Friday, December 22

Made in the USA : Spoiled brats (AMEN)

I received this via e-mail this morning. I can't agree more. And you "intellectual" libs/progressives might as well quit right now since you never seem to read anything you don't already agree with.

"The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given the source, right? The same magazine that employs Michael (Qurans in the toilets at Gitmo) Isikoff.

The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence 2/3s of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change.

I starting thinking, What we are so unhappy about?

Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job? Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?

Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state? Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter? I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all involved. Whether you are rich or poor they treat your wounds and even, if necessary, send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.

Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home, you may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of having a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes; an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.

How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.

Then there are the actors, singers, comedians, and politicians who visit foreign countries and badmouth the U.S.A. and our President.

Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.

I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same president who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me?

Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a "general" discharge, an "other than honorable" discharge or, worst case scenario, a "dishonorable" discharge after a few days in the brig.

So why then the flat out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells. Just ask why they almost were going to allow O.J. Simpson to write a book and do a TV special about how he didn't kill his wife but if he did.... . insane! And, they did it during the Vietnam Conflict. I was there dealing with them as the public affairs representative for a major command. News representatives and reporters for the major TV networks would come to us to cover our soldiers.

To give you an example, they wanted to show how our soldiers lived and apparently covered that story. Two weeks later we received the news reels from the U.S. and we could see what they had actually shown on TV. They would find soldiers who played basketball or were in an on-post club or were lounging in their barracks with a beer, or were at the PX shopping during duty hours. Their explanation was the troops had nothing to do and were not really needed there and nobody knew what they were doing. What they didn't tell the TV audience and readers was that these soldiers worked shifts, had worked during the night and enjoyed their free time.

This is just one of many examples how matters were misrepresented. I remember that many of us told our loved ones not to believe anything they hear or see in the media. I have heard comments like that from soldiers now serving in Iraq.

Stop buying the negative venom you are fed every day by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.

I close with one of my favorite quotes from B.C. Forbes in 1953:

"What have Americans to be thankful for? More than any other people on the earth, we enjoy complete religious freedom, political freedom, social freedom. Our liberties are sacredly safeguarded by the Constitution of the United States , 'the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.' Yes, we Americans of today have been bequeathed a noble heritage. Let us pray that we may hand it down unsullied to our children and theirs."

I suggest that this Holiday Season we sit back and count our blessings for all we have. If we don't, what we have will be taken away. Then we will have to explain to future generations why we squandered such blessing and abundance. If we are not careful this generation will be known as the "greediest and most ungrateful generation." A far cry from the proud Americans of the "greatest generation" who left us an untarnished legacy.

Thursday, October 5

For Our Troops

I can't imagine a heart so cold and unfeeling that it wouldn't want to help our troops in any possible way. So when I came across the following list of web sites, I thought all of you would like to know about them. - Free computers for spouses or parents of deployed soldier in ranks E1 - E5. - Free phone cards. - To sign up for sponsoring soldier care packages for theater. - free shoebox care package. -free cookies. - lowest airfare available. - free care packages. - free air travel for Emergency Leave, and for the family members of injured soldiers to travel to Medical facility. - Airline discounts for R & R. - free books, DVD's, CD's. free care packages (your family member signs up to have sent to you). - free care packages. - get adopted to receive stuff. - free gifts and care packages. free shipping/packing materials for shipping to troops.

And don't forget to thank them individually and applaud them collectively.

Franks and Foley

Talk about tempests in teapots! Why don't Republicans remind the nation that Rep. Barney Franks (D-MA) is still serving in Congress. He, unlike Foley, actually did have sex with a homosexual back in the 1980s, complete with the attendant scandal. Didn't hurt his career at all. Perhaps it's better to do it than to talk about it.

Sunday, September 17

Through The Glass Darkly

Saudi "scholar" Suleiman al-Omar declared in June 2004: "Islam is advancing according to a steady plan. America will be destroyed." He may be right and here are some of the reasons why:

* American dependence on Middle East oil. Although American nuclear scientists had learned how to neutralize and dispose of nuclear waste, the US Department of Energy shut down the only facility in this country that could accomplish that safely and without risk. It would take 20 years to reactivate it.

* American insistence that entrepreneurism and free markets, competition and freedom of choice are the way to a better life for Muslims. Islamists reject that. "The West calls for freedom and
liberty. Islam rejects such liberty. True liberty is obedience to
Alla," as Sheikh Mohammed al-Tabatabi said in 2004. Judeo-Christians understood that and built America on those principles in the first place. America has lost her moral focus.

* The division in America over the war. Some don't believe we're at war at all, others want to take the fight to the terrorists. Some advise "dialogue," others want to nuke Islamic sites. "A house divided against itself" cannot win.

* The fact that the Muslims use the media and the Internet quite skillfully to con Western politicians and especially the Western media. The fact that al-Jazeera is aided and abetted by Western journalists is an example of this.

* The low level of Western political leadership. There is no FDR on the political scene with the ability to con, charm and downright lead this country into the kind of all-out effort to win this war or any other. The nation must be rallied the way it was in the 1940s, to be willing to make the necessary sacrifices to get "down and dirty" to win this thing. The position of Secretary of Defense should NEVER be held by a civilian, especially in wartime.

* The lack of understanding, especially among American "progressives" of the true nature of the Islamic revival. They prefer to blame the revival on colonialism, ignoring the truth of Islam -- its oppression of dissent, its maltreatment of women, its hatred of groups like Jews and gays and its committment to use violence against them. "Progressives" prefer to overlook those little details and instead call attention to the mistakes Western governments have made in the past.

* Inconsistency in US policy. The "experts," academics and commentators who are the apologists for the worst that is done in the name of Islam. Bloggers and pundits who believe that their opinions are more important than the issues. With all this conflicting advice, US policy has become increasingly inconsistent.

* Underestimation of the Muslim world community and misunderstanding the nature of Islam. It is not a "religion of peace" nor is it a "religion hijacked" or "perverted" by "the few". Its moral intransigence and its jihadist ethic along with the refusal of most Muslims to share a common set of values with non-Muslims is justified by the Koran.

As David Selbourne wrote recently in the London Times, "Islam is not even a religion in the conventional sense of the term. It is a transnational political and ethical movement that believes that it holds the solution to mankind's problems. It therefore holds that it is in mankind's own interests to be subdued under Islam's rule. Such belief therefore makes an absurdity of the project to "democratise" Muslim nations in the West's interests, an inversion that Islam cannot accept and, in its own terms, rightly so. It renders naive, too, the distinction between the military and political wings of Islamic movements; and makes Donald Rumsfeld's assertion in June 2005 that the insurgents in Iraq "don't have vision, they're losers" merely foolish."

If we pull out of Iraq and leave Afghanistan, it is entirely possible that the best that could happen would be that we in the United States will have to learn to live as the Israelis do -- with terrorist bombings in our restaurants, hotels and theaters because Americans refuse to see the true nature of what we're up against. It's even more likely that we'll face nuclear suitcase bombs in our cities once Iran acquires capability to spread that technology around.

It's certainly not the future we invisioned for our grandchildren.

Friday, August 18

Face It, America

Until the USA faces the truth, we are in mortal danger. The truth:

1. There are no innocent civilians in World War III.
As long as there are mothers who will fill their baby's bottles with chemicals and take them on airplanes to blow them up, there are no innocent civilians.

As long as parents allow their children to carry explosives in back packs with the intention of blowing up restaurants and convoys, there are no innocent civilians.

But most important of all, as long as the Muslim community refuses to take responsibility for the insurgents in their midst and decline to purge them, one-at-a-time if necessary, there are NO innocent civilians.

If the Lebanese army would rout the Hezbollah from Lebanon, there would be no Israeli invasions. If the Syrians and Iranians would purge the killers from their midst, there would be no danger for the rest of the world.

In the meantime, however, the United States should (and really must) blow up all of the Iranian and Syrian oil fields to cut off terrorist financing.

Thursday, August 3

Hezbollah is Our Enemy, Too

by Jeff Jacoby Boston Globe

According to a pair of Gallup polls released last week, 83 percent of
Americans say Israel is justified in taking military action against
Hezbollah, while 76 percent disapprove of Hezbollah's attacks on
Israel. Yet when asked which side in the conflict the United States
should take, 65 percent answer: neither side. Indeed, 3 in 4
Americans say they are concerned that the US military will be drawn
into the fighting, or that it will increase the likelihood of
terrorism against the United States.

Gallup's numbers suggest two things. First, that most Americans,
sizing up the warfare in northern Israel and southern Lebanon,
recognize that Hezbollah is the aggressor and that Israel is fighting
in self-defense. And second, that most Americans believe this fight
has nothing to do with the United States.

Welcome to Sept. 10.

For years Osama bin Laden had preached that it was "the duty of
Muslims to confront, fight, and kill" Americans. His adherents had
responded by blowing up the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and
slamming a boat laden with explosives into the USS Cole. Yet most
Americans paid no attention to Al Qaeda and its threats — until 3,000
people lost their lives on Sept. 11, 2001.

Has nothing been learned from that experience?

Hezbollah's barbaric assault on Israel — kidnapping and murdering
soldiers who weren't engaged in hostilities, firing waves of missiles
into cities and towns, packing rockets with ball bearings meant to
maximize suffering by shredding human flesh — is part and parcel of
the radical Islamist jihad against the free world. Nothing to do with
the United States? It has everything to do with the United States.
Hezbollah hates Americans at least as implacably as Al Qaeda does,
and rarely misses an opportunity to say so.

"We consider [America] to be an enemy because it wants to humiliate
our governments, our regimes, and our peoples," railed Sheik Hassan
Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, at an enormous rally in February
2005. (Video of Nasrallah's speech, which was broadcast on
Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV, has been posted on the internet by MEMRI,
the Middle East Media Research Institute.) "It is the greatest
plunderer of our treasures, our oil, and our resources. . . . Our
motto, which we are not afraid to repeat year after year, is: 'Death
to America!' "

And from tens of thousands of Hezbollah supporters came the answering
cry: "Death to America! Death to America! Death to America! Death to

These are anything but empty threats. Prior to 9/11, Hezbollah was
responsible for more American casualties than any other terrorist
organization in the world. Among its victims was Army officer William
F. Buckley, the CIA station chief in Beirut who was abducted by
Hezbollah in March 1984 and who died after 15 months in captivity of
torture and illness.

And the young Navy diver Robert Stethem, singled out during the 1985
Hezbollah hijacking of TWA Flight 847 and brutally beaten before
being shot to death.

And William Higgins, a colonel in the Marine Corps and commander of
the UN peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, who was seized by Hezbollah
in February 1988, tortured, and eventually hanged. (As Michelle
Malkin perceptively noted last week, the tape of Higgins, bound and
gagged and swinging from a rope, was one of the first publicly
disseminated jihadi snuff films.)

And the 241 US servicemen murdered by Hezbollah on Oct. 23, 1983,
when a suicide bomber drove a truck rigged with 12,000 pounds of TNT
into their barracks at the Beirut airport.

And the 19 US servicemen killed in the 1996 bombing of Khobar Towers
in Saudi Arabia.

For more than two decades, Hezbollah's Shi'ite fanatics, backed by
Iran and sheltered by Syria, have made it their business to murder,
maim, hijack, and kidnap Americans with the same irrational hostility
they harbor for Israel. Yet when Tony Snow, the Bush administration's
gifted spokesman, was asked on July 19 whether the president
believes "that this is as much the United States' war as it is
Israel's war," he answered, "No," and then tried to change the
subject. A moment later the question returned: "I don't think you
really answered the part about why is this not our war?"

Snow's incredible reply: "Why would it be our war? I mean, it's not
on our territory. This is a war in which the United States — it's not
even a war. What you have are hostilities, at this point, between
Israel and Hezbollah. I would not characterize it as a war."

9/11, it was said time and time again, "changed everything." No
longer would Americans walk around with eyes wide shut, oblivious to
the threat from the Islamofascists. Not our war? Listen again to the
Hezbollah hordes: "Death to America! Death to America!"

They're serious about it — deadly serious. Why aren't we?

Wednesday, August 2

A Jewish View of the War

Date: July 30, 2006 2:48 PM

Dear -----,

There are four buses parked outside the public school just down my
block . The buses fill up with tens of soldiers who are on their way
up to the north .They are reserves. I can see some men in uniform in
the playground, pushing their young kids on the swing. They don't
know when they will be back. 2 weeks ago, on Friday night, Shabbat,
in the middle of the night, 3 other buses left from the same
location. From all over the country different units are called to
meet at their location to be bused up with their group.

We are in our 21st day of the war.

Though in Ra'anana rockets do not fly, and for that we are totally
grateful, there IS a local daily war effort.

Two weeks ago our shul e-mail sent out an urgent message. 150 people
have arrived at the local dormitory school. They need towels. "We
want 100 towels, new or used by 7:30 *tonight*". When I dropped some
off at 7 it looked like they had met their goal.

Next e-mail, same day, due to lack of time "we" (a local young rabbi
and his family) bought groceries and toiletries for these 150 who had
literally fled their homes in the north. We are looking for donations
to cover the cost of items *that have already been bought and
distributed.* Talk about cutting out the middle men. Talk about
taking matters into your own hands.

Later in the week the municipality of Ra'anana asked for residents to
house people from up north. At first I thought, it was enough, I had
done my part. There wasn't much room and I'm not home during the day
to look after strangers in my house. But then I thought, they are
fellow Jews with missiles landing near their homes. Some are old, and
some are babies and they are running EVERY HOUR to the local shelter
because they live in apartments without a useable shelter.

So I called and offered our house. I called 3 times to offer because
no-one was taking me up on my offer. After that I realized that God
was sending me a message. If no-one is coming and you offered 3
times, then maybe he is giving you a break!

The next day they joyfully called and told me they had found the
perfect family, dati , 2 young kids from Tzfat.

"They are in a bad way," the social worker said. They want to leave
first thing tomorrow morning (it was Thursday night). I called right
away, to "invite" this family.

"Well. we aren't sure. My husband wants to be with the family for

It turns out that this is not uncommon. The wives want to get away
and the husbands prefer to stick it out.

"Call me after Shabbat", I said, if you still want to come.

I haven't heard from them.

Our kids keep asking, are they coming? are they coming? They want

Earlier in the week another e-mail went out that an organization
called "Table to Table that collects food for the needy and delivers
packages was putting together packages for the soldiers. Asking for
volunteer to help pack I went, (Elisheva brought Elana, Avital and
Eitan were still in camp) 3 long tables were set up, assembly-line
style in a dark, un-air-conditioned warehouse. Donated goods from
Elite, and private donations, were swiftly loaded into individual
bags, chips, chocolate bars, jelly beans, sometimes soap, then tied
and tossed into a huge crate. We filled one crate every 12 minutes.
We filled about 10 such crates in an hour. Then huge guys loaded the
crates up onto 2 trucks, which were driven up north to be handed out
to soldiers.

From the beginning of the war a family in R'anana has used their
house a place to drop off cakes to give to residents in the north as
a small treat to let them know we care and that it is hard to bake
for Shabbat when you are running all day to the shelters. They
collect from 8-10 Friday morning and have someone drive the cakes up
for Shabbat. After 2 Fridays they asked us to please pack up and send
some art supplies to occupy the kids who are stuck for hours in the
shelter. So it was a chance for people to get rid of all their extra
coloring books and stuff. Some people even went out and bought new
art supplies. I went out and bought different art supplies, window
paints and transparencies, markers and construction paper, mosaic
tiles and cardboards and glue. I found some old shoe boxes ( a few
too many of those in my house) and small gift boxes and made boxes of
2 craft projects each for about 10 kids. Then we printed big
labels "craft projects made by Eitan , Avital, Elana and Noam
Fortinsky, Akiva 73 Rannana." Sometimes people want to know where its
from to thank you and put a name or family to a gift. Anyway, when I
delivered the boxes on Friday morning I saw there were tables of
stuff, cakes, coloring books, reading books a few toys. The organizer
came over and thanked me over and over. "how did you think to package
it,? Where did you get the boxes? If everyone would package we
wouldn't have to spend hours sorting through tables of stuff and
repackaging into boxes!"

I really didn't realize it was a big deal . I just thought it would
be easier to hand out that way.

On Shabbat my friend came over to me and said she started crying when
she saw my small boxes. Of course she was there delivering her brand
new craft materials and books but she said she was so moved to see
the names of the kids and those neat small boxes that she just
started crying.

You see, everyone is making an effort. Everyone is trying. Because
this is our war. Though we are not on the front lines, our friends
kids are. When Benjy Hillman of Shwartz streeet in Ra'anana's apache
helicopter crashed,everyone was affected. He was married 3 weeks
before. When Ro'I Klein, father, husband and son, who grew up in
Ra'anana, was killed as he threw himself on a grenade in Binj Bent in
order to successfully save his 2 fellow soldiers, all fellow Jews
were amazed at his bravery.

Although we aren't on the front lines we are the home front
supporting them and our need to help and their needs, are our

The rav said this Shabbat that Rambam, in Hilchot Melachim, talks
about a war like this. It is not a war for our children, or our
parents or even for our country. It is a war for Hashem. WE are doing
the fighting for him. All of our soldiers truly know that. That is
how they can throw their own bodies on a grenade. Because the Mesirut
Nefesh for Hashem is what drives all of us to do our best, and we all
pray. It is what will help to rebuild the Beit Hamikdash , in our

So, that is what we are doing these days in Ra'anana, and that is
what it is like living in Israel during a war and I hope I got some
of the feeling across in a way different from the regular media.

Wishing you all a Tzom Mo'eel,


Friday, July 7

From Bagdad to the New York Times

Lt. Tom Cotton writes this morning from Baghdad with a word for the New York Times:

Dear Messrs. Keller, Lichtblau & Risen:

Congratulations on disclosing our government's highly classified anti-terrorist-financing program (June 23). I apologize for not writing sooner, but I am a lieutenant in the United States Army and I spent the last four days patrolling one of the more dangerous areas in Iraq. (Alas, operational security and common sense prevents me from even revealing this unclassified location in a private medium like email.)

Unfortunately, as I supervised my soldiers late one night, I heard a booming explosion several miles away. I learned a few hours later that a powerful roadside bomb killed one soldier and severely injured another from my 130-man company. I deeply hope that we can find and kill or capture the terrorists responsible for that bomb. But, of course, these terrorists do not spring from the soil like Plato's guardians. No, they require financing to obtain mortars and artillery shells, priming explosives, wiring and circuitry, not to mention for training and payments to locals willing to emplace bombs in exchange for a few months' salary.

