Protect and Defend

By Col. Oliver North

Gulfport, MS —
"We're the heart of the U.S. military. Our sons and daughters serve and our neighbors build military ships." That's how a fan put it this week as I autographed a copy of "American Heroes" for him during a book signing session. Then he added, "I hope that doesn't change." He has reason for concern — as do those who work at nearby Pascagoula Naval shipyard or Keesler Air Force Base or who serve anywhere in our nation's uniform.

President-elect Barack Obama said on election night that, "change has come to America." Though the next commander-in-chief has yet to announce exactly how he intends to do it, he clearly intends to change the commitments, capabilities and cost of America's military.

Commitments:

Candidate Obama made "ending the war and getting out of Iraq" the centerpiece of his foreign policy platform from the very beginning of his campaign two years ago. He has never recanted on his goal of "bringing our troops home within sixteen months of taking office." He is also adamant that more U.S. and NATO troops are needed in Afghanistan.

Thanks to the courage and perseverance of young Americans in flak jackets, helmets and flight suits, the campaign against radical Islam in Mesopotamia is all but over. Iraqi soldiers and police now carry out most combat operations against Sunni and Shiite terrorists and militias. A phased pull-out from Iraq will indeed free up U.S. combat units for Afghanistan where they are needed.

But a "total pull-out" from Iraq invites the theocrats in Tehran — intent on acquiring nuclear weapons and the world-leaders in exporting terror — to further ambition and adventure in the region. This week, Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari, obviously concerned about a premature U.S. retreat, said that candidate Obama "reassured us that he would not take any drastic or dramatic decisions." In case the point was missed, he added, "When there is a reality check, I think any U.S. president has to look very hard at the facts on the ground. The gains that we have attained and won with hard struggle and a great deal of sacrifice need to be sustained."

Hopefully, before he pulls the plug on "The Land Between the Rivers," the new commander-in-chief will listen carefully to the counsel of Generals David Petraeus, Ray Odierno in Iraq and David McKiernan in Afghanistan. Making decisions now about force dispositions after inauguration may well placate his far left base, but could well prove disastrous for the nation.

Capabilities:

Even before the election, leading Democrats in the House and Senate were prognosticating a "transformation" in U.S. defense capabilities. The two most recent Democrat presidents made similar promises. When Jimmy Carter came to office he all but eliminated our "Humint" — Human Intelligence — capabilities and ordered an "across the board" reduction of 15 percent in everything from ships, to planes to "end strength" — the number of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen and Marines in the services.

Bill Clinton did the same thing — only bigger. Half the Army's divisions disappeared — along with scores of ships and combat air wings. He also introduced the "don't ask, don't tell" policy to allow homosexuals to serve in the Armed Forces.

The net effect of both presidents' capabilities cuts was to embolden America's adversaries. Arguably, American troops are still paying in blood for the "cost cutting" done during the Carter and Clinton administrations. That may well be happening again — in an ever more dangerous world.

Cost Cutting:

When the moving vans roll up to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in January, it will be the first time since Richard Nixon took over from Lyndon Johnson that our nation changed commander-in-chief while at war. Yet, leaks from the Obama "transition team" and Capitol Hill indicate that cuts in defense spending are a top priority.

Pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq would "save" $10 billion per month. Further "savings" can be found by cutting production of the F-35 Strike Fighter, the F-22 Raptor, Virginia class nuclear attack submarines, the V-22 Osprey, and the DDG-1000 destroyer. Converting National Missile Defense back to a basic research program, eliminating two USAF fighter wings and putting a U.S. Navy Carrier Battle Group in mothballs would "save" hundreds of billions more. Representative Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Service Committee, has called for a 25 percent reduction in the Pentagon budget — about $150 billion — and said, "We don't need all these fancy new weapons."

Any of these cuts will have the effect of seriously reducing U.S. defense capabilities. One parochial example: The V-22 Osprey is programmed to replace all of the U.S. Marines' 40-year-old CH-46 helicopters. Without the Osprey, Marines will have to walk to the next gunfight.

In his first remarks as president-elect, Obama promised defeat to "those who would tear the world down." If that's what he really wants to do, prudence dictates that he ought not to start by tearing apart our nation's defenses.

Serving those who served

From The Washington Times

Today is Veterans Day. On this occasion, Americans honor the military tradition that has stood guard over our freedoms since the birth of our nation. And while we remember yesterday's heroes, there also is a need to take measure of the condition of the veterans in our midst today.

In many cases, the simplest and most important needs are not met, even for those wounded returning home from combat. On this day of remembrance, there are numerous opportunities to give a little back. More than 3 million veterans are disabled from all causes. Of those, more than 260,000 are considered 100 percent disabled. Thankfully, because U.S. combat medics are so skilled under fire, more wounded war fighters are being saved in combat than ever before in history. While this is a positive step forward that prevents many heroes from being killed in action, there are enormous costs to helping the wounded during and after rehabilitation.

To date, more than 33,000 Americans have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Department of Veterans Affairs budget for fiscal 2009 is $94 billion, which is a sizable increase of 7 percent over the previous year. Still, the butcher's bill during a multiple-front war is outpacing VA's capability to do what is needed. The fact of the matter is that government does not have the ability to take care of all of the needs of America's veterans and wounded service members. Sometimes, red tape ties up the numerous and vexing approval, appropriation and implementation stages of even the most straightforward government programs. Under the best of circumstances, there is too much to do, and the competing demands for funds mean many worthy projects will never be realized. No matter the reason, the fact remains that the private sector and private individuals are needed to fill the gaps where government is unwilling or unable to do the job.

One example of such a private endeavor is the $12.5 million veterans and wounded warriors lodge being built in Palo Alto, Calif., by the Pentagon Federal Credit Union Foundation. The Palo Alto VA hospital has one of the world's most sophisticated poly-trauma facilities to treat veterans with injuries to more than one major organ system, including brain damage. The problem is that many patients have nowhere to stay and sometimes must drive up to 50 miles each way every day for treatment. To fill this gap, the Pentagon Federal Credit Union Foundation, a private charity dedicated to helping veterans, is building a lodge to house these wounded warriors for free. Another example is the Military Heroes Fund, which has built a hospice room at Walter Reed Army Hospital in Washington, and is offering emergency financial assistance to veterans facing hardship because of their service. Dream Makers offers $5,000 grants to help veterans buy their first homes, and the Military Officers Association of America has a scholarship fund to pay college tuition to children of uniformed service members killed in action.

There are 25 million U.S. veterans alive today, about 75 percent of whom served during wartime. They sacrificed with honor and distinction when this country needed brave Americans to put their lives on the line. Now, for many, their lives are in the balance and they need our help. This Veterans Day, as you give your thoughts to those who have sacrificed in uniform, consider giving them a hand, too.

Veterans Day Salute

The Future of the Right

By Philip Klein

About two-dozen conservative leaders met today at the Stanley, Virginia home of Media Research Center President Brent Bozell in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains to discuss conservatism's future in the wake of Tuesday's election results.

TAS Publisher Al Regnery and editor in chief R. Emmett Tyrrell were on hand, along with leaders from policy groups and grassroots organizations representing each pillar of the conservative coalition, from Christian conservatives to libertarians, and everybody in between.

"As the afternoon went on, it didn't take long for attendees to become resolute in their resistance to moderates and to the opinion that the conservative movement will become the opposition to Obama," Tyrrell said.

One attendee said, "We're no longer going to support Republicans who want to 'improve' a bad bill. We're going to oppose all bad bills."

Morton Blackwell of the Leadership Institute, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society, pollster Kellyanne Conway, and direct mail guru Richard Viguerie were among those present.

The meeting began at 11 this morning and adjourned at around 4 p.m.

There's a strong feeling, Tyrrell said, that social conservatives, free market conservatives, and national security conservatives will all be able to work together.

He also said that "there's a sense that the Republicans on Capitol Hill are freer of wobbly-kneed Republicans than they were before the election."

Regnery said, "The consensus was that this was not a mandate for Democrats, that this country is still center-right. The overriding fear was that the Republican Party does not represent conservatives," and there was a desire to get behind genuinely conservative candidates.

Much of the discussion focused on taxes, spending, judges, values issues and how libertarians and social conservatives could work together.

Looking back at the campaign, they felt that John McCain wasn't really a conservative, and that Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber were the two best things that happened because of the way they connected with people.

Although polls show that "conservative" is a more popular word than "Republican," it turns out that "Democrat" is a more popular description than "liberal," and the sentiment was that tougher language needed to be used to define Barack Obama and other Democrats as liberals.

Regnery thought it was significant that "two days after the election, conservative leaders took the day off in order to start the process of putting together an agenda for where we go in a couple of years."

In the coming months, there will be follow-up gatherings in different locations to chart the path forward.

A Flag, on a Hill

By Bill Whittle

As Civil War battles went, it was a small and insignificant affair. But in terms of story — and especially, in terms of lessons — it’s one of my favorites.

The war had not yet fully turned in October of 1864. And even though Stonewall Jackson had been dead for well over a year — mistakenly killed by his own men at the Battle of Chancellorsville — the Shenandoah Valley still belonged if not to Jackson then to Jackson’s ghost, for it was there that he and his “foot cavalry” had won their eternal place in Valhalla. Jackson’s tactical brilliance and the endless series of Union routs still hung like clouds of gunpowder in the valleys and hollows of the Shenandoah.

And so it came as no surprise to either the Union or the Confederate soldiers on the banks of Cedar Creek to see, once again, a blue rout — men throwing down rifles and knapsacks and running for their lives, dodging perhaps the few hissing musket balls fired at their backs but completely unable to escape the jeering and the insults and that high, horrible Rebel yell, as that pack of feral wolves descended on their camps, drank their coffee, ate their rations and sat going through their personal effects, admiring photos and reading letters from their sweethearts. Not a loss, but a rout. Another rout. The latest in an ongoing series of routs without end, or so it must have seemed.

