Wednesday, April 26, 2006

This and That

Cyndy, Cyndy, Cyndy

Cynthia McKinney’s troubles continue following the taping of an interview on a Georgia TV station. Here’s the account from Wikipedia:

On April 23 2006, as reported by WGCL's Renee Starzyk, McKinney forgot she was still wearing the microphone after she was interviewed about the scuffle with the police officer. Her off screen comments were captured on tape. She was heard saying, "Oh crap now you know what... they lied to Coz and Coz is a fool." She was referring to one of her aides, Coz Carson. Mckinney realised the embarrasing mistake and returned on screen with the microphone, this time with instructions on what parts of the interview CBS 46 was allowed to use, "any thing that is captured by your audio...that is captured while I'm not seated in this chair is off the record and is not permissable to be used... is that understood?"

Well, no, it isn’t understood. If you don’t want comments used by reporters, you can do two things: Keep quiet, or ask that comments be kept “off the record,” and if you opt for the second method, you had better get the reporter’s agreement before you say anything. Ms. Mckinney did neither and now has to pay for her indiscretion, just as Vice President Dick Cheynet and President Bush had to pay when they made comments that were inadvertently picked up by open mikes.

When Will the American People Catch On?

It has become the new National Pastime. It’s the new Order of the Day. What is it? Blaming George Bush. The President’s enemies don’t even think anymore (did they ever?), they just automatically blame W. for whatever seems to be wrong with life.

What’s the latest booboo the President has made? Why gasoline prices, of courses. Everyone knows that one of the primary duties of the President of the United States is setting the price of barrels of oil, hence indirectly pricing gasoline at a level that punishes the nation’s businesses that have transportation as a major component of what they do and renders low income Americans unable to buy food and medicine.

This tripe is readily, even eagerly, accepted by a significant number of the American people as if it were true. One wonders if those misguided and easily duped fellow citizens will ever catch on.

It is a common tactic of the Democrats and liberals to imagine an umbilical cord connecting Republican presidents to “Big Business,” in this case, “Big Oil.” So Mr. Bush is protecting the greedy oil companies, who have conspired against the American people to make grossly large profits.

It just ain’t so. Oil company profits are no larger now than their usual level, and they are far less large than many other industries, such as pharmaceuticals at 19%, newspapers at 20%, banks at 18%, software services at nearly 10%. Oil and gas companies trail at around 8%.

In general, crude oil accounts for roughly half of gasoline's price, Other price components include refining, distribution (pipelines and tanker trucks) and marketing (service stations and convenience stores). After “Big Oil” acquires, refines and delivers gasoline to your neighborhood station, another major factor comes into play – federal, state and local taxes. Taxes average about 20 percent or more of the pump price. The federal tax is 18.4 cents per gallon, while state taxes vary from 14 cents in Wyoming to more than 44 cents per gallon in New York.

So, wake up people. Start thinking for yourself. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Study the issues and get the facts. It isn’t hard to find the truth.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Monday, April 24, 2006

Maybe That's Why

By The Windjammer

I have been losing a lot of sleep lately wondering why Americans do not understand that we are at war. This one may turn out to be more important to our continued existence than any of the others in which we have been involved since the Spanish first started stealing land from the natives and committing mass murders on any who managed to escape death by the firesticks, sharp knives and K-9 corps of the invaders. The mass murders were from the newfangled diseases the invaders brought with them, minor ailments such as syphilis, smallpox, gonorrhea, tuberculosis and other assorted maladies against which the natives had no natural immunity or resistance.

P.S. I just read that the illegal immigrants into this country are now claiming that it was theirs first (a whopper of a lie) and they want it all back because their ancestors lost it in a fair fight with some Texicans aided by a few Tennessee hillbillies. There is ample evidence that some of the earlier settlers lived a bit south of Possum Kingdom Lake (TX) as much as 19,000 years ago. How about that for first comers?

I have reached the conclusion that the apathy is the result of poor eyesight, or rather the lack of being able to spot anything which would separate the enemy from the friendly folk who are being slaughtered right and left by their own kith and kin.

Back there at the time of the War for Independence, every colonial knew immediately who he should shoot at because he would be wearing a red coat. That was about the only thing that distinguished one from the other, since most of the foes and practically all the friends came from the British Isles or some other equally familiar place in Western Europe. The War of 1812 was the same. Every enemy would be flying the Union Jack, thereby making identification rather simple.

During The War Between the Sections, identification of an enemy became a bit more difficult, but, Heck Far, anyone ought to be able to recognize his own brother or uncle, even at a distance and over open sights.

World War I didn’t leave a whole lot of doubt. The combatants may have looked alike, but the enemy wore those helmets with the little pointy thing on top. An old vet told me that if you aimed at the very top of that little spike at 300 yards, you would likely hit the wearee right smack in the nose. Bullet drop, you know.

World War Two cleared up the I.D. problem considerably. The Nazis wore brown shirts and that backward swastika. Il Duce, not to be outdone by his friend and cohort, Adolph, went one shade darker and dressed his Fascisti in black shirts. The colors were so common that the boys who were to grow up to become storm troopers were called Brown Shirts and the ones who were to become Benito’s right-hand men were called, of all things, Black Shirts.

We had, in most cases, an enemy who could be easily identified so that we wouldn’t shoot any of our own or of our friends. And everybody carried his weapon on the outside.

Not so in this war. To an untrained eye (and I suppose even to a trained eye) all burkhas look pretty much alike unless they are white and covered with those little black dots. And it is almost impossible to tell at first glance what a body has strapped to his (or her) body underneath the poochy-out part of his aba. Heck Far, the guy standing beside you at the supermarket may suddenly blow himself to smithereens and mingle your bits and pieces with his bits and pieces until it is all but impossible to tell afterward who was which. Chances are about 237 to 1 that he won’t even be carrying a burgee so you would know to move a quarter mile or so to your right. F-A-S-T!

If you want to add a little confusion to your reckoning, the guy probably doesn’t care whether you are a good friend and ally or one of his bitter enemies. (He’s bitter while you don’t even know there is a war going on).

Put that in your hookah and smoke it.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Sunday, April 23, 2006

The Latest from bin Laden

A audio message from a speaker identified as Osama/Usama bin Laden received by and broadcast on Al Jazeera TV told the world that the West is at war with Islam. The speaker declares that by imposing its decadence on Middle Eastern countries—using such weapons as television, fashion, video games and other dangerous symbols of Western debauchery—the West is out to destroy the Middle East as we know it.

And for remaining passive in the growing depravity that the West is foisting upon the 7th Century culture Arabs still cling to, bin Laden condemns the citizens of the governments of nations in the West, making them fair targets for the irrational Muslim rage that has become the face and personality of 21st Century Islam, the “religion of peace.” The fact that so many Arabs voluntarily choose the trappings of Western culture, once they discover the advantages, seems to have escaped the notice of bin Laden. Or perhaps that’s what has his undies in a wad, assuming he wears undies, which he may view as yet another weapon of Western cultural imperialism.

Ol’ Osama/Usama is badly confused. He imagines that the minions of Islam have the right and authority to determine what the peoples of the world who do not subscribe to Islam may and may not do. There are five times as many people in the world who do not accept the narrow and rigid dogma of Islam that Muslims find so appealing as there are Muslims, after all.

In their arrogance murderous radical Muslims ignore the huge schism that exists within the “religion of peace.” Its two major factions disagree on a significant point of Islamic belief, and are so hysterical in their disagreement that they murder each other when they aren’t murdering infidels. “Infidels” are everyone that isn’t Muslim.

Though it may make ol’ O/Usama all giddy inside to imagine that his culture is under attack by decadent Westerners, it is a fantasy that no one but radical Muslims believes. It probably has something to do with the fact that Arab Muslims, who are supposed to be subservient to the dictates of Islam, exercised personal freedom in choosing to adopt appealing elements of Western societies. Rather than admit that the fundamentalist view of Islam is no longer attractive to many Muslims who want to escape the there-and-then of 7th Century Arabia and live in the here-and-now, it is easier to shift the blame to the West. Those of us who deal in reality see clearly that it was radical Islamic terrorists that started the war on or before September 11, 2001, when they attacked the U.S. killing nearly 3,000 people.

But while the bewildered O/Usama is wrong about who started the war, he is right that war is under way, and it is a war in which Islam has pitted itself against most of the rest of the world, continuing the imperialism begun centuries ago. Since 9-11-01 radical Muslims have mounted terrorist attacks against several Western nations, including England, Spain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Scotland.

But that’s only part of the war. Muslim fanatics have also committed terrorist acts in Russia, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Ingushetia, Dagestan, Kabardino-Balk., Kosovo, Uzbekistan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, India, the Phillipines, Israel, Indonesia, Nigeria, Somalia, Ethiopia, Algeria, the Sudan, Bangladesh, Kenya, East Timor, Turkey, Yemen, Jordan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, and Afghanistan.

One source ( has counted some 4,769 attacks by Islamic terrorists across the globe since 9-11-01, and 107 attacks in April 2006 alone. It claims that 6,991 people were murdered and 12,382 people were injured by Islamic terrorist attacks in 2005.
Some of the violence and mayhem committed by Muslims that is detailed by includes these charming stories:
  • After being raped by her brothers, and refusing to commit suicide as her mother suggested, a teenage Palestinian girl is stabbed and beaten to death by her father.
  • In an “honor killing,” a Muslim father in Scottsville, NY kills his wife and attacks his two daughters with a knife and hammer because he feared that they had been sexually molested.
  • An Arab man is tortured and killed by the al-Aqsa Brigade for selling property to a Jew.
Sometimes these fanatics screw up and take out their own:
  • Four people, including a woman, are killed and 27 injured when a Hamas weapons lab blows up in a residential neighborhood.
  • A Hamas truck, loaded with rockets intended for Israel, explodes early, killing 17 Palestinians (including three children) and injuring another 140.
We get a partial picture of the true extent of the murder and brutality of radical Islamic terrorists from these items:
  • More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined. (source)
  • Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years. (source)
  • More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland. (source)
  • 19 Muslim hijackers killed more innocents in two hours on September 11th than the number of American criminals put to death in the last 65 years. (source)
The religion of peace is at war with the world.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Saturday, April 22, 2006

Not Everyone Wants Rumsfeld Gone

Not everyone thinks Donald Rumsfeld is the Devil incarnate and wants him to be fired or to step down; it just seems that way, due to the intense and overblown media treatment of the Iraq war and the changes in the Bush Whitehouse.

Here are two columns by people who aren’t "Dump Rumsfeld" bandwagoneers:

Bring Me the Head of Donald Rumsfeld

By Clifford D. May
Apr 20, 2006

The question is not whether Donald Rumsfeld should resign. The question is not even who should replace him. The question is: What goals would a new Secretary of Defense set, and what strategies would he implement to achieve them?

If Rumsfeld's critics believe America's military has met its match on the battlefields of Iraq, they should say so forthrightly. But they should talk, too, about the ramifications of an American defeat in the heart of the Arab Middle East.

For example, once al-Qaeda can creditably claim to have driven U.S. forces out of Iraq, is there any reason to believe the line will be held in Afghanistan? And what responses should we expect elsewhere in the region after such an American humiliation?

If, on the other hand, the critics believe we can and should prevail in Iraq, but that Rumsfeld is fighting Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's suicide bombers and the remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime incorrectly, let them outline a better approach. Last fall, Andrew F. Krepinevich, Jr., writing in Foreign Policy, did not demand Rumsfeld's head, accuse him of “arrogance” or not being a good listener. He did deliver a blistering critique of what he called a “faltering effort.” But the headline of his article was “How to Win in Iraq” and he offered a coherent strategic alternative.

The question also is not whether Donald Rumsfeld has made mistakes. The question is: What has he learned from his mistakes?

The high-tech, big-blast bombs dropped on Baghdad early in the conflict did not “shock and awe” our enemies as Rumsfeld presumably anticipated. By contrast, the low-tech videotapes of hostages having their heads sawed off did cause something like that reaction in millions of American and European viewers.

There probably should have been more “boots on the ground” following Saddam's toppling, especially since Ambassador Paul Bremer would soon disband the Iraqi army leaving no one to maintain order. But that's history. Who would propose bringing in more troops now? The focus needs to be on the battles being fought today and the battles to be fought tomorrow. (Actually, American forces have never lost a battle in Iraq. Why that doesn't count as winning in this war I'll leave for a future column.)

Rumsfeld is hardly alone in having made mistakes. For more than a quarter century, almost all Western leaders and “experts” blundered badly by underestimating the enemy we now face: his determination, his ruthlessness and, yes, his competence. Worse than that: Many have been slow to recognize that Militant Islamism is the enemy, as serious a threat as were Nazism and Communism in their day.

It has long been observed that generals prepare to fight the last war rather than the next war. Part of the explanation: They know more about the last war than they do about the next war.

In the years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Pentagon under various secretaries spent little energy preparing to fight the kind of low-intensity conflict now underway in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are many generals who don't want to fight wars that rely not on nuclear submarines and stealth bombers but on hard men willing to bloody their hands on the mean streets of cities like Fallujah and Ramadi.

Rumsfeld is the only secretary of defense to have prepared for the job by serving as secretary of defense. Thirty years ago, when he was the youngest man ever to hold the job, he was probably a less difficult boss. This time around, his goal has been to fundamentally transform what he sees as a sclerotic Pentagon bureaucracy. That has not made him popular with those invested in the status quo.

A separate question – one well worth asking – is whether a Pentagon reshaped by Rumsfeld will be all that it can be; whether it will be capable of employing organized violence more effectively than America's adversaries (which is, after all, the mission).

Transforming the military so it can better fight 21st century wars while simultaneously fighting the first 21st century war is a tall order, akin, some would say, to repairing an F-16 during aerial combat. But that's the challenge Rumsfeld has undertaken. A military designed and equipped only to fight yesterday's foes is of limited value.

Retired generals should be welcomed into the debate on military transformation. But they can't make much of a contribution until and unless they start asking the right questions.

Clifford D. May is the president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism and a partner organization.

Copyright © 2006 Scripps Howard News Service

The Rumsfeld Detractors

By Stephen E. Herbits
Published April 20, 2006

Where is the rest of the story on the recent attacks on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld by a few in the retired military? The news media will better meet its obligations to the public when it seeks more depth of experience and information about these generals-turned-Rumsfeld critics.

Having had the privilege of participating in Defense Department transitions now for four presidents, with my own experience in military affairs going back to 1967, I can offer such information.

The first observation to be made is that now that these generals have stepped out of their uniforms to make a personal and conscious entry into the political arena by calling for the resignation of a Cabinet official, they are opening their own records and their own performance -- perhaps even their own motivations -- to public scrutiny. This is not only fair game for the media, but absolutely essential for a public seeking to understand the full debate.

My experience points to several relevant issues -- some of which I personally know apply to some of those making the attacks.

First, while Mr. Rumsfeld has worked within the long tradition of civilian control of the military to modernize and strengthen the promotion and assignment system for senior uniformed officers, there are some who have actively tried to obstruct his efforts and could be acting as an extension of that opposition. For instance, within weeks of Mr. Rumsfeld's arrival in 2001, eight nominations -- two from each service -- were sent to the new secretary for one of the nine top senior military officers in command positions.

Upon examination, however, a simple fact leapt off the pages. The secretary had really been given one selection and seven non-comparable alternates, who, if not less qualified, were clearly less preferable than the one. When it happened a second time, the secretary instituted a new process. This new process has been in place for nearly five years and has required significantly more scrutiny, vetting and long-term planning.

Over that time, many generals who might have been promoted under the old system did not make it in the new one. The most telling indicator here is that of the top 40 senior military positions today, the Army now holds the fewest joint positions in its history. For too many years, the Army had simply not produced the needed talent for such critical positions. The effects of such cronyism had taken its toll. Mr. Rumsfeld's changes corrected that problem; they also provoked the resentment of some top Army brass.

There are a group of Army officers who adamantly oppose change, modernization, rationalization, transformation or whatever one wants to call the move to create a military for the future rather than a battery of tank divisions for the past. Many of these former officers stick together on retirement. They obtain the highest-level briefings from the active Army and offer their opinions, if not more, on everything from weapons to promotions. The Army can gain greatly from their experience, of course. But this clique is effectively a powerful, hidden informal force outside the Defense Department structure and outside the national political system.

There is at least one of the attackers who was passed over for promotion because of personal behavior which did not clear a routine morals examination. Not a problem; that is why top officers are vetted at each promotion and each assignment. But shouldn't the public be permitted to know this information about those attacking the civilians in charge so that they may better judge the reasons behind the reasons?

Finally, there is the style issue. Anyone who has worked closely with this secretary will tell you that he is tough. What do they mean? He acts like a prosecutor. It is often said that you had better not present policy options to this secretary if you are not thoroughly prepared. I was held to the same standard -- and it is the right one.

There is no way the secretary can be an expert on every single issue that comes before him. But he can ask questions and he can drive down into the facts and analyses as few others can. It is through that process that he gains confidence in those making the recommendations so he can put his stamp on them. Or the opposite. Some interpret the tough sessions as personally affronting. Others, such as I, believe it is in the best service of this country.

It will also be a service to this country when the media digs a bit below these attacks to examine the generals who wish to play a political role in our civilian society. The public can then understand who is making the attacks and why. Arguably, such an understanding is helpful in any public debate. It is inarguably essential in this one.

Stephen E. Herbits has served five presidents as a military affairs adviser since 1967, including the Defense Department transition in 2001 and post-September 11 reforms.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Monday, April 17, 2006

What to do With Moussaoui?

I am a proponent of the death penalty when guilt for specific crimes is not in question. Some crimes are so horrid that nothing less will do. I am in favor of the death penalty for terrorists like Zacarias Moussaoui. In my opinion, Moussaoui has earned the death penalty.

However, there are extenuating circumstances that cause me to think that, as much as Moussaoui deserves to die at the hands of the infidels he so badly wants to kill, there might be a “better” sentence for him.

Put him to death with a lethal injection, in an electric chair, on the gallows, or in front of a firing squad, and you make him a martyr. (Although the prospect of turning him over to the families of the victims of the 9-11 attacks has great appeal.) God knows we don’t need any more Muslim martyrs.

What won’t make him a martyr is to keep him in prison for the rest of his natural life. No glory in that. No 72 virgins. No legend in the making. Too bad we can’t make him do hard labor and live in a 4x4 room with two other schmucks and his prayer rug. Maybe, if there is a God, some big, burley Neanderthal will choose him for a sex toy. That would really stand him in good stead with Allah, eh?

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Idiocy on Parade

Item 1

A Palestinian suicide bomber set off an explosion at a sidewalk falafel stand near Tel Aviv's central bus station today, killing the bomber and at least eight bystanders.

A spokesperson for Hamas described the explosion as an act of self-defense.

Is that insight into the maladjusted mind of a Muslim fanatic? Self-defense is killing men women and children who have done nothing to you? Appears to be.

Item 2

Six retired generals have come out of retirement to criticize Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Most thinking people give little credence to this criticism. However, the errant generals drew fire from another general.

"I think there are professional standards that you have when you are in uniform that carry on when you retire," Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers said.
"It's inappropriate because it's not the military that judges our civilian bosses. We'd be in a horrible state in this country, in my opinion, if the military was left to judge the civilian bosses, because when you judge Secretary Rumsfeld, you're also judging the commander in chief, because that's the chain of command, and that's just not appropriate," Gen. Myers told ABC's "This Week" program.

Gen. Myers said the generals did not question the prewar plans, and went a step further by saying that any military officer would be derelict in his duty if he did not voice his concerns.

Another on-point comment came from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who commented, "Don Rumsfeld listens to generals. He doesn't obey them."

Item 3

Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui suffered a traumatic childhood, a social worker testified in his trial last week.
Moussaoui, who calls “shoe bomber” Richard Reid his "buddy" from their days together in al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan, testified last month that he and Reid were going to hijack a fifth plane on Sept. 11, 2001, and fly it into the White House.

Poor thing. Should we feel sorry for him? No doubt some softheaded Americans will.

Friday, April 14, 2006

More on Illegal Aliens

As the illegal alien situation continues to get weirder and weirder, here’s a point of view worth reading from Deborah Simmons, published in The Washington Times.

Immigration talking points

By Deborah Simmons
Published April 14, 2006

Is the debate on Capitol Hill about immigration a sincere one? Are the politicians seriously pondering the fate of this nation of laws or are they more interested in their political hides?

Those are the very questions American citizens should be asking themselves every time the John McCains use the "I" word. If you're a card-carrying member of the McCain clan then you believe, as Mexico's president does and as Mr. McCain recently said, that there "are certain jobs that Americans are simply not willing to do."

The senator from Arizona stands with the elistists and liberals, whose point of view is: Let the immigrants do the dirty work — cleaning toilets, picking cotton, er, produce, and let them suckle the young ones. Mr. McCain knows he can't win over the conservatives come 2008.

So what does he do? He gets in bed with Ted Kennedy. As Big Mama would say: "John, the hired help has made your bed, now lie in it."

If you're in search of a senator with presidential aspirations who is at least standing on moral, principled ground, look to the South. Sen. George Allen of Virginia, put it this way recently on ABC's "This Week": "I think it's vitally important that we first and foremost recognize that there's a consensus in America that we need to secure our borders." The Republican, who is up for re-election to his Senate seat, also said, "I don't think that we ought to be passing anything that rewards illegal behavior or amnesty. Is that different than the president's position? Apparently so."

There are other talking points that the great deliberators and the conservatives and liberals who advise them aren't talking about. The preamble to the National Governors Association's position on immigration: "The nation's Governors recognize the important contribution immigrants have made and continue to make to our nation. Although the federal government has the primary role in directing overall policy regarding immigration and refugees, the effects of such policy on local communities present challenges that cannot be ignored by the states. These challenges include demands for education, job training, social and health services, and other assistance designed to promote the integration of immigrants into our communities.

"Decisions regarding the admission and placement of legal immigrants and refugees rest solely with the federal government. Similarly, the illegal entry of other individuals also is a direct responsibility of the federal government. Therefore, the federal government is expected to accept full financial and other responsibilities regarding illegal entrants, immigrants, and refugees as prescribed by law."

Now, since the federal government is of, by and for Americans, who, do you suspect, will end up paying the "full financial" costs of tending to illegal aliens?

And how about this. While eyes and ears are focused on organizations that translate what Arab-speaking terrorists are saying, here's a peek at what's being said right here at home. These inciteful words are courtesy of the March 30 "We have got to eliminate the gringos" piece in "The words above were spoken by Jose Angel Gutierrez, professor, University of Texas, Arlington and founder of the La Raza Unida political party. His full comment was: 'We have an aging white America ... They are dying ... We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.'"

If you're still in the McCain camp, please, read along: "In a column dated March 25, 2006, by Ernesto Cienguegos titled 'La Gran Marcha' surpasses all expectations," Cienguegos wrote: 'What does the immense success of "La Gran Marcha" mean to Mexicanos and other Latinos? It simply means that we now have the numbers, the political will and the organizational skills to direct our own destinies and not be subservient to the White and Jewish power structures. It means that we can now undertake bigger and more significant mass actions to achieve total political and economic liberation like that being proposed by Juan Jose Gutierrez, President of Movimiento Latino USA. Juan Jose Gutierrez is proposing that the coalition that organized "La Gran Marcha" meet in Arizona or Texas on April 8 to "organize a mass boycott (huelga) against the economy of the USA" to take place on May 5 or 19.'"

Now, if it weren't for the First Amendment of America's Constitution — Got that? America's Constitution — both the professor and his compadre would be in a heap of trouble as seditionists. But the yellowbellies on Capitol Hill and in the White House — and those advising both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue — fail to see the clear and present danger because their eyes are trained on the midterm elections and 2008.

Republicans can't be counted on to do anything about illegal aliens because they want the cheap labor, and Democrats can't be counted on because they want the Hispanic vote. (Some of them inside the Beltway say I'm being an alarmist, too emotional, to be taken seriously. Others say I'm a racist on a xenophobic mission. I say continue on. Make my day.)

The easiest way to sort out politicians and commentators on the immigration invasion is with keywords. Those who support amnesty, guest-worker programs and the lawlessness on our borders repeatedly use such terms as "undocumented workers," "hard working," "misdemeanor," "nation of immigrants,""comprehensive immigration reform" and "illegal immigrants." People who enter our country illegally are not immigrants; they are illegal aliens. On the other hand, those who support securing our borders and stand whole in the name of law and order use terms like "illegal aliens," "deportation" and "felony."

Don't think for a second that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to go wobbly. Republicans will likely cave first since they have the most to lose.

Saturday, April 08, 2006

The Circus of the Absurd

I have been thinking, trying to find something more absurd than the idea held by some Mexican illegals that they have the right to tell Americans, whose land millions of them have invaded, that Americans have no right to pass laws regulating immigration and are wrong to tighten control over their borders. And as ridiculous as that situation is I have finally found its equal: It is the idea that some Americans agree with them.

Let’s not forget that there is some faction of Americans ready, willing and able to jump on board every bandwagon, no matter how dumb, dangerous or misguided the issue may be. There is, further, a group of rabble rousers on standby to organize “spontaneous” events to help the rapacious American media tell the rest of us what serious issues need attention. Thus we have the spectacles of the recent past where both illegal Mexican aliens and American citizens have been organized into protests to wave Mexican flags and protest in the best American tradition our government’s attempt to protect its citizens from who-knows-who coming into the country to do who-knows-what.

Waving the Mexican flag is an important element in these “spontaneous” events. Flags are interesting things; they evoke strong feelings. You know how the site of Old Glory waving over the ruins of New York City after September 11 made you well up inside, or how some people get really upset when they see the Confederate flag? Flags evoke strong feelings. Old Glory, our nation’s flag, inspires good feelings; the Confederate flag inspires in some people not-so-good ones. Even though the Confederate flag was the battle flag of Americans fighting for principles they held dear—and contrary to common belief, slavery was NOT one of them—in today’s race-charged, politically correct environment it often conjures up images that some don’t like to think about. Now the event organizers present us the image of illegal aliens waving the flag of a foreign country in the face of Americans as if they have some standing to make demands upon us. What gall. What arrogance. What chutzpah.

But then how much gall, arrogance and chutzpah are required by those Americans who are helping them to put the concerns of illegal aliens above the nation’s concern for security and the rule of law? Or is it something else, like an inability to see the reality and folly of their position?

Gall, arrogance and chutzpah aside, the likely reaction to this circus will not be amnesty for 20 million illegals and a continuation of the sloppy border security we have been treated to lately, because most Americans do not agree with those ideas. Thing are going to change with regard to the border and the illegal alien situation for the best possible reason: A significant majority of the American people wants change.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Friday, April 07, 2006

Muslims Killing Muslims

To us in the Western world Islam is a paradox.

Some call it a religion of peace, yet there is a radical faction of Muslims that murders “infidels,” a broad assortment of billions of innocent men, women and children across the world whose only “sin” is not being Muslim. This they do in the name of their God, Allah. One of the favored weapons is a creature known as the suicide bomber, one who, on the promise of salvation in the hereafter in the company of 72 virgins, kills himself and whomever he may be fortunate enough to take with him.

In the Middle East, where Islam is the dominant culture, Muslims fight amongst themselves, with rival factions murdering each other for who-knows-why: power, mostly, it seems. They even blow up fellow Muslims in their Mosques. While one group of Muslims worships their God, Allah—the God of a religion of peace—another group of Muslims sets about murdering them, all the while praising Allah.

To us, the inferior infidels, Islam seems irrational and out of control. This perception must be okay with so-called "moderate" Muslims, who do nothing to change how they are viewed by 75 percent of the people of the Earth who see them as crazy.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Will The Real Cynthia McKinney Please Shut Up!

In response to the outrage of normal Americans over her dustup last week with a Capital Police officer at the Longworth House Office Building, and her party’s fear of losing votes, Rep. Cynthia McKinney offered an apology on the House floor today for her inappropriate and possibly illegal behavior. Skeptics may doubt the sincerity of her offering, particularly in view of the high degree of arrogance she has exhibited since the incident, but at least she said she was sorry. Whether or not she is contrite is another question.

But wait … you say another incident occurred today?

On her way into the Capital Building today to make her apology a TV reporter from her home state was trying to ask her a question when he was elbowed, then threatened by Ms. McKinney’s private security guard.

What’s wrong with this picture? Well, a couple of things. First, as an elected representative of the people of the state of Georgia she is obligated to take questions from the media, and so long as there is no threat to her safety (which there wasn’t) and so long as the reporter approached her in a public place (which he did), there’s simply no excuse for anyone to interfere. Second, the United States provides security for Ms. McKinney and her compatriots, and despite her disdain for them (which she so publicly displayed last week) Capital police frown on Members of Congress bringing in private security.

So now what? Well, the reporter’s employer, Atlanta TV station WSB, has not decided whether to press charges, and the Capital Police say they don’t open investigations unless a complaint is filed, but it is possible that while a grand jury considers whether to indict Ms. McKinney on the misdemeanor charge from last week, the Capital Police may begin an investigation into the private security guard’s behavior.

I rather doubt that this is what the voters of her Georgia district had in mind when they elected Cynthia McKinney to Congress, and I also doubt that most Americans are willing to tolerate such shenanigans from their elected officials.

Cynthia McKinney has a chip on her shoulder, thinks she doesn't have to follow the same rules the rest of her fellow Members of Congress have to follow, and has embarrassed the House of Representatives, the Democratic Party, the Congressional Black Caucas and the people of Georgia. Perhaps it’s time for to return to private life.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

What In The World Is Wrong With Cynthia McKinney?

So, Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) tried to go through a Capital security checkpoint without her ID pin and got “hassled” by the Capital Police. What’s the big deal here? Aren’t the Capital Police supposed to check to see who’s going in and out of the U.S. Capital Building?

But Ms. McKinney is indignant that she was not recognized by the Police officers on duty, who would have to be able to recognize 535 Senators and Representatives at sight to please her. After some sort of confrontation occurred, Ms. McKinney is alleged to have hit the officer in the chest with a cell phone.

And, apparently, this isn’t the first time Ms. McKinney has had such difficulties.

U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer yesterday said his officer did the right thing when he stopped Rep. McKinney after she walked past a secure checkpoint in a House office building last week. "It's much to do about nothing," said Chief Gainer. "I want to make it really clear: If [officers] are not sure who's walking in that door, I expect them to challenge that person. And the person who is challenged has no right to strike an officer."

Well, “Duh!”

In what has become the order of the day, it seems, in such cases, Ms. McKinney screams that “racial profiling” and “racism” are at the heart of this incident, but it seems more likely that what is behind this is the arrogance of Ms. McKinney, and her eagerness to turn her own errors into matters of race.

It just won’t work, Congresswoman.

Here’s a little advice for her: “Wear your identification like you are supposed to, and like the vast majority of other Senators and Representatives do, and instead of challenging the officers who are providing protection for you and your contemporaries, try helping them do their job, and expressing your gratitude to them.”

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Saturday, April 01, 2006

The Wisdom of Ronald Reagan

I have great regard and respect for Ronald Reagan. His greatness as President of the United States is already being recognized, and in time I believe he will be regarded as one of the two or three greatest Presidents of the 20th Century.

Agree or disagree with me as you will, here are some quotes from "the Gipper" that are worth reading and remembering:

  • Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.
  • The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
  • The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so.
  • Of the four wars in my lifetime none came about because the U.S. was too strong.
  • I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.
  • The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination.
  • Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
  • If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.
  • The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.
  • It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.
  • Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
  • Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed, there are many rewards; if you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book.
  • No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an American

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,