The Power Of Language

A good friend of mine (who happens to be German by birth, but All-American by the grace of God) and I were having a discussion earlier this evening on the power of language, and the ability it has to sway people's minds.

Here are some snippets. First, I started with:

They say knowledge is power, and while that's usually true...the real power is in language. We have so "politically-corrected" ourselves, there's no turning back now. Have you noticed that in the news, activists (advocating Illegals) are called "Pro-Immigrant"? I think everyone is "Pro-Immigrant". The point of contention is illegal or legal immigration. Unfortunately, the people in the media try to subtley (SP?) "legitimize" the illegals by calling thier side "Pro-Immigration". I think it's all smoke and mirrors. (Edited for clarity/translation - in parentheses)

To which he replied:

The media, especially the Spanish (language) media, invented this whole thing. They started the "protests" a couple of weeks ago, as they freely admit. The media are the real enemies of the state. Using language they slowly work to poison the minds of people. They learned this over the centuries. And it works: the examples are abundant: Does anyone remember how Germany slowly became the BRD? East German media had invented the abbreviation "BRD" as a counterpart to "DDR." For a long time West Germany insisted on Germany being one country. If they talked about Germany they said Germany. Their cars had a "D" on the plate. In sports the abbreviation was GER. Then the East German government wanted to send the message that there were two independent and distinct German countries. They invented "BRD". And lo and behold, the West German media started using BRD. It took a few years and the first car stickers showed up reading "BRD". The Olympic Committee and other sports institutions suddenly changed to "FRG" (the English version of BRD). And again, lo and behold, my generation in school used always to say BRD. The media had won. No wonder then, that many young West Germans were not at all thrilled when the wall came down. For them the people in the East were foreigners. The media had seen to that. Then the media felt that "immigrant" is too bad a word, especially when combined with "illegal." They invented "migrant." A small change, but the "in" signalled that they are coming into a space they don't belong to. Now the media promoted "migrant", actually in German media as well as here. Migrant sounded much more harmless, they just migrated somewhere, but not "in"to your living room. The illegal was dropped somewhere on the way, suddenly they all were "migrants." Then the American media went one stop further: They discarded the migrants totally, replacing them with "undocumented workers." So now they only don't have documents. Like our neighbor Joe when he gets caught fishing without a license, you know, pay a fine of $50 and that's it. They just don't have documents. This way criminals with no respect for our laws become good citizens like neighbor Joe, who just forgot to get a "document." In Iraq the same: in the beginning those muslim fanatics who blow up children, women and also American soldiers were called terrorists. Then the media decided, that is not nice, since George Bush is the bad guy. Now they are "insurgents." Actually this is pretty much an insult. Insurgents were the people in Warsaw who in 1944 rose against the Nazi occupation force. Terrorists are no insurgents. Terrorists are terrorists. But not in our media. Or look at Israel. Muslim terrorist slaughters of children and other innocent civilians are simply called "Anschlag"(Assault) in German media. "Attacks", as in "bomb attack" or "suicide attack" in American media. When Israel goes and fights back, it is always a "Angriff"(Attack), or even a "Vergeltungsschlag"(Retalitory Strike). The latter word was used by Hitler. And "Angriff" signals that the attacker is the first one to start. It is subtleties like this that change people's perceptions. Don't ever underestimate the power of the media and the evil intentions media people usually have. They don't merely want to "report", they are actively trying to change the world. The use of words can be as damaging then the use of guns. (Edited for clarity/translation - in parentheses)

My buddy hit the nail squarely on the head. I think this is the kind of thing that needs to get put out, so people can see that instead of believeing everything they read/listen to, they need to start thinking for themselves, and quit letting the admittedly left-leaning media think for them.

Even things as seemingly insignificant as a subtle choice of words can have a huge, dramatic effect on the eventual meaning of what is being conveyed.

What are your thoughts?

Mexico's Glass House

Remember this post?

Well, here's an interesting article on why Vicente Fox should swear off rock-throwing forever:

Mexico's glass house How the Mexican constitution treats foreign residents, workers and naturalized citizens By J. Michael Waller Posted: Thursday, April 6, 2006 PAPERS & STUDIES Center for Security Policy Publication Date: April 6, 2006 Introduction Every country has the right - and duty - to restrict the quality and quantity of foreign immigrants entering or living within its borders. If American policymakers are looking for legal models on which to base new laws restricting immigration and expelling foreign lawbreakers, they have a handy guide: the Mexican constitution.[1] Adopted in 1917, the constitution of the United Mexican States borrows heavily from American constitutional and legal principles. It combines those principles with a strong sense nationalism, cultural self-identity, paternalism, and state power. Mexico's constitution contains many provisions to protect the country from foreigners, including foreigners legally resident in the country and even foreign-born people who have become naturalized Mexican citizens. The Mexican constitution segregates immigrants and naturalized citizens from native-born citizens by denying immigrants basic human rights that Mexican immigrants enjoy in the United States. By making increasing demands that the U.S. not enforce its immigration laws and, indeed, that it liberalize them, Mexico is throwing stones within its own glass house. This paper, the first of a short series on Mexican immigration double standards, examines the Mexican constitution's protections against immigrants, and concludes with some questions about U.S. policy. Summary In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that: -Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse. -Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights. -Immigrants are denied equal employment rights. -Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens. -Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service. -Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy. -Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities. -Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.

LOL! I especially like that "Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities." Kind of takes the wind out of Mexico's Anti-Minutemen "sails"...doesn't it?

Where's ABC News? CBS News? NBC News? Shoot...where the heck is Galavision or even Tele-frickin'-mundo?

Nowhere. This story is a non-starter, because we have castrated our minds to the point where we're scared to point out glaring hipocrisy like this out of fear of hurting people's feelings.

And God forbid we hurt the feelings of criminals who have ignored our laws and invaded our country for nothing more than personal profit.

At least a thief in the night has more honor. He's not a hipocrite. He's there to rob you, and both of you know it.

Iraqi Army: Thumbs Up!

Check This Out:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (April 30, 2006) – As the newly formed government of Iraq makes progress in selecting its leaders, the Iraqi security forces are making progress in providing a more secure nation for them to lead. During a press conference April 27, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, MNF-I spokesman, expressed great optimism in the progress being made in Iraq. The general also applauded the courage and the commitment of the Iraqi people. During a Pentagon press corps briefing April 28, Col. Rod Barham, 49th Military Police Brigade commander, also applauded the courage of Iraqi men and women. The 49th MPB is responsible for training Iraqi police. Colonel Barham said he is impressed with the many brave Iraqis who are signing up by the hundreds each week to become Iraqi police officers. He said close to 90,000 Iraqi police are now trained. "Many consider the job of Iraqi police officer one of the most dangerous in the world, and the brave men and women of Iraq should be commended for having the courage to help Iraq in this time of need,” he said. “This is probably not just the most important job right now in Iraq; it is probably the most difficult.” Link Here

Think we'll hear anything about this from those six ex-Generals? Of course not.

But I'm much more likely to accept the word of the Senior guys on the ground, then the whinings of six Clinton-Era wussy "Generals".

Wes Clark... You can take that to the bank.

Review: United 93

Sometimes, a movie comes along that does one of two things: 1) changes your perspective on the world around you, or 2) reinforces what you already know to be true.

This movie does the latter.

I wanted to go see this movie alone. I had literally been counting down the days until it was released. I was not disappointed. Usually, when you watch a movie where you already know the ending, the story itself doesn't hold your attention. Not so with this movie.

I could not move. I could not turn my eyes from the screen. I never once looked at my watch. I never once yawned or stretched. The screen had my 100% attention, for the entire film.

This film will renew your faith in the American spirit. This movie will make you proud. There's no political posturing in this movie, no conspiracy theories or finger pointing. There is no political agenda that I could find in this movie. There is just the story of the extraordinary struggle between good and evil: the struggle between four terrorists hell-bent on crashing United Flight 93 into the US Capitol, and an airline full of passengers with absolutely nothing to lose.

When one of the passengers tells his fellow hostages "Let's roll", and they surge forward - united against their captors - my heart leapt in my chest. When they pummel the first terrorist and beat him to death: I swelled with pride. When the second terrorist was sent to whatever hell he aspired for, I banged my fist on the armrest, almost forgetting that each passenger died in that field in Pennsylvania. As the passengers use the food cart as a battering ram to fight thier way into the cabin...my heart raced. "They might make it. They deserve to make it. They will make it."

Of course...they don't.

Five minutes after the last of the credits disappeared from the screen...no one had moved. Heads were bowed. Prayers were whispered. The sound of muffled sobs was all around me.

As I sat in my seat, with my head in my hands and tears rolling down my cheeks, I reflected on what has happened since 9/11/2001. I thought about how these men and women, in the face of death, embodied what it means to be an American: "We will not be afraid".

You can attempt to intimidate us. You can mount cowardly attacks designed to kill our innocents. You can try to attack our homes and our places of business. But you will not succeed. In the end, the American Spirit will triumph.

"Let's Roll".


