“Islam has never learned how to be a religion.

“It’s a tyranny by its very nature. Until it learns to let the door swing both ways, and permit Muslims to decide not to be Muslims without penalty, then the world has no choice but to fight against it in order to be free.” – Orson Scott Card, Shadow of the Giant

I liked that quote when I first read it late last year. I think it’s accurate, and it is well supported by this story out of the Netherlands:

Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

A group of young Muslim apostates launches a campaign today, the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on America, to make it easier to renounce Islam.

The provocative move reflects a growing rift between traditionalists and a younger generation raised on a diet of Dutch tolerance.

The Committee for Ex-Muslims promises to campaign for freedom of religion but has already upset the Islamic and political Establishments for stirring tensions among the million-strong Muslim community in the Netherlands.

Ehsan Jami, the committee’s founder, who rejected Islam after the attack on the twin towers in 2001, has become the most talked-about public figure in the Netherlands. He has been forced into hiding after a series of death threats and a recent attack.

The threats are taken seriously after the murder in 2002 of Pim Fortuyn, an antiimmigration politician, and in 2004 of Theo Van Gogh, an antiIslam film-maker.

Speaking to The Times at a secret location before the committee’s launch today, the Labour Party councillor said that the movement would declare war on radical Islam. Similar organisations campaigning for reform of the religion have sprung up across Europe and representatives from Britain and Germany will join the launch in The Hague today.

RTWT. At the bottom of the story is an excerpt translated from the Koran:

According to Baidhawi’s commentary, Sura 4: 88-89 reads: “Whosoever turns back from his belief, openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel. Separate yourself from him altogether. Do not accept intercession in his regard.”

The haditha – oral tradition upon which Sharia law is based – reinforces this. A link in the story goes to this page where the following is stated:

THE Koran is contradictory on the fate of those who deny the truth of Islam.

Fourteen passages refer to apostasy and, of these, seven refer to punishment, generally to be given in the next life.

Sura 40 says that those who reject the scriptures will have iron collars and chains placed around their necks, be dragged into scalding water and burnt in the fire. Elsewhere the Koran seems to indicate a degree of tolerance. Verse 2.256 states: “There is no compulsion in religion.” Two further suras, 10 and 18, include passages indicating that people who do not wish to believe should not be forced to.

That’s pretty inconsistent for the immutable Word of God, it seems to me. Read that whole piece, too.

I don’t agree with Orson Scott Card on the topic of gun control, but he seems to have his head on straight where radical Islam is concerned. And I wish good luck to Ehsan Jami and his compatriots in their efforts.

And knife-proof vests.

Quote of the Day.

Bill Ardolino is an independent journalist in Iraq. He normally posts his stories at his blog, INDCJournal, but Long War Journal sometimes carries his pieces. They posted one yesterday, an interview a local translator, a Fallujan, on several topics, but especially the invasion and occupation, with special emphasis on Fallujah. I recommend you read the whole thing. There’s a lot of good information there. (You’ll like it, Markadelphia, I promise! Much grist for both sides.) But this passage I found particularly quotable:

INDC: But what motivated al Qaeda to do that though? Why would they start killing those innocent people?

Leo: I think the major goal was chaos … to make big chaos. And everyone knows [that the radical mujahadeen] were pushed [into Iraq] from beyond the borders: Iran particularly, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. Nobody wants Iraq to stabilize, to be a good country and a democratic country, because democracy will affect them, and they are dictatorships. There is a prince in Kuwait, there is a King in Arabia, there is what everyone calls a republic, but it’s not a republic, it’s a kingdom in Jordan. And Iran, Iran wants to take over the whole area, if possible. So they see an opportunity to take over Iraq, and they take it. That’s what everyone thinks, just like what I’ve said.

Gee, it sound’s like he’s reading from Karl Rove’s Bush Doctrine Manual.

This second quote is a close runner-up:

INDC: One thing I’m curious about is, what do the Fallujans think of the Marines as fighters? Do they respect them, hate them, fear them? I know that your culture is very proud and tough. You fight. What do they think of the Marines?

Leo: You know, al Qaeda and other mujahadeen say that the Americans are not tough, they are just cartoon soldiers, just like characters in cartoon films, but most of the people see the fact that they are tough people. And they are so patient. And they can fight outside of their country overseas, and I don’t think al Qaeda or someone else can fight like Marines, overseas and so distant from home.

