Trust Teddy Kennedy…Again?

Trust Teddy Kennedy…Again?
Government William J. Federer June 21, 2007
In 1965, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., was chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization. He ushered through the Senate the immigration policy of President Lyndon B. Johnson, stating Feb. 10, 1965: “I want to comment on…what the bill will not do. First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same….” Kennedy continued: “Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset….Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [this bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area….” Kennedy assured: “Thirdly, the bill will not permit the entry of subversive persons, criminals, illiterates or those with contagious disease. … As I noted a moment ago, no immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge….” Kennedy answered critics of the 1965 immigration bill: “The charges I have mentioned are highly emotional, irrational and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage….” Kennedy promised: “The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.” Democratic Demographics An interesting observation is that prior to LBJ’s 1965 immigration policy, most immigrants to the United States were from Europe, with 70 percent coming from the United Kingdom, Ireland and Germany. European immigrants assimilated, as they were culturally and economically similar to America’s population. Immigrants were educated and, interestingly, many tended to become Republicans. After the implementation of LBJ’s policy, immigrants came from poorer countries, were less educated, more dependent on government, and, interestingly, tended to become Democrats. In attempting to understand his motivation for the current immigration bill, one wonders if Sen. Kennedy has studied the impact of 20 million more Democrat votes, especially with the long-term effect of “chain migration” and higher birth rates. And with many in the Republican base disapproving of the bill, its passage may discourage their campaigning for the next Republican nominee, contributing to a possible Democrat presidential victory in 2008. Mexification Other large-scale demographic changes can be observed around the world. Lebanon went from a majority Christian country to a majority Muslim country after it was given independence from France in 1943. This was accomplished through a process called “Islamification” – the number of Muslims moving into Lebanon increased, along with higher birth rates, resulting in more control of elections. Tibet has resisted unification with China and as a result has been subjected to a process called “Sinofication” – the forced migration of Chinese into Tibet. As the population of Chinese in Tibet increases, Tibet’s resistance to unification with China decreases. Increased Latin-American immigration into the U.S. not only translates into more Democrat votes, but lessens resistance to the proposed “North American Union.” During the Clinton administration, NAFTA and GATT were ratified (1993 and 1994), allowing global conglomerates to bring less expensive goods and grains to Mexican consumers. This put tens of thousands of Mexican farms and manufacturers out of business. Then the value of the peso collapsed in 1995, resulting in millions of displaced workers migrating north. The situation was compounded by a “strong dollar” and the loss of trade protections for U.S. manufacturers and farmers, putting them in a position of needing less expensive labor to compete with the less expensive goods and grains available globally. A Century Ago Immigrants formerly received no automatic entitlement benefits upon arrival in America, but since there was no minimum wage they could easily get a job, allowing them an opportunity to learn the language and a skill. Extended families lived together, pooling their resources until they could get ahead. Churches and charities provided welfare and social services. Goodbye Middle Class Today immigrants arrive and are entitled to taxpayer-funded welfare and social services, resulting in increased use of emergency rooms, increased welfare roles, increased enrollment in free public schools and increased cost of law enforcement. Since most illegal immigrants operate on a cash basis, avoiding taxes, middle-class taxpayers pay more to cover the increased use of public services. As taxes increase and wages decrease, America’s working middle class is squeezed. The New York Times, Oct. 28, 2003, stated: “Nearly one Mexican in five regularly gets money from relatives employed in the United States, making Mexico the largest repository of such remittances in the world, according to a poll sponsored by the Inter-American Development Bank.” Whereas typical American workers spend most of their earnings in America, helping the U.S. economy, immigrant workers send most of their earnings back to their home countries. The Associated Press, Sept. 24, 2003, quoted Mexican President Vicente Fox saying: “Remittances are our biggest source of foreign income, bigger than oil, tourism or foreign investment. … The 20 million Mexicans in the United States generate a gross product that is slightly higher than the … billion(s) generated by Mexicans in Mexico.” Some remember Teddy Kennedy’s promise regarding the 1986 amnesty bill: “This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forth an amnesty bill like this.” The most significant effect of the 1986 amnesty bill was the expectation of future amnesty, which contributed to increased illegal immigration. Kennedy now states regarding his current Kyl-Kennedy immigration bill: “Year after year we’ve had borders that aren’t secure and a system that is broken….Well, now it is time for action – 2007 is the year we must fix our broken system….I’ve been around here long enough to know that opportunities like this don’t come often.” Trust Teddy Kennedy, again? He certainly knows the immigration problem very well. He helped create it!
Excerpts from “TREASURY OF PRESIDENTIAL QUOTATIONS” by William J. Federer (Amerisearch, Inc., P.O. 20163, St. Louis, MO 63123) 1-888-USA-WORD www.AmericanMinute.com

Fairness Doctrine Watch: A “progressive” attack on talk radio

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/06/21/fairness-doctrine-watch-a-progressive-attack-on-talk-radio/

http://michellemalkin.com/2005/01/31/rush-speaks-out/

Lott feeling backlash over radio salvo on immigration bill —– “Talk radio was sort of the watchdog on this,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. “Who else was watching out? Who else was reading the bill?”

Lott feeling backlash over radio salvo on immigration bill

By JONATHAN WEISMAN and SHAILAGH MURRAY
Washington Post

It was a casual shot across the bow, a comment last week from Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott: Advocates of an immigration overhaul would have to “deal” with talk-radio hosts who he said don’t know what is in the legislation but want to kill it nonetheless.

The return fire to that passing comment has been withering, as some of the nation’s most prominent conservative talkers turn on a man they once defended adamantly.

Michael Savage, who hosts The Savage Nation, accused Lott of dispatching Nazi storm troopers against his critics. A National Review blogger tagged the senator “Vacant Lott.” Conservative talker Hugh Hewitt warned that Lott, R-Miss., would only “further motivate the base because to the reality of a bad bill and past insults is now added a genuine note of dislike” for those conservatives.

“When I hear a United States senator say that what I do for a living is a ‘problem’ that the government has to ‘deal with,’ you can interpret it any number of ways,” Rush Limbaugh said on the air. “He’s either saying, ‘Well, we’re going to have to come up with our own ways to overcome them’ or ‘We’re going to just have to wipe them out.’ ”

“When they’re with you, it’s great,” Lott said this week. “When they’re not, it’s not good.”

Democrats have long borne such tongue-whippings. But now conservative Republicans are feeling the lash as well.

“I’ve had my phones jammed for three weeks. Yesterday I had three people answering them continuously all day,” Lott said. “To think that you’re going to intimidate a senator or any senator into voting one way or the other by gorging your phones with phone calls — most of whom don’t even know where Gulfport, Miss., is — is not an effective tactic. But it’s their right to do that.”

But to some of the hosts, such as Hewitt, it’s not about intimidation. It’s about pride. Lott’s comments were not just inflammatory, Hewitt said, they were insulting.

To The Washington Post, Lott had said, “I’m sure senators on both sides of the aisle are being pounded by these talk-radio people who don’t even know what’s in the bill.” To the New York Times, he had offered: “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of the immigration bill’s chief architects, suggested on Sunday that opponents of the deal border on being racist.

“We’ve been down this road before — ‘no Catholics,’ ‘no Jews,’ ‘Irish need not apply,’ ” Graham said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Those quotes suggest that Republicans favorably disposed to the immigration bill are more interested in calling its opponents names than debating the bill’s merits, said Hewitt, who declared he has read the entire immigration bill.

“They are not giving sophisticated answers to sophisticated, penetrating criticisms,” Hewitt said. “They’re attempting to silence the debate.”

But the conservative response to Lott may be symptomatic of a broader disenchantment with the Republican Party, said Michael Harrison, editor and publisher of Talkers magazine, which chronicles talk radio.

The immigration debate is a bellwether, he said, but conservative criticism is brewing on issues from education to spending to Iraq. Last week the magazine granted its annual Freedom of Speech Award to Savage for his criticism of President Bush, the first time Harrison can remember honoring a talk show host for speaking out against someone of his own political persuasion.

Republican politicians “assumed they owned conservative talk radio,” Harrison said. “But support of conservatives by talk radio was only being borrowed as long as conservatives felt that Republicans served the conservative movement.”

Republicans backing the immigration bill were mindful this week of Lott’s experience — and contrite. Asked about the radio response, Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., joked, “I ain’t saying a thing” before adding: “When we want to be on talk radio, we find a way to get on, because we like their views and we like their audience. So when we don’t like their message, we ought to be willing to take the pain.”

But to the bill’s opponents, it’s not about grinning and bearing it, as Martinez is doing. It’s about accepting the judgment of the GOP’s base.

“Talk radio was sort of the watchdog on this,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. “Who else was watching out? Who else was reading the bill?”

“A decent respect for our constituents means when they have very serious problems with an important piece of legislation, perhaps we should back off,” he said.

Liberals Want End of ‘Right-Wing Radio’

Liberals Want End of ‘Right-Wing Radio’

A liberal organization has gone on the attack against what it calls “right-wing talk” radio – while acknowledging that it totally dominates the airwaves today.

The Center for American Progress’ new report, “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio,” questions whether the “companies licensed to broadcast over the public radio airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans,” the Center’s Web site states. “Right-wing talk reigns supreme on America’s airwaves.”

According to the report, 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming on stations owned by the top five commercial station owners is conservative, and 9 percent is liberal.

It also notes that 76 percent of the news/talk programming in the top 10 radio markets is conservative. The percentages range from 60 percent in Detroit to 100 percent in Dallas, Houston and Philadelphia.

The report dismisses the obvious notion that conservative dominance is attributable to “simple consumer demand,” calling that a “myth,” and instead maintains:

“The gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management.”

The report calls for an increase in “ownership diversity,” which will supposedly lead to “more diverse programming.”

The Price Is Wrong, Rosie — The mean-mouthed, lesbian bully who made the ABC daytime gabfest The View her own talking-points memo is now pressuring CBS Television to give her a shot at hosting a hit game show.

The Price Is Wrong, Rosie

by Jim Kouri, CPP

 

The mean-mouthed, lesbian bully who made the ABC daytime gabfest The View her own talking-points memo is now pressuring CBS Television to give her a shot at hosting a hit game show.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the producers of CBS show “The Price is Right” are considering Rosie O’Donnell as a replacement for Bob Barker, who retired after 35 years of hosting the show. This news comes on the heels of Bob Barker’s endorsement of Rosie as a suitable host for the show. This story begs the question: what on earth are Barker and the CBS producers thinking?

The longest-running daytime game show in history, The Price is Right is purely family entertainment; the idea of Rosie O’Donnell as host, a public figure whose anti-family views are well-known, is problematic, to say the least. If CBS executives counting on Rosie to host the show while leaving her lifestyle out of the picture, they are engaging in wishful thinking — discretion has never been Rosie’s strong point.

From her earlier dust-ups over gun control and the termination of her 1999 contract with Kmart to her diatribes on “The View,” Rosie has demonstrated political and moral views on a variety of topics that are out of step with mainstream America; furthermore, she has insisted on foisting that on viewers regardless of the larger consequences.

Though Bob Barker is no less liberal than Rosie, his on-screen persona was almost grandfatherly in its cordiality and respect. Rosie has shown herself incapable of a similar performance. While “The View” retained Rosie because the producers thought controversy would boost ratings, they almost certainly were not expecting Rosie’s descent into the paranoia and ugliness of accusing US soldiers of “terrorism” in Iraq, or blaming 9/11 on the federal government.

Despite the fact that these beliefs are abhorrent to most Americans, and immoral in the extreme, Rosie continued to foist her bizarre and distasteful theories on the public.

Rosie as emcee is a big step down for CBS: from Barker’s grandfatherly manner and superb business sense to Rosie’s extremism and grandstanding. This is the point that must be made to CBS executives before they meet with O’Donnell: retaining Rosie to host “The Price is Right” is bad business sense, and will lead to a drop in ratings. Rosie has shown that she is willing to torpedo a show’s credibility in order to give voice to her political views-CBS need not make the same mistake as ABC did when they brought Rosie on “The View.”

If you agree that Rosie is wrong for “The Price is Right” and for family entertainment, contact CBS here and email the producers and marketers of the show here:
Lynne-Mei.Lee@fremantlemedia.com
megan@lippingroup.com

 

Launched by Nathan Tabor and TheConservativeVoice.com

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070620/D8PSH7RG0.html

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com.  He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.  His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us

 

New Media Alliance Television

Amnesty Bill’s Worst Provisions A MUST VEIW

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/index.php?id=1068974

Military Warns Personnel Don’t Go to Mexico while Senate Pushes Open Borders

Military Warns Personnel Don’t Go to Mexico while Senate Pushes Open Borders

by Sher Zieve
 

While President Bush and US Senators continue to fiddle with their open borders amnesty policy, also known as the
”Immigration Reform” bill, the US military is warning its personnel and civilian employees not to enter Mexican border towns. Chillingly, this warning also includes US towns located along our southern border. Towns on the Mexican side of the border, and perhaps those on the US side as well, are increasingly being controlled by Mexican drug lords and their cartels. These same drug lords have placed death-bounties on both our US border patrol agents and US military personnel. Unconscionably, our leftist mainstream media is neither reporting this nor the facts that open warfare is occurring, on a daily basis, along large portions of the US-Mexico border. Mexican illegals are, on a regular basis, burning down portions of the ecologically-sensitive Coronado National Forest to create diversions; so that drug dealers and other illegals can cross unfettered into the United States. Where is the outrage from the supposed environmentalists? It’s nonexistent. Are the arsonists accepted because they’re assumed to be from the politically-correct race—no matter what they do? Apparently so.

 

Note: Despite the arson and increasing warfare at our southern border, our politicians are still working to bypass the American people and pass their Illegal Alien Amnesty bill. What are they thinking—or better yet, smoking?
 

With the exception of our elite political and business leaders, the Senate Amnesty Bill will—ultimately—help no one. As illegal-turned-legal workers enter the US, in even greater numbers, wages for US citizens will be driven down, members of the US middle class will become fewer and fewer and a new and permanent lower-class structure will have been firmly established upon our shores. Can the Patron-peon scenario be far behind?

 

After our Congress and President have imbued the current illegals in our country with legal status, said illegals-now-legal will demand somewhat higher wages. Business will then need even more impoverished workers to fill the lower-lower class worker pool. So, illegal entry will continue—aided and abetted by our politicians. It is a never ending cycle of the intentional planned destruction of the United States of America—by those who are sworn to protect it—for the promises of power and larger bank accounts; or additional holdings in the Caymans. Power and money corrupt and there are always those in line begging to be corrupted. We now hear them on and in the media virtually every day. The current Amnesty Bill also calls for the construction of 370 miles of border fence. HUH??? The Secure Fence Act of 2006, which was passed and funded by Congress, already provides for the building of 700 miles of security fencing along our southern border! Congress is—yet again—ignoring a law that is currently in place in order to attempt to pass a more feckless one. The Senate is simply trying to force their Amnesty Bill upon the American people by trying to convince them that without it there will be no security fence built.

 

Note: I know Americans are said to have short memories but, holy smokes! The ink hasn’t been dry for even a year on the original 2006 security fence bill! Do our Senators think we’ve already forgotten it? The bottom line is that neither the President of the United States nor any amnesty-supporting senator has any intention—whatsoever—of building any border fence or providing any security for US citizens at the US-Mexico border. Instead, they are brazenly telling we-the-people that they will not uphold their Constitutional duties and will go against said Constitution by working against the will of the American people. Can we say rule by autocracy? You bet we can.

 

However, there is an alternative to the deceitful Senate Amnesty bill that is being developed in the US House of Representatives. The King-Smith bill, co-written and sponsored by House Reps Peter King (R-NY) and Lamar Smith (R-TX), seems to actually provide a viable and sensible approach to the illegal immigration problem. King advises that the bill approaches the illegal immigration issue from a “security first” perspective. It also does not denigrate the intelligence of the American people, as does the Senate’s Amnesty-for-illegals Bill, by watering down and attempting to cloud the already on the books border security act. I encourage you to take a look at Rep. King’s NRO article. There are also at least twenty loopholes in the Senate Amnesty Bill that support illegals and punish legal citizens and those attempting to gain legal US status. This is, yet, more insanity from the “minds” and hands of our lawmakers.

 

The only way that we-the-people have any opportunity of assisting the USA to survive—and therefore our way of life—is to fight the tyrannical elements currently in place in our federal government. These exist in both of our political parties. Continue to call, write, email—whatever it takes—your senators and Congressional representatives. Tell them to “just say NO to Amnesty!” But, due to promises made and secret back-door deals, the Amnesty Bill may pass. Our voices must now be very loud or we may very well lose our republic—and our country. It is just that serious.

 

While the US military warns us not to enter Mexico—it’s just too dangerous nowadays—the Open Borders US Senate and our president are refusing to protect our borders. Does this make any sense at all?

 

References:
 

http://www.svherald.com/articles/2007/06/07/news/doc4667a4832180e330133704.txt

 

http://eaglespeak.blogspot.com/2007/06/border-warfare-illegals-using-fire-to.html

 

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTc4ZjgyMTZhZjlkYzNkY2Q5MDkxNWJjYWNmMDJlOTE=
 

Sen. Sessions 20 Loopholes to Immigration Bill: http://sessions.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=275456

 

New Media Alliance Television

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.

Just Say “NO” to Bush And Amnesty

Just Say “NO” to Bush And Amnesty

by Christopher G. Adamo

 

Perceptive conservatives have long seen this train wreck coming. Back in 1999 and 2000, the conservative base along with Republicans in general were so gripped by fear of a Gore presidency that they were willing to temporarily overlook some ominous signals emanating from the Bush camp. Yet those signals turned out to be undeniable harbingers of what was to come. The “day of reckoning” eventually became inescapable.

 

We were forewarned when we heard the President borrowing liberal terminology, as with his opposition to “balancing the budget on the backs of the poor.” An insult to every decent and hard-working American who struggles under the burden of our ever-growing government, this epithet essentially accused the middle class of wanting to extract greater taxation from a segment of the populace that pays no taxes.

 

Yet it was George Bush’s adoption of the phrase “compassionate conservatism” that should have sent up all the warning flags. When attempting to deflect criticism over its usage, he would sometimes demur by claiming that conservatism was inherently compassionate. But more often than not he would reveal his true intent, which was to invent and implement more efficient socialism.

 

He should have been immediately confronted about the logical impossibility of exhibiting compassion by giving out the wealth and property of others. Had Heartland America instantly called him on this, as well as his other forays off into the misbegotten thinking of the left, America might not be facing the abysmal situation threatening it today.

 

Now the country fights desperately to retain whatever vestiges of its national soul remain, in the wake of a massive and dispassionate invasion of illegals, abetted by a President who ardently seeks to give away a country that is not his to give away.

 

The truth needs to be repeated as often as the deceivers in Washington spout their diatribe. The word “comprehensive” in relation to immigration “reform” means only one thing… amnesty. White House assertions that requiring the invaders to jump through a few “hoops” at their leisure, will somehow negate the outrage of amnesty, reflects a viciously insulting condescension towards the American people. The reality is as simple as it is grim, and it cannot be so easily disguised.

 

Promises of eventual border security, accountability by employers, or any other appealing conditions tagged onto the bill are merely “fig leaves” meant to cover its most obscene provisions in order get it through the legislative process so the President can sign it. Amnesty plus anything equals amnesty.

 

Were the President truly committed to uplifting the downtrodden, or any of the other high-sounding ideals that he professes in connection to all of this, he could employ them on a personal basis. He might start by proving his “benevolence” towards the invaders by allowing them to overrun and trash his Crawford Texas ranch just as they have done to so many other places closer to the border.

 

In contrast, his ranch is well guarded from intruders. He need only occasionally consider such prospects when not inside the D.C. “cocoon” from which he can view the world through rose-colored glasses. Yet he demands that the rest of America accept the results of his sanctimony.

 

And those results are increasingly dire. The number of Americans who have lost their lives at the hands of the illegal invaders dwarfs the slaughter of 9-11. The financial costs are a horrendous and increasing burden to those who have played by the rules. Amnesty for the invaders will only accelerate the dismal repercussions that have already ensued.

 

If Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of the liberal cabal have perpetrated crimes against real America by their continued derision of the terror war and their dispiriting propaganda against the U.S. Military, President Bush has done no less in his impassioned advocacy of a force that abrogates and undermines America’s very culture, and his castigation of any who seek the only reasonable means to restore the nation to its former integrity.

 

During his consuming endeavor to implement amnesty, Bush has metamorphosed from impassioned to determined to obsessed. In the process, he has become truly arrogant and indifferent to the fate of real Americans, appearing more sympathetic to the plight of the invaders. One has to wonder if he even recalls, on Inauguration Day in 2001 and 2005, just whose interests he swore an oath before Almighty God to guard and uphold.

 

Nor should his “bipartisan” Senate collaborators be given a pass. By their actions, they are proving that they have already adopted much of the mindset of the third world autocrats from which people are fleeing to what is left of America.

 

The current, shadowy plans to keep details of the latest iteration of the amnesty bill secret until the last minute, and then pass it in dark of night stand as yet more evidence of a governing mindset far more characteristic a of banana republic than of traditional America.

 

Of course the most heinous example of this in recent days is embodied by the comment from Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R.-MS), who asserted that an informed and engaged public constitutes a “problem” that he and his cohorts “need to deal with.” Millions of invaders swarming the country, trashing its laws and hostile to its culture, somehow constitute less of concern to him and his kind.

 

Catcalls of “racism” against the bill’s opponents, so typical and indicative of liberal tactics (though they emanate from both parties), must be noted and their authors never forgotten by the electorate. But neither should those Senators who are on record “opposing” amnesty, while clearly not doing all that is within their power to stop it.

 

Ronald Reagan, once a Democrat, changed parties explaining that he had not left the Democrats. Rather, they had left him. Likewise while grassroots Republicans remain committed to the principles that made their party and their country great, George Bush has abandoned critical precepts of what it once meant to be a Republican.

 

The current debate represents a watershed moment for the GOP. Frustration and anger among the base has now exceeded critical mass. If the President is determined to discard the core conservative values of the Republican Party and now holds them in unrestrained contempt, Republican office holders need to publicly oppose him in order to remain true to those values.

 

GOP Senators who still believe in the principles embodied by their party ought to be fighting the amnesty juggernaut as if the very future of the country hangs in the balance, which it inarguably does.

 

New Media Alliance Television

Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming. He has been active in local and state politics for many years. His contact information and archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

The Marines Could Use Your Support

Spread the word, por favor

My friends at the milblog Blackfive.net sent me the following email:

With combat operations in Iraq as kinetic as they’ve ever been, the Marines could use your support.

At Blackfive, we have been trying to improve our relationship with the Public Affairs Officers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not surprisingly, the Marines have begun a really intense exchange of ideas with us. One Marine Combat Commander embraced our offer of support.

One of the requests that they had of us was to attempt to get 6,000 positive and supportive emails – one for each Marine, Sailor and Soldier in the Marine Regimental Combat Team – 6. Grim, our resident thinker and former Marine at Blackfive, has taken responsibility for this project.

From Grim’s interview with Marine Colonel Simcock, Commander of RCT-6:
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/06/roundtable_with.html

COL. SIMCOCK: (Chuckles.) I’ll tell you what, the one thing that all Marines want to know about — and that includes me and everyone within Regimental Combat Team 6 — we want to know that the American public are behind us. We believe that the actions that we’re taking over here are very, very important to America. We’re fighting a group of people that, if they could, would take away the freedoms that America enjoys.
If anyone — you know, just sit down, jot us — throw us an e- mail, write us a letter, let us know that the American public are behind us. Because we watch the news just like everyone else. It’s broadcast over here in our chow halls and the weight rooms, and we watch that stuff, and we’re a little bit concerned sometimes that America really doesn’t know what’s going on over here, and we get sometimes concerns that the American public isn’t behind us and doesn’t see the importance of what’s going on. So that’s something I think that all Marines, soldiers and sailors would like to hear from back home, that in fact, yes, they think what we’re doing over here is important and they are in fact behind us .

The Marines have set up a special email address to send a supportive message to the Marines is: RCT-6lettersfromh@gcemnf-wiraq.usmc.mil . The emails are being scanned by the PAO before being printed and distributed to individual Marines.

And, guess what?, the RCT-6 has a blog at http://fightin6thmarines.vox.com/

AFTER A FEW DAYS, WE HAVE ONLY GOTTEN THE MARINES ABOUT 2,000 EMAILS. WE COULD USE SOME HELP IN GETTING THE WORD OUT.

Dirty deals, clay pigeons, and snakes in the grass – take action now.

 

June 21, 2007

Dirty deals, clay pigeons, and snakes in the grass – take action now.

Think Progress has an article, The Right Wing Domination Of Talk Radio And How To End It. That’s right, you read it correctly … How to END conservative talk radio. (hat tip Rachel)

http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2007/06/dirty-deals-cla.html