The Conservative Beacon

Uniting the Conservative Movement

Archive for February, 2008

Virginia Imam Possibly Aided Al-Qaeda

Posted by Joshua Price on February 27, 2008

Here’s some great news:

Even before the 2001 terrorist attacks, American-born imam Anwar al-Aulaqi drew the attention of federal authorities because of his possible connections to al-Qaeda. Their interest grew after 9/11, when it turned out that three of the hijackers had spent time at his mosques in California and Falls Church, but he was allowed to leave the country in 2002.

New information later surfaced about his contacts with extremists while in the United States. Now, U.S. officials are saying for the first time that they believe that Aulaqi worked with al-Qaeda networks in the Persian Gulf after leaving Northern Virginia. In mid-2006, Aulaqi was detained in Yemen at the request of the United States. To the dismay of U.S. authorities, Aulaqi was released in December.

“There is good reason to believe Anwar Aulaqi has been involved in very serious terrorist activities since leaving the United States, including plotting attacks against America and our allies,” said a U.S. counterterrorism official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

I don’t know what it’s going to take to convince people that al-Qaeda is still a very real and serious threat to us here in America.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022603267.html?hpid=topnews

Subscribe in a reader

Advertisements

Posted in War on Terror | Leave a Comment »

Farrakhan Praises Barack Hussein Obama

Posted by Joshua Price on February 25, 2008

Well the racist and anti-Semite, Louis Farrakhan, has basically endorsed Barack Hussein Obama.

From the AP:

In his first major public address since a cancer crisis, Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said Sunday that presidential candidate Barack Obama is the “hope of the entire world” that the U.S. will change for the better.

The 74-year-old Farrakhan, addressing an estimated crowd of 20,000 people at the annual Saviours’ Day celebration, never outrightly endorsed Obama but spent most of the nearly two-hour speech praising the Illinois senator.

“This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better,” he said. “This young man is capturing audiences of black and brown and red and yellow. If you look at Barack Obama’s audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed.”

Farrakhan compared Obama to the religion’s founder, Fard Muhammad, who also had a white mother and black father.

“A black man with a white mother became a savior to us,” he told the crowd of mostly followers. “A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall.”

Farrakhan also leveled small jabs at Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama’s rival for the Democratic nomination, suggesting that she represents the politics of the past and has been engaging in dirty politics.

As I’ve been saying folks, you better be more concerned about Barack Hussein Obama than Mrs. Bill Clinton. He is dangerous with is desire for socialist “change.”

Some of you may need a refresher as to why I call Louis Farrakhan an anti-Semite. Well here you go:

Farrakhan has drawn attention for calling Judaism a “gutter religion” and suggesting crack cocaine might have been a CIA plot to enslave blacks.

Who supports Barack Hussein Obama? The MTV crowd, Hollywood, the continent of Africa, the Farrakhan crowd, and the goddess of immasculating America, Oprah. But please, continue to think that Hillary is worse. Don’t me wrong, Hillary is bad enough, but look at the crowd endorsing Obama. That should tell you all you need to know.

Why would we rant a president who wants to help Africa more than the United States?

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/National/Farrakhan_Saviours_Day.html

Subscribe in a reader

Posted in Campaign 2008 | Leave a Comment »

The Most Obvious Unobvious Way to Deport Illegals

Posted by Joshua Price on February 25, 2008

I was reading the Immigration blog at The Houston Chronicle and there is another piece describing yet another way to deport the illegal aliens.

It seems counterintuitive.

The government pulls people suspected of being here illegally out of airplane lines and then pays to detain, prosecute and deport them to the country they were headed to in the first place.

This is so obvious that I can’t beleieve that this is not being done all across the country, or maybe it is and we just don’t hear about it.

Of course not everyone is in favor of this:

Public defenders say it’s a colossal waste of time and taxpayer money.

“What’s silly about this is that they are on their way home. They have gotten the message that they shouldn’t be here,” said Houston’s Federal Public Defender Marjorie Meyers. “It’s not cost-effective.”

I’m shocked that a public defender is opposed to this idea. Why do I say I’m shocked? Because the more illegals we deport the fewer illegal alien clients the public defenders will be able to bill to the government. Always follow the money. These public defenders don’t care about the illegal. They get paid no matter what, so all they care about is the total number of illegal alien cases they can get.

Now I’m sure many of you will make the point that public defenders don’t get paid that much and you’re right, but it’s money nonetheless.

I mean let’s face it, the illegals who actually show up to court are most likely represented by who? Public–no, that’s not politically correct or sensitive enough–indigent defenders who you, the taxpayer, pay for via the state.

Now let’s look at this particular public defender’s arguments. First:

“What’s silly about this is that they are on their way home. They have gotten the message that they shouldn’t be here,”

Yes, they are on their way home, but question: are they their to stay? Answer: Most likely not. So nice try.

Next:

“It’s not cost-effective.”

Well if we read the entire story we discover:

Generally, the suspects are detained first at the airport, then brought downtown into custody of the U.S. Marshals Service. They then plead guilty to having entered the country illegally and are sentenced to time served, then deported at government expense, the lawyers involved said.

The biggest cost to taxpayers is the detention, which a Bureau of Prisons spokeswoman said averages $66.96 a day nationwide. They are held for two to three months, so that cost would be roughly $4,000 to $6,000.

Is that really too much to pay considering we’re going to spend that and more if the illegal stays here an average lifetime? Of course it’s not too much, and most Americans will gladly pay the short-term costs to experience the long-term rewards that will stem from deporting the 12-20 million illegals here.

Now I’m sure that wind the ACLU gets wind of this way of deporting illegals it will file a lawsuit on behalf of the disenfranchised illegal against the state for profiling. Subsequently, a liberal judge will award the illegal $5 million in compensatory and punitive damages and excoriate the state for not respecting the illegal’s civil liberties.

The bottom line here is that we are seeing two effective ways to deport the illegals: removing the incentives for the illegals to be here illegally, resulting in them leaving voluntarily; and seeking them out waiting to board planes to their home countries.

What will the people who said that it is impossible and too expensive to deport the 12-20 million illegals say to these effective ways to deport them? I’m sure they will say that they are unsustainable. Well they’re wrong.

If the federal government won’t take care of the problem, then let the states do it because some of them are doing a much more effective job than the federal government ever did.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/5566412.html

Subscribe in a reader

Posted in Immigration | Leave a Comment »

A Marine’s Letter to Code Pink

Posted by Joshua Price on February 25, 2008

Here is a letter that Marine Captain Richard Lund wrote to Code Pink regarding their protests of the Marine recruiting office in Berkeley, California:

While the protest that you staged in front of my office on Wednesday, Sept. 26th, was an exercise of your constitutional rights, the messages that you left behind were insulting, untrue, and ultimately misdirected. Additionally, from the comments quoted in the Berkeley Daily Planet article, it is clear that you have no idea what it is that I do here. Given that I was unaware of your planned protest, I was unable to contest your claims in person, so I will therefore address them here.

First, a little bit about who I am: I am a Marine captain with over eight years of service as a commissioned officer. I flew transport helicopters for most o f my time in the Marine Corps before requesting orders to come here. Currently, I am the officer selection officer for the northern Bay Area. My job is to recruit, interview, screen, and evaluate college students and college graduates that show an interest in becoming officers in the Marine Corps. Once they’ve committed to pursuing this program, I help them apply, and if selected, I help them prepare for the rigors of Officer Candidate School and for the challenges of life as a Marine officer. To be eligible for my programs, you have to be either a full-time college student or a college graduate. I don’t pull anyone out of school, and high school students are not eligible.

I moved my office to Berkeley in December of last year. Previously, it was located in an old federal building in Alameda . That building was due to be t orn down and I had to find a new location. I choose our new site because of its proximity to UC Berkeley and to the BART station. Most of the candidates in my program either go to Cal or to one of the schools in San Francisco , the East Bay , or the North Bay . Logistically, the Shattuck Square location was the most convenient for them.

Next, you claim that I lie. I have never, and will never, lie to any individual that shows an interest in my programs. I am upfront with everything that is involved at every step of the way and I go out of my way to ensure that they know what to expect when they apply. I tell them that this is not an easy path. I tell them that leading Marines requires a great deal of self-sacrifice. I tell them that, should they succeed in their quest to become a Marine officer, they will almost certainly go to Iraq . In the future, if you plan to attack my integrity, please have the courtesy to explain to me specifically the instances in which you think that I lied.

Next, scrawled across the doorway to my office, you wrote, “Recruiters are Traitors.” Please explain this one. How exactly am I a traitor? Was I a traitor when I joined the Marine Corps all those years ago? Is every Marine, therefore, a traitor? Was I a traitor during my two stints in Iraq ? Was I a traitor when I was delivering humanitarian aid to the victims of the tsunami in Sumatra ? Or do you only consider me a traitor while I am on this job? The fact is, recruitment is and always has been a part of maintaining any military organization. In fact, recruitment is a necessity of any large organization. Large corporations have employees that recruit full-time. Even you, I’m sure, must expend some effort to recruit for Code Pink. So what, exactly, is it that makes me a traitor?

The fact is this: any independent nation must maintain a military (or be allied with those who do) to ensure the safety and security of its citizens. Regardless of what your opinions are of the current administration or the current conflict in Iraq , the U.S. military will be needed again in the future. If your counter-recruitment efforts are ultimately successful, who will defend us if we are directly attacked again as we were at Pearl Harbor ? Who would respond if a future terrorist attack targets the Golden Gate Bridge , the BART system, or the UC Berkeley clock tower? And, to address the most hypocritical stance that your organization takes on its website, where would the peace keeping force come from that you advocate sending to Darfur ?

Finally, I believe that your efforts in protesting my office are misdirected. I agree that your stated goals of peace and social justice are worthy ones. War is a terrible thing that should only be undertaken in the most dire, extreme, and necessary of circumstances. However, war is made by politicians. The conflict in Iraq was ordered by the president and authorized by Congress. They are the ones who have the power to change the policy in Iraq , not members of the military. We execute policy to the best of our ability and to the best of our human capacity. Protesting in front of my office may be an easy way to get your organization in the headlines of local papers, but it doesn’t further any of your stated goals.

To conclude, I don’t consider myself a “recruiter.” I am a Marine who happens to be on recruiting duty. As such, I conduct myself in accordance with our core values of honor, courage, and commitment. I will never sacrifice my honor by lying to anyone that walks into my office. I will never forsake the courage that it takes to restrain myself in the face of insul ting and libelous labels like liar and traitor. And, most importantly, I will never waver from my commitment to helping individuals who desire to serve their country as officers in the Marine Corps.
Captain Richard Lund

Subscribe in a reader

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

U.S. Security Concerns Block China’s 3Com Deal

Posted by Joshua Price on February 22, 2008

Well those of us concerned about American sovereignty and security can chalk up another victory.

The potential merger between a Chinese company, Huawei Technologies, and 3Com has been shot down due to potential national security risks.

From The New York Times:

Does the “America for Sale” sign require a warning label?

That would seem to be the case in light of the apparent collapse on Wednesday of a Chinese company’s effort to purchase a stake in 3Com, an American maker of Internet router and networking equipment, in the face of Bush administration questions about the deal’s national security risks.

The proposed $2.2 billion deal had called for Bain Capital, a private equity firm based in Boston, to join with a Chinese company, Huawei Technologies, to acquire 3Com. The snag was that 3Com makes antihacking computer software for the military, among other things, and Huawei Technologies has ties to the Chinese military.

A special federal panel, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or Cfius, had been examining the national security risks of the deal. A person briefed on the talks said that at one point, 3Com offered to divest itself of the antihacking software unit, known as TippingPoint, but that the Bush administration was unswayed.

But if you think that we can relax and feel reasonably certain that our government has decided to crack down on foreign investments in technologically or security sensitives areas, think again:

Despite the collapse of the 3Com deal, American officials and specialists in the field said it would be premature to conclude that the United States had decided it needed to crack down on foreign investments, even in delicate technology areas.

You can bet that we will continue to monitor potential deals that would compromise our national sovereignty and or/security.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/business/worldbusiness/21invest.html

Subscribe in a reader

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »