Dealing with the Devil: A diplomatic disaster in the making.

It is nearly unbelievable that the Bush Administration is using the United Nations Secretariat staff to write terms of an Israel/Hezbollah cease fire. Kofi Annan is a corrupt Administrator [See Also THIS] that is a Mohammedan sympathetic to the Islamofascist terrorist causes and is very ANTI-Israel. To allow Secretary of State Rice to broker a deal with Annan is like making deals with the devil.

President Bush instead should be working with its Western allies, even if some of those allies have been hostile toward President Bush. France apparently wishes to be a major player in this cease fire. I actually trust the French more than I do Kofi Annan, which in itself is a big leap.

NATO should be the peace keeping with the authority to keep the peace. That means shooting at the violators. We know the violators of a brokered cease fire will be Hezbollah or Hezbollah mentors Iran and Syria.


By Anne Bayefsky
August 07, 2006, 0:04 a.m.
National Review Online

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is on the brink of handing President Bush the worst diplomatic disaster of his presidency. She is poised to agree to two United Nations resolutions that will tie the hands of both Israel and the United States in the war on terror and, in particular, inhibit future action on its number one state sponsor — Iran.

The catastrophe is the brainchild of Secretary General Kofi Annan, who has effectively turned the United Nations into the political wing of Hezbollah. Rice and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns are working furiously to satisfy a timetable dictated by Annan, not by the interests of the United States.

How did the United Nations become the forum for producing peace between Israel and its neighbors, which have rejected the Jewish state’s existence for the past six decades? In the last three weeks, a multi-headed hydra of U.N. actors has risen to defeat Israel on the political battlefield in an unprecedented disregard of the U.N. Charter’s central tenet: the right of self-defense.

Existing Security Council resolutions have for years required “the Government of Lebanon to fully extend and exercise its sole and effective authority throughout the south, [and] ensure a calm environment throughout the area, including along the Blue Line, and to exert control over the use of force on its territory and from it.” A combination of Iranian aggression, Syrian support, and Lebanese impotence and malfeasance, has actively prevented the implementation of the existing resolutions.

But how did the U.N. respond to the aggression against the U.N. member state of Israel, which was launched once again from Lebanese territory and which continues to the present hour? By accusing Israel of murder, mass genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, the deliberate attack of children, and racism. U.N. actors have even denied that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and analogized it to anti-Nazi resistance movements. In the last three weeks, we have heard:

Secretary-General Kofi Annan:

  • Israel’s “excessive use of force is to be condemned;” Israel has “torn the country to shreds.” Israel’s disproportionate use of force and collective punishment of the Lebanese people must stop…

  • Israel is “apparently” guilty of the murder of U.N. soldiers. The U.N. interim-force (UNIFIL) soldiers were killed by Israel after it responded to Hezbollah attacks on Israeli civilians. One of the soldiers had reported only days before he died that Hezbollah’s nearby actions meant Israel’s response “has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity.” Yet without any investigation, Annan immediately called it an “apparently deliberate targeting” — an accusation he has yet to retract.
  • Israel has “committed grave breaches of international humanitarian law” and “has caused, and is causing, death and suffering on a wholly unacceptable scale.”

    Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown:

  • Hezbollah, the Iranian-proxy currently fighting Israel, is not a terrorist organization. “It is not helpful to couch this war in the language of international terrorism,” said [* Subscription Required] Malloch Brown, claiming Hezbollah is “completely separate and different from Al Qaeda.”

    Jan Egeland, under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency-relief coordinator:

  • “The excessive and disproportionate use of force by the Israeli Defense Forces…must stop.”

    Louise Arbour, U.N. High Commissioner for human rights:

  • In comments Arbour directed at Israel, she said: “the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable,” suggesting that Israel was perpetrating “war crimes and crimes against humanity” for violating the “obligation to protect civilians during hostilities”.

    Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy, U.N. special representative of the secretary-general for Children and Armed Conflict:

  • In comments directed “even-handedly” to Israel and Hezbollah, Coomaraswamy “strongly condemned the repeated attacks on civilians, and especially on children, noting that callous disregard for the lives of children has permeated this conflict from its start.”

    Ann Veneman, executive director of UNICEF:

  • Veneman claimed Israel is engaged in “the continued targeting of civilians, particularly children.”

    Agha Shahi, Pakistani member of the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination:

  • Would Israel have resorted to the bombing of civilian infrastructure if it were fighting a non-Arab force? It was a war between different ethnic groups, the Arabs and the Jews.”

    Jose Francisco Calitzay, Guatemalan member of the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination:

  • Commenting on events in Lebanon, Calitzay saidmass genocide was the highest level of racism that could exist, and they had to prevent that from happening in the present case.”

    Mahmoud Aboul-Nasr, Egyptian member of the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination:

  • Aboul-Nasr “objected to the designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Hezbollah was not a terrorist organization; it was a resistance movement that was fighting foreign occupation, just as there had been during the Second World War.”

    In short, the United Nations — which to this day cannot define terrorism — did not come to the aid of a U.N. member under fire from one of the world’s leading terrorist organizations. It came to the aid of the terrorist by attempting to prevent the member state from exercising its right to hit back. The Geneva Conventions clearly state that combatants are prohibited from using civilians as human shields, but if they do so, the presence of civilians does not render the area immune from military operations. Israeli soldiers and civilians are paying with their lives daily as a consequence of Israel’s efforts to avoid disproportionate action — a dramatic exercise of restraint taken in order to reduce Lebanese civilian casualties. [* Emphasis SlantRight Editor]

    But in the face of the U.N.’s obvious predilection to subvert Israel’s well-being and American foreign policy interests, to whom has Secretary Rice turned to save the day? The United Nations!

    The result has been as predictable as it has been disastrous. The U.N.’s verbal assault on Israel is coupled with a three-pronged political agenda. The United Nations seeks to: (1) protect Hezbollah from further Israeli attacks; (2) produce a political win for Hezbollah by giving them the territorial prize of the Shebaa Farms ; and (3) increase U.N. presence, oversight, and control of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Every element of this agenda is satisfied in the current U.N. resolution and is part of the declared intention of the second resolution to follow.

    The resolution calls for a “full cessation of hostilities” and “the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations.” What offensive military operations? Has Israel been engaged in a single military operation offensive and not defensive in nature? Only according to Annan’s armed wing, Hezbollah.

    The resolution reintroduces the notion that Israel occupies Lebanese territory, calling for action on “areas where the border is disputed or uncertain, including in the Shebaa farms area.” It completely contradicts the secretary-general’s own final determination of January 20, 2005, that the Shebaa farms is not Lebanese: “The continually asserted position of the Government of Lebanon that the Blue Line is not valid in the Shab’a farms area is not compatible with Security Council resolutions. The Council has recognized the Blue Line as valid for purposes of confirming Israel’s withdrawal pursuant to resolution 425 (1978).”

    The draft resolution on the current crisis says the Security Council “expresses its intention…to authorize in a further resolution under Chapter VII of the Charter the deployment of a UN mandated international force to…contribute to the implementation of a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution.” It calls for renewed involvement of UNIFIL, the U.N. troops that stood and watched Hezbollah rearm and plan its deadly assault on a U.N. member state for the last six years.

    Such an international force is to be authorized under the first-ever Chapter VII resolution — a legally binding resolution that can be implemented through sanctions or the use of force — in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In other words, Secretary Rice has approved of a U.N.-authorized and monitored force that has its sights set on Israel too, coupled with a claim that Israel is currently engaged in “offensive” operations. The very U.N. that accuses Israel of murder and heinous violations of international law is now to be charged with judging compliance with a legally binding instrument purporting to define the terms and conditions of Israel’s self-defense.

    In addition, the draft resolution:

  • fails to call in its operative section for the immediate release of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers;
  • introduces the notion that settling the issue of all Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel — regardless of their crimes — will be the quid pro quo for the Israelis’ release;
  • speaks of financial and humanitarian assistance only to the Lebanese people while ignoring restitution or aid resulting from the one million Israelis in bomb shelters over the last three weeks and the 300,000 displaced;
  • lends credibility to another manufactured grievance, the return by Israel of “remaining maps of land mines in Lebanon” — though Israel has already returned maps of old mines years ago, and no mention is made of Hezbollah providing the U.N. with maps of its newly laid landmines;
  • enhances Kofi Annan’s authority to judge Israel by extending an open-ended invitation to inform the Security Council continually about any action he believes “might adversely affect the search for a long-term solution” ;
  • fails to mention “Hezbollah” or terrorism even once, let alone stating that Hezbollah is directly responsible for the Lebanese civilian casualties it cynically promotes;
  • omits entirely any reference to Iran or Syria, as if the address of the arms suppliers and bosses of their Hezbollah proxies are too sensitive to include.

    There will be only one sure result of this move — the empowerment of terrorists whose ultimate target is the United States and all democratic values. Secretary Rice’s belief that there is a serious convergence between the United Nations agenda and American foreign-policy needs in the age of terrorism is a profound error in judgment for which democratic societies everywhere will be forced to pay a heavy price.

    — Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and at Touro College Law Center. She is also editor of

    © National Review Online 2006-2007. All Rights Reserved.

  • Republicans’ Best Hope? Stop Imitating Democrats


    It will be interesting how this mid-term election pans out. Polls have predicted Democratic wins in the past only to see the Republicans win. That is an indication that the polls were skewed in some fashion so that when public they become an attempt to sway votes to the Democrats. On the other hand, there is a great dissatisfaction among Republicans and Democrats on how the war in Iraq is being prosecuted. The dissatisfaction is different from each Party, but it is there nonetheless. This indeed could affect the elections in November against the current Republican majority.


    I think Kevin Hassett is correct. If the Republicans focus the election in 2006 and 2008 on the base that got them there in the first place, the Republicans will prevail. The key is to re-connect to the Christian Right base with issues that promote Christian Right agendas.


    That will drive the Liberal Democrats insane. The Democrats have the polls to back a Republican unseating; however the electorate that is most powerful still view issues dear to their heart. The Democrats have polls, but not the hearts of voting majority. That has to suck for them.

    One Party America?


    Unless there is some sort of coup or revolution in America, there will always be at least two dominating political parties. It is the nature of Americans to have the ability to throw the scoundrels out of office. Often times it is irrelevant if the office holder is Conservative or Liberal. Too often trustworthiness is not even an issue with Americans. The thing that matters with Americans is this kind of thinking: "What have you done for me lately?" If the "What have done" is something that affects the American pocket book or provokes indignation on a voter wide scale, then Americans tend to throw the office holder out.


    I do agree with Shriver that a failed re-election on a Democratic Party ticket of Lieberman may very well affect the Democratic Party in the future. It is even possible that it might be the demise of the Democratic Party as we know it. However I assure you, if the Democratic Party ceases suddenly or slowly; it will be replaced by a group of candidates that are unhappy with the opposing majority political party.


    In reality if the Democratic Party meets its demise, it could be more dangerous for the Republican Party. The new opposition Party that would eventually form would probably pull some kind of centrists of commonality from both political parties. That might present quite the challenge to my beloved Right Wing of the Republican Party.

    Hypocrisy of a Pennsylvanian Citizen

    Friends the Islamofascists are beginning to meddle in American politics. The thing that should be worrisome to Democrats, Republicans and Americans is that the Islamofascists sense they can accomplish their agenda better with the Democratic Party.

    Now I am highly critical of the Left slanted agenda of the Democratic Party, however I cannot believe for a moment Americans within the Democratic Party would knowingly harm America (unwittingly with their ideology – yes, wittingly – no.). All Americans should awaken to the danger that is Islamofascism.

    A Mohammedan that resides in the great State of Pennsylvania writes an editorial in the English language version of Al-Jazeerah. The Mohammedan’s name is Mohammed Khaku. The editorial was a scathing condemnation of Senator Santorum, accusing him of racism because the good Senator called the Islam in Iran fascism comparable to Hitler’s Nazism and Soviet Communism in regard as a test for America.

    At the end of the editorial, Khaku tells Pennsylvanians to vote for the Democratic Party. Al-Jazeerah wisely placed a disclaimer right under the editorial; nonetheless, there is an obvious steering anti-American (and probably Islamofascist) Al-Jazeerah to meddle in American politics.

    Read Khaku’s scathing vitriol of Santorum then read the Power Blog’s exposition of the character and nature of Khaku.

    Here is Mohammed Khaku’s article followed by an exposition of Khaku’s credentials:

    Farewell to the United Nations

    Fjordman points out that the United Nations has become a corrupt ineffective organization largely due to yielding to the despotic Mohammedan nations represented at the organization. Fjordman demonstrates in the early days of the United Nations it was dominated by Democratic rule of law nations. Today the Democratic nations are the minority constituency.


    The majority despotic UN constituency has made the organization a joke. In fact Fjordman shows how Mohammedan nations have forced a different set of rules based on Sharia Law are adhered to at the UN. This renders the UN Charter as non-binding on Mohammedan nations.


    Another point Fjordman wades into is that the Democratic nations might wish to consider a separate organization or loose alliance that benefits like-minded Democracies to the exclusion non-democratic nations. Fjordman alludes that even NATO might be revamped as an organization with the purpose of defending against Mohammedan encroachments as opposed to its now defunct Cold War basis.


    It is a good read; take the time and enlighten yourself.

    The Question is Why?

    Dale Hurd of The Spectacle news blog asks an honest yet disturbing question:

    We know why the Medieval Muslim Movement (al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, et al.) and its media sympathizers hate the West. A much more interesting question is why so many in the West hate the West.

    Western Leftist are just beyond my comprehension as to WHY they appear to hate their own cultural background. I can understand Leftists marching to support issues such as homosexuality, socialism, abortion and even free speech issues such as pornography. I find the support for much of those issues highly disturbing, nonetheless in the West thoughts and opinions are and should be free and open.

    I just cannot understand Leftist support for an ideology that has an ultimate goal to eliminate Western Cultural Liberty and Freedom. That ideology is Islamofascism. Its goal is to convert the globe to Sharia Law and kill those that oppose the goal or die trying.

    The Leftist support appears to be in the quiet form of Appeasement or the out right support of terrorist organizations.

    Dale Hurd makes this comment to a protest march he witnessed in London:

    In London, thousands of British Leftists and Muslim radicals, all of them citizens of a democracy that safeguards their rights, march in support of the terrorist group Hezbollah and against the democratic states of Israel and the U.S. You can marvel at the pics on display at “” My personal fave is a protest sign that says “Iran Needs Nuclear Weapons.”

    I’ve attended these joint Leftist/Muslim demonstrations in London’s Trafalgar Square, and I have rarely felt such a spirit of evil as I have at them.

    Did you read that? Hurd actually felt the "evil" as European Leftists joined Mohammedans in the spewing of hate toward Jews in support of so-called Palestinians.

    I am here to tell you there is one thing Leftists and Conservative Rightists can agree on: that is the protection of the ability to believe, speak and think without worry of getting their head lopped off.

    Dude! It is the enemy of my enemy time in the West and we all need to wake up on the same side of the bed on this issue of Islamofascism!

    Armageddon Looms Large

    I have to admit that I do not buy into much of prophetic doomsayer Hal Lindsey writes about. In my opinion he tends to take current events and draws conclusions that are a prophetic stretch. Nonetheless, thanks to an InJesus Group known as Prophecy Update, I found an excellent article on the historic progression of the results of "Appeasement." Yes, it is by Hal Lindsey.
    Armageddon Looms Large
    By Hal Lindsey
    July 11, 2006

    The War To End All Wars concluded with the 1919 signing of the Treaty of Versailles. One of its provisions called for the establishment of a "League of Nations" to ensure that the First World War really WOULD be ‘the war to end all wars’.

    The League was set up by the victorious Allied powers under the terms of a document known as The Covenant. It outlined the Leagues mission: To promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security

    The League was the brainchild of US president Woodrow Wilson, who won the 1919 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. But the United States was never a member. The Senate refused to ratify membership; correctly concluding that membership would subordinate U-S sovereignty to the League.

    In 1931, Imperial Japan invaded Manchuria and established a puppet republic called Manchukuo. When the League of Nations objected, Tokyo resigned its membership. The League of Nations blustered and fumed and sent many letters of protest, which Japan ignored until the organization tired of sending them.

    Four years later, Benito Mussolini, noting the League’s ineffective response to Japanese aggression, invaded Ethiopia. The League condemned Italy, sent many letters of protest, and threatened sanctions.

    In 1936, Mussolini’s forces occupied Addis Ababa and Ethiopia became part of Italy. Adolph Hitler watched this response carefully and took notes. This encouraged him to test the Leagues resolve in 1936.

    Hitler marched his storm troopers into the Rhineland to claim the Ruhr as German territory, contrary to the Treaty of Versailles. The French protested but did nothing. The League of Nations explained this action away as an understandable redress of excessive measures imposed on Germany after World War One. It did nothing.

    Hitlers stature grew with the German people. Even the German military officers were amazed that the League of Nations did nothing. Some industrial leaders who, for economic reasons backed Hitler because they thought they could control him, were dumbfounded.

    Some were even disappointed that the Western nations did nothing. On March 11, 1938, Hitler annexed Austria into the Third Reich. When the Austrian Chancellor forced to resign by Hitler refused to name a Nazi as his successor, Hitler marched his troops into Vienna and took over without a shot being fired. Again, the League of Nations took no effective action against this clear violation of the 1919 treaty of Saint Germain. It was an act of aggression that was not met with force.

    Emboldened by his success at facing down the entire free world, Hitler persuaded British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to surrender a part of Czechoslovakia known as the Sudetenland. He spoke of the need for German Lebensraum. This was a coined Nazi word for living space for the German people. Representing the League of Nations, Chamberlain surrendered to this demand without even consulting the Czechoslovakian President. Now Hitlers stature grew to mythical proportions. This enabled him to crush Czechoslovakia with a new kind of war known as blitzkrieg or lightning war. The Allies were unable to respond. There was no stopping Hitler after this.

    On behalf of the League of Nations, Chamberlain issued guarantees of protection to Poland. Hitler, now confident that the League was a toothless tiger, invaded Poland on September 1, 1939. World War Two had begun. Hitlers audacity and boldness quieted every voice of reason in Germany.

    And the enormous tragedy of it all is that it could probably have been prevented if the League of Nations had boldly stood against Hitler and backed him down at the beginning. World War Two concluded with the replacement of the League of Nations by the United Nations. The new organizations purpose was to prevent, through international cooperation, another war to end all wars.

    The historical parallels between the 1930s and the 1990s are unmistakable. Throughout the 1990s, what President George W Bush aptly dubbed the Axis of Evil, took turns testing U-N resolve and noting the reaction of the global community. First, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and survived the U-N-led war to push his troops back across the Iraqi border.

    His Axis counterparts watched as he defied the U-Ns repeated resolutions with impunity. By the way, when Saddams Iraq finally fell twelve years later, it was at the hands of a United States-led coalition AND it was over the vociferous objections of the United Nations that Saddam had so blatantly defied. After observing the U-Ns response to Iraqi aggression, Kim Jong-il pushed the envelope still further with the first North Korean nuclear standoff in 1994.

    That resulted in the international community bribing Pyongyang not to develop nuclear weapons. President Clinton gave him all sorts of goodies to get him to back off his nuke program. Like any good extortionist, Kim Jong-il took the bribe but ignored the terms.

    He got away with it for eight years while the U-N blustered and threatened him with letters of diplomatic protest. He learned that he could get all kinds of rewards by rattling his missiles and then allowing the West to bribe him to stop.

    Meanwhile, even more dangerous aggressors were taking note. Irans mad mullahs took careful notice of the United Nations response. Iran, the third member of the Axis of Evil, began testing the U-N in 1998 when its own nuclear program was uncovered. It has managed to hold the international community at bay by creating the diplomatic equivalent of a Mexican standoff, thanks to its fostering of Islamofacism and the threat of escalating the war.

    Now, Iran is only a few months, if that, from nuclear capability. And once again, we have North Korean missile tests, carried out in open defiance of the United Nations. To add insult and intensify the provocation; the tests coincided with both our 4th of July and the launch of the space shuttle Discovery.

    The Taepodong test was deemed a failure by the U-S because the missile exploded only 40 seconds after launch and at an undetermined altitude. But its worth noting that a powerful nuclear weapon detonated 180 miles above the United States could generate an ElectroMagneticPulse that experts say would instantly plunge half the country into the technological 1890’s.

    North Korea is now preparing several more missiles for test launch. The United Nations is in a tither. Diplomatic letters of protest are flying like confetti. Military and intelligence analysts warn darkly of all the important lessons learned by Pyongyang, even though the test itself was considered a failure.

    Maybe it wasnt Pyongyang that the July 4th missile tests were intended to educate. If the Axis of Evil analogy holds true to its historical template, the lessons were really intended for the mad mullahs in Tehran. Its now their turn to move. Even casual observation should teach us that only the aggressors learn from history. The appeasers NEVER learn.

    But the stakes today are far more dangerous than ever before. Armageddon looms large before us.

    Mexico’s Self-Styled Messiah

    A close election in Mexico is coming up. The candidate running from the current President’s political party – Felipe Calderon – is being painted as a market conservative. President Fox has not been very helpful on illegal immigration so I would assume Calderon would continue that policy. Calderon’s opponent is Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. Obrador is a mixed package that many believe may be a Leftist in the mold of Hugo Chavez. I wonder what the Leftist Obrador is thinking about illegal immigration to the US?

    Chavez of Venezuela has oil to back up his Marxist anti-Americanism. Who would Obrador tax to get money for socialist programs in Mexico? Nearly a third of Mexico’s economy is based on illegal aliens sending or spending money earned in the US. It would be appear to be a thorny issue to implement socialism based on the source of a significant amount of the Mexican economy.

    Then there are the corruption issues of Mexico. That is the part that is making Obrador attractive to a Mexican electorate – "Mexico’s self-fashioned Messiah." Obrador has given the impression that as President he put a dent in Mexican government corruption. That would be actually a good thing for Mexico and America.

    So the key to American National Interests is what kind of Marxist would Obrador be if elected? Chavez unfriendly or possibly European style socialism that is friendly toward market economies and America.

    Is It Time For A Constitutional Convention?

    Gay Marriage Amendment Supporters Seek Constitutional Convention?
    By Robert Novak
    June 24, 2006
    The National Ledger

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Supporters of a constitutional amendment to keep the courts from legalizing homosexual marriage, stunned by poor support in the recent Senate vote, are beginning a campaign for a constitutional convention.

    The provision of the Constitution’s Article V requiring such a convention if called by two-thirds of the state legislatures has never been used. Fear of throwing the Constitution open to general amendment has overridden support for specific issues. However, key advocates of barring gay marriages believe the constitutional convention strategy will keep the issue alive.

    A recent memo circulated within the anti-gay marriage coalition lists Princeton Professor Robby George, Tony Perkins and Chuck Donovan of the Family Research Council, and conservative financial consultant Frank Cannon as favoring the strategy.

    This is an excerpt from the top of this Robert Novak post in The National Ledger. This is an idea that its time has come. Conservatives and Liberals alike fear the Constitutional version of a National Constitutional Convention. The reason for the fear is the potential for changes that both sides of the political scale feel may not be able to live with.

    A Convention may be called for a specific purpose; however a Convention might open the door to address everyone’s pet peeve.

    I am no longer fearful of such a situation. There are definite issues the moral majority needs to address in this nation. The Leftists and irreligious are allowing morality to be steeped in Humanism and relativity. I hear all the time that not everyone has a Christian viewpoint and that the Christian viewpoint is archaic. While it might be true that not everyone has a Christian viewpoint, I believe the majority viewpoint in America is still a Christian one. Therefore a concept of what is and what is not archaic would only be valid to the irreligious and immoral.

    It is time to take Humanistic and Left leaning Judges out of the equation of legislating American Law. The Judiciary is there to interpret law, not to create law.

    It is time for the people of the States to decide moral issues of homosexuality, prayer, religion in public, abortion and so on. It is appalling that a huge majority of people may decide an issue by Initiative or by being a voting constituency of its Representatives and then have a Left thinking Judge strike the Law down.

    Here comes the neoconservative in me. I am all for a loyal opposition, however some serious issues need to be addressed relating Presidential Appointments. For example instead of the Senate confirming an appointee, the framework should be debate and up or down vote. Screw the procedural hogwash relating to committee. If the person is not qualified, then vote the person down.

    Yes, the time for a Constitutional Convention is needful.

    AP Skews News to the Left View

    This news head line caught my attention on the Internet: Marines announce murder, other charges. My first thought was about the accusations relating to the American military and Haditha.

    Here is the opening sentence:

    Seven Marines and a Navy corpsman were charged Wednesday with premeditated murder in the shooting death of an Iraqi man and could face the death penalty if convicted.

    After reading the first sentence, again I am thinking Haditha. My thinking was amazement because non-leftist sources were beginning to point to evidence that much of the accusations were staged by Islamofascist insurgents and bought into by the MSM. There have been huge indications that the violence at Haditha was the fault of insurgents and anything pointing toward Marines was from unsubstantiated sources.

    So, I keep reading. In the second to last paragraph (the lucky 13th paragraph) I read:

    The case is separate from the alleged killing by other Marines of 24 Iraqi civilians at Haditha last November. A pair of investigations related to that case is still under way and no criminal charges have been filed.

    Nearly the entire article is complete and the AP reports that the horrendous murder charges have NOTHING to do with Haditha. In fact the charges being brought up on the seven Marines and Navy corpsman have to make it past Article 32 proceedings before a Court Martial is considered.

    The AP is doing its best to convict military personnel in the public media. In fairness the AP should try to uncover facts as to why Americans would be so belligerent. It might have something to do with a brutal enemy that hates us and itself practices no military rules of engagement. Why is not the AP and other MSM not reporting about possible war crimes from Islamofascist insurgents? Could it be the AP and the MSM are discreetly rooting for the success of the Islamofascists and for the failure of American boys protecting such rights as the freedom of the press? Hmm…