No American success is safe from BHO’s history rewrite team. Now the event that brought a rapid end to WWII — rather than a bloodbath invasion of Japan — is about to receive the special Obama Sorry treatment.
The late Captain Paul Tibbets (pictured), who piloted the plane that dropped the first atomic bomb, remained unconvinced by latter day critics who questioned the weapon’s use:
“I have been convinced that we saved more lives than we took,” he said, referring to both American and Japanese casualties from an invasion of Japan. “It would have been morally wrong if we’d have had that weapon and not used it and let a million more people die.” Paul W. Tibbets Jr., Pilot of Enola Gay, Dies at 92, New York Times, November 1, 2007
Such common sense doesn’t dent the thick belief system of the President, however.
The son of the U.S. Air Force pilot who dropped the first atomic bomb in the history of warfare says the Obama administration’s decision to send a U.S. delegation to a ceremony in Japan to mark the 65th anniversary of the attack on Hiroshima is an “unsaid apology” and appears to be an attempt to “rewrite history.”
James Tibbets, son of Brig. Gen. Paul W. Tibbets, Jr., says Friday’s visit to Hiroshima by U.S. Ambassador John Roos is an act of contrition that his late father would never have approved.
“It’s an unsaid apology,” Tibbets, 66, told FoxNews.com from his home in Georgiana, Ala. “Why wouldn’t it be? Why would [Roos] go? It doesn’t make any sense.
“I know it’s the anniversary, but I don’t know what the hell they’re trying to do. It needs to be left alone. The war is over.”
Tibbets, whose father died in 2007 at the age of 92, said he receives dozens of calls from veterans every year around this time thanking him for his father’s service.
“‘If it wasn’t for your dad, I wouldn’t be here,’” Tibbets said many veterans tell him. “This has been going on since he dropped that bomb.”
Tibbets said he sees Roos’ impending visit — it will be the first time the U.S. has sent a delegation to the anniversary commemoration in Hiroshima — as an attempt to revise history.
“It’s making the Japanese look like they’re the poor people, like they didn’t do anything,” he said. “They hit Pearl Harbor, they struck us. We didn’t slaughter the Japanese — we stopped the war.”
Roughly 140,000 people were killed or died within months after an American B-29 — nicknamed the Enola Gay — bombed Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945. Three days later, roughly 80,000 people died when the U.S. dropped a second bomb on Nagasaki. Japan surrendered nine days later, bringing an end to World War II.
White House officials on Wednesday referred calls to the State Department, which did not respond to several inquiries about how the decision was made or if national veterans organizations were contacted prior to the announcement that a delegation would attend the commemoration.
During Wednesday’s daily press briefing, State Department officials defended the visit, saying Roos’ attendance at the ceremony “was the right thing to do,” spokesman PJ Crowley said.
The ceremony will begin early Friday with the ringing of a bell and the release of doves. Roos visited Hiroshima weeks after he arrived in Tokyo as a U.S. ambassador last year, and the response was generally positive. […]
President Obama is expected to visit Japan in November, and calls have been growing there for him to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, since he has spoken of his vision of a nuclear-free world.
Tibbets said he hopes Obama will decide to forgo visiting to the two cities.
“What’s his purpose? I don’t know what it’d do,” Tibbet said. “History is history, the past is the past. You can’t change it and I don’t know why he’d visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
“This all sounds like, ‘Oh, we did you wrong.’ That’s what it sounds like.”
It is curious that the Associated Press has dedicated a second article to a July poll commissioned by the AP and Univision. Perhaps economic realities have forced AP’s head office to recommend thrifty use of recycled materials: publish poll results, wait a couple weeks and then rehash the information in a “new” article.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Tomasa Bulux speaks Spanish to her children, maintains an altar at home representing her Mayan culture’s view of the world and meets once a week with Mayan immigrants who speak her indigenous Quiche tongue.
At the same time, she’s becoming a part of the diverse, cosmopolitan city she lives in. Her Guatemalan dishes share space on the table with experiments in cooking Thai or Arabic food. She’s fluent in English and socializes with her European-American husband’s English-speaking family as much as with other Hispanics.
Bulux (BOO-loox), 42, an immigrant from Guatemala, is hardly alone.
