While we must never forget the appalling attacks of 9/11, we should also remember the good that came through on that terrible day, which we often ignore while condemning the brutal, fanatic Islamic radicals who attacked us and the networks behind them. On that day, ordinary men and women took on, without complaint, burdens they had never intended to bear. Many Americans found within themselves a renewed patriotism and determination to overcome hardship that we thought was lost long ago. We remembered America's place in the world as guardian and protector, and a beacon of hope for millions. Above all, we rediscovered our true heroes: firefighters who rush into burning buildings to rescue strangers, policemen who strive to keep order among chaos, paramedics who perform near-miracles on a daily basis, and soldiers who willingly bear the responsibility of ensuring that the rest of us can go about our lives in relative safety. On 9/11, we should remember not only the casualties, but the heroes.

Five years ago, I thought America was invulnerable, and -- to be honest -- a bit boring. I saw terrorism as something that happened to other people, on the other side of the world. All politicians seemed alike to me. I could not have cared less who held what office.

Five years ago, the biggest problem in my world was a recent breakup. I was cynical, hardened and detached; above it all. I could not imagine that ordinary people were capable of courage and self-sacrifice. I believed that there were no more heroes. If I uttered the word "evil," it referred to something in a game, movie or book.

Five years ago, I had not cast a vote for anyone since Ronald Reagan. In fact, I stopped paying any attention to politics at all after Clinton took office. It seemed that America had worsened considerably since my youth. I was certain it would decline still more during my lifetime. America's slide into nanny-state socialism and enervation seemed inevitable, if vaguely lamentable. America was one huge bureaucracy, in which no single person could make a difference.

Five years ago, I hadn't watched the news nor read a newspaper in more than half a decade. That bomb at the World Trade Center in 1993 was a stand-alone crime, not part of something larger. Osama bin Laden was not a name with which I was very familiar. Saddam Hussein spit in America's face, but who didn't? Even the election controversy the previous year had made no impression on me. If anything, it deepened my apathy.

Five years ago, I cared for little outside my own circle of friends and family. Caring was for fools and patriotism mostly nostalgic in nature. I thought that things would continue as they always had. I was unaware of the existence of our enemies or their plans, and blissfully so.

All of that changed in a white-hot second on the morning of 9/11. Like so many other Americans, I was ripped from my comfortable womb and delivered against my will into a world where complete strangers hate me and would happily sacrifice their lives to kill me. Should I have mourned the loss of my ignorance? That was the path taken by Liberals, who immediately began blaming the government for their unwanted emergence into the real world. But the government did not create terrorist groups or perpetrate the attacks (wacko conspiracy theories and Blame America First nuts aside). Some place the blame entirely on Osama bin Laden... but this is not a comic-book world, in which one supervillain is the focus of all that is evil. Bin Laden is no more the entirety of terrorism than John Gotti was the whole of organised crime. Those things existed long before the momentary focus, and will likely survive them. Acceptance of either -- refusal to fight them -- is not an option. Should we disband our police forces because people still commit crimes?

The enemy is not one man. It's not even one group of terrorists. The enemy is all those who would use terrorism to intimidate free people into accepting a worldwide Caliphate ruled by Shari'a law. It's those who threaten to sow death and destruction at random among the innocent unless we accede to their demands. It's those governments who finance, train, support, supply and share intelligence with terrorist groups. It's also those who believe we should give the terrorists what they want, lest we anger them. They're already trying to kill or enslave us -- who cares if they're angry when they do it?

Those on the Left like to claim that we were a united country after 9/11, until Bush ruined it all by removing the terror enabler Saddam Hussein from power. In fact, the first "anti-war" rally was held just days after 9/11 in New York City, sponsored by ANSWER -- funded in part by Saddam Hussein's money. Meanwhile, President Bush stated, "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." He promised us that "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

The ideological battle lines were drawn, here in America. Who would have thought that a mere five years later, the far Left would have grown to dominate the Democrats, to the point where the man who stood as a vice-Presidential nominee the year before 9/11 would be thrown out of the party for being too hawkish? Liberals complain about living in fear (by which is meant reasonable caution, like looking both ways before crossing the street). They actually prefer living in ignorance. But we can't return to the cocoon in which we lived prior to 9/11, nor should we.

Sometimes it seems that America might be on the verge of losing this war -- not to attacks by the enemy without, but by surrender to the enemy within. I don't think that will happen, in the end. But, as we survey the political landscape five years after 9/11, the dark cloud of defeatism looms always on the horizon.

Mid-term elections have become more "nationalised" due to partisan politics, to the point where a person just awoken from a coma might think President Bush is running for office in 2006. The old adage "all politics are local" has been cast aside, as the Democrats work to take back power by any means necessary. The 2006 election is shaping up to be about the issues facing the country as a whole, and more about the parties themselves than any mid-term election in recent memory. That being the case, we might look at the issues involved in party terms, though individual candidates may vary their positions. 

Terrorism: The fight against Islamofascist terrorists and the rogue states that support them is the most important issue we face today. President Bush has not changed his basic stance on this, although it sometimes seems that his recent pressure on Israel to accept a cease fire with Hizballah, and a willingness to negotiate with Iran, indicate a slight drift from the original "Bush Doctrine." The Republicans, for the most part, still favor a proactive national defense. The Democrats, as strongly as they talk about fighting terrorism, speak mainly about responding to terrorist attacks when pressed for details, rather than acting to prevent them from occurring. The Democrats opposed the PATRIOT Act, which merely allowed law enforcement to use the same methods employed against organised crime, serial killers and drug lords against terrorists. They've demanded that the NSA get court warrants before listening in on enemy communications, insisted that terrorists captured on the battlefield fighting against US troops be granted rights and privileges equivalent to those of US citizens, and opposed every move to track down and stop terrorists before they carry out an attack. As an alternate method of fighting terrorism, they offer "working with our allies" -- by which is meant the UN -- to convince terrorists to lay down their arms. The United Nations, unfortunately, is little more than a corrupt forum for terror supporters, and too weak to enforce its own watered-down resolutions. The "wait and negotiate" approach has never prevented a single terrorist attack nor resolved a single crisis, and certainly won't work now.

Iraq: The continuing struggle to help Iraq establish a legitimate government with the ability to protect its own borders is the most divisive issue we face. It's certainly the one about which the Left screams the loudest. The Democrats have been using the difficulty of establishing a representative government while holding off terrorists and Iran-backed insurgents to undermine public support for the President. Most Republicans back the President's refusal to leave before the mission is completed, standing by their 2002 decision to send troops into Iraq to overthrow Saddam's despotic regime. The second the fight began to look tough, Democrats who voted for the war began to reverse their positions, signifying a failure of nerve upon which the enemy can trade... the same way al-Qaeda used the 1993 US pullout from Somalia to inspire more terrorist attacks upon the "paper tiger." Those few Democrats who stood by their vote, like Senator Joe Lieberman (CT), have effectively been excised from the party. Anyone can see that if the US pulls out of Iraq prematurely, Iran and terrorists will dominate the country, using it as a base from which to control the entire Middle East. Yet that is precisely what the Democrats will do if they gain power, by cutting off funding for troops in Iraq or holding other legislation hostage to a troop withdrawal.

Illegal Immigration: Neither Republicans nor Democrats have completely clean hands on this issue. Enough Senate Republicans voted for the McCain-Kennedy bill to pass it. If that bill reaches the President's desk, he will sign it into law. All those who have entered the US illegally will gain amnesty, most becoming citizens with the ability to bring their families here as well. As many as 200 million immigrants could pour over our borders over the next twenty years, ten times more than the current law permits. The only thing preventing the Senate bill from becoming law is the Conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, who are adamantly against its passage. If the Democrats gain control of the House, they will pass that bill.

Economy/Taxes: Lowering taxes and easing government interference with small businesses have resulted in a strong, growing economy, despite the media mischaracterisations. The Gross Domestic Product has grown every single quarter since the fall of 2001. The unemployment rate has declined to less than 5%. Weekly earnings continue to increase, and the stock market, on the whole, has continued to climb. Yet Democrats deride the current economy, based as it is on real corporate growth and earnings, for not matching the growth phase of the unstable "tech bubble" economy that collapsed in 2000. If the Democrats gain control, they will raise taxes, causing businesses to hire fewer workers and investors to pull their money out of the market. The government (at least in a capitalist nation) does not create jobs, but merely sets the conditions under which private industry can do so. Nor does it set gas prices, complaints about which fuel (to make a bad pun) Democratic attacks on the economy. The Democrats claim that they will lower gas prices if elected, and they will -- in a way. If the economy goes into a decline, the high demand for gas will disappear, and gas prices will drop. But is that really the best way to lower prices?

Traditional Values: In the 2004 election, 22% of voters decided which way to vote based on moral values, according to the exit polls, and there's no reason to think Americans have forgotten about them already. This catchall category covers a variety of issues, but it's fairly clear where the parties stand on each. Approving judicial nominations might be seen as part of this category as well. Republicans generally favor originalist judges who understand that their role is to interpret laws and lower court decisions according to the Constitution. The Left favors activist judges who will use their power to change laws and create new interpretations of the Constitution that better suit their agenda, as in the Supreme Court's infamous Kelo v. New London decision. The Democrats generally tolerate abortion for the sake of convenience, are willing to change the traditional definition of marriage to accommodate fringe groups and support the ACLU's campaign to strip religion from public life. Allowing them to take control of Congress would see more legislation designed to undermine traditional American values.

The policies and values espoused by the Democratic party are antithetical to those held by most Americans, and detrimental to the country as a whole. They hope, by relentless complaining and endless misrepresentation, to convince the majority of voters to put them into office. But simply telling us that they'll make everything okay, without offering specifics, isn't good enough. If the Democrats harbor some secret agenda that they think will be better for the country, let them put their cards on the table, instead of blackmailing us into giving them power before they reveal their plans. Unless their ideas are radically different from those they foisted on us in the nineties, Democrats in power would simply lead us in a circle, like mules at a mill. America would end up with a weaker military and a stuttering economy...and still embroiled in a global war against an implacable foe.

The FDA recently approved making a drug called "Plan B" available over the counter, with no prescription necessary. A woman who takes it up to three days after intercourse can substantially reduce her chance to become pregnant. Thanks to Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Patty Murray (D-WA), who strong-armed the agency by blocking the nominations of Lester Crawford and Andrew von Eschenbach as FDA Commissioner, anyone over 18 can walk into a CVS or Rite-Aid and buy it off the shelf. We all know that age restrictions keep cigarettes and alcohol out of the hands of children, so it's sure to work for the "morning after" pill, right?

The drug itself is not a bad thing. Unlike the controversial RU-486, it will not stop a pregnancy once it's begun. The problem is making it available without a prescription, when one is even required for birth control pills. And even the supposed protection of only allowing its sale to those 18 and older is already under assault. A group called The Center for Reproductive Rights (by which is meant Consequence-Free Sex) plans to force the FDA to drop any age restriction whatsoever through lawsuits, and Planned Parenthood has already attacked "the scientifically baseless restriction imposed on teenagers." If I know Planned Parenthood, they'll probably set out candy dishes full of Plan B at their clinics, like M&Ms at a never-ending party. Plan B will soon become the primary contraceptive of choice.

Plan B is merely a tool. Like any tool, it can be used for good or ill. The Left will use this one to promote promiscuous, responsibility-free sex among progressively younger children, part of the plan to accelerate the moral decay we already see around us. Those who would have abstained from sex through fear of pregnancy, or not wanting to go through an abortion, will no longer have these excuses. Plan B not only prevents pregnancy, but prevents the user from having to take any responsibility for choosing whether to have sex. Just pop a pill, and stop worrying.

Of course, there are few better ways to drive Liberals into a foaming-mouthed frenzy than speaking about responsibility, self-restraint and discipline -- especially concerning sex. For some reason, Liberals believe that the more people act like dogs in the street, rutting whenever, wherever and with whom they happen to be when the urge strikes, the more "enlightened" they are. It's getting to the point where the dogs will probably begin complaining about the people problem.

Those on the Left tell us that it's wrong to place moral or legal restrictions on young people having sex -- or abortions, or drugs, or anything to let them escape the responsibilities that go along with it -- because they'll just do it anyway. I don't know why more people don't use that "argument" to attack laws against murder, theft and tax evasion. After all, if people are going to do these things despite the rules, why have any rules at all? The next time I get a speeding ticket, perhaps I'll whip out the "people do it anyway" defense.

All too often, the reason given for having unprotected sex is, "it just happened so quickly," as though feeling an urge is an adequate explanation for lack of restraint. Liberals promote instantaneous gratification as though it were some sort of civil right. More than half of American children have already become sexually active by the time they reach 17, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. The teen pregnancy rate is significantly higher among Americans than in other developed countries, and nearly 80% of teen pregnancies are unplanned. Obviously, there is a problem here, and making it easier to simply get rid of those pregnancies is not the answer. The question we need to ask is, why is sex so devalued among young people that they see no reason for self-discipline?

The problem lies in the general lack of morals and loose standards that encourage such self-destructive behavior. Uninvolved parents allow the Left to indoctrinate the young into their cult of irresponsibility through schools, television and unsupervised use of the internet. If more parents would work harder at parenting, it would be more difficult for Liberals to spread their corruption. Unfortunately, most kids spend their days bombarded by Left-wing propaganda, and nights and weekends climbing mountains of homework. Even with parents willing to reach out, there isn't much time for family interaction these days. It's understandable that parents don't want to waste what little time they spend with their children on lectures. Still, the only way to reclaim the younger generation is for parents to make the time to instill moral values in their children. Schools are not doing that job, nor is it their job to do.

The only good that is likely to come of Plan B's widespread use is a reduction in abortions -- personally, I'd rather see lives never begun than see them killed before birth. The downside, of course, will be a continued diminution of common morality and an increase in sexual activity among teenagers (and younger children), accompanied by a rise in sexually-transmitted diseases among the young.

As sex becomes the meaningless equivalent of a handshake, don't be surprised when your first grader comes home with the clap before learning to write in cursive.

It doesn't take much to cast doubt on the story John Mark Karr has been telling. Although he claims to have killed six year old JonBenet Ramsey in her Colorado home in 1996, his tale doesn't hold water. The confession makes no sense -- none of the evidence points to him in any way. His handwriting doesn't match that on the ransom note, according to most experts. His confession states that he picked the girl up from school, but the murder took place during vacation. He stated that he drugged her, but no traces of drugs were found in her system. His ex-wife -- in fact, his entire family -- claims that he was in Atlanta when the murder took place. Yet Karr went out of his way to confess to the killing, and no one can figure out why.

It's tempting to dismiss Karr as a nut, especially considering his strange behavior. Karr obsessively "collected" details about the murder, even exchanging phone calls, letters and emails with anyone remotely involved with the case. His 2001 California arrest for possession of child pornography led to a messy divorce and his flight to Thailand, where he recently had his facial hair permanently removed at a clinic, in preparation for gender reassignment surgery.

Yet Karr is no gibbering lunatic, baying at the moon -- he at least appears to be rational and intelligent. Nor, if he were completely sane and guilty, would he confess to a crime for which he would never be caught. Karr wants something, something he can only get as a prisoner in the American justice system. Is it fame he's after? Does he just want to be connected with the case in some way? Maybe. But there is one thing he can get for free as a prisoner in Colorado, something for which he would normally have to pay a lot of money: gender reassignment hormone therapy. Could that be at least part of Karr's reason for confessing to a crime that most experts doubt he committed?

In 2002, a Colorado inmate won the "right" to have the state of Colorado provide hormone treatments for his "gender identity disorder," because the treatments were started prior to incarceration. Although the state has not yet been forced to pay for the actual operations, getting pre-surgery treatment at taxpayer expense can save a person quite a bit. One has to wonder whether Karr -- eking out a meager living as a teacher in Thailand, getting fired from school after school -- saw an opportunity to turn his obsession with the Ramsey case into a tangible benefit.

He would have known enough to convince law enforcement officials to check out his story, while making enough deliberate mistakes to ensure that he couldn't possibly be convicted. He may have realised that, while waiting for the slow wheels of justice to turn, he might be able to get free hormone treatments. In addition, the sale of his story to authors and movie-of-the-week producers (to which every prisoner is entitled, according to the Liberal version of the Bill of Rights) ought to net him enough money for the surgery itself after he's released, even if performed here in America.

Of course, this is all mere speculation. Karr might just be an obsessed madman who wants his name linked with JonBenet Ramsey's. He could simply be attempting to draw public attention to the case that still consumes him. But what other logical explanation could there be for his starting treatments right before confessing to the murder, which he knew would land him in a Colorado jail? Karr could be "gaming" the system in a coldly calculated way, using his familiarity with a horrible crime -- and abusing the memory of a murdered girl -- to get something for nothing.

Whatever the truth behind Karr's confession, he's already gotten more attention than he deserves. The media play-by-play of his deportation and flight back to America was excruciating. We don't need to hear all the details of his twisted life, which are almost certainly forthcoming. Before long, we'll probably hear that he was abused as a child, thus -- to some -- absolving him of responsibility for his crimes and choices.

If we're lucky, a lack of DNA evidence will cause the prosecution to drop the case, despite whatever details he revealed that only the killer would be likely to know. It's a good bet, though, that John Mark Karr is going to be with us for quite a while, dominating the headlines until we approach the 2006 election, Israel defends itself again, or another celebrity gets pregnant.

I never thought I'd be rooting so hard for the Hollywood crowd.

As How the Left Was Won was working its way up my "must-read" list on its own, the author, Richard Mgrdechian, offered to send me a copy of the book. "This," I thought, "must be how the real pundits live. I'll bet Rush Limbaugh has to move every six months, just to escape the truckloads of free books that authors send his way." Still, having seen the book advertised on the web, I already looked forward to reading it. And I found that if I had no room on my bookshelves for this book, it would be worth the effort to make some.

Early in the book, the author states, "Liberalism is the single most destructive force in our society, and I can prove it." And prove it he does. Mgrdechian exposes the means by which the Left undermines America's deepest foundations with all the skill of a surgeon in an operating theater, examining human anatomy for the benefit of eager students. From the way Liberals use divisiveness to gain power, to the way they cozy up to hostile governments that are the antithesis of everything in which they pretend to believe, How the Left Was Won unmasks Liberalism for all to see. It's exactly what Conservatives have been trying to say for years, distilled, refined and indexed.

In Chapter 2, for instance, Mgrdechian discusses Good (or, as I refer to it, constructive) Competition versus Bad (destructive) Competition. Some seek to compete by becoming better than the rest: refining their ideas, selling better products, training to run faster, etc. Liberals, as he points out, only compete by tearing their opponents down without improving their own message or product at all. We can see the latter strategy in operation every single day, as Democratic politicians, Hollywood half-wits and members of the mainstream media spend all their time trying to undermine Conservatism instead of beating it fairly. Perhaps that's because they know it isn't possible. Maybe it's because they're just plain lazy.

I have to admit that Chapter 13 is perhaps my favorite chapter. Mgrdechian likens Liberals to the titular swarm of ants, each with only a tiny impact, but willing to swarm all over the opposition until we give way, if only to still the endless chanting. The image of those who dare excel being crushed under millions of little ant feet is evocative. "The ants have swarmed all over you," he writes, "until there was nothing left. Until a man didn't have any fight left in him. Until a company was on the verge of bankruptcy. Until the military was gutted, the police emasculated, the borders broken and the country overrun by terrorists and perverts." Right there is the essence of the Liberal "game plan," in my opinion: the attack on all our traditional values until we're paralysed by self-doubt and second-guessing, incapable of making any judgments, about anything.

If How the Left Was Won has any flaw, it's that the author exposes Liberal methodologies without discussing ways to counter them. Then again, we're Americans, and need no such hand-holding. By helping us identify the tactics used by Liberals, this book gives us tools we can use to craft arguments with which to defeat them. All we need is an informed, free competition of ideas, of values, of ways to look at the world. And that's precisely what the Left cannot allow.

The Israelis have gained little by agreeing to the cease-fire put together by the United Nations... and not nearly as much as Hizballah has gained. Will Hizballah refrain from attacking innocent Israeli civilians again once Iran has had time to resupply and rearm them? No. Will Europe, the UN and our own Liberals stop blaming Israelis every time they defend themselves from terrorist attacks? Again, no. Can we all, at least, finally agree that Islamic radicals are at war with the entire Western world? Certainly not.

On the surface, the Israelis seem to have gotten some of what they wanted: a buffer zone between Israel and Hizballah territory, manned by international troops. The extra twenty miles between the Litani River and Israel's border is meant to keep the bulk of Hizballah's Katyusha rockets from falling at random into Israeli towns. The presence of the Lebanese military as well as an international force sounds like just the ticket to keep Hizballah forces out of southern Lebanon.

It all looks good on paper. Unfortunately, it's merely political theater. None of the problems have actually been solved. The cease-fire is nothing less than a disaster for Israel and a major blow to the US and our allies in the war on terror. The only possible reason the US pushed for it, and Israel accepted it, was to afford Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert a graceful exit from a botched offensive.

UNSC resolution #1701 makes no attempt to disarm or disband Hizballah, a secret arm of the Iranian military and part of Lebanon's government, as mandated in previous UNSC resolution #1559. The "international force" will consist mainly of UNIFIL, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. That's the same authority -- flying the Hizballah flag from at least one of its outposts -- that did nothing to prevent Hizballah's acquisition of over 13,000 Katushya rockets as well as Fajr and Zelzal-2 missiles from Iran, the concealment of weapons and terrorists among the civilian population, or the firing of those rockets into Israel time after time.

As a result of this much-lauded cease-fire, Hizballah will be able to claim that they fought Israel's feared military to a standstill. Terror attacks from Hizballah and other terror organisations will likely increase as a result of this cease-fire. Instead of just Lebanese civilians to use as human shields, Hizballah will now have the UN and international troops to protect them. If... no, when they fire rockets into Israel from near UNIFIL outposts, and the Israelis fire back, the latter will take all the blame for any casualties. Remember, it was UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's condemnation of Israel after Hizballah used this very tactic that put pressure on Israel to stop fighting back against the terrorists. And under the terms of the cease-fire, Kofi Annan determines when -- and by whom -- it is broken. Any defense by Israel will be deemed a breach of the cease-fire, while Hizballah will once again be free to act.

Perhaps worst of all, the resolution grants a measure of legitimacy to terrorists and their tactics. The excuse Hizballah uses to cover their intention of destroying Israel -- Syria's claim to a part of the Golan Heights  -- is treated as a valid claim made by a legal authority. (The UN, however, determined in 2000 that Israel had withdrawn from Lebanon to within its international border, which included the Golan Heights.) Although the UN has long been reduced to a soapbox for terror-supporting rogue states, this may be the first time that body has granted an actual terror organisation the bona fides of sovereign nations. By the use of terrorism through Hizballah, Syria has forced the issue back onto the table. The message this sends is clear: terrorism works.

Because Olmert failed to launch a serious ground campaign, missed the chance to strike at Hizballah's leadership, and lost the public relations battle to Hizballah and the mainstream media, the terrorists -- and their sponsors, Syria and Iran -- have won a considerable victory. I'd be surprised if Olmert's moderate government doesn't collapse as a direct result of the Lebanon conflict, especially when the rockets once again begin to rain into Israel.

Only six years after Connecticut's hawkish, pro-Israel Senator Joe Lieberman was chosen to run for Vice President, the Democrats have virtually driven him out of the party. Since Lieberman has voted with his Democratic colleagues over 90% of the time during the last term of his eighteen years in the Senate, his downfall could only be a result of his refusal to backtrack on his vote to send troops into Iraq.

While other Democrats who voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq have backpedaled to appease the far Left core of their party, Lieberman stood by his decision, supporting the war even when the fighting got tough. Lieberman also refrained from parroting the vitriolic Bush-bashing rhetoric that's become common among Democratic politicians. As a result, novice Ned Lamont took Lieberman's place as Connecticut's Democratic nominee for Senate by running on an anti-war, anti-Bush platform. Like former Senator Zell Miller (D-GA), Lieberman has watched his party slide so far to the Left that he is considered "right-wing." Joe Lieberman has paid the price of standing firm in a party that stands for nothing.

This is a significant and sad step in the Democrats' transformation from serious political party to mouthpiece for the anti-war, anti-capitalist, "Blame America First" crowd. No longer merely the lunatic fringe, the far Left -- best represented by Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, various Hollywood half-wits and MoveOn.org, funded by billionaires like George Soros and Peter Lewis -- now openly control one of the two major political parties in America. This race has shown that there is no longer any place for moderation or alternative points of view in the party ranks. Though not all Democrat voters are Left-wing radicals, not even in deep-blue Connecticut, any potential nominee for office must gain the approval of that group. Not even a long-time favorite like Joe Lieberman can represent the Democrats if he expresses a conflicting point of view on a major issue like Iraq.

By undermining public support for the liberation of Iraq and the war on terror at every opportunity, the Democrats have been trying to relive the Vietnam era -- the only victory the far Left has ever achieved. George McGovern, running on a platform of opposition to the Vietnam war in 1972, was crushed in a 49-state landslide by incumbent President Richard Nixon. Even so, the Democrat-controlled Senate withheld support for our troops and our allies just a few years later, granting an unearned victory to the Communist forces. The far-Left Democrats, if they manage to take control of Congress this year, aim to repeat history by ceding the Middle East to the Islamofascists and terrorists and, ultimately, to Iran.

The likely result of Lieberman's loss in the primary is that other Democratic politicians will shift to the Left. No politician in a losing party wants to gamble with the support of core voters, as Lieberman did. Yet as they move Left, the Democrats will lose more mainstream support. As they shrink, they will move further to the Left to retain core voters. Eventually, the expanding Republican party will split, returning us to a viable two-party system. In the meantime, voters who favor a strong stance on national defense, tax cuts to fuel the economy, protection for the unborn, freedom of (not from) religion and less Federal interference will have nowhere else to turn.

The Left's strident, self-congratulatory celebrations over a primary race, after six years of whining over losing actual elections, suggest a new Democratic party motto: In Clade Amari, In Victoria Arrogantes (Latin for "bitter in defeat, arrogant in victory"). The fact is that Lieberman, running as an Independent, has a solid chance to win the November election. The majority of Americans simply don't favor the policies espoused by the far Left. As Liberals continue to exert control over the Democratic party, that party will continue to lose.

Because of Ned Lamont's primary victory, the Republicans will probably retain control of Congress in November. And if they have the backbone to nominate a serious Conservative for President in 2008 -- someone like Virginia Senator George Allen, for instance -- they now have an excellent chance of winning, thanks to the malignant anti-war wing's takeover of the Democratic party. No one who's serious about fighting Islamofascism, the most important issue of our time, will entrust the defense of our nation to those who demand the US military run away from the central front of the war. 

But can we take another four (or eight) years of Liberals lying and crying about "stolen elections," "tax cuts for the rich," "war for oil" and "mean Conservatives?"

I, for one, am looking forward to it.

The buzz among Conservatives is that Oliver Stone's new movie about 9/11, "World Trade Center," is without political bias. If that's true, one has to wonder whether Liberals will attack the movie for being too maudlin and pro-American. Personally, I'll never know, because I will never see it for several reasons. And, for the record, I didn't see "United 93," either.

Regardless of the movie's bias or lack of same, it was made by notorious anti-American director Oliver Stone, who never met a Communist dictator he didn't like, and who referred to the terrorist attacks as "the revolt of September 11th." The movie also features actress Maggie Gyllenhaal, who believes the United States is "responsible in some way" for 9/11. People like that don't deserve a dime of my hard-earned American cash, nor do the anti-American causes which some of that money will ultimately fund. I don't need to watch Hollywood half-wits faking shock and sorrow they may have felt for perhaps a few seconds at best before they began blaming America for being the victim of terrorism.

My memories of 9/11 have not yet begun to fade. I almost wish they would. I will be able to see those people falling -- or worse, jumping -- out of those windows any time I close my eyes for the rest of my life. When I travel to north New Jersey or New York City, I'm still unable to stop myself from searching the now-unfamiliar skyline for towers where none now exist. .

When I want to see a movie about real New York heroes on September 11th, I'll watch the footage shot by two French filmmakers who happened to be making a documentary about a probationary firefighter that day. Jules and Gedeon Naudet followed the men of a lower Manhattan firehouse as they dealt with the attacks on the Twin Towers and the immediate aftermath. The accidental documentary, entitled simply "9/11," did a far better job than any slick Hollywood blockbuster ever could.

And when I want to learn about our enemies, I'll watch "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West," which I first saw when it premiered in Philadelphia in March 2006. Naturally, it became available on Google video right after I ordered the DVD, but it's money well spent.

I need no big-budget, big-screen reminders only five years after 9/11. Get back to me on the fiftieth anniversary, perhaps.

The "Israel attacked and killed dozens of children" story has spread with a speed that defies rational explanation. It's as though most mainstream media "journalists" around the world were excited to learn that an Israeli attack on a Hizballah rocket launch point resulted in the deaths of 37 children. Those media vultures swung into action, painting the Israelis as evil aggressors deliberately targeting innocent men, women and children, making them sound... well, like Hizballah.

A three-story building in Qana, Lebanon was hit by an Israeli air strike in response to rocket attacks launched into Israel from the vicinity. The Associated Press depicted a man screaming, "Why are they killing us? What have we done?" as he pulled bodies from the wreckage. Reuters coverage, accompanied by graphic descriptions of the bodies, quoted another man asking, "Why have they attacked one- and two-year-old children and defenseless women?" It's difficult to remember the last time the media published such heart-rending accounts of personal grief in the aftermath of a Hizballah strike on an Israeli town. Then again, the media doesn't want to make that comparison, since people might notice that the Israelis aren't, in fact, launching random rocket attacks at innocent civilians on purpose. 

The media seems to be doing little more than publishing Hizballah propaganda thinly disguised as "news." The blog EU Referendum, for example, has documented evidence of Hizballah stage-managing coverage of the tragedy at Qana. The same man is seen "rescuing" the same victim in photograph after photograph, taken over a period of hours by several agencies, posing for the cameras with the body. CNN correspondent Nic Robertson took a guided tour conducted by a Hizballah "press officer" that was blatantly staged to "prove" that Israel was targeting civilians. Only photographic evidence that Hizballah attacks are launched from civilian areas, published in the Australian Herald Sun, weakened the mainstream media's indignation somewhat. Outrage over an Israeli airstrike that killed four UN "observers" was only slightly dampened when it was revealed that Hizballah was using the presence of UN troops as a shield from behind which they could launch attacks unmolested (or so they thought). UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan still used the Qana incident to demand an immediate cease-fire, which would prevent Israel from defending itself while leaving Hizballah free to regroup and rearm for more attacks.

Few of these "journalists" seem to have asked the questions, "what were women and children doing in that building when it collapsed, and why did it happen some seven hours after the airstrike took place?" The fact that Hizballah and other terrorists routinely use innocent civilians as human shields doesn't seem to change their foregone conclusion that the Israelis are really the bad guys. If it turns out that the building was used to hide Hizballah explosives which caused the building's collapse, Israel will still somehow be made to bear the blame.

There was no way for the Israelis to know that building contained women and children... if they were actually even there when the airstrike took place. There was no reason for any civilians to be in the town at all. Hizballah certainly knew that there were civilians present, but used the residential area as a launch zone anyway, knowing that Israel would respond. As usual, the majority of the "mainstream" media attaches no blame to terrorists whatsoever, even as the terrorists manipulate the media for their own ends.

The Israelis have been doing all that can be reasonably expected to limit civilian casualties in Lebanon as well as their own country. They regularly warn residents of southern Lebanon to leave towns targeted for airstrikes, via radio and dropped fliers, even though such warnings also tell Hizballah where the next blow will fall. No matter what they do, however, the Leftist media will continue to do all in their power to turn world opinion against them.

Israelis might as well forget about who "likes" them and do whatever it takes to remove Iran-controlled Hizballah from their northern border. After that, a multinational force -- NATO or an ad hoc coalition -- should help the Lebanese military keep the area secure from attacks. Now that the media has its meme, however, the clock is ticking on Israel's already faint international support. 

Just as most members of the media have used the crimes committed at Abu Ghraib to tear down public support for the entire liberation of Iraq, they will try to use Qana to turn support against Israel. If the Israelis bow to "world opinion" now, however, they might as well save time and drown themselves en masse in the eastern Mediterranean.

11 Aug 2006 UPDATE: More on photo fraud by a complicit media from aish.com.