About Me

Name: Charles Lewis
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
Uncategorized

America's Hostile Takeover

Posted by Charles Lewis on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10:53:46 AM

by Charles Lewis

Notice how Miss USA was booed (the only contestant to be given such a reception, probably ever) by the crowd at the Miss Universe pageant in Mexico City? This is the attitude toward America of the masses to whom we're about to hand virtual political control of our country.

The defeated Coleman amendment (buried last week by one vote - with seven "RINO" Republicans joining the majority) would have, in effect, outlawed "sanctuary cities." These cities are not an issue to those illegals already here, as they will virtually all be legalized.

The trade-off was supposed to be protection from future waves, but the defeat of this amendment (along with Johnny Sutton and company's intimidation campaign against border agents, sheriffs and deputies) will mean the enforcement aspect of the bill will amount to nada. At this point the bill (whose detractors this treasonous president - in a mind boggling reversal of the truth - labeled unpatriotic yesterday) is 100% amnesty, unless you count:

- its criminalization of gun ownership,

- its devastation of the American economy,

- our conversion into a third world-style starvation wages venue,

- its installation of the Democrats as a one party system,

- the demise of Social Security,

- its penalties for employers who dare to question the immigration status of job applicants,

- the imposition of the North American Union,

- the national ID card,

- the election - via a radically shifted demographic - of ever more liberal Congresses that will rubber stamp a Demo-RINO agenda including:

- the criminalization of Christian speech as hate crime,

- the shutting-down (Venezuela-style) of conservative talk radio (under a "Fairness Doctrine"),

- the banning of grassroots information dissemination on the Internet and elsewhere, via "lobbying reform",

- McCain-Feingold-extension muzzling of Internet truth,

- UN hegemony over the Internet,

- non-availablilty of natural supplements under UN CODEX/CAFTA/FDA,

- executive-order-induced national martial law,

- the Law of the Seas Treaty's ("LOST") UN tyranny, and

- universal mandatory mental health screening,

- an open door to terrorists, and

- the eventual inauguration of an American Hugo Chavez.

"Sellout" is too generous an appellation. This is a hostile takeover of the once greatest nation on earth, perpetrated with the complicity of its own elected leaders.

Lady Liberty is about to fall inelegantly on her butt on the runway of multicultural demagoguery. And this time her haters around the globe will be cheering.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rosie and Ron

Posted by Charles Lewis on Sunday, May 27, 2007 8:58:32 AM
by Charles Lewis
 
Ever go along blithely harboring and espousing a certain point of view, and then have it suddenly hit you in the face that you were going about things totally wrong?  I just had such an experience - coming to an epiphany re the comparisons I'd been making between Ron Paul and Ward Churchill.

Nobody knows who Ward Churchill (the Boulder professor who calls the 3000 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns" who had it coming to them) is.  And even though the comparison was apt, there was a less trivial one - with a more recognizable public figure, and with immaculate timing - just lurking to be exploited.

You see, not only did Paul blame América (and absolve the Islamists) for 9/11 (a common theme for all three of these individuals), but he accused us of having been, in effect, the "real terrorists" - not only in the middle east, but in Vietnam.  According to Ronsie Pauldonnell, it was Uncle Sam who indiscriminately attacked both the Islamofascists and the communists, both of whom were simply minding their own business (namely, enslaving the world to antichristian totalitarianism via terrorism and mass murder on an unprecedented scale - not to mention infiltrating us bigtime to establish, on the one hand, sleeper cells and terror training camps, and, on the other, a third column that forced our surrender, and, later, the rising Democrat Party, and the sinking RINOs).

None of that stuff in parentheses seems to bother "Ronsie", who, in the most recent debate asked us how we'd feel if China set up shop in our backyard, say the Caribbean.  [As you may recall, we are, in fact, waging a massive campaign of beheadings, car bombings, and skyscraper demolitions in reaction to the fact that the Chicoms have complete control of the Panama Canal and virtual satellites in Cuba and Nicaragua.  We are, aren't we?]

The three salient points here are:

1.  Paul is never going to unite Américan (I'm just getting ready for life under McKennedy amnesty with that persistent little accent mark) patriots behind his anti-Américan, pro-communist, pro-Islamist comments.  Thus, he cannot succeed in his presidential bid, and in the meantime he's totally eclipsing Tom Trancredo (on the heels of whose announced candidacy Paul's followed suspiciously close) who, in theory, at least, could.

2.  Paul's fundamental premise on current events - that this administration deceived us to "justify" and unjustifiable war is exactly backwards.  This administration deceived us and continues to do so to keep the war from seeming justified (and give the Democrats and UN the currency to overwhelm América).

An adminstration that wanted to justify an Iraq invasion wouldn't stonewall proof that Iraqi agents leveled the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, give a 9/11-style training camp in Iraq the silent treatment, muzzle its own inspector, David Gaubatz, when he finds a huge supply of WMDs in southern Iraq, scuttle John Shaw's investigation that showed an even bigger stash had been smuggled out - to Syria and elsewhere - by the Russians, ignore Iraqi General Sada's vivid accounts of similar shenanigans, and quickly dispatch an operative - in reaction to Rick Santorum's Freedom of Information revelation of 500 WMD finds - to say this wasn't the stuff we invaded Iraq to find (and this is just a small sampling of the things the Bushites have done in this regard).

3.  Rush has it right.  The current immigration bill will establish the Marxist Democrats as the only viable Américan political party - at least untii their masters, the communists, come out of the proverbial closet.  The Republican leadership knows this, and is proceding full speed ahead with its campaign of subterfuge to make sure it happens.

The WMD coverup only furthers this end, and Ron Paul's candidacy helps, in that it gives further legitimacy to the the false notion that the invasion was groundless (and that América is, indeed, the Great Satan) and utterly destroys our one true political hope - Tancredo's candidacy.

Ron: did you know there's an opening on "The View" that has "Ron Paul" written all over it?  As a "guy"-necolegist, you may qualify, technically, for this "girl talk" program; after all, the person who left the opening certainly wasn't altogether female himself.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Amnesty includes gang bangers, 600,000 deportation dodgers

Posted by Charles Lewis on Saturday, May 26, 2007 1:42:11 PM
by Charles Lewis

Law enforcement authorities characterize the mostly-illegal-immigrant gang MS-13 (now operating in at least 42 states) as the most violent, hardest to deal with in the country.  And small wonder.  This al-Qaeda collaborating monstrosity, which specializes in brutal murders and mutilations, is excedingly difficult to win convictions against, as perhaps its overriding tenet is the systematic murder of witnesses.

One would assume that the elmination of this unprecedented national plague would be one of the primary goals of any immigration "reform" package.  Sorry.  Specifically written into the bill about to be ramrodded through our Democrat/RINO congress is a provision allowing identified MS-13 (and copycat gang) members to stay, provided they promise to stop "banging."  How reassuring.

As for other criminals, some 600,000+ violators of specific deportation orders (how trusting of our government not to have escorted these invaders out in the first place) will be allowed to stay, as per another provision.  ...This according to a recent analysis by the incomparable Phyllis Schlafly, as confirmed by Heritage Foundation researcher par excellence Robert Rector.

Rector's calculations show a $2,400,000,000,000.00 cost to Social Security alone.  He affirms that there is no way "América" will be able to avoid bankruptcy under this bill.

Schlafly adds that the 400,000 per year in new "guest workers" doubles the amount authorized in last year's abominal bill, which died on the vine.  Plus chain immigration will increase from 250,000 to around 900,000 annually.

Last week the Senate defeated two modest, common sense amendments that aimed to limit the devastation.  One would have cut off this massive guest worker program after five years, while the other simply would have put one or two teeth into the trumpeted "internal enforcement" aspect of the bill, by allowing police and government workers to enquire into the immigration status of those with whom they come in contact.

With this latter provision deep sixed (and with the 700-mile fence authorized last year cut way back, and with border guardians facing the virtually certain prospect of jail any time they use force to do their jobs), the legislation amounts to nothing more than unconditional amnesty, along with an opening of the floodgates to even larger waves than the claimed 12-20,000,000 (and more likely 30-50,000,000 and up) invaders already here.

And, as all that is necessary to qualify for this amnesty is to get two people to state that the given intruder was here as of 1/1/07, in Rector's view (and mine) this is carte blanche for future mass invasions.  Anyone - now matter how late their actual arrival - that won't be able to get two friendly, willing liars to swear to a pre-'07 presence would have to have the interpersonal skills of a Rosie O'Donnell with acid reflux breath.

Not to mention the lack of requirement for a medical exam (for these folks bringing in everything from drug-resistant tuberculosis to malaria to leprosy to polio to bubonic plague to bizarre desert diseases that heven't been named yet).  Nor the mere 24 hours our officials (who couldn't find anything on the Fort Dix illegals in 24 years) have to do background checks on 20 million illegals (or they get their Z-cards by default).

Nor the fact that the bill madates taxpayer-financed lawyers for those fighting deportation in the future.  Nor that the "triggers" claim (that no Z visas will be issued until certain border security benchmarks are reached) is an utter fabrication.

Nor the draconian anti-2nd Amendment clauses that will label any gun shop that commits two typos in its sales documents - or any family of 5 that passed with a half mile of a school with a legal gun in the glove box - as a "gun gang."  Nor all the other liberty-crushing and/or America bankrupting planks already discovered (or not discovered) in this 1,000 page nightmare...

Wait till all these América haters get suffrage (also via the bill), and no longer have to take advantage of the Motor Voter Law (which a Republican qua RINO president with two GOP-led houses of congress was too polite to try to repeal) to exercise that franchise ilegally (several times each?).  Then we'll really be singing "to the left, to the left..."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ApPauled

Posted by Charles Lewis on Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:39:52 PM
by Charles Lewis
 

Don't get me wrong.  I do not support any of the "neocon" (really pseudocon) impostors garnering the approval of the internationalist powers that be in the GOP presidential sweeps.  None of the socialist, fascist, big government tax and spend, "globalist", anti-bill of rights, open borders types like Giuliani, McCain, Romney - all posing as conservatives for our votes, meanwhile (hypocritically) supporting McCain-Feingold's eradication of the First Amendment (and extending it to the Internet), UN control of that Internet, the North American Union, gun bans, No Child Left Behind, the Prescription Drug boondoggle, mandatory universal mental health screening (and drugging), eminent domain tyranny, socialized medicine, abortion, gay narriage, the Schiavo murder, and so on.  Pity the conservative elctorate doesn't fully see through this.

As for the "non-serious" candidates - the ones squarely in the clutches of the establishment, perhaps a little better on some of these issues (though terribly weak on others), but hardly viable in any event - no need to discuss them, other than in passing.  I'm referring to Brownback, Gilmore, and Thompson.  All they're doing at this stage is taking up marginal poll points that should be aggregating to a hypothetical "unification" candidate for true conservatives in the party to help fend off the above mentioned RINOs.

That leaves four candidates - Tancredo, Paul, Huckabee, and Hunter - who deserve and consideration at all, in my view.  Hunter probably irrevocably severed his lifeline to my potential support in the first debate, when he endorsed Al Gore's fabrications on global warming and presented an "energy independence" model that mentioned nothing about increased domestic oil pumping or more refineries.  And Huckabee's F- rating from Club for Growth is a huge strike against him (though his endorsement of the "Fair Tax" with its elimination of the IRS may keep him in the game).

As for the two seated on the sidelines observing the carnage, don't talk to me about Newt Gingrich.  He had long since sold out his constituency via his cozy "adulterous" relationships with the Clintons and Kennedys of the anti-America left.  His recent unbelievable, unforgivable sellout of our interests in his hyped global warming "debate" with John Kerry (where he fully surrendered from the outset) just reinforces this.

And Fred Thompson?  He's been writing numerous opinion pieces in prep for his obviously impending entry.  Naught but cautious platitudes.  Not a word about the real issues - open borders, the political imprisonment of border agents, the banning of natural supplements, the NAU...not even the Fairness Doctrine, grassroots gagging, the gun grab, or thought crimes.  Be forewarned.

