Throwing acid in the face of women who fail to don the hijab, flogging people for sporting non-Islamic haircuts, and stoning to death violators of sexual norms are only a few examples of a raft of daily barbaric acts of Islamists in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and many Islamic lands. Other forms of Islamic brutalities such as Honor Killing have already found their way to Germany and other European countries with the ever-burgeoning Muslim populations.

Wherever Islam goes, so goes its ethos.

Reading about these religiously-mandated horrific acts and even seeing them on television or the Internet may momentarily repulse, but does not terribly concern many Americans. After all, those things are happening on the other side of the world, and those people deserve each other; we are safe in fortress America, so goes the thinking.

But “fortress America” is a delusion that even the events of 9/11 seem to have failed to dispel. Many prefer to believe that the assault of 9/11 was an aberration, since nothing like it has happened again, and it is unlikely that anything of the sort will ever happen again, so goes the wishful thinking.

The reality portrays a vastly different picture. America is far from a fortress given its vast wide-open borders. It is a nation of laws where all forms of freedom are enshrined in its constitution; is where Americans live by humane ethos diametrically different from those of Islamist savagery. Sadly, these differences confer great advantage to the Islamists and place America in imminent danger.

The breach of “Fortress America” from the air on 9/11 is only the first installment of much more forthcoming heinous assaults, unless we abandon our complacency; stop relying on the invincibility of the law-enforcement people; and willingly make the sacrifices that would protect our way of life.

Knowing Islam intimately and having experienced its systemic savagery has compelled me to warn repeatedly of the deadly imminent threat it poses to all non-Muslims(Why Confront Islamism) attempting to present a comprehensive treatment of the evil precepts and practices of Islamism, I am listing a few facts that should be enough to alarm anyone who cherishes liberty and freedom; awaken anyone who is comforted by the belief that all the Islamic mayhem is limited to an illiterate gang of primitive Middle Easterners and has no implications for America. Sorry, bad news is here already.

· Some 26 percent of American Muslims, ages18-29, support suicide bombings "in defense of Islam," according to findings of a recent Pew poll

· According to Pew, there are 2.35 million Muslims in America, 30 percent of whom are in the 18-29 age range. Some claim that the number of Muslims is in fact much larger. Even using the conservative Pew numbers, over 180,000 Muslims in America is bomb-approving. This is an alarmingly large number, given that Muslims, as an article of faith, practice dissimulation in dealing with infidels and under-report their true intentions. How many human bombs and bomb-approving people does it take to wreak havoc on our country?

· The 180,000 Muslims living among us don’t define what “defense of Islam” is. It could be anything that they feel constitute an attack on Islam and Islamic values, such as the reported flushing of the Quran down the toilet, the Danish Cartoon, Rushdie’s book, a newspaper article, an Internet posting, or even women not donning the hijab

· When religious fanatics unreservedly advocate wanton acts of mass murder, they are not likely to shy from coercion and intimidation measures to impose their will on the larger society. In tandem with the cold murder of Van Gough in Holland, for instance, Islamists had been striving to supplant civil laws with the Islamic Sharia in the country. In other lands such as France, England and Canada, Muslims have also been waging serious campaigns for adoption of the Sharia or some of its provisions, just for starters.

· Ever since 9/11, and possibly before, America has been concerned about terrorists coming from Islamic lands. For this reason, some people advocated profiling as a safeguard against the 9/11 type mass murderers. But how do you profile hundreds of thousands of Muslim Americans who are already here and look and act like other Americans? How can an open free society such as ours safeguard the individual freedom we so greatly value and protect the safety of its citizens?

· The immensely difficult task of safeguarding our freedom while ensuring our safety is seriously and repeatedly undermined by Islamist apologists, pontificating academes, vote-hungry politicians, and the mainstream media, each for their own reasons. Here are some of the comfort pills dispensed by the mainstream media’s polls: “Most Muslims seek to adopt American lifestyle" (USA Today); "Muslims assimilate better in U.S. than Europe, poll finds" (New York Times); "Poll: US Muslims Feel Post-9/11 Backlash Despite Moderate Outlook" (Voice of America).

· It is said that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. The mainstream media’s manipulation of statistics goes beyond selective reporting and qualifies as outright disinformation. Is the U.S. Muslims’ outlook moderate? All U. S. Muslims? What about the self-reported outlook of hundreds of thousands who support mass murder in the “defense of Islam?”

· Even if most Muslims seek to adopt an American lifestyle, a great many Muslims are dead set on using violence to make America conform to their barbaric way of life. Islamism is cancer. Cancer cells are always few at the beginning. Left unchecked, they keep on expanding and eventually devour the non-cancerous.

