The Bush White House and Illegals

This has to be the biggest indicator that the Bush White House will let certain types of people break the law but the rest of us don't get that privilege

Check this form The Corner
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWJlNGI1YmI3MGFmODUxODg2MzYyNmE0ZmEzYjkzYzk=


Deporting Alien Gang Members [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Nicholas Thompson from the White House checks back in with The Corner:

Mark R. Levin asked about the point of conducting background checks if we currently won't deport known gang members. The immigration laws right now do not permit DHS to deport a known gang member simply for being part of a gang. But the Senate bill, if passed, would mark an historic change. For the first time, the Government would be allowed to deport aliens solely for their participation in criminal gangs — without having to show criminal activity or some other independent ground of deportation. Of course, if this bill fails, it may be years before Congress takes up immigration reform again, and in the meantime, the government will have to fight alien gangs without this powerful new tool.

This is why people are up in arms. Just deport them because they are illegally in this country. You don't need another reason to deport them other than they are illegals.

Mr. Thompson has spent too much time in his own bubble.

There are a few laws I don't like and can't change, but I don't go and break the laws.

These illegals get away with fraud, Identity theft (maybe the reason we see so many adverts on the tv for ID protection is to protect us from illegals?) tax evasion, and on and on.

fed up

Culture, Iraqi's, moslems....

Here is why culture maters.
Arab/Islamic pride does not allow for external correction apparently.

Hence the USA whupped the Iraqis 2x in 2 different wars.

Read the entire estripes article

Tip from NRO
http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDJjNDEwYmU4ODU2YjllZDEzYmZkYWZmNzg3YjlkNTc=

And in Marine-run course preps Iraqis for the real fight:
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=46095

Walker and his instructors admit they aren’t growing future Marines. They are teaching young men how to safely carry a weapon and shoot. The new Iraqi solider “has to be a little bit better than he was when we found him,” [Marine Corps Chief Warrant Officer 5 Terry Walker] said.
...
The Iraqis are not required to do any physical training, nor can the Marine instructors use physical exercise as a form of punishment. For the most part, they can’t dole out any punishment at all, Walker said. Punishment brings embarrassment to the recruit, and he will shut down, the gunner said.

Little clean up today

Spell checked and cleaned up some posts today.

Will be posting more soon.

Worst American ever??

The worst American ever is .......................

Is Teddy Kennedy

For many reasons but the 1965 immigration act along with the current proposed bill.

The reason the 3rd world is a crap hole is their culture. Culture matters and to succeed one must assimilate to the USA.

Worth a look......
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/05/why_they_wont_assimilate.html

May 21, 2007
Why They Won't AssimilateBy Selwyn Duke
Today's immigrants are not assimilating into our culture. Ted Kennedy's Immigration Reform Act of 1965 has created a situation in which 85 percent of our immigrants hail from the Third World and Asia. This portends the destruction of the western civilization that has given us everything we hold dear, from our freedom to our prosperity, not for reasons of race, but because of circumstances at least partly created by Americans ourselves.

Assimilation is not a process magically initiated upon setting foot on American terra firma. Rather, it only occurs when one or both of two conditions are met: The foreign elements must have a desire to assimilate or the host nation must place pressure on them to do so. Unfortunately, neither is the case today because both immigrants and native-born Americans are far different than they once were.

I've pointed out that a nation allows its stabilizing majority to disappear at its own peril (unprecedented Third World immigration has reduced America's European-heritage population from almost 90 percent to about 66 percent in just a little more than four decades). But a critic could rightly mention that white Americans weren't always viewed so monolithically. When our nation saw a huge influx of Irish, Italian and German immigrants, there was often great group conflict; ethnic slurs passed lips and fights were not uncommon (amazing how they negotiated this period without "hate crime" laws, huh?). Yet, there was a difference.Immigrants: Today vs. Yesteryear

Today's M&M influx (Moslems and Mexicans) is distinguished from previous immigrant waves by a sense of entitlement. A Zogby poll found that 58 percent of Mexicans believe California and the Southwest rightly belong to them. Although this belief is bred by a tendentious view of history, it doesn't change the end result. It has spawned groups such as Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA), which advocates conquering the Southwest in the name of Mexico. More significantly, it causes many average Mexicans to have no compunction about imposing their culture and language on the country that has so generously given them succor.
Where Mexicans exhibit ethnic patriotism, Moslems manifest religious chauvinism. Far too many pious Moslems believe they have been enjoined to impose their faith on others by any means necessary; this is why they will unabashedly demand concessions, such as their own dormitories at colleges and an Arabic public school in New York City. It's also why they have fought for the right to use sharia law to settle civil disputes in Canada.

