It is the highest of hypocrisy and partisan demagoguery to suggest that the democrats are in favor of the Islamic terrorists winning this war, or any other. It is not, however, a stretch to state that the terrorists are in favor of the democrats winning. The reasons for this have been addressed by me in earlier posts, but simply stated, the dems and their allies in the press think that the way to end terrorism is to negotiate with the bad guys and use law enforcement resources when transgressions occur. Obviously the terrorists would prefer that tactic, rather than the one currently being endorsed by the republicans. The political landscape is not black and white. There are shades of grey. Joe Lieberman, a former democrat and current independent, is in favor of taking the fight to the terrorists militarily. Republican senators Chuck Hagel-NE, and John Warner-VA are both on record as saying the current policy does not work, and have suggested exploring some sort of phased withdrawal. For the most part though, the republicans want to continue the fight militarily and the dems want to withdraw and negotiate. Negotiate with whom exactly, is still undetermined. Most of the press is with the dems on this, and the media savvy terrorists cannot help but see this everyday.
All the news out of Iraq is bad. Daily we are treated to images of IEDs, blood in the streets, exhausted soldiers and marines humping ever heavier equipment loads, and, just this week, video of an Islamist sniper firing on American troops. The sniper video was given to CNN by a terrorist group. As it opens, Arabic writing fills the screen and we see soldiers and HUMMVEEs in the background. I openly admit I changed the channel at that point. What came next were images of American soldiers running for cover from the unseen attack. CNN defended their actions as simple news reporting, "painful" as that might be. CNN dismissed criticism of the airing by stating that journalistic integrity demanded it be shown. This is the same line of thought offered up by The New York Times when they revealed secret programs designed to thwart and/or capture/kill terrorists. Now, I am not trying to suggest that there is some conspiracy afoot in the media. There is no secret cabal directing the actions of the three networks and the nation's largest newspapers, but there is an underlying mindset. For the most part, those who pursued journalism from the mid 60s on were, and are, liberals. Just like a certain segment of society pursues law, or pipe-fitting, or yes, soldiering, most of those currently engaged as journalists have a certain viewpoint of the world. That viewpoint is, in most cases, liberal or secularly progressive. They, therefore, favor the Democratic Party line. Hence, all the news out of Iraq is bad, which helps the democratic candidates currently up for election, which, in turn, helps the terrorists.
That does not mean I think either the liberal press or the Democratic Party want to help the terrorists. It is ridiculous that I have to state that, but in these polarized times I have to, or risk the scathing, ill-informed comments that are sure to appear. That neither group wants to help the terrorists matters not. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The press and the dems honestly believe that their course of proposed action is the best; even though reams of historical evidence contradicts them. Neville Chamberlain famously delivered the "Peace in Our Time" speech in 1938. The irony of that was underscored the following year when the German Blitzkrieg slammed into Poland. In 1994 Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres shared the Nobel Prize for Peace. What a boon that has been for Arab-Israeli relations. And who could forget the negotiations that allowed U.S. forces to leave Vietnam. Millions were slaughtered in the aftermath, some even before all the U.S. helicopters had left the Embassy's roof in Hanoi. I could go on ad nauseum, but I believe these recent historical references prove my point: You cannot negotiate with pure evil. Cessation of hostilities under a cease-fire agreement only gives the evil forces time to regroup and rearm.
Vietnam is worth revisiting for a moment, if only because the major press outlets, and their political masters in the Democratic Party, insist on comparing it to our current operations in Iraq. The comparison is sophistry at best. As retired Colonel Oliver North recently reported, "In Vietnam, U.S. troops faced nearly a quarter million conscripted, but well trained, disciplined and equipped North Vietnamese Army regulars and upwards of 100,000 highly organized Viet Cong insurgents on a daily basis from 1966 onward. Both the NVA and the VC "irregulars" were well indoctrinated in communist ideology, received direct aid from the Soviet Union, communist China and the Warsaw Pact and benefited from logistics and politico-military support networks in neighboring countries. During major campaigns against U.S. and South Vietnamese forces--of which there were many each year--both the NVA and the VC responded to centralized command and control directed by authorities in Hanoi. None of that is true in Iraq." Some may quibble that Syria and Iran are, indeed, politico-military support networks, but the rest of the Colonel's reasoning is unassailable. We have all been lectured to, numerous times, by both the press and liberal democrats on the nature of the insurgency in Iraq. The insurgents operate in cells, independent of each other, so they are particularly hard to counter say the omnipotent one's on the left. The insurgents won't stand up and fight they say. We have to bring the boys home because the insurgents will never fight us symmetrically, left-wingers say. They will continue to kill Americans with IEDs, so we might as well leave them to their business and come home. The American casualty rate is just unacceptable given the insurgents unwillingness to fight us like men, the left avers. If they cannot even bear to call the evil doers what they are, terrorists, how can we expect them to fight them the way they must be fought?
None of that has anything to do with Vietnam, and precious little to do with Iraq. Roughly 2,800 men and women have been killed in Iraq. At least 104 of them this month alone. Over 6,800 were killed during the battle for Iwo Jima during World War II. Frequently Iraqi Freedom opponents will cite the fact that we have now been in Iraq nearly as long as we fought in WWII, but few mention that the casualty figures pale in comparison. Colonel North added in the piece referenced above, "During the Tet Offensive in Vietnam there were more than 2,100 casualties per week." Now consider those numbers and tell me how the casualty rates even compare. Do not get me wrong. As an infantryman, past, now and forever, every soldier's, marine's, sailor's and airmen's death touches me. I make a point to look at The Washington Post's Faces of the Fallen section every day. There are short biographies, synopsis of the action that resulted in their death and photos of every servicemember killed. It never ceases to make me teary-eyed, but the casualty rates are simply picayune compared to the number in every war we ever fought before venturing into this desert. To suggest that we must pull out before the job is done because too many volunteer warriors have lost their lives cheapens not only their deaths, but the deaths of all those who's mothers received telegrams during WWII and Korea, or chaplain's visits during Vietnam.
Michael Smerconish, a local radio show host in Philadelphia, recently took a trip to the Middle East under the aegis of the Department of Defense. He traveled to CentCom and met with everyone in the chain of command. He started with Secretary Rumsfeld, worked his way through various generals and admirals, and eventually wound up with 19 and 20 year old enlisted men. Smerconish, no "stay the course hawk," told his radio audience the thing that most impressed him was how proud these "kids" are of their service, and how much they believe in the mission. To pull them out now, before the Iraqis can stand by themselves, cheapens these brave servicemen's sacrifices, but also the sacrifice their families back here have borne. Not to mention the sacrifice the Iraqis have borne. Hundreds of thousands have been killed by the terrorists. Are we to abandon the rest to the slaughter that is sure to follow any ignominious exit? If so, we should be prepared for a bloodbath that will make the Killing Fields of Cambodia, and the genocide in Rwanda look like a street fight between the Sharks and the Jets in comparison. Does anyone honestly believe that the departure of U.S. forces before the democratically elected Iraqis are ready will stabilize the region? So, if no one actually believes our departure will stabilize the region then what's really being said is: We do not want to wage war against the terrorists who would kill us all. We only want to prosecute them, in U.S. federal courts, when they break American laws.
Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Alec Station, was the man most intimately tasked with killing and/or capturing Osama bin Laden. During a recent radio broadcast on 1210 am in Philadelphia he was asked by the host Michael Smerconish, "Which party do you think bin Laden wants to win the Senate and House. Does he care?" Without hesitation Scheuer responded, "The best possible situation would be for the democrats to win both houses." He explained further that with President Bush still in power the recruiting potential for new Islamic terrorists would continue, and the democrats in Congress would prevent the President from undertaking further military actions to combat what would be then an ever-growing threat. So, in effect Osama bin Laden needs President Bush as a bogeyman of sorts, but doesn't want him to be able to act unabated. A democrat controlled House and Senate would slow the President's efforts to combat terrorism. That is not to say that the democrats are any less patriotic, but their oft stated policy of a less forceful approach to combating terrorism is just wrong. In many ways that policy is the more American approach. We, as Americans, want to think the best of everyone. We want to believe that everyone can see the beauty of us as a people, if only we give them the chance. Unfortunately, that is a very narrow world-view, and it is potentially deadly to us as a people, and a country. At the tail end of the interview I referenced above Scheuer was quick to point out that he was not trying to tell people for whom they should vote. "Vote for whomever you want, but you have to understand how your vote hinders or helps the Islamist terrorists." That statement is what this mid-term election is about.
By now, having cited Colonel Oliver North, Michael Smerconish and Michael Scheuer some of you are, no doubt, cursing me for being a republican ideologue who truly hates liberty and peace, puppies and small children. I am certain to be accused of fear mongering and, once again, xenophobia. I am sure I will be considered nothing more than a desperate Kool-Aid drinking hack, shrilly trying anything to keep my team in power. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is not a single, solitary social issue with which Rick Santorum and I agree; at least not one I have ever heard him articulate. I truly wish there was a candidate that shared my liberal social values, my libertarian economic positions and my somewhat hawkish national security concerns. That candidate just does not exist, not now, and maybe not ever. So, what is one to do? Everyone draws their line in the sand somewhere, and for me that line comes down to the fight for U.S. survival. Whether or not we want to accept it, the Islamists are intent on ruling, at least, the entire Arab world, and have a desire to bring us to our knees. They wish for us to be unable to intercede on the world stage so they can bring back the bygone age of the Caliphate. They want to institute sharia laws in every land that was ever, or is now, inhabited by Muslims. That is not my opinion. That is the oft stated goal of Islamists everywhere, from bin Laden to Iranian President Amadinejad. The question then becomes: Do we give our best weapons, hope, democracy and freedom, a chance? Or do we once again bury our heads in the sand and hope the bad guys leave us alone? If we pull out of Iraq, as the democrats want, before the country is truly stable, we risk allowing madmen not only opportunity, but means to destroy us. Billions of dollars from oil revenue will sponsor all manner of terrorist acts, all over the world. A nuclear explosion in one, or more American cities will no longer be theory. At that point it will be too late for me to say I told you so. I'll be too busy trying to save my daughter from the ravages of a ruined world. Am I then saying vote republican or the world will blow up? No, I am saying vote for the man or woman in your district, republican, democrat or independent, who understands the threat we face. In my state that is Rick Santorum. I am voting for him Tuesday, but, should his social stances not soften with time, I will gladly help you throw him out when the work of war is good and truly done.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
The Great Divide
I do not make a habit of responding to the comments posted in response to my blog musings. Mainly this is due to the fact that the comments I agree with need no response, and the one's I disagree with would have been written in crayon before the advent of computers. Recently though, several have caught my eye in subtle ways. They concern my opinion that the Left is soft on terrorism. I believe I have explained my position to refer to the Social Progressives amongst us, and not rank and file Americans who identify themselves as democrats, or even liberals. With the elections only 3 weeks away I am concerned that a loss of both houses of Congress by the republicans will spell doom for the country though. I do not think that the repeal of tax cuts, impeachment proceedings, which have been promised by several upwardly aspirant congressmen, or the expansion of even more social programs will spell the end of civilization as we know it. Those things go in cycles, and the pendulum will eventually swing back. No, what concerns me is the notion that the ruling elite of the democratic party, and their attendant Birkenstock wearing fringe element, believe that terrorism is a law enforcement issue or worse that it can be negotiated away and that the invasion along our south-western border is somehow good for our country.
If the democrats win both houses of Congress the terrorists hell bent on killing us will be afforded even more rights. The rights the Social Progressives want to grant terrorists were meant for American citizens, and no one else. We are different. We are citizens of a country that was well-founded and does good things. Of course we make mistakes, but in the end we are a noble, decent, good people. A sizeable minority of the democratic party believes that none of those things are true, and that the only way to rectify the ills the U.S. has visited upon the world is to surrender our way of life to the Social Progressive agenda. We must surrender to those things in the interest of diversity and compassion the SPs say. Nothing else will suffice. The SPs hate the country because they feel we do not deserve the high standard of living we enjoy. Witness Lynne Stewart Esq. She was sentenced to 2 1/2 years yesterday for helping the mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, communicate with his followers in an Egyptian-based terrorist organization. After her sentencing she greeted 150 supporters outside the federal courthouse, in Lower Manhattan no less, and said, "This is a great victory against an over-reaching government." That she may have American blood on her hands matters not to Ms Stewart. Far too many people, including Ms Stewart, her supporters and the sentencing judge, apparently do not understand that we are in a battle for our very existence; or maybe they do and are simply hoping for the end to come quickly. Stewart deserved at least 10 years, if not the 30 sought by the prosecution. We can expect more actions such as this, and the attendant slaps on the wrist, if the democrats take power. The Democratic Party of FDR, Harry Truman and JFK, who's photograph hung on my grandmother's wall for 40 years, is gone, and I would say we are all the worse for it. Howard Dean, Russ Feingold and yes, Hillary Clinton, have replaced the intestinal fortitude of those brave men, with rhetoric and some misguided notion of guilt. The Democratic ruling elite's 'flying monkeys' are the conspiracy nuts living in their parent's basements, who will mobilize at a moments notice to wave signs and chant slogans. I believe in my heart that most of us are aghast at the change which has occurred in the Democratic Party, whatever your political stripe.
The invasion across our south-western border is the other issue that will be neutered by legislation, if not out-right ignored, should the parties swap power. The republicans have done precious little to stem the flow of the largest invasion in recorded history, and the democrats will do less. Each side has their reasons, but both truly just want voters. Already in the more liberal communities it is against the law to confront illegal aliens. Whole cities have set up zones where illegal immigrants are free to live without fear of legal repercussions. Students at Columbia University, one of the jewels of the Ivy League, physically attacked the Minutemen who had been invited to speak on campus. Brandishing signs saying things like No One is Illegal, they chased two military veterans from the stage, men who's only offense was having had the temerity to exercise their right to free speech. Free speech at Columbia is apparently only for the students whose rich daddies gave them a pampered existence, which they now abhor. Spanish speaking Mexicans, who have no interest in becoming American citizens, are conquering large swathes of the American landscape simply through raw numbers. They consider themselves to be Mexicans, send the majority of the money they earn home, while sucking up every morsel the welfare state has to offer. Anchor babies abound and the social services available to Americans shrinks more each day, as the federal and state budgets balloon. The middle class has already disappeared in Los Angeles. With nothing but the affluent, pretty people, and their landscapers, bus boys and nannies left, the city is in dire straits. Somehow this makes us a better, more diverse society, at least if you listen to the far left fringe.
I am no xenophobe. Nor am I an isolationist. I have no desire to institute Fortress America. I do not want my civil liberties extremely curtailed in the interests of security, nor do I want to prevent honest, hard working people from immigrating to our shores. I have been friends with Sheldon, a Sunni Muslim for years. Ace Martinez, a self-styled Chicano, and I were as thick as thieves during my stint in the infantry. I have gotten into more than my fair share of trouble with both these guys and yes, those are their real names. The point is not that some of my best friends are Mexican or Muslim. The point is that what makes us stronger as a people is not our diversity, that just makes us more diverse, and more adaptable. What makes us stronger is our shared love for the country and a desire to be Americans and nothing else. When we grant rights afforded to us by the Founding Fathers onto people who care not for freedom, or American values, it limits us all. When we refuse to acknowledge that we are different-more noble-and that there is nothing wrong with that, we risk losing all that for which so many have sacrificed. We risk seeing the day when the streets will run red with the blood of patriots, apologists, heroes, cowards, conservatives and liberals alike. At that point, it will make no difference what letter is behind your name on your voter's registration card. At that point, we will all be nothing but Americans, and by then it will simply be too late to unite.
The Roman Empire ruled the world for centuries. The Romans did so by ferociously guarding their borders and by demanding that those desirous of Roman citizenship be willing to die to attain it. When they ceased doing those things, Rome was sacked, repeatedly, and soon the barbarians were ushering in the Dark Ages. If you think this analogy is too forceful then you are wrong. We are nearly at that moment in history. We are at the most perilous point in our nation's history, and that includes the darkest days of all the wars we have collectively fought. This does not mean I think we should rule the world. Nor does this mean that we cannot dissent with the current presidential administration, or any other. Dissent is patriotic. In fact, we were founded by dissenters. What is not patriotic is sacrificing the safety and security of the country for political expediency. We simply cannot afford the luxury of allowing people, any people, to receive rights reserved for citizens. If you are not desirous of, in the words of Teddy Roosevelt, "one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people," then there is no room for you in the discourse.
So, what is to be done. These days everyone seems to be able to fix the blame, and sometimes even identify the problem, but no one seems prepared to present a solution. My solution is that first we must construct an impenetrable barrier along our southern flank, and at least a virtual one across the northern flank. We must then pressure the honorable men and women of the US Congress to enact draconian laws regarding the use of illegal labor. If a business or individual is found to be profiting from illegal aliens they should be fined within an inch of existence for a first offense, and bankrupted and jailed for a second. This would have the effect of drying up the labor market, which causes people to constantly risk life and limb to get here, and force those already here to either come out into the light, or go home. The immigration issue would thus atrophy on the vine. We would not need to deport millions, nor would we need to grant them amnesty. Those of us proposing these things must also refuse to be labeled racists by the Social Progressives. The Social Progressives respond to the poll numbers that suggest fully three-quarters of the US population want a fence by saying, "Yeah, well in 1840 three-quarters of the US population favored slavery. Do you support that, too?" Laugh at that comparison, and turn the tables by vociferously accusing the SP community of supporting the near-slavery conditions illegals currently endure. Tell your foe you would gladly pay more for lettuce, or eat less salads if it would spare these poor illegals the indignity of the hardships they bear. Everything has become about race and nothing will change if we allow the Social Progressives to frame the conversation.
The second issue, terrorism, is a more difficult nut to crack. The democratic leadership is correct about one thing: we have created too many terrorists, but not for the reasons they suggest. We have created too many by not killing them fast enough. We must unleash the proverbial hounds of hell upon them, whenever and wherever they proliferate. Iraq is currently a magnet for their misguided jihad. By Al-Qaeda's estimates we have killed 4,000 foreign fighters there. That number should be dramatically higher. If they are going to stream there to fight then so must we. It is time to actively take the fight to them, and stop allowing our troops to be used as political pawns in a game of one-upmanship. If we need more soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines on the ground to effect this change, so be it. There can be no negotiating with thugs who cut the heads off defenseless people, or torture captured American soldiers by dragging them to their deaths behind trucks. You can rest assured the Islamist terrorists are laughing at our political angst over the use of torture, and are smiling to themselves at the "Paper Tiger." The Islamists respect nothing but strength, and it is time we showed the resolve our grandfathers showed during World War II. This will be difficult, and it will require time and the stomach to endure when everything seems bleak. It will require the resolution to remember that, "we have nothing to fear, but fear itself." It can be done though, and only by a truly United States of America.
We must forsake our political jerseys. I firmly believe that 15 percent of the country is made up of crazy, New World Order type right-wing zealots, and 15 percent is comprised of the maniacally apologist, left-wing fringe. That leaves 70 percent of us who have at least some common ground. We must, for now, put aside our social differences and unite to battle the forces who would kill us all. We must table abortion and gay marriage arguments, both of which I support by the way, until we have defeated our common foe. Likewise, the flag burning amendment and affirmative action, positions which I oppose, can wait. When I was an under-graduate at the University of New Orleans, Stephen Ambrose was fond of relating the story of millions of Americans who were against FDR's social policies, but united to fight the greater evil facing them. So must it be now. We must work together, at the grassroots level, neighbor to neighbor and friend to friend, to elect men and women who get it. Then, when the threats of illegal immigration and Islamic terrorism have been vanquished, we can restart the game clock on all manner of social discourse. We can then resume the particularly independent brand of republican democracy that gave our two major parties their names. A specific type of sacrifice is required. We must put the country above ourselves. Winston Churchill once said, "Sometimes it is not enough to do your best. Sometimes you must do what is required." Unfortunately, whether we like it, or not, that time is now.
If the democrats win both houses of Congress the terrorists hell bent on killing us will be afforded even more rights. The rights the Social Progressives want to grant terrorists were meant for American citizens, and no one else. We are different. We are citizens of a country that was well-founded and does good things. Of course we make mistakes, but in the end we are a noble, decent, good people. A sizeable minority of the democratic party believes that none of those things are true, and that the only way to rectify the ills the U.S. has visited upon the world is to surrender our way of life to the Social Progressive agenda. We must surrender to those things in the interest of diversity and compassion the SPs say. Nothing else will suffice. The SPs hate the country because they feel we do not deserve the high standard of living we enjoy. Witness Lynne Stewart Esq. She was sentenced to 2 1/2 years yesterday for helping the mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, communicate with his followers in an Egyptian-based terrorist organization. After her sentencing she greeted 150 supporters outside the federal courthouse, in Lower Manhattan no less, and said, "This is a great victory against an over-reaching government." That she may have American blood on her hands matters not to Ms Stewart. Far too many people, including Ms Stewart, her supporters and the sentencing judge, apparently do not understand that we are in a battle for our very existence; or maybe they do and are simply hoping for the end to come quickly. Stewart deserved at least 10 years, if not the 30 sought by the prosecution. We can expect more actions such as this, and the attendant slaps on the wrist, if the democrats take power. The Democratic Party of FDR, Harry Truman and JFK, who's photograph hung on my grandmother's wall for 40 years, is gone, and I would say we are all the worse for it. Howard Dean, Russ Feingold and yes, Hillary Clinton, have replaced the intestinal fortitude of those brave men, with rhetoric and some misguided notion of guilt. The Democratic ruling elite's 'flying monkeys' are the conspiracy nuts living in their parent's basements, who will mobilize at a moments notice to wave signs and chant slogans. I believe in my heart that most of us are aghast at the change which has occurred in the Democratic Party, whatever your political stripe.
The invasion across our south-western border is the other issue that will be neutered by legislation, if not out-right ignored, should the parties swap power. The republicans have done precious little to stem the flow of the largest invasion in recorded history, and the democrats will do less. Each side has their reasons, but both truly just want voters. Already in the more liberal communities it is against the law to confront illegal aliens. Whole cities have set up zones where illegal immigrants are free to live without fear of legal repercussions. Students at Columbia University, one of the jewels of the Ivy League, physically attacked the Minutemen who had been invited to speak on campus. Brandishing signs saying things like No One is Illegal, they chased two military veterans from the stage, men who's only offense was having had the temerity to exercise their right to free speech. Free speech at Columbia is apparently only for the students whose rich daddies gave them a pampered existence, which they now abhor. Spanish speaking Mexicans, who have no interest in becoming American citizens, are conquering large swathes of the American landscape simply through raw numbers. They consider themselves to be Mexicans, send the majority of the money they earn home, while sucking up every morsel the welfare state has to offer. Anchor babies abound and the social services available to Americans shrinks more each day, as the federal and state budgets balloon. The middle class has already disappeared in Los Angeles. With nothing but the affluent, pretty people, and their landscapers, bus boys and nannies left, the city is in dire straits. Somehow this makes us a better, more diverse society, at least if you listen to the far left fringe.
I am no xenophobe. Nor am I an isolationist. I have no desire to institute Fortress America. I do not want my civil liberties extremely curtailed in the interests of security, nor do I want to prevent honest, hard working people from immigrating to our shores. I have been friends with Sheldon, a Sunni Muslim for years. Ace Martinez, a self-styled Chicano, and I were as thick as thieves during my stint in the infantry. I have gotten into more than my fair share of trouble with both these guys and yes, those are their real names. The point is not that some of my best friends are Mexican or Muslim. The point is that what makes us stronger as a people is not our diversity, that just makes us more diverse, and more adaptable. What makes us stronger is our shared love for the country and a desire to be Americans and nothing else. When we grant rights afforded to us by the Founding Fathers onto people who care not for freedom, or American values, it limits us all. When we refuse to acknowledge that we are different-more noble-and that there is nothing wrong with that, we risk losing all that for which so many have sacrificed. We risk seeing the day when the streets will run red with the blood of patriots, apologists, heroes, cowards, conservatives and liberals alike. At that point, it will make no difference what letter is behind your name on your voter's registration card. At that point, we will all be nothing but Americans, and by then it will simply be too late to unite.
The Roman Empire ruled the world for centuries. The Romans did so by ferociously guarding their borders and by demanding that those desirous of Roman citizenship be willing to die to attain it. When they ceased doing those things, Rome was sacked, repeatedly, and soon the barbarians were ushering in the Dark Ages. If you think this analogy is too forceful then you are wrong. We are nearly at that moment in history. We are at the most perilous point in our nation's history, and that includes the darkest days of all the wars we have collectively fought. This does not mean I think we should rule the world. Nor does this mean that we cannot dissent with the current presidential administration, or any other. Dissent is patriotic. In fact, we were founded by dissenters. What is not patriotic is sacrificing the safety and security of the country for political expediency. We simply cannot afford the luxury of allowing people, any people, to receive rights reserved for citizens. If you are not desirous of, in the words of Teddy Roosevelt, "one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people," then there is no room for you in the discourse.
So, what is to be done. These days everyone seems to be able to fix the blame, and sometimes even identify the problem, but no one seems prepared to present a solution. My solution is that first we must construct an impenetrable barrier along our southern flank, and at least a virtual one across the northern flank. We must then pressure the honorable men and women of the US Congress to enact draconian laws regarding the use of illegal labor. If a business or individual is found to be profiting from illegal aliens they should be fined within an inch of existence for a first offense, and bankrupted and jailed for a second. This would have the effect of drying up the labor market, which causes people to constantly risk life and limb to get here, and force those already here to either come out into the light, or go home. The immigration issue would thus atrophy on the vine. We would not need to deport millions, nor would we need to grant them amnesty. Those of us proposing these things must also refuse to be labeled racists by the Social Progressives. The Social Progressives respond to the poll numbers that suggest fully three-quarters of the US population want a fence by saying, "Yeah, well in 1840 three-quarters of the US population favored slavery. Do you support that, too?" Laugh at that comparison, and turn the tables by vociferously accusing the SP community of supporting the near-slavery conditions illegals currently endure. Tell your foe you would gladly pay more for lettuce, or eat less salads if it would spare these poor illegals the indignity of the hardships they bear. Everything has become about race and nothing will change if we allow the Social Progressives to frame the conversation.
The second issue, terrorism, is a more difficult nut to crack. The democratic leadership is correct about one thing: we have created too many terrorists, but not for the reasons they suggest. We have created too many by not killing them fast enough. We must unleash the proverbial hounds of hell upon them, whenever and wherever they proliferate. Iraq is currently a magnet for their misguided jihad. By Al-Qaeda's estimates we have killed 4,000 foreign fighters there. That number should be dramatically higher. If they are going to stream there to fight then so must we. It is time to actively take the fight to them, and stop allowing our troops to be used as political pawns in a game of one-upmanship. If we need more soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines on the ground to effect this change, so be it. There can be no negotiating with thugs who cut the heads off defenseless people, or torture captured American soldiers by dragging them to their deaths behind trucks. You can rest assured the Islamist terrorists are laughing at our political angst over the use of torture, and are smiling to themselves at the "Paper Tiger." The Islamists respect nothing but strength, and it is time we showed the resolve our grandfathers showed during World War II. This will be difficult, and it will require time and the stomach to endure when everything seems bleak. It will require the resolution to remember that, "we have nothing to fear, but fear itself." It can be done though, and only by a truly United States of America.
We must forsake our political jerseys. I firmly believe that 15 percent of the country is made up of crazy, New World Order type right-wing zealots, and 15 percent is comprised of the maniacally apologist, left-wing fringe. That leaves 70 percent of us who have at least some common ground. We must, for now, put aside our social differences and unite to battle the forces who would kill us all. We must table abortion and gay marriage arguments, both of which I support by the way, until we have defeated our common foe. Likewise, the flag burning amendment and affirmative action, positions which I oppose, can wait. When I was an under-graduate at the University of New Orleans, Stephen Ambrose was fond of relating the story of millions of Americans who were against FDR's social policies, but united to fight the greater evil facing them. So must it be now. We must work together, at the grassroots level, neighbor to neighbor and friend to friend, to elect men and women who get it. Then, when the threats of illegal immigration and Islamic terrorism have been vanquished, we can restart the game clock on all manner of social discourse. We can then resume the particularly independent brand of republican democracy that gave our two major parties their names. A specific type of sacrifice is required. We must put the country above ourselves. Winston Churchill once said, "Sometimes it is not enough to do your best. Sometimes you must do what is required." Unfortunately, whether we like it, or not, that time is now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
