Less than a week after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon, the fifteen members of the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution invoking sanctions against the regime of Kim Jong-Il. Finally, the UN has "done something" to prevent him from building another one, right? In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Yes, the resolution demanded "that the DPRK not conduct any further nuclear test or launch of a ballistic missile." It also required "that the DPRK shall eliminate its nuclear weapons and nuclear programme in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner," as well as "other weapons of mass destruction." Tough talk, to be sure. But talk is cheap.

The resolution also called upon all member states to impose a massive two-way arms embargo upon North Korea, prohibiting the sale or purchase of tanks, combat aircraft, warships, missiles and other big-ticket items. If all nations follow through, this might actually damage North Korea's economy, as weaponry is its only export.

That might get his attention even more than the ban on "luxury items," which, as US Ambassador John Bolton joked, might be "a little diet for Kim Jong-Il." But the resolution's call for every nation to perform cargo inspections was worded in such a way as to let any country that doesn't want to inspect North Korean cargoes too closely (say, for instance, China) off the hook. China does more business with North Korea than all other countries combined, supplying up to 90 percent of its oil and 80 percent of its consumer goods.

Unfortunately for all of us, UNSC resolution #1718 is all bark and very little bite, due to opposition from Russia and China. Nevertheless, the North Korean representative immediately stated that sanctions amounted to an act of war, storming out of the United Nations meeting. China then refused to impose even the weakened sanctions to which they had agreed. Of course, the Chinese government later made a show of cooperation by staging inspections of some trucks at a border crossing...but still refused to inspect cargo ships. Like the objections to North Korea's belligerence and refusal to participate in talks, the inspections were merely a ruse designed to make China look friendly and cooperative, while ultimately protecting North Korea.

The problem is that although the Chinese government may have some disagreements with Kim Jong-Il and his methods, they need North Korea to remain exactly as it is.

As long as North Korea is a harsh Communist regime under which most people live in abject poverty, China's own, slightly more moderate Communist government looks positively benign by comparison -- to American as well as Chinese eyes. While a repressive, militaristic dictator rules North Korea, China can expect friendly dealings with the United States. China fears any real change in North Korea for two reasons. On one hand, they fear that millions of starving refugees will pour across the border into an already overpopulated China if North Korea's government falls. On the other hand, democratic reform in North Korea might give Chinese citizens a place towards which to flee.

Those who think China will honestly help impose any sanctions -- much less harsher measures -- against North Korea have forgotten the long-standing relationship between those two countries. China insisted that the resolution include the line, "further decisions will be required, should additional measures be necessary," in an attempt to hamstring the United States. There is almost no chance China would refrain from using its veto to forestall action against North Korea.

With Kim Jong-Il possibly readying a second nuclear test, the United States and her allies have to take the situation seriously, even if China and the United Nations prefer to dither and delay. We may have to arm Japan, in much the same manner that Ronald Reagan deployed Pershing-2 missiles in Europe to push the Soviet Union into a military buildup that crashed its economy. We might have to seriously consider a preemptive strike, regardless of the outcry from dictators' mouthpieces. We can't outsource our national security to the United Nations.

If China will not actively help to restrain North Korea's nuclear ambitions, we may have to choose between a North Korea armed with nuclear-tipped missiles or an angry China. At least China -- we hope -- can be reasoned with.

North Korea conducted what appears to be a successful nuclear weapons test, and Kim Jong Il has threatened to fire off a nuclear missile -- though it's not clear he has that capability -- if the US doesn't accede to his demand for one-on-one talks.

Iran is on the verge of building its own nuclear weapon, and got away with conducting a proxy war against Israel in Lebanon earlier this year using the terrorist group Hizballah as cover. You can bet the mullahs are watching our response to the North Korean test and threats very carefully.

In Iraq, our troops are helping the people build a representative government from the ground up, despite the best Iran as well as al-Qaeda can throw at them. A captured letter sent by al-Qaeda leadership (what's left of it) to al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi before his death revealed that al-Qaeda is in a "stage of weakness, and a state of paucity." The same letter warned that violence aimed at Iraqi civilians (especially that directed against Sunni leaders) is "undermining al-Qa`ida's ability to win the 'hearts of the people'." The most recent National Intelligence Estimate, meanwhile, showed that Iraq is the linchpin in the War on Terror. Whoever ends up losing the fight in Iraq -- whether us or the terrorists -- will be severely damaged.

With all that to think about, what do Democrats and the media want to focus on as mid-term elections approach? Former Congressman Mark Foley.

Those on the Right are trying to deal with North Korea and Iran while fighting a global war against terrorists and those who support them. Those on the Left just want to talk about a witch-hunt against any Republican who heard that Foley was sending suggestive emails to former male pages over the age of consent, yet didn't kick him off Capitol Hill for being gay. Meanwhile, the Democrats bill themselves as the party of "tolerance" concerning "alternate lifestyles."

As difficult as it is to believe, there are more important events taking place in the world than a manufactured sex scandal in which no illicit sex even occurred.

The only contribution made by Democrats to the discussions on North Korea and Iran so far is to blame President Bush for upsetting the delicate state of ignorant bliss in which we lived during the 1990's. Oddly enough, the party that still complains about the perceived lack of a multilateral approach to Iraq insists that a unilateral solution is necessary for North Korea.

Bush is under attack for "allowing" the North Koreans to work on nuclear weapons, as though they began doing so only recently. The 1994 "Agreed Framework" called for North Korea to halt its nuclear weapons development in exchange for two light-water nuclear reactors. North Korea almost immediately violated that agreement by continuing to work on nuclear weapons anyway.

Pakistan gave North Korea high-speed centrifuges and instructions for building a nuclear weapon in 1997. In 1998, North Korea launched a multi-stage missile over Japan. In 1999, a Congressional report concluded that "North Korea's WMD programs pose a major threat to the United States and its allies," and stated that North Korea "is a greater threat to international stability primarily in Asia and secondarily in the Middle East" than five years previously. Anyone who pretends that  North Korea was "contained" before President Bush took office is simply not serious about dealing with the danger posed by that country.

Yet that seems to be the Democratic party line concerning North Korea.

In 2003, Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, "The United States does not need a multi-billion-dollar national missile defense against the possibility of a nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile." Pelosi will become Speaker of the House should the Democrats win in November. If her party had had their way, we would not have even the the limited missile defense capabilities we have today.

In response to the North Korean nuclear test, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), whose husband signed the Agreed Framework and then did nothing while North Korea violated it repeatedly, blamed "the failed policies of the Bush Administration." Senator Clinton is a likely Democratic candidate for President in 2008.

Former President Jimmy Carter, who was responsible for negotiating the 1994 Agreed Framework, opined in the New York Times that the agreement worked, despite its obvious failure. Carter claimed that President Bush is entirely to blame for North Korea "resuming" its quest for nuclear weapons -- and that they had good reason to do so.

"But beginning in 2002, the United States branded North Korea as part of an axis of evil, threatened military action, ended the shipments of fuel oil and the construction of nuclear power plants and refused to consider further bilateral talks," Carter wrote. "In their discussions with me at this time, North Korean spokesmen seemed convinced that the American positions posed a serious danger to their country and to its political regime. Responding in its ill-advised but predictable way, Pyongyang withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, expelled atomic energy agency inspectors, resumed processing fuel rods and began developing nuclear explosive devices."

Are these the sort of people who should be in charge of our government given the obvious dangers we face today? Is Nancy Pelosi the right person to back up President Bush as he faces down a nuclear-armed North Korea? Is Hillary Clinton the right person to take on a nuclear-armed Iran? Is the party which has consistently voted against every measure used to fight terrorism -- from information sharing among intelligence agencies to listening in on phone calls with known terrorists --  the people who should run our government for the next two critical years? Are the people who overwhelmingly favored granting Constitutional rights and Geneva Conventions protections to mass-murdering terrorist thugs the right people to lead us during a time of war? For that matter, should we put those who don't even believe we're at war in charge of fighting it?

As imperfect as the Republicans are, at least they're serious about dealing with the likes of Kim Jong Il, Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and terrorist leaders. A Democratic Congress would concentrate on manufactured scandals, staged impeachment trials and tax hikes, while going back to what even Senator John McCain (R-AZ) called a "carrots-and-no-sticks policy" regarding our enemies. 

As tempting as it is to "teach the Republicans a lesson" by letting them lose control of Congress in the 2006 election, I'm not sure the country can afford the price of tuition right now.

The following is a copy of the email I sent to the Sci-Fi channel.

Last night, I watched the season premiere of Battlestar Galactica, and, I have to say, was thoroughly disgusted. The writers of the show have taken its previous anti-war, anti-Bush undertone to an entirely new level. The entire episode was nothing more than a justification of terrorism committed by some of the main characters, and I'm surprised and saddened that you would allow such a thing to air on your channel.

In the show, the humans who settled a new planet are now living under the Cylon occupation. Cylons control the human puppet government, and many of the main human characters have joined the "insurgency." They send people to perform "heroic" suicide bombings that kill innocent humans as well as Cylons, and shrug off the casualties as part of the war they're fighting. They murder humans who collaborate with the Cylons. The Cylons imprison innocent people for no good reason, often torturing them while the collaborators cover for the Cylons.

All of this is obviously meant to imitate and excuse the rhetoric and tactics used by the terrorists fighting our troops in Iraq. It's apparent that the show is a paean to groups like al-Qaeda in Iraq, and an appeal to excuse terrorism on the flimsy grounds that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." The writers attempt to create a state of moral equivalency between the show's characters and the terrorists who murder US troops, Iraqi police and military, and Iraqi civilians every day. In order to accept such a moral equivalence, however, one must first abandon one's moral values.

Moral equivalence demands that one forego all understanding of right and wrong, and suspend one's sense of morality. Without the capacity to judge between right and wrong, people -- whole societies -- become unable to act. Criminals go unpunished, and those in need of protection go unaided. For instance, without the moral capacity to call the current ethnic murders by the government-sponsored militia in Darfur "wrong" and "immoral," the United Nations is unable to act to stop them. Due to moral paralysis, hundreds of thousands of innocent people may die, as they did in Rwanda. Is reducing the viewer's capacity to judge between right and wrong by portraying the murder of innocents as justifiable the intended goal of the Sci-Fi channel?

I cannot watch this show any longer. In fact, as long as Battlestar Galactica is on the air, I will cease to watch the Sci-Fi channel altogether. Although it may not have much impact, I will urge everyone I know personally to do the same. I will urge everyone I know on the internet to do so, and ask them to ask their friends to do so as well. Moreover, I will send copies of this letter to those who advertise on the Sci-Fi channel, to let them know what their money is buying -- no longer merely good entertainment, but thinly-veiled justifications of terrorism.

Thank you for your time.

A former viewer

In today's topsy-turvy world, perhaps the strangest thing is to see Democrats blasting Republicans for NOT gay-bashing. What is the world coming to?

Inexplicably, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) is under attack for not preventing former Representative Mark Foley (R-FL) from contacting male pages. The Left are in their glory over this "scandal," throwing accusations of "cover-up" just weeks before a tight midterm election. The fact that no evidence of wrongdoing on Hastert's part has yet been produced, however, doesn't even slow the Democratic attacks.

It seems that a lot of people in DC knew that Foley was gay, and that he was attracted to young men. After all, the people of his district are entitled to send whatever representation they want to Congress, if they felt he got the job done for them. Political correctness prevented anyone from making a ruckus over his sexual orientation, until the Democrats suddenly discovered a sort of militant asceticism.

Hastert was informed in late 2005 that Foley had sent a page some "overly friendly" emails, and that the page's parents wanted him to stop... but didn't want a big deal made of it. The emails were a bit creepy, perhaps, but not overtly sexual. In one, Foley asked the page -- a Louisiana native whose home had survived Hurricane Katrina -- for his picture. Hastert (who states that he had not been aware of the picture request) and other Republican leaders quietly asked Foley to cease and desist, and Foley agreed. Crisis averted, problem solved... right?

Not in an election year. Amazing, isn't it, that the story broke when it was just too late for the Republican party to remove Foley's name from the ballot?

Out of nowhere, it seems, a series of extremely salacious instant messages appeared, in which Foley and others openly discussed explicitly sexual matters. Actually, it wasn't nowhere -- copies of the "friendly" emails were first sent to the FBI and the St. Petersburg Times by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a group funded by the America-hating Leftist multi-billionaire George Soros. When neither the FBI nor the media saw anything actionable in the emails, they appeared on a newly-created web site that had almost no traffic. When ABC picked up the story at the insistence of Foley's opponent, the far more disturbing IMs suddenly made their appearance.

