The Conservative Files

The "New" Conservative Files

2007-06-18T13:28:00.000-05:00

I would like to announce the creation of the New Conservative Files, which is hosted on the Wordpress.com site. I have been moving my operations to Wordpress because I like the ability to have multiple pages and a more professional look. I will keep this site up, as the archive for the blog, plus I do like some things about Blogger. For now though, go to the new Conservative Files for new posts and other things.

Down with the Westboro Baptist Church

2007-05-17T12:56:00.000-05:00

Fox News has reported today that the controversial Westboro Baptist Church plans to protest at the funeral of Jerry Falwell. This "church" (actually it is not true to Baptist theology and is more of a cult) feels that the man who made controversial statements regarding gays was wrong in preaching that God loves everyone, so they are now going to attempt to subject his family to their garbage. As much as I disagree with some of what Falwell said, his family does not deserve this.

As a Christian, I am taught to love everyone and hate the sin. I personally feel that the gay lifestyle is wrong and do not want to see it flaunted in public. However, I do not hate or even dislike the person. That said, let me state that I feel that the WBC is a group that must be stopped. They have brought nothing good to this country, only pain. They protest at GI funerals, claiming that because Bill Clinton allowed gays in the military that all military persons must be gay. This is misguided and stupid.

To Fred Phelps and your church, you are scum. You claim that everyone but you will burn in hell. We shall see who God judges for that punishment and I have a feeling you are near the top of that list. You are a bunch of ignorant fools and I pray that you will receive the truth of Christ. You constantly quote Old Testament scripture, but neglect the truth of the Gospels. Let me also add that if I ever see you at a funeral of one of my family members who served in the military, you will regret it. Let the families grieve and keep your hate to yourselves. If you stumble upon this post and think you'll scare me by putting me on your list of "fag lovers" or whatever you call them, I am not afraid. Better people have tried to intimidate me and have failed.

While I disagreed with the standoffs at Waco and Ruby Ridge, these people must be dealt with by our government. While we have freedom of speech, there is great responsibility that comes with that right. The people at Waco were not protesting at funerals and causing other people pain, nor was Richard Weaver hurting anyone else with what he was doing. These people are hurting many innocent people and should be dealt with. Three things should be done to solve this problem. First, take their children away, so that the kids will not grow up to be their parents. Second, put the adults in prison for the harm they have caused. Finally, pray for the souls of the church members that they may find redemption for their wickedness.

The Westboro Baptist Church is a cult of ignorant fools, but is also dangerous. They have the ability to mold young minds to their twisted view and draw other unsuspecting persons. They are traitors to the country and cause nothing but harm to our nation. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are good things, but when abused, like with this group, an ugly picture of our country is painted for the world to see.

We are All Hokies: In rememberance of the tragedy at Virginia Tech (4/16/07)

2007-04-21T01:27:00.000-05:00

The Conservative Files would like to express its sympathies to the campus community of Virginia Tech over the recent tragedy that has befallen that university. May God grant them peace and allow them to finish the year in comfort and happiness.

Author's Note: I have been following this event closely, but have not had the chance to post on it until now.

Enemies Among Us

2007-04-20T17:27:00.000-05:00

If it were any other subject, I may apologize for the angry tone, but the latest events regarding Democrat opposition to the War on Terror warrant no apology from myself, but from them regarding their defeatist attitude that has the potential to undermine our troops in the field. This will be one of my most angry post (may very well be the only one), but I do not apologize for it.

On Thursday, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada effectively said "the war is lost". Then today, the Vermont Senate approved 16-9 a resolution calling for the impeachment of both President Bush and VP Cheney. This just proves that the Democratic Party has been taken over by the defeatist fanatics of the far-left.

I submit to you that these two actions border on treason. Actually, an argument can be made under the Constitution that they are treason. I submit to you Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, which states:

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

As you can see, the actions above, Sen. Reid's comment and the action of the Vermont Senate can be considered as "giving them (our enemies) aid and comfort", and, since both actions are public in nature, all that is needed is the testimony of two witnesses. I say its high time that we deal with acts of treason in our country that undermine our war effort.

Our troops have a hard enough time battling the elements in the Middle East as well as terrorists without having to hear demoralizing comments from the likes of far-left Democrats and their allies. Conservatives, WAKE UP and hold these people accountable for their actions. Remember what happened to Trent Lott after the Strom Thurmond comment? Don't let the left get away with saying much worse things than that.

To Sen. Reid, you owe every American and especially every member of our armed forces an apology for your comment. You are undermining our troops in harms way with your irresponsible political rhetoric. You offer no solution to winning our war on terror, but only offer defeat. The only way Iraq will be like Vietnam is if you cut and run like the Democrats before you did to South Vietnam. We are winning the war militarily, but you and your fellow Democrats stand to take us down the road to political defeat. Let our troops do their job and give them the funding they need to do it, and unless you have a better solution other than surrender, then SHUT THE HELL UP.

To the Senators of Vermont, define for me what high crimes or misdemeanors that Bush or Cheney have committed. Oh wait, YOU CAN'T because their are none. You are only bowing before the altar of left-wing extremism and are attempting to score political points with America-haters. You all just need to stay up there in Montpelier and be quiet and let the grown-ups fight the war on terror.

America, now more than ever is the time to get behind our men and women in uniform and support their fight. Send letters and gifts to them and let them know that while some politicians don't care about them that you do. Write to Sen. Reid and express your outrage with his comment and write to the Senators of Vermont and express your outrage with their resolution. Let's stand united against the forces that seek to destroy our country both outside our borders and within.

Author's Note: Before I get barraged by emails telling me to put my money where my mouth is and serve in the military, I am physically disqualified from service from poor eyesight. I would give anything to be in uniform serving my country, but can't.

Seeking New Authors

2007-04-06T21:55:00.000-05:00

I do my best given the lack of time I have to write new posts to make this blog something. My dad (William) does his part from time to time as well. Well, now I am calling on you, my faithful conservative readers, to consider joining the team and contributing for this site. You do not need to post every day, or even every week. You do need to have a passion for writing and conservatism and know what you are talking about. If you are interested in contributing to this blog, please email me (click on my name and you'll find my email) and provide me the following:

Name
Location
Website address (if you have one related to this site so I can link it and get you more visits)
What interests you about being a contributor? (This can also be a "What qualifications do you have, i.e. education, journalism experience, etc. that you would like me to know about for considering you for a contributor position)

Please note that this is obviously unpaid work, but if you are interested in joining my dad and I on spreading conservative thought, we would love to have you aboard. Sorry, no liberals for contributors, but we welcome your comments and discussion as well as your readership. So, to sum up, if you like writing and are a proud conservative with strong ideas, please consider being a part of The Conservative Files team.

Daniel Sauerwein
Founder

Why Bash Israel?

2007-04-05T01:32:00.000-05:00

I originally wrote this article for my college newspaper in response to an article by a fellow student that was of an anti-American, anti-Israeli nature. I hope you enjoy it.

While reading the Dec. 15 issue of The Rambler, I stumbled across an article that worried me. First, it cited all these actions by the Israeli Defense Force against international people trying to help Palestinians. While it is a noble thing to try to help people, going into a war zone is not the way to do it. These people were playing with fire that they obviously could not handle, and unfortunately, for them, they were burned and paid for it with their lives. It also cited mention several instances of “violent US incursions” into such places as South Korea, South Vietnam, Grenada, Afghanistan, and others. The author must have forgotten that several UN nations participated in the Korean War, trying to save the South Korean people from the oppressive, Soviet-backed regime of Kim Il-Sung. These UN nations included Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the Philippines, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the US. All these nations saw the threat posed by the Communist Chinese, the USSR, and North Korea. As one can see, it was not a violent incursion by solely the US, but a multi-national effort to save the sovereignty of the South Korean people. In addition, several nations participated in Vietnam, including Australia, South Korea, Thailand, New Zealand, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Spain, as well as several Canadians.

The article’s assumption on Grenada is also false. The government of Prime Minister Maurice Bishop was allowing Cuban military engineers to construct a military-grade airport. The US and her Caribbean allies became concerned by this as well as when Deputy Prime Minister Bernard Coard overthrew Bishop’s government in a bloody coup. This placed undue risk on 1,100 American medical students studying on the island. As far as Afghanistan, I do not see how after 9/11 one could not believe that America and her allies deposing the oppressive, terror supporting, Taliban regime could be a violent incursion instead of a good thing for the Afghan people.

It further amazed me how the article seemed to minimize the former Soviet Union’s own violent incursions into other nations, only mentioning Afghanistan, while having a long list for the US. Here is some history behind the violent Soviet incursion into Afghanistan. In 1979, Soviet forces invaded in order to prop up the government of the communist People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA). That government had seized power in a bloody coup in 1978 after overthrowing the government of Sardar Mohammad Daoud and killing him and his family. Daoud had been in power since 1973, when he staged a bloodless coup that overthrew the legitimate monarchial government of Afghanistan. Almost immediately, the Marxist PDPA government ran into opposition from the people, who were furious over the Marxist ideas imposed upon them, which were counter to Islamic tradition. In addition, many Afghans were imprisoned, tortured, or murdered.

These events ultimately led to the Soviet invasion in 1979 and them getting defeated by the mujahidin and other Afghans in 1989 after many years of war. The Afghan people did not like the communists, so they threw them out, just as they had done to the British twice in the 19th century. The Soviets also violently incurred into other nations like Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Finland, and Poland. It also sent military personnel to North Korea, North Vietnam, Ethiopia, Somalia, Cuba, as well as the Warsaw Pact nations. It is interesting to note that the Soviets also used the Brezhnev Doctrine of 1968 (which also forbade any Warsaw Pact nation from leaving the Pact) to legitimize their invasion of Czechoslovakia that same year, as well as the invasion of Afghanistan 11 years later. Why does it seem like the focus is only on America, when other nations, like the Soviet Union (all nations listed above), Iraq (Kuwait), and even France (used military force numerous times in Africa in the last fifty years besides just Algeria) have done the same thing. Most nations have at one time or another “violently incurred” upon their neighbors. It has been America who has had to go in numerous times to stop these aggressors, however, the article fails to mention that and only appears to cite awful things that we have supposedly done to “innocent” people, people who would not let views like those in the article fly in their country even though most of them are socialist.

Getting back to the issue of Israel, the UN’s voting records speaks for its bias against Israel. The voting record of the Security Council is as follows: “175 total resolutions –– 74 neutral; 4 against perceived interests of Arab state or entity, 97 against Israel.” The General Assembly voted as follows: “for Israel: 7,938 - Against Israel: 55,642.” In addition, “Since it first convened in 1946, at least one Arab state sat on the 9 country Security Council in 39 of its first 43 years. Israel never sat on the Security Council. [In June 2002 Syria who is still listed [by] the U.S. State Department as a Terrorist State, was voted in as Head of the Security Council.] The Security Council "condemned", "censured", "deplored", "strongly deplored", etc. Israel 49 times; the Arabs: Zero. The Security Council passed 131 Resolutions: 43 or 33% were neutral; 88 criticized or opposed or judged against Israel. Zero critical of Arab state, body or the PLO (founded by the Arab League in 1964).” The positions of the UN can be construed as anti-Semitic. Israel has had to fight for its very existence since the UN created it in 1948, and, upon its birth preached peace with its Arab neighbors. Even Arabs living in Israel have more rights than Arabs living in Arab countries. This may be due in part to most of the Arab countries (along with most of the UN members) not being democracies.

The article also mentions Israel’s lack of abiding by Resolution 242 authorizing Israel to return its occupied territories. Why should a country give up territory that it captures in war when it was attacked by the very neighbors whose territories it captured? Aside from the 1956 Suez War, which was an operation between Israel, France, and Britain to seize the Suez Canal from Egypt, who had nationalized it, Israel has faced the threat of extinction from its Arab neighbors. In 1967, Israel surprised and destroyed the Arab air force as a massed Arab army positioned itself for attack. In addition, the article states that the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation is recent. I guess some could consider 1960 recent. The conflict, known as the third Arab-Israeli War started in 1960 and involved several Palestinian armies allied with Yassir Arafat’s Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). Why does the author seem to take such a strong anti-Israeli stance when the facts support defending Israel? Clearly, the facts show that Israel is a victim of UN anti-Semitism as well as Islamic forces committed to attempting to destroy her and her people. I believe that the information presented is not valid or is misrepresented. In conclusion, I pose the question, did the Jewish people not suffer enough during the Holocaust as to now face eradication at the hands of supposed “peaceful” Arab terrorists and armies.

Some information for this article was supplied by the following sources:
UN Planned State of Israel as a Still-Birth

VIETNAM:
My Summary & Analysis by Joseph Cardoza

The History Guy Website: The Invasion of Grenada (1983)

http://www.palestinehistory.com/wartext.htm (Now unavailable)

The History Guy: Arab-Israeli Wars & Conflicts (1948-Present)

History of Afghanistan

NationMaster-Encyclopedia: Brezhnev Doctrine

Sarin, Oleg, Gen. and Col. Lev Dvoretsky. Alien Wars: The Soviet Union’s Aggressions Against the World, 1919 to 1989. Presidio Press: Novato, CA, 1996.

The Conservative Corner: About the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI)

2007-02-18T19:31:00.000-06:00

This article has been edited to make it more applicable to the readers of this blog. It is the second edition of my column, The Conservative's Corner, and I hope you enjoy it.

Greetings to all. When I was thinking about what to talk about for the next edition of this column, I wanted to bring attention to something of which I am quite active in and that students should take advantage of. I am talking about the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI). ISI is an organization founded in 1953 with the motto “To Educate for Liberty”. Its goal is to provide students with the tools and knowledge to get the most out of their college experiences, and to allow students to learn about topics and ideas that they may not normally learn in their classes, like classic conservative thought.

Now you are probably thinking, what is so great about this group? The best thing about ISI is that membership is FREE for students and faculty members. And we all know you do not get many things free. With ISI membership, you will receive a subscription (again free) to the ISI’s major publication The Intercollegiate Review: A Journal of Scholarship and Opinion. The Intercollegiate Review, or IR, which offers many great articles; from the history of Western civilization to articles on J.R.R. Tolkein’s The Lord of the Rings.

In addition to the IR, the ISI offers other publications. These include The Students’ Guides to the Major Disciplines, which offers students answers on how to get the most from their majors and the liberal arts. The majors covered in these guides include U.S. History, History, Economics, Philosophy, Political Philosophy, Classics, Psychology, Liberal Learning, the Core Curriculum, Literature, etc. In addition, ISI publishes books on varying subjects, which can be accessed at www.isibooks.org. Author's note: At this time ISI is having a 60% off sale on all ISI Books until March 31, 2007, so take advantage of the lower prices and build a great library.

For those looking for a deeper educational experience, ISI also offers an honors program where you can study in prestigious institutions for a week in the summer and learn about important topics relating to the ISI. If you are near the end of the road in your time at IC, ISI offers graduate fellowships to assist students in their studies. Information for both of these programs can be found on the group’s website www.isi.org.

If ISI sounds like an organization for you, please consider joining as many campuses have ISI affiliated groups, which will meet to discuss topics of interest from books and other sources as well as arrange for ISI speakers to come to campus. If you are interested in membership, please contact me, as I am ISI Campus Representative for the University of North Dakota, but can assist you in joining ISI via email and leave me your name, address (both home and school), email, major and graduation date, and it will be sent to the ISI membership division, or you may also join ISI using the following link: Join ISI Now. I encourage as many of my fellow students to take advantage of ISI, a wonderful organization with many great things to offer students. I am Daniel Sauerwein, and this has been the Conservative Corner. God Bless, and have a great day.

The Conservatives’ Corner: A New Beginning for IC and America.

2007-02-12T21:10:00.000-06:00

This article was originally published by the Illinois College newspaper The Rambler in Nov. 2004. It was the first of my column called "The Conservatives' Corner." I hope you enjoy it and look for the others to appear soon.

Greetings to all on the Hilltop. This is the first installment of a new addition to the Rambler that I hope everyone will enjoy. It is my hope that through this column, conservative ideals and principles will be raised and made aware to the campus community. If you do not agree with the ideas presented in this column, that is quite alright as this is America and you are entitled to your opinion. I do ask that you give me a chance and hopefully what I present will not only make you think, but will make you a more informed person. In advance, I thank you for your time in reading what I have to say.

Well it’s finally over and Americans have spoken and their voice was loud and clear, we want George W. Bush for four more years. While many bemoan this, it should come as no surprise why Bush would win. Let’s go back to 1936. The nation is in the grips of the Great Depression and Franklin D. Roosevelt is running for re-election. Would America decide to elect a new president? If so, what could this new president have done to alleviate the crisis? Both possible question facing voters at the time. Clearly history shows that Americans wanted continuity in their leadership and they then elected FDR to his unprecedented four terms. Americans clearly did not want to change horses in mid-stream as the nation first faced the Depression then World War II. This idea carried over to Election Day 2004 as the voters decided that for now continuity is what is needed. President Bush is the first president since 1936 to not only gain re-election, but to also gain ground in the House and Senate, and as with FDR in 1936, Bush now has a historical opportunity to spread the message of conservatism to the country.

Another reason why Bush won was the person of John Kerry. It is quite sad when most of your supporters are voting for you not because they like you and your ideas, but because they hate the other guy so much that anyone is better. One thing that hurt Kerry was his liberal stance. Most voters, as illustrated by the gay marriage bans in the states which put them to a vote, are traditionalists and Kerry’s liberal views did not mix well with them.

Conservatism is a growing force in the nation. According to an article in Campus magazine, many journalists sloppily reported and even denied the growing conservative movement on America’s college campuses which started in the early 1980s. The Europeans view us as stupid as illustrated by their reaction to our decision as a nation. They are either denying or missing this growth in conservative ideals in our country. Now is the time for the Bush administration and the new Congress to act and push their agenda to America. The markets have responded well to Bush’s re-election and we will now see what the next four years have in store for our nation.

I foresee great things for our nation. I believe that Iraq will stabilize with the elections in January, and will grow over time into a staunch ally against terror. As illustrated by the markets reaction to the election results, our economy will continue to grow. Social Security will be reformed and made better and more secure. We will continue to win the battles in the War on Terror and without a draft. All of these things, I have confidence will be dealt with and fixed with four more years of George W. Bush. I have heard that several Americans want to leave due to the results. I say good riddance, if you can’t deal with the results then get out of my country. Conservatives didn’t leave en masse when Bill Clinton won the White House and this shows the lack of faith held by some in their country.

Conservatives, we must unite behind our president and the Congress and make our voices heard so that our vision for America will be realized. This is an opportunity for the president to accomplish his goals and make America safer and stronger. Students this is our time. Conservatism is a growing tide and the left is reeling in attempting to prepare for it. Now is the time to take our nation back from the left and make America the great conservative power in the world. Thank you for your decision to give Bush another four years to work for America. I am Daniel Sauerwein and this has been the Conservatives’ Corner, God Bless and have a great day.

New feature coming

2007-02-09T00:38:00.000-06:00

I would like to announce that I will be posting a new series of articles for The Conservative Files. They are old writings of mine from my days as a staff writer for Illinois College's newspaper The Rambler. The articles are entitled The Conservative Corner and it ran for about four weeks. I have others that are unfinished that I may try to finish and post here, so stay tuned for these new articles. If you like what you see and are interested in contributing, please send me an email (click on my profile name).

R.I.P. Pres. Gerald Ford

2006-12-26T23:03:00.000-06:00

Former President Gerald Ford has passed away tonight at age 93. Many historical events surrounded his administration, from assuming the presidency after the resignation of Richard Nixon, to the fall of Saigon, Ford played a role in our history and may God comfort his family in their time of grief. Please keep the Ford family and the nation in your prayers.

The Conservative Files Team

Warning For America From South Africa

2006-10-21T17:38:00.000-05:00

The following was posted on The Patriot Files, a forum that I belong to. It is quite insightful and raises questions about our current issue with illegal immigration.

Warning For America From South Africa

By Gemma Meyer (Gemma Meyer is the pseudonym of a South African journalist. She and her husband, a former conservative member of parliament, still reside in South Africa.)

People used to say that South Africa was 20 years behind the rest of the Western world. Television, for example, came late to South Africa (but so did pornography and the gay rights movement).

Today, however, South Africa may be the grim model of the future Western world, for events in America reveal trends chillingly similar to those that destroyed our country.

America's structures are Western. Your Congress, your lobbying groups, your free speech, and the way ordinary Americans either get involved or ignore politics are peculiarly Western, not the way most of the world operates. But the fact that only about a third of Americans deem it important to vote is horrifying in light of how close you are to losing your Western character.

Writing letters to the press, manning stands at county fairs, hosting fund-raising dinners, attending rallies, setting up conferences, writing your Congressman - that is what you know, and what you are comfortable with. Those are the political methods you've created for yourselves to keep your country on track and to ensure political accountability.

But woe to you if - or more likely, when - the rules change. White Americans may soon find themselves unable or unwilling to stand up to challenge the new political methods that will be the inevitable result of the ethnic metamorphosis now taking place in America. Unable to cope with the new rules of the game - violence, mob riots, intimidation through accusations of racism, demands for proportionality based on racial numbers, and all the other social and political weapons used by the have-nots to bludgeon treasure and power from the haves - Americans, like others before them, will no doubt cave in. They will compromise away their independence and ultimately their way of life.

That is exactly what happened in South Africa. I know, because I was there and I saw it happen.

Faced with revolution in the streets, strikes, civil unrest and the sheer terror and murder practiced by Nelson Mandela's African National Congress (ANC), the white government simply capitulated in order to achieve "peace."

Westerners need peace. They need order and stability. They are builders and planners. But what we got was the peace of the grave for our society.

The Third World is different - different peoples with different pasts and different cultures. Yet Westerners continue to mistake the psychology of the Third World and its peoples. Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe are perfect examples of those mistakes. Sierra Leone is in perpetual civil war, and Zimbabwe - once the thriving, stable Rhodesia - is looting the very people (the white men) who feed the country. Yet Westerners do not admit that the same kind of savagery could come to America when enough immigrants of the right type assert themselves. The fact is, Americans are sitting ducks for Third World exploitation of the Western conscience of compassion.

Those in the West who forced South Africa to surrender to the ANC and its leaders did not consider Africa to be the dangerous, corrupt, and savage place it is now in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Those Western politicians now have a similar problem looming on their own doorsteps: the demand for power and treasure from the non-Western peoples inside the realm.

It is already too late for South Africa, but not for America if enough people strengthen their spine and take on the race terrorists, the armies of the "politically correct" and, most dangerous of all, the craven politicians who believe "compassionate conservatism" will buy them a few more votes, a few more days of peace.

White South Africans, you should remember, have been in that part of Africa for the same amount of time whites have inhabited North America; yet ultimately South Africans voted for their own suicide. We are not so very different from you.

We lost our country through skillful propaganda, pressure from abroad (not least from the U.S.A.), unrelenting charges of "oppression" and "racism," and the shrewd assessment by African tyrants that the white man has many Achilles' heels, the most significant of which are his compassion, his belief in the "equality of man," and his "love your neighbor" philosophy - none of which are part of the Third World's history.

The mainline churches played a big role in the demise of Western influence throughout Africa, too; especially in South Africa. Today's tyrants were yesterday's mission-school proteges. Many dictators in Africa were men of the cloth. They knew their clerical collars would deflect criticism and obfuscate their real aims, which had nothing whatever to do with the "brotherhood of man."

Other tyrants, like the infamous Idi Amin, were trained and schooled by the whites themselves, at Oxford, Cambridge, and Harvard. After receiving the best from the West, they unleashed a resentful bloodlust against their benefactors.

From what I have seen and read thus far, I fear Americans will capitulate just as we did. Americans are, generally, a soft lot. They don't want to quarrel or obstruct the claims of those who believe they were wronged. They like peace and quiet, and they want to compromise and be nice.

A television program that aired in South Africa showed a town meeting somewhere in Southern California where people met to complain about falling standards in the schools. Whites who politely spoke at the meeting clearly resented the influx of Mexican immigrants into their community. When a handful of Chicanos at the back of the hall shouted and waved their hands at them, the whites simply shrunk back into their seats rather than tell the noisemakers to shut up. They didn't want to quarrel.

In America, the courts are still the final arbiters of society's laws. But what will happen when your future majority refuses to abide by court rulings - as in Zimbabwe. What will happen when the new majority says the judges are racists, and that they refuse to acknowledge "white man's justice"? What will happen when the courts are filled with their people, or their sympathizers? In California, Proposition 187 has already been overturned.

What will you do when the future non-white majority decides to change the names of streets and cities? What will you do when they no longer want to use money that carries the portraits of old, dead white "racists" and slave owners? Will you cave in, like you did on flying the Confederate flag? What about the national anthem? Your official language?

Don't laugh. When the "majority" took over in South Africa, the first targets were our national symbols.

In another generation, America may well face what Africa is now experiencing - invasions of private land by the "have-nots;" the decline in health care quality; roads and buildings in disrepair; the banishment of your history from the education of the young; the revolutionization of your justice system.

In South Africa today, only 9 percent of murderers end up in jail. Court dockets are regularly purchased and simply disappear. Magistrates can be bribed as can the prison authorities, making escapes commonplace. Vehicle and airplane licenses are regularly purchased, and forged school and university certificates are routine.

What would you think of the ritual slaughter of animals in your neighbor's backyard? How do you clean up the blood and entrails that litter your suburban streets? How do you feel about the practice of witchcraft, in which the parts of young girls and boys are needed for "medicinal" purposes? How do you react to the burning of witches?

Don't laugh. All that is quite common in South Africa today.

Don't imagine that government officials caught with their fingers in the till will be punished. Excuses - like the need to overcome generations of white racism - will be found to exonerate the guilty.

In fact, known criminals will be voted into office because of a racial solidarity among the majority that doesn't exist among the whites. When Ian Smith of the old Rhodesia tried to stand up to the world, white South African politicians were among the Westerners pressuring him to surrender.

When Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe murders his political opponents, ignores unfavorable court decisions, terrorizes the population and siphons off millions from the state treasury for himself and his friends, South Africa's new President Thabo Mbeki holds his hand and declares his support. That just happened a few weeks ago.

Your tax dollars will go to those who don't earn and don't pay. In South Africa, organizations that used to have access to state funds such as old age homes, the arts, and veterans' services, are simply abandoned.

What will happen is that Western structures in America will be either destroyed from without, or transformed from within, used to suit the goals of the new rulers. And they will reign either through terror, as in Zimbabwe today, or exert other corrupt pressures to obtain, or buy votes. Once power is in the hands of aliens, don't expect loyalty or devotion to principle from those whose jobs are at stake. One of the most surprising and tragic components of the disaster in South Africa is how many previously anti-ANC whites simply moved to the other side.

Once you lose social, cultural, and political dominance, there is no getting it back again.

Unfortunately, your habits and values work against you. You cannot fight terror and street mobs with letters to your Congressmen. You cannot fight accusations of racism with prayer meetings. You cannot appeal to the goodness of your fellow man when the fellow man despises you for your weaknesses and hacks off the arms and legs of his political opponents.

To survive, Americans must never lose the power they now enjoy to people from alien cultures. Above all, don't put yourselves to the test of fighting only when your backs are against the wall. You will probably fail.

Millions around the world want your good life. But make no mistake: They care not for the high-minded ideals of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, and your Constitution. What they want are your posessions, your power, and your status.

And they already know that their allies among you, the "human rights activists," the skillful lawyers and the left-wing politicians will fight for them, and not for you. They will exploit your compassion and your Christian charity, and your good will.

They have studied you, Mr. and Mrs. America, and they know your weaknesses well.

They know what to do.

Do you?

California teen threatens the President on her Myspace account

2006-10-14T12:11:00.000-05:00

I just read on FoxNews.com about a 14-year old girl in California who is "upset" about the war in Iraq. So what did this self-described "peace-loving person" do? She posted last spring on her Myspace.com page when she was in eighth grade a picture of President Bush with the words "Kill Bush" across the top and a dagger stabbing his hand. This misguided CHILD then learned that (gasp) such things are a federal offense, so she tries to take down her site before federal agents discover it. Too late. Julia Wilson would soon find herself facing two Secret Service agents, who questioned her about the site. They pulled her out of class to question her (she is now a freshman). Her parents are upset that they were not included when their daughter was questioned, but that they believed the agents were justified in questioning Julia, but that they went too far by not waiting until she was out of school (nowhere was it mentioned that they were upset by what their daughter did). The parents also state that the agents should have found out sooner that they were not dealing with a threat.

Julia describes the situation with the agents in an attempt to pull at America's heart strings, a kind of "How dare the evil administration harass a little girl over something on her webpage when she is not a threat." She notes how the questioning left her in tears and that the agents "yelled at me a lot" and were "unnecessarily mean." Julia, YOU THREATENED THE LIFE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. While you may be a kid, the government cannot take such things lightly. You whine about the agents being mean to you, have you never been yelled at for doing something wrong? Did you not think that what you posted could be wrong?

I did that to illustrate a point, she is a child and is whining as if she was being treated too harsh for something that is very serious. I believe that she is only upset because she was caught. Honestly, if she were my daughter, the two agents would be the least of her worries. While she is a little too old for spanking, she would lose all electronic devices, computer especially, and be grounded for a very long time. Perhaps treating her as a much younger child with earlier bedtime and loss of teenage privileges in addition to the grounding would be in order because she obviously demonstrated poor judgment and a lack of maturity. I know that I may get some emails or comments from parents who will tell me "How dare I stifle her individuality and violate her rights." This only leads me to my next point.

This case brings a debate to the forefront, whether kids are entitled to the rights in the Bill of Rights. I firmly believe they are not. I was taught in government class when I was 18 and newly registered to vote that those who don't do anything to change the system have no right to question it. Meaning if you don't vote, don't say anything about the government as you are doing nothing to change the system. I have dealt with professors who are not US citizens and think that they can comment on our government and I have wanted to tell them to keep quiet. This applies to children as well. I am not saying that parents should not talk with their kids about politics when they are young as doing so will educate the child as to how our system works and make them a more informed voter, which is good when they turn 18. However, such discussions should be limited to the privacy of the home and only between the child and parents/guardians. Most adults do not want to here about politics from kids and I certainly feel that they should just be kids as they grow up fast enough (I'm 22 and I still can't believe how fast time flies and I have heard it gets better the older you get) and the adult things will have many more years to flourish.

As for the Bill of Rights, I mentioned the above to show that I believe these rights are a guarantee of adult citizenship and do not apply to children. I do believe that kids have rights: the right to be loved, the right to feel safe and protected, the right to clean clothes (meaning that they are not running around in rags in winter), the right to a warm loving home, and the right to play and have fun. I believe that Julia Wilson is entitled to these rights as are all children, but she is NOT entitled to free speech rights. That right, as with the others in the Constitution, come with great responsibility, which is beyond what a child can handle. You can't run into a crowded theater and yell "Fire!" as it would start a panic, just as you can't threaten the life of the President.

To go back to the parents stating that the agents should have realized sooner that Julia was not a threat, where have you been the last few years? We live in an age where creeps impersonate children online and children threaten to kill their classmates because they were teased. Who is to say that Julia's website was not being run by a terrorist or other threat? We have bomb threats called into schools that turn out to be nothing, should the authorities assume that every threat is just that? No, just like they can't assume that every threat on the President's life is not coming from a misguided child who has too much time and freedom as far as parental control. Let this be a lesson to all you parents, do NOT let your child have a Myspace account, they don't need it. Also, make it clear that things like this are very serious and come with serious consequences. To all you liberal parents who despise Bush and the war, while you are entitled to your opinions (and I appreciate you reading my blog), please tell your kids that they should not mimic your politics and that things like the case above can get them in serious trouble.

As for Julia, I don't know if she really learned her lesson. She is back on Myspace attempting to organize her fellow children to protest the war. Though the agents said they would delete the case file on her, I would personally look into the parents as well as in most cases the apple does not fall far from the tree. Freedom is precious, but it also comes with a great price and with great responsibility, which I believe most children can't grasp or handle. Kids, get off the computer and go outside and play. Your only kids for so long, leave the politics to us adults.

Culture Warrior a Hit with this traditional warrior

2006-10-07T22:18:00.000-05:00

I recently finished Bill O'Reilly's latest book Culture Warrior and commend him on this fine work. Bill O'Reilly, for those who do not know, is host of one of the top rated cable news programs in the nation The O'Reilly Factor, which airs at 8PM Eastern/7PM Central on The Fox News Channel. He uses facts and personal accounts to describe to Americans a domestic war that many may not realize is going on, but one that is as vital to the future and security of our great nation as the War on Terror. He mentions the personal and emotional nature of the book as well as the effect of his fight on both him and his family. This is one reason why I enjoyed the book as Bill was pouring his heart out into the culture war.

O'Reilly notes early on that the culture war is between two factions: the traditionalists who see America as a great nation that does good things in the world (even if we have made mistakes in the past), and the secular-progressives who he shortens to S-Ps who see America as a major source of the problems in the world and seek to undermine America to bring about a secular socialist state. Bill emphasizes that this war is not a conservative vs. liberal one as he stresses that some liberals fall in with the traditionalist camp, while some conservatives fall in with the S-P crowd. He also notes that the factions do not split necessarily down religious lines.

After the initial briefing, O'Reilly begins his examination of the culture war by painting a bleak scene of America's potential future if the S-P crowd wins the war. In his hypothetical State of the Union, America is a changed land. Religion and spirituality are stricken from the public arena and income redistribution punishes the wealthy and has created a nanny state with many more social programs. America has weakened and tows the line of European socialists and the UN. This America experiences more terror attacks on its soil (we pray that no more do happen on our soil), but they are seen as "a small price to pay" for this version of America.(13) Now while this scenario is a little extreme, Bill uses it to illustrate the threat very well. One shudders to think of America described above, which is why traditionalists must read Bill's analysis and join the war.

Bill then looks at the S-P army overall and the main commanders who include far-left billionaire George Soros, professor at UC-Berkeley George Lakoff, and Peter Lewis. He then notes the S-P shock troops, the ACLU as well as the mainstream media, who play major roles in the war.

O'Reilly examines the media's role in the culture war more in depth, exposing liberal reporters/anchors like Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and Walter Cronkite, as well as Public Television's Bill Moyers. He also notes the cable networks CNN and MSNBC. He also looks at the S-P allies in the morning news programs and late-night personalities (Leno, Letterman, and John Stewart), highlighting his appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman earlier this year as compared to visits to The Tonight Show. He also notes Peter Jennings and Ted Koppel, who he describes as straight shooters, though liberal, but not S-P soldiers.

O'Reilly then looks at the media forces in the traditional army, specifically Fox News Channel as well as his own highly successful program on FNC The O'Reilly Factor and its influence on America in the broader culture war. He notes his early issues with trying to have S-P voices on his show and how it did not go as planned, but how he has rebounded and learned. Later on, Bill humbly (in my opinion) examines some of the minor setbacks in the culture war battlefield, including S-P ambushes, and how he has learned from these mistakes for the most part and is a more effective culture warrior.

Two major areas that O'Reilly examines are the Christmas battle and the battle for the minds of our children. He cites good examples of S-P abuses against cities and towns across our nation over Christmas displays and other things relating to that wonderful time of year, which are mainly perpetrated by the ACLU. He notes how many in the S-P camp deny the existence of a "War on Christmas", but Bill backs it up with facts.

Bill's examination of S-P infiltration in our nation's classrooms is also backed up with numerous examples. Within this battle lies the battle over school choice, something the S-P crowd is against. This is because they seek to break our children's minds away from the influence of their parents so that these kids will be the future foot soldiers in the S-P camp.

This culture war is also linked to the War on Terror. While O'Reilly notes that terrorists like bin Laden do not like what the S-Ps stand for, they do support them because of the weak vision of America that the S-P forces believe in, which would make the terrorist better able to reach their goals. Through this, Bill emphasizes the importance of the culture war on America.

Ultimately, while the traditional camp greatly outnumbers the S-P crowd, the problem is that many traditionalists are not active in the war. O'Reilly notes that blacks and Catholics would be wise to join the traditional army and that this apathy in a way is why the S-P forces are having an effect on the nation.

Overall, Bill O'Reilly has created a masterful work that is of great importance to Americans who see our country as a force of good in the world. His bravery in exposing the forces who seek to destroy what America is has come at a personal cross. Through great facts and examples as well as personal experience, O'Reilly has created the perfect field manual for the traditional warrior. Soldier of the traditionalist army, pick up a copy of Culture Warrior, that's an order.

Iran's Nut Job Leader a Blogger. God Help Us.

2006-08-13T17:41:00.000-05:00

It has been reported that the Iranian dictator (err, I mean president) has his own blog. According to the article, he recounts his personal life, from childhood through the revolution, to the present and asks visitors to vote on whether the US and Israel are "pulling the trigger for another world war." I voted "no" and noticed that most have voted no as well. So take a stand and make Iran's president mad by voting no on his blog question. I would advise against commenting though as I don't want my readers to have fatwas placed on them. Here is the web address and it is viewable in English, http://www.ahmadinejad.ir. Have fun.

Upcoming book review

2006-06-23T23:53:00.000-05:00

I thought I would let you know that I will be posting a review of a book dealing with the Middle East conflict. It is called Samson Blinded by Obadiah Shoher. You have probably noticed the link on this site. I encourage you to click on the link, download the PDF of the book, and submit your reviews to the website. Look for the review in the coming weeks.

Illegal Immigration Issues

2006-04-06T21:56:00.000-05:00

By William F. Sauerwein

News reports continue highlighting the massive protests concerning the status of illegal aliens. On the surface, these protesters demand “fair treatment” for those hard-working people, performing “jobs that Americans won’t do.” Underlying this image is a sinister image that threatens our national security, our economic well-being and our sovereignty. While the media ignores the threat and politicians pander for the “Latino vote,” ordinary Americans feel helpless.

As a “nation of immigrants” we faced these problems throughout our history, often with unsatisfactory results. President Theodore Roosevelt faced the problem of massive immigration from southern Europe, and warned of the danger of “hyphenated Americans.” Later when the United States entered World War I the loyalty of recent immigrants from enemy countries presented a real danger. Fortunately, most of these new Americans eagerly embraced their adopted country, and fought for it when required.

Currently Americans of German ancestry make up the largest group, I am among this group. Currently I live in the greater St. Louis area, which could be considered a “German enclave.” We do not fly German flags, or culturally identify ourselves with Germany, except maybe when we celebrate Oktoberfest. Few know the birth date of Baron von Steuben (November15th), who trained the Continental Army at Valley Forge.

German-Americans rendered other valuable military service to the United States. During the Civil War the German-Americans in St. Louis overwhelmingly supported the Union. Their reinforcement of the small force of U.S. Army Regulars kept Missouri from seceding from the Union. During the post-Civil War Indian wars German immigrants comprised the second largest group in the U.S. Army.

World War I dramatically affected German-Americans, most of whom felt pressured into demonstrating their loyalty to the United States. Before the war cities with large numbers of German-Americans published German-language newspapers. Schools in these cities taught German as a second language, not a replacement for English. In my hometown this stopped, and did not start again when the war ended.

The advent of World War II, and hatred for the German enemy, ended any lingering interest in anything German. Though most people today in my hometown possess German surnames, very few speak German, most of whom learned this through military service. None speak with a German accent, nor does anyone advocate the establishment of a German Lebensraum.

Today we face a similar problem with the continuing wave of immigrants, mostly from Mexico. We supposedly addressed this problem with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. When perusing this law on its website it “solved” almost every issue that the current act in Congress addresses. The difference, at the time the IRCA became law it supposedly legalized 3 million people, we now face at least 12 million.

While most of them probably came here looking for a better life, as did my ancestors, that is not the issue. My ancestors came here legally through Ellis Island, where they waited in long lines for admission. One of these lines was for medical examination, preventing the introduction of infectious diseases. The system at the time required they possess a needed skill and have a sponsor already residing in the country. This ensured they would not become a burden on the public, something crossing the border illegally does not ensure.

Media reports claim that many of those openly demonstrating are illegal aliens, and lacked fear of apprehension. That they openly flaunt our laws disturbs me, since violating one law often leads to violating more. The demonstrations’ purpose is demanding that we do not enforce existing laws, and enact new ones rewarding their illegal conduct. Furthermore, as “hard-working” people how do they get so much time off for demonstrating.

More disturbing to me was the open display of Mexican flags, the signage in Spanish and the open racism. This demonstrates the unwillingness to assimilate into the American “melting pot,” as done by previous immigrants. Signs displaying the phrases, “Chicano Power,” “Brown Power,” etc. are examples of overt racism, and not “ethnic pride,” as claimed.

The most disturbing implications are those of establishing the separatist state of Azatlan in the American Southwest. This propaganda states that the American Southwest was “stolen” from Mexico, and rightfully still belongs to Mexico. This view is promoted by racist organizations, such as La Raza, whose motto translates into, “for the race everything, for those outside the race nothing.” Another such group is the Movimento Estudianil Chicano de Azatlan (Chicano Student Movement of Azatlan), commonly known as MEChA.

Suppose the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) held such massive demonstrations, carried Confederate flags and “White Power” signs. The KKK espouses support for the “white race,” “Southern Pride” and separation of the races. I do not follow their rhetoric and do not know if they advocate the establishment of a “New Confederacy.” The media would immediately, and correctly, brand these activities as “hate speech,” “racism,” and “anti-American.” Furthermore, they would not be concerned about the KKK’s First Amendment rights, as they are with those of La Raza and MEChA. One thing all three groups have in common is anti-Semitism, yet only that of the KKK is disparaged.

One MEChA site calls the Chicano “race” the “people of the sun,” and “civilizer” of Azatlan. While claiming the Southwest was “stolen” from Mexico in 1848, from whom did these “civilizers” steal it? The name Mexico derives from “mestizo,” meaning “mixed blood” or “mixed race.” The two races mixed were the Spanish conquistadors and the native Indian tribes they conquered. Using their terminology, their ancestors were “evil” Europeans, who murdered, pillaged and raped the poor Indians.

Regarding its history with the Indian tribes, Mexico’s “genocide” equaled that of the United States, and surpassed it in some areas. Most Southwestern tribes, such as the Apache and Comanche, hated both the Mexicans and the Americans. Of course we must never discuss the brutality practiced by the Indians against both the Americans and Mexicans, and each other.

One reason for the success of the few Spanish conquistadors against the large Indian empires was the eager alliances of other Indians. In Mexico the Aztecs brutalized other Indians they conquered, practicing slavery, tyrannical rule and massive human sacrifice on those they conquered. Seeking revenge, and hopefully an end to this brutality, they allied with the Spanish conquistadors.

After Mexico won its independence from Spain the current American Southwest was very sparsely populated. The climate in this region was harsh and arid, and much of it still is today. Most of the inhabitants were the Indians, whose nomadic lifestyle seemed suited for the region. When the Indians needed more they raided Mexican settlements and returned home with the “booty.”

Despite today’s rhetoric, Mexican officials actively encouraged American colonization, and other foreign immigration, of the region. In Texas, Stephen Austin made the most famous of these agreements under the provisions of Mexico’s Constitution of 1824. Mexican officials intended for these “Anglos” to act as the buffer between them and the Indians. While most Americans reneged on several conditions in this agreement, Mexican officials ignored it, provided they continue absorbing the Indian depredations.

Most “Anglos” remained “good citizens,” farmed their land, paid their taxes and fought the Indians. However, the continued influx of so many foreigners disturbed Mexican officials, and they now reneged on their agreement. Internal Mexican political struggles led to the rise of General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna as the Mexican dictator. This proved unpopular with both the Mexican and Anglo populations, resulting in several revolts.

Santa Anna’s tyranny eventually cost him Texas in the famous Texas War of Independence in 1835-6. Ironically, the Texas flag was the Mexican flag with the numbers “1824” in the center. The Texans fought for a return to Mexico’s 1824 Constitution, not annexation to the United States.

Ironically, the Mexican state of Yucatan, which contained no significant Anglo populace, declared its independence from Mexico. This occurred simultaneous with the revolution in Texas, and advocated a return to the Constitution of 1824. The Republic of Yucatan recognized the independent Republic of Texas, and declared neutrality during the Mexican-American War.

Under Santa Anna, Mexico did not recognize Texas independence, and this created almost constant warfare. Texas applied for annexation to the United States in 1844 largely because of this warfare, and the U.S. assumption of Texas’ public debt. Mexico threatened war if the annexation occurred, and the unresolved border further heightened tensions.

Texas became a U.S. state in 1845, and war began with Mexico in 1846. Mexico was defeated on every front, with American forces seizing Santa Fe, New Mexico and then Los Angeles, California. Other forces invaded Mexico proper, and General Winfield Scott’s army captured Mexico City.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed in 1848, ended the war under very generous terms for the time. In this era of “empire-building” by major European powers defeat often meant annexation, and installing a puppet government. Victors normally exacted tribute from the conquered for paying the expenses incurred by the victor.

Mexico ceded the current American Southwest, previously captured by American forces in battle. For this Mexico received 15 million dollars and the U.S. assumed 3 million dollars of debt owed by Mexico to American citizens. From our position of strength in Mexico City, had we demanded more, Mexico could have done little to oppose.

Santa Anna negotiated the current Mexican-New Mexico-Arizona border with the Gadsden Purchase of 1853. The American ambassador to Mexico, James Gadsden, negotiated the deal, for which Mexico received 10 million dollars.

The history of our relationship with Mexico reveals suspicion, envy, racism and armed conflict. Perhaps the greatest rift occurred during World War I with the Punitive Expedition of 1916. Mexico was in a state of civil war, with the fighting occasionally spilling over the border. American forces patrolled the entire border region, ostensibly for preventing cross-border incursions.

On March 16, 1916 the famous Mexican revolutionary/bandit (depending on your perspective) Pancho Villa attacked American troops stationed at Columbus, New Mexico. Though defeated, Villa killed 17 Americans, soldiers and civilians, and inspired a nationwide outrage. An uneasy agreement existed between Mexico and the U.S. for eliminating Villa’s threat.

American forces penetrated about 500 miles into Mexico, supposedly beyond the agreement’s limits, pursuing Villa. Villa hoped to instigate combat between the Americans and Mexicans, and thereby both would forget about him. This occurred at the town of Carrizal, in which 12 Americans and 45 Mexican soldiers were killed.

Adding fuel to this fire was the so-called “Zimmerman Note” sent by German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmerman to the German ambassador in Mexico in January, 1917. Anticipating American entry into the war on the Allies’ side, he proposed an alliance between Mexico and Germany. If Mexico attacked the U.S. Germany would provide financial and military aid, and Mexico could recapture Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

Mexico refused this alliance for several reasons, mostly doubting its military capabilities against the U.S. Furthermore, given the Allies’ successful blockade of Germany they doubted the receipt of the promised aid. Mexico also acknowledged its inability for absorbing a large Anglo population within its border (sound familiar?).

This influx of illegal, mostly Mexican, aliens presents the same threat to the United States. Current estimates place their number at about 12 million, and I believe this estimate is too low. If only one-fourth of them are working age males this means we have a potential 3 million man invading army. They already demand bilingual education, government documents printed in Spanish and many demand the right to vote for non-citizens.

Most disturbing is the enthusiastic support they receive from native-born Americans, particularly the radical Left. Many of these leftist supporters hate the United States and firmly believe the U.S. is “too big and too powerful.” Taken to the logical conclusion, that means the U.S. must become smaller and less powerful. Assisting with the establishment of Azatlan would certainly accomplish this goal, but then what?

Unfortunately many of these leftists hold positions as educators, members of the media and as powerful politicians. Educators possess considerable influence over the nation’s youth, particularly at the college level. If the media, including Hollywood, controls what information gets to the American public it dramatically affects the public perceptions. Politicians control the laws enacted at all levels of government, and many now place their political agendas ahead of the public good.

Since both La Raza and MEChA possess “Marxist” (communist has such harsh implications) leanings, and both organizations appear the moving force, it achieves the Left’s dream. The Left’s first loyalty is to international socialism, and they believe communism failed solely because it began in backward Russia. Would Azatlan become an independent nation, or an extension of Mexico, either way it would be hostile toward the United States. What of the large population of Anglos and other non-Latinos who reside there? Current dogma states they must be expelled and their property confiscated, but what if they do not go peacefully? The Civil War settled the question of secession from the Union, at the cost of over 600,000 Americans killed.

Given the current “brain-washing” of both American citizens and illegal immigrants, preaching anti-American hatred, maybe Azatlan would go peacefully. In the “blame America first” atmosphere promoted by the American Left, they would probably call it “justice.”

If anyone doubts the veracity of “Marxist” leanings, go on either organization’s website. The next scheduled mass demonstration is scheduled for May 1st, May Day, the day most celebrated by communist countries. Other supporters include other leftist organizations, such as anti-war and pro-Palestinian groups.

We currently have enough laws addressing the current illegal immigration problem; we just need to enforce them. For example, Los Angeles mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, refuses to enforce federal immigration laws. Many cities threaten their police officers with termination if they assist federal officials in prosecuting immigration laws. I thought federal law held supremacy over state and local laws, but I guess only if they are enforced.

Despite the propaganda, not all those illegally crossing our borders are the “down-trodden” seeking a better life. One Middle Eastern terrorist was captured last year crossing the border near Brownsville, Texas. From a distance most observers cannot differentiate between Latinos and Middle Easterners, and the “coyotes” guiding them accept all payment. As we learned on 9/11, it only takes a few for creating a massive crisis.

Then we have the problem with the influx of Latino gangs, particularly the MS-13 gang from Central America. The Department of Justice estimates that half of the estimated 800,000 gang members in the U.S. are Latino. Just how taxing is this to our various law enforcement agencies and our criminal justice system? We already know that the gangs basically run the prison system, with little interference from the corrections officers.

Current supporters of amnesty/guest worker programs state that our economy “could not survive” without these illegals. They further state that Americans will not perform the menial work performed by these illegals. Supposedly these illegals “earned” their American residency through paying taxes, particularly social security taxes.

Since most “low-income” Americans pay little in taxes, the same holds true for “low income” illegals. If paid “under the table,” neither they, nor their employer, pay social security taxes. If these illegals contribute so much to our economy, why are the border states in such a crisis?

How many of these illegal immigrants are breaking our economy through the lavish benefits received from our social services? How high are our school taxes because we educate the children of illegals, including in-state college tuition? Since social service workers, medical professionals, educators, etc., do not report these illegals, they feel no threat of capture.

First I would close the border, we are a nation at war and national security must have priority. Double the size of the U.S. Border Patrol, if necessary, and upgrade their equipment for the current threat. Likewise strengthen the Coast Guard, Customs Service and others responsible for our borders, including the Canadian border and all ports of entry.

Several media reports state that Mexican military personnel have crossed our border and fired on our officials. Mexico has denied that these are Mexican troops, but even if true, they possess Mexican military armaments. Back up our officials with military force and tell Mexico that we will engage these “bandits” crossing our border.

The politicians supporting the “guest worker” program state we cannot deport 12 million people. Then how do we expect to get them to pay their fines under the new law, and register for their permits? Remove the incentive and sanctuary and many of these illegals will leave voluntarily. Prosecute all employers who hire them, including the loss of current and future government contracts. Further prosecute, and fire, social service workers, medical professionals, educators and anyone else not reporting known illegals. Make part of the punishment the loss of federal funding, such as the old “55” speed limit laws.

No matter how long the journey, we always begin with the first step, so it goes with enforcing immigration laws. Start catching them in small numbers, and soon the small numbers become large numbers. Fingerprint and photograph them when caught and keep these files on record. Deport them on the first offense, and imprison them on subsequent offenses. Streamline the deportation hearing process, and keep them in custody while they await this hearing.

We currently have many illegal aliens in our prison system; why not place them in prisons in their home country. If not, build special prisons in inhospitable locations, like Alaska, and make them work in the wilderness. How many would risk this type of consequences for the menial jobs?

Make the healthy and able-bodied Americans on welfare take these menial jobs, or lose their benefits. Americans refuse to take these jobs because the welfare system provides similar compensation, requiring no work. During the Great Depression, before the establishment of the “welfare state,” Americans performed those jobs. No jobs, no illegals.

Reducing the number of people receiving public aid puts more people into the work force, and the tax base. The people on public aid are supported by the hard work of the American taxpayer, who becomes increasingly frustrated. When the government takes money from our pockets for rewarding welfare recipients, we have less for supporting our families. The American taxpayer is not a bottomless pit of money for the frivolous spending currently legislated at all levels of government.

Those professing loyalty to Mexico, or any other country, and advocating the creation of Azatlan pose a threat. Deport them to the country of their loyalty, and forbid their reentry as subversives. The only way for creating Azatlan is carving out a portion of the United States. Given the militancy of La Raza and MEChA; this makes those currently advocating it also subversives. The Justice Department currently prosecutes members of the KKK, why not La Raza and MEChA?

While we fight Islamofascists overseas, we pander to Latino-fascists at home. The U.S. Senate “sold out” to the illegal aliens, and those who support them, meanwhile the American people lost. They passed this bill despite the overwhelming objections of the American people, the people they supposedly represent.

I remember their outrage over the selling of several port terminals to the United Arab Emirates. They all jumped in front of the television cameras espousing their support for national security. Now they demand porous borders and reward those who illegally entered our country. Furthermore, they ignore the prominence of Mexican flags in these demonstrations, and the public anti-American rhetoric.

Anyone who believes illegals will comply with the new law after violating the old does not deserve their office. Furthermore, anyone believing they want to assimilate into the American culture has not seen the media footage. Those not believing in the subversive, and possibly treasonous, activities of La Raza and MEChA live in a fantasy world.

Given the current track record, we will repeat this process in 2016, with 48 million illegal aliens. Only then it will be easier because the number of those upholding the United States laws will steadily decrease. The Roman Empire opened its borders to the Germanic tribes, and within 50 years it collapsed. While most Americans cannot conceive of the U.S. collapsing, neither did the Romans as the Vandals ransacked Rome.

Happy Birthday to the Gipper

2006-02-06T16:57:00.000-06:00

Today would have been Ronald Reagan's 95th birthday. So, on behalf of the Conservative Files, Happy Birthday to the Great Communicator, the man who made us all proud to be Americans once again. To Mrs. Reagan our thoughts and prayers are with you, may you find peace that Ron is in the shining city on a hill.

MEDIA ARROGANCE

2006-02-06T14:21:00.000-06:00

By William F. Sauerwein

Joel Stein provides ample evidence of why we must hold the media as accountable as we do our government. Stein states his opinion without venom toward the troops, unlike so many in the “anti-war” movement. However, his belief that he understands the criteria for a “just war,” displays little knowledge of warfare, or military personnel. The underlying message in this article reflects Stein’s focus on himself, and that only those thinking like him are worthy of consideration.
First, I commend Stein for not launching personal attacks on the troops, though he appeared somewhat condescending. He makes the troops appear misguided and naïve, while he admits he does not know them. At this stage of the war I believe no one who enters a recruiting station does so blindly. I base this on my experience of enlisting in the Army during the Viet Nam War.
However, Stein makes no such comparison of the young people who blindly follow the various “anti-war” movements. The Viet Nam-era protestors also blindly followed such “causes,” with most unable to find Southeast Asia on a map. No one exposes the lies of people like Professor Ward Churchill, or who finances these various groups. The few media sources that cover the “protestors” expose them as regurgitating rhetoric, with no depth of knowledge.
Nor does anyone question the statements and actions of our enemies, while questioning everything that we do. For example, CNN journalist Eason Jordan admitted that he deliberately covered up Saddam Hussein’s atrocities. He did this so that CNN’s Baghdad office would remain open, and protecting the safety of Iraqi staff members. In a pre-war interview CBS’s Dan Rather showed more deference for Saddam Hussein than for his own president.
Stein further states that he has no problem with those who support the war, how generous. At least he recognizes the right of people who disagree with him of possessing First Amendment rights. A fault with most of those against the war is that they do not respect those who oppose them. For some reason they believe those who oppose them must not have all of the relevant information. For if they did certainly they could only come to the “anti-war” position.
In Stein’s opinion only those who support the troops, and support their mission, are “blind.” He believes that those of us who display our ribbons and bumper stickers supporting the troops do so out of guilty feelings. Now that opinion demonstrates “blindness,” and the unwillingness for communicating with those outside his “group think.” I thought journalists supported “diversity,” and searched deep for stories reflecting “diverse opinions.”
The mention of “Viet Nam” exposes the main thrust of today’s “anti-war” movement. Today’s “protestors” use the same rhetoric as those of the Viet Nam era; they merely changed some words and phrases. Viet Nam represents the best times of the overwhelming majority of the “protestors,” their frivolous youth. They overlook the results of their actions, the enslavement of the people of Cambodia, Laos and South Viet Nam.
If Stein read anything except his selective readings on this war he might see the reasons we waged it. When Japan moved into then-French Indochina in 1940 it so alarmed then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) that he imposed an embargo. He may also see that during the time of our commitment our British allies fought communist insurgencies in Burma and Malaya. Simultaneously, we helped the Philippines defeat a communist insurgency in 1954, but information like this threatens his worldview.
The so-called “anti-war” movement during the Viet Nam era never blamed the enemy for anything. They totally ignored atrocities committed by the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army, particularly during the Tet Offensive. I do not remember them protesting the atrocities and reeducation camps following the fall of Saigon in 1975.
I could go on for a long time about our reasons for fighting in Viet Nam, but that is not the current subject.
Stein then mentions a “50.7%” figure without explanation, and then uses it in conjunction with a “mandate.” Anyone can grab statistics from the air, since most journalism today seems based on continuous polling, derived from skewed questions. No one ever mentions that then-President Bill Clinton never received 50% of the popular vote, though no one questioned his “mandate.” I believe that is because Clinton reflects Stein’s world and political views, therefore no one should question him.
He then demonstrates his ignorance of the military by calling on our soldiers to disobey their orders. First, he substitutes his view of “morality,” meaning do not support wars that he opposes. A soldier in combat does not have the luxury of contemplation, as Stein does, while sitting in his safe office. Soldiers facing the horrors of war possess a deeper understanding of the morality of their cause than do journalists from afar. Furthermore, the Army teaches soldiers in basic training, and thereafter, to disobey unlawful orders, or face punishment.
Stein then furthers that ignorance by claiming some soldiers “just hang out in Germany.” If he understood the military he would know that for the Army peacetime is preparing for the next war. Because of human nature we will never be without war, despite our best efforts. Therefore we must maintain military strength as a deterrent, and use it when deterrence fails.
I guess Stein never “hangs out,” and works at his job 24/7. Otherwise he would understand that you must not keep a soldier in combat constantly. Combat places a severe strain on people, and equipment, requiring periods of rest and maintenance. As a superpower we are obligated to maintain troops in potential trouble spots, and Germany’s strategic location enhances contingency deployments.
At no time does Stein mention the morality of liberating the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator. Saddam Hussein’s regime brutally murdered hundreds of thousands of his people, including “ethnic cleansing” of the Kurds. Saddam felt himself the modern incarnation of Saladin, who defeated the Crusaders and “liberated” the Holy Land. He saw himself as “liberating” Jerusalem from the “Zionists,” and posed a threat to his neighbors. He threatened revenge for his defeat during Operation Desert Storm, and still does not recognize the sovereignty of Kuwait.
The armistice that ended hostilities in 1991 imposed certain restrictions on Saddam, as the defeated party. He failed to follow these UN-imposed restrictions, as apparent with the passage of subsequent resolutions. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 Iraq became the major focus of the US Army. Subsequent training missions reflected that scenario, and Saddam kept us on our toes. Every time Iraqi forces maneuvered near Kuwait, the United States (US) responded by deploying troops into the region. One brigade from the 1st Cavalry Division deployed there three times in about six months.
Clinton increased the operations tempo (optempo) of our troops by about 300%, while decreasing personnel strength by 40%. This forced an unprecedented increase in the peacetime deployment of National Guard and Reserve forces. Most of these missions had little to do with our “national interest,” nor did anyone encourage soldiers to disobey orders. Given Stein’s emphasis on “individual morality,” how many soldiers would willingly deploy to Somalia, Haiti or the Balkans. I remember Michael New, a soldier who refused to wear a United Nation’s (UN) blue beret receiving a court-martial. He believed he swore his oath to the US Constitution, not the UN, a moral choice. New was not a coward, he served honorably during Operation Desert Storm; it was the UN beret which bothered him. Maybe Clinton should have pardoned New instead of Mark Rich when he issued all of those questionable pardons.
For some reason Stein believes that the air war over Kosovo as a “moral” war. Clinton did not seek UN approval, nor the approval of his entire Joint Chiefs of Staff. Furthermore, public opinion polls showed the majority of Americans opposed military operations in Kosovo. The media stated that sometimes the President must ignore the polls and do what is right, according to them.
Clinton lied, nothing new for him, about the danger of a “wider war,” and that “two world wars” started in this region. Little evidence existed of this war expanding beyond the Balkans, except maybe from the people we supported. While World War I began from the assassination of Austria-Hungary’s archduke, the main battlefront was Western Europe. World War II began from the resentment following World War I and the Balkans was a minor theater.
When Clinton ordered the bombing of Serbia, resulting in the death of innocent civilians, it is “moral.” Maybe soldiers should have individually used their “morals” and refused to obey their orders. However, the media “beat the war drum,” declaring we must fight the Serbs for ending “ethnic cleansing.” Using Stein’s logic, Serbia presented no threat to us, therefore the war was “unjust” and “immoral.”
Unlike now, no one in the media “humanized” the Serbs, they were all evil. Now the media refuses to call the enemy terrorists, despite their deliberate targeting of innocent women and children. The media compared the Serbs with Hitler’s Nazis, yet overlooked a convenient fact. Albania was an ally of Germany during World War II and the 13th SS Division consisted largely of Bosnian Muslims. The Left, so eager to prosecute anyone remotely connected with the Nazis, suddenly defended them.
The media further overlooked the long history of warfare in the Balkans, and that each ethnic group rotated between villains and victims. Now evidence exists of the Muslims becoming the villains, and the vaunted “international community” does nothing, nor does the media. The war may indeed “widen” into neighboring Macedonia, but from Albanian aggression.
Stein, and those of his ilk, do not support this war because they do not like President George W. Bush. I remember not long after 9/11 Chris Matthews and others bemoaning the fact that Clinton did not have this event. He could have really demonstrated his greatness, something his supporters keep trying to create. Unfortunately for us, Clinton ignored his chances for fighting terrorism, the first World Trade Center bombing occurred on “his watch.” We further suffered attacks on our troops in Saudi Arabia; embassies in Africa and the bombing of the USS Cole.
Regarding the “faulty intelligence” claim, every major ally’s intelligence services believed Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). He used them previously against his own people, and against the Iranians. Once “Pandora’s Box” is open, it is impossible to close, and no one forgets WMD knowledge. Clinton and the Democrats all stated this during the 1990’s, long before Bush became president.
Since Saddam became our major enemy during the 1990’s why did we have such faulty intelligence? Why did we not have our human intelligence assets on the ground, instead of relying on the UN, and Iraqi dissidents?
I downloaded former weapons inspector David Kay’s congressional report and statements from his successor, Charles Duelfer. Neither person denies that Saddam possessed WMD capabilities; they only did not find “huge stockpiles.” Further reports surfaced in 2004 from a defecting Syrian journalist, Nizar Najoef, that Saddam’s WMD’s entered Syria before the war began. If the police announced in advance a raid on a “crack house” the “dealer” would certainly move the drugs.
Saddam’s links with terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda, became known during the 1990’s. When Usama bin Laden received sanctuary in Sudan several Iraqi intelligence operatives visited him, tracked by the CIA. However the CIA stopped this observation when it became “too dangerous,” and the CIA moved to Kenya. Our troops liberated the Salman Pak terrorist training camp in Iraq, complete with aircraft fuselage, during the war. Of course the “anti-war” critics claim that no “operational” cooperation exists, therefore nothing else matters.
Stein’s article includes several selfish reasons for not supporting the troops. First, since he feels the war unjust, we do not owe the troops’ any gratitude. That may make him feel guilty, or maybe make him think more of his position. He likens military service in Iraq with “clicking on a pop-up ad” on his computer. If that is his only inconvenience in life, he leads a very sheltered life.
He then magnanimously believes we should not spit on the troops, as sometimes happened during Viet Nam. That demonstrates a lot of tolerance, since when the “anti-war” crowd does not get their way they throw tantrums like spoiled children. However, he does not believe we should celebrate their return because he believes the war wrong. Apparently he does not believe the soldiers have families and friends who are thankful they returned. Nor should we hold parades for them, because the traffic is insufferable.
Unfortunately for Stein the world changed following 9/11, yet people like him refuse to accept it. They berate Bush for not “connecting the dots,” when no hard evidence for this “connection” existed. “Monday morning quarterbacking” is easy, especially when you bear no responsibility for the consequences. You merely erase your mistakes and start over, no lives lost, no wars lost. They live a sheltered existence, protected from the “barbarians” by people who understand the world’s realities. For these people the war is little more than a computer game, where you start over if you make a mistake.
That includes the politicians who voted for the war, and now are against it. They were not “deceived,” they made their decisions based on political calculations, regarding the 2002 election. Most of the current war’s opponents were “hawks” during Clinton’s Kosovo war, though they lacked personal military experience. Again, for them it is not the war, but the president that they oppose. Furthermore, they have no plan for winning the war, except retreat and withdrawal, which leaves us vulnerable.
The same holds true for the “mainstream” media, who urged us into the Balkan wars. Now they refuse to wear American flag pins because as journalists they are “neutral.” Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly exposed the media’s emphasis on negative reporting, unfortunately I did not save the statistics. I do remember the media’s outrage when the Pentagon fed them erroneous information for deceiving the terrorists. It did not matter that this erroneous information gave our troops intelligence, and enhanced their success. The American media could not support the mission of American troops in combat, now that is “immoral.”
War is not neat and tidy, nor is it waged between friends like computer games. We do not possess the “cheat codes,” nor can we eliminate “the fog of war.” Decisions are made based on the best intelligence available, and Congress approved this war. Our troops and their families exhibit magnificent courage daily, the least we can do is support them.

Name Change Update

2006-01-20T20:40:00.000-06:00

After some thought and some great responses, I have decided to drop the name change idea. We will remain The Conservative Files.

Welcome to another team member

2006-01-20T20:36:00.000-06:00

I would like to welcome Jon Fox, president of the Illinois College Republicans to our team.

Name Change?

2006-01-17T14:08:00.000-06:00

Well, I thought about changing the name and address of this site to "The Thorn" at http://thethorn.blogspot.com, but alas, that URL is already taken so what I would like to know is, should I change the name and address of The Conservative Files, and, if so what would be a good alternate name? Plus, thanks to everyone for helping us to get to the 200-hit level. Also, I know many of you are probably waiting to see posts beyond these short intro. messages, please continue to be patient as this is a work in progress. I hope to get over my writer's block and put something up soon, please let me know of stories or ideas you would like to see covered.

The Conservative Files Team

The Newest Member of the Team

2006-01-13T20:32:00.000-06:00

I would like to welcome the newest member of The Conservative Files team, William Sauerwein, my father. Look for his posts in the coming weeks.

Happy New Year!

2006-01-01T00:13:00.000-06:00

May your 2006 be a happy one and may conservatism advance all across our nation. This year will be an important one as we face midterm elections. May our troops be safe and continue their mission to completion. Happy New Year to all.

Welcome to The Conservative Files

2005-12-14T23:45:00.000-06:00

I would like to welcome you to "The Conservative Files". It is my hope that much good will come from this. While the name implies that this is a conservative oriented blog, I invite those not of the conservative persuasion to engage in lively discussion as that is what makes our country great. My only rules on comments are no swearing (unless quoting from someone, then please provide the name of the person quoted), and, no outright threats or attacks against any commentor. I want the debate and opinions posted here to be civil. Again welcome and enjoy your visit.