This is what the MSM will not tell you about Yasser Arafat.


The Legacy of a Terrorist:

• He was born in Egypt, as Yasser Abdul-Ra'ouf Qudwa Al-Husseini. In attempts to legitimize himself as a true Palestinian, Yasser claimed he was born in Jerusalem.

• In fact, Ian Pacepa, a former Romanian intelligence official, has revealed that the KGB had trained him at its Balashikha special-ops school east of Moscow and in the mid-1960s decided to groom him as the future PLO leader. The KGB first destroyed Arafat's official birth records in Cairo Egypt, and then replaced them with fictitious documents (sounds like Mary Mapes and Dan Rather antics) stating that he had been born in Jerusalem and viola! Yasser was now a Palestinian by birth.

• The KGB then went to work on Arafat's four-page tract called "Falastinuna" (Our Palestine), and transformed it into a 48-page monthly magazine for the Palestinian terrorist organization al-Fatah. Arafat had headed al-Fatah since 1957. The KGB distributed the magazine around the Arab world and in West Germany, where many Palestinian students were seeking an education.

• Arafat was an undercover operative for the KGB and received much support from other KGB puppets such as Egyptian ruler Gamal Abdel Nasser (who proposed Yasser to be the Chairman of the PLO in 1967).

• In 1969, it was the KGB who prompted Arafat to declare war on American "imperial-Zionism" during the first summit of the Black Terrorist International, a neo-Fascist pro-Palestine organization financed by the KGB and Libya's Moammar Gadhafi.

• Yasser claimed to be the one to come up with the "imperial-Zionism" strategy to attack the US, but this was actually a favorite tool of Russian intelligence to feed ethnic hatred. The KGB regarded anti-Semitism and anti-imperialism as a valuable instrument in furthering anti-Americanism.

• Arafat also tried to claim that through his mother, he was related to the "Grand Mufti," Haj Amin al-Husseini. Haj Amin was anti-British and anti-Jewish. He engineered riots against the Jewish people and actually met with Hitler in November of 1941. Palestinian historian Said Aburish, has disputed any relation between al-Husseini and Arafat.

• In 1957, Yasser helped in the founding of Fatah, an organization dedicated to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in place of Israel and Jordan (i.e., historic Palestine).

• Fatah began carrying out terrorist attacks on Israeli targets. They received much of their support from Syria.

• On March 18, 1968, Fatah attacked a school bus full of children, killing two and wounding 28. Israel dropped leaflets in the Jordanian city of Karameh (where Fatah has established its base) three days later, urging civilians to evacuate as they prepared to retaliate.

• Once the attack ensued, Arafat fled. He continued terrorist activities that lead to over 1,500 dead and wounded by the end of the year.

• Arafat had set up a "state within a state" in Jordan and on September 12, 1970, Arafat's Palestinian terrorists hijacked 3 planes, landed them in Jordan, and blew them up. King Hussein responded by declaring martial law and civil war ensued. Arafat fled to Syria and then to Lebanon.

• Once in Lebanon, Arafat began to undermine the central government of that country.

• In September of 1972, an arm of Fatah, known as Black September (named after the 1970 hijacking stunt), murdered 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games.

• Arafat's PLO helped destabilize Lebanon and contributed to the civil war, during which Arafat and the PLO were responsible for the persecution and murder of thousands of Lebanese citizens.

• While in Lebanon, the PLO kept lobbing attacks on Israel. In June 1982, Israel finally answered with a full-scale assault that resulted in the Lebanon War. The United States was able to broker a cease-fire deal and Arafat and was sent to Tunisia, which became his base of operations for the next decade.

• On October 7, 1985, terrorists hijacked the the cruise ship, Achille Lauro. Arafat was the mastermind behind this tragedy where the Palestinian terrorists shot a wheelchair-bound Jewish passenger named Leon Klinghoffer and dumped his body overboard.

After all this fighting and all this violence, Arafat had one more chance. His claim has always been that he is fighting for the Palestinian People. His every action was supposed to be about giving Palestinians their own state. In July of 2000, he was given an offer for just that.

Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, asked Clinton to call a meeting so that Israel could show its determination in reaching peace. Barak offered a plan beyond what anyone could have imagined. The offer:

• Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip
• The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal
• The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control
• Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control
• Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City
• "Religious Sovereignty" over the Temple Mount, replacing Israeli sovereignty in effect since 1967

All Arafat had to do was declare an end to conflict and agree to make no future claims on Israel. The Palestinian negotiating team was very interested in the offer, but Arafat didn't take it. The talks collapsed. They did not collapse due to discussions, but rather due to lack of discussions. Arafat made no counter offers. He made no additional requests. No discussion at all. He just walked away! His whole life had been built on violence against Israel. His entire career was dedicated to total destruction of Israel. He couldn't bring himself to stop the fighting. The Palestinians were finally going to have their own land, but he just walked away!

Let the media outlets, heads of state, and talking heads glorify him as a man who committed his life to the cause of the Palestinian People. I know better, and quite honestly, they do too. His love was not for the people he claimed to be fighting for. His love was for the fight against the people he hated. When the chance was at his fingertips, his hate of Israel was far greater than his love for the Palestinians. To me, he will forever be the blood thirsty terrorist that had peace in his hand, and threw it away. He will be the man that returned to the Palestinians, and instead of bringing them peace and a state of their own, he called them to offer up their lives and the lives of their children. His hate was so bitter, he preferred to see them kill themselves and their young, than to give them their dream. As you watch the news coverage of his death, you may find yourself shaking your head in disbelief, and a voice in your head saying, "He walked away."

He walked out in July. The first one to die after this meeting was David Biri, on September 27, 2000. Visit HERE to read the names and see the pictures of all the innocent Israeli lives he stole when he walked away that day.

"The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain, too cheap, we esteem too lightly:--'Tis dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to set a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as Freedom should not be highly rated....... I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death."

Thomas Paine- The American Crisis (Also the author of Common Sense.)

Common Sense was published on January 9, 1776 and became an instant best seller. It was a 50 page pamphlet that outlined a strong case for the colonies to go to war, seeking Independence.

Amidst the latest happenings in the Middle East and War on Terror, I thought this story appropriate and needed. I can't help but think of the courage of our forefathers. While most people I know talk much about George Washington, John Hancock, Benjamin Franklin, and Paul Revere; the one man I remember the most is Caesar Rodney. Most Americans have no idea who he is, unless of course you have lived in Delaware. Let me share with you perhaps the most incredible story of a man that knew his purpose and life was bigger than himself.

It was late June in 1776, and Caesar was in Sussex County Delaware. Rodney was a "Brigadier General of Delaware's militia, speaker of the state assembly which had also declared him as their leader. He was alternately in his seat in congress, and at work in Delaware, stimulating the patriots and repressing the royalists." He was also dying of cancer. He received word from Thomas McKean that he was needed in Philadelphia to sign the Declaration of Independence. It was made clear that without his signature, there would be no independence. He knew if he signed the Declaration he would never be able to return to England, his only chance of survival would be gone. Knowing he would never be able to live out the dream of freedom thriving in his soul, he mounted his horse and started on his journey for Philadelphia.

With cancer eating the flesh from his face and asthma gripping his every breath, he ventured onward through brutal humidity, thunderstorms, and torrential rains. He was racked with pain, sought by the British, and exhausted. The trip was not a simple ride on well traveled trails. He crossed rickety bridges, streams, and fields. He knew every hour and every one of the 80 miles were bringing him closer to signing his own death warrant, and bringing him closer to freedom.

Finally he reached Independence Hall in Philadelphia. Caesar Rodney staggered into Congress with only minutes left of the debate. Others in the room saw his condition and quickly came to assist him. His face was wrapped in linen, now covered with blood, sweat, and mud; in fact his entire body was laden with mud. It is believed he spoke these words as he cast his vote, "As I believe the voice of my constituents and of all sensible and honest men is in favor of independence, my own judgment concurs with them. I vote for independence," and then he collapsed.

My heart swells with utter pride and my eyes sting of tears when I think of this man's excruciating mission. Whenever I get a quarter, I check to see if it is his. Yes, the Delaware quarter features his valiant ride on its back. This is the epitome of integrity to me. He risked it all. He was dying of cancer. His only chance for survival was to go back to England, but he not only stayed and fought, but he gave it his all. What is more amazing is that Rodney was a 48 year old bachelor. In the 1700's, 48 was not a young age, and he had no wife or children to be leaving a legacy of freedom to. It was about his honor and duty; it was about freedom, justice, and liberty. It was about a dream.

In the years to come we will hear stories like these of the people in Iraq. They won't be riding horseback through streams and fields for 80 miles. They will be those that walked deserts, and stood in front of police stations that were the targets of choice for suicide bombings. They will be of women who dared to work in public or just leave their homes without covering their faces. We are in the midst of these great stories. Once again, America is leading the charge. We are helping others achieve the great history we hold so dear for themselves, as we did in Europe and Japan. They may not remember what our valiant and heroic soldiers did, and how our nation was ripped in a political fervor to make it all happen; but we will.

As the media tries to infuse panic about gas prices and falling stock markets, what will we do? As Israel battles the entire world of terrorist Muslims that seek their annihilation, what will we do? Will we cower and fret over our retirement funds? Will we wring our hands over the thought that the world won’t “like” us?

Rejoice in being an American today.

In the words of Thomas Paine, "We have it in our power to begin the world anew...American shall make a stand, not for herself alone, but for the world."

I am SICK of the appeasers crying about us being in Iraq.

“Arrogant? Arrogant? Who is being arrogant?” I find myself bellowing at the Liberal Freaks on the television. Are we really thinking this thing through? The Political Left has proudly joined the chorus of the “offended”! What is their reasoning for calling our President arrogant? Each time you ask them, they squeal about W’s going into Iraq without the approval of the rest of the world. This is the first falsehood.

President Bush did go to the UN. The UN unanimously approved Resolution 1441. Then the Left slanders Bush’s decision to remove a dictator who had refused to comply with over a decade of resolutions issued by the UN. How is this arrogant?

The very purpose of these resolutions is to ensure peace throughout the world. The very need for such resolutions was due to Saddam’s disregard for peace and his invasion into another country in 1990! Now, I ask you, who is arrogant? I say Saddam. Clearly it is Saddam.

Now, let’s go deeper and further! Has anyone read this resolution? I did. It is so easy to understand! This resolution uses the word recalling 7 times, deploring 4 times, and immediate (or immediately) 11 times. Again, I ask, who is arrogant? Who is outright defying the world? Who is threatening world peace? To even suggest that Iraq was not a threat is both wrong and irresponsible.

The very people who accuse our President of defying the UN, and endangering world peace are the very people who have sat by, turning a blind eye, to a dictator who has (1) gassed his own people, (2) engaged in War with its neighbors, (3) tortured and killed anyone in his country that disagrees with him –including children, and (4) literally engaged in class warfare and racism to the extent of starving people for cash.

Oh, it gets better. Saddam’s explanation for invading Kuwait goes as follows. Saddam claimed that “annexing Kuwait had been a religious duty, a jihad, since the al-Sabah family (Kuwait's rulers) had ruled over an artificial state set up by the British. Saddam claimed that his jihad had liberated Kuwait from dominance by "Western infidels.” (see Gilles Kepel, Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2002), 208f.) Does anyone smell the aroma of arrogance here?

Am I the only one who recognizes the word jihad? In light of the events on 9-11, it is imperative that we recognize when someone uses the word jihad to explain war and violence. Saddam was implementing the jihad we are experiencing today, back in 1990! Also, note the word infidels. Once we look at the facts, the fog of rhetoric by the far Left's PR noise machine is blown away.

Senator, and losing Presidential Candidate, John Kerry referred to the Coalition as "Window Dressing" and claimed that they are not sharing the burden of the war and reconstruction. Does this sound like the words we would use to describe Great Britain? Italy? Poland? Japan? Australia?

Kerry calls the war in Iraq a “diversion.” I would call Saddam’s claim that he “liberated Kuwait” the diversion! Kerry also referred to the Coalition as "coerced" And "bribed." (Herbert A. Sample, "Kerry Blasts Bush On Iraq Effort," Sacramento Bee, 3/14/03) It would seem the Senator has never heard of the Oil for Food Scandal.

Who has truly been coerced and bribed? How do you call a group of nations fighting terrorism “coerced” and “bribed,” while you constantly thump your chest about gaining support from nations that refuse to stand-up to Saddam? Particularly when the current leaders of these same do nothing nations are reaping all kinds of benefits from a UN managed program of corruption? Who is being bribed when the various Leftist political leaders accept massive "Oil for Food contracts" that result in denying the very benefits the program was created to provide for the poor people of Iraq?

These are the facts folks:
1 Saddam is a liar.

2 Kuwait was granted full independence in 1961. Iraq formally recognized its border with Kuwait TWICE; once in 1932 (upon Iraq gaining its independence), and again in 1963.

3 On March 31 1990, the Washington Post reported that in May, 1989, U.S. Customs officers had blocked the shipment to Iraq of 185 high-speed capacitors which could have been used to detonate a nuclear bomb.

4 In 1990 Saddam Hussein announced that if Israel attacked Iraq, he would destroy half of Israel with chemical weapons.

5 On July 16, 1990, during an OPEC meeting in Geneva, Saddam threatened military action against Kuwait for exceeding oil production quotas and accused Kuwait of stealing oil by using slant drilling techniques.

6 On July 17, 1990, Saddam threatened force against ANY Arab nation who didn’t abide by their quotas.

7 On July 18, 1990, Saddam amassed 30,000 troops on the Kuwait border

8 On August 1, 1990, Kuwait refused to cancel billions of dollars in Iraq debt, and relinquish any of its territory.

9 On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait.

10 The OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) had been meeting when Saddam invaded Kuwait. The conference voted to condemn the Iraqi invasion and to express its solidarity with Kuwait. Only five members (Iraq, PLO, Jordan, and the Sudan, with Libya abstaining) did not vote for the resolution. This is often looked upon as the beginning of the conflict amongst the Sunni Muslims, which lead to the creation of radical rebels such as Usama Bin Laden.

11 On August 3, 1990, Saddam amassed troops on the Saudi border in the area called the “Neutral Zone.” The UN Security Council voted 14-0 on resolution 660, that demanded Saddam to immediately withdrawal all Iraqi forces.

12 On August 7, 1990, The U.S. began deployment of troops to Saudi Arabia upon the request of King Fahd. (this is one of Bin Laden’s excuses for justifying attacks against Americans anywhere in the world.)

13 On August 10, 1990, the Arab League meeting in Cairo voted to join the United States in sending Arab forces to defend Saudi Arabia.

14 On November 29, 1990, the U.N. Security Council (Resolution 678) voted to authorize the United States and its allies to expel Iraq from Kuwait by force if Saddam refused to withdraw by January 15, 1991.

15 On January 16, 1991, Operation Desert Storm began.

16 On April 11, 1991, Iraq gave its assent to U.N. Resolution 687, which had been passed on April 3. Under its terms, Iraq agreed to destroy or remove all long-range ballistic missiles and all nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.

Now, with this quick history lesson, explain to me where Saddam understands anything but force. Explain to me who is arrogant? I would love Kerry to convince me that Saddam had no interest in cooperating with Usama bin Laden.

I am amazed that the American people can be so filled with hate towards their President that they are willing to trash our future for short term political gain.. I am shocked at the hatchet job that Kerry and the Far Left are doing to our allies. I am perplexed by the willingness of the Kerry and his supporters to join the side of those steeped corrupted by the Oil for Food scandal. I am surprised by the arrogance of American Leftist who cling to dictators across the globe. I am frightened by Kerry’s constant bashing of those who are helping us defeat this axis of terror, while at the same time embracing those foreign leaders that used a UN Humanitarian effort to scam these very people! I shudder at the thought of my children’s future being put into the hands of a Democrat Party that daily belittles the noble sacrifices of brave troops sent by our allies. This same party refers to people up their necks in scandal as the ones we need ask permission of to defend ourselves!

The scariest thing of all is this: the descendants of men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan can be so easily swayed into dismay. If the war on Iraq had lasted only 90 days, as Desert Storm had; there would be no doubt that it was the right thing to do. Have we become so spoiled that we measure right and wrong by convenience? What if we had lost twice as many troops as we have today, but only in 90 days? What are we measuring the cost of freedom and peace upon? The time it takes to achieve destroying the enemy? Is there a magic number of soldier deaths that makes us shrivel up and decide our children can deal with it 12 years from now. Are we honestly too cowardly and weak to handle troops dying for the quest of peace,? We should instead trade Liberty’s progress for compliance with the arrogance of men like Saddam?

Be honest with yourself. Would you look Saddam in the eye and trust him with anything? Where is the choice here, folks? Where? John Kerry does not have my child in his best interest. President Bush will do all in his power to protect my child. President Bush values my brother’s bravery and sacrafice as he fights in Iraq to protect my children. President Bush will not accept defeat, even if victory makes him unpopular with those that embrace the likes of Saddam.

