June 23, 2008

Europe's Immigration Problem

Europe It appears that European nations are fed up with the problems with illegal immigrants. The Christian Science Monitor is reporting the European Parliament in Hamburg approved tough new rules for expelling undocumented immigrants, including a provision to keep illegal immigrants in detention centers for up to 18 months. Surprise, surprise, the new rules met stiff opposition from liberal lawmakers and human rights groups. Amnesty International and others lobbied vigorously to block the measure. The EU ruling follows problems with migrants, legal and illegal, in Spain, France, Denmark, Italy, and Germany. Europe is currently experiencing an anti-immigrant backlash. Those migrants who don't depart voluntarily, or who officials fear may go into hiding, can be detained for up to 18 months while awaiting removal to their home country or a third nation. "Europe has made it clear that it is not tolerating any form of illegal status," says Manfred Weber, a German center-right lawmaker, who shepherded the directive through parliament. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, blamed immigrants last month for soaring crime rates. He proposed a number of measures, among them a law to make entering the country without permission a crime punishable by up to four years in prison. Meanwhile, Roma (gypsy) camps around Naples have been reduced to charred ruins by a string of fire-bomb attacks. There are 224 detention centers for migrants, with space for more than 30,000 detainees.

Questions:

How far will Europe go with this? Will this ignite more lawless demonstrations?
How will this affect Muslim immigrants?
Are there any lessons we can learn from the EU decision?

June 22, 2008

National Legal Policy Center goes after Al Sharpton

Briefcase Cash Human Events has an interesting report on who’s bankrolling Al Sharpton.  And it’s not African-Americans, but corporations, large publicly held corporations.  I’m reprinting much of their report on this Blog, because the National Legal Policy Center (NLPC) seems to be the only one doing anything about Rev. Al and his gravy train.

Human Events is reporting that Sharpton is shaking down large publicly held corporations, including Abbot Laboratories, Allstate, Anheuser-Busch, Citigroup, Colgate-Palmolive, , FedEx, Ford, General Motors, Home Depot, Johnson & Johnson, PepsiCo, and Pfizer.

These companies make five and six figure donations to Sharpton’s National Action Network.

“WHAT IS NLPC?

Founded in 1993, their mission is to promote ethics in public life. We have a track record of accomplishment:

    * 1993 - NLPC successfully sued Hillary Rodham Clinton's secret health care task force to open its meetings and records. In their recent books, both Hillary and former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal acknowledged NLPC's role in sinking her plan. 1

    * 1996 - Liberal FDA Commissioner David Kessler resigned soon after NLPC secured documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) showing that he overbilled his expense reimbursements.

    * 2003 - NLPC exposed the Boeing Tanker Deal Scandal, eventually sending two Boeing executives to jail, and saving taxpayers $4-5 billion, and perhaps a lot more.

    * 2005 - Two PACs associated with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) were fined $21,000 as a result of an FEC Complaint.

    * 2006 - We exposed the earmarking scandal involving Rep. Alan Mollohan (WV), and triggered an ongoing FBI investigation. Mollohan resigned as ranking Democrat on the House Ethics Committee.

    * 2007 - Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) sold back land she had bought in a "sweetheart" deal a day after NLPC filed a Complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee.

NLPC VS. SHARPTON

At the 2007 PepsiCo annual meeting in Dallas, I made an issue of the company's support for Sharpton, who actually got paid to serve on its advisory board.

Indra Nooyi, the new PepsiCo CEO, read without conviction a prepared statement defending the company's relationship with Sharpton. She seemed embarrassed.

Sharpton has apparently now been dropped from the Pepsi advisory board, but Pepsi continues to support the National Action Network.

Sharpton's antics over the years have produced lots of criticism, but NLPC is the only group that has ever laid a glove on him.

Sharpton was fined $5,500 by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for filing late disclosure reports for his presidential campaign, in response to a Complaint by NLPC.

Moreover, Sharpton was forced to pay back $100,000 in federal matching funds for his presidential campaign after we filed another FEC Complaint. He was denied another $70,000 in matching funds.

