Migration is at work all over Europe and the Western hemisphere today, motivated by the self-interest of both the migrants and the “ruling elite” in government and corporate board rooms. What was once only a distant rumble, the migration train is now clearly visible to American citizens who are gathered around, standing on the tracks, trying to figure out how to stop the train before they are run over. Getting off the tracks only surrenders the tracks to politicians, foreign governments and illegal aliens, i.e., those who are profiting at the expense of American citizens. On the current path and pace of unrestrained migration, the entire world will soon refer to Southwestern United States as the “New Mexico,” and France will become the “New Fallujah.”

The immediate economic result of any massive migration is an erosion of the native citizen’s quality of life, educational standards, culture, life expectancy, natural resources, literacy rate and infant mortality among others. Some of the illegal alien poor may profoundly benefit from being poor in a new environment where poverty is richness as compared to the areas where they originated. However, in the long run, a political and economic openness to unrestrained migration (open borders) results in an extreme disincentive to the needed structural change in the countries were the migrants come from. The area being newly occupied reduces to the lowest common denominator in all aspects of human existence, and eventually to the culture from which the migrants originally fled. The original native citizens must either surrender to a new political and economic reality, or abdicate and flee. Hence what is left is the “New Mexico.” If you don’t like the societal conditions you see when you travel south of the Mexican border, stand by. The Southwestern United States is deteriorating toward that standard with the trajectory of a gliding anvil. If any doubts remain, make a short pilgrimage and spend a couple of hours in the vicinity of 35th Avenue and Van Buren Street in the heart of Phoenix, Arizona.

Independently of what "it" is called, migration or immigration, there is a profound reality that must be faced by the media, citizens and politicians alike. A country such as the United States of America, in which 25 to 30% of the population identifies with another country, votes and participates in another country’s election, and remits most of their savings to another economy, cannot be called a sovereign nation. Add to that a “Senate of Fools” who refuse to enforce the laws of the land except in those instances when it becomes a matter of self-interest. The week ending May 19, 2006 saw the U.S. Senate even abandon English as our national language.

What we are watching in real time is the dissolution of the United States of America into a historical footnote. Short of a political insurrection to severely restrain migration, a physical barrier at the border, reinstating immigration law and beginning intense enforcement, soon what was once so great in the history of the world will no longer be recognizable. It will be gone for all time. There is no other possible outcome, particularly when our elected political representatives abandon the "rule of law" in both cultural and criminal matters.

The United States is not facing an immigration issue. Even the phrase “illegal immigration” is an oxymoron. Immigration is legal when it is done lawfully. Migration outside the law and any form of human trafficking is not. Massive unrestrained (illegal) migration and human trafficking are the problems.

Where controlled legal immigration benefits America, uncontrolled migration today is destroying America.

Americans should have expected enforcement of our nation’s laws by our government, but instead Congressmen, Governors, and Judges have sold their citizenship for campaign contributions and votes. The corruption extends from the President of the United States to Arizona Senator John McCain and Governor Janet Napolitano to the Mayor of Phoenix. If Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi were to comment, she would say to us, “I laugh because there is nothing you can do about it.” Americans can only hope she is wrong.

We Americans, as a nation, are at the precipice holding on only by our fingertips. Once over the edge, there is no turning back. There will be nothing that will stop our fall before impacting the bottom, however far down that may turn out to be. The only choices are clear - those choices that preserve the United States as a sovereign entity. In the meantime, the Senate of Fools, the Governor of Arizona and the Mayor of Phoenix, all serving self-interest, are stomping on our fingers with jackboots.

Red State Patriot

THE "HUSHED-UP" STORY THE REPUBLIC DOESN'T WANT TO PRINT
by Sandra Miller

Former Army Ranger Jason Okon was assaulted and stabbed by an illegal alien on February 2. As with so many illegal aliens, he had a prior arrest. Because of the Phoenix PDs illegal alien sanctuary policy (Operations Order 1.4.3), the illegal alien wasn't turned over to immigration offices for deportation, but was released back into the community. When the illegal alien didn't appear in court (did anyone really expect him to?), an arrest warrant was issued on his prior trespassing charge.

There's no doubt that the Republic knows the story, because the police were called to the scene immediately. The illegal alien even assaulted three police officers while being arrested!

The Republic heard the story within a few days when Elizabeth Okon called Laurie Roberts. Certainly the Republic specialist in tear-jerking stories should have been glad to tell the difficulties faced by a family when on-the-loose illegal aliens cause serious injuries to their family. (At least Laurie was glad to step up to the plate in December when a 16-year old girl suffered a hit-and-run by an illegal alien back in December 2006 "Hit-run suspect out of jail for free."

Knowing the Republic's pro-illegal alien agenda, the Okon family knew the need for being "up-front" when Laurie returned their call. After telling her how Jason Okon had been stabbed by an illegal alien with prior arrests who remained in the US courtesy of the Phoenix PD "illegal alien sanctuary" policy, they insisted that she report the story in a truthful and fortright manner without the Republic's usual apologist policy to illegal aliens.

Laurie must have know that "truthful and forthright" on the illegal alien issue wouldn't fly with her editorial management, because Roberts cancelled the appointment to interview Elizabeth Okon for the story.

While the Phoenix TV stations broke the story on February 13, the Republic continued looking the other way and continues to do that today.

But the Republic's pretenses of evading the story ended on Tuesday February 20. When Republic employee Mary Jo Pitzl covered the House Government Committee hearing, she heard Elizabeth Okon and myself testify to her husband's stabbing by an illegal alien and the refusal of the Republic to report the story even 18 days later. Ms. Pitzl's February 21 article on the Government Committee hearing's proceedings "House panel OKs hiring sanctions" makes her presence undeniable.

While Mrs. Okon's departure after testifying may have prevented the Republic's reporter from speaking with her, I remained through the end of the hearing. Ms. Pitzl (or any other reporter that may have chosen to cover the story) could easily have obtained the details for follow up.

Yet no one from the Republic has ever contacted the Okons for the story. This is the opportunity for the paper to offer WHY their refusal to print the story isn't linked to the clear pro-illegal alien agenda of the Republic. They needn't be concerned with keeping their policy hidden, because it's no secret to anyone in the Valley.

A Thursday night Town Hall member who called the Repubic last week to object was given several lame excuses:

(1) "police decided it wasn't a hate crime." That's not what Phoenix PD Detective Brian Korus _ told Elizabeth Okon.

(2) "maybe he (meaning the illegal alien) was disturbed." Does that mean if a "disturbed" illegal alien trespasses and assaults an American, the story should be "hushed up?"

(3) "police reports are really conflicting--we weren't sure what the story really was." But isn't that what newspaper journalists' job is--to sort through the conflicting tales and find out what really happened (unless of course their newspaper wants to conceal the story from the public)?

(4) "Lots of people get stabbed--the Republic can't print the story for each one." We know that's true--27 Americans daily are killed by illegal aliens (murder, rape, assault, DUI). That's directly from US-DOJ figures compiled by Congressmen Steve King of Iowa and Mike McCall of Texas.

The question is why it hasn't been printed. That the Republic's publishers might be hiding the Phoenix PD's "illegal alien sanctuary" policy (Operations Order 1.4.3) occurs to any citizen who knows of its existence despite the reluctance of the paper in disclosing it to the public.

Let the Republic management hear from Arizonans statewide (and all Americans) that we know they're suppressing the story just because it conflicts with their agenda and pre-established pro-illegal alien and pro-Mexican government bias. Without word from us, they'll like to think they're hoodwinking readers (or non-readers if that's the group you belong to).

Remember that "Silence is Consent!"

Plummeting birth rates in most of the industrialized world is a critical problem. Throughout Western Europe and East Asia, the birth rate is well below 2.1 births per woman, which is the minimum needed to maintain a stable population. In other words, in the simplest terms, the indigenous population is measurably shrinking.

Environmentalist dogma argues that plummeting birth rates are a good thing. After all, people cause pollution. Well, officials in countries like Japan, Korea, France and Germany now know better. In these and other so-called “advanced” societies, shrinking populations irrefutably threaten both their way of life and their cultural identity.

In Japan, for example, a birth rate that is barely half of “replacement level” has forced the closure of more than two thousand schools in the past ten years, with hundreds more closures to come. It’s left the government wondering who will support Japan’s aging population. Sound familiar? These and other concerns, like the extinction of the Japanese people if the trend were to continue, have prompted older Japanese to call their childless children “parasite singles.”

In Germany, the population of some villages has shrunk so much that there are now too few people flushing for the sewage to properly flow. As a result, the government has had to spend scarce resources on retrofitting sewage systems. Elsewhere in Germany and the rest of Europe, the emptying landscape provides an opening for an unlikely immigrant: the Islamic wolf. German biologists expect the growing packs to head soon toward Berlin. This is deadly serious.

Wolves in Berlin sounds like the stuff of science fiction, but it’s a science fact. What’s incredible is the response of the average European or East Asian. They literally shrug their shoulders; they can’t imagine changing their lifestyle to accommodate having two or more children instead of one or none. They believe against all evidence, in the face of incontrovertible facts, that a technological or political solution to this problem will be found.

There is only one precedent for managing a decline in societies as advanced as Japan or Europe’s. Throughout history, societies in demographic decline, usually as a result of disease, have faced two unattractive options, (1) a decline in their standard of living or, (2) the replacement of their native population with a more fertile immigrant one. Europe, essentially by default, has chosen the latter. But as the 7/7 bombings in London graphically illustrate, turning millions of Islamic immigrants into “Europeans,” however you define the term, is a dubious proposition at best and ultimately impossible if one carefully reads and believes the precepts of Islam.

In Japan, where racial purity is a primary cultural value, the population literally faces eventual extinction.

It’s hard to imagine a better example of the importance of the stakes involved. Europe’s ethnic decline is directly linked to its hostility towards Christianity and rejection by the elite of faith-based ethical commandments. Don’t flinch; the sentence is not a religious proclamation – it is strictly intellectual. Societal adoption of birth control by abortion, and the rejection of what Christianity teaches about the family, has made the European continent safe for another kind of family: four-legged ones who howl at the moon.

America will soon follow, with the certainty that night follows day.

How large an impact has abdication of Christian principles had on American culture?

You are more than capable of answering that question and provide countless examples. For our purposes, and again without a value judgment, since January 22, 1973 over 50,000,000 babies have been surgical aborted in America alone, 4,400 each day. The first of those children would be 34 this year, each potential future leaders of society and innovators of the most incredible evolving technology. But none of this will happen. They would have taken every job that Hispanics from Mexico and Muslims from the Middle East now seek in the United States, just as Muslims have backfilled both Europe and Japan.

The wolves are at our nation's door to the south and the horizon to the East is growing dark. It is very late in the day for many nations. Darkness is enveloping Europe and marching our way by the hour. Hopefully, Americans will realize that Islam is not an urban legend before darkness falls across our land. Unfortunately, that hope is only a remote possibility because it would require a day when Congess is not for sale. It would also require that Congressmen were intellectually awake and morally conscious long enough to make a last second fateful decision. In the meantime, the chorus of Alu Akbar is growing in a number of American cities.

Red State Patriot

The course catalog should contain an accurate description of the course, which it does not; otherwise students would not be caught unawares. The course catalog should also include a statement regarding how the student’s performance will be measured. For example, will it be measured objectively (based on facts/objective testing) or subjectively (based on opinion).

Secondly, most courses at accredited educational institutions have something called “terminal performance, skill and knowledge objectives.” The name may have changed in recent years, however there is such a document behind every single course of instruction at an accredited institution. This document describes the specific content of the course and what the student is expected to learn during the process of instruction - precisely. If properly written it even includes the testing methodology - an example of which would be “criterion reference testing.”

If there is subject material that is being presented in the classroom that is not contained in the TPSKO’s, and clearly unrelated to the advertised course content, then it is readily evident to even the most casual observer that a teacher is shoveling onto the students what we shall call politely a personal agenda. In fact, if the courses are not being taught in accordance with the TPSKO’s, the school should loose its accreditation and the teacher should lose his or her state certification. Why, because it is the institution’s responsibility to know what is being taught in their classrooms. What teachers are doing when they ignore the TPSKO’s and engage in unsupervised aberrant behavior is arguably willful malpractice in their trade. As an aside, teaching it is not a profession.

If the student signed up for a chemistry class, then the subject material should be chemistry; not politics. If it is supposed to be an algebra class, then no politics. If it is an under-graduate accounting class, then no politics. However, if a student were to sign up for some soft subject like "contemporary viewpoints in political science," a student should reasonably expect exceptionally divergent views.

Additionally, all students have core courses that are required of them, like them or not. Those should not be a hidden trap-door or rabbit hole to a liberal socialist hiding in the darkness like a predator. Core courses are supposed to be a foundation for future studies, not a political indoctrination which contains severe penalties if you hold or express differing views.

There is a significant difference in a course of instruction and a course of indoctrination, just as there is between an instructor and an ideologue. The former is more often than not grounded in facts and history and the latter in opinions. If it is supposed to be a fact-based classroom, then it should remain so. Save the opinions for a cold beer enjoyed with associates outside the academic environment.

Additionally, courses in education, particularly in earlier stages such as K-12, are FACT courses, not opinion courses – whether multiplication tables or state capitals. There is no basis for deviation from facts except and unless it is the teacher’s insidious intent to indoctrinate a particular racial, moral, political or sexual agenda - since opinions cannot be fact by definition.

Those teachers who would object to being denied a podium for their opinions are trumpeting from the rafters that they want unfettered latitude to indoctrinate and spew views that cannot be challenged either by students themselves or by citizens outside the educational establishment.

