Thursday, May 31, 2007

Low-Income Blacks and
Illegal Immigration

by La Shawn Barber - May 31st, 2007 - Townhall.com


I first read the name “Carol Swain” while scanning a 2004 Boston Globe column by Cathy Young, who’d written about a panel discussion that took place around the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education – the Supreme Court case that outlawed government-mandated racial segregation in government schools.

Swain, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School, talked about subcultural factors that impede the academic progress of black students, such as a lack of parental involvement in schools, the “acting white” phenomenon, and lowered standards and expectations. Quoting Swain, Young wrote that these factors “created a negative incentive structure for African-Americans who have either internalized societal messages about inferiority or have chosen an easier path of not exerting themselves too vigorously.”

While Swain probably wouldn’t describe herself as politically conservative, her ideas certainly are atypical of many liberals. She’s written about the negative effects of illegal immigration on low-income black Americans and the Congressional Black Caucus’s (CBC) stunning silence on the issue.


This is an excellent article that talks about the difference between the needs of poor blacks and the refusal of democratic and black leadership to offer anything but welfare dependence as a solution.

This issue is becoming huge because of the impact on border security and the consequences will be profound for the future of our country. The American dream is far more important than the political survival of the demagogues who are selling out poor blacks on the issues of immigration and school choice.

It is good to see people like Ms Barber have the courage to stand up to the power structure in both the democrat party and the black community. It takes courage because they are a powerful group with vested interests that are not in the interest of the poor of our nation.




Wednesday, May 30, 2007

The Case For Bombing Iran

by Norman Podhoretz - May 30th, 2007 - Wall Street Journal (Opinion Journal)

I hope and pray that President Bush will do it.

Although many persist in denying it, I continue to believe that what Sept 11, 2001, did was to plunge us headlong into nothing less than another world war. I call this new war World War IV, because I also believe that what is generally known as the Cold War was actually World War III, and that this one bears a closer resemblance to that great conflict than it does to World War II. Like the Cold War, as the military historian Eliot Cohen was the first to recognize, the one we are now in has ideological roots, pitting us against Islamofascism, yet another mutation of the totalitarian disease we defeated first in the shape of Nazism and fascism and then in the shape of communism; it is global in scope; it is being fought with a variety of weapons, not all of them military; and it is likely to go on for decades.

What follows from this way of looking at the last five years is that the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be understood if they are regarded as self-contained wars in their own right. Instead we have to see them as fronts or theaters that have been opened up in the early stages of a protracted global struggle. The same thing is true of Iran. As the currently main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11, and as (according to the State Department's latest annual report on the subject) the main sponsor of the terrorism that is Islamofascism's weapon of choice, Iran too is a front in World War IV. Moreover, its effort to build a nuclear arsenal makes it the potentially most dangerous one of all.

Because of the appeasers (defeatocrats) it is likely that we will finally get serious about World War IV when nuclear bombs have destroyed several American cities. What amazes me is the unwillingness of the appeasers to think about what will happen in America at that time.

Their assumption is that the American people will cave in and let them "negotiate" a world socialist government, thus accomplishing the number one goal of the democratic party leadership, elimination of the evil thing called "free enterprise".

I don't think that is the probable result. I think the probable result is immediate willingness on the part of a great number of patriots to open warfare against democrats and liberals. A shooting war like the civil war that we experienced in the middle of the last century. Civil war always results when one group or another reaches a point where they are simply unwilling to tolerate the other.

Since the democrat appeasement actions are so obviously encouraging the Islamofascists to nuclearize the conflict, many feel it is just and right that the appeasers be held responsible when that happens. It is easy to say right now they are traitors. When the first nuclear bomb goes off in an American city, saying it will not be enough. If our government will not do something to punish them for their treason there will be plenty of patriots who will see that it is done.

Our nation is heading for a bloodbath of unimaginable scope. The only thing that will stop it is if we can muster the will to stop Iran from getting nuclear bombs. We must win the war against Islamofascism, this World War IV that we are currently fighting. Podhoretz thinks it is still possible to get agreement to do this. I think it is too late.

If you love America Podhoretz's article is a long but very important read.

FIll 'Er Up

by William Buckley, Jr. - May 29th, 2007 - Townhall.com

But of course the cultivation of more electricity requires very heavy hits on current law and public attitudes. The problem of conversion of coal to liquid fuel has counterparts in the generation of electricity by nuclear, gas and hydroelectric plants. The anti-nuclear lobby is the toughest Luddite entity in history. It has done everything short of rebuilding Hiroshima and Nagasaki to paralyze nuclear energy.

That is the problem. We are not short of energy. We are short of rational laws and common sense. Even as the public has decided that global warming is a problem, new evidence shows that man is not causing global warming, and the problem is not nearly as severe as the chicken little proponents claim. However the "public" has bought into the lies, and now it looks like stupid laws will destroy our economy, fueled by a public that will never accept blame for the consequences of the laws they are demanding.


Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Bush Takes On Opponents
of Immigration Deal

by Jim Rutenburg - May 29th, 2007 - The New York Times


President Bush today accused opponents of his proposed immigration measure of fear-mongering to defeat it in Congress, and took on his own conservative political base as he did so.

“If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill’s an amnesty bill,” Mr. Bush said this afternoon at a training center for border enforcement agents located in this town in Georgia’s southeastern corner. “That’s empty political rhetoric, trying to frighten our citizens.”


Right Mr. President. All us conservatives are "vigilantes" who try to "frighten" America. There is no possibility we are patriots who don't owe political favors to "fat cat" contributors who love cheap labor for their factories and stores.

This one issue is the most compelling proof of how out of touch with Americans George W. Bush really is. It is also the one issue on which it is easiest to accept the left wing view of his simultaneous duplicity and stupidity. This is an amnesty bill. Saying it isn't doesn't make it so. It just creates more contempt for Bush.

He is not going to win any friends by attacking his base. He is simply going to drive his favorability numbers even lower.

However the best line of all in this public dialogue came in response to the BOOING by Mexicans when Miss USA was onstage in the Miss Universe contest being held there. Michelle Malkin ridiculed the booing by suggesting "Next, they'll tell us the mob at the Miss Universe pageant was simply doing the booing Americans won't do." You can read the entire article here.



Monday, May 28, 2007

Immigration Counters

This is sad. The numbers on this web site should shock anyone who is an American. It proves how we have lost control of our nation, even if the numbers tend to be on the high side of what is considered the truth by most officials.

Take as an example the number of illegal children in our schools. Over 4 million.

Or 20 million illegals taking 7-9 million high paid jobs. Not entry level jobs. That is another 3-4 million jobs. 12 million total jobs taken from Americans by people who have no legal right to be here. And let me assure you, since only 27% of construction jobs are taken by illegals, it is a lie to claim these are jobs Americans will not take. If the illegals were not here, those jobs would be filled by Americans.

Nearly half a trillion dollars in welfare!

Click on the title above if you want to get the story. This is an amazing revelation even if the numbers are possibly a little high. What is scary is that they may be correct and more official numbers may be too low.



Sunday, May 27, 2007

The Amesty Fraud

by Thomas Sowell - May 22, 2007 - Townhall.com

Amnesty.

The word is from the same root as "amnesia." It means you forget or overlook some crime, as if it never happened. All this elaborate talk about the steps illegal immigrants must go through to become citizens is a distraction from the crime they committed when they crossed the border illegally.

