Apparently, a well qualified judge is being denied confirmation by the Senate for the post of US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  The culprits in this denial are the usual suspects-liberal Democrat Senators.  These senators are cowtowing to far extreme left organizations such as MoveOn.org and the ACLU.  No surprise there.  What exactly are these organizations complaining about where this highly qualified man is concerned?  Well, golly gee whiz!  He is a southern white male, therefore, unfit for this post.

Of course, there is NO justification for those allegations but we should not be surprised in the least that such false  (and deliberately calculated) allegations are being raised by the left.  That is their modus operandi.  Distribute enough lies to as many as they can and hopefully we will all fall for it.   What these far left lunatics haven't figured out is that there raving rants are far more racist and descriminatory than what they accuse this man (and us!) of being.  What's that phrase-people who live in glass houses...?

All this hullabaloo over this man's nomination is nothing more than a power grab by a Democrat controlled Congress.  This particular Congress has the lowest approval rating of any in our  history.  I suppose the Democrats love to shoot themselves in the foot then blame us when they start limping.  It is obvious what their goal is to wait until the next elections, hopefully regain the Oval Office where they will be able to appoint and confirm any liberal judge that they can control.  Once that occurs, the far left will seize control of this country and jeopardize our very existence as a nation.  And that is what they want.  Their blatant hatred for this country is downright treasonous but try to charge them with treason and they will scream bloody murder.  But you can rest assured that should the left gain control of our nation, they won't hesitate to bring unwarranted charges against true Americans.  You can bet the farm that they will use racism to do it, too.  It's a safe bet.

Today, I read an article in Townhall from Nathan Tabor.  Although the emphasis to his article was the disgusting murder of an innocent American girl possibly by an illegal alien, he made one error that seems to be taking root in our society.  He wrote:

This nation was built through the courage, strength, and commitment of untold numbers of immigrants. Most of us, in fact, trace our ancestry to foreign lands. An immigrant who enters this country legally, who's willing to sacrifice for the sake of his or her newly-adopted country, represents the epitome of what makes this country great.

This is inaccurate.  If you haven't read Pride in America on this blog yet, do so.  This country was not built by immigrants.  However, perhaps some clarification beyond what I wrote in Pride in America is warranted.

Once more, let's take a time trip to the colonial days. 

After the accidental discovery of an entire continent by the Italian explorer Christopher Columbus, British companies saw an opportunity to invest in the New World.  Yes, there were other settlers but, again, we are focusing on the British colonists.  Please note the usage of the words settlers and colonists as these people have always been referred to throughout our history. 

When these settlers came, they found that no one owned the land, even though Indian tribes did occupy the land.  Some of these tribes were warrior tribes preying on the more peaceful tribes.  But there was no unified form of government between these tribes, no borders, no written laws, no currency-in short, nothing that established an Indian nation on this land.  Even they did not claim to own the land.  So, how can something be stolen if it isn't owned by anyone?  The settlers staked their claim on the land in the interest of the British crown, thereby, making the colonies British territory.  You can claim that that was just a difference of perspective and  you would be partly correct.  However, that is just the way things were done then-you stake a claim on something no one owns and it is yours. 

Every subsequent colonist that travelled from Great Brittain to the New World maintained their citizenship with Great Brittain and agreed to abide by British rule.  The Mayflower Compact spells this out very clearly.  For those who haven't read the Mayflower Compact, it was a contract between colonists that landed outside of British territory in the New World and the British government which stated even though the colonists knew they were not on British soil they would still abide by British law.  However, those who did land in established colonies, they were not immigrants as they never left their country of origin.  Think of it as moving from the east coast to the west coast.  Since I currently live in South Carolina, it would be like me moving from this state to California.  I wouldn't be leaving the United States of America, would I?   That, in effect, was what the settlers/colonists did.  They never left Great Brittain until the Declaration of Independence was signed.

Now, let's fast forward to the Declaration of Independence.  As I have stated before, none of the signers of this document were immigrants.  They were all native to well established British colonies.  These men were also brave enough to take on huge risks at personal expense to break away from the oppression they suffered under British rule.  Another fact glossed over by those that say this country was built by immigrants is the FACT that ALL thirteen original colonies that formed this nation in the beginning were British.   No other country could make a claim on any of these original colonies.  All of the signers were from the original thirteen colonies. 

Is it fair to say immigrants that came later contributed to the growth and progress of this nation?  Yes, of course that is fair.  Because it is true.  We can recognize and appreciate that fact. But they did not build this nation.  The men who signed the Declaration of Independence did.  And none of those men were immigrants.

Today, I read an article in Townhall from Nathan Tabor.  Although the emphasis to his article was the disgusting murder of an innocent American girl possibly by an illegal alien, he made one error that seems to be taking root in our society.  He wrote:

This nation was built through the courage, strength, and commitment of untold numbers of immigrants. Most of us, in fact, trace our ancestry to foreign lands. An immigrant who enters this country legally, who's willing to sacrifice for the sake of his or her newly-adopted country, represents the epitome of what makes this country great.

This is inaccurate.  If you haven't read Pride in America on this blog yet, do so.  This country was not built by immigrants.  However, perhaps some clarification beyond what I wrote in Pride in America is warranted.

Once more, let's take a time trip to the colonial days. 

After the accidental discovery of an entire continent by the Italian explorer Christopher Columbus, British companies saw an opportunity to invest in the New World.  Yes, there were other settlers but, again, we are focusing on the British colonists.  Please note the usage of the words settlers and colonists as these people have always been referred to throughout our history. 

When these settlers came, they found that no one owned the land, even though Indian tribes did occupy the land.  Some of these tribes were warrior tribes preying on the more peaceful tribes.  But there was no unified form of government between these tribes, no borders, no written laws, no currency-in short, nothing that established an Indian nation on this land.  Even they did not claim to own the land.  So, how can something be stolen if it isn't own by anyone?  The settlers staked their claim on the land in the interest of the British crown, thereby, making the colonies British territory.  You can claim that that was just a difference of perspective and  you would be partly correct.  However, that is just the way things were done then-you stake a claim on something no one owns and it is yours. 

Every subsequent colonist that travelled from Great Brittain to the New World maintained their citizenship with Great Brittain and agreed to abide by British rule.  The Mayflower Compact spells this out very clearly.  For those who haven't read the Mayflower Compact, it was a contract between colonists that landed outside of British territory in the New World which stated even though they knew they were not on British soil they would still abide by British law.  However, those who did land in established colonies, they were not immigrants as they never left their country of origin.  Think of it as moving from the east coast to the west coast.  Since I currently live in South Carolina, it would be like me moving from this state to California.  I wouldn't be leaving the United States of America, would I?   That, in effect, was what the settlers/colonists did.  They never left Great Brittain until the Declaration of Independence was signed.

Now, let's fast forward to the Declaration of Independence.  As I have stated before, none of the signers of this document were immigrants.  They were all native to well established British colonies.  These men were also brave enough to take on huge risks at personal expense to break away from the oppression they suffered under British rule.  Another fact glossed over by those that say this country was built by immigrants is the FACT that ALL thirteen original colonies that formed this nation in the beginning were British.   No other country could make a claim on any of these original colonies.  All of the signers were from the original thirteen colonies. 

Is it fair to say immigrants that came later contributed to the growth and progress of this nation?  Yes, of course that is fair.  Because it is true.  We can recognize and appreciate that fact. But they did not build this nation.  The men who signed the Declaration of Independence did.  And none of those men were immigrants.

Dear Illegal Alien,

I am told you come to my country illegally because you are seeking a better life for yourself.  I feel your pain.  I understand that opportunities in your country of origin, wherever that may be, are limited at best.  It saddens me to know that your own governments are so highly corrupted as to put you and your families in danger. 

But, I have to wonder: if I were to abandon my family and leave my country for yours, will I be allowed to break your country's laws without fear of reprisal?  Could I expect-no, demand-that your country provide me with anything I want at the expense of your countrymen?  Would I have the right to burden your country just to make my life a little easier?  Can I expect food, health care, education, money, housing be given to me without earning any of it?  And can I speak my own language in your home country without attempting to learn yours?  After all, I would only be seeking a better life for myself.

Of course, I wouldn't really be abandoning my country because I wouldn't be expected to give up my citizenship.  I'll send all of your money back to my country because I love it so much.  Does it matter that your own country would lose revenue if I should do that?  No, of course not.  After all, I would only be seeking a better life for myself.

If I break into your country with a contagious and deadly disease, that's not my fault.  I can't be held liable for infecting your people, can I?  I cannot be forced to pick up the trash I leave in your  yard.  It's your yard-you pick it up!  Any crime your country accuses me of, I'll just cry foul because of my ethnicity, regardless of innocence or guilt.  I'll give birth multiple times in your country,  in your hospitals without paying a single medical bill, demand that my children be given citizenship in your country so that I can 'qualify' for tax funded benefits from your government even though I have no intention of raising my children in your country.  I also intend to raise my children to be voters in your country but not loyal to your country, thereby, ensuring they will vote on my country's behalf-not yours.  After all, I would only be seeking a better life for myself.

It won't matter to me if I take a job away from your countrymen-jobs that could improve their lives.  I'll make sure that I get the job instead of your countrymen by telling my employer he can pay me slave wages.  That won't be a problem because your government will make up for my measly wages with tax funded benefits-again, at your countrymen's expense.   No.  I would only be seeking a better life for myself!

One American who behaves in such a manner wouldn't be a problem.  But millions of Americans?  Pardon me but I highly doubt your country would tolerate such disrespect.  Yet, you demand that we tolerate your behavior.  At our expense, no less. 

You trade your dignity and honor for a fistful of our dollars.  You do nothing to improve living conditions within your own country.  You expect us to do that for you.  And if we voice our displeasure at your behavior, you call us racist and threaten us.  You demand human rights while taking ours from us.  You twist our most supreme law of our land, our Constitution which, just for your information, was never written to accommodate you, to extort and bribe us into bowing to your will.  You want us to treat you like a guest but you do not act like a guest.  You act, and this is an accurate way to put this, like invaders, unwelcomed, uninvited and destructive.  It is sad that you ignore the fact that your actions only serve to dishonor your own people, your own countries.  After all, YOU are only seeking a better life for YOURSELF-regardless of who pays. 

I DO feel pain-caused by YOUR hand! 

Now you know how real Americans feel.  WE are fed up with your demands and disrespect.   Since you show us no respect, we will show you none.  Americans are rapidly approaching the breaking point where you are concerned.  You might want to remember that the next time you gather illegally in our streets, waving YOUR flag and desecrating ours, attempting to force us to cave in to your demands.  If you had an ounce of decency (although I won't hold my breath on that), you would return to your country of origin, work hard to improve living conditions there, and build up respectability.  Until that happens, don't bother us! 

With utmost sincerity,
A REAL American!

Well, now that both the Republicans and Democrats have had their debates in my state, South Carolina, I think it is appropriate to point out a few, shall we say, oddities.

First, the Republican debate in Columbia, SC, sponsored by Foxnews. 

I was priviliged to attend this debate.  Of course, any debate sponsored by Foxnews is wolf's bain to Democrats so I am not suprised that the Democrats shunned Foxnews' offer to sponsor their debate.  But I digress.

Going into this debate, I had committed myself to listen carefully to each candidate.  However, I had pretty much decided that one candidate deserved more of my attention than the others-Tom Tancredo.  I had met with Congressman Tancredo in person twice, including that evening.  I knew his campaign centered around the issue of illegal immigration-an issue very high on my priority list.   I also knew his stand on the War in Iraq (and terror, in general).  Where Iraq and our troops were concerned, Congressman Tancredo does not favor pull-out but does favor redefining our troops involvement in that country.  Ok.  I can see his point. 

But what about the other Republican candidates? 

I'll be brutally honest here.   I didn't like the vast majority of the other candidates.  John McCain, although I respect the fact that he served his country honorably and is indeed a war hero, is a loose cannon.  I don't think he takes domestic issues seriously.  Rudy Guiliani-America's mayor, present at Ground Zero after the World Trade Center collapsed, pulled his city out of the depths of despair, cleaned up the streets-not a whole lot of bad can be said of this man.  Or is there something not so great about him?   Well, I'm sure he has skeletons in his closet as we all do but is he fit for Commander in Chief?  I wasn't convinced he was after the debate (although he did a pretty good job of smacking Ron Paul pretty hard-justly so, too!).  Speaking of Ron Paul, he shot himself in the foot when he blamed America for 911, didn't he?  And Mitt Romney.  Suave, sophisticated Mitt Romney.  I felt his replies were a little too scripted, too well rehearsed.  He was a cardboard cut-out.  Pretty to look at but of no real substance.  Some of the other candidates were almost non-animated.  But two candidates did stand out-Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter.

Sadly, neither of these men were given much time to debate.  Since Tancredo and Hunter are fairly similar in their campaigns (ie illegal immigration), and since illegal immigration is a top issue voters are looking at, why weren't they given more time?  Why weren't they asked more questions?  I can sum it up in one word-favoritism.  It is reminiscent of high school where the teachers' pets were fawned over while other more deserving students were pushed into the background.  That is not a good practice in an election, especially when that election involves our highest office, the Presidency. 

Even though that debate was lacking in some ways, I can say that the Foxnews Rebublican debate was far more intelligent than the one CNN sponsored.  I watched about 45 minutes of that debate.  That was all I could take.  Not because of the candidates.  Because of the idiotic questions Chris Matthews was asking the candidates.  Of course, Chris Matthews and CNN lean very far left so there was no surprise in those  moronic questions.  Why do most news media outlets lean far left?  Easy answer and, again, favoritism. 

Pardon me for saying this but the decision to choose our next leader should not be a popularity contest.  Save that for prom queen, please!

Now, the Democrat debate at the Citadel, SC.

I did not attend that debate.   I didn't even watch it.   In fact, I want nothing to do with any Democrat candidate.  I have never seen anything from any of these candidates I like.   Not a single thing.  Therefore, I won't waste my time listening to a bunch of nonsense coming from any of these candidates' mouths.  I have no interest in their propaganda, hypocritical lies.

But that's just me.  

I did find it interesting that the Democrats chose a military academy to showcase their (non) ideas.  Given that nearly all (if not all) of the Democrat candidates are anti-military, what was the purpose for choosing that venue?  Showmanship.  Nothing more.  Here we go again, back to high school and prom queen (heaven forbid!).

There was one thing that was startlingly blatant about that debate.  When Foxnews sponsored the Republican debate in Columbia, the background setting they chose was an elegant display of our nation's flag using colored lights and undulating as if Old Glory itself was waving.  The CNN sponsored Democrat debate??  CNN logos everywhere!  Now, I have to ask-which is more patriotic, our flag or CNN's logo?

I suppose that speaks in volumes as to which party is truly American and which is not.

Pride.   Sounds vain, doesn't it?  Well, not all pride is vain.  Some is earned. 

Take for example this great country of ours, the United States of America.  Our humble beginnings is something to be very proud of.  Let's take a little trip down memory lane to our very beginning as a nation.

In order to fully appreciate where we are and who we are, we have to understand where and who we were.  You may have heard some say this nation was built by immigrants.  That is false.  My proof?  The Declaration of Independence.  Read it some time.  It is very enlightening.

Let's take a good, hard look at that time period.  Settlers came to the new world in search of many things.  The French came for the fur trade.  The Spanish came to find gold or the Fountain of Youth (and, dang it, they didn't find the Fountain of Youth!).  There were Dutch and German and other smaller groups.  But the bulk of the settlers were British. 

It is commonly believed that the British settlers came to escape religious persecution but that was a minor reason.  If that had been their sole purpose for colonizing America, it wouldn't had been the Mayflower Compact that was signed.  It would have been the Declaration of Independence.  But the Declaration of Independence wasn't written for a few hundred years after the colonies were established.   So, what was the real purpose for these colonies to exist at all?  Economics.  Particularly, tobacco.  Yes, I said tobacco and, no, they did not have the benefit of the Surgeon General's warning.  To the British, it was green gold.  Easily grown and shipped overseas without refridgeration-and very profitable.  But it was profitable for the mother land, Great Brittain, not necessarily for the colonists who toiled in the fields.   Slavery is an issue for another post.  For now, let's focus on the colonists.

The British colonists weren't allowed to blink without permission from the British parliament.  With acts like the Stamp Act, Sugar Act, Quartering Act, Navigational Act, just to name a few, the colonists found themselves suffocated under heavy oppression.  After all, the colonies existed for one purpose and one purpose only; to serve the Mother Land.   Any attempt at self-sufficiency for the colonies was quickly squashed.  Great Brittain couldn't let the colonists fend for themselves because that would mean their cash-cow would dry up.  Hence, the strict...and constricting...acts in response to any grievance the colonists might voice.  It is not unreasonable to conclude that after a few hundred years of this practice, the colonists finally got fed up.  Enter the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence gives us why we became a nation in the first place.  Our forefathers clearly spelled out their reasons for breaking ties with Great Brittain.  Please note that Great Brittain is the only country mentioned in that document.  Not France or Spain or any other European country.  However, what is not clearly spelled out in the Declaration of Independence is who signed that document.  Yes, of course you can look at the signatures and determine the name of the person but who was this person signing his name?  Just any ol' person?  Nope.  These signers were:

1.  White
2.  Males
3.  Native to well established British colonies
4.  Well-known and respected leaders among the people of the colonies
5.  Formerly British subjects/citizens under British rule
6.  Men who sacrificed everything: their homes, their wealth, their lands, their families, their lives, to pursue a very dangerous and uncertain vision of freedom
7.  Men who knew full well that if they failed, they would be hung as traitors to the crown-and the colonies would suffer horrible retribution.

And, yet, these men took risks at their own expense and at incredible odds against them to break off with Great Brittain for the good of the people in the colonies.

Wow!  That took guts!

Look at number 3-Native to well established British colonies.  Many of these man never stepped foot in Great Brittain itself.  That doesn't sound like an immigrant to me.  That sounds like a man who was born and raised in the colonies who knew what the colonists needed to survive-and was willing to fight for the colonies right not only to exist but to live in freedom.

Freedom.  Freedom of what?  Freedom to act however we please without consequences?  No, not exactly.  Even our forefathers understood that anarchy is not a good idea.  So, what freedom did they fight for?  The freedom to choose for ourselves, to succeed...or fail...on our own terms, to live without fear of our government, and to appreciate the sacrifices many have made in order for us to live free.  That is what being American means!  It is honor.  It is integrity.  It is character.  It is loyalty to this nation and those who have defended it. 

And it is pride.  But not a vain pride-an earned pride.  

The original colonists, the men who were brave enough to fight, to sacrifice their entire lives to this concept of freedom, these are the real builders of this nation.  They earned their right to call themselves American.  Yes, we can recognize and appreciate that non-whites contributed to the growth and prosperity of this nation.  There is no shame in that.  But there is shame when we Americans neglect our own true history and forget who and what we are.  To do so negates everything this country has accomplished in our relatively short history as a nation.   And it dishonors the original intent for forming this nation in the first place.  No, we are not perfect.  We never made that claim.  However, we aren't the world's worst country either.  It is time we all remember that.

I am not ashamed to call myself American.  Are you?