America Needs Another Ronald Reagan

America Needs Another Ronald Reagan
Politics Slater Bakhtavar
June 28, 2007

The closer we approach the 2008 elections, the more apparent it becomes America needs another Ronald Reagan. Someone everyone knows, someone everyone likes, someone who is conservative and someone who can both win the election and manage to hold the Presidency for eight years. The next President should be very expressive and persuasive in front of the camera. He should emanate confidence, and appeal to women voters. He should be someone in the public eye and yet he should not be involved in the Washington mess. Fortunately, a candidate who exemplifies those profound qualities has emerged Republican candidate Fred D. Thompson. Thompson has not officially joined the electoral race but he is already ruffling the GOP presidential field.

The conspicuous benefits for Thompson becoming the President are on the surface. One of his subtle advantages is that he is not a hidebound career politician and has enjoyed a competent career as a lawyer, an actor, and as a politician, of course. His career as a lawyer gives him credibility as a professional. His political career gives him knowledge of power and makes him appreciate federalism and the Constitution. His acting career gives him “immediate face/name recognition” among voters. Moreover, as the long-running NBC television series Law & Order, that he was a star of, was especially popular among women, a Thompson race would smooth the gender gap which is prevalent in the GOP.

He is a lawyer, an actor and a former Republican senator from Tennessee.

Thompson is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and he takes part in researching national security and intelligence as a Visiting Fellow with the American Enterprise Institute. Thompson is a public speaker of the Washington Speakers Bureau, and an analyst for ABC News Radio. In addition, he publishes a blog and podcast daily on the ABC Radio web site.

Thompson was a senator from 1994 to 2003. His record in the Senate shows that he was on the right side of every significant issue. Being a Chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs he voted for national-debt reduction, efforts to privatize elements of Social Security and other problems. He was strongly for the legislation in the interest of free enterprise. He opposed many tax measures and was against the growth in social-welfare programs. He sustained the “decentralization and disfranchising of unconstitutional government programs” and an amendment to prohibit flag burning. Being, a strong conservative, he opposed partial-birth abortion, and cloning. Most importantly, Thompson was and up to this time is steadfastly supporting democratic initiatives in the Middle East.

What is astounding is that although being conservative Thompson is liked “by people on both sides of the aisle”. He is also well liked in the Senate, even though he has been out of it for several years. He exudes poise, buoyancy, confidence and leadership which people seek in a President, especially today. He has a realistic and trustworthy seize of national-security issues necessary for a President, predominantly in the light of the terrorism threat. Fred Thompson certainly cares about the future of the country and the people and he is clearly vigorous and active enough to make a Presidential run.

What is of abundant paramountacy is that Fred understands the everyday American and they understand him. He has stalwart bipartisan appeal and he is open for the efficacious advancements still he is a firm conservative.

Fred Thompson has collected in himself the best leadership qualities of the past Presidents: tenacity of Harry Truman, perseverance of Franklin D. Roosevelt, charisma and charm of John F. Kennedy, and communication skills of Ronald Reagan. Thompson is expected to announce whether he is joining the electoral race sometime in July. All facts are telling he will join the game, however his decision cannot be predicted. Up to August, the voters should hold their breath waiting for his decision to come and repeat what Ronald Reagan once so eloquently said “how can a President, not be an actor?”

Slater Bakhtavar is president and founder of Republican Youth of America, a frequent commentator and respected analyst on foreign policy issues and an attorney with a post-doctoral degree in International law.

Kill the Bill: Shamnesty showdown Update: Telephone system has shut down Update: Video of Kennedy’s “Gestapo” diatribe Update: Reid attacks talk radio Update: VICTORY! Roll added Update: Goat of the day–Sen. Sam Brownback Switchback

Radical Outreach Bush coddles American apologists for radical Islam

Europeans Have to Stop Talking. They Have to Act

Europeans Have to Stop Talking. They Have to Act

Created 2007-06-28 09:41

In March this year, native Dutch residents of the city of Utrecht rioted to protest against harassment by Muslim youths and government inaction to stop this. The authorities immediately suppressed the riots by sealing off the area and installing surveillance cameras to control Dutch non-Muslims, but they have done virtually nothing to address the underlying problem of Muslim violence. And this is far from unique to the Netherlands.

Sweden experienced a quadrupling in the number of rape charges in the space of a single generation. Yet Sweden’s largest newspaper Aftonbladet recently indicated that the spike in rape numbers was due to the “warm weather,” which would presumably mean that these rapes are caused by global warming. The fact that many of the suspects have a Muslim background is purely coincidental, no doubt.

The Dutch Crown Prince Willem-Alexander is worried about the “sharp tone” of the debate surrounding Muslim immigration, and reminds his countrymen that “speech is silver, silence is golden.” Apparently, the rest of the Dutch political class shares this view, relieved that Pim Fortuyn was silenced and Ayaan Hirsi Ali was driven out of the country.

I hear some observers say that the political elites in Western Europe are “powerless” to stop Jihad street violence. But they are extremely aggressive in suppressing criticism of continued Muslim immigration, which indicates that they are not powerless, they are actively hostile to native non-Muslims. It’s time Europeans realize that, and act accordingly.

This is from yesterday’s Dutch press

Dozens of boys and girls have been systematically abused, intimidated and molested by a group of older boys in the Utrecht neighbourhood of Overvecht for almost a year, the Telegraaf reports. Municipal council member Bouchra Dibi (Labour PvdA) investigated the incidents taking place at the playground near the Neckardreef in Overvecht.
Children aged 8, 9 and 10 were dragged into the bushes and coerced into performing sexual acts on boys a few years older. Most of the children involved are of Moroccan background, the newspaper reports. The municipal council member told the Telegraaf that the problems are not being addressed. “This has been going on for almost a year. People just talk and talk and talk. And nothing is done,” she said.
Social workers, police and the municipality do not know how to approach the parents, Dibi says. “These sorts of things are taboo to talk about in the Moroccan community.” Utrecht Mayor Annie Brouwer-Korf (PvdA) acknowledges that there have been problems among children since the end of last year. “Intimidation, threats and fights, and, since the beginning of this year we have seen signals of sexual abuse. A report of sexual molestation by children has been passed on to the public prosecution department,” the mayor says.
Brouwer says it is difficult to get an idea of how widespread the abuses are because there is no concrete information on suspects, victims and locations. Council member Dibi says this is mainly due to parents’ hesitance to report incidents. “Parents do not dare say anything because they are afraid of the perpetrators. There is a great deal of fear. That is why they don’t always report these things.”

Meanwhile the Dutch Labour Party (PvdA) tries to silence Ehsan Jami, a Muslim apostate who is a local Labour politician in Leidschendam-Voorburg. The 22 year old Jami intends to establish an international organization of ex-Muslims. An internal memo [pdf], sent to Labour parliamentarians and ministers, shows that the party fears that Jami’s campaign will cause it electoral damage and enrage Muslims. The party wants Jami to consider the fact that his initiative will go down badly with the PvdA’s immigrant following. The Dutch press revealed that Jami received hate mail from PvdA executives.

Source URL:

Press One For English

Immigration bill blocked

Immigration bill blocked

Cliff Thier
Ding dong, the bill is dead.  I confess that right now I feel kind of overwhelmed by happy emotion.

I’ve participated in democracy in the best, most hopeful way. In the past I’ve made phone calls for candidates. I’ve contributed money and gone to meetings. I’m on my town’s Republican Committee.
But, doing my small part to fight a bad piece of legislation, and witnessing on-line my fellow citizens doing theirs, is one of the most wonderful experiences I’ve ever had.
Has there every been a moment in American history to match this one, when all the force of professional government has been stymied by a determined citizenry?
There has been much talk in recent years comparing the invention of the internet with the invention of the printing press on freedom and government. It may still not be strictly true, but the comparison now has greater validity.

