Big Oil, Please Send Money

We have noticed recent charges that those who publicly oppose the current superstition of global warming are in the pay of "Big Oil."

We await our check. If Mr. (or Ms.) Big Oil will contact us, we will be happy to provide information regarding our Swiss accounts.

For the record, we are unpersuaded by the current hysteria. For example, how did the last Ice Age end without the assistance of industrial pollutants from humans?

Those fattening off junk science as cynical hysteria need not worry; they already have the next world-ending threat in the wings. When the world does not melt down on schedule, we will be deluged with demands for massive spending to defeat -------- killer asteroids.

Now how will WE make money off that?

The Rehabilitation of Richard Nixon

Senator Barack Obama, stepping up his effort to prove that he is more than just a pretty face, has decreed that he would actively strike at terrorist bases in other nations, whether or not their government consents. Specifically, he has said he would attack terrorists in Pakistan, whether or not the Pakistani government consents.

With some astonishment, we must admit that we concur with this proposal. It is incumbent upon our government to strike our enemies wherever it can find them. Those who give them sanctuary must do so at their own risk.

But the Senator has not explained:

1. How he would justify such actions under his party's understanding of "international law," and,
2. How such exercises would differ from the "incursions" into Laos and Cambodia ordered by President Nixon.

Could it be that Mr. Nixon had it right all along?

Freedom From Religion

Perhaps it has become trendy for the media to report on Muslim demands that society accomodate their religious practices, or perhaps these demands are truly on the rise. In either case, some thoughts on the limits of "freedom of religion" are in order.

The Constitution prohibits the creation of a state religion - the government may not tell us where or when or how or what to worship. That prohibition has been expanded to also prohibit government interference with religion and government support of religion. Thus every December some atheist brings suit against some municipality that has foolishly erected a creche on public land. It has also driven the criticism of the Bush Administration support for "faith-based initiatives."

Yet all these concerns seemingly disappear if the faith in question is Islam:

Muslim cabbies in Minneapolis want to be free to deny transport passengers carrying alcohol.
That is discrimination based on religion and a clear violation of federal law. Pretend the cabbies were white Christians who did not want to transport non-whites.

If the cabbie doesn't want to offend his religious principles, let him find another job. The government should not let him impose his PREJUDICES on others, particularly when it vigorously prevents from others from imposing their prejudices.

Muslim students and workers are pressing for foot washing stations so they may wash their feet before they pray. If that is part of their religion, well and good. But let them pay for it.

There is the crucial limit to the "freedom of religion." One may worship as one pleases, but one may not require the rest of us to subsidize it. Imagine the outcry if a Baptist church demanded use of a public swimming pool for baptisms. (To tell the truth, if they wanted to pay a reasonable rental fee, we would not be offended.)

Clearly being a Muslim should not make one a second-class citizen. Neither should it entitle one to special rights, privileges or treatment not available to non-Muslims.

Bush Lied - IMPEACH HIM!!!

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”

Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”

Rep.Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”

Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …”

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003

Senator Feingold, Please Clarify

The distinguished senator from Wisconsin, Russ Feingold, showing that he is a true successor to that other great Wisconsin legislator, Joe McCarthy, has proposed to censure President Bush.

Senator, Please advise which part of the Constitution gives Congress this power?

By the way, it is amusing to note that the last president "censured" by Congress was Andrew Jackson. He was so disgraced that his portrait was expunged from the public record and appears only on the $20 bill.

Why We Fight

It is said that, when Eisenhower learned of the Nazi death camps, he ordered Allied troops to tour them, commenting "I want them to see what we are fighting against."

With that in mind, we offer a simple illustration.

We are fighting in Iraq so that women may CHOOSE to dress like this:

Not Like This:

Questions?

Eat Your Heart Out, John Kerry

The question of John Kerry's war record is back in the news.
We do not question that he is indeed a hero - to the enemy.

We therefore offer a glimpse at the record of a genuine AMERICAN hero:


For gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty on 6 June 1944 in France. After 2 verbal requests to accompany the leading assault elements in the Normandy invasion had been denied, Brig. Gen. Roosevelt's written request for this mission was approved and he landed with the first wave of the forces assaulting the enemy-held beaches. He repeatedly led groups from the beach, over the seawall and established them inland. His valor, courage, and presence in the very front of the attack and his complete unconcern at being under heavy fire inspired the troops to heights of enthusiasm and self-sacrifice. Although the enemy had the beach under constant direct fire, Brig. Gen. Roosevelt moved from one locality to another, rallying men around him, directed and personally led them against the enemy. Under his seasoned, precise, calm, and unfaltering leadership, assault troops reduced beach strong points and rapidly moved inland with minimum casualties. He thus contributed substantially to the successful establishment of the beachhead in France.

---Medal of Honor citation (posthumous) of Brig. Gen. Theodore Roosevelt, Jr.

A few additional facts to illuminate Gen. Roosevelt's accomplishments:

He was the son of President Roosevelt, well off and getting on in years. He could easily have stayed home and let others fight for him. Given his age, no one would have faulted him. Instead he volunteered, was the highest ranking officer in the first wave of the invasion and was the first soldier off his landing craft.

Discovering that the ocean currents had carried his force a mile off course, he improvised brilliantly and made a material contribution to the success of the invasion. On the beach he played every possible role, from commander to inspiration to traffic cop.

His bad heart killed him a month later. He is buried in Normandy, beside his brother Kermit, who was killed in WWI.

Now then, let's imagine Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, John Kerry, John Edwards, George W or any of our other make-believe leaders performing any one of these acts, let alone all of them.

Thought for Today

“Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.”

----Winston Churchill

Where Have All The Leaders Gone

A recent example of the piercing intellect of Bill Clinton:

“[N]ow that I’m a millionaire, I get more help from the federal government than anybody. I think it’s inconsistent with the common good to give me huge tax cuts.”

For comparison, Herbert Hoover was a wealthy man before becoming president. During his term he routinely returned his salary to the Treasury, noting that his private resources were sufficient to meet his needs.

Giving money back does not seem to have occurred to Uncle Bill.

"It is time to end this war"

Or so declares Hillary Clinton, vainly trying to lead opinion and break from her husband's only commitment - FOLLOWING opinion.

But the princples of the Clintons - or their lack thereof - are too easy a target and we wish to address substantive questions.

Mrs. C has declared it is time to end the war.

HOW?

The Instant Solution - Surrender

Harry Reid has once again demonstrated his intellectual bankruptcy and moral cowardice by staging an hours-long debate demanding withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

How would he respond to the killing in Iraq that would undoubtably follow?
How would he respond to renewed terror attacks on the US at home and abroad?
Has he ever read the Constitution and noticed that the Congress does not have operational control of the armed forces? Or does he believe he is part of some European parliment?

Yes, Congress could cut off funding, but then what? There is a precedent. 100 years or so ago Teddy Roosevelt wanted to send the Fleet around the world to demonstrate America's new military prowess. Congress refused to budget the money.

TR discovered he had enough money to send the Fleet half way, which he did, and then left Congress with a dilemma - leave the Fleet to rust in the Philippines or cough up the money to bring it home.

W could do the same thing - spending every cent at his disposal to continue to conflict and leaving it to Congress to find a way to stop him. For instance, he could divert funding from the troops in South Korea or Germany or in Bosnia.

Would that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi could be seen as what they are - hacks who put their will to power ahead of the best interests of the nation. They call to mind the tactic Lenin took after the Tsar fell and a more or less moderate government took over Russia. He instructed his followers to oppose everything, to block every change or reform to defeat the moderates, push the nation deeper into chaos and to set the stage for a Communist take over.

But there is one bit of comfort in Comrade Reid's antics - his ever increasing level of hysteria suggests that the "surge" is working, and he wants desperately to derail it before success becomes undeniable.

Harry Reid almost makes us wish the Constitution did not prohibit bills of attainder.

Socialized Medicine

Another election is looming and once again we are hearing calls for “healthcare reform.”

The idea does have an attractive simplicity – protect everyone, drive costs down, eliminate price gouging, improve quality and create a better society. Unfortunately, these are goals, not methods to achieve those goals. The basic premise – that government can fix everything, simply because it is government – is unpersuasive.

Imagine:

• Doctors whose pay is based on seniority, not merit.
• Treatments that do not change because there is no incentive to innovate.
• Hospitals with no incentive to compete.
• Decisions based on opinion polls, not science.
• A health care system that resembles the Department of Motor Vehicles or the local school system.

The entire debate calls to mind an old British joke about their national system:

George notes that his pal Bill has lost a tremendous amount of weight. When asked about it, Bill explains “The doc gave me a pill. At night I dream I’m running on the beach with all the women of my dreams. The weight comes right off.”

George goes to his doc and gets his pills. But he complains that he dreams of running from blood-thirsty cannibals.

“Oh” replies the doc. “Bill is a private pay. You are on national health.”

Thought for Today

"Government is a necessary evil."

Mr. President, Please Explain

In recent days we have heard a number of prominent persons announce that there is reputable information that Iran IS sending munitions and bombs into Iraq and that at least three terrorist training camps exist in Iran.

It is possible that we will never be able to completely interdict the arms smuggling, given that the Iran/Iraq border is long and rugged and hard to police.

But why haven't those camps been simply obliterated? Of course there would be "outrage," as there was after Reagan bombed Libya. But, oddly enough, Libya's sponsorship of terrorism came to a dramatic halt.

Isn't our over-riding strategy to take the war to the enemy?

Mr. President, what are you waiting for?

Run Away! Run Away!

We are comforted that the troop surge in Iraq is indeed succeeding, as demonstrated by the increasing calls for immediate withdrawal coming from the Smart Set. If we stick around and succeed, dreams of a Libertine electoral landslide in '08 could be as short lived as a passenger in any auto driven by Ted Kennedy.

As exhibit one, we offer the following mass of laughable sophistry, recently issued by Senate Majority Leader Reid.

Press Release of Senator Reid

Reid: As Civil War Rages Six Months After Bush Annouces Surge, Democrats Again Push Strategy To Bring Our Troops Home
Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Washington, D.C.—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada made the following statement today in response to President Bush’s remarks on the progress of the war in Iraq:
“In the six months since President Bush announced his surge, nearly 600 brave Americans have been killed while trying to provide Iraq’s political leaders with the breathing space needed to unite their country. But Iraq’s leaders have been frozen in a dangerous stalemate and have met virtually none of the critical political and economic benchmarks they set for themselves. Meanwhile, American taxpayers are being asked for more than $10 billion per month to finance the war and support an Iraqi government that shows little interest in helping itself. In short, the President’s strategy and the surge in particular have delivered few of the promised results.
“Unfortunately, we are learning that President Bush is unwilling to offer a strategy other than more of the same – plunging our brave military forces even deeper into a civil war in hopes that Iraqis will eventually act. That path is not sustainable. Democrats believe we need a new strategy, one that forces the President to change the mission and bring our troops home responsibly. We hope Republicans will join us to deliver the real change of course in Iraq that the American people and our troops deserve.”

###

Escalation Simply Failing
Today, the six-month anniversary of the President announcing the escalation, it is clearer than ever that this stay-the-course strategy is failing. Violence has increased inside and outside of Baghdad, Iraqi forces have yet to stand up, and the Iraqi government is making no real progress. It is time Senate Republicans put our nation’s security and the American people’s desires over a stubborn President, and vote for redeployment.

Despite Escalation, Violence is Increasing

Sectarian Violence in Baghdad is Increasing.

“Nearly five months into a security strategy that involves thousands of additional U.S. and Iraqi troops patrolling Baghdad, the number of unidentified bodies found on the streets of the capital was 41 percent higher in June than in January, according to unofficial Health Ministry statistics.” [Washington Post, 7/5/07]

Pentagon Reports that Violence is Increasing Outside of Baghdad. “And it [the Pentagon Quarterly Report] described in more detail than officials had until now how security conditions in other parts of the country had worsened when American and Iraqi forces shifted in large numbers into the capital.” [New York Times, 6/14/07]

Pentagon Says Suicide Attacks More Than Doubled During Escalation. “Suicide attacks more than doubled across Iraq -- from 26 in January to 58 in April -- said the report, which covers the three months from mid-February to mid-May.” [Washington Post, 6/14/07]

During Escalation, U.S. Troops Faced Deadliest Two Month Period Since Invasion. “In April and May, 230 U.S. troops were killed, making it the war’s deadliest two month period.” [USA Today, 6/27/07]

Sectarian Cleansing of Baghdad Neighborhoods Continues. “Christian leaders say 500 families left Dora in April and May… The flight of Dora's Christians is an example of how the initial phase of the U.S. security crackdown here has failed to establish security and stop the sectarian "cleansing" of Baghdad's neighborhoods. The U.S. military conducted a major clearing operation in Dora last fall, then largely pulled out, turning security over to Iraqi forces. Sunni Arab militants with ties to the group Al Qaeda in Iraq quickly reestablished themselves and late last year began harassing Christians.” [Los Angeles Times, 6/27/07]

Despite Escalation, Iraqi Government Failing to Make Progress
Iraq Unlikely to Meet Any Benchmarks Set By President Bush. “The Iraqi government is unlikely to meet any of the political and security goals or timelines President Bush set for it in January when he announced a major shift in U.S. policy, according to senior administration officials closely involved in the matter.” [Washington Post, 7/8/07]

Iraqi Government Barely Functioning. “At least 12 ministers from the 38-member cabinet are no longer attending cabinet meetings. There has been little progress on benchmark legislation, including oil revenue-sharing and a law to set a date for provincial elections. Seventy-four members of Parliament are boycotting the 275-member body, which, when combined with the members who rarely attend anyway, means that Parliament often lacks a quorum and cannot do any official business.” [New York Times, 6/6/07]

Shiites Beset by Infighting - Maliki’s Cabinet is “Teetering on the Edge.” “Iraq's government is teetering on the edge. Maliki's Cabinet is filled with officials who are deeply estranged from one another and more loyal to their parties than to the government as a whole. Some are jostling to unseat the prime minister. Few, if any, have accepted the basic premise of a government whose power is shared among each of Iraq's warring sects and ethnic groups.” [Las Angeles Times, 6/6/07]

Despite Escalation, Iraqi Security Forces Still Unable to Stand Up

Iraqi Forces Still Unable to Hold Areas Cleared by U.S. Troops.

“Iraq faced more troubles on the military and political fronts on Sunday: some American commanders expressed doubts about the ability of Iraqi troops to hold the gains made in areas north of the capital last week, and two Sunni Arab blocs boycotted a Parliament session, demanding the reinstatement of the speaker. …The American commander in Baquba, Brig. Gen. Mick Bednarek, and his counterpart south of Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, pointed to a variety of problems with the Iraqi forces, including a shortage of trained troops and a lack of basic supplies like ammunition, radios and trucks. ‘They're not quite up to the job yet,’ General Bednarek said in an interview with The Associated Press in Baquba.” [New York Times, 6/25/07]

Iraqi police corrupt, fueling sectarian violence. “Iraq's 135,000-strong police force continues to be plagued with problems, U.S. commanders say. Up to 70% of Iraqi police leaders have been replaced because they had ties to sectarian violence, Petraeus says. About 5,000 police deserted the force in the 18 months before January, Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey said at a Pentagon news conference Wednesday. Another 7,000 or 8,000 police officers are unaccounted for. "I have great concerns about the police," Lynch says. "There are large areas in (central Iraq) where there are no police. And in areas where we do have police, we have corrupt police.” [USA Today, 6/14/07]

Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda Regaining Sanctuary in Afghanistan and Pakistan
As Iraq becomes a breeding ground for terrorism, the Bush Administration has become distracted from fighting al-Qaeda along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border where Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding. It’s time to refocus our nation’s efforts on a strategy to effectively fight terrorism.

Taliban Regrouping, Increasing Attacks, and in Control of Large Parts of Afghanistan. “Five years after the Taliban's ouster, the militia is again a serious adversary, seizing control of swaths of the south, despite the presence of more NATO, U.S. and Afghan troops. …In eastern Afghanistan, attacks were up 83 percent during the first half of the year compared with the same period of 2006, according to the U.S. units who operate there.” [AP, 7/1/07]

National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell Says Al Qaeda Leadership in Afghanistan/Pakistan is Much More Likely to Guide Next Attack on the U.S. than Terrorists in Iraq.

Senator Jack Reed: Well, the question would be: If you had to establish a probability of a successful attack being organized and directed against the United States, would it emanate from Pakistan, with this newly revised Al Qaida leadership, or would it come out of Iraq?
National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell: My belief is the attack most likely would be planned and come out of the leadership in Pakistan. [Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing, 2/27/07]

Iraq War Czar Lt. General Lute Admits Al-Qaeda Has Sanctuary on Afghanistan-Pakistan Border.

“I don’t think there’s any question that the relative sanctuary for, especially, Taliban senior leadership in Pakistan, today, in the border regions of Pakistan, is a major factor in the ability of the Taliban to be resurgent and probably quite active military this spring in Afghanistan. There’s no question that that sanctuary exists and that it’s a major asset for the Taliban.” [Senate Armed Services Committee, 3/1/07]

Strategy For Victory In Iraq

Administration strategy in Iraq is an easy target. Even those of us who believe the war was and is necessary are puzzled, distressed and disappointed by its management.

But we think it only fair to give the White House's side of the argument.

The full text of this document may be found at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html

OUR NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IN IRAQ:Helping the Iraqi People Defeat the Terrorists and Build an Inclusive Democratic State
Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages

Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.

Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.

Victory in Iraq is a Vital U.S. Interest

Iraq is the central front in the global war on terror. Failure in Iraq will embolden terrorists and expand their reach; success in Iraq will deal them a decisive and crippling blow.
The fate of the greater Middle East -- which will have a profound and lasting impact on American security -- hangs in the balance.

Failure is Not an Option

Iraq would become a safe haven from which terrorists could plan attacks against America, American interests abroad, and our allies.

Middle East reformers would never again fully trust American assurances of support for democracy and human rights in the region -- a historic opportunity lost.

The resultant tribal and sectarian chaos would have major consequences for American security and interests in the region.

The Enemy Is Diffuse and Sophisticated

The enemy is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists, and terrorists affiliated with or inspired by Al Qaida. Distinct but integrated strategies are required to defeat each element.
Each element shares a common short-term objective -- to intimidate, terrorize, and tear down -- but has separate and incompatible long-term goals.

Exploiting these differences within the enemy is a key element of our strategy.

Our Strategy for Victory is Clear

We will help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq with a constitutional, representative government that respects civil rights and has security forces sufficient to maintain domestic order and keep Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. To achieve this end, we are pursuing an integrated strategy along three broad tracks, which together incorporate the efforts of the Iraqi government, the Coalition, cooperative countries in the region, the international community, and the United Nations.

The Political Track involves working to forge a broadly supported national compact for democratic governance by helping the Iraqi government:

Isolate enemy elements from those who can be won over to the political process by countering false propaganda and demonstrating to all Iraqis that they have a stake in a democratic Iraq;
Engage those outside the political process and invite in those willing to turn away from violence through ever-expanding avenues of participation; and

Build stable, pluralistic, and effective national institutions that can protect the interests of all Iraqis, and facilitate Iraq's full integration into the international community.

The Security Track involves carrying out a campaign to defeat the terrorists and neutralize the insurgency, developing Iraqi security forces, and helping the Iraqi government:

Clear areas of enemy control by remaining on the offensive, killing and capturing enemy fighters and denying them safe-haven;

Hold areas freed from enemy influence by ensuring that they remain under the control of the Iraqi government with an adequate Iraqi security force presence; and

Build Iraqi Security Forces and the capacity of local institutions to deliver services, advance the rule of law, and nurture civil society.

The Economic Track involves setting the foundation for a sound and self-sustaining economy by helping the Iraqi government:

Restore Iraq's infrastructure to meet increasing demand and the needs of a growing economy;
Reform Iraq's economy, which in the past has been shaped by war, dictatorship, and sanctions, so that it can be self-sustaining in the future; and

Build the capacity of Iraqi institutions to maintain infrastructure, rejoin the international economic community, and improve the general welfare of all Iraqis.

This Strategy is Integrated and its Elements are Mutually Reinforcing

Progress in each of the political, security, and economic tracks reinforces progress in the other tracks.

For instance, as the political process has moved forward, terrorists have become more isolated, leading to more intelligence on security threats from Iraqi citizens, which has led to better security in previously violent areas, a more stable infrastructure, the prospect of economic progress, and expanding political participation.

Victory Will Take Time

Our strategy is working: Much has been accomplished in Iraq, including the removal of Saddam's tyranny, negotiation of an interim constitution, restoration of full sovereignty, holding of free national elections, formation of an elected government, drafting of a permanent constitution, ratification of that constitution, introduction of a sound currency, gradual restoration of neglected infrastructure, the ongoing training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, and the increasing capability of those forces to take on the terrorists and secure their nation.

Yet many challenges remain: Iraq is overcoming decades of a vicious tyranny, where governmental authority stemmed solely from fear, terror, and brutality.

It is not realistic to expect a fully functioning democracy, able to defeat its enemies and peacefully reconcile generational grievances, to be in place less than three years after Saddam was finally removed from power.

Our comprehensive strategy will help Iraqis overcome remaining challenges, but defeating the multi-headed enemy in Iraq -- and ensuring that it cannot threaten Iraq's democratic gains once we leave -- requires persistent effort across many fronts.

Our Victory Strategy Is (and Must Be) Conditions Based

With resolve, victory will be achieved, although not by a date certain.

No war has ever been won on a timetable and neither will this one.

But lack of a timetable does not mean our posture in Iraq (both military and civilian) will remain static over time. As conditions change, our posture will change.

We expect, but cannot guarantee, that our force posture will change over the next year, as the political process advances and Iraqi security forces grow and gain experience.

While our military presence may become less visible, it will remain lethal and decisive, able to confront the enemy wherever it may organize.

Our mission in Iraq is to win the war. Our troops will return home when that mission is complete.

Treason

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has recently described capitalists as "traitors" and called for them to be dealt with appropriately.

Whilst piercing intellect does not seem to be a characteristic of the current generation of the Kennedy Klan, one would be forgiven for expecting someone as closely associated with government as RFK, Jr. to know that "treason" is very narrowly defined in the Constitution. It is waging war on the US or giving "aid and comfort" to its enemies. Traitors are eligible for the death penalty.

Which leaves us troubled: Is the very wealthy Mr. Kennedy saying it is now a capital offense to make a profit? To disagree with him and the other pseudo scientists of the Smart Set?

Is he suggesting that DISSENT is now treason? Perhaps he is also ignorant of the First Amendment. Alternatively, perhaps he has been studying his father's notes from his time working for Senator McCarthy.

But for the moment we have a better understanding of how Jane Fonda must have felt when people objected to seeing her perched on an anti-aircraft gun in Hanoi.

Nancy Pelosi Ends Womans' Liberation

Do you remember Nancy Pelosi's visit to the Middle East, back in April, when she dutifully wore a head scarf to show her respect for Islam?

We ran across a copy of one of those photos recently and had to ask whether she would wear a scarf to her own church. After all, St. Paul and the Koran both advocate the subjugation of women. We refer you to Paul's First Letter to Timothy:

2:9In like manner, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; 2:10but (which becometh women professing godliness) through good works. 2:11Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. 2:12But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. 2:13For Adam was first formed, then Eve; 2:14and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: 2:15but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.

Readers old enough to recall the Catholic church pre-Vatican II will also recall when the Roman Church, took this passage to heart - before Vatican II women were once REQUIRED to cover their heads in Catholic churches. Discarding this restriction was one of the reforms of Vatican II and was hailed as evidence that the Roman Church had entered the modern age.

Which leaves us bemused:

Why would a modern, educated, liberated woman willingly submit to a custom her entire culture has rejected?
Is Ms. Pelosi a religious conservative who routinely wears a scarf to church?
Is Ms. Pelosi so naive that she believes that extremists will leave us alone if we pander to them by showing token respect for their customs?

Millions For Defense

We have recently come across various commentators suggesting that advanced weapons systems being developed by the US are simply not needed and that the money would be better spent elsewhere. The argument is roughly as follows:

The Soviet Union is gone, taking with it the threat of massive “conventional” warfare;

Current US weapons are vastly superior to anything a potential enemy can field, and will remain that way for the foreseeable future;

Massive weapons are out of place in an era of “small wars” and “asymmetric” conflicts. After all, Iraq remains in turmoil despite the quality and quantity of US arms.

It is an argument that merits scrutiny.

On the question of massive weapons and small wars, we submit that America’s current one-sided military advantages are not obsolete; but that they help keep wars “small.” Hit and run tactics, rather than sustained invasions, are preferred by parties with smaller numbers or fewer weapons than their opponents. They are frightening and destructive, but generally lack the destructive impact of a column of invading tanks or carpet bombing with cluster bombs. 9/11 was a tragedy, and a brilliant piece of unconventional tactics. But it was also a “one hit wonder” by an opponent who lacked the ability to either launch a conventional attack against US forces or to capitalize on the confusion and terror they engendered. There is some comfort in the knowledge that 9/11 was the best a resourceful and determined enemy could do in the face of American military might.

But, the argument goes, an aircraft carrier cannot deter a nut with a suitcase nuke. No doubt; but nuts, but definition, are not influenced by rational considerations. It is unwise to let core policy be driven by such wildcards. In contrast to the “nut,” an aircraft carrier can deter a rogue nation from indulging in terror attacks or proxy wars. Recall how abruptly terror attacks in Europe declined after the US air raids on Libya. The message was clear: “You may harm us, but we can obliterate you.” The lesson was repeated in Afghanistan after 9/11. The Taliban was deposed with remarkable speed. We attribute part of the security the US has enjoyed since 9/11 to that fact – no other nation has, we believe, been willing to risk the consequences of “hosting” another attack on the US homeland. Such security comes only from the ability to project massively superior force anywhere in the world.

Yet questions remain. Why are new weapons needed given the current superiority and the likelihood that it will remain unchallenged for some time to come. Without claiming to be weapons experts, we note some general principals. History teaches us that “superiority” is often illusory. In 1905 the Russian Empire thought they would easily crush the “inferior” Japanese. The French thought the massive Maginot Line was superior to anything a foe could throw against it. Perhaps it was. But the Nazis simply went around it. More recently, 25 years ago even scholars would have scoffed at the thought that remote, impoverished Pakistan could acquire the atomic bomb. We should also bear in mind the fact that our enemies are unlikely to tell us about their latest innovations and that the “foreseeable future” might be an extremely short period of time. Consider the advances in computer technology in just the past five years.
We would prefer to deter would-be enemies by constantly raising the bar, rather than risking attack by a determined opponent who believes he has parity in material terms and superior morale and dedication. Thus the old saying: “To have peace, prepare for war.”
There remains the question of America’s industrial power – our perceived ability to turn out more and better weapons, faster than anyone else, as demonstrated in World War II. World War II, however, is a troubling example. Would it have been avoided had the Allies possessed all those ships, tanks, planes and trained troops in 1939? Consider also that, but for a number of lucky blunders, the Nazis could have won the war in Europe, despite all of America’s manufacturing power. Neither should we conclude that US industrial might is absolute. China’s capacity grows daily, along with the sophistication of its products. North Korean missiles are advanced, and for sale. A well funded opponent may well be able to buy what is needed to pose a significant conventional threat to US interests.

Bear in mind that US interests do not end at the water’s edge. A suitcase nuke in NY or LA would be terrifying. A systematic attack on the nation’s oil supply could be devastating. But that is something an aircraft carrier can help prevent.

We agree with the general principle that defense funds should be spent wisely and that all systems should be tested in light of current and future needs. We disagree, however, with the theory that the nation needs only “just enough” weapons – that we need only enough weapons to respond effectively and ultimately prevail. History teaches that such “parity” invites aggression – witness Pearl Harbor. Better to win without firing a shot. We do not want weapons system an opponent thinks he can defeat. We want weapons that will make a would-be aggressor pee his pants.

Islam, The Oppressed Minority

The Smart Set assures us that terror in the name of Allah is solely as a result of Christian misconduct, such as the Crusades and the creation and maintenance of the nation of Israel.

A glance at the history of Islam, however, raises troubling questions. Islamic forces invaded Europe, via modern-day Spain and Portugal, early in the 8th Century. The Crusades were not launched until the 12th Century, roughly 400 years later. Islamic forces were not driven from Spain until the late 15th Century, some 700 years after they arrived uninvited.

Was this invasion the ultimate pre-emptive strike?

We need not comment on the Islamic "logic" that Spain should be returned to them because they took it by force, making it improper, if not immoral and illegal, for the resident Christians to take it back by force.

What Would Mohammed Do?

Islam, the Smart Set insists, is a "religion of peace."
The facts suggest otherwise.
Please follow the link: www.thereligionofpeace.com

Run Away, Run Away!

Some thoughts on combat deaths the US has incurred in armed conflict:

Revolutionary War: 8000
Civil War: 212,000
WWI: 53,000 (in one year)
WWII: 291,000
Vietnam: 47,000
Current Iraq: 3,500

Consider also that some 6,800 Americans were killed during the battle of Iwo Jima, which lasted only five weeks.

Losing 3,500 troops in four years, although truly tragic, hardly seems a compelling reason to declare defeat and run away.

For comparison:

In 2000 alone, approximately 15,000 Americans were murdered;
An estimated 20,000 Americans die each year from the flu;
In 2001 more than 42,000 Americans were killed in auto accidents.

Some thoughts on appeasement

As Ronald Reagan said in 1964:

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer -- not an easy answer -- but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender.

Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face -- that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand -- the ultimatum....

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin -- just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." ...Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

News Flash - The Media Got It Wrong AGAIN

Saturday, 30 June 2007

MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE-IRAQPRESS DESKBAGHDAD, Iraqhttp://www.mnf-iraq.com703.343.8790
June 30, 2007Release A070630c

BAGHDAD, Iraq – Friday, news media reported a mass killing in a village near Salman Pak where 20 men were allegedly found beheaded. It now appears that the story was completely false and fabricated by unknown sources. Upon learning of the press reports, coalition and Iraqi officials began investigating to determine if the reports were true. Ultimately it was concluded the reports were false. Anti-Iraqi Forces are known for purposely providing false information to the media to incite violence and revenge killings, and they may well have been the source of this misinformation.

“Extremists promote falsehoods of mass killings, collateral damage and other violence specifically to turn Iraqis against other Iraqis,” said Rear Admiral Mark Fox, spokesperson for MNF-I. “Unfortunately, lies are much easier to state, the truth often takes time to prove,” said Fox.

Not all media reports can be immediately substantiated by Government of Iraq or Coalition Forces. They must go through a process to verify such claims, to include checking with various Iraqi Ministry’s, local police and security forces. Meanwhile, extremists have achieved their goal of spreading false information aimed at intimidating civilians and destabilizing Iraqi security.

Ultimately, media reporting based on verifiable sources will reduce the possibility of misinformation unnecessarily alarming citizens.

Pull Out Now

"Pull Out Now!". It is the current sacred incantation of the Smart Set.

It is based on a number of questionable assumptions:

• The United States is evil;
• All unrest in the world results from evil interference by the United States;
• The conflict in Iraq would quicky subside once US troops are no longer present to offend and oppress the Iraqis;
• The resources committed to the war would be better used at home - here in the US.

To support their thesis, the Smart Set can point to a number of historic withdrawals:

• Cambodia. Imperialist US troops were followed by the benign Pol Pot;
• Vietnam. The US withdrew and the communists quickly crushed the corrupt government we left behind.
• Lebanon. Following local protests - expressed in the form of the bombing of the US Marine barracks - the US withdrew. The civil war continued, but it was just a civil war.
• Afghanistan. The US helped expell the Soviets, and then wisely and appropriately withdrew, making room for the exemplary Taliban.
• Somalia. Bill Clinton cut and ran. The killing continued. But it was just another civil war.
• Monica.
• Gulf War I. Hussein was left in power and proceeded to savagely repress the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs and anyone else he disliked.

Clearly an abrupt withdrawal results in chaos and continued, and often increased, killing. But those who die are dark skinned and so of little importance to the Smart Set. More significantly, most of these examples involved small, remote and rather poor nations. Whether those nations prospered or collapsed would have litte effect on daily life in America. Those who chant "No blood for oil," truly mean "None of my blood for far away darkies."

But that complacency, and that racism, cannot be applied in the case of Iraq. Somalia is small, distant, and poor. Its greatest assets appear to be sand, heat and starving people. Iraq, in contrast, has vast oil reserves, which make it very valuable real estate. It neighbors other nations that also hold vast oil reserves - more valuable real estate. Indeed, Iraq sits roughly in the middle of perhaps the most valuable real estate in the world - anyone who controls the Middle East oil fields will hold the industrial world hostage. Until the industrialized nations move to take away that control.

Is that future the paranoid delusion of a closet jingoist? Isn't that what they said about Churchill in the 1930s? Delusions of grandeur aside, consider that Iran's current government believes that it is called to spread its version of Islam across the world. It is violently opposed to Western democracy, to Israel and to its Arab neighbors. Reliable reports indicate that Iran is indeed fomenting violence in Iraq, both to drive out the US troops and to destabilize that nation, all towards taking over Iraq.

In the past, the US could "Pull Out Now" with relative impunity. Willing the killings would doubtless continue, and probably increase, American security would not be immediately placed at risk. Not so if the Middle East is allowed to dissolve into chaos.

Critics of the war point to the rising price of gasoline as just one of the adverse consequences of the conflict. Yet those price increases pale beside the consequences we would face were we to "Pull Out Now."

A Founder Speaks

THE CRISIS
Thomas Paine
December 23, 1776

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.

Whether the independence of the continent was declared too soon, or delayed too long, I will not now enter into as an argument; my own simple opinion is, that had it been eight months earlier, it would have been much better. We did not make a proper use of last winter, neither could we, while we were in a dependent state. However, the fault, if it were one, was all our own; we have none to blame but ourselves. But no great deal is lost yet. All that Howe has been doing for this month past, is rather a ravage than a conquest, which the spirit of the Jerseys, a year ago, would have quickly repulsed, and which time and a little resolution will soon recover.

I have as little superstition in me as any man living, but my secret opinion has ever been, and still is, that God Almighty will not give up a people to military destruction, or leave them unsupportedly to perish, who have so earnestly and so repeatedly sought to avoid the calamities of war, by every decent method which wisdom could invent. Neither have I so much of the infidel in me, as to suppose that He has relinquished the government of the world, and given us up to the care of devils; and as I do not, I cannot see on what grounds the king of Britain can look up to heaven for help against us: a common murderer, a highwayman, or a house-breaker, has as good a pretence as he.

'Tis surprising to see how rapidly a panic will sometimes run through a country. All nations and ages have been subject to them. Britain has trembled like an ague at the report of a French fleet of flat-bottomed boats; and in the fourteenth [fifteenth] century the whole English army, after ravaging the kingdom of France, was driven back like men petrified with fear; and this brave exploit was performed by a few broken forces collected and headed by a woman, Joan of Arc. Would that heaven might inspire some Jersey maid to spirit up her countrymen, and save her fair fellow sufferers from ravage and ravishment! Yet panics, in some cases, have their uses; they produce as much good as hurt. Their duration is always short; the mind soon grows through them, and acquires a firmer habit than before. But their peculiar advantage is, that they are the touchstones of sincerity and hypocrisy, and bring things and men to light, which might otherwise have lain forever undiscovered. In fact, they have the same effect on secret traitors, which an imaginary apparition would have upon a private murderer. They sift out the hidden thoughts of man, and hold them up in public to the world. Many a disguised Tory has lately shown his head, that shall penitentially solemnize with curses the day on which Howe arrived upon the Delaware.

As I was with the troops at Fort Lee, and marched with them to the edge of Pennsylvania, I am well acquainted with many circumstances, which those who live at a distance know but little or nothing of. Our situation there was exceedingly cramped, the place being a narrow neck of land between the North River and the Hackensack. Our force was inconsiderable, being not one-fourth so great as Howe could bring against us. We had no army at hand to have relieved the garrison, had we shut ourselves up and stood on our defence. Our ammunition, light artillery, and the best part of our stores, had been removed, on the apprehension that Howe would endeavor to penetrate the Jerseys, in which case Fort Lee could be of no use to us; for it must occur to every thinking man, whether in the army or not, that these kind of field forts are only for temporary purposes, and last in use no longer than the enemy directs his force against the particular object which such forts are raised to defend. Such was our situation and condition at Fort Lee on the morning of the 20th of November, when an officer arrived with information that the enemy with 200 boats had landed about seven miles above; Major General [Nathaniel] Green, who commanded the garrison, immediately ordered them under arms, and sent express to General Washington at the town of Hackensack, distant by the way of the ferry = six miles. Our first object was to secure the bridge over the Hackensack, which laid up the river between the enemy and us, about six miles from us, and three from them. General Washington arrived in about three-quarters of an hour, and marched at the head of the troops towards the bridge, which place I expected we should have a brush for; however, they did not choose to dispute it with us, and the greatest part of our troops went over the bridge, the rest over the ferry, except some which passed at a mill on a small creek, between the bridge and the ferry, and made their way through some marshy grounds up to the town of Hackensack, and there passed the river. We brought off as much baggage as the wagons could contain, the rest was lost. The simple object was to bring off the garrison, and march them on till they could be strengthened by the Jersey or Pennsylvania militia, so as to be enabled to make a stand. We staid four days at Newark, collected our out-posts with some of the Jersey militia, and marched out twice to meet the enemy, on being informed that they were advancing, though our numbers were greatly inferior to theirs. Howe, in my little opinion, committed a great error in generalship in not throwing a body of forces off from Staten Island through Amboy, by which means he might have seized all our stores at Brunswick, and intercepted our march into Pennsylvania; but if we believe the power of hell to be limited, we must likewise believe that their agents are under some providential control.

I shall not now attempt to give all the particulars of our retreat to the Delaware; suffice it for the present to say, that both officers and men, though greatly harassed and fatigued, frequently without rest, covering, or provision, the inevitable consequences of a long retreat, bore it with a manly and martial spirit. All their wishes centred in one, which was, that the country would turn out and help them to drive the enemy back. Voltaire has remarked that King William never appeared to full advantage but in difficulties and in action; the same remark may be made on General Washington, for the character fits him. There is a natural firmness in some minds which cannot be unlocked by trifles, but which, when unlocked, discovers a cabinet of fortitude; and I reckon it among those kind of public blessings, which we do not immediately see, that God hath blessed him with uninterrupted health, and given him a mind that can even flourish upon care.
I shall conclude this paper with some miscellaneous remarks on the state of our affairs; and shall begin with asking the following question, Why is it that the enemy have left the New England provinces, and made these middle ones the seat of war? The answer is easy: New England is not infested with Tories, and we are. I have been tender in raising the cry against these men, and used numberless arguments to show them their danger, but it will not do to sacrifice a world either to their folly or their baseness. The period is now arrived, in which either they or we must change our sentiments, or one or both must fall. And what is a Tory? Good God! What is he? I should not be afraid to go with a hundred Whigs against a thousand Tories, were they to attempt to get into arms. Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave.

But, before the line of irrecoverable separation be drawn between us, let us reason the matter together: Your conduct is an invitation to the enemy, yet not one in a thousand of you has heart enough to join him. Howe is as much deceived by you as the American cause is injured by you. He expects you will all take up arms, and flock to his standard, with muskets on your shoulders. Your opinions are of no use to him, unless you support him personally, for 'tis soldiers, and not Tories, that he wants.

I once felt all that kind of anger, which a man ought to feel, against the mean principles that are held by the Tories: a noted one, who kept a tavern at Amboy, was standing at his door, with as pretty a child in his hand, about eight or nine years old, as I ever saw, and after speaking his mind as freely as he thought was prudent, finished with this unfatherly expression, "Well! give me peace in my day." Not a man lives on the continent but fully believes that a separation must some time or other finally take place, and a generous parent should have said, "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;" and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty. Not a place upon earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but to trade with them. A man can distinguish himself between temper and principle, and I am as confident, as I am that God governs the world, that America will never be happy till she gets clear of foreign dominion. Wars, without ceasing, will break out till that period arrives, and the continent must in the end be conqueror; for though the flame of liberty may sometimes cease to shine, the coal can never expire.

