The house voted last week for surrender in the Iraq war. Today the Senate passed its version on a vote of 50 to 48. The bills call for the war to continue for the rest of this year with a deadline for the total retreat of all combat troops by March 2008.

This surrender bill, if it becomes law, will provide a great boost for international terrorism. Al Qaida and other radical Islamic terrorist groups can conserve their resources and build up their recruiting over the next twelve months or so while they wait for our troops to withdraw.

Iraqi troops and politicians can use the time to rebuild relations with insurgents and terrorists to help shield them from assassination when the Iran backed insurgents take control of Iraq after the American and British surrender. Citizens of Iraq will also be able to use the time for establishing friendships with insurgent groups in their neighborhoods.

Since the loss of Afghanistan al Qaida has been without an adequate location for training their fighters under the protection and support of a national government. The surrender of America and its allies will increase the likelihood that they can reestablish in Iraq, the training bases they lost in Afghanistan.

The small margin of victory for the Democratic bills in congress show the difficulty Democratic leadership had in securing their passage. The bill promises millions of dollars in bribes to members of congress for their districts in exchange for votes. The Senate version included a more bi-partisan bribe of 50 million dollars to each political party to underwrite their party conventions for the next election.

The one thing missing in the debate by Democrat champions of defeat was an expression of concern for U.S. and coalition troops who will be killed or wounded between the date of surrender - the day the bill becomes law - and the date for the evacuation of our troops from the battlefield.

By Jerry McDaniel

Last week while in Mexico President Bush changed the debate over immigration (at least in my own mind) when he used the word “migration” instead of immigration. While migration and immigration are similar in their dictionary definitions there in a vast difference in the images they conjure up in the mind. Migration brings to mind uncontrolled masses of people moving from one place to another, either to escape a failed or failing political or social system, or for better economic opportunities, sometimes both.

Uncontrolled migration has never benefited the host country. If you doubt this hop into your time machine, go back 100 years and ask the first Native American you see if uncontrolled migration has helped or harmed his culture. Throughout history the final nail in the coffin for most of the great civilizations has been uncontrolled migration.

There is a logical reason for this. When a country is mired in poverty and oppression it is only natural that its citizens begin to look for a better way of life someplace else. Not being stupid they naturally look to the most prosperous and successful country they can find because the opportunities are better.

The word immigration brings to mind an orderly and controlled movement of people from one country to another. Controlled immigration has served our country well since 1882 when the first immigration law was passed to bring a growing problem under control. Since then immigration law has undergone several changes as our needs and problems changed. However, they worked fairly well until we began to lose control in the early 1980’s due to lax enforcement.

President Reagen attempted to regain control by convincing congress to pass the infamous “amnesty” law. This attempt failed because the punitive parts of the law was never enforced and consequently were ignored by migrants and businesses alike looking to satisfy a perceived need for cheap labor.

The difference between uncontrolled migration and controlled immigration are important. With controlled immigration the host country sets the rules and admits only those immigrants who show promise of contributing to its improvement. For the most part these immigrants are people who have shown they have the ability to thrive to a certain extent even in their own culture. Many of them are well educated and accomplished. They are simply seeking opportunities not available in their home country to apply their skills and talents.

With uncontrolled migration it’s different. The migrant groups for the most part are made up of the least successful from their own country. Unfortunately, they bring with them the social and political attitudes and customs that have contributed to the failure of the culture they left behind. Over time, if the migratory group is large enough they pass along these attitudes and customs and eventually weaken or, at minimum, drastically alter the culture of the host country.

Our current migration crisis is fostered and encouraged by four groups: The government looking to increase its power base, churches concerned about dwindling attendance, businesses looking to decrease their labor costs, and unions eager to replenish their membership roles. When you realize who the “enablers” are you begin to appreciate the difficulty the average citizens are having in getting any meaningful action to bring the problem under any sort of control.

Who Won The Cold War?

by Jerry M

At a reception for Western ambassadors in Moscow in November 1956, Nikita Krushchev declared; “whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you.” In later speeches he went on to explain “Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own proletariat will bury you”. He believed that capitalism would give way to socialism in the same way feudalism was replaced with capitalism. If America doesn’t wake up he could be right.

