A few weeks ago I saw $4 gasoline for the first time, at Chevron in the little town of Mt. Shasta, just off Interstate 5 between Redding, California, and Ashland, Oregon.

Three days later, on (appropriately) April 1st, the lead headline in the San Francisco Chronicle was "House Moves To Protect Coast From Oil Drilling," explaining how the US House of Representatives "approved legislation to ban development in federal waters along 76 miles of Sonoma County's coastline . . . the newly protected zone would stretch from Bodega Bay to Point Arena and would extend about 50 miles off the coast -2, 093 square nautical miles, an area roughly the size of Delaware."

This illustrates perfectly, in a microcosm, why so many of America's problems are Democrats' fault. When confronted with big challenges, they usually do the wrong thing. As the price of oil and gas goes up, and America's dependency on OPEC oil goes up, Democrats are busy making sure that we can't expand our own oil exploration and production in ANWR or off most of the East and West Coasts, thus ensuring that the price of gas will continue to go up, and America's dependency on OPEC oil will continue to increase.

The Devastating Impact of the Oil Moratoriums on American Jobs

Congress adopted the moratoriums on off-shore drilling in 1981. They were renewed by President George H. W. Bush in 1990, to his great discredit, after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, which had everything to do with the negligence of the ship's officers, and nothing to do with oil drilling. President Bill Clinton extended the moratoriums another ten years, in 1998. And Democrats, with their Liberal and Environmentalist allies, are "fighting" to keep the moratoriums in place. Forever.

What are the real consequences of this?

Well, we produce less oil, and import more from OPEC. At $130 a barrel, every barrel we import "outsources" or "deports" $130 to some other country. According to the US Department of Energy, the US imports half its imported oil from OPEC countries, 5.4 million barrels a day. At $130 a barrel, we are exporting $702 million a day to OPEC countries for oil. That's $1.44 billion every two days. That's $263 billion dollars a year to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, and other OPEC producers. Some of those dollars go to destabilize Iraq and build rockets and IEDs to kill American soldiers and fund Wahhabist Madrasses to teach the hatred of Jews and other infidels to new generations of Arab children, and built giant palaces for the oil sheiks and to fuel their private 747 jets. And it adds $263 billion dollars a year to the US trade deficit.

Old US Geological Survey estimates indicate 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil in ANWR, and 115 billion barrels on the Coastal Shelves, now protected by the drilling moratoriums. I say "old" surveys, because the moratoriums have blocked USGS from making new surveys for twenty years, and with higher oil prices and newer drilling technology, the actual, recoverable oil could be several times what the old surveys show. But the old surveys show enough oil to replace what we buy from OPEC for 62 years. At $130 a barrel, that's worth $17.5 trillion, and that $17.5 trillion is the money we will export to OPEC if we don't pump our own. Because of the drilling moratoriums, we will "deport" more than an entire year's worth of GDP to OPEC.

And you wonder why the dollar is falling?

Liberals, Democrats, and Environmentalists have claimed that the 1 million barrels per day that ANWR could produce is less than 1% of the world's oil consumption, that it "isn't enough to matter." Really?

At $130 a barrel, a million barrels a day is $130 million a day that would be pumped back into the US economy, instead of getting exported to OPEC. One million dollars equals 40 American jobs at $50,000 a year, so at 1 million barrels a day, ANWR would produce 5,200 new jobs for American workers every day, at an average pay of $50,000 a year. Multiply by 365 days a year, and just opening up ANWR produces 1,898,000 new jobs for Americans. The current unemployment rate is 5%. Simply opening ANWR would produce enough new jobs to cut the unemployment rate from 5% to 4%.

But what if we opened up the coastal shelves and produced enough oil to replace all the oil we buy from OPEC?

If we increased US production by 5.4 million barrels, to replace all the oil we buy from OPEC, at $130 a barrel that would pump $702 million per day back into the US economy, and that would add 10,249,200 new jobs in America for American workers, at an average pay of $50,000 a year. There are roughly 10 million people unemployed in America today. Adding 10,249,200 new jobs would slash the unemployment rate to zero, full employment.

So, folks, if you thought Democrats really cared about American workers and the unemployment rate, think again. If Democrats cared, they would rush to open up ANWR and the coasts for oil drilling, thereby creating an "economic stimulus package" worth $263 billion a year, creating 10 million new jobs to reduce the unemployment rate to, theoretically, zero. But, they don't.

And this illustrates the intellectual incoherence of Democrats. They say they wants jobs, and cheaper gas, but they don't want to do what it takes to create more jobs and cheaper gas.

You think that's bad? It gets worse.

Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and the Integral Fast Reactor

I'm going to be talking about Liberals, Democrats, and Environmentalists here. For brevity, I'll often use Libs, Dems, and Greens, and sometimes just LDGs, a heads up so we all know what I mean.

