Meanwhile, shifting the lens to the north, last week the head of Israeli Military Intelligence, Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin, reported to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Syria is "purchasing massive amounts of ground-to-ground and anti-tank missiles from Russia"—a country whose name tends to turn up in these contexts—and that, while "there is a low probability that Syria will initiate a war against Israel," Syria could launch attacks in the Golan Heights even though it could lead to war.

Another report gave an even more ominous picture of an "unprecedented military buildup in Syria," including the deployment of 300 home-manufactured Scud missiles just north of the Golan Heights, the establishment of new commando units, and a spike in training for urban and guerrilla warfare.

A source in IDF Northern Command said that "Syria saw the difficulty the IDF had during the fighting inside the southern Lebanese villages [last summer] and now . . . wants to draw us—in the event of a war—into battles in built-up areas where they think they will have the upper hand."

And over in Lebanon itself, the fallout from last summer's war is just as negative and the prognosis no better. In his same testimony to the Knesset committee last week, Maj.-Gen. Yadlin noted that up to several hundred Al Qaeda members have arrived in Lebanon with the aim of attacking UNIFIL and other Western targets; and that Hezbollah remains entrenched in southern Lebanon and keeps amassing large quantities of arms from Syria and Iran.

Rounding out the circle by returning to the south, Yadlin also said some Al Qaeda operatives have infiltrated Gaza as well, and that Hamas is gaining financial and political strength while its members receive training in Syria and Iran.

Overall, "the MI chief stressed that Iran continues to provide funding and weapons to Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah, and has close military and intelligence coordination with Syria." Add Russia to the mix and the picture is complete: a Shiite-Sunni-Russian terror-military axis seeking to surround, pressure, and harass Israel and ultimately eradicate it.

Tragically, this is happening at a time when Israel has a government hobbled by incompetence, unpopularity, scandals, infighting, (liberal secularism) and delusory dovishness, and that, apart from stepped-up training for some IDF units, is essentially doing nothing about the growing threats. It does not help that Israel's U.S. ally keeps obsessively choreographing diplomatic dances with the likes of PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas, the Saudis, and the Arab League with which Israel dutifully complies - achieving nothing except to further project weakness to Israel's enemies and lull the parts of the Israeli public and American Jews that are eager to be lulled.

As Schiff points out in another analysis, it was the reluctance to enter a two-front war that led Israel to allow Hezbollah's major military buildup in southern Lebanon in the first place. After Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon in 2000 against the advice of most of the IDF top brass, Prime Minister Ehud Barak and then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon found themselves facing a Palestinian terror onslaught mounted from the West Bank and Gaza and did not want to further complicate matters by doing something about Hezbollah in Lebanon.

So Israel, Schiff notes, "never once struck at the convoys transferring the missiles to Lebanon, and never struck even one Hezbollah missile warehouse, or even the short-range rockets near the border." The end result was that Israel found itself at war on two fronts anyway—when Hamas attacked from Gaza and kidnapped a soldier last June, and Hezbollah followed suit the next month with an attack and kidnapping from Lebanon; and now faces the prospect of a further two-front war against enemies with enhanced capabilities.

Hope resides mainly in the interim report later this month of the Winograd Committee, set up to investigate the failures in last summer's war and also expected to address the whole period of 2000-2006. Sufficiently harsh conclusions against Prime Minister Ehud Olmert could lead him to resign or cause other political ferment leading to new elections. As time goes on and Israel, aside from antiterror policing work in the West Bank, remains almost entirely passive against the growing threats, it does not appear that Olmert's government has the will or ability to do anything about them, and its continued tenure appears to spell disaster.

If there is a chance—apart from a strike on Iran that would alter the region's strategic balance—for Israel to avoid another two-front entanglement, it lies mainly in regaining its deterrence by making an effective move in Gaza. A hard-enough blow to Hamas and its friends there could make Hezbollah and Syria think twice about starting more trouble in the north. But there may be little time left, and such an outcome requires a functioning government in Jerusalem (and Washington, D.C.). It also calls for a Washington able to look past short-term diplomatic concerns (self-interest) and give Israel the backing it needs.

Commentary by David R.: This difficulty we are having in fighting urban guerilla engagements is self inflicted, not the product of either their innovation, or a lack of ability on our part. It is a lack of will on the part of the western world. This "problem" will change when they hurt us badly enough for us to take it seriously and stop pussyfooting around. There was no guerilla problem in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

« Close It

a. No moderation from the Palestinians or Islam. No realist ever has.
b. Western and European governments will try to deny legitimization of Hamas with little effect.
c. Some in the U.S. will call for ending financial subsidies of the Palestinian Authority, but Congress lacks the will to act in America's or Israel's best interests.
d. The free world will recant on its offer of a Palestinian state now that it has been made clear, yet again, that Palestine will be a terrorist state.
e. Liberals in Israel and the U.S. State Department will continue to advocate giving away more precious land and putting Israel at greater and greater risk.
f. Congressional influence will continue to be sold to Corporations and Media outlets who themselves are owned, in part or in total, by foreign Islamic interests - including Fox News. Middle Eastern countries, through growing ownership and control of the American media, will actively pursue feeding the American public a bitter pill that (if allowed to be swallowed) will lead to the media-assisted suicide of America.
g. Congressmen, who are directly or indirectly on the campaign contribution payrolls of Mexico, and Middle Eastern governments such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, will continue their attempts to disengage from the Middle East.

So, the first Palestinian Authority election has endorsed Hamas. What's the big surprise? In December, 2005, the Egyptian electorate came out strongly for the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamic party. In Iraq, the post-Saddam electorate voted in a pro-Iranian Islamist as prime minister. In Lebanon, the voters celebrated the withdrawal of Syrian troops by voting Hezbollah into the government. Likewise, radical Islamic elements have prospered in elections in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. Only someone blind in one eye and unable to see out of the other is befuddled by the events in Palestine. Yes, elections are bringing to power Islamic regimes in the Middle East, and some are deadly enemies of the West. It’s not a question of what went wrong with democracy. The recent democratic elections are simply a validation of what all rational people already knew. Islam is a formidable enemy of the West and a lethal threat to the existence of Israel. The PA elections reveal that the Islamic cause of exterminating Israel has now been pubically endorsed for all the world to see by the Palestinian electorate. It amounts to nothing less than a mandate. The only solution is to deal with reality, recognize and confront the threats. Just maybe the rantings of Iran will begin to take on more credibility in Europe and the United States Senate.

This may come as a surprise to the cool-aid drinkers in Congress, the U.S. State Department and much of Europe, but it’s not Islam or some obscure cultural factor that accounts for the difference in the outcome of installing democracy in the Middle East. Instead, permit the immodest observation that America’s ideological enemies in the Middle East have been pushed around and disrupted, but not yet defeated - not by a long shot and soon they will have nuclear weapons.

The issue is Islam itself and the centuries-old unrelenting ambition for world dominance by Islamofascists. What differentiates Islam in the current incarnation is their clear grasp of fact, history and technology. As harsh as it may sound to Americans trying to get in touch with their feminine side, in all conflicts there must be a winner who brutally crushes a loser and then imposes the unconditional terms of peace. There can be no peace without a winner and a loser. Adherents of Islam understand this. Muslims understand that no negotiation ever resolves conflict! Negotiation is only necessary when needed to extend a simmering conflict indefinitely until such day as the weaker party feels strong enough to once again try to reassert dominance. Today, internet chat rooms have replaced the ancient market squares and mosques as the mechanism for exporting the faith and recruiting.

Diplomats say:
a. Slow down. That would be the worst possible decision. The better choice would be to speed up - exponentially.
b. Settle in for the long run. The better choice would be to defeat our enemies quickly, decisively and without remorse or mercy. The slow down alternative results in unnecessary deaths in a gradual war of attrition on the "good guys."
c. Give diplomacy a chance. Diplomacy is a code word for negotiation. Attempts at negotiation will resolve nothing until the enemy is defeated. Ask Israel. Diplomacy is irrelevant anywhere in the Middle East until there is a winner and a loser. Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudia Arabia and the Palestinian Authority understand this. The U.S. State Department has not a clue.
d. Try to establish stability. Forget about stability. Focus on a crushing victory first. Take the sissy gloves off and get on with it. Stability only comes from, and subsequent to, the defeat of your enemy. Pandering and hand-wringing, typical of Congress and the seditionist New York Times, only prolongs instability, both in the Middle East and in America.

There is no dilemma posed by the Hamas election victory. European and Western capitals need to recognize that Palestinians, like the Iranians, and like the Germans in 1933 – have chosen a path of ideological and physical world domination. Concerned politicians may attempt to isolate and reject the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, but the only solution that will have any reasonable chance of success will be to respond to the first lethal misstep of the Palestinian Authority against innocent women and children with a mind-numbing ruthless retaliation, from the PA leadership to the PA janitors, and decisively crush any PA desire to continue the error of their ways. The Israeli (or American) retaliation to the next Islamic suicide bomber or rocket attack should be sufficient to cause most people in Europe and America to say, “Oh, my God!” Only then will the military response have been just about right. Forget proportional or measured responses. Either win decisively now or surrender. As for collateral damage, it is the price our adversaries should have to pay in spades for their barbaric trangressions against humanity. Let's see some real collateral damage.

The following is a message for Congress and the Main Stream Media from a self-appointed spokesperson for the American public: "Engaging in sedition and giving aid and comfort to America's enemies will prolong the war. Prolonging the war will result in more of your own needlessly bleeding and dying. If you're not willing to win, if you're not going to fight to win, decisively, right now, if you think the solution is a negotiated peace, you are needlessly sacrificing American lives. Self-imposed restraint is viewed by Muslims as a pathetic weakness, and make no mistake, you are in a fight for our life."

Americans are tired of listening to Congressional Democrats and weak-kneed liberal Republicans wail in the night some variation of, "Cut and run." In the liberal view of the world, there are no other choices but to attempt negotiation, and failing that surrender and beg for mercy. If America stays in the Middle East another day, and there is no doubt we should and we will, then we as Americans must resolve that any and every future Muslim atrocity be met with additional examples of “shock and awe,” not proportionally but 1,000 fold. Until then, nothing will change, and the Islamic goal of exterminating Israel will remain on track and viable.

In the meantime, the next Congressman, staffer, or media employee who recklessly or knowingly releases classified information should be incarcerated for a long, long time. It's fine to disagree with the Congressional vote by our elected representatives to go to war, however there is a profound difference between disagreeing with a Congressional vote and attempting to undermine the entire United States of America by revealing classified information to the enemy or engaging in sedition.

The following is free advice, and worth far more than you paid for it: "Never start a fight, let alone a war, unless you are determined and committed to win, at any cost – at any cost - all or nothing - all in!" The “Islamic Wars” returned at the Munich Olympics from obscurity and Islam is fully committed to this newest struggle world-wide, as demonstrated by their reoccurring barbaric atrocities.

We "misunderestimate" Islam at our own peril. Political events subsequent to 9-11-2001 have convinced the majority of Americans, and the Muslims in the Middle East, that American liberals couldn't find the will to defend America if it were presented to them on a serving plate by Senator John F. Kerry's man-servant. Since liberals refuse to deal with the fact that America really is in a war for survival, in a fight for its literal existence, hopefully conservatives will just deal with it. Let's win and then discuss our recriminations; but for all that is precious in America, let's not lose.