Putting one's head in the ground, ostrich-style is no different whether it regards the threat of Islam, whether it applies to enforcing existing laws on immigration, or whether it applies to classroom education vs. indoctrination. Teachers/professors and the education industry may want YOU and me to ignore the threat, but make no mistake, we have for too long and the results are evident. All of these aforementioned cultural issues, and many others, are strongly correlated in the tactics being employed and are the subject of relentless daily indoctrination in every imaginable academic setting.

Please take note that by our merely challenging the agenda of university professors and K-12 teachers, it has abruptly and dramatically changed the debate. Suddenly, if you are critical from outside the classroom, you are accused of limiting free speech and the open exchange of ideas (often ideas and opinions not relevant to the particular class in the first place). Soon there will be a suitable label such as "racist" for those who are critical of trap-door ideologues at universities.

Even worse, if you have the temerity to be critical as a student from inside the classroom, you will be unceremoniously caused to fail, regardless of your invested effort and displayed excellence. Any artificially diminished grade is a failure. Or, you will be brought up on academic ethics charges, or both. As a student, you shall absolutely comport yourself in the style of political correctness that the teacher and the university ruthlessly dictates, and you shall regurgitate the egalitarian party line, or else you can forget your entire future. This is less an exaggeration than you might imagine and prevalent nationwide.

Joe, are you old enough to remember what was done to members of the U.S. Armed Forces who were unfortunate enough to become prisoners of war in North Korea? They were subjected to years of intense indoctrination. It was called “brain washing” in those days, but it was nothing more than sophisticated indoctrination. Brain washing became the basis for the original version of the movie, “The Manchurian Candidate.” And now, pure and unadulterated indoctrination has been institutionalized in American classrooms. Americans have been made afraid to confront it, just as we have been made afraid to offend an American of African descent or a homosexual. Joe, does that Politically Correct-ness fear envelop you as it does most Americans? Remember, a man that must be politically correct, cannot by definition tell the truth. Is that what you want for yourself and the rest of us? Of course not.

Joe, you see other issues clearly for what they are. Possibly you don’t realize how many people are trembling in fear because their freedom of speech has been taken away. The AZ legislator who put forward the bill you were discussing is among the most courageous politicians you can imagine. The personal risks in trying to do the right thing for AZ and the United States are huge. This man is a leader. This man is to be commended and celebrated, not reviled.

You seemed to be saying on the radio (if I didn't misunderstand you) that it would not be Politically Correct for us to try to restrict a teacher’s opinion-based-rants from outside the classroom, even if they are unrelated to the course of instruction. At the same time, you seem to be suggesting we should allow professors to continue to restrict and unilaterally control all thought and analysis inside the classroom - and allow them to severely punish students for divergent viewpoints. That kind of thought process is dangerously PC and nonsensical. Remember Joe, the national culture ten years from now begins in our classrooms today. Do you want the whole nation to go this way, or in your opinion is it already too late to stop it? Even if it is your opinion that it is already too late, please don't enforce your opinion on me (or your listeners) and call me names and disadvantage me if I choose to disagree and stand in opposition to mentally defective ideologues. If you care about our children, and I know you do, and believe that they are the future of our country, and I know you do, then education must be seen differently than indoctrination and alternatives sought quickly. We must find (demand) a creditable alternative to our having to blindly feed our youth to the government’s indoctrination centers.

Joe, let's try it your way. Consider the following as a possible solution. The first premise is: No restrictions in the classroom. The second premise is: Let's empower the free market. Are you ready? In the future, there will be two categories of courses, opinion and factual - or if you will, fiction and non-fiction. In those classes that are factual, there will be no opinions. In those courses that are opinions, no facts are needed. Extraneous opinions are hardly needed in any form of chemistry, physics, mathematics, accounting, etc. Teaching "what is" should suffice. The course catalog should indicate if a course, supported by TPSKO’s, is based on opinion or facts. No such limits will be applied to other courses unless they are the “core courses” required of every student in the pursuit of a major. No opinions should be allowed in core courses. If the course content is opinion, by definition it should not be a core course.

Secondly, the instructors who are giving the courses should be required to annotate next to their name in the course catalog, "conservative" or "liberal," which are code words for liberty or socialism. Think of it as part of the instructor’s curriculum vitae. Let the students and their parents choose which courses they want to subsidize and which to avoid. The free market will quickly resolve the problem and these ideologue professors and faculty members will quickly go the way of Air America. The only answer is to open competitive avenues to an education rather than submit our youth to indoctrination.

There will be a mushroom cloud of response to such proposals because liberals, by definition, have never had to compete for anything in their life and competition is an anathema to everything they believe. Occasionally, as I drive by ASU, I think I can hear chanting of something that sounds very much like, “Egalitarianism, uber alles.” You would be well served to listen closely and react accordingly. We all should.

After this letter is cleaned up, it will be published on a conservative website. I would be pleased to include your response – whether in agreement or disagreement.

Red State Patriot

When I first had this intuitive grasp of reality, this epiphany, my reaction was, "It couldn't be." However, Democrats, in their contemporary view, clearly consider the courts to be the legislative branch of the federal government. They see the Democratic Party's role being, not to attempt to legislate their agenda in Congress using a procedure constitutionally and historically based on a representative plurality of Americans, but instead to install activist jurists in State and Federal courts (with life tenure) who will legislate according to a Democratic Party agenda of advancing socialism. Who needs elections?

But the more I considered it, this truly is the understanding of the three branches of government that most liberals have. More importantly, it explains a great deal about the behavior of Democrats and liberal Republicans for the last 60 years. Today Democrats are obstructing all legislation (and all but the most liberal court nominees to a Judiciary out of constitutional control). The American Judiciary has become that hard nucleus about which liberals have formed in their quest for power. Emboldened by the Judiciary’s defiance of Congress and every legislature across the country, and most recently in KELO V. NEW LONDON (04-108) 268 Conn. 1, 843 A. 2d 500, affirmed., there is no doubt about what Americans can expect in the future. One can only hope liberals, misguided and ignorant of history, are going to like what they are going to get.

The focus of liberal socialism is nothing less than power and control, whereas the focus of conservatives is liberty with all its commensurate freedoms, i.e., freedom in each and every aspect of life. God, family and country are frequent references to a conservative’s core values. The one and only core value of liberals is “self.” Liberals state that ‘truth’ is relative and that each man and woman must decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. Conservatives on the other hand see nothing relative in the concept of truth.

Yes, each man and woman must decide to do what is right and avoid doing what is wrong, and there are finite consequences to every decision we make. At issue is the foundation for each individual choice. If there are no rules that govern individual behavior that society will respect, that minorities of the population will accept when decided by the majority, then by definition there can be no laws. At that point, any laws take on a different intent, i.e., to passify and control a submissive population, advance an agenda, and maintain control. Why is that? Would you be surprised to learn that the basic tenet of atheism, secularism, and even Satanism are identical – that each individual should do as he or she pleases? The ultimate result of this philosophy is first anarchy and later totalitarianism in an effort to regain control of a society without rules. It would be easy to argue that we are very close to anarchy in every aspect and at every level of society, from border to border and sea to shinning sea.

