I *Heart* The Conservative Voice

In particular, their article regarding San Francisco’s Quixotic campaign against Michael Savage’s right to free speech.

The author makes an excellent point about terrorism:

Though the September 11th attack brought terrorism to the forefront of the public’s attention, it also created the impression that in order to qualify for such a designation that the act in question had to involve massive loss of life and a catastrophic destruction of property. For since then, it seems officials simply refuse to apply the label to incidents smaller in scale such as when a lunatic shot up an Israeli ticket counter at an LA airport on July 4, 2002.

It use to be taught and accepted that terrorism was the use or threat of violence to achieve political ends. Though the only ones threatened with actual bodily harm are the hunger strikers themselves, if those threatening to do themselves harm think we have some kind of ethical obligation to meet their demands, how is this all that different than what the terrorists expect if liberals claim their is no distinction between the harm inflicted upon the innocent and the harm fanatics might inflict upon themselves?

Clearly, the leftists are guilty of employing terroristic methods against the government and its people. While they do not resort to physical acts of violence against other people, they employ such tactics as hunger strikes to demoralize the American people with regard to immigration enforcement. While less bloody than using guns or bombs, it is equally insidious.

Perhaps even more pernicious is the Religious Left’s use of fasting, traditionally adhered to among Christians for spiritual edification and  devotional purposes, as a means of making politically charged statements. One such example is mentioned by Chris Tessone at Even the Devils Believe. His post links to InterfaithFast.org, a leftist religious organization calling for an end to the war in Iraq.

Not that this is by any means an unworthy goal. I too want to see the war in Iraq come to an end with an American victory, a demolished al Qaeda, and a Gulf region that comes to know that America means business every time we intervene in that area.  No more, no less.

God Bless Jim Brossard

Here’s the video, courtesy of YouTube

Pax Americana: The American Border

Introduction 

I’ve decided to write a series of monthly essays on a vision for restoring the United States to preeminence and thereby making the world a more secure place. These are merely ideas of mine, most of which will probably never be considered by our leaders. It is unfortunate that the United States has not paid due diligence to its long term interests. The question of who to blame is one that is important to understand, but often the dialog on the matters of American preeminence stops here and goes no further.

Pax Americana: The American Border

Many liberals and even professing conservatives want America to have open borders. They claim that this will bring prosperity to the American nation and that it will be a boon to business. Even if this were true, at what price would this temporary prosperity come? Our homeland would be teeming with foreign nationals with little to no allegiance to the state or its people. Rather than a community of loyal citizens, we would have imported an entire population with different interests, desires, and sympathies.

Imagine a fictious software company in Minnesota (Company A) that develops an embedded operating system for home entertainment applications. The board of directors passes a measure to allow employees from a rival company (COmpany B) based in New Mexico to work for the Minnesota based company. Adopting an analog to “open borders”, these employees of Company B would be allowed to work for Company A, come and go as they please, and have company ID cards issued that would allow them unrestricted access to Company A.

Moreover, these employees would not be forced to sign NDA (non-disclosure agreements) and could steal Company A’s trade secrets and take them back to Company B. They would get the same benefits and perks that everyone at Company A had, even the Company A employees who had worked there for 25 years.

Furthermore, they would not have to learn Company A’s protocols. They would not have to abide by the dress code or code of conduct. They could come and go as they pleased, and even though the quality of their work might be sub par, since they were being paid less, they would be retained.

With the above in mind, lets answer a few questions.

How long would it take for stockholders in Company A to grow tired of this arrangement? How long until Company A became known as a laughingstock in the technology industry? Would you invest in a company that allowed rivals to come and go in such a manner as described above?

Open borders work great if you want a population of unrestrained criminals to enter without any deterent. They work great if you wish to impoverish your land, see the talents of its people become a commodity, and their welfare threatened.

As Mexico has done nothing to halt the flow of its citizens into our nation, and bears responsibility for the 12 million of its people who have invaded the United States, I believe a comprehensive solution to the above problems must involve punitive measures against Mexico.

I would propose annexing a twenty mile wide belt of Mexico’s territory along the southern border to be set up as a neutral zone. This region would be tightly monitored by both satellite and infrared systems as well as human sentries. From the Mexico border to five miles into this zone, Mexican citizens would be permitted to do business, shop, and conduct legitimate activities. At the five mile limit, conspicuous postings would warn potential intruders, or those who accidently strayed into this second area that they had entered the second belt of the neutral zone.

At ten miles from the Mexican border armed patrols, consisting of a combination military units, ICE agents, and state police would intercept anyone attempting to cross over to our soil. Lethal force would only be used when intruders initiated force against our personnel.

At the fifteen mile limit, any Mexican citizen who had made it past the first set of patrols would be subject to being engaged with lethal force on sight. While this sounds barbaric to some who profess to have academic sensibilities, it is perfectly reasonable. By providing a generous buffer zone, the odds of an unintentional crossing into American territory is virtually eliminated. The proposal is also compassionate, as the first series of patrols will not use lethal force unless required to do so.

By involving the Mexican government in the solution, both in financing the expenses incurred by our border patrol and maintenance of the security systems involved, and using their territory for a buffer zone, it requires them to be proactive in their efforts to combat illegal immigration.

While the United States must take the lead in securing the border, that does not excuse Mexico from its responsibilities. Many conservatives urge the US to act definitively, which is certainly a necessary step. It is also necessary; however, for Mexico to cooperate to make this effort the most successful. That cooperation may not be voluntary, and may require the United States to apply strict military and economic punishment to Mexico to garner compliance.

The question in this case, is not whether we are capable of using our military arm to persuade and educate Mexico, but whether we have the will.

$40,000 isn’t quite enough.

Check out Chuck Currie’s whining on Simi Valley California’s decision to fine the United Church of Christ of Simi Valley $40,000 for the police presence required when protesters arrived at the church to demonstrate against their sheltering of an illegal alien. I share his outrage, as I am sure it cost the government, and hence the taxpayer more than $40,000 to get rid of this particular illegal alien.

Furthermore, why is the church still operating as a 503c?

Letter to the Editor

What follows is my letter to the editor of CityBeat. I’m curious to see if it will be published. I’d love to get some more local readership

I find the coverage of Elvira Arellano’s long overdue arrest and deportation on page 11 of last week’s City Beat amusing. Not only did Arellano violate Title 8, Section 1325, not once, but twice, she also worked in this country under a falsified Social Security number. The criminality of Arellano’s actions is unquestionable and any attempt to defend her is indicative of puerile notions that we are obligated to let anyone into our country at any time for any reason.

The American taxpayer clearly disagrees with this liberal presupposition. Twice the bipartisan amnesty provisions debated fiercely by Congress have been sent down in flames. For good reason at that. Affording known criminals the opportunity to do things “the right way” is about as fair and reasonable as affording a burglar the opportunity to knock the next time he wants to enter your house.

To give you some perspective, my great grandfather, who immigrated to this country from German Poland nearly 130 years ago  He also came here legally, unlike Arellano and some estimated 12 million pestilent individuals like her. He did not break the law and steal the identity of another person in order to work legally. He farmed as did his children and their children after them. Several of his children and grandchildren served in the military to defend this country during both World Wars.

These Elvira Arellanos and her sort are different. They leech off the American taxpayer. They break our laws. They refuse to integrate. While refusing to respect our laws, they demand us to respect them.

While Elvira Arellano is clearly a pathetic individual, Walter Coleman, the pastor of Adalberto United Methodist Church, is far more reprehensible. While afforded tax exempt status by the federal government, he has used this to harbor an illegal alien. While ostensibly professing a religious vocation, Walter Coleman has decided political activism on behalf of wanted criminals is far more attractive. (Genuine evangelism doesn’t get you invited onto Hannity & Colmes afterall.)

Justice is clearly not complete. Adalberto United Methodist Church should be stripped of its tax exempt status and Walter Coleman should be in jail for aiding an illegal alien. Furthermore, in reference to your article’s mention of CODEDI’s attempt to warn workers at the Fairfield poultry plant of an impending raid, this organization should be raided and the guilty parties punished to the fullest extent under the law.

I’ll gladly pay double for produce at the grocery store and cut my own lawn if it means the 11,999,999 others like Arellano get a one way ticket south of the Rio Grande.

Regards,

-kf
Greater Cincinnati
http://366mhz.wordpress.com

United Methodist Nexus

Evidently my post on Elvira Arellano has come to the attention of United Methodist Nexus.

Now Prosecute Adalberto United Methodist Church …

Welcome news for those vexed by the hijinx of radical pro-illegal immigrants. Elvira Arellano, the figurehead of a movement to legitimize illegal immigrants and their violation of our sovereign border has been deported.

Many of you will recall how Arellano hid for the past year in a Chicago church to evade immigration authorities. She made the mistake of thinking she was safe to come out and attend a rally in LA, where she was arrested and taken to the border.

One down, 11,999,999 to go. I’m sure some of them can be found in the vicinity of Adalberto United Methodist Church. The government should clearly raid this place and shut them down permanently. As they have become willing pawns in political activism and harboring felons, they should be stripped of their non-profit status and their assets seized.

Gerardo Sandoval

Please see the Moonbats section. This man is nearly as crazy as Cindy Sheehan.

Support Mayor Barletta

US District Judge James Munley is clearly a fellow traveler with illegal immigrants. When the federal government refused to enforce the immigration laws that are currently on the books, the mayor and city council of Hazelton, Pennsylvania took up the task themselves by passing an ordinance that would bar landlords from renting to illegals and fining businesses that knowingly hired them.

The ACLU turned around and decided to sue on behalf of “victims” who refused to show up in court for litigation. Munley, the clown posing as a judge over this trial, decided that such legislation would “affect foreign alliances”:

“MAYOR BARLETTA: I was asked during the trial when I was on the stand if I had called President Calderon to tell him about this ordinance before we passed it. And in the judge’s decision he said, by removing illegal aliens, we will effect [sic] foreign alliances.”

Source: Transcript of July 27.2007 Interview on the Glenn Beck Show, http://www.glennbeck.com/news/07272007.shtml

Clearly, any judge who allows these types of questions to be asked in the courtroom is a loon.

Mayor Barletta has set up a website seeking donations for the appeal, as well as an online petition for those who wish to show their solidarity for the small Pennsylvania town