July 2008


 

 Michael Jackson has NO idea if he is Black or White and Barack Hussein Obama IS Black and White.

 

Via the anti-anything American AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) – John McCain accused Barack Obama of playing politics with race on Thursday, raising the explosive issue after the first black candidate with a serious chance of winning the White House claimed Republicans will try to scare voters by saying he "doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

Until now, the subject of race has been almost taboo in the campaign, at least in public, with both sides fearing its destructive force.

"I’m disappointed that Senator Obama would say the things he’s saying," McCain told reporters in Racine, Wis. The Arizona senator said he agreed with campaign manager Rick Davis’ statement earlier that "Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck. It’s divisive, negative, shameful and wrong." The aide was suggesting McCain had been wrongfully accused.

In turn, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said, "We weren’t suggesting in any way he’s using race as an issue" but that McCain "is using the same, old low-road politics that voters are very unhappy about to distract voters from the real issues in this campaign."

A day earlier and in response to a hard-hitting McCain commercial, Obama argued that President Bush and McCain have little to offer voters so Republicans will resort to a strategy of fear to keep the White House.

"What they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, he’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name, you know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

He didn’t explain the comment. But it evoked images of past presidents who grace U.S. paper money, such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson and Ulysses S. Grant. All were white men, and all but Grant were older than Obama when elected.

Obama long has talked about his physical appearance in speeches, but McCain advisers argue he crossed a significant line by accusing the GOP of scare tactics and alluding to his own race in the same breath.

The back-and-forth was the latest spike in a contest that’s grown increasingly negative despite pledges by both Obama and McCain to run aboveboard campaigns. The daily rhetoric has turned red-hot as both maneuver for advantage and polls show the race competitive three months before the election.

At 46, Obama is serving his first Senate term and working to overcome concerns of voters that he’s not ready to be president. McCain is trying to stoke the notion that the Democrat is too inexperienced to make the judgments necessary to lead a country in times of war and economic straits.

Polls show a close contest nationally and in key battleground states, including electoral prizes like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. The political environment after two Bush terms tilts heavily in the Democrats’ favor, but voter skepticism about Obama has helped keep the contest within McCain’s reach.

In recent days, McCain has been going after Obama with new fervor, painting him as not ready to lead and too liberal for the country. It’s an aggressive approach reminiscent of GOP operative Karl Rove, who orchestrated Bush’s back-to-back victories in part by tearing down Democratic opponents.

Now, several of Rove’s former rank-and-file are in elevated roles in McCain’s campaign, and it shows.

Opening a new front Wednesday, the GOP campaign rolled out a hard-hitting commercial that uses pictures of 20-something stars Britney Spears and Paris Hilton to suggest that Obama is little more than a media darling who is unqualified to be president.

"He’s the biggest celebrity in the world, but is he ready to lead?" the ad asks.

Obama’s campaign countered with its own ad that called McCain’s charges "baloney" and "baseless."

In Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on Thursday, Obama steered clear of race as he chided McCain, saying: "So far, all we’ve been hearing about is Paris Hilton. I do have to ask my opponent: ‘Is that the best you can do? Is that what this election is really all about? Is that worthy of the American people?’"

At campaign headquarters in Chicago, Obama’s campaign unveiled a new Web site that accuses McCain of "negative attacks and false charges."

The Democrat’s campaign has been operating under an edict to leave no attack unanswered lest he be tagged with an unshakable label. In 2004, Democrat John Kerry never recovered from the Bush campaign’s efforts to tag him a flip-flopper and elitist, as well as a Republican-aligned group’s questioning of his war record.

Mindful of how a such a damaging narrative can take hold, Obama’s campaign set up a Web site to dispel persistent Internet-driven rumors about his patriotism and religion, and he has sought to reassure voters on the campaign trail.

Often, he refers to his distinctions as a candidate and says that he’s aware there are doubts among some voters because, for example, he has "a funny name." Obama, the son of a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya, also has been known to acknowledge his appearance differs from previous candidates but then to add that the differences are not just about race.

"I know that I don’t look like the Americans who’ve previously spoken in this great city," he said last week in Berlin. And on Tuesday, in Springfield, Mo., he said: "It’s a leap, electing a 46-year-old black guy named Barack Obama."

Race generally remained in the background during the Democratic primary. The issue burst into the open last spring when Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, came under fire for sermons in which he accused the government of conspiring against blacks. Internet videos of his comments threatened great damage to Obama’s campaign.

Seeking to stem the fallout, Obama gave a high profile speech about racial tension in the country and later left Wright’s church.

WASHINGTON (AP) – John McCain accused Barack Obama of playing politics with race on Thursday, raising the explosive issue after the first black candidate with a serious chance of winning the White House claimed Republicans will try to scare voters by saying he "doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

Until now, the subject of race has been almost taboo in the campaign, at least in public, with both sides fearing its destructive force.

"I’m disappointed that Senator Obama would say the things he’s saying," McCain told reporters in Racine, Wis. The Arizona senator said he agreed with campaign manager Rick Davis’ statement earlier that "Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck. It’s divisive, negative, shameful and wrong." The aide was suggesting McCain had been wrongfully accused.

In turn, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said, "We weren’t suggesting in any way he’s using race as an issue" but that McCain "is using the same, old low-road politics that voters are very unhappy about to distract voters from the real issues in this campaign."

A day earlier and in response to a hard-hitting McCain commercial, Obama argued that President Bush and McCain have little to offer voters so Republicans will resort to a strategy of fear to keep the White House.

"What they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, he’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name, you know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

He didn’t explain the comment. But it evoked images of past presidents who grace U.S. paper money, such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson and Ulysses S. Grant. All were white men, and all but Grant were older than Obama when elected.

Obama long has talked about his physical appearance in speeches, but McCain advisers argue he crossed a significant line by accusing the GOP of scare tactics and alluding to his own race in the same breath.

The back-and-forth was the latest spike in a contest that’s grown increasingly negative despite pledges by both Obama and McCain to run aboveboard campaigns. The daily rhetoric has turned red-hot as both maneuver for advantage and polls show the race competitive three months before the election.

At 46, Obama is serving his first Senate term and working to overcome concerns of voters that he’s not ready to be president. McCain is trying to stoke the notion that the Democrat is too inexperienced to make the judgments necessary to lead a country in times of war and economic straits.

Polls show a close contest nationally and in key battleground states, including electoral prizes like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. The political environment after two Bush terms tilts heavily in the Democrats’ favor, but voter skepticism about Obama has helped keep the contest within McCain’s reach.

In recent days, McCain has been going after Obama with new fervor, painting him as not ready to lead and too liberal for the country. It’s an aggressive approach reminiscent of GOP operative Karl Rove, who orchestrated Bush’s back-to-back victories in part by tearing down Democratic opponents.

Now, several of Rove’s former rank-and-file are in elevated roles in McCain’s campaign, and it shows.

Opening a new front Wednesday, the GOP campaign rolled out a hard-hitting commercial that uses pictures of 20-something stars Britney Spears and Paris Hilton to suggest that Obama is little more than a media darling who is unqualified to be president.

"He’s the biggest celebrity in the world, but is he ready to lead?" the ad asks.

Obama’s campaign countered with its own ad that called McCain’s charges "baloney" and "baseless."

In Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on Thursday, Obama steered clear of race as he chided McCain, saying: "So far, all we’ve been hearing about is Paris Hilton. I do have to ask my opponent: ‘Is that the best you can do? Is that what this election is really all about? Is that worthy of the American people?’"

At campaign headquarters in Chicago, Obama’s campaign unveiled a new Web site that accuses McCain of "negative attacks and false charges."

The Democrat’s campaign has been operating under an edict to leave no attack unanswered lest he be tagged with an unshakable label. In 2004, Democrat John Kerry never recovered from the Bush campaign’s efforts to tag him a flip-flopper and elitist, as well as a Republican-aligned group’s questioning of his war record.

Mindful of how a such a damaging narrative can take hold, Obama’s campaign set up a Web site to dispel persistent Internet-driven rumors about his patriotism and religion, and he has sought to reassure voters on the campaign trail.

Often, he refers to his distinctions as a candidate and says that he’s aware there are doubts among some voters because, for example, he has "a funny name." Obama, the son of a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya, also has been known to acknowledge his appearance differs from previous candidates but then to add that the differences are not just about race.

"I know that I don’t look like the Americans who’ve previously spoken in this great city," he said last week in Berlin. And on Tuesday, in Springfield, Mo., he said: "It’s a leap, electing a 46-year-old black guy named Barack Obama."

Race generally remained in the background during the Democratic primary. The issue burst into the open last spring when Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, came under fire for sermons in which he accused the government of conspiring against blacks. Internet videos of his comments threatened great damage to Obama’s campaign.

Seeking to stem the fallout, Obama gave a high profile speech about racial tension in the country and later left Wright’s church.

 

Hezbollah-brigades-logo.jpg

Hezbollah Brigades’ logo is nearly identical to that of Lebanese Hezbollah.

By

Coalition special operations forces captured two members of the Iranian-supported Hezbollah Brigades during a raid in eastern Baghdad on early Thursday morning. The intelligence-driven raid targeted the home of a propaganda cell member, Multinational Forces Iraq reported. The cell member was responsible for videotaping Hezbollah Brigades attacks on US and Iraqi forces in Baghdad.

“This propaganda cell is suspected of making, videos of attacks on Coalition and Iraqi forces, which are then used to raise funds and resources for additional attacks against Coalition forces and Iraqis,” the US military stated in a press release. The cell member was responsible for videotaping Hezbollah Brigades attacks on US and Iraqi forces in Baghdad.

While the exact neighborhood in Baghdad was not identified, Multinational Forces Iraq often referred to the New Baghdad district as east Baghdad. On July 21, Coalition forces captured a member of a Hezbollah Brigades propaganda cell who was responsible for uploading attack videos to the Internet in New Baghdad.

The Hezbollah Brigades, or the Kata’ib Hezbollah, has been active for more than a year, Sergeant Susan James, a Public Affairs NCO for Multinational Forces Iraq told The Long War Journal. Multinational Forces Iraq said the group receives support from Iran and is an “offshoot of Iranian-trained Special Groups." The US military has referred to the Iranian-backed elements of the Mahdi Army as the Special Groups. The Hezbollah Brigades is “a separate and independent organization from Special Groups,” said James.

“We believe that Hezbollah Brigades does receive support from Iran,” James said. “That support likely includes funding, training, logistics, and material.” Iran’s Qods Force funds, trains, arms,and supports Mahdi Army operatives to facilitate attacks on Coalition and Iraqi forces.

The logo used by the Hezbollah Brigades is nearly an exact match of the one used by Lebanese Hezbollah, which is directly supported by Iran. The logo shows an arm extended vertically, with the fist grasping an AK-47 assault rifle. US forces captured Ali Mussa Daqduq inside Iraq in early 2007. Daqduq is a senior Hezbollah commander who was tasked with setting up the Mahdi Army Special Groups along the same lines as the Lebanese terror group.

The Hezbollah Brigades began uploading videos of attacks on US and Iraqi forces this year. The group has claimed responsibility for the July 8 improvised rocket-assisted mortar, or IRAM, attack on Joint Security Station Ur in northeastern Baghdad [see video]. One US soldier and one interpreter were wounded after eight of the makeshift "flying IEDs" detonated near the outpost. Shia terror groups have launched a handful of IRAM attacks on US and Iraqi outposts in Baghdad.

The IRAM is a civilian truck converted to fire four to 10 rigged mortars on outposts at distances from 150 to 400 yards. The weapon has had little impact on US and Iraqi forces operating in Baghdad, but the US military is concerned about the weapon’s potential to cause a mass-casualty incident.

Hezbollah Brigades also posted video of an attack on a US patrolwith an Iranian-supplied, armor-piercing, explosively formed projectile, or EFP.

The operation to capture the Hezbollah Brigades propaganda cell members is the latest in a series of raids against Shia terrorists. Scores of Special Groups operatives have been captured over the past month, including senior leaders, weapons smugglers, financiers, trainers, and cell leaders.

 

House defense appropriators on Wednesday fully funded the Air Force’s troubled mid-air refueling tanker, which has been at the center of a bitter lobbying fight between Boeing and Northrop Grumman.

But the $893 million appropriation for the tanker comes with a caveat: The Pentagon will have to consider how the project will impact U.S. jobs and the defense industrial base in its evaluation criteria for contractors.

House defense appropriators are directing the Pentagon to follow an already existing law that calls on the Secretary of Defense to consider the national technology and industrial base in developing and implementing plans for each major defense acquisition program. The $35 billion tanker program qualifies as a major acquisition. 

Pentagon and Air Force officials said several times in congressional testimony that their selection criteria did not include protections of the U.S. industrial base. The Air Force didn’t look into the impact on U.S. jobs when it first awarded the contract to Northrop Grumman instead of Boeing at the end of February. Instead defense officials have argued that they looked at the best value for the taxpayers as well as the best equipment for the military. 

That prompted complaints from members of Congress that the decision would lead to a loss of U.S. jobs, given Northrop’s partnership with the European firm EADS, the parent company of Boeing’s archrival Airbus. Boeing supporters claimed U.S. jobs would be shipped to Europe if Northrop Grumman won the contract.

In approving the 2009 Pentagon spending bill, members of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee through the tanker language are basically prompting the Defense Department to analyze job-creation estimates from Northrop and Boeing as part of its decision — the third go-around in the Air Force’s attempt to replace its Eisenhower-era tankers.

Appropriators are also directing the Pentagon to comply with the findings of the Government Accountability Office, which sustained Boeing’s protest of the contract award to Northrop Grumman and EADS. 

The Pentagon is expected to issue an amended request for proposals by the end of the month or in early August.

Northrop counters that the contract would provide work for 230 U.S. suppliers and create 14,000 new jobs, including 2,000 in Mobile, Ala., where Northrop and EADS are planning to assemble tankers in a new facility.

Including jobs not directly impacted, Northrop boasts it would create a total of 48,000 jobs across the country if awarded the contract.

Northrop initially estimated a smaller number of jobs would be created, but raised its estimate during the competition with Boeing after talking to all its suppliers. That prompted criticism from Boeing and its supporters.

Boeing claimed it would create 44,000 direct and indirect jobs if awarded the contract. It said it would use 300 supplier companies across the country.

Industry sources acknowledged that job numbers promised by defense contractors often are not completely accurate, as each may choose to employ different calculation formulas.

While the Air Force received all its money for the tankers, other Pentagon programs are being significantly slashed. Overall, House appropriators approved a $487.7 billion 2009 defense appropriations bill — $4 billion below the president’s budget request.

Among the programs that will see reduced funding is the Army’s troubled Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH) made by Bell Textron, and the presidential helicopter under contract with Lockheed Martin and Agusta Westland. The ARH, whose fate is now in the hands of John Young, the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer, will see a reduction of $113 million for fiscal year 2009, or 13 helicopters.

Appropriators plan to cut the presidential chopper funding by $212 million because of uncertainty with more advanced helicopters being developed in the second phase of the contract. The lawmakers left $735 million to build five helicopters in the first phase, but only $100 million for the second phase.

Given the Navy’s recent announcement that it will stop building its next-generation destroyer, the DDG-1000, after completing two ships, the defense panel used the Navy’s initial request of $ 2.5 billion for a third DDG-1000 to boost other ship programs. It allocated $1.6 billion for an additional LPD-17, $397.6 million for advance parts buys for the Virginia-class submarine, and $941 million for two additional T-AKE cargo ships.

The defense panel also boosted the funding for the Army’s flagship modernization program, the Future Combat Systems — a network of manned and unmanned vehicles linked by impenetrable communications — by $33 million. That money would go to the acceleration of the unmanned aerial vehicle and the unmanned ground vehicle components.

Overall the bill would boost funding for the Pentagon’s intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance assets by $563 million. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been pressing to get more of these assets into Iraq and Afghanistan.

The National Guard and Reserve will also receive $1 billion more than its initial request. The panel emphasized programs to help military families and boosted health programs in its funding, apportioning $608 million for family advocacy programs and $617 million for traumatic brain injury and psychological health. The committee also added $150 million above the president’s request for supply equipment to field hospitals and military treatment facilities.

House lawmakers want to increase the oversight of the Pentagon’s inspector general and added $25 million to fund additional personnel to provide oversight on contractors.

No more action will be taken on the bill until September. The Senate Defense Appropriations subcommittee will likely mark up its bill in the fall.

GUILDERLAND — When Lou Matteo got his handgun collection back, town police averted a legal battle based on a new U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding an individual’s right to own a gun.

Matteo, 75, turned over his firearms in March after a verbal spat with his wife led to an order of protection against him. Guilderland police refused to give the guns back, citing a federal law barring anyone under an order of protection from possessing firearms.

But on June 26, the nation’s high court struck down a District of Columbia ban on handguns. The ruling also said long-standing provisions barring handgun possession by felons did not violate the Second Amendment.

Matteo has never been convicted of a crime, and his attorney, Tom Marcelle, said the Supreme Court ruling meant he was entitled to have his guns returned.

Matteo’s case is the second locally and one of many expected nationwide in the wake of last month’s decision, called District of Columbia vs. Heller, challenging legislation that bans or limits handgun ownership.

"Without the D.C. case, we have no case. ‘Heller’ basically was an invitation for people to test Second Amendment cases," said Marcelle, who won a 2001 Supreme Court case that allowed an after-school Bible study group in Otsego County.

In one of the first challenges under the landmark ruling, a Schenectady man is seeking dismissal of charges that he lied because he failed to disclose he was the subject of a protective order when he filled out a form used for background checks on people purchasing a firearm.

In March, Matteo was accused of ripping the phone from his wife’s hand when she tried to call police to report his verbal abuse, according to court records. Guilderland police issued an order of protection, and he turned over the guns, which are registered and possessed legally.

A week later, however, the case was dismissed by Town Justice John Bailey, who ordered Matteo’s guns be returned.

The Matteos said they no longer even remember what prompted their quarrel. Marisol Matteo signed statements that her husband had never threatened her with a weapon and she was not concerned about him ever doing so. The domestic dispute case was over.

But the order of protection remained. Marcelle said under the "Heller" decision, Matteo, a law-abiding citizen, was allowed to have his guns.

Town Attorney Dick Sherwood denied any link between the Matteo case and the Supreme Court ruling. He said the town must follow the existing federal law: Returning the guns requires an order from federal court, not a town court.

Matteo’s guns were returned after he filed his case in federal court. Sherwood said a change in the law would eliminate an illogical legal process.

"You have the power to take the guns away, you don’t have the power to give them back," Sherwood said. "Our hands were tied."

For Marcelle, it is only a matter of time before a town attorney somewhere tests the legal system by refusing to return guns to a person who has not been convicted of a crime, and that case will further define rights under the Second Amendment.

Source

Heads_Up FR

 b2ilogo.jpg

MISSION: Its essential for the American people to know the facts about what is happening in Iraq. Some media outlets, and certain politicians, still fail to assess the situation objectively; so Vets for Freedom is heading Back to Iraq to let them know what has been accomplished, what still needs to be done, and how we should proceed in order to attain sustainable security in Iraq.

Vets for Freedom is sending 8 members back to the very streets they once patrolled in uniform to assess the situation on the ground. These members will be writing for BlackFive.net, Weekly Standard, and National Review Online. Their posts, articles, and videos will also be made available and updated daily on VetsforFreedom.org.

By Henry Lamb  

For a man whose only qualification for the White House is his own claim to good judgment and good character, Obama is rapidly proving his claim is invalid on both counts.

On November 21, 2007, the Obama Campaign ordered 1800 pocket-size Constitutions from the National Center for Constitutional Studies, using Purchase Order number 11202007.  The order was shipped to Obama For America Volunteer Headquarters, 300 W. Adams, 10th Floor, Chicago, Il, to the attention of Melissa McNeal.  The phone number listed for McNeal was 312-506-0909.  The order was placed by Becky Deignan, with copies to Bridget Gray and Melissa McNeal.  The invoice total was $965.00.

Obama’s campaign has refused to pay for these Constitutions.

Despite repeated attempts to contact a responsible party in the Obama campaign, no response has been forthcoming, nor has the bill been paid.

The phone number above has been changed to 866-875-2008.  It is answered by a recording that sends a caller to another recording that advises the caller to call back later, since all operators are busy.  A second phone number provided on the Purchase Order, 312-501-4448 – has been disconnected.

A visit to the Obama web site provides no way to contact the campaign without providing a lot of information the Obama campaign does not need, in order to collect a past due bill.

A $965.00 invoice may be a little thing to a campaign that has raised $200 million.  It is a big thing when it goes unpaid.  It is an even bigger thing when payment is deliberately ignored.  This is a glimpse into the character of the man who wants to be president.

It’s not as if the bill had been overlooked, or misplaced, or forgotten; Obama’s arrogance has rubbed off on his campaign workers to the point that they feel no need to respond to phone calls from the people to whom they owe money. 

It is possible that Obama knows nothing about this unpaid invoice.  If he doesn’t, he should.  He is the responsible party.  He is responsible for organizing his campaign in such a way as to be sure invoices do not get overlooked.  He is responsible for organizing his campaign in such a way that people who inquire get answers, not recordings.  The circumstances surrounding this eight-month unpaid invoice ordeal reveals a lack of character and judgment that will disqualify him for the presidency in the minds of many voters.

Soaring rhetoric such as “change we can believe it,” and “yes we can,” and “this is our moment” is meaningless when it is supported by nothing but hot air.  On the other hand, refusal to respond to phone calls and letters about an unpaid invoice – for eight months – says more about the candidate than all the slogans and bumper stickers combined. 

Perhaps Obama’s campaign thinks the public will never learn about this, and other unpaid bills.  Vendors who have not been paid by the Obama campaign are welcome to email their claims, supported by evidence, and the whole world will soon know.

By Frosty Wooldridge

Anyone may look across the world landscape over the last 1,000 years to witness that racial conflict injects itself into every aspect of human life.

Such and such a group hates some other collection of people. Religious groups bomb other religious groups such as the Protestants and the Catholics in Ireland. Muslims hate the Jews in the Middle East with thousands of killings.

You never hear about racism in mono-ethnic societies like China or Japan. Why? Everyone enjoys a similar background of values and cultural cohesion.

In America, with hundreds of different ethnic groups, especially black, white, brown, red and yellow, we exist in a tenuous but tolerant dance guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

It’s not been easy with Jim Crow Laws, the KKK, Watts Riots, separate but equal, anger of Malcolm X, white flight to the suburbs, smoldering and seething ghettoes and Pastor Jeremiah Wright in Chicago with “God D*** America….”

In 1965, Senator Teddy Kennedy created an even more tense society by immigrating millions from incompatible cultures that now call America home: Muslims, Hmongs, Koreans, Somalians, Ethiopians, etc. Additionally, he created even greater racial tension from competing and growing cultures that fail to assimilate into America as Americans.

We now designate Muslim-Americans, African-Americans, Russian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, while our national identity drains into confusion and tension.

This week, in D Magazine, Texas journalist Trey Garrison wrote a piece titled: “Why I don’t want diversity in my neighborhood.”

“When I made the hard decision to forgo buying a house in Dallas, I knew I was gonna’ get it,” Garrison wrote. “The thing is, I really wanted to live in Dallas, but we just couldn’t do it. So we chose Plano.

“Once we pulled the trigger, the judgments came a-flyin’. Mainly it was from friends who are, well, urban yokels. You know the kind – hipper-than-thou provincialists, for whom where you reside in relation to a municipal taxing boundary defines you. This was fine. Friends tease you like that. But then I started getting comments from readers at one of my other publications about "diversity," whatever that means. Apparently, in choosing a house in one of the top school districts in the country, in a suburb where the poverty rate is low and the median income is high, I was guilty of the high crime of ‘white flight.’

“My humbled, guilty reaction consisted of two words: "So what?"

“I mean, what the heck does diversity mean? Some of my new neighbors in Plano include people from Thailand, Armenia, India, Afghanistan, Hong Kong, Colombia and the Ukraine, but apparently that doesn’t count. And when a school is 85 percent white, it’s not diverse, but when it’s 85 percent Hispanic, it is?

“I was scolded that my daughter, by being in a Plano school, would be sheltered from – nay, ill-equipped for – life in the real world.

“Well, yeah. Probably. The real world is a lot bigger than Dallas, bigger than Texas, and bigger than the United States. The majority of the real world is dirty, violent, poor and absent indoor plumbing and two-ply toilet paper. More than half the world’s people live on something like $1 a day.

“I don’t think attending Woodrow Wilson High equips you any better for that kind of outdoorsy, back-to-nature lifestyle than Plano West, but I admit I don’t know much about Woodrow’s elective courses. I want a school that will prepare her for living in a professional, high-paying world so daddy won’t have to pound out columns in his dotage.

