Watching the Bo
rderOriginally uploaded by Steve Hopson
Borders, Globalization, Treason and Un-Patriotism:
REGARDING WILD WEST BORDERS:
“Open economic borders” equates to “open moral borders.” Leaving the border open to be crossed, illegally, by anyone makes it open season on this side of it for folks to work out for themselves their cultural, familial, and moral differences. That is, insane politicians and their groupies are extending their invitation to reduce law and order to the Wild West.
GLOBALIZATION:
Internationaly fungible and speculative oil "market": See http://newsmax.com/insidecover/oil_speculators/2008/08/21/124032.html.
For extreme, eggheaded, globalistic, non-patriotic elitism, see this documentation about what passes for elites’ “intelligent border policy”:
Open Borders --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZtuDKU0-OU.
To see more about what responsible folks are up against, see the following:
(Close The Borders!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuH7uJczrxM;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAcIGx-nxdI;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD6cN14Xq1k;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90SDkhwnEIo;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kmTLk2Fgas;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9pr0SlZHkY;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQxy-q2rDpI;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y60TNXfaX8E;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc1XAQc8hS8;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SugF_dQlYBw;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2w97qRwxAU;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTwO457C8bQ;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVvIL6vX5kM;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0l4eHfHjNXQ;
http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeGallagher/2007/11/16/border_insanity;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Mexico_barrier;
http://www.vdare.com/guzzardi/060901_patrol.htm.
*****
TREASON:
See http://www.ibdeditorials.com/series5.aspx http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278291149224647
National Review
AUGUST 23, 2004 VOL. LVI, NO. 16
Lawyer of Jihad
The story of Lynne Stewart—an attorney
accused of helping Islamist terrorists—is a
powerful illustration of how easily radical leftist
dissatisfaction with America becomes cheerful
support for America’s enemies, and how a so-called
defender of the public becomes a defender of the
public’s enemies.
www.nationalreview.com
By Rachel Zabarkes Friedman
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynne_Stewart.
*****
UNPATRIOTISM, MARXISM
and ---
Deconstructing Chomsky:
Mark Bauerlein April 2005
See: http://www.reason.com/news/show/36575.html.
Re: The Anti-Chomsky Reader, edited by Peter Collier and David Horowitz, San Francisco: Encounter Books.
*****
NATIONAL DEFENSE:
Snippet from http://www.powerlineblog.com/:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/08/021295.php
August 21, 2008
Has the Gaffe Machine Gone Too Far?
Via Gateway Pundit and InstaPundit
So our "charging into" Iraq--with dozens of allies, supported by a U.N. resolution, as a last resort after six months of build-up and negotiations, to unseat one of the cruelest dictators of modern times who had twice invaded neighboring states, was in violation of more than a dozen U.N. resolutions and was responsible for the deaths of something like two million people, who was shooting at American aircraft and had tried to assassinate a former President of the United States, in Obama's childish mind, was just like Russia's "charging into" Georgia, which resembles Saddam's Iraq in no respect. And, of course, we invaded a horrifying charnel-house so as to establish a democracy, whereas Russia invaded a peaceful democracy that it wants to re-incorporate into its empire.
Is Obama an idiot? I don't think so, really. But one of the many problems with being a leftist is that it leads you to say lots of stupid things. Today, the Obama gaffe machine went into overdrive. By November, I suspect that most voters will have heard enough to know that Barack Obama is unqualified to be a middle-manager in a well-run company, let alone President of the United States.
****
Population and Immigration:
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/
Where’s The Fence:
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/august-20-2008/virtual-fence-construction-halted.html .
4 comments:
To identify corrupt politicians, a good starting place is:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2007
and
http://www.judicialwatch.org/.
Snippets from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080828/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_mcbama;_ylt=AuTShtjrv2fHD12Xmo8XBLBh24cA:
By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON
John McCain and Barack Obama share common ground on a surprising selection of issues where the age-old Republican-Democratic divide doesn't cut it anymore.
Both want the United States to join the campaign against *global warming in earnest. Both want to cut taxes for the *middle class.
No matter who wins, the moratorium on *offshore drilling could well be relaxed, yet both presidential candidates also say no dice to letting oil companies into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, after years of Republican efforts to open it to drilling.
As much as the candidates would be loathe to admit it, circumstance and the evolution of war policy have even diminished their differences over the course in Iraq.
Call it the McBama agenda, a limited but striking bipartisan convergence. It favors ending the ban on federal money for embryonic *stem cell research and embodies only shades of difference over key questions about *gay marriage.
To be sure, voters have a real choice to make on Election Day and the national party conventions are devoted to playing up the many differences. Parties, after all, need to be distinct to exist.
For starters, Obama has an ambitious — and expensive — plan to get the country close to *universal health coverage and require insurance for children; McCain doesn't. McCain has experience in foreign affairs that Obama lacks. Obama would raise *income taxes on wealthy Americans that McCain hopes to leave alone, while the Republican opposes *abortion rights that the Democrat favors.
Obama's Senate voting record is largely liberal; McCain's, largely conservative with notable exceptions. And they can be expected to tilt the *Supreme Court to their competing ideologies at any opportunity, as well as their many other judicial selections.
....
They both come at the war on terrorism with a hard line and the conviction that the U.S. military presence in *Afghanistan must be reinforced.
McCain rhetorically promises to follow Osama bin Laden to "the gates of hell;" Obama specifically promises to follow him into Pakistan if necessary, breaching another sovereign nation if that's what it takes to run down high-value terrorist targets.
....
Both say *gay marriage should be left to the states and oppose a constitutional amendment to ban it. President Bush, in contrast, proposed such a ban but did not push for one. McCain has obliquely endorsed at least some of the rights inherent in *gay civil unions while Obama has expressed strong support for those rights. Both say they oppose gay marriage.
Both oppose a constitutional amendment to ban *abortion. Otherwise, they diverge on abortion rights.
....
Unlike several of his GOP primary rivals and Bush, he supports mandatory cuts in *greenhouse gas emissions, and Obama joined him in the Senate in an effort to achieve that goal.
They are both advocating a *cap and trade system that would force companies that cannot meet targets to pay for the right to pollute, all under tightening national emission requirements. Obama favors cutting carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent by 2050; McCain, 60 percent by then.
Both also support tougher *fuel efficiency standards.
*****
PERSONAL COMMENT:
McCain would seem more likely to be better on the following concerns:
PRAGMATISM, DECENCY, EMPATHY, HONOR, CHARACTER, deeds, ACHIEVEMENTS ---
*International credibility
*National defense
*Preservation of military *capability
*Defense of borders
*Energy independence
*Defense of family values
*Conservative judges
*Smaller government
*Fewer earmarks
*More vetoes against wasteful spending
*More control over Democrat Congress
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=1F3DD064-93F2-4CCB-812D-23DD4E834B42
No We Can’t
By Bruce Thornton
City Journal
Monday, September 15, 2008
Party of Defeat opens with the Vietnam War-era hijacking of the Democratic Party by antiwar radicals, whose ultimate purpose wasn’t so much to end the war, but to discredit and weaken the political, social, and economic foundations of America. For the radical Left, then and now, “no longer regards itself as part of the nation,” Horowitz and Johnson write. “This Left sees itself instead as part of an abstract ‘humanity,’ transcending national borders and patriotic allegiances, whose interests coincide with a worldwide radical cause.” As such, it must work against America’s interests and success, disguising its activity as “dissent” or a more general antiwar sentiment.
....
Party of Defeat includes a compelling reprise of the reasons why America went to war against Saddam Hussein. UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which declared Hussein in “material breach” of 16 previous UN resolutions enforcing the truce that ended the Gulf War, effectively legitimized military action against Iraq once Hussein ignored the 30-day deadline for complying with the resolution. Moreover, President Bush’s case for removing Hussein focused on WMD programs, not stockpiles. Though no WMD stockpiles turned up, the report of the Iraq Survey Group, made public in October 2003, indeed established the existence of WMD-related programs and equipment, laboratories and safe houses concealing equipment from UN monitoring, research on biological weapons, documents and equipment related to uranium enrichment, plans for long-range missiles, and evidence of attempts to acquire long-range missile technologies from North Korea. “It was Saddam’s refusal to observe the arms-control agreements designed to allow UN inspections and prevent him from building weapons of mass destruction that made the war necessary,” Horowitz and Johnson explain.
....
The press played a significant role in facilitating the cycle of sensational charges based on distorted evidence. Later investigations repudiated many of these allegations, but could not undo the damage done to public perceptions. The Abu Ghraib prison scandal is a case in point. “What would normally be counted as a minor incident in any war,” Horowitz and Johnson maintain, “was elevated to a national and then a global scandal by editors determined to exploit it without regard for its potential impact on the national interest or the security of American troops in Iraq.” The New York Times, which often sets the agenda for the rest of the mainstream media, ran 60 days of stories about Abu Ghraib, filled with ridiculous comparisons with the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam war and with Saddam’s horrific crimes: “It was exactly the kind of psychological-warfare campaign that would normally have been conducted by an enemy propaganda machine,” Horowitz and Johnson observe. So, too, with the lurid charges of abuse of the prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, many of which were read on the Senate floor by Dick Durbin, who compared American officials there with Nazis and the genocidal Cambodian dictator Pol Pot. By the time 12 official investigations had debunked such claims, the media-stoked perception that Guantanamo was some sort of gulag of torture and abuse had achieved the status of fact, thus providing another propaganda weapon for our enemies.
....
Horowitz and Johnson draw a sobering conclusion: “The decision to attack the morality of America’s war effort has dealt a severe blow to the American cause. It has undermined American unity in the face of the enemy, profoundly damaged the clarity with which the war is understood, and diminished Americans’ ability to defend themselves.” In this important presidential election year, Party of Defeat is essential reading.
PARTY OF DEFEAT:
Snippets from http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=A14B6072-1DDE-4EC6-AB2C-8A9728BC0861:
We do not believe “an anti-war leftist clique has seized control of the levers of power” in the Democratic Party, nor do we believe that such a hypothesis is necessary to explain the worst betrayal in time of war by a major political party in the nation’s history. Much of the Democrats’ irresponsible, reckless and yes, anti-American behavior can be ascribed to political opportunism run amok: Democrats as a party benefited if a foreign policy disaster could be attributed to Republicans. The difference between the Democrats and Farley’s leftist clique is this: Democrats want to win elections even if it means losing a war; leftists want America to lose its wars whoever wins the election.
....
What caused Kerry and Edwards to change from war supporters to anti-war leaders was the fact that Howard Dean, an obscure anti-war leftist, was about to win the Democratic Party nomination and thwart their personal ambitions. So close was Dean to victory that Jimmy Carter and Al Gore had descended on Iowa to anoint him. That was why Kerry turned on his president and his country’s war: a political poll that went against him.
....
... Party of Defeat supports criticism of war policy. But it makes distinctions between criticism of policy within a democratic framework and sabotage of policy, often outside that framework, such as leaking national secrets.
....
... we make distinctions between critics outside of government such as Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore, and critics such as John Kerry who sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee with access to the same information as the president about Iraq. Knowing what the president knew, Kerry supported the war until Howard Dean’s anti-war candidacy threatened his ambitions. He then turned against the war and accused his own president of lying to the public in order to conduct a needless war of aggression.
Post a Comment