Monday, April 24, 2006

IMMIGRATION DEBATE: PARTE DOS

Speaking before a throng of illegal immigration supporters, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) proclaimed that the current immigration debate “goes to the heart of who we are as Americans.” His words were immediately translated into Spanish. No doubt the irony was lost on the senator, as I am certain it is lost on a great many politicians now salivating at the sight of so many potential voters.

The debate is filled with irony. A recent Wall Street Journal editorial described those demanding a no nonsense immigration policy as narrow minded, exclusionary and visionless. A Republican attempt to stem the flow of illegal immigrants is a missed opportunity to curry favor with Latino voters. Mind you, this rather Democratic sounding rebuke came from the right wing. Of course, what one continues to hear from the left is that to demand secure borders is to be racist, xenophobic, and a lot of other bad names one can’t print and shouldn’t say in polite company, which isn’t ironic at all.

The irony of course is borne of obfuscation. We know for instance that the thousands attending rallies around the nation are protesting an immigration bill that would fund the building of a fence across 700 miles of our southern border and make being in the country illegally a felony. But what is it they are advocating? A quick peek:

    * Immediate amnesty for 11.5 million current illegal immigrants

    * Demilitarization of our border

    * Unfettered access to tax-payer funded health care, education and food stamps.

    * An end to sanctions for businesses employing illegal workers

    * No on site enforcement of immigration laws

    * Voting rights

    * Drivers licenses


The irony is that Americans haven’t risen in mass demonstrations. Who is it that is truly narrow-minded, nationalist, and bigoted? Those demanding their representatives protect their property and the sovereignty of their nation or those that march in the streets flying a foreign flag, demanding privileges they have no right to from a people they apparently do not wish to become?

The argument has truly been turned on its head. Witness the now universal usage of the term “undocumented workers” as if it were just a matter of finding time in a hectic schedule to go down to the local post office and fill out the paperwork. Or the manner in which the debate has been framed. Above the din of the thousands chanting at immigration rallies across the nation, one hears the cry that this nation was built on the backs of immigrants, we are a nation of immigrants and soulless without them. Some of the rhetoric is true. America was founded by immigrants and immigrants to this nation - both willing and unwilling - have contributed much to American culture and history. However, the heated debate in which we now find ourselves bears no relation to Ellis Island. We are not discussing absorbing immigrants fleeing oppression or famine, or even whether we are accepting too many immigrants from a particular region. The issue is the right of a sovereign people to decide the manner and place of migration across its borders. Americans are not opposed to immigration. They are opposed to illegal immigration. It was not upon this rock that our nation was built.

The large numbers of Hispanics marching in the streets is sure to make politicians on both sides of the aisle break out in a cold sweat. They must remember, however, that they are not charged with creating an immigration policy to appease Mexicans or even Mexican Americans. As the people’s representatives, they are charged with protecting the liberty and property of this nation’s citizens. Policy that does not seek that end is against the call of government and is a betrayal of the people government is charged with serving.

In Spanish that is: Americanos primero!


J. Phillips: He Talk Like A White BoyJoseph C. Phillips is an accomplished actor and writer, starring in numerous television shows and major motion pictures throughout his career including The Cosby Show, General Hospital, The District and Without A Trace among others and was a three time NAACP Image Award Nominee for his portrayal of Attorney Justus Ward on the Daytime Drama General Hospital.

As a writer Mr. Phillips has had essays published in Newsweek, Los Angeles Daily News, Essence Magazine, Upscale, USA Today, Turning Point, College Digest, BET.com as well as many more, too numerous to list. This author is a Staff Columnist for TheRealityCheck.org. The opinions expressed in this column represent those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or philosophy of TheRealityCheck.org

THE ANTI-CINDY SHEEHAN

Thursday’s guest on Hannity & Colmes was Laura Youngblood, known as the “anti-Cindy Sheehan” for confronting Sheehan at a TV interview in which Youngblood was a member of the studio audience. Her husband, Navy Corpsman Travis Youngblood, was killed less than a year ago in Iraq. At the time of the meeting, Mrs. Youngblood had one small child and another on the way.

As they conversed, Cindy told Laura, one week before her baby was born and a month and a half after her husband was killed, that “Your children are fatherless for a lie.”

Watch the video (thanks to Expose the Left)

Laura Youngblood

What Mrs. Youngblood didn’t answer well was Alan Colmes’ question, “Can you support the troops and be against this war?”
The answer: NO. Here’s why:

This is a just war. The “just war doctrine” outlined by the Catholic Church is this:

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Operation Iraqi Freedom meets all these criteria.

Other reasons given for opposition to the war usually includes that US Soldiers and innocent civilians are dying, that Pres. Bush lied about the premise for war (i.e., Iraq’s objective to obtain uranium from Niger), and that America is an imperialistic empire (when the president is Republican) that Saddam never had WMDs, and that there was no link between al-Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden and Saddam and that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

These arguments are false. Thanks in large part to the ongoing release of the Saddam Tapes, Iraqi documents and accounts from former Iraqis like GEN Georges Sada and scientist Khidhir Hamza, we have evidence that Saddam was pursuing a WMD program, he was connected with al-Qaeda and that the President did not “lie” when he reported that Saddam pursued uranium.

Still, Cindy Sheehan has said:

“Iraq DID NOT have WMD’s; Iraq WAS NOT linked to Al Qaeda and 9/11; Iraq WAS NOT a threat or danger to America. How can these moms who still support George Bush and his insane war in Iraq want more innocent blood shed just because their sons or daughters have been killed? I am starting to lose a little compassion for them. I know they have been as brainwashed as the rest of America.”

If that were not enough, the troops on the ground support the mission. Soldiers report something very different than those like Sheehan who oppose the war; that is, it is not a quagmire and liberation has come to Iraq. Misinformation and lies perpetuated by media and anti-war activists damage any possibility for there to be honest disagreement.

The premise to argue the legitimacy or illegitimacy of this war would have to be this: Are American lives more valuable than Iraqi lives? Aren’t Iraqis worth saving? Aren’t Americans allowed to freely join the military to defend the less fortunate?

Compare notes on these subjects:

“Bush is a terrorist”

CINDY: “We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We’re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!”

Osama Bin Laden: “We believe that the biggest thieves in the world are Americans and the biggest terrorists on earth are the Americans.”

“Bush is a liar”

CINDY: “That lying bastard, George Bush, is taking a five-week vacation in time of war.”

Ayman al-Zawahiri: “Bush, the liar, was forced to announce in November 2005 that he would withdraw his troops from Iraq. Since Bush is addicted to lying, he justified his withdrawal by saying that Iraqi forces have become well-trained.”

“Bush spreading freedom and democracy”

CINDY: “If George Bush believes his rhetoric and his bullsh**, that this is a war for freedom and democracy, that he is spreading freedom and democracy, does he think every person he kills makes Iraq more free? If he thinks that it’s so important for Iraq to have a U.S.-imposed sense of freedom and democracy, then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls. They need to go to this war.”

Ayman al-Zawahiri: “My Muslim nation, you will not enjoy free elections, protected sanctity, governments which are being called to account by the people and a respectable judiciary unless you are free from the crusader-Zionist occupation and the corrupted governments, and this will not be fulfilled but with Jihad.”

“Bush wants oil”

CINDY: “Are we supporting our troops dying and innocent Iraqi people being killed for oil and greed?”

Aljazeera: “Long before the September 11 attacks, Bush’s administration made plans for oil and war on Iraq. Days after this administration was incepted, a conflict has taken place inside the White House between the neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, and a combination of “Big Oil” executives and U.S. State Department “pragmatists” on the other.

In his book, “Against all Enemies,” Richard A. Clarke mentions that Bush Senior was always thinking of ways in which he can put a direct hand on Iraqi oil, until Bush Junior holds office and fulfils his father’s dream in 2003.”

“Bush and Zionism”

CINDY: “Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by George [W.] Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11.”

Ayman al-Zawahiri: “O, Bush, the son of Bush, you should know that in spite of you, and even if it means you die of your frustration and lose your mind, removing Israel is an individual duty on every Muslim.

“America is not worth dying for”

CINDY: “America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for…”

Travis YoungbloodAmerica is not worth dying for… Cindy Sheehan, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and terrorist all agree. They throw away Americanism to side with our enemies, almost verbatim. This is why they do not support the troops. Nor do they care about Iraqi civilians. Cindy Sheehan and those who believe like her are rogues.

“Can you support the troops and be against this war?” Not like that. If you don’t think our enemies are listening, think again. They are. The problem is that both Sheehanites and our enemies are on the same sheet of music, endorsing the same anti-American propaganda. Anti-war activism is not a sincere, genuine movement based on fact.

Mrs. Youngblood was right about this: the best way to support the troops is to honor their memory and carry out their wishes. The best way to honor the fallen is not to politicize a legitimate war effort legally carried out by an all volunteer military. It is to support the amazing work these soldiers and our President have done in Iraq to bring freedom to a people who would otherwise still be living under Saddam Hussein.

Thank you, Petty Officer 3rd Class Travis Levy Youngblood, for your service to America and Iraq. We support you.