But if we pull out because of the defeatist Democrats, then al Qaeda and the other mujahadeen will know that they can defeat us politically – and our defeat is all that matters. They learned that lesson from Vietnam.

Gigging the Paulites, (or: I Need the Traffic)

The first comment on the post where I endorsed Fred Thompson for President was from a Ron Paul supporter. Ron Paul has a fiercely dedicated (but very small) base of supporters who believe his understanding of the Constitution is the only valid one – and I’ll say up front they very well may be correct. However, as I tried to explain in those comments, Congressman Paul’s position ignores decades, nay, two centuries of political entropy, both here and abroad.

There are two quotes that I think well express the problem that the mainstream public has with Ron Paul. One is directly related to the Congressman. One is more general. From Rachel Lucas’ comments:

Like all strict libertarians, Ron Paul believes, truly believes, that he has found the Grand Unified Theory of human political relations, that all good political rules stem from a single principle that can be encapsulated in two or three sentences. He is rigidly ideological, which makes him, by definition, a zealot. Like all zealots, he thus appears to the rest of us like he is batshit crazy… because he is. The rest of us live in a far more complicated, nuanced world, where human interactions and human government cannot neatly be reduced down to a 3-sentence rule.

The other quote is by an ex-blogger, Dipnut from Isntapundit, and it’s about Ayn Rand, the inventor of the philosophy of Objectivism:

Perhaps the biggest mistake an intellectual can make is to try to parlay his one brilliant insight into a unified theory of existence. Ayn Rand made this mistake with Objectivism. Objectivism was useful for thinking in certain limited realms, but Rand sought to apply Objectivist thinking to every aspect of the human experience, including love. The result is a sterile philosophical landscape, extending out of sight in all directions. Tellingly, Rand was unable to live according to her ideals. This is part of what makes Rand so disagreeable; the almost hysterical denial of subjectivity’s inevitable, essential role in our lives. And it makes her not only disagreeable, but wrong.

I believe both Rand and Paul have important insights and have important things to say, but the extremes that both insist are necessary ignore the reality that is human existence. We are not (at least not most of us, and certainly not all of the time) rational creatures – but both the libertarian and the objectivist philosophies depend on high-percentage rationality, and so they fail.

The Geek with a .45 put it very well, also in a much older comment:

A truly enlightened society must ultimately be composed of 95%+ enlightened individuals…and the bell curve just doesn’t support that premise.

Ron Paul, if elected, could not fix anything. As I said in the Fred Thompson comment thread:

If there were 50 Ron Pauls in the Senate and 220 Ron Pauls in the House, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Unfortunately, there’s only one, and one isn’t going to accomplish anything, even if he’s President. While it would be amusing to watch him throw sand and monkey wrenches into the machinery of government from the height of the Oval Office, it’s not something I think we can afford to indulge ourselves in at present.

Most especially since we’re in a war that he thinks isolationism can get us out of.

“We will be left alone when we leave others alone.”

It’s nice to think that.

It’s not a thought more than tenuously connected to reality, but it’s nice to think it. That quote is part of a comment left by “OtherWhiteMatt” in relation to my post on Hollywood propaganda.

I strongly suggest that Matt, and everyone else concerned about the topic, watch this video about Islamism in Brussels, Belgium.

When even Deutsche Welle television starts running alarmist pieces on Islamism, you can bet it’s worse than you think. It’s worth your five minutes.

Yeah, Hollywood Has Our Back…

…and is gleefully and repeatedly sticking a knife in it.

WARNING: FOUL LANGUAGE FOLLOWS, BECAUSE I AM PISSED.

Remember this post? I’d been to see The Bourne Ultimatum (a not too pro-American film itself) and had to comment on three of the trailers shown before the feature: The Kingdom, Rendition, and Lions for Lambs.

Apparently the trailer for Redacted wasn’t yet available.

A new film about the real-life rape and killing of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl by U.S. soldiers who also murdered her family stunned the Venice festival, with shocking images that left some viewers in tears.

“Redacted”, by U.S. director Brian De Palma, is one of at least eight American films on the war in Iraq due for release in the next few months and the first of two movies on the conflict screening in Venice’s main competition.

Inspired by one of the most serious crimes committed by American soldiers in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, it is a harrowing indictment of the conflict and spares the audience no brutality to get its message across.

De Palma, 66, whose “Casualties of War” in 1989 told a similar tale of abuse by American soldiers in Vietnam, makes no secret of the goal he is hoping to achieve with the film’s images, all based on real material he found on the Internet.

