60 Minutes did something so good tonight, that it really makes up for some of their past terrible pieces of reporting. They totally debunked a key so-called “fact” in Dan Brown’s book The Da Vinci Code. Ed Bradley ran point on this piece and totally ripped the whole “Priory Of Sion” theory to pieces. It was made up by a con man. And the priest who supposedly used those documents to find “treasure” was nothing but a fraud too.

If you missed the piece on 60 Minutes tonight, you can read a text report and see some of the video here. That video is not the complete report. Ed Bradley also did an online video piece here, that offers some of the details mentioned in the report.

So far Dan Brown has no comment. Henry Lincoln, who has pretty much made a living off making people believe the Priory Of Sion actually exists says:

…
“I am not a naïve innocent who was hoaxed by Monsieur Plantard and Cherisey. No, I am a very, very careful researcher,” says Lincoln.
…

Of course he has to say that. Otherwise the hoax that he’s made some nice money off of will go up in smoke!

It was very nice and refreshing to see 60 Minutes do a piece like this.

Sometimes one nut is full of so much insanity, that as a blogger I must question if I should even make a post out of their statements. And although it loathes me to post it, I have to expose this latest insanity from the mouth of the US Congresswoman from Georgia’s 4th Congressional district, Cynthia McKinney. It’s so insane I almost want to laugh instead of type!

Now she’s claiming that the issue of illegal immigration is a GOP stunt and that about 6,000 troops have died in Iraq, instead of about 2,400 as reported by the Associated Press.

As I have pointed out here time after time after time, it is not the GOP that has made illegal immigration an issue. In fact, they’ve been trying to avoid the issue and grant amnesty! It is the American people that have made illegal immigration an issue. The complaints from ordinary Americans are why many House members voted for HR 4437, but the posturing of the GOP and DNC is what resulted in it being gutted in the US Senate. And given we know illegal immigration has a terrible effect on the job prospects of lower wage Blacks, one would think that McKinney might care about the issue as well. Given lower wage earning Blacks are a significant portion of her voting base. (I know Dekalb County, GA is not a poor county, but we all know McKinney’s strongest supporters are often lower wage earning Blacks, so she should consider them.) It’s interesting how she can always speak about lower wage Blacks when it suits her own political interests.

She also mentions some “soon-to-be whistleblowers” will reveal that about 6,000 US troops have died in Iraq. I will always say, that I thought during the first year of combat that at least 10,000 of our brave soldiers would be lost. But all reports have shown the number is currently at about 2,400. Where will these people come from who claim the number is 6,000? Maybe the moon, where this moonbat gets all her other nutty ideas! And even if these “soon-to-be whistleblowers” come forward, their credibility is already in jeopardy, by simply being mentioned by her.

It seems that when an American goes out with the illegals looking for work that they are denied employment.

Related post: The Effect of Illegal Immigration on Employment Opportunities for Blacks

Why are people so surprised that advocates for illegal immigration wrote an anthem for themselves? As many Conservatives like myself have been pointing out this is an invasion. Any group that wants to sieze territory, change a nation’s borders, change a nation’s language and change a nation’s culture, are naturally going to have their own anthem. And they titled the piece “Nuestro Himno”, which is Spanish for “Our Anthem”. They did not name it “The Star Spangled Banner (in Spanish)“. Because it’s not the Star Spangled Banner. It’s their anthem! The invaders are only carrying out the normal course of actions taken, when a group wants to engage in their own brand of nationalism. For someone like myself, who grew up seeing folks pressing “Black Nationalism”, I’m not surprised by the actions of these advocates of illegal immigration. Nuts that want to separate or overtake America all use the same methods. (As I’ve pointed out before, these actions by neo-Mexicans are not at all like the Civil Rights movement for Blacks. These are the actions of a band of nuts.)

This latest stunt with what I call the North Mexican National Anthem even has some advocates for amnesty upset. Like US President George W. Bush. Even he had to say sing it in English. But that would be a problem. Because their anthem is not our anthem. They’ve changed lyrics and effectively changed the meaning of the song. Being from the Baltimore area, we grew up learning about Frances Scott Key and the events that inspired his creation of the lyrics to America’s National Anthem. The changed lyrics totally distort the meaning and the great-great grandson of Frances Scott Key even says the North Mexican National Anthem is no good! Check out this NPR report where they interview him. Of course since it’s an NPR report, they go very soft on this issue and even ask “what’s the big deal?”. As if Americans should take no offense.

You can compare the lyrics of their anthem and America’s anthem over at Freedom Folks. Those are the generally published lyrics, but Heidi over at Euphoric Reality has found some other lyrics, which include a chant with some other interesting words. Sorry illegals, we are not “brothers” and our laws should be respected. Which means you should go. You ain’t got to go home back to Mexico, but you need to get the heck out of here this country.

Howard Dean and the Demos are not against the North Mexican National Anthem at all. But here in Georgia, it seems that many people of Mexican heritage are speaking out against the North Mexican National Anthem. This is a response that should be noted! Here is a video report from Atlanta’s 11 Alive news. (The text version of the report with less details is here.) At a local culturally Mexican radio station, every caller spoke out against the song. They feel this is pushing things too far.

…
“They added something along the lines as we’re united, we’re here to be part of the country,” said Victor Martinez of local radio stations La Ley and Radio Mex. “All of our callers agreed it could be taken as an insult. That instead of helping the situation, it could actually make it worse. That the flag, and the country’s national anthem are sacred. You shouldn’t touch them. You shouldn’t change them.”
…

So lets give credit where credit is due. Some who might favor amnesty are actually seeing that they had better respect the symbols of America.

The Mayor of Los Angeles, California is going to avoid the protest marches in his city. I don’t think they picked May 1, which is a favorite for communists, by accident. It’s all intentional and the connections are very clear.

There was a good discussion about the North Mexican National Anthem on the BJ Ellis Show today. He had a discussion with a caller about it and I must say that she said what needs to be said.
Check out the conversation using the audio link below.
BJ Ellis and a caller on Illegal Immigration - WMA Audio
(For the sake of bandwidth there will be no other formats made.)

update 5/1/2006 5:19PM Michelle Malkin has found an article that mentions US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has no problem with the North Mexican National Anthem. I guess she’s serious about not wanting to become President. Because she can’t have my vote if she’s going to try and cater to the pro-amnesty crowd.

I guess it really does not matter for Mexico. The illegals will only have an easier time walking across the boarder with dope. And Americans that visit and get some dope won’t be staying there long.

In the “war on drugs” the drugs win another round!

The continued acceptance of drugs is only going to make things worse. It will further desensitize the culture to the evils of doing drugs. And more of that evil will flow right across the border into the USA.

(For a little while I believed the Libertarians and thought maybe legalizing drugs might be a good idea, then I came back to my senses.)

Just as US states once had laws against sex of out wedlock and there were far less babies with single mothers, the changing of laws reflects a sad change in culture overall. And the removal of the laws only encourages the immoral behavior. But I don’t oppose these things simply on religious grounds. It destabilizes the general order of a society. And all the negative stats bear that out.

But pro-illegal Catholic bishops keep telling me that the illegals are good moral Catholics…. I’m glad Laura Ingraham is a Catholic that sees the illegals are not some benefit to American society. Not saying they are all dope heads, but given all the gangs and crime I see here in parts of Gwinnett County, GA I know they are not all the good “hard workers” their advocates make them out to be.

Hat tip to reader Jimbo.

And another piece of our nation’s “military industrial complex” is now the property of those who funded our enemies.

Although Democratic Representative John Barrow spoke up, I don’t think he spoke loudly enough.

Everyone is just rolling over on this one. I think it was probably a mistake. While the UAE is a current “ally”, I don’t think that a nation that was helping our enemies about 5 years ago should be involved in any part of military production or other security related matters.

Now that it’s a done deal, I guess we better pray I was totally wrong about this one.

Related posts:

• The Doncasters Deal With the UAE Might Finally be Getting Some Needed Attention
• America Considers Outsourcing Some Military Manufacturing to the UAE and Security Software to Israel

Sean Hannity had a good discussion with former Oklahoma Congressman JC Watts on Hannity’s radio show.

This was a great discussion, because Mr. Watts pointed out that we already have laws on the books against illegal immigration and if those are not enforced, what’s going to cause new laws to be enforced? Given his experience in Congress, he was able to break down how Congress just makes up legislation, when they should just enforce what is already on the books. JC pulls no punches on the fact illegals are breaking the law and something should be done about it.

Hannity spoke of how illegals would leave on their own if things were made uncomfortable enough for them. I still don’t mind the idea of simply tossing them all out. A new form of “Operation Wetback” is not a bad idea. It worked in 1953 and it can work again.

In 1949 the Border Patrol seized nearly 280,000 illegal immigrants. By 1953, the numbers had grown to more than 865,000, and the U.S. government felt pressured to do something about the onslaught of immigration. What resulted was Operation Wetback, devised in 1954 under the supervision of new commissioner of the Immigration and Nationalization Service, Gen. Joseph Swing.

Swing oversaw the Border patrol, and organized state and local officials along with the police. The object of his intense border enforcement were “illegal aliens,” but common practice of Operation Wetback focused on Mexicans in general. The police swarmed through Mexican American barrios throughout the southeastern states. Some Mexicans, fearful of the potential violence of this militarization, fled back south across the border. In 1954, the agents discovered over 1 million illegal immigrants.

In some cases, illegal immigrants were deported along with their American-born children, who were by law U.S. citizens. The agents used a wide brush in their criteria for interrogating potential aliens. They adopted the practice of stopping “Mexican-looking” citizens on the street and asking for identification. This practice incited and angered many U.S. citizens who were of Mexican American descent. Opponents in both the United States and Mexico complained of “police-state” methods, and Operation Wetback was abandoned.

Although we should not simply go after anyone that looks “Mexican” and target only Mexican illegals, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower had the right idea. And if the parents are illegal, then their anchor baby must go too. No more using loopholes to abuse our immigration laws. The 14th Amendment was created to ensure citizenship and all its benefits for former slaves and their families. It was not enacted to help people abuse our border and claim to have an “in” to stay. On this issue the “Modern Republicanism” expressed by Dwight D. Eisenhower is something current Republican President George W. Bush could learn from. Because while Eisenhower was viewed as “moderate” then, he’d look like a better Conservative than some of today’s so-called Conservative politicians.

And for anyone that wants to try and claim Eisenhower was a racist for Operation Wetback, keep in mind this was the same President that desegregated our military and sent troops to Little Rock, Arkansas to ensure they followed federal orders to desegregate schools. He is the President that said:

There must be no second class citizens in this country,

And he meant that for legal citizens. Not abusers of our laws.

You can hear the audio of the illegal immigration portion of Sean’s interview with JC using the link below:
Hannity and JC Watts on Illegal Immigration - WMA Audio
(For the sake of bandwidth there will be no other formats made.)

I’m going to start expanding the offerings here on the blog.

My man Ian over at Expose the Left has been kind enough to run audio I’ve sent him over the months. And I thank him for that. Now I’m going to start trying to carry some of that content here on this blog, starting today and into the future. Ian has a good thing going with the video he carries and I figure I’ll try and handle managing the radio clips I find that are noteworthy.

Given this, if you hear a good clip on one of the following shows let me know and I might post it here for everyone to learn from.

• Hugh Hewitt Show
• Jim Cramer’s Real Money (the radio show, not the TV show)
• Larry Elder Show
• Laura Ingraham
• Mark Levin
• Michael Medved Show
• Michael Savage
• Sean Hannity
• The B.J. Ellis Show

Those are the “talk shows” I’m recording on a regular basis. If you are a fan of The Herman Cain Show, he archives his shows on his site for you to enjoy if you missed any. So no need for me to ever run clips of his show. I know the world is full of Hush Bimbo Rush Limbaugh fans and while I agree with him on many things, I can’t say I “enjoy” him enough to record him daily. What can I say, the man is good, but not one of my personal favorites. I’m “different” that way . I’m still trying to figure out what everyone saw in TV shows like Seinfeld and Friends .

Sometimes I like Boortz, sometimes I don’t. Maybe I’ll add him to the list one day.

So for the shows I’m capturing, if you hear a clip that is noteworthy let me know and I might offer it with my own commentary here. Knowing the exact time you heard the clip would be a big help. Telling me about a clip does not guarantee I will carry it here. It all depends on my available time to review the clip and whether I personally feel I should comment on it.

There is an issue that has disturbed both Liberals and Conservatives for many years. That issue is the fact that the Estate of Martin Luther King Jr. has refused to release King’s “I Have a Dream” speech into the public domain. That among other writings and even his likeness. Until now we all have begrudgingly accepted this, because we figured his widow, the late Coretta Scott King needed to make money off the material to keep a roof over her head. Whether that was the case or not, our sorrow for her losing the provider of her household was enough for us to express only tempered anger. Of course if the issue was one of finance, we would hope that her children would be capable of handling her bills. Although it was Oprah Winfrey who moved Mrs. King to a new condo before she died.

The King Family said the money (royalties) were going to The King Center, which we all know is run by the King Family. And we all know that despite the money made, the King Center has had some major financial management issues. We know that Dexter King seemed to make inappropriate use of some funds. And in the end, the King Center appears to be nothing more than an abused cash cow. Abused or not, if they can keep the King Center running on their own, then so be it. It is works like the “I Have a Dream” speech that is the greater issue.

For years the King Estate has felt it necessary to maintain a strangle hold on all that is “King”. Leveraging the “I Have a Dream” speech as the most prized asset of the “cash cow”. While Martin Luther King Jr. was very giving of himself, it seems his heirs have used him in an alternate manner. One where everyone must pay to use his most moving speech. It is ironic that a speech that speaks of the content of character would show the character of the King family to be very low. And the history of this issue bears that out. The abuses are so well documented, I will just list some sources you can review for yourself and mention some cases.

• From the Right, John J. Miller wrote a piece in the National Review, that details many of the abuses.
• From the Left, David Plotz wrote a piece in Slate, that details how Dexter King has turned King’s “dream” into a monetary fantasy.
• The usually Left leaning Washington Post has detailed how many were shocked when King’s likeness was licensed for commercial purposes.
• CBS (which we all know is Left leaning) has been sued by the King family and had to pony up some big “undisclosed” money. A summary of that legal roller coaster is here.
• The USA Today had to pay after they printed the entire “I Have a Dream” speech, without “authorization”.
• The makers of the documentary “Eyes on the Prize” also had to pay after hearing from King Estate attorneys.

Of course when someone like Mohamed Ali sells his likeness, it is expected. Given he made his life fighting for as much money as he could. On the other hand, Martin Luther King Jr. simply lived to fight what he saw as injustice. He never was one to try and maximize his monetary profits. So maximizing his speeches and likeness for profit simply does not fit King’s “character”. It sadly cheapens his legacy, to something of mere entertainment value. When Coretta Scott King was alive we all were a little quieter about this issue. Now that she is gone and her children are in the prime of their lives, it’s time to let the King family know, that now is the time to release King’s material to the public. At the very least the “I Have a Dream” speech should be released. Those words should not be for sale.

update 4/27/2006 4:44PM Shay at Booker Rising has weighed in, against my request.

The hairs on my staunch capitalist neck are raising up. Why shouldn’t the King family and the King Center profit from the works of Dr. King, like the heirs of other folks? The brotha’s works are valuable, so folks should pay up…with the funds going toward the King Center. Just because Dr. King is black, doesn’t mean that companies like CBS and USA Today and others who want to use his work should not pay market rate (non-profits should get slack though). The issue is with how the King Center is run, and not over whether the King family has rights to his works….which they are fully entitled to have.

It is interesting to me when folks question “why”. Given this is not an issue with El Hajj Malik El Shabazz (aka Malcolm X ). His family does not run around trying to profit off every time someone uses their father’s words. They have even made efforts to make more of his works freely available. They work for themselves and make a living that way. The King family’s profit from royalties did not help “Mother King” when her home was broken into. I guess all that money could not afford her adequate security. In particular, King’s I Have a Dream speech was a moment for all of America. So the question is actually “why not” allow the world to have access to it? Why not allow the USA Today to run the text of the speech for the world to learn? Why not spread the message? I’ve got nothing personally to gain from this. No more than the rest of the world that simply would like it to be freely available, like other works from great speakers. The issue of royalties has held the message back. Locked it up for those who can afford it. The greatest speech of the champion of the “poor” is only available to those who can afford the fee. How ironic.

With or without the fees, the rich will make their money off the speech. It is those who don’t have the money and want to help spread the message that are hurt by the licensing issues.

I have no need to address the talk about “Just because Dr. King is black…”, because the fact he lived in the flesh of a Black man when in a human body has no bearing on this issue. Using the trying to keep a brother down type talk weakens the argument of those who support the King family’s position. Nobody runs the speech without paying because King was Black. They run it because it’s so universal to all that is American, that everyone wants to hear it and treats it like other great works such as JFK’s “ask not what your country can do for you” speech. The whole effort to put a price on it cheapens it’s overall value , to the level of common entertainment and not a priceless speech.

If the American Chamber of Commerce of Mexico keeps this up, they might end up causing the pro-illegal crowd to realize that their massive protests have been the best recruiting tool for all of us who wish to send illegals back over the border.

The pro-illegal boycott is also being done South of the Border against US based companies.

Wal-Mart/Walmex is the biggest private employer in Mexico.

The American Chamber of Commerce of Mexico says they represent $100 billion of investment capital in Mexico.

The Mexicans claim that the benefits are worse down there, so they come to the USA. Obviously the higher pay and welfare state benefits work out pretty for illegals, that are given a job in the USA. So of course the Mexicans want US companies to pay more down South of the Border. One researcher in the article mentioned that paying them more makes them less competitive with low wage workers in other countries, like China and India. Why hire a Mexican if you can hire an Indian for less?

Maybe if Mexico was not so corrupt and businessmen did not have to pay off officials, they might pay more down there. And maybe if businessmen South of the Border did not have to pay for kidnap insurance, they might pay more down there. Of course if they paid more then the businesses might go elsewhere. But if not for that little issue of corruption, Mexico’s economy might do better over time. Actually it is doing better than in the past and is doing better than many other nations in the world.

Just like here in the USA, there are some jobs that are too much trouble to try outsourcing them. So Mexico could have better paying jobs if they removed some of the issues that prevent some private businesses from ever working there. Even when Jim Cramer told people to invest in Banco Columbia, he had to try and ease viewer’s uneasiness about corruption. US private businesses have done more than enough for Mexico and other nations South of the Border. They will get their reward for their efforts on May 1, 2006. I don’t mind companies doing business in Mexico, when they are doing it to provide goods and services to Mexicans. If it is for goods and services to be purchased by Americans, I would prefer they operate in the USA. So no I was not cheering for NAFTA. (I still consider myself a Free Market Capitalist, I just don’t like deals that I don’t see as the best deal for America.) But our issues with Unions are making it hard for businesses to operate efficiently in this nation. So I can’t fairly say companies should keep their jobs in the USA, without also once again saying that I feel Unions need to be given the boot!

(For the sake of full disclosure, I have a stake in one of the companies mentioned in the article.)

Related post: Illegal Immigration is Your Problem Too!