By Nancy K. Matthis
| Thursday, September 6th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Eric Cantor is a United States Congressman from Virginia. He has started a forum that presents an opportunity for all US citizens called The Solutions Factory. Here’s the idea:
Three Guidelines for Solutions
Optimistic Solutions for Americaâ€™s Future. Solutions Factory isnâ€™t about fear, itâ€™s about hope. To be clear, we do not seek a blissful ignorance, however we will not allow fear to dominate our discourse. Ultimately, we must remember that no matter how great the challenges we face, the American Peopleâ€™s innovative spirit will ultimately prevail.
Our Solutions Do Not Expand the Size of Federal Government. The best solutions to the challenges facing our nation are found in the enormous potential of the American People; it is our fundamental belief that a smaller and smarter federal government can be achieved.
Our Solutions Are Fiscally Responsible. Bottom Line – Our solutions will not raise taxes; Our solutions will not increase government spending.
Dear readers, all of you are armchair activists at least. Take advantage of this opportunity and join the discussion. Share your creative ideas for solving our national problems. Go here to join the fun.
Tail wag: Bluey Blog
Nancy Matthis is the publisher and executive editor of the weblog format news magazine and multimedia outlet American Daughter Media Center.
By Gayle Kesselman
| Thursday, September 6th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
It never ends.
Just a few short weeks after New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram’s directive to police regarding illegal immigrants, we have another case of murder which was 100% preventable.
Check out the third paragraph in the following excerpt from the New Jersey Courier Post, where it is pointed out that the suspect was out on bail for a minor charge. If Program 287 (g) had been in effect, the suspect would have been put on a plane back to his home country and his alleged victim would be alive today.
Prosecutor: Murder suspect an illegal alien
By Carol Comegno | Wednesday, September 5, 2007
A man accused of fatally shooting a Burlington City man and wounding his former girlfriend over the weekend is an illegal alien and a street gang member, a prosecutor told a judge Tuesday.
The suspect, Jesus Avila, 22, of Kinsley Road in Pemberton Township, remained in the Burlington County Jail Tuesday after a Superior Court judge reaffirmed his $1 million bail.
Deputy first assistant county prosecutor James Ronca said Avila was not only an undocumented alien from Mexico but was out on bail on a minor charge when the shootings occurred Saturday….
“Jail personnel said they saw tattoos identifying him (Avila) as a member of a street gang…” Ronca told Superior Court Judge Patricia LeBon.
Speaking through a court interpreter, Avila asked for a court-appointed lawyer to represent him… He is charged with murder, aggravated assault and illegal possession of a firearm.
By Jon Pananas
| Thursday, September 6th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
It is said that the problem with socialism is socialism, while the problem with capitalism is capitalists. To that let us add that the problem with libertarianism is that its candidates give the impression of being lunatics. It doesn’t help Ron Paul’s case that his appearance is that of how one might imagine Wesley Clark’s older, grouchy and mildly demented brother to look.
Watching the Wednesday night Republican debate as the good Dr. Paul got fired up, I fully expected him to either jam his pen into Mike Huckabee’s temple, or leap from the stage to try and throttle Chris Wallace. If he had spontaneously combusted, I would have been startled but not surprised.
Representative Paul’s eccentricities aside, Libertarians have another problem which is this: they conflate the words of the Founders with the same value as the Constitution. And that leads them to hold to policy positions — particularly on issues of foreign policy and national security — which are supported neither by history nor reality. It is impossible to hold a discussion with a Libertarian about the use of the American military abroad without being reminded of the famous admonition from George Washington’s Farewell Address to avoid foreign entanglements. Certainly President Washington was entitled to his opinion, but even in that age it was not an opinion shared by all the Founders. And George Washington not being the Pope, and America not being the Holy See, the first president’s utterances, ex-cathedra or not, do not carry precisely the same weight as Holy Writ. Nor do the words of any of the other Founders.
The Constitution, on the other hand, is not words or opinions. It is law. And if Ron Paul truly thinks that the 43rd president has broken that law, and that our use of force in Iraq is illegal, then instead of shrieking about neo-cons during presidential primary debates, he should be seeking to have a bill of impeachment brought up in the House. That would be a more appropriate use his time, and ours, though certainly less interesting to watch.
