Unfinished Business with North Korea

North Korea's apparent nuclear test is not at all surprising and should be a stark lesson for the US and its allies on the perils of not pressing and then achieving total victory. This lesson must be applied to today's war against Islamo-fascism.

The Korean war in the early 1950's, which started when the North invaded the South, ended with the status-quo ante of the democratic South and the Communist North divided by the same border that was crossed at the start of hostilities. The unfinished business left in its wake sewed the seeds that grew into today's nuclear peril. Similar or worse dark consequences could result from allowing Iran to continue its provocative ways or by not winning in Iraq.

War should not be viewed in the narrow context of a particular military battle; rather it should be seen as one of many tools that is used to achieve total victory of one population over another population. That does not mean that the population must be destroyed, but the ideology surely must. The reason we are facing a nuclear North Korea today is because the West viewed the conflict in 1950 as a border dispute between armies rather than a major clash of Communism vs. Freedom. The North, and thus Communism was preserved and lived to fight another day, and that day has now come.

Destroying an ideology does not always necessitate war, but it does necessitate the will to use military force and it does require mobilization of all aspects of society. For instance, the West won the Cold War because leaders such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher insisted on total victory. They did not accept the notion that the Soviet Union could coexist in a world of free peoples. Their steadfastness crushed a nuclear armed enemy and obliterated the Soviet Union - total victory. In this case, war was not necessary. However, there are other examples where war has been necessary, such as with Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan and we must always be prepared for that potential.

The lesson to be applied today is that the US and its allies must mobilize for total victory over Islamo-fascism. The US's failure more than 50 years ago has now destabilized an entire region, put South Korea at risk and there is very little that can be done about it. We will not have to wait 50 years to experience the consequences of not mobilizing immediately for total victory against Islamo-fascism.

Mark Foley in Perspective

Yeah, I know - a powerful man elected to Federal government who can't control his sexual urges and who makes lewd passes at impressionable kids and young adults should be tarred, feathered and abandoned by his political party.

And that's exactly what happened to Bill Clinton.

Oh, wait a minute. That didn't happen. His party rallied around him and a massive defense was mounted to protect Clinton from taking responsibility.

I know Clinton was a President and Foley a Congressman, but it is still instructive to examine the differences in the responses by them and their parties. Clinton first lied about having sexual relations with an intern. When that didn't work he argued about the definition of sexual relations. (He didn't think he had any, when every 10-year old in the country knew what he did met the definition.) And when that didn't work, he mobilized the Democratic party in a very vigorous and successful attack on the messengers; Ken Starr and the vast right wing conspiracy. The Democrats went along with this plan and lost power, while Clinton rehabilitated himself in the public's eye.

Contrast that with the response on the Republican side to Mark Foley. He resigned the next day, the President publicly displayed his disgust and there isn't one Republican leader standing by him. Some might say that what he did was worse and therefore the Republicans had no choice. Really? I haven't read about cigars and stained clothes yet.

Okay, okay, I know, the Republicans would rally behind their president like Democrats did for Clinton. Or maybe not - President Nixon didn't fare too well within his own party. Sure, but what he did was really, really bad and Democrats take responsibility when congressmen go astray too. Oh, you must mean like Edward Kennedy (leaving the scene of a one-car, alcohol induced accident, resulting in the death of his mistress).

Neither party has a monopoly on personal morals, but in this political season it is instructive to view the differences in the ways each party responds to scandals when they occur. For the most part, Republicans take personal responsibility and Democrats attack the messenger in an effort to maintain their position. President Clinton is a hero in the Democratic party and President Nixon was a pariah from the point he was forced to resign. Edward Kennedy is considered an esteemed member of the Senate and Mark Foley will always be a disgraced former Republican member of the House.

Republicans Vote to Restrict Liberty

Republicans should be ashamed of themselves. The bill passed 2 days ago that effectively bans the use of credit cards for placing bets on internet gambling sites is a major unnecessary blow to liberty. It is also hypocritical in the extreme and so overtly political that it will backfire.

First liberty. As much as gambling to many people is a vice to be avoided, it is none of the Government's business to look for crafty ways to legislate moral standards. Regulation? Maybe. But why should Americans be made to live to the absolute moral standards of any Congressman? Morality can never be legislated and should be left to family, community, leaders and individual choice. Government's role should only be to insure that one man's freedom does not infringe on another man's freedom.

Now hypocrisy. This one is easy. How many state lotteries are there, and how much advertising is there for these lucrative activities? A ton. So, it's okay for the Government to setup a numbers racket, insure a monopoly by banning the private sector from competing, advertise to disadvantaged and vulnerable widows and orphans, set impossibly stupid odds for someone to win, but its not okay for someone to exercise their free will to play online poker. I wonder if one of the major proponents of this legislation, Arizona Senator, John Kyl (R) will call for an end to lotteries in his state?

Overtly political. Republicans are going to the Karl Rove playbook of 2004 by promoting a social issue to rally conservatives to the polls, as they did succesfully with gay marriage. This time it won't work. Internet gambling is not a big enough issue for conservatives and Democrats won't position themselves in opposition, so it will be a dead issue to the electorate. The beauty of Karl Rove's strategy in 2004 was that gay marriage was actually on the ballot in many states and he knew that conservatives would show up to vote for that issue alone and while there would also pull the lever for Republicans. Internet gambling is not on the ballot, so even if it was a big issue to conservatives, it does not provide any further incentive to get to the voting booths. This is such a badly mangled political move by Congressional Republicans that the electorate will see through it, and they will be angry.

President Bush has not yet signed this wrong-headed bill. I hope that Republicans come to their senses and let it die without the President's signature. The Democrats are supposed to be the party that over-legislates and resricts liberty. If Republicans want to act like Democrats, Americans will vote for the real Democrats. And then the country might get a real gambling ban that will make the current Republicans wish they never started down this road.