Free Republic

1/8/04 Allen Perrin 1601 15th St. SE Ruskin, FL 33570-6007 (813) 645-0452

Letters To The Editor The Tampa Tribune PO Box 191 Tampa, FL 33601-4005

To The Editor:

Pity the man in a leaky boat. Which to do first – plug the holes, or legalize the water that has already poured in? If you plug the holes right away – which would seem to be the first logical action to take – then those of the crew who noisily believe that it isn’t fair to take away space from the poor, oppressed water on the outside – would mutiny and let the water come pouring in anyhow.

As backwards as it seems, and as antithetical as it appears to mainstream conservative values, President Bush’s actions to provide amnesty to illegal immigrants already in the nation, is unfortunately the only way to plug the holes at our borders without the liberals screaming racist bloody murder for the next thousand years. But it must be done, to not only stop even more water from getting in , but to also keep the al Qaeda sharks, and barracuda hiding in the bilges out as well. Plugging the vast, and myriad leaks at our borders is yet another mess left over from the previous captain who didn’t care if the boat leaked like a sieve as long as he got re-elected.

I enthusiastically support President Bush’s amnesty program if indeed its main goal is to do an end run around liberal fools who actually like the water coming in, and to ultimately plug the leaks at our borders. Otherwise his actions make no sense at all. To stop the flow of illegals over our borders, and to now enforce our immigration, and deportation laws vigorously is President Bush’s logical, and absolutely crucial next step.

Let’s all hope he takes it. It’s getting deeper all the time.

Sincerely Yours:

Allen Perrin

A Story Of Two Cultures

Once upon a time, there were two tribes living next to each other. One was the Tainos who were very warlike, and delighted in battles waged, and in conflicts won. They had a hierarchical warrior class who prized strength, bravery, and personal achievement. The other tribe was the Mystics. They were a very peaceful people who meditated daily on the mysteries of life, spent much of their time living simply, and peacefully, creating artful pottery, and exploring their mind and spiritual oneness with nature.

The two tribes lived together for generations never bothering each other, since the Mystics had nothing the Tainos wanted, and the Mystics eschewed the obviously violent lifestyle the Tainos led.

Until one day, a rumor drifted into the Taino camp, that the Mystics had a large cache of gold that they had been keeping secret for many years. Upon hearing this, the Taino chieftain sent an emissary to the Mystic town center to ask if this was so. "Why yes," the Mystic leader answered. "We have much of this gold that we've hidden for many years, but we would be glad to share it with you, if you so desire."

Upon hearing this, the Tainos rose up in their warlike wrath, and marched upon the Mystics, laying waste to the town, killing every single one of the Mystics in a bloody, and vicious massacre. Then, upon searching the Mystic town center the Tainos not only found gold, they found a vast store of it. So much gold, was found in fact, that the Tainos began fighting amongst themselves for it, and wound up killing each other, until finally no one of either tribe, the Mystics, or the Tainos survived.

So - the entire question is: Which culture was superior?

The answer is obvious – neither one. Both were destroyed. The gentle Mystics all perished because they would not defend themselves, and as a result their wonderful spiritual knowledge, and beautiful artistic skills were lost forever. The warlike Tainos were also destroyed by their own greed, and bellicosity, so that their fine traditions of courage, strength, and personal achievement on the field of battle were also gone forever. Both cultures were fatally flawed. Both were imbalanced.

This story then, illustrates well the position we find ourselves in today. We are caught between two equally destructive cultures. Those who delight in killing, such as the warlike, fanatically dedicated Islamic terrorists, and those who oppose war at any cost, like the pacifistic liberal morons who would have us do nothing at all – which of course makes the liberal antiwar crowd, just as bad as al Qaida. Indeed when you have a society that is so pacifistic that it won't even defend itself, then those who are as much imbalanced in the opposite direction will certainly destroy it.

Remember the story above. Neither one was superior. Both were destroyed. What good do principles, or ideology do you if in the end you destroy yourself with them?

Does anyone out there really understand what Governor Gray Davis has done? With one fell swipe of his pen, he has single-handedly abrogated the international border of California, and with it the sovereignty of the United States of America. By signing the bill granting diver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, Davis has essentially assured a flood of illegal immigrants to take advantage of this liberally inspired politically correct nightmare.

Now, I’m not against granting driver’s licenses to immigrants – legal ones that is. But what Governor Davis has selfishly done is to grant legal Californian – and with it US – citizenship to anyone who shows up, wanting a driver’s license. Of course, his motivation for doing so is to suddenly have two million extra voters beholden to him so they can save his job in the upcoming recall election. But, by so doing he has recklessly swung the door open, and provided aid, and comfort to any, and all al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Mujahadeen, or Islamic Jihad terrorists, who just happen to magically show up in California!

In his selfish, and treasonous actions, Davis has sold his nation down the river for his own narcissistic ends. This is not a minor thing! It doesn’t just destroy California’s sovereignty – it destroys the sovereignty of the United States government, and exposes all of us to a deadly influx of fanatical Islamic fundamentalist murderers who dance with delight whenever they kill us. As loathe as I personally am to advocating that the US government step in to “fix” anything perpetrated by some wayward state, or local government, in this case they must do so as speedily as possible!

The US Supreme Court should hold an emergency session to vacate this illegal, and potentially disastrous state law from taking affect as a case of state law usurping federal law. Then, Tom Ridge should send federal marshals to all of California’s state offices, and prevent any illegal aliens from obtaining legal US status. The US borders should then be sealed and closed – at least temporarily. And finally, but by no means, least importantly federal marshals should go in to Governor Davis’s office and arrest him for sedition. Then they should place him in a federal prison until after the recall election officially throws him out in the street, and indict him for treason against the United States government!

Yeah. I guess so. I don't know. I just don't care for all these "touchy-feely," new-age approaches to dealing with crime. Such as: letting all criminals out of jail, since the longer they stay in, the madder they get, and the worse they are - or here's my favorite: sentencing, and healing circles where everyone tells their story, and stands around, and hugs, and hugs, and hugs.

Yech.

You ever hug a blubbering 6'9" 275 pound drug-dealing multiple murdering child rapist who hasn't taken a bath yet this month?

Sigh. Unfortunately he is. He's a normal liberal.

ROLF!

Great action figures! But where's Dr. Xavier?

Precisely. It was actually the liberal left's ill-advised anti-war demonstrations that encouraged Saddam Hussein, lengthened the pre-war maneuverings, and ultimately guaranteed that war would be inevitable.

Ironic isn't it? The thing they marched against was the very thing that they ultimately achieved.

Sorry for the long delay in answering you. I got five kids - four of which currently are attending college. So I have to work sometimes. :)

I agree with you, however. It's an indication I think of how really small their - ahem - egos are, when a fantastically successful action by their own country is criticized so severely. They just don't understand America.

I knew that when the war in Iraq began winding down that the liberals would be the ones most shocked, and awed by it’s stunning military success, and lack of “quagmire” status. I knew that with the spectacle of ordinary Iraqi’s celebrating in the streets, liberals would have to regroup their own forces, and alter their battle plans with some sort of outrageous political stratagem. But, Norman Mailer’s April 29th op-ed piece in the New York Times really takes the cake.

I think that the title We Went To War Just To Boost The White Male Ego, just by itself says it all. The rest of the piece is pure unadulterated liberal vomitus. Who is Norman Mailer that we should listen to him? What sort of special qualifications does he have that allows him to pass such a nauseatingly arrogant, and condescendingly racist, judgment upon us as a nation?

The answer is, that there are none. He, along with most liberal elitists passionately “loathe the US military,” hate war in general, and despise George W. Bush in particular. This is best exemplified by Mailer’s own contention in the op-ed piece that “We went to war, I could say, because we very much needed a war.” This is, I think at the center of liberal bias, and opposition to the war. They actually believe that the United States of America could start a war, and kill people just for its own selfish monetary gains. They really do think that America is a bad place.

They are wrong.

Consider for a moment what has actually occurred here: the United States of America has ended the tyrannical rule of a murderous despot who will rightfully take his place alongside Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin as one of the most notorious monsters in all of human history. The US military has simultaneously disrupted several worldwide terrorist organizations headquartered there. We’ve also kept horrible weapons of mass destruction out of their fanatical hands. And yes, there were weapons of mass destruction. Who may I ask puts “fertilizer” in missiles? If Mr. Mailer doubts the existence of such weapons of mass destruction, as he did in the Times piece, might I suggest he go and take a refreshing drink from the pure, sparkling waters of the Euphrates River, where traces of mustard gas, and sarin were found? Yes, Virginia … there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

What the United States has done in Iraq then is a wonderful thing. It will have profound ramifications for centuries to come. There might actually be real peace in the Middle East as a result, and the Iraqis might actually have real freedom. That’s what was done, and it’s not a minor thing at all. This was done, not to soothe any flaccid “while male” ego, as Mr. Mailer so offensively contends. It was done for one reason, and for one reason only – to protect ourselves from terrorists who eagerly want to kill us. To claim otherwise besmirches the hundreds of thousands of servicemen, and women – of all races – who risked their lives, fought for their country, and ultimately won against a rogue nation ruled by a vicious, and cowardly thug. Race or ego had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any of it.

Yes. Mr. Mailer is wrong. He, like so many of his liberally biased kind was wrong for opposing this war in the first place – arguably one of the more righteous wars ever to have been fought – and wrong in their criticisms afterward. So it is in fact their aching egos that must be assuaged here, rather than any sort of outcry over the vicissitudes of white male ego.

And so, Mr. Mailer, if you would – kindly go take a hike? Paris would be a fine place to do so. They’d love you there.

I think you've really hit the nail on the head. They're becoming almost hysterical in their actions, and have allowed their frustration at Bush winning the election in 2000 consume them with hatred, and bias. It's obvious to everyone except them.

It all really began when President Reagan was re-elected in 1984 by the largest landslide victory in US history. Up until that time I’d been living under the mistaken illusion that the press objectively reported the news, and fairly told the truth about circumstances as they were. I trusted them back then, as I think did most Americans. And so, when President Reagan held a press conference the very next day about an unrelated issue, I expected just a small, polite, courteous, and respectful applause from the assembled press corps. There was none. President Reagan was met by a stony, rude, and very hostile silence.

It was with a fair amount of déjà vu then today that I witnessed the same sort of bristling open press hostility during President Bush’s joint press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. With his opening remarks, President Bush graciously paid Prime Minister Blair a series of personal compliments, calling him “courageous,” and “a good friend.” The press was dead silent. Not one reporter applauded, or even smiled, or nodded their head at this show of wartime coalition solidarity. And then came the rude, disapprovingly negative hostile questions.

There has been much discussion over the last few years over bias in the mainstream press. Rarely are specific examples either pro, or con ever presented. But, this rude silence, and grilling by the press corps audience of a President of The United States and a staunch British ally during a time of war is a prime example I think of their thundering bias, and anti-Bush liberal prejudice. Therefore, for them to pretend that all of this destructive, and anti-administration bias doesn’t affect their abilities to fairly report the facts – or for that matter to even tell the truth – is either naïveté, or downright dishonesty in the extreme.

And as such, they are in fact helping, Saddam Hussein’s brutal, oppressive, and terrorist regime continue to fight. In essence, they are encouraging the Iraqi propaganda machine to wage the war in the only arena that Saddam Hussein has any real chance of winning. He, and his cohorts know that they can’t possibly win against us with tanks, and planes, so they must fight us with images, negativity, and press manipulation, hoping that we – the American people – will ultimately quit.

So, it really makes you wonder about our own liberal mainstream press. Exactly whose side are they really on?

No, MrLeRoy. Actually, I think you have it exactly backwards. The US didn't "piss-off," as you so eloquently put it, the UN, the UN "pissed-off," the United States. True, there will be wide-ranging and profound ramifications of this Iraqi war for decades - if not centuries - to come, but it will be both France, and the UN who will be the losers here.