ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 78

Thread: WAKE UP AMERICA!

  1. #1
    Guest
    guest
    May 31, 2003, 06:34 AM

    WAKE UP AMERICA!
    Zionists have basically hijacked the US government and are working in the interest of Zionist-extremism with an Israel first policy and not the USA. Even Frank Gaffney conveys in the JINSA message that he was acting in the best interests of Israel first (Americans need to wake-up to such before this Zionist-driven bush administration invades Iraq and potentially turns the middle east into turmoil in the process as they will be going after Iran and Syria after in accordance with what is mentioned in that JINSA agenda):
    Secret Identity
    May 31, 2003, 03:30 PM

    Who really rules America? Attack Iran the day Iraq war ends, demands Israel
    ________________________________________________


    ISRAEL'S Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has called on the international community to target Iran as soon as the imminent conflict with Iraq is complete. In an interview with The Times, Mr. Sharon insisted that Tehran "” one of the "axis of evil" powers identified by President Bush "” should be put under pressure "the day after" action against Baghdad ends because of its role as a "centre of world terror." He also issued his clearest warning yet that Israel would strike back if attacked by Iraqi chemical or biological weapons, no matter how much Washington sought to keep its controversial Middle Eastern ally out of any war in Iraq.

    He has made clear that western Iraq would be one of the first areas targeted by the U.S. in any invasion, saying that lessons had been learnt from strategic mistakes of the 1991 Gulf War when Iraq successfully fired 39 Scud missiles into Israel. Mr. Sharon, 74, was speaking as he conducted high-level negotiations to keep his Government afloat after the desertion of his centrist coalition partners.

    In other significant changes of tone and policy, Mr Sharon told The Times that: Yassir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, could have an ongoing role as a "symbol," but could not have a role overseeing financial or security functions. This was a departure from previous statements that Mr. Arafat was entirely "irrelevant." Mr. Sharon himself would continue to lead the country, elections willing, for up to 5 years. There had been widespread speculation that he would retire within 2 years. The Israeli Government is considering an unprecedented crackdown on the Islamic movement within its own borders, fearing that a "small minority" of Israeli Arabs are turning against the country. He has asserted that while Washington was inevitably focusing on Saddam Hussein "” whom he called "insane" "” the White House shared his concern that Iran was also seeking weapons of mass destruction, and developing missiles capable of striking Israel and even Europe. "I talked about these things with Vladimir Putin a few days ago and I have been to Washington and one of the things I talked about was what will be (sic) later, if Iraq is going to be disarmed. One of the things I mentioned is that the free world should take all the necessary steps to prevent irresponsible countries from having weapons of mass destruction: Iran, Iraq of course, and Libya is working on a nuclear weapon." He accused Tehran of sponsoring the Lebanese Shia militia, Hezbollah, which he claimed had up to 10,000 short-range missiles stationed in Lebanon ready to strike Israeli towns, of smuggling weapons to the Palestinian Authority, and of trying to turn Israel's one million Arab citizens against the Jewish state. "Iran is a centre of world terror and Iran makes every effort to possess weapons of mass destruction on the one hand and ballistic missiles," he said. "That is a danger to the Middle East, to Israel and a danger to Europe.

    "They are working now on a ballistic missile of 1,300km. They have almost reached this range already. They were talking in the past about 2,500km and even 5,000km." Mr. Sharon made it abundantly clear that he would not hold back from retaliating, as Israel did at Washington's behest in 1991, if his nation came under serious attack. "First, we understand the sensitivity. We are living here, we were born here. Israel will make every effort not to interfere," he said. But he warned: "If Israel, and I made it very clear, is attacked by weapons of mass destruction... Israel will react. Is it clear? I believe that they understand that Israel will not be able not to defend itself." Mr. Sharon reiterated that he was willing to work toward the eventual creation of a Palestinian state, but demanded that progress toward it be measured by concrete improvements in security on the ground.
    Chicago Guest
    May 31, 2003, 08:18 PM

    Some nice words were written on this thread before it was actually deleted, do you remember, gys?
    I remember
    June 01, 2003, 01:45 AM

    The roots of Isreal maliciousness go very deep...Friedrich Nietzsche, the great German philosopher, some of whose ideas were interpreted to be utilized by Hitler, described Jews as the truly great haters in world history.

    Human history would be altogether too stupid a thing without the spirit that the impotent Jew priests have introduced into it "” let us take at once the most notable example. All that has been done on earth against "the noble," "the powerful," "the masters," "the rulers," fades into nothing compared with what the Jews have done against them; the Jews, that priestly people, who in opposing their enemies and conquerors were ultimately satisfied with nothing less than a radical revaluation of their enemies' values, that is to say, an act of the most spiritual revenge. For this alone was appropriate to a priestly people, the people embodying the most deeply repressed [Zurückgetretensten] priestly vengefulness.

    It was the Jews who, with awe-inspiring consistency, dared to invert the aristocratic value-equation (good = noble = powerful = beautiful = happy = beloved of God) and to hang on to this inversion with their teeth, the teeth of the most abysmal hatred (the hatred of impotence), saying "the wretched alone are the good; the poor, impotent, lowly alone are the good; the suffering, deprived, sick, ugly alone are pious, alone are blessed by God, blessedness is for them alone "” and you, the powerful and noble, are on the contrary the evil, the cruel, the lustful, the insatiable, the godless to all eternity; and you shall be in all eternity the unblessed, accursed, and damned!" ... One knows who inherited this Jewish revaluation ... In connection with the tremendous and immeasurably fateful initiative provided by the Jews through this most fundamental of all declarations of war - with the Jews there began the slave revolt in morality: that revolt which has a history of 2000 (two thousand) years behind it and which we no longer see because it "” has been victorious.

    You do not comprehend this? You are incapable of seeing something that required 2000 years to achieve victory? "” There is nothing to wonder at in that: all protracted things are hard to see, to see whole. That, however, is what has happened: from the trunk of that tree of vengefulness and hatred, Jewish hatred "” the profoundest and sublimest kind of hatred, capable of creating ideals and reversing values, the like of which has never existed on earth before "” there grew something equally incomparable, a new love, the profoundest and sublimest kind of love "”and from what other trunk could it have grown?

    This Jesus of Nazareth, the incarnate gospel of love, this "Redeemer" who brought blessedness and victory to the poor, the sick, and the sinners "” was he not this seduction in its most uncanny and irresistible form, a seduction and by-path to precisely those Jewish values and new ideals? Did Israel not attain the ultimate goal of its sublime vengefulness precisely through the by-path of this "Redeemer," this ostensible opponent and disintegrator of Israel? Was it not part of the secret black art of truly grand politics of revenge, of a farseeing, subterranean, slowly advancing, and premeditated revenge, that Israel must itself deny the real instrument of its revenge before all the world as a mortal enemy and nail it to the cross, so that "all the world," namely all the opponents of Israel, could unhesitatingly swallow just this bait? And could spiritual subtlety imagine any more dangerous bait than this? Anything to equal the enticing, intoxicating, overwhelming, and undermining power of that symbol of the "holy cross," that ghastly paradox of a "God on the cross," that mystery of an unimaginable ultimate cruelty and self-crucifixion of God for the salvation of man?

    What is certain, at least, is that 'sub hoc signo' [under this sign] Israel, with its vengefulness and revaluation of all values, has hitherto triumphed again and again over all other ideals, over all nobler ideals.
    genuine
    June 01, 2003, 07:17 AM

    During the reign of the emperor Nero, St. Peter was leaving Rome along the Appian Way (Via Appia Antica) when he encountered Christ carrying his cross in the opposite direction (toward Rome).

    St. Peter said to Our Lord, "quo vadis, Domine?" -- that is -- "whither goest thou, O Lord?"

    To which Jesus responded, "I am going to Rome to be crucified."

    To which St. Peter responded: "Lord, wast Thou not crucified once for all."

    Our Lord responded, "I saw thee fleeing from death, and I wish to be crucified instead of thee."

    Peter responded: "Lord, I go; I fulfil Thy command.

    Jesus then said to him, "Fear not, for am with thee."

    At that, St. Peter turned back toward Rome, where he eventually received the crown of martyrdom.


    Inciting in peoples' minds to think of voluntary martyrdom as a virtue is by far the most effective and feasible way to impose long-lasting victory upon seemingly undestrictable power. Wasn't something similar to this strategy employed by Jews to bring about the fall of the Roman Empire?
    genuine
    June 01, 2003, 07:19 AM

    Nietzsche's "Genealogy of Morals"
    ________________________________________________


    "Rome Against Judea, Judea Against Rome." Rome felt that the Jews were something contrary to nature itself, something like its monstrous polar opposite. In Rome the Jew was considered "guilty of hatred again the entire human race." And that view may be correct, to the extent we are right to link the health and the future of the human race to the unconditional rule of aristocratic values, the Roman values. The Romans were the strong and noble men, stronger and nobler than any people who'd lived on earth up until then"”or even than any people who'd ever been dreamed up. By contrast, the Jews were 'par excellence' that priestly people of resentment who possessed an unparalleled genius for popular morality.