“The movie is an attempt to bring the reality of what is happening in Iraq to the American people,” he told reporters after a press screening.

(All emphasis mine.)

OK, Brian, here’s my commentary on your film, which I have not seen and will not see:

If you want to make a film that brings “the reality of what is happening in Iraq to the American people” it had better include Al Qaeda suicide bombers deliberately targeting children and Mosques with VBIEDs. It had better include Al Qaeda torturing and murdering Iraqis with assistance from Iran and Syria. It had better include Americans providing medical care, building schools, providing supplies, training Iraqi police and military units, and all the other good things American soldiers do every single fucking day in Iraq. It had better include showing Americans what kind of living conditions our soldiers and Marines are experiencing as they do the damned hard job of nation-building that your fucking film makes even fucking harder. It had better show the coffins of our dead, and the effects those deaths have on their buddies, families and friends. It had better show our wounded – those who are injured, maimed, even those who lose limbs, and who still want to go back and finish the job. It had better show the “economic mercenaries” like Rocco DiPippo who go to Iraq to help them rebuild, and risk their lives to do so.

You want to make a movie about the atrocities committed by criminals in war? WAIT UNTIL THE WAR IS FUCKING OVER. Otherwise what you are doing is actively, willingly, and yes, traitorously providing a propaganda victory for the enemy. (Yes, Mark, I mean every goddamned word.)

Do atrocities occur in war? In every war that has ever occurred. Are those atrocities standard operating procedure or are they aberrations? Depends on the war. But in this case the five soldiers involved have been arrested, and most have either confessed and been sentenced or tried and convicted. Spc. James P. Barker confessed and has been given a sentence of 90 years. SGT Paul E. Cortez confessed and has been sentenced to 100 years. Pfc. Jesse Spielman received a sentence of 110 years. PFC Bryan L. Howard, who knew about the plan but did not participate in the rape and murders was sentenced to 27 months. The “ringleader” of the crime, PFC Steven Dale Green had been discharged from the Army prior to the case coming to light. He faces rape and murder charges as a civilian in Kentucky Federal court. He faces the death penalty when the case comes to trial, and I hope like hell he gets it. Maybe Brian DePalma can make a movie about that.

THIS IS WHAT WE DO TO CRIMINALS. We don’t make fucking propaganda movies for the other side.

“The pictures are what will stop the war. One only hopes that these images will get the public incensed enough to motivate their Congressmen to vote against this war,” he said.

NO, YOU ASSWIPE! “These images” will anger and inflame the Middle East and cause the Iraqis to doubt and fear us. It will embolden Al Qaeda and bring them new recruits. AND IT WILL MOST PROBABLY RESULT IN MORE OF OUR TROOPS GETTING KILLED.

And not only do you not give a damn about that, I’m willing to bet you’re counting on it since more deaths will increase pressure on Congress to cut and run.

The film, shot in Jordan with a little known cast, ends with a series of photographs of Iraqi civilians killed and their faces blacked out for legal reasons.

Note that it does NOT end with the fates of the soldiers involved, just the victims. Thankfully this cast is not filled with big-name actors, though I’m personally amazed that Spicoli isn’t playing PFC Green (or the 14 year-old girl). I guess he was too busy hobnobbing with Hugo Chavez to make the film.

Brian DePalma just got added to the list of people I will personally kick in the balls if I am ever unfortunate enough to be in their presence. He shares that list with Ted Rall.

Hey Brian, why not make your next project about the rape and murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome? There’s lots on the internet about that one. I mean, Americans need to know what’s really going on here in America, don’t we?

How in the FUCK did we ever produce a population that holds such hatred of their own country and countrymen? I really want to know.

UPDATE: Related pieces here and here. Without the invective.

UPDATE II: And here. WITH big-name stars.

UPDATE III: If Hollywood wants to make movies about war, here’s a list of books they can option.

Quote of the Day.

From Looking Iraqis in the Eye by Rocco DiPippo:

I am an American. I have never had to live in fear that something as harmless as a joke about my president could get me, my parents, brothers, sisters and cousins, tortured and murdered by my government. I had never lived in a place where a slip of the tongue could get me killed. My country is the United States of America, where just about anything goes, even when criticizing one’s government — where calling one’s president a liar, an idiot, a murderer or someone worse than Hitler is far, far more likely to get you a seat at the Oscars than a bullet to the brain.

That should leave a mark, but the intended recipients won’t acknowledge it. Commentary on the rest of the piece in the next post below.

Why Defeatism Matters

One of those people the Left decries as “economic mercenaries” writes about progress in Iraq, and how it is affected by the enemy loyal opposition here in Congress, the media, and the Left in general in Looking Iraqis in the Eye. I strongly recommend you read the whole thing, but here are a few choice excerpts:

Who can say that the morale of ordinary Iraqis and American soldiers was not damaged when one of the most powerful men in America, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, stood in front of the world and declared, “I believe… that this war is lost.” Who can expect them to ignore the defeatist postures of men and women like John Kerry, Richard Durbin, Edward Kennedy, John Murtha, Jack Reed, John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi? Who can forget the media deification of people like Cindy Sheehan and groups like International A.N.S.W.E.R and Code Pink, who are far more concerned with pushing a radical social and political agenda than they are with bringing peace and stability to Iraq?

Iraqis watch us, and they listen to us. What they hear from some of our politicians, political activists and cultural elites has made many of them reluctant to work with the Americans in bringing security to their country. Many Iraqis are afraid of what they are hearing from the Democratic Party leadership and their media shills – that America will abandon them. And as long as they are afraid, they will be reluctant to seize the initiative in their towns and villages and chase out those who are murdering their families.

That reluctance makes sense, since if the Americans leave now, as the Democrats are urging, the murderers will rule them. And the murderers will hunt down and kill anyone who ever worked with or cooperated with Americans.

I imagine they were none to happy to hear news reports that Barack Hussein Obama said that preventing genocide was not sufficient reason to keep American troops in Iraq. Nor will they be too happy to hear that the Iraqi government has failed to achieve the “benchmarks” set by our Congress in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It is very easy to pass judgment and make flippant statements on the Iraq situation from the comfort and safety of American soil. It is even easier to push lies and misinformation from the newsroom while nestled amongst those in agreement with your world view, where there is near total disconnect between words written and their effects on the ground in Iraq. But who would push to abandon Iraq if they were face-to-face with Iraqis as I was? Would Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer or Charles Rangel be able to listen to their frightful stories, to smell their fear, to feel their disappointments and still tell them that it would be right to leave them before delivering on our promises? Would you be able to look an Iraqi in the eye while saying that?

Now there’s a question I’d like to hear at the next Democrat debate.

Please, RTWT. Fortunately, most of my audience doesn’t need to hear it. Unfortunately, most people who do will never see it.

What Does it Say About the Media…

…when this gets reported by Popular Mechanics?

Half a World Away: Soldiers in Iraq Don’t Hear Deliberations Back Home (and Often Don’t Care)

TIKRIT, Iraq — It never even hits the radar screen. For the troops on the front lines and the colonels in the rear—and just about everyone in between – the big news in Iraq every day is that they’re still alive and healthy. When it comes to Senate votes on the U.S. presence in Iraq, Sunday talk shows thrashing out length of deployment and stateside pundits talking to themselves, nearly every grunt, airman, sailor, soldier and Marine I speak with just doesn’t care.

It’s not negligence or a lack of opinion about how long they think they should stay here; they’re tuned out because the news doesn’t impact their day-to-day operations – and because comms often leave them uninformed from half a world away.

War deliberations and post-firefight reactions back home can vanish during the 12-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week base-line duty of the average soldier in Iraq. So when line troops are swamped carrying gear from street patrol to street patrol, village raid to village raid, for up to 20 hours a day, they often don’t have the time for, or the luxury of, Internet access. And when they do get it, they’re not punching up CNN – it’s e-mails from home they’re reading.

During last month’s heated, all-night debate on Capitol Hill about when and if the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq, I asked several military officers of different ages and ranks about their thoughts on a potential pullout. Nearly every one stressed how important his or her work here has been—and will be. “If we leave within months, Iraq will be a province of Iran,” one colonel said. “Everyone with any education or skills who hasn’t already left will end up leaving.”

A mortarman with the 25th Infantry stationed in Tal Afar stressed that he thought the American media has not been reporting what really goes on during daily ops across the war zone. “It’s all about body counts,” he said. Marines out in the former Wild West of Anbar province said the same. They are proud of the job they’ve done in cleaning up what was once considered a lost, Al Qaeda-infested area. They wondered why America hasn’t heard MORE of that news.

A sergeant 1st class with the 5th Battalion, 7th Cavalry, whose unit is attached to the Marines near Habbaniyah, patrols daily around Al Anbar province. This is his third tour, and he’s confident that progress is being made, despite what he calls early missteps in policy. “I think [Americans] understand our sacrifice, but they don’t understand that we’re just not ready to leave.”

