How is America doing in terms of demographics? Our fertility rate is hovering at just below replacement level, averaging 2.09 children over the lifetime of each American woman. Of all industrialised nations, including Russia, Japan and Australia, we are the only country in which the current population has a future. Even China's fertility rate is down to 1.73, indicating a shrinking and aging populace. Why are we so different from the rest of the advanced world, which is spiraling down to non-existence?

As with most complex questions, there is no single factor from which one can divine an answer. In the past, people have had large families because they were a necessity. A family was an economic group upon which one could rely to share resources and take care of the young and the elderly. It was worth devoting one's life to caring for children, because they were expected to return that care in one's declining years. Now, as more people depend on their governments to sustain them, there's less economic incentive to have children. Government social programs take the place of the family. Creeping socialism is one of the main reasons people around the world have fewer children. They're simply not needed... so why should one "burden" oneself with raising them? One may complain about the "me first" attitude so prevalent in America today, but it's nothing compared to the "me only" lingering adolescence encouraged by a nanny-state government.

The largest differences between ourselves and most European countries lie in our adherence to religion, our more capitalist economy, and our strong national identity. Consider that Ireland, with its growing economy and the strongest overall religious faith in Europe, enjoys the region's highest fertility rate at 1.86. Approximately 88% of the Irish are Catholic, and Ireland has one of the highest church attendance rates in the Western world. However, the government controls key sectors of the economy, notably transportation, energy and the media, and Ireland is still very much a welfare state in which taxation is primarily seen as a means to redistribute income from rich to poor. America is somewhat less religious than Ireland (with an overall church attendance rate of 40%, as opposed to Ireland's 63%), but more resistant to government authority. As we accept more secularism and government control over our lives, however, we may indeed see our fertility rate plummet.

Like Europe, we are about to undergo a massive influx of immigrants. If given legal status (as now seems likely, with Congress controlled by Democrats), most of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants currently living in the US would bring their families to America. Furthermore, those who would enter the country under the "guest worker" program would not be required to return home when their term was up; instead, they could become permanent residents and bring their families here as well.

Altogether, the Heritage Foundation estimated a likely inrush of more than 100 million immigrants over the next twenty years (over and above normal immigration totals) as a result of the bill passed in the Senate but blocked by House Republicans. The estimate was lowered to 66 million after some changes were made to the bill, but that is still a significant number -- the current population of the US is approximately 300 million. Most of those new immigrants will come from Mexico. What sort of impact will they have on our society?

Like the Irish, 88% of Mexicans are Catholic, and 55% attend church at least once a week. We can expect to see somewhat of a resurgence in the Catholic church, as well as the expected Hispanification of many aspects of society. So the churches may be more crowded, the food spicier and the music more lively -- but those are not the only positive effects we can expect. 

The fertility rate among Mexicans is 2.42%, but Mexican birth rates are suppressed by an aggressive government campaign against large families. Freed of such coercion, birth rates among new Americans from Mexico may skyrocket.

The question is, how will we deal with our own tide of immigrants and a new generation of Americans? If they are segregated and encouraged to cling to their own sub-culture by "multiculturalism," as Muslims have been in France, it will only be a matter of time before they explode in a similar way. Our only choice, should the immigration bill become law, is to do what Americans always do: assimilate them.

Our own population is not dwindling, unlike those across Europe -- new immigrants will add to, not replace, our children. We will have to find a way to graft our strong streak of national pride, belief in representative democracy and traditional emphasis on self-reliance onto the proliferative new Americans. 

One thing we must not do, if we want to avoid Europe's fate, is let millions upon millions of people flood into this country dependent on the kind of socialist entitlements offered by the Left. Perhaps the Bush administration's redesign of the citizenship test (over the objections of Left-wing groups, of course) to include questions about concepts like democracy and the rule of law, instead of just the colors of the flag, is a good first step.

All in all, an influx of immigrants isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's just the way it's being done that rankles those on the Right... uncontrolled and spearheaded by granting amnesty to an entire class of lawbreakers. It would be far better to stop illegal immigration by building fences and enforcing our current laws, and increase legal immigration as desired. But with the only roadblock to the amnesty bill gone, all we can do is deal with things as they will be, instead of how we wish them to be. At least we can anticipate a demographic boost, even as the Islamification of Europe continues, if we take steps to bring our coming countrymen into the fold.

If we don't, we'll soon have bigger problems than struggling to pronounce the menu items at Taco Bell.

See also:
An Influx of Immigrants 1: Europe

In order for a population to sustain itself, its fertility rate must remain above a certain average number of children per female -- about 2.1, to make up for accidents and other sources of mortality. That has little to do with total population, which can be supplemented by outsiders, but means a great deal to a group or culture. For example, if the Amish suddenly stopped having children, their entire society would disappear in a few decades. The total population of the area would probably increase, as other people moved in to take advantage of all that empty rolling farmland. In the same way, but in a larger sense, the citizens of industrialised nations across the globe are breeding themselves out of existence. Or, more to the point, not breeding.

Over the last few decades, Europe's overall fertility rate has dropped to approximately 1.5. France, which has the highest fertility rate in Europe at 1.84, has begun offering financial incentives to those who have a third child. Italy, which has a fertility rate of 1.28, has been offering incentives for a second child since 2003. The fertility rate is down to 1.34 in Greece, 1.28 in Spain, and 1.39 in Germany. Europeans as we know them are a dying breed.

As most advanced countries find their birth rates dropping, their populations age, and must inevitably dwindle without replacement. It's not just happening in Europe. Russia, for instance, is emptying out at an unbelievable rate -- the population is falling by 700,000 a year. Japan's population is just beginning its fall, but with its fertility rate hitting a low of 1.25 in 2005 and no immigration to speak of, it's only a matter of time.

The total population level of Europe is doing just fine, though, due solely to immigration. As the French, Italians, Germans, Norwegians and the rest slowly disappear, their place is being taken by overflow from those countries that have much higher fertility rates and surplus population. After all, someone's got to work to pay for all those entitlement programs as Europe's population ages. But which countries are contributing to Europe's replacement population? As Dr. Omer Taspinar, adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University, wrote in 2003:

"During the postwar labor shortage in the 1950s and 1960s, Turks, Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians, and Pakistanis were called to help spur Europe's economic recovery. No host country expected these 'guestworkers,' as the Germans called them with characteristic frankness, to overstay their welcome. Like all good guests, they were supposed to leave, preferably when the recession hit and the party was over in the 1970s. They didn't. Instead, their families joined them, and new generations of European Turks, Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians, and Pakistanis were born.

"More are on the way. Today, the Muslim birth rate in Europe is three times higher than the non-Muslim one. If current trends continue, the Muslim population of Europe will nearly double by 2015, while the non-Muslim population will shrink by 3.5 percent."

In January 2006, the Palestinians handed power to the Hamas party in their first free election, to the surprise of everyone... including the Hamas party. Not so surprising, however, was the discovery that the terrorist group whose entire "platform" consisted of "kill the Jews and destroy Israel" had no idea how to deal with the economy, environment, health care or jobs in the Palestinian Authority... rather, the lack of those things. But the people voted for Hamas, and those who thought the Palestinians had already hit rock bottom were proven wrong.

The problem was that Hamas had no realistic plan for governing. All they had was virulent anger towards Israel and America, loud criticism of all their policies, and vague promises of wealth and security for all. The fact that the ruling Fatah party was rife with corruption pushed the election their way. After they assumed power, however, economic conditions and order in the Palestinian Authority only worsened. Their entrenched ideology, including the refusal to accept the existence of Israel and insistence that terrorism is "legitimate resistance," has only helped to deepen the misery and poverty of their people. Meanwhile, members of the Hamas and Fatah parties battle each other and the police forces openly in the Gaza streets. But that's what happens when voters elect a party that has no real platform, only animosity and dissent. The election of Hamas is a prime example of why rational people should never cast votes based only on emotion, but consider the issues and how the candidates plan to address them.

And yet, we Americans can't exactly point fingers at the Palestinians, not anymore. The 2006 election here in the heartland of democracy saw the empowerment of a party whose entire platform was based on virulent anger at the President, loud criticism of all his policies, and vague promises of wealth and security for all. The Democratic party never advanced an plan of their own, nor an agenda to improve the problems about which they complained so vociferously... only insisted that electing them would somehow make it all better. They managed to turn just enough voters against the Republican party to win a majority in both House and Senate. But having won power, they immediately descended into squabbling over what to do with it.

Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), newly-minted Speaker of the House, promptly used her influence to back John Murtha (D-PA) for Majority Leader... but he was soundly rejected by House Democrats. Next, she is expected to try to elevate Alcee Hastings (D-FL), an impeached former federal judge, to the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee over ranking Democrat Jane Harman (D-CA) for purely personal reasons.

Lacking both plans and realistic leadership, many Democrats have begun to fall back to the standard Liberal rhetoric, each pushing his or her pet issues and trying to buy as many votes for the future as possible. They've already begun to lay plans for raising taxes, pulling out of Iraq, raising the minimum wage, imposing controls and restrictions on businesses, repealing the PATRIOT Act, funding embryonic stem-cell research and fighting Nature by enacting legislation to combat climate change. Even socialised medicine (remember Hillarycare?) is back on the table. "Health care is coming back," Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) warned, adding, "It may be a bad dream for some." In fact, the only plan the Democrats seem to have is setting the clock back to what they see as a happier time, ignoring both the good and bad lessons we've learned in the last six years. Forget the war with terrorists and the surging economy, they want to party like it's 1999.

That's what happens when the electorate hands power to a party with no plan. Now we have to depend on Senate Republicans using the filibuster, and upon President Bush wielding that long-unused veto pen, to stop the most damaging legislation over the next two years. In the House, our only hope is the recently-elected "moderate" Democrats, since the House minority has no real power.

If not running gun battles, at least we can look forward to watching "Liberal" and "moderate" Democrats struggle to handle the power they fought so hard to take, fighting with each other and the Republicans at the same time, in factions and as individuals. Pass the popcorn!

As the dust of the 2006 election settles, it's clear who the real winners are. Our enemies pay far more attention to our politics than most of our citizens, and know just how to manipulate our media to achieve maximum impact. Think it's a coincidence that October was constantly referred to as, "the bloodiest month since 2003" in every newscast for weeks before the election? Just as they swayed the Spanish election in 2004 -- but failed to do three times in Iraq -- the enemy has influenced our own political process to benefit themselves.

More than anything, the 2006 election results have sent a message to members of our own military. What must they think when they see Dick "our troops are like Nazis" Durbin taking the number two position in the Senate, and Jack "they're guilty without a trial" Murtha vying for second banana in the House? The new leaders of Congress will meet next week with former presidential candidate George "Come Home America" McGovern, whose 1972 bid failed due to his radical anti-war stance. McGovern will be advising our new leaders on how best to pull the troops out of Iraq by June of 2007. What other conclusion can anyone draw than that we, as a country, do not support those who fight on our behalf?

By putting into power those who advocate retreat from Iraq in the face of the enemy, we have failed the troops who depend on our moral support to sustain them. The only Democrat plans for Iraq I've ever heard are "cut and run" (immediate withdrawal), "cut and walk" (phased withdrawal), "split and quit" (divide the country, declare victory and leave) and "hide and bide" (retreat to secure bases and let Sunni, Shi'a, Kurds, Ba'athists and al-Qaeda fight it out). Not one major Democratic leader has called for winning, and our troops know that. Nancy Pelosi, who will soon take her place as Speaker of the House, considers Iraq "not a war to be won, but a situation to be solved." By putting the Defeatocrats in charge, we have sent our troops the clear message that we do not support them or their mission.

What's even worse, we've sent our enemies that message, too.

Al-Qaeda and other terrorists have always believed that they could win because we Americans are too soft for war, and can't take the sight of our own blood. Those fighting our troops in Iraq have continued against the odds because they knew that if they keep up the pressure, the anti-war Democrats would push for retreat... and now, they control Congress. Terrorists have understood all along that a Democratic sweep of Congress would be their victory. All they had to do to reach that conclusion was listen to the speeches of major Democrats over the last few years.

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," said Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, adding that "there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq." Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance." Hamas leader Abu Abdullah said that talk of withdrawal "proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation." Islamic Jihad leader Abu Ayman said he is "emboldened" by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam.

AP reports that Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, is well satisfied by the way his efforts affected the 2006 election. Speaking via audio tape, al-Muhajir "welcomed the Republican electoral defeat that led to the departure of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He added that the group's fighters would not rest until they had blown up the White House." According to Reuters, "Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday called U.S. President George W. Bush's defeat in congressional elections a victory for Iran."