    Well, people have become merely tame or want to become tame "” in front of three Jews, as we know, and one Jewess (before Jesus of Nazareth, the fisherman Peter, the carpet worker Paul, and the mother of the first-mentioned Jesus, named Mary). Now, this is very remarkable: without doubt Rome has been conquered. It's true that in the Renaissance there was a brilliant, incredible re-awakening of the classical ideal, the noble way of evaluating everything. Rome itself behaved like someone who'd woken up from a coma induced by the pressure of the new Jewish Rome built over it, which looked like an ecumenical synagogue and was called "the church." But immediately Judea triumphed again, thanks to that basically vulgar (German and English) movement of resentment, which we call the Reformation, together with what had to follow as a consequence, the re-establishment of the church, as well as the re-establishment of the old grave-like tranquillity of classical Rome.

    In what is an even more decisive and deeper sense, Judea once again was victorious over the classical ideal at the time of the French Revolution. The last political nobility which we had in Europe, in 17th and 18th century France, broke apart under the instinct of popular resentment "” never on earth has there ever been heard a greater rejoicing, a noisier enthusiasm! It's true that in the midst of all this the most dreadful and most unexpected events took place: the old ideal itself stepped physically and with unheard of splendour before the eyes and the conscience of humanity "” and once again stronger, simpler, and more urgently than ever rang out, in opposition to the old lie, to the slogan of resentment about the privileged rights of the majority, in opposition to that will for a low condition, abasement, equality, for the decline and extinguishing of mankind "” in opposition to all that there rang out a fearsome and delightful counter-slogan about the privileged rights of the few! As a last signpost to a different road Napoleon appeared, the most singular and late-born man there ever was, and in him the problem of the inherently noble ideal was made flesh. We might well think about what sort of a problem that is: Napoleon, this synthesis of the inhuman and the superhuman . . .
    Since Day 1
    June 01, 2003, 07:34 AM

    One would be delighted to make a connection at this point, I think...The end of the 18th century was a time of great change -- specifically the United States was born and the French aristocracy was overthrown and destroyed. Both of these events occured as a result of revolution. Both the American and French revolution were quite similiar in their ideology and mission. Just how similiar and intertwined is for you to find out! They shared many of the same ideologies. Each was a revolt based upon more personal freedom and representation within the Government...

    On the other hand, we sure have heard of Zionism. You know, those conspirational theories that supposedly the Zionists have basically hijacked the US government and are working in the interest of Zionist-extremism with an Israel-first policy and not the USA. These hypothesis aside, I would throw at large the idea that the Zionists didn't have to hijack at all the U.S. goverment, since it may have been "hijacked" from the very beginning...
    Law&Order
    June 01, 2003, 07:46 AM

    EXACTLY
    ________

    America is not ruled by a majority, it's ruled by a white, aspiring-to-be-middle-class Christian minority, by those Bible-belt hysterics that hope their imaginary God has kinda "blessed" them to be forever in top of a supposedly invincible country called U'S of A!
    Axiom 3
    June 01, 2003, 08:06 AM

    America is moving toward a Nazi form of totalitarianism.
    ________________________________________________

    It has been doing this for decades. It has been doing so gradually, by default, and for the most part unknowingly, but it is doing so systematically and without significant opposition. For many decades now Christian conservatives have been relentlessly preaching that secularism has caused America's decay and therefore its salvation lies in the fostering of faith in God, religious morality, and family values. Unknowingly, they've been propagating sentiments that ominously parallel Adolf Hitler's.

    As a means to manipulate others and gain total control of Germany, Hitler agreed with both his liberal peers who demanded state control of economics and the redistribution of men's income, as well as his conservative peers who demanded state control over men's intellect and bodies. In "Freethought Today," a newspaper published by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Richard E. Smith provides one of Hitler's many appeals to Christianity: During his February 1, 1933, radio speech, 'Proclamation to German People' Hitler began by saying 'the Almighty has withheld his blessing from our people' since the loss of World War I in November 1918. Beginning with the family, he went on to pledge a fostering of 'Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of racial and political life.' He went on to make a pious appeal (prayer) for God's blessing on the work.

    Often today, Mr. Smith writes, the word holocaust is used by those against abortion [i.e., Christian conservatives]. This of course conjures up images of the slaughter of Jews and others (one group frequently overlooked in the killing are atheists) during World War II. Adolf Hitler, in Mein Kampf, made plain his Catholic feelings on abortion. 'I'll put an end to the idea that a woman's body belongs to her...Nazi ideals demand that the practice of abortion shall be exterminated with strong hand.' Hitler sentenced so-called Aryan women who had abortions to hard labor after the first offense, to death after the second. (Some Christian conservatives suggest that a woman should be sentenced to death after her first abortion) Religious writers often claim that the cause of Nazism is the secularism or the scientific spirit of the modern world. This evades the facts that the Germans at the time, especially in Prussia, were one of the most religious peoples in Western Europe; that the Weimer Republic was a hot-bed of mystic cults, of which Nazism was one; and that Germany's largest and most devout religious group, the Lutherans, counted themselves among Hitler's staunchest followers.

    By upholding faith in God, religion and family as America's foundation, and using these ideals as the basis for certain actions, such as requiring prayer and allowing the posting of the Ten Commandments in certain public institutions, the Christian conservatives are helping to erode this country's essential foundation: the secularism of reason, egoism and individualism the primary values Hitler had to suffocate in order to gain dictatorial control of a nation and perpetrate his evils.
    Analyzing America In Detail
    June 02, 2003, 01:11 AM

    As the United States slides toward the 21st century, the major mass movements challenging the bipartisan status quo are not found on the left of the political spectrum, but on the right.

    It is easy to see the dangers to democracy posed by far right forces such as armed militias, neonazis, and racist skinheads. However, hard right forces such as dogmatic religious movements, regressive populism, and White racial nationalism also are attacking democratic values in our country. Antidemocratic sectors of the hard right are distinct from traditional conservatism and political libertarianism, although they share some common roots and branches.

    The best known sector of the hard right --dogmatic religious movements -- is often called the "Religious Right." It substantially dominates the Republican Party in at least 10 (and perhaps as many as 30) of the 50 states. As part of an aggressive grassroots campaign, these groups have targeted electoral races from school board's to state legislatures to campaigns for the US Senate and House of Representatives. This successful social movement politically mobilizes a traditionalist mass base from a growing pious constituency of evangelical, fundamentalist, charismatic, pentacostal, and orthodox churchgoers. The goal of many leaders of this ultra-conservative religious movement is imposing a narrow theological agenda on secular society. The predominantly Christian leadership envisions a religiously-based authoritarian society ; therefore we prefer to describe this movement as the "theocratic right." A theocrat is someone who supports a form of government where the actions of leaders are seen as sanctioned by God -- where the leaders claim they are carrying out God's will. The central threat to democracy posed by the theocratic right is not that its leaders are religious, or fundamentalist, or right wing -- but that they justify their political, legislative, and regulatory agenda as fulfilling God's plan.

    Along with the theocratic right, two other hard right political movements pose a grave threat to democracy : regressive populism, typified by diverse groups ranging from members of the John Birch Society out to members of the patriot and armed militia movements; and White racial nationalism, promoted by Pat Buchanan and his shadow, David Duke of Louisiana.

    Finally, there is the militant, overtly racist far right that includes the open White supremacists, Ku Klux Klan members, Christian Patriots, racist skinheads, neonazis, and right-wing revolutionaries. Although numerically smaller, the far right is a serious political factor in some rural areas, and its propaganda promoting violence reaches into major metropolitan centers where it encourages alienated young people to commit hate crimes against people of color, Jews, and gays/lesbians, among other targets. The electoral efforts of Buchanan and Duke serve as a bridge between the ultra-conservative hard right and these far right movements. The armed milita movement is a confluence of regressive populism, White racial nationalism, and the racist and antisemitic far right.

    All four of these hard right activist movements are antidemocratic in nature, promoting in various combinations and to varying degrees authoritarianism, xenophobia, conspiracy theories, nativism, racism, sexism, homophobia, antisemitism, demagoguery, and scapegoating. Each wing of the antidemocratic right has a slightly different vision of the ideal nation. The theocratic right's ideal is an authoritarian society where Christian men interpret God's will as law. Women are help-mates, and children are the property of their parents. Earth must submit to the dominion of those to whom God has granted power. People are basically sinful, and must be restrained by harsh punitive laws. Social problems are caused by Satanic conspiracies aided and abetted by liberals, homosexuals, feminists, and secular humanists. These forces must be exposed and neutralized. Newspaper columnist Cal Thomas, a long-standing activist in the theocratic right, recently suggested that churches and synagogues take over the welfare system "because these institutions would also deal with the hearts and souls of men and women." The churches "could reach root causes of poverty --a lack of personal responsibility," Thomas wrote, expressing a hardline Calvinist theology. "If government is always there to bail out people who have children out of wedlock, if there is no disincentive (like hunger) for doing for one's self, then large numbers of people will feel no need to get themselves together and behave responsibly."

