|
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Chris
Charles: Close Encounters Of The Third World
Part II: When In Rome Do As The Emperor Does
We all know where President Obama stands on illegal immigration;
he stands against the will of the American people and for open borders with Mexico. But what about Mexican President Philippe
Calderon? Of all people, you would think he would understand our desire to stop illegal immigration. After all, Calderon’s
government does not tolerate ‘undocumented migrants’ in Mexico.
And that is putting it lightly, until
recently illegal immigration INTO Mexico could get a person locked up in a Mexican prison for two years! Those that did not
learn their lesson and were caught in Mexico illegally for a second time faced up to ten years! I would not wish ten years
in a Mexican prison on my worst enemy, let alone some poor migrant (probably only on his way up to illegally immigrate to
the US). I don’t care how great America is, you’d have to be nuts to risk hard time in Mexico! Is Guatemala really
that bad?
Calderon has some nerve coming to the US and telling us that WE’RE unfair. We aren’t the
ones imprisoning illegals. In the US, illegals (if they are arrested at all) are given due process and afforded every right
an American citizen would have. If in the end they are found to be here illegally, they are simply flown back to their country
of origin. Not exactly five to ten at the state pen.
Recently Mexico amended their draconian immigration law,
as Felipe Calderon points out to anyone who will listen. No longer will the ‘Federales’ throw you in prison for
being illegal, they will simply shake you down for money and then send you back where you came from!
When Calderon
was asked by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer if illegals from Central and South American are allow to stay in Mexico, Calderon replied,
“no”. So what does Calderon’s government do with illegals that are caught in Mexico now? According to ‘El
Presidente’ himself, “We send back them”. Translation for those that do not speak ‘Spanglish’,
he means to say, ‘they are deported’.
What a coincidence, that’s what we want to do here
in America! ‘Send back them’ illegal aliens, just like Mexico ‘sends back them’ illegals. If it is
not racist and fascist in Mexico, why would it be racist and fascist here in the US?
Calderon obviously has no
problem deporting people in his country illegally, but how does Mexico determine who is legal and who is illegal? President
Calderon seemingly has a big problem with authorities in Arizona inquiring about a person’s ‘immigration status’.
If they don’t ask about it, how do they do it in Mexico? Telepathy? Are illegal immigrants, once there, given amnesty
and granted full rights as Mexican citizens? Definitely not, they must have some way to establish who is illegal. The term
‘Show me your papers’ came from somewhere, and it wasn’t Maricopa County, Arizona.
Calderon
can’t really be serious about his criticism of Arizona. If Arizona is Nazi Germany, Mexico must be the seventh circle
of Hell! Maybe he was trying to make President Obama happy while he was visiting the White House, you know, ‘when in
Rome do as the Romans do’. Or at least ‘when in Rome do as the Emperor does’.
Originally
Published 6/2/2010
12:18 pm pst
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Chris Charles:
Close Encounters Of The Third World
Part I--Mexican Mayhem
We are used to OUR President admonishing the country; we don’t need it from Mexican President Felipe
Calderon too! President Obama doesn’t need any help scolding America; he does a good job of that himself. Calderon should
go home and disparage his own country. Because as bad as President Obama would have you believe this country is, Mexico is
a whole lot worse.
Mexicans citizens coming to Arizona illegally may now have to worry about getting
deported, however American citizens visiting Mexico legally have to worry about getting decapitated by drug cartels! Calderon
may be ‘Presidente’ but the drug lords run Mexico.
There have been for a long time many good reasons NOT to visit Mexico;
crime, corruption, poverty, and typhoid among them. Now a trip to Mexico could get a person beaten, falsely arrested, kidnapped,
or (most likely) killed.
In a little over three years, 23,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence
in Mexico. 3,365 murders took place between January and March of this year! And you thought the violence in the inner city
was bad here in America! Mexican violence makes rough neighborhoods like Compton look like the Hamptons. Sure drugs and gangs
still plague areas, like the South Central LA but when compared to many areas of Mexico, the South Central part of Los Angeles
looks more like the Upper East Side of Manhattan.
It’s like the Wild West down there, only there is no Wyatt
Earp or Doc Holliday fighting for the good guys. It’s only bad guys fighting other bad guys, there are no good guys.
Mexican officials (the ones that are NOT pawns of the cartels) are impotent to do anything to help the situation. The only
spot of good news is that, in addition to innocent Mexicans and tourists, drug cartels are busy killing each other too. Unfortunately,
for every drug cartel that is toppled a new one takes its place, each more ruthless and callous than the last.
I
know Mexico is a ‘third world’ country but this is ridiculous. Your average day in Mexico is like a bad day in
Baghdad! Some of these cartels make the Islamic throat-cutters seem almost civilized.
Nobody is immune
from the violence in Mexico, not even politicians. Recently, former Mexican presidential candidate Diego Fernandez de Cevallos
was abducted (presumably by the cartels) and has not been heard from since. Cevallos is not alone, there have been many Mexican
politicians either kidnapped or murdered by drug cartels in recent years. In the state of Tamaulipas there is nobody willing
to run for political office because too many that have, have ended up dead.
All this, and Calderon is worried
about ‘racial profiling’ in Arizona? Mexico is arguably one of the most dangerous countries on earth and Calderon
is critical of us? You can compare Arizona to Nazi Germany all you want but I would much rather live in worst part of Arizona
than the best part of Mexico. In fact, I think I would rather take my chances living in Germany circa 1940 rather than live
in modern day Mexico!
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED 5/26/2010
1:15 pm pst
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Chris Charles:
Department Of Injustice
The
first thing Eric Holder did when he became Attorney General in early 2009 was tell us all that the United States was a ‘nation
of cowards’ regarding racial issues. He had heard Barack Obama had been elected President of the United States, right?
How did Eric Holder, himself a black man, get to be the Attorney General of the United States if the US was so 'cowardly'?
The Attorney General, like most liberals, sees racism everywhere he looks. Arizona tries to crack down on illegal
immigration, RACISM. White cop accidentally shoots a black suspect, RACISM. He sees racism nearly everywhere except for where
it really exists.
On Election Day 2008, when Barack Obama won the Presidency in spite of all of the racist ‘crackers’
out there, two members of the New Black Panthers stood in front of a Philadelphia polling placing with nightsticks. They told
white voters that ‘no matter what a black man was going to win’. I don’t know about you but if I see guys
in paramilitary uniforms with tattoos on their face brandishing a weapon telling all the ‘crackas’ they’re
about to be ruled by the black man, I’m outta there.
Imagine for a second that the roles were reversed and
two Klan members were holding nightsticks calling black people ‘N-words’ and telling them that a white man
was going to rule them. How fast would the two racist white boys be tried, convicted, and sentenced to long prison terms for
voter intimidation and hate crimes? However since the offending persons in this case are black, Eric Holder and the Obama
Administration felt this wasn’t a big deal. Justice Department lawyers had the case already won when word came down
from on high in the Administration to drop the case. The two men got off scot-free, after they promised to not to brandish
weapons in front of polling places in the future.
Now we find out the two men that Eric Holder refuses to prosecute
were not just a couple of overzealous Obama supporters, they are in fact hard core militant black supremacists with a deep
hatred of white people. The National Geographic Channel did a story about one of the men, King Samir Shabazz. Shabazz is on
camera saying, ‘I hate white people, all of them, I hate every iota of a cracka’. He goes on to talk about ‘cracka
whores’, killing ‘crackers’, and their ‘cracka’ babies and still Eric Holder is silent. What
would Holder say if a WHITE attorney General of a WHITE Republican President refused to prosecute some WHITE boys that intimidated
votes and talked about killing black babies?
Who is the ‘coward’ now? Racism is deplorable regardless
of who is the victim. Just because target of the bigotry is white doesn’t make it alright. The Obama Administration
is worried about mysterious, right wing militias that may or may not exist. Meantime there are black power groups that go
on television and freely admit their desire to kill ‘whitey’ and advocate the violent overthrow the American government
yet Holder says and does nothing. But you can bet they’ll be investigating if any person of Latin heritage gets so much
as a parking ticket in Arizona.