Research on the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) began at the Argonne National Laboratory in 1984, under Ronald Reagan's presidency, headed by physicists Charles Till and Yoon Chang. The goal was to build a reactor that was safer and more efficient than the reactors now in use. They succeeded, and by the time Bill Clinton was elected, the IFR had been tested to prove that in case of a coolant loss it would automatically shut down, rather than melt down. At that time it was just three years away from completion. The IFR solved all the major objections to the use of nuclear power.

1. It cannot melt down or explode due to coolant loss.

2. Its fuel is much harder to weaponize, making the use of spent or stolen fuel to make nuclear bombs impossible.

3. By recycling the nuclear fuel onsite, fuel is depleted until, when it is disposed of, it degrades to natural, background radiation levels in just 200 years, not thousands, thus solving the long-term disposal problem.

4. It is 100 times more efficient than current reactors - it extracts 100 times as much energy from a ton of uranium as reactors now in use, and thereby brings down the cost of nuclear power and reduces the environmental impact of mining uranium.

With the advent of the Clinton presidency, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary, decided that the IFR was "unnecessary" and would be a threat to "non-proliferation efforts," and enlisted Senator John Kerry as their point man in the Senate to get the program cancelled in 1994. This was certainly payback to the nucleophobic special interests of the Environmentalist cabal, a fine thank you for getting Bill Clinton and Al Gore elected.

As a result, the US does not have the Integral Fast Reactor in operation, a design that could supply 100% of America's electrical power needs for 20 years using the nuclear fuel we now burn to supply just 20% of America's electricity for one year. If you thought Democrats think America should be energy independent, think again.

But, it gets worse.

Libs, Dems, and Greens, have been engaged in a decade of histrionics over "Global Warming" (the crisis that never was). They conspicuously ignore the 31,000 scientists who have now signed The Global Warming Petition, and the more than 4,000 others, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries, who have signed The Heidelberg Appeal, to protest that there is no human-induced global warming crisis. The LDGs, ignoring the indisputable evidence that the climate has been changing as long as there has been a climate, keep insisting (lying) that there is a "consensus" that global warming, or climate change, is caused by our emissions of CO2, and that we can fix it. Well, Dems, I have news for you. Nuclear reactors don't emit CO2. Burning coal for electricity does. Burning natural gas does. Burning uranium or thorium doesn't.

And we see again the perpetually astonishing intellectual incoherence of the Libs, Dems, and Greens, in full bloom.

Rather than embracing the safe, clean, nuclear technology that solves the (alleged) problem, they reject the solution for purely ideological reasons ("We don't like nukes, they're scary"), thereby forcing America to continue burning millions of tons of coal and billions of cubic feet of gas for electricity, emitting billions of tons of the CO2 they say will kill us all. So the Greens insist on "killing the earth" to save it from nuclear power.

Nuclear power, say the Libs, Dems, and Greens, is too dangerous. Is it? As far as I can find, there have been three (3) accidental deaths in the US in one nuclear power plant accident, at an experimental reactor in Idaho Falls in 1961. That's it. The "Three Mile Island" incident caused no injuries, just a wave of panic in the media and among those suffering from the acute neurosis of nucleophobia. In the last sixty years, there have been approximately 2.4 million Americans killed in automobile accidents, and three in one nuclear reactor accident, thereby showing that our automobiles are, statistically, 800,000 times more dangerous than our nuclear power plants.

And our cars will keep on killing us, even if our nukes don't.

Currently, we have 104 nuclear plants. They supply 20% of our electricity. If we built 300 more, we could supply 100% of our electrical power, in combination with hydroelectric, wind, and solar sources, without buying any natural gas from OPEC, or burning any coal to add to the CO2 that's allegedly about to cause catastrophic climate change. If we build one new nuclear power plant per year, we can add 300 plants in just 300 years. If we complete one a month, we can do it in just 24 years. But, we haven't built one in over thirty years. Maybe we oughta get crackin'.

If the Libs, Dems, and Greens, were serious about "saving the world from global warming," maybe they'd get off their duffs and fast track the construction of 300 new nuclear plants, so we wouldn't have to burn gas and coal for electricity. Then they'd fast track the construction of 300 more, so we would have enough juice to charge up all the electric cars they want us to drive. But, although they want the results, they oppose the solution.

If we built enough Integral Fast Reactors, we'd have enough electricity to extract hydrogen from sea water and replace petroleum fuels and biofuels with a clean, infinite supply of hydrogen fuel. Without enormous amounts of electricity from Integral Fast Reactors, we can't do that.

Thus, I give you the intellectual incoherence of the Liberal mind.

The Food to Fuel Debacle

Imagining that we can replace petroleum with biofuels, Libs, Dems, and Greens, have foisted the "food to fuel" debacle on the world, which we now find is driving up food prices, and driving up fuel prices.

Currently, we are producing 9 billion gallons of ethanol a day, mostly from corn, which consumes 33% of our total corn production. Federal law now mandates 36 billion gallons by 2020, which would consume 133% of our current corn production. Yes, we hope to be make cellulosic ethanol from agricultural waste by then, but so far we do not have one, not one, commercial cellulosic ethanol plant.