[EDIT: Going to watch this movie is actually helping out a very good cause -10% of the gate goes to the Flight 93 Memorial.]

Cav Tanker: Tank Sniper!

I had the pleasure the last few days of watching Cav Tanker's crew fire Tank Table VIII (Tank Crew Qualification) and TT XII (Tank Platoon Qualification).

What can I say...my brother is a Tank Sniper: killing "Plywoodians" with 120mm Sabot and HEAT rounds, well past 2200 meters from his battle position.

Yes, you heard me correctly...that's over a mile-and-a-half away.

Take my word for it: Cav Tanker did all of his Tanker Brothers and Sisters out here in the Blogosphere proud. It was pretty funny, seeing him walk up with his swagger, smiling from ear to ear that he not only met the standard, but well exceeded it.

To make things even better, as a reward for kicking butt on the range, Cav Tanker also had the distinct honor of shooting a very special "Final Engagement" on his Tank Table XII run.

I wish I could tell you more, but unfortunately, all I can tell you is that it was the very first of it's kind. And, hopefully, it will be the first of many.

So here's to you, Bro! You did me proud!

Could It Be? A South Texan "Gets It"!

Imagine my suprise when I checked out the Monitor's "Letters To The Editor".

Holy Sheemoly!

Everyone should follow the law To the editor: I oppose illegal immigration, but I do respect legal immigration. It is not a matter of being unfair to those wanting a better life; it’s a matter of United States law. Go through the proper channels and come here legal. We are a welcoming country. We have proved this time and again. Without laws, this country, any country, would soon find itself in total chaos. Anarchy would result. People would only follow the law they see fit to abide by. Everyone should follow the law. No exceptions. It is illegal to go across any border to make that country your home without doing it in a legal manner. Even Mexico has immigration laws that it enforces, even stricter than the United States. In Mexico it is a felony to enter Mexico illegally, punishable by two years in jail. And it is not easy to become a Mexican citizen. First: You have to live in Mexico 10 years before the appropriate paperwork and go through the process. Second: During that 10-year wait, you cannot be a construction worker, auto mechanic, restaurant worker or a tour guide, etc. You can start a company that hires or trains Mexican citizens. And third: After your 10-year wait, you must pass “society.” You must have Mexican citizens vouch for you that you are a good candidate for citizenship, and that you will have a positive impact on the country. If you have been in trouble a lot, you are out. We need to tighten our borders for security reasons. We need to enforce the immigration laws and deport those who choose to break the law and enter and reside in this country illegally. Americans will work the tough jobs given a fair wage, which will not be offered if the possibility of paying illegals exists. Ramiro Gomez, American Studies, M.P.A., Mercedes

Could it be?

Your comments are welcomed!

...At It Again!

BAGHDAD, Iraq – A Soldier from Multi-National Division – Baghdad’s Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, walks a small child back to her father’s arms during a community engagement in the southwest Baghdad region Saturday March 25, 2006.

And I quote:

"...and there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- of -- of -- historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. Iraqis should be doing that."
-John Kerry

Tags For This Post: John Kerry, Iraq, Soldiers, Liberals, Anti-War, Dishonorable, Craziness

Don't Forget...

If you're an "FNG" here, make sure to sign the Battle Roster (Link on above graphic) to make it all "official-like".

It takes less than a minute, and we really appreciate your visit here.

God Bless.

God Bless The Freedom Folks!

Michelle over at the FreedomFolks always gets it just right:

Dear President Bush: Earlier today, during an address in Orange County, California, you said the following: “…we are a nation of immigrants, that we have had a grand tradition in this country of welcoming people into our society. And ours is a society that is able to take the newly arrived, and they become equally American. I believe that immigration has helped reinvigorate the soul of America. I know that when somebody comes to our country because he or she has a dream and is willing to work hard for that dream, it makes America a better place.” I am in complete agreement with these words that you spoke, Mr. President. Unfortunately, you stole their power with more talk of alleged border enforcement, guest worker programs to fill “jobs Americans won’t do,” and rewarding those who have shown their disrespect for this country by breaking our laws with the privilege of U.S. citizenship. We do have a “grand tradition in this country of welcoming people into our society.” People who come here lawfully. People who do not break our laws every day when they get up to go to a job that should rightfully be held by an American or a legal immigrant being paid a living wage. People who do not, after breaking our laws, take to the streets of our cities to demand rights that belong to citizens. We do have ”a society that is able to take the newly arrived, and they become equally American.” When they do, indeed, become American. People who demand government services in a language other than English are not becoming American. People who fly another country’s flag over an upside-down Old Glory are not becoming American. People who take the oath of U.S. citizenship, but vote in and pay allegiance to another country are not becoming American. “I believe that immigration has helped reinvigorate the soul of America.” Me too! LEGAL immigration. Those who have come here ILLEGALLY spit on every immigrant who has waited in line, sacrificed, fought for and earned the freedoms we enjoy in this great country. Immigration has, indeed, helped reinvigorate the soul of America. Where else in the world do people of every color, race and creed come together with a shared set of values, dreams, and opportunities? That IS the soul of this country, and it can only be diminished by eroding the rule of law that is the foundation of this great society. The only thing that illegal immigration reinvigorates is the bottom line of businesses that have become addicted to cheap labor at the expense of the poorest Americans. “I know that when somebody comes to our country because he or she has a dream and is willing to work hard for that dream, it makes America a better place.” Only if that person respects and abides by our laws in the pursuit of that dream. Are we or are we not a sovereign nation? Who gets to decide our immigration policy – us, or those who would swell our population illegally then demand legalization, citizenship, and all the benefits that legal immigrants must earn? I am saddened, disappointed, and angered every time you speak on immigration, Mr. President. You refuse to make any real and meaningful distinction between those who come here illegally and those who respect our laws. As a matter of fact, you heap praise on the lawbreakers while vilifying the patriots who have the guts to stand up and note that the government is not doing the ultimate job it is supposed to be doing: representing the American people. Your insistence on doing the right thing, even when it was unpopular, was one of the main reasons you got my vote. Twice. I implore you to do the right thing, now. Please don’t continue to turn your back on the American people while opening your arms to those whose first act on American soil was to break our laws. We deserve much better than that from the man we elected to guard and further our best interests. We deserve a country where laws are enforced, and politicians listen to the citizenry. We deserve a country where Americans are treated with decency and respect. We deserve our America back. We’re pretty decent folks ourselves, and generous, too. We like to share all the bounties of our great country with people from all corners of the globe. We just want to have a say in who gets to come, and how many, before we welcome them with open arms. Is that too much to ask?

I love this Blog. That's why they're our Wingmen.

The Golden Rule...

I think it's the Golden Rule that says "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You"...

I guess that doesn't go as far as illegal immigrants, does it?

Brutal life for immigrants in Mexico April 19, 2006 BY MARK STEVENSON TULTITLAN, Mexico -- Considered felons by the government, these immigrants fear detention, rape and robbery. Sometimes they are deported; more often police officers simply take their money. While immigrants in the United States have held huge demonstrations in recent weeks, the hundreds of thousands of illegal Central Americans in Mexico suffer mostly in silence. And though Mexico demands humane treatment for its citizens who migrate to the U.S., Mexico provides few protections for immigrants on its own soil. The issue simply isn't on the country's political agenda, perhaps because immigrants make up only 0.5 percent of the population -- compared with 12 percent in the United States. The level of brutality Central American immigrants face in Mexico was apparent Monday, when police conducting a raid near a rail yard outside Mexico City shot to death a local man, apparently because his dark skin and work clothes made officers think he was an immigrant. The National Human Rights Commission, a government-funded agency, documented the abuses in Mexico in a December report. ''One of the saddest national failings on immigration issues is the contradiction in demanding that the North respect migrants' rights, which we are not capable of guaranteeing in the South,'' commission president Jose Luis Soberanes said. While Interior Secretary Carlos Abascal said Monday that ''Mexico is a country with a clear, defined and generous policy toward migrants,'' the nation of 105 million has legalized only 15,000 immigrants in the past five years.

Any chance anyone ever had of convincing me to accept this idiot immigration reform bill, was lost when I read that article.

H/T to Philologous for the article link.

Tags For This Post: Federalis, Criminals, Illegals, Immigration

Ex-Tanker, Philologous, Calls Out Flaky Mexican Government!

You've gotta love a Tanker.

Neo-Calvanist, Tanker Brothers Wingman, and Old School Tanker Philologous exposes the Federalis' hypocritical take on illegal immigrants... from south of their border!

Mexico calls them criminals. Why can't we? We all know how Mexico thinks we should treat illegal immigrants, or at least illegal immigrants coming in from Central and South America. But it is interesting to take note of how Mexico treats illegals coming in from its south. While Mexico complains about our threat to make being here illegally a crime, this is precisely what Mexico has done. Being in Mexico illegally is a felony. Someone who commits a felony is called a felon; a felon is a criminal. So, while illegals here object to being called criminals for being here; Mexico has no hesitation to do just that. Do these illegals (and not all illegals are Mexicans) know that Mexico does what they object to us doing? It makes you wonder (doesn’t it?) why illegals in Mexico don’t protest Mexico’s treatment of them. Do you think we shall see illegal Guatemalan immigrants marching and waving the flag of Guatemala on Mexican soil? I don’t think so: they know what Mexico will do to them. Actually, Mexico (in the sense of any element of the government, federal, state or local) probably won’t have to lift a finger; the citizens on the street will deal with a Guatemala-flag-waving-illegal-protesting-immigrant! And it won’t be pretty. So why aren’t they afraid to wave their flag here? It is because they have been emboldened by organizations like La Raza and others who feed them the line of garbage that this is their country after all, and the Mexican flag ought to be waving over it. And also, they are likely convinced that we, unlike Mexico, are a nation of feminized sissies who won’t do anything about it because we are too afraid of them. But I covered that briefly in a previous post.

Well? What do y'all think? As y'all know, here at Tanker Brothers, we welcome our Tanker Brothers' and Sisters' comments!

"Badges!? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinking badges!!"

Tags For This Post: Federalis, Criminals, Illegals, Immigration

Random Thought: Why Is It That...

...100 percent of the people who chastise President Bush and the United States for "meddling in the affairs of other nations"; are the same people that constantly cry out for the United States to provide foreign aid to other countries?

Isn't that kind of hypocritical?

Comments?

Soldier Myths

Townhall has a good article on Dispelling Myths About American Soldiers:

Myths abound when it comes to military personnel in the modern American armed forces. Most are in some way related to recruiting new soldiers, who’s fighting, and who’s dying. Five of the biggest myths include: 1) The U.S. Defense Department is unable to recruit enough military personnel to defend the country and its interests abroad. 2) Critical combat arms units are not being filled. 3) The military will accept any warm body and any dull brain it can get its hands on. 4) American minorities (and those from lower income urban areas) are suffering disproportionately higher losses on the battlefield. 5) Female soldiers are fighting in offensive ground combat operations. All are myths perpetuated by those opposed to our efforts in Iraq, who are opposed to the current administration and the U.S. Department of Defense, who are pulling the race card (for whatever reason), or who would simply prefer to use the military for social engineering purposes rather than for what it is designed to do. Now, let me qualify what I am about to say. Anyone – white, black, male, female – wearing the uniform of the United States armed forces, whether they are serving in a support capacity or as a member of a combat arms unit, is first and foremost a soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine. They are serving honorably, in a noble cause. They deserve the unwavering respect, gratitude, and support of the American people. And they are all at risk in a war with few discernible front lines. But let’s look at the myths that are being perpetuated by extremely vocal outsiders who often go unchallenged.

Want to have your eyes opened a bit? Be sure to read the article.

Tags For This Post: Iraq, Afghanistan, Soldiers, Myths, War

Please! Please! Please!

John Kerry seems to think that he would have a chance in '08.

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Thursday he was seriously thinking about another White House bid in 2008 and will decide before the year is out. "I will make that decision toward the end of the year, but I'm thinking about it hard," Kerry said in response to a question at the Latin Economic Forum at the United Nations. "If you can get help me find 60,000 votes in Ohio ...," he joked, referring to the close race in that state on which his 2004 loss to President Bush hinged.

I really hope that dingbat runs. We already own his "punk card"!

Saudis Arrest Suspects in Refinery Attack

FOXNews.com - Saudis Arrest Suspects in Refinery Attack - : "RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — Saudi authorities arrested five suspected terrorists linked to February's deadly attack on the world's largest oil processing facility, a security official said Tuesday. One of those arrested is on the country's list of 36 most-wanted terrorist suspects, the official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media. He did not identify that suspect. Militants driving two vehicles packed with explosives tried to enter the Abqaiq oil processing facility in eastern Saudi Arabia on Feb. 24. Guards opened fire on the vehicles and they exploded, killing the two suicide attackers and two guards. The attack affected global oil markets because Abqaiq processes most of the kingdom's crude, making it suitable for export at the nearby Gulf terminals. The kingdom is the world's largest producer of oil. In late March, the kingdom said it had arrested 40 suspected Al Qaeda members, including eight connected to the Abqaiq attack."

Don't you just love it when they take matters into thier own hands? Stuff like this is what pisses off those liberal jerks. I LOVE IT!

Oh.

And may ALLAH bless those guards who gave thier life doing the RIGHT thing. They are Heroes!

[Edited for form by MasterGunner]

What The Hell Is Up With Neil Cavuto?

Man, I like Neil, but some of the stuff he says makes me go back and read and re-read a few times.

Remember, I only have a 31 GT score...

Crazy Like a FOX? Monday , April 17, 2006 By Neil Cavuto President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a madman. That's what everyone says of the Iranian leader — which is why most rational folks dismiss him. He's nuts, he's crazy and normal, rational people don't know much about how to handle crazy people. They'd prefer to ignore them. But crazy people, of course, don't care. Ignoring them doesn't make them any less crazy or their antics any less nuts. They said Adolf Hitler was nuts too. Most rational folks at the time ignored his "nuttery." Some even tried to deal with him in a rational way. A very amiable and normal guy named Neville Chamberlain even struck a deal with him. But nuts don't honor deals or their word. I think because crazy people know non-crazy people don't like much dealing with crazy people — which is why crazy people do crazy things. They never suspect for a moment non-crazy people will suddenly become crazy and want to do something crazy to them. History proves normal people don't act that way, until the day comes when they realize they should have... but didn't.

WOW.

That's, um.... CRAZY.

Small dirt roads throughout fields north of Kirkuk, Iraq, have been a route used by insurgents avoiding Iraqi checkpoints. Iraqi Army soldiers now travel these roads to warn villagers of the danger.

Humility? From Hanoi Jane?

Say it isn't so!

Jane Fonda says she would like to tour the country and speak out against U.S. involvement in Iraq, but her controversial history of Vietnam War protests leaves her with "too much baggage." "I wanted to do a tour like I did during the Vietnam War, a tour of the country," the Oscar-winning actress said Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America." "But then Cindy Sheehan filled in the gap, and she is better at this than I am. I carry too much baggage..."

Heck no, Hanoi Jane!

No one plays "traitor" quite as well as you did.

Freedom Facts: Malaria

From the MNF-I webpage:

Ninety-eight percent of Iraqi children under five have been vaccinated for polio, and malaria cases have dropped from 1,043 to 86.

Mainstream media...can we concentrate on some of the GOOD things?

Red Sky Brothers: South Park!

I'm not a huge South Park fan, and to be honest, I thought Team America: World Police was very un-funny and in poor taste.

Red Sky Brothers, however, have a great post on the hypocrites over at Comedy Central:

Now, one must stop to ask, why would Comedy Central allow South Park to depict Jesus defecating on President Bush and the American flag while at the same time censoring an otherwise totally inoffensive picture of Muhammed, during the Christian Holy Week of all times? The answer is because Comedy Central realizes that Christianity really is a religion of peace, whereas Islam is not. They can make fun of Jesus with relatively few repercussions from his followers, other than a few angry Christians who write harmless letters to the cable stations. Most Christians just roll their eyes and shrug it off as stupid. Most Christians would not dream of taking to the streets in a chaotic, traitorous, murderous riots. If they make fun of Muhammed, they may have a global war on their hands and be forced to sacrifice their children to the bloodthirsty Islamo-fascist hoard, which screams for their brutal decapitation and the oral consumption of their various body parts.

Awesome.

How Embarassing...I Finally Post My "Age Of Tolerance" Review!

Man, do I have egg on my face! I promised y'all a review on this book...and it completely slipped my mind!

I admit, I had alot on my mind, with Baby Tanker's 1st Birthday Party and moving the "Base Of Operations" across (bigger place, bigger yard, nicer digs).

Sorry...I don't have a valid excuse. So, please accept my apology. Without further ado:


Holy Sheemoly! That's the best way I can sum it up. Glen Reinsford writes a gripping piece of fiction, it's literally the type of book that you hate to put down until you're all the way through. It was literally torture to have to put in the bookmark and call it a night.

One thing about this book that is incredible (and I know y'all know what I'm talking about. You've picked it up, and you're readin it...right?) is this: a lots of these things have already happened! The evacuation of West Bank settlements, the castration of America with our constant march towards not offending anybody...ever, it's all in here.

The book follows a few different characters, from all different walks of life, all over the country, and how the climate in the United States (ideological climate, mind you) brings them in and out of each others lives. I'm not going to lie to you: there's no happy ending. And the moral of the story is very, very clear...we can't continue on this path.

That being said, the book is just an incredible work. This isn't some trashy "what if" type disposable novel that you can buy at a corner drugstore. You have to be interested in the world around you, and sick and tired of the direction this country is going, to really enjoy this book fully. However, I'm giving my copy to one of my favorite liberals. Some of the arguements made in this book against the well-worn Liberal Talking points are worthy of converting anyone short of Hillary Clinton and Teddy Kennedy.