As your story states, the program was legal, briefed to Congress, supported in the government and financial industry, and very successful.

Not anymore. You may think you have done a public service, but you have gravely endangered the lives of my soldiers and all other soldiers and innocent Iraqis here. Next time I hear that familiar explosion -- or next time I feel it -- I will wonder whether we could have stopped that bomb had you not instructed terrorists how to evade our financial surveillance.

And, by the way, having graduated from Harvard Law and practiced with a federal appellate judge and two Washington law firms before becoming an infantry officer, I am well-versed in the espionage laws relevant to this story and others -- laws you have plainly violated. I hope that my colleagues at the Department of Justice match the courage of my soldiers here and prosecute you and your newspaper to the fullest extent of the law. By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars.

Very truly yours,
Tom Cotton Baghdad, Iraq

Tuesday, July 4

Careless Talk of The Times

"Careless talk" is what the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times have published without responsibility, apology and without remorse. Vital intelligence has been compromised by irresponsible "leakers," reporters, editors and publishers. The person who leaked the report about the US tracking and cutting off terrorist funds should be prosecuted for treason, as should the reporters, editors and publishers of both newspapers.

And frankly, since there is something each of us could do to stop such media irresponsibility, I don't understand why someone hasn't called for a boycott of both those newspapers.

Perhaps the American people don't understand the seriousness of the situation. Perhaps they've forgotten that we have undergone a series of attacks from an enemy that is far more elusive and far more destructive than any we have faced before. Certainly the editors and publishers of those two former great publications don't understand the nature of the problem.

They are quick to criticize the Administration for not publishing their plans for executing the war and when someone leaks vital and sensitive information to them, they are quick to publish that information with no regard for the damage it may do -- not only in terms of American lives lost but in terms of how those revelations might shut down intelligence gathering.

Of course terrorist militants knew we were trying to shut down their financing; what they didn't know, and what the NY and LA Times were happy to reveal to them, was how our government was going about it. I suspect those editors and publishers know full well the damage they have done, and they knew before they did it.

When our grandson was a small boy, he did not like mushrooms at all and went to extremes to avoid them. Once he even said, "I hate mushrooms so much that I hate everyone who likes mushrooms." That's about the way I feel about an irresponsible press that places this nation in further jeopardy and refuses to correct a terrible wrong. I think I hate the LA Times and the NY Times and everyone who likes them.

Sunday, June 25

"The sky is falling....The sky is falling."

Parade, the Sunday feature in newspapers all over the country, came out with a good one this morning (Sunday, June 25, 2006. It features an article by Eugene Linden titled, "Why You Can't Ignore the Changing Climate." Linden, who obviously hasn't researched his subject beyond the false UN reports and Gore's unscientific rantings, tells us the weather is changing. (Duh!)

In his sky-is-falling report, Linden claims that "We're making it worse" by burning gas and oil in engines. ". . . gas-guzzlers contribute to climate change," he writes and adds that those furnaces and engines have "pushed carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere far above where they've been for hundreds of thousands of years." Citing the thoroughly debunked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (go to and do a search on the panel for the truth), and Science Magazine (whose professional science credentials are non-existent)as his proof.

Now, no one would argue that the climate isn't changing -- it has been warming (and cooling and warming again) since the end of the Ice Age. The question is whether civilization has anything to do with it and there is NO (I repeat NO) true scientific evidence that it does. Again, if you're interested in what real scientists who have studied these things for years have to say on the subject, is your best and most authoritative voice on the subject.

On that site you can also find out WHY certain politicians are so anxious to perpetuate this myth, but that's not what prompted this piece.

It's the last section in the article that caused me to do a double-take and sent me here, to the computer. In a section captioned, "Climate Has Destroyed Past Civilizations," Linden says that a drought in Mesopotamia 4,200 years ago destroyed that civilization (no doubt a result of the gas-fired SUVs and industrial furnaces of the Akkadian culture!) and that climate caused the collapse of the Mayan culture as well as the end of Norse expansion into the New World in the 14th century.

Doesn't Linden see that those very points destroy his argument? Yes, the climate has changed -- off and on, back and forth -- since the beginning of time. But hydrocarbons and man-made pollutants have only an irritant affect on local atmospheres. Scientists who have studied climates for years contend that there is absolutely no credible evidence to justify the claim that man has any control whatsoever over the climate.

"Past civilizations had no way to know that climates could change," he writes. "We do." But those civilizations also didn't have the technology Linden claims is causing climate changes. It follows that the technology in question wasn't a factor then, and isn't now. The reason for giving up gas-fired engines is more significantly grounded in our dependency on oil from the Middle East. But it's silly, useless, egotistical and foolish to claim that man can control the climates of the earth by getting rid of gas-fired engines, etc. The sky isn't falling, Mr. Linden.

Friday, June 23


You're invited to an online tea party. Come as you are.

Just click HERE.

Thursday, June 15

Duty Call for the Long Gray Line

Last night some TV political pundits were musing that it seems the Democratic Party has decided to run veterans for office to give the impression that they are better qualified to handle the war in Iraq than the Republicans. As we're all aware, the Democrats accuse President Bush and the Republicans of lying and getting us into a war they believe we cannot win.

It's always fascinating to see how the Democrats ALMOST get it right, but not quite. If that is their thinking -- that running ex-military men for office will produce better legislation and better government -- they're falling just short of the mark. Just because a person served in the military doesn't mean he or she is more qualified than anyone else to serve in Congress.

There's one exception to that statement: the graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point.

What we need in political offices now are men (and women) with a strong sense of honor; people we can trust. Most Americans are quite cynical about expecting more in terms of morality and ethics from office holders, possibly because they are not honest and trustworthy themselves and can't imagine that others might be.

You don't graduate from West Point unless duty and honor have become part of your very being. West Point graduates are pledged never to "lie, steal or cheat or associate with those who do." (Of course that last phrase makes it difficult for one to work with more than half of the present members of Congress!)

Most Americans hear those words and think they are just that -- words. But they are more than that to a member of the Long Gray Line. They are a lifetime committment; stronger even than marriage vows.

In his autobiography, "It Doesn't Take A Hero," Gen.(Ret.) Norman Schwarzkopf writes, "To this day it's hard to explain the impact West Point had on me. Somehow, during the four years I spent in that idealized military world, a new system of values came alive in my mind. When I began as a plebe, "Duty, Honor, Country" was just a motto I'd heard from Pop. I loved my country, of course, and I knew how to tell right from wrong, but my conscience was still largely unformed. By the time I left, those values had become my fixed stars."

For the past 23 years I've been on the periphery of a West Point family. My son-in-law, his father, two brothers and sister are all graduates of USMA and as of this past May 27, my grandson is, as well. I have seen first hand what it means to be dedicated to honor -- the difference it makes in the lives of those who live it and in the lives of those affected by it. It's what our country needs now.

In his speech at graduation, President Bush said, "This is the first class to arrive at West Point after the attacks of September the 11th, 2001. Each of you came here in a time of war, knowing all the risks and dangers that come with wearing our nation's uniform. And I want to thank you for your patriotism, your devotion to duty, your courageous decision to serve. America is grateful and proud of the men and women of West Point. . .My call to you is this: Trust in the power of freedom, and be bold in freedom's defense. Show leadership and courage -- and not just on the battlefield. Take risk, try new things, and challenge the established way of doing things. Trust in your convictions, stay true to yourselves -- and one day the world will celebrate your achievements."

Because the Long Gray Line has proved, individually and collectively, each individual's dedication to truth and honor, America can rest assured that the defense of the nation is in good hands.

It would be grand to know that the leadership of the nation was in the hands of West Point graduates. Honor and courage are more than just words to them; those values are a way of life. We need men and women whose lives are dedicated to those principles to serve in the legislative, judicial and executive branches of our government.

You'll find the text of the President's speech at and there's a video of the USMA graduation ceremony at

Thursday, May 18

Citizenship Should Be Earned and Respected

CNN says the Senate is about to pass a "broad bill letting illegal immigrants stay in the United States." My question is "how broad?"

After thinking seriously about it, I do believe that the illegals who are already here and working should be granted citizenship if they want it and IF they are willing to learn the language and history and pass some seriously tough tests to earn that citizenship. They should NOT be given a free pass just because they've been here.

It's impractical to attempt to send them all home and that's also downright unworthy of a Christian nation. Of course it we're NOT a Christian nation it doesn't matter -- pack 'em up and ship 'em out. Without Christian values, heck, nothing much matters.

But it's important that the citizenships be earned and valued. They came here for money; not for a better life. Many send half the money they make back to Mexico and they would return to Mexico if it were a decent place to live.

Our forefathers came here -- mine, at least, to practice Christianity and to build a nation. The ones who came after the nation was established came here to become Americans.

Most vocal Mexican immigrants seem to be here to change America. They want special rules; they are not interested in our history or our future. We don't have room for people like that.

The Mexican Americans who are here and who have assimilated are some of our finest citizens. Like Irish, Germans, Scots, and all the rest they have earned their way and deserve our highest respect. But they're not the ones protesting.

I hope Congress has enough sense (although I seriously doubt it) to pass legislation that gives a tough amnesty to illegals -- an amnesty that makes them decide that America is truly where and who they want to be. American citizenship has been earned by ALL of us.

It's common knowledge among psychologists that people don't value what they don't earn. Let's be sure the illegals have a chance to earn citizenship; let's don't give it freely.

Write or call your congressman and see that they are not giving away the country to people who don't respect it and will only take without giving in return.

Tuesday, May 16

Requiem For The West Wing

Sunday night marked the end of my all-time favorite TV show, "The West Wing." Many years ago there was a series called "Family" that I enjoyed almost as much and I rank "The Dick Van Dyke Show" and "Designing Women" in my list as the only TV worth watching, but "West Wing" beat them all by a mile and it breaks my heart to see it go.

Now get this -- I'm a conservative Republican. Most of the time, at least. That's the basis of my political . . .er, faith? That word comes closest to the one I want -- you have to have faith in the people you elect and I can't have much faith in Democrats. Except for Joe Lieberman. But I digress again.

The West Wing had a lot of flaws. They made mistakes -- in the last episode, for example, they began with a mistake. Bartlett said that Jefferson, Adams, etc. had set January 20th as Inauguration Day. Not so. Presidents were inaugurated in March for many, many years. The January date is a modern one -- something to do with "lame duck" legislation.

Another mistake: Once they had Bartlett flying Air Force One out of Nashville after a visit to Oak Ridge -- Tennesseans, especially Knoxvillians, giggled at that one. And Bartlett's diatribe over homosexuality was so inadequate and Old Testament oriented that it was a silly farce. They needed a real conservative to help with some of their issues, for there were more, many, many more inadequate arguments for the opposition -- but their ineptitude just made it more fun to watch.

What I loved most, though, was the respect shown for the office of President and the political process. (That respect was totally lacking in Commander in Chief; they treated it like and everyday job.) There was irreverence, sure, but never for American institutions -- there was a tenderness for the ideals, a sense of treasuring the Constitution along with a respect and downright awe of the system and those, to me, were the very essence of the show. As it is the essence of our country.

I loved the characters -- Allison Janney as C.J. Cregg was spectacular and she demonstrated her talent as an actress as we watched her grow first as Press Secretary and then into the Chief of Staff job. Poor Janney had to give up her flattering blondish hair in favor of dark brown when she took over Leo's job as Chief of Staff (probably the producers thought it gave her more credibility but it doesn't go with her coloring). It's just like TV to be that shallow; Janney's a fine actress. She could have pulled off that credibility in a show-girl blonde wig!

If the producers had any imagination at all, however, they would have explored her role as a woman in politics. Unlike Geena Davis, whose talent ranges (as Dorothy Parker once said of a young Kate Hepburn) "from A to B," Janney would make a viable and believable President of the United States. They could have put her in the Vice President's slot in the series, then killed off Jimmy Smits so she could take over the job. That would have been good for another eight years of drama, humor, repartee and political issues.

Janney says she hopes The West Wing was one of the greatest shows on television. It is. She helped make it so.

I haven't grieved over the death of a media star since I discovered -- when I was 10 -- that Rudolph Valentino had died long before my birth, but I honestly grieved when John Spencer died. Not only for his character, Leo McGarry, but for him as an actor. Finer acting doesn't appear on television or movies nowadays.

Dule Hill, who played the inimitable Charlie, said he hoped The West Wing had raised the bar for television. It did. It brought back the quick repartee-type dialog of movies of the 1930s and addressed current issues and even relationships on multi-levels. One reason re-runs are so interesting is that I always hear something I missed the first time. THAT is non-existent in most television.

One critic said that people don't quip like that in real life. I guess that depends on who you're running around with. My friends do, and I love it. Keeps me on my mental toes.

And there's where Commander in Chief erred. The writing and dialogue were just average, the kind of thing you see on soap operas everyday. Plots were unimaginative and predictable, "trudging" is the best word for them. The characters were just that -- characters. Donald Sutherland can act but he didn't have to as Nathan Templeton. All he had to do is seem a bit ominous in the background and issue a bland threat now and then.

Now I confess I watched only two Commander in Chief episodes -- the first one and the one when they came back on the air, supposedly "improved." And I've watched every episode of The West Wing that has been aired -- at least twice, more for many of my favorites. I feel I gave Commander a fair chance. It just didn't deserve more of my time.

And Geena Davis didn't deserve to win the Golden Globe instead of Allison Janney. Janney's growth in the role of Chief of Staff last year was a glorious demonstration of fine acting. Davis has never come close.

So goodbye Donna, Josh, Claudia Jean, Toby, the Bartletts, Charlie, Sam, Will and all the rest -- you "did good," guys. Thanks for the happy hours, the entertainment, the challenge to the industry. Here's best wishes for continuing success for each of you, you have earned your credentials as actors.

And thanks for a great show, Aaron Sorkin. I'll watch your new one a couple of times but the subject doesn't interest me like politics does.

Monday, May 15

Inside Bush's secret spy net

This is the headline on a piece on CNN's web site this morning.


CNN is going to tell me (and Al quaeda and all the other terrorist networks who are known to watch CNN) exactly what the President is doing to secure the safety of Americans?

Thank you CNN. And USA Today, who supposedly were the first to discover the secret technology that has helped keep American safe from another 9/11 attack for the last five years.

"Loose lips sink ships" was a famous saying during World War II. There were posters on street corners depicting a destroyer being blown up by a torpedo to emphasize the point. Letters to troops (and from troops) were carefully scrutinized and it wasn't a bit unusual to find a blackened sentence in a letter from a loved one who probably didn't realize he had slipped.

We were at war.

And we are at war now. Why isn't the media screaming at the reporters and editors who published this story? Why aren't they being investigated for compromising the security of the nation?

Frankly, I blame the administration as much as the media. Although Mr. Bush has managed to keep us from another attack, he has not convinced the American People that we are at war. Oh, he has said it, yes. But he has to do more than say it.

He has to put the homefront on a war basis. Roosevelt did it -- but, of course, Roosevelt had a press that understood when "freedoms" should be restrained in the name of security and the future. The press in Roosevelt's time was not hell bent on destroying America.

We are in the midst of World War III. And World War III is infinitely more dangerous to us that World War II was. The enemy is after US this time; in WWII it hadn't gotten around to us yet, it was after Europe. Judging from the support we get in WWIII from Europe, we might as well have let Hitler have it.

However, that's neither here nor there. The situation exists: we have a news media that is more interested in trying to blacken the reputation of the current administration than it is in protecting the American people. It refuses to acknowledge the dangers we face even to the extent that it is willing to put us in more danger by making the gathering of intelligence from the enemy even harder.

Does anyone believe for a minute that the terrorists did not immediately cease and desist with the telephoning and are not now hard at work devising new ways to get around the now-outed NSA spying techniques?

Thanks CNN and USA Today and the NY Times, et al. We really needed that.
For the truth about this issue, go to

Friday, May 12

Who REALLY pays taxes?

The bottom 50% of wage earners pay less than 4% of the total federal taxes. And they DARE to complain about cutting taxes for the OTHER 50%. I really don't think the poor's just Democrats who are frantically searching for something to run on. And the extremely wealthy have all those tax breaks to help them out. People in the entertainment industry, who owe the most, also pay the least.

What we really need is the FairTax.

Wednesday, May 10

Future Vote: Only Big States Elect President

Only if you live in certain states will your vote for President count if certain liberals have their way.

Oh, you can vote, all right. It just won't count.

According to Rob Richie, director of FairVote, a national, non-partisan electoral-reform organization, a national popular vote for president can be achieved without the requisite constitutional change. Accomplishing this would eliminate the possibility of one candidate winning a majority of the popular vote while the other candidate wins a majority of Electoral College votes and consequently the presidency.

But there's something radically wrong with what Richie and FairVote as well as groups like the Campaign for the National Popular Vote (NPV)(run by John Anderson, Birch Bayh and John Buchanan, three losers who were defeated in the 1980 Reagan landslide), are doing. They are switching the electoral process from the people to a few of the most populous states.

FairVote and its allies intend to persuade legislatures in states representing at least 270 electoral votes -- a majority of the 538-vote Electoral College -- to pass laws entering their states into a legally enforceable interstate contract. That agreement would bind those states to give all of their electoral votes to whichever presidential ticket wins a majority of the popular vote.

The compact wouldn't become activated until states with at least an electoral-vote majority had entered into it. A bill with bipartisan support already has been introduced in the Illinois Legislature and passed by the California legislature.

The problem with this is, of course, that the "popular" vote winner can be too easily determined by only the voters in the states having the most population: California, New York, Pennsylvania, etc. The purpose of the electoral college as it stands now is to assure that the majority vote -- the most votes from all over the country, not just one or two areas -- prevails.

But the scary thing here is the way they are going about this. They are going around the Constitution (that nasty little document that assures things like liberty and freedom and "old-fashioned stuff" like that): the National Popular Vote campaign does NOT propose to abolish the Electoral College, which would require amending the U.S. Constitution -- their plan is to get states with at least 270 votes in the Electoral College to enact identical bills requiring their own electors to ignore the winner of their state's election and cast all their state's ballots for the candidate who the state believes received more popular votes than the other candidates nationwide, even if he fails to win a majority of the popular vote.

On the surface it almost sounds like electing the President by popular vote. That's the illusion they are creating. But it isn't. Notice the language; they'll vote for "who the State believes..." Not the vote of the people...but the state. (A governor? A legislature? Some undefined person?)

Under this proposal you don't have to vote at all. Just leave it to the State....and what does that sound like?

No, you say? That will never happen in America? Well, guess what. It IS happening and the media isn't reporting it.

The states that are looking at this kind of legislation are California (has already passed the "NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE" bill:, Colorado, Washington, Illinois and more.

This is certainly something that should be widely and nationally reported. Maybe letters to editors would call attention to this in enough communities so that we voters whose votes will be ignored can make enough noise to stop it.

Saturday, May 6

Darkhorse Marines meet locals, counter insurgency

Lance Cpl. Joshua Robinson, 21-year-old infantryman from Herrin, Ill., assigned to Mobile Assault Platoon, Weapons Company, 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment stands watch during a cordon-and-knock operation near Fallujah, Iraq, May 1.
Photos by: Cpl. Mark Sixbey

An Iraqi man reads a pamphlet given to him by Gunnery Sgt. Brett Turek, Mobile Assault Platoon Commander, Weapons Company, 3rd Battalion 5th Marine Regiment outside Fallujah May 1. The unit passed out information sheets to help the Iraqi citizens report incidents after terrorists placed an improvised explosive device outside a local elementary school.
Cpl. Luis Cervantes, a machine gunner from Los Angeles assigned to Mobile Assault Platoon, Weapons Company, 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment gives sunflower seeds to Iraqi children during a cordon-knock operation May 1. The unit passed out information pamphlets to help the Iraqi citizens report incidents after terrorists placed an improvised explosive device outside a local elementary school.
Photo by: Cpl. Mark Sixbey

AMERIYAH, Iraq (May 3, 2006) -- Marines with the Darkhorse battalion are using one of the most effective combat measures in Iraq. They’re easing off their trigger fingers.

It’s a slight shift in attitude. No guns blazing, more knocking and asking questions and Marines from 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment are using the tactic with great success.

Marines of Mobile Assault Platoon, Weapons Company, recently stepped up patrols and cache sweeps near Fallujah to counter an increase in improvised explosive device activity in the area.

“Over the past 96 hours we’ve had a dramatic impact,” said Gunnery Sgt. Brett Turek, MAP platoon commander. He said the number of IEDs planted in the area dropped sharply since the operation began.

The unit uses a cordon-and-knock method to fight the insurgency in the neighborhood, going house-to-house and talking to the locals.

“Right now we’re basically meeting and greeting the people and checking their houses to see if there’s anything suspicious in there,” said Pfc. Javier Villarreal, a 21-year-old infantryman from El Paso, Texas assigned to MAP. “Hopefully they’ll give us information.”

The friendly approach to searching is a result of the changing mission in Iraq, according to Staff Sgt. Jesse Thompson, section leader for MAP.

“We’re not here to do what we were doing last year,” he said. “We want them to understand we’re here to help them, not hurt.”

The Marines passed out flyers to inform the public how insurgents put them in danger, with phone numbers they can call for help.

Turek noticed a shift in the neighborhood’s attitude when insurgents placed an IED on the road in front of the local elementary school.

“If you target us, that’s one thing. But when you start targeting kids, we’ll get that word out to the populace,” said the 38-year-old from Hinsdale, Ill. “There is something unique about insurgents targeting kids that everybody can agree is wrong.”

It’s a part of the War on Terror that strikes a personal chord with all Marines. The Marines have soft spot for the children, often caught in the middle.

“What really gets under my skin is, we find an IED one day and the next day we’ll see kids in the same place,” Thompson said. “I’ve got four kids of my own. I can’t understand why anybody would put kids in danger like that.”

“These people around here are what we call fence-sitters, so we try a more tactful approach,” said Lance Cpl. Joshua Robinson, an infantryman from Herrin, Ill. assigned to MAP. “We greet them instead of just kicking the door in. It’s more of a soft approach to try and win the hearts and minds.”

They meet new faces while going door-to-door, while dispelling myths about Americans along the way, Thompson said. “One woman we talked to yesterday had never spoken to a Marine before. Once we went in and talked to her, she said we weren’t anything like she thought.”

“They were nervous at first, but I think we made a definite relationship,” Turek added. “Hopefully that will pay off for us in the future.”

The stepped-up cache sweeps are bringing results as well, as Marines from 1st Combat Engineer Battalion’s, B Company who scan the area for buried ordnance caches. There they find everything from AK-47 assault rifles and rocket propelled grenades to IED-making materials and mortars.

“We’ve been going pretty strong for the past week and a half,” said Lance Cpl. Jason Bright, a combat engineer attached to Weapons Company. “A couple days ago we found a pretty good size one, with a lot of AK’s, RPGs and explosives.”

The 20-year-old from San Angelo, Texas, carried a full combat load in addition to his metal detector searching for enemy munitions. He said finding buried weapons are all the motivation he needs to keep going.

“It’s always good to find something, because it makes you feel like its worthwhile having to hump this stuff around all day,” Bright said.

Although most of the people they meet cooperate, Thompson said the Marines are ready for anything.

“As soft as it may look, in the snap of a finger you can go from soft to extremely hard,” explained the 31-year-old from Orlando, Fla. “That’s why we have counter-measures set in place.”

He credited the progress in the area to the men on the ground.

“If this mission is going to be a success, it’s because of those Marines out there every day,” he said. “These are the best guys I’ve ever worked with in my life.”

Monday, May 1

Why Al Qaeda Is Retreating From Iraq

"Despite the many brickbats of the media, al Qaeda has been defeated in Iraq, and is now retreating to lick its wounds where it can. If it can. Just over four and a half years, al Qaeda has gone from being the dominant terrorist group in the world to a defeated shell of its former self. In trying to defeat the United States, al Qaeda made three big mistakes: They fought the last information war, they underestimated the American leadership, and they also managed to anger the Iraqi people.

From the moment the United States and al Qaeda began fighting in Afghanistan, the terrorists were looking for a chance to re-create images similar to those of American troops being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu in 1993 or Walter Cronkite calling the Vietnam War a stalemate in 1968. It was hoped that such a moment would cause a dramatic drop in support for the war among the American people and force the United States out of Iraq. It did not happen.

The first problem was that al Qaeda failed to realize just how much the terrain had shifted on the media battlefield, particularly the growth of alternative outlets. In 1993, CNN was the only 24-hour news network. In 1996, two other 24-hour news networks were founded, MSNBC on July 15, and Fox News on October 7. These started to establish competition. After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Fox News began pulling ahead of the other two networks, largely because it was taking a position that was seen as being reasonably supportive of the American efforts.

Also on the media front, the Internet was already becoming a major player. In 1998, Matt Drudge was showing that one person with a web site could break a major story. In 2004, a few bloggers were able to start the chain of events that led to Dan Rather's retirement from CBS. In 2006, bloggers are now an acknowledged player on the media battlefield. These efforts were dismissed by al Qaeda, and as a result, while al Qaeda hit its target, the effect was grossly minimized due to the fact that the "silent majority" now had tools by which they could be heard. The media created a false picture after the 1968 Tet Offensive, but was unable to do the same in Iraq.

The next mistake was underestimating American leadership. Al Qaeda assumed that the posture of the Clinton Administration (specifically, treating terrorism as a law-enforcement issue) would continue. Instead, the Bush Administration went after al Qaeda's host (the Taliban regime Afghanistan), then proceeded to go after another regime that sponsored terrorism (Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq - as indicated by documents recovered after the liberation of Iraq in 2003). Then, when the media firestorms hit, rather than fold as the Clinton Administration did after the CNN images were shown in 1993, the Bush Administration stayed the course. This eventually unnerved al Qaeda, and led to its third, and most fatal, mistake.

The third mistake was to wage a campaign of terror against Iraqi civilians. This was intended to intimidate them into at least acquiescing to al Qaeda's presence, if not supporting al Qaeda at all. It didn't work. Instead, as the car bombs went off , and drew CNN headlines in the United States, al Qaeda managed to become more and more unpopular with Iraqis. Even the Arab Sunnis began to view the Americans, who had displaced them from the power they had held under Saddam, as a better option than supporting al Qaeda. Eventually, the Sunnis joined the democratic process and when that happened, al Qaeda's eventual defeat was assured with increasing Sunni participation over three elections in the space of less than a year.

These three mistakes resulted in the defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq, a defeat has left that group largely discredited. Osama bin Laden is now reduced to making audio tapes with grand pronouncements which have little or no likelihood of ever becoming reality, since al Qaeda has no safe havens where they can train new recruits, nor countries willing to support them.fighting. In less than five years, al Qaeda has gone from being feared by the world, to little more than a sideshow in the long war that the United States is now."

from one of Jack Cashill's sources.

Sunday, April 23

A "Heads Up" For the Faithful

If you're a faithful reader of Sunnyeside I have a tip for you. I don't think it will cause a major panic because I'm not one of the top bloggers, so I'll tell you what the media won't.

There's a major shortage of gasoline at the pumps back East -- notably at the Virginia shore. Gas stations are running short and it's hard to fill your tank.

Possibly this isn't being reported in the national media for fear of causing a panic. I'm sure there's no need to panic but you few loyal souls who read me might top off your tanks and keep them filled for a while.

We've cancelled our road trip and have bought plane tickets for our planned trip to New York and points South to Virginia next month. We had planned to drive but it's senseless to do that if we might get stuck somewhere.

