Iraqi leaders say the constitution would be submitted to the National Assembly on Sunday — one day before the deadline for parliamentary approval.

Funny, those for chant the loudest that "dissent is patriotic" will be the loudest likewise to criticize the Iraqi dissent as signs of failure. In less than three years,

-a democratically elected government has drafted a constitution
-it will be presented to a national assembly for ratification
-the process will be transparent and open to debate
-the final acceptance will be based on an election
-throughout the process, all sides have participated and it's very legitimacy hasn't been quesitoned
-the final document will be a binding, legal document
-the final document will be legitamte
-real elections will follow ratification to fill newly created offices


If completed as predicted, the Iraqi consitution will have succeeded despite the best efforts of terrorists to derail it and despite all the predictions of the war's opponents. It is truly an amazing accomplishment by any standard.

Consider this, that a ruthless and brutal dictator could be replaced by a freely elected government, serving under a legally binding constitution. All those that opposed the operation will have much explaining to do. History I imagine will be quite unkind.

Cindy Sheehan is certainly a sympathetic figure. No amount of comfort and support can ease the pain she must feel. I can't imagine what it must feel like to lose a child, and won't even dare to say I understand. However, I can't help but feel a little disgusted by all this, and I don't feel sorry for saying so.

Surely, she, her supporters, and the press that is making a national story out of her campout must know the power of the imagery. Surely they all must know just how effective a weapon it is. And surely they must know that the enemy is taking a keen interest in it all.

What troubles me is that we hear nothing from most of the families of our soldiers killed in battle. Yet when a few speak out against the war, suddenly that's newsworthy. What are we to conclude? Do most parents feel as Ms. Sheehan, or is what makes her interesting is her uniqueness?

Most disgusting is the shameless manner that the anti-war crowd has latched onto her, the latest fad to aid and abet our enemies. Joe Wilson, the Downing Street memo, now a grieving mother, whatever it takes, they will try anything, do anything, say anything. As soon as her star fades they'll drop he like a cheap date.

I grive when our soldiers are killed. I mourn their loss, yet know that they did not die in vain. When cheap political stunts and base pandering are the most effective tools, we have fallen far. If it works, we are in grave danger.

All the while our enemies take careful notes. They have a most powerful weapon, probably the most deadly one of all.

David Brooks fires another shot against multiculturalism.

Go into the field that barely exists: cultural geography. Study why and how people cluster, why certain national traits endure over centuries, why certain cultures embrace technology and economic growth and others resist them.

This is the line of inquiry that is now impolite to pursue. The gospel of multiculturalism preaches that all groups and cultures are equally wonderful. There are a certain number of close-minded thugs, especially on university campuses, who accuse anybody who asks intelligent questions about groups and enduring traits of being racist or sexist. The economists and scientists tend to assume that material factors drive history - resources and brain chemistry - because that's what they can measure and count.

But none of this helps explain a crucial feature of our time: while global economies are converging, cultures are diverging, and the widening cultural differences are leading us into a period of conflict, inequality and segmentation.

As its title suggests, "All cultures are not equal". This has been, and will conitnue to be a recurring theme here, the debunking of multiculturalism its practioners.

Been kind of busy last couple of days. School starts Monday and teachers have been back since Wednesday.

What I'm looking forward to this year is that I'm teaching econ. Though I loved the Mod CIv curriculum, and hope to teach it again, my degree is econ and I alwys wanted to teach it. So, I've been busy getting back into the school mode.

Now, I just have to remember to give equal time to marxism!!

Yeah right.

then you already know the answer. I am a huge admirer of Christopher Hitchens, but today he asks can the left really want us to lose? Chris, you know the answer to this one.

I've long commented on how the left, including many in the democratic party, want us to lose. Remember, actions speak louder than words. When a presidential candidate calls it the "wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time" in the middle of heavy fighting, can there be any other motive? When a senior senator calls it a war "cooked up in Crawford for political gain", can there be any other conclusion?

When Abu Ghraib makes the headlines for months yet not one story about a new school, can there be any doubt?

When photographers are getting tips from terrorists about where they're going to kill election workers, isn't the answer clear?

I could go on, but let's face the facts. The left has wanted us to lose for a long, long time. And no, it didn't start when we invaded Iraq. Anyone rememebr the nuclear freeze crowd, the "better red than dead" groups, the Vietnam anti-war protestors? Yeah, the left has been at it a long time. They hate this country, always have, always will.

Micahel Barone fires the latest salvo in the war against multiculturalism:

The nonagenarian W.F. Deedes, a journalist since the 1930s, perhaps summed it up best: "The reputation we have in distant lands, I have learned in my travels, is higher than we give ourselves. They admire us for our social stability, our parliamentary and diplomatic experience, for fair play, for tolerance, for a willingness to help lame dogs over stiles, as well as for some of the qualities Shakespeare sang about in his plays."

