(W)e cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border -- and that requires a temporary worker program. We should establish a legal and orderly path for foreign workers to enter our country to work on a temporary basis. As a result, they won’t have to try to sneak in -- and that will leave border agents free to chase down drug smugglers, and criminals, and terrorists.Got that? The only way to have border security is amnasty. But here's where it gets even more ludicrous:
We will enforce our immigration laws at the worksite, and give employers the tools to verify the legal status of their workers -- so there is no excuse left for violating the law.{sarc}SURE, Mr. Prez, I belive you. {/sarc} And it gets deeper:
What every terrorist fears most is human freedom – societies where men and women make their own choices, answer to their own conscience, and live by their hopes instead of their resentments. Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies – and most will choose a better way when they are given a chance.The nutzo libs like to call him retarded, and they are correct. To moslims ''a better way'' is Islam. Note how they vote in free and open elections throughout the Middle East (the Prez sure hasn't). And it just gets dumber:
So we advance our own security interests by helping moderates, reformers, and brave voices for democracy. The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity. And I say, for the sake of our own security . . . we must.No, Mr. President ''the great question of our day is'' whether we will quit doing Middle Eastern social work and either begin a no-holds barred campaign of enemy defeating or leave the moslims to work out their affairs however they will:
Republican leaders generally expressed support for Bush's Iraq strategy. "If we fail in Iraq, or withdraw our troops prematurely, the terrorists will follow us home. Success is our only option," said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio.Vox Day snarks ''Apparently terrorists are puppies''. What Rep. Boehener fails to understand is whatever we do in ''iraq'' (stay, leave, go big, go long, go wide, go over, under, sideways, down, go backwards, forwards, square, and round) has no bearing on whether ''the terrorists will follow us home.''.
In "Home Invasion: Protecting Your Family in a Culture that's Gone Stark Raving Mad," Rebecca Hagelin proves that in today's all-consuming culture of corruption there is nowhere left to hide—American homes have already been invaded by this insidious enemy that seeks to twist our minds and poison our hearts through the unmonitored Internet, television, magazines, and music that our families ingest on a daily basis.Boldface mine. After reading her WND column about Hannity I am reminded of the Dire Straits song Industrial Disease with the tounge-in-cheek lyric; ''Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong''.
Speaking as a nationally known social commentator and as a mother of three, Hagelin shows through specific examples and alarming statistics how the enemy has infected the family van, our neighborhood schools and textbooks, the stores in which we shop, and even the churches in which we worship.
Liberalism is so monolithic in the media that any bit of conservatism easily sells, even if that conservatism has liberal elements in it.I don't dislike Savage. I listen to him whenever possible. In a recent post I mention that I enjoy his show. I chose a Metallica video off of You Tube to make two points at the same time:
I would encourage readers to stop listening to Limbaugh and Hannity and to tune into Michael Savage instead. Of all the talk radio pundits, Savage comes closest to the views of VFR. It’s not without flaws, but it will be the kind of very pleasant surprise you get reading Ann Coulter’s Godless critique of evolution: You just couldn’t imagine such a good argument coming from the dippy blonde portrayed on the cover.
So don’t right-off talk radio until you’ve spent some time listening to Michael Savage.
Someone said to me that Hannity has charisma. I’m speechless.I was ''Someone''. When I saw that, I decided to attempt to clarify:
No, not on radio. I agree he has a rather poor radio voice. But on TV/in person yes. I compare him to Clinton in that regard.I apologize for the poor syntax. It was a quickly composed and sent email. I am not a writer by trade. In fact, writing is something that is a bit awkward for me (kinda obvious).
While it may be phony as well, he comes off as personable, friendly. The kind of person you could sit down at a bar with, have a few beers and a friendly chat with.
In the case of Hagelin, she reacted to him in a way that is not atypical of women towards him. The phrase “...and drop-dead gorgeous.” trumps everything else.
We should ask three questions about this situation. Two are mandatory: what are the real interests of Americans and the United States in this affair, and what are the likely consequences for the United States of invasion and occupation? The third is not, but is still important: what are the grievances against us that make these Moslems homicidal to the point of suicide?Boldface mine. Note the date that comment was posted, over 6 months before ''Operation Iraqi Freedom'' began. Mr. Sutherland noted about the possibilty of ''iraqi refugees'' over four years ago. The campaign to ''help iraqi refugees'' is already beginning in earnest.
The overriding interest of Americans is their security and that of the United States. That must be the focus of U.S. policy. To focus intelligently requires adequate intelligence, something we seem not to have, at least in human terms.
If the administration can prove to the satisfaction of the Congress (here satisfaction means a willingness to declare war) that Iraq has or soon could have weapons capable of posing an offensive threat to the United States or U.S. forces deployed in the region, then I'll accept Iraq poses sufficient threat to us to justify intervention. The ability to launch the odd SAM or hose AAA in the general direction of U.S. fighters patrolling over Iraq does not reach the threshold. The administration has not yet made that case, despite Tony Blair's best efforts.
Ensuring an adequate flow of oil for American needs is also an American interest. It is worth asking which is the better way to pursue that goal: invasion and occupation of Middle Eastern oil producers or conservationally sound development of the petrochemical deposits we know we have in our own country? If access to foreign oil is sufficient raison d'etat to justify occupations of sovereign nations, why have we not occupied Mexico and Venezuela?
Peripheral concerns alone cannot justify going to war. "Regime-change" in Iraq, absent the proof mentioned above of the danger to America of Saddam's regime, is not a vital interest of the United States. Neither is the security of Israel, although that is something we should support diplomatically and, to the extent reasonable, economically.
There are few positive consequences imaginable, and many negative. The one positive consequence, assuming for the moment that Iraq does pose a genuine threat to the United States, is the removal of that threat. I do not think American battle casualties would be high; I believe that, feminized and reduced though they have been even since 1991, the U.S. Armed Forces would win the battle fairly easily. At what cost in Iraqi lives, military and civilian, is another question worth asking. After the battle, we face the prospect of occupation, supporting the puppet regime we install, and keeping Iraq's hostile factions apart, all for some unspecified but likely very long period. Our multicultural mushmindedness makes it inevitable that we will admit hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of "refugees," to contribute to the ethnic dissolution of our own country. Is the game worth the price? What of the effect on our economy and markets? What of our relations with other countries, friendly and otherwise?
Those behind the attacks on New York and Washington should be hunted and killed. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are legitimate targets. Still, we can learn something from what bin Laden said his complaints against the United States were, and the order in which he expressed them. The first was the presence of infidel troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam's holy places. The second was the role of the United States in enforcing sanctions that bin Laden believes have led to the deaths of millions of Iraqi Arabs. The third is American support of the "Zionist entity." He said nothing about American cultural pollution of the faithful, although he and his ilk no doubt abhor our pop culture. He said nothing about hating us because of our democratic ways, uncongenial though he may find them.
If bin Laden reflects what Islamicists in the Middle East really think, they would become far less a threat to our well-being if we stopped meddling in their region. Of course, they would also be less of a threat if the idiots who govern us would stop letting them in our country. As far as I can tell, we have two reasons to meddle in the Middle East: our need for oil and our support for Israel. It stands to reason that we should make ourselves less dependent on Moslem oil, and remove ourselves, as much as practical, from the Persian Gulf and Arabia.
As for supporting Israel, we should, as even-handedly as possible - which is not to ascribe moral equivalence to Israel and Arafat's Palestinian Authority. In bin Laden's view, at least as he has expressed it, our support for Israel is third in the list of evils, behind being in Arabia and blockading Iraq. A poorly kept secret of the Middle East is that Arab regimes actually benefit from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as it gives them a bogeyman to excuse their own failures and deflect popular wrath.
Pace such keyboard warriors as Perle/Wolfowitz, Podhoretz, Kristol, Kagan, et al., we must not degenerate into Imperium over this. HRS
Posted by: Howard Sutherland on October 2, 2002 03:13 PM
Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Well, here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents, but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we'll have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods -- and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.Even an enthusiastic booster of our affairs in ''iraq'' Neil Boortz is skeptical: ''So the only thing we can do now is try to win, I suppose. Let's just hope it isn't too late.''. Looking back at our affairs in ''iraq'' now, I'd have to say it was too late THREE YEARS AGO. Two years ago I began to realize (and started to say) that we can't ''win'' in ''iraq''. It's when I realized that ''to win'' in ''iraq'' would require the transformation of a third-world islamic middle eastern hellhole into a ''western-style'' society. Wasn't going to happen then, is'nt going to happen now, and it won't happen long into the future either. It seems that we had no choice but to re-learn the old proverb: ''Do not try to teach a pig to sing. It doesn't work and it only annoys the pig''. The bush worshippers are detrimed to try to get that pig to sing. In spite of the fact that the pig never will.
Is George W. Bush the first president in history who is clinically -- not just metaphorically -- insane? Maybe we really need to start talking about a "Caine Mutiny" scenario.Like myself he likely supported (and voted for) that idiot TWICE!!!
Posted by Rick Darby at January 6, 2007 05:42 AM
How many such incidents will it take before this begins to be taken seriously? I suspect there is nothing the Mexicans can do that would provoke a forceful response from us. It seems that despite the open display of force from the Mexicans, all we do is appease, placate, and court them. Disgusting.READ THE BLOCKQUOTE.
The National Guardsmen were placed at the border unarmed, which is madness, considering the numbers of heavily-armed criminals in the border areas. It's a disgrace to our country to put these Guardsmen in that position and leave them vulnerable.
How many such incidents will it take before this begins to be taken seriously? I suspect there is nothing theA very disturbing paralell, if you ask me.Mexicans''iraqis'' can do that would provoke a forceful response from us. It seems that despite the open display of force from theMexicans''iraqis'', all we do is appease, placate, and court them. Disgusting.