The World Trade Center was attacked 38 days after Clinton took office. Clinton never visited the World Trade Center, and went so far as to make up in his own mind that it couldn’t have been an attack, it must have been “a electrical transformer had exploded or a bank heist went bad.” (Richard Minter) Thankfully, the people who actually DID visit the scene of the crime were eventually able to convince him he was wrong. Here is a list of terror attacks under Clinton (found here) .

• 1993 - First World Trade Center bombing, February 26: 6 Killed, 1,000 injured
• 1993 - Attack at CIA Headquarters in McLean, VA, January 25: 2 Killed, 3 injured
• 1995 - Killing of two US Diplomats in Pakistan, March 8, 1995
• 1996 - Khobar Towers bombing: 19 American servicemen killed
• 1998 - US embassy bombings: U.S. Kenya Embassy blown up, 214 killed (12 Americans); U.S. Tanzania Embassy blown up, 10 killed
• 2000 - USS Cole attacked, 17 U.S. Navy sailors killed

Ben Laden declared war against the United States during Clinton’s watch. Yasser Arafat warned Clinton that any attacks against terrorists would stop any efforts on his behalf to engage in peace talks. Clinton desperately wanted to leave office with a big feather in his cap, brokering a “peace deal” between Israel and the PLO. Clinton never understood terrorism. Clinton never wanted to understand terror, let alone deal with it. He was building a resume, protecting American citizens was quite a nuisance.

In fact, while some claim that Clinton was afraid of military action, Clinton DID take us into war. Only Clinton decided to join the wrong side; the side of the Bosnian Muslim terrorists that “were bolstered by significant numbers of mujahedeen and Islamic fundamentalists and volunteers from Afghanistan” (emphasis mine- I strongly recommend reading the entire page at the preceding link) in Kosovo.

Let’s see… what else is there:

• Iraq was filled with happy kids flying kites (I think I need a drink, where is that bottle of whiskey?)
• The UN was guarding the gates of Iraq and saving the Iraqi people from starvation (my eyes are bleeding)
• North Korea was turning into a peaceful pillar of integrity (reaching for my duct tape)
• Yemen was relieved of terror status and we started refueling our ships in Aden the year before the USS Cole was attacked. (daggnabbit, too much whiskey, can’t get the cap off my meds, did child proof lids happen under Clinton too?)

So, after I good look at Clinton’s war on terror…..how do you FEEL? (we know it’s not about facts with the Liberal Freaks, it’s all about how we FEEEEEEEL!) How do I feel?

Why are we still arguing over going into Iraq? I could cite fact after fact about WHY we went into Iraq. People who claim that President Bush purposely lied the American people in order to go into Iraq have some serious flaws in their analysis that they have to address, To start with, why were the biggest Democrat politicians, now whining about Iraq, singing the exact opposite song about Iraq before Bush was even elected?

The idea of invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam did not originate with President Bush. Let us look at reality and not just blindly accept every crazy claim manufactured out of blind partisan hatred. Has the War in Iraq been perfect? Heck no. However, the criticisms launched over the handling of Iraq are not fueled by ideas of a better way, but are merely the fodder of demagogues who believe they can ride the issue for domestic partisan advantage. There is a big picture here that the partisan hacks refuse to acknowledge. It is the elephant in the room. In order to see the BIG picture, we need to take a look at history.

Let's start with the REAL war here. The real war is the extremist Muslims against anyone who is NOT an extreme Muslim. Mohammad returned from his "retreat" into the desert with a new vision and a new religion. When he returned to his hometown, the people, knowing Mohammad all his life, basically laughed him off. Can you imagine growing up in your small neighborhood, taking a 40 day hike and then returning to claim you are a prophet? All the people who remember when you tried to cut your own hair, when you played on the local baseball team and had a batting average of zero, or awoke at a slumber party with toothpaste all over your face; are now supposed to believe you are a prophet. Must have been tough for ol' Mohammad.

So, Mohammad skipped town, and started spreading his religion elsewhere. The humiliation of his hometown response must have haunted him, because he returned with an army to help persuade these same folks to convert. This set the precedent of how to spread "True Islam".

When Mohammad could not win with words, he won with a sword. In Mo's defense, many of today's prominent religions have a history of violence. The Arabs also aided in giving us our numeric system based on tens (or decimals). Sadly, it seems the Arabs have had a bit of difficulty progressing beyond the ability to count to ten. Each religion has gone through their transition period. What we in the West call "An Enlightenment."