Instead, all attention is focused on what to do to accommodate those who committed this crime. It is a question that would be recognized as an insult to our intelligence on any other issue.

Thomas Sowell (as usual) has the most intelligent comments to make on this subject of immigration. We are at a crisis in this country because of an active agenda on the part of democrat party leadership to act on what is the interest of the party's leaders, not its voters.

In the process they are advocating actions that are against the interest of one of their core constituencies. The black community is still disproportionately poor. Getting on to that first rung on the ladder to the American dream is something that remains important if participation in American society is to become an equal place for all. Bringing in competition for that first rung serves the leadership by keeping blacks dependent on government services. That serves the interest of the leaders but does not serve the interests of the black community.

It also signals to all the most important agenda of today's democrat party. Socialism. Bringing in people who disproportionately ignore our laws, work off the books, take welfare they have not paid for and demand that we recognize 200 year old claims to sovereign power of the corrupt culture of Mexico, obviously has some powerful motivation. If you work through all their actions, it is clear the only real reason for the current agenda of the democrat party is to end free enterprise in America.

Thomas Sowell had other thoughts on this question that is consistent with this reality. He said this the following day under the title The Amnesty Fraud - Part II.

Analogies with immigrants who came to this country in the 19th century and early 20th century are hollow, and those who make such analogies must know how different the situation is today.

People who crossed an ocean to get here, many generations ago, usually came here to become Americans. There were organized efforts within their communities, as well as in the larger society around them, to help them assimilate.

Today, there are activists working in just the opposite direction, to keep foreigners foreign, to demand that society adjust to them by making everything accessible to them in their own language, minimizing their need to learn English.

As activists are working hard to keep alive a foreign subculture in so-called "bilingual" and other programs, they are also feeding the young especially with a steady diet of historic grievances about things that happened before the immigrants got here -- and before they were born.

These Balkanization efforts are joined by other Americans as part of the "multicultural" ideology that pervades the education system, the media, and politics.

This multicultural ideology has as its core, a rejection of our current American culture. All investigations of some rational reason for this rejection keep coming back to socialism as the only driving factor that explains all the actions taking place.

There is at least one indirect question I also find curious.


Thomas Sowell has long been acknowledged as one of the smartest, if not the smartest, intellecutual leaders in America. However because, as an economist, few of the issues he addressed in the past have directly benefitted the black community, he is unknown by most blacks. Thomas is taking the lead on this issue of immigration, and it is of direct benefit to the black community more than any other group of Americans.

Will this end the black community's lack of awareness of what a great success story he represents for them? Or will his continued opposition to socialism mean he is still ignored in the black community?

When will black voters recognize that two issues being advocated by democrat leadership are hostile to their futures? The democrat position on Immigration and School Choice harms blacks more than all others. Does black leadership care more about their party's interests than the interest of the people they claim to represent?

I think the answer is clear.




Wednesday, May 23, 2007

When Reality's Up For Grabs

by Mark Steyn - May 21st, 2007 - Western Standard


In 1984, George Orwell wrote, "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." The Muslim community in Europe does not yet "control" anything: they are, relatively, small in numbers, though big in certain cities and bigger still in the schools of those cities. Nevertheless, it is significant that, though still quite a long way from formal "control," they are already determining the shape of the future, and thus of the past. The Holocaust did happen. Millions did die. "Facts," said John Adams, "are stubborn things." But not in the Europe of 2007. Faced with serving a population far more stubborn than any mere fact, Continental teachers are quietly putting reality up for grabs. It's a small thing, initially--the sin of omission, of discreetly gliding over "controversy" in the interests of multicultural sensitivity.


In the name of political correctness, this same pattern has taken hold here in America. It is an interesting phenomenon but many democrats here in Eastern Carolina have accepted two main themes from the democrat party leadership. (I suspect this acceptance is more widespread, but I don't have evidence. I have seen it here.)

First, they insist they are not socialists. No matter how much their government based programs resemble a lack of faith in free enterprise, and reject Friedman's premise that individual freedom is based on continuation of the economic freedom that must first exist under free enterprise, they simply deny they are socialists.

Second they insist that though they are not socialists, socialism has not failed, it has simply not been tried under the right conditions.

They are not socialists but socialism is not bad?

This article is a good read about a growing problem. Steyn is as usual quite perceptive. He could have written the same article about people in America who want to believe (as much as muslims want to believe the holocaust never happened) that socialism has never failed. That way they can vote themselves free services from government and they are not doing someting stupid.

There was a popular theme in college back in the 1960s. Perception is reality. Some people still believe this. However reality is reality, perception is not. When you ignore reality really bad things happen. Sometimes the bad things happen at the hand of those who reject reality, just so they can cling to their illusions. Nazis clung to illusions and killed 6 million Jews and almost as many Slavs and others they thought of as "degenerates".

It will be interesting in the future to see what are the consequences of the Muslim's rejection of the holocaust and belief that killing jews is okay because they are evil. It will be equally interesting in the future to see what are the consequences of the democrat's rejection of free enterprise and belief that taxing the rich is okay because they are evil.

When reality is up for grabs, evil happens.



Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Bad News All Week Long
-And Today Was Really Bad

Even if you care about education and making your personal decisions be the final word, I doubt you would do what our Governor has done. That is unless you don't care about democracy and the rights of the people who vote. Our illustrious Governor Easley has decided to undo the last election for Superintendent of Public Instruction. June Atkinson, a Democrat, won the primary and general election for Superintendent. In the primary she soundly defeated Easley's education advisor, J.B. Buxton, who he had persuaded to run.

The people's choice really annoyed Easley, so he has arranged for a new "Deputy" position to be created and moved all of the power from June Atkinson, the elected Superintendent, to the new Deputy position he had created. Who did he appoint? Why his buddy, J.B. Buxton, the man the people defeated. And the deputy not only has all the power now. He is being paid $20,000 more than his supposed boss, the Superintendent. Can't let the people of North Carolina think they have the right to elect their own choice for Superintendent. Can we?

Easley can be counted on to appoint someone who is really good. You can trust him. After all, he appointed District Attorney Nifong to his position and look how that turned out.

Easley is not the only Democrat who does not care about the opinion of the people of North Carolina. Our United States Constitution was written to protect small states, by the creation of the Electoral College. Today the North Carolina Senate passed legislation that will overturn using the vote of the people of North Carolina to award our votes, and award all of North Carolina's Electoral College votes to whoever wins the popular vote nationwide, no matter how the people of North Carolina vote.

Doesn't it sound like they are taking their lead from Governor Easley?

You don't even have to bother to vote next election, since it will not matter anyway. Doesn't that make you feel better? New York, Illinois and California will decide who gets North Carolina's votes. Just stay home and relax. Your vote doesn't count. Even if the hanging chads in Broward County make the ultimate choice of who won the popular vote, you can relax knowing at least it will be Democrat Party officials who will decide who "wins" the popular vote. So the choice can be safely determined without any concern about truth getting in the way. Do you have any doubts?


Of course the key reason, to understanding why this particular legislature is rather indifferent to what the people want, can be traced back to the corrupt Jim Black. It was his bribe to Mike Decker, $100,00 in all, which allowed Democrat's to pass the 2003 redistricting plan. With 5 votes from corrupt Republicans who were bribed in various ways just like Black bribed Decker, the Democrat redistricting plan was passed. And the result?

As it was summed up by the Civitas Institute, "The corrupt-coalition redistricting plan led to the defeat of long-time legislators Jonnie Bowie, Frank Mitchell, Sam Ellis, Don Mumford and Wayne Sexton. And it led to the departure of Billie Creech and Connie Wilson after being placed in a district with a fellow Republican incumbent. Black’s redistricting plan returned solid control of the state House of Representatives back to his party."

That is the reason that even though in this last election, more North Carolina votes were cast for Republican candidates, the gerry mandered districts still gave control of the House and
Senate to Democrats.

Your vote does not count. The Democrat party has reinterpreted democracy to mean they win, no matter how much corruption or bribery it takes.

It is sure hard to be an optimist nowadays.

Monday, May 21, 2007

Falwell Gone, Evangelical Movement
Alive And Well

by Starr Parker - May 21st, 2007 - Townhall.com

Assessing Falwell's influence, the Pew Center's executive vice president, Paul Taylor, wrote: "... (I)f the key goal of his movement was to encourage a formerly apolitical group to become politically engaged -- and to do so in part through the guidance of organized religion -- then he leaves behind a powerful legacy."

[snip]

If a revolution is waiting to happen, it is among black voters. And it is in the direction of conservatism. More and more blacks are getting it that the root of the problems in their communities flow from values -- family breakdown, promiscuity, drugs, crime and education.

Whereas nine in 10 blacks still vote for Democrats, in the 2006 Pew survey, 19 percent of black voters said they considered themselves part of the "religious right."


Add to this the growing reality in the black community that Republicans support their desire for school choice and you have a real chance for political realignment. How can a party dedicated to real opportunity for poor children not be recognized as the party of upward mobility. Upward mobility helps blacks more than anyone else. Republicans know that and endorse it.

Republicans are also the party that supports real immigration reform because it is angry that Americans, especially black Americans, are being cheated of jobs by the open borders crowd. Even the Republican farmers and business people who have rationalized the cheap labor help for their businesses open borders provide are feeling the pressure of the vast middle class that make up the party. They are not near as open with their support for cheap labor as before because few in the party will tolerate their views.

Though a large number of immigrants come here to work and work hard, disproportionately they are using welfare, draining our taxes and they believe in socialism. Since the democrat party loves socialism they turn to that party to vote when they can. As long as the Republican Party believes in free enterprise it will not get the majority of their votes. George Bush has no problem with welcoming them since his compassionate conservative movement is nothing but socialism light.

Even libertarians in the Republican Party have come to realize that open borders is the one traditional agenda item they must give up to gain broad acceptance of libertarian views. It does not help our country to temporarily gain economic success if it leads to cultural abandonment of free enterprise in the long run.



Sunday, May 20, 2007

Goldsboro Social
- Honoring Fred Smith

Friday night was a special night in Goldsboro. A group of Fred Smith Supporters threw a party so that their friends could get to meet Fred.


It was a beautiful night and the Goldsboro Country Club entry looked welcoming to all.


Coming up on the entrance, the Country Club main building looks like the typical small town Country Club. Very elegant.


Two of Fred Smith's key staff members, Blair Keen and Dodie Renfer get the registration desk for the event organized, laying out all the name tags of people invited.


At the entrance (shown above) is a listof the people who are throwing this social for their friend, Fred Smith.


The Capital City String Ensemble played for the event, and created a very elegant mood for the evening.


Sandy Korshun, Steve Keen and Bob Jackson were early arrivals.

Denise and Bill Dees, Sponsors, greet Linda and Mel Powers.


Jean and Ken Wadsworth are greeted by Ginny Smith (center above).


Jim and Ann Sasser are greeted by Fred Smith (center above).


Special theme for the evening was announcement of Fred Smith's biography, "A Little Extra Effort", written by Fred to tell people in great detail what he believes and why.



Joan and Billy Strickland, Arnold Flowers and Lisa Befumo.


Everyone chose places to sit and talk after greetings by Fred.


The food for the evening was outstanding.


Many took the opportunity to catch up with friends.


Larry Pierce gave the invocation.


Julian Aycock served as Master of Ceremonies for the invent, and introduced Fred.


Fred Smith talked about his vision for North Carolina. One special mention this night was his personal pride in Ginny Smith being selected this years Woman of the Year for the Federation of North Carolina Womens Clubs


Ginny is a very special lady, and it was great to see her at the event.

All in all it was a nice evening and a great opportunity for 200 of Goldsboro's business and social leaders to get to know Fred and his family.




Friday, May 18, 2007

Outrageous!!!!!

DEMOCRATS TO PEOPLE OF NORTH CAROLINA:
WE’LL CAST YOUR PRESIDENTIAL VOTE

Smarting from the unpopularity of their candidates for president, legislative Democrats passed, on a straight party-line vote, a bill that would give North Carolina’s votes in the Electoral College to the presidential candidate that received the most votes nationwide. North Carolina’s Electoral College votes currently go to the candidate receiving the majority of votes cast in North Carolina. Support for passage of the bill has been led by a high powered lobbying firm hired by out-of-state interests.

The legislation is the brainchild of two Californians - one a San Francisco Lawyer, the other a college professor - that have given over $750,000 dollars to liberal Democrat candidates and causes since 1990.

The bill totally disregards the rights of North Carolina’s voters and, in effect would thwart the will of North Carolina’s voters in three of the last four elections. North Carolina’s votes in the Electoral College in those presidential elections were cast as follows: 2004-Bush; 2000-Bush; 1996-Dole; 1992-Bush. If in effect at that time, the bill passed by the Senate Democrats would have given North Carolina’s electoral votes in the last four elections to: 2004-Bush; 2000-Gore; 1996-Clinton; 1992-Clinton.

In essence, the Electoral College would disregard votes cast by North Carolinians in favor of the presidential choice of people in states with larger populations.

Senate Republican Leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) issued the following statement:

This bill should outrage voters in North Carolina and anyone who believes that the votes of citizens deserve to be counted. It fundamentally changes the way the President of the United States is elected. Our Founding Fathers designed a federal system of government that balanced the rights of small and medium sized states like North Carolina against the large states like New York, Texas and California when electing our president."

"If there is a problem with that system – the Electoral College – it could be changed by a Constitutional amendment. This bill bypasses the established amendment process, ignores the people of North Carolina, and furthers the agendas of out-of-state interests."

“Senate Democrats are trying to take what their party cannot win at the ballot box. Because national Democrats and their liberal policies, time and time again, have been rejected by the people of North Carolina, they want to award North Carolina’s presidential electors based on votes cast in other states. Instead of competing for North Carolina’s vote in the marketplace of ideas, they choose this bill to support the liberal national Democratic agenda."

"This is an attempt to insure that those seeking the Democrat nomination for president, like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards, can win North Carolina’s presidential electoral votes without having to appeal to North Carolina’s voters or even appear in our state. Hopefully the state House will see this bill for what it is and will stand up for North Carolina’s voters.”




Thursday, May 17, 2007

Amensty Is Assured

by The Editors - May 17th, 2007 - National Review Online

“The fight over legalization, or ‘amnesty,’ is all but over,” exults the Manhattan Institute’s Tamar Jacoby, and the “yahoos” who oppose it have been routed. She is right about who has won, at least as far as the Senate is concerned. The Bush-Kennedy immigration “reform,” which is now expected to win broad bipartisan support in that chamber, provides legal status for an estimated 12 million illegal aliens. In exchange for the massive, unpopular amnesty, Senator Kennedy is willing to engage in a little “border dressing” that purports to beef up enforcement of current laws barring illegal entry and the employment of illegal workers. As in the past, supporters of border and workplace enforcement will get the rhetoric, illegal aliens the prize, and taxpayers the huge tab.

Despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans oppose amnesty, our elected officials are going to pass it for one reason. American citizens continue to be deluded when it comes time to vote. They vote for the easy way out, for an illusion, for (in the words of Robert Heinlein) a "free lunch". Reality still happens.

One of the con jobs going on is the claim that this is a bipartisan bill. Nonsense. It is actually a liberal bill that a handfull of Republicans who are out of step with their party are crossing over to support. Only when you have a significant number of both parties supporting a bill can it honestly be called bipartisan. You don't have that here.

Getting back to reality, let's talk about the losers in this from our nations perspective. Who are the losers?

Our unskilled American workers get competition for their jobs out of this. Excuse me, what they get is massively increased competition for the unskilled jobs in our nation. In other words many will lose their jobs. Do you think this will keep them from voting for the very people who are ramming this down our throats?

Our taxpayers get a huge new bill for public services for the flood of unskilled workers. Schools, hospitals, social services agencies, all will see a massive increase in demand that will take services from our own poor even as it burdens the taxpayers of our nation with increased taxes of gargantuan amounts. Do you think this will dissuade them from supporting the politicians that quietly pass this bill?

Our culture will suffer another hammer blow as massive new immmigration of people who reject our culture and hate our nation come here not to join in, but to shove their culture down our throats. Already in California they are talking about making Spanish the "official" language of the state. It will happen here soon too. Do you think it will matter to people who don't connect the loss of their jobs or the increase in their taxes to the actions taken by the people they elected?

If you oppose these three catastrophic consequences that is simply too bad. As noted in the article, you are simply a "yahoo" according to the liberals at the Manhattan Institute.


Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Ann Coulter Embraces French

Want to know why Ann Coulter is hated by everyone in the democrat party? Just read the article, "C'EST SI BON". It has been on the front page of her web site since the 9th of May, but I have been so busy I had not checked out her site for a while so today was the earliest I could post it here. [I have changed the link to her archives location so it should be a good link again.]

Glad that I did. It really rips the defeatocrat party's claim America is not loved in the rest of the world. Ann glories in the recent victory of a pro-American leader, "With Nicolas Sarkozy's decisive victory as the new president of France, the French have produced their first pro-American ruler since Louis XVI."

Her article rubs in the face of democrats the number of foreign leaders who are being elected to replace anti George Bush predecessors that democrats touted as proof he was out of line with the world. By the time he leaves, there may not be any European ruler who is not pro-American and who does not support the war against Islamofascism. Is there anyone who thinks that the democrats will change their minds if the rest of the world is supporting this war?

Check out this quote from the article:

Only Spain remains a nation of women. As long as Spain exists, it will not outlive the shame of its gutless capitulation to terrorist bombings in 2004. It is worse than Sweden's neutrality toward Hitler.

But France! Until this week, France seemed a less likely place to find someone who supports America than a meeting of Democrats.

Apparently, even the French prefer Western civilization to clitorectomy-performing, car-burning savages.

The Democratic Party is now officially the only organization on Earth that does not take the threat of Islamic fascism seriously. Between the Democrats and the media, America has gone from its usual position as the world's last hope to radical Islam's last hope.


Ann has never been shy about pointing out when liberals and democrats get it wrong!

U.S. Senate EPW
- Global Warming Is Not Man Made

Climate Momentum Shifting:
Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief
in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics


Click on the title above to go to the U.S. Senate Committe on Environment and Pubic Works web site to read the latest results of scientific studies that dispute man being any significant cause of global warming. There is also a long list of noted scientists, most former believers in the premise that man was causing global warming, who have now reversed their opinions.

What is most significant about these reports is that the Senate is now controlled by Democrats. And yet enough of them realize what a chicken little position Al Gore is taking on the wrong side of this issue that they feel they have to lead the charge to stop our nation doing something truly stupid that can only be blamed on democrats.

The truth is coming out.

Fox News Reports Torture At Gitmo

An accused enemy combatant held at Guantanamo Bay told a military hearing he was physically as well as mentally tortured there. The Torture?

He had "to read a newsletter full of 'crap'".

He was forced "to use unscented deodorant and shampoo."

He had to "play sports with a ball that would not bounce".

Oh horrors. Get the ACLU right now! Tell Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

This must end!

ROTFLMAO

Was Osama Right?

Islamists always believed the U.S. was weak. Recent political trends won't change their view.

by Bernard Lewis - May 16th, 2007 - Wall Street Journal (OpinionJournal.com)

During the Cold War, two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there be no punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward . . . .

[snip]

It was therefore natural to seek and accept American help. As Osama bin Laden explained, in this final phase of the millennial struggle, the world of the unbelievers was divided between two superpowers. The first task was to deal with the more deadly and more dangerous of the two, the Soviet Union. After that, dealing with the pampered and degenerate Americans would be easy.

Democrats do not understand the consequences of their actions in urging defeat on America. They are oblivious to the motivations and plans of the Islamofascists. They see the problem as the same as their domestic battles. The hated enemy is those who consider themselves Republicans. Since Al Aqaeda is the enemy of Republicans, the democrats see Al Qaeda as their natural ally. They are therefore opposed to anything that would seriously work to win the war, in Iraq, In Iran, or anywhere in the middle east.

There is a comment going around the Internet that accurately describes the current problem "The U.S. Marines are at war. America is at the mall." No one is willing to tell the American people that this war will last a long time and sacrifices will be required.. Whenever it is said, the press announces that the American people don't want this war.

That attitude is going to get a lot of Americans killed.




Tuesday, May 15, 2007

The Anger Of The Left

by Thomas Sowell - May 15th, 2007 - Townhall.com

. . . for many on the left, indignation is not a sometime thing. It is a way of life.

[snip]

How often have you seen conservatives or libertarians take to the streets, shouting angry slogans? How often have conservative students on campus shouted down a visiting speaker or rioted to prevent the visitor from speaking at all?

[snip]

It seems to be the threat to their egos that they hate. And nothing is more of a threat to their desire to run other people's lives than the free market and its defenders.


There are many on the left, including the extreme left which controls the democratic party, who are militant socialists. This is obvious to anyone who actively follows the public dialog that flows from our national press. The main stream media (MSM) comes almost exclusively from the socialists in our nation. As a result the labeling by the press that is so common for those on the right is nearly invisible for public officials who are on the left. As fellow socialists the press never sees labels as a big deal unless it is labels of those they oppose since they are actually a way of insulting their opponents. That may be the reason that many Americans who think that there are more important things than politics are unaware of the socialist bias of both the press and the democratic party.

It is that lack of awareness by average Americans not active in politics that is unbalancing the political dialog in our nation. Our recent elections found a huge number of moderates who bought into the democrat party campaign strategy of simply maligning Republicans without proposing any solutions to our problems. Now, with the democrats in the majority, their true intention is becoming more and more obvious. They seek to declare the war on Islamofascism lost and bring our troops home. Why is there this drive to end the war by the extreme left?

To me the reason is simple. Islamofascism is in fact a socialist movement in its execution even if it is religious in its underpinnings. Most socialists, like the socialists in the democrat party and the press, are more comfortable with the Islamofascists than they are with anyone who espouses the concept of free enterprise. The socialists are embarrassed by the failure of every socialist country and see America as the cause of that failure. There is no logic that supports the socialist's view of the world and so the view of the left has become angry and frustrated.

Trying to shut up those who believe in free enterprise is the natural consequence. The reality of socialism's failure is the largest insult to their ego and anger is unavoidable.




Explosive Book On Duke University
Lacrosse Scandal

Threshold Editions, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, will publish an explosive insider account of the Duke University Lacrosse Scandal in June 2007. IT’S NOT ABOUT THE TRUTH by Don Yaeger with Mike Pressler, the former head coach of the men’s lacrosse team, will reveal for the first time what really happened after the infamous stripper party, and how the rush to judgment has affected the lives of those associated with the incident.

Duke University and its men’s lacrosse team came under national scrutiny after a Durham woman--one of two female strippers hired to dance at a team party in March 2006--alleged she was raped. Three team members, all of whom maintained their innocence, were indicted on rape charges. While those charges were subsequently dropped, it wasn’t until Wednesday, April 11th, 2007 that Attorney General Roy Cooper announced the remaining charges of kidnapping and sexual assault had been dropped. IT’S NOT ABOUT THE TRUTH will recount, among other events, the vilification and ostracization of the team members, Pressler’s forced resignation and the subsequent cancellation of the remainder of the team’s season, and even death threats aimed at the players by some of the Durham community.

“Lives have been ruined in the wake of this tragedy.” says Louise Burke, “This book serves as a testament to truth and justice for all those involved.”

Mike Pressler spent 16 seasons at Duke, where he compiled a 153-82 record with three ACC championships, 10 NCAA tournament berths and an appearance in the 2005 national championship game. Pressler was voted ACC Coach of the Year three times and honored as the U.S. I. L.A. National Coach of the Year in 2005. Currently, he is the head coach of the Bryant University men’s lacrosse team.

Don Yaeger spent ten years as one of Sports Illustrated’s top investigative reporters.


Sunday, May 13, 2007

Seeking Trophy Wife:
M.R.S. Degree Required

by Mike Adams - May 7th, 2007 - Townhall.com

No reasonable person could be opposed to M.R.S. degrees for women who aspire to be “nothing more” than a wife and mother. The most important job any woman can ever hold is that of a mother. Important people like teachers can have an effect on thousands of students, but no teacher can have that much of an effect on a child she only knows for one year. Mothers, on the other hand, will influence their own children for about fifty years.
Mike Adams admires Moms.

I can clearly see the gnashing of teeth and hear the screaming in rage of all the feminists who accidentally read this article by one of the funniest writers on the right. Mike Adams is just as funny in person. I got a chance to meet him last year in Asheville, and he is really really quick and really really funny.

Sometimes you can get a feel for him in one of his articles, and this is a perfect example.

It is funny, and yet it is true. Mothers are the most important people in our society. We owe them so much. God bless them all. Thank your Mom! Thank all the Moms you know.

Judges 6:36-40

by Mike Adams - May 9th, 2007 - Townhall.com

Some years ago, I knew a young man who drove some 700 miles to give a speech at his alma mater. When he arrived he saw a few old friends including an old girlfriend he dated in school. She was going through a divorce and she had recently been unfaithful to her husband.

They talked for hours that weekend and after all was said and done he got back in his car to drive home. He had a lot to think about on the twelve hour drive. Mostly, he thought about how miserable the lives of so many of the girls he had dated turned out to be.

How many men have failed to search for the woman that they should and instead searched for something else entirely? I am certainly guilty of that. It is probably why I am still alone in life. I had to look up the biblical reference used as the title to this article. In case this passage from the Bible is not familiar to you either, here is the text.

Judges 6: 36-40
36: Then Gideon said to God, "If thou wilt deliver Israel by my hand, as thou hast said,
37: behold, I am laying a fleece of wool on the threshing floor; if there is dew on the fleece alone, and it is dry on all the ground, then I shall know that thou wilt deliver Israel by my hand, as thou hast said."
38: And it was so. When he rose early next morning and squeezed the fleece, he wrung enough dew from the fleece to fill a bowl with water.
39: Then Gideon said to God, "Let not thy anger burn against me, let me speak but this once; pray, let me make trial only this once with the fleece; pray, let it be dry only on the fleece, and on all the ground let there be dew."
40: And God did so that night; for it was dry on the fleece only, and on all the ground there was dew.

This passage talks about our need to ask God for guidance in our lives. Sometimes he gives it. If he gave me guidance in my choice of women I surely missed it.

This is the second great article by Mike Adams this week. The other is equally as admiring of women, though it focused on Moms instead of Wives. That other article is typically Mike Adams satire though and you can read it above. This article was something new from Mike. It is a really touching story of finding someone to share your life with that seems blessed by those coincidences that can only be a sign of the mystery we find in life, which is clearly a sign from God.

I am posting both of them on Mothers Day. God bless our Moms and all the women who we admire! The women in our lives are our most important signs from God. I hope you listened. Wish I had.


Saturday, May 12, 2007

Speaking as a Former Fetus...

by Dinesh D'Souza - April 23, 2007 - Townhall.com


Speaking as a former fetus, I welcome the Supreme Court's decision permitting regulation of partial birth abortion. Now there's lots of talk about a wider pro-life strategy to build on this victory. Such a strategy must be one of persuasion as much as legislation. I am not an expert on the abortion issue, but I have learned a great deal about it, strangely enough, by studying the Lincoln-Douglas debates. These debates were about slavery. But look at how closely the arguments parallel the abortion debate.

Dinesh D'Souza is right that partial birth abortions must end, however he makes a classic mistake in his look at the abortion debate in this article. It is the refusal to acknowledge that the two sides on this issue are approaching the abortion issue from different extreme views both of which reject history and science. A slave was a person at all times. The argument over abortion cannot ignore the change in status during the process of pregnancy. That difference makes it hard to claim they are similar issues. I am opposed to most abortions. However it bothers me that the people who I most agree with are rejecting the history and science of the issue.

What history am I talking about?

What would you say if I pointed out that for most of the last two thousand years life was not considered to start with the first contact between a man's sperm and a woman's egg (called conception)? This is not in the bible, else it would not have been until the mid 1800s that the church first took any position other than life starting at "quickening", which happens at the end of the first trimester. That is the traditional Christian view, not what is currently claimed by the "pro life" lobby.

The argument that life starts with first contact of an woman's egg and a man's sperm has a murky history however the one thing you can assure is that it is an "interpretation" of the Bible that has only recently found acceptance in the last 150 years. For more than 90% of the time since Jesus lived, Christians did not accept the modern position of the "pro life" lobby. Does that mean that everyone who thought of themselves as Christians before that time are condemned to hellfire and damnation as the "pro life" lobby insists?

The "pro life" lobby also ignores science as well as church history. There is much scientific evidence that supports the premise of the more traditional Christian view (which is somewhat supportive of the "pro choice" view) of when human life starts. The problem starts with the recognition that an egg is already "life", even when still in the mother.

A quick review of the cycles of pregnancy indicates the following: After the sperm and egg combine, the egg travels to the uterus as a zygote, then emplants and transition to the first stages of an embryo. More than half of all zygotes do not emplant. The embryo then goes through several steps that involves the creation of the amniotic sac, the placenta and the umbilical cord. At some point after the 8th week the embryo in the womb starts to transition to a fetus. This transition is complete before the end of the first trimester and the time of "quickening". During this period before quickening happens, more than a third of all embryos end as natural miscarriages. After this point of "quickening" the fetus has a more predictable chance of survival.

How can the "pro life" lobby simply dismiss this natural phenomenon as supportive of the idea that the soul does not exist prior to "quickening"? Do they really think that God would kill two thirds of the souls he creates with such an unfair and predictable end? During the zygote-embryo stages in the first trimester, the "pro choice" lobby has powerful logic on its side that neither a zygote or an embryo is a person yet. The "pro life" argument is no more compelling than their saying "we reject history, logic, science and the Christian community's traditional interpretations of the Bible and demand that you accept our opinion despite our refusal to acknowledge we have a very weak and very recently invented case for our side".

During the second trimester the fetus develops steadily and around the beginning of the third trimester the fetus reaches "viability". It should at this point be considered a baby, and have the rights of a child. From this point on the "pro life" lobby has overwhelming logic, history and science on its side. Any rational person has to agree that if a baby is viable outside the womb it has to be called a person.

Only the stupid resistance of the legal community to abandoning the long term legal definition of acquiring the status of "baby" and personhood by emergence from the mother's womb creates the problem agravated by the Supreme Court's decision in Roe V. Wade and Danforth that abortion is a right all the way to birth. It is also sad that the scientific and medical community uses the legal definition and refuse to call it a baby until it is "born". Recent scientific discovery has proved that the brain waves of the child after viability cannot be differentiated from the brain waves of a new born child. It is a child!

The Supreme Court and our legal community will have to at some point recognize that there are two people involved from viability on and the mother cannot continue to be considered to have a right to kill this person (not fetus as they insist) for any reason. After the point of viability, "abortion" is murder as "pro life" supporter's claim. At that point the baby has a soul as surely as anyone else alive. The "pro choice" lobby and our courts ignore science and logic when they embrace the laughable Danforth premise that despite it being able to live outside the womb we continue to call it a "fetus" which the mother can abort at will. It is also interesting that the original Roe v. Wade ruling actually prohitibited most third trimester abortions. It was Danforth that destroyed that protection.

We thus have a situation where both political extremes reject the historical, scientific and rational view of "life" during one part of this period called "pregnancy". Each side is clearly wrong on a part of the issue

That is why the argument over abortion is not like the arguments over slavery as Dinesh claims. The process of pregnancy really does transition through stages and thus you cannot accept the zygote-embryo-fetus-baby should have the same rights at all stages. You have to win the argument at each of the four stages. Both sides in the abortion debate simply scream at you that you cannot disagree with them and close their minds to anything but the political determination to ram their views that all stages are the same down everyone's throats.

There are a number of Christians who accept the traditional view that life (and the human soul) starts at quickening. We are not evil for accepting this view. Abortion before this point cannot really be argued violates the Bible unless you wish to believe that every Christian before the mid 1800s was an imbecile and could not go to heaven. I don't agree that re-interpreting the Bible is any more valid than re-interpreting the Constitution. Abortion before quickening should be a medical issue between the mother and doctor (however a minor child should not be able to make the decision without parental support).


I do agree with Dinesh that persuasion could be a powerful tool in ending abortions after viability. I even believe that the case could be made so strong that we could get a rational Supreme Court to end the "right" of a mother to kill her child after viability and call it a baby at that point. That is what I would like to see.

However I cannot believe that there is a logical, religious or legal case to deny abortions prior to quickening on the claim that it is already a person. Neither history nor science is on the "pro life" side at that stage of a pregnancy. It is simply a recent "interpretation" of the Bible with little substance to support the simplistic view of life starting at conception.

Those of us who take this middle position are hated by both sides. That is the shame of their extremism, as it leaves no room to end the worst abuses of both sides.

I don't know why both sides cannot agree at least to this much as they will still be able fight over the second trimester for the rest of our planet's existence. Fighting over abortion seems to be their only reason to exist.
I would not want to deprive them of their passionate need to hate the other side.




Thursday, May 10, 2007

How To Lose An Ally

by Robert Novak - May 10th, 2007 - Real Clear Politics

Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe returned to Bogota this week in a state of shock. His three-day visit to Capitol Hill in Washington to win over Democrats in Congress was described by one American supporter as "catastrophic." Colombian sources said Uribe was stunned by the ferocity of his Democratic opponents, and Vice President Francisco Santos publicly talked about cutting U.S.-Colombian ties.

Uribe got nothing from his meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. Military aid remains stalled, overall assistance is reduced, and the vital U.S.-Colombian trade bill looks dead. The first Colombian president to crack down on his country's corrupt army officer hierarchy, and to assault both right-wing paramilitaries and left-wing guerrillas, last week confronted Democrats wedded to out-of-date claims of civil rights abuses and to rigidly protectionist dogma.


One of the key components of the democrat party are labor unions. Labor unions are controlled by their leaders, not their members, and they are militantly socialist. America's number one enemy in the region is socialist Hugo Chavez. Though he hates America, he is popular with democrat party leadership because he is socialist. Uribe is not a socialist, and has proved a moderate opposing the right wing militias in his country. However he comes to the United States at a time of idealogical extremism in the democrat party, and his friendship with America means nothing in the face of his failure to support socialism.

This looks like one more Nancy Pelosi "foriegn affairs" disaster in the making.


Wednesday, May 09, 2007

What is Jihad?

An interesting link.


The CIA Director Speaks

by Debra J. Saunders - May 9th, 2007 - Townhall.com

War critics may want to believe Tenet's beef with Bush reflects the fact the Tenet did not believe Iraq WMDs were a "slam dunk." Wrong. Tenet objected to the Bushies' suggestion that the "slam dunk" answer provided "the seminal moment for steeling the president's determination to remove Saddam Hussein and to launch the Iraq war." As Tenet wrote, the "slam-dunk" meeting occurred in December 2002 -- three months after Bush told the United Nations that Hussein should remove or destroy his WMD, and two months after Congress voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq. Tenet will accept the blame for WMD intelligence that turned out to be wrong -- but not for nudging Bush into war.

This is a prefect example of how our national dialog has become corrupted. The public is duped about what is being said by a liberal press with a duplicitous agenda.

George W. Bush apologized for including the reference to British Intelligence believing that Iraq sought yellow cake in Niger in his state of the union address. The press turned this into a supposed admission that Iraq did not seek yellow cake and Bush lied. In fact Bush merely apologized for including it in the speech because it had not been properly vetted. That subtle difference was lost in the bombardment of lies from the liberal press. British intelligence still believes that Iraq did seek yellow cake. There is still strong evidence Iraq did. However using that as a factor in going to war is unacceptable to liberals including their minions in the press. So both what Iraq did and the truth about what Bush apologized for have been totally misrepresented. The public thinks George Bush apologized because Iraq did not seek yellow cake. That impression is totally wrong.

A new lie is being created as we speak. George Tenet is now being portrayed as not having believed that Iraq had WMDs. That is not what his book says. The claim in his book is that he disputes the comment was the compelling argument that changed Bush's mind about going to war. The problem for the press is simple. They have portrayed the argument for so long that Bush never had any doubts and that he arranged the war, they cannot now acknowledge that there was a process by which Bush logically determined that it was necessary to reactivate the war with Iraq (we were at war since 1991 and only had a cease fire which Iraq constantly violated . . we were already at war when Bush went into Iraq).

So the press has changed the meaning of what Tenet said in his book to conform to their agenda. They are bragging that Tenet now agrees with them that Bush did not use a logical process to decide to go to war and are attacking Tenet for being a part of the group that knew there were no WMD. The press argues he said it to give Bush cover for his manipulating us into war. That is totally false.

This discussion is bizarre. The White House is arguing that Tenet's comment was a deciding factor in Bush's decision process. Tenet is saying it was not the deciding factor but that he believed they had WMD. FYI, what we learned in Libya's later surrendered Nuclear Bomb program proved that Iraq was still working on Nuclear Bombs secretly. However the press continues to insist Iraq had no WMD, was not seeking them, Bush knew this, Tenet knew this . . . and they both lied. There are three totally unrelated arguments being presented to the public in a way that it is almost impossible to follow what is being said.

From comments made by some friends who have been following this controversy, what Tenet said (as noted above) and what it means, are simply not a part of the pubic discussion. Bizarre is the only word that can describe the current state of the discussion.

Who can make sense of the discussion when the three parties are not even talking about the same thing? When is the press going to help understand what is happening instead of intentionally obfuscating the truth?


Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Joe McLaughlin Opposes
Walter Jones

Joe McLaughlin started a two day tour through the 3rd Congressional District of North Carolina to launch his candidacy to represent that disctrict. Joe will oppose Walter Jones, the incumbent, in the Republican Primary next year.





Joe's first stop was in Greenville, at the Veterans Memorial in the Town Park behind the Courthouse, and the pictures included here are from that stop. Other locations inclulded New Bern, Beaufort, Moorehead City, Jacksonville, Wilson and Goldsboro.

Rumors of the growing opposition to Walter Jones have been rampant in recent weeks. Some of the reasons were covered in the speech Joe McLaughlin gave at the various stops.






Joe McLaughlin, "I'm here today to tell you . . . that I am officially announcing my candidacy for the United States Congress. "

"I seek the Congressional seat currently held by Walter Jones. This has been a tough decision . . . . . but the man we sent to Washington over 13 years ago is someone I no longer recognize."

"Walter Jones' willingness to vote with the liberals against virtually every major anti-terror piece of legislation has made him a poster boy for the left. In fact the liberals justify their positions by pointing to our own Congressman."

"In recent weeks, Walter has again sided with the left by voting to deny reinforcements for our troops in combat, to establish a schedule for surrender and to override . . . [the] veto of this declaration of defeat."




My own frustration with Walter Jones started because he keeps touting his dedication to Christianity, something that he always puts in every speech. However it is starting to wear thin for those of us who think Christianity in our nation is important. Someone who keeps having to remind us that he is a Christian is perhaps forgetting that such bragging was an act that Jesus himself spoke against. I don't trust Walter Jones any more. I don't know how anyone can.

If you have any questions, you can contact Joe McLaughlin by calling (252) 723-8958.

Joe McLaughlin Bio

Joseph R. McLaughlin was born September 16, 1954 in New York City where his father was serving in the United States Coast Guard. Joe spent his youth traveling while his father’s duties as an officer carried him to several East Coast ports.




Joe has been married for 24 years to the former Sherrill Ann Baucom of Charlotte, NC, who is a Registered Nurse at Onslow Memorial Hospital in Jacksonville. They have 3 children, with son Matt being a recent graduate of N.C. State and daughters Colleen and Caitlin, both attending White Oak High School.

Joe received a Presidential Appointment to the United States Air Force Academy. Joe graduated from the Academy and, due to vision requirements to fly, volunteered for a commission in the United States Army. His first duty assignment was the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg. Over a decorated military career, Joe served in a wide range of command and staff assignments in infantry, airborne and mechanized units in Georgia, California, Korea and Washington, D.C.

Joe also earned a Master of Science from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California and was a graduate of the Army Command and General Staff College in Leavenworth, Kansas. Upon his retirement in 1994, Joe settled in Jacksonville, NC where he works as a financial advisor.
Joe is currently serving in his second term on the Onslow County Board of Commissioners and is now seeking the Republican nomination for North Carolina’s District 3 Congressional seat.


Monday, May 07, 2007

Shortest Of Honeymoons

by Mark Steyn - May 7th, 2007 The New York Sun

[This article is Mark Steyn's prediction that the election of Nikolas Sargozy is not going to change the French desire for socialism.]

In my recent book, whose title escapes me, I cite one of those small anecdotes that seems almost too perfect a distillation of Continental politics. It was a news item from 2005: A fellow in Marseilles was charged with fraud because he lived with the dead body of his mother for five years in order to continue receiving her pension of 700 euros a month.

She was 94 when she croaked, so she'd presumably been enjoying the old government check for a good three decades or so, but her son figured he might as well keep the money rolling in until her second century and, with her corpse tucked away under a pile of rubbish in the living room, the female telephone voice he put on for the benefit of the social services office was apparently convincing enough. As the Reuters headline put it: "Frenchman Lived With Dead Mother To Keep Pension."

Think of France as that flat in Marseilles, and its economy as the dead mother, and the country's many state benefits as monsieur's deceased mom's benefits. To the outside observer, the French give the impression they can live with the stench of death as long as the government benefits keep coming.

Steyn is talking about France. Yet if George Bush can successfully tout his socialism based "compassionate conservative" philosophy while representing the conservative party, how long will it be before America is as stagnant and weak as France? Who would have thought that the Republican Party would become socialism light? On the other hand, all signs are that most Republicans are sorry for the diversion into the welfare state and are ready to come back to libertarian-conservatism, the philosophy of Ronald Reagan.

Steyn in this article is very negative on France despite the election of Sargozy. Steyn predicts that France will never actually take actions to re-invigorate their economy. At least for now, I choose to have more optimism. I think the election of Sargozy is a good sign and in line with the return to sanity of the Republican Party.



Saturday, May 05, 2007

The Dark Side of Diversity

by Patrick Buchanan - May 1st, 2007 - Townhall.com

Almost no attention has been paid to the fact that Cho Seung-Hui was not an American at all, but an immigrant, an alien. Had this deranged young man who secretly hated us never come here, 32 people would [be] heading home from Blacksburg for summer vacation.

[snip]

Many immigrants do not assimilate. Many do not wish to. They seek community in their separate subdivisions of our multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual mammoth mall of a nation. And in numbers higher than our native born, some are going berserk here.

I do not agree with many of Patrick Buchanan's solutions to our nation's problems. However I cannot dispute that he is more honest than most about defining the problems we have that need to be solved.

Since the 1960's the democrat party has been actively trying to end the concept of America as a melting-pot and substitute their new concept of America as a salad bowl or a quilt (even they cannot quite decide what the new term will be). They have actively worked to bring in foreigners and block their assimilation into our culture, starting with a common language. They have worked to encourage cultures that were assimilating to stop and develop along separate lines. Blacks have been encouraged to develop their own language, ebonics, in furtherance of this democrat goal of diversity.

The problem? Diversity destroys the reality of a nation when parts of the nation's residents reject the national identity for a cultural identity that is in opposition in even small ways. The following is an interesting quote that proves this problem has been going on for some time. Do you know who said it?


There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism… We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as anyone else.

The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities [or cultures], an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English- Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian- Americans, or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country.

The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land [or culture] plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here. . . .”

It was President Theodore Roosevelt, on October 12, 1915. Almost 100 years ago. The only thing that has changed is that the majority of Americans agreed with his words then. It is troubling but the majority of Americans do not agree today.

In the Buchanan
article I quoted at the top Buchanan lists a large number of the foreigners who have killed Americans due to their alienation from our culture. In vastly disproportionate numbers they have killed wantonly with no apparent reason. They do not hate us for any reason other than they feel their culture is superior to ours and violently reject us. The majority of democrats agree that other cultures are superior to ours. I am uncertain as to why democrats have this self loathing that translates into a loathing of their own nation and a belief that the culture of others is superior, but to deny that is true of most democrats is dishonesty.

Democrats invented the concept of diversity to pander to groups that were opposed to our country and make them an integral part of their coalition of voters. The thread that holds together their quilt of many pieces is the thread of socialism. It is this thread of opposition to the concept of freedom and free enterprise that holds the democrat party together. Outside their party, diversity is a wedge that is destroying our nation.

The twin evils of diversity and socialism must be opposed and defeated or Theodore Roosevelt's prediction will come true, "The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities [or cultures] . . . "

We are unfortunately well on our way.




Friday, May 04, 2007

Images Of Oppression

by Fred Thompson - May 4th, 2007 - Townhall.com

A new study from Johns Hopkins University indicates that, since the Taliban was ousted five years ago, Afghan infant mortality rates have improved dramatically. Every year, more than 40,000 babies live that would have died under Islamofascist tyranny -- and the statistics are still improving. The main reason, according to the study, is improved women's access to medical care.

Some people, including World Bank health specialists, say infant mortality rates have improved far more than the Johns Hopkins study shows --


Three thoughts come to mind when I read this article.

First, Fred is right when he suggests in this article that the people who oppose the war are ignoring the oppression women experience in Muslim countries. This is oppression they claim they are the strongest opponents of when it happens anywhere but in a muslim country.

Second, our troops are not just fighting a war over there to keep us safe over here in America. They are at the same time changing the lives of millions over there in the process, but that does not mean that is their primary motive.

Finally, Fred Thompson is starting to indicate with this series of articles in townhall.com that he has the same knack for explaining things in human terms that Ronald Reagan had. He is also being clear and honest just as Reagan was too. Note the way he calls Islamofascism . . . Islamofascism . . . something that our President and most of the other candidates just can't seem to do. I hope these are his own thoughts and not ghost written. I hope that his ability to communicate is backed by a true understanding of the serious problems we are facing in America today. These articles are an interesting way of campaigning though!


Rewriting History

by Charles Krauthammer - May 4th, 2007 - Washington Post


The most powerful case for the war was made at the 2004 Republican convention by John McCain in a speech that was resolutely "realist." On the Democratic side, every presidential candidate running today who was in the Senate when the motion to authorize the use of force came up -- Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd-- voted yes.

Outside of government, the case for war was made not just by the neoconservative Weekly Standard but -- to select almost randomly -- the traditionally conservative National Review, the liberal New Republic and the center-right Economist. Of course, most neoconservatives supported the war, the case for which was also being made by journalists and scholars from every point on the political spectrum -- from the leftist Christopher Hitchens to the liberal Tom Friedman to the centrist Fareed Zakaria to the center-right Michael Kelly to the Tory Andrew Sullivan. And the most influential tome on behalf of war was written not by any conservative, let alone neoconservative, but by Kenneth Pollack, Clinton's top Near East official on the National Security Council. The title: "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq."


That history is the reason that many of us who believe this war is necessary if our children are to live in freedom get so angry at the "let's quit the war brigade". Their arguments are simply lies.

Libya is the proof that this is still a race to stop the Islamofascists from getting nuclear arms before the middle east is turned into a less totalitarian dominated set of countries. If we had not invaded Iraq, Libya would not have surrendered their program. In that case Libya, Iraq, Iran and even Syria would have joined Pakistan as nuclear muslim states already. If we fail to stop this nuclear threat, our children are going to reap the nuclear holocaust that we avoided during the cold war.

What do you think is going to happen here inside America when the first nuclear bombs start to go off? Do the appeasers really think that the retaliation blood bath will not start with them?


Thursday, May 03, 2007

Decker Case Is A Signal To Black

by Jack Betts - Arpil 29th, 2007 Charlotte.com


When [Judge Dever] laid down the law Friday and sentenced former state Rep. Michael Decker to four years in prison for instigating the worst corruption scandal in modern state history, his lecture on the devastating costs of dishonesty in public office and his sermon on the evils of greed for money and power were riveting.

Former House Speaker Jim Black wasn't in the courtroom, but Dever made it clear he believed Decker and Black conspired in a three-year scheme to defraud their legislative colleagues, hoodwink voters and betray a tradition of honest service when Black bribed Decker to switch parties and support him for speaker.


A couple of the issues that were decided by this legislative perversion?

1. We now have a lottery that we would not have had if Michael Decker and Jim Black had not colluded to cheat the voters.

2. The Legislative reapportionment that resulted from illegally throwing control of the legislature into democrat hands has resulted in redrawing disrtict lines in such a fashion as to give democrats a dozen more seats than the percentage of voters they win would justify. The current makeup of the legislature is thus a perversion of the voters intent.

How can anyone think that such injustice can stand and have anyone believe in representative democracy? If the legislature's votes can be bought and sold, even to the extent of gerrymandering districts to perpetuate an illegal farce keeping one party in power, then a citizen's vote is a meaningless joke.

A News & Observer editorial calls it . . .

A high price...

With Black able to buy Decker's vote, both Black and the Democratic Party salvaged a hold on power in the state House for an entire legislative session. That certainly influenced the fate of legislation, and since some of that legislation involved a redistricting scheme that put Republicans at a disadvantage, the influence of this corrupt bargain could prove to be long-lasting.


The price may be citizen respect for democracy itself.




Advice to the Reagan Lorn

by Craig Shirley - May 3rd, 2007 - Townhall.com

[That title is horrible!]


. . . who really was the man that commands so much reverence from the GOP faithful and their leaders?

Reagan was an utterly charming, articulate and kind man. The witty and graceful man Americans saw in public was the same man in private, unlike so many phony politicians of today. His staff adored him. But this is not the only thing that made Ronald Reagan unique and beloved by millions. He said what he meant and meant what he said and was always clear in what he said. Reagan was a man with an absolute belief in his ideas but he was principled not rigid in his ideas. He learned from experience and applied those new ideas to policy through his principled framework of anti-communism, less government and more freedom.

[snip]

Reagan also had a strong libertarian streak and as late as 1975 was still describing himself as a "libertarian conservative." A close study of Reagan's writing and speeches reveals that Reagan would have been very dubious about Republican passed legislation that has trampled on the First Amendment including McCain-Feingold and the Patriot Act. Acting on principle and courage, Reagan opposed California's 1978 Proposition 6 to ban homosexuals from teaching in public schools.


The efforts Reagan put into that last effort resulted in the creation of the "Log Cabin Republicans", an organization that is still not understood by those who condemn all Republicans as racist homophobes.

I think it is interesting that many who are Reagan and Goldwater admirers are themselves sometimes remiss in appreciating the very strong libertarian streak that colored both their views of politics. It is the reason that people like Patrick Buchanan can call themselves Reagan supporters all they want, much of their agenda would be rejected by Reagan. They are misleading and dishonest when they invoke Reagan as their guide.

One thing I am sure of though. The socialist agenda of George Bush's "compassionate conservatism" would never have been embraced by the freedom (and free enterprise) loving Ronald Reagan.