Why are liberals and particularly Hillary Rodham Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and the likes of John Kerry still proudly proclaiming their socialist ideals and egalitarian objectives? It is a fact that centuries of socialists' experiments, whether by utopians, Marxists, or Fabians, have always (without exception)ended in economic failure, destitution and a loss of personal liberty. More than a fact, since there are no exceptions, it is a universal truth. Another universal truth is the unchanging motivation of liberalism, i.e., self interest of the political elite, which increases exponentially in the form of power with each incremental loss of our personal liberty.

What then is the solution? Here is a hint: Without private property, which is the legal, moral and intellectual concept behind every one of the Bill of Rights, liberty cannot exist. Each and every "right" protected in the Bill of Rights is a form of private property.

You may think because you are an American, you are free, but you would be wrong. You may think you have freedom, but freedom is relative because without private property, you only have as much freedom as the government decides to let you have - and that is not liberty. Private property ended in the United States with the passage of the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and with it our freedoms began to erode with each and every small step toward socialism.

Sadly, Americans have choosen to listen to the sirens of liberalism whose sweet song lures them to their doom - rather than heed centuries of warnings by failed example. Americans are steering their own ship of state onto the rocks. The few who have stopped up their ears with wax remain conservative (with value systems still intact and a healthy respect for the original U.S. Constitution) and can only watch in disbelief as the shoals draw visibly closer.

Red State Patriot

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” —Patrick Henry

The reality is that immigration laws are clearly intended to stop undesirable and sometimes malignant foreign cells from entering the national body. Congress is not the immune system, nor are the courts. Americans are not permitted by law to be the immune system. American citizens are not permitted by law to fend off a lethal infection. What then is the national immune system? The U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and our system of laws is our immune system to the extent that Americans do not permit Congress, the courts and the Administration to circumvent it.

If we have a cancer and fail to take appropriate action in a medical sense, we will die.

Are the millions of illegal aliens a reasonable metaphor for maliginant cells? Clearly they're reproducing rapidly and putting a strain on the nation's immune system. Is the nation's body struggling to defend its internal organs and its citizen’s quality of life? The evidence is irrefutable. Millions of socially-malignant and parasitic cells are reproducing rapidly within America's borders with the assistance of Congress, cells that cannot and refuse to be assimilated. That is a cancer.

Why is Congress seemingly hell-bent on making choices that could become lethal to our nation? Simply stated, there is only one explanation, i.e., idividual congressmen must be personally benefitting from the migration of illegal aliens. As a logical result of campaign contributions, which eventually find their way to become personal wealth, Mexicans and their employers have become their only constituency, the only voice heard by Congress. After all, Americans are not voting in large numbers. The percentages of registered voters going to the polls is low. From a politician's perspective, why not facilitate the voting by illegal aliens (in return for providing them unearned social benefits) to insure continual re-election? Why not facilitate the entry of illegal aliens into the United States in return for corporate campaign contributions? Why refuse to accept huge sums of money from political action committees surreptiously sponsored by foreign governments? The fact that such actions are illegal and unethical is irrelevant. So too is refusing to enforce existing immigration laws. In the words of Nancy Pelosi: I laugh because there is nothing you can do about it.

What will happen to Americans if Congress defiantly continues to legislate in their own self-interest? If are Armed Forces are engaged in a "War on Terror," Congress is engaged in a "War of Terror" against American citizens. Like a thief in the night, unless told to stop and held accountable, Congress will steal liberty itself - and we will not get it back.

So it comes down to intent. What is the intent of the men and women with the knife in their hand (Congress, the President and politically appointed members of his Administration)? Are they trying to kill our nation or to save it? Is it relevant that the daily number of American citizens who become victims of violent and property crimes is huge? How does anyone justify five homicides per day of American citizens at the hands of illegal aliens? Discounting future acts of terrorism and the ongoing devistation to our culture, what about the gutting of our national system of social services and healthcare. The intent of our politicians appears to be both homicidal and serial. Will somebody please call John Walsh?

We citizens signed a “pre-operative consent form” by electing these social surgeons to Congress. We authorized them to be our doctor and attend to the nation’s ills. Now we have clear cause to ask: s it the surgeon’s intent to save our nation’s life, or to perform an unnecessary medical procedure solely for personal gain? The answer is in for most Americans. Can a case can be made that the President is trying to save the United States from oblivion by his documented unwillingness to enforce immigration laws? If a case cannot be made, please explain why any American citizen on the jury should not conclude that the President has a conscious intent to seriously harm this nation? Is there any lingering doubt that his refusal to act in defense of United States sovereignty is both premeditated and in conspiracy with foreign heads of state, many Governors and most members of Congress?

It appears more likely by the day that Congress has every intention to leave the cancer intact and instead make needed adjustments near the heart of our culture to accommodate the growing cancer? Is there any doubt at all that Muslim and Mexican threats will continue to grow if our sovereignty is ignored? What is the predictable outcome if illegal alien migration is facilitated with amnesty and open borders?

The national cancer of illegal alien migrants has already metasticized across 50 states. Americans should be angry that our political surgeons have ignored the cancer's spread, and in many cases facilitated it, and some cases farmed it, for over 30 years! Didn't the last back-alley dark-of-the-night immigration surgery on the nation’s body 20 years ago do enough serious damage? How were these surgeons chosen – from a subway billboard? Or by the lowest common denominator?

Why does the President of the United States refuse to immigration laws? Does President George W. Bush hold the United States in even more disdain than George Soros, Senator John Kerry and actress Jane Fonda? How great must the enticement be to sell out your own country? Why does he want American's to die a slow and painful legal and cultural death? What benefit to all American citizens does the President believe will accrue from 20 million illegal aliens and more on the way? What about Senator John McCain, the man who would become King if given an opportunity? Why is he unrelenting in his efforts to suppress our nation’s immune system by voiding its immigration laws with his proposed legislation?

Who will be the beneficiary of 20-30 or even 60 million new social benefits-oriented voters who pay no taxes, who are not American citizens, who bring no skills or education with them, and who did not enter the country legally – and who jumped to the head of the immigration line? Who in the United States will benefit from our government's making Social Security payments to non-citizens residing in Mexico? Does Congress not realize or remotely care that illegal aliens are employed off the books, contribute nothing themselves, avoid assimilation and receive social services at the expense of the top 50% of American wage earners (the only income taxpayers). Even after several misguided attempts at immigration reform – code words for immigration facilitation - by both Congress and several Administrations, the situation in our communities is worse than ever, and growing worse. A comparison between the United States of America and the Titanic is becoming more apt by the day as Congress keeps busy rearranging the deck chairs and the band plays.

Any rational person would agree that there is no reason to wield a knife so close to the heart, whether a person’s heart or the nation’s heart, other than to save or kill. The heart of our nation is our system of laws and our culture; the heart of our nation is our Constitution; and the heart of our nation is our sovereignty.

Can Congress be trusted anywhere near the heart of America wielding a knife pretending somehow that reform of immigration laws (open borders and amnesty) is critical to America’s survival? If the intent of cutting with the knife by Congress is to benefit one group over all others, one race over all others, non-citizens over citizens, at the expense of the economic lives of taxpaying citizens, outside existing law, against the will of the people, then their intent can only be to do incredibly vicious and irreparable harm to the heart of this nation - and for personal gain.

Why would any conscientious American allow social psychopaths, stalking the corridors of Congress, seeking only self interest, to wield a sharp knife anywhere near America’s heart? Why is this anything less than a national hostage situation with a liberal Congress defiantly holding a knife to America’s throat?

What should be done in this real-life hostage situation to protect innocent American citizens from those who would usurp power (seize or exercise authority not granted to them by the U.S. Constitution)? What would Jack Bauer do?

Red State Patriot

To the untrained ear and uninformed mind, the first part sounds kind of ecumenical, a type of universalism and religious correctness, in which everybody's biblical or Koranic figures get equal billing, so as not to offend. But Muslims see all of these religious leaders as Muslim prophets. Their view is that Abraham, Moses and Jesus taught Islam and that the Jews and Christians perverted the Islamic faith and, according to some, deserve death for doing so.

Al-Husainy was engaging in something more dangerous than prayer. He proclaimed religious superiority and triumphalism. Surely Democrats do not subscribe to his not-so-subtle religious doublespeak, which places the United States and Israel among the people God "dooms." Neither do most Democrats believe that all of Israel is occupied and that "oppression and occupation" applies to the Jews who live there and must be evicted. So why invite a clergyman who leads them in such a prayer? It isn't that his background is unknown.

As blogger Debbie Schlussel has written, Al-Husainy led "almost daily protests" last summer "of thousands of Hezbollah supporters on the streets of Dearborn and Detroit, swarming with swastikas and anti-Semitic, anti-American signs. Later, I watched him … at an anti-Semitic rally of 3,000 Hezbollah supporters at Dearborn's Bint Jebail Cultural Center. He was among several who delivered hate-filled, anti-American rhetoric. I watched him cheer others on when they called for the hastened destruction of the Jews and when they said Americans are 'diseased.'"

On the Website "Jihad Watch" (a good place to keep up with what the Islamofascists are planning for us), Robert Spencer writes, "…the West is facing a concerted effort by Islamic jihadists, the motives and goals of whom are largely ignored by the Western media, to destroy the West and bring it forcibly into the Islamic world - and to commit violence to that end even while their overall goal remains out of reach."

A clergyman who advocated white supremacy and the inferiority of all other faiths would never have been invited to offer the invocation at a DNC gathering. Yet Democrats got the equivalent of such a person in Al-Husainy.

Democrats have been trying to get back in the religion game since Republicans cornered most of the Evangelical Christian vote in the last several election cycles, but choosing Husham Al-Husainy as their instrument to put them in closer touch - if not with God, than with Muslim voters - is more outrageous and shameful than Sen. Joseph Biden's remarks about Barack Obama, and far more dangerous.

The Muslim vote went largely to Democrats in last year's election. In Virginia, Democrat James Webb received 92 percent of the Muslim vote, compared to Republican George Allen's 8 percent, according to the Muslim American Society and the Virginia Muslim Political Action Committee. Was inviting Al-Husainy to pray for the destruction of America and Israel payback to the Muslim community? If so, the price is too high and the potential consequences are too great.

Has politics come to this, that some politicians would sell out their own and other free countries for a voting bloc that contains elements committed to our destruction (Democrats), or pander to illegal immigrants who break our laws and then get Social Security checks (Republicans)? Have politicians no shame?

By Cal Thomas
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=19281

Commentary by Red State Patriot:

To answer Cal Thomas’ question, keep foremost in your thoughts the views of President Abraham Lincoln, who observed that, "Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."

President Ulysses S. Grant also gave an appropriate tribute to many in the main stream media, Hollywood and Congress when he recounted in his Personal Memoirs, "Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war, in which his nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupies no enviable place in life or history. Better for him, individually, to advocate 'war, pestilence, and famine' than to act as obstructionist to a war already begun.... The most favorable posthumous history the stay-at-home traitor can hope for is -- oblivion." (… and deservedly so …)

We have come to a point in our culture that politicians have no shame, ethical principles, loyalty to the United States of America and deserve neither citizenship nor your adulation. Instead they should be treated as the cancerous scourge they have become, because if for no other reason, they are willing to feed off the life-blood of their fellow Americans in their own self interest.

Stay as close to home as you can Dorothy, and try to keep Toto safe. The rest of the world is becoming the Land of Oz and a very dangerous place.

First cell phones in cars. Fine. Then trans fats. I read one yesterday about criminalizing not going to parent-teacher conferences. Now this.

We know what a totalitarian society look like because we have Charles Jenkins. In 1965, as an American soldier, he walked across the border to North Korea and defected. He was young and impetuous. He spent 40 years there. As an old man, he was released and now we have his stories to help us understand what pure Statism looks like. He was told what to eat, when to sleep, and when to perform an intimate act (twice a month). Albany is slouching toward Pyongyang.

Most people think their politics lies along a Democratic-Republican axis. This has absolutely nothing to do with Democrats and Republicans. There is another axis, the Statist-Libertarian axis that currencies care about, that the dollar cares about, that markets care about. Democrats and Republicans both have elements of Statism and Libertarianism. But since September 2001, both political parties have abandoned any libertarian thought and have embraced the idea that only government can save us all. People don’t flee countries to escape liberals or conservatives – they flee to escape Statists.

If you make it illegal to listen to IPODs outside, you make it more likely that entrepreneurial people like me are going to get fed up and try to get out of the country before the barbed-wire fences and watch towers go up. For the people that are left behind (including the Mexicans who foolishly thought coming to the USA was a good idea), they will have little ability, incentive or desire to produce anything.

The Dollar is intrinsically worth nothing now, so it is a paper promise of value. U.S. Treasury debt instruments are promises to pay you back in more paper. Underlying the whole system is confidence that the dollar actually means something. Not just that the United States is productive today, but that it will be productive tomorrow - that its educated people won’t pull the ripcord – that people will still have incentive to innovate and work.

The U.S. Dollar is toast.

By a Market Professional

Colorado 1876, Preamble.
We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe …

Connecticut 1818, Preamble.
The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy .

Delaware 1897, Preamble.
Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences ..

Florida 1885, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty …establish this Constitution...

Georgia 1777, Preamble.
We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution ...

Hawaii 1959, Preamble.
We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance ... establish this Constitution.

Idaho 1889, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings …

Illinois 1870, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors …

Indiana 1851, Preamble.
We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.

Iowa 1857, Preamble.
We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings establish this Constitution …

Kansas 1859, Preamble.
We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges … establish this Constitution.

Kentucky 1891, Preamble.
We, the people of the Commonwealth of grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties...

Louisiana 1921, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.

Maine 1820, Preamble.
We the People of Maine ... acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity ... and imploring His aid and direction.

Maryland 1776, Preamble.
We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...

Massachusetts 1780, Preamble.
We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe ... in the course of His Providence, an opportunity .and devoutly imploring His direction ..

Michigan 1908, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom … establish this Constitution

Minnesota, 1857, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings

Mississippi 1890, Preamble.
We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.

Missouri 1845, Preamble.
We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness ... establish this Constitution ...

Montana 1889, Preamble.
We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty, establish this Constitution ...

Nebraska 1875, Preamble.
We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom … establish this Constitution …

Nevada 1864, Preamble.
We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom establish this Constitution ...

New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V.
Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.

New Jersey 1844, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors .

New Mexico 1911, Preamble.
We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty …

New York 1846, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings …

North Carolina 1868, Preamble.
We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those …

North Dakota 1889, Preamble.
We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain ...

Ohio 1852, Preamble.
We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common …

Oklahoma 1907, Preamble.
Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ...

Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2.
All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences..

Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble.
We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance …

Rhode Island 1842, Preamble.
We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing …

South Carolina 1778, Preamble.
We, the people of he State of South Carolina, grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

South Dakota 1889, Preamble.
We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties ... establish this

Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III.
That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...

Texas 1845, Preamble.
We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.

Utah 1896, Preamble.
Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution …

Vermont 1777, Preamble.
Whereas all government ought to ... enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man..

Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI .
Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator … can be directed only by Reason ... and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other ...

Washington 1889, Preamble.
We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution ...

West Virginia 1872, Preamble.
Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia, reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ...

Wisconsin 1848, Preamble.
We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility …

Wyoming 1890, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties … establish this Constitution ...

There are no exceptions. Every state has consciously chosen to express their citizen’s faith in God. Somewhere along the way, the Federal Courts and the Supreme Court have consciously chosen to ignore the acknowledgments of God from all 50 state constitutions – and systematically misinterpret the United States Constitution. How could 50 states be wrong? Quite obviously, 50 states are not wrong. It is the Supreme Court that is terribly wrong. So ask yourself, how could the Supreme Court be so clueless in the face of such overwhelming precedent? If not clueless, what then, ideological intent?

Christian or Jewish values, or ethical commandments if you prefer, are not a matter of what any one person wants them to be; it is a matter of what is! Profoundly, America was founded on Christian principles and a concurrent belief in God. Only the latter we are free to ignore by choice. But coercing, or attempting to force all Americans to ignore their Christian or Jewish faiths, to abandon their Christian and Jewish values and forsake their American 1st Amendment birthright, will only unravel the very threads of fabric that birthed and bound this nation into a civilized society. We have allowed our nation to become threadbare as it is.

How far will liberals, consumed with secular socialism, push this agenda of trivializing faith and marginalizing Christians in American society before Americans will say, “Enough; back off!?” Or are American Christians willing to go the way of European Jews?

"Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." - William Penn

Red State Patriot

George Bush only spoke of "hope and opportunity" and didn't mention the collapsing emergency rooms illegal aliens use for their FREE primary medical care, the public schools buckling to accommodate their children, or the increasing tax burden for illegal aliens forced on middle-income Americans who gain nothing from this illegal alien invasion.

Nor did Bush refer to the increasing social unrest that he promotes by ignoring the wishes of Americans in forcing us to accept his plan of amnesty for these illegal alien invaders. He wants a debate that's "serious, civil, and conclusive." But Americans aren't fooled by this whining and sniveling either. They know that the Retreads' calls for "civility" are aimed only at Americans who disagree with their illegal alien amnesty plan, and their real meaning is "Shut up, because we don't want to hear it. We've made the decision and you have nothing to say about it." Retreads weren't calling for "civility" when 100,000 illegal aliens shut down the Chicago Loop at Friday rush hour waving their Mexican flags demanding "rights" and telling Americans "This is our land--go back to Europe."

It's an outrage that Retreads intentionally malign and defame American men and women whose only "offense" is publicly identifying and discussing the problem of illegal immigration as a historic national crisis. Retreads may fool themselves but they don't deceive Americans. That's why the average American voter is ecstatic that Congressmen Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo have entered the 2008 Presidential race. They know these three statesmen will insist that the immigration issue (both legal and illegal) be recognized and addressed as a top issue in the Republican Party's platform. Three cheers to Hunter, Paul and Tancredo!

Americans demand an acknowledgment and resolution of the illegal immigration issue, and have lost patience with Retreads' repeatedly and arrogantly putting aside their best interests in favor of big business and ethnic lobbies. Politicians like George Bush, Ted Kennedy, John McCain and their cronies will be responsible for civil unrest likely to produce violence and even bloodshed, both from Americans graduating from "frustration" to "anger" as well as from illegal aliens with an inherent disregard for the rule of law. Responsibility will fall on those who continually told Americans (in effect) to "Shut up because we're going to do what we want and not what serves citizens' interests."

While on the surface it may appear that each side of the aisle has a different "master," (Republicans serving global business' demands for cheap labor vs. Democrats seeking the "cheap votes" from ethnic lobbies), the reality is that they're both in bed together. Examination of donor lists of LULAC, MALDEF and other ethnic lobbies reveals the multi-national corporations who traditionally demand that Republicans deliver cheap labor.

In 2008, we must give "the boot" to these "Retreads" who refuse to represent "We the People." These worthless hacks are easy to recognize; unknowns don't achieve Presidential candidacy. These "retreads" who ignore citizens' opinions and interests have a clear track record of easily identified red flags:

Retreads refuse to call the invaders what they are: illegal aliens. Instead, they choose diluted, politically-correct and pandering terms like "undocumented migrants" and "unauthorized workers." Examples include Senator John McCain who "prefers the term illegal immigrant" (1) in precise lock-step with George Bush's 2007 SOTU speech. Similar panderers abound on the opposite side of the aisle: Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry are Democratic Retreads who parrot the snake oil pitch that illegal aliens are valuable "citizens" of the US instead of the lawbreakers they are.

Retreads call for "civil" discussion. Again, John McCain is strict obedience to the George Bush dictates reflected in the 2007 State of the Union address. (1) (Interestingly, McCain's whining to "tone down the debate" followed a Town Hall the previous evening in Sun Lakes, AZ where all who attended rejected the McCain-Kennedy "not an amnesty" bill. If any of the 1500 people in attendance supported the "Godfather of Amensty's" proposal, they remained silent that night.(3) Next morning came McCain's sniveling call for "toning down the debate.")

Retread John McCain has legitimately earned his reputation for arrogance. While organizing and leading "congressional visiting teams" during the May 2006 Senatorial Amnesty passage, I personally saw the self-built shrine in his Phoenix district office lobby. Politicians often display photos of themselves with other important people to impress visitors, but not John McCain. One entire wall of the office lobby is covered floor-to-ceiling with framed magazine covers upon which McCain's picture commands sole place on the cover!

Even I was amazed when office manager Babette Donaldson told of the 100,000-letter backlog of letters on the immigration issue that McCain's Washington office faced. There's no doubt that the prevailing message in those letters ISN'T "Senator, you're doing a wonderful job with your bill giving amnesty to illegal aliens and another guest worker plan that gives workers and their families Medicare coverage" (and why does McCain need to bring non-working spouses and children to get work done "that Americans won't do?")

Voters don't behave like that; they write primarily when they oppose a politician's bills. Yet knowing that he'll want the votes of each of the 100,000 Americans who wrote those letters and e-mails, "Godfather of Amnesty" McCain arrogantly continues to force illegal alien amnesty on Americans.

Newspapers who copy and praise Retreads' behavior should also be rejected as credible sources of accurate reporting. The brave few like Lou Dobbs who are marginalized by the ethnic and open borders lobbies are actually the only sources of what really happens and why. Nearly 8 months after the disgraceful conviction of two honest and brave Border Patrol agents for doing their job of intercepting an illegal alien drug smuggler, no national news network and few newspapers have reported the story the Bush Administration wants hushed up.

Retreads pander to racism with membership in congressional caucuses geared to ethnic bias rather than ideology should be rejected as demagogues and worse. Examples are the Congressional Black Caucus, (Democratic) Hispanic Caucus and (Republican) Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. That such organizations claim "being black is an unwritten rule" or admit non-Hispanics as "associate members" (translated second-class members) would provoke a firestorm of condemnation if practiced by "white" counterparts.<

Can you imagine a "Congressional Anglo-European Caucus" where Black, Hispanic or Asian member of Congress were "associate" instead of "full" status? The clear message sent by members of such caucus groups is "racism is OK so long as 'whites' are excluded" That It's NOT OK must be shouted loud and clear by Americans--black, brown, red, white and yellow.<

Retreads' calls for "civility" are no more than the "Can't we all just get along?" cries of the liberal side of the open-borders lobby. Considering that such liberals established and perpetuate such ethnic caucus groups, the liberals have answered their own question--they don't want to "get along" with anyone and their cries are both hypocriticals as well as whining and sniveling. Their "Can't we all just get along?" brands them as crybabies.<

Reject "white" politicians who accommodate such racists by being "keynote speakers" at racist organizations, extolling racist agendas of groups like National Council of LaRaza, League of United Latin-American Citizens and the like. Again, such disgraceful behavior spans both sides of the aisle: George Bush, John McCain, Ted Kennedy, HIllary Clinton, John Kerry and many others whose lack of integrity or ethnics allow them to obsequiously seek votes at any pandering price.

Americans have had enough of illegal aliens being given our economic and natural resources while "Retread" politicians send the bill to law-abiding citizens. The President and Congress who have refused to enforce our immigration laws are responsible for the overpopulation and urban sprawl that bankrupts every law-abiding American citizen and legal immigrant. These politicians give "cheap labor" to big business and send the subsidy bill to taxpayers.

Let every cheap and pandering Retread politician beware that Americans increasingly and unashamedly reflect the spirit of Howard Jarvis who led California's 1978 taxpayer revolt in shouting "we're mad as hell and we won't take it anymore!"

Spineless politicians ignore citizen outrage at their own political peril, much as did Congressman Jim Kolbe of Arizona, who voluntarily retired rather than face the humiliation of a "voters' pink slip."

Americans have a country to save. Let's roll!

By Jan Herron & S. J. Miller
January 30, 2007

The average old guy, on the other hand, has consumed 126,000 gallons of beer, and a jaunt through the desert in the heat with a beer with an M-60 would do wonders for his beer belly. (Note there are 24 hours in a day and 24 bottles in a case...another convenient way old guys use to measure time!). An 18-year-old doesn't like to get up before 10 a.m. Old guys always get up early to pee.

If captured we couldn't spill the beans because we'd forget where we put them. In fact, name, rank, and serial number would be a real brainteaser. Even boot camp would be far easier for old guys. We're used to getting screamed and yelled at and we like soft food. We've also developed an appreciation for guns. We like them almost better than naps.

They could lighten up on the obstacle course however. Nobody that has ever been in combat has seen a 20-foot wall with rope hanging over the side, nor does anybody do pushups after completing basic training. Can you hear the Drill Sergeant for the first “Antique Military Brigade” now, "Get down and give me ... er ... one?" Actually, let’s be realistic. The running part of physical fitness is kind of a waste of energy anyway. No one outruns a bullet, particularly a terrorist. Old guys also have the distinct advantage of patience. They would make incredible snipers without having to remember why or who.

An 18-year-old has the whole world ahead of him. He's still learning to shave, and if his behavior is exemplary, maybe someone will give him the cord to his electric shaver as a Christmas present. An 18-year old has difficulty carrying on a conversation, let alone wearing pants without the top of his butt crack showing and his shorts sticking out. He's hasn't figured out that a pierced tongue catches food particles, and that a 400-watt speaker in the back seat of a Honda can rupture an eardrum, or that a baseball cap has a brim designed to shade his eyes, not the back of his head.

These are all good reasons to keep our kids at home to learn a little more about life before sending them into harm's way.

But now, we old guys are a different story. We can track down those dirty rotten cowards who attacked us on September 11th. The last thing an enemy would want to see is a couple of million old farts with attitudes. Even after 30 years of military service, please let me be the first to reenlist and go to Iraq. Then all we ask is to get the liberals out of our way! Winning would be measured in days, not years.

While were at it, us old farts are proposing a new medal to be awarded to deserving members of all branches of the Armed Forces and National Guard. We’ve decided to call it the “Jimmy Carter Freedom Medal.” It is to be awarded to those who have been sent into action with explicit directions to not fight, who follow orders to throw down their weapons and flee upon contact with the enemy or an illegal alien, without firing a single forbidden shot. The design is a bright brass disk with a bas-relief image of the hindquarters of a rabbit, suspended from a yellow ribbon.

They ought to take us old guys.

Red State Patriot

At the end of the 20th century, the Bi-Polar world ended with the implosion of the former Soviet Union. The US defense strategy and posture had been dictated by this bipolar conflict between industrialized powers for the better part of half of a century. It has been widely recognized that the defense strategy and military posture of the United States needed to be changed to reflect this change in the defense needs of the country. Donald Rumsfeld became a leading advocate to make these dramatic changes in a process that came to be called “transformation”. This change would dictate future needs in terms of acquisition of weapon systems, maintenance of existing systems, personnel needs and training. It was thought that shifts in technology and needs would allow the US military to “do more, with less”, using technology as a force multiplier.

The “War on Terror”, the proxy name for what is actually a war against the global Jihadist movement, made manifest the military needs in the new century far sooner than most had expected. At this juncture, it is now apparent that an essential element of the new armed forces structure was neglected when the US military was transformed. In addition to the recognition of a new strategic doctrine, we also need to address a new “goals and use” doctrine to accompany the new forces. The Cold War model included at least a presumptive “goals and use” doctrine which defined the mission of the Department of Defense as a defensive force, to be used for both deterrent and as a reactive force to curtail Soviet territorial aggression. A successful strategic doctrine must have defined not only its means, but its goals and an acknowledgement of its limitations; to wit, a defined strategy on when and how to engage an enemy.