SHARPTON FUNNY?

Some people think Sharpton is "funny." I was asked about this by Joe Scarborough on MSNBC. I replied,

Sharpton is unfunny...He accused an innocent man of a rape...He incited demonstrators against a Jewish business in New York City. One of those demonstrators ended up shooting up and burning down the place, killing eight people.

I debated Sharpton himself on MSNBC. (O.J. Simpson's lawyer Johnny Cochran was also on, so it was actually two against one.) Never once did I call Sharpton "Reverend," because like Jackson, he is hardly a healer!

A few years ago, Sharpton's organization occupied a run-down, one room office. It was in debt and mired in tax problems.

In April, NAN held a glittering conference in Memphis with corporate executives and media luminaries taking part. The event enjoyed heavy corporate sponsorship.

Colgate-Palmolive accepted a "corporate excellence" award from Sharpton. We immediately demanded that the company repudiate the award. To press home the point, I went to the Colgate-Palmolive annual meeting in New York City and directly confronted its Chairman Reuben Mark.

It is through this kind of "direct action" that we can put corporate executives on the spot. Please consider a tax-deductible gift today in support of this effort. Click Here Now.

SHARPTON HAS NO CLOTHES

I think that the executives who "play ball" with Al Sharpton know exactly what they are dealing with: a racial extortionist whose real agenda is not civil rights, but his own enrichment.

The emperor of "racial justice" has no clothes.

Most Americans fully understand what Sharpton is up to, including most African-Americans.

I believe that this provides us with an opportunity. No one is comfortable defending the indefensible. So let's make these bigshot executives do it!

Our goal is nothing short of ending all corporate support for Al Sharpton.

NLPC is the only organization that regularly monitors and documents the statements of Al Sharpton.

We are in this fight for the long term.

Sincerely,

Peter Flaherty
President”

June 21, 2008

John McCain's Image Problem -- Barack Obama's BS Problem

McCain I’ve been watching John McCain more closely than I had in the past.  I’m rooting for McCain, because he has far better credentials to be President than Obama.  He has more experience in every facet of government than Obama.  His plans for the economy, energy, foreign and domestic policies are superior to Obama’s.

So what’s wrong?  Why is Obama reportedly leading McCain by as much as 14%?  John McCain has an image problem – and an oratory problem – and a perceived age problem.  Yes, I know he also has the problem of the liberal media either chipping away at him or simply ignoring him.  McCain needs to make some changes.  One of my sons, who likes and is planning to vote for McCain, told me he thinks McCain comes across as “an old tired white guy.”  I can’t say as I disagree with his assessment.  I think McCain tries to project the image of the wise elder statesman, who speaks slower and in softer tones.  Unfortunately, this is perceived by the masses as an old tired white guy talking.  (I didn’t say the masses were smart.)

Maybe he could start by visiting a tanning salon once a week.  Not too brown, but let’s get rid of the pasty look of someone who hasn’t been outside in 10 years.

Next, let’s get him a voice coach to put some strength and punch into his speeches.  He has the experience advantage; let him project it.  He doesn’t need to pretend he’s 50 again, but neither does he need to look as though he’s eager to embrace 90.

Meanwhile, the black JFK is out enjoying rock star status.  Why?  Because he promises political pork like no other politician has before him – and he does it convincingly.   His voice projects strength and sincerity, albeit fake.  People will bite on a freebee anytime.  “What do I have to lose?” 

Questions:

If you were John McCain’s campaign manager, what advice would you give him?

Is there any chance McCain will change his campaign strategy?

What is the foremost thing that McCain needs to do in order to win?

June 20, 2008

China Admits Having U.S. POW -- How Many More?

POW There are certain mysteries that prove elusive to solve.  Among them, the fate of untold numbers of U.S. soldiers that were being held by the North Koreans when the Korean War ended in 1953.  MIA organizations have long contended that American POWs were or are being held in prison camps in North Korea and China.

Associated Press reported last night that is has been revealed that China, after decades of denials, has admitted they buried an American POW, who was captured in Korea, in northeastern China on or about April 29, 1953.  They, however, don’t know exactly where the gravesite is located.  Chinese authorities had released partial information in 2003 to the family of Sgt. Richard G. Desautels, of Shoreham, Vermont, but the family doubted the veracity of the story.  A Pentagon spokesperson said the information was to be given only to the Desautels’ family.  The family was not aware that this was the first time China admitted having American POWs on Chinese soil.

POW-MIA advocates say the Desautel’s case raises the possibility that Chinese records could shed light on the fate of other U.S. captives who were known to be held in Chinese-run POW camps, but did not return when the truce was signed in 1953.

American officials have long believed that the Chinese and North Koreans withheld a number of U.S. POWs, possibly in retaliation for our  refusal to repatriate those Chinese and North Korean POWs who chose not to be returned to their home country out of fear of retribution.

Even Gen. Mark W. Clark, the American commander of U.S. forces during the final stages of the Korean War, wrote in a 1954 account that "we had solid evidence" that hundreds of captive Americans were held back by the Chinese and North Koreans, possibly as leverage to gain a China seat on the U.N. Security Council.

Questions:

Why was Desautel buried in northeast China, which is far from North Korea?

Why were our POWs taken to China, rather than imprisoned in North Korea?

The Chinese claim they only had Desautel for about five days, then he “went insane” and died.  Was his death from torture?

If China did keep these POWs for all these years, what were they doing?


June 19, 2008

Education & Sports: Are We Promoting the Losers?

Chess boy I’ve just spent an interesting week with a dozen very bright kids.  As many of you know, I’ve been involved with the Anatoly Karpov International School of Chess since its inception.  We have a full time chess Master who teaches kids how to play chess during the school year, then we bring in a Grandmaster each summer to teach more advanced chess at our summer camps.   Once every few years, we get the chance to host national chess events, so this year we hosted the U.S. Junior Invitational Chess Championships.  The top ranked dozen or so young players in the U.S. are invited to compete for the title of U.S. Junior Chess Champion, and those under 16 compete for the title of U.S. Cadet Chess Champion.  This year, two very fine young men won these events.  The Cadet was won by Conrad Holt, a 14 year-old student from Wichita.  His prize was a $70,000 full ride scholarship to the University of Maryland.  The Junior Championship was won by a 17 year-old boy from Colorado.  His prize was an all expense trip to a resort city in Turkey, where he will represent the U.S. at the World Junior Chess Championships.

Now, enter frustration.  To say there is little interest from the press for these events, if to put it mildly.  I certainly understand that chess is not a spectator sport, but these kids have proven they are the best and the brightest.  They have put in thousands of hours into studying the game before they reach that level. I can also tell you, from past association with these kinds of events, that these kids will be the scientists, engineers, and inventors in another 10 years.   Although, I routinely notify the press with releases and phone calls, seldom do they show up for the award ceremonies.   They are given scholarships, but precious little recognition.

We as a country place little value on mental achievement.  On the other hand, we lionize those who can drop a ball through a hoop, even though they may be functionally illiterate.  Our colleges dole out scholarships to hundreds of these dolts each year.  One in 50 will make it onto the sports entertainment circuit where they will be lauded, moneyed, and in some cases raised to God like status.  A few will graduate from college with a degree with which they can earn a living.  The remaining 30 will have the disappointing experience of realizing their glory days are behind them.

The people in this country say they value mental achievement, but this is lip service.  I’m certainly not advocating shutting down sports in schools, colleges, or for that matter, professional sports.  I like to watch an occasional game like most other people, but I don’t get into hero worship.  Particularly if he can’t write his name.
What I am saying is we should give a lot more public adulation to all academic achievement.    If you would like to take a look at these kids, go to the Anatoly Karpov Chess School’s Web site.
http://www.anatolykarpovchessschool.org

Questions: 

What would happen if academic students were given the same recognition and adulation as students who participate in sports?

How would one go about implementing such a plan?

How could the focus be shifted from sports to academic achievement?

June 18, 2008

Movies that Provoke Thought - or Think About It Movies

Movie Reel The American Film Institute (AFI) has just revealed the 10 greatest movies in 10 classic film genres.  To arrive at this list of 10, AFI enlisted the help of 1,500 film critics, artists, and historians.  The list the came up with is:   2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (Science Fiction), CITY LIGHTS (Romantic Comedy), THE GODFATHER (Gangster), LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (Epic), RAGING BULL (Sports), THE SEARCHERS (Western), SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS (Animation), TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD (Courtroom Drama), VERTIGO (Mystery) and THE WIZARD OF OZ (Fantasy).  Did anyone notice that these are all old movies?

This started me to thinking about movies.  Not just about my favorite movies, but about the movie that that I found to be the most thought provoking.  Think About It, if you will.  As I said before, I have a love-hate relationship with the movie industry.

My favorite thought provoking movie was “A Man for All Seasons,” starring Paul Scofield.  Why?  The movie was about Sir Thomas More, who as Chancellor of England defied Henry VIII when Henry wanted to divorce Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn.
I found a thought provoking discussion of the law when Sir Thomas had a discussion with his son-in-law, William Roper, about a law that Roper felt was unfair.

“William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”

However, I found the most thought provoking part was when Henry has lost his patience with Sir Thomas More.  It was either cave in to Henry’s wishes or die.  Sir Thomas More had a sizeable family who would also suffer from his decision.  Sir Thomas More had to make a decision whether to die with his principles and honor intact or to live and continue to support his family.  As we know, he chose to stand on principle.  Henry had him executed.

Questions:

I’m curious if anyone else has found a certain movie or movies thought provoking, a Think About It movie

June 17, 2008

Gay & Lesbian Marriage - California's New Gold Rush

Lesbian Cake The California Supreme Court gave the green light for gay and lesbian couples to marry.  This has created the Gold Rush of ’08, because out of state couples can come to California to be married.  Hotels and resorts are expecting a windfall from rush of couples coming into the state.  Meanwhile, the Reverend Fred Phelps and his congregation are headed west to complete this circus.

However, there is still lots of work for the civil rights lawyers.  A group in California is gathering signatures to put the matter of marriage on the November ballot.  Past polls have shown that voters overwhelmingly support the idea of traditional marriage, but recent polls indicate there are fewer supporting now.  This will undoubtedly be on the November ballot.

Questions:

Will the proposition pass in November?

If it passes, what effect will this have on the marriages that were conducted between the Supreme Court ruling and the time the new law takes effect?

What will happen in California if the proposition passes?

How much money is going to be put into this ballot measure by both sides?

June 16, 2008

Casualties of War - The Real Story

Military Crosses There has been a lot of incorrect information put out by anti-war groups.  Probably the most onerous is their mantra that poor minorities take the brunt of war.  Primarily African Americans.  I thought it would be interesting to look at our racial statistics as compared to our casualties:

The latest census, of Americans, shows the following distribution of American citizens, by Race:


European descent (White) ... 69.12%
Hispanic ..............................12.5%
Black...................................12.3%
Asian.................................... 3.7%
Native American ............... . 1.0%
Other .................................. 2.6%

Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom:

European descent (white) ... 74.31%
Hispanic ...........................  10.74%
Black ...................................9.67%
Asian ..........................  .... . 1.81%
Native American ...... ...........1.09%
Other ............................... .33.00%

I'm not sure if this brings up any questions, but the information needs to be more widely publicized.

June 15, 2008

California Prisons to Integrate - Or "Can't We Just All Get Along"

Prison3 When I first heard this one, I checked my calendar because I thought it must surely be April Fools Day.   No such luck.  The Christian Science Monitor is reporting that starting on July 1, the California prison authorities will start fully integrating its prison cells.  I wonder how that’s going to work out.

The change came about because of a legal challenge that went to the US Supreme Court in 2004.   California is now, according to CSM, only one of three remaining states who have segregated prisons

Needless to say, this has both inmates and guards more than a tad nervous about the pending change.  The California prison system is one of the more crowed prisons that has more than its share of gang related murders inside its prisons.  To put it euphemistically , the African Americans and the Hispanics don’t get along.

