Although the majority of Americans support a Constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to set penalties for desecration of our flag, the Senate failed to pass a proposed amendment by a single vote. It's disappointing that we see a need to amend the Constitution in order to protect our flag, and even more disappointing that our elected leaders don't see fit to do so.

The reasoning behind a flag amendment is the same is that behind the proposed marriage amendment. No matter how many laws state or federal governments may pass, one activist judge with an agenda to push can strike them down, twisting the words of the Constitution to suit his or her purpose. That was the fate of every flag protection statute ever passed, from the first state law enacted in 1897 to the federal ban on flag desecration enacted in 1968. Only by amending the Constitution can lawmakers prevent the Judiciary from rewriting laws from the bench.

It's not as though we have no limits on free speech already, besides the old standby that one can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. We have limits on political speech, thanks to the McCain-Feingold Act, which prohibits using a candidate's name in a political ad right before an election. Libel, slander and child pornography are prohibited by law. In many cases, one can't talk about religion in public places, not even when a student delivers a valedictory address at a high school. A compliment to a member of the opposite sex might get one fired for sexual harassment. And how many categories of "hate speech" do we have now? I've lost track. Don't argue for the "right" to desecrate the American flag in the name of free speech absolutism.

Burning or otherwise desecrating the American flag is not "freedom of speech." It's not speech at all. It's an action, designed to anger and upset people. If you can't come up with any way to make your point other than resorting to an emotional attack, then you don't really have a point to make. Many on the Left defend flag desecration by saying, "well, it's just a piece of cloth." But if that's all the flag is, then why bother burning it?

The flag is not just a piece of colored cloth. It's a unifying symbol that brings all Americans together, the one thing we all have in common. The American flag is the badge of our country -- the defender of freedom, the beacon of hope for billions. We display it to honor our country, our ideals and achievements. Generations of Americans have pledged allegiance to the flag, and generations of foreigners have viewed it with aspirations of one day living in the kind of freedom for which it stands. Our national anthem is a paean to our flag, despite the fact that, as a child, I thought "The Star-Spangled Banner" had only one verse and ended with, "Play ball!"

The American flag flies over every government building in this country, and every one of our embassies overseas. An American flag stands, alone and proud, to mark the spot where humans first touched the surface of another world. The sight of three firefighters raising the flag over the smoking ruins of the World Trade Center in a gesture of solidarity and defiance brought tears to the eyes of every American. Every member of our military wears the American flag into battle on our behalf, to fight for the ideals it represents -- from the revolutionaries who carried the current flag's predecessors to the men and women proudly fighting under its colors today. And when they fall, that flag covers them on their final journey home.

Anyone who burns or otherwise violates our flag isn't just burning a piece of cloth, they're expressing their hate and disdain for the country that it represents, purely to hurt the feelings of those who love it. There is no other way to interpret the act of desecrating the American flag, whether performed by a Berkeley protestor or a Pakistani militant. So if flag burning is speech, as Liberals insist... it can only be hate speech, which they claim to, well, hate.

Take that, hippies.

The 1949 Geneva Conventions were created in the aftermath of the horrors of Nazi Germany. The First Geneva Convention, "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field," was first adopted in 1864 as part of the founding of the Red Cross, but revised at the time the other three were written. The Geneva Conventions II, III and IV cover "the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea," "the Treatment of Prisoners of War" and "the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War."

The idea behind the Geneva Conventions and similar agreements was to codify the rules of "civilised war," and to ensure that no nation would want to violate those rules. The warning that any fighting force that violates those rules will not be able to claim their protection if captured is an explicit part of the Conventions. To make it perfectly clear, Article 4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention specifically states, "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it."

Even if one ignores the fact that terrorist groups are not a nation, the Conventions set very specific conditions under which a captured combatant may claim POW status. According to the Geneva Convention III (Part 1, Article 4, Section 2), prisoners of war must be former members of the regular armed forces, non-combatants, or:

Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Once again, the New York Times has shown us that al-Qaeda doesn't need to infiltrate our country to ferret out secret information that might help them. Why should they, when details of classified programs used to track and arrest terrorists are routinely splashed across the front page of what used to be a great American newspaper?

When President Bush promised us right after 9/11 that he would "starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest," he meant every word of it. Responding to subpoenas from the Treasury Department, the Belgium-based financial organisation SWIFT -- Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication -- began helping US agents track down sources of terrorist funding.

As nearly every international transaction travels through the SWIFT databases, the program was a vital source of information, while the Society was able to protect the interests and confidentiality of customers who were not sending money to terrorists. "SWIFT received significant protections and assurances as to the purpose, confidentiality, oversight and control of the limited sets of data produced under the subpoenas," a SWIFT representative said. "Independent audit controls provide additional assurance that these protections are fully complied with."

So, the secret program was both useful and legal -- as even the New York Times has acknowledged. What's more, the tracking program has even borne fruit. Hambali, the Bali nightclub bomber and al-Qaeda's Southeast Asia chief, was captured because of the ability to track his financial dealings. Terror operations require money, and bank transfers moving through multiple dummy corporations and fake charities were obviously thought to be "Bush-proof" until now. Terrorists may have known that the US government was trying to track their financial transactions, but not the details of how and through which banks it was done. Those who commit tax fraud, rob banks and launder money still do so even though we all know the FBI looks for criminals, because the FBI doesn't publish every detail of how they work.

For two weeks, Representatives, Senators and other government officials from both sides of the aisle practically begged managing editor Bill Keller and publisher Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger not to print the classified information. Former NJ Governor Thomas Kean (R) and former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN), the co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission, asked Keller and Sulzberger to keep the classified program under wraps. Even Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) -- no friend to President Bush -- asked Keller and Sulzberger to preserve the program's secrecy. They carefully explained how useful the program is to our fight against international terror networks, and showed that the program has broken no laws. However, Keller and Sulzberger decided that their interpretation of the public's "right to know" everything the government does is more important then the government's ability to stop terrorists -- especially if it boosts declining sales of their paper. Details of the secret program were first published on the NY Times' web site, and the story appeared the next day in the print version of the paper, as well as in the LA Times and the Wall Street Journal.

If the NY Times is willing to publish details of an ongoing classified government program that a) has caught major terrorists and b) was not even alleged to be illegal or intrusive, then where do they draw the line? Would they publish troop movements, citing the "public's right to know?" If they had learned of the air strike on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi before it took place, would they have felt the public had a "right to know" about that, too? Will the next major terrorist targeted for arrest find out in time to escape, just by walking past a newsstand? The New York Times fulfils all the functions that would be expected of a spy network, but only costs a dollar a day. That's good news for the terrorist on a budget.

Anyone who knowingly publishes classified information regarding national defense, or allows it to be published, ought to be prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act. The US Code (Title 18, Part I, Chapter 37, Section 793.e) states, "Whoever having unauthorized possession of ... information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted ... the same to any person not entitled to receive it ... Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." Since those responsible for the NY Times were duly informed of the consequences of publishing the classified information, they certainly had "reason to believe" the information "could be used to the injury of the United States," yet published the information anyway. In my opinion, Keller and Sulzberger ought to be imprisoned, and the Times heavily fined.

The editor and publisher of the NY Times are not the only ones to blame, however. Someone with access to classified information deliberately committed a breach of his or her non-disclosure agreement, as well as a violation of the public trust, in order to give information to the media that did nothing but help the enemy. These leaks of classified information just to damage the Bush administration have got to be stopped. Whoever gave details of this particular program to the media must be found, even if the entire staff of the NY Times has to be subpoenaed and forced to testify under oath by the Attorney General on penalty of imprisonment. If such treatment was good enough for NY Times reporter Judith Miller when she refused to reveal her source in the Valerie Plame case, it's certainly appropriate when a real breach of national security has taken place. And when he or she is found, the leaker should be tried for treason against the United States and sentenced to death. Period. This is a war, not a tea party, and these leaks are serious business.

