It’s Immigration Stupid!


With the recent terrorist attacks in London and the latest threats from Al Qaeda, Americans should finally learn a vital lesson that has been lost on our illustrious leaders in Washington since September 11, 2001. The problem with Islamic terrorism is not security but immigration. Liberal immigration policies for decades by the West have placed our enemies among us and left us open and vulnerable for another deadly attack, one that many predict could be very soon. We are even told, from time to time, that it is not a question of if but when. Yet instead of doing what is right, such as profiling Arabs in our midst, and busting up terror cells and kicking preachers of hate and violence out of the country, we are more concerned with not offending certain groups than we are with actually protecting our people. This is a recipe for disaster.

Restricting immigration is nothing new for the United States. At the turn of the 20th century, America was faced with internal threats from terrorists, namely anarchists from Eastern Europe. On September 6, 1901, nearly 100 years before 9/11, President William McKinley was shot and killed by an immigrant terrorist, Leon Czolgosz. McKinley’s successor, Theodore Roosevelt, never hesitated in demanding that Congress restrict immigration and rigorously punish those who preach hate and violence toward the United States.

In his First Annual Message to Congress three months after McKinley’s death, TR urged the House and Senate to “take into consideration the coming to this country of anarchists or persons professing principles hostile to all government and justifying the murder of those placed in authority. They and those like them should be kept out of this country; and if found here they should be promptly deported to the country whence they came; and far-reaching provisions should be made for the punishment of those who stay. No matter calls more urgently for the wisest thought of the Congress.” And no matter is more urgent for our country today but we need the political will to do it.

Roosevelt and those of his day had the will to do what was both right and necessary. They did not concern themselves with hurting anyone’s feelings and only concerned themselves with what was right for the United States of America . Later in his administration a bill called the Immigration Act was passed that curbed immigration from “problem” nations.

Later, during Woodrow Wilson’s administration, Communists began using bombings and other acts of terrorism to target political leaders and other influential Americans. Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, along with Deputy J. Edgar Hoover, launched the “Palmer Raids,” which netted thousands of Reds, who were then either incarcerated or deported. All those found to be foreigners were taken to the docks and put on the first boat home! Though many, then and now, criticize the raids as too harsh on civil liberties, Palmer and Hoover acted in defense of our nation and its government against foreign influences that were a serious threat and because of their work the violence stopped.

But today in our era of political correctness, we would never consider doing anything of this sort because we might offend someone! How foolish is this! If this is going to be our attitude, we should change the name of our country to the United States of the Offended. It seems as if most everyone has their feelings on their shoulders, which are very easily knocked off. We should put our feelings aside and act to protect our nation.

Liberals also tell us that we cannot act out against such persons because they have rights in this country too. But they have no right to threaten our very existence as a nation and advocate violence against our people. Those that do have no right to be here. There are such things as treason and sedition!

Our current policy, however, is to infringe on the civil liberties of our citizens, in clear violation of the Bill of Rights, while seemingly protecting the foreigner. Talk about having things upside down and backwards! We are spending billions of dollars on the federal, state, and local level for heightened security and, at the same time, stripping away the freedom and liberty of American citizens. The Patriot Act passed to the delight of many so-called conservatives but is an abomination to Constitution. We get harassed in airports, have our bags searched while getting on the subway, and can even have our library records examined – all in the name of protection and security.

But, ask yourself this question, who is the real threat to America at the present time? Native citizens or immigrant Arabs? The choice is obvious. So why do we have to get harassed and treated like criminals? It’s time we put a stop to the erosion of our rights, freedoms that have been paid for by American blood, and focus on the real problem – immigration. This is not to say all Arabs in this nation are bad but we need to place them under a much stronger microscope because we simply cannot take any more chances. And if our politicians are too afraid to act out against the enemies within because of someone’s feelings, then maybe its time to change leaders and begin to elect those who possess the intestinal fortitude to do what is right.

Let us stop and remember the words of one of our great Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin, who warned us that those “ who would give up essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security.”

CAFTA: Another Free Trade Disaster


Last week the House of Representatives, following the action of the Senate, and using a variety of arm-twisting and brow-beating tactics, passed yet another free trade package that promises to be a boom to the U.S. economy. CAFTA, or Central American Free Trade Agreement, would open the American market to six Latin American nations – Costa Rica, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic. In essence this is an extension of NAFTA, which has been far more damaging to our economy than advertised and this new deal will be no different.

President Bush has been behind this effort for years. At first he wanted a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), a NAFTA-style pact that would stretch from the Arctic to Argentina, but that did not have much of a chance of passage so he convinced enough numbskulls in Congress to go along with this scaled-down version. It seems as if the free trade fools are going to attempt to put it in piecemeal. And now they have another piece of their destructive puzzle in place. With three million manufacturing jobs lost under the Bush administration, you would think they might have learned something by now.

But like his father, Bush is convinced that free trade is the path to American prosperity. He has not learned, or has not wanted to learn, that NAFTA, which his father pushed but Clinton enacted, did not achieve it and will never achieve it. Regardless of what one thinks about Ross Perot, and his giant sucking sound analogy, he was exactly right about free trade with Mexico, where we saw a trade surplus disappear almost overnight and millions of jobs shipped south of the border. This trend has continued under GATT and will only get worse under CAFTA. Free trade might look wonderful on paper but can never work in the real world and the realities of political economics, where the nation, and not just the consumer, is taken into consideration.

Yet we get the same drivel from the administration every single time a deal like this is put forward. As Bush declared in a statement on CAFTA’s passage, “CAFTA helps ensure that free trade is fair trade.” How can it Mr. President, when our workers here in this country are put in direct competition with workers making a fraction of American wages; where there are no environmental and safety standards and regulations; and where American production can so easily be undercut. The agreement, continued Bush, “will level the playing field and help American workers, farmers and small businesses.” Yeah, just like NAFTA! The only help this agreement will give is to the many large corporations, a major portion of GOP campaign cash I might add, who are standing by ready to uproot more factories and move them to Latin America. This, coupled with millions of immigrants, both legal and illegal, pouring into the country to take more American jobs, its no wonder our wages are stagnant and have seen no real rise in decades. American workers lose again!

But the administration assures us that the markets of these six nations will be wide open for consumption of American goods duty free, products such as agriculture crops and even manufactures like tractors from Illinois, we are told. Yet the standard of living in these nations is very low. How many tractors, or Dell computers, or Ford automobiles, for that matter, can the folks in the Dominican Republic really buy? Not many! Most of them don’t have two dollars to rub together at any one time. Pitiful situations to be sure, but not our mission to resolve, as some have argued.

But to make matters worse, as well as more irritating to a nationalist, many so-called conservatives, in and out of Congress and the White House, have been pushing for this agreement for months and using arguments that border on economic treason. Take for example Charles Krauthammer. His column on June 24 of this year argued that the United States needed to enter into a free trade pact with Latin America, not to help us but because of the low living standards and the “widespread poverty” in the Central American region! “If we have learned anything from the last 25 years,” he writes, “it is that open markets and free trade are the keys to pulling millions, indeed hundreds of millions of people, out of poverty. The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) is a chance to do the same for desperately poor near-neighbors.” Mr. Krauthammer, what about our people? It is not the responsibility of the United States of America to pull the world out of poverty. Many nations around the world are in that situation because of their own stupidity and we should not throw open our markets to cheap imports that will cost us important jobs!

So you see the hypocrisy of free traders: on the one hand they argue that these foreign markets will be open to American goods but then on the other hand try to argue that free trade deals will help these impoverished regions. How can they buy our goods if they are so poor?

 But Mr. Krauthammer is not done. No, he continues his argument, not by citing great American leaders of years past, but a foreign one! Krauthammer cites British economist David Ricardo in attempting to prove that trade between two nations “based on relative efficiency of production is always beneficial to both countries.” But Mr. Krauthammer does not bother to tell us how it will benefit the U.S. economy, just like no one could tell us how NAFTA would be a benefit, except by useless generalizations.
Our Founding Fathers well understood the importance of economic nationalism and self-sufficiency. Beginning with Washington and our great economic architect Hamilton, and later with Jefferson, Clay, Lincoln, and TR, our nation placed its own economic interests first and would have never signed onto an agreement like CAFTA that would hurt the American economy and its workers to the benefit of the Third World. America maintained a policy of economic nationalism for well over 150 years and built the greatest economic machine the world has ever known; a financial and industrial giant that single-handedly fought a two-front war in the 1940’s to bring down Fascism and later Communism. It was not free trade that paid for these victories but that now-dirty word – protectionism. Mr. Krauthammer stands with the British and David Ricardo. I’ll stand with America and Alexander Hamilton.

The Real Lessons of Vietnam


Since 1975, in any engagement involving the U.S. military, particularly major wars such as Desert Storm, Afghanistan, and Operation Iraqi Freedom, liberals have warned of the possibility of getting into “another Vietnam.” We hear it all day, every day. Yet the real lessons of the Vietnam War have yet to be learned. And as we speak, our nation is committing the same blunders in the Middle East that we did in Southeast Asia 40 years ago. For the record, I am not arguing that Iraq was a mistake or that we should pull out now, but three major lessons of Vietnam are of particular interest in our present situation.

Lesson # 1 – Know Your Enemy. Sun Tzu taught this valuable lesson more than 2,000 years ago. “If you know yourself and not the enemy,” he wrote, “for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.” We made countless blunders in Vietnam because we did not know our enemy and we did not understand Vietnamese culture.

For starters there were very few Asian experts in the State Department, so very little guidance could be provided to U.S. policy makers. By contrast, experts on Japan provided much needed information during the Second World War. Had a few of these analysts been around in the 1960’s, crucial mistakes might have been averted. One example occurred early in the American phase of the war. In order to attempt to separate rural Vietnamese peasants from Viet Cong insurgents, the Strategic Hamlet Program was initiated. Villagers would be relocated from their homes to fortified settlements. The problem was that these villages, most of them ancient, are a major part of Vietnamese culture. Ancestors dating back generations are buried there, a belief that they will bless and watch over the land, making it fruitful. Having been to Vietnam on three separate occasions, I have seen this culture first hand.  Forced relocations from ancestral lands caused massive resistance among the Vietnamese people and pushed many villagers to join the Viet Cong.

In addition, the Vietnamese are a very martial people, a fact that most at the time did not know or understand. They fought a war for independence against the Chinese for 1,000 years! These people do not give up nearly as easily as the Johnson Administration believed they would after a few days of Rolling Thunder. These are just a few of many examples that could be cited.

Today in the Middle East, we seem unwilling to admit who we are fighting and why they make war on us. The standard line we’ve been getting since September 11, 2001 is that Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network are fighting the United States because of our way of life, a culture Muslims despise. But this is far from accurate. Bin Laden and his ilk could care less what we do over here. It’s what we do over there that has them upset. Bin Laden issued a declaration of war against the United States in 1996. There is not one word in it that even remotely suggests he is upset with our lifestyle here at home. But he did state unequivocally that he is angry with the presence of American troops on the sacred soil of the Arabian Peninsula and continued U.S. support for Israel against the Palestinians. Muslim extremists like Bin Laden also fear that the United States is exporting American culture to the Islamic world, thereby poisoning the Muslim way of life.

Al Qaeda is fighting a religious war against us and we refuse to recognize it. Though I am not suggesting this course of action, in theory, should the U.S. pull out of the Middle East totally, our terrorist problems would disappear. But as long as “American infidels” are engaged in the Middle East, I’m sad to report, Islamic extremists will never stop fighting us.

Lesson # 2 – If You Must Use Military Power, Then Use It Decisively. During the Vietnam War the politicians did not want to use the full weight of the U.S. military against our Vietnamese enemies. We did not use strategic bombing like we did in the Second World War. We never launched an invasion of North Vietnam. We did not seriously attempt to stop the use of Cambodia and Laos as Viet Cong and NVA bases. We were much more concerned with not losing the war than we were on actually winning it. No plan for victory existed anywhere. Now let me be very clear about one thing: American military forces performed superbly in Vietnam, winning every battle. And U.S. forces have been spectacular in the fields of the Middle East. However they are being limited by politicians just as they were 40 years ago.

First, we did not use nearly enough force in Iraq. Turkey should have been punished severely for not allowing us to use their territory to invade with the 4th Infantry Division from the north. More troops on the battlefield would have allowed us to seal the country and keep foreign fighters from pouring into Iraq from Iran and Syria. This was a huge blunder and everyone knows it.

Secondly, we don’t seem to want to get aggressive enough with the insurgency. The job of a military force is to kill the enemy. Period. But what are we currently arguing about? Giving our enemies, those who want to see us dead, the right to use American courtrooms! And worrying that some terrorist thug was humiliated by having to wear underwear on his head! What insanity! The insurgency seems now to be getting stronger not weaker. But yet some of our leaders have stated recently that it is nearly at an end. Funny, didn’t the Johnson Administration say the same thing in late 1967, just before the Tet Offensive?

Lesson # 3 – A Divided Homefront Gives Aid And Comfort To The Enemy. If we should have learned anything from the Vietnam experience it should be this. There is ample evidence that the North Vietnamese did not believe they could continue fighting the United States while suffering the massive casualties inflicted upon them. They are a martial people, to be sure, but they had never taken the kind of beating dished out by the U.S. military machine. But what kept them going was watching American society tear itself apart over the war. Seeing massive protests, dissident congressional leaders, and even violence gave hope to Hanoi that if they just held out longer, the United States would be forced to quit. It was protracted war at its finest. But had we maintained a united front at home, things might have turned out differently.

The American public has been divided over the war in Iraq since it began. And it seems as if every week we get more dangerously subversive rhetoric from congressional Democrats. Fanatical liberals, like Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, constantly call the commander-in-chief a liar, compare our troops to Nazis, scream for Rumsfeld to resign, say the war in Iraq is lost, and the list goes on. This kind of behavior is damaging to troop morale and gives aid and comfort to our enemies. Excuse me for asking, but is this not treason in a time of war? Can you imagine if we had had this kind of dissent during World War II? This kind of behavior is irresponsible, inexcusable, and borderline treason. You may hate the war, but once troops are in the field they should be given our full support.

These are just a few of the many lessons drawn from the Vietnam War, but probably the most relevant to our current situation today. But until these lessons are finally learned and never again repeated, the long shadow of Vietnam will continue to hang over our nation.

Are You Star Trek or Star Wars?


With the release of Episode III, the final installment of George Lucas’s classic saga, we can now ask ourselves what is the true legacy of Star Wars. But better yet, while doing this, let us also consider that other famous space flick Star Trek. For both series’ have far different outlooks on the future.

Simply put, Star Trek is based on the premise that man is perfectible and the institution in which he achieved that state of perfection is government. Gene Roddenberry, Star Trek’s creator, was a believer in a one-world government system, also known as the New World Order, and was a big proponent of the United Nations. His story centers not on a world government system, but a universal government agency – the United Federation of Planets (UFP). During the first series, with Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock, all galactic beings got along great, with the exception of the Klingons. But by the Next Generation, even the evil Klingons had been brought into the fold and “perfected.” Even evil can be eradicated in Mr. Roddenberry’s world. The UFP controlled everything and one is quickly led to believe that everything will work out great if we just had one international institution to watch over us.

This notion comes directly from socialism and Marxist/communist theory. Karl Marx and other proponents of these ideas believed in a utopia, a perfect society that could be achieved by government, in one form or another, but all totalitarian systems. Marx also believed that even government would not be necessary once the final stages of his utopia, his worker’s paradise as he termed it, was achieved. However, these utopian ideas are there to fill a void, a void without God. We as Christians understand that man is perfectible only by God and only when we arrive in His perfect place – Heaven. No superior being exists in Roddenberry’s saga. So Star Trek would equal communism and socialism. Government can be used for good, to perfect man and to perfect society. But because there is no God (to a communist/socialist), we have to have a strong, centralized government structure to perfect man and to perfect society. Isn’t this what Hitler had in mind for his Reich? A perfect society full of perfect people. So doesn’t Star Trek sound a lot like our liberal, and even neo-conservative friends in Washington? A world-wide (or universe-wide) crusade for utopia.

Star Wars, on the other hand, is a great story about good vs. evil, a version of God and Satan, and about human nature itself. There is good in this world, but as we have seen throughout our history on this planet with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, we also have much evil. But liberals refuse to believe evil exists. Unfortunately it does and because of this we as humans have to have government. As James Madison said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” But we are not angels, a little lower I’m afraid. Star Wars portrays this perfectly. We need a government but the best system we can have, which our Founders left us, is a constitutional republic. Episode III demonstrates that a republic is much preferred to a dictatorship. Rather than try to co-exist with evil (or even to convert it), Star Wars seeks to destroy it. The Jedi do not co-exist with the Sith, but wage war against it at every turn, seeking to end its influence in the republic. In fact the Jedi exist solely to protect the republic against enemies that might try to destroy it. This is true conservatism. We should be concerned with enemies, both foreign and domestic, that threaten our freedom and our republican institutions. However, foreign crusades for utopian ideals can be destructive and should be resisted. As John Quincy Adams once said, “Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will [ America ’s] heart, her benedictions, and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.”