A Dept. of Corrections spokesperson said, "In the other states where this has been done, it has assisted in gang management, reduced violence, reduced racial tension. And it helps with breaking down prejudicial barriers and reflects community norms."

Proponents of the integration plan say there will initially be an uptick in racial violence, but in the long run there will be less.

Questions:

Will this work in the California prisons, where Black and Chicano gangs are prevalent?

The gangs usually coalesce along racial lines in their free time.  Will the new order cut down on that?

What impact will this have on gangs operating criminal enterprises on the outside?

How much will this impact correctional officers?

What will be the overall impact to the Dept. of Corrections?

June 14, 2008

Air Force Major General Speaks on Terrorism

Air Force Once in awhile something comes in my e-mail that is profound.   I will warn you; this piece is long, but take a few minutes and read it carefully.  It’s important.

This is a powerful essay on the threat of Islamic terrorism.  Dr.Vernon Chong is, without a doubt,the most articulate and convincing writer I have read regarding the War in Iraq . If you have any doubts, please open your mind to his essay and give it a fair evaluation. It's also eerily applicable to other current issues, such as Iran 's nuclear program, immigration, NAFTA's impact on American jobs, trade deficits, etc. I had no idea who Dr.Chong is, or the source of these thoughts, so when I received them, I almost deleted them, as well-written as they are. But then I did a Google search on the Doctor and found him to be a retired Air Force surgeon and past commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio ."

If you would like to see who this fine man is, go to this Air Force website and look him up: http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5000"

Muslim terrorists and the U.S.A.   A different spin on the war in Iraq: This WAR is REAL

Dr.. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1 When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11, 2001.  The answer, as far as the United States is concerned, is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.

(Note: during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide.)

2 Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks
happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush1, Clinton and Bush 2.  We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessor, President Ford.

3 Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4 What is the Muslim population of the World?
25%.

5 Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the
predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.Nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom hear of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy in killing anyone who got in the way of his extermination of the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian, or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, British, French or anyone else. The point here is that, just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was to remain silent or be killed?

6 So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid
verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions:

1 Can we lose this war?
We can definitely lose this war and, as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home, and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.

What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but, rather, will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are impotent and cannot help them..

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq . Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France . Our one hope with France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished, too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us.  However, it may already be too late for France . France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast.

Without our support, Great Britain will go, also. Recently, I read that
there are more mosques in England than churches.

2 What does losing really mean?

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports, and way of life
will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal
with us if they were threatened by the Muslims? If we can't stop the
Muslim terrorists, how could anyone else?

The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We'd better know it, too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple.
Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?
Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and failing to dig in and lend full support to the war effort.
If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation:

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.  Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights to which we have become accustomed. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil
rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory ... and, in fact, added many more since that time.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our
Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict
and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the
Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I think some actually do. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police.. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues, and otherwise murdering their own just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And, just a few years ago, these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq . And, still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally of the beheading of American prisoners they held.  Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of
some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

Can they be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the
Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of
comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in, and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this
prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned-- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again, I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years.

These people are a serious and dangerous liability to the war effort. We must take note of who they are and get them out of office. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States , but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful, and smart that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that, with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We can't! If we don't recognize this, our nation, as we know it, will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.

And, finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self- inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

Muslims have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who the few will be controlling the masses. What is happening in Iraq is a good example. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct about the "peaceful Muslims?"

I close on a hopeful note by repeating what I said before: If we are
united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now, after the
election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the
critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is
your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it. I reiterate: our national election is under way.

After reading the above, we all must do this, not only for ourselves,
but for our children, our grandchildren, our country, and our world.
Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal .. and that
includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world.

Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those who find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!

Lastly, I wish to add: at the risk of offending, I sincerely think that
anyone who rejects this as just another political rant, or doubts the
seriousness of this issue,is part of the problem. Let's quit laughing at and forwarding the jokes and cartoons which denigrate and ridicule our leaders in this war against terror. They are trying to protect the interests and well being of the US and it's citizens.
Best we support them.

GOD BLESS AMERICA


Newsvine Top News