    Of the hundreds of hard right groups, the most influential is the Christian Coalition led by televangelist and corporate mogul Pat Robertson. Because of Robertson's smooth style and easy access to power, most mainstream journalists routinely ignore his authoritarianism, bigotry, and paranoid dabbling in conspiracy theories. Robertson's gallery of conspirators parallels the roster of the John Birch Society, including the Freemasons, the Bavarian Illuminati, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Trilateral Commission. In Robertson's book The New World Order, he trumps the Birchers (their founder called Dwight Eisenhower a communist agent) by alluding to an anti-Christian conspiracy that supposedly began in ancient Babylon -- a theory that evokes historic anti-Jewish bigotry and resembles the notions of the fascist demagogue Lyndon LaRouche, who is routinely dismissed by the corporate media as a crackpot. Robertson's homophobia is profound. He is also a religious bigot who has repeatedly said that Hindus and Muslims are not morally qualified to hold government posts. "If anybody understood what Hindus really believe," says Robertson, "there would be no doubt that they have no business administering government policies in a country that favors freedom and equality." Robertson's embrace of authoritarian theocracy is equally robust:

    "There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world. How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?"
    Analyzing America In Detail
    June 02, 2003, 01:18 AM

    kulturkampf
    ______________


    At the heart of this Culture War, or kulturkampf, as Patrick Buchanan calls it, is a paranoid conspiratorial view of leftist secular humanism, dating to the turn of the century and dependent upon powerful but rarely stated presumptions of racial nationalism based on Eurocentric White supremacy, Christian theocracy, and subversive liberal treachery. The nativist right at the turn of the century first popularized the idea that there was a secular humanist conspiracy trying to steer the US from a God -centered society to a socialist, atheistic society. The idea was linked from its beginnings to an extreme fear of communism, conceptualized as a "red menace." The conspiracy became institutionalized in the American political scene and took on a metaphysical nature, according to analyst Frank Donner:

    "The root anti-subversive impulse was fed by the [Communist] Menace. Its power strengthened with the passage of time, by the late twenties its influence had become more pervasive and folkish....A slightly secularized version, widely shared in rural and small-town America, postulated a doomsday conflict between decent upright folk and radicalism--alien, satanic, immorality incarnate."

    This conspiratorial world view continued to animate the hard right. According to contemporary conspiratorial myth, liberal treachery in service of Godless secular humanism has been "dumbing down" schoolchildren with the help of the National Education Association to prepare the country for totalitarian rule under a "One World Government " and "New World Order." This became the source of an underlying theme of the armed militia movement. This nativist-Americanist branch of the hard right (or the pseudo-conservative, paranoid right, as Richard Hofstadter termed it in his classic essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" came to dominate the right wing of the Republican Party, and included Patrick Buchanan, Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, the Rockford Institute, David Noebel's Summit Ministries, and Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation and Institute for Cultural Conservatism. Of more historical importance are the John Birch Society, the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade, and Billy James Hargis' Christian Crusade, although the John Birch Society's membership doubled or tripled since the Gulf War in 1991 to over 40,000 members. Despite some overlap at the edges, reactionary hard right electoral activists should be distinguished from the extra-electoral right-wing survivalists, militia members, and armed White racists on their right, and from the Eastern establishment conservative branch of the right wing represented by George Bush on their left.

    The Culture War & Christian Theocracy
    _____________________________________

    Most analysts have looked at the Culture War and its foot soldiers in the traditional family values movement as displaying a constellation of discrete and topical beliefs. These include support for traditional, hierarchical sex roles and opposition to feminism, employed mothers, contraception, abortion, divorce, sex education, school-based health clinics, extramarital sex, and gay and lesbian sex, among other issues. Traditional values also include an antipathy toward secular humanism, communism, liberalism, utopianism, modernism, globalism, multiculturalism, and other systems believed to undermine US nationalism. Beliefs in individualism, hard work, self-sufficiency, thrift, and social mobility form a uniquely American component of the movement. Some traditional values seem derived more immediately from Christianity: opposition to Satanism, witchcraft, the New Age, and the occult (including meditation and Halloween depictions of witches). Less often discussed but no less integral to the movement are a disdain for the values of egalitarianism and democracy (derived from the movement's anti-modernist orientation), and support for Western European culture, private property, and laissez-faire capitalism.

    This orthodox view of the traditional values movement as an aggregate of many discrete values, however, is misleading, for it makes it appear that Judeo-Christian theism is simply one value among many. Rather, Judeo-Christian theism, and in particular Christianity, is THE CORE VALUE of the traditional values movement and the basis for the Crusades -- like tone of those in the hard right calling for the Culture War. Traditional values start from a recognition of the absolute, unchanging, hierarchical authority of God (as one commentator noted, "The Ten Commandments are not the Ten Suggestions") and move from there to a belief in hierarchical arrangements in the home and state.

    As Pat Robertson said at the Republican convention, "Since I have come to Houston, I have been asked repeatedly to define traditional values. I say very simply, to me and to most Republicans, traditional values start with faith in Almighty God." Robertson has also said, "When President Jimmy Carter called for a `Conference on Families,' many of us raised strenuous objections. To us, there was only one family, that ordained by the Bible, with husband, wife, and children."

    In part, the moral absolutism implicit in the Culture War derives from the heavy proportion of fundamentalist Christians in the traditional family values movement. Their belief in the literal existence of Satan leads to an apocalyptic tone: "The bottom line is that if you are not working for Jesus Christ, then you are working for someone else whose name is Satan. It is one or the other. There is no middle of the road." The hard right activist, as Richard Hofstadter noted, believes that all battles take place between forces of absolute good and absolute evil, and looks not to compromise but to crush the opposition.
    Analyzing America In Detail
    June 02, 2003, 01:26 AM

    The most extreme position in the Culture War is held by Christian Reconstructionists who seek the imposition of Biblical law throughout the United States. Other hard right activists, while less open or draconian, share an implicitly theocratic goal. While it denies any desire to impose a theocracy, the Center for Cultural Conservatism, which defines cultural conservatism as the "necessary, unbreakable, and causal relationship between traditional Western, Judeo-Christian values...and the secular success of Western societies," breaks with conservative tradition to call upon government to play an active role in upholding the traditional culture which they see as rooted in specific theological values.

    The Culture War & White Supremacy
    _________________________________

    The theory of widespread secular subversion spread by proponents of the Culture War was from the beginning a deeply racialized issue that supported the supremacy of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. To the nativist right, in the 1920s as well as now, the synthesis of traditional values constituted "Americanism," and opponents of this particular constellation of views represented dangerous, un-American forces. As John Higham argued in Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism 1860-1925, subversion has always been identified with foreigners and anti-Americanism in the United States, and particularly with Jews and people of color. In the 1920s, subversion was linked to Jews, and the immigration of people of color was opposed in part because they were seen as easy targets for manipulation by Jews. While antisemitism was never the primary ingredient in anti-radical nativism, the radical Jew was nevertheless a powerful stereotype in the "communist menace" movement. For example, some members of the coercive immigrant "Americanization" movement adopted the startling slogan, "Christianization and Americanization are one and the same thing."

    Virtually any movement to advance racial justice in the US was branded by the reactionary right as a manifestation of the secular humanist conspiracy. The National Education Association's bibliography of "Negro author s," foundation support for "Black revolutionaries," and the enlistment of Gunnar Myrdal as an expert on the "American Negro" were all framed in this way. Similarly, the African American civil rights movement was from its beginning identified by the right wing as part of the secular humanist plot to impose communism on the United States. In 1966, David Noebel (then of Billy James Hargis ' Christian Crusade, now head of the influential Summit Ministries ) argued, "Anyone who will dig into the facts of the Communist involvement in the 'civil rights' strife will come to the conclusion that these forces have no stopping point short of complete destruction of the American way of life." (In the preface, Noebel thanks Dr. R. P. Oliver, who is now perhaps best known as a director of the Institute for Historical Review, which denies that the Holocaust took place.)

    In 1992, the civil rights movement was still seen in this light, as the rightist Catholic magazine Fidelity makes clear:

    "It is no coincidence that the civil rights movement in the United States preceded the largest push for sexual liberation this country had seen since its inception....The Negro was the catalyst for the overturning of European values, which is to say, the most effective enculturation of Christianity."

    "The civil rights movement was nothing more than the culmination of an attempt to transform the Negro into a paradigm of sexual liberation that had been the pet project of the cultural revolutionaries since the 1920s."

    The identification of sexual licentiousness and "primitive" music with subversion and people of color is an essential part of the secular humanist conspiracy theory, and one that has been remarkably consistent over time. The current attacks on rap music take place within this context. In 1966, David Noebel argued that the communist conspiracy ("the most cunning, diabolical conspiracy in the annals of human history ") was using rock music, with its savage, tribal, orgiastic beat, to destroy "our youths' ability to relax, reflect, study and meditate" and to prepare them "for riot, civil disobedience and revolution." 20 years later, these views were repeated practically verbatim by Allan Bloom, who wrote that rock music, with its "barbaric appeal to sexual desire," "ruins the imagination of young people and makes it very difficult for them to have a passionate relationship to the arts and thought that are the substance of liberal education." The hard right's attack on multiculturalism derives its strength from the right's absolutism, as well as from its White racial nationalism. Samuel Blumenfeld was among the first to attack multiculturalism as a new form of secular humanism's values relativism, writing in 1986 that multiculturalism legitimized different lifestyles and values systems, thereby legitimizing a moral diversity that "directly contradicts the Biblical concept of moral absolutes on which this nation was founded." Patrick Buchanan bases his opposition to multiculturalism on White racial nationalism. In one article, "Immigration Reform or Racial Purity?," Buchanan himself was quite clear:

    "The burning issue here has almost nothing to do with economics, almost everything to do with race and ethnicity. If British subjects, fleeing a depression, were pouring into this country through Canada, there would be few alarms."

    "The central objection to the present flood of illegals is they are not English-speaking white people from Western Europe; they are Spanish-speaking brown and black people from Mexico, Latin America and the Caribbean."

    Buchanan explicitly links the issue of non-White immigration with multiculturalism, quoting with approval the xenophobic and racist American Immigration Control Foundation, which said, "The combined forces of open immigration and multi-culturalism constitute a mortal threat to American civilization. The US is receiving a never-ending mass immigration of non-Western peoples, leading inexorably to white-minority status in the coming decades [while] a race-based cultural-diversity is attacking, with almost effortless success, the legitimacy of our Western culture." The Free Congress Foundation's Center for Cultural Conservatism disavows any racial nationalist intent while bluntly arguing that all non-White cultures are inferior to traditional Western cultures.
    Analyzing America In Detail
    June 02, 2003, 01:34 AM

    Fascism as a Form of Right Wing Populism
    ________________________________________

    The European fascist movements in the 1930's flourished in a period of economic collapse, political turmoil, and social crisis.

    "Fascism, which was not afraid to call itself reactionary. . .does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal."
    --Benito Mussolini

    "If fascism came to America, it would be on a program of Americanism."
    --Huey P. Long

    "Fascism is reaction," said Mussolini, but reaction to what? The reactionary movement following World War I was based on a rejection of the social theories that formed the basis of the 1789 French Revolution, and whose early formulations in this country had a major influence on our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. It was Rousseau who is best known for crystallizing these modern social theories in. The progeny of these theories are sometimes called Modernism or Modernity because they challenged social theories generally accepted since the days of Machiavelli. The response to the French Revolution and Rousseau, by Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche and others, poured into an intellectual stew which served up Marxism, socialism, national socialism, fascism, modern liberalism, modern conservatism, communism, and a variety of forms of capitalist participatory democracy.

    Fascists particularly loathed the social theories of the French Revolution and its slogan: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." Liberty from oppressive government intervention in the daily lives of its citizens, from illicit searches and seizures, from enforced religious values, from intimidation and arrest for dissenters; and liberty to cast a vote in a system in which the majority ruled but the minority retained certain inalienable rights.
    Equality in the sense of civic equality, egalitarianism, the notion that while people differ, they all should stand equal in the eyes of the law. Fraternity in the sense of the brotherhood of mankind. That all women and men, the old and the young, the infirm and the healthy, the rich and the poor, share a spark of humanity that must be cherished on a level above that of the law, and that binds us all together in a manner that continuously re-affirms and celebrates life.

    This is what fascism as an ideology was reacting against -- and its support came primarily from desperate people anxious and angry over their perception that their social and economic position was sinking and frustrated with the constant risk of chaos, uncertainty and inefficiency implicit in a modern democracy based on these principles. Fascism is the antithesis of democracy. We fought a war against it not half a century ago; millions perished as victims of fascism and champions of liberty. Fascism was forged in the crucible of post-World War I nationalism in Europe. The national aspirations of many European peoples -- nations without states, peoples arbitrarily assigned to political entities with little regard for custom or culture -- had been crushed after World War I. The humiliation imposed by the victors in the Great War, coupled with the hardship of the economic Depression, created bitterness and anger. That anger frequently found its outlet in an ideology that asserted not just the importance of the nation, but its unquestionable primacy and central predestined role in history. In identifying "goodness" and "superiority" with "us," there was a tendency to identify "evil" with "them." This process involves scapegoating and dehumanization. It was then an easy step to blame all societal problems on "them," and presuppose a conspiracy of these evil-doers which had emasculated and humiliated the idealized core group of the nation. To solve society's problems one need only unmask the conspirators and eliminate them.

    One element shared by all fascist movements, racialist or not, is the apparent lack of consistent political principle behind the ideology -- political opportunism in the most basic sense. One virtually unique aspect of fascism is its ruthless drive to attain and hold state power. On that road to power, fascists are willing to abandon any principle to adopt an issue more in vogue and more likely to gain converts. Fascists have historically used radical-sounding or populist appeals and adopted themes opportunistically from conservatism, socialism and the labor movement, and then mixed those themes with theories of nationalism and racial pride. Nazi, after all, is an abbreviated acronym of the National Socialist German Workers Party. As Matthew N. Lyons writes in his chapter in "Eyes Right! Challenging the Right Wing Backlash:"

    "Fascism's approach to politics is both populist -- in that it seeks to activate "the people" as a whole against perceived oppressors or enemies -- and elitist -- in that it treats the people's will as embodied in a select group, or often one supreme leader, from whom authority proceeds downward. Fascism seeks to organize a cadre-led mass movement in a drive to seize state power. It seeks to forcibly subordinate all spheres of society to its ideological vision of organic community, usually through a totalitarian state. Both as a movement and a regime, fascism uses mass organizations as a system of integration and control, and uses organized violence to suppress opposition, although the scale of violence varies widely."

    "Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism, yet it borrows concepts and practices from all three. Fascism rejects the principles of class struggle and workers' internationalism as threats to national or racial unity, yet it often exploits real grievances against capitalists and landowners through ethnic scapegoating or radical-sounding conspiracy theories. Fascism rejects the liberal doctrines of individual autonomy and rights, political pluralism, and representative government, yet it advocates broad popular participation in politics and may use parliamentary channels in its drive to power. Its vision of a "new order" clashes with the conservative attachment to tradition-based institutions and hierarchies, yet fascism often romanticizes the past as inspiration for national re-birth."

    "Fascism has a complex relationship with established elites and the non-fascist right. It is never a mere puppet of the ruling class, but an autonomous movement with its own social base. In practice, fascism defends capitalism against instability and the left, but also pursues an agenda that sometimes clashes with capitalist interests in significant ways. There has been much cooperation, competition, and interaction between fascism and other sections of the right, producing various hybrid movements and regimes."

    The underlying theories of racialist nationalism, fascism, and national socialism are not widely known in the United States. If they were, it is unlikely that anyone would be seduced by the right's idea of an alliance to smash the powerful corrupt center, based on an agenda critical of government policies. This concept has an unsavory historical track record.

  2. #2
    Guest
    guest
    May 31, 2003, 06:34 AM

    WAKE UP AMERICA!
    Zionists have basically hijacked the US government and are working in the interest of Zionist-extremism with an Israel first policy and not the USA. Even Frank Gaffney conveys in the JINSA message that he was acting in the best interests of Israel first (Americans need to wake-up to such before this Zionist-driven bush administration invades Iraq and potentially turns the middle east into turmoil in the process as they will be going after Iran and Syria after in accordance with what is mentioned in that JINSA agenda):
    Secret Identity
    May 31, 2003, 03:30 PM

    Who really rules America? Attack Iran the day Iraq war ends, demands Israel
    ________________________________________________


    ISRAEL'S Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has called on the international community to target Iran as soon as the imminent conflict with Iraq is complete. In an interview with The Times, Mr. Sharon insisted that Tehran "” one of the "axis of evil" powers identified by President Bush "” should be put under pressure "the day after" action against Baghdad ends because of its role as a "centre of world terror." He also issued his clearest warning yet that Israel would strike back if attacked by Iraqi chemical or biological weapons, no matter how much Washington sought to keep its controversial Middle Eastern ally out of any war in Iraq.

    He has made clear that western Iraq would be one of the first areas targeted by the U.S. in any invasion, saying that lessons had been learnt from strategic mistakes of the 1991 Gulf War when Iraq successfully fired 39 Scud missiles into Israel. Mr. Sharon, 74, was speaking as he conducted high-level negotiations to keep his Government afloat after the desertion of his centrist coalition partners.

    In other significant changes of tone and policy, Mr Sharon told The Times that: Yassir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, could have an ongoing role as a "symbol," but could not have a role overseeing financial or security functions. This was a departure from previous statements that Mr. Arafat was entirely "irrelevant." Mr. Sharon himself would continue to lead the country, elections willing, for up to 5 years. There had been widespread speculation that he would retire within 2 years. The Israeli Government is considering an unprecedented crackdown on the Islamic movement within its own borders, fearing that a "small minority" of Israeli Arabs are turning against the country. He has asserted that while Washington was inevitably focusing on Saddam Hussein "” whom he called "insane" "” the White House shared his concern that Iran was also seeking weapons of mass destruction, and developing missiles capable of striking Israel and even Europe. "I talked about these things with Vladimir Putin a few days ago and I have been to Washington and one of the things I talked about was what will be (sic) later, if Iraq is going to be disarmed. One of the things I mentioned is that the free world should take all the necessary steps to prevent irresponsible countries from having weapons of mass destruction: Iran, Iraq of course, and Libya is working on a nuclear weapon." He accused Tehran of sponsoring the Lebanese Shia militia, Hezbollah, which he claimed had up to 10,000 short-range missiles stationed in Lebanon ready to strike Israeli towns, of smuggling weapons to the Palestinian Authority, and of trying to turn Israel's one million Arab citizens against the Jewish state. "Iran is a centre of world terror and Iran makes every effort to possess weapons of mass destruction on the one hand and ballistic missiles," he said. "That is a danger to the Middle East, to Israel and a danger to Europe.

    "They are working now on a ballistic missile of 1,300km. They have almost reached this range already. They were talking in the past about 2,500km and even 5,000km." Mr. Sharon made it abundantly clear that he would not hold back from retaliating, as Israel did at Washington's behest in 1991, if his nation came under serious attack. "First, we understand the sensitivity. We are living here, we were born here. Israel will make every effort not to interfere," he said. But he warned: "If Israel, and I made it very clear, is attacked by weapons of mass destruction... Israel will react. Is it clear? I believe that they understand that Israel will not be able not to defend itself." Mr. Sharon reiterated that he was willing to work toward the eventual creation of a Palestinian state, but demanded that progress toward it be measured by concrete improvements in security on the ground.
    Chicago Guest
    May 31, 2003, 08:18 PM

    Some nice words were written on this thread before it was actually deleted, do you remember, gys?
    I remember
    June 01, 2003, 01:45 AM

    The roots of Isreal maliciousness go very deep...Friedrich Nietzsche, the great German philosopher, some of whose ideas were interpreted to be utilized by Hitler, described Jews as the truly great haters in world history.

    Human history would be altogether too stupid a thing without the spirit that the impotent Jew priests have introduced into it "” let us take at once the most notable example. All that has been done on earth against "the noble," "the powerful," "the masters," "the rulers," fades into nothing compared with what the Jews have done against them; the Jews, that priestly people, who in opposing their enemies and conquerors were ultimately satisfied with nothing less than a radical revaluation of their enemies' values, that is to say, an act of the most spiritual revenge. For this alone was appropriate to a priestly people, the people embodying the most deeply repressed [Zurückgetretensten] priestly vengefulness.

    It was the Jews who, with awe-inspiring consistency, dared to invert the aristocratic value-equation (good = noble = powerful = beautiful = happy = beloved of God) and to hang on to this inversion with their teeth, the teeth of the most abysmal hatred (the hatred of impotence), saying "the wretched alone are the good; the poor, impotent, lowly alone are the good; the suffering, deprived, sick, ugly alone are pious, alone are blessed by God, blessedness is for them alone "” and you, the powerful and noble, are on the contrary the evil, the cruel, the lustful, the insatiable, the godless to all eternity; and you shall be in all eternity the unblessed, accursed, and damned!" ... One knows who inherited this Jewish revaluation ... In connection with the tremendous and immeasurably fateful initiative provided by the Jews through this most fundamental of all declarations of war - with the Jews there began the slave revolt in morality: that revolt which has a history of 2000 (two thousand) years behind it and which we no longer see because it "” has been victorious.

    You do not comprehend this? You are incapable of seeing something that required 2000 years to achieve victory? "” There is nothing to wonder at in that: all protracted things are hard to see, to see whole. That, however, is what has happened: from the trunk of that tree of vengefulness and hatred, Jewish hatred "” the profoundest and sublimest kind of hatred, capable of creating ideals and reversing values, the like of which has never existed on earth before "” there grew something equally incomparable, a new love, the profoundest and sublimest kind of love "”and from what other trunk could it have grown?

    This Jesus of Nazareth, the incarnate gospel of love, this "Redeemer" who brought blessedness and victory to the poor, the sick, and the sinners "” was he not this seduction in its most uncanny and irresistible form, a seduction and by-path to precisely those Jewish values and new ideals? Did Israel not attain the ultimate goal of its sublime vengefulness precisely through the by-path of this "Redeemer," this ostensible opponent and disintegrator of Israel? Was it not part of the secret black art of truly grand politics of revenge, of a farseeing, subterranean, slowly advancing, and premeditated revenge, that Israel must itself deny the real instrument of its revenge before all the world as a mortal enemy and nail it to the cross, so that "all the world," namely all the opponents of Israel, could unhesitatingly swallow just this bait? And could spiritual subtlety imagine any more dangerous bait than this? Anything to equal the enticing, intoxicating, overwhelming, and undermining power of that symbol of the "holy cross," that ghastly paradox of a "God on the cross," that mystery of an unimaginable ultimate cruelty and self-crucifixion of God for the salvation of man?

    What is certain, at least, is that 'sub hoc signo' [under this sign] Israel, with its vengefulness and revaluation of all values, has hitherto triumphed again and again over all other ideals, over all nobler ideals.
    genuine
    June 01, 2003, 07:17 AM

    During the reign of the emperor Nero, St. Peter was leaving Rome along the Appian Way (Via Appia Antica) when he encountered Christ carrying his cross in the opposite direction (toward Rome).

    St. Peter said to Our Lord, "quo vadis, Domine?" -- that is -- "whither goest thou, O Lord?"

    To which Jesus responded, "I am going to Rome to be crucified."

    To which St. Peter responded: "Lord, wast Thou not crucified once for all."

    Our Lord responded, "I saw thee fleeing from death, and I wish to be crucified instead of thee."

    Peter responded: "Lord, I go; I fulfil Thy command.

    Jesus then said to him, "Fear not, for am with thee."

    At that, St. Peter turned back toward Rome, where he eventually received the crown of martyrdom.


    Inciting in peoples' minds to think of voluntary martyrdom as a virtue is by far the most effective and feasible way to impose long-lasting victory upon seemingly undestrictable power. Wasn't something similar to this strategy employed by Jews to bring about the fall of the Roman Empire?
    genuine
    June 01, 2003, 07:19 AM

    Nietzsche's "Genealogy of Morals"
    ________________________________________________


    "Rome Against Judea, Judea Against Rome." Rome felt that the Jews were something contrary to nature itself, something like its monstrous polar opposite. In Rome the Jew was considered "guilty of hatred again the entire human race." And that view may be correct, to the extent we are right to link the health and the future of the human race to the unconditional rule of aristocratic values, the Roman values. The Romans were the strong and noble men, stronger and nobler than any people who'd lived on earth up until then"”or even than any people who'd ever been dreamed up. By contrast, the Jews were 'par excellence' that priestly people of resentment who possessed an unparalleled genius for popular morality.

    Well, people have become merely tame or want to become tame "” in front of three Jews, as we know, and one Jewess (before Jesus of Nazareth, the fisherman Peter, the carpet worker Paul, and the mother of the first-mentioned Jesus, named Mary). Now, this is very remarkable: without doubt Rome has been conquered. It's true that in the Renaissance there was a brilliant, incredible re-awakening of the classical ideal, the noble way of evaluating everything. Rome itself behaved like someone who'd woken up from a coma induced by the pressure of the new Jewish Rome built over it, which looked like an ecumenical synagogue and was called "the church." But immediately Judea triumphed again, thanks to that basically vulgar (German and English) movement of resentment, which we call the Reformation, together with what had to follow as a consequence, the re-establishment of the church, as well as the re-establishment of the old grave-like tranquillity of classical Rome.

    In what is an even more decisive and deeper sense, Judea once again was victorious over the classical ideal at the time of the French Revolution. The last political nobility which we had in Europe, in 17th and 18th century France, broke apart under the instinct of popular resentment "” never on earth has there ever been heard a greater rejoicing, a noisier enthusiasm! It's true that in the midst of all this the most dreadful and most unexpected events took place: the old ideal itself stepped physically and with unheard of splendour before the eyes and the conscience of humanity "” and once again stronger, simpler, and more urgently than ever rang out, in opposition to the old lie, to the slogan of resentment about the privileged rights of the majority, in opposition to that will for a low condition, abasement, equality, for the decline and extinguishing of mankind "” in opposition to all that there rang out a fearsome and delightful counter-slogan about the privileged rights of the few! As a last signpost to a different road Napoleon appeared, the most singular and late-born man there ever was, and in him the problem of the inherently noble ideal was made flesh. We might well think about what sort of a problem that is: Napoleon, this synthesis of the inhuman and the superhuman . . .
    Since Day 1
    June 01, 2003, 07:34 AM

    One would be delighted to make a connection at this point, I think...The end of the 18th century was a time of great change -- specifically the United States was born and the French aristocracy was overthrown and destroyed. Both of these events occured as a result of revolution. Both the American and French revolution were quite similiar in their ideology and mission. Just how similiar and intertwined is for you to find out! They shared many of the same ideologies. Each was a revolt based upon more personal freedom and representation within the Government...

    On the other hand, we sure have heard of Zionism. You know, those conspirational theories that supposedly the Zionists have basically hijacked the US government and are working in the interest of Zionist-extremism with an Israel-first policy and not the USA. These hypothesis aside, I would throw at large the idea that the Zionists didn't have to hijack at all the U.S. goverment, since it may have been "hijacked" from the very beginning...
    Law&Order
    June 01, 2003, 07:46 AM

    EXACTLY
    ________

    America is not ruled by a majority, it's ruled by a white, aspiring-to-be-middle-class Christian minority, by those Bible-belt hysterics that hope their imaginary God has kinda "blessed" them to be forever in top of a supposedly invincible country called U'S of A!
    Axiom 3
    June 01, 2003, 08:06 AM

    America is moving toward a Nazi form of totalitarianism.
    ________________________________________________

    It has been doing this for decades. It has been doing so gradually, by default, and for the most part unknowingly, but it is doing so systematically and without significant opposition. For many decades now Christian conservatives have been relentlessly preaching that secularism has caused America's decay and therefore its salvation lies in the fostering of faith in God, religious morality, and family values. Unknowingly, they've been propagating sentiments that ominously parallel Adolf Hitler's.

