Wednesday, August 30, 2006

In response to a comment addressing China, Mexico, the American Southwest, the deficit, oil, the war on terror, and the economy

This comment was received by an anonymous reader (the negative ones always are anonymous - pretty cowardly if you ask me) in regards to my August 1, 2006 post titled: Mexico's plan for the American Southwest.

A lot of guilty people out there "Oh no their coming to take us away" get serious Mexico doesn't have money or troops but look out for China we owe them billions we are totally dependent on them for everything China's merchandise trade surplus soared to $102 billion in 2005 Almost half of the US Treasury bonds are now owned in Asia. So China is financing Bush's bold economic experiment: running two or more wars simultaneously with a huge budget and trade deficit, and equally huge tax handouts for therichest Americanssinexpensivee consumer products that no longer are manufactured in significant quantities in theUnited Statess Thee United States and China share the most imbalanced bilateral trade relationship in the world. The United States imports more goods from China than it exports to a tune of$202 billion dollars each year. All told, China alone accounts for nearly 26% of the United States'$725.8 billion tradedeficit. Watchh your backs conservatives And we are dependent on the middle east for oilThe last year Mr. Clinton was in office the nation borrowed an additional 18 billion dollars,the first year Mr. Bush Jr. was in office he had to borrow 270 billion. The tax cut that caused this borrowing was supposed to stimulate the economy, but two years later Bush had to push through yet another tax cut. The second tax cut was needed because it was clear that the first one did not work. Economic history tells us the second did not work either. As a result of all his tax cutting and no cutting in spending President Bush set a record in 2003 for the biggest single yearly dollar increase in debt in the nation’s history, he did it again in 2004. The debt is now increasing at the rate of 600 billion dollars years soso keep thinking the Mexicans are taking over the best they can do is have a permanent office at Home Depot

Mexico does not have to have money or troops. Their invasion is by pure numbers - just like China. And yes, we owe billions to China, and I agree that it is a mistake, but because of the current global trading situation, it is a necessary evil. Personally, I had a real problem with NAFTA and all open trading with any communist country.

And when everybody starts complaining about the deficit, they forget the reason we have it. The deficit began when Ronald Reagan began to borrow money to beef up the military budget, forcing the Soviet Union to spend 80% of their budget on their military - - which eventually bankrupt them and brought down the great Soviet bear. Could you imagine the world situation if communist Russia was still in the picture?

China learned from that, however, and they are now waging war with us economically.

Nonetheless, running wars with a huge budget and trade deficit and tax cuts is not a bold economic experiment by Bush in the sense that the commenter makes. The war is a necessary evil. We were attacked. 9/11 was an act of war. We are obliged, for the safety of America, to wage war against the aggressors. As for the economic end of it, don't be fooled when the left makes the cry that the Republicans are delivering huge handouts for the richest Americans -- the richest Americans pay an enormous percentage of taxes.

The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.

The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.

Our tax system is not so much progressive as it is confiscatory -- Frederic Bastiat called this phenomenon "legal plunder." A progressive tax is based on the premise that those with more income can afford to pay more taxes, and conversely, those with little or no income should pay no tax. However, a quick look at the way our system is set up and of recent history regarding the numbers in regards to income taxes paid shows that the U.S. tax system has become far beyond progressive. Fully half the taxpayers (the lower half) contribute almost nothing in individual income taxes.

The Top 1% of income earners (comprising of about one million families) earn approximately 15% of the total income earned by all wage earners in the United States, yet they pay almost 30% of all individual income taxes.

Furthermore, the Top 1% are shouldering a roughly 50% higher proportion of the overall income tax burden than they did in the 1970's.

The argument most oft used against tax breaks are that they benefit only the wealthy. It is clear from even a cursory look at the numbers that the 'wealthy' will receive the majority of any income tax reduction because they pay a disproportionately huge percentage of the income taxes! To structure a tax break such that those in upper income brackets are excluded would constitute nothing more than transfer of wealth from those who have it to those who don't (i.e. legal plunder.) You might as well put a gun to the head of the concept American Opportunity and the American Dream.

Engaging with China in economic warfare is dangerous, I agree. Becoming independent from the middle east for oil would be a huge weapon in the economic battle with China. Fact is, China's Communist Party has "anti-American objectives and plans, but don't be fooled, China indeed has its own domestic turmoil, including a new trend in which 100,000 people have quit the Communist Party. Despite this, China has made it clear that it really only wants three things: to conquer Taiwan; to become Asia's leading power; and then, world domination. And, what stands in the way is the United States.

American business interests are always going to want to minimize and deny any political tensions with China. They are financially motivated to do so -- they want the trade with this nation of (potentially) 1.3 billion customers. That leads to wishful assessments, and even discussions of geopolitical military strategy driven by the wishful line, "China? They're not expansionist." China is an aggressor, and is an expansionist country. Ask any Tibetan. How do they feel? Colonized! Ask anyone in East Turkestan. How do they feel? Colonized! Ask anyone in Taiwan. How do they feel? --In the case of Taiwan, they are staring down the barrel of a gun, but they are more fortunate than the Tibetans and East Turkestanis, in that the gun has not fired yet. The key word is "yet." China has been very explicit -- loud and clear -- in naming Taiwan as an objective. This point is not even a stretch of debate. The statements about Taiwan are issued regularly from China's foreign ministry, and are as explicit as they are chilling. The only way that business strategists can arrive at their wishful assessments is by averting their eyes, shrugging off Tibet, Taiwan, East Turkestan, and even prior occasions like the Korean War, where Americans faced Chinese troops.

American politics, and the Republican party, for that matter, then, is not to blame for the situation with China. Greed on the part of corporations, and a misunderstanding as well as a tendency to underrate China's true position is largely to blame. The communist party in China, people tend to forget (and this is why it made me sick when Clinton was calling China our friends and rubbing elbows with them) began as a branch of the Soviet Communist Party. The Soviet system was taken as a model, and the Chinese Communist Party is born of the same example, as a carbon copy. In this way, we can also understand that the communists in China are a "foreign influence," not indigenously Chinese. In relation to Taiwan, China is not just making statements -- it's moving hardware. Over 700 ballistic missiles have now been arrayed against Taiwan. In addition to its new manned space program (also cloned from Russia), and nuclear weapons (with nuclear secrets stolen from America under Bill Clinton - thank you very much slick Willy), China has a new long range air force. China has a new deep water navy. Even nuclear submarines, to have a "second strike capability" against America in a nuclear war. (One might ask, where did this nuclear-armed communist superpower get its wherewithal? --And the answer is that they are enriched by America trade, by the exact amount of the U.S. trade deficit with China. If someone gave you $160 billion a year, you too could have your own army, navy, air force, and space program!)

Anybody who remembers the Soviet Union as a threat will already see a "Chinese threat," but, there is more. Li Zhaoxing (the Chinese foreign minister) cannot definitively offer us assurance of a "peaceful rise" on the part of China, even if he means what he is saying. China is instable, even when it claims to have, or to value, stability. The key word here is "claims." Claims from the Chinese government are chiefly excuses to stay in power for one more day, and for that government (like their American Liberal cousins), lying is a way of life.

