Her father responded by asking how she was doing in school. She was taken aback by the question. Her father already knew the answer. She responded rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA. She went on to stress the obvious, that a 4.0 GPA was tough to maintain. She informed her father that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying. Her studies left her no time to go out and party like the other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, she complained, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened patiently and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?”

His daughter replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. She takes all the easy classes. She never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. But she is so popular on campus. College for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.”

Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don't you go to the Dean's Office at the end of this semester and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend Audrey who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, resentfully fired back, “That wouldn't be fair! I’ve worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time and a lot of hard work! Audrey’s done next to nothing. She played while I worked my tail off!”

The father slowly smiled, and said gently, “Welcome to conservatism. Your friend Audrey is really no different than many others. It has nothing to do with race, gender, religion or economic circumstances. Your liberal friends in academia, plus many Republicans and most Democrats, will soon be demanding that you relinquish a portion of your GPA. They, knowing better than you, will redistribute your hard work to one of your classmates, or maybe give it to the child of an illegal alien migrant who is heavily taxpayer subsidized. If you should object, you will likely be denounced as a selfish right-wing racist and treated with contempt.”

“Yes, you should understand that if nothing changes in America very soon, you will be expected to subsidize the good times of many others, most of whom are unwilling, either through conscious choice or because of flawed decision making, to provide for themselves beyond a meager subsistence. They will expect this of you throughout the rest of your life.”

The daughter, angry and shocked at the thought, countered emotionally. “But that’s like slavery, like me being a slave to them.”

“Yes dear, that’s right.” her father lamented. “For all practical purposes, it is slavery for those who work hard at everything they do, from the beginning of their education through the rest of their working life. However, your social status of serfdom is necessary for others to achieve their egalitarian idealism. It is important to many people that you not have more than them. It is even more important to those who seek to rule that your situation is so desperate that you will vote for them and their promises. They’ll keep you and me, and the rest of the country, in desperate straits to insure their continued dominion at the ballot box.”

“Then, we have to consider those people who have exchanged their votes, traded them, in order to be arbitrarily classified as somehow disadvantaged. From their point of view, what you have and they do not have is neither fair nor is it their fault. They expect the government will force you and me to support them. They want their circumstances and consummate personal neglect to be your responsibility. They want you and everyone else to believe the fantasy that the victims of income confiscation (the taxpayers) are somehow evil, and the thieves (the recipients of income redistribution) miraculously have an entitlement to that which for them is unearned.”

“Politicians have come to think that people like you and me, and millions of other hard-working citizens, literally belong to the government. That’s the way of Socialism. They assume they can arbitrarily take from us as much as they want, even what we think of as our private property, even our children.”

Her father continued in a sad voice, “An incredible number of people, across this nation and around the world, live very well with the money taken from our family’s income. It all comes down to who works and who enjoys the fruits of the labor. If the government, any government, forces you to work to support other citizens, illegal aliens, and foreign nations, i.e., people other than your own family, it’s hard to think of it any other way than a form of slavery.”

“It should not make any United States citizen proud --- to ask their own family to sacrifice in order to serve a master class of indolent Americans and non-citizens in a land of ethical and moral anarchy.”

The daughter, disillusioned and with tears in her eyes said, “Like, that’s really wrong. I don’t want to be a slave.”

Lifting his book to continue reading, her father said, “Slavery has not been abolished as long as one man is involuntarily forced to serve another.”

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

At the same time, in the same Bill, in H.R. 5351, the House of Representatives saw fit to give a HUGE tax break to Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s dictator. I suppose I could say, “Please excuse Harry. It was his father’s fault.” But that’s no excuse. Maybe the explanation is that he played with glue too much as a child. Suffice it to say, while the tax increases on oil companies at this moment in our fragile economy was a vicious personal assault on every American, the tax break for Hugo Chavez was clinically insane.

Investor's Business Daily (IBD) put it this way in an editorial titled, "Tax Cut for Hugo:"

"It goes to show that Congress is more willing to empower dictators than to get serious about America's energy supply."

Regardless of what you think of President George W. Bush, or any individual member of Congress, that’s not relevant in this discussion. H.R. 5351 was crafted to gift to Hugo Chavez an incredible amount of United States taxpayer money – your money – money that could otherwise have fed your family, paid your mortgage, and clothed your children.

Why did Speaker Pelosi and Representative Harry Mitchell (AZ-D5) recklessly and knowingly reward an anti-American dictator, a partner of Iran and Russia, by raising taxes on American citizens? How could tax increases be in our nation’s national interest? Have we learned no lessons? What could possibly be in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s self-interest to pass such a bill. Is her issue a pathological gut-wrenching hate of the United States of America?

Why does Rep. Harry Mitchell repudiate his fellow citizens, many of whom struggle to survive from payday to payday, some of whom are losing their homes to foreclosure? Of all the things Harry Mitchell has lost in his life, I’m sure he would tell you he regrets most losing his mind.

There is not one person in the United States, citizen, alien or illegal alien that will not be seriously financially harmed by this potential legislation. The increased cost of petroleum, and all related products derived from petroleum, will not only cost every American more, the increase will cost every level of government more, and those increases will also be passed on to American consumers in the form of state, county and municipal tax increases.

First Congress attempted to destroy the world’s food supply with corn-based ethanol; next they engineered the declining value of the U.S. Dollar attempting to hide their profligate spending, and in the process destroyed the American middle class; then they refused to close the nation’s borders which resulted in the loss of millions of jobs and the deaths of more than 70,000 United States citizens at the hands of an illegal alien in the last two decades – a carnage that continues to this day; and now they seek to push the United States into an economic depression raising the price of energy by adding multiple layers of additional taxation. Meanwhile, Hugo Chavez prances around the globe demonstrating conclusively that the inmates really are running the asylum – in many countries, some very close to home.

When Venezuela’s newspapers, radio, and TV began to criticize Hugo Chavez several years ago, he simply 'nationalized' the media – seized it, just as he did the petroleum industry. Now the Venezuelan media prints only his propaganda. If that were not enough, Chavez has repeatedly demonstrated intense anti-Semitic behavior. His history of hysterical diatribes against Israel and the Jewish people is uncontested.

If France, Germany, Korea, Russia and Pakistan openly (or secretly) assist Iran in the development of nuclear weapons, and Venezuela is their mutual ally, how long will it be before the United States faces the specter of a nuclear Venezuela? Well, somebody better start thinking about it! Venezuela already manufactures and distributes Russian AK-47’s throughout Central and South America.

Monisha Bansal of CBS News said: "Senate Democratic leaders have indicated they would fast-track the bill to try to avoid a Republican filibuster." Fast-track the bill? Just as the Senate tried to do with “comprehensive immigration reform?”

Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner said:

"Middle-class families and small businesses are feeling the squeeze from rising costs for gasoline, food, and other costs of living..."

"[H.R. 5351] actually carves out tax breaks for Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez -- courtesy of American taxpayers. This is unacceptable, and the Democratic leadership is irresponsible for bringing the bill to the House floor.

"I am disappointed that the Majority voted down a Republican proposal to eliminate the tax relief for Hugo Chavez and give it to those who need it most: middle-class American families."

Arizona’s Democratic Party delegation in the House of Representatives voted unanimously “Yea” to H.R. 5351. If the following group of ne’er-do-wells were any more stupid, they would have to be watered twice a week.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-8) Yea
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-7) Yea
Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-5) Yea
Rep. Ed Pastor (D-4) Yea

As you might expect, Arizona’s Republican delegation unanimously voted “Nay.”

You have to wonder. Does Representative Harry Mitchell, AZ-D (5) have delusions of adequacy? We should help him dispel those thoughts at every opportunity.

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Twenty years later, Mbembe was walking through the Chicago Zoo with his teenage son. As they approached the elephant enclosure, one of the creatures turned and walked to where Mbembe and his son Tapu were standing. The large bull elephant stared at Mbembe, lifted its front foot off the ground, and then put it down. The elephant did that several times and then trumpeted loudly, all the while staring at the man.

Remembering the encounter in 1986, Mbembe couldn't help wondering if this was the same elephant. Mbembe summoned up his courage, climbed over the railing and made his way into the enclosure. He walked right up to the elephant and stared back in wonder. The elephant trumpeted again, wrapped its trunk around one of Mbembe's legs and slammed him against the railing, killing him instantly. It is probably safe to conclude it wasn't the same elephant....

The lesson we can take away from this interesting and heartwarming story is one of statistical probability, bordering on certainty. A similar sequence of events will likely occur as the current crop of political candidates seek to befriend a nation of injured conservative elephants, many of whose youth have been sacrificed to open borders, drugs and Islamic terrorists. The election outcome experienced by incumbent Republicans and Democrats in the 2008 election at the hands of voters is likely to be painfully similar to Mbembe. At least I hope it is.

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

In the second voting category, the delegates were able to vote for more than one candidate as unacceptable. In the Unacceptable Category, 427 out of 721 (59%) of the delegates declared McCain as one of their unacceptable candidates. The tallies were:
427 McCain
396 Paul
357 Giuliani (withdrawn)
340 Huckabee
156 Hunter (withdrawn)
152 Thompson (withdrawn)
121 Romney

In the third category, the delegates were able to vote for more than one candidate as acceptable. Those results were as follows:
370 Thompson (withdrawn)
358 Hunter (withdrawn)
356 Romney
235 Giuliani (withdrawn)
207 Huckabee
135 McCain
120 Paul

These issues were rated by the delegates as the most important for the presidential candidates to address:

643 STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
552 WIN WAR AGAINST TERROR
518 REDUCE GOV'T SPENDING
406 LOWER TAXES
390 SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS
271 PRO-LIFE
226 CITIZEN'S GUN RIGHTS
196 DOMESTIC OIL PRODUCTION
106 CHOICE OF PRIVATE SS ACCOUNTS

Senator John McCain, you can run from your constituency, but you cannot hide.

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Because I am a contrarian, and cynical of human behavior (derived from three decades in federal law enforcement, and another decade on Arizona streets as a police officer, and repeated disappointments as a political observer in Washington, D.C.), it is a huge cause for concern when normally conservative and articulate Internet commentators appear desperate to find the smallest crumb of hope from Congress. While some sense of desperation from the rule-of-law contingent is understandable, considering the war zone on the borders, the question still remains: Why are so many people blindly embracing the SAVE Act as if it were the Holy Grail of immigration reform?

Think like a contrarian. What might be missing from this picture? What remains unsaid?

It is important that every citizen recognize at the outset of any discussion of immigration that the phrases "immigration reform," and particularly “comprehensive immigration reform,” represent ‘code words’ that mean only one thing – a consistent and defiant refusal by Congress and the Bush Administration to enforce existing laws.

The congressional solution to "open borders" and epidemic illegal alien lawlessness across the United States, and the threat of mind-boggling terrorism, is not enforcement of existing laws, but to rewrite immigration law turning previously lawless behavior retroactively into legal behavior - with amnesty given for the crimes committed by millions of illegal alien migrants.

The Bush Administration is either oblivious and insensitive to life and death on the streets of our cities, and along our dangerous border, or it is literally refusing to defend the country in a war being waged by Mexico against the United States. The latter suggestion begs the question, "Is the Bush Administration, in concert with Congress, consciously aiding a self-declared enemy to defeat the United States of America?" What other choices are there?

As for amnesty for illegal aliens in the United States, arguably it would be less of an atrocity, but equally insane, to grant amnesty to the September 11th Islamic highjackers since they've killed less than five percent of the number of United States citizens that have died at the hands of illegal aliens during the last two decades. Both ideas are beyond delusional and are equally insane - except to the politician who is willing to sell their soul.

Pause and reflect on a sobering fact. The United States Congress, and the Bush Administration, and many who aspire to become President of the United States of America, absolutely refuse to enforce the law – and not just immigration laws, but any laws. As a direct result of failed leadership and vacant moral values, lawless behavior now permeates political behavior from the President, down through the federal government’s administrative agencies (DHS, CIA, State Department) to Congress, to Governors, to state legislatures, to mayors, to police chiefs, to homeowners associations, and riddles the courts. Endemic lawlessness has ravaged the illegal alien community.

There exists no apparent respect for the law - all the way from the top of our national political and law enforcement structure, to the bottom. It follows logically that there will be less and less adherence to any rules of law at lower influence and income levels of society, and particularly in minority/illegal alien communities. At some point, laws that exist on paper will become meaningless from Massachusetts to California. We seem perilously close to going over that national cultural precipice today.

Justifiably, why should any United States citizen believe - ever again - that ANY law, whether newly crafted or already ‘on the books’ will be enforced, except for when it serves the agenda of ‘the government,’ or a special interest group or a minority interest?

From the perspective of a citizen soldier who has served in the trenches on the front lines in Southern Arizona, it appears far more likely to this observer that the SAVE Act is a giant Trojan Horse, intended from the outset to be a lethal strike against the combined efforts of all citizen border-enforcement advocates. Incredibly, this legislation is being willfully perpetrated by a dangerous coalition of some of the most corrupt and the most ignorant in Congress.

Let’s begin making the case with a quote from the Eagle Forum email:

“Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC) introduced the Secure America with Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act, H.R. 4088, and it already has over 100 cosponsors. The Senate version, S. 2368, was introduced by Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) and it is identical to the House bill. The SAVE Act tackles illegal immigration from three different directions: First, it increases technological surveillance and the number of Border Patrol agents. Second, it requires employers to use the E-verify program so they can be assured they are not hiring illegal aliens. Third, it will give the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) greater resources to strictly enforce current immigration laws and to better facilitate deportation when necessary.

How the SAVE Act Increases Border Security and Internal Enforcement:
• Increases the number of Border Patrol agents by 8,000 over five years.
• Employs the newest technology available, including satellite communication and aerial surveillance.
• Expands and mandates the use of E-verify, a free and effective program administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) so employers can confirm the legal status of their workers. The bill will phase in all employers over four years.
• Allows for information sharing between DHS and the Social Security Administration so as to close the loophole of mismatch letters going unresolved.
• Expands detention capacity and resources for ICE.
• Increases the number of Federal District Court Judges so as to expedite deportation hearings.

The SAVE Act is a great piece of bipartisan legislation ….”

There were currently 133 cosponsors of the SAVE Act at last count. The list of names is too long to reprint here. Many of the names of the cosponsors would cause any reasonable political observer to question whether the co-sponsors had actually read the proposed legislation and comprehend the unintended consequences – but that’s nothing new.

In a vain attempt to keep this critique reasonably short and to the point, permit me to point out the obvious. Every illegal alien currently in the United States, whether for the first time, or after repeated deportations and re-entry, is a serial criminal, many of whom are guilty of multiple unconscionable violent crimes, over fifty percent of all property crimes over the previous two decades, drug importation, human trafficking, domestic violence, gang affiliation and associated criminal behavior, document and identity fraud, and disorderly conduct in every conceivable manner.

If that were not enough, add vehicular mayhem on United States highways as illegal aliens operate motor vehicles within our nation’s borders with reckless abandon, without driving privileges, and most without valid registration or insurance (quaint requirements in state law applicable only to United States citizens).

The Department of Homeland Security and the State of Arizona have recently gotten together and chosen a novel way to facilitate the unlawful transportation needs of millions of illegal aliens who commute to illegal jobs – jobs that United States citizens once held. With DHS sanction, Governor Napolitano of Arizona plans to begin issuing legal identification in the form of federally-sanctioned driver’s licenses with radio identification chips. These legal documents will be issued to alien migrants (from anywhere in the world) without proof of United States citizenship, legal immigrant status, and/or even a fraudulent birth certificate.

Since the public outcry was so great when New York attempted to issue driver’s licenses and other forms of legal identification to illegal aliens, the innovative “work around” solution now is that the illegal alien driver’s license will be a federal identification, and only the administration of the program and distribution of the driver's licenses delegated to the states. The clever scheme has all the appearances of the same game, same objective, same deceit, and same amnesty – just a different day.

Governor Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security envision that a driver’s license should be accepted in lieu of, and will suffice for, a passport at the U.S.-Mexico border. Subsequently, these same driver’s licenses will be used to convey legal work eligibility because those who possess the federally-sanctioned driver’s licenses would be presumed to be in the country legally for employment purposes. Ask yourself, why would the Governor of the State of Arizona issue driver’s licenses to illegal aliens (which becomes a form of legal identification and a government sanction to use United States roadways to commute to jobs - jobs they are not legally entitled to have)? The SAVE Act and Governor Napolitano’s issuing of driver’s licenses to illegal aliens seems to be the groundwork for permanent legal residency, nothing less.

Governor Napolitano signed the agreement regarding driver’s licenses with Homeland Security Department Secretary Michael Chertoff on December 6, 2007. Apparently she did so without consultation with the Arizona State Legislature. Does Governor Napolitano have the authority to bind the State of Arizona in a federal agreement that violates federal immigration laws, contains state obligations to the federal government and relinquishes state sovereignty? Doubtfully, but we have yet to hear that the Arizona Legislature intends to repudiate the agreement.

Illegal alien's recklessly ricochet around the State of Arizona, and the country for that matter, committing a laundry list of crimes, both felonies and misdemeanors. When finally caught, refusing to be identified by using a myriad of Hispanic surnames, the combination of police, courts and detention facilities simply send them home to Mexico or Central America.

The SAVE Act does nothing to change any of that. In fact, the SAVE Act ups the ante in favor of the illegal aliens. To make the point crystal clear, when an illegal alien returns to the United States, aided by the Mexican government or MS-13, and is unfortunate or reckless enough to be apprehended for the umpteenth time, experience has taught the illegal aliens (and US citizens) that the Border Patrol/ICE will simply package them up and ship them home again at taxpayer expense, often in a luxurious bus or aircraft. Who pays for the deportation costs? Who pays for the carnage left behind from crimes committed and crimes yet undetected? Not the illegal alien, not the U.S. taxpayer-funded lawyers, and not the Mexican government.

How many lawyers will it take to represent 20 million illegal aliens? Who will be expected to pick up that tab?

If you have any doubts, read the legislation yourself, H.R. 4088, The SAVE Act of 2007 (Secure America with Verification and Enforcement). While it 'sounds good on paper,' the SAVE Act requires ONLY the development of a national strategy to secure the borders and all ports of entry to the United States by December 31, 2010. Specifically, the hypothetical strategy must: assess unspecified future terrorist threats years in advance without creditable intelligence; make risk assessment at ports of entry; address staffing needs; describe border security roles between federal, state, and local government; assess existing efforts and border technologies; ensure free flow of lawful travel; assess the need for additional detention facilities and beds; outline performance metrics to ensure accountability, and schedule implementation of the strategy’s objectives. That’s the SAVE Act in a nutshell.

In the meantime, sanctuary cities such of New York City, Phoenix and Houston continue to be a safe haven, a secure base from which illegal aliens can commit all forms of mindless violent and property crimes with seeming impunity. United States citizens and businesses continue to face withering accusations of racism as illegal aliens defiantly demand from city government’s to be insulated as a protected class of miscreants from all community responsibilities or criminal accountability.

At the state level, governors and courts are actively protecting illegal aliens by stalemating citizen initiatives or legislation that would curtail illegal alien social benefits or limit cross-border migration. At the municipal level, mayors and chiefs of police are actively providing physical, economic and criminal sanctuary to illegal aliens at the brutal expense of lawful United States citizens and business owners.

Unfortunately for U.S. citizens, Hispanic and Muslim activists and their checkbooks have undue policy influence because politicians are amazingly competent in selling their votes - if nothing else in life! Wise men have always understood that everything has a price. It would appear that politicians have been having an integrity fire sale and patriotism melt-down for decades. Bottom line: with very few exceptions, your elected congressmen are selling out your country.

In recent years, Congress has knowingly gone so far afield as to vote to fund an assortment of anti-American special interest groups. One example will suffice, i.e., the funding of La Raza by Congress with over a million dollars of taxpayer money. LaRaza, an admittedly racist Hispanic-supremacy organization, reportedly is subsidized not only by the Mexican government and the U.S. Congress, but by criminal enterprises with funding that flows through legally constituted special interest groups.

Enforce the laws? Sure, whatever you say. And Americans should believe the SAVE Act will be an exception. Forget the SAVE Act. Enforce existing immigration laws. Legislation that purports to do anything else is a sham.

After all is said and done, state and federal immigration policy for twenty years has been and continues to be, regardless of protestations to the contrary, "catch and release" – not enforcement. Enforcement implies accountability for crimes, and clearly there is NO accountability of any consequence.

Just how ridiculous is the SAVE Act? The SAVE Act clearly proposes to add additional layers of border bureaucracy, but what will it ultimately accomplish? Maybe a metaphor will help. With 8,000 new border agents and more taxpayer money for technology, the SAVE Act “pretends” to be putting more fishermen on the pond and more high-tech fish sensors on the boat. The premise is that more fishermen and better technology will catch more fish. But the problem is that we don’t want any more fish. This business of illegal alien migration isn’t a sport and it isn’t funny. In fact, we don’t want ANY illegal fish in our pond. The illegal fish are destroying the natural habitat of the native fish. The solution is to remove the illegal fish from the pond, by incentive preferably but by force if necessary, in order to preserve the beautiful natural habitat – and not to introduce more illegal fish and then hire more anglers (agents) at taxpayer expense and issue more fishing licenses.

Congress has betrayed the trust of so many Americans so often for so long, how can there ever be trust in legislation like the SAVE Act? How many instances of political infidelity for how many years by how many congressmen must Americans suffer before citizens throw the bums out of the ‘house’ into the street? These elite bullies have garnered their power and influence, passed laws to protect their position, surrounded themselves with law enforcement agencies for their own protection, voted themselves a king’s ransom of a retirement system and benefits, and now they’re laughing in our face! They’re literally challenging you and me! What are we going to do about it? It's not Left v. Right anymore, it's the State v. you.

In the vernacular, a schmuck is a stupid person, a jerk, a fool, or a gullible dolt - at the very least. We are perceived as schmucks by our elected representatives in Congress, and worse by an assortment of Mexicans, Europeans and Muslims, all of whom are gaming the “democratic system” and our naivety to further their own self-interests. The abuse of United States citizens has got to stop, both by Congress and by illegal aliens.

And so the cycle repeats, and the SAVE Act stands as credible evidence that politicians intend that the cycle of abuse will repeat endlessly. Sadistically, it also appears to be the wizard’s (President Bush’s) intent. Careful reading of the SAVE Act provides more than an ample justification to speculate that the real intention of the SAVE Act is to make it impossible to remove illegal aliens from the United States. If there was any intention – ever - to enforce immigration laws and deport illegal aliens, then just enforce the current laws and eliminate access to the taxpayer-funded social benefits. No SAVE Act would be needed.

So let’s agree up front that there is still no intention to enforce immigration laws regardless of new legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the president. Its simply another fraud, not unlike a shell game or 3-card Monte. When you encounter such games on the street, you would probably be unaware that most of the persons standing around a game are in league with the operator. The cosponsors of the SAVE Act are also in league, make no mistake.

Possibly the one aspect of the SAVE Act that should worry citizens the most is that the DHS seeks by this legislation to broadly expand their authority, power and reach. The SAVE Act authorizes the federal government to permanently seize substantial sovereign power from the States just when power should be flowing in the other direction.

United States citizens find themselves in quite a bind because Congress’ votes have been bought and paid for by foreign and domestic special interests. Regular old fashioned law abiding patriotic play-by-the-rules United States citizens, having elected their representatives in good faith, now realize they’re going to have to compete with special interests and well-funded activists and try to buy representation from their own representatives.

Has anybody stopped to consider that none of the top-tier candidates for President of the United States in 2008, in either party, has gone on record regarding what they would do with the 20-40 million illegal aliens currently in the United States, or whether they would build the double-layer border fence, or whether they would continue to extend unearned taxpayer-funded medical care, education and social benefits to non-citizens and their children? Duncan Hunter was on public record claiming he will build the fence, however candidate Huckabee has changed direction so many times even he must feel dizzy. No current candidate has said he will enforce existing immigration laws. Not one Republican or Democrat candidate has said they will actively prosecute those responsible for identity theft or fraudulent use of Social Security numbers.

With the SAVE Act, policing social security fraud permanently becomes the function of the Homeland Security Department. The criminal misuse of Social Security numbers by illegal aliens, and employers who accept, utilize and report fraudulent Social Security earnings is already a secret held more closely than nuclear technology. Identity theft remains a serious, pervasive and unresolved problem. What person is typically victimized by identity theft? Who in many cases is financially devastated? Not the illegal alien. When was the last time you heard of the prosecution of anyone for fraudulent use of a Social Security number to illegally obtain employment?

It’s time for some serious sole-searching. Are you finally willing to acknowledge, based on past performance, that the status quo suits Congress just fine, otherwise Congress would have stopped the social security fraud? Are you finally willing to acknowledge, based on past performance, that the status quo in illegal alien migration also suits Congress just fine, otherwise Congress and/or the Bush Administration would stopped it long ago? Does anybody seriously think Congress or the Bush Administration have had an epiphany and the SAVE Act somehow represents a “compassionate” change of conservative heart?

Here is another sobering thought: Has anybody stopped to ponder that the only people in the entire world who do NOT benefit from paying United States income taxes are the people who pay them? If all men were created equal, why are so many people, both in foreign countries and in the United States, still on some form of U.S. welfare and more illegal aliens are applying for benefits daily?

Moving on, what about the touted E-verify system of work eligibility? Consider for a moment that businesses are incorporated in a particular state and function according to the state laws in which they conduct business. While we would hope that employers would not hire illegal aliens, any decisions to limit employment eligibility reside in the sole jurisdiction of the individual state. If the state legislature and governor want to mandate use of a federal E-verification system as a prerequisite to hiring in Arizona, so be it, but nobody in Washington, D.C. has the constitutional jurisdiction or authority to mandate the E-verify program contained in the SAVE Act. E-verify may become a welcome adjunct to business law at the state level, but not immigration law at the federal level. Who is offered or denied employment in the State of Arizona is no business of any administrative agency, politician or civil service employee in Washington, D.C.

Do you really want a United States government administrative agency to begin deciding who gets a job and who doesn’t? Be very, very careful what you wish for because the day will soon come when United States citizens who fail to curry liberal favor begin to find their name on the “no-job” list – without recourse – or on the “no-fly” list or “no-gun” list, both of which already exist.

As for lists, you’ve probably heard about the government’s terrorism watch list … the list they won’t tell you who’s on, who’s not, how they got there or how to get off. The government’s terrorism watch list grew by 200,000 people in 2006 to more than 750,000 names. There are terrorists in this country, without a doubt because of open borders and lax enforcement, but does anyone really believe there are three-quarters of a million terrorists in this country?

If that were not enough, Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey is relentlessly pushing legislation that would terminate a citizen’s 2nd Amendment gun rights if their name just magically happened to turn up on that terrorism list. If you think it couldn’t happen, the history course(s) were lacking or non-existent in the public school indoctrination curriculum you experienced. Disarming citizens has always been the first priority of every eventual tyrant or ruling class throughout recorded human history.

We learned from the Washington Post in the week before Christmas, 2007 that the Department of Homeland Security (FBI) is embarking on a $1 billion effort to build the world's largest computer database of peoples' characteristics, a project that would give the government unprecedented abilities to identify individuals in the United States and abroad.

One more time for emphasis - please be very, very careful what you wish for. The Department of Homeland Security has no right under the Constitution or law to access Social Security records. There is no justification for such a massive invasion and probable future misuse of personal information. Arguably, we have in the making an American version of the infamous Soviet KGB, an intelligence organization that will keep a detailed computer database dossier on every aspect of the life of every United States citizen – from medical records to parking tickets. If you want to live in a political system that resembles the defunct Soviet Union, why not just move to Russia – but be sure to take your passport and a copy of George Orwell’s novel, ‘1984’.

Back to the point - because the unshakeable intent of Congress is now, and always has been, to grant amnesty to tens of millions of illegal aliens in exchange for campaign contributions, and the “Hispanic vote” to shore up the dwindling demographics of the liberal establishment, it is unlikely that Congress will make any effort to save United States citizens from the SAVE Act. As if more proof were needed, without any explanation, Congress has already stripped away the $3 billion in funds intended to build the double-layer border fence that was approved last year. Without telling the public, Congress pulled the plug on the U.S.-Mexico Border Fence that it voted to build with such enthusiasm and grandstanding (just before they asked voters to re-elect them). So what is the point of the SAVE Act except to try to scam the American public for the twentieth time into accepting the existence of an ever increasing number of illegal aliens in the United States? Many of these very same congressmen that defunded the border fence are touting the SAVE Act?

There is still one more small nagging detail. What about justice for past or present criminal acts committed by illegal aliens, criminal acts that accumulate year after year without justice? What about all the past deportations that were simply ignored or never enforced? What happened when the alien returned defiantly and reentered the United States? Where is the accountability for repeatedly crossing the border illegally, not to mention the crimes recklessly committed while in the United States?

Is there anybody (that is both awake and conscious) that does not believe that United States citizens deserve justice for what they have had to suffer - for the fraud, the violent crimes, deaths at the hands of illegal aliens that continue at the rate of 5,000 citizens per year, human trafficking, drug importation and property crimes – all facilitated for 20 years by elected representatives, such as Senator John McCain who is chief among men who seek to rule rather than govern, i.e., to become Caesar. If John McCain is unresponsive to 80-90 percent of his own state’s registered voters who want illegal alien migration into Arizona stopped, and has done nothing but pander to special interests for 20 years, is John McCain participating in governing as a representative of Arizona, or attempting to rule?

Maybe justice should begin with our elected representatives. Maybe Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano should be named as an unindicted co-conspirator on every homicide committed by an illegal alien in the State of Arizona.

Maybe Senator John McCain can explain why his refusal to enforce existing immigration laws is not a form of gross malfeasance in public office, and why facilitating illegal alien migration is not a cruel form of torture on every United States citizen?

Have you ever asked yourself, “How many United States crime victims at the hands of illegal aliens will finally be too many, even for a heartless politician?” Will 1,000,000 be too many? That sad milestone was passed a long time ago. Maybe Arizona Senator Jon Kyl has the answer? What are his “reasonable carnage” limits – otherwise known as acceptable collateral damage? If one rape in Iraq is too many, how many thousands of rapes of our cherished wives and daughters should be acceptable?

It should not be lost on voters that Senator Jon Kyl has just been promoted to the #2 position of Senate Republican leadership responsibility (Asst. Minority Whip) by his peers. This is the man who voted for construction of the border wall before he voted against funding it. Clearly, Republicans who voted for Senator Kyl to become Asst. Minority Whip proudly share his vacant value system – a belief system that says there are no limits on collateral damage suffered by citizens at the hands of illegal aliens in the United States. These are the very same men and women who are now among the 133 sponsors of the SAVE Act.

It may be a novel concept to liberals, including Democrats and liberal Republicans, but when someone says “enforce the laws,” THAT INCLUDES ACCOUNTABILITY, not just picking up illegal aliens off the street, filling out the paperwork and putting the alien on a bus back to Mexico. Enforcement includes accountability - or it is not enforcement. What part of ILLEGAL don’t American liberals and illegal aliens understand? Are we to assume that liberals in general and illegal aliens in particular will pick and choose which laws, if any, are applicable to them? So much for the SAVE Act.

United States citizens (except female teachers who rape young male students) are usually held accountable for crimes committed under state and federal laws. They do hard time. They are taken off the streets for extended periods of time both to protect society and to create a deterrent. They don’t get celebrity status and a “get-out-of-jail-free card” simply because they’re illegally in the United States. They’re not deported to their homes in a neighboring state or foreign country. They can't flee across an imaginary border to escape prosecution. Why should illegal aliens and potential terrorists be too good for the Rule of Law? Why not ask your congressman for an explanation why the potential Mexican votes are more important than those of United States citizens?

You already know the cynical answer. Hispanic activists, corporate interests, attorneys, and those who profit from the criminal enterprise of illegal alien migration, are buying congressional votes. You’re not. Pushing the SAVE Act through Congress is akin to putting more Congressmen in Washington, D.C. as if more congressmen will somehow lessen the political corruption.

There is only one thing that will ever stop illegal alien migration into the United States. Do you want the migration of illegal aliens to stop, or don't you?

Illegal aliens just like every other human being, including and exemplified by United States politicians, act with few exceptions in their own self-interest. Illegal aliens cross the border for only one reason – self interest. Illegal aliens must be made to fervently believe that they do not want to endure what they are going to find in the United States if they are found to have committed a crime as an illegal alien.

Besides, what illegal alien would want to come to the United States if there were no jobs readily available or social benefits waiting for them? Think about it; only a terrorist or a serial criminal would enter the United States illegally in the face of probable hardship.

The only solution to illegal alien migration, assuming that United States citizens have both the desire and the stomach to make it stop, is to create a credible disincentive to “illegal” migration - to make it socially and economically painful to be an illegal alien in the United States – of any ethnic origin or religious affiliation. If we as a nation (our congressmen) are not willing to strip away the taxpayer funded benefits lavished on illegal aliens, and protect United States jobs, American culture and the environment, why not just start printing and distributing engraved invitations?

Maybe we are all missing the point. Maybe Governor Napolitano’s DHS-sanctioned illegal alien radio-chip driver’s licenses are intended as an engraved invitation.

For those who are advocates of “hate crime” legislation, why not talk about the epitome of hate crimes? How about an illegal alien victimizing a United States citizen? If that crime scenario is not a hate crime, both against the United States and the citizen, nothing is. Men and women serving in uniform will tell you that desecrating the United States flag by flying it upside down subservient to the Mexican flag is among the worst of hate crimes.

For those who are environmental advocates, why not talk about the relentless destruction of the natural environment in the Southwest United States by illegal aliens, and their reckless consumption of valuable natural resources? Why should United States citizens, for example, have to subsidize the price of gasoline, and then be denied the supply of 50 million gallons of automobile gasoline required every day to transport illegal aliens to and from social services, education, medical care and illegal jobs?

The unfortunate reality is that sanctuary cities are still open for business, welcoming illegal aliens with chain migration, anchor baby citizenship, medical care, day labor centers and taxpayer-funded education. Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon and Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris are among the nation’s most notorious illegal alien enablers. Advocates of the SAVE Act don't care. What Rule of Law?

What about the border fence? Listen carefully. If you want a nation tomorrow, build the border fence today, and the converse applies. If you don’t care, so be it. The wall is the most effective and least expensive of all options – no exceptions – no debate. Doing nothing is likely to be the most expensive option in the long term, both in carnage and squandered tax dollars.

Do not allow yourself to be confused. Do you want a United States of America to exist or not? We are standing on the edge of a proverbial cliff and the advocates of illegal alien migration (and a North American Union) want us to jump off - voluntarily. They think we are that stupid. They think our patriotism, flag-flying, churchgoing, marriage, having children, owning a gun and driving an SUV is stupid. They think the goodness of America and its founding principles are stupid, particularly the part about private property and individual liberty. They think they're superior to 'We the People' and rest assured they intend to decide the future of our nation, or our city, or our homeowners association, because their brilliance is to be presumed, never challenged and without question. We love America and put our hand over our heart when the National Anthem is played (some congressmen don't). We proudly recite the Pledge of Allegiance (some candidates for president don't).

The issues of national sovereignty, free trade and the Rule of Law are not complicated. However, with each passing day that there is not a double-layer border fence, we lose a little more of the dwindling opportunity to regain control of our national sovereignty. Each day without decisive action to close the borders makes it more difficult to restore what was once the most successful culture in the history of mankind. The movement toward a collectivist hemispheric or world government already has considerable momentum. The important point to remember is that national borders are at the heart of the issue!

Opponents say that a double-layer border fence would be ineffective as a barrier to illegal aliens since the incentives to cross the border are simply too strong. The claim is that illegal aliens would only find another way – over, under or around. Why is it not logical to extrapolate using a little common sense? How can any number of border agents (standing shoulder to shoulder if necessary, 24/7, resembling a wall), including those authorized in the SAVE Act, ever hope to compete with the same social incentives that illegal alien activists say would defeat a rigid double-layer border fence?

Expensive technology (if it is not routinely vandalized) would be useful in telling us where and when illegal aliens are crossing the border, but technology is not going to stop the intruders, or apprehend them, or hold them accountable for their criminal activity, or most importantly, provide any disincentives to crossing the border.

Just as it is not in your best interests to unlawfully try to enter my house, illegal aliens from Mexico, or traversing Mexico, must be made to feel just as passionately as their American neighbors to the North that it is NOT in their best interests to illegally cross the United States/Mexico border. Nothing in the SAVE Act will lessen the current incentives to cross illegally, so what is the point of the SAVE Act? Everything in the SAVE Act intentionally avoids dealing with the incentives that attract illegal aliens into the United States. Nothing in the SAVE Act is designed to stem the illegal alien migration tsunami.

The actual point of the SAVE Act legislation may be insidious, i.e., to give every illegal alien some form of “a legal status” and identification that will entitle apprehended illegal aliens access to the United States judicial system, and appeals to higher courts, before their eventual deportation. As long as illegal aliens have some form of Congressionally mandated legal status, they are not illegal aliens under immigration law, just undocumented workers – people like you and me that have rights in United States courts and now have the legal sanction to remain on the streets of the United States until their immigration case is resolved, regardless of how long millions of such cases will take. If there are no illegal aliens, only undocumented workers, problem solved.

Do you recognize a pattern at work across the entire nation? Elected politicians at every level of government are simply ignoring existing laws. As long as the smorgasbord of social incentives for illegal aliens remains on the table, border agents might as well be standing in front of a runaway bus. Regardless of the numbers of new agents the SAVE Act would authorize, border agents have about the same chance of stopping a runaway bus as they do stopping illegal alien migration and drug trafficking without someone getting hurt or killed. If the border agent is lucky enough to survive an armed encounter with illegal aliens, it is probable the border agent will be prosecuted for violating the imaginary rights of the illegal alien and then inhumanely incarcerated.

The North Vietnamese imprisoned John McCain for attacking their country. We’ve imprisoned several of our own Border Patrol agents for defending our country. John McCain was tortured by his captors. Our Border Patrol agents have been brutally beaten in prison. Doesn’t it make you just swell up with pride?

United States citizens who care about the future of their nation are in a literal tug-of-war with their elected representatives, i.e., people who by their actions show they care nothing about anything but self-interest. Recognize that the U.S. Senate is absolutely defiant in their refusal to enforce all existing laws, not just immigration laws. Almost to the man and woman, Congress collectively remains determined to disregard the best interests of the United States and refuses to protect the nation’s borders from all enemies foreign and domestic.

The SAVE Act appears to be just another move in the open borders chess game, another shuffle of the cards, another variation of the shell-game we’ve become accustomed to – the con-job known as “comprehensive immigration reform.”

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

REMEMBERING SEPTEMBER 11th, 2007

Consider two alternative scenarios for the first fourteen days following September 11th:

1. What if the FBI or the President had announced that they were going to immediately begin screening all aviation travelers (get over it or don’t travel), screen libraries for people checking out books on bomb-making (for the safety of families and children in schools), develop an intelligence dossier on every Muslim in America, and follow every possible terrorist lead regardless of any possible offense to any artificial subset of society? What if the President announced that pilots would hereafter be armed for the defense of the aircraft and protection of their passengers (no choice), and all cockpit doors would be fortified (get over it or don’t fly)? What if the President had announced that soft targets throughout the country vulnerable to terrorism, such as water systems, harbors, airports and nuclear plants, would be dramatically hardened with additional security? What if the President had announced that valid passports would be required to enter the United States of America at any Port of Entry? What if the President promulgated an Executive Order that anyone entering the USA illegally after September 11, 2001 would be considered a terrorist until such suspicions could be proven unfounded? What if the President announced that all Islamic males who were in America legally, and who were not U.S. citizens, must register within 30 days? Those that did not register would be considered terrorists. What if the FBI rounded up all non-citizen Islamic males illegally in the United States and deported them without recourse due to a proclaimed national emergency?

2. Alternatively, what if the President or the FBI announced that there was no serious threat of terrorism and no policies would change?

Which alternative would have been rational or irrational in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001? Which choice would have angered you?

Now consider the Hurricane Katrina, Rita and Wilma alternatives:

1. What if FEMA or the President announced that they were going to staff, operate, supply, coordinate, fund, rescue, rebuild and transport everyone and everything associated with the relief effort, beginning at the instant devastation was certain, as rapidly as they could respond, even if it meant bypassing federal law, state law and elected local governments, and all relief organizations?

2. Alternatively, what if FEMA or the President announced authoritatively that disaster recovery and the welfare of the citizens of every state was, by law, the primary responsibility of individual states, and only secondarily would the federal government assist? What if the President announced that he would respect the inherent sovereignty of state governments first, and would only respond upon written request of State Governors, working in cooperation with civilian relief agencies, after a comprehensive damage assessment had been completed, relief needs were known, and a state-level relief infrastructure was implemented?

Which of those choices would have angered you in the weeks following the hurricanes?

Now ask yourself, why is national defense (our lives, our families, our children, our jobs, our culture and our value systems) somehow less important to Democrats and liberal Republicans, and the Main Stream Media than hurricane-related property damage on the Gulf Coast of Mexico?

Why is the defense of our nation from another terrorist event, protection of our economy, preservation of our manufacturing and technological advantage, safeguarding other forms of industry and particularly jobs, and protecting our sovereignty at the border somehow evil in the eyes of liberals – all of whom hide behind various labels of Party affiliation? You know who they are.

Why is anything pro-American viewed by Democrats and liberal Republicans as unfair, conceived in lies? Why are Congressmen and the media so willing to divulge classified information and give aid and comfort to enemies of the United States? Why do many politicians think that people of other nations are unworthy of freedom and United States citizens are unworthy of liberty?

Why are the deaths of American servicemen and women greeted with media celebration of milestones? How could liberals in Congress willingly vote to send our young men and women into war and then work tirelessly to insure their defeat, accusing the young soldiers of war crimes at every opportunity?

Why are strategic American military bases foolishly being closed across the country in the guise of cost-cutting? Liberals in Congress view their base-closure actions as a form of political sport, however future generations of Americans will come to realize that it was a cruel hoax, based on liberal anti-military sentiment, that caused whole geographic areas of the United States to become unprotected and vunerable to terrorism.

Why are advanced weapon systems and desperately needed troop equipment somehow unworthy of funding by Congress, but NO amount of money and speed of response would have been sufficient in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina?

Why are modern nuclear energy facilities, oil exploration and new oil refineries STILL blocked by Congress when new capacity would reduce United States dependency on foreign oil from such places as Mexico, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia?

How many contradictions can be numbly ignored? Is it probable to surmise, even probable to conclude, that United States Congressmen are on the ‘take’ and so pervasively corrupt and consumed with self-interest that they are willing to sell out their own nation for campaign contributions that originate from foreign sources - from Mexico, China and Saudi Arabia - buying their votes to act against the national interests of the United States?

Why are the lives of “Joe 6-pack” and his family, and the lives of our servicemen and women worth so little? Why do Democrats and liberal Republicans see no need for a strong national defense, energy self-sufficiency, effective and inviolable border control that complies with existing laws, and competent foreign intelligence?

Why have the lives of 50,000 United States citizens been literally sacrificed to illegal aliens, with no end in sight? How many American families who have lost a son or daughter, husband or wife in the War on Terror would proudly proclaim that their family's sacrifice was for "open borders," which is the number one oxymoron of the 21st Century?

Almost seven years later and counting; why does ‘Who is an American?’ mean nothing to those who with authority to protect our borders, and particularly Congress and the Bush Administration? It would appear self-interst is stronger than a politician's sense of duty.

Is anybody listening?

Prominent politicians and media elites have refused to listen to a huge majority of United States citizens, choosing instead to rule rather than govern. Liberal state governors, legislatures and politicians in Congress steadfastly refuse to embrace their own responsibilities of United States citizenship, which should include a defense against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

For decades, these same liberal luminaries have been intent on demonstrating that allegiance to the United States is not important and a world government would be preferrable. However, they fail to understand that it is the American "heart" which has made the United States great. The American heart is that individual nucleus of loyalty to a faith of personal choosing, country and family. It is the American heart that forms the core of our nation's excellence, initiative, integrity, moral character, voluntary charity, duty and responsibility of citizenship.

Why, then, is it not reasonable to compare politicians with a large, ugly and odiferous snail, going nowhere slowly, doing nothing constructive, serving no useful purpose, feeding off the fruits of fellow citizens, pathologically seeking power, and leaving behind an unmistakable trail of corruption and slime so plainly visible that every legal United States voter should be able to trace them in November, 2008.

Only one question remains. How many registered voters really have an aberrant fetish for slime? Voters face some difficult decisions in 2008. The choices seem limited to two choices, a liberal Republican or an extreme socialist Democrat? Neither choice will return conservative "citizen legislators" or sanity to Congress anytime soon. Neither choice will seal the nation's borders, develop domestic energy resources, return excellence to education, protect citizens from crime and terrorism, resurrect manufacturing in the United States and create jobs, and put an end to the incessant taxation and growth of government.

Being an equal opportunity offender, it appears to be a ‘given’ that either Senator Hillary R. Clinton (the Queen of corruption) or Barrack Hussein Obama (the closet Muslim) may become the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in 2008. This comes on the heels of such patriots as presidential candidate Senator John Kerry in 2004 and ex-Vice President Al Gore in 2000. Given the narrow outcome of recent elections, it would appear that too many United States voters have demonstrated their penchant for collectivism, or too many ineligible people are voting.

