A Bit of Good News in Naming the Foe!

Putting a name on the foe, the enemy of Western Civilization... All right, it is taking folks some time to get around to it but people in power are beginning to name the enemy. Today, President George W. Bush said, “We have freedom which is a gift of Almighty God for all peoples….. (8/31/2006 – President George W. Bush) How’s that for a blow to the chin? And good for the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Howard who said something to the effect that immigrants to Australia who are at odds with Western Culture and Western sensibilities regarding freedoms, et al, should set about “Learning the English language, understanding the equality of men and women…”. This effort needs to be done to assimilate into the Australian society. Good for Mr. Howard, too! President Bush was speaking of the war on terror and the war in Iraq, and he is calling out those waging war against Western Civilization. He’s saying what needs to be said; he is putting the name to the enemy. Further attempts at putting a name to the enemy can be found in The Washington Times today in the article, War turns to 'Islamic Fascism'. It is for us to take up the slack and let our voices be heard. Several blogs can give you the information you need to go bravely armed into this war: Gates of Vienna, Adversus Monstrum, Taking Sides, A Western Heart to name a few.

Training for Jihad - Wahhabi Schools in USA

We are wrong to be so narrowly focused. We tend to think of jihadist training camps in the desserts of Libya, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, and others. We are ill advised to be so narrowly focused. According to an article "The Wahhabi Invasion of America" by Mark Silverberg, approximately 30,000 youth between the ages of 6-17 are attending madrassas/generally Wahhabi schools in the United States of America today. Similarly, Saudi Arabia has funded schools for Wahhabi indoctrination to the tune of 87 billion dollars worldwide. Madrassas are located, according to Silverberg in 9 cities in the US: "Los Angeles, San Francisco, Fresno, Chicago, New York, Washington, Tucson, Raleigh, N.C., and Toledo, Ohio." These schools focus on indoctrination into Wahhabism, a form of Islam. According to Silverberg, "America, perhaps due to the inherent openness of its society is the only country outside Saudi Arabia where the Islamic establishment is actually under Wahhabi control." Freedom of religion is one thing. Looking the other way as foreign governments strive to indoctrinate youth, many native-born American youth, with the purpose of undermining our way of life through subtle changes from secular law to Shariah Law or more violently through destabilization through terrorist cells is quite another. I have discussed in a previous post that Islam is not a religion but an amalgamation of ideologies couched under the guise of religion. It is at our peril that we consider Islam a benign religion just like another sect of Christianity with a few little doctrinal differences thrown in. It is at our peril that we ignore the threat imposed by Islamic Imperialism whether waged through the "war on terror" or through more subtle means such as the visa programs and suing to be covered for a driver'’s license picture. None of this "‘migration"’ is unplanned or unsupported. The goal of Islam seems to be to influence a nation'’s politics; the goal is world domination by Islamic Imperialism. I have long held that Islam and all facets of it are not compatible with our ideals of individual freedom and responsibility. There is no good to come from us trying to live side-by-side with Islam in America. A peaceful coexistence is not Islam'’s aim. We fail to appreciate that at our peril. We should implement the following at the very least: 1) No foreign money should be allowed into our nation for the building and funding of Wahhabi Schools; 2) End all dual citizenships for everyone; (No one should be able to vote in elections in America and in the elections of other nations too.) 3) Place a moratorium on all immigration from nations that support terrorist groups or that fund terrorist-supporting charities. 4) End all visas (student and otherwise) for people coming here from any nation-state that sponsors any groups hostile to our interests or intent on influencing our politics. We must get the money that supports the schools and schools designed to undermine our way of life out of the country. We can do that together. And we can do it one letter; one phone call; one blog entry at a time. Be brave; be awake; be active; contact your representatives. Wringing of the hands, gnashing of the teeth is not the way to go. . Take a look at Taking Sides and the declaration found there. Review the declaration and determine the aspects that you can carry to your representatives, not in total, just the parts that are most important to you. Taking Sides can carry the entire message but for the pieces and parts, you can help. Contact your representatives but go with something in hand. We must give our elected officials some ideas to work with. God bless Western Civilization! Hip, hip, hooray! No appeasement with terrorists; not now, not ever!

The Anti-Americanism of Hyphenated Citizenship

Take a look at all of the hyphens around you. If someone's traits, ethnicity does not lend itself to the mighty hyphen, the person tries anyway. Skin tone or color don't lend themselves to the use of the hyphen and when tried seems silly. "I'm a cream beige-American." Be honest. That doesn't have the zip of an ethnic adjective such as Hispanic-American. Even then, some ethnic adjectives don't work well either. Early on, in 1909, Teddy Roosevelt commented that hyphenated-Americanism should not be allowed to stand. The point was that hyphenated-Americanism erodes the very traits or qualities that make our nation one; that make our nation able to withstand attacks from external forces designed to overthrow our culture. From within, the hyphen accomplishes what armies armed to the teeth could never hope to win through overt attack. Among other reasons, Roosevelt said that it fractured the nation and it also fractured the identity and loyalty of the person thus hyphenating himself. What do we have today? Hyphens everywhere you look. Some say, hyphenated-Americanism is a point of ethnic pride. I say think again. The hyphen is a source of group identity that self-styled leaders of for-profit groups use to squeeze money from the individuals who feel they must belong for "group solidarity". For what? Be honest now. What group is oppressed in American today aside from the white male? He is discriminated against in job applications and for promotions. And, he doesn't have a group to belong to. Worse, none of his ethnic groups lend themselves well to the hyphen. Talk about oppressed, the white male doesn't even have the hyphen. Even if he did, I very much doubt he'd hide behind it. I say hyphenated-Americanism is self-defeating and it lends itself to self-profiling. It also surrounds itself with an aura of victimology instantly calling upon the other person to say, to think, or to sign in some manner, "Oh, I understand you have been so put upon..." with preferential treatment, government set-aside contracts, etc. The mind cannot help but recoil at the stigma associated with the hyphen. The consequence is unintended but there it is. For me, the hyphen isn't cute any more. It smacks of an anti-Americanism. Ken Hamblin says he has a bumper sticker on the door to his office. It says African-American. Under it, he has written, "Pick one." Yes, pick one. Don't let yourself be split by the hyphen. Hyphens weaken America. Hyphens weaken the person who has chosen to hyphenate himself. While I'm on that thread, the hyphen insults me just by you using it. Someone says, "Well, I'm a African-American. No body can understand what it's like to live the black experience in America." (circa 2006) The insult comes in across the board because Americans are letting themselves be defined by the hyphen, not by their Americanism. Morgan Freeman said it best when he said, "I am not a black American. I am an American who happens to be black." We saw that the terrorists didn't care about the hyphen on September 11, 2001. We didn't care about the hyphens. We were Americans. The hyphen is designed to divide us and to take away our strength much like the cutting of Sampson's hair made him weak. Hyphens divide us. Racial name-calling divides us. Yesterday, a man in Texas called me an Anglo. I asked what was wrong with being Anglo? He said, "Nothing." I said, "No, nothing wrong with being Anglo except that is not how I define myself. I am an American. I define myself as an American. We, you and I, are Americans. Our external enemies don't care about the hyphens. Our internal enemies use the hyphen to separate us." "Yes," he said, "we cannot let them get away with it." I agree. So, stand tall, be proud. You are either an American or a hyphen. Be an American! God bless you; God bless Americans; and erase the darn hyphens, now!

Has the Hyphen undermined Western Civilization?

The enemy was at the gate. The hoards of armed warriors held firm in their battle-ready positions to over-run the walls of the city... But these battle-hardened warriors couldn't hold a candle to the mighty, mighty hyphen. The hyphen can't storm a wall, can't face off enemy tanks and armies. The hyphen, however, can divide and conquer the most formidable culture and civilization. The hyphen succeeds through the ideology of "divide and conquer". The hyphen pits one hyphen against another hyphen. The hyphen turns on it's heels the idea of people being knowing and accepted by the "content of their character and not by the color of their skin." Regardless of my personal feelings of Martin Luther King, Jr., the goal shared across ethnic lines was to unite the citizens of a nation. After all of that work and sacrifice, we now see it being undone by the tiny hyphen. The hyphen has done more to tear America apart in the past 40 years than any external force could have accomplished.... To be continued.....

The Victimology of Hyphenated-Americanism

Is there any humor left in America? No, not today. We are so thin-skinned one has to wonder how we ever won any wars. To hear someone define themselves as a hyphen: Swedish-American, Hispanic-American, Muslim-American, African-American is limiting. Is there a tie-in between the expansion of the hyphen as a tool for segregating and separating Americans by skin color and by ethnicity, and the cult of victimology? By its very nature, the hyphen now attaches a sort of grievance, complaint persona to the hyphenated-person. And this wimpy victim persona and all of its associated traits as well as a litany of attached grievances place the hyphenated citizen behind before he even begins. Why is hyphenated-Americanism limiting and denigrating? When you address yourself as a hyphenated-American, you are attaching yourself knowingly or unknowingly to the stereotype that groups “in search of a victim” have imposed upon society-at-large. Whether the self-described hyphenated person knows it or not, that hyphen profiles him and saddles him with negative traits that foster the sense of victimhood. What hogwash? Victims who use the hyphen as the platform for their group identity and grievances automatically raise the "stereotypical" groupthink litany because, through the hyphen, special rights and privileges are attached. The hands-off, "special status", handle-with-kid-gloves sign goes up. The conversation and open communications stop. How can we as individual Americans, not hyphens, ever be able to discuss our problems and solve them as Americans? Hyphens don't solve problems and certainly do not move forward together; American citizens do. Pay attention to what is happening around you; listen and see how many groups do not use hyphens and, if the hyphen has been foisted on them, notice that the grievances do not attach. Generally, the non-hyphenated Americans do not seek "protected, special" status. They do not get their life's blood from being victims. They see themselves as Americans of different ancestry. They are part of the grand American experiment. What a terrible burden of un-American whining weakness has been placed on the backs of those identified with “victim, oppressed” groups through no desire of their own? In the “victim” groups, the good of the hyphenated group out weighs the importance of the individual? That is simply unconstitutional and un-American. Are you an American or a hyphen?

Straight from the Heart - Election time in the USA

I'm going to write straight from my heart about our up-coming elections and our nation, and to that extent with the saving of part of Western Civilization. It has to do with moving forward and not listening to the platitudes of the recent past. The issue is illegal immigration. I urge you to support people who support securing our borders. With the flood of illegal immigrants entering the nation, Americans on the lower end of the economic scale are paying through depressed wages and decreasing benefits from employers, and lost jobs. There is no job Americans won't do to provide for their families and to support their nation. The middle class is paying through lost jobs, through higher taxes, and through the decrease in services - how many hospitals have closed in California as an example? How many trauma care units have closed in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas? A city in Idaho is suing the federal government to recover the cost of providing health care and other services to the burgeoning mass of illegals. I am concerned about several issues as my visitors know: the sovereignty of our nation, the protection of our border, the plight of our native-born American poor (not talking about "anchor babies" here), the survival of Israel as a nation with the right to exist and flourish, and the intrusion of Islamic influence into our national politics, as well as that of Europe. I see our national heritage and culture as well as cohesiveness through one language being eroded. In defense of his stand against closing our borders, I have even heard one congressman say, "We are all illegal immigrants?" Really? Our Border Patrol and others are fighting for their lives to protect our nation. Two of our agents have been hauled into court, found guilty all on the word of a Mexican-national who was here illegally, shot in the process of committing a crime, and given immunity from prosecution to testify against our agents. Now that person is suing us for a violation of his civil rights. While my friends tell me there is nothing that I can do about any of it, my heart rebels. I will send what little money I can spare to the Minutemen to build their border fence. I will send a few dollars to brave candidates like Vernon Robinson in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. And I will pray that the native-born American poor and the middle class will vote for the candidates who want to secure our borders and the futures of our children. This is not the time for the poor to vote for the party who will hand out government money to subsidize their daily expenses. The cost of that trade is too dear. To secure our future, candidates who voted against the Senate's Amnesty - Permanent Guest Worker Citizenship Bill, and those who supported the House Bill to secure our borders deserve out support. I appreciate our history as a nation of immigrants but assimilation (if the current illegals even want to do that) takes a long time. Frankly, Mexico is pushing its citizens into our nation at a rate far greater than anything we have ever sustained before in the way of immigration. From the marches demanding rights and protestors waving Mexican flags in our faces, it appears that many among the current illegals want little to do with becoming Americans. The outcome of this election portends trends for the United States of America and perhaps the further weaking of Western Civilization generally. There is hope however because Britain and others are beginning to see the folly of open-immigration policies and of "one-size-fits-all" multiculturalism. While the elites long for the death of the West, we (you and I) everywhere in the free world are not enemies. We all want good for our children. And that desire extends beyond those of us in the so-called free world. We can be citizens of England, Italy, Australia, India, Israel, France, Germany, Russia, anywhere - in our hearts we want good futures for our children. Rampant illegal immigration is not the way to achieve that good, either for us or for the illegal immigrants. It may seem so on the surface but when the illegals have been bought for a free education, free housing, a few bucks here and there, and seemingly free medical, they will find that the few pickings left on the carcass won't be enough to sustain even them. Please support your Representative and Senators who voted to secure our borders and to follow our Constitution. For that support alone, I must give them my vote.

In Defense of the West

In the battle over the defense of the West and how we should accomplish, I'd like to refer visitors to a few editorials that confirm that a "consensus is building" as viewed by Taking Sides. Diana West's suggestions to the President and therefore to all of us for "Fighting Shariah Law": Retool US War August 18, 2006 Fighting Shariah Law August 25, 2006 In an opinion piece on August 27, 2006, Cal Thomas combines both "wars" in Iraq and the other war. Two other commentary/opinion pieces which may be of interest are "Preserving security" by William Hawkins and "New Mideast realities" by Claude Salhlani both in the Washington Times, 8/27/06.

Death of the West - The Choice is ours...

Death to the West, coming soon to a theatre near you? Not necessarily... Pat Buchanan's book, A State of Emergency, is a masterpiece that deserves a read no matter what side of the political spectrum one may be on. The book has value to all nations comprising Western Civilization. Read the last chapter first. This chapter has recommendations for the defense of Western Civilization both in the United States of America and Europe from Denmark to Spain, from Italy to England, and all nations in between. From Mr. Buchanan's book, on page 2, bottom of the page, we read, "What the Danube and the Rhine were to Rome, the Rio Grande and Mediterranean are to America and Europe, the frontiers of a civilization no longer defended." Chilling words. But with this "death of the west" comes not only the loss of Western Civilization as we know it: the culture, the art, the freedoms. Another loss will be the loss of a society relatively free from rather devastating diseases. With the hoards of people entering our borders, come numerous diseases - some new to our land, some getting a renewed chance. I, for one, do not want to go gently into the new age of darkness. I emplore you to read Mr. Buchanan's book. While some of the elites may scoff at an "Old Europe", and others may say, "Australia will be fine way down under," I'm not so sure. Still, I have faith that the bonds of culture and civilization will out. How do we get a grip on the benign neglect we know surrounds us?

Illegal Immigration Changing America; Aiding Global Terrorism?

I have just started Pat Buchanan's book, A State of Emergency. While I believe his book will be panned as alarmist, I believe his book may be a decade or so too late. Too late both for us and perhaps for our allies. Okay, call me an ego-centered Yank. It is significant to note that, while America is facing terrorist threats, she is now experiencing a much greater threat and that is the re-making of the United States from the one which fought in WWI and WWII alongside the European men and women fighting for their survival against Nazi Germany into a nation that won't even defend itself. We have been a nation with a national language in practice and by vote of Congress decades ago. This unity of language has made the American dream possible. This unity of language has made mobility possible both across the nation and upwardly in the work world. More importantly, this linguistic unity has made us ONE. That unity is fast becoming a thing of the past. Tax dollars are aiding and abetting the Balkanization of the United States into a fragmented collection of segregated regions. For information about government collusion with groups such as 'La Raza', I suggest Michelle Malkin's article 'La Raza' schools: Your Tax Dollars at work. Michelle provides a brief peek at how the government is undermining national identity within as they are putting more law-abiding Americans at risk (physically due to gang violence) throughout the nation. None of the anti-illegal immigration efforts are about "racism". That slander is designed to stifle discussion as well as avoid solutions, rather like the talks about resolutions and sanctions in the UN do. Additionally, like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Mexican drug cartels operating in the US are laundering money, setting up legal businesses, and perhaps buying politicians as well. I never thought I'd live to see our government systematically support the loss of our nation's sovereignty. I never thought I'd live to see the government support criminal activity (lawlessness) by turning its back on its own citizens - all of them. Up to and including the unwillingness to protect property owners along the border. If anyone could stop it, I believe President Bush could. I believe at heart he is a good and decent man. But he just won't deal with illegal immigration, except through amnesty. Period. He alone has the power to stop the illegal immigration cold, as Pat says. When? Many people have immigrated to America and have assimilated into the fabric of the nation. One telling difference between those Americans and many of the illegals who are literally swarming through the desert into the nation today tells the tale. Many don't want to assimilate - they want to conquer. And these folks are dispersing to cities all over America. They are demanding rights, privileges, their own language, and they are placing unsupportable demands on the social programs, the hospitals, the schools, and general resources and services of these communities. Police departments are being overwhelmed. After you giggle and snicker, "Good on ya, ya racist, bigotted Yankee creeps...you're gettin' what ya deserve..." give a little thought to what that might mean to you. Something? Nothing? You decide.... We can argue about being in Iraq. We can argue about the war on terrorism. But remember, for whatever the reasons, we have very brave men and women who are fighting and dying and they are not squabbling about the prices of oil. They are fighting because they are Americans defending the principles in which they believe. We have a volunteer military. No one drafted them; no one twisted their arms. What has this to do with our illegal immigration? These military personnel are defending the borders of other nations. They should be home defending their nation's borders. [Many of our Border Patrol are doing the best that they can. Our Minuteman Civilian Defense Corps volunteers are making a difference.] Maybe the war in Iraq has served as a red herring as some suggest; but, if so, it has not diverted attention from the security of the world; it has diverted some Americans from paying attention to the security and sovereignty of their home. The Fox (pun intended) is in the hen house. The elitists are already shouting and screaming - we can assimilate the 40 million or so illegals. They are missing the point. Pat is taking the view of the state of emergency in the US. I am taking a view of the loss of a cohesive people (ethnically diverse but Americans to their core) who were willing to fight on the beaches of Normandy; to fight at the Battle of the Bulge; to die in the fields of France; to fight and die in the mountains of Italy; to fight in the sands of Northern Africa; and yes, to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Call us what you will but when the rubber meets the road, our boys and girls suit up. Governments come and go but what happens if the cohesion of the America people is lost? It is our people who are fighting and dying on foreign soil, not our government... And finally, is the invasion of America aiding the efforts of global terrorism?

Letter from the Left Coast

Received a letter from the left coast. Yes, there is at least one conservative in California. Headline: Europeans hold off on peace force to Lebanon. (New York Times News Service) Dear Beach Girl: Clearly, the bold Europeans are going to take more days to make a definitive step to commit troops than what the press loves to call the twelve day war, missing the truth by a mere 12 centuries. The Europeans have muffed the effect of Muslim immigration in their own countries by decades leaving them behind the 8 ball, not only at home but in their ability to act internationally. Are we far behind? Bush had demonstrated more leadership than he gets credit for: toppled Saddam... new constitution and democracy in Iraq... Toppled Taliban... new democracy in Afghanistan. Book ending - Iran. Look at a map! I'm so sick of voices in our country advising us that the moderates in Iran will soon overthrow the Mullahs from within (with a little vocal encouragement from us). The concept of moderates overthrowing facist Muslim regimes worked so well when left to the moderate Kurds who were begging for our military support. In Africa, the moderate Rwandans... In Asia, the moderate Taiwan-bound Chinese... The moderate North Koreans... The bottom line is our moderates talking to their "moderates" equals U.S. defeat. RLS

The Advance of Islamic Imperialism through Colonization

According to the dictionary, imperialism is generally defined as one nation eatablishing economic and territorial control over another nation. To be specific, imperialism is defined as "the policy of extending a nation's authority by acquisition of territory or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations." (Webster's II, p. 613) I just want to toss out the idea (for discussion) that although the West does not see Islam as a "nation-state", many who practice Islam seem to view the world as the Nation of Islam leaving them with the job of bringing the infidel West into submission. To be honest, this idea of overthrow through colonization is not original to me. I heard it first in February 2002, when a lady called a talk show and expressed that the Moslem communities being established within the West were beach heads in the ages long war between Islam and Christianity. Her point was that these communities provided cover for the fighters/terrorists. In a recent comment I made on Gates of Vienna, I suggested that one of the difficulties the West has in developing an effective way to protect itself from the establishment of a Caliphate in Europe, ruled by a Caliph (the secular and religious Moslem state) was that Islam is an amalgamation of religious and political ideology. Difficulty in addressing the expressed aims of this amalgamation (the combination of church and state) may be in part to the inability of the West to adjust its worldview (the separation of church and state) and tackle the threat to its cultural survival head-on. Many avenues to curtail the aggression are available at this time to host-nations so I am not advocating "all out war". But, if push comes to shove, I say, shove back. Remember, terrorists bombed the World Trade Centers first, that coming on the heels of many attacks going back to President Jimmy Carter's befuddled reign. And, Hezbollah as well as Hamas have both shoved pretty hard at Israel. Perhaps aided by the UN's desire to homogenize the world (multiculturalism) and use the money of industrialized nations to turn us all into so-called "third world nations", and encouraged by the aging West's desire to import a permanent underclass of care-givers, astute leaders of Islam, having a more long-term view of their goal, did what any self-respecting group seeking world domination would do. They turned the tables and marched stable communities (colonies) right through the front door, one visa at a time. The Supreme Leaders are putting lessons learned from several centuries ago to good use. Instead of attacking nation-states head-on, they are now establishing colonies/beach heads first within "friendly, appeasing" nation-states, read France, and turning on the heat when they want to do so - as in riots and torching thousands of cars last summer. And as we have seen recently in Germany, they are using these launching pads as platforms from which to plan and implement "terrorist" attacks. To be "fair", it's a rather clever strategy: colonize first, give the bomber folks cover, AND use the host-states' welfare programs to provide for the terrorists daily living expenses; thereby, freeing up the serious money for plotting, planning, and implementing attacks. First, I'm interested in maintaining the culture of the West. Terrorism is only a tactic, one of many. Being from the West, I have the concept of freedom of religion ingrained into me from infancy. I was not taught to hate people whose view/belief of God was different from mine. I was taught to respect and to love them. I was also taught to draw the line at giving up my "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" as a means of letting someone else jump-start their journey to Paradise.

Iraq War Straining American Psyche?

Mr. President, recently you were quoted as having "acknowledged the war is "straining the psyche" of Americans here at home." (Washinton Times, 8-22-06) It isn't our psyche that is being strained. It is our patience. Let our men fight in Iraq full-out, pedal-to-the-metal smashing all resistence in their path. Then, when the Iraqi people and our contractors would be safe, we can get about re-building the nation with the Iraqi people. Our men are fighting males who cover their faces in cloth. These same bastions of courage use rusty knives to behead men on their knees screaming for their lives with their hands tied. These same folks wear civilian clothes, hide behind civilian men, women, and children, and attack our troops from within the homes of these same civilians. When our troops fight as they have to, they get arrested and we get the Pendleton Eight. Anyone wonder why some brave Marines aren't re-enlisting? The idea that, in one month, 3,400 Iraqis were killed by the paramilitary bands of "insurgents" and we are not letting our men use the advanced weapons that they have is - well questionable. Haven't we learned anything from the result of Hezbollah attacking Israel? Never negotiate with terrorist guerrillas and, by the way, let the boys do the heavy lifting. No disrespect to our Secretary of State intended but "we shouldn't expect the UN to disarm Hezbollah?" Really? Do we have to wait until Israel is attacked again? Until terrorists topple a government as happened in Madrid with bombings in a subway-train system? Anyway, why don't we just let John Bolton make a statement at the UN, something like this: "Here's the deal. There's a nice bunch of folks here at Turtle Bay. Boys and girls mulling things over; passing resolutions, but it just isn't working. So, we've chatted with a few allies and this is the plan. The next time any terrorist group or terrorist individual anywhere threatens to bomb or bombs any one of our allies, shuts down our transportation and commerce, the next thing you may see - depending on where you are at the time - is a bright flash over someplace... Any questions?" I know, silly Conservative Beach Girl musings. I just don't want to see the next 40-50 years spent reducing our liberties and rights when a few General Pershings could get the job done, at least for the next 50-100 years or so.

Invasion of US - It's all politics, my dear!

Good morning! To my international friends out there in the ethers of the internet, my apologies. We here in the United States are moving into our mid-term election cycle. We will never have the wonderful and colorful process of the British Parliment where the PM answers questions and the back-benchers shout out their dissent but we are in the political season nonetheless. Our media seems fixated on the self-confessed murderer of JonBenet Ramsey. The condition of the Olmert government in Israel has dropped off the major networks to my dismay. The glorious work of the UN peacekeepers continues and the revision of the numbers of French troops being sent to Lebanon is down now to what 2-4 hundred? A rather grumpy Beach Girl here this morning. Need to get my coffee. Pat Buchanan's book, A State of Emergency, has just come out. I want to mention a few points before I read it. I want to toss out a few ideas that have been swimming around in my politically-oriented mind for several years now. One aspect of what I have to say about the US government aided and abetted invasion from Mexico sounds a bit cynical even to me but here goes. Due to about 1.3 million abortions annually in the US since 1973, in my view, the nation is seeing a demographic shift partially due to the void created by the Court-sanctioned "removal" (to put it euphemistically, otherwise known as a "woman's right to choose) of around 40 to 50 million tiny little bits of protoplasm who would have grown up to be humans, not redwoods of California and certainly not the Spotted Owl. The latter might have been preferable for then they would have been on the endangered species list - but I digress. The non-Hispanic white population is decreasing; the black population is maintaining sort of; the Hispanic white population is increasing. I'll get to the abortion issue in a later post. That post will probably be titled, How the Left killed Western Civilization - or something like that. Stay tuned. Some in the US today could make the case that the government is not enforcing immigration laws. Duh! I believe Mr. Buchanan like many others agrees with that assessment. I do. But then, looking at the Senate-passed Amnesty Bill, which is clearly intended to shift demographics, and more quickly than normal immigration and assimilation (which most Americans accept as the right way to go) would do, I find myself a tad cynical on the issue. In the Senate Amnesty Bill, I believe US citizenship attaches and would be the order of the day in a few years. Some say 17 years. And so we see the pandering and the scramble for the Hispanic white vote, even now when Hispanic-surnamed citizens themselves do not like the illegal immigration. Hypothetically, just to focus on the largest voting blocks, if say the Hispanic population is around 40 million, the black population is around 37 million, and the non-Hispanic white population is around 100 million, we would seem to be able to deal with our demographics changing over the next hundred years or so slowly and systematically with assimilation and intermarriage. No problem for me. But, let's say, the Senate Amnesty Bill is passed as the President wants. In very short order the Hispanic population jumps to 80 million or more (counting births, the anchor baby program, extended families being brought into the country, etc). The black population simply cannot keep up demographically and slips farther down the list in numbers. The non-Hispanic whites hold their numbers at around 150 million. One can see that the political parties will take the non-Hispanic white vote for granted, pay lip-service to the black population, and court the Hispanic white population. Now here is where my cynicism slips in. There is a possibility that President Bush's brother, Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida, may have aspirations to the Presidency. I dont' know. I do know that President Bush has a handsome, charismatic nephew by the name of George P. Bush. Now, George P., you may recall, spoke elegantly and articulately at the Republican Convention in 2000. George P. is fluent in Spanish and English, and has (I believe I have read this) had well-received speaking engagements before predominately Hispanic white crowds. Could the US government aided invasion from Mexico be paving the way demographically for George P.'s ascendency to the Presidency? Just a thought. I know it is early where I am so just forgive me as a rambling Beach Girl. All of this begs the question, how old will George P. be in about 17 years? My guess, a perfect age to assume the Presidency. I'm not saying that is bad or good. I'm just saying look down the road beyond the loss of our national sovereignty, beyond the non-Hispanic whites and blacks becoming unprotected minorities. I have to wonder if affirmative action will be held in place then. My guess is no. My apologies to our black citizens. In my view, the days of throwing the "race" card at non-Hispanic whites will soon be over and, except for local political races, the political influence of the black voting block will dwindle. We are in interesting times. One thing I do love though is that in all polls and demographic surveys, white skinned folks are increasingly referred to as non-Hispanic whites, supporting the position I have long held that Hispanics are white. Certainly there are only six races in the world (not to be confused with ethnicity). And certainly Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites easily intermarry. Both groups are predominately Christian with strong family values and a strong work-ethic. No dispersions intended here at any other ethnic groups so don't accuse me of racial bias. I'm just telling you the way I see it. If you have a different view, let's hear it. The more the merrier. There is more to this erosion of our national sovereignty than meets the eye. Can it all be politics, my dear? You be the judge. For the sake of our nation (of all American citizens) we need STATESMEN. If our elected officials focus on what is best for the nation and stop putting their attention of pandering for votes in the short-term, their positions will be secure and so will our position as a strong nation and as an ally of other like-minded nations. Coming soon, How the Left killed Western Civilization (under the guise of "a woman's right to choose") and lost their own power in the process.

Points to Ponder

Just read that a well-known writer/political commentator said that, with Europe and its aging polulation, the culture that many of us have come to know is slipping away. Further, he suggested that the replacement population, Islam, is already in place and that the only question is how / when the transfer of real estate will take place. [as read in the Patriot Post - August 2006] If we could just step back a moment and pretend that we are pulling an all-nighter geo-politcal discussion in the dorm, I'd like to throw out a few questions. If Islam is in place to take over Europe through attrition, and if other nation-states are seen as weak, what does that portend for the rest of the planet? If you want to take the time, and you are familiar with the Red State/Blue State method of characterizing states in the United States, take a few moments and look at a world map. Just for discussion, take three highlighters (or more depending on the catagories you decide upon) and then shade in the nations of the world - free democratic republics, totalitarian/dictatorship types of government, and those sort of in the middle. You could also do this for nations based upon theocracies, assorted (freedom of religion), and such. Just highlight them in the frame of how do the nations stack up as allies of each other? After you've done the exercise, what do you see? I can't see China and Russia - as we know them today - changing much except in gaining more international power. What will the geo-political structure of the planet be like in the next 50 to 100 years? Will Iran achieve it's stated goals? Will the UN be dissolved? Or will the UN become the head of the New World Order? Will Israel give up more land for peace? Will the nations of Europe be one strong nation-state? What happens in Indonesia? Where will Taiwan be in the mix? How about Australia way down under? Will Mexico, Canada, and the United States join as a nation along the model of the European Union? Any possibility that "we can all just get along"? Maybe take a look at the early United States of America model supported by President George Washington as well as Thomas Jefferson - neutrality regarding the affairs of other nations and trading with those with whom any given nation can trade equitably. What do you think? Do the alliances look like you expected? Better; worse? How is your homeland doing in this Wonderland World?

NSA's Bits and Bytes of Counter-terrorism

In light of the ruling by Judge Diggs Taylor, our courts need to tear themselves away from the anti-American activism of the 1960’s mind-set and move into the 21st Century. The war in Vietnam was thousands of miles away. Our youth were protesting in campuses to bring our soldiers home. We had the shootings of students at Kent State. We had our civil rights movement and the burning of Watts. We had the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr. Later we had the SLA and the kidnapping of Patty Hearst. We had the murder of Bobby Kennedy. We had tough times. What we didn’t have or didn’t know about were terrorist cells working inside of the United States and on foreign soil, plotting to bring about acts of guerrilla warfare, i.e., blowing up airliners, subways, trains, et al, against innocent civilians. They can’t take on our military installations so they target moms and dads on the subway. The terrorists have changed the rules of war. No armed, uniformed military. No specific, identified nation for whom they fight directly. No tight cohesive paramilitary units roaming our streets. In other words, they have made themselves invisible known only by the few behavioral and identifiable characteristics or commonalities they seem to share. So, we seem to be fighting a reflexive war with our hands tied. During our revolution, the target was clear. The troops coming to quell our insurgency against the Crown wore RED. We couldn’t miss them. Also, we were mostly British citizens at the time fighting British citizens (not counting the Hessians). We had similar backgrounds, similar values, and generally the same religious beliefs. Analogously perhaps, the enemy works in shadows and while he may have a great job by day, he holds a totally different worldview; one that does not allow for peaceful accommodation. Today, looks like the Brits, the Pakistanis, and the NSA have good guerrilla warriors of their own. The new undercover operatives on America’s side are the bits and bytes (forgive my out-of-date terminology) of counter-terrorism. The Court really needs to understand that the rules of warfare have changed and have moved into more subtle methodology. Also, the criminal court is simply not qualified to deal with terrorists or terrorist surveillance programs. Terrorists are not the average bank-robbing American criminal. By way of example, in nuclear power stations all procedures are not equal. Some procedures like operating procedures are designed to guide operators through the steps of aligning systems, and such. Emergency Operating Procedures [EOPs] are very few and their function is totally different. They are for use in emergencies to mitigate accidents before they occur, not for normal operations. So it is with the criminal court system. It is designed to handle what could be called normal crime: homicides, robberies, etc. Terrorists do not belong in criminal courts. They belong in military tribunals. See FDR for recent reference. For that matter, our little bits and bytes would fair better in military courts as well since they are warriors. And the judges would know the battlefield. The NSA surveillance counter-terrorism program is rather like having agents in the field. The little bits and bytes are everywhere. With some of the news media working to subvert our efforts at national security, the little bits and bytes are now being hauled off to court. Mercy! Having the sophistication to intercept calls and e-mail from outside of the US intended for terrorist operatives within the US and being told by a District Judge that we can’t use the best tool at our disposal leaves the thinking American shaking his/her head. These folks get to “heaven” by killing us, which eliminates the need to try to convert us. We cannot and will never be able to understand their ideology. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” just doesn’t work well with “kill the infidel.” As long as I can say it, “God bless you and God bless America!”

Islamic Law vs. Secular Law in America

We may need to take a look at our concept of the separation of church and state to determine if the state is in fact imposing Islamic Law into the secular realm of our democratic republic or is being softly led in that direction. Recently, I was visiting an exceptional blog. The main topic was Moderate Islam vs. Radical Islam. The visitors to this blog were all heavy hitters and knew what they were talking about. Frankly, I was a novice among kings in their presence just reading. The bottom line seemed to be that we were arresting the radical fanatics and we were “on the case”, as it were, of the terrorists and their cells. That is comforting in so far as it is true. Anyway, the radicals were not that much concern in the larger view. As an aside, I still wonder why in our age of enlightenment we allow and encourage the establishment of Wahabi schools, madrassas(sp) in our country. Don’t talk to me about religious freedom here. We certainly wouldn’t allow the KKK to have schools where children were indoctrinated into racial or religious hatred. Would we? Maybe we would if the KKK and the Aryan Nation boys and girls had couched their ideology in the robes of religion instead of political ideology. Would we, then? What did our government do with the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas? They were couched in the robes of religion – a form of Christianity, using the Holy Bible as their gospel. We know what happened to them - toast. As in Animal Farm, some religions are more equal than others, are they not? Is that true? I hope the day never comes when we no longer have freedom of religion, to worship as we please, not as dictated by the law. Now, let’s go back to moderate Islam vs. radical Islam for a moment. Some bloggers have very good points that the radical Islamofacists are being tracked as I said previously. Most of the bloggers seemed focused on the “under the radar” more inventive steps some moderate Muslim groups may be taking to undermine our nation’s concept of freedom of religion by using our own laws against us. One such effort that was suggested was the removal of any pork food products from a public school system. If this effort is true and the courts fall for it, will the wonderful delight of bologna and mayonnaise sandwiches with a bag of chips become things of the past? It’s an American tradition. As I understand it, the theory goes like this. My religion forbids the eating of pork (a part of Islamic Law); therefore all pork must be removed from proximity to my children. Hence, pork will no longer be served in a given school system. We had children of Jewish faith in our public schools when I was a child. They did not sue to take pork (not eating pork is a part of Hebrew Law) away from us; they simply chose not to eat pork. Should it occur, any imposition by Court Order of Islamic Law upon any non-Muslim American establishes precedent and is a first step toward the imposition of more Islamic Law upon us all, is it not? We need to be vigilant. Pork being removed from the lunchroom of a public school is not the practice of religion when my religion allows me to eat pork; yet, through legal precedent, pork could be taken away from me. It is the confusion of the Court and the abridgement of our theory of the separation of church and state that is of concern. I do not know if this has occurred or is just being talked about. If it is true, then we have been put on notice that Islamic Law is not coming to America; it is here. Will a day come when you can’t get a cold beer and a foot-long hot dog with the works at a Washington Redskins football game? I guess then you’d pay attention. As long as I can say it, “God bless you and God bless America!”

NSA Wiretaps - Unconstitutional?

How many Americans will have to be murdered by terrorists in our nation before our country realizes that we are in a war? Did 9-11-01 happen? We seem to be experiencing collective amnesia. The terrorist guerrillas want to kill us. They are very clear about their goals. Today, a federal judge, US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, appointed by Jimmy Carter, ruled that the NSA Wiretap Surveillance Program was unconstitutional. Yes, for normal criminal behavior but do the same rules apply when we are fighting terrorists? The program is designed to stop the attacks of war before they happen, before thousands of us are murdered. Our criminal justice system is designed to become active after a crime has been committed, not usually before. Our constitutional freedoms should not attach to terrorists who want to kill us whether they are in the United States or if they are on foreign soil. The ACLU brought the case, as I understand it, on behalf of journalists and others who say they cannot do their jobs, talking to their foreign sources. Is this really about freedom of speech or is it about newspapers making money? Is it really newspapers versus our security? Are the journalists putting their stories ahead of our safety? One has to wonder. I don't know the answer. I do know that some day soon, we must start treating the terrorizing guerrillas as enemy combatants, not as criminals. It's a good thing for us that FDR and the men and women who fought in WWII overseas and sacrificed here at home were more clear about the enemy they faced and the stakes that were involved. As I responded to a comment, perhaps we need to see if Judge Taylor's ruling is upheld. If it is upheld all the way to the Supreme Court, we'll have to see who is blamed for the next terrorist attack on American soil. President Bush, no doubt! What does he do then? Maybe he should just shrug his shoulders and say, "The Imperial Court made me do it." I support our freedoms (all of them). I cannot understand how the freedoms of our Constitution attach to everyone around the world wherever they are, especially those who say they want to murder us. Not only do they say they want to kill us, they go about doing it rather effectively. I recommend the Patriot Post.US as a reference of their effectiveness. The terrorists have made the world their battleground; therefore, they are enemy combatants wherever and whenever they strike. God bless you and God bless America!

Profiling in Defense of Liberty(1)

Profiling in defense of Liberty on the face of it sounds anathema to our Constitution but is it? In several places in our Constitution, the Executive and Legislative Branches are charged to protect the nation (us) from threats both foreign and domestic. Yet, our borders are effectively open and our State Department still functions in a multicultural dreamland handing out visas as quickly as they can stamp them. [Let’s not even talk about our open border and the invasion that is full-throttle. How can our government oversee the dissolution of this nation into a lawless, third world “economic region?] If you think about it, you may see that we already have Supreme Court-sanctioned institutionalized profiling in our university admissions and in our hiring practices. It is variously known as multiculuralism for diversity of ethnicity or diversity of skin color (not for the free exchange of diverse viewpoints) or as affirmative action. The only place we are generally all treated as equally guilty is in our airports and our subways. Today, in my neighborhood when a local 7-11 convenience store is robbed, the news doesn’t announce, “Local 7-11 was robbed this evening by someone wearing something traveling in some direction on South Second Street.” No, they come on the news and say, “Local 7-11 robbed this evening at 9:00PM. Suspect is described as a young, white male with short, black hair, wearing a blue sweatshirt, cut off jeans, running north on South Second Street. Suspect is armed and considered dangerous. If you see suspect, do not confront. Contact local police.” The notice to the public assists the police/law enforcement, warns the public, and (mercy) allows the police to direct their resources so that they don’t apprehend 80-year old, gray-haired white men, elderly black ladies, black youth, or pregnant white ladies. The next time elderly black or white ladies participate in terrorist activities (not to be confused with the tyranny our dear mothers can reign down about our heads and shoulders) then add them to the list of suspected enemy combatants. Otherwise, please let them travel in peace, smiling and proud that those strapping young men with the semi-automatics over their shoulders are there to protect them. A brief perusal of a recent posting from the Patriot Post going back to the murder of Robert Kennedy demonstrates that the terrorists by and large have profiled themselves – Muslim men from 17 to 40 years of age. In a recent op-ed, “Time for Offense” (Washington Times, 8/14/06), Cal Thomas voiced my concern quite well. “This isn’t about “civil rights” and Constitutional protection. These people use our Constitution to protect themselves so they can kill us. Any questions?” Let me state what others have said that terrorism is a tactic. Terrorists are guerrillas, a.k.a. enemy combatants, and should be treated as such. To be clear, they have defined the world as their battleground. In order to better use our resources, we should: 1) start profiling, using the guidelines the enemy combatants/terrorists have given us; 2) stop throwing guerrilla fighters/enemy combatants into criminal courts; 3) start treating guerrilla fighters as soldiers engaged in a self-declared war against our very existence. The appropriate way to treat “home-grown” guerrilla fighters is to declare them traitors, slap them in military brigs, and try them under military tribunals. This is a war and we didn’t start it. But we better win it and now. Blowing up trains, buses, planes, and subway cars is not “criminal activity”. These are acts of treason and of war. Unless we find our General Pattons and General Pershings and perhaps our Harry Trumans soon, we’ll have this war for decades. And we the people will be “terrorized” at every turn as we watch our freedom slip away. That is the goal of the enemy, is it not?

Profiling in Defense of Liberty(2)

The young people arrested last week in England have been called “home grown” terrorists. I take exception to that. They are not learning their hatred from the traditions of England. They are native-born in many cases but let’s not forget that they are indoctrinated with hatred and 7th Century beliefs from birth and through the protestations of their imams spewing hatred, death to the infidels, death to America. What Christian pastor would be allowed for long to instruct his congregation to kill non-believers? And who but a fanatic would encourage a young mother to blow up herself as well as her sixth month baby when she should be filled with joy and promise? Several years back, a famous imam in London put England on notice that Islam intends to take over England and make England an Islamic nation (so much for the separation of church and state as we define it). We had better pay attention. So, I ask, “How stupid are we and why were Egyptian students allowed into the country on student visas to then disappear into the fabric of the nation?” Valuable resources had to be used to find them. Until we (the West) get this terrorism under control and call our enemy who they are, the tightening of security at airports (and not at our borders/points of entry) will only continue to harass the law-abiding and assist the enemies toward their goal, which is the erosion of our way of life, i.e., freedom. While there may be many “innocent” folks practicing Islam who would not do our nation harm, it makes no sense at the present time to enable potential enemies to come into the nation, beat us up in criminal court with our own laws, and then let us pay for their court-appointed lawyers to boot. Weak indeed. To terrorists, we must seem as bread dipped in milk. To keep our society free, we must demand that our leaders conduct the enemy tracking/surveillance that they are doing and use our resources wisely. In my view, we are not fighting a “religion” but an armed and insidious militant ideology with the total design of over-throwing our nation and all those of the West. The take-over is seen as major terrorist attacks through intimidation/paralyzing air travel as an example, or more subtly through “protected” status derived from our Constitution as the ACLU rails on curtailing freedom of speech of young valedictorians and the image of the Twin Towers burns in our minds. Recently, the President stopped calling radical Islam the “Religion of Peace”. Instead, he said our enemies were Islamofacists (coined by Michael Savage) and Islamic Totalitarianism. Immediately, CAIR (Council of American Islamic Relations – Does this mean relations between America and Islam?) expressed offense at the terms. CAIR had the effect they wanted and now (8/16/06), the President properly chastised has amended his statements to say (paraphrased) these people (our enemies) are extremists bound by ideology trying to achieve a political objective (read, the over-throw of Western Civilization). In David McCullough’s John Adams, (p. 60), Adams is quoted, “Be it remembered,” Adams wrote in his Dissertation, “that liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we have not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood.” Do I support intelligence agencies monitoring money flow and internet sites, and cell phone conversations? Absolutely. Can I remain silent as everyone is indiscriminately searched (without warrant) at airports? No, under the present scheme, all travelers are presumed guilty. I understand the need for security but certainly there must be a way to safeguard our liberties and still let flyers go about their business in relatively peaceful surroundings. I know; I know you say, “But we have to be protected. We’ll give up our freedoms. We don’t mind a little inconvenience and we don’t mind being herded like cattle, poked, prodded, and patted down.” Fine but, like cultures, all administrations are not morally equivalent. Are you willing to take the chance that they are?

Profiling in Defense of Liberty - A Free People

We are a free people being tyrannized by a willful enemy who hides in civilian clothing and lives and dies by an ideology that encourages its adherents to kill themselves, their children, and other peoples’ unsuspecting husbands, wives, daughters, sons, brothers, and sisters to achieve their end. Their leadership says the goal is to establish an Islamic caliphate in Europe and perhaps ultimately in the United States. But then when the darkness descends, what will they have achieved? Perhaps one example of the darkness is the sight of the thousand-year-old Buddhist statues carved in the side of a mountain in the region of Afghanistan being blown up. As an aside, I cannot help but wonder how kindly Hugo Chavez would take to these folks threatening his country? I doubt that he would be concerned with political correctness. For the record, political correctness is the absence of freedom of speech. In terms of our freedom, an issue that concerns me is that no government program ever shrinks. Expansion is the name of the game to survival as an agency. There is big money in fighting the war on terror. Why close our borders when the louder we scream “defend our nation”, the more legislation is passed, the more money is spent to hire more people? The enemy guerillas, the drug cartels and the coyotes in effect ensure more jobs for departments like the behemoth Department of Homeland Security, and on it goes. I’m not saying we don’t need some of these brave folks; I am just concerned that a vested interest in “growing” a given agency eventually permeates the personnel. I support closed borders and restricted immigration. I support ending the “anchor baby” program. However, every time my President speaks of securing the borders of Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, et al, I cringe. I cannot square that rhetoric with the clear erosion of our national sovereignty exactly because our borders are anything but secure and our State Department, at least the bureaucracy, seems totally blind to the threat we face. As I recall, they even managed to approve the request for visas to several of the 9-11 murderers months after the attacks had occurred. To any Americans who are hurt by profiling, my apologies, but we didn’t make up the behavioral profile characteristics of terrorists. They’ve handed the profile to us on a platter and carved it out as brutally as they murdered Daniel Pearl. Let it be noted for future generations, that if our leaders come to their senses and use the tools available to truly safeguard our individual liberties and throw down the gauntlet saying, “You shall not intimidate our citizens and we will not allow your heinous tactics to encroach upon their liberties as a free people.”, the course – profiling – was forced upon them by the terrorist guerrillas upon whom reason and negotiation is futile while force and unwavering will is all that the guerrillas respect. We had best be about the business of remaining free (and alive). God bless you, God bless America, and God bless the men and women risking their lives working undercover on our behalf!

UN Resolution - Bullies in School Yard

Well, I'm confused. Just now watching the UN Security Council members giving their speeches having passed their resolution regarding Lebanon. "We will have a cease-fire today." Now, Lebanon is not fighting Israel. Israel is not fighting Lebanon. Israel is being attack by a terrorist militia. Who negotiated with Hezbollah? Several nations - the majority it seems - say we need a political solution and we (the world) must proceed with a solution to the violence imposed upon the Palestinians and the Lebanese by Israel. The emphasis is on attacking Israel verbally and most politely. Yet, I watch and thank God that we did not have the UN passing resolutions during WWII suggesting that the world negotiate with the Nazis. [The Third Reich was stopped by absolute force - period.] My confusion! Let me see. Israel gave the Palestinians all of Gaza. Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon six years ago. What happened? Not counting the homicide murderers entering Israeli coffee shops and blowing themselves up and killing innocents, Hamas started lobbing missiles or rockets into Israel in the south and captured an Israeli soldier. Hezbollah captured 2-3 Israel soldiers and killed 8 on Israeli soil just a month ago at the Lebanon. The point is there are some bullies in the schoolyard and they are not the Israelis. If the UN had any teeth, their resolution 1559 would have been implemented years ago and this situation would not have occurred. When are we going to send the UN folks packing and turn the UN buildings over to the City of New York? The UN wants to tax American citizens directly; they want to deny us our Second Amendment Rights; and it seems they are intent on denying Israel the right to defend itself. The United States of America needs to join with nations with common goals and objectives, nations who will come to the aid of each other. Watching the UN Security Council tonight, I see our money being squandered and our nation threatened, not overtly but with subtle words and gestures and nuance. But then perhaps the money goes to the philosophy of Sun Tsu (?), keep your friends close but your enemies closer??? God bless you and God bless America!

A Counter View

I have to work on this but a member of my family gave me another view today as we talked about the plot to destroy airplanes over the Atlantic and kill hundreds of innocent people. What I call intrusion upon my liberties, my relative calls a cancer that must be cut out. That as long as we tolerate the terrorists and treat them as morally equal, we will continue to be manipulated and controlled by them. To boil it down, the view is that soon Americans will get tired of being manipulated by the terrorists and will demand that our elected officials deal with the terrorists as terrorists not as civilians breaking a few laws. To deal with them as terrorists, sorry but the rules of war and the criminal law do not apply. The only benefit these people have for law enforcement is what they can provide with regard to intelligence gathering. Think of adolescents acting out. A wise parent disciplines with a firm hand. The terrorists want to kill us. They do not mince words. We had better take them seriously. To have elderly ladies searched and traumatized in the airports of their own nation is unconscionable. We have to stop it. Our elderly and our children must be protected. It is and always has been easier to scrutinize the law-abiding. I do not share my relative's optimism about my fellow citizens rising up and throwing political correctness to the wind. When we have a criminal on the loose, we get a picture and a description. What the heck are we afraid of? I don't want to give up our sovereignty to Mexico and I don't want to have any Americans killed by terrorists. [So, the Democrat leadership wants to reason with the terrorists. Let's just give 'em some bleach so that they can take the red and blue out of our flag and just make it a sparkly white for surrender. While I'm at it, how can the UN negotiate with a terrorist militia without bestowing upon them some credibility?] Here we have "love thy neighbor as thyself" vs. "kill the infidel". Where the heck is General Patton? Earth to General Patton, we need you. Okay, the General had to apologize to a lily-livered coward he roundly slapped across the face. But the General chewed a little crow and got about his business - defeating the Nazis. I'm sure everyone mustered out to hear his apology knew the little coward needed a thrashing, not a slap. Now I hear on the radio that an undercover agent foiled the plan. Good gracious! Can't our news people shut up, for once. They drive this lady to swearing. At least, President Bush is calling this what it is, a war perpetrated upon the West by Islamofacists or Islamic Totalitarianism as reported by Fox News today. Where are the imams denouncing these terrorists? As always, God bless you and God bless America!

Terrorists - Winning when they lose?

For me, when events like the plot on British airlines coming to the US and the Middle Eastern students MIC (missing in country) in the US occur, I feel that the terrorists win each and every time. Even if they did not succeed in destroying planes, they won by slowing down our commerce. Still I must say, "Thank God for the Bobbies." While I can appreciate the need for security, etc., I fear as well the fact that thousands of Americans are now trained to stop and search Americans of all ages and all physical conditions herding us like cattle through metal detectors, unpacking our luggage. I have always had good experiences with the screeners and do not envy their jobs but how do we balance liberty and security? It seems that we are on a collusion course, a suicide pact if you will, between our Constitution (protecting the nation from invasion) and common sense on one hand, and political correctness on the other. Exactly what characteristics would you look for when looking for a terrorist? To be fair, the snipers (terrorists) who shut down the freeways in Northern Virginia a few years ago and killed many citizens were not from the Middle East; however, they do follow the same ideology. Let me see. We have our Russian friends arming South American nations. Didn't we have the Monroe Doctrine or something to keep this from happening? We have our folks negotiating with the French. The last Frenchman who really supported us was Louis XVI. And we know what happened to him. This is a war. We didn't start it but we'd better be the ones to end it decisively for us, for the British, for other democracies. President Bush said recently that we are fighting Islamic Totalitarianism. Clearly, the only negotiations the terrorists respect is force. Our political parties better get on board and put America first and realize that while they pose and posture for the TV camera in the Senate, they and their pontificating are being used as propaganda all over the world. And the folks who want to kill ordinary citizens don't discriminate. How can any American be "dovish" on this war? The UN is working to marginalize democratic nations with their directives regarding immigration. We had better heed the warnings. Cultures are not morally equivalent. Now, exactly where are those pesky, run-away students? God bless you and God bless America.

White Guilt

White Guilt by Shelby Steele is a take no prisoners look at how white elitists and the black leadership who exploited white guilt remade American institutions into bastions of elitist “bigotry of low expectations”. The book will leave the far-left white liberals and extorting-exploiting folks in the black leadership screaming “Uncle Tom!” and worse, “Black Conservative”. What is always curious to me is how the far-left of any skin-color – bereft of principles, yells “Racists” at conservative whites and “Black Conservative” at reasoning blacks. The name-calling is meant to cover the left’s parched earth devoid of principle and close off any discussion from non-believers. Instead of “speaking truth to power”, Dr. Steele speaks truth to fraud. We are all in his debt. If you consider yourself a conservative, you may begin to realize the burden of fraudulent unconstitutionality and reverse discrimination that has been imposed upon our nation all under the guise of affirmative action and making white liberals “feel” better about themselves. Additionally, with their need to “feel” better comes the need to regain moral authority thus white supremacy but not supremacy of all whites, just the elites. Traditional whites and conservative blacks have no authority to speak to the issues but they do get to pay for the failed socialist programs. That’s good. You can pay but you can’t say. In Mr. Steele’s White Guilt, the reasons underlying the lefts hatred for President George W. Bush are addressed. Appreciating this perspective sheds light upon the vehemence of their vitriol. Shame on them! In the President’s “bigotry of low expectations” speech, President Bush called the liberals out. The societal programs over the past 30 to 40 years have failed, and worse have institutionalized the notion that minorities and women can only succeed through the lowering of standards and affirmative action. Quotas insult us all and paint all minorities with the broad brush/stigma of inferiority as well as hardwiring mediocrity into the fabric of our institutions. The lowering of standards unfortunately does not confine itself to ethnic studies programs and women’s studies. The greatest fraud perpetrated upon us and all of our youth is affirmative action and ethnic/gender studies programs. Out of the gate, they have “second-class” citizen written all over them. How many mathematicians and engineers do you know who boast of degrees in “engineering for ethnic/gender minorities”? And of course, the fraudulent idea of “diversity” simply means entry by skin-color or gender not by merit. Dr. Steele addresses the dust up between Justice Thomas and Maureen Dowd in the University of Michigan affirmative action case – the majority opinion written by Sandra Day O’Connor, an opinion which demonstrates why affirmative action doesn’t serve us well in any venue. You don’t want to miss it. He delves into the beginning of the Red State vs. Blue State phenomenon. White Guilt is not a diatribe of whites vs. blacks. It provides insight into the divisions in our nation today. It defines the “classic battle between the elitist culture of dissociation and the unreconstructed culture of principle and traditional values.” (p.153) According to Steele, the “special character of contemporary conservatism comes from the fact that it is a reaction to the cultural decline caused by the culture of dissociation. This conservatism tends to think of itself as a historical corrective. Its great mission is to reassert principle as reform.” (p.178) The “bigotry of low expectations” speech…offered a new direction for social reform and, especially, a new theory: dissociation from the racist past through principle and individual responsibility rather than at the expense of these things.” (p.179) The last chapter, A Culture War, is worth the price of the book. The liberal elites should be driven to therapy, the blacks who call themselves leaders and behave more like extortionists should worry about RICO laws, and traditional conservatives (black, white, pink, beige, or purple) should step back, gird their loins for the fight ahead, and know that principles are on their side. One more quotation from Dr. Steele, “Those who would take power by making things easier (lower standards and fraudulent academic programs – my words) have all but destroyed what was once the greatest public education system in the world. In more liberal states like California, where dissociation has been an orthodoxy if not a religion, the schools are even worse than elsewhere.” (p162-163) “Today’s left is both impotent before social problems and alienated from the principles that might solve those problems.” (p.177) White Guilt deserves our attention. As an optimist, I know there is more that brings us together than drives us apart. But a citizenry handicapped by lowest performing public educational system in the world has a long way to go to shake off the stigma and the chains of intellectual bigotry. God bless you and God bless America.

Separation of Church and State

Contrary to the paroxysm of hysteria my dear far-left brothers and sisters go into at the mere mention of God (a Christian or Jewish one that is), the Constitution does not drive God from the public square. The First Amendment states clearly that Congress cannot establish a national/state religion. On a state church, Thomas Jefferson was very clear and understandably so when one sees that in his day all male citizens were taxed to support the state-established church. Mr. Thomas Jefferson worked “for religious liberty, to relieve the people from taxation for the support of a state church…” The old days in Williamsburg had shown Mr. Jefferson quite enough of a state-owned religious monopoly, its establishment being “truly of the religion of the rich, the dissenting sects being entirely composed of the less wealthy people” who had to pay the tax to support the state-owned church…” whether they worshiped there or not. (Albert Jay Nock, Mr. Jefferson – 1926, page 25 of 2003 publication) [Italicized words added.] We are, as yet, far from an established religion in the United States of America; however, we are seeing just the opposite in Afghanistan as well as Iraq. Recently, an Afghani man was going to be executed for becoming a Christian. It is my understanding that in Islam there is no separation of church and state; that they are one and the same with religious law superseding secular law. I could be incorrect. But circumstances beg the question: is the Religion of Peace (the appellation used by our leadership when referring to Islam) compatible with the American ideal of freedom of religion and the right to practice one’s religion without governmental interference? Or without fear? As a nation, we’ve never had an established religion. The colonies had state-established churches but not the nation. Since the 1960’s, the far-left has worked mightily to destroy or undermine Christianity and Judaism – certainly to undermine the principles that underpin these religions. The only ideology they had to replace the principles with is socialism that weakens our nation’s people at every turn and has tended to keep many people “down”. [Certainly a whole different subject.] In terms of Christianity (which by itself is not an established religion but rather a myriad of sects), they are doing a great job of driving it from even being mentioned in the public square. A valedictorian (American citizen, female) cannot give thanks to God as a guiding force in her life without having the plug to her microphone yanked. She was censored because of the misguided notion that the “government” was endorsing religion and that her words may offend someone. Thank you, Hillary and Bill, for institutionalizing censorship. Censoring our children - at graduation? Please... Political correctness is just that – censorship. The very concept stifles the freedom of speech so vital for us in order to exchange our views and come out with consensus. But then, that is the point - to stifle speech and to stigmatize a non-protected race. As I have read, in countries controlled by Islam today, Christians and others practicing non-Islamic religions are fined/charged a “religion” tax and they are second-class citizens denied the full rights of other male citizens. Regarding the enlightened view of taxing all male citizens to support state religion in colonial days and knowing the propensity of the far-left to tax the industry of working people and give their money to the people who don’t work for the purpose of making everyone poor, it would seem that the far-left would be clamoring for a state religion so that those rascally Christians could be further taxed. But wait! The far-left may indeed have a religion and all people who work and pay taxes are supporting it. The religion (self-annihilation taking all of us with them) is the religion of Marxism and guilt (which I don’t share). The good thing for the far-left is that their religion is hidden in that there are no synagogues, no churches in the traditional sense, and no mosques. However, one must never underestimate the pathology associated with making others pay to make the far-left feel better, nor should we ignore the institutions they control. Never was it intended or even dreamed by our Founding Fathers that God would be beaten from the public square, that people speaking of their faith would be ridiculed and shouted down, that our children would be killed for their belief in God (Columbine) and that Jewish ladies would be allegedly shot (one killed) by a Muslim (American citizen I think) who after leaving a mosque, shaved his head and beard, got two handguns and a knife, and set about opening gun fire in a Jewish Center in Seattle, WA (July 28/29, 2006 I think), and we, the people, enjoy the tyranny of political correctness/censorship. In the Seattle case, there has been an overwhelming news media blackout. Why? Recently, I have heard the word Islamofacism (coined by Michael Savage) and used now in newsprint as well as TV media. In an interview with Neal Cavuto this week, President Bush indicated that he understands the threat faced by the Israelis as well as by all of Western Civilization when he said we are fighting Islamic Totalitarianism. That is an ideology, is it not? Or would the ideology be more reminiscent of the Grand Inquisition of earlier days in Europe? As Americans, we must have the freedom to share dreams and ideas as well as ideologies with each other. As an incurable optimist, I must believe that we have more that unites us than that separates us. We need to look closely at those who work to divide and separate us. What is their motive? And how much money are they making by dividing us? The idea of “divide and conquer” works if we are not vigilant. It works in families. It works in small churches. It works through the anti-American indoctrination taught in our once excellent educational system where we once focused on reading, writing, math, science, and history. Always step back and check the motive. Motive, if not verbalized, is defined by actions. We need to guard our freedoms and we need to demand the best from our institutions for the good of us all. If that means walking away from a group identity to an identity built on personal worth and responsibility, then we must walk away. We must defend our freedom of religion and our freedom of speech. If one of us does not have freedom of speech, then none of us have it. If we do not have the freedom to practice our religions without the fear of being shot and killed in our places of worship, none of us have freedom. Until next time, God bless you and God bless America.