· There is an important lesson to be learned from the drama presently unfolding in Turkey. Modern Turkey, the only democracy in the Islamic Middle East, was established by Mustafsa Kemal Ataturk . He abolished the caliphate in 1924, replaced Islamic rules with modern secular laws and barred the mosques from politics. Ever since, the mosque has been fighting and gradually succeeding in dragging Turkey back under its rule. Presently, what the Western Mainstream media calls a “mildly Islamist” party rules Turkey under the rightfully suspicious eyes of the staunchly secularist heirs of Ataturk, the Turkish military. All kinds of Western leftists loudly proclaim that there is nothing to worry about, that the forthcoming Turkey election that is going to install mildly Islamists as president as well as the Prime Minister is no cause for the millions of Turkey secularists to pour into the streets against such an outcome millions of Turkey secularists pour into the streets. Why all the fuss, by the military and the millions of Turks? After all, the mildly Islamists are not all that bad and they are coming to power through free elections, the leftists keep preaching. In reality, even coining the term, “mildly Islamist” is a clear instance of the leftists’ treachery. Being mildly Islamist is as plausible as being mildly pregnant. There is no such a thing as mild Islam. It only starts mildly, just the way Muhammad himself started it in Mecca. Then, it builds momentum and settles for nothing less than the total imposition of its dogma and will. Being mildly Islamist is only the head of the camel poking into the room. Wherever the head of the animal goes, if it is not chopped off the body eventually follows. And the body of Islam is a disease-bearing body that will infect the healthy secular societies.

· Escalation of demands, intolerance of differences, and contempt for the non-Muslims are hallmarks of Islam. The deluded leftists as well as the publishers of the leftist are destined to be among the very first victims of the mild Islamism as it gathers power.

· The Turkish people demonstrating against creeping Islamism in their government are still a minority. A minority that has first-hand experience with both secularism and Islamism. They also see the horrors of Islamism next door in Iran and are rightfully alarmed by the ever-encroaching Islamism in their government. They know full well that they must resist the backward march of their country and must do all they can to protect their precious freedom. Do we, in America and the West, have the same sense and the will to forestall mild Islamism from evolving into a real Islamism?

Just a sobering note: Mild Islamism is already here in our country. The Muslim cab driver of the Minneapolis Airport refusal to ferry passengers with alcohol or even those with seeing-eye-dogs; Muslim inmates demand to be served only hala Food ; Muslim students badger universities for special facilities for their meetings; and, the first ever Muslim Congressman assumption of office by swearing on the Quran and not the Bible.

Mild Islam is not all that obtrusive, since it is similar to the early stages of pregnancy. Yet, pregnancy it is. And before long the full-term beast will make its appearance. If we don’t want to deal with the beast, we need to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.

by Lance Thompson

As the Senate struggles with the immigration bill, various changes, additions, and variations will be suggested. Many of these will address the immense cost that illegal immigration passes on to government, the problem of how to keep track of illegal aliens until they become legal immigrants, how to apply appropriate sanctions for the original crime of entering the country illegally, and how to assimilate so many new immigrants into American society.. Read on for the solutions.

The matter of a fine as punishment has been part of the Senate bill for some time. But the amount–$5000–seems inadequate for violating American sovereignty. Let’s raise the fine to $25,000 per person, payable to a federal immigrant fund. Local governments could apply to the fund for compensation for education, health and infrastructure expenses caused by illegal immigration. The remainder could be used to reduce the federal deficit.

Now, the problem arises that few illegal aliens have $25,000. The solution is simple. Instead of the "Z Visa" discussed in the Senate bill, issue each illegal alien applying for citizenship a regular Visa. Not a federal document, but a credit card. The credit card would be handed over with a starting balance of $25,000. That’s a $25,000 charge, not a $25,000 credit limit. That $25,000 would be paid to the government by the issuing bank. There is no better way to assimilate into American society than starting one’s life with staggering consumer debt. It also immediately establishes credit and requires that the immigrant applicant directly invest in America. Once the card holder has paid off his balance, he may become an American citizen.

The Immigrant Visa card thus ensures that the government gets its money up front. As an incentive to the issuing bank, it gets a customer on the hook for $25,000 without having to send out a single mailer, put up a single bi-lingual billboard, or sponsor a single Cinco de Mayo festivity. Banks would enjoy an immense windfall of interest payments, destined to continue long into the future.

The Immigrant Visa card also means that the government need no longer keep track of the immigrant applicant. The government has already shown that it is unequal to this task anyway. But credit card companies are world-class trackers. No one on earth can dodge the collection agents employed by credit card companies. Let the card holder skip back across the Rio Grande, hide in the faceless crowds of the border towns, or disappear into the tropical jungles of the Yucatan. The collectors will track him down and make him pay. This is the perfect opportunity for private sector expertise to bail out federal agency ineptitude.

There arises the argument that legal immigrants, many of whom spend months or years following the serpentine path required of those who wish to become Americans as the American government requires, would be ill-served by instant citizenship for illegals. This objection could be overcome by offering anyone in process the same deal–take your Immigrant Visa card and the $25,000 starter balance, and go to the front of the line. All applicants should enjoy equal access to the program.

Illegal aliens who do not avail themselves of this generous program would be deported whenever they run afoul of the system–criminal offenses, traffic violations, overdue video rentals. But there would be few dissenters. Who could resist instant American citizenship with the added incentive of a Visa card with a $25,000 limit?

This program solves all the vexing challenges of illegal immigration. It assimilates, it exacts a penalty, it reimburses costs, it stimulates the economy, it keeps track of illegals until they become citizens, and it ensures that illegals become productive members of society.

Senators Kennedy and Kyl, I welcome your comments.

Lance Thompson has written for movies and television and his articles and photographs have appeared in two dozen national magazines and newspapers. 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.

By: Amil Imani

The dictionary defines “Democide” as "The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder."

Democide means for governments what murder means for an individual under municipal law. It is the premeditated killing of a person in cold blood, or causing the death of a person through reckless and wanton disregard for their life. Thus, a government incarcerating people in a prison under such conditions that they die in a few years is murder by the state.

With that in mind, the Islamic Republic of Iran is the greatest megamurderer in recent history, killing thousands of people a year without any due process.

The former President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mr. Rafsanjani, along with one of the greatest mass murderers in recent history, the Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini Hendi, are directly responsible for the death of millions of Iranians.

To avoid public outrage, arrests usually occur in the dead of night. Individuals later find themselves held in "detention" for days, weeks, months and even years without any formal charges whatsoever. By obtaining self-incriminating confessions, the Islamic Republic is focusing on destroying individuals' reputations, dignity and honour, while sowing the seeds of contention, enmity, friction and the tearing to pieces of the best human characteristics. Such is the plight of the Iranian people.

The Intelligence Ministry of the Islamic Republic often arrests and prosecutes people not necessarily for what they did, but for who they are and what they are capable of doing. Their targets have been those groups of people who were acclaimed or fluent in foreign languages, educators, members of different organizations, leaders of communities, leaders of different parties, writers, poets, intellectuals, and especially the journalists.

Currently, the regime is holding Haleh Esfandiari, a 67-year-old Iranian-American woman who is the director of the Middle East Program at the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars. Ms. Esfandiari came to Iran months ago to visit her 93-year-old mother and was prevented from leaving Iran. On May 8, 2007 she was arrested.

Following weeks of interrogation about her work, she was accused of spying for Israel. She has been transferred to Iran’s notorious prison, Evin. For four months the ministry officials repeatedly interrogated her in the same fashion that they integrated Ziba (Zahra) Kazemi, an Iranian-Canadian journalist, who was murdered by the agents of the intelligence ministry of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ms. Esfandiari has been trapped in Iran since December when, according to the Wilson Center, three masked men with knives stole her luggage and passport as she headed to the airport to leave the country. In the weeks before her arrest, she was called in for daily questioning on her activities.

In April 2006 a prominent Iranian-Canadian, Ramin Jahanbegloo, was arrested on similar charges. Human Rights Watch said the Iranian government’s mistreatment of Esfandiari recalls that of Ramin Jahanbegloo, an Iranian-Canadian philosopher. After nearly four months of detention and interrogation, Jahanbegloo was forced to “confess” that his scholarly works had contributed to the planning of a “Velvet Revolution”

The government of the Islamic Republic in Iran is not run by human beings, but by thugs and murderers. President Ahmadinejad, affectionately known by the Iranians as “the Monkey,” is the leader of the thugs. Naturally, it would make it difficult for other nations to reason and work with these human look- alikes. Regretfully, the world has become accustomed for nearly 29 years to the events in Iran and has continued commerce with them despite the fact the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to harass, torture, intimidate and kill its victims, the Iranian people, on false pretenses. Some things never change.

The oil seems to be more important to these nations than the human rights and the lives of the Iranian people. The Iranian people find this to be outrageous, disgusting and truly appalling.

In the cycle of prison horrors and terrors, the Islamic Republic of Iran uses many old Soviet Union techniques, ranging from harassment, intimidation and tortures, to mechanical devices designed to inflict gross tissue damage. They employ psychological and physiological techniques, (an example is Ziba Kezemi, an Iraninan-Candian journalist), such as solitary confinement and sleep deprivation. These techniques are commonly being used on the Iranian youth by the Islamic Republic’s lackeys while the Islamic Republic dreams of world domination.

Khomeini and his supporters have copied the Stalinist techniques of establishing informers in every neighborhood. This, coupled with fierce punishments for suspected traitors and their families, created a fear among the population that made rebellion almost impossible. More noticeably, they created and recruited a group of torturers and secret policemen, mostly from the neighboring Islamic countries who were hated by the population. This hate was conducive to the leaders of the Islamic regime, for it ensured the loyalty of these henchmen, these foreign thugs

The Islamic Republic of Iran’s ambition is to acquire the bomb by any means available to them. One thing that constantly worked for them was the ability to create chaos and crises, both in Iran and other Muslim countries. But, first and foremost, they need to bring the Iranian population to its knees. They need to create Islamic jihadists by force and by brainwashing techniques. In order to accomplish this evil mission, the brutalization of the Iranian people becomes necessary.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is seeking either to end the world or make the world so chaotic as to force the arrival of their imaginary hidden Imam, the Mahdi. What a travesty!

A word of caution: do not be naïve. Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam is a cult of death and misery.

Terms such as “Political Islam,” or “Radical Islam,” or “Militant Islam” for instance, are contributions of the Useful Idiot. These terms do not even exist in the native parlance of Islam, simply because they are redundant. Islam, by its very nature and according to its charter—the Quran—is a radical political movement. It is the Useful Idiot who sanitizes Islam and misguides the populace by saying that the “real Islam” constitutes the main body of the religion; and, that this main body is non-political and moderate.

Even a cursory examination of Islam’s history and Islamic texts conclusively proves the exact opposite of peacefulness. Islam was, and continues to be, a movement of unbridled violence.

Hence, it is a fact that Islam is misrepresented. It is misrepresented very effectively by non-Muslim individuals and institutions who are generously rewarded by the modern day Islamic conquerors.

This time around the Muslims are using the immense amount of petrodollars they extract from the addicted non-Muslims. The sword is temporarily replaced by just as deadly a weapon— the petrodollar. Before long, the Muslims aim to add a more deadly modern version of the sword—the Islamic bomb. With the bomb in one hand and the other hand on the oil spigot, the non-Muslim world will be brought to its knees by the religion of peace and brotherhood.

To make matters worse, the agents of death, the Mullahs, divert the sorely needed funds at home to sponsor and support adventurous Islamic trouble-making abroad. They supply weapons, provide funds, and train any and all takers who share their wanton campaign of terrorism anywhere in the world.

To understand the true Islam, one needs to pay close attention to the words of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of Islamic terrorism. On the occasion of the birthday of Imam Ali, Ayatollah Khomeini said:

“Qur'an says; kill, imprison! Why are you only clinging to the parts that talk about mercy? Mercy is against God. Mehrab means the place of war, the place of fighting. Out of the mehrabs, wars should proceed, just as all the wars of Islam used to proceed out of the mehrabs. The prophet has [had] sword to kill people. Our [Holy] Imams were quite military men. All of them were warriors. They used to wield swords; they used to kill people. We need a Khalifa who would chop hands, cut throats, stone people. In the same way that the messenger of God used to chop hands, cut throats, and stone people; in the same way that he massacred the Jews of Banu Qurazyza, because they were a bunch of discontented people. If the Prophet used to order the burning of a house or the extermination of a tribe, that was justice.”

At this conjuncture, a meaningful and comprehensive political, moral and economic measure by the United States and others offers the best chance of ending the Mullah's reign of terror and diffusing the existential threat they pose to the world. The Bible says, “To whom much is given, much is required” Perhaps it is for this reason that the people of the United States of America, once again, are called upon to make huge sacrifices to defeat another tyranny. It is important that this great nation stays the course and, enlists its power in support of freedom-loving Iranians to topple the ruling Islamofascists who are bent on wreaking death and destruction on the world.