The Union general was a young man, new to his command, and who in point of fact had been back in Washington during the defeat. But as he rode toward the sound of the guns that morning, curiosity turned to apprehension, and apprehension to something worse, as he crossed Mill Creek and came upon a low hill, to see before him “the appalling spectacle of a panic-stricken Army.”

Phillip Sheridan was his name, described by Shelby Foote as a man with the face of a Mongol warlord and hair so short and dense it made his head look like a bullet with a coat of black paint.

Sheridan’s first instinct was to form a straggler line and prepare for the final Rebel assault. But the Rebels were too busy celebrating. And after he caught his breath, Little Phil noticed something surprising: not a broken and routed army, fleeing for their lives, but small groups of men boiling fresh coffee, speaking to one another calmly and cheering him as he rode by.

One of his aides described him at that moment: “As he galloped on, his features grew gradually set, as those carved in stone, and the same dull red glint I had seen in his piercing eyes when, on other occasions, the battle was going against us, was there now.”

You bet it was.

The closer Sheridan came to the battle, the more cheerful and animated his defeated men became. Encountering a small group of them, Little Phil would stand in the saddle, and give a jaunty salute — as if to congratulate them on a great victory, rather than another humiliating defeat.

The result was electric, if not universal. Amid the cheering, one infantry colonel — whose descendants perhaps would go on to become campaign advisors — stood in Sheridan’s path and begged him not to go on.

“The army’s whipped!” he cried.

“You are, but the army isn’t,” growled Sheridan, who then put the spurs to a horse who’s back was taller than he was and rode to the scene of the disaster, shouting, “About face, boys! We are going back to our camps! We are going to lick them out of their boots!”

His men were not beaten. They just needed leadership.

“We are going to get a twist on those fellows, men!” he shouted, pounding down the pike. “We are going to lick them out of their boots!”

And that’s what he did, too. He and his routed army went back to that field and licked those Rebels right out of their boots.

“Run!” he shouted, standing in the stirrups. “Go after them! We’ve got the God-damnedest twist on them you ever saw!”


Battles don’t always go that way. But sometimes they do. It depends on whether the individual soldier still has any fight in him.

It has been a source of delight for me these past few days to see nothing but evidence of this, all across our defeated lines. Nowhere have I heard a shred of defeatism or despair. On the contrary. In point of fact, the magnanimity and graciousness I have seen in defeat in so many places on the right tells me that this is an eager and seasoned army, one able to look defeat in the face and own up to the errors in tactics and strategy that got us there. And nowhere do I see a call to abandon our core principles and sue for terms, but rather that our loss was caused precisely by our abandonment of the issues which we hold dear and which have served us so well on battlefields past.

So consider this, my fellows in arms: On Tuesday, the Left — armed with the most attractive, eloquent, young, hip, and charismatic candidate I have seen with my adult eyes, a candidate shielded by a media so overtly that it can never be such a shield again, who appeared after eight years of a historically unpopular President, in the midst of two undefended wars and at the time of the worst financial crisis since the Depression and whose praises were sung by every movie, television, and musical icon without pause or challenge for 20 months . . . who ran against the oldest nominee in the country’s history, against a campaign rent with internal disarray and determined not to attack in the one area where attack could have succeeded, and who was out-spent no less than seven-to-one in a cycle where not a single debate question was unfavorable to his opponent — that historic victory, that perfect storm of opportunity . . .

Yielded a result of 53 percent.

Folks, we are going to lick these people out of their boots.

There is much to do. That a man with such overt Marxist ideas and such a history of association with virulent anti-Americans can be elected president should make it crystal clear to each of us just how far we have let fall the moral tone of this Republic. The great lesson from Ronald Reagan was simply that we can and must gently educate as well as campaign, and explain our ideas with smiles on our faces and real joy in our hearts. For unlike the far-left radical who gained the presidency on Tuesday, we start with 150 million of the most free and intelligent and hard-working people in the history of the Earth at our backs, with a philosophy that — unlike theirs, which has resulted in 100 million dead in unmarked graves — has liberated and enriched more people and created more joy than any nation or combination of nations in our history.

And then we will begin, with a confident and happy heart, to examine how we have failed the American people in regard to making clear the moral and philosophical underpinnings of our philosophy. For anyone that fully understands these philosophies, presented calmly and with wit and humility, will come to our side and never leave.

We have tried, and failed. Tomorrow we will try again.

How can we lose, my friends? How can we lose, unless we give up?

Mourning In America

by Mike Gallagher

Just how strange has this week been?

Real strange.

Thursday morning, I appeared on Fox & Friends, the morning talk show on Fox News Channel. I was to “debate” Lanny Davis, the longtime Clinton loyalist.

Obviously, the show wanted a reaction to this week's election from a liberal like Lanny and a conservative like me. I thought I'd have some fun and at the last minute, affixed black duct tape to my right arm.

The way the week turned out for the GOP, I figured wearing a black armband on TV would be pretty appropriate.

Poor Lanny didn't seem to get the joke. “It's pretty silly to be listening to someone give advice to the incoming Obama administration while wearing a black armband”, he sputtered.

Liberals never seem to have much of a sense of humor, even in victory.

Besides, Lanny, I wasn't giving any advice, I was just expressing an opinion. Unless you guys get your wish and the return of the Fairness Doctrine knocks people like me off the airwaves for good, I think I'm still allowed to express some views, aren't I? But things really took a turn when I got to my radio studio office after the TV appearance and found a bunch of angry emails waiting for me.

The nature of the complaints? That I was a racist because I wore a BLACK armband as a way to express my dissatisfaction with the election.

I'm not kidding.

Here's a sample:

“Gallagher, you racist pig. How dare you wear a black armband on Fox? Do you not know what that means to black people? I'm glad your bigertery (sic) is finally on display for the world to see.

Cedric

Houston, TX”

And another: “I'm a little surprised you didn't wear a white hood on TV this morning, Gallager (sic). You are a big, fat, racist m***** *****r who needs to have his butt whipped.

Tonya

Los Angeles”

And one more gem:

“Watching you wear a black armband, which everyone knows insults black people, made me immediately wish for your painful death. I'd like to think that will happen, but it probably won't. I'm a pessimist by nature.

Bill L.

Orlando”

Wow. And I thought Lanny Davis was grumpy.

These angry people even motivated me to try and Google references to black armbands somehow being offensive to Black people.

All I found was precisely what I thought, that it's a symbol of mourning, a sign of grieving or sadness. Nothing at all about race.

Then again, there are people who manage to find racial turmoil everywhere they turn.

The great Shelby Steele of the Hoover Institution wrote a terrific piece after the election about how President-elect Obama managed to tap into the stigma that many White Americans feel about race. He opined that many people have been looking for something -- anything -- to relieve the burden felt by years of being blamed for racism.

What better solution than to elect a Black man president?

Naturally, race played a significant factor in this year's election. Finally, there is an answer to the rhetorical question, “Is America able to elect a Black president?”

And I expect that there is a pretty simple response to those who wonder if we can finally retire the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world and move beyond arguing about race relations incessantly.

Yes we can.

And we should.

Over and over, we were told that a vote for Barack Obama would be a way to “pay the debt” owed to millions of Black people. We would right the wrongs of the past; we would show the world how progressive we are.

I trust the debt has been paid.

Personally, I've always longed for the day when a Black person would be elected president.

Just not this Black person.

But by six percentage points, Americans elected Sen. Obama. Those of us who are the loyal opposition know that now, the battle begins.

We will do everything we can to encourage the Republican Party to rebuild itself. As Sen. Jim Demint (R, SC) told me, we need to find GOP leaders who are willing to adhere to the Reagan-era values that made many of us become Republicans in the first place.

We will challenge every crazy and wrong-headed move the Democrats come up with; we will follow the D.C. leaders closely and be sure to alert our readers, listeners and viewers to every misstep, every blunder, each and every attempt to run this country into the ground.

But for now, we will simply congratulate the other side for their victory. Sure, the mainstream media helped make it happen.

And of course the deck was stacked against Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin. But there's no sense crying in our soup. Come inauguration day, we just need to be prepared to take on the Democrat establishment.

As many parents have taught their children: never start a fight, but be sure to finish it. We shall do our best.

Just how strange has this week been?

Check this out: a listener to my radio show emailed me and claimed that the day after the election, the Illinois Lottery featured a creepy winning number and that I should check it out.

Sure enough, I confirmed the bizarre claim. On the day after the election, in the Evening Pick Three lottery drawing in Obama's home state of Illinois, the winning number was 666.

Don't believe me? See for yourself. www.IllinoisLottery.com Click on the “numbers/ jackpots” tab and look up Nov. 5, 2008.

I'm sure that's just a coincidence. I certainly don't believe those who fear that Obama is the actual anti-Christ.

Then again, what are the odds of the mark of the beast being Illinois' winning lottery number the day after the election?

I think I'll go back to wearing my armband. For a long, long time...

Afghanistan a Top Challenge Facing Obama as President

From Fox News.

The war in Afghanistan will be one of the greatest challenges facing President-elect Barack Obama. Confronting a resurgent Taliban, the radical Islamic group that ruled the country before being ousted in November 2001, the next president will have to decide on a new strategy for victory.

On his July 2008 trip to the Central Asian nation, where over 30,000 U.S. troops are serving, Obama called the country the "central front" in the war on terror, suggesting a significant redeployment of military units from Iraq to Afghanistan.

The senior NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, has requested up to 20,000 additional U.S. troops for the campaign, leading some military analysts to compare this request to the "surge" in Iraq. The crucial element of the "surge" was an increase in U.S. troop presence working closely with regional and tribal groups to provide security.

The request for more troops has been emphasized as needed to speed up the training of Afghan security forces.

"What I would like to see, and, I think, what everybody would like to see, is the most rapid possible further expansion of the Afghan military forces because this needs to be an Afghan war, not an American war and not a NATO war," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Oct. 31.

For the U.S. troops already on the ground, the challenges are apparent.

"We're still very much at the beginning phases here," said Capt. Matt O'Donnell, Company Commander with 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, who mentors and trains the Afghan National Police in southern Helmand Province.

Retired Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North, host of "War Stories" on FOX News Channel spoke with Capt. O'Donnell while embedded with Marine units in Afghanistan. "The police are where the Afghan National Army was about a year and a half ago, and with time and continued mentorship they'll get to where the Afghan National Army is right now which is an effective fighting unit," O'Donnell said.

The enlistment of local Afghans is also a primary concern.

"I think we're right there on the turning point, where there's a lot of them but there's not enough," Lt. Clint Harris, serving in Afghanistan with 1st Battalion, 6th Marines says of the Afghan forces. "Once we get over that tipping point, more and more are going to join. And then we can turn the security over to them."

Gen. David Petraeus, the architect of the troop increase in Iraq Surge and now commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) has said that lessons learned in Iraq may not apply directly to Afghanistan.

For U.S. troops stationed there -- many having served multiple tours in Iraq -- Afghanistan presents unique challenges.

"It's such a complex tribal structure, such a complex history," Capt. O'Donnell said.

Col. Peter Petronzio, who commands the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit in Afghanistan, says, "The cultural aspect is very important. And we try to train to that as we prepare to come here and interact with the local populace."

When Obama is sworn into office on January 20, he will be the first president to inherit wars on two fronts. If Iraq continues to stabilize, Afghanistan appears to be the more volatile and challenging of the two. A key element will be if the Afghan people continue to support the American-led international effort there.

"And at this point now we have to convince them to come to our side," Lt. Harris said.

Kennesaw Revisited

By Jeff Knox

In 1981, Morton Grove, Illinois became the first town in the U.S. to pass a flat out ban on the possession of handguns within the town limits by anyone except police and active duty military during the performance of their official duties. In response, the town of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a gun law of their own in March of 1982. The Kennesaw law was almost the exact opposite to the Morton Grove ordinance. Rather than banning handgun possession, Kennesaw required every head-of-household to keep at least one firearm and appropriate ammunition in their home – with exemptions for those who had religious or philosophical objections to maintaining or using weapons. In other words, gun ownership was mandatory except for people who didn’t want to own a gun.



While Morton Grove became an instant media darling, Kennesaw became a pariah and a punch line. Pundits and “reporters” made jokes and wild predictions about the blood that would soon run in the streets of the small town a few miles North of Atlanta. The derision can still be heard occasionally from a late-night talk show host or a reflective news anchor, but all of the predictions of the “Wild West” and shootouts over fender-benders, simply didn’t pan out. Of course this lack of disaster was simply ignored by most in the media as were the actual results of this little comparative experiment.

Kennesaw and Morton Grove weren’t really a fair comparison when the experiment started. Kennesaw was pretty rural while Morton Grove was solidly suburban. Kennesaw had a population of only about 5500 while Morton Grove was closer to 23,000. And Kennesaw had a per capita crime rate significantly higher than the national average while Morton Grove enjoyed a relatively low crime rate. The fact is, Kennesaw was at a marked disadvantage from the beginning of this comparison. In the nearly three decades since these laws went into effect, Kennesaw’s disadvantage has grown rather than shrunk. While Morton Grove has remained at a fairly steady population, Kennesaw’s population has boomed to take a slight lead. While Morton Grove’s residents are slightly older than the national average, Kennesaw’s are significantly younger. Both towns are predominantly White, but Kennesaw has more Blacks and Hispanics while Morton Grove’s minority population is predominantly Asian. Statistically, Asian populations have the lowest crime rates of any minority while Blacks and Hispanics have the highest crime rates in the nation.

With all of these disadvantages working against Kennesaw, how did the two communities actually fare?

Morton Grove’s relatively low crime rate went up by over 15% immediately after enactment of the ban (12% more than surrounding areas) and has held pretty steady at just a tad below the national average ever since. There has been no statistical indication of the handgun ban having any positive effect.

Kennesaw is a different story though. In 1982, the year the firearms requirement was enacted, Kennesaw realized a 74% reduction in crime against persons over the previous year. That rate then dropped 45% between 1982 and 1983. In fairness, statistics showing percentage increases or decreases in crime can be very misleading especially when crime numbers and the population are both low to begin with.

The statistics that are really telling are per capita comparisons between municipal, county, regional, and national averages. When a city’s crime rate is trending parallel to the national and/or regional crime rates (whether higher or lower) and then deviates dramatically from those averages after a new law is passed, that is a strong indication that the new law is having an impact.

While Morton Grove’s per capita crime rate took a dramatic jump, deviating substantially from regional and national averages, right after passage of their gun ban, Kennesaw’s crime rate did the opposite in an even more dramatic way. After Kennesaw’s gun law was enacted crime dropped dramatically – much faster than federal, state, or local trends – and leveled out well below national averages. In spite of a population increase from 5000 to almost 30,000 during the same period, Kennesaw’s crime rates remain significantly lower than national or area averages. And the people of Kennesaw didn’t have to use their mandated firearms to affect this dramatic change. The simple knowledge on the part of criminals that if they worked in Kennesaw they were choosing to work with an armed prospective victim pool was enough to convince them not to pursue their chosen professions there.

After the enactment of the firearms mandate in 1982, it took 15 years before there was a murder committed with a firearm in the town. As I recall, it was the result of two visitors who got into an argument in their motel room. One was insisting that a .25 automatic could not penetrate thick chest muscles like his and the other fellow decided to settle the argument and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were both idiots.

After 25 years, Kennesaw and Morton Grove stand out as proof positive that the only gun control laws with any hope of reducing crime are laws which empower the law-abiding people rather than disarming them. But remember how much news coverage was given to this story last March? Expect more of that deafening silence for the 26th anniversary next March.

Inspirational Music

**Warning-May contain strong language**

Oh, What a Beautiful Morning

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr

WASHINGTON -- What a wonderful morn! Campaign '08 is a corpse. Step gently around it. Offer a gentle wave of the hand to those poor wretches over in the corner looking forlorn and lost. Those are the political junkies. They have awakened every day for almost two years eager for the electioneering fray: first the primaries, where Hillary was "inevitable" and Rudy the likely Republican candidate. Then they heaved and sweated for Senator Barack Obama or Senator John McCain. Now the election is over, and they are in withdrawal.

Yet, most of the rest of us have reason to be relieved and frankly a bit proud of our country. Yes, the campaign was a blare of competing rhetorical sophistications. It was rare that either candidate uttered an applause line that did not either begin with a deceit or end with one. Senator Obama's yawp about giving 95% of us a tax cut is a comely example -- after all some 40% of his targeted audience pay no income taxes. And Senator McCain's rant against Wall Street for the financial crisis is another. The crisis began with those subprime mortgages from Fannie and Freddie and was exacerbated by cheap money and recklessly low interest rates from the Department of the Treasury and from the Fed.

Most of the rest of us can be proud of how this election has concluded. The United States has elected an African American to the presidency two generations after Jim Crow. There was no violence and very little playing of the race card. Senator Obama ran a deft campaign and his Chicago advisors created a formidable machine -- pardon the term. He is from Chicago, and so am I. We know what a Chicago machine has been, and frankly I have not been reassured when I have heard him sing that he is running against "thirty years of broken politics in Washington." Does he mean he is bringing in "fixed politics"? We from Chicago know what "fixed politics" has meant in Chicago, and there the fix has been in for more than "thirty years."

Yet beyond my little play on words, I, a Reagan conservative through and through, join with so many of my fellow Americans in taking pride in this election. Old Europe has disdained this country for years as racially prejudiced, though for years some of our most beloved popular figures have been African Americans. At this point we have had black generals in our military, black members of our presidential cabinets, black Supreme Court justices, black political leaders throughout the states, and black CEOs all over the lot. No European nation has shown such tolerance to color, ethnic origins, or religious and political disagreement. Spare us your canards about racial prejudice in the Great Republic, and may I remind our European critics that 2009, the year in which Senator Obama will be inaugurated to the presidency, is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator.

Aside from the political junkies, there is another tiny coterie of gloomy souls this week, the Clintonistas. Doubtless the gloomiest among them is the downcast former Boy President. He is actually, according to my sources, quite angry. With the election of Senator Obama, Bill Clinton's days of White House revelry are finito. He has wanted to get back in the White House for years. Relatively unreported, but nonetheless true, he wanted his wife to run in 2004. We saw how passionately he campaigned for her in 2008. Yet a return of the Clintons was never to be. As I said as early as the spring of 2007 in The Clinton Crack-Up (and in an interview with Brian Lamb on C-SPAN), the "inevitable" Hillary was "going to have real problems getting the nomination." She faced a serious challenge from a younger generation of Democrats that found its candidate in the junior senator from Illinois.

As I also reported, her husband is a dreadful campaigner for anyone but himself. When she turned to him in the primaries she apparently knew nothing of his limitations. In 2004 of the 14 candidates he campaigned for 12 lost. In the closing days of this campaign when the former president campaigned for Senator Obama, we saw why he is so dreadful in campaigning for others. To Senator Obama's visible chagrin, Bill talked about himself first then his White House advisors. When he finally referred to the 2008 Democratic candidate sitting nearby, he only diminished him. Now Bill is a has-been and the historians are going to note his failed presidency.

In the months ahead. we are going to be hearing that the Reagan conservatives are has-beens too. Well, we shall see. Critics have been writing obituaries for the conservative movement since 1964. I recall their pessimistic reports with great clarity in 1987. That was when the Reagan Revolution was supposedly finished off by Iran-Contra and a stock market decline. In the years ahead, the principles of Reagan conservatism came to be adopted even by Democrats. The reason is clear. Those principles protect personal liberty, encourage prosperity, and protect American national security.

In the coming months, the conservative movement will regroup. It will refine its principles for the present needs of the nation: growth, personal liberty, and national security. It will find the next generation of conservative political leaders. If President Obama really makes good on his promise to return to the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society of the 1960s, a revitalized conservative movement will be back on top sooner than one might expect. Recall if you will that this happened two years after the Clintons brought "change" to Washington in 1992.

Temporary Offline Notice

I will be offline for alittle bit. I hope this election goes well for us. If not, then we need to keep our focus on fighting for America, even if it only means keeping the Libtards in check. Fighting an offensive battle might even be a welcomed change instead of just being a Conservative appoligist.

Be safe everyone!

Will Americans Really Vote to Fundamentally Transform America?

by Dennis Prager

Today, Americans decide on whether, in the words of Barack Obama last week, to fundamentally transform the United States of America.

That is really what this election is about, even though most of those voting for Barack Obama do not want to fundamentally transform America. That is Barack Obamas and the Democratic Partys agenda.

Why then are so many people likely to vote for the U.S. senator from Illinois?


They all have their reasons. But aside from those who hold left-wing views, relatively few want America fundamentally transformed. This can be seen by analyzing the largest groups voting for Barack Obama:

1. People who vote Democrat no matter who the nominee is.

These are dyed-in-the-wool Democrats -- people who usually want more government in their lives, want bigger and stronger unions, dont trust Republicans, and/or have voted Democrat all their lives. Whatever their reasons for regularly voting Democrat, for most of these people, fundamentally transforming America is not one of them.

2. Black Americans

Black Americans regularly vote Democrat, but more will today than ever before. The possibility of a black president electrifies them in ways that no other minority group in America can fully relate to. Jews were happy and proud when Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., ran for vice-president in 2000. And Greek Americans felt similarly when Spiro Agnew and Michael Dukakis were candidates for national office. But little changed in Jewish or Greek Americans perceptions of themselves or of America.

For most blacks, however, the prospect of a black president symbolizes that they are truly part of America, and in one fell swoop helps undo the racist perception of black inferiority that more than a few blacks believe many whites hold. In short, it gives black Americans the thing all humans most yearn for -- respect from others and self-respect, i.e., dignity. Left-wing blacks, like left-wing whites, want America fundamentally transformed, but that is not the primary reason most blacks are so excited by an Obama victory.

3. Hispanic Americans

According to all analyses of Hispanic voting, Hispanics vote increasingly Democratic because they perceive Republicans as hostile to them. Their social values are far more conservative than liberal, but the immigration issue is a far larger concern for most Hispanics. In fact, if Barack Obama were a conservative Democrat he would get even more Hispanic votes. So, with this group, too, fundamentally transforming America plays little or no role in the Hispanic vote for Barack Obama.

4. Single women

Single women of all colors and ethnicities vote Democrat. They do so primarily because many of them are financially dependent on the state, because they have no man to depend on, nor a husband who might influence them politically (married women are considerably more likely to vote Republican than single women). Whatever their reasons for voting for Barack Obama, transforming America is not one of them. They would vote for any Democrat.

5. Young people

Large numbers of young people are apparently passionately committed to Barack Obama. In their case, the senators youth, his being black, and his charisma are major factors. But for them, transforming America is particularly appealing. That is why Obama used these words before a college audience. Young people tend to think their elders have made a mess of the world and that they will transform it because they are smarter and more idealistic than those who lived before them. They do not know how hard it has been to make a country as great as America and have been educated to see its flaws far more clearly than its far greater virtues.

6. Leftists.

Leftists by definition want to fundamentally transform America. That is their primary reason for voting for Obama. His intelligence, charisma, and being black are only bonuses. Most important to the left is changing America. The farther left you go, the greater the disenchantment with America as it now exists and the greater the yearning to fundamentally transform it in the image of the vision they have for it.

If Barack Obama wins and he is given a Democratic-controlled Congress, the United States will indeed be transformed.

There will be, in Charles Krauthammers words, an unprecedented expansion of government power.

Economic growth will be slowed in favor of achieving economic equality.

Unions will be allowed to abolish secret ballots.

Serious attempts will be made to shut down the most effective opposition to the left -- talk radio.

The defense budget will be severely decreased.

Judges will be chosen based on their commitment to empathize with the downtrodden (Obamas own stated criterion for choosing judges), not based on their commitment to judging according to neutral rules that are blind to the individuals status in life.

Same-sex marriage will become national law as the Defense of Marriage Act is repealed and liberal judges rule that defining marriage as man-woman is unconstitutional.

Coal, nuclear energy, and new drilling will be discouraged and dependency on foreign oil will therefore rise while rationing of energy is instituted.

Companies will seek to do more and more business abroad as they become taxed more than in any other Western country.

Israel will be pressured to make peace.

America will leave Iraq whether or not Iraq is ready for us to do so, thereby increasing Islamic terror there and elsewhere.

Parents will have fewer years to instill their values in their children, as earlier and earlier education becomes the norm.

Judeo-Christian values, the founding values of America, will continue to recede in influence as America becomes more and more a secular-left country like those of Western European.

And when all this -- and much more -- transforms America, no one American will be able to argue they didnt know. Barack Obama promised it.

Americans Flunk Basic Civics

By Deroy Murdock

However you regard the outcome of the November 4 election, it was heartening to watch 125 million Americans cast their ballots at precincts from coast to coast. Unfortunately, they and the many millions more who skipped the whole thing collectively know frightfully little about the government we just reaffirmed, the principles that undergird it, and the basic documents in which those ideas are enshrined. Thus, Americans slouch into the 21st century — a free and confident people blissfully unaware of how we got here or how we shall continue our 232-year-old tradition of limited self-government.

Consider these staggering data:

Fully 71 percent of Americans flunked a 33-question civic-literacy survey conducted by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Among 2,508 respondents ISI randomly selected, 1,791 failed this test of U.S. historical, political, and economic basics. The average score was just 49 out of 100 — a solid F. While just 2.6 percent scored Bs on this quiz, only 0.8 percent earned As.

Just 49 percent of rank-and-file Americans can identify the legislature, executive, and judiciary as our three branches of government.

Forty percent of college graduates have no idea that corporate profits equal revenues minus expenses. (Thus, congressional demagoguery about “windfall profits” falls on sympathetic ears.) Only 24 percent of college grads realize that the First Amendment forbids the establishment of an official U.S. religion.

Amazingly enough, this sample’s 164 self-identified elected officials know even less than laymen. They averaged only 44 — the blind leading the bland. Among office holders, 30 percent did not know that the Declaration of Independence heralds “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

However, We the People closely follow popular culture here in the United States of American Idol. Only 21 percent of respondents correctly identified Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address as the source of the words “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” But 56 percent properly named Paula Abdul as a judge on the karaoke sensation American Idol.

God help us.

“Our study raises significant questions about whether citizens who voted in this year’s landmark presidential election really understand how our system of representative democracy works,” said Dr. Richard Brake, ISI’s Director of University Stewardship.

Lt. Gen. Josiah Bunting III, the chairman of ISI’s National Civic Literacy Board, describes his initial reaction to these results as “somewhat short of despair, certainly one of depression.” He adds: “These questions are designed to elicit answers to fundamental questions. A citizen should know that the president cannot declare war. A citizen should know the circumstances of the founding of the country.”

Bunting calls our 24-hour news culture part of the problem:

“If you watch cable news channels, you see three or four streams of information,” he says. “This has nothing to do with using your mind as a muscle.”

Instead, Bunting and ISI hope to make “state legislators, governors, senators, and representatives active agents of change.” With taxpayers underwriting some $114 billion annually for government-subsidized university education, Bunting believes “every student should be steeped in Western culture, U.S. political, economic, military, and diplomatic history, and free-market economics.”

Released Thursday morning at Washington’s National Press Club, “Our Fading Heritage: Americans Fail a Basic Test on Their History and Institutions” is online at www.AmericanCivicLiteracy.org. Beyond a sobering analysis of this survey’s findings, readers can test their own civic literacy.

The grim results of ISI’s study reveal a crisis in this nation’s defining concept. In 1776, America’s Founding Fathers broke with Britain and established a country where men and women liberated from monarchic despotism would rule themselves — provided they were equipped with the requisite knowledge and wisdom. Will a people mesmerized by the televised humiliation of wannabe pop stars maintain this essential capacity for self-government? Thomas Jefferson’s warning remains as timely as ever: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free . . . it expects what never was and never will be.”

Robocop's Comment:

Take The Quiz.

McCain, Obama and North Korea

From The Washington Times.

While the mainstream media fixates on Gov. Sarah Palin's wardrobe and the fact that she is lawfully charging her home state when she takes her children to speeches around the country, serious national security issues go largely ignored. This is particularly true regarding U.S. efforts to halt North Korean nuclear-weapons programs — a subject that doesn't fit the current campaign storyline of Barack Obama the change agent vs. John McCain, purported Republican lackey of President Bush.

The Bush administration's approach to Pyongyang has softened dramatically in recent years. So determined are Mr. Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and and Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill to keep the North Korea negotiations going that they have been cutting corners on major issues. The most recent example is the subject of North Korea's removal from the U.S. list of terror-sponsoring states. On this issue, Mr. Obama and the Bush administration are in agreement, while Mr. McCain suggests that the Republican administration may be giving away the store.

In recent months, North Korea pushed the administration to capitulate on the subject of what conditions Pyongyang would have to meet for removal from the terror list. The deal announced earlier this month contains a number of gaping loopholes. For example, access to undeclared North Korean sites would only be possible with mutual approval - which would enable Pyongyang to block inspection of suspected covert nuclear facilities. It is also unclear whether North Korea would be required to provide information about its nuclear-proliferation activities with rogue states like Syria, and whether Pyongyang's uranium-enrichment efforts would be covered by the agreement. Washington's handling of the situation sends an unmistakable message of weakness to proliferating regimes like the one in Tehran: that by remaining intransigent they will eventually be able to wear down the United States and its allies.

Mr. Obama reacted favorably to the deal, calling it a "modest step forward." Mr. McCain takes a more realistic approach. In an interview with the Weekly Standard, the Arizona senator sharply criticized the process and substance of the Bush administration's latest deal and likened it to the Clinton administration's 1994 deal with Pyongyang. We know what that eventually led to.