It was twenty years ago today.

It was twenty years ago today Ronald Reagan gave his speech in Berlin. That almost sounds like the opening of Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Heart Club band, “It was twenty years ago today, Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play.” The speech below and the actions of Ronald Reagan led to the end of the cold war and the fall of the Berlin wall.

It is my contention that one of the greatest presidents of the twentieth century was Ronald. Reagan. Today marks the twentieth year since Reagan’s famous speech at the Berlin wall eliciting Reagan’s vision for the future – the fall of the Soviet Union. “Tear down this wall” vociferated Reagan as if Mikhail Gorbachev, the General Secretary of Russia, were standing on the Eastern side of the Berlin wall. These words were meant to be eliminated from the speech, but Reagan kept putting them back in. The words have emanated through the years to all those who yearn for freedom. He gave his speech so those on the Eastern side of the wall could hear every word. Reagan was a visionary.

Liberals to this day will say that Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of communism, and the Soviet Union would have imploded by its own weight. It is true that the Soviet Union was having economic problems at the time, but Reagan was the instrument that hastened the Soviet Union’s demise. In 1983, Reagan called the Soviet Union “the evil empire” against the advice of his advisors. Reagan used current technology such as Radio Free Europe and the voice of America to foment discontent among the populace under Soviet rule. He started a new arms race tripling the deficit. He understood that the United States could afford it; the Soviet Union could not. This was a race the Soviet Union could ill afford. It caused the Soviet Union to remove its troops from its Eastern Bloc countries because it needed the financial resources at home. This loosened the iron grip Russia held on the Eastern bloc countries. One by one, the communist countries began to fall, and Russia began to implode from within. Reagan was the symbol of freedom and anti-communism.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-06-05-europe-reagan_x.htm

Reagan’s Speech

Thank you very much. Chancellor Kohl, Governing Mayor Diepgen, ladies and gentlemen: Twenty-four years ago, President John F. Kennedy visited Berlin, speaking to the people of this city and the world at the City Hall. Well, since then two other presidents have come, each in his turn, to Berlin. And today I, myself, make my second visit to your city.
We come to Berlin, we American presidents, because it's our duty to speak, in this place, of freedom. But I must confess, we're drawn here by other things as well: by the feeling of history in this city, more than 500 years older than our own nation; by the beauty of the Grunewald and the Tiergarten; most of all, by your courage and determination. Perhaps the composer Paul Lincke understood something about American presidents. You see, like so many presidents before me, I come here today because wherever I go, whatever I do: Ich hab noch einen Koffer in Berlin. [I still have a suitcase in Berlin.] Our gathering today is being broadcast throughout Western Europe and North America. I understand that it is being seen and heard as well in the East. To those listening throughout Eastern Europe, a special word: Although I cannot be with you, I address my remarks to you just as surely as to those standing here before me. For I join you, as I join your fellow countrymen in the West, in this firm, this unalterable belief: Es gibt nur ein Berlin. [There is only one Berlin.]
Behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city, part of a vast system of barriers that divides the entire continent of Europe. From the Baltic, south, those barriers cut across Germany in a gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs, and guard towers. Farther south, there may be no visible, no obvious wall. But there remain armed guards and checkpoints all the same--still a restriction on the right to travel, still an instrument to impose upon ordinary men and women the will of a totalitarian state. Yet it is here in Berlin where the wall emerges most clearly; here, cutting across your city, where the news photo and the television screen have imprinted this brutal division of a continent upon the mind of the world. Standing before the Brandenburg Gate, every man is a German, separated from his fellow men. Every man is a Berliner, forced to look upon a scar. President von Weizsacker has said, "The German question is open as long as the Brandenburg Gate is closed." Today I say: As long as the gate is closed, as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind. Yet I do not come here to lament. For I find in Berlin a message of hope, even in the shadow of this wall, a message of triumph.
In this season of spring in 1945, the people of Berlin emerged from their air-raid shelters to find devastation. Thousands of miles away, the people of the United States reached out to help. And in 1947 Secretary of State--as you've been told--George Marshall announced the creation of what would become known as the Marshall Plan. Speaking precisely 40 years ago this month, he said: "Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos." In the Reichstag a few moments ago, I saw a display commemorating this 40th anniversary of the Marshall Plan. I was struck by the sign on a burnt-out, gutted structure that was being rebuilt. I understand that Berliners of my own generation can remember seeing signs like it dotted throughout the western sectors of the city. The sign read simply: "The Marshall Plan is helping here to strengthen the free world." A strong, free world in the West, that dream became real. Japan rose from ruin to become an economic giant. Italy, France, Belgium-- virtually every nation in Western Europe saw political and economic rebirth; the European Community was founded. In West Germany and here in Berlin, there took place an economic miracle, the Wirtschaftswunder. Adenauer, Erhard, Reuter, and other leaders understood the practical importance of liberty--that just as truth can flourish only when the journalist is given freedom of speech, so prosperity can come about only when the farmer and businessman enjoy economic freedom. The German leaders reduced tariffs, expanded free trade, lowered taxes. From 1950 to 1960 alone, the standard of living in West Germany and Berlin doubled.
Where four decades ago there was rubble, today in West Berlin there is the greatest industrial output of any city in Germany--busy office blocks, fine homes and apartments, proud avenues, and the spreading lawns of parkland. Where a city's culture seemed to have been destroyed, today there are two great universities, orchestras and an opera, countless theaters, and museums. Where there was want, today there's abundance--food, clothing, automobiles--the wonderful goods of the Ku'damm. From devastation, from utter ruin, you Berliners have, in freedom, rebuilt a city that once again ranks as one of the greatest on earth. The Soviets may have had other plans. But my friends, there were a few things the Soviets didn't count on--Berliner Herz, Berliner Humor, ja, und Berliner Schnauze. [Berliner heart, Berliner humor, yes, and a Berliner Schnauze.]
In the 1950s, Khrushchev predicted: "We will bury you." But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind--too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.
And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control. Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.
General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
I understand the fear of war and the pain of division that afflict this continent-- and I pledge to you my country's efforts to help overcome these burdens. To be sure, we in the West must resist Soviet expansion. So we must maintain defenses of unassailable strength. Yet we seek peace; so we must strive to reduce arms on both sides. Beginning 10 years ago, the Soviets challenged the Western alliance with a grave new threat, hundreds of new and more deadly SS-20 nuclear missiles, capable of striking every capital in Europe. The Western alliance responded by committing itself to a counter-deployment unless the Soviets agreed to negotiate a better solution; namely, the elimination of such weapons on both sides. For many months, the Soviets refused to bargain in earnestness. As the alliance, in turn, prepared to go forward with its counter-deployment, there were difficult days--days of protests like those during my 1982 visit to this city--and the Soviets later walked away from the table.
But through it all, the alliance held firm. And I invite those who protested then-- I invite those who protest today--to mark this fact: Because we remained strong, the Soviets came back to the table. And because we remained strong, today we have within reach the possibility, not merely of limiting the growth of arms, but of eliminating, for the first time, an entire class of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth.
