A Florida court has sentenced a woman to death by starvation. She didn't get a trial. She didn't get a lawyer. No one knows what crime she has committed. Yet Terri Schiavo has been condemned to a cruel death by slow starvation, for no good reason that I can discern. Although those who argue for her death repeatedly refer to "extraordinary measures" and "extensive medical procedures" meant to keep her alive, it's difficult to see how a simple nutrient tube qualifies as either of these two things. The inability to swallow solid food is not a reason for a death sentence in any civilised country of which I'm aware, nor is being mentally disabled.

Convicted mass-murderers get seemingly endless appeals on the public dime. When the sentence is finally carried out, the justice system goes to great lengths to ensure that the death is as quick and painless as possible. If convicted murderers aren't sentenced to starve to death, why has that sentence been passed on a woman whose only crime was to get sick?

In 1990, Terri Schiavo collapsed of heart failure, probably caused by a potassium imbalance. She suffered brain damage as a result of lack of oxygen. Unable to eat, she receives nutrients through a feeding tube. Michael Schiavo, her husband and legal guardian, first petitioned to have the tube removed in 1998. Two years later, Judge Greer of Florida's Sixth Judicial Circuit Court decided that Terri would have chosen to have the tube removed, because Michael claimed that she once told him so. Why it took him so long to remember this has yet to be explained.

A friend of Terri's testified that she once told Terri a cruel joke about a woman who fell into a coma after mixing drugs and alcohol. "What is the state vegetable of New Jersey?" the friend asked Terri. The punchline was, "Karen Ann Quinlan." Terri didn't find the joke about the fight to take Quinlan off life support funny. "How did they know she would want this?" she asked. This testimony was seemingly ignored, while her husband's insistence that Terri, a Roman Catholic like her parents, would not want to be kept alive using any artificial means was taken as fact. Judge Greer referred to Michael Schiavo's hearsay -- and that's what it amounts to -- as "clear and convincing evidence" that Terri would rather die than take food through a tube.

Terri Schiavo's condition is nothing like Karen Ann Quinlan's. Despite the picture painted by advocates for her death, Terri is not a vegetable, nor is she in a coma. She's not dying -- or wouldn't be, if she was being fed. She's merely brain-damaged in a way no one yet understands, yet she is responsive to various stimuli. Her eyes track motion, she responds to the sight of her family members, and she even laughs. How can you say that someone who can laugh at a joke is no longer deserving of the right to live? And how can you sentence someone to die of starvation because she can't eat properly?

This is not a "right to die" case, as Terri's husband and his lawyers portray it. It's a "right to kill your wife when that whole 'in sickness and in health' thing becomes inconvenient" case. As far as I'm concerned, Michael Schiavo stopped being Terri's husband in all but name when he broke his marriage vows by moving in with Jodie Centonze in 1995. He should have been removed as Terri's legal guardian at that time, and on those grounds. Since then, he's repeatedly tried to accomplish his wife's death, even refusing to allow therapy or tests that could determine whether improvement is even possible. A CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) who worked at the Palm Gardens Nursing Home testified in 2003 that she "was personally aware of orders for rehabilitation that were not being carried out. Even though they were ordered, Michael would stop them." Michael Schiavo is an unfit guardian who is not looking out for Terri's best interests, and ought to lose that power.

Congress has convened an emergency Sunday session concerning this case. They intend to pass legislation that might prevent Terri's life from being ended before the full extent of her present condition can be determined, by the very tests Michael Schiavo refuses to allow. This makes logical as well as moral sense. How can a person be sentenced to die -- the ultimate deprivation of civil rights -- when their condition isn't actually known?

Many of those on the Left are outraged by the involvement of Congress in this decision. They ask, "Do you want Congress to decide medical questions?" I don't see how allowing an unelected judge to decide medical questions is any worse. Their real concern, as evidenced by their speeches about "rule of law" and "judicial independence," is that the godlike power of activist judges will be curtailed.

Hat tip to Hyscience for the videos of Terri Schiavo reacting to stimuli.

March 20, 2005 will mark the second anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. The war lasted only three weeks before Saddam dropped out of sight and into a spider-hole... but for some hopefuls, it will never end. I'm not talking about the Ba'athist thugs who plot and struggle to regain the power -- built on fear and murder -- that they held over the Iraqi people for so long. I'm talking about the looney anti-war Left, who will spend the next few weeks continuing to protest a war that toppled a dictator, ended decades of evil tyranny and brutality, freed and gave hope to tens of millions, began the spread of democracy throughout the Middle East... and ended almost as quickly as it began. Yes, they're protesting a war that's already over.

When you think about it, it's almost laughable -- when it's not pitiful, that is. Caught in the grip of rabid Bush-hatred, these so-called "progressives" ignore all signs of long hoped-for progress in the Middle East to excoriate its author for bringing it about! Elections and free speech in countries that (in many cases) have never known such things fail to impress the "Not In Our Name" crowd. Where will these "anti-war" folks be in a few decades? It's as if there were still people actively protesting US involvement in WWII, even in light of the fact that Hitler is gone, the world is safe from the threat of Nazi domination and Germany has become a peaceful democracy. Imagine how ridiculous they would sound.

CARTHAGE, TUNISIA -- Carrying signs saying, "End The US Occupation of Germany" and, "War Is Not The Answer," the seven remaining members of Peace For Our Time, a group that once numbered in the dozens, have gathered once again. The group continues its protest against US involvement in World War II, at the spot on which it began 63 years ago in 1942.

"There was never any reason to invade Tunisia," said 82-year-old PFOT founder Scott Whiteflag, weakly shaking a fist in the air. "No Tunisians ever attacked America! We should have stayed at home and taken care of our own problems! The only people who attacked us were the Japanese, and Roosevelt didn't do nearly enough to find out why they hated us and offer them our apologies. Instead of trying to find a means of peaceful coexistence with Nazi Germany, a country that had never attacked us, he rashly led the country into an elective war based on lies about a German invasion of America. Roosevelt lied, and people died!"

The group Peace For Our Time takes its name from the statement made by Neville Chamberlain in 1938, after negotiating with Adolf Hitler. "My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep." The group contends that Hitler was open to diplomacy and was "contained."

"We had no right to interfere with their culture," an unidentified member of the group insisted. "All those martial displays and Jew-killing was part of their heritage, and our unwanted interference just wasn't right. Just because we didn't agree with their laws against Jews, Slavs and Gypsies doesn't mean we had the right to go over there and invade a sovereign nation like that. Who died and made America the boss?"

"Of course Hitler was a bad person," said a grandmotherly woman named Ruth, "and it's a good thing he was removed from power -- don't get us wrong there! However, we protest the manner in which we were misled into the war, and the hundreds of thousands of American dead!" Ruth also accused General Patton of committing war crimes against the German people, and demanded that he be posthumously stripped of his rank as well as his decorations and awards.

Another member of the group whose walker bore a taped-on sign reading, "Containment Was Working!" collapsed at that moment.

"Poor Charlie!" exclaimed Ruth. "Now only the six of us are left to protest the way Mr. Roosevelt pushed us into war with his filthy Lend-Lease Act."

For the last sixty years, Whiteflag and his group have been funded by a cartel of Swiss bankers living in Argentina.

When Brian Nichols was brought into an Atlanta court on 11 March for a retrial on a rape case, a single guard -- a five-foot-two 51-year-old grandmother -- escorted him. Although Deputy Cynthia Ann Hall was a veteran with plenty of training, Nichols overpowered and beat her by sheer size and weight. He then took her gun and escaped. Nichols killed court reporter Julie Ann Brandau and Judge Rowland Barnes as well as Sheriff's Deputy Sgt. Hoyt Teasley on his way out of the courthouse. After carjacking several vehicles, Nichols pistol-whipped a reporter and stole his jacket. He then killed US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent David Wilhelm and took his gun, badge and truck. Nichols finally surrendered after terrorising a woman named Ashley Smith in her apartment, while she talked him into giving up.

Why was Nichols left wearing no restraints, alone with only one guard whom he could obviously overpower? It is thought that the sight of a defendant in handcuffs, surrounded by guards, might unduly influence juries. In most cases when a juror spots a defendant in cuffs and escorted by police, the defense usually moves for a mistrial on the spot. Aren't the jurors supposed to know he's the defendant in the case? Is the fact that he probably just came from a holding cell -- as Nichols had -- supposed to be a secret? Would it have been too politically incorrect to suggest that Deputy Hall might want a partner just this one time -- maybe a six-foot weightlifter with a black belt in Judo and a toothache to put him in the proper mood?

Nichols was not going before the court for running over a traffic cone or tearing the tag off his mattress (you know, the one that says DO NOT REMOVE UNDER PENALTY OF LAW). He was charged with rape, aggravated sodomy, false imprisonment, aggravated assault with intent to rape, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and burglary. He assaulted his former girlfriend, tying her up in her own home and repeatedly violating her over the course of several days. Two days before his escape, two shivs (makeshift weapons) were removed from his shoes upon his arrival at court -- hinges sharpened into rudimentary knives. What were they there for, balance? Common sense should have told the court personnel that a single guard, older and shorter, would not be enough to guard a potentially violent prisoner without handcuffs or a ready weapon. Political correctness gone amuck allowed Nichols to beat up Deputy Hall and the reporter. Political correctness allowed him to kill Brandau, Judge Barnes and Deputy Sgt. Teasley.

When we allow political correctness to overrule our common sense, we throw away millions of years of instinct that kept our ancestors alive and kicking. Every person who looked up at Nichols, then down at Hall, and shrugged off that little voice asking, "isn't this a bad idea?" allowed Liberal indoctrination to win over his or her own better judgment, with tragic results. The problem is not that common sense is uncommon, but that we so rarely listen to it.

Imagine the huge Liberal outcry that would have gone up had Judge Barnes, who clearly saw that Nichols might pose a threat, ordered extra escorts or restraints. (He did request extra officers in the courtroom, but not the holding area.) The media would have portrayed him as a stereotypical "redneck" judge, antithetical to both blacks and women. Barnes would have been excoriated as being "afraid" of Nichols (whom the media would have transformed into a gentle, misunderstood giant, like Michael Clarke Duncan playing John Coffey in The Green Mile), or at least trying to influence the jury by making him look dangerous. "Barnes Says Women Guards Can't Cut It," the headlines would have screamed. NOW would have joined forces with exploitive agitators like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to stage protests in the street outside the courthouse. Barnes's career would probably have been over.

But at least he'd be alive to enjoy his retirement, as would Julie Ann Brandau, Hoyt Teasley and David Wilhelm.

Sometimes it's hard to make sense of the decisions the Supreme Court makes. When they cherry-pick foreign legal decisions to cite as the basis for some of their more Left-leaning rulings, for instance, it can make anyone's head spin. Why, I often wonder, do they speak of the "values we share with a wider civilization" when they cite European court rulings, but ignore foreign laws that disagree with the Liberal agenda? For every decision they make citing the European Court of Human Rights, shouldn't there be a ruling based on Shari'a law or Chinese law?

In one instance, the Supreme Court effectively overturned the Tenth Amendment in the Lawrence v. Texas decision when they removed the right of Texas to make its own laws regarding sodomy. The Tenth Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Justice Anthony Kennedy noted in the decision that the European Court of Human Rights and other foreign courts had affirmed the "rights of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct." He also mentioned that privacy for gay men and women "has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries." Yet the Supreme Court didn't balance this blatant Eurocentrism by ruling that women should be stoned for exposing the upper part of their feet, or that anyone who didn't bow to President Bush's portrait should be sent to a concentration camp to mine coal and make soccer balls for cheap export. If they were taking foreign laws and attitudes regarding homosexuality into account when making their decision, why didn't they rule that, as Shari'a law states, the Texas legal system should "Kill the one who does it and the one to whom it is done?" It's obvious that the Supreme Court made a decision not based on the Constitution, but their own prejudices and attitudes, then sought precedents by which to explain it.

In the great tradition of Roe v. Wade and Justice Hugo Black's "separation of Church and State," the Supreme Court recently found yet another part of the Constitution that no one had ever seen before (no doubt written on the back of the third page of the original, in lemon juice). This one said that juveniles cannot be sentenced to death, no matter how heinous the crime. States have now lost the right to mete out justice as they see fit. Justice Kennedy (again) joined Liberal Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Kennedy stated that those under 18 should not be subject to the death penalty because the "instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime." Kennedy further blamed "a lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility" and the "diminished culpability of juveniles" for their crimes.

Arizona youth Kenneth Laird, for instance, was only 17 when he broke into Wanda Starnes’ home while she was at work. He tied, gagged and locked her in a bathroom when she returned, then choked her with a rope and bashed her skull in. Laird then spent the next few days driving her truck and forging checks from her account. Mere youthful high spirits, no doubt. Nathan Ramirez was 17 when he and a friend broke into the Florida home of 71-year-old Mildred Boroski, tied her to her bed, killed her dog with a crowbar and looted the house. After the friend raped Boroski, Ramirez shot her twice in the head. He was obviously suffering from an underdeveloped sense of responsibility.

Dale Dwayne Craig was 17 when he fired three bullets into the head of Kipp Gullet as Gullet cried and begged for mercy after Craig abducted him. Stephen Virgil McGilberry killed four members of his Mississippi family with a baseball bat when he was 16. Tilmon Golphin and his older brother killed two police officers after committing robbery and grand theft auto, shooting the already-wounded men at point-blank range. Efrain Perez and Raul Villarreal were both 17 when they and three others gang-raped two girls, 16 and 14, before strangling and stomping them to death. One of the girls was strangled with her own shoelaces. Kevin Hughes sexually assaulted and strangled a nine-year-old Pennsylvania girl before setting her body on fire when he was 17. I suppose we should just be thankful he killed her first.

All these animals and more are now free of the death penalty, thanks to the Supreme Court and their reliance on foreign laws. "In sum, it is fair to say that the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty," Justice Kennedy wrote in the decision, also noting that the practice was banned by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The part that confuses me the most is how the same "children" who are deemed unstable, emotionally unbalanced, immature and lacking a sense of responsibility by this ruling are still somehow responsible and mature enough to get birth control or abortions without parental consent in states like California and Florida.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor warned us that "over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, of international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues." Well, what do European court decisions matter to me? I don't live there, nor do I want European judges deciding my laws for me. Any judge who bases his or her decisions on any document other than the US Constitution or on any legal ruling made beyond our borders ought to be impeached. As an American, I insist that my laws be written only by my fellow Americans, and comply with my Constitution. If I want to live under the laws of another country, I know how to buy a ticket for the next plane or boat, believe me -- I don't need the illegal immigration of their judicial rulings.

In a 35-minute speech Monday, Scalia said unelected judges have no place deciding issues such as abortion and the death penalty. The court's 5-4 ruling March 1 to outlaw the juvenile death penalty based on "evolving notions of decency" was simply a mask for the personal policy preferences of the five-member majority, he said. ... Citing the example of abortion, he said unelected justices too often choose to read new rights into the Constitution, at the expense of the democratic process.

Take the following simple test to see whether you're a Liberal.  Keep track of your answers.

21. The recent elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Saudi Arabia...
a. are indicative of a sweeping change in the Middle East, catalysed by US foreign policy.
b. will probably lead to civil wars in all those countries, as the people cannot handle democracy.
c. would have taken place eventually despite Bush's cowboy wars, which probably delayed democratic reforms somehow.

22. Iran's pursuit of nuclear power...
a. must not be allowed to reach fruition, even if another nation supplies the nuclear fuel; the mullahs will find a way to cheat just as the North Koreans did.
b. is their own business; why shouldn't they have nuclear weapons if they want them?
c. is just another excuse for Bush to swagger around the Middle East like the new sheriff in town!

23. Social Security...
a. will reach crisis point in the next few decades; the sooner we act to fix it the easier and cheaper it will be to do so... just as prominent Democrats, including Bill Clinton, were saying in the late 1990's.
b. is nothing I need to worry about just yet.
c. is fine! Just fine!! Bush just wants to destroy it to screw the poor and pocket the profits... somehow!

24. Professor Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado...
a. should be dismissed for lying about being a Native American to get hired, lying about his military service and selling plagiarised artwork. Do we want the sort of person who proudly demonised the victims of 9/11 and falsely accuses the US Army committing genocide teaching impressionable kids in public schools?
b. is only being targeted because of what he said about 9/11 "victims."
c. is a fine, upstanding professor whose freedom of speech is being unfairly attacked! A professor should be allowed to say anything he wants, since his purpose is to ask questions and make people think.

25. Harvard president Lawrence Summers...
a. merely asked why there are fewer women than men in science and engineering, then offered several traditionalist explanations for possible consideration and debate, citing research results... which was appropriate, considering that the topic of the conference was "Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce."
b. must really hate women, to say that they're not as good at math as men.
c. must be personally and professionally destroyed for saying that women aren't perfectly equal in every way to men! Such blatant political incorrectness cannot be tolerated in the name of "free speech." A college president should know better.

26. Syrian President Bashar Assad...
a. is in serious violation of UN resolution 1559, as well as the Syria Accountability Act. His support of terrorists and Saddam loyalists, manufacture of WMDs and occupation of Lebanon is going to cost him dearly, if he doesn't give them all up.
b. is doing what he must to protect his country from his neighbors.
c. is merely the next victim of the Bush Imperial Hegemony.

27. Nazis...
a. were supporters of an evil ideology which deserved to be wiped out.
b. had some good points, like their support for profit redistribution and welfare.
c. were just like Republicans, as Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va) said, despite their support for profit redistribution and welfare.

28. Howard Dean's election to head of the DNC...
a. is the best thing to happen to the Republican party.
b. was mostly due to his fundraising abilities and his campaign's use of the Internet. He'll be happy working quietly behind the scenes, really.
c. is the best thing to happen to the Democratic party, who were drifting too far to the Right.

29. Iran and North Korea...
a. are the two remaining members of the "Axis of Evil," and pose a threat to us and the rest of the world.
b. are no better and no worse than anyone else. There's no reason to cause trouble with them, as they haven't attacked us.
c. are our last hope for a Bush/Republican failure. As Susan Soderburg (former Clinton foreign policy advisor) said on The Daily Show when discussing the spread of democracy, "Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's hope for the rest of us."

30. The possibility that President Bush was right in saying that people in the Middle East want freedom and democracy...
a. looks increasingly likely every day.
b. is an example of how anyone can "get lucky."
c. cannot be considered! What are you, his lackey? Besides, he looks like a chimp!!

Take Part 1 and Part 2 of this test for the full effect.

Hat tip to Les Jones for the quotes from Democrats regarding Social Security.
Another hat tip to James Taranto for the Daily Show partial transcript.

For more than three years, the Left has characterised the War on Terror, and especially the liberation of Iraq, as "Bush's War." They've also referred to Iraq as "Bush's Adventure," "Bush's Crusade" and "Bush's Folly." They were calling it "Bush's Hastily Planned, Poorly Realised and Badly Executed Diversion From the 'Real' War," but pretty much stopped when they realised that it wouldn't all fit on a Volvo-sized bumper sticker. Liberals don't understand the strategy of defeating terrorism by changing the totalitarian governments that support it. They don't get the concept that freedom reduces frustration, which in turn reduces the ability of terrorist groups to recruit. They refuse to acknowledge that Congress voted the Authorisation for Use of Military Force Against Iraq into law. They insist that the war was all Bush's idea (when they don't consider him a puppet, that is), and that every setback and problem is all Bush's fault.

Well, that's just fine with me. Let's establish that in plain English: President Bush is solely responsible for sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, the latter decision made in spite of a corrupt United Nations and a compromised France, Russia and China. Therefore, he should be considered responsible for all the results of his decision -- the positive as well as the negative. So far, it's all been about the negative.

How many countries have been changed for the better by the War on Terror? Afghanistan has become a democracy in which women vote and hold positions of power, and has even sent female athletes to the Olympics for the first time in history. In Pakistan, Pevez Musharraf has handed the government over to civil rule but maintains his permanent position as president. However, Pakistan has been a staunch ally, and provided us with critical information by exposing the activities of Abdul Qadeer Khan. Khan supplied nuclear weapons related technologies, equipment, and know-how to Iran, North Korea, and Libya, and attempted to do the same with Syria and Iraq. Freeing Afghanistan (especially Afghan women), revealing the corruption in the UN and discovering Khan's activities, none of which would have happened without the War on Terror, must therefore be all Bush's fault.

In the Middle East, the central cesspool of terrorism, things have also changed dramatically. While the death of terrorist leader Yasser Arafat was not part of the War on Terror, forcing him to give up some power to a Prime Minister was... and this led to free Palestinian elections upon his death. The liberation of Iraq led to the first truly free democratic elections in that country, which the naysaying Left swore would never, could never happen. Eight million Iraqis defied the death threats of terrorists (and the dour predictions of Liberals) to cast their votes as the rest of the region watched. Elections in Iraq, elections in Palestine... and suddenly, the Lebanese people took to the streets in protest. After the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, they demanded the end of Syrian occupation of Lebanon. The Syria-backed government spontaneously resigned, paving the way for elections. The fact that it happened without direct action on our part shows that democracy is developing its own momentum in the Middle East. And since Iraqi elections were the catalyst, that's all Bush's fault, too.

Now, inspired by the Lebanese protests, the Syrian people are beginning to demand a greater voice in their government. Hosni Mubarak, president of Egypt, has announced that the next election will include opposition candidates for the first time, although candidates must be approved by Parliament. Saudi Arabia, which just had its first elections at the municipal level, has announced that women will be allowed to vote in the next local elections. Women will also be allowed to work in the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Baby steps, to be sure... but steps in the right direction.

Whose "interference" in the Middle East is responsible for these changes? The Left certainly didn't want the liberation of Iraq to take place. Senator John Kerry, representing the Democratic party in the 2004 election, repeatedly called Iraq "the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time." President Bush has been labeled a warmongering cowboy for sending troops to Iraq. If the blame for Iraq is laid at his feet, then the credit must go with it... and if he has earned the label "cowboy," then also "liberator."

So... here we are again, at the same familiar crossroads. Once again, we face a fascist dictator in the Middle East known to support terror, manufacture weapons of mass destruction and trample on the civil rights of his people. Once again, the United Nations has wasted years and lives issuing demands with which that dictator has no intention of complying, and which the UN seems to have no intention of enforcing. We've been here before. Only the names and the countries have changed.

This time, Syrian dictator Bashar Assad makes the choice to become our enemy. You would think he'd have learned the magnitude of such a mistake after watching what happened to the last one who chose that path. It's still possible that Assad will follow instead the lead of Libya's Moammar Ghaddafi, and surrender to the inevitable before it leads to his removal from power. "I will do whatever the Americans want," Ghaddafi told Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, "because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid." If not, we may end up watching Assad emerging from a spider hole of his own before long. The choice is entirely up to him. However, the recent alliance between Syria and Iran doesn't make it seem likely that Assad will accede to the wishes of the UN. "We are ready to help Syria on all grounds to confront threats," said Iranian Vice-President Mohammad Reza Aref. Iran is on shaky ground itself, having repeatedly defied UN and US demands that they cease working on their nuclear program.

Since the 1970's, Syria has occupied Lebanon, originally to repel Israeli troops. The Israelis sent troops in 1978 to destroy terrorist bases in Lebanon, but withdrew after two months. Terrorists flooded right back into Lebanon. In 1982, in response to hundreds of terrorist attacks on Israel from terror groups based in Syria-controlled Lebanon, the Israel Defense Force again invaded, and withdrew to a narrow "security zone" in 1985. The 1989 Taif Accords were supposed to outline a one-year plan for returning sovereignty of Lebanon to the Lebanese people, and allowed Syrian forces to provide security while the transition of power took place. That transition, of course, never did happen. Rather than insist, the UN Security Council simply kept moving the deadline. Finally, all Israeli forces withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, but the Syrian forces remained. The UN extended the deadline for their withdrawal yet again. In September 2004, the UNSC passed resolution 1559, which called for "all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon." Syria still has approximately 16,000 troops in Lebanon who apparently did not get the memo.

Congress passed the Syria Accountability Act in 2003. The act noted, "Since 1990 the Senate and House of Representatives have passed seven bills and resolutions calling for the withdrawal of Syrian armed forces from Lebanon." The act also reminded us of Syria's manufacture of WMDs, oil smuggling and ties to terror. "Terrorist groups, including Hizballah, Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, maintain offices, training camps, and other facilities on Syrian territory and operate in areas of Lebanon occupied by the Syrian armed forces and receive supplies from Iran through Syria." Unfortunately, the strong words stopped at the condemnations. As possible penalties, the act suggested such actions as restricting the travel of Syrian diplomats and reducing US diplomatic contact with Syria. Surely Assad and his Ba'athist thugs are quaking in their boots at the thought of having to eat fewer formal dinners with US diplomats. Maybe we can have the staff do a less thorough job of cleaning the silverware, too. That'll teach 'em.

The Bush administration has repeatedly warned Syria about their support for terrorists, especially those who have been killing Iraqi civilians. Despite warnings, Assad allowed fugitives from Saddam's government to find safe harbor in Syria, and even supplied Iraq with military equipment before the US-led invasion. General Ali al-Jajjawi, a former Republican Guard commander, said Saddam's deputy Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri and other high-ranking Iraqis fled to Syria just before Mosul fell in April 2003. Syria has been supporting the so-called "insurgents" in Iraq ever since.

Syria's response to all this pressure was to announce that their occupying forces will be moved around a bit without leaving Lebanon. Who said diplomatic measures don't produce results? Syrian troops will be repositioned to comply with the long-outdated Taif Accords, but not one single Syrian soldier will leave the country. Syria didn't even set a timeline for this "repositioning," and the UN didn't bother to ask for one. It looks as though Assad intends to remain in control of Lebanon, in defiance of the UN and the US. After decades of occupation (and why don't those who cry about the "Israeli occupation of Palestine" ever say anything about the Syrians in Lebanon?), how long will the UN just keep asking nicely?

We faced a similar situation in 1990, when Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was ordered to give up his occupation of Kuwait. He refused, so an American-led coalition drove Iraqi troops out of Kuwait. Unfortunately, we left Saddam in power, while Iraq festered for another decade. It doesn't seem likely that President Bush will make the same mistake. If Assad forces America to act, there won't be any half-measures on our part this time.

What should we do about these terror-supporting dictators who repeatedly defy both the UN and ourselves? Liberals insist that we keep waiting for incontrovertible proof of their direct involvement in terrorist attacks before acting to stop them. Life isn't an episode of CSI: Middle East. How long can we watch Syria- and Iran-backed terrorists attack civilians in Iraq and Israel? Using another country's children as bait seems a little cold-blooded, too; not doing everything we can to prevent needless innocent deaths seems just plain wrong.

The question is, if we do enforce the Security Council's latest resolution, will the other nations on the Council back us up this time... or do they have secret deals to sell their votes to Syria, as they did with Iraq?

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?