Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Sage Maxine Says…

Maxine–3 Problems, 3 Solutions–NEXT!

Our idiot congress could learn a lot from this lady! Thanks Betsy!

Maxine’s Three Problems:

–Illegal Immigration

–Hurricane Recovery

–Alligators Attacking People in Florida

Maxine’s Three Solutions:

–Dig a moat the length of the Mexican Border

–Send the dirt to New Orleans to raise the level of the levees

–Put the Florida Alligators in the moat along the Mexican Border

Any other problems you’d like Maxine to solve for you today?

June 26, 2007 Posted by | Illegal Immigration | 5 Comments

Diversity…the Forgotten Evil

City Journal: (uh oh! shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! don’t tell the leftinistra)

Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone, is very nervous about releasing his new research, and understandably so. His five-year study shows that immigration and ethnic diversity have a devastating short- and medium-term influence on the social capital, fabric of associations, trust, and neighborliness that create and sustain communities. He fears that his work on the surprisingly negative effects of diversity will become part of the immigration debate, even though he finds that in the long run, people do forge new communities and new ties.

Putnam’s study reveals that immigration and diversity not only reduce social capital between ethnic groups, but also within the groups themselves. Trust, even for members of one’s own race, is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friendships fewer. The problem isn’t ethnic conflict or troubled racial relations, but withdrawal and isolation. Putnam writes: “In colloquial language, people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’-that is, to pull in like a turtle.”

In the 41 sites Putnam studied in the U.S., he found that the more diverse the neighborhood, the less residents trust neighbors. This proved true in communities large and small, from big cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Boston to tiny Yakima, Washington, rural South Dakota, and the mountains of West Virginia. In diverse San Francisco and Los Angeles, about 30 percent of people say that they trust neighbors a lot. In ethnically homogeneous communities in the Dakotas, the figure is 70 percent to 80 percent.

Diversity does not produce “bad race relations,” Putnam says. Rather, people in diverse communities tend “to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.” Putnam adds a crushing footnote: his findings “may underestimate the real effect of diversity on social withdrawal.”

Neither age nor disparities of wealth explain this result. “Americans raised in the 1970s,” he writes, “seem fully as unnerved by diversity as those raised in the 1920s.” And the “hunkering down” occurred no matter whether the communities were relatively egalitarian or showed great differences in personal income. Even when communities are equally poor or rich, equally safe or crime-ridden, diversity correlates with less trust of neighbors, lower confidence in local politicians and news media, less charitable giving and volunteering, fewer close friends, and less happiness.

Putnam has long been aware that his findings could have a big effect on the immigration debate. Last October, he told the Financial Times that “he had delayed publishing his research until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity.” He said it “would have been irresponsible to publish without that,” a quote that should raise eyebrows. Academics aren’t supposed to withhold negative data until they can suggest antidotes to their findings.

Nor has Putnam made details of his study available for examination by peers and the public. So far, he has published only an initial summary of his findings, from a speech he gave after winning an award in Sweden, in the June issue of Scandinavian Political Studies. His office said Putnam is in Britain, working on a religion project at the University of Manchester, and is currently too busy to grant an interview.

Putnam’s study does make two positive points: in the long run, increased immigration and diversity are inevitable and desirable, and successful immigrant societies “dampen the negative effects of diversity” by constructing new identities. Social psychologists have long favored the optimistic hypothesis that contact between different ethnic and racial groups increases tolerance and social solidarity. For instance, white soldiers assigned to units with black soldiers after World War II were more relaxed about desegregation of the army than were soldiers in all-white units. But Putnam acknowledges that most empirical studies do not support the “contact hypothesis.” In general, they find that the more people are brought into contact with those of another race or ethnicity, the more they stick to their own, and the less they trust others. Putnam writes: “Across local areas in the United States, Australia, Sweden Canada and Britain, greater ethnic diversity is associated with lower social trust and, at least in some cases, lower investment in public goods.”

Though Putnam is wary of what right-wing politicians might do with his findings, the data might give pause to those on the left, and in the center as well. If he’s right, heavy immigration will inflict social deterioration for decades to come, harming immigrants as well as the native-born. Putnam is hopeful that eventually America will forge a new solidarity based on a “new, broader sense of we.” The problem is how to do that in an era of multiculturalism and disdain for assimilation.

John Leo is the editor of the Manhattan Institute’s

June 26, 2007 Posted by | Diversity, Illegal Immigration, Multiculturalism | 102 Comments

History of Immigration Laws

Compiled in 2000:

Rapid Immigration:

Three Decades:

Michael Cutler:

Americans for Immigration Control:


50 years of lies:

102 articles on Toad:

Captain’ Quarters:

Majority against:

June 26, 2007 Posted by | Illegal Immigration | Leave a comment

Proclivities To Disaster

From Renew America:

Illegal immigration: Senate’s desires trump American people (imagine that)

In recent history it has it never been so patently and painfully obvious that the wants of our elected officials supersede those of the US electorate. The Illegals’ Immigration and Amnesty Bill has not only brought to the forefront our senators’ House of Lords proclivities and behaviors directed against the will of their own communities but, is now being used to smack their constituents in their faces. Firmly and finally our senators – along with our president – have now told we-the-people that only their desires, wallets and pocketbooks count. We-the-people can either accept their increasingly totalitarian dictates – or leave the country. Illegal Aliens are now the important class of people. US citizens and their needs and desires are no longer important. The latest scuttlebutt is that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senate Minority Whip Trent “I hate conservative talk radio” Lott (RINO-MI) have come to agreement on one of their back-door deals. They plan to push through their ‘amnesty for everyone except legal US citizens and those trying to enter the country legally’ in spite of the rising voices of the American people against it.

Read the rest.  And don’t give up the fight and don’t believe the trolls,  either.

June 26, 2007 Posted by | Illegal Immigration | Leave a comment

The LIARS of Shamnesty

70% of Americans Want Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants!
Written by JB Williams
©2007 USA

(NOTE: link is not yet available for this article…received in email…will post link later)

According to Republican polling and strategy firm The Tarrance Group, currently engaged in strategic polling for Rudy Giuliani, 47 house members, 10 senators and 5 governors, – more than 70% of Americans support the current Senate Comprehensive Immigration Reform efforts, referred to by most Americans as “amnesty”.

Once again, we learn that it’s all in how you frame the question

When CNN recently asked if we favored or opposed the senate immigration reform bill, 47% said they oppose, 30% favored and 22% remained unsure, proving mostly that CNN viewers just aren’t that bright. (Just kidding – but 22% unsure?)

The point is, – the Tarrance Group poll must have asked questions that no other polling firm asked in order to come up with the answers they are reporting to your senate Republicans.

According to The Tarrance Group, “When we walked through the series of measures that are being proposed, we got 77 percent of Republicans, 72 percent of Democrats, and 70 percent of independents supporting it,” says CEO Ed Goeas. “There’s not a piece of research I’ve seen that, if you explain each one of those pieces, you don’t get a majority saying they approve it.”

In other words, when not told that they were discussing the senate bill known as “amnesty”, the questions were able to be phrased in such a manner as to solicit the prescribed response, indicating public support. Shocking news, isn’t it?

Goeas continues on with his pitch for amnesty by further interpreting his poll results, – “One issue is clearly a demand and desire by voters, and I think by politicians, (think again), to secure our borders and stop illegal immigration,” he says. “The second issue is that we truly need to increase legal immigration to meet our country’s economic needs. Any economist worth his or her salt will tell you that having an unemployment rate of 4.4 percent is equivalent to 100 percent employment. Everyone else is in transition.” (No agenda driven ideology here…)

While many believe that anything short of rounding up 12 – 20 million illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and sending them back home is amnesty, “Amnesty isn’t necessarily a reason not to support a solution,” Goeas says.

“If you in fact are making them pay a penalty, learn English, have a job, pay taxes, and if they can’t show that they’ve been paying taxes even by a different name, to pay back taxes, to learn English, the overwhelming majority believe that that is not amnesty,” concludes Goeas. “It so often is misportrayed as amnesty.”

Well there you have it. If you tell people that it’s not amnesty, they like it! However, is this a realistic interpretation of true American sentiment on the subject of immigration reform? If so, why are so many Americans working so hard to shut the effort down in congress?

Is it true that the average American is just too stupid to know what amnesty is all about? Or, did talk radio simply wind up a bunch of racist malcontents and send them marching to Washington under the false impression that certain senators were attempting to ram amnesty for illegals through congress? Is Bush right, that average Americans just don’t understand such complex issues and the need for comprehensive solutions?

Bush wants you to know “the facts” that drive his quest for amnesty. So, the White House has issued their Immigration Fact Check: Responding to Key Myths for your consideration.

However, after writing on this subject numerous times over the last few years, and more importantly, reading tons of related reader mail and blog comments, in numbers far greater than the 400 used in the Tarrance survey, my interpretation of voter sentiment on the matter is quite different.

Allow me to summarize what I am hearing from the American people…


* Americans want enforcement first, period!
* Americans want the borders closed and permanently secured.
* They want the problem stopped at the 12-20 million already here before discussing anything else.

It is just that simple. This is what most Americans are saying, in case anyone cares.

Americans do understand that we now have a very complex problem. They also understand that it is a problem which was created and allowed to get out of control by the same people now trying to tell them that yet another “one-time” amnesty is the solution.

They understand that the problem must be fixed and that sooner or later, some give and take is probably necessary in order to deal with the 12-20 million already here. And, they also understand that while this solution is not in their best interest, that politicians on both sides of the political aisle are desperately trying to capitalize politically on the problem. As a result, they are angry!

They are sick and tired of Washington types who were clearly too stupid to enforce their own immigration laws over the years, now telling them that passing more laws is the solution.

Not all, but most Americans will be willing to discuss alternative measures for dealing with those already here in a reasonable fashion, once they are convinced that no more are coming! They have only a few conditions for those here illegally who wish to remain.


* No voting rights, EVER!
* Come out of the shadows, assimilate into American culture, leave your Mexican flag in Mexico
* Pay your fines and back taxes
* No criminal or gang activities or you are headed back home immediately
* Get temporary legal status, while you wait in line with all legal immigrants for permanent status
* No tax-payer funded benefits or assistance of any kind
* No more illegals allowed under any circumstances

These conditions mirror those of Mexican immigration laws by the way…

Most Americans will be willing to deal with decent hard working immigrants already working here illegally. But not until they know with certainty that the problem ends right here and right now.

Yes, the American people understand that their representatives in Washington completely failed to uphold their single most important duty of protecting American sovereignty and security at our borders and now we have a complex problem on our hands as a result. That’s why they no longer trust those representatives to do it right… Americans want to keep this solution too easy for politicians to screw up again, – enforce first and then discuss the rest.

Before Washington can hope to regain the trust of the American people, they will have to do much less talking, much more listening to the people and a lot more acting on behalf of those who elected them.

They will have to stop wrangling over potential illegal immigrant votes that we will never allow them to have and start worrying about the legal American voters ready to toss all of them out of office.

Bush’s poll numbers are in the toilet, as are John McCain’s, who will soon be forced from the Republican race due to his blindly ignorant support for the Kennedy amnesty bill. Congress’s poll numbers are even worse and all of it is due to their repeated attempts to ignore the American people and ram amnesty through at any cost.

The American people couldn’t possibly be clearer on the subject. Talk to us about amnesty AFTER you stop the problem by enforcing border security. We don’t care what you have to do to stop continued illegal migration. Forget a fence that will never stop the problem. Stand our military on every mile of the border if need be, but stop the invasion and stop it now.

Then and only then, come talk to us about those already here. But don’t plan on ever benefiting from the illegal immigrant vote. Those who came here illegally and are one way or another allowed to stay will never have a vote.

Congress has a 14% approval rating, the lowest in American history. They must start listening now or start sharpening up their resume’…

June 26, 2007 Posted by | Illegal Immigration | 8 Comments

Good vs Bad Jihadis

How can one tell the difference?  Easy.

Living Jihadis are the worse Jihadis


Dead Jihadis are the best Jihadis


Class dismissed.

June 26, 2007 Posted by | Jihadists | 2 Comments

Shamnesty Lives?

Fox News:

WASHINGTON – The Senate’s comprehensive immigration bill, bolstered by new language meant to quiet accusations the bill delivers amnesty, passed a crucial procedural test Tuesday that vastly improves but does not guarantee its chances of passage. The Senate voted 64-35 to bring the bill back to the Senate floor from the legislative limbo to which it had had been exiled earlier this month, when it appeared to die after a bipartisan filibuster.

Once again, no matter what color one paints a turd, the turd is still a turd.

Bill supporters needed 60 votes to bring the bill back to the floor for debate. Had that threshold been missed, it’s likely the bill would have been dead for the remainder of the 110th Congress.

The vote came just a few hours after President Bush pumped up the rhetoric in support of the legislation.

“The immigration system needs reform,” Bush said at a briefing on immigration reform in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

El wrongo. Passing another turd of a bill after all the other turds of bills addressing the ILLEGAL immigration bills THAT HAVEN’T worked is not the answer. The answer is getting off of your lazy asses and enforce that which we already have.

“The status quo is unacceptable. … I view this as a historic opportunity to act, for Congress to replace a system that is not working with one that we believe will work a lot better,” he said.The Senate will consider a series of 24 amendments to the bill during the remainder of the week while the White House and the bipartisan Senate leadership lobby hard for its approval by Friday and the start of a week-long Fourth of July congressional recess.

The contents of the bill is unacceptable and unenforceable. Who is it really behind the drive to pass this bill in the panic of which it is being shoved down our throats?

The bill is still vulnerable to charges of amnesty, possibly reduced by a last-minute change in the treatment of applicants for the all-important new Z-visa. This visa grants instant probationary legal status to any illegal immigrant living or working in America now.

“I know people think that the draft language is a perfect draft and believe it should somehow attain its own mythological status, but this is pretty straightforward. If an alien applies, he or she gets legal status, full travel and work authorization no later than the next day,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, an opponent of the bill.

Opponents consider the Z-visa the equivalent of granting instant amnesty because they assert it will be very hard for the federal government to deport anyone in possession of legal status.

The Z-visa provides indefinite legal status and is the first step to obtaining a green card and citizenship — an 8- to 13-year process that includes the payment of fines, processing fees, criminal background checks and representations that applicants attempted to learn English.

Under the original Senate bill, only the head of a household would have to return to his or her country of origin to apply for a Z-visa. Everyone else in the household would receive one immediately. Under the new language, any illegal immigrant 18 years or older would have to return to their country of origin and apply.

Perhaps the loop-holes as put forth by Jeff Sessions will be plugged? As we were motivated before, we will motivate once more and shoot this bill down in flames as we did before.

June 26, 2007 Posted by | Illegal Immigration | 5 Comments

Senator Lugar Hacks Up A Furball

Wizbang has a GREAT take here back in January when General Petraeus was unanimously confirmed: the comments section has some wise input.

There is an article issued by CENTCOM here: the General told the Senate that the surge will take time and the Senate was good with that.

Later, the Reids and that genre of frauds had one of those meaningless non-binding resolutions, and then didn’t have time to meet with the General, which led to a further defeat of their stabbing the troops and the Commander, General Petraeus, in the back.

And now, we have Lugar the RINO Hack, oozing furballs because he has none of his own.

One should ask themselves why a body of theoretical “wise people” in the Senate would vote to unanimously confirm the Commander In Theater just to turn around and say “the surge isn’t working” when reports in the field are saying just the opposite.

I smell dying brain cells in DC.

UPDATE: BlandlyUrbane says;

Let’s face it, no one is really going to continue to give this subject enough thought to do the right thing. Suggesting politicians get a clue to consider the result of acting on their rhetoric is like asking them to not take themselves too seriously.

We will one day soon leave Iraq and that day will be too soon. We will spend the next decades paying for that shortsighted decision with more battlegrounds around the planet. In perhaps what is the first time this nation took a pro-active stance or entered into battle early in a preemptive manner so as to address an issue head on; we will fall back and write off all those that have sacrificed to the point at which we do leave.

We will do this; the time is coming. We will have to go back too, but the circumstances and the battlefields will be that much more difficult to enter into. They will be in the deserts, in the cities of Europe and the U.S. and elsewhere. It will be an ugly inferno and I told you so will have no meaning or satisfaction.

UPDATE 2: BlandlyUrbane;

Makes one wonder how a senior senator, a ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee could be so off or unaware of various data. Presumably he receives his intel in a form the we, the public do not as we are forced to rely upon the news media; which consistently reports bad news because it’s quick and easy and offers very little good news because it is slow and laborious and not as readily apparent.

We are forced to believe that the senator receives his intel in the same place that we do, which is extremely odd. At the same time Lugar announces is his concerns (was it timed to distract from the illegal immigration fiasco?), Mario Loyola at NRO this morning can see positive results coming to fruition in Iraq now that the surge of troops has been recently completed and the surge in tactics or “kinetic phase,” is underway.

Just a few tidbits to whet your appetite, which should be followed with a trip to NRO for his essay….balance is only fair, no?

“After the recent destruction of two minarets at the main Shiite mosque in Sunni-dominated Samarra (the destruction of which in February 2006 triggered the slide towards civil war) Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki immediately traveled to the town to reassure the Sunnis of his government’s support and protection. Iraqi security forces were surged to protect Sunni mosques from reprisals, while security operations continued to target the Shiite death squads. Meanwhile, the government has made progress on all the benchmark legislative initiatives, and the parliament is expected to take up and finalize several of the most crucial ones before its current session ends at the end of July. U.S. efforts have focused on capacity-building. In the field, provincial reconstruction teams (a concept born in Afghanistan, and which came late to Iraq) are now embedded in every brigade headquarters, giving commanders in every sector of Iraq the flexibility to target assistance where it is most crucially needed. And advisers from all over the U.S. government are now embedded all over the Iraqi government, helping prepare for “transition” – a term that basically means “get ready, because soon you’re on your own.”‘

There is much more positive news to be had at NRO from Mario Loyola. Nothing is guaranteed, but victory as well as defeat is a slow process.


June 26, 2007 Posted by | Congress, Lugar, Morons | Leave a comment

Reality Check For Some On The Iraq War

Hat Tip to AubreyJ at The Victory Caucus:

Pete Hegseth has a great read today at the website. It starts off like this… As an Iraq war veteran who participated in combat operations and political reconciliation efforts, I take issue with some of the arguments repeatedly being made on Capitol Hill. Most recently I was bothered by statements from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who cited three common antiwar arguments in his June 21 op-ed, ” Lincoln’s Example for Iraq,” all of which run counter to realities on the ground in Iraq.

Taking Exception (WaPo): the “errors” of the Leftinistra;

As an Iraq war veteran who participated in combat operations and political reconciliation efforts, I take issue with some of the arguments repeatedly being made on Capitol Hill. Most recently I was bothered by statements from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who cited three common antiwar arguments in his June 21 op-ed, ” Lincoln’s Example for Iraq,” all of which run counter to realities on the ground in Iraq.

· A deadline for withdrawal is an incentive for Iraqi political compromise. Levin thinks we ought to pressure Iraq’s government with a warning tantamount to saying: “You better fix the situation before we leave and your country descends into chaos.” He should consider the more likely result: an American exit date crushing any incentive for Iraqi leaders to cooperate and instead prompting rival factions to position themselves to capitalize on the looming power void.

My experience in Iraq bore this out. Only after my unit established a meaningful relationship with the president of the Samarra city council — built on tangible security improvements and a commitment to cooperation — did political progress occur. Our relationship fostered unforeseen political opportunities and encouraged leaders, even ones from rival tribes, to side with American and Iraqi forces against local insurgents and foreign fighters.

· We can bring the war to a “responsible end” but still conduct counterterrorism operations. The problem with this argument is what a “responsible end” would mean. What is “responsible” about the large-scale bloodshed that would surely occur if we left the Iraqis behind with insufficient security forces? What is “responsible” about proving al-Qaeda’s thesis that America can be defeated anywhere with enough suicide bombings?

The senator also seems to believe that America will have success fighting terrorists in Iraq with a minimal troop presence, despite the fact that 150,000 troops have their hands full right now doing precisely that.

· We are “supporting the troops” by demanding an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Levin says that “our troops should hear an unequivocal message from Congress that we support them.” He explains his vote to fund and “support” the troops while simultaneously trying to legislate the war’s end. But what kind of “support” and “unequivocal message” do the troops hear from leaders in Congress who call their commanders “incompetent” or declare the war “lost”?

Such statements provide nearly instant enemy propaganda to every mud hut with a satellite dish in Iraq and throughout the Arab world. These messages do not spell support, no matter how you spin them. And they could inspire insurgents, making the situation more dangerous for our soldiers and Marines.

Veterans know firsthand that numerous mistakes have been made in the war. But that does not change the unfortunate reality: Iraq today is the front line of a global jihad being waged against America and its allies. Both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have said so.

We face an important choice in the coming months: provide Gen. David Petraeus the time and troops he needs to execute his counterinsurgency campaign, or declare defeat and withdraw from Iraq. It seems that Democrats in Congress have already made their decision.

In his op-ed, Sen. Levin invoked the example of Abraham Lincoln, who endured years of challenges before finding the right generals and strategy to win the Civil War. After four years of uncertainty in Iraq, America finally has both the general and the strategy to turn the tide. The question is whether 2007 will unfold like 1865 or 1969.

President Lincoln chose to fight a bloody and unpopular war because he believed the enemy had to be defeated. He was right. And to me, that sounds more than a bit like the situation our country faces today. What path will we choose?

The writer, a first lieutenant in the Army National Guard, is executive director ofVets for Freedom. He served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division from September 2005 to July 2006.

June 26, 2007 Posted by | Congress, Editorials, GWOT | 2 Comments


US CENTCOM Press Releases



Posted: 26 Jun 2007 05:23 AM CDT



Posted: 26 Jun 2007 03:26 AM CDT



Posted: 25 Jun 2007 03:10 PM CDT



Posted: 25 Jun 2007 03:07 PM CDT



Posted: 25 Jun 2007 03:04 PM CDT



Posted: 25 Jun 2007 03:02 PM CDT



Posted: 25 Jun 2007 03:01 PM CDT



Posted: 25 Jun 2007 02:57 PM CDT



Posted: 25 Jun 2007 02:55 PM CDT



Posted: 25 Jun 2007 02:53 PM CDT



Horn of Africa Expeditionary Medical Force Educates to Save Lives.aspx

Posted: 26 Jun 2007 04:43 AM CDT

CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI – In deployed locations, corpsmen and medics can’t be everywhere. It’s important for all service members to become Combat Life Savers so they can be trained in how to save a life in a remote location. The first few minutes of a traumatic injury are crucial to the victim’s survival, which is why it’s important to know at least basic life saving skills.

Two Compassionate Soldiers Give Iraqi Child Hope.aspx

Posted: 26 Jun 2007 04:34 AM CDT

KIRKUK, Iraq — The nine-year old boy would most certainly lose his leg. Given the prohibitive cost of medical care and his family’s lack of resources, amputation and a life of pain and dependence seemed inevitable. The Iraqi boy’s father was resigned to that conclusion.

June 26, 2007 Posted by | CENTCOM | Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: