Well worth the read!


by Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, (ret.)

Due to the thunderous applause that I received from the far-left over the “I Am Tired” letter written by one of our troops in Iraq, I thought it prudent to follow up with one last attempt to be very specific about what I have observed and actually personally encountered during my 36 years of service to this Great Country. This will be a one time attempt to reach some of those who are confused by far-left and their ilk’s unethical rantings and give some insight through my personal experience as a professional military officer over the years. These examples are but a few. In real life there were many more which space and time will not allow. As a young fighter pilot, flying F-4s in Vietnam, I was stopped in my tracks by the decisions made by Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara. I was young and naive, but even then I knew their daily interference was wrong and would not allow us to win this thing and go home. Decisions like not allowing us to strike enemy aircraft while still on the ground, keeping real targets off the target list, and allowing us to strike only rusted-out trucks made us basically a toothpick factory. However, the big one for me came the day I saw the President Lyndon Johnson on television, forcefully lying to the American people. I’ll never forget the language, “I want to assure the American people that the United States of America has never, and will never, bomb or use force inside the borders of Cambodia”. On and on he disavowed the reports that this was happening. I was amazed. Guess where I had put several F-4 loads of 750 pound general purpose bombs every day for the past five days. You guessed it, Cambodia!!! So much for Mr. Johnson. The only question in my mind was simply, “Was it just Johnson or was it the methodology of a particular political party?” I decided to delay answering that question until more experience was gained.

Years passed, and I ignored politics as much as possible, as a good military man should. Then came Jimmy Carter. Our young people don’t remember 18% interest rates and 18% inflation, but I’ll bet someone in your family does. That is one really bad thing Carter did for our country, but it is not the worst. During this period, I was an F-15 Squadron Commander, located at Langley AFB, VA. Jimmy Carter and his democratic party stopped spare parts procurement for almost every weapon system in our military, and diverted the funds to social programs. The F-15 was brand new at the time with leading edge technology designed to provide air superiority anywhere in the world on a moments notice. That was my job. I loved it, but guess what? In a two year period from 1979 to 1981, there was not one day when more that one-third of my assigned aircraft were flyable. It is amazing the lengths we went to in those days, cannibalizing parts, expending twice the time and energy to fix every little item, and still two-thirds of the birds were always broken because of no spare parts. Had this country faced a really serious military threat during that time frame, only Montana Hunters could have saved us. The military had some equipment, but it was all broken. Do you want to know the really bad part for me and the young fighter pilots working for me? Our flying sortie rate was so low that pilot proficiency dropped to dangerous levels. The accident rate tripled. That obviously was totally unacceptable, as we were losing expensive airplanes and highly trained young pilots at a rate comparable to losses seen in actual combat. All of a sudden, even a Texas Aggie like me began to see a trend.

Forward a few years to 1986. I am an F-16 Wing Commander at MacDill AFB, Florida, and Ronald Reagan is president. His change in attitude and policy toward the military had time to fix the spare parts problem. We were flying 26,000 flying sorties per year out of MacDill AFB, my aircraft fully mission capable rate (FMC) was above 90%, the aircraft accident rate was below 1.75 per hundred thousand flying hours, fighter pilots were flying and proficiency levels were at an all time high. The United States Air Force was ready to defend this Wonderful Country. Proof of the pudding is simple. Look what the USAF, and the military in general, accomplished in Iraq during Desert Storm. And, they did it in less than 100 hours. Yeah, at this point I was starting to realize there was a difference in mentality between Democrats and Republicans, or should I say, the Right and the Left.

Then, came everyone’s favorite—Bill Clinton. If there ever was an individual 180 degrees out of sync with the ideals and the values of the US military, it was Clinton. He was a known draft dodger, military hating, self absorbed, unspeakingly shameless and immoral individual, who the Left managed to elect President of the United States of America. Clinton’s antics in the White House would have brought court martial, conviction, and Dishonorable Discharge had he been a military member. We still suffer oral sex on school buses, because the President told the world it wasn’t real sex, and some of our children believed him. It took a lot of years, but now I became certain. There is a big difference in the right and the left on all fronts, and for the first time I started feeling angry and shamed that the majority of the American people were actually willing to vote for such an individual.