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED 7/14/2010
12:13 pm pst
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Chris Charles:
Bush Tried, Liberals Cried
Part II—I Voted For The War, Before I Voted Against It
The Iraq War is the main reason why George W Bush is hated by liberals
more than Richard Nixon, Osama Bin Laden, and Satin combined. In their minds, the left imagines that Bush and the vast right
wing conspiracy hatched an evil plan to start a war and steal Iraqi oil so that Bush’s oil company friends could make
an easy buck.
No war for oil? Where is all that oil? If we went to war for oil, why was gas five-dollars
a gallon not too long ago? We should have taken Iraqi oil in exchange for our blood spilt and treasure spent liberating Iraq.
Liberals love to revise history, so for those interested in what really happened, pay attention.
In August
1990, Iraq invades the tiny Gulf nation of Kuwait. The UN imposed sanctions, which did nothing; finally 34 nations lead by
the US expelled Iraq from Kuwait by force.
To avoid losing power Saddam Hussein Surrendered to the Coalition
in 1991. He agreed to 12 UN resolutions that limited the Iraqi military and prohibited them from possessing WMD’s.
Throughout the 1990’s Saddam defied the resolutions agreed to in the Gulf War cease fire. Occasionally, Bill
Clinton would fire cruise missiles into Iraq when he needed a distraction (allegedly). Despite this, Iraq continued
to disobey UN sanctions. They continued to develop both banned conventional weapons, as well as weapons of mass destruction.
To be fair, President Clinton was somewhat tough with Iraq during the 1990’s, but on September 11th,
2001 everything changed, no longer could we afford to sanction and occasionally target Iraq with cruise missiles. We
could no longer risk allowing a rogue radical Islamic nation to develop WMD’s, WMD’s that could find their way
into the hands of murderous Muslim terrorists.
Because no WMD’s were found after the Liberation of
Iraq, liberals think this means that Iraq never had and never wanted to have WMD’s. They forget, Iraq had developed
WMD’s in the past and nearly everyone in the world believed Iraq possessed them in 2003.
"How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD? Today,
or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors
(albeit attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate, and limited in size). Within four or five years it could have the capability
to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missiles armed with nuclear weapons containing fissile material
produced indigenously—and to threaten U.S. territory with such weapons delivered by nonconventional means, such as commercial
shipping containers. If it managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material, these threats
could arrive much sooner."
Who said that? Not George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, or Halliburton. It was none other than
Clinton Administration official Robert Einhorn in 2002. (1)
George W Bush was not the only one with the opinion that Iraq possessed WMD’s and that they posed a clear and present
danger to other countries. The CIA along with intelligence agencies from Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia, China, and
Israel all agreed that Saddam possessed WMD’s. Even UN inspector Hans Blix believed Iraq had huge stockpiles of weapons
hidden. Shortly before the invasion, UN inspectors found a stockpile of chemical warheads in a bunker 100 miles southwest
of Baghdad. It was the opinion of Hans Blix that, because the bunker was relatively new, that stockpile might be the tip of
a much larger iceberg. (2)
Due to the mountain of evidence the US Senate, in 2002, authorized the use of military force to disarm Iraq and enforce
the Gulf War cease fire treaty. Senators voting to go to war with Iraq included John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Barbara
Boxer, and Diane Feinstein. Only 23 Senators voted against the resolution, mostly a who’s who of the radical left that
would have opposed entering WWII after Pearl Harbor.
Finally, after 12 years of Iraq ignoring UN threats
and sanctions, after all diplomatic efforts had been exhausted, the US lead a coalition of 40 nations to disarm Iraq and depose
tyrannical dictator Saddam Hussein. No WMD’s were found after the invasion of Iraq. Does that mean Iraq never
had WMD? If that was the case, why would Saddam not consent to UN inspections? The fact is Saddam did have weapons before
the invasion, the questions is what happened to the weapons? Either he destroyed them prior to the 2003 invasion or
shipped them to friendly neighbors like Syria or Iran. Either way the invasion was more than justified given all of the evidence.
The mistake Bush made was in conducting the war too much like a police action after the initial ‘shock and awe’.
Liberal rules of engagement and low troop levels hamstrung the US and coalition forces. Once General Petraeus and President
Bush implemented the surge, the situation in Iraq was quickly brought under control.
People now opposed to
the war say that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and we should be focused on Al-Qaeda. We were not attacked by a country
on 9-11; we were attacked by radical Islam. Just who do anti war liberals think we were fighting in Iraq? The Iraqi boy scouts?
The Muslim terrorists we are fighting over there are the same Muslim terrorists that would be plotting another 9-11 if they
were not so busy fighting our military in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What should we have done? That is the
question for all of the people opposed to the war in Iraq. Rewind back to 2003, less than two years after 9-11, mountains
of evidence, 12 years of UN resolutions, what would the right thing to do be? George W Bush tried to do the right thing and
liberals hate him for it. Instead, liberals should just be thankful that George W Bush did something to fight radical Islam
and make the world a safer place.
Originally Published 9/29/2009
1:02 pm pst
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Chris Charles:
Bush Tried, Liberals Cried
Part 1: George W Bush: A Very Liberal Conservative
Nowadays, there is little tolerance from the left
for those who disagree with the President of the United States on matters of politics or policy. Liberals have had a great
reverence and respect for the commander in chief since all the way back in late 2008, before that it was perfectly acceptable
to not only oppose the President but call him a war criminal, a Nazi, Hitler, a fascist, a liar, a drunk, an addict, an idiot,
the devil, a cheater, a traitor, and a deserter among other things, many of which involve expletives.
Why
did liberals, that hold the office of the President in such high regard, attack President Bush so viciously, so mercilessly?
President Bush was a Republican, but he was not a hard core conservative. Bush was abandoned by many conservatives that felt
he was too liberal, especially in his second term. To his credit, the former President was very conservative on issues of
national security, gay marriage, and stem cell research. He was somewhat conservative on issues of taxes, energy, and the
judiciary. In many other areas Bush was fairly liberal, not the kind of Leninist liberalism most Democrats subscribe to, but
definitely left of center. Here are a few examples.
Immigration- Bush pushed for amnesty for illegals,
and a guest worker program. Not even President Obama has gone this far, yet.
African Aid- In 2003,
he committed $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa. Don’t liberals support AIDS funding?
Bailouts-
Bush started the bank and Wall Street bailouts near the end of his second term. Conservatives want smaller government, not
a massive government takeover of industry.
Spending- President Bush presided over record setting
deficits. The deficit doubled under Bush, that doesn’t sound very conservative.
Clean Energy-
In 2008 Bush committed $2 billion for clean energy research to combat global warming. Right out of the Al Gore playbook, nothing
says ‘right winger’ more than pumping billions into the global warming racket.
Dubai Ports-
Would have allowed an Arabic company from Dubai to control US ports. You’d think a President that is big on national
security would not let an Islamic company control US ports in the middle of a war with radical Islam.
Why all the
hate toward the 43rd President of the United States from the left? He was a relatively moderate president. Calling
President Bush a radical conservative is like calling The Beatles a hard rock band. There can be only two reasons why liberals
hate George W Bush as much as they do.
Number 1: They think he’s a red necked hick from the Texas, whose
loose grasp on the English language means he is stupid.
This argument does not hold much water because his predecessor
was a southern hick as well, only with a propensity for womanizing subordinates and anyone else for that matter! And liberals
loved him! As to the second point, Bush graduated from Yale and Harvard, he can’t be that stupid.
Number
2: He Invaded Iraq.
DING! DING! DING! Winner, winner, winner! At last we’ve figured it out, liberals hate
George W Bush because he started a war with Iraq. Bush lied, kids died. War for oil and all that, but was President Bush so
wrong to invade Iraq, given all the facts?
Tune in next week for the answers, same bat time, same bat channel.
Originally Published 9/22/2009
2:58 pm pst
|
