Below is an article I heard about on a radio today. Got the link for it from the radio station web site. Thought it was good and wanted to share it.
Jimbo
Posted: September 10, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Spitting On Their Graves
Across the nation, public officials will strike somber poses and shed television-friendly tears and bow their blow-dried heads in memory of the victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
They'll hold hands, light candles and pass around a plateful of platitudes: "Never forget," they'll intone. "Let's roll," they'll thunder. "God bless America," they'll warble in perfect harmony.
They'll assure us that they are committed to fighting terror and securing our borders and doing whatever it takes to protect the homeland from another horrific mass murder at the hands of freedom-hating fanatics. And then?
And then, from Washington state to Washington, D.C., they'll go back to work, roll up their sleeves, and spit on the graves of the 9-11 dead.
Your pious city councilwoman will return to the office to draft a resolution condemning the common-sense detention and deportation of Middle Eastern illegal aliens suspected of terrorism.
Your politically correct police chief will refuse to cooperate with federal authorities in criminal investigations of illegal visa overstayers and border-crossers and ship-jumpers.
Your pandering mayor will stealthily renew his policy of preventing city employees from reporting illegal aliens.
Your indignant local librarian will promote fear-mongering and misinformation about the Patriot Act.
Your regional Chamber of Commerce president will join forces with Canadian and Mexican government representatives to put business interests ahead of border enforcement.
Your tuition-thirsty university president will lobby behind closed doors against federal efforts to track foreign students and ensure that they go home when required.
Your vote-hungry governor will encourage document fraud through his support of insecure foreign-issued identification cards and driver's licenses for "undocumented workers."
Your race card-fearing congressman will court Arab and Muslim special-interest groups and donors who have coddled Islamists on college campuses, in prisons and in the U.S. military in the name of "diversity."
Your grandstanding senator will block funding for long-delayed homeland defense measures – such as a national entry-exit system to monitor temporary foreign visitors – even as he whines about the need for more money to ensure our safety.
Your incompetent Transportation Security Administration will stonewall pilots who want training to be armed, squander tens of millions of taxpayer dollars on lucrative contracts for weapons-detection equipment that doesn't work or get used, and continue to ban racial profiling.
Your indifferent Interior Department will look the other way as underequipped and understaffed park rangers along the Southwestern border remain vulnerable to drug smugglers and terrorists.
Your bloated Homeland Security Department will keep Clinton-era holdovers in pivotal positions, reduce routine inspections at seaports in the name of efficiency and continue to shortchange interior enforcement against deportation fugitives and asylum con artists in favor of duct tape tipsheets and cosmetic color-coded alerts.
Your corrupted State Department will appease Saudi terror-backers, reward butt-covering managers, assuage European travel-industry tycoons and continue to defend lax visa-screening policies.
Your Democratic presidential candidates will unanimously endorse the very kind of amnesty policies that allowed several al-Qaida operatives to infiltrate this country and hatch terrorist plots.
And your Republican Party elites will continue to spurn immigration reformers within their own ranks for fear of alienating ethnic constituencies that will never vote for them anyway.
To those who lost their lives on Sept. 11 because their government failed to enforce its borders, laws and sovereignty, the politicians and bureaucrats and civic leaders will ostentatiously offer one measly day a year of dedication in rhetoric – and 364 days of desecration in deed.
Michelle Malkin is a nationally syndicated columnist.
-- Modified on 9/11/2007 10:14:22 AM
Michelle Malkin is an idiot and just proved it again.
Why did you feel the need to reply if you had nothing to say? I can think of someone else who just proved he was an idiot again.
Then I realized it was just another lib who "hasn't" grown up yet... Actually {only} a idiot would think Michelle Malkin is a idiot..
But then again a child would call her a idiot just because Michelle is so much smarter.
I stand by my statement. You want a point-by-point discussion about why she's wrong, bring it on.
Our Constitution is gutted, our Government spies on us, we invade countries and sacrifice our military to funnel tax dollars to corporations... but the real demon is that illegal standing in front of Home Depot hoping to make $50 today doing grunt work.
If you need it explained to you, there is no point in trying. Hey, maybe it's really them damn Jews..... naw, that one won't work again. Better stick to the brown ones.
She's just following form. She's already a Frankenstein.
-- Modified on 9/12/2007 8:33:45 AM
Xenophobe hardly fits in there - if you consider it a pejorative it says a lot about you.
I think she's making a respectable serial argument, but not for the objective she imagines she's serving.
To imagine that any of MM's points, respectable enough on their own terms [but definitely NOT beyond argument], adds up to anything substantive and amounts to more than a tired pile of self-delusioned nostums of close to no relevance to the WAR ON TERROR, is to be either charitable or equally misguided. Remember, the WAR ON TERROR, assuming for a moment that it actually exists [and i'm real doubtful myself on that point], is global in scope -- or so we're intellectually bludgeoned and propagandized and browbeaten into believing -- and few of MM's points have any effect beyond our shores. Her list of "to-dos" seem more like a conservative hit list of fat, juicy, ponderous and generally ridiculously stupid PC/multiculti/diversity ducks -- more than a few indeed deserving of spirited attack, but none of which in the end of any great relevance to areas in which the US writ does not run.
As our legal friends might object, MM's preroration is more prejudicial than it is probative.
Nope, she's missed the broad side of the barn by several country miles. Nothing short of a radical reorientation of US foreign policy and a radical redefinition of what is and what is not in the US national interest is going to be worth, in someone's famous quote "a warm pitcher of spit." Until then, I fear we are all imitating crazed and hyper-aggressive baboons chasing our ever-elusive tails. Baboons blessed with the gifts of speech and abstract reasoning.
I think i perfer the original, low-tech baboons.
For our own national sanity, i would recommend that future 9/11 observances be 4 simple minutes of silence -- 2 for each impact, 2 for each collapse. And, as a gift to the public, and out of true respect for those senselessly slaughtered on that terrible day, all pundits, would-be and otherwise, refrain from comment on that day. That leaves 364 days to obfuscate, to misdirect, to confuse, to misinform, to disinforma, to prevaricate, to fabricate, to misinterpret, to misconstrue amd to spin and endlessly propound fabulist interpretations of that cruelest of days.
-- Modified on 9/12/2007 6:36:22 PM
That's all her "editorial" was. The logical connection between immigration policy and 9/11 is extremely weak. It isn't worth the argument. "Spitting on their grave" is a useless cliche, it doesn't fit, and it is meant to be inflammatory.
Give me something to be "progressive" about here. Her logic isn't worth the cost of duct tape, her imagery is a crude cut-out, and her tone is so witlessly insulting that she's almost unreadable.
What do you want progressives to do here.
"one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin"
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/xenophobe
Of course the beauty of being "progressive" is that you can say thing are whatever you want them to be because you mean well.
but apparently you don't know it.
you'd always be right.
You probably think your comments about her and dark skinned people was pretty smart too....
you'd always be right.
You probably think your comments about her and dark skinned people was pretty smart too....
I don't know who that person is. Care to elucidate?
how well you've demonstrated my point.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!
-- Modified on 9/14/2007 8:38:19 PM
...silly that post makes you sound. I'm embarrassed to call myself progressive.
You seem to think that Xenophobia is strictly a caucasian phenomenon and that is cannot be applied to a black woman stirring up fear and hatred for Middle Eastern and Mexican people. And here I thought that just because you typed out the definition, you understood it.
My bad.
...that Filipino is the new Black...You absolutely do not understand...LOL
that any ethnic group has the capacity to mistrust any other ethnic group and that people like Michelle Malkin can use that to stir up nationalist or racist emotions in the general population. Divide and conquer, and the more the neocons can get us concentrating on smoke-and-mirors crap like this the more they are free to rape and pillage. Amazu=ing how easy it is to do, and how long it's been working.
Final solution, anyone?
must be nice being a progressive....EOM.
-- Modified on 9/15/2007 11:50:56 AM
that progressiveism gives you.
Think about it. The self-proclaimed moniker has self-gratifying qualities to it. Almost mastabatory in nature....
Now get out your lube and say what you want....
We now have wiki-fuckin-pedia to make things up as we go!!!
-- Modified on 9/15/2007 11:59:33 AM
You can decide the intent behind my word choice. Until then, try to come up with some sort of fact to back your opinion.
Xenophobe was a carefully chosen word, devoid of racial specifics.
As this is all you have left to argue, thanks for conceding my point.
money, but not ideas.
If you were to think about it, you'd realize that every encyclopedia has the same problem of "who do you trust?" General acceptance does not eliminate the risk of BS, and GW has in fact demonstrated for 7 years now.
The only difference in wikipedia is that it relies on interested people to keep each other honest, instead of an editor you assume knows something. It's pretty much the same problem from an evidence POV, only you see it going on with wikiP.
And it also has the advantage of reminding us not to take our sources for granted, as "experts" expect us to. Most wikiP articles link to many other major articles both sides of any argument, and that is not something you see "experts" doing, ie, expecting you to think & figure it out for yourself.