No Apologies Necessary
Author: Bob Parks
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: August 3, 2007
Tolerance is a hallmark of Western society, but some Muslims take advantage of this cherished notion. FSM Contributing Editor Bob Parks has had enough of what has become a one-way street.
No Apologies Necessary
By Bob Parks
I am tired of apologizing. I am tired of apologizing to Muslims. It’s not something that’s happened overnight. It’s taken a while, but now, no more apologies.
We, as modern societies, have opened our borders to Muslims. What have we gotten in return? Demands. If we complain, we’re called racists. We apologize. And why do we apologize? The fear of violence. That’s right, I said it, and that’s what most of you are thinking.
How have we bent over backwards for Muslims? Here are some of the more recent examples:
Three wives of a Qatari Sheik held up a flight bound for England because they refused to sit next to men they didn’t know, demanding that other passengers switch seats in order to accommodate them. While British Airways ended up forcing the majority of the Sheik’s party to get off the plane because of the impasse, it took several hours to do so, thereby severely inconveniencing all of the other travelers.
In San Diego, Muslim students demanded time to pray during the school day, so a second lunch period was created. Younger students will go to the first lunch period, and the older students and Muslims will go to the second. When was the last time anyone created anything special for a Christian? All that would bring is the old “separation of church and state” chant.
We depend on taxis to take people home who have had a few too many adult beverages so they don’t get behind the wheel. But some Muslim cabbies in Minneapolis didn’t want to drive anyone who had consumed alcohol, and they also had a problem with Seeing Eye dogs, so they demanded they be allowed to kick the blind to the curb as well.
In Germany, a judge actually ruled that a Moroccan man could beat his wife because it was legal. Not under German law, but under Shari’a law, so the judge cast aside German law as not to offend. In fact, some Muslims have publicly stated they want Shari’a law to become the law of the land in America.
We in America celebrate “freedom of expression” and allow artists to paint pictures of the Virgin Mary splattered with elephant dung or place a crucifix in a jar of urine, but when a Danish newspaper artist created a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad, all hell broke loose around the world. The paper’s editor eventually apologized but that wasn’t enough. There were riots. Many were killed…over cartoons.
And while I’m saying what many are thinking, but don’t have the guts to say because it’s politically incorrect, I’ll also add that violence is the one thing that seems to follow some Muslims around the most.
There have been terror bombings at nightclubs and on trains in Bali and Madrid. Let’s not forget about the riots in France. There are few Middle Eastern countries where suicide bombings aren’t the flavor of the day. Killing an enemy or infidel is rewarded with a promised eternity with 70 regenerating virgins. (How many terror bombings do we have here in America compared to some other countries on a daily basis? We’ve been lucky so far.)
There are many examples where people who have chosen to come to Western countries issue us demands. As thanks, we get more demands and the results are submission to them under the threat of possible violence. A lot of the time, we get the violence anyway.
Some may call me intolerant. That would be the PC response. But I’m tired of being tolerant. It’s gotten us nothing but more demands, censorship, and in some cases, death.
Muslims come to our nations for freedom. To some, freedom means taking away ours. If they don’t like the way we live, they are also free to leave any time they want.
No apologies necessary.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Bob Parks is a nationally syndicated political and social columnist. In addition to writing radio commentary, Mr. Parks appears on the award-winning television program, “Black & Right” (http://www.blackandright.
read full author bio here
© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved
If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer or this article, please email your request to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Note — The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Other Articles by Bob Parks…
No Apologies Necessary
CREW Cleaning the Republicans’ House
What’s The Difference?
The Ladies’ Night of Terror
Only The Insane Go To Washington
The Immigration Reform Act For Dummies Part Two (of Two)
The Immigration Reform Act For Dummies
The Illegal Hear No Evil
American Hacks Talk Without Flaks
In what just might be the dirtiest trick ever played in the House of Representatives, last night Democrats tried first to reverse the outcome of an unfavorable vote, then made it disappear altogether.
According to Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)’s website, when the electronic vote tally indicated that a Republican motion to recommit an Agriculture appropriations bill to committee had apparently won, the Dems simply stopped the vote.
The vote to “add language prohibiting any taxpayer funds under the agriculture programs from going to illegal immigrants” had apparently passed 215 to 213. But House Dems would have neither their Hispandering nor their government-bloating denied.
According to The Politico:
“One GOP aide saw [Speaker Pro Tempore Dem. Rep. Michael R.] McNulty gavel the vote to a close after receiving a signal from his leaders – but before reading the official tally. And votes continued to shift even after he closed the roll call – a strange development in itself.”
McNulty declared the vote a draw.
After 5 minutes of rancor, Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD.) offered a motion to reconsider a vote his party had already lost. The understandably PO’d minority stormed out of the chamber in protest of the majority’s despicable tactics.
And for their next trick, Poof! The Dems vanished the vote like a vaudeville rabbit.
As of 8AM EST this morning, the official House website had absolutely no record such a vote ever took place.
“An outrage,” writes Cantor, who then asks:
“Is this a democracy or a dictatorship?”
A federal judge has sustained the CIA’s refusal to allow Plame to disclose her dates of employment with the agency, reports Tom Maguire of Just One Minute, who says this of her attorney’s complaint that the judge’s ruling was in part based on secret evidence he was not allowed to view: The New York Times reports:
Mr. Rothberg said that aspect of Judge Jones’s ruling was particularly frustrating.
“Trying to argue a case in which the government was able to submit a supersecret affidavit which we were not able to review was like playing an opponent who has 53 cards in his deck,” he said.
Ahh – here is where I need some help. I am looking for a rejoinder along the lines of “Yes, but trying to argue about the significance of Joe Wilson’s Niger trip with one of his supporters is like playing an opponent with only 51 cards in their deck.” Only funny.
Or maybe, “Trying to argue about Ms. Plame’s covert status with a special counsel who is sitting on her personnel file is like…”. Well, you see my conundrum.
We had previously noted this CIA letter, and continue to believe the information that her pension calculation includes an official CIA accounting of her service abroad is a key data point eerily but not inexplicably suppressed by Special Counsel Fitzgerald.
Update: JOM’er Cecil notes she should just give the info to her husband and let him publish it in bits as op eds in the NYT. Worked last time.
Warfare is the Way of deception – Sun Tzu
The left’s anti-war forces sustained heavy casualties earlier this week. And, judging from both strategy shifts and painful screams heard throughout the liberal blogosphere, many of the fallen were high value propaganda targets.
It’s no secret that Democratic strategists see failure in Iraq as a blood-soaked red carpet leading them to the White House next year. So much so that even before the president officially announced the initial 20,000 troop surge in January, opposition party leaders were scrambling to denounce it as a doomed and desperate last-gasp effort to save a failing policy.
And yet, the Dem-controlled Senate did unanimously add a fourth star to surge proponent General David Petraeus’s shoulder to confirm his selection as Iraq Multi-National-Force commander just two weeks later. And while Senate Dems expressed great confidence in the man who had co-authored the Army’s Field Manual 3-24 on Counterinsurgency a month prior, they somehow saw nothing duplicitous in their equally unanimous rejection of the surge plan it had inspired.
The Battle to Purge the Surge
Consequently, in February, while Petraeus focused his forces on Baghdad — particularly Sadr City, a stronghold of Shiite militias — and began engaging al Qaeda in the Diyala province, Pelosi’s House was passing a resolution to oppose his mission.
In March, U.S forces began clearing al Qaeda from Ramadi and moved into western Baghdad, capturing or killing al Qaeda operatives both in Abu Ghraib and in the capital’s Mansour district. That’s when House Democrats voted to remove those same forces by August 2008.
April and May saw new surge units continuing to successfully clear extremists from increasing numbers of regions while Congressional Democrats continued their unsuccessful attempts to legislate the battlefield.
Then, in June, just as the real surge (Operation Phantom Thunder – a coordinated and simultaneous offensive against insurgent strongholds throughout central Iraq) was launched, opposition leaders also jumped into action. Majority leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote a letter to the president, declaring the fledgling surge an unmitigated disaster:
“As many had foreseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results. The increase in U.S. forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation. It has not enhanced America’s national security. The unsettling reality is that instances of violence against Iraqis remain high and attacks on U.S. forces have increased. In fact, the last two months of the war were the deadliest to date for U.S. troops.”
Apparently unperturbed by such brilliant military guidance and with July surge-forces now at 30,000, the progress achieved has been anything but a failure. For instance, over and above successful clearing operations in and around Baghdad, aligned U.S and Iraqi forces have driven the insurgents from Baquba, in Diyala province, and from the Euphrates valley in Anbar province.
Furthermore, sectarian killings have abated, primarily because the strategy, as Kimberly Kagan reported last month, had:
“dramatically decreased Shiite death squad activity in the capital. Furthermore, U.S. and Iraqi special forces have removed many rogue militia leaders and Iranian advisers from Sadr City and other locations, reducing the power of militias.”
And July military casualties, both American and Iraqi, were way down, as was the number of Iraqi police killed. Arrests and insurgent deaths, on the other hand, were both up.
Yet Democrats continued to sing the “surge is a failure” opus and even attempted to amend a critical July defense appropriations bill with language calling for beginning a redeployment of U.S. troops in as little as four months.
And, while the complicit media ignored or downplayed virtually every one of these significant advances, they continued to blur reality to foment despair through the over-emphasis of sectarian violence, gory roadside bombing details, and continuing coalition casualties. Yet, three things remained clear:
Of course, thanks to the lopsided reporting, it appeared that the Democrats might receive an early Christmas present in September.
Until, that is, this week.
Fox News Sunday Bloody Sunday
Arguably, Newt Gingrich squeezed off the first salvo of the week’s mêlée when he appeared on Fox News Sunday. Responding to Senator Russ Feingold’s call to begin “redeployment” even before the Petraeus report card, the former Speaker and presidential hopeful described a Democratic left wing unconcerned with the facts and “deeply opposed” to our victory and “deeply committed” to and willing to legislate our defeat.
When Feingold’s segment followed, host Chris Wallace asked whether his plan ignored signs that the surge was working. Dismissing the very premise, he replied (with my emphasis throughout):
“I’m happy to acknowledge any signs of success, but the truth is since this surge began, we’ve had some of the highest numbers of American deaths and some of the greatest tragedies in Iraq of the entire period.”
Notwithstanding the preceding double-talk, the Wisconsin Democrat surely spoke clearly but a day early when he concluded:
“So I’ll give all the respect to General Petraeus’ remarks that are due, but every indication I get — and I’m on the Intelligence Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, so I get a lot of information on this — suggests that it is virtually impossible that he’s going to be able to give the kind of rosy scenario that you’ve concocted here.” [emphasis added]
But Monday Morning gave them a warning (of what was to be)
Monday’s New York Times contained a surprising Op-ed by Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack which reported that “we are finally getting somewhere in Iraq.” Under the shocking title A War We Just Might Win the two Brookings scholars, having freshly returned from Iraq, ravaged liberal talking points with words the likes of:
“Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.”
In stark contrast to the pessimism represented by Feingold, the two analysts – both ardent critics of the Bush administration’s handling of Iraq — did give a “rosy scenario,” in which Marine and Army units focused on helping Iraqi civilians attain security and basic essential services. They further reported “civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began” as its direct result. And that the surge-deployed additional troops have empowered the Petraeus tactic of holding areas until fully secure to prevent insurgents from retaking them once Americans depart.
High marks were also given to the policies which “revive the local economy and build new political structures.” And, shattering the oft-spoken liberal lies about the dependability of Iraqi security forces, most of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders have apparently been dealt with:
“The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).”
Senator Feingold likely wished he could rewind to the previous day when he read first of a local mayor whose greatest fear was a hasty American departure, and then, the Times’ knockout punch conclusion:
“But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.”
Monday also saw the AP report a weekend trip to Iraq by 6 congressmen, including Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn). As the first and only Muslim in Congress, it’s likely that his unique access to local sheiks was expected to uncover a deeper element of anti-American sentiment
Didn’t happen – in fact, what local leaders in Ramadi told Ellison reinforced the report of O’Hanlon and Pollack — that they had partnered with U.S. and Iraqi military officials to virtually drive al-Qaeda from the city. And, as violence has been reduced, so have the number of anti-American sermons, with religious leaders instead meeting regularly and cooperating with U.S military officials.
Ellison was reportedly quite impressed observing Maj. Gen. Walter Gaskin, U.S. commander of Anbar province, greeting people with “As-Salamu Alaykum,” and by the smiles and waves the gesture elicited.