The question now is about us. We know who they are.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

Now, appearing in the current issue of the typically ultra-liberal Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pages 649-694), is the Kates/Mauser report entitled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence.” It is a detailed look at gun ownership and how it does not relate to the incidence of murder and violence. It would appear the facts show just the opposite. The researchers predictably conclude, just as every previous study has concluded, that “nations with very stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates as those which allow guns.” (Emphasis added)

The Kates/Mauser research strips bare the time-worn claims by gun control proponents that America is more dangerous than other countries because of our “Right” to keep and bear arms. What these two seasoned researchers reveal is that some of the most violent countries in Europe are those with the most stringent gun control laws. Logically, one could extrapolate that in America, the highest crime rates should be in places with strictest gun control policies, such as Chicago and Washington, D.C. And unremarkably, facts bear out that reality. However, in areas both here and abroad with high rates of gun ownership, violent crime rates are much lower.

Kates documented (in an earlier study) a declining murder rate over the 25-year period from 1973 to 1997, during a period when overall gun ownership increased 103 percent, and handgun ownership went up 163 percent. Yet during that same period, the murder rate dropped 27.7 percent.

Due to the renewal of the gun control debate in the main stream media following the recent events at Virginia Tech, researchers Kates and Mauser make a solid factual case against the emotion-laden rhetoric from the gun control crowd who choose to dispense seemingly endless misinformation to the uninformed public. While the latest research study will obviously not close the debate, any more than a dozen more studies that reach the same conclusion will close the debate, Kates and Mauser make a strong case against the anti-gun mantra. Their conclusion is that gun ownership is factually not the problem – gun ownership is not the cause of violent crime. There are other critical societal issues at play and the violence would likely be far, far worse were it not for gun ownership.

The inescapable conclusion from multiple studies is that ‘Gun Control’ is nothing but ‘Victim Disarmament,’ a central provision in every piece of gun control legislation. Ask yourself thoughtfully; how many armed citizens become the victims of a crime? In contrast, how may unarmed citizens do you suppose become the victims of a crime? Arguably, the unarmed citizens have a huge propensity to become crime victims.

Reality begs the question, why would any politician want to disarm his own nation’s citizens in the face of rampant international Islamic terrorism, and particularly if strict gun control laws have been irrefutably shown to increase the incidence of both international and domestic violent crime? Why would any politician knowing these facts want to create more victims? An informed politician serving our national interest would not make that choice. But then, why would any politician advocate open borders at the expense of American citizens except in their own self-interest?

What then is the ulterior motive of gun control advocates and most entrenched politicians? Clearly, their intent is not to reduce the number of crime victims. Their only other imaginable agenda is one of self-interest. Ultimately, could it be their intent to pave the way for our forcible submission to government policies repugnant to the majority of Americans? The incremental erosion and eventual loss of individual liberties contained in the Bill of Rights is unrelenting, which by itself is a recipe for national repression. Private property is all but gone; freedom of speech has become a historical footnote; freedom of religion has mutated into freedom from the Christian religion; socialism has been instituted as the national religion; and the right to bear arms is diminishing under constant attack. Only the most naive of American citizens still entertain the delusion that Congress is serving their national interest and not attempting to rule in their own self-interest.

For numerous citations, search the internet for the listed authors of the study. To save time, a very informative and substantive article can be found at: http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html

Red State Patriot

« Close It

Don Imus has been paid by his suited CBS network zoo-keepers to be controversial, outrageous and insulting for more years than anyone can count – arguably since before dirt. Nothing has changed and nothing is new. Don Imus has legions of fans that for some inexplicable reason gravitate toward his lack of civility. The most notable of Don Imus' achievement swas that he was the only liberal radio talk-show host remaining on the air. The Don Imus media persona was created to fill a market niche. In the racial malestorm that began on April 4th, it shouldn't be lost on anyone that the liberal corporate suits at CBS Radio were willing to ignore Don Imus' inflamatory rhetoric - for years - for profits.

Don Imus’ firing was the probable result of two factors. First, the corporate suits wanted to make absolutely sure that responsibility for their choice of tasteless shock-jock, and politically incorrect “jokes,” wouldn’t accrue to them. Secondly, hidden in the shadows, in wouldn't come as a surprise to learn that the Democratic Party's paid operatives (Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson) went after Don Imus with incredible venom because of Don Imus' unrelenting on-air criticism of Hillary Clinton. As for the liberal suits at CBS Radio, a new oxymoron has been coined to describe their actions, “socially responsible cowardliness," but that doesn't change the probable reality that Don Imus was politically assasinated.

In the real world, those who disapprove of Don Imus don’t listen. The same can be said for detractors of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Those who disapprove of Al Sharpton also do their best to ignore him in order to avoid involuntary projectile vomiting. Arguably Al Sharpton, with his history of racial epithets, combined with those of Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan, have inflicted more harm to American culture than the Crusades did to all of Europe and Asia. Those who disapprove of the Dixie Chicks and Nancy Pelosi go about their lives. The same can be said with those who dislike the international beacons of virtue, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Madonna. But not Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, our nation’s premier rap culture aficionados and defenders of debasement and degradation.

Notice that Don Imus’ only sin was that his remarks lacked “racial sensitivity” and “political correctness.” How dare Don Imus make critical remarks! Who does that old white man think he is? Ok, so what? Al Sharpton, and his misguided followers, would do well to get their proverbial thumb out of their mouth.

Americans would also do well to remember that any man or woman, who feels the need to be politically correct in their speech, cannot by definition be telling the truth. Whether Al Sharpton and his ilk like the truth or want to hear the truth is the entire basis for political correctness.

Who will be next to be Nifong’ed? Ann Coulter? Make no mistake, the Don Imus imbroglio (an embarrassing personal or political misunderstanding often bitter in nature) is but the opening salvo in an ongoing culture war to silence conservatives in general and talk radio in particular using the subject of race as a sharp-edged weapon.

Until the day that Americans of African heritage pull rap music off the record stands, blackball movies depicting African-American themes of feminine degeneracy, repudiate sports figures whose rap sheet is longer than most resumes, and widely support ending institutionalized discrimination, the rest of the United States should concentrate on reality. The reality is that it was not the rest of America that created this culture that mere mention of which caused Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to go into offensive overload.

How much will CBS quietly have to “pay” Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to stop creating an ongoing public spectacle? When the day comes that there are enough dollars in Al Sharpton’s pockets attributable to only the latest in a string of manufactured racial incidents, he will publicly and reluctantly extend feigned forgiveness to Don Imus.

If all men and women were truly created equal in this wonderful nation, why are so many still on welfare? Why are so many of Don Imus’ vocal detractors intentionally illiterate, systemically unemployable, terminally irresponsible and pathologically degenerate? In stark contrast, both Rutgers University and the Rutgers basketball team members seem to have retained a remarkable semblance of class and reasoned awareness. They chose not to be victims!

A non-scientific poll Internet poll of more than 110,000 people by NewsMax concluded that 91 percent believed Don Imus’ comments about the Rutgers basketball team was bad humor as opposed to racism, 88 percent thought MSNBC overreacted, 89 percent thought Don Imus should not have been fired, and 95 percent believed Al Sharpton had no credibility in personally attacking Don Imus.

It seems that we’re left to wonder if Al Sharpton has a moral compass. Is Al Sharpton simply the nation’s biggest and most outrageous racist profiteer, the African American’s cultural equivalent of David Duke? If Al Sharpton is the role model for the African American gene pool, it is no wonder that Don Imus’ criticism is perceived by African Americans as stinging.

Don Imus is obviously not afraid to tell the King that he has no clothes. If only Al Sharpton cared about cleaning up his own “house,” he wouldn’t have to worry about what others think of the condition of his “house,” or endure their criticism. Al Sharpton has made a career out of attacking the messenger of cultural criticism, while defiantly refusing to address the fact that too many in his “house” are neither free men and women nor wearing clothes.

Unless the United States has transformed itself into the Union of American Socialist Republics, Don Imus’ freedom of thought, opinion, and speech remains his inalienable right. Those who would willfully deny him the right to free speech are the same ones who work tirelessly to deny all private property rights embodied in the Bill of Rights. Yes, Toto, every one of the Bill of Rights is a form of private property rights.