As I speak, NATO ministers are meeting in Iceland to review the progress of our proposals for eliminating these weapons. At the talks in Geneva, we have also proposed deep cuts in strategic offensive weapons. And the Western allies have likewise made far-reaching proposals to reduce the danger of conventional war and to place a total ban on chemical weapons.
While we pursue these arms reductions, I pledge to you that we will maintain the capacity to deter Soviet aggression at any level at which it might occur. And in cooperation with many of our allies, the United States is pursuing the Strategic Defense Initiative--research to base deterrence not on the threat of offensive retaliation, but on defenses that truly defend; on systems, in short, that will not target populations, but shield them. By these means we seek to increase the safety of Europe and all the world. But we must remember a crucial fact: East and West do not mistrust each other because we are armed; we are armed because we mistrust each other. And our differences are not about weapons but about liberty. When President Kennedy spoke at the City Hall those 24 years ago, freedom was encircled, Berlin was under siege. And today, despite all the pressures upon this city, Berlin stands secure in its liberty. And freedom itself is transforming the globe.
In the Philippines, in South and Central America, democracy has been given a rebirth. Throughout the Pacific, free markets are working miracle after miracle of economic growth. In the industrialized nations, a technological revolution is taking place--a revolution marked by rapid, dramatic advances in computers and telecommunications.
In Europe, only one nation and those it controls refuse to join the community of freedom. Yet in this age of redoubled economic growth, of information and innovation, the Soviet Union faces a choice: It must make fundamental changes, or it will become obsolete. Today thus represents a moment of hope. We in the West stand ready to cooperate with the East to promote true openness, to break down barriers that separate people, to create a safe, freer world. And surely there is no better place than Berlin, the meeting place of East and West, to make a start. Free people of Berlin: Today, as in the past, the United States stands for the strict observance and full implementation of all parts of the Four Power Agreement of 1971. Let us use this occasion, the 750th anniversary of this city, to usher in a new era, to seek a still fuller, richer life for the Berlin of the future. Together, let us maintain and develop the ties between the Federal Republic and the Western sectors of Berlin, which is permitted by the 1971 agreement.
And I invite Mr. Gorbachev: Let us work to bring the Eastern and Western parts of the city closer together, so that all the inhabitants of all Berlin can enjoy the benefits that come with life in one of the great cities of the world. To open Berlin still further to all Europe, East and West, let us expand the vital air access to this city, finding ways of making commercial air service to Berlin more convenient, more comfortable, and more economical. We look to the day when West Berlin can become one of the chief aviation hubs in all central Europe.
With our French and British partners, the United States is prepared to help bring international meetings to Berlin. It would be only fitting for Berlin to serve as the site of United Nations meetings, or world conferences on human rights and arms control or other issues that call for international cooperation.
There is no better way to establish hope for the future than to enlighten young minds, and we would be honored to sponsor summer youth exchanges, cultural events, and other programs for young Berliners from the East. Our French and British friends, I'm certain, will do the same. And it's my hope that an authority can be found in East Berlin to sponsor visits from young people of the Western sectors.
One final proposal, one close to my heart: Sport represents a source of enjoyment and ennoblement, and you may have noted that the Republic of Korea--South Korea--has offered to permit certain events of the 1988 Olympics to take place in the North. International sports competitions of all kinds could take place in both parts of this city. And what better way to demonstrate to the world the openness of this city than to offer in some future year to hold the Olympic games here in Berlin, East and West? In these four decades, as I have said, you Berliners have built a great city. You've done so in spite of threats--the Soviet attempts to impose the East-mark, the blockade. Today the city thrives in spite of the challenges implicit in the very presence of this wall. What keeps you here? Certainly there's a great deal to be said for your fortitude, for your defiant courage. But I believe there's something deeper, something that involves Berlin's whole look and feel and way of life--not mere sentiment. No one could live long in Berlin without being completely disabused of illusions. Something instead, that has seen the difficulties of life in Berlin but chose to accept them, that continues to build this good and proud city in contrast to a surrounding totalitarian presence that refuses to release human energies or aspirations. Something that speaks with a powerful voice of affirmation, that says yes to this city, yes to the future, yes to freedom. In a word, I would submit that what keeps you in Berlin is love--love both profound and abiding.
Perhaps this gets to the root of the matter, to the most fundamental distinction of all between East and West. The totalitarian world produces backwardness because it does such violence to the spirit, thwarting the human impulse to create, to enjoy, to worship. The totalitarian world finds even symbols of love and of worship an affront. Years ago, before the East Germans began rebuilding their churches, they erected a secular structure: the television tower at Alexander Platz. Virtually ever since, the authorities have been working to correct what they view as the tower's one major flaw, treating the glass sphere at the top with paints and chemicals of every kind. Yet even today when the sun strikes that sphere--that sphere that towers over all Berlin-- the light makes the sign of the cross. There in Berlin, like the city itself, symbols of love, symbols of worship, cannot be suppressed.
As I looked out a moment ago from the Reichstag, that embodiment of German unity, I noticed words crudely spray-painted upon the wall, perhaps by a young Berliner: "This wall will fall. Beliefs become reality." Yes, across Europe, this wall will fall. For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom.
And I would like, before I close, to say one word. I have read, and I have been questioned since I've been here about certain demonstrations against my coming. And I would like to say just one thing, and to those who demonstrate so. I wonder if they have ever asked themselves that if they should have the kind of government they apparently seek, no one would ever be able to do what they're doing again.
Thank you and God bless you all.

Immigration Bill Killed

Michelle Malkin has been liveblogging this flawed Immigration Bill all day. A second attempt at cloture failed. Senator Jeff Sessions from Alabama lists twenty flaws he saw with the bill http://sessions.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=275456 Its good to know there are still some who are not RINOs. I wonder what spin President Bush will use now? How will he blame his Republican base? Will it have been empty Rhetoric filled with empty platitudes or some nonsensical slogan?

The fear is now that this bill will be resurrected only worse if Hillary Clinton takes the white house. Expect another massacre of Republicans in the Senate again in 2008 with so many Republicans siding with Kennedy and as Michelle Malkin coined, "This Shamnesty Bill." Can't these people see what the liberal immigration laws are doing to Europe.

Sarkozy is clamping down on illegal immigration through incentives and quotas. He plans to expel thousands of immigrants a year. http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070605/NEWS/706050404

Imagine what will happen with the chain migration when Bush starts bringing over the Iraqui refugees, and the future Jihadists that will come with them.

I ask my daughter, "Do you know why you don't have to buy a lottery ticket to win the lottery?" She responds, "Why?" and I answer, "Because by being born in this country, you have already won the lottery." Let's keep in that way.

Until there is a fence, and proper security, there should be no talk of amnesty. Plug the sieve first, and then let's sit down and talk about controlled migration, and a guest worker program.

Some Final thoughts from Michelle Malkin www.michellemalkin.com

As annoying as Reid's refrain was, he is right: This was the president's bill. This was the monstrous sham that President Bush tried to ram through the Senate with his pal Teddy Kennedy--subverting the committee process, attempting to cram it in before the Memorial Day holiday, rushing to limit debate, and then complaining about delays. This was the bill President Bush sent conservative-bashing bureaucrats like DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff to peddle on CNN. This was the bill President Bush championed while deriding critics as fearful bigots and running away from building the fence he promised to build.

If the White House thinks conservatives are going to forget whose bill this was and the tactics the White House used in its failed attempt to ram it through Congress, they better think again.

If Lindsay Graham and John McCain think their abominable behavior is going to be forgotten, they better think again.

All is not lost within the Republican Party, though. Watching the floor debate closely the past week, I can tell you that we have three staunch, eloquent conservative defenders in Sens. Sessions, DeMint, and Coburn (though I'm not sure why Coburn didn't vote on cloture). Unlike President Bush and the pro-amnesty Republicans, these three Republican senators stand out in their understanding and appreciation of the rule of law, the past historical failures of shamnesty bargains, and the vital nexis between border security and homeland security.

I can't let the night end without also noting the Democrats who defied Reid. Without their votes, shamnesty would be alive and thriving. Whatever their reasons, they chose the right side.

Final Roll Call: (click to view larger image)

Remembering D-Day 63 years ago today

This is the last generation that knew how to fight a war, and when we weren't afraid to invoke the Lord's name. Imagine if this were to happen today. Today's Democratic party and the ACLU would be up in arms. No, Hillary Clinton, Iraq is not Bush's war, it is an American war. The following is FDR's address to the nation at the commencement of D-day when Americans understood the difference between good and evil. Notice, Franklin Delano Roosevelt calls D-day a crusade - Wonder how that would go over today?


Franklin Delano Roosevelt June 6, 1944

My Fellow Americans:

Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our Allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.

And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest -- until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

And for us at home -- fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them -- help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.

Give us strength, too -- strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.

And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.

And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keeness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment -- let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace -- a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

Thy will be done, Almighty God.

Amen.

Jihadists and the other Americas

During the 1970’s, Daniel Ortega was a central figure in Nicaraguan politics. Ortega, the head of the Marxist-Leninist Party, FSLN (Frente Sandinista Liberación Nacional) was brought to power as a result of President Jimmy Carter’s failed policies in the region. After Carter helped Ortega gain power in 1979, Ortega quickly became an enemy of the United States, and an ally of the Soviet Union. Ortega’s tenure proved to be a disaster to the Nicaraguan people.

In 1984, Ortega called for free elections knowing he would win a majority, but in 1990, Ortega lost his election bid to Violeta Chamorro. He also lost his election bids in 1996 and 2001 to Arnoldo Aleman and Enrique Bolaños respectively. Understanding that the Cold War had ended, Ortega began to mollify his rhetoric on his prior Marxist policies in favor of a more moderate democratic Socialism.