Foley immediately resigned when the story broke, in sharp contrast to Democrats who have been caught in scandals. Representative Gerry Studds (D-MA), for instance, actually slept with at least one male page. He turned his back on then-House Speaker Tip O'Neill (R-MA) in disrespect as he was being censured for his behavior, which earned him a standing ovation from fellow Democrats. Studds was re-elected five more times before he retired.

When Foley resigned, Democrats like Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) -- who expects to take Hastert's job after the upcoming elections -- immediately demanded that Hastert resign as well, and that the entire Republican leadership be investigated. They insist that Hastert knew of "inappropriate contacts" between Foley and "children," and did nothing -- in fact, many accused him of deliberately covering up for Foley, without a shred of evidence to back that accusation. Yet in the cutthroat world of Democratic smear campaigns, evidence is a four-letter word, and outrage trumps logic. 

It's perfectly understandable that Conservatives and most Republicans would be outraged by Foley's grossly immoral -- even disgusting -- behavior. However, it's almost impossible to understand why the Left would be upset. How could those who champion "alternate lifestyles" and belittle those who dare judge others by religious or moral standards be dismayed by some dirty text messages? Whatever happened to all the champions of the "right to privacy" and the supporters of NAMBLA's (the North American Man-Boy Love Association) right to "free speech?" Where are those who were outraged by the Boy Scouts' refusal to allow gay Scoutmasters? In short, it's a calculated outrage manufactured for political purposes. Do they expect us to believe that they condemn Foley's actions, which were not, after all, even strictly illegal?

As far as the law goes, 16-year-old pages are over the age of consent in DC (and many states) -- thanks to Left-wing activists who want to drive the age of consent even lower. There is no law against sodomy -- again, thanks to Left-wing activists who have worked to "mainstream" alternate lifestyles, claiming that a "right to privacy" forbids the government from interfering in the bedroom activities of two consenting adults. Of course, instant messages and emails are not the same as sexual contact, so statutes against sodomy and age of consent laws wouldn't even apply unless it can be proved that Foley had actual sexual contact with pages. And -- again, thanks to the Left -- we know that oral sex doesn't count as sex, either.

What we see here is the difference between illegal and immoral behavior. Foley's actions were not strictly illegal, but were certainly stomach-churningly immoral -- but only to those who don't shy away from making moral judgments. In other words: what business do those on the Left have condemning Foley for doing whatever he wanted with whomever he wanted, as long as all involved were over the age of consent? Isn't that what the Left has been telling us all these years? Who are these new Puritans that attack Republicans for not denouncing Foley when they first learned of his sexual tendencies? It's all a political game designed to split the Republicans just a month before a crucial election. And, sadly, it seems to be working.

Which brings us back to Hastert. "No one in the leadership, including Speaker Hastert, had any knowledge of the warped and sexually explicit instant messages that were revealed by ABC News last Friday," said House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH). Upon being informed of Foley's "overly friendly" -- but in no way sexual -- emails to a page, what should he have done? Censure Foley on the House floor for being a homosexual? Launch a major investigation into Foley's personal life, issuing a subpoena to every page with whom Foley had ever spoken, just in case Foley had done something illegal? A full-blown witch hunt is not the "proper" response to every questionable activity on Capitol Hill. Hastert cannot reasonably be held to account for Foley's actions.

With this year's election hanging in the balance, the Democrats will use any and every dirty campaign tactic to regain power. One can only hope that the voters will get sick of the underhanded trickery, and decide to send the Democrats a message. More than likely, though, the negative campaigns will suppress the so-called "values voters" -- mostly social Conservatives and religious Republicans -- by causing them to stay away from the polls in disgust. If that happens, expect to see more dirty campaigning in the future... as rewarding bad behavior only results in more bad behavior.

In April 2006, the annual "Patterns of Global Terrorism" National Intelligence Estimate report was released to Congressional leaders. Both Democrats and Republicans had access to its findings, although -- because it contains classified information like operatives' names and methods -- the report was not made available to the public.

Yet while the Right wages war on terrorists and their supporters, the Left continues to wage war on President Bush. Instead of admitting that our own intelligence services disagree with their chosen position, the Democrats have continued to do everything possible to undermine public support for the Iraq war as well as every method used to stop terrorism. Their success in the 2006 election depends upon failure for America.

