by  Lance Thompson

This nation has enemies of all kinds.  But imagine a generic enemy of the United States–any state, agency, organization or individual who would benefit from this country’s failure.  Then imagine what such an enemy would want for the United States.

The enemy would want our borders to be porous so that illegal entry into this country would be comparatively easy.  Further, the enemy would want the consequent flood of illegal aliens to drain our welfare, education and health systems; increase crime rates, clog the justice system and fill our prisons to overflowing; and to create a separate nation within our nation that has its own language, customs and identity separate from that of American citizens. Finally, he would want this illegal group to gain the rights of citizens and cast their votes against the legitimate interests of this country.

The enemy would want to subvert the very democracy that our nation is the symbol and champion of.  He would hope that our electoral process could be invalidated by disenfranchisement, fraud and corruption.  He would hope that Americans would lose faith in the democratic system, and, in the face of the repeated thwarting of popular will, to cease participation in the franchise entirely.

The enemy would like to see the checks and balances of the American government sabotaged.  He would like to see our Congress crafting laws in secret and concealing their excesses from scrutiny.  He would like to see the president fill his administration with officers tainted by unlawful acts and compromised by unsavory histories.  He would like to see our judicial branch filled with judges who legislate from the bench and who thwart the will of the people with arbitrary decrees.  He would additionally wish that oversight of these branches of government would be reduced or eliminated so their abuses could continue without interference. The enemy would know that this, too, would destroy the faith of Americans in their government and leaders.

The enemy would like to see this nation’s defenses dismantled.  He would like to see more and more laws that protect those who would destroy this country, and greater restrictions on those who defend it.  He would like to see this nation abandon its allies, withdraw from its strategic positions, and unilaterally surrender the initiative in the high ground of space to our foes.

The enemy would like to see the powerful market economy of this nation destroyed.

He would like to see the value of our stocks, retirement accounts and real estate tumble.  He would like our financial institutions to collapse.  He would like the mighty economic engine that is America hobbled by burdensome regulations and taxes, pseudo-scientific environmental restrictions, and adversarial government policy.  He would like to see private industry and public employers consumed by the cancer of ever more powerful unions.  And he would want to so increase the debt of the United States with irresponsible spending, out-of-control entitlements and incomprehensible monetary policy that our country would lose its place as the world’s most economically powerful nation.

All of these conditions are being created by the Democrats in the White House and Congress.  Democrats are the champions of illegal immigration.  Barack Obama’s campaign, as well as that of Al Franken and other Democrats, benefited from the aid of ACORN, a vote-manufacturing community group that was under criminal investigation in five states during the presidential campaign, and is now slated to get a multi-million dollar chunk of the stimulus bill.

The stimulus bill itself was crafted in secret, defended by lies, and rushed through the process without being shown to many Democrats, let alone any Republicans.  As Byron York recently pointed out, it contains provisions for a board that can terminate investigations by inspectors general into the executive branch.  And in almost a trillion dollars of new spending, the only significant cutbacks in the bill were in the areas of defense appropriations.

Liberal judges have released terrorists, murderers and child molesters and reversed the democratic will of the people by striking down initiatives from prohibitions on gay marriage to calls for English only ballots.  The new administration has appointed a terrorist sympathizer as attorney general, sprinkled tax evaders throughout the cabinet, and created the “culture of corruption” which was a phrase the Democrats themselves invented, and have now perfected.  Finally, the financial meltdown was caused by Democrats coercing banks to offer loans to those unable to repay them and Democrats blocking oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Moderates on both sides are eager to grant the opposition the benefit of the doubt, and concede that those across the aisle have the best interests of the country at heart, even if their methods differ.  But when one party’s policies consistently support and achieve the aims of the enemy, then intentions are immaterial.  Only the results matter, and in the issues above, where Democrats have had their way, the results are always detrimental to the interests of the United States.

If we cannot use the term “enemy” for the leaders whose policies serve the needs and interests of the enemy, then perhaps we need a new term.  “Unenlightened co-conspirator” has a nice ring.  “New double-Dealer” has a retro flair.  We could save “disloyal opposition” for a more favorable balance in Congress.

But maybe we already have a term for politicians who abuse our system of government to deceive its citizens, drain its treasury, strip its defenses and undermine its foundations.  It starts with a “D’ and ends in “rat.”

by  Lance Thompson

The Academy Awards are imminent, and Clint Eastwood’s immensely entertaining and thematically engaging GRAN TORINO was not nominated in any category.  Eastwood has been honored repeatedly by Oscar, winning for his masterful Western UNFORGIVEN, and for his emotionally-charged boxing film MILLION DOLLAR BABY, and nominated repeatedly for his other cinematic achievements.  But those films had the right, or rather left, political leanings, and GRAN TORINO is too conservative for Academy recognition.  This is not the first time Eastwood has been dissed by the film industry’s self-congratulatory soiree. 

In 1971, two gritty, action-packed police dramas were released–THE FRENCH CONNECTION and DIRTY HARRY.  Both were about rogue cops who ignore the rules and follow their own brands of justice.  Both were popular, entertaining and stylishly mounted.  THE FRENCH CONNECTION was nominated for eight Academy Awards and won five, including best picture, actor, director and adapted screenplay.  DIRTY HARRY was not nominated in any category.

Why did these evidently similar dramas receive such different treatment?  The directors–William Friedkin and Don Siegel–are both accomplished film makers.  The screenplays were both taut and suspenseful.  The actors in the lead roles were convincingly intense and compellingly watchable.  The difference is that THE FRENCH CONNECTION embraced liberal views, and DIRTY HARRY did not. 

The FRENCH CONNECTION’s hero, Popeye Doyle, fights against a nebulous, impenetrable and ubiquitous narcotics network.  He is amoral, out of control, and self-destructive.  His efforts are violent and, ultimately, ineffectual.  He is unable to crack the narcotics case, accidentally shoots a federal officer, and ends up with little to show for his efforts.  This is the liberal view of police–dangerous, out of control and useless in fighting crime.  Additionally, the federal government is shown to be an accomplice of the drug dealers, the French criminals are smarter than the American police, and the entire effort to interdict the flow of illegal drugs is shown to be hopeless.  Nowhere are the victims of the drug trade shown–those who traffic in illegal narcotics are shown merely as glamorous businessmen.  The liberal world view could not be more clearly expressed.

Dirty Harry’s adversaries are, first, a psychopathic killer, and, second, the laws that protect him.  Harry is a homicide detective who sympathizes with the victims of the killer, and goes after him with a single-minded obsession.  He violates the rules, just as Doyle does, but with the critical distinction that he is successful.  Disobeying orders, he hunts down and kills the ruthless murderer, thus prevailing in the struggle against evil.  In ridding the world of a dangerous predator, he clashes with, disparages and ultimately ignores the civil rights of the murderer.  But to liberals, Harry is a greater threat to society than the killer he’s chasing.

Reviews tell the story.  THE FRENCH CONNECTION is lauded for its stylish action sequences, intense performances and gritty, realistic story.  Roger Ebert praised the film, and Hackman’s “frightening singlemindedness, a cold determination to win at all costs.”  Yet in his review of DIRTY HARRY, Ebert dismisses it as another Eastwood action thriller, and adds, “The movie’s moral position is fascist.  No doubt about it.”  Variety decries its glorification of police brutality.  Judith Crist ridiculed the film as a “gut-bashing, brain splattering cop movie.” 

DIRTY HARRY demonstrates that the most vicious criminals must be dealt with viciously, and that they too often hide behind the rights of the accused so widely expanded in the 60's.  DIRTY HARRY is not afraid to name names–Miranda and Escobedo are brought up by the district attorney when Harry violates those statutes when he arrests the killer.  Dirty Harry the character has the wrong politics, and so does the movie, as far as the Academy was concerned.

DIRTY HARRY the movie has a strong political viewpoint that offends the liberals in Hollywood, while THE FRENCH CONNECTION reinforces their views.  Thus one film is honored, the other ignored.  Yet today, thirty-five years later, the character of Dirty Harry is an American icon, some of the film’s dialogue has gained the status of the immortal utterances of the cinema, and the issues it deals with are still relevant and hotly debated.  The same cannot be said of THE FRENCH CONNECTION.

DIRTY HARRY took a strong stand and didn’t temporize.  People of different political views could debate the issues it raised.  It was a powerful, challenging, controversial film–the kind the Academy likes to think of itself as supporting and honoring, as long as the stand the film takes is the liberal one.

GRAN TORINO also takes a strong stand, and the main character is hard-edged and unlikeable.  Both film and character recognize the presence of evil in our society, and demonstrate that it must be confronted and opposed.  Moreover, this is an individual responsibility, despite the consequences.  This view is antithetical to the liberal philosophy that is most prevalent in Hollywood.

Another aspect of GRAN TORINO the Hollywood elites probably object to–half the shots in the movie feature some American icon in the frame–a flag, an eagle, a Colt pistol, Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer, the Gran Torino of the title.  And don’t forget the movie’s most powerful American icon of all–Clint himself.  A filmmaker who always goes his own way, sets trends rather than follows them, and takes risks that most of Hollywood would never dare. 

The most regrettable part of watching GRAN TORINO is realizing that one of our greatest movie makers is on, as Eastwood the avid golfer once put it, “the back nine.”  The voice and vision he has brought to audiences for half a century will some day end.   But if this is, as Eastwood has indicated, his last appearance in front of the camera, then long time fans have something to be thankful for.  He gets better year after year and he’s playing at the top of his game, whether the Academy recognizes it or not.

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

On September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked with premeditated precision, carried out by a handful of illegal alien terrorists. That’s “illegal alien” terrorists.

The immediate, most obvious results were the deaths of over 2,700 human beings and the wholesale destruction of public, private and U.S. government property. Every business was affected, particularly the airlines. The tally of job losses and layoffs reached 380,000. Our economic activities in general were disrupted, and there was the passing away of the sacred sense of safety and security.

That and more was caused by those illegal alien terrorists within a period of only three hours on that sunny morning in New York City, across the Potomac River from our nation’s capital, and in a Pennsylvania meadow. We bring this up for two reasons: first, there has been a concerted effort on the part of liberals to label discussions about illegal immigration as racist and lacking compassion. And second, the cost to American taxpayers of turning a blind eye to the corruption of our immigration laws is one of the major components of our failing economy.

The monetary calculation of losses after 9/11, including insurance and an immediate jump in military spending, exceeded $180 billion. Not a small sum, but not enormous either, when compared to recent TARP handouts and the current stimulus package that’s bucking $1 trillion. Nonetheless, the emotional damage that was suffered will never mend nor can its gravity ever be calculated in terms of dollars and cents.

$180 billion pales in comparison to the mounting costs Americans are presently being bled white to accept in order to mend an economy brought literally to its knees by financial greed and Congressional ineptitude.

The Pelosi-Reid stimulus package does not include any measure to stem the ever-increasing costs to the American taxpayer for illegal immigration. And illegals continue to receive free benefits no matter which way the stock markets fluctuate.

Compounding this fiasco is the abject refusal by members on both sides of the aisle to accept the fact—which is based on undeniable hard evidence—that illegal immigrants remain this country’s singular, most expensive financial problem, as well as a high security threat. And they aren’t even included in the Democrats’ stimulus package. However, what is contained, are measures that will compound the problem exponentially. No amount of political correctness will make this fiscal and security problem go away. It has been shoved to and kept on the Congressional back burner for the last year during the course of the presidential campaign, principally because both candidates were in favor of amnesty. But the problem will continue to rear its ugly head. Gang warfare and the Mexican drug cartels are making our point through the killing of innocent Americans inside the U.S., and by a border war rife with beheadings of military and police. Are Mexican beheadings less ghastly than Islamic beheadings?

John McCain learned quickly, and the hard way, throughout his campaigning when he attempted to sell his desire to grant amnesty and citizenship to illegals. As stated in the Washington Post article of February 4, 2008:

“No issue has been more critical for McCain to address, and finesse, than his stance on immigration reform. The bill that he co-authored with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), which included a proposal to grant illegal immigrants citizenship after they paid a fine and met several other conditions, sparked an outrage among Republicans that he had never seen coming, aides said. His poll numbers plummeted. Critics dubbed him Amnesty John.”

Whenever he mentioned amnesty and/or citizenship for illegals, McCain’s enthusiastic supporters would be struck mute, as though the senator had just passed gas. His unbending attitude might have ultimately been the chief reason he failed to succeed to the White House — causing doubters to stay home rather than go to the polls and vote.

Last week we heard first-hand the hubris that has accompanied Obama into the White House. His mandate apparently includes appointing ultra pro amnesty (and labor) candidate Hilda Solis. In California, she voted “No” on building a fence along the Mexican border; she voted “No” on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment; she voted “Yes” on extending Immigrant Residency rules.

California is almost bankrupt, and as California goes, so goes the nation. As Labor Secretary (assuming she’s given a pass on her 16-years, non-taxpaying husband), Hilda Solis will no doubt do her best to dig us a deeper illegal immigration hole than we are in now.

Speaking of deep holes: A new, very disturbing matter has arisen in the just-passed stimulus bill —the issue of health provisions. As stealthily as they slipped Tom Daschle’s ideas about healthcare into the stimulus package, illegals with ITINS (Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers) are part and parcel of any added provisions. How? Because hospitals participating in Medicare are already forced to provide emergency care to patients regardless of their ability to pay or their immigration status — and the hospitals are reimbursed by the Federal government.

As early as 2001, Senator Charles Schumer (and Buffalo Mayor Anthony Masiello) joined forces with CitiMortgage and Fannie Mae to offer hundreds of mortgages to low- and moderate-income, minority, new immigrant, and other underserved households in Erie and Niagara Counties. Wrap your brain around the concept of just two counties multiplied across the U.S. and you will have a clearer picture of how we got to where we are today.

Which brings us to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. They, amongst others in the House and Senate, had a heavy hand in creating and exacerbating the mortgage meltdown. Illegal immigrants with no credit history were able to qualify for one (and sometimes multiple) mortgages on homes then valued at $500K plus. Yet, the Franks and Dodds of Capitol Hill continue to operate free of criticism or censure by their party. Barney Frank seems to share the same delusions as “Octomom” when it comes to gaming the system.

Pseudo Republican Sen. Arlen Spector explained that he “was supporting the stimulus package for one simple reason: The country cannot afford not to take action.” If Spector would give as much gravitas to the costs of not taking action on illegal immigration as he does to this half-baked stimulus package, he might get reelected. It seems more likely he wants to end his tenure on a positive note – with Obama’s praise, gratitude and perhaps even a fist bump.

Osama bin Ladin wanted to bring down the U.S. economy on 9/11. Now he just has to sit back and wait for us implode, because with Barack Hussein Obama now at the helm, this implosion may come regardless of our extreme precautions and Capitol Hill’s “stimulating” measures.

by Lance Thompson

As the stimulus bill staggers through committee, its egregious profligacy more obvious with each passing hour, President Obama remains its steadfast defender. If Obama had made no other decisions during his first three weeks as president, this suicidal spending package would be enough to reveal his incompetence. But he did not stop there.

After his Air Force One joy ride to the Democrat conference in Williamsburg, Obama whined to sympathetic pols that he’d inherited a massive debt by the previous administration, “wrapped in a big bow and waiting for me.” Yet Obama’s response to this burden is to quadruple that debt and leave that much more insidious legacy to the next few presidents. Obama came to office saddled with a heavy credit card balance. His answer is not only to ask Congress for a drastically higher credit limit but also allow them to spend every dime of it immediately.

The President has focused a great deal of energy and political capital on a bill that he had little or no hand in shaping. In fact, this bill, consisting of 647 plus pages before amendments, could not possibly have been written in the short time Obama has been in office. This stimulus bill, purportedly the last best hope of our nation for fiscal health, is not the work of economists grappling with a financial crisis. That would have taken weeks or months. No, this massive piece of legislation could only have been compiled so quickly by the cut and paste magic of word processing. Every liberal chestnut on the Democrat wish list was double-clicked into this “emergency” stimulus bill, under the supervision of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. This was their chance to get it all in one go, with the nation evidently willing to try anything, and the newly-elected president content to cheerlead from the White House.

But the stimulus bill is not Obama’s only foray into executive action. He also has made many presidential appointments to cabinet and other positions. Judging from the unsavory nature of many of his picks–Daschle, Geithner, Richardson, Killefer, Holder, Lynn--this seems to be Obama’s jobs program for at-risk Democrats. He lures them away from lives of tax evasion and influence peddling with character-building jobs in the new administration. Some, like Ricahrdson, Daschle and Killefer, withdrew in the face of mounting outrage over their above-the-law behavior, went back to their day jobs, which suggests a high recidivism rate for this particular effort.

Not content to cripple the American economy, Obama has also been active in foreign policy. In an al-Arabiyah interview, he apologized for America’s tendency to “dictate” to the people of the Middle East. He doesn’t seem to understand that freedom, of the kind our military provided for the people of Iraq, is a precious gift. It is the oppression Iraqis and Kuwaitis suffered under Saddam Hussein that had to be dictated and brutally enforced. Obama’s statements were a slur on every American serving in uniform and especially upon those who fought for the freedom of Muslims in the Balkans, in the first Gulf War, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama’s backpedaling on placing American missile defense systems in Eastern Europe has already emboldened Russian president Mevedev and puppetmaster Putin to threaten the fragile freedom of the former Soviet republics still living in the shadow of the Russian bear. Under Russian pressure, the independent state of Kyrgyzstan closed its Manas air base to US supply flights to Afghanistan. The Kremlin has also announced it will aid the Iranian terrorist-sponsoring regime of Mahmoud Achmadinejad to bolster its nuclear program, which Achmadinejad has vowed to pursue at all costs.

The president recently vowed to unilaterally keep space free of American weaponry. He must believe that the accelerated space programs of Russia, Red China, North Korea and now Iran are all being undertaken for humanitarian purposes. Our nation has many implacable enemies. They have already taken the measure of our president and found in his equivocal manner an opportunity to advance their antagonistic designs.

On the home front, neither Barack Obama nor his exceedingly inarticulate spokesman, Robert Gibbs, likes to answer substantive questions. Obama treats any press inquiry about a matter of policy as a breach of manners, and is likely to scold the reporter. I am more forgiving of Gibbs. If I had to explain the mind-numbing incompetency of Obama policy, I would perspire, stammer and obfuscate as well.

Obama’s first three weeks in office have antagonized and united domestic opponents, confused and frustrated Democrat allies, and left foreign leaders–both friendly and otherwise–unimpressed. What we needed at this moment of crisis was a leader with courage, experience and resolve. What we got was a paper-hatted trainee who each day gives us a new reason to hope for change.