Ever notice how often the main stream media publish the results of a poll as proof of some assertion they’ve made? Ever think that, just maybe, the MSM has created the poll to create news that supports their claims?

Polls are only surveys of people’s opinions or actions. They are not scientific in anyway, are definitely not authoritative, and are, by reputation, not particularly accurate. But it never fails that a news release cites a poll’s results as support for some precept.

Then there is that "margin of error" that is a variable intended to be employed when the results are near equal and can, with a few fractions of a point or two more or less, be made to support that which it actually condemns, even if slightly.

Political campaigns, especially those of the democratic persuasion, create and use polls to their exclusive benefit also. The campaign for the democratic nomination for president by the female Senator from New York, used tactical polling to insure that the candidate was aware of the issues important to the voters in the areas she was to visit. Weeks before the planned visit by the candidate, polling groups were sent ahead to survey the population as to their concerns, wishes, and hopes in the election. When a substantial number of replies had been collected, they would return to the campaign headquarters and brief the candidate on these results, and her talking points for her speeches to those in that area were adjusted, changed outright, and even new positions created in order to allow the candidate to promise everyone everything they want in every town to be visited. Ahhh, the sweet belief in polls. Ain’t it great?

Then there are the poll bouncers. Those groups who are organized to either answer the poll questions in an effort to skew the results, or to intimidate the pollsters into packing up and quitting. What a great country that allows dissent in such a way. Intimidation, fraud, and collusion are the tools of the liberal campaign trade.

 The best, most accurate polling method I’ve ever seen is used exclusively by Frank Luntz. You know, the one where an audience turns a knob to indicate approval or disapproval while listening to a recording or video. There is no opportunity to manipulate, and no margin for error. The results are an accurate, immediate portrayal of the respondents feelings on what they are seeing or hearing, or both.

As a critical, conservative thinker, take any poll with a shovel of salt, except the Luntz fella. Besides, his method always shows that conservatives rule. Or almost always anyway.

Glenn Flowers

There is no doubt in the minds of most Americans that Congress is not acting in the best interest of we, the People. In fact, the exact opposite is true. They pass useless laws that take more and more of the pay from the People every year and they line their own and their supporter’s pockets. They illegally seek and gain control of federal agencies, fail to act on business in a timely manner per the Constitution, and they force their control and their policies on the People. They cater to minority fringe groups like environmentalists, special interests, and extreme political causes. And the reason they do all this ? It’s all about winning the game folks.

These politicians are, mostly, wealthy, high society types who, after succeeding in business, or becoming bored at spending grandpa’s fortune, saw politics as the next challenge to be faced and conquered. It is all about getting into the game, gaining as much power, influence, and money in as short a time as they can, then use all that to change the lives of the People to your own vision of things. In the case of the Democrats, scoring is achieved by ignoring the Constitution and implementing fear, loathing, and subjugation as our only guaranteed rights. They see we, the People, as comical and stupid. In their minds they detest our belief in ourselves and our arrogance for thinking that they work for us. How dare we, little crawley working scum, even think about telling them how to run their country. Who do we think we are? So, they subject we, the People, to as much humiliation as they can muster, steal our rights, destroy our nation, then retire, taking as large a trainload of our taxes with them as they return to their castles.

As an example of how useless and lowly they believe us to be, consider this: I wrote my district representitive (Jerry Lewis) and both senators (Boxer and Feinstein) identical letters telling them their policies were reponsible for the price of fuel, food, health care, prescription drugs, etc., and insisted they remove all impediments to commerce and do whatever is required to allow the immediate exploration, production, and refining of all domestic petroleum resources posthaste. Guess what their replies were.

Boxer proudly provided me a list of the very same policies and regulations that have shown to be so destructive, bragging that they could have been major "accomplishments" if not for the total mismanagement of the economy by Bush. Yeah, Bush is so stupid he can’t even talk right. Right?

Jerry Lewis, republican representitve from CA, also sent me a triteful note saying he didn’t care much for the windfall profit tax, (how noble) and he would continue advocating anything that would help the People and not be harmful. Huh? Harmful to what? In what way? You mean harmful like carbon? Like oil spill? Like nitrous oxide? Or do you mean safe enough to use daily? Who knows? Not me. And evidently, not Mr. Lewis either.

Ms. Feinstein did not even bother herself with a reply to me, being too busy hosting Ovomit for dinner, I hear.

Not one of my elected congressional representitves addressed the topic of my letter to them. They just scribbled out a couple of worn out campaign promises they wanted me to believe they were still working on, and went on with their game. After all, Pelosi has really grown a big pair of brass ones and will be very hard to catch, must less overtake in the war against we, the People.

Glenn Flowers

This is a talk in Europe given by Serge Trifkovic at the Antijihad Conference in Vienna on May 10-11, taken from Gates of Vienna.

"Europe today is a powder keg," Otto von Bismarck remarked , "and the leaders are like men smoking in an arsenal."

I am not going to waste your time tonight with yet another treatise on why Islam is not the Religion of Peace, Tolerance, Compassion, etc, etc. We are beyond that. Had America agonized, in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, whether Shinto was actually OK but only Bushido was bad, the Greater Asian Co-prosperity Sphere would be going strong to this day. Among reasonable people, unblinkered by the dicta of political correctitude, the real score on Muhammad and his followers is well known. It has been known for centuries. That score, however, no matter how calmly stated and comprehensively supported, invariably elicits the howls of "Islamophobia" from the neoliberal elite class.

AN EMINENTLY POSTMODERN LITTLE PHOBIA

In the way of an introduction, let us therefore look at the formal, legally tested definition of that word, the latest addition to the arsenal of postmodern "phobias." It is provided by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) based here in Vienna. ("Orwellian" is a worn-out adjective, but it simply has to be used in connection with this particular institution.)

The EUMC diligently tracks the instances of "Islamophobia" all over the Old Continent, which it defines by eight red flags:

1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
   
2. Islam is seen as separate and "Other."
   
3. Islam is seen as inferior to the West, barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
   
4. Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, linked to terrorism, engaged in a clash of civilizations.
   
5. Islam is seen as a political ideology.
   
6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.
   
7. Discriminatory practices and Muslims' exclusion from mainstream society are advocated.
   
8. Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.

This definition is obviously intended to preclude any possibility of meaningful discussion of Islam. As it happens,

1. That Islam is static and unresponsive to change is evident from the absence of an internal, orthodox critique of jihad, sharia, jizya, etc. As Clement Huart pointed out back in 1907, "Until the newer conceptions, as to what the Koran teaches as to the duty of the believer towards non-believers, have spread further and have more generally leavened the mass of Moslem belief and opinion, it is the older and orthodox standpoint on this question which must be regarded by non-Moslems as representing Mohammedan teaching and as guiding Mohammedan action." A century later his diagnosis still stands: it is not the jihadists who are "distorting" Islam; the would-be reformers are.
   
2. That Islam is separate from our Western, Christian, European culture and civilization, and "other" than our culture and civilization, is a fact that will not change even if Europe eventually succumbs to the ongoing jihadist demographic onslaught.
   
3. Whether Islam is "inferior to the West" is a matter of opinion, of course. That Islam cannot create a prosperous, harmonious, stable, creative, and attractive human society is not. Whether Islam is "barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist" is at least debatable; but that many of its tangible fruits are so, is all too painfully visible.
   
4. Islam is seen by so many as "violent, aggressive, supportive of terrorism" not because of some irrational "phobia" in the feverish mind of the beholder, but because (a) of the clear mandate of its scripture; (b) of the record of its 14 centuries of historical practice; and above all (c) of the timeless example of its founder.
   
5. "Islam is seen as a political ideology," and it should be seen as one, because its key trait is a political program to improve man and create a new society; to impose complete control over that society; and to train cadres ready and eager to spill blood. This makes Islam closer to Bolshevism and to National Socialism than to any other religion. It breeds a gnostic paradigm within which the standard response to the challenge presented by "the Other," i.e. non-Muslim societies and cultures, is implacable hostility and violence, or violent intent.
   
6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam should not be rejected out of hand; they should be understood. Its chief "criticism" of the West-and of every other non-Islamic culture or tradition-is that it is infidel, and therefore undeserving of existence.
   
7. A priori hostility towards Islam should not be "used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims." Quite the contrary, an education campaign about the teaching and practice of Islam should result in legislative action that would exclude Islam from the societies it is targeting - not because it is an intolerant "religion," but because it is an inherently seditious totalitarian ideology incompatible with the values of the West.
   
8. And finally, while anti-Muslim hostility is not a priori "natural or normal," the desire of non-Muslims to defend their lands, families, cultures and faith against Islamic aggression is "natural and normal"; but the elite class is actively trying to neutralize it.

As the demand for Sharia-based communal self-rule is made with increasing frequency in the banlieus of Paris and the grim West Midlands council estates, Europe's elite class is ready to throw in the towel. Dutch Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner-a Christian Democrat!-sees the demand as perfectly legitimate and argues that sharia could be introduced "by democratic means." Muslims have a right to follow the commands of their religion, even if that included some "dissenting rules of behavior": "Could you block this legally? It would also be a scandal to say 'this isn't allowed'! The majority counts. That is the essence of democracy…"

GUILT-RIDDEN FELLOW-TRAVELLERS

Such inanities are light years away from Winston Churchill's warning, over a century ago, that "no stronger retrograde force exists in the world" than Islam:

Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science-the science against which it had vainly struggled-the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

Even Churchill's prescience could not envisage the possibility that the invader would find his fellow-travellers at No. 10, Downing Street, at the European Union headquarters in Brussels, and in dozens of chancelleries and palaces across the Old Continent. Their joint efforts are helping change the face of Europe. The cumulative effect is not in doubt: by 2050, Muslims will account for over one-third of "Old Europe's" young residents. Millions of them already live in a parallel universe that has very little to do with the host country, toward which they have a disdainful and hostile attitude.

The elite class responds to such hostility with calls for ever-greater inclusiveness. Giuseppe Pisanu, Berlusconi's former minister of the interior, responsible for controlling the country's borders, thus declared five years ago that the high fatality rate of North African illegals on the high seas en route to Sicily was "a dreadful tragedy that weighs on the conscience of Europe." His view was paradigmatic of the utopian liberal mind-set. If "Europe" should feel shame and guilt that people who have no right to come to its shores are risking their lives while trying to do so illegally, then only the establishment of a free passenger-ferry service between Tripoli and Palermo-with no passport or customs formalities required upon arrival, and a free shuttle to Rome or Milan-would offer some relief to that burdened conscience. And Sr Pisanu is supposedly a man of the "Right"!

The tangible results of the leaders' moral decrepitude are devastating. A century ago, Sr. Pisanu and his class shared social commonalities that could be observed in Monte Carlo, Carlsbad, Biaritz or Paris, depending on the season. Englishmen, Russians, and Austrians shared the same outlook and sense of propriety, they all spoke French, but they nevertheless remained rooted in their national traditions, the permanent vessels in which Weltanschauung could be translated into Kultur. Today's "United Europe," by contrast, does not create social and civilizational commonalities except on the basis of wholesale denial of old mores, disdain for inherited values, and an overt rejection of "traditional" culture. It creates the dreary sameness of "antidiscriminationism" and "tolerance."

Such weakness breeds contempt and haughty arrogance on the other side. Take Tariq Ramadan, who calmly insists that Muslims in the West should conduct themselves as though they were already living in a Muslim-majority society and were exempt on that account from having to make concessions to the faith of the host-society. Muslims in Europe should feel entitled to live on their own terms, Ramadan says, while, "under the terms of Western liberal tolerance," society as a whole should be "obliged to respect that choice."

If such "respect" continues to be extended by the elite class, by the end of this century there will be no "Europeans" as members of ethnic groups that share the same language, culture, history, and ancestors, and inhabit lands associated with their names. The shrinking native populations will be indoctrinated into believing-or else simply forced into accepting-that the demographic shift in favor of unassimilable and hostile aliens is actually a blessing that enriches their culturally deprived and morally unsustainable societies. The "liberal tolerance" and the accompanying "societal obligation" that Tariq Ramadan invokes thus become the tools of Western suicide. "No other race subscribes to these moral principles," Jean Raspail wrote a generation ago, "because they are weapons of self-annihilation." The weapons need to be discarded, and the upholders of those deadly "principles" removed from all positions of power and influence, if Europe is to survive.

THE PATHOLOGY OF THE ELITE CLASS

It is in the inability and unwillingness of the neoliberal elite class to confront the grave threat to our civilization that Western Europe and North America most tellingly certify that they share the same cultural chromosomes. In 1938 Hilaire Belloc wondered, "Will not perhaps the temporal power of Islam return and with it the menace of an armed Muhammadan world which will shake the dominion of Europeans-still nominally Christian-and reappear again as the prime enemy of our civilization?"

Seven decades later, the same traits of decrepitude are present in Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Scandinavia, Canada, and the United States, including both the primary cause, which is the loss of religious faith, and several secondary ones. Topping the list is elite hostility to all forms of solidarity of the majority population based on shared historical memories, ancestors, and common culture; the consequences are predictable:

* the loss of a sense of place and history among Europeans and North Americans;
* rapid demographic decline, especially in Europe, unparalleled in history;
* rampant Third World (and in Europe, overwhelmingly Muslim) immigration;
* collapse of private and public manners, morals, and traditional commonalities;
* imposition of "diversity," "multiculturalism," "sensitivity"; and
* demonization and criminalization of any opposition to any of the above.

The end-result is the Westerners' loss of the sense of propriety over their lands. Before 1914, both the West and the Muslim world could define themselves against each other in a cultural sense. The neoliberal elite insists on casting aside any idea of a specifically "Western" geographic and cultural space that should be protected from those who do not belong to it and have no rightful claim to it. The elite insists that our countries belong to the whole world.

We face an elite consensus that de facto open immigration, multiculturalism, and the existence of a large Muslim diaspora within the Western world are to be treated as a fixed and immutable fact that must not be scrutinized. That consensus, I contend, is ideological in nature, flawed in logic, dogmatic in application, and disastrous in its results. It needs to be tested against evidence, and not against the alleged norms of acceptable public discourse imposed by those who do not know Islam, or else do not want us to know the truth about it.

In addition, a depraved mass culture and multiculturalist indoctrination in state schools and the mainstream media have already largely neutralized the sense of historical and cultural continuity among young West Europeans and North Americans. By contrast, the blend of soft porn and consumerism that targets every denizen of the Western world has not had the same effect on the Muslim diaspora in the West. The roll-call of Western-born and educated young Muslims supportive of terrorism confirms that failure.

The loss of a sense of place and history experienced by millions of Westerners follows the emergence of two sides of the same coin: a neoliberal post-national hyper-state in Europe and the neoconservative "benevolent global hegemony" in the U.S. epitomized by the demand for an ever-growing NATO. These two mindsets, seemingly at odds, are but two aspects of the same emerging globalized universe, two sides of the same coin. The neoliberals advocate multilateralism in the form of an emerging "international community" framed by the United Nations and adjudicated by the International Criminal Court (ICC), with the EU acting as an interim medium for transferring sovereign prerogatives to a supra-national body; the neocons prefer to be the only cop in town. Both share the same distaste for traditional, naturally evolving societies and cultures.

The revolutionary character of the multiculturalist project is revealed in the endless mantra of Race, Gender and Sexuality, the formula now elevated to the status of the post-modern Philosopher's Stone, the force that moves the linear historical process forward, towards the grand Gleichschaltung of nations, races, and cultures that will mark the end of history. Race, Gender and Sexuality have replaced the Proletariat as both the oppressed underclass (hence the cult of the non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual victimhood), and as the historically preordained agent of revolutionary change.

Classical Marxist political economy found the dynamics of revolution in the inevitable conflict between the owners of the means of production and the proletariat that has nothing to sell but its labor and nothing to lose but its chains. Latter-day Marxist revolutionaries go beyond dialectical materialism, however, by introducing a wholly metaphysical concept of victimhood and an array of associated special-rights claims that have worked such wonders for Islam all over the Western world. Majority populations of "old" Europe and America, in this insane but all-pervasive paradigm, are guilty of "oppression" by their very existence, and therefore must not protest the migratory deluge, let alone try to oppose it: that is "racism.".

The fruits are with us already. Gibbon could have had today's Antwerp or Malmo in mind, or Marseilles, or Huddersfield, when he wrote of Rome in decline, its masses morphing "into a vile and wretched populace." On present form, within a century the native Western majorities will melt away: "child-free" is a legitimate yuppie lifestyle term, on par with "fat-free" and "drug-free." But whereas the threat of extinction of an exotic tribal group in Borneo or Amazonia - let alone a species of spotted owl or sperm whale - would cause alarm and prompt activism among neoliberal elites, it is deemed inherently racist to mention the fact that Europeans and their trans-Atlantic cousins are, literally, endangered species.

There will be no grand synthesis, no civilizational cross-fertilization, between the West and Islam. Even the ultra-tolerant Dutch are beginning to see the light, pace Geert Wilders, but they are hamstrung by guilt-ridden self-haters and appeasers, whose hold on the political power, the media, and the academe is undemocratic, unnatural, and obscene. If Europe is to survive they need to be unmasked for what they are: traitors to their nations and their culture. They must be replaced by people ready and willing to subject the issues of immigration and identity to the test of democracy, unhindered by administrative or judicial fiat.

If the coming war against jihad is to be won, the first task is to start talking frankly about the identity and character of the enemy and the nature of the threat. The obligation to do so is dictated by morality no less than by the need for self-preservation. "If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles," says Sun Tzu. Well, we know the enemy. We know his core beliefs, his role models, his track-record, his mindset, his modus operandi, and his intentions. We also know his weaknesses, which are many, above all his inability to develop a prosperous economy or a functional, harmonious society.

The main problem is with ourselves; or, to be precise, with those among us who have the power to make policy and shape opinions, and who will reject and condemn our diagnosis. Having absorbed postmodernist relativism, certain only of uncertainty, devoid of any faith except the faith in their own infallibility, members of the Western neoliberal elite class treat the jihadist mindset as a problem that can and should be treated by treating causes external to Islam itself.

The result is a plethora of proposed "cures" that are as likely to succeed in making us safe from terrorism as snake oil is likely to cure leukemia.

Abroad, we are told, we need to address political and economic grievances of the Muslim impoverished masses, we need to spread democracy and free markets in the Muslim world, we need to invest more in public diplomacy. At home we need more tolerance, greater inclusiveness, less profiling, and a more determined outreach to the minorities that feel marginalized. The predictable failure of such cures leads to ever more pathological self-scrutiny and to ever more morbid self-doubt. This vicious circle must be broken.

BREAKING THE DEADLOCK

The deadlock on the Somme in 1916, or at Verdun a year later, could not be broken with the ideas and modus operandi of Messrs. Haig, Foch, Cadrona or Hindenburg. It could have been unlocked, however, had Lidell-Hart, de Gaulle, or Guderian held the old guard's ranks and positions. Winning a war demands "knowing the enemy and knowing oneself," of course, but it also demands "thinking outside the box." This cliché is apt: the magnitude of the threat demands radical responses that fall outside the cognitive parameters of the elite class.

Let us therefore start our specific policy recommendations with the complex and emotionally charged issue of "human rights" versus national security.

DEFINING ISLAMIC ACTIVISM - Instead of seeking a ban on all Muslim immigration right away, which is not a realistic goal at this moment, Western anti-jihadist activists should campaign for changes in immigration legislation of their home countries to include clauses that would exclude Islamic activists before they come, and have them deported if they are already infiltrated into the country.

This demand needs to be made acceptable and attractive to a wide cross-section of the electorate regardless of political and ideological preferences. Therefore it should be focused on the Islamic activists' threat to the neoliberal values themselves:

* Discrimination against other religions (with special emphasis on the rising European phenomenon of Islamic anti-Semitism), outlooks (inc. atheism) and lifestyles;
* Discrimination and violence against women (esp. wives and "disobedient" daughters);
* Discrimination and violence against homosexuals;
* Threats of violence in any form and for whatever alleged "offense" or "insult" (e.g. drawing cartoons, making documentaries, writing books);
* Apology or justification for all of the above.

It is essential to focus on the despicable acts themselves, and then drawing the direct line to the commands of Islam's scripture and its founder, rather than doing it in reverse, as some well-meaning but politically less astute anti-jihadist activists do.

This definition of Islamic activism would be a major step in the direction of denying actual or potential jihadists a foothold in Europe and the rest of the West. In the U.S. the broad model is provided by the old 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA, the McCarran-Walter Act), mandating the exclusion or deportation of any alien who engaged or had purpose to engage in activities prejudicial to the public interest or subversive to national security. "Ideological" grounds for deportation were on the US statute books until 1990, when they were repealed by Congress. After the Russian revolution foreign communists were singled out for deportation. One night alone in January of 1920, more than 2,500 "alien radicals" were seized in thirty-three cities across the country and deported to their countries of origin.

DENYING CITIZENSHIP TO ISLAMIC ACTIVISTS -- I submit to you that all Western countries need laws that will treat any naturalized citizen's or legally resident alien's known adherence to an Islamist world outlook as excludable - on political, rather than "religious" grounds. It is politically feasible to articulate the demand that citizenship of a democratic Western country should be denied to all Islamic activists.

In the United States a foreigner who becomes naturalized has to declare, on oath, "that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic." A declaration of this kind, of not a solemn oath of allegiance, is expected from naturalized citizens in most European countries.

For a Muslim to declare all of the above in good faith, and especially that he accepts an "infidel," i.e. non-Muslim document or law as the source of his highest loyalty, is an act of apostasy par excellence, punishable by death under the Islamic law. The sharia, to a Muslim, is not an addition to the "secular" legal code with which it coexists; it is the only true code, the only basis of obligation. To be legitimate, all political power therefore must rest exclusively with those who enjoy Allah's authority on the basis of his revealed will - and for as long as they remain infidel, both Europe and America are illegitimate. So how can a self-avowedly devout Muslim take the oath, and expect the rest of us to believe that it was done in good faith? Because he is practicing taqiyya, the art of elaborate lying that was inaugurated by Muhammad to help destabilize and undermine non-Muslim communities almost ripe for a touch of Jihad. (Or else because he is not devout enough and confused, but in that case there is the ever-present danger that at some point he will rediscover his roots.)

AUXILLIARY MEASURES - Those who preach or promote jihad and advocate the introduction of sharia can and should be treated in exactly the same manner that adherents of other totalitarian ideologies had been treated in the free world during the Cold War. It will be a long and hard struggle to open the eyes of legislators and legal regulators that Islam itself is a radical, revolutionary ideology, inherently seditious and inimical to Western values and institutions, but it can be done. Other necessary measures would then follow, but to that end anti-jihadists should start articulating and advocating them now:

1. Seek zero porosity of the borders. Preventing illegal immigration is a desirable objective per se; in the context of stopping terrorists it is mandatory. No anti-jihadist strategy is possible without complete physical control of borders. This is an issue on which a majority of the electorate of each and every Western country will agree - much to the chagrin of the liberal elites. Anti-jihadists should insist that all illegal immigration is a major security threat and that it can and should be subject to the letter of the law, and not to the suicidal dictates of the "human rights" lobby.
   
2. Demand mandatory cooperation of state agencies at all levels in identifying, registering and apprehending illegal immigrants and in assisting in their deportation - starting with those from nations and groups at risk for terrorism. It is a curious phenomenon in most Western countries that at various levels of state administration (e.g. welfare officers and social workers) and law enforcement (e.g. police forces in major cities) we encounter varying levels of tolerance, and even encouragement, of illegal immigrants' continued presence in the community. Again, this demand for simple compliance with the law by tax-funded public officers would be politically popular.
   
3. Discard the irrational ban on "profiling." Not all Muslims are terrorists, of course, but all transnational terrorist networks that threaten Western countries' national security and way of life are composed of Muslims. It is time to accept that "profiling" based on a person's appearance, origin, and apparent or suspected beliefs is an essential tool of trade of law enforcement and war on terrorism. Just ask the Israelis!
   
4. Subject the work of Islamic centers to legal limitations and security supervision. All over the Western world, Islamic centers have provided platforms for exhortations to the faithful to support causes and to engage in acts that are morally reprehensible, legally punishable, and detrimental to the host country's national security. They have provided shelter to the outlaws, and offered recruitment to the leaders.
   
5. Treat affiliation with Islamic activism as grounds for denial or revoking of any level of security clearance. Such affiliation is incompatible with the requirements of personal commitment, patriotic loyalty and unquestionable reliability that are essential in the military, law enforcement, intelligence services, and other related branches of government (e.g. immigration control, airport security). Presence of practicing Muslims in any of these institutions would present an inherent risk to its integrity and would undermine morale.

Acceptance of these proposals would represent a new start in devising long-term defense. The proposed measures recognize that we are in a war of ideas and religion, whether we want that or not and however much we hate the fact. They reflect the seriousness of the struggle. This war is being fought, on the Islamic side, with the deep condition that the West is on its last legs. The success of its demographic onslaught on Europe enhances the image of "a candy store with the busted lock," and that view is reinforced by the evidence from history that a civilization that loses the urge for self-perpetuation is indeed in peril.

CAN THE CANDY STORE WITH A BUSTED LOCK BE SAVED?

The above proposals are not only pragmatic, they are morally just. They will elicit the accusation of "discrimination" from the self-hating segments of the elite class, even though no such label is applicable. Targeting people for screening, supervision and exclusion on the basis of their genes would be discriminatory indeed, but doing so because of their beliefs, ideas, actions, and intentions is justified and necessary. Orthodox Islamic beliefs, ideas and intentions as such pose a threat to the European civilization, culture, and way of life.

The elite class rejects this diagnosis, of course, but among reasonable, well-informed citizens the debate must be conducted on terms liberated from the shackles of the elite class. Geert Wilders certainly shows the way. We should act accordingly, and never, ever be afraid of causing controversy. That means being subjected to the threat of legal proceedings by the neoliberal state - or to the threat of death, by those whom the neoliberal state continues to protect to the detriment of its own citizens.

Western leaders did not agonize over communism's "true" nature during the Berlin air lift in 1949, or in Korea in 1950, but acted effectively to contain it by whatever means necessary. Yes, back then we had a legion of Moscow's apologists, character witnesses, moles and fellow-travelers, assuring us that the Comrades want nothing but social justice at home and peaceful coexistence abroad. They held tenured chairs at prestigious universities and dominated all smart salons, from London and Paris to New York. They explained away and justified the inconsistencies and horrifyingly violent implications of the source texts of Marx and Lenin. They explained away and justified the appalling fruits: the bloodbath of the Revolution, the genocidal great famine, the show trials and purges, the killing of millions of innocents in the Gulag, the pact with Hitler, the works.

Today their spiritual heirs in politics, the academy and the media establishment act as Islam's apologists, character witnesses and fellow travelers. They flatly deny or else explain away, with identical scholastic sophistry and moral depravity, the dark and violent implications of the source texts, the Kuran and the Hadith, the deeply unnerving career of Muhammad, and centuries of conquests, wars, slaughters, subjugation, decline without fall, spiritual and material misery, and murderous fanaticism.

NIL DESPERANDUM!

Some eighty years ago Julien Benda published his tirade against the intellectual corruption of his times, The treason of the intellectuals. For generations prior to the 20th century, Benda wrote, members of the Western intellectual elite ensured that "humanity did evil, but honored good." The "Treason" of the title occurred when they gave up promoting lasting civilizational values in favor of short-term political preferences. Benda wrote at a time when fascism, nazism and bolshevism dominated Europe's scene. Today the "treason" of the elite class takes a different form. It upholds the allegedly universal values of multiculturalism, inclusiveness and antidiscriminationism to the detriment of the particular value of our civilization and all its fruits.

The propensity of the elite class to the betrayal of our culture remains the same, however.

The fact that normal people don't realize the magnitude of the problem works to the advantage of the people like Solana, Soros, Blair, Prodi, or Hillary Clinton. Their ideas, which but two generations ago would have been deemed eccentric or insane, now rule the Euro-American mainstream. Only a society inured to the concept of open borders can be unblinkingly told that Islam is good and tolerant, that "we" (the West) have been nasty and unkind to it over the centuries - remember the Crusades! - and that "terrorism" needs to be understood, and cured, by social therapy that is independent of Islam's teaching and practice.

At the root of the domestic malaise is the notion that countries do not belong to the people who have inhabited them for generations, but to whoever happens to be within their boundaries at any given moment in time - regardless of his culture, attitude, or intentions. The resulting random melange of mutually disconnected multitudes is supposed to be a blessing that enriches an otherwise arid and monotonous society.

A further pernicious fallacy is the dictum that we should not feel a special bond for any particular country, nation, race, or culture, but transfer our preferences on the whole world, "the Humanity," equally. Such notions have been internalized by the elite class in America and Western Europe to the point where they actively help Islamic terrorism. In America the process has been under way for decades. By 1999 then-Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott felt ready to declare that the United States may not exist "in its current form" in the 21st century, because the very concept of nationhood - here and throughout the world - will have been rendered obsolete.

A generation earlier such uttering from a senior government official would have caused a scandal. By the end of the 20th century such declarations bothered only the unsophisticates who persist in assuming that the purpose of what Dr. Talbott was doing at the Department of State was to ensure the survival, security and prosperity of the United States within the international system, rather than its eventual absorption by the system. But his was an exultant prophecy, not an impartial assessment. The ideological foundation for Talbott's beliefs was stated bluntly: "All countries are basically social arrangements, accommodations to changing circumstances. No matter how permanent and even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary." To the members of his class, all countries are but transient, virtual-reality entities. Owing emotional allegiance to any one of them is irrational, and risking one's life for its sake is absurd.

The refusal of theWestern elite class to protect their nations from jihadist infiltration is the biggest betrayal in history. It is rooted in the mindset that breeds the claim that "force is not an answer" to terrorism, that profiling is bad and open borders are good, that "true" Islam is peaceful and the West is wicked. The upholders of such claims belong to the culture that has lost its bond with nature, history, and the supporting community. In the meantime, thanks to them, the quiet onslaught continues unabated, across the Straits of Gibraltar, through JFK and O'Hare, Heathrow and Schiphol. Far from enhancing diversity, it threatens to impose a numbing sameness and eradicate the identity of target-populations, to demolish their special character and uniqueness.

That supporting community, the real nation, is still out there, in North America and Europe alike, working and paying taxes and grinning and bearing it. When it is told of Islam's "peace and tolerance," it grumbles about someone's stupidity or ineptitude, but it still does not suspect outright betrayal. The betrayers, meanwhile, promote an ideology of universal human values, of a common culture for the whole world. They may not even realize why they abet Islam. For all the outward differences, they share with the mullahs and sheikhs and imams the desire for a monistic One World. They both long for Talbot's Single Global Authority, post-national and seamlessly standardized, an Ummah under a fancy secular name.

Those Americans and Europeans who love their lands and nations more than any others, and who put their families and their neighborhoods before all others, are normal people. Those who tell them that their attachments should be global and that their lands and neighborhoods belong to the whole world are sick and evil. They are our enemies and jihad's indispensable objective allies.

The elite class, rootless, arrogant, cynically manipulative, has every intention of continuing to "fight" the war on terrorism without naming the enemy, without revealing his beliefs, without unmasking his intentions, without offending his accomplices, without expelling his fifth columnists, and without ever daring to win.

It is up to the millions of normal Europeans and their American cousins to stop the madness. The traitor class wants them to share its death wish, to self-annihilate as people with a historical memory and a cultural identity, and to make room for the post-human, monistic Utopia spearheaded by the jihadist fifth column.

This crime can and must be stopped. The founders of the United States overthrew the colonial government for offenses far lighter than those of which the traitor class is guilty.

Taken with permission from:

http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/can-the-west-be-saved/

We, the working people of this great nation, have, in all sincerity and with faith in your promises, chosen you as our spokesmen and proxies in the process of making laws, insuring their enforcement, and adjudicating the penalty for their violation, all in the most basic of pretexts of your acting for the best interests and security of the country we have all been privileged to call home. An oath was sworn by you to act accordingly and to obey and defend the foundational beliefs as expertly and carefully defined in the constitution. Assuming your dedication to that oath and for which it stands, we, of all political leanings and philosophies shout in unison for an explanation for why your actions seek and result in the detriment of and damage to our nation’s economy, decrease the security from enemy actions, allow the usurping of our influence in the global realm, and generally act for the declination of liberty to pursue the happiness given at birth to all men everywhere? You, the members of congress, have not only failed in your self sworn duty to preserve the rights of your electorate but, in a direct, deliberate manner have sought out every means of larceny, deceit, embezzlement, and misconstruance of the facts of your actions against the people responsible for your being in your coveted positions. Our unanimous question is for what purpose have ye acted so? Is it in objection to your being given our trust and being heavily relied upon ye find so worthy of your felonies? Is it in retaliation for our being so devoted to a higher calling than most men esteem to? Is it a quest for greater reward for your services you offered in your candidacy? Why, in God’s universe why do you endeavor to do such grievous damage to our country and the people therein? What has earned your ire and angst to produce such venomous reward for their trust?

You make it impossible to use our own national resources for our own national interests and then penalize and tax our need to buy the same from other sources. You put into action rewards for the deficient and penalties for any increase in wealth or responsibility. You barricade the access of the citizen to self earned benefits and giving those assets freely to the gently invading but guilty law breakers violating our borders. You raid the till of the people’s money with blatant disavowal of the obvious scrutiny of that public. You actively work against the protection of the people of America from all enemies, preferring to pander to and offer the people as a sacrifice to all takers, be they benign or destructive to those in your care. And you do such abhorrent, destructive deeds, while gouhlishly smiling and telling us lies of it being in our best interest. It is not your responsibility or privelage to determine or attempt to advise the people as to what is in their best interest, rather, it is your sworn duty as representitives to seek the council and determine the wishes of your constituents and act exclusively and with all diligence for the establishment of those wishes as reality in fact. We dictate to you what is in our best interest and you are sworn to act upon such as servants who serve at our authority.

It has become painfully, very painfully evident that you, in elected offices, have abandoned both the people who are the nation ye have sworn to represent and your own sense of responsibility and integrity of duty to your benefactors and are, therefore, deserving of all manner of penalty allowed and demanded as just reward for your guilt of treasonous ways and means. It is under such acts of tyranny and oppression that the we the people find it in our self interest and for the security of our nation to, hereby, call for the effective "non-election" of all incumbent representitives and senators from every state via the direct, popular vote in favor of the most likely faithful candidates who are not in office or seeking re-election to office as a policy toward the re-establishment of government of the people, for the people, and by the people of the USA. This action taken instead of and as opposed to the more direct actions found necessary by the founders of our nation in their need to implement their right to self determination against others as egregious as those we deal with presently. You may thank your creator for this.

Last summer, 2007, there came before congress a resolution promising "comprehensive immigration reform" in the form of amnesty for those illegal immigrants already in the US, more border patrol agents, and stronger enforcement of existing immigration law. The inclusion of a policy of absorbing into our population some three to six million people illegally in the US caused such uproar and outcry by the voting public as to be heard by the elected lawmakers and the bill was tabled and not voted on. This goes to prove that the voice of the people, if enough of them cry out, is heard and is able to influence those who normally only change their minds because of the influence of dollar signs followed by six or more, non-zero figures. If it is repulsive enough to a sufficient number of people that they call or write or, otherwise, make it known the congress will reconsider their course of action. That is reason for me to continue bringing to the public’s attention the wrong doings and wayward ways, as I see them, of any group or person seeking to subvert the principals of the USA.

If my blogging causes even one anti-American action to be noticed and resisted by the people to the point of causing a change in policy, then that is something I can and will do. It may seem sometimes, that the subject of my posts are inconsequential or trivial in their priority, but I promise I will not be superfluous or choose my subject matter frivolously. Some posts may be in support or addition to a previous topic by others, or myself and, consequently, others will be, to the best of my knowledge, recent, unblogged topics I see as being cogent and pertinent to our society.

Hopefully enough of we common people will see the need to contact their elected officials, post blogs, alert their neighbors and friends, and raise such a ruckus on capitol hill as to affect a positive, pro-American decision and outcome by the congress.

So, I exhort all bloggers holding dear the pillars upon which the USA was founded to maintain, if not amplify their blogging of a patriotic nature. Blog against hate and policies destructive to our way of life. I know that that is a highly subjective way of thinking, but anything not espousing the fall or overthrow of the USA is American as being free speech.

Personally, all extreme, secular progressive, left wing socialists calling themselves democrats can develop arthritis of the hands disabling their typing and writing abilities. Protecting, abiding by, and promoting allegiance to the constitution of the United States should be of utmost concern. Tolerance should be dealt sparingly and only when not in opposition to allegiance to your country. To resort to wholesale criticism and defamation of the USA because it is popular or even unique, blasting every action by every agent of government while gendering no improvement or successes is, by its nature, not patriotic. The MSM have rendered themselves a perfect example of this lack of pride or responsibility toward the nation in which they work. Criticism yes, degradation no.

I agree that not everything the government does is right, and that, along the way, we, as a nation, have implemented policies that have proven to be destructive to the nation and others involved. But, the improvements in human rights made globally by the USA and the lives saved or bettered by our policies and actions in unison or in cooperation with other nations far, far outnumber and outweigh in their positive effects any harm or damage done by past offenses. This is not to say those offenses are forgotten or forgiven, but does show the overriding intent and policy of the USA and the goodness of its people. We are not unique in our humanity and have often teamed with nations of like character in efforts to change the world for the better.

It is for those reasons that I claim not, "My country, right or wrong," but rather "My country, free and just, today and forever."

Make a difference. Don’t decide to not post a blog on a topic just because a number of others already have. Don’t decide not to blog on a subject because it’s sesnsitive when it is of paramount importance. Post your own feelings about a well blogged subject. Make a sensitive but important issue less sensitive by bringing attention to it. We bloggers have a unique opportunity to reach many more minds than does the general population. We haven’t the capability of claiming millions of readers, yet. But we have what we have, let’s use it to save the nation that gives us the opportunity to do so.

Glenn Flowers

I have, previously, expressed the helplessness that comes from seeing what is happening to our country and not knowing what I, personally, can do about it. I think a lot of us have the same feelings. There really is nothing that one individual has within his ability that can influence the people who hold sway to stop the causes of ruin and apathy which are the ruin of our great nation.

I have, though, realized that we bloggers at Town Hall, even in our meager numbers, have one ability we can call upon that just might be able to negate the effect of the evil being done. What is it that we can do? Simple really. We can refuse to abide by these dictates being issued by various authorities that are so clearly designed to placate the enemies we face. I’m not saying, necessarily, that we break any laws, for, up to this point no laws have been made to that end. But there have been opinions published and guidelines submitted that, if allowed to become reality, would lead us straight and willingly to destruction.

Some bloggers, as we can easily see, have instinctively adopted this tactic as a natural reflex to the threat they have perceived. You can easily recognize these patriotic wordsmiths by their indignant, and fabulously vindictive railings against these who have chosen confrontation with us. You know who they are. We all comment as to our agreement with them and their patriotic stance.

To further describe the directives I am talking to, a case in point: A recent press release by the Dept. of Homeland Security stated that it would be to our advantage if government agencies would refrain from referring to Muslims, Islam, or Jihad, as being associated with terrorism or radical extreme philosophies. This was decided after enlisting the consultation of two radical, extremist Islamic groups infamous as being supporters and financial contributors to Al Quaeda, Hamas, the PLO, and various other Islamic terror organizations. There was a complete list of terms the Muslim advocacy groups considered disrespectful and insulting that they wanted the government of the USA and their citizens to quit using.

Another case relative to my point is the UN’s Council on Human Rights, the recent replacement for the UN Human Rights Commission, and their latest adoption of what they call an "Output Document of Norm". This is a statement issued by a council or committee when they do not have the support required to pass a resolution on the matter if voted on, but still insist on pushing their agenda down the world’s throat. The latest "Norm" was almost identical in content as the policy statement issued by the DHS I referred to above. It basically stated that the UN Council on Human Rights saw a benefit to the people of the world and their right to basic human liberties by their cessation of the use of inflammatory terminology being used in reference to or directed at Muslims or the religion of Islam. They went so far as to say that the right to freedom of expression and religion might have to be redefined in order to assure the right of Islam to not be discriminated against. They then gave the same list of terms to be avoided that was published by the DHS above.

Talk about audacity. Talk about human rights violations. The UN has, for its entire existance, has sought to rid the world of the United States and its most loyal ally Israel, and render the influence and power of these nations for the rights of all people of the world nonexistant, or, at the least, impotent. This subservience to the Muslim states and their crusade to enslave the world in the name of their god is abhorent and devoid of any semblence to protection of freedom or rights of the people of the world.

We can resist and make a real difference by following the example of Gunny, On The Right, sr8t talk, and other fearless bloggers here at TH and not comply or be intimidated by their shameless and evil demands. We can endeavor to convince others to likewise refuse to comply with these directives, or whatever they are. And we shan’t be timid in our defiance either. Instead, we need to blog this subject into shame by posting a defiant blog everytime we see a new attempt to steal our freedoms. We need to insure that all of those we contact and network with are both aware and resistant to the ideals of and the insistance on compliance to these cowardly surrenderings to the evil of Islamofascists and the Muslim terrorists who allow its influence to decay their humanity.

This is something anyone can do. It doesn’t take a great deal of time or energy, and it is relatively free of the threat of any real reprisals. What it does require is a modicam of patriotism and a sense of desire to help keep ourselves free of tyranny. It also, by definition, requires the use of terms such as Islamofascism, Muslim terrorists, Islamic Jihad extremists, Jihadi murderers, etc., (be creative) whenever we address those we know of being the enemy. This is no comparison to the sacrifices our armed forces are making, and it definitely will not be seen by anyone as being of tremendous effect. But it is better than doing nothing, and, believe it or not, it eases the pain of helplessness in not being able to do anything at all. In fact….

this could be as much fun as Rush’s Operation Chaos.

Organizations and governments around the world, especially the UN Council on Human Rights, is being pressured by Muslim leaders and nations to abandon completely any policy that creates or supports the right to freedom of speech as pertains to Muslims. They say it is a tool used to disrespect and blaspheme Muslims and their beliefs around the world. The Muslims don’t believe in and prohibit free speech and they feel they are justified in demanding that the UN, in an effort to assure the rights of Muslims to not be ridiculed, abandon the support of, and implement punishment for speech that is debasing and insulting to the world of Islam. Talk about a swelled opinion of your importance in the world. The single,overiding mission for the UNC-HR is the preservation and proliferation of the right of all people to freedom of speech and freedom from reprisal for that speech.

I reserve the right to extend my impudance to any policies, beliefs, demands, actions, people, gods, prophets, nations, or to any aspect of the offender be it a whole or partial idea or physical item. In other words, I wont’ do anything you ask of me as long as you pursue and threaten to kill me because I won’t accept and adopt your religious belief.

I take this rather intolerant position because it is just that, intolerant, just as they are intolerant of all human kind. Turn about is fair play.

I think I know where we got all the liberal democrats who are trying their best, it seems, to cause as much damage and hurt to the USA as they can.

Remember Kruschev speaking at the U.N. in 1959? Remember him banging on the podium with his shoe? Do you remember what his topicwas? It was the infamous "We will bury you under a red blanket of socialism" speech. Nikita chose to deliver a message that day that threatened the American way of life. We retaliated the next day by cancelling his trip to Disneyland. He was really ticked off as he had been very excited about going there and had really been looking forward to it. Instead, he had lunch with 300 actors, producers, directors, and technicians at a Hollywood movie studio. Oh….. man, …..just the thought makes me queasy.

Anyway, after the bury in a blanket part, he went on to say something similar to the following, and I’m paraphrasing from memory of 1959…….

(picture a short, fat, baldheaded Russian standing in one shoe before the general assembly, hammering the podium with the heel of his other shoe as he yelled and ranted...)

Remember that? We thought he was crraaazzyy. Loooney Tuuunes. Conquer us through the children, and the schools. Yeah, they better send some MIGS to those schools too. They’re wacked man, way out!

They have succeeded. Even though their own nation failed economically, the seeds they managed to plant havesprouted and have grown healthy, commie pinko politicians and teachers. It hasn’t, yet, changed our economy, not much, but we sure have grown a bunch of socialists who try harder evryday to do just that. We all know that a lot of the educators in the higher grades and colleges/universities, are radical socialists, to the point of fascism in most cases. I think that the beatniks and Jack Kerouac generation were the last generation to make it through unscathed. After that, the coffee shops, then the folk era blended the coffee. It was right then that a vision of a perfect communal society started the airheads to really wondering if "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" could really work. With no means to try and experiment, the teens of 1959-1962 decided it was better in USSR than life was here. But they couldn’t just say it out in the open. They did blame the US as the reason the USSR had to build nukes. They had to, to protect themselves from us.

Those 1959-1962ers became the teachers and college professors of the 1966ers and on till now. They were the Bill Ayres types, Patty Hearst, Charlie, Hanoi Jane, SLA, SDS, Black Panthers, Abbie Hoffman, Joan Byez, and all the radical socialists in that era. And then THEY had children, turned hippy, and dropped man. And their children’s children are on YouTube everyday stinking that site all to Hell.

Yeah, that’s how we got stuck with all the liberal socialists we have today. If only we had never let Kruschev take off his shoe…..

Never mind…

The democratic members of Congress will do or say anything to advance their socialist agenda and to make themselves appear as always being right and the administration and its supporters appear incompetent. Most of the time what they say to the press or in session is a far cry from reality and is, more often than not, just plain false in its content. They have made a common practice of twisting the reality of events or fabricating their own versions and millions of trusting Americans accept or ignore it all to the detriment of our nation. The dems believe that if you tell a lie enough times people will start believing it.

One big lie they use to do this is that the war on terror, the invasion of Iraq, and the hunt for Al Qaeda, is going very badly. The Dems have, almost to a person, abandoned any similance of support for the war and have gone on record as being against it and for an immediate withdrawal. The worse these struggles are for the American forces the better they look and the worse the Reps look. They make quite the stir by publicly declaring that they were right in their resistance to the war, quoting the latest casualty figures, blasting the president for his mismanagement, and giving the enemy reason to continue their cowardly murder of civilians and our soldiers.

The liberal congressman also tell a tale of Bush invading Iraq to reap profit from the oil reserves there. This one would be laughable if the insurgents battling our forces didn’t count on it to undermine the moral of the coalition forces. If Bush had been after the oil, why were there no reports of tankers filling up and carrying the oil away? Why didn’t we here from the press in other countries about oil being purchased from the Bush administration by foreign governments? There is no grounds for this lie, no evidence of any kind that would even hint at such going on.

Another example is the insistence that President Bush lied to the people when claiming Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and then using that as the reason to go to war. These congressmen and women know very well that Bush honsestly believed the intelligence information about WMD because they, too, believed it and had called for the removal Hussein from power and even military action against Iraq before Bush was ever elected. These people who accuse Bush of deceit regarding WMD in Iraq must be lying about it judging from the collection of actual, verifiable quotes from Washington Post articles , all made by democrats and demanding that the people of America be protected.

www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

We have since learned that US forces found WMD within weeks of entering Iraq but were under orders not to disclose that information to keep it from falling into the hands of the insurgents and being used against US troops. It was through the efforts of two republican senators that the Defense Department made the information public. Did the democrats say, "Oh really, well we’re sorry then," or offer any apologies or congratulations for the news? No, instead they have made claims such as the WMD found are not the WMD we went to war over, that they were 1991 era wepons, and were degraded to the point of not being dangerous. Neither of these claims have any factual content whatsoever, but when they say these things, people believe them, to the detriment of our nation.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

The democratic response

The Democrats want one thing more than anything else, all of them want it. They will lie to the press, make grandiose, fantastic claims about the better way they have for America, and even call others liars when they can’t quote the lying statement, can’t provide any evidence that it is a lie, and still shout it to the world everyday, just in the hope that they will get what they want most. It isn’t a better, safer future for America that they seek. It isn’t anything so idealistic. All they want, is to be re-elected at any cost. That means they have to make themselves and their lies seem like the truth and reality of the world, and make the Republicans look as bad and evil as they can, ANYWAY they can.

They are not beyond even more direct action against our society though. The leader of the house and majority leader of the senate, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, both dems, have blocked the vote for approval of some 200 government agency appointees, some for as long as two years. Former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, finally quit the position he was filling temporarily because the evil Pelosi blocked the approval and wouldn’t even allow it to be voted on. The FAA can not implement any new policy or procedures because there are only five members of the executive board that should have eleven and a majority can not be obtained. The other six members have been waiting twenty months for their appointment to be approved. The same situation is crippling the Dept. of Interior, Nat’l. Transportation Safety Board, the FEC, FCC, DEA, DOE, DOA, and FDA. Of course, we’ve all heard about the trick Ms. Nancy pulled on delaying the vote on the electronic surveillence matter. Not to mention how she used a loophole in the house rules to avoid voting on the free trade agreement with Colombia. She says she will let it go to a vote once the election is over, knowing that if a dem becomes president they will veto the agreement, regardless of the fact that Colombia was counting on the agreement to continue their emergence from third world status.

The constitution requires the houses of congress to vote on these matters in a timely fashion. The elected officials have all sworn to abide by, and to protect and defend the constitution. Instead, the actions of the democrat members are exactly what is described in the US Code as collusion to disrupt the business of the government, and as treason by giving reason for hope and comfort to the enemies of the USA.

If you have ever read the book or seen the movie of George Orwell’s "1984" you can gain a pretty good insight on how and why the liberals and news networks would like the world to be. In 1984, the government wants lies about a war and their success, and their policies and actions. The truth, having been previously published in newspapers, was simply changed by going back and editing the copies of newspapers and speeches to say they had made the correct statements to begin with, that the lie is the truth. Simple. If anyone calls them a liar and tries to prove it so, they disappear. The liberals in our government and their media cohorts have not been so bold as to start editing back issues of newspapers and video tape, but they have had no problem in claiming to have said things when, in all reality, they said and did just the opposite of what they now claim. And anyone who can read can go back and read the news reports where their words were quoted and see that they are liars. There’s no doubt, the truth is provable, their lies are public record, yet they go on convincing some that they are sincere, patriotic soles who just want to make it all better.

We need to employ the same tactics they use but in reverse. If we tell the real story in as many places and as many times as we possibly can, in anyway we can, maybe the people will start believing the truth and seeing the liberals in congress for the lying anti-Americans they are, and vote them out of office. We can only hope and act accordingly.

Since who knows when, the government, to wit the officials elected to serve therein, have adopted a principal by which they determine the merit of pending legislation, qualifications of appointees, priority of budget items, and even the requirement of their attendance at regular sessions of business.

That principal is, "If there is a buck in it, OK. The one with the most bucks for me wins. If you don’t have any bucks for me, don’t even bother. The only loyalty wortwhile is to the greenback."

The normal, accepted course of business, the expected and demanded protocol for government officials has become one of greed, subversion, collusion, bribery, influence peddling, extortion, and outright grand theft from anyone and everyone seeking any favor, decision, or action from or by any of them. Their business creed, "If you can’t pay, go away. "

Political action committees, campaign funds, slush accounts, contract awards, illegal arms sales, drug trafficing, and prostitution have all become the legal tender recognized and demanded by those in public office. In fact, the overwhelming inspiration to seek public office is not the altruistic willingness to serve and improve our nation, but is the guarantee and adopted right of becoming insanely wealthy and never having to earn a dime of it. Jesse Unruh, a state official of California in the 60’s and 70’s, once said, "Money is the mother’s milk of politics, and there’s too many muthas getting too much milk." Mr. Unruh knew politics and what made it work and was not afraid to tell it.

I could go on and on spouting the methods and principals of congressmen and women in their efforts to rob the country and keep us from stopping them, but most any person not deeply sleeping and halfway cognizant knows the truth and can see the true reasons for the deficit, constantly increasing taxes, routine reductions in services and benefits to the public, and countless criminal actions against officials. Greed, the love of money.

Let me now attempt to meet the responsibilty that should be required of anyone publicly complaigning and criticizing anything, I will offer my suggestions for a remedy thereto.

Seeing that,

• Elected officials are expected to act on behalf of their constituents,
• Elected Officials are paid very well for their service,
• Bribery and extortion are real,
• They need to be free of non-pertinent influences,

 I hereby suggest laws be passed or changed to criminalize the posession of or attempt to posess any form of legal tender (money) by any local, state, or federal official who was elected to office by a general election of the voters. What did I say? Make it illegal for our elected officials to have any money of any kind whatsoever. My law would put a senator in prison for at least ten years if he was found with two dollars cash in his pocket, an undeclared checking or savings account, a jar of pennies under his bed, or even a postage stamp in his wallet. He would suffer the same penalty if he was caught giving college lectures on the side for pay, had an undeclared stock option, or was shown to have received loans, gifts, or any other payouts of cash not including his salary as an official. Essentially, posession of anything that could be used in trade as payment would be a prison sentence.

 In support of that,

• All elected officials will be required to declare all assets, cash, real property, investments, etc. and to deposit said assets into an escrow to be held active but unavailable to the official as long as he holds elected office.
  
•  The official will be paid a regular, considerable salary for their service and, in addition, will be alotted an all encompassing expense account to cover all of his and his family’s needs during the term of his service. All transportation costs such as gasoline, vehicle maintenance, insurance, all food, clothing, medical, and utility costs, all entertainment such as movie and stage theater tickets, sports events, concerts, vacation costs, books, games, toys, fishing/camping gear, etc., all mortgage/rent payments, declared and approved loan payments, virtually anything and everything he needs to provide a normal, upper middle class lifestyle for him and his family will be provided and paid for by the government, but he will never see a dime of it himself. Even postage will be provided via the congressional post office.
  
•  The official will be prohibited from any income generating activity such as speaking tours, book signings and publishings, lobbying, or anything that could cause him to receive cash or credit while in the public office.

 If you implement the statute and impose severe penalties there will still be a few who find a way to get around the law and sell the power we have bestowed on them to do our work to the highest bidder. But, is there any doubt that such a law would deter those whose hearts and minds were not criminally predetermined? Don’t you think that a law such as this would remove the surety of easy wealth as the main reason for most of those seeking office and thereby cull the undesirables?

 Make the law a promise to incarcerate them for ten or twenty, or even fifty years for violating the trust of the voters and I truly believe we would not be in the financial and legal state the government has put us in for very much longer.