April 09, 2009

"Here's to You Mr. Jefferson"

 

 

A rallying song if ever there were one, it's a very well-done redux of the '60's Simon and Garfunkel classic "Mrs. Robinson" with a turbocharged lyric revamp for our times.

 

 

 

While I do not always agree with Ron Paul and his followers or endorse them, this song and video are spot-on. We can certainly coalesce for this message.

 

 

Posted by Martin at 02:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 23, 2008

Senator Lugar Hints at Support for "Fairness Doctrine"

 

 

Senator Lugar meets with me and other WAC members (Photo courtesy of World Affairs Council)

 

 

Last week I and other World Affairs Council members had the chance to meet with Indiana Senator Richard Lugar at the Capitol.

 

During our visit with the Indiana Republican on 7 November, he seemed to offer his support for a revived “Fairness Doctrine” tailored to target only one viewpoint – that of the comparatively modest talk radio industry. On the topic of such legislation, Lugar seemed sympathetic to the significant hostility among the left towards what he called “irresponsible” “right wing” radio, using catch-phrases right out of the Idiots Guide to Liberalism, intimating that talk radio was somehow a rogue entity that merely stirred up the common people to the consternation of all-knowing legislators. (Nevermind the rogue entity on Capitol Hill that is attempting to usurp the Constitution.)

 

Senator Lugar first greeted each of us and was extremely friendly and cordial, before taking his usual seat (now that the Democrats are in power) next to where the Committee Chair would sit in the Senate Foreign Relations committee room. As we each grabbed a chair – I wound up with the honor of holding down the chair of the genuinely conservative Senator David Vitter of Louisiana. Senator Lugar then gave us a quick run-down of things like the international financial crisis, his own biography, and the in-coming administration before taking questions. During much of this, much that was said was nothing notable or new. The senator is indeed a truly likable man and I must say I can see why, politics aside, he has been as successful in the Senate as he has been. Unfortunately, beyond personality and congeniality, the Senator and millions of Americans part ways – and do so on numerous issues. Lugar, who voted in favor of an amendment in the 2007 Defense Authorization bill sponsored by Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman that would have killed such a censorship doctrine’s revival, is also known, as a Rockefeller Republican for among other things most recently ganging up with Ted Kennedy against the American people during the Amnesty war of 2006. Now that it seems safe for him to do so, he appears to be reversing his position on the so-called “Fairness" Doctrine as well.

 

Senator Lugar meets with me and other WAC members (Blogbat)

 

Lugar’s language was strong and even harsh as he laid out the argument in favor of conservative radio censorship, as if he were a schoolmaster educating his children about the danger of alligators and why we need to trap them. As he sat in his seat sipping water from a glass with an emblem that read, “United States Senate”, Senator Lugar seemed to offer what was hardly a fair and balanced assessment of the state of media bias of his own. Instead, he seemed to ape the utterly false meme that talk radio was some giant politically unified monster for which there was no real counterweight. But wait, isn’t the mainstream media, which includes most of the cable news and broadcast radio news and all of broadcast news on television, print media, and entertainment? And more alarmingly, what of the blatant leftwing bias we see throughout the very newswire services that every news organization liberal and conservative must heavily lean on for its news? No word from Mr. Lugar there.

 

Sadly, the only part of media Senator Lugar expressed interest in muzzling is just a tiny sliver of media in toto; a tiny rock in a giant leftwing media ocean liberal viewpoints found in mainstream media. Indeed, conservative radio was created and became popular as a means to somehow modestly counter the prevailing leftwing bias in all other media, and, based on this election, still has a ways to go before even doing that.

 

Meanwhile, the liberal media continue to lecture viewers and listeners, shoving the leftwing worldview and even choice of candidates down the throats of those who turn on their show, buy their CDs or pay to see their movies. And MSM is eerily silent and unwilling to report any of the events concerning the new proposed censorship doctrine, despite the tremendous noise made by Democrats and particularly Obama’s transition team. Indeed, accounting to Pew Research, 70% of Americans believed mainstream broadcast news media favored Obama in the last election; the same news media that has been losing massive amounts of readers and viewers over the past several years. In fact, if trends continue, MSM would surely succumb to alternative media and just be another voice among many, rather than the unfair doctrinaires that they have been for decades. That’s likely, much more than any other reason, why MSM was so much more aggressive in its advocacy for Barack Obama than even they were for John Kerry – by 20% or more over 2004, based on opinion polls on the perception of liberal bias. Thus this past election may one day be dubbed by historians as the Mainstream Media Preservation ACT of 2008.

 

Yet, Senator Lugar lacked any criticism for the type of Goliath-like demagoguery for which the comparatively tiny conservative radio industry came about as a response; nor did Senator Lugar comment on what 70% of Americans of all political stripes believes is a problem in mainstream television and print news media; that is, its overbearing leftwing bias. Worse, rather than being forthright to the public about his true feelings, he lets them seep out among those he assumes may be sympathetic to his views. I’m afraid you read the room wrong, Senator Lugar.

 

 

The Fairness Doctrine, the government, the People, and free speech an historical context:

 

It now seems there is a gulf betwixt the effete few who have forgotten they serve at the People's pleasure and the People for whom the Constitution was established and the Constitution and the People for whom those serving hold their temporary  legitimacy to serve. That gulf is probably best expressed in light of these two very competing views of whence original powers flow:

 

In the midst of the pitched battle over amnesty for illegal aliens and in the face of millions of phone calls and e-mails from the People telling the senate where it could put its amnesty, Pennsylvania Rockefeller-Republican Senator Arlen Specter pounded the lectern in the Senate, as I saw with my own eyes, and decreed as if an oligarchic despot, "The will of the Senate will prevail!" Shortly thereafter began rumblings of re-instating the "Fairness" Doctrine even before Republicans were unceremoniously booted out for their arrogant and childish part in scamnesty, in order to punish the People for daring to interfere with what the Senate hath deemed would be our national policy on immigration.

By Contrast, America's Founding Father Thomas Jefferson summed up Americanism in this simple, yet powerful statement: "The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object." I don't know about any of you, but I much prefer the America of Jefferson over the America of snotty little fat-cat spoiled brats who seem to think their senate paychecks, the state dinners, and all the props of the chamber are their right and that we, the People, should mind our Ps and Qs. It's time to remind the Senate that its members should be well-mannered and well-heeled at all times.

 

 

RELATED: Attention Francis Fukuyama: Maggie's Notebook deecries the end of democracy with a worldwide trend against free speech toward authoritarianism.

 

 

UPDATE: Maggie's Notebook just posted a piece on the "Fairness" Doctrine and has linked to the post you're now reading and posted some great information including how to contact Senator Lugar and others who need to be reminded of their humble station.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by Martin at 09:22 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

June 06, 2007

D-Day: A 63 Year Old Lesson

 

 

Today we remember those who fought valiantly for freedom in a way like no other. A moment vivid in our minds because it was the moment in which the good nations of the world came together for once to stand up against tyranny, oppression, and brutality. Unlike the desperate struggles of tiny democracies fighting alone for their own survival or a people seeking the dignity denied by their own government while those on the outside capable of doing something instead did nothing; while good nations of the world tarnish their faces by standing by, the war against Nazi tyranny was an allied struggle united and determined in the moral authority of its actions. And so it and they prevailed. Good will eventually triumph when good determines to do so, but how much greater that triumph when good men do not fight their battles alone, but stand shoulder to shoulder in doing so.

 

Today we honor those who went before us and who paid the ultimate price at Pointe du Hoc, who on this day, D-Day, paved the way with their own bodies the road that led Europe to justice and democracy; who laid down their own dreams to provide a way for the people of Europe to realize their dreams of justice and liberty and a life with a future. May God bless these valiant heroes, both the ones who fought and died, and the ones who fought their way to Berlin. May we each remember their individual sacrifices even as the Free World considers the righteousness and long term historical benefits of standing up for a cause just and merciful.

 

“For the Lord will not cast off forever…(nor) turn aside the justice due a man…or subvert a man in his cause – the Lord does not approve.” – Lamentations 3 

 

 

The following is a video featuring a portion of General Dwight D. Eisenhower’s famous D-Day speech; thereafter a speech equally famous by President Ronald Reagan at Pointe Du Hoc commemorating the 40th Anniversary of D-Day, 6 June 1984. The videos are followed by the full text of President Reagan’s speech.  

 

D-Day Slide Show

  

Video courtesy easycompany16

 

Pointe du Hoc

 

Video courtesy JoeBoy6209

 

 

 

Remarks at a Ceremony Commemorating the 40th Anniversary of the Normandy Invasion, D-day

 

June 6, 1984

President Ronald Reagan

 

We're here to mark that day in history when the Allied armies joined in battle to reclaim this continent to liberty. For 4 long years, much of Europe had been under a terrible shadow. Free nations had fallen, Jews cried out in the camps, millions cried out for liberation. Europe was enslaved, and the world prayed for its rescue. Here in Normandy the rescue began. Here the Allies stood and fought against tyranny in a giant undertaking unparalleled in human history.

 

We stand on a lonely, windswept point on the northern shore of France. The air is soft, but 40 years ago at this moment, the air was dense with smoke and the cries of men, and the air was filled with the crack of rifle fire and the roar of cannon. At dawn, on the morning of the 6th of June, 1944, 225 Rangers jumped off the British landing craft and ran to the bottom of these cliffs. Their mission was one of the most difficult and daring of the invasion: to climb these sheer and desolate cliffs and take out the enemy guns. The Allies had been told that some of the mightiest of these guns were here and they would be trained on the beaches to stop the Allied advance.

 

The Rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers -- the edge of the cliffs shooting down at them with machineguns and throwing grenades. And the American Rangers began to climb. They shot rope ladders over the face of these cliffs and began to pull themselves up. When one Ranger fell, another would take his place. When one rope was cut, a Ranger would grab another and begin his climb again. They climbed, shot back, and held their footing. Soon, one by one, the Rangers pulled themselves over the top, and in seizing the firm land at the top of these cliffs, they began to seize back the continent of Europe. Two hundred and twenty-five came here. After 2 days of fighting, only 90 could still bear arms.

 

Behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the Ranger daggers that were thrust into the top of these cliffs. And before me are the men who put them there.

 

These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war.

 

Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender's poem. You are men who in your ``lives fought for life . . . and left the vivid air signed with your honor.''

 

I think I know what you may be thinking right now -- thinking ``we were just part of a bigger effort; everyone was brave that day.'' Well, everyone was. Do you remember the story of Bill Millin of the 51st Highlanders? Forty years ago today, British troops were pinned down near a bridge, waiting desperately for help. Suddenly, they heard the sound of bagpipes, and some thought they were dreaming. Well, they weren't. They looked up and saw Bill Millin with his bagpipes, leading the reinforcements and ignoring the smack of the bullets into the ground around him.

 

Lord Lovat was with him -- Lord Lovat of Scotland, who calmly announced when he got to the bridge, ``Sorry I'm a few minutes late,'' as if he'd been delayed by a traffic jam, when in truth he'd just come from the bloody fighting on Sword Beach, which he and his men had just taken.

 

There was the impossible valor of the Poles who threw themselves between the enemy and the rest of Europe as the invasion took hold, and the unsurpassed courage of the Canadians who had already seen the horrors of war on this coast. They knew what awaited them there, but they would not be deterred. And once they hit Juno Beach, they never looked back.

 

All of these men were part of a rollcall of honor with names that spoke of a pride as bright as the colors they bore: the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, Poland's 24th Lancers, the Royal Scots Fusiliers, the Screaming Eagles, the Yeomen of England's armored divisions, the forces of Free France, the Coast Guard's ``Matchbox Fleet'' and you, the American Rangers.

 

Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet, you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief; it was loyalty and love.

 

The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge -- and pray God we have not lost it -- that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

 

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.

 

The Americans who fought here that morning knew word of the invasion was spreading through the darkness back home. They fought -- or felt in their hearts, though they couldn't know in fact, that in Georgia they were filling the churches at 4 a.m., in Kansas they were kneeling on their porches and praying, and in Philadelphia they were ringing the Liberty Bell.

 

Something else helped the men of D-day: their rockhard belief that Providence would have a great hand in the events that would unfold here; that God was an ally in this great cause. And so, the night before the invasion, when Colonel Wolverton asked his parachute troops to kneel with him in prayer he told them: Do not bow your heads, but look up so you can see God and ask His blessing in what we're about to do. Also that night, General Matthew Ridgway on his cot, listening in the darkness for the promise God made to Joshua: ``I will not fail thee nor forsake thee.''

 

These are the things that impelled them; these are the things that shaped the unity of the Allies.

 

When the war was over, there were lives to be rebuilt and governments to be returned to the people. There were nations to be reborn. Above all, there was a new peace to be assured. These were huge and daunting tasks. But the Allies summoned strength from the faith, belief, loyalty, and love of those who fell here. They rebuilt a new Europe together.

 

There was first a great reconciliation among those who had been enemies, all of whom had suffered so greatly. The United States did its part, creating the Marshall plan to help rebuild our allies and our former enemies. The Marshall plan led to the Atlantic alliance -- a great alliance that serves to this day as our shield for freedom, for prosperity, and for peace.

 

In spite of our great efforts and successes, not all that followed the end of the war was happy or planned. Some liberated countries were lost. The great sadness of this loss echoes down to our own time in the streets of Warsaw, Prague, and East Berlin. Soviet troops that came to the center of this continent did not leave when peace came. They're still there, uninvited, unwanted, unyielding, almost 40 years after the war. Because of this, allied forces still stand on this continent. Today, as 40 years ago, our armies are here for only one purpose -- to protect and defend democracy. The only territories we hold are memorials like this one and graveyards where our heroes rest.

 

We in America have learned bitter lessons from two World Wars: It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent.

 

But we try always to be prepared for peace; prepared to deter aggression; prepared to negotiate the reduction of arms; and, yes, prepared to reach out again in the spirit of reconciliation. In truth, there is no reconciliation we would welcome more than a reconciliation with the Soviet Union, so, together, we can lessen the risks of war, now and forever.

 

It's fitting to remember here the great losses also suffered by the Russian people during World War II: 20 million perished, a terrible price that testifies to all the world the necessity of ending war. I tell you from my heart that we in the United States do not want war. We want to wipe from the face of the Earth the terrible weapons that man now has in his hands. And I tell you, we are ready to seize that beachhead. We look for some sign from the Soviet Union that they are willing to move forward, that they share our desire and love for peace, and that they will give up the ways of conquest. There must be a changing there that will allow us to turn our hope into action.

 

We will pray forever that some day that changing will come. But for now, particularly today, it is good and fitting to renew our commitment to each other, to our freedom, and to the alliance that protects it.

 

We are bound today by what bound us 40 years ago, the same loyalties, traditions, and beliefs. We're bound by reality. The strength of America's allies is vital to the United States, and the American security guarantee is essential to the continued freedom of Europe's democracies. We were with you then; we are with you now. Your hopes are our hopes, and your destiny is our destiny.

 

Here, in this place where the West held together, let us make a vow to our dead. Let us show them by our actions that we understand what they died for. Let our actions say to them the words for which Matthew Ridgway listened: ``I will not fail thee nor forsake thee.''

 

Strengthened by their courage, heartened by their value [valor], and borne by their memory, let us continue to stand for the ideals for which they lived and died.

 

Thank you very much, and God bless you all.

 

 

 

Note*: The President spoke at 1:20 p.m. at the site of the U.S. Ranger Monument at Pointe du Hoc, France, where veterans of the Normandy invasion had assembled for the ceremony.

 

Following his remarks, the President unveiled memorial plaques to the 2d and 5th Ranger Battalions. Then, escorted by Phil Rivers, superintendent of the Normandy American Cemetery, the President and Mrs. Reagan proceeded to the interior of the observation bunker. On leaving the bunker, the President and Mrs. Reagan greeted each of the veterans.

 

Other Allied countries represented at the ceremony by their heads of state and government were: Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands, King Olav V of Norway, King Baudouin I of Belgium, Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg, and Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau of Canada.

 

* Note courtesy of the University of Texas presidential speech archives.

 

 

 

Posted by Martin at 11:42 AM | Comments (0)

January 14, 2007

Reagan: A Time for Choosing

 

 

Address on behalf of Senator Barry Goldwater

Rendezvous with Destiny

October 27, 1964

 

Parts of this speech were posted December 02, 2004 on this blog. The full text of this speech can be read below. The ideas in this speech as articulated by President Reagan are at the core of what this blog is all about (the quote of his on the banner at the top of this page is from this speech). In today's murky political waters, it's a necessity to remember what our principles are in the clearest possible manner. This is certainly an older speech by contemporary definitions; men and nations do fade, but ideas remain constant.

 

 

 You-Tube video credit: JohnJ2426

 

Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.

 

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used "We've never had it so good."

 

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend $17 million a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We have raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations in the world. We have $15 billion in gold in our treasury--we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are $27.3 billion, and we have just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

 

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it has been said if we lose that war, and in doing so lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well, I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

 

Not too long ago two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are! I had someplace to escape to." In that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

 

You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

 

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a "greater government activity in the affairs of the people." But they have been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves--and all of the things that I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say "the cold war will end through acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says that the profit motive has become outmoded, it must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state; or our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century. Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the president as our moral teacher and our leader, and he said he is hobbled in his task by the restrictions in power imposed on him by this antiquated document. He must be freed so that he can do for us what he knows is best. And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government." Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me--the free man and woman of this country--as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"--this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

 

Now, we have no better example of this than the government's involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming is regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we have spent $43 in feed grain program for every bushel of corn we don't grow.

 

Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater as President would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he will find out that we have had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He will also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress an extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He will find that they have also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.

 

At the same time, there has been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There is now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can't tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.

 

Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but who are farmers to know what is best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.

 

Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights are so diluted that public interest is almost anything that a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes for the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The President tells us he is now going to start building public housing units in the thousands where heretofore we have only built them in the hundreds. But FHA and the Veterans Administration tell us that they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosures. For three decades, we have sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency. They have just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over $30 million on deposit in personal savings in their banks. When the government tells you you're depressed, lie down and be depressed.

 

We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they are going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer and they've had almost 30 years of it, shouldn't we expect government to almost read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

 

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater, the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we are told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than $3,000 a year. Welfare spending is 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We are spending $45 billion on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you will find that if we divided the $45 billion up equally among those 9 million poor families, we would be able to give each family $4,600 a year, and this added to their present income should eliminate poverty! Direct aid to the poor, however, is running only about $600 per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

 

So now we declare "war on poverty," or "you, too, can be a Bobby Baker!" Now, do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add $1 billion to the $45 million we are spending...one more program to the 30-odd we have--and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs--do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain that there is one part of the new program that isn't duplicated. This is the youth feature. We are now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps, and we are going to put our young people in camps, but again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we are going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person that we help $4,700 a year! We can send them to Harvard for $2,700! Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

 

But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who had come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning $250 a month. She wanted a divorce so that she could get an $80 raise. She is eligible for $330 a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who had already done that very thing.

 

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we are denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we are always "against" things, never "for" anything. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so. We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

 

But we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those who depend on them for livelihood. They have called it insurance to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified that it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is $298 billion in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble! And they are doing just that.

 

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary...his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee $220 a month at age 65. The government promises $127. He could live it up until he is 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now, are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis so that people who do require those payments will find that they can get them when they are due...that the cupboard isn't bare? Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

 

At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provisions for the non-earning years? Should we allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under these programs, which we cannot do? I think we are for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we are against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program was now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road.

 

In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate planned inflation so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents' worth?

 

I think we are for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we are against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among the nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think we are against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in Soviet colonies in the satellite nation.

 

I think we are for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We are helping 107. We spent $146 billion. With that money, we bought a $2 million yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenyan government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought $7 billion worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

 

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth. Federal employees number 2.5 million, and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force is employed by the government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury, and they can seize and sell his property in auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier overplanted his rice allotment. The government obtained a $17,000 judgment, and a U.S. marshal sold his 950-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work. Last February 19 at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-time candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that's exactly what he will do.

 

As a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration. Back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his party was taking the part of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his party, and he never returned to the day he died, because to this day, the leadership of that party has been taking that party, that honorable party, down the road in the image of the labor socialist party of England. Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? Such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment. Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men...that we are to choose just between two personalities.

 

Well, what of this man that they would destroy? And in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear. Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well, I have been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I have never known a man in my life I believe so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

 

This is a man who in his own business, before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan, before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provided nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by floods from the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

 

An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas, and he said that there were a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. Then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such," and they went down there, and there was this fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in the weeks before Christmas, all day long, he would load up the plane, fly to Arizona, fly them to their homes, then fly back over to get another load.

 

During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There aren't many left who care what happens to her. I'd like her to know I care." This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life upon that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelessly send other people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all of the other problems I have discussed academic, unless we realize that we are in a war that must be won.

 

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us that they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer--not an easy answer--but simple.

 

If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based upon what we know in our hearts is morally right. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion now in slavery behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace--and you can have it in the next second--surrender.

 

Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face--that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand--the ultimatum. And what then? When Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he would rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin--just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it's a simple answer after all.

 

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." There is a point beyond which they must not advance. This is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits--not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

 

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

 

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

 

Thank you very much.

 

 

 

Source: The Reagan Foundation

 

More can be found from the President here.

 

 

 

Posted by Martin at 04:48 PM | Comments (1)

January 08, 2007

Blogbat Video: All Bow to the Corporate Plantation

The present reality of morality in business & foreign policy in which we find ourselves

 

 

This video montage (3.5 min.) shows the faces of the victims – those who’ve lost their lives on both sides of the border to the juggernaut of open borders that was designed to provide cheap labor to unethical businesses and keep their partners in office. The montage uses both American and Mexican advocates as sources for the information and images it contains. The song, “The Good Dancer” is by Lisa DeBenedictis from her “Tigers” album.

 

In the post below this video, I expand on what is rather admittedly sardonically touched upon in the video. I hope it’s helpful in understanding the possibly somewhat strange position that has been developing as I have slowly walked about the elephant, touching him as I’ve gone, examining the true nature of the animal and comparing it with what others have discovered. The first step is knowing it’s an elephant, and just one at that.

 

Sources:

Immigrationshumancost.org

laprensa-sandiego.org

wehirealiens.com

 

 

 

  

 

Is the democracy clock ticking backwards toward the old plantation oligarchies of the 19th Century and before? Are most American businesses or politicians bad? With respect to the latter, certainly not. I am among the most in favor of free-enterprise, as are many others, so long as it obeys the rules of the Judeo-Christian ethic; that ethic is what informed the American Founding Fathers and was the system by which all freedom to say nothing of freedom of commerce could exist at all. Only when men would restrain themselves could there exist a system in which a government need not rule with an iron fist. Of course, this ideal has never been followed to perfection since men are far from perfect; however, there was by far much adherence to the principle and progress it seemed toward a greater degree of adherence to those founding principles was being made.

 

Today a lot of ordinary people are suffering as a result of the wholesale abandonment of the values that were once defined as “American values” (before the public schools ripped that idea out of their books), and as a result what we are seeing today both within the US and by transnational corporations (TNCs) founded in the US is something to a far greater and sadder degree than witnessed at any time in US history prior to the 20th Century. Not only are Americans dying as a result of a lack of ethics and morality in business and government in a way that makes the Ludlow Massacre look like a picnic, Mexicans and other foreign nationals are becoming the new de facto plantation slave labor, paid at rates far below living wages with little ability to escape once they’ve fallen into the trap. Indeed, factory workers are being exploited around the world by American companies such as Dell and Nike with harsh conditions and slave-wages, even as future US foreign policy woes are being manufactured at a faster rate than the products themselves.

 

As CNN’s Lou Dobbs and others have pointed out numerous times, there is an unholy clientist alliance between a number of politicians in Washington and Mexico City with equally corrupt and unethical members of the business community and other elitists. Since the nature of power is self-preserving, it has been suitable economically as well as politically to disrupt the stability of the middle classes of the two countries (or to further disrupt, as in the case of Mexico since 1982) which pose the biggest threat to such power.

 

It seems therefore beneficial to have poor and middle class Americans pitted against their Mexican counterparts even as neither gets what they need so that the political power and status of the above-mentioned remains unopposed in any significant way.

 

Two long-time tactics anti-democratic in spirit as used in Mexico by its PRI Party but more often apparently favored in many respects as popular courses of action in Washington have been “accommodation,” the prima facie responsiveness of politicians to public concerns with no real follow-through (e.g. Congress passing a bill to build a border fence but not allocating sufficient funds to do so); and “co-option,” hijacking the causes of dissident groups by watering them down with accommodation, side-tracking (offering dissident members positions which appear to offer progress, but do little more than pigeon hole them), and (more typical in Mexico) infiltration.

 

This does not represent a battle of classes though; rather it is a battle of morality versus immorality, with witting and unwitting members at all economic levels. As such, it is increasingly important that ordinary citizens in both countries become aware and unite against the profound lack of morality informing decision-making at every level of business and government today, which threatens real opportunities for the poor and middle class in both countries. Even as Mexico has among its millions some of the poorest in the world, it also has the highest per-capita number of millionaires of any country in the planet, with a huge and widening gulf that separates them. That gap only promises to increase (and has trended just so) both in Mexico as well as here in the US. The end of the open-border, slave-labor game as envisioned by its powerful advocates and apathetic followers is the economic leveling out of the US and Mexican general populations not at any high-water mark, but at a much lower level. In other words, it will not bring Mexicans up to a higher living standard, it will only drive Americans down to a lower living standard. Since any real power among the US citizenry – the conscience of its government – will evaporate, so too will any check on the dealings of US interests in Mexico, which will only guarantee increasing exploitation of the Mexican in Mexico. Of course, the politicos will be happy because they get to keep their power as they continue getting fat campaign contributions from unethical businesses and elites who will in turn be happy to get ever-fatter bonuses at the expense of their underpaid employees.

 

All of this has been a horribly unfolding tragedy, rotten and almost Putinesque   to its core, and the ordinary citizen is the only real obstacle that has any potential of standing in its way. To draw an analogy from Tiananmen, if we want anything better for the next generation, we had better start standing in front of a few tanks.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by Martin at 05:31 AM | Comments (1)

November 30, 2006

To the Success of our Hopeless Cause!

Тунеядство!

 

 

Asking the question what will Putin do to stop the unstoppable samizdat movement in Russia and elsewhere in the near-abroad, he may wish to consider the inherent danger of taking on the people.

 

This video is dedicated to the countless dissidents who fought the bear and won, living to tell about it and overcome all odds to make the hopeless cause a fait accompli. Interestingly, the Moscow Helsinki Group just celebrated its 30th anniversary this year, as noted on the U.S. State Department website.

 

Putin and his friends would do wise to take notice. As history has shown, when they kill a man his ideas multiply ten fold.

 

I put together another YouTube piece today, loaded with quotes from former dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The song, “Nas Ne Dogonjat” translates to “Not Gonna Get Us”. I’m not a huge fan of T.A.T.u., but I thought this one would work. English lyrics here.

 

 

 

RELATED:

 

No surprise here: Putin may suspend Russian constitution and run for third term (no doubt with more fixed election results to come in this “managed democracy”.

 

Russian citizens put livelihoods and lives on line to protest against Putin and for human rights in Moscow.

 

 

 

PREVIOUS BLOGBAT POSTS:

 

More-on the Putintate Putz: Radiating the Love

 

Ode to the Putintate Putz

 

 

BLOGBAT POSTS PRIOR TO THIS WEEK:

 

Soviet-Era Intelligence & Ideology (Part I)

 

Soviet-Era Intelligence & Ideology (Part II)

 

The Life and Times of a Puny Putintate Putz

 

Russia: Secrets Well-Ignored and Poorly-Kept

 

Russia: Oil Slick of Contradictions

 

Let’s Talk About the Axis of Oil

 

Moving Forward on the EMP Threat

 

Most Muscovites Say US Ally, Not Adversary

 

Putin Deplores Collapse of USSR

 

Wormwood: The Moscow Legacy

 

The Axis of Oil

 

Russian Oil

 

Axis of Oil: Village of the Damned

 

Russia: Pensions, Poverty, and People-Herding

 

 

Posted by Martin at 07:48 PM | Comments (1)

November 21, 2006

The Case Against Breaching the Levee

 

 

Remember when I said that the wishful thinking of Henry Kissinger and his followers would be the (only) thing to set us up for defeat in Iraq just as it was in Vietnam, thereafter enabling them to declare to the world the fight was un-winnable? Well, well, well. How timely my post on Kissinger was, wasn’t it?

 

LONDON -- Military victory is no longer possible in Iraq, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said in a television interview broadcast Sunday.