Not to be outdone on the Republican side, Mayor Rudy Guiliani, a closet advocate of amnesty for illegal aliens, has said he will secure our nation's borders but at the same time renounced enforcement of immigrations laws as they apply to illegal aliens currently in the United States. Governor Mitt Romney has a bicoastal reputation for changing his position on important issues on each tidal change and lunar cycle. While either Rudy Guiliani or Mitt Romney would be excellent administrators in the Office of the President, and Hillary Clinton would be an excellent Czar with all that implies, and John Mccain would be a formidable Caesar, and Senator Obama would be an outstanding advocate of all things racial and Muslim, at this point in history the United States needs a conservative leader. Where are the viable alternatives of Newt Gingrich, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo when we sorely need them? And what about Fred Thompson who spent a year "gaming" the system saying he couldn't make up his mind? If it takes that long for Fred to make a decision, to light his own fuse, we are left wondering if Fred is a conservative firecracker, as he wants to portray himself, or a "dud."

Why does, ‘Who is an American?’ still mean nothing to the 'front runners' in both political parties? Why do liberals in general, and politicians and academicians in particular, all of whom feed at the public trough (in elected office, or whose life is taxpayer funded), think of themselves as elite emmisaries of a world- or hemispheric-government without personal allegiance to the United States of America? As Ann Coulter observed, if liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. Neither are good choices for the White House.

As the real United States citizens begin to focus on the merits of the candidates for the presidency of the United States in 2008, maybe we should avoid those candidates with an emphasis of, “Who am I?” (front runners) and focus instead on the words and actions of the second tier of candidates, those who emphasize, “Who are we?”

We are Americans.

We are Americans and we will never forget.

We are not Mexicans. Nor are we members of the Cult of Islam dedicated to the annihilation of Christians and Jews. Nor do we advocate for one race at the expense of all other Americans.

We are Americans, not the North American Union.

No fence, no campaign contributions, no votes. Yes, that's my final answer.

Too subtle?

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

The following is a verbatim sampling of the survey questions, (with emphasis added). Read each question and contemplate the grammatical construction and precise wording of the sentence. Reflect on what was being asked. Think of the myriad aspects of each issue that were carefully not asked. Nowhere in the survey document was it explained how the information from the survey responses would be used - or if it would be used at all. Unfortunately, space does not permit reproducing all 55 questions.

Questions:
6. How concerned are you that we potentially face more terrorism within the United States and that it will directly impact your family? (There have been hundreds of terrorist incidents in the United States since 2001, all of Islamic origins, few of which have been reported by the media. What American is not concerned? Only an enemy of the United States would not be concerned. Who in the state or federal government should be on that list?)

9. Do you think our government is doing enough to secure America's borders against foreign terrorists? (Doing "enough." The RNC is kidding, right? Is the risk to the United States at the borders only from foreign terrorists? What about national sovereignty, drugs, human trafficking, disease, violent crime, etc.? The question might have been more relevant if the word "anything" been substituted for the word "enough.")

10. Do you believe that all foreigners within the United States whose visas have expired should be tracked down and deported? (And the alternate choice is what?)

16. Is President Bush right in standing up to the Democrats as they try to expand the size, scope and costs of the federal government? (Are there any indications that President Bush is "standing up," or has ever "stood up?")

20. Do you favor a major overhaul of the current Federal Tax Code that would replace today's burdensome tax collection system with one that is simpler and fairer? (Does simpler mean you can do it yourself? Will the IRS be abolished? Will more than only the top 50% of wage earners pay a fair share of taxes? Will liberal Republicans and Democrats use this as an opportunity to do what they have been promising, increase taxes under the guise of tax simplification?)

23. Do you believe that it is imperative to modernize and restore fiscal soundness to Social Security? (Assuming the political reality of a Social Security system, why do liberals believe a bankrupt system would be the preferred choice? United States citizens don't. Why do congressmen prefer that Americans should have to make do with less latter in life as a result of higher taxes, lower Social Security benefits and a devalued dollar? The inescapable reality will only exacerbate as Congress fiddles.)

29. How much of a role should the federal government have in an individual's health care? (Government already decides who lives and who dies. How much more control do liberals need?)

40. Are you in favor of establishing a guest worker program that will allow people to enter the United States temporarily to fill jobs that Americans do not take? (Are you in favor of outsourcing all of America, everything from street maintenance to airports to teachers? Whether we send the jobs overseas or bring in illegal aliens as labor, it amounts to outsourcing American jobs. Why not outsource our nation's government in hopes we can find someone who will get their job done? Arguably outsourcing would decrease corruption.)

41. Do you support increased funding for border control operations? (Why should we increase funding of border control operations, particularly when we could save money (billions of dollars) and save lives (thousands each year) by building the border fence? The border fence would cost a fraction of the annual budget of the Border Patrol. It was noteworthy that no survey question was asked about the advisability of decreasing taxpayer-funded social services extended to illegal aliens. The RNC agenda on immigration is painfully clear.)

45. Does the national news media accurately report the news without liberal bias? (While reporting accurately is only one of a host of serious issues associated with liberal media bias, who cares? Accurate information is available from alternate sources. The main-stream-media, flying in ever decreasing concentric circles, has reduced itself to being their own audience and their only audience.)

51. How do you rate President Bush's job performance? (The five survey choices ranged from excellent to poor, which arbitrarily prevented selecting a choice outside the range of positive numbers. I had in mind "i," the square root of -1, an imaginary number to represent an imaginary performance.)

55. What do you consider the most important steps the Republican Party can take in the coming months to help advance President Bush's agenda and win back a majority in Congress? (Why is the focus solely on the welfare of the Republican Party, and not on the economic and cultural vitality of the United States of America and the welfare of hard-working citizens? Even if the RNC were to change their words and the color of their stripes, pretending to be conservative just as Democrats pretend a faith, they would not be changing their compost pile of people. They remain liberals. President Bush's liberal agenda has been widely repudiated by those who vote. It is incredibly unlikely that conservative voters will knowingly advance President Bush's agenda. And yet, that is the singular premise of the RNC survey and solicitation. The Republican Party, far more liberal than conservative, is clearly in disarray having been overrun by liberal ideologues. Without conservative candidates and conservative principles, the Republican Party will fail again in 2008.)

The rest of the survey questions were equally inane.

Also relevant is that the survey was at least the sixth such survey (and possibly more than the tenth - I've lost count), all of which were the same survey sent out by the RNC in the last couple years - with exactly the same questions. How relevant can the questions be if they never change? What have liberal Republicans accomplished in all these years if the questions never change? When we stop long enough to comtemplate the real purpose of a survey, the RNC surveys begin to have a purpose. Rather than seek the opinions of survey recipients, a survey is better used - intended - to measure whether or not the propaganda is working, and to solicit donations. So much for our opinions, which should not come as a surprise.

As an aside, who do you think was going to score and correlate the hundred of thousands of responses to each of 55 questions? Processing donations in the form of personal checks or credit cards will consume most of the time of staff and volunteers. The money will make it into the RNC financial accounts, and the donor's name and address will be added to a database of easy marks for future solicitations. Apparently we can receive the results of the survey if requested, but why would you want to - ten times? My name and personal information is also in the database. However, I have a difficult time envisioning any candidate articulating their campaign position in a public policy address by actually saying, "According to the 'Ask America, 2007 Nationwide Policy Survey', Question number 50, a huge majority of the respondents believe there should be a consititutional amendment banning gay marriage, therefore if elected I will oppose gay marriage."

Reading the entire "survey" evoked a response comparable to experiencing cruel and unusual punishment. The survey was probably more unpleasant to a conservative than anything the detainees at Abu Ghraib were ever subjected to. Since I read the survey voluntarily, Senator John McCain would probably say my discomfort was self-inflicted and while painful, it was not inhumane or torture. Well, I beg to differ. The survey, as constructed, and repeatedly inflicted every month or two on an unwilling participant, was surely designed to be an instrument of slow political torture. When I had finished the survey, I was left with a mental image of being escorted by two burly political operatives into a voting booth, restrained at the hands and feet, wearing bright orange garb and provided an "opportunity" to vote on issues already decided years ago by political hacks behind closed doors - a vote limited to two choices, neither of which were in the nation's best interests.

Conservative philosophy suggests that what is in the best interests of the individual citizen and individual liberty is also, by definition, in the best interests of the United States of America. Ever-increasing socialism is not in the best interests of individual American citizens, unless one's goal is shared misery and the voter has a self-destructive desire to serve those who seek to rule rather than govern. Maybe there is some truth to the suggestion that Washington, D.C. in general, and the United States Congress in particular, have become the insane asylum of the universe.

What then is the bottom line? Conservatives will vote for their principles, but not for any candidate or politicial party that abandons their conservative principles.

It appears that the Republican National Committee (RNC) does not understand conservative philosophy or share conservative principles. The survey questions would seem to indicate that the RNC does not know, which every conservative knows either intuitively or by faith, the difference between "right and wrong."

Can you name and discuss with some reasonable semblence of insight one domestic or foreign policy decision of the current administration that disproves the assertion that, "If you don't know where you are going, any direction you take will get you there?" The RNC, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity want Republican and Independent voters to elect or re-elect the same or like-minded people as those currently in office. It will be a cold day. Our only alternative may well be an ugly choice, Comrade Clinton. Either way, historians will clinically document 2008 as the year of national suicide. In the aftermath, everybody will point fingers at their friends and neighbors attempting to shift responsibility.

Democraks are correct about at least one thing - a conservative GOP was once-upon-a-time the party of wealthy, successful, and ambitious Americans. Conservative Republicans thrived instead of survived, educated instead of failed, won instead of lost, cherished family instead of a village, achieved instead of blamed, lead and innovated instead of complained and sued, and worshiped freely. Today, liberal Republicans differ little from Democrats. They share a desire to emulate Soviet- and Cuban-style socialism and accummulate power and wealth at the expense of taxpayers, while being inappropriately subsidized by the votes of non-taxpayers, felons and illegal aliens.

Just as illegal aliens flooded across America’s borders in search of opportunity without cultural allegiance, liberals have flooded across the borders of the Republican Party for more than a decade seeking "easy money," i.e., political opportunity without any commitment to conservatism, and laying waste to the U.S. Constitution in the process. The Republican Party and America have both suffered the same tragic fate – an invasion by illegal aliens (liberals politicians and Mexican nationals) who care little about anything but themselves – in both cases led by none less than Senator John McCain. Faux conservatives in the Republican Party did nothing to control their Party borders or national borders and the rest is history.

Do you remember? In 2004, the nation truly belonged to Republicans. Their leadership would have lasted for decades into the future if the GOP had remained true to principles of conservatism, national security, faith, freedom, sanctity of life and the American family. Historians will say that the ascendancy of Republicans didn’t last long, which will be the sorry legacy of President George W. Bush and an exceptionally weak Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. There were numerous advance clues to George W. Bush, beginning in Texas, with his “compassionate conservatism,” a cleverly packaged virulent strain of socialism, and his open advocacy for all forms of social services for illegal aliens.

In hindsight, “compassionate” was a code word for “liberalism,” and Americans were asked to believe that the oxymoron of liberal conservatism was somehow feasible if only administered by George W. Bush. The political dynamics in 2004 were such that a majority of American citizens were genuinely desperate not to elect as President of the United States a national traitor. If only the Republican National Committee (RNC) understood (or cared) that conservatives, registered Republicans or Independents, did not vote for Governor George W. Bush, but voted against Vice President Al Gore in 2000, voted against Senator John F. Kerry in 2004, and voted against liberal Republicans in 2006. The choice facing the electorate in recent decades, in almost every political jurisdiction, has not been one of eagerly voting for the best of two candidates, but going to the polls and voting against the worst of the two candidates. Will history repeat itself in 2008?

The choice is simple and Americans need to choose. Will it be personal freedom, education instead of indoctrination, less government, less regulation and lower taxes, ownership of private property and financial success, the by-products of a philosophy of personal excellence, integrity, initiative and patriotism? Or, will it be the liberal alternative, a life in the shackles of state-dependency and citizen subservience, without anything but temporary jobs and a dismal national future? Your children's future under the auspices of liberal democratic socialism is well documented, i.e., a state of equalized poverty, shared misery, bussed to the next election machine and told how to vote.

We can choose to work on the plantation picking cotton for those politicians who compete to live in the "big house," or we can be well-educated, prosperous, free men and women. The only limits to our success and our freedom are those we impose on ourselves by failing in our first responsibility in life, i.e., to educate ourselves. If education was what it once was, what it should be, without government interference, Americans would know that the bleached bones of millions of unfortunate people, victims of every socialist-style government in the history of the world - no exceptions - litter the roadside of human evolution.

Having failed to educate ourselves and our youth early and so completely, there are few employment opportunities remaining in life except to pick another man's cotton. The RNC survey, "Ask America, 2007 Nationwide Policy Survey," sixth iteration, goes a long way to confirm that assessment.

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Assuming an 8% annual economic rate of growth, it will take China about 30 years, assuming 4% annual productivity growth, before it would exhaust this huge pool of unemployed. Can the United States compete with those labor costs for the next 30 years? Not in our wildest dreams! Where do you think the “jobs” will be - where will consumer goods and weaponry be manufactured over the next 30 years? Where will your waffle maker and toaster be manufactured? China and India, of course! If you doubt even for a minute, visit any retail merchandiser in the United States and check each appliance and article of clothing for their origin of manufacture.

Politicians tell you not to be concerned! The United States will still have many jobs. What they don't tell you, either out of ignorance or malice, is that those jobs will be temporary positions. The future holds far fewer jobs for Americans, regardless of individual educational achievement. Predictably, the only real jobs that can lead to measurable wealth will become the province of the elite, and they will be intensely coveted, particularly those with tenure such as "professor" or "congressman." Significant barriers to entry are being erected by the incumbents in those "jobs" as you read this article.

Those among us who are considered less qualified by the elite will predictably clamor for even more income and wealth redistribution. The government’s roster of Americans dependent on income redistribution will continue to grow exponentially. Government dependency has already become typical rather than the exception. More and larger definable groups have begun competing openly and ruthlessly for available taxpayer-subsidized handouts.

Congressmen, consumed absolutely with self-indulgence, self-aggrandizement and power over their fellow citizens, continue to demonstrate they do not have the vision, intellect, ethics, statesmanship, or the will to redirect a nation careening out of economic and social control. From their point of view, everything is as it should be. They rule, we serve. The reality is simple and painfully brutal: your education, your employability and your standard of living in coming years is solely your responsibility, unless you are willing to clean swimming pools or flip burgers while the government augments your meager existence. It would be incredibly wise, but uncharacteristic, for our nation's youth to wake up while the coffee is still warm enough to smell it.

In our modern “global economy,” Americans must quickly come to understand that have to compete with every other nation’s labor as a cost of doing business, from Mexico to China. If an American citizen hopes to earn 10 times as much as an Indian and 50 times as much as a Chinese, he is going to have to produce 10 times or 50 times as much as his competitors in India and China, of equal or better quality, or his job is going to move offshore. Only Rip Van Winkle is unaware that millions of jobs have already fled America to foreign shores as a result of excessive federal and state taxation, burdensome regulation by government administrative agencies (e.g., OSHA, EPA), runaway litigation, personnel benefits which include the cost of healthcare, and employee unions.

Is there one industry in the United States today that can leverage the needed productivity in the coming years? Not likely. Even the U.S. airline industry is on the verge of widespread bankruptcy. The automotive industry, led by Ford Motor Company is in close pursuit. Ford executives are arguably engaged in a form of intentional and self-inflicted corporate suicide, not unlike Jonestown.

What would be necessary to revitalize the American economy quickly enough that it will matter?

Congressmen, those who have the temerity to call themselves our elected representatives, but have forgotten that they are Americans first and foremost, would have to join the team. All employers, with the support of the nation’s citizenry, would have to create a “Team America” initiative not unlike the Kennedy space initiatives and NASA of the 1960’s. All Americans would have to commit to invest massive sums into new equipment (capital investment), vocational and technical training, and invigorate retro-style education solely grounded in mathematics, sciences and focused solely on student excellence. In the interim, free-loaders and race-baiters would have to forego hundreds of billions of dollars of taxation destined for pork projects and income redistribution for political purposes. Not likely ....

What is more likely is that Congress will employ their only other (three-phase) alternative available, (1) cutting your benefits, (2) dramatically increasing your taxes, and (3) undertaking intense social engineering. Their intent would be even more redistribution of power, influence, jobs, education, income, housing, transportation, private property and health care by accelerating socialism and redistributing what wealth still remains. All this will be necessary in order to support those citizens who long ago stopped working with the permission of Congress and state legislatures, and illegal aliens who are willing to work but contribute nothing.

Congress’ choice of the redistribution alternative, in lieu of the “Team America” approach, will cynically be calculated to ensure that politicians, at every level of government, protect and expand their own financial security in the lifestyle of a Hollywood movie star, rock or sports superstar. This they will accomplish by first legislating themselves a special elite status that no other American enjoys, including specialized medical care and exclusive retirement provisions. If that were not enough, Congress has already enacted their own unique ability to solicit, accumulate and keep massive amounts of personal wealth from campaign contributions upon their retirement. The provisions of Congressional retirement, were they to become widely known, would gag most Americans.

There is always a point of peak efficiency given existing technology. Just as there is elasticity in maximizing total revenue, so too is there elasticity in both taxation and income redistribution, which is why, when marginal tax rates are lowered, tax revenues increase. The same concept applies inversely to redistribution entitlements. At some point, excessive prices, taxes, and entitlements all become destructive to maximizing national ‘total GNP’ and economic growth.

Until decision makers are reigned in, and Congressmen once again become citizen legislators who are limited in tenure and not permitted to profit from elected office, decisions from Congress (and courts) will continue to focus on protecting their own self-interests, as a ruling elite class, at the sacrifice of all other Americans. If the economic engine in America is running low on fuel, clearly Congress isn't focused on filling the fuel tank, i.e., making any more fuel (real jobs) or creating better fuel (job training and new technologies). They demonstrate on a daily basis that the only fuel tank that matters is their own.

Red State Patriot would suggest that all Americans get out of debt as soon as possible and be very grateful if you still have a “job.” Be even more grateful if you still have a job two years from now. Hopefully the graphic accompanying this article, as you study it, will become self-explanatory.

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Later on Wednesday, a prominent and very successful businessman came in for a haircut. When he attempted to pay, the barber again replied: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week." The businessman was pleased and left the shop. On Thursday morning when the barber opened, there was a thank you card and four new books with titles such as, "How to Improve Your Business" and "Becoming More Successful."

Late in the morning on Thursday, a well-known Democratic Party politician came in for a haircut. When he tried to pay his bill the barber again replied: "I'm sorry, I can’t accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week." The Democrat smiled, shook his hand, asked the barber for his support in the upcoming election, and left the shop.

On Friday morning when the barber opened up, there was nothing waiting at the door except six more Democrats, two liberal Republicans, and nine illegal aliens – all lined up for a free haircut - which illustrates the fundamental difference between left and right, liberal and conservative, illegal alien migrant and citizen.

A conservative always pays his own way, never asking for something unearned.

The moral of this story: If you do something for just one liberal out of kindness or charity, the rest will invariably want something (everything) for nothing. How many people in American society, citizens and illegal aliens, are looking for (expecting) a free haircut every day of their life (on your dime)? Do they expect the free ride to continue? Democrats have offered them a free ride forever in return for their votes. What was known as "black box socialism" has been expanded to embrace "brown box socialism." (Search the archives for an explanation.)

Do you remember the Kevin Costner movie, "Field of Dreams" in which the central premise was, "Build it and they will come." Congress and state legislatures have successfully built the illegal alien "Field of Dreams," a system of unearned social benefits for illegal aliens that is so incredible illegal aliens are willing to endure remarkable hardship and even risk death to obtain it.

Is there any doubt why we have the numbers of illegal aliens we have today, with millions more on the way? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that illegal aliens are coming here for the free haircuts. If you want the illegal alien migration to stop, the free haircuts have to stop.

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

These are but a few examples and there are many more. All of them have two things in common: (1) an adamant desire by adherents of liberalism to dictate and control the behavior of others (as opposed to the desire of conservatives and libertarians who do not want to give up their liberties and be controlled), and (2) the desire of liberals to take from the producers and redistribute what was unearned by them to the non-producers - egalitarianism.

The basis of a culture war is nothing less than trying to: (1) imposing your value systems, or lack of them, on others and (2), taking (seizing) wealth and comfort from others against their will to redistribute as you see fit – often in self-interest. If you advocate redistribution in any form, for any reason what-so-ever, then this is your shameful frame of reference. Now that most socialists (communists) have departed these pages, let’s continue.

The only issue among and between liberals (and neo- or paleo-conservatives) is the degree of control sought. A libertarian would make a conscious choice to exercise the least amount of control over society. A conservative espouses a small government, minimal laws, self-reliance, low taxes and a few local ordinances – just enough to keep society orderly. To the left of conservatives, in the ideological spectrum between conservative philosophy and liberal ideology, are several cleverly disguised life forms of liberalism identified by deceptive and misleading labels. These are the so-called neo-conservatives and paleo-conservatives found pervasively in today’s Republican Party. The main stream media laughably describes these pretenders as “moderates,” trying to obscure their profoundly liberal agenda. Neo- and paleo-conservatives embrace many aspects of a distinctly liberal ideology that is light years distant from conservatism and individualism, but arguably it is not liberalism in its most extreme form (Democratic Party) and therefore somehow portrayed by the media as moderate. Neo-conservatives (which include George W. Bush) have a plan for ruling (not governing) America, just as do all liberals at every incremental level of society, from your home-owners association to Congress. With a little effort, you can trace the evolution of their thought from their youthful Trotskyism in the 1930s to their anti-communist liberalism in the 1940s and '50s, and finally to their development of a new kind of culture in the 1960s and 1970s. Neo-conservatives have in common that they regard themselves as the most intellectually impressive faction of the post-war intellectual Right, which is only slightly right of far Left. To a casual observer, they seem to take ideas seriously; they seem to be principled; they seem to support the principles of the American founding; and they seem to support capitalism. But, behind their rhetorical façade, "Neocons" scorn principles, scorn morality, scorn the rule of law, scorn capitalism and most of all, they scorn America. Despite their pro-American rhetoric and their appeals to, and defense of, America's ideals and institutions, neo-conservatives advocate singularly un-American principles: mysticism over reason, altruism over egoism, duty over rights, collectivism over individualism, socialism over capitalism, war and empire over peace and trade, individual power and self interest over the voice of the people, and possibly the most egregious, union over nationalism.

Neo-conservatives gained control of the Republican Party and the conservative intellectual movement in 1994 led by Newt Gingrich and transformed their gains into a permanent ruling majority (until 2006). Neo-conservatives have a pragmatic method which includes advocacy of a less extreme social welfare state and the intent to turn America toward a form of Platonic republicanism that includes Canada and Mexico in a North American Union. Ultimately, the neo-conservatives are as much - or more - of a threat to a free society as the devout Socialists in the fundamentalist Democratic Party.

Neo- and paleo-conservatives are the “compassionate” conservatives, the “swing voters” you often hear about. More aptly, these are the nation’s “swing socialists” and ever-changing political chameleons.

At the very left end of the ideological spectrum in the 21st Century is liberalism itself and the Democratic Party. They represent the strongest and most unrelenting proponents of the Religion of Socialism and with it, omnipotent government devoid of religion, devoid of individual rights, and devoid of private property ownership - privileges only for the elite. There is one common denominator among liberals. To the man and woman, liberals advocate their own social privileges as members of an unaccountable elite class. As individuals, liberals tend to avoid becoming involved in competition at all costs, seeing competition as evil - but seeing your earned wealth as their entitlement, not unlike the plantation owners of old. The only thing more repulsive than competition to a liberal is personal responsibility, i.e., accountability that cannot be shifted to someone else.

Possibly you remember from your studies many years ago that light through a prism reveals itself in a visible spectrum (red, orange, yellow, green blue, indigo and violet), with white light being the combined presence of all colors. How beautiful is a rainbow? Try to imagine that each one of those individual colors is one of your individual freedoms. Each is the component color of a beautiful rainbow. You have many of them, ostensibly protected by the Bill of Rights. In contrast, what you see as black, the “color” black is the absence of all light (and the absence of individual freedoms). Liberalism (which includes neo-conservatives) is at the black end of the spectrum of liberty. Closer inspection will reveal to anyone who is willing to look out of one eye and see out of the other that liberalism is that hard nucleus about which all variants of Socialism form, including Fascism and Communism. Each “Right” of any American that we permit to be marginally diminished or extinguished, whether your own or you neighbor’s, regardless of its application at the moment to you personally, whether it is gun ownership, free (not politically correct) speech, freedom to pursue your chosen religion without interference from others, etc., you lose one more color that comprises the spectrum of liberty. With one color missing, such as freedom of speech, can you still have a rainbow? The rainbow of liberty has been under assault for a long time. Does it still exist?

By our apathetic acquiescence, or surrendering our rights out of tired disillusionment, or abandoning our rights through ill-informed advocacy of removing colors from what once was a beautiful rainbow, you facilitate the high priests of the religion of Socialism to incrementally move all of us toward the “black” (the absence of all individual freedoms and property rights).

Think of it this way. By allowing or facilitating the loss of any constitutional “Right” is to permit others with dubious motivation to be the pilot in control of a large airplane that is intentionally flown into the “tower of liberty,” in order to bring down the entire building. Just as the WTC came down, so will our Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights can no more stand without several of its component colors any more than the WTC can stand without several of its component floors. Those organizations and individuals who assail our individual rights, which collectively form the basis for our liberty, or attempt to marginalize, limit or tax them in any way, are no less culpable than the terrorists in control of the aircraft who brought down the WTC.

The Bill of Rights is the foundation of the United States of America. They stand as our only defense of those who would rule. Those who attack our individual rights, whether Senator John McCain or adherents of Islam, deserve relentless rebuke, and certainly not the free ride they’re getting today. They know exactly what they’re doing and they intend that we will be the victims. If any American could manage to get a comment from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, she would say, “I laugh because there is nothing you can do about it.”

How important is it that we educate ourselves, and particularly our children and our neighbors? Could there be anything more important at this point in history? Ignorance of socialism and fascism, the form of government being imposed upon us by the most corrupt members of our own society (Democrat and Republican politicians), in rejection of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, in exchange for our votes that guarantees to them permanent power, will ultimately result in the death of liberty for all of us. Any step by a government entity that would diminish even one Amendment in the Bill of Rights, e.g., freedom of speech, assaults your liberty. Has your freedom of speech been restricted in recent years – in how many ways? That realization that our liberties are circling the drain of history should cause every American citizen to reflect long and hard on what it means to have liberty, and who would take it from us. If you have any doubt, consider what passes for education (indoctrination) our young Americans are receiving and question why it is happening.

Just maybe the movie, “Planet of the Apes” was less science fiction than profound insight on what will come to pass if we squander our cultural heritage and liberty.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

Part of this insatiable demand for highly motivated (but minimally skilled) workers was solved by outsourcing manufacturing jobs and entire industries overseas. The seeds of this transition began cynically as politicians in the United States offered minimally skilled American workers a pernament economic subsidy in return for their votes. As a result, year after year minimally skilled workers in the United States became increasingly scarce as a result of large numbers leaving the labor market (no longer looking for jobs). Politicians had offered them a life on permanent income redistribution (employment in the welfare industry) and free medical care which provided them higher standard of living than their prior life as a minimally skilled worker without benefits. In most cases, it was a logical economic decision.

At the same time, workers in India and China were becomming plentiful and willing to work at a fraction of the cost of labor in the United States. There are still large numbers of minimally skilled indigenous workers in the United States, and arguably that number has gown exponentially with the disintegration of education in the government public school system. Two highly correlated factors are at work at the same time. While the American society and economy was devolving as a result of government interference with the labor market, major segments of our population were becoming less skilled (poor education) and less motivated (income redistribution).

Regardless of skill or education considerations, the labor pool in the United States is three-tiered, those who are highly motivated, those who are minimally motivated, and those who are unmotivated. Minimally motivated and unmotivated workers have come to expect (demand) so much in the form of total compensation that they cannot compete in a world labor market. It is difficult to entice them to work at all, particularly after Congress chose to provide the social alternative of relying on income redistribution as a respectable livelihood. Imagine, choosing not to work and still being subsidized by taxpayers in every imaginable way (health care, housing, no taxes, cash subsidy, transportation, education, food stamps, utility bills, etc.). What is the incentive for any minimally motivated and unmotivated worker to seek employment? Constructive employment (real jobs) for these individuals, in most cases, is a net financial and healthcare loss. Clearly pride is not a factor, nor ethnicity or self-respect, as large numbers of various demographic groups consciously seek, through sociopathic behavior and wilfull ignorance, to make themselves unemployable.

It should go without saying that manufacturing is the foundation of any economy, and particularly a global economy. Workers in India or China or Mexico can produce, for a labor cost of $1.00, the same product of the same quality as a worker in the United States for a labor cost of $30.00. In order to compete, the United States’ worker had better be able to produce 30 times as much, or substantially higher quality, in the same amount of time.

Meanwhile, the manufacturer has the objective, as does any business enterprise, to produce their product with the least consumption of scarce natural resources, including labor, in order to maximize profit. Even though the basic concepts are economic in origin, for a moment think of labor in environmental terms. In the course of all human activity, we should try to consume the least quantity of all natural resources whenever possible, including labor. Most people of liberal orientation understand that it is far more efficient and humanitarian to hire 30 Indians than one American (for the same labor cost) – unless there are overriding economic, nationalistic or ideological considerations.

At the same time that labor costs were becoming prohibitively uncompetitive during the 1990's, with lesser-skilled labor demanding too much to get of their sofa, government was simultaneously imposing too much regulatory overhead for any business in the United States to profitably function as a domestic corporation. The situation has grown worse each year without any sign of comprehension by lawmakers. The economic fires are raging, consuming the United States economy, and Congress is throwing combustible fuel on the fire as a solution. The absence of inexpensive labor in the United States, combined with oppressive government administrative agency interference and congressional malfeasance, continue to be important factors that weigh very heavily in corporate outsourcing decisions.

A wise man once remarked a long time ago, that it was a little late to close the barn door after the horses were gone. It isn’t always that easy to get them back. Yet in the case of many important United States’ industries, we must try.

We should pause for a well-deserved moment of silence in tribute to past and current Congressmen who have collectively engineered this debacle. The consequence of their ineptitude is that every manufacturing industry still remaining in the United States is facing increasingly stiff competition from overseas, forcing them to cut costs deeply, including wages and benefits, in order to compete with foreign rivals. So severe is the problem that since 1993, U.S. production has only met half of the increase in American demand for durable goods; the other half has come from overseas. So when you hear the President say that Americans are “addicted” to foreign goods, that claim is patently false. Americans want quality manufactured goods, and are more than capable of producing quality manufactured goods themselves, but they are just not made in the United States anymore.

Why not? In the fewest possible words, American manufacturing and its associated jobs are gone, courtesy of failed domestic socialism, regulatory programs and foreign trade policies enacted by Congress and successive American administrations. The United States Congress, state legislatures and courts have literally and unwittingly undermined the profitability of American industry until most fled overseas for survival. Halliburton is only the most recent to flee. Those that remain are circling the drain in ever-decreasing concentric circles. Keep an close eye on Ford Motor Company and U.S. Air, the two corporations voted the most likely to succumb and submerge in the near future.

The root causes of the scarcity of inexpensive labor include such factors as federal and state legislation and local ordinances, administrative agency regulations to implement ill-advised legislation, litigation, equal opportunity, environmental restrictions, poor education and work ethic, union interference, worker’s compensation, mindless taxation, double taxation, political corruption, earmarks, occupational safety extremes, demographics, product liability, crime, etc. Far from last or least on the list of causes of labor scarcity are schemes intended to benefit special interest groups in return for their votes, i.e., income redistribution. The clearly visible but ignored effect of our national welfare state is to dramatically shrink the willing labor pool year after year. In fact, real incomes for middle-class taxpaying households were lower in 2005 than in the recession year of 2001. Democrat Jim Webb, who just won election in normally Republican Virginia, warned, “In the age of globalization and outsourcing, and with a vast underground labor pool from illegal immigration, the average American worker is seeing a different life and a troubling future.”

Why has the United States’ Congress, in their collective incompetence and Nero Syndrome, allowed America to become short the 20-40 million employees, educated or not, skilled or not, motivated or not, needed to sustain industrial manufacturing in the United States? That is a matter best left to ideologues. A lifetime could be spent analyzing past Congressional legislation and Supreme Court decisions that resulted in subsidizing whole groups of people, effectively removing them from the need to work, institutionalizing discrimination and disenfranchising American industry. It would be easier to understand if social engineering was being used by the courts and legislatures to advance the cause of socialism. What logical explanation could there be for Congress to have created a permanent and expanding underclass whose literal survival today depends on income redistribution through entitlement programs (in exchange for votes)? Did we answer the question inadvertently? Sorry.

If that were not enough, and regardless of ideology, there is still another factor that exacerbates the huge unfilled demand for workers, i.e., American citizens who would have entered the workforce by the millions, between twenty and forty million, but were not born. The relevant point now is that demand for labor in the United States is far greater than the ‘willing’ supply. The shortfall in the willing labor supply, even after outsourcing, is being met by vast numbers of illegal alien migrants. The behavior of the unwilling indigenous labor supply, i.e., sloth, ignorance and degeneracy, is being subsidized by taxes extracted from the top 50% of wage earners at the forceful behest of the United States government.

In the fewest words possible, it has been the unrelenting, broad and pervasive government interference with free markets, and abandoning long established cultural norms, that has caused a loss of manufacturing jobs and a severe labor shortage in the United States.

An abundance of skilled tradesmen and service jobs requiring lesser skills have replaced the manufacturing jobs. We have a knowledge and skill economy at the top, a tradesman and service economy at the bottom. The “Middle Class” who used to make widgets have become an endangered species. While it is true that both the population of the United States and the number of people employed has increased dramatically, constant-dollar real wages of the average American citizen has been decreasing for decades. With the Fed’s engineered devaluation of the U.S. dollar, with the worst yet to come, the standard of living of all but the wealthiest Americans is declining. That is not the fault of American citizens – talk to Congress. As for what remains of the Middle Class, they struggle to maintain their standard of living. Consumption expenditures of the Middle Class, which once came from discretionary income and savings, have all but been replaced by consumption spending using debt as a funding mechanism, i.e., refinancing their home and buying what they cannot afford.

Instead of Upper, Middle and Lower classes in society, two new classes have emerged – those few who are debt-free and the debtors. As the ranks of the debtors grow, and consumables continue to increase in price due to a combination of foreign manufacture and the devaluation of the Unites States' currency, consumption of durable goods will ultimately diminish.

Regardless of conservative philosophy or liberal ideology, illegal alien migration is factually and simply the “market” supplying a “demand.” Any market demand will be met by human beings seeking to profit by providing a supply – in this case, labor. The demand is so strong that millions of human beings, many of whom believe they have few or no viable economic alternatives in other parts of the world, are willing to risk their lives to meet the labor demand in the United States. Make no mistake. They’re not coming to the United States to become loyal citizens – that ended with the Era of Conservatism. They have no knowledge or respect for the borders of the United States or any of its laws. They’re coming solely to work and to avail themselves of an economic paradise on earth, a well-spring in social services and taxpayer funded benefits with absolutely nothing expected from them in return. Think of it as the illegal alien’s modern day California Gold Rush, but for social services and taxpayer funded benefits.

When viewed as a labor demand being met and satisfied, from an economic perspective, illegal migration is not a problem. This is a triumph of market forces. There are two really big problems, however. The first one is that the triumph belongs to the “black market.” The triumph of the “black market” in labor is in stark contravention of United States law – just as is the black market in drugs. The second problem is the apparent illicit and prescription drug-induced psychosis to simply give away boundless American wealth and jobs to illegal aliens – to forcibly take hard-earned wealth from Americans and give it away, without any commensurate obligation from non-citizens. Those who support amnesty for illegal aliens, or their continued access to social services, are advocating nothing less than the wholesale transfer of American wealth to illegal aliens - and still more to subsequent generations of illegal aliens.

Either the black market or the rule of law will ultimately prevail, but not both. In the “war on drugs,” which economic force has prevailed? Was it the black market in drugs or United States’ laws? Where incredible demand exists, human beings will supply the commodity in their own self interest. There are no exceptions. You may say, “I wouldn’t,” but the fact is that someone will and that person may not speak English or be a United States citizen. Embedded among them may be some (or many) of our nation’s most deadly enemies.

Extending the analysis further, why does a black market in labor exist? Very simply, the black market exists because of government intervention. The United States’ government has been trying to circumvent natural market forces by regulating (imposing) wage scales and labor eligibility by every artifice imaginable. They have gone to the extremes of favoring one ethnic group over others, all of whom are in competition to be part of the labor supply.

The black market in labor has become a big problem for two primary reasons – (1) illegal alien migrants have been led by our elected politicians to expect goods, benefits and services from the different levels of government that only those citizens in the top 50% of wage earners must pay for, and (2), the actual overhead costs of the illegal alien labor pool far exceeds the perceived national benefits, particularly in crime and cultural degradation.

The most significant goods and services that illegal aliens have come to expect include: medical care, citizenship for children born in the USA, chain migration, and welfare in numerous forms, public school education of their children, in-state tuition, voting rights, affirmative action privileges, and preferential language consideration.

Overhead costs include a range of political demands by illegal aliens that impinge on people's expectations concerning the English language (such as ballots printed in multiple languages), security, property ownership, conferring civil rights without citizenship, repeated criminal victimization of American citizens, criminal injustice toward Americans, disproportionate numbers of illegal aliens who must be incarcerated at taxpayer expense, the economic failure and closing of hundreds of hospitals, and fading political and cultural cohesion. (As an aside, if you think illegal alien migration is a social and fiscal crisis, it is only the opening gambit. Next will come the Muslim demands and the associated civil unrest widely seen in Europe. By that time it will be too late.)

Statistically, 25 Americans die every day at the hands of illegal aliens. In one year, 9125 people die at the hands of illegal aliens; more than the combined total of our military losses and civilian casualties since the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut in 1983. In one year, more Americans die at home from the criminal actions of illegal aliens than the nation has experienced from a total of 23 years of foreign military adventures. You might want to re-read those last two sentences to realize the enormity of the overhead costs to society. Think of their families whose lives have been devistated. Where does it end?

There is also the “small nagging detail” that illegal alien’s pay no taxes (except after engaging in document fraud in conjunction with identity theft) and contribute little to America except their labor, yet derive/demand a vast majority of the benefits.

There is also the 'not-so-small problem' of the justice (courts) and security (police) systems in this country, which don't work particularly well for citizens, much less for illegal alien migrants. And because politicians and judges have worked to the advantage of illegal aliens and disadvantage of citizens, more often than not, a citizen revolt such as the 2006 Mid-term elections was all but predictable. Add to the demographic equation the size and density of the illegal alien population, their distribution, vital statistics and capacity for expansion. Then factor in the dynamic balance with, or disruption of, the existing culture that is being displaced. Houston, we have a problem.

Rather than fostering free and open markets, the most serious problems (resource dislocations) have been caused by our own government’s attempting market manipulation and outright intervention, trying to artificially regulate the laws of economic exchange between rational human beings. Without our government’s intervention, everything could otherwise be a peaceful trading environment – in theory. The liberal mindset has prevailed for so long that it has become a pathological obsession to regulate everything, even human nature itself. By making the same mistakes over and over and over, Congress responds to crime by banning guns, Congress responds to bigotry by banning speech, Congress responds to terrorism by banning profiling and opening the borders, Congress responds to illegal aliens running wild within United States’ borders by discouraging enforcement of existing law, Courts respond to homosexuality by banning the Boy Scouts, Courts respond to secularism and immorality by banning Christianity, and Congress responds to child abuse by banning pornography. You can easily think of a dozen more examples. In every case, the programmed liberal mindset refuses to hold the individual responsible for the crime, including the illegal alien, and instead casts the crime perpetrator or illegal alien invader as the victim of an evil racist society or child abuse. Is it possible that there is more sanity and fewer drugs in the story of Alice in Wonderland?

There are still more issues, and one that is huge – multiculturalism. Federal, state and local governments are now presiding over a multi-cultural and multi-lingual land, that they created, that is incrementally becoming unstable. All levels of government are vainly attempting to “rule” using government-institutionalized discrimination augmented with force, suppressing the majority will of Americans in order to make room for illegal aliens and facilitate what appears to be the inevitable advent of the North American Union.

The United States, with its rapidly decreasing cultural homogeneity, is becoming less and less politically and socially stable with each passing year. To better appreciate the future of America, think of the Jews and Arab Palestinians who occupy and claim the same “holy ground” in Israel. Now add to their mix a vast welfare and regulatory state, layered with multiple religions, disparate cultures and languages, and you can see why Israel has such an explosive situation on their hands. Israel’s national stability is inversely correlated with multiple cultures and beset with institutionalized government and religious discrimination. And we are not? Unless politicians change course soon, Israel’s present situation is a glimpse into America’s future, but ours will be on a much larger scale.

Before the November 2006 election, United States’ citizens were already taking to the streets and the internet in protest because the sources of their angst were not being addressed by politicians. Most people have come to realize that there is less than 15 cents in difference between Democrats and liberal Republicans. Most relevant is a single fact: Democrats are now in control of Congress. The problems, from the viewpoint of border control advocates, and conservatives in general will grow worse – much worse. More citizens will probably join the anti-illegal migration protest incrementally. Most will not realize the issues are wrapped around an axle called market forces, i.e., supply and demand – and nobody is addressing market forces. To do so would require Congress to increase the supply of cheap labor (workers) inside the United States from among American citizens by providing fewer unearned subsistence alternatives to working. There is no workable solution that does not include significantly increasing the supply of American “cheap labor.” Reducing income redistribution will not be a political Happy Meal among Congressmen. Odds-makers would probably give a 60-year old disabled veteran better odds of winning the Boston Marathon.

As long as the over-supply of jobs goes unfilled by American workers, it will be filled by foreign workers, and they will continue to flood into the United States just as a tide floods the lowlands. The only changes possible are to alter the natural geography (increase the cheap labor pool from American sources) or build a dam (wall) to keep the water out. As long as industry can be more profitable using less expensive foreign labor, vital industries that were once the cornerstone of the United States’ economy will not return to the United States. Congress has indeed squandered our industrial base and national heritage.

One more example will suffice. Democrats coming into office have voiced concern about the plight of industry and loudly criticized the Bush Administration’s policies; but they don’t have anything that remotely resembles an alternative model that will meet the challenge. Democrats and liberal Republicans refuse to recognize that their role is twofold, (1) to increase the supply of manufactured goods “made in America,” which is the only solution to reducing the demand for goods from India, China, Mexico, Peru and Columbia, and to increase the supply of willing cheap labor from internal sources comprised of United States citizens and “legal” aliens.

While legalizing the “illegals” is the easiest political solution, it is by far the most damaging to national sovereignty and dangerous to the American culture. Just as France is rapidly becoming a Muslim nation, the United States is arguably becoming a Hispanic nation. If the plight of Mexico and its citizens is what we want for ourselves, Mexico being our national role model, then we should make every effort to adopt their culture (or permit it to be forced on us with amnesty for illegal aliens).

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that no child labor laws, organized unions or environmental standards will do anything to reduce the demand from the United States for manufactured goods. Instead, the measures championed by the Democratic Party as economic reform will only increase the cost of everything manufactured in any country which will then be passed on to the consumer in the United States - once again reducing the Middle Class' standard of living.

What about a citizen protest? Will it do any good? Are the Minutemen effective? Yes, they have been effective in raising awareness and politicizing the issue. It is also relatively easy to predict that any attempt by individual American citizens to stem the tide of illegal aliens into the United States will be met with severe government retalliation. At some point, American citizens have only two alternatives, i.e., turn into civil unrest or abdicate and flee. There is the distinct possibility that illegal alien migration will someday become an explosive social issue.

Ask yourself, if the Democrats who now control Congress fail to stem the tide of illegal aliens, will they have succeeded or failed? The more astute members of the Democratic Party know it has fallen to them to deal with illegal alien migration or be swept aside in the 2008 election. Regardless of political and media rhetoric, illegal alien migration will still be an issue in 2008 because it will still be an unresolved matter of supply and demand. All of the politician’s made-for-TV hand-wringing changes nothing, but then it was never intended to change anything.

The Democratic Party leadership (and liberal Republicans) has a preferred solution. They wish to legalize every living creature within the United States’ borders, plus any other life-form in our solar system, and make them all the responsibility of U.S. taxpayers in exchange for their votes. The tax responsibility to subsidize this mass of humanity and alternate life forms will fall squarely on corporations (small businesses) who will then pass on the costs to the consumer. The tax burden will fall especially heavily on the top 50% of citizens who are the only wage earners currently paying taxes. None of the bottom 50% of wage earners (who vote), and all non-citizens who reside within the borders of the United States, will have to pay a dime to subsidize the social services of the growing numbers of illegal aliens.

There is a finite limit and there is a long-term price to be paid. Total government dependency can finally be yours with a vote for any Congressional candidate that is neither a conservative nor a libertarian. Why are conservatives and libertarians more desirable – and only them, and not liberals, neo-conservatives or paleo-conservatives? True Conservatives and Libertarians, not some hyphenated alphabet soup, are the only Americans who are espousing a very limited government, the rule of law, personal responsibility, low taxes, self-reliance and a military whose sole responsibility is to defend the United States.