You can read more articles by ADMC contributor Jon Pananas on his blog Laconic Blog.
By James Black
| Thursday, September 6th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Scene: A Petrol (gas) station in a Victorian industrial town overlooked by a Mosque with rows of cars waiting their turn at the pumps (Frightfully English).
The driver of an SUV was about to move to a newly vacated pump in his line when a car accelerated between the rows and swerved in front of him. That driver commenced filling his tank. When the SUV driver recovered from his surprise he got out and remonstrated with the car driver, who hurled abuse at him. Being outnumbered 5 to 1 by the occupants of the roque car, he withdrew.
The offending car departed only for the action to be repeated by a second car with two occupants. The SUV driver reckoned that 2 to 1 was good odds, engaged 4WD low gear, shunted the offending car off the forecourt and told the protesting driver that he could sue him if he was insured.
After filling up at the pump, the SUV driver had cooled down a bit. As he headed for the Pay Office, he received a round of applause from the other motorists on the forecourt. Feeling somewhat embarrassed, he approached the pay counter well aware that his action would have been recorded on camera. The attendant greeted him with, “Good on you, if I could cancel this check I would.” (His petrol tab was Â£70).
There has been no come-back on the SUV driver, whose family are worried about reprisals. No one has criticised him. The SUV driver comes from a Crusader family, the offending car drivers were from the traditional enemy.
[Editor's note: You won't find this story in any of the papers. Our ADMC correspondent for the United Kingdom covered it directly. In any event, although deeply satisfying, it is not PC enough for the MSM.]
By David Frankfurter
| Thursday, September 6th, 2007 at 3:06 am
In this day and age, almost no matter where you live, it is hard to take pride in government. Here in Israel there’s lots to brag about. Technological leadership, thriving economy, the warmth of our society, the way our youngsters defend their fellow citizens against attack in a never ending terror war … but sadly, our elected leaders are not usually part of the positive images. So when they get caught doing something right, it’s a noteworthy surprise. A story in today’s Ha’aretz is one of those surprises.
Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit, announced that hundreds of Darfur refugees will be granted citizenship of Israel. Estimates are that around 2,000 African refugees have found asylum in Israel, but the issue is not without its problems. With their pursuers having shifted whole new populations into the Sudanese homes and villages, they will have nowhere to go even after the fighting is over. It is clear that the 2.5 million who have been displaced cannot be absorbed by tiny Israel. It is also difficult to differentiate between economic opportunists and genuine refugees â€“ not to mention the security risk associated with potential infiltrators from an enemy state said to harbour Al-Qaida. To date, the Israeli Muslim community has not come forward, and so those who are in Israel do not have a local community into which they easily integrate.
On the other hand, the Jewish state, which rose out of the ashes of the Holocaust and became a haven for hundreds of thousands of Jews chased out of Arab countries and has a collective memory of exile dating back to Rome and Babylon, dhimmitude in Arabia, the Spanish Inquisition, and European pogroms, cannot stand idly by.
Darfur is a world responsibility, and one in which it would be reasonable to expect the Arab and African nations to take a lead. Arab states have as yet shown no inclination to reign in the racist Arab Muslims who are engaged in rape, pillage and plunder of the most barbaric dimensions. Nor have they shown the slightest inclination to protect the persecuted black Muslims. It is worse. In a most repulsive story, Egyptian border guards murdered Sudanese refugees trying to cross the border, seeking refuge in Israel. A physical “tug-of-war” with Israeli border guards over one of the refugees ended in an Egyptian “victory” after they pointed their guns at the Israelis. The poor refugee “prize” was simply dragged back over the border and clubbed to death. Nor have African nations offered succour to their Muslim and animist coreligionists. And the Western world has been equally unwilling to offer haven.
As we approach the Rosh Hashanna new year, we and the Sudanese refugees can only hope that the example set by Israel, absorbing a number so large in terms of its relative population, and granting the protection and benefits of citizenship to the stateless, will be part of fulfillment of the words of the prophet Isiah, “The law will go out of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” Press your government to take heed and act.