An Associated Press-Univision poll shows that a significant percentage of Hispanics believe it is important to hold on to their unique identity even as they work to blend into American society. That dual view of their cultural space — a strong sense of heritage and a desire to embrace the United States as their home — challenges perceptions that a growing Hispanic population poses a destabilizing threat to national unity.
“It is part of life to adapt,” Bulux says. “But our identity is already within us — you can’t isolate it, suppress it, substitute it for another.”
The poll, also sponsored by The Nielsen Company and Stanford University, shows two-thirds of all Hispanics surveyed say it is important to maintain their distinct cultures. At the same time, 54 percent say it is important to assimilate into American society.
All told, about four in 10 hold both views — a seeming contradiction that reflects the daily balancing act that many immigrants and ethnic groups perform to retain their identity in a diverse, though still Anglo-Protestant-dominant, culture.
“Identity is multidimensional and people can see themselves as Hispanic and as Americans, and see themselves as culturally part of the United States and maintaining their Hispanicity, without seeing that as being internally in conflict,” said Gary Segura of Stanford University, an authority on Latino politics who helped design the survey. “Hispanics are part of a very long tradition here of incorporating their own cultures into the American mainstream.”
That last paragraph probably conforms to what liberal reporters regard as an acceptable form of acculturation, where America is supposed to change to accommodate the newbies. That’s the opposite of assimilation, where immigrants are expected to embrace American beliefs, and in turn are accepted as part of society.
Certainly diversity enthusiasts are aware that citizens still believe that immigrants should accept America’s customs, values and language, despite decades of pro-multiculturalism propaganda in the press. One example:
A sizable majority of likely U.S. voters (77%) believe that people who come to America should adopt this country’s culture, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
While critics of this view often complain that it is discriminatory, 61% of those polled believe the United States is a “fair and decent” country, while 25% view it as “unfair and discriminatory” and 15% are unsure.
Only 11% think newcomers to America should maintain the cultures of their home countries, while 13% are undecided.
While the AP-Univision approach attempts to reassure citizens that the new mega-millions are just like previous immigrants who wanted to become Americans, it does so by slyly redefining assimilation. Some Hispanics may speak English and get along in American society, true enough, but the identity and loyalty of many remain with their tribe. Traditional citizens are supposed to think that squishy assimilation is just fine, but split allegiance is not compatible with the country’s historical social contract or with a national community. Diversity decreases trust, and Americans still prefer traditional values to multicultural ones.
Below, multilingual ballots (these are in Los Angeles) illustrate Washington’s appeasement of multicultural ideology.
In southern Arizona, cartels are flexing their power by increasingly encroaching into US territory. Interior enforcement against Mexican drug cartels now includes signs warning citizens to avoid border-area parks because they are dangerous.
In fact, Arizona Governor Brewer expressed her disappointment with the warning signs as a symptom of Obama’s refusal to deal with border anarchy in a YouTube video: Brewer to Obama: Warning Signs Are Not Enough.
While Obama attends to his golf game, outgunned law enforcement has to fund-raise to purchase adequate weapons, as noted by reporter William La Jeunesse during a recent visit to Pinal County, 70 miles from the border.
Pinal County, Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu is raising money to privately outfit his officers with body armor and more powerful weapons because he and his deputies say they can’t compete with the cartels, especially when it comes to weapons. He even has a website asking for donations. Babeu says the Obama Administration needs to help the state of Arizona, not sue it.
“I’d like to invite President Obama to come here, to Pinal County, to come here and see this drug and human smuggling corridor, to see for himself, 80 miles, 70 miles, 90 miles deep into our state, into America, what’s going on,” says Babeu.
The area north of the Interstate 8 in Pinal County, Arizona is a lay up point in a well-known smuggling corridor. It’s more than 70 miles from the Mexican border and yet, when you look around it’s littered with evidence of human and drug smugglers.
Millions of dollars of cargo come through this valley. In fact, the cartels have lookouts at the high points, so they know when police are coming and they’ll stop the load from coming through by radio.
“Our normal patrol deputy is out manned and outgunned in the area,” says Deputy Matt Thomas. “They’re coming from Mexico with AK-47s, with AR-15- style rifles.”