What the end result will be? If we continue to elect advocates of liberalism, we will receive in return a vastly larger government driven by ever more income redistribution. As socialism becomes more and more pervasive, existing problems of civil liberties and private property that rile American sensibilities today will become much, much worse. Civil liberties and private property DO NOT EXIST under socialism (liberalism) - nor does class mobility, personal wealth, small business or private enterprise. How could anyone but the most ignorant among us wish that on themselves?

The political competition in 2008 is not be to become the President of the United States. Nor is it between elected representatives who desperately want to improve the lot of all Americans. No, in most cases, theirs is a quest to rule, to become Caesar.

Hopefully you consider yourself to be one of the proud indomitable Americans who were born free and intend to remain free, defiantly refusing to live under the yoke of any religion, particularly Socialism or Islam.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

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

« Close It

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

« Close It

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

« Close It

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

« Close It

Had Republicans been conservatives, there would be no need today for them to get back to their roots, to reinvent themselves, to adhere more closely to their core beliefs. You can’t lose something you never had. Had Congressional Republicans been conservatives, they would never have lost sight of their constituency – which is first and foremost, the United States of America and not the Republican Party.

Yes, Republicans were intensely targeted by MoveOn.Org and the Democratic Party. Yes, 3.6 billion dollars was spent nationwide in 2006, much of it orchestrating the defeat of Republicans in general and the few remaining Congressional quasi-conservatives in particular. Yes there was widespread voter fraud. Some things we cannot change and some things politicians clearly don’t want to change. Those Democrats whose vote was motivated by a desire for more socialism, assuming they understood the difference, will deserve what they’re going to get, but in hindsight their children won’t.

How many times have you heard honest, trustworthy, patriotic Democrats (a rare multiple oxymoron) in Congress assert that they “support our troops?” After first voting to go to war ONLY as a political expediency immediately after the carnage of September 11, the Democratic Party’s policies, strategies and tactics have been, from the beginning of the War on Terror, a conscious effort to undermine the Administration’s ability to wage the war and to defend America. Democrats are not so obtuse that they don’t understand exactly what they are doing. They know full well that their behavior ONLY benefits the Islamic terrorists. Incredible as it is, that’s reality. There is nothing naive about a cunning liberal politician.

You would be surprised to learn how many Americans see clearly that the main stream media led by the New York Times (the propaganda arm of the socialist movement) either adopted or originated the anti-war strategy of the Democratic Party. In close concert with Democrats, the print, visual and entertainment media has willfully and recklessly spent (denigrated, demeaned, openly discarded as worthless, wasted) the lives of many young servicemen and women in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention countless non-combatant civilians, with their intentionally biased and inaccurate reporting, incessant public criticisms of the President, revelations of classified information and open celebration of America’s war dead.

Why, (1) Americans have not risen up in moral outrage, and why (2), Democrats who live only in service to themselves in an intellectual and moral vacuum, have not been tarred and feathered as human defects, is beyond rational comprehension - unless one takes into consideration that liberal (neocon and paleocon) Republicans have behave no differently. Even the Japanese during World War II, renowned for their brutality and inhumanity, didn’t orgasm over the death of every American soldier as do members of the Democratic Party leadership and the United States main stream media. History will someday show, if written by a conservative, that the United States 2006 mid-term Congressional elections were not a competition between moral, ethical and philosophical agendas, but a crass amoral competition for power at the expense of the lives of U.S. servicemen and women.

The inescapable conclusion is that the combination of the American main stream media, the Democratic Party and the Islamic terrorists really did materially influence the outcome of the United States 2006 mid-term elections, just as they did in Spain. Instead of a national outpouring of patriotism and a mandate to President Bush to take it to the bad guys, and in doing so, to orchestrate a quick, decisive and severe end to the madness in the Middle East, the United States electorate instead voted into political office the nation’s most accomplished appeasers, moral and ethical degenerates, and experts on defeat. The United States sent to the world an undeniable and searing message of cowardice with our votes. Thank-you notes from Islamic regimes to the New York and LA Times have likely been mailed, received, framed and displayed in a trophy room with the names of the war dead.

Do Democrats or the main-stream-media really support our troops? In a few words, Democrats and liberal Republicans don’t even support this nation! A conservative’s philosophy is “God, country, and family.” A liberal’s philosophy begins at “self” and it abruptly ends there. Is the Democratic Party dangerous - only in the view of those who were not born brain dead at birth.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

The only possible answers are left or right. Look carefully at the picture. Do you know the answer? The Republican leadership (the oxymoron of the decade) should have figured it out – except that they were not conservatives.

Pre-school children were asked the same question and they all answered "left."

They were then asked, "Why do you think the bus is traveling in the left direction?"

They answered, "Because you can't see the door."

Liberal Republicans couldn’t figure it out and never turned the bus around. "Left" was a suitable direction to liberal Republicans. For six years, the nation and courts have been going further and further "Left." Democrats loved every minute of it. They unexpectedly found they had willing accomplices in their socialist agenda. All that was left for them to do was re-take control of the bus, which they accomplished on November 7, 2006.

It’s philosophically safe to say that if you don’t know what your destination is, any direction you travel will get you there. If you don’t know what direction you are going, then you have no compass. If you don’t have a compass, then you don’t have God, country and family, the source of every man and woman’s compass. Without God, country and family, you don’t have morality, ethics or a sense of purpose; all you have is self. If all you have is self, you may be able to rule or administer, but not to lead or govern, because the latter requires a profound degree of selflessness.

Republicans floundered for years and foundered in 2006. Now Democrats have a choice, but their only choice will be to rule since they too have no core values or destination. It is a universal truth that liberals, because of their ideology, are unable to lead or govern. To lead and govern requires striving for individual liberty in a selfless fashion instead of adherence to a national religion of government-imposed socialism and focused self-interest. Until the national electorate understands that national and individual excellence is the antithesis of the Democratic Party's egalitarianism, nothing will change in American politics and culture, and any direction will get us there.

It's hard not to feel sorry for everyone who got on the wrong bus.

Remember, if you don’t have a destination in your own life or business, how can you set goals? How can you govern or lead others? When you go on a vacation, you know well in advance exactly where you are going, how long you will be gone, what mode of travel you will use, who will be with you, what you will see and do, what day you will leave and what day you will return, how much money you will spend, what presents you will bring home, how you will pay your bills while you are gone and after your return home, what clothes you will pack and which luggage you will use for the trip, etc. If we can plan a simple vacation to that level of detail, surely Congess can do more for the nation in six years than simply enrich themselves at taxpayer expense. What about planning the nation's future? Can you articulate one single, specific national goal - except to spend more money on problems that can't be solved with more money?

Now you understand how and why Republicans failed in 2006 - liberalism.

In our November, 2006 trip to the polls, we elected a group of Senators and Representatives whose leadership wants the bus to continue farther and farther to the "Left," i.e., more liberalism (collectivism) for us and more power for themselves. At every opportunnity, let's be sure to ask (demand) from Democrats, who have finally achieved their unhealthy liberal goal to rule the lives of others, to tell us their intended destination and how they propose to get us there. If they have no specific destination (goals to improve the United States within the first 100 days) except to denigrate Republicans, as it currently appears, that speaks for itself. However, if their specific goals (e.g., raise taxes or lower taxes, or amnesty for illegal aliens or enforcement only) turn out to be worthy goals, they will continue to have our votes. If their goals are unworthy, or if the Democrats have no specific goals beyond accummulating power and personal wealth, we need to get off this bus at the very first opportunity.

Perhaps the best definition of 'success' was penned by Earl Nightingale: "Success is the progressive realization of a worthy goal," which is as good an explanation as any for the perpetual failure of the Democratic Party's grand entitlement society. Let's hear the Democratic Party's (1), worthy goals with some specificity, and see (2), their realization in a democratic process without resorting to activist courts. Americans are fully capable of judging if the goals are worthy and in their best interests. Nothing else matters.

Many Americans are going to be wishing for a bus stop very soon.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

Within minutes of the election returns, and still somewhat in total denial, their tune began to change and became more introspective. The realization began to set in that control of the House and the Senate was irrevocably gone and Republicans had squandered their one chance in a generation. The 2006 mid-term elections will probably become a dramatic example in future political science studies of what can happen when politicians (who have been seeking their own agenda) are thoroughly chastened by the voters.

Defiantly, Republicans refused through the night of the election to acknowledge that their own miserable performance for six years during their majority role in Congress was in any way responsible for the predictable outcome – an outcome for which John McCain personally bears a heavy responsibility. Finally, Rush Limbaugh brought some talk-radio clarity the next day when he said he felt “relieved” that he would no longer be expected to carry the Republican’s water – which is what the conservatives have said for a long time before the election and voters en masse said at the polls.

Try to imagine the pilot of an aircraft that crashes (hopefully injuring no one) that attempts to blame bystanders on the ground for his inept piloting skills. Imagine the student who blames his failure on his teacher. Imagine the wing-nut who blames the 9/11 attack that destroyed the World Trade Center on Americans instead of Islam. Imagine the media who blames a brutal homicide on the past molestation of the suspect when she was a child. Imagine the ignorance and racial hatred embedded in the claim that New Orleans was destroyed because the President blew up the levees. Imagine the Republican Party who blames their defeat at the polls on the ignorance of the electorate. You have to wonder who Republicans would blame for the ignorance of the electorate – the Democrats?

One could reasonably argue that Republicans deserved their inglorious defeat. However, a similar argument can be made that conservative Americans really don’t deserve the Democratic Party’s upcoming socialist agenda, an agenda that will entail cultural and economic havoc rendered by Nancy Pelosi with shock and awe, maybe not immediately if she is smart, but certainly after the 2008 national elections when a Democrat will likely to prevail in the ultimate political quest for the Office of the Presidency.

It is hard to envision, stretching the imagination to the limits, that Republicans will be able to reconstitute a creditable image of competency and ethics, and particularly conservatism, by November 2008. Political observers might begrudgingly concede that there are less than five conservatives remaining in all of Congress. What is most impressive is that there will be more conservatives in the freshman class of the Democratic Party than the entire Republican Party. The Democratic Party strategy will be to continue their assault on Republicans alleging political malfeasance, without relenting for a minute, right on through the 2008 elections. While there are viable Republican candidates in 2008, e.g., John McCain and Rudolph Giuliani and Tom Tancredo, only Tancredo is both socially and fiscally conservative. While a genuine long-shot, don’t rule out the Libertarian Ron Paul from Texas.

Democrats have been waiting a long time for such an opportunity, and if history is a valid predictor, you have never seen a train wreck like this one is going to be. President Bush had better begin sleeping with his “veto pen.” Make no mistake - President Bush's use of the “veto pen” for the next two years will be used by the Democrats to bludgeon Republican candidates in the 2008 elections.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

I admire you … Ok, I revere your talent … and for once in your esteemed life, I believe you are grotesquely on the wrong side of history. This all involves your rant last week regarding voting choices of conservatives in the 2006 mid-term November elections. Friday, October 20th was a tipping point.

Mr. Limbaugh, you seem to want to divide the known universe between Republicans and Democrats, when in fact the political debate should be about Liberals in the Republican Party and Extreme Liberals in the Democratic Party. There are not five conservatives in all of Congress and only one libertarian. Left wing America is the Republican Party. Conservatives do not share their liberal ideology.

Mr. Limbaugh, I believe we jointly hold the view that the predominant orientation of politicians and the main stream media is wildly liberal. The left-wing bent that conservatives complain about not only encompasses federal and state governments, city councils, and primary and secondary school systems, but attorneys, court systems, doctors, police departments, even the leadership of the U.S. Armed Forces. Left-wing ideology pervades the CIA, FBI, and State Department through all grades of the Federal Civil Service.

Legislation at all levels of government reflects the multi-decade cultural shift in America - which conservatives view as a downhill slide from greatness on a trajectory resembling a gliding anvil. There are a number of symptoms. Just to mention a few, (1) political correctness, which by definition means that people cannot be honest and freedom of speech has been extinguished, (2) refusal by governmental entities to enforce existing laws, (3) a judicial system that seeks to punish the ‘person’ rather than the ‘crime’, assuming a crime occurred and prosecution isn’t simply to achieve an intended social or political outcome, (4) a judicial system that has become an insidious oligarchy, (5) institutionalized discrimination of one citizen over another, and (6), a secular rejection of all faith and an intense attempt to prohibit any visible or audible vestiges of the Christian or Jewish faith in public discourse. There are thousands more. These few make the point that conservatism is but a faint memory in America and that our disintegrating “culture” is what the November mid-term elections are all about.

The critical issue in American politics is a lack of conservatives in broad segments of society, particularly in coastal areas where income redistribution dominates. I have watched with a heavy heart as liberalism, a debilitating disease borne of ignorance and self-interest, has assimilated entire minority cultures in my lifetime.

You impress me as being too astute not to have figured it out. Assailed from every direction, you’re telling your daily radio audience how much worse it will be if we conservatives vote for an extreme liberal in the Democratic Party or intentionally fail to vote. History supports your thesis. We all know you’re right. There is not one conservative who disagrees with you – not one.

Where we profoundly differ is that you want conservatives, lifetime members of the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, to ‘settle for’ what we are being told is all we can expect, all we can achieve, lower our standards, expect less and to vote for corrupt liberal Congressmen who have dealt us this national travesty of a losing hand. We’re simply not going to do it. As a nation, we are better; we deserve better; and we will not quit until we receive better. No conservative is going to buy bologna sliced that thin. No real conservative is going to accept governmental redistribution knowing other Americans were skinned alive to provide it. Somebody in America has to be a patriot. The question is: Who will rise to the challenge and who will be but a lemming? Conservatives will not be lemmings; nor will conservatives agree with you that the king (Congress or the President) is wearing clothes. No conservative will vote for someone willfully doing harm to the United States of America.

Furthermore, the mere fact that our choices on the November ballet are between open-borders liberals in the Republican Party (Jon Kyl, * apprentice to John McCain) and god-forsaken extreme liberals in the Democratic Party is partially your fault.

That’s right; follow this closely please. If you had concentrated on conservatism, individualism and liberty instead of simply Republican vs. Democrat, and had focused the debate more on excellence, initiative and integrity, pointing out the inherent fallacy of choosing between a liberal and an extreme liberal, some of what is happening might not have gained traction. If you had been advocating self reliance instead of income redistribution, truth instead of political correctness, ethics and morality instead of corruption and sexual perversion, the outcome might have been somewhat different. Now, with your voting recommendations to conservatives, you give every indication of directly or indirectly endorsing liberal fascism espoused by President Bush and liberal Republicans in Congress.

“No,” you adamantly say, “It’s not my fault.” While absolutely true that it is not your fault, you are undeniably among the ruling media elite, even a Pied Piper. You know this to be a fact. You are ever so quick to take credit for reason, infallible logic and highly accurate judgment. Whether you care to admit it or not, you are partially responsible for having led us to where America is today - where “we” are today. Otherwise, if this location was not your intended destination, then you, as “The True Majarashii,” would have, could have, and should have led us in a different direction.

But fear not for us. Ultimately you will be proud of your conservative graduates. We are proud conservative Americans. We are not among the mindless, liberal, uneducated, media-indoctrinated, government-sustained, and consumed with self-interest politicians or rank and file. We are not content to accept liberal admonitions, from either Hillary Clinton or Karl Rove that we can never be expected to know or understand the inner workings and hidden mechanisms of that great sidereal movement called self-government. Most conservatives are the original boy scouts (trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent). It would be hard for anyone but liberals and the ACLU to demean that value system and even harder to find a better value system outside a church.

Yes, Rush, I genuinely hold you personally responsible. It is my opinion that somewhere along the way you may have lost sight of what is precious in America (clue: liberty). Your own experiences in Florida should have opened your eyes to see what is being done to all Americans in countless different ways and in innumerable jurisdictions. But your concern was your own ox because it was the one being gored. Do you think you are somehow unique except in God-given talent? Like a 2x4 across your skull, your experiences with the NFL should have given you a clue, a hint to help you realize that everyday people are being hammered for politically correct motives if for no other reason than to extend liberal control.

Yet you refuse stubbornly to look out of one eye or see out of the other. Is it unfair to speculate or to ask if you've been tactically outmaneuvered in your efforts to prevent Congress from metastasizing even further to the left?

Last week you began chiding American conservatives to vote for liberal Republicans as we approach the November 2006 mid-term elections. In doing so, you have now asked conservatives to accept mediocrity, abject dependency and socialism - because you obviously think we deserve no better. You must be the only one who doesn't understand that conservatives are not going to vote to continue the policies of liberal, socially and fiscally irresponsible Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and conservatives will not support the one-world-order, borderless America of the Democratic Party and President George W. Bush.

You cannot even begin to imagine the contempt conservatives hold for national leaders in the current Administration and this liberal Congress who would start a war, any war, without the will to win. Why would Congress start a war without the will to win!? Liberals may not like the battle methods, girlie men that they are, and that’s too bad, but winning decisively always saves lives, both American and non-combatant lives. Winning decisively happens in months, not years. You may quote me: Win decisively, or lose inevitably and live in infamy. And, if I understand you correctly, you now ask us to vote for liberal Republicans who are more consumed with self-interest than winning a war in which Americans are dying? May God have mercy on us all, because Islam, the Democratic Party and their brand of socialism will not!

Conservatives seem to me to be America’s political incarnation of the few, the proud and the brave, and we will not surrender, not to liberalism, not to socialism, not to Islam, not to defeatism, not to appeasement, and not to the Democratic Socialist Party of America. Conservatives will never submit to 20-30 million illegal aliens marching in the streets dictating the terms of surrender and politicians who refuse to do anything about it.

Unquestionably, the Democratic Party has given new meaning to the term “evil,” both in Congress and America’s judicial venues. However, many citizens from both sides of the aisle view Republicans in general as a national disgrace. Republicans (faux conservatives) have given new meaning to the characterization of “irresponsible incompetence,” which some see as the predictable end result of “compassionate conservatism.”

Mr. Limbaugh, you simply have no idea how badly you have underestimated conservative America. You seem to think conservative disaffection in the November election is solely the by-product of media distortion of the state of the economy to influence votes, or the certified cut and run cowardice of liberals in both parties, or inflation rates, unemployment, absence of terrorist attacks, the Patriot Act and civil liberties, and other equally important but irrelevant national issues. In one word, the November elections swing on the American "culture," and conservative American’s are angry.

Generally speaking, the sum total of today's judicial activism and Congressional legislation creates tomorrow's national culture, always in less than ten years. Conservatives, when they go to their polling places in November, will do nothing less than repudiate the culture forcibly imposed upon them by Congress (Democrats and liberal Republicans) and by the judicial system.

Yes, the issues include illegal immigration, in-state tuition, illegal voting, identification not required to vote, refusal to enforce both national and state laws, welfare fraud, drugs and violent crime, human smuggling, document fraud, sanctuary cities, chain migration, anchor babies, free medical care, and on and on. Yes, conservatives are fed up with institutionalized discrimination in education and the workplace. Conservatives are angry over ever-growing irresponsible taxation and income redistribution. If all Americans were truly born “equal,” why are so many still on welfare?

Yes, one of the issues is the abysmal state of education in the United States since the federal government unconstitutionally seized the education system. With absolute certainty, the issues include the loss of free speech, loss of domestic corporate manufacturing and millions of associated jobs, political correctness, Pledge of Allegiance, Ten Commandments, Medicare reform legislation, earmarks, reluctance to abolish the estate tax or adopt some form of flat or consumption tax, refusal to abolish the 16th Amendment, and unwillingness to reform Social Security (Americans be damned).

Without a doubt, the issues include eminent domain, TSA absurdities, attempts to seize, regulate and tax the internet, unwillingness to safeguard classified material, willingness to sell national secrets and WMD technology for campaign funding, willingness to sell American harbors, airports, and highways to foreign interests, socialized medicine, trade agreements that sacrifice United States sovereignty and permit United States citizens to be sued by foreign interests, voting to construct the border wall only under the most intense public pressure and then refusing to fund it, and finally abdicating the entire border wall project to the whims of the pro-illegal alien Bush Administration. The end result is that United States national security is orbiting in ever decreasing concentric circles until someday it will fly up its own terrorist attack. What will Congressional and Gubernatorial liberals have traded for the lives of those who will die? How many votes will make it worth it?

Most egregious was not Congress’ voting to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, but trying to deceitfully shift the responsibility for their own decisions to the Administration and intelligence agencies; and after voting nearly unanimously to go to war, undermining the Commander-in-Chief at every turn. Most Democrats and liberal Republicans do not want to be seen as weak and unwilling to defend the United States of America. But the fact is, liberals don't believe in war of any kind for any motive, even self-defense, and Congress would unilaterally disarm both the military and all citizens if given the chance. The reality is: liberals voted for something very abhorrent to them and did so only in political self-interest. Predictably, ever since, Congressional liberals have evaded any responsibility for their votes in a manner similar to their unwillingness to accept responsibility for anything else in history.

'Despicable' is the word that best describes Congress’ refusing to give judicial appointments an up or down vote, the McCain/Feingold legislation, tobacco litigation, refusal to permit school choice, refusal to permit importation of prescription drugs, wholesale usurping of state’s rights by the federal government and administrative agencies, unrelenting judicial activism without permitting a democratic vote, domestic and foreign abortion at U.S. taxpayer expense, embryonic stem cell research at taxpayer expense, Social Security benefits for illegal aliens, prohibition of public prayer and displays of faith, ignoring constitutional limitations of power and jurisdiction, and on and on and on for another ten single-spaced pages.

What has Congress done to stop it? NAFT, except to gleefully enable our continued cultural demise, as each Congressman individually accumulates personal wealth by selling votes and influence for campaign contributions.

The aforementioned constitutes nothing less than national socialist insanity to a conservative, a cultural meltdown, and Mr. Limbaugh, you want conservatives to vote for more of the same? Anyone who would ask conservatives to vote for their own cultural demise brings back memories of atrocities from the last century in foreign lands. No conservative will ever accept dhimmis status, whether imposed by American liberals in this Congress, by black liberation theology, or as will be imposed someday by Islam. There appears to be very little difference in reality – if any, between the Democratic Party and Islam when it comes to their tolerance of divergent faiths, their tactics toward political opponents, or the issues of social inequality, oppressive taxation, protection of children, and reverence for life.

I lament. If only you were still one of us and less of an advocate of egalitarian ideals. Hopefully, you’ve only strayed due to distraction or fatigue. It is important that when you look, that you are able to see. Mr. Limbaugh, would you please let me clean your glasses? With this letter, I am respectfully trying to do just that, and no more.