Mr. Imus, we support your right to be tactful or offensive, according to your choice, and we support the concept that the free market (not CBS Radio) should determine if you remain viable as a talk-show host. Yes, your employer has the right to fire your sorry ass for statements unbefitting their standards of broadcast decency, but for CBS Radio to claim standards of decency, after having ignored any and all standards of decency for years until it served their purposes, the behavior of the suits at CBS Radio is far worse than your verbal transgressions.

Hang in there Don Imus! You are in the right and it is your Right.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

Did you ever sit back and think, "Wow, with two liberal Senators, things are going just as I always wanted them to?" I didn't think so - me either. “Invasion” is the most accurate characterization of what politicians now endorse, and AZ politicians defiantly intend to lavish rewards on the Mexican and OTM invaders if given the opportunity.

Politicians have no intention of stopping illegal alien migration, or enforcing United States’ laws except where it serves their own political purposes. Respecting the rule of law is not in their financial self interest. So, taking Congress’ lead, why should illegal aliens respect any United States law? In a liberal's twisted egalitarian mind, why shouldn’t Congress just pass a series of laws that makes this whole invasion thing an on-going legal right of the Mexicans? If you accept the Ronald Reagan's premise that a nation without borders is not a nation, then what are the real goals of Arizona’s congressional delegation and President Bush? Is it national dissolution and anarchy? Keep in mind that what politicians dwell on is who we become as a nation.

It would be hard to claim that both President Bush and the main stream media have not put out a welcome mat that greets invaders in Spanish, “Invasor Acepto.” To make sure that Mexicans feel welcome, politicians have done everything in their power to see to it that migrant Mexicans on American streets have the greatest Right of all, the right to vote – not to mention identification reserved for American citizens, bank accounts, property ownership and access to social services. Illegal alien migrants are rewarded in many ways, e.g., paying no taxes. Nor do they have to pay for medical care, or for the birth and education of their children. American taxpayers pay for that. In the meantime, Mexicans consume tens of millions of gallons of gasoline daily, supplies intended for Americans. The result is the price at the pump is driven up. Mexicans endure no national or local civic responsibility, have no compunction against stealing identities (or any other crime for that matter), and are not being held accountable under United States or Arizona laws.

What laws you ask? Good question; what laws - given that local police departments such as Scottsdale spend most of their patrol officer's time as revenue collection agents for their municipality. The department's leadership has refused for fifteen years to let officers protect citizens from property crimes (as if such crimes were only an insurance matter)? Mexicans fleeing south to the border after committing violent crimes and driving a stolen car are simply waved right through. What are you complaining about? It was only your car.

Arizona’s most notable elites intend to grant amnesty to all of them, whether the number is 12 or 40 million, and amnest will include the potentially dangerous migrants of other nationalities that have for decades already brutally victimized millions of American citizens. These political personages include the outspoken Arizona politician Senator John McCain (who aspires to become king), Senator Jon “Coy” Kyl, Governor Janet “Nogales” Napolitano, and Rep. Harry Mitchell (the latter being the national embarrassment in my own congressional district who to this day probably hasn’t read the U.S. Constitution judging from his votes on the House floor).

American citizens in every state, often our personal friends and neighbors, and their children, have been the victims of heinous crimes committed by illegal aliens. Today, as you sit and read this, there will be thousands of violent and property crimes occurring nationwide. Do our elected politicians care, or are they blindly consumed with becoming fabulously wealthy from campaign contributions, some of which originate in the Mexican government? A large portion of political campaign contributions, larger than you can imagine, is collected first from taxpayers by the IRS and then redistributed by Congress as ‘pork’ to organizations that use that money in activist causes for illegal aliens, and to make political campaign contributions back to the politicians. How cynical and reprehensible is that? Did you get the picture? Congress funds organizations from whom they know large sums will be coming back to each of them personally as legal campaign contributions. It is not just a matter of Congressmen selling access and influence in return for campaign contributions; it is far more serious than that. Congressmen are funding those campaign contributions to themselves with our tax dollars.