Sometimes, an abstract such as the following tells the story in very simple terms: Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Nancy Pelosi, Barbra Boxer, John Kerry, Benedict Arnold, and the list goes on. America, wake up. Giving in to the likes of these people and Abraham Lincoln’s prediction of destruction from within just may come true. There is not a country in the world that can be considered a conventional military threat to the United States today. However, this country faces a new kind of threat—one that will not go away. It is a threat even more serious that WWII, because money, industry and technology will not defeat it. It is a threat of defeat from within. It is a threat of a faltering economy because of a lack of resources, or the even the simple threat of such a loss brought on by terrorism. It is a threat created by the American people trusting the inept. It is a threat created by the people wanting change, and perilously believing that the left can successfully deliver that change. Have you seen anything from the left that remotely resembles an answer to the Iraq situation? Have you seen anything more than continued Bush-Bashing? Is that an answer? If there was ever a need for a strong, well trained military, it is now. THE LEFT HAS HISTORICALLY DISMANTLED OUR MILITARY IN THE NAME OF REDISTRUBITION OF WEALTH FAVORING SOCIAL PROGRAMS. We just cannot afford to let that happen now. If we do, the entire country will be bowing to the east several times a day within the next 50 years, maybe sooner.

Now a final thought meant to upset as many as possible on the far-left. As you might guess, I don’t believe in political correctness. So, let’s look at the facts, not far-left rhetoric attempting to empower the democratic party. Initially, I was not a George Bush fan. I am not even a Republican. I normally vote Republican, because of my total despise of Communism, Socialism and the far-left in this country. I am a Conservative. However, during his watch, I feel President Bush just happened to stumble upon the leading edge of the greatest threat this country has ever faced. Mistakes have been made, because of the newness of the threat. Overall, the President has done a superb job dealing the threat, and at the same time held off the constant ranting, raving, deceitful and malicious escapades of the far-left attempting to regain political power. IF THERE WAS EVER A TIME THE COUNTRY NEEDS TO COME TOGETHER AND BACK OUR PRESIDENT, IT IS RIGHT NOW. WITHOUT CONCENSUS WE ARE EMPOWERING THE TERRORIST!!!! The far-left is totally absorbed with the power struggle and regaining control of congress. They could care less about defeating the threat. It literally disgusts me to hear the constant disagreement with everything the President tries to do, all in the name of trying to make him look bad to the voters. Unfortunately, by the time the American people really appreciate how bad the far-left really is, it may too late.

What are the real facts? On the home front this country’s economy is the strongest that it has been in my lifetime. Interest rates are as low as they were when I was in high school forty years ago. Inflation does not exist for all practical purposes. For you youngster’s, please remember the Jimmy Carter comments? The Dow is approaching 13,000. Unemployment is nonexistent. Wages are at an all time high. Home ownership is at an all time high. Taxes have been lowered to an almost acceptable level. Because of the surging economy the deficient is under control and projected to go away far ahead of schedule. The far-left is rich beyond its wildest dreams, so Mr. President when are you going to “fix” all these domestic problems? Bob and George, give me a break!!!!

On the war front this country has not been touched since 2001. I remember being part of a seminar at the USAF War College in 1983 discussing the terrorist threat. There were some good minds at that table and a lot of disagreement. However, one common thought was that the US would be hit within the next five years. Answers to the terrorist threat were just as hard to come by then as they are now. Well, it took a little longer than the projection, but the attack occurred. For an old military guy like me, the main point here is that it has not happened again.

We have suckered the bad guys into entering the fight some where other than in our country. To hell with political correctness. The President can’t say this, but I sure can. I smile every morning when I get up and realize that one of our great cities has not been blown away. And, there is zero doubt in my mind that if we pull out of Iraq prematurely, that will happen within a short period of time after our departure. I don’t care what you might think of President Bush personally. He has done the best he can with what he has, and this country is not smoking because of it. So, back off McLean and McClellan. You honestly don’t have a clue about what you are talking about. Call me, and I will tell you what I really think.

I realize there are different points of view on war, and I do not believe the meek will inherit the earth, at least not in the next few hundred years. To those like McClellan, McLean, poor Eve Kyes and Sinowa Cruz let me say, “This is a strong country!!!” It has survived the uneducated thinking of the far-left before, and I’ll just bet it will again. Regardless of who is President, the people will not tolerate mass explosions on a daily basis, as our good friends in Israel have been forced to do. To protect that position of power, even Hillary will be forced to become a true hawk. To guarantee a few more votes Ted Kennedy may be forced to begin supporting a strong military. One more attack on America might even wipe the giddy, ‘I-am-finally-somebody’ grin from Nancy Pelosi’s face, and make her realize that is not about votes and personal power. IT IS ABOUT PROTECTING THIS GREAT COUNTRY FROM ALL ENEMIES, BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, (ret.)
349 Jib Lane Lakeside, Montana

You Can’t Win a Politically Correct War

You Can’t Win a Politically Correct War

Evan Coyne Maloney, Brain-terminal

[This is a great essay.]

For the last five years, it seems that every American use of force has resulted in hand-wringing and hypercriticism from the media and the president’s political opponents. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, the wiretapping of phones used to call terror suspects abroad…the end result of the obsessive and overblown coverage of all this is to weaken the political structure that’s attempting to fight a war for the survival of Western civilization. Fortunately for the people we’re fighting, no abuse of human rights seems grave enough merit a many-months-long series of front page headlines and navel-gazing editorials. No, that’s a standard to which only the United States is held.

Don’t get me wrong: it is legitimate to question our conduct of the war, it is healthy to ponder the morality of our actions, but these days, that seems to be the only role played by the opposition and their allies in the media. And that has an effect on our ability to win wars.

There’s something about our psyche which seems to make self-criticism the new national pastime. Naturally, our political leaders know this. They know that when hundreds of newspapers and television stations align in a daily tearing-down of the war effort, the American people will eventually lose their nerve and want to give up. Others know this, too, which is why al Qaeda distributed copies of Black Hawk Down as a means to understand how the media can be used to amplify a relatively minor military failure and drive the United States from the field of battle. [..]

If terrorists provide enough negative footage to our media, they know we’ll turn and run. But if we fight too vigorously, that will be held up by our own media as evidence of our inherent evilness.[..]

Cut Off The War Funding: We Have The Power

Abrupt US Withdrawal Would Be ‘Utterly Disastrous’

SENATE ARMED SERVICES Carl M. Levin — He is the longest-serving senator in Michigan (large Isamic vote see also John Conyers) history and holds one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate.


Carl M. Levin


Friday, November 10, 2006; Page A11

Levin, 72, is a vocal critic of the Bush administration’s handling of the war in Iraq. In June, he tried unsuccessfully to pass a nonbinding proposal urging President Bush to begin withdrawal of troops from Iraq by the end of this year.

He was elected to the Senate in 1978; this will be his second turn as Armed Services chairman. He clashed often with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, disagreeing strongly with the now-departing Pentagon chief on missile defense. He has said the Army is stretched too thin, there are not enough soldiers and protective gear in Iraq, too many soldiers are held in service by “stop-loss” orders and the Army is not adequately replacing old equipment.

(Dennis Cook – AP)


U.S. Congress

Levin grew up in Detroit as part of a politically well-known family. He is the longest-serving senator in Michigan history and holds one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate.

Dems A to Z — From the RNC

The VIPs hate Robert Gates

The VIPs hate Robert Gates

The oddly named Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), which played such a noxious role in the Plame matter, hate Robert Gates. My friend Fedora emails:

Gates is one of VIPS’ favorite targets. I expect to see Ray McGovern and/or Melvin Goodman write a pre-emptive hit piece soon. Tidbit on Goodman’s relationship with Gates from my article on Goodfellow:


Goodfellow’s Bedfellows: Who’s in Bed with the Washington Post [snip]

The CIP has also involved itself in the Iraq antiwar movement. Two of CIP’s most vocal participants in this area have been Jim Mullins, a former Vietnam antiwar activist, and Melvin Goodman, a former CIA Soviet analyst who resigned in 1990 over the anti-Communist stance of William Casey and Robert Gates. [snip] Goodman, Melvin A. (writing as “Melvin Goodman”). “The Demise of the CIA”. The Baltimore Sun. August 31, 2005. Archived 


. “Goodman: U.S. Intelligence used for propaganda”. Topeka Capitol-Journal. January 5, 2004. Archived.


“Iraq in Check”. The Baltimore Sun. February 8, 2003.


(writing as “Mel Goodman). “The Militarization of U.S. Foreign Policy”. Guerrilla News Network. February 19, 2004. Archived


“Op-Ed: Restoring faith in Intelligence”. The Baltimore Sun. February 9, 2004.


“Righting the CIA”. The Baltimore Sun. November 19, 2004.


“Weapons Failure”. The Baltimore Sun. May 22, 2003.


“What is to be Done with the CIA? A History of Flawed Intelligence” CounterPunch. July 19, 2003. 

McGovern, Ray. “More at Stake in Bolton Nomination Than Meets the Eye”. truthout. April 25, 2005. 

United States Senate. ”Nomination of Robert M. Gates, of Virginia, To Be Director of Central Intelligence”. Congressional Record. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 5, 1991, S15901-S15949.

I consider the opposition of these moonbats to Gates as a major plus for him.

Clarice Feldman   11 9 06

First Order of Business for Democrats: The Draft

First Order of Business for Democrats: The Draft
November 10th, 2006

On January 8th of 2003, Congressman Charles Rangel [D-NY] began an extensive campaign to bring back the military draft. He repeatedly submitted legislative bills to begin a military draft and compel all American men and women up to the age of forty-two to serve two years of military service. Under the Republican-controlled Congress, such bills went down to defeat.

One of the few notable supporters of the draft was Congressman John Murtha [D-PA]. Congressman Murtha reportedly is preparing to campaign to take over the highly influential position of House Majority Leader. Congressman Rangel is set to take over the House Ways and Means Committee. Two proponents of a military draft will most likely take over two key leadership positions in the new Democrat-contolled House. Surely they were not lying to America when they proposed a draft? They would not make such a serious proposal for a mere political cheap shot, would they?

As recently as last February of 2006, Rangel once again introduced draft legislation. In a press release he stated,

“Every day that the military option is on the table, as declared by the President in his State of the Union address, in Iran, North Korea, and Syria, reinstatement of  the military draft is an option that must also be considered, whether we like it or not,” Congressman Rangel said.  “If the military is already having trouble getting the recruits they need, what can we do to fill the ranks if the war spreads from Iraq to other countries?  We may have no other choice but a draft.”   

Congressman Rangel says that the requirements of continued war in Iraq would necessitate a draft. Thus it is important to determine whether the new democrat controlled congress will continue the fighting or change course and withdraw US forces from Iraq.

Now that the Democrats are in control of the House and the Senate, a review of their previous policy decisions on the Iraq war will be an important indicator of  where the new Democrat Congressional leadership will take the direction of the war. Despite many promises among Democratic incumbents and Democrats to disengage in Iraq, in June of 2006 Senate Democrats overwhelmingly rejected a bill to lay a time table for troop withdrawal from Iraq.

The bill was written by Senator Kerry with only six Democrats voting for the withdrawal. It should also be noted that nearly half of the Congressional Democrats voted for the war in 2002. In late 2005, many Democrats in the House voted against proposals for both an immediate withdrawal and a time table. Considering recent history, the Democrats are unlikely to take a position of disengagement.

As such, it is possible that Congressman Rangel’s latest draft proposal will come up for consideration in the House. With Murtha riding heard over the Democrats, he may well push them to approve Rangel’s draft legislation submitted earlier this year. Rangel and Murtha both served in the military at time of war in Korea and Vietnam respectively. The draft was in effect at the time each man was in the military. Both have called for it publicly or submitted legislation. How long can it be until they get what they asked for now that they are in charge of the House?

According to a press release from the new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) we can expect an escalation in fighting in Afghanistan. Congresswoman Pelosi said in a press release just a few weeks ago,

 “President Bush’s failure to finish the job against terrorism in Afghanistan before launching his ill-advised invasion of Iraq has made the lives of the Afghan people more difficult and the American people less safe.  The war against terrorism is in Afghanistan, and unless the President makes winning that war an immediate priority, the risks to the security of the United States will continue to grow.”

Clearly the new Speaker intends to increase troop strength in Afghanistan. She should find support in senior Senator John Kerry (D-MA) who stated in September of 2006,

“When did denying al-Qaida a terrorist stronghold in Afghanistan stop being an urgent American priority?” Kerry said. “How is it possible that we keep sending thousands of additional U.S. troops into the middle of a civil war in Iraq but we can’t find any more troops to send to Afghanistan?”

Since no Republican voted for the draft when it was submitted previously it is likely President Bush will veto the measure the next time it comes up for a vote. It does not seem likely that the Democrats will be able to overcome a veto despite the calls to expand the war in Afghanistan and refusals to approve withdrawal from Iraq.

Of course, it remains to be seen whether the Democrats will bring to the table now what they called for under a Republican Congress.

Ray Robison is the proprietor of Ray Robison: Pointing Out the Obvious to the Oblivious, and an occasional contributor to American Thinker.

Pelosi’s Left-Wing All Stars

Pelosi’s Left-Wing All Stars
By Patrick Poole
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 7, 2006

With Election Day upon us, Democrats nationwide are pinning their hopes on picking up enough seats in both the US Senate and House races to give them majorities so that they can wrest legislative control from Republicans and political control from the Bush Administration. Part of the electoral prize if Democrats can pick up an additional 15 seats in the House and claim the majority is that their selection as Speaker, most probably Left Coast Liberal Nancy Pelosi (the current House Minority Leader), will get to choose the chairman for 25 separate House committees.

If Democrats are successful in taking control in the House, Pelosi will be the first female Speaker of the House and the first Democrat to take over the Speaker’s chair since voters cast Democrats into the political wilderness in 1994. As she made clear in an interview with Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes a few weeks ago, “Speaker” Pelosi intends to remake congressional politics in her own image. The primary means by which she will do that will be through her appointment of committee chairmen.


With that in mind, it would be prudent to take a quick look at who “Speaker” Pelosi would probably choose to head up the most important House committees for the 110th Session of Congress:

 Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence – Alcee Hastings (FL-23) 

This election has clearly been defined by the national security issue and the war in Iraq. It should be remembered that one of the contributing factors to 9/11 is that our intelligence agencies failed to respond to the escalating threat of al-Qaeda. This is what makes the House Intelligence Committee so important. And yet, the Washington Post reported two weeks ago that Nancy Pelosi intends to pass over the current ranking Democrat on the committee, Jane Harman, in favor of her friend, Alcee Hastings, for chairman of this critical committee. Harman has come under attack from members of her own party because of her strong support for Israel; Hastings, on the other hand, has the dubious distinction of being only one of six federal judges to be impeached in American history after he was caught taking a $150,000 bribe in exchange lenient sentencing of two convicts (be sure to read Jacob Laksin’s June 2006 FrontPage profile of Hastings, “A Profile in Corruption”). But having been tossed from the bench in 1989 (when Nancy Pelosi voted to impeach him), Hastings ran for and won his congressional seat in 1992, riding the Clinton Wave (which two years later crashed on the shores of the Republican Revolution). Since then, Hastings has risen through the Democratic ranks and is the front-runner for the Intelligence chairmanship in the event of a Democratic takeover in the House. Remember, this is the same committee that in September had a Democratic staffer fired for releasing sensitive national security information to the media to embarrass the Bush Administration. Expect even more of the same if Hastings gets access to the deepest secrets of our intelligence community.

 Committee on Appropriations – David Obey (WI-7) 

One of Pelosi’s biggest fans, in 2004 Obey hailed Pelosi as “our Maggie Thatcher”. While the Appropriations committee is hardly the sexy assignment as Intelligence or Judiciary, Obey has always taken his orders from his Democratic Party masters and “obeyed” his leaders in the House. Like his votes in the early days of the Clinton Administration (when Democrats still ruled in Congress), when he voted seven times to slash the intelligence budget and was an accomplices to Clinton’s dismantling of the American military under the guise of the “peace dividend” to pay for the Democratic social spending spree of the Clinton Era. And if Democrats are in fact returned to power, Obey has promised to make one of his primary initiatives his goal of making individual contributions to a political candidate a federal crime, which would give unprecedented power to the political parties (read – Democrats) in our political system, and responding to what he calls “our biggest national security threat” – global warming.

 Committee on Armed Services – Ike Skelton (MO-4) 

Usually one of the more sensible members among House Democrats, Skelton has nonetheless been prone to wild swings on the issues. Despite being one of the most forceful voices in favor of going to war in Iraq, just a few weeks ago he joined Democrat Cut-and-Run Caucus Chairman John Murtha in calling for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq – this from a Congressman who was quoted by the Washington Post in 2003 as saying, “We cannot leave Iraq. This has to be a success. If it’s not a success, the credibility of the United States of America as a leader in this free world will hit rock bottom. We cannot allow that.” Skelton vowed that if Democrats come into power, he intends to wrest control of military policy from the Bush Administration (the Executive Branch being given that power by the US Constitution) and involve Congress (read – Democrats) more in the management and oversight of the military.

 Committee on the Budget – John Spratt (SC-5) 

One of the more vulnerable Democrats this election, Spratt is facing a tough reelection campaign in a conservative district that has voted overwhelmingly in favor of President Bush in the past two presidential elections. It hasn’t helped that Spratt is Nancy Pelosi’s right-hand man, serving as her the Assistant to the Democratic Leader, which hasn’t played well back in his district. His opponent, Ralph Norman, has noted that while Spratt was one of only a handful of Democrats to vote in favor of the presidential line-item veto during the Clinton Administration, which he said was “absolutely necessary if we want to get our finances in order up in Washington,” according to columnist Robert Novak, this past July he quickly fell into line on Pelosi’s orders to reverse his position and oppose Republican efforts to pass Spratt’s own proposal for a limited presidential line-item veto. While claiming in his campaign that he has worked to repeal estate taxes, Spratt early this year voted against making those tax cuts permanent (maybe it was one of those “I voted for it before I voted against it”). Another agenda item not sitting well with Spratt’s constituents is his join proposal with Pelosi to raise taxes to pay for Hurricane Katrina relief last year. That was one of the contributing reasons why the National Taxpayer’s Union last year gave Spratt a grade of “F” as one of the “Biggest Spenders” in Congress.

 Committee on Energy and Commerce – John Dingell (MI-15) 

Dingell grew up the privileged son of a Congressman and is currently the longest serving member in the House of Representatives. According to an editorial last month in the Washington Times, in his role as chairman of the Energy and Commerce committee, Dingell intends to revisit the passage of the Medicare prescription-drug plan by launching an investigation to see what role drug companies played in the Republican proposal. Also at the top of Dingell’s agenda is his long-standing plan to nationalize America’s health care – a proposal he inherited from his father from the New Deal days that he introduces at the beginning of each congressional session.

 Committee on Financial Services – Barney Frank (MA-4) 

During the recent Mark Foley scandal, it was ironic to see the mainstream media, such as Newsweek, interviewing Barney Frank on congressional sex scandals. Observers might recall that Frank was censured by the House in 1990 when it was discovered that his homosexual lover was running a male prostitution ring out of Frank’s Washington D.C. home. But that is far from Frank’s only scandal, such as his opposition earlier this year to the Respect for Fallen Heroes Act that prohibits protests in national cemeteries during funerals for soldiers killed in action. Frank was only one of three House members to oppose the law. Equally as appalling was Frank’s role in the early 1990s (when Democrats still controlled Congress) of implementing rules that kept Immigration and Customs officials from stopping Islamic militants from entering the US on visas (see Rocco DiPippo’s detailed FrontPage exclusive, “Immigrating Terror,” for Frank’s role in revising immigration laws).

 Committee on International Relations – Tom Lantos (CA-12) 

One of Nancy Pelosi’s fellow San Francisco liberals, Tom Lantos (see his DiscoverTheNetworkorg profile) is a rarity among Democrats for his long-time support of Israel and his vocal opposition to international anti-Semitism, which should come as no surprise from a Holocaust survivor. And yet, when it comes to other threats to America and freedom abroad, Lantos has turned a blind eye. For instance, in 2002 he added his name to a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell complaining of the human rights abuses by the Columbian government in their war against the Marxist, drug-financed FARC guerillas, who have waged a bloody terrorist campaign in that country, and demanding that US funds for drug-interdiction efforts to Columbia be cut. No mention was made in the letter, however, about the atrocities committed by FARC. And as a member of the far-Left Progressive Caucus (founded by Vermont Socialist Bernie Sanders, and currently chaired by Dennis Kucinich), Lantos is recognized as one of the most liberal members of Congress, one of the few to receive a perfect 100 percent score from the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). He has also received top marks from labor unions and educrats alike, particularly for his opposition to school vouchers for inner-city children trapped in failing schools.

 Committee on Government Reform – Henry Waxman (CA-30) 

During the Clinton era, it was Henry Waxman’s job as ranking Democrat on the Government Reform committee to obstruct Republicans’ investigations in the scandal-ridden Clinton Administration (as Chris Weinkopf described in his 2002 FrontPage article, “Regarding Henry”). During that time, Waxman’s position was “see no evil, here no evil, speak no evil” regarding the rampant corruption within the Clinton White House. But now with Waxman within striking distance of the committee chairmanship and a Republican occupying the Oval Office, he has embraced the “government ethics” religion, vowing to open up investigations on a number of fronts targeting the Bush Administration. But as FrontPage editor Ben Johnson explained last year, one investigation that Republicans might want to explore if they are successful in maintaining control of the House is Waxman’s role in assisting a number of radical Leftist organizations in delivering $600,000 in “aid” into Iraqi camps near Fallujah while US forces were trying to clear the area of insurgents, where Waxman gave his radical friends a letter to ensure that their “aid” coming into the area did not receive scrutiny by security personnel.

 Committee on the Judiciary – John Conyers (MI-14) 

Even though Nancy Pelosi said on 60 Minutes a few weeks ago that if Democrats won control of the House, impeachment would “be off the table,” it’s clear that she has had trouble convincing John Conyers, her choice to head the Judiciary committee, of that. Earlier this year he was asking on his congressional website for public support in forming an independent committee to gather evidence to be used as grounds for impeachment of President Bush, promising to end the George Bush regime in the United States of America.” Also on Conyers’ agenda would be pushing through legislation for slavery reparations – a pet cause that Conyers has been pushing since 1989. As the representative for the most heavily Muslim-populated area of the country, it is no surprise that Conyers is one of the most anti-Israel, anti-war members of Congress. Regularly ranked as one of the most liberal member of Congress, Conyers has associated himself with a number of extremist groups, including the Marxist pro-North Korean front group, International A.N.S.W.E.R., and even speaking in March 2005 at a rally to raise money for anti-Semitic, conspiracy theorist, and perennial presidential candidate, Lyndon LaRouche.

 Committee on Ways and Means – Charlie Rangel (NY-15) 

If Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats are successful in getting enough seats to put them in the majority, the front man for Speaker Pelosi’s efforts to repeal the Bush tax cuts (which economic experts have identified as a major contributor to the post-9/11 recovery) will be Charlie Rangel. But not only will he work to repeal the legislation that has cut the taxes of millions of seniors, working families and single mothers, Rangel has made it clear that tax hikes will be the order of the day for a Democratically-controlled House. When he was asked by Congress Daily PM in September if across-the-board tax increases would be part of the Democratic Party majority agenda, Rangel replied, “No question about it.” But in recent days as the election has grown near, Democrats in tight House races have been frantic to get Rangel talking to the mainstream media (such as this Washington Post article last week) assuring voters that all of his promises over the past six months to rollback the Bush tax cuts had been misinterpreted. But the Washington Times noted last month how frequently Rangel changes his position on ending tax cuts and imposing tax hikes depending on who his audience is. Americans should not be fooled – Charlie Rangel is no friend to the American taxpayer.


We will learn if Democrats have been victorious in convincing the American electorate that they are the party that best represents the American mood. Most pollsters are saying the race for control of Congress is too close to call. Sadly, most voters will never get to vote in competitive congressional elections because of how both parties have carved up each state map to preserve their respective political power.

But for voters who are in districts with tight congressional races, they should know that what is at stake is not only who will represent them in Washington, but who will control the political machinery in Washington. If Democrats get a majority of House seats, Speaker Pelosi has her best men – all of whom will be beholden to her for their powerful committee chairmanships, not the voters who elected them – ready and waiting to take America in a very different direction. In looking closely at Nancy Pelosi’s Democratic Party All-Star Team roster, Americans who are demanding change in Washington D.C. had better be careful. They may get exactly what they voted for.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com

George Soros Interview On 60 Minutes

George Soros On Helping The Nazis During The Holocaust

Here is a partial transcript from an interview done by Steve Krost for CBS’ 60 Minutes George Soros on December 20, 1998:

George Soros Interview On 60 Minutes

When the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944, George Soros’ father was a successful lawyer. He lived on an island in the Danube and liked to commute to work in a rowboat. But knowing there were problems ahead for the Jews, he decided to split his family up. He bought them forged papers and he bribed a government official to take 14-year-old George Soros in and swear that he was his Christian godson. But survival carried a heavy price tag. While hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were being shipped off to the death camps, George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his appointed rounds, confiscating property from the Jews.

(Vintage footage of Jews walking in line; man dragging little boy in line)

KROFT: (Voiceover) These are pictures from 1944 of what happened to George Soros’ friends and neighbors.

(Vintage footage of women and men with bags over their shoulders walking; crowd by a train)

KROFT: (Voiceover) You’re a Hungarian Jew…

Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.

KROFT: (Voiceover) …who escaped the Holocaust…

(Vintage footage of women walking by train)

Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.

(Vintage footage of people getting on train)

KROFT: (Voiceover) …by–by posing as a Christian.

Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Right.

(Vintage footage of women helping each other get on train; train door closing with people in boxcar)

KROFT: (Voiceover) And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.

Mr. SOROS: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that’s when my character was made.

KROFT: In what way?

Mr. SOROS: That one should think ahead. One should understand and–and anticipate events and when–when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a–a very personal experience of evil.

KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.

KROFT: I mean, that’s–that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

Mr. SOROS: Not–not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don’t–you don’t see the connection. But it was–it created no–no problem at all.

KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

Mr. SOROS: No.

KROFT: For example that, ‘I’m Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.’ None of that?

Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c–I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn’t be there, because that was–well, actually, in a funny way, it’s just like in markets–that if I weren’t there–of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would–would–would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the–whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the–I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.

Of course most of us here are already aware of Mr. Soros’ highly questionable actions during the Nazi occupation. (Though the public at large undoubtedly has a different perspective, if they know anything about his earlier days at all.)

But the statements he made in this interview to my mind are quite chilling. He forgives himself everything. He says that if he hadn’t done it somebody else would have.

All of which would seem to indicate that Mr. Soros has no conscience. A lack of conscience is said to be a common symptom of sociopaths.

Related Articles: