A Green Card in Every Pot

A Green Card in Every Pot
By Ann Coulter
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 31, 2007

Americans – at least really stupid Americans like George Bush – believe the natural state of the world is to have individual self-determination, human rights, the rule of law and a robust democratic economy. On this view, most of the existing world and almost all of world history is a freakish aberration.

In fact, the natural state of the world is Darfur. The freakish aberration is America and the rest of the Anglo-Saxon world.

The British Empire once spread the culture of prosperity around the globe – Judeo-Christian values, tolerance, equality, private property and the rule of law. All recipients of the British Empire’s largesse benefited, but the empire’s most successful colony was the United States.

At the precise moment in history when the U.S. has abandoned any attempt to transmit Anglo-Saxon virtues to its own citizens, much less to immigrants, George Bush wants to grant citizenship to hordes of immigrants who are here precisely because they are fleeing cultures that are utterly dysfunctional and ruinous for the humans who live in them.

Yes, this country has absorbed huge migrations of illiterate peasants in the past – notably Italian immigrants at the turn of the last century. But also notably, half of them went back. We got the good ones. America was not yet a welfare state guaranteeing room and board to the luckless, the lazy and the incompetent from cradle to grave.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, immigrant and first Jewish member of the Supreme Court, said that Americanization required that the immigrant adopt “the clothes, the manners and the customs generally prevailing here” and that he adopt “the English language as the common medium of speech.”

But, Brandeis said, this is only part of it. “(W)e properly demand of the immigrant even more than this – he must be brought into complete harmony with our ideals and aspirations and cooperate with us for their attainment. Only when this has been done will he possess the national consciousness of an American.”

Or as George Bush would call it, “empty rhetoric.” And as Linda Chavez would call it, “racist.”

I wish our new immigrants had come to America back when the foundations of civic society and patriotism were still inculcated in all immigrants (and when half of them went home). But traitors who are citizens have destroyed all acculturating institutions. Traitors who are citizens have also destroyed all incentive for the poor to work or even keep their knees together before marriage.

Until the recipient culture is capable of doing an effective job of Americanizing immigrants, it’s preposterous to talk about a massive influx of Hispanic immigrants accomplishing anything other than turning America into yet another Latin American-style banana republic. And it is simply a fact that no one is trying to turn immigrants into Americans.

To the contrary, Democrats are trying to turn new immigrants into wards of the state – and with some success! – so they will be permanent Democratic voters. Rich Republicans and their handmaidens in Washington are trying to turn immigrants into a permanent servant class.

In an astonishing exchange on Fox News last weekend, Dan Henninger of the Wall Street Journal responded to Heather MacDonald’s point that Hispanics in this country have a 50 percent illegitimacy rate, the highest teen pregnancy rate of any group and the highest high school drop-out rate of any group, by asking: “Why don’t we feel we are under cultural assault in New York City? You have no sense of this at all here.”

You also have no sense of the existence of a middle class in New York City. The rich have hidden the evidence, transplanting all but the massively wealthy to the suburbs. Manhattan is white and getting whiter, while the boroughs are noticeably less white and more dysfunctional.

What evidence is there for the proposition that American culture will leap like a tenacious form of tuberculosis to today’s immigrants? Americans display no evident desire to defend their culture, much less transmit it, and immigrants show no evident desire to adopt it.

To the contrary, immigrants are replacing American culture with Latin American culture. Their apparent constant need to demonstrate is just one example.

As Mac Johnson wrote in Human Events last year, these immigrant protests represent “the colonization of America by the Latin style of politics.” He listed just some of the demonstrations drawing thousands – sometimes hundreds of thousands – of protesters over the last few years in Mexico alone. Among the targets of the protests were a new regional trade pact, plans to allow private investment in the state-owned electricity industry, energy and tax reforms, and support for the mayor of Mexico City.

In 1993 – long before 9-11, before the USS Cole bombing, before the bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania – the eminent Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington predicted that the greatest threat to Western civilization would come from a clash of civilizations, noting with particular concern the “bloody borders” of the Muslim world.

So it ought to be of some interest that Huntington is now predicting, in his book Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity, that America cannot survive the cultural onslaught from Latin America.

American Hispanics responded to Huntington’s book with a flurry of scholarly papers and academic debates to counter his thesis that Mexicans were not assimilating.

Just kidding! They called for national protests against Huntington, his publisher and Harvard University.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

High Noon With Iran

High Noon With Iran
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 31, 2007

If anyone still believes in the utility of talking to the
Tehran regime, they should read the revealing comments made to the press by the Iranian and the
U.S. ambassadors to
Baghdad, just minutes after concluding what were billed as “historic” talks between the two governments on Monday.

While the talks had “proceeded positively,” U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker told reporters that he had emphasized to the Iranians the need for concrete action on the ground.

 

“I laid out before the Iranians a number of our direct, specific concerns about their behavior in
Iraq, their support for militias that are fighting both the Iraqi security forces and coalition forces,” Crocker said.

 

“The fact (is) that a lot of the explosives and ammunitions that are used by these groups are coming in from
Iran … Such activities … need to cease and … we would be looking for results,” he added.

 

Across the city,
Iran’s ambassador Hassan Kazemi-Qomi just thumbed his nose. “We don’t take the American accusations seriously,” he said. It was the
United States which bore “sore responsibility” for the violence in
Iraq, he opined, noting that
Iraq’s infrastructure had been “demolished by the American invaders.”

 

If the
U.S. was really serious about helping
Iraq, he suggested that we take up
Iran’s offer to train and equip Iraqi security forces. (That way, the Iranians won’t have to steal Iraqi police uniforms any longer when they want to kill us).

 

In
Tehran, Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki, crossed the tees and dotted the eyes.

 

“We are hopeful that
Washington’s realistic approach to the current issues in
Iraq – by confessing its failed policy in
Iraq and the region and by showing a determination in changing the policy – guarantees success of the talks and possible future talks,” he said.

 

So there you have it. If the
United States wishes to have further talks with the Iranian regime, we must first admit 1) that our policies were wrong, and 2) that they have failed. Once that’s over with, hey – whatever you like!

 

I don’t know how deaf you have to be not to hear the message. Lee Hamilton, are you listening?

 

As the Democrat half of the Baker-Hamilton commission that promoted talks with Tehran last fall, Lee Hamilton now finds himself in the embarrassing situation of seeing the fruits of the policy he promoted so arduously.

 

Just talk to
Tehran, he said. All they want is a little respect. They want a secure, integral
Iraq, just as we do, he claimed. We have lots of things in common. Lots!

 

I give Mr. Hamilton credit for drinking his own Kool-Aid. As director of the

Woodrow
Wilson
Center, a center-left think tank in
Washington, he thought the Iranians were so eager for talks that he agreed to send the head of his center’s
Iran programs to his native land, despite all the flap over the Iraq Study Group report.

 

And so Haleh Esfandiareh, a former Communist (Tudeh) Party militant, who has long advocated “dialogue” between the U.S. and Iran, went to Tehran early this year, ostensibly to see her ailing mother.

 

When she tried to leave, regime thugs intercepted her taxi, “stole” her passport, and forced her to request a replacement travel document from the authorities. That led to her arrest, and recent “indictment” in
Iran on charges of espionage.

 

(For the record, I place the word “indictment” in quotation marks because the so-called “rule of law” in
Iran is an arbitrary system that obeys the whims and orders of the ruling elite, not any objective legal standard created with the consent of the governed).

 

Now, just to be clear about what’s going on. Haleh Esfandiareh has absolutely zero to do with any purported
U.S. government program to promote a “velvet revolution” in
Iran, as intelligence minister Hossein Mohseni-Ejei has claimed. Would that it were so!

 

On the contrary. She and many other left-wing
Iran “experts” in
Washington have been promoting closer ties between
Tehran and
Washington, not confrontation.

 

So it’s more than ironic that the regime should arrest her. Seriously, if there were justice in this world, they would have picked up me or Michael Ledeen, or any number of Iranians who are working hard to organize women’s groups and student groups and labor organizations inside Iran, to stand up for their rights.

 

The Tehran regime continues to dangle “talk of talks” to buy more time to finish their nuclear weapons development, and are taking U.S. hostages to use as bargaining chips. Meanwhile, they have expanded their terrorist networks inside
Iraq, and are supplying Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFPs), money and conventional weapons to both Sunni and Shiite insurgent groups. (And finally, the
U.S. military is being allowed by the Pentagon to say this in public).

 

My sources in
Iran tell me that the regime plans to dramatically scale up the terrorist attacks against
U.S. and Iraqi forces this summer, and is contemplating ordering Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi army to launch terrorist attacks in
Kuwait, the first time that Sadr will have used his fighters outside of
Iraq.

 

So should we continue to talk to
Tehran?

Well, okay – but only if our diplomats can do so without buying every over-priced carpet they are offered.

 

(Ambassador Ryan Crocker is someone who has got his priorities straight. After all, he knows a few things about Iranian terrorism, having received his baptism by fire on April 18, 1983 in
Beirut, when Hezbollah operative Imad Mugniyeh blew up the
U.S. embassy.  That’s where I first met Crocker, who was still brushing dust off his clothes and his hair from the explosion).

 


Iran’s goal is clear. They seek to defeat us in
Iraq, and to prevent
Iraq from emerging as an strong, independent, federal state. Further down the road, they seek to drive the
United States from the
Persian Gulf, smash
Israel, and ultimately destroy us..

 

To achieve these ends, they are furiously developing nuclear weapons. Even the IAEA has recognized
Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions, although IAEA Secretary General Mohammed ElBaradei now says that we should give up trying to prevent them from going nuclear.

 

He said that
Iran’s recent progress in uranium enrichment should convince us that
Iran’s nuclear program has become a fait accompli, and that efforts to make
Iran pay a price for defying UN Security Council resolutions aimed at stopping their nuclear program have been “overtaken by events.”

 

That was too much even for the Washington Post, who chided ElBaradei this past Sunday for his response to
Iran’s “aggressive and illegal behavior.”

 

“[W]e can only marvel at the nerve of Mr. ElBaradei, an unelected international civil servant whose mission is to implement the decisions of the Security Council — and who proposes to destroy the council’s authority by having it simply drop binding resolutions,” the Post editorial board wrote.

 

The Washington Post and many of the cooler heads in the foreign policy establishment now believe “there is no better alternative than returning to the United Nations Security Council” for further sanctions on Iran.

 

While that may be necessary, a mere “ratcheting up” of sanctions will not be sufficient to keep
Tehran’s murderers from striking again. I mentioned some of the stronger steps the UN could take, should the
U.S. press hard enough, in this space recently.

 

But there is a better alternative, and it’s staring us right in the face. And that’s helping the growing pro-democracy movement inside
Iran.

 

Even as the Europeans continue to meet with Iranian government emissary Ali Larijani over their nuclear program later this week, it’s important to remember that economic leverage, however severe, will not deter this regime from building the bomb.

 

“While the United States and the West are right to focus on terrorism and the regime’s nuclear programs, if they ignore the pro-democracy movement and human rights, they won’t get the results they want,” says Dr. Hossein Bagherzadeh, a spokesman for Solidarity Iran, a new Iranian coordinating council that aims to connect opposition groups in exile with activists working inside Iran.

 

The choice between appeasement and war is as bad as ever. But unlike the Washington Post, which believes that sanctions alone provide the alternative, I believe we have a better option.

 

Solidarity
Iran will be holding its third conference in two weeks time in
Paris, when it plans to announce a plan of action that represents the first serious step toward forming a united Iranian opposition coalition in twenty-eight years.

 

Stay tuned next week for more.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

Hillary Clinton Proposes Socialist America In Speech To Trade School Students

Hillary Clinton Proposes Socialist America In Speech To Trade School Students

To: News Assignment Desk

Media Contact:
Bill Wilson at bill@dailyjot.com

2007-05-30 — [WDC News Post] — WASH—May 30—DJNS– Presidential wannabe Hillary Clinton would attempt to turn America into a government-dominated social state if she were elected president. It doesn’t take much reading between the lines to understand the socialistic government philosophy of Hillary Clinton, especially after her revealing remarks to students at the Manchester School of Technology on May 29th. Clinton outlined an America where the government would control the economy, decide the pay of corporate CEO’s, and establish a globalized workforce. Her speech, reported by Associated Press, was full of one liners that in the first part of the sentence spoke of the free enterprise America, then in the second part painted a socialist vision of the nation.

Clinton said, “There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed. Fairness doesn’t just happen. It requires the right government policies.” Clinton also said, “I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society. I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.” The subtle difference in what Clinton is proposing is that America was built on individual freedom to succeed, not success based on heavy handed government control of Americans and their opportunities.

Clinton told the students that the Bush Administration promoted an “ownership” society. She implied in her remarks that ownership is not something that should be promoted, but rather fairness brought about by government regulation and policies. In Clinton’s government-controlled society, students would be encouraged to attend alternative trade schools without the stigma associated with not having a college degree. She would also eliminate tax incentives for corporations and provide government mandated national health care. She said she would create jobs by pursuing energy independence—while she didn’t explain how, it is implied this would be done through expanding government programs.
Hillary Clinton’s America is a social democracy rather than a Constitutional Republic, a nation based on government intrusion in every aspect of an individual’s life, a country based, in her words, on shared responsibility and prosperity. This is the type of society that failed under the Soviet Union and even Communist China has abandoned these “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” philosophies of Karl Marx. Americans are a free people, but they won’t be if Hillary Clinton has her way.

“Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”– Galatians 5:1

American al Qaeda warns of attacks ‘worse than 9/11’…

Striking Against Security

Striking Against Security
By Frank J Gaffney Jr.
The Washington Times | May 10, 2007

On the Amtrak train to New York a few minutes ago, the conductor announced, “If you see anything suspicious, please report it to the authorities immediately.” If Islamist-front organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its friends in Congress have their way, however, this sensible, prudential announcement will have to be amended: “Be advised: If you do make such a report, you may be sued.”Could it really come to this? It could, if the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives gets away with an effort to deep-six legislation approved last month with the support of 109 of their caucus’ members.

According to a Republican memo circulated before the vote, that legislation is designed to ensure that “any person that voluntarily reports suspicious activity — anything that could be a threat to transportation security” will be granted immunity from civil liability for the disclosure.” It “authorizes courts to award attorneys’ fees to defendants with immunity” and would apply retroactively to activities on or after Nov. 20, 2006.

That date is significant, of course, since that was the day when six Arizona-based Muslim clerics were removed in Minneapolis from an aircraft operated by US Airways. The deplaning occurred after fellow passengers did what my conductor urged those on his train to do: They reported suspicious behavior.

The six Islamist clerics — now universally known as the Flying Imams — reportedly engaged in behavior that seemed designed to trigger alarms. Such behavior is said to have included: praying ostentatiously before boarding the plane, changing seats to sit in pairs in unassigned seats (by some accounts in a pattern reminiscent of some terrorists’ modus operandi), making loud statements in Arabic that appear to have included derogatory comments about America and requesting unneeded seat-belt-extenders — which can, in a pinch, be used as weapons.

Following understandable expressions of concern by as-yet-unidentified fellow passengers, the crew consulted with airline and local and federal police. The decision was taken to remove the imams. In a lawsuit filed in March by CAIR on behalf of the imams, these “well-respected, religious leaders… felt degraded, humiliated and dejected as they were led before airport patrons and passengers who looked at them as if they were criminals.” In addition to suing US Airways, CAIR is going after unspecified “John Does” — namely, yet-to-be-served passengers, flight attendants and airport personnel the Islamist organization contends acted “with an intent to discriminate.”

Some perceive in the imams’ behavior — and CAIR’s effort to capitalize on the response it fortunately and predictably precipitated — an intention to use our civil liberties to diminish America’s preparedness and capacity for dealing with domestic threats. At the very least, this caper plays into the hands of CAIR as it promotes another piece of legislation, the End Racial Profiling Act (ERPA) of 2005 whose original co-sponsors were two prominent leftists in Congress, Democrats Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Rep. John Conyers of Michigan.

Now, “racial profiling” — like the “intent to discriminate” — are in many cases highly subjective calls. And claims of such wrongdoing are especially suspect coming from the likes of CAIR. After all, as the invaluable Center for Vigilant Freedom makes clear, this organization (established by a Hamas front group known as the Islamic Association for Palestine) feverishly seeks to demonstrate that Muslims in America are being victimized.

In fact, in a speech to the Muslim ADAMS Center on April 27, 2007, and transcribed by Vigilant Freedom (http://www.vigilantfreedom.org/910blog/2007/04/30/audio-from-cairs-meeting-on-6-imams-at-adams-center/), CAIR’s executive director, Nihad Awad, declared: “There were 196 cases reported by the Justice Department for Muslims in civil rights cases. There were over 1,008 cases reported by the Jewish faith. We need to do a much better job not only in recognizing our civil rights but also in reporting it to the government. [It] is very critical and very important. … We really feel our community is more targeted. Fifty-four percent — this is one of CAIR’s surveys — 54 percent of all Muslims surveyed said they had been subject to discrimination. Fifty-four percent, which if you put numbers down, we’re talking about tens of thousands of cases, not dozens, as is reported in the Justice Department’s annual report.”

In other words, it serves CAIR’s purposes to portray Muslims as victims. Imams who behave suspiciously are victims. Other Muslims who fail to report their victimhood undermine the efforts of CAIR and its ilk to secure not just equal treatment under the law but special rights (e.g., designated prayer rooms, cleansing facilities, Muslim-only hours for school gyms, etc.) In the process, they inure this democracy to encroachment of a religious code known as Shariah law and the parallel society Islamists seek to establish here, as elsewhere, en route to creating Islamic states.

It is against this backdrop that Congress must enact legislation to protect “John Does” and, thereby, to protect us all. It is unacceptable that the Democratic leadership is seeking to prevent such an outcome through parliamentary sleight-of-hand — by keeping the public in the dark about the make-up and timing of the conference committee that will hammer out differences between the House-passed legislation, which includes such protection, and the Senate bill that does not.

Every effort should be made to encourage our countrymen to report suspicious activities — which may prove to be the difference between life and death for large numbers of us. And every effort at odds with that duty must be exposed to the harshest scrutiny and most vigorous opposition.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

Another Key Terrorist Captured

cid_image001_jpg01c7a282.jpg

The Doctrine of Mahdism: In the Ideological and Political Philosophy of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Mesbah-e Yazdi

Carl Cameron Of Fox News: Fred Thompson Will Not Announce On The Fourth of July…

Carl Cameron Of Fox News: Fred Thompson Will Not Announce On

 The Fourth of July…

f thompson founding father

…but on the 5th of July, once the holiday is over so the story will not be lost in holiday coverage. Polls indicate that 40% of Republicans are unhappy with their current field of potential nominees. The Politico story citing the 4th, and igniting all the brouhaha being well-reported at Hotair.

My money’s on Carl. He gave an on-air report in which he cited direct conversation with at least one source on Thompson’s team. Cameron’s been ahead of this story for awhile.

Posted by Pat Dollard 3 Comments

What No One Is Telling You About Our Talks With Iran

What No One Is Telling You About Our Talks With Iran

iranian sailor coffee

Watching the pundits discuss our historic meeting with Iran, you would have mostly heard despair at the notion that we have no leverage in these talks, and so therefor why would Iran give on anything? Why would they stop waging war against us in iraq if they have nothing to fear? To all the experts in the media, the whole thing seemed like some grand puzzlement. Was it just an attempt to appease the administration’s domestic critics who have been chiding it for not engaging in diplomacy ( a vaguery if there ever was one ) with the world’s top terrorist? No one you heard from could really quite grasp what was going on.

For some reason, no one told you that just 5 days before Monday’s talks, an entire floating army, with nearly 20,000 men, comprising the world’s largest naval strike force, led by the USS Nimitz and the USS Stennis, and also comprising the largest U.S. Naval armada in the Persian Gulf since 2003, came floating up unnanounced through the Straight of Hormuz, and rested right on Iran’s back doorstep, guns pointed at them. The demonstration of leverage was clear. And it also came on the exact date of the expiration of the 60 day grace period the U.N. had granted Iran.

And it came just a few weeks after Vice President Dick Cheney had swept through the region and delivered a very clear and pointed message to the Saudi King Abdullah and others: George Bush has unequivocally decided to attack Iran’s nuclear, military and economic infrastructure if they do not abandon their drive for military nuclear capability. Plain and simple. Iran heard the message as well, and although a lack of leverage may seem clear to America’s retired military tv talking heads, it is not so clear to the government in Tehran.

The message to both Iran and Syria is that if the talks in Baghdad fail, the military option is ready to go.

The administration is almost freakishly confident, in marked contrast to media reports like the one featuring Newt Gingrich’s attack on the President below. The U.S. is in the midst of another dipolomatic surge through the region to bolster allies for the final showdown with Iran. Moqtada Al Sadr has sent signals he may be ready to break with Iran. And, frankly, the military turnaround in Al Anbar province is of greater strategic significance than the increase in U.S. casualties this month. In addition, the surge is still not entirely deployed, and whole key neighborhoods of Baghdad have yet to be entered. While John McCain was being mocked for having to wear a flak jacket in a Baghdad market, the bigger story was that his son, a Marine newly deployed to the Al Anbar province, and a frontline grunt at that, was more likely than not to never see a shot fired in an area that until just weeks ago was called “the most dangerous place on earth”.

Oh, and preparations are under way for the construction of new U.S. airbases in Kurdistan, so we are not, under any circumstances, giving up a firmbase posture throughout Iraq.

And special props to VP Cheney who had nearly been ordered by his doctors to not even make the first trip. A compromise was had and he flew with a physician. He is preparing for a trip to Iran’s various northern neighbors like Uzbekistan and Khazekstan to shore up our position for offensives from the north.

We want to have them entirely surrounded.

Video Of Iran’s Surprise Guests:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a0d_1180329275

Iran Backing Iraqi Terror Plots

Iran Backing Iraqi Terror Plots

Early warning.

America’s Islamist enemies in Iraq–including Iranian-backed Shiite militias and Al Qaeda-associated groups–are planning a major terrorist offensive that could involve bombings and attacks on an unprecedented scale.

The overall objective is to shed as much American and allied blood as possible in order to hasten America’s departure from war-torn Iraq–and the entire Middle East.