Ethanol production consumes about 80% as much energy as it produces, so that 36 billion gallons actually ads only 7.2 billion net gallons of ethanol to the US fuel supply. And since the energy content of ethanol is only about 70% that of gasoline, it replaces only 3.6 billion gallons of petroleum fuel, which is about 4 days worth, or just over 1% of our fuel consumption. Even if we achieve the goal of producing 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2020, it won't be enough to affect the price of gas or reduce our dependency on imported oil.

Yes, yes, I know, the Greens are pinning their tails of hope on the donkey of "cellulosic biofuel," which, we are told, will turn crop waste, human waste, trash, and trees into fuel. So far, of course, this remains theoretical, since there are no plants now producing cellulosic ethanol on a commercial scale anywhere in the US, or in the world.

We can make fuel from switchgrass, too, but how many millions of acres of natural wildlife habitat on the Great Plains are we going to have to plow for switchgrass farms, to feed the Green God of Cellulosic Ethanol each year? Switchgrass has the potential to produce up to 1,000 gallons per acre, which means that in order to replace the gasoline and diesel we burn, we need to plant and harvest at least 292,000,000 acres of switchgrass, which increases US cropland under cultivation by 75%. Who's going to do all that farming?

Once more, the intellectual incoherence of Democrats on parade.

Killing the Amazon Rainforest

Sugarcane juice contains a lot more sugar than corn juice, and is a much more economic source of ethanol fuel. But most of the US is too dry for sugarcane plantations, so most of the sugarcane has to be grown in Brazil, where millions of acres of the Amazon Rainforest are being cleared for sugarcane.

Just a few years ago, "Saving the Amazon Rainforest" was the cause celebre' of the Libs, Dems, and Greens. The Amazon was sacred, the lungs of Mother Earth, breathing in carbon dioxide, breathing out oxygen, the source of all things good. It was off limits, untouchable, to be protected and preserved in its natural state forever. Now, the Amazon Rainforest is being slaughtered for sugarcane plantations to make biofuels, and the Libs, Dems, and Greens, stand by silently as it dies.

Throwing the Amazon under the bus in the service of an ideological obsession with "biofuel," because they have an ideological phobia of the nuclear power that could turn seawater into hydrogen fuel.

Thus, Democrats join Liberals and Greens in killing the Amazon to save it from Global Warming.

The Energy Solution The Democrats Won't Do

The Liberal Democrats' response to rising fuel prices has been to blame Big Oil for the Democrats' own blunders, and threaten to raise their taxes. This would raise the price and reduce the supply, something the economically illiterate Dems can't grasp.

If they really wanted to bring down the price of energy, they would do two things:

1. Remove the moratoriums on gas and oil production on Federal lands, including ANWR and the Coastal Shelves.

2. Adopt a 100% Federal income tax credit for all new investment in energy within the US and its coastal waters. So, if you put a solar electric system on your roof, you get a 100% tax credit. And if Exxon spends $70 billion to open up a new oil field, it gets a 100% tax credit. This would put energy development in the US on steroids, and create millions of new jobs for the American Worker the Democrats pretend to care about.

But because this would be a "tax cut," the Dems won't do it.

Why Democrats Love Problems and Hate Solutions

A key to understanding Liberal Democrats is that they hate solutions. They love problems. Problems are things to talk about on the campaign trail. Promising to solve problems gets them elected. But if they actually solve a problem, it no longer has any political utility. A problem has political value only as long as it remains a problem. Therefore, problems mustn't be solved. They can't campaign on the issue next year, if they fixed it last year. So they talk about problems, endlessly, but they never actually fix them. What problem has the Nancy Pelosi Congress actually solved in the last two years?

None. And this is the key to understanding Democrats. If they wanted to solve problems, they would. But they don't. Because they have a vested interest in fixing nothing.

The Green Holocaust: Why Do Democrats Hate Trees And Animals?

In the 1980s, under the guise of Saving the Spotted Owl, the Libs, Dems, and Greens convinced Congress to stop nearly all logging in most of America's national forests. And now, whenever the Forest Service files a logging plan that will thin the forest and reduce the fire risk, the Sierra Club and its allies file lawsuits to stop it. This, of course, has saved millions and millions of trees from the chainsaws of Evil Loggers, and proves their love for wild animals, endangered or not.

This destroyed much of America's forestry industry, killing hundreds of thousands of jobs, putting loggers and log truck drivers and mill workers out of work, shutting down lumber mills all across the West, devastating small towns that had relied on logging and lumber jobs for decades, generations, and proving beyond all doubt that to Democrats, trees and birds are more important than the Working Man they pretend to care about. This outsourced much of America's logging industry (and jobs) to other countries with inferior environmental protections - if we can't produce our lumber here, we have to get it somewhere else - thereby increasing, not reducing, the global environmental impact of logging.

All actions have intended consequences, which may or may not happen. And all actions also have unintended consequences, some of which always happen. And while LDGs may act with the best of intentions, the unintended consequences of good intentions sometimes lead us all merrily down the yellow brick road to hell. By shutting down much of the logging industry, Libs, Dems, and Greens condemned billions of trees and billions of animals to hell, to death, by burning alive.

In much of the West, the soil, topography, climate, and rainfall, will support a healthy forest of 50 or 60 trees of assorted ages and sizes per acre. If there are many more trees than this, competing for a finite amount of water, they become dehydrated, unhealthy, susceptible to beetle infestations and other diseases. Competing for sunlight, the smaller ones don't get enough. They'll never grow up. If the forest is logged and thinned often enough, a healthy tree density of 50 or so per acre can be maintained, and we see this in privately owned forests, managed by the nefarious lumber companies. If a forest burns often enough, then a low intensity fire every ten or twenty years burns out the little stuff, leaving the grand old growth and some younger trees in all their glory.

But if the forest is not logged, thinned, or burned, often enough, too many young trees sprout from the seeds the big trees drop, and now we see millions and millions of acres throughout the West where there are hundreds or even thousands of stunted trees per acre, clustered so close not even the deer can run between them. Because of this excessive tree population, all the trees get dehydrated, unhealthy, and in the hot, dry summers, timber turns to tinder.

Then, when lightning strikes, or a cigarette is tossed, the "ladder fuels," the small, dry stuff, go off like a powder keg, and soon we see an enormous, catastrophic, high intensity forest fire that burns everything it touches, trees, animals, the organic matter in the topsoil, and the gazillions of microorganisms that lie at the bottom of the food chain. Everything is dead. Nothing survives. And so we see several million acres of fine old trees go up in smoke every summer. And when the winter rains come, they erode millions of tons of denuded soil down into the creeks and streams and meadows, destroying the habitat and breeding ground of the fish and other water creatures that live there.. Why? Because the Libs, Dems, and Greens, do all they can to keep the Evil Loggers out of the woods.

But, it gets worse.

When big fires burn, millions of animals, large and small, can't outrun them. And so with every big fire, millions of birds, bears, deer, raccoons, squirrels and chipmunks, badgers, salamanders, frogs, and all sorts of other critters, burn to death. Now, go out back. Light up your barbecue. When it's good and hot, stick your hand in the flame. Hold it there, until your hand turns red and blisters. Hold it there, until it turns black, and catches on fire, and burns up. And now you know what it's like for Bambi to burn to death because Environmentalists won't let Evil Loggers thin and log the forests to control the risk of catastrophic fires.

A big fire destroys 100% of the wildlife habitat it burns, and a big fire can can turn an unthreatened, non-endangered species with a small range into an extinct species with no range at all in days, or hours, in flagrant violation of the Endangered Species Act.

And I bet you though Libs, Dems, and Greens, loved trees? Loved animals?

Not enough to save them from the fire, the Green Holocaust.

Every time the Sierra Club files a lawsuit to block a logging plan that would cut the risk of catastrophic fire, it ensures that, sooner or later, millions of trees and animals will die in the flames, and this - I think - is a flagrant violation of the Endangered Species Act, which mandates that animals and habitat be protected. The total devastation caused by big fires is a million times worse than the impact of logging according to good forestry practices. And lawsuits by the Sierra Club and others violate the states' laws prohibiting animal cruelty, since they condemn millions, billions of animals to death each year, by burning alive. The Green Holocaust.

Liberals, Democrats, and Environmentalists have an irrational phobia of logging that trumps whatever love they may or may not actually have for trees and critters, threatened, endangered, or not. They'll let it all burn down to save it from the logger and the mill. Better ashes than lumber. And, of course, when a big fire burns, it turns millions of trees into millions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere.

So, I ask, Why do Democrats hate trees and animals so much they kill them to save them, from the loggers?

This, the intellectual incoherence of Democrats run amok, again.

The Free $350 Billion Economic Stimulus Package Dems Don't Want

What if I told you that we could give ourselves a free $350 billion economic stimulus package, with no new debt, no inflation, no printing of money, and no increase in the deficit? Why don't the Dems tell you about it?

The Internal Revenue Code is very complex, and estimates of the cost of tax compliance and tax-induced economic distortions range from $200 billion to $600 billion a year. The generally accepted mid-range estimate is $350 billion. This expense produces no useful goods or services. It only produces tax returns, compliance with the tax laws, and contortions of business activity to minimize tax liability. None of this would be necessary if tax laws were much simpler. The Heritage Foundation developed a "Fair Tax" proposal that would eliminate all personal and business income taxes and replace them with a single 23% sales tax on all goods and services. This would eliminate the $350 billion cost of tax compliance. But the Fair Tax is very regressive - in enables rich people who invest most of their money to pay much lower effective tax rates than low and middle income people who have to spend most of their money on living expenses. And that pig won't fly.

However, a Progressive Flat Tax could eliminate 100% of the cost of tax compliance and tax distortion, thus giving the economy a $350 billion "stimulus package" at no cost. This would scrap most of the Internal Revenue Code, and replace it with a Business Income Tax (BIT) and a Personal Income Tax (PIT).

The BIT (Business Income Tax) would be a flat 1% tax on the gross income of all businesses, goods and services, wholesale and retail, which businesses could add-on as a 1% sales tax, or embed in the price of their products and services. Because there is a "cascade" of tax points from the farmer, to the grain elevator, to General Foods, and the railroad that hauls the wheat, to the food distributor, and the grocery store, this would generate a 3%-4% "national sales tax" embedded in the retail price of goods and services. This would yield the same tax revenue as if all US retail businesses operated at a 7% profit, and paid 50% of their profit as taxes. But, it would not penalize profits, and it would be totally business-neutral - it would put all businesses on the same, level, playing field. There would be no more tax accounting, tax planning, deductions, exemptions, credits, incentives, penalties, carry-forwards, carry-backs, or depreciation schedules to dance with.

The PIT (Personal Income Tax) would be a flat 20% tax rate, on all income from all sources over the Standard Deduction. The Standard Deduction would be increased to equal Median Family Income, now about $50,000 for married couples, and 1/2 that, $25,000, for singles. All other credits, exemptions, and deductions, including the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction (which favors the rich, and does nothing for the poor) would disappear, as would the hated Alternative Minimum Tax. The trade-off would be a very large Standard Deduction, and a low, flat tax rate of 20%.

Thus a family or individual earning less than Median Income would pay no personal income tax. None. Zero.

A family with an income of $100,000 would deduct the $50,000 Standard Deduction, and pay a tax of $10,000 on the next $50,000, less than the $17,000 they would pay under current law (using the 1040EZ tax tables). A family with an income of $150,000 would deduct $50,000, and pay a tax of $20,000 on $100,000 of taxable income. An individual earning $50,000 would deduct $25,000 and pay 20% of the next $25,000, for a tax bill of $5,000, less than the $6,930 she would pay under current law (using the 1040EZ tax tables). "The rich," would pay 20%, with a tax bill of $195,000 on a $1 million income.

By eliminating 100% of the cost of tax compliance and tax distortion, the $350 billion a year that now produces only tax returns will go to create real jobs that create real goods and services that people want and need. And that will create more jobs, and more tax revenue.

But have Democrats proposed anything like this? Not that I've noticed.

Democrats Against Social Justice

Maria is a struggling young single mom. She got pregnant at 16 and dropped out of high school to care for her baby. Then her boyfriend disappeared. Her mother helps her when she can, but she's a widow and hasn't much money. So Maria works full time at Taco Bell making burritos for $8.50 an hour. She will earn $17,000 this year. Enough to get by. Of that, she'll pay $1,530 in Social Security and Medicare taxes. And her employer will pay another $1020, but Taco Bell wouldn't pay that if Maria didn't earn it.

Jack Sprat and his wife, Lena, are retired. Jack was a stockbroker, Lena was a realtor, and they did pretty well. They have a nice condo in Acapulco overlooking the sea. They have a nice cabin in the mountains overlooking Lake Tahoe where they spend the summer, and their ski weeks in winter. It's a long drive, but Jack's an enthusiastic pilot, and at 260 knots in his Piper Meridian it's only three hours from Acapulco to Truckee. They have several million dollars invested, and that generates several hundred thousand a year, after taxes. They were both high earners, and each gets a Social Security check for $2,000 a month. Jack jokingly calls that his "Margarita money" as he buys rounds for the house at Poncho Villa's, their favorite watering hole.

Maria's Social Security taxes go to help pay for Jack and Lena’s Margarita money.

And this is the dirty little secret the Democrats won't mention: Social Security is the most regressive tax in America. It takes from the young working poor, and gives to the retired old rich, poor, affluent, middle class, all of whom have already had forty or fifty years to plan and save for their own retirement.

Bill Clinton tried to talk about Social Security reform. The Dems shot him down. George Bush tried to talk about Social Security reform. The Dems shot him down. The Dems like to talk about "Social Justice," but taxing the young working poor, to pay the old retired rich, is the opposite: Social Injustice. And the Dems are all for it.

The intellectual incoherence of Democrats.

Under Old Social Security, as it is, the average worker's income drops by 50% when she retires and signs up for Social Security. If Social Security were reformed with private retirement investment like a 401k, let's call it a "401SS," with Maria's Social Security taxes invested in a managed fund, highly diversified in US government bonds and US and international stocks, then when she retires her income would double, or triple.

But at any mention of Social Security reform, Democrats start ranting that Republicans want to "destroy your Social Security." If Democrats care a spoonful of rat spittle about the Marias of America, they have a very strange way of showing it.

Barack Obama: Peace In Our Time

Barack Hussein Obama wants to go for tea and crumpets with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, confident that by virtue of his charm and charisma he can bring them all to their senses and get them to abandon the 40,000 or so missiles they've staged in Lebanon and Gaza for Israel's demise, and Iran's plans blackmail everybody with nukes, and focus on delivering more Social Services. This displays an astonishing naiveté about the nature of the Islamic Resistance Movement, Islamism, Jihadism, whatever we want to call it, the big tent that shelters Al Qaeda, The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, and the rest of the rowdies.

Let's take a look.

1. Jihadism is defined by its religious and racial bigotry, its Anti-Semitism. Nazism is defined by its religious and racial bigotry, its Anti-Semitism.

2. Jihadism is defined by its belief in Islamic Supremacy. Nazism is defined by its belief in Aryan Supremacy. Both are supremacist movements, one racial, one religious. Nazis believe that all non-Aryans are inferior. Jihadis believe that all non-Muslims are inferior. Both believe that their supremacy, and the inferiority of all others, endows them with a natural right, a manifest destiny, to kill and conquer the inferior races and religions. Jihadism is spurred on by the words of the Prophet, the promise of Allah, that Islam shall be "victorious over every other religion." Koran 9:33.

3. Nazism is defined by its belief that its supremacy justifies the use of terrorism, as in the daily rockets falling on London for four years during World War II, to achieve its goal of Nazi domination. Jihadism is defined by its belief that its supremacy justifies the use of terrorism, and martyrdom, as in rockets falling on Israel for year after year, and Jihadists blowing up themselves and other Muslims, Americans, Jews, Brits, Spaniards, Aussies, Balis, Africans, and anyone else who gets in the way, to achieve its goal of Muslim domination.

4. Nazism was driven by sociopathic Germanic romanticism, propelled by Hitler's grandiose vision of a German Reich to rule the world. Jihadism is driven by sociopathic Islamic romanticism, propelled by the Jihadists' grandiose vision of an Islamic Caliphate to rule the world. "Sociopathic" means that the person, or movement, is indifferent to the pain and suffering of others.

5. Jihadism, unlike Nazism, also has the blessing of Allah, who commands, " . . . make war upon such of the infidels as are your neighbors . . ." Koran 9:124.

Thus, we see that Jihadism is, at the core, Nazism on religious steroids.

This is the movement that Barack Neville Chamberlain Obama wants to negotiate with.

And Democrats want him as the next president?

The John Kerry Test for POTUS

Four years ago, the Democrats ran John "I was in Vietnam" Kerry for President of the United States. According to John Kerry and The Democrats, then, he was infinitely better qualified than George Bush, because John Kerry had been to Vietnam, he'd been in combat, he'd been wounded, he had a Silver Star and a Purple Heart to prove it, while George Bush had just slacked around flying jets in the National Guard. According to the John Kerry Doctrine, combat experience is an essential qualification for a President.

Today, the Democrats are running Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton, neither of whom has any combat experience, neither of whom has any military experience, each of whom wants to be Commander in Chief, and each of whom openly disdains the things military. Neither meets the John Kerry test, and therefore neither is qualified to be POTUS.

Another example, the intellectual incoherence of Democrats.

John McCain, of course, meets the John Kerry Test far better than John Kerry ever did, and according to the John Kerry Doctrine is the only presidential candidate this year who is qualified to be President.

Dems and Their Friends: Crimes Against Humanity

Many Liberal Democrats, from Jimmy Carter on down, or up, consistently and publicly turn on Israel, the only Liberal Democracy in the Middle East, and ally themselves with Israel's Islamist neighbors and enemies, none of whom cultivate anything even faintly resembling a Liberal Democracy. This obviously casts grave doubt on whether the true sympathies of Liberal Democrats are either Liberal, or Democratic.

Liberals and Democrats have, for decades, romanticized, idolized, idealized, and lionized some of the worst, illiberal, and undemocratic thugs and dictators on earth, including Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and Karl Marx, the Godfather of Communism (and its little bro, Socialism, "Communism Lite"), who brought us the truly bizarre notion that a Workers' Paradise and Social Justice can be achieved by taking wealth from those who create it, and giving it to those who don't. The essential premise of Communism and Socialism is thus a moral hazard: They penalize success by confiscation, and reward indolence and failure with "benefits" and "entitlements." Thus, they produce less achievement and wealth, and more indolence and failure.

It is no accident that no Communist nation makes the Top 70 list in terms of per capita GDP or Purchasing Power Parity, not even China, according to The Economist Pocket World In Figures 2007. The list is led by Luxembourg, Bermuda, Channel Islands, and the United States, Evil Capitalists, all.

Libs and Dems seem to be intellectually incapable of seeing Communism and Socialism as they are, and see them only as they wish them to be. In practice, most of the Communist regimes in history, the USSR, China, North Korea, North Vietnam, have slaughtered the proletariat by the tens of millions, and the Gulag Archipelago was a rather dismal excuse for a Workers' Paradise.

To these facts, Libs and Dems are astonishingly indifferent. Jane Fonda and John Kerry took sides with the Communists of North Vietnam, against America's effort to save the South Vietnamese from slaughter, yet, decades after the Domino Theory proved true, and millions of South East Asians were killed, imprisoned in "re-education camps," or made refugees, Jane Fonda remains a liberal heroine, and the Democrats elevated Senator John Kerry to within an inch of the Presidency.

This, the intellectual incoherence of the allegedly Liberal Democrats.

The Lessons of Vietnam

Often, I hear some Democrat or Liberal pundit trot out the "lessons of Vietnam" mantra, as if it were self-evident that Vietnam was a quagmire and America lost, and so, too, Iraq is a quagmire that America can only lose.

The real "lessons of Vietnam" are very different.

For President Lyndon Baines Johnson and The Democrats, Vietnam was a quagmire of their own making. Vietnam was a "quagmire" for one reason: Because LBJ never decided to win the war. He didn't decide to surrender, but he never decided to win, and do what was necessary to win, either. And so for ten years America mucked along in a Liberal Limbo of indecision, not wanting to lose, but unwilling to win, as the body bags piled up.

The United States could have won the Vietnam war quickly and decisively in 1965. The DMZ between North and South Vietnam effectively blocked PAVN, the Peoples' Army of Vietnam (aka the North Vietnamese Army) from sending supplies and reinforcements for its forces and the NLF - the National Liberation Front, the Vietcong, directly over the border. Thus, North Vietnam was forced to send its supplies and troops down the long Ho Chi Minh Trail through Laos.

In 1965, General William C. Westmoreland correctly assessed the situation and asked LBJ for permission to conduct a ground invasion into Laos, which was also under Communist attack, to blockade the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Had this been done, it would have cut off the North's ability to resupply PAVN and Vietcong forces in South Vietnam, and the war in South Vietnam would have ended within a few months, or weeks, as the invading forces ran out of food and ammunition. Johnson denied the request, in order to keep his promise to Congress that he would not "broaden the war" into Laos, and so prevented US forces under Westmoreland from winning the war, when it could have been won quickly and decisively by cutting a defensible Demilitarized Zone east and west across the finger of Laos, and systematically bombing military, industrial, transportation, and utility targets in North Vietnam, as Nixon finally did.

Again, in January 1968, the Tet Offensive took most of the US and ARVN forces by surprise, but US and South Vietnamese troops turned the momentum around within days, in some places within hours, and most of the fighting was over by the end of February, except for the battles of Khe San and Hue, which lasted into June. Much of the US media portrayed the Tet Offensive as a defeat for the US. But it wasn't. The Tet Offensive was an unmitigated disaster for North Vietnam, which committed an estimated 100,000 troops to the operation, and lost an estimated 75,000 to 85,000 killed in action, almost 100% of its forces either killed, wounded, or captured.

Again, the Democrats in the White House had a perfect opportunity to sustain this momentum and follow up on this American victory by cutting a DMZ across the Ho Chi Minh Trail to block supplies and reinforcements from entering South Vietnam, and by doing what Nixon did later to win the war: bomb Hanoi and mine Haiphong harbor. But, they didn't.

In 1969, after President Nixon took office, Gen. Creighton Abrams succeeded General Westmoreland as commander of MACV, Military Assistance Command Vietnam, and renewed the request for a ground invasion of Laos to block the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Nixon and the Pentagon agreed. But the Cooper-Church amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act in 1970 prohibited the use of US ground troops in Laos, and once again Democrats voted against victory, and prolonged the war as Americans died.

By the end of 1965, the year in which the war could have been won by following Westmoreland's advice to blockade the Ho Chi Minh Trail, the US had lost only 2,264 KIA. In 1966, we lost another 6,143, a total of 8,407. If we assume that an invasion of Laos to blockade the Ho Chi Minh Trail would have cost no more casualties that we sustained through 1966 in less effective operations, then we can infer that the 50,000 American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines, who died in Vietnam after 1966, died because LBJ and the Democrats failed to decide to win the war in 1965-1966.

So when you stand before The Wall in Washington, and you scan the sixty thousand names engraved there, perhaps with tears welling in your eyes and rolling down your face, remember, most of those names are there because a Democrat President and his Democrat advisers willfully, deliberately, intentionally, against their generals' advice, failed and refused to make one necessary decision: Do what it takes to win the war. And because a Democrat Congress later committed the same blunder again.

But, it gets worse.

The Treason of Democrats: Snatching Defeat From The Jaws of Victory

From 1969 until 1972, President Richard Nixon, to his great dishonor, pursued the Democratish policy of inconclusive action and negotiation, thus perpetuating the war and adding to the casualties. Finally, in the fall of 1972, President Nixon ordered the bombing of Hanoi and the mining of Haiphong harbor, devastating North Vietnam's economy, something LBJ, and Nixon until then, had been unwilling to do. This brought the North to the surrender table in Paris, and by January 27, 1973, the Paris Peace Accords were signed, and the war, for America was over.

The US withdrew most of its combat forces, but had committed to continue materiel support for South Vietnam as necessary to defend against any future incursion by North Vietnam. The next year, 1974, a Democrat majority in Congress voted to slash funding for South Vietnam, with a total cutoff by 1976. North Vietnam saw this as a green light to go back on the warpath, and on December 13, 1974, in violation of the Paris Peace Accord, North Vietnam attacked into the South, again.

President Gerald Ford pleaded with Congress to restore funding for South Vietnam's defense, but the Democrat congress refused, the most treacherous, ignominious, and treasonous act ever committed by an American congress. Without US support, South Vietnam was unable to defend itself. And now barred by law from acting to assist our ally, President Ford was powerless to prevent the reinvasion by North Vietnam, and on April 29, 1975, the last US embassy personnel were evacuated by helicopter, desperate Viets clinging to the skids, as North Vietnam's tanks rumbled in the streets of Saigon.

America's Democrats in Congress had thrown an American ally under the bus. They had thrown away an American victory already won, and handing the heads of the Vietnamese people to the Communists on a silver platter. This was not merely giving "aid and comfort" to an enemy. It was an act of deliberate treachery and treason that turned on an ally, and gratuitously handed America's enemy an unearned victory. It was an obscenity in the face of the Vietnamese people, it was an obscenity in the face of every American who had fought and bled in Vietnam, of every American who had died there, it was an obscenity in the face of every American who would never see their son, brother, husband, or father, come home again.

If that is not treason, nothing is treason, and, in my opinion, every member of that Congress still alive, who voted to abandon South Vietnam in 1974, who voted to give an unearned victory to America's communist enemy, deserves to be charged with treason, tried, convicted, and sent to a "re-education camp" at Guantanamo, for life, without parole.

This is the real lesson of Vietnam: That American Democrats cannot be entrusted with war fighting, because they would rather lose than win. They, who have fought Homeland Security and FISA through Bush's presidency, who would rather keep the "civil rights" of terrorists sacrosanct than protect Americans from terrorism. They would sacrifice American lives to preserve the freedom of Jihadists to plot the death of Americans without fear of detection. And they would turn their backs on America's allies, and deliver unearned victories into the hands of America's enemies, because they are infatuated with the "revolutionaries" of the world. Senator Ted Kennedy, and Senator John Kerry, were walking point for the campaign to lose the war in Vietnam and they have been Democrats' heroes ever since.

If Americans really understood how badly they'd been sold down the river by the Dems, they'd be dusting off the guillotines.

But, it gets worse.

The Democrats' Cover Up

This is the true lesson of Vietnam, that the foolish timidity and strategic stupidity of LBJ and the Democrats prolonged the war for years, and cost tens of thousands of American lives.

And for forty years, Democrats have been engaged in a vast Left Wing Conspiracy to cover up the real lesson of Vietnam, which is that most of the names on The Wall are there because of the Democrats' blunders. And for forty years, much of the American press has been complicit in the cover up. Commander Mark W. Woodruff, Royal Australian Navy, in Unheralded Victory: The Defeat of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army 1961-1973 (p. 313) quotes Marguerite Higgins, a journalist who had covered WWII and Korea, and who wrote of Vietnam:

America didn't lose the war. Democrats in Congress threw away the victory, after the war had been won. And Democrats and their media allies have been engaged in a 40-year conspiracy to cover up their own perfidy.

Let's Do It Again: A House Divided

Now, Democrats want to repeat the debacle of Vietnam, the treachery, the treason, again, with Iraq. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton make campaign promises to "end the war" and "bring the troops home" as soon as possible. For five years, they and Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, John Edwards, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, John Murtha, and the rest of the gang, have railed and rallied against the war. This has certainly given "aid and comfort" and "the audacity of hope" to Al Qaeda, and Iran, who know that if they can just hold on until there is a Democrat in the White House, America will turn tail and go home, and Al Qaeda will win.

Although alternate histories can only be speculative, I believe that the Iraq War could have been won by now, perhaps with hundreds or thousands fewer American casualties, if American Democrats had been united behind the Persident to support a policy for decisive victory over the forces of Neo-Nazi Jihadism, imperialism, and terror. Al Qaeda, Iran, and the rest of the rowdies, seeing an America united against Islamist terrorism and imperialism would be forced to conclude that the battle was futile, that they could not win, and would have drawn in the fangs and claws.

But they see that America is a house divided.

That Democrats want an American retreat, defeat, surrender, an American failure, that will hand an unearned victory to the Jihadists. Al Qaeda, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah, are inspired with the audacity of hope that once Bush is gone, Obama will hand them the heads of our allies, the Iraq government and the Iraqi people, and Israel too, on a silver platter, just as Democrats once threw away an American victory and gave South Vietnam to the communists.

In my opinion, this is treason, giving hope to an American enemy, prolonging the war, adding to America's wounded and dead. In my opinion, every "leading Democrat" who has openly opposed victory in Iraq, victory in the War on Jihadism, deserves to be charged with treason, tried, convicted, and sent to a "re-education camp" at Guantanamo for life, without parole.

Again, and again, the intellectual incoherence of Liberals.

With friends like Democrats, who needs enemies?