Bush: It’s Naïve to Believe There is No War on Terror

Bush: It’s Naïve to Believe There is No War on Terror
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
May 24, 2007

(CNSNews.com) – Responding to criticism that the conflict in Iraq is merely a civil war in a foreign country, President Bush said during a news conference at the White House on Thursday that “this notion that this isn’t a war on terror is, in my view, naïve.”

Bush made the comment one day after 2008 Democratic presidential candidate and former U.S. Sen. John Edwards dismissed the U.S.-led war on terrorism as “a bumper sticker, not a plan.”

Speaking in the White House Rose Garden, the president also stated that the upcoming summer months will be a critical time for his troop “surge” in Iraq. He indicated that the last five brigades making up the 30,000-troop buildup should arrive in Baghdad by mid-June.

“We are going to expect heavy fighting in the next weeks and months, and we can expect American and Iraqi casualties,” Bush said. “We will stay on the offense,” he added, repeating what has become for him a consistent refrain: “It’s better to fight them there than to fight them here.”

Asked how long he could sustain the policy without achieving significant progress on the ground, Bush noted that the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, is due to report back on the effects of the new strategy by September.

In response to a reporter’s question regarding making a choice between fighting al Qaeda and the war in Iraq, the president replied that “we are fighting al Qaeda … in Iraq.”

Bush also said that “the Iraqi government needs to show real progress in return for America’s continued support and sacrifice. It’s going to be hard work for this young government,” he added.

The president called the news conference as the House prepared to vote on $120 billion legislation that would fund the war in Iraq through September. The bill significantly does not incorporate a timetable to withdraw U.S. troops, the Democratic leaders in Congress having failed to push through earlier legislation including such a provision.

The Senate is also expected to vote on the measure on Thursday, and Congress will likely send the bill to the president for his signature over the upcoming Memorial Day weekend.

Another topic addressed during Thursday’s event was Iran, which has continued to build a nuclear energy program despite calls from the U.S. and other world powers to halt the process – a suspected front to develop nuclear weapons capability.

“Unacceptable” was how Bush categorized Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. “Iran, with a nuclear weapon, would be incredibly destabilizing for the world,” he said.

“The world has spoken and has said no nuclear weapons programs. Yet they’re constantly ignoring the demands,” Bush said.

To respond to the problem, the president said, “we need to strengthen our sanctions.” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will work with European partners “collaboratively to continue to isolate that regime,” he added.

Iran has stepped up the tensions with the U.S. by detaining American citizens, including Iranian-American scholar Haleh Esfandiari, arrested during a visit to Iran to see her ailing 93-year-old mother.

“Obviously, to the extent that these people are picking up innocent Americans, it’s unacceptable,” Bush said. “And we’ve made it very clear to the Iranian government that the detention of good, decent American souls … is not acceptable behavior.”

The president also discussed immigration reform, calling it “a complex issue” that would be addressed by the compromise the Senate worked out earlier this week.

“It’s a difficult piece of legislation, and those who are looking to find fault with this bill will always be able to find something,” he said. “But if you’re serious about securing our borders and bringing millions of illegal immigrants in this country out of the shadows, this bipartisan bill is the best opportunity to move forward.”

According to supporters, the legislation would tighten the borders and toughen standards for businesses hiring immigrants in an effort to make sure the employees are legal residents.

One controversial portion of the measure would create a merit-based system for future immigrants. Officials would assign more points to those with higher skills and prioritize employment over family ties.

Finally, Bush restated his confidence in embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The president said that the Justice Department is involved in “an exhaustive investigation” into issues such as whether politics played an improper role in decisions at the Justice Department. “And if there’s wrongdoing, it will be taken of,” he said.

The president criticized Congress’ multiple hearings into the matter, which he suspected was being dragged out “for political reasons.”

“As I mentioned the other day, it’s grand political theater,” Bush said of the dispute.

Bush asked Congress to “move expeditiously to finish their hearings and get on to the business of passing legislation.”

digg_skin = ‘compact’

McCain Sides with Dems on Global Warming — McCain has lost it

McCain Sides with Dems on Global Warming
CNS News
A panel discussion on global climate change Tuesday found Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) staff agreeing with representatives for the leading Democratic presidential contenders. A cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, they agreed, is the most promising solution to “global warming.” A cap and trade system would involve limits or caps (lower than current levels) on the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced by polluters like power plants. But companies able to cut their CO2 output at a low cost would be able to sell their left-over pollution permits to companies facing higher costs. John Raidt, a policy advisor to McCain, said during a discussion at the left-leaning Brookings Institution that the Arizona Republican is a “foremost proponent of carbon cap-and-trade.” Raidt said McCain supports a cap-and-trade system above taxes on carbon emissions because “cap-and-trade is a market-driven, proven way.” The position put McCain in league with leading Democratic contenders – Sen. Hillary Clinton (NY), Sen. Barack Obama (IL) and former Sen. John Edwards (NC) – whose policy advisors also participated in the discussion. Representatives for the three Democrats said they all support a carbon cap-and-trade system

John Edwards Today: There Is No War On Terror

John Edwards Today: There Is No War On Terror

( or, “There Can Be No War On Terror, Because Such A War Is Bad Politics For Leftists” )


This Is Mind Control To Major Tom

Posted by Pat Dollard 0 Comments

Hamas Transcends Old PLO Position

Hamas Transcends Old PLO Position

Overlooked by mainstream media: Islamist Hamas has transcended the old PLO in its opposition to Israel.

