Sunday, May 21, 2006


The day is breeaking, do you see it?
In the light of the dawn?
What we so acclaimed at nightfall?
Its stars, its stripes, flew yesterday
In the fierce battle in a sign of victory,
The glow of battle, in step with liberty
At night they said: "it's being defended!"

Oh say! The voice of your starry beauty
is still unfolding
Over the land of the free
The sacred flag?

Some of you may recognize the above lines as the English translation of Verse 1 and the Chorus of NUESTRO HIMNO (Our Anthem), the latest Spanish version of our national anthem. This mangled STAR SPANGLED BANNER should be seen as a deliberate affront to our nation and to those who fought and died under the flag of the United States of America in battles at Gettysburg, Argonne, Normandie, Iwo Jima, in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.

There is nothing wrong in translating our national anthem into other languages as long as the translation is as close as possible to the lyrics in our STAR SPANGLED BANNER. In fact, on various occasions over the years, our anthem has been translated into German, Latin, Spanish, and even Yiddish, but in each of those instances the lyrics of Francis Scott Key were translated as closely as possible. NUESTRO HIMNO, on the other hand, is nothing but a mangled desecration of THE STAR BANGLED BANNER which points out a big problem - THERE ARE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE IN OUR NATION WHO CANNOT OR WILL NOT SPEAK ENGLISH, AND WHOSE ALLEGIANCE IS TO AND WILL REMAIN WITH THE COUNTRY OF THEIR ORIGIN. There's a joke going around now which goes something like this: A recent poll of Americans on immigration shows that 4% had no opinion, 43% say that illegal immigration is a serious problem, and 53% say "no comprende, no hable ingles."

The Senate was considering a bill making English the official language of the United States. This bill would also have prohibited the printing of government materials, including voting ballots, in a foreign language, and it would have ended the funding for bilingual education. When the political correctness critics and Senator Harry Reid, the Democrats' minority leader, made the ridiculous assertion that this proposed legislation was racist, an amendment watered it down by declaring English to be the "common and unifying language of America," and by leaving in place bilingual ballots and bilingual education. Hell, we already know that English is our common and unifying language. George Will, the respected conservative columnist, argues against bilingual ballots because Americans expect that those who seek citizenship "can read the nation's founding documents (the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) and laws, and can comprehend the political discourse (in English) that precedes the casting of ballots."

Tucker Carlson, an MSNBC commentator, believes that in our culture only the English language holds our nation together, not race, religion or nationality. He points to the divisiveness and separation movements in Canada and Belgium, where two or more languages are officially recognized. While most estimates put the number of illegals in this country at 11 million, I agree with those who believe the number is closer to 20 million. The overwhelming majority of those are Latinos, but there are also an unknown number of illegals from Asia, Eastern Europe, Africa and the West Indies in this country. It is my opinion that the massive influx of Mexicans and Central Americans across our southern border constitutes the greatest threat to the unity of the United States since the Civil War. If this tide of illegal immigration continues, Spanish will be the language spoken by a majority of people in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California. When that happens, the United States will experience the same separation movement in those states as in Canada, where many people in the French speaking provinces want to secede from that nation's English speaking provinces.

The key to illegal immigration is JOBS and if we stopped employing illegals, they would stop coming. But, let's be honest. BIENVENIDOS A LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS ! While we say we are against illegal immigration and resent anyone speaking in a foreign language around us, we love to hire illegals as domestics, to do our yard work, pick our fruits and vegetables, for construction work, to pick up our trash, work in our restaurants, and for many other kinds of unskilled, semi-skilled and even skilled work. Why? Because these folks provide us with a source of CHEAP LABOR. So, is it going to be HOLA or ADIOS? Hola - A number of our cities, including conservative Dallas, have proclaimed themselves to be SAFETY ZONES for illegal immigrants, while many cities have established and are funding day labor shelters for illegals, and their police are under orders NOT TO ENFORCE our immigration laws. Hola - With all federal immigration detention facilities full, most illegals apprehended by the Border Patrol are processed and, upon THEIR PROMISE to appear for a deportation hearing at a later date, ARE RELEASED, never to be seen again. No adios - There is no way that we can, or even want to, deport several million hard working people who provide us with cheap labor. No adios - Most Americans, even the jobless, will not do manual labor, so Manuel, por favor stay, gracias amigo! Ron Reagan, another MSNBC commentator and son of the late President Ronald Reagan, states that as long as we have a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY (MEXICO) ON OUR BORDER and we are willing to hire its citizens, they will keep sneaking across the border, seeking a better way of life for themselves or for their loved ones back home, no matter what kind of fences or walls we may put in place to keep them out. And for its part, Mexico strongly opposes any kind of border barrier, undoubtably because once in the U.S., the illegals will join their compatriots in sending billions of dollars back to their homeland.

Before you get the wrong idea, let me make it crystal clear that I am not against immigration. This country is made up of immigrants and their descendants. My parents and I came to the United States from Germany in 1936. I was placed in the first grade in school, instead of in the fourth grade, because I could not speak any English. There was no bilingual education, but I picked up enough English in a few months so that I was advanced to the grade for my age group. My father, a professional manager in Germany, operated an elevator in a New York office building until he learned enough English to obtain a better paying job. Right after Pearl Harbor, my father, who had been wounded while fighting with the German army during WWI, tried to enlist in the United States army, but he was rejected because of his age. We obtained our citizenship in 1943 and ten months later, on my 17th birthday, I enlisted in the army. I served in the Pacific where my unit included a number of non-citizens, most of them from Mexico, who had entered this country legally, spoke English, and volunteered to fight with our armed forces. Immigrants from all over the world, including those from Mexico and Central America, have made major contributions to this country in the fields of medicine, science, education, and business, and many have given their lives while serving in our armed forces. For these reasons, I believe that it is downright UN-AMERICAN to be against immigration. But, I am opposed to immigration of people who come here by sneaking across the border, who continue to maintain allegiance to the country of their origin, and if left unchecked, will establish their native tongue as the predominant language in America's southern border states.

Now that we have millions of Spanish speaking illegals in this country, it is not surprising that this group, backed by the established Latino community, has a lot of clout. Their numbers have led to the watering down of the English-only amendment to a meaningless reaffirmation proposal in the Senate. Cities with a large population of illegals have built day labor shelters for them and have prohibited the police from enforcing any immigration laws. When the San Jose major league soccer team relocated to Houston, it was renamed Houston 1836. April 21, 1836, happens to be the date on which a small force of Texans won their independence by defeating the Mexican army in the Battle of San Jacinto. While the team insisted that "1836" referred to the year that Houston was founded, the city's Mexican community was so offended that the name of the team was changed to Houston Dynamo.

It is obvious that, by and large, the Spanish speaking community's allegiance is to Mexico, not to the United States. For many, U. S. citizinship is merely a means for remaining in this country. The public celebration of Cinco de Mayo in this country is a display of their true allegiance. They have mangled the Star Spangled Banner by completly changing Francis Scott Key's lyrics. Their title, Nuestro Himno, suggests that it is their anthem, not the anthem of the United States. And, with "The sacred flag?" might they really be referring to the flag of Mexico?

Monday, May 08, 2006


Here we go again. Another royal screwup by the Capitol Police. You'd think they would have learned from Congresswoman McKinney's slugfest, that there are certain types of misbehavior by members of Congress that require an immediate arrest.

America's beloved Kennedy family has been beset with a number of tragedies. Joe Kennedy, President Kennedy's older brother, was killed in combat during World War II. President Kennedy and his brother Robert were both assassinated. President Kennedy's son "John John" was killed a few years ago in a plane crash. The family has also had a long history of irresponsible misbehavior. Several of the younger Kennedy men have been involved in the use of heroin, cocaine, and drunkeness. Then there was the infamous case in 1969, when Chappaquiddick Ted drove off a bridge, bailed out of the sinking car, leaving Mary Jo Kopechne behind to drown.

Now we have Congressman Patrick Kennedy, the son of Chappaquiddick Ted, nearly colliding with a Capitol Police patrol car before crashing his Mustang convertible into a concrete security barrier near the capitol. He admitted being under the influence of Ambien, a sleeping pill, and Phenergen, an anti-nausea drug. He denied having consumed any alcohol, although the officers at the scene detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath, and a hostess at the Hawk 'n' Dove, a popular bar near the capitol, claimed that he was drinking there earlier. In any event, it is unlawful to drive under the influence of prescription drugs. The accident occurred between 2:45 and 3:00 A.M. on May 4th. He claimed he was on his way to Congress where he was needed for a vote, although the House of Representatives had adjourned about three hours earlier.

Supervising officers who came to the scene instructed the first officers NOT TO CONDUCT A FIELD SOBRIETY TEST and ordered them to leave the scene. The "watch commander" then had the supervisors drive the stoned congressman to his home. He was cited for three minor traffic violations. Kennedy insists that he did not ask the officers for any special treatment, while - Whoa, get this! - claiming that he did not remember anything about the accident. So, how can he insist that he did not ask for any favorable treatment when he cannot remember anything? This incident would never have come to the public's attention, except that the Fraternal Order of Police, the union represnting the Capitol Police, registered a complaint with the police administration. As a result of that complaint and the attendant publicity, the watch commander was "reassigned." WHOPEE!!!

Without considering Congressman Kennedy's history of alcohol abuse, cocaine use, assaulting a Los Angeles airport security checkpoint official, and other questionable acts, and not withstanding that he has now checked himself into the Mayo Clinic's drug addict treatment program, did this latest incident warrant his being taken home instead of being jailed? Most definitely not. I have no problem with officers taking a drunk driver home, especially if he has been caught only a few blocks away. I have done so a number of times myself, but never when the driver had caused an accident. And, if a drunk would have come close to hitting my police car, he would have gone to jail, even if that happened in front of his house.

It is obvious that as soon as the supervising officers recognized this "spaced out" congressman as a Kennedy, they did not want him arrested. Would John Q. Public have been given a ride home under the same circumstances? No way. He would have been given a field sobriety test and taken to jail forthwith. Which brings us back to Congresswoman McKinney's assault. Would John Q. Public have been allowed to pass on past the security checkpoint after slugging the officer on duty there? No way. He would have been jumped on by several officers and taken to jail forthwith, possibly requiring some subsequent reconstructive facial surgery.

While members of Congress do have some immunity from arrest while attending and going to and from Congress, there are some exceptions, one of which is a breach of the peace. McKinneys slugfest and Kennedy's crash into an anti-terrorist barrier, both fall under the breach of peace exception. Both should have been arrested immediately. No member of Congress and no Kennedy should be above the law. The Capitol Police look like a bunch of keystone cops from a dysfunctional organization. In this case, we now know what the slogan TO PROTECT AND SERVE really means - DON'T DISGRACE HIM, KEEP IT A SECRET, AND TAKE HIM HOME. Shame on them for dishonoring themselves and for fueling the disrespect many in this country have for law enforcement.

EPILOG: On June 13,2006, Kennedy pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of prescription drugs. In a plea bargain that avoids time in jail, he was placed on one year of probation, ordered to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and to contribute $350 (WOW !!!) - $100 to a crime victims fund and $250 to the Boys' and Girls' Club of Greater Washington, D.C..