Thursday, December 14, 2006

Jews Wake Up! by Caroline Glick

Guaranteeing our survival begins with each of us deciding that we are willing to fight to survive. And today the challenge facing us is clear.

When the history of our times is written, this week will be remembered as the week that Washington decided to let the Islamic Republic of Iran go nuclear. Hopefully it will also be remembered as the moment the Jews arose and refused to allow Iran to go nuclear.

With the publication of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group chaired by former US secretary of state James Baker III and former congressman Lee Hamilton, the debate about the war in Iraq changed. From a war for victory against Islamofascism and for democracy and freedom, the war became reduced to a conflict to be managed by appeasing the US's sworn enemies in the interests of stability, and at the expense of America's allies.

Baker and his associates claim that the US cannot win the war in Iraq and so the US must negotiate with its primary enemies in Iraq and throughout the world -- Iran and Syria -- in the hopes that they will be persuaded to hold their fire for long enough to facilitate an "honorable" American retreat from the country.

Like his unsupported assertion that the US cannot win in Iraq, Baker also asserts -- in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary -- that Iran and Syria share America's "interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq." Because of this supposed shared interest, Baker maintains that with the proper incentives, Iran and Syria can be persuaded to cooperate with a US withdrawal from Iraq ahead of the 2008 presidential primaries.

The main incentive Baker advocates offering is Israel.

Baker believes that Iran will agree to temporarily hold its fire in Iraq in exchange for US acceptance of Iran as a nuclear power and an American pledge not to topple the regime. Syria will assist the US in exchange for US pressure on Israel to hand over the Golan Heights to Syria and Judea and Samaria to Hamas.

Obviously, if implemented, the Baker-Hamilton group's recommendations will be disastrous for Israel. Just the fact that they now form the basis for the public debate on the war is a great blow. But it isn't only Israel that is harmed by their actions. The US too, will be imperiled if their views become administration policy.

Although Baker -- and incoming Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who served on his commission until Bush announced his appointment last month -- believes that there is a deal to be done that will end Iranian and Syrian aggression against the US, its vital interests and its allies, the fact of the matter is that there is no such deal. Contrary to what the Baker report argues and what Gates said in his Senate confirmation hearing Tuesday, Iran is not analogous to the Soviet Union and the war against the global jihad is not a new cold war.

Even if the US were to somehow get them to agree to certain understandings about Iraq, there is no reason to believe that the Iranians and Syrians would keep their word. Not only would the US be approaching them as a supplicant and so emboldening them, but to date the US has never credibly threatened anything either Syria or Iran value. Indeed, through supporting negotiations between the EU and Iran, empowering the UN to deal with Iran's nuclear program, and forcing Israel to accept a cease-fire with Hizbullah last summer that effectively gave victory to the Syrian and Iranian proxy, the US has consistently rewarded the two countries' aggression.

Worse than that, from a US perspective, although Gates admitted Tuesday that he cannot guarantee that Iran will not attack Israel with nuclear weapons, he ignored the fact that Iran -- whose President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad daily calls for the destruction of the US -- may also attack the US with nuclear weapons.

Gates admitted in his Senate hearing that Iran is producing many bombs -- not just one.
Since it is possible to destroy Israel with just one bomb, the Americans should be asking themselves what Iran needs all those other bombs for. There are senior military sources in the US who have been warning the administration to take into consideration that the day that Iran attacks Israel with a nuclear bomb, 10 cities in the US and Europe are liable to also be attacked with nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, no one is listening to these voices today.

It is particularly upsetting that Washington has chosen now of all times to turn its back on the war. Ahmadinejad hinted Monday that Iran has completed the nuclear fuel cycle and so has passed the point of no return on its nuclear program. He also made a statement indicating that Iran will have its nuclear arsenal up and running by March - just four months away.

Serious disagreement exists in Washington over the status of the Iranian program. Some claim that Iran is four or five years away from nuclear weapons capabilities. Others maintain that Iran has recently experienced serious technical setbacks in their uranium enrichment activities and that the North Korean nuclear bomb test in October, in which Iranian officials participated, was a failure.

But there are also engaged officials who agree with Ahmadinejad's assessment of Iran's nuclear progress. Those officials maintain first that the North Korean-Iranian test in October was successful and should be taken as a sign that Iran already has a nuclear arsenal. Second, they warn that the US and Israel have six months to act against Iran's nuclear installations and to overthrow the regime or face the prospect of the annihilation of Israel and the destruction of several US cities as a result of an Iranian nuclear offensive.

Obviously, Israel cannot risk the possibility that the last group of officials is correct. And since Washington has decided to go to sleep, it is up to Israel alone to act.

What must Israel do? First, it must plan an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities and regime command and control centers. To pave the way for such an attack, the IDF must move now to neutralize second order threats like the Palestinian rocket squads and the Syrian ballistic missile arsenals in order to limit the public's exposure to attack during the course of or in the aftermath of an Israeli attack on Iran. Second, Israel must work to topple the Iranian regime. As the Defense Minister's advisor Uri Lubrani told Ha'aretz last week, the regime in Iran is far from stable today and ripe for overthrow.

The overwhelming majority of Iranians despise the regime. There are rebellious groups in every ethnic group and province in the country - Azeris, Kurds, Ahwazi Arabs, Baluchis, Turkmen and even Persians - that are actively working to destabilize the regime. Every day there are strikes of workers, women and students. Every few weeks there are reports of violent clashes between anti-regime groups and regime forces.

Recently, oil pipelines were sabotaged in the oil-rich Khuzestan province in the south where the Ahwazi Arabs are systematically persecuted by the regime. Westerners who recently visited Iran claim that Israel operating alone could overthrow the regime by extending its assistance to these people.

Thirdly, in his testimony in the Senate on Tuesday, Gates casually mentioned that Israel has nuclear weapons. In so doing, he unceremoniously removed four decades of ambiguity over Israel's nuclear status. While his statement caused dismay in Jerusalem, perhaps Israel should see this as an opportunity.

With the threat of nuclear destruction hanging over us, it makes sense to conduct a debate about an Israeli second strike. While such a discussion will not dissuade Iran's fanatical leaders from attacking Israel with nuclear weapons, it could influence the Iranian nation to rise up against their leaders.

Moreover, such a debate could influence other regimes in the region like Saudi Arabia which today behave as if Israel's annihilation will have no adverse impact on them. Americans like Baker, Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and their European friends need to understand that as goes Israel so go the Persian Gulf's oil fields. Such an understanding may influence their willingness to enable Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

Next Thursday, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations Malcolm Hoenlein and former ambassador to the UN Dore Gold will hold a press conference in New York where they will call for the US to indict Ahmadinejad under the International Convention Against Genocide for his call to annihilate Israel. This is doubtlessly a welcome initiative. But it is insufficient.

In a few months, Iran may well be in possession of nuclear weapons which it will use to destroy the Jewish state. With the US withdrawing from the war and Israel in the hands of incompetents, the time has come for the Jewish people to rise up.

Guaranteeing our survival begins with each of us deciding that we are willing to fight to survive. And today the challenge facing us is clear.

Either the Iranian regime is toppled and its nuclear installations are destroyed or Israel will be annihilated. The Jews in the Diaspora must launch mass demonstrations and demand that their governments take real action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The citizens of the State of Israel must also take to the streets. The government that led us to defeat in Lebanon this summer is leading us to a disaster of another order entirely. All citizens must demand that Olmert, his ministers and the generals in the IDF General Staff make an immediate decision. They now hold the responsibility for acting against Iran. They must either act or resign and make way for others who will.

America just abdicated its responsibility to defend itself against Iran and so left Israel high and dry. Nevertheless, the Jewish people is far from powerless. And the State of Israel also is capable of defending itself. But we must act and act immediately

(This article originally appeared in the Jerusalem Post.)

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Why are Americans so unhappy?

(Author Unknown)

The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given the source, right? Thesame magazine that employs Michael (Qurans in the toilets at Gitmo) Isikoff. Here I promised myself this week I would be nice and I start off in this way.

The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence 2/3's of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change. So being the knuckle dragger I am, I starting thinking, ''What we are so unhappy about?''

Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job? Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?

Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state? Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter? I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all involved. Whether you are rich or poor they treat your wounds and even, if necessary, send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.

Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home, you may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of having a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes; an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents.

Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers. How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.

Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the Good Lord we live here.

I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same president who guided the nation in the dark days; after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me?

Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.

So why then the flat out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells. Just ask why they are going to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book and do a TV special about how he didn't kill his wife but if he did. . . .Insane!

Stop buying the negative venom you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.

I close with one of my favorite quotes from B.C. Forbes! in 1953: ''What have Americans to be thankful for? More than any other people on the earth, we enjoy complete religious freedom, political freedom, social freedom. Our liberties are sacredly safeguarded by the Constitution of the United States, 'the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.' Yes, we Americans of today have been bequeathed a noble heritage. Let us pray that we may hand it down unsullied to our children and theirs.''