That leaves Tancredo and Paul, two of my longterm political heroes.  Tancredo has parlayed an almost singlehanded opposition tot he giveaway of America to invaders who don't value any of her philosophical underpinnings into the most prominent leadership role in a formidable pro-borders coalition.  And he's a staunch traditionalist Christian conservative on every major issue.  Paul, on the other hand, has long been the strongest - and at times, seemingly, the only - voice against the ongoing trashing of the Constitution and the rapid erosion of individual liberties in America.  With the exception of the recently deceased Charlie Norwood, these have long been my absolute favorites on the Hill.

...Which is why I was puzzled when Paul announced his candidacy (as did Hunter, considered an ally of these two) just a couple days after Tancredo's long awaited announcement.  My paranoia (I've long since decided to not trust any politician - no matter how patriotic he seems - longer than it takes me to inhale and exhale once) was piqued.  I saw these moves as, conceivably, specifically designed to draw support away from Tom and clear the way for "Rudy McRomney."

And it's happened.  Add the poll numbers for "Duncan Paulcredo" and you have an imposing candidate, clearly capable of defeating these Rockefeller Republicans.  Spearately, however, they're still labelable as "fringe."

Except in terms of the polls on the debates themselves.  Paul won the first debate, both according to CNBC, and WorldNetDaily, the leading website on the right.  And he gathered an incredible 37% on the latter vis a vis the second debate, finishing a close second (to Romney) in the Fox News text message poll, as well.

Tellingly, Tancredo, who showed the variance of his positions with those of Paul by taking umbrage with the latter's implication that Osama's 9/11 attack was justified, was able to finish only second in the WordlNetDaily poll (with 25%).  This means that - among the most conservative in the electorate - there is a tendency to accept the far left's (equal to Paul's) view of America as Great Satan over the traditional patriotic one.

This was only amplified by arch-conservatives' apparent acceptance (or calculatied ignoring) of Paul's praise - in the course of the debate - of our "investment" in Vietnam, a genocidal communist slave labor hellhole.

I can understand conservatives' utter disenchantment with mainstream Republicans, who, as I write, are in the process of negotiating away our culture and our future, in terms of the most massive immigration amnesty in this world's history.

However, this goes far deeper.  True conservatives were able to witness the airing of the chief differences between their two greatest congressional champions (both oppsed to that "mainstream"), in the Fox debate.

One, Tancredo, stood up for America and Christianity in the Reaganesque manner.  The other (Paul) parrotted the age-old Marxist rhetoric of "American imperialism" and delivered, uncritically, the talking points of the America hating left and Islamofacsists.

And, by about a 3-2 margin in the most reputable, true conservative site on the web, they chose to support the latter.  I find this"apPauling."

What can account for this?  Phyllis Schlafly, still in my view the purist voice on the critical issues facing America, taught me way back in 1964 (in A Choice, not an Echo) the true nature of most of the Republican presidential nominees and victors.  Their "opposition" to Demcratic one world totalitarian policies is a chimera.  Time after time their administrations had been little more that "me-tooers" of the Democrat's agenda, following this up with supposed gaffes and "blunders" that delivered elections into the hand of the Democrats themselves, who then claimed mandates and ran roughshod of the American identity.

I kept the lessons of that book in mind through the years.  I saw the same pattern as Nixon (hardly a conservative) illogically self-destructed with the Watergate burglary against an opponent he led by 40 points in the polls.  This ushered in the sordid era of the anemic leftism of Carter, the Church commission, and so on.  Later, GHW Bush (again anything but a conservative) squandered huge electoral goodwiill with "yes, new taxes after all," paving the way for the atrocities of Clntonism.

This time around, it's "no WMDs" - itself the lie of the millennium.  And the American people - including the majority of true conservatives - have fallen hook, line, and sinker.  As far as I know, only yours truly harps on the point that this administration (currently, you'll note, playing footsie with the Teddy Kennedy clique and the Democratic Congress that this issue rammed into power) has done everything in its power to suppress anything that would have justified the Iraq invasion in the public's mind, including:

- Jayna Davis's convincing discovery of the Iraqi Republican Guar'd execution of the Oklahoma City bombing, and the Clintonista's knowledge and cover-up of this, which resulted in the routing of the '94 Contract with America Republicans,
- our discovery - at Salman Pak in Iraq - a complete 9/11-style training camp,
- several early apparent WMD discoveries, which prompted Rummy's comment that first reports were supposedly never right,
- the revelations of huge WMD caches by the likes of John Shaw, David Gaubatz, Iraqi General Saba, and others - all relentlessly quashed by the Bushites,
- Sen. Santorum's uncovering - via Freedom of Info act - of 500 WMDs in Iraq, this abruptly silenced by the administration's dispatch of a spokesman to pooh-pooh its significance,
- Jack Cashill's recent noting of the immediate shut-up of comments (reported by the BBC at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3872201.stm) by Energy Secy Spencer Abraham that revealed (momentarily, before its summary squelching) that we'd found 1.7 tons of enriched uranium in Iraq.

It's not hard for people on our side of the turmoil to see how the Bush Administration has sold out its constituency at every turn policy-wise.  Likewise, Schlafly's exposé of the traditional apparently deliberate folding (she called it "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory") of previous GOP standard bearers for the sake of their "Skull and Bones" style brethren on the more openly lefitst side of the spectrum is a treasured part of our political glossary.

The fact that the Nixon and Bush ! debacles fit the same pattern should be self evident.  Why can't we see that the supposed-no-WMD nonsense (which has already led to the election of Marxist congress on the verge of trashing the 1st and 2nd Amendments, erasing our borders, and even outlawing natural supplements) is simply another case of the same deception?

Why do we have to, instead, accept the left's version of things on Iraq, via our swallowing whole of the Ron Paul mantra?  The communists (for whom the Islamofascists, in my view, are just the surrogates they've always been) would love to continure to trample the rest of the globe, unincumbered by any opposition from us, then lower the boom here.  This is the same rhetoric they've always used to try to get us to "mind our business" while they expand their empire.  Only now this rhetoric is coming from the most trusted among our own ranks.

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.  Apparently the majority of even enlightened conservatives does not possess the philosophical underpinnings to resist this malicious anti-American propaganda, and it's shutting the door on our last opportunity to salvage this great nation.

I implore America to turn away from PIed Piper Paul.  Tom Tancredo embodies everything Paul stands for, and does not have this fatal flaw.  We need to unite behind this courageous American.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Warming Reversed by Web Inventor

Posted by Charles Lewis on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 8:33:34 AM
 

If there's anything certain in this ever changing post-modern world, it's the veracity of the man-made global warming hypothesis. It has to be true, as the post-modern god, Consensus, has bestowed upon it his unqualified seal of approval.

It's so fully established that even rules of free speech no longer apply. The Weather Channel has put out a fatwa against meteorologists who express doubt about any part of the mantra (oops, once they do so they can no long technically be called "meteorologists"). The Brits, I hear, are barring the distribution of the DVD of a BBC show (www.rightalk.com) that at least appeared to thoroughly debunk this article of faith; these Brits are, in fact, specifically citing the irrelevance of free speech here.

Others have proposed Nuremburg-type trials for GW deniers. (That's GW for Global Warming - you can deny George Washington all you want. Just don't send out e-mails quoting him to fellow profs, as that's harassment, worthy of condemnation to the scrap heap previously reserved for heretical weathermen.)

In fact, GW seems to have filled the void created with the prohibition of the Good Book from public discourse. Even Duncan Hunter (supposedly one of the three true conservatives, among the seven Bush-style poseurs) genuflected, sappily, before its altar in a recent pre-primary-presidential-preferential debate (mark your calendar; elections in just 517 days).

In light of all this infallibility, I was understandably perplexed at the behavior of the weather in recent months. It started with last hurricane season, which GW theology had prophesied would just about wipe us out. When no storms of any consequence materialized, I was puzzled (I kept it to myself, of course, not wanting to have to face the Simon Weisenthals of the Weather Defamation League).

Then we went through a winter here in sultry South Carolina where our heating bills were high enough to make a Minnesotan wince. I resisted the urge to even blink. Then came a mid-April frost, destroying all of my wife's backyard crops. Now it's practically mid-May, our A/C is atrophying for total lack of use, and it's still dropping into the mid-40's at some point just about every day. It just wasn't adding up.

Then it dawned on me. How could I have been so foolish? It's those carbon offsets Al Gore has been paying! They've really been working! (And there were those who scoffed, may they rest in peace.) One dedicated, unbelievably generous man with a house that uses eleven times the energy of mine or yours has managed to turn this whole thing on its ear.

Just one thing, Al. Enough already. Let's not overdo it. We're freezing here in the deep south, for Gaia's sake. Ease up on them eco-indulgences. There's got to be something else you can do with your zillions.

Buy some war bonds - oops, you're an appeaser. So donate to Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, NAMBLA, La Raza...(I assume you own at least one of those companies).

I've got it! Pour your $ into the Internet. Surely you have a patent on that.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My Urgent Open Letter to WorldNetDaily's David Kupelian

Posted by Charles Lewis on Saturday, May 05, 2007 7:52:30 PM
 
    WorlNetDaily's article today (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55562) about that Presbyterian book accusing Bush of staging 9/11 to provide justification for attacking Iraq and Afghanistan (as if any American gained anything from those invasion), describes, of course, a ridiculous premise, but one that a huge percentage of Americans now accepts.  Of course, if Bush wanted to justify those invasions, he would never have had his minions:
 
- stonewall The Third Terrorist author Jayna Davis, who had submitted to them copious proof that Iraq masterminded and executed the Oklahoma City attacks,
 
- squelch the findings of David Gaubatz, who located a veritable mother lode of WMDs in Iraq,
 
- suppress John Shaw's discovery of the huge transfers to Syria,
 
- sweep the testimony of Gen. Saba under the rug,
 
- dispatch some useful idiot to quickly assert - on Rick Santorum's Freedom of Information Act uncovering of 500 WMDMs in Iraq - "these aren't the WMD's we invaded Iraq to find" (I'm paraphrasing, as I don't have the direct quote),
 
-rapidly dismiss all the early-war finds like the warheads NPR embeddees said wer "loaded and ready to go", the off-the-geiger-counter readings in the basement of a facility where the UN stooges had found "nuh-thing" (about which Rummy - tellingly - announced that first tests were supposed;y {and conveniently} "never right"), or the barrels that tested positive on the first two readings, then mysteriously morphed into "rocket fuel," then announce that no more preliminary results would be given out, or
 
-underplay Salman Pak or all the other evidence of 9/11 or Al Qaeda connections.
 
    No, indeed, it's very clear - much clearer than when I introduced the hypothesis at the beginning of the war (first to Tom Fitton and Larry Klayman, and, shortly thereafter, to you) - that the last thing this administration wants is for those invasions to seemed justified.  ...and that the fact that this apparent lack of justification has swept into power a communist congress hell bent on outlawing Christian speech, banning grassroot mailouts in the Internet, shutting down conservative talk radio, taking our guns, and keeping our border floodgates wide open for the hordes of soon-to-be-Democrat-voting invaders (and so much more, in terms of tyranny) seems to suit this administration just fine.
 
    I invite you to point out to me one thing that has happened since I first expressed this to you that hasn't fit very well into its paradigm.
 
    As the most ironic fact of all is that the guy who won the first Republican presidential debate (according to everybody from WND to MSNBC) (that'd be Ron Paul, of course) seems to buy into this illusion (the ridulous one - in the face of the evidence - that Bush told all kinds of lies to get us to think there were WMD's) as surely as have the Cindy Sheehans and Al Frankens of the knee-jerk left.  To Ron Paul (who's so strong on so many other issues), America is the most dangerous, "imperialistic" nation on earth (LOL), and the poor innocent islmofascist terrorists are our victims.  Such are the fruits of this, the greatest deception of our time.
 
    If you disagree with Ron Paul and Cindy Sheehan and Al Franken on this issue (and if you agree with Paul - as I do - on just about everything else), don't you think it's time to do what we can to set the record straight for everyone involved - before we self-destruct in what, if we lose it, will surely be the last "free" American election?
 
    I'd be willing to stick my neck on the chopping block for such a noble cause (as you know I have been lo all these years).  I just need a crack in the WND door, and the "go" sign from God.
 
Thanks for you consideration.
 
As Always,
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tancredo alone

Posted by Charles Lewis on Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:43:30 PM

Reactions to tonight's GOP debate:

    The three "leading" contenders - Romney, McCain, Giuliani - got the softballs and the most opportunities to expound; all three tried to present themselves as "conservatives" but all showed their true stripes.
 
    The same three - Romney, McCain, Giuliani - all came out on the pro-death side of the Terri Schiavo issue, criticizing Congress for even the toothless, purely symbolic gesture it made in defense of her right to life (even though it did nothing when a tinhorn homicidal judge chose to flagrantly violate it).  Nuff said.
   
    These three - plus Tommy Thompson and Jim Gilmore - could not conceal their support for "a woman's right to choose," or something on that order in terms of the abortion issue.
 
    Tancredo was given mostly ridiculously irrelevant questions that prevented him from showcasing his unique strengths.
 
    Tancredo was also the only candidate that was cut off, and it happened three times, including at least once when he was clearly way under his time limit and another time when he begged a couple more seconds to finish a crucial point on Iraq; meanwhile, others, especially the "leading lefties" blithely went way past the "red light" on numerous occasions.

    The worst example was when Tom was trying to bring up the Ramos/Compean case (and explain it to the vast majority of viewers who've been kept in the dark on it by the mainstream media freeze-out) and call for a pardon. Moderator Chris Matthews shut him up abruptly (as if he were some loudmouth brat disrupting an English class) and did not let him get anything coherent out.

[The fact that the GOP allows flaming liberals to orchestrate and thoroughly control every aspect of their debate is proof positive of the need for a third party.]

 
    Ron Paul, though he made many very good points, saddened me with a continuation of his amening of the hard left; he accused people of "pretending" that Iraq was a threat, and he breezily ignored the overwhelming evidence that this administration - to treasonously give the UN a PR victory and allow the Democrats their overwhelming elections sweep - has covered up any and everything that would have justified the Iraqi invasion (from Oklahoma City to Salman Pak to the 500 WMDs the de-classified documents revealed to David Gaubatz to John Shaw to General Saba...).  Instead, he said he supported the conviction of Scooter Libby - not because any law was violated, which it wasn't, but because Libby helped us justify that selfsame invasion that the Bushites have gone to the ends of the earth to keep from seeming justified.  Even if we grant Paul that point (and, hey, I agree that wars need to be declared, so I'm really in his camp fundamentally, although I think there was every reason to declare war on Iraq), he's basically saying Libby should be serving his scapegoat role in prison for political reasons, that he approves of Libby the political prisoner.  Shame, shame.
 
    The evening's biggest disappointment, however, was Duncan Hunter.  He basically endorsed Al Gore's thoroughly discredited position on global warming.  And, with gas prices heading to $4, he made a big point about "energy independence," yet said nothing about ANWR or any other kind of domestic oil production permission.  Scratch him, as far as I'm, concerned.
 
    There were a few rays of hope in general (and I'm not talking about the transparently feigned conservatism of the big three); at least several of the candidates spoke out on the critical issue of repealing the Clintonian "alternative minimum tax" - although none of them really articulated the reason - that this typically Democratic non-indexed-to-inflation tax will impoverish all hard working Americans as salaries increased but buying power doesn't.  And a few - most notably, Huckabee, Tancredo, and Paul - advocated the end of the federal income tax.
 
    While Tancredo - even though he was systematically muzzled and minimized - once again stood out as the only true advocate for America (and the strongest Christian values candidate), the one candidate that came up a little bit in my view was Mike Huckabee, especially in his seemingly sincere expression of his faith.  If he's the nominee, I might reluctantly vote for him.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My letter to Grassfire's Steve Elliott on Sutton on Liddy

Posted by Charles Lewis on Thursday, May 03, 2007 4:27:31 PM
 
I was devastated to hear Johnny Sutton yesterday spewing his lies on the show of a host I thought was on our side - G Gordon Liddy.
 
The lies went unchallenged, Sutton bowed out after his say, Liddy changed the subject, and even today's broadcast topics offered no opportunity to contracdict the calumny.
 
I would hope that you all, with the influence you have, could help make the following points about the subterfuge, hopefully via an appearance on the Liddy program:
 
Sutton's verbiage, though it sounded slick and convincing, cannot be trusted:
1. His associates have been caught telling baldfaced lies TO CONGRESS, mostly about the exculpatory evidence hidden from the jurors (who were also given the false information that everybody had to agree with the majority, forcing 3 jurors who would have acquitted to change their votes),
2. Jerry Corsi interviewed Sutton for WorldNetDaily - producing the same line Sutton expressed on the Liddy Show.  Subsequently, Corsi's investigation found that Sutton's case unraveled bit by bit until there was nothing left of any substance.
3. Sutton cited - as though they were absolute fact - numerous allegations that had no support other than the testimony of the illegal invaders themselves - which contradicted that of the agents, whose word was given no credence.
 
Beyond this, the current state of border security is in shambles, now that Compean and Ramos (as well as Gilmer Hernandez) have been railroaded and locked away (as were agents Sipe and Brugman before them) by Sutton, and Nicholas Corbett is up for capital murder (by some copycat prosecutor in Phoenix) for defending himself from a rock throwing illegal - all strictly on the testimony (very likely coached by the Mexican government) of acknowledged illegals. 
 
It is a known fact among agents, sheriffs, and deputies that one dare not use force against illegals - or at very least one's career is over and one will be incarcerated.  So well known that the border agent convention recently gave a unanimous vote of no confidence to the government's border agent director (David Aguilar, who remains in his post nonetheless).  This state of affairs is also well known to the invaders (including especially terrorist invader), who, no doubt, are taking full advantage.  Needless to say, current border enforcement is nil as a result.
 
Finally, I recently verified that in at least the Ramos case, the incarceration is absolutely sadistic.  One would think that with all the supposed congressional pressure he would at least be being treated humanely (especially after the brutal boot-kick attack by invade prison mates and the lack of medical care for four days).
 
Nothing could be further from the truth.  "Nacho" is still locked in his cell 23 hours a day, is allowed only one phone call a month, and has no access to newspapers, periodicals, radio, or books (other than a Bible, which it took the Minutemen moving Heaven and earth to provide).
 
He is being made an example of, as are all of the incarcerated heroes.  There is no other way to describe it.  And Johnny Sutton - who, contrary to the impression that he was a local prosecutor in the El Paso region, was dispatched from his DC sinecure to west Texas, specifically to make those examples of these innocent border defenders, sepcifically so that border enforcement would be nil is the principal perpetrator.
 
HIGH TREASON.  No other way to describe it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ramos conditions have not improved

Posted by Charles Lewis on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 5:29:51 PM
 

I spoke with a national Minuteman official today. I asked him if the deplorable conditions under which "Nacho" Ramos - the heroic border guard jailed for defending America from the Mexican and terrorist invasion (wholly on the testimony of a drug smuggler who walks free) - was being held had improved any.

I had assumed that, now that the spotlight of national attention has been focused on the near fatal attack by Ramos's illegal immigrant prison mates for which he had been set up (and for which he got no medical assistance for four days), the authorities in the Mississippi prison where he is caged would have at least stopped treating him like a psychotic killer.

No such luck. The administration is apparently so intent on making an example of Ramos and the other unfortunate agents (so that those still employed as border guarians never again even think about doing their jobs) that it doesn't care if we know, doesn't care how obvious it is. The following conditions are still in effect for this gallant martyr to the diabolical cause of anti-Americanism:

He's allowed out of his cell only an hour a day

He's allowed only one phone call per month

No radio, TV, newspapers, magazines, books, or any other form of intellectual stimulation is permitted, except:

A Bible, which the Minutemen had to fight strenuously to secure for him.

I ask that you pray for this American hero, and for the others of his professional jailed on the testimony of acknowledged invaders and smugglers, and at the behest of the Mexican government. And that you step up the pressure on your local representatives to undo this atrocity.

This is high treason.  It's the psychological rape of not just the incarcerated public servants but of their brethren still on the front lines, and, indirectly, of America herself.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »