Thursday, August 21, 2014

David Mamet

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Speech by Geert Wilders, a Member of the Dutch Parliament.

In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: "Who lost Europe ?" Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, Chairman, Party for Freedom the Netherlands, at the Four Seasons in New York, introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem ..

Dear friends,
Thank you very much for inviting me.

I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.

First, I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe . Then, I will say a few things about Islam. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem .

The Europe you know is changing.

You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.

All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe . These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe . With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden . In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.

In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims.

Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear 'whore, whore'. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.

In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin . The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.

In England Sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan.

Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel . I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.

San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France . One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays.

The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey .

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. I call the perpetrators 'settlers'. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.

Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel . First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz; second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia . Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel . It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat. Yet there is a greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem ....

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe, American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe 's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.

We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know.

Friday, February 4, 2011

funny (genuine) obituary:

Frederic Arthur (Fred) Clark
Frederic Arthur (Fred) Clark, who had tired of reading obituaries noting other's courageous battles with this or that disease, wanted it known that he lost his battle as a result of an automobile accident on June 18, 2006. True to Fred's personal style, his final hours were spent joking with medical personnel while he whimpered, cussed, begged for narcotics and bargained with God to look over his wife and kids. He loved his family. His heart beat faster when his wife of 37 years Alice Rennie Clark entered the room and saddened a little when she left.

His legacy was the good works performed by his sons, Frederic Arthur Clark III and Andrew Douglas Clark MD, PhD., along with Andy's wife, Sara Morgan Clark. Fred's back straightened and chest puffed out when he heard the Star Spangled Banner and his eyes teared when he heard Amazing Grace. He wouldn't abide self important tight *censored*. Always an interested observer of politics, particularly what the process does to its participants, he was amused by politician's outrage when we lie to them and amazed at what the voters would tolerate. His final wishes were "throw the bums out and don't elect lawyers" (though it seems to make little difference).

During his life he excelled at mediocrity. He loved to hear and tell jokes, especially short ones due to his limited attention span. He had a life long love affair with bacon, butter, cigars and bourbon. You always knew what Fred was thinking much to the dismay of his friend and family. His sons said of Fred, "he was often wrong, but never in doubt". When his family was asked what they remembered about Fred, they fondly recalled how Fred never peed in the shower - on purpose. He died at MCV Hospital and sadly was deprived of his final wish which was to be run over by a beer truck on the way to the liquor store to buy booze for a double date to include his wife, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter to crash an ACLU cocktail party.

In lieu of flowers, Fred asks that you make a sizable purchase at your local ABC store or Virginia winery (please, nothing French - the *censored*) and get rip roaring drunk at home with someone you love or hope to make love to. Word of caution though, don't go out in public to drink because of the alcohol related laws our elected officials have passed due to their inexplicable terror at the sight of a MADD lobbyist and overwhelming compulsion to meddle in our lives. No funeral or service is planned. However, a party will be held to celebrate Fred's life. It will be held in Midlothian, Va. Email for more information. Fred's ashes will be fired from his favorite cannon at a private party on the Great Wicomico River where he had a home for 25 years. Additionally, all of Fred's friend (sic) will be asked to gather in a phone booth, to be designated in the future, to have a drink and wonder, "Fred who?"

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Why The Gun In Civilization?

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Tuesday, December 7, 2010



PLAYBOY: What about the suggestion that the four of you put aside your personal feelings and regroup to give a mammoth concert for charity, some sort of giant benefit?

LENNON: I don’t want to have anything to do with benefits. I have been benefited to death. Every one of them was a mess or a rip-off.

PLAYBOY: What about the Bangladesh concert, in which George and other people such as Dylan performed?

LENNON: Bangladesh was caca. It’s all a rip-off. So forget about it. All of you who are reading this, don’t bother sending me all that garbage about, “Just come and save the Indians, come and save the blacks, come and save the war veterans.” Anybody I want to save will be helped through our tithing, which is ten percent of whatever we earn.

PLAYBOY: But that doesn’t compare with what one promoter, Sid Bernstein, said you could raise by giving a world-wide televised concert—playing separately, as individuals, or together, as the Beatles. He estimated you could raise over $200,000,000 in one day. $200,000,000 to a poverty-stricken country in South America.

LENNON: Where do people get off saying the Beatles should give $200,000,000 to South America? You know, America has poured billions into places like that. It doesn’t mean a damn thing. After they’ve eaten that meal, then what? It lasts for only a day. After the $200,000,000 is gone, then what? It goes round and round in circles. You can pour money in forever. After Peru, then Harlem, then Britain. There is no one concert. We would have to dedicate the rest of our lives to one world concert tour, and I’m not ready for it. Not in this lifetime, anyway.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010


When one becomes a liberal, he or she pretends to advocate tolerance, equality and peace, but hilariously, they're doing so for purely selfish reasons. It's the human equivalent of a puppy dog's face: an evolutionary tool designed to enhance survival, reproductive value and status. In short, liberalism is based on one central desire: to look cool in front of others in order to get love. Preaching tolerance makes you look cooler, than saying something like, “please lower my taxes” -- Greg Gutfeld

In their haste to be wiser and nobler than others, the anointed have misconceived two basic issues. They seem to assume (1) that they have more knowledge than the average member of the benighted and (2) that this is the relevant comparison. The real comparison, however, is not between the knowledge possessed by the average member of the educated elite versus the average member of the general public, but rather the total direct knowledge brought to bear though social processes (the competition of the marketplace, social sorting, etc.), involving millions of people, versus the secondhand knowledge of generalities possessed by a smaller elite group. -- Thomas Sowell

To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil. -- Charles Krauthammer

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Castro worse than Stalin

Castro--darling of the idiot left--guess what, the numbers show he is worse than Stalin!

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Friday, August 20, 2010


"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty" - Thomas Jefferson

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." --Thomas Jefferson

"A nation of sheep will beget a government
of wolves". - Edward R. Murrow

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not..."
Thomas Jefferson

The penalty for wise men that refuse to concern themselves with the affairs of Government, is to be governed by unwise Men
-- Plato

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Sunday, August 1, 2010

Cordoba House?

In giving that name to the structure, those seeking to construct an enormous mosque near Ground Zero are engaging in a provocation. Instead of making a gesture of goodwill toward American society, they are celebrating an ancient Muslim incursion into the West, reminding us, for no reason other than that they insist on doing so, of long centuries during which Islam reduced Christianity to subjection, and a major territory of Europe was ruled from the thrones of caliphs. Islam, they wish to demonstrate--for who could conclude otherwise?--is again on the move.

read it all...a little history lesson...

Monday, July 26, 2010

Elton John's choice words for boycotting musicians

By Cathalena E. Burch Arizona Daily Star

Elton John didn't mince words in slamming his fellow musicians for boycotting Arizona over the controversial SB 1070 immigration law. From the stage at his sold-out Tucson Arena concert Thursday night, John savored a few choice, not-so-family-friendly words:

"We are all very pleased to be playing in Arizona. I have read that some of the artists won't come here. They are (expletive)wits! Let's face it: I still play in California, and as a gay man I have no legal rights whatsoever. So what's the (expletive) with these people?"

