Monday, May 31, 2010

Stab Israel in the Back and Build a Mosque at 9/11

There is no outrage by the Obama Administration that angers and saddens me more than their simultaneous attempts to throw Israel under the bus while trying to cozy up to Muslims who have been trying their best to kill Americans for these last thirty years. Every thinking person knows that Israel needs nuclear weapons to survive – and needs to keep its mouth shut about their existence until the terrible day comes when they may have to use them.

Every thinking person also knows that virtually all acts of terror in the world today are committed by Muslims, and that when even peaceful Muslims reach a significant minority status in countries they infiltrate, they try to impose their Sharia – a system of religious laws that are completely incompatible with American traditions of religious and political freedoms. What is wrong with this man, Obama?

Israel recoils as US backs nuclear move
May 30 03:22 (Excerpt)

“Washington's unprecedented backing for a UN resolution for a nuclear-free Middle East that singles out Israel has both angered and deeply worried the Jewish state although officials are cagey about openly criticising their biggest ally.

The resolution adopted by the United Nations on Friday calls on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and urges it to open its facilities to inspection.

It also calls for a regional conference in 2012 to advance the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East.

Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East, with around 200 warheads, but has maintained a policy of deliberate ambiguity about its capabilities since the mid-1960s.

The document, which singles out Israel but makes no mention of Iran's controversial nuclear programme, drew a furious reaction from the Jewish state who decried it as "deeply flawed and hypocritical."

But it was US backing for the resolution which has caused the most consternation among Israeli officials and commentators, who interpreted the move as "a resounding slap around the face" which has dealt a very public blow to Israel's long-accepted policy of nuclear ambiguity.“

The Obama Administration, including Obam himself, is composed of Dhimmicrats.
Dhimmicrats on the March?

By Ken Blackwell May 25, 2010 American Thinker (Excerpt)

"What's a dhimmicrat, you say? It's not the same thing as a Democrat. A dhimmicrat is a person who, while not Muslim himself, nonetheless clears the path for shariah law to be adopted and incorporated into otherwise free nations....

What is dhimmitude, anyway? It's the status -- or lack of status-- that is accorded to non-believers in Muslim-dominant countries. Dhimmis get to pay special taxes for not being Muslim. They get to be excluded from many educational and professional opportunities. They get to have their churches burned and their communities attacked. If you want to know more about what life is like under dhimmitude, just ask the Copts of Egypt. But ask these hardy Christians here. Don't ask them there.

Eric Holder is a leading dhimmicrat in government today. Our Attorney General has yet to rule out a civilian trial in Manhattan for Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Khalid Sheikh Muhammad boasted of how he beheaded Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl. A more loathsome human being would be hard to imagine. But Eric Holder is giving Khalid Sheikh Muhammad all the rights accorded to American citizens accused of mass murder. Why? Why, too, should Farouk Abdul Mutallab, the Christmas Day underwear bomber, be given a Miranda warning and allowed to escape trial before a military tribunal? Our A.G. has no coherent answer to these questions.

The answer is that dhimmicrats fear to offend. Fear drives them to make concession after concession. They are forever apologizing. The Crusades? Don't even mention the word. That can set them off. Jihadists today complain about Crusaders' cruelty in the 12th century. (That's odd. I don't remember riots when Saddam Hussein murdered 400,000 Muslims in his forty-year reign of terror.) In Britain, timorous town councilors even banned Winnie the Pooh because the character of Piglet might offend some residents. These councilors are dhimmicrats all. The dhimmicrats are on the march." American Thinker

Labels: , ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Saturday, May 29, 2010

Have You Figured Him Out Yet?

Most of my friends had figured out who Obama was by early summer, in 2008. After all, someone who sits in a church for 20 years listening to outrageous comments about white people and about the United States in general, whose closest friends include terrorists and crooks, who refuses to honor our flag, who has no experience running anything, and who is the most liberal politician in sight, is easy to figure out.

Millions of American voters, however, are kicking themselves today because they did not figure Obama out in time.

He Was Supposed to Be Competent

The spill is a disaster for the president and his political philosophy.

By PEGGY NOONAN MAY 29, 2010 Wall St Journal

I don't see how the president's position and popularity can survive the oil spill. This is his third political disaster in his first 18 months in office. And they were all, as they say, unforced errors, meaning they were shaped by the president's political judgment and instincts.

There was the tearing and unnecessary war over his health-care proposal and its cost. There was his day-to-day indifference to the views and hopes of the majority of voters regarding illegal immigration. And now the past almost 40 days of dodging and dithering in the face of an environmental calamity. I don't see how you politically survive this.

The president, in my view, continues to govern in a way that suggests he is chronically detached from the central and immediate concerns of his countrymen. This is a terrible thing to see in a political figure, and a startling thing in one who won so handily and shrewdly in 2008. But he has not, almost from the day he was inaugurated, been in sync with the center. The heart of the country is thinking each day about A, B and C, and he is thinking about X, Y and Z. They're in one reality, he's in another.

President Obama promised on Thursday to hold BP accountable in the catastrophic Gulf of Mexico oil spill and said his administration would do everything necessary to protect and restore the coast.

The American people have spent at least two years worrying that high government spending would, in the end, undo the republic. They saw the dollars gushing night and day, and worried that while everything looked the same on the surface, our position was eroding. They have worried about a border that is in some places functionally and of course illegally open, that it too is gushing night and day with problems that states, cities and towns there cannot solve.

And now we have a videotape metaphor for all the public's fears: that clip we see every day, on every news show, of the well gushing black oil into the Gulf of Mexico and toward our shore. You actually don't get deadlier as a metaphor for the moment than that, the monster that lives deep beneath the sea.

In his news conference Thursday, President Obama made his position no better. He attempted to act out passionate engagement through the use of heightened language—"catastrophe," etc.—but repeatedly took refuge in factual minutiae. His staff probably thought this demonstrated his command of even the most obscure facts. Instead it made him seem like someone who won't see the big picture. The unspoken mantra in his head must have been, "I will not be defensive, I will not give them a resentful soundbite." But his strategic problem was that he'd already lost the battle. If the well was plugged tomorrow, the damage will already have been done.

The original sin in my view is that as soon as the oil rig accident happened the president tried to maintain distance between the gusher and his presidency. He wanted people to associate the disaster with BP and not him. When your most creative thoughts in the middle of a disaster revolve around protecting your position, you are summoning trouble. When you try to dodge ownership of a problem, when you try to hide from responsibility, life will give you ownership and responsibility the hard way. In any case, the strategy was always a little mad. Americans would never think an international petroleum company based in London would worry as much about American shores and wildlife as, say, Americans would. They were never going to blame only BP, or trust it.

I wonder if the president knows what a disaster this is not only for him but for his political assumptions. His philosophy is that it is appropriate for the federal government to occupy a more burly, significant and powerful place in America—confronting its problems of need, injustice, inequality. But in a way, and inevitably, this is always boiled down to a promise: "Trust us here in Washington, we will prove worthy of your trust." Then the oil spill came and government could not do the job, could not meet the need, in fact seemed faraway and incapable: "We pay so much for the government and it can't cap an undersea oil well!"

This is what happened with Katrina, and Katrina did at least two big things politically. The first was draw together everything people didn't like about the Bush administration, everything it didn't like about two wars and high spending and illegal immigration, and brought those strands into a heavy knot that just sat there, soggily, and came to symbolize Bushism. The second was illustrate that even though the federal government in our time has continually taken on new missions and responsibilities, the more it took on, the less it seemed capable of performing even its most essential jobs. Conservatives got this point—they know it without being told—but liberals and progressives did not. They thought Katrina was the result only of George W. Bush's incompetence and conservatives' failure to "believe in government." But Mr. Obama was supposed to be competent.

Remarkable too is the way both BP and the government, 40 days in, continue to act shocked, shocked that an accident like this could have happened. If you're drilling for oil in the deep sea, of course something terrible can happen, so you have a plan on what to do when it does.

How could there not have been a plan? How could it all be so ad hoc, so inadequate, so embarrassing? We're plugging it now with tires, mud and golf balls?

What continues to fascinate me is Mr. Obama's standing with Democrats. They don't love him. Half the party voted for Hillary Clinton, and her people have never fully reconciled themselves to him. But he is what they have. They are invested in him. In time—after the 2010 elections go badly—they are going to start to peel off. The political operative James Carville, the most vocal and influential of the president's Gulf critics, signaled to Democrats this week that they can start to peel off. He did it through the passion of his denunciations.

The disaster in the Gulf may well spell the political end of the president and his administration, and that is no cause for joy. It's not good to have a president in this position—weakened, polarizing and lacking broad public support—less than halfway through his term. That it is his fault is no comfort. It is not good for the stability of the world, or its safety, that the leader of "the indispensable nation" be so weakened. I never until the past 10 years understood the almost moral imperative that an American president maintain a high standing in the eyes of his countrymen.

Mr. Obama himself, when running for president, made much of Bush administration distraction and detachment during Katrina. Now the Republican Party will, understandably, go to town on Mr. Obama's having gone before this week only once to the gulf, and the fund-raiser in San Francisco that seemed to take precedence, and the EPA chief who decided to cancel a New York fund-raiser only after the press reported that she planned to attend.

But Republicans should beware, and even mute their mischief. We're in the middle of an actual disaster. When they win back the presidency, they'll probably get the big California earthquake. And they'll probably blow it. Because, ironically enough, of a hard core of truth within their own philosophy: When you ask a government far away in Washington to handle everything, it will handle nothing well.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Blame the Left as well as BP for the Oil Spill

One of the reasons that the foolishness of liberalism remains with us is that liberals are almost never held to account for the failures of their policies and programs. Their spending binges result in massive inflation years after they have been swept from office (with the notable exception of Carter, whose misguided policies brought on Islamic terrorism, high inflation, high unemployment and high interest rates while he was still president).

Their campaign against DDT resulted in the deaths of millions of the poorest children from Africa, Asia and South America before use of DDT was resumed. As it says in the following article, Environmentalism is also a worldview where one never really has to accept or take responsibility for the consequences of those policies. Millions die of malaria because affluent environmentalists had the political might to have DDT banned. America can be deprived of new sources of safe and clean nuclear energy because of the hysterical and dishonest war waged against the nuclear power industry. Environmentalists can tout wind power while campaigning to obstruct its generation near the shores of Cape Cod. (We must not interfere with the yachting patterns of the local but classy endangered species off Hyannisport.) Environmentalists seem never to be called to account.”