 

Kissinger presented a bleak vision of Iraq, saying the U.S. government must enter into dialogue with Iraq's regional neighbors – including Iran – if progress is to be made in the region. (AP/Washington Post)

 

And in case you wondered if he had changed or learned a thing since Vietnam: "I think we have to redefine the course, but I don't think that the alternative is between military victory, as defined previously, or total withdrawal." No, we prefer mire much better.

 

As I said in my previous post, it’s no doubt largely because among Rockefeller/Nixon Republicans “no mediocre deed goes unrewarded.”  But I imagine it’s tough staking out any good territory after liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans have taken all the good ones; you’re sort of stuck with being in the middle of the road with only the long yellow stripe and some road kill to keep you company.

 

A rather cheeky piece today in Newsday by James Pinkerton titled “Henry the Cold Warrior: ‘I’m Still a Player’” I think explains Kissinger’s rationale best (hint: it isn’t any real concern for world affairs – so nothing’s changed). Speaking in an imaginary Kissinger voice, Pinkerton explains:

 

Some observers might note I am changing my tone - and they would be correct. In September, Bob Woodward's big book, "State of Denial," revealed that I was a "powerful, largely invisible influence on Bush's Iraq policy." What was I telling the White House? My line then was, "Victory is the only meaningful exit strategy."

Did I believe what I was saying then? Not really. But it's what George W. Bush and my old pal Dick Cheney wanted to hear. My words made them happy, getting me back in the White House, where I am happy - a win-win! And my influence was "invisible," of course, until it became visible in Woodward's book. Gee, I wonder how that happened? Chalk up more billings for Kissinger-McLarty Associates: Big clients want to be assured that I'm still wired into Washington power. […]

 

Thirty-five years ago, when [James] Baker was a tennis-playing lawyer in Houston, I traveled to Moscow and Beijing to work out a public "peace with honor" for the Vietnam conflict - although privately, to be sure, I called it a "decent interval" until we lost. And I had the same idea when I told the BBC that we had to "redefine the course" in Iraq, short of victory.

Now Baker has the same kind of decent interval in mind - I guess he wants a Nobel, too. Can't blame him for that.

But first, I have to get myself back in the middle of the Iraq debate. Which I have now done, thank you very much.

 

 

Dr. Kissinger’s ideas of course were so successful in Vietnam, he fully believes we should ply them again here.

 

And what’s next for this band of Judases? Dr. Kissinger, President Bush, Secretary Baker, Senator McCain and some others are stepping up to move aggressively forward on this Union of North America idea, regardless of how many eggs it breaks. But even the most ardent internationalist who also cares about democracy and the plight of the people would want to openly debate and evaluate the merits each step along the way. No bother for this team however. Mit volldampfen voran!

 

They champion among themselves the notion that by stepping out to simplify North America we are breaking new ground and moving into the future; that the American people will like it once they get used to it. But shouldn’t a free society be free to debate something which will so radically alter its future? Or are we only free to debate such things when the outcome is assumed to be the one desired among some? Again one has to wonder what more moderate internationalists have to say, to say nothing of Americanists.

 

To be fair to Bush, Kissinger, Willie, and the Boys however, probably none of them are pushing this hard-court press because they mean harm, they just aren’t too stellar in understanding the complexities of governmental and international affairs. And the populist pulse can be difficult to detect living behind the ivory curtain. They are hopelessly flat-footed, but even more to the point, flat-earthed. And their great idea of internationalism will, as Samuel P. Huntington1 put it, run headlong into insurmountable differences between vastly entrenched civilizations, namely Western, East Asian, Muslim, but others as well. Since the Kissinger Republican and internationalist is uninterested in religion or ideology – and obviously not democracy, the single thing which could unify such cultures, as Aung San Suu Kyi has pointed out, is no longer in play. Nature abhors a vacuum, does it not? Believing that economics will fill it is hollow in the greatest sense, and worse only plays to the strangely similar hollow ideology of communism; materialism to materialism. Their misguided belief that nationalism causes all wars and misery and that internationalism will cure all, and a belief in change with no popular and deeply meaningful raison d’etat, illustrates a sad ignorance or disregard for history. At least if they want things to last beyond their generation.

 

For what the Kissinger team sees as a new idea is actually so old, history records it numerous times, and on that point Kissinger must surely be forgetting one or two of them. In point of fact, internationalism has been tried ad nauseum and it collapsed precisely because it disconnected government with the needs and will of the people. Today’s EU, after which the Kissinger internationalists wish to model North America, is already suffering a de-popularization of the notion of union because the EU government as yet has still not put in place any democratic mechanism for the European people. As such, the more tightly integrated Europe becomes and the more each state cedes its sovereignty, the less the European people find they have a say in the affairs which affect them. It is a fact that such a cycle of history however has ebbed and flowed down through the ages in some form or another consistent with the technology and knowledge of political theory. We tend to emphasize the nuances and give each period a different title, but in reality there’s much more of a pattern which deserves understanding.

 

The last great example of great Western internationalism was the Holy Roman Empire under Charlemagne, under which local governments ceded their sovereignty in the hope the new Empire would bring peace and stability to the region. But time revealed that the expansive, centralized government could not address the needs of the people. Instead, it served to merely fatten its elite. It soon fell to what Westerners consider today the nationalist era. Before the Holy Roman Empire of course there was a form of nationalism – localized provinces in Europe run by local authorities, who fought over territory, enjoyed localized dialects, customs, and even religions. And there were great wars between various alliances, as there are today. Before those times were the times of the original Roman Empire, and before that another fracturing of localized control which followed Alexander’s Empire from Greece. Indeed, as Solomon once said, there is nothing new under the sun. All that has been done will be done again, and what will be has been. The only truly innovative thing to come along was the founding of the United States and the ideas and ideals built into it. Ideas that President Bush apparently wants to see return to just those: disembodied ideas. Intangible in the backward momentum and therefore unthreatening to the mediocre, the fence-sitter, the principally directionless.

 

 Internationalism, in fairness, had and has with it some good ideas, but as power often does without democratic constraints, it corrupts and goes too far. In that context we should remember that it is no accident that democracy and nationalism began sweeping the West at the same time, nor was it that the great thinkers Locke, Hobbs, Paine and others came forward to articulate that need. The people were rising up, declaring themselves to be the state. And, if a similar large-scale North America Union were a spontaneous movement of the people – particularly the middle class, educated in what it meant for them, we would be dealing with a different set of circumstances. But unfortunately, this is a top-down movement foisted by elites against the people, without regard for who gets crushed in the process, to which no person whether a reasonable internationalist or a nationalist can be expected to stand by without a word.

 

When Americans called and wrote to Washington by the millions because they wanted to block illegal immigration, Bush essentially told them to “eat cake” by sending unarmed National Guard to the border, whom the border patrol then needed to guard, leaving more segments of the border unwatched. But to stave anything, even electorally, like the French Revolution, Bush and his cohorts will soon count on the votes of millions of newly legalized illegal aliens to dilute the water enough to shut the American people out of any say in their own destiny - or simply rely on another election in which the Hobson's choice of dumb and dumber exists. It also through different means is being sought in Canada and possibly in Mexico (though heavy Nationalist elements in Mexico may be only using a weakened U.S. for some good old-fashioned expansionism).

 

The simple fact that there are people in Washington who really believe any worthwhile internationalist world government is just around the corner have some learning to do. They must understand that the vast divergence of cultures, will, ironically, only grow greater the more denationalized and further regionalized they become, if history is our guide. In the process however, we will only get more bureaucracy and less responsiveness to the people than we have today. For the moderate internationalist in the very least, a great deal of work is necessary, both in terms of the slow, natural evolution internationalists believe exists (and which to some extent does, at least on a cyclical basis) and how to carry on democratically regardless. But whether you’re an internationalist or not, we certainly do not need the inept, self-serving leadership coming from the likes of Dr. Kissinger, President Bush, et al. This is a matter of millions of lives, not a summer yachting with a few of your closest friends.

 

  

1 Samuel P. Huntington’s article “The Clash of Civilizations” appeared in the Summer 1993 issue of Foreign Affairs. It is considered the bible among many internationalists. It is not without error however, as Huntington refers to the French Revolution for example, as the first instance of nationalism. Even if one agrees nationalism began in that time period, Huntington shouldn't have ignored that other little-known revolution in the Americas waged a few short years earlier. Huntington however rightly points out that ideology and belief systems among ordinary people can cause ordinary people to coalesce and can then lead to nationalism, even democracy. While we approve of such populist mechanisms on Wall Street, apparently it is no longer an acceptable way to get the business of state done.

 

 

MORE here at Right Truth on Bush and "America as an idea" - like dear old grandpa after they pulled the plug: remembered by many, missed by some.

 

 

Posted by Martin at 01:54 PM | Comments (3)

November 07, 2006

Military Not Done with John Kerry Yet...

 

 

My father a West Point graduate ran across this photo that apparently came from a recent Army-Air Force game. The image is posted on a WP alumni website (click to visit site and view larger image).

 

 

 

RELATED:

 

WND Photo: We R STuck Hear N Irak

 

YouTube: The Gaffe

 

WND: Kerry honored by the enemy at communist Vietnamese war museum

 

Blogbat 2004: Kerry's made a bit of a career of embarassment; here's a detailed list of some of his best

 

 

Posted by Martin at 06:56 PM | Comments (2)

Voting 2006

 

 

Done!

 

Posted by Martin at 04:43 PM | Comments (0)

August 24, 2006

Big Terrorism and Immigration Roundup

Smaller tragedies and bigger tragedies

 

 

So much today, so here’s a quick roundup on all matters dealing with illegal immigration, Iran and other terrorist plotters. I think I tie them all together rather nicely, if I do say so. But then again, the fact they do tie together so well did make it rather easy:

 

Iraq then Iran

 

A US General now says there is “clear evidence” of Iranian involvement in terrorist activities in Iraq. As if the shelling of Kurdish outposts in northern Iraq by Iran weren’t sufficient provocation to turn Tehran into the 8th wonder of the world: a lake made entirely of glass.

 

Iran is simply holding up its part of the bargain with Syria on supplying munitions and men against Iraq and Israel. Where did Iran and Syria learn how to better use terrorists as proxy agents in indirect warfare? Well, from the Soviet Union, of course. As for communists and their love of such tactics past and perhaps present, that’s for another time…

 

 

Fairly Unbalanced

 

Courtesy the Daily SmailOur friends at the British rag the Daily Mail have done it again with their slanted coverage of the two creepsters (the ones who look like death-warmed over in the cutsie photo shot the DM arranged) who were kicked off a plane by a unanimous 150 passengers last week. You can read my original post on this here. The Daily Mail, which seems to have a habit of not posting comments by opposing viewpoints, had this to say (inflammatory language noted in boldface, my musings in brackets):

 

Two Asian [used to confuse the reader – the DM means Pakistani – just like the ones arrested in the real terror plot last week] students have revealed their shock and despair after being thrown off a plane because other passengers feared they were suicide bombers.

 

Manchester Umist students Sohail Ashraf and Khurram Zeb, both 22, said they sympathised with nervous travellers, but urged people not to be paranoid about Muslims.

 

"We might be Asian, but we're two ordinary lads who wanted a bit of fun," Mr Ashraf told the Daily Mirror. [Aw, how touching]

 

"Just because we're Muslim does not mean we are suicide bombers." [But when you behave strangely and dress in heavy coats in the middle of one of the hottest summers on record, you get to have some extra attention. Might I also add that the passengers couldn’t know you were Muslim, they just knew you looked suspicious.]

 

The pair were marched off the jet at gunpoint after fellow passengers alerted officials on the flight back from Malaga, Spain. [The DM makes this sound as if they were all but executed by firing squad. I wonder how the DM reports on the treatment of Israeli civilians bombarded by Iranian-donated terrorist missiles. I suppose we’ll need to wait on that one…]

 

 

Border: Catch and Release at an End? Read the Fine Print

 

Associated Press announced with the deceptive headline today that the catch and release program of ICE had been eliminated. Asterisk. Actually, catch and release continues for the vast majority of illegals – Mexican nationals (many of whom are here for criminal reasons or simply to mooch off the system... or be exploited by our ignoble slave-factories). In all fairness to the AP though the deception is really all Chertoff’s et al. The ones to be caught – the now-famous OTMs will be caught and detained… when they’re caught. Unfortunately, if we were to employ any serious effort to catch all of the OTMs intending terrorist behavior, we might wind up straining out all the illegals, and that would be very bad for big business as it apparently strives to make its last big profit before the terrorists shut down the party. The latest figures of course show that over 150,000 OTM’s were caught in the past several months… remember that 2x1 ratio I mentioned here? For every illegal we capture, 2 get in no moleste – and that’s the low estimate. Imagine 350,000 OTMs a year getting into this country (probably bringing weapons caches and everything they could ever possibly want to conduct sabotage, recon, and bloody terrorist acts right here on our soil). And apparently some were sporting al Qaeda-style military arm patches: Fox News and others reported tonight that some arm patches with logos including depictions of 9/11 (seen above) and Arabic scrawl were found in the no-man’s land along the border.

 

But this kind of operation should be nothing new, so why should we respond any differently than the last time militants were crossing our borders:

 

Sandinista guerillas formed the basis for a KGB sabotage and intelligence group established in 1966 on the Mexican US border with support bases in the area of Ciudad Juarez, Tijuana and Ensenada… Among the chief sabotage targets across the US border were military bases, missile sites, radar installations, and the oil pipeline (codenamed START) which ran from El Paso in Texas to Costa Mesa, California. Three sites on the American coast were selected for DRG [Soviet sabotage and assassination units] landings together with large-capacity dead-drops in which to store mines, explosives, detonators and other sabotage materials. A support group codenamed SATURN was given the task of using the movements of migrant workers (braceros) to conceal the transfer of agents and munitions across the border. SATURN’s headquarters was a hotel belonging to a Russian-born agent, codenamed VLADELET (“Proprietor”), in Ensenada fifty miles from the US border in… Baja California. VLADELET’s two sons, both born in Mexico but assessed by the KGB as “Russian patriots,” owned a gas station which was selected as a hiding place for DRGs and their equipment as well as a base from which to conduct sabotage in the United States.

 

(Andrew, Christopher, and Mitrokhin, Vasili. The Sword and the Shield p. 363)

 

 

Now if we can find a whole soccer stadium of Mexican nationals to chant “Osama, Osama, Osama!” during a game against the US team (not to mention the undesirables who protested waving Mexican flags a few months ago right here in the US), I think the terrorists should have no trouble at all finding willing accomplices just as well as the Russians did. Wisdom demands we take notice and take action.

 

 

Borderline National Tragedy

 

Photo Courtesy The TennesseanMeanwhile OTOTMs (other than other than Mexicans) continue on their rampage wreaking havoc on American families. The latest victim: Mary Sadler of Bellevue, Tennessee. Mary was beaten to death by an illegal alien who decided to drop in and demand money. Why not? He came to this country illegally and demanded free healthcare, a free ride free and clear from immigration authorities so Wal-Mart can meet its quota, so why shouldn’t he think he could just walk into a person’s house uninvited and make demands; he already did that once. By the looks of the smashed up interior of the home, it looks as if Mary put up quite a fight. I wonder if some in Washington might call her a vigilante.

 

 

Hopeful Signs on the Business Front

 

Some businesses have begun suing competitors who are undercutting them by hiring illegals. Aside from a good move all around, winning such suits (and some have already been so resolved) will then provide something to go on for any federal investigators who might for once be interested in leveling sanctions on unethical businesses. But as good as this news is, don't forget to vote this November!

 

 

Posted by Martin at 02:33 AM | Comments (0)

May 29, 2006

Remember our Heroes

 

 

The Old Flag

H.C. Bunner

 

Off with your hat as the flag goes by!

And let the heart have it say;

You're man enough for a tear in your eye

That you will never wipe away.

 

You're man enough for a thrill that goes

To your very finger-tips--

Ay! the lump just then in your throat that rose

Spoke more than your parted lips.

 

 

Lift up the boy on your shoulder high,

And show him the faded shred;

Those stripes would be red as the sunset sky

If death could have dyed them red.

 

 

Off with your hat as the flag goes by!

Uncover the youngster's head;

Teach him to hold it holy and high

For the sake of its sacred dead.

 

 

Let's remember those who go to defend our liberties this Memorial Day and every day.

 

Almost every one of us has a story like this one: The son of my godparents and my father’s good friend and fellow West Point graduate Martin Green fell in an act of selfless heroism in Vietnam. Another friend and fellow grad of my father’s was Allen Clark, who lost both his legs during his tour. My father was fortunate (as his family was) to come back in one piece, but there were so many who considered themselves fortunate the moment they knew they were not coming back. And we consider ourselves fortunate they were willing to give their lives to stand between our country and those who would do us harm.

 

May God bless our heroes past and present, who have preserved His blessing on us and this city on a hill for future generations.

 

Please take a moment and show your support by clicking the link to make a donation, send a card, or provide other assistance to our American heroes fighting for us and their families who pray for their safe return:

 

AmericaSupportsYou.Mil

 

 

Posted by Martin at 09:37 PM | Comments (1)

May 18, 2006

Quote of the Day

 

 

When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he strikes before you crush him.

 

– President Franklin D. Roosevelt

 

 

Posted by Martin at 02:32 PM | Comments (2)

May 14, 2006

Borderline Kinky

Texas may be ripe for a popular electoral revolt

 

 

Texas Independent gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman may have just found his ticket to the big time. Up until last week, he was little more than a self-described parody, an iconoclastic comic relief act among a field of plastic Barbie-girl candidates taking themselves much too seriously.

 

But after Kinky’s interview on Fox News this week with Neil Cavuto, he has suddenly been thrust into new territory as the only candidate actually siding with the vast majority of Texans on the need to guard our borders and go after employers who hire underpaid and unlawfully present foreign nationals.

 

During the chat, Kinky was trenchant about the need to rein-in the border crisis, and to bring an end to the cabal of corrupt businesses, corrupt governments (foreign and domestic), and the invading hordes crippling our infrastructure who’ve found common cause against the Texas voter.

 

But is populism a lost art? Sadly as we know, no one else running for governor this year has embraced a remotely pro-border enforcement plan. The Democrat candidate beetles about in pro forma fashion across the state uttering common nonsense like Democrats usually do, the Ex-Republicanis Carol Keeton Strayhorn wants to let us eat her pro-amnesty, pro-open borders cake; incumbent greasy-head RINO Rick Perry still has his finger in the wind to see how much he needs to hewn his rhetoric so he can return to busine$$ as usual after the election. (A former party chairperson in another state – and now the campaign manager for one of that state’s gubernatorial candidates – once asked me if I thought Perry would make a run for the White House in ’08, to which I managed a measured, but truthful assessment despite my sudden queasiness.)

 

But can a maverick such as Kinky be taken seriously? Does he deserve to be?  A populist he may be, but a good strategist that remains to be seen. First, he needs to be able to flesh out some of those agendas he wants to put forward once in office with a realistic plan for meeting them. Anyone can have epiphanies in the shower, but after about the age of 5 it takes a lot more than that to facilitate change.

 

I spoke with Friedman’s office in Ft. Worth Friday. The older gentleman with whom I spoke wasn’t sure how Kinky planned to bring about this saner, enforcement of law in Texas Kinky bellowed on about with Cavuto; nor did he even know as much as I just learned during that brief FNC appearance. The volunteer also didn’t think anyone would know for at least two more weeks since their office would be closed for much of that time ostensibly to convert from signature drive mode to candidacy headquarters mode.

 

Even with the slow beginnings of Kinky Friedman’s independent bid for the governor’s mansion in Austin, he seems to realize he has a better chance this year than for quite some time hitherto in spite of his sputtering start. Certainly, as many analysts have already pointed out, this year looks to be one that favors the unaffiliated (i.e. anyone not present at the scene of the crime). And this won’t change unless conservative Republicans can beat back the Rockefeller Republicans, or at least get the message out that they are on the voter’s side but need reinforcements. Since the aforementioned are lacking in this year's Texas governor's race, whether Kinky can turn the most important issue to Texans (the border) into votes much depends on what he does with it.

 

So while Friedman’s rhetoric was with all candor, a breath of fresh air (alas! Someone out there in the governor’s race hears the people), he doesn’t get off that easily. While his colorful demeanor reminds us of the best of what makes Texas unique – and would fit neatly alongside portraits of governors named Hogg who christened his daughters Ima and Ura; or even miniseries material like Sam Houston – substance, as always, needs to carry the day. Not that Kinky Friedman’s opponents have any either, but Texans do hope to find one candidate this year who does have some.

 

 

Posted by Martin at 11:38 PM | Comments (3)

May 02, 2006

Shop-America Day a Success!

 

 

Here are a few of the items I grabbed while shopping to support America yesterday:

 

I purchased two GlobalSat BT-338 WAAS Enabled multiplatform Bluetooth GPS devices. Aside from being among the best for reception and battery life, these also work with both my Toshiba Portégé M-200 Convertible Tablet-Laptop and XV6700 Pocket PC Phone. Among other items nabbed was also a badly-needed sport-case for the phone, a visit to the car wash (lots of Americans doing jobs Americans will do there yesterday), and of course I filled up the tank.

 

Say, I wonder how many unlawfully present foreigners boycotted their drug dealers yesterday?

 

On another note, but on the theme of toys and gadgets, I’m considering adding a podcasting or similar feature to this blog with updates from time to time. If I do it, I’m going to enlist a lifelong friend of mine to join via telephone as co-host. This will keep it flowing and the subject matter actually interesting, as opposed to just listening to me. I’ll update you as information warrants.

 

 

 

Posted by Martin at 10:37 PM | Comments (3)

May 01, 2006

Make a Run for the Shopping Mall!

 

 

It’s here, kids! Today is our much-anticipated day - without - an - unlawfully - present - Anti-American shirk! It’s time to shop till you drop (and report/boycott any businesses that are closed, of course)!

 

They promise not to show up in public, filling our stores and malls and exposing us to TB, Polio, Cholera, and the language of their conquistador Spaniard masters in Mexico City, and we promise to enjoy a day like the Fourth of July… only with LOTS of shopping.

 

Sure, the jury’s still out on whether the unlawful foreigners will refrain from using our hospitals at our expense, but at least we know they will be saving taxpayers – those who have a right to our system – millions by not showing up for educations intended for Americans and legal aliens.

 

And by the way, let's be clear: today is not a "day without an immigrant"; such language is an insult to those of us whose families came to the United States legally and love this country. Today is a day without anarchists, Sandinista and Shining Path rabble rousers, cowards, sex-offenders, and other America-hating dogs ready to bite the hands of the same administration that feeds them, along with an element of the sadly misguided (res ipsa loquitur).

 

So without further ado, here’s a quick roundup of some of today’s early fun in the blogosphere:

 

Michelle Malkin: José, can you sí what’s wrong with a Spanish National Anthem; Latino Issues dubs the Spanish remix “lyrical hijacking.” Appropriate language considering the weak attempt at economic terrorism our uninvited guests are making today.

 

Angel at Woman Honor Thyself blog has some great posts enumerating our unenforced immigration laws, and why the President and the Senate should learn to enforce them if they plan to continue enforcing any law on any US citizen (which I presume should have more liberty than an alien). She also has a few words about the abuse of American public services, all thanks to the Supreme Court that allows it, an Executive that will not enforce and deport, and a senate that only wishes to fund programs which apologize for our being American.

 

 

Meanwhile Jim Gilchrist and the Minuteman National Blog offer us a suggestion on how to respond to Anti-America candidates this election year asking for your money (in the event corporate contributions and bribes aren’t enough):

 

When you receive solicitations from political parties and candidates who support illegal immigration, may we suggest that you cut and paste the .jpg file into your favorite word processing program, resize it to the size of money, print it out and mail it in. Some of us write on back, "Fake pesos to you, real American dollars to the Minutemen. NO AMNESTY"

 

You can also take advantage and mail copies to your senators and congressmen, even putting this image into your email. We got it in an email!

 

Strong As an Ox blog also has posted some fun for the family... well, actually for making one. Here are a couple of  excerpts on a latina's duty to the fatherland to remain barefoot and pregnant making conquistadoritos:

 

“Maria, it is your patriotic Mexicana duty to make a baby with me tonight.”

 

“Maria, you think I am just a peón, but I am a Reconquistadore, a gallant soldier in the Army of Reconquista. And tonight I want to enlist you in this noble cause.”

 

It gets better, so be sure to check it out.

 

The beauty of course, or the irony if you will, of today’s refusal to show up for work (among illegals that do) is that they end up hurting most their un-American American partners in crime. They are actually causing more justice to befall these employers than the Bush administration would have ever wrought. And on that note, America once again has the last laugh.

 

Have fun and shop, kids!

 

 

RELATED: The Cost of "Helping the Economy" by allowing the invasion to continue c/o a review of Mexifornia at Atlas Shrugs

 

More at Hyscience

 

Report Businesses that hire unlawfully present hostile foreign nationals here and here, and by calling ICE: 866/347.2423. Also try to take pictures (safely) today and tomorrow when the illegals that actually work return to same. This will help demonstrate further what these unscrupulous employers are all about, plus it has a fun psychological effect - illegals and corrupt business owners hate being photographed!

 

 

Posted by Martin at 08:23 AM | Comments (3)

April 17, 2006

A Day Without Americans

 

 

A great idea I ran across today at A Lady’s Ruminations, April 17 has been designated in some areas as “A Day Without Americans”, and it’s catching on fast.

 

The idea is to remind businesses and Congress upon which side their bread is buttered.

 

In a twist of what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul, many are asking, what will it profit big business if it gains 12 million illegals and loses 250 million Americans who spend far more per capita.

 

I agree it’s time we Americans show some muscle, so I’m joining in.

 

As per an idea of a similar flavor I posted last night at Free Republic, I suggest also that we incorporate the following into our daily lives:

 

1. We can begin boycotts or limited boycotts of illegal-friendly businesses, calling them and letting them know what we are doing.

 

2. We can report businesses we know hire illegals to ICE: 866/347.2423

 

3. Remember those flags we had on our cars and wore on our clothing right after September 11? I think we can make a statement of solidarity and patriotism by bringing those back too. It reminds us that we are the majority and we’re standing up for our country. I’m already beginning to see some of this where I live and I can’t begin to tell you how good it is to see it.

 

 

More here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

 

 

UPDATE: A Freeper suggested that on May 1, the day of the scheduled pro-illegal walkouts and boycotts, we go out en masse and spend like crazy.

 

Another Freeper suggested we also make note of which businesses are closed; if they are doing so in solidarity with anti-America foreign nationals, we inform them that they will no longer be receiving the business of Americans.

 

Once Americans flex their muscle, this problem will be taken care of just like any solitary, annoying gnat.

 

UPDATE II: May 5 and June 30 have been selected for our National Days without Americans, to put greedy, unethical business and fatcat pols in their place.

 

Posted by Martin at 09:39 AM | Comments (2)

April 12, 2006

Congress Says, Shut Up and Pay Your Taxes

 

 

Turns out the senate did hear quite well America this past week as the outcry amassed and we demanded Washington secure our borders. In fact, the senate has grown weary of the annoying drone of know-nothing taxpayers attempting to leverage more influence on their public servants than big business and foreign nationals. So the senate has decided to do something about it: It plans to rid itself of the annoyance once and for all.

 

Forget about Campaign Finance Reform, the FEC and the blogosphere, because this puts all of the previous attempts to silence legitimate political speech to shame:

 

While I haven't read through the entire bill yet (it's pretty late), WorldNet daily and others are reporting that the senate has already passed by a vote of 90-8 The Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006 (S.2349, a bill that would effectively stifle the voice of the electorate petitioning the government for a redress of grievences by outlawing the grassroots lobbying of congress.

 

From LifeSiteNews:

 

Johnson pointed out that S2349 which passed the Senate 90-8 on March 29, "would regulate for the first time grassroots activism."  The bill defines 'grassroots lobbying' as "the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to federal officials or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same."

 

"The bill does not start off by regulating all constituent contacts with members of Congress," said Johnson. "But it does adopt that premise that that is a type of lobbying." 

 

 

A house version is currently being adopted and may come up for a vote within a fortnight, and Democrats are said to be trying to insert similar language currently missing from it.

 

"This is really an agenda that certain groups like Common Cause use to restrict grass-roots democracy so certain privileged elites will have more influence on public policy," Johnson told LifeSiteNews, saying he believes Democrats are trying to insert language that restricts grass-roots activism.

 

But of course, yet again it's not just Democrats, as the vote clearly shows.

 

The first to cry foul has been pro-life groups, but conservatives supporting other issues such as border control should take notice. While the left is good at protesting in the street, conservatives generally get their point across in Washington by getting organized and contacting their representatives.

 

While the other parts of the bill designed to reign in gift-giving (it covers a lot of territory) aren't really such a bad idea, the language about grassroots activism could end or severely restrict our rights as citizens (even as foreign nationals march in our streets to a responsive senate), if the final bill goes through committee and gets signed in this form.

 

 

Call or e-mail your US Senator here

 

Call or e-mail your US Representative here

 

Contact the White House here, or by telephone and e-mail:

 

Comments: 202-456-1111

Switchboard: 202-456-1414

FAX: 202-456-2461

comments@whitehouse.gov

 

Posted by Martin at 02:46 AM | Comments (5)

April 09, 2006

Los Diablos de la España

La Raza and the errands of fools

 

 

History’s Revealing Quote of the Day:

 

“This is our homeland, long live The Race!”

 

No, that wasn’t taken from Adolf Hitler’s address from the center of Vienna after the Austrian Anschluss of 1938.

 

The quote instead comes from the conclusion of a speech made today by a member of La Raza in the heart of downtown Dallas.

 

La Raza, of course, is a group of México-loyalists who also claim to believe in the superiority of their “race”. It is important however to note that this sense of superiority does not translate into courage south of the border.

 

In fact, it is probably an overcorrection to the degree of suppression and servitude under those of Spanish descent since the time of the tragically brutal invasion of the gold-hungry conquistadors 500 years ago. Still, members of La Raza remain strangely too uneager to overthrow those "white Spaniard masters” (in Mexico, from Vicenté Fox back to Santa Anna) whom they still serve – and perhaps for good reason: people who protest in Mexico tend to disappear.)

 

As for explaining the extreme anti-Semitism of La Raza, it's simply another puzzling incongruity with the organization. After all, it was the forefathers of the Spaniard conquistadors, the Romans, who oppressed, then tossed Israelis out of their homeland. The return of Isarel it would seem, would be the ultimate reconquista. This lack of intellectual honesty further suggests that La Raza is simply doing someone else's bidding.

 

Thus, we arrive at the term Mexifascist; the strange coexistence of the espousal of supremacist ideas in places where people are more accepting, and the absence of such articulated ideas in places where they would seem to follow in direct response to true maltreatment, seemingly to the benefit of a State from which they came. As can also be seen throughout history, the definition, along with the term racist is fairly well interchangeable with hypocrite and coward.

 

One sign held up in Dallas today read, "You come from immigrants too". This is a good point, but it helps to prove the La Raza crowd in its public discourse wrong: Americans don't hate immigrants; Americans are immigrants. Americans only dislike law breakers. Americans are tolerant, accepting, and generous. Those who love this nation and its laws are successful beyond their forebears' wildest dreams.

 

Loyal Americans of Mexican descent of course have overcome all of the old baggage and were happily living here free and prosperous, by any worldwide definition. They knew all too well that it was the elitist heirs of that yet thriving racist Spaniard tradition – the good ‘ol boy network down south – that made things so unbearable for so many living there. They've seen that America by contrast is Heaven. 

 

And before the conquistador pawns in La Raza began bringing in its thugs, those Americans were confident they had left hell behind forever, too.

 

 

UPDATE: Lady Jane at A Lady's Ruminations blog jotted down some important facts about the Mexifascist myth of Aztlan (looks like "Aryan", doesn't it?) a few days ago. Read up and remember that the Southwest is the new Sudetenland.

 

 

Posted by Martin at 04:58 PM | Comments (0)

April 01, 2006

PLANET MORONIA: Traitors in the Classroom

 

 

The Outrage of the day:

 

KSKY reports a Dallas-area student was suspended Friday morning for flying an American flag as he drove onto campus. Even though several "students" over the past week have brought to school and openly displayed Mexican flags, none of those were disciplined.

 

No doubt there will be legal action and no doubt the school will lose, but it’s everything you need to know about the more-often-than-not anti-American public school system.

 

I ran across this outrageous story when KSKY reported it during one of its newsbreaks this evening. Details are still a little sketchy and so far I’ve found no other information, but I’m sure we’ll hear more about it.

 

It's amazing to me how hundreds if ungrateful and most likely illegal students and Mexi-fascists can fly their "chicken-and-worm" flags without reprisal, either from the school or from law enforcement officials, yet if one patriotic American student - the one student who has a right to be there - displays an American flag, officials scramble into action.

 

Dallas, it's time for a political purge.

 

UPDATE: A Colorado School has banned all flags from its campus. This happened not in reaction to pro-illegal alien students taunting other students with Mexican flags, but only after other students began bringing US flags to class. At best, Skyline High School can only claim it is treating all flags equally; but as we know, all flags don't deserve equal treatment - especially in a government-run and subsidized school.

 

EARLIER POST: Dutch Schools Ban Own Flag for Fear of Offending (February 04 2005). We knew this was coming to America, I suppose. But we'd better fight it and defeat it.

 

Posted by Martin at 02:39 AM | Comments (0)

March 28, 2006

China's Trojan Nukes

Lest another critical matter of security be obfuscated by the illegals’ mess…

 

 

Another critically important national security issue to call our senators and representatives about:

 

Lest we forget, China is poised to take control of scanning inbound overseas cargo entering US ports for nuclear bombs.

 

That’s right, the same communist regime which declared that “War with the US is inevitable” and the same communist regime that threatened to nuke LA (which would no doubt cause a war with Mexico) has been given a green light to be the fox to watch the hen house.

 

Additionally, they will have access to sophisticated detection equipment - equipment they could theoretically figure out how to defeat for other scenarios.

 

The still pro-China-heavy CIA says it has no worries about this, which of course is how you know it's problematic. In fact, there are still many, many in CIA and State who are red-teamers, or those favorable to the regime.

 

Hutchison-Whampoa, a Hong Kong firm run by billionaire Ki Ka-Shing will get the contract to do what is hundreds of times more of a risk to us than the now-defunct Dubai port deal. And with China's (and Russia's) tight relationship with a budding nuclear Iran, could "oops" be the vehicle of plausible deniability that allows an Iranian nuke to enter the country? Even the CIA got this one right in a report to Congress in 2003.

 

Indeed, the beginning of this article from a Chinese publication says it all:

 

The military implementation of the George W Bush administration's unilateralist foreign policy is creating monumental changes in the world's geostrategic alliances. The most significant of these changes is the formation of a new triangle comprised of China, Iran and Russia.

 

 

Hutchison-Whampoa is a PLA robot, catering to nothing more than the strategic interests of the Chinese Communist Party. This is the same company that bribed Panamanian leaders under Clinton’s watch in the 1990’s so that they could gain control of the Panama Canal and the strategic ports and bases located there, from where China could easily conceal short-range nuclear missiles aimed anywhere in the continental US.

 

With this latest deal however, China doesn’t need those missiles anymore. They not only control the Trojan horse, they control the city gates through which it will pass.

 

From Worldnet Daily (linked at top):

 

''Li Ka-Shing is pretty close to a lot of senior leaders of the Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party,'' Larry M. Wortzel, head of a U.S. government commission that studies China, told the Associated Press.

 

U.S. officials also insist the CIA has no security concerns about Hutchison's port operations, which would be supervised by Bahamian customs officers. If the equipment detects any nuclear device, it would set off alarms monitored by Bahamian inspectors [note here that Hutchison Whampoa has done huge business with the Bahamas and in fact has a large operations facility there, so is there too much trust, or, could someone be bribed?] and by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials in Virginia [note this customs oversight is off-site and therefore more vulnerable to having data altered, particularly under an apathetic nose].

 

''The equipment operates itself,'' said Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration said, according to AP.

 

Then why do we need the Chinese?

 

As WorldNetDaily reported in 2003, declassified U.S. government intelligence reports uncovered by the public-interest group Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act portrayed Li's relationship with the Chinese government as close and influential.

 

A U.S. Army South "Intelligence Update" stated, "Li is directly connected to Beijing and is willing to use his business influence to further the aims of the Chinese government."

 

Regarding Hutchison Whampoa's controversial takeover of the Panama Canal, the intelligence report stated, "Li's interest in the [Panama] canal is not only strategic, but also as a means for outside financial opportunities for the Chinese government."

 

Which begs the question yet again, when sanctions and embargos worked against Cuba, South Africa and the Soviet Union why not China? Is greed overtaking good foreign policy? Of course it is.

 

An "Intelligence Assessment" from the U.S. Southern Command's Joint Intelligence Center stated Li "has extensive business ties in Beijing and has compelling financial reasons to maintain a good relationship with China's leadership."

 

In addition, Li was the founder and a board member of the China International Trust and Investment Corporation, or CITIC. In a 1997 report entitled, "Chinese Military Commerce and U.S. National Security," the RAND Center for Asia Pacific Policy reported that CITIC acted as a "shell" or front operation on behalf of China's Peoples' Liberation Army.

 

The Judicial Watch complaint concluded that the billionaire is "an agent of the government of the Peoples' Republic of China."

 

 

This deal must be stopped at all costs.

 

To add insult to injury, some no-doubt leftover Clintonistas in the State Department have decided it would be a smart idea to buy 11 thousand computers from China. Computers of course made with stolen US technology, but that's beside the point. As an IT professional, I can assure you it is bad and it is not the path to good security. The Epoch Times asks if China can sustain an arms race. The answer is no, but we can sustain it for China - and are.

 

The late Chinese dictator Deng Xiaoping once said with respect to it's climb to challenge the United States and defeat her, "We must bide our time and hide our capabilities". But why hide them when so much of Washington is in denial?

 

 

Call or e-mail your US Senator here

 

Call or e-mail your US Representative here

 

Contact the White House here, or by telephone and e-mail:

 

Comments: 202-456-1111

Switchboard: 202-456-1414

FAX: 202-456-2461

comments@whitehouse.gov

 

 

UPDATE:

 

A good related article by Newsmax

 

A question or two from Voteswagen blog

 

 

 

Posted by Martin at 12:37 AM | Comments (0)

March 27, 2006

NFTGJ: On “Preserving a National Spirit and Character”

 

 

That ground-shaking sensation under your feet might well be the United States getting ready to vomit out illegal aliens that have heretofore infected it with so much social sickness and literal disease.

 

Any effort to mitigate losses by the infecting organism at this stage is utterly hopeless, and will neither mitigate nor forestall the host's chosen action.

 

Nevertheless, let’s walk down the path of absurdities a bit and shoot down a couple of the left’s key talking points:

 

- The left has been welcoming the illegal Mexican invasion calling it "diversity" for some time, but it is precisely this invasion which so overwhelms by numbers other groups legally immigrating, that threatens diversity.

 

And we need to call "racist" the red herring that it is. Most, if not all large countries in this hemisphere are made up of white, black, Indian and other groups. Mexico is no different. Unfortunately, Mexico has historically been very racist and run by elite white Spaniards, but this is neither our fault nor our problem. A Mexican is no more a race than an guppy is something other than a fish. Disliking illegal Mexican invaders is no different than disliking annoying Frenchmen, any Canadians who happen to be snotty or an annoying person from New Jersey. The racism charge falls helplessly flat before any thinking person.

 

Despite the fact most sociologists, anthropologists, and other experts since W.E.B. Dubois have agreed there is no such thing as “race”, the left often throws out the term “racist” as if it truly means anything. Of course the argument is that this is really about ethnocentrism. So the argument goes that it is the Mexican culture which makes its people a minority; that the fact these illegals speak Spanish makes them somehow a minority and an endangered species. The difficulty with this of course is that Spanish-speaking people represent the largest language group in the Western hemisphere… nay, the entire world! Minority, my foot!

 

But English is the language of our Constitution and if we lose respect for our language and don’t control the borders along with requiring assimilation by legal immigrants, we deny our children the ability to readily read and understand for themselves our founding documents or other key aspects of our history that have made us great.

 

- On the “doing jobs Americans won’t do” front, we need to admit to ourselves that this is a sick way to treat a symptom – "we" being both our politicians and even those of us opposed to illegal immigration. The problem is that illegals do jobs we aren’t making our teenagers do. Instead, far more of our teenagers than is indeed healthy are driving shiny new cars, buying designer clothes with their parents’ credit cards and learning nothing of character and responsibility – and certainly very little of love of country.

 

If you want to do your kids, and indeed America a favor, send the illegals home… with your teenagers' cars, designer duds, purple hair and tats… and stick your kid in Taco Bell or the local riding stable to clean stalls.

 

Plus if that teen gets into a wreck (in the car the teen pays for) on the way to the job no one wants to do, he or she  won’t get the illegal alien accident exemption, which translates into lower insurance premiums for the rest of us and probably fewer accidents. The illegal alien exemption of course applies to many things, especially in sanctuary cities, but here it’s when authorities give a pass to illegal aliens who cause car accidents by looking the other way, leaving the other driver to pick up the tab.

 

You can read more, including some of the ways our Founding Fathers weighed in on the issue by going here and here.

 

Posted by Martin at 02:08 AM | Comments (0)

December 07, 2005

Moving Forward on the EMP Threat

 

 

Reagan Administration Former Assistant Defense Secretary Frank J. Gaffney Jr. has a new book out. The book, “War Footing: 10 Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World”, describes what Gaffney and numerous other experts are saying is the most serious tactical danger to the future survival of the United States as a sovereign and prosperous nation, let alone a world power. According to the former assistant secretary of defense (see an excerpt from his new book here via The World Tribune), that danger comes from an electromagnetic pulse (EMT) attack, which Gaffney describes as nothing short of an “electromagnetic tsunami”.

 

Frank Gaffney has been traveling the country and doing the media circuit recently and I had the chance to hear him speak in May at the Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Dallas on this subject, along with former CIA director R. James Woolsey.

 

Why would such an attack be the preferred method for an enemy state or organization? In a word: maximum damage with maximum efficiency.

 

Damage: The damage from such a device, if executed properly, would utterly devastate America’s current electrical and electronic infrastructure. Everything from modern cars to computers to heart defibrillators would be internally damaged or destroyed. But never mind this, because so would the power grid and as such there would be no electricity to power these devices even if they were protected from the pulse by hardening or some other mitigating element.

 

Efficiency: The technology and delivery system (and therefore the total cost and investment) in such a weapons system are relatively low. The ingredients include a primitive nuclear explosive device delivered and detonated at about 300 miles above the target (such as the continental United States).

 

The device’s explosion will send ahead of the fireball an electromagnetic pulse sufficient to wipe out most power grids and electronics in the area the size of the Continental United States.

 

And, EMCC (a German electronics testing group) has indicated that since many modern electronic components are no longer shielded by metal form factors but by pastic etc., their components are further vulnerable:

 

Aircraft to road vehicle bodies are increasingly made of plastics instead of metal. A real lightning problem has come up with the substitution of metal hulls with carbon, as protection by the Faraday Cage was lost and lightning induced currents are flowing across cables and electronics: close to all LEMP tests show "positive" results. The photo [ABOVE] shows LEMP test on a sensor cable loom.

 

The delivery system can be something as cheap as any system capable of reaching this altitude, such as an old scud missile (delivered from sea or from one of our nearby “neighbors”), or a cheap satellite (we should be especially concerned about Iran and other less-than-friendly powers around the world and in this hemisphere seeking both to acquire satellite and satellite delivery system technology). Gaffney points out that Iran (often funded and supported by Russia and China incidentally) “In addition to their successful ship launched Scud missile test, the Iranian military has reportedly performed tests of its Shahab 3 medium range ballistic missile in a manner consistent with an EMP attack scenario.” Gaffney also mentioned in May that several former Soviet EMP scientists have been employed by North Korea.

 

For a more limited, but nearly as devastating effect, a single nuke could be flown by small plane or other aircraft over the eastern seaboard (or other important region) with such a bomb on board and detonated, creating a regional catastrophe with nationwide ripples.

 

An even more limited (but still in many ways effective) tactic would be to employ an EMP device over a strategic military asset or ally.

 

More bold would be an attempt to do this over several regions at once. Such a move as this one would be as destructive or more than a single, high-altitude bomb over the US mainland, while also compounding the psychological effect of it (though, at such a point, a calamity of the scale of a national EMP attack would already be too extensive for most to truly comprehend, so the effect would probably only be fully appreciated by historians).

 

Even as Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld speaks publicly about a “lean” fighting force, heavy on electronic technology and light on manpower, Gaffney quotes one Chinese military strategist,

 

As soon as its computer networks come under attack and are destroyed, the country will slip into a state of paralysis and the lives of its people will grind to a halt. (Su Tzu Yun, World War: The Third World War — Total Information Warfare, 2001.)

 

The Chinese and North Koreans are already known to have invested large sums in battlefield applications of EMP technology and the Chinese are also on record at least as far back as 1999 in calling for total, asymmetrical warfare.

 

But even if a nation’s military infrastructure is hardened and survives EMP attacks, if her homeland civilian assets are wiped out, then that military’s ability to fight for any length of time is also eliminated (which is pretty much warfare 101). Troops would soon run out of equipment, parts, weapons and food – and would likely need to be recalled in any event to keep and maintain order in the homeland. In sort, as the song goes, “Turn Out the Lights, The Party’s Over”.

 

Of course, being suddenly relegated to (really less-than) 19th Century status without the benefit of 19th Century infrastructure and with three times the population nationally (and many more times that in urban areas) of our 19th Century great-great-grandparents would wind up killing far more Americans than a single direct nuke attack of an American city. It would probably also pave the way to American vassal status, as undoubtedly we would face a coming loss of sovereignty, our freedom and all which we have built and shared with the world in the way of American ideals to an opportunistic foreign power.

 

The essential fact that the hostile powers with sufficient manpower would not stand still and wait while we re-gathered ourselves should not be lost on anyone. We might be surprised with who suddenly jumps over to that list of hostile powers once there was perceived a mortal wound. For many long-standing allies of weaker status, such a shift in global power would be terrifying and no doubt lead to their silence or even complicity with the subsequent global superiority grabs by the remaining major powers. Whether to be living in the continental US or anyplace else in such an environment might be a Hobson’s choice of high order.

 

But in any case, Gaffney (and others) are right to point out now that a comprehensive strategy must be devised and implemented to prevent an EMP attack here.

 

But we must also help our allies prepare to defend against such an attack. An EMP attack on one of our key allies could also affect us economically and strategically.

 

Such a strategy would include hardening electrical infrastructure and electronics, improving tactical defense and intelligence capabilities and waging an effective diplomacy campaign (this includes an economic aspect, as Reagan understood with the Soviets, and as others have ascribed with respect to all contemporary powers of concern). The question will be whether such a strategy will be implemented in such a way as to discourage (or prevent) such an attack on our territory, assets and interests.

 

 

RELATED

Blogbat Publicitus: Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar Day 2 (24 May 2005)

 

EMP Commission Report Executive Summary

 

Congressional Record: Statement of Dr. George W. Ullrich Deputy Director of the Defense Special Weapons Agency

 

Frank J. Gaffney Jr.'s Bio

 

Asymmetric Warfare - National Defense University

 

China's Space Capabilities and the Strategic Logic of Anti-Satellite Weapons

 

Asymmetrical Warfare Cuts Both Ways

 

For the science bug: A (slightly different and less ominous) application and example of electromagnetic power

 

Posted by Martin at 06:46 PM | Comments (6)

November 05, 2005

Quote of the Day

 Hah, Ahm Jimma Catah

 

This week former one-term malaise president Jimmy Carter was on the news and talk show circuit criticizing Bush for Iraq and obviously still bitter at the “religious right” for his unceremonious expulsion from 1600 Penn Avenue two and a half decades ago.

 

 

The peanut counter’s only noteworthy achievement this week was that he did all of this in a way no former president ever has with his vindictive remarks (which outstripped the only other president who has done this – Bill Clinton) aimed at voters and a sitting president.

 

You would really think when such open hostility and criticism is so unprecedented it would be by a former president of some great success and stature, who would by right be the first to opine authoritatively something about the current head of state and so on. And if you thought that of course, you would be wrong.

 

But lest anyone’s memory be a little foggy on the matter as it applies in this case, perhaps we should do a little word-association. I'll list some words and we'll see what comes to mind:

 

Iran, Afghanistan, Hostages, double-digit inflation, Soviet supremacy, gas lines, unemployment, Panama Canal, malaise, misery index, taxes, welfare disaster.

 

So now we have the concept fresh and firmly in mind to offer a fond reminder of just how wonderful (and by right, the first to criticize anyone for failing at anything) a president Jimmy the Peanut Farmer was. Our quote of the day however is by one man who gave us different words, such as pride, strength, wealth, freedom, Soviet collapse, sovereignty, patriotism, and free-market incentives - and who put our fair peanut farmer forth in a nut shell, the candidate Ronald Reagan:

 

“Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.”

 

Do we need say anything more? Malaise: I know I have fond memories.

 

Posted by Martin at 03:05 AM | Comments (0)

October 08, 2005

Blogbat Publicitus Weekly Roundup

 

 

An interesting week with some newsmakers in Dallas. Beginning with a rally to protect our borders, this week also included run-ins with Karl Rove and Former CIA director R. James Woolsey.

 

Last Saturday was a highly successful Citizens for Immigration Reform demonstration in North Dallas. As such rallies and demonstrations always do, it served well to remind us that the illegal immigration issue is one that has truly been raised by the people – and is a grass-roots movement that will only continue to swell until its goals have been realized. As a sign of our good things to come, I stumbled across a five dollar bill as I got out of my car – (modest, sure, but it helped me pay my tip at P.F. Chang’s later that weekend...).

 

I would say our group was a fairly decent size for something lasting only 90 minutes. The group numbered around 30; however, the support was overwhelming among those walking and driving by - folks of every imaginable cultural stripe, as the case typically is. We even had some of those passing by decide to come and join us.

 

I think one of the things however that really stuck out about this event was just how much it reflected America and how much it really demonstrated that agreement on the need to control our borders is a universal American thing, not a hyphenated-American thing of any kind. We had among our numbers retired citizens, young families, college students and young professionals; Americans of black, white, hispanic, Asian – and other ancestries. We even had two or three very energetic 8-year olds running up and down waving American flags exclaiming "God bless America!" In a nutshell, a true cross-section of Anywhere, America standing up for national security and for protecting Americans from the sex offenders and violent criminals who also are not presently being filtered out at the border. It was a good thing to see, although not surprising when we consider that close to 80% of America knows it’s time to do something about the borders.

 

 

Wednesday I had the chance to attend a Karl Rove appearance before a relatively intimate gathering.

 

Rove, who next week will testify for an unprecedented fourth time before the Grand Jury looking into who leaked the name of CIA spook Valerie Plame, was in Texas to visit prospective colleges with his son. While Rove probably did not "out" Plame, testifying so late in the game of a grand jury investigation could wind up snagging him on a technicality, and it's possible he agreed to testify in hopes of clarifying the details of earlier statements.

 

I found Karl Rove to be a truly gregarious fellow; he spoke conversationally, relating stories of the President’s and First Lady’s fondness for wild game and Jurists named Miers.

 

 

Finally, Friday was spent at the SMU Cox Business School to hear former CIA director R. James Woolsey.

 

Woolsey began his talk by expressing how delighted he was to have been so warmly welcomed at SMU since he was not just a lawyer after all, and someone who worked for the CIA, but also a Clinton appointee at one time to boot.

 

The former director spoke mostly about the strategic implications of Arabian oil and his hopes that one day cars would compete with horses to get their fuel from prairie grass. With the price of gas, I suppose Woolsey’s thoughts could best be summed up by saying that if wishes were hybrids, than beggars would drive.

 

 

Oh, and speaking of prairie grass guzzlers, Thursday I happened to look at a couple of horses to buy (I'm in the market for a good Dressage horse, FYI)… but that’s probably not as newsworthy or as interesting of a thing, so I’ll spare you the details.

 

Posted by Martin at 01:49 AM | Comments (1)

September 09, 2005

Water World Saga: America’s (Or Somebody's) Dumbest Criminals

 

 

 

The news wire is reporting that some illegal aliens in the Katrina path may be afraid to receive aid for fear of being deported.

 

Some may cry that they have a right to aid, and I agree. These illegal aliens are perfectly entitled to aid. In fact, we can offer to give them free transportation back to their home countries where they can receive as much as they want, any time. After all, family values shouldn't stop at the border. If they are dumb enough to stay here and die, then these people are nothing more than suicidal nutcases that no one could help; and that is no one’s fault but their own. Remember, the illegals by definition are breaking the law by being here and that has with it inherent risks and definite consequences –which, by the way, is how it is in every country on the planet, including their countries of origin.

 

Furthermore, if the illegals didn’t get the hint that New Orleans isn’t exactly the best place to hang around right now, then there is no amount of aid that will ever help them (or anyone else refusing to evacuate) in the way that they truly need it: i.e. getting their heads examined.
 

Posted by Martin at 01:11 PM | Comments (0)

Water World Saga: Raising Kanye

Male Dixie Chick gets his comeuppance

 

 

The blue-state media types still may not “get it”, but we Americans were happy to give more of it to them last night anyway.

 

Kanye West, whom you might remember felt it was more important to offend and thereby lose half of the potential donors to Katrina relief the other night by accusing President Bush of hating blacks and sending the guard down to New Orleans just to shoot any black people who did not starve to death waiting for relief than it was to get as many people on board as possible in the relief effort, got his just dessert last night.

 

During a halftime performance to a sold-out captive football game audience, Kanye learned just what the American people, of all stripes, thought of his ridiculous incendiary remarks.

 

Matt Drudge quotes the Boston Globe as saying, "The boos were thunderous and lasted for much of his number." We can only hope Kanye West decides to read Laura Ingraham’s book “Shut-Up and Sing”, and subsequently take her advice.

 

Posted by Martin at 12:36 PM | Comments (0)

September 06, 2005

Surely You Jest

 

 

Many will be remembering Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Some will be holding a prayer service at the Supreme Court today for him.

 

Ironic. I guess religion is only acceptable at the federal level, that way it doesn’t get too close to the people and corrupt their good morals.

 

Posted by Martin at 09:14 AM | Comments (0)

September 05, 2005

A Compassionate State?

 

 

Texas: saturated with around 200,000 American citizen refugees, the state has decided to turn away any additional people forced from their homes in New Orleans. But Texas is not apparently saturated with millions of illegal aliens even as millions more are on their way.

 

What is wrong with this picture?

 

 

Posted by Martin at 10:39 PM | Comments (0)

September 02, 2005

Folks Will Remember This Decade

 

 

This has been a decade of our most bitterly disputed presidential election, the revealing of the largest corporate scandals on record, the worst foreign attack on our soil and now the worst natural disaster in American history. And soon all of this will possibly be followed by the worst energy crisis ever. We are being literally jarred awake as one who falls asleep at the wheel and drives off into the containing wall.

 

And the decade is only half-over.

 

Anyone still like to "party like it’s 1999"?

 

Posted by Martin at 01:49 AM | Comments (0)

July 04, 2005

Happy Fourth!

 

 

May those around the world still oppressed by tyranny and corruption take for themselves the liberty and fortunes endowed by our Creator upon all of us, and which we as Americans have so richly enjoyed for over two centuries.

 

If you missed seeing a fireworks show this year, some video captured courtesy of the Canon S70 isn’t exactly top-quality, but it might be entertaining nonetheless.

 

 

The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America

 

Adopted in Congress 4 July 1776

 

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

 

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

 

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

 

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

 

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

 

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

 

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

 

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

 

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

 

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

 

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

 

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

 

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

 

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

 

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

 

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

 

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

 

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

 

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

 

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

 

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

 

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

 

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

 

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

 

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

 

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworth the head of a civilized nation.

 

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

 

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

 

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

 

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

 

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levey war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

 

- 4th of July, 1776

 

The Patriot’s Library


"What July Fourth Means to Me"

 

Happy Fourth - to all in the world where the Spirit of Liberty has henceforth spread. If she hasn't found you yet, may she do so in goodspeed.

 

 

 

Posted by Martin at 05:08 PM | Comments (0)

May 24, 2005

Blogbat Publicitus:

Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar Day 2

 

 

Today was spent on the Hillsdale information lifeboat with four very distinct and interesting characters: A professor, a research academician, a Paul Revere and a super-cop.

 

Day two got underway early with Larry Arnn’s professorial discussion of the value of wartime statesmanship. Though he rambled a bit, as professors often do, the main point this fan of Winston Churchill was conveyed clearly: without American values (human rights and dignity transcendent far beyond the scope of human law and empowered by the strength of moral clarity and authority), Americans could not have ever hoped to have come so far. Malise Ruthven, on the other hand offered us a more detailed description, as academicians who love research often do of our antithesis and the failing foundries from which it arises. Malise described the form of insanity that comes about when a person holds an unrealistic utopian ideal to which he will stop at nothing to force the world to conform. This, as he points out has been the case in the last century for Nazis, Fascists, Communists and of course Islamofascists. Such an ideal turns a normal German nationalist in the 1930’s into a card-carrying member of the National Socialist Workers Party, for example. He also paid close attention to the meaning of “fundamentalist” as it has been adopted and used in the media in recent history.

 

After breaking for lunch, we assembled once again to hear whether this time instead of the British, the Islamofascists (or Communists) were coming and whether they would come bearing an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) device, capable of completely disrupting modern technology-driven life as we know it. Frank Gaffney Jr. did a superb job of touching on the key areas of concern relating to an EMP event. He first discussed its most effective detonation point and then moved on to defining the three waves within the pulse that would effectively fry personal electronics and power grids. Noting then that such an event would effectively relegate the United States to 19th century undeveloped status, he quickly pointed out it would be also without the benefit of 19th century infrastructure. Cities would be unable to sustain their populations, transportation would be largely unavailable to carry these populations to the country and farmers would watch their crops rot. The point was and is very clear: we must harden our technological infrastructure and it must be a top priority. But in addition to what Mr. Gaffney recommends, I would simply add that those wise among us should also be making some sort of consideration for a short-term low-tech existence in the event an EMP should occur before we are sufficiently hardened or another threat has a similar effect. It has honestly concerned me for some time that we have made some of our most vital things so reliant on electronics even when it was not always necessary. This applies to our military as well. We should be able to still fight even if the enemy turns out the lights – which will be one of the first things a major enemy in battle will attempt. The Soviets of course worked on EMP technology for years before their collapse (and as Frank shockingly pointed out, several scientists who worked on that project then went over to North Korea where they live today). China as well as Iran and certainly Al Qaeda would certainly have a place for this technology and China is additionally working on a strategy (as is North Korea) for taking out our military satellites which would effectively blind much of our operations. And what if such a country were to launch a satellite intended to disperse an EMP over North America? Of course, our biggest concern at the moment is that a rogue ocean barge will fire one of those ubiquitous scuds or an airplane over our airspace and detonate a nuclear payload, causing an EMP event. But the thing I have to ask is why does it take a Frank J. Gaffney Jr. to point this out? Isn’t this just common sense? Give bad man spear, bad man use spear on good man, good man die. Bad man can’t find spear, use rock.

 

We wrapped up the day with R. James Woolsey. Truly a man of many hats, his forceful and plainspoken speaking style caused me to imagine an intellectual cop, if such a thing exists (though he also seemed to have a softer side for public lauding). Woolsey of course drew comparisons between Islamofascism and Nazism, both respect to outcome and the breeding grounds which foment such things. He rightly points out that America has had a history of sending the wrong message to our enemies who inevitably attack us because they have fallen into the belief that we are weak and wince at conflict – though Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto, who was well-acquainted with the American experience after having studied here, knew that Japan would not come out too favorably after the US war machine began to churn. With respect to our previous wars, Woolsey considers this war more similar to the Cold War than World War II, both in duration and in strategy. But I suppose this only depends on the relative size of a given flashpoint.  

 

This was an interesting and enjoyable seminar and I’m thankful to Hillsdale College for providing these speakers along with some fantastic food and company. Yesterday I nearly ran out of business cards and met so many fine, wonderful people (today I came prepared with twice as many cards in my pocket). I was also impressed with the number of home school families present, their children preparing to attend Hillsdale or already attending. What a wonderful resource this event, as well as the school are for these families. During the course of my time I also learned that the children of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard B. Myers were home schooled before attending Hillsdale. One of his daughters in fact recently graduated the college among the top 5 of her class. Not bad for an Air Force brat by any stretch!

 

For those interested in receiving full copies of the speeches from this week's event, contact Hillsdale College which may make available written copies or video at some point. These speeches are also often included in the school's magazine Imprimus available via free subscription or online.

 

Related:

 

Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar Day 1

March 30: Details of the National Leadership Seminar in Dallas

 

For further information on EMP:

 

EMP Commission Report Executive Summary: http://empcreport.ida.org

Washington Times Op-Ed: National Paralysis

 

 

 

Posted by Martin at 09:26 PM | Comments (0)

May 23, 2005

Blogbat Publicitus:

Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar Day 1

 

 

Speaking to us tonight was noted and almost always eloquent commentator George F. Will, who offered to us some interesting observations on the life and times of nation building, the key ingredients thereof for other countries and those that have gone into our own.

 

Will said that the road to a democracy china - and Iraq etc. was one which lead simply down the way of economic prosperity since, as he stated, trade and commerce promote civility and civility is the antithesis of war. It was by implication that this method was really the only ingredient necessary, as Will cited US policy toward China since the Nixon days forward as proof in the pudding. But he seems to overlook the obvious, which is that the pudding is still in the oven. As Will himself pointed out, quoting Leon Trotsky – “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you”. This can also apply to the fact that a well-fed crocodile is merely a stronger crocodile tomorrow who still wants to eat you. Clearly, what is needed alongside any economic development is moral development among private citizens and within their government – for it is disregard for human rights and a love of corruption which squelch long-term development. Whether Will simply did not play this up sufficiently is up for debate, but he did seem to realize a common morality and civility were key factors in the building of the US from the time of its inception. Will rightly pointed out that long before we had the economic and political revolution in the late 18th century, we had a moral and cultural one. And I suppose that even George Will realizes this on some level, for during the course of his speaking in this vein, he posited whether the Iraqis will prove to be at such a point in history or not.

 

In describing what he thinks has made America great – he points out with absolute accuracy that not only was commerce necessary - he cites the important role of Alexander Hamilton in that development - but a deep sense of morality. And he is right, but this also must be the case in order for despotic regimes such as China to come around. Indeed a great part of the success in West Germany after World War II was not only the introduction and growth of commerce but the moral turning and renewed sense of conscience and respect for human rights and civility that protected and allowed for an environment in which just commerce could flourish along with the great wealth it produces not just for the elites, but also for the average man or woman – as true long-term evidence of democracy. Without morality the strong by rule of nature abuse the weak and in that you will have one form of bondage or another, but rather equal be it commercial fiefdom or communism.

 

Will also fielded several questions from the audience, including ones on the matter of illegal immigration. Sadly here, he seemed to feign ignorance of the real issue: illegal immigrants rather than immigrants in general are what most Americans find objectionable from a moral standpoint as well as a national security and infrastructural one. This issue of course is the one the average American has no trouble distinguishing but many in Washington and New York etc. as well as academia and even the Pew Research Center seem not to luminously understand (hat-tip to Cam Edwards for the Pew story). Finally after being pinned down by a direct question about the legality and morality of illegal immigration by a third member of the audience, Will seemed to backpedal from the strong-arm avoidance tactic and admitted he believed illegal immigration as opposed to legal immigration was wrong and that borders should be strengthened – and even almost slipped and used the “S” word – as in “sealed”. But this took a lot of arm-twisting to bring him to acknowledge the distinction and it might be also said his overriding romanticization of illegals was no sign encouragement for those of us who still realize a sever blindness has stricken many on the east coast, who are as yet apparently unaware of the necessary common sense clarity available apparently only to those on the “front lines” at present.

 

But Mr. Will is an enjoyable commentator in person as he is elsewhere whether he presents his ideas in spoken form or written. And even though he may be wrong or failing to fully convey his beliefs on a few matters it certainly was good to hear from him tonight.

 

Tomorrow we will be hearing from  Larry P. Arnn (who also addressed us this evening as well) discussing “Statesmanship in Wartime”. Larry is president of Hillsdale College. After Larry Arnn Malise Ruthven will be speaking. Malise is an expert on comparative religion and author of A Fury for God: The Islamist Attack on America. He will be discussing the Origins of Islam. After lunch we will be treated to hearing from Frank Gaffney Jr., founder of the Center for Security Policy as he talks to us about “Meeting the Domestic Terror Threat”. Judging by an interview with a local (Dallas) radio talkshow today, this will probably deal in some large measure with the growing concern for Iran’s deployment of an electromagnetic pulse (or EMP) device. The dangers of EMP’s of course are something about which former CIA director R. James Woolsey has spoken and written over the years and no doubt will come up for discussion when Woolsey closes out the event by speaking to us concerning “The Long War of the 21st Century: How We Must Fight It”. We’ll have more on all of this at the end of the day, as it were.

 

Related Post March 30: Details of the National Leadership Seminar in Dallas

 

Posted by Martin at 11:58 AM | Comments (1)

May 11, 2005

Notes from the Garden Journal: Capitol Pill

Common sense security for Washington officials during times of war

 

 

Maybe it’s time to ask ourselves: why do we not already have a common underground bunker for certain government officials, civilian employees and press.

 

Too expensive Compared to what? We already know that a terrorist attack might include provisions for intercepting the mass of people pouring out of and gathering around the Capitol, the White House and the Supreme Court. These three targets present three of the best such in Washington – not merely for their cosmetic symbolic value, but for the real impact such an event would have on disrupting the operation of government. And how much more so the case if a majority of legislators in particular were killed? So ultimately it is more likely even an average terrorist attack would be geared toward maximum kill over maximum cosmetic damage - and who can calculate the cost of that? This is war, is it not – and we should be doing what any serious party must in order to protect its assets rather than sitting helplessly as they naively stream out onto public streets and then wait like sitting ducks.

 

We have good security I agree – and this will probably keep out the muggers who overrun the rest of the city. But a few shot guns will not stop a serious, well-planned onslaughtparticularly if they arrive via air or road or both.

 

Impractical In a war which might last 10 or more years and the guarantee of future conflicts so long as our great nation exists, this seems at least to me something of obvious necessity and for which the moment has arrived. As President Bush rightly pointed out, we are no longer isolated from ready attacks by rogue nations or groups of terrorists supported by rogue nations. There is little doubt that had we been a contending European country we would have already put such protection in place by the middle of World War II at the latest. Our nation's most important resources are no longer protected by vast oceans and since this clearly is now the case it seems to me to behoove us to come to grips with the all too realistic historical fact: at some point someone is going to kick our little ant hill over. Shall those inside run out and risk being squashed underfoot or will they by the fruit of our own wise diligence be offered passage underground to the safety of the nest? I can't see why any country as prosperous as our own should not invest in the security of those placed there on our behalf.

 

Posted by Martin at 12:49 PM | Comments (2)

April 11, 2005

“They Just Want to Work”

Three key ingredients to a healthy border policy

 

 

 

The most common argument you hear from romantics living in exclusive neighborhoods or any point north of Ohio is that illegal aliens are simply here for no other reason than to work – something that to me seems on its face disturbingly prejudicial. Illegal aliens are individuals like the rest of us, so to paint this image of a “Happy Julio” in his checkered shirt smiling all the way as he does your dirty work at barely-subsisting wages is not only a lie, it’s of the forms of cruelty that only find their match in Southern slavery or the plight of 19th Century sweatshop or California railroad workers. It is both part of an unmistakable elitist glance toward the Mexican and the average American.

 

Instead of this however I recommend a more responsible approach, which would include not romanticizing the illegal alien and not demonizing him, but instead calling things both good and bad for what they are and then building a sensible approach around the reality. For example, we know that about half of illegal alien Mexican nationals come here to flee poverty and corruption back home and find work. We also know that about another half come here to live off the dole (because American welfare is better than Mexican welfare) or commit violent crimes against our citizens. Drug trafficking is just such a thing, and drugs brought across the Mexican border account for over 70% of all illegal drugs brought into this country. Imagine what it would do to the street value of crack cocaine if the Mexican border were sealed? Anyone who is interested in the rights of the urban poor should want to seal the border. But these drug smugglers also threaten and intimidate citizens living in towns and communities existing on both sides of the border, causing financial losses and even human ones. Sometimes the violent criminals even kidnap Americans and carry them back across the frontier never to be heard from again. Such is the case with the current and agonizingly disturbing boom in the sex-slave industry, in which American girls as young as 13 are being whisked out of the country (mostly via California) and into Mexico. Indeed, open borders works both ways. And this ugly side of things is not exactly the racist Happy Julio the out of touch elites may have wished it to be.

 

So the realist knows we must do something to stop the Mexican alien who wishes to abuse and commit crimes against men, women and children on this side of the border, or has fled Mexican authorities (such that they are) for doing the same on his side of the border. But I think it’s also fair to offer opportunities for those who do desire honest work and a chance at a better life provided we have a way for separating the worker from the dangerous criminal (the sheep from the goats, if you will) and addressing other problems which have long precipitated this exodus from Mexico.

 

While I actually agree with some of the more compassionate members of the left (such as fellow Texas blogger Andy at Searching for a Better Way) that a “guest-worker” program can be part of a solution by matching honest worker with honest employer, I think we already have such a program (the work-visa) and should look at ways we can utilize it in a more tailored fashion while also applying the necessary stick to that carrot by forcing those wishing to work here to register with the U.S. Government and respect its laws, which happens first by enforcing the borders. When the borders are enforced, then comes the carrot, which if constructed properly, will funnel the types of people most deserving with employable skills through the visa process. And if there are Mexicans to be matched to otherwise neglected jobs, then this is the perfect way to make everyone happy. Perhaps one method in this is expediting the process of obtaining worker visas for documented Mexican and Canadian citizens. This would help us keep the economic side humming even as we weed out the criminals we are presently sorely failing to identify at entry. (This weeding out serves only to protect the basic human rights and safety of not only our citizens, but also those of the foreign workers.)

 

Those who may oppose such a policy might argue that by expediting this process we may allow some in who carry bogus papers, etc. This already is going on and the method for detecting such fraud could and should be improved across the board. In the meantime, millions are crossing into our country with absolutely no background information, positive knowledge of their intentions and no accountability.

 

As I hinted at above, a second condition under which I would allow so-called migrant workers from any country not on a terror watchlist to enter with this plan would be if I knew there was a method to insure that the migrants would be treated humanely and compensated fairly by US employers. Let’s face it, today most of them are not being treated humanely and stories of abuse are more than prevalent. As much as the lawless coalition and the “corporate middle” including rather sadly, the Bush administration try to make it sound as if they are pushing for policies that “care” for these people (that is, the half of them historically shown to be genuinely interested in work and not in crime), in fact it is the very policies of this "coalition" that have promoted the self-same forms of abuse we worked so hard to free ourselves from at the end of the 19th Century. Abuses such as sweat shops, indentured servitude and even outright slavery and perhaps worse are blots on our national history we should not and must not revisit. The ones coming here who are merely seeking peaceful work and bread for their families deserve better and so do we.

 

A final term for such a program as indeed has been pointed out in other posts here is that there be some sort of agreement with the Mexican people to begin to face up to their domestic problems instead of running away from them. They have gotten themselves into their situation and only they can make it any better through their patient, dedicated sacrifice. It’s how America made it this far and it’s the only way Mexico can do it as well. If “viva México” means anything, it should mean this.

 

We have a choice in dealing with this problem. We can either continue to be little Pollyanna’s pretending to import Aunt Jemima-bottle caricatures of human beings we know little about and arrogantly look down on and continue to mistreat them even as their evil twins wreak havoc on our civil society or we can do the right thing by resuming the course for the coming generations toward that civil and equitable society we as Americans have long labored to attain.

 

Posted by Martin at 01:11 AM | Comments (3)

March 30, 2005

Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar, Dallas

 

 

 

-Martin Kite-Powell

 

 

I and a guest will be in attendance this May 23-24 at Westin Park Central in Dallas for the Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar, which will be addressing the topic "America’s War Against Islamic Terrorism". The invitations actually came a couple of weeks ago, but with everything else going on the news of it has had to wait.

 

Among those who will be speaking on the first day will be Washington Post and ABC News commentator George F. Will on the question of “Containment or Preemption?”.

 

On day two we will be hearing from a variety of speakers including Larry P. Arnn, Ph.D Hillsdale College on “Statesmanship in Wartime”, Malise Ruthven, author, A Fury for God: The Islamist Attack on America on “The Origins of Islamism”, Frank J. Gaffney Jr., President of the Center for Security Policy on “Meeting the Domestic Terror Threat” and finally former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who will be speaking to us on “The Long War of the 21st Century: How We Must Fight It”.  

 

More about the speakers:

 

George F. Will, a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer, commentator and author, according to the Post Writers Group is, "…one of the most widely recognized, and widely read, writers in the world. With more than 450 newspapers, his biweekly Newsweek column, and his appearances as a political commentator on ABC, Will may be the most influential writer in America."

 

Will has also written articles for Newsweek and was the Washington Editor for National Review.  His education background includes studies at Trinity College in Hartford, and Oxford and Princeton universities. Will also taught political philosophy at Michigan State University and the University of Toronto. Other political work includes his time as a staff-member for U.S. Senator Gordon Allott. After his time on staff for the senator, Will decided to head into journalism where we now find him.

 

Larry P. Arnn is also involved with the Claremont Institute and has stated clear positions on many topics including domestic ones such as repealing the income tax. Larry is also a professor of history as well as the president of Hillsdale College.

 

Malise Ruthven is an expert in comparative religion. According to the biography at the Center for Ismaili Studies website, his background includes,

 

…the author of Islam in the World, The Divine Supermarket: Shopping for God in America, A Satanic Affair: Salman Rushdie and the Wrath of Islam and several other books. His Islam: A Very Short Introduction has been published in several languages, including Chinese, Korean, Romanian, Polish, Italian and German. His most recent book, A Fury for God: The Islamist Attack on America, explores the religious and ideological background behind the atrocities of September 11, 2001.

 

A former scriptwriter with the BBC Arabic and World Services, Dr Ruthven holds an MA in English Literature and a PhD in Social and Political Sciences from Cambridge University. He has taught Islamic studies, cultural history and comparative religion at the University of Aberdeen, the University of California, San Diego, Dartmouth College, New Hampshire and Colorado College. Now a full-time writer, he is currently working on Fundamentalism: A Very Short Introduction and Arabesque and Crucifix, a study in comparative religious iconography.

 

 

Frank J. Gaffney, in addition to being the founder and president of Center for Security Policy has also written for several well-known publications including National Review and spoke last year before the Congressional Committee on International Relations. Many of his online articles can be found at Townhall.com, Jewish World Review and FrontpageMag.com.

 

R. James Woolsey, who joined The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in 2002 as a Distinguished Advisor, has also written several articles for the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, FrontPageMaga.com, The Weekly Standard, The Financial Times, The New York Times Online and for the Council on Foreign Relations. He has also released a whitepaper discussing the dangers we now face as we begin to fight World War IV.

 

Woolsey is best known for his time as Director of Central Intelligence from 1993-1995, but has also served in many other significant government posts including Under Secretary of the Navy and participated in delegations to the START, NST and SALT I U.S.-Soviet arms talks. He has also been involved in various capacities with numerous civilian projects and organizations as well as the law firm in which he was a partner, Shea & Gardner in Washington, D.C.

 

On the so-called Wahhabi moderates, Woolsey states in 2002,

 

If you want to a feel for the intellectual infrastructure – if you can call it that – of [Wahhabi] thinking, there are websites where one can go to pull in what the sermons are on any given Friday throughout Saudi Arabia. I looked at one such set of sermons two or three weeks ago before some discussions we were having at the Defense Policy Board. And the three main themes that week were that all Jews are pigs and monkeys. The second major theme was that all Christians and Jews are the enemy it is our obligation to hate them and destroy them. And the third was that women in the United States routinely commit incest with their fathers and brothers and it is a common and accepted thing in the United States. This is not extraordinary. This is the routine Wahhabi view. One Wahhabi cleric was interviewed by a Washington Post reporter a few weeks ago in Saudi Arabia. The Post reporter asked him: ‘Tell me. I'm a Christian. Do you hate me' And the Wahhabi cleric said, ‘Well, of course if you're a Christian, I hate you. But I'm not going to kill you.' This is the moderate view. And we need to realize that just as angry German nationalism of the 1920s and the 1930s was the soil in which Nazism grew, not all German nationalists became Nazis, but that was the soil in which it grew. So the angry form of Islamism and Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia today is the soil in which anti-Western and anti-American terrorism grows.

 

 
 

Posted by Martin at 12:58 PM | Comments (0)

March 15, 2005

Redux #5

 

...I thought this called for a re-run

 

 

Earlier Blogbat Top Posts:

 

Turmoil in the Americas: Made in China

 

How Bad Are Human Rights in CCP-Controlled Red China?

 

SHOCKING VIDEO: Stormtroopers' Rape of Human Rights in China

 

The Communist-Islamofascist Incest Triangle

 

Posted by Martin at 03:59 PM | Comments (0)

March 14, 2005

War on Private Political Speech:

Who's Paying to Shut You Up?

 

 

 

Freedom alert: Camedwards.com blog just linked to an article at Tech Central Station about campaign finance restricting the blogosphere that’ll curl your toehair.

 

From the linked-to article,

 

 

Payments to the media found by Political Money Line include: the $132,000 to the Prospect, $69,000 to Public Radio International, $935,000 to the Radio and Television News Directors Foundation and more than $1.2 million to National Public Radio for items such as, in the words of the official disclosure statements, "news coverage of financial influence in political decision making."

 

No wonder McCain-Feingold contained a "media exemption." The media -- on top of having their voices amplified when private citizens, labor unions and corporations are barred from speaking -- are relatively easy to write some checks to. (Millions of bloggers, on the other hand, might be a little harder to corral -- hence the calls for a crackdown.)

 

  

The good news however is that it spills the beans on who's funding it, and dare we say it is the Left’s usual suspects: Soros, NPR, Ford and the rest of he-man speech-haters’ club.

 

If anyone had to wonder if McCain bought his shoes from a black smith, all doubts have been put to rest now.

 

Posted by Martin at 12:29 AM | Comments (0)

March 02, 2005

Celebrating and Giving Thanks on Texas Independence Day

 

"Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may." - Former Tennessee Governor and President of the Republic of Texas Sam Houston.

The Unanimous Declaration of Independence made by the Delegates of the People of Texas in General Convention at the Town of Washington on the 2nd day of March 1836

When a government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people, from whom its legitimate powers are derived, and for the advancement of whose happiness it was instituted, and so far from being a guarantee for the enjoyment of those inestimable and inalienable rights, becomes an instrument in the hands of evil rulers for their oppression.

When the Federal Republican Constitution of their country, which they have sworn to support, no longer has a substantial existence, and the whole nature of their government has been forcibly changed, without their consent, from a restricted federative republic, composed of sovereign states, to a consolidated central military despotism, in which every interest is disregarded but that of the army and the priesthood, both the eternal enemies of civil liberty, the everready minions of power, and the usual instruments of tyrants.

When, long after the spirit of the constitution has departed, moderation is at length so far lost by those in power, that even the semblance of freedom is removed, and the forms themselves of the constitution discontinued, and so far from their petitions and remonstrances being regarded, the agents who bear them are thrown into dungeons, and mercenary armies sent forth to force a new government upon them at the point of the bayonet.

When, in consequence of such acts of malfeasance and abdication on the part of the government, anarchy prevails, and civil society is dissolved into its original elements. In such a crisis, the first law of nature, the right of self-preservation, the inherent and inalienable rights of the people to appeal to first principles, and take their political affairs into their own hands in extreme cases, enjoins it as a right towards themselves, and a sacred obligation to their posterity, to abolish such government, and create another in its stead, calculated to rescue them from impending dangers, and to secure their future welfare and happiness.

Nations, as well as individuals, are amenable for their acts to the public opinion of mankind. A statement of a part of our grievances is therefore submitted to an impartial world, in justification of the hazardous but unavoidable step now taken, of severing our political connection with the Mexican people, and assuming an independent attitude among the nations of the earth.

The Mexican government, by its colonization laws, invited and induced the Anglo-American population of Texas to colonize its wilderness under the pledged faith of a written constitution, that they should continue to enjoy that constitutional liberty and republican government to which they had been habituated in the land of their birth, the United States of America.

In this expectation they have been cruelly disappointed, inasmuch as the Mexican nation has acquiesced in the late changes made in the government by General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, who having overturned the constitution of his country, now offers us the cruel alternative, either to abandon our homes, acquired by so many privations, or submit to the most intolerable of all tyranny, the combined despotism of the sword and the priesthood.

It has sacrificed our welfare to the state of Coahuila, by which our interests have been continually depressed through a jealous and partial course of legislation, carried on at a far distant seat of government, by a hostile majority, in an unknown tongue, and this too, notwithstanding we have petitioned in the humblest terms for the establishment of a separate state government, and have, in accordance with the provisions of the national constitution, presented to the general Congress a republican constitution, which was, without just cause, contemptuously rejected.

It incarcerated in a dungeon, for a long time, one of our citizens, for no other cause but a zealous endeavor to procure the acceptance of our constitution, and the establishment of a state government.

It has failed and refused to secure, on a firm basis, the right of trial by jury, that palladium of civil liberty, and only safe guarantee for the life, liberty, and property of the citizen.

It has failed to establish any public system of education, although possessed of almost boundless resources, (the public domain,) and although it is an axiom in political science, that unless a people are educated and enlightened, it is idle to expect the continuance of civil liberty, or the capacity for self government.

It has suffered the military commandants, stationed among us, to exercise arbitrary acts of oppression and tyranny, thus trampling upon the most sacred rights of the citizens, and rendering the military superior to the civil power.

It has dissolved, by force of arms, the state Congress of Coahuila and Texas, and obliged our representatives to fly for their lives from the seat of government, thus depriving us of the fundamental political right of representation.

It has demanded the surrender of a number of our citizens, and ordered military detachments to seize and carry them into the Interior for trial, in contempt of the civil authorities, and in defiance of the laws and the constitution.

It has made piratical attacks upon our commerce, by commissioning foreign desperadoes, and authorizing them to seize our vessels, and convey the property of our citizens to far distant ports for confiscation.

It denies us the right of worshipping the Almighty according to the dictates of our own conscience, by the support of a national religion, calculated to promote the temporal interest of its human functionaries, rather than the glory of the true and living God.

It has demanded us to deliver up our arms, which are essential to our defence, the rightful property of freemen, and formidable only to tyrannical governments.

It has invaded our country both by sea and by land, with intent to lay waste our territory, and drive us from our homes; and has now a large mercenary army advancing, to carry on against us a war of extermination.

It has, through its emissaries, incited the merciless savage, with the tomahawk and scalping knife, to massacre the inhabitants of our defenseless frontiers.

It hath been, during the whole time of our connection with it, the contemptible sport and victim of successive military revolutions, and hath continually exhibited every characteristic of a weak, corrupt, and tyrannical government.

These, and other grievances, were patiently borne by the people of Texas, until they reached that point at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue. We then took up arms in defence of the national constitution. We appealed to our Mexican brethren for assistance. Our appeal has been made in vain. Though months have elapsed, no sympathetic response has yet been heard from the Interior.

We are, therefore, forced to the melancholy conclusion, that the Mexican people have acquiesced in the destruction of their liberty, and the substitution therefore of a military government; that they are unfit to be free, and incapable of self government.

The necessity of self-preservation, therefore, now decrees our eternal political separation.

We, therefore, the delegates with plenary powers of the people of Texas, in solemn convention assembled, appealing to a candid world for the necessities of our condition, do hereby resolve and declare, that our political connection with the Mexican nation has forever ended, and that the people of Texas do now constitute a free, Sovereign, and independent republic, and are fully invested with all the rights and attributes which properly belong to independent nations; and, conscious of the rectitude of our intentions, we fearlessly and confidently commit the issue to the decision of the Supreme arbiter of the destinies of nations.

 

[Signed, in the order shown on the handwritten document]

 

John S. D. Byrom
Francis Ruis
J. Antonio Navarro
Jesse B. Badgett
Wm D. Lacy
William Menifee
Jn. Fisher
Matthew Caldwell
William Motley
Lorenzo de Zavala
Stephen H. Everett
George W. Smyth
Elijah Stapp
Claiborne West
Wm. B. Scates
M. B. Menard
A. B. Hardin
J. W. Burton
Thos. J. Gazley
R. M. Coleman
Sterling C. Robertson

Richard Ellis, President
of the Convention and Delegate
from Red River

James Collinsworth
Edwin Waller
Asa BrighamGeo. C. Childress
Bailey Hardeman
Rob. Potter

Thomas Jefferson Rusk

 

 

 

Chas. S. Taylor
John S. Roberts
Robert Hamilton
Collin McKinney
Albert H. Latimer
James Power
Sam Houston
David Thomas
Edwd. Conrad
Martin Parmer
Edwin O. Legrand
Stephen W. Blount
Jms. Gaines
Wm. Clark, Jr.
Sydney O. Pennington
Wm. Carrol Crawford
Jno. Turner

Benj. Briggs Goodrich
G. W. Barnett
James G. Swisher
Jesse Grimes
S. Rhoads Fisher
John W. Moore
John W. Bower
Saml. A. Maverick (from Bejar)
Sam P. Carson
A. Briscoe
J. B. Woods
H. S. Kimble, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

Celebrating 169 Years of Independence

 

Posted by Martin at 02:10 PM | Comments (0)