This article is cross-posted with permission from Live Journal. You can read more writings by this author in his archive there. To subscribe to David Frankfurter’s occasional “letter from Israel”, just send him an email.
By Nicolas R. Vay
| Thursday, September 6th, 2007 at 2:48 am
I would like to tell you of an event that occurred on 9/12/2001 that is forever imprinted on my mind. Ever since, I have felt that I must carry a camera with me at all times.
I was driving to work along Constitution Avenue, when around 10th Street I spied one of the District of Columbia’s many homeless persons sleeping on a subway grate. He was doing this to take advantage of the warm air blowing from below on a crisp and rather cool morning with a slight haze in the air.
Fluttering in the breeze next to this man’s shrouded head was the American flag.
I wished I had a camera to take a picture. I would have entitled it “Just how much does your country mean to you, Mr. Jones?” Sadly, I did not have a camera with me at on that particular occasion, but the vivid mental picture is with me to this day.
So once again the question is raised:
“Just how much does your country mean to you, Mr. Jones?”
Last year, one of the MIL-BLOGS started the “FLY THE FLAG campaign.” It’s a patriotic idea.
Please join us in this FLY THE FLAG campaign and PLEASE send an email immediately to everyone in your address book asking them to share the information also.
We have very little time to get the word out all across this great land and into every community in the United States of America.
If you send an email to least 11 people and each of those people do the same … you get the idea.
THE PROGRAM IS THIS: On Tuesday, September 11th, 2007, an American flag should be displayed outside every home, apartment, office, and store in the United States. Every individual should make it their duty to display an American flag on this anniversary of our country’s worst contemporary tragedy. We do this in honor of those who lost their lives on 9/11, their families, friends and loved ones who continue to endure the pain, and those who today are fighting at home and abroad to preserve our cherished freedoms.
In the days, weeks and months following 9/11, our country was bathed in American flags as citizens mourned the incredible losses and stood shoulder-to-shoulder against terrorism. Sadly, those flags have all but disappeared. Our patriotism pulled us through some tough times and it
shouldn’t take another attack to galvanize us in solidarity. Our American flag is the fabric of our country and together we can prevail over terrorism of all kinds. Never Forget 9/11/01!
Take a moment to think back to how you felt on 9/11 and let those sentiments guide you. Fly an American flag of any size on 9/11. Honestly, Americans should fly the flag year-round, but if you don’t, then at least make it a priority on this day. Thank you for your participation. God Bless You and God Bless America.
By Jon Pananas
| Thursday, September 6th, 2007 at 1:07 am
The sense occurs, without the support of concrete examples, that Mitt Romney may be losing some of his luster. And it has nothing to do with his religion.
The United States has been governed, lo these past six years, by an MBA-educated president. Two of George Bush’s selling points were his experience in the business world and his skill as a manager. What America has craved, lo these past nineteen years, is a leader. America can do anything and everything great when led with greatness.
Rudy’s attraction, whatever his foibles might be, is his apparent strength as a leader. Ditto, certainly, John McCain. Both men cause the bile to rise among various segments of the Republican base. And yet … all segments of the base would be glad to have either of these men at the helm should disaster befall again. When airliners are being flown into skyscrapers, disagreements about abortion, gay rights and support for tax cuts lose some of their prominence.
Governor Romney, for all his talent and accomplishments, as more time goes by seems more and more to be what he is: a skilled manager. Unfortunately for Mitt these times, they do not call for a manager. They call for a leader. They call for a tough New Yorker. Or for Captain Queeg.
You can read more articles by ADMC contributor Jon Pananas on his blog Laconic Blog.
By Allan Erickson
| Thursday, September 6th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Brian De Palma is making a big splash with his $5M “documentary” about the Iraq war. According to some reviews, the movie is more violent than the atrocity it documents.
Apparently De Palma believes and hopes his violence will stop that violence. (And they say war never solves anything.)
De Palma says his film is about Americans at war, about “what we do, and we need to stomach it.”
And he is just the man to make us stomach it: a propagandist of notable accomplishment, not far afield from the jihad propagandists, people schooled in atrocity.
