U.S. Military Prepares for a Democratic Takeover

McCain Still Doesn’t Get it and Huckabee Never Did

Ok, so I’m a political junkie and I admit that I’ve watched every Democratic and Republican debate. As much as I enjoyed Hillary’s “hurt feelings” on the CBS debate Saturday night, and as much as I wonder why I only fall asleep during Obama’s vapidly “unifying” change for the sake of change chants, I have to admit that all the substance was on the Republican side.

Oh and yes I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that all of the Democratic candidates said, in one way or another, that they would use Bush’s unilateral preemptive strike policy under the right set of circumstances thus validating the Bush doctrine.

Charlie Gibson to Obama (ABC news transcript)

GIBSON: I'm going to go the others in a moment, but what you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine. We can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis.

The Fox GOP forum Sunday night (sans Ron Paul) was enlightening for one reason: Immigration. McCain demonstrated that he still doesn’t get it with regard to his continued defending of the de-facto Amnesty Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, and Huckabee is still defending his lenient Arkansas immigration policies. Huckabee and Giuliani don’t want to turn the children of illegals out on the street.

Huckabee and Giuliani said that once children of illegals are in the U.S., they can’t be turned out on the street. Both men defended their respective decisions to keep kids of illegals in school to prevent bigger problems. Both men also offered their prescriptions for reducing the growth of illegals in this country.

Only two Republican candidates are firmly against Amnesty or de-facto Amnesty for illegal immigrants in their stated policies: Thompson and Romney.

I believe it is imperative to remind all conservatives of the primary issue that brought Congress to its knees this past year – Immigration. Illegal immigration ignited the passion of all conservatives against the Comprehensive Immigration Bill (which McCain sponsored). Even now, as much as the Democrats have fought it, immigration must be on the front burner in the national elections. Every other issue can be co-opted by the Democrats but not the fight against illegal immigration.

If we keep illegal immigration on the front burner a Republican will win in November.

Any of the Republican candidates now running are far more in line with our conservative values than these Socialists who still call themselves Democrats. But Giuliani and Huckabee are still much too liberal in their views.

The focus group following Sunday night’s Fox GOP Forum showed Thompson the big loser. Why? The New Hampshire folks have bought into the lie that he’s lazy. They don’t like his cadence of speech. He didn’t inject himself enough into the conversation. If they had listened to what he actually said, he was the only candidate to bring some hard honesty into the debate concerning Social Security and immigration. Downer!!!

So, if Romney eventually wins the Republican nomination Evangelicals have a big choice to make. If they vote against him because they don’t like his religion, or if they just boycott and refuse to vote, they will have to face the fact that they have sold their children’s future down the river into the moral relativism and leftist socialism that now dominates the Democratic Party and all of their candidates.

By the way, Charlie Gibson asked no questions of the Democratic candidates concerning immigration. That policy must change!!!

Digg It!


**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email stiknstein-at-gmail-dot-com and let us know at what level you would like to participate.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Big Dog's Weblog, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, Conservative Cat, The World According to Carl, Global American Discourse, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, and Stageleft, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Iowa Democratic Debate

Ok, so I will admit that I actually watched the Iowa debate Sunday morning. As a conservative, I have absolutely no intention of voting for any Democrat, but the frightening thought did pass my mind . . .

God forbid, what if one of these libs actually becomes our next president?

I’m not going to recap here the substance of what each one said. It doesn’t really matter. After all, when was the last time Democratic words ever matched Democratic deeds? So I was watching just to see which one appeared most presidential.

From my p.o.v. , I’d have to give that honor to Hillary Clinton with Joe Biden coming in at a very close second. Barack Obama placed third if only because he seemed somewhat tentative/evasive. Bill Richardson came off like a light-weight on foreign policy. And then there was John Edwards.

What can I say about Edwards??? Everything about him from facial expressions to body language spells PHONY! And did anyone catch that delicately crooked little finger??? Wonder if The O'Reilly Factor will bring out the body language experts for Edwards’ Sunday performance?

George Stephanopoulos, moderator, did a pretty fair job of putting them on the hot-seat.
Notice how Political Wire put it. The words “gently” caught my attention.

In fact, Edwards "gently admonished Mr. Stephanopoulos for 'trying to create a fight' by his questions when 'any Democratic president will end this war... The differences between all of us are very small compared to the differences between us and the Republican candidates"

The most interesting part of the debate was over foreign policy with Biden and Clinton cautioning that we can’t just immediately pull our troops out of Iraq. And Biden’s ads broadcast in Iowa call for a responsible, yet not too hasty, exit from Iraq. Looks to me like those two are now playing to the moderates and the undecided.

I read where the polls are saying that when it comes to projecting values, the Democrats are way behind the Republicans. Well Duh??? That must have been the reason for the question to each candidate about the power of prayer. Do they actually pray? Put your minds to rest, these Democratic candidates all believe in the power of prayer. Did we expect them to say otherwise?

Much has already been made about Barack Obama’s humorous (and obviously rehearsed) response to “How did you prepare for this debate?”

“To prepare for this debate, I rode in the bumper cars at the state fair.”

But hands down, the best impromptu comic relief came from Dennis Kucinich’s response to the question about prayer.

“I’ve been standing here for the last 45 minutes praying to God you were going to call on me.”

Democratic Debate
Democrats

Related tags: politics, iraq, congress, elections, senate, news, in the news, media clinton, obama, hillary clinton, 2008, bush, iraq, democrat, president, john edwards,

Trackposted to http://morewhat.com/wordpress/?p=2228, Mark My Words, third world county, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, High Desert Wanderer, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Committees of Correspondence, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Blue Star Chronicles, The Bullwinkle Blog, Pursuing Holiness, Right Voices, Public Domain Clip Art, and OTB Sports,thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Newt Gingrich and the Left

Originally posted at Maggie's Notebook

For several years Newt Gingrich has been my choice for President in 2008, but I changed my mind several months ago. While Gingrich is an exceptional thinker, creative and civil in thought and speech, and most certainly wants the best for America, he is deeply entrenched in Congressional friendships.

Thursday, Newt was interviewed by Paul W. Smith, sitting in for Rush Limbaugh. The news is next Tuesday’s debate on climate and environmental issues between Newt and John Kerry. When I first learned of this debate my reaction was, this is a very good thing. Newt has long been immersed in environmental issues and no one puts conflicting thought into succinct words better than Gingrich.

So, I'm listening to Gingrich and Smith, and liking the prospect of this debate, until...Newt emphasizes that the debate will not be a verbal “Wrestlemania,” points out his “long relationship” with Kerry, and then really rubs it in with “he’s a smart guy.” I am nauseous from hearing conservatives tout their civil accord with Democrats.

Smith pushes on and cuts to the chase, asking what all of conservative America wants to know:

"Honestly, you can take Kerry can't you?"

Newt's immediate, and defensive, response is,

"It's not a question of taking him."

You see, Newt wants to have "interesting dialog;" he wants to discuss "market oriented science," and that's all well and good – it’s a discussion this country needs to have, but the Left intends to bring America to its knees on this issue, fueled by the elite's quest for even more wealth, by manipulating the everyday habits of industrious Americans. They have no interest in entrepreneurial-endeavors that expose the folly of carbon credits and such.

Newt, we watch you on talk shows, read your books - listen to your every word. You tamp-down Democrat strategists with the ease of picking lint. You are tough and calmly aggressive until...until...you pair up with an elected politician. Those leading, shaping and interpreting public policy should not shine a light on personal friendships. When you do, we angst over it, for recent history has not been kind to trusting Republicans who, daily, watch the unthinkable parade in front of us.

We are not asking you to abandon the fine art of gentlemanship, but we are asking you to be fearless in revealing the absurd; for instance, a worthy debate might be Sandy Berger's appalling behavior, or William Jefferson's $100,000.00 bribe. Ask the sitting-Senator Kerry to make a public statement on these issues, and when the statement is veiled and lukewarm, keep after it until you get the answers we all deserve. Do us a favor and put the elected on the hot seat, and encourage other conservative leaders to do the same. America will enthusiastically support you. Let Kerry find other avenues to promote his book, as you introduce your new, A Contract with the Earth, in a more respected forum where you need not let down your guard to friendship.

We want our finest conservatives to take-on "taking" the Left. We want our conservative leaders to call them out, one-by-one, these rude, mean-spirited, and dishonest politicians. If you personally like the Left, fine - just don't tell us about your buddyship until today’s dire issues have the opportunity to be settled by conservative measures.

Then you can tell us how fine Senator John Kerry and his cohorts may be. On a personal level, I concede that you think John Kerry is a swell guy, but when you “speak” such validation – out-loud, it hurts the conservative movement because the fence-sitter moderates look for the easy way out, and the Democrat strategists quote you, just as they did when you personally validated Hillary Clinton a few years ago. It only makes sense that we need every honest advantage, and praising the Left, when it’s not necessary, is to put your debate at risk. The problem is, conservative debate is just too proper and vulnerable when up against political friendships.

My message to all conservatives in the public arena today: Taking pride in the conservative nature of accord just gets us into trouble. It doesn't work anymore. Don't even think of telling us that you cannot bring yourself "down" to their level - that you will not stoop that low. Find a way to deal with these people. You're either the person for the job or you’re not. We want you to "take" Kerry, Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, Kennedy, Murtha, as well as Specter and Hagel and the other Republican liberals. They will eat us alive if you, and other Republican leaders, do not.

Ending Note: As I finish the above, Newt is on Fox News Sunday suggesting that it's best that Gonzales step-down, and Chuck Schumer is thrilled with Newt's conclusion. Tomorrow, I'm sure, Schumer will be in front of a mic and a camera, somewhere, with: Even Newt Gingrich agrees that Gonzales needs to resign.

Now, Newt is commenting that "his good friends on the Senate-side" will tie-up the Gonzalez investigation for months. I do not advocate Newt or any politician misrepresenting their own criticisms of any branch of government, but I do advocate turning the conversation to an advantage for the conservative side - always.

Permalink for this entry: http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2007/04/newt-gingrich-and-left.html

Trackback URL for this entry:
http://haloscan.com/tb/txwise/4183851223298429609


Technorati Tags: Newt Gingrich Senator John Kerry Global Warming Environment Debate Republican Democrat Conservative Liberal

Targeting Illegal Immigration: It’s Just the Biggest Market

We traditionalists seem to be preaching to the choir while we practice more hand-wringing over our constantly unanswered question: Why is it that our government seems so unconcerned about this massive invasion of illegal immigrants?

Here’s the simple answer. It’s all about numbers: money, power, and population growth!!! The Hispanics have it and they are taking control. The business sector knows it, the political parties know it, and the rest of us are just waking up to these facts of life.

Note: The word “Hispanic” is a term denoting a derivation from Spain, its people and culture. It follows the same style of use as Anglo, which indicates a derivation of England and the English. . . . It is therefore not a racial term, although as used in the United States it often carries racial connotations. The term was first adopted in the United States by the administration of Richard Nixon[1] and has since been used as a broad form of classification in the U.S. census, local and federal employment, mass media, and business market research.

The problem with Hispanic market research is that there is no ethical concern as to whether the Hispanic populations they are targeting are U.S. citizens, legal immigrants, or illegal aliens, as long as they are spending disposable income. And the Hispanic population as a whole has plenty to spend. Additionally, much of the Hispanic population is in sympathy with the “plight” of the illegal immigrants.

If it wasn’t so sad it would be amusing to watch the antics of both the Democratic and Republican parties in their feeble attempts to pander to the growing Hispanic clout. It’s obvious that both parties are playing the appeasement game – a game always played by the weak and defeated. Democrats, the most obvious of the panderers, expect to substantially enlarge their base with the “undying loyalty” of the high birth rate low income new immigrants. The legal status of these immigrants matters little to the Democrats. They foresee an open-border sort of non-nation multicultural America of the future where every culture will prosper in their balkanized socialistic utopia. Utopia for the left means destroying every last vestige of nationhood and keeping divisive racial fires burning.

The Republicans, the more pragmatic of the two parties, are literally banking on capitalism through globalization and privatization as a way to ensure America’s economic growth by focusing on Hispanic economic clout. Once most of our government has been successfully globalized and privatized, it really won’t matter what we call this piece of ground, or what language we speak. Basically, this once proud nation will be just another multicultural market place that the Republicans intend to control. Republicans know that Utopia is a myth and they don’t care a hoot about race as long as disposable income remains the only unifying force of the land.

But what about the great majority of American citizens who have expressed their grave concerns about illegal immigration to their legislators and to congress, don’t we matter? Isn’t it important that our laws be obeyed instead of rewarding law-breakers who have violated our borders? Isn’t our language worth protecting? Isn’t our American history and culture worth saving from hordes of illegal immigrants who have no intention of assimilation, and who have demonstrated that our laws only apply to us “Nationalistic” suckers who call ourselves “U.S. Citizens”?

The answer is pretty clear. No, friends, we don’t matter much any more. If what we think about this great nation did matter, we would have plenty of voices in congress and in our state legislatures echoing what We The People are demanding. Our law-abiding voices have fallen upon deaf ears.

It’s really all up to us now – each of us acting individually. It’s not enough to blog every day and to feel oh so self-satisfied that we have reached a few like-minded people that actually did bother to read our entire post. We’ve got to make our demands known to our elected officials every day. We’ve got to contact the media every day and demand that our voices be heard. We’ve got to be out there talking to people every day. We’ve go to make a lot of noise every single day.

For those of us who are too timid or too complacent to bother, here are a few facts that spell out how this nation’s demographics are changing and will drastically change in the next few years:

Hispanics: Minority group with most disposable income
The Selig Center for Economic Growth recently released its annual report, "The Multicultural Economy," that showed Hispanic spending power in 2007 is $863 billion in 2007, the most of any other minority group and up 300 percent since 1990 -- according to an article on RTO.com. . .

Undocumented immigrant labor currently accounts for an estimated 5-8 percent of the total U.S. workforce. One million of the 2.5 million new jobs created in the U.S. in 2004 went to immigrants. Over 56 percent of all immigrant workers in the U.S. are Hispanic (37 percent of these workers are Mexican). . .

Read THE BUSINESS CASE FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM (Talking Points)

This is from Hispanic Trending (A Latino Marketing & Advertising Blog)

ATHENS, Ga. - Disposable income controlled by minorities will continue growing at a faster rate than that of white households at least through 2009, according to a study released by the University of Georgia . . .

There is some good news to report.
Second- and third-generation Hispanics tend to favor English

Advertisers' efforts to reach Hispanic consumers are becoming more targeted, and language is a major factor, according to a new U.S. Hispanic Media Market: Projections to 2010 report issued by HispanTelligence®, the research division of Hispanic Business Inc.

· Advertisers spent more than $3.3 billion to market products to U.S. Hispanics in 2005, a 6.8 percent increase from 2004.
· While traditionally Spanish-language advertising was used to reach Hispanics, new data indicate second- and third-generation Hispanics tend to favor English.
· As a result, ad spending growth in some sectors of the U.S. Hispanic market is slowing as advertisers debate which Hispanic demographic to target.

"The shift in language preference is forcing advertisers to look beyond the monolinguistic and homogeneous stereotypes of Hispanic consumers," states Juan Solana, Chief Economist at HispanTelligence®. "Advertisers are becoming more aware of the complexity of this demographic and are refining their messaging to ensure relevance."

The U.S. Hispanic Media Market: Projections to 2010 report highlights the latest research on the top Hispanic DMAs, the top advertisers in the Hispanic market, purchasing power by language preference, and top Hispanic ad agencies, as well as trends in radio, television, print, and Internet advertising to reach Hispanics. The report can be purchased online at U.S. Hispanic Media Market: Projections to 2010

As a result, the media landscape has begun to change, with new publications and television networks, like Sí TV, aimed at the English-speaking and bilingual Hispanic consumer. FOX and ABC, today, the third and fourth most-watched television networks, are in front of Univision's sister Spanish-language station, TeleFutura. Future growth will come from the acculturating segments within the Hispanic population, not just from the recent arrivals, who tend to be Spanish-language dominant, and who have characterized the paradigm for so long.

If this is the case, it's worth noting that businesses and corporations that continue to force Spanish as a primary means of communication can only be targeting the new and mostly illegal arrivals.

The Latino Small-Business Boom
Hispanics in the United States are opening businesses at a rate that is three times as fast as the national average, according to a report by the U.S. Census Bureau. . .

A June 2002 Zogby poll of Mexicans found that a substantial majority of Mexican citizens believe that southwestern America is rightfully the territory of Mexico and that Mexicans do not need the permission of the U.S. to enter. The poll found that 58 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement, "The territory of the United States' southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico." Zogby said 28 percent disagreed, while another 14 percent said they weren't sure.percent said they weren't sure.

Read Chicano Nationalism, Revanchism and the Aztlan Myth

Note: Revanchism (from French revanche, "revenge") is a term used since the 1870s to describe a political manifestation of the will to reverse territorial losses incurred by a country, often following a war. Revanchism draws its strength from patriotic and retributionist thought and is often motivated by economic or geo-political factors. Extreme revanchist ideologues often represent a hawkish stance, suggesting that desired objectives can be reclaimed in the positive outcome of another war. . . .
Modern revanchist politics often center around certain areas of historic competition and claims of ownership, as in the case of Carpathian Ruthenia and Israel/Palestine. As part of the recurring immigration debates in the United States, anti-illegal immigration groups have raised the specter of a "reconquista" (reconquest) of the American Southwest by Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. Much of the Southwest was originally part of Mexico, prior to being annexed by the United States in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. There has never been a significant movement among Mexicans or Mexican-Americans to return the conquered lands to Mexico, although anti-illegal immigration groups have argued that there is an erasure of the borders between these two countries due to massive immigration and separatist sentiments allegedly held by new immigrants. Statements made by the National Council of La Raza about "resettling" the mythical kingdom of Aztlan have helped to make the immigration debate more tense still.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revanchism

Trackposted to third world county, Faultline USA, stikNstein... has no mercy, Adam's Blog, Common Folk Using Common Sense, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, and thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Additionally Trackposted to Blue Star Chronicles, and The Random Yak, and http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2007/01/slow-capitulation.html”>Vanishing American