When I was in Britain for the election in May, I was surprised to hear nothing from Tony Blair (or other politicians) about Britain's positive contributions to the world. Now, they are being heard.

Multiculturalism is based on the lie that all cultures are morally equal. In practice, that soon degenerates to: All cultures are morally equal, except ours, which is worse. But all cultures are not equal in respecting representative government, guaranteed liberties and the rule of law. And those things arose not simultaneously and in all cultures, but in certain specific times and places -- mostly in Britain and America, but also in various parts of Europe.

Slowly and surely the west is rising but will it be too late to defeat the enemy at the gates while battling the cancer inside?

I have written many times on multiculturalism, about the evil and perniciousness way it is undermining our schools and our society. Let there be no doubt about this, that every cultural vice, from racism, to slavery and genocide, has been practiced by the west with equal vigor as it has been practiced by every other culture. But make no mistake, where we have sinned, we have never been alone.

However, no culture has ever matched us for singular or compiled greatness. Every weapon being used around the world is western in design. Every medical technology that saves lives is western in origin. Every computer, the internet that connects them and the protocols that they communicate through are all the products of western intellectual pursuits. When a country wants to modernize, as did India, it adopts western style market and political reforms. China's economy is surging not through state run controls but western style free markets.

In Africa, Central and South America, and large parts of Asia, were it not for western "intrusion", they would live as they did centuries earlier.

No, the west was not the originator of many things. In fact, the west has been the great adopter, the great modifier, never shameful of begging, borrowing, or stealing others' intellectual property. And that in itself is a mark of greatness. Who else would have taken mathematics, metalurgy, and chemistry, all conceived in far off lands and laying stagnant, and combined them to put men on the moon or missiles on target with payloads of biblical proportions?

The uniqueness of western thought is that man is the master of his fate, in control of his destiny, that it comes not from the edict of a king or potentate, but the divine blessing from above. Pursuit of happiness, advancement for gain, the idea that one can be, and ought be rewarded for his entrepreneurialism is the driving force of our success. It is not greed, avarice, or hate.

Historians will one day marvel that it was our own relaince on criticism, rational inquiry, and reflection that caused us to doubt even ourselves. They will wonder how we ever let such a destructive force permeate our thoughts and values. Then they will ask "Did they catch themselves in tme?"

I want to take you back to April 2002, one of my first posts ever, before my long hiatus and blogname change.

I hope it is clear to all the European nations, all the people in our State department, and anybody around the world, who seems to have faith in "the peace process". The peace process is Munich 1938. You are asking the Israelis, just like the Czechs, to give land, land vital to their defense, in the vain hope that maybe, just maybe, they will be safe.

They will be invaded and will be killed. Nobody will come to the defense of the "Jewish State". In France there were incidents of anti-semitic attacks and vandalism. Big surprise there. Maybe the US will help, but will she risk angering her European "allies" or the her strategic interests in the Gulf?

We have already backed down on plans to attack Iraq, we are abandoning a true friend in Israel, and we have strayed from the original message and urpose of the war on terror. By we, I of course mean President Bush.

Remember, when we supported Israel's operation into the West Bank, the bombings stopped, and the PLO and others got the message. Only AFTER the Bush mandate to Sharon, only AFTER the meeting with Arafat was scheduled, only AFTER we decided to play peacemaker and give credibility to Arafat, have we seen the recent bombings. Do you think it was coincidence that the bombing happened on Powell's arrival?

We have encouraged the attacks. They are the result of our failure to support a friend, our failure to show resiliency in our commitment to the war on terror, and our continuing support of an avowed terrorist. Since 1993, Arafat has been given a long list of things he must do, AND HE HAS DONE NOTHING. He won't change Palestinian textbooks, he won't police his own people, he won't arrest terrorists, he won't renounce terrorism, he won't acknowledge Israel's right to exist. HE WILL DO NOTHING.

He will however, continue to gain stature in the Arab world. He gets ultimatum after ultimatum, and nothing is done. So Powell's mission was to deliver an ultimatum. What, the 3000th one. Oh, I'm sure he'll get the message this time.

On one thing I mentioned earlier, that Israel will be attacked and killed. Well, please remember they have nukes.

If the result of terror is negotiations, expect lots of body bags. The Israelis finally got it right. Even if the US isn't in her corner, it doesn't matter. Sharon is the right man for the job. He has said they're staying there until the job is done.

(Hat tip LGF)
Bibi announces resignation

"Here is my (resignation) letter,” the finance minister told Prime Minister Sharon and placed a handwritten note on the government table.

“The reasons for my resignation are all written here.”

“It’s becoming clear that the unilateral withdrawal under fire is not giving us a thing. The opposite is true, it undermines the security of Israel, splits the nation, entrenches the principle of withdrawal to the 1967 borders, which are not defensible, and is not the way to achieve peace,” Netanyahu wrote in his letter.

“What do we get in exchange for the withdrawal?” Bibi asks in his resignation notice. “What do we get in return for the uprooting of families and their children, homes, and graves? We’ll get an Islamic terror base. In recent months I hoped the government would open its eyes in the face of this clear reality and change course, but the opposite happened.”

“A balanced government reflecting the will of the people in the last elections has turned into a government that automatically executes a policy that contradicts Likud principals and the mandate we received from our voters,” Bibi wrote.

Hopefully this will begin to send shockwaves throughout Israel.

For a moment, let's take a look at the Gaza strip via the CIA Factbook. Gaza has approximately 1.4 million inhabitants, about 1/5 that of Israel's on a strip of land about 1/20th the size of Israel. It has a per capita GDP of about $600, precious little infrastructure, and no economic potential to speak of.

Here's a bigger map of Israel proper.

Let's examine this for a moment: Israel's main ports are Ashdod, Ashqelon, Elat (Eilat), Hadera, Haifa, and Tel Aviv-Yafo. Considering that there is little trade with the Arab world (at least none that's too open), Israel relies heavily on her ports. In ceding the Gaza to Hamas, they have just allowed a terror base to be established within a 20 mile range from four of their largest ports. They have just exposed the southern half of the nation to envelopment on two sides, considering the West Bank is now a mere 20 miles straight across.

Jerusalem is already almost completely surrounded by the West Bank which protrudes deep into the heart of Israel. An almost forty mile border is within 10 miles of the Mediterranean, a virtually indefensible line. Couple that with the opening of a "second front", and Israel is in an even more precarious situation. One needn't look at a map or study military history to see the extreme danger she's in.

As long as Israel retained some control of Gaza, she could control access into and out of the territory. Once control is relinquished, it will be difficult if not impossible to prevent or prohibit the importation of military and other martial materiel. Certainly legitimate claims for defense can be made, and it will be a very short time until those weapons are turned on Israelis.

They have given up land for peace, a formula which has always resulted in disaster. I had high hopes for Sharon, but sadly they have all but vanished.

Everyone thinks that Hillary is running to the right to appeal to a larger audience, so that she can run for the white house in 2008. I think they're all wrong.

Mark this down on your calendars, Hillary is running for the #2 spot on the ticket.

By the time 2008 rolls around, it will 15 years from her health care fiasco. People will remember little of her role. How soon we have forgotten Ronald Reagan, how soon we have forgotten where the country was in 1980. We are short on memory and long on second chances. Her successful morphing into a moderate, strong on defense, tolerant of religion, concerned about the social morass, will play well with many in the country.

She has to be aware that democratic senators from northern states have little chance of winning the white house. And to steal a phrase, "she's no John Kennedy" and she knows it. Her political legacy is tied to her husband, and again, we have short memories. His political machine is on the outs in the party, the triangulation and DLC path crushed under the tidal wave of MoveOn.org, Howard Dean, and the kos moonbats.

She has little appeal to the "base" other than that she's Hillary, which won't play nearly as well as it has in the past. So that leaves her little room to maneuver in the minefield of democratic party politics.

She also knows that the right has been laying in wait for a decade, collecting and categorizing everything she's ever said. Talk about skeletons in the closet, the lady's got a entire mortuary. However...

Her new gravitas if you will, her new boldness on immigration, the war, abortion, etc., gives her the ideal credentials to be second on teh ticket. Just as Cheney bolstered Bush in 2000, so too can she offer a moderate perspective to the next democratic candidate, who will most likely be a liberal in the previous Hillary mold. Plus, the added bonus of being a woman, one appearing strong on security issues, will be a huge gain for the democrtic nominee.

I have no doubt her agenda is the white house, but the path will be far more circuitous. I don't think she feels she can win a general election in 2008. Once beaten, she'll be gone for good and she's far too smart for that. She'll run in the primaries, not be too rough with whomever her opponents are, make no enemies, and be the ideal pick for veep.

You heard it here first. She's setting herself up to be the next democratic VP pick.

Today the family and I went to the Ventura County Fair. Inside one of the exhibition centers, the county democratic party had their booth set up. They had several buttons for sale, the two most prominent were one that read "&%$# Bush" and the other had "Arnold" in big letters with a red circle and a line through it.

What a disgusting bunch of people they are, a sorry lot of hate-filled defeatists. With nothing positive to offer, they simply offer rhetoric and diatribe, negativism and divisiviness. Do they think that makes them intellectually superior, fit to run a country?