The Chinese communists are guilty of the diabolical treatment of people, double standards, profound corruption, trickery, treachery, and no respect for China's own constitution. China is already in violation of prior international agreements and its own constitution (which, oddly, says freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to criticize the government exist). (This raises the question, "Who, in their right mind, would sign a contract with an opposite party of that little reliability?")

China's system is reputed to be a dictatorship, but even the dictator can be rudely surprised by matters blowing up in his face. It might be fair to say that no one man is truly in charge of China. (China contains many fiefdoms, reporting cooked statistics to the other fiefdoms. For more reliable statistics, Chinese turn to the CIA's web site, just to figure out what's the case in China.) In other words, China is an interplay of forces, and due to inevitable frictions as forces collide, China is unpredictable, perhaps deadly so. For those in Tibet, in East Turkestan, and for all domestic dissenters, China is already deadly. Now, it is threatening to become deadly in a military sense, especially where the United States has a role to defend Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act.

Anyone who thinks that China is "gradually building up" to "someday" be a military challenger, is wrong. The Chinese are already there in the sense of military might, and will probably conquer Taiwan within the next five years, if not sooner. In fact, some believe that the war over Taiwan could begin by the end of this year. And if anyone believes that it would be a regional, limited war, a related current of opinion says that they must flatten the U.S., because that is what stands in the way. A war over Taiwan could find China striking hard at the American homeland.

And remember that their system is officially atheist, and requires unswerving loyalty and adherence to the Chinese Communist Party, which in their system is placed above all else -- the state, the military, and the constitution are all malleable tools able to bend to the will of the Chinese Communist Party. They answer to no one, including international conventions -- not even to standards of civilization within China's borders. The party assumes itself to be god, not constrained by any law of anybody -- not of man, not of heaven. This system effectively installs the Chinese Communist Party as a deity.

China is neither predictable or orderly. In fact, Chinese history is loaded with twists and turns that no one could predict. Even if a gullible person starts by thinking, "the party is always right," and tries to comprehend the official line, that person would be rudely surprised, and could not read very far through Chinese Communistic history before asking the question, "How can this be right?" As a deity, the party (even if we suppose it to be infallible) has changed dramatically, simply based on who wins the power struggle in the periodic shifts of Chinese politics. It has changed so dramatically as to make a mockery of any pretensions to intellectual consistency, credibility, or an upright, mature nature.

If this party were a deity, we would have to describe it as a criminally insane deity, or perhaps with words such as adolescent, anti-social, and deranged. This amounts to another reason why China should be considered dangerous, no matter what is said by Hu Jintao or Li Zhaoxing. Their job is chiefly to keep face, in the midst of the train wreck of what is the Chinese government. They can speak of a "peaceful rise" for China, and they can cross their fingers and hope for the best, but what is it that lies over their shoulders?

Over their shoulders are two different forces: Jiang Zemin, and the Chinese democracy movement. These may also be known as the "leftist" and "rightist" forces in Chinese politics. The rightists are down, but not out -- upon his recent death, it was learned that Zhao Ziyang (the reform minded former party leader) still has many friends, even deep inside the Communist Party itself. The rightist element exists, and may yet find its champion for leadership.

The bigger problem is over the left shoulder of Hu Jintao, because former President Jiang Zemin could provoke or start a war, while the rightists are a peaceful, unarmed movement. We do not know that Hu Jintao is a leader committed to peace. We know that in late 2004, Hu approved a massacre of villagers in Hanyuan County, and by some reports, more people were killed than in the Tiananmen massacre. But, suppose that Hu wants peace, and Jiang wants war. Jiang Zemin may still be able to provoke a war, even from retirement. We may learn soon that he's really not retired, but is remaining active while he is titularly out of power for public relations purposes.

So I suppose it is safe to say that the commenter is partially correct in the sense that we share an imbalanced bilateral trade relationship with China, and that it is a very dangerous position indeed. But who began this? Who pushed for globalism in the trade market?

The answer is, the left. Clinton, especially, hob-knobbed with China to a point that it sickens me.

The tax cuts, however, has stimulated the economy. Unemployment numbers have been down, stocks have been strong (except during minor glitches attributed to fears based on the happenings in the war on terror), but despite the economic growth, cyclictic lows are on the horizon (we see some of that now in the housing market - what goes up must come down) and the deficit continues to grow.

So, I suppose, the commenter is correct in the sense that worrying about the Mexicans taking over is the least of our worries - - but that does not make the situation along our southern border unimportant - - and the fact remains that there are three kinds of people living in America: citizens, legal residents, and illegal aliens. The word "illegal" should make it obvious as to what should be done. Illegal activity is criminal activity, and criminals should be treated as criminals. And regardless of all of the other things going on, the threat of these criminals is very real, not only because of the illegal Mexicans crossing the border, but the other elements coming across with them. The border needs to be sealed for many reasons, and terrorism is one of them. This is more complex than groups of Mexicans hanging out at the local Home Depot. Besides, every other nation in the world protects their borders, so shouldn't we? A nation without borders is not a nation. We have too much else to worry about than to have to worry about the petty Mexicans, so seal up the border good and tight with an impenetrable wall and be done with it.

Monday, August 28, 2006

Jimmy Carter thinks that being pro-American is a bad thing

Jimmy Carter blasted Tony Blair yesterday during an interview with a British newspaper. Personally, I like Tony Blair. He's a sharp leader. If you've ever heard him speak, you know what I mean. He accused British Prime Minister Tony Blair of lacking in the leadership department (like his leftwing adversaries are better -- ha ha ha, right, and I'm Superman), and that his timid subservience to President Bush is a major factor behind the ongoing crisis in Iraq and the global threat of terrorism. Subservience? Not even. They are allies that work together as a team, and that is that. Oh, and what about the other numerous nations that form the coalition? In fact, Jimmy Carter stated that he was extremely disappointed by Tony Blair's behavior and that Mister Blair should have been a contraint on President Bush's policies towards Iraq. Is he saying that Tony Blair being pro-American is a bad thing?

Carter indicated that he would never have considered a pre-emptive move into Iraq as Bush had decided upon (pre-emptive? What was 9/11?), and that the Iraq invasion subverted the fight against terrorism (like fighting Nazi Germany subverted the fight against worldwide facism) and strengthened al-Qaida and the recruitment of terrorists. Perhaps eliminating terrorists training grounds and high ranking officials like Zarqawi doesn't make a dent in the might of the terrorist network.

He finished by saying that America is unpopular overseas like in Egypt and Jordan where our approval rating is less than 5 percent. Interesting that he picked two Muslim countries for that - besides, it's not about public opinion - it's all about doing what's right. No wonder we were in such a mess after Carter. Thank God for Ronald Reagan.

Sunday, August 27, 2006

What do the Dems really think?

The Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan knows how to play the Liberals and the American Media.

Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's leader, said in a TV interview aired today that he would not have ordered the capture of two Israeli soldiers if he had known it would lead to such a war.

Quickly, the press has taken the bait and are calling Israel the aggressor.

This wasn't only about the two kidnapped soldiers - - that was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

Mississippi, under Republican management, has healed from Katrina nicely, rebuilding to what she was before Katrina hit. Southern Louisiana, under Democratic leadership, is still blaming the Federal Government for this and for that, and are still sitting in the rubble waiting for a hand-out.

The Dems stated that Bush lied because we found no WMD's. Then, when it was released that over 500 chemical weapons had been found in Iraq, the Dem's response was that those weapons are not techinically WMD's, and if they are, they aren't the WMD's we went into Iraq over, so Bush still lied.

The Liberals, however, say that we should've sent more troops into Iraq, and that they support the war on terror, but they don't support the war in Iraq, nor support the aggression of Israel against Lebanon (they're too stupid to realize that it's not against Lebanon, but against Hezbollah).

It seems the moment we entered Iraq they were looking for an exit strategy. You don't enter a war and then immediately look for a way out, or undermine the effort. The only acceptable exit strategy is Victory! Any other exit strategy is for losers.

Besides, cutting and running would be the wrong message to send to Iraq, and the world, for that matter, but the Libs have no interest in the war other than to lose it. They are defeatists, intent to undermine the effort. Anywhere else in the world, in any other nation, the Liberal's and Media's actions would be labeled as treasonous behavior.

And they complain that the right thinking Americans of this nation question their patriotism.

The definition of patriotism is love and pride of country. Love and pride does not search for surrender and defeat.

Damn right we question their patriotism!

And I think that they truly believe that the war in Iraq is something cooked up by the GOP to increase numbers. Terrorism is not a little problem, and we are not sticking our nose in some personal problem between Israel and Islam, as some on the left tend to think. Terrorism is a worldwide struggle.

The left truly believes that if we cut and run terrorists will just leave us alone and they will be content to fight it out with Israel. First of all, Israel is our ally and we need to support them. Second of all, 9/11 was an act of war, and if we lose the war the left really believes that is will just be a loss for Bush and the Republicans -- But if the United States were to cut and run as the left suggests with our tails between our legs it would be a defeat for the U.S. on a scale that the left just doesn't understand.

The global community doesn't follow America's inner politics -- they don't see Republicans and Democrats -- the world only sees America. If the United States were to cut and run in the face of terrorism we'd have a lot more to worry about than the political devisiveness that the left is so eager to proclaim the GOP is guilty of.

Yes, the war on terrorism (including the war in Iraq) is hard, and what's going on with Israel and Hezbollah (or Iran and Syria's behind the door activities, for that matter) doesn't help matters a whole lot. But this war is a lot harder than it should be not only because we are up against an ideology that doesn't negotiate and only wants to kill you, but also because of the leftwing media and politicians intent on sabotaging the effort. And it would make it far worse if we were to walk away. Simply put, we must finish what we started. Wars are won by the side that wants it the most. Any show of weakness will open us up to attack, with the hope that the outrage by the defeatists will push us out of that region. Then, after that, after we're gone, do the libs really think the Jihad will simply end? Not in the least. First Israel would be annihilated, then the conversion of Europe and America would resume, showered by terror attacks and assassinations against anybody that Islam feels would be a threat to them.

What do the Dems really think? They think that you can reason with the unreasonable. They think that the Islamic Radicals will just shrug and settle down once we cut and run. They truly believe that the best way to deal with terrorism is to open our borders, and welcome them with open arms.

Final thought. One argument given to me by a liberal I work with was, "Spain pulled out, and they haven't been hit ever since."


Before 2004: April 12, 1985, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.

On Thursday, March 11 2004, during the morning traffic of people going to work in Madrid, several bombs were exploded in commuter trains as they pulled into stations. Shortly after that, when a liberal took office, Spain pulled out of Iraq.

In October of 2004, Spain's National Police learned of a plot to attack the National Court, where Spain's top judges investigate terrorism, with a truck laden with a half-ton of dynamite. An informer said the leader was an Algerian born in the United Arab Emirates named Mohamed Achraf. According to a police intelligence report cited by the Associated Press, Achraf recruited members of his "Martyrs for Morocco" cell inside a jail in western Spain sometime after the March 11 attacks.

Acting on foreign intelligence, approximately 100 Spanish police officers descended on a suspected Islamic cell in northeastern Spain near Barcelona on Dec. 22, 2004 and arrested three Moroccans on suspicion of planning to buy explosives.

Okay, too many since then (and that isn't all of them in 2004), so let's fast forward to 2006:

26 incidents detailed here (the list has 28, but two of them were prior to 2006)

26 -- and that's just this year so far!

The problem with the left is, as many posters have stated on my comments before, is that their decisions are based on emotions, not reality.

Unfortunately, it seems that "sense" is not a common commodity.

Makes you wonder about the symbols of the parties, doesn't it?

GOP: Elephant -- strong, intelligent, works as a group . . .
Dems: Donkey -- stubborn, hard to deal with, last one I saw was pulling a cart full of manure, Jackasses.

You know, I don't think the Dems really know what they think, other than that their only chance into the White House in 2008 is to hate Bush so much that people may buy their backward propaganda.

I hope the voters don't fall for it.

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Liberals aren't sure how to handle terrorism - - and they want to put a man (or woman) in the White House?

As I read the latest news on my homepage about how the United States says that Iran's proposal regarding the nuclear negotiations fell short of the the United Nations damands that it cease uranium enrichment, I bounced around and came across an Ann Coulter article titled: What Part of the War on Terrorism Do They Support?

The article brought up an interesting point. The Democrats say that they are for the war on terror. They believe that it was good to chase Osama bin Laden. Yet, they are adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq.

They fail to acknowledge that many terrorists have been killed in this war with Iraq, such as Zarqawi, a high ranking al-Qaida leader.

In fact, they believe that the war in Iraq is hampering the war on terrorism.

Ann Coulter uses an example stating: "This would be like complaining that Roosevelt's war in Germany was hampering our ability to fight the real global war on fascism."

I seem to remember after 9/11 that it was stated that the war on terrorism was to be waged against terrorists, and nations that support terrorism financially and by training terrorists on their soil. Did Saddam's Iraq not fall under that umbrella?

And the Libs say, "And how horrid that we profile Muslims at the airport during this fight...we should only zero in on potential terrorists."

Are the Dems kidding? Are they really that stupid?

I should know better than to ask those questions. You and I know the answer.

Now, for fear of sounding like a hater, understand that I do not dislike my Liberal friends. . .I just disagree with those things they say whenever their mouths open.

The ones that floor me the most are comments like Michael Moore's "Sure, there are terrorist attacks here and there, but terrorism is not a global problem like the Republicans make it out to be. . ." and another comment (can't remember who said it) "The statistic that over 500 terrorists have crossed the Mexican Border since 9/11 is in error, because if that many terrorists had crossed, we would have been attacked again by now."