An outspoken Iraq and Bush critic, Ellison nevertheless declared Ramadi a success, adding that,
“there was a general level of respect and calm that I thought was good.”
Brown Versus the Bored of Confrontation
When anti-war bastions loudly cheered the departure of Tony Blair from Downing Street, they expected it to further diminish British resolve in Iraq and advance its retreat. So they held their collective Bush-bashing breath during the Sunday/Monday first meeting between the President and the new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, anticipating immediate relief.
They got none.
Emerging from the meeting, Brown shocked the crowd by declaring the west involved in a “generation-long battle” against radical Islamic terrorism. And, while surrender-mongers stood with mouths agape, he blessed the American mission in Iraq as worthwhile, promising to stand by President Bush’s efforts to promote democracy there and in all of the Middle East:
“We are at one in fighting the battle against terrorism, and that struggle is one that we will fight with determination and with resilience and right across the world”
But the final blow was dealt by Brown’s response to war-opposing reporters’ mynah-birdlike insistence that violence in Iraq has more to do with feuding factions than Al Qaeda:
“In Iraq, you’re dealing with Sunni-Shia violence, you’re dealing with the involvement of Iran, but you’re certainly dealing with a large number of Al Qaeda terrorists. There is no doubt, therefore, that Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq.”
Anti-Warfare is Also the Way of Deception
Given all this terrible good news, what’s the “Bush Lied – People Died” party to do? How do you add a date-certain withdrawal to defense spending legislation based solely on the “surge is a failure” lie when the latest facts on the ground simply refuse to cooperate, and September’s benchmark report looms so near?
If you’re James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the first thing you do is to admit to The Washington Post that an encouraging assessment from Petraeus would “be a real big problem” for Democrats. That’s right, Manic Monday also found the House Majority Whip warning fellow Dems to “wait for the Petraeus report” before taking any further devious Iraq actions. His fear is that good news would be bad news in maintaining Blue Dog anti-war sentiment and votes, putting a timetable out of reach. And so, implies Clyburn, let’s not rub salt into our own wounds.
But the political bleeding continued on Tuesday, even as the physical flow ebbed. The American death toll for July was reported at 73 — the lowest in eight months. Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, second only to Petraeus himself, explained that while the initial surge into militant strongholds had increased casualties, they were now “going down as Americans gained control of the areas.”
In other words – the now fully implemented surge is working to expectation and the misinformed contrarians were wrong.
No problem – Dems and the MSM will simply toggle between denying and ignoring that fact. Just as they’ve denied the nature of Al Qaeda in Iraq and ignored its recent attempts to use chemical weapons against Iraqi civilians. Ditto requests for their plan to prevent the untold civilian casualties of anti-war associated with cutting and running, which may now include a repeat of what happened to the Kurds of Halabja (video).
Sure enough — with hopes of an unfavorable review quickly fading, a new stratagem has arisen, with anti-war disinformation brigades launching a surge of their own. Suddenly no longer concerned with military matters, today we are being barraged with statements like those from ABC News (“In the critical, political arena, the picture is bleak”) or from Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), who in April declared “that the troop surge plan in Iraq has failed,” yet today quipped:
“We’ve made some progress in the surge, we’ve made some military progress. But I think [Petraeus will] be honest enough to say we’ve made no political progress.”
As is often said of its counterpart, it’s becoming abundantly clear that truth is the first casualty of anti-war.
Marc Sheppard is a technology consultant, software engineer, writer, and political and systems analyst. He is a regular contributor to American Thinker. He welcomes your feedback.
I have often wondered how the media are in such lock step on Global Warming. Well, I wonder no more. Recently, I came across a website for the Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ). http://www.sej.org/ This website is veritable tool box for any budding reporter assigned to the global warming beat. If you’re an editor at the Palookaville Post, all you have to do is send your cub reporters to this site and they’ll have everything they need to write an article that fits the template and action line perfectly.
The SEJ was founded in 1989. The association is considered an indispensable resource among many reporters. The SEJ proclaims their mission to be the creation of a formal network of reporters that write about environmental issues. To that end, they maintain a website, run a listserv and send out regular email alerts to coordinate the coverage and make sure no one deviates from story template and action line. To reinforce this, they regularly conduct conferences and workshops teaching propaganda writing techniques and holding indoctrination seminars. To promote hands on discipline, they offer a “mentoring program.”
In January of this year, the SEJ published what they call Climate change: A guide to the information and disinformation. The guide is neatly organized into twelve chapters. Except for the seventh chapter titled with the freighted descriptive: “Deniers, Dissenters and Skeptics”, the guide is a one sided presentation that resoundingly affirms global warming and puts down anyone with a different point of view. The site is a virtual digest of the global warming industry. If you’re looking for a road map to the special interest groups behind the hysteria, this is the place to go. The journalist members of this association have obviously abandoned all pretense of objectivity.
The site is largely a compendium of links to global warming promoters. Many of the links use adjectives like prestigious, best respected, and reputation unrivaled to burnish their credibility. The so-called deniers on the other hand are described with adjectives like, highly polemical, outright false, and deceptive partisan attack dogs. The description of the Competitive Enterprise Institute is especially derisive, citing the often leveled false accusation that they the tool of Exxon Mobile. And this is journalism at its finest?
The SEJ is supported mainly by foundation grants from many of the places that fund Bill Moyers and PBS. The remaining revenue is generated from membership dues and conference fees.
This year’s annual conference is being held in the rarefied atmosphere of Stanford University. The conference agenda and featured speakers are a virtual who’s who and what’s what of the self -identified progressive movement: the likes of leftist radio personality Amy Goodman and the Weather Channel’s chief global warming propagandist Heidi Cullen holding down the celebrity spots. The five -day conference is really a full immersion in the latest liberal tropes. To create the illusion of prestige and open debate they booked a token Republican, shelling out whatever it took to get former Secretary of State George Schultz to participate in a panel titled, “Clean, Secure & Efficient Energy: Can We Have It All?”
The panel description reflects the deeply ingrained bias of the SEJ and its members. “The race is on for commercialization of domestic fuels that shrink our carbon footprint…” From what I’ve seen this not a race for “commercialization” so much as a fight for government subsidies.
The conference offers several recreational field trips that would set any white liberal’s hearts aflutter, including a kayak outing and a tour of California’s wine country. But its not all play; to assuage their liberal guilt, they’re planning an excursion to the East Bay area of Oakland and Richmond they call the “Hole in the Donut: Environmental Justice in the Heart of Ecotopia” The descriptive narrative of the trip speaks volumes.
“Amid the extraordinary wealth and environmental consciousness ringing San Francisco Bay, two communities at the center of it all wallow in poverty and pollution.
“The East Bay cities of Richmond and Oakland are the industrial entrepôts for the economy of Northern California and beyond. Both surround the massive Port of Oakland, the nation’s fourth largest, which fouls water and air with toxics and exotic creatures and is suspected of causing sharply higher rates of asthma and premature death from other diseases. We’ll explore the minority-majority neighborhoods that endure the ceaseless movement of trains, trucks and ships. Then we’ll tour the port complex to see how goods are moved across the seas and how port officials plan to clean up their act.”
(For a look at the terrible environmental injustice around the Port of Richmond, see Thomas Lifson’s photos here.)
The mere existence of the Society of Environmental Journalists shows first hand how the media world works, providing the infrastructure to journalists engaged in the practice of global warming advocacy journalism.
By Janet Levy
In a remarkable turnabout reminiscent of the famous John Kerry flip flop, “I was for the war before I was against the war,” U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) effected a dramatic reversal last week in his position on illegal immigration.
Not more than a month earlier, Graham, or “Grahamnesty” as he was labeled, had been a strident supporter of the most extensive amnesty program in U.S. history, one cloaked in the deceptive rhetoric of humanitarianism and comprehensive immigration reform. The hypocrisy and betrayal were clearly evident a large majority of the American public.
Has Graham committed political suicide? The fallout from Graham’s turnabout will provide months of edifying politics. Chronicling and reviewing Graham’s reversal of his pro-amnesty position is instructive, providing an example to elected officials of the consequences they face if they pursue their own agendas despite vocal opposition by their constituents, and lose sight of their role as public servants.
The Rise of Sen. Grahamnesty
Graham, in concert with senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA), crafted and promoted S.1639, the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007. What was purported to be a comprehensive solution to the problems presented by runaway illegal immigration in the United States turned out to be a massive amnesty program. It would have rewarded criminal behavior with billions of dollars in entitlements for health care, social security, legal assistance and other benefits. At a time when Americans are concerned about national security and have demanded that government secure our borders, this bill offered nothing to solve the border security problem. To add insult to injury, in 2006 Graham voted for an amendment that would essentially ensure that the border fence with Mexico would never be built. The amendment stipulated that the Mexican government must be consulted prior to construction of any border structures and fences.
S.1639, the McCain-Kennedy bill championed by Graham, would have granted immediate amnesty to anywhere from 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens, making them permanent legal residents of the United States. It would have authorized the importing of additional “temporary” foreigners as guest workers with full legal status and renewable work permits. Under the provisions of S.1639, undocumented immigrants would have been eligible for social security benefits, even if they identified themselves with stolen or forged documents. In addition to free public education, health and hospital care, food stamps, welfare and in-state college tuition rates currently provided to existing illegal aliens, the bill would also have given them free legal assistance at American taxpayers’ expense. Also, S.1639 would have increased the number of eligible family members that illegal immigrants could bring to the United States. Clearly, under S. 1639, the benefits conferred upon those who violated U.S. immigration laws were bountiful rewards, not disincentives, for crossing the border illegally.
As Graham embarked on a mission to vigorously support passage of S.1639, his mostly conservative constituency began to complain about his attempt to hoodwink them with an amnesty plan for those who entered the country illegally. According to some reports, the volume of dissenting calls to his office necessitated additional phone capacity. Angry constituents complained that as calls increased, staff members eventually declined to answer calls altogether. Publicly, Graham asserted that the majority of his constituents supported what he was doing and dismissed the complaints as coming from “loud folks.” Graham believed that most voters accepted the flawed logic of granting amnesty now for breaking the same law that would henceforth be vigorously enforced. Allowing amnesty in order to slow the future flow of immigrants didn’t make sense, but Graham paid no heed.
To make matters worse, in May, Graham addressed the National Council of La Raza (“The Race”) to apprise them of his efforts to legislate amnesty for illegal aliens. As part of his speech to the largest Hispanic advocacy organization in the United States, Graham declared that to those opposing amnesty he would “tell the bigots to shut up.” In this offensive statement to La Raza, Graham blatantly disparaged as insensitive racists the vast majority of law-abiding American citizens who favored upholding existing immigration laws.
Ironically, La Raza is a Hispanic rights organization that lobbies for racial preferences, bilingual education, open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens. La Raza received $15.2 million in federal grants in 2005 and actively funds the Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan, or MEChA, one of the most anti-American groups in the country. MEChA rejects the notion of assimilating to American culture and advocates the “Reconquista” or repatriation of the “stolen” American southwest, including Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon and parts of Washington State to Chicanos. In April, thousands of Mexican expatriates, many here illegally, and some affiliated with La Raza, MEChA and other Hispanic rights groups, joined others in a massive protest of U.S. immigration laws, whose very existence they find offensive and a violation of their rights to be in an America that they feel rightfully belongs to them.
The fallout experienced by Graham following his wholehearted endorsement of amnesty for illegal aliens and his conspicuous pandering to La Raza was extensive. According to an Insider Advantage/Majority Opinion poll, 63% of his constituents disapproved of his support for S.1639. His approval rating plummeted to 31% and campaign contributions critical for the senator’s re-election in 2008 ground to a halt. The blogosphere responded with a proliferation of “Dump Lindsey Graham” websites, with one displaying a Lindsey Graham countdown clock. In response, a Graham spokesman commented with flagrant disdain that “Lindsey Graham has never governed by the polls – real or bogus – and is not about to start now.” The spokesman added that well-informed South Carolinians, who constituent the majority of state residents, support the provisions of the “immigration reform proposal.” It was evident to many South Carolinians that their senator was placing the interests of Hispanic supremacist, illegal alien support groups above that of lawful American citizens and that he refused to respectfully engage his constituency in a reasonable debate on the problems of illegal immigration and border security.
Apparently the backlash and political implications for Graham were significant enough for him to reconsider his position and co-author with Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AK) an amendment to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spending bill. Last Friday, the Senate passed the $3 billion in emergency spending for immigration and border enforcement. The Graham-Pryor amendment stipulates that the U.S. government must achieve full operational control over the U.S.-Mexico border. It requires an increase in the number of border patrol agents for a total of 23,000, allocates funding for 45,000 detention beds to end “catch and release” procedures that set illegal aliens free for lack of detention space, and calls for the acquisition of four unmanned aerial vehicles and 105 ground-based radar and camera towers. Further, the amendment provides for the expedited removal of illegal aliens. It also addresses visa overstays by requiring detention under Department of Homeland Security provisions and allows local law enforcement to obtain immigration status information in sanctuary cities, municipalities that have adopted a non-cooperative stance with federal immigration enforcement laws. In a complete volte-face, Graham said that he likened the passing of his amendment to “having been robbed 12 million times and finally getting around to putting a lock on the door.” He is now advocating better electronic employee verification systems, merit-based entry requirements and assimilation programs that include learning English.
In the face of overwhelming public disapproval – that may yet result in his forfeiting re-election – a humbled Graham reversed his La Raza-consonant position on amnesty and cowered to voters’ demands. He recognized that his support for securing national borders and enforcing immigration laws were important prerequisites for recapturing lost political capital. As Dan Stein, president of the Federation of Immigration Reform (FAIR) so aptly stated,
“The American public has made it absolutely clear that they want the government to secure the border and enforce our immigration laws – and that none of these efforts should be conditioned on rewarding people who have broken our laws.”
It is evident that the American people want to see a reduction of the number of illegal immigrants crossing the border and the enforcement of existing laws to secure the border. Wise politicians can take a lesson from Graham’s experience. Politicians who want to remain in Congress should heed the will of the people and enact legislation worthy of true public servants.
Better late than never. It’s interesting, however, that most Muslim spokesmen in the West will deny that honor killings have anything to do with Islam in the first place. If that’s the case, why should this edict need to be issued? “Top Shia Muslim cleric bans honour killings,” from AFP (thanks to WriterMom):
Beirut — Lebanon’s top Shia Muslim cleric Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah issued a fatwa, or religious edict yesterday, banning so-called honour killings as repulsive acts that contradict Islamic law.He denounced “honour crimes in which men kill their sisters, daughters or other [female] relatives on the pretext of committing acts against decency and honour.”
Mr. Fadlallah said in a statement that he was issuing the edict amid reports of an increase in the practice across the Arab world.
How Best to Attack America?
By William Hawkins
FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/3/2007
There has been no major terrorist attack in the United States since September 11, 2001. This is amazing, given how large and open America continues to be. Though the recent National Intelligence Estimate noted that it is harder now to attack the United States, “al-Qaeda is showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States.” It is the old offensive-defensive dynamic seen in every war. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says his “gut” tells him a new attack may be on the way. But would such an attack be the result of al-Qaeda rebuilding its capability, or of it rethinking its strategy? The debate in enemy circles over how to strike the United States goes back deep into the last century.
In late 1944, with the Allies battering Nazi Germany from all sides, commando leader Otto Skorzeny met with Heinrich Himmler, architect of the Holocaust. Himmler wanted to attack New York City with V-1 rockets launched from U-boats. According to Skorzeny’s memoirs, Himmler argued, “America shall really feel the war for the first time. They think they are out of reach and Roosevelt imagines they can fight this war against Germany with their money and their industries and a few soldiers. The shock of such an attack would be enormous. They’d never face war in their own country. I have a very poor opinion of the moral stamina of Americans; it will collapse under such a novel and unexpected strain.”
Skorzeny disagreed, “I believe, Reichsfuhrer, that it is very possible that the effect will be quite the opposite. The U.S. government is always drumming into the nation that America is threatened by Germany. The threat will become a reality if New York is bombarded with the V-1. I attach considerable importance to the Anglo-Saxon strain in the Americans. The British have taught us that their morale rises to great heights when they are directly attacked.”
Osama bin Laden shared Himmler’s low opinion of Americans in 2001, but the reaction to the 9/11 attacks proved Skorzeny right. The United States was shaken from is doldrums and strode across the world like a colossus. That was not the reaction Osama expected, and it must have given him pause. Since 2003, Osama bin Laden and his second in command, Ayman al Zawahiri, have repeatedly called Iraq the “front line” in their war against Western civilization, hoping that this would be the better battlefield on which to break American morale.
But the post-9/11 energy is now fading, and America is falling prey to Adolf Hitler’s alternative to Himmler’s plan. Hitler wanted to strike hard at American forces in Europe, launching his remaining reserves in what became known as the Battle of the Bulge. The Nazi dictator told Skorzeny, “England and America were tired of the war, and if the ‘corpse’ rose from the dead and dealt them a resounding blow, pressure from their own people and the demonstrated falsity of their own propaganda would make them ready for an armistice with Germany.”
The German “Bulge” attack cost the U.S. some 19,000 dead. Two regiments of the green 106th Infantry Division were surrounded and forced to surrender. American POWs were massacred at Malmedy. But there was never any chance that Washington would stop fighting and let the Nazis off the hook. Instead, the Allied counterattack smashed the best troops the Germans still had in the West. There would still be five months of fighting, but victory was never in doubt.
In 1968, however, Hitler’s plan was carried out with more success by North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap, whose Tet Offensive did shake American home front morale. Though from a military standpoint, Tet was as much a failure as the Bulge, President Lyndon Johnson announced he would not seek re-election, restricted the U.S. war effort and sought negotiations with the communists. Though Richard Nixon was elected in 1968, and re-elected in 1972, as the more hawkish candidate, a Democratic Congress turned against the war with a Republican in the White House and its left-wing constituents in the streets.
The Congressional antiwar effort took the same path then as now. The government in Saigon was called corrupt and incompetent, thus not worth defending. This provided cover for a series of measures aimed at setting a withdrawal “date certain” for abandoning South Vietnam. A major push was made in 1971, with hopes of paving the way for a Democratic presidential win in 1972. In February, 1971 “the Democratic Policy Committee identified U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam by the end of the year as an objective of the Ninety-second Congress” writes leftist historian Charles DeBenedetti.
There were no terrorist attacks launched by Hanoi against the United States. The Communists hoped, as had Hitler, that Americans would tire of fighting in a far off place. They just needed to hang on long enough for American fatigue to set in, which they could do since North Vietnam (unlike Germany) was not invaded and the regime destroyed. U.S. troops withdrew from South Vietnam behind the mirage of peace talks, at a rate faster than military commanders thought prudent. Congress then banned any further action to save South Vietnam, including the use of air power, which had helped turn back a North Vietnamese invasion in 1972. Saigon then fell to a renewed communist offensive in 1975.
In contrast to North Vietnam, Iraq was invaded and the regime destroyed. Thus, today’s insurgents are much weaker than the enemies the U.S. has faced in the past. Indeed, there is no enemy army in the field. The insurgents are unable to advance beyond a minimalist form of warfare, road side explosives and car bombs aimed at civilians. Yet, American society seems weaker still. The couch potatoes don’t want to be distracted from the fabricated “reality” on TV by considerations of what may be at stake overseas. But has society degenerated enough so that a new terrorist attack will break the political logjam and bring about an immediate retreat from Iraq? This is what Osama and his henchmen must be debating. It worked in Spain in 2004, but have Americans become as decadent as Europeans?
With opinion in Congress moving in their direction, it would seem that al-Qaeda would not want to rock the boat. Though some Democrats still talk about “redeployment” to Kuwait or some other place “over the horizon” to preserve an option to rescue a collapsing Iraq, the left-wing core of the party has no more stomach for a renewed fight in Iraq than it did in Vietnam.
If al-Qaeda does mount a major terrorist attack, or campaign of attacks, against the United States homeland, it would be an act of desperation. It would be a sign that the “surge” in Iraq is working, not only in a military sense but in a political sense, as Sunni and Shia tribal leaders are brought into the U.S. strategy of national building. If al-Qaeda is on the run, as many reports from the scene indicate, its leaders may decide to roll the iron dice in an attempt to win in Washington what has been lost in Baghdad. How Americans would interpret such terrorist actions, and react to them, would reveal to the world the state of the nation’s self-confidence and moral strength, the real determinants of effective power in world affairs.
William R. Hawkins is Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the U.S. Business and Industry Council in Washington, DC.