My favorite quote? "Are you a Maker? Or are you a Taker?"

Republicans and Conservatives are "Makers". They create the wealth and capital that this country is built on. They strive to succeed, usually with nothing more than a goal and a plan to achieve it.

Liberals and Democrats are the "Takers": committed to the belief that whatever is yours, should be redistributed to the rest of the population in the form of taxes and Social Welfare programs. "Takers" don't create anything tangible: they make no capital, the only product they sell is dependence on Society. Think about it.

"Are you a Maker? Or are you a Taker?"

You can check it out (definitely five out of five stars), and even order the book (let's discuss) by clicking the following link:


If you've read it, and have a comment or opinion...let's share. I'm realy interested in y'all's thoughts on this book.

Tags For This Post: Al Gore, Alternate History, Books, Amazon, Democrats, Reading, Discussion

Who Is Chris Tanner?

Y'know...I always say that we here at Tanker Brothers have the best, most logically-minded readers. Y'all are incredible.

Now for my question: Who is Chris Tanner?

Terrific reply, Master Gunner! I have to add to it. 1. “Why is it OK to … give huge tax breaks to the top 1% of income earners that don't need the money, but not OK to give assistance to the truly needy? Don't you understand that helping the poor is the best money spent?” Question one: Who are you to decide someone doesn’t need his money? Can I decide I need YOUR money more than YOU do and do a little private “redistribution” of my own? Question two: Who said it wasn’t OK to give assistance to the truly needy? The only thing up for debate is HOW to give assistance, and how to DEFINE “truly needy.” Where I come from there’s such a thing as “worthy poor” and “unworthy poor.” George Washington said not everyone was worthy of charity but everyone was worthy of the investigation to find out. Here’s a thought: If a man owns a successful business (you know, the massive corporate ones you mentioned?), he is uniquely able to permanently give assistance to a member of the “truly needy” by GIVING HIM A JOB. Not only relieves the poverty, but also relieves the cause of the poverty! Now that’s how to wage a successful war on poverty! In the case of someone physically unable to work in ANY way and also without ANY family to take care of him (which I would think is a rare case today), charity from religious sources is by far the best. Not only is there better management of funds than by the government welfare system, but a private organization has the ability to evaluate the person. I.e., is this a true charity case, or a bum? That’s how all charity used to be done. Curiously, it wasn’t really that long ago when the entire country thought like this. That was before men were willing to throw away the dignity of work and become wards (or slaves?) of the state. 2. “Don't let the rich Republicans fool you into thinking anything different.” John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and George Soros are different, of course. First of all, many, many people believe conservative principles. Take a look at the red states. They can’t ALL be in the 1%. I’m certainly not. Here’s another thought: The “middle class”, which is almost everyone, would be considered millionaires by a global standard. We don’t know what poverty IS in this country, and that’s a good thing. Only in America are even the poor people fat. Anyway, it’s amazing how many liberals froth at the “rich”, as if there was no WORK that went into producing that wealth. And why not cheer on and encourage the people who are trying to join them, instead of suppressing them with heavy taxes and restrictive economic policies? But the best way to make more people miserable is to have a massive government taxing the successful and keeping more and more people dependent on the state. Do you realize if there were no people dependent on the government, the liberals would have no reason to be elected? Hmm. 3. “Did you graduate from an ivy league school? Do you work on Wall Street? Do you work in Congress or on K Street? Are you a member of the board of directors for at least one S&P 500 corporation? Do you summer in the Hamptons? Do you winter in the Swiss Alps? Ever been to Monte Carlo? Ever spend over $500 a night for a hotel room? Ever spend over $60,000 for a car? Ever spend over $1,000,000 for a house? Ever buy a $1,000 suit or a $50 tie? Ever buy a $300 purse or a real Rolex watch? Ever buy a $50 tee shirt or a pair of $300 jeans? Ever drop $2000 in a restaurant or for a night on the town? Ever go to a $500 a plate fundraiser in a tux with your lady in a $5000 gown?” For me the answer to all the above is no, but even if it were yes, what difference would it make? If someone earns his money honestly, there is no shame in being rich. Unless you believe in Communism, of course. 4. “Stop being cowards!” Let’s see you pick up a rifle and defend your own hide before you say that. 5. “Stop listening to the mainstream media and start listening to the independent news sources on the web.” Umm…isn’t that what we’re doing here? 6. “The Republican way is not working. Look how bad things have gotten for us since they took over everything in 2000.” Would you describe the country as being better after 40 years of liberal policies? What I saw were the SAME problems being complained about and even MORE money needed for MORE government programs. Again, if there are no crises, there is no reason for liberals to be elected. It would be counter productive for a liberal to actually SOLVE problems. And how bad HAVE things gotten since 2000 when the Republicans “took over everything”? (The rest of us call that being elected by the people.) From my vantage point, things are pretty good. Two things that come to my mind right away is the healthy economy and complete lack of terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11. But of course that would be bad news for liberalism. I forgot. 7. “Ask yourself why we have such a huge deficit. Ask yourself why poverty is on the rise. Ask yourself why real wages are not going up, yet corporate profits keep skyrocketing.” That’s not what the numbers say on every economy report I’ve read lately, but maybe you’re looking at different numbers. 8. “Ask yourself why the whole world hates us.” I’m not convinced this is true, but even if it were, who cares? What difference does it make? My parents taught me not to pay attention to other people’s snide opinions if I knew I had done right and had nothing to be ashamed of. Besides, the hatred of bad people is a compliment. 9. “Ask yourself why so many Republicans are in trouble with the law.” Was this what you were saying during the Clinton years? Or is that different because they were “elites,” above the law? Whew. Okay, I’m done. Chris Tanner | 04.14.06 - 10:17 pm

Dude, your rebuttal to that Liberal Talking Point Spouting Zombie humbled me. I tried to jump right back at him in a previous post...but you came in with "the finishing move." All I can say, my fellow Tanker Brothers and Sisters , is this: I'm glad y'all have our back.

And Chris? "You Da Man!"

Teddy Kennedy: Race Pandering Ulterior Motive?

Nah...must just be my imagination...

Sen. Kennedy Slammed for Civil Rights Comparison to Illegal Aliens A black conservative minister and staunch immigration reform advocate Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson Tuesday denounced Sen. Ted Kennedy for comparing pro-illegal immigration rallies to civil rights marches for blacks half a century ago. The Massachusetts Democrat, who is a proponent of a Senate plan that would open the way to citizenship for illegals, said recent illegal immigration rallies are "reminiscent of the civil rights movement.” Rev. Peterson said, "Ted Kennedy should be ashamed for comparing the civil rights struggles of blacks to that of illegal aliens. Black Americans are being driven out of their jobs and schools by the influx of illegals — while politicians like Kennedy sell them out for Hispanic votes.” Thirty years ago, the Los Angeles Unified School District student population was 24% black and 32% Hispanic. Today, one in 10 students is black, and seven in 10 are Hispanic. "These figures should be alarming to anyone who cares about black Americans," Peterson said. "Unfortunately for blacks, politicians like Kennedy are more interested in the next election — and blacks are a small slice of the voting pie, while Hispanic numbers are exploding." "Blacks must finally claim their birthright as Americans, and say ‘no’ to the further devastation of their workforce and communities by illegal aliens and their political accomplices,” said Rev. Peterson.

Liberal Talking Point Zombie: Kevin Schmidt

Comment Spam? From the DNC?

Why am I not suprised?

You know...I really wouldn't put it past them.

Kevin Schmuck is just that...a Schmuck. And the bad thing is: he won't even come back and look at our response. Because he's a Liberal Talking Point Spouting Zombie.

And so's his momma.

'Cause the Tanker Brothers said so.

Master Gunner Takes On Liberal Talking Point Zombie!

I go back and read and reread this ignorant, malicious comment...and it gets me angrier every time I read it.

Don't let the rich neocon, fascist Republicans fool you! Why is it OK to give budget busting massive corportate welfare to big polluting oil companies and mulinational companies that outsource our jobs to India, and give huge tax breaks to the top 1% of income earners that don't need the money, but not OK to give assistance to the truly needy? Don't you understand that helping the poor is the best money spent? It keeps them off the streets, it helps prevent them from stealing to put food on the table, and it helps them to become better educated so they can get off the dole. Better get your priorities straight, you're one of us. Don't let the rich Republicans fool you into thinking anything different. Did you graduate from an ivy league school? Do you work on Wall Street? Do you work in Congress or on K Street? Are you a member of the board of directors for at least one S&P 500 corporation? Do you summer in the Hamptons? Do you winter in the Swiss Alps? Ever been to Monte Carlo? Ever spend over $500 a night for a hotel room? Ever spend over $60,000 for a car? Ever spend over $1,000,000 for a house? Ever buy a $1,000 suit or a $50 tie? Ever buy a $300 purse or a real Rolex watch? Ever buy a $50 tee shirt or a pair of $300 jeans? Ever drop $2000 in a restaurant or for a night on the town? Ever go to a $500 a plate fundraiser in a tux with your lady in a $5000 gown? Do you think they care about abortion, or gays, or immigrants, or religion? NO! They just want you to vote for them so they can give themselves more tax breaks, more corporate welfare, more freedom to do whatever the hell they want, while they take away our freedoms and put all the tax burdon on our shoulders. Then they use wedge issues like race, religion, sexual preference, birth control and xenophobia to blame every one else but themselves for all the problems they create! That's how they scare you into voting for them. Stop being cowards! And if you're brave enough to be in the military or guard, stop letting them brainwash you into thinking they have all the answers. Stop listening to the mainstream media and start listening to the independent news sources on the web. The Republican way is not working. Look how bad things have gotten for us since they took over everything in 2000. Ask yourself why we have such a huge deficit. Ask yourself why poverty is on the rise. Ask yourself why real wages are not going up, yet corporate profits keep skyrocketing. Ask yourself why the whole world hates us. Ask yourself why so many Republicans are in trouble with the law. Ask yourself why Bush/Cheney outed Valerie Plame and Brewster Jennings, which shut down a valuable CIA tool to fight the real war on terrorism. You're not one of them, you're one of us, so start voting for your own self interests. Start voting Democratic... because you're one of us! KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA | Homepage | 04.11.06 - 4:34 pm | #

Ahem...Kevin Schmuck...er..I mean Schmidt...this one's for you:

1. I am neither rich or a fascist. I am, however, a proud Red State Republican. Deal with it...or go harass people elsewhere.

2. "...and give huge tax breaks to the top 1% of income earners that don't need the money, but not OK to give assistance to the truly needy?" Well, dummy, because the 1% of wage earners pay an exhorbiant share of the taxes in this country. What you're proposing is what used to be called "redistribution of wealth", or to us Red Staters: Communism. Don't like it? Move to North Korea. And who, exactly, might the "truly needy" be? Illegals who break our laws and disrespect our soverignty to get here and "work"? Who decides who the "truly needy" are? You? Hillary Clinton? John Kerry? Ask yourself this question: Are you a maker? Or are you a Taker? Do you create wealth for yourself and your society? Or do you dream up ways to redistribute it to people who won't create wealth for themselves? Are you a Maker? Or are you a Taker?

3. "Don't you understand that helping the poor is the best money spent?" No, Dingbat. The best money spent is helping yourself. We need to teach self-reliance...and not encourage people to have their hands out. Haven't you been reading anything I post? "It keeps them off the streets, it helps prevent them from stealing to put food on the table..." I would submit to you that Cops, prisons, and the United States Border Patrol (if we allow them to do their jobs, of course) are much better at accomplishing this, as opposed to giving them my hard-earned money.

4. "Better get your priorities straight, you're one of us. Don't let the rich Republicans fool you into thinking anything different." I would never, ever, ever bring myself down to your level. I would never even want to resemble you. If I ever do - please, one of my fellow Tanker Brothers and Sisters - slap me. But seriously, Kevin...it seems that in this world, there are "haves", and "have nots". You seem a tad bitter at being a "have not". Why not do something with your life, create some wealth for yourself, and become a "have"? You know, instead of blaming everyone else for whatever misfortune has befallen you.

5. "Did you graduate from an ivy league school? Do you work on Wall Street? Do you work in Congress or on K Street? Are you a member of the board of directors for at least one S&P 500 corporation? Do you summer in the Hamptons? Do you winter in the Swiss Alps? Ever been to Monte Carlo? Ever spend over $500 a night for a hotel room? Ever spend over $60,000 for a car? Ever spend over $1,000,000 for a house? Ever buy a $1,000 suit or a $50 tie? Ever buy a $300 purse or a real Rolex watch? Ever buy a $50 tee shirt or a pair of $300 jeans? Ever drop $2000 in a restaurant or for a night on the town? Ever go to a $500 a plate fundraiser in a tux with your lady in a $5000 gown?" Well...no. I've done none of these things. But I gauran-damn-tee you that your Liberal Icons - George "Media Mogul" Soros, Hillary "Sticky Fingers" Clinton, and John "Serial Groom" Kerry sure have done at least a few of these things. What about Teddy "Your best Burbon, and make it quick" Kennedy? Oh, waitasec...I did two summers in the Swiss Alps...does that count?

6. "Do you think they care about abortion, or gays, or immigrants, or religion?" Actually...I don't care for people who advocate abortion, I don't advocate homosexuality, I am vehemently against illegal immigration, and last I checked, it was you crazy liberals that were trying to ban any reference to Judeo-Christianity from our society!

7. "Then they use wedge issues like race, religion, sexual preference, birth control and xenophobia to blame every one else but themselves for all the problems they create!" Waitasec...you just contradicted yourself. In the last paragraph...you said they didn't care about any of these things. Are your "talking point" cards out of order or something? Did Michael Moore eat one of them?

8. "That's how they scare you into voting for them. Stop being cowards!" Okay...now you've done it. Nobody...and I mean nobody, calls two combat vets cowards. Not on my watch. I take offense to that, Dingbat. "And if you're brave enough to be in the military or guard, stop letting them brainwash you into thinking they have all the answers." I think I am well spoken and intelligent enough (with my whopping 31 GT score) to make my own decisions and develop my own viewpoints. See how I have handily dissected, refuted, and destroyed all of yours? "Stop listening to the mainstream media and start listening to the independent news sources on the web." Hey...Dingbat. Are you paying attention to anything we write in here? We don't get anything from the mainstream media. We ARE an independent. Duh.

9. Your second-to-the-last paragraph isn't even worth copying and pasting. We have the strongest economy inrecent history. True, we have deficits..but we're in a War, stupid. And the American Taxpayer has more of his hard-earned dollars in his pockets (due to the President's Tax Cuts), than at any other time...ever. Only a complete moron would beg the government to make him pay MORE money. That's the whole "redistribution of wealth" thing...right? Tell you what...since you're so concerned about it, and since you liberal leftys are so noble...I have a deal for you: let's liquidate all the assets of every single Liberal/Democrat in the United States. Everything. Even the "stupid rich" ones: Lets put all their money in one pot, and then divide it up among every man, woman, and child in the United States. We'll make it on a volunteer basis. All the Republicans can keep their money...we'll just take the libs'...okay? We'll see how many people line up to contribute. I'm sure George Soros will be the first one in line to put all his stuff on Ebay. You know...to help society out a little.

10. "You're not one of them, you're one of us, so start voting for your own self interests. Start voting Democratic... because you're one of us!" No...I am definitely not one of you. You're too looney for your own good. And thank God that I DO vote for my own self interests. That's why I'll be voting Republican.

Moron.

US Soldiers: At It Again! ...And Again! ...And Again!

Look like terrorism to you? I didn't think so.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – A Soldier from Multi-National Division – Baghdad’s Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, walks a small child back to her father’s arms during a community engagement in the southwest Baghdad region Saturday March 25, 2006.

April 8, 2006 MOSUL, Iraq - U.S. Army Spc. [name omitted by the Tanker Brothers for OPSEC], a medic with the 2nd Battalion, 1st Infantry Regiment, 172nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, checks a woman's blood pressure during a neighborhood patrol Wedneday April 5, 2006.

April 6, 2006 Soldiers from the U.S. Army's 4th Battalion, 101st Aviation Regiment hand out small American flags and gifts to children during a goodwill visit to a village near Tikrit, Iraq, Saturday April 1, 2006. The items were donated by U.S. citizens to distribute to Iraqi citizens.

And I quote:

"...and there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- of -- of -- historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. Iraqis should be doing that."
-John Kerry

Tags For This Post: John Kerry, Iraq, Soldiers, Liberals, Anti-War, Dishonorable, Craziness

South Texas Dingbats Revisited...Again! (Leave It To LULAC Edition)

I actually chuckled a bit when I read this Letter to the Editor of the incredibly left-wing, race-pandering Monitor (I've mentioned this paper before, unfortunately, it's my "Hometown Newspaper").

Without further ado:

U.S. prosecutes easy target To the editor: This is just so racist, selectively enforcing “immigration” law against migrant (although illegal) workers from Mexico, and not enforcing it against rich felon companies (employers). The almighty United States government maliciously prosecutes the easy target, the penniless, ignorant immigrant who is unable to fight for his civil, human rights. We must remember that, in the majority of cases, he left his hungry family back in Mexico, to seek honest stoop labor, and now if he is prosecuted as a felon and sent to prison for up to 20 years, what will become of his hungry children back home? Or does anybody even care? Is this the best that the richest (most compassionate?) nation in the world can do for its neighbors? We have hypocritically spent trillions of dollars and sacrificed thousands of American soldiers’ lives (including some Mexican illegal immigrants who enlisted in our Armed Forces) “to spread democracy” in an oil-rich country where we are not welcome — and then we treat our Mexican relatives worse than animals. This is totally inhumane, and all of us as American citizens must share the blame and the shame for this atrocious piece of racist legislation. Our government conveniently allows a certain number of these migrant workers to enter the country just long enough to harvest our crops, and then disposes of them with the same lack of dignity and respect with which we dispose of our garbage. Where is the outrage from other civil rights or human rights organizations and leaders? We should change the inscription on the statue of liberty: “Give me your hungry, your poor — as long as they are not brown-skinned.” Placido Salazar, Vice President for Human/Civil Rights LULAC Council 363 San Antonio

(I'm going to enjoy this!)

Hey, Placido:

I'm going to answer your questions, and refute your wild-eyed theories. I know you're the big, bad Vice President of LULAC down there in San Antone, but even a simple Hispanic Soldier with a measly 31 GT score can break it down for you, "Barney Style". Here we go -

1. Why is it that enforcing laws that were already voted on and passed (years ago)  by our legislative representatives (you know, the ones actual American citizens - White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, etc... voted into office) seem racist to you? Does that mean that if we prosecute someone who happens to rob a grocery store, and also happens to be Hispanic, that the law is somehow "racist"? What if the grocery store owner is also Hispanic? Would enforcing the law against armed robbery still seem "racist"? Being Hispanic myself, I am often ashamed at how often you people (you LULAC PEOPLE) love to throw around the word "racist", trying to somehow intice the audience to sympathize with you, and immediately portraying anyone with a contrary arguement as hateful. You, Sir, are the one that is hateful.

2. How does the United States "maliciously prosecute the easy target"? By catching those who break our laws by illegally crossing our borders, putting them up in a hotel, giving them a court date (which is often ignored), and releasing them into the wild? Or by deporting them back (usually with a flight or a bus or some means of travel other than making them turn around and walk back to the "other side" through the perils you pro-illegal people seem to wave at us) to the country where they came from? And another thing: learn to use a dictionary. Civil Rights: The rights that go with citizenship, that one acquires simply by being a citizen. Not all of these are inalienable rights, however--see rights. For example, a citizen may lose the right to vote if convicted of certain crimes. That being the case, illegals have no civil rights in the United States, only in the countries where they came from. Civil Rights are a benefit of citizenship. DUH. And yet more proof that you are a racist, calling illegals "penniless and ignorant", in order to gain some sort of sympathy for their cause. I would argue otherwise. 11+ Million of them aren't THAT penniless, if they can afford to pay a coyote to bring them across - usually at exhorbiant costs. 11+ Million of them can't be THAT ignorant, considering they have eluded capture (with the help of the Mexican Governments "how to" manual, I would assume).

3.  "...now if he is prosecuted as a felon and sent to prison for up to 20 years, what will become of his hungry children back home?" This is the first time that I have seen an actual sentencing guideline (and I will venture an assumption that you just made it up, considering the law hasn't even passed). Continuing on, however: the United States Federal Government does not have a commitment to "his hungry children back home". The United States Federal Government has a commitment to it's citizens (you know, the legal kind): to provide for the security of it's own. We don't have any commitment to his family, I'm afraid. If he wanted to make a better life for them in the United States, he should go back home and perhaps file to immigrate here the legal way. Otherwise, he is a dishonorable criminal. Criminals are those that have no respect for the law, and thereby choose to circumvent them in order to gain personal comfort or profit.

4. Can you point to me to one single illegal immigrant who has joined the US Military? This is against the law, obviously, and from personal experience - you need a birth certificate (in my case) or some means of proving legal status (like a green card) to join the Military. Research before you throw accusations, buddy. As far as the "trillions of dollars" comment: the cost of the war in Iraq (to date) is nowhere close to even one trillion dollars. Another thing: having fought in Iraq - both of us - it pains us...no, it insults us when people bring this war - my war - into ever single arguement in order to gain some sort of noteriety or to attempt to legitimize a cause. It seems that any kook that manages to tie the Iraq war to an idiot cause, for the sole purpose of attracting attention to that cause, is a person who dishonors my friends and military bretheren who have shed blood in this war. To attempt to cheapen that sacrifice is dishonorable on your part, and I demand an apology (which I know I won't get).

5. "Our government conveniently allows a certain number of these migrant workers to enter the country just long enough to harvest our crops, and then disposes of them with the same lack of dignity and respect with which we dispose of our garbage.Where is the outrage from other civil rights or human rights organizations and leaders??" RIGHT HERE, DUMMY! I don't think "our side" wants ANY illegal aliens harvesting our crops. We want Americans doing that. Thanks for feeling the same way we do: we'll get right on it...you know, catching and deporting them. That's the reason for this bill!

6. Once again...do your research: The inscription on the Statue of Liberty Enlightening The World reads: ""Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." Remember, sir, that the illegals that invade our borders do not come here to "breathe free". They are not oppressed by their government. They come here for purely economic reasons: because the price of a day's labor is higher in the United States than it is in Mexico. However, the cost of living in Mexico is also much lower than the cost of living in the United States. Illegal aliens are not "homeless or tempest-tossed", not by a long shot. But if you want the inscription to apply to them...then I understand. I'll make you a deal: the Statue Of Liberty Enlightening The World (her full name, Dingbat), stands tall on Ellis Island, in New York Harbor. She lifts her "lamp beside the golden door." If an illegal immigrant can swim to Ellis Island (the Golden Door) from Mexico; without illegally crossing a border, swimming the Rio Grande, crossing into Arizona, crossing into New Mexico, or crossing into California; not setting foot anywhere in the United States or it's airspace prior to setting foot on Ellis Island (and no fair using a yacht or stowing away on a boat, or breaking any of our laws)....then I'll let them in.

Deal?

"Word On The Street Is": Cav Tanker Edition

Sorry, y'all...but Cav Tanker is away at Gunnery for the next week-and-a-half. Soon after he returns, he'll be "out of the net" for four more weeks at the Warrior Leadership Course.

Oh, that's right...y'all didn't hear: Cav Tanker went to the Promotion Board and got recommended for promotion to the rank of Sergeant.

Hooah.

You Want The No-Holds Barred "Real Deal"?

H/T to Papa Ray for the recon on another one of my new bookmarks: Michel Yon's Frontline Forum.

Check it out!



Any page offering the real story of the war, from real guys putting their lives on the line, is worth a bajillion (yeah, I made the number up) times anything the "Mainstream" Media is offering.

Tell them the Tanker Brothers sent'cha (As usual).

US Soldiers: At It Again!

SIGHAR, Iraq - U.S. Army Soldier, from 1st Armored Division, helps a young Iraqi boy try on a new shirt during a combat patrol Tuesday April 4, 2006.

And I quote:

"...and there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- of -- of -- historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. Iraqis should be doing that."
-John Kerry

Tags For This Post: John Kerry, Iraq, Soldiers, Liberals, Anti-War, Dishonorable, Craziness

TheReligionofPeace.com - Iraq War Myths Debunked (Pt. 4: The War was About Oil)

This is part four in a series. Glen Reinsford, the author of "Age Of Tolerance - From Al to Allah", also happens to be the Editor of TheReligionOfPeace.com, an anti-terrorist website that chronicles the extremist Muslim terror attacks and their victims.

It's no suprise that I check this site out daily. If you need the War to be put into perspective for you, I strongly suggest you check it out.

And what's up with the book? Have any of y'all picked it up? What are your thought on it?

Reinsford's fourth myth about the Iraq conflict is sqarely aimed at the Michael Moore/ Cindy Sheehan "The War Is About Halliburton and Oli" set:

4) The War was About Oil There are two flavors to this argument. The first was popular before the war, and held that the United States would invade Iraq and take the oil. Given that this hasn’t happened, and that the Americans are helping to rebuild Iraq (against “insurgent” attempts to thwart the process by destroying pipelines and terrorizing the population), this is no longer believed by anyone except the most hopeless anti-American conspiracy nuts. The more reasonable version of the argument is that America’s only interest in Iraq is to see that the country’s oil reaches the international market. The problem with this theory is that the only thing keeping Iraqi oil off the market prior to the war was American-supported sanctions. The sanctions wouldn’t have been there if Americans were only interested in oil. Nor would America have gone to war over oil, since it would have been far easier to simply drop the sanctions… if oil was really the issue.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

Have you noticed that 99% of the Left's Anti-War conspiracy theories and attempts at spreading mass hysteria can be refuted with just simple logic?

Tags For This Post: Iraq, War, Myths, Left, Age Of Tolerance, Al Gore, Conspiracies

My Good Buddy Jake: Freedom Folks!

H/T to Jake over at FreedomFolks for this awesome John Kerry Quote:

A Roman Catholic who has struggled at times to talk about his own faith, Mr. Kerry also told the group that he believed "deeply in my faith" and that the Koran, the Torah, the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles had influenced a social conscience that he exercised in politics. "I will tell you, nowhere in there, nowhere, not in one page, not in one phrase uttered and reported by the Lord Jesus Christ, can you find anything that suggests that there is a virtue in cutting children from Medicaid and taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich," Mr. Kerry said.

Yeah.

The Koran.

You know, the book that preaches "killing unbelievers" and "beating your wife if she is disobedient".

And, John? Er...there was no Medicaid when the Koran, the Torah, The Gospels, or the Acts of the Apostles were written.

Dummy.

Be sure to check out the Freedom Folks. If I want to know "the real deal" on the illegal immigration crisis, that's the first place I go.

Tell them that the Tanker Brothers sent'cha.

For Our German-Speaking Readers: Panzer Brueder!

After a few month's hiatus, Panzer Brueder is BACK!


I know, I know, I let it slide a little bit.

I let y'all down.

Thanks to a brand-new co-author - Tanker Angel - we should be back up and running! Take a gander (Keep in mind, it's German-Language, so if you don't sprechen sie Deutch, fugheddaboutit).

Anyway, if you ARE one of our German readers, Angel has an iron-clad pedigree: she's a member of Soldiers Angels (they provide support to deployed Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan), and an aspiring DJ on HOOAHRadio. On top of that, she's quite the accomplished blogger, herself. Be sure to check out her English-language blog, as well, Hooah Angel.

If you check out just one of the links in this post, though, please check out Soldiers Angels. They really do great stuff, and they make sure to support the guys on the ground, putting their lives on the line for everyone.

South Texas Dingbats Revisited!

The Monitor, my hometown newspaper, is still read by a whole mess of dingbats, crazies, and liberal loonies. Yesterday was no exception, with this genius submitting this Letter to the Editor:

Deficit Reduction Act hurts the people To the editor: I am a Hidalgo County constituent concerned about the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. This act has a negative impact on Medicare, child support payments and the amount of money to be distributed toward student loans. It would have an effect on me personally, because my mother receives Medicare and needs the funds so she can continue getting good medical treatment. If Medicare is cut and she is unable to receive treatment, it is going to cause an immense strain on my family to provide for it. Medicare should not be taken away. Rather, we should look toward nationalizing health care. Everything seems to be moving backwards in the United States, and we should not let the people who already are making a fortune grow by taking advantage of the less fortunate. As far as child support programs, it would be a big mistake to cut back there because there are so many single parents who do not have the support of their families. We should increase the amount of money distributed to find parents who do not want to uphold their obligations. We should not take advantage of the children, and I would speak for them when I say we need to do more for them because the money is essential for child development. Cutting back on student loans for higher education will affect a student like me, who needs all the help possible to continue my education. Students are gearing up for the future, and it is incredible to believe congressmen, who have struggled through school to acquire a position for the people, do not want to provide the funds necessary to enhance education. I have stated how the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 will affect not only me but other people who need financial support. It would be helpful to contact an official on this important topic, such as Congressman Rubén Hinojosa, who should represent the people by going against the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. As a decision maker, he could help people who would be affected by this act. Jesus Gonzalez, Edinburg

Ahem...allow me a rebuttal, and my good Tanker Brothers readers can correct me if I am mistaken:

1. Jesus, (may I call you that?), you're a day late and a dollar short. The 2005 Deficit Reduction act was passed into law...TWO MONTHS AGO!

2. Now that we have established the point as moot, let's talk about your concerns with the bill. First of all, Medicaid and Medicare have grown to be huge "budget sucks". Allow me to quote the President: "Together, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are now growing faster than the economy, faster than the population, and nearly three times the rate of inflation. And the retirement of baby boom generation will put even more strains on these programs. By 2030, spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security alone will be almost 60 percent of the entire federal budget. And that will leave future generations with impossible choices -- staggering tax increases, immense deficits, or deep cuts in every category of spending." Yes, Jesus, you read that correctly, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will grow to encompass the majority of the Federal Budget: more than Defense, Transportation and Infrastructure modernization, more than foreign aid...more than all of those combined. Yes, you read that correctly: combined. Which means you can still suck up subsidized medical care, but what good would it do you, if we had to strip down our military and neglect everything else in the Federal Budget to get it for you? That doesn't matter, though, does it? You've been raised your whole life to depend on the government to do everything FOR you, and to provide everything FOR you. And god forbid, we would hate for you to go through "immense strain" to provide care for your loved ones.

John F. Kennedy once said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Here at Tanker Brothers, we take that one step further: "Don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for yourself."

As for your "we should look toward nationalizing health care" suggestion, I have one word: SOCIALIST! Ask yourself this: what motivation would young people have for going to Medical School, if they would be making the same as a factory worker? Do you remember the Soviet Union? They tried a stupid "nationalize everything" mentality, much like you are proposing. What happened to them?

And this malarkey about money is essential for child development? Poppycock. Parents are necessary, dare I say crucial, to child development. Do you realize that most illness in the world is preventable? What's the leading cause of childhood illness in the United States?

Obesity.

If we had parents that would take responsibility for the healthy upbringing of their children, and be good examples for them in terms of personal hygiene and preventative medicine, we would not only contribute to the development of healthy adults, but responsible adults, as well. As opposed, of course, to parents that want the government to do everything FOR them.

3. Child Support programs...this is where I have a HUGE problem. We live in a nation of hypocrites. If a woman can "choose" to kill a fetus, then a man should have the right to "choose" to not accept responsibility for the child. Think about it for a second. Where in all of this does the man have the right to choose whether or not to have a child? I know, I know, you'll say "when he decides to have sex, of course". Good point. But doesn't the woman also have the choice to have, or not have sex? Why does the woman get a second chance to make her mind up whether or not to bear a child? But I digress...

You want to subsidize single parents. When did we make the mental shift to expect the Federal Government to provide basic needs to our children? That isn't the responsibility of the Federal Government. It's your responsibility as a parent.

4. Ahhh...now we get to the real reason you wrote your snazzy letter, Jesus: student loans. You need all the help possible to continue your education. We here at Tanker Brothers, we've got it, and we're about to pass on the secret to continuing your education. Don't tell anyone, okay? This has been a family secret that we've kept close to our hearts, kept it real safe, and passed it only to people that we really like. We're going to pass it on to you, Jesus, because we like you, and because we feel sorry for you, on account of you being so friggin' ignorant.

Ready?

Get a friggin' JOB.

Yep, I said it.

Get a job, save your money, go to school when you can. It works. And you wanna know something? When you walk down that stage, with your head held high because you just accomplished something significant in your life, it will feel that much better. Because you did it on your own, on your own terms, and you don't owe anyone a friggin' dime.

In summary, let me just say this: cut it with the "what are you gonna do for me" routine. We don't owe you anything. You, Jesus, live and breathe and enjoy your life of sucking benefits from the government because of the freedoms that guys like the Tanker Brothers provide for you with our efforts here and abroad. Just for the two of us, Cav Tanker and I, can you please consider doing something for yourself? Instead of whining and crying because the Federal Government can't afford to supplement your demands for free medical care, your demands to support your irresponsibility, exhibited by your failure to do something as simple as saving money for your education and your health care?

Do you think you could realize that we're in a war right now, and, y'know, help out a little?

We'd appreciate it.

TheReligionofPeace.com - Iraq War Myths Debunked (Pt. 3: Fighting Terrorism Simply Creates More Terrorists)

I have to recommend "The Age Of Tolerance - From Al To Allah", by Glen Reinsford.

Reinsford also edits of one of my new favorite websites, TheReligionofPeace.com.

This is the third part in a series of excerpts from Mr. Reinsford's article on the 12 Iraq War myths.

This happens to be one of my favorite myths, since the lefty Anti-War crazies always seem to point at the theory that we're creating our own enemies. This is complete garbage, and holds absolutely no merit. According to Mr. Reinsford's article:

3) Fighting Terrorism Simply Creates More Terrorists. There is some merit to the argument that it doesn’t take much to inspire the holy warriors of Islam to suicide bombings and other acts of violence in the name of Jihad. The very fact that many of these misguided Muslims can be manipulated into leaving a country such as Syria, where the dictator has willfully slaughtered tens of thousands of suspected Islamic fundamentalists to retain power over the years, only to travel to Iraq and engage in the slaughter of innocent Muslims (who haven’t completed the Haj) is pretty good evidence of just how vulnerable Islamic radicals are to the misinformation tactics of secular puppet masters. Still, al-Qaeda had no problem attracting thousands to its training camps well before America started fighting back in the war on terror, and it is a fact that these sociopaths have to live somewhere. If no country feels that it can safely harbor terrorists without facing severe consequences, then their numbers will naturally shrink. Since America made terrorism a defense issue, rather than a legal matter, and began building allies in the battle, totalitarian regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq have been overthrown and replaced by democracies. The world is no longer threatened by Saddam Hussein, or forced into guessing games regarding his WMD programs. Syria has been pressured into ending a very brutal occupation of Lebanon, and elections have been held there, as well as in Egypt. Libya has given up its WMD program and surrendered its stockpiles. Islamic terrorists are under pressure across the globe now from Pakistan to the Philippines. There is no perfect solution to terrorism, but the passive approach taken in the 1990’s obviously has far greater consequences for citizens in the West. Our policy of non-confrontation and appeasement was rewarded with successively bolder attacks against military, diplomatic, and civilian targets, culminating in the loss of 3,000 innocents on 9/11. For 1400 years, Islamic terrorists have always found reasons for hating and killing unsubmissive infidels, in keeping with the teachings of their religion. No amount of appeasement will ever change this.

We don't want you to go into rhetorical combat with your looney left, conspiracy-theorist, crazy uncle (and we all have one - Tanker Brothers are no different) without giving you your basic load. That would be setting you up for failure. And no one can say that the Tanker Brothers are "Blue Falcons". (Ask your closest combat arms Soldier what a Blue Falcon is.)

Next time they (your crazy leftist friends) spring this junk argument on you, now you're prepped to deliver return fire. Tell 'em the Tanker Brothers hooked you up.

Now show us some love and leave comments or be really brave and sign our Battle Roster!

Tags For This Post: Iraq, War, Myths, Left, Age Of Tolerance, Al Gore, Conspiracies

TheReligionofPeace.com - Iraq War Myths Debunked (Pt. 2: Insurgents only want an end to the “Occupation”)

"The Age Of Tolerance - From Al To Allah", by Glen Reinsford: Read it. (Link to the Amazon page in the left sidebar, under "What I'm Reading Now:")

Mr. Reinsford also edits of one of my new bookmarked websites, TheReligionofPeace.com.

This is the second part in a series of excerpts from Mr. Reinsford's article on the 12 Iraq War myths.

The lefty Anti-War crazies (hello, Cindy Sheehan) always seem to say that terrorists fighting us in Iraq are somehow "Freedom Fighters". Let's get serious for a minute. Freedom Fighters don't murder innocent women and children. Did Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys slaughter innocent British women and children during the Revolutionary war? Of course not.

Freedom Fighters, my ass :

2) Insurgents only want an end to the “Occupation” According to this myth, the insurgents are so repulsed by the presence of foreign troops in their country that they are forced by conscience to take up arms and kill fellow Iraqis by the hundreds each month. If the Americans were gone, then the “insurgency” would evaporate and these Iraqis would respect their democratically elected government. In the first place, these would have to be extremely dimwitted insurgents, since their own murderous rampage is the sole reason that American troops remain. The democratic Iraqi government is clearly working toward self-sufficiency, but its efforts are being undermined exclusively by the terrorists, hence the need for external support. Clearly, there are ulterior motives involved that are not as palatable to Western tastes. The impartial observer will also note that the “insurgency” is conspicuously and curiously limited to 20% of the country (the so-called “Sunni Triangle”) even though all of Iraq is technically under “occupation.” Why isn’t the resistance spread evenly – if it is truly an Iraqi insurgency, and not merely a Sunni ploy to regain hegemony under the guise of freedom (or the banner of Jihad)? In fact, virtually all of the suicide bombers (who cause the most damage) are not Iraqis at all. The “al-Qaeda in Iraq” leader, al-Zarqawi, has declared war on the Shia majority in remarkable disregard for Sunni Iraqis, who have benefited from the impressive patience shown by the Shia and Kurdish groups that outnumber them four to one. Perhaps al-Zarqawi has such little concern for anyone in Iraq because he is from Jordan, and has no personal stake in the welfare of either side. Though anti-war and anti-American propagandists search desperately for appealing terminology that will legitimize the violence, the fact remains that the vast majority of Iraqis have chosen to live peaceably under their own chosen democratic government

Comments?

Tags For This Post: Iraq, War, Myths, Left, Age Of Tolerance, Al Gore, Conspiracies

TheReligionofPeace.com: Iraq War Myths Debunked (Pt. 1: Americans have killed 100,000 Iraqi Civilians)

As you all know, I just finished reading Glen Reinsford's excellent book, The Age Of Tolerance - From Al To Allah.

Mr. Reinsford is also the editor of one of my new favorite websites, TheReligionofPeace.com.

This is the first part in a series of excerps from Mr. Reinsford's article on the 12 Iraq War myths:

1) Americans have killed 100,000 Iraqi Civilians The most immediate cause for suspicion of the claim that 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed by coalition troops is that this number materialized half-way through the war and has stayed unchanged in the year since, indicating that either it’s own proponents have little confidence in the figure, or that about 200 civilians really were dying each day from a genocidal pinpoint campaign that somehow evaporated overnight. Iraq is not an inaccessible backwater. It has a modern communications infrastructure, as well as hospitals and morgues. It is simply unfeasible that 200 civilians could die everyday from violence that was undirected at them without the media finding out about it. The group Iraqbodycount.net, for example, meticulously traces news sources for any death, from which it (presumably) culls redundancy and then posts the totals. It found that there were a little over “7,000 civilian” deaths from the “effects of war” (mostly at the hands of freedom fighting terrorists) during the most intense stages of conflict. Even this statistic is highly exaggerated, since the enemy there is not known to fight in uniform. In all probability, the immense effort of coalition forces to avoid civilian casualties was quite successful and the true number is between 2,000 and 3,000, perhaps lower. (In fact, a recent (11/28/05) analysis shows the number of civilian deaths incurred as a direct result of coalition action is less than 1,000). So where did the figure of 100,000 come from? It was created from a popular interpretation of an article appearing in The Lancet in October 2004, in which an anti-war researcher surveyed an outrageously tiny sample of households that were disproportionately located in the violent Sunni triangle. The survey did not rely on any means of verification, nor did it define terms that would preclude deaths at the hands of the terrorists. This last part is important because in the month of July, 2005, for example, terrorists killed over 600 Iraqi civilians while Americans killed none. So woefully unreliable was The Lancet survey that it actually begrudged a 92% margin of error - meaning that its conclusions could be closer to 8,000 deaths, which would put it in line with other news sources, although it is doubtful that many of these could be attributed to cluster bomb mishaps, since such incidents were both rare and highly publicized. The figure of 100,000 civilian deaths is not employed out of accuracy, but rather expediency. Public sympathy can be manipulated by arbitrarily inflating the number of civilians killed in the conflict. It obscures the fact that nearly all of the deaths of innocents are occurring at the hands of the very people that coalition forces are trying to stop, as well as the fact that the civilian death rate was far higher under Saddam, and would be much worse in a future without a stable security force to support the democratic government.

Here at Tanker Brothers, we're committed to bringing you enough "ammo" to help you combat your looney left, conspiracy-theorist neighbors.

Comments?

Tags For This Post: Iraq, War, Myths, Left, Age Of Tolerance, Al Gore, Conspiracies

Philologous: Knocks One Out Of The Park

Bro, sometimes, you're too brilliant for words. Remember, I only have a 31 GT score, but man, I was whoopin' and hollerin' when I read your post:

Still thinking about illegal immigration, one of the arguments that I hear and have to take issue with is the one which asserts that these illegals don’t take jobs from Americans because they do jobs that Americans won’t do. I keep trying to figure out which jobs these may be. But it doesn’t really matter. The simple fact is that illegal immigrants aren’t here to satisfy our needs; they are not here to do us any favors. They are here because they cannot find work in their home country (you know, the country whose flag they fly while demanding that we give them certain rights). And the jobs they do are not jobs that Americans won’t do, but jobs that Americans don’t have to do, for various reasons.

Choices. It's all about choices. Read the whole post HERE.

But, uh, what is an "ad hominem?"

Master Gunner: Derails McCain-Kennedy's Immigration Bill!

Check this out, loyal readers:

If this crazy "Amnesty" bill actually passes, then I will begin researching how to obtain a refund from the BCIS for all costs incurred in bringing my wife (who is German by birth) over the LEGAL way.

Unlike the ILLEGALS that broke our laws and disrespected our National Sovereignty to get here, She and I jumped through hoops and went through all the proper wickets to get her visa.

I want some payback. Don't worry, we have all the receipts, for everything from Translators to application fees.

And I want it all back.

Obviously, someone will have some smarmy comment, but think about it:

To NOT refund every fee of every single immigrant who came here legally would theoretically violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I'm just waiting for someone higher up in the government to do an azimuth check, realize that, and then bring it before the Supreme Court.

Then, that stupid bill would never come to pass.

Thoughts?

Gunner, Sabot, Tank! Fire and Adjust!

I'm telling you: I have the best readers in the whole world. We appreciate y'all's comments, and we really appreciate your excellent analysis.

Mysfit, left this comment (and you have to admit, he's dead-on target!):

The Life Span of a Republic... How Long Do We Have? About the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship." "The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: 1. From bondage to spiritual faith; 2. From spiritual faith to great courage; 3. From courage to liberty; 4. From liberty to abundance; 5. From abundance to complacency; 6. From complacency to apathy; 7. From apathy to dependence; 8. From dependence back into bondage " Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election: Population of counties won by Gore: 127 million; Bush: 143 million; Square miles of land won by Gore: 580,000; Bush: 2,427,000 States won by Gore: 19 Bush: 29; Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by Gore: 13.2; Bush: 2.1 Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements living off government welfare..." Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency & apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase. Realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom. Tanker Brothers, we appreciate what you do.

Dude...That was awesome! I couldn't agree with you more!