There certainly is no reason to panic but there's every reason to take precautions. Some of us remember the shortages in the '70s, so best be prepared this time. We have a month's supply of food on hand and tomorrow I'll stock up on water (a useful precaution in Tornado Alley, anyway). Then we'll just watch to see what happens.

Tuesday, April 18

The 3/5 in Iraq

I don't know if this will copy as a live link or not. Please try it and see if it will work with your browser. It's the 3/5 Marines in Iraq.

The video is from my cousin. It simply shows what our media refuses to acknowledge

Saturday, April 15

Click here to go to the web site.Here's a great idea. Congress (and President Bush) sometimes need "show and tell." Pity the poor postman, but postal prices far outreach the service provided anyway, so what the heck.

Friday, April 14


I've seen interviews and TV reports lately decrying the "racism" of Americans for standing against the patronization of illegal immigrants. What a crock! This country is the LEAST racist when it comes to immigration of practically any in the world.

We've welcomed immigrants from all nations all over the world with no comment. We've had veritable invasions from Cuban and Viet Nam with no objections from our citizenry for many years now. Those immigrants have come here, learned our language and used our capitalistic system to prosper.

And thereby lies the difference! They assimilated. They came her to become Americans and we welcome people who love freedom and want to learn our way of life and become part of our national community.

One idiot said that our government never turned away Scots, English, Irish, Germans -- in effect, white immigrants. That simply is not so. Some people from those lands were rejected for many reasonsillness, criminal backgrounds, quotas, to name a few.

America has welcomed Mexicans. Those who come here legally, who learn our language and who are willing to learn our history and participate in our way of life have been welcomed for years. In my own family, I have cousins who are grandchildren of Mexican immigrants -- and one is serving his third tour of duty with the Marines in Iraq right now. They are a loved and treasured part of our family.

Those who label the protests against illegal immigration know what they are doing. They know they are lying but they see more profit in divisiveness than in working for a viable solution.

One interesting result, however: falsely using the "racism" charge weakens the effectiveness of that charge in time. That certainly can do no harm in the long run.

Tuesday, April 11

An American Indian View of Immigration

By David A. Yeagley

As an Indian -- a direct descendant of the Comanche warrior Bad Eagle, 1839-1906 -- I've always been fascinated with foreigners. I've admired their great courage and determination. They made a perilous journey from their homeland. They learned a new language, and new ways, all in a new land. They brought the world to me.

("Indian"? Naturally, most tribes prefer their own name. But that’s in their own language, and no one but themselves would know of whom they speak. There is no collective name for "Indians" in any tribal language. The modern term "Native American," created in the 1970s by leftists, is ambiguous. Most Indian people don't use it -- only what I call the "university tribe," college-educated Indians led by white radical professors; and the would-be politically correct media. The name we first held, in the white man's eyes, was "Indian." That's what we have been since Columbus. That's what our most famous warriors were called. Believe me, Indians prefer the name "Indian." It is historically specific, whatever its origin. The name holds the emotional, psychological associations of the warrior. The Left, of course, wants to remove that. Hey, call me savage!)

Playing host to strangers has always been an Indian tradition -- as the Pilgrims so famously learned. However, some might say that we Indians were too hospitable for our own good.

America today is making the same mistake we Indians made nearly four centuries ago. America is letting in too many foreigners. And we Indians could end up losing this country all over again. It may come as a surprise to many white people who have been brainwashed by the media to see Indians as the ultimate liberals, but there are few groups in America today who take a dimmer view of mass immigration than the American Indian.

According to, the U.S. population will double within the lifetimes of our children, as a direct result of the massive, uncontrolled influx of foreigners who began flooding our land after passage of the 1965 Immigration Act.

All Americans will suffer. But Indians will suffer most of all.

I'm not talking about competition for jobs, land, housing, energy, water and other finite resources—though these are all important. I'm talking about something deeper. The demographic destruction of Anglo-America will bring the final catastrophe on our people.

What catastrophe? The catastrophe of waking up one day and realizing that white people no longer control this country.

Now why should an Indian care about that? After all, white people are supposedly our enemies.

Well, yes, they were. But, as warriors, we found them to be worthy and formidable adversaries. Defeat is bitter. But when you respect your conqueror, it is a lot easier to swallow.

If Anglo-America turns this land over to blacks, Mexicans, Asians, Middle Easterners and other foreign peoples, for the Indian, it will be like losing this country for the second time. We have had generations to reconcile ourselves to white America. But we do not know these new people who are coming. We fought no battles with them, made no treaties with them, and have no reason to accord them any special respect.

If things keep going the way they are, we Indians could find ourselves bowing down to foreign peoples who never defeated our forefathers in battle -- and who certainly never could!

We Indians -- especially the more warlike tribes such as my people the Comanches -- recognize a kindred spirit in the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. He is like us in more ways than he knows.

The Comanches were one of the most intolerant of all Indian peoples. We had no use for anyone else, white, Mexican or Indian. When we came thundering down on the southwest plains, we took the land we wanted and ran everyone else off. We created the life we wanted, at the expense of other people.

The white man did the same. Only he did it on a grander scale.

In the old days, Comanches were known to honor strength in other people. Comanche warriors even adopted white captive boys, if they happened to show courage and fight.

In many ways, Indians see the white man as a kind of adopted son—naïve, reckless and destructive, at times -- but nevertheless cut from the same warrior cloth as we were.

We do not see blacks, Mexicans, Asians, Arabs and others in this light. These peoples may have their own virtues and traditions, but they have no history with us. They are strangers.

If they want to rule us, they must conquer us the way the white man did -- on the battlefield, by force of arms. That is the only honorable way for a warrior.

The white man seems to have lost his spirit, and we Indians see it. We see that he is giving this country away to others. And this fills our hearts with fear. For we are part of the land he is giving away. He is turning us over to strangers the way medieval barons turned over their serfs when they sold their land.

But we are not serfs. We are warriors. And we will not be ruled by people who have never fought us.

The white man must regain his warrior soul and take back his land.

In that fight, I will stand by his side and offer whatever strength I have to ensure his victory. Ha tu vi chat! *

* Comanche for, "It will all work out." Dr.David A. Yeagley is an enrolled member of the Comanche Nation, Elgin, Oklahoma. His articles appear in, and on his own Web site Dr. Yeagley is a regular speaker for Young America’s Foundation.

Saturday, April 8

Around The Nation With Illegal Immigrant Demonstrations

By Ben Johnson

BIG CORPORATIONS AND THE FAR-LEFT HAVE ONE THING IN COMMON: both like to employ cheap illegal immigrants to do their heavy lifting.

The leftist media have tried to portray this weekend’s massive protests against House measures to curtail illegal immigration as the uprising of “The Other America”: forgotten, humble, hidden Hispanic members of the working poor simply demanding their “rights.” As events spanned from California to Detroit, Phoenix to Washington, D.C., the media kept up its anti-enforcement drumbeat. Although some have credited Latino DJs for the 500,000-strong illegal immigrant turnout in Los Angeles alone – and some credit is deserved – the real legwork was done by a more eclectic group of organizations: leftist labor unions, George Soros-funded agitators, Open Borders lobbyists, Roman Catholic clergy, and teachers unions.

Los Angeles

Los Angeles predictably had the largest turnout – and the most disruptive. Half-a-million people crowded the streets demanding the “right” to flaunt this nation’s immigration laws, and underage students ran onto a California freeway, risking their lives and shutting down interstate traffic.

Andres Jiminez, director of the University of California's California Policy Research Center, told the media, “It's not only Latinos who are marching in the streets, its unions too: firefighters, farm workers and Hispanic students who had thought of U.S. law as protecting them and are now starting to see it as a threat to their future.”

He was right about this much: Latino organizations did not act alone. The media has failed to report that organized labor directed the illegals and minors. The L.A. Times revealed the rally’s “security” was handled by a union identified only as “Local 1877.” That would be local 1877 of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the far-Left union founded by New Left radical Andrew Stern, which called for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq in June 2004 and worked in concert with Ted Kennedy to roll back anti-terrorist Homeland Security measures. According to the L.A. Times, the SEIU’s goons kindly helped “herd marchers along the route.” That was not the extent of SEIU’s help, though. The union also “coordinated the more than 100 buses that dropped off marchers from throughout California, Las Vegas and a few Southwestern cities.”

In other words, the massive rally against Homeland Security – since that is what gaining control of America’s borders would promote – was staged by a leftist labor union and staffed primarily with illegal immigrants.

SEIU did not work alone in this. It was aided by other radical or left-wing political pressure groups, including:

· Southern California Human Rights Network (SCHRN), whose members are apparently affiliated with the International Socialist Organization. SCHRN drafted a resolution in Orange County declaring, “We believe that no human is illegal and oppose the criminalization, dehumanization, and exploitation of migrants, immigrants and or economic and political refugees, by means of media, legislation, ideology, rhetoric, etc. [This] includes augmenting border patrol units, commissioning other law enforcement agencies to work in conjunction with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and [includes] such policies as the Central American Free Trade Agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and other policies that exploit the indigenous, peasantry, and environments of countries abroad.” In other words, capitalism and any form of immigration laws are exploitative.

· Pomona Day Labor Center, which helps employers hire “day laborers.” One must presume this organization knows its employees are illegals.

· Central American Resource Center, which advocates for illegals and lobbies for the government to make a “‘presumption’ of hardship” for and grant “permanent residency” to Central American illegals.

· Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA), founded in 1986 to “get as many people as possible through the amnesty program established” by Ronald Reagan.

The cause is being helped in another way by the Los Angeles Unified School District – where more than 25,000 walked out of classes: through taxpayer-subsidized lobbying courses. According to the district, students “would remain in their home rooms through the day for discussions on the immigration issue, how to influence lawmakers and the consequences of walkouts, said Rowena Lagrosa, executive officer for educational service.” (Emphasis added.)

Michelle Malkin obtained a copy of a letter Lagrosa wrote Monday to the students of the school district stating LAUSD would chauffer students to high school after they protested on the freeway. The letter states after the rally, the district “will provide buses to return students to schools when appropriate.” Moreover, “we will do everything we can to ensure that those students who do leave the campus are supervised as they leave the campus.”

The leftist groups, illegals, and teachers unions could count on the media to cover for them. Mickey Kaus pointed out in Slate that the L.A. Times wrapped the protestors in the American flag, erasing all references to the Mexican standard, although the Mexican flag was hoisted at least as often in the crowd as Old Glory.

Gone from the media coverage, too, was mention that these protests had all the hallmarks of leftist riots of bygone days. Although depicted as nonviolent and mainstream, FrontPage Magazine columnist Tammy Bruce noted Hispanic protestors burned American flags at the L.A. rallies. Michelle Malkin has preserved some of the protestors’ other extremist messages. L.A. protestors ran onto freeways and threw rocks and bottles. LAPD Chief William Bratton – who put his men on tactical alert – said the protestors diverted police resources from fighting crime in the City of Angels. Fights broke out at protests in Watsonville, CA, and police arrested 21 minors and three adults for riotous behavior, including assaulting a police officer, in Escondido, CA.

D.C.: “Clergy” Against the Law

On Monday, the “mainstream media” reported some 300 clergy met near the Capitol for a prayer service to support illegal immigrants. The rally flyer claims these concerns sacerdotal ministers objected to legislation that would “Deny basic civil rights to immigrants.” No outlet reported this meeting was organized by the far-Left Center for Community Change, a member of the United for Peace and Justice coalition, headed by atheist and Marxist Leslie Cagan. On the CCC Board of Directors are:

Former Rep. Ron Dellums, D-CA, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee 1993-7. A letter written by a Dellums staffer to Grenada’s Marxist dictator discovered by U.S. troops as they liberated the island stated besides that toppled Marxist, “The only other person that I know of that [Dellums] expresses such admiration for is Fidel [Castro]”;
Cecelia Munoz, VP of the National Council of La Raza;
Sara K. Gould of the Ms. Foundation for Women;
Peter Edelman, a professor at Georgetown Law School, former Clinton administration official, and board president of the New Israel Fund. Today, he is perhaps best known as the husband of Hillary Clinton mentor Marian Wright Edelman. ; and
Sandra L. Ferniza, Arizona State University’s director of the Office of Public Affairs.
CCC is generously funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, the William Randolph Hearst Foundation, the George Soros-funded Open Society Institute, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Tides Foundation.

Other event sponsors include:

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). A large, sometimes violent leftist organization with a history of invading welfare offices and intimidating left-wing groups it perceives as “rivals.” In 2003, the group supported a resolution condemning the U.S. liberation of Iraq. ACORN’s would-be platform calls for the establishment of socialism in the United States. It founded the socialist Working Families Party in 1998 and endorsed Hillary Clinton’s senate campaign two years later.
American Friends Service Committee (AFSC). Although it has long presented itself as a benign Quaker organization, the AFSC has a multi-decade history of supporting unilateral disarmament and aiding Communist regimes, even eulogizing the head of a Tanzanian Communist party 13 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. AFSC signed a document days after 9/11, saying the terrorist attacks should be treated as a police matter. It has for decades promoted the “rights” of illegal workers.
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). Steve Brown and Chris Coon reported, “José Velez, the head of LULAC 1990-1994 used his “special status with the INS” to submit false papers for over 6,000 illegals seeking amnesty.” LULAC is today associated with race-based Affirmative Action programs and often allied with Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition.
Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. As I noted in my book, 57 Varieties of Radical Causes, Teresa Heinz Kerry awarded a Heinz Family Foundation grant to MIRA. In June 2002, MIRA instructed its members, “Please do NOT aid people in applying with INS unless you are familiar with their immigration history and are certain they would not be at risk of deportation by doing so.” (Emphasis theirs.) Immediately after 9/11 a MIRA press release asked people to “Refer local Arab, Muslim, and affected groups to MIRA.” They also advocate for illegals to receive in-state college tuition rates.
National Council of La Raza, a race-based organization that signed the “Statement of Solidarity with Migrants,” calling on the government to recognize the contributions of illegal immigrants to the labor market. It calls reduced welfare payments (to illegals), ““a disgrace to American values” and has firmly opposed numerous Homeland Security measures; and
The Gamaliel Foundation, a leftist organization inspired by Saul Alinsky. In addition to lobbying for illegal aliens, this member of the “Religious Left” hosted a campaign event in 2003 featuring Sen, Russ Feingold, D-WI, and then-presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich.
The event was another attempt for the Left to wrap its message in clerical garb, this time executed successfully.


Also on Monday, several hundred underage students in Phoenix staged a walkout that culminated with protests at the state Capitol. Underreported was the role played in the rallies by MEChA, a radical Hispanic organization demanding the U.S. government give the Southwestern portion of the United States “back” to Mexican-Americans for the establishment of a new state called Aztlan. MEChA promotes its agenda alongside the National Council of La Raza, Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), and the American Friends Service Committee.

A sense of MEChA-like entitlement pervaded the entire rally, as an illegal alien told the media:

I'm not a criminal. I'm a good person and I deserve a quality education. That's why I'm here. To show that I'm willing to work toward that goal and that I've earned that right.

She did not elaborate on how she “earned” the “right” to illegally cross the border and access taxpayer-subsidized services restricted to U.S. citizens.


Last Friday, tens of thousand of Georgians, including not a few illegals, staged a “sick-in” to protest a bill that passed the state house the day before. CNN reported, “That bill, which has yet to gain Senate approval, would deny state services to adults living in the U.S. illegally and impose a five percent surcharge on wire transfers from illegal immigrants.” Not only do immigrants have the “right” to live in Georgia illegally and collect government services, they also have the “right” to use Western Union without paying an extra five cents on the dollar. That’s some willingness to contribute to one’s home country. These are supposedly the minority members willing to work tirelessly to help their host country at jobs no one wants.

FrontPage Magazine columnist Allan Wall – whose National Guard brigade recently returned from serving our country in Iraq – has pointed out the Georgia protest’s organizer, Teodoro Maus, acted as Mexico’s consul general in Atlanta for 12 years. During that time, this Mexican government official protested Georgia’s declaration of English as the state’s official language, opposed a talk show host who supported border enforcement, and petitioned the Peach State to issue drivers licenses to illegals. Maus’ involvement raises the question whether Friday’s unofficial labor strike had the sanction of the Mexican government.

Dallas-Ft. Worth

Yesterday, area school districts estimated 4,000 students walked out in Dallas-Ft. Worth alone, staging a violent and disruptive rally to sanctify their illicit status.

Media accounts specify: “At Kiest Park, about 1,500 students from Dallas and Grand Prairie schools demonstrated. Dallas police outfitted in riot gear moved in on the crowd after some of the students started throwing rocks and bottles at a woman who staged a one-person counterprotest.” (Emphasis ours.)

Protestor Francisco Rojas, speaking in Spanish, told The Dallas Morning News, “It's like an animal that's waking from many years of sleep. We are very strong, and right now is our opportunity.”

These minor students then processed into a city council meeting, waving Mexican and El Salvadoran flags. To her credit, Councilwoman Elba Garcia courageously commandeered a police PA system to tell the truants to go back to school (where Dallas school officials said this week’s walkouts will be an unexcused absence).The warning came too late for one girl, whose hand was severed as a result of an accident that took place at the walkout.

Undeterred by the violence and harm done to their children’s education, leaders in the Open Borders Lobby set out plotting their next move. “At a dinner meeting of the Latino group LULAC, leaders announced a major rally on April 9. ‘We are going to be having, hopefully it will be the largest civil rights demonstration in the history of Dallas, Texas – 100,000-plus,’ said LULAC representative Domingo Garcia.”

No word on how many lone women will be battered the next time Mexican citizens exercise American First Amendment rights.

The Impact

These massive gatherings of illegals, who denounced their government unmolested by police or immigration officials, had an immediate impact – on legislation and on border security.

Reporter Sara Carter of the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin says since these protests, border patrol agents have reported an explosion in illegal crossings from Mexicans (and others) keenly observing the Senate debate and emboldened by same. Some were under the impression amnesty had already been granted and hoped to be the first to take part in the second California Gold Rush. [1]

The rallies had a political impact, too. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-CO, stated on Monday:

The immigration rallies over this weekend and today show how disordered our immigration system has become. For years, the government has turned a blind eye to illegal aliens who break into this country. It isn’t any wonder that illegal aliens now act as if they are entitled to the rights and privileges of citizenship.

As a sign of their political impact, Republicans immediately began discussing the potential threat their political careers face from an Hispanic backlash, should they have the temerity to pretend the United States is a sovereign nation with definable political boundaries.

Leftists and illegals began their massive protest – because they saw U.S. law “as a threat to their future” – the same day the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill that would allow illegals to attain American citizenship without facing deportation by a 12-6 vote. John McCain joined forces with Ted Kennedy to promote this amnesty measure. “It is not amnesty,” said Ted Kennedy, who has a 41-year history of fibbing about immigration bills.

The Judiciary Committee yesterday approved Dick Durbin’s amendment granting amnesty to individuals and non-profits that provide non-emergency aid to illegal immigrants. The committee had previously approved Durbin’s amendment to drop illegal immigration to a misdemeanor offense.

These measures are at odds with the will of the American people. According to the Associated Press, 59 percent of Americans oppose laws allowing illegal immigrants to apply for guest worker status, and 62 percent oppose easing the path to U.S. citizenship for those who are here illegally.

Americans know illegal immigrants account for nearly one-third of all inmates in federal prisons and add millions of dollars to their tax load every year. Even Mother Jones magazine exposed the health dangers posed to border towns throughout America, as a result of uninsured illegals bankrupting local hospitals – six years ago.

Americans cannot comprehend why Congress feels a need to add a guest worker program to mollify these disruptive, violent, lawbreaking protestors, who are occasionally political radicals and overwhelmingly individuals who are in violation of U.S. immigration law. What makes Congressmen think those whose first action in this country was to break the law will suddenly obey their newest futile measure?

These illegals claimed they marched to demand their “rights.” Those would amount to the right to a speedy trial, followed by rapid deportation. Illegal aliens have no additional rights under our Constitutional system, nor should they be given any. A more inspired leadership, with a requisite number of border patrol agents and paddy wagons, would have made these massive rallies an instructive object lesson in the enforcement of immigration law. Instead, political cowardice has transformed them into international exhibits of American impotence and paralysis.


1. “Scarborough Country,” MSNBC. March 28, 2006.

Friday, April 7

The Annexation of the American Southwest By Mexico?

By Ronald F. Maxwell
April 6, 2006

Dear President Bush, Perhaps you know me from my work. I wrote and directed the movies "Gettysburg" and "Gods and Generals." Walking Civil War battlefields, soaking up the letters and diaries of that generation, re-creating the world of our ancestors -- all this has given me a deep appreciation for our country. My dad was with the Army Air Corps in North Africa while your dad was in the Pacific. My French mother was liberated in Tunisia and became a lawful immigrant to the United States. For an American, my story is unique and typical at the same time.

You probably don't need to be reminded of the hostility and animus directed your way by most of the Hollywood community. Then again, I'm sure you don't take it personally. After all, they held Ronald Reagan in equal contempt. As one of the very few directors of major motion pictures who sees you in a different light, I implore you to listen seriously to what I have to say.

What is happening on the southern border is unprecedented. Not only in our own history, but in the history of the world. No country at any time anywhere has sustained the influx of tens of millions of foreigners across its borders. A wave of anti-American leftism is sweeping Latin America. A socialist radical may soon be elected as the president of Mexico, a country which officially encourages its emigrants to vote in Mexican elections, urging them to think of themselves as Mexican first and perhaps only. The eventual outcome is plain for anyone with eyes to see. This is invasion masquerading as immigration.

It may already be too late to avoid a future annexation of the Southwest by Mexico or the evolution of a Mexican-dominated satellite state. This is not to say Mexican people are better or worse than any of God's children. It is to say that millions of ethnically and culturally homogeneous people will seek self-determination in a land they will increasingly feel justified in claiming as their own. Especially when the natural weight of demographic change is accompanied by the soundtrack of radical demagoguery which seeks to legitimize and moralize this phenomenon as a "reconquista." Many pundits claim you will be remembered in history as the president who won (or lost) the war in Iraq. I see it differently. I believe you will come to be seen, in the years and decades to come, as the President who saved (or lost) the Southwest of the United States.

Mr. President, this is a time for candor. Your immigration policy is viewed as captive to the cheap labor -- big business lobby and inimical to the survival of our country. It is splitting the party and draining away support for your presidency. We who understand the vital stakes will not be placated by rhetoric or slogans. The failure to recognize this growing and deep disaffection among Republicans, conservatives, independents and, indeed, many Reagan Democrats, is, in the short run, going to lead to a monumental defeat for your party at the polls in November.

The last two years of your presidency will be plagued with impeachment hearings, with pressures to diminish the war against terrorism, with the cutting off of funds for the war of liberation in Iraq for which so many of our brothers in uniform have paid the ultimate price. The American people will once again be forced to endure a painful repetition of the humiliating withdrawal from Vietnam. We will be dedicating yet another monument to brave men who gave their lives for honor, country and a lost cause.

I understand that in your heart you want to believe that the border should be an open place where goods and people can move freely back and forth for the good of all. I do not question your integrity or the goodness and decency of your motivations. Dear Mr. President, this is a utopian creed, which must be discarded before it is too late.

When I watched the Senate Judiciary Committee's one-day public session on immigration reform (I suppose we should be grateful that Sen. Arlen Specter devoted one whole day out of his busy schedule for the public discussion of a problem regarding 20 million illegal aliens) it was remarkable for the near absence of any senator speaking on behalf of the American people or their own constituents. It seems the overriding concern of most senators of both parties is for the illegal immigrant population. Perhaps these senators should be reminded that they are supposed to represent and defend American citizens, not foreign nationals, illegal aliens or indeed anyone else. Listening to the self-serving and pandering speeches, you'd think the senators were elected in Mexico or any other country on the globe except America.

Where was the concern for American schoolchildren forced to sit in overcrowded classes, for American patients forced to wait in overcrowded hospitals, for American workers whose wages are being undercut, for American drivers forced to sit in interminable traffic jams in over-whelmed freeway systems, for the victims of organized gangs, for the American college students who are turned away from publicly funded state universities, for many African Americans who are being literally displaced from their neighborhoods while being moved figuratively, once again, to the back of the bus, for those environmentalists and conservationists who want to protect open space and slow down urban sprawl, for the American taxpayers who have had to bear the burden of billions of dollars in increased welfare costs, over-burdened prisons, extra police and security and even, adding insult to injury, for bilingual education?

Where was the concern that we as a people are compelled to deal with these "in your face" issues which have been imposed upon us by external forces, instead of focusing our time, energies and capital on our own indigenous, urgent concerns, like for instance, the medical care for our own countrymen and women. Might it be irresponsible to mislead the 20 million illegal foreigners already here and might it be immoral to encourage the yearly arrival of millions more when we cannot even take care of our own millions of poor and sick and hungry and, yes, dare I say it, our unemployed?

Working as I do in Civil War history, I have had to explore the ugly depths of the American institution of slavery, and have been privileged to work alongside civil rights leaders and specialists in African-American history. For this reason it troubles me that we appear today to be importing a second virtual slave class of low-wage workers who are hired to replace or displace less-educated or privileged Americans -- including the very descendants of American slaves.

I agree with you that "no child should be left behind." But that is precisely what immigration advocates are doing to the children of America's working class -- by flooding the market with workers from a desperately poor country, who depress the wages of high school and even college graduates.

Little in the current situation resembles the immigration we knew and cherished while growing up in America prior to the '80s. The new and radically dislocating phenomenon we are enduring is not the old, familiar immigration of yesteryear -- gradual, orderly, assimilating and lawful. The numbers alone are unprecedented. The American people have been made the victims of monumental social engineering perpetuated upon them without their consent and against their will by an arrogant governing elite. Those who try to neutralize their justifiable instincts of self-preservation as a people and a sovereign nation by constantly invoking the mantra of "a nation of immigrants" are trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

The House immigration bill isn't perfect, but it is a firm and realistic place from which to build an effective policy for the survival of our country. The McCain-Kennedy bill looks like it was drafted by bureaucrats at the United Nations, not by representatives of the United States.

To do the right thing, to take the safe course for protecting our country, you will have to endure even more vilification from the left, you will have to watch large and increasingly violent rallies by those who don't want to abide by our laws or the will of the American people -- who think they are entitled -- who believe this country already belongs to them -- who believe the rest of us should just move aside, shut up and smile. To pretend this problem will go away by pandering to the illegal population, or to leave it for the next generation to solve is national suicide.

The moment has arrived. The Senate has already begun its bloviations and self-agrandizing platitudes, its morality play of good and evil wherein they the noble senators are cast as the redeemers of the entire world population seeking only to "live the American dream." We know by their coded words they will do nothing meaningful to really solve the problem or to defend America. If their actions of the past 20 years are a guide, they will only take the pose of pretending to do so. As a movie director I can see bad acting a mile away.

Today there are two Republican Parties. One is now seen correctly by most Americans as responsive first and foremost to the demands of multinational corporations, the agro-business and the Chamber of Commerce. The other, best represented by the embattled members of the House, represents grass-roots America -- we the people. In this debate you have the opportunity to make the party one and whole again, to regain its soul and return it to the service and the sovereignty of the American people.

Dear Mr. President, you must disenthrall yourself from the failed policies of the present. I implore you to rethink this issue and to change course. Millions of Americans, a great majority of your fellow citizens will be with you. Start speaking and doing the sensible, courageous and right thing. You will see your poll numbers turn dramatically around. You will save your country.

Ronald F. Maxwell, a writer and director, is currently working on a satirical motion picture about immigration into America.