This is depressing news. My prayers go out to him and his family.  Please let’s all pay attention to what is going on in both Iraq and Afghanistan!

CAMP LEATHERNECK, July 2 — A U.S. soldier missing from his base in eastern Afghanistan since Tuesday is believed to have been captured by Taliban militants, the military said Thursday.

In a statement issued from U.S. military headquarters in Kabul, officials said “we are exhausting all available resources to ascertain his whereabouts and provide for his safe return.”

The soldier was not part of the large-scale assault launched on Taliban forces in southern Afghanistan early Thursday. That operation, which involves about 4,000 troops from the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade, was encountering only light resistance, officials said. But the military expects the Taliban to respond more harshly once troops move into towns and begin patrols.

Military officials in Afghanistan, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the situation, said the missing soldier appears to have walked off his base into an unsecured area.

A U.S. official in Afghanistan said the soldier’s absence was discovered when he did not show up for morning formation. It is highly unusual for a U.S. soldier to leave a military base unaccompanied by other American troops.

A member of the Taliban linked to insurgent leader Sirajuddin Haqqani in Pakistan said that the soldier is in the custody of militants from the Haqqani network who are operating on the Afghan side of the border.

10% unemployment, Americans captured by Islamists and the US President coddles dictators.

Is it 1979 all over again?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

It is incredible how prescient this woman, who died approximately one century before Iran’s Islamic “Revolution, was.

As Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lashes out at President Obama for interfering in Iranian affairs, it becomes increasingly clear to all but the most narrow-minded ideologues that nothing the United States can do or say, no matter how our leaders abase themselves before the mullahs, will change their attitude towards us.  For they “need” to demonize us.  It’s not just their opium (see Baudelaire on this one), it’s the very glue which holds their regime together as Tom Gregg pointed out in a comment he posted on Commentary’s Contentions blog:

I find myself astonished that so many people seem incapable of perceiving this obvious point: As far as the Iranian Islamofascist regime is concerned, America’s only possible function is to serve as The Enemy, i.e. a focal point for the hatred and fear without which such regimes cannot sustain themselves. The ayatollahs have absolutely no interest in making making nice with America. What would be in it for them? The approval of the “world community”? They couldn’t care less about that. No, what they want and need is the Great Satan.

George Eliot had explained this very phenomenon way back in 1857, when explaining why an abusive husband would not let his wife leave him:

Her husband woul never consent to her living away from him, she was become necessary to his tyranny; he would never willingly loosen his grasp on her.

Emphasis added.

Nor will the mullahs or Ahmadinejad loosen their grasp on their hatred of the “Great Satan.”  Or the “Lesser Satan” for that matter.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Newsweek ran a cover study asking, “Why Do they Hate Us?” as if the cause of animosity to the United States lay in the object not the subject.  They could use the very logic of that question to determine that gay-bashers are not to blame for attacking gay people because the fault lies not in their actions, but in our attitudes.

It seems hard for some on the left to grasp that hatred can often exist independently of the reviled object.  It can be a product of the mind of the hater–or the ideology to which he subscribes.  But, some wish to believe that the U.S. is responsible for all manner of ills around the world, including violence directed against our nations, its institutions and its citizens.

Writing 144 years before 9/11, the greatest English novelist of the Victorian Age, got what all too many leftists, blinded by their ideology, refuse to grasp.  In “Janet’s Repentance,” the third of three stories in her 1857 collection, Scenes of Clerical Life,  George Eliot offers this about an abusive husband:

Cruelty, like very other vice, requires no motive outside itself–it only requires opportunity.  You do not suppose Dempster had any motive for drinking beyond the craving for drink; the presence of brandy was the only necessary condition.  And an unloving, tyrannous, brutal man needs no motive to prompt his cruelty; he needs only the perpetual presence of a woman he can call his own.  A whole park full of tame or timid-eyed animals to torment at his will would not serve him so well to glut his lust of torture; they could not feel as one woman does; they could not throw out the keen retort which whets the age of hatred.

Emphasis added.

Just as the cruel husband needed no motive to abuse his wife, so do terrorists need no motive to commit atrocities against civilians.  Those who wish to blame America for the terrorist attacks against us are akin to those who would blame a battered wife for her husband’s abuse.

Like many Americans on both sides of the political aisle, I follow the events in Iran sensing we are witnessing something of great historical significance.  It reminds me of the fall of 1989 when I would return home from work and flip on CNN (then the only 24-hour cable news network) to learn of the events in eastern and central Europe.  That year, the dominoes fell one by one, with freedom triumphing in the nations of the then-Warsaw Pact.  But, earlier that year the Chinese Government repressed a similar uprising for freedom in Tiananmen Square.

In other words, rallies such as those taking place across Iran, do not always bring down tyrannical regimes.   Americans, liberal as well as conservative, Democrat as well as Republican hope for the best (as happened in such nations as Poland, Hungary, then former Czechoslovakia) and fear for the worst (China).  John Steele Gordon sums it up:

It is too soon to know if this will be a repeat of Tiananmen Square, Beijing, in 1989 or Republic Square, Bucharest, a few months later. But the vast majority of the American people are hoping it’s the latter, with similar results for the tyrants.

There’s hope this is more like Europe than China.  Twenty years ago, when Chinese students rallied in Tiananmen Square, they were, as I recall, largely alone.  Similar uprisings did not take place across the People’s Republic.  But, we have reports of rallies all over Iran.  While we may have video primarily from Tehran, this is far more widespread than just one anti-government rally in the capital of the nation in question.

And while Americans of all political stripes are speaking out in favor of the demonstrators, the Administration has been as lukewarm in praising their resistance to tyranny as was the James Baker State Department in 1989.  Neither the incumbent President nor the then-Secretary of State seemed to understand the animating idea of the American Republic.

Some will say, we don’t want to undermine the ongoing revolution by “meddling,” but even before Obama’s somewhat stronger statement a few days ago, the Iranian oligarchs accused us of meddling.  Officials in the Obama Administration need understand that their prejudices notwithstanding, people in oppressed nations still look to the American ideal for inspiration.   A statement from the President, not just released, but spoken, in support of their goals of a free and democratic Iran, would let them know that the people of the United States stand with them, emboldening them to fight for their freedom.

As the Gipper’s criticism of Communism emboldened those suffering under Soviet rule.

(more…)

On Friday night in synagogue, I approached a left-of-center friend of mine, like me, wearing a green shirt.  I asked if she were wearing that color “for the right reason.”  Indeed, she was, replying that this was one issue, like Darfur, where conservatives and liberals were in agreement.

While I would dare say there are few more such issues, I was delighted that she and I agreed on this one.  She  is a good person who actually listens to me when I explain my positions on various social and political issues. I can only hope that I have shown as much respect for her views as she has for mine.

Now that I have decided to wear green to express  my support for the people rallying for freedom in Iran, I start noticing other people wearing the same color and am wondering if they are similarly showing support or just wearing a hue that suits their fancy that day.

Interesting how we notice certain things at certain times in our lives.  I’m not much of  car person, can’t tell you the make of most of my friends’ cars, but find myself noticing what people drive when I’m in the process of buying a car (which has only happened twice in my adult life, my previous car lasting 8 years, my current nearly 12 and going strong).

All that said, my conversation Friday night reminded me yet again that there are many liberals with integrity (so much so that I thought of creating a new category to honor such individuals).  Just like those gay activists daring to criticize a Democratic President, so too are many on the left speaking up for resistance to tyranny, even if the tyrannical regime in question is not pro-American.

I’m proud to join such individuals in wearing green.

What a big contrast of photos this weekend…. heroes and cowards

While the Iranian people are yearning for freedom from a dictator and putting their lives on the line — President Obama chooses not to golf this weekend, but rather to go get some ice cream.

I am confident that Presidents Reagan, Bush (both) and Clinton would be forcefully encouraging pro-democracy efforts in Iran — as their policies have dictated throughout those years.  While we are on the verge of a huge victory for freedom in the Post 9/11 world, our President fiddles.

The best President Obama can do is send chilly signals to the Iranian people while the ice cream slides down his throat.  Pathetic and disappointing.

[RELATED:  Obama Dithers While Iran Burns - The Weekly Standard]

Obama supporters defended his silence. Anything he said to endorse the protests, they argued, would taint the protesters’ message and damage their cause.