“I was also told, most oddly, that by subjecting my kid to suburban life and suburban schools, she’d get no exposure to people from other cultures. That’s when it got silly. So I’d harrumph in my best Ted Baxter voice that’s crazy – why, the lady who does her nails is Vietnamese, and our lawn guy is a Mexican from Costa Rica or Panama.

“Seriously, if the only exposure to other people your kid gets is when she’s sitting in a place where you move about like cattle at the sound of a bell and have to ask permission to go to the bathroom (i.e. school), what kind of sheltered life are you giving your kid?

“We’ve made "diversity" into some kind of totem, an end to itself, and we haven’t even defined what it is. Do I learn more about a different perspective chatting with my Ukrainian neighbor, or from a guy brought up five miles from me who happens to be black? I’m not entirely sold that diversity is automatically good.

“Look, diversity is great when it comes to nightclubs, workplaces, cultural experiences, restaurants and all that. But I don’t want diversity in my neighborhood.

“Now, put down the pitchfork. I don’t mean the superficial diversity of skin color. I mean diversity of values. That’s what I don’t want in my neighborhood, or my neighborhood school.

“I want uniformly boring neighbors with uniformly boring, middle-class values who spend Saturdays working on their lawns and whose kids know to stay off mine. I want neighbors with Home Depot on speed dial. That’s how I choose to live. Your mileage may vary. And isn’t that diversity, too?”

I agree with Garrison since I grew up in America with shared values, with love of country, with investment in my culture, language and neighbors. I refuse the moniker of hyphenated-American.

Hyphenated-Americans cannot pretend to be Americans because of their former countries take a position in front of this country. Iraqi-American? What’s that? Indonesian-American? Who’s that?

Do any of them know who George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Babe Ruth, Marilyn Monroe, Jane Russell, Joe DiMaggio, Susan B. Anthony and Mickey Mantle are? Doubtful most of them can even speak and read English.

Most do not share American values because their former cultures indented them with other loyalties counter to American society. We Americans, and soon, must stop unrelenting, massive and unending legal and illegal immigration before we fracture our culture into a seething, tenuous and incompatible ‘diverse’ mustard/strawberry/squash soup. Sounds terrible? Tastes worse!

We inject ourselves with more and unworkable ‘diversity’ and ‘multiculturalism’, which doesn’t work, won’t work, and given enough time and population overload, degrades into civil confrontation. You can see it in race riots in Los Angeles schools today. You can see it with Americans moving out of Mexican strongholds in major cities. You can see it in daily rapes of 12 year old girls by Mexican immigrants (it’s normal in their culture), honor killings by Muslims here in America (two in the last week) and a dozen other examples. It proved unfair and unworkable to the Native Americans whom we invaded, it proves unfair and unworkable to the French who now stand in the crosshairs of cultural/linguistic destruction, and most other first world countries that allow unending incompatible immigration.

Finally, the world grows by 77 million annually. Most of those third world humans arrive into horribly miserable circumstances. Endless millions line up to immigrate into America. We cannot sustain unending millions of people added our country—environmentally or culturally, as well as food and water! If we do continue–out of the next added 100 million people into America in three decades—over 70 million will be from third world countries. Do you want that for your children?

At some point, those people, those cultures and those nations must be responsible to their citizens, their populations and their futures. They must value their lives, their families, their countries and their personal responsibilities—more than accelerating birth rates.

We cannot save the world, but we’re on a path that most assuredly will destroy the United States of America. Cultural suicide leads to national suicide. We’re well on our way!

 By Stephen Brown

It had the atmosphere of the Cold War.

Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez’s trip to Russia this month brought back memories of the 40-year East-West confrontation when Fidel Castro was the Soviet Union’s favorite Latin American dictator. The warm greeting, the fact it was Chavez’s sixth visit to Russia and his use of the familiar Russian ‘you’ (ty) when talking to Vladimir Putin indicated the closeness of the relationship that was once Castro’s.

Even the rhetoric was the same. Like El Presidente, Chavez insisted on a “strategic alliance” to meet “the threat of the United States” and requested the Russians establish a base on Venezuelan territory. The only thing missing was a mention of Cuba’s dismal fate, which Chavez seems bent on imitating.

The anti-American Venezuelan leader, who once described himself as “very Maoist all of my life”, is always welcome in Moscow. In the past, the outspoken dictator has left behind billions of dollars in orders for the latest Russian weaponry, making his country Russia’s third best customer for armaments after China and India. And Chavez did not disappoint his hosts this time either.

On his shopping list this visit were tanks, coastal surveillance aircraft, air defence systems and non-atomic submarines, all of which represent another instalment of the five to six billion dollars oil-rich Venezuela eventually plans to spend on Russian arms. This latest purchase, combined with the previous ones, have made the South American country Russia’s biggest arms customer in Latin America.

Already between 2005 and 2007, Venezuelan oil revenues bought an estimated two billion dollars in Russian weapons. Among these items was a controversial purchase of 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles. Although Chavez claimed they were for home defence use, some of them, it is believed, were smuggled to leftist South American terrorist organizations in neighboring countries, such as FARC in Colombia.

Chavez has said the Russian weapons he has purchased will protect his country from an American invasion, a claim that Washington calls ludicrous. Venezuela’s president believes the United States may one day try to capture his country’s oil reserves. Venezuela is currently the world’s fifth-largest exporter of oil and provides America with about 15 per cent of its crude imports.

The real reason behind Chavez’s Russian arms purchases, however, is not self-defence. On the contrary, one analyst states they are meant to back up his ongoing quest to expand his influence in South America. Chavez’s end goal is the creation of an anti-American bloc with himself as leader, which would also satisfy his reported inclination to megalomania. In carrying out his plan, he is emulating his hero, Castro, who long tried to export communist revolution throughout the region.

For its part, the Kremlin’s main emphasis during Chavez’s trip was not on the arms sales but rather the signing of energy exploration agreements. In this the Russian leadership achieved its goal. Russian oil and gas companies had already been exploring in Venezuela; but the agreements Chavez signed during his recent visit have given the giants in the Russian energy field an expanded role.

“We can say that Russia and Venezuela have achieved a strategic alliance in the energy sphere,” he said.

Russia regards its support for Chavez as a countermove to the much disliked missile defence system the United States intends to set up in Czechoslovakia and Poland. The Chavez gambit is also seen as a response to American bases established in Central Asian countries that were once Soviet republics. The Kremlin still regards these states as being within its sphere of influence.

Moscow was also unhappy with the thousand American troops sent this month to Georgia, a country on its southern border, to conduct joint military exercises with Georgian forces. The Russian army immediately staged a counter exercise close by. And only last week Moscow announced as another countermeasure its intention to have long-range bombers refuel in Cuba, six years after it had closed its last base there.

But Russia’s and Venezuela’s attraction for one another may also concern the political nature of these states. Analyst and author Robert Kagan has written that the world’s new political alignment will see democracies line up against autocracies, citing as an example the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which consists of autocracies led by Russia and China. These two world powers, Kagan adds, will always offer fellow autocrats, like Chavez and Zimbabwe’s Mugabe, refuge and assistance.

But with this Russian “assistance” in the form of weapons, Chavez has only succeeded in fuelling a regional arms race. Chile is now spending colossal sums on arms, as are Brazil and Colombia. London’s International Institute For Strategic Studies stated defence expenditures in Latin America in 2003 were 25 billion dollars, while last year they reached 38 billion. Such high outlays for weapons will probably see Venezuela’s economy eventually suffer the same bleak fate of Cuba’s and the Soviet Union’s, which also emphasized armaments and expensive foreign adventures to the detriment of internal development.

Such large arms purchases by South American countries also represent an obvious potential for regional destabilization, especially combined with Chavez’s dangerous unpredictability. These factors probably played a role in the decision to reactivate the U.S. Fourth Fleet last April after nearly 60 years. The fleet’s home port will be in Florida and it will patrol Caribbean and South American waters.

Predictably, it was the three leftist, anti-American regimes in South America, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Cuba, who were most vociferous in protesting the fleet’s return. Castro, who knows about American naval blockades, even wrote an article against it in a Cuban newspaper. Chavez simply called it “an act of war.”

But one Latin American newspaper reported that Mexican drug cartel criminals are being sent to Iran via Venezuela for advanced training in building car bombs. If one such terrorist vehicle should ever be detonated, with Venezuelan assistance, in the United States, then Chavez would suffer a worse fate than Castro ever did. The Fourth Fleet would see to that.

By Andrew Cline

On Wednesday the U.S. House of Representatives apologized for slavery. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Steve Cohen, a white Democrat from Tennessee who represents a majority-black district and faces a black primary challenger. Or in other words, the U.S. House apologizes for slavery and Jim Crow not as a sincere gesture of the feelings of the American people, but to help a white incumbent beat a black challenger in a Democratic primary in Tennessee. Wonderful.

Then there is the additional irony that the current membership of the U.S. House apologized for an evil for which it was not responsible and that was ended in the century before last. The apology also included Jim Crow laws, so at least on that point some Americans who helped enforce those laws are still alive. (Perhaps some former Jim Crow enforcers are in the House.) But still, the electoral politics behind the bill — that its primary consequence will be to help a white incumbent defeat a black challenger — render its content meaningless.

If you’re wondering whether the vote really was scheduled to help Cohen, don’t. Politico.com wrote this yesterday: "But asked whether there was a link between the vote on the resolution and Cohen’s primary, a Democratic leadership aide was unequivocal: ‘What do you think? This just didn’t happen by accident.’"

And yet as offensive as this is, it raises a good issue. And that is, as long as the House is making apologies, it should offer some for the damaging acts for which it is actually responsible. Such as:

* Bankrupting the country. Couldn’t the House give us an apology for creating more entitlement programs than the people can possibly fund, then adding even more on top of those, then promising to add even more if re-elected this fall? The national debt is approaching $10 trillion. And despite the House’s paygo rule requiring any new spending to be paid for, the deficit spending continues unabated. Each newborn American baby enters the world a little more than $30,000 in debt thanks to runaway spending. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress are directly responsible for this. But we won’t get an apology any time soon because then they’d have to stop spending.

* Refusing to lower oil and gas prices. Congress could lower the price of oil and gas tomorrow by passing legislation opening more of the outer continental shelf to oil and natural gas drilling and allow more nuclear power plants. The commodities markets would respond to the anticipated future supply immediately. Just as the price of oil dropped earlier this month after OPEC announced that the rise in next year’s demand would be lower than expected, it would drop again if Congress increased future supply by allowing more drilling and reduced future demand for home heating oil and natural gas by paving the way for more nuclear power plants. Instead, House leadership blames speculators and tries to force oil companies to drill where there is little or no oil.

* Leaving our borders dangerously insecure. If Congress wanted to secure our borders, it could quickly pass legislation fencing and putting under video surveillance every inch of the lines separating the United States from Canada and Mexico, putting Border Patrol agents along the whole thing and inspecting every cargo ship that docks at a U.S. port. But it won’t. If it couldn’t do that after 9/11, it’s not going to do it now. So untold numbers of illegals pass into our country daily, and there’s no telling what is smuggled into our ports. We have little control over our own borders, which is a huge national security risk, and they simply don’t care. It’s not on anyone’s agenda.

* Atrocious, indefensible pork-barrel spending. Every year, House members help themselves to our money in the name of helping us all. They spend millions collectively on things like teapot museums supposedly to help the people of their districts and to make sure they get something in return for all the money they send to Washington. But everyone knows it’s all about re-election. And yet they get away with it year after year because the folks back home just love getting federal funding for that local youth program or arts collective. The vote-buying is done in broad daylight, even with accompanying press releases. People are struggling to pay their gas and food bills, and yet Congress continues squandering millions on pork.

I could go on, but you get the point. (You can even come up with your own list.) As America’s economy reels, Congress ignores urgent matters such as dealing with high energy and food prices and instead passes resolutions apologizing for historical wrongs that ended before the average American (the median age is 36) was born. And as if designed to illustrate the blatant hypocrisy of Congress, that resolution was brought up solely to damage the electoral prospects of one of the people to whom the apology was directed.

Yes, Congress owes apologies, lots of them. But the American people will never get the meaningful ones. Congress isn’t done screwing us just yet.

Rather than risk getting caught, turn yourselves in.

That’s the latest government strategy in its ongoing effort to dramatically reduce the nation’s ballooning population of illegal immigrants.

Scheduled to be unveiled next week, it was announced Sunday by Julie Myers, director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in an interview with a Spanish-language television network.

Myers told the network that "Operation Scheduled Departure" will allow illegal immigrants without criminal records a chance to literally "self-deport" by turning themselves in to her agents.

She said the idea derived from a common complaint voiced by immigrant detainees: If given the opportunity, they’d rather just go home than be holed up in immigration prisons.

Under the new program, those still walking free will have the chance to walk into ICE offices, be processed and get a few weeks to arrange their affairs, pack their belongings and ship out of the country without being detained.

"The program basically gives an opportunity to those seeking an organized way to self-deport," Myers told Univisión anchor Jorge Ramos.

Myers said the program would allow immigrants to avoid the increasing risks of being picked up in a raid at home or at work, but would offer no additional incentives to turn themselves in — no chance at qualifying for an amnesty, for example.

ICE officials in San Antonio, Dallas and Washington refused to elaborate on the program, saying no details will be made available before the official presentation next week.

Proposal met with scorn

Immigrant advocates called it a laughable charade with little to no chance of succeeding without any carrots to offer self-deportees.

"It’s pure fantasy," said Doug Rivlin, spokesman for the National Immigration Forum in Washington. "An attempt to entice people to sign away their rights and get out of the country as quickly as possible before even talking to a lawyer."

If people truly wanted to leave on their own, they’d buy their own bus or plane ticket home without checking in with ICE first, Rivlin said.

Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the country’s largest anti-illegal-immigration lobby group based in Washington, said he’d have to concede that point.

The government would have to offer some kind of incentive to entice immigrants to sign up, such as telling them that by leaving voluntarily they would be allowed to apply to come back legally, Mehlman said.

The concept of nudging undocumented immigrants into leaving on their own is one his group has long advocated.

"It certainly makes sense to create conditions to make people understand that if they’re here illegally, it’s not going to benefit them to stick around," he said.

While it remains to be seen whether the idea works for ICE, another federal agency that came up with the idea three years ago claims it has worked well.

"Fugitive Safe Surrender" offers non-violent criminals with arrest warrants a chance to give themselves up to the U.S. Marshals Service instead of being hunted down. So far more than 16,000 have accepted the offer.

Source

Heads_Up Dan Stein

“Myers told the network that "Operation Scheduled Departure" will allow illegal immigrants without criminal records a chance to literally "self-deport" by turning themselves in to her agents.”

Perhaps someone should inform Myers that illegal aliens ARE criminals.

Next Page »