|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
On Illegal Immigration and Border Security Illegal immigration is on the forefront of many Americans’ minds lately and with good reason. The Center for Immigration Studies has recently reported that our immigrant population is now 37 million, up from 27 million in 1997. 1 in 3 of these immigrants are here illegally. We have a problem that has exploded in the last 10 years with no appreciable change in border security since September 11 when we were supposed to take a hard look at the problem. We have security issues at home and our resources are running thin. Our education system is stretched, and immigration accounts for virtually all the national increase in public school enrollment in the last 2 decades. There is a worker present in 78% of immigrant households using at least one major welfare program, according to the same study. It’s no surprise then that often times these immigrants can afford to work for lower wages. They are subsidized by our government to do so. Right now we are subsidizing a lot of illegal immigration with our robust social programs and it is an outrage that instead of coming to the United States as a land of opportunity, many come for the security guaranteed by government forced transfer payments through our welfare system. I have opposed giving federal assistance to illegal immigrants and have introduced legislation that ends this practice. In the last major House-passed immigration bill I attempted to introduce an amendment that would make illegal immigrants ineligible for any federal assistance. Unfortunately, that amendment was ruled "not relevant" to immigration reform. I believe it is very relevant to taxpayers, however, who are being taken advantage of through the welfare system. Illegal immigrants should never be eligible for public schooling, social security checks, welfare checks, free healthcare, food stamps, or any other form government assistance. The anchor baby phenomenon has also been very problematic. Simply being born on US soil to illegal immigrant parents should not trigger automatic citizenship. This encourages many dangerous behaviors and there are many unintended consequences as a result of this blanket policy. I am against amnesty and I have introduced an amendment to the Constitution (H.J. Res 46) which will end this form of amnesty. I have also supported the strengthening our border and increasing the number of border patrol agents. It is an outrage that our best trained border guards are sent to Iraq instead of guarding our borders. For national security, we need to give more attention to our own border which is being illegally breached every day, and yet the government shirks one of its few constitutionally mandated duties, namely to defend this country. Citizens lose twice with our current insecure border situation – we don’t have the protection we should have, and then taxpayers have to deal with the fallout in the form of overstretched public resources and loss of jobs. The anger is understandable when it comes to illegal immigration and the problems with our borders. I will continue to fight in Congress for more effective ways to address these issues in keeping with the Constitutional mandate to protect America. Learning About Immigration Policy From Mexico Almost everybody believes that the U.S.A. needs immigration reform. I’d like to propose that we study immigration systems in other countries, to see what we can learn from them. It's arrogant to assume that we Americans have all the answers, and that no other country can do anything better than we can. Some of the biggest critics of our immigration policy are Mexicans. So let's examine Mexico’s immigration policy and see what we can learn from it. We might even decide that Mexico has some approaches to the issue that we could copy. Surely they wouldn’t object to that. Would they? How can we summarize Mexican immigration/nationality policies? Here’s how: Mexico has an immigration system tailored to fit the interests of Mexico. And what’s wrong with that? The legal basis for Mexico’s immigration law is found in the Ley General de Población [the General Population Law]. The cabinet-level department responsible for immigration is the Secretaria de Gobernación, loosely translated as the Interior Department. According to Article 3, section VII of the General Population Law, the responsibility of this department is to "Subject the immigration of foreigners to the methods it deems relevant, and to achieve the best assimilation of these [immigrants] to the national environment and their adequate distribution in [Mexican] territory." [Sujetar la inmigración de extranjeros a las modalidades que juzgue pertinentes, y procurar la mejor asimilación de éstos al medio nacional y su adecuada distribución en el territorio.] So the goals of Mexican immigration policy are assimilation and the distribution of immigrants throughout Mexican territory. Mexico has had immigrants from many countries, from Latin America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East and even the U.S.A. And Mexico has done a good job in assimilating these immigrants. Part of it is because the immigration levels are so much lower than in the U.S., and partly because the Mexican system does indeed encourage assimilation. According to Article 32 of the General Population Law, "The Interior Department will establish, subject to the corresponding demographic studies, the number of foreigners whose entrance to the country may be permitted, whether by activities or zone of residence, and will subject to the methods that it deems relevant the immigration of foreigners, according to their possibilities of contributing to the national progress." [Artículo 32.- La Secretaría de Gobernación fijará, previos los estudios demográficos correspondientes, el número de extranjeros cuya internación podrá permitirse al país, ya sea por actividades o por zonas de residencia, y sujetará a las modalidades que juzgue pertinentes, la inmigración de extranjeros, según sean sus posibilidades de contribuir al progreso nacional.] So the Interior Department establishes immigration quotas based on the demographic situation of the country, and wants immigrants who will contribute to the development of the nation. Article 34 even explains what kinds of immigrants Mexico is looking for: "The Department of the Interior may establish for the foreigners who enter Mexico the conditions that it deems appropriate with respect to the activities to which they will engage in and the place or places of their residence. It will take care thusly that the immigrants shall be useful elements for the country and that they will have the necessary income levels for their subsistence… and of the persons who are under their economic dependence." [Artículo 34.- La Secretaría de Gobernación podrá fijar a los extranjeros que se internen en el país las condiciones que estime convenientes respecto a las actividades a que habrán de dedicarse y al lugar o lugares de su residencia. Cuidará asimismo de que los inmigrantes sean elementos útiles para el país y de que cuenten con los ingresos necesarios para su subsistencia y en su caso, la de las personas que estén bajo su dependencia económica.] "Useful elements"?" Necessary income levels?" It sounds as though Mexico is being rather choosy. Mexico wants immigrants who are (1) useful to Mexico and (2) who have enough income to take care of themselves and their families. How discriminatory! OK, so what kinds of immigrants does Mexico not want? Well, that’s spelled out in the General Population Law, Article 37. It states that "The Department of the Interior may deny to foreigners the entrance into the country or a change in immigration status for any of the following reasons: I. When there is no international reciprocity." (What if we did that? What if we conditioned our immigration policy on how other countries took in our people—starting with Mexico?) "II. When the national demographic equilibrium demands it." (When it doesn’t upset Mexico’s demographic equilibrium). "III. When the quotas referred to in Article 32 of this law don’t permit it." (See Article 32 above). IV. "When it is considered harmful to the economic interests of Mexicans." (Shouldn’t we also limit immigration if it’s harmful to the economic interests of ordinary Americans?) V. When they (the immigrants) have broken the laws of Mexico or have criminal antecedents abroad. (Mexico doesn’t want criminal immigrants). VI. When they have broken this [immigration] law, its regulations or other applicable administrative orders in the matter, or if they don’t comply with the established requirements. (What if we did that—instead of repeatedly amnestying illegals?) VII. If they are not physically or mentally healthy in the judgment of the health authority, or are prevented by other legal orders. "The Department of the Interior is authorized to suspend or forbid the admission of foreigners, when it is determined to be in the national interest." That pretty much covers everything, does it not? There are several myths and misunderstandings about Mexican immigration policy. Many Mexicans think that Mexico has no immigration policy, that anybody can come into the country without any kind of visa. I’ve been asked why the U.S. demands visas and Mexico doesn’t! Reason: few Mexicans have any contact with the Mexican immigration bureaucracy, the INM [Instituto Nacional de Migracion] and they’ve believed the rhetoric of the Open Door Mexico. Some Americans think Mexico has a lax immigration system because it’s so easy for American tourists to enter Mexico. Yes, it is easy. But the tourist only sees the tip of the iceberg. Mexico has a whole range of immigration options. The tourist visa is just the easiest level. The system is carefully designed to keep out paupers, to discriminate between citizens and non-citizens, and even to discriminate between native-born Mexicans and naturalized Mexicans. Mexican immigration law recognizes several levels of immigration status. The most temporary status is that of no-inmigrante, which includes, tourists, transmigrants, visitors, religious workers, political asylees, refugees, students, distinguished visitors, local visitors, provisional visitors and journalists. All these individuals have the right to bring a spouse or children. But they are responsible for them. A more permanent status is that of "inmigrante," which includes rentistas (people with independent means), investors, professionals, certain administrators, scientists, technicians, artists, athletes, spouses and parents of Mexicans, and family members of such persons (once again, at the responsibility of the head of family). After 5 years of being an "inmigrante", one may pass to the level of "inmigrado" which is more permanent still. There are restrictions on land ownership for foreigners, as I have pointed out before. There are ways to get around this, but when a foreigner buys or gets effective control of Mexican property, he waives his rights to the intervention of his country of citizenship in case of a land dispute. And I have never seen the U.S. government take any effective action to defend an American in Mexico in a land dispute. As far as illegal immigration, the government of Mexico detains and deports over a quarter of a million illegals annually, most of them from Central American countries, which are poorer than Mexico. All Mexican police are required to enforce Mexican immigration law, and so does the Army, which has already militarized the northern border. [Vdare.com note: Mexico's northern border is, of course, American's southern border. Mexico has a southern border of its own, of course, and it faces pressure from further south.] Mexican immigration officials don't hesitate to use racial profiling. In a previous article, I reported how officials in the north of Mexico tried to deport Mexican Indians thinking they were Central Americans. And, in a recent case, Mexican police used tear gas to get some illegal aliens out of a trailer. What if our immigration officials did that? Not only that, according to Article 67, any Mexican official who deals with a foreigner is responsible to verify the foreigner’s legal status as part of the transaction. The "sanctuary policy" practiced in so many U.S. cities would not get very far in Mexico. When Lilia and I were married, here in Mexico, I had to ask permission of the Mexican government to marry her, and I had to prove I was here legally. Of course, I love my wife and so it was worth it. But just imagine, once again, what if the U.S. did that? Legal foreigners living here in Mexico can pretty much do anything we want. We’re free to travel throughout Mexico to our heart’s content. However, there are limits. It is strictly verboten for us to get mixed up in Mexican politics, even to march in a protest demonstration. The Mexican constitution has a particular and well-known article which deals very clearly with the status and expectations of non-Mexicans in Mexico. It’s the famous Article 33: Article 33—Foreigners are those who do not possess the qualities determined in Article 30. They have the right to the guarantees of Chapter I of the first title of this Constitution, but the Executive of the Union has the exclusive right to expel from the national territory, immediately and without necessity of judicial proceedings, all foreigners whose stay it judges inconvenient. Foreigners may not, in any manner, involve themselves in the political affairs of the country. Articulo 33. Son extranjeros los que no posean las calidades determinadas en el articulo 30. Tienen derecho a las garantias que otorga el capitulo i, titulo primero, de la presente constitucion ; pero el ejecutivo de la union tendra la facultad exclusiva de hacer abandonar el territorio nacional, inmediatamente y sin necesidad de juicio previo, a todo extranjero cuya permanencia juzgue inconveniente. Los extranjeros no podran de ninguna manera inmiscuirse en los asuntos politicos del pais. Contrast that with the U.S.'s impossible deportation procedures, as chronicled by Juan Mann! Article 43 of the General Law of Population (Ley General de Población) states that: "The admission to the country of a foreigner obliges him to strictly comply with the conditions established for him in the immigration permit and the dispositions established by the respective laws." Americans and other foreigners are regularly expelled for overstepping these bounds. In 2002, 18 gringos were expelled for participating in May Day marches. Later in the same year, five American citizens were expelled for participating in a demonstration demanding the release of some campesinos. In contrast, the U.S. allows even illegal aliens to march openly in the streets demanding their "rights." Does the U.S. need an Article 33? Mexico’s citizenship laws are spelled out in the legal corpus known as the Ley de Nacionalidad. PDF In order to become a citizen, the applicant must renounce his home country citizenship, demonstrate that he speaks Spanish, knows Mexican history and has assimilated to Mexican life.[VDARE.COM note: A previous Mexican Government had a very bad experience with some Texans who failed to assimilate. Remember the Alamo?] And he must have lived in Mexico for 5 years. Certain classes of people, however, can get citizenship in less than 5 years. For example, an immigrant married to a Mexican, or parent of a Mexican child, can get it in 2 years. An adoptee can get it in 1 year. And note this: Other preferences are based upon ancestry or country of origin. An immigrant of Mexican ancestry gets a preference and only has to wait two years. Immigrants from Latin America or the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) only have to wait 2 years for citizenship. All other things being equal, this would give an immigrant from Spain a preference over an immigrant from Germany, an immigrant from Argentina preference over an American, and a Mexican-American would have preference over an Anglo-American. Hmmm! What would happen if the U.S. gave preference to immigrants from the British Isles, Canada, and Australia? I imagine they’d call us racists. But it's a fact: Mexico gives preference to persons of Mexican ancestry, other Latin Americans and Spaniards. In the U.S.A., a naturalized citizen can do almost anything that a natural-born citizen can do, except be president (and some people even want to change that). But in Mexico, naturalized citizens are limited from many positions government positions, which are spelled out in the Mexican Constitution. A naturalized Mexican citizen can never serve in the military during peacetime, can never be a policeman, and can never be a pilot, captain or crew member on any vessel or aircraft bearing a Mexican insignia. (Article 32) And a naturalized Mexican can never be in charge of a port or airport. A naturalized Mexican can never be president (Article 82), just as in the U.S. But he can also never be in the Mexican Congress (unlike ours) (Articles 55 and 58), can never be on the Supreme Court (article 95), and never be a governor of a Mexican state (Article 116) nor serve in the legislature or as mayor of Mexico City (Article 122) . The truth of the matter is, no matter how well-assimilated a naturalized Mexican is, he will always be a sort of second-class citizen. And, while a natural-born Mexican can never be stripped of his citizenship, a naturalized Mexican can be (Constitution Article 37). A naturalized Mexican citizen could lose his citizenship by acquiring another nationality, working for a foreign government without permission, accepting titles or decorations from a foreign government or helping a foreigner or foreign nation in a diplomatic dispute or before an international tribunal. Hmmm again. In other words, the kind of thing a lot of our Latino officials do all the time. But Mexican law flatly prohibits that sort of thing. If it’s good for the goose, isn’t it good for the gander. Bottom line: although the Mexican elite constantly attacks U.S. immigration policy, Mexico’s own system is stricter, and explicitly focused on the interests of Mexico. There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s their country. But our officials should not be intimidated one whit when scolded by Mexicans about immigration. In fact, we ought to turn the tables and ask Mexico about its own immigration policy. And, frankly, we would be wise to import many aspects of Mexican immigration policy ourselves! (P.S. Mexico places the military on its border with Guatemala to prevent illegal immigration.) American citizen Allan Wall (email him) resides in Mexico, with a legal permit issued him by the Mexican government. Allan recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq with the Texas Army National Guard. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his FRONTPAGEMAG.COM articles are archived here his "Dispatches from Iraq" are archived here his website is here. Interesting, and this is only one State... 3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens. 10. In L. A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish. (There are 10 .2 million people in L. A. County. ) All 10 of the above are from the Los Angeles Times Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare. 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens. We are a bunch of fools for letting this continue. Minuteman Civil Defense Corps During my youth, I served this country proudly in the Marine Corps in Vietnam, along with some great Americans. I now have that opportunity once again to serve my country with other great Americans, through my role with the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. We are a volunteer organization filled with patriots who stand watch on our nation’s borders in support of the brave men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol. We are motivated by the rule of law and the need to secure the borders of the United States for the sake of our children and our grandchildren. Like our Founding Fathers, we are willing to sacrifice our lives and fortunes “in order to form a more perfect union,” even when we are discouraged by the actions of our elected leaders in Washington, who often forget that they “deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the Governed…” Minuteman Civil Defense Corps volunteers do not engage in hate speech, bigotry, violence, vigilantism or launch unjust personal attacks against law-abiding citizens. In fact, we are commissioned to witness to the injustice of the “we hate America crowd” led by the National Council of LaRaza who have exposed their true motives when they threaten Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser for refusing to fire Frances Semler from her appointed post on the Park Board without cause; an action that would result in most private employers receiving an expensive lesson in employment law. I urge the citizens of Kansas City to question the actions of the National Council of LaRaza, a group which claims to stand for civil rights, but extorts your Mayor with threats of defamation and boycott if their demands are not met—demands that a grandmotherly civic leader be terminated for her affiliation with a patriotic organization. I find their actions demeaning to all Hispanic Americans, and undermining of our civil liberty and patriotism. After all, can any organization that encourages people to violate our laws truly claim to love America? Can you truly love America if one of your stated goals is to violently reclaim U.S. soil in the name of Mexico through a movement known as Reconquista? Unlike LaRaza’s selfish agenda, our Minuteman mission is peaceful and responsible for saving the lives of hundreds who entered our country illegally and were left to die in the desert, be forced into prostitution or otherwise exploited for their cheap labor. Securing the borders is pro-immigrant. Minutemen volunteers are showing our federal government and fellow citizens the national security effectiveness for the protection of all that will result from the construction of a double-layered physical fence, and a simple increase in the number of Border Patrol agents and National Guard troops stationed on our borders. As citizens, we have a moral obligation to provide immigrants a safe passage — by our rules — while also protecting the citizens of the United States from invasion, disease and criminal behavior. The immigration problems we face can be resolved when employers, elected officials, the judicial system and law enforcement agencies at the local, state and national levels work together to enforce all immigration laws. Minuteman activities are inclusive, conducted by men and women, naturalized as well as native-born citizens, college students and members of the Granny Brigade who fill a void on a mission that continues to receive strong support from millions of Americans. Our volunteers will travel from all over America to the U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canadian borders next month for our national muster. They will observe and report illegal activity to the proper authorities. Furthermore, they will call, write and fax their Members of Congress to voice their opposition to the on-going lobbying campaigns advancing amnesty legislation. The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps conducts our activities for the “general welfare” of all legal citizens of the United States and the protection of all innocent human life. Can LaRaza really claim they do the same thing? Minutemen and Donations Needed NOW! You too can help defend American by making your way to the border to join the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps as the first line of defense against illegal immigration. Sign up now to do your part in securing America! If you can not commit to going to the border, fear not: you can still be a great help! Donate now to support those that are on the border and help pave the way to a secure America with the brave pioneers on the border! The people of America are what make us strong, people just like you who are willing to sacrifice time and money in the pursuit of a strong and secure America. It takes the people of America to secure America. Americans don’t rely on others or wait for somebody else to fix the problem -- we are the trailblazers! Click Here to Donate to the October Operations Support Fund Monday, October 1st through Wednesday, October 31st At the U.S. - Mexico Border shared with Arizona, Texas and California as well as the U.S.