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.

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.