And in tune with Ann Coulter, and along the line of something I have said before, the reality of the problem with these leftwing nutcakes is that in their minds, God is a bigger threat than terrorism. Sure, absolutely. Don't believe me? Ask those trying to save the cross on Mount Soledad, or any professor that has mentioned the name of God in our colleges, or the girl that thanked God in her Valedictorian address in Las Vegas (at which time the microphone was shut off), or the Navy Chaplain that ended a prayer in Jesus' name at a military funeral and then faced court martial for it, or anyone that attempts to say a nondenominational prayer before a high school football game.

As Ann Coulter says at the end of her article: Now that's a threat.

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Paramount Pictures just earned my respect

Paramount Pictures has severed its long and profitable relationship with Tom Cruise and his Cruise/Wagner Productions company because his "recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount."

"As much as we like him personally," Redstone of Paramount Pictures is quoted as saying, "we thought it was wrong to renew his deal." He then cited Cruise's "recent conduct" as the reason.
In the past year or so, Cruise couch-hopped on Oprah Winfrey's talk show while proclaiming his love for Katie Holmes, criticized the use of antidepressants and claimed that postpartum depression doesn't exist. He also got into an angry exchange with Matt Lauer on the "Today" show while defending his opinions.

I see it coming: Cruise is going to form a partnership with Travolta and call it - Scientology Pictures

Their slogan?

"Movies that heal from within."

Don't get me wrong, I believe in the power of positive thinking, et cetera. However, I don't think that our ability to improve ourselves with strong, mental resolve replaces God.

Hmmm, I wonder if the water-gushing rubber flower had anything to do with this.

Sunday, August 20, 2006

An uncentered, uneven rant

I received a comment from an anonymous reader on my Carried By Christ Blog yesterday that I found fascinating.

Many of you that know me, or have known me for a while, know that I am a Christian, and I am not shy about it. I am also a rightwing conservative. I am not a Republican because I am a Christian, and I am not a Christian because I am a Republican. Liberals and Centrists and New Agers and all of the others out there unable to come to grips with any level of political common sense seem to think that one causes the other. That is just not so, and I wanted to get that straightened out before we proceed.

Anyway, the commenter stated that they liked the posting on my Christian Blog regarding the real way to spirituality. She (I say she because I think I know who it is, and I appreciate her checking out my blogs after me giving her my card following her giving me a book--sorry if that's confusing to the rest of you) went on to say that my writing had a real sense of grace about it. To that I say, "Thank you," and "I appreciate your comment." After all, my primary reason for writing anything is for it to be read. I am not just a blogger, but I am an aspiring writer as well, and writing is what I do.

However, the post was not on the "real way to spirituality" as the reader suggested. This is where the reader was in error on the get-go. The post was about how the world is searching for spirituality through metaphysics and Eastern Religions and New Age Philosophies and Scientology and anything else the world can come up with other than what is Biblical. People are seeking spirituality, but no one is seeking God.

Then, the reader's comment stated that she visited my Political Pistachio blog, the one you are reading now, and she found it to be written in an another voice entirely - claiming my political writing is uncentered, unsure, and a bit of an uneven rant. She claimed it was far from my spiritual centre. She stated that political strife is just a big version of the strife within, and that dedicating my passion to being angry at the world outside is just a way of avoiding dealing with my inner life.

She sounds exactly like a New Age cousin of mine.

I am not angry at the world. I am angry, however, that there are those out there that wish to take the freedoms of Americans away from the United States through terror, and that there are people out there, such as this commenter, that believes defending our rights, and the freedoms of others, is a manifestation of our anger at ourselves.

Perhaps these people who are so "spiritually centered" never faced a bully in their lives, or think that the freedoms we enjoy were just handed to us without any struggle.

Worldwide situations such as this current war on terror, and the problem of worldwide terrorism, is like a festering sore. If not dealt with, it becomes a larger, more damaging injury, eventually growing to the point that it kills you. That is fact. My faith of Christianity does not allow me to turn a blind eye from the truth and imagine that if we all danced in a field of daisies and praised Tom Cruise, or Buddha, or whoever, that the problems of Radical Islamism and North Korea will just go away. Life does not work that way. Nobody wants peace more than myself, but peace cannot be achieved by just wishing for it, or talking to these bastards that have only one thing in their mind - death to all infidels.

Common sense indicates that no matter how horrible it may seem, the only way to achieve peace in this maddening world is through strength, and the only free nation with that kind of strength is the United States of America. PERIOD!

I have strife within. We all do. But my strife is quieted not by focusing on my own integrity or by developing a quiet strength within. My personal peace comes from my relationship with Christ. My politics are generated simply by using that large, boney thing on my shoulders. Some may refer to it as a "head". My faith, as with Bush I am sure, has some impact on what I think politically, but my main reason for thinking the way I do politically is simply common sense and love of my nation. I refuse to pretend that terrorism will go away if I find some hidden inner strength; and make no mistake about it, my politics will not be altered because some New Ager thinks that by supporting our troops in defending this nation I am projecting my angry innards.

Oh, and by the way, the commenter also asked me to take a leaf out of Jesus' book, and look at myself.

I did.

Israel is threatened, freedom is threatened, and the freedom to practice my faith could eventually be threatened.

The Old Testament records many wars, some of which God commanded or assisted. There is a 'time' for war (Eccl. 3:8); yet God's ultimate goal is for a world of peace (e.g. Isa. 2:2-4), and much bloodthirsty warfare is condemned (e.g. Isa. 33:1).

According to Jesus, war is just a part of how things are (Mk 13:7; Matt 24:6; Lk 14:31-32, 21:9). Paul, in his letter to the Romans says that God uses rulers to punish evil by use of 'the sword' (Rom. 13:1-4). Elsewhere, God commands rulers to rescue the weak and needy (Ps. 82:2-4). The care of a people is committed to those in authority, and their business is to watch over the common good of the people entrusted to them. In a sinful, fallen world, sometimes they must sadly use force to protect people.

A "just war" is fought when leaders who use war to enhance their glory or to extend their empire must be stopped and no other action will stop them.

This is a just war. The war on terror is a just cause. The terrorists goal is to make you think that they will leave you alone if we pull out of our war on terror.

Radical Islam desires your death, and my death. We owe it to our posterity, and each other, to protect America, Israel, and freedom wherever it may be blossoming.

God Bless America. God Bless our troops. And God Bless you.

Friday, August 18, 2006

Makes you think.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Are you kidding me? I'm offended, in a politically correct, non-violent, enlightened way.

I was listening to Mark Larson on KOGO radio AM 600 out of San Diego as I was driving my big rig in from Marine Corps Air Station Miramar and he said something that blew me away. I don't have the details yet, so this is from memory, but from what I have gathered, this is a lot of Bull.

The California State Assembly in Sacramento had a Gay, Lesbian, and trans-gender day on the floor to show their appreciation for the bravery of these individuals in these less than tolerant times. Now, get this, this is the same assembly that voted down having an Independence Day celebration on the floor last month because in light of the war and current opinions it would be offensive to have such a celebration on the State Assembly Floor. Perhaps patriotism is just too offensive for them. Besides, those forefathers believed in God, and they couldn't possibly allow that on the Senate Floor.

In the meantime, the plot of land with a cross on it on Mount Soledad down in San Diego, which has been a subject of controversy since an atheist, Paul Paulson, sued the city requesting its removal in 1989, was bought by the federal government, mainly because of Bush, to save it. This follows a May court decision in which a judge had ordered it be taken down because it is on public land, hence the separation of church and state thing, and since it is the preeminent symbol of Christianity it is offensive to all non-Christians.

Well, since we are wanting to take down crosses because they are offensive to non-Christians, why stop there? (keep in mind in most cases we are the ones that get screwed in this possible, politically correct scenario):

-Anybody disagreeing with gay rights is offensive to the gays, so those "narrow-minded, intolerant" people must be moved to Antarctica, the North Pole, Northern Greenland, a Republican Convention, or any other location on the planet in which no gays reside.
-Any form of fighting or violence is offensive to peace activists, so boxing and any other sport related to any kind of violence is out, and this must include, but is not limited to: football, wrestling, thumb-wrestling, playing "slug-bug", slap-fighting, hockey, soccer (unless tackling is eliminated), and a number of others. Baseball can stay as long as they promise not to have any more bench-clearing brawls, or confrontations at home plate between the runner and catcher, oh, and if they promise to communicate better so that their are no more collisions between players all going for the same fly ball.
-Losing is offensive to the touchy-feely psychologist types (losing, you know, causes low self-esteem) so any other sporting event is out, unless it can be held without a winner or a loser resulting from the match or game. Hmmm, tic-tac-toe tournaments would be perfect, since everybody knows that a cat's game is always the result unless one of the competitors is stupid. Soccer can stay if they eliminate the goal. Baseball is still fine, but home plate would now need to be eliminated as a goal.
-Stupidity, or intelligence, one or the other, would have to be eliminated since stupid people (also known as liberals) and intelligent people (also known as conservatives) tend to find each other offensive. Oh, and anybody that cries out Centrist, should be shot. Oh, wait, we can't have any violence. Anybody that cries out Centrist should be told sternly, but without anger, that they are not completely accurate, in a nice way. Centrist is just another word for liberal. I hate it when the left tries to feign moderation.
-Any establishment that serves meat is offensive to vegetarians so they need to be eliminated.
-Any restaurant in which the waitress isn't wearing slacks and a button down shirt, and any restaurant in which the waitresses breasts can be noticed as bumps or larger, is offensive to NOW, so they must be put out of business.
-The English Language is offensive to illegals, so it must be eliminated.
-Anything white is offensive to the ACLU so all Caucasians, and anything that reminds anybody that white people ever existed must be found, piled up, and burned.
-Anything that makes sense politically is offensive to the New York Times, so eliminate those things.
-The New York Times is offensive to anyone with a brain, so that newspaper must be eliminated.
-Automobiles are offensive to the Amish, so get rid of them.
-Men are offensive to feminists, so any member of the male gender (except for the homosexuals - feminists tend to love them for whatever reason) needs to be sent off somewhere. Perhaps to Antarctica with all of the anti-gay people. Then again, any non-gay male would probably have already been sent, except for the real nutcakes like Michael Moore and Jerry Springer and Al Gore and . . .
-Allowing innocence to live is offensive to pro-abortionists, so our children must be dealt with.
-Life is offensive to those that hate life, so we might as well all blow ourselves away, but in a non-violent, non-offensive, enlightened way.

I have a question. Who do the non-Christians so offended by crosses and the very existence of Christianity cry out to when facing death? Okay, okay, Tom Cruise probably cries out to his inner-self, but the rest of them, I bet, scream, "My God, help me!"

Just a thought.

Sunday, August 13, 2006

The UN Ceasefire that will not hold - and if it did, it would simply be a chance for Hezbollah to re-arm

The United Nations is unreal. Do they really think that Islamic terrorists (which, by the way, according to the cable news channels, it is not politically correct to use Islam and terrorism in the same sentence) will adhere to a cease fire? And if they did, all they would do is re-arm. By the way, yesterday 247 Katyusha rockets made their way into Israel. The fighting has intensified as the so-called cease-fire approaches.

And this news comes on the heals of information that the London Terrorists recently stopped by the British were going to use their little children to carry out the plot.

And Hezbollah has said they will not voluntarily disarm (really? What a shock!)

The United Nations hold to an agenda that is doomed to fail.

This truce will not take hold. The self-righteousness of the UN sickens me.

I'm so flabbergasted by this, I don't even know what to say. It reeks of madness, and of danger to Israel and freedom worldwide.

By the way, notice that the New York Times didn't jump into the debates over the foiled terrorist plots in Britain - - because the NYT and the liberal left opposes the information gathering techniques used to stop the terrorists. You know, things like spontaneous phone surveillance by the NSA of suspected overseas calls, and coerced interrogation of captured terror suspects.

Good thing the ACLU and NYT has no influence on the Scotland Yard, otherwise, the plot might have succeeded.

If by some strange chance this cease-fire succeeds, people forget, Hezbollah and the Islamic Radicals began this war with Israel, rather than simply return two soldiers. This will not be a cease fire if the fighting stops. It will be a chance for Hezbollah to re-arm.

In the meantime, Kim Jong Il has re-emerged, and our judges here believe that the American Voter's wishes should be overturned when concerned with abortion, sex predators. . . and the liberal left has decided that God is a larger threat than terrorism.

Okay, sorry for bouncing around, but this is getting ridiculous. How stupid can the left be? How low can they stoop?

I have a feeling that the answer is worse than we can possibly imagine.

A cease-fire would be great if it could succeed because of course nobody wants war, but the bad-guys must be put away, not left in place. This cease-fire by the UN is weak and allowing the bad guys to get away to fight another day, with a larger armament.

The left and enlightened people of the world miss that, somehow. They miss it all. They just don't get it, and that is a shame, because all of us will pay in the long run for their short-sightedness.

Oh, by the way, why isn't the U.N. passing a resolution pushing sanctions against Syria and Iran for their part in this war, and their support of worldwide terrorism?

Saturday, August 12, 2006

Terrorists using human shields from the vantage point of an Israeli

Recently on a forum I am a member of called Absolute Write a gentleman that goes by the name of TeddyG from Jerusalem, Israel responded to an attitude that doubted that the terrorists actually use human shields and fight from among the civilians. This is very well written, and I asked him if I could post it to Political Pistachio, and his words were: "Post Away."

So, here it is, and understand, this is a man that lives in Israel, surrounded by terrorism, living with war around him at all times. Of course, he says it best.

---I have been an Israeli Battlefield Medic in the reserves for over 25 years. I have been In Lebanon during the first war, gone through two intifadas, and was in Jenin during Operation Defensive Shield 4 years ago. I have lived through war upon war. And I take no pride in that fact.I have no clue how to prove this to the non-believers out there. I can only say this. I have, with my own eyes, in the many places I have been, seen and experienced with utter horror the way civilians and children are used as human shields. I once watched 3 terrorists walk out of a house in Jenin, holding at arms length, their OWN children as human shields. I watched during the intifada (the first one) in Tul-Karem as more than 10 terrorists held up in a Mosque and after shooting and killing 2 soldiers, call the UN and the press to show that Israeli soldiers had surrounded a mosque. And still btw, we did not enter it out of respect for religion.I would like also at this time to call your attention to another incident in which I was present. Until I saw this with my own eyes, indeed, the soldiers that served with me for 25 years were the soldiers that discovered it, and I was there. We stopped an ambulance during Operation Defensive Shield. An ambulance which belonged in Bethlehem but for some reason was way off between Nablus and Jenin. It was suspicious and had made its way through quite a few roadblocks. Upon opening the back, I stepped in to check the "wounded". Only the wounded were holding guns, and not wounded at all. Underneath them in the compartments meant for medical supplies the entire ambulance was full with C-4 and grenades. The foreign press was not far from us. They jumped on the "Israeli Army Aggressors" for stopping an ambulance. They went to town on it, UNTIL we took them INTO that ambulance to see for themselves which made front page news.I was there when a funeral was staged for "a young adult" in Jenin. As this procession moved along, unknowingly being filmed by the press and the Israelis, the area around this "funeral" procession blew up in a battle. Know what the corpse did? The corpse got up so fast off the stretcher that was carrying it, you would swear the dead came alive.This and many other incidents were filmed and recorded and put in a movie called "Three Weeks In Jenin" produced by an independent film producer. Know how I know this so well? Cause much of the movie is about my unit and my experiences as the medic in Jenin during those three weeks.So know, this will never be "proven". It is a myth. We make up these things to just make the Hezbollah and all the terrorists look bad.I have lived through a shi* load of war as a soldier. Both my sons are in the reserves. My son-in-law is in Lebanon right now. You think any of us LIKE THIS? So go ahead. Say what you like. Twist the truth or see it your way. Israel is always the aggressor. We have been so since the State was established. We should just let terrorists function on our border. We should always be more and more willing to give up land. After all only one year ago we gave up the Gush Katif settlements, hoping this would bring some sort of peace. Then watched as synagogues were burned with glee, and Kasam rockets just able to penetrate deeper and deeper into Israel (behind the green line I may add).So NO... this cannot be "proven". I have seen it with my own eyes. I have watched it happen. I cannot prove to you that it takes place, cause nothing short of YOU being there to watch with horror this taking place will make you believe it. And even then I fear, you will find some excuse. And I have seen much much worse. I can only say without any sort of judgment, that until you begin to understand that this is NOT the western mentality on death and dying that you know and are used to, you simply will never understand.And yes, as a medic I have taken care of my share of the "enemy". I have even spoken in English and a smattering of Arabic with mothers of the Shayeeds (those who blow themselves up and go to heaven as heroes). Not a word of remorse. Not sad their son's are dead. Happy they blew up women and children. Ecstatic I may add. (And ecstatic that the Israelis were taking care of their medical needs.)So this is an attempt. A small one. To explain things that I will admit are so far beyond Western mentality that they seem preposterous. Unfortunately this is reality. And if you watched Fox or CNN or even the BBC or even read the world press and just took a cursory look at the pics and film that has been released (assuming you believe they were not doctored by the aggressor-minded Israelis) you too would know this to be the truth.I know putting this up invites attack and vilification as usual. But this is way out in left field. I read this and I truly wonder, if there is any way to "prove" anything. Using that logic I would assume that even gravity can be disputed.So I cannot prove it to you. I can only say for the record that I am a witness to these things. One witness among thousands.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

British thwart terror plot/Hezbollah ties to British Plot/FBI investigating terrorist cases

When I heard the news today regarding the British stopping the plans of terrorists to simultaneously blow up several aircraft heading to the U.S. using explosives smuggled in carry-on luggage, my blood did more than just boil.

When I read through later that Kenneth R. Timmerman, a senior correspondent and Middle East expert for said that Hezbollah might be to blame for the terror plot thwarted by British security agencies, I found myself nodding my head in agreement.

When I came across an article stating that the FBI is investigating 10,000 terrorism cases, aside from a plot to blow up tunnels in New York City, I became fearful.

When I thought about what's going on, I began to fear for my children.

I don't understand when the leftwing nutcakes say things like, "Sure, there may be a terrorist attack here and there, but terrorism is not a problem as massive as the right makes it out to be."

Uh, what planet have they been on?

Cold hard facts: Arab Nations believe that Israel is a pirate state. They believe that the land Israel inhabits is Arab land. Islam believes that Christians and Jews are blasphemous, and must be eliminated from the planet. Radical Islam believes that the world is theirs to conquer, and anyone that does not believe in their ideology is an infidel and must be killed. Terrorists do not follow the rules of war, or the rules of humanity. Terrorists use civilians as human shields, their own children if they have to. Israel is surrounded by the enemy, by nations that want to annihilate her. The Jewish population in Israel lives in a continuous state of war because their neighbors never cease their aggressive operations against the tiny nation.

We must stand against terror, and support Israel. We owe it to Israel, our allies, humanity, and our children.

I fear for the world that my children, and their children, must grow up in. I wish it to be a safer world. Terrorism will never be completely defeated, but it can be pushed back. It can be held in check.

Israel will always be surrounded by the enemy. America will always be at risk. But fearing the terrorists, and refusing to travel, and refusing to defend our interests, or our ally, Israel, is exactly what the terrorists desire - - for putting fear in us is their first step toward world control.

We must not allow it. We must keep our resolve. We must not forget those who died. We must never forget those words spoken five years ago: ". . . the United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts." President George W. Bush, September 11, 2001.

God Bless America. God Bless Israel. God Bless anyone willing to stand up against terror.

Monday, August 07, 2006

If Hezbollah ceases firing, we have peace. If Israel ceases firing, they will be annihilated.

The United Nations desires to pass a resolution that forces a cease-fire on Israel.

To make such a decision is a retreat from defending freedom and free nations worldwide, and is nothing more than an attempt to appease the threatening forces of militant Islam.

This is a warning sign that the attempt to derail American determination to defeat terrorism could be gaining strength and American leadership might be in danger of being forced into retreating.

On July 31, 2006, Syria's military raised its readiness, pledging not to abandon support for so-called Lebanese resistance against Israel. The Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad was quoted as saying, "The barbaric war of annihilation of the Israeli aggression is waging on our people in Lebanon and Palestine is increasing in ferocity." Excuse me? This is coming from a man that is a part of an ideology that desires the annihilation of Israel as a state, as well as eventual domination of the West, and he calls Israel's actions to defend herself barbaric aggression?

In Connecticut if Ned Lamont defeats Senator Joe Lieberman (a longtime, Democratic, supporter of the war) in the primary it could be a major blow to America's stance in the war against terror. If Lamont wins by a large margin, Lieberman will probably drop out of the race, and push us as a nation to a decision point. A national-security debate more important than any since the years following World War II may open up and the questions put upon the table will be, "Do we seek victory against the forces opposing us? Or do we cut and run as a result of the naive belief that appeasement now will spare us from more horrific threats later?

There is every indication present that the U.S. State Department and France has gotten together to produce a resolution to the U.N. that would well be seen as a victory for Islamic terrorists and dictatorships. The draft resolution calls on Hezbollah and Israel to agree to an immediate cease-fire. It treats Israel as the moral equivalent of Hezbollah. Hezbollah (& Hamas) is the aggressor in this conflict. Any resolution should call for Hezbollah to disarm, not Israel. In turn, once the aggressors cease their activities, Israel will be glad to pull her troops out of southern Lebanon.

Do people not realize that Israel's move against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon is in defense of herself?

Hezbollah refuses to follow the international rules of war. The terrorists consistently target civilians in Israel, promoting civilian deaths in Lebanon by using the Lebanese population as a human shield. Hezbollah troops blend in with the civilian population because they dress like civilians (in direct opposition to international law with requires combatants to dress like soldiers). Yet, they continue to portray all of the civilian casualties in this conflict as entirely Israel's fault. Qana is a case in point. Israel had information indicating that Hezbollah was using the area they hit in Qana as a base of operations to fire rockets into Israel. Israel leafleted the area repeatedly urging civilians to leave. The fact that civilians died in the attack by Israel is tragic, but was of Hezbollah's making, not Israel's. There is no strategic purpose served for Israel to target civilians. The civilian deaths, for which Hezbollah is responsible, do serve Hezbollah's strategic purposes by baiting the worldwide spectators to urge Israel to use more "restraint" while Hezbollah continues its rocket attacks specifically targeted against Israeli civilians.

As an added note, I believe that Israel has used a tremendous amount of restraint. If they weren't using restraint, the war would be over, and Lebanon, Syria, and anyone else that got in the way would be dead and their land would be nothing more than an international a parking lot.
Negotiation, by the way, has gone from proposing a strong NATO-led force that could disarm Hezbollah, to a weak little UN force that will have no effect on Hezbollah. The United Nations have had a 2,000 man force in Lebanon for the last six years, and all it did was allow Hezbollah to arm itself. What makes the UN think that a few more troops in a puny UN force that refuses to take any true military action is going to change things?

The Lebanese have more to fear from Syria and Iran than they do from the United States and France. Hezbollah have no intention of disarming. Syria and Iran have no intention of withdrawing their support from Hezbollah. The forces of terrorism, through such a resolution as the one that may be offered by the United Nations, will become stronger as the forces of democracy become weaker, placing our safety, and the safety of Israel, at a greater risk.

The liberal idea that this kind of UN Security Council resolution will halt Hezbollah's war (backed largely by Syria and Iran with indirect Chinese influence) against Israel is misguided and destructive. The UN is proving that it has no nerve, and that it is willing to undercut the efforts of the democracies to defend themselves. Neville Chamberlain allowed empty diplomacy like this to lull the world into a false sense of security about the nature of Hitler, and the result was the Second World War. Resolutions such as the one before the United Nations Security Council at this moment is nothing more than a rationalization that is lulling us into a similar self-deception regarding the threat of Radical Islam, with Israel's very existence hanging in the balance.

We need to continue to allow Israel to defend herself, and destroy Hezbollah as a threat to her security. Any resolution needs to focus on the roles of Syria and Iran in creating this conflict, and to insist on the implementation of the earlier UN resolution for disarming Hezbollah. Also, the UN should force Syria and Iran to pay reparations to Lebanon for the damage caused by the conflict.

Why hasn't Americans realized what Hezbollah's illegal tactics are all about? Why hasn't the United Nations (and the Europeans, for that matter) called for Hezbollah to move out of civilian areas, or demand that they wear military uniforms to identify themselves as combatants? Why does the world opinion not recognize Hezbollah's appalling encouragement of Lebanese civilian deaths?

The answer? Liberalism. It runs rampant through the minds of some very unfortunate people, and through the pages and broadcasts of the media.

Militant Islamic propaganda has gone a long way, and the liberals have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.

The world opinion, if common sense was a common commodity (of which it isn't), ought to be:

Disarm Hezbollah and Hamas.

Evict the Syrians and Iranians from Lebanese soil, or any place else they have their claws dug into.

Return Lebanon to the Lebanese government's control.

Demand that Israel's right to exist is not threatened by any nation, especially by those run by leaders sympathetic to radical Islamism.

People don't realize that this is an old war that has just escalated. It's nothing new. Problem is, we've been here before, and rage has given way to sadness. People have forgotten 9/11. They have forgotten what it feels like to be the target of terrorism. They have forgotten the anger and the rage we felt after the Twin Towers came down.

Israel experiences such terrorism against her daily. She is surrounded by the enemy. She is surrounded by nations that follow an ideology of violence and Israeli annihilation.

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Mexico's Plan for the American Southwest

Referred to as the Reconquista Movement, Illegal Mexicans in America, Mexicans in Mexico, and some Mexican Americans are deadly serious when they claim that California and large sections of the American Southwest were stolen from Mexico by the United States in the 1800's, and they seek to reconquer this territory by taking the land away from America and returning it to Mexico. The final goal of this rising movement is to Reconquista (reconquer) these stolen territories for La Raza.

And how will this be done? Millions of illegals are pouring into the U.S., swearing allegiance to Mexico. A joke on my job (in the construction industry) is that they (the Mexicans) are breeding out the white people (a joke on me since my wife is Mexican, these jokesters claim). In other words, Mexico is going to reconguer the American Southwest with sheer numbers and presence. The Reconquista Movement believes that it is only a matter of time when they will take political control because the Hispanics will be the majority, and once California, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico are controlled by Mexican immigrants, the states will secede the United States and join Mexico, much in the same way the Confederate States seceded from the Union during the American Civil War.

And the left is pushing the Reconquista agenda gladly. The leftists in Mexico have maps incorporating large sections of the American Southwest and the theory that the U.S. stole these territories from Mexico - - and this is even being taught in "Hispanic Studies" programs in U.S. schools.

The plan is sinisterly sound. They plan to expoit American generosity to the fullest, while mocking us, and then illegals will get their citizenship for themselves and their children so that they can eventually vote to return to Mexico large sections of the American Southwest.

Do you remember the protests recently over illegal immigration that even the Mayor of Los Angeles marched in? Banners held during those rallies said things like, "I'm not illegal, I'm Mexican, and I'm in my Homeland." "We are Indigenous - - the only owners of this continent." And do you remember all of the Mexican flags waving?

A Minuteman recently observed this occurrence in Rancho Cucamonga, California:

"On January 7, 2006, the Minuteman Project held a National Day Laborer Site protest. Often, a day labor site is nothing more than a parking lot outside a building-materials store where the owner sees a business advantage to allowing illegal alien day laborers to stand around and wait for job offers.

At the day labor site in Rancho Cucamonga, the Minuteman Project videotaped an angry Mexican who came out into the street to shout insults. “Go back to Germany where you belong!” he shouted. “Stay in Germany! Get out of here!” Then, pointing demonstrably to the ground with his right index finger, he screamed, “This is Mexico! This is our land! Get out of here, racist pigs! Viva Saddam Hussein! Viva Cuba!”

Clearly, the illegal immigrants at the day labor center didn’t want to be identified, since they were planning to take jobs at below-minimum wages and not pay taxes. Yet, the claim that California is actually Mexico was not made lightly. For millions of Hispanics in the Unites States, and for millions more in Mexico, the assertion is made in deadly seriousness."

Jose Angel Gutiérrez, a political science professor and former head of the Mexican-American Studies Center at the University of Texas, Arlington, spouted this typical Reconquista rhetoric in a recent speech:

"We remain a hunted people. Now, you think you have a destiny to fulfill in this land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years. We are a new Mestizo Nation. This is our homeland. We cannot, we will not, and we must not be made “illegal” in our homeland. We are not “immigrants” that came from another country to another country. We are migrants free to travel the length and breadth of the Americas because we belong here.

We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging, white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It’s a matter of time. The explosion is in our population."

The "Mexica Movement" is a large part of the belief system held by the Reconquista movement. The primary point of the Mexica Movement is that current U.S. citizens are colonialists and European imperialists who stole the land from its true owners, the Mexican Race, which dates back untold centuries by way of their Aztec roots. Here is some rhetoric from the Mexica Movement’s website:

"Mexica Movement is a Nican Tlaca (Indigenous) rights educational organization for the people of Mexican, “Central American,” “Native American,” and First Nation descend of Anahuac, in what is now called “North America.” Occupied Anahuac includes the colonial nations of Canada, U.S., Mexico (also controlled by Europeans), and “Central America” (down to include “Costa Rica,” which are also controlled by Europeans). “North America is the geographical area of the culture of Anahuac, which is the culture of corn, which brought about our civilizations. We, the Nican Tlaca people of Anahuac, are one people. We are one race. We have origins in one culture. We include all Full-bloods and Mixed-bloods as Nican Tlaca. We include ourselves with all similar movements in the Western Hemisphere (including those now starting in “South America.”)"

Of course, Liberals use race as an argument, and since in their eyes they base their entire political vision on race, it is politically incorrect to call the organization racist.

Aztlán is the mythical place of origin of the Aztec people. In the politics of illegal immigration, Aztlán has come to represent that part of the U.S. that the Reconquista movement intends to reclaim for an expanded Mexico. Using this base, maps have been drawn to illustrate Aztlán as a redefined Mexico which includes much of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Aztlán is the dream of another radical organization, the Moviemento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán, which translates as the “Chicano Student Movement of Aztlán,” more commonly abbreviated to the acronyms “M.E.Ch.A” or “MEChA.” The symbol of MEChA is a black eagle against a red background. The eagle holds in its right claw a weapon similar to a machete, and in its left hand a stick of dynamite. In the beak of the eagle is the lighted fuse needed to blast the dynamite.

The intent of MEChA is clear in its national constitution:

"The Chicano and Chicana students of Aztlán must take upon themselves the responsibilities to promote Chicanismo within the community, politicizing our Raza with an emphasis on indigenous consciousness to continue the struggle for the self-determination of the Chicano people for the purpose of liberating Aztlán."

And underneath this incredible racial agenda is a radical leftist political agenda that shares with socialists, communists, and Islamism the goal of destroying the United States. MEChA agrees with radical socialists, and communists that the United States is a colonial, imperialist country controlled by Europeans and dedicated to capitalist exploitation of workers. MEChA presents a version of Marxism with a racist twist. And MEChA has a huge presence as a student organization with more than 300 chapters in high schools and colleges throughout the U.S.

Reconquista desires to push back the U.S.-Mexican border to where it stood before the 1846–1848 Mexican-American War settled the breakaway of Texas from Mexico. Reconquista radicals wish to see the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the 1853 Gadsden Purchase negated. Extreme Reconquista radicals would like to revisit the Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819, which established the border of U.S. territory from the Rocky Mountains.

The only trouble with annulling the Adams-Onis treaty is that would cede the western United States to Spain, not Mexico. Reconquista radicals of today may speak the Spanish language, but their cultural and racial orientation harks back to the indigenous Indian or Aztec roots of ancient Mexico. Reconquista radicals want to deal with European Spain about as much as they want to deal with the United States.

The massive protests in March, April, and May 2006 supporting illegal aliens were entirely one-sided expressions of First Amendment rights, and those who dared take to the streets in counter-protest, like the Minutemen, risked attack and injury from the politically intolerant who were thrusting their message upon America as if theirs were the only legitimate message.

Protests marched onto freeways and blocked traffic in major cities, the point being to disrupt business-as-usual. The protest organizers originally encouraged students to walk out of schools, until the teachers’ unions complained that schools might lose government funds. Students displayed openly the leftist ideas that they had been taught about immigration, flying the Mexican flag above an upside down U.S. flag at the schoolyard.

The goal of the liberal Mexican Left is to launch an invasion that would only become obvious to Middle America when it was too late. Along the way, agents of various terrorist groups are hopping across the Mexican border as well. It seems to me that the Reconquista movement would love to see a terrorist attack on America again, as long as the victims were not members of the Mexican Radical Left.

My wife is currently applying for citizenship to the United States. She grew up in the U.S. Her parents came over to America as true immigrants. They followed the rules, jumped through the hoops, and envisioned a better future for themselves and their children in the Land of Opportunity. They followed all of the laws, worked hard, and pursued the American Dream. My wife, the only one of the children born in Mexico (she is the oldest, and fell victim to the Aztlan rhetoric through most of her childhood and young adult years - - until now...her main reason for seeking citizenship is so that she can vote, and be yet another voice against the liberal left) is pursuing her bachelor's degree, and her family is an example of what immigrants truly are, and that they have been successful in chasing the American Dream. She sees these Mexican Leftists as users and criminals. If any of them receives amnesty, that is a slap in the face to her, and her family.

With the recent release of the Spanish version of the U.S. national anthem, Middle America is beginning to feel like we are losing America to the demands of Hispanic illegal immigrants. They are an invading army posing as a gift of cheap labor. We have nobody to blame but ourselves. As long as we continue to allow them to jump the border without consequence, the battle will continue to be lost. The primary intent of the millions of illegals crossing the border is to take over and re-invent the United States in their own image and to their liking. Action must be immediate. Our resolve must be sound.

God Bless America. We must defend her now. The invasion continues, and these invaders must be treated like the criminal members of an invading force that they are.