There's more. The fighting among the Muslims themselves has been going on since old Mo took his original dirt nap. HERE is just one great source of information on this history. Also, keep in mind that the Iranians are not Arabs, they are Persians.

Now let's fast forward. Iraq was actually a British colony. The hatred toward the West stems in part from the days of Imperialism and Colonization. Traditionally the three groups that make up Iraq, Sunni, Shia and Kurds, have been encouraged to hate each other. A classic example of the "Divide and Conquer" school of Imperialism. What is happening in Iraq is an outgrowth of that strategy. Let’s put it in terms Political Leftist might understand. Let's pretend that abortion clinic- bombing radical Christians went to war against Planned Parenthood. In such a "Civil War" 90 percent of Americans would NOT be fighting. No matter which side Americans might agree with more, they would not want to see the blood shed and war taking place at all. This is what is going on in Iraq today. Various violent gangs are waging war on each other and the Iraqi Government. Most Iraqis do not support the bloodshed and violence taking place. After all the civilians in Iraq are by far the most likely victims! The Terrorist "Insurgency" kills far more innocent civilians than they kill of Coalition and Iraqi Security forces combined.

There is also a difference in culture. We have been fortunate to grow up in a place where conflict is handled peacefully, and lawfully, so we reject the idea of violence to settle differences. This is NOT the culture of the Middle East. As pointed out, when Mohammed could not win with words, he won with a sword. In the Middle East, ideas are accepted, and gain influence, only if backed by the use of power. He with the most guns wins. I would LOVE for us to be able to deal with the terrorists without war, but they have not gone through their “Enlightenment” yet.

This War on Terror is forcing a long-needed reassessment within Islam to take place. You see, this blood shed needs to happen. Like the West did after World War I, The Islamic World needs to get to the point where they are sick of the death and the waste and futility of war. The Islamic world still has not learned, as the West did in World War I that "Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori." (It is sweet and right to die for one's country") is a lie. Until the Islamic Nations bleed enough to learn there is utterly no glory in war, there can be no peace between us. Unfortunately, this Enlightenment will not be an easy, or quick, process. It will be take generations for the Islamic Enlightenment to work itself out completely. Terrorists are a devoted bunch of folks and they are not going to just lay down their bombs and look for another career.

This is a two-front war. One needed to be fought both in the realm of ideas and on the battlefield. Until Militant Islam gives up its bazaar fantasies of World domination and accept the realities of Peaceful Coexistence, their can be no peace between us and them.

Secondly, the fighting and attacks are fueled by outside influences who are seeking the defeat of the US (and Western civilization as a whole). They gain if they can create not only a state to foster the continued war against the infidel, but also to use as proof to support their “America is a Paper Tiger" propaganda. Many of the fighters are not even Iraqi citizens. Iraq has merely become the battlefront for a war that has been brewing far before Clinton ever took office. Clinton is not to blame for the War on Terror. Bush is not to blame. There is plenty of blame to go around, but if anyone takes a long and honest look at history, they will see that this is a culmination and boiling point for a struggle that we made the mistake of believing was settled long ago. It was never settled, only the violence was contained. The violence has long been going on; we were merely arrogant enough to assume it did not involve us because they did not attack us here at home.

So, in order for the world to achieve TRUE peace, we must do 3 things. We must let them know that we are willing and more then able to destroy them. We must show them an option exists for them to put down their weapons and seek non-violent ways to advance their cause. We also need to instill hope for the future by showing Muslim youths that while Democracy may not give them everything, it will give them hope for a better tomorrow.

I haven't even touched on the role of Israel, but that is for another day, not to mention that Israel is only the tool and symbol that Dictators and Terror Leaders USE to fuel the modern hatred towards the West. But the hatred existed far before Israel was ever created. The root of the violence stems from Mo’s idea of spreading the Great News of God. Go figure....

Little Kim of North Korea has claimed a successful nuclear test.

Little Kim has claimed that North Korea is now a Nuclear “POWER”

On the bright side, at least this latest news frenzy gives us a nice break from “Pin the Scandal on the Gay” Week.

What we do know:

• The US has confirmed a blast.
• The DBM (Drive By Media) will blame Bush for Kimmy’s tantrum (CNN has already started, in fact within minutes they went into panic mode about a possible “draft”)
• The DBM knowledge of history only goes back 6 years.
• Clinton let Jimmah handle North Korea.(click the link for a LOT more FACTS about North Korea and Bubba's "legacy")
• Hazel O’Leary’s fixation with China, China’s stealing intelligence, China’s role in supplying North Korea with technology and other help, and Hazel’s elimination of ID tags in Nuclear Facilities to protect security and secrets will NEVER be mentioned by the DBM.