On November 9, 1989 the Berlin Wall came down, followed soon after with the complete collapse of the Soviet Union. Most Americans rejoiced believing that we had, at last, defeated Communism. Politicians gleefully rubbed their hands together and smiled in anticipation of all the extra money that would surely become available through the anticipated “peace dividend”. Money they could now spend on their favorite projects used to garner votes and keep them in power.

It is undisputable that the West won the cold war. However, communism did not cease to exist with the demise of the Soviet Union. It merely transitioned into a more dangerous form. Without the threat of the Soviet Union to focus our attention, the average American is not fully aware of the nature or severity of the danger we face. The driving forces of communism are still alive and well in the world today. They have already wreaked havoc on the economies and social structure of western Europe and today pose a very real threat to our American way of life.

The foundations of communism consists of socialism, stateism, and godless (secular) humanism. Rather than perishing or losing their influence after the fall of the Soviet empire they now provide the foundations for modern day Liberalism in the West.

Contrary to Karl Marx’s statement that “religion is the Opium of the people”, socialism is the true narcotic that enslaves and eventually destroys the social fabric of society. Wealth is the fuel of capitalism. Political power is the fuel of socialism. As members of a society become addicted to the narcotic lure of socialism they are willing to give or do almost anything to prevent the interruption of their supply of social programs. They gladly give up their political power (votes) to the politician who can keep the “fixes” coming. Their “pushers”, politicians as addicted to power as the voters are to socialism, take their political power and use it to extract wealth from the productive segment of society through confiscitatory taxation, using that wealth to pay for the social programs so desperately craved by the addicted citizen.

Unless somehow stopped this cycle of addiction will continue until all capital is drained from the productive segment of society and the entire system collapses. E.g. the Soviet Union.

Politicians consolidates and maintains their power primarily through the use of “stateism”, manifested in a number of ways. To isolate the government as much as possible from the influence of it’s citizens a concerted effort is made to shift power from local political units and consolidate it in Washington. To further shield its policies from the electorate, as much power as possible is placed in the hands of non-elected officials theoretically controlled by politicians. Two excellent examples are federal agencies and federal courts. This strategy works well in the context of a citizenry addicted to social programs and adhering to the religion of secular humanism.

As basic to human nature as the need for comfort and security is the need to believe in a deity, or a force greater than ourselves. Secular humanism channels this need away from the traditional concepts of God and directs it toward those which free its adherents from the moral constraints of traditional religion while at the same time providing a sense of serving an entity grater than themselves.

Under the old model of communism this was accomplished through a dedication to the state. Under modern day Liberalism outlets for the gratification of this need are more diverse but just as virulent. Most Liberal activists groups serve the basic purpose of gratifying it for today‘s secular humanists. None of these groups are more destructive to the security of our country than environmentalism.

Environmentalism has all the attributes of traditional religion plus the added feature most desired by socialist. Should it succeed in its efforts, it will destroy capitalism. Environmentalists of the past have focused on endangered species, their “natural” habitats and similar causes. The focus today is on global warming which promises the realization of most of its former goals, is more palatable to a gullible public, is global in scope and is perhaps the fastest way to accomplish the ultimate mission of destroying capitalism.

With all the fervor of the most religious zealot, global warming advocates ignore any opposing viewpoints they are unable to silence, although they try mightily to do so. Aside from the fact that the beliefs of global warming alarmists rest on a hypothesis and not proven scientific fact no one, to my knowledge, has attempted to answer the two most important questions regarding this controversy.

What is the optimal level of carbon dioxide and other so-called “greenhouse gases” in our atmosphere for the maximum well being of plant and animal life on the planet? Is an increase of CO² good or bad? How can we know unless we know what the ideal level should be?

The same question needs to be asked and answered about global warming. What is the ideal temperature for the earths atmosphere? And WHY?

Until these questions are answered it does not matter whether the earth is cooling, as we were warned about in the 70’s or warming as we are warned about today. Any fluctuation in temperature, whether up or down can be used by the alarmists to further the cause of environmentalism.

Since the earth’s temperature is always changing, moving up or down over the course of time those who would destroy our way of life can always use it to manipulate the behavior if enough people to do serious damage to our well being.

And then, of course, the final question: How much can we really affect global warming or greenhouse gases, or anything else about our global environment through human effort?