The American Standard Bearer

“When I see an American flag flying, it’s a joke.” – Robert Altman

Actress Lindsay Lohan was adorable as twin sisters seperated at birth in the 1998 remake of The Parent Trap, but now she’s just one more bloated Hollywood booze-hound mourning the death of her latest enabler, Hollywood pot-head Robert Altman.

It can be argued that Altman epitomized the modern Hollywood zeitgeist – questionable talent, total self-absorption and an utter absence of understanding of how America afforded him the exalted position he held. Perhaps nowhere else in the world would a person like Altman obtain the wealth and influence he enjoyed here in America. Yet he, like his Hollywood comrades who make fantastic sums of money entirely off the adulation of ordinary Americans, was openly, and ignorantly I might add, contemptuous of his own country.

And now, one of the most notable tributes to his eminence comes from Lohan, more notable for her bouts with the bottle than anything else. Her rambling letter of condolence to Altman’s family, while touching in places, exposes a person who has not spent her formative years wisely, learning, say, a grasp of the language. We can and should feel empathy for Lohan, but no one at this point should be taking advice from her.

Mark Steyn, the witty conservative political commentator, has reprinted a column from June, 2005 on the “Greatest Hits” page of his website that is well worth a look. Steyn makes the excellent point that a constitutional amendment to protect the American flag from desecration would only prevent the America haters who are wont to burn a flag from being exposed for what they are.

Although any further discussion about such an amendment is indefinitely on the shelf, the one good reason to support it would be to restore the proper meaning of the word “speech” to the First Amendment. If burning an object like, say, a flag in public is constitutionally protected as “speech,” where does it end? Unfortunately for the doomed amendment, the members of Congress who supported the bill did so only as just another vehicle for grandstanding – mostly as a fraudulent demonstration of patriotism – which is what killed it. Not one of them got it right.

As a result of the fact that our President has deliberately refused to uphold his oath of office to protect and defend the people of the United States, little Pahrump, Nevada, like many towns across America, is doing something about it. And judging by the reaction from those thuggish manipulators disguised as lawyers at the ACLU, Pahrump must be on the right track.

The bone of contention is a part of the passed resolution requiring the American flag to be present if the flag of a foreign country is flown. The ACLU claims that regulating flags is in violation of the First Amendment free speech clause, ignoring the well-established right of a community to regulate permanent fixtures such as flags and flagpoles, signs, building heights and even building colors and styles. Add to that the fact that if the issue is illegal immigrants flying Mexican flags, they have no rights under our Constitution, and it looks like the ACLU is just blowing smoke as usual.

The real issue is, of course, illegal immigration. The ACLU, in it’s never ending quest to tear America asunder, is gung-ho for open borders. They know full well that American sovereignty is at stake and they are doing whatever they can to put an end to it. So what do the people of Pahrump think about the hornet’s nest they’ve stirred?

Well, here’s an excellent comment we received from Brian S., himself a resident of Pahrump and a Veteran of the United States Navy to boot. I couldn’t have said it better myself:

The point that liberals always attempt to brush aside is the fact that illegal means “ILLEGAL.”

The United States is a country born of the principal of law. Why would a country, state, city, or town, pass laws only then to deny that they even exist?

The truth is simple…Deal with the law breakers in a lawful and civil way by sending them back where they came from. Then regulate the influx of immigrants just like every other civilized nation on earth does. Based on the needs of our country, and the qualifications of each immigrant to fill those needs.

We must put the good of the country first or it is the country that will suffer in the end, and ultimately fail.

Another myth perpetrated by the liberals and the ACLU is that we are nothing more than a bunch of Mexican hating “Bigots”, “Racists” or as was stated above: “Hispano-Phobes” (I’d like to see you find that one in the dictionary!)

These are nothing more than inflammatory buzz words carefully crafted and designed for one purpose: To stop the free exchange of ideas and to intimidate their opposition from expressing points and views.

These buzz words are designed to STOP the conversation rather than to promote the free exchange and expression of ideas.

If you don’t agree with us then you are a “Racist.”
Wrong! We only require you to obey our laws no matter what your ethnicity.

If blond haired blue eyed Norwegians were invading our country illegally, the concept would be exactly the same.

“Go back where you came from and do it right next time.”

We have allowed the situation to get out of control by not enforcing the laws and now it’s time to fix the problem. This is exceedingly hard to do with a congress and President determined to erase the borders regardless what the people want.

U.S. immigration laws need to be enforced first and revised later (if necessary) so we can get a handle on the situation.

If it’s determined that immigration laws are too restrictive, then deal with that issue separately in the courts and in the congress. We cannot afford to allow law breakers to abuse our system, and disrespect our laws, while depleting our public services,and demanding special treatment at the same time. It’s not good business and it’s irresponsible government. It is a fatal error for every country in history that has tried it. No country can survive without absolute borders and absolute immigration control. The United States included.

Like it or not the facts are what they are. Illegal means “ILLEGAL” Period. I dont need any pointy headed liberal elitist ACLU type to re-define the term for me.

It needs to be addressed as such and it must be dealt with as such.

The ACLU, the liberal left, George W. Bush, the Democrat Party, and the Republican Party are doing America no favors by denying us our rights to regulate our borders and immigration as a free nation based on the Constitution of The United States!

This is nothing less than an invasion and it must be stopped. Our Congress and our President are falling down on the one responsibility they raised their right hand and swore on the good book to uphold:

“To protect and defend our borders from all enemies foreign and domestic”

It’s not we who are wrong in demanding that our laws be enforced as passed by the Congress and stated clearly in black and white.

If you invade our country illegally, or if you abet such activities against the law of the land, You certainly are not our friend!

Thanks for the input, Brian. America needs more clear-headed citizens like you.

Thanks to some readers who commented on Wednesday’s post, the malignant anti-American nature of the actions of some Orange Coast College student trustees has been brought into sharper focus. One student in particular, Coyotl Tezcatlipoca is, as it turns out, a leader of the Tonantzin Collective, a part of the Mexica Movement advocating open borders and the “reconquista” of first, the southwestern United States, and eventually all of the Americas.

Coyotl Tezcatlipoca is also not his real name. He told an interviewer that he rejected his “slave name” of Benito Acosta in favor of Coyotl Tezcatlipoca. Coyotl comes from the Aztec word for coyote and Tezcatlipoca, according to Wikipedia, is the Aztec “god of the night, the north, temptation, sorcery, beauty and war.” Taking a stab at translation (of course, it’s always risky to convey rational meanings from the deranged rantings of the mentally ill), we can guess that Acosta sees himself as a powerful Aztec god who illegally smuggles immigrants across our border with Mexico.

While that translation may or may not be what Acosta intended, one thing about this guy is not open for interpretation. Acosta epitomizes what most (legal) Americans fear about the current flood of illegal immigrants – that they are militantly anti-American, are consciously and systematically using our own legal system (with lots of help from the ACLU) to further weaken America and they are ready to threaten violence with only the slightest provocation.

As our readers were quick to point out, when a Hispanic immigrant like Acosta openly equates the American flag with genocide, we are not dealing with the type of immigrant that will strengthen America, but the type that intends to destroy America.

If your planning to take out a second mortgage on your home to send your kid to college, you might want to reconsider. College in America just aint what it used to be.

Consider the dunces behind a minor furor at Orange Coast College in California. Last week, we reported that some newly elected student trustees, who ran for office wearing military style berets (how old school!), tried to expunge the Pledge of Allegiance from their meetings. Idiot ring-leader Jason Bell claimed that, as an athiest and socialist (they go together like a toothbrush and toothpaste), the “under God” portion of the pledge had been designed to “destroy (his) ideology.” Of course, he said this without the slightest concern for any ideologies he himself might be destroying in the process.

Now, after a rancorous debate that took place in the OCC faculty lounge in which the American flag was narrowly returned to it’s position of honor, it turns out that Bell may have been chosen as spokesperson because he was the brightest of the bunch. One of Bell’s beret-clad comrades, Coyotl Tezcatlipoca, less-than-brilliantly observed of the American flag, “That represents genocide to me, and I’m not going to pledge allegiance.” Like so many on the intellectually lazy left, these OCC student trustees want to dredge up the sins of the past to justify their own irrational hatred and paranoia.
Apparently, Tezcatlipoca (say that three times fast) is blissfully unaware that thousands upon thousands of Americans have sacrificed their lives to end the real genocides of recent history including but not limited to those performed by Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Bosnia, Rwanda and Iraq.

Pahrump, Nevada, is a fast growing town with a population of around 30,000 and is located a comfortable 60 miles outside Las Vegas. It is also squarely in the crosshairs of the ACLU’s snipers for the crime of trying to take a stand against the U.S. government’s refusal to enforce immigration laws.

Like many towns all across America that have recently passed laws to stem the tide of illegal immigration, Pahrump has passed a law making it illegal to fly the flag of another country unless it is accompanied by an American flag of equal or larger size. Pahrump also passed laws to make English the official language and to deny illegals free city services. The crowd at the city council meeting enthusiastically cheered as the propositions passed and booed a representative of the ACLU as well as one resident who fretted over “Hispano-phobia.”

Lee Rowland, an ACLU ambulance chaser and part-time shill who attended the meeting ominously warned the townfolk, “If you pass an ordinance that is blatantly in violation of the First Amendment, this town will be on the hook.” The ACLU’s position is, of course, that local regulation of flags as opposed to, say, signs, is a violation of First Amendment free speech protections.

The ACLU’s motive however, has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with a strategy for the systematic destruction of America as we know it. If that were not true, the ACLU would also be defending those whose right to say the Pledge of Allegiance or to pray in school has been denied.

Philip Pullella of Reuters was apparently overjoyed to report the comments of a Cardinal at the Vatican who graciously confirmed Pullella’s own belief in open borders. Pullella, who laments that “thousands of poor Mexicans risk their lives each year sneaking across the 2,000-mile border to seek jobs,” faithfully recorded the words of Cardinal Renato Martino as he spoke at a press conference today.

The good Cardinal, who referred to a proposed fence between the U.S. and Mexico as an “inhuman program,” told the assembled guests, “Speaking of borders, I must unfortunately say that in a world that greeted the fall of the Berlin Wall with joy, new walls are being built between neighborhood and neighborhood, city and city, nation and nation.” Since we are forced to assume that Cardinal Martino is in no way deceitful or dishonest, we are then forced to conclude that he is merely a poor student of history.

For the benefit of those who are in need of a refresher, the Berlin Wall was built by the East Germans (Soviet Union) to keep people from leaving, which they would have done in droves given the chance. Mexico is not building a fence to keep people from leaving – they are in fact encouraging people to leave, hence the need of a fence on the part of the United States to keep people from pouring in.

I dare say the Cardinal, who lives in an enclave that is heavily guarded by a mini-army of Swiss Guards and Vatican Gendarmes, would not take kindly to say, Muslim immigrants pouring into Vatican City and plunking down their bedrolls throughout the myriad rooms and hallways of the Apostolic Palace in preparation for permanent lodging.

“My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you — ask what can you do for your country.” – JFK

Whatever happened to the concepts of loyalty, selflessness and sacrifice? Why, they’ve been replaced with the far less troublesome concepts of guile, self-interest and expediency, at least at one college in California.

The student trustees at Orange Coast College in southern California have voted to eliminate the Pledge of Allegiance from their proceedings. It’s not so much that they have a problem with the American flag – it’s more a problem with God. The move was initiated by three newly elected members who campaigned wearing military style berets. Said Jason Bell, one of the “revolutionary” trustees, “That (’under God’) part is sort of offensive to me. I am an atheist and a socialist, and if you know your history, you know that ‘under God’ was inserted during the McCarthy era and was directly designed to destroy my ideology.”

Bell should have used the word “theology.” It would have been more honest, because that’s exactly what Atheism is, and it would have allowed us to get a clearer picture of what’s happening. Bell and his “revolutionary” pals are actually just dumping the traditional notion theology and imposing their own tired brand of theology on the rest of the students, like it or not.

But the true underlying philosophical motivations at work here have little to do with religion. They are, instead, a manifestation of a shift that has occured within American society away from responsibilty to community and country and towards naked self-interest. That’s why Bell and people like him can make statements such as the following without even a hint of shame, “Loyalty ought to be something the government earns through performance, not through reciting a pledge.”

A dictionary definition of “Bias” – a : Bent, tendency b : an inclination of temperament or outlook.

I’ve written a couple of times about a Muslim mosque in Boonton New Jersey (”Boonton Mosque Terrorized With American Flag” & “New Jersey Muslims Won’t Let The ‘American Flag Attack’ Die“) that made national headlines when members found that an American flag had been nailed over the front door under cover of darkness. It was a mean and cowardly thing to do and whatever message the perpetrators had in mind is anyone’s guess. But the act endangered no one and the over-reaction by members of the mosque requesting a police investigation for hate crimes only increased resentment. Here is a comment we received today from a member of that mosque:

Shawn -
“Let me put it this way. Bias is Bias, be it against a Black, a Muslim or a Jew.

I’m Muslim by faith and live near the Boonton area where I’ve been going to that Center for the past 5 years now. The administration is extremely aware of their “Muslimness” and have preached nothing but peace and kindness towards non-muslims.

Tom has used an isolated organization like CAIR to represent the whole of Islam, which is typical human attitude. You only pick at scabs if you want to see the blood beneath them. There have been tons of other Muslim organizations that have preached love, companionship, have denounced the fall of the Twin Towers, the Madrid bombings; they never seem to get the credit. Why? Because 12 people laughing at someone’s misery in newsworthy but 12 organizations denouncing an act of terrorism is not.

Twelve individuals celebrating in Paterson do not represent the Muslims of the US who are afraid in their houses and at their jobs of the possible backlash they might face.

Do you want me to cite the KU KLUX KLAN that is far more than Twelve Individuals or other massive organizations that have hurt Christian American pride by being Christian Americans doing un-Christian things? Tim McVeigh, Ted ‘UnaBomber’ Kaczynski, et al.?

That argument is a huge waste of time. Like I said before, Bias is Bias and Hatred is Hatred. What happened at the Mosque was a ‘Hate Crime’ which can be compared to someone putting a Swastika on a Jewish Synagogue. PLEASE… Don’t go on to state that I’m equating the American Flag to the Swastika, I’m not. However, the intention of the one who put it on the Doors of the Mosque was something to that note.

I was honored when one of my American friends, Scott G., came over to my house a few days after 9/11 and gave me a small American Flag to stick in my car window. His words were, “I know you and what you stand for, but most others might not, this might be one way where they don’t say or do something bad to you”.

My friend, Scott G. is a great American, who made me feel welcome in his house and taught me how to fit in without insulting my intelligence of hurting my feelings.

Tom, can I say the same for you?”

SB

Unfortunately for you and other Muslims in America who profess to be peace-loving, your fellow Muslims who have commited despicable acts of violence on American soil and who continue to preach hatred towards America are the problem. Just today, for example, a recording of Abu Ayyub al-Masri is on the internet today in which he says, “I swear by God we shall not rest from jihad until we…blow up the filthiest house known as the White House.”

If you are sincere, you need to recognize that you do not have the luxury of washing your hands of responsibility for what others have done and continue to do. Most Americans recognize that we are in a protracted battle against that portion of the Muslim world that calls for jihad against the west. And groups like CAIR, who are well funded and purport to speak for all Muslim-Americans, do speak for you unless you do something about it. As you must know, CAIR condemned the attacks of 9/11 publicly but privately, their stated goal is to one day see America become an Islamic state.

If you want your protests of innocence to be credible, you and other like-minded Muslims are going to have to actively work to identify and expose those Muslims who, like CAIR, publicly denounce terrorism but privately aid the jihadists. You mention the “tons of other Muslim organizations that preach love” but you don’t say who they are. The onus is on you to take action and show America that you are part of the solution, not part of the problem. The Islamization of America is the antithesis of the American ideal.

As part of the U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, French troops claim to have come within seconds of firing anti-aircraft missiles at Israeli fighter jets. According to Reuters, French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie charged that Israeli warplanes “adopted a hostile attitude” towards the French ground troops.

Then praising the courage of the French soldiers, Alliot-Marie declared, “A catastrophe was narrowly avoided by our troops. In legitimate defense, our soldiers removed the covers from the missile battery and were two seconds away from firing at the planes that were threatening them.”

Without knowing better, one might assume that the mission of U.N. peacekeeping forces in southern Lebanon would be to prevent Hezbollah terrorists from resuming rocket attacks on innocent Israeli citizens. But that clearly seems not to be the case. In fact, it sounds as if these French troops are there to defend southern Lebanon and by default, Hezbollah terrorists, from an Israeli attack. Why else would the French have anti-aircraft missiles in place. Hezzbollah doesn’t have even a single jet.

Instead of keeping the peace, the U.N. forces in Lebanon seem to be aggravating an already tense situation and are in effect, an international incident waiting to happen.

By the way, it’s doubtful that Israeli warplanes had “adopted a hostile attitude” and were “threatening” the French position as Alliot-Marie suggests. If that had really been the case, there would almost certainly have been reports of fleeing French soldiers and waving white flags.