TWO AMERICAN MUSLIMS

FINALLY, a well-written open letter from an American Muslim to an active and influential American-born jihadist, now fled to viper pit of Yemen, the latter most recently connected to the Christmas bomber and the Fort Hood assassin.

No, Anwar, this country it is not evil. It is you who is evil and this nation and its people who are blessed. This nation gave my family the freedom and liberty to practice Islam in a way that no majority Muslim nation has ever allowed. I was raised learning to pray, fast, give charity, build mosques, and help those in need in the character of my faith as a result of the free environment of this United States. I learned this despite the repulsive nature of imams like yourself who drive so many reasonable Muslims away from the faith and so many weak and vulnerable ones towards your fascism.

My parents fled the radicalism of theo-political fascist thugs like you in the Middle East in order to give our family a fresh start in the land of freedom—America. I have throughout my life in my soul accepted spiritual Islam as my relationship with God; however, I have also always wholly rejected political Islam because of its supremacist mindset which you embody.

Growing up in Wisconsin, learning to become a physician and then serving in our armed forces as a naval officer and a physician, I learned about the beauty of the diversity of America and the equal access of all of its citizens to our society and our government. I learned about the beauty of a government which separates church and state and yet was formed by very pious Christian and all people of faith but yet remaining “under God” as a nation of common morals and values. The United States is a nation which you intentionally misunderstand and twist for your own despotic ambitions.

You may believe that moderate Muslims like us at the American Islamic Forum for Democracy are apostates since we reject the Islamic state, political Islam, and governmental shar’iah. But I know Islam well enough to know that there are no intermediaries between a Muslim and God. Takfir (excommunication) is forbidden and you may also be a Muslim but your Islam is not my Islam. You are nothing but a fascist theocrat who uses Wahhabi interpretations of our Qur’an in order to wage illegitimate wars.

The wars of Iraq and Afghanistan are legitimate and are in fact waged with the intention of leaving a far better nation for Muslims and non-Muslims in the free practice of Islam and all faiths than the tyrant Saddam or the despotic Taliban ever did for their citizens which they considered their slaves. You intentionally ignore the representative forms of government being empowered in those nations so that you can deceive those who listen to your propaganda.

American troops are simply doing what Muslims should have done in Iraq and Afghanistan long ago. As a freedom-loving Muslim, I pray that the same revolutions for liberty happen from within the nations of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Libya, Jordan, the Emirates, and Pakistan to name a few led this time by civil wars from Muslim liberty movements against the thugs, monarchs, autocrats, and theocrats like yourself who are running these nations.

Read it all here

THE 28 PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY

LOOK NO FURTHER. These 28 fundamental beliefs instituted in the Constitution for the United States of America by the Founding Fathers which they said and we confirm must be understood and perpetuated by every person who desires peace, prosperity, and freedom.

Sarah Palin on Glenn Beck...

“Who’d have thought a history buff with a quirky sense of humor and a chalkboard could make for such riveting television?” Palin wrote. “Glenn’s like the high school government teacher so many wish they’d had, charting and connecting ideas with chalk-dusted fingers—kicking it old school—instead of becoming just another talking-heads show host.”

UNMASKING THE MONSTER

Here is a short, simple, straight to the point essay penned by Steve Bussey on ResistNET, a visibly patriotic website dedicated to stopping, then rolling back the move to abolish the US Constitution inch by inch, word for word, and with it the freedom and liberty that so many have fought to preserve and enjoy for well over 200 years.

This is a site I've only recently discovered, so I am still treading lightly, trying now to rustle too many leaves before I find myself somewhere I do not wish to be. But Mr. Bussey's article offers a clear idea of what is simmering beneath the surface tension that passes for political dissection discussion all across this great land of ours. Our nation's free citizenry and our elected leadership seem to have lost their way, and have been on this false path for several decades now.

I HAVE HEARD THE MODERN tea party movement mischaracterized and slandered over the past several months, and seen yellow journalism about vocal protestors disrupting town hall meetings hosted by politicians. These and other crocodile tears are shed by journalists, politicians and pundits who are either too stupid to understand, or are intentionally trying to villainize the new conservative activism.

Some of the knocks I hear against the tea party movement are that they are racist because they didn’t protest during the Bush years, but only now when there is a black president; shut up and pay your taxes; or cries of hypocrisy because tea party protestors love big government in the form of military spending, interstate highways, or the Veteran’s Administration and oppose programs that would help the poor and downtrodden - all hogwash.

Discontent among conservatives and libertarians has been festering for several decades since George H.W. Bush succeeded President Reagan and began to walk back conservative advances. Contrary to popular belief, that is the primary reason he was a one term president.

The discontent swelled with the advent of the Clinton Administration and his largest tax increase in the history of the free world, as well as Hillary’s attempted take over of our health care industry. The Republican Revolution lead by Newt Gingrich, however, temporarily tamped down the discontent. Enter George W. Bush.

Conservatives and libertarians began to squirm in their seats with Bush’s unconstitutional federal intervention into our local schools with No Child Left Behind. The squirm turned into foot-tapping and nail biting with the Medicare prescription drug bill, and we stood and began shouting at our televisions with the expanded State Children’s Health Program and TARP – all unconstitutional expansions of federal tyranny over sovereign States and free enterprise. Enter President Obama.

President Obama has removed the mask from the monster once and for all and exposed the true Progressive agenda for America—a reshaped America based on a new foundation – his words, not mine, by taking over car companies, insurance and investment companies, Cap & Trade and a national health care plan. With his actions there can be no further debate concerning the direction Progressives in America, Democrats and Republicans, wish to take.

Why is there a modern tea party movement? Is it racist? There is a modern tea party movement because as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “. . . all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable. . .”

It began before President Obama, but certainly with him and his programs, evil in the form of federal infringement upon our liberties, Progressive disrespect for our Constitution, American history, traditions and political philosophies, has become insufferable.

They may name their movement "tea party" to invoke and evoke our Founding Fathers, but the movement is much more profound than just taxes. The movement is about freedom and liberty. It is about legalizing and respecting our Constitution once again.

Yes, indeed, Mr. Bussey. We must also remember that both the 43rd president and the current Obama administration have led us—the American people—to believe that government first resides with the executive branch. Each administration also believe, the other two branches participate at the President's discretion. The problem this presents is that few constitutional scholars or free citizens agree with them, since the Constitution clearly states otherwise. Afterall, by 43rd and 44th's way of thinking, the law is just a 'guideline', and can be ignored when it gets in the way. We can think of too many dark scenarios of how this progression will eventually lead to a person to try to remain in power.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL REVIVAL

CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR and nationally syndicated talk host Mark R. Levin is enjoying his third consecutive week at number one atop the New York Times Bestseller list with his book Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. What's more, is the book has increased its lead over the number two and number three books with each successive week.

Mr. Levin is president of Landmark Legal Foundation. He has also worked as an attorney in the private sector and as a top adviser and administrator to several members of President Ronald Reagan's cabinet.

This book explores with distinction the critical identifying features that have made the United States of America integrally different from all other nations in the history of humanity. Levin draws a portrait of the founders and framers, not overlooking those intellectuals and thinkers who preceded and inspired them. The spark of genius which is overlooked and diminished in any collective or totalitarian statist approach to government, the USA was founded on the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...

That we have these rights conferred on us, not by man or government, but by Natural Law, which originates with the Creator is not a trifling idea. Mr. Levin has written a commendable and compelling book, and will be remembered not only for its ideas but its timeliness.

Yesterday's Tax Revolt Tea Parties which were held in every state across the nation, despite the Democratic leadership and the MSM's dismissive coverage, appears to have been a rousing success as people of all demographic backgrounds turned out in surprising numbers.

The Congressional Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, dismissed the impact of the gatherings as highly financed astro-turfing, a coinage actually invented by President Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod in describing his own often-spectacular tactics during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Predictably, the media only reluctantly covered the tea parties on tax day and rather than report news as they found it, many took it upon themselves to express their frustration by mocking the events and the folks attending.

As Glenn Beck reports...

A truly amazing piece of audio—a CNN reporter (using that phrase very, very loosely) interviewing a man with his child, and seemingly personally offended that someone could actually criticize the government spending that's going on. She demonstrates her complete lack of understanding of history and instead reveals her pro-Obama views as she calls the protests 'anti-government,' 'anti-CNN' and the best for last... 'it's not family viewing.' Huh?