Whereas the secular, nationalist PLO was officially committed to Israel’s destruction and replacement of the Jewish state in Palestine with a state that would allow individual Jews–on paper, at least–to reside as citizens within its borders, Hamas defiantly declares that it will not rest until “the last Jew is expelled from Palestine.” Hamas is fighting a religious war.

The group’s rhetoric is significant, though the media will not address the matter. Meanwhile, the pro-Islamist Chamberlains and Quislings crusading for Western appeasement and capitulation will do their best to distort and disinform in order to help Hamas achieve its awful aims.

So it goes.

Are Bloggers Creating the Crisis or Just Reporting It Uncensored?

Are Bloggers Creating the Crisis or Just Reporting It Uncensored?

Created 2007-05-24 07:04

In part our time’s story is determined by what we think. Much of what we perceive of our reality is determined by who the writers that make public opinion are. Related to this is the nature of the source in which the makers of opinion can be accessed. Both factors hinge on what is officially graded as respectable. The extent to which unfiltered facts are accepted as starting points for interpretation depends on whether their source is rated as main stream or is rejected because the media establishment denies it official status.

The issue then is not always whether the reported fact from which interpretations are extrapolated, checks out as accurate. Nor does it count if the extrapolation from this data is within the boundaries of reason. Often the decisive question can become whether the fact fits the official consensus. Thus the issue is whether the material integrates into what is proclaimed to be legitimate that is, whether it fits the concept drawn erected prior to the event. (This mentality gave rise to a pun. “The new thesis explains reality, however, the real question is whether it fits the theory.”)

Another aspect of acceptance pertains to “who says it.” 2×2 equals a “whatever” and that amount is flexible as it often depends on who the respondent might be. This makes “four” independent of math. The approval or rejection of the answer often considers the status assigned to the respondent by those who determine what, considering the “complex social situation of the respondents”, the desirable solution should be.

Consequently, the proclaimed truth is not singularly a consequence of confirmable facts and their interpretation by some rule of logic. Much rather, true is what corresponds to the postulated consensus seized up by those who are “licensed” to determine it. The follow up is the allegation’s reproduction by “legitimate” publications and their oracles. Therefore credibility depends on who says it and where it was said.

Since the dawn of the age of democracy, what folks think has crucial importance. Admittedly, majority rule has not brought about the hoped for rule by pure reason. Why? Oddly enough, until a crisis hits, majorities can remain unaware of the issues that determine their existence. In the crucial questions pluralities react but fail to act preventively because a limited span of attention bolstered by wishful thinking hinders the assessment of middle- and long tem implications. Therefore the ability to influence in the present the common man who lacks a past and a future is, especially in the age of hedonism, of growing importance.

In influencing the public, the media plays a crucial role as it determines, by exploiting the missing perspective of its customers, what is news and how it shall be interpreted. This ability to grade and therefore to censure news goes beyond what open editorializing does. What is not reported did not happen, while what is told repeatedly can become a value-wrapped truth. This being the case, the control of the channels that lead from the reporter to the analyst and from there to the public attains significance. Under terms that prevailed till recently, “the news fit to print” was often what suited the world view of the media insiders. Those who adjusted had access – and jobs as well as a name – while those whose presentations did not fit the mold were silenced by being kept outsiders. (Admittedly, many who would like to publish lack talent. Their case is not at issue here.)

Therefore, much that is important is not heard of precisely because it is of significance. Not infrequently, the real story is not the event but what is done to it before it becomes the news you see, that amounts to the real story. While this is still often the case, the situation is changing.

Thanks to the internet which could be called “the mass’ voice,” the standard news sources are becoming subject to effective scrutiny. Situations occur in which a falsehood, that in older days would have prevailed, get unmasked and the official media colporting it has to retreat. (One case: Bush’ falsified military record that, without the instant prounce of bloggers, would have decided an election.)

In the light of the foregoing it is understandable that the competition impacting on the power inherent in influence and its perks can jolt the traditional media as a stiff upper lip does not make the challenge go away. This provocation demands an active response. Much being at stake, a piece about “The Bloggers of Confrontation” in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (May 4) deserves to be partially reproduced here. The more so since the paper is one of the world’s best and is regarded, also by this writer, as objective and also as conservative.

The piece continues with a follow up punch with the subtitle “internet diaries against ‘the creeping islamization of Europe’.” The introduction asserts that the Bloggers have “declared war on Islam”.

Since the crisis of the Mohammed caricatures the minutemen of journalism fight Europe’s “stealthy islamization”. In doing so they disseminate a mixture of “alarmist and ridiculous” appeals calling on the public to resist the new Moslem conquest, while they urge Europe to hold on to its own values. Representative of these combat bloggers’ approach are the exploitation of topics such as that ham sandwich for which a pupil got disciplined, that a critical journalist in Canada was clobbered and that Australian convicts convert to Islam.

The persons who claim that “Muslims” and “Islam” conspire against open societies are, by and large “unknowns” in the world of journalism. According to these bloggers the attack to be fended off takes place on all levels. The, by implication hysterical, examples of the perceived assault involve everyday life, the attacks on the foundations of (democratic) constitutions and the sinews of the host community’s social order. The bugle-call feeds on Moslem-inspired rules and efforts that enable the minority to curtail the rights of the majority. Emphasis is given to odd cases, such as that of Islamic taxi drivers in Minneapolis that refused to transport the “unclean” guide-dogs of blind passengers. Instances, when the belligerent bloggers can assert that, in the name of multi-cultural correctness and due to cowardice, businesses and governments submit to Muslim rules, are exploited. Recently added topics are attacks on Jews and gays.

Such portrayals, they are rated as being devoid of nuance, are said to resemble the modus operandi of “antifascist denunciations.” Not the “lunatic fringe” is condemned by the bloggers in pajamas but the entire movement. “Thus every Moslem is reduced to a single identity that makes him into a threat” by being a follower of a “‘pedophile mass murderer’” and a person that endorses mutilation and stoning. Indeed, much of what the bloggers post is unappetizing, loaded with resentment and unsuited to support their claim of juxtaposing the truth to the regular press’ conspiracy of silence.

Limited by the tunnel vision of “zealots”, these fighters of the war of cultures peruse websites posted by the legitimate press while they also scrutinize the local sections of the papers whereby a “one-sided” selection can be made. Their efforts aim to penetrate the boundaries by which dailies separate significant occurrences from the less important ones. This way, a notice in a provincial Bavarian paper about Turks harassing a Catholic procession can become a globally noted event.

Even so, the piece, while rejecting the bloggers’ topic, does not call all websites pools of unmitigated prejudice. Readers desiring a “more differentiated” and “reliable” view of current events, are referred to a site maintained by a German state organ for political education.In conclusion, the piece recommends not to dismiss the “provocations of the nasty blogs”. Their popularity reflects resistance against a prevailing inclination to mix inappropriately “lecturing and information” by the proper media. The blending-out of the vicissitudes of multicultural living and the general silence regarding the ethnic-religious background of criminals are errors that aid the bloggers. An equally costly mistake is the kind of heavy handed propaganda that loudly and uncritically praises the virtues of foreign cultures and customs. Such approaches are suited to provoke in a significant segment of the public the suspicion of manipulation. This perception is stridently confirmed by the kind of bloggers the essay intended to expose.

This tempted author refrained from interrupting the shortened article by his own comments. The issues raised here deserve that the task of thinking the matter through be left to the perceptive reader. Most likely, these reactions will display all the colors of the rainbow. No wonder, since the paraphrased author – who is a good publicist – has points to make. Admittedly, a certain number of the general detractors of Islam resemble – at least in some of their thinking – the mirror image of the Jihadists. After all, the legitimate objection is not to Islam as a religion but to the politics of violence pursued in its name. On the other hand, the writer does not try to refute the authenticity of the news Islamists create on their home turf and when guest outside of their native area. One is led to suspect that what provokes the ire exhibited here is not the doubt concerning the genuineness of the events on which the blogs’ dwell. His ire seem to rise because the wrong publications and people handle a subject without politely muting the facts with a restraint that perseveres in the pursuit of compromise. Still, “tone it down” and “overlook it” has, whenever a party made the price of “peace” the other’s right to exist, not served well its advocates in the past century.

Perhaps the blame for radicalization (self-defense to some) should not be put on those noticing, reporting and countering extreme behavior directed against them. Possibly, the credit for raising political temperatures should be given to those who, through their comportment, create the unpleasant news that are beyond the pale. Meanwhile it seems that, regardless of the alleged lack of balance, the blog and the blogger is here to stay and is likely to thrive. Not being subject of pre-publication self-censorship by PC and enjoying the independence to ignore taboos, create conditions that support the forecast. One day, private citizens who care for a free press that brings results, will begin to fund quality blogs. With that blogging will cease to be a personal sacrifice and the role of this informal and “private” press that serves by paralleling the “official” media, will be reinforced. Anyhow, like it or not, the blog is unlikely to “go away” very soon.

Source URL:

The Changing Face Of War

The Changing Face Of War

Created 2007-05-24 12:34

Mankind has known wars as far back as historical memory can take us, and this is unlikely to change in the future.   But the preponderant nature of war has been changing over the past half century, from international wars between states to civil wars within states.   There has been no open warfare among major powers since World War II, perhaps the longest period of such ‘peace’ since the emergence of modern states in the 17th century, although warfare on a smaller scale between some nations continues infrequently.  There are many plausible reasons for this development, e.g. such as technological changes and the declining importance of agriculture (territory) for wealth creation.   In short, the perception has grown that the real costs of war have risen while the potential benefits have declined, although one should not make the mistake of assuming that armed conflict between nuclear-armed states is universally understood to be suicidal.    With regard to war, what matters today is not so much the absence of genuine world government (an impossibility given the lack of commonality of values in the world), but rather the presence of conditions promoting civil wars in perhaps half of the world’s countries.  It is often claimed that we live in a world of international anarchy and domestic order.  But, in reality, the reverse is true.  We have an international order (of sorts) and domestic anarchy in numerous countries.

Causes of civil war
The causes of civil war are as diverse as mankind.   But they usually involve intense grievances by a large segment of the population, a belief in a ‘right’ to revolt, and a belief that improvement can be obtained through violence.    Many developing countries lack a sense of national community (a problem that might increasingly afflict ‘multicultural’ developed countries as well).  Poverty is not in itself a cause of civil war or internal conflict.  But, as most poverty is usually caused by corruption and incompetence of political regimes, it is the lack of ‘legitimacy’ and weakness of government (common in the developing world) that must be considered a major root cause.   Some states once considered as ‘developed’ have known extensive civil conflict in recent times (e.g. Russia and Yugoslavia), and others once considered underdeveloped now face little prospect of civil war (e.g. Taiwan, South Korea, Brazil, etc…).  Thus, it would be a mistake to think that any state is totally immune to civil conflict and that conditions cannot change fairly rapidly over time. 

There are obviously many types of civil war.  For instance, distinctions could be made on the basis of ethnic, religious and nonreligious ideological civil conflicts, on the scale of particular conflicts, on the extent of external involvement, etc….Often the concepts of civil war and of civil strife are difficult to disentangle when considering phenomena as diverse as revolutions, terrorism, insurrections, secession movements, coups, large-scale riots, etc… 

Distinctive characteristics

When comparing civil wars with more ‘traditional’ international (or inter-state) wars, two distinctive features stand out.

  • First, civil wars tend to last much longer than wars between countries, particularly when the opposing forces are fairly evenly matched.   Nations at war can often pull their troops behind some ‘border’ after a peace accord is reached.  If the agreement gets broken in some way, the conflict will likely resume.  This is surely unpleasant but not necessarily fatal to the ‘weaker side’.   By contrast, opponents in civil wars usually have to lay down arms before a peace accord can be reached.  Once they do they must trust the ‘new’ government to protect them, and that government will tend to be dominated by the stronger side.   The weaker side may find itself with no recourse if the erstwhile enemy breaks the agreement.   In other words, getting ‘fooled’ in a civil war can be fatal. 
  • Second, wars between nations typically end in negotiated settlements.   By contrast, most civil wars do not, one side eventually takes all the spoils, and the conflict will keep flaring up.   For civil wars to end peacefully often a third party is involved that can enforce the terms of a settlement (with deeds, not just words!).   Also, successful civil war brokers will usually be aligned with the weaker side (which has the most to lose by laying down arms).  

Since the end of the Cold War, an increasing number of countries appears in danger of sliding into serous civil conflict or civil war.   Forces conducive to peace between states – like nuclear deterrence for instance – do not apply to internal peace, and general conditions conducive to civil conflicts may be worsening.  Liberal global (or internationalist) norms can certainly inhibit wars between some countries, but have proven ineffectual to stop internal wars.   When Saddam Hussein gassed large numbers of Iraki Kurds in 1998, the ‘international community’ barely yawned.   But when he invaded Kuweit two years later, the world gave it much more attention, even though vastly fewer people died, etc…  
 Implications and Concerns

In the world of today, free and democratic nations may have more to fear from state weaknesses than from state strengths elsewhere.   Among the many dangers that could emanate from civil conflict in some parts of the world, by far the greatest one is weapons of mass destruction (WMD, radiological, biological, and chemical) falling in the ‘wrong hands’.   The main implication should be obvious: deterrence will only hold between ‘responsible states’.   Conditions of civil disorder and strife raise serious questions about the probability of nuclear accidents, about failing military command and control systems, unauthorized launches, difficulty of identification of sources of attacks, etc… When governments lose control (even partially) over WMD – or worse, consciously choose to do so – the probability of them being used will rise astronomically.     And, the thought of ‘apocalyptic’ terrorist groups getting their hands on such weapons of mass destruction should – but does it today in the West? – concentrate all serious minds.

If deterrence only holds between ‘responsible’ governments, then practical ways must be found to ensure that all governments are indeed ‘responsible’ and thus the internal conditions of countries cannot be ignored.   The UN has moved some ways in recent years with a formal recognition of a “duty to protect” (which has broken the previous taboo of state sovereignty).  But words are cheap, and several major veto-wielding Security Council players are obviously not yet ready to behave ‘responsibly’ as witnessed by, for example, the continuing obfuscation with regard to the Iranian nuclear program, or non-action with regard to the Sudan. 

Civil wars can also be threatening to outsiders in a number of other (mainly economic) respects, such as energy provision, tourism and travel, drugs and crime, etc… But these pale in comparison with the WMD issue. 

Perhaps the greatest threat today emanates from civil unrest in Pakistan, which now possesses a sizable number of nuclear weapons (over 50) and the infrastructure to make more.   Without going into the details of the horrendous internal conditions of that country (with its multiple insurgencies), it is worth noting that never in the history of Pakistan has an elected government been succeeded by another elected one.  And Pakistan is the only nuclear-armed state today ever to have experienced a successful coup.   One must hope that responsible European governments will be willing to take the necessary actions to prevent a second ‘Pakistan’ emerging in Iran.  Only dramatic economic sanctions can be a serious substitute for military action if a nuclear theocracy there is to be avoided.

Also, the prospects for civil unrest in Saudi Arabia, and even China in the medium term, should not be ignored.   Those are somewhat more distant, but also very serious threats.  Disaster-management teams better get to work now, or we will all be very sorry.          

Source URL:

Amnesty International unhinged

The Mickey Martyr Club

The Mickey Martyr Club

By James Lewis

Hamas, the Islamofascist party that now controls half the Palestinian population, is giving the world an important object lesson on civilization; or rather, on the crucial difference between civilization and barbarism. In a West that has dulled the edge of its moral sense after years of “all cultures are equal” propaganda, it is high time for us to learn again what seemed so simple and obvious to previous generations: That civilization is better than bloody, vengeful barbarism, both in war and peace.
If we fail to understand the morality of our cause with the greatest intellectual clarity, we will not have the psychic strength to win this struggle. The moral lessons of what we see  in the news every day must be pointed out, over and over again. In a previous age, the mainstream media did that job.  Today, only the new media are willing to do it.
Annette Funicello wouldn’t approve, and neither would Walt Disney, but nonetheless the world has been introduced to the Mickey Martyr Club (Music please, Maestro!). Here come the kids marching in. Palestinian toddlers are being taught the glories of suicide-killing the Jews of Israel, using a Mickey Mouse rip-off on Hamas TV. Walt Disney’s cartoon mouse is now Mickey Martyr, on his way to paradise-after-death in a thousand bloody shreds. This is not the wholesome land of Disney.
So far, the Disney Company isn’t suing to protect its copyright, simply just hoping that this insanity will go away.
Now in a sane and decent country this sort of brainwashing of innocents would be called child abuse. If American liberals knew about little kids being told to commit suicide-murder anywhere in the United States, wouldn’t they explode with righteous rage? So … where is their moral outrage?
In fact, where is the whole Left on the Islamofascist abuse of kids, women, and innocent civilians? Why do liberals mostly ignore mass-casualty Al Qaeda car bombs exploded in the outdoor markets in Baghdad to kill and maim as many civilians as possible? Because that, of course, is the crux of terrorism: It fails any civilized moral test because it aims to kill innocents as a desired goal of war. Emotionally, it is sadistic vengeance as a tactic of war. Once you decide that is justified, what isn’t?
Western conduct in war has long been governed by Just War doctrine, worked out in great detail by first-rate thinkers, from the Roman philosopher Cicero to Christian theologians like Augustine and Aquinas, and the Dutch legal scholar De Grotius.
Today our moral and legal understanding of war has been kidnapped by the peacenik Left, which don’t know nuthin’ about history, geography, or the realities of conflict over the ages. Just War doctrine is based on the elementary difference between an accident and murder most foul, planned and executed with malice aforethought. It is the clear morality of human beings in extremis, confronted with choices most of us would rather avoid. 
In Western moral and legal thought, murder is sharply differentiated from unavoidable casualties. Just War codes of conduct arose at a time when soldiers wore gaudy red and blue uniforms with shiny brass helmets, precisely to differentiate themselves from innocent bystanders. To them it was honorable to stand up to deadly enemy fire in the most visible way: The British Redcoats, the Scots with their kilts and pipes, Napoleon’s Hussars, the gaudy Royal Household Cavalry. Those soldiers despised irregulars, like the Cossacks, who avoided equal battle and sought out the most helpless victims to kill, rob and rape. 

Today, the media, the UN, the Left, and Islamic fascists have all regressed to a more primitive standard of conduct, an uncivilized morality, doing their damndest to skate over the fundamental distinction between murder and accidental death. “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” they say. Yes: but only if your freedom fighter is a murderer in the first degree. That is not our concept of a freedom fighter in the West.
If you can’t tell the difference between the two, you probably don’t care whether you deliberately try to kill a pedestrian on a crosswalk, or whether you accidentally happen to harm someone, in the most agonized and guilt-stricken way. Now imagine actually trying to teach young children to go out and kill themselves and others. In Western thought that is tantamount to murder. It is morally and psychologically regressive. The fat and self-indulgent West is risking its own demise if it allows war as vendetta to become acceptable. But that is precisely what’s happening today among all the high-minded moral preeners of the Left.
People die in war. It’s horrible. But war in defense of decency is sometimes unavoidable. Lincoln freed the slaves after our worst war; it could not have happened peacefully. Peaceful solutions were tried for more than half a century before the War Between the States forced the issue. FDR and Churchill went to war to liberate much of Europe and Asia, because they realized that no one would ever be safe with a victorious Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini rampant over the world.
The evidence for that proposition was plain for all to see, though even then the likes of Joseph Kennedy and Charles Lindbergh urged peace. At least until war broke out, when they dutifully supported the war effort, to their credit.
The Cold War was again waged to defeat the likes of Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot. Those necessary wars were understood by most to be acts of profound morality and self-sacrifice, because the alternative would doom civilization. Under those circumstances, loud-mouthed pacifists were recognized to be moral cowards, with certain rare, honorable exceptions. Some pacifists volunteered to be battlefield medics. In contrast, today, morally lazy pacifism is the last resort of a scoundrel. We have an entire political party dedicated to a coward’s morality.
It all comes down to basic decency. A young (and foolish) woman I know said last week that there is no such thing as a moral war. On the contrary, war raises the most agonizing moral questions, starting with the decision to kill, because other options have simply run out. Clear thinking about morality is the essence of civilized warfare, and civilized warfare is the only justifiable kind.
Given these considerations, what are we to make of the Mickey Martyr Club on Hamas TV? Has any cause ever discredited itself so completely?
What makes Hamas TV indoctrination of the very young even worse is that Hamas could have a peace agreement with Israel tomorrow. Don’t believe that Hamas doesn’t know that. They know perfectly well that the great majority of Israelis aspire to peace, and they despise them for it. Hamas represents a profoundly reactionary, fanatical, religious martyrdom creed, straight from the clan vendettas of the desert, twelve centuries ago. 
Those tiny kids on Hamas TV could have a good life. They could grow and thrive, if only they were taught to accept their neighbors. All it takes is a decision by the adults, their mothers and fathers.
For Westerners who fastidiously turn their eyes away from Islamic primitivism, the time to take a stand is coming. Soon, no one will have the luxury of sitting this one out, and acting snooty to boot. Even Europe is beginning to stir – witness the election of Sarkozy in France and Merkel in Germany, the gutsy Aussies, the admirable Danish stand on the “cartoon jihad,” the Dutch reaction to the murder of Van Gogh, and the political clarity of the Poles, Czechs and Bulgarians.  All in defiance of the old media monopoly of the peacenik Left.
These nations have not forgotten the past. Make no mistake — they all hope that this will pass them by, or that Uncle Sam will take care of it. But ordinary people in those countries are increasingly seeing moral torpor as a dead end.
It’s about time.
James Lewis blogs at http://www.dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/

New Mexico to Become Latest Large Mexican Colony?

New Mexico to Become Latest Large Mexican Colony?

by Sher Zieve


  Just when I thought politics in New Mexico could not possibly become any more bizarre—they did. The police department for the state capitol—Santa Fe—has made the decision to hire Mexican Nationals (NOT US citizens) as “law enforcement” officers. In this way, the new Mexican (not US) police officers can ensure that illegal immigrants are given the special privileges the anarchistic hordes have decided they deserve. And, New Mexico has begun the secession from the US, in order to no longer have to adhere to its pesky laws.


Considering US Senators and Congressional members’ penchant for flouting any and all US immigration laws, why shouldn’t individual states begin doing the same? Santa Fe Police Sgt. Marvin Paulk reinforced the “we don’t need no stinkin’ immigration laws” attitude, when he stated: “I know that there are state and federal laws that prohibit hiring officers who aren’t U.S. citizens, but I think that we should consider the possibility of changing these rules! A high percentage of our community is made up of Mexican citizens [note that these are not US citizens but, beholden to their Mexican citizenship], men and women who have lived a large part of their lives in this country. I don’t see why they can’t be good candidates to become police officers.” In other words, who cares about US law? An individual who has been given the responsibility of upholding the law [Police Sergeant Paulk] openly voices that he no longer cares about following the law of the land. After all, the new and improved leftist way of thinking and addressing any and all US laws is to follow them only if you agree with them—then ignore them when you don’t. Note: When law enforcement officials say they will not uphold laws, doesn’t complete chaos follow? It does.

After this new policy is adopted and passed—with the current illegals-have-more-rights-than-US-citizens position held by our “leaders” there is nothing to suggest that it won’t be—New Mexico will have taken the first official step toward ceding a US state back to Mexico and becoming its first official colony. Mexican Presidents Fox and Calderon, La Raza, MEChA, the Mexica Movement and all of the other “the United States belongs to us” foreign groups should be dancing in the streets over this proposal. Perhaps the Santa Fe PD is considering hiring MS-13 gang members. After all, they entered the US illegally—via its southern border—too. But, MS-13 members were originally from El Salvador. Will only Mexican nationals and Mexican gang members be considered? Heck. the Santa Fe PD and NM lawmakers may as well do away with all US laws so that New Mexico can officially become a lawless zone. Any way they wish to present it, refusal to follow the laws of the land leads to anarchy. In this way, the SFPD and the Democrat NM lawmakers can almost immediately remake the state into their own patron image and also set the tone for terrorists’ rights. With Washington lawmakers too timid to do anything, what’s to stop the New Mexico insurrection?


I never thought that I would see the complete dissolution-by-design of the USA by our on elected leaders. But, before our very eyes, that is precisely what is now occurring. Our “leaders” have already begun the process of separating the USA into colonias, which now encompass 4 states—California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico. As well, our law enforcers have made the decision that only the laws they and the politicians in power want will be upheld. If US laws fly in the face of their desires, said laws will be ignored and thrown out. If these new individually-designed and written laws continue to go unchallenged, the country is already lost. Both the invading Islamists and illegals’ Mexico-first crowds can divide the spoils of what was once the greatest country and ideology on Earth—now gone due to lack of interest. Has the US population become weary of liberty and freedom? Does it truly want suppression and submission to the will of a master?


President Ronald Reagan said: “Our Constitution is a document in which ‘We the People’ tell the government what it is allowed to do. ‘We the People’ are free. America is freedom—freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It’s fragile; it needs protection.” As long as we hold back from actively calling those “leaders” who refuse to uphold the US Constitution and protect the country to account, these words will continue to come back to haunt and bite us. And with little to no attention paid to the internal defeat of our country, being perpetrated by invading foreign powers and their supporters, it may already be too late. Is this really how you want the US to end?


Discuss This Article












Sher Zieve 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.

The Illegal Hear No Evil

The Illegal Hear No Evil

by Bob Parks


It’s too soon to predict the impact of our Senate, and later our Congress’ contributions to the Great Immigration Overhaul Revamp Bill Debacle, whatever you want to call it. But this much is certain. Again, our deeply conceited elected officials are going to ram legislation down our throats, as they believe we’re all just to dumb to know what’s good for us.


While Arizona Senator John McCain throws around the f-bombs to the Senate bill’s opposition, closed door negotiations with so-called moderate liberals, conservatives, and La Raza, one part of the process is being blown off: the testimony of the affected. We always hear from veterans, widows, actors (and actresses), doctors, and activists. Yet, this time out, it’s what we’re not going to hear that’s the key.

It is not amnesty. This will restore the rule of law.”

– Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter


Let’s make one thing perfectly clear. Whatever the politicos on Capitol Hill come up with, this is not about bringing anywhere from 12-24 million illegal immigrants out from the shadows and into the sunshine that is America, or however Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy put it. They are not in the shadows, but giving law-abiding American citizens the middle finger. Remember the millions of illegal aliens that marched in our streets last summer, DEMANDING rights and benefits reserved for citizens?


Supposedly, illegals will be told they have to pay a fine, go home, and reapply to come back to America, or at least that’s what the terms were the last I looked. Elements of this legislation may turn on a dime.


Once signed, compassionate Democrats will complain the thousands of dollars in fines will be too much for the poor illegals to pay, so that will be relaxed and eventually eliminated altogether. As the aliens could give a damn about our sovereign border in the first place, there’s nothing to guarantee that any illegal will go home and wait in line before coming back. This legislation is based on trusting people whose very first act in America was violating a federal law.


This is also not about making it easier for our law enforcement officials to know just who is in the country. This is not about the dignity of the hoards that live in an underground society within our borders.


This is about making millions of new Democrats. What that party cannot accomplish with the loyal minority, intentionally-created dependent constituency, will be done with the multitudes that will be reminded that Republicans have always been for expelling illegal immigrants, thus the potential easing of their criminal status was because of the compassion of the Democrat Party.


And when they eventually begin to vote, which will only be a matter of time (as they pay taxes and “contribute” to our society), they will be instructed to vote Democrat and they will.


As someone who lived and worked in Los Angeles for 12 years, I’ve seen and experienced what some of the unaffected bleeding heart types have no comprehension of. In this instance, the illegal aliens in The City of Angels are precisely the kind of people our founders never envisioned being accepted with open arms.


There are already new predictions that potentially violent right-wing crazies will target these poor people just here looking for opportunities not available in their homeland. If there were hearings on Capitol Hill, hopefully someone would remind our elected officials that while the debate on California’s Proposition 187 was taking place, there were many cars with bumper stickers that showed solidarity with the “undocumented.”


You could also tell which cars were owned by those who were tired of the social monetary strain caused by those who chose to violate our federal laws and waltz across our borders. Their cars, in some cases, had their windows smashed and tires slashed, but today right wing retards are the intolerant ones we’re told to watch out for.


If there were hearings, we’d hopefully hear from many immigrants from other nations (that didn’t have the convenience of a border to just stroll across in the dead of night) who had degrees and had to wait in line for years before they could come to America. We’d hopefully hear from those who played by the rules who signed a document promising to not become a public charge after being admitted into our country.


In the case of illegal immigrants, becoming a public charge is the first thing illegal aliens are taught to do once arriving on our side of the line. In some cases, illegals receive their social handout instructions before they even leave their home country. Once here, there are many advocacy groups, some led by those who have publicly promoted the retaking of the American Southwest, who teach illegal aliens access taxpayer funded food stamps, education, housing, and medical treatment.


Think about this….


If there were hearings, we’d hopefully hear someone ask how could illegal aliens truly pull their weight when some make money under the table and pay taxes only when they buy what they need to live comfortably? If an illegal family had a husband, wife, and three children, how much are the citizens of the USA paying per family?


If each of the three kids are in public school, that can cost us between $18 to $30,000 a year to educate them. That’s not including the possibility of that family receiving food stamps, Section 8 housing, and maybe even a cash allowance. If they are illegal, how can they get cash from the taxpayers?

Enter one of my pet peeves….


If there were hearings, someone could address the ultimate magnet of illegal aliens into the United States that has not been addressed (to my satisfaction). I’d love to hear someone suggest we repeal the first line of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.


Should a woman run across our border nine months pregnant and deliver her child in an American hospital (for free, which is why many border state hospitals are closing), that child is now a citizen and also what we call an “anchor baby.” Since we can’t be uncivilized and orphan an American citizen, that child can stay along with the parents and all the bennies kick in.


Line 1 of Section 1 was written to redress the legacy of slavery and make all children of former slaves citizens to further aid in their assimilation into American society. News flash: Slavery officially ended 142 years ago in America. Line 1, Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is no longer needed to fulfill its original intent. Line 1, Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is a loophole that is being used by illegal aliens to legitimize an intentional violation of United States law.


Hopefully during hearings, we’d hear international immigration experts tell us this kind of benevolent treatment to people who snuck into a sovereign nation without proper documentation is unprecedented. We’d not hear of a nation that offers anyone instant citizenship, especially when entering that nation illegally. In some cases, a foreign national can never become a citizen of a country they migrated to. America is indeed a very special country, and unfortunately, a country that is compassionate and can be taken advantage of.

What’s unfortunate is that there are some in our political parties that are planning on using people just to shore up the electoral foundations at the expense of our sovereignty.


It is important that we get a good bill over the finish line.”

– Cecilia Munoz, Vice President of the National Council of La Raza, saying her group would try to reshape the bill


If there were hearings, I’d hope someone would bring up The Great Melting Pot thing. I take that as meaning we are a country of people that came here seeking the freedoms to achieve what we call The American Dream. That dream being the ability to excel at one’s own pace and create a secure future for his or her family. There are actually nations that don’t allow people this freedom, thus vastly more people come to the USA than leave.


The problem we have today is a well-intentioned concept that has done nothing but created balkanization within our borders. That well-intentioned concept is called “multi-culturalism.” Simply stated, multi-culturalism is the “celebration” of the many distinct cultures that make up America. The problem is that some place those traditions and cultural mores above the rules America’s citizens live by.


For example, Americans are warned of a “separation of church and state” which we all have to live by. That is, if you are an American. Even if you’re an American, but ascribe to another culture or religion, because of multi-culturalism one can discriminate and/or violate our rules with impunity.

Case in point: I cannot urge an American politician to try and create a law that we offer a Christian prayer every morning during paid work time. There are some that would lose their minds at the very thought. Even though my religion would appreciate a sincere prayer during the day, the argument of the separation of church and state would negate that attempt.


If there were hearings, we’d hopefully hear from some American businesses that have caved to immigrant lobby advocacy and threats of lawsuits. The result is normally a change of duties and requirements of certain employees to suit their religion to the point where they can pray during the work day at times they designate, and can opt not to perform customer service when they believe that customer is in violation of their religion. Christians believe adultery is a sin, but I have never heard of one that would not wait on a customer that has screwed around. Certainly, no business would allow that Christian to show that kind of contempt for a customer.


What this comes down to is another piece of this immigration debate: assimilation or the lack thereof.


In Los Angeles, a non-English speaking illegal immigrant can function easily. There are whole areas of the city where an English word is not to be found. While our relatives went to night classes and encouraged their families to learn English so they could blend in and be considered Americans, multi-culturalism has almost demonized the notion that speaking America’s official language is totally unnecessary.


If there were hearings, we’d hopefully hear about the border itself. The “wall” that was billed as the first line of defense, is now withering on the vine. The whole virtual wall thing may notify the proper authorities and document whomever comes across, but it won’t stop people. Until Mexico respects our southern border as they ruthlessly enforces their southern flank, our laws won’t mean anything to the hundreds of thousands who will beeline north once this “legislation” is signed into law by the President.


If there were hearings, hopefully we’d hear the up and downside of the guest worker programs, find out why the unions like and dislike the bill. We’d find out what the immigrants rights crowd added to the bill and the ramifications to all of us could and will be.


But alas, the Great Immigration Bill of 2007 is obviously being release to us mere citizens on a need-to-know basis and it would appear we don’t need to know.


Remember that next November.


illegalaliens.jpgSo, should this illegal immigration forgiveness amnesty thing become law, in essence every illegal alien here in America becomes legal. Will the day that law goes into effect be THE cut-off day or will the elected give a window of opportunity for all the others who wish to illegally enter and cash in?


If only we had hearings, but see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil.

Discuss This Article

Bob Parks is a member/writer for the National Advisory Council of Project 21, VP of Marketing and Media Relations/Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance, and VP of the Massachusetts Republican Assembly