by Lance Thompson

I have seen enough "War Is Not the Answer" bumper stickers to realize they cannot be the result of a campaign of bumper sticker-affixing pacifists out to deface the backsides of automobiles. I can only conclude that this slogan is actually a widely-held belief. But saying "War Is Not the Answer" makes as much sense as saying "Seven Is Not the Answer." It depends on the question. The answer to certain mathematical problems is certainly seven, just as the answer to certain geopolitical problems is certainly war.

Assuming that "War Is Not the Answer" sums up the driver’s political or moral philosophy, and in the absence of other clarifying or supporting bumper stickers, this particular philosophy must be the driver’s overriding political view. Thus, we can assume war is what the driver fears, detests, rejects or abhors more than any other condition. Otherwise he would display a bumper sticker reading, "Counterfeiting Is Not the Answer" or "Anti-Depressants Are Not the Answer," or "Hillary Is Not the Answer."

It is almost certain that he would not display a bumper sticker with anything like "Oppression– , Slavery–, Tyranny–, Genocide Is Not the Answer" because all of those conditions are sound and just reasons for going to war. Americans went to war in 1775 against oppression, in 1860 over slavery, in 1941 all over the world against tyranny and genocide. In each of those cases, Americans believed that war, terrible and costly as it was, represented the only remedy to the much less tolerable conditions it eradicated.

Those who display the "War Is Not the Answer" bumper sticker must believe that war is worse than any of those previously mentioned evils. It is, to them, the ultimate evil. Conversely, we can conclude that they believe peace is the ultimate good. There can be little argument against the blessings of peace, just as there are few arguments against blue skies, puppies, or free parking. The "War Is Not the Answer" proponents evidently believe peace is merely a choice, while others realize that peace is a prize to be won by those ready to stand up for and if necessary fight for ideals even more important.

Peace is certainly a choice, and easily attainable. When confronted by an entity that invades your country, seizes your property, deprives you of your livelihood, enslaves or murders your neighbors, or threatens to do any of those things, you can easily obtain peace by acquiescing. But it will be the peace imposed by an overlord who dictates terms to those who fear war more than any other eventuality.

Those who choose to oppose aggression, to fight for freedom, to stand up for the inalienable rights of man no matter the cost will face the prospect of war. When they prevail, they will enjoy peace. But it will be a just peace, that ensures their freedom, their security, and their self-determination. It may be costly and harrowing, but it is a peace worth fighting for.

People and nations are controlled by what they fear most. The "War Is Not the Answer" group fear war, and will sacrifice anything to preserve the peace. Once the enemy knows this, he can obtain any advantage merely by threatening war. The opposite view is that freedom is worth any price, even that of war. Those who adhere to that philosophy may not enjoy perpetual peace, but they will live in a world where they decide their own fates.

by Lance Thompson

Much discussion followed Sunday’s Chris Wallace interview with former President Bill Clinton. But little notice was made of the major revelation that must cause us all–supporters and detractors alike–to reevaluate Mr. Clinton and his presidency.

From the FoxNews.com transcript, we have the following statements from Mr. Clinton about why he failed to eliminate Osama bin Laden: "I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him."

Our 42^nd president has been called everything from a genius to the first black president by his supporters, and everything from a liar to a draft dodger by his detractors. But I don’t believe anyone ever thought of him as a steely-eyed killer until Mr. Clinton characterized himself that way.

Can that affable, charismatic leader who prayed with Southern baptists and felt everyone’s pain actually be a cold-blooded terrorist hunter in disguise? Can the Man from Hope actually be the scourge of enemy combatants everywhere, and the sworn enemy of their statuesque leader?

All this time we thought his addictions were fast food and interns, but now we realize his obsession was gunning down our country’s terrorist enemies. That long-winded 1969 letter to his ROTC colonel explaining why so many people loath the military, and why he could better serve his country as a student in England than a draftee in Vietnam was just a clever deception. Bill Clinton was concealing a warrior’s soul, just waiting for the right national crisis to reveal it.

Dismantling the armed forces and reducing military personnel by 700,000 troops was evidently a ploy to convince our enemies that we were weak and open to attack. For under that base-closing, warship-mothballing, troop-cutting exterior lurked the pistol-packing, shoot-first, hang-em-high soul of the lawman from Hope, the Arkansas Assassin.

The warrior within revealed by Mr. Clinton during his interview is a formidable foe indeed. He must have spent every waking moment dreaming of new ways to kill Osama bin Laden. But of course, since he never did, he must have discovered some fatal flaw in every course of action. Cruise missile? Too impersonal. Invasion? Too showy. Kidnapping? Too complicated. Scorpion down his neck? Too unreliable.

No wonder Mr. Clinton was unable to accomplish much during his last two years. His brain was spinning with assasination plots, keeping track of his target’s whereabouts, combing through old issues of Mad Magazine to study the inventive cutthroat tactics illustrated in the Spy vs. Spy comic strip. The poor, unappreciated guardian of our safety! All this time we thought he was just a girl-chasing Bubba the Hut, and it turns out he was The President With No Name, scouring the world in search of his evil nemesis, itching for a chance to gun him down.

Yes, history will have to reappraise Mr. Clinton in light of his statements. He tried, he came close, he asked others to do it, he would have done it better if he had a second chance. These are not the excuses they appear to be, but instead constitute a confession. To paraphrase his immediate Democrat predecessor, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton committed murder in his heart. The fact that he never consummated the act against the object of his desire, Osama bin Laden, in no way relieves him of his sin. Let us all pray that he can some day live with this burden.

  "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant:  It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

by Rose Pedenko

It was fascinating to see the former President reveal himself during the FNS interview with Chris Wallace. Clinton supporters (and even some detractors) have described it as brilliant, calculating, masterful by design, or perhaps just a tantrum. From this side of the coin, it was a Howard Beale moment. Clinton was mad as h(ell)* and he wasn’t going to take it anymore. Unhinged? You bet. Paranoid? Possibly. Unstable? You decide.

Larry Elder compared the interview to the now legendary Nixon-Kennedy debate. Those who heard it on the radio had a completely different take on Nixon (believing he won the debate) versus those that watched it live. Having heard it, watched it, and read the transcript of the Fox interview, the analogy is apropos. If you heard it, he sounded brilliant; if you watched, it was unveiled belligerence.

Some liberal pundits described the anger as a defensive move to protect his legacy. Bill O’Reilly acknowledged Clinton had a successful presidency—prosperity and welfare reform heading the list of accomplishments. His legacy, however, will be hotly debated for years to come. In the days that follow, the proverbial rug will be lifted and every mistake that had been swept underneath by his minions will be reopened like old war wounds. By way of example, “For all that Clinton got wrong, welfare reform was one thing he ended up getting very right. He had vetoed two previous reform bills passed by the Republican-controlled Congress, and when the House and Senate came back with a third bill, liberal pressure for another veto was intense. But political strategist D(ick)* Morris warned Clinton that a third veto could cost him the 1996 election, and so, pronouncing it a ‘historic opportunity to do what is right,’ he signed the bill”—and the rest is HIStory.

What exactly will be remembered from this ostensibly brilliant performance? That the finger-wagging, note-stabbing, in-your-face anger was directed at a well-respected and mild-mannered news host. Those images will be seared into even the most cynical hides. Had Wallace leaned in any further, he’d be sporting the WJC brand on his forehead. Try pointing a finger at someone in normal discourse and you risk losing a valuable digit.

Attempting to penetrate the persona of this man and the power beside him, reminded me of a bit by Cary Grant and Myrna Loy in the film, “The Bachelor and the Bobby Soxer”:

“You remind me of a man. What man? The man with the power. What power? The power of hoodoo. Who do? You do. Do what? Remind me of a man…” Just substitute Bill and Hillary for Cary & Myrna.

[*Due to Townhall filter, these words are considered inappropriate]

by Lance Thompson

Recently before the United Nations, Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuela’s president Hugo Chavez called for a realignment of the structure of the United Nations Security Council. These venom-spouting leaders of terror-exporting nations have a very good point.

Because of their permanent positions on the Security Council, the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, the People’s Republic of China and France wield the greatest influence over the United Nations. Two–the United States and the United Kingdom–have long histories of expending blood and treasure to make other people free. Three–Russia, the People’s Republic of China, and France--supported the murdering dictator Saddam Hussein for economic gain, and are rapidly forging alliances with and supporting the nuclear ambitions of Ahmadinejad’s Iran. There can be no more persuasive argument for a realignment of the Security Council.

The five permanent members were chosen as the victors of World War II. The reasoning was that the Allies who vanquished Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan wisely could guide a unified world to overcome future challenges.

If the qualifications for being a permanent Security Council member are the efforts a nation expended in defeating the Axis in World War II, only two of the five permanent members have legitimate claims.

The War would not have been won without the United States. Americans fought in Europe, Asia, Africa, and across the Atlantic and Pacific. We manufactured weapons and equipment to supply every Allied country. We emerged from the war the preeminent superpower, yet used our industrial might to rebuild the shattered nations of our enemies. We earned our seat.

The United Kingdom, under Winston Churchill, stood alone against the Nazis after Hitler overran Europe. The British sent troops to the Continent to resist the marauding German blitzkrieg and fought alone through the Battle of Britain. Even in their darkest hour, they dispatched troops to the Mediterranean and Africa to counter German invaders, and fought the Japanese in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. One seat for the Brits.

What about our Russian allies? They were allied with Hitler when the war began. In 1939, Russians invaded Poland from the east while the Germans attacked from the west. Russia invaded Finland as well. Only when Hitler turned on his ally in 1941 did the Russians end up on our side. After the war, when the United States and Great Britain withdrew from the European countries they had liberated, the Soviets stayed and imposed brutal governments upon millions of people. That kind of behavior doesn’t rate a seat.

But surely the Chinese, who were fighting against Japan since 1933, deserve a spot. Yes, the Chinese fought bravely in World War II, but the Nationalist government of Chiang Kai-shek that led that fight was ousted by a savage Communist takeover in 1949. The government that helped win World War II was exiled to Taiwan. That is the government that was a permanent member of the Security Council until 1971, when the United Nations voted to replace it with the Communist government that now controls the mainland. The ally that was China is not represented in the United Nations at all. Another available seat.

Which brings us to the fifth seat, occupied by France. When the Germans invaded France in 1940, British troops fought alongside French soldiers to defend the country, but were outmaneuvered by the swiftly advancing German panzer divisions. After British troops withdrew, France capitulated less than a month later, with large portions of its army intact and a significant portion of the country still under French control. Charles de Gaulle formed a separate government in exile, the Free French, but his followers were a minority. France was out of the fight in the first round, so there’s another vacant seat.

If the Security Council requires five members, and those seats are awarded based on who did the most to win World War II, who should join the United States and the United Kingdom?

Australian troops were fighting Rommel’s Afrika Korps long before Australia was threatened by the Japanese. When Australia was surrounded by Japanese forces, it became the last Allied bastion in the Pacific and served as a base of operations for the long struggle of the Pacific War. Australia was in at the beginning and Australians fought all over the world. One seat for Australia.

Canada helped escort Atlantic convoys and defended them against German U-Boats before she was involved in the war. Canadian troops fought in all theaters, and landed at Normandy to liberate Europe. (Free French troops also landed at Normandy, but they were liberating their homeland.) Canada earns a seat.

This leaves one open seat. Many nations contributed to the Allied cause in World War II, but I nominate Poland. In 1939, Poland fought both the Germans and the Russians at the same time. Polish Jews fought to the bitter end in the Warsaw Ghetto. Polish pilots flew for the RAF in the Battle of Britain. Polish paratroops landed in occupied Holland to help liberate that country. Poland rates that fifth seat.

LowDownCentral has been following the dysfunctional U.N. for several months. Our disheartenment came to a head yesterday with Hugo Chavez’s despicable comments before the real U.N. When both Charlie Rangel and Nancy Pelosi weigh in with similar outrage, it is time to wake up and take action. Matt Towery calls for the United States to leave the United Nations and spearhead the formation of a new, more workable international consortium. We support that view completely. At a minimum, we call on Senator John Ensign of Nevada to renew his efforts to reform the United Nations: Senator Ensign also has worked to withhold or deny U.N. funds in order to reform the organization: Sponsored an amendment to deny funds in FY2007 for the United Nations Human Rights Council, which the United States had just voted against because countries found complicit in sustained human rights abuses are eligible for Council membership. The savings would have been redirected to border security. Unfortunately, the amendment failed on a 50 – 50 vote.

