Tancredo's Position on National Defense

Tom Tancredo is best known for his strong statements on behalf of secure borders and not spending taxpayer dollars supporting illegal immigrants. He also has a very rational position concerning Iraq and our national defense. Here it is...

Defense...
"In the wake of the September 11th attacks and the ensuing war on terrorism, it has become clear that the United States is facing a new security threat. The war America is already engaged in will not be fought like the wars of the past. After witnessing the tragic terrorist attacks against the nation, it is now time to coordinate the efforts of federal, state, and local agencies to provide better homeland defense.

Tomorrow's attacker is more likely to board a commercial airliner bound for the U.S. with a tourist or student visa - or he may simply walk across our porous southern or northern border carrying a device in his backpack. These issues must be addressed.

We are, I believe, in a clash of civilizations. That clash is fought on many fronts-some military, some diplomatic, and still others, ideological. On the military front we have won two significant victories. One was in Afghanistan where we destroyed the Taliban and Al Qaeda's command and control network. The second victory was in Iraq where, by toppling the Sunni dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and creating the embryonic infrastructure of a democracy, we set in a motion a chain of events that could lead to a major strategic advantage for us and for the West. This advantage emanates from the forced political equilibrium that can be brought to the region and Iraq itself now that Saddam has been dispatched. The deep schisms in Islam will force countries in the region to impose this equilibrium. Our continued presence in Iraq as the referee in a civil war inhibits this development.

We must take whatever steps are necessary to assure our ability to respond quickly to events in the area as the process of creating this new balance of power goes on. But the quicker that process starts, the better.

In his speech to the nation on the war in Iraq, the President said he was establishing a "November benchmark" for the Iraqis to complete the task of controlling all provinces of the country. This should be more than a benchmark. I believe it should be used as the time frame for our disengagement from Iraq. We can maintain a military presence in the area to act as a quick response force with a mission to destroy Al Qaeda elements while simultaneously aiding the new balance of power in the region to develop.

I am not alone in my thoughts about what to do in Iraq. Former UN Ambassador John Bolton, in a recent interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, concurred.

"I think it's clear that the United States has met the obligation that it incurred when it overthrew Saddam Hussein. And that's to try and provide some conditions of security for the Iraqis to determine what kind of country or what kind of society they want in the future. We have met that obligation. That obligation does not need to be extended. And this is really the last chance for them. After that, we need to pursue very narrowly what our strategic interest is. And that's making sure that terrorism doesn't find root in that country."---
Former UN Ambassador John Bolton

At the end of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a lady asked Benjamin Franklin, "What have you given us?" He replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it." We have purchased an opportunity for Iraq and the entire Middle East with the blood and treasure of America. It was a noble endeavor for which all who served can be immensely proud. It is now time to see if the Iraqis can take advantage of the opportunity and "keep" what has been so dearly purchased."

Do I think Iraq will take advantage of the opportunity and "keep" what has been so dearly purchased? Hell no, they won't. They don't have a clue. It's not that they don't have the ability. They don't have the desire. Two or ten years of US occupation will not reverse 1,500 years of uncivilized, deviant religion-based mad dog behavior. Case in point. A $50,000,000 reward has been established for the capture of Osama Bin Laden. This reward has been in effect since 2004, with no takers. Why is that, do you suppose? Is it because Pakistanis and Afghans don't like money? No. It is because the zealots surrounding Bin Laden believe in their cause more than in money. If any Christian in this country felt as strongly about his faith as the Islamo fascists believe in theirs, they would be jailed for committing hate crimes. Our religions to not tolerate zealots. They are labelled intolerant bigots. We cannot fathom being as zealous for our faith in the west as most radical Muslims are about theirs. As long as this nation, our leaders, do not understand that distinction, and they don't, we have no more business being in Iraq.

We are not there to "win" (whatever that is). We are there to sap the vitality and morale out of our own armed forces - or so it seems. I agree with those who are tired of the rhetoric of our president when on one hand he claims how critically important it is for our nation to win this war in Iraq, yet for the past two years he had not shown a strong will to win by committing the resources necessary to complete our mission. As in Vietnam, our troops are hamstrung by politically correct strategic and tactical constraints. Some of our troops fear killing the enemy because they may get charged with a crime, as some of our soldiers have. We don't understand the enemy. We do not allow ourselves a level playing field. We will lose doing what we're doing. Stepping back from this battle does not mean we lose the war. It means we come up with more intelligent, better informed methods, and hopefully, a stronger will to be effective.

Geraldo Rivera In Fantasy Land

Geraldo Rivera displayed a fantasy understanding when he proclaimed the cause of the defeat of the Amnesty Legislation to be racial fear and prejudice. His claim exudes a gross ingorance of the real reasons for the justifiable concern and outrage of the American people toward the the defeated legislation. Geraldo is out of touch, just as the President and many legislators are.

Speaking for myself, and I believe millions share these views, my reasons for opposition include:

• Anger with the federal government for ignoring enforcement of our existing laws. This entire problem brings to light how little the feds care about the laws that are created to protect the economy, character, and stability of this nation.
• The feds pretending to take meaningful enforcment measures which end up being token gestures
• Righteous indignation that my grandparents had to obey the laws of the land to gain citizenship and the 12 to 18 million who are here ILLEGALLY don't - and many of our elected officials vehmently argued to reward them for their purposeful lawbreaking!
• Lack of desire on the part of many or most illegals to assimilate.
• Granting billions of dollars in government services to illegal, law-breaking non-citizens when many Americans are stuggling with taxes, health care, education.
• We don't buy the "no Americans will do the work" red herring. The clear motive of business is to reduce labor costs at the expense of American citizens.
• Increasing crime rates generated by the illegals out of proportion to that of the native population.
• A second language being forced upon virtually every business and institution in the nation.
• The lack of concern about national security at our borders.

A legitimate concern which is dwarfed by the concerns described above is the overrrunning of our population by one race and one language group which has never before occurred in this nation's history, and which will create disruption and change in the social fabric of this nation much more quickly than most people can tolerate without a sense of being invaded. But to suggest this is the major issue is ludicrous and demonstrates Geraldo's ignorance of all the other issues.

The capper was his statement on Brian and the Judge radio show on June 29 when he named Michelle Malkin among the racist Americans who want to keep the nation from getting darker. What kind of dumb remark was THAT! She's already darker than average!

What "Support the War" Meant to Me - in retrospect

Two years ago, this, in a few words, is what "Support the War" meant to me: go in - eliminate Saddam and his command and control apparatus - check everywhere for purported WMDs - get out. If WMD's are later interpreted as al-Qaeda, then our current level of effort and strategy have failed and will fail. The undeniable "civil war" between Sunni and Shia was going on since well before the US arrived. Saddam merely suppressed it. We don't have the will or insight to effectively suppress the fighting rabid dogs that Saddam had. We have no business being there anymore. We need to learn tons more about our enemy before we commit continuing and increasingly misdirected resources toward the fight. The worn belief that we will have left a nation in tatters and "someone else" will fill the vacuum as an excuse to remain is unhelpful and irrelevant. That attitude is just part of our unhealthy national "bleeding heart" syndrome - our liberal and ego-centric belief that we are responsible for all the worlds ills.

When we feel our national security is threatened, we need to do what we do best: Go in, get it done, and get out. Lingering around to patch up the mess, most of it what we did NOT create, is just feeling too guilty for our own good.

Barack Inciting the Corrupt and Incompetent?

Why is the Federal Government in general, or George Bush in particular, being blamed by Barack Obama for the results of irresponsibility and corruption in New Orleans?

In the article, "Obama Warns of 'Quiet Riot' Among Blacks", is Barack just grasping at straws to further his political agenda? Yes. While he's grasping, he is pouring gasoline on that straw by dismissing the concept of personal responsibility by the complainers of New Orleans. It is true that New Orleans, almost two years after Katrina, is still in bad shape. It is equally true that there are many thousands of irresponsible, corrupt, ignorant people in New Orleans (and in many other places) who want to continue to be irresponsible, who want to continue to request handouts from others, and who want to continue blaming others for their own lack of motivation to do what needs to be done.

Barack finds this a great opportunity to blame others as well, and play to the ignorant and lazy among us to foment discontent. He would make a great al Qaeda spokesman: Promise violence and mayhem unless "the man", the evil voters in this country, dole out federal tax dollars to help fix the results of their failed behavior.

I much prefer a presidential candidate who recognizes the limitations of federal government and recognizes and promotes the concept of building up an attitude of self sufficiency, self-control, and personal initiative. Bill Cosby is a great example of calling an end to an attitude of helplessness. Why can't Barack do that? That's what makes him a liberal. To do otherwise is not in him.

National Priorities - We've Got It Backwards...

OK...I think I've had enough. I finally realize that Bush and much of Congress have our national priorities backwards.

Priority One: We need to learn how to protect our own borders (seaports, coastline, airports, Canadian and Mexican border) before we can even pretend to do Priority Two: Protect Iraq borders.

Our borders are simple and straightforward to defend compared to Iraqi borders. The distinction? - US citizens or non-US citizens. Clear cut. Process those who want to come in according to our existing laws. Enforce the process.

Iraq on the other hand is 1,000 times more complex. They have porous borders with Iran, Syria, Suadi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, and Kuwait. They have borders within and between neighborhoods of 100 cities between Sunni and Shia. They have roaming bands of thugs and outlaws who don't have a concept of civilized human life – each of whom has no border. They have an antithetical variety of extreme religious beliefs amidst a culture antithetical to ours. And we think we’re going to control those borders? Wow! Talk about unrealistic. Critics of enforcement of our immigration laws say it is impossible to track or round up illegals in this country? And we're trying to do WHAT in Iraq?

I have a wonderful and logical idea...I don't know why I, or someone, hadn’t thought of this months ago.

If there is any legislative funding rider concerning our continuing and increasingly wasteful war in Iraq, it should be this:

Pull back our troops to outside the borders of Iraq. Reposition three quarters of our troops along our own borders (including seaports and coastlines). First priority: Demonstrate to the American people that we are capable of and have an indisputably strong will to enforce our own borders. Demonstrate that we are serious in dealing with illegal alien lawbreakers in our own country first. Use our border patrol agents to establish an accurate census of illegal aliens who are here and implement an effective tracking system. Immediately deport whatever percent of these illegal aliens who have broken laws in addition to our immigration laws. Give the balance of the illegal aliens a “reasonable time” to make arrangements to leave and seek citizenship through existing, appropriate means. Enforce employer violations of our immigration laws.

Once we have demonstrated our effectiveness at these tasks, then we might have more credibility in pursuing the Second priority, a border enforcement effort in a place like Iraq...if there are any Iraqis left.

But, for reasons that elude me, our leaders will demonstrate they are NOT serious about defending our own borders, and will continue to demonstrate our own lack of will, and thus lack of competence, elsewhere.

Worse than before...what were they thinking?

Senator Kennedy celebrated his latest (May 17) amnesty bill "achievement" by meeting with several families affected by the March raid on illegal immigrants in New Bedford, MA.

"They're still reeling from that," Kennedy said. "When I told them the bill would make them safe and secure, you should have seen the look in their eyes. They knew they didn't have to be scared."

Dumb _ _ _ _'s (with Kennedy chief among them). If I entered any other country in the world ILLEGALLY, you bet I would be scared the whole time I was there. And I would deserve to be scared. But not here, "the nation of laws." Haaa. Their tactic: How dare we allow anyone to be scared for breaking our laws. Obviously, Kennedy and the others want us to feel guilty over enforcing our laws and making lawbreakers feel scared. Geez. Are we the patsies of the planet? Sure seems that way.

And then Chertoff's swoon, referring to Kennedy: "He's awesome," gushed Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff , as he left a news conference announcing the bipartisan agreement. "I'd say he was one of the critical leaders in putting together this deal."

And Bush...I've given up on him - the advocate of big business, cheap labor, and to heck with the average American. America, be damned. It's free trade that matters. The true man comes out toward the end of their terms, doesn't it.

Bottom line: This bill, if passed, will entice tens of thousand of additional illegals across our border, overrunning the yet inadequate border protections we have , and overrunning and bankrupting our social services systems, including expediting the failure of social security.

Farewell, Rosie

Your sick, America-hating, irresponsible, perverted freak fans will miss you...

But I'm sure some other valueless, money grubbing corporate greed bag will snatch her up soon, so don't worry, fans.

Uncanny resemblance to eBay fraud e-mail...

The Iranians will be much more successful in their deceitful ways when they master English. A familiar feeling of Post eBay Stress Syndrome Trauma (PESST) came over me after I read this alleged letter from a British marine after he was captured by their truthful and honest Islamic Iranian host...

"We entered Iranian waters without permission and we were detained by Iranian coast guards. I would like to apologize for this to the Iranian people," the agency quoted him as saying.
"Since our detention on March 23, everything has been very good and I'm completely satisfied about the situation."

The English is exactly as I experienced from a scamming Iranian buyer (who claimed to be from Nigeria - yes, that should have been my first clue) complete with their plural of the wrong words ("guards") and the soothing tone of "everything is very good and I'm completely satisfied about the situation."

This quote just has to be plagerized from an Iranian eBay scam script.

Senator Warner Declares Homosexual Acts “Moral”

How many of our long-standing, culture-shaping “moral standards” rooted in the Bible are going to bow to special interest pressure and become “politically incorrect?”

As recently as a few years ago, the big news would have been someone being “outed” for the immorality of homosexual behavior. Today the big news is someone being “outed” for suggesting that homosexuality is immoral.

Here is the story:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon's top general expressed regret Tuesday for voicing his personal view that homosexuality is immoral, but he did not apologize for the comment that drew criticism from lawmakers and gay-rights groups.
In a newspaper interview Monday, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, likened homosexual acts to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces._________________

In response to General Pace’s comments, Senator John Warner declared that homosexuality, and by extension, homosexual acts, are not immoral. In other words, he declares homosexual acts to be moral.

Perhaps John holds Biblical principles in low esteem. Perhaps John, like many others, believe the Biblical criticism of homosexuality is a vague, isolated and detached principle bearing little relationship to the primary theme of Scripture. Maybe that is why the Warners of the world cavalierly dismiss this particular type of immorality.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The theme of the evil of homosexual acts permeates both the old and new testaments. Here are a few examples:

• Genesis 13:13 "But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.”
• Genesis 19:5 “And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.” (Sexual immorality was the reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.)
• Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
• Deuteronomy 23:17 “There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor ba sodomite of the sons of Israel.”
• Isaiah 3:9 “The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.”
• Romans 1:27-30 “And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”
• Jude 1:7 7 “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

From Genesis to Jude, the message of the immorality of homosexuality as one among many sexually immoral behaviors runs throughout.

In this life, some have more or less of a predisposition toward alcoholism, toward drug addiction, toward homosexuality or other sexual perversions, toward violent behavior, toward impatience, and toward a wide variety of other shortcomings of human behavior. A measure of human character is our ability to bridle our negative predispositions. Just because we refuse to bridle our predisposition toward violence does not make our violent acts acceptable. Just because we refuse to bridle our predisposition toward homosexuality does not make our homosexuality acceptable.

The teachings of Christianity expressed in the Bible are this nations’ basis for morality and law. When out of convenience or as a result of political pressure groups and influence we dismiss one clear Biblical moral teaching, we begin the unraveling of all the rest.

Let’s check out what other Biblical declarations of immorality, upon which this nation’s moral standards and laws have been based, might soon be declared null and void by political decree…

Thou shalt not murder.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt honor thy mother and father
Thou shalt not covet.
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

Which Senator or other half-witted politician wants to declare some of these Biblical standards null and void? Its bad enough that many of us fall short of these standards, despite considering them to be sound moral standards. But to purposely declare these standards irrelevant and not worthy to strive toward is idiocy.

What is the basis for morality? Is it what the most vocal group claims is OK? Is it something that can be determined by a pollster?

So, if the “Child Predators Association” or “The Man-Boy Love Association” or the “Animal-Human Love Association” or “defenders of murder” groups (trust me, there is a group representing every perversion you can imagine, and some you can’t) ever become prominent, Senator Warner and other amoralists may then declare child molestation, man-boy love, and murder to be moral.

General Pace is apparently considered “an unenlightened throwback” with regard to his moral standards by the folks who have declared traditional morality obsolete. Others might admit he has a right to his personal moral beliefs, and agree that such beliefs may still be valid, but argue he has no right to express them in a public forum or in the carrying out of his duties.

Wow! In either case, this smack down bodes trouble for our nation’s leaders, as well as for this and future generations.

Since when does a leader, a public leader in high places, lose his right and obligation to speak out on moral issues? That is a major part of the job of a good leader...not only to be a good moral example, but to speak out for morality.

And what is the next moral imperative that will be struck down by ignorant, self-serving, “politically-correct”, but ultimately destructive decree?

I see it coming. Soon there will be a time when nothing is considered immoral, when there is no basis for law, for abiding by laws, or for civil behavior. At such time as everyone does what is right in his own eyes will be the death of order and death of civilization. Thus will come a second Dark Age, unless Gods patience draws to a close and another cleansing occurs.

I thank God for people like General Pace. I pray there will be many more leaders just like him who rise up for Godly values with courage and conviction in the face of ignorant adversity.

Why is a double standard applied to Obama's church's brand of racism?

Obama's church...very interesting what double standards we endure. The following is from Obama's Trinity Church of Christ Website, the "About Us" link:

"Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:

Commitment to God
Commitment to the Black Community
Commitment to the Black Family
Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System."

Now, imagine, for a moment that this church had a "white" agenda, as follows:

Commitment to the white community
Commitement to the white family
Adherence to the white work ethic
Disavowel of the pursuit of "Middleclassness" (this one deserves separate comment)
Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
Pledge allegience to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.

If there were such a church that embraced the "white" values above, this church would be called what? Come on, now, the word begins with an "R"... rrrr aaaa cist. Very good. You've got it. Racist.

Now, let's suppose a white presidential candidate belonged to this church that happened to espouse "white" values as above, what would this white presidential candidate be labelled, especially by the national media, and perhaps rightfully so? Right again. Racist.

So, someone needs to explain to me why Mr. Obama gets a pass on this.

The following concept deserves special consideration:

"Disavowal of the pursuit of "Middleclassness."

What do you suppose might be meant by this statement? Most of America is comprised of the middle class. Are they avowing pursuit of the "lowerclassness?" I doubt it. How about pursuit of "upperclassness?" Doesn't sound right. How about the pursuit of "classlessness." I think we're on to something now. Yes, that's it. The pursuit of a classless society, sort of like, err "socialism", or perhaps (bites lip) "communism". That's certainly classless. Lest you suggest they are simply trying to teach the traditional Christian teaching of refraining from chasing after riches, why wouldn't they just say that...unless they have a radical or revolutionary socio-political agenda. Just food for thought.

On Prudes and Sanctimony

At age 60, I still enjoy the revelation - the grand "ahaaa" - that comes from learning the meaning and origin of words.

A number of years ago, I was invaded with the accusation of being "sanctimonious" for discourging my family from watching a certain movie I felt was inappropriate at the time. I later learned that being called that word was a good thing, despite the negative intent of the name caller, as well as current usage. In fact, being sanctimonious is acting as though one has been sanctified; set apart; made holy through Christ. Of course our behaviors should be different from those who are neither sanctified nor sanctimonious. Those who are not sanctified tend to have a natural dislike of those who are. They like to ridicule.

Another word, "prude" comes to mind. Although I haven't been called a prude lately, I suspect some people think I am. But I was reminded by Laura Ingraham, speaking on her radio program, that the origin of "prude" is from "prudent" - a positive word suggesting thoughtfulness and care. I suppose since it is no longer fashionable (in the eyes of many) to be prudent, the natural thing to do is to ridicule those who are with a negative connotation via the word "prude."

I guess it boils down to this: If a person is and acts sanctified and you are not, ridicule him with the word "sanctimonious." If a person is more prudent than you believe is appropriate, ridicule him with the word "prude." The person who is called these things can take these words as a complement. As the Scriptures say, "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive."

So, to all you sanctimonious prudes out there - keep it up! We need more people like you.

Immature jackasses in need of adult supervision...

Here they are, the immature, irresponsible stupid guys - the lower end of the advertising professions' bottom feeder food chain.

Clever, but stupid. And what do you want to bet that these hacks will try to spin the circumstances to make the Boston officials sound like they over-reacted to their ill-conceived publicity stunt?

The truth is, these stupid guys fail to understand or care about the reality of the serious aspects of life. They clearly suffer from a lack of adult supervision, both from their parents and from CNN hierarchy. Apparently, the hierarchy at CNN also require more adult supervision, but I digress. Many "adult children" today have this same innate la la land mentality in common - an emotional IQ in the negatives.

This points to the larger issue involving the disconnectedness of generations in our culture. Parents are often too busy with sports, dancing, Hollywood gossip, divorce, watching TV, making money, and being otherwise too self-absorbed to maintain effective communication and respect to influence the next generation in a positive manner. Fortunately, despite parental lapes, some kids surprise their parents on the side of responsible and mature behavior.

In this case, though, what kind of parental upbringing, if they had any, do these apes reflect? Or are they degenerates inspite of parental influence?