Pinchy Sulzberger, 5th columnist

The Republic of Utica salutes Rep. Peter King of New York and Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky for their call for criminal charges against the New York Times Dung Merchants Bill Keller and Arthur O "Pinch" Sulzberger jr. As a loyal American, I would love to see the two get punished.

The New York Times hasn't really been a source of quality journalism for decades now, but it has really taken a nosedive since 1992 when "Junior" took over from his father "Punch" Sulzberger. The Liberal bias has been worse than it was under daddykins, who obviously spoiled his little punk rotten and never let him face the real world. Jayson Blair was caught making politically correct Fairy Tales out of whole cloth. The New York Times aka Pravda West is just a Left Wing rag that makes stuff up to forward the Party Line. Jayson Blair was a mere symptom, only the most egregious offender. Not the only one by far. He was just the example they could make and say "see no Left Wing bias here."

Now we could merely dismiss "Pinchy Goebbels," as Michael Savage once aptly called him, as a mere Left Wing clown, just another cog in the Liberal Media regurgitating its spew. But no. Pinchy is a traitor punk. He learned to hate America in his university days if not earlier. When his father went to bail him out in Boston after getting arrested during one of his Pro-Bolshevik Murderer protests of the Vietnam Era, he asked his son a question. If an American soldier and a North Vietamese soldier came upon each other, which would little Junior want to get shot. And like the patriot he is, Pinchy Goebbels said he wanted to see the American get shot. What a patriot! Of North Vietnam. Hey Punch, if you couldn't raise your brat right, you shoulda at least left him in jail to cool off for a bit! But little Pinchy never had to face the consequences of his actions. Cosequently he has grown into a Fifth Columnist traitor with no love of country or respect.

And now he published a story that blew the cover of our classified operations catching the cashflow of terrorists. So, if an 'al-Qaeda terrorist gets financed and blows up another pizza parlor with a bunch of kids in it, who cares? Not Pinchy. It doesn't affect him. Prince Pinchy has never had to face any dire consequences. Well, it's time he did. As a former American soldier that Pinchy would love to see shot, I demand that my government protect my people from this traitor that hates them. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE FOR WHAT HE HAS DONE. The law says he must be punished. Do it Gonzalez!!!!

The Left Forgets/Ignores the East

Is anybody out there aware of the fact that 1000 years ago the most culturally and technologically advanced civilization on earth was a Christian theocracy that knew the Earth was round? That's right people, it's true. The Eastern Roman Empire, mistakenly referred to as the "Byzantine Empire" had the finest technology and naval and civilian ships in the world. It's economy was the most stable and they came from all over the world to trade. The ruler of the Empire, centered on the opulent city of Constantinople, was Khristos Pantokrator, Christ the Ruler of All. The Basileus Rhomaion, the Roman Emperor, was merely his vassal, his regent on Earth. Eratosthenes of Alexandria calculated that the Earth was round in the 3rd century BC. His works were still extant and widely read in the libraries of the Empire a thousand years ago. And they were believed. Far from stifling scientific progress, Roman science grew by leaps and bounds in the Christian period from 350 AD- ca 1180 AD.

Why isn't your average Public School child taught about this? Why, instead, are they taught that Christianity hampers science? I heard a very ignorant woman on tv many years ago. She said that Christianity so stifled scientific progress that we'd have had a man on the Moon by 300 AD if there had been no Christianity. To make an uninformed statement like that, she has to have absolutely zero knowledge of Rome when its capital was Constantinople. Quite the contrary, in the more Christian areas of the Roman Empire from the 3rd Century- 6th Century AD (those areas furthest to the South and East, closest to Jerusalem) the economies and innovations grew. The economy in that period collapsed in the most pagan areas of the Empire, those furthest to the North and West (ie furthest in the Empire from Jerusalem).

Part of the blame lies with the disdain that early modern classicists like Edward Gibbon had for the Byzantine period of the Roman Empire. Thus, this period was glossed over in our education systems. And it's not like the Liberals who've dumbed down our Public Schools in the last forty years are going to have any revival of the study of this. Leftists, with an incomplete picture of the Medieval Period, looking at it Western and Arabic, but ignoring the whole world in between them, the remnant of the Roman World, centered on Greece and Asia Minor.

The Left looks at the collapsed economy of the Medieval West from ca 500-1000 AD and, in its irrational hatred for Christianity, chooses to blame it. They act as if the incessant Germanic invasions of these places from 165-486 AD had nothing at all to do with it. The Muslim invasions of the 7th and 8th centuries AD which reduced or nearly cut off trade with vast swaths of the East, formerly ruled by Rome (ie Egypt, Syria, Africa Proconsularis). And let's not forget Attila the Hun!

Christianity, on the contrary, preserved what little of the knowledge of the Roman Period that remained in the West in the monastaries.

So what happens? The Left, in its worldview, forgets what happens in the East. If they looked at the great technological progress in Constantinople, they'd know that Christianity, if anything, spurs science along. Christianity gives people a belief that universe is an ordered place, a place of Intelligent Design, and that all they have to do is figure out the ways and means of the order, the design, and they can gain knowledge.

And it seems to be a pattern, forgetting the East. I realized this as I was writing about Khmer Rouge Cambodia yesterday. One of the many oft repeated lies of the Secular Left is "religion has killed more people throughout history than anything else." Oh really? Anyone who could make an ignorant statement like that is abysmally ignorant of the tens of millions murdered in Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia and other Secularist Darwinist regimes that emerged directly from the so-called Age of "Enlightenment." Yes, Nazi Germany too was a Secular State, with Darwinist views (its racial policies) and Separation of Church and State was the law of the land there. So, on the contrary, 150-200 million people murdered by "enlightened" secularists in less than a century was bloodier than a thousand years of inquisitions. More people have been butchered by Secular Humanism than anything else in the history of man. Secular Humanism is the prideful self-deification of man. And when man tries to be God, he ends up being a devil. The people who are buried in all the mass graves from Berlin to Phnom Penh would attest to that. If they could say anything.

Of course this forgetting of the East is all part of the grander plan to rewrite history by the Left, demonizing the West, especially America. "He who controls the past controls the future," Orwell famously said. I do not believe it is by accident that our children are without knowledge of history and world geography. Our education system was the best in the world in 1960. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that what put it completely in the dumps by 1975-1980 was the influx of hippie dopeheads into the teaching profession in the 1970s. But its more than just reefer madness that has dumbed down our schools. This is by design, that our history is being stolen from us by the Left. If we have no past other than what Left Wing pseudo-intellectuals give us, then we also have no future other than what they deign to give us.

We need to read our history books, Red State America. We need to study the history of the East. And everywhere else also. We need to learn Arabic history as well. Our heritage will be completely lost to mob rule of the Left if we do not.

Red State America's Moral Imperative

The central topic of this post I have touched on in other Republic of Utica posts, so bear with me. But I believe it deserves its own posting.

The Left always loves to claim the high moral ground for themselves, something they have no right to do whatsoever. In their self-righteous tones they say to any challenge of their supposed heroism that we would still have slavery and women would be barefoot and pregnant if not for them. But both are baldface lies, or, at least, gross ignorance of history.

To pass an amendment to the Constitution, it must be ratified by 3/4 of Congress or 3/4 of state legislatures. In 1919, when the XIX Amendment was passed giving women the franchise Republicans held majorities in both Houses of Congress and also the state legislatures. What's even more telling is that these majorities grew when women started to vote. In the presidential elections of 1920, 1924 and 1928, as well as the Cogressional elections these years and the midterms, the Democrats got utterly skunked. This happened with the help of the newest Conservative Republican voting bloc- women.

Don't confuse the narcississtic harpies who hijacked the women's movement in the 1960s with the earlier suffragettes. The women's movement used to do great good before the medusas who run it now turned it into a hypocritical farce. They used to be Christian women who closed down saloons and brothels rather than support politicians who lived in them a la Clinton and Kennedy. Not only women, but men and children benefitted from their efforts, unlike today where they demonize men, kill babies and ruin the lives of women who dare to complain about being used like toilet paper if the men so using them are pro-abortion Democrats a la Clinton and Kennedy. No doubt if Mary Jo Kopechne had somehow floated to the surface of Lake Chappaquiddick and been resuscitated NOW and Gloria Steinem and other such hypocritical blowhards would have attempted to destroy her life a la Juanita Brodderick, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers and the rest of the Greek Chorus of Clinton's paramours. The Left traditionally resisted giving women the right to vote for the same reason the Right favored it- their devout Christianity and their dedication to family. Leftists would, no doubt, often make up many of the patrons of the saloons and brothels shut down by the suffragettes/Temperance League. So, as the facts show, the Left has been no friend of womankind. It was Conservative Republicanism, not socialism, that mobilized women and got them the vote. Of the many travesties perpetrated by the Left, the notion that they did so much for women is probably one of the worst.

Same thing goes for black people. In the 19th century and the first half of the 20th Left Wing Secularist Darwinists believed that blacks were one notch above monkeys on their evolutionary ladder. It was Conservative Christians who asserted that Blacks were made in the Image of God, same as Whites. The Abolitionist Movement was very Christian in nature, as was the Civil Rights Movement. Dr Walter Williams in his excellent article "Historical Tidbits" (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams1.asp) expounded on the 19th century Left's racism, as did Ann Coulter in her delightful book "Godless." The Democratic Party, the traditional defender of slavery and segregation, embraced Civil Rights merely as a pragmatic means of preserving its machine politics, nothing more.

It is important to remember that a welfare state is never created for the benefit of welfare recipients, but rather to enlarge the power of the politicians creating the welfare state. The welfare state does not liberate men, it enslaves them. It does not lift the spirit of a man, but rather crushes it. All throughtout the history of Republics and Democracies thugs and tyrants have subverted the freedom of their brothers and sisters just by increasing the dole. The supposed benefactor might be a scoudrel, but the dole recipients love him for his perceived generosity. In return their votes, which ideally should go to the most capable, the one who loves his country the most, go to a scoundrel who craves power. It is in this way that Republics die. Not because of oil companies.

Our Founding Fathers knew all about what I laid out in the last paragraph. They knew welfare state demagogues would come. Every protection they laid out in the Constitution was to protect our freedom from them. But I don't think they ever counted on the ACLU, the biggest agent of tyranny in the USA today.

So, in the public discourse today, Liberals get to portray themselves as big heroes to women and blacks and most undeservedly so. Any time someone opposes the asinine ideas Liberals frequently come up with must also be opposed to "womens' rights" and "Civil Rights." We really need to stop letting them get away with that. We must cite the Left's real history with blacks and women.

We must also tell the Left's real record on Civil Rights. For example the Civil Rights of the people of Vietnam and Cambodia. Somehow in the public discourse it doesn't get any mention that the Killing Fields of Cambodia were a direct result of the treason of the likes Abbie Hoffmann, Tom Hayden and Dr Spock. These men, and others like them, caused a US withdrawal from Indochina that caused millions to die and millions more to be displaced with only the clothes on their backs. Not only that, but they created a drug culture which has, directly or idirectly, ruined and killed millions of lives.

We in Red State America must burn the images of Cambodia's Killing Fields into our minds. Two million Cambodians out of a 1975 population of six million died. Angka, the faceless Khmer Rouge Party, would kill people for any variety of reasons in any variety of cruel methods. People could be killed for wearing glasses. For speaking French. For having any kind of education. Practicing any kind of religion. It brought a sentence of death. People were shot, bludgeoned, starved or worked to death. And they were piled into huge mass graves. Stinky hippies from the Left, far from being ashamed of abetting such atrocities act all proud of themselves as if they had any reason to be. How dare they? Every Red State American needs to recount what happened when they got their way and say "I remember what you did!" Whenever some beatnik points the finger of accusation at any one, it needs to be immediately pointed right back in his face.

We must never forget what the Cambodian people suffered. Especially since if the Left gets its way in Iraq, the Iraqis will suffer the same way. All those smiling people with purple on their fingers, proud to have braved death to vote- DEAD. (Iraq had a higher voter turnout than the US, even in 2004 when turnout was 20% higher than usual. And the Liberals have the brass to say that Iraqis don't appreciate a republican form of government? Iraqis do, it's American Liberals that don't) All the Iraqis who welcomed our soldiers and trusted in the republic- DEAD. Or enslaved to a new Islamofascist potentate. The Iraqi soldiers and police who bravely fought for their new freedoms- DEAD. But the American Leftists who would gladly make it happen? Sitting in Starbucks sipping lattes and either congratulating themselves on how supposedly wonderful they are or whining about what victims they are. Their ivory towers won't be touched by the havoc they create.

In Red State America we have to face the facts. The Left in this country has chosen a side in the War on Terror and it is not America's. We must defeat the terrorists and defeat the Liberals as well. The two are inseparable at this point. Red State America's moral imperative is this- the Killing Fields of Cambodia must never be allowed to happen again.

What's the Matter With Massachusetts?

I'm growing quite weary of the arrogant bi-coastal elites and their tired old Marxist cliches. Our Leftists call themselves "Progressives" as if their ideas are new and fresh and the wave of the future. A certain analogy goes that nations walk to the top wearing hobnailed military boots and descend into obscurity wearing silk slippers. Only within this idiom are Liberals the future of our society (if we let them be) and Conservatives the past.

But in all other regards our Liberal friends are way out of whack. I frequently hear "Progressives" argue that Middle American and Bible Belt voters vote against their "economic interests" in favor of some supposedly illusionary righteousness. Thomas Frank articulated this delusion in his tripe-work "What's the Matter With Kansas?" (short answer:nothing). But you know, even if we assume that an overbearing socialist bureaucracy is in the "economic interest" of middle class and poor red staters, that being taxed off their farms and out of their small businesses into an overbearing welfare state is for their greatest good, sacrificing one's principles for monetary gain has a special word for it. That is prostitution. So Frank wants us to prostitute off our cherished beliefs to jump on the welfare state bandwagon. And he asks what's the matter with US.

Frank wrote once, "For us it is the Democrats that are the party of workers, of the poor, of the weak and the victimized. Figuring this out, we think, is basic; it is part of the ABCs of adulthood. " Frank shows a lack of knowledge of history. The Republicans are the party of the working people. The Democrats are the Party of a welfare state and people who want freebees without earning them. The Democrats are the Party of the Predators, not the victimized.

What's more, this is not a new phenomenon in history. Republics are invariably destroyed from within by the self-appointed champions of the poor. Welfare states are set up not to benefit the recipients of the largesse, but rather the politicians who dole it out. The poor in Rome loved Caesar, but after a time of dictatorship, clamored for a return to the Republic. But it was too late to say no by the reign of Tiberius Caesar. The Romans had been mobilized by the growing Welfare State. The Caesars took control and once they had, there was no going back.

The truth is, the Democratic Party has always backed slavery. Frank writes as if it would be axiomatic that Abolitionists would be with him were they around today. Personally I believe John Brown would probably gun him down five minutes after meeting him. I'd like to see Liberals come to Fudametalist Abolitionist stronghold towns and tyrannize them telling them no school prayer, no Bibles in school or no Ten Commandments in public areas. They'd be very quickly run out of these towns.

The Democrat politicians supported Civil Rights not out of geuine altruism, but to bolster a sagging voting base. Democrats were and are demogogues who wile the very poor into giving them power via political machines. The GI Generation Democrats who ran the party from the late 1940s to the late 1960s(of whom Zell Miller is the last) were, mostly decent men, not the cynics of the New Deal or New Left, but nonetheless, Civil Rights was far more pragmatist than originally imagined.

The movie "Gangs of New York" dramatizes the utter hypocrisy and dishonesty by which the Demos under Boss Tweed built their Irish machine. Boss Tweed was a con artist and thief who gave the Irish crumbs of charity, not because he loved them, but because he wanted their votes and to have a lock on power and with that power be able to do pretty much whatever he wanted. And he did until Republican muckrackers took him down and packed him off to prison.

The Irish had opposed the abolitionists. The Democratic machine consisted of New Immigration immigrants such as the Italians and Poles, as well as the Hibernians. And poor White Southerners.

But after 1945 things were changing. The Irish, Italians, Poles and, more slowly and less totally, White Southerers began moving from the poverty stricken masses needing a demagogue champion into an independent Middle Class. Many of these who supported FDR in 1932 liked Ike in 1952. The machine was losing its cogs and needed spare. Where would Demos find a mass of poor, underpriviledged people to build a new machine? That's when they turned to Black people. And the Demos lost the South due to the emergence of the new independent middle class. If we presume that one has to be racist to win in the South, then Jimmy Carter (who won 12 of 13 Southern states in 1976) and Bill Clinton (6 of 13 in both 1992 and 1996) would both have to be flaming racists. Not to mention a majority of Southern Congressmen and goverors were Democratic until 1994. Walter Williams today wrote an excellent column on Marx, the racist.

We need to ask, What's the matter with Massachusetts? Why do they continue to re-elect the real-life inspiration for Jabba the Hutt, Ted Kennedy for forty years? Why do effete Yankee Brahmin Liberals continue to fight in support of America's every enemy? The Viet-Cong, Khmer Rouge, Sandinistas, El Salvadoran Communist FMLN, Fidel Castro, the USSR, Saddam Hussein and others have all enjoyed the benefits of support by American Liberals. Now who's interest is it to help these people? No loyal American.

I got a scholarship to go to an elite prep school with the children of limosine liberals for my junior and senior years(1985-1987). I had come home from travels in Europe and America was a beloved, cherished homeland that I had desired to return home to. I never imagined that there was a large movement of Americans who hated America so much. "I'm not into America" a classmate named Rachel put it mildly. How is it in anyone's interest to be self-loathing and to hate your country? Self-hatred is a severe mental illness. Someone who hates themself has nothing to offer or teach anyone.

Frank and other Libs say that Kansans voting Republican vote against their "economic interest." I say no. The prosperity that comes from free markets benefits everyone. Massachusetts votes against its interest in voting for Ted Kennedy the Hutt. If the terrorists win this war, Liberal Americans will no longer be able to continue on in their ivory towers, insulated from reality. It will come crashing in on them. Like 9-11 and then some.

To Benedict Arnold Murtha

Sitting on YOUR fat behind in YOUR air conditioned office, you criticized Karl Rove for saying that we need to stay the course instead of taking your coward's way out of Iraq. "He's not doing the fighting," you driveled, "our soldiers are." Yes, Jack(ass), our soldiers are, you aren't. And if we pull out and the Islamofascists take over in Iraq, it wont be your blubbery butt piled into a mass grave with Iraqis who have voted in their three elections. Your tubby bottom won't be dragged from your air-conditioned mansion and taken to a rape room or prison cell to be caned for criticizing Saddam (not that you were ever guilty of that).

You claim to care about American soldiers, Murtha, you Mutha, but the only, THE ONLY, beneficiaries of you ridiculous screeds are the terrorist enemies, but none of us are allowed to criticize you because you were in the Marines. Well, let me tell you something. Lee Harvey Oswald and Charles Whitman were in the Marines too. Benedict Arnold, who's name is synonymous with treason, personally led a charge at Saratoga in which he was wounded in the leg. This victory that he won for us turned the tide of the Revolutionary War. If this and his heroic campaign in Quebec don't alleviate his treason, then don't think your time in the Marines makes it ok for you to serve our enemies and still have respect. Our soldiers have died because of the aid and comfort dirtbags like you have given our enemies. They would have given up if not for the fact that they knew they could count on "Americans" like you to lend them a hand. So don't tell me what a big hero or great American you are.

And if you wonder who I am, I am a veteran of the 3rd Infantry Division. I was in the First Wave of what would have been Clinton's EXACT SAME invasion of Iraq which began to deploy in February, 1998. Clinton gave the exact same reasons for going there that Bush did in 2003. The only thing that pre-empted it was Kofi Annan saying that Saddam would get ONE LAST CHANCE. And you supported the invasion then, hypocrite. So don't give me any crap about how Bush lied to you. You are the liar. And you are seeking power at the expense of American lives and strength. That makes you a traitor too. I hope Diana Irey, a real American lady, sends your fat butt back to the air conditioned comfort of your mansion back in Pennsylvania where you won't cause any more death.

Zarqawi Documents Prove Liberal Media Lies

Thanks to documents recovered in Abu Musab 'al-Zarqawi's bombed out Headquarters, 104 terrorists have been killed and hundreds more taken prisoner. Dozens of weapons caches have been captured. But of almost equal importance is the insight we gained into 'al-Qaeda's state in Iraq.

The 21st century's Ho Chi Minh despaired of the state of his terror organization. He was writing that America was winning the war and he wasn't replacing his combat losses. Do you remember how Liberal "Geniuses" went on and on about how we were "creating more terrorists"? Yeah right. Zarqawi complained about how he wasn't getting any new recruits.

The late, unlamented Abu Musab also said that he felt the US Army was winning the war and successfully raising up a native Army for the new Iraqi Republic that he would not be able to defeat.

The Zarqawi documents prove that everything the Liberals have argued about the war in Iraq is the opposite of the truth. Those of us with our heads not in a very dark place have known this all along.

The Libs loved to compare the Iraq War with the Vietnam War, even tho the two were as different as Vietnam's jungle climate from Iraq's desert. They gave a whole new meaning to "stuck on stupid." However, there is one similarity between the two wars. In both cases the Left betrayed America in an effort to help a murderous enemy win. The Left to this day has to say that Vietnam was both unwinnable and immoral. Lemme tell you people out there, in 1965 there wasn't a more noble cause than preventing the Killing Fields of 1975 that we are all familiar with or turning Vietnam into the totalitarian gulag state it is today. But our "patriotic" Liberal countrymen used to hang posters and chant the name of the Bolshevik tyrant of Hanoi. "Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh, (North) Vietnam will win!" and then go spit in the face of an American veteran.

We need to remember the Killing Fields. Saddam had his Killing Fields too. And if the war in Iraq was lost more mass graves will get filled. Make no mistake about it. It won't affect, Liberals. Just as Liberals in 1975 put on Bell Bottoms and went to Studio 54, totally untouched in their little ivory tower world by the Khmer Rouge and Viet-Cong they helped bring to power, so too would they continue to go to their Starbucks' and drink their lattes. It won't be them filling up the mass graves. So what do they care?

It's up to Red State America, brothers and sisters. We have to defeat not just the terrorists, but Blue State America as well. Or millions will die.

Zarqawi- Death of a Democrat Hero

June 8, 2006 is a date of mourning for Liberals. An ally, hero and friend of theirs has passed away, another victim of American "Imperialism." You can rely on the Birkenstock-wearing, Starbucks' slurping neo-Marxist crowd thinking this even if they don't say it. Certainly Columbia professor Nicolas DeGenova who wished for "a million Mogadishus" to America must be crying into his soy latte on this day. In my book he gets points for honesty if nothing else.

I'm being harsh you say? I shouldn't attack their patriotism? OK, let's review. Liberals so love to pat themselves on the back. But let's look at the real record.

From about 1917 until the early 1950s, Liberals believed that Joseph Stalin's USSR was the wave of the future. Liberal Media journalists like I.F. Stone covered up Stalin's atrocities, like the man-made famine of 1932-33 in which tens of millions starved to death. FDR's ambassador to Moscow, Joseph E Davies, told the president that the victims of the 1937 purges more or less had it coming. New Deal politicians sought to remake America in the 1930s into the image of Soviet Russia of that time. Meanwhile tens of millions died.

In the 1960s Liberals chanted the name of Ho Chi Minh. "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh!!!" echoed the streets of Berkeley and Amherst, along with odors of marijuana and unwashed hippie bodies. Let's not forget that North Vietnam's ally the Khmer Rouge also was able to take over Cambodia and perpetrate the worst atrocities in history. Do Liberals hang their heads in shame as they should over their crucial role in helping three murderous regimes come to power in Indochina? Not at all, they hold their heads high and act as if they have something to be proud of. They didn't let Cambodians being piled into mass graves bring them down, man. They put on their bell bottoms and went disco dancing. Meanwhile millions died.

Liberals greatly enjoyed reading Mao's Little Red Book in the 1970s right after that lovely little bloody episode known as "The Cultural Revolution." Meanwhile millions died.

And the story goes on and on, one brutal socialist dictator after another. Castro, Ortega and more recently, Saddam. Next to this Rogue's Gallery, Zarqawi is small potatoes, a petty thug, a nobody. Nonetheless he was out there and he was killing some Americans. Not very many, in spite of what the Liberal Media tells us. And it's not like they care about GIs in spite of their protestations (remember the words of DeGenova, these are the true feelings of your average Lib activist, hatred for GIs).

Tonight as real Americans in the Heartland rejoice at our triumph, no doubt some tears are being shed in Starbucks' and in Student Unions on both coasts and in Chicago and Flint. The man Liberals had hoped would be the new Ho Chi Minh to kill many Americans has passed away and perhaps Liberal dreams of sabotaging another American war with him. Too bad, so sad.