The world is a laboratory where the experiment with Islam shows irrefutable results. To the extent that Islam rules any society, that society is stagnant, backward thinking, repressive and violent. The Islamic Republic of Iran represents the cutting edge for the newly petrodollar invigorated Islam. It is determined to complete its task of ending the world of “Dar-ul-Harb”—the non-Muslim world to be warred upon—and establishing the “Dar-ul-Solh,” or “Dar-ul-Salam”—the Muslim world of the Ummeh under the rule of the Mahdi. If achieving this aim hinges on the conflagration of the Third World War, the mullahs are happy to make it happen.

It is also important to keep in mind Albert Einstein’s warning, “The world is a dangerous place not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.”

The threat of Islam is real. If you wish your children to grow up and have a bright future, you must do all you can to defeat Islamism now before we all vanish by the ever-creeping Islamofascisim. A warning: Complacency is death. “Don’t part with your illusions. When they are gone you may still exist, but you have ceased to live.”

by Lance Thompson

Once upon the time, in a beautiful valley, blessed by mild weather and good soil, a river flowed. People settled in the valley, established homes and farms, and built a town that was the envy of all around. But the river was unpredictable, so the people built a dam to control the flow of water.

The town flourished, protected by the dam. When the town needed more water, it opened the gates and let water in to nourish the crops and quench the thirst of the townspeople. When threatened by a surging river, the people closed the gates and lived in safety.

After many years, the lake on the other side of the dam was very large, the pressure on the dam was great, and cracks appeared in the dam. Water seeped through here and there, sometimes poured over the top, and even though the town needed water, it was often more than the town could absorb and use.

As the water pouring over the dam and coming through the cracks increased, the people of the town realized something had to be done. One faction said that the dam had to be repaired, strengthened, built higher, wider and stronger. The other faction said that the flooding couldn’t be stopped, that the river was here before the town, that the people of the town should just accept a higher water level.

As the water continued to rise, flooding the fields, covering the streets, overflowing into the homes in the town, the people argued. Some tried to stop the water from pouring over the dam, but there was too much water, and too few people. The other faction said it was wrong to stop the water, that the town needed water, and the more water the better. This faction said people should learn to swim, waterproof their homes, build wagons that would float.

Finally, the two factions got together and worked out a compromise. The town would accept the higher water level. They would adjust. Farmers would become fishermen, homes would be built on stilts, people would trade their horses and wagons for boats and rafts. They would build a pipeline to pump the water that was already in the town back over the crumbling dam into the lake that was already too full. But the pipeline could not pump back as much water as was already flowing over the dam, and the water continued to rise.

Eventually, the valley filled with water, and the people all moved away. The town, the houses, the farms and fields all were inundated.

And still the water rose.

***
Lance Thompson has written for movies and television and his articles and photographs have appeared in two dozen national magazines and newspapers. 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.

by Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

From the deepest desires comes the deadliest hatred.

-Socrates

Since the founding of our country Americans have known conflict, from the Revolutionary War to the war in Iraq.

None, however, was a greater tragedy for Americans than the savagery of the Civil War.

This disaster sprung from disagreement over a choice: to be one nation under God or be a nation divided. The causes of the war were a complex series of events, including slavery, that began long before the first shot was fired. Competing nationalisms, political turmoil, the definition of freedom, the preservation of the Union, the fate of slavery and the structure of our society and economy, not unlike our present-day political turmoil. President Jefferson Davis of the Confederate States chose division over union, and a rebellion broke out against the federal government.

Today, the old war has a new face: atheists and secular progressives are doing battle against our basic Christian principles. The combatants are attempting to rewrite our Founding Fathers’ edicts by eradicating the integrity of our Constitution, as well as expunging God from our Pledge of Allegiance, our currency and our consciousness.

In 1862, slavery divided the country. Nearly 150 years later, and many generations after the Emancipation Proclamation, a small number of influential black leaders work overtime to keep black men and women dependent on social economic programs rather than encouraging individuals to reap the fruits of freedom through their own efforts and achievements. The result is that they are now the paper-chained slaves of Al Sharpton, et al. Sharpton claims kinship with black leaders who sought an end to slavery, but Mr. Sharpton, you are no Frederick Douglass.

Today, liberated intellectuals like Thomas Sowell, Colin Powell, Walter Williams, Larry Elder and Michael Steele encourage blacks to exercise their freedoms by taking responsibility, investing in themselves, building their own businesses, and reaping the rewards of hard work and industry. For their efforts, they are denigrated by the likes of Al Sharpton as Uncle Toms.

The Civil War was the stage for unmatched brutality. It saw schisms erupt within families–brothers murdering brothers–in both the northern and southern states. An entire generation was wiped out and large regions were devastated. Homes were sacked and burned, and farms and industry flattened to dust. It was not much different than what we see on our nightly news feeds from Iraq or in our own backyard of domestic gang-infested neighborhoods.

In 1865, President Abraham Lincoln was slain by an assassin’s bullet. Today, presidential “character” assassins flood the major dailies, network news, entertainment industry and the Internet with their venomous lies.

There have always been and always will be differences of opinion in a two-party system. But the election of George W. Bush in 2000 exacerbated the internecine feud between the parties. It began as a vote count dispute and evolved into blind hatred for the president. That has been the fuel which has ignited outrageous, faulty and unsubstantiated stories that have since been used to bring down not only his presidency, but American foreign policy. President Bush went from being “our” president to “your” president. And that is not unlike Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis.

When the Civil War finally ended in 1865 after four horrific years, the butcher’s bill (863,153) exceeded the combined losses of World Wars I and II, the Korean conflict, and Viet Nam (519,766). The three-day battle at Gettysburg alone culminated with over 53,000 fatalities—Union and Confederate—which was nearly as high in count as the total of American soldiers killed throughout the entire Viet Nam campaign (58,000).

To date, the heartbreaking loss of 3,400 U.S. soldiers since the onset of hostilities in the Middle East, is shamelessly flouted by the liberal left in their effort to bring down this country in the eyes of the world. According to those liberals, the loss of these 3,400 soldiers defending our freedom is, on the one hand, iniquitous. But the deaths of 40 million (and still counting) aborted babies is, in their oblique view, an acceptable number as the collateral damage of their sacrosanct choice.

It is almost four years after the last presidential election and the mood of the country reads like a reflection of that other great divide. Is the Uncivil War of the 21^st Century already upon us?

Apparently so, because Americans are bleeding out again as a result of hostilities between moderates and extremists of both parties. No one is willing to come together to find common ground, whether about religion, abortion, amnesty for illegal aliens, fighting terrorism, national security, the environment, education or judicial appointments.

In this decade alone the divide between Democrats and Republicans has grown exponentially through brain-numbing leftist propaganda. At this very moment, our representatives in Washington argue that our entire economic system will collapse without illegal immigrant labor, much the same way they once argued about the benefits of slavery.

Once again, political extremists discordant with American values are shredding our country’s integrity and turning Americans one against the other. The “Blue and the Gray” of the Civil War is today “Red States versus Blue States.”

The North and South of then and the Right and Not-So-Right of now are faced with the very same dilemma. Will Copperhead-like American peace activists stop their disrespectful protestations toward our nation’s leaders? Will America-hating European fair-weather allies back off and let democracy flourish? Can Americans agree to disagree but not so vehemently that our union is irreparably fractured along cultural and economic lines?

In 2007, as our situation grows ever more explosive, we must look back and learn from the lessons of the Civil War—that a house divided shall not stand.

Dubya Bush the Cat



I DON'T GET IT

I reached across the table to Democrats and gave them

Medicare drug benefits;
Billions for AIDS in Africa;
More money than any other President for Education;

and now I'm giving illegal aliens amnesty;

and THEY STILL HATE ME! 

by Lance Thompson

In the 15 May Republican presidential debate, Brit Hume spun a hypothetical scenario about a terrorist attack which brought out differences between candidates on military interrogation techniques.

The majority of the candidates refused to endorse torture, although many referred to "enhanced techniques" and other euphemisms which would allow them to comfortably sit on both sides. Senator McCain strongly criticized torture as an interrogation technique, whatever term is used for it.

Whether it’s the popularity of Fox’s anti-terrorist drama 24, or other dramatic portrayals of prisoner interrogation, candidates and journalists have a simplistic and ill-informed view of military interrogation.

Military prisoners are ordered, and to some extent trained, to resist interrogation. Overcoming this resistance is not simply a matter of pulling off enough toe nails until the prisoner provides the information the interrogator seeks. As Senator McCain and others have pointed out, a prisoner will tell his inquisitor anything to avoid a level of pain he cannot endure.

When an inquisitor seeks information from a prisoner, he begins by knowing some information. This information is not revealed to the prisoner, but is instead used to verify answers he will obtain. Sometimes this information is extremely limited, but a skillful interrogator can use it to judge the accuracy of the information the prisoner reveals.

For example, if a Wal-Mart receipt is found in the prisoner’s pocket, and the prisoner denies, under interrogation, that he has ever been to Wal-Mart, the interrogator knows that the prisoner is lying, and the interrogation technique is ineffective.

More importantly, by carefully choosing how and when to reveal this information to the prisoner, the interrogator can use the information he has to evoke further revelations. The interrogator does this by revealing some information as proof that he knows much more. To return to our previous example, if the Wal-Mart receipt the prisoner was carrying is for tropical fish food, the interrogator might say, "Who’s going to take care of your fish while you’re in prison?" This question indicates that the interrogator knows a great deal about the prisoner’s personal life. A skillful interrogator can convince the prisoner that he obtained this information by surveillance, investigation, or possibly even through betrayal by a trusted associate.

This is an overly simplified example, but the point is that the most useful tool an interrogator employs is information. But the careful use of information is always part of a larger range of interrogation techniques. The questioning can be friendly, matter-of-fact, confrontational, or threatening.

The inquisitor must have the entire range of techniques available to him. Different prisoners will react to different incentives. For some prisoners, the infliction of physical pain or the threat thereof may encourage cooperation. For others, a dessert, cable television, or a trip to Disneyland may be more effective. But every possible incentive, positive and negative, should be available to the interrogator. Every limit placed on the interrogator is an advantage yielded to the enemy.

When a man becomes a prisoner, he is no longer in control of his destiny, and that traumatic change of condition can be exploited by the inquisitor. The inquisitor can determine the prisoner’s access to food, information, communication and other prisoners. The prisoner is uncertain of what will happen to him, despite efforts by our politicians and media to codify and publish the interrogation techniques used by our military interrogators.

Our military interrogators are trained to obtain information under some of the most restrictive rules applied and observed by any nation. Nonetheless, under certain circumstances, either because of the value of the information sought or the consequences of failing to get it, severe techniques may be required.

Often candidates are asked what they would do when faced with international provocations. Would they seek military solutions, would they act unilaterally, would they use nuclear weapons? The best answer is always, "Every option is on the table."

In the war on terror, where every American is a potential target, successful military interrogation takes on a much greater urgency. And every option should be on the table.

-=-=-=-=

Lance Thompson has written for movies and television and his articles and photographs have appeared in two dozen national magazines and newspapers. 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.

by Lance Thompson

"I Support the Troops." It’s a bumper sticker, a policy position, a sound bite added to any statement on the war in Iraq to indemnify the speaker against charges of defeatism. Republicans say their resolution on Iraq shows that they support the troops. Democrats say their bug-out strategy to withdraw troops is proof that they support the troops. "Support Our Troops" ribbons can be seen on Volvos sporting a "Hillary 08" sticker as well as Chevy pickups with gun racks.

Those that utter, display, or even agree with this phrase have one thing in common: they have it all wrong.

Since the beginning of this nation, a small percentage of the population has marched into battle to preserve the freedom and liberty of all Americans. We picture the American Revolution as a war in which every colonist took up arms against the British, defeating the King’s troops with ingenious guerilla warfare tactics the redcoats couldn’t match.

The truth is, only a few Americans joined the Continental Army for the duration. Many stayed for only a short time, driven back to civilian life by the hardships and demands of a seemingly endless war. Others never volunteered, and remained in their civilian jobs. Many prospered in the war time economy. Some Americans sought independence through political action. And roughly half of all Americans were sympathetic to their English king and hoped and worked for the defeat of the Revolution.

Thus, the struggling American republic was kept alive by a few thousand volunteers who left their homes and farms, wives and children, careers and trades to fight the most powerful army in the world for the sake of every generation who would follow them. They were paid, but not much. They were equipped, but not well. They were trained, but only indifferently at first. Yet this band of Americans, drawn from every walk of life and every social and economic class, shouldered the burden of a newborn democracy and defended it with their lives.

In every American war, no matter how many troops are called up and sent into battle, they represent only a small fraction of the population. In the Civil War, World War II, and Vietnam many were drafted. But just as many volunteered. Today, our military is made up entirely of volunteers–a professional, well-trained, highly motivated force. Our men and women not only vanquish every enemy on the battlefield, but also act as ambassadors, peace keepers, saviors for populations devastated by natural disaster and nation builders for allies struggling to achieve democratic self-government.

Young Americans are free to wear the uniform or not, a freedom bestowed by previous generations who chose to do so. Like their Revolutionary War ancestors, modern troops are paid for their service, but not well compared to compensation their skills would command in the private sector. They do not join the military for financial gain. Nor do they enlist, as Rosie O’Donnell has postulated, to get an education or because they can’t find civilian employment.

Americans join the military because they realize, as have generations before, that this country is a noble achievement, a shining example of freedom and liberty that must be defended. They know that the freedom they will defend will allow most people to avoid service to the country. They know that when they put on their uniforms, they will bear the greatest burden of defending the United States, take the greatest risk, pay the highest price. They do this willingly, because they believe this country is worth it.

Members of the military take an oath to defend the nation and the Constitution. They cannot take back this oath when the poll numbers shift, or if they recognize that it might be personally advantageous, or if they just think they’d rather avoid the consequences of that oath. Unlike politicians back home, the troops are engaged and committed until victory is achieved or, if the Democrats prevail, defeat is declared.

We don’t support the troops. The troops support us, defend us, represent us to the world. They are members of the most powerful force for good on Earth. Their sacrifices pay for every freedom we enjoy, including the freedom to malign their mission, dismiss their sacrifices, and question their motives. They support people around the world who yearn for freedom and dream of liberty. Their commitment is complete, unwavering and noble. There would be no United States without the men and women of the United States military.

There is nothing we can give our troops that comes close to what they provide for us. Every Humvee, tank, ship and airplane in the American military arsenal should come out of the factory with the bumper sticker: "I Support the United States of America." Because anyone who drives, sails or flies one of those vehicles lives that creed every day he or she wears the uniform.

Floating around the net:

As if Abu Ghraib wasn't enough...


Armed American Troops Force Iraqi's to Seesaw Until They Talk!


Iraqi Child Bites GI In Self Defense After Obvious Torture!

GI Falls Asleep On Duty While Using Iraqi Child As Body Armor!


GI Overheard to say "Talk or I'll tickle you till you pee!"

by Tanya Simon

You don’t become President. The Presidency is an institution and you have temporary custody of it.

–Ronald Wilson Reagan

In the four short years of the office’s term, the man elected must rise up to and sustain the Constitutional oath: ‘…that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God.’

There is no pledge as powerful and as selfless, because it demands that the succeeding custodian of the Presidency continue the eternal uphill struggle for, by and against the myriad of domestic and foreign issues that eclipse our lives: hostile world leaders; growing numbers of disillusioned and dissatisfied citizens; invidious politicians on both sides of the aisle who handily switch from ally to adversary between sunrise and sunset; biased media reporting with the intent to impede the Chief Executive’s credibility; predisposed civilian groups aggressively intoning issue after issue (whether relevant or not), to name a few. And there remains the singular matter that requires our sitting and future President’s attention 24/7: the promise by riotous Islamist terrorists to cause our destruction.

In view of these contentious realities, what distinctions should Americans expect from our next President?

Above all: Leadership. He must be governed by a steel-eye countenance in order to effectively assume the mantle of Commander in Chief and stand knuckle to knuckle with our avowed enemies -- upholding the principle that America takes a backseat to no one.

Moreover, the next man destined to serve the American people knows to expect a daunting hand-off from George W. Bush, which is why that man must also cross the threshold of the Oval Office fully armed with the following:

- He will be a man with practical business and management experience required for controlling the White House.

- He will be a man who says what he means and means what he says -- who can “talk with beggars and walk with kings.”

- He will possess unshakable moral integrity.

- He will be fearless and unshakable when confronted with intense and unending enmity and criticism.

- He will passionately pursue every best measure necessary to defend our nation and amplify our security, no matter the cost.

These are only a small number of reasons why the Republican Party should not support a candidate who may be only partially qualified for the post. To invest any hope in a man based solely on poll popularity or, worse, name recognition, could prove fatal for the GOP, the American people, and America. This would be as dangerous as placing our trust in a non-FDIC bank with a flashy name that caters mainly to the glitterati while dealing junk bonds to the middle class.

The GOP would be incompetent if they champion any Presidential candidate who has broken his marriage vows by publicly satisfying his carnal pleasures, and who joined himself with a spouse who has been a wife to more than one man. The Presidency has already suffered the shame of adulteration from a Mr. Right Now. Thrusting another man with a ‘history’ through the doors of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue would debase the Presidency, the party and, more critically, the people. Americans deserve better. Americans deserve the best.

Furthermore, no candidate should be considered based on what analysts claim, or disclaim. If a particular aspirant is touted as the ‘ideal’ Republican on the basis of him being a ‘personality,’ it should be obvious this is not sound judgment. Experience and a tough-as-nails demeanor are the qualifiers, not resonance of voice, not what he might accomplish, or how tall he is, or how well he reads his cue cards or the teleprompter.

The Republican Party must hunker down and undertake serious research of their candidates, and choose the only man who is wholly qualified to be the 44^th President of the United States; the only man who is capable of rising up to and sustaining the Constitutional oath -- that one man who will lead us back up the iron mountain we proudly call America.

Mitt Romney is that man.

Mitt Romney is Mr. Right.