You currently face the biggest questions of your professional life. The first question is: “Are you going to be an entertainer or a leader?” To be a leader would require some personal sacrifice on your part which is the hallmark of all great Americans and every active duty and retired member of the United States Armed Forces and National Guard. My family and I sacrificed for this nation for almost a century, multiple lifetimes spent serving and preserving our American birthright – at the daily risk of our mortal existence. Now, for all that is precious in America, it’s your turn. The second question is: “Is it too late?”

This isn’t an election. November begins a cultural and economic tsunami. The outcome may not be to my liking or to yours, but I voted democratically, and legally, and only once, and I will live by the decisions of my fellow American citizens, even if I don’t deserve it – which every liberal throughout American history has refused to do – i.e., accept the will of the people. But be very, very careful however, because conservatives were not bred to carry water and will not serve others for long, particularly the self-anointed.

Mr. Limbaugh, when you get a chance and if you have the opportunity, please extend to me the personal kindness of forwarding this letter and my strong sentiments to another well-intentioned public figure, Mr. John O’Neill, author of “Unfit For Command.” I sincerely hope he can find where he misplaced his conservative philosophy and American citizenship.

John O'Neill: Don't Repeat The Mistake of 1974
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17635

Red State Patriot

* See archives of www.redstatepatriot.com, “Jon Kyl is an Open-Borders Advocate”

« Close It

The public has finally discovered the ugly truth - Senate Republicans, President George W. Bush and his talented marionette Karl Rove have not a clue when it comes to the havoc being wrought on citizens of the United States. Their favored "comprehensive immigration reform" plans should be renamed to reflect reality: “Amnistia Comprensivo, Enorme y Deshonroso” -- Comprehensive Amnesty, Huge and Disgraceful.

Senate Republicans, in concert with Karl Rove and President Bush, have formed a solid alliance with open-borders Democrats and a myriad of Mexican-funded special interest groups. Using a phrase coined by President Bush, it might be fair to suggest their alliance constitutes an “Amnesty Axis of Evil.” Message to Republicans: American citizens won't tolerate it. It is not just one election that is at stake; it is the election of professed Republicans in any election anywhere, anytime. A generation of political careers is at stake, first in 2006 and far into the future.

Where do we stand? We have a self-serving Congress that chooses to do nothing. We also have the unfortunate do-nothing-right president. Both have popularity polls that resemble the trajectory of a gliding anvil. The Congressional Republican leadership vacuum has figured out that any legislation containing more than enforcement of existing immigration laws will amount to wholesale incumbent defeat at the polls on November 7. What Republicans fail to realize is that wholesale defeat is guaranteed to them at the polls just by their inaction on illegal immigration – regardless of what they have or haven’t done addressing other important issues.

Even the open borders lobby has figured out that the American people will not tolerate millions of illegal aliens demanding equal or better rights than American citizens. The daily in-your-face confrontation by illegal aliens, on city streets and loitering on every street corner, Home Depot and convenience store parking lot has aroused the public ire. As the understanding of the facts by the public has risen, so has the risk to all incumbent politicians seeking re-election. In response, Republicans have taken a page out of the Democratic Party playbook. They simply decided to delay any action on amnesty legislation until after the election, thinking it will save them from a predictable voter backlash. Regardless of incumbent protestations to the contrary, all Americans should be warned that amnesty for illegal aliens is coming like a freight train in the night immediately after the mid-term elections.

Even illegal aliens have gotten the picture that eludes people like Senator John McCain. A recent pro-illegal alien rally in Los Angeles drew fewer than 1,000 people, in stark contrast to the several hundred-thousand just four months ago. Similarly in Phoenix, only 5,000 showed up for the recent labor solidarity march, which was down from the previous 100,000 illegal aliens waving Mexican flags, flying the American flag upside down, and proclaiming allegiance to Mexico. Only 3,000 showed up in Chicago and less showed their faces in San Francisco. In Dallas, only 500 people were bold enough to display their defiance of United States immigration laws. Has the problem gone away? No, just crawled under the nearest rock until Congress weathers the storm of their mid-term elections. Then, fortified by the knowledge they are immune from accountability for at least two years, they will resume their quest to deconstruct the United States’ borders in favor of a North American Union.

Fortunately, better public knowledge of the past and future costs of subsidizing illegal immigration, long concealed by the main stream media but revealed by the blogosphere, has temporarily overwhelmed corporate propaganda and Mexican special interest groups. A word of caution - the President and his partners in the U.S. Senate, when it comes to amnesty for illegal aliens, simply intend to ignore the U.S. Constitution, impose their will and suppress any citizen civil disobedience or insurrection.

The leaders of labor unions are also trapped in a fraudulent position. They think they can bolster their declining membership rolls (union dues) by backing the Rove-Bush-Reid-McCain-Kennedy amnesty legislation, or if necessary the Cornyn-Kyl amnesty-lite version. In doing so they must try to explain to their existing members why they’re doing nothing to preserve union jobs and the wage levels of American citizens. National labor leaders are not out of touch with the will of the American people any more than Congress. The truth is they don’t care about the rank and file any more than the White House, Congress or the Catholic Church. It’s the money.

Labor union leaders fail to recognize that once the current crop of illegal aliens becomes legal and entitled to union scale wages, businesses will quickly revert to hiring newly arrived illegal aliens for less labor cost. Those newly minted legal aliens will quickly become unemployed and qualify for social benefits. Labor unions will be worse off than they are now. In addition, any company currently willing to hire illegal aliens has already demonstrated they are unafraid of the law. It would be hard to imagine they would be afraid of hiring non-union workers. Labor unions are betting on the wrong horse. Enforcing, not subverting, the rule of law is the labor union’s only chance of survival.

Until wiser heads prevail, labor leaders have made the choice to abandon their current membership and join with President Bush and Karl Rove. Cardinal Roger Mahoney, the head of the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles has also joined the Amnesty Axis. Together, they somehow believe that their political interests are best served by subsidizing the illegal alien population at the expense of American taxpayers – as if protecting pedophile priests weren’t enough of an outrage. They also seem to think the “rights” of the illegal alien population transcend the law of the land and the interests of the American people. One would think the contrary would be obvious, i.e., the best interests of each and every individual American citizen is by definition in the best interests of the United States. The best interests of the United States are not achieved by serving the best interests of illegal aliens and subordinating the interests of Americans. As an aside, we’re not talking about 12-20 million illegal aliens any more; we’re now talking about 60 million in the next decade and more to follow – and at whose expense.

Why are Cardinal Mahoney and his fellow elitists fostering illegal alien migration into the United States? The answer would be simple if it were not so disturbing. Again, the answer is money. Every advocate of illegal alien amnesty is financially benefiting from the presence of illegal aliens in the United States – churches and politicians both benefit by receiving large sums of money. The advocacy of illegal aliens by Senator John McCain likely stems directly from campaign contributions from industry advocacy groups such as the restaurant and hotel/motel lobby and Mexican special interest groups (some funded by the Mexican government). Senator John McCain is not afflicted with altruism.

The open-borders lobby had hoped to create a new voter bloc to permanently sway the elections, but citizens fought tooth and nail to insure honest elections, often over numerous setbacks from activist judges and Governors. Arizona now requires identification at the polls. Hopefully, John McCain and Governor Janet Napolitano are failing in their advocacy of illegal aliens because there appears to be no tangible increase in new voter registration anywhere in the country.

Others argue that jobs are but a small piece of the puzzle. Voting in United States elections is not high on the list of most illegal aliens. The real prize are social benefits (education, housing, transportation, food stamps, welfare, and medical care) foolishly conferred by Congress and State governments for votes that will never materialize. Social benefits and to a lesser extent jobs, but not voting or citizenship, are the principal source of milk and honey to illegal aliens.

The leadership of this do-nothing Congress, rather than act to protect American citizens and improve national security in this era of Islamic terrorism, has chosen instead to blend cowardly into the crowd gathered at a crime scene to avoid notice or detection. Notable in his efforts was Senator Jon Kyl who voted to construct the southern border fence before voting not to fund it.

There is a line worth remembering near the end of the movie, Independence Day – “Remember me, I’mmmm back.” When elections are safely in the past, both Congress and the President will once again pursue amnesty for illegal aliens with a single-minded vengeance.

I hope you’re ready. You’ve been forewarned. It’s time to wake everyone up. You don’t want anyone to miss the political confrontation that is about to happen in which our government is going to find itself at war with its own citizens. An exaggeration? Let’s wait and see. It has the potential to become the stuff of history textbooks and legends.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

The Cornyn-Kyl bill would establish a new visa category appropriately called "W" for its possible namesake that would allow aliens to enter the United States "when there are no available U.S. workers." The bill would require employers to pay "W" aliens the minimum wage but not require the market wage – two tiered wage system. In other words, Silicon Valley corporations could advertise in "America's Job Bank" for computer specialists at the U.S. minimum wage, no Americans would apply, and thousands of computer specialists from India and Pakistan (or Mexico) would board planes to take the jobs for which, allegedly, "there are no available U.S. workers." The "W" workers would receive special privileges that allow them to extend their time in the United States up to six years, during which period their family members may come and visit for 30 days at a time. The bill doesn't address the predictable situations of what happens when the "W" worker is visited by his wife, and they have a baby who becomes an "anchor baby," i.e., a U.S. citizen, with all the rights and taxpayer benefits for the baby and all his relatives, including those not yet in the United States but now on their way.

Amnesty, even under the label "guest worker," cannot deceptively be made palatable by hiding it in a bill that pretends to be about "enforcement" or "reform" of border security.

I complained in detailed correspondence to Senator Kyl. I received a thoughtful personal correspondence in return (original on file). Jon Kyl (or a staff member who authored the letter) expressed what he said was Jon Kyl’s personal view that what we need most is some form of earned citizenship, guest worker program and/or illegal alien amnesty, i.e., we need, using his code words, serious comprehensive immigration reform.

It is an undeniable fact that Senator Kyl has yet to advocate enforcing existing immigration laws. And yet, the RNC on behalf of Senator Kyl has spent incalculable millions of dollars in Arizona running TV ads about how Jon Kyl opposes amnesty for illegal aliens. Adding insult to insult, Senator John McCain adamantly supports Jon Kyl’s re-election and publicly belittles his opponent as does one of the most liberal ‘fish wrappers’ in the nation, The Arizona Republic. Time Magazine, arguably the most left-wing magazine on national newsstands proclaimed Jon Kyl as one of the nation’s 10 best Senators.

Anybody but an ideologue will admit one simple fact –circumstantially, John McCain’s endorsement of Jon Kyl, coupled with Kyl’s extreme left wing media support, absolutely precludes Jon Kyl from the ranks of anyone willing to enforce existing or future immigration laws. Jon Kyl’s been in Congress twenty years and done nothing – nothing to stop the invasion. Why should anybody think Jon Kyl is suddenly going to do something now if he’s re-elected, except to continue to feed at the public trough for six more years and serve his own, and John McCain’s, left-wing agenda for the presidency?

Vote for Jon Kyl? I don’t think so.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

"Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state," Rosie O'Donnell said. After expressing the view that America was attacked "not by a nation," she continued: "And as a result of the attack and the killing of 3,000 innocent people, we invaded two countries and killed innocent people."

Most alarming should be the applause in the background, not Rosie O’Donnell’s comments or beliefs.

Her liberal co-hosts appeared shocked by her comments and attempted damage control. Co-host Joy Behar protested that Christians are not trying to impose mass murder on America. "This group (radical Muslims) is threatening to kill us."

O'Donnell would have no part of the damage control attempt and replied, “No, but we are bombing innocent people in other countries. True or false?"

Rosie O'Donnell firmly holds the view that there is no difference between the radical Muslims who kill in the name of Allah and Christians who follow the teachings of Jesus. Sadly, one can only suspect the outburst by Rosie O’Donnell is a projection of her internal anger at all Christians in general for their repudiating her public advocacy and participation in a homosexual lifestyle.

Neither O'Donnell nor ABC apologized for the comments. While the American Family Association thought an apology was appropriate, in our view none should be expected.

For purposes of comparison and illustration of hypocrisy, had Rosie O'Donnell made similar comments about minorities or homosexuals, ABC would have issued an immediate apology and she probably would have been fired.

The following is our letter sent to Mr. Brian Frons, President of ABC Daytime.

Brian Frons, President, ABC Daytime
ABC
77 West 66th St.
New York, NY 10023-6298
Primary Phone: 212-456-7777
Fax: 212-456-1424
E-Mail: Brian Frons, ABC

Dear President Frons,

[12:16] When a fool is annoyed, he quickly lets it be known. Sensible people will ignore an insult.

Some people think the comments by Rosie O'Donnell were reprehensible and deserve a public apology and reprimand. We do not agree. This is America and if Ms. O’Donnell has not breached a code of ethics or engaged in criminal behavior, we should all come to Rosie O’Donnell’s defense - particularly if anyone attempts to restrict her freedom of speech or punish her for her statements.

Instead, our choice is to avoid whenever possible watching ABC programming of any kind what-so-ever, since it is evident from the network’s thundering silence that ABC shares her views. While factually ignorant, distasteful and lacking respect, in a land of liberty, anti-Christian bigotry and anti-American viewpoints are Rosie O'Donnell's right. It is our right, however, using our remote control and the money in our American wallet, to repudiate any support of ABC by redirecting our family's viewing to alternative media outlets and by refusing to purchase your advertiser's products.

It is the American way - the way in which we can fairly cast our vote. You say what you think, and we say what we think, and then we vote. We cast our votes by deciding which networks and programming we will watch, and which advertisers we will support.

I suspect the majority of Americans have already concluded that ABC suffered another in a series of self-inflicted wounds from a deadly weapon – Rosie O’Donnell’s mouth.

Conventional wisdom tells us we are irrevocably known by the company we keep. Unfortunately, under the circumstances which we know you will understand, for us that does not include ABC or Rosie O'Donnell.

Are the Dixie Chicks also an ABC product?

Red State Patriot

« Close It

A portion is extracted from businesses of all shapes and sizes in the form of a corporate income tax. Individual income taxes provide five times the amount of corporate taxes. Employment taxes contribute another portion, roughly two thirds of the individual income taxes. Add to that gift, estate and excise taxes. In 2003, tax revenues were somewhere close to $2 trillion. For FY2007, beginning October 1st, 2006, Congress authorized a $2.8 trillion budget, an increase by 40% since President Bush first took office in 2001. President Clinton’s last budget was $1.8 trillion.

We give the President credit for the budget because he signed it into law. However, never forget for a minute that it was Congressmen, our Senators and district Representative, who inserted the spending provisions into the budget and it was Congress that passed it.

What effect is this spending having on the national economy? We are told almost daily there is no demand-driven inflation. Demand is determined by the magnitude of public consumption expenditures and government consumption expenditures, plus investment expenditures and net exports/imports. You know that both public and government consumption expenditures (spending) have been huge. Over the last two years alone, $1.352 trillion of equity has been extracted from real estate - an amount equal to about 10% of annual GDP - and spent without saving hardly a dime. During the same period, net imports/exports has been hugely negative. One only needs to look at product labels in any retail establishment to know that most of what we purchase today was manufactured in foreign countries. Price inflation from government and public consumption expenditures demand is running wild and unchecked, and in several asset classes as a result of speculation, inflation has become “pure.”

Congress could just as easily have shown a pretense of fiscal responsibility and reduced this year’s budget instead of raising it. While Congressmen and the media are quick to tell us the President’s words are all sound – all sound, it is Congress that is blindly proceeding to do just exactly what it wants to do, spending what it collectively wants to spend. It is Congress, aided and abetted by the media, that blames this President (and past presidents) for Congress’ ill-advised decisions on everything from the war in Iraq to entitlement spending and earmarks. Even votes are becoming expensive to purchase. Ask any Congressman.

When anyone overspends their income, they must go into debt if they continue to make purchases, which we know to as “deficit spending.” When tax revenues are inadequate to pay the bills, additional revenue has to come from somewhere. This additonal revenue iis obtained from the sale of United States assets, in the form of government debt instruments (Treasury securities). Treasury securities are issued by the United States Department of the Treasury through the Bureau of the Public Debt – notice in the name the words ‘Public Debt.' Debt financing instruments are referred to simply as "Treasuries." Foreign governments and banks purchase our Treasuries with U.S. dollars which they acquired from selling us consumer goods or petroleum products.

There are four types of Treasury securities: Treasury bills, Treasury notes, Treasury bonds, and Savings bonds. Treasury securities (except savings bonds) are very liquid forms of national debt and heavily traded by international entities on the secondary market.

A national debt is created when a lending foreign government or bank (such as the Federal Reserve) agrees to loan a sum of assets (U.S. dollars) to a debtor nation, in this case the United States. As you would expect, these loans are made with an expectation of repayment, plus interest. The choices are few – repay, reschedule or default. Historically, individual debt was always responsible for the creation of indentured servants. Remember this detail, because national debt is no different, only on a larger scale. National debt is definitely not charity. Charity is best exemplified by the United States’ internal income redistribution programs (entitlement programs) which are a give-away of tax dollars with no expectation of receiving anything in return, not even nationalism. Entitlement programs are a subsidy by Congress of ethically, morally, educationally and culturally challenged Americans and illegal aliens in return for Congressional self interest, votes and power. Any organization or special interest group granted a tax exempt status – whether religious, political or charitable - for any reason - is similarly enjoying a pernicious form of entitlement program – receiving citizenship benefits paid for by other taxpayers including protection of the law, but indignantly contributing nothing – nothing at all.

To anyone who would read this article voluntarily, you probably already know that China has become the world’s biggest foreign exchange holder of U.S. Treasuries. Chinese holdings of United States foreign exchange (debt) reached $853.7 billion as of February 28, 2006. Japanese holdings of U.S. foreign exchange were $852 billion as of March 31, 2006.

For comparison in a global sense, the U.S. current account deficit in 2005 was $791.5 billion. The world’s next largest current account deficit in 2005 was Spain’s $86 billion.

It will take decades for our children and grandchildren to repay our government-incurred national debt, with interest. It is important to emphasize that the national debt is not the responsibility of everyone - only those individuals and corporations who do pay taxes (since the bottom 50% of wage earners and illegal aliens pay no taxes at all).

Red State Patriot

« Close It

Over one-half billion federal tax dollars have already been spent in Mississippi restoring damaged state schools. While counterintuitive, these federal funds dispensed to the State of Mississippi were not loans for the purpose of rebuilding the state’s schools, but Washington, D.C. exercising a federal ownership interest, authority over, and responsibility for what have become U.S. government schools (indoctrination centers) in Mississippi. Pause and reflect on the socialist implications of the federal government's ownership and control of state schools.

Senator Ted Kennedy is a staunch proponent of such spending. Consider the “Big Dig” in Massachusetts. The Big Dig is the unofficial name of the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T), a mega-project to reroute Interstate 93, the controlled-access highway through the heart of Boston, Massachusetts, into a 3.5 mile (5.6km) tunnel under the city. The Big Dig is the most expensive highway project in America. Planning for the Big Dig officially began in 1982.

Environmental impact studies started in 1983. After years of extensive lobbying for federal dollars, a 1987 public works bill appropriating funding for the Big Dig was passed by U.S. Congress, and quickly vetoed by President Ronald Reagan as being too expensive. Congress overrode his veto and in 1991, the Big Dig began in earnest.

The project was estimated at $2.5 billion in 1985. Over $14.6 billion has been spent in federal and state tax dollars as of 2006, with Congress adding more money (your tax dollars) every year to Senator Ted Kennedy’s marquis project every time an appropriations bill presented itself. The project has been plagued with delays, escalating costs, leaks, shoddy workmanship, intentional use of substandard materials and even arrests. The Massachusetts Attorney General is demanding that contractors refund MA taxpayers $108 million for "shoddy work." Taxpayers across the rest of the nation are unlikely to benefit from any recovery – the money is gone. The final ramp of the Big Dig opened after 15 years of construction on what was supposed to be less than a ten-year project on January 13, 2006. Six months later, the tunnel segment under South Boston which connects the mainline of I-90 to the newly-constructed Ted Williams Tunnel, was closed indefinitely to the public because the tunnel ceiling collapsed on July 10, 2006 killing a female passenger riding in a vehicle.

Returning to New Orleans, there were 484,674 permanent residents of New Orleans when Katrina struck. For each one of those 484,674 inhabitants, $250 billion would provide over one-half million dollars to each person, $516,528 to be exact – for every man, woman and child. For every family of four, that’s over 2 million dollars of our tax money - $2,066,112. Or, if you happened to own one or more of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans, and homes were your focus, each and every home would be entitled to $1,329,787. One year later, and billions of dollars spent to repair the partial destruction (less than 5%) of the New Orleans levee system by Hurricane Katrina, the head of the Army corps of Engineers conceded on August 26th that it wasn’t clear if the levee system (read: luck will be needed) will ever be able to withstand a heavy storm surge from a Category 3 hurricane, let alone Category 4 or 5. A new hurricane season has just begun. Senator, Mary Landrieu (D) or her successor will soon be asking for another 250 billion tax dollars. Instead of opening education accounts for our children, maybe we should be opening levee accounts for Louisiana.

Why doesn’t Louisiana sell state bonds to fund their own levee repairs, particularly in those areas unrelated to national commerce on the Mississippi River? Most states and many cities sell “capital improvement” bonds to fund everything from football stadiums to water treatment facilities to transportation systems and state schools. The answer is self evident. No one would invest in the efficiency of the LA state government or risk calamitous acts of nature that will reoccur along the Gulf Coast. No insurance company would touch it. Neither should the U.S. government and U.S. taxpayers.

Today, we find ourselves confined in the same room with an elephant named FEMA, the antithesis of individual responsibility and another failed product of Congress. FEMA is so fat it can’t turn around in its own confines without doing more harm than good. The corruption is staggering, mostly ignored, and far beyond the control of FEMA administrators. Congress feeds incredible sums of tax money to FEMA. Citizens, churches and charitable organizations spend most of their time with shovels cleaning up after the “benefits” FEMA provides to us – same as families must do with the Education Department, the results of which are evident in everyday life. Speaking of education, Congress and the NEA have proudly refined and reformed education in America to the point that only a few high school graduates can figure it out. The vernacular expression, “duh,” may finally have achieved some social and fiscal relevance.

Red State Patriot

A politician cannot spend one dime on any spending project without first taking that dime from the person who earned it, and Congress is spending almost a billion (one thousand million dollars) tax dollars every 8 hours - most unconstitutionally if anyone still cares. Have you had a talk with your Senators and Representative lately? Are you going to vote?

« Close It

"Really, I've already made up my mind. I want to be in Heaven," said the Senator.

"I'm sorry, but we have our rules."

And with that, St. Peter escorted the Senator to the elevator and down he went, down to hell. The doors opened and he found himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance was a clubhouse and standing in front of it were all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him. Everyone appeared to be very happy and everyone wore evening dress. They ran to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. They played a friendly game of golf and then dined on lobster, caviar and imbibed the finest champagne.

Also present was the Devil, who was a really friendly guy, and who had a good time dancing and telling jokes. They were all having such a good time that before he realized it, it was time to go. Everyone gave him a hearty farewell and waved while the elevator rose into the distance. The elevator went up, up, up and the door reopened in heaven where St. Peter was waiting for him.

"Now it's time to visit heaven."

Twenty four hours passed with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They had a good time and before he realized it, the twenty four hours was gone and St. Peter returned.

"Well, then, you've spent a day in Hell and another in Heaven. Now you have to choose your eternity."

The Senator reflected briefly, then answered: "Well, I would never have said it before, and I don’t want to offend you, I mean Heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in Hell."

So St. Peter escorted him to the elevator and back down, down, down to Hell he went. The doors of the elevator opened and the Senator found himself in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He saw all his friends, dressed in rags, arguing among themselves, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more garbage fell from above

The Devil eventually came over to him and put his arm around the Senator’s shoulders.

"I don't understand," stammered the Senator. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and a beautiful clubhouse. We ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's only a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. This isn’t what I wanted. What happened?"

The devil looked at him, smiled and said, "Yesterday we were campaigning which is a lot different than reality. You saw what you wanted to see and heard what you wanted to hear. Today you voted.”

Red State Patriot

« Close It

A key reason for the concern is the real estate "bubble." Residential real estate assets accounted for more than two-thirds of recent GDP growth, not wages. Now that the real estate boom is coming to an end, or at least appears to be cooling substantially, the potential exists for serious consequences to the U.S. economy.

Consumers understandably tend to look for cheaper alternatives to new cars when the economy begins to show weakness, and right now consumers are faced with historically high fuel prices, a real estate market that has leveled off and declining in some geographic areas, and the gradually declining value of the U.S. dollar. As a result, the price is going up on imported goods which are no longer produced in the United States.

The Federal Reserve masterfully engineered low interest rates which stimulated not only business activity, but real estate development, home re-financing and home equity loans. In the past several years, the consumer has been taking money out of his house just to keep going. Fistfuls of money. Truckloads of it. Over the last two years alone, $1.352 trillion of equity has been extracted - an amount equal to about 10% of annual GDP.

The consumption expenditures that resulted powered much of the economy in recent years. The spending binge, which couldn’t last, is coming to an end. While consumer debt levels have become staggering, Congress still is in no mood to stop spending. Real wage increases have been modest and don’t begin to offset rising employee “benefit” costs, inflation, and higher taxes that were instituted by state governments immediately after the Bush Administration's federal tax cuts.

Aggravating the situation is the growing world demand for petroleum products, political unrest in the Middle East and the Islamic Wars. Congressional liberals have refused for decades to develop any new energy sources or permit construction of nuclear power plants or refineries. If the United States were to experience a national emergency and attempted to make up for lost time and opportunities, it would still take ten years to bring any refinery or nuclear facility into production, assuming environmentalists, state and federal courts, and Congress would acquiesce. As a result, consumers will continue to be pinched harder by higher (and still climbing) fuel prices and taxes, and the slumping real estate market is making it more difficult to extract any asset equity to purchase a vehicle (or other durable goods).

Decide for yourself if you think the United States is on the verge of a recession. In any event, it would be wise to begin to eliminate any accumulated household debt as quickly as possible. You do not want to run out of money before your bills are paid (if you are young), and you definitely do not want to run out of money before you die (if you are enjoying the final years of a good life).

Remember, the severity of any economic downturn cannot be predicted.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

It quickly became clear that Israel’s military response into Lebanon was tactically questionable (inept). With the knowledge that there was nothing to fear from the United States or Europe, Arab nations quickly changed sides in the conflict – supporting Hezbollah and Hassan Nasrallah. The United States was the biggest loser in the tide change of Middle East sentiment, losing all believability, either as a credible force or a deterrent in the Arab world.

The United Nations cease-fire resolution, described more accurately as a pause-fire resolution, has been hailed by the main stream media as a monumental success. The Internet blogosphere expressed profoundly the opposite reaction. While the United Nations resolution was not passed under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter and does not have the authority of international law, it does expose Israel to condemnation if Israel attempts to respond to, or defends itself from, future Hezbollah provocations. Probably the most alarming fact, from an Israeli perspective, is who in the United Nations has been given the responsibility for determining compliance. That gem of negotiation has been placed in the hands of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, a man historically and notoriously anti-Semitic.

Inexplicably, the UN resolution, which the United States both sponsored and voted to adopt, makes no mention of either Syria or Iran. Without their support, Hezbollah would not exist let alone wage war against Israel. By ignoring Hezbollah's sponsors in the conflict, the UN resolution sends an unambiguous message to Iran and Syria that they can continue to equip and command terrorist proxy armies in Lebanon, the West Bank, Iraq and anywhere else with impunity, and foment violent unrest without fear of economic or military consequences. History has already been written that Hezbollah's aggression against Israel, and Israel's military action in defense of its sovereign territory, were morally equivalent.

The fate of the two IDF soldiers, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, was relegated to one paragraph in the UN resolution preamble, which links the return of the Israeli soldiers to the release of Lebanese terrorists held in Israel. The resolution all but eliminates any possibility of the soldiers returning home.

Then there is the question of an arms embargo and disarming Hezbollah, which the resolution puts off to some future date when Israel and Lebanon can agree to the terms of a "permanent cease-fire." Should that ever happen, it places the power to oversee an arms embargo against Hezbollah in the hands of the Lebanese government, of which Hezbollah is a prominent member. Can you see anything wrong with this picture?

Remember, the United States sponsored this UN resolution.

The UN resolution goes on to legitimize the claim of Lebanese sovereignty over the Shaba Farms, or Mount Dov - a vast area on the Golan Heights that separates the Syrian Golan from the Upper Galilee. The Shaba Farms area, long disputed between Israel and Syria, has now been placed on the UN negotiating table. By doing so, the UN rewarded Hezbollah's aggression by giving international legitimacy to its demand for territorial aggrandizement via acts of aggression. It must be an established law of the known universe - Israel can never expect the world to recognize any of its borders as final.

The diplomatic world refuses to acknowledge what should be obvious, i.e., Hezbollah and Syria are one in the same (appendages that have the same Islamic head - Iran), and Hamas and Syria will soon be one in the same, after remnants of the Palestinian Authority have been absorbed into Hamas - all with a unity of purpose and action. Since Hezbollah will neither disarm voluntarily, nor permit a search for hidden weapons stockpiles in Lebanon, it is hard to imagine – inconceivable more likely - that Iran and Syria will not reinitiate the conflict after re-supplying Hezbollah and Hamas.

If one needs proof of the inevitable, there is the nagging fact that no Islamic militant force, throughout recorded history, has ever voluntarily disarmed. In fact, no rational human being voluntarily disarms, particularly in the face of adversity or religious quest. In the Islamic case, Muslims are entirely rational. Muslims consistently make rational decisions in their own self interest. Prophet Mohammad is a profound unifying force and the Qur’an is their roadmap to the afterlife. No Muslim will ever voluntarily or willingly abandon fervent core beliefs, or give up the ability or forsake the tactics, to wage war against infidels. Any opinion to the contrary is worth what you paid for it. You would have better luck getting a “Born Again” Christian to forsake Jesus Christ – and that day will come if Islamic fascism is not stopped.

Military historians may someday show that Israel emulated the failed politically correct warfare strategy of the United States in Iraq (arguably the right war, but the wrong tactics). Modern intellectuals, political opportunists and those without military training have lost sight of history and the inviolate facts - all wars, without exception, are won with and by massive collateral damage, not by avoiding collateral damage. Battles can occasionally be won by precision strikes, but not wars – and particularly not wars for survival. The last man standing wins. It has always been and always will be, and the Islamic Wars will not end until the last man is standing. Muslims see their conflict, first with Israel and then Europe and the West, in exactly that light, supremely confident the last man standing will be a Muslim. Someday, liberals will realize that Islamic terrorism cannot be stopped with political correctness, only by overwhelming remorseless force. Until such a day that realists instead of opportunists warm the seats of Congress, U.S. State Department and the Kinneset, thousands if not millions will die at the altar of secular liberal fantasies.

War between Islam and Israel has but one purpose - to eliminate the nation-state of Israel. Ten thousand square miles of Jewish nationhood, established by the UN in 1948, has been under relentless assault by five million square miles of Muslim dominance, not counting Iran. It would be a really good thing if the Israeli sleeper were to awaken.

The logical extension of the United Nations' cumulative actions, after Israel has become a footnote in history, is to acquiesce to (foster) the eventual Islamic subjugation of France, Spain and Great Britain. If you reside in Europe, you’re next. Hopefully what remains of European civilization is paying attention. Those who are not concerned today can avail themselves of the southern United States border tomorrow or at their convenience. It is probably already too late for France, themselves descendants of Muslim occupiers centuries ago.

Equally troublesome is the speculation that the United States’ State Department must have intended by their actions to give the advantage and ultimate victory to Islam (Iran). Lacking additional information, why else would the United States sponsor a UN cease-fire resolution before Israel had the opportunity to dismantle or seriously degrade Hezbollah’s military capabilities? Assuming Israel is an ally, why did the United States of America not do more – much more? Having failed that test, why would the U.S. State Department orchestrate an unprecedented defeat for Israel at the hands of the United Nations? It is doubtful a U.S. government spokesman would frame the events this way, but they are just about the only ones in the world who would not.

Iran’s stated desire to annihilate Israel remains intact as a viable objective.

When all is said and done, Iran has accomplished its strategic objectives, i.e., reinvigorating Syrian dominance, isolating Jordan, reaching out and absorbing Hamas, rebuking the Arab League, fermenting Iraq’s collapse in a civil war of Iranian-instigated internal strife, undermining the internal stability of the governments of Great Britain and Europe, and ultimately unleashing Iran’s nuclear plans to establish a Muslim caliphate over the entire region by force of nuclear arms.

Can you think of any reason, other than wishful thinking, why Iran’s nuclear plans will not prevail?

Iranian strategic planning seems to have accurately calculated that Hezbollah would briefly lose control over southern Lebanon in the current military engagement. Iran had every reason to expect that with the help of the United Nations, Hezbollah would later reacquire and strengthen its control over Lebanon in traditional Islamic fashion, this time with UN legitimacy. Hezbollah will have sacrificed only a few hundred square miles in southern Lebanon which can easily be reacquired at a later date. In the interim, Iran and Syria will consolidate their gains. Hezbollah will set about to eliminate any remnants of the Lebanese Democracy movement known as the Cedars Revolution. Once Hezbollah has purged Lebanon of its remaining Christian influences, Shia Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere will carefully prepare for a wider and bloodier war with Israel, from all sides- and from within.

Iran and Syria correctly anticipated a lack of support for Israel in the main stream media and had no fear of a United States Congress consumed with self-interest - not unlike a pig at a trough of fresh slop. The European Union remains gripped in self-loathing and Islamophobia. At last sighting, the European Union, led by France – was seen flying in ever decreasing concentric circles in the process of assimilation by the Islamic Borg, only one small step by mankind behind Lebanon.

The outcome in Lebanon was all but inevitable. Even if the United States or Europe had seriously considered interfering in the conflict initiated by Hezbollah with Israel, Iran had every intention of using Muslim proxies embedded in European and United States populations as a distraction.

The European Union, to this day, will not label Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

The terrorist plot to take down numerous commercial airline flights over the Atlantic Ocean, and its timing, was unlikely a coincidence, regardless of what we’ve been led to believe about its homegrown origins. The terrorist plot was fortunately foiled, but from Iran’s perspective, as it turned out, it really wasn’t necessary and the distractions served their purpose. Muslims will rampage none-the-less to keep Great Britain preoccupied and cause the uninformed to question every government anti-terrorist move in self-doubt.

No one has to imagine the worst case scenario for western civilization. It is becoming a reality in our lifetime - a nuclear-armed Iranian-Syrian-Lebanese Islamic axis complete with international legitimacy, which completely envelopes Israel and is brazenly dedicated to Israel’s elimination (annihilation), and an axis of Islamic fascism whose hegemony now directly or indirectly controls Middle Eastern oil supplies.

Only one of two alternative explanations correlates easily with UN actions:

a. The United Nations has no intention of intervening in any conflict between Israel and Islam except as necessary to prevent Israel from gaining the upper hand, or

b. UN member nations choose to believe the imposed Hezbollah-Israeli ceasefire will somehow forestall a wider conflict in the Middle East, and that acquiring most of Lebanon will somehow magically satiate Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas.

It appears the Iranians closely studied the history of WWII, learning from the successes and mistakes of the Third Reich. If Adolph Hitler were still with us, he would commend Ahmadinejad.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

As Americans, we have arrived at the point, hopefully a defining moment, when every American should pause and take stock. Even though an investigation is under way in Europe and the United States which will undoubtedly confirm what we have already been told, it is absolutely irrelevant that the terrorist plot was suggestive of al-Qaida.

The primary issue – the only issue - is that the plot was real. It was fermented, carefully planned, and well orchestrated by highly-trained Muslims. The plot was international in scope and the probable death toll would have been in the thousands. At risk was the continued viability of safe, reliable international aviation and commerce. At least one of the plotters had attended a terrorist training camp in Pakistan, and more than one of the accused had already prepared a martyrdom suicide tape.

A quick review of recent history is always helpful. Since the WTC attack on September 11, 2001 which killed approximately 3000 people and injured thousands more, many for life, successful Muslim attacks on innocent people have included suicide bombers who killed 52 people in London on July 7, 2005; 58 innocent people who died in two attacks in Istanbul, Turkey, in 2003; and 202 tourists and citizens were ruthlessly killed in Bali in 2002.

Adherents of Islam killed 191 people in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and chose to blow themselves up a few days later when police were closing in to make arrests. Before 2001, recall the first Muslim attempt to bring down the World Trade Center in 1993. Before that was the Munich Olympics in 1972 during which athletes were kidnapped and massacred. The U.S. Embassy in Iran was sacked by Muslims in 1979 and hostages were held for over one year. Recall the numerous kidnappings of Americans in Lebanon during the 1980’s. The U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up in 1983 resulting in a tremendous loss of life. The cruise ship Achille Lauro was attacked in 1985 and in the process, a 70-year passenger in a wheelchair was thrown overboard and died. TWA Flight 845 was hijacked in Athens in 1987 and U.S. Navy diver trying to protect the passengers was killed. Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988 resulting in 270 deaths. The U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed in 1998. Four airliners were hijacked in 2001 - three were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Center towers and Pentagon. The fourth was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed. No doubt you can think of many others including Richard Reid, the shoe-bomber and an attack at the Los International Airport ticket counters. Do you remember hearing recently about college graduate Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar who slammed a rented SUV this March into a crowd of students at the University of North Carolina, hitting nine. The Iranian-born 22-year-old told the 9-1-1 dispatcher that he was attempting to “punish the government of the United States for [its] actions around the world.” In court days later, he said he was “thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah.” And then there was Naveed Haq, hiding behind potted plants. Naveed Haq laid in wait and abducted a 14-year-old girl he could use as a hostage to enter the Seattle Jewish Federation. With a gun in her back, he pushed his way past security and through the door. He coldly, deliberately shot six women. When a wounded woman tried to flee up some stairs, he followed her, leaned over a railing and killed her.

During the Clinton administration, an undeclared war was fought ostensibly to protect Muslims from ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Herzegovinia. During the Bush (43) administration, a war of retaliation for the World Trade Center attack was fought against the Taliban in Afghanistan (and the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City which was alleged to have connections to Iraq). In 2002, reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered. The list of atrocities, wanton slaughter and beheadings by Muslims goes on in the Middle East today – none of whom by the way are extremists Muslims, only the faithful. Countless unsuccessful attacks on American soil were planned by Muslims and thwarted only at the last moment by luck or good intelligence. None of the above even begins to document hundreds of Muslim attacks in the rest of the world.

There is the mounting evidence in the minds of many that TWA Flight 800 was shot down by a missile. Can you remember another incident that occurred at the Oklahoma University Stadium, a bombing attempt intended to inflict massive carnage to sports fans in a packed stadium? That incident was also linked to the same Islamic influences of one of the 9/11hijackers.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23564

What about the Egypt Air plane crash which killed 217? A few courageous analysts revisited the chilling 1999 disaster in which the Egyptian co-pilot, a devout Muslim, reportedly had said "Allah Akbar," Arabic for "God is great," before the plane plunged to its destruction.

And then there is the issue of the bombing by Timothy McVeigh of the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995 that killed 168 people. Jayna Davis, a former investigative reporter for the NBC affiliate KFOR-TV in Oklahoma City, gathered massive evidence of a foreign conspiracy involving Saudi terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, including hundreds of court records, 24 sworn witness statements and reports from law enforcement, intelligence and terror experts, all of which she turned over to the FBI, which refused even to accept the material. Apparently in 1995, even the FBI was unwilling to accept the premise that Islam, the "religion of peace," could motivate individuals through its teachings to that level of unspeakable depravity. To an educated, civilized mind, whether secular, Jewish or Christian, it was inconceivable.

For an amazing journey back into the archives of terrorism in the United States, find a copy of "The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing" (Hardcover or Paperback) by Jayna Davis, 2004. It is available through Amazon.com and retail book stores.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0785261036/sr=1-2/qid=1155303828/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-9931552-9675952?ie=UTF8&s=books

Despite Clinton impeachment prosecutor David Schippers' revelation that he was "thoroughly convinced that there was a dead-bang Middle Eastern connection in the Oklahoma City bombing" – the press was, by and large, immune from revisiting such stories, beyond reporting the official government conclusions. Only U.S. News & World Report, in a tiny news item buried in its "Washington Whispers" column, saw fit to report that some top Defense Department officials believe Timothy McVeigh, executed for his role in the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, was an Iraqi agent.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002217

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002216

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22122

Liberal intellectuals in the United States and Europe still foolishly believe al-Qaida’s call for global jihad is the triggering mechanism that acts as an inspiration for the terrorism - which is utter nonsense. (Disclaimer: Each and every person who reads this article must realize that somebody who feels the need to be politically correct, whether out of fear or timidity, cannot by definition speak with honesty.) Forget everything you’ve been told about political correctness and the babble that not all Muslims are Islamic extremists.

Killing and/or subjugating infidels is the single mainstream core belief of Islam – statement of fact! War with Islam, death to infidels and subjugation of non-believers as “dhimmi” constitute the impenetrable hard core about which all Muslim’s form their belief system. Disagree naively out of ignorance and at your own peril. Suffer the same fate as Israel who tried to trade land for peace if you choose. Congressional victims of America’s public education system and the main stream media will soon begin saying what the Democratic Party faithful have been saying all along - there is no threat to the United States from the “Religion of Peace.” Believing any of them is a mistake. The threat to the United States, and Americans in particular, is real and will continue to exist. Why? Because peaceful coexistence with Muslims as equals in a pluralistic society is not one of our choices. Our choices as unbelievers only include three options - accepting Islam, accepting institutionalized inferior status known as dhimmi, or war with Islam.

Negotiation of any other outcome is not possible with the “Religion of Peace,” nor is it permitted by the precepts of Islam, except as a stalling tactic until such day as adherents of Islam feel they have the strength to reassert themselves. Once again, negotiation by Israel, the nations of Europe or the United Nations with Islam is not possible. Win decisively, or at the risk of the rest of humanity, attempt to negotiate and lose inevitably and violently.

Muhammad says that Muslim faithful are “commanded to fight against people” until they become Muslim, and that those who resist risk forfeiting their lives and property. Violent jihad warfare against unbelievers is not a heretical doctrine held by a tiny minority of extremists as the media and Muslim apologists would have you believe, but a constant element – the axle about which all mainstream Islamic theology revolves. In addition, the “gates of ijtihad,” or free inquiry into the Qur’an and Islamic tradition, has been closed for centuries. Islamic teaching on principal matters is settled and is not permitted to be called into question by the faithful. The Qur’an is not just a theology to the Muslim faithful; it’s is also the law.

A British police official speculated that the Muslim suspects in the most recent terrorist plot may be “homegrown.” Even if all of the suspects were not British citizens, it is totally irrelevant if the suspects were or were not British citizens. They were Muslims. Muslims have no nationalistic allegiance to anything – no country, no government, no geographic region, and even no family - just Islam. You need no other evidence that their willingness to sacrifice their children in the name of Allah. Muslims do not recognize any concept of nationalism or national boundaries – only world-wide Islamic dominion according to the precepts of the Qur’an.

The AP article on August 10th also informed us that as far back as 1995, al-Qaida attempted “to use liquid explosives to blow up a dozen airliners as they flew across the Pacific Ocean to U.S. destinations, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Honolulu and New York.” Rodolfo Mendoza, a police intelligence official in the Philippines, pointed out the obvious - that the latest plot to blow up commercial airliners simply reveals the group’s unwavering and never-ending resolve – to kill all who Islam considers infidels. “These people are obsessed,” Mendoza was reported to have said. “They will try and try and try again to accomplish their mission.”

The greatest lie of the 21st Century will be, “Islam is a religion of peace.” Knowing and accepting that to be Islam’s public relations Trojan Horse, then recognize that the conflict in the Middle East between Iran, Syria and Israel is nothing less than a war to the death (or conversion, or subjugation as dhimmi), between Islam and the infidels of Judaism and Christianity. The thousands of Christians in the Middle East who have not been protected within the borders of Israel have already been systematically repressed and many brutally slain.

The main stream media and the United Nations would have you believe that Lebanon is a sovereign nation. However, the reality is that Lebanon ceased to exist as a viable independent political entity over a decade ago and its Christian population have been undergoing intense repression. Lebanon has been assimilated by the Muslim “borg.” Today, Lebanon is a delusional figment of international imagination, a government that exists in name only at the pleasure and humor of Tehran. Lebanon was once what many thought was a paradise. Today Lebanon is only the name of a piece of ground upon which the initial battles of the Islamic Wars in the Middle East are being waged. Muslims wish that the battles were being waged inside Israeli borders, as do many in Europe and the United Nations. Fortunately Israel may have other ideas and hopefully it has strong survival instincts.

Win decisively or lose inevitably. Anything less than the defeat of Iran and Syria will be seen by Muslims as a profound defeat of Israel and the United States, which is the principal reason why liberal secular Israelites, Europeans and Americans will tragically try to prevent Israel from winning decisively.

The latest foiled international terrorist plot was only the latest attempt of Muslims to extend their Islamic Wars with all of humanity beyond the Middle East and inside the borders of the United States.

There is some potentially good news coming out of the United Nations. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is reported to be pushing the U.N. Security Council to come up with a plan for ending what Kofi Annan describes as “Israel's conflict” with Iran’s Hezbollah guerrillas based in Lebanon. This can only mean Israel must be gaining the upper hand. In a statement, Kofi Annan's office said the Secretary-General is working "very intensely" on reaching a resolution acceptable to both Israel and Lebanon. He repeated his call to end the fighting and "save civilians on both sides from the nightmare they have endured for the past four weeks."