It cannot fail again.

by Lance Thompson

Senator John McCain has championed reform of military interrogation, succeeding in placing severe restrictions on the intelligence-gathering techniques our troops use on enemy prisoners. Because of his experience as a prisoner of war, McCain’s views are seldom challenged. They should be.

On 26 October, 1967, Lieutenant Commander John McCain’s A-4 Skyhawk was shot down over Hanoi. Ejecting from the plane, McCain suffered fractures in his leg and both arms. After his parachute landing in a swamp where he nearly drowned, he was recovered by civilians and turned over to the North Vietnamese military, who imprisoned him. For four days he was left lying on a concrete floor with no medical treatment, little nourishment, but frequent bouts with interrogators who offered medical attention in exchange for military information. McCain refused. When the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was an admiral, he finally received meager food and crude medical aid. Over the next five and half years, his captors constantly ordered him to make statements and propaganda films against the American government, and betray his fellow prisoners. He was beaten when he refused. On 14 March, 1973, after a cease-fire agreement between the United States and North Vietnam, he was released with a hundred other American POW’s and flew home.

In Senate deliberations on interrogation methods used by the United States military and intelligence agencies in the war on terror, John McCain’s experience has given him great authority and influence. He was instrumental in crafting restrictive new regulations for military interrogations of terrorist prisoners. But his experience is a detriment to the process and the interest of this country.

When a citizen shows up for jury duty, attorneys outline the issues and principals involved in the case. If a prospective juror has a strong connection or deeply-held feeling about any aspect of the case, he can expect to be excused, for it would be difficult for him to reach an objective opinion. Likewise, if a presiding judge has any connection to any person or entity in a case, the judge recuses himself for the same reason. If a senator has been beaten, tortured, refused medical attention and used as a propaganda tool while a military prisoner, he cannot dispassionately craft laws governing the treatment of military prisoners. In fact, his passion may subvert the very purpose of those laws.

In the turbulent days following 9/11, Norman Mineta was Secretary of Transportation. Although it soon became clear that the hijackers were young Arab Muslim men, he refused to institute a system of security profiling that would have focused on young Arab Muslim men. Mineta’s Japanese-American family had been confined in a relocation camp during World War II. One could argue that because Mineta had experienced racial profiling in a national emergency, he would be well qualified to judge its suitability to the current situation. But precisely because of his sensitivity to the issue, he instituted rules that prohibited use of an important tool in the TSA’s arsenal. By refusing to concentrate attention on young Arab Muslim men like the ones who carried out the attacks, Mineta let his personal feelings undermine his responsibility to his country.

John McCain is in the same position. After being captured on the battlefield, wounded, tortured, imprisoned and brutally questioned, how can he dispassionately decide on the merits of various methods of interrogation used by our military? The armed forces of the United States and those of North Vietnam share little common ground in interrogation tactics, methods or ideologies. Our treatment of prisoners is humane and hospitable, especially compared to the brutality and cruelty suffered by prisoners at the hands of Jihadist captors. Yet McCain can’t help but view our detention facilities through the distorting lens of his mistreatment by the North Vietnamese.

This veteran, who served his country as a naval aviator conducted himself courageously and honorably under the most brutal conditions as a prisoner of war has earned our gratitude, respect and admiration. But his experience gives him no greater authority than any other senator over the rules governing our own interrogators, who are bound by codes of conduct stricter than those of any nation on earth. Because Senator McCain has deeply held beliefs about the issues in this case, he should recuse himself. Otherwise, his understandably strong feelings will hinder the interrogators who save American lives with every answer they extract from enemy prisoners.

Every election, both sides strive to "get out the vote" by offering incentives providing transportation to the polls, allowing provisional ballots and innovations like drive-through voting. But to ensure an educated, thoughtful electorate, the bar for enfranchisement should be raised, not lowered.

To prevent careless choices, before we can vote for a candidate, we should be compelled to pick him out of a photo lineup (good practice for the inevitable indictments to come). Instead of printing the address of the polling place on the ballot, give out clues to the location for each correct answer to a civics quiz: What are the three branches of government waste? Which congressman earmarked funds for the local mosquito sanctuary? When Teddy Kennedy is on the Senate floor, how long till he gets back on his feet?

The entire multiple choice ballot format is woefully undemanding and encourages guessing. Even the SAT, scourge of high school students everywhere, now contains an essay section. Couldn't we include a few open-ended ballot questions: Describe your biggest electoral disappointment without using proper nouns. Define the term "lesser of two evils." Explain why the electoral college never plays in any bowl games.

My most radical proposal I have saved till last. We must do all this in the language of the nation we live in, English, before it joins Latin and Sumerian in the dead-languages-of-once-great-civilizations-that-couldn’t-manage-their-own-gardening-and-child-rearing.

by Lance Thompson

With the recently published guidelines on interrogating military prisoners, evidently ghost-written by Emily Post, and reports that Guantanamo Bay just missed a four-star rating from the Auto Club, it’s time to re-examine American military policy toward jihadists in our custody.

Various reports point out that Guantanamo prisoners enjoy healthful, culturally appropriate meals; opportunities for exercise; prayer mats, copies of the Qoran, and arrows painted on the floors pointing to Mecca to aid religious observances. Guantanamo Bay is at the center of a Caribbean oval that includes the Bahamas and the Florida Keys to the north, Jamaica to the South, the Yucatan to the west and the Virgin Islands to the east. Critics have depicted Gitmo as some sort of Devil’s Island, but if it wasn’t the only free real estate on a Communist stronghold, it would be a hopelessly overbooked vacation spot (as Havana was before Castro). It’s not a hellhole, it’s Club Med with barbed wire.

Prisoners are well-treated, their cells are air-conditioned, and the average detainee gains eighteen pounds when he gets a taste of the cuisine that costs roughly three times as much as we spend on our own soldiers’ meals. Prisoners are living in better conditions than before they were captured. The best proof of this is that their side sent them out to get killed, and our side is bending over backward to keep them healthy and alive.

Knowing the paradise that awaits them on this side of eternity, there may be increasingly large numbers of terrorists wishing to surrender. The day cannot be far off when unruly lines of eager terrorists rush to give themselves up to the nearest U. S. military authority, exhibiting the same sort of enthusiasm generated by ticket sales for one of Barbra Streisand’s first three or four farewell concerts.

Eagerness to become prisoner guests of the United States will, of necessity, change our battlefield procedures. It is a very dangerous business to take prisoners. One minute a terrorist is firing mortars into civilian crowds, detonating roadside bombs, or beheading hostages, and the next he’s waving a hanky and demanding humane treatment under our laws. Once he’s a prisoner, he must be treated with all the courtesy, deference and hospitality Latin American dictatorships usually reserve for Jimmy Carter. The prisoner is not required to provide any information, and he cannot be coerced, humiliated, lied to, kept too cold or too warm, or exposed to popular music at any sonic level approaching that at which that music is played by its devoted fans.

Thus our military will have to come up with some intermediate classification between Bloodthirsty Enemy and Coddled Prisoner to cover the transition. I suggest "Provisional Dependent." When a terrorist surrenders on the battlefield, our soldiers politely should first ask him, in his native language, if he would kindly: a). Provide the locations of at least six IED’s, b). Reveal the details of the next terrorist attack on American civilians, or c). Take us to Osama bin Laden’s summer home in the mountains. If the Provisional Dependent refuses, as is his ACLU-given right, then we should refuse him the hospitality of an American detention facility. If he wants a plane ride to the Caribbean, a clean, air-conditioned room, exercise equipment, free meals, and maybe even a sit-down with Katie Couric, he’s going to have to come across with some actionable intelligence. If not, give him a minute or two to go back to wherever he was before his attempted surrender, and continue whatever demonstration of bladder-discharging offensive firepower that convinced him to give up in the first place.

With continuous upgrading of detention facility food, services and treatment, it will soon be impermissible even to refer to these detainees as one-time enemies. With nutritious meals, planned activities, medical care, legal counsel and comfortable shelter provided by Uncle Sam, they will soon have to be placed in an entirely different category–undocumented workers. At this point they will probably be provided an opportunity to unionize and strike for pay raises, benefits packages, pensions, and perhaps even reparations.

In my email this morning, I found a message from Stratfor bearing the ominous headline: Syria: Embassy Attack Linked to Militants?

It seems someone tried to blow up our embassy in Damascus earlier today. According to the AP report:

   

Four men shouting Islamic slogans tried to blow up the U.S. embassy in Damascus on Tuesday but their car bomb failed to explode and Syrian security guards killed three of them in a shootout. No U.S. diplomats were hurt.   

The state news agency SANA said a Syrian guard was killed and 13 people were wounded, including two Syrian security men.   

Television footage of the scene showed a van packed with gas canisters and detonators taped to them, as well as bloodstains on the pavement and several damaged vehicles, including a white bullet-riddled car that a truck was preparing to haul away.

Coincidentally, this comes soon after al Qaeda's #2 lunatic, Ayman al-Zawahri, promised in a video that terrorists would attack American interests in the Middle East. So, this must have been an al-Qaeda job, right? After all,  Al Qaeda has been expanding operations in the area around Israel for several years now and, as Hizbullah's stock has shot up in Arab eyes for putting up the best fight any Arab force ever has against the Israelis, they may have felt a need to take action to establish their "street cred" as leaders of the "resistance" to the "Crusaders."

I'm not so sure. This attack shows all the signs of being a half-assed operation, and al Qaeda, if anything, is known for meticulous planning. The attacks of 9-11, Bali, Madrid, and London, just to name the most recent, were all scouted and planned down to the last detail, almost always for years in advance. The embassy attackers in Damascus couldn't even make their bombs explode and had to settle for getting themselves killed in a pathetic charge of the embassy gates. That just doesn't sound like al-Qaeda.

It's possible, perhaps likely, that this was attempted by some junior-league Salafist group that had whipped itself into a religious fervor, as Ed Morrissey argues at The Captain's Quarters. But here's another possibility: This was an operation by Syrian intelligence, either directly controlling the attackers or using them as dupes.

Think about it for a moment. Syria has been under severe international pressure since it murdered Lebanese PM Hariri in 2005, an act which cost them their direct control of their satrapy in Lebanon. They've at times tried to ingratiate themselves with Washington by offering partial cooperation in the war against Islamic fascism, but that effort has born little fruit, given the situation in Washington over Lebanon and Syrian support for terrorists killing our people in Iraq. I wouldn't put it past this bunch of Machiavellian Syrian mafiosi to stage a fake assault --with real blood and bodies thrown in-- to then be able to tell Washington: "See? Our interests in this fight are the same! And we shed blood for you!  Now, how about relaxing those sanctions?"

It's not as if Syria doesn't have a history of faking attacks to make themselves look good: An attack on abandoned UN offices in 2004 was blamed on al-Qaeda. However, pro-Assad demonstrators conveniently showed up after the attack, with professionally printed signs and posters ready, leading some to believe it was a fake. Granted, staging an attack on the American embassy would be a stupid thing to do, but Syria under Bashar Assad, who inherited his father's name, but not his political skill, has been prone to doing stupid things. Witness the Hariri killing and how they've alienated their Arab allies by allying with Iran.

I'm not saying the attack today had to be a Syrian job, but it's something to bear in mind. I'm keeping my mind open until there's more evidence one way or the other.

Update and bump: Hah! I claim vindication. At the Counterterrorism Blog, both Walid Phares and Olivier Guitta agree that Syria is a likely culprit in the attack on our embassy in Damascus.

(Note: This article originally appeared on my blog, Public Secrets (http://irishspy.typepad.com) yesterday. My thanks to Rose and Lance for offering to reprint it here at LowDownCentral!

by Rose Pedenko

There I was, standing in the elevator with nothing more on my mind than whether I should have a carne asada or chicken quesadilla for lunch, when the 5^th floor door slid open and two Asian suits sauntered in with their Blackberrys and Bluetooth earwigs. I briefly wondered, between yawns, if Daiwa Securities had a branch office in our building, but then caught the tail end of their banter about which stocks were moving—all in perfectly manicured English. On their way out of the elevator (I followed closely, eavesdropping for a stock tip) when their conversation slid smoothly to Paris Hilton’s DUI, or “Dawg, wazzup with that?” Couldn’t help but smile walking out into the sunshine because it was a classic reminder of what Americans really look like.

Put aside your PC brainwashing for a moment: Weren’t you just a little floored hearing Lennox Lewis’ euphonic British accent the first time? You were expecting Tyson’s faux erudition perhaps? Admit it, the King’s English was the last thing you were thinking.

English is the master key that unlocks all things American. While there are loud protests about outsourcing of jobs, consider for a moment the aspiration of Indians in Bangalore to learn English, adopt American names and readily help you with your computer problems from 8,000 miles away. Yet we have hundreds of thousands of immigrants illegally invading our borders with barely an inclination to learn the language. Why should they—we make it so easy to reap the rewards so diligently earned by those waiting in line to become true Americans.

When I see and hear Michelle Malkin so eloquently articulate the problems facing this nation, I think “Poster Child” American. Too often we associate tow-headed white-bread faces with the red, white and blue, when that is but a small fraction of the melting pot. Ah, the proverbial melting pot, another interesting concept since that almost implies non-Caucasians blending in to make an American Gumbo.

We proud Americans that do point out the tears in the fabric that is Americana are frequently branded as racist by those on the Left. That couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s as absurd as being proud of a person’s dismal failure to read, write and count just because they are white. Or black Americans drifting from the party of Lincoln to blindly support those that would make them dependents indefinitely. It’s not about being black, brown, yellow or pasty white. It’s about the personal responsibility to learn English and grab hold of the American Dream.

Catering to non-English speaking immigrants does not serve them well either. Translating signage, product labels, voicemail messages, etc. is the same as forcing children to wear water wings until they are 18. They will eventually sink from deflated egos.

Americans would do well to look in the mirror and ask themselves if they are an American first, or if their allegiance belongs to the country of their parents’, grandparents’ or great-grandparents’ origin. Do they really need the very divisive hyphenated designation of nationality to buy self-esteem? How many African-Americans do you know who just immigrated from Africa?

You don’t need to be a second or third generation U.S. born and bred individual to earn your nationality. You just need to speak English and believe you are part of the greatest experiment on the face of the earth—the melding of all cultures into one very tasty deep dish—American Apple Pie.

Next time you’re in an elevator, look around at all the foreign-looking faces and ask yourself if you are on board with real Americans. To know may not only surprise you but brighten your day and make you smile, just like me.

*Cannadine, David: In Churchill's Shadow: Confronting the Past in Modern Britain, Oxford University Press, New York, 2003

By Simon Pedenko

On Tuesday, the 11^th day of September, the unimaginable came to pass. In less than two hours our universe cracked and split apart. We witnessed, smelled, and tasted the devastation of war on U.S. soil. We were forced to confront the meaning of the word atrocity and spend years trying to understand it.

Americans felt shock, horror, grief, and rediscovered patriotism. Spiritual aid streamed in by way of the prayers of millions around the world in their churches, temples and synagogues. Here in the states, all races and persuasions came together and jammed into Red Cross corridors to offer blood for the WTC victims. Wherever I looked, our Stars and Stripes waved proudly atop commercial buildings, homes, schools, and all types of land vehicles from two- to twenty-wheelers.

I was awe-inspired and uplifted, but ultimately sad. Sad, because I knew in my core that such passion would eventually diminish like fog at sunrise, and everyone (or at least the liberal half of us) would fall back into their comfortable “blame mindset.”

By mid-October 2001, high-ranking Democrats began spewing vitriol at President George W. Bush, as though he personally had ordered the deaths of the thousands on 9/11. Neither truth nor special commissions, or common sense and logic, have dissuaded these detractors one iota. The Left were and still are blindly determined to destroy this president. At every opportunity they overrule and undermine the President’s efforts to protect our nation from further attacks.

As a result, the Left have successfully pitted Americans against Americans. I no longer know which is worse: the crashing of the planes by insane terrorists, or the out-and-out enmity we face from our own countrymen—our neighbors, even family members.

I fear we are on the threshold of a second American civil war, only this time the ammunition is not cannons or pistols. This time they are misguided missiles, and they’re being fired at us via the mainstream media. Be it disclosure of national security secrets (cloaked under the guise of “Freedom of Speech”) or spin for the sake of spinning, it is without conscience or consideration to consequence. Their actions and reporting are wholly irresponsible.

Senator Barbara Boxer said: “Terrorism is the result of this (Iraqi) war.” While acts of terror have increased in Iraq, from a pre-war level of nearly zero to the current daily tally, one could argue that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was never targeted by terrorists because Saddam supported, financed and encouraged terrorists. It was only after regime change, and the Iraqis’ embrace of democracy, that terrorist acts in Iraq began. Senator Boxer also conveniently forgets the first attack on the World Trade Center, the suicide attack on the USS Cole, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, and countless other acts of murder, highjacking and terror stretching back to the Munich Olympics in 1972. All of these occurred without the “provocation” of the Iraq war.