America did not, nor does not want force; but she wanted a proper application of that force. Wisdom is not the purchase of a day, and it is no wonder that we should err at the first setting off. From an excess of tenderness, we were unwilling to raise an army, and trusted our cause to the temporary defence of a well-meaning militia. A summer's experience has now taught us better; yet with those troops, while they were collected, we were able to set bounds to the progress of the enemy, and, thank God! they are again assembling. I always considered militia as the best troops in the world for a sudden exertion, but they will not do for a long campaign. Howe, it is probable, will make an attempt on this city [Philadelphia]; should he fail on this side the Delaware, he is ruined. If he succeeds, our cause is not ruined. He stakes all on his side against a part on ours; admitting he succeeds, the consequence will be, that armies from both ends of the continent will march to assist their suffering friends in the middle states; for he cannot go everywhere, it is impossible. I consider Howe as the greatest enemy the Tories have; he is bringing a war into their country, which, had it not been for him and partly for themselves, they had been clear of. Should he now be expelled, I wish with all the devotion of a Christian, that the names of Whig and Tory may never more be mentioned; but should the Tories give him encouragement to come, or assistance if he come, I as sincerely wish that our next year's arms may expel them from the continent, and the Congress appropriate their possessions to the relief of those who have suffered in well-doing. A single successful battle next year will settle the whole. America could carry on a two years' war by the confiscation of the property of disaffected persons, and be made happy by their expulsion. Say not that this is revenge, call it rather the soft resentment of a suffering people, who, having no object in view but the good of all, have staked their own all upon a seemingly doubtful event. Yet it is folly to argue against determined hardness; eloquence may strike the ear, and the language of sorrow draw forth the tear of compassion, but nothing can reach the heart that is steeled with prejudice.

Quitting this class of men, I turn with the warm ardor of a friend to those who have nobly stood, and are yet determined to stand the matter out: I call not upon a few, but upon all: not on this state or that state, but on every state: up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake. Let it be told to the future world, that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet and to repulse it. Say not that thousands are gone, turn out your tens of thousands; throw not the burden of the day upon Providence, but "show your faith by your works," that God may bless you. It matters not where you live, or what rank of life you hold, the evil or the blessing will reach you all. The far and the near, the home counties and the back, the rich and the poor, will suffer or rejoice alike. The heart that feels not now is dead; the blood of his children will curse his cowardice, who shrinks back at a time when a little might have saved the whole, and made them happy. I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. My own line of reasoning is to myself as straight and clear as a ray of light. Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to "bind me in all cases whatsoever" to his absolute will, am I to suffer it? What signifies it to me, whether he who does it is a king or a common man; my countryman or not my countryman; whether it be done by an individual villain, or an army of them? If we reason to the root of things we shall find no difference; neither can any just cause be assigned why we should punish in the one case and pardon in the other. Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man. I conceive likewise a horrid idea in receiving mercy from a being, who at the last day shall be shrieking to the rocks and mountains to cover him, and fleeing with terror from the orphan, the widow, and the slain of America.

There are cases which cannot be overdone by language, and this is one. There are persons, too, who see not the full extent of the evil which threatens them; they solace themselves with hopes that the enemy, if he succeed, will be merciful. It is the madness of folly, to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice; and even mercy, where conquest is the object, is only a trick of war; the cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf, and we ought to guard equally against both. Howe's first object is, partly by threats and partly by promises, to terrify or seduce the people to deliver up their arms and receive mercy. The ministry recommended the same plan to Gage, and this is what the tories call making their peace, "a peace which passeth all understanding" indeed! A peace which would be the immediate forerunner of a worse ruin than any we have yet thought of. Ye men of Pennsylvania, do reason upon these things! Were the back counties to give up their arms, they would fall an easy prey to the Indians, who are all armed: this perhaps is what some Tories would not be sorry for. Were the home counties to deliver up their arms, they would be exposed to the resentment of the back counties who would then have it in their power to chastise their defection at pleasure. And were any one state to give up its arms, that state must be garrisoned by all Howe's army of Britons and Hessians to preserve it from the anger of the rest. Mutual fear is the principal link in the chain of mutual love, and woe be to that state that breaks the compact. Howe is mercifully inviting you to barbarous destruction, and men must be either rogues or fools that will not see it. I dwell not upon the vapors of imagination; I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as A, B, C, hold up truth to your eyes.

I thank God, that I fear not. I see no real cause for fear. I know our situation well, and can see the way out of it. While our army was collected, Howe dared not risk a battle; and it is no credit to him that he decamped from the White Plains, and waited a mean opportunity to ravage the defenceless Jerseys; but it is great credit to us, that, with a handful of men, we sustained an orderly retreat for near an hundred miles, brought off our ammunition, all our field pieces, the greatest part of our stores, and had four rivers to pass. None can say that our retreat was precipitate, for we were near three weeks in performing it, that the country might have time to come in. Twice we marched back to meet the enemy, and remained out till dark. The sign of fear was not seen in our camp, and had not some of the cowardly and disaffected inhabitants spread false alarms through the country, the Jerseys had never been ravaged. Once more we are again collected and collecting; our new army at both ends of the continent is recruiting fast, and we shall be able to open the next campaign with sixty thousand men, well armed and clothed. This is our situation, and who will may know it. By perseverance and fortitude we have the prospect of a glorious issue; by cowardice and submission, the sad choice of a variety of evils — a ravaged country — a depopulated city — habitations without safety, and slavery without hope — our homes turned into barracks and bawdy-houses for Hessians, and a future race to provide for, whose fathers we shall doubt of. Look on this picture and weep over it! and if there yet remains one thoughtless wretch who believes it not, let him suffer it unlamented.