Page Printed from: at June 28, 2007 – 06:16:32 PM EDT _uacct = “UA-31527-12”; urchinTracker();

Immigration and the Future of America

Immigration and the Future of America
By Joseph Puder | June 28, 2007

The Associated Press reported on June 25, 2007 that “Months of tumultuous negotiations with the White House and GOP allies have brought the Senate’s liberal lion, Edward M. Kennedy, to the brink of passing a bill to legalize up to 12 million unlawful immigrants.”

For a super-power that spends nearly half-a-trillion dollars on defense, the U.S. borders remain more porous than most Third World countries.  The defenseless American borders have naturally invited an invasion of Third World people onto American shores.  With ever-cheaper air travel and large cargo ships, used by lucrative smuggler operations that bring poor, uneducated, and unwelcome invaders from Asia and Central and South America, the U.S. may be overrun in 40-50 years.


China and India could each shed 300 million people without even feeling the loss.   No doubt their departure would be met with a sense of relief.  In addition, millions of poor Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are aiming to come to America, some for economic reasons, others to Islamize this “infidel” nation.  And, while illegal sub-Saharan Africans reach Europe in rickety boats, illegals from Central America and the Caribbean are entering the U.S. through Mexico or simply by landing on Florida’s shores.


Political correctness has skewed the debate on immigration by leveling charges of racism and intolerance on those who have concerns about security and the future of America.   But the reality is that if current immigration patterns continue and if legalization is extended to 12 million illegal aliens, America’s culture could shift radically from the America most of us have known.

In 1921, the U.S. Congress passed the Emergency Quota Act followed, in 1924, by the Immigration Act.  The quotas instituted by the 1924 Immigration Act were aimed at reducing the number of unskilled laborers from entering and maintaining ethnic distribution.   British, German and North Europeans received the highest quotas, while the quotas for Jews and East and South Europeans were much lower.  No quotas were set for Mexico and Latin America at that time. 

It is ironic that in the 1880’s, with the increased arrival of Italians and Jews, some American elites viewed the U.S. as being a “dumping ground” – prompting the Immigration Act of 1924.   Italian and Jewish immigrants, however, would go on to become two of the best examples of immigrant groups who best contributed to the “melting pot.”  Both communities learned English quickly and within a generation or two rose to middle class status and beyond.  

The majority of illegal immigrants from Mexico have not however followed this “melting pot” pattern; they’ve been told not to.  Up until 1965 U.S. immigration quotas favored Europeans.  Today, however, Europeans account for approximately 10% of all arriving immigrants, with the majority coming from Asia and Latin America.   Martin Gross in his 1997 book The End of Sanity cites an example of how a middle class French female professional could not get a visa to the U.S. despite numerous attempts, yet thousands of Pakistanis somehow made their way to American shores.According to the 1920 Census Bureau – U.S. Department of Commerce figures (2004 edition of World Almanac) the top seven foreign born Americans came from Germany, Italy, Soviet Union, Poland, Canada, Great Britain and Ireland.  In 1960, they were from Italy, Germany, Canada, Great Britain, Poland, Soviet Union, and Mexico.  By 2000 Europeans were not even in any of the top 10 slots.  The top eight at that time were: Mexico, Philippines, China and Hong Kong, India, Cuba, Vietnam, El Salvador, and Korea. The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act, INS Act of 1965) abolished the national-origin quotas that had been in place in the U.S. since 1924. The legislation was proposed by Emanuel Celler and heavily supported by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), the same person who is leading the campaign for the current immigration bill. As Senate Immigration Subcommittee Chairman, Ted Kennedy promised his colleagues and the nation that, 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 … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia … In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.  Kennedy concluded by saying, “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.” (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.) Ted Kennedy was wrong on every count.  America has been inundated with illegal Mexican “immigrants,” and millions of Asians.  The ethnic balance has changed in measurable ways.  The multiculturalists have won the day, and instead of a melting pot we now have a society of hyphented Americans.  Admission standards were not enforced and were instead relaxed, how else could we account for 12 million undocumented aliens? And now Kennedy is ready to dismiss the rule of law by advocating that 12 million undocumented illegal aliens be granted a path to citizenship.  Our cities are filled with non-English speaking immigrants – legal and illegal.  Kennedy should spend some time in Flushing, Queens (a New York borough), Jersey City, NJ, or the barrios and foreign-language neighborhoods of Los Angeles, instead of Aspen and fancy cocktail parties in leading hotels.  He would see what cities are currently grappling with and that the legalization of illegals will only compound an already unmanageable problem. Ted Kennedy led America astray by helping to pass the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. This is the last opportunity for Americans to wake up and make their voices heard for an America that protects its borders and defends the rule of law.

Senator Embarrassment

Senator Embarrassment
By Ben Johnson | June 28, 2007

During his appearance yesterday on The Sean Hannity Show, Sen. George Voinovich displayed a rare public trifecta of vices: he was ill-mannered, ill-informed, and condescending. In other words, he was the perfect image of those who oppose securing our borders, winning in Iraq, and keeping our economy out of recession.

In the most elegant and dignified talk show appearance since Lester Maddox walked off The Dick Cavett Show, Voinovich demonstrated profound ignorance, indicted an entire communications medium, and told his constituents not to trouble their political masters. (You can listen to the audio here.)


Sean Hannity opened his program by asking the Republican senator’s position on the free speech-stifling Fairness Doctrine. Voinovich replied, “I’m all for the Fairness Doctrine, whatever that is.” The move to censor talk radio has been in the news since its revival was first broached by Dennis Kucinich, a member of Voinovich’s Ohio Congressional delegation and his predecessor as mayor of Cleveland. It gained infamy all week long, as Senators Feinstein, Boxer, Kerry, and Clinton openly or covertly pledged their support. To Voinovich, it was a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma.


He then insisted the Hutchinson amendment to the Senate immigration bill passed the Senate that morning. When confronted with the fact that it failed 53-45 – and a talk show host knew more about Senate proceedings he’d participated in that morning than he did – Voinovich responded, “I thought it passed, because, frankly, I voted for it.” When asked if the failure signaled this is an amnesty bill, Senator Fiat responded defensively, “Well, the fact of the matter is that we are gonna continue to have more amendments, and we’ll see how that all works out.” How reassuring.


The interview’s defining moment, though, came when Voinovich lashed out at Hannity specifically and talk radio generally, demanding they stay in their place:


I’ve had people at my back calling because of programs like yours saying, “If you vote for this bill, then it’s the end of your political career.” And I just want you to know, and I want everyone else to know: You. Do. Not. Intimidate. George Voinovich. This is my 40th year in this business. (Emphasis in original.)


… I’ve gotten calls from people that, basically, are intimidating me. They’re saying, “If you do this [vote for the bill], I’ll do that [vote against you].”


The senator’s words were noteworthy, because they were as contemptuous as they were imperious. He placed his 11 million constituents on par with loan sharks because they dared express their opinions to their elected representative. In the same breath, he characterized his public service as a “business” and asserted his superiority to talk radio hosts. It’s no secret that most, if not all, Congressmen consider themselves above their representatives; however, few see the virtue in giving the majority of their state’s voters a chest-thumping, collective order to sit down, shut up, and leave the governing to the elites.


If the senator’s plea won few converts, his competence won fewer yet. As he had with other points, the “former construction worker” Hannity showed his superior knowledge of the bill’s contents and arguments against its passage. Pressed for specifics, Voinovich confessed he hadn’t “read every page of” the bill, though he had seen “most” of the summaries. Whenever Hannity exposed a hole in his knowledge, Voinovich defended himself by laughing – too loud, too long, and with all the warmth and charm of John Kerry.


Hannity pressed forward. Doesn’t this bill provide 400,000 guest workers a year the chance to be come “permanent residents”? Wouldn’t it set 12 million people on path to citizenship, rewarding their lawbreaking and inviting more of the same? The senator made a half-hearted attempt to argue “Social Security has really been ahead over the years,” because illegals have not collected their payments. He failed to explain why he supports saddling taxpayers with a net bill of $2.6 trillion to rectify this oversight. Then, he hung up on his host:


I really don’t think it’s worthy to talk to you right now because you’ve got your mind [made] up, you’re not really interested in hearing the other side of the coin. All you just want to hear is somebody agree with you. And I’m disappointed in you, because I had more respect for you. I wouldn’t even have gone on this radio program with you if I hadn’t thought that you’d give me an opportunity…You haven’t even given me a chance.


“You’re running away because you can’t answer a simple question,” said Hannity.


Voinovich clicked the receiver, whimpering, “I hope next time around we have another subject that we can be more rational about.”


That is, other issues where you’ll more readily genuflect before your superiors.


And thus Voinovich revealed the insolent face of those who oppose sealing the borders, winning the war against al-Qaeda, and keeping our economy strong.


The Buckeye State’s Teary-Eyed “Maverick”


Yesterday’s outburst came one day after Voinovich echoed Sen. Richard Lugar’s comments that the Iraqi troop surge had failed. Although General David Petraeus and other military brass have stated our number one enemy in this war is al-Qaeda in Iraq, and though they have begged Congress to withhold judgment until at least September, the Midwestern Republican duo aped the rhetoric of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and undermined the troops’ morale. With increased media coverage of Iraq, Americans are increasingly skeptical about victory – Pavlov had a theory that explains why – but most Americans want us to prevail. They certainly don’t want to see Iraq become a regional haven for terrorism. Instead of allowing the policy he voted for to work, Voinovich advised President Bush in a letter Tuesday to “gradually and responsibly reduc[e] our forces and…begin a transition where the Iraqi government and its neighbors play a larger role in stabilizing Iraq.” (Emphasis added.) 


Last September, Voinovich had a different take on Iran. In a fit of maturity, the septuagenarian said on the Senate floor:


Ahmadinejad. I call him Ah-Mad-in-the-Head. I think he’s a Hitler-type of person. He has made it clear that he wants to destroy Israel. He’s made it clear he doesn’t believe in a Holocaust. He’s a – he’s a – well, we all know what he is.


Nine months later, Voinovich urges the president: catch the next train to Munich. What could be more logical than calling in “a Hitler-type of person” currently waging proxy war against us as a powerbroker – after insulting his family’s name and honor? This is the great independent voice the American people are supposed to heed?


The senator is calling for diplomacy, but he refused to give the president the diplomatic team he requested. Voinovich wept on the Senate floor in 2005 at the notion John Bolton might be confirmed as UN Ambassador. (Bolton later, graciously, defended Voinovich after the “mad-in-the-head” comment.)


Voinovich has shown similar arrogance on economic policy. He wavered on each of Bush’s tax cut proposals (before supporting them) and opposed making those tax cuts permanent. He voted against eliminating the marriage penalty, supported the death tax, and helped kill efforts to permanently ban taxes on the internet. In September 2005, Voinovich introduced a Social Security bill eliminating private retirement accounts and said the idea “is not going anywhere.” A week before the midterm election in which his Republican colleague, Mike DeWine, went down to defeat, he proposed “a temporary increase in our taxes” to pay for the War on Terror. Of course, the widespread collection of federal income tax began as a “temporary measure” to finance WWII; Ohio voters’ desire for a tax hike is zero; and the Bush tax cuts dramatically increased government revenues, like the Reagan and Kennedy tax cuts before them.

 Voinovich was singularly outspoken in telling his state’s voters to take a hike. But any politician across the nation who favors these policies is making a stealthier version of the same plea.

Posted in Uncategorized. Leave a Comment »