You see, it also was revealed that O’Leary issued marching orders forbidding underlings to promote white males within the DOE. But while this kind of discrimination sat well with her, there was a kind that did not. O’Leary ordered that the color-coded identification system used to differentiate between employees at the DOE labs be eliminated.

But this system existed for a very good reason. It involved giving employees a colored neck-chain and ID tag that corresponded to the degree of security clearance they had. This enabled the DOE to prevent individuals with low security clearance from obtaining classified information. This didn’t matter to Hazel O’Leary, though, because she felt that the system was discriminatory. So, a situation developed at the national laboratories where it was almost impossible for the lab directors to know if employees were in the correct areas of the facilities.

To make matters worse, O’Leary put FBI background checks on hold in at least two of the national laboratories. Is it any wonder then, that it was revealed in 1995 that the Chinese had gained access to at least some information about two of our most sophisticated nuclear warheads, the W-87 and W-88? Is it any wonder that Wen Ho Lee, the scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and many others gained access to highly sensitive classified information when they shouldn’t have? You may or may not remember this almost ten-year-old scandal, but it was called “Chinagate.”

While we are on the subject, please don't let us forget to thank Mad Maddie (Not-so)Bright)

What we Don’t Know:

• Was this explosion really nuclear?
• Considering the serious dangers to our national security in today’s world, and the upcoming election, we must know; with a name like Kim, are you gay?

During a lively discussion at Control Congress on the voter ID issue, I was inspired to set the record straight. The discussion was sparked over an article by Cynthia Tucker of the AJC. Keep in mind- Cynthia is a fact dodging, mental midget, and a racist- IMHO (that's In My Humble Opinon for those of you in Rio Linda).

First of all, I welcome all of you to visit Reginald Bohannon's site and ORDER HIS BOOK- Coming out of the Republican Closet.

Secondly, HERE is the audio of an add by African American Ministries In Action.

Now- onto the FACTS!

"The first Republican I knew was my father, and he is still the Republican I most admire," Rice has said. "He joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. My father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I."

Deroy Murdock (MUST READ ARTICLE!) gives us a close look at the Republican History on the issus of civil rights:

May 22, 1856: Two years after the Grand Old party's birth, U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R., Mass.) rose to decry pro-slavery Democrats. Congressman Preston Brooks (D., S.C.) responded by grabbing a stick and beating Sumner unconscious in the Senate chamber. Disabled, Sumner could not resume his duties for three years.

July 30, 1866: New Orleans's Democratic government ordered police to raid an integrated GOP meeting, killing 40 people and injuring 150.

September 28, 1868: Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana killed nearly 300 blacks who tried to foil an assault on a Republican newspaper editor.

October 7, 1868: Republicans criticized Democrats' national slogan: "This is a white man's country: Let white men rule."

April 20, 1871: The GOP Congress adopted the Ku Klux Klan Act, banning the pro-Democrat domestic terrorist group.

October 18, 1871: GOP President Ulysses S. Grant dispatched federal troops to quell Klan violence in South Carolina.

September 14, 1874: Racist white Democrats stormed Louisiana's statehouse to oust GOP Governor William Kellogg's racially integrated administration; 27 are killed.

August 17, 1937: Republicans opposed Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Supreme Court nominee, U.S. Senator Hugo Black (D., Al.), a former Klansman who defended Klansmen against race-murder charges.

February 2005: The Democrats' Klan-coddling today is embodied by KKK alumnus Robert Byrd, West Virginia's logorrheic U.S. senator and, having served since January 3, 1959, that body's dean. Thirteen years earlier, Byrd wrote this to the KKK's Imperial Wizard: "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia." Byrd led Senate Democrats as late as December 1988. On March 4, 2001, Byrd told Fox News's Tony Snow: "There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time; I'm going to use that word." National Democrats never have arranged a primary challenge against or otherwise pressed this one-time cross-burner to get lost.

Contrast the KKKozy Democrats with the GOP. When former Klansman David Duke ran for Louisiana governor in 1991 as a Republican, national GOP officials scorned him. Local Republicans endorsed incumbent Democrat Edwin Edwards, despite his ethical baggage. As one Republican-created bumper sticker pleaded: "Vote for the crook: It's important!"

