Obama can deny it all he likes, but anyone who subscribes to the belief that we should adopt a fiscal policy based on “From everyone according to his abilities to everyone according to his needs” is a disciple not of Warren Buffet, but of Karl Marx. Still, as some cynic once observed, when you rob Peter to pay Paul, don’t expect Paul to raise any objections. So, even though Obama claims he will cut income taxes for 95% of us, even though he knows full well that over 30% of us don’t even pay a single penny in income taxes, millions of Pauls are ready and eager to vote for this con man.

Frankly, I find it amazing and pathetic that so many Americans are anxious to finish the job begun by FDR to turn us into a socialist state. Is it simply because they long for America to go the way of China, the Soviet Union, Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba, or do they simply not give a damn? Sheep, after all, are not known for their spirit of independence or their intelligence.

When I suggest that socialism often leads to tyranny, I am not indulging in right-wing hyperbole. After all, aside from control of capital and the means of production, one of the essentials of all dictatorships is central control of the media. In 2008, the left already controls most of the MSM, not to mention the liberal arts departments on most college campuses.

The warning signs are all around us. Recently, as you may have heard, Beverly West, a reporter with Florida television station WFTV, dared to ask Joe Biden whether Obama’s connection to ACORN was a legitimate concern and whether Obama’s response to Joe the Plumber was Marxist. As a result, the Obama/Biden campaign informed WFTV that it was cutting off access because of such rude questions.

The American Issues Project, whose TV ad called for an examination of the Obama/Bill Ayers connection, led to the Obama machine’s demand that the Justice Department begin a criminal investigation of the AIP. The idea that the AIP should be investigated for running a legitimate TV ad, but ACORN should not be prosecuted for perpetuating voter fraud is the sort of thing that George Orwell would have dealt with if he’d lived long enough to write a sequel to “1984.”

If Obama is elected, there’s no question that the Democrats will pass the ill-named Fairness Doctrine, thus ensuring that talk radio, the only part of the MSM not fully under control of the far left, will be silenced once and for all.
After that, our only means of communication will be smoke signals. That is assuming that under Obama’s new order we’ll be able to afford blankets.

By Burt Prelutsky
November 10, 2008

--------------------

Response: Len Salonsky
Future 'Americans' will never appreciate what they no longer are. Some present-day 'Americans' haven't got a clue either."

« Close It

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?"
(http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ):

"Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina.
http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html

Hat tip: Paul Uitti

« Close It

For those of you who did not have the opportunity to listen to several hours of broadcast excellence on August 3rd, Rush proudly stated that he had been a visitor to the White House on three separate occasions, and said with obvious affection, “Bush loves the country. He is the most confident man. He is a barrel of laughs. He is at ease. He is unfazed by any of the criticism that he gets. He doesn’t care about it.”

Well Rush, I am here to tell you and most Americans will tell you, President Bush should care more about it and most importantly, you should know the difference. Thinking poorly of fellow Americans, thinking them ignorant, serves no constructive purpose other than to highlight the arrogance of elitism. Maybe – just maybe – Americans recognize the risks to this nation and our economy better than their pompous critics. It is not surprising that a majority of Americans understand President Bush perfectly. Why otherwise would his support polls be so low? And of course you will hear him say that he does not care about the polls. Most Americans correctly take this to mean that he also does not care about our opinions, what we think, what we want, or what we say.

Rush, does that include you? Your comments gave me cause to worry for the first time in a decade. The ice under both you and the President is getting incredibly thin and cracks are evident everywhere. Please be very, very careful. Do you realize where you are standing?

The problem of illegal aliens, and their associated crime wave, will continue only as long as the Federal Government and state governors want it to – and they want it to continue. We have more than enough tools in the shed to secure the border, instantly if necessary. The United States can send astronauts to the moon, build structures that reach far into the sky, and array an incredible assortment of modern weapons on the battlefield. But the President refuses to allow the building of a simple fence, the total cost of which would be not much more than a single year’s budget of the Border Patrol. President Bush has flatly refused to secure United States’ borders, arguably in violation of his Oath of Office. The President has personally obstructed the efforts of others to preserve national sovereignty, entered into international agreements that would someday result in dissolution of the United States into some form of a North American Union, and has publicly denigrated anyone trying to enforce existing immigration laws. That much is an uncontested fact.

There is one short and simple reason: greed. The border is making too much money for too many people just the way that it is.

What is the character of a man, in Congress or the Presidency, who permits personal greed to trump national sovereignty? What is the character of a man who would abandon the U.S. Constitution and hundreds of thousands of men and women who have given their mortal existence to create and preserve the United States of America? What is the character of a man who would sell out his fellow citizens for short sighted business and political reasons? The reality is simple. The President is acting in self interest, one way or another. The President is either profiting from the transgressions taking place on the border, or supporting those who are – or both. It is as simple as that. There are no other options; there is no other justification for not closing the border when it is obviously needed to protect fellow American citizens from victimization and to defend our nation’s society and culture from being ravaged. Arguably, every death of an American citizen at the hands of an illegal alien will forever be blood on the hands of George W. Bush, the man you so admire. If you were talking hypothetically, off the record, what phrase would you use to describe any President of the United States, at any time in history, who would willingly sell out his United States birthright and his own nation’s sovereignty?

Most Americans prefer to believe the president is supposed to govern, not to rule. When the Administration and Congress both blatantly and defiantly ignore the Rule of Law, they've unilaterally chosen to rule America, not govern the United States. Is this really what you support?

One way of looking at our nation’s domestic reality, whether you agree with the president’s policies or not, is that President Bush has lost every single political race of substance in which he has been entered, on every single track, for almost seven years. Who but an ideologue would bet on such a nag, an almost certain loser by the end of the race? That doesn’t sound like you, regardless of how much you may like the horse. The horse has proven itself woefully lacking, and wishful thinking about what could have been doesn’t change that.

Maybe the classic story of the Wizard of Oz has some applicability. If President Bush had any courage what-so-ever, anything resembling a brain, or the faintest trace of a Christian heart, he would have long since closed the borders and ended the carnage to United States citizens who are experiencing more than 3,000 annual deaths at the hands of illegal aliens. When one adds the violent crime, property damage, drugs and fraud being inflicted on American society, who is it that you believe truly matters to President Bush? The facts are irrefutable. Apparently not United States citizens! If not United States citizens, then what about United States soldiers? It is totally illogical to claim to care about the soldiers and not your fellow citizens.

Rush, you often claim with some apparent semblance of accuracy to be running this country. May I conclude that “open borders” and refusing to enforce existing immigration laws has become your choice of domestic immigration policy? If not immigration laws, which federal and state laws would you personally choose to enforce? Which laws do you suggest Americans simply ignore? Or is it strictly a matter of personal choice?

If open borders and national lawlessness is not a central feature of the Limbaugh Institute of Conservative Studies, do you have the personal and broadcast integrity to take an unambiguous position, and by doing so, send a strong message to the President of the United States? Or, will you continue to equivocate while hiding behind the skirts of being an entertainer?

Rush, please stand up and be counted. United States citizens by the millions, many of them dittoheads, are standing up across this great country, in communities large and small, many risking their mortal existence to protect our way of life and their fellow citizens. Why not liberals? Because to them, the "one" is more important than the "whole;" but why not you?

If you are implicitly refusing to be a United States citizen first and foremost, maybe we shouldn’t be listening to you. While it would be easy to say, “lead, follow or get out of the way (off the air), I choose to believe you are eminently qualified and destined to lead. So, for all that is precious in America, lead - but not blindly following the White Rabbit into a rabbit hole leading to Wonderland.

Until dittoheads have evidence to the contrary, we must consider the possibility that you view yourself as the White Rabbit and think of the White House as Wonderland.

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 esteemed historian Samuel Eliot Morrison, in his The Oxford History of the American People, has written of December 7, 1941:

"At the end of this sad and bloody day, 7 December 1941, the 'day that shall live in infamy,' as President Roosevelt said of it, 2403 American sailors, soldiers, marines, and civilians had been killed, and 1178 more wounded."

In Hawaii, nearly 150 planes had been destroyed on the ground; at least six battleships had been sunk or rendered non-operational.

Soon, American air assets in Manila would be destroyed. The Japanese would roll over the Malay Peninsula and take Singapore. Guam and other islands in the Pacific would fall. Hong Kong would be taken. The fate of Bataan and Corregidor would be told by the Death March and hellish prison camps. And more. Much more.

Morrison, again, about December 8, 1941:

"To millions of Americans, whether at breakfast in Hawaii, or reading the Sunday paper in the West, or sitting down to dinner in the East, this news of disaster after disaster, seemed fantastic, incredible. As the awful details poured in, hour after hour, incredulity turned to anger and an implacable determination to avenge these unprovoked and dastardly attacks. On 8 December, Congress with but one dissenting vote declared a state of war with Japan . . . . President Roosevelt, in his war message . . . declared, 'Never before has there been a greater challenge to life, liberty and civilization'."

Yes, on December 7th and September 11th there were sneak attacks. Yes, each day was one of infamy. Yes, there were considerable losses of American (and other) lives. Yes, substantial symbols of American power, the Pacific Fleet, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, were destroyed. Yes, Americans fought back at Pearl Harbor and on United 93. Yes, the news on those days was fantastic, incredible.

And yes, then, as now, “Never before has there been a greater challenge to life, liberty and civilization.”

And yes, on December 8th and September 12th there was among our people, an “implacable determination to avenge these unprovoked and dastardly attacks.”

But with these comparisons, the picture changes.

In 1941, and for nearly four year after, we saw full mobilization of our great nation’s resources: military, economic, social, spiritual, and political. Every sector of our society was engaged.

Men and women volunteered for the armed services.

Women went into factories.

Rationing was imposed.

Religious leaders prayed, and went into combat with their flocks.

Politicians joined hands, giving FDR what he needed to fight ruthless enemies.

Civilians willingly endured shortages and blackouts.

Kids (like me) collected newspapers, tin cans, used fat and grease - all for the war effort.

The radio, newspapers, and magazines supported the war effort, and exercised disciplined self-restraint about what they published.

Celebrities, who hadn’t enlisted, sold War Bonds and entertained the troops.

Images kept patriotic spirits high: Joe Rosenthal’s photo of the Iwo Jima flag raising; MacArthur wading ashore in the Philippines; repatriation of emaciated POWs from Japanese prison camps; Patton, with his pearl-handle revolvers; the London blitz; the liberation of Paris. VE-Day. Then, VJ-Day. Times Square overflowing with joy.

And the man-in-the-street, and his wife, and his children, and all other Americans, knew that we were fighting Germany and Japan (and Italy) because, as FDR said, they posed a grave threat to "life, liberty and civilization.”

As do the radical Islamists who on 9/11 showed us a preview of their nihilism-driven corrupt religion’s vision for mankind, and who, before and since, have maimed and murdered thousands of innocent men, women, and children throughout the world.

But after President Bush’s rousing post-9/11 speech to Congress and the American people, after flags flew everywhere for a few months, after passage of some useful but inadequate legislation, do we see within our country Morrison’s “implacable determination to avenge these unprovoked and dastardly attacks”?

Sadly, we do not.

Indeed, we see the opposite.

We see a narrow Supreme Court majority, infatuated with the romance of international law at the expense of American sovereignty, giving due process rights to terrorists, ignoring established precedent to nullify military tribunals, and treating irregular enemy combatants as if they were mere burglars to be dealt with by our domestic criminal law system.

We see international busybody organizations inspecting our detainee facility at Guantanamo, and solemnly pronouncing a verdict on our treatment of Islamic murderers who would make American citizens their next victims.

We see those murderers coddled, uninterrupted sleep, prayer time, outside recreation, nutritious food, health care by a soft administration bent on mollifying these international busybodies and their domestic crybaby cousins.

We see America-hating organizations such as the ACLU, the National Lawyers Guild, and the Center for Constitutional Rights enlisting thousands of lawyers whose task is to monkey-wrench the terrorist adjudicatory system, as if they were representing O.J. Simpson in a Los Angeles courtroom.

We see leading newspapers disclosing top secret defense information, surveillance, money tracing, secret interrogation facilities, not only with impunity, but to the cheers of America’s left and those in the world who would destroy us.

We see a mostly partisan Democrat Party in Congress and at the National Committee playing politics with laws essential to our national security.

We see a weakened Republican president proffering legislation for military tribunals that provides for terrorists process at once unnecessary and dangerous, only to be trumped by the likes of grandstanding Republican Senators McCain, Warner, and Graham, who, not content to provide Islamic murderers with all the due process enjoyed by domestic criminal defendants, want to provide them, as well, with classified information about sources and methods. We see this senatorial quartet also determined to prohibit the time-tested “good cop/bad cop ‘technique of interrogation, sleep deprivation, loud music, dietary manipulations’ apparently believing that our military and CIA are dealing with some Chicago street gang, not savages out to destroy us and our way of life.

We see public officials acquiescing to the demands of homegrown Muslim organizations, in an effort not to offend, blinding themselves to that religion’s core belief in jihad, martyrdom, and its ultimate triumph.

We see in America, according to a nationwide Scripps Survey Research poll, that more than one-third of our countrymen suspect the government “assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East. Worse, if that be possible, is that sixteen percent of those polled attribute collapse of the World Trade Center towers not to the jet planes hijacked by Islamic terrorists, but to agents of George W. Bush who somehow, clandestinely, blew up the buildings.

We see in our colleges and universities an inbred corps of fanatic intellectuals whose life’s purpose is to brainwash the young minds entrusted to their care into believing that the enlightenment, Western values, and the political philosophy that created and sustained our nation are all malevolent, and that Islam, the religion of nihilism and murder, is mankind’s true aspiration.

We, who at the Battle of the Bulge shot captured German troops wearing American uniforms and on Guadalcanal incinerated Japanese defenders with flame throwers, we who firebombed Dresden and Tokyo, we who dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, now send Senators to Washington who fight the president over “harsh” interrogation of terrorists who often have information that can save American lives.

We see the recruitment of radical Islamists in our prisons, aided and abetted by radical Islamic clergy— paid for by the American taxpayer.

We see politicians willing to turn over America’s national security, and perhaps the ultimate survival of our civilization, to unelected judges, responsible to no one, many of whom have been cloistered for so long that they lack an adequate understanding of the real world.

We see the much heralded publication of the Army Field Manual, providing Geneva Conventions protection barring outrages against personal dignity, like ‘hooding,’ forced nudity, and duct-taping eyes, to Islamic terrorists who behead, dismember, and disembowel captured Americans.

We see, in short, an utter, indeed a frightening, lack of understanding of the principles that animated our creation as the freest most successful nation ever to exist on this earth, principles that carried us through revolution, civil war, world wars, and a cold war.

We see that too many Americans have become ignorant and complacent, and thus broken the faith with those who fought at Yorktown, died at Gettysburg, survived the trenches, landed at Normandy, froze at Chosin, and were imprisoned in Hanoi.

We see our country in thrall to pernicious ideas that have sucked from us the understanding of what we face and the will to face it.

And time is running out.

Unless America wakes up fast, parents, clergy, intellectuals, workers, educators, veterans, celebrities, students, one day, perhaps sooner than later, we will look up and no longer see Ronald Reagan’s “shining city on a hill.”

We will see a Mosque.

Henry Mark Holzer, professor emeritus at Brooklyn Law School.

Hat tip: Richard Doubek

« 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

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