Few things are more entertaining than listening to Liberals play "Budget Hawk," their new favorite game. It's like overhearing children playing house, imitating their parents. Well, the way children used to imitate their parents, back when it was normal to have two (one of each), and Daddy went off to work while Mommy stayed home. These days, it might take two children to play a divorced Mommy and Daddy, two more to play their new partners (of whatever sex), and several others to play the various step-siblings and support groups of the various Mommies and Daddies. Is that what Liberals meant by "it takes a village to raise a child?"

But back to the new Budget Hawk game. It's the best way Liberals have come up with to undermine support for the war in Iraq. Realising that most Americans outside of Hollywood abhor wasteful spending, the anti-war crowd often pretends to be horrified by the amount of money spent by the Federal government on Iraq. "Do you know how much Bush's war in Iraq is costing?" they demand to know. "Hundreds of millions a day!" It's always "Bush's war," though Congress voted to send troops to Iraq, and keeps nailing slabs of pork to every defense-related bill. Still, it's all a pose, a calculated outrage designed to reduce support for the war among more fiscally conservative Americans.

As usual, however, Liberals are just throwing out raw numbers for their shock value. They do the same when they complain that an across-the-board tax cut results in the rich keeping more of their own money than the middle class. Naturally, one percent of $1,000,000 is a lot more money than the same fraction of $50,000, so if everyone's taxes were reduced by the same rate, some people would have less taken away by Uncle Sam than others. Yet we still hear Liberals and their pet Democrats screaming about a "tax cut for the rich," because the actual dollar values are different. The truth can often be found in what they don't say.

To complain that keeping the American military -- or, at least, about ten percent of it -- in Iraq costs X number of dollars per day is to ignore the fact that the military isn't cheap to keep home, either. Troops still have to be paid, fed, clothed, housed and trained; equipment still has to be upgraded, repaired and replaced. Most of the little logistical nightmares that accompany troops in the field follow them wherever they go. When playing the Budget Hawk game, Liberals just sort of skip over that part, wanting you to consider the expense in a vacuum.

All things considered, the war in Iraq really hasn't been very expensive in monetary terms, not when you compare it to previous wars and subsequent rebuilding. And it's hard to put a price tag on changing a part of the world. World War II, for instance, cost America about 130% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) -- almost a third more then the entire wealth creation of the United States during that time. Korea and Vietnam cost approximately 13% and 11%, respectively. The entire monetary cost of the war in Iraq so far is just 2% of the wealth we create every year, according to research done by Robert Whaples, a Wake Forest University professor of economics.

The trick, of course, is that Liberals don't want that money returned to the taxpayers or spent on national defense in other ways. Whenever Liberals play Budget Hawk, you can hear part of the true Democratic election platform. That means pulling out of Iraq regardless of the circumstances, reducing the defense budget, and spending that money on Socialist entitlements designed to make more people more dependent than ever on the Federal government, which translates into Democrat votes. Add impeaching the President and raising taxes to pay for even more entitlement programs, and you pretty much have the whole of it.

At least national defense is a valid expenditure mandated by the Constitution. Bailing out a floundering political party by helping them buy votes wasn't part of the Founding Fathers' vision.

Once again, the Left are ramping up their campaign for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, just so they can use the word "embattled" in a sentence. The media has tried to tie every military misstep in the War on Terror directly to Rumsfeld as a way of discrediting President Bush, blaming him for every problem from helicopter crashes to Abu Ghraib. Their political purpose is so obvious that the main result has been a general dwindling of trust in the media. Of course, Rumsfeld has already offered his resignation at least twice, but President Bush refused to accept it.

Since their attacks on Rumsfeld haven't had the desired effect, those on the Left have decided they needed to quote an authority. Lo and behold, a group of retired generals "spontaneously" decided to call for Rumsfeld's resignation, and just in time for the 2006 campaign season to get underway! And the Liberals -- the same people who call members of the military "murders" and "torturers," consider them no better than Nazis, and scream in outrage when they recruit on college campuses -- now want us to believe they hold these six generals and their opinions in the highest regard. The thousands of retired generals who don't attack Rumsfeld and Bush -- those guys don't get the time of day.

Retired Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, for instance, wants Rumsfeld to resign for "throwing away 10 years worth of planning, plans that had taken into account what we would face in an occupation of Iraq." What Zinni really means is that he's bitter because Donald Rumsfeld and General Tommy Franks did not adopt the plan he created. Zinni's 2001 plan, drafted without any recent knowledge of conditions inside Iraq, called for 300,000 troops to invade Iraq, advancing city by city. Well, 300,000 trained and equipped heavy troops didn't happen to be available when events led to a confrontation with Iraq, so someone else's plan had to be implemented. Franks created a more aggressive, fast-moving invasion plan using fewer troops, instead of trying to stick to a plan that wouldn't work with the available forces. In a war, sometimes even generals have to get their feelings hurt.

Retired Major General Charles Swannack thinks that Rumsfeld "carries way too much baggage" and that he micromanages his generals in Iraq. Retired Major General John Riggs feels Rumsfeld and the civilians who run the Pentagon are too "arrogant" for him. Retired Major General John Batiste also feels that Rumsfeld should be fired for not taking his advice, this time on how to secure Baghdad post-war. Retired Major General Paul Eaton claims to have issues with Rumsfeld "strategically, operationally and tactically." Retired Marine Lieutenant General Greg Newbold called Iraq an "unnecessary war" in his complaint, but it's hard to understand why he doesn't call for all the members of the House and Senate who voted for it to resign, instead of the man who merely heads the Pentagon.

Most of the complaints are really rooted in the way Rumsfeld has worked to change the military from a Cold War-era blunt instrument into a modernised precision force. A military built for large-scale set piece battles is difficult to use properly in the current war. Officers whose careers were tied to obsolete or expensive weapons systems like the Comanche helicopter and Crusader self-propelled 155mm howitzer -- or to the ponderous Pentagon bureaucracy -- suddenly found themselves on the outside looking in.

Some of the calls for Rumsfeld's resignation may have more personal than professional reasons. General Zinni, for example, is currently on tour promoting his book, and could use the publicity. General Riggs retired at reduced rank in 2004, under investigation for misuse of contractors and civilian personnel, and after publicly criticising the decision to kill the Comanche helicopter program and the conduct of the Iraq war. General Newbold didn't receive his expected fourth star, after he mistakenly announced that the Taliban had been crushed while major fighting was still underway all over Afghanistan, and likely holds Rumsfeld personally responsible for the missed final promotion. General Eaton was responsible for training Iraqi troops during 2003 and 2004, and surely felt personal as well as professional embarrassment when the troops he trained broke under fire. Perhaps he blames Rumsfeld for asking him to train the Iraqis too fast. On the other hand, Lieutenant General Dave Petraeus seems to be doing a bang-up job training the Iraqi military, if you'll pardon the pun.

Taken together, all these complaints add up to... nothing much at all, really. Not every general's pet plan can be put into operation, but that's no reason for anyone's resignation. Decisions have to be made without the luxury of hindsight. Nor should civilians automatically defer to the opinions of generals; free nations place the military under civilian control for a reason. This is certainly not the first time there have been conflicts between the Pentagon military and civilian leadership, but it's rare that the conflict becomes so blatantly politicised.

Though the Left are excited over getting a few Real Live Generals to join in their crusade against Donald Rumsfeld, he's not leaving the Pentagon any time soon. It would be idiotic in the extreme to shake up the entire military structure as we face a possible conflict with Iran this year or next, just because a few retired generals didn't like their last boss. Those demanding Rumsfeld's resignation under the current circumstances are not serious, either about wanting the resignation, or about wanting America to be ready in case the Iran situation suddenly comes to a head.

In March 2006, the French Constitutional Council passed a law that would allow companies to fire employees under the age of 26 during the first two years of their employment. It was a small but necessary step towards competition, the lack of which is causing the entire European economy to slowly collapse like a hot air balloon. Companies that are prevented from firing unproductive workers, replacing or retraining employees with obsolete skills, or shifting production to respond to market forces are unable to survive in a global economy. 

The jobs contract was passed to bring competition to the job market, in the hope of reducing France's rampant unemployment and reviving their economy. However, embracing competition is the worst kind of faux pas among socialists, aside from reducing government control over the economy. Before the contract could even be signed into law, the French broke into massive demonstrations across the country, further damaging the already stalling economy. Hundreds of thousands of young French men and women marched in protest and, in some places, rioted and attacked police. They all demanded one thing: repeal of the new law.

In the face of an angry mob, the French government -- perhaps predictably -- surrendered. Not only did they abandon the law, they proposed new entitlements to appease the mob. And it looks as though our government is about to follow a similar path with regard to illegal immigration reform.

The US House of Representatives passed a bill to deal with border security, making illegal presence in America a felony and requiring states to ensure that only citizens are given driver's licenses. House Democrats refused to allow the Republicans to lessen the crime to misdemeanor, hoping that the bill wouldn't pass if the language was too tough. The bill made no mention of amnesty, guest worker programs, or citizenship for those already living here in violation of the law. It makes sense that border control must be implemented before we can have a rational discussion about how to deal with those already here. When your basement is flooding, you have to shut off the water before you can fix the leak.

In response to the House bill, Senators John McCain (R?-AZ) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) introduced a bill that would give border security what used to be called "a lick and a promise." While doing nothing to halt illegal immigration, the McCain-Kennedy bill would grant amnesty and eventual citizenship to most of the estimated 11 million illegals that are already here. The bill specifies that only illegal immigrants who have been here more than five years will be able to apply for citizenship right away... but since they crossed the border in secret, who can say when they arrived? Don't be surprised when every illegal immigrant claims to be a "long-timer." How difficult is it to forge an old pay stub or utilities bill?

All the Senate Democrats and many Republicans went along with the McCain-Kennedy bill, to the shock of many Conservatives. We're used to watching the Democrats sell out American laws and values for votes, but not usually so many Republicans. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) introduced his own immigration reform bill, but it's only marginally better than McCain-Kennedy.

Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants and their supporters began marching in our streets, protesting the House bill, and demanding the passage of the Senate version. They waved Mexican flags and signs telling Americans to leave "their" continent, until they were warned by protest organisers (Worker's World Party and ANSWER) to tone it down. Who are they to tell Americans what laws to pass? Since when do people who have broken our laws think they have the right to tell us that we have no right to enforce the laws they don't like? The illegals believe that they can intimidate Americans into ignoring and changing our laws to suit them through sheer numbers. Sadly, when it comes to politicians, they may be right.

Before Congress adjourned for the Easter -- sorry, spring break, the deal made between Senate Democrats and Republicans to pass the bill was shelved. Some Republicans tried to insert an amendment that would prevent any action on amnesty until the borders were secured, and Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) led the objection. Make no mistake: those who want the McCain-Kennedy bill to pass have no intention of securing our borders or preventing illegal immigration.

The amnesty of 1986 (the first of seven passed) included provisions for border security, but Congress forgot about them the minute the bill was signed. That can't be allowed to happen again. Even if we must eventually accede to some sort of amnesty for illegal immigrants, we must not let the border remain wide open for tens of millions more illegals to pour through in the coming years.

Pandering Democrats and spineless Republicans see marching illegals demanding amnesty and citizenship and think, "look at all those potential voters!" The great majority of American citizens -- taxpayers and voters -- want illegal immigration stopped, and most of us want it stopped before we deal with those who have already broken the law. Yet the planned, organised demonstrations grab all the media attention, leaving the actual citizens with no voice. Our elected officials on both sides of the aisle will bow to the will of the mob if we can't get their attention. Like France, America will no longer be a representative democracy under the rule of law, but will be subject to mob rule.

Write to your Senators. Call them, email them, use semaphore and smoke signals if that's what it takes. Tell them that you want our laws enforced, our borders secured, and the idea of general amnesty for illegal immigrants scrapped. If immigration laws are unfair or unjust, then change them -- don't encourage people to break them. America will be governed by the law, or by the mob... but not both.

Contact information for Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin for the protest pictures

UPDATE: Wizbang has pictures of pamplets that were being passed out to the crowd at illegal immigrant rallies, encouraging them to register and vote as Democrats. The pamphlets feature a picture of Texas and Mexico as one country, along with the motto "Let's Work Together -- Vote Democrat in 2006."

The Left is celebrating Tom DeLay's (R-TX) resignation from Congress, but it's not quite the big win they want everyone to believe. In fact, by giving them what they wanted, DeLay just might have thrown a monkey wrench into the Democrats' entire 2006 campaign. They may have forced "the Hammer" to step down, but it was a Pyrrhic victory at best.

DeLay's resignation is the latest chapter in the increasing Democrat tendency to take politics to the courtroom. For many years, Liberals and Democrats have sought to gain through legal action what they couldn't get through legislation or vote. Judicial activism has become a serious epidemic in this country. Even the Supreme Court is not immune, inventing a Constitutional "separation of Church and State" clause, a right to abortion and changing the definition of "public use" to allow local governments to transfer property from one private owner to another. When no one will vote your way, the Left have learned, just find a friendly judge. 

From the highest to the lowest, the legal system is being systematically abused to help the Left overturn votes they lose and destroy political opponents, often on trumped-up charges. Look at the way the Left tried to destroy Karl Rove, President Bush's advisor. Rove was openly accused of "outing" a secret agent as part of a vendetta against Joe Wilson. After dragging the entire Bush administration through the mud over the issue, it turned out that no crime had, in fact, even been committed. The entire drama was orchestrated simply to embarrass President Bush and drive his poll numbers down. If only the Left could be induced to fight terrorists as hard as they do President Bush.

Tom DeLay was indicted in Texas for a crime that didn't even exist at the time he was supposed to have committed it. District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who had been promising to find some way to "get" DeLay for years, had to bring the case before six grand juries before he could find one that would hand up an indictment. According to the Republican rules of the House, DeLay had to step down from his position as House Majority Leader if indicted for a crime, which was what the Left wanted. DeLay was one of the most effective Congressional leaders the Republicans ever had, able to shepherd bills through the House and deliver votes.

Having wounded DeLay, the Left smelled blood. Aside from President Bush, Tom DeLay has been the biggest and most persistent focus of Left-wing hatred for years. Since, of course, Bush is not running for office in 2006, many Democrat-supporting groups have been using DeLay as the boogeyman around which they could rally support and bring in the money. The entire campaign theme of Nick Lampson, DeLay's opponent in the 2006 race, can be summed up as "DeLay is evil." Democrats all too often run political campaigns based on demonisation of opponents instead of issues.

DeLay took the wind out of Lampson's sails, as well as those of the entire Democratic party, by simply stepping aside. The Democrats had more or less nationalised the Texas race, bringing in donations from Hollywood celebrities and ultra-rich Liberals like George Soros (who backs MoveOn.org). The entire "culture of corruption" meme repeated ad nauseum by every Democrat who gets near a camera was focused on Tom Delay. Now the Democrats have no national theme to run on in 2006 except "let's get a majority in Congress so we can obstruct legislation, bug out of Iraq and impeach Bush." That's never going to work.

Whether you love him or hate him, you have to give Tom DeLay his due as a brilliant politician. By sacrificing himself, he has probably ensured that the Republicans retain a majority in both House and Senate in the 2006 elections. Of course, such a move would hardly be necessary if so many Republican politicians weren't almost indistinguishable from Democrats in their spending and legislation.

For the sake of discussion, let's leave aside the question of whether it's right to reward lawbreakers by allowing them to stay, while those who follow the rules must wait permission to come here. What will be the effect of creating a "path to citizenship" for the estimated 10-12 million illegal aliens in America? How will that affect our economy and culture? It seems that most people advocating amnesty -- whatever they call it to soften the blow -- refuse to look at the consequences. It's worth the risk of being called "anti-immigrant" to examine the real impact of absorbing so many people at once. 
 
The Senate may pass the McCain-Kennedy "comprehensive" bill that includes giving legal status to illegal immigrants already in the US. President Bush also speaks of a "comprehensive" bill to solve the problem. The number of "sudden citizens" is sure to skyrocket between the time a bill is passed and the time any security measures it includes are implemented. That's why security must be increased and the border closed to further illegal immigration before Congress considers any other aspect of the issue.
 
Even if the final version of the bill mandates building a second Great Wall of China on our southern border, by the time the first stone is placed it will already be too late. If an amnesty is passed before border security is addressed, the result will be a tidal wave of humanity rushing to bypass the immigration process. If you think illegal immigration is a problem now, just wait until millions more walk, run, crawl, drive, swim and dig their way inside our borders. If there is no real penalty for being in the US illegally, there's no reason for people to wait years for permission to come here. In fact, amnesty would make anyone who obeys the law look like a fool.
 
The moment illegal workers are given any sort of legal status, prices will rise just as surely as though they were all deported. Employers will no longer be able to pay illegals low wages. Even then, the majority of former illegals will continue to take low-paying jobs, which will have a direct impact on the number of jobs available to other Americans. Unemployment rates will escalate. Those who earn low wages don't pay income taxes, which punctures the argument that America would benefit by way of increased tax revenue. Instead, demand for government services from the formerly illegal immigrants will increase dramatically, from schooling to unemployment to welfare and Social Security. 
 
I can't imagine Congress voting down a bill extending Social Security or Medicare benefits to the elderly who, having been illegal, never paid into the system. Politicians who lack the backbone to enforce our immigration laws for fear of losing Hispanic votes would certainly pass such a bill for the same reason. In fact, the "Hispanic lobby" may become the most powerful group in Washington.
 
Millions of new voters will cause an orgy of pandering across the  nation. Democrats, of course, will campaign based on whatever goodies they can offer the new voters on the public dime. Republicans will appeal to their mostly Catholic background, reminding them that Democrats generally favor abortion, gay "marriage" and other issues that generally irritate the religious. Every bill introduced in Congress for the next ten years will contain some kind of pork specifically aimed at Hispanics... or perhaps we should call it "puerco."

The question of whether millions of sudden citizens will become assimilated into American culture is moot. Political correctness prevents us from assimilating anyone anymore. Members of every ethnic and racial group are encouraged to cling to their separate identities rather than consider themselves Americans. No one who has seen illegal immigrants marching with Mexican flags and banners reading "This Is Stolen Land" and "This Is Our Continent, Not Yours" can possibly wonder whether illegal immigrants think of themselves as Americans. (Hint: no.) Before long, we'll be treated to Hispanic versions of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton -- people who gain power and money from inciting racial tensions.

Multiculturalism (or self-segregation) plus expectations of government largesse plus race-baiting attention seekers is a certain recipe for problems such as the Parisian riots of last November. There, angry young Muslims who identified with racial and religious groups instead of their country rioted for weeks. If we simply hand illegal immigrants citizenship without some effort at assimilation, the next march of 500,000 we face won't be so peaceful.

No matter how they try to disguise it, members of the Senate -- including some Republicans -- are trying to reward people who have broken our laws. If the Senate bill introduced by John McCain (R?-AZ) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) is not drastically altered or stopped, illegal aliens may be given the permission to live here that they spurned asking, but now demand. I cannot imagine a greater slap in the face to generations of immigrants, my ancestors among them, who filled out all the required forms, waited patiently for permission, and were grateful for the chance to become Americans.

The real question is: why should we even consider dismissing punishment for an entire category of lawbreakers? Imagine the reaction should the Senate debate, say, whether to give car thieves a "path to ownership." The McCain bill, which McCain pretends is not an amnesty, would allow those who deliberately violated our laws to simply pay a fine and continue to live here. If that's not amnesty, what is? Meanwhile, legitimate, law-abiding immigrants are forced to spend years in the countries they long to escape, awaiting legal permission to come here. Where is the fairness in that? What message would it send to the millions who are following proper procedure if we reward those who didn't?

The primary reason we hear for not following the law and simply expelling illegal immigrants is that they're just too numerous. Eleven million illegal immigrants are too many to arrest, we are told; we should just accept that they're here. Too many criminals means the end of pursuit? That line of reasoning ought to come as a great relief to the many petty criminals in the United States, who surely number more than that. Next time a cop stops you for speeding, tell him he should just stop trying, as there are too many speeders to catch. 

We often hear that it would be "mean" to break up families by deporting illegals. Should we let other types of lawbreakers out of prison because it's "mean" to keep families apart? Unlike prisoners, there's no reason that illegal immigrants can't take their American families with them when they leave -- we don't force people to stay in America against their will.

A common argument against deporting illegal immigrants is that they "contribute to the economy" by paying sales taxes, if not income tax on under-the-counter day jobs. That contribution is more than offset by the general abuse of free emergency room services that have caused hospital and health care costs to spiral out of control. How many of our tax dollars go to arrest, prosecute, feed, clothe, house and provide medical and legal services to the illegal immigrants who make up more than 25% of our prison population? Also, I think most Americans would accept a minor hit to the economy in return for erasing non-citizens who have no right to vote from the rolls.

We are commonly told, even by President Bush, that illegal immigrants perform "jobs Americans won't do." We are told that prices would rise if employers had to hire Americans to perform those jobs. These are perhaps the worst deceptions of all. There's no such thing as a job American workers won't do -- only a wage American employers won't pay. The reason illegal immigrants perform those jobs for such low pay is that they can't apply for better jobs or seek higher wages. Why can't legal immigrants or Americans fill those jobs? What is it about a green card or American citizenship that leads people to refuse that work? Why, the low pay, of course. And once those illegal immigrants are given any sort of legal status, they too will refuse those low-paying jobs. Whether their illegal employees are turned into or replaced by legal workers, employers are going to have to pay a fair wage.

The only reason for McCain's "not-really-amnesty-just-looks-like-it" bill is pure election-year politics. Democrats always pander to illegal immigrants by offering them goodies, as they do criminals, minorities, feminists, unions and any other special-interest group that promises to deliver votes. Too many Republicans are simply ignoring the wishes of the people they supposedly represent, in order to prevent Democrats from winning in November. If Republicans plan to govern by doing exactly the same things as Democrats, however, then what's the difference?

The first step in fixing the problem is securing our southern border, the source of most illegal immigration. We cannot possibly proceed with any sort of "guest program" until illegal immigration is reduced by a sizeable percentage. We are told that the border's too long, and that it would take thousands of men and women to patrol it. Well, we already have thousands of men and women dedicated to guarding our nation: the National Guard. Every border-state Governor should require the Guard to train on and patrol the border. We also have advanced technology like UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles), satellite photography and motion detectors. I don't care if we man the border with Boy Scouts carrying Swiss Army knives, as long as illegal immigration is stopped.

Second, we need to enforce the laws against illegal immigration. Congress needs to pass something closer to the bill already passed by the House, at least the part that makes illegal presence in the country a felony. Illegal immigrants should be given six months to leave the country, after which the law will take effect. Those who leave of their own accord should be allowed to apply for re-admittance, and be treated like any other applicant. Every government service and private employer should automatically check Social Security numbers as a matter of course. Why else do we provide our Social Security numbers on most job and license applications? As a concession to the "bleeding hearts," those who leave voluntarily could be given some sort of relocation assistance. Those who refuse to leave would be tracked down and deported, forever barred from re-entry.

Third, we need to reform our current immigration process. Legal immigration takes far too long and is mired in bureaucracy. It takes years for a person with no criminal history to enter this country legally, and they waste far too much of their time (and our tax dollars) interviewing with bureaucrats and filling out even more forms once they get here. If we want to know why people find it easier to simply break the law, our tortuous entry process is the place to start.

Only after the border is secured and illegality made, well, illegal could we create a "guest worker" program. Of course, the idea that all these "guest workers" will leave of their own accord, if conditions don't change, is ludicrous. If laws against illegal entry into this country aren't enforced, how many guest workers will leave, and how many will simply go underground, awaiting the next wishy-washy amnesty-that-isn't-really-amnesty?

The only positive side of the McCain-Kennedy bill is that by putting his name on it, McCain gave his bid for the 2008 Presidential race a Viking funeral. If this bill somehow gets passed and signed, however, we might as well all write in Vicente Fox.

The documentary "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West" is a film that every person who isn't a radical Islamic fascist (or who doesn't aspire to live under shari'a law) ought to see. Those who think it's possible to negotiate with terrorists will have their worldview shaken, and those who think they understand the enemy will learn something new about how deeply true hatred can run.

Using footage taken from television broadcasts most of us never get to see, and interviews with those who have studied or lived with radical Islam, Obsession gives the viewer a glimpse into the lifelong anti-Semitic, anti-American hate propaganda Muslims are subjected to on a daily basis. From birth, they receive indoctrination through television, schools, mosques, books and newspapers. In some Middle Eastern countries, most people never get to hear an opposing point of view. Despite this, the majority of Muslims are not Islamic fanatics, as Obsession takes the time to point out... but those who are -- those who swallow the proselytism -- pose a terrible danger to the entire world.

The purpose of Islamic terrorists is to enslave the entire world under fundamentalist Muslim rule, making every country on Earth resemble Afghanistan under the Taliban as far as personal freedoms and rights are concerned. In short: none for men, and less for women. They dream of replacing our Constitution with the Qur'an, our cherished freedoms with shari'a law, and our democratically elected leaders with imams. Their leaders make frequent speeches preaching these aims and praising mass murderers. We in the West like to pretend that it's only rhetoric, but it's long past time we take the enemy at their literal word. Every day, they tell us exactly what their intentions are, openly and unapologetically, and we do almost nothing to prevent them from making new converts to their cause. In fact, they use our media and our own values, like our tolerance for different religions and viewpoints and our freedom of speech, against us. We have been too naive, too trusting in the hope that exposure to our way of life would soften the hatred the radicals feel.

Obsession makes clear to the viewer the similarities between radical Islam and Naziism -- another fanatical ideology, based on hatred, bent on world domination. Appeasers then, like now, thought they could deal rationally with the enemy by acceding to their demands. Just as Neville Chamberlain gave Hitler the Sudetenland in a futile attempt to buy peace, Israel gave the Palestinians Gaza to buy peace... and with the same basic result. In fact, the terror group Hamas, which is specifically committed to the death of all Jews, was elected to head the Palestinian government. Appeasement only shows weakness, and weakness only emboldens this enemy.

I saw the Philadelphia premiere of Obsession with Skye, and we found ourselves gripped by the graphic exposition of radical Islam's nature, history, motives and intentions. The sold out 800-seat auditorium was almost completely silent during the film, except for the occasional disbelieving gasp or saddened murmur. One reference to Hollywood's attitude of moral equivalence did merit a derisive chuckle, however. The most shocking parts of the movie were the many videos of children, taught the ideology of pure hatred in madrassa schools and mosques and even their homes all over the world. One little girl -- no more than seven or eight -- chanted, voice shaking and eyes blazing with hate, about her desire to strap on a suicide vest and blow up Jews for Allah. When the teacher -- for this was a school lesson -- praised her dedication, I couldn't tell whether I felt more like crying or vomiting.

I wasn't the only one sickened by that and many other scenes -- scenes repeated daily wherever radical Islam has taken root in the world, even here in America. In 2003, Alex Alexiev of the Center for Security Policy testified before Congress that "the Saudis have built over 1500 mosques, 210 Islamic centers, 202 Islamic colleges and 2000 schools for educating Muslims in non-Muslim countries. Most of these institutions continue to be on the Saudi payroll for substantial yearly donations assuring that Wahhabi control is not likely to weaken any time soon." Stephen Schwartz of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies testified that radical Islam's "influence extends to prison and military chaplaincies, Islamic elementary and secondary schools (academies), college campus activity, endowment of academic chairs and programs in Middle East studies, and most notoriously, charities ostensibly helping Muslims abroad, many of which have been linked to or designated as sponsors of terrorism."

My only criticism of the film was one of omission. The documentary detailed the ties between the Mufti of Jerusalem and the Nazis, and discussed the Muslim SS troops raised in Bosnia. Yet the filmmakers neglected to mention that the Mufti (Haj Amin el-Husseini, Yasser Arafat's uncle) acted as a go-between for Muslim Brotherhood leader Hassan al-Banna and Hitler. Their similar hatreds and aims drew them together. The Muslim Brotherhood even acted as a branch of Nazi intelligence during the war. It seems to me that a more direct link between Naziism and present-day terrorism could have been drawn here, as the Muslim Brotherhood gave rise to Hamas in 1987 and was a seminal influence in the formation of al-Qaeda.

If you want to learn more about the enemy we face, make sure you see Obsession. More information can be found at http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/

Sooner or later, we're going to have to admit that Russia isn't half the ally they pretend to be, or should have been. For a while after the fall of the USSR, it seemed that the long fight was over, but it's beginning to look as though that was just wishful thinking. Oh, the happy-go-lucky nineties, when we thought we had no enemies.

Russia has been moving backwards from democracy towards a more totalitarian government for years, a process that has accelerated under former KGB officer Vladimir Putin. Russia has tightened its grip on the former provinces of the USSR, reduced and nearly eliminated opposition parties and local elections, fought and lost a war to reconquer Chechnya, interfered with democratic elections in the Ukraine and spent aid money given for economic reconstruction on the military instead. Between 1992 and 1999, the Russian economy contracted by 25%. Admittedly, it's difficult to change from a doomed collectivist economy to free market capitalism. It's more difficult when the same corruption rampant under the old system remains entwined in the new. It's especially hard when almost no one alive remembers anything but the centralised authority and crushing bureaucracy of Communist rule.

Part of the problem was that most Western nations refused to call the Soviet Union's defeat what it was. An entire nation vanished, and everyone pretended not to notice. Russia was even allowed to retain the Soviet Union's permanent seat on the UN Security Council and the USSR's veto power in NATO, although the USSR no longer exists. This politically-correct policy of walking on eggshells so as not to offend had to be at least partially responsible for Russia's attempts to rebuild its past instead of building a better future, as Germany and Japan did after WWII.

Perhaps only after admitting total defeat can an aggressive dictatorship truly break with its past. Germany was defeated in the First World War, but not broken. As a result, the German government worked to retain whatever military capability it could, training troops in the Soviet Union and simply building more of the smaller warships which were all Germany was allowed. Eventually, their "embarrassment" turned to shame, then outrage, then war. North Korea was beaten to a standstill, but not broken, and now poses a nuclear threat to the world. We saw the same problem in Iraq after the Gulf War. Saddam was beaten, but not utterly defeated. He spent the next twelve years circumventing sanctions to retain his illegal weapons capabilities, buying UN votes and making alliances with terrorist groups.

The Iraq conflict saw the re-emergence of Russia as a serious opponent, and the sooner we admit it the more likely it is that we can deal with the threat diplomatically. Russia had long ago sold its UN Security Council vote to Saddam Hussein in exchange for oil exploitation rights in the West Qurna, Tuba, Saddam, Kirkuk, and Bai Hassan fields under various state-owned companies. In 2002, Russia and Iraq signed a new $40 billion deal for 67 new projects. None of the work was allowed to commence until the UN sanctions were lifted, and the deals would certainly collapse with the removal of Saddam. It was in Russia's best interest to keep Saddam in power and work to lift the sanctions. France and China, of course, made similar deals. All three nations had veto power in the Security Council, which Saddam thought would prevent any action against him.

In 1995, UNSCOM inspectors uncovered evidence that Russia agreed to sell Iraq biological weapons fermentation equipment. The previous year, General Anatoly Kuntsevich was discovered attempting to sell five tons of VX nerve gas components to Syrian agents acting on behalf of Iraq. Kuntsevich allegedly sold another 1,760 pounds of chemical weapons precursors to "unnamed buyers" from the Middle East, none of which was recovered. Russia was also Iraq's number one supplier of conventional military equipment, including missiles that were prohibited by the UN sanctions. When war between the Coalition and Iraq looked inevitable, Russia moved to erase the tracks of its involvement with Iraq. Russian spetsnaz (special forces) troops cleaned out Russian weapons stored at the al-Qaqaa facility, including whatever chemical or biological weapons may have been stored there. In August 2003, former Soviet spy Ion Mihai Pacepa wrote, "The Soviet bloc not only sold Saddam its WMDs, but it showed [him] how to make them 'disappear.'"

Russia continued to train Iraqi spies, in defiance of the UN, until the fall of 2002. Even as Coalition forces moved into Iraq, Russian companies were helping the Iraqi military deploy global-positioning system jammers around Baghdad. The jammers would cause missiles to go astray, hitting random targets. Russia also sold Saddam anti-tank missiles, surface-to-surface missiles, navigation equipment for fighters and night-vision goggles in violation of UN sanctions, possibly hidden in shipments of humanitarian aid. We now know, thanks to documents recently released to the public, that Russian intelligence passed information on American troop levels, deployment and battle plans to Saddam. Clearly, Russia has not been our ally, nor remained neutral.

What does this mean for the future? Russia has formed a close military alliance with China, whose overcrowded masses are doubtless eyeing the almost unpopulated, resource-rich Siberian landscape. The two countries have conducted joint military exercises, and Russia is resuming the Soviet-era alliance with North Korea. All three countries are working on a railway system connecting Asia and Europe. As a possible confrontation with Iran approaches, we must keep in mind that Russia needs the money it receives for helping that country build its nuclear plants, and has similar oil deals with Iran as with Iraq. China needs the price of oil to remain low, or its economy (largely fueled by slave labor manufacturing goods cheaply for US markets) would face a recession. No reasonable person can expect the UN Security Council to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons; Russia and China will not allow it. The question is, just how far will Russia and China go to protect Iran and their economic interests?

Hopefully, the Russian situation is not yet beyond correcting. Careful diplomatic maneuvering could wean Russia from its Chinese alliance, and urge the country back onto the democratic path. It'll be a long time, however, before we can forget Ronald Reagan's admonition to "trust, but verify."

If you judge Iraq by the media reports and Democrat speeches over the last three years, then you'll "know" it's been nothing but a series of major disasters of Biblical proportions. The negative, anti-war spin began as the first Coalition soldier crossed the border, with cries of "quagmire" during the first sandstorm, amid predictions of tens of thousands of American deaths and millions of Iraqi refugees. Even when it's necessary to report positive events, they're couched in negative terms and surrounded by warnings of failure... and, of course, the daily death count. The latest panic is an anticipated civil war... but at least the use of the term means the media has accepted Iraq's government as legitimate. There's always a silver lining.

The faulty disaster predictions always seem to be forgotten after a few days, and the news agencies go on to report the next approaching disaster with credibility undamaged. According to nearly every reporter, left-wing pundit and Democratic politician, Iraq has been teetering on the edge of disaster since we interfered with Saddam, under whose rule Iraq was apparently pleasant and peaceful (if you don't mind secret police, torture chambers, rape rooms and mass graves). Civil war, ruined economy, hateful people, demoralised troops, Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam. Members of the mainstream media have worked hard to fix that image in your mind.

Only... other, more hopeful points of view keep leaking out: from the troops, from a few journalists, from the Iraqis themselves. For every problem upon which the media hounds choose to dwell, there are dozens of positive events that fall by the wayside. To some, merely mentioning anything positive in connection with Iraq means ignoring the problems. Those problems, as everyone who's spent time in Iraq (outside the Green Zone hotels) has said, are simply not the entire story. In fact, things in Iraq are going fairly well, on the whole. But perspective has never been the Liberal strong suit.

In the three years since Saddam was removed from power, the Iraqis have held two democratic elections with turnout greater than most American elections. They've elected a government that represents all segments of the population. They've written and ratified a constitution that lays out the mechanism for representative government, emphasises the rule of law, and guarantees protection for women and minorities. Men and women keep lining up to join the Iraqi police and military. Coalition forces and Iraqis have built or rebuilt schools, hospitals, roads, power plants and sewage lines. The marshlands nearly destroyed by Saddam are coming back. The Iraqi economy is growing, as evidenced by the burden newly-purchased consumer goods have placed on the electric grid. They can't generate power fast enough to meet the new demand. Few people expected Iraq to have come as far as it has, with as little loss of life, in so short a time. You're probably so conditioned by the media to expect bad news that at this point, you're automatically saying, "But what about...?"

The media -- the self-appointed gatekeepers of information -- decided that good news isn't really worth reporting. They belabor the negative to boost ratings and bolster their sense of having "done something." Those who call themselves "progressives" are the least interested in discussing real-world progress, almost preferring that the Middle East remains a cesspool and Iraq had remained under the brutal rule of Saddam Hussein.

The mainstream media's constant focus on the difficulties in Iraq drives the answers to the left-weighted polls they run. Some Democratic politicians cynically present everything in a way that will damage President Bush and increase calls to leave Iraq. Others, worried by those poll results, shift their positions accordingly, or move to sieze what they see as a chance to regain power. The terrorists are using our own media to drive our politics in their favor.

Of course there are serious problems, which the media are always eager to report. There's never been a problem-free war. Explosions and tragedy make good copy -- "if it bleeds, it leads." Terrorists and leftover Saddam adherents stage spectacular attacks almost daily, mostly aimed at innocent Iraqis. They set out roadside bombs for trucks and military vehicles. Make no mistake: things are tough in Iraq. So, when the going gets tough, the tough run home, right? Well... maybe not.

As much as the nihilists on the Left want to surrender Iraq to the thugs and killers that grab the headlines with violent acts, that would be the worst mistake we could ever make. The US would forever lose credibility among allies and embolden our enemies. The only chance of getting us to pull out of Iraq too soon is to demoralise the American people and make us want to give up. So they lie about the reasons for removing Saddam, ignore any good news, exaggerate the problems, and mutter darkly about how Iraq is just like Vietnam. Perhaps it is... but for the terrorists, who continue to pour men and money into a country where most of the people reject what they offer, and even their allies are beginning to turn on them.

The only credible Vietnam parallel is this: the greatest danger of losing comes from our own loss of nerve. The terrorists and Ba'athist leftovers are becoming more desperate as they see the Iraqis rejecting them in favor of hope. The Sunni who hid them and helped them are giving up and joining the political process. The grand attempts to start a civil war between Shi'a and Sunni aren't working so far, despite the hysterical media speculation. The Iraqi military has retained its cohesion and religious leaders on both sides have called for peace. It's ironic that the attacks meant to drive Iraq into violence may be pushing the country towards unity.

Iraq remains a dangerous place, but there is much to be proud of. The Iraqis are beginning to recover from three decades of tyranny, and that's long, hard work. However, things will likely continue to improve in Iraq unless we turn our backs on it.