-Canada Border shared with Washington State. Select here for details Our Government is still NOT DOING ITS JOB! Beginning October 1st 2007, the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps will conduct 24/7 operations for 31 days to secure the border. Your participation is critical. WE MUST HAVE VOLUNTEERS AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES NOW! If patriotic Americans don't take action—QUICKLY—the new liberal Congress in Washington will ERASE OUR BORDERS and vote for AMNESTY instead of border security. MCDC is CALLING ALL VOLUNTEERS and Minuteman SUPPORTERS in the colonial tradition of the Minutemen, to SERVE or DONATE money and materials to HELP PROTECT AND DEFEND OUR NATION. Thank you to all volunteers who at their own expense are heading to the border and to those who respond by doing one or more of the following: 1) If you are a registered volunteer and cannot go to the border, or if you just want to send your financial support to our Minutemen at the border. 2) If you want to be a Registered Minuteman and get your ID card. 3) See October Border Muster Operations locations and schedules. YOU can make a REAL DIFFERENCE. So, for your sake, for the sake of your children, your grandchildren, and for generations to come, please help MCDC continue its fight to protect and preserve the United States of America and defend our Constitution. Sincerely for these United States, Carmen Mercer Donate to the October Operations Support Fund If you prefer to donate by check, please mail to: Minuteman Civil Defense Corps State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America Civilizations die by suicide, not murder, says Patrick Buchanan, and liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide. Its ideas, pursued to their logical end, will prove fatal. And none of those ideas is as certain to bring our civilization to an unhappy end as the proposition that America's borders must be open to any and all comers, legal and illegal. In State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, Buchanan explains why the very life of our nation is at stake in the immigration debate. If immigration and border controls aren't reintroduced, it will be the end of America as we know it -- and soon. Buchanan explains why the massive influx of illegal immigrants into America is nothing less than an invasion -- and yet the Bush White House and GOP-controlled Congress appear disinclined to do anything about it. He details how our current policy of "open borders" and nearly unrestricted immigration have brought a stream of criminals and thugs into our nation -- for the benefit only of an entrenched political establishment that couldn't care less about the good of the American people. He explodes myth after myth about illegal immigration -- including President Bush's notorious statement that illegal aliens "do jobs Americans won't do" and the idea that foreigners somehow have a natural right to come to America. Nor will all this be an easy problem to solve. Buchanan demonstrates that any presidential candidate who speaks out against the Hispanic onslaught in the American Southwest will now lose the electoral votes of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Soon, electoral realities will make it impossible for any serious candidate to speak out against unrestrained immigration. Yet, he points out, if it wanted to, the U.S. Government could secure the Mexican border within weeks -- and details the political reasons why this won't happen, despite the fact that immigration control measures have consistently won large margins of support from American voters. State of Emergency also lays bare the roots of our immigration crisis, providing a capsule history of U.S.-Mexican relations and explaining Mexico's long-standing grudge against the United States. Buchanan exposes the long-term goals of radical Mexican and Chicano groups that want to erase not only American sovereignty over the Southwest, but also American sovereignty altogether. He warns against the balkanization and tribalism that threaten our future as a nation, and, for those who have forgotten (and there are many), he gets back to basics -- explaining what a nation actually is and should be. America, says Buchanan, could soon be facing its last chance to stave off national suicide. In State of Emergency, he provides a comprehensive primer for all politicians, activists, and concerned citizens who want to stop the flood of immigration before it's too late. How illegal immigration threatens every American: Fact: our illegal population today is greater than the total number of Irish, Jewish, and British immigrants who ever came to the U.S. Why the reigning Republicans ignore the law and do little or nothing to stop illegal immigration How mass immigration inevitably tilts the center of gravity of American politics to the Left How the numbers of Americans of European descent are rapidly decreasing -- and the political and social implications How Los Angeles today provides a glimpse of what all of America will be like in 2050 An "American creed"? Why those who believe that the ideas of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Gettysburg Address hold us together as a nation are distorting or reinventing history Why Mexico's President Fox has done nothing to help secure the U.S.-Mexican border -- and has actually abetted the invasion of the U.S. by millions of illegal aliens The decisive step that the Mexican government took in 1998 toward building a potent political machine within the United States Fact: not only are arguments about the economic benefits provided by illegal aliens false, but illegal immigration also constitutes a massive drain on our economy The Mexican War is not over: its deep impact on contemporary immigration politics Why importing a vast diaspora from a neighboring nation so different from our own is such a hellish risk How the United States Government threw up its hands and abdicated its constitutional duty to protect the states from invasion by illegal aliens over four decades ago Why it is difficult, if not impossible, for cities to get control of the growing crime menace of immigrants and illegal aliens Latin elites that are doing everything they can to prevent the assimilation of Mexican immigrants into American culture John F. Kennedy and immigration: how, in 1991, the U.S. took in twelve times more immigrants than what JFK stated in the early 1960s as an acceptable annual limit Bush's guest worker plan: how it provoked a surge to the border How, as Republicans dither, some Democrats are beginning to see the potency among voters of the illegal immigration issue How, rather than fading away, issues of nationality long considered dead are resurfacing today Why so many children of Asian-American and Hispanic immigrants are assimilating into a deadly subculture of gangs and crime How even conservatives now routinely denounce as "racist," "nativist" and "xenophobic" anyone who argues that mass migration from the Third World risks disuniting and even destroying America How we must recapture control of immigration policy from politicians paralyzed by fear of ethnic lobbies and cultural contributors, or immobilized by ideology Why ideology and democracy are not enough to save America -- and what we need most now to trump the call of ethnicity Six critical steps that must be taken now to secure America's borders and preserve the republic http://www.newswithviews.com/Cutler/michael17.htm I have just read an editorial in the New York Times. The editorial glosses over many facts where illegal immigration is concerned. In fact, had Al Gore not written a book about global warming entitled "An Inconvenient Truth," that title would serve this debate quite aptly. It is important to understand that the folks who advocate for open borders and essentially uncontrolled immigration use two primary tactics to further their agendas. They resort to an Orwellian "Newspeak" or, alternatively, they accurately define a problem that presents a significant problem but then propose a solution that makes no sense and may well exacerbate the problem, but enables such deceptive individuals with the opportunity to push a "solution" that furthers their goals. In considering the first tactic of using false language to obfuscate an issue I would point to former President Jimmy Carter who began this process where illegal immigration is concerned, by demanding that INS employees stop using the term "Illegal Alien" and replace it with the more genteel and clearly deceptive term "Undocumented Worker." The current occupant of the White House, George W. Bush has offered to "Legalize the immigrants," a statement that is amazing when you consider that this is the equivalent of offering to "Make water wet!" Immigrants are legal, they have green cards and they are on the path to United States citizenship. They can bring their immediate family members legally to the United States as immigrants in their own right. They can take virtually any job they are qualified to do. How much more legal would the President make them? In point of fact, he was really saying that he wanted to make illegal aliens legal but understood the reaction to such an offer would have been swift, overwhelming and rancorous. When I raise these issues when I participate in debates my opponents often criticize the use of the word "alien" because they claim it sounds as though aliens came from another planet. The reality is that the term alien is as old as the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act, the body of laws that govern the entry and presence of aliens in our country, defines an alien as simply being any person who is not a citizen or national of the United States. Period. There is no insult to this definition. This is not in any way, shape of form similar to the "N" word. In fact, when we, as Americans travel to other countries, those countries will refer to us as being aliens! And they will have no compunctions against using that word! The Online Merriam Webster Dictionary defines "Illegal" as follows: :not according to or authorized by law: unlawful, illicit; also: not sanctioned by official rules The second tactic, that of providing supposed "solutions" to a critical problem that makes no sense can be seen in statements made by Vice President Dick Cheney who stated that there are millions of undocumented workers in this country. We don't know who they are, where they are or what they are up to and that is why we need a "Guest Worker" program! This statement was made by the Vice President several years ago and it astounded me to hear (and see it) when I was a guest on the Lou Dobbs Tonight program on CNN. The staff at CNN had brought me out on the set to be interviewed by Lou Dobbs and as they hooked up my microphone, I noticed that Lou appeared particularly riled up. I asked him why he was upset and he told me that he wanted me to see a video clip of the Vice President that had enraged him. He told me that he wanted to get my reaction to the Vice President's statement. Of course I wondered what was going on and was utterly astonished to see the video, once we were on the air, of the Vice President standing before a town hall meeting, wireless microphone in hand, making that outrageous statement! I immediately understood Lou's outrage- indeed, I shared it! How would providing millions of illegal aliens with authorization to work in our country deter future illegal immigration? It was, in fact, in my judgement, the Amnesty of 1986 that resulted in the massive of influx of illegal aliens into our country who had been encouraged and emboldened to violate our borders and our immigration laws with the expectation that they would be rewarded for such illegal conduct. More importantly, there is no way that our bureaucrats at USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) could possibly determine the true identities of million of undocumented aliens. They would not even be able to confirm the nationalities of many of these undocumented aliens. How would providing individuals whose identities are unknown and unknowable with official identity documents in whatever name they claimed was theirs make us safer? The reality is that this would put us at a far greater risk because this is the precise tactic that terrorists and criminals use in order to hide in plain sight. They create false identities for themselves to make tracking their movements and activities all but impossible for our law enforcement agencies. This is why the 19 terrorists who so savagely attacked our nation on September 11, 2001 used a total of 364 aliens and variations of names and other identifiers in order to embed themselves in our country and hide in plain sight among us as they prepared to carry out what would be the most devastating attack ever launched against our nation within our borders. The "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill" that was prepared behind closed doors in the dead of night by a few legislative thugs in Washington headed up by Senator Ted Kennedy several months ago kept me awake at night. My fears were articulated in a commentary I wrote that the Washington Times published. In that commentary I referred to that legislative abomination as being the "Terrorist Assistance and Facilitation Act of 2007." (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070622/COMMENTARY/106220019 and http://www.newswithviews.com/Cutler/michael3.htm) On three separate occasions, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama quoted from my commentary on the floor of the United States Senate during the time that the bill was being debated. You can read one of those instances at: http://sessions.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=278222. George W. Bush and other advocates for open borders also distort the facts. A good example of such distortion can be found when President Bush had stated repeatedly that our nation had tried an "enforcement only" approach to immigration but that such an approach failed because it did not provide for the illegal aliens in our country with an opportunity to legally work in our country! In point of fact, there are currently only about 4,000 special agents at ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) who are dedicated to enforcing the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States. To put this in proper perspective, the City of New York has just over 8 million residents. This teeming city covers some 400 square miles and enjoys the lowest crime rate of any major city in the entire United States. This is most probably attributed to the fact that New York City has a well trained and equipped police department that has nearly 38,000 police officers carrying out their duties. The United States has perhaps more than 20 million illegal aliens who are scattered across a third of the North American continent and a law enforcement agency that has roughly one tenth the number of agents as the NYPD has police officers! It is also important to know that the job of the special agents at ICE should require that they do more then simply look for the ever increasing number of illegal aliens and especially those among them who become involved in serious criminal activities. These agents should also be conducting investigations into alien smuggling, aliens who become involved in immigration benefit fraud such as gaining residency based on sham marriages to United States citizens and resident aliens, and those who furnish false and altered identity documents. These agents are also badly needed to assist other agencies such as the FBI and DEA in task forces that target terrorist and narcotics trafficking organizations whose members include aliens. (I spent nearly half of my career working in conjunction with other such agencies to identify, investigate and ultimately dismantle narcotics trafficking organizations. In New York, when I was assigned to the Unified Intelligence Division of the DEA, I determined that roughly 60% of the individuals who were arrested by the DEA in NYC for drug-related crimes were, in fact, identified as being "foreign born.") So this then begs the question, what constitutes an "enforcement only" approach to immigration law enforcement that President Bush talked about? In point of fact, this was about creating an illusion of enforcement and it was the illusion of enforcement that failed to control illegal immigration. Providing illegal aliens with the opportunity to acquire lawful status in our country will do nothing to deter illegal immigration and would, in fact, encourage still more illegal immigration. The author of the editorial I have attached below presumably well understands what I have set forth above. He is obviously following in the well-worn path trod by those who for one reason or another, want to erase our nation's borders and blur the distinction between what it is to be lawfully present in our country and what it is to be present illegally in the United States. As I have often stated, the difference between an illegal alien and an immigrant is the difference between a burglar and a houseguest! I sincerely doubt that if Mr. Downes, the author of the editorial, returned home from work only to find an intruder sitting on his couch watching his television that his first thought would be to offer him a meal and a job! Nor would he invite the intruder to have his family join him! Let us make a couple of points clear. Every nation is defined by its borders. Think back to the study of geography in high school or college. This was about borders. Virtually every nation on the face of this planet enforces its borders. The Mexican government has resorted to extreme measures where its southern border is concerned but then criticizes the United States if we even dare attempt to secure our borders. Politicians in the United States on both sides of the political aisle have been largely unwilling to secure our borders because, to put it succinctly, the Democrats see in the flood of humanity potential voters and the Republicans see massive campaign contributions by those unscrupulous employers who want to hire the cheapest and most compliant labor force possible. Labor is a commodity and the more you flood the labor market with cheap labor, the more you reduce the price of labor. This is wonderful for those who sit at the top of the economic food chain at these corporations but is absolutely a disaster for those of us who actually have to work for a living! Mr. Downes does not like the term illegal aliens and goes on to make it appear that illegal aliens are committing a violation that is probably no more serious than a motorist who fails to drop a couple of quarters in the basket as he drives across a toll bridge. In point of fact, the job of the inspector, a job I am amply familiar with, having begun my career with the INS in 1971 as an immigration inspector assigned to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, is to keep out aliens who pose a threat to our safety and well being. Inspectors are supposed to prevent the entry of aliens into the United States who have criminal histories or suffer mental illness which would cause them to do harm to our citizens. The inspectors are supposed to keep out drug addicts and those who harbor dangerous diseases. Inspectors are supposed to keep out terrorists and violent gang members. They are supposed to keep out those who would become public charges and take the jobs of Americans and those who have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence. Having done the job of immigration inspector, adjudications officer and having spent some 26 years as an INS special agent, I can definitively tell you that there is no way of knowing why an alien circumvents the inspections process in entering our country without inspection. He (she) may simply want to get a job and send money home (Last year some 45 billion dollars was wired from the United States to Latin America and the Caribbean by illegal aliens- that was the 'visible' money that was sent out of our economy, negatively impacting the United States, still more money moves surreptitiously). It is also possible that the alien who enters our country without being inspected is a fugitive in another country wanted for some serious crime. Such an alien might also be a terrorist who is attempting to gain entry in preparation to launch another attack on our country and our people. Think back to Dick Cheney's statement: "We just don't know who they are, where they are or what they are up to!" Furthermore, illegal aliens often commit other crimes such as identity theft in order to work illegally. By working illegally they may be undercutting American workers who can no longer afford do their jobs because illegal aliens will work for substandard wages under what are often illegally dangerous conditions. Driver's licenses for illegal aliens not only enable illegal aliens to drive but to create credible and potentially false identities for themselves, a strategy employed by terrorists and criminals. Yet Mr. Downes would make the emotional claim that he only wants to help illegal aliens who want to go to college and provide them with benefits and incentives that we do not provide to United States citizen children. This is the equivalent of offering to subsidize your neighbor's child's education while telling your own kids that they are on their own and will have to work their way through college! What part of the word "Reality" doesn't Mr. Downes understand? The reality is that, as I have stated on numerous occasions, "A nation without secure borders can no more stand than can a house without walls!" If we want to do what is morally right, then the United States should make it clear that we will not enter into trade agreements with any country that fails to meet the needs of its citizens by providing universal education to its citizens with real economic opportunities to live decent lives within their own country. Poverty and human suffering pervades the world. The United States cannot have all of the worlds poor come here; the United Nations estimates that some one billion human beings are so poor that they do not have access to safe drinking water! There is a saying, "If you give a man a fish, you will feed him for a day. If you teach him how to fish, you will feed him for his lifetime!" It is time that the United States took that concept to heart and made Americans first within their own country! This would be in the best interests of We the People and would, at the same time, provide better lives for people around the world! THE TRUTH ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION Every day thousands of illegal aliens are crossing the southern border of the United States with Mexico, known as the Mexican border. These people cannot be called immigrants because immigrants enter the United States through ports of entry and obtain permission to live here, work here, and generally make the effort to become United States citizens, complete with speaking the English language. This is not the case with the thousands illegally entering the United States along the Mexican border. These people do not have permission to live here, work here, and generally make no effort to become United States citizens or speak American English. The hue and cry over illegal aliens residing in the United States has been growing in the past several years. The Minutemen Project was organized to provide observers along the Mexican border in an effort to staunch the flow of illegal aliens entering this country. This movement has survived the malicious maligning of pro-illegal alien groups and the likes of the ACLU who has left no opportunity untaken to paint the Minutemen as gun-toting vigilantes taking the law into their own hands. Not true but the characterization is intended to discourage Americans from lending a helping hand or giving monetary support to these brave souls who are, in too many cases, risking their lives by being observers and extra eyes helping the Border Patrol do its job. For people living next to or near the Mexican border, living there has become a living nightmare with illegal aliens trashing land, homes, and outbuildings; killing landowners, Border Patrol agents, and tourists unfortunate enough to get in their way; killing or stealing livestock; stealing vehicles, guns, and anything else they can get their hands on. Within the continental United States not a day goes by but what we hear of another instance in which an American is brutally murdered, sodomized, raped or assaulted by a Mexican citizen in the United States illegally. The violent street gang Mara Salvatrucha 13 (M-13) arrived in the United States from El Salvador by way of Mexico. The gang is nation-wide, is considered extremely dangerous, a currently is believed to control much of the illegal activity along the Mexican border including smuggling drugs, guns and illegal aliens for profit from Mexico to the United States. MS-13 is well-known for targeting and killing law enforcement personnel. In early 2005, there was believed to be 5 to 6,000 MS-13 gang members in Washington, DC and adjoining communities in Virginia and Maryland. That is just one area of the United States. A recent encounter with a member of this group by an American citizen should give some indication of how dangerous this group is. We shall, for the sake of protecting the American, call him “Bob.” Bob discovered an abandoned trailer on a nearby property and sought out its owner, wanting to legally obtain the trailer if the owner no longer wanted it. A knock at the door was answered to find an individual of Hispanic origin there concerning the trailer. The man made it clear that he was an illegal alien who wanted and intended to take the trailer, irrespective of its rightful owner. An argument ensued in which the illegal alien removed his shirt, displaying his gang symbol tattoo, telling Bob that he “liked to harm white men, would burn down (Bob’s) house then fade back into the barrios of Los Angeles or maybe Raleigh, North Carolina if (he) didn’t get (his) way in obtaining the trailer.” This is an all too-common occurrence in the Southwestern United States and is becoming more of a problem in other parts of the United States as well. While some MS-13 gang threats are pure intimidation, too many are actualized to consider any threat as hot air. Beyond the criminal conduct threatened, the racial slur is evident. Had this been a white man stating he liked to harm Hispanics or Mexicans, law enforcement, the prosecuting authority, the FBI and the United States Department of Justice would have been johnny-on-the-spot; the media would have showed up en force; and the rhetoric about “hate” would have flowed like wine. Just ask Roy Warden who had the audacity to burn a Mexican flag in Arizona. The rhetoric emanating from the local political machine has been endless. While burning the American flag would have been just okay, Warden now finds himself indicted in a politically motivated move to assuage the local Mexican illegal alien populace. Quite obviously, these illegal aliens have never intended to become Americans but expect to be able to live in America as Mexicans flying their Mexican flag while reaping every benefit possible at the expense of American taxpayers. But it’s okay for Mexican illegals to burn the American flag on American soil, fly the Mexican flag on American soil (which is considered an act of foreign occupation), mouth racial slurs against whites on American soil, and threaten Americans on American soil. By now most have heard of La Raza, one of the organizations supporting Mexican illegal aliens in America. La Raza in English means “The Race.” Obviously, the intended connotation is that Mexicans are The Race. What could possibly speak more clearly of racial bigotry and hate? What could possibly speak more clearly of the intent of the Mexican illegal alien populace residing in the United States? The following, written by Bruce Westcott, is not the picture the mainstream media paints of the illegal alien populace in the United States. “I have stood in grocery store lines watching my earned income distributed to illegals. My family van was demolished by an illegal alien - we have no recourse. My wife and I have been in pediatric clinics being practically the only paying customers. My family has endured emergency room delays caused by non-paying demands from illegal aliens. I have been offered home sales' agreements including mortgage financing guarantees for illegal aliens. My son was forced to relocate his schooling caused by overcrowding of children of illegal aliens.” Nor is it the picture painted by the myriad of illegal aliens showing up in front of mainstream media cameras for their fifteen minutes of fame, pontificating on how they just want to make a living. If they can’t make a living in Mexico, then they, as Mexicans, have a responsibility to make things different in their own country, not come to America illegally. We have all heard President Bush’s take on the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country: “They are here to do jobs that American’s won’t do.” Really? A recent Pew Hispanic Center study shows that of the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country, 3% provide stoop farm labor; the other 97% are taking jobs away from Americans in the fields of construction, hospitality, manufacturing, restaurant, administrative and service jobs. In real terms, that equates to 11.64 to 19.4 million jobs that Americans want and need! Granted hiring illegals to do these jobs is less costly to the employer but certainly not less costly to the consumer. The employer pays the illegal aliens lower wages, provides no benefits, but charges the same price as though he were; the profit going into the employer’s pocket. Greed is the name of the game while, American taxpayers foot the bill for medical care, unemployment and welfare for these illegal aliens. But hiring illegal aliens, just as illegally crossing the border from Mexico into the United States, is against the law. That is the bottom line: it is against the law!!! Our nation was established on the strength of law irrespective of race, color or creed; equal opportunity, equal access and equal protection under the law. This is the foundation of our constitutional republican form of government. This is also diametrically opposed to democracy — rule by man according to his own passions, opinions and prejudices with the whims of the majority visited upon the minority. As James Madison stated, in Federalist Number 10, such a form of government “is as short in its life as it is violent in its death” for reasons that should be obvious. Yet here we have President Bush stating over and over that the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country are here to do jobs that Americans won’t. Over and above being the epitome of the axiom that a lie repeated oft enough becomes truth, Bush is totally disregarding the law in pursuit of his personal passions, opinions and prejudices (democracy). President Bush thinks we should have a guest worker program and amnesty for the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens already in the United States. In some form or other Senators Kennedy, McCain, Specter, Brownback, DeWine, Martinez, Hagel and Graham concur with Bush’s total disregard for the law which states illegals shall be deported back to their country of origin. And what could have possibly been a better place to start doing that then the nation-wide gatherings of illegal aliens to protest immigration reform? Where was the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), charged with deporting illegal aliens, while these illegal aliens were so conveniently gathered at specified places across the United States? Why were these illegal aliens allowed to disrupt the lives of Americans? Why weren’t these illegal aliens rounded up — lock, stock and barrel — and shipped back across the border to Mexico? The cost to do that couldn’t possibly be any greater than what these illegals have cost the American people already, and surely not more than Bush has squandered invading Iraq and pursuing his phony War on Terror. And speaking of Iraq, if Bush is so adamant about his War on Terror, why hasn’t he secured our borders? How many terrorists have crossed our open borders since September 11, 2001? When we compare Bush’s vociferous pontificating about his War on Terror, then compare the same to his open-borders policy, the two obviously don’t coalesce which then poses the question of “what is really going on here?” Bush, as his father GHW Bush, is a proponent of the One World Government concept and agenda with, of course, America at the top of the heap, leading the way — the one world government being the result of American imperialist expansion. First it was Afghanistan, then Iraq; now Bush is threatening Iran. All of this, of course, must sail under the flag of some ship of reason and that ship is the phony War on Terror emanating from the created “crisis” of September 11, 2001. And the open-border policy with Mexico also plays right into Bush’s plan for American imperialist expansion — the incorporating of Mexico, the United States and Canada into one. No borders, one government. Why deport 12 to 20 million Mexicans when the plan is to dissolve that border in the near future and become one happy family of Americans — of course? Don’t believe it? Download and watch the campaign ad recently discovered in which Bush, in 2004, plays to illegal aliens under the guise of courting the vote of people of Hispanic race legally in America; the give-away of who his intended audience is being at the very end of the ad when Bush is clearly visible holding and waving the Mexican flag. For those who truly believe that Bush is a conservative, a good Christian man; that he is looking out for America’s best interests; that September 11, 2001 was the sole product of foreign terrorists; that the War on Terror is truly about terrorism; that George Walker Bush walks on water; I say, “hogwash!” Bush has no more allegiance to America, the founding principles of America, or the American people than did Benedict Arnold! BUSH AND FOX IN LOCK-STEP ON ILLEGALS IN AMERICA News last week brought the startling, if not shocking, announcement that the American government has been providing the Mexican government with the location of citizen groups and citizen volunteers acting as extra eyes and ears to the American Border Patrol. The shock to many is that the American government would do such a thing, putting the lives of innocent Americans in jeopardy. Then came the no less shocking news that Mexican consulate officials were provided office space in the Tucson offices of the U.S. Border Patrol in February, 2006, and are being allowed to dictate Border Patrol agent’s activities. At least one agent resigned in protest. And, of course, as is usual when the government gets caught engaging in unethical (or treasonous) activities, its standard operating procedure (SOP) is to deny, deny, deny. However, information that has only been given to the government by the citizen groups helping patrol the border, and citizen groups acting in other parts of the United States to curb illegal alien activity, has ended up in the hands of the Mexican government and found its way to a Mexican government website. This is information that goes far beyond the requirements of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, requiring that government detained foreign nationals be given access to their consulate. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to deduce that it was the United States government who supplied the Mexican government with that information. Let’s be clear here. We are not talking about immigration — people obtaining the required documents and entering the United States legally; we are talking about illegal aliens, foreign nationals entering the United States at other than legal border checkpoints and without the required identification or documents. And let’s be very clear on what this represents. Twelve to 20 million illegal aliens residing within the borders of the United States constitutes an illegal invasion. When the majority of those illegal aliens come from one country, said illegal invasion becomes an act of aggression; in fact, an act of war. That country is Mexico. Article III, § 3, Constitution, United States of America: “Treason, proof and punishment. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.” In providing a foreign nation (Mexico) information deleterious to the health and safety of American citizens, those responsible have committed an act of treason in “adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort” when the enemy is levying war against America. Who is ultimately responsible for this act of treason? Twice in the last month, Americans have been witness to the orchestrated demonstrations of illegal aliens in major American cities. On May 1, 2006, the intent was to show Americans how much economic damage the illegal aliens, the foreign aggressors, could do in our country by not showing up for work. Sympathetic employers and businesses closed their doors that day in a show of support for these illegal invaders. But the effort fell flat as the economic impact wasn’t even a blip on the radar screen of American commerce. The effect was however, a more than adequate demonstration to the American people of the sheer numbers of illegal aliens being allowed to live without fear of deportation in the United States while they take jobs from the people of the United States who need them. In turn, the money being made by these illegal invaders is being sent out of the United States to Mexico while American taxpayers foot the medical and welfare bills of the illegal aliens, and while the companies employing the illegal aliens pocket the profit from not paying taxes or benefits, paying lower wages but maintaining comparable market price. And while these illegal invaders blocked streets, caused congestion, and cost American taxpayers the overtime and extra police needed to monitor their illegal activities, not one illegal was deported as required by law. And with the exception of possibly the Honorable Representative Ron Paul (Texas) and the Honorable Representative Tom Tancredo (Colorado), not one United States Senator or Representative had the gumption to stand up and demand these illegal invaders be rounded up and deported. Some explanation of why this did not occur can be found in an article written by Melissa Sattly on August 19, 2001 and published in the Brownsville Herald. In the article a Mexican citizen and former government official is quoted as stating, “In Mexico, Bush is viewed as a friend because he is making changes in the United States to open borders, fight the trucking issue and promote immigration reform.” The article has other telling statements to make, “Immigration is another hot topic of dialogue between Fox and Bush. In past speeches the Mexican president has advocated an open border policy and amnesty for more than 3 million Mexicans living illegally in the United States. Bush has proposed granting the amnesty and supports a guest worker program, sponsored by Republican Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas, that would offer limited work permits to Mexicans working certain jobs in the United States.” The article also allows as how while governor of Guanajuato, Mexico, Fox “saw firsthand the powerful draw of jobs north of the border.” All of this according to the passions, prejudices and opinions of President George W Bush in complete indifference to the law that requires illegal aliens to be deported to their nation of origin. We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy in which the passions, opinions and prejudices of the majority are visited upon the minority in an act of oppression; constitutional republic vs democracy; rule of law vs passions, opinions and prejudices. America was established on the rule of law, not as a democracy. The law says these illegal invaders must be deported. It is the responsibility of our elected representatives in Washington DC to see that they are deported. The cost to American taxpayers in wages, benefits, crime, medical, schooling and welfare has and will continue to far exceed the cost of deportation. But in his total disregard for the law in pursuit of his passions, opinions and prejudices, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why President George W Bush has done nothing about the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens now residing in the United States; 9 to 17 million more than was estimated in 2001. Further, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the actions of government employees under his leadership is a direct reflection of his policies; in this instance, providing information deleterious to the health and safety of American citizens to the Mexican government due to Bush and Fox being of one accord regarding the illegal invasion of America by citizens of Mexico. That the United States government is supplying information to a foreign government deleterious to the lives and safety of American citizens is an act of treason. It is also an impeachable offense that President George W Bush has and is allowing this to happen. It becomes apparent that his allegiance to Fox and the nation of Mexico is greater than his allegiance to the United States of America which is also an impeachable offense. And then, of course, there is that ever-present fact that if GW was serious about stopping terrorism, he would secure our southern border and stop the illegal invasion. It becomes very obvious that the War on Terror is not about terrorism but about control and oppression of the American people. Along this same line, Title IV of Public Law 107-56, the U.S. Patriot Act, is entitled “Protecting the Border”. Subtitle A of Title IV addresses the northern border (with Canada); there is no provision for protecting the southern border. Now one would assume, given the greater potential for terrorists to cross the southern border, that this section would make provision for that probability, and if GW was serious about protecting the United States of America from terrorists, the Patriot Act would carry such a provision. That it doesn’t makes it apparent that GW wants that border left open to terrorists and further, that the Patriot Act is about controlling Americans, not stopping terrorism. Former impeached president William Jefferson Clinton desecrated the Oval Office by playing around with Monica Lewinsky. Is illegal spying on the American people any different? Is lying to the American people any different? Is invading Iraq under a false flag any different? Is initiating the phony War on Terror under a false flag any different? Is exerting undue influence on a supposedly independent commission investigating 9/11 any different? Is illegally databasing millions of telephone records from AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth any different? Is committing acts of treason any different? In short, President George Walker Bush is no better than William Jefferson Clinton was. To claim Clinton was wrong because he is a Democrat but Bush is right because he is a Republican is the epitome of hypocrisy. Republican or Democrat, right is right, wrong is wrong, and treason is treason. George Walker Bush deserves to be, and should be, impeached. For providing the Mexican government with information deleterious to the health and safety of American citizens, he should be charged with treason. THE BUSH CHRONICLES: CONNECTING THE DOTS Last week started off with the revelation, by a British newspaper that Cheney is pushing Bush to act on Iran. It is telling, indeed, that American citizens have to resort to reading foreign news websites to find out what American politicos are really up to; testament, indeed, to the efficacy and veracity of American mainstream media. It isn’t bad enough that Bush embroiled America and American troops in a false flag operation in Iraq; now he is considering compounding that egregious err in judgment by invading Iran on the assumption that Iran is building nuclear capability? Napoleon was a small man with a big ego; so was Hitler; and, so it seems, is George W Bush. Only a mad man with no regard for the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights would ever entertain the idea of such an egregious abuse of power. But last week, like so many before it, was highlighted by more incidents of egregious abuse and overextension of power by the executive branch under George W Bush. Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR), member of the Homeland Security Committee, was denied access to classified documents concerning continuity of government (how government will be conducted) during a terrorist attack. Speaking of his ordeal, DeFazio had this comment to make, “Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right…” What was his first clue? Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was denied a requested briefing on how the Pentagon planned to safely withdraw American troops from Iraq. In denying that request “Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman did not mince words. ‘Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies…’” Say what? That discussion has been all over the news media for weeks, making it obvious that in making said statement the Pentagon has made no accommodation for the safe withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. At the same time, George W Bush has worked tirelessly in pursuit of the New World Order/One World Order (NWO/OWO) agenda. After losing his bid to pass the illegal alien amnesty bill, a bill that would have allowed 12 to 20,000,000 illegal aliens legal residency in the United States, Bush lap dog, Michael Chertoff, head of Homeland Security inclusive of the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), went before cameras to make the case that enforcement was “gonna get ugly”; that border patrol personnel would be viewed as “mean and nasty”; that business would condemn the economic effect. Glenn Spencer of American Patrol called this tack by Chertoff a gambit; an opening move intended, ultimately, to gain advantage. “Chertoff is selectively enforcing immigration law to create monstrosities … He is doing this to evoke outrage and, ultimately, support for Bush's amnesty program.” Why would Bush do that? The light of truth is shed when one knows that Bush is a key player in the treasonous move to dissolve the borders between the United States, Canada and Mexico to form a European Union clone, the North American Union, dissolving the borders of the United States and forming one nation devoid of the cumbersome and restrictive U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. With that knowledge, it is easy to see why Bush would do that: he doesn’t want to send illegal aliens back to their country of origin. And since the American people obviously aren’t buying his premise that we, as a nation of immigrants, equate with 12 to 20,000,000 illegal immigrants here in violation of existing U.S. law; he is using this ploy to create discourse, civil upheaval and unrest. The means justifies the ends. We learned this week that among the countries of origin is Iraq. A news item this past week divulged that Iraqis, for some time now, have been smuggled across the Rio Grande into the United States; the result of Bush’s refusal/failure to secure our borders following the events of September 11, 2001. A growing number of Americans now believe that September 11, 2001 was the result of the enemy within, not foreign born and trained terrorists. The obvious growing number of illegal Iraqi civilians in the United States; the fact that, despite Chertoff’s “gut feeling”, there have been no significant incidence of terrorism in the United States since September 11, 2001, would tend to bolster that conclusion. Said Chertoff, before the microphones of the Chicago Tribune, “Summertime seems to be appealing to them (al-Qaeda) … We do worry that they are rebuilding their activities.” Sure enough, the very next day, the National Intelligence Estimate was released, noting “that al-Qaeda has been able ‘to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks,’ by associating itself with an Iraqi subsidiary.” Never mind the fact that al-Qaeda had no foothold, connection or presence in Iraq before Bush invaded the country under a false flag. It would be accurate to say that Bush provided a breeding ground for al-Qaeda recruits. This week, too, we heard Bush tell reporters, when questioned about pardons for Agents Ramos and Compean, railroaded by Bush shill, Johnnie “open borders” Sutton, “I know this is an emotional issue, but people need to look at the facts … These men were convicted by a jury of their peers after listening to the facts as my friend, Johnny Sutton, presented them.” Lewis “Scooter” Libby was also found guilty by a jury of his peers. Quite obviously, Bush’s commutation of Libby’s sentence had nothing to do with the fact that the jury also listened to the facts and found Libby guilty. The double standard is hard to miss. And the difference also points to Bush’s arrogance. While Agents Ramos and Compean were prosecuted for doing their job protecting American from a drug dealing scumbag who was given immunity and special privileges by Sutton in return for his testimony, Lewis “Scooter” Libby actually was guilty of obstruction of justice. The message is clear: if you are working class America, you will be found guilty whether you are or not, and you will go to jail; if you are a member of the elitist class, you will get a “get out of jail free” card even if you are guilty as charged. Bush’s assertion that Sutton presented the facts is a hideous joke. Anyone who has ever had much experience with the legal system (what the American justice system has become) knows that the facts aren’t what get presented in the present-day courts which would be better described as kangaroo courts. Still think Bush is a “compassionate leader” who cares about John Q Public? And we learned this week of yet another Bush executive order “blocking property of certain persons who threaten stabilization efforts in Iraq” without notice; said property residing “in the United States”; said person alleged “to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of” … “threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people…” Protest the illegal invasion of Iraq, have your property seized; expose the truth about the illegal invasion of Iraq, have your property seized; oppose the arrogance, the tyranny of Bush and Company, have your property seized. The message is clear: “I’m fed up with my subjects opposing my duty to pursue the NWO/OWO agenda. Sit down and shut up or I will take everything you have worked your entire life for. If you don’t like my defecating on the U.S. Constitutional and Bill of Rights, too bad.” This executive order violates at least three amendments of the Bill of Rights: The First Amendment guaranteeing free speech, right of assembly and right of redress of grievances; the Fourth Amendment protecting from illegal search and seizure; and the Fifth Amendment protecting against forfeiture of life, liberty and property without due process of law and seizure of property without just compensation. If you don’t think this applies to you, think again. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and Bush and Company are shining examples of the arrogance, the total disregard for rights and property that tyrants display. And if Senator Feingold’s push to censure Bush is any indication, both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives have the will power of a castrated bull! No doubt Bush and Company are just quaking in their shoes! Not only is Bush the worst president in recorded history, but the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives obviously join him in their respective capacities. Following the convoluted path of events, it becomes more than a little obvious that the “war on terror” is really a war on America and the American people with Bush leading the NWO/OWO charge. In 1992, George HW Bush, father of George W Bush, responded to this question from the late Sarah McClendon, “What will the people do if they ever find out the truth about Iraq-gate and Iran contra?” this way, “…if the American people ever find out what we have done, they will chase us down the streets and lynch us.” George W Bush is obviously a chip off the old block! THE BUSH FAMILY AMERICA DOESN'T KNOW In 1938, William Dodd, ambassador to Germany, sent President Franklin Delano Roosevelt the following message: "A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime.... A prominent executive of one of the largest corporations, told me point blank that he would be ready to take definite action to bring fascism into America if President Roosevelt continued his progressive policies. Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there. Propagandists for fascist groups try to dismiss the fascist scare. We should be aware of the symptoms. When industrialists ignore laws designed for social and economic progress they will seek recourse to a fascist state when the institutions of our government compel them to comply with the provisions." In 1933, Marine Corp Major General Smedley Butler was approached by a cabal of influential American bankers and industrialists working under the umbrella of the front group, American Liberty League. Their request of Butler: that he lead a 500,000 strong force of rogue veterans in a coup against FDR and the legal American government. The intent of this cabal, already supporting the efforts of Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, was to instill a government not unlike that of Hitler and Mussolini in the United States. Butler went along with the scheme until he was able to ascertain who the participants were. He then blew the whistle on this group before the House Committee on un-American Activities. For his efforts, Butler was ostracized and black-balled by the mainstream media; his testimony before the House Committee on un-American Activities was omitted from the record. The cabal was never brought to justice, but the coup was foiled. Who were the American bankers and industrialists involved in this plot to overthrow the legal government of the United States? According to Wikipedia, while most of the funding came from the Du Pont family, participants included U.S. Steel, General Motors, General Foods, Standard Oil, Birdseye, Colgate, Heinz Foods, Chase National Bank, and Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. And among the participants in this coup attempt was one Prescott Bush, father of George Herbert Walker Bush, 41st president of the United States, grandfather of George W Bush, current president of the United States. Prescott Bush was not only instrumental in bringing Hitler to power in Germany, Mussolini to power in Italy, but was also plotting to overthrow the legal government of the United States and establish a fascist state here. Prescott Bush served as a Senator from Connecticut and was a partner in the prominent investment banking firm Brown Brothers Harriman. It was from the lips of George Herbert Walker Bush that the American people heard the phrase, “New World Order.” And America watched as GHW Bush passed the reins of power to his “good friend who is like a member of the family,” William Jefferson Clinton, who then passed the reins on to George Walker Bush in what can only be termed a fraud-ridden election, re-elected for a second term in the same manner. Under the reign of George Walker Bush, we have watched him wage war on America, the American people, and American sovereignty; we have watched him institute executive order after executive order in his pursuit of absolute power, labeling himself “the decider” while the American legislative branch does absolutely nothing to curtail his abuse of power. His actions mirror those of Hitler in his quest for power in Germany. And just like Hitler, Bush is using fear to keep the American people supporting his un-American activities, starting with the events of September 11, 2001. And every time Bush wants something more, another threat emerges and Congress and the American people, with few exceptions, fall in step. Yet the greatest threat to the American people, American sovereignty, the American way of life sits in the White House, not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, not in the Middle East. And if the reins of power are passed from George Walker Bush, which many at this point have serious doubts will happen, given Bush’s ability to wage war on the American people through terrorism and the American people’s willingness to blame the same on foreign born terrorists, that power will be passed, by corrupted balloting if necessary, to Hillary Rodham Clinton, protégé of self-avowed Marxist Saul Alinsky, who, in his book, Rules for Radicals, paid homage to Lucifer as “the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom.” (1971; Vintage Books; dedication page) Prophetic, indeed! This past week we saw the collapse of the 35W bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Those in the know are ware that this bridge is part of the I-35 NAFTA Super Highway Corridor, bisecting the United States; providing transport on Mexican trucks of foreign cargo from the NAFTA port in Mexico through the United States to Canada and points east and west along that corridor. Later this month, Bush will meet with his Security and Prosperity Partnership counterparts from Mexico and Canada, President Felipe Calderon and Prime Minister Steven Harper, to further the dissolution of the United States, Canada and Mexico into the European Union style regional world government entity, the North American Union. Unlike the quick disposal of the Murrah Building and the WTC complex in New York, both the targets of “terrorist activity”, the 35W bridge still lies in the water with the National Transportation Safety Board, the FBI, state and local officials mulling over the scene and promising that the reason for the failure will be found. Remember, this is the same NTSB that did the flight simulation of the plane supposedly inbound to the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, for the FBI; the simulation that when studied by pilotsfor911truth.com using the flight data recorder information provided by NTSB, found that the plane in question actually over flew the Pentagon by 300 to 400 feet! Not only this, but that the simulator as provided by NTSB showed the plane on a different inbound trajectory than the path that supposedly sheered five light poles. When questioned about these obvious anomalies, the NTSB had “no comment.” Imagine that! In the case of the 35W bridge, government officials knew the bridge was structurally deficient; that the bridge needed work; but did nothing to correct the problems. The government can lose 2.3 trillion dollars into a black hole in the Pentagon budget, money that has never been accounted for in the six years since September 10, 2001; the government can spend trillions on an illegal and unconstitutional false flag invasion of Iraq; but the government can’t fix bridges that provide access for the average American worker until after those bridges collapse and the resulting deaths become political fodder for talking heads such as George Walker Bush. It took the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate all of 48 hours following the collapse of the 35W bridge to write, introduce and pass HR 3311, providing $250 million to rebuild the 35W bridge. What is the worth of the lives lost because of government negligence? Will the American people ever be told the truth about why the 35W bridge collapsed or will the government, in a CYA move so typical when wrong-doing is apparent, move to cover its tracks, obfuscate the issue, and provide no real answers? One has to wonder when people like W. Gene Corley, senior vice president of CTL Group, an engineering firm, who helped investigate both the Murrah Building and the WTC, are involved. Both sights were scrubbed as quickly as possible, with no criminal investigation, leading any reasoning individual to the conclusion that the government definitely had something to hide. Adding insult to injury in the collapse of the 35W bridge, George W Bush, on August 4, 2007, before the microphones in Minneapolis, Minnesota, quipped, “God Bless the people of this part of the world.” True to form, King George. Or has “the decider” now become World Emperor George? George W Bush is obviously a chip off the old block! THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA-OR A BURKA I don’t go to the movies much these days. But I did see “United 93” and “World Trade Center” because they presented a positive view of Americans dealing with incredibly difficult circumstances which have impacted the lives of all of us. The Islamic terrorist attack on the Twin Towers was an attack on all of us. But then, for some unfathomable reason, I also went to see “The Devil Wears Prada.” It was on a whim, and I had no idea what the movie was about. But I was intrigued by the title because it suggested sophisticated subject matter. I had seen Prada ads in glossy magazines. The models always looked sick, drugged, or depressed. It was a cult of ugliness parading as high fashion. But the film was a great surprise. I enjoyed it so much that I went to see it twice. The story is from a novel by a young writer, Lauren Weisberger, who tells a tale of what it was like to work for an impossible boss, the editor of a great fashion magazine. It is a roman a clef, and anyone in the New York fashion field would know whom she was writing about. However, the film rises far above the novel in every way. First, the magazine editor, Miranda Priestly, is played by the incomparable Meryl Streep. She’s a very demanding boss, but she also represents some very positive values: intelligence, savoir-faire, creativity, and responsibility. Streep creates a character as unforgettable as Scarlet O’Hara. Anne Hathaway plays Andrea Sachs, the midwestern girl right out of college, who comes to New York seeking her fortune and winds up working for Miranda. But in the end Andrea becomes disillusioned with the glamorous but dog-eat-dog world of high fashion, deserts her boss at a crucial media moment and dumps her cell-phone in a Paris fountain. The little snot then returns to her down-to-earth sous-chef of a boyfriend—Mr. Philosophy 101—and tells him how right he was about everything. But the main character of this movie is not Miranda Priestly, but the fabulous city of New York, the glittering island of Manhattan, the greatest, most glamorous city ever created in the history of civilization. The photographic sweeps over Manhattan in brilliant sunlight and also at night with its lights and sleek automobiles tell the story of a civilization so rich, so technologically advanced, so dazzling, so powerful, that Islamic terrorists could bring down the gigantic Twin Towers without crippling the city. The beauty of Miranda Priestly is that she represents the American woman in all her liberated glory, ruling the fashion world with decisive finesse. Fashion is very much at the heart of Western civilization and secular culture. Paris, New York, London are the arbiters of what everyone will wear just about everywhere except in the dark recesses of the Islamic world. There, women wear the burka, a symbol of inferiority and enslavement. The burka represents a barbaric state of mind that stifles the Islamic world and baffles the West. Polly Toynbee wrote in The Guardian after the liberation of Afghanistan: The top-to-toe burka, with its sinister, airless little grille, is more than an instrument of persecution, it is a public tarring and feathering of female sexuality. It transforms any woman into an object of defilement too untouchably disgusting to be seen. Thus, you can safely bet that no one, not even a sword-wielding Islamofascist threatening to cut her head off, could ever force Miranda Priestly to wear a burka! If there is a clash of civilizations, it is between the glamorous, liberated fashion world of the West and the dismal, enslaving world of the burka. Stanley Kurtz wrote in the National Review: “The conflict between modernity and the traditional Muslim view of women is one of the most important causes of this war.” The purpose of American military power is to protect the freedom of the Miranda Priestlys of our world so that they can express beauty and creativity without fear of the enemy. It is the duty of American men to protect American women—intelligent, creative, and nurturing. Also, I did not detect a vulgar word or expression during the entire film. And equally impressive were the scenes made on location in New York, in which Andrea dodges taxis or walks through crowds. Everything is authentic. The scenes in Paris were equally authentic in every detail. The director, David Frankel, took great pains to make every scene as real and true as possible. Obviously, Frankel loves New York and knows the city. He is the son of Max Frankel, executive editor of The New York Times. He went to Hollywood to write TV sitcoms and make movies. When one reads the credits at the end of this movie, one gets just a small idea of what it takes to produce a film of this kind. It was a major cultural and technological undertaking, and in this case the result is brilliant and exhilarating. If there is a clash of civilizations, it is between the glamorous, liberated fashion world of the West and the dismal, enslaving world of the burka. A NECESSARY AND WINNABLE WAR The recent assassination of Pierre Gemayel, a leading pro-Western Christian politician in Lebanon, has all the earmarks of an Hezbollah-Iranian operation carried out with or without Syrian help. Iran is now pouring millions of dollars into Lebanon to rebuild Hezbollah’s military strength, and is also financing Hamas in Gaza. Iran considers the pro-Western Christians of Lebanon as much an enemy as Israel, and she may very well ignite another civil war to finally bring the Christians under Muslim domination. In other words, what happens there is going to have a serious impact on American security one way or another. All of which brings us to the war in Iraq. Much of the criticism of that war has been emotional and irrational. Why? Because it is a war difficult to understand. Also, we have never fought a war of this kind before. But be that as it may, the war can only be characterized as a noble struggle against tyranny. It is part of the American plan to bring democracy to the Middle East, to free its people from cruel dictators and radical Islam. That it has turned out to be a very difficult war is no reason to throw in the towel and go home. It is all the more reason for us to hang tough. The war has already won us several dividends. It persuaded Libya to give up its nuclear ambitions. It has produced a friendly democratically elected government in Iraq, and it provides us with a base of military operations close to our deadliest enemy: Iran. We have been in a state of belligerency with Iran ever since its student hotheads invaded the American embassy in Teheran in November 1979 and held 52 staff members hostage for more than a year. Its new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a latter day Hitler, who was a 23-year-old student when the U.S. embassy was seized, has threatened to wipe Israel off the map and wants Americans to get out of Iraq. A retreat from Iraq would convince the Iranians that we are weak and unwilling to defend our interests. The war by radical Islam against the West is a World War being fought on many fronts, from New York to Bali to Madrid to London. While we have zeroed in on al Qaeda as the focus of our attention because of the attacks on New York and the Pentagon on 9/11, we must not forget that those attacks were merely part of the larger war. Without 9/11 we would have never invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. Whatever you may think of how we got into Iraq, the simple fact is that the Iraqi front is where the war is presently being fought at its greatest intensity, because that’s where the terrorists have concentrated their efforts to defeat the United States and the democratic government it helped create. And because of all the defeatist rhetoric coming out of Washington, the terrorists are now confident they can win. Why did we ever believe that the Islamic terrorist movement that produced the killers of 9/11 would be easy to defeat in their own home territory? Probably because we were able to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban in a short war with few casualties, and we were able to remove Saddam Hussein in a short and brilliant invasion of Iraq. That gave us the false impression that the Jihadists were a pushover. Nor could we anticipate that Muslims would wind up killing each other in such cruel, barbaric, inhuman ways. So, how do we win such a war? By simply hunkering down in Iraq and protecting its new-born democracy from destruction by the insurgency. Yes, it means suffering casualties, but we tend to forget that the enemy was able to kill 3,000 innocent individuals on American soil in just a few hours. The war is winnable provided we understand what winning means. Winning means preventing the enemy from taking power in Iraq. It’s that simple. An American retreat from Iraq would produce catastrophic consequences. It would enable Iran to establish its political hegemony over Iraq, force the Kurds to leave the Baghdad government and create an independent Kurdistan giving Turkey the pretext to invade Kurdistan. It would turn Iraq once more into an enemy of the U.S., destabilize Pakistan, encourage the Taliban in Afghanistan to increase their efforts to regain power in Kabul, and serve notice to both Israel and the Lebanese Christians that America does not have the stomach to defend them. Another serious consequence is that the world-wide Jihad would go after American interests all over the world and do its utmost to create terror in the U. S. itself. An even more serious consequence is what a defeat in Iraq would do to the American psyche and the morale of our military forces. Our soldiers in Iraq are true American heroes who believe in victory. If their government in Washington goes belly-up, there is no telling what members of that force might do when they get home. In addition, all respect for the United States as a great military power would evaporate. The Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, and Islamists would rejoice at the debasing and humbling of the United States as a paper tiger and laugh at our moral pretenses. Would an America defeated in Iraq come to the aid of Taiwan if invaded by the Communist Chinese? Would we be capable of preventing the Iranians from producing a full-fledged nuclear weapon? Would we have to leave it up to little Israel to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability? Would we be capable of preventing the North Korean thug from producing his own nuclear arsenal? Would our retreat make the world safer for our children? As a Malaysian statesman observed in Mark Steyn’s book, America Alone, “The central issue is America’s credibility and will to prevail.” In short, we cannot afford defeat. Too many Americans seem to believe that peace can come cheap. And if we must go to war, it must be an easy war. But there are no easy wars. This nation has been fighting wars ever since it was born out of the War for Independence. We fought the Barbary War in Jefferson’s time, the Mexican War in 1848, our own Civil War in 1861-65, the Spanish-American War in 1898, then World War One, World War Two, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Invasion of Grenada, the Bosnian War, the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War, and now the Iraq War. And who is stupid enough to believe that Iraq will be our last war? In short, the war in Iraq is both noble and moral, it is a necessary part of our struggle against world Jihadism, and it is quite winnable as long as we understand what winning means: preventing the enemy from destroying the first democratically elected government in Iraq’s history. In the stern and prophetic words of President Andrew Jackson: “No one need think that the world can be ruled without blood. The civil sword shall and must be red and bloody….Take time to deliberate; but when the time for action arrives, stop thinking and go in.” HELLBENT ON DEFEAT My dictionary defines hellbent as "firmly resolved or recklessly determined," which is exactly what the opponents of the Iraq war are up to in their mindless quest for defeat. It was nauseating to actually see the Democrats sit on their hands during the State of the Union address when the President mentioned the word "victory." For Democrats, and even some Republicans, victory has become a dirty word. The Democrats want the American people to believe that defeat is good and striving for victory is bad. Indeed, the last thing the Democrats want is for Bush to achieve victory, for that would hurt their chances of regaining the White House and it would repudiate the left-wing view that victory is not possible in our global war against Islamic terrorism. I recently picked up a copy of Time magazine of May 25, 1942, published while we were engaged in World War II. On the cover is a portrait of Yugoslavia's Draja Mihailovich, the intrepid leader of Serb resistance against Hitler's army. He was one of the true heroes of the war but was later betrayed by the Communists and executed. But what is most interesting in that issue of Time are the many ads calling for victory against the Axis powers. The Pennsylvania Railroad ad reads, "Helping the Navy Launch Victory," explaining, "warships must go by rail before they go to sea." A Cooper-Bessemer ad proclaimed, "After victory, better Cooper-Bessemers can help produce in plenty those wonder materials…to fulfill the rich promise of this Chemical age." An American Trucking Associations ad states, "You've got a date with a U-Boat. Every truck you see on the road is helping to speed our war effort…many of them working 18 hours a day…none are joy riding." The idea of victory was so pervasive that no American doubted the outcome of that war, regardless of our early setbacks. The reason for this positive state of mind: we wanted to win. And win we did at the cost of 292,131 military lives and 6000 civilian deaths. Senator Kennedy has |