    As a means to manipulate others and gain total control of Germany, Hitler agreed with both his liberal peers who demanded state control of economics and the redistribution of men's income, as well as his conservative peers who demanded state control over men's intellect and bodies. In "Freethought Today," a newspaper published by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Richard E. Smith provides one of Hitler's many appeals to Christianity: During his February 1, 1933, radio speech, 'Proclamation to German People' Hitler began by saying 'the Almighty has withheld his blessing from our people' since the loss of World War I in November 1918. Beginning with the family, he went on to pledge a fostering of 'Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of racial and political life.' He went on to make a pious appeal (prayer) for God's blessing on the work.

    Often today, Mr. Smith writes, the word holocaust is used by those against abortion [i.e., Christian conservatives]. This of course conjures up images of the slaughter of Jews and others (one group frequently overlooked in the killing are atheists) during World War II. Adolf Hitler, in Mein Kampf, made plain his Catholic feelings on abortion. 'I'll put an end to the idea that a woman's body belongs to her...Nazi ideals demand that the practice of abortion shall be exterminated with strong hand.' Hitler sentenced so-called Aryan women who had abortions to hard labor after the first offense, to death after the second. (Some Christian conservatives suggest that a woman should be sentenced to death after her first abortion) Religious writers often claim that the cause of Nazism is the secularism or the scientific spirit of the modern world. This evades the facts that the Germans at the time, especially in Prussia, were one of the most religious peoples in Western Europe; that the Weimer Republic was a hot-bed of mystic cults, of which Nazism was one; and that Germany's largest and most devout religious group, the Lutherans, counted themselves among Hitler's staunchest followers.

    By upholding faith in God, religion and family as America's foundation, and using these ideals as the basis for certain actions, such as requiring prayer and allowing the posting of the Ten Commandments in certain public institutions, the Christian conservatives are helping to erode this country's essential foundation: the secularism of reason, egoism and individualism the primary values Hitler had to suffocate in order to gain dictatorial control of a nation and perpetrate his evils.
    Analyzing America In Detail
    June 02, 2003, 01:11 AM

    As the United States slides toward the 21st century, the major mass movements challenging the bipartisan status quo are not found on the left of the political spectrum, but on the right.

    It is easy to see the dangers to democracy posed by far right forces such as armed militias, neonazis, and racist skinheads. However, hard right forces such as dogmatic religious movements, regressive populism, and White racial nationalism also are attacking democratic values in our country. Antidemocratic sectors of the hard right are distinct from traditional conservatism and political libertarianism, although they share some common roots and branches.

    The best known sector of the hard right --dogmatic religious movements -- is often called the "Religious Right." It substantially dominates the Republican Party in at least 10 (and perhaps as many as 30) of the 50 states. As part of an aggressive grassroots campaign, these groups have targeted electoral races from school board's to state legislatures to campaigns for the US Senate and House of Representatives. This successful social movement politically mobilizes a traditionalist mass base from a growing pious constituency of evangelical, fundamentalist, charismatic, pentacostal, and orthodox churchgoers. The goal of many leaders of this ultra-conservative religious movement is imposing a narrow theological agenda on secular society. The predominantly Christian leadership envisions a religiously-based authoritarian society ; therefore we prefer to describe this movement as the "theocratic right." A theocrat is someone who supports a form of government where the actions of leaders are seen as sanctioned by God -- where the leaders claim they are carrying out God's will. The central threat to democracy posed by the theocratic right is not that its leaders are religious, or fundamentalist, or right wing -- but that they justify their political, legislative, and regulatory agenda as fulfilling God's plan.

    Along with the theocratic right, two other hard right political movements pose a grave threat to democracy : regressive populism, typified by diverse groups ranging from members of the John Birch Society out to members of the patriot and armed militia movements; and White racial nationalism, promoted by Pat Buchanan and his shadow, David Duke of Louisiana.

    Finally, there is the militant, overtly racist far right that includes the open White supremacists, Ku Klux Klan members, Christian Patriots, racist skinheads, neonazis, and right-wing revolutionaries. Although numerically smaller, the far right is a serious political factor in some rural areas, and its propaganda promoting violence reaches into major metropolitan centers where it encourages alienated young people to commit hate crimes against people of color, Jews, and gays/lesbians, among other targets. The electoral efforts of Buchanan and Duke serve as a bridge between the ultra-conservative hard right and these far right movements. The armed milita movement is a confluence of regressive populism, White racial nationalism, and the racist and antisemitic far right.

    All four of these hard right activist movements are antidemocratic in nature, promoting in various combinations and to varying degrees authoritarianism, xenophobia, conspiracy theories, nativism, racism, sexism, homophobia, antisemitism, demagoguery, and scapegoating. Each wing of the antidemocratic right has a slightly different vision of the ideal nation. The theocratic right's ideal is an authoritarian society where Christian men interpret God's will as law. Women are help-mates, and children are the property of their parents. Earth must submit to the dominion of those to whom God has granted power. People are basically sinful, and must be restrained by harsh punitive laws. Social problems are caused by Satanic conspiracies aided and abetted by liberals, homosexuals, feminists, and secular humanists. These forces must be exposed and neutralized. Newspaper columnist Cal Thomas, a long-standing activist in the theocratic right, recently suggested that churches and synagogues take over the welfare system "because these institutions would also deal with the hearts and souls of men and women." The churches "could reach root causes of poverty --a lack of personal responsibility," Thomas wrote, expressing a hardline Calvinist theology. "If government is always there to bail out people who have children out of wedlock, if there is no disincentive (like hunger) for doing for one's self, then large numbers of people will feel no need to get themselves together and behave responsibly."

    Of the hundreds of hard right groups, the most influential is the Christian Coalition led by televangelist and corporate mogul Pat Robertson. Because of Robertson's smooth style and easy access to power, most mainstream journalists routinely ignore his authoritarianism, bigotry, and paranoid dabbling in conspiracy theories. Robertson's gallery of conspirators parallels the roster of the John Birch Society, including the Freemasons, the Bavarian Illuminati, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Trilateral Commission. In Robertson's book The New World Order, he trumps the Birchers (their founder called Dwight Eisenhower a communist agent) by alluding to an anti-Christian conspiracy that supposedly began in ancient Babylon -- a theory that evokes historic anti-Jewish bigotry and resembles the notions of the fascist demagogue Lyndon LaRouche, who is routinely dismissed by the corporate media as a crackpot. Robertson's homophobia is profound. He is also a religious bigot who has repeatedly said that Hindus and Muslims are not morally qualified to hold government posts. "If anybody understood what Hindus really believe," says Robertson, "there would be no doubt that they have no business administering government policies in a country that favors freedom and equality." Robertson's embrace of authoritarian theocracy is equally robust:

    "There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world. How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?"
    Analyzing America In Detail
    June 02, 2003, 01:18 AM

    kulturkampf
    ______________


    At the heart of this Culture War, or kulturkampf, as Patrick Buchanan calls it, is a paranoid conspiratorial view of leftist secular humanism, dating to the turn of the century and dependent upon powerful but rarely stated presumptions of racial nationalism based on Eurocentric White supremacy, Christian theocracy, and subversive liberal treachery. The nativist right at the turn of the century first popularized the idea that there was a secular humanist conspiracy trying to steer the US from a God -centered society to a socialist, atheistic society. The idea was linked from its beginnings to an extreme fear of communism, conceptualized as a "red menace." The conspiracy became institutionalized in the American political scene and took on a metaphysical nature, according to analyst Frank Donner:

    "The root anti-subversive impulse was fed by the [Communist] Menace. Its power strengthened with the passage of time, by the late twenties its influence had become more pervasive and folkish....A slightly secularized version, widely shared in rural and small-town America, postulated a doomsday conflict between decent upright folk and radicalism--alien, satanic, immorality incarnate."

    This conspiratorial world view continued to animate the hard right. According to contemporary conspiratorial myth, liberal treachery in service of Godless secular humanism has been "dumbing down" schoolchildren with the help of the National Education Association to prepare the country for totalitarian rule under a "One World Government " and "New World Order." This became the source of an underlying theme of the armed militia movement. This nativist-Americanist branch of the hard right (or the pseudo-conservative, paranoid right, as Richard Hofstadter termed it in his classic essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" came to dominate the right wing of the Republican Party, and included Patrick Buchanan, Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, the Rockford Institute, David Noebel's Summit Ministries, and Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation and Institute for Cultural Conservatism. Of more historical importance are the John Birch Society, the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade, and Billy James Hargis' Christian Crusade, although the John Birch Society's membership doubled or tripled since the Gulf War in 1991 to over 40,000 members. Despite some overlap at the edges, reactionary hard right electoral activists should be distinguished from the extra-electoral right-wing survivalists, militia members, and armed White racists on their right, and from the Eastern establishment conservative branch of the right wing represented by George Bush on their left.

    The Culture War & Christian Theocracy
    _____________________________________

    Most analysts have looked at the Culture War and its foot soldiers in the traditional family values movement as displaying a constellation of discrete and topical beliefs. These include support for traditional, hierarchical sex roles and opposition to feminism, employed mothers, contraception, abortion, divorce, sex education, school-based health clinics, extramarital sex, and gay and lesbian sex, among other issues. Traditional values also include an antipathy toward secular humanism, communism, liberalism, utopianism, modernism, globalism, multiculturalism, and other systems believed to undermine US nationalism. Beliefs in individualism, hard work, self-sufficiency, thrift, and social mobility form a uniquely American component of the movement. Some traditional values seem derived more immediately from Christianity: opposition to Satanism, witchcraft, the New Age, and the occult (including meditation and Halloween depictions of witches). Less often discussed but no less integral to the movement are a disdain for the values of egalitarianism and democracy (derived from the movement's anti-modernist orientation), and support for Western European culture, private property, and laissez-faire capitalism.

    This orthodox view of the traditional values movement as an aggregate of many discrete values, however, is misleading, for it makes it appear that Judeo-Christian theism is simply one value among many. Rather, Judeo-Christian theism, and in particular Christianity, is THE CORE VALUE of the traditional values movement and the basis for the Crusades -- like tone of those in the hard right calling for the Culture War. Traditional values start from a recognition of the absolute, unchanging, hierarchical authority of God (as one commentator noted, "The Ten Commandments are not the Ten Suggestions") and move from there to a belief in hierarchical arrangements in the home and state.

    As Pat Robertson said at the Republican convention, "Since I have come to Houston, I have been asked repeatedly to define traditional values. I say very simply, to me and to most Republicans, traditional values start with faith in Almighty God." Robertson has also said, "When President Jimmy Carter called for a `Conference on Families,' many of us raised strenuous objections. To us, there was only one family, that ordained by the Bible, with husband, wife, and children."

    In part, the moral absolutism implicit in the Culture War derives from the heavy proportion of fundamentalist Christians in the traditional family values movement. Their belief in the literal existence of Satan leads to an apocalyptic tone: "The bottom line is that if you are not working for Jesus Christ, then you are working for someone else whose name is Satan. It is one or the other. There is no middle of the road." The hard right activist, as Richard Hofstadter noted, believes that all battles take place between forces of absolute good and absolute evil, and looks not to compromise but to crush the opposition.
    Analyzing America In Detail
    June 02, 2003, 01:26 AM

    The most extreme position in the Culture War is held by Christian Reconstructionists who seek the imposition of Biblical law throughout the United States. Other hard right activists, while less open or draconian, share an implicitly theocratic goal. While it denies any desire to impose a theocracy, the Center for Cultural Conservatism, which defines cultural conservatism as the "necessary, unbreakable, and causal relationship between traditional Western, Judeo-Christian values...and the secular success of Western societies," breaks with conservative tradition to call upon government to play an active role in upholding the traditional culture which they see as rooted in specific theological values.

    The Culture War & White Supremacy
    _________________________________

    The theory of widespread secular subversion spread by proponents of the Culture War was from the beginning a deeply racialized issue that supported the supremacy of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. To the nativist right, in the 1920s as well as now, the synthesis of traditional values constituted "Americanism," and opponents of this particular constellation of views represented dangerous, un-American forces. As John Higham argued in Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism 1860-1925, subversion has always been identified with foreigners and anti-Americanism in the United States, and particularly with Jews and people of color. In the 1920s, subversion was linked to Jews, and the immigration of people of color was opposed in part because they were seen as easy targets for manipulation by Jews. While antisemitism was never the primary ingredient in anti-radical nativism, the radical Jew was nevertheless a powerful stereotype in the "communist menace" movement. For example, some members of the coercive immigrant "Americanization" movement adopted the startling slogan, "Christianization and Americanization are one and the same thing."

    Virtually any movement to advance racial justice in the US was branded by the reactionary right as a manifestation of the secular humanist conspiracy. The National Education Association's bibliography of "Negro author s," foundation support for "Black revolutionaries," and the enlistment of Gunnar Myrdal as an expert on the "American Negro" were all framed in this way. Similarly, the African American civil rights movement was from its beginning identified by the right wing as part of the secular humanist plot to impose communism on the United States. In 1966, David Noebel (then of Billy James Hargis ' Christian Crusade, now head of the influential Summit Ministries ) argued, "Anyone who will dig into the facts of the Communist involvement in the 'civil rights' strife will come to the conclusion that these forces have no stopping point short of complete destruction of the American way of life." (In the preface, Noebel thanks Dr. R. P. Oliver, who is now perhaps best known as a director of the Institute for Historical Review, which denies that the Holocaust took place.)

    In 1992, the civil rights movement was still seen in this light, as the rightist Catholic magazine Fidelity makes clear:

    "It is no coincidence that the civil rights movement in the United States preceded the largest push for sexual liberation this country had seen since its inception....The Negro was the catalyst for the overturning of European values, which is to say, the most effective enculturation of Christianity."

    "The civil rights movement was nothing more than the culmination of an attempt to transform the Negro into a paradigm of sexual liberation that had been the pet project of the cultural revolutionaries since the 1920s."

    The identification of sexual licentiousness and "primitive" music with subversion and people of color is an essential part of the secular humanist conspiracy theory, and one that has been remarkably consistent over time. The current attacks on rap music take place within this context. In 1966, David Noebel argued that the communist conspiracy ("the most cunning, diabolical conspiracy in the annals of human history ") was using rock music, with its savage, tribal, orgiastic beat, to destroy "our youths' ability to relax, reflect, study and meditate" and to prepare them "for riot, civil disobedience and revolution." 20 years later, these views were repeated practically verbatim by Allan Bloom, who wrote that rock music, with its "barbaric appeal to sexual desire," "ruins the imagination of young people and makes it very difficult for them to have a passionate relationship to the arts and thought that are the substance of liberal education." The hard right's attack on multiculturalism derives its strength from the right's absolutism, as well as from its White racial nationalism. Samuel Blumenfeld was among the first to attack multiculturalism as a new form of secular humanism's values relativism, writing in 1986 that multiculturalism legitimized different lifestyles and values systems, thereby legitimizing a moral diversity that "directly contradicts the Biblical concept of moral absolutes on which this nation was founded." Patrick Buchanan bases his opposition to multiculturalism on White racial nationalism. In one article, "Immigration Reform or Racial Purity?," Buchanan himself was quite clear:

    "The burning issue here has almost nothing to do with economics, almost everything to do with race and ethnicity. If British subjects, fleeing a depression, were pouring into this country through Canada, there would be few alarms."

    "The central objection to the present flood of illegals is they are not English-speaking white people from Western Europe; they are Spanish-speaking brown and black people from Mexico, Latin America and the Caribbean."

    Buchanan explicitly links the issue of non-White immigration with multiculturalism, quoting with approval the xenophobic and racist American Immigration Control Foundation, which said, "The combined forces of open immigration and multi-culturalism constitute a mortal threat to American civilization. The US is receiving a never-ending mass immigration of non-Western peoples, leading inexorably to white-minority status in the coming decades [while] a race-based cultural-diversity is attacking, with almost effortless success, the legitimacy of our Western culture." The Free Congress Foundation's Center for Cultural Conservatism disavows any racial nationalist intent while bluntly arguing that all non-White cultures are inferior to traditional Western cultures.
    Analyzing America In Detail
    June 02, 2003, 01:34 AM

    Fascism as a Form of Right Wing Populism
    ________________________________________

    The European fascist movements in the 1930's flourished in a period of economic collapse, political turmoil, and social crisis.

    "Fascism, which was not afraid to call itself reactionary. . .does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal."
    --Benito Mussolini

    "If fascism came to America, it would be on a program of Americanism."
    --Huey P. Long

    "Fascism is reaction," said Mussolini, but reaction to what? The reactionary movement following World War I was based on a rejection of the social theories that formed the basis of the 1789 French Revolution, and whose early formulations in this country had a major influence on our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. It was Rousseau who is best known for crystallizing these modern social theories in. The progeny of these theories are sometimes called Modernism or Modernity because they challenged social theories generally accepted since the days of Machiavelli. The response to the French Revolution and Rousseau, by Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche and others, poured into an intellectual stew which served up Marxism, socialism, national socialism, fascism, modern liberalism, modern conservatism, communism, and a variety of forms of capitalist participatory democracy.

    Fascists particularly loathed the social theories of the French Revolution and its slogan: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." Liberty from oppressive government intervention in the daily lives of its citizens, from illicit searches and seizures, from enforced religious values, from intimidation and arrest for dissenters; and liberty to cast a vote in a system in which the majority ruled but the minority retained certain inalienable rights.
    Equality in the sense of civic equality, egalitarianism, the notion that while people differ, they all should stand equal in the eyes of the law. Fraternity in the sense of the brotherhood of mankind. That all women and men, the old and the young, the infirm and the healthy, the rich and the poor, share a spark of humanity that must be cherished on a level above that of the law, and that binds us all together in a manner that continuously re-affirms and celebrates life.

    This is what fascism as an ideology was reacting against -- and its support came primarily from desperate people anxious and angry over their perception that their social and economic position was sinking and frustrated with the constant risk of chaos, uncertainty and inefficiency implicit in a modern democracy based on these principles. Fascism is the antithesis of democracy. We fought a war against it not half a century ago; millions perished as victims of fascism and champions of liberty. Fascism was forged in the crucible of post-World War I nationalism in Europe. The national aspirations of many European peoples -- nations without states, peoples arbitrarily assigned to political entities with little regard for custom or culture -- had been crushed after World War I. The humiliation imposed by the victors in the Great War, coupled with the hardship of the economic Depression, created bitterness and anger. That anger frequently found its outlet in an ideology that asserted not just the importance of the nation, but its unquestionable primacy and central predestined role in history. In identifying "goodness" and "superiority" with "us," there was a tendency to identify "evil" with "them." This process involves scapegoating and dehumanization. It was then an easy step to blame all societal problems on "them," and presuppose a conspiracy of these evil-doers which had emasculated and humiliated the idealized core group of the nation. To solve society's problems one need only unmask the conspirators and eliminate them.

    One element shared by all fascist movements, racialist or not, is the apparent lack of consistent political principle behind the ideology -- political opportunism in the most basic sense. One virtually unique aspect of fascism is its ruthless drive to attain and hold state power. On that road to power, fascists are willing to abandon any principle to adopt an issue more in vogue and more likely to gain converts. Fascists have historically used radical-sounding or populist appeals and adopted themes opportunistically from conservatism, socialism and the labor movement, and then mixed those themes with theories of nationalism and racial pride. Nazi, after all, is an abbreviated acronym of the National Socialist German Workers Party. As Matthew N. Lyons writes in his chapter in "Eyes Right! Challenging the Right Wing Backlash:"

    "Fascism's approach to politics is both populist -- in that it seeks to activate "the people" as a whole against perceived oppressors or enemies -- and elitist -- in that it treats the people's will as embodied in a select group, or often one supreme leader, from whom authority proceeds downward. Fascism seeks to organize a cadre-led mass movement in a drive to seize state power. It seeks to forcibly subordinate all spheres of society to its ideological vision of organic community, usually through a totalitarian state. Both as a movement and a regime, fascism uses mass organizations as a system of integration and control, and uses organized violence to suppress opposition, although the scale of violence varies widely."

    "Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism, yet it borrows concepts and practices from all three. Fascism rejects the principles of class struggle and workers' internationalism as threats to national or racial unity, yet it often exploits real grievances against capitalists and landowners through ethnic scapegoating or radical-sounding conspiracy theories. Fascism rejects the liberal doctrines of individual autonomy and rights, political pluralism, and representative government, yet it advocates broad popular participation in politics and may use parliamentary channels in its drive to power. Its vision of a "new order" clashes with the conservative attachment to tradition-based institutions and hierarchies, yet fascism often romanticizes the past as inspiration for national re-birth."

    "Fascism has a complex relationship with established elites and the non-fascist right. It is never a mere puppet of the ruling class, but an autonomous movement with its own social base. In practice, fascism defends capitalism against instability and the left, but also pursues an agenda that sometimes clashes with capitalist interests in significant ways. There has been much cooperation, competition, and interaction between fascism and other sections of the right, producing various hybrid movements and regimes."

    The underlying theories of racialist nationalism, fascism, and national socialism are not widely known in the United States. If they were, it is unlikely that anyone would be seduced by the right's idea of an alliance to smash the powerful corrupt center, based on an agenda critical of government policies. This concept has an unsavory historical track record.

  3. #3
    Guest
    I BELIEVE IT: AMERICA IS BECOMING A NAZI STATE!

  4. #4
    Guest
    Q. Why did you decide to bring the word "fascism" into the debate about American empire?
    I felt there was a new global political development that needed to be named, and I began thinking in the context of what I call "global fascism," which is something different from the traditional forms of fascism that have existed. The effect of that was to suggest that resistance to this new global development in the United States poses a second kind of danger that is more in keeping with traditional understandings of fascism.

    Q. Can you tell us your definition of traditional fascism?
    Yes: the convergence of military and economic power on behalf of an ultranationalist ideology that views its enemies - internally and externally - as evil and subject to extermination or extreme punishment.

    Q. Is the US the only player?
    No, it's not the only player, though it's certainly the dominant player. It's setting the rules for the other players. You've noticed in recent days that there's been a kind of reward given to those that lined up behind the war against Iraq - visits to the White House honoring and giving prestige to these countries in Eastern Europe, and to Spain and Australia, and the marked avoidance of the countries that didn't cooperate. It's a kind of geopolitical disciplining, an attempt to impose costs and benefits for following this path of global regulation and order.

    Q. What should we be looking for as an early warning of a slide toward fascism?
    A disillusionment with representative democracy as a path to change. For example, if the Democratic Party in the United States doesn't elect a candidate who will challenge these policies, I think it would lead an increasing number of people to become disenchanted with normal politics and be more inclined to feel that the only way change can come about is by more extreme political tactics, which in turn would lead the government to feel justified in expanding its powers of control over the citizenry.

    Q. What relationship do you see between the economic globalization of the past decade and this emerging possibility of global fascism?
    Well, I think there is some linkage between the two. Economic globalization did create this sense of an integrated global order, and that this degree of integration could be achieved by economic means. What has changed - partly through the change in leadership in the United States, and accelerated by the response to September 11 - is that the trend towards integration and control has been decisively militarized and ideologized.

    Q. In some respects, the new militarization seems to be a reaction against globalization.
    That was always part of the debate - how multilateral globalization was. Part of the debate was also whether the nation-states - including the most powerful countries - were themselves losing their freedom to maneuver to these market forces, and that the source of power was more in the world economic forum and in the financial markets than in the capital cities of the nation-states. Now there's a new ascendency of the security agenda, which means that the state has revived its control over politics.

    Q. Is the language being used by the current American leadership consistent with historical fascism? In many ways, the language is very careful. No one today has the bluntness of a Hitler or a Mussolini.
    I think the discourse of terrorism is very much the kind of language that seeks to validate extreme forms of violence and a war mentality, and it is reinforced by this ultranational sentiment. The language has shifted in Orwellian directions, where the search for peace becomes perpetual war. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that if this fascist threat exists, it exists in a distinctive form both in the United States and in the world, and that it is conditioned by the American political culture - which is resistant to the language of fascism. Certainly the people who are the architects of these policies would reject my analysis, and probably sincerely so. They think they're doing something else: it will all be done in the name of democratization. It's a very deceptive and confusing style of political domination, because it pretends to be the opposite of what it is.

    There is an ambiguity, because this is a concealed fascism that is occurring within the framework of a constitutional democracy. There is still at least the formal possibility that change can come about through the normal forms of political opposition. It doesn't seem likely at the moment, but it can't be ruled out. My whole argument is in a sense a preventive one, because I'm not suggesting that this kind of fascism currently exists, only that the trends and the policies suggest the importance of preventing it from existing.

    Q. Do you consider what you're seeing to be a less frightening form of fascism than we've seen in the past 100 years?
    Well, it's hard to compare. For instance, Spanish-Franco and Portuguese-Salazar forms of fascism were less terrifying in their effects than Nazism. Today, the special concern is associated partly with the stakes being raised much higher by the weapons of mass destruction. The technology of violence has become much worse, so that if this form of fascism was to result in a major confrontation, it could lead to worse forms of warfare than were experienced in the 20th century. The other concern is that it is global in scope, which has never existed before, and which one needs to understand was a part of the structure prior to the Bush administration and prior to September 11. The whole effort of the US to militarize space and to establish a system of military bases around the world, with no strategic enemy, and its unwillingness to even consider nuclear disarmament - all of those factors do indicate the presence of a kind of global-dominance project.

    Q. If we are confronting fascism, what do we know from history about resisting it?
    It's difficult. (Laughter.) It's very difficult, because the methods and the mentality of those who are controlling and developing this kind of politics of domination are such that they have no willingness to accommodate their adversaries. So there's no room for politics, in a way. And that makes it . . . it almost certainly drives the conflict toward a collision of extremes.

    Richard Falk is a visiting professor of global studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and a professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University. Falk was interviewed by James MacKinnon.



    http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/48...f_fascism.html

  5. #5
    Guest
    Folks,

    Here are a few people that have WAY too much time on their hands. I think they should spend less time typing, and more time securing their homes.

    I think I hear tanks coming down the street...and black helicopters. Look out. Run, run and lock your doors, they're coming for you.

  6. #6
    Guest
    Of course they're not coming...they've been here all the time...

  7. #7
    Guest
    America is not going to understand it has become nazi by the time it'll have become so.

  8. #8
    Guest
    Hey mutha****as...why don't you post anything here...I was waiting to read more on this!

  9. #9
    Guest
    Delete this thread!

  10. #10

Similar Threads

  1. DEPO MAN WAKE UP
    By Michael in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-01-2005, 10:38 PM
  2. Replies: 68
    Last Post: 03-18-2004, 08:58 PM
  3. Replies: 97
    Last Post: 09-03-2003, 12:15 AM
  4. a wake up call
    By in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-27-2003, 08:25 AM
  5. Congress ...wake up..!!!!
    By in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-27-2002, 12:50 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: