Archive for March 29th, 2006

Marchers say gringos, not illegals, have to go

Wednesday, March 29th, 2006

So the gloves are off? Do illegal aliens want to be deported that badly that they would make a claim of this is their country, not ours? Not a good idea.
Just for the record:
My family was at Jamestown Colony. We helped settle this country from shore to shore. We have fought, and in some cases died, in every conflict this country has been involved in.
If you are here illegally, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS! You are a criminal. That is what illegal means.
Don’t you dare think for one moment that you have the right, either legally or morally, to tell me to get out of my own country! I EARNED the right to be here. All those who have come here legally have EARNED the right to be here. All the rest of you are illegal, freeloading criminals.
Keep pushing and protesting and you might find out just how unwelcome you can become.

WASHINGTON – While debates about guest-worker programs for illegal aliens take place in the corridors of power, in the streets of America’s big cities no amnesty is being offered by activists calling for the expulsion of most U.S. citizens from their own country.
While politicians debate the fate of some 12 million people residing in the U.S. illegally, the Mexica Movement, one of the organizers of the mass protest in Los Angeles this week, has already decided it is the “non-indigenous,” white, English-speaking U.S. citizens of European descent who have to leave what they call “our continent.”
The pictures and captions tell the story.
* “This is our continent, not yours!” exclaimed one banner.
* “We are indigenous! The only owners of this continent!” said another.
* “If you think I’m illegal because I’m a Mexican, learn the true history, because I’m in my homeland,” read another sign.
“One of the more negative parts of the march was when American flags were passed out to make sure the marchers were looked on as part of ‘America,'” said the group’s commentary on the L.A. rally.
Both Rep. James Sensebrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a proponent of tougher border security, and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger were caricatured as Nazis by the group on its posters and banners.
The group insists the indigenous people of the continent were the victims of genocide – a campaign of extermination that killed, according to one citation, 95 percent of their population, or 33 million people. Another citation on the same website claims the toll was 70 million to 100 million.
The only solution, says the Mexica Movement, is to expel the invaders of the last 500 years, force them to pay reparations and return the continent to its rightful heirs.
The platform of the group illustrates the diverse – and sometimes extreme – agendas of those participating in the mass mobilizations that have been seen largely as protests against efforts to curb illegal immigration.
Some of those involved, including the Mexica Movement, have much bigger goals than stopping a piece of legislation before Congress.
The Mexica Movement has big issues with many other equally radical groups participating in the massive, united-front rallies. The group makes a point of distinguishing its goals and objectives from others, such as the separatist Aztlan Movement.
Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs, is regarded in Chicano folklore as an area that includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas. The movement seeks to create a sovereign, Spanish-speaking state, “Republica del Norte,” or the Republic of the North, that would combine the American Southwest with the northern Mexican states and eventually merge with Mexico.
A group called “La Voz de Aztlan,” the Voice of Aztlan, identifies Mexicans in the U.S. as “America’s Palestinians.” Many Mexicans see themselves as part of a transnational ethnic group known as “La Raza,” the race. A May editorial on the website, with a dateline of Los Angeles, Alta California, declares that “both La Raza and the Palestinians have been displaced by invaders that have utilized military means to conquer and occupy our territories.”
Others in the coalition hope to see a “reconquest” of the American southwest by Mexico. This would not likely take place through military action, they say, but rather through a slow process of migration – both legal and illegal.

Doomsday for Islam?

Wednesday, March 29th, 2006

An interesting article, by Robert Pfriender, that discusses what some of the repercussions could be if radical islamist actually set off a nuke in the United States.

The focus on the ports fiasco obviously would pale in comparison to a terror nuke actually detonating in one of our ports. But what about the flipside of that terrible event? What would happen to Islam as a result of a massive nuclear retaliatory counterstrike against Islamic targets?

Perhaps this week’s most ominous headline was “Islamic websites carry al-Qaida’s Last Warning.” The story in WorldNetDaily detailed how Osama bin Laden’s terror group plans to bring destruction upon the United States and force it into surrender. Apparently this is more of the same threat that has been circulating for some time that al-Qaida plans to detonate seven nuclear warheads it claims to have acquired from Pakistan and the former Soviet Union in the United States. There have also been accompanying threats that al-Qaida planned to follow up the nuclear attacks with crop-dusting planes that would spread smallpox on American cities.

Despite grandiose plans for such an attack on the United States, bin Laden has again failed to understand the nature of the American spirit and the likely vengeance such an attack would unleash from American military strategic nuclear forces. Since the United States entered the era of nuclear weapons technology many decades ago, it has always had detailed contingency plans on how the country would respond in a nuclear crisis.

Perhaps best known among those contingency plans is the one drawn up during the Cold War with the Soviets commonly described as “MAD,” or Mutual Assured Destruction. Simply, MAD is the doctrine whereby the United States sought to dissuade its adversaries from ever even considering a nuclear attack against our country by assuring that such an attempt would be met with such a hyper-violent nuclear response that would undoubtedly result in the annihilation of not just the United States, but also the enemy that initiated the attack.

For some odd reason, bin Laden and his fanatical associates seem to believe that the United States would back down in the face of a nuclear terror attack. It would seem that their psychotic thought processes have blinded their judgment in a profound and ultimately self-destructive way. Their warped perception leads them to believe that such an attack could not be traced back to their hands and hence the United States would be left with no retaliation targets. They obviously fail to see the difference between tactical and strategic planning and this error may ultimately lead Islam to disaster.

Enter what history may someday describe as the Bush doctrine of “Terror-MAD,” the likely response to a terror nuke attack on our country. Although no one in government will confirm such a doctrine even exists, simple common sense and past comments by government officials to the press would indicate that, in fact, it does exist. And herein is Mr. bin Laden’s very fatal flaw.

A terror nuke attack upon the United States would undoubtedly unleash a response by American strategic nuclear forces so violent and so encompassing that the very future of Islamic society around the world would likely be permanently wiped from the face of the planet.

Bear in mind the reality of such an attack against the United States. Not only would the United States not be chastised by the international community for such a massive counterstrike, but no one in the American government would likely care about what others think under such circumstances. While we’re busy throwing all those retaliatory nukes around, who is going to standup and object? Certainly, it won’t be Russia to complain since they have their own serious radical Islam problem to deal with in former republics on its borders.

Let’s be reminded that there is no provision in any of the Pentagon’s war plans or myriad assortment of contingency plans for a national surrender. It would just never happen under any circumstance. Actually, the Pentagon’s logic is that for each escalation of attack against us our response would be a vastly increased level of violence against our adversary. And you can be sure – when push comes to shove – whatever weapon is in the inventory will be used … nothing will be held back.

Such a contingency plan is likely contained in the largely still-classified document called the Nuclear Posture Review, the comprehensive war plan for the Pentagon. Unlike bin Laden’s shortsighted tactical plans, the Pentagon has an extremely detailed strategic plan for dealing with essentially any circumstance, threat or contingency that may conceivably face our nation.

The likely target list for retaliation for a nuclear terror attack against the United States includes Iran, Syria, and Libya as the primary targets. We can supplement those targets with countries such as Saudi Arabia – where most of the 9-11 terrorists came from (and that are most likely targeted with the “neutron bomb” designed with such a scenario in mind that kills with enhanced radiation levels but essentially leaves facilities and oil infrastructure intact – except for holy sites such as Mecca, Medina, Hebron, Qom and others, which planners might want to completely annihilate). There are likely other “Islamic” countries also on the potential target list and even ones we generally consider as being friendly to the U.S. such as Pakistan, especially if radicals gained control of its nuclear weapons.

You may recall that Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., suggested exactly that awhile back, and while his statement met with denials from the State Department, the Department of Defense and the White House were silent on the Tancredo comment. A statement previously released from the Pentagon says, “The Department of Defense continues to plan for a broad range of contingencies and unforeseen threats to the United States and its allies. We do so in order to deter such attacks in the first place … This administration is fashioning a more diverse set of options for deterring the threat of weapons of mass destruction,” the Pentagon statement also said.

While the Pentagon was busy “cleaning house” our strategic nuclear force would also likely target North Korea just to be certain we don’t face any additional threats while we are in a recovery mode from the terror attack. Depending on the circumstances at the time of the attack against us, the Pentagon might even include China on the potential target list since China’s own military doctrine (especially “Unrestricted Warfare”) could be interpreted as using any advantage such as an already weakened United States to further its own military goals. Simply, our military planners would likely destroy every conceivable real or imagined threat to our country after we are attacked with a nuke.

Americans as a whole seem to have tremendous patience, much more so than say Islamic countries. The American flag is burned on a daily basis in many countries during what seem like endless protests against our country and it hardly elicits any response at all here. On the other hand, a few cartoons – even ones showing Muhammad in a favorable way – sends masses of violent protestors into the streets in Islamic countries. However, we do have limits to our patience. If we got nuked, there would undoubtedly be a tremendous outcry for massive retaliation. After all, the country quickly united on Sept. 12, 2001, and widely supported President Bush’s initiative to attack Afghanistan.

According to the portions of the Nuclear Posture Review that are public, nuclear weapons can be used “in retaliation for the use of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons,” or “in the event of surprising military developments.” It also recognizes the need for nuclear retaliation in cases of “immediate, potential or unexpected” contingencies against potential adversaries that have “long-standing hostility towards the United States and its security partners” including countries that “sponsor or harbor terrorists, and have active WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and missile programs.”

Former U.S. Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton (now U.S. ambassador to the United Nations) said a while back:

We would do whatever is necessary to defend America’s innocent civilian population … The idea that fine theories of deterrence work against everybody … has just been disproven by Sept. 11.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has said that the Bush administration wants to “send a very strong signal to anyone who might try to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States.” Further, “The only way to deter such a use is to be clear it would be met with a devastating response,” she said. A State Department spokesman has previously stated “if a weapon of mass destruction is used against the United States or its allies, we will not rule out any specific type of response.”

Considering the huge number of nuclear weapons in the United State’s inventory, there would be no need to pick and choose targets for economy purposes. While bin Laden’s claim that he has a few nukes (which may or may not be still operational) may turn out to be true, there is the utmost certainty that the United States has a huge number (somewhere in the thousands) of extremely well-maintained and very reliable nuclear warheads in all shapes and sizes for every possible purpose.

A nuclear attack on America by al-Qaida would – by many informed accounts – lead to a renewed crusade to destroy Islam throughout the world. Bin Laden’s grandiose plan to destroy modern civilization and restore some absurd form of radical Islamic rule throughout the entire world will undoubtedly have exactly the opposite effect. Already we see a tremendous backlash against most things Islamic, the recent port fiasco is a perfect case in point. Imagine the reaction after a nuke attack.

Absent an international movement by those in the moderate Islamic community – who can and should be able to locate and bring Mr. bin Laden and his despicable cohorts to justice – he just might one day make good on his threat to nuke America.

In his fanatical zeal to convert the entire world to radical Islam, there will be two groups of victims resulting from bin Laden’s insanity – innocent people just wanting to live their normal lives here in our country, and Islam itself with its followers throughout the world. Such a result would hardy be considered a noble pursuit and or end-result by people who claim to be the servants of their God.

Republicans Demand Vote on ‘Holly’s Law’

Wednesday, March 29th, 2006

Amazing. The FDA will yank drungs off the market, in a hearbeat, when they have even a hint that it will cause problems. When dealing with abortion, even if the drugs are proven to kill women, the FDA drags it’s feet. Is this all backwards or what?

( – House Republicans are demanding quick action on proposed legislation that would force the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to withdraw approval of the abortion drug RU-486.
The bill, H.R. 1079, is called Holly’s Law, named after 18-year-old Holly Patterson of California. She died of infection in 2003 after taking RU-486.
Earlier this month, two more deaths were linked to RU-486, bringing the U.S. death toll for medication abortions to 7.
A group of House Republicans wants the FDA to pull RU-486 off the market, pending a thorough review of the drug and how it was approved. Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) has accused the Clinton administration of rushing approval of the drug for political purposes — and ignoring safety concerns in the process.
Republican lawmakers are holding a press conference on Wednesday, hoping the publicity will help them bring the bill to the House floor for a vote.
Even the Planned Parenthood Federation of America has expressed concern about the deaths of women who took RU-486.
In a statement on its website two weeks ago, Vanessa Cullins, Planned Parenthood’s vice president for medical affairs, said the organization was “seeking additional information” about the two most recent deaths linked to RU-486.
“At this time, none of those deaths have been directly attributed to mifepristone,” said Cullins, a physician. But, she added, “Due to health concerns about infection rates and adverse events, we are updating our medical protocol for medication abortion.”
Planned Parenthood said it will no longer administer misoprostol vaginally, but instead will give it orally. (Misoprostol is the second drug in the two-drug RU-486 abortion regimen).
Putting the situation in “context,” Planned Parenthood also noted that since RU-486 was approved by the FDA in September 2000, 560,000 medication abortions have taken place in the U.S., and seven women who were taking the drug died.
Republican lawmakers attending Wednesday’s press conference include Reps. Chris Smith, Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, Mike Pence of Indiana, Phil Gingrey of Georgia, Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska, Trent Franks of Arizona, and Jean Schmidt of Ohio.

Group Says Rahman One of Thousands Awaiting Death Sentence for Accepting Christ

Wednesday, March 29th, 2006

This is such a sad situation. To have to leave your home in order to keep from being killed for your faith. Mr. Rahman, the Christians of the United States welcome you with open arms.
I’ve studied islam too much to buy into their “religion of peace and tolerance” mantra. But how anyone can look at islam and not see them for what they are is beyond me. They are, and always have been, a religion of death, violence and destruction.
It is impossible to see their reaction to events over the last several months and not come to that conclusion. From riots over cartoons and people dedicated to blowing up hospitals in Israel to calling for the death of someone who’s only crime was leaving islam, the true colors of this “religion” are showing through.
If islam really was a religion of peace and tolerance, the riots and protest would have been against the militants that the “moderate” muslims claim have taken over. They would have been against this small minority of people who distort the koran. But the silence is deafening. Why, you might ask? The only reasonable conclusion is, because muslims, as a whole, agree completely with these “militants”. Islam is a religion of death, violence, bloodshed, destruction, and intolerance, made up entirely of militants, from the youngest child to the oldest seniors. Come on islam, prove me wrong.

(AgapePress) – News reports indicate that Abdul Rahman, the Afghan man who faced a possible death penalty for his acceptance of Christ as his personal Savior, has been released from a Kabul prison. No one, however, seems to know where he is since being released late yesterday. He had indicated that because of death threats from radical Muslim clerics, he wished to seek asylum in another country.
The United Nations says it will work with Afghanistan to accommodate Rahman’s request for asylum. Rahman, who claims he converted from the Muslim faith 16 years ago, recently faced the death penalty for that decision until a Kabul court dismissed the charges and reportedly released him from a high-security prison near Kabul on Monday night.
But Islamic extremists have called for his death since the start of the trial, prompting groups that are concerned about Rahman’s safety to call for his quick exit from the predominantly Muslim nation. Associated Press is now reporting that Rahman “quickly vanished” after being released on Monday night, and speculates he did so “out of fear for his life” with Muslim clerics still demanding his death.
A spokesman says the U.N. expects the 41-year-old convert’s request for asylum to be met. “We’ve been working closely with the government of Afghanistan to find a solution to this,” Adrian Edwards tells Associated Press. “As for Mr. Abdul Rahman, he has asked for asylum outside Afghanistan. We expect this to be provided by one of the countries interested in seeing a peaceful solution to this case.”
He says the U.N. assistance mission in Afghanistan “has a mandate for good offices and for upholding human rights in Afghanistan” and has been following the case “closely since the outset.” Hundreds of people protested against the court’s decision to drop the case. The decision came partly because officials expressed concern that Rahman is mentally unfit to face trial. (See earlier story)

Conversion from Islam Taboo in Most Muslim Nations
The president of a grassroots human-rights organization says while much attention has been focused on the Afghan Christian who was on trial for his faith, the case is not an isolated incident. A recent report from Associated Press confirms that observation.
AP points out that Afghanistan is not the only U.S. ally where Muslim converts to Christianity can face prosecution or even execution. Saudi Arabia, for example, neither permits conversion from Islam nor allows other religions in the kingdom. In addition, there are no churches, and missionaries are barred. Islamic Shariah law considers conversion to any other religion apostasy and most Muslim scholars agree the punishment is death. Saudi Arabia considers Sharia the law of the land, though there have been no reported cases of executions of converts from Islam in recent memory.
The report continues, noting that in Jordan, after a Muslim man converted to Christianity two years ago, a court convicted him of apostasy, took away his right to work, and annulled his marriage. And in Kuwait, a court convicted a Shiite Muslim man who publicly proclaimed his conversion to Christianity, but did not sentence him since the criminal code did not set a punishment.
Jim Jacobsen, president of the group Christian Freedom International (CFI) says there “literally thousands” of Christians all over the Islamic world who are awaiting a death sentence because they converted to Christianity.
“We’re involved with many, many other cases just like [Rahman’s],” Jacobsen says. “They lose everything — all possessions, their inheritance. They’re literally thrown out into the streets. The local mosque will issue a fatwa or death sentence against them.”
The CFI leader says his organization sent a letter to President George W. Bush, asking him to push for Rahman’s immediate release — and reminding him that minority Christians face severe and growing persecution in many Muslim nations. Jacobsen theorizes that Rahman’s case has received widespread media coverage simply because it can embarrass the president.
“He’s spent so much effort and treasure on assisting in Afghanistan, and they see this somehow as the president’s fault and that his policies have failed,” he says. “But give me a break here. Yeah, we’d like to see a lot more, but this is the kind of thing that’s happening throughout the Islamic world.”

Legal Group Files Second Religious Freedom Suit Against Plano Schools

Wednesday, March 29th, 2006

For those who are wondering, there is nothing in the Constitution to prohibit children from talking about the Bible or religion at school. As the article points out, the Constitution actually allows that completely. The Plano school district is wrong.

(AgapePress) – A Texas-based legal organization has filed its second federal lawsuit against a public school district accused of trampling the constitutional rights of Christian students.
Earlier this year, members of the Christian Bible study group known as Students Witnessing Absolute Truth (SWAT) asked officials with Dallas-area Plano Independent School District (PISD) for permission to post an organizational description on the “Campus Programs” section of the district website. Administrators refused to allow the Christian club to post its information, citing the religious nature of the student-led organization as the reason.
Hiram Sasser is director of litigation for Liberty Legal Institute, which sued the district on the students’ behalf. He feels it is essential that groups like SWAT stand up for their religious freedom and equal access rights, which are guaranteed under federal law and the Constitution of the United States.
“These rights are very precious — the right to be treated the same as everybody else even though you come from a religious viewpoint,” Sasser says. “What we can’t have in our schools is them not only driving prayer out of the schools, but now they’re going to try to drive out the students bringing in any kind of religious clubs or Bible clubs and things of that nature.”
If opponents of religious freedom and expressions of faith in the public square are allowed to drive God completely out of the schools, the Liberty Legal Institute spokesman asserts, “then we’re going to have a lot of serious problems.” He says PISD’s actions have put the district on the wrong side of the law.
The district website page in question “is specifically designated as a listing of all student groups offered within the school,” the attorney points out. “By banning only the religious group, Plano is in direct violation of the First Amendment and the Equal Access Act.”
“Student clubs that form, they can be Bible clubs or not,” Sasser explains, “but if they are Bible clubs, then they still have to be treated the same. They have to be given official recognition status, access to the P.A. system, bulletin boards, announcements, websites — all that stuff that all the other clubs enjoy.”
The filing on behalf of SWAT is the second lawsuit Liberty Legal Institute has filed against PISD. The first lawsuit stems from a case in which a student was prohibited from handing out religious-themed gifts, including candy canes.
Sasser says the Plano Independent School District could have avoided litigation by not denying the Christian club equal access in the first place. Unfortunately, he contends, the district has a pattern of violating students’ religious freedom and then repeatedly attempting to “cover its tracks” by changing its policies after the fact.
Liberty Legal Institute is urging the district to sign an Agreed Judgment so the school officials cannot go back and change its policies again to avoid respecting Christian students’ rights to freedom of religious expression and equal access to school facilities.