While the entire U.S. is steaming over the desecration of our flag by a bunch of ungrateful (and in many cases, illegal) immigrants this week, Iran steadily plods forward in its quest for domination of the Middle East and obliteration of Israel.

Secretary of State Condi Rice called for permanent sanctions today against Iran while talking with the members of the UN Security Council, and received, as the MSM puts it, a “decidedly cool reaction from China and Russia.” Hmm. I wonder why.

…Dai Bingguo, China’s vice minister of foreign affairs, rejected the idea of sanctions and offered a thinly veiled criticism of the war in Iraq when he said, “The Chinese side feels there has already been enough turmoil in the Middle East. We don’t need any more turmoil.”

So witty, those Chinese. I say that when China stops forcing women to have abortions, stops filtering and blocking internet content, and stops persecuting Christians, then they can come talk to us about the perceived “turmoil” they think we caused in the Middle East. Until then, allow me to simply wrap myself in the precious freedom of speech that I have and send a big hearty “Suck it!” over to Mr. Bingguo. Please excuse my choice of phrase; it was the most non-profane thing I could come up with.

As it is, both Russia and China bluntly declared that they had no interest in imposing sanctions or taking any further action against Iran, though both countries did express concern about the nuclear program. Both countries said they wanted to refer the issue back to the atomic energy agency.

Let me translate that for you. What they’re saying here is, “We’re kind of worried about their nuclear program, but only because you Americans will try to do something about it, and hurt our current arms business with Iran, so let’s send it back to some agency to deal with.”

The immigration debate is definitely red-hot right now, but I think it’s important that we don’t forget about all the rest of the countries and regimes and groups who want our people dead and our land for themselves.

Then again, I don’t think illegal immigrants want us dead. Who would support them then?

Crossposted at Euphoric Reality.

Said Kit Jarrell @ 8:24 am Comments (2) | Permalink   

I try to spend at least a week a year away from civilization. Alone with family and friends on a isolated lake in central Ontario. No electricity, no indoor toilet, no access roads.
We get in by float plane and out the same way.
This comes as close to true wilderness as one can get in today’s on demand world in which we live.
I go there to fish. I go there to relax. I go there to spend time with those I care most about. But mostly, I go there to remember. To refresh in my mind how little one truly needs in order to survive. To recall for a week the pleasure derived from being self-reliant. To be reminded of the value in hard work.
I fish for my food. Clean it and cook it. I chop wood for the fire. Build it and tend it. I battle daily my most fierce of foes…the ice house. Chip and clean the ice, keep the coolers filled, and the beer ice cold. I keep the camp clean to keep the bears away.
And I watch for those bears, and the moose, and the eagles. To get a glimpse of the natural world hidden from me through most of the year.
In short, I leave the world of my other fifty one weeks behind and remember what it is to be a man.
So little in today’s culture demands of one any struggle whatsoever. Sacrifice is a word better left to other generations. Surely never heard uttered from the mouths of the ‘gimme generation’ and its political patronizers.
I yearn for that harder life. For the man versus nature conditions of our forefathers. For the demands of self-sufficiency. For the honor that comes with struggle.
I am daily saddened by what I see of the young males loose on the streets of today’s America. Sad at the lack of respect. Sad at the lack of responsibility. Sad at the lack of interest of what makes up a man.
I long to take these young men with me. Miles away from iPods and Grand Theft Auto. Let them discover the true self esteem that comes from experience and self-reliance. Find the honor inherent in personal responsibility and struggle. Learn that character comes from hard work and respect. See them spend at least a week a year away from civilization.

Crossposted @ Sticks and Stones

Said Glen @ 8:07 pm Comments (1) | Permalink   

While I don’t agree with everything Bill O’Reilly says, he is spot on in his indignation at the state of our justice system, especially as regards perpetrators of violent crimes on children. From his latest column, “To Punish or Not To Punish“:

Here’s the state of American justice right now:

- Andrew Selva, 46, confesses to raping two young boys in Ohio and is sentenced to probation by Judge John Connor who believes Selva has a curable “disease.”

- Debra LaFave admits to having sex with a 14-year-old boy in Florida but does not receive prison time. The 25-year-old LaFave was a teacher at the school she seduced the student.

- Andrea Yates murdered her five children by drowning them one by one. A Texas jury found her sane and very guilty. She was sentenced to life in prison. But the conviction was overturned because an expert witness falsely testified about a TV program that had little to do with the crime.

Despite that, The Houston Chronicle is calling for “enlightened justice” in the case. The paper wants Ms. Yates sent to a mental hospital instead of prison.

The Yates situation is bad enough. Who will speak up for her children, if not the state? (A jury tried to.) But as regards LaFave and especially Selva, the matter goes well beyond intra-family crime. O’Reilly continues:

In Ohio, it is far worse. Andrew Selva admitted everything. He confessed to the court he sexually abused two young boys. One of the boys told me on television, Selva physically forced him to perform a sexual act. But Judge Connor, who has two D-U-I convictions himself, was unmoved. Casually, he issued this stunning statement to the court: “he (Selva) has a disease, like I have a disease.”

Selva nodded and then went home to serve his probation. Connor’s incredible sentence was supported by most newspapers in Ohio and the largest legal group in the state.

I’ve got two little girls, the most precious things in the world to me and my wife. The thought that, in he heartland of Ohio, or my (unfortunately) blue state, or any place in this nation, a confessed sexual predator could get off essentially scott-free is repulsive and horrifying. O’Reilly concludes:

Something is desperately wrong in America. The doctrine of “moral relativism” where judgments are not made about even dastardly behavior is taking root, just as it has in Western Europe. There is nothing “enlightened’ about allowing violent criminals to escape punishment; It is flat out dangerous for society.

Selva, Yates, and LaFave are just the beginning. There will be more of these kinds of stories coming. Count on it.

Rapists and sex offenders usually face the full force of the law when the victims are adults. Not necessarily so with child victims. The question is: How do we reverse this abject denial of true justice for those who would rape or kill our most precious, innocent members of society? I applaud O’Reilly for taking a firm stand and pressing this issue week after week. Who else in the media has really joined him? If not, why not?

Originally posted at TMH’s Bacon Bits

Said The MaryHunter @ 3:00 pm Comments (7) | Permalink   

There has been a debate in Britain these last few years over whether or not the “special relationship” that has existed for more than 100 years between England and the United States has any real advantages in a post-cold war world. Some of Great Britain’s best thinkers on the left feel that the country’s close identification with the United States has not only been inimical to Britain’s need to integrate their economy, currency, and domestic policies into the greater European whole but also that the Anglo-American alliance has actually made England less safe, largely as a result of what they see as the Bush Administration’s aggressive policies in fighting terror and the War in Iraq.

This “anti-Americanism by default” position is shared by a broad spectrum of the left including Old Labour, Liberal Democrats, and even many of New Labour’s social democrats. In fact, it could fairly be said that only the dominant personality of Tony Blair has kept the “special relationship” intact and as strong as ever over the last 3 years despite enormous domestic political pressures on the PM to pull back from his steadfast support of President Bush and carve out a more independent road in foreign policy.

There have been few British Prime Ministers since the end of World War II who have been as loyal a friend to the United States and supportive of its interests as Tony Blair. At great personal and political cost, he has continued the deployment of British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan while deflecting charges that he is President Bush’s “lapdog.” For Blair’s part, his actions are hardly altruistic nor are they based on the kind of close, personal connection with Bush as was enjoyed by Lady Thatcher with President Reagan. Those two twentieth century titans bonded at an emotional level rare for leaders of great nations. Blair and Bush on the other hand seem to have developed an excellent working relationship based on trust and and genuine friendship. This has held both in good stead as the progress in Iraq and Afghanistan has proved to be fitful and at times, ephemeral.

In truth, while Bush could be considered the “senior partner” in the alliance, it is Blair who has often given the best defense of the coalition’s decision to go to war in Iraq and stay until the job of securing democracy is achieved. Where Bush’s speeches can sometimes be dry recitations of progress made in securing and rebuilding the country with clear, logical justifications for going to war, Blair’s talks always seem to strike just the right rhetorical notes of Churchillian denunciations of evil and a Thatcheresque optimism about the future that seems to elevate the cause to the level of a crusade.

And Blair has also spoken forcefully about the importance of the Anglo-American alliance to the future of not only Europe but the rest of the world as well. He has consistently warned against the unreasoning anti-Americanism that threatens to turn the world away from the United States at a critical juncture in world history.

Speaking before the Australian parliament yesterday, Blair issued a rhetorical slap to those in Europe and around the world whose casual hatred of the United States threatens the future of the world on a wide variety of issues:

“I do not always agree with the United States - sometimes they can be difficult friends to have,” he said.

“But the strain of frankly anti-American feeling in parts of European and world politics is madness when set against the long-term interests of the world we believe in,” he said.

[…]

“The danger with America today is not that they are too much involved, the danger is that they decide to pull up the drawbridge and disengage. We need them involved. We want them engaged,” he said.

“The reality is that none of the problems that press in on us can be resolved or even contemplated without them. Our task is to ensure that with them we do not limit this agenda to security.”

Blair’s warnings are directed toward his European counterparts who too often use the rhetoric of anti-Americanism as a cheap way to garner votes. Blair’s point - that this attitude does damage to the domestic political consensus in America for international engagement - is spot on. The strain of isolationism, never far below the surface in American politics, could re-emerge with a vengeance in either 2006 or, more likely, 2008 as voters in the United States react to the virulent anti-American rhetoric of France, Germany, and others with a “to hell with them” attitude and turn their attentions to concerns more domestic in nature.

Blair’s recognition of this danger is one of the reasons he is the indispensable man in the alliance of English speaking nations that includes Australia’s John Howard. Blair’s longevity has earned him respect around the world as he has been a leading spokesman for taking action on global warming as well as issues as diverse as third world debt relief and nuclear non-proliferation. But since his announcement that he plans to leave before the end of his third term in 2010, the questions about what will become of this alliance once he is gone have occupied the State Department and our military planners.

The prospect of Blair’s resignation coming sooner rather than later was given a boost last November when the Prime Minister’s comprehensive anti-terrorism bill went down to an ignominious defeat. Oddsmakers put his staying in office past 2006 at 5-2 against although Blair himself has recently said that he regrets saying that he would stand down before the next election. But the clock is definitely ticking on the Tony Blair era and the implications for the alliance are already being assessed.

As a practical matter and for the sake of his party, Blair will have to decide within the next 2 years when he should exit the stage. That’s because he will want to give his almost certain successor Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown time to get settled into 10 Downing Street before the election in 2010. So the question is, what kind of fellow is this Gordon Brown and how will the ascension of this life-long left wing activist affect the “special relationship” between England and America?

First, it should be noted that Blair has taken steps to tie Chancellor Brown more firmly to his policies by making him the front man in Parliament on a variety of issues. While it is whispered that Brown resents this role somewhat, he sees this kind of loyalty as his ticket to the top. But how the Chancellor would deal with America is the real question and for that, it may be helpful to examine his background for clues.

Asked during the General Election of 2005 what Britain would look like under a Brown Premiership, the Chancellor replied ‘more like America’. Brown is a passionate Americanist, having studied economics at MIT and regularly vacationing on the East Coast. American business practice is held in reverence by him. A consistent theme has emerged in Brown’s key economic speeches; he wants the British and European economy to become more like the United States. More competitive, entrepreneurial and dynamic, but combining free-market capitalism with social justice. The Chancellor’s first foray into foreign policy, last autumn, with a EU/G8 trip to Palestine, gives us an insight of Brown’s approach to international policy. Brown intends to bring his economic expertise to the aid of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, by attempting to reduce the poverty and unemployment experienced by Palestinians, which makes them ripe for transforming into Jihadists.

Mr. Brown has been a staunch supporter of the Iraq War and has praised America’s ‘courageous leadership’ in the fight against Islamist terrorism. There has never been a hint from his camp that he would have done things differently, and on several tense occasions when Mr. Blair has been under fire over Iraq, Mr. Brown has intervened to offer his backing.

Clearly, Brown is positioned to maintain British commitments in Iraq and elsewhere for the near future which is good news. What is unknown is how resistant Mr. Brown will be to calls from his own party to reduce those commitments the closer to 2010 we get. It seems probable that a large troop presence will be absolutely necessary beyond 2008 and perhaps even beyond 2010 although it is doubtful that the domestic political situation in either Great Britain or the United States would allow for that kind of commitment. What is more likely is that Brown’s Labour party will be forced by electoral necessity to drastically reduce England’s commitment of troops in Iraq prior to the election even if events on the ground do not warrant it.

There is hope that those events on the ground will begin to turn in the coalition’s favor as more and more Iraqi troops and police demonstrate competence in dealing with the insurgency and domestic unrest. This may allow for more than token drawdowns of forces even before 2008 which would be good news for both Brown and Republicans here in the United States. But at present, with sectarian violence simmering at high levels and threatening to burst out into full scale street fighting, there is little talk of reducing the presence of coalition troops.

Which brings us back to Mr. Blair. While Chancellor Brown will continue his policies, the question always asked when evaluating this “special relationship” between the two great nations is how well do the two leaders get on personally? Brown was accused in the past of being something of a cold fish with a single minded determination to become Prime Minister that rubbed many of his colleagues the wrong way. But he appears to have softened considerably since his marriage in 2000 at the age of 49 to his longtime sweetheart Sarah MacCauley and then the tragic loss of his 10 day old child in 2002. He has since settled into a happy domestic situation with his 3 year old son John and wife which most observers agree has done wonders for his public face.

It appears that Brown would probably be personally comfortable with either a Democrat or Republican in the White House given his admiration for Republican free market principles and his commitment to Democratic social justice issues. How that would translate into forging a working relationship on the alliance’s continuing efforts in the Middle East and elsewhere is the mystery. Much depends on how the situation in Iraq resolves itself over the next 2 years. A bad outcome there could make both countries pull back from engaging other nations in the region like Egypt and Saudi Arabia in building more free and open societies. And in the background, looming ever more dangerous, is the specter of Iran and its quest for nuclear weapons. It is hard to imagine that the alliance would not agree that Iran cannot be allowed a nuclear option. For that reason, American-British cooperation there will be of paramount importance.

I have a feeling that once he is gone from the scene, we will greatly miss Tony Blair’s clarity of thought on the War in Iraq as well as his personal commitment to maintaining the “special relationship” that Great Britain and America have enjoyed for so long. He has left his mark on all of us and I personally will be saddened to see him go.

Said Rick Moran @ 5:29 am Comments (0) | Permalink   

The trial of six British jihadists accused of attempting to construct bombs in order to murder their fellow countrymen has made for some of the grimmest news since, well, four British jihadists actually did so.

