Sunday, May 21, 2006

Why Bill Clinton Was Weak on Fighting Terror

In a speech yesterday in my hometown of Austin, TX, impeached former President Bill Clinton stated climate change was "a more profound threat" than terrorism, according to NewsMax.

"Climate change is more remote than terror but a more profound threat to the future of the children and the grandchildren and the great-grandchildren I hope all of you have....It's the only thing we face today that has the power to remove the preconditions of civilized society." Clinton told the graduating class of the University of Texas at Austin's Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs.

This type of thinking corresponds as well to that of his former Vice President, Al "Chicken Little" Gore, who wrote in his book Earth In The Balance.

“Consider that the United States spends tens of billions of dollars on frenzied
programs to upgrade and improve the technology of bombers and fighter planes to
counter an increasingly remote threat to our national security (emphasis mine)....We now know that the cumulative impact on the global environment is posing a mortal threat to the security of every nation that is more deadly than that of any military enemy we are ever again likely to confront (emphasis mine).”

No wonder the fight against global terrorism took such low priority under the Clinton Administration. Consider also what Bill said last month when he was honored with the Fulbright Award, named after his mentor, segregationist William Fulbright.

``I always thought of Senator Fulbright and the terrible quagmire in Vietnam and
how many times we sent more soldiers and found ourselves in a hole and kept
digging because we didn't want to look like we were weak. So anytime somebody
said in my presidency, 'If you don't do this people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow (emphasis mine)?' If we can kill 'em tomorrow, then we're not weak, and we might be wise enough to try to find an alternative way."

Maybe if Bill Clinton hadn't had such a "maƱana" attitude and took the threat of terrorism more seriously, 3,000 people would still be alive and the World Trade Center would still be standing.

Latin Flags Prominent At Forum For Democrat Assembly Candidates

Prior to the May 1 illegal immigrant rallies, the Democrats in the California State Senate endorsed the protests and boycotts, calling it "The Great American Boycott."

Keeping with their party's tradition of siding against America, Democrat Candidates for Assembly in District 6 held a forum for Latino voters sometime in April. On the evening of May 20, Novato Public Access Television replayed "Encuentro Latino - CA Assembly (District #6) Candidate Latino Forum."

All candidates--Jared Huffman, Cynthia Murray, Alex Easton-Brown, Damon Connolly, Pamela Torliatt and John Alden--attended the event. District 6 includes Marin and Southern Sonoma counties.

Besides the bilingual nature of the forum (a Spanish speaking interpreter was provided) and obvious pandering to "undocumented" immigrants was the fact that the flags of Nicaragua, El Salvador, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Peru and Venezuela were given prominence, displayed on the wall behind the candidates. The United States and California flags were only relegated to poles on either side of the candidates (see photos below).

Democrat Assembly candidates (L to R) John Alden, Alex Easton-Brown, Cynthia Murray

Assembly candidates (L to R) Jared Huffman, Pamela Torliatt & Damon Connolly

Candidate John Alden summed up the above point, stating, "Just as important in understanding the future of Latinos is to understand the future of the Democratic party."

Likewise, Cynthia Murray stated Latinos were "the future of California" and also called for more funding for ESL (English as a Second Language) programs in California schools, as well as more bilingual teachers.

Damon Connolly said the number of Latino students attending the University of California system was "unacceptably low."

Jared Huffman stated that, if elected, he would support affirmative action with regards to university enrollment "in every way that I can." He must have forgotten Prop 209.

All the candidates spoke in support of single payer health care programs for all immigrants, undocumented or legal, in addition to "pathway to citizenship" and driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.

Pamela Torliatt (above) stated that all people have dignity "whether undocumented or not." Taking a cue from her political mentor, the far Left's darling Lynn Woolsey, Torliatt also spoke of the need to "spend more money on schools and education, not prisons."


Jared "The Sky Is Falling" Huffman

Other pet issues for the Far Left were given prominence at the event. Huffman spoke of the need for "environmental justice" for Latino communities. In his closing comments, he channeled Al "Chicken Little" Gore by holding up the April 3, 2006 issue of Time Magazine, stating "We may have only 10 years to make the kind of changes necessary to prevent global warming from being irreversible."

The problem here is these candidates, as well as their Democratic counterparts in the State Senate are turning the melting pot into a salad bowl. Citizenship and Americanism have been devalued by these politicians who will sell out our distinct culture, borders and language for the sake of acquiring and keeping political power.

IJ Watch/WoolseyWatch--Why Is The IJ Ignoring Woolsey's Lobbying For Port Sonoma Ferry?