THE SOUNDS OF CAPITULATION

In 1984, KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov explains how Marxist ideology is deconstructing America's values, destabilizing the economy, and provoking crises in order to sovietize the free world.

Yep, what a difference a few decades make. Nobody wants to be an American anymore. Instead, everybody that comes here wants to take a piece of America back to the Old Country, or ummah, as the case may be. The people who need to watch this video are those decent, hard-working and compassionate Obama voters, who voted for every plank of the Communist Agenda. Sweetie, that's the "change" you voted for.

Make no mistake about it. Leftists have taken over our schools, colleges, media, movies, music, pop culture, et cetera, and we have now elected a Communist President. America needs to wake up. Western Marxism and Islam must be stopped.

"The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying 'Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses.' She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'You want a piece of me?'"

—Robin Williams

"I understand what Tolstoy meant when he said that the 'good' cannot seek power nor retain it'."

—Icarus Tull

BEN CHAVIS AND THE NEW PATERNALISM

PATERNALISM IS THE RESTRICTION of freedom for the good of the person restricted. AIPCS acts in loco parentis because [Ben] Chavis, who is cool toward parental involvement, wants an enveloping school culture that combats the culture of poverty and the streets.

He and other practitioners of the new paternalism—once upon a time, schooling was understood as democracy's permissible, indeed obligatory, paternalism—are proving that cultural pessimists are mistaken: We know how to close the achievement gap that often separates minorities from whites before kindergarten and widens through high school. A growing cohort of people possess the pedagogic skills to make "no excuses" schools flourish.

Unfortunately, powerful factions fiercely oppose the flourishing. Among them are education schools with their romantic progressivism—teachers should be mere "enablers" of group learning; self-esteem is a prerequisite for accomplishment, not a consequence thereof. Other opponents are the teachers unions and their handmaiden, the Democratic Party. Today's liberals favor paternalism—you cannot eat trans fats; you must buy health insurance—for everyone except children. Odd.

Read it all in the most recent George F. Will column. Don't look now but I think there is light in this here tunnel. While it is clear that Chavis is controversial in many ways, neither his tactics nor his reputation seemed to stymie his success. In another surprise move, Chavez left the school in 2007.

THE CONCEPT OF AMERICA

“You can call it mysticism if you want to, but I have always believed that there was some divine plan that placed this great continent between two oceans to be sought out by those who were possessed of an abiding love of freedom and a special kind of courage.”

—Ronald Reagan

MEMORIAL DAY 2008

A moment of silence, as we salute those who have fallen in the name of freedom, in the name of liberty, in the name of America the beautiful and the star-spangled banner. Please, a moment of silence...

NOT SO FAST, CONGRESSMAN

THE NETHERLANDS IS BRACING for a new round of violence at home and against its embassies in the Middle East. The storm would be caused by "Fitna," a short film that is scheduled to be released this week. The film, which reportedly includes images of a Quran being burned, was produced by Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament and leader of the Freedom Party. Mr. Wilders has called for banning the Quran—which he has compared to Hitler's "Mein Kampf"—from the Netherlands.

After concern about the film led Mr. Wilders's Internet service provider to take down his Web site, Mr. Wilders issued a statement this week that he will personally distribute DVDs "On the Dam" if he has to. That may not be necessary, as the Czech National Party has reportedly agreed to host the video on its Web site.

Excellent, sir. All details comport to known intelligence. Those first two paragraphs of a letter penned by Republican Congressman Peter Hoekstra state plainly the case against Islamic aggression and taqiyya. However, the good legislator then stumbles with typical Western appeasement in his next paragraph:

Reasonable men in free societies regard Geert Wilders's anti-Muslim rhetoric, and films like "Fitna," as disrespectful of the religious sensitivities of members of the Islamic faith. But free societies also hold freedom of speech to be a fundamental human right. We don't silence, jail or kill people with whom we disagree just because their ideas are offensive or disturbing. We believe that when such ideas are openly debated, they sink of their own weight and attract few followers.

Wait a minute. Not so fast, Congressman. Reasonable men in free societies have no trouble at all exposing the "religious sensibilities" of the Islamic faith, a supremicist faith which does not curry nor warrant the respect of the West. Neither does this so-called religion curry or warrant the respect of the West's concept of the freedom of religion because reciprocity is forbidden to them by their own holy books and traditions. This so-called faith is a complete totalitarian system and is itself the trouble. This totalitarian faith is a free society's declared enemy. And we are not fooled by your controlled acquiesence to this menace, sir. But let us allow the Congressman to continue:

Our country allows fringe groups like the American Nazi Party to demonstrate, as long as they are peaceful. Americans are permitted to burn the national flag. In 1989, when so-called artist Andres Serrano displayed his work "Piss Christ"—a photo of a crucifix immersed in a bottle of urine—Americans protested peacefully and moved to cut off the federal funding that supported Mr. Serrano. There were no bombings of museums. No one was killed over this work that was deeply offensive to Christians.

Criticism of Islam, however, has led to violence and murder world-wide. Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for Muslims to kill Salman Rushdie over his 1988 book, "The Satanic Verses." Although Mr. Rushdie has survived, two people associated with the book were stabbed, one fatally. The 2005 Danish editorial cartoons lampooning the prophet Muhammad led to numerous deaths. Dutch director Theodoor van Gogh was killed in 2004, several months after he made the film "Submission," which described violence against women in Islamic societies. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch member of parliament who wrote the script for "Submission," received death threats over the film and fled the country for the United States.

The violence Dutch officials are anticipating now is part of a broad and determined effort by the radical jihadist movement to reject the basic values of modern civilization and replace them with an extreme form of Shariah. Shariah, the legal code of Islam, governed the Muslim world in medieval times and is used to varying degrees in many nations today, especially in Saudi Arabia.

Radical jihadists are prepared to use violence against individuals to stop them from exercising their free speech rights. In some countries, converting a Muslim to another faith is a crime punishable by death. While Muslim clerics are free to preach and proselytize in the West, some Muslim nations severely restrict or forbid other faiths to do so. In addition, moderate Muslims around the world have been deemed apostates and enemies by radical jihadists.

Radical jihadists believe representative government is un-Islamic, and urge Muslims who live in democracies not to exercise their right to vote. The reason is not hard to understand: When given a choice, most Muslims reject the extreme approach to Islam. This was recently demonstrated in Iraq's Anbar Province, which went from an al-Qaeda stronghold to an area supporting the U.S.-led coalition. This happened because the populace came to intensely dislike the fanatical ways of the radicals, which included cutting off fingers of anyone caught smoking a cigarette, 4 p.m. curfews, beatings and beheadings. There also were forced marriages between foreign-born al Qaeda fighters and local Sunni women.

There may be a direct relationship between the radical jihadists' opposition to democracy and their systematic abuse of women. Women have virtually no rights in this radical world: They must conceal themselves, cannot hold jobs, and have been subjected to honor killings. Would most women in Muslim countries vote for a candidate for public office who supported such oppressive rules?

Not all of these radicals are using violence to supplant democratic society with an extreme form of Shariah. Some in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark are attempting to create parallel Islamic societies with separate courts for Muslims. According to recent press reports, British officials are investigating the cases of 30 British Muslim school-age girls who "disappeared" for probable forced marriages.

While efforts to create parallel Islamic societies have been mostly peaceful, they may actually be a jihadist "waiting game," based on the assumption that the Islamic populations of many European states will become the majority over the next 25-50 years due to higher Muslim birth rates and immigration. [Emphasis added and note: This is precisely what happened in Lebanon]

What is particularly disturbing about these assaults against modern society is how the West has reacted with appeasement, willful ignorance, and a lack of journalistic criticism. Last year PBS tried to suppress "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center," a hard-hitting documentary that contained criticism of radical jihadists. Fortunately, Fox News agreed to air the film.

Even if the new Wilders film proves newsworthy, it is likely that few members of the Western media will air it, perhaps because they have been intimidated by radical jihadist threats. The only major U.S. newspaper to reprint any of the controversial 2005 Danish cartoons was Denver's Rocky Mountain News. You can be sure that if these cartoons had mocked Christianity or Judaism, major American newspapers would not have hesitated to print them.

European officials have been similarly cautious. A German court ruled last year that a German Muslim man had the right to beat his wife, as this was permitted under Shariah [emphasis added]. Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, stated last month that the implementation of some measure of Shariah in Britain was "unavoidable" and British Muslims should have the choice to use Shariah in marital and financial matters.

So explain to me again why we should respect this so-called religion?

I do not defend the right of Geert Wilders to air his film because I agree with it. I expect I will not. (I have not yet seen the film). I defend the right of Mr. Wilders and the media to air this film because free speech is a fundamental right that is the foundation of modern society. Western governments and media outlets cannot allow themselves to be bullied into giving up this precious right due to threats of violence. We must not fool ourselves into believing that we can appease the radical jihadist movement by allowing them to set up parallel societies and separate legal systems, or by granting them special protection from criticism.

And why Congressman, are you not convinced that Geert Wilders in correct in his assessment of Islam? You sir, are more politically correct than you give yourself credit. We did not allow Nazis into this country in the years leading up to and during World War II. Why do we persist in allowing Muslim immigration into this country, knowing what we know, knowing what even you seem to know?

A central premise of the American experiment are these words from the Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." There are similar statements in the U.S. Constitution, British Common Law, the Napoleonic Code and the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. As a result, hundreds of millions in the U.S. and around the world enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and many other rights.

These liberties have been won through centuries of debate, conflict and bloodshed. Radical jihadists want to sacrifice all we have learned by returning to a primitive and intolerant world. While modern society invites such radicals to peacefully exercise their faith, we cannot and will not sacrifice our fundamental freedoms.

Mr. Hoekstra, who was born in the Netherlands, is ranking Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

DECONSTRUCTING BOB

Self-confessed former and often radical lefty, and who isn't in one's formative wonder bread years just off the dirt farm, Sean Cumyn, is writing a book on the political and moral themes found in the work of Bob Dylan. He also runs a remarkably understated website called Right Wing Bob. Here in the Weekly Standard is a thoroughly enjoyable article penned by Cumyn. A little taste of what is surely to follow. Hacks and hatchet men on the Left are already complaining that colonial patriot and First Citizen, Tom Paine has been co-opted by the Right. And I'm sure the same reactionary outcry will be hoisted when Dylan is revealed to be of solid mind firmly set in the quintessential moral values of timeless conservatism as opposed to those often impenetrable and oscillating birth pangs of the impetuous Left.

Mr. Cumyn writes:

A good deal of hoopla greeted the grizzled rock-musician Neil Young's musical assault on George W. Bush earlier this year. His album Living With War included a hundred-voice choir singing a song entitled "Let's Impeach the President." For those survivors of anti-Vietnam war protests, and their younger would-be imitators, it was a moment for a sharp intake of breath and the tantalizing hope that maybe now, after all, music really could change the world. I mean, everyone has to sit up and take notice of Neil Young, right?

Young's crusading album included another song called "Flags of Freedom," in which he gave a name-check to Bob Dylan, and adapted the melody of Dylan's own somewhat more lyrically complex song "Chimes of Freedom."

He really should have known better. In an interview several months later with Edna Gundersen in USA Today, Dylan was asked about the absence of any song about the current war on his own latest album, Modern Times.

"Didn't Neil Young do that?" he jokes . . . "What's funny about the Neil record, when I heard 'Let's Impeach the President,' I thought it was something old that had been lying around. I said, 'That's crazy, he's doing a song about Clinton?'"

With his sly and somewhat wicked response, Dylan had (1) desperately frustrated the considerable number of more obvious Dylan fans who have been waiting on the edge of a cliff for him to say or sing something—anything!—against President Bush and the Iraq war and (2) told Neil Young none-too-subtly that he found his recent ultrapolitical songwriting essentially pointless.

Somehow, after over 40 years of evidence to the contrary, much of the world seems to continue to expect the man who is arguably America's greatest songwriter to sign on to left/liberal causes at the first opportunity. If nothing else, it is proof that in attempting to kidnap Dylan's songs (in Dylan's own words, his songs were "subverted into polemics" in the 1960s), the left succeeded in convincing the average person that both the work and the man did, indeed, belong to them.

In the summer run-up to the 2004 presidential campaign, a concert tour of anti-Bush musicians was being organized, led by Bruce Springsteen. They would perform in swing states in support of John Kerry. The advance press regarding the tour always prominently mentioned Bob Dylan as one of the musicians being talked about for the lineup. There was no surprise about this expressed in the stories; after all, campaigning against Republican presidents is what Bob Dylan has always done, isn't it? But when dates and lineups were finally announced for the "Vote for Change" tour, one name was prominently missing: that of Bob Dylan.

And indeed, any scrutiny of the record would show that he has never endorsed a political candidate (although some political candidates have endorsed him). The closest he has ever come would be the statement in his memoir, Chronicles, that his "favorite politician" circa 1961 was Barry Goldwater.

Read it all.

FREEDOM AND LIBERTY CAST BEFORE US

I noticed the word "decency" but I could add another “respect”. Respect for one's nation and pride in one's nation. Our founding fathers had the decency and respect for themselves to tell the British where to shove their taxes. Was it the prudent or safe thing to do? Now way but they did anyway and thank god for it because today we live in a free nation were we bow to no nobles or kings. The anti-slavery movement had decency and respect for themselves which is why they opposed slavery. They could have sat around and ignored it. Let it just pass over the falls but they did not and resisted and fought. Was it the prudent and safe thing to do? No way for it led to a civil war but thank god for it.

Today no man is enslaved in this land. We can hold our head up with pride. Throughout our nation's history we have had people who did the unsafe thing so today we could be free and be proud. We did not do it for the adventure but because it was the right thing to do. Now we are faced with yet another example. It is a small one. The question before us is should we recognize the sufferings of the Armenians in the genocide of 1915?

Some say it is not needed because it is for the historians to ponder. I disagree, for if we had let the injustice of the past be pondered by historians of the future we would not be in America today and we would still have chattel slavery. Some say we will anger a supposed ally in the so called war on terror. I disagree, for would a real ally react as Turkey has reacted to simple words.

We are not threatening to wage war against Turkey yet they appear to be willing to kill Americans if we get in their way when they invade northern Iraq. Once again if they behave like this over a few words can they really be trusted for anything? Are they really an ally? Yes, there will be some fallout. Perhaps it will prevent Bush’s plan to unify Iraq and bring Democracy to the Islamic world.

However, it is clear that was not working anyway and if you accept that Islam is a political ideology and not just a faith then the Iraqi adventure was doomed to begin with. There are also some among you that think this a ploy by certain democrats to get us out of Iraq and to make Bush look bad. You maybe are right but I don’t really care. Bush does not need the democrats to make him look stupid as has been proven beyond count. Bush does this to himself. We are in Iraq today because of George W. Bush. This is his mess, so let him figure out how to fix it. That is what you get when you put your trust in nations like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan and others and allow them to play roles in your battle plan. This is why we will continue to pay a heavy price for doing economic and military deals with these nations. This is the price for us buying their oil, this is the price of freedom.

We are not free. If we were free we would not be pushing for a Palestinian state. If we were free we would not be thinking about thought crimes. If we were free we would not be begging Arabians to stop their war against our people. The Arabians proved their point on 9-11. They killed thousands of Americans and what did we do about it? Nothing. For we fear they might hurt our economy. That sounds like a slave to me. If you are a decent, proud and free man or woman you would have no problem with this bill for it is the truth no matter how silly or irreverent it might seem. However, it appears our master has screamed and some of you (along with our President and Congress) have jumped for Massa Turkey.

I am a free man so my response to Turkey is this is none of their business. This is between the United States and Armenia. We recognize their suffering in the 1915 mass murder of their people by the Ottoman Empire. End of Story…

—Great Comet of 1577

Great essay, and I agree with most of its tenets. However, as pointed out on another blog, this does nothing to end a war, but actually extends it which was not the Democrats original motive. And, this small detail is obviously why Speaker Pelosi has now backed off this airy resolution a mere day or two after the news broke she and her cronies were pushing their October Surprise up the Hill.