Understanding the Worth of Our Nation

Understanding the Worth of Our Nation
Education Frank Salvato, Managing Editor
May 18, 2007
 

It is difficult to value something when its worth is unknown. The adage of one child being given a toy only to leave it out in the rain to rust, never understanding the toys worth, while another child made to earn the same toy is found to take care of it, valuing its worth, is a fitting analogy. This basic truth applies to our American heritage and the continued welfare of our nation.

Most of us have never had to take up arms to protect our freedoms, our liberties, our rights as guaranteed under The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and The Bill of Rights, our Charters of Freedom. In most cases these gifts have been bequeathed to us from those of generations past who did have to serve, to protect and defend our nation and by those who valiantly volunteer to serve today. What is asked of us in return for this legacy of freedom is loyalty to the covenant between citizen and government, loyalty to our nation.

Today, our country faces both a threat from abroad and a threat, in the form of ideological conflict, from within. Some among us choose to accentuate the imperfections of our nation. Some condemn our culture. And still others literally champion our nation’s defeat and demise. Those who choose to diminish the significance of the United States’ contributions to the world, do so in ignorance of the intent of the documents that charted the course for this great nation and the ideologies and principles that provided the foundation for the creation of our governmental covenant.

September 11, 2001 signaled to the world that radical Islamofascists were serious in their declaration of war against the United States and her Western allies. As we move further away from Osama bin Laden’s 1996 fatwa – his declaration of war – and as we progress in our examination of the inner-workings of this macabre ideology, it becomes increasingly evident that this conflict is a generational conflict and a confrontation as we have never experienced before.

Those who criticize the use of the term Global War on Terror have a point but their point is a matter of semantics and all who argue this point are not genuine in their dissent. Many of those who argue this point do so from an ideological standpoint, using the linguistic argument to divert from the intended meaning of the phrase.

The fact of the matter is that fundamentalist Islamofascism is being fought in countries around the world. From Iraq and Afghanistan to Somalia and Sudan, Indonesia and India to Paraguay, China, Russia, the UK, France and the United States, radical Islamists are training, planning and engaging in activities meant to cause harm to the west in general and particularly the United States and those who stand in her defense.

In the United States al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood – to name but a few terrorist organizations – have set up regional headquarters in Boston, Chicago, New York, Dallas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Tampa, Washington DC and over 38 other cities around the country. They are not only raising, laundering and funneling money back to the Middle East to support their terrorist organizations, they are setting up jihadi training camps right here in the United States.

Dr. Paul Williams’ recent expose on the Islamist jihadi training compound at Islamberg, New York stands as a clarion call to the American people – and the US Government – to awaken from their politically correct stupor to the reality that radical Islamist jihadis are here, now, and training among us for future attacks on our nation.

Compounds (or hamaats) identical to the one found by Dr. Williams in Islamberg can be found in Hyattsville, Maryland; Red House and Falls Church, Virginia; Macon, Georgia; York, South Carolina; Dover, Tennessee; Buena Vista, Colorado; Talihina, Oklahoma; Tulare County and Commerce, California; and Onalaska, Washington. Dr. Williams points out that others are being built, including an expansive facility in Sherman, Pennsylvania.

At the same time, here in the United States we are engaged in what some experts are calling a culture war. Some would go as far as to call it a second Civil War for the fact that several elected officials, along with myriad activists, have acted to the detriment of our military and the well-being of our nation, cavorting with world leaders who actively call for our country’s ruin.

This “second Civil War” is being fought on the ideological and political battlegrounds. The catalysts for this conflict are drastically opposing ideologies, very different visions for the future of our country and an ever-widening disparity between those who value our country and the principles on which it was founded and those who are unable to value them because they do not understand their worth.

One faction is invested in the ideology of one-world globalism, an ideology that draws heavily from the Socialist/Communist dogma in that they are inclined to embrace the idea of the global village or the “its takes a village” philosophy of governmental authority. They champion government as a vehicle for change over the idea that rights exist independently from government. This ideology rebukes much of the libertarian and classically liberal philosophies of those who influenced our Framers and Founders to create the great American experiment.

Another faction entrenches itself so thoroughly in the Laissez Faire segment of classical liberalism that they refuse to acknowledge there are many times when government involvement in societal affairs is beneficial, not only to the masses but also to the individual.

And the largest group among the United States’ citizenry has been swayed over the past several decades, through the promotion of multiculturalism and political correctness, to identify more with their genealogical “roots” and with the suggestion that they are more members of an overriding global community than members of a cohesive American culture, thus facilitating the Balkanization of American society. This, in part, results in a great number of Americans being not only less concerned with the preservation of our American heritage, but thoroughly apathetic toward the American governmental process.

These three major groups identified, we are faced with the stark reality that 55.3% of our population is engaging in the governmental process, this percentage comprised almost evenly of those identifying with the active but opposing ideologies now battling this uniquely American culture war, while an alarming and potentially potent number ignore their civic responsibility of constitutional stewardship by being apathetic to the process altogether. In essence, all it takes to win a national election is to garner the support of a little over twenty-eight percent of those eligible to vote, as the majority of Americans stand hypnotized by a limited societal vision cultivated by the malady of civic apathy prevalent throughout the “Me Generation.”

It is a difficult thing for any nation to endure deep rooted and defined ideological divisions. Add to that the external threat of an aggressive and militant ideology in the form of radical Islamofascism and what presents is a “perfect storm” for an effective deterioration and/or cessation of our unique society, our American heritage and our constitutional form of government.

What is desperately needed for our country to survive this unprecedented challenge, this “perfect storm,” is an adequate understanding of the principles, ideologies and history that moved the Framers and our Founding Fathers to risk freedom, liberty, property and ultimately life, so that their dream of the great American experiment could come to fruition. We, the American people one and all, need to understand why they found so much worth in our nation’s creation and why they valued this endeavor enough to risk dying for it.

The only way to achieve this much needed infusion of ideological enlightenment is for each American to invest some time in the accurate, first-source, fact-based examination of not only the Charters of Freedom, but the principles and ideologies embraced by our Framers and Founders in the creation of these remarkable documents along with the history that brought them to their fates. We must acquaint ourselves, even if briefly, with the works that moved them to action, the philosophies of Locke, Hobbes, Burke and even Cicero and Aristotle.

To exercise this very basic loyalty to our country is to move toward understanding the meaning behind the words of our Founding Documents. To understand the meaning behind the documents is to understand the worth of our nation. And understanding the worth of our nation allows us to value it, to want to defend it; it allows us to be uniquely American and proud to be so.

In an era when so few can be so devastating to this country, the greatest hope for freedom and liberty in the world, it can be considered our duty to embrace this civic responsibility.

Out of respect for all those who braved the creation of our nation and to honor all those who fought and died fighting for our continued freedoms we need to satisfy this very basic civic responsibility. There are no excuses for not doing so, regardless of your ideological bent, especially when our very survival is at stake. To refuse to do so can only be seen as stand against the principles on which country was founded. To refuse to do so is being unpatriotic and un-American.

Frank Salvato is the managing editor for The New Media Journal. He serves at the Executive Director of the Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(C)(3) research and education initiative. His pieces are regularly featured in over 100 publications both nationally and internationally. He has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor. He hosts The New Media Journal on BlogTalk Radio and is a regular guest on The Right Balance with Greg Allen on the Accent Radio Network and The Captain’s America on WWPR AM1490 in the Tampa Bay area, as well as an occasional guest on The Bruce Elliott Show on WBAL AM1090 in Baltimore and numerous radio shows coast to coast. His organization, Basics Project, is partnered in producing the first-ever national symposium series on the threat of radical Islamist terrorism. His pieces have been recognized by the House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict. Mr. Salvato is available for public speaking engagements [read more]

The “Fifth Columnization” of America

The “Fifth Columnization” of America
The Fifth Column Frank Salvato, Managing Editor
May 4, 2007
URL: http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/fsalvato/fifth_column/05042007.htm

The Progressive-Left’s American Fifth Column is most often epitomized by the militant, bullhorn toting activist who, when not examined thoroughly, seems to be advocating for one “civil right” or another. We see them at the pro-illegal immigration protests, the anti-gun protests, the anti-war protests, anywhere a group of people can lay blame at the feet of government and especially the Bush Administration. But the American Fifth Column’s tentacles spread much wider and delve much deeper into our history and our society and recent events illustrate this as fact, rather than fiction.

The American Fifth Column is born out of Socialist/Communist ideology where the citizenry grows dependent on the government while the government increasingly legislates itself more control over the people.

In the perfect Fifth Column world, everyone is equal and possesses an artificially elevated sense of self-worth, the competitive spirit is equalized through taxes and legislated oversight of private business and societal boundaries – including boundaries in speech and action – are enforced through a shadow set of laws known as political correctness, a set of laws that undermine the authority of the Constitution.

The American Fifth Column is embodied by the politically correct multicultural one-world movement and encompasses all of the Progressive-Left buzz word initiatives, such as “diversity,” “public good,” “it takes a village,” “global village” and so on.

Through the artificial equalization of our society the Fifth Column strives to achieve the Balkanization of the United States through the celebration of diversity while inducing the surrender of individual choice within those Balkanized communities to governmental entities; divide and conquer.

When successful, the efforts of the Progressive-Left’s American Fifth Column achieve the neutering of the American spirit, the end of our celebrated melting pot where pride in individuality, whether ethnic, religious or social, gave way only to pride of country; e pluribus unim. It transforms pioneers into cogs in a machine for the “greater good” and feminizes our society, this feminization giving way to a society of defenseless victims who are completely reliant on government for their survival.

Recent events have driven me to opine about this societal cancer infiltrating our country under the guise of “progressive ideology,” among them the Virginia Tech shootings.

As the mainstream media reported how Cho Seung-Hui reloaded his two weapons multiple times during his murderous rampage one question kept emerging as the only question that needed to be asked in the nauseatingly repetitive after-the-fact analysis: While he was reloading, why didn’t someone pick up a chair and beat the hell out of him? 

I’ll admit that Hui’s first shooting of the day involved too few to invoke a mass response and I give credit to the resident assistant who came to the first female victim’s defense. But when he stormed the more populated classrooms of the lecture hall why didn’t someone stand-up to this cretin? Why was a septuagenarian holocaust and Soviet Bloc survivor the only one to stand up to Hui, effectively saying, “Not while I can do something about it!”

It can be argued that the lack of response from the majority of people in Hui’s gun sights was the product of over forty years of the Fifth Column’s artificially induced sense of self-importance and societal feminization. They had all been transformed into defenseless victims incapable of thinking about confrontation; incapable of understanding that there was an alternative to slaughter and that alternative was standing up to Hui the aggressor.

Imagine if after Hui started shooting his weapons that thirty people started throwing everything that they could find at him in unison while charging the sorry excuse for a human being. Logic mandates that Hui wouldn’t have fell so many victims because he wouldn’t have had free reign to wreck havoc. Evidence to this fact is in that all of the students in 76-year old Professor Liviu Librescu’s classroom lived.

So, why did Hui’s victims and potential victims cower in fear as Hui methodically chose his victims for slaughter? Because our society has been conditioned through the propaganda of the Fifth Column to believe that violence and/or violent acts, in all cases, are unacceptable.

The American Fifth Column’s relentless and visionless opposition to the military efforts in Iraq stand as another glaring example.

I stand as one of the few voices who refuses to back down in the face of the Fifth Column’s relentless insistence that weapons of mass destruction was the onus for President Bush’s decision to assemble a coalition of willing nations to topple Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein. This insistence, for the overwhelming part, is in error and it has been mischaracterized unmercifully in order to advance their politically correct, one-world efforts to equalize the United States on the world stage.

Ingenuous people will admit that after being reminded of the reasons given for action in Iraq – Saddam Hussein’s genocide of his own people and his blatant violation of the cease-fire agreement that allowed him to live at the end of the Gulf War – it would have been unthinkable to have allowed this madman to go unchallenged.

Yet, the American Fifth Column denounces the Bush Administration, condemns the military actions taking place on behalf of and authorized by a freely elected Iraqi government and insists on arguing the least tangible of all the points given for military intervention in Iraq, WMD, even though regime change in Iraq was mandated by Congress as US policy under the Clinton Administration.

Question for the Progressive-Left Fifth Column: When did genocide become acceptable to you?

Perhaps the most disturbing avenue the Fifth Column has cultivated is within our education system. From grade school through college, the education establishment, bolstered by the political activists and social engineers of the agenda-driven National Education Association, has the government mandated opportunity to poison the minds of our children, to brainwash our country’s youth.

Nary a day goes by when there isn’t a story espousing the political indoctrination by the likes of a Ward Churchill or a Jay Bennish, “teachers” – and I use the word loosely – who impose their political beliefs on their students while usurping the parental birthright to bequeath familial core values to their children.

School systems lorded over by busy-body Progressive-Leftists increasingly employ text books that rewrite history at our nation’s expense. Parents are kept from attaining full access to programs mandated by our schools that promote questionable adult content in the form of what is termed sex education under the heading of “diversity” and “cultural awareness.” And some public school systems are promoting the “understanding” of Islam by forcing students to become “Muslim for a day,” in direct contradiction of the Progressive-Left’s belief in separation of church and state.

As the Fifth Column Progressive-Leftists make inroads into our society, our education system and our state and federal governments, the overwhelming majority of Conservative lawmakers can’t find their spines long enough to demand action against elected officials who have certainly become nothing less than enemies of the State.

Not one Conservative lawmaker – in leadership or otherwise – has called for investigations into whether or not treason charges should be brought against or at least resignations be extracted from:

▪ House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: For her non-authorized and unconstitutional contact with the leader of a State sponsor of terrorism in a time of war in direct violation of the Logan Act. And for then declaring that she was “too busy” to meet with US General David Petraeus when he came to Washington to brief Congress on the current situation on the ground in Iraq.

▪ House Whip Steny Hoyer: For his contact with leadership of the terrorist organization The Muslim Brotherhood, a radical group who actively works to promote the creation of a global Islamic Caliphate as it aids and abets terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas, among others.

▪ Representative John Murtha for blatantly lying to the American people about not receiving a briefing from General Petraeus when Murtha received a personal briefing via telephone from the General for almost 30 minutes

▪ Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: For his declaration “The war is lost,” a statement that most certainly aided and abetted the propaganda campaign of terrorist organizations with which the United States is currently at war.

While the Fifth Column chalks up victory after victory, inching further and further toward controlling not only the House and Senate but the White House and Supreme Court as well, Conservative lawmakers can’t even find the outrage to charge treason and demand resignations when elected Fifth Columnists are successfully aiding our enemy, steering our country into the abyss of military defeat and toward the human indignity that is Socialism.

But perhaps the most blame for the mess we’re in lies with the American people, specifically the Conservatives among us. While the insanity of the third party route and the casting of protest votes is incredibly clear to those who understand the threat of the Fifth Column, those pale in comparison to the most damaging shortcomings of the Conservative movement: personal inaction and abdication of responsibility.

Today’s Conservatives – especially today’s Republican Party (and there is a difference) – are very good at talking the talk but they are incredibly bad at walking the walk. While they extol the greatness of Ronald Reagan they repeatedly violate Reagan’s Rule not to air party problems in public so that the opposition can benefit from that knowledge.

So too are they delinquent in actually practicing what they preach.

How many of you have taken pen to paper and written a soldier serving in Iraq?

How many have sent a care package to afford one of them a little piece of home?

How many of you have actually written to your elected officials expressing your dismay or congratulating them on a job well done?

How many of you have advanced financial support – be it $1 or $1,000 – to the new media outlets that you patronize and who have without fail carried the water to the elephant while the mainstream media has served its big money special interest donors in the defeat of America?

How many of you have given of yourselves to promote the fact-based education of those around you so that our country would be a more educated and thus a better place to live?

What have you done to make sure there is an American Heritage to pass on to your children and your children’s children?

The time is shortly after 9:28am ET. The date is September 11, 2001. You are on-board Flight 93 and the al Qaeda hijackers have just made their move to commandeer the aircraft. After a few cell phone calls you come to understand that the World Trade Center is for all practical purposes gone and that the Pentagon has been attacked, all through the use of suicide missions that piloted aircraft as weapons into their targets.

Question: Do you have the courage, do you have the conviction, to you have what it takes to charge the cockpit, to confront the hijackers, knowing full well that you, in all probability, are going to die? Or are you one of the many who cowered in the back of the plane waiting to be slaughtered.

Hint: If you answered in the negative to any of the above questions, get to the back of the plane. Some of us have real work to do in order to save this country.

Frank Salvato is the managing editor for The New Media Journal. He serves at the Executive Director of the Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(C)(3) research and education initiative. His pieces are regularly featured in over 100 publications both nationally and internationally. He has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor. He hosts The New Media Journal on BlogTalk Radio and is a regular guest on The Right Balance with Greg Allen on the Accent Radio Network, The Bruce Elliott Show on WBAL AM1090 in Baltimore and The Captain’s America on WWPR AM1490 in the Tampa Bay area, as well as an occasional guest on numerous radio shows coast to coast. His organization, Basics Project, is partnered in producing the first-ever national symposium series on the threat of radical Islamist terrorism. His pieces have been recognized by the House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict. Mr. Salvato is available for public speaking engagements [read more]

The Rest of the World Loves President Bush!

The Rest of the World Loves President Bush!
Politics Joan Swirsky
May 22, 2007
URL: http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/swirsky/05222007.htm

Ever since President Bush was (1) elected in 2000, and (2) decided to (gasp!) fight back against the Islamic fanatics who attacked our country on September 11, 2001, the entire world – it appears – has waged non-stop protests against our Commander in Chief. Day after week after month after year, the leftist worldwide media, led by our own, have issued scathing commentary as well as graphic footage of anti-Bush and anti-American demonstrations.

But something funny happened on the way to the left’s goal of relegating the president and his policies to eternal ignominy. In spite of the multimillion words and zillions of dollars they’ve spent on their hysterical campaigns, they have utterly failed!

Elections Don’t Lie
Around the world, untold millions of people have chosen – through their ballot boxes – not socialism or multiculturalism but democracy, the rule of law, free markets, and freedom from Islamic fanatics. While many new democracies are in their infancy, they’re democracies nonetheless, embraced by those willing to risk their lives for the freedom and privileges that democracy confers.

▪ Iraq: Three free elections affirming the president’s vision for a democratic Middle East, and a military surge that is already showing signs of progress.

▪ Israel: A weak Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, soon to be replaced by a diehard conservative, Benjamin Netanyahu, who, like Bush, believes that there is no substitute for victory in the War on Terrorism.

▪ Australia: Prime Minister John Howard, a stalwart supporter of the president, has been handily reelected, not once but four times.

▪ England. Prime Minister Tony Blair, another ardent supporter of Bush, will soon be replaced by conservative Gordon Brown, who while besieged by pacifists as well as Muslims remains devoted to the traditional alliance with America.

▪ France: Nicolas Sarkozy, another admirer of our president and his policies, recently defeated the socialist Ségolène Royal, and promised to align himself and his country along the lines of American conservatism.

▪ Germany: The center-right Chancellor, Angela Merkel, another Bush admirer, defeated the hostile-to-America Gerhard Schröder.

▪ Colombia: Alvaro Uribe, president of Colombia, is another admirer of George Bush’s policies and vision.

▪ Turkey: Recently, more than a million secular Turks demonstrated in the Aegean port city of Izmir against the Islamic-rooted government.

▪ Ukraine: In 2004-2005, millions of people joined the Orange Revolution to rally for democracy, yet another testimony to the contagion of democracy that President Bush has consistently propounded.

In 2007, Kuwaiti women cast votes for the first time, less than a year after winning full political rights (under Sharia law) in the oil-rich Gulf state – no thanks to American feminists who have been too busy bashing President Bush to notice anything awry in the Muslim world.

According to Freedom House, an American organization that tracks global trends in political freedom, at the end of 2005 there were 122 electoral democracies (64 percent of the world’s states, compared with 40 percent in the mid-1980s). Further, 89 of these were rated as politically free – 46 percent of all states, compared with only 25 percent in 1975.

The Midterm Elections
But didn’t the Democrats take control of Congress, and doesn’t that “prove” that our country repudiated the policies of President Bush? Well, yes they did, but no it doesn’t!

The midterms were a testimony to Democracy in action, when the all-too-few people who actually vote registered their dissatisfaction, not with the Iraq War or defeating the terrorists who daily threaten America and its allies with annihilation, but rather with the seemingly sluggish progress of the war.

Democrats promised to “support our troops” and provide more effective domestic and foreign policies. Instead, according to the Congressional Quarterly, about half the laws the 110th Congress has passed have “changed the name of a federal building, post office or national recreation area.”

Journalist and author Emmett Tyrrell goes further in describing the stunning ineffectualness of our newly elected majority: “When Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi led their enlightened hordes onto Capitol Hill early this year, they promised liberation and progress. They would raise the minimum wage. Homeland security was to be made foolproof. Medicare’s drug prices would be lowered by congressional writ. They had a scheme to lower interest rates on college loans. Finally something vast and ingenious was going to be done about the war in Iraq. Possibly the congressional Democrats were going to yank our military from that inhospitable country and replace it with the Peace Corps or perhaps the Good Humor Man. Of course, the fulminating Democrats have accomplished none of the above.”

And according to Investors’ Business Weekly, “For all the promises of its new Democratic leaders, Congress seems truly interested in doing only one thing: surrendering in Iraq. No wonder its public approval ratings have sunk below the president’s.”

Those approval ratings, according to a Gallup poll, declined from 37 percent to 33 percent in mid-April and to 29 percent in mid-May, no doubt fueled by Pelosi’s ill-conceived trip to Syria, where she unctuously bowed and scraped before its terrorist president, Assad, and of course Reid’s gift to Osama bin Laden and our other enemies with his declaration that “This war is lost.” And that is not to omit the demand of Reid and Pelosi, along with other liberals, that we tell our enemies the exact date we plan to surrender.

Note To Liberals: Keep On Truckin’!
I, for one, am delighted by the degree to which the bright sunshine of media exposure has revealed what Democrats (read liberals) are really all about.

While engaging in pointless hearings that waste precious time and cost millions, and while bringing dozens of boondoggling amendments to our war-funding bill, Democrats are proving to the country that their real goals are nothing more base than to defeat the man who defeated them twice for the presidency and to lose the war in Iraq.

So far, we have learned that the three leading contenders for the presidency – Clinton, Obama, and Edwards – are all far-left and anti-war (Clinton the only one to have done a 180-degree flip-flop on the issue).

They have told us – in unmistakably plain English – that they intend to levy the largest tax increase in American history and institutionalize socialized medicine, and that they refuse to support any energy saving strategies that involve domestic drilling, the building of new refineries, and the use of nuclear power.

Other of their lofty goals include embracing galloping socialism, quashing if not the practice than the ethos of Christianity, placing our military and intelligence systems on life support (as they did under Bill Clinton), opening the floodgates for upwards of 50 million illegal aliens, and fostering close alliances with Communists and terrorists like Castro, Chavez, Assad, Ahmadinejab, et al.

This is because, Tyrell posits, “Defeatism is…now part of the Democratic Party’s DNA…[it has come to be] called the Democrats’ Vietnam Syndrome. It is why for years the Democrats have not been trusted on matters of national security.”

It is apparent that much of the rest of the world agrees, and that the conservative military and defense policies of President Bush, as well as his compassionately conservative domestic policies, have caught on “big time.”

You won’t see newspaper headlines or TV reportage about this phenomenon because the liberals among us – including our leftwing media – have still not recovered from what syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, a former psychiatrist, has called the Bush Derangement Syndrome they acquired seven years ago.

But if you think you’ve seen liberal pathology since 2000, watch out for 2008 when even more countries elect conservative leaders and one of our own liberal candidates – waffling Hillary, pretty-boy John, and bromide-afflicted Barack – goes down to defeat.

Joan Swirsky is a New York-based author and journalist who has been a longtime health-and-science and feature writer for The New York Times Long Island section. She is the recipient of seven Long Island Press Awards…

Hurray for the IDF

Hurray for the IDF

A kind of military coup
By Haaretz Editorial

[..] According to an article published in Haaretz yesterday (“The spirit of the commander prevails” by Meron Rapoport), it seems that with regard to the army, the answer is negative. While ministers speak about a two-state solution, a kind of military coup is taking place in the West Bank, in which the Israel Defense Forces are turning the area into the state of the settlers. While the Palestinian population is being suffocated, the settlements are flourishing.

[..] Haggai Alon, an adviser to the defense minister who is responsible for the fabric of life in the West Bank, says that the army disregards the government’s diplomatic agenda and essentially serves as the settlers’ army.

One shocking example of this democratic crisis is the army’s disregard of court decisions regarding the route of the separation fence. After years of High Court of Justice hearings on every meter of the fence, with the goal of striking a balance between security needs and the needs of Palestinian daily life, it turns out that along Route 317, which links several settlements in the southern Mount Hebron area, the army ignored these decisions and built a mini-fence in addition to the one that was formally approved – and it is located along the original route that the High Court nixed. [Finally some backbone]

Additionally, a section of the fence near the Trans-Samaria Highway, which was supposed to be built near the Green Line, was never completed due to the settlers’ objections. The army also stopped conducting security checks on cars with Israeli license plates due to the protests lodged by settlers, who did not want to stop at the checkpoints – even though an explosives-laden car with an Israeli license plate recently entered Israel. The IDF does not report to the government on how many roadblocks there are in the West Bank; thus the government can talk about making life easier for the Palestinians while the army refrains from doing so. Similarly, thanks to assistance from IDF officers, settlers moved into a disputed house in Hebron; downtown Hebron was closed to Palestinians; and 3,000 demonstrators reached the evacuated settlement of Homesh in defiance of the government’s decision. Settlements are also expanding in various places because the army has turned a blind eye, and sometimes even with its active assistance.

In light of all this, Amir Peretz’s talk about dismantling West Bank settlement outposts, like Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni’s promises to reach a new agreement on dividing the land between Israel and Palestine, sounds emptier than ever. It evidently makes no difference which party is in power, as long as the army serves the settlers rather than the state.

Posted by Ted Belman @ 9:22 am |

Hamas leader: Israel will be wiped off the map

Hamas leader: Israel will be wiped off the map

By Andrew L. Jaffee, netwmd.com

From the group that brought you the Passover bombing in Netanya, babies dressed up like suicide bombers, and kindergartens run to train children to become homicide bombers… Today, JPost reports:

A senior Hamas leader in Gaza declared that it was signed and sealed within his party that Israel would be wiped off the map and replaced by a Palestinian State, Israel Radio reported. He added that rockets and missiles were the means of removing Israel from the picture. …

Not only does Hamas offer bellicosity, it adds hypocrisy:

Fawzi Barhoum, a Hamas spokesman in Gaza, called on the IDF to keep civilians out of the circle of violence. At the same time, he called on Palestinians to attack anything that could be considered Israeli, since, he claimed, it was Israel that declared war on the Palestinians. …

Cross-posted at netwmd.com and IsraPundit

Posted by Andrew Jaffee @ 12:24 pm |

Build the Fence Now

Build the Fence Now

by Jeff Lukens

 

There is an old saying that a good fence makes for good neighbors. This truism has never been more applicable than with our Southern neighbor of Mexico. A good fence makes good immigration policy too.

 

Unfortunately, the current Senate Immigration Bill’s focus is not on the fence. It is on making people who’ve broken the law legal. Unless we want to be dealing with this issue again in five or 10 years, after millions more illegals have entered our country, the fence must become the focus of any solution.

 

In 2005, the House approved the $1 billion “Secure Fence Act” to build a 700-mile border wall. So far, however, they have built just two miles. This should be the priority, but instead, it is an afterthought.

 

A fence would lower incentives to illegal immigration. With the emergence of human-smuggling organizations, crossing the border has never been easier. The fence would raise the costs of the illegal option, and make coming here legally a more attractive alternative.

 

Most Americans clearly want the federal government to get tougher on illegal immigration. While politicians pander for cheap labor and cheap votes, we the taxpayers pick up the tab for increased health-care, education, and other social services. As far as monetary cost and the social fabric of our nation, cheap labor may not be so cheap after all.

 

While almost everyone welcomes legal immigrants to America, we know we can assimilate only so many newcomers at one time. The solution to our illegal immigration problem begins with controlling the border, and controlling the border means building a fence.

 

The income gap between the U.S. and Mexico is the largest between any two neighboring countries in the world. The Mexican economy does not provide living wages for its growing population, and their solution is to export their poor to our country.

 

No previous group of immigrants has had such a large inflow or access to their home country that this latest group has today. That’s because no previous wave of immigrants could walk across our border. Earlier groups crossed oceans to come here and were assimilated into the culture in a gradual and measured way. This latest wave quite literally has only to walk right in.

 

Most illegals do not conduct themselves like immigrants of the past. Granted, many of them work hard, but they are here against our laws and have little or no interest in learning English or the ways of our culture. Illegals generally come here merely to find a job, not necessarily to become citizens. And now, they are protesting our generosity in the streets of our cities.

 

These behaviors and attitudes are offensive to Americans, and are the reason why most folks want the border controlled. This is not about racism. It is about an abuse of our laws and social norms that appalls everyone including African, Asian and other ethnic groups who are legally waiting in line to become citizens.

 

Once in the U.S., sending illegals back has become nearly impossible. With legal restrictions and limited enforcement resources, even when we catch them they are often released back on U.S. soil as if nothing happened. If we don’t address this problem properly, in 20 years we may have an exponential number; say 20 or 30 million more illegals, to deal with.

 

We cannot allow Mexico to export their poverty as a way to avoid economic and social reform. Ultimately, this problem will not go away until Mexicans can live prosperously in their own country. And that will not happen until their corrupt and government, and inefficient economy, are reformed.
 

The Senate Immigration bill isn’t about citizenship that some would have you believe. It is about millions becoming legal immediately with a stroke of the pen, and becoming future constituents. They instantly get rights to American health, education and welfare benefits. How this all gets paid for, who knows? And for Sen. Kennedy and his esteemed colleagues, who cares?
 

No one expects fines and other requirements of the bill to be enforced. They rarely enforce existing law already. And no matter how you dress it up, 12+ million illegals will have their amnesty, and the incentive for millions more to sneak across will be on the table. With family unity provisions, there really is no limit on the number of foreigners that will flood into our county. The America we once knew will be gone.

 

So far, all efforts to secure the border have failed. Patrols alone will not do the job. Whatever funding is provided this year may be cut next year, and we could be right back where we started. We need something tangible. In plain English, that means build the fence that Congress authorized two years ago.

 

A fence may not stop illegal aliens from coming, but it may reduce their flow to a manageable level. Once it is in place and we restore order, our ability to handle guest worker programs and related issues becomes possible. We really cannot address any other issue related to immigration until the fence is built.

 

We have a proud history of accepting the world’s poor in a system designed to provide gradual assimilation of new citizens into our language and culture. We need to control our border and allow that process to happen properly.

 

Discuss This Article

Jeff Lukens is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. (www.thenma.org). The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

Should Latino Activists Get “the Vote”?

Should Latino Activists Get “the Vote”?

by Erik Rush

erush2.jpg (4654 bytes)

 

“A bloodbath just south of the Mexican border has alarmed neighboring Arizona towns that have nervously monitored a rise in violence in the Mexican state of Sonora the past two months.

“About 40 assailants apparently related to Mexico’s powerful drug gangs, drove in a convoy of up to 15 vehicles into the town of Cananea, 20 miles south of the U.S. border, to seize the policemen Wednesday. Mexican state police confronted the gunmen in the mountains 60 miles south of Cananea and reportedly killed 15 of the gunmen.”

– WorldNetDaily.com, May 18, 2007

And we’re in appeasement mode. Madness…

In my recent column “Mexico: Annexation or Desolation”, I pointed out (once again) that the thought process of a goodly number of Americans is tainted by the “well-funded campaigns of those who claim to represent Mexican immigrants and Mexican-Americans at large, such as MEChA, La Raza and the Mexica Movement.”

“The fact that organizations such as these possess the temerity to support nebulous “civil rights” for people who entered the United States illegally notwithstanding, it is generally known by a relative few that these groups not only don’t represent the majority of Mexican immigrants, but they take their marching orders from American socialists (whose sentiments parallel those in the farthest-Left vicinity of our new congressional majority).”

– Mexico: Annexation or Desolation

Consequently the gutless consideration that’s been given these groups by our lawmakers the media (of course) and other involved principals galls me to no end. I have no qualms whatsoever at calling these organizations the poverty pimps of American Latino society (Hell, if Obama becomes President I’ll probably have to flee the country given how I’ve upset his applecart). They preach entitlement and victimization rhetoric to young Mexican-Americans and dangle a plethora of perks before migrant workers who aren’t savvy enough to know are simply political maneuvers. Their demands and audacious dictates will have the most deleterious effects upon the American working middle class (of all races, by the way), rather than the monolithic, obscenely wealthy “Racist America” that’s been exploiting them for so long. I am presuming that financial assistance, employment, and not being shot or prosecuted for illegally entering the United States became “exploitation” while I wasn’t looking.

Of course, since they are associated with various globalists and socialists in Congress and in the media, they are being taken seriously – or at least that’s the impression being portrayed. Given my druthers, I would tell them collectively to go straight to hell. Migrant workers are actually at the bottom of their list of priorities apropos the guest worker/amnesty/immigration reform proposals into which they’ve insinuated their germy claws. The greatest beneficiaries of illegal immigration (migrant workers) will suffer, as will people living in border regions. The only people these faint and feeble measures are going to help are the activist organizations themselves, and their Leninist overlords.

So in my opinion, these Latino poverty pimps, using the model of American black activists don’t get a “vote” where immigration reform (forget “rights” – there’s no such thing when the immigration is being executed illegally) is concerned. Why should they? The only beneficiaries of their actions will be them!

From “Reid Forces New Senate Debate on Immigration”
Washington Post, May 10, 2007
Jonathan Weisman, Staff Writer

“Both parties are battling for the allegiance of Latino voters. Indeed, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) offered immigrant groups virtual veto power over this year’s bill.

‘Unless the stakeholders are going to believe that it’s worthy of their support, no matter what we do here in the United States Senate, it isn’t going to work,’ he said.”

And who are these “stakeholders”? A litigator’s question, of course, because I already have the answer: The Latino organizations that happen to be rattling their cardboard sabers at the Democrat leadership the most vigorously right now. An interesting irony, as these are primarily concerned with the “civil rights” (non-entitled entitlements) of Mexican-Americans and illegal aliens from Mexico. I’m not sure which self-appointed, self-serving organizations are presuming to speak for other Central and South American immigrants. Then, do Puerto Ricans count – or are they exempt from “the struggle” because Puerto Rico enjoys commonwealth status?

Aren’t you glad someone asks these questions..?

Kennedy’s shameless, invertebrate conclusions are sickmaking, or course; they simply underscore the consummate prostitutes certain politicians are capable of being. The reality that the “stakeholder” activist groups are merely cogs in the Leninist wheel is what’s important to Kennedy and his brood of vipers; the fact that they pay lip-service toward “representing” only around 5% of the population (poorly, I might add) hardly matters.

Image is everything, you see…

The bipartisan “deal” that is nearing approval by Congress (so say the news agencies) is being criticized as not enough by the Democrat presidential hopefuls and a dangerous sellout by the Republican side of that coin. Lovely posturing, but more verbal incontinence to those who know how many on both sides are too well-invested in the status quo to ever propose anything prudent or decisive – Democrat and Republican base supporters be damned, by the way.

As with confronting black activists, Americans at large had better find the vertebral fortitude to tell these parasites where to cram it, even though they be branded racist, latinophobes, exploiters of poor (thanks to the Mexican government) human beings “just looking for a better life”.

This will be what is called “projection”, as they teach in beginning psychology classes; ascribing undesirable traits that one actually possesses to one’s opponents. Because this isn’t about America treating illegal immigrants fairly, it’s about empowering the opportunistic parasites who actually exploit them – and anyone else foolish enough to fall for their lying drivel.

Discuss This Article

Erik Rush is a New York-born columnist, author and speaker who lives in Colorado and writes columns of sociopolitical fare for WorldNetDaily as well as dozens of nationally-distributed print and online news sources. He has appeared on FoxNews, CNN’s Paula Zahn Now and is a veteran of numerous radio appearances. Erik is also a Staff Writer and Acting Associate Editor and Publisher for the New Media Alliance, Inc., a national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets. An archive containing links to his work can be found at http://www.erikrush.com. He is the author of several books; his latest, “Annexing Mexico: Solving the Border Problem Through Annexation and Assimilation”, has just been released by Level 4 Press.