Let’s be sure everybody understands. The top 50% of United States wage earners pay all personal income taxes. The bottom 50% does not pay a dime, and most of them are subsidized by taxpayers in one form or another. If that were not enough, there is no such thing conceptually as taxes on businesses as the taxes imposed by government are passed through to the customer in the price of goods and services. When government taxes on business go up, as Democrats want, the prices of what you buy will go up. Business taxes, whether paid by small business or large corporations, are really paid by the individual wage earner who purchases the goods and services, using money that has already been taxed. And then we pay taxes again, using the same money that has already been taxed multiple times, for the very privilege to buy anything, called a sales tax. Right now, the IRS and every state’s Department of Revenue are collecting your taxes. Congress is gleefully redistributing (giving away) your income to special interest groups which turn around and give the money back to them as campaign contributions (which eventually becomes a congressman’s personal wealth). Everyone is a winner except the taxpayer who is taxed on his income, taxed again by the business that makes the product, and taxed again of the privilage of making the purchase.

The corruption in government has gotten so bad that United States citizens now have to compete with Mexican citizens for their representation in the United States Congress. Americans have found that their only choice is to attempt to buy (in the form of campaign contributions) their own protection from their elected representatives. There seems to be no other way that elected representatives will act as responsible United States citizens and protect us from an invasion. It is enough to make you wonder, why do United States citizens have to bribe their own congressmen for any hope for a national defense of the United States?

Unfortunately, the invaders are paying more, much more in campaign contributions, and those who support the invaders are paying millions. The same thing happened during campaign finance reform when Senator John McCain sold Arizona to those who are colloquially referred to as Native Americans – not Americans but Native Americans who John McCain believes because their ancestors were a conquered people centuries ago, their descendants who have refused to assimilate should have some imaginary preemptive rights to United States land and resources.

Some of the money that becomes campaign contributions originates in foreign countries and some of the money comes from U.S, taxpayers. For example, Congress has been annually funding Mexican activist groups such as La Raza, an anti-American racist organization. La Raza has received millions of pork dollars in Congressional funding. La Raza is also funded by the Mexican government. Here’s the gimmick! Once the money has been legally laundered from Congress through La Raza, it is quickly donated back to individual congressmen as legitimate campaign contributions. You get the picture. Congressmen know much of this money will come back to them when they insert it into an appropriations bill.

These people are not our elected representatives, but our elected parasites – parasites in the purest sense of the word. American citizens are in serious trouble. It saddens me to say, there is not a day that an Arizona Congressman or Arizona Governor is not for sale. And it continues and it continues because politicians count on a combination of the minimal educational achievement of the electorate and their certifiable naiveté perpetuated by the main stream media. They count on getting the votes of American lumpen who have voluntarily relinquished their place in the gene pool to a tree stump?

There should be a name for those who sympathize, encourage, and facilitate unlawful alien migration, whether directly or indirectly, for those who obstruct law enforcement, extend legal privilege to illegal aliens, turn over national wealth to the trespassers, ignore the plight of citizens being criminally victimized, and personally profit from the illegal votes and labor of migrant aliens. Such politicians, and their supporters, are less United States citizens than collaborateurs, “…. cooperating with enemy forces occupying one's country. As such it implies criminal deeds in the service of the occupying power, including complicity with the occupying power in murder, persecutions, pillage, and economic exploitation as well as participation in a puppet government.” (wikipedia) Given the number of illegal votes that Democrats so cherish, have we in Arizona reached the point of a puppet government installed by illegal votes? How else can you explain the Governor’s anti-American behavior?

If you want to find a real American, a great American, a patriotic American, a hero who will be rewarded in history, look in some other direction than Congress. Make an effort in Arizona to meet people like Russell Pearce and thank them. Find a man or woman in military uniform and express your gratitude for their willingness to be our defenders. Without them, those of us who live in Arizona would have no future.

One reason they call them "Relaxed Fit" jeans is that "Ass the Size of Texas" jeans would not sell very well. Same is true of “Immigration Reform.” It is not going to sell.

Red State Patriot

« Close It