Some argue that the NY Times has every right to publish anything they want, damaging to the US or not. They climb on their soapboxes to proclaim that freedom of speech is absolute, and that the government should keep no secrets... though they also argue that the NY Times should not have to name its source. The next time a major terrorist attack takes place somewhere in the world, the same people will be the first to scream that the Bush administration didn't do enough to prevent it.

As for freedom of speech: with rights and freedoms come responsibilities. It's about time members of the mainstream media learned that lesson.

Science is our way of using reason and logic to understand how things work. One forms a hypothesis to explain data gathered by experiment or observation, and the hypothesis becomes a theory when supported by evidence. There are no absolutes in science -- even the "law" of gravity was found insufficient to explain the behavior of matter in extreme circumstances. Einstein succeeded Newton, and was in turn succeeded by Hawking.

When science becomes entangled with ideology, however, the truth is what suffers. Some on the Right are just as guilty of filtering science through their ideology as most of those on the Left. Promoting anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming and attacking the theory of evolution are two sides of the same "faith-based science" coin.

Evolution is a rather simple and elegant theory, and easy to explain. Over time, successive generations of creatures will slowly become more adept at survival in their environment, as long as that environment stays the same. No creature is precisely like either of its parents, as anyone can see. If any difference, no matter how slight, gives a creature an advantage in finding food, avoiding predators or finding a mate, that creature will live longer and consequently leave more descendants. The genes for those traits will become dominant in those descendants. Over time, traits that confer an advantage will spread among the population. If the environment changes, the process begins in a new direction.

Some on the Right try to discredit the theory of evolution for purely ideological reasons masquerading as scientific objections. Their "intelligent design" alternative theory depends on the active intervention of an intelligence: either God or advanced aliens. However, this theory doesn't explain the varying forms of life shown by the fossil records, unless that designing intelligence makes a LOT of mistakes and missteps.

Let's cut to the heart of the debate. The anti-evolution crowd have two real objections to a simple, scientific theory: they feel evolution "disproves" the existence of God, and they object to any suggestion that humans may have evolved from lesser creatures. These are purely religious objections, not questions that can be answered by any amount of evidence.

Proponents of ID often denigrate evolution on the grounds that it can't explain how life began. But evolution is not a theory that covers the beginning of life; evolution must presuppose that life exists. The creation of the universe is an entirely different discussion. Some argue that life forms are too complex to have evolved spontaneously, or randomly. Of course, evolutionary theory does not state either of those things. Randomness has little to do with whether a certain trait carries an advantage for a creature.

ID enthusiasts also argue that evolution can't work as long as there are gaps in the fossil records. That's a fallacious argument, however -- every time a single gap is filled, two gaps are created. The theory of evolution is the best scientific way we've found so far to explain those gaps -- creatures slowly change over time to better suit their environment.

Consider this question: why do giraffes have long necks? The intelligent design crowd might simply say "well, God designed them that way," but that's not an answer. Our understanding of the universe is not advanced one iota that way. That's as if someone solving a huge, complex chemical equation drew a circle around a blank spot and said, "and then lead became gold," and moved on to the next part. Saying "it just happened" doesn't explain HOW it happened, and that's the question at hand.

Someone with a more inquisitive bent, but no understanding of science, might come up with a Lamarckian view: that giraffes changed by successive generations stretching to reach the highest leaves. Since we know that acquired traits are not inherited, that explanation makes no logical sense. Otherwise, millions of children would be born every year with their ears already pierced.

On the other hand, evolutionary theory can provide a reasonable explanation. The ancestors of modern giraffes (a deer-like creature with a short neck) lived in the lush African grasslands as they began to dry out. Some naturally had slightly longer necks and forelegs than others, the same way some people are naturally taller than others. Because of increasing competition for food, the lower branches of the ancient acacia trees would get browsed out early, leaving the higher branches for taller creatures, who could find food when slightly shorter creatures went hungry. As a result, taller ones lived longer and mated more often, passing on the genes for longer necks and forelegs. Of course, other factors were involved in the selection for longer necks -- giraffes also use a long field of vision to help them spot predators, for instance -- but competition for food may have been the primary factor.

The fossil record shows that the ancestors of modern giraffes branched off from something like a modern okapi during the early Miocene (around 23 million years ago). A line of several distinct species led to modern giraffes, each with progressively longer necks and forelegs. Meanwhile, the okapi, a close relative of the giraffe living in a rainforest area with plenty of food, remained essentially unchanged. Competition drives change.

Now, the anti-evolution crowd will feel that the above explanation is an attempt to prove there's no God. How that can be so escapes me. From all we've heard of God, he remains unseen, which gives belief a moral value. If that were true, then he would likely set up a mechanism like evolution to enable species to respond to an ever-changing Earth without tipping his hand. After all, if we kept finding familiar animals suddenly changing into brand-new species everywhere we looked, we just might suspect a supernatural hand at work. Religion would no longer have any more moral value than mathematics.

Evolution takes place under human supervision every day. Due to deliberate changes in their environment (that is, artificial selection for traits that merit breeding), cows have developed huge udders, sheep have developed thick, fluffy coats, dogs have developed hundreds of sub-species with specific traits that breed true, and so on. If deliberate, artificial selection by mere humans can accomplish such sweeping changes in only a few thousand years, how could anyone deny that greater changes can occur in the natural environment over the course of millions of years?

Before dismissing evolution, consider this also: if evolution is a crock, then why are we so concerned about the avian flu mutating into a form that humans can pass to each other? Human beings may have effectively halted our own evolution upon achieving intelligence, but the natural pressure to adapt continues in even the most humble and simple forms of life.

See Faith-Based Science 1: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Anthropogenic global warming is still the favorite myth of the hip Liberal crowd these days, despite holes in AGW theory through which one could drive an SUV. Because studies have shown a one-degree rise in the global mean temperature over the last 150 years, the Left feels justified in demanding that our (meaning primarily American) technology and industry be virtually decimated. A particularly warm or cool year can alter the mean out of proportion. Such a hot spike occurred in 1997, for instance, and all successive years have all been cooler. Yet we rarely hear the global warming alarmists mention this or other facts that might dampen the hysteria they need to push their agenda.

The one-degree rise in global mean temperature is not only within the normal statistical variation for temperatures, but is also far from abnormal. The only constant upon which we can depend is change. More dramatic temperature changes -- in both directions -- can be seen in estimated historical temperature readings going back over 600 million years. The Earth, in fact, is only just emerging from a depression in global mean temperature known as the Little Ice Age. Temperatures began to fall around the world in the 15th century, and began to rise again in the middle of the 19th. Those who insist that a one-degree increase in global temperature since then is either unprecedented or cause for panic are indulging in bad science to "prove" a viewpoint they've already decided must be true.

Alarmists like former Vice President Al Gore point to high carbon dioxide levels as "proof" that the Earth is doomed. (Plants, which are flourishing on the increased CO2, might disagree.) However, as Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified before Canada's Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, CO2 data alone does not indicate an emergency. "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Temperature and CO2 levels for the past 400,000 years shown side by side indicate that increases in global mean temperature actually precede a corresponding rise in the CO2 level. In other words, we've most likely already experienced the temperature increase to which the current CO2 level increase is related.

Carbon dioxide is far from being the only determining factor in the global temperature. Those who consider only CO2 levels when discussing climate change completely ignore the effects of sulfur dioxide and aerosols (both of which have a cooling effect on the climate), water vapor, methane, land usage, albedo (the amount of sunlight reflected back into space) and dozens of other factors whose impact on global temperature is still not completely understood, like solar output.

According to Sami Solanki, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, "The sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently -- in the last 100 to 150 years." This brightening just happens to correspond to the temperature rise that marked the ending of the Little Ice Age. Other studies indicate that solar radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade at least since the late 1970's. "This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Since the satellite technology used to monitor the Sun's radiation has only been available since the late 1970's, we cannot yet determine the time frame of the increased radiation. Mukul Sharma, Assistant Professor of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth, has linked the 100,000-year global warming/cooling cycle to a similar cycle in the Sun's magnetic field. In other words, not enough research has been done to support the conclusions that have been declared hard, cold fact by the AGW alarmists. How can a responsible person simply ignore the Sun's effect on the Earth's global temperature, especially when Mars, Saturn's moon Triton and even Pluto have shown signs of recent global warming?

We are told that there is a "consensus among scientists" that humans are responsible for the coming destruction. The problem is that most of those "scientists" are not climate change cause experts, but climate change impact experts. In other words, they study the effects of climate change, not its cause -- and climate change research brings in big money these days. Science is not a democratic endeavor in which one can vote on the facts. If it were, the Earth would actually have been flat during the Middle Ages.

The mainstream media does little to report the truth of the matter. For example, Time magazine recently ran a cover article warning readers to "Be Worried, Be Very Worried" about global warming. The related articles are nothing more than the worst sort of fear-mongering hysteria, showcasing assumptions as facts, hysterics as experts and accusations as research. "The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame... Never mind what you've heard about global warming as a slow-motion emergency that would take decades to play out. Suddenly and unexpectedly, the crisis is upon us." At no point, for instance, does the magazine interview or even mention the 17,800 scientists who signed the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's rejection of the claims made by AGW hysterics. That's what passes for journalism today in what was once a reputable magazine.

Whether a one-degree increase in temperature over a 150-year period coinciding with increased solar output is even significant, or indicative of future trends, should be open for debate. Instead, proponents of the "faith-based science" of anthropogenic global warming have effectively closed the case even as research uncovers new, often conflicting information. We know from the available data that the Earth's temperature has risen and fallen on its own since long before humans existed to interfere. Even if we are contributing to the current cycle, how do the alarmists propose we "freeze" global warming, so to speak? Even if global warming were entirely due to human influence (which it's demonstrably not) how do they propose we deal with it -- kill off 90% of the human species and retreat to the caves? How would that help stop the eventual, inevitable, entirely natural changes in the Earth's climate?

Global warming hysteria is merely anti-Western, anti-capitalist political activism masquerading as science. The aim of its proponents, aside from the gullible college crowd that might actually swallow such unproven conclusions uncritically, is to use fear to take power. Let's not be foolish enough to destroy ourselves without a thorough examination of their claims.

See Faith-Based Science 2: Attacking Evolution

The death of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi doesn't mean the fighting in Iraq is over, the terrorists will disappear, or that US troops can pack up and go home. Of course, no one ever said that it would mean any of those things, any more than killing a single enemy general automatically ends a war. The rush by those supposedly on our own side to soft-pedal the enormous achievement of killing a dangerous enemy leader is simply amazing, unparalleled in any previous American conflict.

It's hard to imagine Americans having the same reaction when, say, British-trained Czech partisans assassinated Reinhard Heydrich in 1942. Heydrich, the SS officer who headed the Gestapo and was responsible for organising the Holocaust, was considered a likely successor to Hitler. He was given an elaborate hero's funeral, and his death sparked reprisals that resulted in the deaths of over a thousand men, women and children, including the erasure of an entire Czech village.

Did politicians consider Heydrich's death an excuse to retreat from the war? Did journalists diminish the importance of killing an arch-murderer of innocent people? Did anti-war partisans complain that killing Heydrich would only inspire more Nazis, or that his death was immaterial because hundreds more were just waiting to take his place? Most important, was his assassination considered a wrong move because of Nazi retribution? If anyone did spin Heydrich's death in those ways, they are not remembered. Yet these are the same talking points repeated ad nauseum today by opponents of the war and of President Bush.

If Heydrich's death had been greeted with the same general knee-jerk cynicism we have seen from the Left and the media upon the death of Zarqawi, President Roosevelt would have been under enormous pressure not to deploy troops and tanks to North Africa -- especially in light of the fact that the Japanese were winning battle after battle in the Pacific. If Roosevelt had waited to engage Germany until after defeating Japan, WWII might have been lost to a weakness of will. And so might Iraq and the larger War on Terror, if we listen to the Left.

John Kerry, the latest Democratic Presidential candidate, saw Zarqawi's death as the perfect opportunity to retreat from Iraq as fast as possible... ironically, exactly what Zarqawi was trying to accomplish. Congressman John Murtha (D-PA), who accused Marines of killing civilans in cold blood, continues to call for immediate withdrawal, whether the news from Iraq is good or bad. Representative Pete Stark (D-CA) called Zarqawi's death a "stunt," then said, "Iraq is still a mess -- get out." Most Democratic leaders praised the death of Zarqawi, to be fair, yet added a "but" followed by condemnations of the war and President Bush. Most launched a "strawman" attack by saying "...but his death doesn't end the problems." As I said, no one said that it would.

Zarqawi's death was by no means the end of problems in Iraq, not even the end of terrorism. I think this event does, however, herald a turning point for the Iraqi people. They have lived under the shadow of terrorism since a few months after the fall of Saddam, yet turned out to vote in ever-increasing numbers despite death threats. Every time a bomb killed novice Iraqi police officers, even more would sign up for duty the next day. Despite Zarqawi's attempts to foment a Sunni-vs-Shi'a civil war, the elected leadership successfully formed a coalition government inclusive of all Iraqis. Zarqawi's death can only have a positive effect on Iraq's new government, even though terrorist attacks continue.

In their drive to find or formulate bad news with which to berate President Bush, the Left has sold the Iraqi people short, ignoring their courage and determination in the face of adversity. As discussed during 2002, in the months before the overthrow of Saddam, a democratic Iraq is the beginning of change in the region. Al-Qaeda is right to fear a democratic Iraq. The question is: why do some Americans fear a democratic Iraq?

As the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Zarqawi served as a rallying point and a fundraising icon for terrorists around the world. "The terrorist celeb, if you will," said Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), a former FBI agent who serves on the House Intelligence Committee. "It is like selling for any organization. They are selling the success of Zarqawi in eluding capture in Iraq." Besides providing a great morale boost to all Iraqis as well as American troops, Zarqawi's death was a serious blow to al-Qaeda, it would seem. That's not the way the story is reported in the mainstream media, however.

The media is more interested in breathless speculation about Zarqawi's possible successor than American successes, but the (not very) safe house in which Zarqawi spent his last hours yielded a wealth of information about his networks and funding. US and Iraqi forces staged thirty-nine raids the day after Zarqawi's demise alone, based mostly on short-lived information recovered from the scene. Twenty other safe houses were raided, resulting in the capture of even more terrorists and information. There is no way to tell how far exploitation of that material will take us in the fight against terrorist networks and supporters. Hopefully, Baghdad can be secured before al-Qaeda recovers from the near-decapitation of its operations in Iraq.

Most people, however, were simply satisfied to know that the man responsible for such horrific massacres of innocent men, women and children was dead. The only way that news could have been improved upon was if Zarqawi knew who got him before he died. As it turns out, he did survive just long enough to take that knowledge with him into the dark. Good riddance.

With all the Conservative anger directed toward Liberal Republicans these days over immigration and overspending (among other things), it's only natural that talk turns to third party politics as the midterm elections approach. Even such a Republican stalwart as Peggy Noonan, special assistant to President Ronald Reagan and chief speechwriter for President George H. W. Bush, recently wondered in a Wall Street Journal op-ed whether it might be the right time for a new political party. The answer, sadly, is no.

Slick-talking professional politicians with what seem like lifetime appointments to Congress have soured people on both sides of the aisle, the Left no less than the Right. Many people feel their voices aren't being heard (unless, of course, they speak Spanish or ask for government handouts). But while the Democratic party remains intact, making a break to a third party can only be disastrous for Conservatives.

Generally speaking, in many states as well as nationwide, the number of those who vote Republican and Democrat are pretty close to even. For starters, no third party can really get of the ground without adequate financial backing and charismatic, effective leadership. Given those things, a Right-leaning third party still only has two ways to win. They can take all Republican votes without missing any, or take votes from both sides. Either way, the end result would be the same.

If a truly Conservative third party emerged, there's no way it would take all the votes that normally go to the Republican party. Even if it managed to avoid the religious overtones and isolationism of the Constitution or America First parties, not all Republican voters are really Conservative. The only way a third party could completely replace the Republican party would be to duplicate the Republican party, which would put Conservatives right back in the same position we currently occupy.

Furthermore, a growing Conservative party would force the Republican party to become even more Liberal than it currently is, to retain power by taking votes from among the more Conservative Democrats. In the end, America would have a medium-sized Conservative party, a small middle-Right party, and a Democratic party not much smaller than it is now -- and stripped of its moderate voters. With two opposing parties to its Left, a Conservative party would have a hard time pushing its agenda.

Suppose a middle-right party like the Libertarians (fiscally Conservative, but socially Liberal) gained power? A middle party would weaken both Republicans and Democrats, forcing both parties to play more to their respective bases. Good for Conservatives, right? No. Again, the smaller, more Conservative Republican party would face a pair of more Liberal parties, and have a tough time passing Conservative legislation.

So what's the answer -- just lie down and take whatever the Republican elites dish out? Hardly. The best answer, as long as the Democratic party remains whole, will require time and effort. First, Conservatives must use the primary election process to replace Liberal Republicans with their more Conservative opposition. That's the point to holding primaries.

Second, voters must pay closer attention to their candidates for office and how they vote. It's easy to throw up your hands and proclaim, "I won't vote for any more Republicans!" The problem is that your Senators and Representative might not merit replacement for the reasons that you want change. For instance, only four Republican Senators running for re-election in 2006 voted for the Senate's illegal immigration amnesty bill -- Lincoln Chafee (RI), Mike DeWine (OH), Richard Lugar (IN) and Olympia Snowe (ME). Throwing those four out of office, even at the cost of allowing Democrats to take those seats, would send the right message. When the other Republicans who voted for amnesty come up for re-election, they'll have to go through a primary election as well. That's the right time to remove them from office.

On the other hand, voting against Senators like Rick Santorum (PA), John Ensign (NV) or George Allen (VA) out of anger over illegal immigration would be ridiculous, as they all came out strongly against the amnesty bill. Intelligent, careful voting is the way to take back the Republican party without putting the Democrats in charge.

A third way to make your voice heard is with your wallet. The national Republican party might see the message in dwindling contributions, while your money might be better spent directly on a more Conservative candidate with whose positions you agree.

It's not a fast or easy process, but real change rarely is.

What really happened at Haditha? The only thing we know for certain is that we don't yet know for certain. But that doesn't stop the Left from declaring the Marines involved, and by extension the entire US military and the Bush administration, guilty of atrocities. The media has already tried, convicted, drawn and quartered a group of young Marines, before any but the barest details are known... before, in fact, an investigation has even finished.

The facts we do have tell that a carbomb hit a Marine convoy, a firefight ensued, and fifteen civilians were killed along with eight or nine terrorists (according to most reports). The Left has taken as fact the statements of four people (interviewed by an unnamed Iraqi) who say they were witnesses -- though even the NY Times had to admit that "The four survivors' accounts could not be independently corroborated, and it was unclear in some cases whether they actually saw the killings."

A videotape of bodies with bullet wounds in their chests and heads is supposed to be "evidence" that Marines went on a cold-blooded killing spree. Liberals must believe that noncombatants are rarely hurt during battles, no one could be shot in the chest or head except by deliberate murder, and that innocents are never shot or put in danger by terrorists, insurgents or "freedom fighters." But the US military, in the looking-glass world of Liberalism, is hell-bent on killing civilians for no reason.

The Marines are accused of "covering up" the "massacre." Their initial report is said to have stated that the civilians were killed by the explosive device. The bomb and firefight may have been reported as a single enemy attack, which might have been a mistake that led to the accusations of coverup. Afterwards, the military authorised payments to the families of the victims, a common practice in that part of the world. We can't know the truth about the incident until we see how the actual reports were worded. The Left, however, stands ready to jump on any chance of smearing the troops they pretend to support, no matter how slim.

Never one to lag behind when the US military is being slandered, Representative John Murtha (D-PA) was in the forefront of those making allegations against the US Marines. (To borrow a phrase, I'm ashamed that John Murtha is from Pennsylvania.) Murtha accused the Marines involved of having "killed innocent civilians in cold blood" during the November 2005 incident. While Time magazine portrayed the Marines as barging into houses, throwing grenades around and deliberately shooting anything that moved -- women, children, whatever -- Murtha told reporters, "It's much worse than was reported in Time magazine," and insisted that "There was no firefight." If there was no firefight, he must believe -- or want us to believe -- that this was a deliberate execution of civilians.

Murtha later told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that "it looks like it's the policy of our troops to do something like this." Keep in mind that the incident is still under investigation, with statements and evidence still being collected... and that the military launched an investigation a month before the media got wind of the story. Yet Murtha seems pretty comfortable declaring that our military coldly executes civilians en masse as a matter of policy. Al-Qaeda In Iraq must be pretty satisfied with that November day's work right now. 

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, does this incident not seem like a tactic right out of al-Qaeda's playbook? Set off a bomb, take shots at the disoriented Marines from several nearby windows, and make sure as many civilians get caught in the crossfire as possible (or shoot them yourself, with American weapons -- if, in fact, they were shot with American weapons) while making your escape. Then make a few false statements to panting reporters eager for tales of American atrocities, painting the Marines as marauding killers exacting revenge on innocents. Yet another media manipulation mission accomplished.

After a thorough investigation, it may indeed turn out that Marines of Kilo company were involved in wrongdoing. If so, then they should be judged as harshly as the Uniform Code of Military Justice will allow. Deliberately killing innocent civilians is as wrong an act as anyone can perform -- it's why we are fighting this war on terror in the first place. But if any people ever deserved the benefit of the doubt, if anyone ever earned the right to be accounted "innocent until proven guilty," it's the military personnel of whom we ask so much in our defense.

3 June 06 UPDATE: Michelle Malkin exposes how the UK Times deliberately smeared the Marines by printing year-old pictures of Iraqis executed by terrorists in Haditha with the headline "Massacre Marines Blinded by Hate."

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

- John McCrae, 1915

The Senate immigration reform bill is as close to amnesty as the Senate dares to make it, but it could be even worse. The majority of Americans already prefer the House "enforcement-only" bill over the Senate approach by a 2-to-1 margin. Yet some in the Senate doggedly cling to the hope of granting amnesty and citizenship to the estimated twelve million illegals currently living in the US.

Of course it's amnesty -- what else can it be when penalties for illegal entry, forgery, tax evasion, identity theft, misuse and theft of government services, social security fraud and dozens of other crimes are waived? Where is the amnesty for American criminals? Surely there's too many of them to catch and imprison all at once, which is the excuse for not enforcing our immigration laws.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced an amendment to the Senate bill that would have given amnesty and a direct path to US citizenship to anyone who could prove that they were in the country before the beginning of 2006. Among all the amendments and surprises hidden in the bill, this would have been the worst. Illegals would have been given an "orange card" that would allow them to stay in the US while their citizenship is processed, unlike the millions of law-abiding foreigners who wait patiently in their home countries for permission to emigrate, even temporarily. The amendment was defeated, but garnered 37 votes. One Republican actually voted in favor of the amendment, and two Republicans didn't bother to vote at all.

The following Senators voted to reward foreign lawbreakers with amnesty and citizenship:

Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Joe Biden (D-DE)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Chris Dodd (D-CT)
Richard Durbin (D-IL) - Co-sponsor
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) - Proposed bill
Tom Harkin (D-IA) - Co-sponsor
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Ted Kennedy (D-MA) - Co-sponsor
John Kerry (D-MA) - Co-sponsor
Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Barack Obama (D-IL) - Co-sponsor
Jack Reed (D-RI) - Co-sponsor
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Ken Salazar (D-CO)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
 
Michael Enzi (R-WY) - did not vote
John Rockefeller (D-WV) - did not vote

Some of these Senators are up for re-election this November, and the voters in those states could send no more powerful message than removing each and every one of the following from office:

Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)