The sergeant expressed an opinion I’ve heard from dozens of line and support troops and commanding officers about the continuing effort to rebuild, piece by piece: “We need a little more time – some places are more violent than others. But that’s how things happen. This country can’t be built in five years. And don’t we have a responsibility to help them build it?”

What is so difficult for so many of them, though, are the seemingly endless deployments, and for the Army, at least, disheartening extensions. Many soldiers will spend two Christmases away from home. —Leslie Sabbagh

I guess you don’t have any “moral authority” unless you’re the anti-war parent of a killed or maimed soldier, sailor, airman or Marine, or an anti-war active duty member of the military. Those who “believe we have a responsibility” to the population of Iraq are obviously just duped ignoramuses who joined the military because they couldn’t get a real job, and only wanted the job training and college benefits. Who needs to listen to them?

Now THIS is Freaking Fascinating.

(Copied verbatim from here, from a WSJ subscriber-only piece. Her copy-fu seems weak, so sorry for the missing bit of text.)

Propaganda Redux

By ION MIHAI PACEPA
August 7, 2007; Page A11

During last week’s two-day summit, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown thanked President Bush for leading the global war on terror. Mr. Brown acknowledged “the debt the world owes to the U.S. for its leadership in this fight against international terrorism” and vowed to follow Winston Churchill’s lead and make Britain’s ties with America even stronger.

Mr. Brown’s statements elicited anger from many of Mr. Bush’s domestic detractors, who claim the president concocted the war on terror for personal gain. But as someone who escaped from communist Romania — with two death sentences on his head — in order to become a citizen of this great country, I have a hard time understanding why some of our top political leaders can dare in a time of war to call our commander in chief a “liar,” a “deceiver” and a “fraud.”

I spent decades scrutinizing the U.S. from Europe, and I learned that international respect for America is directly proportional to America’s own respect for its president.

My father spent most of his life working for General Motors in Romania and had a picture of President Truman in our house in Bucharest. While “America” was a vague place somewhere thousands of miles away, he was her tangible symbol. For us, it was he who had helped save civilization from the Nazi barbarians, and it was he who helped restore our freedom after the war — if only for a brief while. We learned that America loved Truman, and we loved America. It was as simple as that.

Later, when I headed Romania’s intelligence station in West Germany, everyone there admired America too. People would often tell me that the “Amis” meant the difference between night and day in their lives. By “night” they meant East Germany, where their former compatriots were scraping along under economic privation and Stasi brutality. That was then.

But in September 2002, a German cabinet minister, Herta Dauebler-Gmelin, had the nerve to compare Mr. Bush to Hitler. In one post-Iraq-war poll 40% of Canada’s teenagers called the U.S. “evil,” and even before the fall of Saddam 57% of Greeks answered “neither” when asked which country was more democratic, the U.S. or Iraq.

Sowing the seeds of anti-Americanism by discrediting the American president was one of the main tasks of the Soviet-bloc intelligence community during the years I worked at its top levels. This same strategy is at work today, but it is regarded as bad manners to point out the Soviet parallels. For communists, only the leader counted, no matter the country, friend or foe. At home, they deified their own ruler — as to a certain extent still holds true in Russia. Abroad, they asserted that a fish starts smelling from the head, and they did everything in their power to make the head of the Free World stink.

The communist effort to generate hatred for the American president began soon after President Truman set up NATO and propelled the three Western occupation forces to unite their zones to form a new West German nation. We were tasked to take advantage of the reawakened patriotic feelings stirring in the European countries that had been subjugated by the Nazis, in order to shift their hatred for Hitler over into hatred for Truman — the leader of the new “occupation power.” Western Europe was still grateful to the U.S. for having restored its freedom, but it had strong leftist movements that we secretly financed. They were like putty in our hands.

The European leftists, like any totalitarians, needed a tangible enemy, and we gave them one. In no time they began beating their drums decrying President Truman as the “butcher of Hiroshima.” We went on to spend many years and many billions of dollars disparaging subsequent presidents: Eisenhower as a war-mongering “shark” run by the military-industrial complex, Johnson as a mafia boss who had bumped off his predecessor, Nixon as a petty tyrant, Ford as a dimwitted football player and Jimmy Carter as a bumbling peanut farmer. In 1978, when I left Romania for good, the bloc intelligence community had already collected 700 million signatures on a “Yankees-Go-Home” petition, at the same time launching the slogan “Europe for the Europeans.”

During the Vietnam War we spread vitriolic stories around the world, pretending that America’s presidents sent Genghis Khan-style barbarian soldiers to Vietnam who raped at random, taped electrical wires to human genitals, cut off limbs, blew up bodies and razed entire villages. Those weren’t facts. They were our tales, but some seven million Americans ended up being convinced their own president, not communism, was the enemy. As Yuri Andropov, who conceived this dezinformatsiya war against the U.S., used to tell me, people are more willing to believe smut than holiness.

The final goal of our anti-American offensive was to discourage the U.S. from protecting the world against communist terrorism and expansion. Sadly, we succeeded. After U.S. forces precipitously pulled out of Vietnam, the victorious communists massacred some two million people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Another million tried to escape, but many died in the attempt. This tragedy also created a credibility gap between America and the rest of the world, damaged the cohesion of American foreign policy, and poisoned domestic debate in the U.S.

Unfortunately, partisans today have taken a page from the old Soviet playbook. At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, for example, Bush critics continued our mud-slinging at America’s commander in chief. One speaker, Martin O’Malley, now governor of Maryland, had earlier in the summer stated he was more worried about the actions of the Bush administration than about al Qaeda. On another occasion, retired four-star general Wesley Clark gave Michael Moore a platform to denounce the American commander in chief as a “deserter.” And visitors to the national chairman of the Democratic Party had to step across a doormat depicting the American president surrounded by the words, “Give Bush the Boot.”

Competition is indeed the engine that has driven the American dream forward, but unity in time of war has made America the leader of the world. During World War II, 405,399 Americans died to defeat Nazism, but their country of immigrants remained sturdily united. The U.S. held national elections during the war, but those running for office entertained no thought of damaging America’s international prestige in their quest for personal victory. Republican challenger Thomas Dewey declined to criticize President Roosevelt’s war policy. At the end of that war, a united America rebuilt its vanquished enemies. It took seven years to turn Nazi Germany and imperial Japan into democracies, but that effort generated an unprecedented technological explosion and 50 years of unmatched prosperity for us all.

Now we are again at war. It is not the president’s war. It is America’s war, authorized by 296 House members and 76 senators. I do not intend to join the armchair experts on the Iraq war. I do not know how we should handle this war, and they don’t know either. But I do know that if America’s political leaders, Democrat and Republican, join together as they did during World War II, America will win. Otherwise, terrorism will win. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi predicted just before being killed: “We fight today in Iraq, tomorrow in the land of the Holy Places, and after there in the West.”

On July 28, I celebrated 29 years since President Carter signed off on my request for political asylum, and I am still tremendously proud that the leader of the Free World granted me my freedom. During these years I have lived here under five presidents — some better than others — but I have always felt that I was living in paradise. My American citizenship has given me a feeling of pride, hope and security that is surpassed only by the joy of simply being alive. There are millions of other immigrants who are equally proud that they restarted their lives from scratch in order to be in this magnanimous country. I appeal to them to help keep our beloved America united and honorable. We may not be able to change the habits of our current political representatives, but we may be able to introduce healthy new blood into the U.S. Congress.

For once, the communists got it right. It is America’s leader that counts. Let’s return to the traditions of presidents who accepted nothing short of unconditional surrender from our deadly enemies. Let’s vote next year for people who believe in America’s future, not for the ones who live in the Cold War past.

Lt. Gen. Pacepa is the highest-ranking intelligence official ever to have defected from the Soviet bloc. His new book, Programmed to Kill: Lee Harvey Oswald, the Soviet KGB, and the Kennedy Assassination (Ivan R. Dee) will be published in November.

If anybody’s a subscriber and can fill in the blanks, it would be much appreciated. One thing I’m continually struck by: Immigrants to this nation who were “Americans born in other countries” seem to have a firmer grip on what it is to be American than many of our native-born fellow citizens. I’m firmly convinced that this is the result of about 100 years of public school indoctrination by a system that was deliberately infiltrated by communist and socialist “true believers” like John Dewey and his acolytes, and who have turned out generations of “useful idiots.”

In answer to your question, Mark, yes, there was only one person pulling a trigger. Was there an organization behind them? Yes, no, and maybe. What those organizations may have been? I think you and I would disagree on that.

UPDATE: A reader who shall remain nameless unless I’m told otherwise has provided the missing text.