About five months after it was released, someone leaked a few choice -- but hardly representative -- sentences of the classified NIE to the NY Times and the Washington Post. "Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat," screamed the New York Times, quoting anonymous officials. The Washington Post chimed in with, "Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight." Meanwhile, the main story on CNN's web site was, "Dems: Leaked Iraq report shows need for new direction." As usual, none of the major news agencies or Democratic politicians seemed concerned about the fact that classified information was leaked, as long as the information could be used against the Bush administration.

"The intelligence community -- all 16 agencies -- believes the war in Iraq has fueled terrorism," said Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) called the report a "devastating and authoritative analysis of the Bush administration's failures in Iraq," and accused the President of following "a failed stay-the-course strategy that America's intelligence community has concluded makes America less safe." Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) said that the "the April classified national intelligence estimate assessing the impact of Iraq on the global war on terror only adds more urgency to the importance of changing course in Iraq." Clinton also attacked "a rubber-stamp Congress that continually supports a failed policy in Iraq, and now, as we can tell from what's been leaked about the NIE, a failing policy in terms of containing, deterring and defeating the terrorist leaders and operatives in the global war on terror."

But that's not what the NIE says at all. In fact, it barely mentions Iraq.

The Democrats have apparently hung their collective hat on the following lines: "We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere. ... The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement." They deliberately ignored the very next line: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."

In essence, the latest NIE concluded that the aggressive global campaign against terrorism has weakened al-Qaeda, that terrorist movements -- while still dangerous -- lack cohesive leadership and strategy, and that the fight in Iraq has become a do-or-die situation for the terrorists. If we complete our mission there, the terrorists will suffer a crushing defeat. If, on the other hand, the terrorists can be perceived as having driven us out, radical Islam will flourish.

In other words, it says pretty much what members of the Bush administration, as well as most Republicans and Conservatives, have been saying all along.

Another line the Democrats declined to quote: "United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa'ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qa'ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization."  Of course, why would they want to let the public know that a) al-Qaeda has been seriously damaged and that b) the threat of terrorism is real?

National security and the lives of innocent Americans are merely pieces in a political game. Democratic politicians, knowing that the report actually said something quite different, shamelessly lied about the report's conclusions just to attack President Bush, erode support for the fight in Iraq, and convince voters to put them in power in November. 

Even after the report's key judgments were declassified, they continue to lie about its conclusions. "[A]s the (National Intelligence Estimate) indicates, his failed policies have made America less safe and spawned terrorism, not decreased it," said Karen Finney, spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, on 28 September 2006 -- two days after President Bush declassified the report. That's a bit like blaming the 1942 Allied invasion of North Africa (countries that never attacked us!), which doubtless resulted in increased German recruitment, for "spawning" more Nazis. Finney also said, "Democrats will be tough and smart, and will actually fight the terrorists, not leave them to plan future attacks."

Of course, Democrats won't fight them by tapping phone calls to and from known terrorists without asking a judge's permission, they won't fight them by allowing law enforcement agencies to share information, they won't fight them by interrogating them to find out what they know, and they won't fight them by preventing them from taking over Iraq to use as a base from which to control the Middle East. How they will fight terrorism, the Democrats have yet to say.

But at least we know they'll be "tough and smart," which will no doubt impress the terrorists.

The US taxpayers fund more than twenty percent of the annual budget of the United Nations. We house them in New York City, on some of the most valuable real estate in the world. We constantly defer to them on matters of international importance, even at the risk of our own security. Why do we continue to fund this collection of advocates for international criminals and dictators?

Recent speeches given by world leaders at the UN have brought the problems plaguing that organisation into sharp focus. The President of the United States made a speech about spreading freedom, democracy, human rights and reform, and received some polite applause. A Communist dictator from Venezuela and the mouthpiece of the Islamofascist theocrats who rule Iran made speeches attacking America, accusing our country and our President of horrible crimes, and received ovations.

"Every nation that travels the road to freedom moves at a different pace, and the democracies they build will reflect their own culture and traditions," President Bush told the assembled delegates. "But the destination is the same: A free society where people live at peace with each other and at peace with the world." Hugo Chavez of Venezuela repeatedly referred to President Bush as "the devil" during his own speech, ostentatiously crossing himself, and complained that "it smells of sulfur still today."  Ahmadinejad of Iran ended his speech with a prayer for the return of the 12th Imam, asking that Allah "make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause." (Imagine the furor that would have erupted had President Bush ended his speech by praying for the Rapture and asking that God make everyone a Christian.)

Every year, thousands of lives are lost to the UN's corruption and vacillation, and untold numbers of crimes, large and small, are committed by its representatives. I'm not just talking about the reams of unpaid parking tickets issued annually by the NYC police, either. More than 800,000 Tutsi and Hutu died in Rwanda in 1994 while UN troops watched, prevented from acting by layers of bureacracy and a divided Security Council. Thousands of Bosnian Muslims were slaughtered by Serbs in Srebrenica while UN observers, well, observed. More recently, UN peacekeepers watched as Hizballah terrorists launched rockets attacks against Israeli civilians on a daily basis, even reporting that Hizballah "fired from the vicinity of five UN positions" in July 2006. Indeed, the UN's legacy of inaction is exceeded in criminality only by its actions.

After President Clinton brought NATO in to stop the slaughter in the Balkans, the region was turned over to the UN, by whom it is mismanaged to this day. UN peacekepers ran forced prostitution rings in Bosnia and Kosovo until turned in by an American worker. UN peacekeepers have been involved in rape, slavery, child prostitution, black marketeering, bribery and food-for-sex scandals from East Timor to West Africa. In the biggest disgrace in history, France, Russia and China used their votes on the Security Council to prevent action against Saddam Hussein in order to protect oil contracts they had made with his regime while he brutalised the Iraqi people. Prominent and influential people in those countries and many more took bribes from Saddam to use their influence on his behalf. The scandal reached all the way up to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan himself.The largest criminal organisation in history -- that's what our tax dollars are funding.

Right now, genocidal attacks are taking place against blacks in the Darfur region of Sudan, carried out by the Arab Janjaweed militias, while the UN passes resolutions "deploring" the slaughter but doing nothing to stop it. Sudan, coincidentally, is a member of the UN's Human Rights Commission, along with Cuba, Libya and China. Iran has defied repeated UN demands to stop enriching uranium in pursuit of nuclear weapons, while Russia and China -- again protecting their business partner, as they did Iraq -- block the Security Council from recommending even the weakest sanctions. Iran, again coincidentally, is vice-Chair of the Disarmament Commission. After ten years of trying, the UN is still unable to write a resolution condemning terrorism, for fear of offending terror-supporting member states. In fact, the United Nations is unable to do anything at all to fulfill its purpose, which -- as written into its charter -- was "to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace."

The problem stems from the UN's insistence on treating all member states the same, regardless of their record on human rights, terrorism, war or democracy. It is long past time for us to either change the United Nations or disband it in favor of a more effective council of nations. Either way, nations who do not practice democracy within their own borders should not be allowed to cast votes on any international actions. Pretending that delegates of governments that do not represent their people somehow speak for those people is a joke. Nations under any kind of censure for disarmament or human rights abuses should not be allowed to sit on, let alone chair, those commissions.

As long as we continue to pretend that the United Nations is what it should be, rather than what it is, we have no hope of reforming it. It's time to look at the UN's problems honestly and work to fix them, or else halt its funding and remove its headquarters from our soil.

The only value captured terrorists hold is in the information they can provide -- information which has prevented terrorist attacks and led to the capture of still more terrorists. Information gained from Abu Zubadayah, for instance, led to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shib, which in turn led to the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, as well as preventing an al-Qaeda attack in the United States. Yet due to a weakness of will, and a desire for the approval of Europe, we are on the verge of abandoning any useful means by which to extract such information. Most Americans probably don't feel so delicately about the treatment of captured terrorists. I'd bet that we could probably eliminate the National Debt by selling lottery tickets, with the prize being ten minutes alone with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and a lead pipe. Should Osama bin Laden be captured tomorrow, interrogators would be prevented from even shouting "boo!" at him.

The Left has driven this debate by claiming that any method used by Americans to gain information from captured enemies that makes them feel uncomfortable is "torture," while ignoring the fact that American soldiers and civilians are routinely kidnapped, tortured and beheaded by terrorists. Liberals, Democrats and their mainstream media partners have repeatedly accused the United States of using torture during interrogations. In fact, there is no evidence that torture has been used on the detainees at Guantanamo Bay or anywhere else.

Real torture usually results in lost or damaged body parts. Real torture involves inflicting pain of such intensity and duration that the subject would do anything at all rather than face it again. But coercive interrogations, such as the CIA was permitted to use against Abu Zubadayah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, are simply not torture. Loud music, threats, rooms that are too hot or too cold, lack of sleep and interrogators using good cop/bad cop routines are not torture. As much as one may dislike it, playing the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Metallica and other loud music barely rises above the level of "annoying." Otherwise, the parents of every teenager in America would be calling Human Rights Watch.

On the contrary, Gitmo detainees are guaranteed a full night's sleep, which cannot be broken for interrogations. They eat at least as well as the soldiers who guard them, hearty meals of "culturally acceptable" food. They also get plenty of outdoor recreation, and all the religious perks they could want. Guards are even forbidden to touch the personal Qur'ans each detainee is issued. They receive health care courtesy of the US taxpayer, and their biggest medical problem is that they're gaining weight. The detainees are allowed to send and receive letters, which cannot be opened and read, and pass each other messages by giving them to lawyers. The detainees often cooperate to stage attacks on the guards, sharing resources and strategies. Yet the Left continues to cry that the terrorists aren't being treated gently enough under the terms of the Geneva Conventions.

The Geneva Conventions were adopted after WWII to encourage nations at war to treat captured enemies in a humane fashion. Those who do not adhere to the rules are unable to demand such consideration for their own troops, who would (it was supposed) refuse to fight, or trade information for humane treatment if captured. Until now, nations have not adhered to the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war because they feel an overwhelming need to be nice to their enemies, but because they want their own captured soldiers treated well. Terrorists, besides not fighting on behalf of any nation, flout the Conventions and all rules of warfare by deliberately targeting the innocent and torturing those whom they capture. Yet the Supreme Court forced President Bush to extend Geneva Conventions protections to those who had been deliberately excluded from them by the Conventions themselves, thereby rendering them utterly meaningless. Not only the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, but the "high value" detainees held by the CIA were deemed worthy of protection by the Geneva Conventions.

It's easy enough for the Supreme Court to decide that captured foreign terrorists should have most of the legal rights of American citizens, plus the protections due signatories of the Geneva Conventions. But with all that protection, how are we to gather the information needed to stop future attacks? The confusion stems from Article 3, Part 1 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which prohibits "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." What, precisely, does that mean? By whose standards are "outrages upon personal dignity" to be judged? No one knows what methods of interrogation are still legal and which can no longer be used. Every attempt to clarify the meaning of this ambiguous phrase has been mischaracterised as an attempt to change or abolish it.

Even former Secretary of State Colin Powell and certain Republican Senators such as John McCain (AZ), John Warner (VA), Lindsey Graham (SC) and Susan Collins (ME) have -- by accident or design -- misunderstood the attempts to distinguish between legal and illegal interrogation methods. The four Senators have joined the Democrats in pushing a bill that would deliberately leave the language as vague as possible, hamstringing those trying to save lives. The bill would also force the government to give secret information to terrorists preparing for their trials. McCain railed against "weakening the Geneva protections" and said President Bush's request "puts our military personnel and others directly at risk." Powell declared his support for the wishy-washy Republicans, saying he was worried that the "world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism." Powell's letter also declared, "To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts... Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."

Who do these people think we're fighting? Since when have captured American soldiers been protected by the Geneva Conventions? We have, in fact, never fought an enemy to whom they meant more than a way to tie our hands. It's impossible to see how either our troops or our civilian population could be put at greater risk by using coercive methods to discover details of enemy plots and personnel. More to the point, abandoning interrogation methods that have already protected civilians from terrorist plots in order to lessen the threat to our troops seems like an obscene role reversal. I have to wonder how members of our military would react to being made safer -- if that were even true -- by increasing the risk to those they have put their lives on the line to protect.

Capturing our enemies no longer helps the war effort. In fact, detainees may become a serious liability. As it is, we cannot interrogate them effectively. The Left is using their very existence to undermine support for the war at home and abroad. Guantanamo Bay is little more than a US taxpayer-funded terrorist resort and training camp. If the Democrats (and certain Republicans) have their way, detainees will be handed secret information that they can send to their fellow terrorists in letters which the guards are forbidden to open.

If the McCain bill becomes law, there's only one way our troops can prevent captured enemies from using our own system to become an even greater threat. Don't capture any.

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.