The protesters, many of whom held signs written in English, seemed to disagree. “On several occasions, I’ve had supporters of Mousavi say we need President Obama,” reported CNN’s Reza Sayah, from Tehran. When Wolf Blitzer asked Sayah directly whether the protesters want Obama to speak out in support of their cause, Sayah responded: “I think they do, but they’re realistic.”

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I have been following the demonstrations in Iran this past week with great interest.

I was a young boy in 1979 when the Islamic Revolution overthrew the Shah and led to a decades-long cold and hard war with the West.  It is my firm belief that the events in Iran in 1979 were the beginning of the War on America that resulted in the attacks of 9/11/2001.

I have stated on several occasions that the deaths on 9/11 were the result of actions & inactions of every President from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush as the dealt with the ripple effects of the Iranian Islamic Revolution.

So that all being said, what the hell is my headline all about?   Well, I posted this thought on Twitter earlier today:

Raise your hand if you think the Iranians would be marching now if Saddam had not been taken out in 2003 and successful elections in Iraq?

Can anyone honestly think that the Iranian people could have NOT been inspired by the overthrow of the brutal Saddam Hussein and the subsequent free and FAIR elections in Iraq?  If you think not, you are delusional and living in a dream world.

No matter what the final outcome in Iran is, I am confident that the marches in the streets will represent another battlefield win by the United States against Islamic terrorism.  The actions of President George W. Bush and the heroic deeds of our US military has had a significance influence on the future of Iran — whether it ends this week or in 10 years.

UPDATE: I’m not the only one that feels this way.  Blogger Kirk Petersen remarks: It is a vindication of the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein and liberate Iraq.

Petersen also put me onto a column by Daniel Finkelstein of The London Times who today even more forcefully connects the dots between American ideals and actions and the protests for election fairness in Iran.  Read the whole thing!

For years we have been told, we neocons, that other cultures don’t want our liberty, our American freedom. Yankee go home! But it isn’t true. Because millions of Iranians do want it. Yes, they want their sovereignty, and demand respect for their nation and its great history. No, they don’t want foreign interference and manipulation. But they still insist upon their rights and their freedom. They know that liberty isn’t American or British. It is Iranian, it is human.

It is not part of their [Iran's] precious heritage that someone be charged with a capital offence for circulating a petition on women’s rights. Nor that nine-year-old girls should be eligible for the death penalty, and children hanged for their crimes. There is no special Iranian will, even given their religious conservatism, that students should be flogged in public for being flirtatious, and homosexuals hanged in the streets.

The protests for Mr Mousavi do not just expose the lie of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s landslide victory. They expose the lie that there is something Western in wanting democracy and human rights.

Precisely.  There is no question that the modern-day quest for liberty and freedom throughout the world that continues today had its origins on July 4, 1776 with those visionary words and yet simple theory of self-government:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that 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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Given the parallels between the various world and economic crises in the late 1970s and today as well as the world views of the Democratic Presidents then and now, some are wondering if it’s 1979 all over again.  Back then, we saw unrest in Iran, with mass demonstrations in the streets.  Government spending was skyrocketing with inflation looming.  Gas prices were on the uptick, with the President urging us to drive smaller, more fuel efficient cars.  Chrysler, tin cup in hand, came to Washington begging for a federal bailout.

And the President of the United States, then as now, was blaming American policies for creating unrest among the Iranian people:

The fantasy that “moderates” within the mullah regime can be coaxed into a “grand bargain” has taken in better men than Barack Obama, but Obama doesn’t even have the excuse of not being aware of that prior history. The level of self-loathing an American has to possess to believe that the Khomeinists are a brutal, terror-supporting regime entirely because the US hasn’t been nice enough to them is pretty staggering.

Khoemeini and his heirs were and are brutal fanatics. Period, dot. They have subjugated and terrorized their own people and done their level best to kill ours for thirty years because that’s what they are and that’s what they do. The devil didn’t make them do it. There’s nothing you or I or Jimmy Carter or George W. Bush or Barack Obama ever could have said that would have changed them

Read the whole thing where Will Collier, its author, puts forward Ronald Reagan (rather than his predecessor) as an example of how an American President should react to power-hungry regimes which oppress their people.  And he’s not the only one.

So, I’m wondering, given the similarities between Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter if the one Democrat shares the other’s naiveté about the ways of the world?

I think there’s something more than naiveté at play here. I think we’re seeing instead the influence of leftist academic theories, particularly those of Edward Said, and the President’s left-wing associations before he leapt onto the national stage.

Here (via Gateway) is Obama with Said:

Jimmy Carter was just plain naive and blind to the realities of the world.  I fear that Barack Obama really believes the hooey peddled on so many university campuses that repression abroad is just a natural reaction to American “aggression/imperialism.”

By that logic, increasing gay activism since Stonewall has fueled anti-gay bigotry and is thus responsible for hate crimes against homosexuals.

It’s time that President Obama woke up and recognize the brutal reality of some of our nation’s adversaries.

Here is the photo of a true American hero.  It isn’t a photo that is being run 24/7 on NBC, CNN, CBS or even FOX News.

This is a man who, along with this family, volunteered to serve his nation in a time of war and paid the ultimate price on his nation’s own soil.  It is believed to be the first Islamist terror attack on US soil since 9/11.  And so far, President Obama has had nothing to say about the death of Pvt. Long and the shooting at the recruiting center.

Those who are honoring a doctor who aborted 60,000 fetuses need to see what a real hero looks like. 

The American Liberal mouthpieces on TV and the internet have not only ignored the Islamist’s terror attack in Little Rock, but they seem more upset about the murder of Dr. Tiller than they did about the attacks of 9/11/2001.

Army Pvt. William Long - RIP

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Sometimes, when events of the day prevent me from blogging on something in a timely manner, by the time I sit down to write, I found that other bloggers (or pundits) have pretty much said what I have to say–and often better than I could say it.  And in the case of the dueling speeches yesterday, two bloggers did just that.

As we all know, President Obama helped elevate an address of Vice President Cheney by scheduling his speech “shortly after news surfaced that Cheney was planning his.“  The contrast showed that Obama is not particularly good on defense (in the tactical rather than policy sense of the term) something that might come to haunt him should the media become less fawning and more critical.

Writing on the New York Times’s web-page, Andrew McCarthy of the National Review, offers:

The need to castigate his predecessor, even as he substantially adopts the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policy, is especially unbecoming in a president who purports to transcend our ideological divisions.

Jennifer Rubin used Charles Krauthammer’s most recent column to make a similar point.  He has observed that the President was, by and large, adopting his predecessor’s policies, concluding, “Bush policies in the war on terror won’t have to await vindication by historians. Obama is doing it day by day. His denials mean nothing. Look at his deeds.” Building on that point, Rubin wonders why the President Doth Protest Too Much:

And that, more than anything, might explain the oddly purposeless speech yesterday. The president did indeed protest too much, suggesting how much it must pain him (and certainly his disappointed supporters) to concede how much Bush got right. (more…)

Writing about the President’s speech yesterday, Jennifer Rubin faults the Democrat for trying to “soothe all parties and charm even the most virulent foes of the United States” instead of setting a course and leading the nation:

Leadership involves setting a course, persuading others to follow, and steeling oneself against the inevitable criticism with confidence that in the end, good policy makes for good politics. Somehow that has eluded the president, who seems intent on getting the politics right and worrying about the policy later. It’s a dangerous game — and as Baker points out, likely fruitless.

Quite a contrast from the Gipper.  Read the whole thing.

UPDATE from Dan:  Geez, Nick, have you been reading my mind? I too have criticized the former Vice President, but, after reading excerpts of the speech, started to wonder today as I drove to the Reagan Library if maybe I had been wrong to do so.

As many of you know, I took pretty direct objection to the former Vice President’s tone, and even his choice to speak out at all since leaving office.

That notwithstanding, I just finished reading his speech today in front of the American Enterprise Institute that the press in their tireless effort to bring about understanding and respect for the truth simply categorizes as a salvo between him and the current president. Of course it’s all gamesmanship to them.

I am immeasurably impressed with not only the measured tone, but also the gentlemanly choice of words and respect shown to the current president. (No, I’m not going to say “as opposed to how the current president treats him.” I think, frankly, Obama, while acting childish and coming up with all reasons possible to deflect responsibility for his own decisions, has at least been cordial with the men who came before him.) His criticisms, nevertheless, are as biting as they are completely spot-on.

Click the above link for the whole speech (recommended) or see the best parts after the jump:

(more…)

It’s not just gay people who face the wrath of a hateful ideology in the Islamic Republic (sic) of Iran.  Women too are treated as second-class citizens.

Oscar-nominated actress Shohreh Aghdashloo appears in The Stoning of Soraya M, a movie to be released next month (June 26th).  This film tells the story of an Iranian women stoned to death because her husband, who wanted out of their marriage accused her of adultery when she started cooking for the widowed husband of a friend.

If you live in Southern California, you don’t have to wait until June to see this compelling film. There will be preview screening at the Roxy in Camarillo on May 19th at 7 PM. Sponsored by the World Affairs Council, admission is $20 for WACA members, $25 for non-members, and $10 for students. RSVP to Ashley@paladinprinciple.com.

When future historians start to seriously consider the record of the immediate past President of the United States, George W. Bush, they will wonder at how a man so moderate in temperament could have attracted criticism so vicious.

They will certainly rate him above many of those who preceded him in the late Twentieth Century, well above Jimmy Carter, LBJ and Nixon and slightly above Gerald R. Ford, but well below the the Gipper.   They will wonder why, in 2005, after his reelection with expanded majorities for his party in the House and Senate, he failed to push any significant conservative reforms while having promoted the need to mend Social Security and to deal with problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  (Though it can be argued that he can and did “push” reforms of those two Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs).)

And they will wonder why he hesitated to shift strategy in Iraq in 2005 and 2006 when it would have been far easier for him to do so, both in terms of his own political capital and his party’s control of Congress than it was when he did change course in 2007 when he faced more of a challenge.  The war had then become increasingly unpopular.  The Iraq Study Group (led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker, III) proposed policy changes which were popular in our nation’s capital.  The Democrats had taken control of Congress.

Yet, he ignored that group’s recommendations and undertook a bolder course, with little support even from his own party.  And that course, the “surge,” succeeded.

Those historians will wonder why he waited so long when it would have been far easier for him to shift course immediately after his reelection or in the year or so immediately following.

Let’s see, April turns out to be the deadliest month for US troops since November 2008.

The U.S. death toll for April rose to 18, the military said Friday, making it the deadliest in seven months for American forces in Iraq. The sharp increase from the previous month came as a series of bombings also pushed Iraqi deaths to their highest level this year.

In the latest violence, a suicide bomber blew himself up at a restaurant on the reservoir of Iraq’s largest dam near the northern city of Mosul. At least five people were killed and 10 wounded, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials.

The spike in attacks has raised concerns that insurgents are stepping up their efforts to re-ignite sectarian bloodshed as well as questions about the readiness of the Iraqis to take over responsibility for their own security as U.S. troops begin to withdraw.

Something different has happened in the past seven months.  I can’t quite put my finger on it….. I know it will come to me.  *tapping foot*  What…is…it….that…happened…in November 2008?

Hmmm, maybe my intelligent readers will be able to help me remember what may have changed in the past seven months to make things more dangerous in Iraq?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice confronts a misinformed critic of the Bush Administration:

Wish more of her colleagues had challenge critics as directly as she did above and wish that the Bush White House had done more to promote such challenges.

Had W had Obama’s public relations commitment, he would likely have left office with much higher approval and the angry left would find less traction in the MSM for many of their allegations, nearly all of which are based on an incomplete knowledge of the facts.

(H/t:  Reader Leah.)

I have to say that when I first heard of the “FAA-sanctioned photo shoot using Air Force One flying around the Statue of Liberty” — I thought, good God, what is the big deal?

Then I saw the video:

I have to admit that I froze when I saw that plane flying so close to the buildings of Lower Manhattan. And then I choked up. Our mainstream media have been so determined to force the memories of 9/11 from us, that it was a shock to see something so similar apparently happening again.

And why did NBC only show still photos of 9/11/2001 in this report? More desensitizing, I assume.

Robert Gibbs = moron.

Gestapo Janet = clueless.

President Obama = has moved on and is now talking to his teleprompter to prepare for his 100 day victory lap.

Obama will rue the day he rolled back the post-9/11 terror fighting capabilities of this nation. This stunt above NYC is just a reminder.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I had planned a post last night on the President’s comments yesterday where he left the door open “to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority” for intensive investigations of terrorism suspects.  Yet, given that other conservative bloggers had posted on the topic–and far better than I ever could–I decided to, in the limited time available to me, focus on other topics.

Yet, in considering the first post I wrote this morning, I realize how the two topics are linked, the president’s refusal to close the door on prosecuting officials of his predecessor’s administration and his failure so far to show acknowledge the legitimacy of the Tea Party protests.  To shut the door on such prosecutions and to address citizens’ concerns about a rapidly growing federal government would allow him to rise above the fray and speak out in the national interest.

He could unite the nation by refusing to consider the demands of some of his most vindictive supporters and by acknowledging the concerns of some of his harshest critics.  Instead, he has chosen to throw a bone to the former while his minions badmouthed the latter.

These angry supporters are out for blood.  Not content that their nemesis has left the White House, they’re still seething.  They “don’t just want to defeat conservatives at the polls, they want to send them to jail.”  Should the Administration attempt this prosecution, I believe it will backfire.  While those targetted rack up huge legal bills, they will prevail a the courthouse and, should they invest in a public relations team, in the court of public opinion as well.

The Administration will appear vindictive, particularly as the Bush Administration officials defend their actions in the context of the times and their concerns for preventing another 9/11.  Not just that,  the prosecutions will exacerbate partisan differences, further dividing the nation.  Unifying presidents work to mitigate not aggravate such divisions.

(more…)

Where other gay groups in America dare to tread, GOProud barrels ahead at full steam.

In the wake of a series of murders of gay Iraqis in the stronghold of radical cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr, Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director of GOProud, a registered 527 for gay conservatives and their allies, issued the following statement.

“Instead of unilaterally surrendering the global war on terror, now is the time for the Obama administration to recommit to fighting global extremism. It is intolerable for the U.S. government to turn a blind eye to the type of human rights abuses occurring at the hands of Islamic extremists in Iraq and indeed throughout the Middle East. If the United States is to maintain its position of moral leadership in the world, then this administration must make it clear that basic human rights for all should be respected.

It is shameful that so many on the left have made excuses for the human rights abuses carried out by tyrannical extremist regimes from Cuba to Venezuela to Iran. It is time for the blame America first crowd to recognize the real threats to peace and freedom that exist across the globe.”

Where is the Human Rights Campaign on Islamic extremists & gays?  And the NGLTF?  Or even Log Cabin (Republicans) ?  We all know the answer:  *crickets chirping*

Here at GayPatriot and GOProud — we will not ignore the brutal gay purges being systematically carried out by Islamists around the globe.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

When a reader (who has become a friend) praised 49th Parallel, a World War II propaganda film he had seen on cable, I added it to my Netflix queue.  Now that I’ve watched it, I agree with my friend’s assessment.  Not only does it hold up quite well, but it begs to be remade.

This film tells the story of six members of a German U-Boat crew stranded in northern Canada after the Canadian Air Force has destroyed their submarine.  As they try to make their way to the still neutral United States, they face resistance from a great variety of Canadians, even from a German religious community where they thought they might find welcome.

The filmmakers don’t soft pedal their portrayal of the Nazis, showing them to be the inhuman barbarians that they were, particularly the leader of the band, Eric Portman’s Lieutenant Hirth.  The screenwriters didn’t mince words either.  Upon learning that the guests he was entertaining were Nazis, Leslie Howard’s Philip Armstrong Scott, an effete writer trying to escape the war by studying Indians in the Canadian wilderness, quips,  ”I’m entertaining gangsters.

Later, he adds, “So, that’s who are you are, Nazis, well that explains everything, your arrogance, your stupidity, your bad manners.”  And after he stares down a Nazi who has stolen his gun, suffering only one bullet wound before his fellow Canadians capture his rival, Howard wonders, “One armed superman against one unarmed decadent democrat; I wonder how Dr. Goebbels will explain that.”

It’s high time we remake this film, but not about Nazis trying to cross Canada, but with Al Qaeda trying to make it across the US.  We’ll have our band of terrorists slip across the Mexican border into the Southwest, end up in Los Angeles where they try to fly to New York to meet up with a cell there for an attack on the Big Apple.

But, an attentive TSA agent prevents them for boarding the plane, so they have to make their way by land across the country.   (more…)