Yet the Democrats never question why our enemies would celebrate their victory.

Osama bin Laden declared war on what he considered a "weak horse" (1996) and a "paper tiger" (1998) after watching American troops ordered to pull out of Somalia after only 18 casualties in 1993. The attacks by thugs and terrorists in Iraq today are aimed, not at our troops or the innocent Iraqis who die in them, but at our will to fight. America, our enemies believe, has no stomach for battle.

So the American people have spoken, and -- whatever the truth may be -- it sure sounds as though we said, "the enemy was right."

A win for the Democrats in the 2006 election would be a loss for not just the Republicans, but Americans in general. If you're one of those who think Democratic control of Congress will only last for two years -- and that the Republicans will rediscover their Conservative roots while "wandering in the wilderness" -- you haven't thought the matter through. If the Democrats take control, they will take steps to entrench their position by expanding their voter base, none of which will be good for the country... and the effects of which could last a decade or more. That's not "fear-mongering," that's taking a serious look at what Democrats could do to ensure they keep their hold on power, using threats of holding up legislation and blocking nominees to get their bills passed.

It's certain that Democrats will raise both the minimum wage and taxes. All they really have to do is sit tight and let the Bush tax cuts expire. NY Representative Charles Rangel, who will chair the Ways and Means Committee if Democrats take the House, has said he "cannot think of one" of Bush's tax cuts worthy of renewal. Higher taxes won't affect "the rich," at whom high taxes are supposedly aimed -- they'll simply pull money out of their investments and tuck it away where it can't be taxed. The poor don't actually pay income tax, leaving those who make money -- but not enough to hire expensive tax accountants -- to pay ever higher taxes.

Investor pullouts will cause the stock market to drop, taking a toll on retirement funds like 401(k)s. Consumer confidence and spending will fall, while interest rates and inflation rise. Companies will have to lay off employees and raise prices to keep showing a profit. The higher minimum wage will accelerate the layoffs as small companies struggle to stay afloat. Larger companies will relocate more of their operations abroad to save money. The middle class, which will have to shoulder more of the higher tax burden, will begin to shrink, increasing the gap between rich and poor -- and leading to more demand for government support and income redistribution. Unemployment will rise, the welfare rolls will once again increase, and so the Democrats, by playing the old "Republicans want to stop your benefits" card, will gain voters for the 2008 campaign and beyond. Those who are dependent upon government handouts will almost always vote for the politicians who promise to continue or increase them.

Democrats frequently attack Wal-Mart, one of America's largest employers, for its lack of unions and healthcare plans -- ignoring the fact that Wal-Mart employees consistently vote against unions, and that Wal-Mart offers a healthcare plan at a reasonable per-month cost. Forcing the retailer to accept unions would be a great coup for the Democrats, as a huge percentage of mandatory union dues inevitably find their way to fund Democratic campaigns. The Democrat-controlled Maryland legislature, for example, recently voted to force Wal-Mart to pay for expensive health insurance for its workers, a union-driven move designed to make signing a union agreement (despite the wishes of its employees) look cheap. The unions -- with the help of their old partners, the Democrats -- would expand their Wal-Mart corporate union campaign to the rest of the country. Naturally, Wal-Mart would have to increase employee wages in order to comply with union demands... which would lead to store closings, layoffs, and even more unemployment and welfare recipients to swell the Democratic voter ranks.

As for the law, Democrats like Senators Clinton (NY), Kerry (MA) and Boxer (CA) would push their bill to grant felons the vote. People who have decided the laws of our country don't apply to them shouldn't have a hand in changing them. Democrats would also refuse to allow any more Federal Court judges -- or Supreme Court Justices -- who believe in following the Constitution to take the bench. Activist judges would "discover" the rights for felons to vote, and for voters to do so without having to show ID.

The Senate passed an immigration reform bill that gave what amounts to total amnesty as well as special privileges to illegal immigrants. It would have allowed all current illegal immigrants to stay in America while awaiting legal status, after which they could bring in their extended families. It also included no provision for making workers who would come to America under its vaunted "guest worker" program return home when their time was up. The Senate bill, if signed into law, would have resulted in up to an estimated 100 million new immigrants over the next twenty years -- far more than we could possibly assimilate in so short a time. Only the Republican majority in the House of Representatives prevented this nightmare from becoming reality, with their staunch insistence on an "enforcement first" bill. HR 4437 (passed by 92% of Republicans, opposed by 82% of Democrats) insisted that the government try to stop the flow of new illegals before dealing with those already here. The House Republicans also issued a flat refusal to consider blanket amnesty. If Democrats take control of the House, that barrier will vanish like mist, and the Democrats will have a flood of uneducated, largely ignorant new low-class workers to turn into good little Democrat voters, all demanding a piece of the government pie.