Col. Harry Summers, in his book, “On Strategy, a Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War”, pointed out that any military is designed to “kill people and break things”. The same is true of a “transformed” US military. In our war with the global Jihad, we are unlikely to often encounter the type of fixed defenses and large mobile formations that modern warfare has been designed to defeat. Our opponents have a more dispersed nature, and are consequently harder to fix and destroy.

It would be a grave mistake to fundamentally alter the nature of our armed forces to solely fight lightly armed terrorists, insurgents, and guerillas. Although they may comprise most of our enemies in the foreseeable future, and although they do present a sufficient threat to national security that the military should be tasked with participating in the struggle against them, they do not pose a lethal threat to our polity. A redesign of our armed forces to wholly task them with this form of low intensity conflict would leave us vulnerable to the true, lethal, threat to our polity, traditional combined arms warfare. Worse still, history has shown us that traditional military means, methods, and materials are remarkably ill suited for fighting against a committed guerilla war. Often the reasons for this poor showing are political rather than military. It has been argued that in fighting guerilla forces, the goal is more political and psychological than military; therefore it should be unsurprising that the military is a poor tool, rendering a less than satisfactory result. Military force should only be used to achieve a military goal. Civilian leadership can define when it is in the nation’s interest to kill certain person(s) and destroy certain targets, and the US military can absolutely achieve unqualified success if tasked within those parameters. However, the military cannot, and should not, be tasked with achieving such nebulous goals as “create a stable environment”, or “establish a new government”, or “make an area safe for democracy”.

During the coming century, in our war with the Jihadists, and possibly in other conflicts as well, we will be faced with the need to destroy certain regimes. This will be because either they are supporting terrorism by providing terror groups with resources, recruits, and refuge, or because they are developing weapon systems that pose a threat to our vital national interest. This could be a direct threat from that country or its intention to provide that capability to others who threaten us. In either case, it will prove necessary to both destroy such regimes, and better still, deter regimes from undertaking those actions at all. As we find ourselves compelled to topple regimes, we will be faced with Colin Powell’s proposed dilemma, “If you break it, you bought it”. The United States traditional military forces and doctrine historically do not fare well in attempting occupation, and it diminishes our strength, agility, and deterrent capabilities to attempt it. Occupation almost always provides the grounds and means for an insurgency to spring up.

It would be possible to go further than that, and say Liberal Democracy’s have a poor record at defeating insurgencies, because that form of warfare is contrary to our reason for being. Insurgencies inherently come from some form of occupation, and Liberal Democracies don’t do occupation. We can “peace keep” between rival factions or a restless population for a short period of time while a normal order reestablishes itself, but if that normal order is not a pre-existing condition, a free society cannot use force to impose order on a population, simply because we refuse to do it at home, and therefore it runs contrary to our national character. The British couldn’t do it forever in their far flung empire and India, the French couldn’t through their empire and Algeria, even the Israeli’s couldn’t in the neighboring territories or Lebanon, and we can’t. The only states that have a prayer of doing “occupation” are states that are totalitarian at home as well. Their polity and their domestic methods make it far easier to adopt an imperial model, since their domestic sensibilities are no different. It is merely an expansion of their borders over other geographic space.

Worse still, it seems that prolonged occupation duties actually diminish the war fighting capabilities of a modern army. This stems from the fact that occupation duties bear more resemblance to police work than the aggressive, fast moving, patterns necessary for victory on the modern battlefield. In essence, the lessons learned and ingrained are the wrong ones. The problems for our military in the next century will require a solution that allows the maintenance of a capable armed force, which utilizes means, methods and doctrines that comport with these realities on the ground in every part of the global theater of operations.

The best method for maintaining a position to achieve our varied goals and objectives would entail minor alteration in our present force structures but a great change in our engagement doctrine. We may be required to periodically use military force to “peace keep” after a hostile regime has been destroyed by our conventional military forces. In addition, we may be called upon to engage in “Peacekeeping” operations as part of a multinational force pursuant to treaty obligations. Neither of these tasks should be undertaken by our main military forces, either rapid deployment or heavy units, since these operations “blunt the spear”. The United States Army needs at least one, possibly two Division size units, specifically tasked as “Peacekeeping” or “Follow On” force. These units would be trained and equipped for operations other than total war. They would be heavy in Special Forces liaison, intelligence, engineer units, military police, Psychological Operations, and Civil Affairs personnel. Their equipment would likewise be tailored to the task at hand, with a greater emphasis placed on high mobility, lightly armored vehicles, such as the Stryker, and less resources devoted to such weapon systems as heavy armor, and artillery. They would retain those air capabilities which have proven effective in urban battlefields of this new era. These forces would be specialized in all the lessons we have learned in such places as the former Yugoslavia, Panama, Mogadishu and Baghdad.

The change in our engagement doctrine would be the most critical and decisive element in this position shift for the 21st century. We shall need to recognize that military force cannot always be used along the models created in the 20th century wars in Europe. In fact, the use of that model is deceptive due to the scale of those conflicts. Although the United States succeeded in fundamentally changing the nature of the Japanese culture and possibly the German one, this was due to the appalling level of destruction these societies had endured during the conflict. We now know enough about psychology and group psychology to understand that in all likelihood, these were entire populations who were almost hypnotically suggestible, in a state of collective shock. It is almost forgotten how complete the destruction was of both of these countries and the staggering percentage of the population that had been killed. If we wish to reshape a countries whole culture and polity, we must be prepared to completely destroy its society and civilization, before attempting to replace it with something of our choosing. We cannot simply replace its potentate. If a hostile regime needs to be excised, we cannot plan to build a European style democracy in its stead, nor can we simply let the toxic regime continue if we cannot imagine a European style democracy taking its place. In the 21st century, it is unlikely we will have the political will or moral conviction to so devastate our opponent. We must also acknowledge our own weakness that prevents us from being able to conduct long occupations. Therefore, we are left with the lesser of two evils. We must be willing to use our conventional forces to decapitate rogue regimes, and then leave the locals to sort out a new government. Our brief stay afterwards by one or both of our follow on Divisions should not be treated as occupation, or an unlimited commitment to rebuilding. Rather it should be seen as short window of opportunity for the locals to put together a replacement government, the success or failure of which is entirely up to them. Internally, we must acknowledge that their success or failure is of little consequence to us. This type of military action would resuscitate a practice similar to what was once called "Punitive Expeditions".

When faced with an intransigent insurgency, only the locals can sort out their own order in the long run. Consequently the US should not plan to stay any longer in a country we have toppled, than is necessary to stabilize the immediate aftermath when we create a power vacuum. The most advisable doctrine would be to pull out, yet leave them with the clear understanding that should the power that fills the vacuum antagonize us, it will soon go the way of the last one. We should shy away from long occupations, but we should not shy away from “repeated visitations” until even the most obtuse understand that if they want to stay in power, the one thing they absolutely cannot do is antagonize us.

By David Roth