Friday, March 31, 2006


What just about everyone—including The Wall Street Journal—seems to be getting wrong about the illegal immigration issue is that, post-911, it has everything to do with national security.

Even the Journal, in its March 31 editorial, pulls the race card, suggesting that the GOP is losing its ties to Ronald Reagan as it moves toward Tom Tancredo on the issue of illegal immigration. This has nothing to do with our immigrant tradition and the vaunted “shining city on a hill.” We are being invaded, and unless we take immediate steps to stop it, one day a terrorist is going to slip through and create a “shining city,” only it will be due to radiation.

The American people want our borders sealed. We can debate the merits of a guest worker program, or amnesty, or criminalizing illegal immigration, or going after employers, but a necessary first step is to stop the bleeding. And that means a barrier and effective interdiction.

There is plenty of room for demagoguery by politicians of all stripes, without The Wall Street Journal presuming to lecture us on civil rights.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006


So, the Democrats have finally come up with a plan, a platform for national security: Get bin Laden.

One awaits the rest of their party platform with baited breath. Here’s a preview:

Cure cancer;

End world hunger;

Achieve peace in the Middle East;

Develop an inexhaustible, free energy source that actually improves the environment;

Save the whales… all of them.

When they’ve accomplished all that—no doubt in the first days of a Hillary Clinton or Russ Feingold presidency and a Democrat-controlled Congress—they can take on the big one: Conquering death.

Of course, that might require a second term.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Lefties and Dems: What If You're Wrong?

You’ve been relentless in your all-out assault on President Bush, and it has taken a toll on his poll numbers.

Your weapons have been lies, as in “Bush Lied, Thousands Died,” when you know your own party viewed Saddam as a threat and also believed that he had WMDs.

Your weapons have included assaults on the honor and integrity of U.S. troops fighting this war. Durbin compared them to Nazis; Kerry claimed they terrorized innocent Iraqis.

Your weapons included Abu Ghraib, again and again and again on the front pages of left-leaning newspapers. New photos published with glee. False charges that the abuses there were institutional, rather than the actions of a handful of troops gone bad.

Your weapons have included denial… refusing to print any side of the story that doesn’t fit your view of reality, no matter how compelling the facts. If it hurts Bush, run it. Doesn’t matter if it is even factual. From day one, you have dismissed the mounting and compelling evidence that Saddam had WMDs and shipped them to Syria before the war. You deny the words that have come out of Saddam’s own mouth in his recordings, words that confirm his WMD programs and ties to terrorism. You have denied or dismissed the numerous contacts between al Qaeda and Saddam’s Iraq that dated to the 1990s, including some reports that the 9/11 hijackers met with Iraqi intelligence before the attacks on America. Yet you print anything that reflects poorly on the United States, our troops and President Bush.

Your weapons have included publishing secret information that hampers our ability to protect the nation and pursue the war to a successful conclusion.

You oppose the interception of communications between known terrorists abroad and their contacts in the United States, even to the point of suggesting the president be impeached over the program.

You want to win the next election at all costs, yet you offer no plan whatsoever for handling Islamic terror, because you know that to offer a plan means taking a stance, and you don’t want to alienate either the cut-and-run crowd or those Democrats who know we are in a war against terrorists who want to kill us and that any retreat only emboldens the murderers. So you stand for nothing, splitting the difference, talking out of both sides of your mouth.

You will oppose any action against Iran, even if it means their gaining nuclear weapons that may then be given to terrorists to use against us. You apparently distrust President Bush more than you do the Iranian fascists and the terrorists.

But, what if you’re wrong? What if this is a fight that we must continue until the scourge of terror is wiped from the face of the Earth and Islamofascists and their supporting states realize that there is no percentage in attacking the United States? What if a nuclear device goes off in a U.S. city because you cared more about playing politics and hating the duly elected President of the United States than you did about protecting the nation and its people? What will you say then? When it is too late…

Monday, March 06, 2006

Take it to the Mullahs

One more reason to attack Iran: Intelligence has found that the deadliest improvised explosive devices (IEDs) being used against American troops in Iraq are being manufactured and shipped from Iran.

As if we didn’t already suspect.

The fact is, we are at war with Iran and have been since Jimmy Carter’s weak-kneed presidency. If we are at war with terrorism, then we are at war with Iran in any case, but now we have direct evidence of their active participation in the killing of U.S. troops.

And this regime wants to acquire nuclear weapons!

We need to take the decisive step and wipe out that government once and for all. They are just begging for it. Let's oblige, and soon.

Thursday, March 02, 2006

Cancer in the Classroom

The leftist indoctrination of American youth in schools and colleges needs to stop. Thanks to some courageous students who are reporting teachers and professors for inappropriate propagandizing in the classroom, more and more educational institutions are being forced to deal with what has clearly become an intolerable situation.

In Colorado, a high school world geography teacher was recorded by a student as he ranted about the evils of capitalism and in a duplicitous, passive-aggressive manner, compared President Bush to Adolf Hitler.

Brainwashed students protesting that teacher’s suspension as the case is investigated only underscored the degree to which they are affected by such indoctrination by shouting “Bush sucks!”

Meanwhile, in New Jersey, another high school teacher organized a school supported war crimes trial of President Bush that the teacher and principal passive-aggressively tried to pass off as an educational exercise.

Many colleges and universities, despite their pretense of promoting diversity and open discussion of ideas, have banned ROTC and recruiters from campus and employed police state tactics to stifle the conservative viewpoints, limiting the free speech rights of conservative students while allowing leftist hate mongers such as Ward Churchill free reign to spout their invective. Professors have been known to berate students who don’t adhere to the leftist party line.

It’s time parents, as well as students, took a stand. Through the local school board and PTA, parents need to strenuously object to all forms of propaganda in the classroom. Parents of college-bound students who will be spending their hard-earned dollars to provide their children with a strong educational foundation must insist that professors teach, rather than preach. Alumni must vote with their pocketbooks by withholding funding for institutions of higher learning that engage in political indoctrination.

When I went to grammar school and high school in the ‘50s and ‘60s, we still said the Pledge of Allegiance every morning and teachers emphasized subjects such as good manners, good citizenship, personal responsibility and reverence for our institutions, in addition to math, English, science, history and geography. We were encouraged to think and debate but teachers did not use the classroom to push their own political or social agenda.

Somewhere along the way, we took a wrong turn and a cancer began spreading throughout our educational system. It is high time that cancer were excised.