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.

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.