On Saturday, the Santa Rosa Press Democrat broke a story on how Lynn Woolsey lobbied for a controversial ferry project at Port Sonoma.

The project was proposed by Skip Berg, a Marin County investor. After an April 26, 2005 letter by Woolsey to Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN) lobbying for the project, Berg & his wife donated $4,000 to Woolsey's campaign.

The Petaluma Argus Courier noted two stories in August 2005, one in the San Francisco Chronicle, the other an AP story, stating Woolsey "sought funding" for the project.
Woolsey was said to have been "surprised" when the ferry was added to a $286.5 billion transportation bill. It was funded to the tune of $20 million.

The congresswoman released the letter to the Press Democrat after she said the Marin IJ obtained a copy.

However, as of Sunday, the IJ has not followed up on the story.

Why not? Is this story being ignored by the IJ due to their obvious bias in favor of Woolsey?

In a search of the IJ archives, the only mention of Port Sonoma was Woolsey's receipt of another $4,000 from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. Columnist Dick Spotswood noted in "Woolsey's Ties To Indian Gaming" on May 7, 2006 that this group sought to build a contested Indian casino on agricultural land near Port Sonoma.

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Mark Your Calendars for June 24--Sonoma County Support the Troops Rally

Do you live in Marin/Sonoma counties and support our troops? Do you feel ignored by the mainstream media and elected representatives (i.e. Woolsey) in the area?

Now's the chance to let your voice be heard. Come on out to Old Courthouse Square in Santa Rosa from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. on June 24th for Sonoma County Support the Troops Rally.

According to their website, this is the third year the rally has been held. Already, organizers say the community response for this year's rally is amazing.

Speakers for the rally include Melanie Morgan of KSFO-AM and Move America Forward, as well as Deborah Johns, spokeswoman for the "You Don't Speak For Me, Cindy" tour and Joseph Williams, a Gold Star Father. Other speakers include Brigadier General Joseph Schroedel, Colonel Louis "Pete" Peterka and Sgt. Greg Parkinson. There will also be live music and a "jump house" for the little ones.

I'm planning to attend and bring coverage of the rally back here. I also strongly urge all Marinites and those in Southern Sonoma County to head up to Santa Rosa and attend. Let's show the Bay Area that we support our troops!

For more information, visit www.supportthetroopsrally.com.

Monday, May 15, 2006

IJ Watch--Shilling For A Woolsey Victory

In one of two outrages in Sunday's paper (we will get to the second later), the editorial board of the Marin Independent Journal endorsed "Looney" Lynn Woolsey over her liberal opponent, Assemblyman Joe Nation in the Democratic primary race for her congressional seat.

What has Woolsey done to warrant re-election? Additionally, with the primary election almost a month away, why the rush for the IJ editors to endorse her?

Despite their verbose opinion piece in favor of Woolsey, the editors could not name one initiative or legislation she has sponsored that has benefited her constituents in Marin & Southern Sonoma counties. The sole reason they gave for endorsing her was her continued vocally shrill opposition to the War in Iraq.

Yet, for all their opposition to the War in Iraq, the IJ has never questioned Woolsey on her support for the military action Bill Clinton took in December 1998. Just what exactly changed in eight years, Lynn?

What else have we come to expect from the Marin Independent Journal? Ever since September 11, 2001, the IJ's coverage of the War on Terror, which includes the War in Iraq, has been a reflection of its anti-war editorial position. I could spend the next week giving endless examples of the IJ's anti-war bias in its news coverage, as well as their contempt for America. But that is not the purpose for this posting. Instead, it is to challenge the IJ's endorsement of Lynn Woolsey, whom I believe is not qualified to hold office but has not lived up to the oath of office she's sworn to uphold for the last 14 years.

Here is a list of Lynn Woolsey's Hall of Shame:
-- Refused to co-sponsor legislation that demanded the Hamas-led Palestinian government disavow the use of terrorism and recognize Israel's right to exist.
-- Joined 71 extreme left wing House members to stop the NSA terrorist surveillance program through legal action.
-- Endorsed the extremist group Code Pink(o), which in December 2004 gave $600,000 in aid to the terrorist insurgency in Fallujah, Iraq.
-- In December 2002, participated in a rally with the Marin Appeasement & Injustice Coalition. This group allegedly passed out flyers at a 2004 Mill Valley Memorial Day parade that read, "Jews are responsible for 9/11."
-- Unapologetically conspired with Cindy Sheehan (who called the terrorist insurgents in Iraq "freedom fighters") to interrupt the State of the Union address earlier this year.
-- Opposed the Patriot Act, which has prevented future terrorist attacks.
-- In 2003, wrote a letter of reference for Stewart Pearson, who raped a 17 year old Terra Linda girl. Woolsey's half-hearted apology was rejected by the rape victim. Women's groups and the Marin IJ (to their shame) enthusiastically accepted her apology and endorsed her 2004 re-election. (Can you imagine if a Republican had done this? The IJ would call for an ethics inquiry and removal from office faster than you can say "culture of corruption.")
-- In 2005, voted against a resolution honor the memory of those lost on September 11, 2001.
-- Signed on to the John Conyers "Impeach Bush" resolution.
-- According to Americans for Better Immigration, Woolsey gets an F rating on issues relating to securing America's borders, as well as stopping illegal immigration.

I'm sure there's a few items I've forgotten that need to be on the above list.

Though I would never vote for her opponent, Joe Nation (he is essentially "Woolsey Lite"), I have to give him credit for the way he led the effort to rid high-risk sex offenders from the area around San Quentin prison. There was nothing but silence from Woolsey on this issue.

Woolsey is basically an anachronism of what is wrong with the Democratic party today. She openly displays a sense of hostility not just to Republican constituents, but also to those of her own party who disagree with her. She only pays attention to and pushes forward items from a small but vocal extremist majority in her district. I cannot name a single thing she's done that has benefited Marin County in the 10 years I've lived here. Instead, she (and the IJ) support the removal of American forces from a dangerous part of the world that would only get even more dangerous. The lessons of Chamberlain's failure at Munich are lost with Woolsey, the IJ and today's appeasement-at-any-price crowd. Their desired pullout of Iraq would create another nation base for terrorists, as Afghanistan was pre 9/11. The result would be another war young Americans in the next generation would have to fight because of the "cut and run" policy of Leftists like Woolsey.

The world is too dangerous for Lynn Woolsey to represent appeasers, defeatists and America's enemies in Congress. She is unfit to be a United States Representative and is way overdue for a pink slip.

Bush's Immigration Speech--More of the Same

I saw parts of the President's speech on immigration and read a transcript. Though there were some items that sounded good, it still sounds like more of the same to me.

I was glad to hear the President propose using the National Guard, in addition to the Border Patrol, to watch our border with Mexico. I think the voices of outrage by many of us conservatives, as well as others who believe in border security, has pushed him to make this call.

However, I feel the National Guard plan was just a crumb to us dissenters who want security first. My opinion is unchanged. Instead of creating more of an incintive for more illegals to come across the border, let's secure the border first. Then, we can talk about "guest worker" programs.

Though the ID card is also a good idea, I want to know how these items are going to be enforced? That's what was promised in the 1986 amnesty and look where it got us. Hearing the report from The Heritage Foundation about the impact of a new guest worker program was frightening.

If we've been able to get President Bush to come partially our way on some items, that's progress, but it means there's still work to do. We must stand firm on one item alone. Secure Our Borders First! This message must be impressed upon not just the President, but the House and Senate as well.

Friday, May 12, 2006

WoolseyWatch--Aiding Al-Qaeda By Joining Lawsuit To Stop NSA Program

Just the other day, I wrote that Looney Lynn Woolsey was too busy aiding America's enemies--foreign & domestic--to get involved in the fight to remove high-risk sex offenders placed among her constituents in Marin County.

Need proof? From the Lefty website The Raw Story, Woolsey, plus 70 other Democrats in the House and Independent Socialist Bernie Sanders filed briefs in two federal courts to stop the NSA terrorist eavesdropping program. Also among the 70 are fellow Treason Lobby members John Conyers, "Baghdad" Jim McDermott, Barbara Lee, Jerrold "Jabba-the-Hut" Nadler, Fortney Pete Stark and Maxine Waters.

They were also joined in the suit by the Al-Qaeda Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for (Un)Constitutional Rights.

It's interesting how these same Democrats, many of whom supported Bill Clinton's excursions into Iraq, were silent about the Echelon Program, made known via SeeBS 60 Minutes in February 2000 by Steve Kroft.

(Kroft) "If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency and four English-speaking allies: Canada, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand. The mission is to eavesdrop on enemies of the state: foreign countries, terrorist groups and drug cartels. But in the process, Echelon's computers capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world."


Where was the outrage then from any of the above members of the House, the ACLU or any other phony civil libertarian groups? Where was the anger over the 1,000 FBI files possessed by the Clinton Administration? There was nothing but silence from these partisans. Even the Treason Times (formerly known as The New York Times, defended this Clinton-era program.
But the stakes are much higher today than they were in 2000. Our nation was attacked by Islamic terrorists the following year on our own soil. Previous presidents have had the power to monitor and spy on our enemies. Now, Woolsey and her Leftist cohorts are putting all our lives at risk by trying to stop this necessary program, simply because they hate President Bush more than Osama bin Laden.

But there is an even dangerous precedent here. The President of the United States is listed in the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, NOT unelected judges on some court or 535 members of Congress. Thus, these "representatives" are trying to supersede the Constitution. They are attempting to vest the judiciary with power to override the Commander-in-Chief (the President) during wartime.

Congressmen take an oath to defend the Constitution “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” By attempting to hinder our ability to defend and protect America, its citizens and way of life from future terrorist attacks, Lynn Woolsey and her cohorts show themselves to be the domestic enemies they swore to protect our nation from.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Al-Qaeda in Iraq Admits They're Not Winning--Silence from MSM, Democrats

A document found in an April 16th raid by coalition forces in Iraq concedes the terrorists aren't winning in Iraq.

The document, written by an unknown al-Qaeda in Iraq figure, admits the terrorist insurgency isn't winning over support of Iraqis. Additionally, the author critiques the terrorist leadership and capability.

Here's a key paragraph:
"At the same time, the Americans and the Government were able to absorb our painful blows, sustain them, compensate their losses with new replacements, and follow strategic plans which allowed them in the past few years to take control of Baghdad as well as other areas one after the other. That is why every year is worse than the previous year (emphasis ours) as far as the Mujahidin's control and influence over Baghdad. "

But don't look for news of this in the Marin IJ or on any other mainstream media outlet. No word either from the Democratic Party, who is invested in America's defeat in Iraq and the War on Terror.

Also, for those who doubt if there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, go visit this blog, Jvertias - Translating The Iraq Documents. There is a lot of stuff here that's not being reported by the MSM.

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Sex Offenders Dumped in Marin County

Tonight's Larkspur City Council meeting will most likely focus on an issue that has caused much outrage here in Marin County over the last few days.

Twelve high risk sex offenders were moved to barracks on San Quentin prison last week after they were kicked out of two Vallejo motels. Of the twelve, seven now remain at the prison grounds, while five were relocated to places in Solano County.

Though I find the paper a propaganda tool for the far-Left in the county, the Marin IJ has it right on this one. They've provided some great coverage of this outrage, especially noting in Saturday's edition that the proximity of these molesters is just close to a half mile from a daycare facility.

State law prohibits sex offenders from living within a half-mile from schools. However, Assemblyman (and candidate in the Democratic primary for Congress) Joe Nation says he wants to include preschools as part of that law.

According to the IJ, the sex offenders are subject to an 8 p.m. curfew and would wear ankle bracelets so authorities could track them. However, San Quentin prison is near Larkspur Landing shopping center. This proximity has many business owners and residents upset.

Can you blame them? Why on Earth does anybody want to place sex offenders in an area where there is proximity for them to possibly commit their crime again? This is the kind of thing that concerns all of us, especially those of us who are parents. You never know the type of person you're going to run into on a parking lot or in a store. Tracking devices for sex offenders and an 8 p.m. curfew? Give me a break! These people belong in jail and kept off the streets for life. From what I understand, there is no way a sex offender can be rehabilitated.

Nation & other area politicians have been on top of this issue, but Nation's opponent in the primary, incumbent "Looney" Lynn Woolsey has not uttered a peep of concern or outrage about the housing of sex offenders among her constituents.

Instead, Woolsey is obsessed with aiding America's enemies-foreign & domestic. In an interview with IJ Reporter Richard Halstead, Woolsey says she'll introduce another resolution to withdraw from Iraq. That would enable Islamic terrorists to take over Iraq and use it as a base of operations for terrorism.

Woolsey supported war with Iraq in December 1998, when Bill Clinton bombed the nation on the eve of his impeachment. No reporter has ever questioned her about this flip-flop.

Perhaps Woolsey believes these sex offenders can be rehabilitated and thus have "a promising life ahead." That is what she said in a reference letter for Stewart Pearson, who raped a 17 year old Terra Linda girl in July 2003.

Saturday, May 06, 2006

Santa Clara Residents Speak Out Against Illegal Immigration

A big round of applause goes out to a group in Santa Clara, CA who came out to protest illegal immigration yesterday. Great job y'all!

Here are links to some of the video and news from the protest:

KPIX-TV Channel 5 (SeeBS)
KNTV-TV Channel 11 (NBC)
KGO-TV Channel 7 (ABC)

There were a few supporters of illegal immigration who came out to counterprotest, showing the real face of the pro-illegal immigrant movement.

"We are the indigenous people of this land. This is stolen land," local La Raza representative Quetzaoceloacina, who also, according to the AP, called the protesters "racist."

Nothing like a lecture about race from a blatantly racist group called "La Raza" (translated means "the race").

For more about anti-illegal immigration protests, go to illegalimmigrantprotest.com.

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

IJ Watch--Propagandists for the Open Borders Lobby

If anyone doubted that (like most daily newspapers) the Leftist editorial opinion of the Marin IJ was also reflected in their news pages, today's edition would make the doubter a believer.

Along with their pro amnesty-for-illegals editorial "Immigration Reform Is Crucial" was their biased news coverage of the rallies held on May Day for illegal immigrants, headlined "We're All Immigrants." Though the word "illegal" was used sometimes-in the news stories and editorial-the tone of these articles gave the impression that those who opposed the marchers opposed immigrants.

Nowhere in Rob Rogers' & Tad Whittaker's story, however, was any mention given to the radical nature of several rally organizers nationwide. Only Lou Dobbs of CNN and the Washington ComPost (amazingly) mentioned how International ANSWER, front group for the Marxist Workers World Party, was one of the organizers of the nationwide rallies. (Need proof? Check out the IJ photo on the front page and you'll see a sign near the end of the march reading "Regime Change in the U.S. Impeach Bush.") Other socialist organizations, as well as racist groups favoring "Reconquista" (the reannexation of the Southwest by Mexico) have been prevalent in these marches.

Need further proof of an editorial slant in favor of legalizing illegal immigrants? The article by Rogers & Whittaker had no comments from opponents of amnesty for illegal immigration. Though there was one photo of a lone counter protester, Barbara Cox of Vallejo, Rogers & Whittaker did not take the time to interview her. This tactic is typical fare for the IJ. In articles about so-called "anti-war" protests, as well as anti-death penalty vigils, the other viewpoint is either given brief mention or ignored completely.

In their pro-illegal immigrant editorial, the Marin IJ calls House Bill 4437 "simplistic and unrealistic" as well as the "absurd round- 'em up-and-kick 'em out plan advanced by GOP conservatives." Here, the IJ editors show their usual vitriolic contempt for Republicans, except liberal ones like John McClame. For all their complaints about H.B. 4437, the IJ editors don't address the double standard of Mexico's immigration policies, which are harsher than those proposed by the House of Representatives.

While no one denies that America was built by and is a nation of immigrants, it was legal and orderly immigration that made America what it is. Remember the opening of The Godfather Part II, where young Vito Corleone arrived at Ellis Island? During that time, immigrants entered America legally, had their backgrounds checked and were quarantined for diseases. The IJ Editors don't acknowledge how several diseases, such as TB, dengue fever and polio have resurfaced in America due to unchecked illegal immigration. Neither do they address rising health-care costs or hospital closures along the border due to illegals getting health care for free.

People who want to immigrate to America should do it legally. Our nation is more than just a big job bank across the border. It is a sovereign nation, with its own borders, distinct culture and common language that immigrants should assimulate to, if they wish to be successful. The IJ editors, instead, show their usual contempt for America by claiming the world is "less than enamored by the United States." Only European Union socialists and Islamic terrorists share that point of view.

The Marin IJ and it's editorial board prove once again how they, as well as Marin County, CA, are out of touch with the mainstream of America. For their contempt of America, they ignore how America is still the nation that legal immigrants flock to by the droves.

Monday, May 01, 2006

How We Celebrated "Pinko de Mayo"

Today was the "May Day" protest by illegal immigrants and their radical supporters (i.e. International ANSWER, front group of the Workers World Party) also dubbed by some as "Pinko de Mayo."

Organizers urged (illegal) immigrants to stay home from work, school or shopping as a form of extortion against the Federal Government in order to gain Amnesty.

So, how did you celebrate "Pinko de Mayo?"

My family and I celebrated in two ways.

  • Going to work: Driving up one of the main drags in my town, I noticed the usual "day laborers" (another politically correct term for "illegal immigrant") were not loitering along the side of the road. In all our goings on throughout the day, it seemed almost all businesses in our town operated normally.

  • Spending money: My wife and son went grocery shopping for food and to Target for diapers, sponges and other household accessories. (In our household, we scrub our own toilets, bathtubs, sinks and mop our own floors!). After work, I picked up dinner from a local restaurant for our family meal.

Now, onto tomorrow and the slanted coverage of the "Day Without an (illegal) Immigrant" rallies we will most likely read in the Marin IJ and other Leftist propaganda sheets.