It should be noted that Lebanon wields no independent power nor controls its own territory and that which is not currently occupied by the IDF is commanded by agents of Iran (Hezbollah) and Syria. "The Secretary-General believes that it ought to be possible for the Security Council to adopt a resolution by the end of the week," his office said. Such a ceasefire, if agreed upon by Israel, would give Iran ample time to re-supply both itself and Hezbollah with more weapons, re-organize on the battlefield, redeploy Hezbollah and Kaytusha rockets advantageously, communicate strategy with Hezbollah and Syria, and set new terrorist objectives.

Watch closely - those who fervently seek the defeat of Israel will most strongly advocate such a cease fire.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

What the media portrays as the two major political parties in American politics, apparently both have degenerated into a self-anointed “elite ruling class,” all of similar socialist persuasion who are now working in concert (walking in lock-step) with President Bush. I think the expression is a "toady." It would appear that less than a handful of U.S. Congressmen see their duty as anything but to themselves, their re-election, self-aggrandizement and obtaining personal wealth at the expense of American citizens.

The main stream media (with the notable exception of Lou Dobbs) remains silent on what is a clear and present threat to United States’ national sovereignty. This might come as a surprise were it not for the media’s tiresome daily support of open borders and unrestrained migration of illegal aliens. Christian leaders remain equally silent, supporting their own self interests derived from open border policies above their American citizenship.

It seems hardly an overstatement to say that the United States is on the verge of foresaking its national sovereignty, and ultimately its independence, as the vast majority of our country's elected leaders (Congressmen, Governors, state legislators, county and city governments) sit stunningly silent in apparent tacit approval.

A reasonable person has to wonder if Congressmen themselves are too ignorant to understand the outcome of their own NAFTA and CAFTA legislation. Why does it take “Joe 6-Pack” American to point out that the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), signed by President Bush with foreign leaders, was nothing less than a treaty which should have been ratified by Congress. Equally problematic is that both NAFTA and CAFTA were legislated in defiance of the majority of Americans, the “will of the people.” SPP is a direct outgrowth of the 1994 NAFTA legislation. A less than objective overview of SPP can be found at www.spp.gov.

Is it remotely possible that a hemispheric “one unified North American Union” was intended by Congress from the beginning and legislated under the (dis) guise of “free trade agreements?” To adopt such a cynical viewpoint would give Congress too much credibility in the face of historical fact. Ignorance is more likely the correct choice were it not for Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who has quietly introduced a bill, S.3622 to create a "North American Investment Fund" that would tap both U.S. and Canadian taxpayers for the development of public works projects in Mexico.

In either event, the wishes and desires of Americans have not been permitted to figure into the history-altering SPP treaty decisions. What happened to the U.S. Constitution along the way? Has it become mere toilet tissue in the view of government elites? Where are the proud defenders of the United States of America, those war heroes, Senators John “IED” McCain * and John Kerry? Trust between the American people and our government is imperiled by such thoughtless failures of leadership on immigration reform and border security.

Fortunately, there are people like Lou Dobbs who are alert - a few precious souls who are simultaneously both awake and conscious, and concerned (alarmed) about Bush's proposed North American Union.

It would appear Congressional authority has unquestionably been usurped. A treaty, both in form and substance, has been signed and implemented, while being passed off as only a 'declaration and outline of mutual priorities'.

It woud seem reasonable to conclude that any agreement, whether binding the United States in fact or principle, to protect the security of Mexico and Canada is arguably a treaty. In any event, any agreement that permits Mexico and Canada joint regulation of any aspect of United States trade would be foolish at a minimum, but the the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), comprised of North American business leaders, has already begun their joint oversight of trade and security issues.

Numerous provisions of NAFTA and CAFTA, and SPP by definition, subverts and subjugates the authority of Congress to foreign nations. Critics have argued this point before each piece of free-trade legislationwas passed by Congress - both NAFTA and CAFTA. SPP contains within its pages the agreement to share responsibility for the security of all of North America - whether formal or informal, the elements of a mutual defense pact. Has Congress and the President of the United States both decided to share United States sovereignty with both Canada and Mexico, i.e., subjugate United States sovereignty to the trilateral mutual interests of the three nations? Apparently so, and without any voice from American citizens.

Very few citizens have had the opportunity to voice their concerns except as a “letter to the editor?” Few have access to national audiences. What choice do most citizens have but to use the internet and make calls to radio talk shows? The point is, and you know it to be true intuitively, that American citizens are totally ignored today by anyone who is in possession of a national platform.

Congressional office staffers and home district office personnel have similarly adopted the attitude, “repel all boarders.” They will greet you with a warm smile, acknowledge your concerns, and give reassurances that the matter is of “utmost importance” to your elected representative. That is of course, assuming you can get an “appointment” to be heard – which is often very difficult – to the point many simply give up. Congressmen in Arizona even control who will be permitted attendance at their townhall meetings.

There are only two men in Congress who have forcefully spoken out: Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo and Texas Congressman Ron Paul. Both are opposed to President Bush’s vision and unconstitutional implementation of a North American Union. As you heard in the film clip, SPP will have both military and economic implications, which arguably makes SPP nothing less than a treaty, cleverly disguised to prevent public or Congressional debate.

To illustrate the unanimity of this Congressional movement to abandon the United States of America as a sovereign entity, these two men - Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul - plus Arizona Congressman J.D. Hayworth and Wisconsin Congressman F. James Sensenbrenne, are the only ones in apparent opposition out of 535 Congressmen, 435 House members and 100 Senators.

Reflect on the incredible number of U.S. Congressmen who cling desperately to power but have lost the courage and conviction they once had as Americans, and who can no longer be trusted to defend America's sovereignty and independence. If we needed proof of that assertion, we need look no further than their arrogant daily denigration of our own Armed Forces for personal political gain, and their willingness to commit treason to undermine the successful defense of the United States of America.

A battle for United States’ national sovereignty and independence is coming! How far are you willing to go to fight for your own liberty? It would be a good decision to make now. You will have to make that decision very, very soon.

As you depart from this article, it would be a good idea to watch the film clip one more time to fully grasp the enormous implications of SPP. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueAdeZuns3A

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." —Supreme Court Justice William Douglas

Red State Patriot

* Intermittent Explosive Disorder

« Close It

Sen. Session’s amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill would have authorized $1.8 billion to build the security fence as promised by the lawmakers and the Bush Administration. Two months ago members of the Senate voted 83-16 to build the fence along high-traffic areas of the border with Mexico. In that same vote on May 17, the Senate also directed that 500 miles of vehicle barriers to be built along the border. But the May vote only authorized the fencing and vehicle barriers. With the Senators now on record as voting for border fencing and barriers, without the appropriations, in reality they've voted not to build the fence they authorized. This is the second glaring instance of similar behavior by Senator Jon Kyl in recent months.

"If we never appropriate the money needed to construct these miles of fencing and vehicle barriers, those miles of fencing and vehicle barriers will never actually be constructed," Mr. Sessions said on the floor of the Senate just prior to the vote, which was aired on C-Span, but not by any of the broadcast or cable news shows.

The appropriations bill, which allocates over $30 billion to the Homeland Security Administration, which includes $2.2 billion for border security and control (but no fencing), passed on a 100-0 vote. The cost of the fence ($1.8B) would have been 6% of the Homeland Security budget appropriation. Funding for the fence could have been added to the bill by amendment instead of prorata reducing the Homeland Security budget. It could have been funded over several years. It would have been in the bill in the first place if there was any desire (or intention), either by the Administration or Congress, to build the border security fence. Any number of funding scenarios were available to the Senate and the Administration.

Why not put the cost of a border security fence in perspective? Over $100B in taxpayer funds has already been distributed to Gulf Coast states by Congress after Hurricane Katrina and Rita and more is on the way. And yet American citizens can't find jobs in these Gulf Coast states because they are inundated by literally hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens.

The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 called for at least 2,000 more Border Patrol agents per year along our border with Mexico to stop the unrelenting flow of people and illegal drugs into this country. But the Bush administration provided funding for only around 200 additional agents. President Bush then promised to deploy by August 6,000 National Guard troops to support the U.S. Border Patrol on the border with Mexico. Now, in mid-July, having already missed a June deadline, fewer than 900 have moved into place along the border.

As proposed, the Sessions amendment would have required some across-the-board cuts to the rest of the Homeland Security appropriations bill to fund the fence, which in itself is a breath of air in financial responsibility. It would have meant cutting roughly 6% of the very few newly authorized border-patrol agents put into this bill for political posturing and providing fewer detention beds for illegal aliens. Not only have roughly 90% of the border-patrol agents approved in previous legislation never materialized on the border, they are the most expensive and least effective of all available options. The few National Guard units sent to the border are serving no interdiction function. More detention beds will not begin to solve the problem. In the meanwhile, Congress and the Main Stream Media make denigrating remarks about the cost and effectiveness of the fence to sway public opinion.

It seems intuitively logical that the fence is needed now -- right now -- and should have taken priority, except apparently to those Senators who have no intention (refuse) to stem the flow of illegal aliens -- 71 of them.

What should not be lost on any American citizen is that a border security fence would be the least expensive long term solution by a wide margin. It would also be the least manpower intensive. It would be the most effective in detering illegal immigration, thwarting terrorist and drug cartel incursions, and reducing human smuggling. Arguably, detention beds are a laughable slight-of-hand by the Senate to give shelter, food, medical care and comfort to illegal aliens at taxpayer expense before they are returned to Mexico to try again.

It seems hard to imagine a single dollar in the Homeland Security Department budget appropriation that could be more important than border security fencing. "Americans should be outraged," said a Border Patrol agent, who wishes to remain anonymous. "Did anyone really believe these guys [senators] want to secure the border?" he said. Another Border Patrol agent was less diplomatic: "Our leaders are not serious about border security ... It's a con-job on the American people."

It is a safe bet to conclude that if the United States Senate (or the President) had any intention what-so-ever in stemming illegal aliens at the border, funding for the border security fence would have been included in the Homeland Security Administration budget appropriation.

Sessions Amdt. No. 4659, As Modified
Vote: 00200
Date: 13 July 2006
Issue: H.R. 5441
Question: S.Amdt. 4659
Result: Rejected by a vote of 71-29
Description: To appropriate an additional $1,829,400,000 to construct double-layered fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border and to offset such increase by reducing all other discretionary amounts on a prorata basis.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage.

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:

Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million; Bush: 143 million
Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000; Bush: 2,427,000
States won by: Gore: 19; Bush: 29
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2; Bush: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements living off government welfare..." Unfortunately, President Bush appears to have betrayed his conservative fiscal and social base and joined with Congress in mindlessly expanding socialism and abandoning any pretense of national sovereignty.

Alexander Tyler warned us of the predictable cycle of never-ending greed and re-election self-interests of individual U.S. Congressmen. Today we watch in prophetic amazement as Congress votes to enshrine themselves, loot the U.S. Treasury in self-interest spending, and defraud fellow Americans of their earnings. Arguably, there is no spending by Congress – none - that is not now motivated by self-interest instead of national interest.

Professor Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency & apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase – no doubt a conservative estimate.

Some have argued that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom. In a contrary viewpoint, have we not passed the point of apathy? Freedoms are becoming, if not scarce, at least less abundant. Our primary concern should be one of liberty.

Today’s governmental dependence is more likely a reliable indicator of the beginning of this nation’s “end times.”

Red State Patriot

« Close It

Governor Napolitano wants to project a “moderate” image, but when compared to her record, her image appears to be the cruel hoax of fantasy merchants. Arizonans citizens have become the victims -- each and every voter, and each and every taxpayer.

Governor Napolitano has shown her loyalty to the teacher’s unions over parents, trial lawyers over patients, illegal immigrants over public safety, high taxes over economic growth, eminent domain over private property, self interest over the citizen welfare, and a ballooning taxpayer funded bureaucracy over a limited, efficient government.

A historical review is in order. Governor Napolitano’s legislative veto legacy includes bills she vetoed promoting English immersion and education, a high-tech border radar system, a prison in Mexico to house illegal immigrant criminals, more stringent driver's license ID requirements, National Guard at the border, a state trespassing measure, common-sense ID requirements, and other policies to help Arizona conform to federal law. She vetoed bills which would have given parents more choices in the quality of their child's education by allowing more tax credit allowances to Arizonans, allowing colleges and universities to sponsor charter schools, and allowing more options for student loans. The governor also vetoed bills relating to parent involvement in education and increases in funding to needed school programs. Napolitano vetoed bills which authorized tax deductions and breaks for all Arizonans, including property taxes. The governor was unwilling to accept the legislature's proposed budget, insisting that her much larger tax and spend philosophy was what Arizonans wanted. Napolitano vetoed bills requiring more-thorough accountability reports for both state agencies and the Citizens Clean Elections Commission. She also vetoed bills which would have helped to educate voters on ballot propositions. The governor vetoed a bill which would have helped to keep more doctors in the state by limiting frivolous lawsuits in the emergency room and several bills that would have helped small business avoid frivolous lawsuits relating to disputes and worker’s compensation. The governor vetoed numerous bills on abortion, including proposals which would have required notarized parental consent before a minor could obtain an abortion, and prohibit state funds from being used to pay for abortions. Napolitano vetoed a bill which sought to prevent the governor from seizing firearms from citizens in the event of an emergency, thus raising questions about the governor's commitment to uphold Second Amendment rights. The governor vetoed several bills which would have helped law enforcement officials crack down on drunk driving and other crimes.

Las Vegas odds makers suggest there is a strong probability that the Commissar will be the first Governor in the history of the United States to seek political asylum in another state upon her departure from public office in Arizona.

A conservative will always tell you that facts are required to form valid opinions. What follows are the facts. Form your own opinions as to the gubernatorial unworthiness of Ms. Janet Napolitano.

Red State Patriot
---------------------

IMMIGRATION

2006

Vetoed a comprehensive immigration reform bill that would have increased border security. The bill would have empowered local law enforcement to crack down on both fraudulent documents and employment of illegal aliens. HB 2577

Vetoed a bill that would have created the state crime of trespassing in order to give local law enforcement a tool to cut down on illegal immigration. SB 1157

2005

Vetoed a bill that would have required Motor Vehicle Department (MVD) employees to confiscate fraudulent documents. SB 1523

Vetoed a bill that would have made English Arizona's official language. SB 1167

Vetoed a bill that would have required proof of citizenship to obtain certain taxpayer-funded state benefits. HB 2030

Vetoed a bill that would have allowed a private prison to be built along the border in Mexico to handle detention of criminals along the border. HB2709

Vetoed a bill that would have allowed local law enforcement to help federal authorities enforce immigration laws. SB 1306

Vetoed a bill that would have prohibited law enforcement or other government agencies, commissions, and boards or districts from accepting identification documents unless they were issued by a United States political subdivision, Indian tribe, or state or federal authority. SB 1511

PROTECTION FROM VOTER FRAUD

2005

Vetoed a bill that would have ensured voter privacy if that voter used a provisional ballot.

Vetoed a bill that would have required proof of identification before obtaining a provisional ballot.

2003

Vetoed a bill that would have required voters to present identification to an election official at a polling place.

EDUCATION / SCHOOL CHOICE

2006

Vetoed a bill which would have allowed an employee to elect a reduced withholding by the amount of the tax credit for contributions to a school tuition organization, a public school in support of extracurricular fees, character education programs or a qualified charitable organization that provides assistance to the working poor. SB 1151

Vetoed a bill that would have allowed school tuition organizations (STOs) to get more funding by offering additional tax credits. STOs help students who can't afford private school to get a private school education. HB 2004

2005

Vetoed a bill that would have given another option, called Industrial Development Accounts, for financing student loans. SB 1340

Vetoed a bill that would have given tax credits to individuals or organizations that donated to student tuition organizations. HB 2379

Vetoed a bill that would have supplied vouchers to ensure all Arizonans have a free choice in their child's education. HB 2782

Vetoed a bill that would have allowed organizations and individuals to get tax credits for donating to student tuition organizations. SB 1527

Vetoed a bill that would have required schools to inform parents of their rights related to the school system. HB 2431

Vetoed a bill that would have limited the amount of money schools would get to spend on desegregation activities. HB 2498

Vetoed a bill that would have allowed community colleges and universities to sponsor charter schools. SB 1085

2004

Vetoed a bill that would have allowed students in kindergarten and first grade to participate in the technology assisted project based instruction (TAPBI) program regardless of previous school attendance. Additionally, the bill would have added three reporting requirements for schools selected to participate in the TAPBI program. HB 2618

TAXES / BUDGET

2006

Vetoed a bill that would have made a deposit of some of the budget surplus into the rainy day fund Napolitano purports to support. HB 2006

Vetoed a bill that would cap the tax rate school districts could assess on property, given the skyrocketing property valuations in Arizona. This is the second year in a row she vetoed this type of bill, and because of this, taxes have increased in certain school districts. SB 1206

Vetoed a bill that would have cut the budget to the Tourism and Sport Authority. HB 2007

Vetoed a bill that would have authorized the Legislature to appropriate non-custodial federal monies. This is the fifth time she has vetoed the bill. HB 2650

2005

Vetoed a bill that would have capped the tax amount school districts could assess because of Arizona's rising property values. HB 2143

Vetoed a bill that would have capped the tax amount school districts could assess because of Arizona's rising property values. SB 1246

Three line item vetoes in the budget that would have cut funding to the Tourism and Sport Authority and monitor how federal funds are spent. HB 2770

Vetoed a bill that would have regulated the tax valuations of electric utilities. SB 1247

Vetoed a budget bill because it was not her budget. SB 1202

Vetoed a bill that would have reduced the assessment ratio for business property and increased the Homeowner's Rebate program and caps the qualifying tax rate and county equalization assistance for education rate. SB 1095

Vetoed 14 bills because the legislature did not accept the governor's budget. As part of her vetoes of the Fiscal Year 2006 budget, Napolitano rejected a business property tax cut and a tax cut to encourage large companies to expand or locate in Arizona. SB 1394-1399, 1401-1408: (14 bills)

2004

Vetoed a bill that would have modified the Department of Revenue's formula used to determine the valuation of telecommunications companies' property. HB 2085

Vetoed a bill that would have allowed a taxpayer who is protesting a notice of tax deficiency from the Department of Revenue (DOR) to bring action directly to tax court. Allowed a taxpayer who disagrees with a DOR private taxpayer ruling to appeal the ruling to the State Board of Tax Appeals. SB 1314

ACCOUNTABILITY

2006

Vetoed bill that would have ensured JLBC oversight when the Attorney General settled a case. HB 2191

Vetoed a bill that would have directed how unregulated federal monies would be spent. This is the fourth time she vetoed this type of bill. HB 2005

Vetoed a bill that would have investigated the office supply contract recently entered into with Staples by the state. HB 2102

Vetoed a bill that would have required the Arizona Department of Administration (ADOA) to submit a copy of the annual financial report to the Legislature. HB 2186

Vetoed a bill that would have permitted and established procedures for the Arizona Supreme Court to determine whether a citizen initiative contains more than one proposed amendment before the proposed measure is placed on the ballot, helping initiatives not to be struck down on the single subject rule. HB 2373

Vetoed a bill which would have made numerous changes to, and aided in increasing the transparency of, the assessment and collection of municipal development fees. HB 2381

Line item veto. Vetoed a provision that would make employees hired after December 31, 2006 exempt from the pay raise. HB 2661

2005

Vetoed a bill that would have required legislative lawyers to write the information that is sent to voters about local ballot questions. HB 2328

Vetoed a bill that would have required JLBC oversight of appropriation transfers to the Department of Education. HB 2033

Vetoed a bill that would have transferred Capitol Police from being governed under the Department of Administration to the Department of Public Safety. HB 2404

Vetoed a bill that would have required legislative oversight of federal funds. HB 2226

Vetoed a bill that would have required the Citizen's Clean Elections Commission to report rulemaking statistics on their website. SB 1427

2004

Vetoed a bill that would have continued the Arizona State Board of Examiners of Nursing Care Institution Administrators and Assisted Living Facility Managers (Board) for ten years. SB 1012

2003

Vetoed a bill that would have authorized the Legislature to appropriate non-custodial federal monies, the purpose of which must be consistent with federal law. HB 2248

DOCTORS / SMALL BUSINESS

2006

Vetoed a bill that would have cut taxi driver worker compensation program. HB 2478

Vetoed a bill that would have allowed arbitration to be used to resolve disputes between an employer and any employee. SB 1075

Vetoed a bill which would have limited the cause of action for breach of an employment contract or damages for wrongful termination to one year. SB 1370

Vetoed a bill which would have helped to lower the number of frivolous malpractice law suits brought against emergency room doctors. HB 2315

ABORTION / RIGHT TO LIFE

2006

Vetoed a bill which would have encouraged doctors to further educate patients on the risks of egg donating prior to performing the procedure. SB 1097

Vetoed a bill that would have required minors to notify their parents that they are having an abortion and present the doctor with a notarized document granting permission. The governor argues that this is an undue burden, although that minor girl would still have to have a parent present in order to get her ears pierced. HB 2666

Vetoed a bill that would have required physicians to inform women who were seeking an abortion in the second trimester or later that the baby in the womb can feel pain. HB 2254

Vetoed a bill that would have prohibited government from using state funds to pay for most abortions. SB 1325

Vetoed a bill that would have classified the selling, purchasing or offering to sell or purchase a human egg for human somatic cell nuclear transfer as a class 6 felony. HB 2142

2005

Vetoed a bill that would have allowed pharmacists not to sell a prescription if selling that prescription would violate their conscience. HB 2541

2004

Vetoed a bill that would have prohibited abortion without the voluntary and informed consent of the woman, and prescribed criteria for an informed consent and provided penalties for noncompliance by a physician. SB 1077
Vetoed a bill which would have increased the limits on 'judicial bypass' used to circumvent Arizona parental consent laws for abortions. HB 2776

2003

Vetoed a bill that would have exempted a religious employer from providing prescription contraception methods to its employees. Additionally, it exempted several health care providers and health care organizations from liability through the exclusion. SB 1089

SECOND AMENDMENT

2006

Vetoed legislation that would have prohibited the confiscation of firearms in an emergency. The governor said this has never and would never happen in Arizona, but it was exactly what happened in New Orleans to law-abiding gun owners trying to defend their property from looters after Hurricane Katrina. SB 1245

CRIME

2005

Vetoed a bill that would have required law enforcement to immobilize or impound the vehicle of anyone who is found to be driving under the influence. SB 1089

2004

Vetoed a bill that would have allowed an inmate sentenced to a term of probation immediately following a term of incarceration to be eligible for a temporary release and established a new procedure for removing a prisoner from work furlough. HB 2129

AND IT ISN’T OVER YET ….

« Close It