Dewage Ex Machina

dew'-age ex mach-i'-na n. compound, archaic
an opinion, statement or treatise
- spewing as a rant, speech or incitement from the internet
- as the result of an intermittant explosive disorder
- in an ineffectual effort
- to right an apparent or perceived wrong, injustice or disservice.

Sunday, April 30, 2006

Comments

I apologize for the delay in posting comments. It took me awhile to figure out there were comments pending. I promise to check for them more often from now on!

Preparing the Battlefield

LAObserved, a blog by Kevin Roderick that provides commentary on LA politics vis-a-vis the LA Times and media reporting, has posted an email sent out after a "delegation of progressives met with the top opinion editors at the L.A. Times to complain about the axing of Robert Scheer's column and push for more anti-war voices on the op-ed page."

For more information on their program strategy and agenda, please follow the link to the lengthy article: Anatomy of a left-wing cause.

The delegation consisted of Marcy Winograd (Pres., Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles), Wayne Williams (active in SoCal Grassroots), Brad Parker (VP, Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles), Carole Myers (active in SoCal Grassroots), and Bob Elias (Chicano Moratorium). The meeting was scheduled two weeks in advance. Tom Hayden's Op Ed piece "The Myth of the Super-Preditor" ran the day after the meeting. The next day, Huffington's "It's Dirty Tricks all over Again" ran. On Sunday, five days after the meeting, the LA Times ran "America Kidnapped Me," Khaled E-Msri's story of CIA torture.

The email is their "how-to" guide on to influence the LA Times's editors so that the Op Ed pages reflect their progressive opinions. With a few modifications, this strategy can be adapted to any cause, including RKBA issues. It is my hope that the members of this list review these suggestions and pursue a course of action through their MC's as unaffiliated individuals, or in conjunction with state leadership as a larger co-ordinated voice. Not to dump work on him, but I understand Paul would be the contact for anything other than unaffiliated individual opinion.

I am summarizing their recommendations contained in the email for the progressive's side of the argument below. Some specific links and recommended contacts may not be directly helpful to us.

They recommend the following course of action:

1) "Call Evonne Geller in Circulation at (xxx) xxx-xxxx and tell her you are [want to be] a "contingency re-subscriber for 3 months or until March 20th." If, for some reason, you have trouble reaching Evonne, re-subscribe by calling: (xxx-xxx-xxxx)." (NOTE: The email points out that by "canceling our subscriptions for a month and re-subscribing on a contingency basis, we exercise our influence as readers." -Jim)

2) "[Join] a well-organized Media Rapid Response group that evolved from SoCal Grassroots efforts, please feel free to contact Wayne Williams at xxx@xxx.net. When requesting membership, write the phrase "LA Times Watch" in the subject heading of your email." (NOTE: the LA Times Watch is probably not our friend, but may provide some fun reading for counter-intel purposes. -Jim)

3) "Commit to writing at least one letter a month, affirming or challenging LA Times content, paying special attention to columnists such as Max Boot and Jonah Goldberg who repeat the views of corporate-driven think tanks advancing a neo-con agenda. It will be our job to reveal misleading statements, lies and distortions and demand truth and accuracy. Support those progressive editorial and opinion articles that do uncover the truth, as Hayden, Huffington, Cockburn and Brooks did last week. To contact a writer or editor at the LA Times, you can email the person by writing their first name, followed by a period, then their last name @latimes.com Example: xxxx.xxxx@latimes.com (Opinion Page Editor)"

4) "We embrace an inside/outside strategy, whereby subscribers lobby from within and non-subscribers, withholding their subscriptions, exert pressure from without. Please let us know (pdlavote@aol.com) if you want to pursue an inside (subscribe) or outside (boycott) strategy."

5) "[S]tay involved in what the local media publishes and promotes."

6) "Let the editors ([Andres.Martinez@latimes.com and Nick.Goldberg@latimes.com]) know you are re-subscribing on a contingency basis; or that you are not re-subscribing until the LA Times hires a second nationally-recognized progressive weekly columnist."

7) The delegates "provided a list and sample columns of recommended journalists: Robert Scheer, Arianna Huffington, Bill Press, Jim Hightower, Frank Rich, Seymour Hersh, Paul Krugman, William Rivers Pitt, Tom Hartman, Naomi Klein, Norman Solomon, Marjorie Cohn, Andrew Greeley, and a dozen more, later talking up Tom Hayden and the need for a strong anti-war voice on the Opinion page." (NOTE: They later go on to say that the LA Times has a policy of not running syndicated writers, unless the writer originated with the Times, and that Huffington had been dropped by a former editor who became peeved when she ran for Governor. -Jim)

Among some notable comments from the email, Max Boot was equated with Hitler, "6,000 readers emailed and faxed the LA Times to protest Scheer's firing," and "two-hundred of us demonstrated in front of the LA Times building" in a co-ordinated media photo op.