Back last July, of course, the British left were busy wringing their hands and wailing that the cause of all the attempted and actual self-detonations was alienation, racism, Islamophobia, and any number of other, strangely Islam-friendly, talking points so beloved of liberals. This considered, it’s of great interest to actually hear from a group of would-be bombers in person:

David Waters QC, for the prosecution, said: “Jawad Akbar referred to attacks upon the utilities, gas, water or electrical supplies.
“Alternatively, a big nightclub in central London might be a target.”
Mr Akbar allegedly said: “The biggest nightclub in central London, no one can put their hands up and say they are innocent - those slags dancing around.”
Later, he was recorded saying: “I think the club thing you could do but the gas would be much harder.”

… So, not much in the way of angst and cultural alienation there, then. In fact, not much of anything at all beyond an utter, utter contempt for human life. But wait, there’s more:

Mr Mahmood was allegedly recorded saying the Madrid bombings were “absolutely beautiful”, while brother Shujah said it would have been “fantissimo” if they had been staged during the holidays to target families.

And more:

He said Mr Mahmood had said: “You could get a job in a soccer stadium as a beer vendor.
“You just put poison in a syringe, injecting it in a can and put a sticker on it which would stop it leaking and give it out.
“Or you could get mobile vending carts - all those vans going round selling burgers. He said he had done it. I didn’t believe it.
“He said you could stand on street corners selling poison burgers and then just leave the area.”

When you put all of this together, then, the picture that emerges is one of men who hate us unconditionally, and who positively relish the prospect of causing as much suffering as possible. In particular, Jawad and his cohorts seem to gleefully focus on the shock value of interrupting the English at play — Whether we’re nightclubbing, drinking beer and watching football, or taking our families on holiday (’fantissimo’), no target seems to have been too soft for these scumbags, no victim too helpless or unsuspecting.

This evidence presents Islamofascism’s enablers on the left with something of a problem. After all, in the past they’ve been fortunate (if that’s the right word) in either being able to argue that suicide-bombers take their secrets to the grave, or, failing that, to concoct wild conspiracy theories (as happened with last year’s ricin plot) that cast doubt on precisely what the intentions of the Islamopaths in question actually were.

Not so this time.

Right now, we’re getting an up-close-and-personal look into the workings of the global jihad. And wouldn’t you know it? The moment that happens, all the left’s cherished shibboleths about ‘alienation’ and ‘Islamophobia’ suddenly loose their power. We’re not looking at ‘troubled’ young men, let alone ‘insurgents’ or ‘minutemen’. These guys are just garden-variety psychopaths, and everyone can see it.

So what to do? What to do? Well, if you’re a leftist drone working for the BBC, Plan B appears to be one of scrubbing all references to Islam from the reporting of the trial. Indeed, over the course of one, two, three, four, five, six articles on the proceedings, the word ‘Muslim’ makes only one appearance, while ‘Islam’ gets no mention at all … Which is, one might think, a little odd considering the obvious importance of the RoP to these creatures.

Because, surely, there’s no one alive today who isn’t fully aware of the relationship between Islamism and terror. This being the case, the only question is whether the BBC think so little of the truth that they are willing to make such a glaring omission, or that they think so little of the intelligence of their readers they believe any of us will be fooled by it. Pick your insult.

Cross-posted at Rottweiler Puppy)

Said RottyPup @ 6:00 am Comments (0) | Permalink   

When did we become a nation of law-breakers? If it is ok for those who seek a better life to break the law without consequences where does it stop? I am all for people seeking a better life for themselves and their families but what does it say to that family about their future in the greatest nation on God’s Earth when they start a new life by becoming criminals? I refuse to call anyone who breaks the law to come to America an illegal immigrant any longer; they are simply criminals regardless of where they come from, who they are and why they are here. In this country we for the most part put criminals in jail but unfortunately it is just not that simple. There are many reasons why criminal immigration is tearing this country apart and I will discuss a few as well as my thoughts on how we can right this ship. I am sure along the way I will be called a racist and a xenophobe but I only know what is right and what is wrong, and breaking the law is wrong.

Immigration reform is not only necessary but long overdue. There are many reasons but let us start with the first one that should come to mind for any American taxpayer, the staggering cost of the unrelenting wave of criminal immigrants that flow in to this country every single day. I have documented the 16.5 billion dollars that Arizona, California and Texas spent each year paying for the detention of these criminals, the education of these criminals, as well as the feeding and sheltering of these criminals. Those states along the southern US border represent the flood gate that supporters of criminal immigration would keep open and unsecure. The taxpayers in Arizona, California, and Texas each pay an additional $700, $1,183, and $725 in taxes respectively to support the criminals who come to our country. You can read more about the costs that this country incurs from these criminals here, for we are just a fat sow that is being sucked dry.

Let us now turn to the most troubling aspect of criminal immigration, the insecurity of the southern United States border. It is bad enough that every day we have drug dealers, gun runners and other assorted “regular” criminals crossing our border everyday but now we have groups such as MEChA and La Raza calling for open invasion from Mexico so that their dream of “Reconquista” or the reconquest of the American Southwest can become reality. It is now so bad that the Mayor of Los Angles who is an open member of MEChA has issued an order to LA police that they may not make immigration related arrests even if they can prove the suspect is in the United States illegally. Read more about their open racism here. In case you’re local news has not made mention of this next tidbit, pay attention because you sure as Hell would not have seen this story on any national news. The Mexican army regularly invades the United States and has even traded weapons fire with the United States border patrol, read for yourself here as there are many examples of the blatant disregard by Mexico for the sovereignty of the America’s southern border. In case anyone is not familiar with that term, look it up here. The truth is that the borders are unsecure and we have no idea who is coming to this country each and every day. It could be your common drug mule or gun runner or coyote smuggling another group of criminal immigrants or in the worst case, a group of terrorists looking to murder innocent Americans.

The problem of criminal immigration is spreading across this country faster than a Brittney Spears hit song among the 12-16 years that populate your local shopping mall. The problem that was once limited to the southwest and a few other locations such as Chicago, New York, Boston, Detroit and Miami to name a few, has now spread to every corner of this country. One might be surprised to know that cities such as Cleveland, Charlotte, St. Louis, Northern Virginia and Danbury, CT now deal with the effects of criminal immigration just as any city in the southwest has for decades. In fact the folks in Danbury now “enjoy” a criminal immigrant population of 10,000 to 15,000 in a town of 77,000. That means that 12% to 19% of their population are criminal immigrants, who if allowed to vote illegally could influence the local political scene. Imagine that for a moment, a group of non-citizens who are breaking the law by their very presence in this country continuing their criminal ways and dictating the future of America citizens. You can read more about the plight of Danbury here.

The last component to this overwhelming criminal activity is the traitorous companies that continue to break the law and provide jobs for criminal immigrants while suppressing American wages and denying jobs to those who want to work. You can find just one of many lists of companies that hire criminal immigrants here. This is the only part of Congress’s ongoing debate on criminal immigration that I can agree with. Until we make it so unprofitable to hire criminal immigrants; employers will continue to provide an overwhelming reason for these people to break the law and come to this country. If it was not easy to enter this country illegally and it was easier to come here legally then maybe we would have the needed balance of workers for those companies who feel the need to hire non-citizens but currently that balance is a pipe dream. The fact is that for anyone seeking a better life coming to America is the “easy” way out. Take the country of Mexico, who incidentally supplies the United States with far more criminal immigrants than any other country, Mexico has a history of government corruption that makes Eastern Europe and Russia pale in comparison. If it was harder to come to the United States illegally then maybe these people would stay in Mexico and reform their own country instead of taking the easier path and come to the United States. Now I am not unsympathetic in regards to the many that die in the southwest’s deserts nor the terrible treatment they endure from the human smugglers. I simply point out that many who died trying to enter the United States illegally would still be alive if they had just stayed home. The UN likes to pat itself on the back for helping out around the world in regard to terrible human tragedies but they are strangely silent on the conditions in Mexico. Perhaps if they looked to our neighbor to the south then some real good could come of their actions.

Now that I have laid out what I see as the major components to the criminal immigration problem let me offer a few suggestions towards a better future for both America and the millions of criminal immigrants who are already here.

1) Close the border using the National Guard and Border Patrol as well as specially trained civilian patrols for a period of no less than 18 months. All traffic, civilian and commercial must be searched and cleared of drugs, contraband, and of course criminal immigrants. Put in place a comprehension system of technology and human assets so that after the mandatory 18 months the National Guard can stand down. The only way that any reforms will work is to secure the border and if it means sealing the border to non-essential traffic for a year and a half then so be it. Every public opinion poll in the last two years has the public putting border security at the top, far above other reforms proposed.

2) Require all illegals to immediately register with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and those who do not within 3 months are summarily deported to their country of origin and not eligible for entry to the United States for a period of not less than 15 years. That may sound cruel to many but unless the policy has consequences it will not be followed. Once the registration period has closed, conduct comprehensive background checks of all criminal immigrants who registered and if contact is lost with them during the review process then they forfeit any chance at citizenship for a period of 10 years. If the criminal immigrant passes the background check and can provide proof of an employable skill then they will be considered for citizenship but their application will be placed at the bottom of the list. We must give preference to those who want to come to this the country the right way, the legal way.

3) Reduce the amount of foreign aid to countries in a direct relation to their cooperation on the issue of criminal immigration. We currently give Mexico over 10 billion dollars in foreign aid. The sad but true part of that tale is that Mexico’s economy survives on the money that they receive from criminal immigrants which last year topped 15 billion dollars and was not only greater than our foreign aid contribution but also Mexico income earned through the sale of crude oil and its associated products. If Mexico is truly an ally then now it the time for them to step up and control their side of the border and if they cannot, they our foreign aid must be curtailed. The Mexican drug cartels have long grown fat off of American dollars from the drug trade and now they are earning a living exploiting the weakness of the United States southern border. If we cannot count on the Mexican government to stop these gangs of murders, human smugglers and hard core criminals then we must send at the very least some Special Forces operators to hone their wet work skills south of the border.

4) We must reform the process of coming to America with an eye towards allowing those who truly wish to be citizens and contribute an easier but secure path to the American dream. There are an overwhelming number of criminal immigrants who wish to simply make a better life for their families and contribute to the United States as citizens. These are the ones who we must help come here legally and safely. We are one of the most technologically advanced nations on this planet and yet the process to obtain a green card and ultimately citizenship is horribly outdated. For those who already have legal family and a waiting job we must clear a path for them to contribute and achieve, those are ones who came from all over the world to build this country and they are our greatest strength.

If this great country is to survive to see its 300^th birthday then we must meet this challenge of criminal immigration head on and not be dissuaded by those who would wrongly accuse us of racism or bigotry or worst yet, those would seek to place personal agendas and politics above the safety of all Americans, future and current. We simply must succeed to ensure that America continues to be a country that the whole world envies, that is worth coming to and raising a family. We must push ahead with common sense and a commitment to do what is right for the country no matter how painful or hard it might seem. I for one hope that we do succeed and we reach that balance of legal immigrants contributing while keeping out those who wish us harm. Until that day, I will pray that we do not head down the path of Europe as highlighted by the riots in France by illegal and legal immigrants just a few months ago. We must hope for the best and prepare for the worst while remembering what every Boy Scout knows: Be Prepared. Have a great Monday everyone and God Bless America.

Said the_mad_tech @ 4:23 am Comments (3) | Permalink   

***UPDATE is here***

I didn’t know things had turned violent until I was almost bowled over into the street in front of oncoming traffic. I looked down to see Rick Biesada, head of The Chicago Minuteman Project, lying at my feet, blood trickling down his forehead.
I quickly helped him up and made sure he was alright, then we both turned around to see a small crowd push another Minuteman to the ground and start pummeling him. He forced his way up as a few people intervened, and got away from the crowd.
The problem was that there were two factions present at Bank Calumet in Munster, Indiana. IFIRE, along with CMP, their friends in the anti-ILLEGAL-immigration battle, regularly protests this bank for offering mortgages to ILLEGAL aliens.

Today we had counter-protesters, and the cops at first did nothing to keep us apart. When Jake and I showed up, we had to push our way through screaming socialists (more on that in a moment) to join our protest. Anywhere else we’ve ever protested with people holding an opposing point of view, the cops have instructed each group to take a certain spot to avoid this sort of thing.

The IFIRE/CMP folks stood together on the sidewalk, and the counter-protesters formed a line, surrounding us, and walked in a circle, jeering, chanting, and shouting slurs like “racist” and “Nazi” in our faces as they jostled by us.

Then the altercation went down. The cops were around the corner, and took a couple of minutes to get through the crowd…

They tried to calm everyone down, and figure out what had happened.
Rick and Joe explained that someone had grabbed Rick’s sign and tore it up, then he was hit. Joe jumped in to try and help him, and he was then attacked by the group.
The police called an ambulance for Rick, who took a solid hit to the head. Joe had a good size lump on his head, as well. Fortunately, neither of them needed to be taken to the hospital for medical care.

By this time, some reinforcement had shown up from the police department, and they separated the opposing sides into two groups. The IFIRE/CMP folks continued to wave their flags and hold up signs decrying mortgages for ILLEGAL aliens, against amnesty, and for border security. We cheered and hooted at plenty of people who responded to my “HONK to Deport ILLEGAL ALIENS” sign as they drove by.

Our opposition continued to wave signs like “Minutemen are Nazis,” “No IFIRE,” and “No HR 4437,” referring to the bill that passed the House in December that provides for building a fence on the border, stiffer penalties for companies that hire ILLEGAL aliens (although not stiff enough for my liking), and making ILLEGAL entry a felony rather than a civil offense.

They also chanted about how the workers united cannot be defeated, Minutemen go to hell, and racism/IFIRE is illegal, and passed out this socialist flyer:

I’ve affectionately named this pile of crap “Stupid Lies and the Stupid Lying Socialists Who Write Them.” Methinks someone failed Propaganda 101.

Said freedomfolks @ 2:09 pm Comments (1) | Permalink   

How about Criminals Wrong?

Let’s get one thing straight from the get go here, folks. This is a nation of Laws, and we have Laws to codify procedures and policies into a unified code of rights and responsibilities to help in keeping order and to make life equatable for all.

“Equality before the law” does not mean that equal treatment trumps the law, but rather that all are equal in the eyes of the law.

>> Read more

Said Kender @ 1:45 pm Comments (2) | Permalink   

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

Via ABC…video at the Political Pitbull

An Afghan court on Sunday dismissed a case against a man who converted from Islam to Christianity because of a lack of evidence, and he will be released soon, an official said.
“The court dismissed today the case against Abdul Rahman for a lack of information and a lot of legal gaps in the case,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the matter.

He said the case has been returned to the prosecutors for more investigation, but that in the meantime Rahman would be released.

“The decision about his release will be taken possibly tomorrow,” he said.

However, as we see here, the root of the problem is still there, and his life is still in danger. In essense what ruling has done is to postpone his death. It may very well be an excuse to diffuse International pressure, but in no way has it solved the root problem of a lack of religious liberty in Afghanistan.

Michelle Malkin points out that Pope Benedict XVI has adressed the case in his Sunday blessing.

“My thoughts turn, in particular, to those communities who live in countries where there is a lack of religious freedom, or where despite claims on paper, they in truth are subjected to many restrictions,” the pontiff said as he delivered his traditional Sunday blessing from the window of his studio overlooking St. Peter’s Square. “I send them my warmest encouragement to persevere in the patience and charity of Christ,” Benedict added.

Macsmind reminds us of other believers that are facing persecution. Keep them all in your prayers.

Said Jay777 @ 12:35 pm Comments (1) | Permalink   

For those without the ability to extrapolate, the riots in France should come as solemn warning of things to come.
When the mental process of Socialistic entitlement moves from the conscious to the subconscious mind, this is the result. A bratty ‘it is my right’ mentality develops. An inherent disassociation from personal compulsion and responsibility inevitably arises.
These are the creatures one would expect.
Humans so rapt in a mixture of self-loathing and false self-esteem, confusion ultimately manifests in anger. Add to that the feminine Narcissistic tendencies that are reinforced by a culture that deserves rather than earns. And we end with a stew of young people without the masculine qualities of self sacrifice and restraint.
So here we are at the true meaning of this post. The new book, “Raising Boys Without Men : How Maverick Moms Are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men”, is an accurate example of the sickness that inhabits our society today. It is a book designed to help single and lesbian mothers raise ‘exceptional men’. ‘Exceptional’ by what standard, one wonders. By the standards of radical Feminism?
It once again brings example to the utter disrespect for the qualities strong males bring to the raising of children and to society in general. Men, finally, are irrelevant. The fish can at last save its money, better a hybrid than a Schwinn anyway.
Much of what one would consider qualities of the Left are in fact feminine attributes. Such things as compassion without responsibility, feelings oriented action, Socialistic sharing of resources, nonjudgmental acceptance, neurotic fear of failure, all are aspects of Jung’s anima. But they are only one side of the human psyche.
A strong health society can not long exist without the positive aspects of masculinity, as well. Can not long survive with out men of strength, valor, honor, and respect. Will fall into chaos without boys who exhibit self-control, protective instinct, personal responsibility, and drive.
Our schools choose to medicate the male out of the boy. Our culture reinforces the effeminate, while demeaning the masculine. Our government plays the role of mother rather than father.
Just what kind of man are we trying to build here?
For those without the ability to extrapolate, the riots in France should come as solemn warning of things to come.

Crossposted @ Sticks and Stones

Said Glen @ 8:11 am Comments (0) | Permalink   

Green Beret Sgt. Daniel Petithory was killed in Afghanistan in December, 2001. He was one of America’s first combat deaths in the campaign to flush al Qaeda and the Taliban out of that country in response to the 9/11 atrocities that had occurred less than 2 months previously. Moonbats have acknowledged Petithory’s ultimate sacrifice to preserve their liberty by vandalizing a sign indicating that a nature trail through his Massachusetts hometown has been dedicated to his memory.

  

“Oil” and “Christian Crusade” were scrawled on the sign. An anti-military dig favored by the likes of Bill Maher — that our troops are uneducated and/or not very bright — was also included, as was at least one potshot at the President.

Petithory’s parents have tried to avoid a more sophisticated means of undermining the War on Terror and defacing the memories of those who have died in it by no longer reading newspaper editorials or watching TV news shows. But moonbattery will find a way to make itself heard. Take away their cameras and newspapers and many in the media would probably find themselves reduced to scribbling nasty graffiti on dead soldiers’ memorials.

Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Said Van Helsing @ 9:33 am Comments (16) | Permalink   

My recent post “Who Wears the Pants in the Clinton Family” reminded me that I had not told the story of my own personal encounter of the famous couple in a while.

Any of us who pay keen attention to politics and the Clintons realized the power that the former First Lady holds over her wayward husband. We didn’t need to be reminded by former Press Secretary Dee Dee Meyers of how Mrs. Clinton saved Bill’s fledgling campaign in New Hampshire in 1992 by appearing with him on 60 Minutes to deflect the Genifer Flowers scandal (which should have let us all know what we were in for).

And it was certainly confirmation of the role Mrs. Clinton played in his campaigns and Administration to read tell-all accounts such as “Unlimited Access” by Gary Aldrich or “Rewriting History” by Dick Morris (chapter excerpt here).

But there really is nothing like a little one on one, a close and relatively private experience of the first couple, to provide that spark of illumination which confirms what we’ve read and heard for so many years.

So here goes…

It was lunchtime on a fine day in late spring when I left my office at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at the Fairchild Building on South Capitol Street in Washington, D.C. I walked up Ivy Street past the Headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. I noticed a limo in the street in front of the headquarters and instantly recognized Bill Clinton, then Governor of Arkansas, standing in the street. This was a few weeks after he had sewn up his parties nomination for President and it was several weeks before the nominating convention. He did not have Secret Service protection at the time.

I thought it odd that here he was standing in this quiet side street in front of the party headquarters and there were no well-wishers or job seekers surrounding him, even though everyone in the building, looking out the rather large windows could see that he was about to leave.

There was only one individual with him, and her back was to me. All I could see was blond hair and she appeared to be giving him the business with her finger pointing him in the face as he just stood there. From the rear she looked like the typical Capitol Hill staff clone.

My first thought was “who is this campaign worker that would dare to read the boss the riot act in front of their party headquarters?”

I cannot imagine in any of the campaigns that I worked on, any staffer would dare to behave in such a fashion towards the boss.

It wasn’t until I walked directly past them on the sidewalk just feet away that I realized who she was: Madame Dufarge herself, Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Of course you know I had the good manners to keep on moving, and not just stop and stare at the spectacle which was visible to everyone in the office building behind the three of us. I realize that will be hard for screeching socialists to accept, since if they were in a similar encounter with one of the Bush’s they might have begun protesting, or throwing pies.

Could it be that during their time inside the headquarters Bill was getting chatty with the receptionists? I can’t answer for that. I can only relate what I know to be a fact.

I was too embarrassed to do much but avert my eyes and keep on walking. And no doubt, the not so subtle message I witnessed was being telegraphed to those watching inside the building: “I saved this campaign, and you owe me. You better wise up. Cross me and you are toast!”

Every eyewitness account I’ve heard or read since regarding the nature of Mrs. Clinton’s personality has only confirmed what I saw that day when the three of us shared a moment on Ivy Street, one fine spring day.

I realize that many of our Democrat “friends” choose to be ignorant about the real nature of this woman, just as many seem to have forgotten the Clinton era concern expressed by every senior member of their party on the dangers of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Also posted at Mike’s America. Where we are always “better, safer, stronger and more free.”

Said Mike's America @ 3:45 pm Comments (1) | Permalink   

I know I know, I’m late and I missed my last post…. SORRY…..

Excepted Q & A from the Paula Jones Lawsuit Deposition.

Q. At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky alone together in the Oval Office?

A. I don’t recall, but as I said, when she worked at the legislative affairs office, they always had somebody there on the weekends. I typically worked some on the weekends. Sometimes they’d bring me things on the weekends. She – it seems to me she brought things to me once or twice on the weekends. In that case, whatever time she would be in there, drop it off, exchange a few words and go, she was there. I don’t have any specific recollections of what the issues were, what was going on, but when the Congress is there, we’re working all the time, and typically I would do some work on one of the days of the weekends in the afternoon.

Q. So I understand, your testimony is that it was possible, then, that you were alone with her, but you have no specific recollection of that ever happening?

A. Yes, that’s correct. It’s possible that she, in, while she was working there, brought something to me and that at the time she brought it to me, she was the only person there. That’s possible.

Q. Have you ever met with Monica Lewinsky in the White House between the hours of midnight and six a.m.?

A. I certainly don’t think so.

Q. Have you ever met –

A. Now, let me just say, when she was working there, during, there may have been a time when we were all – we were up working late. There are lots of, on any given night, when the Congress is in session, there are always several people around until late in the night, but I don’t have any memory of that. I just can’t say that there could have been a time when that occurred, I just – but I don’t remember it.

Q. Certainly if it happened, nothing remarkable would have occurred?

A. No, nothing remarkable. I don’t remember it.

Q. Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky?

A. No.

Q. If she told someone that she had a sexual affair with you beginning in November of 1995, would that be a lie?

A. It’s certainly not the truth. It would not be the truth.

Q. I think I used the term “sexual affair.” And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court.

A. I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I’ve never had an affair with her.

Refer to the Post for additional Q & A sessions documented.

We now understand that this all was a complete falsehood. Like Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the Slick One should be charged and tried for purgery. He has to this point gotten away with making false statements under oath and before the American people.

All these are going to haunt his wife as she seeks the Democratic nomination for the Presidency. And I’m going to be one of those that keeps bringing it up.

Said Gribbit @ 10:46 am Comments (0) | Permalink   

Posted on behalf of Jay777

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 180 blogs already on-board

Said Gribbit @ 9:56 am Comments (6) | Permalink   

Just this week, I have read on otherwise Right-thinking blogs evidence that Islamic terrorists and terrorist-enablers are winning the war of words, the war of the mind.

Let me give you three paraphrased examples of lies about Islam that are far too widely accepted and even given byes by those who ought to know better (and no, I’ll not spefically name bloggers, cos that would be an unecessary embarrassment to them, IMO).

Mohammed taught that coercion of belief is not right, quoting Mohammed in Surah 88:21-22 as saying his god had told him coercion of belief was not his task, was wrong, BUT Mohammed’s entire life was an example teaching violence, murder, rape and enslavement as a means to expanding the rule of Islam. Who is the true follower of Mohammed? The one who follows what Mohammed said or the one who follows what he showed his followers to do?

The question answers itself.

Another blogger has said that if Islam is to legitimize itself as a religion that it ought to purge itself of the elements who do violence against non-combatants (commit terrorist acts) in the name of allah. But to do that would be to purge Islam of Mohammed! And once Islam has purged itself of the most brutal, violent, vicious and evil example it has (Mohammed) what do they have left? His testimony as the prophet of his allah is then invalidated, and there could be no Islamic religion!

>> Read more

Said mnmus @ 7:32 am Comments (4) | Permalink