Imprudent statements from the Left have split our country, our camaraderie, and our best hopes for America. Together with terrorists exploiting every crack in our resolve and every difference between our leaders, every pessimistic forecast from the media experts becomes precisely fertile ground ideal for invasion. The terrorists play to the cameras, whether they are beheading a kidnapped journalist or filming the detonation of an IED for Al Jazeera. They know that with every televised and web-posted outrage, a few more Americans will lose their taste for the fight, give in to the hopelessness and despair, and petition their leaders to just quit and go home. They can’t win in the field—they can only hope to survive longer than our national will to prevail.

By Simon Pedenko

When we grew up in the 1950s and 1960s, parental guidance consisted of a handful of well-understood and simple admonishments.  For example, if we found ourselves confronted by a bully or were victims of insults, we were told to “turn the other cheek.”  Often, our dads would wisely supersede that counsel with “Stand up to bullies, because that’s what they understand.”  When we successfully stood up to the bully our action was followed by silent pride and a sense of accomplishment.  We stood taller.

“Stand up to bullies” had merit then, and still does now.  But the bullies we face today are no longer on the schoolyard.  They are national leaders, gathering weapons of mass destruction to intimidate their neighbors.  When America stands up to these bullies, defends the weak and the oppressed, we are criticized, condemned and constrained by the “international community.”  If we use force to confront those bullies, it is described as “continuing the cycle of violence” or “inciting terrorists.”

Many Americans no longer want to deal with bullies.  Instead, they glorify the gutless.  Backbone, once a trademark compliment showered on men, women and young adults who stood up for what was right, is no longer a badge of honor.

Today, politicians bray like asses do and the semi-literate sheep bleat approval as they blindly follow those who would strip clean the refuge of our sacrosanct Constitution.  Within the Preamble, there is one sentence: “To provide for the common defense.”  Today, our nation no longer seems to have the fortitude or will to confront implacable enemies – or to provide for that common defense.

Similarly, we have been systematically stripped of spines inside our own borders by gangs.  If we stand up to these homegrown and alien thugs, the ACLU comes galloping to their defense faster than you can say “victim’s rights.”

Islamic Extremists have taken a giant step beyond traditional guerilla warfare, pushing their belligerency to a gross level by using civilians, not as a base of support, but as human shields.  Coupled with terrorists’ willingness to blow themselves up for pie in the sky (so to speak), Americans have allowed themselves to be castrated by political correctness, unable to stand up to bullies as we once did with heads held high.  Will these fanatics be forgiven by liberals when Americans are similarly used on our own soil?  Political correctness has robbed us of our right to defend ourselves, to live with honor, and even the right to laugh at ourselves.  And to make sure we comply, the Thought Police are on the lookout, ready to enforce the new rules.

It is painfully clear we have become an effete political force, unable to wipe emboldened smiles off the faces of illegal immigrants, domestic gangs, or international terrorists.  The enemy hammers away with blind and fatal ambition to destroy us from within our ranks while the Left continues to hamstring our Commander-in-Chief’s efforts to crush the enemy’s forward momentum.  Prevailing against terrorism becomes near impossible when terrorist’s rights are held higher that those of Americans.  The focus of these malcontents must be aimed away from their personal likes and dislikes and aimed at the fanatical bullies who want nothing more than to murder all men, women and children who do not share their views, and their god.

Hatred can and will destroy this country from the outside unless it is stamped out first within our borders.  The hatred which is aimed at our President, and which is preached by our countrymen against our country and its citizens cannot be tolerated if we are to survive as a nation.  We must once again stand tall.

Ask liberals how they think we should win the war against terrorism, and their answer is either “sit down and negotiate (with those whom there is no negotiating),” or worse, no answer at all.

In this desperate period of our history, another adage of long ago needs to be resurrected NOW.  Stand up to those bullies by “Fighting fire with fire,” the same fire that still burns within the hearts of real Americans who used to defend our freedom at all costs.  Unless we come together now to defend America, there soon may be no Am