CONTACTS:

LA Times Circulation Dept.: Evonne.Geller@latimes.com (800) 252-9141
LA Times Editorial Dept. Editor: Andres.Martinez@latimes.com
LA Times Op Ed Editor: Nick.Goldberg@latimes.com

The Los Angeles Times welcomes expressions of all views. Letters should be brief and become the property of The Times. They may be edited and republished in any format. They must include valid mailing address and telephone number. Pseudonyms and initials will not be used. Letters should be in plain text and not include attachments.
letters@latimes.com

The Times welcomes manuscripts for possible publication. Each commentary must be exclusive to The Times. Unpublished manuscripts will not be returned. For a recorded explanation of Op-Ed requirements, please call (213) 237-2121. Articles may be sent to oped@latimes.com (not as an attachment) or faxed to (213) 237-7968.

Labels:

Saturday, April 29, 2006

How the Brady Campaign Uses the Internet to Raise Funds

I have reformatted the following text in an effort to make the salient points more accessable.

Maximizing ROI in an Integrated Context

In the fall of 2003, the Brady Campaign grew its email list from an original 38,000 to 175,000 via an innovative micro-site that was followed by petition campaigns that focused on urgent federal legislation. A vast majority of these constituents were non-donors. Throughout two legislative battles in 2004, the Brady Campaign sent a series of appeals that included:
- A link to contacting Congress,
- A “tell-a-friend” option, and
- A strong ask for funds that often included examples of specific print or TV ads.

Typical responses ranged from 0.19 - 0.37 percent and average gifts ranged from $24 to $46. This compares to typical email acquisition response rates of 0.1 percent [2-4x better. -Ed.].

New donors via the Internet grew from 311 in 2002 to 3,244 [10.4x better. -Ed.] in 2004. The Brady Campaign acquired these new donors at a very positive ROI since sending an email appeal does not have any marginal costs once the software is in place.

The organization decided to test other channels to drive incremental conversion of these online sourced constituents to donors. Having collected postal mailing addresses for about 23 percent of its email list, the Brady Campaign sent a direct mail solicitation to online non-donors asking them to join.

The result was a 1.26 percent response rate. This response rate was 11 percent higher than the overall mailing response rate of 1.11 percent to the group’s standard direct mail rental lists.

The average gift from email constituents in response to the direct mail appeal was 19 percent higher ($24.22), compared to their overall mailing average gift of $20.52.

The key acquisition metric, the net cost per acquired donor for the email list, was $6.22 compared with $15.71 for the overall mailing.

The Brady Campaign also contacted non-donors on the email list via phone. It matched about 20,000 records of e-constituents who had taken at least one advocacy action.

Telemarketing drove a 21 percent pledge rate with an average gift of $27.38.

About the Author: Vinay Bhagat founded and heads strategy for Convio, Inc., a provider of on-demand software and services to help nonprofit organizations use the Internet to become more effective at fundraising, mobilizing support and managing constituent relationships. For more information, please visit www.convio.com. This article first appeared in the the March edition of FundRaising Success magazine.

Labels:

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Jed Babbin: Keep the Big Dog running

A reasonable dissent from the other side of the "let's sack Rumsfeld" movement. Key grafs:

"Rumsfeld was hired by George W. Bush to do precisely what he has done to the consternation of the generals who are now coming out to complain about him."

"Rumsfeld is the Big Dog, and those whose feathers he has ruffled in the Pentagon, the press and Congress are the poodles who chase after him. They should follow the principle one Southern gent often reminds me of: If you can’t run with the big dog, you’d better go sit on the porch."

Labels:

Friday, April 21, 2006

Hey, nice shirt!

Be the first on your block to own one!

Why do I have to work after I get home after work?

Today I recieved in the mail no less than three letters from my mortgage companies. This was intriging, because I only have one mortgage -- but it's apparently been sold and then suddenly resold yet again. The first mortgage company sent me my monthly payment statement at the old amount. The second mortgage company sent me a letter saying they had sold my account. The third company sent me a letter with a payment coupon that was $80 more than the first one. They had decided to escrow more of my money for me.

So I called them. I had to call four times to figure out how to talk to a real person, but I don't remember how I did it, so I'll have to wing it next time, too. I remember I had to hold for awhile. The first idiot was nice enough, but was an idiot. It told him they had sent the statement to the wrong address, so he took my new information -- all of it, I was waiting for him to ask for my shoe size when he said, "Is there anything else I can help you with?" I was momentarily taken aback before I realized it was my turn now.

I asked for an itemized statement of my escrowed account. Umm, he said. Really, that was the first word out of his mouth. Then he told me he couldn't send out that information until Monday, because my address had changed, but he could tell me what was on it now.

Umm, I said, OK... (Twist my arm.) So much was escrowed for taxes, this much was escrowed for Insurance, both were the same as before, and $80 was escrowed for mortgage insurance. That started a whole new conversation. I asked him what the assessed value of my house was, he told me. I asked him what the balance of my account was, he told me. I told him that was a value of 62% and then asked him what amount was the cutoff for "mortgage insurance". He said he'd have to transfer me to another department. Apparently, the Math Department.

I held again. The next lady was no idiot. I asked her where she got the assessed value for my house used to calculate the mortgage insurance. Three times. Apparently that question either wasn't in her script, or else had a footnote that said "Never answer this question." I tried re-communicating the question in another vernacular. Ah, let me check your record to see if we have your account paperwork yet, she said. Finally (months later, it seemed), after holding twice more we came to an agreement.

They would get back to me in four days.

Labels:

A heart-to-heart talk

A heart-to-heart talk:

"Thank you Major Bloomberg."

His quote from a story kicked me into action.

"Illegal guns are hurting innocent people across America, whether you are east of the Mississippi or north or south of the Mason-Dixon line," Bloomberg said yesterday.

Well I marched my unregistered guns out and gave them a good talking to. It seems that most of them knew they should not go out after dark or let themselves be found on the street. Except my Mossberg. He smelled of cheap booze and refused to look me in the eye. His "Whatever dude!" comments started to get on my nerves. I'm so worried he will end up in a life of crime and other sorry deeds.

What is a dad to do?

Labels:

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

A California Lawyer's Perspective on Iraq War

by Raymond S. Kraft

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk more than four hundred British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.

Bushido Japan had overrun most of Asia, beginning in 1928, killing millions of civilians throughout China, and impressing millions more as slave labor.

The US was in an isolationist, pacifist, mood, and most Americans and Congress wanted nothing to do with the European war, or the Asian war.

Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.France was not an ally; the Vichy government of France aligned with its German occupiers. Germany was not an ally; it was an enemy, and Hitler intended to set up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally; it was intent on owning and controlling all of Asia. Japan and Germany had long-term ideas of invading Canada and Mexico, and then the United States over the north and south borders, after they had settled control of Asia and Europe.

America's allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it. There were no other countries of any size or military significance with the will and ability to contribute much or anything to the effort to defeat Hitler's Germany and Japan, and prevent the global dominance of Nazism. And we had to send millions of tons of arms, munitions, and war supplies to Russia, England, and the Canadians, Aussies, Irish, and Scots, because none of them could produce all they needed for themselves.

All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was already under the Nazi heel.

America was not prepared for war. America had stood down most of its military after WW I and throughout the depression. At the outbreak of W W II there were army units training with broomsticks over their shoulders because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have tanks. And a big chunk of our navy had just been sunk and damaged at Pearl Harbor.

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England that was the property of Belgium and was given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler. Actually, Belgium surrendered one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day anyway just to prove they could. Britain had been holding out for two years already in the face of staggering shipping loses and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain. Britain was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later and turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse in the late summer of 1940.

Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.

Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow, 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a million soldiers. More than a million.

Had Russia surrendered then, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire campaign against the Brits, then America, and the Nazis would have won that war.

Had Hitler not made that mistake and invaded England in 1940 or 1941, instead, there would have been no England for the US and the Brits to use as a staging ground to prepare an assault on Nazi Europe; England would not have been able to run its North African campaign to help take a little pressure off Russia while America geared up for battle; and today Europe would very probably be run by the Nazis, the Third Reich. And, isolated and without any allies (not even the Brits), the US would very probably have had to cede Asia to the Japanese, who were basically Nazis by another name then, and the world we live in today would be very different and much worse. I say this to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. And we are at another one.

There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so.

France, Germany and Russia have been selling them weapons technology at least as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan, paid for with billions of dollars Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the UN with the complicity of Kofi Annan and his son.

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs -- they believe that Islam, a radically conservative (definitely not liberal!) form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world, and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East -- for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win -- the Inquisition, or the Reformation.

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, and the OPEC oil, and the US, European and Asian economies. The techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC -- not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want jobs? You want the dollar to be worth anything? You better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.

If the Reformation movement wins -- that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st -- then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition; i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. We cannot do it nowhere. And we cannot do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle now at the time and place of our choosing, in Iraq.

Not in New York, not in London, or Paris, or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we did and are doing two very important things.

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist. Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad guys there, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here, or anywhere else. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

The Euros could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihad, the French, Germans and Russians were selling them arms -- we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam need a million tons of weapons?

And Iraq was paying for French, German and Russian arms with money skimmed from the UN Oil For Food Program (supervised by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and his son) that was supposed to pay for food, medicine and education for Iraqi children.

World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It beganwith the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945 -- a 17-year war -- and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again . . a 27-year war.

World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP -- adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars. WW II cost America more than 400,000 killed in action and nearly 100,000 still missing in action. [The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $160 billion, which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 1,800 American lives, which is roughly 1/2 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11.] But the cost of not fighting and winning WW II would have been unimaginably greater - a world now dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.

Americans have a short attention span, now, conditioned I suppose by 60-minute TV shows and 2-hour movies in which everything comes out okay.

The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain and sometimes bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be.

If we do this thing in Iraq successfully, it is probable that the Reformation will ultimately prevail. Many Muslims in the Middle East hope it will. We will be there to support it. It has begun in some countries, Libya, for instance. And Dubai. And Saudi Arabia. If we fail, the Inquisition will probably prevail, and terrorism from Islam will be with us for all the foreseeable future, because the Inquisition, or Jihad, believes they are called by Allah to kill all the Infidels, and that death in Jihad is glorious.

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. It will not go away if we ignore it.

If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless we prevent them. Or somebody does.

The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting it and winning it will be horrifically greater. We have four options --

1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).

3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.

4. Or we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier then.

Yes, the Jihadis say that they look forward to an Islamic America. If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.

We can be defeatist peace-activists as anti-war types seem to be, and concede surrender to the Jihad, or we can do whatever it takes to win this war against them.

The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

In the 20th century, it was Western democracy vs. communism, and before that Western democracy vs. Nazism, and before that Western democracy vs. German Imperialism. Western democracy won three times, but it wasn't cheap, fun, nice, easy or quick. Indeed, the wars against German Imperialism (WW I), Nazi Imperialism (WW II) and communist imperialism (the 40-year Cold War that included the Vietnam Battle (commonly called the Vietnam War, but itself a major battle in a larger war) covered almost the entire century.

The first major war of the 21st Century is the war between Western Judeo/Christian Civilization and Wahhabi Islam. It may last a few more years, or most of this century. It will last until the Wahhabi branch of Islam fades away, or gives up its ambitions for regional and global dominance and Jihad, or until Western Civilization gives in to the Jihad.

Senator John Kerry, in the debates and almost daily, makes 3 scary claims:

1. We went to Iraq without enough troops.

We went with the troops the US military wanted. We went with the troop levels General Tommy Franks asked for. We deposed Saddam in 30 days with light casualties, much lighter than we expected.

The real problem in Iraq is that we are trying to be nice -- we are trying to fight minority of the population that is Jihadi, and trying to avoid killing the large majority that is not. We could flatten Fallujah in minutes with a flight of B-52's, or seconds with one nuclear cruise missile -- but we don't. We're trying to do brain surgery, not amputate the patient's head. The Jihadis amputate heads.

2. We went to Iraq with too little planning.

This is a specious argument. It supposes that if we had just had "the right plan" the war would have been easy, cheap, quick and clean.

That is not an option. It is a guerrilla war against a determined enemy, and no such war ever has been or ever will be easy, cheap, quick and clean. This is not TV.

3. We proved ourselves incapable of governing and providing security.

This too is a specious argument. It was never our intention to govern and provide security. It was our intention from the beginning to do just enough to enable the Iraqis to develop a representative government and their own military and police forces to provide their own security, and that is happening. The US and the Brits and other countries there have trained over 100,000 Iraqi police and military, now, and will have trained more than 200,000 by the end of next year. We are in the process of transitioning operational control for security back to Iraq.

It will take time. It will not go with no hitches. This is not TV.

Remember, perspective is everything, and America's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.

The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany.World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten-year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept.

The US has taken a little more than 2,000 KIA in Iraq. The US took more than 4,000 Killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In WW II the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week for four years. Most of the individual battles of WW II lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.

But the stakes are at least as high . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights and personal freedoms -- or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).

I do not understand why the American Left does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis. In America, absolutely, but nowhere else.

300,000 Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq are not our problem. The US population is about twelve times that of Iraq, so let's multiply 300,000 by twelve. What would you think if there were 3,600,000 American bodies in mass graves in America because of George Bush? Would you hope for another country to help liberate America?

"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate where it's safe, in America.

Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places in the world that really need peace activism the most?

The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.

If the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. Everywhere the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. And American Liberals just don't get it.

(Raymond S. Kraft is a writer and lawyer living in Northern California. Please consider passing along copies of this to students in high school, college and university as it contains information about the American past that is very meaningful TODAY - - history about America that very likely is completely unknown by them (and their instructors, too). By being denied the facts and truth of our history, they are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reasoning and thinking through the issues of today. They are prime targets for misinformation campaigns beamed at enlisting them in causes and beliefs that are special interest agenda driven.)

Labels: