by Tanya Simon

The week of April 16, 2007 began with a shocking news report in the early morning, which grew more shocking in each ensuing hour, and concluded in abject horror with the revelation of a massacre of over 30 of our brightest people at Virginia Tech University. In the days that followed we prayed -- and continue to pray -- for their souls, for the recovery of the survivors, and for their families, friends, and fellow students.

The poke in the eye was dealt by the senator from Nevada, on Thursday, April 19, 2007: He plain out ignored the mourning processes over what evil had done what evil had wanted. With the poise of a snake oil salesman he positioned himself before a gaggle of reporters and delivered a revolting testimonial:

“I believe this war is lost.”

If he had ended this statement with “…nyuk, nyuk, nyuk,” then the question in every conservative’s mind would have been finally answered: Stooges are alive and well on Capitol Hill -- and they’re driving our red, white & blue integrity and morale into the ground. (Note: Flying above the senator, which he showed no interest in noticing, was our Stars & Stripes at half-staff in respect, honor and memory of the students and faculty who were killed four days earlier.)

Reid has lashed back against Republicans’ criticism of his statement, and with ambiguity:

“No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than Democrats.”

String both his messages together and they make about as much sense as NBC’s irreverent decision to broadcast the disturbing personal video and audiotapes of the Virginia Tech shooter only 48 hours after the unspeakable tragedy (the day before the Nevada senator decided he was overdue for his moment in the limelight). (On a personal note, I will never forgive NBC for their avarice by airing that video so soon, nor will I ever pardon them for flip-flopping and ultimately canceling the screwball comedy 3^rd Rock from the Sun, a critical and ratings success at the time: proof that liberal television networks (much like the sitting Congress) are nowhere near in touch with practicality.)

Back to ‘Stoogeville:’

Pack in with Reid the rest his irresponsible sidekicks, like Nancy ‘Give Me an Inch So I Can Be the Ruler’ Pelosi (whose unauthorized trots throughout the Middle East was a blatant act of insubordination as well as a violation of deference for both President Bush and Secretary of State Rice, not to mention jeopardizing national security), and the prodigious vessel we call Congress will be in danger of taking on water. Or, more simply put: Loose lips sink ships.

Senate Majority Leader Reid proved by his loose-lip statement that he, and others of the self-styled ‘new’ Congress, is not a visionary. Neither is he a leader, because a genuine leader who is fully committed to battling the darkest forces of iniquity never lays down his sword to that enemy -- an enemy that is consumed with blind hatred and bloodlust, who gives no quarter to his victims, whether they be men, women, or children.

Reid and his colleagues cannot -- or will not -- accept the true meaning of victory on the scale necessary to once and for all stamp out radical Islamic terrorism. Success does not materialize ‘abracadabra’ like a fuzzy rabbit from inside an illusionist’s top hat. The House and Senate steadfastly refuse to recognize that society allows only one great change at a time, and every great change takes time.

Terrorists are trying to use that time to gain traction and the only way to beat them, and those that sponsor terrorism, is to slash their malignant ideology to zero. Reid and the others who think and speak like defeatists will never grasp this fact, because their reach falls miserably short due to their short-sightedness.

For Reid to state to the world -- to the sworn enemies of peace -- that the war in Iraq is lost (and on the basis of intelligence reports for just one week) is not a sign of strength. It is fearful, ignorant, and unmanly.

Senators represent the people, but Reid’s statement -- and statements and actions by others like him -- is disloyal and a slap in the people’s face. And the people include each devoted member of our armed forces -- Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Marines -- serving not just in Iraq but in every outpost in the world. The value of their mottos, particularly Semper Fi, is plainly and dishonorably alien to Reid. Slap me, and I’ll turn the other cheek. But slap our men and women in uniform and you have stepped way over the line.

Senator Reid said this war is lost. There is only one response that comes to mind, which is succinctly appropriate. As 3^rd Rock’s high commander, Dick Solomon, retorted often and with sustained relish:

“No, Harry. You’re WRONG.”

 Obama-Care?

by Lance Thompson

In an article on Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama’s economic plan in the 24 April Wall Street Journal, Deborah Solomon identifies legislation introduced by the Senator in 2005, called "Health Care for Hybrids." The bill would give federal aid to auto manufacturers to offset the high health care costs of retirees if manufacturers would build more fuel-efficient vehicles.

This proposal sounds wonderful–relief for auto manufacturers crippled by legacy health costs and fewer gas-guzzlers on the road. Everybody wins.

However, upon closer examination, this auto bill is a lemon.

First, shifting the costs of retiree health care from private corporations to the federal government is what used to be known as a bail-out. It is a program that basically tells corporations that no matter what fiscal irresponsibilities they have committed, Uncle Sam will pay for the mistake. Bail-outs have shifted private debt to the federal ledger in the 1979 federal loan guarantee bail-out of Chrysler, in the 1989 FDIC bailout of Charles Keating and Lincoln Savings and Loan, and in repeated federal bailouts of homeowners or their insurers in areas that are regularly devastated by natural disasters. Spreading the pain of the poor decisions of a few over the tax bills of the many may sound benevolent at first, but it merely insulates the decision makers from the consequences of their decisions.

American auto makers and unions continued to sign contracts that could not be supported by the long-term trends of the industry. Those bills are now coming due, and the shrinking market for American automobiles means there is no way to pay them. Senator Obama wants the government to help pay those bills. But that means taxpayers pay while manufacturers and unions continue to work with contracts that would not otherwise be fiscally sustainable.

But what about the other aspect of the bill–encouraging fuel efficient vehicles? With gas prices at all-time highs, surely that is a worthy goal.

Yes, fuel efficient cars and trucks are desirable. But government-mandated production goals represent the worst possible aspect of government economic planning.

There is no more responsive, efficient, and self-correcting economic force than the free market. Ten years ago, hybrid cars were theoretical science fiction. Now, with gas at $3.50 per gallon, the public demand for fuel-efficient hybrids has driven manufacturers to build them. Toyota, Honda, Ford, GM and other companies all offer hybrid models. The free market identified a need and filled it.

When Toyota’s Prius had the hybrid market largely to itself, there were long waiting lists of buyers willing to pay high premiums over list price to own one. Manufacturers responded, and now hybrids are widely available in a variety of brands, and prices have come down. No government intervention was needed to convince auto makers to build cars that people couldn’t wait to own.

However, Senator Obama believes that a costly auto manufacturer bailout is needed to encourage car companies to build more hybrids. If supplies are meeting demands, all this government program will accomplish is to tip the perfectly self-balancing scales of the free market and disrupt the efficient market forces at work.

Imagine a simple example. Currently, car manufacturers are permitted to paint their cars any colors they wish. A great deal of research and market testing goes into the paint choices offered to customers. Black, white, silver are perennial favorites. Greens, blues, oranges, yellows go in and out of fashion with consumer tastes. But few manufacturers offer unpopular colors on their new cars for the simple reason that people don’t like them. They paint their cars in colors that car buyers are attracted to, encouraged to do so by their desire to see the most cars.

But what if manufacturers were coerced or bribed by the government to paint more cars the color of lark’s vomit? Certainly, there might be a market for such a color, but it would be limited. Cars with more popular colors would sell first. The lark’s vomit cars would have to be discounted, but the discount would be offset by government subsidy, so manufacturers would actually profit by painting cars an unpopular color. Eventually, car lots would be filled with unsold cars in the color of lark’s vomit while cars in the unsubsidized colors would demand higher and higher prices. Manufacturers can’t sell more cars than customers want to buy, no matter how much the government subsidizes their production.

The same principle is true whenever the government interferes with the free market. President Nixon’s wage and price controls did not halt inflation, they exacerbated it. President Carter’s fuel rationing didn’t reduce long lines at the gas pump, it increased them. Barack Obama, in his first term as a Senator, may not be familiar with the history of government-imposed business plans in the United States. But the discredited central planning policies of the old Soviet Union, communist China, and Cuba all offer lessons in the failure of government to improve on the efficiency and benefits of free market forces.

Who should tell car companies what kinds of automobiles to build? The government, with an expensive bailout program? Or the customer, who knows what he wants? Senator Obama believes the government knows better. No wonder he’s so popular with Democrat voters.

Lance Thompson has written for movies and television and his articles and photographs have appeared in two dozen national magazines, newspapers and web sites. He is an award-winning veteran of hundreds of motion picture ad campaigns, and lectures on writing at the Scriptwriters Network. He lives in Sun Valley, California, with his wife and daughter.

 

In the 2005 historical documentary The Wounded Warrior, director, co-writer and co-producer Yervand Kochar compares two wartime American presidents: Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush. While researching and producing his film, Mr. Kochar gained some insights into these two leaders. Lance Thompson interviewed the film maker for The HinzSightReport.

The Wounded Warrior

Q: What is your background? Where are you from?

YK: I am a writer/director based in LA. I was born in Armenia. My grandfather, a famous artist, Yervand Kochar Sr., invented the revolutionary "Painting in Space" concept in 1930's Paris. He was imprisoned by the Communists and beat the system. Today he is considered a hero of the Armenian people all over the world.

You can learn more about my grandfather by visiting the following link: http://www.rebellight.com/RL-01/g/instiGal_bio.html

Q: What is the first film that made an impression on you?

YK: The first movie that had a serious impact on me was Andrei Tarkovsky's "Sacrifice". I saw this film when I was 8. Although I did not understand what the movie was about, I felt that something powerful had been communicated to me.

Q: How did you get into the film business? What was your first job?

YK: I always wanted to be an international lawyer. Seriously. My mother, though, forbade me to even think about it. Sounds strange, I know but she wanted me to be an artist. I had to go with my mother's decision. So I began making short films when I was seventeen back in Armenia. I worked as a camera operator for various companies in L. A. before I started directing my films.

Q: What attracted you to this subject? Do you have a personal connection to Lincoln or Bush?

YK: My partner, Jeani DiCarlo and myself were working on a screenplay for a film set during the Civil War, called "The War Within". We made a lot of research on the subject and indirectly discovered an undeniable parallel between the American society divided during the Civil War and today. We ended up having the outline for "The Wounded Warrior" documentary, as a result of all the research on "The War Within". I don't think that anyone who comes into serious contact with Lincoln's life and work can resist becoming a life-long fan of this man. Lincoln touches you on a personal level. There was a tremendous mystery in his simplicity.

Q: What surprised you most in your research?

YK: What was really stunning was the similarity between the Presidencies of Lincoln and Bush. We couldn't believe what we were discovering every day. It was 2004, an election year and that year was developing as if a mirror image of 1864 when Lincoln was running for reelection against McClellan, a Democrat war-hero who opposed the war.

I personally was not a big fan of President Bush. I thought he was stupid, and a war monger and all those propaganda talking points that we were bombarded with that election year. That is exactly what the media and public were saying about Lincoln in his day. Lincoln was much hated and underestimated during his time. He was considered an incompetent hack who dragged the country into an optional war. The similarities are endless.

The undeniable parallel is that both Presidents started a seemingly optional war and changed its objective in the middle. They were both unpopular, actually, hated. They both divided the country and liberated people. They were both opposed by the Democrats who turned public opinion against them and were heavily invested in the US defeat. As an immigrant, it was astonishing to find out that the Democrats were the party that fought a war to preserve slavery, yet, until today, come across as if they had nothing to do with it. I understand that their involvement in the Civil War is not something to be proud of but rewriting history is more dangerous than facing it.

Q: What is something most people don't know about Lincoln?

YK: Lincoln was an abolitionist disguised as a moderate unionist. The only issue he cared about in his political life was that of the abolition of slavery. He voted 135 times or so against slavery and introduced a partial emancipation bill while in Congress. He left politics and returned only after the Kansas-Nebraska bill allowed for slavery to expand into the Western territories. He was a rail-splitter, a ferocious warrior who took everyone off guard with his inherent goodness. It is very sad when revisionist historians and Democrats underplay his role in the liberation of slaves and indoctrinate African-Americans to ignore his sacrifice.

Q: What is something most people don't know about Bush?

YK: President Bush has the qualities of a mirror, just like Lincoln had. Everyone sees a different thing while looking in the mirror, stupid sees stupid; wise sees wise. He embodies the collective spirit of the nation.

Q: Did the making of this film change your views about either president?

YK: Entirely. Before making the movie "I was blind, but now I can see."

Q: How is the film financed? Did you have to bring investors aboard? How did you convince them?

YK: The film was partially financed by us, partially by private investors who were passionate about the project. It is a very low budget film but we managed to interview top historians like Harold Holzer. As we jumped into the process with very little resources things started happening. You know, it's the magic of action. We ended up filming in New York and LA and got some amazing results.

By: Amil Imani

“I am already against the next war,” read the bumper sticker on a car ahead of me. I long to tell the driver: the next war is already here; Islamists are waging it in every corner of the globe and the “moderate Muslims” are either actively supporting them, placing the blame on the West, or simply looking the other way. This war aims to wipe out everything that free people cherish, including the right of expressing their sentiments. Banishing war has been the perennial dream of mankind’s best, while its worst have been frustrating its realization. To renounce war unilaterally and unconditionally is surrender and death.

Humanity has suffered horrific wars in the past. Yet, the present multi-form and multi-front war waged by Islamists has the potential of inflicting more suffering and destroying more lives than any before it. Ruthless Islamic forces are advancing rapidly in their conquests while those of freedom are acquiescing and retreating. Before long, Islamism is poised to achieve its Allah-mandated goal of cleansing the earth of all non-Muslims. Any and all means and weapons are

to be enlisted in the service of this final holy war that aims to establish the Islamic Ummeh.

But Islam is a religion of peace and the great majority of Muslims are not party to any plans and

actions of the radicals, so claim academic pundits, leftist journalists, and hired Islamic apologists. The incantation of these “authorities” is the lullaby that puts the people into a sleep of complacency. For an average free human busy with all manners of demands on his time and resources, would hardly want to worry about the threat of Islamism when those he believes are “in the know” emphatically claim that there is nothing to worry about. Some of these advocates of Islam go further by accusing those who sound the alarm as racist, bigot, hatemonger and much more.

But where are all the peace-loving moderate Muslims that supposedly are in great majority? The Muslims who are neither jihadists themselves, nor do they support them? I and others, time and again, have been calling upon them to stand up and show the world that they oppose the fanatical Islamists. It is small comfort even if the vast majority of Muslims are not fanatic radicals, when they do nothing to demonstrate their position. It is instructive to recall that it is invariably a minority, and more often than not a very small minority, that launches a campaign of death and destruction.

Perhaps it is wishful thinking on the part of the non-Muslims to believe that one can be a Muslim

moderate, given that Islam is radical at its very core. To be a moderate Muslim demands that the person explicitly renounce much of the violent, exclusionary, and radical teachings of the Quran. By so doing, the individual issues his own death warrant in Islamic countries, is condemned as apostate if he lives in a non-Islamic land and may even earn a fatwa on his head.

It is deadly, in any confrontation, to assess the adversary through one’s own mental template, because the two templates can be vastly different from each other. People in the West are accustomed in relativistic rather than absolutistic thinking. To Westerners, just about all matters range from black to white with an array of gray shades between the two poles. To Muslims, by contrast, nearly everything is in black and white and with virtually no shades of gray. The former type of thinking is typical of more mature minds, while the latter is that of young children and the less-enlightened.

This absolutist thinking is enshrined in the Quran itself. When the starting point for a Muslim is the

explicit fanatical words of Allah in the Quran, then the faithful are left with no choice other than literally obeying its dictates or even taking it to the next level of fanaticism. Good Muslims, for

instance, do not shake hands with women, even though the Quran does not explicitly forbid it. Although the Quran stipulates that men are rulers over women, good Muslim men take it upon themselves to rule women not much better than they treat their domesticated animals.

All extreme systems operate outside of the constraints of checks-and-balances and according to the principle of negative feedback loop. That is, once it starts, the extreme becomes more and more extreme until self-destructs and takes the larger system down with it. Cancer is a case in point. It begins with only a few cells. Left unchecked, the few cells continue expanding and stop only with the death of the host.

Fanatical Islam may indeed be a minority. Yet it is a deadly cancer that has metastasized throughout the body of the world. Urgent confrontation of this advancing disease is imperative to stave it off.

Dozens of Islamist shooting wars of lesser and greater bloodletting are presently raging in the world, aided and abetted by the “moderate Muslim” majority. The so called moderate Muslims, even if they exist, are complicit in the crimes of the radicals either by providing them with funds, logistics, and new recruits or by simply failing to actively confront and unequivocally renounce them.

As is the case with cancer cells, it is the malignant minority that is death-bearing.

In Germany of the 1930s, for instance, very few people were Nazis and most Germans dismissed them as a bunch of hot-headed fools. Before long, the hot-headed few cowed in the dismissive masses and as a result millions lost their lives.

The tentacles of the Islamist hydra have deeply penetrated the world. The Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood poses a clear threat in Egypt with its large block of representatives in the parliament, but also wages its deadly campaign through its hundreds of well-established and functioning branches all over the world.

The Wahabis finance thousands of madressehs throughout the world where young boys are brainwashed into becoming fanatical footsoldiers for the Petrodollar-flush Saudis and other emirs of the Persian Gulf.

The end-of-the-world believers of the bomb-aspiring Iran’s Khomeinism are busy establishing the Shia hegemony in an arc extending from the Gulf of Oman to the Mediterranean Sea. The Al Queda and dozens of its like-minded jihadists relentlessly carry their barbaric campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir, the Philippines, the former Soviet Union republics, the Russian federation, Somalia, North Africa and parts of Europe, as well as other lands.

I keep hoping that the purported peace-loving moderate Muslims are indeed the great majority who would prove me right by demonstrating their peacefulness and moderation in action. Thus far, only a faint murmur of equivocation is all that I hear from these people.

Is “moderate Muslims” an illusion? The only viable alternative for peaceful people of Islamic background, therefore, is to leave the bondage of violent Islam altogether and join ranks with humanity’s free.

The selected puppet president Ahamadinejad boasts that Iran’s mullahs’ nuclear train has no reverse gear and lacks brakes. He should harbor no illusions. The non-Islamist masses of Iranians will not docilely submit to the mullahs’ maniacal plans. It is the unmatched force of freedom that has no reverse gear and it is the force fully capable and determined to

bring the mullahs’ train to a screeching halt before it is armed with the Armageddon nuclear weapons they so doggedly pursue.

Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and an essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. He maintains a website at www.amilimani.com

by Lance Thompson

The Democrats campaigned on many issues during the 2006 midterm elections. They promised to "end the culture of corruption," repeal Bush’s tax cuts, raise the minimum wage, and implement the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations. The campaign was successful in producing Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress.

Judging from recent events, however, some elements of the Democrat platform didn’t make it to prime time, the world wide web, nor, for that matter, any public forum. However, we can discern those unexpressed elements of the platform from the actions of Democrats in Congress.

Here are a few Democrat promises that were never made public, but have nevertheless been kept:

"We promise to legislate defeat in Iraq." Democrats have been striving mightily to keep this promise. Not only have they adhered to the strategy of labeling every news item from Iraq as either proof of failure or a portent of impending tragedy; they have actually crafted legislation that announces to the enemy the exact day of our capitulation, a schedule so precise that al Qaeda publicists can prepare press releases of their victory months in advance. That legislation, tied to military spending, has been vetoed by President Bush, but the Democrats are looking for new ways to keep that promise.

"We promise to give aid and comfort to our enemies." Democrat Senate majority leader Harry Reid is carrying the flag for this one, most recently by his statement last week that Secretary of State Rice and Secretary of Defense Gates know the war is lost. Reid has been tireless in trying to convince anyone who will listen that we can’t possibly prevail in Iraq. He is capably aided by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who seems to think that her second position (after Vice President Cheney) in the line of presidential succession permits her to act as President whenever she can schedule a trans-Atlantic flight. Recently she met with Syrian President Bashar Assad, leader of a terrorist-sponsoring government, despite the discouragement of the White House. The executive branch, through the president and his Secretary of State, have the constitutional authority to develop and implement foreign policy, but Pelosi believes there are loopholes in that clause big enough to fly a Congressional junket through.

"We promise to cripple our intelligence agencies." Senate bill S 372 has been crafted to keep this promise by requiring pervasive and comprehensive Congressional oversight of 16 American intelligence agencies. The Democrats have tied these meddling provisions to an intelligence spending bill that will ensure that the vital work of America’s intelligence agencies will be compromised by incessant reports, second-guessing and micro-management by any member of Congress who craves attention. Anyone who believes 535 Senators and congressmen can keep a state secret must be wondering why the Easter Bunny hasn’t answered his last letter.

"We promise to bring government to a grinding halt with endless Congressional hearings." Encouraged by the kangaroo court conviction of Scooter Libby for a memory lapse, the Democrats are currently obsessed with deleted Justice Department e-mails relating to the completely legal firing of eight presidentially-appointed U. S. attorneys. The Democrats show great courage in keeping this promise, since no inquisitor from either side of the aisle looks good during a Senate hearing. Inquiring Senators appear as smug, self-aggrandizing, badgering bullies. But with all those cameras and microphones, who can resist?

"We promise to take away more of your money." The Democrats tried very hard to express this promise, but somehow all they managed to do is excoriate the Bush tax cuts, which are largely responsible for a surging economy. But repealing those tax cuts, which Americans are thriving on, means that you will pay more to the federal government if the Democrats have their way. With tax day just past, how many of you believe you didn’t pay enough to the Internal Revenue Service?

The Democrats are making admirable progress on keeping their unspoken promises. But the 2008 campaign is already underway. It’s time to consider what unuttered promises are being made for that one.

by Lance Thompson

The mass murder of students and faculty at Virginia Tech unleashed the usual torrent of calls from the Left for more gun controls, restrictions and bans. Their consistent position, more vocal after tragedies like this one, is that more guns equal more crime, fewer guns equal less crime. However, gun rights advocates, such as John Lott, Jr. and William Landes, point out that in states or municipalities that have relaxed restrictions on citizens carrying guns, there is most often a corresponding reduction in crime. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in a 1997 study found that gun-wielding citizens drove off home-invading intruders half a million times each year.

Still, the argument continues. So let’s test the thesis. If more guns equal more crime, then mass murders such as the one in Virginia should be most common in situations where guns are plentiful, and less common in situations where guns are severely restricted or prohibited.

Obviously, the second part of the argument is false. Virginia Tech is a "gun free zone," with firearms banned on school property, yet one killer with two pistols committed the worst mass murder in U. S. history. Firearms were not permitted at Columbine High School where two killers murdered twelve students and a teacher in 1999. No guns were allowed at the Trolley Square mall in Salt Lake City where five people were killed and four wounded by a murderer with a shotgun in February, 2007. Mass murder at schools, workplaces, and recreational areas--all with severe restrictions on firearms--are well documented in the media

But what about the other side of the argument? If mass shootings are numerous in areas where guns are prohibited, there should be even more such incidents where guns are more plentiful. Take, for example, a public firing range, where gun owners go to practice target shooting. It is one of the few civilian environments where everyone is armed. In fact, most customers bring more than one weapon to the range, not to mention large quantities of ammunition. The proprietors may or may not be armed, but they certainly have immediate access to a variety of firearms and inexhaustible stores of ammunition. If more guns equal more crime, wouldn’t we expect a mass shooting at a public firing range on an almost daily basis? We would at least expect frequent gun battles between pistol-packing customers after disagreements or arguments escalate out of control, but a media that is overwhelmingly anti-gun has not reported anything of the kind. (In April 2007, a man wanted for attempted murder barricaded himself in a Tampa, Florida, indoor shooting range with five hostages, but the crisis ended when he took his own life, with no injuries to his hostages.)

Gun control advocates frequently disparage gun shows as embarrassing relics of our Wild West, shoot-first past. In these exhibitions, private and commercial gun dealers fill convention halls or massive tents with row upon row of firearms and ammunition to be sold to the public. Again, everyone there has immediate access to firearms of every imaginable type. Customers stroll from table to table laden with guns to be bought, traded or sold. There is minimal regulation or oversight. Such a situation seems tailor-made for a massacre, yet I can’t find an instance of a mass murder at a gun show.

Armchair psychologists offer any number of excuses for why mass murderers are not responsible for their acts. These reasons for "diminished capacity" include psychological disorders, genetic predisposition, the effect of violent films and video games, and even sugary snack foods. But it seems none of these killers is crazy enough to commit a massacre in an environment where there is an abundance of weapons. They all seem lucid enough to choose settings for their depredations in which they are unlikely to encounter armed victims. A school classroom, a shopping center, a post office–no mass murderer is likely to meet anyone capable of shooting back in these places, and mass murders have occurred in all of them. But no homicidal maniac strides into a public shooting range or a gun show and starts picking off targets. Why? Because his victims are perfectly capable of defending themselves with the same level of force that he would use.

Criminals behave as if they’re above the law, but none can resist the law of self-preservation. Even mass murderers who do not expect to survive their evil deeds choose defenseless rather than armed victims. The most effective deterrent to a criminal is the gnawing fear that his crime may cost him his life. No other consideration is more compelling than that.

by Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

They are now coming after our four-legged companions.

Blue state after blue state is now engaged in mandating forced neutering and spaying of our pets, and with a Dr. Strangelove fanaticism that should instead be directed at improving school systems, or providing clinics with the necessary means for lessons on birth control for illegal aliens and unwed pregnant teenagers.

It began quietly in 1990 in San Mateo County, in Northern California. The Board of Supervisors approved the nation’s first law requiring all pets in that region ‘go under the knife.’

“We took a first step toward solving the animal overpopulation problem,” said Supervisor Tom Nolan, the instigator of the San Mateo ordinance. It grants authority to impose a $500 fine on violators who fail to neuter and spay their dogs. Similar laws passed in New York, New Hampshire, and Washington State. While the majority of states fund spay/neuter clinics through license fees, the blue states make it “mandatory” for dog and cat owners to neuter their pets. Nowhere in these proposals are there substantial fines or misdemeanors solely for irresponsible pet owners.

The most recent proposal blossomed last week in Southern California: the “California Healthy Pets Act” (AB1634), which is a thin disguise to exterminate pets. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa -- the illegal alien’s best friend and leader of the largest Sanctuary City in the country -- has, to no one’s surprise, jumped like a bean with both feet into the fray as a partner to the legislation. He is the new king of finding ways to increase revenues without calling it a tax.

Proponents claim that this ordinance will raise proceeds via license/registration fees and fines to defray the cost of euthanasia, including other animal control services. The only accomplishment this new law will offer is the halving of registration and licensing compliance by pet owners who will go underground to protect their natural rights.

Doctors of Veterinary Medicine are not held to the same doctor/patient confidentiality agreements with a dog or cat, as is the ruling with human beings. Under AB1634, however, DVMs will be placed in the unappealing position of informant: to turn in pet owners whose un-neutered or un-spayed pet has been brought in for treatment.

How is this different from Hitler’s Eisantzgruppen? Will physicians become the states’ Gestapo-like task enforcers so that man’s best friends can be sterilized against their owners’ will (and ultimately vanish ‘for the greater good’)? Will this be the ‘Final Solution’ for some of God’s perfect creations whose only crime is that they were not born human?

On the one hand, curbing the birthrate of cats and dogs to 50% or less is, in and of itself, not a bad idea (unless you own shares in companies like Friskies, Science Diet, or Alpo). On the other hand, demanding, without recourse, that conscientious pet owners have their pets mutilated, particularly expensive purebred dogs and cats, is another example of the outrageous ideas that bounce up like a Pop Tart from the Liberal Think Tank toaster, such as with their exploitation of late-term abortions as a “progressive” idea.

Like so many other ideas that begin with seeds of sensibility, this one has grown into a morass of liberal logic. The people who dream up these foolish ideas are the same mindless obstructionists who don’t lose a minute’s sleep over the insurmountable problems imposed on society by, as a salient example, illegal immigrants: They overcrowd our hospitals giving birth to anchor babies; their offspring crowd our schools and run roughshod in gangs. They represent an inordinate number of the prison population, and too many, of late, have been caught driving drunk, without a license or documentation, after they killed innocent men, women and children. One of these illegals has been deported 17 times. How many animals are captured and set free 17 times?

We digress to make a specific point, which follows in a side-by-side comparison that shows what is sensible and what is preposterous:

Dogs and cats are not, and were never, a threat to our social infrastructure.

Illegal aliens are a problem that is straining to the breaking point American taxpayer resources, our legal system, our safety and our patience.

Dogs and cats do not purposefully cross state lines to steal, maim or kill for pleasure or gain.

Criminal illegal immigrants commit these offenses every hour of every day.

Dogs and cats expect nothing except a good rub behind the ears, a $3 toy, and one square meal a day.

Arrogant illegal immigrants demand immediate amnesty and equal rights of legal citizens, and offer nothing in return except a cheaper Big Mac.

Dogs and cats don’t roam avenues and boulevards in packs numbering in the hundreds of thousands.

Illegal immigrants force the lock-down of city streets to protest en masse American policies while waving their home countries’ flags, or American flags in faux patriotism at the behest of Spanish talking heads.

Dogs and cats are loyal and trustworthy.

Non-English speaking, rule-busting and intoxicated illegal immigrants are neither willing nor capable of being either.

Dogs and cats provide joy and unconditional love.

Self-seeking illegal immigrants bleed the American taxpayer unconditionally, and without conscience.

So, why are liberal politicians persistently pressing forward like Rommel’s panzer divisions to force pet owners to bring in their canines and felines to be anesthetized and sterilized, and at no later than four months of age? It’s a question that demands sober, logical, and credible answers. It presents the slippery slope of a liberal agenda that has quietly infiltrated American thought via educators and the media.

In the end, as always, the real victims are those who cannot speak for or defend themselves. They are being threatened with arbitrary rules composed by out-of-control liberals and their equally uncontrollable agendas. Clearly it seems that the ‘unborn’ are a menace to liberals: human fetuses and late-term babies allowed to be aborted with impunity, and now the attempt to eliminate conception amongst dogs and cats -- to wipe them out.

The Lefties of the 60s that scared everyone with the idea of over-population are still at it. It is not enough that we are faced with an extremist foreign agenda whose aim is to exterminate westerners. We are systematically being reduced in number, both human and animal inside our own borders. Imagine if the whole of America was placed into the efficient hands of the liberals: In less than two generations there would be no one remaining, except, of course, illegal aliens.

The question is, who will get there to finish the job first?

by Lance Thompson

For years, conservatives have been cataloguing examples of liberal bias in the media. We’ve talked about favorable coverage for Democrats, critical coverage of Republicans. We point to negative reports on the war, on the Bush administration, on any conservative issue. We note the Left-leaning editorials and news coverage on the broadcast networks, major newspapers and news weeklies. Those who benefit from this bias have always explained away these examples with rationalizations and dismissals. Until now.

Democrat contenders for the White House have now twice turned down invitations from Fox News to televise their debates. The first instance was an event originally scheduled for August, which would have been co-sponsored by Fox News and the Nevada Democratic Party. A second debate invitation, scheduled for 23 September, and co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute, has been spurned by Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards.

Fox News produced several political debates in the 2004 presidential campaign, including at least two for Democrat candidates, including the first nationally televised Democrat debate of that campaign. Another Fox-sponsored debate was moderated by Gwen Ifill of PBS. No candidates were excluded by Fox. Fox News did not determine the questions, and certainly had no control over the answers of the candidates.

In the first debate, the panel was moderated by Brit Hume of Fox News, but the questioners were journalists from media sources not known to be conservative: Ed Gordon of Black Entertainment Television, Farai Chedaya of ABC News, and Juan Williams of National Public Radio. Hume, the Fox anchor, asked no questions. If there was any bias against any of the Democrat candidates, or the Democrat party, it was not evident or noted by any journalist.

But now, ultra-Left web sites like MoveOn.org and colorofchange.org have encouraged Democrat candidates to boycott Fox debates because of the conservative bias of Fox News. There has been no campaign to encourage Democrats to boycott debates on any of the broadcast networks, CNN or MSNBC.

Thus, it is clear that Democrats and liberals have favorites among news sources. Those favorites can best be described by the acronym "ABF," or Anybody But Fox. This is a clear endorsement by the Left of all media sources except Fox News. The liberals and Democrats choose to debate in media forums where they are favored, where they will find sympathetic treatment, where their views will be supported.

As previous Fox-sponsored debates in the 2004 campaign demonstrate, Fox was scrupulously fair to the Democrat candidates. However, this does not seem to be enough for Democrats in a crucial presidential election. They prefer forums where the coverage is more than fair. They prefer a home field advantage. They prefer to appear on friendly turf, with a home town ref and house rules that favor their team.

Judge candidates as you will for this evidence of cowardice, but note the underlying admission— the majority of the broadcast media is biased toward Democrats. For proof, you need only refer to the preferences of Democrat candidates and their far-Left online masters. Democrats will not venture into a fair fight. They will only play the game with loaded dice, marked cards, and a friendly croupier. These candidates who are afraid fairly to enter the arena of public discourse are the people who want to lead the nation in the challenging era ahead.

Americans voters are difficult to predict—the last two presidential elections were as close as they come. In every contest, half the country disagrees with the outcome. But one near-unanimous preference is clear: Americans will never vote for a coward.

-=-=-

Lance Thompson has written for television (Mr. Belvedere), been a script doctor for motion pictures (The Two Jakes, The Honeymooners), and is an award-winning veteran of hundreds of motion picture ad campaigns (Paramount, 20^th Century Fox, Disney). His writing and photography have appeared in magazines (Air & Space Smithsonian, Cowboys & Indians, Hemispheres, Delta Sky) and newspapers (Los Angeles Times, Dallas Morning News). He lectures on writing at the Scriptwriters Network and lives in Sun Valley, California, with his wife and daughter.

by Lance Thompson

Imagine you have a favorite uncle who is morbidly obese. This is not a matter of a few extra pounds, but a problem of such immense proportion that he’s being fought over by bookers from every tabloid TV show. Though the entire family recognizes that our uncle is beyond the capability to control his food intake, there is great disagreement about what to do about the situation. One faction believes he must be put on a strict diet. It will be painful, he will protest vigorously, and it is sure to generate ill will, but it’s the only way to reverse a self-destructive course. The opposing faction, not wishing to cause our uncle discomfort or resentment, insists that he be fed. In fact, they say, due to his immense size and appetite, he must be fed more than he’s getting now. The bigger he gets, they tell us, the more he must be fed. And, since he’s our uncle, the second faction says, we all have to chip in to pay the grocery bill.

The uncle, as you have probably guessed, is Uncle Sam–the federal government. It is widely agreed that Uncle Sam is so overfed that his government arteries are clogged with waste, fraud and abuse. Nonetheless, Uncle Sam is so powerful that he can run the country despite this growing impairment.

The two opposing factions within the family are the Democrats and Republicans. Democrats believe in feeding Uncle Sam for two reasons. First, the vast majority of civilian government workers are Democrats, particularly those who are unionized and represent the only segment of the population where union membership is growing. The second, and more important reason, is that Democrats can collect grocery money, known as taxes, from everybody in America to keep Uncle Sam fat and happy. And any time they want more money, they can just tell us that Uncle Sam needs more groceries. We can’t allow Uncle Sam to starve, so we pony up. And the more he eats, the bigger he gets, and the more groceries he requires. The grocery bill rises steadily.

The Republican faction believes in putting Uncle Sam on a diet. One of the Republican faction’s ancestors, Ronald Reagan, believed in a lean, healthy Uncle Sam. He told us that the bigger our uncle got, the worse it was for him and everyone in the family. Reagan knew that the only way to put Uncle Sam on a diet was to reduce the grocery money by cutting taxes. He knew that as long as there was grocery money in the till, it would be spent, and Uncle Sam would continue to expand. The more he expands, the more groceries he will need. Thus Reagan championed a reduction in the grocery money collected from all of us.

The American family is doing very well financially, despite challenging setbacks from storms, spending sprees, and unfriendly neighbors. The main reason for this is that President Bush, with the help of a Republican Congress, signed into law massive tax cuts. Since we don’t have to spend so much on groceries to feed Uncle Sam, we can spend it on our own groceries. Or we can buy shoes, take a vacation, upgrade the laptop or purchase a home. All of this economic activity makes the family and the country stronger, and Uncle Sam is in no danger of starving.

However, the Democrats now control Congress, and they are intent on taking back those tax cuts. This is a tax increase, but they don’t call it that. They speak of "repealing the Bush tax cuts." They believe anything associated with President Bush is automatically something we all disagree with. But if they told the truth, they would say, "We want you all to give us more grocery money so we can fatten up Uncle Sam. You’ll have to wear the old shoes longer, postpone that vacation, suffer with the old laptop and forget about that new house, because we know better what to do with your money than you do."

As we approach the 2008 election, candidates seeking the White House or a seat in Congress will ask for your vote. Remember which side of the family wants to take more of your money, and which side wants you to keep more. Family squabbles will continue, and Uncle Sam will always be with us. The good news is, we get to decide who runs the family finances.

Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and an essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. He maintains a website at www.amilimani.com

by Lance Thompson

In a five-to-four decision this week, the Supreme Court ruled carbon dioxide is a pollutant, and thus that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

Overlooking the Supremes’ detour from law into science, not to mention micro-management of global climate fluctuation, the decision yields some far-reaching effects.