Inquiring Senators want to know what’s up about their previously asked (but unanswered) question: Does Obama intend to use limited provisions of law meant to excuse individual aliens (specifically parole and deferred action) and use them instead to amnesty millions of lawbreakers?
The lack of response is indeed troubling. The Obama administration’s bad faith on this issue, demonstrated by the legal attack of the federal government on Arizona, is immense and leads concerned patriots to believe the President would do anything to advanced his agenda of flooding America with future Marxican Democrats.
Senator Charles Grassley and 11 colleagues sent a new letter recently to follow up on the earlier one in June that was ignored by the administration. The link includes the earlier letter to the President as well.
We remained concerned about potential plans for a large-scale effort to offer parole or to defer action on undocumented aliens in the United States. We realize that deferred action and parole are discretionary actions reserved for individual cases that present unusual, emergent or humanitarian circumstances. However, we do not believe that such actions should be used for a large population of illegal aliens or used to bypass Congress and the legislative process.
News articles report that your department has denied the charge, stating that grants of parole or deferred removal are based on the merits of individual cases. While we have not personally been assured that plans have not been drawn up, we are interested in data that will guarantee the American people that the Administration is not using these discretionary actions in cases that are not urgent or based on humanitarian reasons.
Therefore, we seek the following information about how the department is using its authorities. Specifically, we would like answers to the following questions no later than August 16:
• How many removal actions have been deferred each year over the past 5 years, including calendar year 2010, to date?
• How many times has parole been granted each year over the past 5 years, including calendar year 2010, to date?
• Of those granted deferred action or parole in the past five years, including 2010, how many have been provided work authorizations? In what circumstances are work authorizations not granted?
• What guidelines and procedures are in place when the department considers using its discretionary power to defer action or grant parole? Please describe the process from the initial request to the final approval, and please provide a copy of the written policies that employees of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Customs and Border Protection must follow.
Finally, in order to ensure that deferred action and parole are being used in a manner consistent with the law, we request to be notified in writing when the Administration defers removal action or grants parole to undocumented, deportable or inadmissible aliens. We would further request a summary of the case and the rationale for using the discretionary action. In that vein, we would like a summary (including demographic background) of the cases that so far have been approved in calendar year 2010.
We appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to hearing from you.
Upbeat India boosters like to portray their country as a modern, “forward looking” society that is an up-and-comer on the world stage. In fact, some believe this will be India’s century.
But retro social realities are hard to ignore. Bangalore is celebrated as a tech center, thanks to American outsourcing and education, yet indoor plumbing is not universal. Sacred cows roam the streets, and untouchables (aka Dalits) still face discrimination despite official efforts to eradicate the worst of the caste system.
Women get the worst of it. When drought occurs in the superstitious countryside, some unlucky woman might be made to pull a plow through the fields to please whatever gods are miffed. The government has built orphanages to hold the millions of unwanted girls who would be exterminated otherwise in the patriarchal culture.
Interestingly, some inquiring minds recently researched how many Indian women were killed for being witches, now in the 21st century.
As many as 200 women are lynched every year in India after being accused of practising witchcraft, according to a study.
The deaths are most prevalent in poverty-stricken villages populated by tribal groups in the northern Indian state of Jharkhand, with cases also reported in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Haryana and Orissa.
Avdhash Kaushal, chairman of the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra (RLEK), told AFP that most victims were single or widowed and were often targeted for their land or money.
They are often forced to drink urine or eat excreta in public and are then paraded naked through the village. An estimated 200 are killed each year, with many more committing suicide afterwards out of shame.
“During our legal literacy programme in tribal villages, we came across these incidents of women being called witches and then being killed,” he said of his charity, which helps tribal groups with litigation and welfare.
The figure of 200 is an estimate based on research done by RLEK in Jharkhand and figures from police and state authorities in other states.
In the last 15 years, more than 2,500 women have been killed for being witches, Kaushal estimated.
Reporting from Washington — Critics of the Obama administration’s decision to sue Arizona over its new law to control illegal immigration accuse the government of overlooking a more obvious target: the dozens of cities that called themselves a “sanctuary” for immigrants.
“Everyone has noticed the hypocrisy of the government going after Arizona and ignoring the sanctuary cities,” said Bob Dane, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform. “They have it exactly backwards. Arizona is applying federal law, and sanctuary cities are violating it.”
Justice Department lawyers on Thursday asked a judge in Phoenix to block Arizona’s law from going into effect on the grounds it interferes with federal immigration policy. The law is due to take effect in the coming week.
The Justice Department lawyers say the government wants to catch and deport criminal immigrants, but it does not wish to take custody of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who areotherwise abiding by the law.
Right, as if unlawfully occupying American jobs and using stolen Social Security numbers (a felony) makes the aliens “otherwise abiding by the law.”
But worse than that is the threat to public safety when the most violent foreign criminals are treated like privileged characters, which is what happens in sanctuary cities.
Heather MacDonald explained how the policy is seriously hazardous to public safety by allowing known criminals to roam free:
LAPD officers recognize illegal deported gang members all the time—flashing gang signs at court hearings for rival gangbangers, hanging out on the corner, or casing a target. These illegal returnees are, simply by being in the country after deportation, committing a felony (in contrast to garden-variety illegals on their first trip to the U.S., say, who are only committing a misdemeanor). “But if I see a deportee from the Mara Salvatrucha [Salvadoran prison] gang crossing the street, I know I can’t touch him,” laments a Los Angeles gang officer. Only if the deported felon has given the officer some other reason to stop him, such as an observed narcotics sale, can the cop accost him—but not for the immigration felony.
The most important argument against alien sanctuary is the increasing list of crime victims, including Los Angeles high school football star Jamiel Shaw (shown) who was killed by an illegal alien gangster one day after the criminal was released from jail without being deported.
There are other cases of Americans being killed in preventable crimes — many by previously arrested drunk driving illegal aliens. Sadly, the MSM is incapable of connecting the dots of causality.
There is NO evidence that illegals speak up with evidence against criminals, which is the bogus reason given by many sanctuary supporters; the policy is promoted because the open-borders extremists do NOT care that the program helps violent criminals to stay and commit more crimes against innocent citizens. To them, open borders is an issue that supercedes the rule of law.
In case you didn’t know, 2010 is the 30-year anniversary of the Mariel Boatlift, the massive exodus of Cubans to south Florida with the blessing of both Fidel Castro and President Jimmy Carter. Jimmy may have thought it would be a generous act to welcome an unlimited number of unhappy Cubans, plus it would have the Cold War propaganda value of showing people fleeing commie Cuba for the freedom of America.
It didn’t work out quite so nicely. Crafty Castro saw an opportunity to cull his nation’s herd of undesirables, and he released Cuba’s criminals and the insane to the warm, foolish embrace of America. The influx of so many foreigners in a few short months destroyed Miami’s American nature.
The Coast Guard records the number of Mariel persons as 124,779 relocated to the United States during six months of 1980.
Recently the folks at National Public Radio noted the anniversary by inviting Marielitos to phone in and share their memories of the event. Naturally the tone was celebratory about the diversity of the huge horde of foreigners who were plopped into Miami, the residents of which had no choice about the matter.
(The link below leads to an audio file of the radio broadcast.)
[HOST NEIL] CONAN: And the story that was in the Herald described it as a pivotal moment when the city became inevitable, started to change its identity to become the international city it is now.
[Ms. LUISA YANEZ (Reporter, Miami Herald)]: Absolutely. All of a sudden – you know, there have been Cubans here. There were Cubans here. But when 125,000 new Cubans arrived here, it changed Miami forever, totally. We became more of an international city. Spanish was spoken. It had been spoken before, but now it was everywhere.
You had a whole new crop of new Cuban arrivals in this area. So it really changed Miami forever.
CONAN: There was a battle over bilingual reforms that summer, the bilingualism went down, required to speak English, a battle that I think went on for 13 years.
Ms. YANEZ: Absolutely, and not everybody welcomed all the Cubans that arrived. So that created some tensions with the older residents here, who felt that they were losing their Miami. So they set out to prevent I guess Spanish becoming an official language in the city and the county. And that was very bitter. That created a lot of bitterness in the community.
Imagine the situation from the viewpoint of Miami residents. Washington deposited 130,000 unscreened refugees, many of whom were violent criminals, within six months who then insisted that the city must accept their language as official. But it’s the Americans who are criticized as unwelcoming because they “felt that they were losing their Miami.” The city’s rapid transformation from an American city into an “international” one is characterized as a positive development — perhaps to Cubans.
Continuing…
CONAN: In a lot of ways, you’re seeing in some ways the same battle that happened in Miami in 1980 happening in other places in the United States right now.
Ms. YANEZ: That’s true. You could say that that’s the same thing is happening out West, too. But Miami always bounces back. You know, we always we absorbed all those people. Today you know, back then, being, like my dad was saying, being a Mariel could be, you know, a negative term, what we would say somebody who was a Mariel was a you know, it wasn’t very nice.
But today, 30 years later, I think we’re just all Cuban refugees, escaping from the same regime.
The Mariel boatlift was one of the most disastrous examples of failed social engineering via immigration ever. But NPR attempted to paper over the catastrophe with cheerful first-person accounts. American residents of Miami were not invited to call in.
In the video below with clips from the time, one police officer noted that Miami’s homicide rate doubled the year following Mariel, and a detective described Cuba’s criminal export scam saying, “It was like an invading army was dropped in here to rape, pillage and burn in our town.”
Poor Muslims. Those who reside in the West claim they suffer terribly because of constant discrimination from mean-spirited homies.
Helpfully, the liberal media periodicaly reminds us callous Europeans and Americans of our cruelty. (But the snow job about Islam being a misunderstood Religion Of Peace has been undermined by the Muslims increasingly hostile behavior toward us infidels in the last little while.)
The relatively uncommon burka is just one of the issues making things tense. ‘It’s like the Jew before,’ one businessman says of the prejudice. ‘It’s dangerous.’
Reporting from Mantes-la-Jolie, France — Be patient. This is just a phase. It will all blow over eventually. That’s what Abdel Basset Zitouni tells the young people who come seeking his advice on getting a job or starting a business.
But Zitouni’s counsel isn’t just in response to questions about finding work in a depressed economy.
Many of the people who knock on his office door are Muslims from the housing projects in this city west of Paris who have felt the sting of discrimination.
They tell of an unwelcoming professional world, with regular bank rejections for business loans, or months without a callback for an interview.
in fact, it’s just a little untimely for papers run this item about Muslim complaints just days after three nights of Islo-rioting in Grenoble, France. The local Muslims became violent after one of their tribe was shot by the police after robbing a casino. Property was destroyed, rioters shot at police and several arrests were made. Muslims are hardly acting like nice immigrants.
Below, the Grenoble civil unrest left burned cars in the street.
Speaking of automotive property destruction, the Grenoble turmoil was a mere hiccup in the ongoing national car-roast that France has undergone because of Islamic diversity. New Years has become an annual conflagration, exemplified by the most recent:
Youths burned 1,137 cars across France overnight as New Year’s Eve celebrations once again turned violent, the French Interior Ministry said on Friday.
Car burnings are regular occurrences in poor suburbs that ring France’s big cities, but the arson is especially prevalent during New Year’s Eve revelry.
The number of vehicles torched was only 10 short of the record 1,147 burned this time last year, even though the Interior Ministry mobilized 45,000 police during the night — 10,000 more than 12 months ago.
Note to Sons of Allah: if you want a friendlier attitude from the French, then cutting back of mass car-b-ques would be a fine place to start. Destroying the family car of 200,000 people is no way to win friends and influence people
Only 20 percent of voters approve of the mosque proposed to be built near Ground Zero, compared with 54 percent against. This poll result is due at least partially to the hard work from Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and the other people at Stop islamization of America, who organized the excellent June 6 demonstration against the mosque that drew thousands (see Rally against Ground Zero Mosque a Great Success). They have also been active in presenting the issue to the media.
The rejection of the mosque by the American people additionally reflects the growing awareness that Islam is the enemy of our most basic values, despite the avalanche of liberal propaganda about the “Religion of Peace.”
Just 20% of U.S. voters favor the building of an Islamic mosque near the Ground Zero site of the World Trade Center in New York City, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Fifty-four percent (54%) oppose the planned building of a mosque near where Muslim terrorists brought down the skyscrapers by crashing commercial airliners into them on September 11, 2001. Three thousand people died in the incident and related attacks that day.
Americans don’t seem to be strongly engaged with the story, however. Just 22% say they’re following the story Very Closely. Another 29% are following it Somewhat Closely.
The developers of the 13-story Cordoba mosque two blocks from Ground Zero say the project is “about promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture.” Opponents of the project, including many who lost loved ones in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, see the mosque as a deliberate provocation that dishonors the memories of those who died.
Some have argued that the mosque will “honor” the 9/11 victims by promoting the peaceful side of Islam, but only 30% are even somewhat confident that the proposed mosque is being built to honor those who died in the 9/11 attacks. Fifty-eight percent (58%) don’t share that confidence. This includes 15% who are Very Confident and 32% who are Not At All Confident. […]
Thirty-eight percent (38%) of voters now feel America is safer today than it was before 9/11, up seven points from an all-time low of 31% in late May. Forty-five percent (45%) do not believe this to be true.
Last September, 49% of Americans said most of their fellow countrymen have already forgotten the impact of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Thirty-nine percent (39%) disagreed.
Voters 40 and older are much more likely to oppose the Ground Zero mosque than those who are younger.
Seventy-six percent (76%) of Republicans and 50% of voters not affiliated with either major party oppose building the mosque near the World Trace Center site. Democrats are evenly divided on the question.
Democrats are also much more confident that the mosque will honor those who died on 9/11.
Only 13% of voters think America’s relationship with the Muslim world will be better a year from now. Thirty percent (30%) say that relationship will get worse, and 48% think it will stay the same.
Below, the D-Day rally in Manhattan against the Ground Zero mosque drew a huge crowd.
Furthermore, the Cordoba Initiative is not an outreach program but a thinly disguised example of Muslims proclaiming Islamic supremacy in America.
In addition, the piece is an excellent example of what can be done with simple video. In it, Terry walks around a park where he played freely as a boy, but he describes how the park and his community have been changed for the worse from the illegal alien onslaught.
It would be great if sovereignty-minded citizens around the country made similar videos of their neighborhoods, explaining how excess immigration has harmed those places. Such testaments would be useful tools in our cause of saving the country as well as records for history.
California RINO gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has blundered into the hazardous firing range of Los Angeles radio guys John and Ken for her rapid switch from “tough as nails” immigration enforcer in the primary to hispandering liar now in the general election. They are not happy that the E-bay billionaire is “talking out of both sides of her mouth in two different languages.”
In 2004, I wrote about John and Ken’s Political Human Sacrifice campaign to smack open-borders R-reps around: The John And Ken Show Roils California’s Congressional Republicans. They organized a campaign of voter anger upon many supposed SoCal conservatives who thought they could support open borders yet keep their seats in Congress. The main target ended up being Rep. David Dreier, who was not defeated but was given a serious scare and has improved his voting behavior since then (rating an A in 2008).
More recently, the radio guys have been running the Heads on a Stick campaign to fight out-of-control spending by the California government.
Whitman’s Spanish-language advertising (including billboards like the one pictured that condemn Arizona’s immigration law and Prop 187) does not match up with her statements in English, and John and Ken have noticed — big time. For the past couple days, their website has demanded of Whitman, “Stop the Pandering!” and includes contact information for her campaign; plus the radio show has been filled with fierce invective against lying politicians. During the 2003 Gray Davis recall, they supported Schwarzenegger for governor as being the real deal on the immigration issue. But he turned weasel, and as a result of being misled, John and Ken say they are now more demanding of straight talk from candidates.
(For a sample of what’s going on, listen to the 3pm hour from July 21, where the Meg-bashing starts at 3:19 in: AUDIO.)
Their radio show has a huge audience in Los Angeles, and the Meg-bashing is now getting attention from other media, even the liberal LA Times:
A wise gubernatorial candidate should know better than to mess with John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou, hosts of one of the most listened to radio programs in the United States. The John & Ken Show broadcasts live from Los Angeles every weekday on AM-640, for an astonishing five consecutive hours—including during peak drive time.
Since the early 1990s, John and Ken have built an audience of millions—one listener at a time—by waging grass-roots campaigns against elected officials they find hypocritical. Where they have made the most serious ground is in taking on governors, which is why their newest target, Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, should take heed. In 1993, John and Ken were instrumental in toppling New Jersey governor Jim Florio. In 2003, they were instrumental in getting Governor Gray Davis recalled.
“In October 2009, Meg Whitman came on our show and made her position on illegal immigration very clear,” John told me in an interview earlier today, explaining that Whitman’s “tone and her words were all about how tough she was going to be.” Then last Friday, a Spanish-language op-ed quoted Whitman as saying there was little difference between her and Jerry Brown when it comes to immigration issues. John and Ken read that and were stunned—Brown supports amnesty as “a path to citizenship.”
On Monday morning, along came the final straw: “Visuals have great impact,” John said, relating a tale told by a listener, who was driving though the San Fernando Valley, when he spotted Meg Whitman billboards all across Latino neighborhoods, in Spanish, using “defiantly words you’d expect from Jerry Brown!”
The billboards read, “No a la Proposicion 187 y NO a la ley de Arizona” and are signed by Meg Whitman. (Prop 187 aims to deny illegal immigrants access to health care, public schools and other social services; Arizona law aims to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants.) […]
Will the candidate defend her actions on The John and Ken Show? She might have to—only this time, her campaign managers would be wise to brush up on the hosts’ backstory. ‘Cause when John and Ken talk, people listen and governors (or governors-to-be) fall.
But a tangle with John and Ken will seriously hurt her. She has been making rookie mistakes in a big league game, and is likely to spend over $100 million and lose the election– because she thought she could hispander on immigration and get away with it.
This case had a bad smell from the beginning, when the military was claiming “no problema” about dozens of Afghan trainees disappearing from Lackland Air Force Base near San Antonio. Some instances can be chalked up to low-rent Muslims taking advantage of being in America to escape their dirtbag homeland, sometimes to Canada where asylum is easy. Not all, however.
Fox News has been investigating, and it turns out the deserters had some help from the local invasion experts on the fine points of underground escape. Apparently the two groups’ shared interest — violating American sovereignty — is enough of a bond to overcome cultural differences.
What remains unknown is whether the activity goes beyond money and extends into Islamic terrorism. Islamic groups have been attracted to the anarchy of the Mexican border area for some time, and have taken advantage of the ease of entrance.
A loose network of Mexican-American women, some of whom may be illegal immigrants, have been responsible for helping numerous Afghan military deserters go AWOL from an Air Force Base in Texas, FoxNews.com has learned.
Many of the Afghans, with the women’s assistance, have made their way to Canada; the whereabouts of others remain unknown. Some of the men have been schooled by the women in how to move around the U.S. without any documentation.
The Afghan deserters refer to the women as “BMWs” — Big Mexican Women — and they often are the first step in the Afghans’ journey from Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, to Canada, a diplomatic official told FoxNews.com. He requested anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly during an ongoing investigation by U.S. and international authorities into who helped the Afghans leave the Defense Language Institute’s English Language Center at Lackland.
The official’s account was supported by a source at the Defense Language Institute (DLI), who also requested anonymity. Foreign soldiers attend DLI to learn English before they receive specialized military training at various installations in the U.S.
The Afghan military men usually meet the women at three nightclubs in San Antonio, according to the DLI source, who accompanied some of the men to these locations and has been privy to discussions among them about the establishments and the women. The nightclubs include two military hangouts — Tiffany’s Cocktails and Mirage, located outside Lackland’s main gate — and Graham Central Station, a massive warehouse-like building in downtown San Antonio that houses “six nightclubs under one roof” that host a variety of theme nights. Photos on Graham Central’s website show scantily clad women rolling around in what appears to be Jell-O.
In the past eight years, no fewer than 46 members of the Afghan military have gone absent without leave from DLI. As most Afghans on the base do not have cars, many of them depended on the women to pick them up at Lackland’s back gate in the middle of the night and help them vanish.
The security angle is considered in this Fox TV clip:
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
The late Captain Paul Tibbets (pictured), who piloted the plane that dropped the first atomic bomb, remained unconvinced by latter day critics who questioned the weapon’s use:
The most important argument against alien sanctuary is the increasing list of crime victims, including Los Angeles high school football star 
Whitman’s 
