4|<.

Hope, Change, and Falsified Birth Documents

So, this may come as no new news to many, but we still have no idea where our president was born. Now even the hospital he claimed as his birth hospital is covering up both the claim and the supporting letter.

That linked article actually borders on silly to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of web coding. Of course the html-created version of something is going to be different from the actual scanned letter.

Concerning the cover-up, however, this blogger considers the fact that the 'official letter' initially displayed on their website was actually just html to have been a rather obvious give away that something was wrong.

The hospital is answering no questions, naturally, and refuses to comment.

I, with most people, believed myself to be reasonable in dismissing the initial claims of Obama not being a naturally-born citizen as far-fetched. After all, if he hadn't been, surely someone would have stopped him from running early on, right? And besides, this kind of thing doesn't actually happen in America, right? "Not in Germany..."

But as time goes on, the simple refusal to supply necessary paperwork and information is starting to convince me. If he is a natural-born citizen, why not just supply the papers to prove it? And sorry, laser-printer copies are not considered valid.

Unfortunately, those in places of influence have more or less utterly bungled the issue, by using the issue not to block Obama's nomination on straightforward legal lines, but to whip up anti-Obama hysteria. I don't support the man's positions, philosophy, worldview, or decisions either, but that doesn't mean I have to convince the world to shrink back from the idea of his presidency on an emotional level. There is more than enough evidence present to demand clarification, but it should have happened early, and concertedly, not all along the way in random alarmist fits and starts.

That being said, of course I support inquiries into the matter.
Up to this point, Obama's supporters have basically brushed aside efforts to resolve the matter as irrelevant. Which is only natural, considering his entire rise to power has been exactly that: a power play. Republicans lost at the political game. Whether due to scruples or incompetence, or more likely a combination of the two, does not now matter. Either they will pull themselves together, function as an effective opposition party, and gain some ground in the next few rounds of elections, or they may go the way of the passenger pigeon.

The facts seem to support the conclusion that the condition of Obama's natural born citizenship is at least under a great deal of reasonable doubt; all that needs to be done is to push forward with that mindset. Yet any efforts we see now are by contrast fractured and ineffective.

Perhaps Obama's seeming strength is due largely to the incompetence of his enemies.
Should a different crowd arise, or a leader unite them, he would be advised to plan cautiously for 2012.

UPDATE: The story continues... now a soldier is refusing to deploy, claiming that Obama has no authority to command the US Military, since he is not a natural born citizen and thus cannot be President. Legal proceedings are underway...

-()4|<.

Walk softly, and carry a big schtick?

Obama is currently in Russia, making more treaties which we will, if history is any indication, be expected to unilaterally honor.

However, in keeping with my general preference to pick out non-obvious (or at least less obvious) aspects of current news, I'd like to analyze a recent quote by Obama made while in Russia.

The quote is as follows:

"The future does not belong to those who gather armies on a field of battle or bury missiles in the ground."

Apart from the odd phrasing in this particular instance, this sentiment is nothing new.
It's the exact opposite of Teddy Roosevelt's bit of wisdom "Walk softly, and carry a big stick.", and represents the opposite approach, of talking big yet bringing no force to back up your words.

This is, as an aside, exactly the philosophy which brought us into the Pacific theater in WWII, with numerous strongly-worded reproaches of Japan's expansionary actions, yet no force in the region to give them weight. The aggressive faction of the Japanese government concluded that ours were idle threats, and proceeded with their imperialistic ambitions.

Russia would naturally be no different, nor would China, who as we've recently seen has no problem with backing up their words with deadly force to subdue unruly outlying provinces.

They are all too happy to hear words denouncing force, when force is exactly what they are accumulating.

In our world, force rules. In other words, in a secular sense, the future belongs precisely to those who -do- gather armies and bury missiles. The US has secured and maintained its freedom only by means of these things, and when it abandons them, its freedom will quickly follow.

Now the leader of our country has denounced both; it must be no coincidence that he clearly despises our freedom as well, a fact underlined by the unprecedentedly rapid dismantling of it since his administration took power.

One is left to wonder whether the last vestiges of our freedom will give way before external forces, or internal dissolution. Time will tell.

-()4|<.

"So this is how liberty dies... "

I ran across an article from the Times Online, stating that Vladimir Putin had banished casinos from most of Russia, essentially exiling them to the nether regions of the land. Not a particularly fresh piece of news, I read a similar article a day or two ago.
But this one caught my eye.

The story is unsettling; this is just the latest example of Putin basically re-instating himself as Czar. Freedom in Russia was a tumultuous but short-lived affair, evidently.

Upon reaching the end of the article, what I found was comments by my fellow Americans, and a Canadian. Far from decrying this bit of arbitrary power-wielding by an increasingly dictatorial Putin, they applauded it. (interpret the italics as sort of a shocked, wide-eyed whisper)

Samples from the three which greeted me include:

"MR Putin has got it right if only the USA would put a stop to all the casinos..."

"...I hope he bans alcohol too as it's the curse of Russia bringing misery to millions."

"Good law. Good sign Putin could resist the criminal elements. Alcoholism needs health and moral-choice education beginning in elementary school..."

It's possible that the comments are still up on the article. If so, go read and grieve for our nation.
It almost makes me want to give up. Why fight for our freedom, when so few of us want it?

You may think I'm over-reacting to a few random comments. But the signs are everywhere. Every time someone says "there ought to be a law...", and I hear it and similar statements more and more frequently these days, they are giving over responsibility for their own actions (and with it their freedom) to the government.

Do Americans really despise their freedom so much that they will exchange it for illusions of security and the chance for a few unearned creature comforts?

Do we even as a nation know what freedom means?

Perhaps we have forgotten how to live, and thus have forgotten to value the ability to order one's life as one pleases.

At any rate, it seems that the daily loss of our freedoms is accompanied not by outrage (except by a few), or action, but instead occurs:

" ...to thunderous applause."

-()4|<.

Did Rome resist falling? Or beg for it?

So as anyone informed enough to be reading this is no doubt aware of by now, the global warming energy bill has narrowly made it through the house. This is basically the equivalent of voting to steer the Titanic towards another iceberg after the first collision, on the grounds that this one will plug the hole left by the last one.

Democrats narrowly passed historic climate and energy legislation Friday evening that would transform the country’s economy and industrial landscape.

Oh yes. They will be transformed. Flip back through our archives to a few months ago, and you'll see an article about the decay of Detroit, and how the wild is creeping back in. Our industry is packing up and moving to China. Don't blame the Chinese; industry is no longer welcome here.

“It has been an incredible six months, to go from a point where no one believed we could pass this legislation to a point now where we can begin to say that we are going to send president Obama to Copenhagen in December as the leader of the of the world on climate change,” said Markey, referring to world climate talks scheduled this winter.

A great honor, to be sure. Attempting to stake the heart of your country's infrastructure in exchange for a chance to sit at the table with the cool kids is clearly a win-win scenario for Democrats.

Ayn Rand simply called these type of people "looters", and she was right in that respect. We had achieved unparalleled prosperity and standards of living, NOT by wealth hoarded at the expense of other nations, but by CREATING wealth. Now, with barely contained excitement, they inform us that our standards of living are going to fall. ("Finally!", they sigh. "These canaglia... the rabble who need us, they have lived like fattened calves for too long. We, the elite, the inheritors of the age of enlightenment, should be given the money, to spend as it ought to be spent. The rest should live as the rest of the world lives.")

Know this. Those who now guide our country's progress hate America's success, as they hate all success that allows decent people to live in prosperity and order their own lives as they see fit.
If they must bring this entire nation to its knees in order to gain total control over your lives, they will do so. It could be rather quickly inferred that this is exactly what is going on.

Now they have succeeded in passing "the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change", in the words of Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.).

The ins and outs of the mythology of green energy and job creation are straightforward enough (the bottom line: this legislation is going to hurt nearly everything it touches...), and we can outline those in another entry.

Right now, I am curious to hear any reactions you may have. I feel as if this great ship of state has been hijacked by enemies far more dangerous than any external terrorist threat.

Terrorists would be no more a national threat to a strong, free America than horseflies on a summer day at the pool. But in this weakened, divided, apologetic America, that publishes to the terrorists its interrogation techniques and does their PR work for them in advance, that cannot seem to rebuild what they destroy, or even muster the cultural strength to displace the radical culture which spawned them, to an America that now gives away its freedom to men who promise security and peace if only, if only we will let them make our decisions for us, in that America, the terrorists do not even need to "win". America as she has been is rapidly ceasing to exist, and what America is becoming will be no threat to evil.

Rome did not fall at the hands of the barbarians who sacked her, Rome fell from within.
The barbarians merely knocked over the tottering, decaying structure whose time had passed.

-()4|<.