The former president Arnoldo Aleman was under house arrest because of corruption in the Aleman administration. Ortega made a pact with the PLC, (the Partido Liberal Constitucional), the party of Aleman which would give Aleman a seat in the “Asamblea” and thereby granting him immunity from further prosecution. The pact involved a split in the PLC. This split allowed Ortega to win by almost the same percentage that he lost the prior two elections, 37.99%. Jimmy carter went to oversee the elections. Carter said the elections were fair. Don’t you just love Latin American politics especially with Carter in charge? Both Chavez and Castro called to congratulate Ortega. Had this pact not occurred, Ortega would not be president today.

Today, according to La Prensa, two congressmen Ron Klein and Connie Mack, both from Florida declared that Iran, Nicaragua and Venezuela are, "a Trio of Tyrants", and that they were disappointed in Ortega's recently annouunced trip to Iran. But, who would have expected any differently?

What does this have to do with the United States? Well, a lot!

La Prensa of Nicaragua reports

Ortega will visit his friends

President Daniel Ortega begins his international tour which includes state visits to the most controversial figures today, like Hugo Chavez, Muammar, Al-Gadafi and Mahmoud Ahmadneyad, head of states of Venezuela, Libya and Iran, respectively.

Sandinista Radio has already made it known that the Nicaraguan head of state arrives today, to back Chavez for not renewing the transmission licenses of Radio Caracas Television, (RCTV), an action that seen by various sectors as an attack of Freedom of Expression.

In spite of all of Ortega’s rhetoric, his views have not changed. He is still a Marxist-Socialist and he will welcome into his country Jihadists who want to harm America. Ortega did change his stripes, but not in the direction that would be amicable towards the United States.

Jonathan Schanzner reports in National Review of the threat in South America where he concludes:

A history of tolerance notwithstanding, this weekend’s disrupted plot demonstrates that U.S. counterterrorism and intelligence agencies must cast a wide net, one that includes even the tiny nations along the northern coast of South America.

Few analysts have ever thought about a terrorism nexus in South America apart from the Tri-Border area (a lawless area between Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina), where Hezbollah and Iran are known to operate. It’s time to start looking at other South American states that may be inadvertently hosting terrorists. Guyana and Trinidad were put on the map this weekend. Let’s not forget about Suriname

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDI1OWZmNjZiMjljNTRhZWFlMTA3YjFkYWI1Y2YxNzI=

What does this mean? This means that where once an Ocean separated us, this may no longer be the case. Ortega will push his country more to the left and more to a dictatorial regime given the opportunity, and he will become the tyrant that is innate in his personality. Ortega has proven to be a savvy politician and understands the machinations of Latin American politics. Ortega will now embrace those who want to kill us. Iran, Venezuela, and others will take place of the Soviet Union. We must therefore look beyond the Middle East and monitor our own backyard, Central and South America, because with this new immigration bill, you can bet there will be a Jihadist or two entering our borders.

Thompson gives speech

I heard Fred Thompson on C-Span today on a speech he gave in Richmond, and I liked what he said. You can read about his speech here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/02/AR2007060201163.html . I wish he would hurry up and enter the race

The Republican party torn asunder?

In a complete about face, Bush is now trying to appease the left by embracing the myth of global warming

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azDnIuQABog8&refer=worldwide

Should I say Hello Arnold?

And Al Gore must be correct, he says that there is a consensus among scientists on Global Warming. Read here Nasa's top scientist Michael Griffin questons Global Warming http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3229696&page=1 Oh no! That is like questioning the second coming to the Global Warming religious fanatics. What heresy! Will Griffin be fired from Nasa? Sounds like a consensus to me.

What is going on here? Ok, Bush got the economy going by decreasing taxes, he correctly and steadfastly fights the war on terror - congratulations, but...

1) His prosecution of the war has been dubious at best. He fights the war as if we are playing tiddly winks. The benefit of the doubt always goes to the terrorist.

2) He lambasts his base for being against a massive amnesty plan. He thinks his base is full of idiots. if you put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig. He says trust the government to secure the borders - we've done that. He is offering the Mexican-Americans citizenship, and what do they do, they boo Miss USA. Bush is destroying the Republican party. Any proposal by Kennedy and La Raza should be suspect anyway. Imagine a party of White Americans called, "The Race." Even the New York Times reported Bush's disdain for his own Republican party -

President Bush today accused opponents of his proposed immigration measure of fear-mongering to defeat it in Congress, and took on his own conservative political base as he did so.
“If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill’s an amnesty bill,” Mr. Bush said this afternoon at a training center for border enforcement agents located in this town in Georgia’s southeastern corner. “That’s empty political rhetoric, trying to frighten our citizens.”

This amnesty bill is our answer to 9/11?


3) He signs into law a massive medicare drug plan when medicare is already going bankrupt.

4) He signs the McCain-Feingold finance reform bill which has turned out to be a bonanza for the left, the corrupt George Soros and moveon.org.

5) His loyalty to those who work for him is so strong, he refuses to fire anyone who proves to be incompetent (i.e. Mineta)

6) His spending has been out of control (even without Iraq). Reagan tripled the deficit, but Reagan's purpose was to bankrupt the Soviet Union which he successfully did. There is no point to Bush's spending.

I believe that going to war with Iraq was a necessary evil. To this day, I believe there were WMDs in Iraq. Hussein had eight months to get rid of them, and even if he didn't have them, the plans were there to reconstitute them.

Mr President, there is a reason your poll numbers are low. Get it through your head, the left will always hate you. What is next? - A private screening of Michael Moore's Movie Sicko.

We need someone to give back the power to the people and return us to the conservative movement from whence we began.

Today's wallstreet journal opinion piece by Peggy Noonan is a must read.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010148

In part Noonan writes

What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future

I have a liberal friend who always says, "Bush is an idiot!!" Was she right? My fear is Bush has opened such a wide chasm, the Democrats will regain the white house and then we will all be in trouble.

Mr. President, if the Democrats win in 2008, it will be your fault. You are a neo-liberal, and you have abandoned conservative values.

A dictator in Venezuela?

If you haven't read about Chavez shutting down the only television station RCTV that opposes chavez, read the following timeline of a Fox Journalist.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275912,00.html

11:58 p.m.: Like clockwork, the channel goes off the air. The music stops; the TV now features a spinning “TVes” logo, which stands for the new socialist, Chavez controlled TV station.

People are crying and screaming. Grown men have tears spreading down their cheeks. The night is steamy and tempers begin the flare. People seem to understand that they have lost more than their favorite Venezuelan network; they are continuing to lose their country to a man intent on becoming a dictator.


Jimmy Carter and Cindy Sheehan must be jumping up and down for joy. I wonder what Ortega is thinking in Nicaragua, of course he doesn't have the oil Chavez has. Pay attention United States, Chavez presents a real threat to our security especial the way he has been using his oil money to buy the loyalty of other Latin American Counrities.

The GOP debate May 15 - if I may opine

So, who got to watch the GOP debate last night? I think, there should have been at least ten more people to add to the ten they already had. Then, maybe it could have been like a church social. Every candidate should have been required to wear a “My name is _____” tag. - You know those tags you are suppose to wear at church. I am a political junkie, but I swear, I didn’t know half the guys up there. I mean who was that guy with two first names, Ron Paul or Paul Ron – Geez!

Now everyone knows that President Reagan was the greatest president of our time. But, I think we should make these debates a little less boring by making them into a game. Ok – ready, anyone who invokes the name of Reagan will automatically have to sit down. By the end of the game, I would bet five would be the only ones left standing.

For those people who no one knows, those impecunious characters that have trouble raising enough money to stay in the race for more than a week after the initial primaries, need to get their names out with a one line zinger that will be in the newspapers the following day. Of course, I am not talking about Ron Paul who blamed 9/11 on the U.S. for our policies in the Middle East. Yes, everyone will know who he is, but at the same time, we will wonder if he got his talking points on some conspiracy website or from Rosie O’Donnell. He is the one person that if nominated, I would consider Hillary Clinton. The diatribe from Ron Paul did, however, give a great opening to Gulinani when he rebuked Ron Paul, asking him for an apology at the same time. And, the fight is on…..

Guliani must have listened to the press from his last debate. He needed to talk less about abortion and more about 9/11; Ron Paul gave him this one.

Tom Tacredo said we need a Jack Baur – good one. Romney said, “My fear is that McCain-Kennedy would do to immigration what McCain-Feingold has done to campaign finance and money in politics, and that’s bad." – Nice. Huckabee said “we’ve had a Congress that’s spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop.” when asked about taxes and spending. John McCain used the same drunken sailor line he used in the first debate – Time for new material. Ok, one of the candidates (I can’t remember the name) said that there are as many scientists who believe global warming is not caused by human intervention as scientists who do. Finally – someone is challenging the global warming myth. It’s about time since it is quite popular. Even the left got to most of the Republicans on this one.

McCain was McCain. He defended his Kennedy-McCain Immigration bill stating the Fort Dix six were here illegally on visas. Didn’t anyone tell him that at least two of them came from the Mexico-Texas border? He defended his no-torture policy, and he said we need to reach out to our friends. Did anyone tell him about the change in presidency in France with Sarkozy who has stated he wants to be our friend in spite of our differences, or with pro-American Angela Markel in Germany? There is the new conservative party leader Stephen Harper in Canada. When confronted with his anti-Republican issues like the McCain-Feingold bill on finance reform (which gave rise to the corrupt George Soros), he said, “I don’t intend to block things.” You are telling me – even if it means lying in bed with the most liberal of Democrats. Not, in my wildest dreams would I vote for McCain.

The more I learn about Mitt Romney, the more I like him. I think Giuliani would make a good president. Before 9/11, I would automatically exclude a candidate if he were not pro-life, but that issue has been somewhat pushed aside for security. It is said that Giuliani is the only one who could beat Hillary. Of course, we need someone who can beat Hillary, but Hillary has been making so many guffaws lately – it might turn out similar to the Sarkozy-Royal elections in France I want to hear more about Fred Thompson. Fred Thompson responded to Michael Moore http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=611 regarding his challenge to a health care debate when Thompson wrote an op-ed about Moore’s trip to Cuba. We may be in for a good surprise from Thompson. NBC said they do not expect Thompson on Law and Order next season. http://thecelebritycafe.com/features/9940.html . There must be a reason.

Is it too much to ask for a candidate whose first priority is the Security of the United States including the Security of the borders without amnesty, a candidate who believes in reigning in spending, understanding that tax cuts grow the economy, knowing that all life is valuable beginning at conception, and that global warming is just a ploy for more government intervention.

Well, that’s my take….

Congratulations France

It has been my contention that the typical Frenchman is not anti-American. This was a myth propagated by Chirac, the left, and the liberal media both in the United States and France, and the proof was in yesterday’s French elections where Sarkozy won with 53.06% of the vote beating France’s Hillary Clinton's Ségolène Royal.

This is not good news for the Clinton camp. First, the democrats lost their issue that Europe is not our friend. France will now be an ally of the United States. “Freedom” Fries can now retain the name of “French” Fries. Bill O’reilly has lifted his boycott of France.

Illegal immigration is an issue that resonates both in Europe and in the United States. The candidate who comes out strong on both terrorism and immigration will win the next presidential election. I have yet to see any candidate come out with any tendentious view on illegal immigration. This means that Hillary does not have a lock on the next presidency. (Note: The alleged terror plot on Fort Dix was mostly perpetrated by illegal aliens from the Middle East.)

Sarkozy, the president of UMP, the French conservative party wants a liberalized economy based on American and British examples. He is a skilled orator, and wants to be a friend of the United States. His main issue was immigration. The French are tired of the parasitic immigrants pouring in from impoverished African nations. As in the United States, most French politicians are afraid of speaking about illegal immigration for fear of being called racists. Apparently, Sarkozy understood the French frustration about immigration. He wants to design a quota system to allow skilled immigrant workers into the French economy, and stop the flood of illegal immigrants, (what a novel concept – Can anyone tell Bush that?).

According to Forbes magazine, France leads the world in taxes. Forbes uses a misery index. Misery, of course, means the higher taxes you pay, the more misery you live in. Forbes adds all taxes imposed by the government, corporate Income tax, personal income tax, wealth tax, employer and employee social security and the Vat and a misery index is derived. France’s misery index is 166.8 (See the May 21st issue of Forbes) and the USA’s misery index is 115. Sarkozy favors a five point or larger reduction in the top corporate tax rate while Royale wanted another individual flat tax on top of the existing progressive income tax and flat tax. This is why it is so hard to get ahead in France because of the heavy tax burden.

To be fair and balance it is interesting to read a French perspective on their tax burden. http://www.forbes.com/2007/05/03/forbes-misery-france-oped-cx_pf_0503favre.html

Whether or not Sarkozy can fulfill what France needs to grow its economy is yet to be seen. France has been well entrenched in its welfare system since World War II. Its guaranteed employment may also be hard to unravel as evidenced by the recent riots in the French suburbs. This has contributed to France’s double digit unemployment rate. But the fact Sarkozy was elected bodes well for the future of the country, and demonstrates that the French want change.

An article of le monde says, (translation below).

Le président élu Nicolas Sarkozy a déclaré dimanche que les "amis américains" de la France "pouvaient compter" sur son amitié et que la France "serait toujours à leur côté quand ils auraient besoin d'elle".
"Je veux lancer un appel à nos amis américains pour leur dire qu'ils peuvent compter sur notre amitié", a déclaré M. Sarkozy, peu après l'annonce de sa victoire.
"Je veux leur dire que la France sera toujours à leur côté quand ils auront besoin d'elle. Je veux leur dire aussi que l'amitié c'est d'accepter aussi que ses amis puissent penser différemment", a poursuivi le nouveau président.
M. Sarkozy a également appelé Washington à prendre "la tête du combat" en faveur de l'environnement, "parce que ce qui est en jeu c'est le sort de l'humanité". http://www.lemonde.fr/web/depeches/0,14-0,39-30789207@7-354,0.html

Transalation

The president-elect Nicolas Sarkozy declared Sunday that the American Friends of France “can count” on their friendship and that France “would always be on their side when they need it.”
“I would like to make an appeal to our American friends by telling them that they can count on our friendship” declared M Sarkozy, after announcing his victory.
“I would like to say that France will always be at their side when they need it. I would like to tell them also that Friendship means we can think differently”, continued the new president.
M Sarkozy has also appealed Washington to take “the lead” in favor of the environment, “because what is at stake is the fate of all humanity.”

When he refers to the environment, he is talking about global warming. OK – so it’s not perfect (nobody told the French that global warming is a fraud perpetrated by Al Gore and his ilk), but it still is a step in the right direction.

I predict in the next elections in Spain, Zapatero will lose. Spain is also a friend of the United States – it is their current administration that is anti-American, not the populace. Zapatero won as a knee-jerk reaction resulting from the bombing of Madrid. 90% of Spain (and France) are against the war in Iraq, but Spain would have reelected Aznar had it not been for the capitulation caused by the Madrid bombings. Aznar was a driving force in Spain’s economy, and Zapatero is turning out to be a disaster. I predict that at the end of Zapatero’s term, the socialists will lose power again, and the conservatives, “el partido popular” will regain power, and Spain will once again be a friend of the United States.

The left will be relegated to the hallways of the naiveté of the United States Educational System.

Having large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a 4x4 car and failing to reuse plastic bags, according to a report to be published tomorrow by a green think tank.
The paper by the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family’s carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.

John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet.

“The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.”


Well, considering it takes 2.1 people to just maintain current population levels, Europe needs much higher levels than that to support their massive welfare system. But Europe is on its way to extinction. Their current levels are way below that around 1.7 in Britain while Muslims are propagating at the rate of 7 to 1. The left's delusional mindset continues to believe global warming is the greater threat while Muslims clandestinely Islamize Europe.

It doesn't take a genius to know that comparing the Muslim birthrate in Europe to the rest of Europe's birthrate to figure out what Europe will become. The only good news coming from Europe is Conservative Nicolas Sarkozy won France's presidential election. This could bode well for the United states, and France could once again become an ally of the United States.

I guess the French realize their mass immigration from North Africa is not doing them any good, and their massive welfare system is bankrupting the country. The French seemed to realize the left is bad for the country. Mexico realized the same thing.

My fear now is the United States won't realize it in the coming elections, and it is Bush's fault, but if the left takes over here - God Help Us!