In a recent statement, De Palma declared: “When I read about the Mahmudiya incident in Iraq 2006 — five US soldiers raped a local girl, killed her and her family and later tried to disguise it as an insurgent attack — I knew I had a story.”
Trolling for a story upon which to focus his documentary lens, the celebrated director selected a fringe incident, urging us to believe it characterizes the American soul, using this terrible, unusual event to condemn the entire U.S. military and mission.
This is Hollywood. It’s not about reason, rational analysis, sober judgment or balanced inquiry. It’s about sensation, and profits: kissing cousins.
Lest we forget, the soldiers involved were arrested, tried, and convicted. They are serving very long prison sentences, as is the Marine who killed a grandfather, and tried to cover it up.
We police our own, unlike our enemies.
These are rare, insolated incidents, addressed justly, officially, just as the Haditha Marines were justly exonerated, Marines who fell victim to propaganda floated by our enemies, propaganda promoted by our own media, Marines held up to public ridicule and contempt for months, convicted in the media before they were found innocent of all charges in military court.
De Palma could have spent $5M producing a documentary about how the Haditha Marines were railroaded, or about all the good the American military has done in Iraq. He could have spent the money producing a film about all the millions of private dollars donated to Katrina victims. He might have made a movie about what the Iraqis want, or how America is the only force sufficient to confront evil in the world. But no. None of these uplifting projects sell as well as riding the crest of anti-Americanism held dear and close to the bosoms of Hollywood elites. (And besides, it’s very hard to get a date in Hollywood unless you give full, dramatic voice to your hatred of all things Bush and Republican.)
De Palma might have taken the trouble to document atrocities committed by Islamic psychopaths starting in 1972, atrocities occurring with increasing frequency to the present day where we daily witness murder of women and children, torture and rape, committed globally. He might have focused on real enemies, real threats and pervasive atrocity, but it’s just not cool and PC enough to attract sufficient box office, you see.
[Here's a list of terror incidents in 2007 alone, and this list does not include all the bombings of civilians by al Qaeda and other terrorists in Iraq.]
Rather than focus on real threats to civilization, De Palma spends $5M in an exercise attempting to shame his own countrymen world wide, joining the all-out effort to defeat America in this, WW IV. He would have us believe the real friend of freedom, the real defender of women and children, is actually the foe. Yes, folks, the real scoundrel is the American soldier unleashed on an innocent world by a nefarious President, evil to the core.
Predictably De Palma, the arch propagandist, plays the first card in the PR game, making himself a victim even before his critics are heard. Claiming censorship (undocumented of course) he paints a self-portrait of the director as victim, a victim of the madness of war, a victim of the Administration, a victim of abuse and criticism from people who do not care
as much as he does.
Fearing lawsuits, he contends he had to fictionalize things “that were actually real.” He says the real footage he acquired from cowed media sources had to be edited to avoid legal action, expecting us to believe this tripe. (Source)
Furthermore, in other statements in recent interviews, the sensitive artist, feeling more deeply than the average mortal, expresses surprise at the discovery war is hell. A 66-year-old man who claims to know more than anyone is incredulous in the face of brutality, a brutality central to human existence from the Garden of Eden forward.
Assuming the mantle of a morally superior being, De Palma goes on to cry wolf, and Peace! and Stop the Madness! The narrative reaches climax as De
Palma, the victim artist, the suffering servant, makes himself hero and villain, all in one swoop, insisting, “I feel helpless to stop these horrible things.this horrible war,” and in the next breath, “I feel like one of the characters in my film that goes along with the rape in spite of his moral objection to it.”
Charging forward on his cinematic steed, he levels his lance at “the media,” saying it has sold out to corporate interests, thus making it necessary for him to mount the quest for truth, to bring the pictures, the sounds bites, the truth of war to our attention, as he did long after Vietnam was over in another public service, “Casualties of War,” 1989.
The truth? Our son spent many months in Iraq, two tours. He never discharged his weapon one time. He and his comrades witnessed many incidents of atrocity and propaganda. One night, a car filled with people approached their checkpoint at high speed. According to the rules of engagement, they shot a flare, warned the vehicle by bullhorn, flashed lights, all to no effect. Again, according to procedure, they fired warning shots over the vehicle. It did not slow or change direction. They fired at the tires, and the grill, trying to stop the vehicle, to preserve life on both sides. Finally, in desperation, according to procedure, in the face of lethal threat, they unloaded on the occupants. Inspecting the vehicle in the aftermath, survivors testified an insurgent had kidnapped a family, forcing them to run the check point in hopes of drawing fire, intentionally killing fellow Iraqis to score propaganda points.
Brian De Palma appears oblivious to realities on the ground, enemy atrocities happening almost daily, events routinely ignored by American reporters and filmmakers, events happening with far greater frequency than the sad, few and regrettable instances of criminal conduct by our military personnel. [Concerning the conduct of our military: a balanced, academic and insightful work authored by someone who has visited Iraq 22 times, pre and post invasion, can be found in the book "The Faith of the American Soldier," by Stephen Mansfield. Unlike De Palma, Mansfield has actually set foot in Iraq, recently spending extended time embedded with the troops. Available from Amazon.]
Finally, the high hypocrisy flowing from people like Brian De Palma is especially stark when you consider he has spent much of his career glorifying violence on screen, influencing an entire generation to view brutality as matter of course. De Palma would create violence, dramatize it, profit from it, then condemn it in others, all the way to the bank, and on the way, preach to the rest of us about morality. There are none so blind…
People like De Palma have drunk deep from the cup of violence, lining their pockets at the altar of cinematic savagery. Now, they have the audacity to rub our noses in it, condemning our sons and daughters volunteering on the front lines, sons and daughters having nothing to do with misbehavior in this war on terror.
In De Palma’s case it is especially grievous considering his hypocrisy, when it’s likely the soldiers who participated in the Mahmudiya atrocities were compelled somewhere deep in their subconscious minds through the viewing of movies like “Scarface,” “Carlito’s Way,” nd “Carrie,” all De Palma movies, all noted for “pushing the envelope of violence and depravity,” according to one reviewer.
How does De Palma’s violence against children during the course of decades differ from the violence perpetrated by the Mahmudiya soldiers?
The war waged by Hollywood against our youth, and Hollywood’s atrocities, should be made into a documentary.
Stop the War, Mr. De Palma. Stop the Violence.
Update: Apparently Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has accepted a proposal by movie director Oliver Stone to produce a documentary about his life. Thanks again Hollywood. Shall we charter a tour as well to visit Castro, Chavez and Kim Jung Il? Let’s send engraved invitations to Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte, Sean Penn and the gang. We’ll have quite a time! Perhaps Hillary and Barack can underwrite the trip?
By Joe Ramen
| Tuesday, September 4th, 2007 at 12:12 am
The bottom line is this. If the US withdraws from Iraq, the rest of the world is to be put on notice, the message being the following: “We will no longer interfere in any foreign affairs, so there should be no reason to attack us. If one attack occurs on US soil, and we get even a whiff of the nationality of the perpetrators, the response will be swift and final. Your nation will be a smoking hole in the ground that will glow for a thousand years. Govern yourselves accordingly, and sleep tight.”
As promised, here is Part II. In Part I we discussed what is wrong with the situation in Iraq, namely the completely lopsided Rules of Engagement (ROE) that are imposed on our men. I should have also touched on the fact that, despite the US having the mightiest air power on the planet (including, but certainly not limited to, the Air Force), air power has been seriously lacking in its presence. Why send guys door-to-door, unnecessarily risking their lives, when a simple air strike could do it more cheaply and effectively?
Take, for instance, the August 2004 battle in Najaf between coalition forces (primarily US Marines) and the al Mahdi militia of radical Shia cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, which was holed up in the Imam Ali Mosque, one of the holiest places for muslims. (Note: It seems that every out-house commode is “one of the holiest places” for the religion of “peace.”) These militant muslims, so quick to condemn any assault on one of their “holy places,” have no problem using one as a fortress and armory, which is exactly what they were doing with this mosque in Najaf, and not wanting to offend the sensibilities of muslims, we jerked around in a traditional gun battle with these fuedal low-lifes of another millenium. A Hellfire missile or two from an AH-1W Cobra helicopter would have reduced it – and everything in it – to rubble in a matter of seconds and spared the lives of any of our boys in the process. So it would have agitated the poor muzzies? I would hope so. Drive them insane with bloodlust which would make them act emotionally and fly off the handle, making it easier to kill more of them. And you bleeding hearts spare me the civilian casualty line. We didn’t give a rat’s posterior (nor should we have) about bombing Berlin, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki. That’s war, folks, and it is exactly what Chesty Puller would have done.
Another point I should have made was that the combined Special Ops guys should have assassinated every known or suspected radical mullah and imam in Iraq, including al-Sadr, who now has a seat at the table of the current “government” in Iraq. The bottom line is that we have been our own worst enemy in Iraq through mis-management and pathetically negligent strategic planning. The attitude that should have been taken is exemplified in this quote from legendary US Army General George Patton: “A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week.”
Now, what to do? As I stated in Part I, the Iraqis, like the Vietnamese prior, would rather live than live free, and I am tired of our men and women dying for their supposed freedom. If the majority of Iraqis would rather be “safe” and not put themselves at risk, so be it. It would seem that the only group of Iraqis that seem to care enough to actually put a foot forward and forge a productive, positive future for themselves and their children are the Kurds, and if we are going to go out on a limb for any Iraqis, it would have to be them for a few reasons. First, the US let them down severely after Gulf War I and they were subsequently slaughtered in chem attacks by Saddam to the tune of roughly 100,000 people. Second, despite that, to this day the Kurds stand relatively firm with the US (certainly with more resolve than their Shia and Sunni counterparts to the south). There’s some loyalty that needs to be rewarded there. Third, since most of the oil is in the Kurdish north, it should be a no-brainer, in conjunction with the above-mentioned reasons, as to whom we should support. So, if we are resolved to “stay the course,” let’s modify the plan: Pull back to Kurdistan and set up a perimeter. Pump our money and efforts into nation building there, and help them get as much oil out of the ground as possible; and to hell with the rest of them to the south. Let ‘em kill each other, and if they mess with the Kurds, nuke the Shia and the Sunni back to the stone age (wait – that’s where they are already; silly me).
OK, that’s one option. Option number two amounts to a return to an isolationist policy that was more pronounced prior to US engagement into World Wars I and II. I again refer to the Farewell Address given to the American people by our first President, George Washington. If you read Part I of this series and did not read the farewell address, I urge you to do so now. It is a bit long-winded using some archaic language, but it is really worth the read. Why isolationism? I can hear the protestations now: In this complex, global economy, it is absurd, impractical, blah, blah, blah. Nonsense. What has this global interdependence gotten us? The US is the largest single nation donor of foreign aid, and most of the rest of the world still hates us as a nation. Oh, they gladly cash the checks, but then moan and whine about imperialism and global domination. And never mind when we engage in military operations; nobody likes that at all. Basically, it’s a catch 22 — damned if we do, damned if we don’t. So I propose the following plan.
The US will cease all military operations around the globe — Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, all of them. All foreign bases — Germany, Japan, So. Korea, all of them — will be closed and the troops stationed in those places brought home. Where to put them? New bases in the US could be built, existing ones expanded, and formerly closed bases re-opened with the money saved in closing these foreign ventures; and a good portion of them to be built/expanded along the southern border with Mexico where 50,000 troops minimum — with orders to shoot to kill anybody crossing illegally — would be stationed to patrol the border with that festering latrine of corruption. I guarantee the flow of third world indentured slaves from Mexico (and the drug trade from the cartels) would dry up within weeks. After a few thousand are shot trying to call our bluff, their bodies left to rot in the desert as a reminder to those who still think we’re bluffing, it will stop.
The US will cease all foreign aid. This includes US withdrawal of funding and membership from the UN and expulsion of that ridiculous organization from our shores. Since what we do is never enough, it seems, they are all on their own. No more 15 billion dollar checks for AIDS relief for Africa; no more propping-up tin-pot dictators who are friendly to US business interests. US-based businesses will no longer be able to call on favors from their pals in DC for military intervention to protect their foreign interests (think Guatemala and the United Fruit Co., 1920′s-50′s). If they have a problem, they can hire private armies to do their bidding. No more bribing despots to not develop nuclear weapons by promising them food aid (think the Clinton and Bush administrations’ dealings with North Korea). What kind of position of strength does that kind of “diplomacy” project? All of it is to be stopped. Nada. Zilch. Nothing. We will, however, offer free trade agreements (like we have with Australia) to our traditional NATO allies and anybody else on a case-by-case basis who wants to get on-board with no strings attached except for one: No moaning and whining. The US will not tell you what to do, and you do the same.
I can hear the rumblings now. “But how will this work given our dependence on foreign oil? Surely the Saudis will not like our new policies.” Yeah, and your point is what?. Let ‘em sell to the EU and the Chinese. Being that the US gets roughly the same amount of oil from Canada (about 19% of imported oil comes from them) as it does from Saudi, this shouldn’t be a problem for a few reasons. First, since Venezuela’s Marxist poster-boy, Hugo Chavez, nationalized all the oil fields and refineries (including those of Citgo and Exxon-Mobil) in May of this year and threw them all out (the oil companies should have blown-up all the rigs on their way out, by the way, since it was their $$$$ that built them), we owe nobody anything. Second, if Mexico gets their tacos in a twist about our new policies regarding their illegal immigrants, we can easily annex that nation in about 48 hours and start pumping the black stuff like Guinness from a tap — they have a lot of it (which is, along with NAFTA and the proposed NAU, one of the main reasons the US government puts up with the flow of illegals from Mexico in the first place). Or the US can offer Mexico the following proposal. I’ll use the conservative estimate of 12 million illegals in the US currently and suggest that Mexico give us 1 barrel of oil per day per illegal immigrant (idea credit: Michael Savage). Do the math. Third, I propose an indefinite suspension on US EPA prohibition of drilling for oil in the ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Reserve) via an Executive Order. With angle drilling technology, the drill rigs could be based in Alaska, minimizing contact with the caribou and polar bears. Besides, despite the dire predictions of the tree-hugger types regarding the existing Alaska pipeline, they were proved wrong. The caribou population thrived near the pipeline as they sought the warmth, and began to breed at a greater rate. Oh, and a certain portion of those troops previously stationed on foreign soil would guard this operation against any foreign or domestic would-be saboteurs/enviro-nazi whackos. Courts may interpret the law, but the president controls the military. Laws are only effective when backed by men with guns, and if those men with guns are backing opposition to activist judicial efforts, I know what wins every time; and it ain’t words on paper.
Of course, this would require a President with testicular fortitude acting on a mandate of the people, so it is likely to never happen. Dysfunctional intellectual leftwits/halfwits will say this vision is barbaric at worst, simplistic at best, but often (not always) the simple is also the logical, most direct and effective solution no matter how complex the problem. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that a solution needs to be more complex than it has to be, if only to satisfy our egos so we can say how smart we supposedly are. The bottom line is this. If the US withdraws from Iraq, the rest of the world is to be put on notice, the message being the following: “We will no longer interfere in any foreign affairs, so there should be no reason to attack us. If one attack occurs on US soil, and we get even a whiff of the nationality of the perpetrators, the response will be swift and final. Your nation will be a smoking hole in the ground that will glow for a thousand years. Govern yourselves accordingly, and sleep tight.”
Having completed active duty in the United States Marine Corps, Joe Ramen is currently a geotechnical engineer who has relocated to New Zealand. You can read more of his articles at his weblog A Yank in Kiwi Land. Joe also contributes to It’s a Matter of Opinion.
By Stop the ACLU Coalition
| Monday, September 3rd, 2007 at 1:22 pm
I wanted to put something up for Labor Day to get some inspirations sparked. For a while my priorities have been shifted. I want to announce that we will be more active in our original cause and want to thank everyone that has supported us thus far. To get our blogburst reinvigorated, I thought I’d pull out a classic … one that explains why we started and what we are all about…
Stop The ACLU was started on February 9th, 2004. We started with high hopes, and we realized we were facing a goliath. There were many reasons why we thought the ACLU needed to be countered, and they are numerous. We wanted to provide a way to inform the public of the ACLU’s agenda, because the MSM sugar-coated it. We wanted to be a central database for people to gather, exchange ideas, and get actively involved in real ways of stopping them. It is a monumental task, exhausting, time consuming, and often frustrating. But it is a fight worth fighting.
We would be nothing without our supporters. To all of you, we appreciate the continued support. We have called you to action and you have answered.
There are many reasons to stop the ACLU. For this blogburst I decided to republish my top ten list.
#10. The ACLU was founded by a Communist, with communist ideals and communist goals. They continue to impose a Communist-like agenda on America daily. The founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin stated clearly…
“My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment. Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”
#9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.
ACLU POLICY: The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court’s long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual’s right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms. (Source: ACLU Policy #47)
#8. Their outright hatred of the Boyscouts: They are currently doing everything in their power to hurt this organization. They attacked their free speech right to exclude gays, and are threatening schools, and fighting in court to get their charters shut down. They oppose the military supporting them, and will sue the pants off any school that attempts to charter them.
#7. The ACLU are pro-death. Not only is the ACLU pro-abortion, it’s the ACLU’s top priority. It most definitely takes a backseat to free speech for the ACLU. As a matter of fact, the ACLU has fought against the free speech rights of those that oppose it. Whether it is abortion or euthanasia, as long as it is pro-death you can count on the ACLU to support it. The only exception to the ACLU’s pro-death stance, is if it is a convicted criminal; in this case they are against death.
#6. The ACLU advocate open borders. Not only has the ACLU opposed the Minute Men, a group who are simply exercizing their freedom of speech, protesting and stepping up where the government is failing, but they also have helped illegals cross the border.
#5. The ACLU is anti-Christian. The list is endless on this one. Under the guise of “seperation of Church and State,” the ACLU has made a name for itself on being rabidly anti-Christian. This is one area where they are most hypocritical. They oppose tax exemptions for all churches, but fight for them for Wiccans. They are against Christianity in school, but oddly remain silent as our children are taught to be Muslims. Whether its baby Jesus, ten commandments, or tiny crosses on county seals, the ACLU will be there to secularize America, and rewrite our history.
#4. The ACLU opposes national security. The ACLU have opposed almost every effort in the arena of national security. From the bird flu to bag searches, the ACLU have been against it. No matter what kind of search someone tries to do to protect people, the ACLU have proved they are against them across the board. Its kind of ironic that they don’t practice the principles they preach.
Take a walk into the NYCLUï¿½s Manhattan headquarters – which it shares with other organizations – and youï¿½ll find a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search.
#3. The ACLU defend the enemy. They have a long history of this one. They defended the P.L.O. in 1985. They defended Quadafi in the 1980′s. And they continue today. They have told Gitmo detainees they have the right to remain silent, as in not talking to interrogators. One issue that really disturbs me is their refusal of funds from organizations such as the United Way that were concerned the money would be used to support terrorism.
In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from two of itï¿½s most generous and loyal contributors, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, saying new anti-terrorism restrictions demanded by the institutions make it unable to accept their funds.
The Ford Foundation now bars recipients of its funds from engaging in any activity that “promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state.”
The Rockefeller Foundation’s provisions state that recipients of its funds may not “directly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity.”
#2. The ACLU supports child porn distribution and child molesters like NAMBLA.
As legislative counsel for the ACLU in 1985, Barry Lynn told the U.S. Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography (of which Focus on the Family President Dr. James C. Dobson was a member) that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be.
There is no doubt that the ACLU is perverting the Constitution.
#1. The ACLU fufills its agenda using my tax money. What more can I say on this one?
There are countless reasons the ACLU needs to be stopped. So don’t just stand by and complain, do something. Get involved. Here are some ways you can get involved to help us stop the ACLU.
Support and donate to organizations fighting them in Court. Here are the ones at the forefront.
Join the Stop The ACLU Coalition.
Help us write Churches to get involved.
Tell your Congress to support the Public Expression of Relgion Act of 2005. This legislation seeks to limit attorney’s fees in Establishment Clause cases to injunctive relief only.
SIGN THE PETITION TO STOP TAXPAYER FUNDING OF THE ACLU.