Democratic control of Congress could last for years, crushing this country under the burden of nanny-state social programs paid for with ever-increasing taxation upon the only productive members of society. Soon, like most of Europe, we could be mired in a demi-Socialist hell as jobs are guaranteed by the government, causing corporate reluctance to hire new workers, leading to a permanent underclass of angry unemployables with whom the dwindling group of Old Americans can't even communicate. The only way any party could win back control of the government would be to move as far Left as they can, in order to capture those votes. Even if Democrats lose Congress again in a few years, the damage will have been done -- benefits and rights granted are almost impossible to take away. Conservatives will no longer have a party at all. We might not even have a country.

And when people complain about what America has become, my response will be, "Did you vote in '06? Did you 'teach the Republicans a lesson' by staying home? Then you got what you wanted."

If you're looking for some Halloween viewing suggestions, check out thirteen of my favorite horror movies.

A Stir of Echoes (1999)
Dismissing this creepy film as a copycat of "The Sixth Sense" would be a mistake. Kevin Bacon is haunted by visions like an itch in his head that he can't scratch, which lead him to a terrible discovery.

Alien (1979)
The crew of a deep-space mining ship are awakened from suspended animation to investigate an alien distress call, only to find out too late that the message was not a call for help... but a warning.

An American Werewolf in London (1981)
Two American tourists in England are attacked by a wolf. One survives... and finds that his subsequent dreams of hunting on all fours are unfortunately real. The twist here is that a werewolf's victims haunt him, urging him to commit suicide.
 
Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter (1974)
A somewhat campy, yet cool, cross between spaghetti Western and horror. A traveling vampire slayer and his faithful assistant arrive in a European village to deal with a youth-draining vampire. The trick is that each type of vampire can only be killed in a specific way. When one of the victims "turns," Kronos and crew must experiment with various methods of killing him until they find the right way to kill the master vampire.

Carnival of Souls (1962)
After surviving a car crash, Mary's life begins to take a surreal turn, as nightmares become ever more indistinguishable from reality.

Dawn of the Dead (1978)
In this sequel to Night of the Living Dead, a group of survivors take refuge in a shopping mall. As in the first movie, it's the relentless, single-minded tenacity of the undead that make them scary.

Event Horizon (1997)
Seven years ago, the ship Event Horizon disappeared into a self-created black hole during a secret trial of its new propulsion system. The last transmission heard was a garbled warning in Latin, of all things. Now the ship has returned, but where has it been... and what unspeakable evil has befallen the crew?

Night of the Living Dead (1968)
Barbara visits her father's grave in rural Pennsylvania, never dreaming that the recently-dead are returning to life. She and a few survivors barricade themselves in a remote farmhouse against the growing horde of undead. They're slow-moving, but relentless... and very hungry.

Pitch Black (2000)
A ship full of passengers, including a captured criminal on the way to face justice, crashes on a remote desert planet with three suns. The survivors must work together, pinning their hopes on an abandoned ship at an old mining station. But if the ship was abandoned, where did its crew go? It turns out that the planet is not as devoid of life as it seems... rare night is approaching... and the criminal holds the key to their survival. 

Rosemary's Baby (1968)
When Rosemary and her husband moved into a new apartment, she had no idea that she was about to become pregnant... or that her new neighbors would have an unholy interest in her child. Right up to the the end, the viewer doesn't know whether she really is living in a nest of Satanists, or is just going mad. "Creepy" doesn't even begin to describe this movie.

Suspiria (1977)
An innocent American girl enrolls at a German ballet school, and becomes ever more entangled in a nightmarish world of witches and demonic influences.

The Exorcist (1973)
When a young girl's apparent mental disorder begins showing symptoms like telekenesis and speaking in tongues, her mother is forced to face the truth: her daughter has become posessed by an ancient demon. Let me just say that, of all the horror movies I have ever seen, the crab-walking scene in The Exorcist was the only one that nearly made me leave a theater.

The Wicker Man (1973)
A police officer travels to a small Scottish island to investigate the disappearance of a young girl, but no one seems to have heard of her -- not even her mother. He begins to suspect that the entire island is covering up for a murder... but the truth is far worse, as the investigation becomes a clash between the modern policeman's Christianity and the ancient pagan cult to which the villagers belong. Note: Make sure you get the "director's cut" full version of the film, not the 84 or 88 minute versions.

UPDATE: Be sure to check out 50 Favorite Horror Films Of All-Time at RightWingNews.

As many times as those who support the struggle in Iraq have tried to explain its place in the context of the larger War on Terror, reason and facts have failed to make an impression on Liberals. Unfortunately, as many of us have found, one cannot hope to convince using logic people whose worldview is based on emotion. Perhaps drawing an analogy might do the trick.

Iraq, it seems, was like the plug in the kitchen sink.

Most bachelors eventually come face to face with the dreaded kitchen sink. It's not something you plan on. After a period of living alone, you come to the realisation that no one is going to complain if the dishes are not washed immediately... so, you don't. You put them in the sink, but never really make the time to wash them, somehow. *

You start to feel a little guilty about not washing them, usually about the time your last dish hits the sink and you start using paper plates. So you run some hot water into the sink, and pour in some dish soap. Got to let them soak a little, right? Only...they keep on soaking, the suds disperse, and eventually the water drains, leaving the dishes looking even dirtier than ever. So you run some more water, and pour in some more soap. To let them soak.

After a while, the water doesn't drain out as fast as it once did. The sink doesn't look all that bad, though, especially if you throw in some fresh soap from time to time. The surface of the water looks calm, and as long as you can't see more than shadowy shapes beneath the filmy, sudsy surface, you don't have to deal with them. One of these days, of course, you will...but not right this minute. It's such a big job now, after all, and there's other things that have to get done.

One day, when you least expect it, you get hit by the reality of your kitchen sink. Maybe you spot a cockroach. Perhaps your girlfriend comes over to watch television and eat Chinese takeout, but screams and runs out after going into your kitchen. You might find a note from your landlord threatening to call the Health Department, after he came in to test the smoke alarms while you were at work. Sure, you can always kill the bugs, take the girlfriend out to dinner from now on, and bribe the landlord. But that's not going to make the problem go away. There's no more procrastinating... you have to clean the sink.

So you buy some of those thick Playtex gloves, scrub pads and a bottle of industrial-strength anti-bacterial dish soap. You consider a gas mask... but how bad can it really be? Answer: really bad. The first thing you have to do is reach all the way to the bottom of that mess and pull the foul, slimy, crud-encrusted plug out of the drain. Until you do so, all that filthy water is going to stay right where it is. Only then can you run the water as hot as it gets, pour in the soap, and start scrubbing... holding your breath for as long as you can before turning your head to breathe. You could swear you've never eaten anything purple and green... so how'd it get on your dishes? That gas mask sure looks like a good idea now, doesn't it?

The Middle East became something like that sink full of dirty dishes -- ignored for years, as long as it looked calm on the surface. Yet beneath the water, out of sight, filth was growing and disease was brewing. We spotted not one, but nineteen cockroaches on 9/11. The Left just wanted to clean the single most visible plate -- Afghanistan -- and stop, but that would have done nothing to fix the problem. Iraq was the plug holding the water in place -- Saddam acted as a block to Iran's ambitions, while enabling many of the worst terrorists and terror groups in the Middle East. His removal has caused movement in the region at last -- as Iran gets aggressive, at least some Arabic countries are finding that they fear Persian domination more than they hate the West. The work is dirty and foul at first, as the dishwater drains, but necessary to cleaning the area. Just look at all the dead terrorists swirling around Iraq's drain... something the "mainstream" media never talks about.

Neither cleaning the sink nor cleaning the Middle East are the kind of job you can stop in the middle, either, just because they're so hard. If you give up, problems will only start to pile up all over again. The up side is that once you're done, you're unlikely to ever let things get so bad again. But only if you finish.

* If you're reading this, Mom: it's fiction. Really.

With an election looming, the anti-war Democrats and the mainstream media have gone into overdrive in their attempts to undermine support for the fight in Iraq. They lied about the conclusions drawn by all of America's intelligence services. They continue to emphasise the deaths of American soldiers while ignoring all they've done. They talk about splitting the country apart, thus ceding part to Iran, part to al-Qaeda and part to war with Turkey. They can't even decide whether they want to send more troops, or pull all our troops out  -- and if the latter, whether precipitously or on a predetermined schedule.

Above all, Democrats and the media are desperate to see Iraq as a repeat of Vietnam. The irony is that it can only become so if the Democrats win.

There was a brief, but intense, flurry in the media last week. "Bush Accepts Iraq-Vietnam Comparison," screamed the headlines after an 18 October interview with ABC news. But the truth is, the President merely agreed with columnist Tom Friedman that the current situation might be compared to the Tet offensive... not, as those on the Left want to hear, to the entirety of Vietnam. That will have to wait until a Democrat-controlled Congress refuses to fund the troops, followed by a humiliating US withdrawal and a wholesale massacre of those who had trusted us to protect them. If we're going to draw analogies, let's at least make them accurate.

The Tet offensive of January 1968 was a last-ditch attack launched by the Viet Cong during an agreed cease-fire. The VC simultaneously attacked some 80 towns, cities and military bases, hoping to overwhelm the Americans and rally the South Vietnamese to their cause. The attack was a miserable failure, from the enemy's point of view -- over 45,000 VC died, and the Vietnamese declined to give up their democratic government. The Americans stood strong, beating back the multiple surprise attacks with surprisingly few casualties -- about 2,500. The Viet Cong leaders unanimously saw the attack as a complete disaster, and prepared to negotiate a surrender.

And then Walter Cronkite, the most trusted man in America, told his viewers that "The referees of history may make it a draw." He ominously predicted that the Marine base "Khe Sanh could well fall, with a terrible loss in American lives, prestige, and morale, and this is a tragedy of our stubbornness there." Cronkite sowed doubt about the future of democratic Vietnam, saying that "past performance gives no confidence that the Vietnamese government can cope with its problems, now compounded by the attack on the cities. It may not fall, it may hold on, but it probably won't show the dynamic qualities demanded of this young nation." Cronkite continued, "To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion." The resulting wave of negative public opinion caused President Johnson to decide against running for reelection, and ultimately forced America to abandon Vietnam, after the Democrats took control of Congress and defunded the war. Congress even refused to send promised aid to Cambodia, where an estimated 1.7 million people died during the Khmer Rouge takeover.

That's precisely the scenario those on the Left want to repeat. CNN, for instance, recently aired what can only be termed a terrorist propaganda piece. In the film, produced by the enemy and "obtained" by CNN through intermediaries, snipers are seen targeting US soldiers for assassination at will. CNN added a helpful voiceover and interviews painting the "insurgents" as an unstoppable force, telling the viewers that "the deaths will continue" as long as US troops are in Iraq. Representative Duncan Hunter (D-CA), Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has asked the Pentagon to remove all embedded CNN reporters in response to what some have called "a terrorist snuff film."

Obviously, the film only shows successful sniper attacks, but the impression is that all such attacks are successful. Unlike al-Jazeera, which airs similar propaganda pieces daily, CNN has the ability to reach -- and influence -- American voters... the real target of terrorist attacks.

Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) will head the Ways and Means Committee if the Democrats win in November. When asked how he planned to stop the fighting in Iraq, he replied, "You've got to be able to pay for the war, don't you?" The 73 members of the "Out of Iraq" caucus agree with his viewpoint. Representative James McGovern (D-MA) already has a bill aimed at halting funding for troops in Iraq. Even if they don't directly pull funding for the war, President Bush -- when not fighting trumped-up impeachment hearings -- will be unable to get a single bill through the Democratic House until he complies with their demands. The anti-war faction is not above taking hostages to get what they want.

And once they force US troops to withdraw from Iraq, their hopeful Vietnam scenario will be complete. Al-Qaeda and Iran will massacre innocent Iraqis, terrorising them into a reign of terror even worse, perhaps, than they suffered under Saddam. Iraq's oil wealth will fuel (no pun intended) a whole new generation of terrorists, with the means to attack targets all over Europe, Asia and America.

Hat tip to ALa of Blonde Sagacity for the CNN video.