Political correctness is killing America and is used to censor freedom of speech. Even if you disagree with his point of view, Phil Robertson should have the right to speak his mind. If you don’t like him, don’t watch the show. We need to put a stop to censorship from the left. Political correctness is mind, thought and speech control and nothing less. In this case freedom of religion is also being attacked. Unless we speak out now, in one loud clear voice, this will continue until America reaches the level of Russia of old, where religion was practiced in secret and religious beliefs held close to the vest. Is that what you think America should look like? Not me.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
I can’t even hold in my rage for this administration at this point. I came across an article in the Washington Times Friday:
Declaring success in border security and immigration enforcement, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Friday that the federal government has done its work and now it’s time for Congress to pass a broad bill to legalize illegal immigrants.
Her speech signals President Obama will make good on his promise to push Congress to pass an immigration bill next year – adding yet another hot-button issue to an already long and contentious list.
Ms. Napolitano said members of Congress and voters who balked at an immigration bill two years ago, fearing a repeat of the 1986 amnesty that only made the problem worse, can be assured this time is different. She said in those two years, the flow of illegal immigrants across the border has dropped dramatically and the government is doing more to catch fugitive aliens inside the U.S.
“The security of the southwest border has been transformed from where it was in 2007,” she said in a speech to the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. “The federal government has dedicated unprecedented resources to the Mexican border in terms of manpower, technology and infrastructure – and it’s made a real difference.”
Who are they trying to kid? Once again, they are living in some alternative reality. If, in fact, illegal aliens are coming across the border fewer in number, it is because there are no jobs here – hello??? The U.S. looks more and more like Mexico every day. Why bother?
Who’s to say there are fewer, though? If they know exactly how many illegal aliens are coming over than why can’t they stop them? Obviously, they don’t want to. It doesn’t meet with their agenda. Neither did it meet with the agenda of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc…. I am sick of it!
This administration has done nothing to foster border security. The only “work” it’s done is to push for more free benefits for illegals on the backs of hard working LEGAL citizens who don’t qualify for the same free handouts. Redistribution of our so-called “wealth” to those of foreign lands is becoming the norm for this administration and according to their agenda will continue as long as progressives are allowed control.
According to Federation for American Immigration Reform (F.A.I.R), if the administration was serious about advancing national security, it would:
* Reverse course and welcome the assistance of local jurisdictions that aggressively identify illegal aliens for deportation.
Instead they are going after Sheriff Joe Arpaio
* Push for the E-Verify system to be adopted as a national requirement for all employers and all workers. In the meantime, implementation of the “no-match” letter screening system would represent a significant deterrent to the mass illegal immigration that compromises border security.
E-Verify was to go into effect in January, then the Obama administration delayed implementation until June, then again until September. They wanted more time to review the program. Yeah, right. They didn’t want to alienate millions of potential future voters. And, of course with groups like ACORN around, they won’t even need to prove citizenship in order to vote.
* Withdraw support for an amnesty for illegal aliens and, thereby, convey the message abroad that the United States is serious about enforcing its immigration laws.
An article in the Washington Times clearly recalls the President’s words recently during the health care debate:
- President Obama said this week that his health care plan won’t cover illegal immigrants, but argued that’s all the more reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually do get coverage.
- He also staked out a position that anyone in the country legally should be covered – a major break with the 1996 welfare reform bill, which limited most federal public assistance programs only to citizens and longtime immigrants.
* Rapidly pursue implementation of a comprehensive electronic database that matches entry and departure of foreign visitors, and expand the special tracking database for students to include all long-term visitors.
*Reverse the recent expansion of the Visa Waiver Program that allows the entry of nationals of 35 countries to enter without consular screening and gradually eliminate it.
*Tighten the criteria for admission of nationals of countries with active terrorist organizations in the refugee and asylum programs.
Not to mention a porous border allows anyone to walk right in. Although the massacre at Fort Hood was done by a natural born citizen, it does remind us there are segments of the population, legal or otherwise who are out to get us.
Today, Saturday, November 14, 2009, at least 53 cities are holding teaparty protests:
Tea Parties Against Amnesty and Illegal Immigration held in over 53 cities and towns tomorrow, Saturday, Nov. 14, 2009.
These events are designed to unify Americans of all races, faiths, and political parties who represent the 78% found in a recent Pulse Opinion poll who oppose any path to citizenship or any form of Amnesty for illegal immigrants currently in the United States.
New details are being added to our listing of these events online each hour.
Event times, locations, details, and organizer contact information can be found on our EVENT LOCATIONS page at www.AgainstAmnesty.com
F.A.I.R. presents the following facts for your consideration:
The general public overwhelmingly favors immigration reform. Poll after poll shows that Americans want well-enforced, sensible, and sustainable immigration laws.
- 68% oppose the creation of sanctuary cities (jurisdictions that have a policy of not enforcing immigration law) with only 13% in favor (Rasmussen, October 2009).
- 73% of Americans want to see a decrease in illegal immigration, while only 3% believe there should be an increase (CNN, October 2009).
- 56% of Mexicans believe that granting amnesty to illegal aliens in the United States would make it more likely that people they know would attempt to illegally migrate to United States. Only 17% think it would make people less likely to migrate illegally to the United States (Zogby, October 2009).
- 65% of Mexicans who have a member of their immediate household in the United States said that amnesty would make people they know more likely to attempt to illegally migrate to America (Zogby, October 2009).
- 55% of Mexicans who expressed a desire to migrate to the U.S. said they would attempt to enter the U.S. illegally (Pew Hispanic Center, September 2009).
- 56% of U.S. voters believe that the policies of the federal government encourage illegal immigration (Rasmussen, October 2009).
- 83% of U.S. voters say that citizenship verification should be part of any health care reform legislation (Rasmussen, September 2009).
- 78% of likely U.S. voters believe that mass immigration has adversely impacted the quality and cost of the U.S. health care system (Pulse Opinion Research, August 2009).
- 78% of likely U.S. voters oppose amnesty, with 19% in favor. 88% of African-Americans oppose amnesty. (Pulse Opinion Research, August 2009).
- 70% of American voters feel that increased border control should be the most important priority in immigration reform. Only 22% prioritized legalization of illegal aliens (Rasmussen, August 2009).
- 50% of American think immigration to the U.S. should be decreased, while only 14% want to see an increase in immigration to the U.S. (Gallup, August 2009).
- 68% of adults think limiting care to illegal aliens is a good to excellent way to reduce overall health care costs (Zogby, July 2009).
- 80% of likely voters oppose healthcare coverage for illegal aliens (Rasmussen, June 2009).
- 67% of liberals and progressives believe that the level of immigration into the U.S. is too high (Pulse Opinion, April 2009).
- 68% believe that employers who hire illegal aliens should be punished (Rasmussen, March 2009).
- 79% of voters say the military should be used along the border with Mexico (Rasmussen, March 2009).
- 73% believe law enforcement officers should check immigration status during traffic stops (Rasmussen, March 2009).
- Only 32% of Obama voters considered his support for amnesty as a factor in their decisions to vote for him (Zogby, November 2008).
|Summary Demographic National Data (and Source)|
Population (2008 CB est.):
|Population (2000 Census):||281,421,906|
|Foreign-Born Population (2008 FAIR est.):||38,110,000|
|Foreign-Born Population (2000 Census):||31,107,573|
|Share Foreign Born (2008 FAIR est.)||12.5%|
|Share Foreign-Born (2000 Census)||11.1%|
|Immigrant Stock (2000 CB est.):||55,890,000|
|Share Immigrant Stock (2000 est.):||20.4%|
|Naturalized U.S. Citizens (2000 Census):||12,542,626|
|Share Naturalized (2000):||40.3%|
|Immigrant Admissions (DHS 1997-2006):||9,105,162|
|Illegal Alien Population (2008 FAIR est.):||13,010,000|
|Projected Population – 2025 (2006 FAIR):||364,237,000|
We pay for immigration through federal taxes
Much of the cost for immigration is paid by the states and municipalities, but a lot is paid for by the federal government too. Illegal immigrants receive taxpayer support for their U.S.-born children, immunizations, subsidized public health and other programs. Legal immigrants are eligible for almost all federal programs with the exception of welfare, which generally is not available for the first five years in the country. In many areas, such as education, the federal government gives matching grants for state expenditures, which means paying twice for those costs of immigration. When states hand a bill to the federal government for the costs of immigration (as is provided for by law in the case of incarceration of illegal immigrants, emergency medical expenditures, or welfare programs for the illegal aliens who were given amnesty in 1986), it is you who will pay regardless of where you live.
The United States is a vast country; it is easy to be deceived into thinking that what goes on in other states does not affect us. But, directly or indirectly, the impact of mass immigration on our country hits us all and hits us hard. For that reason, all Americans should demand that their elected representatives reduce the price they are paying for immigration. The best way to cut those costs is deter illegal immigration and to reduce immigration itself back towards a more moderate level.
The Tyranny of Change: America in the Progressive Era, John Whiteclay Chambers, 1992.
Why Today’s Immigration is a Worse Problem than the Great Wave
Supporters of today’s mass immigration like to claim that we should not be concerned about it, because it is no worse than the Great Wave of immigration at the turn of the last century. But in fact, because times have changed greatly in the last one hundred years, immigration now is much more out of sync with our country’s needs than it was at the turn of the last century.
Today We Need Skilled Workers
In the economy of the Gilded Age (rapid industrial expansion), low-skilled workers were highly employable. New mechanical devices and processes were being introduced that did away with the need for workers with special industrial skills and know-how. As the U.S. Industrial Commission pointed out: “The fact that machinery and the division of labor opens a place for the unskilled immigrants makes it possible not only to get the advantages of machinery, but also to get the advantages of cheap labor.” However, modern technology requires skilled workers, not unskilled ones. Yet, in 2001, only 16 percent of legal immigrants were admitted as skilled workers.
Today’s Immigrants are Permanent and Create Net Costs
Before 1900, there may have been some marginal fiscal gain from immigration. Today, the estimated annual net cost of each immigrant, on average, is $2700. Then, immigrants’ stay in the U.S. was often temporary; today’s immigrants are here to stay. The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that the rate of return from 1900 to 1904 was over 37 percent; in the 1990s, the rate of immigrants’ return to their homelands was a much lower 15 percent.
Today Assimilation is Held Back
Ethnic ghettoization and its retardation of assimilation is more serious now than a hundred years ago. At that time, only rarely did a single ethnic group dominate an area of several city blocks, and even then many immigrants moved out of such areas. Now, ethnic enclaves are huge and growing; in the city of Miami, for example, nearly half of the population speaks English poorly or not at all, and 73 percent speak a language other than English at home.
Even at the turn of last century, it was known that the era of needed expansion in the U.S. was at an end. At the 1893 meeting of the American Historical Society, Frederick Jackson Turner began his paper on “The Significance of the Frontier in American History” by noting that the Bureau of the Census had just announced that there was no longer a continuous lie of free unsettled land visible on the U.S. map. The American “frontier” had closed…
Alien Nation, Peter Brimelow, 1995.
Today Our Country is No Longer Empty
During those frontier days, we had a vast empty country and states actively recruited immigrants. Now, our country is increasingly congested and communities pass ordinances to limit the growth of their populations. In 1900, the number of people per square mile in the United States was 25.6; in 2002, it was 82 people per square mile—a more than three times greater population density.
Today We Have Chain Migration
At the turn of the last century, having relatives in the United States made it logistically easier to immigrate here; it did not, however, guarantee that you would be admitted. At the turn of this century, having near relatives in the United States makes you legally eligible to immigrate and guarantees you eventual admission. In 2001, 64 percent of legal immigrants were admitted simply because they had a relative here. Due to the eligibility of the foreign relatives of immigrants, there is a line of several million aliens waiting and eligible for admission as immigrants to the United States.
A bill to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to permit States to determine State residency for higher education purposes and to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of certain alien students who are long-term United States residents and who entered the United States as children, and for other purposes.
This bill would give states the authority to repeal the denial of an unlawful alien’s eligibility for higher education benefits, which have been previously tied state-residency. Additionally, it allows for the adjustment from status of alien to conditional permanent resident and outlines the criteria for such an adjustment by the Secretary of Homeland Security. The bill and its equivalent in the House, H.R.1751, is just as controversial as most other immigration related bills, such as, H.R.1868, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009.
At my last count, 10 states allowed for in-state tuition for illegal aliens and three even allowed for them to receive financial help with that tuition. Does this seem fair to you? To me it seems as if this is another benefit not given to legal citizens of this country.
In any other country, including Mexico, there are strict penalties for illegal entry, but yet, those of us in favor of halting illegal immigration are called unreasonable. More suicidal progressive initiatives dressed up as political correctness.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 5 so far )
The Preamble of the Constitution of the clearly states:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
For almost a year before the terrorist attack by Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the FBI had him in their sight.
In December, Hasan reportedly sent 10 to 20 e-mails to several terror-related Islamic figures, including Anwar Aulaqi, a radical imam from Virginia. Aulaqi has been openly propagandizing for al Qaeda in Yemen and who had ties to several of the 9/11 hijackers, sources told the LA Times.
“I think the very fact that you’ve got a major in the US Army contacting [a radical imam], or attempting to contact him, would raise some red flags,” Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) — ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee — told the Los Angeles Times.
Those messages, intercepted by a Joint Terrorism Task Force during an unrelated investigation, were later referred to FBI and Army investigators in Washington, officials said, but were dismissed as merely “research” and contained no explicit threats or plots.
As far back as June 2007, Hasan sounded what any normal citizen would view as an alarm bell, by giving a slide presentation to other doctors as what was supposed to be a presentation regarding soldier’s health issues. This presentation, available to view by clicking title, was called The Koranic World View as It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military . Clearly off topic, wouldn’t you say?
I am left to wonder why it’s all right to plot against America in the eyes of our government. It causes me to remember they had warning of the 9/11 attacks before that fateful day and did nothing to stop those as well, most likely simply dismissing these threats, for one reason or another. How many of our tax dollars go to fund the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security and the myriad of other government agencies supposedly dedicated to protecting “we the people”? No disrespect intended to the “boots on the ground” but rather management when I say, we are not getting our money’s worth.
World Net Daily reported a Council on American-Islamic Relations adviser and regular speaker at its events has suggested Islamic law permits Muslims to attack C-130 military transport planes carrying the 82nd Airborne out of Fort Bragg, N.C., according to a stunning new book, “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.” which exposed Washington-based CAIR’s inner workings.
Radical Islamic cleric Zaid Shakir, a frequent guest speaker at CAIR events, tells his Muslim audiences: “Jihad is physically fighting the enemies of Islam to protect and advance the religion of Islam. This is jihad.”
Acceptable targets of jihad, he says, include U.S. military aircraft.
“Islam doesn’t permit us to hijack airplanes filled with civilian people,” Shakir once told a Muslim audience. However, “If you hijack an airplane filled with the 82nd Airborne, that’s something else.”
The 82nd Airborne Division’s elite paratroopers fly out of Fort Bragg, N.C., which is part of North Carolina state Sen. Larry Shaw’s district. Shaw is CAIR’s new chairman.
Knowing this, what is being done to prevent such attacks? If recent history shows us, then perhaps nothing. Why, pray tell, do we outsource the protection of our military bases to private citizens? That seems absurd to me, beyond comprehension. I am afraid, however, it is now indicative of how our government works. Just as we outsource design and construction of our weaponry systems.
President Obama, in July, appointed a Muslim to a top post at Homeland Security. I am not suggesting all Muslims are terrorists or can not be trusted, but I can not get behind a Muslim with questionable sense of loyalties in a top position in our Dept. of Homeland Security given present conditions. FreeRepublic.com noted:
Obama made a presidential appointment of Muslim Los Angeles Deputy Mayor Arif Alikhan for a top job at the federal Department of Homeland Security. In his new job, Arif Alikhan will be Assistant Secretary for the Office of Policy Development at the Department of Homeland Security. Alikhan has been Deputy Mayor of Los Angeles–in charge of public safety for the city.
Why Muslim Alikhan at the Department of Homeland Security you might ask? DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said Alikhan’s “broad and impressive array of experience in national security, emergency preparedness, and counterterrorism will make him an asset”–yes, but on behalf of the U.S. or Muslims? I am not sure what she is talking about and she probably doesn’t know either.
Alikhan says a big part of his job will be fostering communication between agencies. Alikhan, like Obama, also wants to help improve America’s image with Muslims around the world. He will now set policy on security at the highest levels of the federal government. But what policies has the new Assistant Secretary embraced?
During his years in Los Angeles, Alikhan was responsible for derailing the Police Department’s plan to monitor activities within the Los Angeles Muslim community, where numerous radical mosques and madrassas existed, and where some of the 9/11 hijackers had received support from local residents.
Alikhan is strongly anti-Israel; he has referred to the terrorist organization Hezbollah as a “liberation movement.” Hezbollah is on the U.S. official terrorist list while being an affiliate of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Alikhan also opposed President George W. Bush’s prosecution of the war on Islamic terror.
In 2007, Alikhan was instrumental in removing the Muslim terror tracking plan in Los Angeles. The Muslim ‘‘Mapping’’ Plan of the Los Angeles Police Department is now “dead on arrival” according to Chief William Bratton. “It is over and not just put on the side,” said Chief Bratton in a meeting with the Muslim leadership of Southern California at that time. The meeting was moderated by Arif Alikhan.
Chief Bratton acknowledged the hurt and offense caused to Muslims and agreed to send a letter to the Muslim community announcing the official termination of the ‘’mapping’’ plan.
A major reason for the termination of the ‘‘mapping’’ plan was the Muslim community’s vociferous opposition and active civic engagement in making themselves heard beyond Los Angeles. Muslim organizations demonstrated a strong unity of purpose and message on the issue of ‘’mapping’’ that led to a position of strength for Muslims in the meeting. Those involved in the initial phases of this controversy were the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California http://www.shuracouncil.org/ and the Council on American-Islamic Relations http://www.cair.com/ , the Muslim Public Affairs arm.
Muslim Democrats welcomed Alikhan’s appointment at a banquet/fundraiser for the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California recently where the first speaker was Arif Alikhan, a devout Sunni and the son of Pakistani immigrants, http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,505573,00 .
Other speakers included Professor Agha Saeed of the American Muslim Task Force (AMT) who spoke about “the struggle of the Muslim Community against the pervasive atmosphere of Islamophobia and hatred in the aftermath of 9/11. It was a struggle against the tide–a very strong tide–to prevent Muslims in America from being marginalized and silenced.”
Professor Saeed issued five demands from Muslims to the Department of Justice. These demands included a cessation to the infiltration by spies of mosques and an end to the introduction of agents provocateur. In addition there was to be a cessation of attempts to undermine Muslim groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Un-indicted co-conspirator CAIR was thrilled at the appointment.
Last week, Napolitano swore in Damascus-born Kareem Shora, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)’s national executive director, to a position on the Homeland Security Advisory Council, an outside-the-department group of national security experts that advises the Secretary.
Shora is the first Arab rights advocate on the panel. Shora has with ties to terror backers.
I am not suggesting Muslims should have no place in America. I am suggesting they should be allowed to participate in accordance with their ability to assimilate. They are only as special as everyone else is special. That is the beauty of America. I am curious as to why our government doesn’t seem to mind this and insists we ignore this as well. Have we not learned any lessons? They are plotting against us in Islamic mosques and schools right here in America. Have they learned nothing from Europe?
Are you aware, despite being unconstitutional, we have a new branch of government known as Muslim Outreach through the State Department? In June, the State Dept announced, without fanfare so as not to call attention to the appointment, the selection of Farah Pandith, to carry out Obama’s strategy to reach out to Muslims worldwide. Furthermore, the new outreach program offers funding sources for various programs. In August, American Thinker pointed out the various aspects of the program.
I notice there’s no Baptist Outreach, Lutheran Outreach, and as a matter of fact, this past week, Representative Woosley (D) of California is calling for an IRS investigation of the Catholic Church for taking a stand on the Health Care “Reform” issue.
Can you imagine that our government fosters a religion with an agenda to take over the world? One which has a history of total disregard for basic human rights and even human life, but yet they trash all religions traditionally held by the American people?
Our government’s disdain for it’s citizens is evident and they show it on a daily basis. We, as a people, have tolerated too long the systematic removal of Christian and Jewish religion in society for too long. As well, we have for too long tolerated the governments lack of security regarding our open border policies, which are an engraved invitation to terrorists of all ilks to come on over, infiltrate our communities and do what they will.
Then there’s the consistent audacity of the Obama Administration who is more focused on censoring Fox News and, as noted in a report from CBS News, allows it’s DOJ to disregarded the fist Amendment, and launch an unconstitutional attack on a blogger’s website. If they are not about keeping us safe, why, then, do we need to expand their spying capabilities?
World Net Daily reported this week:
The Department of Homeland Security and the National Security Agency both recently announced plans for huge new electronic security centers that could monitor, sort and archive e-mails, telephone calls and other intercepted communications.
But critics wonder just who is watching the watchers.
“The director of the NSA is in charge of an organization three times the size of the CIA and empowered in 2008 by Congress to spy on Americans to an unprecedented degree,” said James Bamford, author of the recently published book about the NSA, “The Shadow Factory.”
He told WND the agency’s ability to deal with cybersecurity and other communications is enormous.
“In 2008, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court loosened its control on the NSA and allowed for warrantless eavesdropping,” he said. “Congressional oversight is very weak. A whistleblower for AT&T reported that AT&T has switch rooms in several parts of the country.
“And it wasn’t Congress that found out about the extensive warrantless eavesdropping; it was a couple reporters,” he said.
A number of sources in civil liberties groups say Americans have a right to be concerned about the absence of strict oversight and to wonder whose conversations are being monitored and recorded.
The Department of Homeland Security also recently announced, via Secretary Janet Napolitano, that a new complex planned in Arlington, Va., will mean more security coordination.
“Securing America‘s cyber infrastructure requires a coordinated and flexible system to detect threats and communicate protective measures to our federal, state, local and private sector partners and the public,” Napolitano’s announcement said.
“Consolidating our cyber and communications operations centers within the NCCIC (National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center) will enhance our ability to effectively mitigate risks and respond to threats,” she said. The agency says the project will be a 24-hour watch facility that will focus on “national efforts to address threats and incidents affecting the nation’s critical information technology and cyber infrastructure.”
At virtually the same time, Deputy Director for Intelligence Collection Glenn Gaffney announced the groundbreaking of the NSA’s Camp Williams, Utah, facility that is to “provide intelligence and warnings related to cybersecurity threats, cybersecurity support to defense and civilian agency networks, and technical assistance to the Department of Homeland Security.”
“The NSA didn’t have these facilities a few years ago, but they do now,” continued Bamford. “The question is, ‘Why do they need them now when they didn’t need them a few years ago?’
“If you think how much information can go on a ‘thumb drive’ (or a flash drive), you can get two or three gigabytes of information on a little thumb drive. Think how much information can go into a facility that’s a million square feet,” he said.
“The NSA intercepts communications in any form, phone calls, e-mails, instant messaging, Twitters, all forms of communication,” Bamford said.
“They’re able to store trillions of phone calls, email messages, and data trails: Web searches, parking receipts, bookstore visits, and other digital ‘pocket litter.'”
He further said it’s important to look at the agency’s objectives.
“They could have put them [listening stations] in locations where the cables first come into the United States. If you put the secret rooms there you would be picking up just communications coming in and going out of the United States,” he said. “Instead they put them in locations such as the nine-story switch in downtown San Francisco; there’s a major switch there, which has both domestic and international communications.
“This raises the question: Are they targeting not only international communications but also domestic communications?” he wondered.
“The NSA certainly has the ability to listen in and monitor domestic communications. Their purpose is to eavesdrop on communications.
Lawyer, former Marine Corps officer and former Constitution Party vice presidential candidate Darrell Castle said he’s not convinced that the Department of Homeland Security is really interested in security.
“It is difficult to take Mr. Obama and Ms. Napolitano seriously when they talk about security for the nation. When they are willing to secure our borders so that terrorists are not free to cross at will, they can be taken more seriously,” he said.
Political correctness and tolerance can no longer be allowed to control our voices. You must not be afraid to speak up. If you stay silent, you may be endangering your right to ever speak up. Tell your elected officials how you feel. We must make common sense the law of the land. I am not advocating violence, but I am advocating an end to tolerance of a government who clearly does not have our best interest, or it’s stated goal, at heart.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )