The growing problem with China may well become insurmountable by the end of this decade, if something isn't done about it. Like most problems, playing ostrich will only make things worse in the long run. The time to begin dealing with China is right now.

China has been acquiring a great deal of military equipment from their new partner, Russia. In fact, joint Chinese-Russian military exercises are scheduled for this year. China has also made alliance with North Korea, supplying them with 70% of their energy and 40% of their food. The two countries have conducted joint border patrols. Both military partnerships translate into an exchange of knowledge and technology. China supplies money, food and technology to North Korea, and North Korea supplies weapons and nuclear technology to Iran. "We know there is cooperation between North Korea and Iran in the nuclear field. The Iranians have a very comprehensive military nuclear program, and North Korea has been crucial in that," said Yossef Bodansky, director of the US Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare. Iran funds and supplies al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, and is about to use the knowledge acquired from North Korea to become a nuclear power.

China has been expanding its influence elsewhere in the world. They have been making heavy investments in the Caribbean, giving money and promising heavy tourist trade in exchange for economic ties. Their aim is to woo those nations away from their rival, Taiwan. "Two weeks before Dominica changed sides," the Associate Press reported, "Taiwan gave it $9 million. China promised Dominica $112 million over the next six years." For the first time ever, a Communist military deployment took place in the Western hemisphere, when China dispatched 95 "police officers" to join the UN peacekeeping mission in Haiti.

A group of Democrats, led by Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and failed Presidential candidate Senator John Kerry (D-MA) are now pushing for a federal bill to grant all felons the right to vote upon release. Such a measure would be yet another incidence of the massive federal bureaucracy overturning the right of states to decide certain questions for themselves, as guaranteed in the Constitution. (The idea was not to make all states the same, but allow them to have differences so that people could live where and how they chose.) It also shows just how desperate Democrats are getting for votes. Hillary wants the measure put in place in time for the 2006 election, in a move to prevent even more Democratic seats from being lost in the Senate... possibly her own among them, if former NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani can be convinced to run.

Personally, I'm against the idea of letting convicted felons vote. If at all, they should have to go twenty years without so much as a parking ticket before that right is restored to them. Felonies are not like speeding or littering -- not the sort of crime a normally law-abiding citizen can generally commit by accident, or unwittingly. The definition of felony is "One of several grave crimes, such as murder, rape, or burglary." A felon has to make a conscious choice; a decision that the laws and rules simply do not apply to him or her. The price of such a decision should be the loss of any voice in determining those laws... which is part of what voting is all about.

Why are Democrats so concerned with allowing those who choose to abandon the laws of our country to help decide them? Despite their high-sounding concerns about "counting every vote," the Democrats are concerned with only one thing: power. The constant losses at voting booths across the country since 1994 have finally begun to worry them. Democrats have lost control of the House, the Senate, the White House and many governorships. Sometime within the next four years, they face losing control of the Judiciary as well. If they lose just five Senate seats in 2006, they lose even the power to filibuster bills. Now they plan to pander to felons, hoping to regain the power they've lost.

In addition to becoming known as the party of hate, racism, appeasement, abortion and the anti-war party, do the Democrats now "aspire" to become known as the party of lawbreakers?

With the election of former Vermont Governor Dr. Howard Dean to head the Democratic National Committee, the split within that party has become almost inevitable. The man who campaigned for the job on the platform, "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for," now holds the future of the Democrats as a political entity in his hands. Although the ideology of hate might appeal to leftover "Deaniacs" and the left-wing Liberals who have controlled that party for years, it won't do much for your average Democratic voter.

Dean was elected on the basis of his fundraising skills. Many leading Democrats seem to harbor the hope that he can raise money for the party quietly, while remaining behind the scenes. Unfortunately for them, Dean would never be content to remain in the background, even if one could be a fundraiser without making public appearances. "I'll pretty much be living in red states in the South and West for quite a while," Dean has said. That doesn't sound like someone eager to stay out of the limelight.

Does anyone really think that Southerners will forget or forgive him this quickly? While campaigning for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2003, Dean told a Florida audience that Southerners have to quit basing their votes on "race, god, guns and gays." Later, after saying he wanted to be "the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," Dean was attacked by his fellow Presidential hopefuls. They didn't rebuke him for making condescending and bigoted comments about Southerners, oddly enough, but for saying that he wanted to include them. He responded by saying, "people who fly the Confederate flag -- I think they are wrong, because I think the Confederate flag is a racist symbol." By electing Dean to lead them, the Democrats have kissed the South goodbye for years to come. Most people who have a Confederate flag in their pickup truck see it as a symbol of independence and defiance against the federal government. Others just think it looks cool.

Dean's Presidential aspirations ended before the famous "Dean scream," which occurred at a rally after he lost the Iowa Democratic primary. Iowa Democrats correctly pegged him as an unelectable anti-war Liberal who couldn't keep his mouth shut if he sutured it. So why was he chosen to lead the Democratic party's lurch to the left, while Hillary Clinton tiptoes to the right? Why did Clinton activist Harold Ickes endorse Dean, giving him 50 of the 215 votes he needed? After the Democrats lose even more ground in the 2006 election, Hillary plans to ride in on a white horse and unify them, saving the party from going the way of the Whigs. However, the Democrats are less a cohesive party than an association of fellow-travelers, each group with its own agenda. It's probable that the party will fracture so badly under Dean's leadership that no amount of orchestration and manipulation can put it together again.

It would be a shame to temporarily lose the competition that a powerful second party brings to politics. On the other hand, the increasingly anti-military, anti-capitalist, anti-religion attitude the Liberals who control the Democrats display will not be missed.

UPDATE: It looks as though ingrained Democratic racism will continue under Dean. While speaking to the Democratic Black Caucus about his election, Dean said, "You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here." Meanwhile, a Republican President has appointed more minorities to positions of serious power than any Democrat ever has, including Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, Attorney General, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Education, and Secretary of Commerce. When are minorities going to wake up and see what fools Democrats have made of them all these years?

Having failed to completely undermine public support for the liberation of Iraq by marching, making speeches and throwing money at politicians, the Hollywood Leftists are apparently giving up. As hard as they tried, they just couldn't make America run away from its responsibilities again; they couldn't turn Iraq into another Vietnam. So Hollywood is jumping on the bandwagon and making movies with a positive message about the Iraq war. Or are they?

Remember that to the Liberal elitists, we are the little people, no better than sheep, with opinions that can be easily swayed by an emotional appeal. Our convictions are not deeply held, and based on nothing more solid than the last persuasive argument we happened to hear. What gave them this idea? Unfortunately, visual impressions are more memorable than anything else, so what we see in the movies tends to become the accepted truth... unless the viewer makes a conscious effort to learn the facts. Those who watch movies about historical events but don't read the actual history often think that the Hollywood version is valid. Hollywood has one more chance to make the liberation of Iraq seem to be what they want it to be. So get ready for the Left Coast's best effort to write popular history their own way. According to USA Today, "a proliferation of TV and film projects is focusing on the U.S. military, the war or both." I can hardly wait.

For example, in "No True Glory: The Battle for Fallujah," Harrison Ford will play General James Mattis, a three-star general who numbers a Bronze Star among his decorations. The "mainstream" media recently excoriated Mattis, known among Marines as a "fighting general," for speaking his mind about his job. While speaking to a military audience, Mattis said, "You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." Sounds like a candidate to be the poster boy (oops, "poster person") for the National Organisation for Women, doesn't he?

The movie will focus on the 1st Marine division's assault on Fallujah under Mattis, after terrorists murdered civilian contractors and hung their corpses from a bridge. The Marines surrounded and took part of Fallujah in May of 2004, but backed off when asked to do so by the Iraqi interim government. Of course, Ford himself was vehemently against the liberation of Iraq by force, even after the fact. Ford (with other Hollywood Liberals) traveled to Spain in August 2003 to apologise for Iraq's liberation from Saddam, saying, "I don't think military intervention is the correct solution. I regret what we as a country have done so far." (His opinion on the recent Iraq election is not yet available.) So is he a hypocrite for making the movie, has he changed his mind, or will he take the opportunity to put his own particular spin on Mattis and the war in general?

You can bet that Hollywood's new crop of war films will make individual soldiers look good; even Liberals are forced to recognise the overwhelming respect and gratitude most Americans feel for our troops. However, you can also bet that they'll do their best to make the war itself look like a random, bumbling screwup that could have and should have been avoided. That's "supporting the troops," Hollywood style!

In each movie, the characters will certainly apply civilian morality and judgment to military situations, question their purpose and orders, meet friendly "bad" guys and questionable "good" guys, and try to understand the monumental mistakes and lies that got them involved in "a war no one wanted." That's Hollywood's version of war these days. Anyone who's seen "Black Hawk Down" -- Saddam's favorite "training" film -- has seen those techniques in action. That's how they want you to think of Iraq in ten years, when the words you read today will be eclipsed by the visual images they create.

Where the hell is John Wayne when we need him -- the guy who made war movies to support his country, not tear it down or make it look bad? We have no successor to the man who said, "Sure I wave the American flag. Do you know a better flag to wave? Sure I love my country with all her faults. I'm not ashamed of that, never have been and never will be."

These days, "the Duke" probably couldn't get a job shining shoes in Los Angeles, not with a politically-incorrect attitude like that.

Some Liberals -- call them the "budget hawks" -- spent most of the 2004 election season trying to drive a wedge between President Bush and his own party. For months, Democrats (the once-powerful political party now owned by Liberals) constantly harped upon government spending and the rising deficit. Most Liberals believe that the essence of Conservatism is greed and tight-fisted miserliness. They figured that they could hurt the Bush administration by complaining about overspending, causing the money-grubbing Conservatives to abandon Bush. As Liberal author Frank Wallis wrote, "Conservatives have no use for such liberal concepts as progress, equality, social justice, or democracy. It is a curious piggish greed which prompts them to take actions and invent ideologies to preserve the power status quo and maintain authority for themselves at any cost." Too many Hollywood movie stereotypes running through the Liberal brain must have caused people like that to lose all touch with reality. Many of them probably keep confusing the icy-hearted Old Man Potter from Frank Capra's "It's A Wonderful Life" with Dick Cheney. 

Fortunately, few people were fooled by the sudden concern for government expenditures. The only spending the Left consistently wanted to cut before was military spending. This newly-hawkish posture on the budget was seen for what it is: just another way to undermine support for the War on Terror. After all, I didn't hear them crying about spending when President Bush pledged $15 billion to curb AIDS in Africa. Remember the screams of Liberal outrage when they felt not enough money was spent quickly enough on tsunami relief, even before an assessment of the damage was begun? The only Liberal complaints about Bush's Medicare and No Child Left Behind bills were that not enough money was allocated to them. No, the Left certainly doesn't mind spending our money, except on our own defense.

Government overspending is an issue, but not because Conservatives and Republicans simply hate to spend money. The point of spending tax revenue, supposedly, is to get the best value for it. The Conservative aim is to stop throwing it away on frivolous pork-barrel projects, or using it to increase the already bloated government bureaucracy in lieu of actually fixing problems. Unfortunately, although Republicans hold a majority in Congress, Conservatives don't. In general, the Liberal answer to any problem you can name is to simply spend more money on it. After all, there's a bottomless well of taxpayer funding -- they can always raise taxes on the rich and successful, right?

Well, that's not the way it's supposed to work. Congress has been spending more money that it should, but most of that was needed to prime the pump of the economy and to engage in a war whose immediacy was brought home to us -- literally -- out of a clear blue sky. However, that can't be explained to the Liberal budget hawks. They think they found a way to attack the President, so they continued to scream about overspending even after losing the election. Didn't they ever hear the old adage "be careful what you wish for... you may get it?"

Now that the economy has come back from the Clinton/dot-com recession, it's time to start work on reducing that deficit. Deficits are not, contrary to Liberal opinion, caused by lowering taxes -- they're caused by spending money the government doesn't have. President Bush's proposed 2006 budget will call for keeping spending increases to a bare minimum. It will also cut funding for about 150 duplicated or discontinued government programs, or those that have performed poorly. Cutting waste -- now that's music to Conservative ears. The only thing that will sound sweeter will be the sounds of wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Left, as the posturing budget hawks see the government going on a long-overdue diet.

Non-defense, non-homeland security Federal spending increases will be kept to less than 1% (except for No Child Left Behind and a few others). Be prepared to hear the Left caterwauling about "cuts" in their favorite government programs. The fact is that no cuts will actually take place, just a tight rein on spending increases. The way government agencies calculate their budget is to simply take last year's budget as a baseline, and increase every item in it by approximately 8% to 12%. Unlike businesses, government agencies don't have to justify their spending requests to a board of directors or the stockholders -- that would be us, the taxpayers. They don't even check to see whether all the money allocated last year was spent before requesting the increase. The government is a huge black hole into which far more money vanishes than ever, ever comes out.

The predictions indicate that keeping unnecessary spending down while encouraging economic growth will reduce the deficit by half in five years. So when the Liberal budget hawks begin to cry about the "cuts" in the 2005 budget, they're really just getting what they said they wanted, aren't they?

The Associated Press recently reported the apparent kidnapping of an American soldier named John Adam in Iraq:  

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Iraqi militants claimed in a Web statement Tuesday to have taken an American soldier hostage and threatened to behead him in 72 hours unless the Americans release Iraqi prisoners. The U.S. military said it was investigating, but the claim's authenticity could not be immediately confirmed.

The posting, on a Web site that frequently carried militants' statements, included a photo of what that statement said was an American soldier, wearing desert fatigues and seated on a concrete floor with his hands tied behind his back. The figure in the photo appeared stiff and expressionless, and the photo's authenticity could not be confirmed.

Turns out that AP fell hook, line and sinker for a hoax. It seems the terrorists had actually snatched a Cody action figure (which explains why he was "stiff and expressionless"):

A militant group's claim that it had kidnapped a U.S. soldier in Iraq and planned to behead him was suspected of being a hoax yesterday, after a California toy manufacturer said photos of the purported captive on an insurgent Web site appeared to show one of its collectible dolls.

An executive for Dragon Models USA said the soldier looked exactly like a foot-tall G.I. Joe-type doll the company manufactured for sale at U.S. bases in Kuwait.
 
Cusack said the doll appeared to be the black version of its "Cody" action figure, one of several thousand sold to U.S. military bases in Kuwait about three years ago. The dolls are minutely detailed and frequently used in dioramas of war scenes.

The Slinky betrayed us. I should have known. I never trusted him. He was an unstable character, always going back and forth, back and forth, never showing a shred of backbone. "Come, senor, I know the way to the insurgents' headquarters," he rasped. The fact that he was an Arab toy speaking with a stereotypical Spanish accent should have tipped me off. But hindsight is always 20/20. Literally. I can turn my head 360 degrees.

I only knew my men by their code names, but even in that short space of time we shared a bond that only six-inch plastic combatants can truly understand. They were my family, my brothers in petroleum-based products. One night we all melted the tips of our fingers and became plastic brothers.
 
And I led those brave action figures into the trap.

Not only have terrorists been reduced to kidnapping action figures, but two different groups have claimed responsibility for downing a British C-130 Hercules transport plane -- and both claims may be false. One group sent al-Jazeera a tape which showed a finger pressing a button, a missile flying through the air, then flaming wreckage on the ground... but no footage of an impact, or anything identifying the wreckage. The other group, Ansar al-Islam, claimed to have shot the plane down with an anti-tank missile... which couldn't possibly reach the plane's last reported altitude of 15,000 feet. The terrorists were also reduced to using victims of Down's Syndrome as suicide bombers in their vain attempt to stop the Iraqi election. That's not funny at all, but it shows us the kind of people we're dealing with, how desperate they've become in their efforts to re-enslave Iraq, and how difficult it is for them to find recruits. Real terrorist attacks are still occuring in Iraq, and will continue to do so for some time, but the enemy's power over the Iraqi people is diminishing.