Environmentalists with Oil on Their Hands

By Henry P. Wickham, Jr. May 27, 2010 American Thinker

When evaluating in an honest way all factors that contributed to the current pollution of the Gulf, we must ask why BP was drilling in 5,000 feet of ocean when there are so many other accessible and safe alternatives. There are large deposits of oil shale in Western Colorado that could easily and safely be extracted as it is now in Western Canada. We have all heard of the huge deposits of oil in ANWR, on Alaska's North Shore. Because of improved drilling technology, all available oil in ANWR can be extracted by using only 2,000 of its roughly 19,000,000 acres.

BP now drills in 5,000 feet of ocean because these better alternatives have been foreclosed to the oil industry. Environmental groups have effectively stymied this safe and relatively easy production of oil in the name of some higher but more nebulous good. Where they once rationalized their campaign against oil companies based upon the threat of environmental degradation, environmental groups now use the increasingly dubious claims of global warming to justify their obstruction.

As the policies of environmental groups were a factor in what we now see in the Gulf of Mexico, so they were in the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster. When huge quantities of oil were discovered in Prudhoe Bay on the North Shore of Alaska in the mid-1960s, one issue among many was the transportation of this oil.

The safest approach was a pipeline from the North Shore directly to the northern border of the contiguous United States. As a member of the Sierra Club at that time, I remember well the relentless war that the Sierra Club waged against both the drilling and the pipeline. In what has now become a predictable strategy, the Sierra Club catastrophized the entire project and attacked the motives of those who sought merely to respond to the demand for oil by the American public.

The Sierra Club at that time published a "Battlebook," where readers were told that the drilling and pipeline "will despoil thousands of acres of virgin wilderness, change the ecology of huge tracts, pollute Alaska's rivers and harbors, and interrupt the migration patterns of the caribou herds."

Because of what he called this "mindless onslaught of technology," the author asserted that the caribou herds would be decimated as American buffalo were in the 19th century. His heated rhetoric, no doubt a contribution to global warming, took control as he wrote that this development was a "rape" in the name of "fat profits."

Fortunately for America, the environmentalists at that time did not have the political clout they do now. Prudhoe Bay was developed, and it now operates without all the dire consequences to the land so hysterically predicted by the Sierra Club. However, as a partial victory for the environmentalists, the pipeline was constructed only to Valdez, Alaska, rather than to the border of the lower forty-eight states. And so, on March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez ran aground, dumping 10.8 million gallons of crude oil into the ocean. Exxon is certainly responsible for the blunders that occurred that day.

In the one instance where a Sierra Club predictions came true, the Sierra Club had a hand in that disaster. The blunders of the ship's captain likely would not have occurred had it not been for the obstruction of the pipeline that could have reached the contiguous United States. The longer pipeline would have eliminated, or at least significantly reduced, the need for an Exxon Valdez. As with the wreck of the Exxon Valdez, the crisis today in the Gulf may not have occurred if the environmentalist groups like the Sierra Club had not obstructed so many of the safe alternatives to drilling in 5,000 feet of ocean.

The chronic obstruction of so many economic endeavors is a symptom of deeper problems in the environmental movement. Environmentalists tend to live in a fantasy world, where some unattainable perfection is always the enemy of the good. What was once reasonable conservation has become for many the pseudo-religion of environmentalism, where Luddite obstruction is the default position, and no environmental benefit, no matter how small, is ever too costly.

Aside from the nostalgic illusions of some lost Eden, among environmentalists there is a strong element that opposes democratic capitalism. Environmentalism becomes just another means to a dreamy collectivized end. They simply ignore or are ignorant of the causes of their comfortable life and the serious environmental degradation done by regimes with" planned" economies and "public" ownership of the means of production.

Environmentalism is also a worldview where one never really has to accept or take responsibility for the consequences of those policies. Millions die of malaria because affluent environmentalists had the political might to have DDT banned. America can be deprived of new sources of safe and clean nuclear energy because of the hysterical and dishonest war waged against the nuclear power industry. Environmentalists can tout wind power while campaigning to obstruct its generation near the shores of Cape Cod. (We must not interfere with the yachting patterns of the local but classy endangered species off Hyannisport.) Environmentalists seem never to be called to account.

As we experience the effects of and calculate the enormous costs to clean up the Gulf of Mexico, by all means, let's hold BP accountable. But let's refuse to give the environmentalists a free pass. We must judge them by all the consequences of what they advocate, and not just by their flowery rhetoric, pretty calendars, and supposedly noble intentions. We must emphasize that for all those supposedly "green" benefits, there are real costs and risks that the environmentalists downplay or conceal. In this case, environmentalists have Gulf oil on their hands as much as any floating pelican carcass, although we will never get an acknowledgment of any responsibility or an apology from them.

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Saturday, May 22, 2010

The Dismantling of America

Is this what Obama supporters voted for in November of 2008 - the dismantling of the United States of America? Krauthammer says it all:

The Fruits of Weakness

Charles Krauthammer May 21, 2010

WASHINGTON -- It is perfectly obvious that Iran's latest uranium maneuver, brokered by Brazil and Turkey, is a ruse. Iran retains more than enough enriched uranium to make a bomb. And it continues enriching at an accelerated pace and to a greater purity (20 percent). Which is why the French foreign ministry immediately declared that the trumpeted temporary shipping of some Iranian uranium to Turkey will do nothing to halt Iran's nuclear program.

It will, however, make meaningful sanctions more difficult. America's proposed Security Council resolution is already laughably weak -- no blacklisting of Iran's central bank, no sanctions against Iran's oil and gas industry, no nonconsensual inspections on the high seas. Yet Turkey and Brazil -- both current members of the Security Council -- are so opposed to sanctions that they will not even discuss the resolution. And China will now have a new excuse to weaken it further.

But the deeper meaning of the uranium-export stunt is the brazenness with which Brazil and Turkey gave cover to the mullahs' nuclear ambitions and deliberately undermined U.S. efforts to curb Iran's program.

The real news is that already notorious photo: the president of Brazil, our largest ally in Latin America, and the prime minister of Turkey, for more than half a century the Muslim anchor of NATO, raising hands together with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the most virulently anti-American leader in the world.

That picture -- a defiant, triumphant take-that-Uncle-Sam -- is a crushing verdict on the Obama foreign policy. It demonstrates how rising powers, traditional American allies, having watched this administration in action, have decided that there's no cost in lining up with America's enemies and no profit in lining up with a U.S. president given to apologies and appeasement.

They've watched President Obama's humiliating attempts to appease Iran, as every rejected overture is met with abjectly renewed U.S. negotiating offers. American acquiescence reached such a point that the president was late, hesitant and flaccid in expressing even rhetorical support for democracy demonstrators who were being brutally suppressed and whose call for regime change offered the potential for the most significant U.S. strategic advance in the region in 30 years.

They've watched America acquiesce to Russia's re-exerting sway over Eastern Europe, over Ukraine (pressured by Russia last month into extending for 25 years its lease of the Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol) and over Georgia (Russia's de facto annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is no longer an issue under the Obama "reset" policy).

They've watched our appeasement of Syria, Iran's agent in the Arab Levant -- sending our ambassador back to Syria even as it tightens its grip on Lebanon, supplies Hezbollah with Scuds, and intensifies its role as the pivot of the Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance. The price for this ostentatious flouting of the U.S. and its interests? Ever more eager U.S. "engagement."

They've observed the administration's gratuitous slap at Britain over the Falklands, its contemptuous treatment of Israel, its undercutting of the Czech Republic and Poland, and its indifference to Lebanon and Georgia. And in Latin America, they see not just U.S. passivity as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez organizes his anti-American "Bolivarian" coalition while deepening military and commercial ties with Iran and Russia. They saw active U.S. support in Honduras for a pro-Chavez would-be dictator seeking unconstitutional powers in defiance of the democratic institutions of that country.

This is not just an America in decline. This is an America in retreat -- accepting, ratifying and declaring its decline, and inviting rising powers to fill the vacuum.

Nor is this retreat by inadvertence. This is retreat by design and, indeed, on principle. It's the perfect fulfillment of Obama's adopted Third World narrative of American misdeeds, disrespect and domination from which he has come to redeem us and the world. Hence his foundational declaration at the U.N. General Assembly last September that "No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation" (guess who's been the dominant nation for the last two decades?) and his dismissal of any "world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another." (NATO? The West?)

Given Obama's policies and principles, Turkey and Brazil are acting rationally. Why not give cover to Ahmadinejad and his nuclear ambitions? As the U.S. retreats in the face of Iran, China, Russia and Venezuela, why not hedge your bets? There's nothing to fear from Obama, and everything to gain by ingratiating yourself with America's rising adversaries. After all, they actually believe in helping one's friends and punishing one's enemies.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Sunday, May 09, 2010

History and Background on Mexifornia

California and Kosovo – history repeating itself

One of the problems that confronted the Clinton Administration in the Serbian-Bosnian (basically Christian-Muslim) conflict was that it was widely known that Kosovo, a province of Serbia, was being overrun by Muslim immigrants from Albania in a now-successful attempt to wrest Kosovo from Serbian (Christian) hands. Due to the war crimes being committed by Serbians (judged to be worse than the war crimes committed by Bosnians), Clinton decided to look the other way and come into the war on the side of the Bosnian Muslims.

What happened in Kosovo is being duplicated in California as Mexicans attempt to take over the state without a shot being fired. The hand-wringers should wake up and understand what is happening there. The following article gives some perspective on this:

Is America Conquered when the American Flag is 'Offensive'?

By John Griffing May 09, 2010 American Thinker

Californians were recently confronted with a sobering reality. Students at a large high school in the Morgan Hill district were told by school administrators that American flag tee shirts and other patriotic paraphernalia were not allowed, citing Cinco de Mayo as justification.

Few students at the school probably realize that America provided help to Mexico in expelling the French, whose defeat at the Battle of Puebla is comemorated on May 5th. How can American flags be "offensive" on a day that almost is as much American as it is Mexican? Cinco de Mayo is not even celebrated as a national holiday in Mexico. This incident follows Columbus Day's downgrade to "Indigenous People's Day" in some cities in the dying state. While certainly no one is against the idea of cultural celebrations, guests do not get to tell the host to sit down and shut up. This is merely the tip of a very large iceberg stretching deep into the heart of the American Southwest.

Due to immigration policies that cater to US corporations and politicians -- witness the furor over Arizona's new law -- a substantial fifth column has been admitted into the halls of freedom, and they are starting to demand changes. Following the "reconquista" approach favored by many activists, Mexican immigrants have sought to return the American Southwest to Mexico through means of slow and patient occupation.

While not every Mexican immigrant desires the overthrow of the United States government, seventy percent of them say that Mexico comes first in questions of loyalty. Is this the kind of immigration America wants or needs? How can America be a nation if its inhabitants pledge allegiance to another flag? What about when those of Latino birth occupy a majority share of the US population, as is predicted to occur by 2050? This is a problem that needs to be addressed now.

How did America get here?

The Mexico-first attitude dominating political discourse has taken years to cultivate, aided primarily by the deliberate misinformation of groups like Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA). MEChA has 300 chapters on college campuses all over the country and demands "restitution for past economic slavery, political exploitation, ethnic and cultural psychological destruction...." Here is the short version of the MEChA screed:

Chicano is our identity; it defines who we are as people. It rejects the notion that we...should assimilate into the Anglo-American melting pot... Aztlan was the legendary homeland of the Aztecas... brutally stolen from a Mexican people marginalized and betrayed by the hostile custodians of the Manifest Destiny.

This is pure fabricated nonsense. There is not now, nor has there ever been, any such land called "Aztlan." The American Southwest was never ruled by the Aztecs. And Mexico's jurisdiction over these territories lasted a mere ten years, owing in part to the historic Spanish presence.

But MEChA doesn't stop at propaganda.

Miguel Perez, President of Cal-State Northridge's MEChA chapter said, "The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan. Communism would be closest. Once Aztlan is established, ethnic cleansing would commence: Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled -- opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power."

Compounding this problem is the fact that Mexican schoolchildren are taught from birth that the gringo stole Mexican land. Mexico has even secured the right to propagate these racial myths in American classrooms. The Mexican Consulate in Los Angeles sent nearly 100,000 textbooks to 1,500 schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District in 2006.[1]

Far from stealing Mexican land, the United States paid handsomely for the land it acquired, and Mexican President Santa Anna was only too happy to oblige.[2] The consequences of this historical revisionism are alarming: In a June 2002 Zogby International Poll, 58 percent of Mexicans polled agreed that the "territory of the United States Southwest belongs to Mexico."

An invasion is underway, aided by opportunists on both sides of America's political spectrum. In the nineties, President Clinton used immigration as a voter-recruitment tool, naturalizing large numbers of Latinos in order to secure his hold on the White House. The project was spearheaded by now chief Obama advisor Rahm Emmanuel. Judging from President Obama's response to Arizona's action, we shouldn't expect a change of strategy anytime soon.

Both California and Texas hold decisive electoral votes, so now many political leaders must ritualistically seek the blessing of groups like the National Council de La Raza to obtain the Mexican-American vote. When Mexican President Ernst Zedillo spoke to La Raza in 1997 and uttered the words, "I have proudly proclaimed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders," members of La Raza jumped to their feet in thunderous applause.

No longer a fringe concept, there is now substantial political leverage behind those demanding that the American Southwest become Mexican. Not too long ago, politicians in New Mexico debated changing the state's name to "Nuevo Mexico". California Prop 187, a measure denying further state benefits to illegal immigrants, was struck down after a lawsuit initiated by the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) challenged the constitutionality of the proposition.

Constitutionality? For illegal immigrants?

California legislator Art Torres called Prop 187 "the last gasp of white America." The President of LULAC was very direct, saying, "California is going to be a Mexican state. We are going to control all of the institutions. If people don't like it, they should leave." The Mayor of Los Angeles Antonio Villaraigosa, who once chaired the UCLA chapter of MEChA, ran on a slogan of "Los Angeles Today, Alta California Tomorrow."

The Mexican government is encouraging this process of conquest, with former Mexican Consul General Jose Pescador Osuna remarking, "Even though I am saying this part serious, part joking, I think we are practicing La Reconquista in California." Some US towns have already partially seceded to Mexico. El Cenizo, Texas, has declared the town language Spanish, ordered that all business be conducted in Spanish, and has made talking with immigration authorities a firing offense. Mexico's outright invasion of America has taken on some not so subtle tones. Mexican military incursions into the US to protect Mexico's drug trade are now frequent. The Department of Homeland Security records 231 since 1996.

Jorge Castaneda, when he was still Mexico's Foreign Minister, remarked before Mexican reporters, "I like very much the metaphor of Gulliver, of ensnarling the giant...Tying it down with nails, with thread, with 20,000 nets that bog it down: these nets being norms, principles, resolutions, agreements and bilateral, regional, and international covenants." This is official Mexican policy, yet we respond with Free Trade Agreements and open arms of friendship.

In order to demonstrate our lack of prejudice, we have welcomed enemies into our midst.

America is a generous nation. We're a society of many cultures. We embrace all people, of all races, and offer freedom to all who come with honest intentions. But Americans cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the intentions of our "peaceful" invaders.

Today, there are large numbers of individuals residing in the US who neither consider themselves Americans, nor want to become Americans. Some have organized into militant groups whose stated purpose is to overpopulate the southwestern United States and reclaim it for Mexico without firing a shot.

Will we continue to let Mexico dictate to the US? Enough is enough. The time has come to defend ourselves.

[1] Heather MacDonald, "Mexico's Undiplomatic Diplomats," City Journal, Autumn 2005, 36-7.

[2] Rupert Norval Richardson, et al, Texas: The Lone Star State, (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1981), 168.

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Saturday, May 08, 2010

What Is It With These People - Part II?

Former Congressman Murtha’s attempts to pressure the Marine Corps into railroading US Marines at Haditha failed, and now the Obama Administration’s similar attempt to punish Navy Seals for doing the job we sent them there for – has also failed. All three Seals have now been acquitted. The thugs now running our government and trying to turn America into a third-rate country are the ones who should be punished, not our servicepeople trying to do an almost impossible job.

Va. military jury finds Navy SEAL not guilty

By LARRY O'DELL (AP) – Google News
NORFOLK, Va. — A military jury in Virginia found a Navy SEAL not guilty Thursday on charges of punching a suspected Iraqi terrorist.

Jurors deliberated about an hour and 40 minutes before returning their verdict in the court-martial of Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe.

The 24-year-old Perrysburg, Ohio, man was tried at Naval Station Norfolk on accusations of assaulting Ahmed Hashim Abed, who is suspected of plotting the 2004 slayings of four U.S. contractors in Fallujah.

The prosecution's key witness had testified he saw McCabe deliver a right cross to Abed's midsection. However, several defense witnesses contradicted portions of that testimony.

A Navy prosecutor said in closing arguments that SEALs were trying to protect one of their own.

"They circled the wagons," said Lt. Cmdr. Jason Grover. "They don't want Petty Officer McCabe to be held responsible for this."

A defense lawyer said he found that suggestion offensive.

Several defense witnesses contradicted the testimony of Petty Officer 3rd Class Kevin DeMartino, who said he saw McCabe slug the detainee in the stomach. Those witnesses also testified that McCabe, a decorated SEAL, was known for strong character, integrity and truthfulness.

"Don't be blinded by medals," Grover told the jury. "Everyone is equally accountable to do the right thing."

Defense attorney Haytham Faraj said the prosecution was asking the jury to take the word of a terrorist and a sailor who admitted initially lying about the incident over the testimony of numerous other witnesses.

"I disagree with the concept that the SEALs are covering up. It's actually pretty offensive," Faraj said.

The defense suggested throughout the trial that Abed employed a standard terrorist tactic of feigning injury, perhaps even biting his own lip to spill blood onto his clothing.

"We're here because a mass murderer, a vile person cloaked in a human body, claims he was beaten," Faraj said.

Grover said there was another reason McCabe was prosecuted.

"We uphold the rules and we're better than the terrorists. That's why we're here," Grover said.

Two other SEALs who were accused of covering up the assault were acquitted last month in Iraq after a judge heard much of the same evidence and testimony that was presented in McCabe's trial.

McCabe's trial was held in Virginia because unlike the other two SEALS he did not insist on confronting his accuser in court. Prosecutors played an audio recording of Abed's deposition at McCabe's trial.

McCabe was charged with assault, dereliction of duty and lying to investigators. He could have received up to a year in jail if convicted.

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Thursday, May 06, 2010

The "Principled" Charlie Crist

Charlie Crist lost me his first day in office when he issued executive orders committing Florida taxpayers to combatting man-made, global warming (hasn't any liberal ever heard of Greenland?) - and then gave the vote to convicted ex-felons. He went on from there to destroy the property insurance industry in Florida by convincing fools that somebody other than Florida residents would and should pay for Florida's disastrous hurricanes. All the major property insurance companies promptly left the state. I would too.

Liberals love Charlie, though. I have a liberal friend who was serously considering the disgraceful act of temporarily switching parties to vote for Crist in the primary, when Crist solved his moral problem by switching parties himself.

Charlie Crist: Independent from Principles

By Rich Lowry April 30, 2010 National Review

Florida governor Charlie Crist is the saddest of political spectacles — an opportunist running out of opportunities.

His relentless rise through Florida politics — from state senator to education commissioner to attorney general to the governorship he wants to leave for the U.S. Senate — petered out in the Republican primary, with conservative upstart Marco Rubio drubbing him by a roughly two-to-one margin in the polls.

Crist could have bowed out gracefully, except it would have required entirely too much grace. He has declared himself an independent and will fight a three-way race against Rubio and Democratic congressman Kendrick Meek in the fall. Along with fellow GOP apostate Arlen Specter, Crist is waging the revolt of the principleless. In a year of conviction politics, he seeks to forge a glorious cause out of his sheer impatience for another promotion.

Crist recently made such Shermanesque denials of any intention to run as an independent that William Tecumseh Sherman himself might have believed him. His campaign manager told reporters in an e-mail, “To put these rumors to rest once and for all, as we have said countless times before, Gov. Crist is running for the United States Senate as a Republican.” He should have added: As long as it suits his self-interest.

The seeds of Crist’s destruction in the Republican primary were sown in February 2009, when he hugged Pres. Barack Obama at an event in Fort Myers and endorsed the stimulus. The common thread of Crist’s career is a taste for fashionable causes, and both Obama and the stimulus were popular then. By November 2009, the politics had changed. “I didn’t endorse it,” Crist said of the stimulus on CNN in a don’t-believe-your-lying-eyes moment. “I didn’t even have a vote on the darned thing.”

By then, the front-running Crist had reason to fear the upstart Rubio. At first, Crist implausibly said he was going to out-Reagan the Reaganite challenger. Then he switched to taking wild swings at Rubio on ethics. But the Florida GOP credit-card scandal that Crist used as fodder involves most directly his own hand-picked choice as chairman, the since-resigned Jim Greer.

Crist has always been popular for being popular, as one wag puts it. He had neither the loyal troops nor the compelling rationale necessary to beat an attractive underdog whose views perfectly match the rank-and-file’s tea-partyish mood. Crist decided to turn on his party, vetoing a GOP education-reform bill after saying he’d support it. Now, he’ll insist that it’s the Republican party that left him.

Inevitably, Crist will be compared to Sen. Joe Lieberman, an insult to the Connecticut Democrat who ran as an independent after losing a primary in 2006. Lieberman staked his career on his support for the Iraq War. If it had been Crist, he would have switched his position on the war, and quit his party only if his gambit failed.

The governor has hardly been undone by witless extremists. Rubio is the former speaker of the state House. He’s a mainstream conservative who speaks compellingly about the future of the country, while Crist speaks compellingly about nothing. From the beginning, Rubio had the implicit support of former governor Jeb Bush, the gold standard in Florida Republican politics. As he spiraled downward, Crist lost even his mentor and campaign chairman, former senator U.S. Connie Mack, who couldn’t abide his education veto.

Crist has now been tempted into a desperation move. As Democratic consultant Steve Schale points out, Crist can win 25 percent of Republicans (highly improbable), 25 percent of Democrats (ditto) and 60 percent of independents (dream on), and still get only 31 percent of the vote, not enough to win. He’ll try to run against the system, a difficult trick when you occupy the governor’s mansion and your only objection to the system is that it no longer serves your purposes.

The GOP needs moderates, but not like this. Charlie Crist gives the brand a bad name.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Tuesday, May 04, 2010

What is it with these people?

What is it with these people? New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg agreed the Times Square car bombing was likely “homegrown” as he proceeded, in an interview excerpt with the idiotic Katie Couric, run on Monday's CBS Evening News, to speculate it could have been placed by “somebody with a political agenda who doesn't like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.” Bloomberg is a liberal who was a lifelong Democrat before seeking elective office. Bloomberg switched his registration in 2001 and ran for mayor as a Republican. He, of course, was trying to blame Tea Partiers for the failed bombing.

It is a total mystery to me why American liberals refuse to accept the fact that Islamic fundamentalists are trying to kill us. One of my good friends, a liberal, actually said that we couldn’t say that Major Hassan, the butcher of Fort Hood, was a Muslim terrorist. How can one respect this kind of thinking? It would be funny if it were not so dangerous to the lives of innocent Americans.

U.S. Anti-Terrorism Policy: Get Lucky

By Alan Caruba MAY 4, 2010

“I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America’s history.”

That’s what President Obama said in his Cairo speech, an early effort to reach out to Muslims throughout the Middle East and the world. The problem is, he is dead wrong. Muslims were not here prior to or during the Revolution. They did not participate in the Civil War though for centuries they were notorious as slave traders. During World War Two they were on Hitler’s side.

And, over the weekend, a naturalized American, formerly from Pakistan, is alleged to be the man who tried to kill a lot of Americans in New York’s Time’s Square.

So, while not “always” having been part of America’s history, Muslims are currently leaving their mark on it in the twenty-first century.

This is an administration that abandoned the descriptive “war on terrorism” in favor of “overseas contingency operation” against “man-caused disasters.” That was an early indicator that the White House is clueless.

As recently as November 5, 2009, a Muslim member of the U.S. Army killed thirteen fellow soldiers at Fort Hood. The National Security Advisor, Jim Jones, was quick to write off the Fort Hood attack as “not terrorism related.”

This is a president who took his sweet time responding to the Christmas day attempted airliner bombing, calling it an “isolated incident” despite law enforcement reports that such attempts have been increasing in recent times.

The “underpants bomber”, Umar Farouk Adbulmutalleb was arrested, debriefed, and read his Miranda rights within an hour after being taken into custody, all with the blessing of White House counterterrorism chief, John Brennen. This is a classic example of how not to deal with a terrorist.

Meanwhile, Attorney General John Holder has been hot for holding the trial of the mastermind of 9/11 in New York! And this is an administration that came into office promising to close down our detention facilities at Guantanamo.

We have a complete idiot, Janet Napolitano, as the Secretary of Homeland Security. We are all now too accustomed to her glassy-eyed, deer-in-the-headlights responses to events that threaten the nation’s security.

Apparently, the Obama administration’s anti-terrorism policy can be summed up in two words, “Get lucky

There are still liberals ready to condemn the United States for 9/11 and subsequent attacks. The liberal mantra is that these attacks are the result of our actions in the Middle East, but that misses the point that the primary characteristic of Middle East Muslims is to always blame someone or some nation for their own failures.

The United States, the Great Satan, and Israel, the Little Satan, are the convenient targets of blame. Israel has been relentlessly attacked and the U.S. has been provoked throughout the latter part of the last century with countless attacks on our citizens abroad, our embassies, and on 9/11.

We must thank the many patriots working in our national intelligence gathering system and we can thank the personnel of the FBI and local law enforcement people for the extraordinary job they did in identifying and arresting the alleged Time Square bomber.

What we are learning, however, is that it is extremely difficult to thwart such acts of terrorism, that we allow far too much traffic to and from the hotbeds of terrorism in the Middle East, and that the sheer avalanche of intelligence we secure daily often obscures an attack.

What we know is that we have a White House filled with incompetent advisors to a president who is in total denial.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Sunday, May 02, 2010

Behind the Arizona Border Dilemma

While guilt-ridden progressives and immigration activists march with illegals (committing acts of violence not ever seen at Tea Party rallies) and demand that Arizona be punished, the Obama Administration wrings its hands. It reminds one of Jimmy Carter as Iranian thugs, supported by the Iranian government, kidnapped and brutalized American diplomats within our embassy in Tehran (American territory). Let us understand what is going on at and south of our border:

Border disorder


April 29, 2010 New York Post

South of the border, down Mexico way, a new and savage revolution rages just beyond our inspection lanes. After less than five years of fighting, estimates of the dead have reached 22,000.

The rate of killing accelerates each month. And Washington covers its eyes like a kid at a scary movie. Well, the Mexican narco-insurgency, in which well-armed guerrilla forces confront the authority and presence of the state, is our No. 1 security challenge.

The chaos in northern Mexico has far deeper implications for our country than Islamist terror or even an Iranian nuclear capability (as grim as those threats are).

The rule of law has collapsed from Tijuana on the Pacific's edge to Matamoros and the Gulf of Mexico. Major cities are now "ungoverned spaces," as our diplomats refer tidily to distant trouble spots

More people now die violently on our southern border than in Somalia, Yemen or even Afghanistan. But Washington doesn't know what to do about Mexico. So Washington does nothing much.

Our ruling class simply doesn't feel the pain. So the DC elite demonizes Arizona's desperate effort to shove the narco-revolution's disorder back across the border. Murdered ranchers, overwhelmed emergency rooms and soaring crime rates in our border states mean less to the White House than a terrorist detainee's claims of abuse. Our governing elite pretends that illegal immigration, torrential crime where illegals cluster, overcrowded prisons, Mexico's narco-insurgency, legal cross-border commerce and the drug trade are separate issues, to be addressed discreetly.

But these issues are all interwoven with the Mexican government's existential crisis. Drug wealth fuels criminal empires. Those narco-empires are now so powerful that they've risen against the state. Human trafficking is a useful sideline for drug lords. And illegal immigration drives crime rates in bankruptcy-threatened US cities and states.

Cross-border trade's the next target. Narco-insurgents now feel sufficiently confident to attack Mexican army installations and US consulates. The maquiladoras, those thousands of assembly plants along the border, won't escape the mayhem. Given their enormous contribution to Mexico's fiscal stability and employment rates, those plants are obvious targets as the narco-challenge to the state intensifies.

Mexican journalists, too, have been killed by the hundreds. Their torture and execution doesn't generate much excitement north of the border, though. It's their bad luck to be butchered by Mexican narcos. Had they been killed accidentally by US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, they'd be famous martyrs.

And Arizona's "discriminatory" new state law empowering police to pursue criminal aliens? Should Phoenix let the rule of law collapse because Washington prefers political correctness to public safety? In DC, it's about politics. In Arizona, it's about survival.

It bewilders me that my fellow citizens don't take the disintegration of government authority in northern Mexico seriously. As I've written repeatedly, no country is more important to us socially, economically and security-wise than Mexico. Afghanistan's fluff by comparison.

Precisely 100 years ago, in 1910, the Mexican Revolution erupted in northern Mexico -- already the most prosperous and industrially developed portion of the country. That revolution lasted a bloody, destructive decade.

It wasn't the bandido affair beloved of Hollywood knuckleheads, but a complex contest for power with large armies, strategic campaigns, major battles, trench warfare, barbed wire and machine guns. In 1915, the military vision of the self-taught Gen. Alvaro Obregon -- destined to become Mexico's president -- was more sophisticated than that of the US Army. Mexico pioneered the 20th century's revolutions.

Since then, northern Mexico -- from the border cities southward through the industrial powerhouse of Monterrey -- has continued to be the country's primary agent of change. Influenced by its proximity to America, the north long has been a different country from the impoverished states south of the capital.

Now a new Mexican revolution is underway in the vital north. In 1910, idealists struggled to change an autocratic regime. In 2010, criminal syndicates fight to wrest power from a democratic government and to grab market share from each other.

(In an eerie parallel, a bloody strike in the northern mining center of Cananea helped ignite the 1910 revolution; today, a three-year-long strike in Cananea by mining and metal workers signals a new generation's impatience with the status quo -- and we're just not paying attention.)

During that earlier revolution, the citizens of El Paso, Texas, and Douglas, Arizona, gathered to watch the battles just across the border as Pancho Villa's troops drove out the Federals, then as the Constitutionalists defeated Villa. Those spectators were confident in their immunity as American citizens.

We're no longer immune.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button