Posted on 07/25/2008 5:38:07 AM PDT by SJackson
Whistling Past the Graveyard |
Last week, columnist Paul Weyrich reported that there is credible evidence that Osama bin Laden has acquired twenty suitcase-sized nuclear bombs from Chechen rebels in the former Soviet Union and smuggled them into the United States by way of the Mexican border. If that is true, the al Qaeda kingpin has laid the groundwork for an American Hiroshima plan that he intends to carry out in the very near future. Once bin Laden gives the signal, his henchmen will proceed to detonate their explosives in a number of separate U.S. cities, leaving them in irreparable ruins and killing tens of millions of people in the process. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU): Former ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser attributes the concerns that many Americans have about illegal immigration to a wave of anti-immigrant hysteria. Wade Henderson of the ACLUs Washington, DC office claims that the desire to regulate immigration can be traced directly to hostility motivated by nativism, racism, and red scare. In May 2008, the ACLU produced a tearjerker advertisement lamenting how a fence somewhere along the U.S.-Mexico border had ruined Mothers Day for a Mexican woman and her daughter by keeping them apart.
In other words, while the Left, ever since 9/11, has argued passionately against sealing the southern U.S. border on grounds that such an initiative would constitute racism, xenophobia, a violation of human rights, a repudiation of American values, and a threat to the environment, bin Laden has quietly and happily exploited our national insanity and set the stage, from his cave somewhere in the remote mountains of Pakistan, for the cataclysmic end of the most powerful nation in world history.
If bin Laden indeed has been able to set in motion this nightmare scenario, he succeeded for one very simple reason: Americas military might has been offset by a weakness of spirit that has become a hallmark of the modern Western world. It is a frailty that derives entirely from the leftist worldview that has infected America over the past half-century. This view identifies Western (especially American) culture as a uniquely evil, exploitative player in the story of mankind, and depicts all acts of barbarism against the U.S. as wholly understandable reactions to American transgressions. It is a mindset that has gradually, incrementally, and inexorably made its long march through the institutions, -- the schools, the seminaries and churches, the media, the entertainment industry, the courts, and the political sphere -- just as the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci prescribed in the 1920s.
Gramsci understood that by poisoning the culture from within, and by so degrading and undermining the cultures faith in itself, the American people could be compelled to believe, to their very marrow, that their heritage was in fact unworthy of defending against those who would destroy it under the banner of so-called multiculturalism. Gramsci and his successors were patient enough to allow this time-consuming process to unfold, knowing that the American way of life could be bled to death ever-so-slowly, almost imperceptibly, without the firing of a single shot until the time was just right. The fact that the person who ultimately may fire that shot is a seventh-century-style savage whose fanatical religious worldview bears no resemblance whatsoever to the ideals of Gramsci and his fellow Marxists, is not as strange as one might think. As bin Laden himself declared in a fatwa issued on Al-Jazeera Television just before American and British troops entered Iraq in March 2003: The interests of Muslims and the interests of the socialists coincide in the war against the crusaders.
Given that bin Ladens agents of nuclear holocaust apparently were smuggled into our country by way of the Mexican border, it is worth recalling what some of the luminaries of the Left have had to say, in recent years, vis a vis defending that border by means of increased surveillance and the construction of a fence to repel illegal invaders:
American Friends Service Committee (AFSC): Viewing the United States as the worlds primary agent of evil and exploitation, this group has posted on its website a detailed list of strategies by which illegal aliens -- in the event that they are interrogated, detained, or arrested -- can avoid cooperating with immigration authorities or police. According to AFSC, a border fence would disrupt area residents way of life and has never proven to be a long-term, practical solution to the immigration dilemma. The organization further contends that such a fence would constitute a form of violence to the environment because it is expected to cause irreversible damage to the Tijuana River Estuary environs as well as cause erosion and flooding in Tijuana.
Border Action Network (BAN): This neo-Marxist group seeks to ensure that those who are most impacted [i.e., illegal aliens] by border and immigration policies are at the forefront of movements calling for human dignity and civil rights
Advocating the dissolution of American borders, BAN calls for unchecked, unregulated migration into and out of the United States. The organization has filed lawsuits against what it calls an ugly movement of armed, militia-style civilian groups and anti-immigrant, white supremacist groups -- such as American Border Patrol and Ranch Rescue -- for their practice of detaining illegal aliens and calling government border agents to arrest them. BAN co-director Jennifer Allen said in 2002: They [illegal immigrants] have civil rights and human rights that take precedence over defending the country. Former BAN spokesman Chris Ford, for his part, expresses concern that this [fence] plan will cause massive environmental destruction affecting in particular the Sonoran Pronghorn, an animal that resembles an antelope and is considered an endangered species.
National Council of Churches (NCC): A longtime enemy of the United States, NCC in the 1950s and 1960s, under the rubric of charity, provided financial assistance to the communist regimes in Yugoslavia and Poland. In the 1970s it helped finance Soviet-sponsored guerrilla incursions into Zimbabwe, Namibia, Mozambique, and Angola. It the 1980s it contributed large sums of money to the Marxist Sandinista Party in Nicaragua and communist guerrillas in El Salvador. Moreover, the organization has supported Fidel Castros (and now his successors) regime in Cuba for decades.
In April 2008, NCC co-signed an interfaith letter to Congress expressing grave concern over the environmental destruction currently occurring in the U.S.-Mexico border region as a result of the hasty construction of hundreds of miles of fencing along the border. The current path of the border fence, NCC explained, cuts through places like Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, home to over 500 species of plants, 50 species of mammals, and nearly 300 species of birds. Construction of the fence is severing migration routes and destroying thousands of acres of wildlife habitat. In Arizona alone, 39 species protected or proposed to be protected under the Endangered Species Act are being adversely affected by Border Patrol activities, including construction of the fence
.
Defenders of Wildlife (DOW): This environmentalist group has warned that the erection of a border fence will have serious and lasting effects on the regions wildlife, water, and air. According to DOW associate Jenny Neeley, such a fence will significantly impact biological diversity along the border by preventing desert animals from moving around freely. Right now, she says, on the U.S.-Mexico border there are 47 endangered species, including the jaguar, the ocelot, the lesser long nosed bat and numerous bird species. Neeley further complains that the bright lights used by border patrol officers during overnight hours can cause great harm to nocturnal animals.
National Council of La Raza (NCLR): This organization favors amnesty for illegals already residing in the U.S., and open borders henceforth. In NCLRs calculus, any restriction on the free movement of immigrants constitutes a violation of their civil liberties, and any reduction in government assistance to illegal border-crossers is a disgrace to American values. Thus NCLR supports continued mass Mexican immigration to the United States, and hopes to achieve, by the sheer weight of numbers, the re-partition of the American Southwest as a new state called Aztlan -- to be controlled by its alleged rightful owners, the people and government of Mexico. In October 2006, NCLR President and CEO Janet Murguía said that the prospect of a border fence doesnt solve the immigration issue, it makes it worse.
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF): Over the course of its 40-year history, MALDEF has undertaken numerous legal campaigns to abet the cause of illegal immigration. In 1994, for example, the organization condemned Operation Gatekeeper, a U.S. government program intended to restore integrity to a particularly porous stretch of the California-Mexico border. Claiming that this initiative was callously diverting illegal border-crossers from California to the harsh and dangerous Arizona desert, MALDEF charged that Americans opposing unrestricted immigration were motivated largely by racism and xenophobia.
In 2006 MALDEFs Interim President and General Counsel John Trasviña called the prospective border fence a travesty that will take years to complete and does nothing to address Americas immigration or labor needs. An official MALDEF statement said that such a fence would make illegal crossings more deadly and dangerous and would cause hardship for American families who want to be reunited with loved ones.
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC): In December 2005 LULAC created a website titled WeAreRacists.com, which portrayed the Minuteman Project -- a nonviolent organization of U.S. citizens who alert the Border Patrol to the presence of unauthorized border-crossers in the American Southwest -- as an anti-immigrant group composed of racists, cowards, un-Americans (sic), vigilantes, [and] domestic terrorists who are often affiliated with white supremacy groups.
LULAC opposes border-patrol policies that would authorize the U.S. military to prevent illegal immigration, on grounds that military personnel are not trained for border patrolling and might easily violate the civil rights of those they intervene with. José Velez, who headed the League from 1990 to 1994, has said that the U.S. Border Patrol is the enemy of my people and always will be. In 2006 LULAC National President Hector. M. Flores condemned the prospective security fence as an affront to immigrant communities [that] will create a permanent scar in the relationship between the United States and our southern neighbors. Building a Berlin style wall between ourselves and our neighbor, he added, is un-American, undemocratic, and unacceptable in a free society.
Democrats: In April 2008, fourteen House Democrats, including eight committee chairmen, said they would file a brief supporting a legal challenge to the Bush administrations plans to finish erecting nearly 500 miles of fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border by the end of the year. Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers said, Our responsibility to be stewards of the earth cannot be thrown aside for the sake of an ill-conceived border fence.If indeed Osama bin Ladens nuclear holocaust looms just over the horizon, life as we have known it in this country will soon be gone forever. All that remains to be seen is how far the Islamists will go to humiliate and degrade us before striking their lethal blows. And we can trace this awful fate directly to the imbecilic, catastrophic policies of organizations and individuals like those listed above. While they have lectured us on stupidities like the rights of undocumented border-crossers and the plight of endangered long-nosed bats, our enemies were not nearly as timid as we were.
What distinguishes a large proportion of the American population from bin Laden's Islamists goes far beyond the genocidal ambitions of the latter. The most vital distinction is that the Islamists believe, with every fiber of their being, in the legitimacy (indeed, the supremacy) of their culture and the nobility of their mission. Nothing can deter them from their single-minded quest to conquer and murder in the name of Allah.
By contrast, many tens of millions of Americans have been conditioned, by decades of leftist assaults on the legitimacy of their history and traditions, to doubt that those traditions even merit a stiff defense. Only in such a culture would so many people -- from anonymous men and women on any street corner to the occupant of the Oval Office -- be so preoccupied with reiterating, ad nauseam, the notion that authentic Islam is, at its essence, a religion of peace that unfortunately was hijacked by a small minority of extremists. Only in such a culture would it be widely understood, as it is in America, that any deviation from these absurd talking points opens one up to charges of Islamophobia and bigotry.
Thus Americans have voluntarily placed themselves in a rhetorical and ideological straight jacket, fearing to admit that they can even perceive the plain reality that Islams predominant teachings and emphases -- as set forth in the trilogy consisting of the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sira -- differ greatly from those of Western religious traditions.
Their fear of stating this simple, inarguable truth closely parallels their fear of demanding that our nation strengthen its border security to the point where illegal entry is made impossible -- lest they be smeared as racists and nativists who are unconcerned with the dignity and the common humanity of impoverished undocumented workers, blah, blah, blah.
This type of trembling population -- echoing dutifully the cacophony of empty platitudes uttered by all manner of America-hating, know-nothing leftists in the political arena, in the media, in the pulpit, and in the university classroom -- have provided Osama bin Laden with more than enough assurance that he is facing an enemy ripe for slaughter on a scale never before seen.
BTTT
If Bin Laden is dying of kidney failure, won’t he have cause to set off his nukes just before he dies?
Would it be wrong to hope that Austin and Seattle are on the list?
I’m going home tonight and giving everyone I love a hug...then, we are going to the shooting range this Saturday.
Should they be used, the citizenry will address the Problem regardless of whether the government is paralyzed or not.
It would take a lot more than 20 suitcase-sized nukes to end this nation.
What a horrid thing to think!!
You left out San Francisco....
Bus full of lawyers going off a cliff....
with one empty seat
And if they do go off, the backlash on the U.S. Muslim population is going to be very, very bad. Hopefully large parts of the Middle East will turn into glass very shortly thereafter, too.
if there’s credible evidence that this happened,
then, these weapons can be retrieved by the feds.
i’m not into hysteria.
the dems around me are hysterical.
Being in Austin, along with a bunch o’ other Freepers, YES it would be wrong.
But, if this tripe were true, I’m sure it would be. Capital of the President’s home state and very close to plenty of easy crossing sites...
NYC, Detroit, Boston... :)
We can fully expect and prepare for a third NY area attack sometime during the year 2010. Here’s why:
1) AQ has boasted they will do it. In the Die Speigel interviews, the “Fourth Phase” was described as a “return” attack on American interests, abroad and home.
2) We are believed to be vulnerable following elections and administration changes. Clinton in 93 WTC basement, Bush 9/11.
3) In the possibility that AQ does not have these weapons, Iran will by 2010, possibly earlier.
The left? My goodness gracious. The president (ever since 911), John McCain and many Republicans in power, as well as those appointed by Bush, who are supposed to protect our border and sovereignty, have led the way in keeping the border wide open. I understand that the dems and the left have wanted that as well. But the ones in power have championed the current status and even attempted to escalate it. They have tried to call it something else, and otherwise obfuscate their intentions with language, sneak elements of it (amnesty and open borders) into legislation and would do it arrogantly and outright in a heartbeat if not for the possible public backlash. Even now, they are simply waiting for our guard to be lowered. The left? Well then, except for an outspoken few... they are ALL "the left."
Of course, the libtards would believe it was an inside job planned by W and Rove, and implemented by Halliburton, thus undermining the strategic value of OBL’s Hiroshima.
Of course you are correct.
And that is exactly why some of us are having such angst over this election.
There is no acceptable candidate for the true conservative.
For many reasons, not just the Mexican border.
I think IF AQ had even one small nuke they would set it off, claim there are many many more in cities across the US, then demand we remove all our military forces from Muslim territories.
They are part of the Problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.