I suggest this Christmas we sit back and count our blessings for all we have. If we don't, what we have will be taken away. Then we will have to explain to future generations why we squandered such blessing and abundance. If we are not careful this generation will be known as the ''greediest and most ungrateful generation.'' A far cry from the proud Americans of the ''greatest generation'' who left us an untarnished legacy!

Monday, December 11, 2006


(From REAL NEWS 12/11/06)

By Jane Lampman, The Christian Science Monitor staff writer December 7, 2006--Who doesn't hanker for a return to a "real sense of Christmas" during the holiday season? Everyone, of course, has their own take on what that involves. Is it a happy, if rowdy, opening of presents on Christmas morning? A family tree-trimming tradition or favorite holiday concert? Perhaps it's a quiet pondering of the biblical Christmas story. Or a sharing of a meal with
the less fortunate. To some long distressed by the secularization of the holiday --and
particularly by the disappearance of the word "Christmas" and itsreligious symbols from the public domain -- there is reason for cheer in 2006.

Signs have appeared of a "return of Christmas" in the culture. Big-time retailers including Wal-Mart, Macy's, Target, and Kohl's have responded to demands to resurrect a "Merry Christmas" theme in their stores. More cities are approving the inclusion of nativity scenes inholiday displays on public property. And film studios are releasingmovies with a genuine biblical theme. "The Nativity Story," which opened in theaters across the US over the
past weekend, represents more than a follow-on to Mel Gibson's "ThePassion of the Christ," says Ted Baehr, chair of the Christian Film and Television Commission. With studios now marketing to a variety of groups,he adds, the biggest group is probably churchgoers. Dr. Baehr sees morefaith-related films in the works.

Yet the Christmas comeback goes beyond Hollywood. "We're seeing a sensitivity that was not there before to the factthat removing the Christian aspects of Christmas is offensive to themajority of Americans," says Erik Stanley, chief attorney for the LibertyCounsel, a conservative group that has taken the cause to the courts whenit deemed such action necessary. Just recently, the legal group helped Robert Wortock, a citizen of Racine, Wis., get a nativity display on the city's Monument Square afterofficials previously rejected it. Traditional Christmas decorations had disappeared from the streets, and Mr. Wortock wanted to change that. "This is a good example of how, in the last three years, we've seen agood return on this effort," says Mr. Stanley.

In recent years, several conservative Christian groups have claimed that a "war on Christmas" was being waged by secularists, and they marshaled their troops in response. The Liberty Counsel is in its fourth year of a "Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign", pledging to be a friend to"entities which do not censor Christmas and a foe to those who do" --language that makes some Christians wince.

Groups they charge with fomenting the problem, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, counter that it is a "fictional war", that they are implying an anti-Christian hostility that doesn't exist. The clash centers on a disagreement over the propriety of religious symbols of any kind on public property. Both sides agree that part of the problem is misinformation, with cities and schools often unsure about what is constitutional. (Court shave ruled that nativity displays are allowable alongside other secularand religious symbols.)

What also raised the hackles of some religious folk was a growing retail practice of opting for "Happy Holidays" instead of "MerryChristmas" on signage around stores. Some managers instructed employees not to say "Merry Christmas" to customers. Some retailers say it just makes sense to be more inclusive during a season when Hanukkah and Kwanzaa are also celebrated. Best Buy, for example, is sticking with its "Happy Holidays" theme.

But Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has responded to the clamor in a vigorous way. "We learned our lesson, and this year more than ever 'Christmas' will dominate," says spokeswoman Jami Arms. Ticking off a list of pro-Christmas changes the chain has announced, she adds, "This is what Wal-Mart does -- listen to its employees and associates. We heard themsay they wanted Christmas to be more a part of our store."

Some suggest the pressure has been drummed up by Christian advocacygroups, which maintain "Grinch" or "Scrooge" lists on their websites and sell buttons and bumper stickers with such messages as "I helped save Christmas." These groups are also responding to individual concerns. Elizabeth Sither, a septuagenarian in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., noticed that her community's Fall Activities Calendar had secular holiday activities planned as well as a Hanukkah celebration, but no mention of Christmas. "Christmas is a national holiday and a very precious time for Christians," she says. "It doesn't make sense to take the Christ out of Christmas." So she wrote to city officials. When it appeared her request wouldn't be seriously considered for a display this year, she contacted the Thomas More Law Center of AnnArbor, Mich. who had helped others in similar cases. "Their attorney stepped in," Sither says. Palm Beach Gardens officials approved a nativity scene for display at the city recreation center along with a tree, snowman, and menorah. Now she is busy planninga public Christmas celebration with caroling at the center.


In the latest instance of decrying the "war on Christmas", Fox Newshost Bill O'Reilly claimed that "it's all part of the secular progressive agenda -- to get Christianity and spirituality and Judaism out of the public square." He then added: "Because if you look at what happened in WesternEurope and Canada, if you can get religion out, then you can pass secular progressive programs, like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage, because the objection to those things is religious-based, usually."


For free Politically Incorrect news ignored by the American news media, send your friends' email addresses for REAL NEWS from

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Consumer Warning--Outdated Pancake Mix

DEAR ABBY:I recently made a batch of pancakes for my healthy 14-year-old son, using a mix that was in our pantry. He said that they tasted "funny," but ate them anyway. About 10 minutes later, he began having difficulty breathing and his lips began turning purple. I gave him his allergy pill, had him sit on the sofa and told him to relax. He was wheezing while inhaling and exhaling. My husband, a volunteer firefighter and EMT, heated up some water, and we had my son lean over the water so the steam could clear his chest and sinuses. Soon, his breathing became more regular and his lips returned to a more normal color. We checked the date on the box of pancake mix and, to my dismay, found it was very outdated. As a reference librarian at an academic institution, I have the abil ity to search through many research databases I did just that, and found an article the next day that mentioned a 19-year-old male DYING after eating pancakes made with outdated mix. Apparently, the mold that forms in old pancake mix can be toxic! When we told our friends about my son's close call, we were surprised at the number of people who mentioned that they should check their own pancake mix since they don't use it often, or they had purchased it some time ago. With so many people shopping at warehouse-type stores and buying large sizes of pancake mix, I hope your readers will take the time to check the expiration date on their boxes.

Also, beware of outdated cake, brownie and cookie mixes.

You can find this true story at Here's the link: Lesson learned; be sure to check dates on everything and basically, just don't eat anything outdated! PASS IT ON!!!!

Monday, November 27, 2006

‘My Country Needs Me’: Iraqi democrats haven’t given up the fight. How can we?


By Heather Robinson

The panic over Iraq seems more intense than ever. That country, the thinking goes, is a hopeless mess.

An immediate American withdrawal would leave the silent majority of Iraqis hostage to the most vicious extremists, abandoning those Iraqi leaders who have championed liberal democratic values. One of them is Mithal al-Alusi, a 53-year-old Sunni Arab who won a seat in parliament last December after having served as director general of the National Commission on de-Baathification. Mr. al-Alusi ran on a platform of religious pluralism, human rights, free markets and a free press. He calls for an alliance among democracies — including the U.S., Iraq, Israel and Turkey — to fight terrorism.

Not only does Mr. al-Alusi champion values many in the West hope will define the new Iraq, he has risked his life — and lost more than his life — for the cause. In September 2004 he attended a counterterrorism conference in Herzliya, Israel; after which insurgents threatened his family.

The following February assassins opened fire on Mr. al-Alusi’s car as it approached his Baghdad home. He wasn’t in the vehicle, but his sons, 30-year-old Ayman and 22-year-old Gamal, were. Both were killed as their father watched. Still, Mr. al-Alusi was unbowed. “Even if these terrorists try to kill me again, peace is the only solution,” he told reporters minutes after the attack. “Peace with Israel is the only solution for Iraq. Peace with everybody, but no peace for the terrorists.” He continued to build his Iraqi Nation Party, which his fallen sons had helped establish, and which now has 15,000 members.

He describes his views less in ideological terms than in human ones. “An Iraqi mother, she has the right to have normal feelings for her baby. It’s the same for an Israeli mother,” he told me in a phone interview from Baghdad. “This is the best way to drive the world’s politics. Not to make it complicated.”

Mr. al-Alusi is not the only Iraqi political leader to reject ethnic and sectarian separatism. Hajim al-Hasani, a former parliament speaker, testified at a September congressional hearing. When Rep. Christopher Shays referred to him as a Sunni, Mr. al-Hasani politely corrected the congressman: “I am Iraqi.” Afterwards, Mr. al-Hasani told me it is a misconception to view the violence in Iraq as the expression of popular will: “The few bad apples can rotten the rest of the apples if nobody stops them.” Many of those “bad apples” aren’t even grown in Iraq. Following Saddam Hussein’s fall, foreign jihadists such as the Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi rushed to join former Baathists in an effort to undermine the fledgling democracy. And Mr. al-Alusi told me that “Iran is fully involved in terrorist activity in Iraq.” He believes Tehran is playing both sides, backing Sunni terrorists as well as Shiite ones.

Polls suggest a majority of Americans think it was a mistake to enter Iraq. Mr. al-Alusi respectfully disagrees. “We didn’t have any kind of hope, and now, even with all our difficulty, we have hope.” Iraq today is a central front in a war against extremists who view the murder of civilians as political expression. “I will be killed — if not today, tomorrow,” Mr. al-Alusi says. “The point is not me, but children — for a child to be a child, not a killer; for a teenager to be a teenager, not an extremist.”

Mithal al-Alusi could have left Iraq for a comfortable life in exile; Mr. Shays, a friend, offered to help him relocate to the U.S. But he said no: “My country needs me.”

He has not given up the fight. How can we?

Friday, November 24, 2006

Dear Jesse Jackson


Posted: September 19, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern
By Mychal Massie
© 2006

Dear Rev. Jackson:
I read with interest your Sept. 12, 2006, article "Goodwill, unity, money have been squandered since Sept. 11," which appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times. I do not object, as such, to your poisonous screed directed at President Bush. I object to the substance that so freely flows from your mouth and that can best be likened unto that which is consistent with encopresis – albeit in your case, the malady can hardly be defined as involuntary.

You purport yourself to be a minister – a reverend – a so-called man of God – but a minister is a servant and a reverend is a member of the clergy, which means said individual is to be obedient unto the God he serves. If one serves the "god" of chaos, deceit, lies, whore-mongering, dysfunction, greed and resentment – then perhaps within ecclesiastical environs it can be said you serve well. Apart from same being the case, you are antithetical of everything that can remotely be identified as a biblical servant of the true "Living God." But I get ahead of myself.
In the piece you wrote, our military is "stranded … [in Iraq] with inadequate training and inadequate direction." On what did you base that premise? On what basis do you brand the finest all-volunteer military in the history of civilization as poorly trained and inept? Or was your statement an effluence based on an apriori moment designed to gain political points for the upcoming election?

You spoke of "catastrophic climate change, global pandemics and unsustainable trade deficits" – but you never make mention of the catastrophic zeitgeist that has wreaked havoc and "more economic damage" upon the community you self-servingly claim to represent. You are never heard making reference to the "pandemic" level of black on black crime, black abortion rates, black single-parent homes (albeit you contributed to those numbers) and black criminal behavior, all of which threatens the future of blacks as a whole.

You wrote that the president, "instead of asking Americans to sacrifice to meet the challenge [of 9/11] … called on them, literally, to go shopping." You condescendingly wrote, "He allowed business as usual to go on in Washington." I ask you – how much more could Americans have sacrificed than watching their innocent family members and co-citizens perish? How much more sacrifice could the president have called upon the people to make? Or by sacrifice were you saying that the president could have called upon Americans to give more pints of blood or more supplies to charity groups that were immediately besieged with donations? Perhaps you reasoned that ordinary people performing extraordinary acts of volunteerism and acts of mercy were not sacrifice enough. Or were you suggesting that President Bush should have ordered everyone to hide under their kitchen tables and quake in fear?

What part of the American spirit do you perceive wasn't grieving after those attacks? What do you believe the people of Washington and its metropolitan area experienced daily as they commuted past the final resting place of those aboard United Flight 77? What would you have done differently? How would you have displayed leadership?

In the article, you spoke of the 9/11 commission being "nonpartisan": Does that include Richard Ben-Veniste and Jamie Gorelick? You derided the very intelligence tools that have prevented terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11. You intentionally and erroneously labeled domestic eavesdropping "warrantless wiretapping," never mentioning that it prevented Lyman Farris from blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge, was instrumental in protecting the Sears Towers and was key in uncovering the UK suicide bombers' plan to blow up 10 international passenger planes just one month ago.

You blame the president for bringing "discredit to the nation across the world." My question to you is, who brought discredit on the nation in 1979 when we had a president who betrayed a trusted ally and was unable to free Americans held hostage. Who brought "discredit" on America in the years preceding 9/11, as the mongrel followers of a pedophile and false god bombed American interests around the world? Is President Bush to blame for the 1993 World Trade Tower bombings?

You referred to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as "ugly and dishonest." I ask you, is that not a more appropriate self-description? You are the man who rubbed the blood of a fallen hero on your clothing and then lied, saying he died in your arms. Shall we outline your financial dealings?

You claim the president's credibility is gone, when in truth it is you who has no credibility. President Bush is fulfilling the role of his office. But as a minister, can the same be said of you? Are you fulfilling God's prescripts for the priestly office you claim to hold? How many people have you personally led to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ? How many people have you preached the salvation message to?

What have you done to bring glory and honor to the name of Christ? Is that what you were doing as you paraded your pregnant mistress around the White House while supposedly ministering to a president taken with sexual sin of his own? "Goodwill, unity, money" have indeed been squandered, but not since 9/11. They have been squandered on you and your morally depraved kind. You claim a title that should offer "hope," but instead you offer fool's parsley.

My prayer for you would be, and is, that you would confess the error of your ways while there is yet time, because the "Living God" takes a dim view of those who intentionally lead his children astray.


Mychal S. Massie

P.S. I am available to debate you, anywhere, on the relative principles of your ersatz theology versus true Christianity.

Monday, November 20, 2006

Anti-military bigotry by the Bay

"In the first place God made idiots," observed Mark Twain. "This was for practice. Then he made school boards." The San Francisco Board of Education's 4-2 vote last week to abolish the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps program, which has been active in the city's high schools for 90 years, tends to support his view.

Why is JROTC being done away with? It isn't for lack of interest. More than 1,600 San Francisco students currently take part in its voluntary activities. "Kids love this program as if it's family," notes the San Francisco Chronicle. It is "a program that students and their parents wholeheartedly support."

Finances aren't the problem either. Operating JROTC costs the city less than $1 million out of an annual school budget of $356 million.

Nor is the problem bad management. The Chronicle reports that "no one has offered an alternative as coherent and well-run as JROTC."

Safety? Also not a problem. Though cadets have uniforms, they carry no weapons; the nonviolent programs emphasize leadership, self-discipline, citizenship, and teamwork. "This is where the kids feel safe," says one JROTC instructor, retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Robert Powell.

And the problem certainly isn't an absence of diversity. In a story on JROTC cadets at Galileo High School, Chronicle reporter Jill Tucker writes: "These students are 4-foot-10 to 6-foot-4. Athletic and disabled. College-bound and barely graduating. Gay and straight. White, black, and brown. Some leave school for large homes with ocean views. Others board buses for Bayview-Hunters Point." Several of the students come from immigrant families. At least one is autistic.

So what is the problem with JROTC? There isn't one. The problem is with the anti military bigotry of the school board majority and the "peace" activists who lobbied against the program on the grounds that San Francisco's schools should not be sullied by an association with the US armed forces.

"We don't want the military ruining our civilian institutions," said Sandra Schwartz of the American Friends Service Committee, a far-left pacifist organization that routinely condemns American foreign policy and opposes JROTC nationwide. "In a healthy democracy . . . you contain the military." Board member Dan Kelly, who voted with the majority, called JROTC "basically a branding program or a recruiting program for the military." In fact, it is nothing of the kind: The great majority of cadets do not end up serving in the military.

But then, facts tend not to matter to smug ideologues like Schwartz and Kelly, who are free to parade their contempt for the military because they live in a nation that affords such freedom even to idiots and ingrates. It never seems to occur to them that the liberties and security they take for granted would vanish in a heartbeat if it weren't for the young men and women who do choose to wear the uniform, willingly risking life and limb in service to their country.

According to The Chronicle, scores of JROTC students were on hand when the school board met last week; many of them burst into tears after the vote. Sad to say, they should probably have seen this coming. For in its trendy anti military animus, the school board was hardly breaking new ground.

In 1995, San Francisco's board of supervisors wiped the city's famous Army Street from the map, renaming it Cesar Chavez Street. Last year, city supervisors refused to allow the retired USS Iowa, a historic World War II battleship, to be docked in the Port of San Francisco. Like the school board vote, the spurning of the Iowa was intended as a slap at the US military and the foreign policy it supports. Supervisor Chris Daly explained his vote against accepting the battleship by announcing: "I am not proud of the history of the United States of America since the 1940s."

In 2005, San Francisco voters handily approved Measure I, a nonbinding ballot question dubbed "College Not Combat," which called for the exclusion of military recruiters from public high schools and colleges. The prevailing political attitude was summed up in a Weekly Standard headline: "San Francisco to Army: Drop Dead."

Not everyone feels that way. To his credit, Mayor Gavin Newsom excoriated the school board last week for "disrespecting the sacrifice of men and women in uniform" and warned that killing JROTC would only accelerate the flight of city residents from the public schools. "You think this is going to help keep families in San Francisco?" he asked. "No. It's going to hurt."

Going to? For 1,600 kids now faced with the death of a program that infused their lives with purpose, camaraderie, and self-respect, the hurt has already begun.

Friday, November 17, 2006

Recognizing A Stroke

How to Identify a StrokeDate: 11/16/2006

A neurologist says that if he can get to a stroke victim within 3 hours he can totally reverse the effects of a stroke...totally. He said the trick was getting a stroke recognized, diagnosed, and then getting the patient medically cared for within 3 hours, which is tough.


Remember the "3" steps, "STR" . (Read and Learn!Sometimes symptoms of a stroke are difficult to identify. Unfortunately, the lack of awareness spells disaster. The stroke victim may suffer severe brain damage when people nearby fail to recognize the symptoms of a stroke.)

Now doctors say a bystander can recognize a stroke by asking three simple questions:
S * Ask the individual to SMILE.
T * Ask the person to TALK to SPEAK A SIMPLE SENTENCE (Coherently) (i.e. . . It is sunny out today)
R * Ask him or her to RAISE BOTH ARMS.

*NOTE: Another 'sign' of a stroke is this: Ask the person to 'stick' out their tongue. If the tongue is 'crooked', if it goes to one side or the other, that is also an indication of a stroke.

If he or she has trouble with ANY ONE of these tasks, call 911 immediately!! and describe the symptoms to the dispatcher.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Holding Islam to Account

From Amil Imani:
Friday, 10 November 2006

Islam has spawned many sects that are master practitioners of the art of double standards. As far as Muslims are concerned, what is good for Muslims is not good for the non-Muslims; and what is bad for Muslims is good for non-Muslims.

What complicates matters is that there is no way of knowing which of the dozens of at-each-other's-throat sects is the legitimate Islam. As soon as Muhammad died, his religion of peace became a house of internal war: jockeying for power and leadership started, sects formed and splintered into sub-sects, and bloodletting began in earnest.

The internal infighting in Islam is presently playing in full color - in red - most dramatically, in the Iraqi theater. Shiite raid Sunni civilians, slaughter them like sheep, and toss their bodies like trash in the streets or the rivers. The Sunnis return the favor with just as much viciousness and savagery. Question: If this is the way these Muslims treat each other, how would they deal with the infidels if they had the chance?

Answer: These devoted followers of Muhammad would deal with the infidels exactly the way Muhammad did: behead the non-believers, take them as slaves to hold or sell, or make them pay back-breaking jizyeh - poll taxes.

Some may object that writings like this are little more than hate-mongering and fanning the fire that rages between Islam and the non-Islamic world. They may further play the Islamic apologists' few, well-worn propaganda cards as evidence for their contention that Islam is not what its detractors claim. Here are the few favorite cards:

* "There is no compulsion in religion," says the Koran. (But the full context is never shown.)* Islam means "peace," so Islam is a religion of peace.

* "For you, your religion, and for me, my religion," Muhammad reportedly said.

The Muslims and their apologists quickly run out of their few cards, and the rest of the Islamic deck is all about intolerance, hatred and violence toward the infidels, toward all others who are not true Muslims, and even toward those who consider themselves Muslims. Shiites, for instance, judge the Sunnis as traitors to Islam, and Sunnis condemn the Shiites as heretics. Each side deems the other worthy of death and hellfire.

This internecine Islamic war of the religion of peace is not confined to the Shiite-Sunni divide. There are so many internal divisions within each side that listing and describing them comprehensively would be an encyclopedic work.

So, who is right? What are the facts about Islam and how does Islam impact the ever-shrinking village Earth and its inhabitants? Admittedly, this is a huge question and cannot be answered satisfactorily in one article. However, some facts can be presented to help the reader decide.

There is no need to belabor the point that Islam is not, and has never been, a religion of peace. The word Islam is derived from taslim, which means "submission," while the term for "peace" is solh. Another derivation of the word taslim is salamat, which means "good health" and so on.

Irrespective of what the term Islam may mean, the facts on the ground conclusively demonstrate Islam's violent nature from its very inception. No need to go back to the time of Muhammad and examine the historical records. Just a few contemporary events should make the point.

Here is a partial list: the savage Shiite-Sunni bloodletting in Iraq; the barbarism of the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan; the genocide in Sudan's Darfur region; the Somali killings; the Iranian mullahs' murder of their own people and support of mischief abroad; the cross-border attack on Israel by Lebanese Hizbullah; the incessant terrorist acts of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and the fatwas of the Palestinians against Israel; the bombing of Shiite mosques in Pakistan, and the Shiite retaliation against soft, innocent and civilian targets.

Clearly, there is no place on the planet where Muslims reside that is in peace from the religion of peace. Spain, France, Holland, England, Thailand and Indonesia have already been attacked, while others, such as Belgium, have been threatened and sanctioned.

Stretching the benefit of the doubt beyond limits, one may believe that all these acts of horrors are committed by a small minority of thugs and radicals who happened to be Muslims. Fine, let us ignore all those "fringes" for now - those who are giving Islam a bad reputation. And never mind Saudi Arabia, the cradle of barbarism, fixed in formaldehyde since Islam's inception. Also, let us overlook the dastardly Shiite fanatics presently ruling (ruining) the great nation of Iran. Iranian Shiite Hitlerists are hell-bent on wiping Israel off the face of the planet, while viciously devastating Iran's own largest minority - the Baha'is, people universally-recognized as law-abiding and peaceful.

Would someone account for what is happening in the "civilized" Islamic country of Egypt? The world owes Egypt a debt of gratitude for giving it the Muslim Brotherhood - the lead promoter of Sunni hatred toward the infidels, with chapters and front organizations in much of the world. With typical hypocrisy, the Egyptian government claims that the Muslim Brotherhood is outlawed, when, in actuality, the Brotherhood holds twenty-five percent of the seats in the Egyptian parliament. The same country that gave the world vicious American-killers like Al-Zawahiri is the recipient of huge largess from the American taxpayer.

The latest shameful action of the Egyptian government is the issuance of identity cards that require listing of one's religion. In order to be issued an ID card, which is essential for just about any and all exercises of the rights of citizenship, the individual must list his religion as one of the three sanctioned faiths - Islam, Christianity or Judaism. No one is allowed to leave the religious affiliation blank or list any other religion. Buddhists, Hindus, Baha'is, or agnostics and atheists, have to either lie and fake a religious affiliation, or run the serious risk of having to survive as non-entities in the "crown jewel" of modern and moderate Islamic society.

These are the conditions on the ground wherever Islam rules. Violence of all forms is endemic to Islam and is not confined to any fringes. Islam itself is the fringe. A fringe that is oppressive, hateful of others and violent to the core.

The world must confront Islam and demand that it mends its ways in conformity with the Bill of Rights, according to which every man, woman and child is fully entitled to equal treatment under the law, irrespective of any and all considerations.

How Dems ‘clean house’

By Michelle Malkin Remember how Nancy Pelosi exploited the female card before the midterm elections? "Maybe it will take a woman to clean up the House and a new speaker to restore civility," she bragged.

Women, she implied, do a better job than men because we presumably know how to get down on our hands and knees and scrub the mold and mildew out of every corner and crevice of our own domiciles.

But from the way she's acting, Nancy Pelosi doesn't know spic from span. She's conducting Beltway business as usual, just like the good old boys she demonized throughout the campaign. (Madame Pelosi just happens to do it in an Armani aqua blue-gray pantsuit that gets thumbs-up from obsequious Washington fashion writers.)

Well, a back-scratching corruptocrat in pastel is still a back-scratching corruptocrat. Case in point: Which congressman is Mrs. Clean considering as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence? Impeached federal judge Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., who took bribes, lied under oath and was kicked off the bench.

And which colleague is she backing for House majority leader? One of Congress's leading dirtbags: Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.

As if his extremist cut-and-run war strategy weren't bad enough, Murtha's (un)ethical record is enough to make even liberal apologists blush.

Unfortunately, Murtha's defeated opponent, Diana Irey, couldn't get folks to pay enough attention to his Abscam past during the campaign. But now that he is poised to assume the speakership and all its attendant perks and privileges, the Abscam scandal is front and center.
In 1980, Murtha was an unindicted co-conspirator in a massive bribery probe — in which undercover FBI agents videotaped Murtha entertaining a $50,000 bribe from agents posing as emissaries for Arab sheiks trying to enter our country illegally. Democrat defenders of Murtha scoff that the story is "old news." (Liberal math: Abscam story from 1980 equals "old news." Bush National Guard story from 1973 equals "new news.")

But only recently have we been reminded of Abscam transcripts that paint an even uglier picture of Murtha than the short snippet of publicly available FBI video in which Murtha turned down the bribe. As noted by The American Spectator, an old Jack Anderson column reported these little-noticed parts of Murtha's conversation with the undercover agents:
"I want to deal with you guys awhile before I make any transactions at all, period. . . . After we've done some business, well, then I might change my mind. . . . "

. . . "I'm going to tell you this. If anybody can do it — I'm not B.S.-ing you fellows — I can get it done my way." he boasted. "There's no question about it." . . .

But the reluctant Murtha wouldn't touch the $50,000. Here on secret videotape was this all-American hero, tall and dignified in a disheveled way, explaining why he wasn't quite ready to accept the cash.

"All at once," he said, "some dumb [expletive deleted] would go start talking eight years from now about this whole thing and say [expletive deleted], this happened. Then in order to get immunity so he doesn't go to jail, he starts talking and fingering people. So the [S.O.B.] falls apart." . . .

"You give us the banks where you want the money deposited," offered one of the bagmen.
"All right," agreed Murtha. "How much money we talking about?"

"Well, you tell me."

"Well, let me find out what is a reasonable figure that will get their attention," said Murtha, "because there are a couple of banks that have really done me some favors in the past, and I'd like to put some money in. . . . ["]

So much for restoring cleanliness and civility, eh, Nancy?

Abscam isn't Murtha's only ethics cloud.

Defense industry lobbyist Paul Magliocchetti, a former colleague of Murtha's who worked as a senior staffer on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, has reportedly funneled some $300,000 in campaign contributions to Murtha over the last three election cycles — either through his company, PMA, or its clients. They've reaped rich rewards: In 2006 alone, PMA clients received at least 60 earmarks worth some $95 million. Murtha also aided Democrat Congressman Alan Mollohan, who remains embroiled in a federal contracting corruption probe.
In 1992, Bill Clinton pledged to run the most ethical administration in history. We know how that went. Fourteen years later, Nancy Pelosi has recycled the pledge — and is now well on her way to recycling the same old soiled legacy.

A friendly woman-to-woman tip to Nancy Pelosi: To clean a house, you take the garbage out, not in.

Veterans need more than applause

By Kathleen Parker The next time you pass a homeless man on the street, you might ask in which war he served. In the next several years, chances are good that he (and increasingly she) will say Iraq or Afghanistan.

That grim prediction is based on several facts:

One in three adult homeless males is a veteran and 45 percent of those suffer from mental illness, according to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans.

A recent report in the New England Journal of Medicine, meanwhile, found that one in four veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan were diagnosed with some kind of mental health problem.
And those are just the ones who found their way to a VA hospital. Many don't. Returning veterans are either embarrassed, untrusting of government, frustrated by bureaucratic gridlock, or simply incapable of navigating the system.

With large numbers of troops likely headed home in the next year, the U.S. faces a tsunami of psychologically and emotionally damaged veterans who have no place to go. Those who don't find the support they need may end up on the streets.

Or in prison. In 1998, an estimated 56,500 Vietnam War-era veterans and 18,500 Persian Gulf War vets were held in state and federal prisons, according to the 2000 Bureau of Justice Statistics report, ``Veterans in Prison or Jail.''

Obviously, not all were model citizens who turned to crime because of their war experiences. One in six of incarcerated veterans was not honorably discharged from the military. But the report says veterans are more likely than others to be in prison for a violent offense.

Families of veterans aren't surprised. Men and women trained to survive in a war zone bring those same skills home and find themselves unable to function in an alien environment.
Readjustment symptoms include hyper-vigilance, insomnia, irritability, exaggerated startle response, withdrawal, isolation, depression and anger. An act-first-think-later approach to problem solving may keep one alive in combat, but it's not helpful to family harmony.

Cynde Collins-Clark — none other than Oklahoma's 2006 Mother of the Year — has experienced these problems firsthand. Her son, Joe, left for Iraq at 19 with the Army Reserve and returned a year later 100 percent mentally disabled by post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression. Unable to work, Joe lives at home with his mother, a licensed professional counselor, and his stepfather.

Collins-Clark has her son's permission to tell their story in hopes of helping others. She's especially concerned about those who will be overwhelmed by a system that even she finds challenging and maddening. She wonders how a young wife with small children copes with a sick soldier without any help.

The biggest problem is simply not enough qualified counselors — and not enough government funding to meet current needs. Those needs have grown exponentially, as the number of vets seeking treatment for PTSD and other mental health issues doubled from 4,467 to 9,103 between October 2005 and June 2006, according to a report last month by a House subcommittee. That's just the beginning of the wave building now.
The Senate last year passed a bill to increase funding for veterans' mental health programs. Specifically, it would have increased the number of clinical teams dedicated to the treatment of PTSD and allowed licensed mental health counselors, as well as marriage and family therapists, to work at the VA. The House, however, failed to take action.

Even without additional funding, the Department of Defense could help by increasing access to mental health care for military personnel and their families. Currently, individuals on TRICARE, the military's health insurance program, can seek counseling from licensed practitioners only after referral from a primary physician.

This process is often too cumbersome for people suffering mental problems, says Brian Altman, legislative representative for the American Counseling Association. Also, physicians untrained in post-combat symptoms frequently misdiagnose and fail to send patients to counseling.

A veteran's wife testified before a VA committee last year that her husband, Capt. Michael Jon Pelkey, was treated for everything from back pain to erectile dysfunction rather than PTSD. Pelkey finally was diagnosed properly by a civilian therapist — one week before he killed himself.

There can be no more shameful legacy of any war than ignoring veterans' needs. As Republicans and Democrats vow bipartisan cooperation, they have no greater priority than to simplify veterans' access to mental health services.
Meanwhile, citizens can help. Russ Clark, a Vietnam Marine vet and minister who counsels veterans through Point Man International Ministries of Central Ohio, says he'd like to see community-based ``Welcome Home'' programs in every village, town and city in America.
Veterans don't necessarily need a parade, he says, but they do need acknowledgement, affirmation, counseling, jobs and housing.

And a parade wouldn't hurt a bit.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

The Politics of Losing

From Jewish World Review, Tuesday, November 14, 2006

By: Pat Sajak
There's a lot of debate in the country over which political party is better suited to lead, and that question is supposed to be decided regularly at polling places throughout the nation. However, there is absolutely no question about which party is better at losing elections; hands down, it's the Republicans.

Let's face it, the only reason we knew the make-up of the Senate within 24 hours or so of the recent elections was the fact the two razor-thin margins (in Virginia and Montana) went in favor of Democrats. The two Republicans (Allen and Burns) waited overnight for some canvassing and then conceded their races. There were no accusations of voter fraud, no crying about defective machines, hanging chads, butterfly ballots or voter intimidation. Instead, they said, "You won; we lost." George Allen was particularly gracious in praising the man who will take his job.

Call me cynical, but you can bet a Kennedy half-dollar that, if the situation were reversed, we still wouldn't know who would be running the Senate next time because we would be up to our necks in litigation and investigation. Voters would have been "encouraged" to come forward to tell their horror stories about how they were deprived of their rights, and TV and newspaper reporters from around the country would have descended on Virginia and Montana to expose the flaws in voting machines and unearth the fraud which had undoubtedly been perpetrated throughout those states.

Happily for the country, however, the "right" side won, so those problems didn't seem to exist this time around. It's surprising, given the number of pre-election stories outlining the potential for irregularities and discussing strategies to challenge any "illegitimate" results, but I guess those nasty election officials cleaned up their acts just in time.

The problem with elections is they are a bit messy, and, more often than not, they're pretty close. One of the reasons the Founders came up with the Electoral College on the Presidential level was to create the illusion of a more sound victory in order to minimize the possible damage to our political system resulting from extremely tight popular vote races. The idea was to give the winners a chance to govern more effectively. And the job of the losers was...well, to lose, and to do it graciously.

One of the main reasons the past six years have been filled with such unyielding acrimony is the Democrats have made it clear, through word and deed, they believe this administration to be illegitimate. From the legal fiasco in Florida in 2000 to accusations of stealing Ohio (and maybe a couple of other states) in 2004, they convinced their followers it was fraud which kept this nation from experiencing a Gore and/or Kerry administration. They were the equivalent of a spoiled kid holding his breath until he turned blue.

The Republicans did a lot of things wrong this past election cycle. If you don't think so, ask a Republican. But one thing they did right — and which they generally do right — is to take their lumps and put country ahead of party.

Ask yourself this: if you were trying to teach your child the importance of being a "good loser" and learning from his or her mistakes and moving on, at which political party would you point to help make your case?

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Hot for Martyrdom


By Michael Coren
National Post, Canada

Dr. Tawfik Hamid doesn't tell people where he lives. Not the street, not the city, not even the country. It's safer that way. It's only the letters of testimony from some of the highest intelligence officers in the western world that enable him to move freely. This medical doctor, author and activist once was a member of Egypt's Al-Gama'a al- Islamiyya (Arabic for "the Islamic Group"), a banned terrorist organization. He was trained under Ayman al- Zawaheri, the bearded jihadi who appears in Bin Laden's videos, telling the world that Islamic violence will stop only once we all become Muslims.

He's a disarmingly gentle and courteous man. But he's determined to tell a complacent North America what he knows about fundamentalist Muslim imperialism.

"Yes, 'imperialism,' " he tells me. "The deliberate and determined expansion of militant Islam and its attempt to triumph not only in the Islamic world but in Europe and North America. Pure ideology. Muslimterrorists kill and slaughter not because of what they experience but because of what they believe." Hamid drank in the message of ihadism while at medical school in Cairo, and devoted himself to the cause. His group began meeting in a small room. Then a larger one. Then a mosque reserved for followers of al-Zawaheri. By the time Hamid left the movement, its members were intimidating other students who were unsympathetic.

He is now 45 years old, and has had many years to reflect on why he was willing to die and kill for his religion. "The first thing you have to understand is that it has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with poverty or lack of education," he says. "I was from a middle-class family and my parents were not religious. Hardly anyone in the movement at university came from a background that was different from mine.

"I've heard this poverty nonsense time and time again from Western apologists for Islam, most of them not Muslim by the way. There are millions of passive supporters of terror who may be poor and needy but most of those who do the killing are wealthy, privileged, educated and free. If it were about poverty, ask yourself why it is middle-class Muslims -- and never poor Christians -- who become suicide bombers in Palestine."

His analysis is fascinating. Muslim fundamentalists believe, he insists, that Saudi Arabia's petroleum-based wealth is a divine gift, and that Saudi influence is sanctioned by Allah. Thus the extreme brand of Sunni Islam that spread from the Kingdom to the rest of the Islamic world is regarded not merely as one interpretation of the religion but the only genuine interpretation. The expansion of violent and regressive Islam, he continues, began in the late 1970s, and can be traced precisely to the growing financial clout of Saudi Arabia."We're not talking about a fringe cult here," he tells me. "Salafist [fundamentalist] Islam is the dominant version of the religion and is taught in almost every Islamic university in the world. It is puritanical, extreme and does, yes, mean that women can be beaten, apostates killed and Jews called pigs and monkeys."
He leans back, takes a deep breath and moves to another area, one that he says is far too seldom discussed: "North Americans are too squeamish about discussing the obvious sexual dynamic behind suicide bombings. If they understood contemporary Islamic society, they would understand the sheer sexual tension of Sunni Muslim men. Look at the figures for suicide bombings and see how few are from the Shiite world. Terrorism and violence yes, but not suicide. The overwhelming majority are from Sunnis.

Now within the Shiite world there are what is known as temporary marriages, lasting anywhere from an hour to 95 years. It enables men to release their sexual frustrations. "Islam condemns extramarital sex as well as masturbation, which is also taught in the Christian tradition. But Islam also tells of unlimited sexual ecstasy in paradise with beautiful virgins for the martyr who gives his life for the faith. Don't for a moment underestimate this blinding passion or its influence on those who accept fundamentalism." A pause. "I know. I was one who accepted it."

This partial explanation is shocking more for its banality than its horror. Mass murder provoked partly by simple lust. But it cannot be denied that letters written by suicide bombers frequently dwell on waiting virgins and sexual gratification. "The sexual aspect is, of course, just one part of this. But I can tell you what it is not about. Not about Israel, not about Iraq, not about Afghanistan. They are mere excuses. Algerian Muslim fundamentalists murdered 150,000 other Algerian Muslims, sometimes slitting the throats of children in front of their parents. Are you seriously telling me that this was because of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians or American foreign policy?"

He's exasperated now, visibly angry at what he sees as a willful Western foolishness. "Stop asking what you have done wrong. Stop it! They're slaughtering you like sheep and you still look within. You criticize your history, your institutions, your churches. Why can't you realize that it has nothing to do with what you have done but with what they want."

Then he leaves -- for where, he cannot say. A voice that is silenced in its homeland and too often ignored by those who prefer convenient revision to disturbing truth. The tragedy is that Tawfik Hamid is almostused to it.


Want to know more about ACT? Write to:

Monday, November 06, 2006

The Islamization of Europe

America, take note before it is too late....
By Abdullah Al Araby

It has been said, " Those who ignore the lessons of history are bound to repeat them." Another famous quote says, " History repeats itself." The moral is that people often have short memories. Whether we observe bad things happening to other nations or experience such ourselves we seldom learn the needed lessons. As time passes, all is forgotten and the same mistakes are repeated, over and over again.

When the topic of the serious ramifications of the Islamic invasion of America comes up, few people register sufficient concern. They underestimate the potential threat because they view the USA's current Muslim population of 1%-2% as insignificant. The danger is that, like some Europeans nations, we will wait till the percentage figures doubles, triples or even quadruple before it dawns on us that we have a problem. Our government and our entire population would be wise to look, listen and learn from what countries in Europe are suffering as the result of unchecked Islamic population growth. If we don't heed the warnings that their problems represent, we will be sentenced to duplicating them.

There are many similarities between life in America and that in the Christian countries of Europe. The difference is the homelands of Muslims are much closer geographically to Europe and therefore the immigration invasions began much earlier. The Muslim population of Europe is now estimated to be around twenty million strong. That represents about 5% of Western Europe's total inhabitants. France's Islamic population presently ranks as the highest as it has raced to about 10%. The price tag for naively permitting that degree of growth has proven to have dire consequences.

Naive and goodhearted Americans often complain and cite various reasons for rejecting any suggestion that the growth of Islam should be a point of concern. They figure, why criticize other religions? Why can't we all just live and let live? Surely, civilized societies should pride themselves on tolerance towards those of other beliefs and grant freedom of religion to all citizens. No one should care about how or what others worship, as long as they worship peacefully. Another test is whether or not a religion infringes on the rights of others. Islam misses on both counts. It's not peaceful because at various junctures it infringes on the rights of others to worship as they choose. Once it gains dominance, it is totally intolerant of other religions.

Such concerns might be invalid if they pertained to adherents of most any world religion, other than Islam. The thing that makes Islam different is the fact that it is more than a religion. Islam is a political, social, and economic way of life, cloaked in religious garments. Islam's strict observances and regulations are imposed on all Muslims and affect every area of their lives. These shape their attitudes and responses towards those of other religions. Full compliance brings the promises of rewards in this life and in the hereafter. Noncompliance dictates harsh punishments both here and in eternity. As a result many Muslims are willing to kill and to die for the cause of religious fervor. These factors, combined with Islam's inherent tendency to violence, make it difficult for it to co-exist in society with other religions.
Islam is never satisfied to be one religion among many. It has to be supreme; the one and only. " the (only) religion (acceptable) before God is Islam." Surah 3:19 Within Islam, freedom of religion is never an option. Allah says, " If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him." Surah 3: 85 Domination is the name of the game. Islam's objective is to obtain influence superior to that of all other religious groups. Its long-term agenda inevitably includes complete dominion over a nation. In free societies, as in America, they make no effort to hide such agendas. Omar M. Ahmed, chairman of the board of CAIR ( Council on American- Islamic Relations ) said once at a banquet, " I urge Muslims not to shirk their duty of sharing the Islamic faith with those who are on the wrong side." He added, " If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam. Islam isn't here to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant."

The plan for the conquest and domination of Europe has been at work for some time. Giueppe Bernardini, the 72 year old Italian Archbishop of the archdiocese of Izmir, Turkey, said something startling. " The dominion has already begun with the petrodollars, used not to create work in the poor North African or Middle Eastern countries, but to build mosques and cultural centers in Christian countries with Islamic immigration, including Rome, the center of Christianity."

Perhaps, there might be some European Muslims who are simply satisfied to enjoy the prosperity afforded them in their adopted countries and therefore don't mind accepting the status quo. However, there is a host of others who strive to see the traditionally Christian societies that welcomed them conform to the rigorous demands of Islamic society. The result is that Europe is undergoing a gradual transformation into a society in which Islam is not just equal to other faiths; it is the dominant player. This may not even be merely dependent upon increasing numerical strength. It may be solely driven by Islamist's innate desire to control societies. It is a strategy of Islamic leaders that is carefully thought out and concisely executed.

Muslim Arabs were invited to Europe from Africa and Asia in the 1950's and 1960's to meet the labor shortages of Western Europe's booming postwar economies. Subsequently, Muslim refugees seeking political asylum to better their lives drastically increased those numbers. The trend continued into the 1970's. The waves of Muslim immigrating from North Africa and the Middle East began to change the demographics of Europe. Muslim birthrates soared. According to U.N. statistics, the Islamic population of Europe doubled between 1989 and 1998, representing approximately 2% of the population. That number had again more than doubled by 2005, representing about 5% of all Europeans.

France has the largest concentrations of Muslims in Europe, about 10% of the total population. Its situation is a clear example of the influence of Islam on European societies. The French actress, Brigitte Bardot, laments the Islamization of France in her book, " A Scream in Silence ". A court accused her of "presenting Muslims as barbaric and cruel invaders, responsible for terrorist acts and eager to dominate the French to the extent of wanting to exterminate them." She states in her book, "There are many new languages in new Europe; mediocrity is taking over from beauty and splendor. There are many people who are filthy, badly dressed and badly shaven."

France has about 5 Million Muslims. The younger generations of French Muslims seem to have a problem with identity. About half of them are almost indistinguishable from other non-Muslims. However, the other half poses a serious problem for France. They don't view themselves as French and they also reject identifying with their families. They see themselves solely as Muslims. About 70,000 young Muslim women are subjected to forced marriages every year. Every year, 35,000 girls undergo Female Genitalia Mutilation/circumcision, or are under threat of the same.

You can't miss seeing Islam's influence if walking along many French streets. Parts of Paris look and sound more like an Arab country than they do European. Marseilles is racing towards becoming the first European city with a non-European majority.

The future is not promising. It is estimated that within 25 years, one in four residents of France will practice Islam. In an effort to maintain France's traditional character, its government is strongly asserting the nation's secularism. In doing so, a fierce struggle with the Islamists has ensued. Towards that goal, parliament banned Muslim women from wearing Islamic scarves ( hijab ) in public institutions. This decision is causing uproar from Muslims, not only in France, but all over the world.

France is Burning
Night after night, youthful Muslims blitzed through the outskirts of the poorer sections of French cities. From late October and into November of 2005 much of France was set aflame by Muslim rioters aged 13-24. At least 350 cities were attacked. Police intelligence sources indicate that the Jihadists minded gangs plan to import the mayhem to the main streets of France's primary cities, including Paris. Unquestionably, the authorities lost control of the nation and a form of marshal-law was enacted to restore some semblance of order. The sparks from those riots ignited embers of Islamic discontent in neighboring Belgium and Germany.
The riots were triggered by the deaths of two Muslim teenagers who were attempting to elude the police and were accidentally electrocuted in a poor suburb of Paris. The violence subsequently spread to other areas of France. More than 6,400 vehicles were torched and one man has been killed. More than 1,600 rioters were arrested. Schools, government buildings and churches were firebombed by the predominantly Muslim gangs. Though it was portrayed as race riots caused by official discrimination, it was in fact nothing less than a French intifada by French Muslims against France. Historically, France has been the most accommodating and liberal country in Europe towards Muslim immigrants. Its reward is exactly that which I have depicted in this volume, civil troubles. Innately Islam, the Quran and Islamic policies are predisposed to attempt to rule any nation that is foolish enough to extend overly liberal policies to them.

Unfortunately, this is not likely to be an ugly isolated and passing incident. The riots bear every indication of being the initial skirmishes of what will turn into a long war. These Muslim bands might retreat; if so, it will only be temporarily. They will likely fervently regroup later under the banners of experienced Islamic terrorists who will gladly inspire them.

Bat Ye'or is a history expert on the subject of "dhimmitude; " how Islam treated the People of the Book, Christians and Jews, throughout history. She originated the term "Eurabia" to underscore the growing influence of Islam in Europe. In a recent article titled, "How Europe Became Eurabia," she states: "Beyond a fleeting awareness, the overwhelming majority of Europeans and Americans do not understand the new Eurabian entity, which is only the first step in a steady progression toward its Arabization and Islamization. Europe has evolved from ... a Judeo-Christian civilization, with important post-enlightenment / secular elements, to a 'civilization of dhimmitude,' i.e. Eurabia: a secular-Muslim transitional society with its traditional Judeo-Christian more rapidly disappearing."

The Islamization of Europe becomes more obvious as time goes by. Thanks to the Saudi funds, beautiful mosques are erected in large cities. Many Imams and staff personnel of those mosques are paid by Saudi funds. All over Europe, the picture is not pretty:
Sweden's third largest city is Malmo and for all intents and purposes is ruled by violent Muslim gangs. Some of its Muslim residents have lived there as long as 20 years and still cannot read or write Swedish. Muslims succeeded into turning a first world city into another third world, like the countries they came from.

Britain's Muslim population is estimated to be between 1.6 and 3 million. A substantial segment of young Muslims in the United Kingdom does not identify with Britain, but only with Islam. Such young men were behind the terrorist attack of July 7, 2005. In some areas that have large concentrations, Muslims are targeting churches for arson and their clergymen for physical attacks. The objective is to cleanse such areas of any non-Muslim presence. Muslims are demanding that names of local districts be changed from traditional British names to Arabic Muslim names.

Spain's Muslims have expressed their plan to recapture the Mosque of Cordoba. The building was originally a church that was turned into a mosque after the Islamic conquest to Spain. After the Muslim invaders were put to flight, it again became a Catholic cathedral.
Reports from Italy state that doctors are treating Muslim wives who have been flogged by their Muslim husbands.

In Finland, some imams preach on the Islamic duty to ... kill Muslims who convert to other religions.

The Netherlands has recently turned from tolerance of Islam to the exact opposite. The change of mind followed ... the brutal killing of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a young Muslim in November 2004.

The preceding were just a few glimpses from the big picture of present-day Europe's landscape. The indications are that what was once tranquil and peaceful Europe is beginning to boil. The fire is fueled by the undisputed ultimate goal of Muslims to Islamize Europe.
Some Christians dismiss concerns about the possibility of Europe becoming Islamic before the end of the century as unrealistic and pessimistic. It must be remembered, however, that most Islamic countries of the Middle East were once Christian. Christianity was completely eradicated from many of these countries, while some still have just a symbolic presence. It is rather naive to presume that the same could not happen to Europe.

There is a lesson that America must learn from Europe's experiences with Islam. Surely, it is indicative for us to understand something. That which is happening to our brothers and sisters across the Atlantic is subtly in progress at this moment in America

Friday, November 03, 2006

Iran buying 'whole villages' of converts in Syria; Assad gives 'carte blanche'

WASHINGTON — Iran is moving in on Syria to the point of encouraging Alawis and Sunnis to convert to Shi'ite Islam.

Syrian opposition sources said the regime of President Bashar Assad has given Iran "carte blanche" in Syria. Unlike his late father, Bashar has allowed Iranian clerics to spread the Shi'ite religion in Syria.

Syrian demonstrators carrying photos of Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus. Reuters/Khaled al-Hariri

"Syrians have been observing over the last year a dangerous phenomena mostly witnessed by an alarming number of non-Shia turning to Khomeini-style Shia in return for financial rewards," the opposition Reform Party of Syria stated. "Whole villages and urban areas are adopting the Hizbullah model whereby clinics, schools and social services are provided by Iran in return for Syrians to convert to Shi'ism."

In August 2006, RPS stated, Iran opened two centers in the Syrian port of Latakia. The centers, which teach Farsi, have been converting Sunni Muslims.

"Assad is logically calculating that if Hizbullah, with its 15,000 fighters and a God-like following of its figurehead Sheik [Hassan] Nasrallah, can achieve with $100 million a year the military prowess it exhibited against Israel then why not turn all of Syria into a larger Hizbullah laboratory in the hope of attaining the same results?" the Syrian opposition party stated.

Sunnis comprise 70 percent of Syria. About 11 percent of the country consists of the ruling Alawite community, with the remainder Christians and Druze.

Opposition sources said the spread of Shia in Iran has angered many Sunnis, particularly those aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. Sunni clerics envision a backlash against Iran and its representatives.

"Many [Sunni clerics] have voiced the following logic: We see the next confrontation in the Middle East along the lines of Israel vs. Iran and we have no choice but to stand by Israel to protect our religion," RPS stated.

"This logic emanates from the fact that no Sunni Arab country has the military competence to stand-up to the Iran-Syria-Hizbullah axis and also because Israel, unlike Iran, is not interested in converting Sunni Muslims," it said.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Something cool that Xerox is doing

If you go to this website,, you can pick out a thank you card and Xerox will print it and it will be sent to a soldier that is currently serving in Iraq. You can't pick out who gets it, but it will go to some member of the armed services.

How AMAZING it would be if we could get everyone we know to send one!!! This is a great site. Please send a card. It is FREE and it only takes a second. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the soldiers received a bunch of these? Whether you are for or against the war, our guys and gals over there need to know we are behind them...

POW Lawsuit Could Force Kerry To Come Clean

George "Bud" Day, Chairman, Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation

Thirty-five years ago John Kerry slandered an entire generation of men who
fought in Vietnam branding them as a "war criminals." Today, much of the
same thing is being said about our young men and women in Iraq.

Now, a lawsuit filed in Philadelphia's Court of Common Pleas will test the
very foundation of Kerry's anti-war persona for the first time. It isn't
dubious medals or Kerry's disputed service record in Vietnam that is being
called into question. This time Kerry may finally be forced to answer for
the events that launched his public career, one that made him an anti-war
hero for many American liberals and a turncoat for millions of Vietnam

The lawsuit (Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation, et al. v. Kenneth Campbell,
et al.) challenges the basis, the factual accuracy of then-Lt. (j.g.) Kerry's acrimonious
testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee
in 1971. It was there Kerry's public career was catapulted with his now
ubiquitous portrayal of American soldiers as murderers, rapists and
torturers "who ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam . . . [and] razed
villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."

Kerry said then his accusations were based on the so-called "testimony" of
"150 honorably discharged" Vietnam veterans who, like himself, claimed to
have committed or witnessed "war crimes, not isolated incidents but crimes
committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all
levels of command."

Many if not all were members of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW),
an organization led by Kerry and financed by Jane Fonda during the early
1970s. Now, a number of those "witnesses" will be required to testify, under
oath for the first time ever, about what they really did and saw in Vietnam.

What these VVAW witnesses say could have implications reaching beyond
Kerry's veracity and reputation. Their lasting portrait of the American soldier as
a blood-thirsty butcher, a baby killer, is also at stake. And that picture
remains entrenched among their kind, "proof" that those serving in the U.S.
military, even today, truly are a "horde of barbarians" capable of
unspeakable brutalities. That is the underlying theme, the constant drumbeat
from the mainstream media and others as they try to undermine the American
military today.

For the anti-war, anti-American protesters, the American soldiers are the
"terrorists," and the enemies are the victims of a barbaric U.S. military
which tortures and murders defenseless civilians.

That false premise, one of the most vicious and enduring smears spawned by
Kerry 35 years ago, will also be put to the test once Kerry's true "Band of
Brothers" are put under oath in a Philadelphia courtroom.

The background to this lawsuit is long and complex, but even a condensed
version is rich in irony and poetic justice.

It had it roots in 2004 with the documentary Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never
Heal. Many may recall the film, although it is probably best known for not
being seen, suppressed after Sinclair Broadcasting Company courageously
announced it was going to air the documentary in its entirety. Thanks to
Kerry and his liberal colleagues in the Senate and their enablers in the
mainstream media, Sinclair was browbeaten into withdrawing the film, its
broadcast license threatened by a Kerry campaign manager in 2004.

Stolen Honor focused on Kerry's venomous diatribe before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee in April 1971 when he accused Vietnam veterans of "war
crimes" on a genocidal scale. (A full transcript is available at ) It examined
the impact Kerry's widely reported statements had on hundreds of Americans
who were being held prisoners of war by the North Vietnamese communists. The
filmâ?Ts producer, Carlton Sherwood, a Pulitzer Prize and Peabody
Award-winning investigative reporter, interviewed former POWs for the

I was among those whom Sherwood, a decorated Marine combat veteran himself,
asked to participate in Stolen Honor. I was a POW for nearly six years, held
in North Vietnam prison camps, including the notorious Hanoi Hilton, a place
of unimaginable horrors -- torture, beatings, starvation and mind-numbing
isolation. When Kerry branded us "war criminals," he handed our captors all
the justification they needed to carry out their threats to execute us.

Thanks to Kerry, Jane Fonda and their comrades in the anti-war movement, our
captivity was prolonged by years. The communists in Hanoi and Moscow couldn't
have had a better press agent to spread their anti-American propaganda.

To guarantee Stolen Honor would never be seen by anyone ­ not even
theatre-goers ­ the producer was slapped with a libel and defamation
lawsuit. That lawsuit was filed by Kenneth Campbell, a University of
Delaware professor, Kerry campaign aide, and long-time anti-war disciple of
the Massachusetts Senator. Campbell co-founded the Philadelphia chapter of
Vietnam Veterans Against the War and, in 1971, he was one of Kerry's key war
crimes "witnesses," one of several on whom Kerry claims he based his Senate

Campbell was and still is regarded by some as one of the VVAW's most
articulate and published "experts" on U.S. atrocities in Vietnam. He has
"testified" before Congress, in Europe, and elsewhere that while in Vietnam
he deliberately killed "dozens and dozens" of innocent civilians as a Marine
artillery forward observer.

He has written extensively about his and others' atrocities in
Vietnam and he even teaches a course on the Vietnam War that
showcases his war crime accusations. Campbell, like Kerry, met with enemy
delegations -- Vietcong and North Vietnam Communist officials -- in Paris in
1971 while he was still a U.S. uniformed reservist. He was also flown to
Moscow that same year to meet with other Communist leaders, all expenses
paid by the Soviets.

Campbell's lawsuit put a unique spin on the definition of defamation: He
claimed that Stolen Honor damaged the public reputations of himself, Kerry
and others by questioning whether they truly were the baby-killers they
claimed to be!

Ignored and censored by the mainstream news networks, Stolen Honor
eventually aired on some small local cable outlets. The documentary managed
to penetrate Kerry's blacklisting in rural northern Ohio, Florida,
Pennsylvania and several other places. But, Campbell's lawsuit against
Sherwood continued in 2005, when he even added POWs who appeared in the film
to the litigation!

The POWs and the wives of POWs who participated in Stolen Honor refused to
abandon the facts conveyed in the film. For some of us, it was the first
time since our release by the Communists in 1973 that we were able to have
our voices publicly heard, to tell our stories about the consequences of
Kerry's treachery.

In 2005, we formed a nonprofit organization, the Vietnam
Veterans Legacy Foundation (VVLF), to gather records, documents and other
materials to form a fact-based, educational repository for students and
scholars of Vietnam history and to tell the true story of the American
soldiers in Vietnam. The VVLF's mission is "to set the record straight,
factually, about Vietnam and those who fought there."

For our efforts, we were promptly sued by Campbell and another long-time
anti-war Kerry follower and VVAW member, Dr. Jon Bjornson. It was clear that
Kerry not only wanted to punish us for Stolen Honor; he intended to use
surrogates to sue us into permanent silence and financial ruin.

But in lawsuits, even defendants have an opportunity to question the accuser
under oath in pre-trial depositions -- even when a lawsuit is filed solely
to harass, intimidate and silence and when the legal system is abused for
political vengeance, as these lawsuits clearly were.

Our chance came earlier this year when Kenneth Campbell was deposed. Among
the first thing he disclosed was that this was the first time he had
actually been put under oath in over 35 years of "testifying" about Vietnam
"war crimes." Neither he nor any of his fellow "war criminals" ­ Kerry
included ­ had ever been sworn in at any hearings, not before the Senate,
the House of Representatives, or anywhere.

All of the so-called "testimony" the old mainstream media trumpeted for
nearly four decades -- graphic, sickening and grisly "testimony" about
savage atrocities committed by Vietnam veterans, "testimony" to which
Congress and the media gave so much weight and credibility -- wasn't
"testimony" at all! Just propagandist speeches told without limitation or
fear of consequences, least of all penalties for perjury.

As for the "war crimes" Campbell claimed for years he committed and
personally witnessed, he now conceded he didn't actually see innocent
civilians killed by his artillery barrages. In fact, if anyone had been killed
or wounded, he admitted, they may not have been civilians at all! Concerning
other atrocities Campbell identified in his lawsuits -- things like Marines
massacring an entire village, killing surrendering enemy soldiers -- those
incidents, too, failed to stand up under questioning. Some were things he
said he had heard or assumed happened; others, he acknowledged, were simply

That Campbell alleged personal knowledge of horrible atrocities in his
complaints and then gave wholly different stories of hearsay and assumption
at his deposition is detailed in the recently filed Philadelphia lawsuit,
which repeatedly alleges that Campbell lied about supposed war crimes in
1971 and lied again when he claimed in 2004 that his war crime stories were

While hard evidence may have been in short supply during his sworn
testimony, Campbell did offer the names of "witnesses" who would confirm his
stories. Not surprisingly, the first two were Kerry State Veterans Campaign
Coordinators and long-time VVAW organizers in Florida and Massachusetts.

Subpoenas were served on both men but, before either could be deposed, one
checked himself into a hospital for elective back surgery and the other had
himself arrested and committed to a mental institution. At last press
reports, he was released from the psychiatric hospital and fled the country
to Vietnam via Hawaii.

Both men clearly knew what was coming, as did Campbell. For the first time
in nearly four decades they would be forced to answer for their alleged "war
crimes," their slanderous accusations against their fellow soldiers finally
examined, under oath.

It was just a matter of days before all the lawsuits were withdrawn, nearly
two years of costly litigation abruptly ended, Campbell's libel claims
ground to dust under the weight of his own testimony.

Like their leader, John Kerry, his surrogates wanted no part of having to
defend these despicable allegations, or for being held accountable for the
great harm they and he continue to inflict on our men and women in uniform.
They fled the moment the light of truth shined their way.

My fellow POWs and I who were the target of these lawsuits are not willing
to quit or surrender. Kerry and his cowardly followers may have achieved
their purpose of keeping the American people from seeing Stolen Honor in
2004, but we refuse to allow the truth about Vietnam to remain untold.
Forced to spend huge sums to defend ourselves from these frivolous lawsuits,
we have filed a countersuit against these Kerry surrogates and intend to
reveal the truth about the lawsuits and their sponsors. We believe that we
can prove that the purpose of nearly two years of litigation was to cover up
for Kerry''s treachery, to drain us financially and spiritually, and to
prevent us from setting the record straight.

At stake is ultimately nothing less than the integrity of the American
military in Vietnam, the honor of the men who served their country, the
nobility of those who gave their lives, and the truth of America's history
in Vietnam. Until or unless we do correct the existing record, the American
military may never be free of the myths and smears of Vietnam, its honor and
integrity cleansed as it fights to defend freedom at home and around the

Our mission is hardly over. We hope you will join us in fighting this battle
. . . for our soldiers, then and now.

Col. George E. "Bud" Day, USAF (Ret.,) was a POW in North Vietnam for five
years, seven months and 13 days. He served in three wars (WWII, Korea, and
Vietnam) and earned the Medal of Honor. He is the Air Force's most decorated
living veteran. He is the Director and President of the Vietnam Veterans
Legacy Foundation, Inc., an organization created to better educate and
inform the public about the Vietnam War, its events, its history, and the
men and women who sacrificed to serve their country.