Hugo Chavez Might Have a Point

CARACAS, Venezuela – President Hugo Chavez said Sunday that foreigners who publicly criticize him or his government while visiting Venezuela will be expelled from the country. Chavez ordered officials to closely monitor statements made by international figures during their visits to Venezuela and deport any outspoken critics.”How long are we going to allow a person, from any country in the world, to come to our own house to say there’s a dictatorship here, that the president is a tyrant, and nobody does anything about it?” Chavez asked during his weekly television and radio program.

I can’t think of one good thing to say about Hugo Chavez. He is a dictator and not of the benevolent type. His statement above brands him as a hypocrite. He called Bush El Diablo during his speech at the U.N. headquarters in New York City. But I do agree with the spirit of his statement. If someone from another country comes into your country and criticizes your country or its leadership, they should be on the next flight and no questions asked. It is a lack of leadership and honor to tolerate that behavior from a non citizen. There have been myriad speakers brought into this country for the sole purpose of belaboring the United States. The most recent incident came from the Irish Nobel Peace Prize winner Betty Williams. She gave a speech at Southern Methodist University and declared that President Bush should be impeached because of our involvement in the Iraq war. She should have been sent out of this country post haste. These defects are visitors and should act accordingly. Coming to this country is a privilege not a right. Visitors, tourist, etc. do not share the free speech rights of the first amendment that U.S. citizens do. Only citizens have privileges and immunities under the Constitution as well as the full protection of the equal protection and due process clauses.

To further enhance the above statement on how to deal with foreigners who want to come into our house and spew their anti-American rhetoric, a different approach should be taken against U.S. based groups and organizations that benefit from tax payer dollars that are anti-American and promote and spread terrorist and treasonous propaganda. You can’t suspend their 1st amendment rights or deport a citizen, nor should you, but you can cut off the flow of tax payers’ dollars and tax exemptions to these organizations.

A few cases in point:

The Council of La Raza was responsible for those thousands of illegal aliens clogging the streets of American cities, waving Mexican flags, brazenly defying our laws and demanding concessions. The Council of La Raza is a radical anti-American organization who operates federally funded charter schools that teach a separatist agenda. The Council of La Raza received over $15.2 million federal grants last year. $7.9 million of it came from the U.S. Department of Education for Charter Schools. They have managed to add themselves to congressional hearings. Congress also earmarked an additional $4 million of taxpayer money for La Raza to address housing reform. When you witness those marches and threats aimed at disrupting a city or the nation–you paid for it.
The ACLU is one of the most prominent and oldest anti-American groups around. They have tied up our court system with an uncountable number of lawsuits to further their anti-American agenda. If there is a cause that is outrageously liberal or runs counter to the fundamentals of this country, the ACLU will be on the scene to file a lawsuit. They are not anti-religion, just anti-Christian. They are pro pedophile. They recently defended NAMBLA, North American Man-Boy Love Association, in a lawsuit. They have gone after the Boy Scouts of America; they have gone after public schools for singing Christmas songs at school during a Christmas play. Nothing is off limits to these cretins. They will relentlessly attack an organization that would give moral guidance while at the same time defend the promotion of child abuse. They do not receive federal funding but they are tax exempt. You are paying their share of taxes so they can use that money to assault, on a daily basis, the foundation of this country.

Publicly funded universities, who have long been a bastion of liberalism, have moved further and further to the left. The more elite the school, the more they have moved to the left. Schools such as Harvard, Brown, Berkley, Duke, Stanford, etc. have moved so far to the left they are infected with malignant ideology. 72 percent of those teaching at universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative according to a recent study. 50 percent of those surveyed stated they were Democrats and 11 percent were Republican. In elite schools, such as those mentioned above, there is a more profound move to the left with 87 percent as liberal and 13 percent as conservative. The study was performed by Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University, and co-author of the study. These far left pinheaded professors, Ward Churchill and all his ilk, get permanently embedded with tenure and it is virtually impossible to pull these weeds out. A defective professor with tenure can essentially hold a university hostage.

U.S. based terrorist organizations should be eliminated and members and supporters prosecuted for supporting and promoting terrorism. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is the most radical and well funded of the domestic based terrorist organizations. Steven Pomerantz, the FBI’s former chief of counter terrorism, notes that CAIR, its leaders, and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups. A few highlights of CAIR’s more esteemed leaders and members:

  • Ghassan Elashi, the founder of CAIR’s Texas chapter, has a long history of funding terrorism. First, he was convicted in July 2004, with his four brothers, of having illegally shipped computers from their Dallas-area business, InfoCom Corporation, to two designated state-sponsors of terrorism, Libya and Syria. Second, he and two brothers were convicted in April 2005 of knowingly doing business with Mousa Abu Marzook, a senior Hamas leader, whom the U.S. State Department had in 1995 declared a “specially designated terrorist.” Elashi was convicted of all twenty-one counts with which he was charged, including conspiracy, money laundering, and dealing in the property of a designated terrorist. Third, he was charged in July 2004 with providing more than $12.4 million to Hamas while he was running the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, America’s largest Islamic charity. When the U.S. government shuttered Holy Land Foundation in late 2001, CAIR characterized this move as “unjust” and “disturbing.”
  • Randall (“Ismail”) Royer, an American convert to Islam, served as CAIR’s communications specialist and civil rights coordinator; today he sits in jail on terrorism-related charges. In June 2003, Royer and ten other young men, ages 23 to 35, known as the “Virginia jihad group,” were indicted on forty-one counts of “conspiracy to train for and participate in a violent jihad overseas.” The defendants, nine of them U.S. citizens, were accused of association with Lashkar-e-Taiba, a radical Islamic group designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. Department of State in 2001. They were also accused of meeting covertly in private homes and at the Islamic Center in Falls Church to prepare themselves for battle by listening to lectures and watching videotapes. As the prosecutor noted, “Ten miles from Capitol Hill in the streets of northern Virginia, American citizens allegedly met, plotted, and recruited for violent jihad.”
  • Bassem Khafagi, an Egyptian native and CAIR’s onetime community relations director, pleaded guilty in September 2003 to lying on his visa application and passing bad checks for substantial amounts in early 2001
  • Rahih Haddad a CAIR fund raiser, was arrested in December 2001 on terrorism-related charges and deported from the United States due to his subsequent work as executive director of the Global Relief Foundation, a charity he co-founded which was designated by the U.S. Treasury Department in October 2002 for financing Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations
    Sirai Wahhai a CAIR advisory board member, was named in 1995 by U.S. attorney Mary Jo White as a possible unindicted co-conspirator in the plot to blow up New York City landmarks led by the blind sheik, Omar Abdul Rahman. In defense of having Wahhaj on its advisory board, CAIR described him as “one of the most respected Muslim leaders in America.” In October 2004, he spoke at a CAIR dinner.
    CAIR has numerous links to Hamas and has also consistently defended other radical Islamic terrorists. Rather than praise the conviction of the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, it deemed this “a travesty of justice.” This is a perfect example of if there is smoke there is fire, except there seems to be more fire than smoke with CAIR.

Publications or any media outlet that make public any classified information should be prosecuted with the same vigor as an individual could expect who was caught revealing classified information to an enemy. There is no difference between handing off classified information in a dark alley or making it available on a medium for any one to see. Same result. Media outlets who have crossed over from journalism to treason by publishing classified information should be prosecuted. The New York Times has published, on two separate occasions, classified information. They published classified information about the NSA’a terrorist surveillance program and they also published a classified report on troop reduction and movement in Iraq. ABC news broadcasted classified information concerning a CIA covert operation designed to destabilize the government of Iran. This is not journalisn, it is treason and heads should roll.

poster0292.jpg

There comes a point where you have to draw a line in the sand concerning what will be tolerated and how far you willing to let political correctness drive national security policy. The United States has moved well past that point.

I consider all the elements listed above as realistic terrorist threats as they all operate with the same agenda and seek the same result. Here are a few simple solutions as a start for eliminating some of our domestic terrorist threats:

  • If you are not a citizen and want to criticize this country or spread anti-American propaganda you will be sent out of the country.
  • Cut off tax payer’s dollars that fund radical groups like La Raza.
  • Revoke the ACLUs and other organizations of the same persuasions tax exempt status.
  • Stop using tax dollars to fund universities that continue to offer tenure and keep on staff radical professors that promote and teach with a radical leftwing ideology rather than a balanced ideology.
  • Shut down CAIR and any other U.S. based organization that has ties to terrorism or any terrorist organization and prosecute them for the terrorist they are.
  • If a publication or any media outlet discloses classified information, prosecute them for treason.

Hugo Chavez does make a good point-he just does not go far enough. There is a fine 1st amendment line between free speech and treason, but there is a line. You do have to honor the constitutional rights of these groups, but you do not have to support them with taxpayer’s dollars. You cannot use the anti-American rhetoric alone for executing the above actions for two reasons: they are constitutionally protected and you would have to dismantle the Democrat Party.

Leave a Reply

What is 10 + 5 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:
IMPORTANT! To be able to proceed, you need to solve the following simple math (so we know that you are a human) :-)