The Power to Ignore

Illegal aliens cost this nation’s towns, states and the federal government about $440 billion annually. This fact is not in dispute.

The sum does not factor in the additional billions of dollars the recent SCHIP legislation provides in free healthcare for immigrants with green cards under the age of twenty-six (26). Nor does it include the legal and illegal immigrants’ access to the new entitlements in the Obama/Pelosi/Reid $3.6 trillion spending spree.

By 2010 the United States will be spending over one-half trillion dollars annually on immigrants.

The estimated 20,000 illegal aliens within our borders, from countries sponsoring terrorism, share this benevolence. Included in this number, may be a few hundred “moderate Taliban terrorists.” If Obama’s diplomatic overtures are based on reality, it’s possible the militant jihadists stayed home.

In either case, the cost in lives and dollars that will stem from granting amnesty to terrorists, although unknown, is real and pending.

Put the non-refuted $440 billion annual price tag for illegal immigration in perspective. The annual cost could retire the current $3.7 trillion national debt in ten years without tax increases.

And that’s the good news. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are quietly attempting to ram amnesty legislation through congress, while endeavoring to end E-Verify.

Here are the highlights of their prepared proposal. The police record of violent gang members will not disqualify them from amnesty. All illegal immigrants will be granted “temporary amnesty,” which will automatically renew forever.

All illegal aliens fighting deportation will be provided attorneys paid in full by American taxpayers. All illegal aliens who fled to sanctuary cities after receiving deportation orders will be immediately granted amnesty. All back taxes owed by illegal aliens will be forgiven.

And, of course, they will be granted the benefits of in-state tuition, and be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The latter is a direct pipeline to the US treasury, with a built-in incentive to limit hours worked.

That their amnesty proposal gives illegal aliens nine (9) years to learn English before being granted citizenship is moot. They can stay forever, with all the rights and benefits of American citizens, without bothering to apply for citizenship. This will pretty much guarantee their permanent status as welfare recipients.

Officially, they can’t vote in elections. Does anyone really believe that this right won’t be granted through back channels?

Obama, Pelosi and Reid provided billions of dollars to organizations, such as ACORN, to promote illegal voting and the stuffing of ballet boxes. Be assured non-citizens will be granted the right to vote, progressing from city to state to federal elections. It will come right on the heels of this amnesty bill.

The contents of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid amnesty proposal epitomize their utter contempt for Americans, and congress’ disconnect from representative government. They only represent themselves and have conceitedly concluded that they have the power to ignore us.

Pork Land Vs. Reality

The tug of war over the content of the stimulus package does more than exemplify the gulf between conservatives and liberals.

The final version of the appropriation will determine whether Mr. Obama’s presidency will be a prolonged national agony or the gate to a successful economic triumph. And don’t be deceived. He has only one chance to get it right.

The time for pretense is over. Neither he, nor Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid can make a trillion dollar mistake and recover. The stone and chisels are out, ready to engrave his epitaph. No amount of soaring rhetoric will camouflage the outcome. In sports jargon, this is match point.

It is understood that Obama won the election promising a massive income redistribution. His recent statement condemning companies that make profits during a recession either epitomizes his utter lack of business acumen, or is an acknowledgement that he is an anti-business socialist. There is no middle ground to plant another interpretation.

It’s clear that Obama’s advisors have enough historical perspective to delay raising taxes during a recession. They know the economy would completely unravel. Of course, this hasn’t stopped Speaker Pelosi’s quest to vanquish the last remaining productive segment of society. It’s equally clear that Obama is dithering over the subject.

His advisors are also aware that no government can spend itself out of a recession. But it can spend itself into a depression. So far it appears that Obama is prone to ignore the odds predicated on a century of economic experience.

Pelosi’s proposed stimulus legislation is a trillion dollars of pork. This welfare bazaar satiates the appetites of every loony leftwing cause. This feast will relinquish America’s control of its economy to the Chinese (the money lenders), and/or send inflation into the stratosphere.

Obama is at a crossroad. Will he appease his fellow socialists or strengthen the engine of capitalism with tax cuts? The Great Society legislation of the 1960’s, and the cascade of entitlements that followed, confiscated the seed money needed for personal growth. Income, payroll, excise and sales taxes have since choked the upward mobility of Americans, and have kept them swimming against the tide of prosperity.

Today, a decent standard of living generally requires both parents in the job market to merely survive from payday to payday. This standard is not remotely equal to the Middle Class standards of the 1950’s and 1960’s. The advent of daycare centers should have been a warning.

Currently more people are employed in government than in manufacturing. In a time of fiscal crisis, no sound company adds to its overhead. If corporations can’t stop the growth of government and the taxation required to pay this overhead, they are forced to slash employment, or move their operations off-shore.

Of course, they have a third option. About 35,000 registered lobbyists work diligently to encourage the members of congress to share the tax receipts with them in return for political contributions.

This coziness explains congress’ reluctance to stop the influx of cheap illegal labor coming in the backdoor, and the 1.5 million HB-1 workers scheduled to come through the front door. No wonder wages are stagnant.

If you are not worried about the tax and inflationary consequences of the Pelosi welfare bazaar, you are probably among the Americans who have moved $13 trillion off-shore to avoid the confiscatory taxation, or you simply can’t count. Or maybe you are one of the lucky few who will be considered for a post in the Obama administration.

It's That Simple

The US presidential election is now focused on two presumptive nominees. This concentration of media attention buries the fact that the nation’s direction can’t be predicted merely on the campaign utterances of the winning candidate.

Neither Obama nor McCain will be isolated figures, working alone in a White House vacuum. They will bring teams composed of politically likeminded individuals. We elect a team with a single compass.

The US is engaged in a global war against terrorism and is under economic duress. Our future prosperity and security will be determined by the team the new president selects.

Thus, forecasting the direction the nation will take under either’s watch is best predicated on the candidate’s inner circle of friends, supporters and advisors. It’s this political aggregate that the electorate should, can and must gauge.

Politicians hate hypothetical questions because they bar equivocation. They prefer dealing in circles rather than boxes with those nasty corners. So they trade in the abstract of their own choosing, which provides multiple avenues of escape. In business slang, this is called the view from 50,000 feet.

Americans live much closer to earth. So here is a hypothetical question for the electorate. With the nation’s economic and national security in upheaval, who would you rather have advising the next president?

Condoleezza Rice or Ms. Save the Planet, Speaker Nancy Pelosi

General Petraeus or Mr. We Have Lost the War, Senator Harry Reid

Oliver North or Mr. Flag Burner, William Ayers

Mayor Giuliani or Mr. Sanctuary City, Mayor Gavin Newsom

Governor Tom Ridge or Spend Baby Spend, Governor Duval Patrick

Senator Romney or Mr. UFO, Rep. Dennis Kucinich

Michelle Malkin or Ms. Not Proud of America, Michelle Obama

Glenn Beck or Mr. Tingle Legs, Chris Mathews

Duncan Hunter or Ms. Nationalize Oil and Healthcare, Maxine Waters

Rev. Graham or Mr. Damn the US, Reverend Wright

Senator Orin Hatch or Mr. Welfare, Senator Kennedy

These are the candidates’ political soul mates. These people are representative of those leading the current debate, and those who will influence the US international, domestic, and economic legislation for the next four years.

Compare their positions on illegal immigration, energy, taxation, and border and national security. This is the choice Americans will make in this election. It’s that simple.

The Nancy, Harry and Barack Show

America’s first affirmative action presidential candidate, Senator Obama, has the wind to his back. The Democratically controlled Congress is smoothing the way. They funded the Iraqi War for a year and quietly passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) legislation that the Republicans demanded.

Don’t confuse the leftwing’s turnabout with compromise. Iraq is in Senator McCain’s plus column since the military tide reached the shores of success. Senator Obama painted himself into the loser’s corner with his cut & run rhetoric. The Democrats want his premature declaration of defeat buried.

The reason for the leftwing’s decision to concede on the FISA legislation is more complex. They claimed the updated FISA legislation, passed after 9/11, opened the door to government electronic spying on US citizens.

Other than a few paperwork snafus, there was no evidence of any abuse. The program worked. But the Democrats ignored this fact because they saw the chance to engorge the government coffers through lawsuits and fines on the telecommunication industry.

And we all know what is on their minds. They are copying chapters from Stalin’s plan for government control of production. It would not have been surprising if they threatened to nationalize the telecommunications industry, as they have already threatened the oil companies.

These parasites were smacking their socialist lips over the prospect of “anti-tobacco” sized settlements. Their proposed revisions to the post 9/11 legislation would have allowed their ardent supporters, the trial attorneys and the ACLU, to reap billions of dollars from the companies that cooperated with our intelligence agencies’ pursuit of terrorists.

But the Democrats realized, just prior to the election, that it would be unwise to defend legislation that tied the nation’s hands in combating terrorism. Besides, if their candidate reaches the Oval Office, they can review and change any prior legislation without the threat of a veto.

And this is what is frightening. The far left is in control of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Now place the White House in the hands of the nation’s foremost socialist.

If Obama is elected, it means the country has reached a watershed. Its future will be controlled by a new majority. Its destiny will be in the hands of those who expect the government to coddle them from cradle to grave. They will vanquish the achievers, treating private wealth as the spoils of war.

In anticipation, the liberal disciples are already disparaging home ownership as overrated. This isn’t idle chatter. It’s conceivable to foresee an Obama government confiscating private property and redistributing homes based on family size and diversity. Think not?

The Democrats are currently demanding that the government guarantee the mortgages of 400,000 people who purchased homes they wanted and couldn’t afford. Don’t be deceived. There is little difference between financing the fiscally irresponsible, and simply giving them the houses they have always wanted. The latter is just a short hop away.

We are one election away from this country’s obliteration of personal freedom, private property and healthcare, the incentive to work and the strength of capitalism. That’s Obama’s definition of change.

Liberal Anticipation

Energy, the issue du jour, had Senator Harry Reid sulking in front of the microphones. This Democratic congressional specimen was seen sagging at the knees and weeping bitterly because those nasty Republicans blocked his efforts to raise the taxes on gasoline to reduce its cost.

Good old Harry is not mathematically challenged. Nor is he stupid. He is a socialist who got carried away. Harry and his comrades truly believe that it is better to starve the US economy and a few million families, than to lose the momentum of their big government crusade.

Harry and the other leftwing fanatics running Congress have too much political capital invested in Senator Obama to slow down. Their affirmative action creation is now in contention for the Oval Office; no longer just a fairy godmother in their political dreams.

Harry’s excitement over the prospects of the cooperation of a pure socialist president clouded his judgment. This explains Harry’s poor sense of timing in enthusiastically begging the Senate to raise the cost of energy before an election when it’s already skyrocketing.

Raising taxes on energy is not generally regarded by bread & butter Americans as a good way to reduce its cost. Ordinary Americans believe drilling for oil is preferable to cold homes, high unemployment and empty stomachs.

Harry and his friends have always ignored these stupid, unwashed masses. These ignorant savages don’t know that abundant, affordable energy in the hands of the private sector cripples the power of government.

It frees individuals to pursue wealth, which in turn creates economic gaps within society. Harry and his comrades believe this is detrimental to their goal of universal equality.

For five decades “evening the playing field” has driven the Democratic agenda.

They have actively managed to eliminate the grading system in schools, competition for government contracts, even score keeping in playground sports. Rather than immersing children in English, the basic building block of success, they implemented bi-lingual education.

They don’t believe success should be rewarded, or that the industrious should benefit from their labors. To this end they concocted affirmative action, diversity, and multi-culturalism to reward opportunity to those who can’t compete on an even playing field.

They can’t acknowledge the intrinsic differences between the genders because doing so is counter-productive to the goals of socialism. Even the mention of a Supreme Being sends shivers down their backs.

Every piece of legislation they propose is designed to undermine the rewards of success. They are not about building opportunity; they are about distributing opportunity.

Taxation, for Harry and his friends, is their weapon of choice to destroy incentive. And they want the price of oil so high that no one can afford it. That’s their definition of equality and the fast lane for the government’s consolidation of private wealth.

It's Just Unfair

As many Americans, I spent a number of hours in retail stores over the last weekend. While waiting in lines, two fellow, beleaguered customers wished me a Merry Christmas. The seasonal salutes were spontaneous and sincere.

Of note, both greetings were from members of Hispanic families. Were they illegal aliens? Probably, as shoppers chattering in Spanish are recent phenomenons in New Hampshire.

These two moments of kindness didn’t change my mind on securing our borders or penalizing companies that welcome the cheap labor pouring into the country. But it did remind me of the reasons the US must solve the problem.

Firstly, the US policy of turning a blind eye on border security and ignoring the law of the land is a neon invitation for more people to enter illegally. This open gate policy pits illegal immigrants—mostly decent people—against US citizens competing for manual labor, construction and service jobs. The policy is an economic slap in the face to America’s lower and middle class.

Secondly, the undocumented status of illegal aliens keeps them in the shadows of society. And as long as the borders are undefended, the politicians and do-gooders who propose granting them the rights of US citizens (amnesty) only bless law breaking.

Thirdly, this situation is unfair to the American taxpayers, who directly subsidize businesses by paying for the educational, medical and other benefits of illegal aliens hired by American companies. The taxpayers are footing the bill, already in the trillions of dollars, for “cheap labor and goods.”

And here enters political hypocrisy of historic proportions. Every Democratic presidential candidate is demanding the removal of tax breaks for US corporations, while pledging amnesty for illegal aliens. The business tax breaks are chump change compared to the costs associated with illegal immigrants.

Fourthly, the US blind-eye policy stigmatizes all Hispanic immigrants as cheaters and brands them as second class citizens. It offers them little opportunity to integrate into the nation’s fabric, and automatically demeans those who enter legally.

Fifthly, the open border policy mocks every immigrant who patiently and legally applies for US citizenship. And this is a gross injustice.

Sixthly, it’s cruel and inhumane to deliberately entice workers to our shores—and that’s exactly what is occurring—and then put a bounty on their heads.

Lastly, an undefended border in the age of global terrorism is suicidal. The next 9/11 tragedy will lie at the feet of President Bush, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid. All three are undermining our security. The President is combating terrorism in foreign lands while simultaneously inviting Muslim terrorists to invade our country.

Pelosi and Reid pretend they are patriots, while claiming the terrorist threat is the result of the US foreign policy. The sequel to this is logic is returning Afghanistan and Iraq to al Qaeda as bases for their anti-Western operations.

It all unfair and dangerous.

The 110th Congress

If the 110^th Congress was a private corporation, its common stock would be trading for pennies. Portfolio managers would shun it. The SEC would be investigating its officers and Board of Directors for its deceptive statements, lack of oversight and squandering company assets.

The 110^th Congress has accomplished nothing. It’s all sound and fury. Thus, it’s not surprising that its leadership wants to be judged on the merits of its efforts rather than on the results of its reign.

Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid must be disillusioned creatures. They interpreted their rise to power as manifest destiny. They were so blinded by the mantel of leadership that they smugly expected everyone to rally around their agenda and never question their judgment.

Then they bumped their heads on reality—discovering their ascendancy and exalted opinions of themselves fell a little short of ruling by divine right. In fairness, this self-deception is natural for politicians who espouse the divinity of the state.

Their little world crumbled when confronted by heretics. You know, people that believe in God, low taxes, secured borders, personal initiative and respect for the military. That’s why Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi are constantly seen anguishing in front of the cameras.

Between these emotional outbursts, they have kept busy flogging the same legislation over and over and over. Between these futile attempts to weaken America’s economic engine and undermine its national security, they attend meetings convened to discover wrong doing.

Believing that most Americans shared their vision, they fell on the mercy of the crowd, begging them to stop the unfair practice of score keeping. This tactic would have generated some forgiveness, if they had publicly attributed their dismal legislative record to arrogance and gross incompetence.

But using arrogance and stupidity as an excuse for failure—even in Washington DC—can have damaging political consequences. Besides, no one believes they are stupid.

But they have been woefully negligent. A fine line separates incompetence from negligence—a foggy legal area which shelters malfeasance. And the Democrats have homesteaded this domain for over fifty years. It’s their comfort zone.

They are sitting on a legacy of failed social programs and the nation is drowning in debt.

Yet rather than compromising on sustainable solutions—tied to fiscal sanity—Reid and Pelosi have resorted to blaming their paltry record of achievement on the competition—those nasty moderates and conservatives.

This tactic is akin to the president of a car company excusing its lackluster sales performance because its competitors build better vehicles at a lower cost.

The leftwing doesn’t understand the absurdity of this defense, because they don’t correlate ambition, productivity, profit & loss and investment with success and failure.

They don’t appreciate that the power driving the economy is an independent steed—not a mule behind a plow.

Energy Independence First

Today, the survival of Western Civilization depends on the production of energy. It’s the universal source of food, shelter, clothing and the fulcrum upon which our nation’s economy and security teeters.

The refusal of congressional Democrats to recognize our absolute dependency on energy is placing the nation in great peril. And time is running out. Their practice of holding energy independence initiatives hostage to environmental sensitivities during a time of war is beyond traitorous—it’s insanity.

Energy—the nation’s lifeline—is heavily dependent on fossil fuels from foreign suppliers. This dependency has enslaved our economy to the dictates of foreign countries and made our nation vulnerable to the goals of Islamic fascists.

When the US was the primary buyer of energy in the twentieth century, it controlled the marketplace. The rapid industrialization of Third World countries, especially China and India, changed the balance of power. The competition for oil has made the United States vulnerable to international blackmail. The cost of oil is already depreciating the value of our currency.

That the United States imports about 20% of it oil directly from the Middle East is both dangerous and moot. If the production flowing from the Arabian Peninsula is severely interrupted, the competition for other sources will be intense. No industrialized country will have a safe harbor.

If the disruption is prolonged, the western democracies will suffer economic chaos.

The Islamic terrorists, those determined to destroy western civilization, understand this dependency. Although the pipelines remain vulnerable to clandestine attacks, the control of the oil reserves and pipelines by Islamic fundamentalist/fascist caliphates is the greater danger.

Iran has already fallen under Islamic fundamentalist control and is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to undermine the US efforts in Iraq. If the US military exits Iraq before stabilizing its government, the Islamic fundamentalists will gain control of Iraq’s reserves and outputs.

Now, let’s give Iran a nuclear weapon. They don’t have to detonate it in Europe or the United States to destroy us.

Just threatening to annihilate Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait if they fail to curtail or cease their oil production could reduce the world oil output by about 50%. One bomb dropped on Saudi Arabia would send the western democracies into a decades’ long economic tailspin.

With this very real possibility a few hours away, Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi are screaming for the US to bequeath Iraq to Iran. And the Democrats are even protesting the consideration of terminating Iran’s nuclear threat with military force.

The failure to acknowledge—or comprehend—that US energy independence must take precedence over environmental concerns is a prescription for disaster. Global warming and animal habitats are irrelevant when compared to the catastrophic consequences of US transportation at a standstill, the shutdown of commerce, cold homes and food shortages.

The Truth War

It’s getting ugly out there in campaign land because conservatives and moderates are responding—head on—to the deceit and disinformation broadcast by the leftwing media. It’s about time. This confrontation has awakened Americans to the myth of the mainstream media’s political neutrality.

The newsrooms of CNN, NBC, the New York Times and dozens of newspapers across the country have been identified as leftwing propaganda machines. Their trusted sidekicks in this “integrity free zone,” include the likes of Newsweek, USA Today, ABC, PBS and CBS. They are now recognized as little more than affiliates of the Democratic Party.

Last week the Truth War flamed on the Senate floor when the Democratic leader, Senator Harry Reid, deliberately twisted the words of the non-liberal, radio commentator, Rush Limbaugh, to distract attention from his own sagging reputation for loyalty.

Senator Reid, a charter member of the Weaken America Club, quoted the website of MediaMatters.org to blast Mr. Limbaugh. This organization, instigated by Senator Clinton and funded by George Soros, exists solely to quash and distort conservative, political dissent. It willingly and deliberately manufacturers lies to camouflage the leftwing’s agenda.

Senator Reid’s slander backfired because the Democrats can no longer deceive and rewrite history with full immunity. Granted, the Democrats can still trust their faithful media henchmen to ignore, bury or condone their lies.

But now that it is common knowledge that most of the mainstream media is owned and operated by ultra-leftwing operatives, its collaboration no longer guarantees an airtight bulwark against the truth. The old media’s staggering loss of viewer and readership—and the collapse of its stock values—verify that Americans are abandoning it in droves.

Although the truth is seeping out, the ultra-leftwing political, machine still controls about ninety percent of the major news outlets. When a Democratic prerogative is challenged they can mount a brutal offensive. And because they are not restricted by honesty or balanced reporting, the attacks can be lethal.

To regain the trust of the nation, the media had two choices. They chose the status quo. Rather than restoring their political credibility, these purveyors of misspeak mounted a frontal attack against their ally’s enemies—talk radio commentators and Fox Channel News.

It is obvious that the mainstream media has staked its continued relevance and influence on the outcome of the 2008 presidential contest. It’s a symbiotic relationship. The Democrats can’t win with objective reporting. This guarantees the collusion between the Democrats and the national media will be tighter than ever.

Thus the Truth War will go ballistic because they need each other for survival. If the Democrats win in 2008, the media’s support will be rewarded. The Democrats will launch legislation to destroy their mutual enemies.

Democracy requires a free and impartial media. That’s why the Constitution protects the press. But the press has become the voice of the Democrats. There is no separation. This political collusion is dangerously close to dousing the flames of liberty.

The Petraeus Factor

The United States’ destiny in Iraq is in the hands of General David Petraeus, as is the future military and political strategies the nation will employ to crush global terrorism.

It is not General Petraeus’ duty to defend the US decision to stay in Iraq, nor does he care about President Bush’s legacy.

Since 1776, military victories have influenced presidential elections. Seated presidents and their political parties have universally benefited from military successes. Most notably, General Grant’s victories at Chattanooga, Vicksburg and Gettysburg, assured President Lincoln’s reelection.

The Democrats are aware that General Petraeus’ performance in Bagdad (this summer) is the fulcrum upon which the outcome of the 2008 election rests. They saw the radical, Shiite cleric, al-Sadr’s decision to hide in Iran, and General Petraeus’ brilliant counter-insurgency offensive in the al-Anbar Province, boding well for the Bagdad campaign.

When Senator Reid declared defeat in Iraq, it was wishful thinking. His party has bet the 2008 election on the Iraqi battlefront. Every Democratic candidate has wrapped his or her political future around the enemy’s success.

Their best recourse was to get General Petraeus off the field of battle. Hence, their legislative efforts to set a ninety day deadline to capitulate. The cut-and-run legislation didn’t survive. The next best option was to interrupt the flow of supplies, training and a sustainable military campaign with sixty-day budgets. That also failed. Alas, with heavy political hearts, they funded the war against terrorism for four more months. It took $17 billion of pork to sooth their anguish.