John has never been one to cave into political pressure from his musical colleagues. He ignored an artist boycott of Israel in June over the flotilla fiasco and played a show in Tel Aviv. He also played Rush Limbaugh's latest wedding reception in early June, which drew the ire of gays and lesbians. Limbaugh is vehemently anti-gay marriage; John is married to his longtime partner David Furnish.

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Hitler’s Arab wingman

Hitler’s Arab wingman: Biography brings to light ‘evil’ Mufti of Jerusalem
by dan pine, staff writer

Haj Amin al-Husseini may be the worst S.O.B. you never heard of. But author John F. Rothmann hopes his new biography of al-Husseini -- aka the Mufti of Jerusalem -- will snag him a far more visible perch in history's Hall of Shame.

Often called the George Washington of the Palestinian national movement, the mufti was one of the most influential Arab leaders of the 20th century. In "Icon of Evil," co-written by Rothmann and David G. Dalin, a dark portrait emerges of a bloodthirsty anti-Semite and Nazi collaborator.

Though he died in 1974, the mufti's contributions to world chaos live on, notably his framing of the Arab-Israeli struggle in religious-political terms. He helped create the culture of jihad, urged the extermination of Jews and bequeathed hatred to subsequent generations —starting with his cousin, Yasser Arafat.

"He laid down those conditions in the 1920s and 1930s," said Rothmann in a recent interview. "He rejected any notion of Jewish rights in Palestine. He was indeed an evil man."

Given that the mufti cozied up to top Nazis, met with Hitler and even toured Auschwitz to study mass murder with the experts, pinning the "evil" label on him wasn't all that hard.

Rothmann, a KGO radio talk show host and political consultant, is a veteran cheerleader for Jewish causes. So to inoculate himself and Dalin against charges of self-serving bias, the co-authors conducted meticulous research and provide hundreds of footnotes. "We were precise and careful over every fact and every word," Rothmann said.

The book's origins stretch back 40 years, when the two writers were studying in Jerusalem. At Yad Vashem, a blow-up photo of the mufti meeting with Hitler caught their eye.

"We were intrigued," Rothmann recalled. "We were living in the Arab section of Jerusalem and we got to know the Arab merchants. There was always an undercurrent of disaffection and anger. There was no question it was deep-seated and went far beyond 1948."

Dalin, now the Taube Research Fellow in American History at Stanford University's Hoover Institution (and son of former Congregation Ner Tamid Rabbi William Dalin) worked with Rothmann on the book ever since.

They learned about the powerful al-Husseini clan, how the mufti dropped out of Islamic studies in Cairo yet arrogated to himself the imam's robes, and came to hate Jews.

Back in Jerusalem, the charismatic cleric persuaded the occupying British to declare him mufti. He used his new position to give spellbinding sermons over the radio. In one, he issued the infamous call: "Kill the Jews wherever you find them."

He meant it, too: Al-Husseini engineered multiple murder sprees against Jews during the 1920s and '30s. He further twisted anti-Semitism into a Muslim religious imperative; when Hitler came along, he found an ideological soulmate. With his blondish hair and blue eyes, the mufti was even made an honorary Aryan.

"This is a guy who goes to Berlin in 1941," Rothmann said, "meets with Hitler and dreams of the day when the Final Solution emerges in Palestine. He pushed for it, planned for it. He becomes the godfather of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah."

Had the war gone Hitler's way, the mufti expected not only a Judenrein Palestine, but the defunct caliphate to be re-established, and that he would become caliph, the leader of the Muslim world.

As poisonous as the mufti was, Rothmann insists he does not feel hatred toward his subject. Rather, he strived to present an accurate portrait. "He was a gentle man, soft-spoken, charming, a very nice guy. He was an advocate for his people."

Rothmann quickly added that the mufti also ordered rivals killed. He was close with an Iraqi man who would later be Saddam Hussein's uncle and foster parent. So the mufti obviously taught his lessons well.

Rothmann's fondest wish for the book is not that Jews learn better about their enemies, though he does hope for that. Rather, he wants Arab and Muslim readers to understand they've been fed a diet of anti-Semitic hatred for too long.

"We hope this generation of Palestinian nationals will understand and repudiate the hate which runs through the Muslim world today," he said. "That hatred must be exposed and expunged."

Wednesday, July 21, 2010


Francis Albert Sinatra (1915-1998) may have been one of America 's
most famous Italian Catholics, but he kept the Jewish people and the
State of Israel close to his heart, manifesting life-long commitments
to fighting anti-Semitism and to activism on behalf of Israel .
Sinatra stepped forward in the early 1940s, when big names were needed
to rouse America into saving Europe's remaining Jews, and he sang at
an "Action for Palestine " rally (1947). He sat on the board of
trustees of the Simon Wiesenthal Center; and he donated over $1
million to Jerusalem 's Hebrew University, which honored him by
dedicating the Frank Sinatra International Student Center . (The
Center made heartbreaking headlines when terrorists bombed it in 2002,
killing nine people.) As the result of his support for the Jewish
State, his movies and records were banned in some Arab countries
Sinatra helped Teddy Kollek, later the long-serving mayor of Jerusalem
but then a member of the Haganah, by serving as a $1 million
money-runner that helped Israel win the war.

The Copacabana Club, which was very much run and controlled by the
same Luciano-related New York mafia crowd with whom Sinatra had become
enmeshed, happened to be next door to the hotel out of which Haganah
members were operating. In his autobiography, Kollek relates how,
trying in March 1948 to circumvent an arms boycott imposed by
President Harry Truman on the Jewish fighters in Eretz Yisroel, he
needed to smuggle about $1 million in cash to an Irish ship captain
docked in the Port of New York . The young Kollek spotted Sinatra at
the bar and, afraid of being intercepted by federal agents, asked for
help. In the early hours of the morning, the singer went out the back
door with the money in a paper bag and successfully delivered it to
the pier.

The origins of Sinatra's love affair with the Jewish people are not
clear but, for years, the Hollywood icon wore a small mezuzah around
his neck, a gift from Mrs. Golden, an elderly Jewish neighbor who
cared for him during his boyhood in Hoboken, N.J. (years later, he
honored her by purchasing a quarter million dollars' worth of Israel
bonds). He protected his Jewish friends, once responding to an
anti-Semitic remark at a party by simply punching the offender. Time
magazine reported that Sinatra walked out on the christening of his
own son when the priest refused to allow a Jewish friend to be the
godfather. As late as 1979, he raged over the fact that a Palm
Springs cemetery official in California declared that he could not
arrange the burial of a deceased Jewish friend over the Thanksgiving
holiday; Sinatra again -- threatened to punch him in the nose.

Sinatra famously played the role of a Jewish pilot in Cast a Giant
Shadow, the 1966 film filmed in Israel and starring friend Kirk
Douglas as Mickey Marcus, the Jewish-American colonel who fought and
died in Israel's war for independence (Sinatra dive-bombs Egyptian
tanks with seltzer bottles!) He donated his salary for the part to
the Arab-Israeli Youth Center in Nazareth , and he also made a
significant contribution to the making of Genocide, a film about the
Holocaust, and helped raise funds for the film. Less known is Sinatra
in Israel (1962), a short 45-minute featurette he made in which he
sang In the Still of the Night and Without a Song. He also starred in
The House I Live In (1945), a ten-minute short film made to oppose
anti-Semitism at the end of World War II, which received an Honorary
Academy Award and a special Golden Globe award in 1946.

Friday, July 9, 2010

The following was a letter to the editor of the LA Times.


I can't believe that a major metropolitan paper like the LA Times would publish drivel like your distortion-laden column I had the misfortune to read today. The citizens of Arizona passed a law that makes it necessary to prove you are in their state LEGALLY. They are tired of paying TWO BILLION taxpayer dollars a year in medical and educational benefits to people in their state ILLEGALLY. They are tired of the Mexican drug traffickers, kidnappings (389 last year), traffic accidents, and crime caused by ILLEGAL immigrants in their state. They are tired of citizens of a foreign country overcrowding and bankrupting their emergency rooms and schools. They have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to defend their state when the federal government fails to do so so just like I have the right to put three hollow-points in the chest of the guy who's trying to kick in my front door when the cops don't show up.

It has been the law in this country since 1940 that foreign nationals be able to produce proof that they are here LEGALLY by way of visa, green card, etc. This "Produce your papers" and the allusions to Nazi Germany is a bunch of dishonest claptrap. If you took time to read the Arizona law (assuming you can read English) you would see that police officers may only inquire as to an individual's immigration status in the course of a "legal contact". The problem with you and Mexicans like you is the fact that you have this sense of entitlement that you can enter OUR COUNTRY as you please. You come from a culture and a country with no respect for the law or the rule of law. The United States is a sovereign nation with the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to decide who does and does not enter our country.

What amuses me the most is the fact that if our illegal immigration problem was due to the influx of SWEDES, you wouldn't have written ONE WORD in the defense of their rights? It is only because they are Hispanics like you that you leap to their defense. I find it ironic that you are truer to your Hispanic roots than you are to your American citizenship, especially since the Hispanic culture is a broke-dick, busted-ass, ignorant-ass, uneducated, going-nowhere culture and has been for the last 500 years, and in all likelihood, will be for the NEXT 500 years.

When I moved to California in 1969, Los Angeles was a clean prosperous city. Now it's broke under the weight of massive entitlements. Now we need concertina wire to protect our freeway signs from Hispano-moron graffiti "artists'. What an enlightened culture you come from that believes that vandalizing another's property is an art form. Over 400 California families have lost loved ones to ILLEGAL immigrant murderers. 40% of the criminals incarcerated in our prisons at CALIFORNIA TAXPAYER EXPENSE, are ILLEGAL immigrants. Thank you so much for our overcrowded ERs, schools and freeways. Thanks also for the gangs and the drive-by shootings. In all fairness though, I like the tacos.

If I want to enter Mexico, France, England, Germany or ANY country on this earth, I need to produce a passport to do so. It's THEIR COUNTRY and I need to ask permission to do so. HOW DARE you and your brethren think that they have some God-given right to flout our laws and come into our country of their own accord? You and people like you are the textbook example of why the fewer Mexicans we have in our country, the better our country will be. We manage to produce a steady supply of home-grown idiots on our own, thank very much (Exhibit A - Obama) good luck with your boycotts and our protests. Just remember amigo, 70% of the people in Arizona and 65% of Americans LOVE this law. Every time you put together thousands of protesters, you piss off MILLIONS of people like me.

Hasta la vista, baby

Tom Edwards

Tuesday, June 29, 2010


Medics have been my heroes from the first time I saw a "Doc" risk his life to patch up a wounded grunt. They're the bravest of the brave and the noblest of the noble. I've never known a more selfless or dedicated group of humans.

This, from an Army Airborne Ranger doctor, explains why I feel this way:

"As a military doctor I work long hours. One tends to become jaded by the lack of sleep and the endless parade of human suffering passing before you.

"With our large military-retiree population, it's often a nursing-home patient. I've caught myself groaning when the ambulance brought in yet another sick, elderly person. I hadn't stopped to think of what citizens of this age represented.

"I saw 'Saving Private Ryan.' I was touched deeply by the sacrifices of so many. I was touched most by the scene of the elderly survivor (Pvt. Ryan) at the graveside asking his wife if he'd been a good man. I realized that I had seen these same men and women coming through my hospital and hadn't realized what magnificent sacrifices they had made. The things they did for me and everyone else who has lived on this planet since the end of that conflict are priceless.
"Situation permitting, I now try to ask my patients about their experiences.

"They would never bring up the subject without the inquiry. I've been privileged to an amazing array of experiences recounted. These experiences have revealed the incredible individuals I've had the honor of serving in a medical capacity, many on their last admission to the hospital.

"There was a frail, elderly woman who reassured my enlisted medic trying to start an IV line in her arm. She remained calm and poised despite her illness and the multiple needle-sticks into her fragile veins. As the medic made another attempt, I noticed a number tattooed across her forearm. I touched it with one finger and looked into her eyes. She simply said 'Auschwitz.' Many of later generations would have loudly and openly berated the medic in his many attempts. How different was the response from this person who'd seen unspeakable suffering.

"There was a retired colonel who had parachuted from his burning plane over a Pacific island held by the Japanese. Now an octogenarian, his head was cut in a fall at home where he lived alone. His CT scan and suturing had been delayed until after midnight. Still spry for his age, he asked to use the phone to call a taxi to take him home, then realized his ambulance had brought him without his wallet. He asked if he could use the phone to make a long-distance call to his daughter. With great pride we told him that he could not, as he'd done enough for his country and the least we could do was get him a taxi home, even if we paid for it ourselves. My only regret was that my shift wouldn't end for several hours and I couldn't drive him myself.

"And there were the gentleman who served with Merrill's Marauders; the survivors of the Baatan Death March and Omaha Beach; the 101-year-old World War I veteran; the former POW held in North Korea; the former Special Forces medic. I remember these citizens. I may still groan when yet another ambulance comes in, but now I am much more aware of what an honor it is to serve these particular men and women.

"I am angered at the cutbacks -- implemented and proposed -- that will continue to decay their meager retirement benefits. I see a president and Congress who have turned their back on these individuals who've sacrificed so much to protect our liberty. I see later generations who seem to be totally engrossed in abusing these same liberties won with such sacrifice.

"It has become my personal endeavor to make the nurses and enlisted medics aware of these amazing individuals. Their response to these particular citizens has made me think that perhaps all is not lost in the next generation.

"My experiences have solidified my belief that we are losing an incredible generation and that this nation knows not what it is losing.

"We should all remember that we must 'Earn this.'"

Thanks Capt. Stephen Ellison, M.D... Well said.

Thursday, June 17, 2010



Published on on June 15, 2010

Jon Leibowitz, the chairman of Obama's Federal Trade Commission, is at the epicenter of a quiet movement to subsidize news organizations, a first step toward government control of the media. In our book, 2010: Take Back America -- A Battle Plan, we reported that he had commissioned a study to examine plans for a federal subsidy for news organizations. Among the measures under consideration are special tax treatment, exemption from antitrust laws and changes in copyright laws.

Now Leibowitz has begun to pounce. A May 24 working paper on "reinventing" the media proposes that the government impose fees on websites such as the Drudge Report that link to news websites or that it tax consumer electronics such as iPads, laptops and Kindles. Funds raised by these levies would be redistributed to traditional media outlets.

While Leibowitz distanced himself from the proposals for the taxes, calling them "a terrible idea," his comments appear to be related only to the levies proposed in the working paper. Nobody is commenting on the other part of his proposal -- a subsidy for news organizations.

By now, the Obama MO should be clear to all. As he has done with the banks, AIG and the car companies, he extends his left hand offering subsidies and then proffers his right laden with regulations. Should the government follow through on Leibowitz's ideas and enact special subsidies and tax breaks for news organizations, it will induce a degree of journalistic dependence on the whims of government not seen since the days when the early presidents bestowed government advertising on favored periodicals.

Is it too difficult to imagine that the Democrats might pass laws favoring news organizations, only to question -- as former White House communications director Anita Dunn did -- whether or not Fox News is a news organization or an "arm of the Republican Party"? We can see a future in which news media are reluctant to be too partisan or opinionated for fear that they would endanger their public subsidy.

Once such a subsidy is extended to news organizations, every company in the business must have it. Otherwise, the competitive advantage for the subsidized companies would prove too steep an obstacle to overcome.

In all the attention that has been given to the idea of an Internet tax on news aggregation sites and on tech equipment -- trial balloons that would obviously be shot down -- very little attention has been focused on the expenditure side of the proposal -- the subsidy of news organizations.

But The Wall Street Journal reported six months ago that Leibowitz had commissioned a study to determine "whether the government should aid struggling news organizations which are suffering from a collapse in advertising revenues as the Internet upends their centuries-old business model." Among the steps under consideration are changing "the way the industry is regulated, from making news-gathering companies exempt from antitrust laws to granting them special tax treatment to making changes to copyright laws."

These are exactly the kind of subsidies that could and would trigger government oversight and control.

Look at how radio stations squirm when their licenses are up for renewal before the FCC. We can imagine news organizations pulling their punches in order not to antagonize the hand that feeds them.

The Leibowitz study, and the subsidy proposals that are likely to emerge from it, represent a chilling threat to the First Amendment and to our civil liberties.

Sunday, June 13, 2010

New Book That should be part of our School's Curriculum

Title: “A Patriot's History of the United States: From Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on Terror” – available at COSTCO or Wal-Mart.

Synopsis: For the past three decades, many history professors have allowed their biases to distort the way America’s past is taught. These intellectuals have searched for instances of racism, sexism, and bigotry in our history while downplaying the greatness of America’s patriots and the achievements of "dead white men."

As a result, more emphasis is placed on Harriet Tubman than on George Washington; more about the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II than about D-Day or Iwo Jima; more on the dangers we faced from Joseph McCarthy than those we faced from Josef Stalin.

A Patriot’s History of the United States corrects those doctrinaire biases. In this groundbreaking book, America’s discovery, founding, and development are reexamined with an appreciation for the elements of public virtue, personal liberty, and private property that make this nation uniquely successful. This book offers a long-overdue acknowledgment of America’s true and proud history.


Four Stars: Comments from a College History Professor and former High School Teacher, July 9, 2005

I've been in the history business for over thirty years. Starting as an "educator" at the middle school and high school level. Though in short order I changed my own definition of self, saying I was a history teacher fighting against "educators" who were supremely ignorant when it came to real content knowledge of their subjects. I finally left secondary ed in disgust in the late 1980s, went back full time to grad school, got a Ph.D. in American History and went into the college classroom where at least, at my small private school, I still have intellectual freedom. I've also published a number of books on a national level, and that is how I first met one of the authors of this work when he commented on my latest book.

I think I therefore have a good foundation to comment here and my comment is. . .I wish across the last thirty years I had a book like this to use in my classrooms!

My own education was influenced by Beard and others like him when I was a student, and as a new teacher I taught the myths of a rather leftist perspective of our national epic. But as I matured and learned more I finally abandoned all textbook use in disgust. Anyone conversant on the subject knows my reasons, written by committees, written with a very clear bias to political correctness, outright distortions and numerous factual errors, written at times with a barely concealed disdain for our nation's story. It is made worst by alleged critics and commentators such as Loewen with his tirade "Lies my Teachers Told Me," which is riddled with factual errors and deliberate distortions, and pushes the rhetoric even further to the Left while claiming to be about getting the story right.

This book, however, is like a wind stirring up after a dark storm of bias and ignorance, which tries to set the record straight on so many points. For the first time I have a history book that calls into doubt the wisdom of FDR's New Deal, the myth that he ended the Depression (when in reality the punitive taxes of up to 90% and government interference made it worst), and spawned the real beginnings of run away government.

Their take on the anti war movement in the 1960s is absolutely scathing, and truthful. I was there and personally witnessed several of the events described. . . how the anti-war movement on college campuses was not an "enlightened" desire for peace, but rather a rampage gone wild, adroitly engineered by a small well trained cadre of ultra-leftists, a phenomena that still haunts our higher education system today, and has produced a generation of lies and text book distortions as well.

I could cite a dozen more examples from their book that left me grinning with delight, that the truth was finally out there to read again. My only criticism, some minor factual errors, but relatively few when compared to standard textbooks, and for a monumental work of this length.

I know the author's intent was simply to write an American history for the general public and do not want it type cast as a "textbook," and I go along with that. But, I will nevertheless forcefully recommend it as a textbook. . .and that recommendation comes from a college professor, with years experience in secondary education and for several years, even taught history teacher education (a nightmare experience dealing with the state and federal departments of education that I should write a book about some day. It was like dealing with Orwellian thought police!)

If you are a history teacher, and I choose that term deliberately. . .not an "educator," caught up in the system, but instead see yourself as a History Teacher, who takes pride in our country and wish to guide students to a sharing of that pride. . .this is your textbook.

It will work on the secondary level and most definitely on the higher ed level. But a warning, your colleagues will howl, harass and attack you over it and frankly you better have tenure if you wish to survive when you bring this book out. By the way, within this book you will read why you need that protection.

For home schoolers, this book is your dream. You left the system for so many reasons and this book will explain many of those reasons.

I hope this book is the first of many that will start to take back the ground dominated for too long by the Left, and beyond that an extremist element who actually hate the subject they write about.

If you are a parent with a student trapped in the system, make this book required reading at home and use it to "reeducate" and fight back. And finally, for the general reader, this one is a rousing good read, well written, great footnotes to follow up on (something you find lacking in nearly all textbooks) and worth studying.

America is not about national race, it is about an ideal. Ultimately we are all immigrants, be we born here or arrived just yesterday. All that holds us together is a shared identification with the dreams of our patriot forefathers and a belief in the ideals of the Declaration and Constitution. Disconnect from that dream for but one generation and the dream will die. This book can help to rekindle what nearly all of us know in our hearts, that though we might make mistakes, fundamentally America is, as Lincoln once said, "the last best hope of mankind."

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Sunday, June 6, 2010


This letter sent to Tennessee Senator Bill Frist from a retired border patrol agent, and it has more common sense than all the bull being spewed from the Senate, with the exception of a few sensible representatives.

Dear Senator Frist:

There is a huge amount of propaganda and myths circulating about illegal aliens, particularly illegal Mexican, Salvadorian, Guatemalan and Honduran aliens.

#1. Illegal aliens generally do NOT want US citizenship. Americans are very vain thinking that everybody in the world wants to be a US citizen. Mexicans, and other nationalities want to remain citizens of their home countries while obtaining the benefits offered by the United States such as employment, medical care, instate tuition, government subsidized housing and free education for their� offspring. Their main attraction is employment and their loyalty usually remains at home. They want benefits earned and subsidized by middle class Americans. What illegal aliens want are benefits of American residence without paying the price.

#2. There are no jobs that Americans won't do. Illegal aliens are doing jobs that Americans can't take and still support their families. Illegal aliens take low wage jobs, live dozens in a single residence home, share expenses and send money to their home country. There are no jobs that Americans won't do for a decent wage.

#3. Every person who illegally entered this nation left a home. They are NOT homeless and they are NOT Americans. Some left jobs in their home countries. They come to send money to their real home as evidenced by the more than 20 billion dollars sent out of the country each year by illegal aliens. These illegal aliens knowingly and willfully entered this nation in violation of the law and therefore assumed the risk of detection and deportation. Those who brought their alien children assumed the responsibility and risk on behalf of their children.

#4. Illegal aliens are NOT critical to the economy. Illegal aliens constitute less than 5% of the workforce. However, they reduce wages and benefits for lawful US residents.

#5. This is NOT an immigrant nation. There are 280 million native born Americans. While it is true that this nation was settled and founded by immigrants (legal immigrants), it is also true that there is not a nation on this planet that was not settled by immigrants at one time or another.

#6. The United States is welcoming to legal immigrants. Illegal aliens are not immigrants by definition. The US accepts more lawful immigrants every year than the rest of the world combined.

#7. There is no such thing as the "Hispanic vote." Hispanics are white, brown, black and every shade in between. Hispanics are Republicans, Democrats, Anarchists, Communists, Marxists and Independents. The so-called "Hispanic vote" is a myth. Pandering to illegal aliens to get the Hispanic vote is a dead end.

#8. Mexico is NOT a friend of the United States. Since 1848 Mexicans have resented the United States. During World War I Mexico allowed German spies to operate freely in Mexico to spy on the US. During World War II Mexico allowed the Axis powers to spy on the US from Mexico. During the Cold War, Mexico allowed spies hostile to the US to freely operate. The attack on the Twin Towers in 2001 was cheered and applauded all across Mexico. Today Mexican school children are taught that the US stole California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. If you don't believe it, check out some Mexican textbooks written for their school children.

#9. Although some illegal aliens enter this country for a better life, there are 6 billion people on this planet. At least 1 billion of those live on less than one dollar a day. If wanting a better life is a valid excuse to break the law and sneak into America, then let's allow those one billion to come to America and we'll turn the USA into a Third World nation overnight. Besides, there are 280 million native born Americans who want a better life. I'll bet Bill Gates and Donald Trump want a better life. When will the USA lifeboat be full? Since when is wanting a better life a good reason to trash another nation?

#10. There is a labor shortage in this country. This is a lie. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American housewives, senior citizens, students, unemployed and underemployed who would gladly take jobs at a decent wage.

#11. It is racist to want secure borders. What is racist about wanting secure borders and a secure America? What is racist about not wanting people to sneak into America and steal benefits we have set aside for legal aliens, senior citizens, children and other legal residents? What is it about race that entitles people to violate our laws, steal identities, and take the American Dream without paying the price? For about four decades American politicians have refused to secure our borders and look after the welfare of middle class Americans. These politicians have been of both parties. A huge debt to American society has resulted. This debt will be satisfied and the interest will be high. There have already been riots in the streets by illegal aliens and their supporters. There will be more. You, as a politician, have a choice to offend the illegal aliens who have stolen into this country and demanded the rights afforded to US citizens or to offend those of us who are stakeholders in this country. The interest will be steep either way. There will be civil unrest. There will be a reckoning. Do you have the courage to do what is right for America? Or, will you bow to the wants and needs of those who don't even have the right to remain here? There will be a reckoning.

It will come in November of this year, again in 2012 and yet again in 2014. We will not allow America to be stolen by third world agitators and thieves.

David J. Stoddard

US Border Patrol (RET)

Hereford, Arizona

Saturday, June 5, 2010

Friday, June 4, 2010

Back on Uncle Sam's plantation

Star Parker - Syndicated Columnist - 2/9/2009 8:00:00 AM

Six years ago I wrote a book called Uncle Sam's Plantation. I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.

I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas -- a poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism.

I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.

A vast sea of perhaps well-intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960s, that were going to lift the nation's poor out of poverty.

A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from "How do I take care of myself?" to "What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?"

Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems -- the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.

The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.

Through God's grace, I found my way out. It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.

I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican Congress and signed 50 percent.

I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth-producing American capitalism.

But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction.

Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.

Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, "Thank you, Suh."

Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.

There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.

In an op-ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic stimulus.

"This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, healthcare, and education."

Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place "with unprecedented transparency and accountability."

Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the Synfuels Corporation, and the Department of Education.

Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 -- The War on Poverty -- which President Johnson said "...does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty."

Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single-parent homes and out-of-wedlock births.

It's not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama's invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Sunday, May 30, 2010

Red Cross aids Afghanistan Taliban

Next time a Taliban pig kills a U.S. soldier, or pulls out a woman's fingernails for wearing nail polish, you can thank the Red Cross - they probably saved his miserable life. That's where your Red Cross donations are going, folks. That's $240 million+ per year from Americans.

"Red Cross aids Afghanistan Taliban," from UPI, May 26 (thanks to Block Ness):

KABUL, Afghanistan, May 26 (UPI) -- The International Committee of the Red Cross says it has provided basic training and first aid kits to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

A spokesman for the international humanitarian organization says about 70 members of the armed opposition were given first aid training last month, the BBC reported Wednesday.

"We treat and train people on the basis of medical necessity as an impartial organization, regardless of race or politics," the spokesman said....

How nice that must have been for the Nazis.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

no wonder Calif is broke

"...another, perhaps unforeseen, effect of Prop. 13: Over time, it tends to place a greater tax burden on the young and the less wealthy, since the higher tax rates are levied on those with lower incomes and fewer assets.


This was obvious to me immediately after that thing passed. Ok, not immediately, but soon after.

no wonder Calif is broke.

in this article you find out billionaires are getting off paying almost nothing:

Sunday, May 2, 2010

Mexico's immigration laws?

You get these idiots like "Shakira" who is from Columbia whining about Arizona. What happens if you sneak into Mexico? Anyone from South or Central America who dares to cross thru Mexico to get to the USA is extremely likely to be raped and or robbed, and often by Mexican police and military.

Mexico's immigration laws?

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
• Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)
• Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)
• Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)
• The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)
Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
• Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
• A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
• A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).
Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
• Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
• Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)
Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
• Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
• Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
• Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.
Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
• “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)
• Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
• Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)
Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
• A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
• Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)
All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico’s immigration practices versus its American
immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government’s agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.
Let’s call Mexico’s bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy. Let’s propose, just to make a point, that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico’s own law as a model.
J. Michael Waller, Ph.D., is the Walter and Leonore Annenberg Professor of International Communication at the Institute of World Politics, and is Vice President for Information Operations at the Center for Security Policy. He wrote this paper for the Center for Security Policy.
An authoritative English translation of the Constitution of Mexico, published by the Organization of American States, appears on http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrep… Quotations in this document are from the OAS translation.

or check out this one.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Human Rights Watch Exposed

BY Daniel Halper
Benjamin Birnbaum has the dirt (and, yes, it's dirt) on Human Rights Watch in the latest issue of The New Republic. Some might recall the outrage directed towards the human rights group when it was discovered that a staffer, who had worked on Israel issues, had a gross obsession with Nazi paraphernalia. But that staffer, Marc Garlasco, turns out to be one of the few good guys on staff at Human Rights Watch, according to Birnbaum. The piece can be found here.

Texas gov. shoots, kills 'wily' coyote during jog

By JIM VERTUNO, Associated Press Writer Jim Vertuno, Associated Press Writer

AUSTIN, Texas – Pistol-packing Texas Gov. Rick Perry has a message for wily coyotes out there: Don't mess with my dog.

Perry told The Associated Press on Tuesday he needed just one shot from the laser-sighted pistol he sometimes carries while jogging to take down a coyote that menaced his puppy during a February run near Austin.

Perry said he will carry his .380 Ruger — loaded with hollow-point bullets — when jogging on trails because he is afraid of snakes. He'd also seen coyotes in the undeveloped area.

When one came out of the brush toward his daughter's Labrador retriever, Perry charged.

"Don't attack my dog or you might get shot ... if you're a coyote," he said Tuesday.

Perry, a Republican running for a third full term against Democrat Bill White, is living in a private house in a hilly area southwest of downtown Austin while the Governor's Mansion is being repaired after a 2008 fire. A concealed handgun permit holder, Perry carries the pistol in a belt.

"I knew there were a lot of predators out there. You'll hear a pack of coyotes. People are losing small cats and dogs all the time out there in that community," Perry said.

"They're very wily creatures."

On this particular morning, Perry said, he was jogging without his security detail shortly after sunrise.

"I'm enjoying the run when something catches my eye and it's this coyote. I know he knows I'm there. He never looks at me, he is laser-locked on that dog," Perry said.

"I holler and the coyote stopped. I holler again. By this time I had taken my weapon out and charged it. It is now staring dead at me. Either me or the dog are in imminent danger. I did the appropriate thing and sent it to where coyotes go," he said.

Perry said the laser-pointer helped make a quick, clean kill.

"It was not in a lot of pain," he said. "It pretty much went down at that particular juncture."

Texas state law allows people to shoot coyotes that are threatening livestock or domestic animals. The dog was unharmed, Perry said.

Perry's security detail was not required to file a report about the governor discharging a weapon, said Department of Public Safety spokeswoman Tela Mange.

"People shoot coyotes all the time, snakes all the time," Mange said. "We don't write reports."

The governor left the coyote where it fell.

"He became mulch," Perry said.

An Open Letter to American Jews

Ben Shapiro
Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Dear American Jews,

I write to you as a charter member of the tribe. I'm not only Jewish, I'm religious. I'm married to an Israeli girl (she'll receive her citizenship next year and she is a proud soon-to-be American). I go to synagogue regularly, keep kosher, keep the Sabbath.

American Jews, I have one request of you: please pull your heads out of your posteriors.

I mean that in all sincerity. Your continued support for Democrats and an administration that is openly anti-Semitic is a disgrace. Your embrace of a party that seeks to hamstring Israel in the name of a wholly fictitious Middle East peace process is contemptible. Your loyalty to a president who consistently sides with Palestinian and Iranian mass murder-supporters is disgusting.

Your backing of a man who has spent his life surrounding himself with the worst anti-Semites America has to offer -- Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi (former Palestinian terrorist spokesman), Louis Farrakhan ("I don't like the way [Jews] leech on us"), Samantha Power, Robert Malley, to name a few -- is nothing short of reprehensible. Rahm Emanuel's presence in the Obama cabinet doesn't ameliorate Obama's anti-Semitism -- it just provides it convenient cover. Al Sharpton wrongly called Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell "house negroes"; Emanuel is a kapo.

Even as you continue to buttress a president who seeks the destruction of your co-religionists, you demonstrate your myopia by rejecting the tea party movement and evangelical Christian Israel-supporters.

The tea party movement is your ally for three important reasons. First, it supports capitalism against the forces of socialism -- and capitalism keeps America strong enough to provide Israel with a hand against its evil adversaries. Second, American Jews are, by far, the highest-earning religious group in the United States -- the tea party fights for your right to keep your money. Third, the tea party stands against government overreach -- and in an era when government overreach promotes anti-religious secularism, Jews must stand with the tea party.

Your rejection of evangelical Christians is even more idiotic. Evangelical Christians are the only major voting bloc preventing President Obama from breaking ties with Israel. When Janet Porter, an evangelical Florida talk show host, heard about Obama's anti-Israel tyranny, she responded by asking her listeners to buy dozens of yellow roses to send to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office as a show of support. The price per dozen: $19.48, in honor of the year of Israel's founding (1948). Over 14,000 flowers were delivered. Meanwhile, Adm. James Jones, Obama's national security adviser and the man who brought Jew-hater Zbigniew Brzezinski into Obama's inner circle, was busy telling anti-Semitic jokes before the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

"But they want to convert us!" many American Jews shout. Not all Christians do. But for the rest -- so what? Would you sacrifice the support of millions of good-hearted Christians because they want to discuss Jesus with you? If your own belief system is so fragile, the weakness is yours, not theirs. While you expend energy whining about Jehovah's Witnesses who show up at your door with a Bible, Obama supports radical Muslims who would show up at your door with a gun -- or, as in the case of Daniel Pearl, a butcher's knife.

Now, I understand, American Jews, that most of you don't care about Israel.

I understand that you're more concerned about a woman's unconditional right to abort her unborn child (which Judaism rejects) than you are about Israel. Fine. Understand that you have removed yourself from the vast river of Jewish history in favor of a chimerical morality that values libertinism over liberty.

I understand that many of you -- all of you above age 70 -- still think FDR is alive. He isn't, but Jimmy Carter is.

I understand that some of you still think that conservatives and Republicans are the same folks they were during the 1950s, when they banned you from country clubs. They aren't.

The simple fact is this: There is only one mainstream political ideology in this country that asks you to check your principles and cultural history at the door in the name of the greater good -- leftism, the same ideology that virtually exterminated Judaism in Russia and Europe. While the left exploits your adherence to bagel-and-lox Judaism by appealing to your watered-down and perverted "tikkun olam" sensibilities, you are enabling your own destruction. The same people who urge you to reach out to terrorists will be the first to sacrifice you to those terrorists' tender mercies. The same people who urge you to worry about same-sex marriage rather than religious freedom will be the first to take your religious freedoms away.

I love you, my brothers and sisters. That's why I'm writing to you. Time is running out; the clock is winding down. Pick a side.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Anti-Gun Senator Shoots Intruder

Long time Anti-Gun Advocate State Senator R.C. Soles, 74, shot one of two intruders at his home just outside Tabor City, N.C. about5 p.m. Sunday, the prosecutor for the politician's home county said.

The victim, Kyle Blackburn, was taken to a South Carolina hospital, but the injuries were not reported to be life-threatening, according to Rex Gore, district attorney for Columbus, Bladen and Brunswick counties..

The State Bureau of Investigation and Columbus County Sheriff's Department are investigating the shooting, Gore said. Soles, who was not arrested declined to discuss the incident Sunday evening.

"I am not in a position to talk to you," Soles said by telephone."I'm right in the middle of an investigation."

Soles, a top-ranking Democrat and the longest-serving member of the legislature, already was the subject of an SBI investigation over sexual misconduct allegations with former male clients. (FHW - Now, that sounds more like a liberal to me).

The Senator, who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public, didn't hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in immediate danger and he was the victim.

In typical hypocritical liberal fashion, the "Do As I Say And Not As I Do" Anti-Gun Activist Lawmaker picked up his gun and took action in what apparently was a self-defense shooting. Why hypocritical you may ask? It is because his long legislative record shows that the actions that he took toprotect his family, his own response to a dangerous life threatening situation, are actions that he feels ordinary citizens should not have if they were faced with an identical situation.

It has prompted some to ask if the Senator believes his life and personal safety is more valuable than yours or mine. But, this is to be expected from those who believe they can run our lives, raise our kids, and protect our families better than we can.


Camille Paglia on Rush...

Though every novice administration makes blunders and bloopers, its modus operandi should not be a conspiratorial reflex cynicism.

Case in point: The orchestrated attack on radio host Rush Limbaugh, which has made the White House look like an oafish bunch of drunken frat boys. I returned from carnival in Brazil (more on that shortly) to find the Limbaugh affair in full flower. Has the administration gone mad? This entire fracas was set off by the president himself, who lowered his office by targeting a private citizen by name. Limbaugh had every right to counterattack, which he did with gusto. Why have so many Democrats abandoned the hallowed principle of free speech? Limbaugh, like our own liberal culture hero Lenny Bruce, is a professional commentator who can be as rude and crude as he wants.

Yes, I cringe when Rush plays his "Barack the Magic Negro" satire or when he gratuitously racializes the debate over Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, who is a constant subject of withering scrutiny for quite different reasons on sports shows here in Philadelphia. On the other hand, I totally agree with Rush about "feminazis," whose amoral tactics and myopic worldview I as a dissident feminist had to battle for decades. As a student of radio and a longtime listener of Rush's show, I have gotten a wealth of pleasure and insight from him over the years.

To attack Rush Limbaugh is to attack his audience -- and to intensify the loyalty of his fan base.

If Rush's presence looms too large for the political landscape, it's because of the total vacuity of the Republican leadership, which seems to be in a dithering funk. Rush isn't responsible for the feebleness of Republican voices or the thinness of Republican ideas. Only ignoramuses believe that Rush speaks for the Republican Party. On the contrary, Rush as a proponent of heartland conservatism has waged open warfare with the Washington party establishment for years.

And I'm sick of people impugning Rush's wealth and lifestyle, which is no different from that of another virtuoso broadcaster who hit it big -- Oprah Winfrey. Rush Limbaugh is an embodiment of the American dream: He slowly rose from obscurity to fame on the basis of his own talent and grit. Every penny Rush has earned was the result of his rapport with a vast audience who felt shut out and silenced by the liberal monopoly of major media. As a Democrat and Obama supporter, I certainly do not agree with everything Rush says or does.

read it all:

Sunday, January 3, 2010


"We do not have to destroy America with missiles; America will destroy itself from within." - Nikita Kruschev, 1961

"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." – Ronald Reagan – September 25, 1987

Wednesday, December 30, 2009


Ivana Trump Escorted Off Plane: Napolitano Declares 'The System Worked'
by Ann Coulter

In response to a Nigerian Muslim trying to blow up a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day, the government will now prohibit international travelers from going to the bathroom in the last hour before the plane lands.

Terrorists who plan to bomb planes during the first seven hours of the eight-hour flight, however, should face no difficulties, provided they wait until after the complimentary beverage service has been concluded.

How do they know Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab didn't wait until the end of the flight to try to detonate explosives because he heard the stewardess announce that the food service was over and seats would have to be placed in their upright position? I can't finish my snack? This plane is going down!

Also prohibited in the last hour of international flights will be: blankets, pillows, computers and in-flight entertainment. Another triumph in Janet Napolitano's "Let's stay one step behind the terrorists" policy!

For the past eight years, approximately 2 million Americans a day have been subjected to humiliating searches at airport security checkpoints, forced to remove their shoes and jackets, to open their computers, and to remove all liquids from their carry-on bags, except minuscule amounts in marked 3-ounce containers placed in Ziploc plastic bags -- folding sandwich bags are verboten -- among other indignities.

This, allegedly, was the price we had to pay for safe airplanes. The one security precaution the government refused to consider was to require extra screening for passengers who looked like the last three-dozen terrorists to attack airplanes.

Since Muslims took down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, every attack on a commercial airliner has been committed by foreign-born Muslim men with the same hair color, eye color and skin color. Half of them have been named Mohammed.

An alien from the planet "Not Politically Correct" would have surveyed the situation after 9/11 and said: "You are at war with an enemy without uniforms, without morals, without a country and without a leader -- but the one advantage you have is they all look alike. ... What? ... What did I say?"

The only advantage we have in a war with stateless terrorists was ruled out of order ab initio by political correctness.

And so, despite 5 trillion Americans opening laptops, surrendering lip gloss and drinking breast milk in airports day after day for the past eight years, the government still couldn't stop a Nigerian Muslim from nearly blowing up a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day.

The "warning signs" exhibited by this particular passenger included the following:

His name was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

He's Nigerian.

He's a Muslim.

His name was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

He boarded a plane in Lagos, Nigeria.

He paid nearly $3,000 in cash for his ticket.

He had no luggage.

His name was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

Two months ago, his father warned the U.S. that he was a radical Muslim and possibly dangerous.

If our security procedures can't stop this guy, can't we just dispense with those procedures altogether? What's the point exactly?

(To be fair, the father's warning might have been taken more seriously if he had not simultaneously asked for the U.S. Embassy's Social Security number and bank routing number in order to convey a $28 million inheritance that was trapped in a Nigerian bank account.)

The warning from Abdulmutallab's father put his son on some list, but not the "no fly" list. Apparently, it's tougher to get on the "no fly" list than it was to get into Studio 54 in the '70s. Currently, the only people on the "no fly" list" are the Blind Sheik and Sean Penn.

The government is like the drunk looking for his keys under a lamppost. Someone stops to help, and asks, "Is this where you lost them?" No, the drunk answers, but the light's better here.

The government refuses to perform the only possibly effective security check -- search Muslims -- so instead it harasses infinitely compliant Americans. Will that help avert a terrorist attack? No, but the Americans don't complain.

The only reason Abdulmutallab didn't succeed in bringing down an airplane with 278 passengers was that: (1) A brave Dutchman leapt from his seat and extinguished the smoldering Nigerian; and (2) the Nigerian apparently didn't have enough detonating fluid to cause a powerful explosion.

In addition to the no blanket, no computer, no bathroom rule, perhaps the airlines could add this to their preflight announcement about seat belts and emergency exits: "Should a passenger sitting near you attempt to detonate an explosive device, you may be called upon to render emergency assistance. Would you be willing to do so under those circumstances? If not we will assign you another seat ..."

Monday, December 21, 2009

found on a blog

this blog:

the guy is good....

Saturday, November 21, 2009
Robert Wright, in the New York Times, writes that conservative writers like Charles Krauthammer and Jonah Goldberg are right that the liberal media are trying to cover up Hasan’s crimes by dismissing them as a mere medical issue.
An important admonition, and the only one that explains the lunatic concepts of pre-traumatic stress disorder or second hand flashbacks.
But then Wright concludes that the whole thing is conservativism’s fault, because the right’s pro-military approach to fighting terrorism is what brought us to this.
Re-writing history that would be obviously corrected by the simple act of Googling, Wright says “The American right and left reacted to 9/11 differently. Their respective responses were, to oversimplify a bit: ‘kill the terrorists’ and ‘kill the terrorism meme.’” Perhaps that was the oversimplified bit among his circle of friends, but the Czar recollects that President Bush had a record-high approval rating of 90+ percent when he advocating killing the terrorists...and not their “meme” (a word used by people who are trying to sound hip, and really do not understand what a meme is).
He more than oversimplifies, if his Latin is good enough to translate reductio ad absurdum.
Wright is obviously a liberal—defined not by his position on terrorism, but on his fantasy notion that Hasan must have been created by someone or something. A monster like Hasan cannot come from nowhere: he must be a reaction to something. For liberals, there must be meaning, closure, and feeling.
A monster like Hasan cannot come from nowhere: he must be a reaction to something. For liberals, there must be meaning, closure, and feeling.Wright cannot conceive that a thing like Hasan can simply occur of his own accord and free will; Hasan, in fact, could just happen. A man could wake up one morning and decide that he wanted to follow a dangerous, violent path, and that he could easily select a soft target to carry out a murderous rampage. This cannot be for a liberal: he must have been influenced by the seductive talk of war, of guns, or violence. There must be a root cause for senselessness, and perhaps we could find it if we just think hard enough. No matter how stretched the theory is, the theory is better than the alternative.
Another revealing pot shot: “Contrary to right-wing stereotype, Islam isn’t an intrinsically belligerent religion.” And a delicious left-wing stereotype that right wingers would have such a stereotype. As they might say in Wikipedia...cite? Wright adds that the more right-wingers view Islam as violent, the more Islam turns violent. This backwards post hoc ergo propter hoc fair farting shows how unstable and weak Wright’s position is.
Wright concludes that bin Laden would have viewed September 11th as a minor victory: maybe bin Laden feels the real victory is in drawing Americans into Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why not just ask him what his feelings are. Bin Laden made it quite clear in a series of video and audio recordings: he wants all non-muslims and non-radical followers dead, and he has empowered armies of people to do it...people that our military is now killing before they kill us. Wright can fantasize all he wants about treating terrorists peacefully—which is ultimately what he is unwittingly arguing for—but he is ultimately begging to be spared when it is his turn.
And it makes no difference if the killer is a Muslim or not. He could simply be committing an act of war under orders of someone else, which is how Hasan is being assessed, how he was taken down, and how we will continue to face future threats. Wright needs to mature quite a bit in his assessment of what makes people do violent tasks.

Monday, December 7, 2009

A German's View of Islam

A man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'

We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is "the religion of peace" and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.

The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:

Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.

Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts--the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

"Global Warming" scam exposed at last

Controversy has exploded onto the Internet after a major global-warming advocacy center in the UK had its e-mail system hacked and the data published on line. The director of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit confirmed that the e-mails are genuine — and Australian publication Investigate and the Australian Herald-Sun report that those e-mails expose a conspiracy to hide detrimental information from the public that argues against global warming (via Watt’s Up With That):

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

media ignored this one

Had it been a Christian attacking a Muslim, it would have led the network news and been the headline in the NY Slimes.
Like, "Anti-Muslim Backlash"

Man arrested for 'anti-Christian mall disturbance' to appear in court again Thursday
Deputy DA keeps bail at $27K, orders Hasim to stay away from Stoneridge Shopping Center

by Emily West
Pleasanton Weekly Staff

Deputy District Attorney Ronda Theisen requested the bail for Abdul Walid Hamid stay at $27,000 as the 22-year-old man was arraigned Tuesday morning on charges of battery, grand theft, exhibition of a deadly weapon and a possible hate crime.

Police arrested 22-year-old Hamid of Hayward Wednesday evening after he reportedly robbed a man and scared others at Stoneridge Shopping Center.

Calling it a bizarre case, Theisen also asked that Hamid, who is still in custody, be ordered to stay out of the mall if he does post bail and leaves jail.

Through an interpreter, Hamid requested a public defender and was scheduled to appear in court at 9 a.m. Thursday where he is expected to enter a plea.

According to reports, Hamid was yelling "Allah is power" and "Islam is great" while holding a pen in a fist over his head and witnesses said he had been shouting anti-Christian comments.

Pleaanton Police Lt. Mike Elerick said the man was not provoked and didn't threaten violence, but he committed robbery when he grabbed and broke a crucifix off a man's neck.

Police said they weren't aware of a prior criminal history for the man.

"We had multiple people calling 911," Elerick said. "One female was crouching down and hiding from him. He definitely scared quite a few people."