Airbus drove Lockheed and McDonnell-Douglas out of the business of commercial aircraft and almost took down Boeing. And like indolent buffalo munching grass as they are shot one by one, we let it happen.

Lost U.S. jobs should not be our primary concern, said McCain, "I've always felt the best thing to do is to create the best weapons system we can at minimum cost to taxpayers."

But if McCain thinks cost trumps all in building weapons of war, why not outsource the building of U.S. carriers, cruisers, destroyers, frigates and submarines to the foreign shipyards that construct America's merchant ships? Why not hire and train foreign sailors as crews?

Why not outsource the scores of thousands of U.S. government jobs handling Social Security checks and tax returns to Bangladesh and India? After all, the neocons want to hire foreign mercenaries to fight America's wars and reward them with U.S. citizenship, as the Romans did in the last days of the empire.

What does it mean to be an American anymore?

It took 20 years to wake up blockheaded Republicans to the social insanity of open borders. Only the collapse of his candidacy last summer jolted McCain into realizing that the 80 percent of Americans who reject amnesty and want a border fence are not all "bigots," as his Tonto, Lindsay Graham, said they were.

Is it going to take 20 more years for Republicans to awaken to the economic disaster they have created and the political ruin they are inviting with this fanatic faith in "free trade," while the rest of the world loots our country through mercantilism?

When Europe imposes a 15 percent value-added tax on U.S. imports and rebates the VAT on exports to the United States, that is not free trade. When China devalues its currency 45 percent, as it did in 1994, and bolts it down to suck jobs and factories out of the United States, that is not free trade. When Japan manipulates its currency, preaches economic nationalism to its people, and shelters its market for TVs, autos and steel, while dumping into and capturing ours, that is not free trade.

McCain admits to knowing almost nothing about economics and is now being advised by my old friend Jack Kemp. In a Wall Street Journal essay bemoaning my views, Kemp concedes, "I'm on the advisory board of Toyota North America and now drive a hybrid Lexus."

Nor is Jack the only pol who has found happiness in a foreign employ. Ex-secretaries of state and Cabinet officers, ex-senators and congressmen, and ex-White House aides are getting rich working for foreigners who are carting off American jobs, American technology, American markets, American factories -- and America's future.

Yet retribution may be at hand for our multinational GOP. In Ohio, NAFTA is a five-letter word with a four-letter meaning, as Ohio lost a huge slice of the 3.5 million manufacturing jobs that vanished under the McCain-Kemp-Bush policy of unilateral disarmament in the trade wars being waged against America. (emphasis added)

Look at the Bush-McCain record: $4 trillion in trade deficits, $2.5 trillion in manufactures alone. One in every six manufacturing jobs, 3 million, gone. With America borrowing $2 billion a day to pay for foreign goods, we have seen a collapse of the dollar, the price of gold quadruple to $1,000 an ounce, oil soar to $107 a barrel (now $140 and headed higher – emphasis added) and gas heading toward $4 a gallon (looking through the rear-view mirror, more likely $7 a gallon – emphasis added).

Where Bush created an average of 46,000 new private-sector jobs a month, Bill Clinton did five times as well, creating 220,000 a month.

Hillary won Ohio denouncing the NAFTA deal Bill Clinton cut. The lady gets it. McCain remains a loyal NAFTA man. Good luck in Ohio and Michigan.

As the Great Peer said, "The commonest error in politics is sticking to the carcass of dead policies."

by Patrick J. Buchanan
03/11/2008

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

Can we have some coverage of the contrast between the two candidates on Memorial Day? It’s not just a matter of McCain serving in the military and Obama not doing so. It’s a matter of which side they were on.

McCain was on the American side during the Vietnam War. He personally risked his life and carried out the U.S. policy of resisting the communist military conquest of South Vietnam. Obama had friendly associations with those who had been on the other side and they helped launch his political career in Chicago. Obama can’t solve this problem by occasionally wearing an American flag lapel pin.

Keep in mind that we are not talking about associating with those who simply opposed U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Obama’s friends, such as Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, cheered for a communist victory and visited Havana, Cuba and Hanoi, North Vietnam to bring that about. Like his comrades in the communist Students for a Democratic Society, Tom Hayden of “Progressives for Obama” wrote a letter urging a communist military victory over the U.S. These were people who actually supported the enemy.

In the case of Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s childhood mentor, we are dealing with someone who was on the communist side long before the Vietnam War. Davis supported Stalinist Russia even after the Hitler-Stalin pact. This relationship may help explain why Obama would leave Hawaii, associate with Marxist professors and attend socialist conferences in college (as he admits in his book, Dreams From My Father), and then associate with terrorists, communists, and socialists in Chicago, where he would launch his political career. Davis was a key influence over the young Obama, filling his head with anti-American thoughts.

Thanks to Joseph Farah’s WorldNetDaily and his excellent reporter, Jerome R. Corsi, many people are learning the basic facts about these relationships. Corsi covered the release of two reports on the subject through my America’s Survival, Inc. organization.

At our event, an audience member wondered what the media reaction would be if it were discovered that a Republican presidential candidate had been mentored by a Nazi or fascist during his growing-up years. You and I know that it would be enough of a story that the candidate would be forced from the race. The candidate would be peppered with questions about this relationship at every turn. Reporters would be scrambling to dig up more details about this relationship.

But rather than focus on Davis, some in the liberal media are making fun of McCain’s war injuries. Brent Baker reveals that, during a report on the release of McCain’s medical records, Dr. Jon LaPook asserted on CBS News that “people” notice that McCain is “not able to raise his arm” and think “doesn’t that look funny?” Baker asked, “Who thinks McCain’s limitation, caused by an attack on him after his plane crashed in North Vietnam and he was denied medical care, looks funny? In what circles does CBS’s doctor travel?” The answer, of course, is the circle of Obama’s friends, where veteran correspondent Linda Douglass has now ended up. She has taken a job as a press secretary and adviser to Obama and previously worked for CBS News, ABC News, and National Journal.

Significantly, the basic facts of the Obama-Davis relationship were originally disclosed by Professor Gerald Horne, a contributing editor of the Communist Party journal Political Affairs, who talked about Obama coming under the influence of Davis during a speech at the reception of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) archives at the Tamiment Library at New York University.

Horne, a history professor at the University of Houston, noted that Davis, who had moved to Honolulu from Kansas in 1948 “at the suggestion of his good friend [and secret CPUSA member] Paul Robeson,” came into contact with Obama and his family. As Horne describes it, Davis “befriended” a “Euro-American family” that had “migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago.”

However, in Obama’s 1995 book, Dreams from My Father, Frank Marshall Davis was identified only as “Frank.” Among other things, according to Obama’s own account, “Frank” told him that blacks had a reason to hate and that he should not believe all of that (expletive deleted) about the American way of life.

When one of Senator Hillary Clinton’s supporters brought up the issue of Davis’s influence over Obama, by circulating an article I had written for AIM about Davis playing the role of Obama’s mentor, he was pilloried by the left-wing blogs. The reaction suggests awareness that the role of Davis in the formation of Obama’s political views could sink the candidate. They are desperate to keep this information suppressed.
Horne is not the only significant figure to talk about the influence of “Frank” on Obama. Dr. Kathryn Takara of the University of Hawaii, who knew and interviewed Davis and wrote a dissertation on his life and career, confirmed to me that the “Frank” is, in fact, Frank Marshall Davis.

Takara, an Obama supporter, confirmed that Davis was a significant influence over Obama during the three or four years that he attended the Punahou prep school. These would have been the years 1975-1979. She said Obama had been introduced to Davis by his grandfather, Stanley Dunham, who considered Davis a “strong black male figure” and thought he exerted a “positive” influence over the young man in his high-school years.

Asked why she thought Obama didn’t identify Davis in his book by his full name, she replied, “Maybe he didn’t want people delving into it.” She said that this could have had something to do with Davis’s lifestyle, rather than his politics. “Frank’s was a place where you could have drinks,” she said.

Yet, Obama has been open about some things—such as his past drug use. It is difficult to understand why he would not name “Frank” as Frank Marshall Davis simply because “Frank” drank or hosted people who did. It is apparent that Obama covered up his full name because of the notoriety surrounding Davis’s political views. Remember this was a black communist who stayed with the CPUSA even while others, such as Richard Wright and Langston Hughes, broke with it.

So how long will Obama’s cover-up persist?

There are many in the liberal and conservative media who want desperately to avoid this subject. The liberals want to protect Obama. The “conservatives” avoiding the subject don’t want to be accused of “McCarthyism” if they mention it. But thanks to Farah’s WorldNetDaily and other new media outlets, the story is coming out and won’t be ignored.

By Cliff Kincaid
May 25, 2008
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-candidates-communist-connections/

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

Liberals have denominated McCain a maverick because he has taken so many positions contradictory to his party's platform and to the conservative ideology that undergirds it. Now that he is the putative Republican nominee, you don't hear much about his maverick nature, but it's certainly not because he's changed his ways in opposing his party.

Last week, he affirmed his commitment to comprehensive immigration reform, even though earlier he stepped back from it to curry favor with conservatives. One wonders what other shoes will inevitably drop should he win the presidency, especially because he has indicated he would most likely be a one-termer.

Will he revert to his visceral revulsion to the Bush supply-side tax cuts? Many supply-siders, after taking McCain to the woodshed on the issue, assure us he can be trusted on it.
If so, their efforts will redound to the benefit of the economy and nation should McCain win the election. But some of these same supply-side advocates insist we shouldn't expect him to move rightward on too many other issues.

Sorry, but I reject that zero-sum thinking, as should my fellow supply-siders; they certainly do in the realm of tax policy. While I will vote for McCain against either Democratic opponent, I don't believe we should abandon efforts to reform the "reformer" on other issues besides taxes. Are we supposed to declare a moratorium on the expression of our principles for fear it could damage his electability?

If conservatives don't make an effort to hold McCain accountable for his liberal proclivities, then no one will, to the guaranteed detriment of the national interest. In fact, pushing him to the right while we still have a chance will enhance his electability.
Which brings me back to the subject that inspired this column: McCain's regrettable upcoming speech outlining his vision to combat global warming.

In a preview of the speech, CNN reports that McCain will say: "We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great. The most relevant question now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge."

No, Sen. McCain, the most relevant question is whether political leaders will have the diligence to study this issue and the integrity and courage to stand up to the propaganda of the enviro-bullies. The question is whether you can be a maverick where it counts.

It is not Earth's ecosystem that hangs in the balance, but America's future. Those whose vision isn't blurred by green-colored glasses and the temptation to win accolades from the leftist-dominated culture can see that the global push to "save the planet" is more about destroying capitalism, private property and Western culture than sound, science-based environmental stewardship. Never mind the staggering contradiction that free market economies produce cleaner environs.

Indeed, I hate to break it to some of my fellow evangelical Christians who are falling into the trap along with McCain, but the global warming proselytes don't share your worldview. Do you realize you are jumping in bed with those who are promoting a pantheistic deification of the environment and a diminution of the dignity of human beings created in God's image?

Contrary to the mandated script from the warming zealots, there is plenty of credible dissent in the scientific community about global warming, particularly man's role in it. Much of this dissent comes from scientists in fields related to weather studies. Imagine that.

The fact that the enviro-church fathers have "outlawed" dissenting opinion and slander those offering it tells us something fishy is afoot.

And for you McCain supporters who think the only issues that matter are the war and taxes, not to mention abortion and immigration — all of which are incalculably important — I urge you not to underestimate the gravity of the global warming issue and the potentially devastating consequences of rolling over on it.

If Republicans also acquiesce to this false religion and its required "good works," we are headed toward a path of economic and societal destruction in the name of saving the planet.

It's time for Newt Gingrich to get off that couch with Nancy Pelosi and for John McCain to jump off this insidious global warming train that might as well be armed with enemy bombs and aimed at the heart of this nation and its economy.

David Limbaugh
May 13, 2008

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at www.davidlimbaugh.com.

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

Our politicians congratulate themselves on this as we stand in line. All the frisking, beeping and patting down is demoralizing to our society. It breeds resentment, encourages a sense that the normal are not in control, that common sense is yesterday.

Another thing: It reduces the status of that ancestral arbiter and leader of society, the middle-aged woman. In the new fairness, she is treated like everyone, without respect, like the loud ruffian and the vulgar girl on the phone. The middle-aged woman is the one spread-eagled over there in the delicate shell beneath the removed jacket, praying nothing on her body goes beep and makes people look.

America makes it through security, gets to the gate, waits. The TV monitor is on. It is Wolf Blitzer. He is telling us with a voice of urgency of the Pennsylvania returns. But no one looks up. We are a nation of Willie Lomans, dragging our rollies through acres of airport, going through life with a suitcase and a slack jaw, trying to get home after a long day of meetings, of moving product. No one in crowded gate 14 looks up to see what happened in Pennsylvania. No one. Wolf talks to the air. Gate 14 is small-town America, a mix, a group of people of all classes and races brought together and living in close proximity until the plane is called, and America knows what Samuel Johnson knew. "How small of all that human hearts endure / That part which laws or kings can cause or cure." Gate 14 doesn't think any one of the candidates is going to make their lives better. Gate 14 will vote anyway, because they know they are the grownups of America and must play the role and do the job.

So: Pennsylvania. As seen from the distance of West Texas, central California and Oklahoma, which is where I've been. Main thought. Hillary Clinton is not Barack Obama's problem. America is Mr. Obama's problem. He has been tagged as a snooty lefty, as the glamorous, ambivalent candidate from Men's Vogue, the candidate who loves America because of the great progress it has made in terms of racial fairness. Fine, good. But has he ever gotten misty-eyed over . . . the Wright Brothers and what kind of country allowed them to go off on their own and change everything? How about D-Day, or George Washington, or Henry Ford, or the losers and brigands who flocked to Sutter's Mill, who pushed their way west because there was gold in them thar hills? There's gold in that history.

John McCain carries it in his bones. Mr. McCain learned it in school, in the Naval Academy, and, literally, at grandpa's knee. Mrs. Clinton learned at least its importance in her long slog through Arkansas, circa 1977-92.

Mr. Obama? What does he think about all that history? Which is another way of saying: What does he think of America? That's why people talk about the flag pin absent from the lapel. They wonder if it means something. Not that the presence of the pin proves love of country - any cynic can wear a pin, and many cynics do. But what about Obama and America? Who would have taught him to love it, and what did he learn was loveable, and what does he think about it all? Another challenge. Snooty lefties get angry when you ask them to talk about these things. They get resentful. Who are you to question my patriotism? But no one is questioning his patriotism, they're questioning its content, its fullness. Gate 14 has a right to hear this. They'd lean forward to hear.

This is an opportunity, for Mr. Obama needs an Act II. Act II is hard. Act II is where the promise of Act I is deepened, the plot thickens, and all is teed up for resolution and meaning. Mr. Obama's Act I was: I'm Obama. He enters the scene. Act III will be the convention and acceptance speech. After that a whole new drama begins. But for now he needs Act II. He should make his subject America.

Here's some comfort for him, for all Democrats. In Lubbock, Texas - Lubbock Comma Texas, the heart of Texas conservatism - they dislike President Bush. He has lost them. I was there and saw it. Confusion has been followed by frustration has turned into resentment, and this is huge. Everyone knows the president's poll numbers are at historic lows, but if he is over in Lubbock, there is no place in this country that likes him. I made a speech and moved around and I was tough on him and no one - not one - defended or disagreed. I did the same in North Carolina recently, and again no defenders. I did the same in Fresno, Calif., and no defenders, not one. He has left on-the-ground conservatives - the local right-winger, the town intellectual reading Burke and Kirk, the old Reagan committeewoman - feeling undefended, unrepresented and alone. This will have impact down the road.

I finally understand the party nostalgia for Reagan. Everyone speaks of him now, but it wasn't that way in 2000, or 1992, or 1996, or even '04. I think it is a manifestation of dislike for and disappointment in Mr. Bush. It is a turning away that is a turning back. It is a looking back to conservatism when conservatism was clear, knew what it was, was grounded in the facts of the world. The reasons for the quiet break with Mr. Bush: spending, they say first, growth in the power and size of government, Iraq. I imagine some of this: a fine and bitter conservative sense that he has never had to stand in his stockinged feet at the airport holding the bin, being harassed. He has never had to live in the world he helped make, the one where grandma's hip replacement is setting off the beeper here and the child is crying there. And of course as a former president, with the entourage and the private jets, he never will. I bet conservatives don't like it. I'm certain Gate 14 doesn't.

Peggy Noonan
April 25, 2008

URL for this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120906741679842493.html
Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

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

There's Senator Ted Kennedy from the McCain-Kennedy immigration amnesty bill.

Senator Lindsey Graham who once called those opposed to amnesty for illegal aliens "bigots" at a La Raza conference.

Senator Mel Martinez an open borders proponent who favors amnesty and was a coauthor of the Hagel-Martinez amnesty bill prior to the McCain-Kennedy bill. Martinez once called enforcement without amnesty a "harshness only" approach.

Juan Hernandez, a former Mexican government official, a dual citizen and major proponent of rights and amnesty for Hispanic illegal aliens and the end of the sovereignty of America. He currently is working on the McCain campaign as his Hispanic Outreach Director.

Congressman Luis Gutierrez, a good friend of La Raza, who has put forth his own legislation for illegal aliens called the STRIVE act and was involved in formulating the amnesty bills. In addition he personally put forth a bill to give Elvira Arellano permanent residency - this was before she hid out in a church. He also called the police on a group of citizen lobbyists who came to question him on his stance on illegal immigration.

Senator Russ Feingold who was half of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform fiasco.

Joe Lieberman, who together with McCain brought forth the McCain-Lieberman Stewardship bill to fight global warming.

Former Senator John Edwards who along with McCain and Kennedy wrote the McCain-Edwards "Patient's Bill of Rights".

Are you starting to see a pattern here? Lots of Democrats and Republicans (who are really Liberals) working together with McCain. This is the company he keeps and asks us to judge him by.

McCain will state that he is a "Reagan Republican", but nothing could be further from the truth. There's working together and then there is outright "being a member of the other party". Things to watch out for with McCain include the passing and implementation of the "fairness doctrine". Something that would censor and shut down talk radio stations, websites like this one and limit free speech in the United States. You don't think he'd sign it? Just watch him!

Watch the above video and tell me this is someone who really is looking out for the American people and not just some illegal foreigners, big business and future Democrat voters.

http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002429.html

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

Yet, McCain’s new TV ad calls him “the American president Americans have been waiting for.” The public should not be fooled. He is as much of a globalist as Hillary and Obama.

Noting that McCain committed himself to adoption of a new U.N.-sponsored global warming treaty, which would be even more comprehensive and tougher than the Kyoto Protocol, Limbaugh said that “The theme here is that there’s nothing special about America, and that we’re not going to be able to do anything without involving other nations and making them like us and showing them that we intend them no harm and that we want to be good stewards of the planet just as they want to be good stewards.”

The latter was a reference to McCain declaring that “We need to be good stewards of our planet and join with other nations to help preserve our common home. The risks of global warming have no borders.” McCain sounded like another Democrat―Al Gore.

But despite his preference for what appears to be some kind of New World Order, McCain’s prior endorsement of a new Muslim state in Europe by the name of Kosovo could undermine all of his best-laid plans. Recognition of Kosovo could lead to war with Russia and more terrorist problems for Israel.

Scary Rhetoric

Bobby Eberle of GOPUSA commented, “Sen. McCain delivered a laundry list of all things non-conservative.” He said the speech wasn’t conservative or even Republican.

Amanda Teegarden, a grass roots pro-sovereignty activist, was also alarmed. “It is imperative that conservatives listen to this speech―especially if you are concerned about the sovereignty, and the economic survival, of the United States,” she said.

In addition to a new global warming treaty, she noted that McCain’s proposals included open borders in the Western Hemisphere, nuclear disarmament, and a Transatlantic free trade area.

Eberle focused on a segment of the McCain speech that included the statement that “Relations with our southern neighbors must be governed by mutual respect, not by an imperial impulse or by anti-American demagoguery. The promise of North, Central, and South American life is too great for that. I believe the Americas can and must be the model for a new 21st century relationship between North and South. Ours can be the first completely democratic hemisphere, where trade is free across all borders, where the rule of law and the power of free markets advance the security and prosperity of all.”

McCain’s strange rhetoric about “North, Central, and South American life” reflects a view that nation-states are disappearing and being replaced by regional alliances and institutions. He referred to “the powerful collective voice of the European Union,” as if the U.S. response would have to be submersion of our voice in a larger hemispheric entity. But McCain seems to be calling for something beyond even a North American Union (NAU) of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. He talked about “creating the new international institutions necessary to advance the peace and freedoms we cherish,” as if they would be built on top of the EU and the NAU.

Earlier, McCain had declared, “With globalization, our hemisphere has grown closer, more integrated, and more interdependent. Latin America today is increasingly vital to the fortunes of the United States. Americans north and south share a common geography and a common destiny.” But why should trade with America’s neighbors necessarily lead to a “common destiny?” This implies a political merger of the U.S. with other countries.

Nuclear Disarmament

“We should work to reduce nuclear arsenals all around the world, starting with our own,” McCain said. This appeared to be a call for unilateral nuclear disarmament. He went on to call for the U.S. to lead “a global effort at nuclear disarmament.” This, too, seems to require more reliance on international institutions, in this case the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Indeed, McCain in the past has called for more funding for the IAEA.

McCain added, “We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new global compact―a League of Democracies―that can harness the vast influence of the more than 100 democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.” But as I noted in a recent piece, “McCain, Soros, and the New World Order,” this is a liberal project that is being currently funded by left-wing billionaire George Soros and managed by former Clinton officials. It has nothing to do with democracy but is intended to create another global institution that will eventually help strengthen the U.N.

After calling for the closing of the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay (but not saying where he would put the detainees), McCain declared that “There is such a thing as international good citizenship.” This is the kind of rhetoric we would expect from an advocate of world government. If Hillary or Obama were spouting such silly rhetoric, conservatives would be laughing at them.

It goes without saying that McCain is oblivious to the evidence that the man-made global warming theory doesn’t hold up under serious scrutiny. His proposal for “a successor to the Kyoto Treaty” that “delivers the necessary environmental impact in an economically responsible manner” is potentially very damaging to the U.S. economy. But the proposal pleases the Europeans.

McCain talked about the virtues of the “transatlantic alliance,” which served a purpose during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, but went on to say that “Americans should welcome the rise of a strong, confident European Union as we continue to support a strong NATO.” The European Union was devised primarily as a counter to the influence of the U.S. in foreign affairs. It has also proven to be a bureaucratic disaster for the people of Europe. The “strong NATO” has proven to be extremely weak in Afghanistan, where it cannot field enough troops to defeat the Taliban terrorists. Expanding NATO has not resulted in making it stronger.

“The future of the transatlantic relationship lies in confronting the challenges of the twenty-first century worldwide: developing a common energy policy, creating a transatlantic common market tying our economies more closely together, addressing the dangers posed by a revanchist Russia, and institutionalizing our cooperation on issues such as climate change, foreign assistance, and democracy promotion,” declared McCain.

So not only is the U.S. going to move toward common policies for North, South and Central America, but it is going to develop common energy and economic policies with the European Union. Developing a common policy on “foreign assistance” is a recipe for more looting of the U.S. taxpayers. The Europeans have long complained that the U.S. isn’t devoting enough money to “official development assistance,” as the U.N. calls it.

Nightmare Vision

Does McCain’s vision look like an emerging world government? It is certainly a variation of “global governance,” which is the proposal that former Clinton State Department official Strobe Talbott makes in his book, The Great Experiment. Talbott calls McCain a “pragmatist” in foreign affairs, just like Obama and Hillary, and says that he expects his liberal Brookings Institution to have influence over a McCain presidency.

On other issues in his speech, McCain talked tough about Iran and Russia.

The big problem for McCain, as we noted in a recent column, is that his vision of a New World Order is incompatible with his support for making the Serbian province of Kosovo into an independent state. Carving Kosovo out of Serbia is a threat to international peace and security. It has split NATO, which McCain says he wants to expand and strengthen. This policy, which has also been embraced by the Democrats, threatens a completely unnecessary war with Russia, which backs Serbian control of Kosovo and wants to aid the Serbs remaining in the province.

McCain spoke about Israel’s survival, without addressing the reality that Kosovo’s independence has energized the Arab/Muslim push for a Palestinian state that could threaten Israel.

While McCain said that the threat of radical Islamic terrorism is “the transcendent challenge of our time,” he seemed unaware how some of those same forces are behind the push for Kosovo statehood. It just doesn’t make sense to fight Muslim extremists in one place, Iraq, while helping them in another, Kosovo, and even giving them their own state.

This is a contradiction that McCain has failed to address.

“We have incurred a moral responsibility in Iraq,” the Senator declared. “It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a great nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possibly genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible, and premature withdrawal.”

This rhetoric strikes a chord with conservatives. Yet, some say that genocide is already occurring in Iraq, in regard to the plight of Christians there. More than half have fled the country since the U.S. invasion, and those who remain are being kidnapped, threatened and murdered. Do we not have a moral responsibility to them? Shouldn’t the U.S. be less concerned about the survival of the Muslim government in Iraq and more concerned about the defenseless and unarmed Christians?

McCain seemed blind not only to the issues that conservatives regard as critical in an election year, but he went out of his way to reach out to liberals and Democrats. The only part of the speech they probably didn’t like was on Iraq.

But if the liberals get beyond their differences with McCain on Iraq, they will not only vote for him but promote his agenda as president. Then, as Rush Limbaugh notes, it may eventually be possible to change the name of the United States of America: “We’ll call ourselves New Europe.” In the process, true conservatism as a political force will be finished in the U.S.

The tragedy of this approach is that it comes from a man who served his country in uniform and risked his life on behalf of the U.S. McCain would have been a natural choice to lead a campaign for restoration of American sovereignty in foreign affairs. He could have been “The American President Americans have been waiting for.”

For reasons that remain largely a mystery, he has chosen to take the U.S. down the road of “global governance,” in which the U.N. and other international agencies, institutions and alliances determine our fate as a nation. It is the same road the Democrats are on. It is a tragedy for our country.

By Cliff Kincaid
March 28, 2008
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/mccains-incoherent-new-world-order/

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

I remember well the Carter years, with its mind numbing cowardice in the face of dangers from the USSR and Iran, and how it caused us to doubt our greatness. And I remember a man named Ronald Reagan, and how he inspired an entire nation to rendevous with its destiny once again, and in an inconceivable turn of events, won the Cold War and knocked down the Berlin War without firing a single shot. His courage and belief in America inspired policies that freed all of Eastern Europe and kept budding Islamofascism at bay, all the while he was opposed and reviled by the Democrats, the America-haters and the Communists worldwide.

I remember the horror of the Clinton years, when a rapist and abuser of women was the Commander in Chief, aided and abetted by a power hungry woman who hated the military. I remember fighting for his impeachment, only to be betrayed by a Republican Senate that had no courage, or that was compromised by stolen FBI files and failed to discharge its lawful duty to remove a lawbreaking President who brought shame to the Oval Office. I remember recoiling in horror and shame when a six year old boy whose mother drowned in an attempt to bring him to freedom from Cuba was removed from a private home under the force of arms and returned to Fidel Castro.

I remember crying tears of gladness when our current President said the words of his Oath of Office on January 20, 2001, ending my personal nightmare, an eight year long nightmare, of having Bill and Hillary Clinton in the White House.

The events of these last seven years are nothing what I expected that cold, clear January morning. The events of September 11, 2001, the invasion of Iraq, the War on Terror, all of them returned me to the patriotic days of my youth. I saw a nation united in purpose for the first time in my adult life, as the nation had been torn since the Vietnam War.

But I saw a Republican President I believed in, and a Republican Party that was my home politically, shift in a slow, determined, unstoppable drift away from its principles, adopting the policies and views of the Democrats, to the point where we now face having as our Presidential candidate, John McCain, an enemy of conservatism, of Republican principles, and of American sovereignty.

As I pondered these things today, February 2, 2008, I have come to a very troubling observation.

We conservatives always had a home in the Republican Party. President Reagan even came here when the Democrat Party became too radical for him in the 1950s. We were the foundation of 12 years of the Reagan Bush era and we fought for the current President to give him eight years, even in the face of a national election being stolen from him.

But when our country was threatened by the prospect of a mass amnesty last May and June, allowing 20 million or more illegal immigrants to become defacto citizens by fiat, we erupted in a display of power that had Washington DC recoiling in terror. We derailed their plan to ensure the Balkanization of America by giving it 20 million more citizens who would not assimilate into the culture, and to ensure a cheap workforce, and to permanently undercut American worker's wages. Together with Global Warming and carbon credits, America could be brought to heel and managed.

We stopped McCain-Kennedy and its cousin, alright. But there was a price to pay for our insolence.

We, the America loving conservatives of the Republican Party, are no longer needed by this party. We are too narrow minded and old school. Flag waving and the supremacy of the American Way are passe. We are not inclusive. We are standing in the way of the elites in Washington DC from making their wet dreams a reality--making America an also-ran, not a super-power. America as a third world country, not as better than anyone else. An America that is afraid to face its Islamic enemies,that worries about what the world thinks about it, strangled in political correctness, surrendering its freedoms on a daily basis in the vain hope for security.

We keepers of the flame of American liberty are now the enemy. When Hillary labelled us the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, we took that has a label of pride. But now the Republican establishment has decreed that we are a conspiracy to be defeated within our own party, as we face the prospect of John McCain being rammed down our throats. John McCain, the Manchurian Candidate, the man who has betrayed every tenet of Republicanism in his quest for power,who has railed against conservatives at every turn, who is bound and determined to grant amnesty to 10% of Mexico's population now within our borders, he is the one being annointed by the elites as our candidate.

His job is not only to become the candidate of choice, but to be the means of the destruction of the power of the conservative base of the Republican Party.

Between McCain, Obama and Hillary, there isn't a dime's worth of difference in their political views. The Republican and Democrat established elites have melded into one entity, and they will win no matter who gets nominated or who wins the general election, especially if McCain is the nominee. All three believe in unlimited amnesty, an open border, cap and trade globaloney, giving rights to Gitmo detainees, and the restriction of free speech and gun rights.

The MSM is their collective cheerleader, actively working to marginalize us as a viable force for the America we visualize.

Many of us will vote Republican in November, only because we cannot, in good conscience, vote for Obama or Clinton. The Republican establishment knows this, and knows because we are principled, we can not do otherwise. Rather than enlist us to help, they are engaged in a policy of containment and neutering, because we stand in the way of their vision of America.

McCain as a candidate will be a disaster. The Republican establishment knows this. But they don't care, because the goal is not to win this election. It is to remove us from the political table, and for them to join with their Democrat brothers in the march toward an America subsevient to global interests. Sovereignty is treated as a quaint, outmoded concept, even by many Republican governors who are pushing the globaloney nonsense that will cripple this nation.

The perfect storm of American politics is converging in a bid to elect one of three horrible candidates, McCain,Obama, or Clinton, to be our next President. The odds are that the Republicans will not only lose with McCain, but they will lose even more of the House and Senate, enough to relegate Republicans to a minority status for decades to come.

Where are the national Republican leaders speaking out against where our party is heading? As one looks over the events of the last 15 years, since the ascension and improbable election of a no good, draft dodging, lying huckster like Bill Clinton to President, we have witnessed a snowballing reversal of American values and fortunes. With Clinton II on the horizon, we face a complete collapse of American values and soveriegnty and freedom with the "CHANGE" that is being promised for the electorate.

That "change" is starting right now for us. By Tuesday midnight, we will know if the fate the elites have decreed for us will become reality, if McCain is our candidate.

In the past few days, the lenses through which I view politics have changed in prescription. I see now that we are the enemy to our own party's leaders, whose leaders have decreed that our nominee will be the anti-conservative, anti-Republican candidate. The other candidates still open to us, Huckster, Romney and Paul each have their own problems with our values.

There are only a few short days to stop the McCain Screwball express. As we fought the impossible fight against McCain and amnesty last year, we have but a few days to influence our fellow conservatives and Republicans not to allow the predetermined outcome to occur.

I offer this screed in an attempt to understand what is going on today, to explain the inexplicable in what is occurring to our party and our chances for success in November against the second ascension of the corrupt Clinton Machine. I wish not to tell my fellow conservative who they should vote for, but I ask them not to vote for McCain.

Others, including the Republican establishment, have decreed for us who are candidate should be. American loving Republicans should reserve the right to make that choice.

by Exit 82
posted blog commentary at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1963918/posts#comment

Hat tip: Connie Foust

« Close It

The Democrats are aware of this and face the same issues. Anyone who has been paying attention to politics knows that John McCain has been on the opposite side of the Republican base for years. He has favored gun bans, opposed tax cuts, sponsored McCain/Feingold (which creates a campaign finance system that most favors democrats), and supports the democratic position on Illegal Aliens. In short, much of the far lefts agenda will be successfully promulgated under a McCain administration for the exact reasons that Ms. Coulter ably notes. However, when you take this a step further, you realize that actually more of the far lefts agenda will be successfully completed if McCain is president than if a democrat is president, since many Republicans in congress will be more compliant if President McCain favors a bill. Further, the Democratic Party will not have to accept any responsibility for either the calamitous results of their programs, or the upcoming recession. Neither will they have to take any heat from their base about failing to immediately withdraw from Iraq, a policy which both parties realize is a strategic impossibility at this point, due to the oil economic issues. Likewise, they know that many of their wildest policies will be unpopular with a large segment of the population, so they want to avoid any backlash similar to the one that happened in 1994. With McCain in the White House, the democrats will have carte blanche to legislate their hearts desires, with the immunity and impunity of still having a Republican to blame it all on.

Across the aisle, the Republican base knows that Hillary Clinton has some very strange ideas, and none of her husbands charisma. So, if she were elected president, there would likely be two solid years of her attempts to promulgate terribly unpopular programs, which would be stymied in a closely divided congress, while the international situation and the economic woes can be solidly laid at the feet of the Democrats. After all, if the Democrats control the presidency and both houses of Congress, frustration directed at Republicans rings rather hollow. In all likelihood this is the only foreseeable means by which Republicans could regain control of either house of Congress.

So, in 2008, we may well find ourselves playing a game of "Presidential Hot Potato". Experienced and cagey Democrats may desperately want to lose this election. They may, like Sen. Kennedy, endorse Barak Hussein O'Bama, in the hopes that a wildly left wing black man, with connections to Islam, cannot possibly beat any Republican, that party may shove forward, regardless of how "soft headed" or inept. Likewise, the Republican base may want to "take a dive" here, and let Hillary or Hussein become president, so as to recapture congress in 2010 (Hillary being the safer bet, since Hussein O'Bama is much more likely to do things in foreign policy from which we will never be able to recover). The Presidency in 2008 is a "hot potato" which each parties "base" voters may want their party to avoid.

The result may be something extraordinarily strange and will befuddle all the pollsters. In the general election, we may see core Democrats crossing party lines to vote for McCain, since he is the candidate most likely to shepherd through the legislation of their hearts desires, while simultaneously giving their party political cover from their unpopular agenda. With this going on, the Republican base, combining revulsion for McCain, with some political savvy about losing some battles to win the war, may be willing to cross party lines to vote for Hillary. Since so much is currently at stake in the world, it reminds this author of the ancient Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times".

David Roth

Jan 31, 2008

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

McCain angrily denounces the suggestion that his "comprehensive immigration reform" constituted "amnesty" -- on the ludicrous grounds that it included a small fine. Even the guy who graduated fifth from the bottom of his class at the U.S. Naval Academy didn't fall for this a few years ago.

In 2003, McCain told The Tucson Citizen that "amnesty has to be an important part" of any immigration reform. He also rolled out the old chestnut about America's need for illegals, who do "jobs that American workers simply won't do."

McCain's amnesty bill would have immediately granted millions of newly legalized immigrants Social Security benefits. He even supported allowing work performed as an illegal to count toward Social Security benefits as recently as a vote in 2006 -- now adamantly denied by Mr. Straight Talk.

McCain keeps boasting that he was "the only one" of the Republican presidential candidates who supported the surge in Iraq.

What is he talking about? All Republicans supported the surge -- including Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. The only ones who didn't support it were McCain pals like Sen. Chuck Hagel. Indeed, the surge is the first part of the war on terrorism that caused McCain to break from Hagel in order to support the president.

True, McCain voted for the war. So did Hillary Clinton. Like her, he then immediately started attacking every other aspect of the war on terrorism. (The only difference was, he threw in frequent references to his experience as a POW, which currently outnumber John Kerry's references to being a Vietnam vet.)

Thus, McCain joined with the Democrats in demanding O.J. trials for terrorists at Guantanamo, including his demand that the terrorists have full access to the intelligence files being used to prosecute them.

These days, McCain gives swashbuckling speeches about the terrorists who "will follow us home." But he still opposes dripping water down their noses. He was a POW, you know. Also a member of the Keating 5 scandal, which you probably don't know, and won't -- until he becomes the Republican nominee.

Though McCain was far from the only Republican to support the surge, he does have the distinction of being the only Republican who voted against the Bush tax cuts. (Also the little lamented Sen. Lincoln Chafee, who later left the Republican Party.) Now McCain claims he opposed the tax cuts because they didn't include enough spending cuts. But that wasn't what he said at the time.

To the contrary, in 2001, McCain said he was voting against Bush's tax cuts based on the idiotic talking point of the Democrats. "I cannot in good conscience," McCain said, "support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief."

McCain started and fanned the vicious anti-Bush myth that, before the 2000 South Carolina primary, the Bush campaign made phone calls to voters calling McCain a "liar, cheat and a fraud" and accusing him of having an illegitimate black child.

On the thin reed of a hearsay account, McCain immediately blamed the calls on Bush. "I'm calling on my good friend George Bush," McCain said, "to stop this now. He comes from a better family. He knows better than this."

Bush denied that his campaign had anything to do with the alleged calls and, in a stunningly magnanimous act, ordered his campaign to release the script of the calls being made in South Carolina.

Bush asked McCain to do the same for his calls implying that Bush was an anti-Catholic bigot, but McCain refused. Instead, McCain responded with a campaign commercial calling Bush a liar on the order of Bill Clinton:

MCCAIN: His ad twists the truth like Clinton. We're all pretty tired of that.

ANNOUNCER: Do we really want another politician in the White House America can't trust?

After massive investigations by the Los Angeles Times and investigative reporter Byron York, among others, it turned out that neither of the alleged calls had ever been made by the Bush campaign -- nor, it appeared, by anyone else. There was no evidence that any such calls had ever been made, which is unheard of when hundreds of thousands of "robo-calls" are being left on answering machines across the state.

And yet, to this day, the media weep with McCain over Bush's underhanded tactics in the 2000 South Carolina primary.

In fact, the most vicious attack in the 2000 South Carolina primary came from McCain -- and not against his opponent.

Seeking even more favorable press from The New York Times, McCain launched an unprovoked attack against the Rev. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, calling them "agents of intolerance." Unlike the phantom "black love child" calls, there's documentary evidence of this smear campaign.

To ensure he would get full media coverage for that little gem, McCain alerted the networks in advance that he planned to attack their favorite whipping boys. Newspaper editors across the country stood in awe of McCain's raw bravery. The New York Times praised him in an editorial that said the Republican Party "has for too long been tied to the cramped ideology of the Falwells and the Robertsons."

Though McCain generally votes pro-life -- as his Arizona constituency requires -- he embraces the loony lingo of the pro-abortion set, repeatedly assuring his pals in the media that he opposes the repeal of Roe v. Wade because it would force women to undergo "illegal and dangerous operations."

Come to think of it, Dole is a million times better than McCain. Why not run him again?

by Ann Coulter

See article at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24635

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

GOP leaders patted themselves on the back for their toughness. President Bush made a huge to-do in signing the bill into law. Never mind the lack of funding for the fence and the failure to address many other immediate reforms that could have been adopted immediately to strengthen immigration enforcement, close deportation loopholes and provide systemic relief at the border without the need for a single brick or bulldozer.

On the very day the bill was signed, open-borders politicians were already moving to water it down. Texas Republican Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn pushed for "flexibility to choose other options instead of fencing, if needed." Six months after passage of the Secure Fence Act -- now interpreted by Washington as the Flexible Non-Fence Act or, as I call it, the FINO (Fence in Name Only) Act -- 700 miles shrunk to "somewhere in the ballpark" of 370 miles. A 14-mile fence-building project in San Diego was stalled for years by environmental legal challenges and budget shortfalls. The first deadline -- a May 30, 2007 requirement for installation of an "interlocking surveillance camera system" along the border in California and Arizona -- passed unmet. GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter, one of the few Republican presidential candidates to walk the talk on border security, blasted the Bush administration for suffering from "a case of 'the slows' on border enforcement."

More than a year after the law's passage, the citizen watchdog group Grassfire reports that just five miles of double-layer fencing has been built in the first 12 months of implementation of the act. Five lousy miles. The Government Accountability Office claims 70 miles were erected -- but most of that fencing failed to meet the specifications of the law.

Is Congress up in arms? Will there be accountability? Don't make me snort. Instead of demanding that the law be enforced, the pols are sabotaging the law. As part of the omnibus spending package passed this week, House Democrats incorporated Senate Republicans' provisions to remove the two-layer fencing requirements and the specific target list of fencing locations.

GOP Rep. Peter T. King, who sponsored the Secure Fence Act, told the Washington Times: "This is either a blatant oversight or a deliberate attempt to disregard the border security of our country. As it's currently written, the omnibus language guts the Secure Fence Act almost entirely. Quite simply, it is unacceptable."

But so totally, totally predictable.

Republican Leader John Boehner tried to blame the House Democrat majority: "The fact that this was buried in a bloated, 3,500-page omnibus speaks volumes about the Democrats' unserious approach on border security and illegal immigration," he said. "Gutting the Secure Fence Act will make our borders less secure, but it's consistent with the pattern of behavior we've seen all year from this majority." But it's border state Republicans who've been gunning to undermine the law while the ink was still fresh.

To add insult to injury and homeland insecurity upon homeland insecurity, Congress failed to adopt a ban on federal aid to sanctuary cities that prevent government employees and law enforcement officers from asking about immigration status; voted to stall implementation of stricter ID standards at border crossings; and miraculously found enough money to provide $10 million in "emergency" funding for attorneys of illegal aliens.

Next time you hear a leading presidential candidate try to woo you with his nine-point immigration enforcement plan or his secure ID plan or his Secure Borders platform, point to the Incredible Disappearing Border Fence. Poof! That is what happens to election-season homeland security promises. Why would theirs be any different?

Michelle Malkin
December 19, 2007
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=1385927

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

« 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

“Oh, I understand," said Senator McCain. "A normal person would use the bucket because it's bigger than the spoon or the teacup?”

"No." said the Director, "Actually a normal person would pull the plug. I could have asked the same question using illegal immigration as your reference. For example, the choices from minimum impact to maximum effect might have been:

“(1) Open borders and blanket amnesty giving citizenship to all regardless of nationality, education, criminal record, or when they arrived or will arrive. If I’m not mistaken, I believe this to be your unstated preference.

“(2) A possible second choice might be a gradual attrition resulting from a reduction of social benefits, and denial of any forms of identification obtained in the United States. Also some have proposed that we require illegal aliens to obtain their guest worker status from an American Embassy in a foreign country within 6 months which would cause them to have to leave, if only temporarily.

“The most stringent choice would of course be:

“(3) Militarize the border for national defense; erect an impenetrable border wall from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico; eliminate eligibility of any and all illegal aliens for all taxpayer funded social benefits in the United States, including education; void NAFTA and CAFTA legislation; insure that felony crimes committed by illegal aliens would carry 5 times the punishment as any American citizen, without appeal; eliminate anything but emergency (life threatening) medical care; bill the Mexican government for any indigent care rendered. Surely they would be willing to divert some of their oil revenues to provide medical care to Mexican citizens; eliminate eligibility for any bank loan, car loan, revolving credit, vehicle registration, and mortgage loan, ownership of property or employment of any kind. Any illegal alien currently in the United States would be required to obtain United States-sanctioned alien guest worker identification only at a foreign American Embassy and provide DNA, fingerprints and photographs for law enforcement and national security purposes. 200,000 will be readmitted annually from a pool of applicants from those who (a) register before they leave the United States, and (b) have no United States or foreign criminal record when they attempt to return. Citizenship of offspring born in the United States will only be granted to those who obtain United States citizenship before the date of their child’s birth, retroactive to 1950.

“The “pull the plug” response, Senator, would require you to vigourously enforce existing immigration law, to the letter of the law, without pardoning millions of felons, in one fashion or another, who have been victimizing American citizens for more than a generation. Any contemplated immigration reform legislation out of Congress should only have be used to correct obvious flaws in the current immigration law, many of which were enumerated in response (3).

“So, tell me Senator, do you prefer a bed by the wall or near a window? We’ve been expecting you for some time. Do you think Senator Jon Kyl will be along soon?”

Red State Patriot

« Close It