I doubt if terrorists want to attack the Statue of Liberty as James Woolsey says. If a former CIA director believes bringing down Lady Liberty is a terrorist goal it’s logical to assume the entire intelligence community agrees with him. Frankly, terrorists would have to be idiots to destroy a monument that does so much harm to this country because of Emma Lazarus’ sonnet The New Colossus. This excerpt from Wikipedia is most telling: Author John T. Cunningham wrote that "The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the statue. However, it was Lazarus's poem that permanently stamped on Miss Liberty the role of unofficial greeter of incoming immigrants". Paul Auster wrote that "Bartholdi's gigantic effigy was originally intended as a monument to the principles of international republicanism, but 'The New Colossus' reinvented the statue's purpose, turning Liberty into a welcoming mother, a symbol of hope to the outcasts and downtrodden of the world". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Colossus I’ve come across a few geniuses on message boards who truly believed that the “tired and poor” crap was in the Constitution and/or the Declaration of Independence: Instead of a monument to republicanism and individual liberty, Lady Liberty has morphed into an invitation to the wretched refuse of the world who come here not to be free, or to work for themselves. Instead, they come with their hands out to big government. Incidentally, Socialists raise holy hell every time they uncover a reference to God or religion on public property; especially in the public schools. But have you ever heard them call for the removal of the plaque containing The New Colossus? Just so my remarks are not misunderstood, I would not shed a tear if the Statue of Liberty came down so long as that terrible, terrible, concept in Lazarus’ sonnet is also destroyed. Remove The New Colossus and there is no one who loves Lady Liberty more than I. There is another aspect of the Statue of Liberty that needs to be examined. Lady liberty is becoming a symbol for promoting democracy around the world. Unfortunately, symbols that begin life as monuments often come to represent the opposite of their original intent. Lady Liberty standing for democracy is the sickest perversion of all. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Libya surely know they can thank democracy advocates for the Arab Spring. It’s frightening to think the people in our intelligence community do not know it. My point: If promoting democracy influences thinking in every intelligence agency decision they are bound to make mistakes not easily corrected. NOTE: Iran’s push for nuclear weapons is becoming a blind spot in the intelligence community. Speaking as an average American with no special access to intelligence information, everything except Iran appears to be shutout or misinterpreted in much the same way the Clinton Administration never saw 9-11 coming. Finally, had the Clinton Administration been committed to stopping North Korea from going nuclear today’s intelligence agencies would now have more expertise in stopping Iran. It’s not too far-fetched to say: If Iran wants nuclear weapons all it has to do is declare itself a Communist country. No Democrat administration would oppose it. Statue of Liberty next on hit list? Ex-CIA chief warns: Get ready for terrorists who make al-Qaida 'look like amateurs' Published: 8 hours ago by Drew Zahn Former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency R. James Woolsey told a radio host today that Americans “have to get ready” for Iran to retaliate against international pressure over its nuclear program with terrorist attacks, including, possibly, a strike on the Statue of Liberty. Woolsey, who currently serves as chairman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, was speaking on Aaron Klein Investigative Radio on New York’s WABC Radio. Klein pointed out that Iran supports the militant Islamist group Hezbollah, which has been designated by the U.S. and several other nations as a terrorist organization, and asked Woolsey if he foresees the group plotting attacks on Jewish targets in the near future. “Yes,” Woolsey responded. “They [Iran] have Hezbollah, and it is the most professional terrorist organization in the world. It makes al-Qaida look like a real group of amateurs. And they have expanded around the world.” He continued, “We will have a very serious problem from terrorism if we insist on Iran shutting down its nuclear program, but we have to do that. And so we have to get ready to deal with assaults on government facilities, on famous symbols of the country like the Statue of Liberty, on Jewish synagogues, there are a number of things Hezbollah could go after … and they probably will.” Listen to the interview in its entirety below: CLICK ON LINK TO LISTEN TO AUDIO. NOTE: Move the cursor to 8:19 to hear Woolsey’s reference to the Statue of Liberty. Woolsey further warned that despite Iran’s diplomatic relations and feints toward international cooperation, the nation’s work on developing nuclear technology and enriching uranium remains a potentially urgent threat to Israel, the Mideast and, indeed, the world. “Iran is trying yet again to stall the international community,” Woolsey posited. “The Persians invented chess and they’re good at it.” Woolsey also said that while it may take longer for Iran to develop the technology to deliver nuclear warheads by missile, “a simple weapon of highly enriched uranium, such as we dropped on Hiroshima, that they might well be able to do relatively quickly.” http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/statue-of-liberty-next-on-hit-list/
In Middle Eastern culture, symbols are very important. This should be obvious when you look at the long list of religious sites that are built on the ruins of earlier sites of earlier religious buildings. Or outright taken over. The Hagia Sophia, the Dome of The Rock, Church of the Holy Apostles, Ram Janmabhoomi, the Great Synagogue of Oran, and a great many others. And this is obvious also in non-religious buildings, when you look at the obsession over the World Trade Center. Both Ramzi Yousef and his uncle Khalid Sheikh Mohammed participated in attempts to destroy what they saw was a symbol of "US power". If you ask me if Iran as a nation or government wants to bring it down, I would say no. However, if you ask me if I believe that the Statue of Liberty is a target of some groups, I would most definately say yes. Both in 1965 and 1980, terrorists have attempted to blow up the statue. In 1965 it was members of the Black Liberation Front and Quebec seperatists, who attempted to blow up the Liberty Bell and Statue of Liberty. In 1980 it was Neo-Nazi Croatian Seperatists (their bomb did extensive damage that was not repaired until the 1982 restoration project.
To Mushroom: You’re absolutely correct. Symbols are very important in Islam as well as everywhere else. Communist states are wall-to-wall symbols. I should have been more clear. I was trying to say that Hezbollah and Hamas leadership are smart enough to understand the disunity open borders is causing in this country; so why destroy the one symbol that encourages open borders? Naturally I can only speculate, but in 1965 and 1980 the effects of open borders were not fully understood. The public never knew that Ted Kennedy and LBJ had turned immigration into an affirmative action program. Few realize it today. For all practical purposes had the two incidents you cited been more successful they would have triggered a critical look at the garbage The New Colossus advocates. A critical look back then might have warned the country that once the borders were thrown open they would be impossible to close as recent events prove.
People in North America have been whining about immigration since 1620. The only group most people ever wanted more of here were black African slaves. They made special provisions to ensure that they could get millions of them. Recently politicians have been fighting over the immigration issue for the past 120 years. They didn't solve it in the 1920s and they won't solve it today. I do agree with you about the Statute of Liberty. The worse thing that ever happened was when France dumped it on us. The second worse thing was when they added that poem to it.
To The Wyrd of Gawd: The problem has been compounded because so many Americans think the crap in that poem is what liberty is all about. The New Colossus has been fomenting for over a century. Imagine if it had been written two or three years ago. How far you do think that sick concept would get today? Bottom line: There is not a chance The New Colossus would be associated with the Statue of Liberty, and certainly not allowed on a plaque in the pedestal for all to see. Youd have a better chance of putting a plaque on the Lincoln Memorial advocating slavery.
How about phrasing it as "Some people in North America" instead. After all, not everybody here is a xenophobe. Personally, I think legal immigration is a good thing and helps keep our nation dynamic. And while claims are often disputed, the entire Africal Slave Trade is estimated to have brought only around 10-11 million slaves to the New World. Most of them arrived in Brazil (which recieved the vast majority, between 9-10 million) and the Carribean Islands (mostly the French and Spanish colonies). The actual number that were brought to what would become the United States is only estimated to be around 500,000. And do not forget the history of "white slaves" either. A lot of immigrants to North America were little more then slaves, as well as Australia. Actually, there is very little debate about immigration. The fighting and debate are all about illegal immigration. You need to learn the difference between the two.
To Mushroom. Good points. I would add that todays legal and illegal immigrants come here with a different attitude than the one immigrants in 19th and early 20th centuries arrived with. If the latest wave does not arrive with an entitlement attitude they soon learn it from the parasites class and multiculturalism. Husseins illegal immigrant aunt personifies the attitude: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nKdUu6zwDiI
Not true at all in my experience. Most legal immigrants come here with the hope of advancing themselves, free of whatever oppression they may have suffered in the past. And most in my experience are hard workers, that work to learn the language and customs of their new home. And no, this is not just me blowing smoke. My wife emmigrated here in 1979, we met in 1982 and were married in 1985. She has been working for a living since 1983, and is still a hard worker that does not use any of the "entitlement" programs. The closest she has come was when she used grants to get her nursing license. Which of course she has more then paid back in taxes over the last 20 years. Once again, you confused legal and illegal. Most illegals do not care about the rules and laws, and only want what they can get or steal from the system. Hence, the term "illegal". Legal immigrants follow the rules, and do whatever they can to do that as long as they are in the country.
To Mushroom: That’s true as a general rule. My problem is that the legal immigrant community lines up with the illegals when it comes to enforcing immigration laws. Hussein knows it. That is why he obstructs immigration enforcement; it's the best way to capture the Latino voting bloc. Put it this way. Did you ever see a politician win Latino votes by opposing amnesty for illegals? Go back to Irish and Italian immigrants and you’ll see the same kind of unity although no other group ever had anywhere near the number of illegals that are in America today. Incidentally, the same kind of kinship attaches to Muslim terrorists here and abroad. Decent Muslims support the terrorists rather than help defeat them. Remember how they cheered in the streets in Muslim countries on 9-11-2001? and how silent Muslims were in this country for years after 9-11?
Once again, you are throwing out generalizations that certainly are not true. My wife absolutely dispises illegals. She thinks they should enter the country legally. And once here, try to follow US laws, customs, and language. She is disgusted when she meets somebody who has been here for 10+ years, and knows little to no English. In fact, she is glad to have finally gotten out of the El Paso area. We get a lot of Mexicans up here that work on the US side of the border (legally through work visas). We often walk into a major store, and have a clerk that knows very little English. And because my wife looks more white then I do, they often assume she is just another "gringo". Boy have I seen many get rather rude awakenings when she then proceeds to tell them what she thinks of them in her perfectly fluent Castillian Spanish. She is glad to be out of here, and back where the Hispanics do not carry attitudes from a war lost over 150 years ago.