As for whoever is faking terrorist attacks and kidnapping toys... we may have to send in a squad of G.I. Joes to take care of this. Or if things get really tough... Team America: World Police.

The sight of millions of Iraqis conquering fear and braving death to cast their votes was an uplifting, awesome, and humbling event to most people. The naysayers who told us that Iraqis -- and Muslims in general -- had no hunger for democracy were wrong. Those who told us they would cave in to the threats of terrorists were wrong. Iraqis walked for miles, stood in line for hours -- in danger the whole time -- and came in carts, wheelchairs and on the strong backs of others when necessary to make their voices heard. Living in terror of Saddam for decades seems to have inured them to threats, to some degree. Afterwards, they danced and sang in the streets, wearing broad smiles and waving their blue-dyed fingers in the air in defiance of tyranny and terrorism. The effect this has had on President Bush's opponents is startling. Most have retreated behind the walls of Cynicism and Hypocrisy.

Many Liberals are now cautiously cheering the election, after warning us that it could not or should not take place, should be delayed, or that Iraqis would not vote. However, after more than two years of attacking President Bush's Iraq policies on every front, they blithely praise the election while either ignoring or repudiating its author. Most temper their positive words with censure of President Bush, as though they wanted to help the Iraqi people all along, but Bush's war got in their way. Here's the heart of the hypocrisy: they never really cared before.

Remember the protests against Saddam's mass graves in front of the Iraqi Embassy?

Neither do I.

Remember the candlelight vigils for the maimed and broken victims of Saddam's "justice" on the steps of the UN?

Neither do I.

Remember when NOW (National Organisation for Women) marched to raise our level of consciousness concerning Saddam's rape rooms and Uday's victimisation of women, which included the abduction of schoolgirls?

Neither do I.

Before American troops set foot in Iraq, most on the Left cared about the plight of the Iraqi people about as much as I care about the plight of an ant colony. Now they're trying to convince us that they really wanted Saddam toppled all along, but that there were "other ways" that would have worked. The Standard Line is, "I merely opposed the timing and the manner of the war." Most of those "other ways" were tried; they all failed. We already knew from twelve years of diplomacy that more talking was not the answer. So America went to war, to free the Iraqi people among many other reasons, and the Left opposed it every single step of the way. Now they hypocritically praise the election as though they had anything to do with it... indeed, as if it would ever have happened had they gotten their way.

In Britain's Guardian Unlimited, Michael Ignatieff wrote that "Iraqis fight a lonely battle for democracy," as though they have had no help from Coalition forces. "Just as depressing as the violence in Iraq is the indifference to it abroad. Americans and Europeans who have never lifted a finger to defend their own right to vote seem not to care that Iraqis are dying for the right to choose their own leaders." As ignorant of the present as the past, he seems to believe that the election only took place to give us an excuse to pull out of Iraq as soon as possible -- or even that they happened in spite of American intervention, not because of it. "For its part, the Bush administration sometimes seems to support the elections less to give the Iraqis a chance at freedom than to provide what Henry Kissinger, speaking of Vietnam, called 'a decent interval' before collapse." Ignatieff must think that John Kerry, who was unabashedly negative about Iraq on its election day, won the 2004 election instead of George W. Bush, and that Ted Kennedy, who called for the US to abandon Iraq on the eve of the election there, is the Secretary of State.

On the other hand, James Carroll of the Boston Globe had no praise to give, calling it a "Train wreck of an election." On 1 February 2005, with images of jubilant, blue-fingered Iraqis still fresh in our minds, Carroll wrote, "Iraq is a train wreck. The man who caused it is not in trouble. Tomorrow night he will give his State of the Union speech, and the Washington establishment will applaud him." I wonder whether he knows that the Mayor of Baghdad wants to erect a statue to President Bush? "We will build a statue for Bush," said newly-elected mayor Ali Fadel. "He is the symbol of freedom."

Carroll continued his litany of negativity. "Tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead. More than 1,400 Americans are dead. An Arab nation is humiliated. Islamic hatred of the West is ignited. The American military is emasculated. Lies define the foreign policy of the United States. On all sides of Operation Iraqi Freedom, there is wreckage. In the center, there are the dead, the maimed, the displaced -- those who will be the ghosts of this war for the rest of their days. All for what?" Carroll speaks to the cynics, those who will never be satisfied no matter what happens. Oscar Wilde once said, "A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing." That's a fair description of James Carroll and the rest of the cynical Left, those who can only count the costs without reckoning with the results.

Some few, like Chicago Sun-Times writer Mark Brown, have had the courage to ask the awful question, "What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?" On the very same day Carroll wrote his "train wreck" column, Brown wrote, "But on Sunday, we caught a glimpse of the flip side. We could finally see signs that a majority of the Iraqi people perceive something to be gained from this brave new world we are forcing on them. Instead of making the elections a further expression of 'Yankee Go Home,' their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven't died in vain." Brown speaks for a small number of Liberals who are bravely re-thinking their opposition to a war which has led to such a result.

If the Iraqis can be brave enough to defy death to cast their votes, surely anti-war Liberals can be brave enough to re-examine their position in the light of recent events. If the Iraqis can cast aside their skepticism in favor of hope, why can't more Liberals do the same?

In spite of the negativity, nay-saying and general pessimism about the future of Iraq, in the face of dire predictions about the plausibility of bringing democracy to the Middle East, Iraq's first democratic election in decades will take place as planned. Opponents of President Bush are trying to either set unreasonable expectations for success or demand, as Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) does, that we abandon the Iraqi people to the tender mercies of the terrorists despite all our promises to them. What effect will the election have on the security situation in Iraq? What can we realistically expect to happen on election day and beyond?

Anyone who expects the election to be almost completely violence-free, as happened in Afghanistan, is trying to set the stage for a declaration of failure. Of course we can expect the terrorists to cause as much violence and mayhem as possible, in an attempt to disrupt voting. This alone should tell the naysayers just how important bringing democracy to the Middle East is, and how vital it is that we never turn back from this goal.

If our enemies don't want democratic governments to flourish, then we must consider that our best weapon against them is democracy itself. Their leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has "declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy." Democracy gives people hope, and people with hope for the future don't usually strap on bomb belts or pack their cars with explosives. All sources indicate, however, that the Iraqis' thirst for long-delayed democracy will not be stopped by the thugs and murderers that want to control Iraq.

We can reasonably expect the violence to continue after the election as well, and for some time, though it will hopefully lose steam as the year goes on. When the people of East Timor voted for independence from Indonesia in 1999, terrorist violence actually increased dramatically after the election, as the anti-democracy forces took out their frustration at losing on the populace. Two years later, however, the 2001 election passed without a single incidence of violence.

We're lucky in America; our sore losers mostly just march around carrying signs and chanting pointless slogans, as they did when protesting the President's second inauguration. When they get tired, or when the cameras are off, they just throw the signs away for others to clean up and go out to dinner. More than likely, Iraq will see a surge of violence from the terrorists over the next several weeks, at least until the final election outcome is announced.

Some people are setting artificial goals by which to measure whether the outcome of the election is "successful" or "legitimate." They tell us that there must be a 50% overall turnout, or a certain percentage of Sunni turnout, or a lack of violence before, during or afterwards. Some claim that the United Nations or other Middle Eastern countries must pronounce the election legitimate (as if any of them would know a legitimate election if it wore a neon sign saying, "100% Legitimate, Really, I Swear!").

The only measure of a successful election is whether the Iraqi people feel that they had a chance to cast their vote and have it counted. Unlike Democrats in America, most of them don't seem to feel that the election is only legitimate if they win. After decades of oppression and tyranny, simply seeing a ballot that doesn't let them choose between "Saddam Hussein -or- death for my family" is enough to start with. And if some Sunnis refuse to participate, it only means their voices won't be heard.

According to Reuters, some Iraqi expatriates see the election as an historic event. It's a turning point in the history of their country, if not the world. Some quotes:

"I am ecstatic to have passed through this experience at last. This (election) might cause a difference, not necessarily right away but eventually," said Sara Masoud, a student who has lived in Syria for eight years.

In Australia, Iraqis danced in the streets, twirling scarves and singing, and proudly displaying blue ink on their fingers which told the world they had cast the first votes.

"When I look at the ink on my finger -- this is a mark of freedom," said Kassim Abood, outside a polling booth in a disused furniture warehouse in western Sydney.

"I didn't think I would live long enough to see this moment," said Abood, who decades ago fled the rule of Saddam Hussein to seek asylum in Australia.

"Iraqis are hugging each other, kissing each other, this is a wonderful day," he said. "I am born anew today."

"I am voting out of loyalty for my fellow countrymen, for our great Iraq, for those buried in mass graves and for our martyrs," a weeping Adel Mijbil Qawqaz said at a polling station in the United Arab Emirates.

"This is the first time we can vote with any freedom. I could almost cry," said Yousif Jamil, 52, a former army officer.

Just a few years ago, the thought of a democratic election taking place in Afghanistan or Iraq was laughable. One has taken place, and the other is taking place now. To the likes of Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Bobby Byrd -- the Angry Liberal Democrats who speak for the party -- this looks like a disaster, a quagmire, a terrible event, a repeat of Vietnam. To the rest of us, it's the birth of a new democracy, and it's amazing.

And as any mother can no doubt tell you, births are almost never easy or painless, though they are nearly always worth it.

And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed -- if all records told the same tale -- then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.'
- 1984, George Orwell

You can bet that Hillary Clinton paid attention to all the mistakes made during John Kerry's failed Presidential run. Her brothers, Hugh and Tony, confirmed her intention to run in 2008. We can look forward to four years of watching Hillary pretending to moderate her fairly Liberal positions on the issues enough to gather up some of those red-state votes for herself. It would be amusing to watch, were it not for the near certainty of "mainstream" media cooperation. Taking a page right out of George Orwell's 1984, the media will go right along with the pretense that her new positions on various issues have always been her positions.

Hillary Clinton's entire career can be understood through examining her college experience. Hillary interned with lawyer Robert Treuhaft, who worked for the Communist Party USA. She studied law at Yale, under Professor Thomas I. Emerson, another CPUSA member known as "Tommy the Commie." Hillary met with and wrote her senior thesis about radical organiser Saul Alinsky, a Marxist who counseled potential agitators to work their way into power from within the system, then use that power to bring it down.

Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" included such admonitions as, "Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity." What better explanation of the Democratic vilification of Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) could be found? Lott was attacked for his feel-good praise of 100-year-old Senator Strom Thurmond, once a Segregationist before eschewing discrimination. His fellow Republicans forced him to step down from his position as majority leader. Meanwhile, the same Democrats continue to ignore the presence in the Senate of former KKK Kleagle Robert Byrd (D-WV). "The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength" can be seen in action as Democrats accuse Republicans of such things as plotting to bring back the draft or wanting to steal Grandma's Social Security check. This puts them on the defensive against phantom charges with no basis in fact, which are almost impossible to refute. Another rule, "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it," can be seen in all the personal attacks made by Liberal Democrats on President Bush and the members of his administration. Most recently, this tactic appeared during the confirmation "hearings" for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who was defamed and maligned throughout the proceedings.

Hillary Clinton's association with radical causes continued, though on a more subdued note. Her plan for socialised medicine in America, caricatured as "Hillarycare," was widely considered a contributing factor in the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994. Hillary Clinton introduced keynote speaker Walter Cronkite at a gathering of the World Federalist Association in 1999. The WFA is the advocacy group for world government by the United Nations that unsuccessfully sued the US in 1986, arguing that Article VI of the Constitution should make the UN Charter the "supreme law of the land." No law can possibly be placed above the Constitution of the United States, by definition the governing document of the country. Were Clinton to get into office, however, those who advocate surrendering American sovereignty to the corrupt bureaucracy of the United Nations would gain a powerful ally.

We can see the "chameleon" mentality at work in Senator Clinton's shifting positions as she lays the groundwork now for her 2008 campaign. One reason Kerry lost was that he waited too long to shift his positions towards the right. Hillary won't make that mistake; she's starting already... although she risks losing her Liberal base by doing so. She knows, however, that there are far more moderate Democrats and middle-of-the-road voters than Liberals, and it's the votes that count.

Hillary has moved far to the right on illegal immigration -- to the right of President Bush, in fact. In an interview on WABC radio, she stated, "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants." She attacked Bush for not tightening the borders enough to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the country. However, she co-sponsored bill S. 2381 with Ted Kennedy, the "Safe, Orderly, Legal Visas and Enforcement Act of 2004." The bill included an amnesty that would have granted Legal Permanent Resident status to illegal aliens (and their spouses and minor children) who have lived in the US for at least 5 years, and worked for an aggregate of 2 years. This would have included just about every illegal immigrant currently living in the US. She also cosponsored S. 1545, the DREAM Act of 2003. The bill would have granted in-state tuition and amnesty to illegal aliens under the age of 21 who had lived in America for five years and were currently in 7th grade or above. The Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act of 2003 (S. 1645) also listed Hillary as a cosponsor. The bill would have granted amnesty to illegal immigrants who had 100 days of agricultural employment in the 18-month period that ended on 31 August 2003. To her credit, she did cosponsor S. 1749, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001, which would have created an alien tracking and identification system. However, her record can hardly be summed up as being "adamantly against illegal immigrants."

Hillary's rightward shuffle can also be seen in her position on abortion. While addressing a group of abortion supporters this week, Hillary spoke of finding "common ground" with foes of abortion, referring to it as a "sad, even tragic choice." She told the crowd, "I for one respect those who believe with all their heart and conscience that there are no circumstances under which abortion should be available." In fact, Hillary Clinton enjoys a 100% rating from NARAL, the pro-abortion group, which indicates the percentage of her votes on key issues that match the organisation's views. On 22 Jan 2000, she told the New York Times, "I am and always have been pro-choice, and that is not a right any of should take for granted. There are a number of forces at work in our society that would try to turn back the clock and undermine a woman’s right to chose, and [we] must remain vigilant."

Her history of strong support for abortion contrasts starkly with her position on religion and faith-based initiatives. The night before President Bush's second inauguration, Hillary spoke at a fund-raising dinner for the National TenPoint Leadership Foundation and the Ella J. Baker House, organisations that embrace faith-based initiatives. According to the Boston Globe, Hillary said, "There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles." Addressing a crowd of more than 500, including many religious leaders, she invoked God more than half a dozen times, at one point declaring, "I've always been a praying person." Hillary said there must be room for religious people to "live out their faith in the public square." However, in 1993 (according to FrontPage Magazine), she lobbied the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to create a new category of crime, "religious harassment." It would have led to disciplinary action for anyone of management level who wore a cross or yarmulke, or kept a Bible in plain sight at work. Where was she in 2002, when the Yonkers district of New York banned Christmas and Hannukah from its schools? Where was she when New York City banned nativity scenes in 2003? One would expect the state's Senator to have something to say, especially when she purports to have such strong religious feelings and has "always been a praying person."

What does she pray for? That no one notices her positions shifting as she makes her play for the "gullible, ignorant red-stater" vote in 2008? Well, that's one prayer that's going to go unanswered.

The most fascinating -- and disheartening -- aspect of the War on Terror is how well the terrorists seem to understand what's at stake, while so many Liberals seem either clueless or indifferent. While the latter are wrapped up in Bush-hatred, "suffering" from what they call Post-Election Selection Trauma, making wild accusations of voter fraud by Republicans while ignoring real incidents by Democrats, and self-indulgently "mourning" President Bush's re-election, the former are busy fighting the war. What's at stake, in much of the world, is the future of democracy itself.

In a recent taped statement, a man who identified himself as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi said, "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy a