Lt. Craig Giancaterino and other Soldiers from the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division search for terrorists in the Al Jazeera Desert of Iraq. www.army.mil

The Spirit of Lawlessness

The recent protests this weekend in Los Angeles by illegal aliens and their supporters portends a greater backlash against them by citizens of the United States. Lets face it, we Americans sense that a certain lawlessness now pervades our entire society. We feel we are not in control and we saw it this weekend when hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens could march in one of America's biggets cities without impunity. Truly, a foreign army marching in our streets.

The Left has nearly if not entirely triumphed and now anarchy is the rule of law. Their defiant and arrogant position ultimately is rooted against the most basic of all sentient characteristics: authority. They despise the authority of police, the authority of government, the authority of the military, the authority of the Church, the authority of teachers, the authority of parents and they especially hate the authority of God. They will not be told what to do nor will they be happy with what they have. They must demand and if their demands are not met then they will riot. They will smash things and march in the streets to intimidate weak politicians to cave to their demands. They are unrighteous, they are scum.

What to do? Authority must be established and respected before we can begin to take back this country. This is a strategic cultural change that will take years if not decades before we see a difference. Above all, Christianity must reign supreme as it once did in this country for America to return to its greatness otherwise, we could easily spiral into a police state with atheistic/socialist policies that will only make things worse. I'm not sure if its too late and we are actually witnessing the spiral today. Only time will tell.

If we are hit by International Islamic Terrorism on the same lines as 9/11, then I predict, martial law will be declared and the borders will be closed. All illegal aliens man, woman and child will be rounded up and processed by the government to document their identities and then released at the border of Mexico or returned to their country in Latin and South America. The military will enforce the policies that government failed to do. The economy may be harmed in the short term, but the market will adjust to the new reality. The Left will riot, but this time soldiers will be ready and either the rioting scum will be peaceably broken-up or they will be violently shattered to pieces. Time is running short. Americans will no longer suffer anarchists to determine our future.

Sleepers awake!

A Soldier from 2nd Battalion, 9th Cavalry Regiment searches for insurgents from the turret of his M113 Armored Personnel Carrier during Operation Swarmer, northeast of Samarra, Iraq. www.army.mil

Abdul Rahman: Ambassador in Christ

My fellow Christians, we must pray for the Church in the Middle East for they are under great assault day-in and day-out and Abdul Rahman is but one of thousands who face execution and torture by the "religion of peace" for simply believing in the name of Jesus Christ. They who defy the Church defy the Christ himself, who is head of the Church, the Creator of the Universe and Savior of mankind. For the Church is the Bride of Christ, from whence she has been slowly fashioned for the last 2000 years into a glorious organism of Divine Beauty. To be a Christian is not simply to belong to an organization but to be a part of God's Royal Family which we shall inherit, by virtue of our miraculous and aristocratic spiritual (re)birth, all that Christ has and is. A day of reckoning is coming for those who oppose us as the Lord and Master has foreseen.

Nevertheless, this is the devil's world and domain. Currently, many Christians have been martyred in the name of Christ and Abdul Rahman, imprisoned in Afghanistan, is but the latest who have been persecuted and prosecuted and thus deserves our prayers for his release and safety. May he be a light to those imprisoned with him and may the glorious gospel of Christ's redemption pierce this evil land.

I leave you with this promise from Jesus Christ himself:

8"To the angel of the church in Smyrna write:

These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again. 9I know your afflictions and your poverty, yet you are rich! I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. 10Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life. 11He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death. Rev 2:8-11

From James:

Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him. James 1:12

From the Apostle Paul:

26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."[d] 1 Corr 1:26-31

35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. 37Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. 38For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8:35-39

A U.S. Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft assigned to the 181st Fighter Wing, Terre Haute, Ind., fires an AGM-65 Maverick missile during a training exercise in Arizona. www.defenselink.mil

The Great Wall of America

I often think of America as the modern equivalent of the late Roman Empire, however, this really is an inaccurate observation considering one must take into account how America is still weighed down by the constitution. I know many would object that this cannot be because the constitution has been so watered down in the past 70 years that it is almost non-existent in terms of its ability to bind down the federal government. However, it still is a force that if a political party acts upon it then can be used to great effect to either further the bureaucratic centralization of Washington or disperse its strength to the 50 states of the Union. The Right or the Left therefore will use the constitution in the coming years as the means to pull America away from the position she currently holds as the Shield-Maiden of the Anglosphere which will result in the political atrophy from the world scene as the global policeman.

The destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11, which I have now come to conclude only lately, has left a bigger scar upon American than I first realized. When it occurred, I knew it was war but with whom and where and for how long? I have always felt that it was right to not only attack Saddam's regime for their covert and overt connections to terrorism/wmd's but for also having the audacity to attack our aircraft throughout the '90's and after 9/11 over the "No-Fly Zone" that was established after the First Gulf War that encompassed both Northern and Southern Iraq with the Central area left to Saddam for an operational "airspace". The war with Iraq was absolutely necessary to establish a large geographic base of operations and a jumping off point to other nations such as Syria and Iran. And so, here we are with spring upon us and war with Iran almost an inevitability and rightly so. We will be victorious, but why is it that I sense a new paradigm shift upon us? One in which the United States will retreat from the world and return to its old ways of nationalistic neutrality much like that of a Switzerland or a Sweden?

Illegal aliens, Islamic international terrorism, an 8.2 TRILLION dollar federal debt (which the debt ceiling was recently raised by congress an additional 780 billion), political and economic "open" borders, politicians too weak to jealously guard their own power in both the House of Representatives and Senate, a baby-boomer generation that has finally expended their vigor that social security, viagra and prescription drugs cannot bring back their "glory" days, and their offspring that will not and can not understand the things of the world or its history. Nationalism, in spite of both political parties predilection towards Wilsonian interventionist policies, has sprung up in the most unlikely of places: Congress. With each Islamic terrorist attack whether in the form of truck-bombs or hijacked aircraft or a "lone" sniper, Americans are increasingly demanding a fortress like defense that so many in Washington are reluctant to embrace for political and economic reasons. However, with the advent of the internet, radio and blogosphere Americans are able to reach the highest echelons of government with their viewpoint and politicians are responding. Even President Bush created the Department of Homeland Security, whether it works or not is a different story, that has nationalistic repercussions. Hence, the Left's aversion to its implication and virulent attack upon its very purpose: to defend America.

The President's Dubai Ports Deal was intercepted by the Democrats and cynically played upon by them to block the President and embarrass him. This they succeeded, however nationalistic jingoism was the means by which they used to block President Bush. Has a new precedent been established by Democrats?

From an article on Law.com regarding the Dubai Ports deal:

The Dubai Ports World acquisition of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. closed in London last week. Both companies operate port terminals all over the world. DP World is controlled by the government of Dubai, one of the United Arab Emirates, and P&O is based in London.

Only 10 percent or so of the P&O business is located in the United States. It operates terminals at five American ports, including New York and New Orleans. The purchase of the American operations ignited a grassroots bushfire that enveloped Washington, D.C. Irate callers clogged the lines of radio talk show hosts and then of their congressmen.

Congress refused an offer of a 45-day formal investigation of the national security implications of the deal. Members of Congress from both parties rushed to propose over two dozen bills aimed at halting the acquisition. After a quick 62-2 vote by a panel in the House of Representatives to block the transfer of port operations in the United States, DP World threw in the towel.

Amazing how Congress moves when Americans really get exorcised over an issue, logically or not. But more important was the implication of Congress' actions in the House to the future of other acquisitions.

The public learned late three salient facts about our ports: First, terminal operators do not own the ports, government port authorities do. The terminal operators lease space to run loading cranes and dock ships. Second, 80 percent of the terminals in the United States are already run by foreign-owned operators. Some of the port operators are state-owned (China and Singapore), some are publicly traded and others are privately owned by families. Third, port security is in the hands of federal customs officials and the Coast Guard, not the terminal operators. Moreover, the laborers the terminal operators must use to load and unload ships are unionized dock workers.

The dispute has also brought focus on the otherwise obscure Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an interagency group delegated with the responsibility for reporting to the president on foreign acquisitions that threaten national security. A 1988 act, known as the Exon-Florio Amendment, empowers the president to investigate and, if necessary, to block foreign acquisitions that "threaten to impart the national security." Investigations are voluntary if the foreign buyer is privately owned, and mandatory if the foreign buyer is state-owned and the acquisition "could affect the national security."

The more Americans come to understand the inner workings in the Halls of Congress the less they are likely to embrace the policies of Wilson. The article continues:

In practice, CFIUS has recommended that the president block only one takeover after a formal investigation (the proposed sale of a Seattle defense contractor to a Chinese company) and has threatened to recommend that the president block four or five others. The CFIUS threat of an adverse recommendation is usually enough to stop, or modify most acquisitions; a formal report to the president is not necessary. In the DP World acquisition, CFIUS had determined initially that a mandatory 45-day investigation was not necessary even though Dubai is state-owned. After the public outcry, CFIUS had started a formal investigation.

Some members of Congress, not content with the CFIUS procedure, have proposed legislation to give Congress a greater say in foreign acquisitions of "critical infrastructure industries," which could include everything from water and energy companies to those involved in telecommunications or media. Such legislation has two dangers.

First, it could very quickly mix national security concerns with economic protectionism and radically change the position of the United States in the world economy. International investment is a mutual game; our companies invest abroad because foreign companies can invest here. We cannot cherry-pick those investments we want in the United States (let Honda own an Ohio automotive plant but not a trucking company, for example) without having our companies excluded abroad.

Second, giving the power to Congress to, in essence, charter foreign companies, will return us to the days of the early 1800s when states chartered domestic corporations one-by-one. The result was organized graft and corruption and government-sponsored monopolies as state legislatures took payoffs to refuse charters of new companies that would compete with established ones, unless the new company could offer more.

Government has always been corrupt hence the need for a constitution to protect the people from its egregious and voracious appetite of government largesse. If corruption cannot be exorcised from our government then better to diffuse it in the direction of the 50 states than have it congealed in one large mass in Washington DC. Shall America maintain a state along the lines of Bismark's Germany where the Kaiser ruled as the single head over the disparate and petty states of the Reich or shall we return to a time when the Junker Barons ruled Germany without the strong arm of the Kaiser? You must decide.

An F-14D Tomcat assigned to the "Tomcatters" of Fighter Squadron Three One (VF-31) taxis into launch position on the flight deck aboard the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71). www.navy.mil

An F-14D Tomcat assigned to the "Tomcatters" of Fighter Squadron Three One (VF-31) launches from the flight deck aboard the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71). www.navy.mil

U.S. Navy Lt. Ken Hockycko and Lt. Roy Emanuel, F-14D Tomcat pilots assigned to the "Black Lions" of Fighter Squadron 213, launch from the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt in the Atlantic Ocean, March 10, 2006. Fighter Squadrons 213 and 31 are completing their final deployment flying the F-14 Tomcat and this takeoff marks the final launch of an F-14 on deployment. www.navy.mil

F-14D Tomcats from Fighter Squadron Two One Three (VF-213) and VF-31 conduct a flyover of Naval Air Station Oceana airfield. VF-213 and VF-31 are completing their final deployment flying the F-14 Tomcat. For the past 30 years, the F-14 Tomcat has assured U.S. air superiority, playing a key role in ensuring victory and preserving peace around the world. The F-14 Tomcat will be removed from service and officially stricken from the inventory in September of 2006. www.navy.mil

Running The Numbers

I had a very interesting and rather disturbing conversation with a friend of mine lately regarding Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and the issue of military reserves in general. My friend is pretty conservative but at times goes off the reservation and in this case I believe he has broken down the fence and is wandering in the middle of the road! Apparently he has an "issue" with Rumsfeld and believes that the Secretary of War (my preference) believes it's a mistake to "downsize" the military and organize the army to fight more asymmetric enemies as opposed to organizing the army to fight more conventional forces such as China or Russia. He feels the army in Iraq should be increased and reserves should be sent home or scaled back so the active component takes on a bigger role. As for Iran, forget it, we can't invade it with our current force structure as he sees it.

Well, there are number issues above that I believe are purposely being exaggerated to mislead the general public as to the efficacy of our cause in Iraq and ultimately the GWOT (Global War on Terror). Its my personal belief that this current Secretary of War is the most articulate, intelligent, forward-thinking member of Bush's cabinet. His expertise in his field is exceptional and his ability to the handle the media and politicians is a gift rarely seen in Washington these days. Frankly, I think he would make an exceptional President as it is my belief that in order to truly perform the role of President, a military background is required. Lets also not forget that of all of the Presidents' cabinet, it was Donald Rumsfeld who was at the Pentagon the day that it was attacked on September 11th, 2001. Mr. Rumsfeld therefore is an eyewitness to the destructive power of International Islamic Terrorism that reared its ugly head on that other day of infamy.

In regards to the number of troops in Iraq, my question to him was "how many do you want?". I mean really, we have approximately 140,000 troops currently stationed in Iraq. Do we need 200,000? 300,000? 500,000? And for what purpose? To man a post on every corner in Baghdad? He couldn't tell me the exact or approximate number he would like to see nor could he or would he tell what their mission would be if he did get the desired number. I believe the number of troops was clearly sufficient to overthrow the Baathist regime and is currently plenty to dispatch any armed force willing to tangle with us. The current "chaotic" situation in Baghdad is a direct result of Syria's interference and until we invade Syria, will not stop. Our current mission in Iraq is one of pacification not occupation or war. Thus, more troops for that kind of mission is not required considering we are raising Iraqi troops to be the military presence needed to keep the "peace".

Every General since George Washington has demanded more troops but the number of troops has more of a political bearing than a military one. Ultimately, Congress must answer to the people for their conduct, safety and general welfare and it is Congress along with the President that tells the generals what would be a "politically correct" troop level in any given war. It has been this way since 1775. Which by the way leads me to the issue of recruitment. Apparently there is a mistaken belief perpetuated by anti-war types that recruitment is not keeping up with demands overseas. Funny how the media is not covering this topic very consistently but who says they have a constitutional right to tell the truth? The military has indeed exceeded retention and recruitment of its forces with the exception of the reserve components for other obvious reasons.

As to the number of reservists serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't know the exact ratio of active duty personnel to reserve personnel for the US Army in this theatre of war, however, I believe it runs 2 to 1 in active duty for Air Force and 3 to 1 for the Marine Corps in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are a number of reasons why we are relying on so many reservists as it is directly related to how our military was designed after the Vietnam War. Recently a congressionally-appointed commision reviewed the "Ready-Reserve" concept and its ramifications on the GWOT:

The National Guard and reserves are being employed as an operational force in the global war against terrorism, necessitating change in how they are structured and funded, the chairman of a Congressionally-appointed commission looking into the services' reserve-component operations said here yesterday.

The situation has far-ranging implications and a bearing on how reserve-component personnel are organized, trained, equipped, compensated and supported, said Punaro, a retired major general in the Marine Corps Reserve and a former chief of the Corps' Reserve Affairs Directorate.

The Army general responded first, noting Punaro's question "gets to the heart of the issue." Cody recalled how the Army had fielded an active-duty force of 1.3 million soldiers and a 670,000-member reserve-component contingent in the 1970s during the Cold War. "We had a deep, active-component well in which to dip into during the Cold War, as well as fighting in Vietnam," Cody said.

Much of that force was deployed overseas to Vietnam, Germany, South Korea and elsewhere around the world, he said. "We had hundreds of thousands of soldiers on active duty in Europe; we had almost two divisions in Korea; and you know the commitment we had in Southeast Asia during that timeframe," Cody said.

All of that changed with the end of the Vietnam War in 1975 and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, which presaged the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991. The Cold War was over, and America didn't need such a large military. The U.S. Army reduced its ranks across the board by 42 percent, Cody recalled.

Thank you, Bill Clinton. Moron!

Cody then fast-forwarded to Sept. 11, 2001, when terrorists attacked the United States and the war on global terrorism began. At that time, he said, the Army had about 480,000 active-duty soldiers, around 350,000 guardsmen and about 205,000 reservists.

The war against terror and subsequent deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq necessitated "that we had to look at the Army National Guard and the Reserve as an operational force," Cody said.

Complicating matters, he said, was the fact that both the reserve components and the active forces were under funded throughout the 1990s. That included a $54 billion shortfall of equipment across the active Army, National Guard and Reserve, he said. "We never resourced them," Cody said, noting that as the United States entered the war against terror it was apparent that the Army needed to revamp its force structure.

The unwieldy division structure the Army used during and after World War II has been in the process of being jettisoned over the past five years in favor of lighter, more mobile combat brigades that better fit current and envisioned missions in the 21st century. Those brigades will be similarly equipped and trained, Cody said, whether they are active duty or reserve component. "This is about taking a force that was not very useful, that was hollow, that was under equipped, undermanned, and restructuring it in a way to meet the future (security) requirements of this nation," Cody said.

I'm all for a larger military in both personnel and equipment. I have always believed that the war (defense) budget should be at least 3 times its current allocation to meet our offensive and defensive needs on sea, air and ground. But, alas, its only a dream. The political climate will not allow for such a fattened defense budget until things get worse. Much worse. The opposition political party including all leftwingers whether in academia or media are trying to convince the public our military is overstretched and can't perform the job. Thus, by Machiavellian means, they wish to introduce the Draft as a way to undermine support for this all-volunteer force. Not to say we don't need one but for different reasons than what the Left wants it for. But push has not come to shove just yet. But leave it to a Democrat to introduce it all the same in a vain attempt at trumping up dissent in the War on Terror.

The amphibious assault ship USS Essex (LHD 2) steams off the coast of Iwo Jima as a Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) lands on the beach. Essex is the Navys only forward deployed amphibious assault ship and recently finished humanitarian assistance/disaster relief efforts on the Philippine island of Leyte after a massive landslide on Feb. 17, 2006. www.navy.mil

U.S. Army soldiers assigned to the 4th Battalion, 11th Field Artillery Regiment perform calibration fires with a howitzer in Mosul, Iraq, March 6, 2006. www.defendamerica.mil

Bust!

With the Dubai Port Deal now in total flames and the Democrats flaming mad that they can't bludgeon President Bush about "security" and the UAE threatening economic retaliation, we have come to the realization all across America how open our doors have been since 9/11. As I have stated before, Americans are going to demand an "Americanization" of our ports and borders. Who could ever have expected that this rather unknown seemingly innocuous business transaction could have become what occurred today? In a stinging rebuke to both Republican and Democrat parties, the American people overwhelmingly denounced a foreign entity, especially a corrupt Arab entity, owning and operating a critical part of our economic infastructre. This event does not bode well for President Bush and really doesn't bode well for the Wilsonian concepts that America has embraced since World War II.

I'm sure the liberals are dumbfounded that their Democrat Party decided to play "nationalistic" over the Dubai deal since they are so fond at giving away the American store i.e. funding illegal alien tuition for schools and providing drivers licences to "undocumented workers" so illegal aliens can drive "legally" in California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas, but desperate times demand desperate measures as far the Democrat Party is concerned. Conservatives in turn are dumbfounded that their Republican Party could be so concerned about "internationalistic" conventions at the expense of American security whether superficial or real. However, the incredible rebuke by the House and Senate that even a Veto by the President of the United States couldn't overcome, has sent a massive tsunami like wave crashing upon the shores of globalist policy that we haven't seen since the days when the League of Nations was rejected by the United States Senate in 1920.

I've written before that America is the "Hessian" of the ossified British Empire, however, that there would come a time when we no longer would continue in that paradigm. I felt that it would be an additional generation or two before America would contract from the world scene as the International Policeman and resume our normal position as a "neutral" country in Europe, Africa and Asia. However, I could be wrong in regards to my "timetable". Our departure from the global scene may occur earlier than anticipated. The exception to this rule of course is the Western Hemisphere in terms of the antiquated but relevant Monroe Doctrine as far as American foreign policy is concerned. I have come to the conclusion that the more Islamic Terrorism visits our shores the more nationalistic we will become. Hence, the Democrats rather unusual embrace of nationalistic fervor over the Dubai Port deal. For better or for worse, nationalism is now the order of the day as far as advancing ones political agenda either for Democrats or Republicans. To ignore this new domestic shift will bring defeat to either party.

For most liberals, this will not be a good time to live in America. Multiculturalism, diversity, and basically crapping on America is no longer avant garde. Liberals today often lead the charge that America has become "fascist". They do so in complete ignorance of what the Fascists did under Mussolini in Italy but no matter, history really is to be ignored as far as they are concerned, nevertheless, America will appear fascist to them because their world of communistic/socialist policies as encapsulated in Affirmative Action, so called "civil rights", environmentalism, unions, gun control, abortion, sexual revolution, criminal rights etc, the whole rotten liberal scheme to destroy the greatness of America will be reversed and a new course will be set to return America back to its "Christian/constitutional/commercial" roots. Globalism has corrupted our values and brought war to our country. My friends, that is the strategic repercussions of September 11th, 2001.

Raise the gates to Fortress America! The armies of Isengard have arrived. To arms! To arms!

A formation of F-15 Eagles target and fire on a decoy as part of a joint service training exercise Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2006. The three-day exercise, conducted near Okinawa, Japan, tests the capabilities of the 18th Wing and Pacific Command's assets. www.af.mil

A New World

Notwithstanding my criticism of President Bush's Dubai Deal, this President has made his mark on history like no President before him since FDR and perhaps even Teddy Roosevelt. George W. Bush continues to impress me with his foreign policy initiatives and acumen with an uncanny ability to secure history changing alliances and treaties. His level-headed approach to foreign policy has allowed him to see clearly where others have been blinded by sappy liberal utopian ideals. Granted, his War on Terror does have elements of this sappiness, but I believe the President is smart enough to know that when the gig is up then you have to change your strategy.

President Bush's visit to New Delhi this week has become a diadem of glorious beauty in his crown of foreign policy achievements. His newly minted nuclear alliance with the second most populous nation in the world and the largest democracy on the earth is the most underreported and unappreciated event since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989. The American-Indian strategic alliance I predict will be approved by the United States Senate and couldn't come at a more important time. The Law of Diminishing Returns has set in with America's patience in dealing with the Islamic World and with most Arab/Persian/Sunni/Shia Middle Eastern nations secretly and openly defying the West with their War of Terror on the nations that border their civilization, America has seized a great opportunity to forge a new path in international relations to contain International Islamic Terrorism.

A report on the new American-Indian alliance in The Australian summs up nicely the new paradigm from an Australian perspective:

MANMOHAN Singh is an unlikely revolutionary. Yet as the leader of 1.1 billion people, the world's largest democracy and its second-largest nation, the Indian Prime Minister has already enacted three profound revolutions.

As finance minister during the 1991 economic crisis, Singh decisively turned India towards market liberalisation. Then after the last election he became India's first non-Hindu prime minister -- he is a Sikh -- showing the depth of India's secular democracy.

Now, in the nuclear co-operation agreement he has struck with US President George W. Bush, Singh may have marked India's decisive emergence as a global power.

With China reestablishing their relationship with Moscow, India can now reorient their relationship with the Anglosphere that has been the missing link since the advent of the "Third World" after the bloody and self-destructive Second World War that bankrupted the House of Winsor.

The Australian continues:

The nuclear deal is important in itself, but its true significance is as a marker of a new power structure in Asia and the world. A near trillion-dollar economy growing at 8 per cent a year, India in a couple of decades will overtake China as the world's most populous nation.

Bush hailed New Delhi last week as a global power and took every step he could to cement a US-India partnership, in trade, economics, politics, defence co-operation, nuclear technology, the war on terror and the promotion of democracy.

While John Howard will operate on a more modest scale this week, the Prime Minister, too, seems to "get" India and understand the profound challenge it poses for Australian policy.

With an England-USA-Canada-Australian chain of forts around the world, the admission of India with be a welcome advantage for the Anglosphere in what is otherwise a sparse English presence in Southeast and Southwest Asia.

The article concludes:

A prime minister of India is always beset with security challenges, especially of Islamist terrorism originating in Kashmir, and, many Indians believe, in Pakistan. I asked Singh whether he believes Pakistan is still sponsoring terrorism, in India and more widely.

He would not use precisely those words, but the implication of the words he did use is clear enough: "We feel Pakistan has to do a lot more to prevent the use of Pakistani territory for terrorist acts directed at our country.

"I very much hope that Mr Howard will convey this same message (to the Pakistanis). Terrorism as an instrument of state policy is not acceptable to the civilised world, least of all after 9/11. Terrorism is hurting Pakistan as well. We see it every day."

Rule Britainia.

Flight Deck Officer, Lt. Jeff Sandin looks on after the launch of an F-14D Tomcat and an S-3B Viking from the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71). www.navy.mil

A pair of S-3B Vikings assigned to the "Scouts" of Sea Control Squadron Two Four (VS-24) prepare for launch from the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71). www.navy.mil

The Company C first sergeant from 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, surveys the way ahead, prior to giving his Soldiers the order to advance, during an operation near Baghdad. www.army.mil

Dubai or Bust Part II

The more I read about Dubai's involvment in our critical infastructre the more I grow angry with this administration's wanton and cavilier attitude towards ingratiating our Arab "allies". This President is not the Emporer of Constantnople! He cannot with a wave of his hand allow this much property and operational commercial activity be managed by this hard-line repressive regime smack-dab in the middle of bum-fuk-Egypt and allow them to run our port facilities! What an outrage! Once again, this President is really running us conservatives wild with fire over his insistence on making this deal go through.

Apparently, our greatest and closest ally in the Middle East, Israel, would never get such a sweet deal as apparently the UAE is getting now. How many Americans must die by International Islamic terrorism before Washington DC actually takes this war seriously? I want to know what the hell UAE has done for us that the President will for the first time ever VETO a bill if he doesn't get his way? Now I understand that Dubai will ALSO be purchasing a company that manufactures parts for American military aircraft and tanks. Now who is being ignorant and naive here?

From the Washington Times:

The Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee yesterday said he'll push legislation that would not only kill a Dubai-owned company's bid to operate in U.S. ports, but would kick out any foreign-owned company that owns U.S. terminals or other key infrastructure.

The move is in direct opposition to the position of President Bush, who has repeatedly vowed to veto any legislation that blocks DP World's $6.8 billion bid to purchase terminal operations in six major U.S. ports from a British company.

"I think we should kill this deal," said Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican, who plans to introduce a bill next week to do so. "Dubai cannot be trusted."

His bill would require 100 percent inspection of all incoming cargo and would mandate that, over time, all ports and other critical U.S. infrastructure, such as power plants that are owned by foreign entities be sold back to Americans.

I concur completely. Make it so. This President and any future one for that matter, be they Republican or Democrat, had better wake up to the reality that America is on the verge of returning back to "nationalistic" policies that will bring all the troops home from overseas and to hell with the world and its ramifications. Both parties have elements within them that want America to be a neutral country on the international scene and reject this Wilsonian embrace of the world by our current War on Terror or shall I say "Long War". And while I'm at it the President's speeches bringing "democracy" to the ENTIRE world is really pie-in-the-sky as far as I'm concerned.

The article continues:

Many legislators have concerns with allowing a government in the United Arab Emirates, a country with ties to terror leader Osama bin Laden, to run terminals in U.S. ports.

Mr. Hunter said those concerns are justified, noting that in 2003 -- despite U.S. protests -- United Arab Emirates customs officials allowed sixty-six American high-speed electrical switches, used for detonating nuclear weapons, to go to a Pakistani businessman with ties to the Pakistani military.

He also pointed to a report that 70 tons of heavy water, a component of nuclear reactors, were sent from China to India and Argentina via Dubai.

And who does the President want to run these port facilities and where? I'm not really happy that President Bush has taken this stand. Surely he must know how hypocritical this looks as well as the cynical ploy of using "race" to denigrate your most loyal subjects and supporters. This blog has been very generous in its support of this President's vision and action overseas. If this deal goes through as it appears to be then this President has indeed LOST the War on Terror. It won't be lost militarily but politically and it will be lost not overseas but here at home. The Dubai Port deal is a red herring. Nothing more. I demand an explanation from this administration on why its willing to risk another 9/11 for the dictatorship of the United Arab Emirates?

The article goes on:

Lawmakers also complained yesterday that they were not told that the government is investigating two other foreign-company business deals, including a second Dubai-owned entity that wants to buy a British company with plants in Georgia and Connecticut that make engine parts for military aircraft and tanks.

Now this really, really, really chaps my hide!!! There should be no reason for any foreign entity manufacturing military parts and supplies for the American military. What hair-brained moron came up with that policy? Democrats? My friends, we are dealing with 60 years of American sovereignty slowly eroded for the good of the international order. This latest port deal is simply a manifestation that America depends on others for its defense and is a sign that things are going to have to change regarding our role in the world. There are no good options. I support this President in the War on Terror only as far as it elevates America. If it harms America, then the War on Terror has failed.