I missed it. I hope I can get an MP3 somewhere. By the way, Hugh mentioned a post on radioblogger.com about Donald Trump taking on the UN and their renovation project, before a Senate hearing. I downloaded it and it is hilarious. He basically calls them a bunch of fools who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. It is about 20 minutes long and is well worth it.
I'm having trouble understanding how this guy would get through his screening process for a sit down full bore interview. Hewitt obviously prepares, and wouldn't take a chance on an unknown. Seems strange to me that Hewitt wouldn't be able to hold his own. He does well with everyone else. I'll have to look for an archive of the show.
Matt,
Was I hearing things or did Aloush saying that Tancredo statements were basically equal to Osama bin laden(deeds)?
I don't know but that was the scariest interview I have ever heard. I did not trust a word Aloush was saying. Yikes!
MaryG
I'm pretty disgusted with Hugh over this whole Tancredo deal. It's from a perspective that anyone who doesn't agree that Islam isn't the problem is called crazy. They are ignorant and naive. I believe Hugh is naive on this. As soon as I heard the man was from CAIR I knew we were in for a hosing. And boy did he deliver. I loved it though when Yoni came on and told Hugh the guy was a fraud. Just the point he made on the Mosques in the US not teaching hate was almost hilarious. I think it was Barb who called in and was great about the American public quickly losing patience with Muslims. I'm almost past that point. Good post Matt.
I catch his program Tuesday through Friday between 1630 & 1800 Pacific time. Sorry I missed it. I have wondered from time to time lately if his eye was locked on and tracking the ball.
You nailed it - I was driving home and was ready to email Hugh a "You've Been Had" message as soon as I got home.
Hugh is so well informed that I just couldn't believe that he was so dreadfully unprepared. Listening to the the guy from CAIR fire off lie after lie with no response was disheartening - especially since the lies were trivially easy to expose.
Hillbillies advocating nuking muslims... This sounds reminiscent of your post several days ago on the Tancredo "option".
I'm working on creating an MP3 and I've been raking Hugh over the coals at my blog all day. I missed the first 10 minutes or so of the show and I'm working on deleting the commercials. On my site, leave a comment/trackback if you want a copy.
I just finished listening to the West Coast delay of Hugh's show, and when the segments in question ended I kept thinking of Pickett at Gettysburg at day's end. Hewitt (who I think is wrong on this issue anyway, failing to see the threat Islam expansionism represents) will have trouble sitting down comfortably for some time...at least until his new anus gets broken in...
Interesting. Hugh is usually quite perceptive.
Great post Matt! i had a chance to listen to the show on my way home from work. I was dumbfounded why Hugh would have a terrorist apologizer on his show. As each day goes by, more and more innocent citizens of the world get bombed by islamo-facists. I've had enough of their double talk and treachery. I liked Hugh's question to his guest about " does Israel have the right to exsist?" . It was a simple yes or no question, but the guy just had to add a bunch of qualifiers to it and wouldn't say yes. A caller named Mary from Cleveland also nailed the guest with three separate question. Great post.
Powder Blue Report
Hugh say: not one has yet quoted any military officer of field rank or greater --active duty or retired--or any elected federal official except Congressman Tancredo who has even given lip service to the idea. That's because there are none.
For him to come to that latter conclusion would mean that he must have access to classified military plans. But if he did, it would be a violation of the law to say that such plans didn't exist. Therefore we know that Hugh is just giving his opinion, like Tancredo. And it is based on even less information.
What makes me know that Hugh is just flying by the seat of his pants is that he actually expects some major to come out and confirm what Tancredo guessed. That's just not how it's done. (And, yes, I've handled classifed information before.)
Now I'm not usually the spelling fairy, but Hugh says, in a post laden with misspellings: "When everyone says your drunk, you'd better sit down."
He needs to take his own advice.
And, of course I left some misspellings in my own post, but I'm already sitting down. 
Guys, I live where Hewitt broadcasts and I've been a consistent listener to his show since 9/11. Hewitt is nothing but a hack for the GOP Establishment -- an eloquent, sophisticated hack, but a hack nonetheless. During the California recall election, Hewitt was the leading shill for Schwarzenegger at the expense of a more qualified conservative named Tom McClintock (who "couldn't win," pontificated Hewitt). Why was Hewitt willing to spread his legs so wide for Ahnolt? Because he thought Ahnolt could help Bush carry California in 2004 (he didn't) and could help increase GOP registration in the state.
I walked precincts for McClintock for three days. I can't tell you the number of times I heard people say that they thought McClintock was the better man but he "couldn't win," so they were voting for Ahnolt.
What does this have to do with Tancredo? Simple. Hewitt wants to get out in front of Tancredo to reduce the amount of embarassment the GOP has to face.
But his willingness to become the Grover Nordquist of the West Coast is inexcusable. It's naivete and stupidity on the par of Sean Penn visiting Baghdad and writing on what the Iraqis think for the S.F. Chronicle.
I only heard bits and pieces but got to hear Lileks at around 5:30. Sounded like Hugh got taken for a little ride. The screeners definitely did not do their job. At least we didn't have to listen to Mr Hopper (CAIR representative) again.
BTW, you're right. Radioblogger has no transcript of the interview as of 9:22 p.m. PT.
Wonder why?
Joe,
I think "GOP hack" is a little bit unfair. Hell, I'm a GOP hack. I voted for Ahnolt too. Was McClintock a conservative with impeccable creds? Oh yeah. He didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever winning. The CA GOP has been putting forward strong conservatives in a blue state for 10 years and they have been getting their asses kicked.
Is Hugh flacking for the GOP? I'm not so sure. He mistakenly believes that the threat of nuking mecca is somehow going to further radicalize muslims like say for instance... Iraq. They are already radical enough and need to be destroyed in their home countries.
I told him and I'll tell you what his problem is on this issue. He is imputing hateful motivations on people that disagree with him about Tancredo. I agree with him that nuking mecca achieves nothing just like threatening to do it deters nothing. But I believe that people WANT TO BELIEVE that this threat will deter these psychos. It won't but it would be nice if it did. People are fearful and weary and want to hang onto something that might work to end all of this warfare. Killing thousands of heathen on the battlefield is the only way to end this. There are no easy answers.
Froggy, McClintock had a better chance than the GOP Establishment wanted to believe because the field was so fractured (Heck, many Democrats wouldn't support Davis, and Bustamante was as inspiring as Jell-o). Hewitt and his Establishment buds (cf, Dreier) supported Der Dummkopfator because they wanted to believe that his movie persona was his actual personality -- like many California voters -- and they thought D.D. would be an easy means to wrest control of the state from the Dumocrats. In short, it was all about short-range party tactics, not what was good for the state or its citizens.
Besides, Der Dummkopfator was the front man for well-heeled California business interests who are beholden to the GOP Establishment (or is it vice versa)?
Anyway, what did we get? A governor who had no idea what he was doing, who needs ballot initiative to rectify his public-relations mistakes and missteps with the Legislature, who (along with the Legislature) exacerbates an already dire fiscal situation in this state.
Thank you, Hugh Hewitt, GOP hack and Der Dummkopfator's personal whore.
Duly noted. Thanks for sharing.
You're quite welcome. Thanks for the opportunity.
Hey guys, Hugh is a JAG kind of guy; you know one of those guys who has this funny epaulet that nobody can sort of figure out until somebody else draws it out for you on a knapkin in the O Club. His heart is in the right place, and I do believe that given the incentive he would be ferocious. He got had for sure, but it was "instructive". I want him on our side, but I'm sure he is already to be sure. Regards Keith
Everyone seems to think Hugh got had. Well, he doesn't have a research team? He doesn't have a search engine? The point isn't whether or not you agree with Tancredo's statements/answers, but why you would rebut them with CAIR.? It took only seconds for me to google pro terror/hamas statements from cair. What's with Hugh?
I thought Lileks' comments about the CAIR spokesman's dissembling about Israel, and about the show in general near the end sort of rescued today's broadcast by the short hairs. But you had to be listening to a big chunk of the show to hear it all in context. Those just picking up 15 or 20 minutes randomly while driving in their cars had to be wondering just what in the Wide, Wide World of Sports was going on today.
Man, the CAIR guy ate Hugh's lunch. What was that all about. How disappointing to get punked so badly.
Paul Sperry referred to Dr. Jack "Weaver" (Wheeler) in reference to the "Nuke Mecca" option. Dr. Wheeler's article from earlier this year is titled GEORGE BUSH AND THE SWORD OF DAMOCLES: Why There Hasn’t Been Another 9-11. The website is www.tothepointnews.com.
Hope Hugh rallies tomorrow.
Hey, you misspelled Lakawanna it is spelled: Lackawanna.
Sorry, but it is my favorite word, so I hate to see it misspelled.
"I told him and I'll tell you what his problem is on this issue. He is imputing hateful motivations on people that disagree with him about Tancredo. I agree with him that nuking mecca achieves nothing just like threatening to do it deters nothing. But I believe that people WANT TO BELIEVE that this threat will deter these psychos."
Such a threat would most likely will not deter the psychos, but it might make the so-called "moderate muslims" wake up and start changing things if they think we are serious about bombing Mecca if they can't keep a lid on things.
It would force those so-called moderates choose between thier Holy City or their Terrorists. Call it a litmus test.
I've been a listener of the Hugh Hewitt show for years, but I had to turn it off last night and don't know if I'll turn it on again. As far as I'm concerned CAIR is the voice of the enemy, and Mr. Hewitt allowed them to spread their propaganda.
Tancredo is a loyal, honorable American, and I resent Mr. Hewitt using an organization of terrorist sympathizers to attack him.
We're at war, Mr. Hewitt should be more careful on who he brings on his show. Last night's show was a disgrace.
Hugh is not a shill for the GOP. I believe HH operates from a pragmatic belief to win seats. Do I always agree with him, no. Sometimes a person just has to vote without taking into consideration the pragmatic approach. But if I would have voted for George Bush I instead of whats his name from TX Bill Clinton may not have been elected initially. To vote for GBI would have been the pragmatic approach. I didn't like HH's diehard pro-Spector stance in the 2004 primary in Pennsyvania vs. Toomey who was a truer conservative. I still think Hugh is one of the best out there. He's got the more regular guests than any host out there. When he interviews someone he will actually let them talk. Not that I like all of his interviews.
Hugh has good reasons for taking on Tancredo. You may not agree with his reasons, but he is trying to do the right thing, even if he is wrong.
First, conservativs from SoCal and the Southwest may not understand how Tancredo plays in the rest of the country.
People in places like Ohio and Minnesota don't care about issues like illegal immigration. They're against it , becuase it is illegal, but it is #1,381 on thier list of priorities. No one in Columbus, OH votes on immigration, no one gets particularly excited about it, and it just doesn't matter much outside of CA, AZ, and TX. To these people, Tancredo sounds like a racist lunatic. The comments about nuking Mecca just add to his neandrathal image.
The same is true for other local figures like Bob Dornan. Dornan was a powerful and popular congressman in Orange County before he was redistricted out, but he literally could not get elected dog catcher in a place like New Jersey and Maryland.
Now, those of us who do live in the southwest understand that opposition to immigration is a genuine response to a real problem, not just race-baiting. But people in Ohio just do not understand this.
Also, I'll say this, even though most here will probably not agree with it. While most people opposed to illegal immigration -- including me -- aren't racist, I do believe that there is a racist undercurrent to the whole movement. There is something very wrong about the Minutemen and their practice of pointing guns at people who are risking their lives for a job at a car wash. There is nothing wrong with the Minutemen's goals, but it is just wrong to point a gun at some guy who just trying to get accross the border to provide for his family.
Anyway, Hugh's radio program has a national audience and he understands that not everyone views issues like illegal immigration in the same way. He thinks that people like Tancredo will hurt the national image of the GOP.
I don't always agree with him and think that sometimes he is too eagar to parrot conventional GOP wisdom. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with conventional wisdom, but it is sometimes inaccurate. In this case, though, Hugh is right. He may be saying something that conservatives from the southwest don't want to hear, but he is right.
GOOD on you. Hugh is so sharp, when he's sharp -- I was just astonished that he could get so easily rolled by this smooth, sharp shill. It was embarrassing. He's been following this so well... how could he NOT know that, everytime Islamicists do something evil, CAIR is there to defend them, and everytime we try to press the fight back against them, or even if a show or movie mentions the fact that Moslems have killed a few (thousand) people with great glee, CAIR is there to whine and moan and complain.
About his worst day I've ever seen.
Dan
GOOD on you. Hugh is so sharp, when he's sharp -- I was just astonished that he could get so easily rolled by this smooth, sharp shill. It was embarrassing. He's been following this so well... how could he NOT know that, everytime Islamicists do something evil, CAIR is there to defend them, and everytime we try to press the fight back against them, or even if a show or movie mentions the fact that Moslems have killed a few (thousand) people with great glee, CAIR is there to whine and moan and complain.
About his worst day I've ever seen.
Dan
I'm just so very disappointed that HH not just vigorously opposed what Tancredo had to say--which is fine-- but that he won't let it go and gets shriller by the day denouncing him. And to invite a representative from CAIR to help him make his case makes me wonder if his is one of those "black" blogs he warns about. HH used to be the first blog of the day for me but I'm rethinking.
And by the way, Joe Schmoe, quite a few of us in the big, bare, square state, and not so directly affected as California is, are quite alarmed by illegal immigration and not because we're racist but because it is terrifying to think of what is coming across those borders--both Mexican and Canadian. In fact I suspect that's the case all over the US. Thank God for the Minuteman who have proved that it can be stopped pretty effectively.
I've been quite disappointed with Hugh lately, particularly regarding the Tancredo comments. Personally, I don't think bombing Mecca is the appropriate response to a nuke attack on the US. However, I don't think that is why Hugh is attacking Tancredo. This is all about illegal immigratoin. Hugh is part of the GWB wing of the Republican party. He thinks anyone that wants to shut down the flow of cheap, illegal labor into the US is wrong. He thinks that the GOP needs to woo hispanics to win, and that being tough on illegal immigration will hurt that effort. I've got news for Hugh and other GOPers of similar like: Hispanics in California voted in greater percentage for Prop 209 than voted for Reagan or GWB. The reason is quite simple, more illegals undercut the wages and job security of those Hispanics that are already here. Tancredo, of course, is with the 75% of the US electorate that thinks illegal immigration has gotten way out of hand and want to put a stop to it. This issue will either put the GOP in a strong majority position or it will split the party in two.
I was astonished when Hugh announced CAIR as his guest, and sickened when the first five minutes of the show went by and it became obvious that Hugh viewed CAIR as a credible organization and not a shill worthy of being ripped a new hole.
As many others have noted, What the heck happened to Hugh's show prep? Five minutes looking into CAIR should have wised him up.
I can only hope Hugh gives Frank Gaffney two hours on his show to shoot down the two hours of bilge peddled there by the CAIR representative. Sadly, I don't think Hugh will give Gaffney more than five minutes on the topic.
Funny, immediately after Hugh's show, I was furious to learn in my car that having turned off my RadioShark recording (STILL trying to figure out how to remove the commercials from the WMA for all of us to fisk) that Michael Savage's first guest was... Victor Davis Hanson.
Hugh hates Savage.
Anyone got a recording of last night's Michael Savage with VDH? I was only able to catch 5 minutes on my way to a meeting.
As far as bombing Mecca goes, consider the following from Michael Calde:on of Front Page Magazine's blog:
"Perhaps the Grand Mosques of Mecca and Medina are off limits. Okay, I’ll accept that. But what of Mecca itself, the city? It is a hub of the Wahhabi base and therefore should be considered a legitimate target for non-WMD, conventional GPS-guided "smart bombs" if and only if we are again hit hard by radical Islamists, especially Saudis.
So according to the right-thinking “moderates”, Mecca is off limits under any and all circumstances, right? One thing Messrs. Hewitt, Morrissey, Sensing, et al. missed about a Mecca strike is that it does not have to include the Grand Mosque. Indeed, that site as well as other holy sites there could be off limits during airstrikes and Cruise missile strikes against major Wahhabi centers in Mecca. These would include headquarters of the World Association of Muslim Youth (WAMY) a major terrorist front group and promoter of Wahhabi bigotry; the World Muslim League and International Islamic Relief Organization, both major financiers and ideological sponsors of Al-Qaeda have significant offices in Mecca. There are innumerable headquarters there of wealthy Saudi princes and powerful non-royals that sympathize with and help promote the Jihad war on the West. We get nuked by Islamist terrorists that adhere to the ideology of Wahhabism, these secular buildings in Mecca could and should be taken out with little to no damage at all to the Grand Mosque.
The Saudi King’s Official title is “The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques”, and implied in that title is the idea that he is its defender. Airstrikes on Mecca (not the Grand Mosque!) after a WMD attack on the USA, would send a powerful message to the Saudi monarchy and royals that the game is up; you can’t even protect Mecca and if we had wanted to, we could have leveled the Grand Mosque.
And for those that insist the Grand Mosque is totally off limits, I say it is like saying that advocating a bombing run on Mecca is like calling for a strike on the Berlin of 2005. But what about the Berlin of 1940? Same holds true for Mecca today. Before the Wahhabi-Al-Saud clan took over Mecca circa 1932, the Hajj had been a moment of great festive celebrations replete with music, dancing, food. Today, it is a miserable austere moment void of song and dance and replete with the Wahhabi ideology. Today, Mecca is a base for the spread of the most hateful ideology on earth. It bears little resemblance to pre-1932 Mecca."
Mecca the city is the same as Sharm el Sheikh, a vacation spot. The muslims that would be killed if you bombed it would be mostly pilgrims. There aren't any terrorist training camps there as far as I know. Bombing Mecca without leveling the mosque would be gratuitous slaughter. The only value Mecca theoretically could have as a target is the mosque.
I don't think bombing the mosque there or even threatening it would do any good in the GWOT, but indescriminitely killing muslims from around the globe on a pilgrimage would be stupid and pointless.
I'm frankly tired of discussing this issue because it is nothing more than a fantasy that by threatening Mecca we would somehow deter terrorists. By definition, people who strap bombs to themselves are undeterrable. They must be killed and humiliated not deterred. They must have they collective will broken, not given more reason to be "inspired". They don't believe it's possible to destroy Mecca.
Threatening Mecca inspires them. Destroying it invites even more enemies besides having no strategic significance. If the US gets nuked, we will have to SEIZE the entire Arabian peninsula to secure our economy. At that point, screw Mecca because Riyadh will be smoldering along with Teheran, Damascus, and Islamabad.
I am telling you, Tancedro does not play in Peoria. Cynthia McKinney couldn't get elected in Columbus, OH because she is an America-hating, race-baiting lunatic.
Tancedro could not get elected there either becuase he comes off as an angry, racist crackpot. A spokesman for the "sullen white trash" wing of the GOP that is so prevalent in parts of SoCal and AZ.
If I had to choose between the two I'd take Tancedro every time. And of course -- of course -- it is not racist to oppose illegal immigration. But the way some of the far right groups go about it is, in fact, racist IMO. We cannot have a guy like this as the public face of the GOP.
Drugstore cowgirl, I see what you mean and sympathize with it. I respectfully disagree with you -- any Muslim would stick out like sore thumb in Mexico, I very much doubt that many have managed to come here; I am sure that on 9/12/01 the INS and DEA let the smugglers know that they'd better make sure that they don't bring any Muslim terrorists accross.
And the Minutemen aren't on terroist patrol, they are on Mexican patrol. Mexicans are damn good people. There are too many of them here, but the men and women willing to risk their lives to cross the border should be treated with compassion and respect. No one should be pointing guns at them. By associating himself with these people Tancedro does all Republicans a disservice. He is obviously a skilled politican and has the potential to be a real asset to the party; I only hope that he stops posturing.
To paraphrase a quote- The friend of my enemy is my enemy. The Islamic terrorist have many friends that help them either by action or by inaction.
Unlike the terrorists, these friends have land, resources and citizens. By removing the terrorist's friends by threat, coercion or violence you adversely affect the terrorists and deminish their capabilities.
In that respect threatening the bombing of "holy" sites may be part of a larger program aimed at the friends of our enemy.
As for CAIR- Hugh may have been taken in but his audience certainly wasn't. Hugh's interview may have unintended consequences- He meant to defuse growing sentiment against islam but instead exposed CAIR for the terrorist apologist that it is. In that respect Hugh is to be thanked. Now all we need to do is enlighten him.
Froggy, what Calderon is talking about is bombing certain sites known to be connected to Wahabbist terror. It's akin to taking out the command-and-control centers of Baghdad in 1990 and 2003. It's not the same as carpet bombing or nuking the whole city.
Let's face facts: Muslim terrorists practice asymmetrical warfare and don't believe "innocent civilians" exist. To them (and perhaps to the rest of Islam, as well), the world is divided into the House of Islam and the House of War; members of the latter must be converted or killed. We will not win this war playing with kid gloves, especially if the U.S. is attacked again on the scale of 9/11 or greater.
And if the Muslim religious establishment refuses to rein in Muslims practicing terror in Allah's name, then we are effectively at war with Islam, whether we want to be or not, because Islam would be at war with us, if it isn't already.
As far as occupying the Arabian Peninsula goes, that would present far more problems than the occupation of Iraq. Why? For the same reason that bin Laden uses to justify his warfare: "infidels" on the same territory as the "holy sites." If any non-Arab power were to occupy the Arabian peninsula, the holy sites would have to be destroyed, anyway.
The whole point, Froggy, is to avoid the possibility of occupying Arabia. If the surgical bombing that Calderon suggests is implemented, it might give the Saudis pause since the Arabs only respect ruthless strength. They use it themselves, as history has shown time and again.
Schmoe,
I can assure you as a former post 9-11 US Customs Special Agent that the DEA and BP don't tell Mexican smuggling organizations (human and narcotics) anything and if they could, it wouldn't matter. We have very little enforcement in Mexico. We have some decent Confidential Informants from time to time and some of them have reported suspected terrorists attempting to infiltrate. But there are gaping holes on the intel side and in the fenceline itself.
The reason that we have dodged a bullet so far is not that we have our shit together so much as they are a bunch of lousy operators/infiltrators. Their A Team got us good when we weren't looking, and now their training facilities are largely defunct. But we can't rely on the muzzies being jacked up forever, and anybody can get lucky... or unlucky depending upon how you look at it.
Froggy-
Really? I always assumed that the word quietly went out to the coyotes and drug smugglers along the border, i.e. if you smuggle in a terrorist we'll kill you, if you provide us with a tip about a terrorist we'll reward you. I just assumed that the same word would have gone out to Mexican gov't officials, too, albeit phrased diffrently. (Sometimes the gov't and the criminals are the same people.)
This didn't happen? That is very surprising.
Hugh Hewitt is one of the finest talk show hosts on the air today. I love his show. However, like all "respectable" main stream conservatives (Dubya included) he is so desperate to find "moderate" Muslim leaders to display that he had to pull CAIR's wacko spokesman out of the gutter.
The fact is there are no moderate representatives of the Religion of Peace in America who will take a stand against terrorism. They play lip service to it with tepid cookie-cutter condemnations, but always add the mass murder is America's.
You'll find none who will even go that far when it comes to murdering women and children in Israel. They support the Palistinian jihadists. These are Hugh's moderates.
The last line of my second paragraph should read"...but always add mass murder is America's fault."
Really. There is no secret communications channels with the narcos. Sure we told Mexican law enforcement (which is I suppose essentially the same as the smugglers) that we expect their cooperation. But that doesn't mean that we get it. There is no honor among smugglers and they don't care who or what they are smuggling so long as they get paid. If they thought ICE or DEA would pay them more for the info than the tangos offered to smuggle them in then maybe they would tell us. That does happen sometimes, but not every time. Not even close.
I stand corrected.
Froggy... let's parse what you wrote:
"Threatening Mecca inspires them. Destroying it invites even more enemies besides having no strategic significance."
Now go back and read Victor Davis Hanson's Carnage and Culture, specifically the chapter on the vastly outnumbered Cortes against the human-sacrificing Aztecs. Aren't the cult of raising child shahids and suicide bombing a contemporary analog?!?
Our failure is not in not "go Roman", but we're not even "going Western", and the longer we play Neville with the ROP, the longer they'll have time to arm and plan our demise.
The ROP needs to have its religious aspirations crushed JUST AS MUCH AS GOD-EMPEROR HIROHITO'S. No more dhimmi. No more jihad. No more dar al-Harb. Give up dreams of re-Mooring Spain... forever. Give up dreams of genocidally shoving Israel into the sea... forever.
We need to close down every US mosque whose Imam doesn't publicly advocate Israeli sovereignty. Anything else is a time bomb.
Where are the West's contemporary Charles Martels?!? Woe unto us.
Hewitt used a CAIR spokesman to feed the ammo belt into the gun aimmed at Tancredo. This is VERY revealing. Someone ought to interview Hewitt. Question one: How long do you feel it will be before you dream of folding Canada, the US, and Mexico into the North American Union will be realised?
.
I think we should fold Canada and Mexico in and call it the United States. At least the imperialist title will fit.
Just responded to your comment. Thanks for re-establishing the context of your usual arguments.
Adele,that was really sharp!Too bad I didn't think of that!LOL!But I hate to say this and this coming from a "blue Dog Democrat"Hewitt got played like a piano!The problem with Hugh is that he is a an old what do you call em'"blue blood Republican" on matters such as this.How could he have not known about CAIR?I can't stand Ibrahim Hooper he is a traitor and an apologist for Islamic thugs!Yeah,maybe bombing Mecca isn't a great idea but the government and doing such a hot job itself by appeasing so called "moderates" moderation is for eating and drinking.If Tom Tancredo throws his hat in the ring he has my vote.At least he is sincere about not just give lip service to this issue.Hey Joe Schmoe,every state in the Union has a problem with illegals,don't believe me come to the southeast and you'll see differently.And the illegal immigration problem is even worse on the Canadian border.Canada is like Europe with all the socialist policies they've implemented over the years,and also this Multi cultural bs that the left has and still continues to practice.after what just happened in London,we can't afford to take in chances.The minutemen responded because our government just refused to take any real action to dealing with the problem.You need to check EU's blog they had a story last week on underground tunnels found in Vancouver B.C..They even showed a Video clip of the this.It was pretty frightening to me.And their government probably isn't aware of it.That is scary!and the problem as tony has stated is very bad on the Northern border,but since it has received barely scant notice in our media that is why yo one here's about it much.
Earlier I had said:
"Sadly, I don't think Hugh will give Gaffney more than five minutes on the topic."
I was glad to have been proven wrong today. Over an hour of smackdown. Frank tore the CAIR PR man a new one--it was a beautiful thing.
I criticized HH on my website... http://reelcobra.blogspot.com/20...ugh-
hewitt.html
However; I think HH kicked rear end today in the interview the CAIR terrorist-apologist and Frank Gaffney.
The light was shined on the cockroach under the rock.
Joe Schmoe,
That 'poor man crossing the border to work at a car wash in order to keep his family fed' is BREAKING THE LAW hence the name ILLEGAL ALIEN. Just the presence of the Minute Men decreased the number of ILLEGAL ALIENS breaking the law. There is a legal way to immigrate to our Country.
I'm with you, CTG... I like immigrants (a lot!) but we need to go back to Ellis Island days when we kept track of who comes in. That's how my grandparents came in. We also need them to assimulate. Today groups don't do that enough and its to their own detriment. You can keep your culture, but if you come here, be ready to be an American. I mean, many people do do this, but of course we are all focused on the one's who don't. I am never more amazed than when I see someone who came here somewhat recently, joined the military, and ended up getting killed. On a similar note, where my family is and will be buried on Long Island, there is a part of the cemetary with a huge carving of the Declaration of Independence, and you should see all the first generation Americans who are buried there. Lots of Chinese people (and others, too). It's iconic to them. I'm not surprised.
Commenting by HaloScan