In fairness, the left’s challengers for the Oval Office can’t show a flicker of support for a US victory in Iraq and expect to win in the primaries. Senators Clinton and Obama symbolically buried the prayers of the nation beneath personal ambition when they cast dissenting votes.

Tragically, their political calculation signaled Iran, al-Qaeda, and Syria that increased violence in Bagdad this summer—especially dead Americans in uniform—will benefit Democrats, which will benefit them. This unholy alliance, bonded by a common cause, sheds light on their principles.

And they are equally short of options. It’s somewhat unlikely they could persuade the French to train Islamic terrorists. They see the line in the sand. The American public—and possibly even the New York Times—wouldn’t tolerate shipping arms and medical supplies to al-Qaeda.

There is a wildcard in this deadly game. General Petraeus can only set the table for a stable Iraq. If the fledgling government fails to pass the legislation which will defang the political situation, and end the stalemate, the Republicans will retreat. Iran, al-Qaeda, the Democrats and Syria will win.

If the cohesive elements of the Iraqi puzzle actually begin to fit by late September, the liberal bell ringers in our media will not toll the message. Listen for the sound of silence. It will confirm that the blood of our soldiers wasn’t wasted. God bless General Petraeus, his warriors, their friends and families and predecessors, on this Memorial Day.

Conflict of Interest

WE have all used the expression, “I can’t win for losing.” Everyone has experienced those kinds of days when everything goes wrong. We usually say this when our goals are side swiped by a string of setbacks, or worse yet, a head-on collision.

Americans have always accepted setbacks with a disgruntled grace, stiffened our resolve, recalibrated our tactics or strategy and tried again. There is something innate in the American spirit, maybe it’s in the water, that doesn’t allow us to give up on our goals. We believe in success. Think of our history. General George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, and even Richard Nixon didn’t quit after suffering brutal loses.

We have carried this spirit unto all battlefields—domestic and foreign. The Preamble to our Constitution begins “We the people . . . .” and that is the secret of our strength and resolve. We have always banded together in the face of adversity.

All wars have generated heated debate. That’s natural and wise in a Republic. But the conflict in Iraq—the major battlefront in the war against terrorism—is insidiously changing the American perspective. The Democrats’ slogan, “We can win by losing,” is sending America down a dangerous path.

Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, and Senator Charles Schumer, NY, have publicly advised their Democratic colleagues that they can win the White House in 2008 by undermining success in Iraq. In effect, they are willing to flush our military foothold and security down the drain for political gain. Their recent bill to inform the terrorists the day the US military will withdraw from Iraq, tells us that these are not hollow plans.

And we all heard Senator Reid unilaterally declare defeat in Iraq. I’ll bet this surprised al-Qaeda and put some swagger in Iran’s President Mahmud Ahadinejad’s footsteps. This is the same Senator Reid who recently proposed pulling American GIs off the front lines, and using them to train Iraqis—after bashing the former Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfield, for the identical policy.

It’s obvious that Senator Reid has memory problems, but how can Senator Schumer forget 9/11?

It’s neither fashionable, nor politically correct, to question their patriotism. So I won’t. I’ll merely suggest they have a conflict of interest in the war against terrorism. What emboldens them? They are driven by polls, their hatred of President Bush and traditional values. I don’t much care for President Bush either, but he does understand the difference between popular opinion and principle. They don’t.

Common sense suggests the Democrats’ words and deeds strengthen the resolve of the terrorists. If this sounds harsh, answer these questions:

If you were a terrorist, or a nation supporting terrorism, how would you act if the most powerful nation on earth was totally united in its effort to eradicate terrorism, and unflinchingly demonstrated this resolve in Iraq?

In the heat of combat, would you want to share a foxhole with Senator Reid?

The truth is, we haven’t lost in Iraq; we are just recalibrating. And this is the only message that will cause Arab and Persian terrorists to tone down their exuberance for celestial virgins.