Republicans also have supported legislation favorable to blacks, often against intense Democratic headwinds:

In 1865, Congressional Republicans unanimously backed the 13th Amendment, which made slavery unconstitutional. Among Democrats, 63 percent of senators and 78 percent of House members voted: "No."

In 1866, 94 percent of GOP senators and 96 percent of GOP House members approved the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing all Americans equal protection of the law. Every congressional Democrat voted: "No."

February 28, 1871: The GOP Congress passed the Enforcement Act, giving black voters federal protection.

February 8, 1894: Democratic President Grover Cleveland and a Democratic Congress repealed the GOP's Enforcement Act, denying black voters federal protection.

January 26, 1922: The U.S. House adopted Rep. Leonidas Dyer's (R., Mo.) bill making lynching a federal crime. Filibustering Senate Democrats killed the measure.

May 17, 1954: As chief justice, former three-term governor Earl Warren (R., Calif.) led the U.S. Supreme Court's desegregation of government schools via the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. GOP President Dwight Eisenhower's Justice Department argued for Topeka, Kansas's black school children. Democrat John W. Davis, who lost a presidential bid to incumbent Republican Calvin Coolidge in 1924, defended "separate but equal" classrooms.

September 24, 1957: Eisenhower deployed the 82nd Airborne Division to desegregate Little Rock's government schools over the strenuous resistance of Governor Orval Faubus (D., Ark.).

May 6, 1960: Eisenhower signs the GOP's 1960 Civil Rights Act after it survived a five-day, five-hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats.

July 2, 1964: Democratic President Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd's 14-hour filibuster and the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats (including Tennessee's Al Gore, Sr.) failed to scuttle the measure. Illinois Republican Everett Dirksen rallied 26 GOP senators and 44 Democrats to invoke cloture and allow the bill's passage. According to John Fonte in the January 9, 2003, National Review, 82 percent of Republicans so voted, versus only 66 percent of Democrats.

True, Senator Barry Goldwater (R., Ariz.) opposed this bill the very year he became the GOP's presidential standard-bearer. However, Goldwater supported the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts and called for integrating Arizona's National Guard two years before Truman desegregated the military. Goldwater feared the 1964 Act would limit freedom of association in the private sector, a controversial but principled libertarian objection rooted in the First Amendment rather than racial hatred.

June 29, 1982: President Ronald Reagan signed a 25-year extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The Republican party also is the home of numerous "firsts." Among them:

Until 1935, every black federal legislator was Republican. America's first black U.S. Representative, South Carolina's Joseph Rainey, and our first black senator, Mississippi's Hiram Revels, both reached Capitol Hill in 1870. On December 9, 1872, Louisiana Republican Pinckney Benton Stewart "P.B.S." Pinchback became America's first black governor.

August 8, 1878: GOP supply-siders may hate to admit it, but America's first black Collector of Internal Revenue was former U.S. Rep. James Rapier (R., Ala.).

October 16, 1901: GOP President Theodore Roosevelt invited to the White House as its first black dinner guest Republican educator Booker T. Washington. The pro-Democrat Richmond Times newspaper warned that consequently, "White women may receive attentions from Negro men." As Toni Marshall wrote in the November 9, 1995, Washington Times, when Roosevelt sought reelection in 1904, Democrats produced a button that showed their presidential nominee, Alton Parker, beside a white couple while Roosevelt posed with a white bride and black groom. The button read: "The Choice Is Yours."

GOP presidents Gerald Ford in 1975 and Ronald Reagan in 1982 promoted Daniel James and Roscoe Robinson to become, respectively, the Air Force's and Army's first black four-star generals.

November 2, 1983: President Reagan established Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday as a national holiday, the first such honor for a black American.

President Reagan named Colin Powell America's first black national-security adviser while GOP President George W. Bush appointed him our first black secretary of state.

President G.W. Bush named Condoleezza Rice America's first black female NSC chief, then our second (consecutive) black secretary of State. Just last month, one-time Klansman Robert Byrd and other Senate Democrats stalled Rice's confirmation for a week. Amid unanimous GOP support, 12 Democrats and Vermont Independent James Jeffords opposed Rice — the most "No" votes for a State designee since 14 senators frowned on Henry Clay in 1825.

"The first Republican I knew was my father, and he is still the Republican I most admire," Rice has said. "He joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. My father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I."