This lies in stark contrast to the behavior of most of yesteryear's immigrants. Like anyone else, they certainly felt comfortable in the bosom of their own subculture; yet, they knew they were in another's land and never viewed accommodation by their host nation as a birthright, and any ethnic patriotism harbored was often trumped by the dream of becoming American. Unfortunately, today's immigrants' dream is often our nightmare, one from which we could arise if only, if only, if only.... Looking at the American in the Mirror
Walt Kelly wrote, "We have met the enemy and he is us." The truth is that when assigning blame, our feet are where the majority of it must lie. There was a time when Americans, like most nationalities, took pride in their culture and defended it with manly fortitude. Today, though, after decades of imbuing the modern mind with the "Hey, hey, ho, ho, western culture's gotta go!" mentality, this is no longer the case. Too many of us have imbibed the multiculturalist malt, with its evenhanded principle stating that others have a right to their cultures and we have a right to them, too. But this philosophical shift has been addressed before, so let's discuss a nuts and bolts aspect of the problem.

Many of us understand how government actively thwarts assimilation by pandering to foreign elements. Our government will print official documents in other languages (the standard California driver's license test is available in 32 of them) just so those without enough respect to learn our national common tongue can collect our national treasure and cast votes for those who lavish it upon them. But this isn't where governmental complicity in this problem ends.
Traditionally, Americans never relied on government to achieve most goals, and ensuring assimilation was no exception. Many years ago, for instance, if a person insisted on dressing like an advertisement for the Middle Ages, didn't learn the language or sought to impose strange beliefs in the workplace, he would have been fired or not hired in the first place. What this means is that the Moslem clerks and cab drivers who, respectively, won't ring up pork and won't pick up passengers with alcohol or seeing-eye dogs would have either changed their ways or returned to where ways don't change. This enforcement of tradition through individual initiative is what almost every non-western country does and makes sense. If you're so enamored of your native ways, stay in your native land.

If you tried this today, though, you'd receive a treatment from the proctologist of government bureaucracies, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Yes, because freedom of association has been trumped by lawless judges, citizens have lost control over their businesses, rental properties and, in many cases, organizations. Privately owned and financed entities can no longer determine who receives paychecks, who will be served and who will be rented to, thus removing the social pressure to conform that the common man would naturally apply via the exercise of his values in his castle. Likewise, local school boards have been robbed of the right to set dress codes and behavior standards reflecting the surrounding community. What this means is now you can't refuse to hire a cross-dressing Columbian from Cartagena. Ah, it sounds almost Jeffersonian... almost. We've now traded liberty for perversity.

America is being erased. The stabilizing majority that forged her unique culture is being eroded through the importation of culturally imperialistic forces by treasonous politicians. And traitors they are, and be not faint-hearted in saying so. After all, if this happened anywhere but in western nations, the lamentation over this cultural imperialism would be staggering. Just imagine if the majority population of Nigeria or Cambodia were rapidly being replaced with a European one. The only question would be whether the nation they hailed from would be targeted by only stupid bureaucrats or also smart bombs.

A wise person once said a definition of insanity is ". . . doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." This aphorism has been attributed variously to Ben Franklin, Albert Einstein, and for all I know, Chief Seattle. Given that we have a greatly diminished sense of national identity, Moslem terrorists blending into a multicultural mish-mash, Spanish supplanting English, and Mexican flags going up while American ones come down, should we really stay the course?

The M&M invasion sympathizers may call me names, but I'll simply render a diagnosis: They're insane. They have turned immigration into an institution. It's time for it to be institutionalized.

illegals and America

So let me get this straight. The USA can't deport 12M law breakers??

Immigration is not a Federal issue only.

Local, County, and State law enforcement need to be able to arrest and detain illegals they come across as a part of everyday LEO activities. Because I'm pretty sure illegals commit crimes of all natures from moving violations to heinous felonies.

So we accumulate illegals touched by regular law enforcement send them back home, some employer raids and then lock out of illegals from government services and they will go home by themselves on their own $.

I graduated from the school of hard knocks, but this is simple.

guns and former illegals, now on the path

I'm a gun guy, but I don't know how this will work.

Apparently the houses of Congress have some sort of amnesty deal for illegal aliens, and Pres. Bush looks to sign anything on immigration.

Blah, blah, with trigger provisions of the bill will never be enforced, Crud, we are not enforcing the current laws now. What makes us peep's think they will enforce the new & improved, better laws??

Anyway there is a Z-Visa blah, blah, which makes one a legal alien among other stuff I have not had a chance to review.

So now that these folks are some sort of legal immigrants will they be able to purchase guns?

The VA Tech shooter was a legal immigrant, hence could purchase guns.

Could the Ft. Dix Six purchase guns with this new deal(not the full auto's and RPG's -Rocket Propelled Grenades obviously(not going into the NFA of 1934 on this post))

The Ft. Dix Six were trying to purchase guns illegally, so gun control is mute here anyway.

How will they do the background checks? How will we know who this person even is given the massive document fraud. Showing up with a Mexican birth certificate is really not much proof of ID is it?

Have we just armed a bunch of unknowns?

Guessing the brilliance of Congress, my bet is rather than enforce immigration laws, more gun control is on the way because of this deal.

I'm in favor of repealing most gun laws but I don't know what this new immigration fiasco means to us law abiding gun owners?

Anyone??

UPDATE: the Bill failed

Military History by VDH

An oldie but a goodie


July 3, 2002 8:45 a.m.
The Return of Military History?Death and renewal of an ancient discipline.

Confess: it's my professionThat alarms you.This is why few people ask me to dinner, Lord knows I don't go out of my way to be scary.Margaret Atwood, "The Loneliness of the Military Historian"

Military history took a beating in the 1960s and 1970s. The specter of nuclear Armageddon challenged the very idea that there could any longer be rules and lessons of wars. How might there be — the prevailing logic went — when a push of a button could end an entire civilization, regardless of its moral right or abject evil, despite its brilliant generals or inept commanders, without a care for the number or nature of its tanks.
The specter of a 100-megaton weapon seemed to make what Napoleon had said irrelevant. Who needed to learn from Caesar's campaign in Gaul or how the German army went through the Ardennes, when Mutually Assured Destruction trumped all other considerations?
Instead of military historians, there arose strategic planners, weapons specialists, and political scientists, whose expertise was in technology, diplomacy, or Soviet Studies. Modern theories were the key to expertise — wisdom that was purportedly always changing and entirely predicated on the rapid clip of technological progress and the enemy of the moment, rather than age-old rules based on the banal assumption that the nature of man is unchanging and so predictable.
Vietnam had much to do with the decline as well. The tragedy of the American incursion could not be seen as military ineptness or tactical imbecility, much less as national lack of wisdom or will, but was viewed exclusively in ethical terms: using force was bad in itself, but especially evil when attacking former colonial peoples in their own homeland.
Along with this general climate of pacifism, the growth of the therapeutic movement also played a key role in denigrating the study of war. The return of the Rousseauian view that man was innately noble — until corrupted by religion, politics, custom, and culture — was refashioned into the idea that Americans could find stable and secure lives if they just rid themselves of bothersome pathologies. On the personal level, that meant that everything from new diets and divorce to meditation and drugs might help excise the lingering and pernicious legacy of patriarchy, religious guilt, and indoctrinated conformity. Evil was not innate to humans, but rather acquired through society.
On a national level, new disciplines in the universities, books, and seminars on gender, racism, sexism, and conflict-resolution studies all promised that with proper guidance, knowledge — and a little coercion — we could build a classless society, without hurt, where all would live in perpetual harmony. In the schools, bothersome facts, difficult grammars, normative syntax, and rigorous training in languages, literature, and history were no longer the requisites to logic and reason, but niggling superfluities that often were used against those with different class, gender, and racial backgrounds. Amid all this, war obviously was retrograde and, like hurtful speech or injurious looks, could be made obsolete by proper training in dialoguing, listening, and compromising.
The result was that by 1990, major universities offered few courses in the study of war — and even began to drop classes on World War I or the Civil War — to make way for things like "Gender and the Construction of Manhood" or upper-division courses on "Patriarchy and the Church." (Read any list of the titles of doctoral dissertations granted this year — and weep.) At the graduate level, other than some top-notch programs at Ohio State and Duke, it became almost impossible to specialize in military history or even to find more than a handful of advisors. Programs in Peace Studies outnumbered those in Military History ten to one.
The discipline's decline was manifest in a variety of other insidious ways. An entire generation of students left the universities with little idea of war — other than it was always horrible and thus to be avoided at all costs. The very thought that Mao, Stalin, and Hitler had murdered far more millions off the battlefield than on was incomprehensible. We discovered new takes on race, class, and gender in the Civil War, but forgot the overwhelming lesson of Grant and Sherman: that millions were freed only through the military excellence of Union armies and their leaders.
World War I — without the holocaust and as a precursor to Hitler — was supposedly due to ignorance, fought stupidly, and ended badly. Few believed that it was a tragedy brought on by an aggressive Germany; fought heroically by amateur French, British, and American soldiers who defeated the professionalism and skill of the German army (the most lethal land force that had yet appeared); and was a result of two different and largely antithetical visions of Europe. No one dared accept that the post-bellum failure to invade Germany, occupy Berlin, and demonstrate the utter lunacy of German militarism had caused World War II; the problem was that the victorious allies had been too mean rather than too fickle.
Of course, throughout the field's collapse, a number of specialists had persevered, writing and editing volumes on particular wars, generals, and theories. But they had clearly lost the attention of the university and worked under the suspicion that they were vicariously bloodthirsty, slightly deranged, or perhaps connected in some mysterious and sinister way to the military itself. One positive legacy of this neglect of military history was the gradual appearance of scholars who began to write about war either from outside the university — John Keegan comes quickly to mind — or at least in some way not directly involved in its mainstream operations. It is no accident that three of the best of the most recent military histories — Max Boot's The Savage Wars of Peace, Eliot Cohen's Supreme Command, and Michael Oren's Six Days of War — were written by scholars who have lives beyond the classroom.
What, then, can we learn from military history and why is it returning?
1. All history is not equal. There is something about battle — the ghastly effort to kill young people with state sanction — that accelerates time and reduces other considerations to trivialities. The hundred years of talking about slavery was not as important as two days at Gettysburg. The success or failure of Normandy affected Hitler more in an hour than had years of pleading with him in the 1930s. If one really does wish to learn of the important events of the past, one then needs to know something of war. One book on World War II is worth ten on the history of fashion; a class on the Peloponnesian Wars is more valuable than 50 on the rhetoric of gender.
2. Oddly, wars are not uniformly bloody and deadly, as we saw from the Falklands campaign and the Gulf. And even history's most deadly conflicts pale in comparison to the ravages of the 1918 flu or the current AIDS epidemic. The greatest killer of Spartan manhood was an earthquake, not Athenians; the greatest killer of Athenian hoplites was the plague, not Spartans. It turns out there are sometimes worse things for the human condition than war. Saddam Hussein murdered more of his own people at peace than he did Kuwaitis at war. War, military history teaches us, on the right occasions can save more lives than it takes. Pacifism and appeasement can take more lives than they save.
3. So there is also a utility to war. All the great national sins of the last 200 years have been ended by war alone or by the threat to use military force — American chattel slavery, German Nazism, Italian fascism, Japanese militarism, and Soviet Communism. What happened on September 11 has not reoccurred as of yet due to the soldiers of America and its alliance — not the United Nations or the World Court. In this present crisis, Special Forces have saved more lives than Amnesty International. Mr. Arafat is talking about radical reform because of the retaliation of the IDF to suicide bombing, not due to a change of heart.
4. War should not be left up to the generals. The common fear about the top brass is militarism — that they will transform us all into pawns of the military-industrial complex. But military history teaches us the opposite about the French army of 1936, the American forces of the 1980s, and the European defense establishment of today: conservatism and a reluctance to use power are the greater dangers, as staff bureaucrats become set in their ways and prefer planning wars, buying weapons, enlarging the team, and creating bases rather than risking the loss of their precious and hard-won assets in a difficult struggle. Conformity and a resistance to change, not experimentation and broadmindedness, are the real dangers in any military leadership.
5. We can also learn that deterrence, not communication and good intentions, historically has prevented the outbreak of wars. It is often advisable to be a good neighbor, to give aid to the weak and poor, and to follow international protocol. But such world citizenship does not prevent a continental thug from seeing you as weak rather than as humane. Had the Kaiser feared the French, Hitler Britain and America, or Japan the Seventh Fleet, it is likely that war would not have broken out when it did. Soviet worries about the U.S. arsenal kept them out of Europe, and so allowed more gradual forces of change — economic ineptness, state perfidy, and corruption and graft — to destroy Communism.
We should all promote the teaching of military history precisely because we wish to avoid wars and seek to preserve lives. Instead of listening to lectures about the snows of Afghanistan, the graveyards of the British and Russians, and the horrific nature of warlords, Americans should rediscover that their own record of war-making, far more than that of others, has been frighteningly lethal and effective. The Taliban and al Qaeda have never turned out geniuses such as Stonewall Jackson, W. T. Sherman, Nathan Bedford Forrest, or George Patton. And the world has rarely seen armies arise like Sherman's Army of the West, Patton's Third Army, Ridgeway's reconstructed Korean forces, or the American armada in the Gulf. I think I would still place bets on Sherman's Midwesterners with muzzle-loading cannons marching against the combined high-tech forces of the current Gulf States.
We should also remember that such deadly militaries have been used for moral causes: to end slavery, ruin Nazi fascism, hold off Communism, and neutralize Iraqi aggression. Had we read military history in the recent crisis, and not journalistic warnings of Vietnam redux or snippets about Afghanistan on the Internet, then we would have known that the challenge of ending the Taliban was not if we could, but how we should. In the present war, the only two impediments in the world to the United States military are the American public's own sense of economy and morality. Our forces cannot be stopped by al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein, but only when — or if — we, the people, conclude that the fighting has become either antithetical to our own interests or abjectly unethical.
And so Americans, who control their armed forces, should read about wars, learn some military history, and become actively involved in monitoring our current crisis — always keeping in mind Thucydides's dictum that "an exact knowledge of the past is an aid to the understanding of the future, which in the course of human things must resemble if it does not reflect it."

sucks to be unarmed

Some Steyn again but worth a second look

Clipped from this article

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/351710,CST-EDT-STEYN22.article


I live in northern New England, which has a very low crime rate, in part because it has a high rate of gun ownership. We do have the occasional murder, however. A few years back, a couple of alienated loser teens from a small Vermont town decided they were going to kill somebody, steal his ATM cards, and go to Australia. So they went to a remote house in the woods a couple of towns away, knocked on the door, and said their car had broken down. The guy thought their story smelled funny so he picked up his Glock and told 'em to get lost. So they concocted a better story, and pretended to be students doing an environmental survey. Unfortunately, the next old coot in the woods was sick of environmentalists and chased 'em away. Eventually they figured they could spend months knocking on doors in rural Vermont and New Hampshire and seeing nothing for their pains but cranky guys in plaid leveling both barrels through the screen door. So even these idiots worked it out: Where's the nearest place around here where you're most likely to encounter gullible defenseless types who have foresworn all means of resistance? Answer: Dartmouth College. So they drove over the Connecticut River, rang the doorbell, and brutally murdered a couple of well-meaning liberal professors. Two depraved misfits of crushing stupidity (to judge from their diaries) had nevertheless identified precisely the easiest murder victims in the twin-state area. To promote vulnerability as a moral virtue is not merely foolish. Like the new Yale props department policy, it signals to everyone that you're not in the real world.

Colmbs and Geraldo

Geraldo is a punk defending Mexican criminals.... Alan Colmbs is a mental midget.

Enter video on FNC of an illegal from Mexico about to throw a brick sized stone at a Border Agent.........non linked

You start to through a stone at me you will take a few rounds. sorry.

Geraldo loves Mexicans and does not respect the law. Who cares.

Geraldo admitted he is unarmed ie has no guns. Truth hurts. Geraldo may wish some day he was armed.

eating ourselves

Watched some hadji's on Bill O. tonight.

Moslems just keep pushing. Religious tolerance is only between Christians generally, we are going to have a shooting war eventually. I know that is not very eloquent, but so it is.


So some Bosnians wanted to kill some Soldiers in NJ.

They just keep pushing.

As Andy McCarthy said in NRO today on The Corner, where is any group actively pursuing violence in the name of the Old Testament?

More rubble, less trouble

Derb's comments are true. (Inside stuff there for Corner junkies)

I don't think the USA has the gumption to continually pound our enemies into rubble every time they start a ruckus.

Citizens will think we are being bullies and everyone knows we can't have that can we?

Stand your ground

so the moslem Cabbies in Kansas City can wash their feet in the Airport with some foot washing stations, but they paid for it?? (Moslems are supposedly supposed to wash their feet before prayer,)

So all religions are equal, but some are more equal??

So any religion can set up shop in public places if they pay for it??


4 legs good, 2 legs bad. Little Orwell there

Crazy world

Personally we should kick the islamo's out of the USA, since they are not good Americans and their value system is 180 degrees out of sync with America.