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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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